01 SPECIAL MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

owner challenged the ordinance on its face, took it to court, and the trial court upheld the validity of the ordinance. The park owner has appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal; all legal briefs have been filed including the fact that the League of California Cities has filed an Amicus Brief in support of the County. It will be some time before a decision is rendered and he does not know whether the opinion will be published or whether it will be favorable or not to the County. Mayor Hosterman said if Council chose, it could direct staff to join in an Amicus Brief on the case. Mr. Roush said practically, this has been done in that the League has already filed an amicus brief and cities are represented in that effort. Mayor Hosterman opened the public hearing. Richard Close, Attorney, Gilchrist and Rutter, introduced Suzie Forbath of the firm, and explained his understanding of the background on the section of the Subdivision Map Act that is at issue here. It was enacted by the legislature in the mid -80's because mobile home residents were coming to legislators saying they want to buy their spaces and own them. As residents, they have invested money into a home that is treated like a car or boat by lenders. He said people were paying 12% to 14% interest for loans and the legislature realized that resident groups cannot raise money necessary to purchase a park. Therefore, the legislature came up with a program which encourages park owners to subdivide and sell spaces to those who want to buy their spaces and protects those who want to continue renting. Therefore, there were built in incentives and protections. Under State law, once a park is subdivided, residents have an opportunity to buy or continue to rent. If they continue to rent and are low income, their rents stay no more than the CPI increases per year forever. For non -low income residents, the State law provides rents would go to market over a 5 year period. He and the park owner have been working with City staff and the owner has agreed, if the application is approved tonight, to extend the protection of the rent stabilization agreement until 2025. Therefore, every current resident in the park until 2025 would get the benefit of the rent stabilization agreement regardless if they are low income or not. And, residents can also take advantage of the State rent control provisions if it would generate Tess rental increases for them. He said the State rent protection provisions are the best protection of any available in the State. General benefits of ownership are ownership of the land which appreciates in value over time, and being able to control the outcome and decisions concerning the Park. Over time, the Park will be resident controlled who can make decisions as to how monies are spent. The homeowner association is under the Davis Sterling Act, which states there will be a minimum of two lot owners on the Board and the remaining seats will be determined by the number of homes sold. A question that arose referred to the loan program which has nothing to do with the State budget, as it is funded by fees paid each year by mobile home residents to the State. Plus, as loans are paid off by residents, the funds go into a pool. In fact, he said last year there was $8 million which the State was not able to lend out. Loans are at 3% interest and payable over 30 years. And, if a resident's income is too low, the State will allow the payments to accrue. In some parks, the buyers of the lot actually end up paying less per month than if they were a renter. Suzie Forbath, with Gilchrist and Rutter, said the issue involves seniors, and thinks what they are presenting will provide assurances that people do not have now, i.e., that the park will always remain a mobile home park. Rent stabilization is not fixed, as the agreement in place only goes to 2017, although the owner has offered to extend this to 2025. Ownership provides stability for those who want ownership, and the law provides a choice for residents based upon their individual needs. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 17 May 5, 2009