Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-1985 MHRRB Minutescity of sAn lois oasW ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 990 PALM STREET * Post Office Box 321 * San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0321 * 805/549-7101 M I N U T E S MOBILE HOME RENT REVIEW BOARD November 20, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Tom Swem at 9:15 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. Board members Gaye Benson, Naoma Wright, Denny Wheeler and Patricia Barlow were introduced. STAFF PRESENT: Steve Henderson and Roger Picquet. REVIEW OF PACKET AS PRESENTED BY STAFF: Included in the packet were: Copy of August 20, 1985 memorandum (Adjustments to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance), drafts of application forms, copy of a note from Florence Willmot and a letter from Jim Buttery. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ACTION: Gaye Benson moved, Naoma Wright seconded to accept the Minutes of the October 23, 1985 meeting as submitted. (APPROVED) ACTION: Gaye Benson moved, Patricia Barlow seconded to accept the Minutes of the November 6, 1985 meeting as submitted. (APPROVED) DRAFT OF APPLICATION FORMS: The forms were discussed in detail and revisions were made and are presented in the en- closed copies. A subcommittee was appointed (Tom Swem and Patricia Barlow) to compose a cover letter for the application forms explaining how the package is to be used, how the persons considering the package should proceed, what fees apply upon application, as well as the function of the application and how it refers to the Ordinance. MHRRB 11/20/85 Page 2 ACTION: Gaye Benson moved, Patricia Barlow seconded to change Item (h) on Page 2b, (Information on Rental Increase Requested Due to Capital Improvements and/or Rehabili- tation Work) to read: Will the requested increase be a permanent or temporary addition to the base space rent or a temporary surcharge? (APPROVED) ACTION: Denny Wheeler moved, Gaye Benson seconded to approve package with adopted changes. (APPROVED) REVISION OF ORDINANCE BY SECTION (Memorandum of August 20, 1985) ITEM 3: ACTION: Tom Swem moved, Gaye Benson seconded that pursuant to Section 5.44.070 (b) (Application Fee), that the amount of application fee be $125.00 plus $1.00 per space with a maximum of $300.00. (DEFEATED) Gaye Benson addressed a question to Mrs. Willmot and Mr. Brymer as to whether tenants are objecting to the change dealing with the park owners application fee or the appli- cation fee for tenants. They both replied that their concern is for the fee for tenants. ACTION: Denny Wheeler moved, Naoma Wright seconded that the application fee be $125.00 plus $1.00 per space for the park owners. (APPROVED) ACTION: Denny Wheeler moved, Patricia Barlow seconded that an addition be made to the Ordinance stating that the tenants application fee be $125.00 plus $1.00 per space. (MOTION WITHDRAWN AFTER FOLLOWING DISCUSSION): PAUL BOUVAIS' STATEMENT: Mr. Bouvais resides at the Creekside Mobile Home Park and feels that as not all mobile home parks have tenants associations, it would be a burden to an individual filing if they were obligated to pay $1.00 per space over the $125.00 fee. Steve Henderson clarified for the Board that if a tenant were to initiate application, the City would then serve the affected tenants in the park as well as the owner. The tenant would not be affectively making application for their one space, but would af- fectively be making application against a particular rent increase that would be across the board. He stated that circumstances leading to an individual application would have to be unusual. Patricia Barlow cited Section 5.44.070 (c) if the Ordinance regarding notice of rent in- creases to tenant by owner. Roger Picquet noted that the Ordinance, when originally enacted, did not contemplate ap- plications from the tenants. Denny Wheeler noted that the intention of the Board is that tenants should have the same opportunity to make an application if they so desire. The Board will address that with some recommended changes to the Ordinance. LEIGH WILLARD'S STATF.MRNT- r. Willard addressed the Board regarding the possibility of a new tenant not realizing, atil after he had moved in, that his rent was more than his neighbors were paying for the same size space. In this instance, that tenant may wish to make an individual appli- cation to the Board and the $125.00 fee would then be a financial burden. MHRRB 12-13-85 Page 4 Jim Buttery indicated that this was quite rare. He suggested the term "resident" as the Mobilehome Residency Law uses both terms. Mr. David Brymer said he saw no reason not to coincide with the terminology of the law. There was notice made of the fact that various terms were used in the Ordinance. Gaye Benson noted that the contractual arrangement refered to in the Ordinance is that between tenant and landlord. She felt that the Board was indicating that they would take no immediate action on this item. There was discussion on what constitutes a quorum of the Board. Chairperson Swem questioned whether three members constitute a quorom or can pass a motion. He felt that a majority of the full Board was needed to pass or defeat a motion. He asked for clarification from staff for the future. The Board addressed Item A, (Posting of Rent Schedules). It was clarified that this meant posting current rent schedules in park business offices for the benefit of potential purchasers. Jim Buttery questioned whether this meant posting actual per space rents or an average, with concerns about privacy. Leigh Willard stated that people moving in to parks have no reference point, they can't check the newspaper, and that average rents would be a good indicator. The Board discussed the situation where a park manager, in violation of the Ordinance, does not give a prospective purchaser a copy of the Ordinance. They felt that posting of average rents might mitigate that problem. They were aware, however, that this would be requiring yet another administrative procedure for the owners to follow. Board discusssion arose surrounding the enforcement of provisions of the Ordinance, and the specifics of the Soto's case, where as prospective purchasers, they were not given a copy of the Ordinance. It was noted that a violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor, and Roger Picquet indicated that the City would prefer to seek voluntary resolution of violations. However, an aggrieved party finding no resolution through such a process would have access to a private civil suit. Also, it was conceivable that in the case of a blatant violation where one of the parties acknowledged violation of the Ordinance and would not remedy it, the City could take that individual to court in a criminal proceeding. Adele Raymond addressed the Board on the Soto's case, and was advised by the Board and staff that the Sotos must directly contact the City themselves if they are seeking assistance from the Board or staff. Mrs. Raymond also suggested adding Item K to Gaye Benson's list. (see previous notation). MHRRB 12-13-85 Page 5 Leigh Willard addressed a question to Roger Picquet requesting a definition in terminology. He wanted to know if it was necessary for the owner to give a copy of the Ordinance to persons on a month-to-month contract. Roger Picquet said no. The Board ordered the items for discussion as follows, noting that these will be addressed on each agenda of the Mobilehome Rent Review Board under "Review of Ordinance". They will be kept on the agenda in the following order until they are eliminated. The next agenda will include Items 1, 2 and 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. Posting of rent schedule in mobilehome park business office. Reserves for replacement. Sunset provision. Tenant purchase and exemption Subletting or leases. Sunset provision Safe harbor concept. Vacancy decontrol. ADJOURNMENT from Ordinance. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. The next meeting will be on January 21, 1986 at 9:00 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, r e Guyre-P w ll HR Aide l