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-