13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Mayor Jennifer Hosterman Vice Mayor Cheryl Cook- Kallio Councilmember Cindy McGovern Councilmember Matt Sullivan Councilmember Jerry Thorne Pleasanton City Council March 31, 2009 Page 2 The MPROP program offers long -term (30 -year) loans at 3% simple annual interest, to low income residents of a mobilehome park that has been converted to resident ownership, to ensure housing affordability when the resident buys a lot in the park. And, given the concern expressed regarding the unknown price factor, it is important to understand that in order to promote affordability, the monthly MPROP loan payments are based upon income, rather than purchase price. The loan does not cover the entire purchase price, but is often paired with a conventional loan and provides, on a sliding scale, an amount sufficient to secure a monthly payment that is suitable for the individual resident based on their income, down payment, etc. The total monthly payment (combined housing costs including mortgage, utilities, homeowner dues, taxes, etc.) should generally not exceed 30 -40% of the resident's monthly income, which is within both state and local definitions as affordable housing. Further, although the Planning Department Staff Report recommended approval of the Conversion, the Planning Commission "Commission voted to deny the Application because, according to the Resolution of denial, "the Planning Commission was unable to make the finding that the subdivider obtained a survey of support of residents of the mobile home park for the proposed conversion, as provided in Section 66427.5 of the Subdivision Map Act." Before a discussion of the applicable law, which does not require any level of resident support but only that a survey of such support "Survey be taken, it is important to note that a majority of residents who responded to the Survey support the Conversion. As stated in the Staff Report, "[S]taff concludes that there was a majority support for the conversion and that this finding be made." Members of the Commission appeared to require that a majority of all residents of the Park indicate their support for the Conversion. However, such an expectation was extremely unreasonable because only 57% of resident households even responded to the Survey. Section 66427.5 does not require all residents to respond to the Survey. Furthermore, the resident group that represented the residents' rights, the Park Owners, and the City Attorney all agreed on a form of survey that permitted residents to mark "Decline to respond at this time." Thirty-eight (38) of the park's 208 households marked this option. As explained in further detail below, the resident Survey of support is not intended to give residents the ability to decide the Conversion. However, even if this City Council decides to treat the Survey as if it were an election, there can be no doubt but that the residents chose to support the Conversion, because more residents chose to support the Conversion than to oppose it. It can be safely assumed that not a single member of the City Council would hold his or her seat if election law were read to require that a majority of all residents, or even all eligible voters, must vote their support for a candidate. Similarly, "Yes" or "No" ballots, such as state and local