HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-10 - AGENDA REPORTS - MH REGARDING PARK CLOSURE (2)CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: November 10, 1992
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager Approval
Item to be presented(b ::
YWV
Lynn M. Harris (Y %//kzl,�
SUBJECT: Status of Manufactured Home Rent Stabilization Panel Decision regarding Park
Closure Issues
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
BACKGROUND
At Its regularly scheduled meeting of October 14, 1992, the City's Manufactured. Home Rent
Stabilization Panel considered the City Council's direction that the Panel function as a temporary
committee to review a proposed park closure and relocation assistance ordinance. The Council
directed the Community. Development staff to provide technical assistance to the Panel.
In the staff report prepared for the Panel (copy attached), staff prepared a scope of work and an
analysis of California State requirements, requirements from other municipal jurisdictions, General
Plan and Land Use Issues, options for tenants to purchase the parks, and the pros and cons of
formulating a park closure ordinance. Based on the information provided, staff recommended that
the Panel work over the next three or four months with community Input to develop a consensus
as to whether or not a proposed ordinance should be prepared and then consider the options for
delineating specific compensation in the ordinance.
At the meeting on October 14, the Panel also received a memo and heard testimony regarding City
purchase of mobile home parks for affordable housing purposes via the Issuance of bonds. The
proposal calls for the purchase of mobile home parks by the City using tax exempt financing. The
proponents believe that the plan would assure long-term rent stabilization and provide the
opportunity for the future conversion of the parks to tenant ownership. In this proposal, tax-
exempt bonds would be amortized by the rental Income from the park. PMW Associates, the
proponents on behalf of park owners, prepared a one-page memo to the Panel (copy attached).
After the staff report presentation and the conclusion of public testimony, the Panel passed the
following two motions:
1. The Panel recommends to the City Council that they discuss the purchase of Mobile Home
Parks by the City with bond financing. (Vote 4-0, 1 abstention.)
2. The Panel suggested that the City Council form a separate committee, other than the Rent
Stabilization Panel, for the purpose of completing the review of park closure ordinances.
(Vote 4.1.)
ANALYSIS
As mentioned in previous reports to Council, staff and the City Attorney have recommended the
City not adopt a park closure ordinance at this time because of pending legal issues and because
Agenda Item
there does not appear to be a problem In our City with park closures that would necessitate such
an ordinance.
The existing rent stabilization ordinance took over one -and -a -half years to draft and represented
a compromise between park residents and park owners. Given past experience, formation of a
committee as suggested by the Panel Involves potentially significant costs and time. The Council
may want to consider making this assignment to the Panel again after a new Panel is seated. All
of the seats on the existing panel will be up for election/appointment In early 1993. The tenants and
park owners will each elect two representatives to the Panel, and the City Manager will appoint a
fifth member from a list of qualified mediators.
With regard to City purchase of parks, staff believes that the bond financing scenario duplicates
the intent of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which Is already in effect, and serves to moderate
rent increases in the parks.
Staff has Identified the following alternatives for the City Council's consideration:
1. Defer investigation of park closure ordinance until next year, and refer it to the new Panel;
2. 'Set an alternative committee, or;
3. Request that the Planning Commission study this Issue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt a two-part motion to:
a. Receive -and file the Information on City purchase of parks and take no action at this time;
and,
b. Direct the Manufactured Home Rent Stabilization Panel, once the election/selection of new
members Is completed in early 1993, to study and provide recommendations to the City
Council on the proposed Park Closure/Relocation Assistance Ordinance.
LMH:KM
cWmffiP=vU1&..d*
r
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Manuf ctured Home Rent Adjustment Panel
ZDrdr, Sao /,O L,%E{
FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development
DATE: October 14, 1992
SUBJECT: Park Closure Issues Information
BACKGROUND
On June 14, 1992, the City Council was presented with a proposed manufactured
home park closure ordinance prepared by a citizen committee group. The
ordinance brought forth specific requirements for park owners to adhere to in
the event of a park closure. Specific requirements proposed by this ordinance
included compensation for the moving of personal property, compensation for
lodging and meals in the event tenants are unable to occupy their coach during
moving activities, compensation for rent expenses if space rent at the new
location exceeds the rent at the former location, and replacement of the coach
in the event of damage during a move.
Due to the strict requirements set forth in this draft Ordinance, City Staff
and the City Attorney recommended that the City Council not adopt this
Ordinance. The City Attorney concluded that the specifications may lead to an
unconstitutional taking without adequate compensation for the park owners.
On September 9, 1992, the Manufactured Home Rent Stabilization Panel received
City Council direction on the study of a proposed park closure ordinance from
the Staff. The City Council directed the Panel to function as a temporary
committee to review the impacts of a park closure ordinance with Staff and
City Attorney assistance.
A park closure ordinance addresses the requirements, timelines, and monetary
and/or other relocation assistance needed for park tenants in the event that a
mobilehome park owner desired to convert the park to another land use.
Manufactured home park closure ordinances. are adopted to. provide specific
procedural and policy requirements that are followed by boh tenants and the
land owners when a change in land use is initiated by the park owners.
PROJECT SCOPE
Staff's approach to the park closure issue includes: 1. An analysis of the
state law requirements, and; 2. An overview of 10 jurisdictions that have
adopted park closure ordinances. "
AGENDA ITEM Z
Staff has researched ten jurisdictions
ordinances:
o City of
Huntington Beach
o City of
Los Angeles
o County
of Orange
o City of
Pismo Beach
o County
of San Diego
o City of
San Marcos
o County
of Santa Barbara
o County
of Santa Cruz
o City of
Carson
o City of
❑estminster
that have adopted park closure
Staff's analysis identifies specific regulations and reviews the
administrative efficiency of the ordinance. A listing of options available
for the City is provided, including a park closure ordinance. Pros and cons
for each option are specified and staff's recommendation is provided.
STATE REQUIREMENTS
Manufactured home park conversion issues are regulated throughout three (3)
sections of California State law: Government Code Section 65863.7, Government
Code Section 66427.4, and Civil Code Section 798.56(g). A description of each
section is presented below.
Government Code Section 65863.7 - Located in the California Planning and
Zoning Requirements, the.law requires that before a mobilehome park is closed
or converted to another use, the party proposing the' change of use. must file a
relocation impact report determining the potential impacts on those tenants
being displaced.
The requesting party must make available the relocation impact report to all
tenants 15 days before the hearing on the impact report by the advisory agency
or legislative body.
The legislative body must review the report prior to the change of use and has
the authority to require the requesting party to mitigate, or reduce, any
adverse impacts of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park
residents to find adequate space in another park.
State law sets no requirements for the appropriate preparation of a relocation
impact report and no specific mitigation measures are: described. State
legislation allows local governments to enact their own requirements.
Government Code Section 66427.4 - This section covers the provisions for
land subdivisions. At the time of filing a subdivision map for a conversion
of a mobilehome park to another use, the section states that the subdivider'
must file a relocation impact report concerning the conversion's impacts on
the displaced residents. In determining the impact, the report must address
the availability of adequate replacement space in other parks.
1.1
The same. requirements of Section 65863.7 regarding noticing, distribution, and
mitigation measures apply to this Section.
Civil Code Section 798.56 - This section is provided for in Article 6 of the
Mobilehome Residency Law. A change of use is.alloved, provided:
1. The management gives the homeowners at least 15 days' written notice that
the management will be appearing before- a local governmental board to
request permits for a change of use.
2. After the approval of such permits, the law states that the management
shall give the homeowners a minimum of six months or more written notice
of termination of tenancy. If the change of use..requires no permit
approval from the local jurisdiction, then the noticing time period is
extended to 12 months. This notice must describe in -detail the nature of
the change of'use in detail.
3. If a land use change is proposed, the management must give each homeowner
written notice prior to the start of the tenancy that the management is
requesting a change of use before the -legislative body.
4. Noticing requirements for the termination of tenancy must be followed if
the change actually occurs.
5. A notice of proposed change of use given before January 1, 1980,
conforming to the requirements in effect shall be valid. The
requirements for a notice of proposed change of use imposed by the
subdivision shall be governed by the law in effect at the time the notice
was given.
OTHER JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Staff completed a telephone survey on September 24-25, 1992 of 10
jurisdictions who were identified as having closure ordinances. The
information collected provides for the procedural requirements and policy
applications on the issue. A matrix of the findings by staff is attached to
this report.
Procedural Issues: As stated previously, state law allows local governments
to enact specific procedural requirements in the administration of local
ordinances. The matrix demonstrates various procedural requirements used by
other Cities. Those requirements include:
1. Content ofrelocation impact report
2. Time for filing the relocation impact report
3. Hearing and notice procedures
4. Estimates from moving companies
Policy.Issues: State law also provides the authority for local jurisdictions
to set policy regarding the requirements for relocation expenses. The matrix
demonstrates policies regarding relocation payments. These requirements
include:
1. Park owner contributions to physically move a coach during relocation
2. A lump sum payment to compensate for the security deposit, first and last
month's rent at a new mobile home park
3. Compensation of the market value .of the coach in the event it may not be
moved off=site
4. A provision to set aside a certain number of housing units for residents
if the site is to be converted to a residential land use
GENERAL PLAN AND LAND USE ISSUES
The State Legislature clarifies that the provision of affordable housing is
the responsibility of all local governments and that local governments should
make conscious efforts to ensure housing opportunities for all income groups.
The mobile home parks provide a substantial portion of the affordable housing
in the City, and the General Plan recognizes the importance of preserving the
existing mobile home parks. The Plan points out that the number and
proportion of mobile homes in the City has decreased over a 10 year period
from 9.62 of the housing stock to 5.32 of the housing stock. In 1987, the -
City enacted a moratorium on the removal of mobile• home parks, though the
moratorium has since expired.
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) indicates that 24 percent of all
Santa Clarita housing units should be rented or marketed for low or very low
income households, but that less than 20 percent of the rents and home
mortgages are affordable for these income groups. Thus the need for the
existing mobilehome parks,.and additional affordable housing, is supported.
The Plan expresses the concern that the stricter development review processes
of the City could slow housing production opportunities. The existing
recession is also hampering new construction. To date, no new mobilehome
developments have been proposed within the City. To encourage the provision
of affordable housing, the Plan encourages manufactured housing on
single-family lots. General Plan policies encourage the retention and
maintenance of existing mobile home parks Though the Plan does not appear to
specifically encourage the development of new mobile home parks, it suggests
that the City should investigate the possibility of offering financial
assistance to permit cooperative mobile home park ownership by senior citizen
or lower income mobilehome tenants.
These General Plan policies should provide assistance in evaluating any
proposed ordinance. It should also be notedthat the State requires that the
Housing Element be updated, and the City is in the process of drafting
revisions to the existing element.
4
Staff has prepared a summary matrix of the zoning and land use designations of
all parks within the City for the Panel's review. This matrix is attached to
this report.
OPTIONS IDENTIFIED THROUGH STAFF RESEARCH
The potential options that exist for this panel to consider are: formulation
of a City park closure ordinance, no formulation of an ordinance, or resale of
land to the tenants or non-profit housing entities. (Also, if formulation is
chosen, then should it set procedural guidelines only, or should it address
what the City considers "adequate" in.terms of relocation assistance?)
OPTION 1: No City Park Closure Ordinance
Pros
Cons
o This option allows the City of Santa Clarita to keep the status quo
o No further staff or committee efforts would be extended
o No potential for future legal action against the City of Santa
Clarita challenging an Ordinance
o The City would consider the relocation impact reports and determine
the adequacy of -the relocation plans individually
o Manufactured Home Residents are protected only by requirements
outlined in state law
o No specific requirements for the City to administer or park
owners/tenants to adhere to in the event of park closure
o Case-by-case analysis of each closure is required
o Settlements may not be consistent with each other
OPTION 2: Formulation of Park Closure Ordinance
Pros
o Specific requirements are spelled out (timelines, submittals,
noticing, relocation assistance, etc.) for all parties to follow in
the event of park closure
o Citizens afforded the opportunity to become involved in Ordinance
formulation
o Ordinance is more.directly tied to the unique needs of the City
o Greater protection for tenants
5
Cons
o Potential for legal challenges of the Park Closure Ordinance
o Uniform park requirements would leave the City less discretion in
determining the adequacy of future relocation plans of individual
parks
o Potential for time burden on staff
o May discourage conversion of some parks to more appropriate uses
Option 3: Resale of Land to Park Tenants or Non-profit Housing -Entities
Requirements exist which.give cities an advantage in acquiring lower interest
rates. Through temporary ownership of the park, the City can offer affordable
purchase terms to the tenants. Over time, the tenants who can least afford to
purchase their share of the park are able to do so.
Pros
Cons
o Allows the parks tenants to have full control over land after
purchase
o Ends rent stabilization practices for the specific park
o Transfer or sale of mobilehome coaches absent the issue of vacancy
decontrol
o Does not allow park owners to transfer to the seller of choice
o Land. owner does not have authority to convert land •use from
residential to other land use options
Please note that an ordinance with procedural requirements would clarify the
application materials to be filed by a park owner in his or her application.
Such an ordinance would not necessarily spell out the compensation to, tenants,
which the City determines as "adequate." The monetary and non -monetary
compensation to be offered in relocation impact reports. could ';be left
discretionary to the.City for each individual park, and need not be enumerated
in the ordinance. If the compensation were enumerated, all parties would know
beforehand what to expect, but the City would lose discretion to adjudicate
"adequate compensation• based on the needs of residents in parks which are
quite diverse.
`RJ
FINDINGS AND RECONNEND ATIONS
In summary, California State Law sets forth requirements on the issue. of
manufactured home park closures; however, the requirements are general in
nature and leave specific restrictions for local governments to administer.
Based on the above information, staff recommends that the panel discuss the
pros and cons of formulating.an ordinance which standardizes the requirements
to make an application for a park closure, and form a consensus. These
requirements would include the noticing requirements, the contents of a
relocation impact report, required findings, etc. If the consensus is to
prepare an ordinance, then the panel should weigh the pros and cons of
delineating specific compensation in the ordinance. A recommendation should
be made to the City Council, as to whether an ordinance is to be pursued.
LMH:RH
DDP:1021
Attachments
aha
4
a
a.
0
W 41
O 0 m
O m O
C 41 9 W
•Oi w o a
U ca b > U
ox w q
N 0 w d to
c
W GL K.
>1 O
41 W 41
G 8
ca w
-owum0
d w w
4�aa9a.
B O Cda0 N
.-4 W>
F . w
> m 0
CD
• 4 . 44 8
U 41 U A 44
N O 4 01 Td
U d w W m
$4 G w W u
w O N U 0 w
C3 •"A w44H
o w 41 a.ww
4 O 0 yl .0 O
x u u as 8 9 m
A
u
Cd
m
w
0
ca w
«i $4
9a
m co
3
O
x
m O
w O
N lil
O N
V �
O a04
•.i
41 O
w O
U O
O .•4
.� ua
w
W N
O W
41 bo
P,93
a w
b w w O bo
0
.i m N M •.i
0 0
w W 41 U d
a .-i o w o U
41 AN "' o '
A. ~ p.
8 •w.0 0 •.i 41
> 41 w d 0
W +4 41 u m
ON 44 > od CD
M O w 0 w 0
.--1 Y U •.1 •.i .••4
O. m w b m O.
a•.4 0. Cd w (D
C .-4 w w 0 w
N
X
T w
N N O
u 9 +4 m
m m w O
A ° u 0)
O w .O
41 w O
P. 0
w W
3
U a4 q
44 w 44
O U q
44 u p.44
aqi U O w
A > U O.
m O O w
a 9 44 •o
ri
O 41
+4 w
m +4
. w 1
w v w o0
0 0 0 w V >
y o o >
44 U 4� wa g
O O M 0 W
0 W w - O
01 w CS
• m w m
41 N w w W
a.0 •o •H 41 •.4
w 9 bo 44 B
W +4 m W w o
Q 41 O d u
d
O
2
m
O
Q W
0. 0 44 •c
O q w O 411
O O +4 1*
O M W N U
- 4+ 0 0
u O
O W m
41 0
Id
awoo4CL)
w O� :
B w w O M
JJ O 9 a4 A
m ux. e
U N d w
N 41 O U
F4 41 A W .0
6 cc
Li a 8 w 3
k
C'1 �1
u
w
q
w
w
�N
a
C'1 �1
a
b
N
W
A
rajj
C
C
0
z°
�°,
z
a
w
m
o
.>'i
-.01
41
G
Wv
C
m o w
•/J H
M
Q
N
w m
•o
q
O o1 w
11
N N N
w
•�
a+ IJ
w
M
o1 w w 0
w
O
M
-0 V) O
w
y
w
w w
u
U W .0 w w o
M
41 w
q
O
w
w@
o O
M
w
0 w 4 {15 w
>
w w
o
@ 0 0
w
w
w
0. U
o
L
.--4 W N a+ w
M
IJ @ O
.-1
a+ u
u
b
0 o
b
•.a
w
•ti
q-
w
w
u u C C
p
w F IJ
w
0 p, q m
•cf
o w
o m
u@
to C •N w JJ
o
SWAO
of o O w
aJ @
w
N IJ
w
u :2 m p w
w
A •-1 bo
•.1 .•I
O- O
>
0
0
41
O
0 O• U w .-I u
of M M
q b
3 u IJ M
O
0
•0
V•
w
O. p u
O q
O O ca
6a H
P.
U W
u
- U
w
y� H 4
0@
M
N
cs
~@v
0>4
4J
>.
O>Eax
g
q G. N w
A
N
P.
H w .-1 O
U U
w
N.0
U
O O
•N
w w 41 w O
w
M W>
O w
O IJ w .i
H O
o
.O O
@ M
>
@ a O X
.a
Y O M
O
W❑ N
a s
@@
a
N
aJ
0
JJ
>+ w IJ u u
M
u too
o
m q
O W
-
N
q
P., u0
of 14 a) of 4
A
w q
q w
N C w M
a W
a+
w•0
ma
m
a)
v
a4) @v @ o0
o
ao w
m w
o w 0.0
C
m w@
q@@
.0 O w M
@
M u
o!
q N N
of
of u
w
•O 0
0
4 aJ u w
N IJ q
N w
w 41 M
u
w wU
w 0
4
O
w O w 0 M
O
O Ia w
of N
aJ w w>
i
••�
74 .-1
m
Co U
Y
M y .••1 u m q
aJ
U b
w
w@ O
O
-
.•1
P..-1
m
♦J•5,
IJ CO M O w w
N O M
:3@
M O U .!G -
0
"b
w
CL
@ •O
m
>> 11
a 4 .-i >
N
.•4 .•1 044
/1
w U 1.1
•Y
44 Cd
C
w b
u
Tm
a+
a s
wuw
@ m Qa
w
W u w
H 4J
M
O GL
5
O
a
w
@
N
O
rn
tw
r.
QQ
m w
M
O .•w•1 q
M
w
O
w w w OCi
O.
0
41>
@
u IJ 3 a+
w
I4
M 41
a1
N,
N
- w 8 0 0
w
m N 0)P.w-0
O N
OU q
O
A
O
•.1 u Iaq
U
U
C O C b
O
JJ d u aJ
w
w O .-1 O (D
M
>
IJ aJ > w
u
14 W CCC
w
CL
H
O
IJ +J
w •.1 O U •N •H
w
U r1 q u
M •.I w a) M
S
O
O
r1
a
0
k
v l4 w •o U
>.0 aO.q w
>
.1 O w
q
.
@ o a
q
O
ai+u u 0.
cL O h oo P.
.x
q
y
w
P
u o1 •H u w
U
6 w @ M 0
p
A
�1
NN
eeggp��
G
W
04
8
N
ca
_
U
p O
w
AN
O
41
0
O
U ,
a)
V
A
w
P�Na
A
@
w
N
a7 Ltl m41
A
00
a
�7
w
q
Aj
41 LL
C
b,
as
D
q
a
w
6
N
N U
N U t l
N
O
ca
w
O
.n
.n
n
ao
C!,H
4
MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION PROGRAM
LAND USE SUMMARY MATRIX
PARK
Polynesian MHP
Mulberry Park MHP
Park Lane MHP
Granada Villa MHP
Canyon Palms
Soledad Trailer Lodge MHP
Sierra Park MHP
Royal Oaks MHP
Caravllla MHP
Sand Canyon MHP
Ramona Shaw MHP
Shady MHP
Greenbrier MHP
Cordova MHP
ecwdsv M*u m Vfx
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
REQUESTED
DESIGNATION
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
RM
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
RM
RM
RM
RM
CC
CC (PD)
CC
CC
CC
CC
RM
MHP
RM
MHP
/v
18/13,92 13:21 a 714 498 8262
p M W Associates
232 West Avenida Gaviota. San Clemente, California 92672 (714) 498.7085 FAX (714) 49"262
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 14, 1992
To: The Manufactured Home
Rent Adjustment. Panel
From: Marilyn Whisenand
PMW Associates
Subject: Public Purchase of Mobile Home Parks
for Affordable Housing Purposes
P. a2
The purpose of this memo is to provide the Panel with additional information regarding
the 'Option Three' alternative presented in your staff memo evaluating a park closure
ordinance dated 10/14/92.
PMW Associates, a consulting firm specializing in redevelopment and affordable housing
projects, recently met with City staff to request consideration of a mobile home park
affordable housing plan. The plan would assure long-term rent stabilization for mobile
home park tenants and provide the opportunity for future conversion of mobile home
parks to tenant ownership. Our proposal calls for the purchase of mobile home parks by
the City/Redevelopment Agency, or other non-profit entity using tax-exempt financing.
The lower interest rate afforded by tax-exempt financing coupled with the non-profit
status of the park purchaser, provides a means to keep park rents at affordable levels
while avoiding the administrative burdens of rent control and the negative impact on
park residents caused by 'vacancy decontrol.' Further. ownership and management by it
non-profit entity provides a means for tenant involvement in the development and en•
forcement of management policies and procedures.
Under our proposal, tax-exempt bonds are amortized by the rental income from the park.
Over time, as the mortgage is retired, conversion to tenant ownership becomes more
financially feasible. The bond issue can also be structured to provide for Improvements
to the park if necessary or desirable.
Using this plan. PMW has successfully facilitated the public purchase of four mobile home
parks in Escondido and Poway. The purchase of two additional parks in the. City of La
Habra is expected to be closed in early November and we are actively negotiating for the
purchase of mobile home parks within four other California cities.
Assisting PMW Associates with the issuance of public financing for mobile home park
purchases is the firm of Prudentialcurl S�ltl t =o� op r.red. John D. McAlister Vice
prem will be present at your meeting to describe our proposal in more etai1 and
respond to any questions you may have.
�Think you for your consideration.
Marilyn Whis and ,
Executive Vice President
RECEIVED AND MADE A �rrY
PART OF THE RECORD AT vF SAI;TA CL
November 10, 199 �� MERNG MU
ITQ41 NO
Mayor Klajic and Members of concil RECE't,zDc
Cityeof1Santauclarita CCEr�`� d F;CE
Re: Memo of November 10, 1992 Agenda Report
STATUS OF MANUFACTURED HOME RENT STABILIZATION PANEL
DECISION REGARDING PARK CLOSURE ISSUES
As president of the Santa Clarita Valley Mobile Home Council, I
wish to clarify errors in the above referenced document.
The members of the Mobile Home Council have expressed concern
that the City Council would not receive an accurate account of
the motion passed by the Rent Stabilization Panel. We attend
the Panel meetings and disagree with the wording of the motion
presented by Community Development, and felt it necessary to go
to City Hall, listen to the tape of the October 14th Panel
meeting, and forward this word by word information to you. The
motion, (Motion #2) as repeated by the City Clerk and voted
upon is as follows:
"That this Panel *recommends/suggests to the City Council
that they suggest that we form a separate committee other
than this Panel for the purpose of drafting of a Park
Closure/Relocation Ordinance."
*One Panel member objected to the use of "recommends" and there
was a choice of "recommends or suggests" and both words are
used. This motion is located on the tape at 3789 and passed 4
votes to 1.
There is also a question regarding the election date of the
Panel members. Ordinance No. 90-38 was passed on November 27,
1990, and the Panel was officially appointed on April 3, 1991
(date of Certificate of Appreciation, copy attached). The
Ordinance states the members will serve for a period of three
years,. thus making the next election in 1994, not 1993 as
stated in the Community Development memo.
If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
dl
k�&ildr`
on d Wilder
'initeb states of Pmerica
(�extifirate , of �kppvintntent
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ss.
County of... Los Angeles .........................
I, .....>?st[ul.r?-...4,�5►s?�Y�.................................................City Clerk
of the City of ....Santa Clarita
...............................................................
County of .........�9e.1-es.
..........................................................................
State of California, do hereby certify, that at a.studk! Session
meeting of the City Council of said City held on the... 3F51 ...............
dayof .. April ............................................ 19..91.....
Thea Paul
...................................................................
was ofcially appointed to the office of
Mobilehcme Rent Stabilization Panel
as shown by the Minutes of the City Council now of record in my
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have
hereunto affixed my hand and official seal this
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 92-217
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AND RATIFYING FOR PAYMENT
THE DEMANDS PRESENTED IN CHECK REGISTER NO. 42
FOR THE PERIOD 10/08/92 AND 10/16/92
IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF.$1,798,273.81 AND CHECK
REGISTER NO. 43 FOR THE PERIOD 10/12/92 TO
10/15/92 AND 10/23/92 IN THE AGGREGATE
AMOUNT OF $608,771.97
WHEREAS, the demands as herein presented have been duly audited and approved
by the City Manager and the Finance Director/City Treasurer.
WHEREAS, the approval of this Resolution will hereby allow payment in
the amount shown on the Check Register to designated payee and charged to
appropriate funds as indicated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California, does hereby determine and find as follows:
SECTION 1. This Resolution is hereby adopted by the City Council.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution, certify this record to be a full true, correct copy of the action
taken and deliver a certified copy to the City Treasurer.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1992.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
I, Donna M. Grindev, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular
meeting thereof, held on the day of 19
by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK