PC 022509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush replied that he was not aware if this similar provision applies in this case wherein a certain number of sales must be in escrow before the first sale can be closed. Commissioner O’Connor inquired if, after the first right of refusal 90-day period, the units of those residents who choose not to purchase their condominium could be offered to anyone else interested in purchasing the right to be the new landlord of that unit. Mr. Roush said no. He added that it was his understanding that the applicant cannot sell the lot out from underneath the person. He deferred the question to the applicant for further explanation. Commissioner Fox requested clarification that although the staff report indicates that the units would become resident-owned in ten years, the owner of the mobile home park is under no obligation to do that and may extend the ten-year period. Mr. Roush replied that was correct. He added that the restriction, as written now, is that the owner will not sell the units for a minimum of ten years. Commissioner Fox inquired how the ten-year and four-year period work with respect to rent stabilization. Mr. Roush explained that assuming the final map records in 2009, none of the conversion provisions will apply between 2009 and 2019 and that the conversion will not occur until after the first lot is sold. He continued that assuming the first lot is sold on July 1, 2019, this would trigger the averaging of the rents in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 that would apply for 2019 for those lower income residents. He stated that because the rent stabilization agreement runs from 2007 to 2017, the agreement will continue to be in place, and, during that time, rents may increase between two percent to five percent each year, depending on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Commissioner Fox inquired what will happen if the agreement was extended beyond 2017 and whether there will be further negotiations with the park owner during 2017. Mr. Roush replied that if an agreement is not reached, the rent stabilization ordinance would take effect in the absence of an agreement. He clarified that if a tenant moves out in 2010 and a new tenant comes in, the new tenant would pay the rent that the rent stabilization agreement would provide for any new resident. In response to Commissioner Olson’s inquiry if the rent stabilization agreement would cease to take effect at conversion, Mr. Roush replied that the terms of the rent stabilization agreement would be superseded by State law at the time of conversion unless the owner were to agree otherwise. He noted that, notwithstanding State law, the owner could indicate that he will continue to abide by the agreement for so PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 12 of 29