Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-1985 MHRRB Minutes(TAPE 1) CALL TO ORDER: city osan lues ouspo HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 • 549.7150 M I N U T E S MOBILE HOME RENT REVIEW BOARD November 6, 1985 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Tom Swem at 9:10 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. Board members Naoma Wright, Denny Wheeler and Patricia Barlow were introduced. Member Gay Benson arrived shortly. STAFF PRESENT: Roger Picquet and Steve Henderson. AGENDA: Chairperson Swem reviewed today's Agenda including Approval of Minutes of the October 23, 1985 meeting, Consideration of Ordinance Adjustments and a summary of some of the presentations given at the last meeting. NOTE: The Minutes will be approved at the November 20, 1985 meeting. JIM BUTTERY'S STATEMENT: Mr. Buttery addressed the Board stating that the mobile home park owners are willing and desirous to meet with a group of park residents to discuss the issues so that a master lease could be developed which could be jointly agreed upon and hopefully put in place in the parks which are not under lease. This would hopefully minimize on a park by park basis the need for this Board to consider the lengthy and complicated applications that are on the horizon for the parks other than Chumash. He noted that he has indicated to the residents that they would be happy to meet with them at any place and time they could convene. Presently there are four large parks which account for the bulk of the spaces which are governed by this Ordinance. The two parks which are substantially under lease are Laguna Lake Mobile Home Park, which is close to 100% and Rancho San Luis, which is 100% under lease at this point. Remaining are Creekside Mobile Home Park, Silver City Mobile Home Park, Chumash Village Mobile Home Park and Oceannaire Mobile Home Park. MHRRB 11/6/85 Page 2 Mr. Buttery stressed the importance for the park owners and tenants to get together to try and develop a working basis for eliminating a need to come back to the Board. CHUCK HUGHES' STATEMENT: At Chairperson Swem's request, Chuck Hughes of the Western Mobilehome Association gave a summary of his presentation at the October 23, 1985 meeting. He noted that the Greene Bill (SB1352), was supported by both the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League and the Western Mobilehome Association. Mr. Hughes stated there are two ways to run mobile home parks. One is under rent control where rent increases are challenged before Rent Review Boards and the Rent Review Boards have to determine how much a park owner is going to get to run his business. Under rent control, a park owner must go for maximum allowable increases under law. He noted that the issue of vacancy decontrol should be discussed. There is a concept that under rent control that you try to get your park back from under rent control into your private ownership space by space by charging fair market rents to a new person when a mobile home is resold. Mr. Hughes would like to, through a master lease agreement, or a model agreement, find ways of establishing limits that are mutually agreed upon such as; how much should rents be raised to a new resident buying a mobile home; how much money would be spent on upgrading and maintaining the park, etc. Mr. Hughes has been involved in negotiating master lease concepts for about 5,000 mobile home park spaces and knows what residents have considered to be fair, what they have agreed to, what the park owners have considered to be reasonable limits on issues such as what percentage of CPI they should get, what is a fair way of deal- ing with capital expenditures, how you deal with the issue of new government, fees, etc. He feels the question is whether the Rent Review Board should decide these policies or should the two sides get together. The Rent Review Board has been asked to sersTe as a facilitator to somehow get the two sides together and discuss some of these issues under a model lease agreement. He feels the Greene Bill is a positive effect whereby both sides recognize that the lease is a way to go. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE ADJUSTMENTS: APPLICATION FORMS: There was a lengthy discussion regarding the draft Application Forms: Application for Rent Increase (Page 1), Information on Rental Increase Request Due to Lack of Just and Reasonable Return (Page 2a), Information on Rental Increase Requested Due to Capital Improvements and/or Rehabilitation Work (Page 2b), and Tenant's Application, Request for Review of Park Rent and/or Services (Page 3). After several draft changes as well as input from members of the audience, David Brymer, Leigh Willard, Paul Beauvais and Ward Spencer, as well as clarification of various points by attorneys Picquet and Buttery, the following Action was taken by the Board: MHRRB 11/6/85 Page 3 (TAPE 3) ACTION: Naoma Wright moved, Gaye Benson seconded on Page 2b, Item (h) be included to state: Will the requested increase be in addition to the base rent or a surcharge for a specific period of time? AMMENDMENT TO MOTION: Naoma Wright moved, Gaye Benson seconded to ammend the Motion as follows: (h) Will the requested increase be a permanent or temporary addition to the base space rent? (APPROVED) ACTION: Denny Wheeler moved, Gay Benson seconded to adopt application form for re- drafting. (APPROVED) (TAPE 4) Roger Picquet clarified the intent of the Greene Bill stating he has read it and dis- cussed some possible problems or complications with involved members of the community and feels that basically it does not present a threat to the Ordinance or to any of the groups involved. One potential problem is that the Ordinance defines long term lease as one greater than month to month i.e., two months or greater and the Greene Bill uses the one year period. His recommendation would be that unless we can come up with a compelling interest and a different definition that it would seem reasonable to adopt the same period of time just for clarification purposes. He also mentioned some issues about existing leases in some of the parks. Whether or not they have to go back and add language put forth in the Greene Bill is one which will have to be clarified at a later date, however, Mr. Picquet noted major problems in the difference in the definition of long term leases. Mr. Buttery noted that the only other issues created by the Greene Bill is what happens at the expiration of a lease which comes within the meaning of a long term lease. The Ordinance, under 5.44060, sub -paragraph A, provides for the means by which base space rent charged as of March 15, 1982 and that the maximum monthly space rent for any space under lease upon expiration of the lease shall be no more than the base space rent on March 15, 1982 plus any increase otherwise allowed pursuant to this Chapter. He dis- cussed potential problems created by this item and noted that under the Greene Bill, at the end of the lease term, the rent would stay the same as it was in the last month of the lease. Mr. Picquet recommended that unless we can come up with a strong public policy which would compel separate or different definition, that as a matter of municipal code, we try to make generally, our definitions and our provisions consistent with parallel provisions in the State Law. Chairperson Swem suggested that when recommendations are made to the Council regarding changes in the Ordinance, that changes inconsistent with this Bill should be noted. MHRRB 11/6/85 Page 4 Patricia Barlow expressed her concern that the term of long term lease has not been changed from month to month because the Minutes of August 13, 1984 show a Motion made by Wright/Burke that a long term lease be a minimum of one year. Her understanding was that this Motion was presented to the Council. Mr. Picquet noted that this was not presented to the Council as part of a package. Chairperson Swem asked Mr. Picquet when the Council would be hearing the recommend- ations of the Board. Mr. Picquet recommended that the Beard present a package to the Council rather than one or two items at a time. Gaye Benson addressed a question to Roger Picquet regarding the fee associated with the tenants'; filing for a request for review asking if there are other City Boards which have a procedure which is in some way parallel to this, and if so, are individuals charged a fee for filing, and if so, how that is structured and how does it compare with the fee which the park owners are required to pay. Mr. Picquet replied that the fee is structured for many of the -entitlements received through the City organization, i.e., a use permit which is roughly pegged to the mag- nitude of the hearing, but it is not fixed in terms of actual costs. Those hearings require notice, publication, etc., and the fee is usually done based on prior exper- ience. For example, a use permit involves more staff work than a minor variance for a sub -division or whatever. Generally speaking the fee does not cover all costs, but is based on expenditures made. Mr. Picquet would recommend that with respect to the tenant applying, criteria for a fee would include consideration of costs in giv- ing notice to a number of people. A discussion followed regarding fees to the tenant as well as the applicant. Chair- person Swem recommended that at this time the Board should develop what their next step should be in establishing an Agenda for the next meeting. Gaye Benson requested that Staff prepare a list of all those areas where they have made recommendations for action by the Council. Mr. Picquet noted that the package that goes to the Council can either have a list of ideas, or presentation of actual language being recommended for adoption. Chairperson Swem outlined the Agenda items for the next meeting to include Revision of Ordinance per section, and approval of final draft forms of applications. MHRRB 11/6/85 Page 5 It was noted by Board members that although recommendations were made at the last meeting that representatives of the park owners meet with tenants and/or their representatives to begin negotiations on a model lease, no action on this has been taken. At the next meeting, Staff is to report what is happening regarding forming a committee to negotiate a model lease. Note: This is to be included as an Agenda item. DATE OF NEXT MEETING: The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 20, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. en TnTTRNMFNT The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 fb6 m. Respectfully submitted, Lai Barton, Recording Secretary Mobile Home Rent Review Board