Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Sullivan noted that the Tenant Impact Report is detailed, it spells out things that will <br />change, but the Council does not have all the information provided to the residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush agreed that residents did not have the Tenant Impact Report prior to the time they were <br />asked to complete the survey. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGovern visited the mobile home park and spoke with a dozen residents <br />regarding their concerns. She said her concern is whether the survey was bona fide. Many people <br />she spoke with discussed a loss in property values due to the economic downturn, their loss in <br />pensions, loss in fixed incomes, and she questioned whether or not the application took into <br />consideration the economic downturn and what effect that has on those residing in the Park. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush agreed the economic downturn was felt dramatically in September and October of 2008 <br />which was several months after the survey was done. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGovern said there are many residents who did not vote and she wondered if <br />they did not because they did not have adequate information or did not understand what was <br />happening. She asked if some cities send a housing official to talk with residents to assist in their <br />understanding of the conversion process. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said he was unaware of whether cities have provided such a service as meeting with <br />residents. He said that did not occur in this instance, other than general information being provided <br />regarding the conversion. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan said staff attended meetings, but did not go door-to-door. He agreed there could be <br />additional outreach. <br /> <br />Councilmember McGovern voiced concern about the mobile home park resident ownership loan <br />program as the State is in dire straits. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman asked about the City’s legal authority to declare a moratorium. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the legal issue is to what extent the Council has discretion to either conditionally <br />approve or deny the application based upon the current state of the law. Staff’s reading of the law <br />suggests that the Council’s discretion is limited. Therefore, imposing a moratorium is questionable <br />because there is not the authority to impose regulations following the moratorium. If, in fact, the <br />Council does not have discretion to do that, imposing a moratorium serves no purpose. On the <br />other hand, some cities have concluded they have discretion to impose reasonable conditions on <br />conversions or to deny them if they find there is no bona fide survey that shows majority support. If <br />the Council concludes this is the route they choose to take, imposing a moratorium makes more <br />sense. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman referred to the case pending in Sonoma County. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the City of Sonoma adopted an ordinance which said if the survey turned in by the <br />park owners showed less than 20% support, then the Council did not find sufficient support and <br />would deny the application. If support was between 20% and 50%, then the applicant would be <br />required to submit a business plan showing how lots would be marketed and sold so that the Board <br />would be satisfied it would not be a sham conversion to avoid rent control, and that the park owner <br />had intent to sell the subdivided lots. If the survey showed a 50% or more support, the Council <br />would find there was majority support which would factor into their decision-making process. He <br />said there were other conditions in the ordinance , but this was the most operative piece. The park <br /> <br />City Council Minutes Page 5 of 17 May 5, 2009 <br /> <br /> <br />