HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/2002 - STAFF REPORTS (16) DATE: September 4, 2002
TO: City Council
FROM: City Attorney
RECONSIDERATION, PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER, OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 28087 - AN APPLICATION BY EL DORADO PALM SPRINGS, LIMITED FOR A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING 377 SPACE EL DORADO
MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES. THE EL DORADO
MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB IS LOCATED ON 50.65 ACRES OF LAND AT 6000 EAST
PALM CANYON DRIVE, SOUTH OF BOLERO ROAD AND EAST OF GOLF CLUB
DRIVE, W-R-MIIP AND R-MHP ZONES, SECTION 29.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Attorney recommends that, as ordered by the Court in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v.
City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4th It 53 (2002), the City Council reconsider the application
for Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 to subdivide the existing 377 space El Dorado Mobile
County Club for condominium purposes, and to approve the attached resolution, with the
conditions approval attached thereto as Exhibit"A."
The City Council's prior approval of Resolution No. 19889, containing as it did three conditions
of approval objected to by the project applicant, must be reconsidered in light of the command of
the Court of Appeals, which has directed the Council to undertake the following action:
"[T]he case [Tentative Tract Map No. 28087] is remanded . . . with directions to
require the [Palm Springs] City Council to promptly determine the sole issue of
whether [the applicant's] application for approval of a tentative parcel[sic] map
complies with section 66427.5. If so, the [Palm Springs] City Council should
approve the application. If not, the City Council should specify the grotmds of
noncompliance and the trial court should retain jurisdiction to review the issue of
compliance in further proceedings."
Based on this directive, the attached resolution reconsidering and approving, with conditions of
approval, Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 is, in the opinion of the City Attorney, in compliance
with the mandate of the Court of Appeals. Equally important, however, the attached resolution
recognizes and asserts the jurisdiction of the Palm Springs City Council to later taken an action
to revoke the tentative tract map should the facts, circumstances, and conditions noted by the
Court of Appeals indicate that the conversion sought by the applicant, of which the tentative tract
map is one step, is a "sham" or "fraudulent" transaction. The attached resolution expressly
reserves to the City Council the right to reconsider and revoke the tentative tract map approved
by the attached resolution.
OC#24651 vl
ABSTRACT:
The applicant, El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd., represented by Mr. James F. Goldstein, President
of Goldstein, Inc., has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) application to subdivide the 377
space El Dorado Mobile Country Club for condominium purposes. Currently, the applicant rents
all of the spaces within the mobile home park to its residents.
The applicant now desires to subdivide the property into 377 individual ownerships for the
purpose of converting the mobile home park ftom rental occupation into a resident ownership
scenario. If the Tentative Tract Map is approved and individual ownership commences, each
purchasing owner will acquire their individual mobile home space as well as partial ownership of
the common open space areas and amenities throughout the mobile home park.
As the City Council will recall, in 2000, this tract map came on for consideration by the City
Council over the nearly unanimous opposition of the residence of the mobile home park in
question. After an extensive period of negotiations between the applicant and representatives of
the homeowner's association within the park, including the personal intervention of a City
Council committee, the Council adopted Resolution No. 19889 that included in it three
conditions of approval which were designed to "equalize" the relative bargaining power of the
applicant and the members of the homeowner's association.
That resolution, as adopted, was unacceptable to the applicant, who filed suit in the Riverside
County Superior Court. After lengthy appellate proceedings, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Appellate District, Division 2, concluded that the City Council lacked authority to impose the
three conditions of approval objected to by the applicant. The Court of Appeals further directed
the City Council to conduct a further hearing on Tentative Tract Map No. 28087, but to limit the
scope of its review to that expressly authorized in Government Code § 66427.5. This public
hearing complies with the order of the Court of Appeals.
BACKGROUND:
The El Dorado Mobile Country Club was completed in 1971. The park has operated
continuously since that time as a rental mobile home park for residents 55 years and older. A
private street system provides vehicular circulation through the park. The mobile home park
contains amenities such as, but not limited to, a clubhouse with meeting and recreational space, a
common pool and a pedestrian oriented green belt. The site is accessed on the south side by a
signalized intersection at East Palm Carryon Drive and on the north side via a driveway along
Bolero Road. Both vehicular access points are gated. The southern two-thirds of the site is
located in a flood zone AO (3), where the elevation of the homes are required to meet height
criteria established by FEMA.
Staff completed an extensive tour of the property on November 22, 1999. The site (i.e.
buildings, landscaping, streets) was generally in excellent condition, with a few minor
exceptions. Several areas of ponding water on the private streets were causing a premature
deterioration of asphalt, causing pot holes to form, and the vehicle gate along Bolero Road was
in need of replacement. These issues will be discussed in farther detail in the analysis section of
this report.
oC#24651 vl _2_
l ��.z
ANALYSIS:
Economic Displacement:
The primary concern of the current residents of the mobile home park throughout the processing
of this application has been the potential sales prices of the units and resulting monthly payments
from the proposed conversion, whether the residents were to purchase their lots or continue to
rent from the property owner. Although the potential sales prices of lots within the subdivision
is not normally an issue of direct City involvement, there are considerations relative to the
economic displacement of current residents that the City Council is required to address through
the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act.
Section 66427.5 of the Subdivision Map Act establishes measures to avoid economic
displacement for non-purchasing tenants of a mobile home park. First, the Map Act requires the
subdivider (the current owner) to offer each existing tenant an option of either purchasing their
unit, or to continue residency as a tenant, paying rent. Secondly, the subdivider is required to file
a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobile home park (referred to
hereafter as the Tenant Impact Report) to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest.
Thirdly, the subdivider is required to make a copy of the tenant impact report available to each
resident of the mobile home park at least 15 days before the required public hearings on the
subdivision map. The Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5 (d) states that the scope of the
public hearing for a subdivision map for a conversion of an existing mobile home park shall be
limited to the issue of compliance with Section 66427.5, which deals with the issue of avoiding
the economic displacement of non- purchasing residents.
Subsection 66427.5 (d)1 states that, "As to non-purchasing residents who are not lower income
households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent,
including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase
from the pre-conversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance
with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a
four-year period."
Subsection 66427.5 (d)2 states that, "As to non-purchasing residents who are lower income
households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent,
including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase
from the pre-conversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the
four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent
be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the
Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period." This subsection is intended to
establish the parameters to insure that economic displacement of residents will not occur.
Currently, there are 366 rent control units within the El Dorado Mobile Country Club. Measure
KK, which is part of the current Rent Control Ordinance for the City, limits rent increases within
the mobile home park. Since the Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5 provides a specific
formula for rent adjustments for both low income and non-low income residents, the Map Act
formulas will supercede the City's Rent Control Ordinance once the conversion occurs. For
purposes of establishing applicable space rental rates pursuant to Govermnent Code Section
oC#24651 vl -3-
1
66427.5, the "conversion date" (which will be discussed in detail later in this report) is proposed
to be the earlier of the close of escrow of the 50th space or the passage of six (6) consecutive
calendar months from the date of issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report by the
Department of Real Estate.
The latest version of the Tenant Impact Report (TIR), dated March 27, 2000 does not disclose
the range of potential sales prices for individual units within the mobile home park. Generally,
the report concludes that there will be no economic displacement of any residents with the
provisions of Section 66427.5 applicable to this subdivision. The lack of disclosure of sales
prices in the Tenant Impact report and the subdivision application has been the concern to the
residents of the El Dorado Mobile Country Club. Under State law, the applicant cannot be
compelled to disclose a sales price at this stage of the conversion proceeding. However, as the
proceeding moves to the State Department of Real Estate, a proposed sales price must be
established prior to the date of conversion, as specified above.
For its part, staff has attempted to ascertain an approximate range of prices from the applicant for
the purpose of a complete analysis of the economic displacement issue. As of the writing of this
report, approximate sales prices have not been provided to staff as part of the Tenant Impact
Report or the subdivision application. However, as part of the application for a commitment to
funds through the State of California Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program
(MPROP), which will be discussed later in this report, the applicant noted an estimated sales
price of$ 60,000.00 per lot. The current residents of the park that are aware of this estimate feel
that this figure is extremely high and has accentuated the concerns of the residents relative to the
subdivision application.
In the view of the City Attorney, and in light of the litigation history of this application, in order
to assure the maximum protections afforded by state law to existing residents and potential
purchasers of the newly created condominium lots, staff should include a specific condition of
approval which assures strict compliance with Section 11010.9 of the California Business and
Professions Code. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that, while the City of Palm Springs
cannot compel the disclosure of the proposed condominium lot sales price at the tentative tract
map stage of the overall proceedings for condominium conversion, requiring strict compliance
with Section 11010.9 of the California Business and Professions Code will assure the tenants the
maximum protection afforded under state law and will assure the subsequent proceedings before
the Department of Real Estate will also act to provide further assurances and protections to
prospective condominirmi lot purchasers.
Accordingly, the City Attorney has included as a condition of approval, the subdivider be
required to disclose to all homeowners and residents of the mobile home park prior to filing its
notice of intention to sell or lease condominium lots, the tentative price of the subdivided interest
proposed to be sold or leased as required by Section 11010.9(a) of the Business and Professions
Code. Staff is further recommending that the subdivider be required to include in the statement
of the tentative price all of the information specified in Section 11010.9(b) and (c) of the
Business and Professions Code.
Finally, the City Attorney recommends that, as a condition of approval of the tentative tract map,
the subdivider be required to comply with all conditions set forth in Section 11010 of the
OC#24651 vl
-4-
1 �'� �
Business and Professions Code, including complying with all provisions in Chapter 6, of Article
12, commencing with Section 2970, of the California Code of Regulations as it applies to
condominium conversions.
Incorporated into the attached recommended conditions of approval are all applicable provisions
of the California Subdivision Map Act and the economic displacement measures agreed to by the
owner specified in the Tenant Impact Report.
In summary, with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act in place for the fature and the
current City Rent Control Ordinance in place until the conversion becomes official, staff feels
that the issue of economic displacement has been adequately mitigated.
MPROP Application:
It should also be noted that the subdivider previously applied for a commitment of funds through
the State of California Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP). This
program was created by the state due to address the limitations of low-income residents to
purchase their lots in situations such as the proposed conversion from a rental mobile home park
to a condominium ownership mobile home park. This program would provide a lower interest
rate alternative to the standard 30-year loan for the 66 low-income households in the mobile
home park.
The Redevelopment Agency approved the submittal of the MPROP application to the California
Department of Housing and Community Development on September 15, 1999. Currently, the
subdivider does not have enough "points" to qualify for MPROP assistance. One of the primary
reasons is the tentative map has yet to be acted upon by the City. However, the applicant hopes
to re-apply after approval of the tentative map for the next round of submissions to the state.
Right of First Refusal:
Pursuant to Section 66462 of the California Government Code, the Right of First Refusal for
residents of the mobile home park would be ninety (90) days. The subdivider has agreed to
extend that time frame to 180 days, from the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report
issued by the California Department of Real Estate. Please refer to Section 6.2 of the TIR for
further details.
It should be noted that, if a third party (other than the tenant) buys a lot, the original tenant may
continue to rent from the third party, as long as such tenant wishes to remain a resident, and
subject to the rental rate limitation specified by Section 66427.5 of the California Subdivision
Map Act.
Health and Safety Issues:
Again, based upon a site inspection conducted by staff on November 22, 1999, the site (i.e.
buildings, landscaping, streets) is generally in excellent condition, with a few minor exceptions.
Several areas of ponding water on the private streets were causing a premature deterioration of
asphalt, causing pot holes to form, and the vehicle gate along Bolero Road was in need of
replacement. Staff has incorporated recommended conditions of approval requiring the repair of
OC 424651 vI
deteriorated asphalt areas and curbing through an unsecured subdivision improvement agreement
and a condition requiring the gated access on Bolero Road to be updated to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, all prior to recordation of the final
map.
The purpose of these recommended conditions of approval is to protect the public health and
safety. It is critical in emergencies, as well as for daily use, that the internal roadway system be
designed to withstand daily use for a number of years and be constructed to protect the residents
within the park from unsafe, dangerous conditions caused by prematurely deteriorating roads.
Conditions requiring repair or replacement of broken or off-grade curb, gutter and pavement on
East Palm Canyon Drive and Bolero Road are necessary to protect pedestrians from trip and fall
accidents along these streets.
The condition requiring the project to conform with Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) and City of Palm Springs Flood Hazard Ordinance is primarily for informational
purposes for the prospective condominium owners. The State of California is responsible for
administering these requirements to protect residents from any potential flood hazards. In
addition, staff is recommending specific conditions of approval relative to perimeter street
improvements, which are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Circulation
Element of the City's General Plan.
Land Use:
The project is within the Residential Mobile Home Park zone (R-MHP), where development is
intended to provide for the accommodation of residential mobile homes in plamied, integrated
mobile home parks at a standard which provides for the protection of the health, safety and
welfare of the community. In reviewing the project relative to the development standards for the
R-MHP zone (Section 9207.00 of the Zoning Ordinance), the project complies with all
applicable development criteria, and the proposed subdivision will not affect the physical
characteristics of the property.
SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES:
North: R-G-A (8) zone - Multiple family dwellings
South: Cathedral City - Commercial center
East: R-MHP zone and Cathedral City- Mobile Home Park
West: Cathedral City - Commercial center and Multiple farnily dwellings
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND NOTIFICATION:
In that the proposed condominium conversion does not contemplate any additional development
on the property, the proposed subdivision is exempt frorn the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). The El Dorado
Mobile Country Club already exists and is not proposed to be physically altered in conjunction
with the subdivision application.
OC 424651 v 1
All property owners within a 400-foot radius of the parcel considered for subdivision were
notified of the public hearing, as well as all tenants within the mobile home park, pursuant to the
provisions of Sections 66427.1 and 66427.5 of the Subdivision Map Act. All correspondence
received as of the writing of this report has been attached for City Council consideration.
LITIGATION HISTORY:
The City Council is well aware, its prior adoption of Resolution No. 19889 included conditions
of approval objected to by the applicant. This resulted in litigation both before the Riverside
Superior Court and the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District, Division 2.
The litigation resulted in the issuance of an extensive opinion by the Court of Appeals, greatly
limiting the jurisdictional authority of a public agency to review and consider a tentative tract
map for condominium conversion of a mobile home park from a landlord-tenant form of
ownership to a resident form of ownership. For the convenience of the City Council, the salient
conclusions and opinions of the Court of Appeals can be highlighted as follows:
"We first examine section 66427.4. It applies to `conversion of a
mobilehome park to another ruse.' Conversely, it would not apply to conversion
of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is
unchanged. The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being
converted to a shopping center or another different use of the property. In that
situation, there would be `displaced mobilehome park residents' who would need
to find `adequate space in a mobilehome park' for their mobile homes and
themselves. Thus, an impact report is required. . . .
Our conclusion that section 66427.4 applies only when a mobilehome park
is converted to other land uses is fortified by the plain language of subdivision (e):
`This section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is created from the
conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership.'. . .
The City argues that section 66427.4 applies to landlord-initiated
conversions while section 66427.5 applies to resident-initiated conversions. The
problem with this argument is that the statute does not make this distinction, and
such an interpretation is specifically foreclosed by subdivision (e). As El Dorado
points out, both statutes use the term `subdivider,' and that term is specifically
defined by the Subdivision Map Act to mean the person or entity `who proposes
to divide . . . real property into a subdivision for himself or for others . . . .' (§
66423.) We agree with El Dorado: `There is simply no basis for arguing that
`subdivider' means `resident organization' in Section 66427.5 and `park owner'
in Section 66427.4.' The City agrees that the owner is the subdivider under the
Subdivision Map Act.
OC#24651 vI
-7- l J/ ✓AL
Instead, we hortnonize section 66427.4 and 66427.5 by applying section
66427.4 to changes of use which displace the existing park residents and require
relocation of the mobilehomes because the subdivider is converting the property
to an no mobilehome park use. Under this interpretation, section 66427.5 applies
to subdivisions created to convert a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned
mobilehome park.
We therefore conclude that section 66427.4 does not support the
Association's argument, and its is inapplicable to justify the three further
conditions imposed on El Dorado by the City. The plain meaning of section
66427.4 is that it applies only when a mobilehome park is converted to other land
uses, thus requiring the residents and their mobilehomes to be relocated.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Court of Appeals rejected the City's interpretation of the
conversion statutory scheme contained in the Govermnent Code, the Court of Appeals
acknowledged the legitimate concern of the City Council that this conversion scheme under the
Govermnent Code could be utilized by an applicant as a "sham" or for "fraudulent" reasons to
secure for the applicant a"lifetime exemption from [local municipal] rent control." Accordingly,
the opinion of the Court of Appeals offers limited solus to the City Council, and the mobilehome
coach owner's within the applicant park, by expressly acknowledging that the Government Code
statutory scheme for mobilehome park conversions may not be used as a part of a scheme or
undertaking resulting in a sham, or failed, or fraudulent application for conversion.
Again, the salient language of the Court of Appeals is as follows:
The appellate court was concerned about the possibility of using section
66427.5 to evade local rent control provisions: `Under respondents' theory,
section 66427.5 applies as soon as a subdivider files a tentative map to convert to
resident ownership, regardless of whether conversion actually occurs. . . . [I]f
respondents are correct, every park owner could purchase a lifetime exemption
from local rent control for the cost of filing a tentative map, even if park residents
have no ability to purchase and even if local govermnent disapproves the tentative
map. Park residents could then be economically displaced by unregulated rent
increases. This is the very circumstance section 66427.5 was enacted to prevent.'
(Donohue v. Santa Paul West Mobile Home Park, supra, 47 Cal.App.4tj 1168,
1175.)
We are equally concerned about the use of the section to avoid local rent
control, especially since the section does not state when the rent control phaseout
in section 66427.5, subdivision (d) becomes applicable, and it provides no time
limits for the completion of the conversion. The City is also concerned that there
could be an abuse of the conversion process: "Under the argument of Amicus,
Appellant could simply purchase one of the newly created subdivided units, price
of [sic] the remaining units at prohibitively expensive amounts, and obtain for
himself a `life time exemption' from Palm Springs Rent Control ordinances.' The
City argues that it imposed the date of conversion requirement because it did not
OC#24651 v 1
1 y�S
believe that the sale of a single subdivided unit should allow the park owner to
escape the requirements of its ret control ordinance.
At oral argument, the City argued that the three further conditions it
imposed were designed to prevent au abuse of the conversion process by a
developer who was engaged in a sham or fraudulent transaction which was
intended to avoid the rent control ordinance. The problem with the argument is
that section 66427.5, subdivision (d), provides that "The scope of the hearing
shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section.' Thus, the City lacks
authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or
fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the tentative or parcel map.
Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight, and although it
might be desirable for the Legislature to broaden the City's authority, it has not
done so. We therefore agree with appellant that the argument that the Legislature
should have done more to prevent partial conversions or sham transactions is a
legislative issue, not a legal one. In any event, as noted below, Donohue
illustrates the point that the courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or failed
transactions, or to avoid a local rent control ordinance.
(3a) We agree with Donohue that the rent control phaseout provisions
of section 66427.5, subdivision (d) do not apply as soon as a tentative map
application is filed. As Donohue states, subdivision (d) cannot apply to avoid the
economic displacement of nonpu chasing residents before there are any such
residents, nor would it make any sense to allow an increase from preconversion
rents before there was a conversion. (Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home
Park, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1175-1176.)
Section 66427.5 applies after a rental mobilehome park is converted to
resident ownership. (Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Honae Park, supra, 47
Cal.App.4th 1168, 1173.) As discussed further below, conversion occurs on the
date that the first subdivided tmit is sold. If, as in Donohue, conversion fails and
no units are ever sold, section 66427.5 cannot be used to evade a local rent control
ordinance. We also agree with Donohue that the section may not be used to
justify preemption of a local rent control ordinance if the conversion is
unsuccessful.10"
Accordingly, in order to protect from the possible use by this applicant of the mobilehome
conversion statutory scheme under the Government Code to effectuate a "sham" or "fraudulent"
conversion as a means to secure for itself a "lifetime exemption from rent control," the attached
resolution expressly reserves to the City Council jurisdiction to reconsider and potentially
rescind Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 in the event facts or circumstances are brought to the
attention of the City Council which support one or more of the indicia of a sham or fraudulent or
failed conversion as noted by the Court of Appeals in its opinion.
° As respondents point out, the statues does not specifically protect against sham or failed transaction in which a
single unit is sold, but no others, and the park owner then claims a local rent control ordinance is preempted by
section 66427.5, subdivision (d). However, as Donohue illustrates, the courts will not apply section 66427.5 to
sham or unsuccessful conversions.
OC 924651 vl
j y,4�
David J. Ale hi e
City Attorney
APPROVED: %~
City Manager "•
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Court of appeals Opinion
OC 424651 v I
_10_
IfT ')
4&, 311510E
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MAR 1 4 2002
EL DORADO PALM SPRINGS, LTD., ,_
COURT OF.APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT
Plaintiff and Appellant, E029198
V. (Super.Ct.No. INC 019351)
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS et al., OPINION
Defendants and Respondents;
EL DORADO MOBILE COUNTRY
CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Intervener and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Lawrence W. Fry, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
O'Melveny & Myers, James W. Colbert, III and Matthew W. Close; Gilchrist &
Rutter, Richard H. Close and Thomas W. Casparian for Plaintiff and Appellant.
The Gibbs Law Firm and Timothy J. Gibbs for Associates' Group for Affordable
Housing, Inc., Cedarhill Estates Homeowners Association, Apache Mobilehome Park
Association, and Glenview Mobile Lodge Owners Association as Amici Curiae on behalf
of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, William W. Wynder and Anthony R. Taylor for
Defendants and Respondents.
Charles A. Prawdzik, A Professional Corporation, and Charles A. Prawdzik;
McFadden and Associates and Robert J. McFadden for Intervener and Respondent.
Appellant El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. (El Dorado) is the owner of a 377-unit
mobilehome park in Palm Springs. On September 28, 2000, it filed a petition for writ of
mandate to compel approval by respondent City of Palm Springs (City) of its application
for a tentative subdivision map. The application, which was initially filed in 1993, sought
to subdivide the units within the mobilehome park as the requisite first step in converting
the park from a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned park. Upon subdivision, the
parcels would be sold to the current mobilehome owners, or others, to complete the
conversion. The application was finally accepted as complete in 1999.
The Palm Springs Planning Commission approved the application for subdivision
subject to a number of conditions, and it recommended that the Palm Springs City
Council (City Council) approve the application. After several delays, the City Council
conditionally approved the application after adding three further conditions.
El Dorado contends that the City Council lacked the authority to impose the three
further conditions. The three conditions generally require (1) the use of a "Map Act Rent
Date," defined as the date of the close of escrow of not less than 120 lots, (2) the use of a
2 1Yr4/ >
sale price established by a specified appraisal firm, the appraisal costs to be paid by El
Dorado; and (3) financial assistance to all residents in the park to facilitate their purchase
of the lots underlying their mobilehomes. The total amount of the required assistance
would exceed a million dollars.
The first condition is especially significant because the selected date would
determine when the mobilehome park would cease to be subject to the rent control
ordinance of the City. After the map effective date, the rent control phaseout provisions
of Government Code section 66427.5, subdivision (d) would become applicable.1
On September 28, 2000, El Dorado filed its petition for writ of mandamus to
compel approval of the subdivision map without the three further conditions. On October
5, 2000, El Dorado filed a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 1094. The motion alleged that the facts were undisputed and
the only issue -,vas an issue of law, i.e., whether the City Council had the power to impose
the three further conditions. Further, the motion alleged that El Dorado's application was
approved by operation of law because of the City Council's failure to act on the
application within certain statutory time limits.
After hearing, the trial court denied the motion for a writ of mandamus. El Dorado
appeals.
t unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the
Government Code.
3c��,q !3
ISSUES
El Dorado contends the trial court erred in denying its motion,because the City's
imposition of the three further conditions exceeded the City's authority. El Dorado
argues that its application for subdivision is governed by section 6642.7.5. It relies on
subdivision (d) of that section, which states, in part, that the scope of the City Council's
hearing is limited to the issue of compliance with the requirements of that section.
Secondly, El Dorado renews its argument that its application was deemed approved
because the City Council failed to act within the statutory time. There being no factual
dispute, we agree with El Dorado that these questions are questions of law subject to our
independent review. (County Mobilehome Positive Action Com., Inc. v. County of San
Diego (1998) 62 Cal.AppAth 727, 733.)
The City of Palm Springs justifies its imposition of further conditions by relying
on section 66427.4, subdivision (c), which authorizes the City Council to "require the
subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of
displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park." The
City argues that this section requires it to impose reasonable conditions of approval and
that it did so in a timely manner.
The issue presented by these arguments is whether section 66427.4 or section
66427.5 is applicable to the proposed conversion of the mobilehome park from a rental
mobilehome park to a resident-owned park. In resolving this question, El Dorado
4 ILI I�
contends that the words of the statutes are dispositive, while respondents rely on the
legislative history of the 1991 and 1995 amendments to these sections.
Intervener El Dorado Mobile Country Club Homeowners Association
(Association) was granted leave to intervene as the representative of the homeowners and
tenants living in the mobilehome park.z It relies on extensive legislative history to argue
that section 66427.5 applies only to resident-owned parks, i.e., parks more than 50
percent owned by residents. Accordingly, it argues that El Dorado's application was
properly processed under section 66427.4, and the conditions of approval were properly
imposed. The Association further contends that a park owner must disclose the proposed
purchase price to comply with section 66427.5, and the park owner cannot force
conversion on unwilling tenant/purchasers, particularly if the conversion is designed to
avoid a local rent control ordinance. The Association also agrees with the City that there
was no deemed approval of El Dorado's application.
Amici curiae are organizations involved in the conversion of mobilehome parks to
resident ownership. They agree with El Dorado that El Dorado's application is governed
by section 66427.5. They argue that the section applies to all conversions of mobilehome
parks to resident ownership, no matter who initiates the conversion process. Further, they
argue that conversion occurs when the fast subdivided unit is sold. The import of this
Z It should be noted that the homeowner's association is not an entity established
pursuant to a declaration of conditions, covenants and restrictions. Instead, it is simply
the representative of persons who rent mobilehome spaces in the park.
5
argument is that the City's rent control ordinance would cease to control rents in the
mobilehome park as soon as the first sale occurred.
El Dorado and the tenants have a long history of litigation and mutual distrust.3
Thus, despite certain statutory incentives for the purchase of mobilehome parks by
nonprofit organizations,' the mobilehome owners here oppose the conversion, contending
that they do not have enough information to decide whether to purchase or not, and the
proposed conversion is merely a sham to avoid the City's rent control ordinance. Thus,
although the Legislature enacted the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund to provide
supplemental funding to encourage and assist mobilehome park residents to purchase the
mobilehome parks and convert them to resident ownership (Health & Saf Code, § 50780,
subd. (a)), this appears to be the first case in which the park owner has attempted to
convert a park to resident ownership despite the opposition of the park residents.
3 By order filed August 16, 2001, we took judicial notice of our records of the
prior litigation, including case numbers E011072, E010773, E011103, E011126,
E011682, and E017518. See also El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd v. Rent Review Com.
(1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 335.
' See, e.g., Health and Safety Code section 50780 et seq. (Mobilehome Park
Purchase Fund); and Revenue and Taxation Code section 23701v [exemption from
corporation tax law for nonprofit organization formed to purchase mobilehome park to
convert it to condominium interests]. Amicus Associates Group for Affordable Housing,
Inc. describes itself as a "non-profit corporation which was formed to . . . assist[] in
achieving the goal of resident ownership of mobilehome parks by acting as subdivider or,
in some cases, holding parks for the benefit of residents until the park can be `converted'
and sold to the residents."
6
JLIA��
THE STATUTORY SCHEME
The Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ. Code, § 798 et seq.) governs tenancies in
mobilehome parks, but many other statutes regulate or affect mobilehome parks, their
tenancies, and their sale or conversion. (See, e.g., Mobil ehomes—Manufactured Housing
Act of 1980 (Health & Saf. Code, § 18000 et seq.); Mobilehome Parks Act (Health & Saf.
Code, § 18200 et seq.); Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund (Health & Saf Code, § 50780
et seq.), and general provisions relating to sale of subdivided property (Bus. & Prof.
Code, § 11000 et seq.).)
The focus here is on the Subdivision Map Act (§ 66410 et seq.) because the
mobilebome park owner is seeking to subdivide its park into individual parcels in order to
sell the 377 individual mobilehome sites to the persons who now rent those sites, or
others, in order to convert the mobilehome park to a resident-owned condominium
mobiiehome park. Under section 66424 a "subdivision" includes the division of a parcel
for a condominium project, as defined in the Davis-Stirling Common Interest
Development Act (Civ. Code, § 1350 et seq.; see Civ. Code, § 1351, subd. (0.). Thus, El
Dorado was required to file a tentative subdivision map with the City, and the City had to
approve the tentative subdivision map. (§ 66426.)
The sections at issue here, 66427.4 and 66427.5, are part of a general article
relating to subdivision maps. (§ 66425 et seq.) They deal with the conversion of
mobilehome parks to other uses and conversion to a condominium form of resident
ownership. Sections 66427.1 and 66427.2 deal with the more general subject of
7 ) YA �
conversion of residential real property into condominiums. Section 66428 provides for
the waiver of the requirement of filing tentative and parcel maps in certain situations.
Section 66428.1 provides that, in the case of conversion of a mobilehome park, the
requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and final map may be waived when two-thirds
of the owners of mobilehomes in the park sign a petition indicating their intent to
purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of converting it to residential ownership.
After the subdivision is approved by local government, the Department of Real
Estate regulates the marketing and sale of the individual units in the park. (Bus. & Prof.
Code, § 11010 et seq.) It is illegal to sell subdivided property before obtaining a public
report from the Real Estate Commissioner. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11018.2.)
INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTES
1. General Principles of Statutory Construction. The statutory context is important
because "we must avoid if possible repeals by implication, give effect and significance to
every word and phrase of a statute, and construe every statute in the context of the entire
scheme of law of which it is a part so that the whole may be harmonized and retain
effectiveness. [Citations.]" (N. T. Hill Inc. v. City of Fresno (1999) 72 Cal.AppAth 977,
990, internal quotation marks omitted.)
El Dorado relies on the second principle of statutory construction stated in N. T.
Hill: "[T]he `plain and commonsense' meaning of the statutory language controls.
[Citation.]" (N. T. Hill Inc. v. City of Fresno, supra, 72 Cal.AppAth 977, 988.) In the
case cited in N.T. Hill, our Supreme Court also applied another relevant principle of
8
statutory construction: "If we can reasonably harmonize `[t]wo statutes dealing with the
same subject,' then we must give `concurrent effect' to both, `even though one is specific
and the other general. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 CalAth
469, 478.)
As our Supreme Court has said in another recent case: "As with any statutory
construction inquiry, we must look first to the language of the statute. `To determine
legislative intent, a court begins with the words of the statute, because they generally
provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent.' [Citation.] If it is clear and
unambiguous our inquiry ends. There is no need for judicial construction and a court
may not indulge in it. [Citation.] `If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume
the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs.'
[Citation.]" (Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th
1036, 1047.)
2. Section 66427.4. We first examine section 66427.4.5 It applies to "conversion of
a mobilehome park to another use." Conversely, it would not apply to conversion of a
5 Section 66427.4 states: "(a)At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a
subdivision to be created from the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, the
subdivider shall also file a report on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced
residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the
conversion on displaced mobilehome park residents, the report shall address the
availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks. [¶] (b) The subdivider
shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least
15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory
agency, by the legislative body. [¶] (c) The legislative body, or an advisory agency
which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove
[footnote continued on next page]
9
l LI ,4 l0
mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The
section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping
center or another different use of the property. In that situation, there would be
"displaced mobilehome park residents" who would need to find "adequate space in a
mobilehome park" for their mobilehomes and themselves. Thus, an impact report is
required.6
Our conclusion that section,66427.4 applies only when a mobilehome park is
converted to other land uses is fortified by the plain language of subdivision (e): "This
section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is created from the conversion of a
rental mobilehome park to resident ownership."
The City argues that section 66427.4 applies to landlord initiated conversions
while section 66427.5 applies to resident-initiated conversions. The problem with this
(footnote continued from previous page]the map, may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the
conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space
in a mobilehome park. [¶] (d) This section establishes a minimum standard for local
regulation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a
local agency from enacting more stringent measures. [¶] (e) This section shall not be
applicable to a subdivision which is created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome
park to resident ownership." (Italics added.)
6 Amici differentiates between a tenant relocation report, which is allegedly
required under section 66427.4, and a tenant impact report, which is allegedly required
under section 66427.5. However, section 66427.4 uses the term "a report on the impact
of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted."
(§ 66427.4, subd. (a).) Section 66427.5 requires a "report on the impact of the
conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned
subdivided interest." (§ 66427.5, subd. (b).) The statutory language does not support the
distinction urged by amici.
10
/Ll1aa
argument is that the statute does not make this distinction, and such an interpretation is
specifically foreclosed by subdivision (e). As El Dorado points out, both statutes use the
term "subdivider," and that term is specifically defined by the Subdivision Map Act to
mean the person or entity "who proposes to divide . . . real property into a subdivision for
himself or for others . . . . .. (§ 66423.) We agree with El Dorado: "There is simply no
basis for arguing that `subdivider' means `resident organization' in Section 66427.5 and
`park owner' in Section 66427A." The City agrees that the owner is the subdivider under
the Subdivision Map Act.
The Association argues that section 66427.5 applies only to resident-owned parks,
while section 66427.4 applies to all other changes in use. It relies on the legislative
history. Although we discuss the legislative history of section 66427.5 below, we
conclude that we do not need to resort to the legislative history in the interpretation of
section 66427.4 because the language of section 66427.4, subdivision (e) is clear and
dispositive.
The problem with the Association's contention that section 66427.4 applies is that
a change in form of ownership is not a change in use. After the change of ownership, the
mobilehome park will remain a mobilehome park. Since section 66427.4 applies to
changes in use, it is inapplicable here. As noted above, this conclusion is specifically
confirmed by subdivision (e).
11
In other words, the respondents' arguments simply ignore subdivision (e) and
attempt to write it out of the statute, contrary to the well-established rules of statutory
interpretation discussed above.
Although not argued by the City or the Association, a contrary argument could be
constructed by application of the definition of"change of use" in the Mobilehome
Residency Law. (Civ. Code, § 798 et seq.) That statute defines "change of use" to
include "a change of the park or.any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative,
planned unit development, or any form of ownership wherein spaces within the park are
to be sold."7 (Civ. Code, § 798.10.) However, we decline to apply that broad definition
to the Subdivision Map Act, as the Mobilehome Residency Law specifically states:
"Unless the provisions or context otherwise requires, the following definitions shall
govern the construction of this chapter." (Civ. Code, § 798.1.)8
Instead, we harmonize sections 66427.4 and 66427.5 by applying section 66427.4
to changes of use which displace the existing park residents and require relocation of the
mobilehomes because the subdivider is converting the property to a nonniobilehome park
7 The section also defines "change of use" more conventionally: "`Change of use'
means a use of the park for a purpose other than the rental, or the holding out for rent, of
two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation,.
and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation."
8 Indeed, it appears from the legislative history that subdivision (e) was added to
foreclose just such an argument.
12
LlA �
use. Under this interpretation, section 66427.5 applies to subdivisions created to convert
a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned mobilehome park.
We therefore conclude that section 66427.4 does not support the Association's
argument, and it is inapplicable to justify the three further conditions imposed on El
Dorado by the City. The plain meaning of section 66427.4 is that it applies only when a
mobilehome park is converted to other land uses, thus requiring the residents and their
mobilehomes to be relocated.
3. Section 66427.5. Section 66427.5 applies to "the conversion of a rental
mobilehome park to resident ownership . . . . "9 As the portions emphasized in the
9 Section 66427.5 states: "At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a
subdivision to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident
ownership, the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing
residents in the following manner: [¶] (a) The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant
an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be
created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a
tenant. [T] (b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon
residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest.
[TJ (c) The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the
mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency
or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. [¶] (d) The subdivider shall be
subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local
ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the
hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. The subdivider shall
be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in
accordance with the following: [¶] (1) As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower
income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the
monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion
amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an
appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal
standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. [¶J (2) As to nonpurchasing
residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
(footnote continued on next page]
13
footnote indicate, the City Council, in acting on El Dorado's application for approval of
the tentative subdivision map, only had the power to determine if the El Dorado had
complied with the requirements of the section. (§ 66427.5, subd. (d).) It therefore had no
power to impose the three further mitigating conditions on El Dorado.
The City and the Association rely on the only published case interpreting section
66427.5. In Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th
1168, the court held that "section,66427.5 applies only after a rental park is converted to
resident ownership." (Donohue, at p. 1173, italics added.)
In Donohue, the mobilehome park residents had tried in 1991 to convert the
mobilehome park from a rental park to residential ownership. (Donohue v. Santa Paula
West Mobile Home Park, supra, 47 Cal.AppAth 1168, 1173.) A tentative subdivision
map was filed with the City of Santa Paula in June 1992, but the conversion failed
because the owners were unable to obtain the necessary fmancing. (Ibid) In November
1992, the city voters adopted an initiative rent control ordinance applicable to
mobilehome park space rents. In 1994, the park owner raised rents by 12 percent,
contending that "rents at the Park were controlled by section 66427.5 rather than the
(footnote continued from previous page)
and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of
any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount
equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the
conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount
greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the
most recently reported period." (Italics added.)
14
initiative because a tentative map to convert the Park had been filed." (Donohue, at p.
1173.)
The trial court found that section 66427.5 applies "whenever a subdivider files a
tentative map to convert a rental park to resident ownership, even if the conversion does
not occur." (Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park, supra, 47 Ca1.App.4th
1168, 1172.) The appellate court disagreed, holding that section 66427.5 applies only
after a rental park is converted t&resident ownership.
The appellate court was concerned about the possibility of using section 66427.5
to evade local rent control provisions: "Under respondents' theory, section 66427.5
applies as soon as a subdivider files a tentative map to convert to resident ownership,
regardless of whether conversion actually occurs. . . . [I]f respondents are correct, every
park owner could purchase a lifetime exemption from local rent control for the cost of
filing a tentative map, even if park residents have no ability to purchase and even if local
government disapproves the tentative map. Park residents could then be economically
displaced by unregulated rent increases. This is the very circumstance section 66427.5
was enacted to prevent." (Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park, supra, 47
Cai.AppAth 1168, 1175.)
We are equally concerned about the use of the section to avoid local rent control,
especially since the section does not state when the rent control phaseout in subdivision
(d) becomes applicable, and it provides no time limits for the completion of the
conversion. The City is also concerned that there could be an abuse of the conversion
15
process: "Under the argument of Amicus, Appellant could simply purchase one of the
newly created subdivided units, price of[sic] the remaining units at prohibitively
expensive amounts, and obtain for himself a `life time exemption' from Palm Springs
Rent Control ordinances." The City argues that it imposed the date of conversion
requirement because it did not believe that the sale of a single subdivided unit should
allow the park owner to escape the requirements of its rent control ordinance.
At oral argument, the City argued that the three further conditions it imposed were
designed to prevent an abuse of the conversion process by a developer who was engaged
in a sham or fraudulent transaction which was intended to avoid the rent control
ordinance. The problem with the argument is that section 66427.5, subdivision (d),
provides that "The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with
this section." Thus, the City lacks authority to investigate or impose additional
conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the tentative
or parcel map. Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight, and
although it might be desirable for the Legislature to broaden the City's authority, it has
not done so. We therefore agree with respondents that the argument that the Legislature
should have done more to prevent partial conversions or sham transactions is a legislative
issue, not a legal one. In any event, as noted blow, Donohue illustrates the point that the
courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or failed transactions, or to avoid a local
rent control ordinance.
16
We agree with Donohue that the rent control phaseout provisions of section
66427.5, subdivision (d) do not apply as soon as a tentative map application is filed. As
Donohue states, subdivision (d) cannot apply to avoid the economic displacement of
nonpurchasing residents before there are any such residents, nor would it make any sense
to allow an increase from preconversion rents before there was a conversion. (Donohue
v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1175-1176.)
Section 66427.5 applies after a rental mobilehome park is converted to resident
ownership. (Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park, supra, 47 Cal.AppAth
1168, 1173.) As discussed further below, conversion occurs on the date that the first
subdivided unit is sold. If, as in Donohue, conversion fails and no units are ever sold,
section 66427.5 cannot be used to evade a local rent control ordinance. We also agree
with Donohue that the section may not be used to justify preemption of a local rent
control ordinance if the conversion is unsuccessful. to However, in the normal situation
in which conversion proceeds in accordance with the statutory requirements, section
66427.5 becomes applicable to protect nonpurchasing residents as soon as the first unit is
sold.
10 As respondents point out, the statute does not specifically protect against sham
or failed transactions in which a single unit is sold, but no others, and the park owner then
claims a local rent control ordinance is preempted by section 66427.5, subdivision (d).
However, as Donohue illustrates, the courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or
unsuccessful conversions.
17
1�� �7
As discussed below, the legislative purpose was to avoid economic displacement
of nonpurchasing residents. Section 66427.5, subdivision (a) carves out this purpose by
requiring the subdivider to offer each existing tenant the option to either purchase their
subdivided unit or to remain as a tenant. Under subdivision (b), the subdivider must give
each resident a copy of the report detailing the impact of the conversion upon residents.
Finally, the subdivider "shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all
nonpurchasing residents" by increasing rents to market levels over a four-year phasein
period. These steps must necessarily be taken as part of the conversion process.
Since section 66427.5 applies to the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to
resident ownership, and since that section limits the power of the City Council to a
determination of whether the subdivider has complied with the provisions of the section,
we agree with El Dorado that the City Council lacked the authority to condition approval
on imposition of the three further mitigation conditions described above.
THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Donohue court did not consider the legislative history, relying instead on the
language of the statute itself to determine legislative intent. (Donohue v. Santa Paula
West Mobile Home Park, supra, 47 Cal.AppAth 1168, 1174-1175.) Here, the parties
discuss the legislative history in some detail, and respondents contend that the legislative
history supports their interpretation of the statute.
Initially, we are faced with the question of whether we should examine the
legislative history at all. "Only when the language of a statute is susceptible to more than
18
one reasonable construction is it appropriate to turn to extrinsic aids, including the
legislative history of the measure, to ascertain its meaning. [Citation.,]" (Diamond
Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Ca1.4th 1036, 1055.)
Although we have not found any such ambiguity as to section 66427.4, the City
and the Association contend that section 66427.5 is ambiguous and inapplicable, and they
rely heavily on the legislative history of the 1991 and 1995 amendments to that section
Although we find little ambiguity, it is proper to consider legislative history "where it
buttresses our interpretation of the plain meaning of a statute. [Citation.]" (Jenkins v.
County of Los Angeles (1999) 74 Ca1.App.4th 524, 530, citing Briggs v. Eden Council for
Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 CalAth 1106, 1120.) Accordingly, we will briefly review
the legislative history of section 66427.5.11
1. The 1991 enactment of Section 66427.5. Section 66427.5 was added in 1991.
(Stats. 1991, ch. 745.) At that time, the introductory phrase of section 66427.5 read: "At
the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created using financing
or funds provided pursuant to Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 50780) of Part 2 of
Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code, the subdivider shall avoid the economic
displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner . . . ."
tt The City filed a legislative history of the 1991 and 1995 legislation prepared by
Legislative Intent Service with the trial court. Unless otherwise indicated, we refer to our
record for the legislative history discussed in this section.
19 IL
The Association maintains that the section applied only to conversion of
mobilehome parks by resident organizations who were using financing from the
Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund. It cites the third reading analysis prepared by the
Office of Senate Floor Analyses: "`This bill amends Subdivision Map Act requirements
relating to conversion of a mobilehome park by a resident organization and amends
displacement requirements for Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund."' This analysis by the
Office of Senate Floor Analyses is relevant to the issue of legislative intent. (Southland
Mechanical Constructors Corp. v. Nixen (1981) 119 Ca1.App3d 417.)
The Legislative Counsel's Digest of the final bill states: "This bill would require
subdividers to offer each existing tenant an option to purchase his or her condominium
unit which is to be created by the conversion of the park into condominium interests or to
continue residency as a tenant. In the event the tenant elects to continue residency in a
condominium conversion made pursuant to the Mobilehome Park Purchase program,
administered by the Department of Housing and Community Development, a procedure
would be applicable requiring the subdivider to avoid the economic displacement of all
nonpurchasing residents of these parks. The bill would set the allowable rate of increase
in monthly rent for nonpurchasing residents of these parks, specifying alternative
procedures for nonpurchasing residents who are, or are not, lower income households, as
defined."
It is proper for us to consider the Legislative Counsel's analysis of a bill as
evidence of legislative intent, although it is not controlling. (People v. Turner (1995) 40
20
1Lld!;!n
Ca1.App.4th 733, 741; Stewart v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1978) 80
Cal.App.3d 172.) As our Supreme Court has observed: "While an opinion of the
Legislative Counsel is entitled to respect, its weight depends on the reasons given in its
support." (Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11
Ca1.4th 220, 238.)
From these and other provisions it is clear that the bill was designed, among other
things, to provide economic displacement protections to nonpurchasing owners when the
condominium conversion was made pursuant to the Mobilehome Park Purchase program.
The bill also amended Health and Safety Code section 50786, which is part of the
purchase program. The purchase program itself contains a declaration of legislative
intent: "[I]t is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this chapter, to encourage and
facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to.resident ownership or ownership by
qualified nonprofit housing sponsors or by local public entities, to protect low-income
mobilehome park residents from both physical and economic displacement, to obtain a
high level of private and other public financing for mobilehome park conversions, and to
help establish acceptance for resident-owned, nonprofit-owned, and government-owned
mobilehome parks in the private market." (Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subd. (b).)
It is therefore evident that, under the law in effect prior to 1995, section 66427.5
referred to mobilehome park conversions made by residents or nonprofit organizations
21
1 LIA31
under the Mobile Home Purchase Fund.12 El Dorado does not disagree with this
analysis, but rather contends that the system changed with the 1995 enactment of Senate
Bill No. 310. We therefore turn to that subject.
2. The 1995 Amendment to Section 66427.5 Senate Bill No. 310, enacted in 1995,
amended section 66427.5. First, it replaced the introductory phrase quoted above with a
new introductory phrase: "At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision
to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership, the
subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the
following manner: . . . " (Stats 1995, ch. 256, § 5.) It also added a new subdivision (a),
relating to options to tenants to purchase, a new subdivision (b), requiring an impact
report, and the introductory provisions of subdivision (d), relating to a hearing to
establish compliance with the section.
El Dorado contends that these changes were intended to apply the mitigation
provisions to all mobilehome park subdivisions, thereby making the law uniform and
12 The Legislative Counsel's Digest of Senate Bill 310, enacted in 1995, describes
the existing law in this regard as follows: "Existing law regulates mobilehome parks in
various capacities, including requiring a subdivider, at the time of filing a tentative or
parcel map fora subdivision to be created using financing or funds from a specified
source, to avoid the economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents, as specified, and
file a report, as specified, regarding the impact of the conversion upon the displaced
residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. Existing law also requires a subdivider
to offer each existing tenant the option to purchase his or her condominium unit, which is
to be created by conversion of the mobilehome park into condominium units." (Stats.
1995, ch. 256, p. 732.)
22
eliminating the previous distinctions between tenant-sponsored and owner-sponsored
conversions. ,
El Dorado cites portions of the legislative history in support of its argument. First,
it cites the Legislative Counsel's Digest for the bill. Immediately following the paragraph
describing existing law quoted in footnote 12 above, the digest states: "This bill would
replace the reference to subdivisions from the specified funding source with a reference
to subdivisions created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident
ownership, and would add further requirements for avoiding economic displacement of
nonpurchasing residents, including requiring that the subdivider be subject to a hearing on
the matter, as specified." (Stats. 1995, ch. 256, p. 732.)
Second, El Dorado cites the Assembly Committee Report on Senate Bill No. 310:
"This bill: [¶] . . . [,I [d]eletes the reference to MPROP [Mobilehome Park Resident
Ownership Program] with respect to the statutory mitigation scheme . . . thereby making
these mitigation provisions applicable to all mobilehome park conversions." (Italics
added.)
Third, El Dorado cites an analysis prepared by the Office of Senate Floor
Analyses, prepared for the Senate Rules Committee: "The bill deletes the reference to the
Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program with respect to the statutory mitigation
scheme, thereby making these mitigation provisions applicable to all subdivided
mobilehome park conversions."
23
ILI t�
Other portions of the legislative history in our record support El Dorado's position.
A report for the Senate Housing and Land Use Committee states: "Existing law requires
a subdivider to avoid economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents when
Mobilehome Park Purchase Funds are used to convert a mobilehome park. The law limits
rent increases that the subdivider can charge nonpurchasing residents that remain in the
park. Senate Bill 310 requires all subdividers to mitigate the economic displacement of
all nonpurchasing residents by allowing payment of rent increases in five annual
payments."13 (Italics omitted.)
A bill analysis prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Mobilehomes states:
"SB 310 would establish the 1992 section [§ 66427.5]d apart from conversion of the park
to other types of subdivided uses, as the sole means for local government to determine
mitigation requirements for all conversions of parks to resident-owned subdivided
interests, not just those financed by MPROP."
The City makes a contrary argument by pointing to the deletion, in the legislative
process, of a proposed subdivision (e) to section 66427.5: "This section establishes a
statewide standard for regulation of the conversion of mobilehome parks to residential
ownership uses. No local agency shall enact more stringent measures pertaining to
13 As enacted, the section provides for equal annual increases over a four-year
period. (§ 66427.5, subd. (d)(1).)
24 ' /
regulation of the conversion of mobilehome parks to residential ownership uses."la This
deletion allowed the bill to obtain the support of the League of California Cities.
The City relies on the well-established rule that deletion of a provision is
persuasive evidence that the Legislature did not intend to adopt it, and the final statute
should not be construed to include the omitted provision. (Beverly v. Anderson (1999) 76
Cal.App.4th 480, 485-486.)
We do not find the City's argument persuasive. At the time subdivision (e) was
deleted from section 66427.5, subdivision (e) was added to section 66427.4: "This
section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is created from the conversion of a
rental mobilehome park to resident ownership." It therefore appears that the Legislature
merely expressed the same thought in a different way. It made it clear that section
66427.4, which allows local government to impose additional mitigation provisions, was
inapplicable instead of stating that section 66427.5 was applicable.15 As El Dorado
points out, the analysis in the Beverly case turned on whether other language was inserted
14 Subdivision (e) was first added in the Senate by a March 27, 1995 amendment.
It was in the Senate bill as passed, but was deleted by an Assembly amendment on June
13, 1995, and section 66427.4, subdivision (e), was added. The Assembly made
"numerous substantive and technical changes; however, the intent remains the same."
The Senate concurred in the Assembly amendments.
15 The City also fmds support for its position in a Senate Third Reading Report.
However, the portion of that report which it quotes is a provision describing existing law.
The following page states the change in the law to be made by Senate Bill No. 310:
"This bill: [¶] . . . [¶] [cllarifies that the power to require mitigation measures, with
respect to displaced residents, by a legislative body when a park is converted to another
use . . . is not applicable to a park converted to resident ownership."
25
that was comparable to the deleted provision. It states: "As we have seen, section
29853.5 as enacted contains nothing corresponding to the deleted provision. Therefore
we conclude that the Legislature intended no such provision to be judicially grafted onto
the statute. [Citations.]" (Beverly v. Anderson, supra, 76 Cal.AppAth 480, 486.) Here,
there was a corresponding provision, and the principle applied in Beverly does not
govern.
Despite what we fmd to be rather clear evidence of legislative intent, the
Association continues to argue that section 66427.5 only applies to conversion to a
resident-owned park. It attributes a special meaning to that phrase by citing the definition
of"resident ownership" in the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund law. That definition
states: "`Resident ownership' means, depending on the context, either the ownership by a
resident organization of an interest in a mobilehome park that entitles the resident
organization to control the operations of the mobilehome park for a term of no less than
15 years, or the ownership of individual interests in a mobilehome park, or both."
(Health & Saf. Code, § 50781, subd. (m).) The Association argues that resident
ownership of the park, and control of operations of the park, can only occur when the
purchasing residents have the ability to control, manage and own the common facilities in
the park, i.e., when 50 percent plus 1 of the lots have been purchased by the residents.16
Thus, the Association would only apply section 66427.5 after the rental mobilehome park
16 The Association quotes a purported municipal ordinance of the City of Union
City which so provides. It is of no value as authority for the Association's argument.
26
/V,4 �3�
has been successfully converted to resident ownership by sale of more than 50 percent of
the lots.
Of course, the Association's interpretation would eliminate any economic
displacement protection for persons displaced prior to the sale of more than 50 percent of
the lots. The interpretation thus fails to acknowledge that this protection applies to "all
nonpurchasing residents." (§ 66427.5, subd. (d).) The Association's interpretation
therefore contradicts the clear statutory language, and the legislative intent, to protect all
such persons.
The Association's interpretation would conflict with the legislative intent to
encourage such conversions. Indeed, even the City notes that "such an onerous condition
of approval would effectively give the mobile home park homeowners' association the
ability to unilaterally block the proposed park conversion unless the landlord would
otherwise set his purchase price at an amount acceptable to the homeowners." Giving the
homeowners this power would conflict with the legislative intent "to encourage and
facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership . . . ." (Health & Saf.
Code, § 50780, subd. (b).)
Equally important is the Legislature's intention, in enacting Senate Bill No. 310, to
broaden the protection of mobilehome park residents from economic displacement to all
conversions of rental mobilehome parks to resident ownership, not just conversions
financed by use of the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund.
27
/u -�3)7
Finally, even if we were to apply the definition of resident owner in Health and
Safety Code section 50781, subdivision (m), it is clear from the definition quoted above
that the term "resident owner" includes the usual meaning of the words: i.e., "the
ownership of individual interests in a mobilehome park . . . ." The Association's
selective quoting of the definition to fit its argument is not helpful. We therefore
conclude that the term "resident ownership" as used in section 66427.5 means just what it
says: the statute applies to all conversions of mobilehome parks to resident ownership.
We therefore reject the Association's legislative intent argument that concludes
that section 66427.5 is inapplicable until more than 50 percent of the park's units are sold
to the residents.
In further support of their arguments, the City and the Association cite and
liberally quote from a letter dated June 19, 2000, from John Tennyson, a consultant to the
California State Senate Select Committee on Mobile and Manufactured Homes. That
letter is not part of the Legislative Intent Service materials in our record. It was submitted
as an exhibit to the Association's memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to
the petition for writ of mandate.
Mr. Tennyson's letter purports to discuss the legislative intent of the 1995 0
amendment to section 66427.5, or, more accurately, a lack of intent: "There was never
any intent that [section 66427.5] could be used by a parkowner other than in the context
of a bonafide resident conversion."
28
We decline to consider the letter as evidence of the Legislature's intent when it
adopted the 1995 amendments. It is well-settled that individual opinions of legislators or
staff members merely reflect their individual opinions, and are not probative of the
collegial intent of the Legislature at the time the bill was passed. (People v. Patterson
(1999) 72 Cal.AppAth 438, 443.) "Material showing the motive or understanding of an
individual legislator, including the bill's author, his or her staff, or other interested
persons, is generally not considered. [Citations.] This is because such materials are
generally not evidence of the Legislature's collective intent. [Citations.]" (Metropolitan
Water Dist. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2000) 80 Cal.AppAth 1403, 1426.)
In addition, the subject letter was written five years after enactment of the
amendment, and is addressed to an attorney, presumably for use in this litigation. Such
post hoc materials are not evidence of legislative intent. (People T. Patterson, supra, 72
Cal.AppAth 438, 444; Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV(1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142,
1157-1158, fn. 6.) "A postenactment statement by a person who was not even a member
of the Legislature, such as Senator Keene's staff member, apart from its inadmissibility,
is entitled to virtually no weight. [Citations.]" (Haworth v. Lira (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d
1362, 1369.) We therefore disregard the statements by Mr. Tennyson.17
17 Even if we considered the letter, there is no evidence that El Dorado's filing of
an application for approval of a tentative parcel map is not the beginning of a bona fide
conversion to resident ownership, notwithstanding the suspicions of the Association.
29 nn
We therefore conclude that the legislative history does not support the
Association's contention that section 66427.5 applies only to resident-owned parks,
defined as parks with more than 50 percent resident ownership. To the contrary, we
conclude that section 66427.5 applies to all subdivisions "to be created from the
conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership . . . ." (§ 66427.5.)
OTHER ISSUES
El Dorado requests that, if we find section 66427.5 applicable (as we have), we
reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to the trial court to issue a
peremptory writ of mandamus directing the City to approve the application without the
three further conditions. It would therefore argue that consideration of any other issues is
unnecessary to our decision.
We disagree because section 66427.5 requires the City Council to determine
whether the subdivider has complied with section 66427.5. It has not yet done so, and we
think it proper to remand the case to the trial court to require the City Council to make
that determination before the trial court considers issuing a peremptory writ ordering -
approval of the application.
The parties have anticipated our conclusion that section 66427.5 applies to El
Dorado's application for tentative map approval, and that section 66427.4 does not, and
they have raised three other issues that arise as the result of this conclusion.
Before considering these issues, we anticipate El Dorado's argument that there
should be no further consideration of the issue by the City Council because its application
30
1 LIA 411)
for tentative map approval has already been approved by operation of law. If El Dorado
is correct, no further discussion of the other issues would be necessary.
1. El Dorado's Deemed Approval Argument. El Dorado contends that its application
was approved by operation of law because the City failed to take timely action on it.
Section 66452.4 provides for such deemed approval when the local legislative body fails
to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the application within the time limits set
forth in the Subdivision Map Act procedural provisions. (§ 66451 et seq.) The parties
agree that July 5, 2000 was the last day for the City Council to take action. However, the
parties disagree on what happened at a hearing which was held on that day.
El Dorado contends that the City Council failed to take final action on the
application and merely continued the matter until July 19, 2000, without its consent. The
City and the Association contend that the City Council denied the application on that date
and order a new denial motion prepared with findings.
The relevant facts are that the matter was heard on July 5, 2000. The minutes of
the meeting begin with staff's recommendation that the tentative tract map be approved
with conditions. After the hearing was closed to public comments, the council members
discussed the application. The minutes then state: "Motion to deny the Resolution based
on not offering meaningful protection from the impacts of conversion was presented; after
which, it was moved by Oden, seconded by Hodges, and carried by the following vote
that the Resolution be denied, and that staff be directed to reformulate a new Resolution
with fmdings for denial of the Tract Map." The minutes further reflect that the resolution
31
YA y�
passed by a four-to-one vote. Although the minutes are unclear, it appears that the
resolution referred to was the staff recommendation for approval of the tract map.
We therefore turn to the transcript for clarification. It reflects that the staff
presented a report recommending conditions of approval, and that the city attorney then
stated: "The action that is being recommended to be taken tonight by the council is
approval of a resolution approving the action of the city council approving the tentative
tract map with conditions." After the council discussion, Councilman Oden made a
motion "to deny the resolution on the basis that it does not offer the meaningful
protections for non-purchasing residents from the impacts of the conversion." After
further discussion, the city attorney said: "If the council action is to support this motion,
I would request that the motion be modified somewhat to be directory to us to prepare a
Resolution of Denial; and in that resolution, we would incorporate as best we can the
information that's been presented and what we believe the reasoning of the council would
be, and we would bring that resolution back at your next meeting for action. So I think
we need a resolution incorporating appropriate findings." Subsequently, Councilman
Oden stated: "Since we have a motion on the floor, I am more than willing to make the
adjustment to the recommendation of the . . . city attorney." The seconding
councilwoman agreed and the motion was passed by a 4-1 vote.
El Dorado's position that the City Council failed to take fmal action on the
a
application on July 5th is supported by subsequent events. At a hearing on August 2,
2000, the city attorney summarized the previous hearing as follows: "Last time we
32
reviewed this matter, the council conducted a public hearing and at the conclusion of the
hearing, after much discussion, directed us to prepare a resolution denying the project and
bringing that back to you. We have prepared that resolution. It's in your agenda packet."
A formal resolution was adopted on August 2, 2000. In its introductory clauses, it states:
"WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its public hearing on July 5, 2000, the City Council
directed City staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for consideration of the City Council
at the regularly scheduled July 19, 2000 City Council meeting . . . ."
However, on balance, we agree with the City that the City Council, at the July 5th
meeting, denied the "resolution approving the action of the city council approving the
tentative tract map with conditions." Thus, the statutory mandate was met: the
appropriate legislative body disapproved the tentative map as filed. (§ 66452.4; see,
Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v. Maggini (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 318, 322-323.)1s
The statute does not require that the disapproval be final. (Carmel Valley View,
Ltd. v. Maggini, supra, 91 Ca1.App.3d 318, 322-323.) In fact, the parties were engaged
in substantial settlement negotiations prior to the August 2, 2000, council meeting. At
that meeting, as noted above, a formal resolution was adopted which reversed the
disapproval and approved the tentative map, albeit with the three further conditions that
El Dorado finds objectionable.
is The City argues that the relevant time period under the perrnit streamlining
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act never began to run because it did not approve the
environmental aspects of the project until August 2, 2000. (See § 66452.2.) We find it
unnecessary to consider this alternative argument.
33
We therefore conclude that, in this situation, there was no deemed approval of the
tentative map under section 66452.4. We therefore turn to the other three issues raised by
the parties.
2. Time of Conversion. The first issue is when conversion occurs. In Donohue, the
trial court held that conversion occurs, and section 66427.5 became applicable,
"whenever a subdivider files a tentative map to convert a rental park to resident
ownership, even if the conversion does not occur." (Donohue v. Santa Paula West
Mobile Home Park, supra, 47 Cal.AppAth 1168, 1172.) The appellate court held the
section inapplicable because conversion never occurred. In discussing the statutory
language, it read the introductory phrase of the statute ("At the time of filing a tentative or
parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome
park to resident ownership") to define the time "when the subdivider must offer tenants
the option to purchase their space, file and distribute the tenant impact report, and
demonstrate to local government that the conversion plan complies with the statute. ._. .
Thus, the opening phrase of section 66427.5 describes when the subdivider must inform.
local government of the rent increases it expects to enact after conversion, not the date on
which the increases take effect." (Donohue, at p. 1176.) The court also points out that
the use of the term "preconversion" in subdivisions (d)(1) and (2) "distinguishes between
the rent charged before conversion and the rent charged after conversion. Had the
Legislature intended to distinguish between the rent charged before a tentative map is
filed and the rent charged after filing, it easily could have done so." (Ibid.)
34 7/ L
j4gLt
The Donohue court gave two further reasons for rejecting the argument that the
section applies as soon as a tentative map is filed, regardless of whether the conversion is
completed. First, it found that the term "nonpurchasing residents," as used in
subdivisions (d)(1) and (2), "only has meaning when applied to a park in which some
residents have purchased their spaces and others have not." (Donohue v. Santa Paula
West Mobile Home Park, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1175.) Second, the court found
that, if conversion occurred when the map was filed, the first two sentences of
subdivision (d), relating to the local government's authority to hold a hearing to
determine compliance with the section, would be futile. (Id. at p. 1176.)
We agree with Donohue 's basic holding that conversion does not occur when the
tentative map is filed, and its conclusion that the statute does not apply if conversion
never occurs.
In the normal situation, conversion begins with compliance with the Subdivision
Map Act, followed by approval from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided
J
Lands Act. (Bus. R Prof. Code, § 11000 et seq.)
Although the Subdivision Map Act does not define the conversion process or the
time of conversion more fully, we are not without guidance. As El Dorado and amici
point out, several cases hold that a condominium conversion occurs when the first unit is
sold.
In City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1184, the city
passed an ordinance requiring a conditional use permit for the conversion of apartments
35
/ 17 7
into condominiums. The defendants contended they were exempt from the ordinance
because, at the time the ordinance was passed, they had secured fmal,subdivision map
approval and permission from the Department of Real Estate to sell individual units as
condominiums. (Id. at p. 1187.) Our Supreme Court concluded that defendants were
exempt from the ordinance because the defendants had completed all the steps required
before they could sell condominium units. Because they had the right to sell the units,
the court found that the city could not impose additional conditions on the sale. (Id at p.
1190.) The court said: .."Under the statutory definition of a condominium, therefore, an
apartment building is not converted into a condominium project until at least one unit has
been conveyed, even if the owner has obtained all the governmental approvals and
recorded all the documents necessary to subdivide and sell individual apartments as
condominiums. [Citation.] The City concedes that once defendants sell a unit, the
conversion is complete and the newly enacted regulations may not be enforced." (Ibid.)
The court therefore found the decisive date was the date the developer secures final
subdivision map approval and permission from the Department of Real Estate to sell
units. (Id. at p. 1191.) The court also noted that a single conveyance completes the
conversion process under Civil Code section 1352. Accordingly, at that time, the Davis-
Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code, § 1350 et seq.) becomes
applicable.
Amici also cites County of Los Angeles v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (1970) 3
Ca1.App3d 809. In that case, the developer sought to convert an apartment building into
36
lLl4c1
condominiums. The attempt failed, and the county sought to recover on a bond given as a
condition to the recording of a final tract map, In discussing the purposes for which the
bond was given, the court noted that, under the Civil Code definition of condominium
(formerly Civ. Code, § 783, now contained in §§ 783 & 1351, subd. (f)), "ft]here can be
no undivided interest in common (and thus by statutory definition there can be no
condominium) until at least one condominium unit has been conveyed by the subdivider."
(County of Los Angeles, at p. 814.)
We therefore agree with El Dorado and amici that section 66427.5, which is
designed to mitigate the economic effects of conversion on nonpurchasing tenants, must
be applicable when the first unit is sold. It appears to us that the Donohue court was
referring to this time when it concluded that section 66427.5 applies only after a rental
park is converted to resident ownership. At that time, sales begin and the economic
mitigation measures for displaced residents specified in section 66427.5, including
preemption of a local rent control ordinance, become effective. And, as noted above, the
Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code, § 1350 et seq.) also
becomes applicable at that time.
As amici note, "Under no circumstances . . . is it left to local governments to
legislate when state law takes effect." If the City were empowered to select a later date,
as it did here, the economic displacement protections for nonpurchasing residents would
not apply before the selected date. This contradicts the clear legislative intent to protect
37
I yA Y47
all nonpurchasing residents. We therefore conclude the City did not have the authority to
impose a condition which purports to impose a different date.
3. Disclosure of Tentative Purchase Price Assuming, arguendo, that section 66427.5
is applicable, the Association argues that it requires the subdivider to disclose both the
tentative purchase price for the individual lots and the market rent which will eventually
be charged to nonpurchasing residents. The Association relies on Donohue 's summary of
the statute. That summary states that the introductory paragraph of section 66427.5
requires the subdivider to offer tenants the option to purchase their space and it also
"describes when the subdivider must inform local government of the rent increases it
expects to enact after conversion . . . ." (Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home
Park, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1176.) However, in that passage, the court was
merely describing the requirements of the statute. Although a tenant cannot make a
rational decision to buy, continue to rent, or move his or her mobilehome unless the
tenant is given an option price and a proposed rental price, the tenant is not required-to
make such a decision until after the Department of Real Estate has approved the project
and issued its public report. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11010.9) Under the conditions of
approval here, the mobilehome owner is given an exclusive right to purchase his or her
unit for six months from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report under
Business and Professions Code section 11018.
38
The Association alleges that El Dorado has not complied with this requirement.
Inferentially, it argues that El Dorado's application should therefore have been denied by
the City Council because it did not comply with the requirements of section 66427.5.
El Dorado points out that this specific subject was addressed by the enactment of
Business and Professions Code section 11010.9 as part of Senate Bill No. 310, discussed
above. That section, which is set out in full in the footnote, provides that disclosure of
the tentative sales price shall be made prior to filing a notice of intention to sell with the
Department of Real Estate.19 Since that section applies "[n]otwithstanding any other
provision of law," we harmonize it with section 66427.5 by finding that the tentative
purchase price must be disclosed at the time specified in Business and Professions Code
section 11010.9, i.e., at some time prior to the filing of the notice of intention to sell, but
19 Business and Professions Code section 11010.9 states: "Nonvithstanding any
other provision of lmv, the subdivider of a mobilehome park that is proposed to be
converted to resident ownership, prior to filing a notice of intention pursuant to Section
11010, shall disclose to homeowners and residents of the park, by written notice, the
tentative price of the subdivided interest proposed to be sold or leased. [¶] (b) The
disclosure notice required by subdivision (a) shall include a statement that the tentative
price is not binding, could change between the time of disclosure and the time of
governmental approval to commence the actual sale or lease of the subdivided interests in
the park, as the result of conditions imposed by the state or local government for approval
of the park conversion, increased financing costs, or other factors and, in the absence of
bad faith, shall not give rise to a claim for liability against the provider of this
information. [¶] (c) The disclosure notice required by subdivision (a) shall not be
construed to authorize the subdivider of a mobilehome park that is proposed to be
converted to resident ownership to offer to sell or lease, sell or lease, or accept money for
the sale or lease of, subdivided interests in the park, or to engage in any other activities
that are otherwise prohibited, with regard to subdividing the park into ownership
interests, prior to the issuance of a public report pursuant to this chapter." (Italics
added.)
39
that the disclosure need not be made at the time of filing of the application for approval of
the tentative map. At the latter time, the subdivider must only notify.residents that they
will have an option to purchase their sites, or to continue to rent them.20 While the filing
of the application and compliance with section 66427.5 gives notice to the residents of
their option to purchase, the subdivider does not need to disclose a tentative price at that
time because the residents do not need to decide whether to purchase at that time.
Indeed, the giving of the disclosure notice does not authorize the subdivider to offer to
sell the units before obtaining Department of Real Estate approval. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §
11010.9, subd. (c).)
The Association contends that the legislative history is relevant on the issue of
price disclosure. We disagree, fmding that the plain meaning of the statute's governs.
Even if the legislative history of Senate Bill No. 310 was relevant because of some doubt
about legislative intent, it does not help the Association's position.
The Association cites the bill sponsor's letter to the Governor requesting signature
of the bill. However, individual statements by bill authors'are not generally admissible as
statements of legislative intent. (Metropolitan Water Dist. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.,
supra, 80 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426, citing Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery (1998) 19
CalAth 714, 726-727; McDowell v. Watson (1997) 59 Cal.AppAth 1155, 1161, fn. 3.)
20 Although not required, El Dorado agreed that it would not offer the units for
sale at a price exceeding their appraised fair market value.
40
But even if we overlook that obstacle, the letter is not persuasive. It only states:
"S13 310 also addresses an often-heard park resident complaint that homeowners are not
given a price for the proposed converted spaces. This measure would require disclosure
of, at least, a non-binding price at the front end of the Subdivided Lands Act process, as a
means of providing more information and protection to residents." This excerpt does not
support the Association's argument, as the bill author was apparently describing the
provisions of Business and Professions Code section 11010.9. Those provisions were, as
noted above, also part of Senate Bill No. 310. Thus, we conclude that the reference was
to that section, not to section 66427.5.21
Accordingly, section 66427.5 does not require disclosure of the tentative purchase
price, or the proposed rental prices, at the time of the filing of the tentative map
application.
4. Forced Conversion. The Association also contends that El Dorado cannot use
section 66427.5 to force a conversion without the consent of a majority of the existing
residents. Under this heading, the Association reiterates several of the arguments
discussed and rejected above, including its continuing reliance on section 66427.4. The
21 Although we do not consider the author's letter for any purpose, it is interesting
to note that the author also states that, under the Bill, "[1]ocal governments would no
longer be able to impose more stringent rent control or other mitigation requirements by
construing the conversion as subject to the `change of use' provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act." Since the change of use provision is section 66427.4, this quote supports our
conclusion that subdivision (e) of that section was intended to make the section
inapplicable to conversions from rental mobilehome parks to resident-owned mobilehome
parks.
41
remainder of its argument apparently springs from its contention that section 66427.5
requires the agreement of"66% (or at least 50%) of the existing residents [who] are
willing to purchase their lots." The 66 percent argument apparently comes from section
66428.1, while the 50 percent argument apparently springs from the Association's
interpretation of Health and Safety Code section 50781, subdivision (m). The latter
contention has been rejected above.
Section 66428.1 provides that the requirement for the filing of a tentative map is
waived if two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes in the park commit to purchase their
units upon conversion. Thus, if there is the requisite consent, there is no need to file a
tentative map application at all. The absence of such consent does not mean that no
conversion is possible: it only means that the filing requirement is not waived, The
owner can still subdivide his property by following the statutory procedures, including
the economic displacement mitigation measures specified in section 66427.5. The City
agrees: "Without question, mobile home parks can be converted to resident ownership
over the objection of the residents (that is what is happening in the case of this park)."
The legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks to resident
ownership would not be served by a requirement that a conversion could only be made
with resident consent. We therefore reject the Association's argument.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions
to require the City Council to promptly determine the sole issue of whether El Dorado's
42
application for approval of a tentative parcel map complies with section 66427.5. If so,
the City Council should approve the application. If not, the City Council should specify
the grounds of noncompliance and the trial court should retain jurisdiction to review the
issue of compliance in further proceedings.
El Dorado is to recover its costs on appeal.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MCKINSTER
J.
WARD
J.
43
Sep-03-2002 15:19 From-O'MELVENY & MYERSLLP LA1/2 +2134308407 T-813 P.002-403--. F-857
.L'3
O MELVWY & MYERS LLP �l
c@NTIJOY CITY .too South Hope Street 'rrsurus:�oanER
IKwNE Los Angeles,Califomia goo7r-z8gq WAS11INGTON, DX
MENLO VAKK '1'"iZf—IJONK (213) 43o-6coo I1UNC KONG
NRWI'ORT 6E4Ca FACSIMItE (213) y3o-6y07 i-ONTTON
NEW YoRK IN r8RN8T: Www.ortIM-coli SHANGHAI
SAN FRANCi$CU i'OKYO
September 3, 2002
Y � IR.k llll hl»IrtpN
St O,51)0-001
VIA FACSIMILE AND t]VERIVIGHT AELI_V_ERX WMIL,H,11191 1 13M1
William W. Wynder, Ssq. -13-}3o-72s3
BtJRKE, WILLIAMS& SOR£NSEN
1830I Von Karman Ave., Suite 1050 K1 mclose oair .corn
1 rviae, California 92612 inclose@o nm.catt
Re: k'1 Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of-Palm Springs
Tentative Tract Map No. 28087
Dear bill:
On behalf of El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. ("Ll Dorado") we have had an opportunity to
review a copy of the Staff Report and proposed resolution of conditional approval as posted on
The City's website. El Dorado has the following objections and suggestions for your
consideration. By copy of this letter to the City Clerk. we would ask the Clerk to distribute a
copy of this letter to the City Council forthwith and have a copy of this letter placed In the
official record.
The Whereas Clauses Contained in the Staffs Proposed Resolution: El Dorado
objects to all of the Whereas Clauses in the proposed resolution that purport to recite or interpret
The Court Of Appeal decision in El Dorado Palm Spring-, Ltd v City of Palm Sprang+. These
Whereas Clauses are unnecessary, inappropriate, and most importantly inaccurate. Accordingly,
They should be deleted from any resolution of conditional approval adopted by the CITY COUTICil.
Condition 14 of Exhibit A to the Staff's Proposed Resolution-, This condition purports
10 require El Dorado to subsidize the purchase of units in the mobilehome park. The City
imposed the same condition when it last approved the tentative tract map and the Coon of
Appeal unambiguously held that this condition was unlawful and the CITY lacked authority to
impose it. We assume the inclusion of this condition in the Staffs proposed resolution was an
oversight. El Dorado objects to Condition 14 of Exhibit A in its entirety and demands that it be
removed from any resolution of conditional approval adopted by the City Council Based on our
telephone call earlier today and a subsequent email from your assistant, Ms- Ponce, El Dorado
understands that Condition 14 of Lxhibit A was included erroneously and will be Omitted from
any resolution of conditional approval presented to the City Council.
Sap-03-2002 15:20 From-O'MELVENY t MYERSLLP LAl/2 +2134306407 T-813 P.003/008 F-857
O*MEtvPNY &Mveiu LLP
Wdhan'c W, Wynder. Esq , September 3,2002 - Pa--r 2
Section 8 oi'tite Staffs Proposed Resolution- El Dorado objects to this provision of the
Staff s proposed resolution on the;rounds that it is vague and susceptible to an interpretation
Thai would violate state law and the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case. Fl Dorado
zherefore demands that this provision he deleted 11om any resolurioa of conditional approval
adopted by the City Council. As an alternative, El Dorado proposes that the current Section 8 of
The Staffs proposed resolution be deleted and replaced with the following language, which is
similar To thz STaff s proposal bill is more precise and not susceptible to an interpretation that
violaTes siaTe law:
Pursuant to the Opinion of the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Pulm Spring, Lid
v Ciry of Palm Springs, 95 Cal, App. 4th 1153 (2002), the City will monitor this
conversion closely to assure that the applicant is not engaging in a"sham"
conversion within the meaning of the Court of Appeal's opinion in the above-
rc£ercui-cd case. if the City has reason to believe that the applicant is using
Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 to facilitate a "sham"conversion of the
mobilehoine park in question from a landlord-Tenant form of ownership To a
resident form of ownership, than the City retains the right To institute court
proceedings to have the applicant's conversion adjudged to be a "'sham" within
the meaning of the Court of Appeal's opinion in The above-referenced case_ In The
event that a court of competent jurisdiction finally determines That the applicant
has engaged in a-'sham" conversion, then the City reserves The right to seek and
take any and all remedial measures permitted by law.
We are available to discuss these objections and the language of the ulthnate resolution.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew W. Close
for O'MEI.VENY & MYERS LLP
cc: Ms Patricia A. Sanders,
City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs
Sap-03-2002 16:19 From-O'MELVENY & MYERSUP LAl/2 +2134306407 T-813 P.001/003 F-857
O _
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
qoo South Hope Steeet
Lvu Angcle�' Callforuia 9O07T-28L9
Tr1[:PIIUNI ('13) i3c-6000
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE&TIME: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES:
Tuesday, 09/03/02 3
TO: FAX NUMBER: TELEPHONE NUMBER:
William W- Wyi3der, Esi. 949-863-3350 949-863-3363
BURKE, WILL1AMS& SORENSEN
M:,. P=icia A. Saudcrs 760-322-8332 760-323-8204
CITY CLERK,CITY OF PALM
SPRINCS
FROM: RETURN FAX NUMBER: TELEPHONE NUMBER:
M4UhCW W Close 213-430-6407 213-430-7213
MESSAGE
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL OUR FAX DEPARTMENT AT 213/430-6357.
FINE NO-; 0240390-00001 RETURN ORIGINAL TO' C Kclley Canning
u5E9 NO: 10022 EXTENSION: 6564
RPSPONSIgLE ATTY NAME maubh w W.Closc i-OCATION: 15s-5
SPECIAL INSTRWCTIPNS
This dacununt is intended for the eaclusivr: use of The addressee. It may contain privileged, confidential, or now
disclosabio information. if you are not the addressee, or someone responsible for delivering rhis document m me
addressee, you may not read, copy, or disuihuie it. If you have received This doeumunr by MISiake, Please can as
promptly and wcureiy dispose of it. Thank you.
Un2'62"1289 1
AFFIDAVIT
OF
MAILING NOTICES
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California,
do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing before
the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, in conjunction with
Tentative Tract Map 28087, for the El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. to
subdivide the existing 377 space DI Dorado Mobile Country Club for
condominium purposes was mailed to each and every person set
forth on the attached list on the 23rd day of August, 2002. A copy of
said Notice is attached hereto. Said mailing was completed by
placing a copy of said Notice in a sealed envelope, with postage
prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs,
California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 23rd day of August, 2002.
PATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk
STATEMENT OF MILTON FLACK
MY NAME IS MILTON FLACK AND I RESIDE AT 167 YUCCA DRIVE,
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, WITHIN THE ELDORADO MOBILE
HOME PARK. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE EL DORADO MOBILE
HOMEOWNERS CORPORATION THAT IS THE RESIDENT HOME
OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE EL DORADO RESIDENTS AND HAS
BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE 1983. SINCE ITS INCEPTION THE
ASSOCIATION HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE EL DORADO
RESIDENTS BEFORE NUMEROUS RENT CONTROL AND
CONVERSION PROCEDINGS AND COURT ACTIONS. I WISH TO
EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION FOR THE EFFORTS RENDERED BY
THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY ATTORNEYS AND STAFFS TO
MAINTAIN THE REASONABLE RENTS UNDER THE PALM SPRINGS
RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE THAT THE RESIDENTS PAY TO THE
PARK OWNER.
THIS EVENING ASSOCIATION VICE-PRESIDENT DOUGLAS CULTICE
AND MR. JOHN NEETE, A WELL RECOGNIZED CERTIFIED REAL
ESTATE APPRAISER, WILL ADDRESS YOU ON BEHALF OF THE
RESIDENTS. YOU HAVE BEEN Fi_JRNISED WITH COPIES OF MR. /(,/
NEETE'S APPRAISAL STATEMENT, BOTH MY AND DOUGLAS
CULTICE'S STATEMENTS, AND A LEGAL MEMORANDUM BY OUR
ATTORNEY WILLIAM CONTANTINE WHO ALONG WITH ROBERT
MCFADDEN REPRESENT OUR ASSOCIATION. MR. CONSTANTINE IS
UNABLE TO APPEAR THIS EVENING. HOWEVER, BEFORE MR.
NEETE AND COUGLAS CULTICE SPEAK I WOULD LIKE TO VERY
BRIEFLY REFER TO THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION, WHICH
BRINGS US BEFORE THE COUNCIL MEETING THIS EVENING. TO ME
ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE DECISION IS
WHERE THE COURT STATED THAT THE COURTS WILL NOT APPLY
THE LAW TO SHAM OR FAILED TRANSACTIONS IN ORDER TO
AVOID LOCAL RENT CONTROL. WHEN DOES THE TRANSACTION
BECOME A SHAM OR A METHOD TO AVOID LOCAL RENT
CONTROL? THE ANSWER IS WHEN THE PRICE PER LOT OR THE
]MARKET RENT OFFERED BY THE PARK OWNER IS SO HIGH AS TO
BECOME EXHORIBANT OR UNAFORDABLE. EL DORADO IS A
SENIOR PARK AND PROVIDES AFFORABLE LIVING TO THE PALM
SPRINGS RESIDENTS.
THE PRINCrPAL ISSUES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE
CONVERSION PROCEEDINGS ARE THE PRICE PER LOT, MARKET
RENT AND TERMINATION OF RENT CONTROL. THE PARK OWNER
HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD BE
INFORMED OF THESE PRICES ONLY AFTER THE CITY HAS
APPROVED THE CONVERSION. TONIGHT MR. NEETE WILL
DISCLOSE THE RESULTS OF HIS SURVEY. ANY LOT PRICE OR
MARKET RENT, GREATLY IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS
DISCLOSED TONIGHT BY MR. NEETE WILL ONLY SUPPORT AND
ENFORCE THE DISTRICT COURT'S PROHIBITION THAT THE COURTS
WILL NOT APPLY THE LAW TO A SHAM OR FAILED TRANSACTION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING LOCAL RENT CONTROL. MR.
CONSTANTINE IN HIS LEGAL MEMORANDUM PROPOSES ACTION
THAT THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS MAY TAKE AND STILL COMPLY
WITH THE COURT ORDER. I ASK THAT YOU GIVE SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION TO THIS PROPOSAL AND INCORPORATE HIS
RECOMMENDATIONS IN YOUR DECISION.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS E. CULTICE
361 CLUB CIRCLE DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
Mr. Mayor, Council members and staff. I would like to thank the City of Palm
Springs for the support they have shown to the residents of not only El Dorado,
but to all residents of Mobile Home Parks in Palm Springs - not only in the past
but in the future. We have been at this for many years and we have always
been treated with concern and courtesy. - We thank you.
Are we conceding to the law as presently written - NO M!
The appelant Court ruling said "This is not a legal matter, it is a legislative matter -
(Bad law). Being used as it was not intended to be used.
So we at El Dorado went to Sacramento. Through our lawyer, Will Constatine
and Maurry Priest, the attorny for the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, we
started an effort to change the law. With the support of many associations
through out the State an Amendment was sponsored by Senator Fred Keely
and supported by Senator Joe Dunn began it's rapid move through the Legislature.
It has been thru the Senate and the Assembly and is on the Governor's desk
for approval.
Unfortunatly when approved it will not take effect until January 1, 2003.
But it will be effective and insure that future conversions the resident's have a
chance to approve and that local agencies can use conditions if necessay. f�
d
No more forced conversions - no more potential Sham Conversions.
The local - Coachella Valley Cities, lead by the City of Rancho Mirage -
Mayor Gerber and Council Member Dana Hobart are persuing a conversion
ordinance that should be in place by the end of September. Other cities
are looking to do the same. Not just in the Coachella Valley, but all over
the State of California.
Palm Springs/El Dorado is the epic center of this whole movement.
The sleeping giant is awake and well.
Your decision tonight is a difficult one - full of constraints.
But it is your decision.
With that I say - Via Con Dios and thank you.
SEP 03 2002 4: 43PM 831 -469-9612 p. 1
Proceedings before the City Council of the
City of Palm Springs, Conducted September 4, 2002
In Re: El Dorado' s Tentative Track Map, Number 28087 ,
An Application for Tentative Track Map To Subdivide The
Existing 377 Space El Dorado Mobile Country Club for
Condominium Purposes
Legal Memorandum of The El Dorado Mobile Country
Club Homeowners' Association In Support of the Requested Action
Proposed By the El Dorado Mobile Country Club Homeowners' Association
Robert J. McFadden, Jr. William J. Constantine
(State Bar # 071883) • (State Bar # 135345)
McFadden & Associates 303 Potrero St, Suite 29-104
1111 E . Tahquitz Canyon Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Palm Springs , CA 92262 (831) 420-1238
(760) 327-4713 Fax (831) 469-9612
Attorney for Petitioner, Attorney for Petitioner,
El Dorado Mobile Country E1 Dorado Mobile Country
Club Homeowners Association Club Homeowners Association
� 7
, SEP 03 2002 4: 43PM 831 -469-9612 r. 2
I. INTRODUCTION
The City must now attdmpt to balance its mandate under Government Code Section
66427.5 and the conflicting mandates contained within the Fourth Appellate District Court of
Appeal's Opinion (hereafter the "Opinion")
The conflicts contained within in these mandates are easy to identify but they will be a
little more difficult to resolve. On the one hand, Section 66427.5 and the Opinion still
require the City to make sure that this conversion complies with the limited provisions of
Section 66427.5 that still requires the Park owner to protect the interests of nonpurchasing
residents through the rent increase provisions of Subsections (d)(1) &(2).
The Opinion also states to that the courts will not apply Section 66427.5 to "sham"
transactions or"to avoid a local rent control ordinance" (see page 16 and footnote 10 on page
17 of Opinion).
However, on the other hand,the Opinion then later states that the City lacked the
authority to impose the conditions that it had imposed to prevent such a "sham" conversion
from going forward.See (Opinion pp 16 & 1 S)
The Opinion then further hampered Section 66427.5's mandates by then also stating
that Section 66427.5 does not require the Park.Owner to disclose, at the time of filing its
Application, either the tentative purchase price for the individual lots or the market rent
which will eventually be charged to the non-purchasing residents. Instead, the Opinion
states that these disclosures do not have to be made until at some time prior to the subsequent
I
SEP 03 2002 4: 43PM 831 -469-9612 P. 3
filing of the Notice of Intention to Sell with the California Department of Real Estate
(hereafter the "DRE"). See, Opinion pp 39—40
II. THE CONFLICTING MANDATES OF SEC. 66427.5 AND THE QPIMQN
The problem that the City now faces, under these conflicting mandates imposed by the
Opinion, is as follows:
(1) How does the City make sure that this conversion complies with the provisions of
Subsections 66427.5(d)(1) and (2) given that the Park owner does not have to disclose to the
City the amount of the rent increases, that the Park owner intends to initiate after the
conversion, under these Subsections? (For example, how does the City make sure that the
amount of the allowed rent increase to "market level" rents, under Subsection 66427.5(d)(1),
meet that Subsection's rent increase limitation and that those "market level" rents also meet
the additional requirement of Subsection (d)(1) that such rents shall be determined by a
legitimate market appraisal "conducted in accordance with nationally recognized
professional appraisal standards, ')
(2) Since the Opinion states that the courts will not allow a "sham" conversion to go
forward, how does the City utilize the hearing process set forth under Section 66427.5 to
prevent such a"sham" conversion from going forward? (i.e. How does the City prevent the
Park owner from setting lot prices that are so unreasonably high that a legitimate conversion
will never occur given that the Opinion also states that the Park owner does not have to
disclose to the City the amounts that the lots will be offered for sale for?)
2
SEP. 03 2002 4: 43PM 831 -4S8-SG12 p. 4
III. PROPOSED CITY ACTION ON THE CONVERSION APPLICATION
The mobilehome owners respectfully submit to the City that the City should balance
its mandate under Section 66427.5 with the conflicting mandates imposed by the Opinion as
follows:
(1) Accept evidence into the record of this hearing, that will be submitted by a licensed
appraiser who has been hired by the homeowners, that demonstrates a determination of
"market level"rents,pursuant to the provisions of Subsection 66427.5(d)(1), that were
determined through a legitimate market appraisal.that was conducted in accordance with
nationally recognized professional appraisal standards. The Park owner should then be put
on notice by the City that if the"market level' rents that the Park owner subsequently
discloses, at that time.the conversion goes before the DRE, significantly vary from the
amounts determined in this appraisal and if those variances cannot be reasonably justified
(i.e. by market changes that have occurred during the time period between the hearing and
their disclosure) that the conversion will,then, be considered to be out of compliance with
the provisions of Subsection 66427.5(d)(1) and that the City, therefore, reserves the right to,
at that future time, pursue the appropriate legal remedies to enforce any violated provisions of
Subsection 66427.5(d)(1) that have been so discovered.
(2) Accept evidence into the record of this hearing, that will be submitted by the licensed
appraiser who has been hired by the homeowners, that demonstrates a determination of the
fair market values of the lots, that are to be offered for sale in this conversion, that was
3
SEP. 03 2002 4: 43PM 831 -469-9612 p. 5
conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards. The
Park owner should then be put on notice by the City that if the lot prices that the Park owner
subsequently discloses, at that time the conversion goes before the DRE, are significantly
higher then those determined by this appraisal and if those variances also cannot be
reasonably justified (i.e. by market changes that have occurred during the time period
between the hearing and their disclosure) and if those higher lot prices then result in such a
high number of the homeowners being unable to afford to purchase these lots that it results in
a true conversion to a legitimate resident own Park being unable to be achieved, that the
conversion will then be considered to be a "sham" conversion, as that term is so identified in
the Opinion, and that the City, therefore, reserves the right to, at that future point in time,
pursue the appropriate legal remedies that are suggested by the Opinion's statement that the
courts will not allow such "sham" conversions to-go forward.
IV CONCLUSION
The homeowners respectfully submit to the City that, under the legal analysis
summarized above, the above proposed actions are not only permissible under the Opinion
but are, in fact, required to be taken by the City in order to fulfill the mandate imposed upon
the City by the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5.
Dated: September 4, 2002,
Respectfully submitted,
William J. Constantine, Attorney for the El Dorado
Mobile Country Club Homeowners Association
4
JOHN P. NEET, MAI
APPRAISAL& CONSULTING SERVICES FOR MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES AND RV PARKS
August 30, 2002
El Dorado Mobilehome Owners Corporation
C/O Mr. Milton Flack
167 Yucca Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Re: El Dorado Mobile Home Park
Mr. Flack:
As requested and authorized, we have inspected the captioned property for the purposes of
conducting a limited scope appraisal, based in part upon hypothetical conditions. The scope
of the appraisal (further described below) was limited to the estimation of the market value of the
individual condominium interests, assuming the recording of a condominium map and regime
essentially similar to the other mobile home park condominiums in the Coachella Valley area
and the estimate of the economic rental value of the individual sites. The interests appraised are
those of the fee simple estate. As a result of our investigation and analysis, our conclusions as of
August 29, 2002 (the date of last inspection), and subject to the assumptions, certification, and
limiting conditions stated herein, are
AVERAGE MARKET SPACE RENTAL VALUE . . . .+/-$550.00/month
INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM INTEREST VALUE . . . . . .$55,0 10
This appraisal has been made in conformity with the Standards of Professional Practice and Code
of Ethics of the Appraisal Institute, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
(USPAP) and applicable state and federal govermnent regulations.
The scope of the appraisal is defined as lintited. This letter is part of the attached summary
report which contains short descriptions of the subject property, factual data, and my analysis of
that data upon which the value conclusion is predicated. Please refer to the limiting conditions,
certification, and assumptions contained on the following pages. The client is the person to
whom this letter is addressed, and this appraisal may not be used or relied on by anyone other
than the client, for any purpose whatsoever, without the express written consent of the
undersigned.
Respectfully subi 'tied, rj-
Tihn .N et, m
Kilfoyle
California Geneal Appraisal Certificate No. AGO0349 California General Appraisal Certificate No AGO05675
41919 MORENO ROAD, SUITE C P.O. Box 1379
TEMECULA, CA 92590 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531
(909) 695-0313 FAx(909) 494-4019 1Pneet@inland.net
JoHN P.NEEr,MAI
Scope of the Assignment
The subject property was inspected to determine the size and functional utility of the
improvements, overall quality, and current apparent condition. A detailed property inspection of
all structural and mechanical components is beyond the scope of the appraisal and the expertise
of the appraiser, and a complete inspection of the site and improvements by professionals in the
area of mechanical and structural items, geology, and enviromnental conditions is recommended.
Certain factual information regarding land use regulations, flood and earthquake zone
information, and other regulations was obtained from public information sources. A study of the
local rental market was made for the purposes of determining current market conditions and
economic rental rates. Recent sales of similar condominium interests were reviewed, confirmed
to the extent possible, and analyzed to provide relevant comparisons to the proposed
condominium interests in the subject property'.
Property Identification
Street Address: 6000 E. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262 (Park)
Assessors Parcel Number: 681-320-010 (Park)
Legal Description: Not Available.
Interest Appraised
Fee Simple. No encumbrances other than typical police powers of government agencies are
considered in the valuation. Refer to Specific Assumptions and Notices in the rear of the report.
Purpose and Intended Use of the Appraisal
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the approximate market value of the proposed
individual condominium units to be subdivided in the subject property, based on information
available at this time arid the assumption that the rights associated with individual condominium
interests will be similar to those in other parks in this market area; and to estimate the economic
rental value of the rental sites in the subject property. It is our understanding that this appraisal
and report will be used by the client as a basis for negotiations with the owner of the subject
property and govermnent agencies regarding the conversion.
Appraisal Record Dates
Date of Last Inspection and Effective Date of Appraisal: August 29, 2002
Date of Report Writing: September 3, 2002
Classification: Contemporaneous
The condominium regime is not currently in force, and the legal documents that establish the condominium and
govern its operation were not available for review. The appraisal assumes that the condominium will be
established in a manner typical for other parks in this market area. The individual condominium unit value
estimate is a hypothetical value estimate, as the units are not yet legally established or able to be sold.
2
JoHN P.NEEr,MAI
General Regional Physical and Economic Conditions
The Coachella Valley is located in the eastern, desert portion of Riverside County. This portion
of the County generally extends between the San Jacinto Mountains and I-10 south from the
Banning Pass area to the northern end of the Salton Sea area. Included are the cities of Palm
Springs, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Rancho Mirage, Iudian Wells, Indio, and
Coachella. Desert Hot Springs is nominally a part of the Coachella Valley, but is subject to
different trends.
In the Coachella Valley portion of the County, the current population is estimated to be,
approximately 260,000 and is projected by the state to increase to 500,000 by 2010. There is a
large seasonal component to the desert area population, with winter visitors swelling the
population in the valley to 373'0002.
The economy of the Coachella Valley is somewhat less diversified than the western portions of
the economy, with heavier reliance on agricultural and tourism/recreation services and lesser
dependence on manufacturing than in the west. There are over 80 golf courses in the Coachella
Valley, as well as a number of major resort hotels and other destination businesses. Job creation
tends to be higher in the northern portion of the valley than in the southern portion, with current
unemployment levels ranging from 1.36% in Palm Desert and 2.9% in Palm Springs to 4.47%
and 2.99% in Indio and Coachella, respectively, where there is a stronger dependence on
agricultural sectors than on the tourism sectors which dominate the communities located north of
Indio.
Neighborhood Description
The subject property is located in a small pocket of Palm Springs that is surrounded on thee sides
by properties located in the Cathedral City. Most of the properties in the immediate
neighborhood are located within Cathedral City. Land uses in the neighborhood are varied,
similar to much of the trend in the Coachella Valley, and include conunercial uses along Palm
Canyon Drive (Highway I11), a variety of residential developments (including detached
residences, apartments, mobile home parks), and several golf courses. For the most part, the
neighborhood is fully built-out, but there are a number of smaller, in-fill sites available for
development.
Overview of Market Specific Conditions
Neighborhood Demographics-According to information provided by the Census Bureau, this is
a middle income neighborhood, with a median household income of$46,366 as compared to the
median household income for the MSA ($50,300). The neighborhood does have a sizeable
population (12%+) that reports household income below poverty line levels.
Housing Prices-According to Dataquick Information Services, the median housing price for Zip
Code 92262 is $353,000 (April 2002). This represents a change of$66,3000 (23.13%) in the past
year from $286,700 reported in April 2001.
Coachella Valley Economic Development Corporation
3
JoHN P.Nor,MAI
An informal survey of apartment developments in the neighborhood indicate the following price
ranges:
• Apartment^Rental Rate'Ranges -
Size Rate Range
1 Bedroom 775 to 855
2 Bedroom $915 to $950
3 Bedroom $975 to $1,050
Park Space Rental Market-The survey of most similar parks in the neighborhood reveals a
mixed picture. Most of the parks surveyed report high occupancy, with a few exceptions. One
park (Blue Heaven) was purchased by the City of Rancho Mirage and is being closed down
through attrition, with only 18 of 51 spaces still occupied. There are very few parks that report
high vacancy rates, including several parks built in the late 1980's that never achieved stabilized
occupancy levels and several parks that lost occupancy due to foreclosure pullouts during the late
recession. Vacant spaces in many of the other parks that report moderate to high levels of
vacancy are generally smaller singlewide spaces.
Rents cover a wide range, generally from $200 to over $800 per month. ID the competitive
market district, all three cities (Palm Springs, Cathedral City, and Rancho Mirage) have rent
control ordinances, a factor that tends to expand the range of rental rates within a given park.
Some of the parks in these communities are located on Indian land (ground leases), and are not
subject to the rent control ordinance of the community, but do have economic limitations on the
rent that they can charge to the competition with rent controlled parks The upper limit rental rates
are set by several good quality, amenity rich parks in the area with rents as high as $800 per
month.
Alternative Housing Cost Comparison
Median Priced Two Three
Detached Used Mfg. New Mfg. Bedroom Bedroom
Housing Cost Comparison Home Home in Park Home in Park Apt. Apt.
Purchase Price 353, 00 30,000
oan mount 335,350 24,000 63,000 -
Interestate 6.50 0 12.00 0 10.50 0
mortization(Months) 360 180 000 Monthly P&I Cost $2,119.64 $288.04 594 3
Rent an pt. $400 $400 $900 $1,000
Monthly Equivalent Housing
Cost(1)
$2,120 $688 $995 $900 $1,000
Down Payment 17,650 6,000 7,000 0 0
equre ncome 101 4343 33,026 47,752 43,200 48,000
Me o nc. 46,366
(1) Monthy gwva ent ousing Cost does not include taxes,insurance, utilities,maintenance
(2)Based on 25%maximum housing cost as a percentage of total household income.
This comparison indicates that mobile home park living is an affordable alternative to the
purchase of a detached residence, and is cost competitive with apartment living in the rent
controlled markets. In this market, a pricing advantage for mobile home park alternatives over
4
JO N P.NEEr,MAI
apartments is necessary to achieve success in the absorption of product. Such an advantage exists
for older, used homes, but not for new placements. The market reflects these preferences, with
good demand expressed for older homes but only limited amount of new placements are
reported.
Investment Market-Typically, manufactured housing communities are in high demand among
investors for a variety or reasons. The most salient of those reasons includes the stable nature of
the investment, the predictability of future cash flows, and the high demand for affordable
housing in California. Possible negative issues include the existence or the potential for rent
control in any community in the state, aging infrastructure in many parks, and price competition
with other forms of housing. However, mobile home parks have remained a more stable
investment property than other forms of investment real estate, and have become attractive
investment vehicles for a variety of large and small investors.
Interviews with brokers, lenders, and other market participants indicate that there is a Substantial
number of investors active in the market. While investors are tending to place significant reliance
on current occupancy and historically proven income, there is recognition in some cases of
significant upside potential. In markets where vacant spaces are in short supply, investors have
paid higher prices for parks that have immediate upside, but have also been more circumspect in
the analysis of parks with Cop-of-the-market income streams, controlled rents, or price
competition from other forms of housing. Like many other markets, the investment market is
currently characterized by buyers and sellers who rely on research and the completion of proper
due diligence before making a pricing decision. This is a change from years past, in which
investors placed greater weight on future potential income.
The size of the market and the motivation of participants have seen significant changes over the
past several years. Resident owner groups, conversion facilitators, non-profit organizations, and
in some cases municipal agencies have all competed with typical investors for the purchase of
many parks in this market area, and have made successful purchases. This trend is expected to
continue, as many sellers are retiring owners who are seeking non-traditional exit strategies that
will not result in the immediate need to reinvest or to pay significant taxes on the sale.
Site Description
Location- North side of Palm Canyon Drive, east of Cree Road.
Size- 49.78 Acres (Per Assessors Records)
Dimensions- Refer to Assessors Plat Map in Addenda
Shape- Irregular
Topography- Essentially level
Utilities- All available to site.
Street Access- Provided by Palm Canyon Drive.
5
JoHN P.NEM MM
Functional Utility- Adequate size, developable shape and topography noted. Site
appears to have adequate to good functional utility for many uses.
Zoning- R-MHP This conforms to the General Plan, which indicates
residential uses within a density range of up to 15 dwelling units
per acre. Permitted density under the zoning is 8.7 du/acre.
Required parking is based upon the proposed use. For
manufactured housing community development, the required
parking would amount to 2 spaces per site. A conditional use
permit is not required for development of a manufactured housing
community in this zone.
Adverse Influences- The subject's site is located in a flood zone AO and B per flood
map number 060257-009D dated July 7, 1999. Flood insurance is
required and is available. This will be a negative factor in the
purchase decision and marketing of the individual lots.
Description of Improvements
Year Built- 1973
Number of Sites- 377
ensity- 7.6 dwelling units per acre.
Overall Quality- Good.
Interior Streets- Asphaltic Concrete with center drains, rolled concrete curbs and
gutters. The streets are considered to be in good condition.
Electrical Service- 100 arnp service is provided to each site.
Utility Metering- Gas: Submetered by park
Electricity: Directly metered by utility
Water: Distributed by park
Landscaping- Limited to areas around entrance and recreation center; overall
average in quality, well maintained.
Recreational Amenities- Pool, spa, clubhouse with auditorium; kitchen; card room and
billiard room, lighted tennis courts, covered shuffleboard area.
Space Sizes- All of the spaces will accommodate a modern 24' wide double
unit. No spaces will only accommodate a singlewide unit.
Security Features- Gated entry with electronic controls at the front and a remotely
operated gate at the rear of the prgject.
Functional Utility- Good
Condition- Good
6
JoHN P.NEEr,MAI
Park Management and Dwelling Unit Profile
Age Limitation- Senior (55+)
Unit Types & Sizes- Predominantly doublewide
Sales & Resales- No ongoing sales program, park is stabilized. Resale prices are
currently reported in range of$25,000 to $89,000 with a
predominant value of$49,000.
Rules Enforcement- Good. No significant deferred maintenance or other negative issues
noted on leased homesites.
History of the Property
According to the Riverside County Assessors Records, the current owners purchased the subject
property in 1986 for $7,500,000. The resident owners group stated that an offer to purchase was
made in 1996 in the amount of $13,00,000, but a deal was not able to be negotiated with the
owner. The property does not appear to be currently listed for sale. No other transactions are
known. According to information provided, the asking price for the condominium units has not
yet been revealed by the owner.
Highest And Best Use
As Vacant-Legally permissible uses of the site include mobile home parks under the current
zoning. The second filter of physically possible uses does not further narrow the list of uses. In
determining financial feasibility, we have considered recently developed mobile home parks in
this market area have not been well accepted by the market. Under these circumstances, the
financially feasible uses include the holding of the site for future development as demand perniits
for the permitted use, or the seeking of a zoning change. The maximally productive use is
considered to be the holding of the site as an investment pending a zoning change or a change in
market conditions that would support mobile home park development. Based on this analysis, the
highest and best use as though vacant is concluded to be a holding use.
As Improved-The existing improvements do not suffer from substantial physical or functional
obsolescence. While it is physically possible for the subject to be converted to vacant land for
some other form of development, the type of development permitted and the characteristics of
the development (including density) cannot be determined at this time due to the necessity to
seek municipal approval for such a change. Accordingly, a valuation based on a change in
permitted use would be speculative and unreliable. In addition, this market rarely purchases
properties on the basis of a proposed change in use except in the case of very small, older and
functionally obsolete parks in high land cost areas. Since the subject does not meet this
description, it is doubtful that potential land value would drive a transaction for this property.
Accordingly, the highest and best use of the subject property is to continue the present use.
7
JoHN P. NEET,MM
Valuation Process
Two valuation problems are addressed in this limited scope appraisal, described as follows:
• Condominium Unit Valuation-The limited scope valuation of the proposed condominium
units was accomplished utilizing the Sales Comparison Approach. Sales of individual
condominium and PUD sites in manufactured housing communities were sought out and
verified to the extent possible utilizing public record information and interviews with local
real estate brokers, project specialists, and Multiple Listing Service.
• Site Economic Rental Rate Valuation-The estimate of the rental value of the individual
sites was accomplished by the acquisition of market data through interviews with local
managers and park owners.
Condominium Site Valuation
Resident owned mobile home parks fall into two basic categories.
1. In condominium and PUD communities, the individual residents own a transferable right in
real estate. Differences between condominium and PUD units are significant, condominium
ownership provides an undivided interest of the entire property and gives an exclusive right
to use a specific area (plot or restricted common area) or airspace, PUD ownership grants title
to a specific lot with a right to shared use the greater common interest areas. In both cases,
the owner of the homesite is able to transfer real estate ownership. Both condominium and
PUD units can be financed using conventional lenders, but financing is typically easier to
obtain for PUD units than for condominium units. But both styles of ownership can be
effected with intrusive or abnormal CC&Rs or high HOA dues which can limit marketability.
2. Cooperative parks are held under the ownership of a non-profit, mutual benefit corporation.
Residents each own up to one share in the non-profit corporation and pay rent to the owning
entity. Ownership is evidenced by a share rather than a real estate deed. Significantly, the
individual shares are virtually impossible to finance, and any financing of the purchase by the
residents is tied to single entity ownership of the whole park.
Comparisons in this case are limited to manufactured housing community lot sales that fall into
the first category, as share sales are considered not to be an indication of real estate value.
Several condominium and PUD parks in the Coachella Valley were surveyed in an effort to
discern current market trends and pricing. As might be expected, actual sales data was limited.
Three types of sales were found, including sales of vacant sites available for the placement of
ianufactured homes, sales of "teardown" mobile home units that were purchased for clearing
and replacement of the housing unit, and sales of sites improved with modern, functional
manufactured houses from which the unit prices could be extracted by using residual methods. In
this valuation, only sales of vacant sites and sales of marginally improved sites with teardown
manufactured homes were considered as predictive of market conditions.
Sources of data included the tax assessor's records of Riverside County, interviews with local
real estate brokers and local MLS data. Additional sales data were found in the MPROP
8
JoHN P.NEEr,MM
application for finding, but these sales could not be verified as factually correct or indicative of
lot or condominium unit sales prices. The data is summarized for each of the parks considered
Palm Desert Greens-This is very good quality, golf course based commnity located in Palm
Desert. A senior park, Palm Desert Greens was built in 1975 and contains 1,922 spaces. The
form of ownership is a PUD, in which the resident owns a fee interest in the site plus a pro-rata
share of the common area. Homeowners Association Dues are approximately $152 per month.
Amenities include 3 pools, 3 spas, a clubhouse, an 18-hole golf course, and security gating.
There are only a few vacant sites in the park. All of the vacant sites are under individual
ownership, and are not offered for sale. The purchase of a site with a depreciated mobile home
(to be removed) is the only way to acquire a site in this park.
Public record data is not considered to be reliable in this park. Persons familiar with the real
estate market in this community report that it is common practice in transactions involving
improved sites for the sales price of the site to be recorded in the $40,000 range to lessen future
real estate tax liability and this is reflected in the average lot value is reported at $41,000 in the
Assessors records.
Rita Smith of Prudential California Realty indicated that it is not uncommon to pull older
coaches off the premium sites in this development and install a new home. To her, the land value
is the total sales price but this is less likely on the non-premium sites. As such, the low end of
the value range of active listings of improved properties is from $119,000 to $124,000. While a
pending sale in `as-is" condition offered as land value was on the market for $99,990.
An estate sale noted as a good replacement potential is on the market for $119,900. The lowest
sold improved property closed for cash on 6/27/02 for $84,500 and was exposed to the market
for 67-days, while other replacement potential (tear-down) properties sold on the golf course for
$130,000. The best indicator though is the vacant lot, which is on a cul-de-sac and backs to a
greenbelt. This would be rated as better than typical site. It closed escrow on 8/16/02 and sold for
$88,000. Peggy wick verified this sale and noted there are no other vacant lots have sold this
year and also indicated all the lots in this development are larger than the subjects. Given this lot
sale, and the lowest priced improved pending sale, the improvements on the pending sales are
likely add $10,000 to $35,000 to the site, as in some cases improved lots marketed as tear-downs
end up being remodeled for continued use. As such improved sales indicate that there is value in
the improvements, despite agent continents to the contrary. Improvements on less desirable sites
tend to be retained and be improved by the new owner. This means that the improved sale noted
above on 6/7/02 indicated a likely site value of$60,000 to $65,000.
By comparison, Palm Desert Greens is considered to be significantly superior to the subject This
park is of higher quality, has a superior amenity package, and is comprised of PUD sites (which
are easier to obtain financing for). This sale set an absolute upper limit of value for the sites in
the subject at less than $60,000.
Portola Country Club-This is a good quality community featuring a strong amenity package
(including an 18-hole golf course). The park includes 498 sites, and almost all of the sites have
9
JoHNP. NE,r,MM
been improved. Other amenities include 3 pools and 2 terns courts. Unlimited golf play is
included in the monthly HOA dues of$190 per month (which also includes trash collection and
basic cable television service). Typically, none-golf course located improved properties sell for
$115,000 to $122,000 while improved homes with golf course locations top out at $194,000.
The low end of the value range of active listings of improved properties is from $115,000 but
there are two pre-1976 homes on the golf course listed for sale at $139,500 and $145,990
respectively. Golf course lots bring an approximate $25,000 location premium.
With the exception of the superior amenity package, this park is considered overall similar to the
subject. There are no vacant lost sales or listings but there have been a number of transactions
involving site/home combinations.
By comparison, this park is considered slightly superior to the subject, although that is only as a
result of the golf course. In most other respects, the two parks are fairly similar. As a result, this
sale would tend to mark an immediate upper limit for the sites in the subject, given the golf
course influence and the PUD interest transferred. The lack of actual land sales data limits the
reliability of site sale prices inferred from this park, but the most active agent in this development
indicated that $65,000 for a non-golf course location is her best estimate of the appropriate price
that a vacant site would sell for. This also tends to set an upper limit indication.
Portola Palms-This is an average to good quality community with a moderate amenity package.
There is no secured entry to the park, and maintenance is considered average to good. The Palm
Desert RDA assisted in the conversion of the park. Typically, house-lot combinations sell for
$33,000 to $80,000 in this park. The park includes 142 spaces and was converted in 1994. HOA
dues are $131 per month. One vacant site sold in 2002 and one in 2001 for $25,500 by the RDA.
This sets a lower limit of value for the proposed condominium sites in the subject at the $25,000
level, but limited weight is given to these agency-involved transactions.
Blue Skies Village-Located in Rancho Mirage, this park was converted in 1996. The amenity
package is moderate, with a clubhouse and pool, and a small practice golf facility. The HOA
dues are reported at $150 per month. Like the proposal for the subject, this is a condominium
park and is not a PUD. Overall, this park is considered inferior to the subject. A majority of the
combination lot and coach sales are reported in the $15,000 to $75,000 range in this park.
Original sales to residents were made in the $27,500 to $28,000 range, but were made
approximately 5 to 6 years ago.
This park would tend to suggest a lower limit indication in the $28,000 to $35,000 range for the
condominium sites in the subject.
10
JoHN P.Nor,MAI
Conclusion-By comparison to the sales of condominium units and PUD homesites in the parks
surveyed, a value indication in the range of $35,000 to $65,000 is derived by the bracketing
comparison. By comparison, the subject is thought to offer an amenity, quality, and condition
package that falls below the upper end suggested by Portota Country Club and Palm Desert
Greens, but substantially above the level indicated by the transactions in Portola Palms and Blue
Skies Village. As the support appears to be greater at the upper end of the range, we have
concluded that within the scope limitations of this assignment, the market value should fall into
the market value should fall to approximately $55,000 per unit, with some fluctuations possible
as a result of location or size issues.
Exposure Time-Exposure time is defined as that period of time that the subject is offered for
sale prior to the sale of the property at the value estimated above. Exposure time, by definition,
predates the appraisal date stated above. The accurate projection of exposure time for a
commercial property of the subject's complexity is virtually impossible due to the limited size of
the market, variables in the market, and other factors. Brokers in this market indicate that most
sites sell in a 6-month or less time frame The market value estimated herein presumes an
exposure time of 6 months or less, which appears to be a reasonable assumption.
Rental Value
Market Rental Survey-The following chart summarizes the findings of the rental survey.
Quantitative adjustments are made for the differences in the provision of utilities and other
services, while differences in quality, appeal, amenities, and other qualitative differences are
discussed following.
t1
JoHN P.Nor,MM
Comparable Rental Data
RENTAL DATA NO. _ 1 ubject 2. _ 3 .4 _6 _ 6
ora a obie anyon ate am ountry ail ands uncresf Country Indian pangs Palm Desert Mobile Rancho rage MHP
Home Park Community Club Mobile Country Club MHP Estates
ADDRESS 6000 E Palm 34400 Cathedral 36-200 Date Palm 35-100 Date Palm 73450 Country Club 49305 Highway 74, 43-101 Portola 69975 Frank Sinatra
Canyon Drive,Palm Canyon Drive, Dnve,Cathedral Cky Drive,Calhetlral Cdy Driver Palm Desert Palm Desert Avenue,Palm Drive Rancho
Springs Cathedral City Desetl Mirage
APPROX.AGE4
+- 1+-
AGE RESTRICTION Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Unrestricted Unrestricted Unrestricted
SINGLEWIDF SPACES 1%) 0% 0% 0% N/A 0% 0% 0°h 7%
SINGLEWIDF UNITS(%) 0% 1% 0% N/A 0% 0% 95% 30%
OCCUPANCY 100% 94% 98% 100% 90% 100% 100% 88%
PARK SERVIC ES,FEAT U oo, pa, oos, pa, oos, pas, oo, pa, cos, pas, oo, pa, ool. Pa, co, pa, auna,
AMENITIES Recreation Center, Tennis,Recreation Tennis Courts, Recreation Center, Saunas,Recreation Recreation Center, Recreation Center, Shuffleboard,
Terms,Launtlry Center,aundry Recreation Center,3 Laundry Facildles, Center,Laundry Laundry Facilities, Shuffleboard, Laundry Facilities,
Facilites,RV Laundry Facilities, RV Storage Facilities,RV Shuffleboard,RV Laundry Families, RV Storage
Storage RV Storage,Golf Storage,Golf Storage RV Storage
Course Course
VEHICLE
RENTAL RATES:
RENT RANGE-LOW $382.08 $470CD $62500 $35584 $41100 5370.00 $29500 S430A0
RENT RANGE-HIGH $496 80 $560 00 $885 00 $355 84 375500 $660 00 $37000 $43000
APPROX.AVG.RENT $39686 $50000 $625.00 $35584 $411,00 $38000 $32000 $430.00
TRANSFER RATE-LOW $382.08 $47000 $62500 $35584 $41100 $37000 $29800 5430.00
TRANSFER RATE-HIGH $496 80 1100 $885 00 $355 84 $69800 $380 00 5330 00 5430 00
NEW MOVE-IN RATE>LOW $38208 $47000 $62500 $35584 $41100 $38422 $29500 $430.00
NEW MOVE-IN RATE-HIGH $49680 $47000 $885m $35584 $69800 $38422 $37000 $43000
LESSOR PAID SERVICES -ter, ras one Trach ewer None Water None Water,Trash
ADJUSTMENT 1 1
ADJUSTED RATES:
RENT RANGE-LOW $38205 $49000 $63500 $365.84 $43100 $380.00 $31500 543000
RENT RANGE-HIGH $49680 5580 00 $895 00 $365 84 $775 00 $670 00 $39000 5430.00
APPROX.AVG.RENT $39686 $52000 $63500 $36584 $43100 $39000 $34000 $430.00
TRANSFER RATE-LOW $382.08 $490 00 $63500 $365 84 $431 00 $380 00 5318 00 5430.00
TRANSFER RATE-HIGH $49660 $586.00 $89500 536584 $71800 $39000 $35000 $43000
NEW MOVE-IN RATE-LOW $38208 $49000 $635.00 $36584 $431.00 $39422 531500 $43000
NEW MOVE-IN RATE-HIGH $49680 $470.00 $885.00 $35584 $69800 $38422 $37000 $43000
COMMENTS e vacant spaces Interior ols: 1 vacant p ark owne n-noi ots. etwo par ed own a -spat - he -storage is
were being filled at a comer lot$675,Golf coache for Golf Course $700 coaches are stoage yard is fully for residents only
rate of I-every two Course.$825,golf managers unit Tnere is a new occupied by the ranted &new Most of the leases
weeks with only new course cul-de-sac Coaches range from coach move-in mangers homes in the Iasi 2.5 are 5-years
homes $885 There is a new$19000 to$30,000 incentive of three years The rent
coach move-in months free rent at increase is based on
incentive of se, lease signing There 75%of the LA-CPI
months free rent at are two pare,ownetl Index
lease signing No coaches which are
rent control for this ranted Rental
park since it is amount not
located on Indian disclosed
land
12
joHN P.NEEr,MM
Municipal Rent Control-The City of Palm Springs does have a rent control ordinance. The
provisions of the municipal rent control ordinance govern the subject property. The primary
features of the ordinance include the following:
Exceptions: Spaces constructed after 4/l/79, RV parks, resident owned parks, and
subsidized units among others.
Base Rent: Rent as of 9/l/79
Maximum Increase: 75% of the Los Angeles CP1
Decontrol at Tenant Change: Not available to mobile home parks
Landlord's Appeal: Landlord may appeal to rent control commission to increase rents as to
provide a fair return ou the investment
This rent control ordinance is moderate by comparison to other ordinances found in various
communities in California. The fact that an automatic increase is allowed is considered a slight
positive for park owners, but the fact that such an increase is not allowed to keep up with general
inflation is not considered as attractive to owners. This ordinance is less onerous to owners those
ordinances which require all rental increases to be submitted to a rent control commission, but
inferior to those ordinances which allow the space rent to be decontrolled at a change in the
tenant or allow full CPI increases. Ordinances such as these bestow a benefit on the residents, in
that rents are not allowed to increase by the full inflationary amount, and by the lack of decontrol
at the change of tenancy.
Comments on Market Data-The concept of economic rent requires unfettered negotiation
between lessor and lessee. In a land lease community, this negotiation only occurs when a tenant
rents a vacant site, as in all other rental transactions there are factors that limit the reliability of
the rent paid as an indicator of economic rent. Examples include:
• If a new tenant moves into a home that was purchased by the previous tenant, the rent is not
considered an indication of economic rent because there are actually two transactions, the
space rental and the purchase of the home. A low space rent can influence the price of the
home upwards, or vice versa.
• If a tenant purchases a home from the park owner, a similar circumstance occurs. Some
lessors prefer to sell the home at a lower price to insure a higher rent from the tenant. Or the
opposite may occur.
• If the space to be rented is subject to rent control which does not extinguish as a result of the
change of tenancy, there is no negotiation and hence no indication of economic rent.
As a result, in the following analysis, most weight has been given to the "new move-in" rates as
au indication of market rent.
In addition, we have included both senior limited and all-age parks in the survey in order to cover
the breadth of the market.
Qualitative Considerations-Following consideration of differences in the provision of utilities,
the range of rents found in the survey is very broad. Parks with golf courses set the upper limit,
13
JoBN P.NEEr,MM
and the highest rents are in those parks. Eliminating the golf course lots tightens the range
somewhat, and the most competitive senior limited sites are found in the range of$360 to $635
per month (adjusted). This wide range is a function of both differing quality and the influence of
the local rent control ordinances.
The most salient data for determining local market rental rates is found in Rental Data No. 3,
Date Palm Country Club. This park is physically superior to the subject, primarily due to the
amenity package, so the rental rate offered for the non-golf course sites in this park ($640 on a
similar expense basis as the subject) would set the upper limit. Given the fact that a 6-month free
rent incentive is offered for the rental of these sites, the indicated rental value for the subject
should fall below this level. Market rental rates would tend to be significantly higher than in the
physically similar parks that are subject to rent control.
Conclusion of Economic Rental Rates-Based on this analysis, we have concluded an average
economic rental rate for the spaces in this park to be within the range of$500 to $600 per month.
We would expect that there might be slight differences within the park based on location and lot
size, but these differences would be minimal. We have concluded that current economic rent for
the sites in the subject property are best estimated at a rate of $550 per month.
14
JOT-IN P.NEET,MM
DEFINITIONS
Market Value- The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market
under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and
knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is
the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under
conditions whereby:
Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best
interests;
A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
Payment is made in cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements
comparable thereto; and
The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or
creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 3
Fee Simple- An absolute fee; a fee without limitations to any particular class of heirs, or restrictions, but
subject to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation; an inheritable estate.
Leased Fee- An ownership interest, held by a landlord, with the right of use and occupancy conveyed by
lease to others; usually consists of the right to receive rent and the right to possession of the property
following the expiration of the lease.
Leasehold- A property held under the tenure of a lease. The right of use and occupancy of real property
by virtue of a lease agreement; the right of a lessee to use and enjoy real estate for a stated term and upon
certain conditions, such as payment of rent.
RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE AND USE
This appraisal report is addressed to persons with significant knowledge and understanding of
commercial real estate, and may not be understood by persons without competent knowledge in
this area. This appraisal report has been prepared for the exclusive benefit of the client to whom
the report is addressed. The client may, at discretion, provide complete copies to other parties.
However, the appraisal may not be used or relied upon by any other party except the addressee-
client. Any party who uses or relies upon any information in this report, without the preparers
written consent, does so at his own risk. Any person intending to rely on the contents or
conclusions of the appraisal report should contact the appraiser before reliance upon this report.
Neither all nor any part of the contents of this appraisal report shall be conveyed to any person or entity,
other than the appraiser's client through advertising, solicitation materials, public relations, news, sales,
or other media without the written consent and approval of the author, particularly as to value
conclusions, the identity of the appraiser, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI
designation. Further, the appraiser or firm assumes no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third
party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone but the client, the client shall make such party aware
of all the assumptions and limiting conditions of the assignment.
3Sow ec. FI RRGA Tale XI,Secnan 34 42(Q
15
JOHN P.Nam;MAI
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
The Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute
requires the appraiser to "clearly and unequivocally set forth all facts, assumptions, and conditions upon
which the appraisal is based." In compliance with this requirement, and to assist the reader in
interpreting this report, the general assumptions and limiting conditions are set forth as follows:
1] The date to which the conclusions and opinions expressed in the report apply is set forth in the body of
this report. Further, the dollar amount of any opinion herein rendered is based upon the purchasing power
of the American dollar as of that date;
2] The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, however, no warranty is given for its
accuracy.
3] 1 reserve the right to make such adjustments to the analyses, opinions, and conclusions set forth in this
report as may be required by consideration of additional data or more reliable data that may become
available.
4] No opinion as to the validity of the title is rendered. Title is assumed to be marketable, free and clear
of all liens and encumbrances, easements and restrictions, except those specifically discussed in the
report.
5] The property is appraised assuming that is under responsible ownership and competent management.
6] All engineering is assumed to be correct. The plot plans and illustrative material in this report are
included only to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
7] It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, the subsoil, or
structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for
arranging the engineering studies that may be required to discover such conditions.
81 It is assumed that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local environmental
regulations and laws unless non-compliance is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report.
9] It is assumed that all zoning and use regulations and resirictions have been complied with, unless a
non-conformity is stated, defined, and considered in the appraisal report.
101 It is assumed that all licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents or other legislative or
administrative authority from any national, state, or local government or private entity or organization
have been or can be obtained for any use upon which the value estimate contained in this report is based.
11] It is assumed that the utilization of land and improvements is within the boundaries or property lines
of the land described and that there is no trespass or encroachment except as noted in the report.
12] No opinion is expressed as to the value of the subsurface oil, gas, or mineral rights or whether the
property is subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials, except as expressly
stated.
13] No opinion is expressed for matters that require legal, engineering, or other specialized knowledge
beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers.
141 No responsibility is assumed for determining the effect of possible natural disasters or other such
occurrences upon the individual property.
16
JoHN P. Nor,MM
15] The distribution, if any, of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies
only under the stated program of utilization. The separate allocations for land and buildings must not be
used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.
16] 1 am not required to give further consultation, testimony, or to be in attendance in court with
reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. The client is
notified that any such further consultation, testimony, or attendance in court will be at my discretion and
will be predicated upon the payment of an additional fee.
17] No termite inspection report was provided. It is presumed that there is not significant termite damage
or infestation unless otherwise stated.
18] No consideration has been given to the value of any personal property located upon the subject
property, except as otherwise stated in the report.
19] Any income and expense data relating to the subject property that has been provided is assumed to be
accurate as presented.
20] The plans and specifications upon which this valuation is predicated, are assumed to show the intent
of the builder, but I assume no responsibility for the correctness, or for ally undisclosed modifications.
21] The issue of compliance with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is beyond the scope of this
appraisal. It is my recommendation that the client retain the services of a qualified expert in the field of
ADA compliance to determine if the property conforms to the requirements of the ADA, and to
determine the impact of noncompliance upon the use and utility of the subject improvements. The
appraiser assumes the compliance of the subject property to the ADA, as such knowledge is beyond my
knowledge and expertise.
221 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS DISCLAIMER-The following disclaimer is made in accordance
with Guide Note 8 adopted by the Governing Council of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
on May 3, 1989 and Advisory Opinion G-9 issued by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal
Foundation on December 8, 1992; and is intended to provide notice to the client of my Zack of knowledge
and expertise in the area of environmental hazards.
Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation
asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl's, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which may or may
not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor
did I become aware of such during the inspection. I have no knowledge of the existence of such materials
on or in the property unless otherwise stated. I am not qualified to test such substances or conditions. It is
recommended that that client consult with an environmental hazard expert before making any decision
regarding this property. The value estimated is predicated upon the assumption that there is no such
condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that would cause a loss in value. No
responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise of knowledge required to
discover them.
The appraiser is not an expert in the field of hazardous materials. This appraisal does not constitute an
expert inspection of the property for environmental or health hazards. The only way to be certain as to
the condition of the property with respect to "environmental hazards" is to have an expert in the field
inspect the property. This appraisal should not be relied upon as to whether environmental hazards
exist on or near the property. It is the appraiser's recommendation that a Phase 1 Environmental
Assessment be obtained on this or any other property prior to making any monetary decision
involving the property to determine the potential for environmental hazards.
17
JouN P. NEEL MAI
SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS/NOTICES
• This is a limited scope appraisal. The primary reason for the limitation of scope is the incomplete
nature of the condominium conversion. Please refer to the "scope" statement found elsewhere in the
appraisal report.
• The method of transmitting the results of the appraisal is referred to as a sun7nv7ry report, under
USPAP. The intent of this report is smnmarize the data and analysis in the appraisal process in a
manner that may be Understood by persons familiar with the property, without providing the
substantial detail that would be necessary in a self contained appraisal report. The reader of this
report should be aware of the limitations imposed by the above appraisal report choices, and must
understand that the report was prepared for persons familiar with the property type being appraised,
(lie market in which the property competes, and the physical description of the property.
' 18
JoHN P.NEST,MAI
CERTIFICATION
I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief:
• The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
• The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and
limiting conditions, and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions,
and conclusions.
• 1 have no present or prospective interest in the properly that is the subject of this report, and no
personal interest with respect to the parties involved.
• 1 have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report, and 1 have no personal
interest with respect to the parties involved with this assignment.
• My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined
results.
• My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or
reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of a client, the amount
of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event
directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.
• My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of
Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute, the Uniform Standards of Appraisal Practice
(USPAP), and if applicable, the requirements of Title XI of FIRREA (Federal Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989).
• John P. Neet, MAI and Tim Kilfoyle have made a personal inspection of the properly that is the
subject of this report.
• No one provided significant professional assistance to the signatory of the report. Gail Dearing
assisted in the collection and verification of factual data, but did not participate in the analysis nor
the forming of the professional opinions stated herein.
• The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its
duly authorized representatives.
• As of the date of this report I, John P.Neet, MAI have completed the requirements of the continuing
education program of the Appraisal Institute.
• As required by Title XI, 34.44 (a)(10), the following statement is included: The appraisal assiglunent
was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan.
• The requirements of the competency provision of USPAP have been met for the purposes of this
appraisal assignment.
rm �er�l"
J -1Ae
t, 1V Tirn Kilfoyle k�
'California Certified General Appraisal No AG003494 California Certified General Appraisal No.AG005676
19
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
JOHN P. NEET, MAI
LICENSES AND MEMBERSHIPS:
Appraisal Institute
Member-Designation No. 7728; Currently certified under the Appraisal Institute's mandatory contimiing
education requirements
Licensed Real Estate Appraiser
California Certified General Appraiser No. AG003494,Certified through 3/2004
Arizona Certified General Appraiser No. 31052, Certified through 4/2003
Temporary Certifications Obtained in Washington, Oregon,Nevada,Texas
Licensed Real Estate Broker
Texas Brokers License No. 322708
EXPERIENCE:
1988-Present
John P. Neet, MAI,Real Estate Appraiser& Consultant
Owner of firm specializing in mufti-disciplinary valuation and consultation. Areas of special emphasis include
income producing properties with a primary concentration on manufactured housing communities and RV
parks, public acquisition valuations, valuations for rated and un-rated bond issues and resident conversions,
expert testimony, and appraisal review.Non-appraisal experience includes cash flow projections, rent control
financial analysis and consultancy, market studies and analysis, and financial performance analysis for
manufactured housing communities and RV parks. Qualified as an expert in United States District Court, in
state courts in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties in California and Federal Bankruptcy Courts in
California,Texas,and Nevada.
1981-1987
Terrence F. Wood &Co. Corpus Christi,Texas
Appraisal and review of all types of properties; special emphasis on income producing, development, and resort
properties; expert testimony in bankruptcy and foreclosure proceedings. Qualified as an expert in Nueces
County district courts and Federal Bankruptcy Courts
1978-1980
Home Savings and Loan Los Angeles, California
Chief Appraiser,Conventional Loans-Area manager in charge of training and review of appraisal staff.
Staff Appraiser-valuation of single and multi-family properties.
EDUCATION:
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT NORTHRIDGE
Business Administration
APPRAISAL INSTITUTE
Courses 101, 102, and 201 (SREA)
Courses l-A, 1-B,2-1,2-2, 2-3 (AIREA)
Courses 410,420,700 (AI)
INTERNATIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ASSOCIATION
Easement Valuation
RECENT SEMINARS:
USPAP Updates, FIRREA Requirements, Standards of Professional Practice Updates,Annual Litigation
Seminars& Updates,Apartment Valuation, Appraiser Licensing and Certification, HP12-C Seminar, Land
Regulation Workshop, Easement Valuation Seminars, Retail Workshop, Limited Appraisals and Report Writing
Options, Annual Regional Economic Forecast Workshops & Seminars, Manufactured Housing Community
Law Seminars and Operations seminars, Regression Analysis
Partial List Of Appraisal,Analysis, &Counseling Assignments
Completed By John P. Neet,MAI
Huntington Valley MHP Desert Rose MHP Windward Village
Huntington Beach,CA Rosamond,CA Long Beach,CA
Sun Meadows Mountain View Mob Est. Country Squire Mob Est. Orcutt Ranch
Sun City,CA Upland,CA Moreno Valley,CA Orcutt,CA
Sandalwood MHP Villa Valencia Mob,Est. Stonendge MHP Town&Country MHP
Santa Ana,CA Tustin,CA Santa Ana,CA Orcult,CA
Sierra Vista MHP Call ente Sand MHP Friendly Village MHP Diamond Bar Estates
Palmdale,CA Cathedral City,CA Lancaster,CA Diamond Bar,CA
Huntington Valley Avalon MHP High Desert MHP South Grove MHP
Huntington Beach,CA Yucaipa,CA Rosamond,CA Garden Grave,CA
Rialto Parkside Villas Champagne Village MHP Stallion Meadows MHP Wildwood Mobile CC
Rialto,CA San Diego County Action,CA Hacienda Heights,CA
Tokay Manor Mobile CC Chaparral Heights MHP Plantation Mob Est Riverside Country Club
Fontana,CA Rancho Cucamonga,CA Anaheim,CA Riverside,CA
The Valley MHP Park Manor Mob Est, Summit Rdge Mob.Est Best Trailer Park
Beaumont,CA Glendora,CA San Diego,CA Long Beach,CA
Buena Park Manor Villa Cajon MHP Bellwood MHP Marion Pines MHP
Buena Park,CA San Diego,CA Bellflower,CA El Monte,CA
Castas La Verne MHP El Monte Motolaire MHP Acacia Village MHP Ojai Oaks MHP
La Veme,CA So.El Monte,CA San Bernardino,CA Ojai,CA
Silver Spur Mobile Manor Crest Mobile Manor Hids-Away Lake Lamplighter Oceanside
Palm Desert,CA Pomona,CA ValleyCenter,CA Oceanside,CA
Bahia Trailer Villa Kimberly Gardens MHP Mission Hills MHP Bayview MHP
Garden Grove,CA Lake Forest,CA Mumeta,CA San Diego,CA
Colonial Country Club Bonanza Mob Est, Royal Oak MHP Vista Meadows
Hemet,CA Yucaipa,CA Los Alamitos,CA San Marcos,CA
Cedar Village MHP Creekside MH Estates Rancho Glen MHP Plaza MHP
Bloomington,CA Riverside County Fallbrook,CA Santa Ana,CA
Hillorest Mob Est. Hacienda MHP Palomar Estates East Oaks Estates MHP
Yucaipa,CA Palcentia,CA San Marcos,CA Tulare,CA
Lamplighter MHP Paradise Cove MHP Palomar Estates West Hacienda Mob Est
Camarillo,CA Malibu,CA San Marcos,CA Lancaster,CA
The Park Estates Gemstone MHP Nu-Way Trailer Park Capri MHP
Hemet,CA Acton,CA Cason,CA Andante,CA
Windward Village The Caldomian MHP Lakeview Mob Est Orange MHP
Long Beach,CA Calimesa,CA San Marcos,CA Orange,CA
Santiago Estates Western Hills Est MHP La Verne Mobile CC Granite Bay Mob Est.
Sylmar,CA Chino Hills,CA La Verne,CA Granite Bay,CA
Diamond Valley Oxnard Shores MHP Berrydale Trailer Villa Lamplighter San Jose
Hemet,CA Oxnard,CA Garden Grove San Jose,CA
Lamplighter The Village MHP Rancho La Puente Mira Valle Community
Oceanside,CA Apple Valley,CA La Puente,CA Ojai,CA
Hemet West Mobile Est, Meadowlake CC Rancho Hermosa The Redlands
Hemet,CA Oxnard,CA Sylmar,CA Redlands,CA
Partial List Of Appraisal,Analysis, &Counseling Assignments
Completed By John P. Neet, MAl
Impanel Broadmoor Santiago Estates Moreno Chateau Barstow Sagetree MHP
Mesa,AZ Moreno Valley,CA Barstow,CA Palmdale,CA
Rancho Vista Huntington Harbour Far Horizons MHP Mountain Springs MHP
Palmdale,CA Huntington Beach,CA Tucson,AZ Banning,CA
San Marcos Estates Bel Aire Mob Est. Whittier Downs MHP Ballerina Sunnse MHP
San Marcos,CA Yucaipa,CA Whittier,CA Las Vegas,NV
Arrowhead MHP Woodcreek Estates Seadiffe MHP Mission Valley Village
Glendora,CA San Diego County,CA Newport Beach,CA San Diego,CA
Rancho Santa Ynez Capistrano Valley Villa del Sol MHP Arabian Gardens
Solvang,CA San Juan Capistrano,CA Hemet,CA Indio,CA
Seminole Springs MHP Highlands MHP Friendly Village Greencrest MHP
Agoura,CA Santee,CA Milpitas,CA Escondido,CA
Park Vista Estates Carson Harbor Village Estrella de Oro MHP Bonita Village
Pomona,CA Carson,CA Vista,CA National City,CA
Lost Hills MHP Desert Sands MHP Laguna Vista MHP Santiago Estates
Lost Hills(Kem Co),CA Borrego Springs,CA Oceanside,CA Bakersfield,CA
Mission del Amo MHP Laguna Terrace MHP Lakeside Village MHP Siena MHP
Westminter,CA Laguna Beach,CA Salem,OR Mesa,AZ
Rolling Hills Estates El Dorado Palms MHP Valley of Dreams Trailer Pk Huntingtom MHP
Palmdale,CA Yucaipa,CA Leucadia,CA Hunbngtom Beach,CA
Vista de Oro Santiago Sunset Estates Snug Harbor MHP Villa Calimesa MHP
Hemet,CA Kennewick,WA Red Bluff,CA Cahmesa,CA
Barstow Village Santiago Cherry Hill Bayview Heights MHP EZ Living Trailer Park
Barstow,CA Kennewick,WA San Diego,CA San Marcos,CA
Rancho Brea Riverbend MHP Bonita Paradise MHP Canyon Country MHP
Brea,CA Clackamas,OR National City,CA Canyon Country,CA
Hyde Park MHP Daleview Mob.Est Santiago Estates Tahoe Valley Campground
Santa Ana,CA El Monte,CA Las Vegas,NV Lake Tahoe,CA
Ponderosa MHP Santiago Creekside MHP The Meadows MHP PepperTree MHP
Palmdale,CA Orange,CA Irvine,CA E,I Cajon,CA
Lakeridge Estates Cherryfield MHP Del Norte Estates Sahara MHP
Lake Isabella,CA Paramount,CA Lompoc,CA Palm Springs,CA
SummerSet Mob Est. Sun Canyon Estates Highland Knolls Queen Valley RV Park
Westminster,CA Palm Springs,CA Bakersfield,CA Queen Valley,AZ
Aztec Mob Est. Parque Santiago MHP Cas@as LaVeme MHP Parque La Qulnta
Bellflower,CA Tustin,CA LaVeme,CA Rialto,CA
The Woodlands Desert Sands Estates Knolhvood MHP Village of the 4 Seasons
Morgan Hill,CA Lancaster,CA Yucaipa,CA San Jose,CA
Westward Ho MHP Twin Palms MHP Elms MHP Travelodge Trader Park
El Caton,CA Placentia,CA La Puente,CA Sacramento,CA
Arrowhead MHP Golden Sands Estates Northridge MHP Rancho del Arroyo MHP
Ridgecrest,CA Palm Springs,CA Northridge,CA Oceano,CA
Coast MHP Chateau Las Brisas Charter Oaks MHP Bravo Estates
Harbor City,CA Apple Valley,CA San Dimas,CA Pedley,CA
Partial List Of Appraisal,Analysis, &Counseling Assignments
Completed By John P. Neet,MAI
Grand view Mob.Est Highland MHP Ponderosa MHP Counrywood Est.
Hesperia,CA San Bernardino,CA Cahmesa,CA Corona,CA
Silver Spur RV Park Vogue Mobile Village Hemet West MHP Westward He MHP
Oceano,CA San Bernardino,CA Hemet,CA EI Cajon,CA
Las Palmas MHP Avila Beach RV Park Desert Sands MHP El Nor Trailer Park
Rialto,CA Avila Beach,CA Lancaster,CA Gardena,CA
Thunderbird MHP Camelot RV Park Cactus Country RV Park Hemet Valley Mob Est
Sunnyvale,CA Ramona,CA Tucson,AZ Hemet,CA
Cavalier MHP Villa Montclair Hacienda MHP Date Palm Trailer Park
Oceanside,CA Montclair,CA Lancaster,CA Indio,CA
Carefree Ranch MHP Tropicana MH Estates Fnendly Village MHP Country View Estates
Escondido,CA San Bernardino Lancaster,CA Kennewick,WA
Vista Cascade MHP Burtons RV Park Redwood MHP Bridgewater Estates
Vista,CA Blythe,CA El Cajon,CA Kennewick,WA
Vista Manor MHP Sequoia Plaza Mane's MHP La Villa Vegas
Vista,CA San Bernardino,CA Cathedral City,CA Las Vegas,NV
Montclair MHP Glen Aire Mobile Estates Villa del Arroyo MHP Valley Ranchos
Montclair,CA San Bernardino,CA Moorpark,CA LaVeme,CA
Shadow Hillis MHP Friendly Village Tradewinds MHP Best Trailer Park
Pacoima,CA San Bernardino,CA Simi Valley,CA Long Beach,CA
Arizona Trailer Corral Orangewood Estates Santiago Vista Blue Heron Mob Est
Phoenix,AZ San Bernardino,CA Vista,CA Morro Bay,CA
Ballerina Sundae MHP Pacific Palms Trailer-Pk. Cactus Country RVP Sundae Village
Las Vegas,NV San Bernardino„CA Tucson,AZ Palm Springs,CA
Bayscene MHP Rancho Meridian Westward He MPH Blue Fountain MHP
Chula Vista,CA San Bernardino,CA El Cajon,CA San Jacinto,CA
Mulberry MHP Santa Fe Mobile Estates Hemet Valley ME Tradewinds Mobile Pk.
Santa Clarita,CA El Monte,CA Hemet,CA Simi Valley,CA
Ranchero MHP Rancho Mirage MHE HarborTrailer Park Harbor MHP
Sunnyvale,CA Lancaster,CA Torrance,CA Torrance,CA
Escondido Terrace MHP Plantation Mobile Est. El Nor MHP Santiago Vista
Escondido,CA Anaheim,CA Gardena,CA Vista,CA
Park Santa Fe The Californian RVP Villa del Arroyo Lakeview MHP
Whither,CA Acton,CA Moorpark,CA Yucaipa,CA
Apache MHP Green Valley MHP Holiday Homes Valley View MHP
Yucca Valley,CA Encinitas,CA Barstow,CA Yucaipa,CA
Staright MHP Lumark MHP Flamingo Trailer Pk. Aztec Mobile Est.
El Cajon,CA Sylmar,CA Bellflower,CA Yucca Valley,CA
Valle Verde MH Est Fiesta RVP Bruin Trailer Park Wendover MHP
San Marcos,CA Indio,CA Big Bear Lake,CA West Wendover,NV
Siena Mobile Estates The Redlands MHP Santiago Borego FourAces MHC
Mesa„AZ Redlands,CA Borrego Springs,CA San Jacinto,CA
Apache Wells RV Resort El Rancho MHP The Californian Cherry Estates
Mesa,AZ Chino,CA Calimesa,CA Fontana,CA
Partial List Of Appraisal,Analysis, &Counseling Assignments
Completed By John P. Neet, MAI
Tropics MHP Aladdin Park Estates Castle Mobile Est Lost Oaks
Union City,CA Yucaipa,CA Capitola,CA Atascadero,CA
Yucca Falls RV Park Bonanza Mobile Estates Las Palmas ME The Sands
Yucca Valley,CA Yucaipa,CA EI Paso,TX Desert Hot Springs,CA
Dates Gardens Avalon Mobile Home Est Emerald Desert Thunderbird Oaks
Concord,CA Yucaipa,CA Palm Desert Thousand Oaks,CA
American Canyon MHP Vista Verde MHP Village Trailer Thunderbird Villa
American Canyon,CA Escondido,CA Santa Monica Southgate,CA
Yucaipa Valley MHP Quail Hollow Momingside RV Park Ranch Park
Yucaipa,CA Desert Hot Springs,CA San Juan,Tx. Thousand Oaks
Lakeview Manor Ridgecrest Aladdin Park Estates Golden Palms
Spring Valley,CA Lakeside,CA Yucaipa,CA Sacramento,CA
Eastridge MHP Casa de Amigos Boranza Mobile Estate Bobette MHP
San Jose,CA Escondido,CA Yucaipa,CA Las Vegas,NV
The Colony La Mans MHP Avalon MH Estate Wshon Village RV Resort
Rancho Mirage,CA Santa Mans,CA Yucaipa,CA Saver Lake,CA
The Orchard Meadow Lake Vista Voids MHP Escondido RV Resort
Santa Rosa,CA Oxnard,CA Escondido,CA Escondido,CA
Indian Wells RV Park Villa Grande MH Estate Quail Hollow Woodcrest MHP
Indio,CA Santa Ana,CA Desert Hot Springs,CA Santa Rosa,CA
Sun City MHP Grove Terrace MHP Ridgecrest Elnor Trailer Park
Sun City,CA Moses Lake,WA Lakeside,CA Gardena,CA
Western Skies Arrow Pines La Mana MHP Trade Winds MHP
Lancaster,CA Azuza,CA Santa Maria,CA Simi Valley,CA
Rancho Vallecdos El Caplan MHP Casa de Amigos Ventura Beach RV Resort
San Marcos,CA El Cajon,CA Escondido,CA Ventura,CA
Shamrock MHP Escondido RVP Meadow Lake RNerside Meadow
Windsor,CA Escondido,CA Oxnard,CA Riverside,CA
Riverview Trailer Pk. Siena Vista MHE Villa Granda MH Estate Nu Way
Kemville,CA Palmdale,CA Santa Ana Carson,CA
Rio Bend RV Resort Las Casitas de Sonoma El Caplan Arabian Garden Mobil
El Centro,CA Rohnert Park,CA El Cajon,CA Indio,CA
Monterey Manor Contempo Marin Las Casitas de Sonoma Glenoaks Mobile Manor
Montclane,CA San Rafael,CA Rohnert Park,CA Pacoima,CA
The Redlands DeAnza Santa Crux Park Manor Mobil Estate Siesta MHP
Penland,CA Santa Cruz,CA Glendora,CA Highland,CA
Valley View TrailerRancho MHP Rancho del Andy MHP South Mesa MHP
Yucaipa,CA Santa Man@,CA Oceano,CA Calimesa,CA
Emerald Desert Woodcrest MHE Grandview East MHP Canyon Yew
Palm Desert,CA Santa Rosa,CA Yacaipa,CA Santa Clanta
Village Trailer Park Ventura RVP Rancho Del Sol Satellite MHP
Santa Monica,CA Ventura,CA Yacaipa,GA Anaheim,CA
Mommgside RVP Tradewmds Club Trailer Rancho MHP Mira Mar
San Juan,TX Simi Valley,CA Santa Maria,CA Oceanside
Partial List Of Appraisal,Analysis, &Counseling Assignments
Completed By John P. Neet,MAI
Rancho Dominguez Plantation MHP De Anza Moon Valley Park Lane MHP
Carson,CA Anaheim,CA Sonoma,CA Santa Clarita,CA
Glen Oaks MHP Terrace Gardens California MHP Ocean Canyon Resort
Pacoima,CA Oceanside Hemet,CA Avila Beach,CA
Proposed MHP Crescent Run Arroyo Fairways Rancho Goleta MHP
San Diego,CA Mesa,AZ Hemet,CA Goleta,CA
Golden Sands Rancho del Bordo Lumark Laguna Tenace
Palm Sprigs,CA Atascadero,CA Sylmar,CA Laguna Beach,CA
Rancho Vallecdos South Hills MHP Santiago Estates Belfair MHP
San Marcos,CA Glendora,CA Ridgecrest,CA Bellflower,CA
Mission Village(Proposed) Liberty MHP Rancho Arroyo Poinsettia MHP
Riverside,CA Santa Ana,CA Sovang,CA Poway,CA
Terrace Village RV Park BLO-Home Arbor Trails Park Saddleback Mobtle Lodge
Grand Terrace,CA Santa Ana,CA Carpinteria,CA Hemet,CA
Las Casdas MHP Plantation on the Lake Borrego Road Runner Club Diamond K Estates
American Canyon,CA Calimesa,CA Borrego Springs,CA Roseville,CA
Village Green MHP Grand Missouri MHP Westwind MHP Caravtlla MHP
San Diego,CA Glendale,AZ Yucaipa,CA Santa Clarda,CA
Arabian Villa Mesa Verde Rio Puente Trailer Park Ponderosa MHP
Clovis Kingman,AZ Paramount,CA Escondido,CA
Glendora MHP Shadow Ridge Plantation Mobile Estates El Camino 76
Glendora Glendale,AZ Anaheim,CA Oceanside,CA
Rancho Palms MHP Lost Oaks MHP Rancho Vallecdos Estates LACO MHP
Rancho Mirage,CA Atascadero,CA San Marcos,CA Carson,CA
Trails West MHP Stadde Mobile Lodge Sahara MHP Arvin Estates
Tucson,AZ Fontana,CA Palm Springs,CA Arvin,CA
Lumark MHP Las Cas@as Deb Hawaii MHP Whispering Meadows
Sylmar,CA American Canyon,CA Pittsburg,CA El Cajon,CA
Santiago Ridgecrest Estates Casa Hermosa MHP Tahoe Shores King Arthurs Court
Ridgecrest,CA Anaheim,CA Lake Tahoe,NV Riverside,CA
Rancho Santa Ynez Estates Village Green Don Luis Estates Village MHP
Solvang San Diego,CA Chula Vista,CA Tustin,CA
Willow Oaks MHP Arabian Villa&Campus Hacienda ME Del Prado
Hesperia,CA Clovis,CA Pleasanton,CA Westminster,CA
Vista de Santa Barbara Park Manor Vineyard ME Alta Laguna
Carpinteria,CA Glendora,CA Pleasanton,CA Rancho Cucamonga,CA
Roadrunner Club MHP Rancho Palm MHP Merced Estates Caballero
Borrego Springs, CA Rancho Mirage,CA Merced,CA Riverside,CA
Kinnen MHP Trails West Sunburst MHP Hentage
Santa Clanta Tusson,AZ Hemet,CA Temecula,CA
Westwinds Rio Bend Tustin Village Friendly Village
Yucaipa,CA El Centro,CA Tustin,CA La Habra,CA
Rio Puente MHP River Rancho MHP Faidane Mobile Lodge Lakefront
Paramount,CA Victorville,CA Garden Grove,CA Lakeside,CA
Partial List Of Appraisal,Analysis, &Counseling Assignments
Completed By John P. Neet,MAI
Lemon Wood Silver Spur Mobile Manor Dana Point Manna
Ventura,CA Palm Desert,CA Dana Point,CA
Friendly Village Modesto Santiago Pedley Estates Villa Fresno
Modesto,CA Riverside,CA Fresno,CA
Napa Valley Coronado MHP Villa Vista MHP
Napa Valley,CA Mesa,AZ San Marcos,CA
Friendly Village Lake Elsinore West Ventura Beach RV Resort
Simi Valley,CA Lake Elsinore,CA Ventura,CA
Vallecito Camino Real Pacific:MHP
Thousand Oaks,CA Oceanside,CA Huntington Beach,CA
Victor Villa Hillcrest MHP Sandpiper Mobile Village
Victorville,CA Yucaipa,CA Carpinteria,CA
Friendly Village Ventu Estates/Park Villas Edgeland MHP
West Covina,CA Newbury Park,CA Moreno Valley,CA
Vista del Logo CA-LACO MHP Sky Trails MHP
Scotts Valley,CA Carson,CA Moreno Valley,CA
Cavalier Park Place MHP Paradise Ranch MHP
Oceanspe,CA Perris,CA Castaic,CA
Knollwood Lake Park RVP
Yucaipa,CA Bellflo ver,CA Garden Grove,CA
Lone Hill Hacienda MHP Sunrise MHP
San Dimas,CA Montclair,CA Livennom,CA
Vista Valencia Mobile Ritz Lodge Park Estates
Tustin,CA Orange,CA Hemet,CA
Royal View Gardens The Woods MHP Crane Lakeside
El Colons,CA San Diego,CA Lake Elsinore,CA
Valley Oaks Mobile Ranch Estrella de Om Windward Village MHP
Fallbrook,CA Vista,CA Long Beach,CA
Alosta MHP Vista Manor Crestview II MHP
Glendora,CA Vista,CA Yucaipa,CA
Plantation MHP Rancho Brea Ponderosa MHP
Anaheim,CA Brea,CA Escondido,CA
Las Lomas MHP El Dorado Palms PalomarMHP
San Diego,CA Yucaipa,CA Escondido,CA
Pardue La Quinla Hacienda ME
Rialto,CA Lancaster,CA -
Village of the 4 Seasons Friendly Village of Lancaster
San Jose,CA Lancaster,CA
Barstow Village Rancho del Arroyo
Barstow,CA Oceano,CA
Stardust Mobile Estates Franciscan/Twn&Cntry
Ventura,CA Fresno,CA
Rosedale Village Woodward Bluffs
Bakersfield,CA Fresno,CA
Partial List Of Manufactured Housing Community&RV Park Clients
John P. Neet, MAI
• Washington Mutual Bank Thousand Trails, Inc.
• Bloomfield Acceptance Corporation The Westridge Group LLC
• Manufactured Housing Community Bankers. Joy& Associates
• Pacific Real Estate Capital Riverside County, CA
• Industry Mortgage Associates L.J. Melody&Company
• Bridget Capital, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank
• The Aid Association For Lutherans Column Financial, Inc.
• first Nationwide Bank Grossmont Bank
California Federal Bank J& H Asset Management Co.
American Savings and Loan Onyx Capital
Quaker City Federal Savings and Loan Unum Life Insurance Co.
• Bank of America Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Local Federal Savings Bank SunAmerica Life Insurance Co.
• Universal Bank City of San Dimas, CA Redevelopment Agency
Imperial Thrift& Loan East West Bank
• First Fidelity Thrift& Loan Citicorp Financial Services
• GE Capital Corp. GMAC Mortgage
• Caritas Corporation Lehman Brothers Investments
U. S. Internal Revenue Service J P. Morgan
Highland Federal Bank Salomon Smith Barney
• Bank of Hemet Finova Realty Finance
Nomura Capital Corporation SunAmerica Life Insurance Co.
• Republic Thrift&Loan Prudential Insurance
• Southern California Bank Financial Institutional Partners
• Collateral Mortgage, Ltd. • First Fidelity Bank
• New South Federal Stt Bank Cal-Am Properties
Santiago Management Company Union Capital Investments
Ford Credit Deutche Bank
National Home Communities, Inc. Hart, King&Coldren
• FNMA City of Union City, CA
• Millenium Housing, Inc American Capital Associates
• City of Seal Beach, CA American Commercial Bank
Credit Suisse-First Boston Hawthorne Savings
• City of Palmdale, CA Redevelopment Agency California Bank&Trust
• City of Lancaster,CA Redevelopment Agency Continental Wingate Inc.
City of Brea, CA Redevelopment Agency Manufactured Housing Communities, Inc.
Manufactured Housing Communities, Inc. Chateau Communities, hic.
• City of La Verne,CA Redevelopment Agency
City of Yucaipa, CA
i
RESUME OF
TIM KILFOYLE
j Emnloyment History
May 1989 to present Appraisals ASAP, Independent Fee Appraiser,
Temecula, CA
I provide appraisal reports for local and regional
lenders, relocation companies, attorneys, investors as
well as other appraiser.
The type of work ranges from typical to complex
commercial and complex residential,form to self-
contained narrative reports.
1988-1989 Senior Appraiser, Appraisal Service Associates
1986-1988 Fee Appraiser, Wright&Clark Appraisal Service
1984-1986 President, Kilfoyle Real Estate San Diego Residential,
Commercial Real Estate
1980-1984 Sales Associate, North County Properties San Diego
Commercial,Residential and Income Properties
1979-1980 Sales Associate Marmet Properties Residential Real
Estate in San Diego
Education Background
College Classes
Principles of Real Estate
Real Estate Finance
Real Estate Law
Tax Aspects of Real Estate
Real Estate Economics
Real Estates Property Management
Real Estate Office Management
Other
Appraisal Institute Classes j
101 Basic Appraisal
102 Advanced Appraisal
310 Basic Income Capitalization
510 Advanced Income Capitalization
540 Report Writing&Valuation Analysis
Standards of Professional Practice
Anthony Real Estate Schools
Wright Brothers Career High School with a
certificate in Home Improvement and Repair
Professional Affiliations
1. California Licensed Real Estate Broker since 1984, #00689140
2 California Licensed Real Estate Agent since 1979 to 1984
3 California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser since 1994, AG005676
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Fame Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
No.2383
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Tentative Tract Map No. 28087
El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd.
6000 East Palm Canyon Drive
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council
of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen public hearing at n meeting of September 4,
2002 The Qty Council meeting begins at 7:00
years,and not a party to of Interested in the pm. in the Ceunct Chambers at City Hall, 3200
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of a E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING The purpose of the hearing is to consider revi-
sions to the conditions of approval for the Tens-
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, five Tract map submitted by El Dorado Palm
tinted and published in the city of Palm Springs, Springs, Ltd., represented by James F. Goldstein,
p' p y President of Goldstein, Inc., for Tentative Tract
Count of Riverside,and which newspaper has been map to subdivide the existing 377 space El Dora-
do do Mabile Country Club for condominium purpos-
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the es. The intent of the current owner is to convert
the park from rental mobile home park to a resi-
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of dent-owned condominium home park, where
each mobile home space is individually owned.
California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case The El Dorado Mobile Country Club is located on
Number 191236; that the notice,of which the 50.65 sores of land at 6000 East Palm canyon
Drive,south of Bolero Road and East of Golf Club
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller Drive, W-R-MHP and R-MHP Zones, Section 29.
than non pariel,has been published in each regular VICINITY MAP
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit:
August 23" Site,
' . s
All in the year 2002
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. ,h
26a'
Dated at Palm Springs,California this--------------day eir of PALM SPa,nM
August
.._�..w...�.....
ot-------------___---------------------2002
In ant long.t Report
the proposed subdivision, a
Tenantlmpac[Report has been prepared for con-
1 - siovisi ins of the all Council,Sub pursuant to the
provisions of the Call arms Subdivision Map Act.
------------------------------
---------- The proposed project is exempt from the provi-
Signatur'e sions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) per section 15301 Ewshcg Facil Ries),
specifics lly as listed in examp e(k)of this section.
If any individual or group challenges the actions
in court, Issues raised may be limited to only
those issues raised at the public hearing de-
scribed in this notice or in written correspondence
at or prior to the City Council hearing
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all
Interested persons to be heard.Questions regard-
ing this case may be directed to Douglas Evans,
Department of Planning and Zoning, 760/323-
8245
PATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk
p8l 36-0
a4Yck
047
pat12Dnv�stkallk�llJ'
- ht SAt92261
la�r�d y
If
360
f�J f��r�"Sr •' i,�F
60. a Q, 1Q
C, 4,
10
6&
6-
02
OP,
Q, r�e
922
6$r
61
1�
.,t
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Tentative Tract Map No. 28087
El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd.
6000 East Palm Canyon Drive
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold
a public hearing at it meeting of September 4, 2002. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider revisions to the conditions of approval for the Tentative
Tract Map submitted by El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd., represented by James F. Goldstein,
President of Goldstein, Inc.,for Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the existing 377 space El Dorado
Mobile Country Club for condominium purposes. The intent of the current owner is to convert the
park from a rental mobile home park to a resident-owned condominium mobile home part, where
each mobile home space is individually owned. The El Dorado Mobile Country Club is located on
50.65 acres of land at 6000 East Palm Canyon Drive, south of Bolero Road and East of Golf Club
Drive, W-R-MHP and R-MHP Zones, Section 29.
In conjunction with the proposed subdivision, a Tenant Impact Report has been prepared for
consideration of the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act.
The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEAQ) per section 15301 (Existing Facilities), specifically as listed in example (k) of this section.
If any individual or 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 Council hearing.
An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions
regarding this case may be directed to Douglas Evans, Department of Planning and Zoning,
760/323-8245.
PATRICIA& SANDERS
City Clerk
Publish: August 23, 2002
VI CINI TY MAP
RO
RD
a►q id
slitle
30
RAY R a�\ cr
o
KIE EY RD z
<1 CENTS (.jq`` „ ^ � ?EREZ v~i
Dw pR�� QQ RD
BpAkS�pF
$ 2 1qL
m rp o
9 O
N G
to
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. TTM 28087 [PARK
ESCRIPTION
APPLICANT DAMES F. GOLDSTEIN BDIVISION MAP TO CONVERT MOBILE HOME
INTO RESIDENT OWNED PARK.
Sidney & Ruth Kapin Martin & Sedell Greenman George and Becky Epidendio
1 Cordova Court 2 Cordova Court 3 Cordova Court
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Bill & Valerie Manzini Jauren & Stel Miller Frank & Ruth Pastoressa
4 Club Circle 5 Club Circle 6 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Paim Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Lenore Wallace Wil 'am & Marie ston Carl Deaver
7 Club Circle 8 Club ' r 9 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm rings A 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Ne ie Eder Ben Chapman David & Ruth Crow
10 b Ci e 11 Club Circle 12 Circle
Palm S ngs 'CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Spr' CA 92264
Walter A. Stuetz Martha Novick Grace Cagliero
Dale A. Heer 14 Club Circle 15 Club Circle
1: Club Circe Drive Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
Dale & Carolyn Frink Beth Fox Richard & Nancy Shea
16 Club Circle 17 Club Circle 18 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
James & aVon Kraus Gary L. Holum Martha Kay Adams
19 Club Ci 1 20 Club Circle Drive 21 Club Circle
Palm S gs A 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Harold R. Benson Yvonne & Zachary Snidow Dave & Bernice Blazer
22 Club Circle 23 Club Circle Drive 24 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Diana Keyes Barbara Cona Morrie & Kay Stone
25 Cordova Court 26 Cordova Court 27 Cor va Court
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Spri \ 92264
Albert Galanti Joseph & Judith Mitchell Douglas Mc Nall
28 Clu Circle 931 Eighth Street P. 0. 21662
Palm Spri CA 92264 Menasha WI 54952 EVERETT WA 03
Ray Lotto Jerry Gentry Saul & Lillian Manvil
31 Club Circle 32 Club Circle 33 C�rcPalm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm2264
John Stamm Richard & Ina Woodin Sister Maria Sierra
Gary L. Gearhart 35 Club Circle Josefa Sierra
34 Club Circle Drive Palm Springs CA 92264 36 Club Circle Drive
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
B. Roberts/El Dorado PS Ltd. Joseph, 1, Elizabeth Grech Richard and Alice-Marie
Marie
37 Club Circle 38 Club e 5379 Be y Rd
Palm Springs CA 922b4 Pa prings 92264 SAND BARBA 93111
Alen Friend Darwi and Lois yhew Max & Hilda Kruger
40 Club Circle 41 Club c e 42 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Pa prings 64 Palm Springs CA 92264
Antonio and Josephine Fleck Chads C. Skinner Elaine and Stephen Hess
43 Club Circle Drive 44 Club Circle Drive 45 Club Circle Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Helene nd Fritz W' erkehr Sheila Lott Dorothy J. Vialtando
46 Poquito 47 Poquito Drive 48 Poquito
Palm rings 264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Kenneth Moody Harry McCabe Sylv" Soloman
49 Poquito 50 Po u 51 Poqui
Palm Springs CA 92264 P m Spring A 92264 Palm ring A 92264
Jack & Audrey Kempler Nat & Ruth Diamond Ralph and Mary Plumb
52 Poquito Dr. 53 Po 54 Poquito
Palm Springs CA 92264 Pal prings 264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Arnold & Betty Deutsch Max & Mae Isenberg Harriet Kasse
55 Corona 56 Las Flores 57 Las Flores
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Managers F & J Gervais Lewis/Seid
56 Las Flores 59 Club Circle 60 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Harry & Esther Zebrack David & Rose Adler Alfred & Evelyn Weiss
61 Corona 62 Co a 63 Corona
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm rin 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Arlie & Defayne Blankenship Geral and Mary Gerardot Marty & Paula Freedman
64 Corona 65 Co a ve 66 Corona
Palm Springs CA 92264 Pal pring 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
John Antonsen Harriet Carnes Alfr & Margeurite Roy
67 Corona 68 Corona 69 Coro
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 P pring 92264
Lawrence A Folgo Dan Haynes Alex & Connie Pant leoni
70 Corona Drive 71 Corona 72 Coro
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm ings 264
Harry O. Carlson Marjorie Seim Edw�r�d C. Walton
73 Corona Drive 74 Corona e P. O. Ha U.t/
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm rings C 4 Ca re Albert anada
T1W2T8
Clifford and Barbara Flores Angelo & Beverlie Corradi William and Carolyn Machi
76 De se R 77 Desert Rose 78 Deser se
Palm S 'ngs 264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Sp s `4A_922'
Ida Kasten Peter Virginia Rosemary Joe Caruso
79 Desert Rose 80 Desert Rose 61 Desert Rose
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Ted & Lynn Steinberg El Dorado PS Ltd. El Dorado PS Ltd.
82 Desert Rose 83 Desert Rose 84 Desert Rose
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Albert & Gail Am nson Michael & Frances Palmer Joseph Gutman
85 ert e 86 Desert Rose 87 Des R
Palm A 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm S 'ngs 92264
David & Matti Rashoff Vic Renzoni Norman E. Holbrook
8B Desert Rose 89 Desert Rose 15244 N. E St.
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 PORTLAND 9 30
Estate of Glen Nelson Robin & Ruth Shannon Erwin Baur
91 Dese e 92 Desert Rose 93 Desert Rose
Pa4if Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Minni Resn Howard and Charlotte Bloom Sam & Tamlls
94 Des Rose 93 Desert Rose 96 Dese Pal prin CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Pal pri92264
Brian Paczesniak Gene atimer Gerald and Lenore Saunders
97 Desert Rose 98 Des Rose 99 Desert Rose
Palm Springs CA 92264 Pa Spri s CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Ingrid Oakes Howar & Sharo peer Jame & Leona Ternet
100 Desert Rose Drive 27652 Gi tar Loop 102 Alis
Palm Springs CA 92264 EUG OR 9741 Palm .tngs CC 92264
David L. Kellogg John E. Leeper John & Joyce Zink
103 iso 104 Aliso Drive 105 Ali o
Palm 5 CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Pal ri CA 92264
L & J Ellis Gilbert & Flora Lee John Moore
106 Aliso 107 Aliso 121 .Aliso Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
E1 Dorado PS Ltd. Jo Anne Czaia Jacob and Anita Horowitz
109 Aliso 110 Aliso ill o
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm S CA 92264
Richard & Anne Barranti Roger Frickle Phil and Alice G. Dennis
871 Byron Drive 113 Aliso 114 Aliso Drive
SOUTH SAN FRANC CA 94080 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Larry and Linda Wanek Pete & Pearl Hartsell Harold M. Vessey
115 Aliso 116 Aliso 117 Aliso
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
William A. Solt Paul Jones H.H. & B.J. Akin
118 Aliso 119 o De Mel a etty�holland
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm ing 264 22232 Cr est Drive
Cre ine CA 9232
..+eM
Virginia and John Moore Diana Faber Robert Perreault
121 Aliso 123 Aliso Drive 124 Aliso
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Kenneth Smith Ben & Edna Rosenfeld Ira B. Hillyer
125 Aliso 126 Aliso 127 Sage
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 . Palm Springs CA 92264
Assistant Managers Marc & Ragnhild Levine Gertrude Redlark
128 Sage 129 Sage 130 Sage
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Ted and Rita Laudenback El Dorado PS Ltd. Er>Sa
e Ro zweig
131 Sage 132 Sage 13Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Pangs CA 92264
Dr. & Mrs. L.R. McElmurry Harry & Sylvia Herschfeld Ernestina L. Martin
134 e 135 Sage 136 Sage
Palm S s CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Ralph and Elizabeth Johnson H & G Smith Al & Claire Messer
137 Sage 138 Sage 139 Sage
s C Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm ring 2264
William Tooley Dennis E. Staub S. Johnson
140 Sage 141 Sage 4215
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Unit D
M' waukee WI 53222
Eric Niven Roy Davies William Rupracht
143 Sage 144 Sage 145 Sage
Palm ngs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
William & Annabel Sausman Georgie LaPierre Nick & Marlene Palanica
146 Sage 147 Sage 148 Sage Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Mervin And Donna And rson Darrell Hall David & Margaret Brearley
149 S e 150 Sage 151 Sage
Palm i CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Ka>2e<C
inger Anita Jick Dorothy Harron
15 153 Yucca 154 Yucca
PaA 92264 Palm Springs .CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Lawrence A. Frederick Esthe Bienenfeld Lola Todd
155 Yucca 156 Yuc 157 Yucca
Palm Springs CA 92269 Pal rings 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Kay Lynn Til}iur Sall Rippli le-Presley John Voelker
8244 Hi e Dr 422 Eas erial Highway 160 Yucca
SAN D O 92120 E1 gundo CA 245 Palm Springs CA 92264
Audrey Sheehan Will th Smith Lucille and Kenneth Radke
161 Yucca P. 0. 0 11 163 Yucca
Palm Springs CA 92264 SPO E Palm Springs CA 92264
Clair & Mar este Ernest & Thelma Lovingood Charles Borer-Grusky
164 Yucc 165 Yucca 6000 E. Palm Canyon Dr.
Palm rings 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 #166
Palm Springs CA 92264
Milton & Joan Flack Robert K. Studebaker Attillio Caldarelli
167 Yucca 168 Yucca 169 Yucca Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Jack N. Robison Benjamin V. Lutz Rosi arri
170 Yucca Drive 171 Club Circle 172 C c1e
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 P Springs 92264
Rex and Laine Waggoner Sol & Rhee Kaplan Walter & Antoinette Jarosz
173 Club Circle Drive 174 Club Circle 175 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 . Palm Springs CA 92264
Thomas & Nannelore Jarosz Joseph and Mildred Monroe David & Ruby Gilner
176 Club Circle 177 Club Circle 178 C Ci e
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Sp g ,CA 92264
Jerri and Thomas Harpel Peter & Janice Moreno Darwin lack
179 Ci e 180 Club Circle 181 Club cle
Palm S s CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm rings 2264
Grace and Judith Ann Stinson Eugene A. Speno Edward & Claire Castagna
182 Club Circle 163 ua 184 Figuaro
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm S i s CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Jack & Clara He n Raya Judson Wayn & Nan homas
185 Figu 186 Figuaro 15510 N . Knott, Unit 3
Palm rings 264 Palm Springs CA 92264 POR D OR 0
Christopher and Marilyn Andrew Brouwer, Mark Faber Esther Louise Wedig
188 Figuaro 189 Figuaro 190 Figuaro
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Doreen and Henry Beacham Louis & Frances Nassau Borah and Barbara Berman
191 Figuaro 192 Coyote 193 Guaymas
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 'Palm Springs CA 92264
Hy & Gladys Dorfman Edm d and Gr a Varnelis Roger iza Roziere
194 Guaymas 1.9-5 .G Drivs .J234 Wet n Crescent
Palm Springs CA 92264 Pa Sprin .A— 264 Win eg Manitob 3NOA6
Frank Miller Bernard Yoakam Hildegard A. Dhen
197 Gua 198 Juniper Drive 199 Juniper
Palm S n CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Art and Gloria Poland El Dorado, Ltd. Rosalie Weiner
200 Junip P 201 Juniper 201 Juniper
Palm Spr' CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Ray J. Hess Walter Miller Stan & Lia Serasky
203 Juniper 204 Coyote 205 Coyote
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
William O. Davis Martha Bright-Jordan Curtis or Karen Olsen
206 Coyote Drive 207 Coyote 208 Coflk Dr
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Spr' gs 92264
Lee Rothstein Sol & Doris Sanfield Joel Fletcher
209 Coyote 210 Coyote 211 Co to
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm ri s CA 92264
Stan & Sue Nalepa Paul & Barbara Sellers Marcy and Gary Slemp
212 La Encina 3700 S. Plaza Drive 388 McFadden Ave
Palm Springs CA 92264 #M-3 Moorpark CA 93021
SANTA ANA CA 92704
Leo & Rosemond Garfield Michael & Gw orin Eleanor Gomez
215 La Encina 216 La ina 217 La Encina
Palm Springs CA 92264 P prangs 922b4 Palm Springs CA 92264
Robert Frazier Katherene Anderson Lindsay & Susan Ryan
218 La a 2219 La Encina 220 La Encina
Pal prang CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Milto & Vesta Webster Virginia Amerson Helen Oster
221 La ci 222 La Encina Drive 223 La Encina Dr.
Palm in CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Dewey Snart Nadine Brouwer Lewis & Christina Wiley
224 La Encina 225 La Encina 226 La Encina Drive
Palm Springy CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Bobby Joe and Sharron Hetzel Karl G. Romaine Nat & Shirley Richter
227 La Encina Drive 22B Los Pinos Drive 229 .Lo s
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Pal prings 92264
Samuel & Helen Fagatt Dorothy Woskow Chuck & Marge Young
230 Lo Pinos 231 Los Pinos 232 Los Pinos
Palm Sprin CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Robert and Mer s Parra Robert and Pauline Clark Patricia Edwards
233 Loss Drive 235 Los Pinos 236 Lo in s—
Palm S ng 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm S n CA 92264
Helen & Kurt Niven William & Marie Johnson Jo Ann Van Valkenburg
237 Los Pinos Drive 238 Los Pinos 239 Los Pinos
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Eunice and Edwin Blackwood Clifford & Estelle Helms Harry & Shirley Pryce
240 Los Pinos 241 Los Pinos 242 Los Pinos
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
• ' _ � - .'"i. f y.""..nil- d LC:L i/F3U �1Ai�
SRi iW'
Dean & Sandy Givens Herbert & Elaine Birnbaum Margaret Estes
243 Los Pinos 244 Laredo 245 Laredo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Art nd Gloria P and Leo Aro ',tz Osa Carter
200 Jun rive 247 La o 248 Laredo
Pal prings 92264 P Springs CA 92264 . Palm Springs CA 92264
Darrell First Roger and Gwen Bearman Lois Hope
249 Laredo 250 Laredo 251 La o
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 P Spring �A 92264
Mayer & Judith Lebowski David & Gloria Mitchell Joan Botto
254 Laredo 255 0 256 Laredo
Palm Springs 92264 Pa17n S ngs 2264 ' Palm Springs CA 92264
Laura Helgeson Siefgried & Jacqueline Sonja D. Falck
257 Laredo 258 Encino 259 Encino
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Joe and Lena Rose Alvarez James & Ruth Ann Cione Leo Ullman
260 Encino Drive 255 Encino . 266 Encino
Palm Springs CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
S.Summers Irwin & Jan Pittler Ed & Ruth Monasch
267 Encino 266 -Encino 269 Encino
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Wallace Watson Kenneth & Audrey Larson Richard & Suzanne Reakes
270 Encino 271 Encino 272 Encino
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Minnie Becker Mary Lou Raucci J Munro
273 Encino 274 Encino 275i�
Palm Springs CA 92269 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm ri s CA 92264
J. Kaplan Fran Reidder Robert Armstrong
276 Encino 277 Saguaro 278 Saguaro Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
.iil-G, ' v;L,L` ,:i 3� ✓di`'v�Gi,11(y fl�a� �+F}U w.i
Leonard & Marjorie Wasserman Harry and Phyllis Palmer Margaret Rodau
279 Saguaro 280 Saguaro P. 0. Box 736
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 JOSHUA TREE CA 92252
Dora Robbins Anna Dicker Douglas and Sheila Morrow
282 Sa are 6000 E. Palm Canyon Dr. 284 Saguaro Drive
Palm i s CA 92264 #283 Palm Springs CA 92264
Palm Springs CA 92264
Gary and LaVonne Meger David Hick Keith & Johanna Van Bemmel
285 Saguaro 28 aqua 267 Saguaro
Palm Springs CA 92264 #2 Palm Springs CA 92264
Palm Springs CA 92264
Greta Leren Fred C. Van Hoof E. Ray Adkisson
Ron tr 289 Juniper Drive 290 Juniper
286 S ar Drive Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
P SPRINGS CA 92264
Carole Wood Chester and Marlene Roland Clifford Nelson
291 Juniper 292 Junip 293 Juniper Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm rings CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Warren Sommes Ronald & Cameil Ardisonne Juan M. Sifuentes
294 Juniper Drive 295 Juniper 296 Junip
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm S gs2264
Anthony And Frances Cappola June McEwan Curtis & Jerri Paxman
297 Juniper 298 Juniper 299 Juniper
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
John C. Mannix Jr. Sol & Molly Josephson Carole Palmerston
300 Juniper 301 Juniper 302 Juniper
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Constance V. Rueter Martha Weinstein Lloyd Steele
303 Juniper Drive 304 Juniper 305 San Domingo Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Venice Simon Theresa Browns Honorata Jastrzebskii
306 San Domingo 307 San ngo 308 San Domingo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm ring A 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Sam & Dorothy Freed Zoe & Irwin Sorkin Edward and Madolyn Eason
309 San Domingo 310 San Domingo 311 San Domingo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Abe & Ida Kahn Virginia Duckworth Jack & Sydell Bilow
312 San Domingo 313 San Domingo 314 San Domingo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Carl and Barbara Cola Maurice and Joan Beaulieu Geraldine Coffey
315 San Domingo 316 San Domingo 317 San Domingo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Josephine C. Montroy Richard J. Rose Robert and Betty Graves
318 San Domingo 319 San Domingo Drive 320 San Domingo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
William & Mary Ka Kelly Ridley & Lorna Shaw Rose Marie Warshaw
321 San o o 322 San 323 San Domingo Drive
Palm rn CA 92264 Palm S 'n CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
James M. Detty Patrick Dolan Lillian Weinper
324 San Domingo Drive 325 San Domingo 326 San Domingo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
George & Frances Goodwin Ina Woodin Alvin E. Heller
327 San Domingo 328 San Domingo 329 San Domingo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Joan B. Mullahey Gale Kjelshus _Larson Willard and Patricia McNew
330 San DoMTgo 331 San ngo 332 San Domingo Drive
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm rings 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Norma Paull Goldberg William Hamblin Fran>krncdl,June
333 San Domingo 334 San Domingo 335 ngo
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92269 Palgs 92264
Michael Gilbert William Cooksley Sylvia Lisben
336 San Domin 337 San Domingo 338 San Domingo
Palm Spr CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
USL tenlpflate for 5ibo-
Gary W. Simmons Gary Long Al and Joanne Gordon
339 San Domingo 340 San Domingo 18904
Palm Springs CA- 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Edmo n, Alb
Canada T5T4X4
R. Adler Rob>San
d E ' h Cole Pete Rebecca Shapiro
342 San Domingo 343mingo 344 San D " 0Palm Springs' CA 92264 Pangs 264 Palm rings C 2264
Maurice and Joan Garlington Morry & Dorothy Gaynor James Lewis Rouck
345 San Domingo 346 Saguaro 347 Saguaro
Palm Springs-CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Joe & Dorothy Obrand Nat & Millie Goldstein Cha>SDrin<as__CA-92-2jZ4
itchell
348 Saguaro 349 Saguaro 350
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Pa
William Crowle Aurora Garcon Edward Dede Bus 11
351 Sa a 352 Saguaro 353 Saguaro
Palm ri CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm S ings CA 264
David d Doroth uerbach Gerald & Lova Marsh Thomas and Bonnie Reiche
354 Sagua o 355 Saguaro - 356 Saguaro
Palm S ng CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Kenneth Graves Geraldine J. Se' fert Roy & Dena Kay Bowes
357 Club Circle 248 Ot ve South 359 Cl -cle
#357 Seat 98198 Palm ri s CA 92264
Palm Springs CA 92264
Bev. Miller Douglas & Louise Cultice Glynn & Kooipo Vaughn
360 Club Circle 361 Club Circle 362 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 #362
Palm Springs CA 92264
Rose Albert Mike & Nancy Caldwell Patricia Atkinson
363 Club Circle 364 Club Circle 365 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Franklin & Marion Adreon Dan Johnson Harold Bogash
366 Club Circle 367 Club Circle 368 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
17LIN AYE:R),Y' . Mdrps.s Zerh is aser 59.50®
Maureen Van Meter Marilyn Wright Jeffrey and Darlene Capela
369 Club Circle 370 Club Circle 371 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Janice Pellerine Luci e Krus Albert & Bobby Canale
372 Club Circle Drive 373 Cl Circle 374 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Pa Spring A 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Rober and 5 on Young Ph>Cl
' Clai Shomer Walter Brandt
375 Clu ircle 37ircle 377 Club Circle
Palm prang CA 92264 Paang 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
Diana Maggio John S. Bettencourt Esther Bialer
378 Club Circle 379 Club Circle 380 Clu rcle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 Pa Sp
CA 92264
Richard Forrest Krown John & Evan Morgan
381 Club Circle 362 Club Circle
Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264
�� A RAVER-ill(;, ,°yr�F T e s s L�'a eC, Laser !:�1,6 4
MR MARTY RESNICK MR H MILHOLLAND MS KAY TIBERG
MS SHARON ROSENBLUM MS BETTY MILHOLLAND MS ATHENA G OTTMAN
6359 WEST COLGATE AVENUE 38110 CHRIS DRIVE 8244 HILLANDALE DRIVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90048 CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234 SAN DIEGO CA 92120
MR SAM WELLS MS ERNESTINE ROSENZWEIG MS SALLY RIPPINGALE
MS TAMERA WELLS C/O MR JAMES GRASSMAN 422 EAST IMPERIAL
9508 KIRKSIDE ROAD 74-900 HWY 111 SUITE 120 EL SEGUNDO CA 90245
LOS ANGELES CA 90035 INDIAN WELLS CA 92210
MR LELAND MC ALMERIA MR WILMATH S SMITH MR HOWARD SPEER
MS JEAN MC ALMERIA PO BOX 3511 MS SHARON SPEER
7133 EAST COLUMBIA HWY SPOKANE WA 99220 27652 GIBRALTER LOOP
EATON RAPIDS MI 48827 EUGENE OR 97405
MS CLAIRE AARON MS CLAIRE NESTE MR JAMES TERNET
MR AL MOSSER MS MARION NESTS MS LEONA TERNET
25852 SHADY GROVE PLACE 412-96 A AVENUE 306 HONEYCOMB CIRCLE
CALABASSE CA 91302 DAWSON CREEK BC SEQUIM WA 98382
CANADA V1 G 1 M4
MR STANLEY JOHNSON MS ROSIE HARRIS MR DAVID KELLOGG
MR VICTOR MINETTI C/O MR DAVID L MURPHY PO BOX 41307
4215 N 10GT"#162D 8616 LATIZERA SUITE 512 SACRAMENTO CA 95941
MILWAUKEE WI 53222 LOS ANGELES CA 90045
MR ERIC NIVEN MR RUBY GILNER MR JOHN ZINK
MS CONNIE NIVEN C/O MR MURRAY NOVEMBER MS JOYCE ZINK
760 S SPAULDING AVE#310 24100 KILLON STREET 119 TANAGER DRIVE
LOS ANGELES CA 90036 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367 MUNROE TOWNSHIP NJ 08831
MR MERVYN ANDERSON MR THOMAS HARPER MR JACOB HOROWITZ
MS DONNA ANDERSON MS JERILEE HARPER MS A HOROWITZ
8 RIVER GREEN CRES SE 6625JOHNSON POINT ROAD NE 1770 W BALBOA BLVD 12C
CALGARY ALBERTA OLYMPIA WA 98516 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663
CANADA T2C 3A4
MS KATIE RINGER MR DARWIN BLACK MR PAUL JONES
201 SUNRISE WAY#140 PO BOX 4043 21700 ARMADA RIDGE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92652 ARMADA MI 48005
MS ESTHER BLANEFEILD MR JACK HERMAN MR WAYNE
MS ROCHELLE SELZER 50 LAKE BLVD APT 608 MS NANCY THOMAS
PO BOX 40 BUFFALO GROVE NY 60089 15510 NE KNOTT#3
PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 PORTLAND OR 97230
MR MILT WEBSTER MR JOSEPH MUNROE MR ED VARELLS
MS VESTA WEBSTER MS KAREN MUNROE 5930 WHITE OAK DRIVE
7930 SE 34T"STREET#204 19328 SE 384T"STREET MENTOR OH 44060
MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 AUBURN WA 98092
MR NATE RICHTER MS DORA ROBBINS MR ROGER ROZIERE
MS SHIRLEY RICHTER 24 RIVER ROCK ROAD MS ELIZABETH ROZIERE
C/O PO BOX 1405 SHERIDAN WY 82801 1234 WELLINGTON CRES
RIVERSIDE CA 92502 WINNIPEG MANITOBA
CANADA R3N OA6
MR SAMUEL FAGATT MR DAVID HICK MS LOTTIE MILLER
MS HELEN FAGATT MS NATALIE HICK MR MICHAEL MILLER
3123 GILMERTON AVENUE 2640 TOTHWELL STREET 5028 BRIER TREE DRIVE
LOS ANGLES CA 90064 REGINA SEEK CANADA S4N 2E1 DALLAS TX 75248
MR RON ZYLSTRA MR ART POLAND MS PATRICIA EDWARDS
MS GRETA LEREN PO BOX 2870 C/O HORTON
1427 100T" STREET#56 BIG BEAR LAKE CA 92315 1618 PORTOLA
EVERETT WA 98204 SANTA ANA CA 92705
MR CHESTER ROLAND MR CURTIS OLSON MR ART POLAND
MS MARIANA ROLAND MS KAREN OLSON MR GLORIA POLAND
5900 SHERWOOD LANE SE PO BOX 407 PO BOX 2870
LACEY WA 98513 HOPE ID 83836 BIG BEAR LAKE CA 92315
MR ARTURO SIFUENTES MR JOEL FLETCHER MR MARC SULKOVITZ
PO BOX 1082 MR BILL BLAKE MR LEONARD ARANOWITZ
CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92235 PO BOX 3732 510 HULLS FARM ROAD
BIG BEAR LAKE CA 92315 SOUTH PORT CT 06490
MR MARTIN WEINSTEIN MR MIKE NORTH MR RAY HOPE
MS SUSAN WEINSTEIN MS GWEN NORTH MS LOIS HOPE
11757 SAN VICENTE BLVD#3 7870 BELLAIRE AVENUE 15086 NORTH ALPINE ROAD
LOS ANGELES CA 90049 NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91805 LODI CA 95240
MR MARK BROWNSTEIN MR ROBERT FRAZIER MS GLORIA MITCHELL
9634 VIA RIMINI 10 NOSBAND AVENUE#313 1108-3520 HILLSDALE STREET
BURBANK CA 91504 WHITE PLAINS NY 10806 REGINA SK
CANADA S4S 5Z5
MR WILLIAM KELLY MR ED BUSHNELL MS GALE LARSON
MS MARY KAY KELLY MS DEDEE BUSHNELL 11133 AQUA VISTA STREET
C/O STEIGERWELD 13594 RECREATION DRIVE STUDIO CITY CA 91602
5144 NORTH LOVEJOY GUERNEVILLE CA 95448
CHICAGO IL 60630
MR DAVID AUERBACH MR FRANK ORTT MR G. SEIFERT-BLOMBERG
1146 WEST LAS PALMAS DRIVE MS JUNE ORTT 24810 1OT"AVENUE SOUTH
FULLERTON CA 92635 96 MOUNT ROBSON CIR SE DES MOINES WA 98198
CALGARY ALBERTA
CANADA T2Z 2C1
MR MICHAEL GILBERT MS DENA BOWES MR G.A. GORDON
147 NORTH JENSEN ROAD MR ROBERT BOWES MS JOANNE GORDON
PORT ANGELES WA 98352 1981 BEVERLY GLEN DRIVE 18904-93 AVENUE
SANTA ANNA CA 92705 EDMONTON ALBERTA
CANADA T5T 4X4
MR FRANK ADREON MR ROBERT COLE MS LUCY KRUSE
MS MARIN ADREON MS ELIZABETH COLE 15631 EAST STATE HWY 108
BOX 02500018 12512 SKYLINE DRIVE BELFAIR WA 98526
SIOUX FALLS SD 57185 BURNVILLE MN 55337
MR PETER SHAPIRO MR R YOUNG MR CHARLES MITCHELL
MS REBECCA SHAPIRO PO BOX 1554 MS RUTH MITCHELL
C/o 4955 CORBIN AVENUE YREKA CA 96097 936 PORT LAURENT PLACE
TARZANA CA 91356 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92630
MR ROBERT W SHOMER MR WILLIAM CROWLEY MR WILLIAM G JOHNSTON
MS CLAIRE SHOMER MS M. CROWLEY MS MARIA JOHNSTON
4588 ALONZO AVENUE 9 BUGGY WHIP DRIVE 10807-106 AVENUE
ENCINO CA 91316 ROLLING HILLS CA 90274 FORT SAINT JOHN BC
CANADA V1J 5P1
MR RICHARD CHAVEZ MS CONNIE PANTALEATH MR NELLIE EDER
MIS ALICE CHAVEZ 1456 E PHILADELPHIA ST#309 C/O TRUST DEEDS TO GOLD
5379 BERKELY ROAD ONTARIO CA 91781 342 NO GAFFEY STREET
SANTA BARBARA CA 93111 SAN PEDRO CA 80731
MR DARWIN E MAYHER MR E SEIM MR RUTH CROW
MS LOUIS MAYHER 2904 NORTH ARROYO DRIVE CHATEAU CUPERTINO
1908 OAK LEAF DRIVE SAN DIEGO CA 92103 10150 TORE AVENUE#116
SOUTH BELOIT IL 61080 CUPERTINO CA 95014
MR FRITZ WIEDERKEHR MR EDWARD WALTON MR JAMES KRAUS
MS HELEN V WIEDERKEHR MS GRACE WALTON MS LAVON KRAUS
1280 SAINT MARC#1501 PO BOX 6037 216 SOUTH COTTONWOOD
MONTREAL B.C., CANADA H3H 2G1 CANMORE ALBERTA POST FALLS ID 83854
CANADA T1 W 2T6
MR RAY DOBBIN MR CLIFF FLORES MS KAY STONE
MS PAULINE DOBBIN MS JEANNE FLORES MR MORRIE STONE
103-95 PRINCE ARTHUR AVENUE 5504 FAIR OAKS BLVD 29500 HEATHERCLIFFE ROAD#2131
TORONTO ONTARIO CHARMICHAEL CA 95608 MALIBU CA 90265
CANADA M5R 3P8
MR HENRY MC CABE MR WILLIAM MACHI MR RICHARD GALANTI
MS ANN M BARCLAY MS CAROLYN MACHI 16023 SE 135T" STREET
6550 PONTO LANE#123 4336 VISTA WAY RENTON WA 98059
CARLSBAD CA 92009 DAVIS CA 95618
MS RUTH SOLOMON MR ALBERT AMONSON MR DOUGLAS MC NELL
PO BOX 4137 MS GAIL AMONSON PO BOX 2162
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 1427 100T" STREET SE#25 EVERETT WA 98203
EVERETT WA 98204
MS RUTH DIAMON MR JOSEPH GUTMAN MR SAUL MANVIL
MS NANCY STEELE 357 SOUTH CARSON AVE. #8B MS LILLIAN MANVIL
2821 CODY AVENUE LOS ANGELES CA 90036 3435 WILSHIRE BLVD#2500
BELLINGHAM WA 98225 LOS ANGELES CA 90010
MR GERALD GERARDOT MR NORMAN HOLBROOK MR JOSEPH GREEN
MS MARY GERADOT MS ALICE HOLBROOK 'MS ELIZABETH GREEN
BOX 917729 PMP697 15244 NE EUGENE STREET 38 PHILLIP DRIVE#108
LONGWOOD FL 32791 PORTLAND OR 97230 DALE CITY CA 94015
MR ALFRED ROY NS DENISE BOGGS MR B E LATIMER
MS MARGARET ROY 14752 CANDEDA PLACE 6547 S AUGUSTA DRIVE
BOX 40 TUSTIN CA 92780 SPRINGFIELD MO 65809
ST SEAN BAPTISTE
MANITOBA CANADA ROG 2B0
MR RIDLEY SHAW
MS LOMA SHAW
88-2600 FERGUSON ROAD
SAANICHTON BC
CANADA V8M 2C1
W,096S jasel MOM SSaIppy ®AU3AVG
Neighborhood
Coalition
Labels
Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter
280 Camino Sur 1155 S. Camino Real P.O. Box 2824
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263
Philip Tedesco Tim Hohmeier Frank Tysen
1303 West Primavera Drive 1387 Calle De Maria Casa Cody
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Bob Weithorn Jane Smith
261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262
n
681 270 007 X21 681270023
Tabor Loggins Associates ngsDesert Water Agency
1485 Spruce St#P PO Box 1710
Riverside, CA 92507 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263
681310 007 681 310 009 681 310 014
Villa Llc Andrew&Dorothy Fitzmorris Lincoln&Singer Allan Fbo
23192 Lake Center Dr 67700 Carey Rd PO Box 5831
Lake Forest, CA 92630 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Denver, CO 80217
681 310 015 681 310 016 681 310 018
Road Propoperties Perez Lincoln&Singer Allan Fbo Tabo Log ' s Associates
68352 Perez Rd PO Box 5831 148.5 co St#P
Cathedral City, CA 92234 Denver, CO 80217 side, CA 92507
681310 019 6310 021 681 10 025
Anderson Irene W&Guy L Children F EI do film Springs Ltd Ande on e W&Guy L Children F
PO Box 8660 255 N ]o Rd#286 PO B 660
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Pal Springs, 92262 P n Spri s, CA 92263
a Sponsor
X
681320O10 681320011
AssocEl Dorado Palm Springs Ltd Continental Parks Inc
t#P 255 N El Cielo Rd#286 150 Post St#610
92507 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Francisco, CA 94108
681 320 016 681 320 035 681 320 036
0&DAYTON HUDSON CORP Gary Powers&Cheryl Powers Bp West Coast Products Llc
777 Nicollet Mall 71685 Highway 111 4 Centerpointe Dr
Minneapolis,MN 55402 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 La Palma, CA 90623
681320 037 681 20 03 681320 040
Cat City Llc Cat Cr c John Wessman
1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#G106 155 P Canyon Dr#G106 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#G106
Palm Springs, CA 92264 m Spring CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 320 041 681 360 001 681 360 002
Plaza East Canyon Charles Meyers David Ortega&Ramona Ortega
1919 Grand Ave#2A 6068 Driver Rd 5914 Brassie PI
San Diego, CA 92109 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 003 681 360 004 681 360 005
Bonnie Birch Jack Rafferty Nadine Skolnick&Alice Bialkowski
1711 Vine Hill Rd 5943 Spoon Rd#4 2476 Jupiter Dr
Santa Cruz, CA 95065 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Los Angeles, CA 90046
681 360 006 681 360 007 681 360 008
Joseph&Kathleen Monaco Michael Mccabe Lake
Family Trust Monaco 6000 Driver Rd 1589 E Ocean Blvd
5985 Spoon Rd Palm Springs,CA 92264 Newport Beach,CA 92661
Palm Springs, CA 92264
r 0 �
681360 009 681 360 010 681 360 011
Alden Ostman&Kathryn Ostman John&Thomasine Mitchell Wilbur&Audrey Lockman
6020 Driver Rd 6044 Driver Rd 273 Bloom Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs,CA 92264 Monterey Park, CA 91755
681 360 012 681360 013 681 360 014
Fernando Ruiz Fernando&Bardomiano Ruiz John Chapman&Rose Nemeth
6045 Cleek PI#14 PO Box 3267 45950 Ocotillo Dr#2
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Desert, CA 92260
681 360 015 681 360 016 681 360 018
Robert Mcleod Mary Wopschall Henning Reimer&Scott Turner
6011 Driver Rd 5944 Spoon Rd 2310 Vanderbilt Ln#6
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Redondo Beach, CA 90278
681360 019 681 360 020 681 360 021
Nadine Scheppers&Traci Ann Andres William Roberts Freda Freeman
842 N Oakdale Ave PO Box 1158 6066 Cleek PI#19
Rialto, CA 92376 Lotus, CA 95651 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 022 681 360 023 681 360 024
Kelly Abdo&Jacqueline Abdo Louise Goble Leonard&Allison Kampe
28309 King Apache Cir 6143 Mashie Rd PO Box 1088
Menifee, CA 92584 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Ocean Shores, WA 98569
681 360 025 681360 026 681 360 027
Miller Joan Fettig Murdock Ronald C 2001
6151 Driver Rd PO Box 3036 6159 Driver Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 028 681 360 029 681 360 030
James&Jennifer Weiss Ervin Rose&June Rose Roselle Jackson&HASSE CHILDREN
6163 Driver Rd 145 Napoleon St - 6243 Driver Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Playa Del Rey, CA 90293 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 031 681 360 032 681 360 033
John&Thelma Nostrand Susan Anne Myers&Susan Anne Teix James Marple&Michael Stokes
5620 Southview Dr 6293 Niblick Rd PO Box 1077
Yorba Linda, CA 92887 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Pioneer, CA 95666
681 360 034 681 360 035 681 360 036
Cal Rynerson Kevin Baar&Lawrence Edwards Janet Harris
6269 Driver Rd 6288 Driver Rd 6280 Driver Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 037 681 360 038 681 360 039
Steven Sickles Timothy Reed Hal&Newman Jr.
6272 Driver Rd 6248 Driver Rd Jefk Frey
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 2003 El Cerrito PI
Los Angeles, CA 90068
681 360 040 681 360 041 681360 042
Larry Sailor Harry Stein Robert Stahl
6230 Driver Rd 12004 Kling St#12 6210 Driver Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Valley Village, CA 91607 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 043 681 360 044 681 360 045
William Mitchell John Nelson Gene Gregg&Anna Gregg
1155 Gaviota Dr 17727 22Nd Ave NE 1140 22Nd St
Laguna Beach,CA 92651 Seattle, WA 98155 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
681360 046 681 360 047 681 360 048
Calder Karen;Calder Karen 1995 Patrick&Karen Kelly Phil Kaplan&Alice Kaplan
2350 Brentford Rd Family Trust Kelly 29524 Nova Valley Dr
San Marino, CA 91108 6112 Driver Rd Farmington,bII 48331
Palm Springs,CA 92264
681 360 049 681 360 050 687 030 006
Ingrid Madoff Financial Scene Inc Norman&Kathryn Walter
PO Box 4808 PO Box 2592 21 Eisenhower Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92263 San Diego, CA 92112 Cathedral City,CA 92234
687 030 021 6YRa
687030028
Land Tramview LviewUltramar
PO Box 244 P4 PO Box 466
San Ramon CA 94583 S CA 94583 Hanford CA 93232
6 030 0 687 030 051 687 0 055
Lan view L Tr view Land view
PO B 4 PO 44 PO x 4
S on 94583 Ramo CA 94583 Ramon, CA 94583
6 7 030 06 687 030 068 687 030 074
John man Gary Powers&Cheryl Powers Desert Hills Mobile Home Park Inc
1555 Canyon Dr 4G106 71685 Highway 111 3 Oaktree Ln
Pal Spring , A 92264 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Rling Ills Est, CA 90274
6 030 077 6 030 078 68 030 081
Land ew Lan view 73 e
PO B 2 PO ox 44 155 alm Canyon Dr#G106
S on, C 94583 an Ramo CA 94583 m Spn s, CA 92264
687 030 082
Bp West Coast Products Llc
4 Centerpointe Dr
La Palma, CA 90623
W10965 jam slagej ssajppd ®A?13AVG
Neighborhood
Coalition
Labels
Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter
280 Camino Sur 1155 S. Camino Real P.O. Box 2824
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263
Philip Tedesco Tim Hohmeier Frank Tysen
1303 West Primavera Drive 1387 Calle De Maria Casa Cody
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Bob Weithorn Jane Smith
261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262
681270 007 - XB3
681270 023
Tabor Loggias Associates ngs Desert Water Agency
1485 Spruce St#P PO Box 1710
Riverside, CA 92507 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263
681 310 007 s. _y 681310 009 681 310 014
Villa Llc Andrew&Dorothy Fitzmorris Lincoln&Singer Allan Fbo
23192 Lake Center Dr 67700 Carey Rd PO Box 5831
Lake Forest, CA 92630 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Denver, CO 80217
681 310 015 681 310 016 681 310 018
Road Propoperties Perez Lincoln&Singer Allan Fbo Tabo Lo Associates
68352 Perez Rd PO Box 5831 1485 ce St#P
Cathedral City, CA 92234 Denver, CO 80217 side, CA 92507
681310 019 6 310 021 681 10 025
Anderson Irene W&Guy L Children F EI do alm Springs Ltd Ande on 'e W&Guy L Children F
PO Box 8660 255 N to Rd#286 PO B 660
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Pal Springs, 92262 P Spri s, CA 92263
SponSnr
X
681320O10 681320011
AssocEl Dorado Palm Springs Ltd Continental Parks Inc
t#P 255 NEI Cielo Rd#286 150 Post St#610
, 92507 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Francisco, CA 94108
681 320 016 681320 035 681 320 036
O&DAYTON HUDSON CORP Gary Powers&Cheryl Powers Bp West Coast Products Llc
777 Nicollet Mall 71685 Highway 111 4 Centerpointe Dr
Minneapolis,MN 55402 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 La Palma, CA 90623
681 320 037 681 20 030681320 040
Cat City Llc Cat Cr c John Wessman
1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#G106 155 P Canyon Dr#GI06 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#G106
Palm Springs, CA 92264 m Spring CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 320 041 681 360 001 681 360 002
Plaza East Canyon Charles Meyers David Ortega&Ramona Ortega
1919 Grand Ave#2A 6068 Driver Rd 5914 Brassie PI
San Diego, CA 92109 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 003 681 360 004 681 360 005
Bonnie Birch Jack Rafferty Nadine Skolnick&Alice Bialkowski
1711 Vine Hill Rd 5943 Spoon Rd#4 2476 Jupiter Dr
Santa Cruz, CA 95065 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Los Angeles, CA 90046
681 360 006 681 360 007 681 360 008
Joseph&Kathleen Monaco Michael Mccabe Lake
Family Trust Monaco 6000 Driver Rd 1589 E Ocean Blvd
5985 Spoon Rd Palm Springs, CA 92264 Newport Beach,CA 92661
Palm Springs, CA 92264
A Q /i
681360 009 681 360 010 681 360 011
Alden Ostman&Kathryn Ostman John&Thomasine Mitchell Wilbur&Audrey Lockman
6020 Driver Rd 6044 Driver Rd 273 Bloom Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Monterey Park,CA 91755
681 360 012 681 360 013 681 360 014
Fernando Ruiz Fernando&Bardomiano Ruiz John Chapman&Rose Nemeth
6045 Cleek PI#14 PO Box 3267 45950 Ocotillo Dr#2
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Desert, CA 92260
681 360 015 681 360 016 681 360 018
Robert Mcleod Mary Wopschall Henning Reimer&Scott Turner
6011 Driver Rd 5944 Spoon Rd 2310 Vanderbilt Ln#6
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Redondo Beach, CA 90278
681 360 019 681 360 020 681 360 021
Nadine Scheppers&Traci Ann Andres William Roberts Freda Freeman
842 N Oakdale Ave PO Box 1158 6066 Cleek Pl#19
Rialto, CA 92376 Lotus, CA 95651 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 022 681 360 023 681 360 024
Kelly Abdo&Jacqueline Abdo Louise Goble Leonard&Allison Kampe
28309 King Apache Cir 6143 Mashie Rd PO Box 1088
Menifee, CA 92584 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Ocean Shores,WA 98569
681 360 025 681 360 026 681 360 027
Miller Joan Fettig Murdock Ronald C 2001
6151 Driver Rd PO Box 3036 6159 Driver Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 028 681 360 029 681 360 030
James&Jennifer Weiss Ervin Rose&June Rose Roselle Jackson&HASSE CHILDREN
6163 Driver Rd 145 Napoleon St ' 6243 Driver Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Playa Del Rey,CA 90293 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 031 681 360 032 681 360 033
John&Thelma Nostrand Susan Anne Myers&Susan Anne Teix James Marple&Michael Stokes
5620 Southview Dr 6293 Niblick Rd PO Box 1077
Yorba Linda, CA 92887 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Pioneer, CA 95666
681 360 034 681 360 035 681 360 036
Cal Rynerson Kevin Baar&Lawrence Edwards Janet Harris
6269 Driver Rd 6288 Driver Rd 6280 Driver Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 037 681 360 038 681 360 039
Steven Sickles Timothy Reed Hal&Newman Jr.
6272 Driver Rd 6248 Driver Rd Jefk Frey
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 2003 El Cerrito PI
Los Angeles, CA 90068
- A
681360 040 681 360 041 681 360 042
Larry Sailor Harry Stein Robert Stahl
6230 Driver Rd 12004 Kling St#12 6210 Driver Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Valley Village,CA 91607 Palm Springs, CA 92264
681 360 043 681 360 044 681 360 045
William Mitchell John Nelson Gene Gregg&Anna Gregg
1155 Gaviota Dr 17727 22Nd Ave NE 1140 22Nd St
Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Seattle, WA 98155 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
681360 046 681 360 047 681 360 048
Calder Karen;Calder Karen 1995 Patrick&Karen Kelly Phil Kaplan&Alice Kaplan
2350 Brantford Rd Family Trust Kelly 29524 Nova Valley Dr
San Marino, CA 91108 6112 Driver Rd Famrington MI 48331
Palm Springs,CA 92264
681 360 049 681 360 050 687 030 006
Ingrid Madoff Financial Scene Inc Norman&Kathryn Walter
PO Box 4808 PO Box 2592 21 Eisenhower Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92263 San Diego, CA 92112 Cathedral City, CA 92234
687 030 021 6YRa
687030028
Land Tramview LviewUltramar
PO Box 244 P4 PO Box 466
San Ramon, CA 94583 S CA 94583 Hanford,CA 93232
6 030 0 687 030 051 687 0 055
Lan view L Tr view Land view
PO B 4 PO 44 PO x 4
S on 94583 Ramo CA 94583 Ramon, CA 94583
6 7 030 06 687 030 068 687 030 074
John man Gary Powers&Cheryl Powers Desert Hills Mobile Home Park Inc
1555 Canyon Dr#G106 71685 Highway 111 3 Oaktree Ln
Pal Spring , A 92264 Rancho Mirage,CA 92270 Rling Ills Est, CA 90274
6 030 077 6 0"078 68 030 O81
Land ew Lan view John e
PO B 2 PO ox 44 155 alm Canyon Dr#G106
S on, C 94583 an Itamo CA 94583 m Spn s, CA 92264
687 030 082
Bp West Coast Products Llc
4 Centerpointe Dr
La Palma, CA 90623
A
r
._ ,. sos °• sec ko
;>
s2
2S2
__rin
gs
J1360033
O
s
p o Bog-10
�+Pl�
er Cg 77 666 °h
9S eel �'�ae
9 SRC
NR ,o lRCF
s - 3s Ty T Mi
q�RFFT�yF44
Cj
MR FRANK ADREON
MS MARIN ADREON
BOX 02500018
SIOUX FALLS SD 57188
nan LI,.v ,
IJIVA,'.i:j_'J,c ,i-•tJ f`•'i lLr:�`t G,7r�'+;r�:
MR 3pg
MS ELI�B TH EEN
pp�eC17_ I e9VJ08 (�E
A 94015
204 CoYo M1.11er
a1m
f;, P to
8�264
Sp1
301 U Mo11 0
Pa1nc sptPer sephspn
CA
- _ q2
SS
681360046
Calder Karen;Cal rKaren 1995
2350 Brentfor d
San Marino A 91108 �
8.1
360
oth4 036-
i.'rr.✓, 't;''' J,`.' ,. 1'a1�sblT�er.t?9i
; ,360
44- Oil
�1oo A0a
```-.,,,`s, :i:,•t �,P y<:.a ".� , - vhfereJ A 4 reYzob
ark
9
SS
so
h S
681360�39
Te e
prey
�Jr.
Lo 03 EI Cerrire
CAPyoo6g
1 lNh R,pIV
O,y S iR XI'l O',3 a
rl
V rN sO o
A
aU
3�00 1 c
s &at
;. _R
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA RECONSIDERING AND REAPPROVING,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 28087 TO JAMES F. GOLDSTEIN OF EL
DORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR A PROPOSED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE THE EXISTING
377 SPACE EL DORADO MOBILE COUNTRY CLUB FOR
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES. THE EL DORADO MOBILE
COUNTRY CLUB IS LOCATED ON 50.65 ACRES OF LAND
AT 6000 EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE, SOUTH OF BOLERO
ROAD AND EAST OF GOLF CLUB DRIVE, W-R-MHP AND
R-MHP ZONES, SECTION 29, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
-------------
WHEREAS, Mr. James F. Goldstein of El Dorado Limited Partnership, (the "applicant") filed
an application with the City pursuant to Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 9.60 for Tentative
Tract Map No. 28087 for a proposed subdivision of the 377 space, 50.65 acre El Dorado Mobile
Country Club for condominium purposes, 6000 East Palm Canyon Drive, W- R-MHP and R-
MHP zones, Section 29; and
WHEREAS, said application was submitted to appropriate agencies as required by the
subdivision requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, with the request for their review,
comments and requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previous considered, reviewed, and adopted Resolution No.
19889, approving, subject to conditions of approval, Tentative Tract Map No. 28087, including
conditions of approval objected to by the applicant herein; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2000, applicant filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to compel the
City Council to prove Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 eliminating three disputed conditions of
approval to wit conditions nos. 2, 3 and 17; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2000, the applicant brought on for hearing its motion for preemptory
writ of mandate; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2000, the Mobile Home Park Home Owner's Association sought
and obtained leave of court to intervene in the action; and
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2000, the applicants motion to preemptory writ of mandate came
on regularly for hearing before the Riverside County Superior Court; and
WHEREAS, the trial court denied the motion; and
OC#24649 Q -1-
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2001, the Riverside County Superior Court entered judgment
against the applicant and in favor of the City of Palm Springs; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2001, the applicant timely filed its notice of appeal to the Court of
Appeals, Fourth Appellant District, Division 2; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2002, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellant District, Divisions 2
issued its opinion to wit: "[T]he Judgment [of the Riverside County Superior Court in favor of
the City of Palm Springs] is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court with directions to
require the [Palm Springs] City Council to promptly determine the sole issues of whether [the
applicant's] application for approval of a tentative parcel [sic] map complies with [Government
Code] section 66427.5. If so, the [Palm Springs] City Council should approve the application. If
not, the [Palm Springs] City Council should specify the grounds of non-compliance and the trial
court should retain jurisdiction to review the issue of compliance in further proceedings;" and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs sought review of the decision of the Court of Appeal in
the California Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2002, the California Supreme Court issued its order denying review of
the decision of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellant District, Division 2; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 1, 2002, the remitter was issued by the Court of Appeals to the
Riverside County Superior Court, commanding that a writ of mandate issue directing the Palm
Springs City Council to comply with the decision of the Court of Appeals; and
WHEREAS, the sole and only purpose for the present hearing before the Palm Springs City
Council is to obey and comply with the terms and conditions of the decision of the Court of
Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Division 2, which decision is attached to the staff report
submitted in connection with this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, under the express terms and conditions of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the
Palm Springs City Council has the right, obligation, and duty, to protect and assure that the
issuance of the tentative tract map is not intended nor shall it have the effect of facilitating a
"sham" conversion of the mobile home park in question from a landlord-tenant form of
ownership to a resident form of ownership; and
WHEREAS, the opinion of the Court of Appeals acknowledges that any acts taken by the
applicant to secure, for itself, a lifetime exemption from the protections of the rent control
ordinances of the City of Palm Springs, rather than assuring a bona fide conversion of ownership
to resident ownership, can and does establish the presence of a"sham" conversion; and
WHEREAS, the opinion of the Court of Appeals acknowledges that the attempted marketing of
individual mobile home coach spaces at prices above their fair market value, as such value is
established by an independent and qualified appraiser, is an indicia of an attempted "sham"
conversion; and
OC#24649 Q
��� z
WHEREAS, the opinion of the Court of Appeals acknowledges that use of an appraiser to
establish the fair market value of the mobile home coach spaces not recognized as being and
expert in the valuation of mobile home parks in an indicia of a"sham" conversion; and
WHEREAS, the opinion of the Court of Appeals acknowledges that unreasonable delays in
establishing the fair market value of mobile home coach spaces is an indicia of a "sham"
conversion; and
WHEREAS, the opinion of the Court of Appeals acknowledges that a cause of action exists in
favor of the City of Palm Springs to prevent "sham" conversions; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider
Applicant's application for Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 was given in accordance with
applicable law (Sections 66427.1, 66451, 66452.8 and 66452.9 of the California Subdivision
Map Act and Section 4.08.130 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66452.3 of the California Subdivision Map Act, a staff report
has been served on the subdivider and the representatives of the El Dorado Mobile Country Club
Residents Association (representing the tenants) at least three days before the City Council
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on September 4, 2002, a public to reconsider the application for Tentative Tract
Map No. 28087 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law and as ordered
by the Riverside County Superior Court; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 is considered categorically exempt
from the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301
(Existing Facilities); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the Planning Commission has
previously considered and the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed
subdivision, Tentative Tract Map No. 28087, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm
Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources; the approval of the proposed subdivision
represents the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with City's
obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has now carefully reviewed and considered the published opinion
of the Court Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Division 2, has been advised by its legal counsel
regarding its mandatory duties and obligations thereunder, has conducted a further public hearing
to reconsider Resolution No. 19889, has entertained the presentation of an evidence presented in
connection with such hearing, including, but not limited to, the staff report prepared by the office
of the City Attorney, and all written and oral testimony presented in connection therewith.
OC#24649 Q
-3-
!'�G 3
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows:
In that the proposed condominium conversion does not contemplate any additional
development on the property or to alter the physical characteristics of the El Dorado
Mobile Country Club, the proposed subdivision is exempt from the provisions of CEQA
per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Section 2. Pursuant to Section 9.62 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, the California
Subdivision Map Act and Zoning Ordinance Section 9207.00, the City Council
finds that:
a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly
one for which a Tentative Tract Map/Condominium Conversion is
authorized;
b. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, a Tentative Tract Map facilitating a
condominium conversion is authorized by the City's Zoning Ordinance
within the R-MHP and W-R-MHP zones;
C. The use applied for is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the
General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses
specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located;
d. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other
features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted
future uses of the land in the neighborhood, and is in compliance with all
applicable provisions of Section 9207.00 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Residential Mobile Home Park Zone) and other applicable provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance,
e. The use applied for will not adversely affect the City's housing stock; and
f. The conditions to be imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare, including any minor modifications of
the zone's property development standards.
Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the City Council finds that the
proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement are
compatible with the objectives, policies and general land uses and programs
provided in the City's General Plan; and
Section 4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65567, the City Council finds that the
proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvements are
OC#24649 Q
1 �f�. y
compatible with the objectives policies and federal land use provided in the City's
local open space plan; and
Section 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474, the City Council finds that with the
incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A:
a. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable general and specific
plans.
Pursuant to the General Plan, the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the
density, goals policies and objectives for medium density residential development
applicable to the property in question.
b. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
The proposed subdivision map implements design strategies and policies as
referenced in the City of Palm Springs General Plan for medium density
residential development.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development contemplated
by the proposed subdivision.
The existing El Dorado Mobile Country Club was completed in 1971 as a 377
space mobile home park with common recreational amenities on 50.65 acres of
land and was built in compliance with the development standards of Zoning
Ordinance in effect at the time for mobile home parks. With the recommended
Conditions of Approval specified in this Resolution, the subdivision meets all
applicable development criteria specified for the R-MHP and W-R-MHP zones in
the Zoning Ordinance.
d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
contemplated by the proposed subdivision.
The proposed subdivision is within a R-MHP and W-R-MHP zoning
classifications and designated M15 by the City of Palm Springs General Plan.
According to the General Plan, a medium density development not to exceed 15
units per acre should be provided on the property. The existing mobile home park
was constructed at a density of approximately 7.44 dwelling units per acre, in
compliance with the density provisions of the General Plan.
e. The design of the subdivision or improvements is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
In that the site of the proposed condominium conversion is already developed and
the subdivision application does not contemplate any additional development on
OC#24649 v2
-5-
��ff4 S�
the property, the application is exempt from the provisions of the California
Enviromnental Quality Act (CEQA)per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
f. The design of the subdivision or improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
In conjunction with the application, the repair of on-site deteriorated asphalt areas
and curbing through an unsecured improvement agreement and requiring the
gated access on Bolero Road to be upgraded will be required to be addressed prior
to recordation of the final map. With these conditions in place, the design of the
subdivision or improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
g. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of the property within the proposed subdivision.
The project will not conflict with the existing traffic flow adjacent to the property
along East Palm Canyon Drive or Bolero Road or access to utilities required to
serve the subdivision and the immediate area.
h. A nexus or rough proportionality have been established for requirement of
dedication of additional right-of-way to the City or the off-site
improvements as related to the tentative tract map.
The off-site improvements, which are required by the Zoning Ordinance, are
related to the project to provide needed services and access for future residents of
the site and will benefit the public at large.
Within the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, a 101-foot wide half
street (44 feet from centerline to curb face and including a frontage road) is
specified for East Palm Canyon Drive across the project frontage. However,
immediately adjacent to the east and the west of the site are lands within the City
of Cathedral City, where a 55-foot wide half street right of way (without a
frontage road) is specified for East Palm Canyon Drive per the City of Cathedral
City General Plan: Currently, the East Palm Canyon Drive project frontage
includes at 38-foot wide street section (from centerline of street to face of curb)
and a total half street right-of- way of 55 feet. Adjacent properties within the City
of Cathedral City on the north side of East Palm Canyon Drive have a half street
pavement width of approximately 44 feet within the right-of-way. If required to
be extended across the project frontage, an expansion to the ultimate Palm
Springs right-of-way standards could not physically serve to benefit the public at
large with an expanded right-of-way as specifically intended per the City of Palm
Springs General Plan. This is the only property within the City of Palm Springs
along East Palm Canyon Drive where such a situation could occur. Conditions
requiring the future street pavement expansion to 44 feet via covenant will serve
to provide a matching street section with adjacent properties in Cathedral City for
the future. Therefore, with this condition, the circulation goals, objectives and
OC#24649 Q
-6-
1y� �
policies of the General Plan would not be effected by this specific modification to
the right-of-way along East Palm Canyon Drive.
Conditions requiring repair or replacement of broken or off-grade curb, gutter and
pavement on East Palm Canyon Drive and Bolero Road are necessary to protect
pedestrians from trip and fall accidents along these streets.
Conditions requiring the developer to accept all flows impinging upon land into
an approved drainage structure is a "safeguard" condition for informational
purposes.
The condition requiring the project to conform with Federal Emergency
Management Act (FEMA) and City of Palm Springs Flood Hazard Ordinance is
again primarily for informational purposes for the prospective condominium
owners. The State of California is responsible for administering these
requirements to protect residents from any potential flood hazards.
Conditions relating to the on-site pavement section standard provides a basis for
an all-weather, safe roadway condition that will prove durable and able to
withstand normal traffic conditions for a number of years.
Section 6. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.6, the City Council has determined
that the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer
system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
Section 7. Pursuant to California Subdivision Map Act Section 66427, 66451, 66452 and
Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 4.08.130, the City Council has determined
that the application was noticed in accordance with all applicable provisions and
will also require:
a. That each tenant and each person applying for the rental of a unit has
received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter required by
Section 66427 and in Chapter 3 of the California Subdivision Map Act
(commencing with Section 66451);
b. That each tenant and each person applying for the rental of a unit shall
receive a 10 day written notice that an application for a public report will
be, or has been submitted to the Department or Real Estate, and that such a
report will be available upon request;
C. That each tenant shall receive a written notification within 10 days of
approval of a Final Map for the proposed condominium conversion;
d. Each of the tenants shall receive 180 days written notice of intention to
convert prior to the termination of tenancy due to the conversion or
proposed conversion; and
OC#24649 Q
-7-
/LI 7
e. Each tenant of the proposed condominium shall be given notice of an
exclusive right to purchase his or her respective unit for terms available to
the general public or terms more favorable to the tenant. This right shall
run for a period of not less than 180 days from the date of issuance of the
subdivision public report pursuant to Section 11018.2 of the Business and
Professions Code, unless the tenant gives prior written notice of this or her
intention not to exercise the right.
Section 8. Pursuant to the Opinion of the Court of Appeals in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd.
v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 (2002), the City Council expressly
retains jurisdiction over this resolution and Tentative Tract Map No. 28087 to
assure that issuance of the Tentative Tract Map herein is not intended nor shall it
have the effect of facilitating a "sham" conversion of the mobilehome park in
question from a landlord-tenant form of ownership to a resident form of
ownership within the meaning and under the facts and circumstances as set forth
by the Court of Appeals in the above-referenced opinion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council
hereby reconsiders and reapproves Tentative Tract Map No. 28087, subject to those conditions
set forth in Exhibit "A," which are to be satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, unless other specified.
ADOPTED this day of , 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
OC#24649 Q -8-
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT"A"
Tentative Tract Map No. 28087
El Dorado Mobile Country Club
6000 East Palm Canyon Drive
September 4, 2002
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or
their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of
the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes,
ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations.
I a. The proposed development is subject to all applicable provisions of the California
Subdivision Map Act, including but not limited to, Government Code Sections
66427.1, 66427.5, 66428.1, 66451 and 66452, and evidence of compliance
therewith shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Building, as required
by law.
lb. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm
Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set
aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body,
advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Tentative Tract Map No.
28087. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant
will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal
costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney.
If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such
claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant
shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to
settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so,
the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to
settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal,
shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
OC 924648 Q
-1-
2. The subdivider shall comply with the rental rate increase provisions of Section
66427.5(dl and d2) of the California Subdivision Map Act, as follows:
2a. As to non-purchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined
in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any
applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase
from the pre-conversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal
conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal
standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period; and
2b. As to non-purchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any
applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase
from the pre-conversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase
in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no
event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average
monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently
reported period.
3. The subdivider shall comply with the findings and recommendations of the Tenant
Impact Report prepared for the condominium conversion of the El Dorado Mobile
Country Club, including, but not limited to:
3a. The resident(s) will be given the choice to buy the space on which their
mobilehome is situated or to continue tenancy in the park pursuant to the
provisions of the Tenant Impact Report;
3b. Rent increases will be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section
66427.5 of the California Subdivision Map Act and the Mobile home Park
Residence Assistance Program(MPROP) regulation 8020;
3c. Section 1.2 of the Tenant Impact Report shall be amended by deleting the phrase
"... is heard by the Palm Springs Planning Commission, or September 30, 1999,
which ever occurs first..." and replaced with the phrase "... is heard by the Palm
Springs City Council or June 15, 2000, which ever occurs first..."
3d. The subdivider shall not terminate any tenancies and existing leases or require
that the residents vacate the property, after the "Map Act Rent Date" (specified
above in Condition No. 2). Non-purchasing residents will not be required to
vacate their space and will have occupancy rights subject to the Lease or written
Rental Agreement, Mobilehome Residency Law and California Law, as
applicable, such that there will be no eviction displacement as a result of the
proposed subdivision;
3e. The effective date of "Map Act Rents" (Section 66427.5 (dl and d2, specified
above in Condition No. 3) shall be that of the "Map Act Rent Date" (specified
above in Condition No. 2);
OC 424648 Q
_2_
3f. As part of the distribution of the Final Public Report, the leases and qualifying
information shall be simultaneously distributed and the residents shall have 180
days within which to make their election to purchase or to execute the new leases.
If the resident does not want to execute a lease but does want to continue renting
his/her space, then the resident may do so under a month-to-month or one-year
written rental agreement;
3g. The right of first refusal shall be the passage of six consecutive calendar months
from the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report by the Department of
Real Estate.
4. The subdivider shall comply will all future noticing requirement specified in the
California Subdivision Map Act, Section 66427.1, as follows:
4a. Each tenant and each person applying for the rental of a unit shall receive a 10
day written notice that an application for a public report will be, or has been
submitted to the Department or Real Estate, and that such a report will be
available upon request;
4b. Each tenant shall receive a written notification within 10 days of approval of a
Final Map for the proposed condominium conversion;
4c. Each of the tenants shall receive 180 days written notice of intention to convert
prior to the termination of tenancy due to the conversion or proposed conversion;
and
4d. Each tenant of the proposed condominium shall be given notice of an exclusive
right to purchase his or her respective unit for terms available to the general
public or terms more favorable to the tenant. This right shall run for a period of
not less than 180 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report
pursuant to Section 11018.2 of the Business and Professions Code, unless the
tenant gives prior written notice of this or her intention not to exercise the right.
5. Non-purchasing residents of El Dorado Mobile Country Club shall be protected by the
provisions of Chapter 4.08 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code (Rent Control), until
such time of the "Map Act Rent Date", as defined in applicable law.
6. All applicable original conditions of approval from Resolutions pertaining to the
development of the El Dorado Mobile Country Club are still in full force and effect.
7. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and
Building for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior
to issuance of occupancy permits. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall
not be amended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a
good condition and in accordance with all ordinances.
OC#24648 v2
-3-
The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, an additional deposit in the
amount of$5,000.00, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney.
S. The gated access on Bolero Road shall be upgraded to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building and the City Engineer. A site plan, landscape/irrigation plan and
all necessary gate information (i.e. the design, height, texture and color) shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Director of Planning and Building and the City
Engineer prior to recordation of the final map.
9. Provisions for repair of areas of deteriorated asphalt and curbing within the interior of the
project only shall be provided through an unsecured improvement agreement, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, prior to
recordation of the final map.
10. If a third party (other than the tenant) buys a lot, the original tenant may continue to rent
from the third party, as long as such tenant wishes to remain a resident, and subject to the
rental rate limitation specified by Section 66427.5 of the California Subdivision Map Act
or Section 4.08.130 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, as applicable.
11. Under no circumstances shall there be more than one mobile home per lot.
12. The property shall be maintained in accordance with Section 9319.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
13. The applicant shall provide all tenants with Conditions of Approval of this project.
14. The subdivider shall afford the following financial assistance to the following categories
of residents of the mobile home park:
14a. For all year - round residents of the mobile home park who are not lower income
households, as defined in Section 509079.5 of the Health and safety code, the sum
of$6,000.00 to be utilized in purchasing a unit or in relocation assistance.
14b. For all other residents of the Mobile home park, the sum of $3,000.00 to be
utilized in purchasing a unit or in relocation assistance.
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
15. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal
Code.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
16. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
OC#24648 Q
-4-
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
17. Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
STREETS
17a. The Engineering Department recommends deferral of off-site improvement
ITEMS 11 and 20 at this time due to lack of full improvements in the immediate
area. The developer shall enter into a covenant agreeing to construct all
mentioned improvements along the entire frontage upon the request of the City of
Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed necessary. The covenant
shall be submitted with the Final Tract Map. The Final Tract Map will not be
approved until completion of the covenant.
PALM CANYON DRIVE EAST
17b. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the
Engineering Division. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of any grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable:
17bi. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
17bii. All agreements and improvement plans approved by City Engineer, IF
applicable.
17biii. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment
agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required
by these conditions.
17c. Construct an 8 inch curb and gutter,44 feet NORTHEAST of centerline along the
entire frontage of the subject property per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing
No. 200.
17d. Construct an 8 foot cross gutter and spandrel at the intersection of PALM
CANYON DRIVE EAST (HWY. 111) and MAIN ENTRANCE with a flow line
parallel to the centerline of PALM CANYON DRIVE EAST (HWY. 111) in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206.
17e. The driveway approach shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 205 and have minimum width of 32 feet to
accommodate a curb ramp.
17f. Construct a minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire
frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210.
GC#24648 Q _5_
17g. Construct a curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards on
both sides of the MAIN ENTRANCE per City of Palm Springs Std. Dwg.
Nos. 212 and 212A.
17h. Remove and replace existing pavement with a minimum pavement section of 5
inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inch aggregate base with a minimum
subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of
proposed gutter to clean saw cut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 355. The
pavement section shall be designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils
Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
17i. All broken or off grade CURB, GUTTER, AND AC PAVEMENT shall be
repaired or replaced, or provided for via an improvement agreement, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
BOLERO ROAD
17j. All broken or off grade CURB, GUTTER, AND AC PAVEMENT shall be
repaired or replaced, or provided for via an improvement agreement, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
GRADING
17k. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks - 3' wide
and 6" deep - to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways,
or gutters or provided for via an improvement agreement, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
DRAINAGE
171. The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and conduct these
flows to an approved drainage structure.
17m. The owner shall notice all residents and prospective residents as part of the Final
Public Report to the Department of Real Estate that the southern two- thirds
approximately, of this property is in Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) zone
AO(3) and shall conform to all of the FEMA and City of Palm Springs Flood
Hazard Ordinance requirements for this zone.
17n. The elevation of the mobile homes in the AO (3) zone shall meet the requirements
of the State relative to mobile homes in a special flood hazard area and shall be
revised if necessary to conform to FEMA standards.
GENERAL
OC#24648 Q
-6-
f �G / �
17o. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway
which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight
distance per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 203.
17p. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public
sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per
City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications.
MAP
17q. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the
traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies
of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering
Department.
17r. Developer shall provide tenant notification for subdivisions to be created from the
conversion of residential property into a condominium project in compliance with
Sections 66427.1 and 66452.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, as applicable.
17s. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil
Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal
shall be made upon approval by City Council of the Tentative Map.
TRAFFIC
17t. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance
around all street furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for
handicap accessibility. The developer shall provide same through dedication of
additional right-of-way and widening of the sidewalk or shall be responsible for
the relocation of all existing traffic signal/safety light poles, conduit, pull boxes
and all appurtenances located on the PALM CANYON DRIVE EAST (HWY.
111) frontage of the subject property.
17u. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects
as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum,
all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State
of California, Department of Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC
CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES"
dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction.
OC#24648 Q
I ls'