Exhibit C
(Removal of language regarding infrastructure.)
2 City will design and install off-site infrastructure or infrastructure upgrades, as necessary for water supply, sewer supply or any regional drainage that is not required to treat onsite stormwater.
This language is no longer needed in the agreement since adequate off-site infrastructure can serve the project site.
FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 2024
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Interim City Manager Alex Posada
BY: Interim Assistant City Manager Chuen Wu
SUBJECT: Receive a Status Update on the Mobile Home Model Lease Program
Description:
The City Council will hear a status update on the mobile home model lease program, following direction provided by the City Council at its June 7, 2022, meeting.
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a presentation providing a status update on the mobile home model lease program.
BACKGROUND:
In 1999, the City Council was asked to adopt a rent control ordinance. The City Council declined and determined that the City should facilitate the creation of a 10 -year Mobile Home Model Lease, which would serve as ano ther lease agreement option between a park owner and resident, with terms on annual rent adjustments. The 1999 Mobile Home Model Lease was voluntary and consisted of four paragraphs that the park owners agreed to include in long -term leases. In 2009, the C ity facilitated the negotiation of the 2009 Mobile Home Model Lease, which had a 10 -year term. The 2009 Mobile Home Model Lease was based on the lease proposals of Casa Grande, Rancho Buena Vista, and Casa Del Rio leases.
In 2018, the City Council direct ed the City Manager and City Attorney to facilitate a new 10-year Mobile Home Model Lease. At that time, the park residents, through various representatives, requested that the Mobile Home Model Lease be enforceable, as opposed to voluntary. The 2019 Agreement for Enforcement of Mobile Home Model Lease 2020 was adopted by the City Council on November 19, 2019 (Attachment A).
On June 7, 2022, the City Council met to discuss the Mobile Home Model Lease 2020 Agreement and to receive public comment. Following City Council discussion and public input, on the motion, direction was given to staff to work with community members and 2 park owners to examine enhancing the Model Lease Agreement to see if there was room for improvement and to look at alternatives.
DISCUSSION:
Following City Council direction, City staff held several meetings with community members and park owners to identify areas of improvement and to look for alternatives:
9/22/2022 Meeting with City, resident, and park owner representatives 11/29/2022 Meeting with City and resident representatives 2/22/2023 Meeting with City and resident representatives 6/20/2023 Meeting with City and park owner representatives 7/21/2023 Meeting with City and resident representatives 11/14/2023 Meeting with City, resident, and park owner representatives
Through these series of meetings, resident and park owner representatives shared their input on the existing Mobile Home Model Lease and identified and discussed four key issues: 1) participation; 2) outreach; 3) enforcement; and 4) financial terms. There is some agreement within these key issues, but also fundamental differences between the two stakeholder groups’ positions, with park owners opposed to any form of rent stabilization, and residents still advocating for such an option.
A December 13, 2023, letter from Bruce Stanton details the position of the resident group (Attachment B), and a November 27, 2023 , letter from Lisa Toke deta ils the position of the park owners group (Attachment C). It is noted that these letters do not represent the view of all mobile home residents, nor all mobile home park owners, but reflect the positions of those stakeholders that have been engaged in the discussions over the past year.
Participation
As of the date of the preparation of this report, six mobile home parks are signed and participating, four are committed, and five remain not participating. The six mobile home parks represent 69 percent of the total mobile home park spaces. The addition of the four committed parks would raise this percentage to 85 percent. Newlove and Ranchwood Mobile Home Parks have signed the agreement electronically.
Santa Maria Mobile Home Park Model Lease Participation
Signed and Participating # spaces percent Not Signed # spaces percent Airport MHP 96 Anderson TP 10
Casa Grande 420 El Capitan Village 152
Casa del Rio 236 Highway TP 21
Rancho Buena Vista 209 Mobile Gardens 11
Santa Maria RV 7 Santa Maria TP 39
Trailer Rancho 100 Total not signed 233 15%
Total signed 1068 69%
Committed # spaces percent
La Maria 152
3 Newlove 26
Ranchwood 42
Riverside 22
Total committed 242 16% Total mobile home spaces 1543
Outreach
There is general agreement between the stakeholder groups that outreach is needed. In discussions on outreach, the City has committed to provide assistance in efforts to disseminate information and to educate the public about the Mobile Home Model Lease program. This may include in -person and virtual meetings, letters to mobile home park residents, posting of information on the City’s website, and translation of letters and educational materials (but not contractual materials) in Spanish. The City will also help in the formation of an “outreach committee” that will provide guidance and direction on ongoing outreach efforts.
Enforcement
The Mobile Home Model Lease is enforced by civil remedy. To date, the City has received one complaint, which has been suff iciently remedied. Both stakeholder groups agree to make information available, in outreach communications, on how a homeowner can make a complaint to the City regarding possible violations of the Mobile Home Model Lease program. Both groups also agree to an amendment to Paragraph 2.02 of the Enforcement Agreement that would require the Mobile Home Model Lease to be offered to new buyers at the same time as any other lease agreement. The current language provides a 60-day time frame. Both groups agree that park owners report to the City, annually, how many residents have signed the Mobile Home Model Lease. There was also discussion to create a volunteer committee of resident and park owner representatives to address any issues prior to a complaint filed with the City, to minimize City staff time.
Financial Terms
The stakeholder groups did not discuss the financial terms of the Mobile Home M odel Lease; the park owners group emphasizes that they have entered into a binding agreement and have complied with its terms. The groups did discuss the potential of mobile home parks voluntarily providing financial assistance programs that could aid residents experiencing hardship.
Alternative(s)
The City Council may provide additional direction to staff, with recognition of the terms in the existing enforcement agreement of Mobile Home Model Lease 2020.
Fiscal Considerations
The City’s commitment to assist in outreach efforts would require time and associated costs of City staff.
Impact to the Community
The 2020 Mobile Home Model Lease program provides another lease option for prospective mobile home residents. Improved efforts in participation, outreach , and enforcement will help prospective residents, including seniors. 4 ATTACHMENTS
A: Agreement for Enforcement of Mobile Home Model Lease 2020 B. December 13, 2023, letter from Bruce Stanton
C: November 27, 2023, letter from Lisa Toke
Attachment A
Attachment B
BRUCE E. STANTON
BUSINESS PLANNING LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE E. STANTON TELEPHONE CIVIL LITIGATION (408) 691-9692 ESTATE PLANNING 10556 COMBIE ROAD, SUITE 6727
MOBILEHOME LAW AUBURN, CA 95602 EMAIL [email protected]
December 13, 2023
SANTA MARIA MOBILEHOME HOMEOWNERS’
STATUS REPORT AND PROPOSAL MOVING FORWARD
After many months of stakeholder meetings with City Staff which have discussed the following issues, Homeowners herein make the following status report re: the Model Lease Program.
First and foremost, Homeowners continue to emphasize and seek recognition of the ultimate goal of these discussions as follows:
To provide protection to all Santa Maria mobilehome residents presently living in a mostly unregulated rental market, where the 2020 Model Lease program has proven to be ineffective to protect homeowner equity and maintain affordable mobilehome housing.
To achieve this over-arching goal, Homeowners have identified, and the stakeholder discussions have proceeded based upon discussion of, four (4) “Issue Areas”. Each one in turn has a goal which should be recognized and used to drive and fulfill that issue.
Homeowners are pleased City Staff has committed time to moderate meetings of the stakeholders to discuss these issues. Homeowners view the City’s continuing role as critical to this process, and thus far Mr. Wu has done an excellent job to facilitate. We are thankful for the time that Staff has devoted thus far, and are hopeful that more productive discussions lie ahead in the very near future to make positive change. Homeowners desire a specific agenda for any future meetings, and request that a “dashboard” of each Issue Areas and possible action items be created as the stakeholders work through and discuss each of them.
The following “Issue Areas” have been used for discussion thus far:
1. Participation
Goal: To obtain maximum participation from as many park owners as possible.
There is no disagreement that to date only 68% of the mobilehome spaces within the City are located within parks participating in the program. The actual number of signed participants is estimated at 2%; an indication that the Program is either unknown, not being offered, and/or deemed by Homeowners not to be their best option.
Attachment B
Park owners indicate support for increased participation, and have attempted to contact and engage the non-participating parks. Some park owners were and still are non-communicative, or difficult or even impossible to reach. At the most recent joint stakeholders meeting it was represented that 4 more parks would be signing onto any amended Enforcement Agreement once finalized. This represents another 15% of spaces within the City, which would increase participation to about 83%. Homeowners have not yet seen anything in writing to confirm this fact, but for now will presume for sake of argument that shall occur.
In order to achieve this important goal of participation, homeowners propose:
Park owners talk about “park participation” without addressing the corollary issue of “resident participation” within those parks. The over-arching goal should not be forgotten; achieving maximum park participation has as its goal maximum resident participation in the Program. The subject of “Participation” should thus include not only “park participation”, but also maximum penetration for resident participation as well. Park participation is irrelevant if there is no incentive in the terms of the Model Lease for it to be selected.
The Model Lease should thus become the “Primary” document to be offered, both to all current homeowners in every park, and to all prospective purchasers as to be detailed in the amended Enforcement Agreement. Any alternative lease or rental agreement offered as an option must include a provision to be initialed by the homeowner confirming he/she has been offered both options and given the choice of signing either.
2. Outreach
Goal: To engage all homeowners in all parks to make them aware of the existence of, and ability to choose, the Model Lease, so as to create “informed consumers”. Many residents in participating parks do not know of its existence, do not understand it, or are confused about the Program.
There is agreement among the stakeholders that Outreach is needed. City participation shall be vital if Outreach is to be meaningful, and succeed, and Park Owners and Homeowners should participate. To this end, the following proposals have been discussed:
a. Advertise Zoom meetings with resident representatives, park representatives and City staff to explain the Program. City’s participation lends an “official” character to these sessions. Homeowner and Park Owner representatives can also participate in the presentation and in any Q & A. Park owners indicate this is acceptable, provided the number of meetings is reasonable and content is limited to discussion of the Program. Homeowners agree.
b. Education to local realtors, agents, brokers and dealers/salespersons. Homeowners recommended the following:
-Joint letter to them from City, homeowners and park owners, including a brochure. -Meet with local broker/realtors and dealers/salespersons to discuss and for Q and A. -2-
Attachment B
Park owners feel inviting these professionals to attend the Zoom meetings is sufficient. If this becomes controversial and Park Owners do not wish to take the additional time for at least one meeting, Homeowners are fine meeting with such persons alone, along with City Staff.
c. Create a letter summarizing the Program to be drafted by the City with input from both Park Owners and Homeowners and mailed to each homeowner by the City. The letter should identify a contact person or refer to the Zoom meeting schedule re: any questions. Subject to agreement on the content of such a letter, the stakeholders appear to be in agreement.
d. Letter posted on City website; City creates a Program information page with parties’ assistance, based upon the mailed summary letter, and posts any updated information here.
Again subject to each side having input into content, this appears to be agreeable.
e. Translation to Spanish of all Outreach documents; Homeowners proposed that City engage a qualified professional to translate; Park Owner must provide the translated documents to any existing or prospective homeowner upon request. While Park Owners agree the Outreach documents can be translated, they state it is unacceptable for the contractual documents to be translated; i.e. the leases themselves. Further discussion is required here, as Homeowners are concerned that if a resident cannot understand the document and is burdened with providing their own translation, there is no meaningful opportunity to participate.
f. Park Owners post City’s Program information letter in each clubhouse. This seems to be agreeable to both sides.
In order to move these items forward, Homeowners request:
Formation of an “Outreach Committee” to draft and develop these Outreach Plan components. This should include outreach to residents in parks already participating in the Model Lease; i.e. providing a new window for them to sign it if desired. Outreach tools or documentation should include provisions for side-by-side comparison of Model Lease vs other offered rental agreement options. Clarify the options & timing available to non-Model Lease participating residents in participating parks to accept the Model Lease.
Clarify the options available to residents of soon to be participating parks. Insist on Spanish translations for all Outreach documents
Organizational support and grant funding shall be sought by homeowners to assist with any Outreach costs.
-3-
Attachment B
3. Enforcement
Goal: Ensure compliance by adopting proper enforcement and verification procedures.
a. Homeowners propose Para. 2.02 of the Enforcement Agreement be amended to require the Model Lease to be offered to new buyers at same time as any other lease or rental agreement, prior to close of escrow. Allowing 60 days from date of purchase for the Model Lease to be offered to a new buyer is incompatible with Civil Code 798.75 (a), which requires that a buyer agree to or sign a rental agreement before escrow closes. Park Owners are agreeable to this amendment in concept. Homeowners’ attorney will supply draft language to Park Owners’ attorney for consideration prior to the next stakeholder meeting.
b. Each park owner annually reports to City how many spaces have signed the model Lease. Park Owners agree to this.
c. The Agreement should be recorded to ensure successor park owners have notice of it.
Park owners will not agree to this, but will agree to an amended provision in the Enforcement Agreement requiring that notice of the Program must be provided to successor park owners.
Homeowners agree to consider such language.
-Homeowners proposed an annual CPI benchmark % to be set by City each year, which City would report to each park owner annually so that there is uniform application of the CPI annual adjustment percentage among all participating parks. Park Owners will not agree to this.
Homeowners shall instead propose that any notice of rent increase given to a Model Lease participant must include within it the numerical basis for the CPI calculation.
-Information made available in Outreach communications re: how a homeowner can make a complaint re: possible breach of the Model Lease. This is agreeable by both parties.
-Create a volunteer committee of resident and park owner representatives to meet periodically to discuss the Program and address any issues or complaints before same are communicated to the City, so as to minimize City staff time. The Park Owners are willing to consider.
Homeowners suggest that parameters of same be discussed at next stakeholder meeting.
4. Financial (Economic) Terms/Protections to Achieve Homeowner Signature
Original Stated Goal: Adequately protect homeowners from large rent increases and maintain affordable housing, while providing park owners with a fair return.
Homeowners proposed revisions to the Program financial terms in order to make it more attractive to residents in the participating parks, since few have chosen the Model Lease option.
There was no intent to re-negotiate all terms per say, but rather to create a more viable and attractive Program. Homeowners offered to table this Issue pending discussion of Issues 1-3.
Park Owners state it should be permanently tabled, and that there will be no re-negotiation of any financial terms.
-4-
Attachment B
During the most recent stakeholders meeting, some Park Owners emphasized that they have or could put into place subsidy programs to assist residents who cannot afford the rent.
Homeowners would like to explore this concept in much more detail while simultaneously exploring other financial term revisions that might help meet the “Original Stated Goal” above, and propose:
Homeowners propose the addition of a financial assistance provision to the Program that would assist low to very low-income park residents, as suggested by Park Owners themselves. There are existing program models that can be considered, including MHET or the City of Sunnyvale MOU provision. Park Owners state they do not wish to displace anyone, and including such a subsidy provision in the Agreement can help achieve this.
Not all Homeowners have reached “low or very low-income” status. In order to help prevent that from happening, the Homeowners believe that short of an RSO, there must be opportunities to modify the Model Lease program in ways that will protect Homeowner equity, maintain affordable Mobilehome housing and still provide Park owners a fair return. In the meantime, without a satisfactorily improved Model Lease Program, Homeowners feel obligated to continue encouraging the City of Santa Maria to adopt an RSO, effective on the expiration date of current leases and Enforcement Agreements.
In sum, Homeowners are committed to continue good faith discussions and efforts to achieve the over-arching goal stated above, and are ready and willing to work with the City to achieve that goal with or without the participation of all Park owners. Homeowners are available to meet at the City’s earliest convenience to create a “dashboard” and begin working on implementing the above-described items.
Attachment B
-5-
Peter R. Andre (1918-2000)
Michael J. Morris
James C. Buttery
Dennis D. Law (Retired)
J. Todd Mirolla (Retired)
Scott W. Wall
Kathryn M. Eppright
William V. Douglass
Lisa LaBarbera Toke
Karen Gjerdrum Fothergill
Elizabeth A. Culley
Cameron T. Cotton
Michaela R. Cotton
Of Counsel
Gordon E. Bosserman
Warren A. Sinsheimer, III
David A. Juhnke
November 27, 2023
Via Email
Chuen Wu
Interim Assistant City Manager
Community Development Director
City of Santa Maria
[email protected]
Re.: November 14, 2023 All-Hands Meeting
Dear Chuen:
Thank you again for your time and efforts at our November 14, 2023 all-hands meeting, and for the minutes you sent thereafter.
More detailed responses by the participating, or soon-to-be-participating, park owners to each of the proposals we discussed at the meeting, in the order raised in Bruce Stanton’s August 15, 2023 letter, are as follows:
1. Participation
a. Proposal: City to consider adoption of rent control ordinance (“RCO”) that would only apply to those parks that refuse to participate in the Model Lease Program (“Program”).
Response: Strongly opposed to the adoption of an RCO as to any park in the City. In addition, it should be noted that participation in the Program will be at almost 85% once the four additional parks that have agreed to sign the Enforcement Agreement do so. And we are working informally to persuade additional parks to participate.
Attachment C
2739 Santa Maria Way, Third Floor
P.O. Box 1430
Santa Maria, CA 93456-1430
ph 805/937-1400 fx 805/937-1444
www.amblaw.com
1102 Laurel Lane
P.O. Box 730
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0730
ph 805/543-4171 fx 805/543-0752
Chuen Wu
November 27, 2023
791411.docx
2. Outreach
a. Proposal: Schedule Zoom meetings with resident, park owner and City representatives to explain the Program.
Response: Acceptable, so long as the number of meetings is reasonable and the content of the meetings is limited to the Program.
b. Proposal: Educate local real estate professionals regarding the Program with a letter, brochure and meetings.
Response: Local real estate professionals who sell mobilehomes can attend the Zoom meetings referenced at No. 2.a above.
c. Proposal: City to prepare and send a letter summarizing the Program (“Letter”) to each resident of each park in the City.
Response: Acceptable, so long as park owners have input on the content of the Letter and others pay the costs to disseminate it. The means of disseminating it will need to be determined, and a contact person will need to be included for questions.
d. Proposal: Information and updates to be posted on the City’s website regarding the Program.
Response: Acceptable for the Letter to be posted on the City’s website, and park owners will need to have input on the content of any updates.
e. Proposal: Translation to Spanish of all documents, to be provided to any resident or prospective resident upon request.
Response: Acceptable for outreach documents to be translated to Spanish, if others pay the costs to translate them. Unacceptable for contractual documents to be translated to Spanish.
f. Proposal: Letter to be posted in the parks’ clubhouses. 2739 Santa Maria Way, Third Floor
P.O. Box 1430
Santa Maria, CA 93456-1430
ph 805/937-1400 fx 805/937-1444
www.amblaw.com
1102 Laurel Lane
P.O. Box 730
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0730
ph 805/543-4171 fx 805/543-0752
Chuen Wu
November 27, 2023
791411.docx
Response: Acceptable.
3. Enforcement
a. Proposal: Amend Paragraph 2.02 of the Enforcement Agreement to provide that the Model Lease be offered to prospective residents at the time any other lease is offered.
Response: Acceptable.
b. Proposal: Each park owner to report to the City annually regarding how many residents have signed the Model Lease.
Response: Acceptable.
c. Proposal: Enforcement Agreement to be recorded to ensure that successor park owners have notice of it.
Response: Unacceptable, but a provision requiring that notice of the Program be given to successor park owners can be included in the amendment to the Enforcement Agreement prepared regarding No. 3.a above.
d. Proposal: Annual CPI benchmark to be set by the City and reported to each park owner.
Response: Unacceptable, as it would be an administrative nightmare to align the anniversary (rent increase) date of each resident in the City. It is very common for residents to have different anniversary dates, and any resident who believes he or she got an incorrect rent increase can raise the issue with his or her park or the City.
e. Proposal: Information made available in outreach communications regarding how residents can make complaints regarding possible violations of the Program.
Response: Acceptable.
2739 Santa Maria Way, Third Floor
P.O. Box 1430
Santa Maria, CA 93456-1430
ph 805/937-1400 fx 805/937-1444
www.amblaw.com
1102 Laurel Lane
P.O. Box 730
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-0730
ph 805/543-4171 fx 805/543-0752
Chuen Wu
November 27, 2023
791411.docx
f. P
roposal: Create a volunteer committee of resident and park owner representatives to meet periodically to discuss the Program and any issues or complaints before such issues or complaints are communicated to the City.
R
esponse: Willing to consider, but there are a number of issues that would need to be discussed. Such issues include equal representation between resident and park owner representatives, limiting the matters that could be addressed to possible violations of the Program, limiting the frequency of committee meetings, and limiting the role of the committee to attempting to resolve possible violations with no authority to make decisions or recommendations to the City.
4. Financial Terms
a. P
roposal: Tabled until discussion of Nos. 1 through 3 above has been completed.
R
esponse: Tabled permanently. As stated at the meeting, it is the park owners’ position that they entered into a binding agreement and have complied with its terms, so the other stakeholders must do the same.
I
t is our hope that we can reach a resolution as to each of the above proposals, and present a finished product at the January 16, 2024 City Council meeting.
V
ery truly yours,
Lisa L. Toke
cc: B
ruce Stanton
Jarryd Gonzalez
Clients