13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

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