BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 444
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: evans
VERSION: 4/26/11
Analysis by: Carrie Cornwell FISCAL: no
Hearing date: May 3, 2011
SUBJECT:
Mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership
DESCRIPTION:
This bill permits a local government to subject an application
to convert a mobilehome park to resident ownership to all
relevant state laws, including the Subdivision Map Act.
ANALYSIS:
The Subdivision Map Act governs the division of real property
into parcels or condominiums and requires that a subdivider file
a tentative map for approval by a local agency. In almost all
cases the local agency's approval of the subdivision is a
discretionary act. Existing law, however, provides for a few
situations in which a local agency must deny the subdivision
map, such as if the map is inconsistent with the community's
general plan.
The Subdivision Map Act establishes a different process for
conversions of mobilehome parks to resident ownership, which
severely limits a local agency's discretion. Under this process
(contained in Government Code Section 66427.5), a subdivider of
a mobilehome park submits a tentative or parcel map to the local
agency for review and approval. Government Code Section 66427.5
requires the subdivider to avoid the economic displacement of
non-purchasing residents by:
� Surveying residents about their support for the conversion.
� Offering each existing tenant an option to buy his or her
lot.
� Filing a report on the impact of the conversion on
residents and making that report available to residents of
the park.
� Submitting to a local agency hearing solely on the
subdivider's compliance with the law requiring avoidance of
SB 444 (EVANS) Page 2
____
economic displacement of non-purchasing residents.
� Limiting rent increases of non-purchasing, low-income
residents by an amount equal to the average monthly increase
in rent in the four years immediately preceding the
conversion, except that in no case shall the increase be
greater than the increase in the consumer price index (CPI);
� Limiting rent increases on those non-purchasing residents
who are not low-income to market-rate levels through equal
annual increases spread over a four-year period.
The legislative body or an authorized advisory agency (i.e., the
planning commission) of the local government must hold a hearing
to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The
scope of the hearing - and therefore, the approval or
disapproval -- is limited to whether or not the subdivider
complied with the provisions of law to avoid the economic
displacement of non-purchasing residents (i.e., the bullets
above).
This bill :
1.Deletes the special process under the Subdivision Map Act for
conversions of mobilehome parks to resident ownership and
provides that such conversions shall be subject to the
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and other
applicable state laws.
2.Requires that the legislative body or an authorized agency of
the local government shall hold the hearing to approve,
conditionally approve, or disapprove the map and that only the
portion of that hearing relating to mitigating the economic
displacement of nonpurchasing residents shall be limited in
scope to ensuring that the subdivider has complied with
Government Code Section 66427.5 (i.e., the bullets above).
For that portion of its review, the local government may
disapprove the map if it finds that the survey results have
not demonstrated adequate resident support for the conversion.
3.Declares that its amendments to the Subdivision Map Act (i.e.,
1 and 2 above) are declaratory of existing law, thus
indicating that the Legislature never intended to limit a
local agency's discretion under the Subdivision Map Act; that
the intent of the Legislature has been and continues to be
that a local agency must consider the resident survey in
making the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or
disapprove the map; that the local agency has the authority at
SB 444 (EVANS) Page 3
____
its discretion to disapprove the map if it finds that the
results of the survey have not demonstrated adequate support;
and that the special process under the Subdivision Map Act has
never been intended to relieve the subdivider or local agency
from complying other applicable state laws.
BACKGROUND:
The residents of California's nearly 5,000 mobilehome parks
typically own their mobilehomes and rent the spaces in
mobilehome parks on which the homes are placed. Mobilehomes,
once placed in a park, are difficult to relocate. Because of
this, many local governments impose mobilehome park space rent
controls to limit the amount that rent on a space can increase
each year.
For various reasons, mobilehome park residents in some parks
have decided to join together and buy the park or their
individual spaces within it. This is referred to as a
conversion to resident ownership.
Historically, when mobilehome parks have converted to resident
ownership, the residents have initiated the process and enlisted
the help of a nonprofit organization. The nonprofit
organization typically buys the entire park and sells lots to
individual owners.
Until 1996, local jurisdictions imposed their own conditions on
proposed subdivisions of mobilehome parks into individual,
resident-owned lots. In the 1990s, some argued that local
governments sometimes imposed conditions under the Subdivision
Map Act that prevented the conversion of a park into resident
ownership. For example, a local government might condition the
map on the building of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters on the
streets in the mobilehome park. In 1995, then Senator Craven
introduced a bill to address this issue.
SB 310 (Craven), Chapter 256, Statutes of 1995, amended the
Subdivision Map Act to limit local review of the subdivision
application and to ensure that subdividers of mobilehome parks
gave residents the opportunity to purchase a space in the park
and to avoid being displaced if they could not afford to
purchase a space. SB 310 limited local review of an application
to subdivide a park into resident-owned space solely to
compliance with its provisions, which are to avoid the economic
SB 444 (EVANS) Page 4
____
displacement of non-purchasing residents.
Under SB 310, residents who cannot purchase their spaces are
allowed to remain as renters, and SB 310 prescribed a formula
for how rents for non-purchasing residents shall be calculated.
That formula raises rents to market levels over a four-year
period, except that those renters who are low-income may only
have their rents increased by the average monthly increase in
rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, but
in no case by more than an amount equal to increases in the CPI.
In 1993, the owner of the El Dorado Mobile Country Club, a
377-space mobilehome park in Palm Springs, filed a tentative
subdivision map as a first step to converting the park to
resident ownership. The Palm Springs City Council, concerned
that this was a "sham" conversion to circumvent its local rent
control ordinance, approved the map subject to several
conditions, including that the effective map date would be the
date escrow closed on 120 lots in the park. Under this
condition, the park would cease to be subject to the city's
mobilehome space rent control ordinance when 120 of its lots
sold. After that date, the formula for mitigating economic
displacement under SB 310 bill would be applicable. The city
council included this condition to prevent the park owner's
circumvention of the rent control ordinance by just selling a
few lots (i.e., a "sham" conversion).
El Dorado's owner filed a lawsuit in superior court to compel
approval of the subdivision map without the conditions,
including the condition delaying the effective date of the map.
El Dorado's owner claimed that the effective date of conversion
was when one lot was sold, and the city council did not have the
power to impose more stringent requirements. The lower court
denied the park owner's petition, but in 2002, the 4th District
Court of Appeal reversed that decision ruling in favor of the
park owner in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd., v. City of Palm
Springs.
The appellate court ruled that the city was limited to the scope
of assuring that El Dorado's owner had complied with
requirements of Section 66427.5, the special process in the
Subdivision Map Act enacted by SB 310. The court ruled that
Section 66427.5 takes effect as soon as one unit is sold, and
therefore, its rent formulas supersede a local rent control
ordinance as soon as that first lot is sold.
SB 444 (EVANS) Page 5
____
The proponents of SB 310 had not foreseen instances in which
mobilehome park owners, rather than residents, would use its
exemption to the Subdivision Map Act to convert their parks into
condominium-type parks, where the owner subdivides the park and
sells spaces to the residents. As the value of the land under a
mobilehome park increases, rents for those spaces may not
increase commensurately in local communities with rent control
ordinances, and this circumstance can create an incentive for a
mobilehome park owner to convert his or her park to resident
ownership.
Since the owner of El Dorado Park in Palm Springs first used the
Subdivision Map Act for conversion to resident ownership, many
more mobilehome park owners have pursued this type of
conversion. This has set up a conflict between park owners and
park residents over the use of existing state law for conversion
of parks to resident ownership, which has resulted in both
legislation and litigation.
In August of last year some of this litigation resulted in
another appellate court ruling in a different district of the
California Court of Appeals, which found that other state laws,
but not other provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, apply to
conversions to resident ownership. In Pacific Palisades Bowl
Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, the 2nd District
Court of Appeal ruled that other state laws, specifically the
Mello Act (relating to housing in the coastal zone) and the
Coastal Act, apply to mobilehome park conversions within the
coastal zone and "the local authority must ensure compliance
with those acts in addition to compliance with section 66427.5."
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . The author notes that mobilehomes have traditionally
provided affordable housing to people that would otherwise be
priced out of any type of ownership. Local rent control
ordinances keep mobile homes affordable for seniors and
working families who are on a fixed income.
Current law allows a mobilehome park to be subdivided into
residential ownership. The author notes that the original law
was written in order to give the residents of mobilehome parks
an opportunity to buy the land they live on but that serious
unintended consequences have surfaced. For instance, if one
parcel in a mobilehome park is sold, the four year phase-out
of rent control begins. This means that a parcel that is
SB 444 (EVANS) Page 6
____
rented for $600 today may be rented for $1000 to $1500 in a
short four years. The author is concerned that the end result
is that the affordable housing stock is severely compromised.
The author states that in the past few years, there has been a
surge in applications being filed by park owners who want to
convert their parks from rental mobilehomes into residential
ownership. This is often being done over the protests of
local government and residents of the parks, who have no
recourse to stop the conversion.
2.The survey requirement . AB 930 (Keeley), Chapter 1143,
Statutes of 2002, responded to the El Dorado case by requiring
a subdivider to survey residents of the mobilehome park on
whether or not they support a proposed conversion to resident
ownership. The survey must be conducted in accordance with an
agreement between the subdivider and a homeowners' association
and must be obtained as a written ballot with each occupied
mobilehome space having one vote. Once completed, results of
the survey must be submitted to the local agency as part of
the subdivision map hearing. AB 930 included uncodified
language stating the bill was intended to assure that such
conversions were "bona-fide."
Since AB 930 added the survey requirement, some local
governments have enacted local ordinances to define "bona
fide," including a requirement that a certain percentage of
residents indicate an interest in purchasing their lots.
Several of these ordinances are the subject of pending
litigation as park owners have challenged the measure of
resident support as evidence that the conversion is bona fide.
Last year the 2nd District Court of Appeal, in Colony Cove
Properties, LLC v. City of Carson (2010), invalidated the City
of Carson's ordinance, which depended on certain percentages
of support in the resident survey to make presumptions about
whether a conversion was bona fide or not. While the court
invalidated the ordinance, it did leave open the possibility
that a local government could consider the survey in its
action at the hearing on the map application.
3.Court urges Legislature to clarify the law . In both Colony
Cove Properties and Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, the 2nd
District Court of Appeal expressed "hope that the Legislature
will recognize the dilemma faced by local agencies illustrated
SB 444 (EVANS) Page 7
____
by �these cases] ?, and act to clarify the scope of their
authority and responsibility." This bill addresses that hope,
because it gives local governments authority to apply any
applicable state law to an application to convert a mobilehome
park to resident ownership.
4.Arguments in opposition . The Western Manufactured Housing
Communities Association (WMA) opposes this bill because it
allows a local agency broader authority over the conversion of
mobilehome parks to resident ownership. WMA believes that
allowing local governments to exercise greater decision making
over the conversions will make the process more complicated,
costly, and less appealing for residents. The bill will allow
local governments to "continue to hold some parkowners in a
form of economic indentured servitude that will result in
continued deterioration of, and reduction in, the number of
mobilehome parks in California."
Writing in opposition for the Law Offices of Gilchrist &
Rutter, attorney Richard Close states that existing law is
specifically intended to relieve a subdivider of complying
with other applicable laws in order to maintain statewide
uniformity, thus encouraging and facilitating conversions so
that residents will have the opportunity to own their spaces.
He further notes that complying with local laws is generally
not feasible as a conversion is merely a change of ownership
and not a change of use.
5.Really about rent control ? It can be argued that bills
relating to the process for converting a mobilehome park to
resident ownership are really about rent control. As noted in
the background section above, once a single lot in a
mobilehome park is sold into resident ownership then the
entire park is removed from any local rent control ordinance
and subject to the rent increases prescribed in state law.
Because those local ordinances suppress the income that an
owner of a park can make from rents, it is typically in the
owner's interest to undertake a conversion to resident
ownership whether or not the majority of residents in that
park want to buy their lots or not. This bill would allow a
local government to establish ordinances or use other
provisions of law to disapprove conversions, so it could have
the effect of keeping mobilehome parks under local rent
control ordinances that could otherwise convert and get out of
that rent control.
SB 444 (EVANS) Page 8
____
6.Previous legislation . Last session, AB 566 (Nava) would have
allowed a local government to consider the level of support
that a subdivider's survey demonstrates when approving or
disapproving a mobilehome park conversion to resident
ownership. That bill passed this committee by a 7-4 vote on
July 14, 2010, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it.
In 2007, AB 1542 (Evans) would have increased a local
jurisdiction's authority over a mobilehome park conversion and
maintained or imposed rent control on spaces that were not
purchased when a mobilehome park converts to resident
ownership. That bill passed this committee on a 6-2 vote on
July 3, 2007, but Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it.
SB 900 (Corbett) from the 2007-08 session would have repealed
the existing special process from the Subdivision Map Act for
the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership and
thus, made the mitigation of impacts on non-purchasing
residents from these conversions subject to conditions for
approval imposed by local governments. That bill passed this
committee on a 6-3 vote on April 10, 2007 and later passed the
full Senate, but it was never voted upon in the Assembly
Housing and Community Development Committee.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday, April 27,
2011)
SUPPORT: Golden State Manufactured Home Owners League
(sponsor)
County of Sonoma (sponsor)
AARP
Blue Pacific Mobile Home Park Homeowners'
Association
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California Senior Legislature
City of Buenaventura
City of Capitola
City of Carson
City of Chino
City of Goleta
City of San Luis Obispo
City of Torrance
Coddingtown Estates How Owners Association
Congress of California Seniors
Contempo Marin Homeowners Association
SB 444 (EVANS) Page 9
____
County of Santa Barbara
DeAnza Mobile Home Park Owners Association
Fairness for Mobile Home Owners
Firecrest Mobilehome Park Homeowners Association
Homeowner's Coalition, Mobilehome Parks of
Tuolumne Co.
Lamplighter Chino Home Owners Association
League of California Cities
Rancho Santa Barbara Mobile Home Association
San Luis Obispo County Mobilehome Residents'
Assistance Panel
Sequoia Gardens Mobile Home Owners Association
University Park Homeowners Association
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Ventura Mobilehome Resident's Council
Vista Del Lago Homeowners' Association
Western Center on Law and Poverty
390 individuals
OPPOSED: The Associates Group for Affordable Housing
Californians for Resident Ownership
Law Offices of Gilchrist & Rutter
The Loftin Firm LLP
Western Manufactured Housing Communities
Association (WMA)
85 individuals