CCMIN081809 - Laserfiche WebLink

time the conversion takes effect. She and other residents are on a fixed income, barely able to afford their current rent, and depend upon the City for protection. Pam O’Connell asked the Council to deny the appeal and said she is concerned that after investing so much in her home, she will have to walk away because she cannot afford the lot upon which it sits. She suggested the City consider joining the lawsuit already existing to stop a similar conversion in Sonoma County. Richard Close, Gilchrist & Rutter, attorney for the applicant, said that in the middle of the 1980s California residents lobbied for a law that would allow mobile home residents to purchase individual lots. He said the applicant has complied with the resulting law, as indicated by the City Attorney, and he asked the Council to approve the appeal. The law gives residents a choice between renting and owning with no pressure to do either. Susy Forbath, Gilchrist & Rutter, acknowledged the affordability concerns expressed and said that affordability in terms of a mobile home should consider more than just monthly rent. She explained that mobile homes are typically financed by personal property loans, not real estate loans, and that when combined with the unit’s monthly rent most homes are already well out of the affordable bracket. She noted that no cities in California can include mobile home parks in their affordable housing quotient for that reason. She also explained that while the concept of affordability is positive, agreements such as the rent stabilization agreement in effect here actually mean that new residents pay a higher purchase price for their home because it is located in a rent controlled park. Ms. Forbath said she read the surveys, noted that many residents were concerned about their ability to remain in the park and stated that the conversion allows people the option to buy; should they choose not to, they may continue to rent as they have in the past. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked about homeowners who are forced to walk away because they cannot afford the land but cannot sell the home because the land may be too expensive for a new buyer. Ms. Forbath believed that homeowners could sell their home just as they could today. She said that if the conversion goes through, new buyers would be required to purchase both the home and the land. She thought that it would actually increase buyer opportunity as the connection of the home and land means a buyer could obtain a real estate loan rather than a personal property loan. She acknowledged that the 10-year period carries with it a sense of uncertainty regarding property value and rents. She laid the law, as it exists today, was written to eliminate that uncertainty by providing residents with a choice. Janet Cristiano said as a real estate professional, she strongly believes in the value of home ownership and is saddened by residents’ objections and lack of interest in conversion. She doubted that fair market value warrants all the concern expressed and explained that fair market takes care of itself, as evidenced by today’s housing market. Peter Iversen said he is a real estate appraiser with experience appraising mobile homes. He said this is a marvelous opportunity, he hopes to purchase his own lot, and is disappointed that he must wait 10 years to do so. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 11 August 18, 2009