Yucaipa City Council
July 11, 2022

CITY OF
City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
July 11, 2022 — 2:30 PM
City Council Chambers - Yucaipa City Hall
34272 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, California

THE CITY OF YUCAIPA COMPLIES WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990. IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING (PURSUANT TO 28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA TITLE II), PLEASE CALL THE CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT AT (909) 797-2489 AT LEAST 48-HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.

PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.5, ANY DISCLOSABLE

PUBLIC RECORDS RELATED TO AN OPEN SESSION ITEM ON A REGULAR

MEETING AGENDA AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE CITY OF YUCAIPA TO ALL OR A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL, LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THAT

MEETING, ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AT YUCAIPA CITY HALL, 34272 YUCAIPA BOULEVARD, YUCAIPA, CA 92399, DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.

IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL DURING THE MEETING, PLEASE

COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S FORM AND RETURN IT TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. THERE IS A THREE -MINUTE TIME LIMIT FOR SPEAKING.

PUBLIC COMMENT VIA MAIL OR EMAIL must be submitted no later than three (3) business hours prior to the meeting at which the commenter seeks to provide comment. Public comment may be submitted via U.S. Mail to the City Clerk at 34272 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399 or via email to [email protected]. All mail and email correspondence will be archived, distributed to City Council, and retained as part of the public record; however, submissions will not be read out loud during the meeting.

The subject line should specify "Public Comment" and include the date of the meeting.

WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTED ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS AND ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS will be made available to the public pursuant to the City of Yucaipa policy regarding the distribution of written public comments at City Council and Commission meetings, which may be accessed on the City's website at hgps://yucaipa.org/agendas-minutes/. Individuals should be aware that comments provided, including personal information, may be disclosable pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

LIVE AUDIO STREAM/RECORDING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Members of the public may listen to city council meetings live at: https://yucaipa.or /lg ive.

City Council
Agenda 07112022
-I-

CALL TO ORDER

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT (Limited to Items on this Agenda)

DEPARTMENT REPORT
P.3 1. SUBJECT: BIENNIAL REVIEW OF MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION

ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Biennial Review of the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 15.20) and the Administrative Rules, and direct staff as appropriate; and

2. Direct staff to the prepare appropriate documents and return to City Council for approval.
"13011J 1�1►% I II�Y�I
City Council
Agenda 07112022
-2-

Agenda Item No. 1

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer Crawford, Assistant City Manager/Rent Administrator -zL Amy Greyson, Assistant City Attorney/Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (MRRC) Attorney
FOR: Special City Council Meeting of July 11, 2022
SUBJECT: Biennial Review of Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Resolution

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:

1. Conduct a Biennial Review of the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 15.20) and the Administrative Rules, and direct staff as appropriate; and

2. Direct staff to the prepare appropriate documents and return to City Council for approval.

BACKGROUND
The Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Ordinance) requires that the City carry out a Biennial Review (BR) of the Ordinance during odd -numbered years (YMC § 15.20.140.) The last review was completed in 2020.

On December 8, 2021, staff notified various stakeholders and the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (MRRC) of the upcoming BR and requested that they submit written comments regarding the Ordinance and/or Administrative Rules ("Rules"), by January 20, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.

Staff received comments from the following stakeholders:
• Shirley Dalton, Chairman of Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents Association (YMRA) • Robert Evans, Inland Empire Representative for Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET)
• Julie Paule, Regional Representative for Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA)
• Jo Sutt - mobilehome park resident (Sutt)
• Mitch Emerson - owner of Valley Breeze Mobilehome Park (Emerson) • Rudrich Family Management - owner/operators of Grandview West and Hidden Valley Mobilehome Parks (Rudrich)
• Peter Wang - owner of Carriage Trade Manor, Executive Mobile Estates, and Northview Mobilehome Parks (Wang)
• George Turk, President of Millennium Housing, under its affiliate Coach of San Diego - representing &/or owner for Rancho del Sol and Grandview East Mobilehome Parks (Turk) • Suzanne Taylor, Executive Director of August Communities - representing &/or owner of Valley View Mobilehome Park (Taylor)
-3-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
• Jordan Conway-Pursglove — representing &/or owner of Bel Aire Mobile Estates, LLC (Conway)
• Ian Dyer - owner of Hideaway and Yucaipa Valley Mobilehome Parks (Dyer) Since completion of the 2020 BR, the City Rent Administrator (RA) has processed one Maintenance of Net Operating Income (MNOI)/Readjusted Base Year NOI Application for Valley View Mobilehome Park:
10/2019 —
Final
Type
Increase
Term
Kavanau
Galland
Current
Decision
Valley View
Approved—
MNOI/Readjusted
Implemented
Base
N/A
$15.66
MHP
9/22/20
Base Year NOI
Rent
$60.21
Adj.

In addition, parks have implemented the annual adjustments each year, based on the lesser of 80% of the increase in CPI since the prior year or four percent (4%) of current space rent (YMC § 15.20.080).

A 2021 summary showing high, low, and average rents in each park is attached to this Staff Report as (Exhibit I).

The intent of the BR is to address issues that have arisen since the last BR that are based on legal considerations, clarification to provisions and procedures, political and policy issues, and other issues raised by staff and various stakeholders, and to identify potential amendments to the Ordinance or Rules based on those issues.

With Council direction staff will revise appropriate code sections and administrative rules and return to Council for adoption.

DISCUSSION
The Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (Commission) met on May 17, 2022, to conduct the Biennial Review of the Ordinance and the Administrative Rules. The Commission reviewed the fifteen (15) issues outlined in this report and corresponding Attachments A - K and Exhibits I - III, two additional letters that were distributed at the meeting (Attachments L and M) and provided recommendations on possible changes/modifications to the Ordinance and/or Rules.

To assist the Council's review and consideration of the issues, this Staff Report contains a summary of the proposed revisions submitted by the stakeholders, as well as the Commission and staff recommendations, along with recommendations for Ordinance and Rules amendments and requests for direction from the City Council, where appropriate. In addition, back-up materials, written comments submitted by the stakeholders, and Commission minutes are enclosed as Attachments and Exhibits.

1. SUBJECT: ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS (Issue raised by stakeholders) The Ordinance authorizes park owners to raise their rents each year without MRRC approval, pursuant to the Annual Adjustment process set forth in YMC § 15.20.080 and Rules, Chapter 3. The 21 In

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
Annual Adjustment is calculated based on 80% of the CPI or 4% of current space rent, whichever is less (YMC §15.20.080; Rules, §§3.0001 and 3.0001(B)). During this BR, some park owners have requested that the City amend the Ordinance to increase the Annual Adjustment to 100% of the increase in CPI, just as they have requested in past biennial reviews.

Staff Comments: The Annual Adjustment process allows park owners to obtain a rent increase once each year based on 80% of the increase in the CPI published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the prior twelve months, capped at 4% of current base space rent (cap was reduced from 5% to 4% in the 2017 BR), so that park owners are guaranteed an annual increase based on inflation to cover increased costs and provide a profit. The 4% cap serves to mitigate the impact of large annual increases occurring as a result of substantial increases in inflation. The purpose of the Annual Adjustment process is to provide a relatively simple, expedited process that enables park owners to obtain rent increases without having to go through a formal noticed public hearing by means of the Special Rent Adjustment process.

Under the Ordinance and Rules, park owners may apply for an Annual Adjustment each year. The RA provides the park owners with the applicable CPI indexing factor by February 1 st of each year.

Commencing in 2020, and thereafter, the Annual Adjustment for each calendar year must be calculated using the increase in the CPI index for the Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario areas, All Urban Consumers for the preceding twelve-month period ending November. That CPI index is published every two months in odd -numbered months. Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics runs one or two months behind in publishing the bi-monthly CPI, the CPI most recently available to the City is the CPI reported as of December of each year. (See YMC §15.20.080; Rules, §3.0001.) The following chart shows the CPI increases between 2015 and 2022 determined under the current Ordinance:
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Prior Year*
238.74
240.48
245.36
250.19
259.22
103.62
106.57
108.63
Current Year*
240.48
245.36
250.19
259.22
267.63
106.57
108.63
117.21
CPI (100%)

0.73%

2.03%

1.97%

3.61%

3.24%

2.85%

1.93%

7.90%
CPI Factor (80%)
or 4% whichever is
less**

0.58%

1.62%

1.58%

2.89%

2.60%

2.28%

1.54%

6.32% (80%)
(Capped at
4% per
ORD)
*The reported CPI figure most recently available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor as of February 111 generally is the CPI published as of December of the prior year, ending in 2021. **Used in determining each park's annual adjustment to be imposed after February V of each year. Because a 90-day notice of rent increase is required under the California Mobilehome Residency Law, generally annual adjustments will not be implemented by park owners before June P of each calendar year.

The following chart shows a comparison of annual adjustments using 80% CPI and 100% CPI, based on a hypothetical monthly space rent of $300 beginning in 2015. 31 -5-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
Hypothetical Rent Control Monthly Space Rent - $300
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Rent
$300.00
$301.74
$306.63
$311.47
$320.47
$328.81
$336.30
$341.48
80% CPI or 4%

0.58%

1.62%

1.58%

2.89%

2.60%

2.28%

1.54%
4% Cap
Increase
$1.74
$4.89
$4.84
$9.00
$8.33
$7.50
$5.18
$13.66
$301.74
$306.63
$311.47
$320.47
$328.80
$336.31
$341.48
$355.14
Rent
$300.00
$302.19
$308.32
$314.40
$325.75
$336.30
$345.89
$352.56
100% CPI (no
cap)

0.73%

2.03%

1.97%

3.61%

3.24%

2.85%

1.93%

7.90%
Increase
$2.19
$6.13
$6.07
$11.35
$10.55
$9.58
$6.68
$27.85
$302.19
$308.32
$314.39
$325.75
$336.30
$345.88
$352.57
$380.41
Difference
$0.45
$1.69
$2.92
$5.28
$7.50
$9.57
$11.09
$25.27
For many years, and up until 2022, the 4% cap did not come into play because the 80% CPI indexing factor remained less than 4%. This may be seen in the above chart, which reflects that prior to December 2021, the 80% CPI indexing factor ranged from a low of 0.58% to a high of 2.89%.

However, in December 2021 the 80% CPI indexing factor was 6.32%, and as a result, the most recent Annual Adjustments for 2022 were capped at 4%.

This hypothetical analysis also demonstrates how the proposal to allow the full CPI increase (100%) and remove the 4% cap would have affected rents from 2015 to 2022, using the actual CPI figures over that 8-year time period. As reflected above, changing the annual allowable CPI increase from 80% to 100%, while removing the 4% cap, would result in an average monthly increase of $7.97 over the 8-year period (2015-2022). If the 4% cap were retained but the Ordinance were amended to allow a 100% CPI increase, the average monthly increase would equate to $6.25. These hypothetical monthly increases of $7.97 and $6.25 are mostly due to the large CPI increase in December 2021 used to determine the Annual Adjustments in 2022. If the December 2021 CPI had not increased to such an extent and were excluded from the hypothetical analysis the average monthly increase for 2022 would be $5.50. This analysis also reflects that the potential result of removing the 4% cap and/or increasing the CPI increase from 80% to 100% on the park residents and park owners, will depend on how much and how quickly the cost -of -living increases in the future.

Some Stakeholders have proposed removal of the 4% cap and/or increasing the Annual Adjustment to 100% CPI, on the basis that the 4% cap limits the increase in CPI actually realized by the park owner regardless of whether the annual adjustment is 80% CPI or 100% CPI. For example, the 4% cap currently precludes park owners from realizing 80% of CPI, because the cap results in a percentage increase that is closer to 50% of CPI (such as occurred for 2022). Thus, from a park owner's standpoint, even if the Ordinance is amended to allow 100% CPI to determine the Annual Adjustments, a cap will still preclude the park owner from increasing rents consistent with the full rate of inflation.

During the 2017 BR, a question was raised as to how the elimination of the cap or allowing 100% CPI to calculate Annual Adjustments would affect the frequency or amount of Special Rent 41 rol

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
Adjustments (MNOI/Readjusted Base Year NOI or Fair Return Adjustments). In addition to the Annual Adjustment, the Ordinance allows a park owner to apply for a Special Rent Adjustment which, if approved, results in a substantial increase greater than the Annual Adjustment. In response to the question, staff presented an analysis from Dr. Kenneth Baar, J.D./Ph.d., one of the City's mobilehome park rent control experts, addressing how changing the Annual Adjustment process by using the 100% CPI instead of the 80% CPI factor could potentially affect the frequency or amount of Special Rent Adjustments. Dr. Baar provided an analysis (Exhibit Il) of the impact of a 100% CPI annual increase standard from 1996 to 2009 (in contrast with the 80% CPI standard), by evaluating what impact that change would have had on the allowable increase in the Yucaipa Village Mobilehome Park fair return case that went before the MRRC in 2011. His analysis reflected that the prior years' Annual Adjustments for that park would have been higher, and as a result, the approved increase of $81.29 in the fair return decision would have been reduced to $61.16; a difference of $20.13/per month/per space. It is important to keep in mind that a park owner's decision to seek a Special Rent Adjustment depends on complex factors unique to each park, but that hypothetical does reflect a potential impact from changing the rent adjustment methodology.

The following options were presented to the MRRC for consideration:

Option #1: Amend YMC § 15.20.080(A) and Rules §3.0001(B)(3), to provide that the park owner may increase the rent in each regulated space once annually, by 100% of the increase in CPI, or by a 4%, 5% or 6% cap (options proposed by some stakeholders) of the current space rent, whichever is less.

Option #2: Amend YMC § 15.20.080(A) and Rules §3.0001(13)(3), to provide that the park owner may increase the rent in each regulated space once annually, by 100% of the increase in CPI and eliminate the 4% cap.

Option #3: Amend YMC § 15.20.080(A) and Rules §3.0001(B)(3), to provide that the park owner may increase the rent in each regulated space once annually, by 80% of the increase in CPI, or by 4% of the current space rent, whichever is less and include a minimum percentage increase of 2%.

Option 94: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without change — maintain 80% CPI and 4% cap.

Option #5: Other possibilities, as may be suggested by MRRC — No additional possibilities were proposed by the MRRC.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
YMRA (Att. A) Recommends no change to the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules — maintain 80% CPI with a 4% cap. The preservation of the current model would assure that rent increases grow at a reasonable rate over time with no excessive increases in rent.

MHET (Att. B) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI to stay even with inflation. Allowing 80% -7-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
CPI means that each year rent falls further and further behind the increased costs of operating a park.

WMA (Att. C) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI with a 5% cap on the basis that the current model does not allow park owners to keep up with inflation and it's harmful to residents as it limits a park owner's ability to maintain and improve their communities.

Emerson (Att. E) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI because park owner costs go up like the tenants.

Rudrich (Att. F)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI to reduce the need for MNOI applications.

Wang (Att. G)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI with a 6% cap to catch up to current market conditions.

Turk (Att. H)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI with a 4% cap to address rising costs.

Taylor (Att. I)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI with a 5% cap to eliminate unanticipated peaks.

Conway (Att. J)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI and the elimination of the 4% cap. If the cap is not eliminated, then a 2% minimum is proposed to address low inflation rates.

Dyer (Att. K)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for annual rent increases of 100% CPI to address rents that are far below market rents.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
That the MRRC consider the above options pertaining to the Annual Rent Adjustment formula. 5/17/22 — Approved Option #4 - Retain the existing language of the ordinance and rules without change — maintain 80% CPI and 4% cap.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Commissioner Chiu
Staff Recommendation to City Council:

That the Council consider Option #1 through #4 pertaining to the Annual Adjustment formula.

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022

2. SUBJECT: EXEMPT LONG-TERM LEASE FROM AB 2782 (Issue raised by stakeholders) Assembly Bill 2782 (AB 2782) relating to mobilehomes and long-term leases passed both the California Assembly and the California Senate and was signed into law by the Governor on August 31, 2020. Before the enactment of AB 2782, resident -owned mobilehomes subject to leases and rental agreements of more than 12 months ("long-term leases") which met all requirements of California Civil Code §798.17, were exempt from local rent regulation for the duration of the long- term lease. AB 2782 became effective on January 1, 2021, and was enacted to phase out the long- term lease exemption from local rent control in accordance with the following schedule:
-term Leases which met the reauirements of Civil Code &798.17 Leases entered into after February 13, 2020 through
December 31, 2020
Leases entered into at anv time prior to February 13.2020 Rent Control Exemption
Expiration Date
January _1,. _202................................ .

Upon lease expiration
but not later than
January 1.2025
Staff Comments: Under AB 2782, the exemption of a mobilehome space from rent control either ended by January 1, 2021, or will end no later than January 1, 2025, as determined in accordance with the above chart. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 798.17, once a leased space becomes subject to the Ordinance, the last rent rate in effect under that long-term lease will be the initial base rent under the Ordinance. For example, if the long-term lease exemption expired on September 1, 2021, and the last rent in effect under the lease was $600 per month, then the starting base rent under the Ordinance is $600. The next Annual Adjustment would be determined using the $600 rent, and subsequent rent increases must thereafter comply with the Ordinance. In November 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 397 and Resolution No. 2020-67 to conform with State law and to ensure that all park owners and residents understand their rights and obligations under the Ordinance with respect to annual adjustments upon termination of the long-term lease exemption from rent control. Some stakeholders have requested that the City amend the Ordinance to continue to exempt long-term leases from rent control, notwithstanding the change in State law.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
MHET (Att. B) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to exempt long- term leases from rent control.

WMA (Att. C) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to exempt long- term leases from rent control.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to spaces subject to long- term leases.
71Page
In

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
5/17/22 — Approved staff recommendation to make no changes to the Ordinance or Rules to spaces subject to long-term leases.
-relating
In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Retain existing language of the Ordinance and Rules relating to spaces subject to long-term leases.

3. SUBJECT: RENT ADJUSTMENTS UPON VACANCY -- IN -PLACE TRANSFERS (Issue raised by stakeholders)
The purpose of the City's vacancy control provisions is to protect the investment by mobilehome owners in their homes, given the unequal bargaining position of residents, immobility of mobilehomes, and imposition of excessive rents. The Ordinance addresses space vacancies or mobilehome vacancies in a number of ways, by establishing certain categories of a "vacancy" and specifying whether and what type of rent increase may be imposed for each vacancy category. From the City's initial adoption of the Ordinance until 2020, the term "vacancy" was defined to include the following three categories: (1) the existence of any space on which no mobilehome is located (i.e., an empty space); (2) any transfer of ownership of a mobilehome which remains in a park; or (3) any change in occupancy of any mobilehome space. The Ordinance prohibited the park owner from imposing a rent increase upon any such vacancy, except on a space that was empty. (Prior YMC § 15.20.020 [vacancy definition]; prior YMC § 15.20.050(A).) During the 2020 BR process, stakeholders proposed revisions to the Ordinance provisions regulating vacancies, including to allow rents to increase to full market rent upon the occurrence of any kind of vacancy. On April 13, 2020, City Council upheld the recommendations made by the MRRC on February 26, 2020, and amended the Ordinance and Administrative Rules to redefine "vacancy" by establishing new vacancy categories, and to allow specified types of rent increases resulting from certain types of vacancies, but rejected the proposal to allow rents to increase to full market rent in all circumstances. Staff notes, that this was the first time in Yucaipa's rent control history that the Ordinance and Rules were amended to address rent adjustments upon vacancy.

Vacancy Categories approved in the 2020 BR (Current Ordinance):

The 2020 amendments modified the definitions in YMC Section 15.20.020, by adding new terms including "abandoned in place" and "in -place transfer." The definition of "vacancy" in YMC Section

15.20.020 was also modified to include all of the following seven categories:

1. Any mobilehome space which is empty because the mobilehome was voluntarily removed by the mobilehome owner who will no longer be a resident of the park; or

2. Any mobilehome space which is empty because the mobilehome was destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake, or other natural catastrophe and the mobilehome owner will no longer be a resident of the park; or
81 -10-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022

3. Any mobilehome space that is empty because the mobilehome is abandoned in -place, and the park owner gains title and sells the coach to a new resident. A vacancy under this subsection (3) shall not include the abandonment of a mobilehome resulting from an eviction or other involuntary termination of tenancy of the resident; or

4. Any "in -place transfer" of a mobilehome (as defined in this section) which remains in the park; or

5. Any change in occupancy of a mobilehome on the same mobilehome space (but excluding an "abandoned in -place" mobilehome or an "in -place transfer" of a mobilehome as defined in this section); or

6. Any replacement of a mobilehome on a space with another mobilehome owned or occupied by the same resident(s); or

7. Any change in occupancy or ownership of an existing mobilehome on a space as a result of an eviction or other involuntary termination of tenancy.

Provisions Allowing Limited Increases on Certain Vacancies approved in the 2020 BR:

The 2020 amendments also modified YMC Section 15.20.050 to specify limited circumstances when rent may be increased when certain kinds of vacancy (categories) occur, as follows:
• Vacancy Categories #4, 45, #6, and #7: The Ordinance continues to prohibit rent increases when vacancies result from a change in occupancy of a mobilehome on a space; when an existing mobilehome is replaced with another mobilehome on the same space and occupied by the same resident; and upon an in -place transfer where a mobilehome and/or existing resident remains in the park. (YMC § 15.20.050(A).) Under the 2020 amendments, an "in - place transfer" is defined to mean a vacancy that results: (i) when the home is replaced by the same tenant or resident for any reason (such as age, fire, substantial destruction, or replacement with a new mobile home); (ii) from transfers of ownership of the mobile home by inheritance or other transfers to relatives, heirs, personal representatives of the estate, and successors in interest; (iii) any other voluntary or involuntary transfer of ownership of the mobilehome by the resident to a creditor; or (iv) any other voluntary or involuntary transfer of a mobilehome by the resident to the park owner as the result of an eviction or other termination of tenancy; but excluding an "abandoned -in -place" mobilehome. (YMC § 15.20.020.) For Vacancy Categories #4, #5, #6 and #7, the last rent in effect prior to the vacancy is the base rent for that month -to -month resident. This means that no rent increase may be imposed for any such vacancy.
• Vacancy Categories #1, #2 and #3: The Ordinance allows a limited rent increase upon any vacancy resulting when (i) the space becomes vacant because the resident voluntarily removed the mobilehome and moved out of the park; (ii) the space becomes vacant because the mobilehome is destroyed by fire or other natural catastrophe and the resident moved out of the park; or (iii) the mobilehome is abandoned in -place by the resident and the park owner obtains title through the courts. For these vacancy categories, when a new resident moves his/her own mobilehome onto the vacant space, or purchases an abandoned in -place mobilehome from the park owner, the park owner may increase the last rent in effect on the space prior to vacancy based on either the combined average of rent -controlled space in the park plus ten (10) percent or $35 dollars, whichever is less. (YMC § 15.20.050(B).) 91 -11-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
Reauest to Allow Full Vacancv De -Control UDOn In -Place Transfers of Mobilehomes:

During this 2021-22 BR process, some stakeholders proposed that the City revise the Ordinance regulating vacancies, to allow rents to increase to market rent -- or full vacancy decontrol -- upon the occurrence of an in -place transfer of a mobilehome from one homeowner to another homeowner. (See definition of "in -place transfer" as defined above and contained in YMC § 15.20.020.) Staff Comments: As described above, in 2020 the Ordinance was amended to allow limited rent adjustments upon certain types of "vacancy." However, as in prior biennial reviews, and in this current review, park owners and park owner organizations have again proposed that the City amend the Ordinance to allow rents to increase to market rent level upon an in -place transfer of a mobilehome. In making this proposal, the park owners have not identified any method that they would use to determine market rent, and their proposal does not include any cap on such vacancy increase. Thus, the proposal is to allow unlimited rent increases upon an in -place transfer of a mobilehome. YMRA and the park residents have consistently been opposed to any rent increases resulting from any kind of vacancy.

The following are options that the MRRC may wish to consider based on stakeholder comments with respect to vacancy adjustments at the time of an in -place transfer of a mobilehome:

Option #1: Amend YMC § 15.20.050(A) and Rules §3.0001 to allow the park owner to increase rents to market rent upon a vacancy resulting from an in -place transfer (as defined); but retain all other existing Ordinance language including the requirement that upon re -occupancy following the in -place transfer, the space is placed immediately back under rent control and only subject to the permissible annual adjustments or MRRC- approved rent adjustments.

Option 42: Amend YMC § 15.20.050 and Rules §3.0001 to allow the park owner to increase rent to market rent upon a vacancy resulting from an in -place transfer (as defined), include specified limitations on the increase amount and number of times the same space may increase due to vacancy; but retain all other existing Ordinance language including the requirement that upon re -occupancy the space is placed immediately back under rent control and only subject to the permissible annual adjustments or MRRC-approved rent adjustments.

Option #3: Retain all existing language of YMC § 15.20.050(A) and the Rules without change.

The City would continue to prohibit any increase in rent upon the in -place transfer of a mobilehome (Category #4).

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
YMRA (Att. A) Recommends no change to the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules for rent increase upon space vacancy.

MHET (Att. B) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for full vacancy decontrol as a means of both encouraging rehabilitation and fully protecting all residents from potential "excessive" rent increases.
10 1 , -,
-12-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
WMA (Att. C)
Requests full vacancy decontrol, re -control so that when a space turns over to a new homeowner, the rent is adjusted to market and the space is placed back under the protections of the rent control ordinance.

Rudrich (Att. F)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for full vacancy decontrol, re -control (with possible limitations on the amount and frequency of increases) allowing rent to be raised to a fair market value upon the ownership change of a mobilehome, significantly reducing the need for MNOI applications.

Wang (Att. G)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for partial or full vacancy decontrol as existing homeowners have already enjoyed lower rents for years. Suggested 10% or $50 rent increase of the current space rent.

Turk (Att. H)
Requests that some increase on homeowner turnover be allowed to prevent park owners from going through the MNOI appeal process.

Suggests allowing rent increases equal to the 3 highest rents in the park.

Taylor (Att. I)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for full vacancy decontrol. Based on internal analysis, if the vacancy decontrol model were allowed in Valley View, rent revenue would have increased to approximately the same level that was approved through the recent MNOI process and residents would have avoided the temporary rent increase now in effect.

Conway (Att. J)
Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow for vacancy decontrol.

Dyer (Att. K)
Requests full vacancy decontrol giving the park owner incentive to invest in improvements to the park and installing newer homes, which improves home values for residents.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
That the MRRC make no change to the existing prohibition on rent adjustments at the time of an in - place transfer of a mobilehome.
5/17/22 — Approved Option #3 — Retain all existing language of YMC § 15.20.050(A) and the Rules and continue to prohibit any increase in rent upon the in -place transfer of a mobilehome.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen & Regan
Not in favor:

Commissioner Chiu
Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Approve Option #3 - Retain all existing language of YMC § 15.20.050(A) and the Rules and continue to prohibit any increase in rent upon the in -place transfer of a mobilehome. -13-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022

4. SUBJECT: RENT ADJUSTMENTS UPON VACANCY -- VACANCY RESULTING FROM

VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT OR REMOVAL OF MOBILEHOME OR DESTRUCTION

OF MOBILEHOME AND VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF TENANCY
As stated under Item #3, Vacancy Categories #1, #2 and #3 allow a limited rent increase upon a vacancy resulting from any of the following circumstances: (i) the space is empty because mobilehome owner voluntary removes his/her mobilehome and moves out of the park; or (ii) the space is empty because a mobilehome is destroyed by a disaster such as a fire, and the mobilehome owner moves out of the park; or (iii) an existing mobilehome is abandoned in -place, and the park owner thereafter gains title through the courts and sells the coach to a new resident. Please note that Vacancy Category #3 does not include the abandonment of a mobilehome resulting from an eviction or other involuntary termination of tenancy of the resident.

Currently under YMC § 15.20.050(B), upon re -occupancy of the vacant space under Vacancy Categories #1, #2 or #3, the park owner may increase the last rent in effect on the space prior to such vacancy based on either: (a) the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park plus ten (10) percent, or (b) (thirty-five dollars ($35.00)), whichever is less. This vacancy adjustment, upon City approval, becomes the new base rent for that space to be used in future rent increases under the Ordinance.

Staff Comments: The intent of this provision was to allow a limited base rent adjustment for a space coming off vacancy under Vacancy Categories #1, #2 and #3. The adopted formula attempted to increase low space rents, to improve the return on investment and not impact existing rent -controlled residents. Staff notes that this vacancy adjustment method applies only to new people moving into the park and not to existing residents. Since the adoption of this amendment, only one park has filed an application, in the current year, that would qualify for this type of vacancy adjustment. In analyzing how the formula would work in that park, staff also determined that new residents would always pay less than existing month -to -month residents, an outcome that was not the intent of creating this vacancy adjustment method. This result is illustrated in the following example, which is based on an actual park in Yucaipa. The analysis is based on the 2022 Annual Registration using the lowest rent in a rent -controlled space and applying the procedures established by the Ordinance:

Example:

Lowest rent -controlled space in park: $328.50 (becomes vacant under Categories 41, #2 and #3) Pursuant to the formula in YMC § 15.20.050(B), the new rent is the lesser of (a) Combined average rent -controlled spaces: $419.22 x 10% = $461.14; or (b) Last rent in effect prior to vacancy ($328.50) plus $35= $363.50 Based on the formula, the base rent for the "new potential resident" moving into the park, would be determined under formula option (b), because $363.50 is $97.64 less than the amount of $461.14 determined under formula option (a)), pursuant to the Ordinance. There are already 82 rent -controlled spaces in the park; and those existing rent -controlled spaces pay rent ranging from $328.50 to $582.40 12 1
-14-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
each month. Based on application of the formula, the "new potential resident" would be charged a base rent of $363.50, which is lower than the space rent for 63 existing residents under rent control.

Even the potential space rent of $461.14 under formula (a) is lower than the rents of 13 existing spaces currently under rent control. From staff s analysis, the result of applying the formula in YMC § 15.20.050(B) means that regardless of whether formula (a) or (b) applies, the new resident will always pay a rent lower than the rents being paid by existing month -to -month residents. The MRRC may wish to consider whether a "new" or "potential" resident should benefit over existing rent - controlled residents that have been living in the park, by paying less than those existing park residents.

The following are options that the MRRC may wish to consider with respect to vacancy adjustments under Categories #1, #2 and #3:

Option #1: Amend YMC §15.20.050(B) and Rules § 3.0001 to eliminate the cap of $35 and let space rents increase based on the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park, for vacancies resulting from Categories #1, #2 or #3; but retain all other existing Ordinance language, including continue to require that upon re -occupancy the space is placed immediately back under rent control and only subject to the permissible annual adjustments or MRRC-approved rent adjustments.

Option #2: Retain all existing language of YMC § 15.20.050(B) and the Rules for vacancy adjustments under Categories #1, #2 and #3 without change. The City would continue to allow space rent to increase by (1) the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park plus ten (10) percent, or (2) (thirty-five dollars ($35.00)), whichever is less.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
That the MRRC consider the above options pertaining to rent adjustments upon vacancy resulting from voluntary abandonment or removal of mobilehome or destruction of mobilehome and voluntary termination of tenancy.
5/17/22 — Approved Option #1— Amend YMC § 15.20.050(B) and Rules § 3.0001 to eliminate the cap of $35 and let space rents increase based on the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park, for vacancies resulting from Categories #1, #2 or #3; but retain all other existing Ordinance language, including continue to require that upon re -occupancy the space is placed immediately back under rent control and only subject to the permissible annual adjustments or RRC-approved rent adjustment.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Approve Option #1 - Amend YMC § I 5.20.050(B) and Rules § 3.0001 to eliminate the cap of $35 and let space rents increase based on the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park, for vacancies resulting from Categories #1, #2 or #3; but retain all other existing Ordinance language, 13 1
-15-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
including continue to require that upon re -occupancy the space is placed immediately back under rent control and only subject to the permissible annual adjustments or MRRC-approved rent adjustment.

5. SUBJECT: RENT ADJUSTMENTS UPON VACANCY -- ADJUSTMENTS ON SPACES

THAT HAVE BEEN VACANT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN EMPTY FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME (Issue raised by stakeholder)
As outlined above, a space may become empty for a variety of reasons, such as when an existing resident moves his/her mobilehome out of the park, the mobilehome is destroyed by fire or other natural disaster, or the mobilehome is abandoned in -place by the resident and the park owner obtains title through the courts (Vacancy Categories #1, #2 and #3). Empty spaces within a mobilehome park are not regulated by the Ordinance or Rules. The Ordinance will apply only when a resident -owned mobilehome is moved onto that vacant space by the month -to -month resident; or the park moves a park -owned mobilehome onto that vacant space and sells that mobilehome to the new resident. At the time of re -occupancy of the space by a homeowner, the Ordinance specifies the limited rent increase allowed in this circumstance.

Staff Comments: A space may be empty for varying periods of time, including marketing or management decisions and disputes over ownership or title to abandoned homes that have been removed from the park. The Ordinance vacancy provisions do not make any distinction between spaces that remain empty for a short period of time and spaces that remain empty over a period of years before the space becomes re -occupied. In prior discussions relating to rent increases upon vacancy, none of the stakeholders raised any issue with spaces that were empty for an extended period of time before a mobilehome is moved onto the space. During this BR, a stakeholder requested clarification whether an approved MNOI/NOI adjustment would be factored into the base space rent determination when a resident -owned coach moves onto a long-term empty space.

In considering this question, Staff noted that the length of time that a space has been empty may result in significant differences between the rents paid by existing residents and the rent to be paid by the new resident, particularly when the applicable formula is applied to a long-term empty space. For example, Valley Breeze Mobilehome park has several spaces in the park that have been empty since 2004 or earlier. Minimal available records show that the spaces used to be occupied, but prior to 2004 (or earlier years) the mobilehome was removed from each space and each space has been empty since that time. Under the current Ordinance, if a new resident moves his/her home onto that space, the space would fall within Vacancy Category #1 of YMC § 15.20.020 (any mobilehome space which is empty because the mobilehome was voluntarily removed by the mobilehome owner who will no longer be a resident of the park). The base rent for that space would be determined under YMC § 15.20.050(B) - the park owner may increase the last rent based on the combined average of rent - controlled spaces in the park plus 10% or $35, whichever is less. If the space has been vacant for an extended period, the new base rent upon re -occupancy may be quite low in comparison to the current rents for other occupied spaces in the park because the starting base rent used to determine the current rent for the newly occupied space is also quite low.
-16-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
Example:

Space #16 in Valley Breeze has been a vacant pad (empty) since 2004. When anew resident who owns his/her home moves into the park, or when a new resident buys a park -owned home, that new resident's base rent would be $254.19, calculated as follows:

Base Rent (last City -approved rent from 2004) = $219.19 Current rent calculation (YMC § 15.20.050(B
2004 Base Rent: $219.19
Current Rent is the lesser of either :
• Combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park: $398.33 plus 10% ($39.83) _ $438.16; or
• Base Rent + $35 ($219.19 + $35) = $254.19
The new base rent would be $254.19. Reviewing the 2021 Annual Registration, current monthly space rents in Valley Breeze average $398.33, and range between a low of $395.32 and a high of $410.31. Based on the Ordinance, the approved space rent for a new resident who moves into Space 416 who has never lived in the park would be $254.19, which is $144.14 less than what other residents living in Valley Breeze rent -controlled spaces are paying (based on the 2021 Summary of High & Low Rents — Exhibit I). The MRRC may wish to consider whether it may be appropriate to modify the Ordinance as to long-term vacant (empty) spaces to allow the new base rent under rent control to be closer to current regulated space rents.

To address vacancy adjustments on spaces that are left empty for an extended period of time, the MRRC may wish to consider the following options:

Option #1: Amend the Ordinance to include a definition for a space that is vacant (empty) for more than five consecutive years, and to provide that the base rent following the vacancy will then be determined by the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park plus 10%.

Example: For Space #16, the new base rent would be $437.94, calculated as follows:

Combined average + 10% of Combined Average = New Base Rent $398.13 + ($398.13 x 10%) = New Base Rent
$398.13 + $39.81 = $437.94
Space base rent would be set at $437.94 for the new resident. (Note: The combined average of the space rents in the park is $398.13. The highest rent -controlled space in the park is $410.31. The new rent for Space #16 would be $27.63 more than the highest rent -controlled space in the park, of $410.31.) Option #2: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without any changes. 15 1 -
-17-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Emerson (Att. E) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to address circumstances where a park owned empty lot/space that has sat vacant for many years since before or after the most recent City -approved MNOI/NOI adjustment and is now rented to a new resident who moves his/her coach onto the empty/lot space and will be subject to rent control. Emerson's concern is that the MNOI/NOI adjustment would get factored into the allowable space rent.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
That the MRRC consider the above options pertaining to vacant (empty) spaces that have been unoccupied for an extended period of time.
5/17/22 — Approved Option #1— Amend the Ordinance to include a definition for a space that is vacant (empty) for more than five consecutive, and to provide that the base rent following the vacancy will then be determined by the combined average of rent -controlled in the park plus 10%.
-spaces
In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Approve Option # 1 - Amend the Ordinance to include a definition for a space that is vacant (empty) for more than five consecutive years, and to provide that the base rent following the vacancy will then be determined by the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park plus 10%.

6. SUBJECT: RENT ADJUSTMENTS UPON VACANCY -- VACANCY ADJUSTMENTS ON SALE OF PARK -OWNED MOBILEHOME TO EXISTING OR NEW RESIDENT (Issue raised by City staffi
During the time that a mobilehome is owned by the park owner and rented out to a resident, the Ordinance does not limit the space rent charged to the resident. However, YMC § 15.20.050(C) provides that if a park -owned mobilehome is sold to an existing resident and the mobilehome remains in the park, the base rent shall be either the last regulated space rent charged for the space, if the space was previously subject to the Ordinance, increased by the annual CPI increases properly charged by the park and any other applicable commission -approved rent increase for the spaces in the park; or if ..................._ ................
161Page
IN

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
the space was never subject to the Ordinance, the average of the rents charged for comparable spaces in the park subject to rent control.'
Staff Comments: YMC § 15.20.050(C) does not address a situation where the park -owned home is sold to a new resident moving into the park. To address vacancy adjustments on spaces when a park - owned mobilehome is sold to a new resident, the MRRC may wish to consider the following options:

Option #1: Amend YMC § 15.20.050(C) to provide that if the park owner sells a park -owned mobilehome to a new resident, the base rent shall be the combined average of rent - controlled spaces in the park plus 10%.

Example: Space 420 is a park -owned home rented to Mr. Smith for $400 per month. Mr. Smith moves out of the park, and the park owner sells the mobilehome to Mr. Jones. The combined average of the space rents in the park is $400. The new base rent for Space #20 would be $440, calculated as follows:

Combined average + 10% of Combined Average = New Base Rent $400 + ($400 x 10%) = New Base Rent
$400 + $40 = $440
Space base rent would be set at $440 for the new resident.

Option 92: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without any changes.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Not applicable None
Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
That the MRRC consider the above options pertaining to determination of base rent upon sale of a vacant park -owned mobilehomes to a new resident.
5/17/22 — Approved Option #1— Amend YMC § 15.20.050(C) to provide that if the park owner sells a park -owned mobilehome to a new resident, the base rent shall be the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park plus 10%.
1 The Mobilehome Residency Law was amended in 2021 pursuant to Assembly Bill 861 ("AB 861) (Chap. 706, Stat. 2021) to clarify that under existing law, park management must comply with any park rule or regulation which prohibits mobilehome owners from renting or subleasing coaches unless management is renting or subleasing to an employee, or a tenancy was established prior to January 1, 2022, and the tenant listed on the agreement continues to occupy the mobilehome. AB 861 also establishes the number of rentals that park management may directly rent within the park for the purpose of housing onsite employees, based on the number of spaces in the park.
171
-19-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
In favor: Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Approve Option #1 - Amend YMC § 15.20.050(C) to provide that if the park owner sells a park - owned mobilehome to a new resident, the base rent shall be the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park plus 10%.

7. SUBJECT: PRE -APPROVAL / AUTOMATIC PASS THROUGH OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PASS -THROUGH (Issue raised by stakeholders) The Ordinance contains comprehensive provisions addressing when park owners may obtain approval of a rent adjustment based on a capital improvement. Pursuant to YMC § 15.20.085 and the Administrative Rules, Chapter 5, a park owner may obtain approval of a Capital Improvement Rent Adjustment if the project meets the definition of a "capital improvement," including that prior to completion of the Capital Improvement, at least 51 % of the regulated spaces consented to the Capital Improvement Rent Adjustment pursuant to a confidential ballot conducted after holding a resident meeting; or alternatively, if no resident election is held or the park owner does not obtain at least 51 % consent, the park owner demonstrates that the Capital Improvement is necessary for the health and safety of the park, its residents, or its neighbors. In order to obtain approval of a Capital Improvement Rent Adjustment, the park owner must submit an application to the Rent Administrator for approval and demonstrates that the work qualifies as a capital improvement and that the necessary 51 % resident consent was obtained before carrying out the capital improvement, or the capital improvement was necessary for health and safety. The Rent Administrator's decision may be appealed to the Commission by the park owner or park residents.

The Ordinance also allows a park owner to apply for approval of an emergency capital improvement, under YMC § 15.20.085. If the park suffers damage due to an unforeseen event (fire, earthquake, water main break, flooding, etc.) and there is no time to conduct the resident meeting and vote because the capital improvement must be carried out immediately to prevent or correct an imminent threat to the health and safety of the park, the residents, or its neighbors, a park owner may also apply for approval of a Capital Improvement Rent Adjustment without conducting the resident meeting or obtaining 51 % consent of the residents. In this situation, the Ordinance imposes certain time and procedural requirements on a park owner who contends the Capital Improvement qualifies as an emergency capital improvement.

Any Capital Improvement Rent Adjustment granted by the City may not be included as part of the monthly space rent but must be itemized as a separate charge on the residents' monthly rent statement, and may only be charged for the useful life of the capital improvement, as determined by the City. In order to prevent the costs of a capital improvement from being incorporated into permanent rent increases, under YMC § 15.20.085(D), costs incurred for capital improvements or emergency capital improvements cannot be included as operating expenses in an application for an MNOI rent adjustment or a rent adjustment based on a readjusted 1987 NOI. If a park owner includes expenses 181f`.
-20-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
for capital improvements or emergency capital improvements in any such special rent adjustment application, the Ordinance requires that those expenses will be processed and heard by the Commission as a separate capital improvement rent adjustment application.

Staff Comments: Over the years, significant revisions to the Capital Improvement Rent Adjustment procedures have been approved. During the 2011 BR, the City Council amended the Ordinance and Rules, Chapter 5, to: (i) establish emergency capital improvement procedures (ii) require a separate application process for capital improvements, and (iii) to exclude costs of capital improvements from the special rent adjustment process (Ordinance No. 311 and Resolution Nos. 2011-52 and 2012-02).

During the 2016 BR, the City Council again amended the Ordinance and Rules, Chapter 5, to provide more specific requirements for documentation that must be provided to residents at the resident meeting, including the bids or proposal obtained, and also to establish a certification requirement by a qualified expert for flatwork improvements made within a mobilehome park (Ordinance No. 351 and Resolution No. 2016-44).

The capital improvement adjustment procedures outlined in the Ordinance and Rules ensures that residents of regulated spaces are informed about the proposed project, costs associated with the improvements and have input on whether they agree and are willing to pay for the improvements before the improvement is carried out in the park. If the residents are not in favor and the improvement does not qualify for health and safety, the park owner can decide to proceed or not with the improvement at their own expense. The emergency capital improvement procedures also reflect that the City recognizes in cases involving emergencies, the requirement for prior resident input or approval should not be required in order to allow a park owner to prevent imminent harm due to park damage resulting from fire and other unanticipated natural events.

Approval of the pre -approval or automatic pass -through modifications suggested by some Stakeholders would negate the procedures in place that involves resident input and consideration.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
MHET (Att. B) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow the pre - approval of capital improvement expenses.

WMA (Att. C) Requests that all capital improvements are passed through automatically without an application process through the City.

Turk (Att. H) Requests pre -approval of capital improvement projects to encourage park owners to reinvest in their parks.

Taylor (Att. I) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow the Rent Administrator to approve capital improvements based on health and safety related issues, and prior to the commencement of construction.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to capital improvement rent adjustments.
191
-21-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
5/17/22 — Approved staff recommendation to make no changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to capital improvement rent adjustments.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Retain existing language of the Ordinance or Rules relating to capital improvement rent adjustments.

8. SUBJECT: ANNUAL REGISTRATION FORM REQUIREMENTS (Issue raised by stafji The Ordinance and Administrative Rules require that every park must annually register with the City.

Each park owner must submit their annual registration on City -approved forms and comply with provisions of YMC § 15.20.073 and Rules, Chapter 2. The Ordinance requires that the registration procedures be established by the Rules, and the Rules require that the park owners list specific information for each space in the park, including resident names, rental amounts, and (for leases) lease effective and expiration dates. (YMC § 15.20.073(B); Rules, §2.0005.) The annual registration form requires information for month -to -month spaces, spaces subject to long-term leases, spaces occupied by park-owned/manager mobilehomes. A park owner who fails to comply with the registration requirements of the Ordinance or Rules is not entitled to charge, collect, retain or apply for rent adjustments. (YMC §15.20.073(E); Rules, §2.0006.) Staff Comments: During the 2022 registration process, a park owner has refused to provide information relating to park-owned/manager homes or leased spaces, including the names of the residents of the space, the amount of rent charged, and the expiration dates of leases, contending that the Ordinance does not require disclosure of information relating to exempt spaces, the City cannot regulate those spaces, and disclosure of the requested information would violate the resident's right of privacy. In previous years, that park owner provided the requested information, which is the same type of information requested currently. The City does not regulate the rents of park -owned homes, but does regulate the rent once the home is sold to a resident. The requirement for disclosure of the rental information for all categories of spaces assists the City in monitoring the status of spaces and enabling the City to correctly confirm that a space is or is not subject to the Ordinance, and also what the new base rent should be once the space becomes subject to the rent control provisions of the Ordinance. This is particularly important where a park owner does not maintain older park records, and often the only records available to document rents and space status over a period of time are the information contained in the City's registration forms.

To clarify the purpose and requirement for the disclosure requirement for all spaces in a park in the annual registration form, the MRRC may wish to consider the following options:

Option 91: Amend the Ordinance and Rules to clarify that the annual registration form shall include specified information relating to month -to -month spaces, spaces subject to long-term leases, park -owned, manager spaces, and vacant spaces. This amendment would be declarative of existing law as set out in the Ordinance and Rules. 201
-22-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
Option #2: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without any changes.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
None Not applicable
Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
That the MRRC consider the above options pertaining to the annual park registration requirements. 5/17/22 — Approved Option 91 — Amend the ordinance and rules to clarify that the annual registration form shall include specified information relating to month -to -month spaces, spaces subject to long-term leases, park -owned, manager spaces, and vacant spaces. This amendment would be declarative of existing law as set out in the ordinance and rules.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Approve Option #1 - Amend the ordinance and rules to clarify that the annual registration form shall include specified information relating to month -to -month spaces, spaces subject to long-term leases, park -owned, manager spaces, and vacant spaces. This amendment would be declarative of existing law as set out in the ordinance and rules

9. SUBJECT: MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW COMMISSION (MRRC) (Issue raised by stakeholders)
The City Council has analyzed and considered potential changes to the MRRC process for several years based on recurring issues that continue to present a challenge to finding, filling, and maintaining the five positions with qualified candidates that could understand the complexity of the documents associated with the special rent adjustment process.

On February 26, 2020, City Council approved changing the selection process for the MRRC from at - large appointments to individual Councilmember appointments to address some of these issues.

Additionally, on April 12, 2021, City Council approved a temporary stipend of $75 per meeting attended, up to a maximum of two meetings per month, in an effort to stimulate interest in serving on the MRRC.

On October 25, 2021, the City Council appointed volunteers to the remaining vacant positions. The City has a full MRRC of 5 members and has successfully conducted the appropriate training necessary to prepare each Commissioner with the knowledge of the Ordinance and Rules to review, hear, and determine rent adjustment applications following a hearing and investigation, meet biennially to 21 j.a�
-23-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
review current provisions, and adopt, amend, and rescind administrative rules (subject to the approval of the Council).

The following are options that may be considered by the MRRC:

Option #1: City Council holds an evidentiary hearing to consider the application and issues final decision; appeal eliminated.

Option #2: City Council hears the application; appeal to Hearing Officer.

Option #3: Hearing Officer holds an evidentiary hearing to consider the application and issues final decision; appeal eliminated.

Option #4: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules pertaining to the procedures for City approval of special rent adjustments, capital improvement rent adjustments, and rent adjustments based on elimination or reduction of a service or amenity.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
YMRA (Att. A) Recommends no change to the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules for the MRRC.

WMA (Att. C) Requests that the MRRC be replaced with a hearing officer in order to address the complexity of the special rent adjustment and BR processes.

Wang (Att. G) Requests that the MRRC be replaced with one or a few experienced individuals, with guidance from the City's Attorney.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
That the MRRC consider the above options pertaining to the MRRC. 5/17/22 — Approved Option #4 — Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules pertaining to the procedures for City approval of special rent adjustments, capital improvement rent adjustments, and rent adjustments based on elimination or reduction of a service or amenity.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

That the Council consider Option #1 through #4 pertaining to the MRRC. 22 1
-24-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022

10. SUBJECT: SIMPLIFY THE MNOI PROCESS (Issue raised by stakeholders) The City's Ordinance authorizes a park owner to seek a rent increase that exceeds the Annual Adjustment on the grounds that the Annual Adjustment does not provide the park owner with a fair return, pursuant to YMC § 15.20.100. All of these Special Rent Adjustments require a formal application and MRRC approval. The park owner bears the burden of proof and must provide the evidence to justify a Special Rent Adjustment under YMC §§15.20.100(A), (B), and/or (C).

The Ordinance's application procedures are set out in YMC §§15.20.100 and 15.20.105, and Rules, §§4.0003, 4.0004 and 4.0005. In order for the City to accept a Special Rent Adjustment application and schedule the application for hearing before the MRRC, the park owner must pay a filing fee ($1,750) and submit a complete application, including complete financial records that support the requested rent adjustment. The applicant must submit documentation of its income and expenses in the base year and of its income and expenses in each of the last five years or since its last Special Rent Adjustment and such other information and documentation as is necessary to properly determine an MNOI calculation under YMC § § 15.20.100(A), (B) and/or (C). Required financial records include profit and loss statements, balance sheets, bank statements, invoices, cancelled checks, and similar financial records.

Alternatively, a park owner may choose to propose a Special Rent Adjustment based on Voluntary Meet and Confer process whereby a park owner and park residents voluntarily meet and confer in order to negotiate and reach agreement on a proposed MNOI rent adjustment under YMC §§15.20.100(A) or (B), based on MNOI methodology or MNOI based on a readjustment Base Year NOI. The Voluntary Meet and Confer process requires the consent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of the regulated spaces in the park and the approval of the Rent Administrator. The Rent Administrator's decision is final and not subject to any public hearing before or appeal to the MRRC, or appeal to the City Council.

The provisions of the Ordinance and Administrative Rules relating to Special Rent Adjustments have been developed in light of court decisions establishing parameters by which the constitutionality of rent control provisions will be determined. These court decisions have impacted the required documentation that must be submitted by a park owner and by park residents, procedures relating to the completeness of an application and the timing by which the City must issue its decision. The special rent adjustment procedures and requirements contained in the Ordinance and Rules have been amended periodically in the past based on comments from the stakeholders during the BR and during public hearings on applications, in order to clarify language or modify factors to be considered in the Special Rent Adjustment process. The City has attempted to anticipate relevant documents through the Rules, but cannot always predict what will be needed because determining when an application is complete is dependent on the documentation and other written arguments raised by the park owner or park residents. Delays and complications may occur in deeming the application complete as a result of the park owner's or park resident representative's failure to provide documentation identified in the Rules, or issues raised by a park owner that are unique to that Special Rent Adjustment application. 23 -25-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Rudrich (Att. F) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to improve upon the MNOI process in order to avoid the very long, expensive, and painful process that occurred during the 2008-2010 Grandview West MNOI.

Turk (Att. H) Suggests a Voluntary Meet and Confer process applicable to proposed MNOI adjustments (Staff note: this process is already addressed in the Ordinance § 15.20.100 (E) and Rules §4.0006).

Taylor (Att. I) Requests that MNOI process is improved to reduce costs (which are ultimately passed on to residents) as well as the complex nature of the process.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC:

Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the procedures or requirements for special rent adjustments.
5/17/22 — Approved staff recommendation to make no changes to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the procedures or requirements for special rent adjustments.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Retain existing language of the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the procedures or requirements for special rent adjustments.

11. SUBJECT: WAIVER OF FILING FEE — DECREASE IN RENTS BASED ON

DISCONTINUANCE OR REDUCTION OF A SERVICE OR AMENITY (PARK RESIDENT/REPRESENTATIVE APPLICATION) (Issue raised by stakeholder) Section 15.20.090 of the Ordinance and Chapter 7 of the Rules allows and sets procedures for park owners and residents to submit applications for a rent decrease due to the substantial reduction or elimination of services or amenities provided to the residents.

Since the adoption of rent control in 1991, the City Council has established an application/appeal fee to off -set the costs associated with processing an application (office supplies, copying costs, postage, expert(s) and court reporter (if applicable)). In 2007, the application/appeal fee was changed from a deposit -based filing fee to a flat fee of $1,750. Actual City costs associated with processing an application range between $5,250 (to process a meet & confer approved application) to $190,000 (to process a MNOI/Readjusted base year Application approved by MRRC — not appealed). Since the 241
-26-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
application/appeal fee is far below the costs associated with processing an application, the difference is factored into registration fee funding model that is reviewed by Council annually.

Over the years, the City Council has established the policy that the Ordinance must pay for itself and that the benefited parties — the park residents and park owners — must bear the cost of administering and implementing the Ordinance during any City administrative proceedings. Costs for administering the Ordinance are substantial, due to the involvement of staff, experts and attorneys and are captured in the annual rent control fee.

If the $1,750 fee is waived/deferred and applied to the annual rent control fee it may:

Increase the number of applications/appeals before MRRC/City Council; and Full reimbursement to the City is not guaranteed since rent control fees are implemented January 1st of each year and collected January 1st of the following year, residents that were involved in the case may no longer own the coach when the rent control fees are collected; and
Increase staff time to implement and track reimbursement.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
YMRA (Att. A) Requests a waiver/deferment of the $1,750 filing fee for park residents pending resolution of the application.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC:

Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the waiver/deferment of the $1,750 application/appeal fee for residents.
5/17/22 — Approved staff recommendation to make no changes to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the waiver/deferment of the $1,750 application/appeal fee for residents.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Retain existing language of the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the waiver/deferment of the $1,750 application/appeal fee for residents.
251
-27-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022

12. SUBJECT: SELECTION OF RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES (Issue raised by stakeholders) Section 15.20.060 of the Ordinance requires the residents of each mobilehome park to annually elect by majority vote, with one vote per regulated space, a resident representative to receive all notices required by the Ordinance. The contact information for the resident representative selected shall be submitted to the RA by January 31 st of each year. If a resident representative or point of contact is not established, all notices required by the Ordinance shall be posted, in the clubhouse, park office and one other location accessible to the residents.

Of the 41 mobilehome parks regulated by the Ordinance, only 7 parks have a resident representative.

Concerns have been raised regarding the lack of interest to serve and the annual election requirement is time-consuming and difficult for those who have mobility issues.

The following are options that may be considered by the MRRC:

Option 41: Amend the Ordinance to change the term, once elected, from annual to 3 (or 4) years (option proposed by stakeholders). Election to be held at any time during the term if the representative resigns or is challenged.

Option 92: Amend the Ordinance to eliminate the term, once elected (option proposed by stakeholder). Election to be held at any time during the term if the representative resigns or is challenged.

Option #3: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance pertaining to the selection of the resident representative.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
YMRA (Att. A) Requests that the Ordinance be amended to extend the term for multiple years (e.g. 3 or 4-year term) that a resident -elect representative serves as the point of contact for all notices required by the Ordinance.

Sutt (Att. D) Requests that the Ordinance be amended to extend the term (e.g. 3 or 4-year term) or eliminate the term requirement altogether. If the position is challenged, then a formal election can be initiated.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC:

That the MRRC consider the above options pertaining to the selection of resident representatives. 5/17/22 — Approved Option #2 — Amend the Ordinance to eliminate the resident representative term, once elected, and an election to be held at any time during the term if the representative resigns or is challenged.

In favor: Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
261

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

That the Council consider Option #1 through #3 pertaining to the selection of resident representatives.

13. SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE/EMAIL NOTICE FOR COMMENT FOR THE BIENNIAL REVIEW PROCESS (Issue raised by stakeholder)
YMC § 15.20.140 — Biennial Review states: This chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council in odd -numbered years to determine whether it is still appropriate and whether there should be any modifications of its provisions.

Staff Comments: Currently, the Ordinance does not address a noticing requirement as it pertains to the biennial review. Over the past several years, to obtain input from stakeholders, staff has notified MHET, WMA, park owners and YMRA (Exhibit III) so that they could submit proposed additions or modifications to the Ordinance and/or Rules as it pertains to the biennial review process.

A concern has been raised pertaining to the lack of noticing to park residents and the burden placed on the YMRA Chairperson to notify residents in the 41 parks. Staff believes that it would be appropriate to amend YMC § 15.20.140 to improve noticing of the process to all stakeholders.

STAKEHOLDER

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Sutt (Att. D) Recommends that the biennial review announcement be published in the local newspaper and emailed to resident representatives.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC:

Amend YMC § 15.20.140 as follows (the additions are marked by italic/bold text):
"Biennial Review. This chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council in odd -numbered years to determine whether it is still appropriate and whether there should be any modifications of its provisions. The RentAdministrator shall issue notice of the biennial review and submittal deadline to the Resident Representative (or if no representative, posted pursuant to Section 15.20.060) and advertised once in the local adjudicated newspaper."
5/17/22 — Approved staff recommendation to amend YMC §15.20.140 as follows (the additions are marked by italic/bold text): `Biennial Review. This chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council in odd -numbered years to determine whether it is still appropriate and whether there should be any modifications of its provisions. The Rent Administrator shall issue notice of the biennial review and submittal deadline to the Resident Representative (or if no representative, posted pursuant to Section 15.20.060) and advertised once in the local adjudicated newspaper." 27 J '
-29-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
In favor: Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Amend YMC § 15.20.140 as follows (the additions are marked by italic/bold text):
"Biennial Review. This chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council in odd -numbered years to determine whether it is still appropriate and whether there should be any modifications of its provisions. The Rent Administrator shall issue notice of the biennial review and submittal deadline to the Resident Representative (or if no representative, posted pursuant to Section 15.20.060) and advertised once in the local adjudicated newspaper."

14. SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX PASS THRU UPON SALE OF PARK (Issue raised by stakeholder)
In determining whether a park is entitled to an MNOI/Readjusted Base Year NOI under YMC § 15.20.100(A) or (B), the park owner's net operating income (NOI) must be determined for the base year (1987) and the current year. The procedure to make this determination is set out in Rules §4.0003. Under the Rules, a park's NOI is determined by subtracting the park's operating expenses from the park's gross income for the relevant year. The park's operating expenses include real property taxes and assessments. (Rules, §4.0003(13)(3)(a).) Staff Comments: Under the Ordinance and Rules, any property taxes paid by the park owner in the base year will be deducted from the park's base year gross income to determine base year NOI; and any property taxes paid in the current year will be deducted from the park's current year gross income to determine current year NOI. Depending on the park, a substantial increase in property taxes since the base year, may affect whether the park owner is able to demonstrate justification to receive approval of an MNOI/Readjusted Base Year NOI rent adjustment. The current Ordinance and Rules allow consideration of any increase in property taxes between those two time periods.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
MHET (Att. B) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to address property tax increases in a way that is fair and reasonable to both the park residents and park owner.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to treatment of property taxes as operating expenses under YMC §§ 15.20.100(A) or (B) or the Rules, §§4.0003 or 4.0004. 281 _ .
-30-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
5/17/22 — Approved staff recommendation to make no changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to treatment of property taxes as operating expenses under YMC § § 15.20.100(A) or (B) or the Rules, §§4.0003 or 4.0004.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Retain existing language of the Ordinance or Rules relating to treatment of property taxes as operating expenses under YMC §§15.20.100(A) or (B) or the Rules, §§4.0003 or 4.0004.

15. SUBJECT: DEVELOP A SEPARATE RENTAL ADJUSTMENT POLICY FOR 501(C)3 HOUSING NON-PROFIT OWNERS (Issue raised by stakeholder) There are 41 mobilehome parks in the City, of which all but four are for -profit parks. One park, Valley View Mobile Home Park (Valley View) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit park. Valley View was purchased by Augusta Communities in 2000, partially with proceeds from revenue bonds issued by the Yucaipa Redevelopment Agency. Augusta Communities refinanced the park in 2012 through the Independent Cities Financing Authority (ICFA) as part of a pooled bond issue that combined the resources of Valley View with three other parks owned by Augusta Communities in other cities.

When Augusta Communities purchased Valley View in 2000, the City's Ordinance had already been in effect for nine years, a fact confirmed by the park's Regulatory Agreement, which provides that the rents cannot exceed the amount considered affordable under federal and state law, or the amount permitted by the City's Ordinance, whichever is less. Thus, the purchase price at the time of Augusta Communities' acquisition of the park as well as at the time of the refinancing by ICFA, took into account the rent control provisions of the City's Ordinance, including whether the rent provisions of the Ordinance would allow the park owner the opportunity to earn a fair return.

In 2020, Valley View was granted an MNOI rent adjustment based on a Readjusted Base Year NOI by the MRRC in the amount of $60.21/per month/per rent -controlled space under YMC § 15.20.100(B), as highlighted on page 2 of this staff report. To justify their proposed MNOI rent adjustment, Augusta Communities contended that they had incurred "borrower administrative expenses" which must be included as operating expenses. These claimed operating expenses included $266,773 in "borrower administrative fees" that Augusta Communities alleged it was unable to pay for a six -year period prior to the Current Year because it was operating at a net loss, and an additional $45,762 allegedly incurred as operating expenses for the Current Year. Augusta Communities conceded that the "borrower administrative fees" were not mandatory fees under their regulatory agreement and other financing documents, but argued they were for management, administration expenses, and other expenses provided to the Park and had been determined using an internal calculation of the non-profit entity owning the park. Although the MRRC granted an MNOI/Readjusted Base Year NOI rent adjustment to Valley View, the MRRC ruled that the park owner failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that it was entitled to any of the claimed 291`'_-
-31-

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
"borrower administrative fees" based on the evidence presented during the hearing and a variety of factors unique to that application.

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
Taylor (Att. I) Requests that the Ordinance and Rules be amended to allow legitimate administrative expenses that are unique to nonprofits under the MNOI process.

Staff Recommendation to the MRRC
Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules to create a separate procedure or policy regulating the determination of permissible rent adjustments in non-profit parks such as Valley View.
5/17/22 — Approved staff recommendation to make no changes to the Ordinance or Rules and not create a separate procedure or policy regulating the determination of permissible rent adjustments in non-profit parks such as Valley View.

In favor:

Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller, Commissioners Allen, Chiu & Regan
Not in favor:

Abstained:

Staff Recommendation to City Council:

Retain existing language of the Ordinance or Rules and not create a separate procedure or policy regulating the determination of permissible rent adjustments in non-profit parks such as Valley View.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the direction provided by the City Council, revisions will be made to the Ordinance and Resolution and be brought back before Council for final approval.

Attachments/Exhibits:

Attachments
A YMRA
B
C
D
E
F
G
MHET
WMA
Sutt
Emerson
Rudrich
Peter Wang
-32-
301

City Council
Meeting of July 11, 2022
H Turk
I Taylor
J Conway
K Dyer
L YMRA - Submitted/distributed to the MRRC on 5/17/22
M Sutt - Submitted/distributed to the MRRC on 5/17/22
N May 17, 2022 Commission Minutes
Exhibits
I 2021 Summary of High and Low Rents
II Dr. Baar's analysis dated Nov. 13, 2019
III Biennial Review Notice
Approved by:
31r,
-33-

Attachment A
2021-22 Biennial Review of the Yucaipa Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Administrative Rules Submitted by: Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents Association (YMRA) PO Box 1052, Yucaipa, CA 92399, (909) 797-9732
January 19, 2022
Jennifer Crawford
Deputy City Manager/Rent Administrator
Brandy Gomez
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Chair
Dear Ms. Crawford, Chair Gomez and Commissioners:

Received
Cite of Yucaipa
General Services/
City Clerk's Department
Thank you for the outreach to interested parties -who wish to participate in the City ofYucaipa's Mobile Home Rent Control Biennial Rcview. Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents Association (YMRA) is a nonprofit organization representing the residents of mobilehome parks within the city of Yucaipa. We intend to consider the needs of park owners while considering the best protection for the mobile home park resident community.

In the past, recommendations have been presented to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (MRRC) for changes in the following areas:

Yucaipa NTobilehorne Rent Stabilization Ordinance

15.20.040 A. Maximum permitted rent.
'I'he current ordinance provides for an annual rent adjustment increase by park owners equal to 80% of inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a cap of 4%. Park owners have generally made the case for an increase equal to 100% of CPI with the argument that anything less would cause the park to run negative in comparison to inflation and result in an erosion of income necessary to maintain the park and pay operating expenses. It is also argued that under the current standard (80%), a.

Special Rent Adjustment or Maintenance of Net Operating Income (MNOI) application would eventually be required to make up the difference. In the last four years only three parks out of the 41 in the City have filed an MNOI application. Two of those were settled via the Meet R Confer process. ..... ...... ......... __..... __... _......... ................. ........

It should be noted that the current formula generally provides an adequate revenue stream to enable park owners to pay current expenses and maintain the public spaces and amenities within the park in good condition. Consideration should also be given to the fact that certain operating expenses, such as provision of water, sewer, and trash pickup, are passed through to park residents. The retention of the 80% of CPI formula would assure that rent increases for the residents grow at a reasonable rate over time with no excessive jumps .in rent.

YMRA recommends that no change be made to the formula used to calculate allowed annual space rent increase.
• 15.20.050111aximuni permitted rent upon space vacancy.

Mobilehome park owners have in the past requested a change to this section to provide for "Pull vacancy decontrol, recontrol." Park owners are currently allowed to raise the space rent when a mobilehome is removed from the park or destroyed by fire or natural catastrophe and the owner does not intend to replace it, or the home is voluntarily abandoned in place by the owner. This change would 30 -34-

allow removal of rent control whenever the ownership of a mobilehome in a regulated space changes,.

D 11,
including voluntary sale by the owner or through inheritance. The argument is made that an agreement can be reached between the park owner and potential resident as to the amount of space rent to be assessed. Park owners/representatives state this would allow them to raise the space rent to "current market value." The prospective mobilelionie buyer could choose how much rent they want to pay.

Owners argue this change would not affect current residents and would perhaps eliminate the need for an NINNO1 application in the future.

Who is to determine what current market value is? Would the park- owner inform. the prospective buyer of the -average rents within their park-9 In other parks) Would consideration be given to the fact that space rents vary a meat deal among parks in the City? Average monthly -space rent ranges from a lo"N, of 5270.15 to a high of S547.83 (based on average park space rent as of 2019). Without this information, the buyer cannot realistically make an informed decision. Such "Vacancy decontrol" could result in vastly differing space rents within a single park depending on the rate of resident turnover. 'rhe differences in space rents within a park could negatively impact the ability of a inobilehome owner to sell their home. This policy fails to take into account the fact that mobilehomes do not appreciate in value as do single family residences. Their resale value may keep up with inflation, but this is unlikely for older homes. Any impediment to making a sale could easily result in a resident being -forced to abandon their mobilehome and cede title to the park, losing all equity in their home.

YMRA reconnends no change be made to the existing rules for rent increase upon space vacancy, 0 15.20.070 Mobflehoine rent review commission.

From time to time it is suggested that the MRRC be eliminated. from the City Rent Stabilization.

Program and replaced by some other agent to perform its functions. One argument presented is that the related costs are prohibitive and, in essence, are wasted since the City Council is not required to accept the recommendations of the MIRRC anyway. Why then should these costs, such as legal counsel and expert testimony, be passed on to park owners and residents*? It is also suggested that the matters covered by the Rent Stabilization Program have become so complex that ordinary citizens cannot understand them and are unable to make appropriate decisions/recommendations. Some have recommended that the MRRC be replaced by a hearing officer (retired judge) and the Biennial Review be conducted by the City Council.

If "ordinary citizens" cannot handle the complexities of this Ordinance, will the City Council members fare any better? They are after all "ordinary citizens." It is also doubtful they would want to take time away from their other civic responsibilities to add. this additional task. Legal counsel and experts could still be required no matter who conducts the review, so these costs would not change. What would change is the additional cost of a hearing officer. Estimates of the cost for such a person, for example a retired judge, range from S 100 to 5400 an hour for time spent in reviews and hearings. This would increase the costs considerably.

YMRA recognizes that it is sometimes difficult to find persons willing to volunteer for this responsibility. However, we are convinced that review by ordinary City residents is the best way to assure a fair hearing for all sides and provide the transparency necessary for an equitable resolution to any problem. We recommend no change to the MRRC.
. 15.20.060 Resident representatives.

Currently a resident representative is required to be elected by majority vote in each park to receive all 31 -35-

notices required by the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Program. These notices can include notification of the intent by park, owner to file an.N14NOI application or request for Special Rent Adjustment. The resident representative is also required to accept service of any action taken by the City, MRRC or park. owner. It can be problematic to find a volunteer in every park to take on this responsibility. At present there are fewer than 10 parks out of the 41 in the City who have elected representatives. This lack has rquired the City to make provision for the posting of such notices where they can be seen by park residents. Often park residents do not know of these postings and never see the notices.

One of the problems faced by potential volunteers is the need to personally visit all of the occupants of regulated spaces in their park and ask for their vote every year in January. Many of our park residents who might want to volunteer are seniors or mobility challenged. Younger park residents are often employed full time and/or have family responsibilities that preclude them from taking on this duty.

YMRA understands the advisability of a vote to determine who will be responsible ror these duties within a park. Ho-wever, if the process could be simplified it might result in more residents being 0 willing to take on this position. Alc recommend a change extending the term for this position to multiple years, for example a 3 or 4 year term.

Yucaipa Administrative Rules
• 7.0005 Park Resident Application for Rent Decrease.

Provision is made for a rnobilchonic park resident to apply for a rent decrease under YMC Section

15.20.090, Rent adjustments based on discontinuance or reduction of a service or amenity. The process for submitting this application involves extensive documentation, posting and service. This would undoubtedly require legal advice. Park residents seldom have access to the resources and advisors which park owners have. This requirement for an attorney, the process involved and related costs together with a City filing fee of S1,750.00 has in the past discouraged niany residents from requesting an adjustment, however well deserved.

YMRA recommends that some easement of requirements for residents be provided. We suggest that this filing fee of S 1,750.00 be waived for park resident(s). If this is not found appropriate, perhaps the filing fee could be deferred pending resolution of the application. The losing party in the matter to be liable for payment of the fee.

YMRA appreciates the opportunity to present our thoughts on possible recommendations. We look forward to answering any questions on these proposals now or at the MRRC hearing. We hope any review hearing will allow for full discussion by all interested parties of any proposed changes to the Rent Stabilization P.rogi•am or related Administrative Rules.

Sincerely,
Shirley Dalton
Chairman
Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents Association
32 -36-

Attachment B
-°':. i6rA;jmliwi'C"}'s3sirztAE:ea#s.real
"wcARD or I}ttar;°rms
Frwr;etirx Ikrarrr
:• to 3.'il.•t,e'.•`<:

ISocrrd .ltentrtrrx
TIM Elii!!3,Pgw,,.,
daiiee.#C.nP
Mlt 1.3i;
�7x!mie;-s
;irfri.Ynrf€ {'nrnntfifer
t , C r ,.ria;t
11A.
ti�ce'13ant�ac
#: ni Z;x#;fn.o
X'ast d'rerfdents
.'.§ iRans
4}'j#jE.1M �.. Af3 fir•
t'crw;ti fltsuflirr3a
3atn•t. d€i€#�##
l''4 ke iRitb?tdfffM
r;va J!,
Clu:iu •izxiic+<..a`azt•t.4
1,681t f,I etthins
;s Oitn;.t:it
t?a n!t• M.1" #
r, ,t mb L. Mire.
i(TetirrrrAMteiemrnI
Award Xeripfents
=,;n#Wz t KAr
tkE¢Nuw WkIA
ritore and Begond
,itrant Xerr,•gterrts
".lit#+ Ni':er
Mtn Jacnitt
an4:'t`;laglH
C'. ietf'2 SasSE an
'i7: Al:tatin
ftbri:t'lY mt?",.i:zs V,
i'a'eratire Piredor
T7Enit='iallt'g
inland Enlpine P*pn sentatir<=
jy,.f.�tl rtwt
January 20, 2022
Via Email to Kim Everts keverts cyucaipa.org
Received
City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (MR.CC) JAN-24 2022
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard General Set -vices/
Yucaipa, CA 92399 City Clerk's Departnient
Re: Biennial Review of Mobile Hone Rent Stabilization Ordinance Dear Chair Holbrook and Commissioners:

The Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) is a non-profit organization which serves the three Southern California Counties of San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange. M14ET has for over 40 years served as an educational resource regarding the mobile home park industry and issues, and in the resolution of public policy issues affecting the manufactured housing industry and mobile home parks. MHET, on behalf of the mobile home park owners of Yucaipa, appreciates the opportunity to provide a feet suggested changes to the Ordinance that we feel would be a solid step forward in assisting in the continued viability of the mobile home parks in the City, improve the quality of life for the residents, and in particular, limit the need for MNOI applications.

Initial Ovef-view
IvlHET feels it is important to fully appreciate what makes Lip a mobile home park. It is riot just a bunch of spaces to be rented. It is essentially a mini -city with many of the sane infrastructure challenges and costs the City of Yucaipa faces, Costs that continue to rise and those cost increases are not under the park owners control_ A park has streets, sewer lines, electrical infrastructure for each home, street lights and other common area fighting, club houses that are like community centers with activities, pools. and more: All of these need to be maintained as does the City's infrastructure, and like the City, this costs a lot of money to do. As is the Case with the city, when revenue gets restricted, this decreases the ability to do what may need to be done to maintain the quality of life the residents expect. Also, if the restriction of city income continued over any period of time, the infrastructure begins to deteriorate. The same is true for mobile home parks.

Additionally, you are all familiar with the laws surrounding MNOI increases, and the expense and difficulty surrounding them for everyone. All of the stakeholders, the residents, the city and park owners agree the best course is to find ways to avoid MNOI applications and the resulting larger rent increases, You have before you the ability to take a reasonable, full step fonvard in achieving the goal of limiting and maybe removing the need for any further MNIOI applications by taking, a few key steps. 25:'-i1 Posty, ffe,tr£eia, S3fiff, U0 • Loyfl 't bill', (:rfirf1min 92653 rtrtt-rtr. (JS r) 'S j;i;rlJ • Fiar: (PW) `.'W J,�i0 hrr!n3r: itl#m u,rrrrar� Cs:ur • �rrrtsiftr; rraracrrttrrt,cutrr Sroitthent Califur'nia MIFF Serzino Or=a)�ge, Rit'er;0de and an. Ber rani hio Mini ies since 19, 33 -37-

N11EiET letter to MRCC
January 20, 2022
Step One- Annual Adjustment— 100% CPI
Initial Comment in Support of 100% Cpl — The Ordinance says its sole purpose is to prevent supposed "excessive" rent increases. A rent increase of 100% of CPI only allows the park owner to keep up with inflation, which the park owner has no control over. Nothing more. It is respectfully submitted that merely staying even with inflation cannot be seen by anyone as "excessiv=e£'.

Additional Information in Support. of 100% CPI
In fact, by only allowing an annual increase of 80°fib of Cpl means that each year the rent falls further and further behind the increased costs of operating a park. As noted earlier, when revenue is restricted, especially for as many years as the 80% provision has been in place, it makes it difficult to maintain a mobile home Dark due to the lack of revenue. In Yucaipa. on various occasions, the City Council has expressed concern over the conditions of some parks.

This concern received extensive attention in 2013, and the City Council identified 7 parks, nearly 17% of the mobile home parks in the City, they felt should be given incentives so they could be reused for other purposes. To reuse the park means it would have to be closed and the residents would have to move because of the condition of the park.

Furthermore, allowing 100% CPI annual increases means future increases slowly rise over an extended period of time. Limiting: the annual increase to anything less than 100%, forces the park owner to seek a much larger rent increase through the I NOI process to catch up to what has been lost over the }dears. Instead of being spread out, the residents are faced with a much larger increase in the monthly rents. It is far easier for the residents to plan and adapt to the more gradual 100% Cpl annual increase than race the legally required MNOI increase.

On this issue of forcing N4NOI applications, even the City's own expert, Dr. Barr, indicated during the 2017 biennial review;
"the limit on anfrual rent increases to 80% of the Cpl incrert.ve the likelihood _
_ ... ......... I..''
that in future years there will be more fair mtw-n petitions and that Try eote►- fair return increases would be justified." (emphasis added) We would also note the state legislature recently passed a rent control bill, AB 1482, that allowed rents to increase 5% PLUS Cpl. We are only asking for the annual increase to increase at 100% of Cpl.

Step 2 — Vacancy Decontrol
Initial Comment in Support of Vacancy Decontrol - Again, the purpose of the Ordinance is to protect the residents living in the parks from supposed "excessive" rent INCREASES. Vacancy decontrol merely allows a NEW resident who is considering living in a mobile home park to voluntarily come to an agreement with the park owner on a rent level that is entirely acceptable and affordable to the new resident. The: new resident chooses hove much rent they want to pay.

Once moved into the park, any future rent increase for the new resident of the park is fully 34 MHET Letter to MRCC
January 20, 2022
regulated by the Ordinance. Vacancy decontrol does NOT impact the current or future rent level of the existing residents, which is the stated reason for the rent control ordinance.

Additional Information Supporting Vacancy Decontrol
Vacanev decontrol is a key element of achieving the goal of seeing parks rehabilitated as needed without the need for MNO[ increases. The concept of 100% CPI solely keeps park owners even with increasing costs. 100% CPI does not provide any of the revenue needed for rehabilitation projects. Vacancy decontrol helps provide a means ofboth encouraging rehabilitation and fully protecting all the residents of the park from potential "excessive" rent increases. This truly limits the need for a X4NOf or capital improvement rent increase application, which raises the rents on ALL the residents of the park. Vacancy decontrol does NOT affect the rents of existing residents. They keep their same rent level. No increase.

This potential for minimizing MNOI applications was also commented upon by the city's expert, Dr. Barr, during the 2017 biennial review. Fle noted that allowing some form of vacancy decontrol could "r•eeluce fair return applications and rent adjustments." (emphasis added) As mentioned, the state legislature recently passed the statewide rent control bill, AB 1482. It is well known the state legislature is very progressive and supportive of renters' rights. They are also very supportive of seniors and affordable housing. Yet, they felt it was a key part of the bill to provide for vacancy decontrol, and vacancy decontrol was part of the bill that was passed.

In conclusion., vacancy decontrol provides multiple benefits to all stakeholders; the residents, the city and park- owners. MNOI applications are minimized, which is a goal of all stakeholders.

Existing residents rents are fully protected, new residents get to choose their own initial rent and then are fully protect by the Ordinance from any potential "excessive" rent increases, the actual purpose of the ordinance. And we reach a closer balance which allows park owners to be better able to maintain the parks for the residents of Yucaipa. This is a policy that should be fully endorsed.

Additional Information Sunnortine Vacancy Decontrol — Crime & tMaintenance This is a high priority of the city and park owners are failing further and further behind in being able to maintain the parks. As this happens, it becomes more of a challenge to Find quality renters. Resulting in more police calls and a downturn in the quality of life for residents in the parks and the surrounding neigh
borhoods. This is not a benefit to the city of Yucaipa or any of its residents.

Sten 3 — Continue to Exerrint Loth Term Leases
Currently the city, ordinance has been amended to comply with State law, which requires that after January 2025 long term leases will not be exempt from rent control. This request is to make the lom7 term lease exemption permanent and part of the ordinance. A supporting argument for this is that exempt spaces do not pay the fee for the administration of the ordinance, therefore keeping long, term leases in place. which are binding contracts, result in a savings for these tenants on lonc, term lea -Res.

Z'
35 -39-

WHET Letter to MRCC
January 20, 2022
Step 4 — Pre Approval of Capital Improvement Pass Through Currently if the tenants do not approve a capital improvement piss through the owner has to incur the expense of making the Capital improvements and then incur more expenses to apply for an NOI increase, The sugges
tion is to modify the ordinance to allow a pre -approval of capital improvement expenses.

Step 5 -Property Tax Pass Thrit Upon Sale of Park
A few parks have recently sold and as a result, based on Proposition 13, there is an increase in the property taxes based on the sales price, 'File new ownership is burdened with the increase in taxes and faced with requesting a rent adjustment. In the previous review there was a discussion regarding a fair accommodation to pass through the increase in property taxes to the park residents. As an exarnple, one suggestion was that the park owner could pass through the increase to the residents and agree to not apply for a MNOI increase for three years. Another suggestion would be to allow a phasing in of the property tax increase over two years. It is recommended that the ordinance be amended to address this increase in costs in a way that is fair and reasonable to both the park residents and the park owner.

In conclusion, NIHEr appreciates the entire Commission taking the time to evaluate the above recommendations. We firmly believe now is the time and these are the best steps forward to minimize and possibly eliminate the time, cost, negative feelings that surroundMiN01 applications, and protecting the interests of everyone. We look. forward to answering any questions you may have on these proposals now or at the hearing. We do hope any biennial review hearing is structured to allow for a good discussion of these proposals.

Sincerely,
Robert Evans
Inland Ernpire.Representative
Cc: Jennifer Crawford [email protected]
Tammy Vaughan tvaughan(i-vyucaipa.org
36 M

Attachment C
Rcceived
t.

City, os yt.1ccaipa
t-AN, 2 t 202Z
'.'sust�rn
"anW cturccl Housin Gotnniuni;ies
C;,y Cin"�'_; 1Ft srtt."? lit
January 20, 2022
Ms. Jennifer Crawford
Deputy City Manager/Rent Administrator
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Blvd.

Yucaipa, CA 92399
Dear Jennifer:

Thank you for the invitation to provide suggestions to amend Yucaipa's Mobile dome Rent Control Ordinance through the biennial review process.

I looked back through my records and I've written this similar letter over the course of 13 years.

All communications are essentially the same, suggesting the same amendments to the ordinance that would eliminate the need for special rent increase applications. The MNOI application process is expensive for all parties, scary for residents and causes strife. The latter is the worst unintended consequence of this ordinance because it pits residents against property owners. The two parties have the same common goals: peaceful enjoyment of the community with low, predictable rents (or revenues). This should be reinforced by city policy makers and not exploited for political outcomes.

Before I begin with suggested amendments, I would like to share two industry related observations that may be relevant to this year's discussion. The first concern is the skyrocketing rate of inflation. All of your _mobilehome_communities are behind on their ability to keep up with inflation due to the compounding effects of partial cost of living increases. City staff and park owners over the last few reviews, have been advocating for 100% of CPI (with a 5% cap) as a better practice for annual increases. Dr. Baar provided the council an analysis as well. This economic reality could impact parkowners decision to move forward with applications after watching their NO[ negatively impacted by a significant rate. Yucaipa's mobilehome park residents could be in for a wave of Special Rent Increase applications.

Another industry trend is the exit of "mom and pop" landlords from California's rental housing markets. Parkowners receive unsolicited offers on their properties weekly. Onerous local ordinances like Yucaipa's rent control ordinance in addition to an insurmountable amount of increasing state regulations cripple landlords. REITs, corporations and non -profits are more than happy purchase their investments and operate the parks. This may be viewed by the city as neither good nor bad, but it is a different interface than some of the individual owners the city is familiar with.
403.35 Winchester lid. Y E-165
Temecuta, CA 92591
37 -41-

WMA and Yucaipa parkowners would like the City Council to consider the following changes:. increase the annual permitted increase from 80% of CPl to 100% of CPI. The current model does not allow property owners to keep up with inflation. This is harmful to residents and the city as it limits a parkowners ability to maintain and improve their communities. We agree with City staff and resident -advocate Dr. Ken Baar that permissible annual increases should be 1001/110 of CPI with a 5%cap.

Implement Full Vacancy Decontrol. The single element of any mobilehome rent control ordinance that reduces or eliminates MNOI applications is that it contains vacancy decontrol.

Vacancy decontrol does not mean "no rent control". Vacancy decontrol, recontrol means that when a space turns over to a new homeowner, the rent is adjusted to market and the space is placed back under the rent control ordinance for the new homeowner. The incoming buyer makes a purchasing decision with their eyes wide open, knowing what they can afford at time of purchase. The new homeowner will then continue to receive the protections of the rent control ordinance.

The lack of applications in jurisdictions with vacancy decontrol is a good indication that parkowners are willin,or to wait for spaces to naturally turn over and receive a slight increase on the new homeowner with no impact to the existing resident.

No doubt this process is difficult to institute because some use it to instill fear and suggest that residents will lose their homes. Unfortunately, the data doesn't support this claim. Home resale figures, generally speaking, are higher in communities with higher rents. It is actually in the residents' best interest to amend the ordinance to include some form of vacancy decontrol.

More than half of the mobilehome rent control jurisdictions in California have full or partial vacancy decontrol. Don't overlook that most jurisdictions have no rent control regulations.

Mobile homes are bought and sold nearly every day throughout California with no evidence of mass home abandonment by mobile home residents. The claims by residents that their homes are worthless with market space rents aren't based in reality and there are no facts or studies to back up this claim. Here is a list of cities in the inland Empire which permit some form of vacancy decontrol:

Beaumont Menifee San Bernardino
Cathedral City Redlands Upland
Colton Riverside
Hemet County of Riverside
Replace the Mobile Home Rent Review Commission with a hearing officer. When mobile home rent control was initiated in California 40 years ago a citizen's panel likely had a role.

Unfortunately, the complexity of these matters has grown over the years and legal exposure has expanded for the cities who administer these ordinances. Applications require a good 10335 Winchester Rd. E-155
Temecul . CA 9.259.1
38 -42-

understanding of economics, real estate, property management and housing and Constitutional law. In Yucaipa the city has had difficulty keeping volunteers on the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (MRRC). Every application and biennial review require a training of an entirely new panel of commissioners. This is the case again this year. The city has had to explore other options such as asking the Planning Commission to substitute in for vacant MRRC members. The council is in a trial period of providing a $75 stipend in order to entice volunteers to serve.

Experienced hearing officers are retired judges with familiarity in all the required fields of expertise. They can conduct the hearings more quickly and efficiently which would reduce costs. They are used in many other jurisdictions with successful results. The city council can continue to have a role and act as the appeals board if necessary.

Exempt tong -Term Leases. Traditionally, long term leases between residents and owners have always been exempt from local rent control ordinances. State lave has changed, and the automatic exemption was removed and will be phase out by 2024. The city's ordinance will supersede our private agreements. The rent control ordinance should allow those agreements to remain in place by exempting them from the ordinance. They were voluntarily entered into by the property owner and the resident usually to avoid the city's rent control fees. They also limit the city's liability of the ordinance because they aren't covered by it. Most importantly the city should not come between two private parties agreed upon terms.

Simplify the Capital Improvement and Special Rent increase Process. Any application process has become onerous and risky for owners. A significant investment to prepare an application is required with no guarantee that the expenditure will be successful. This limits improvements at the communities. Also, last review, YMRA indicated that there are some items they would consider for automatic pass thrus such as property tax increases. Park owners would like all capital improvements and increases in property taxes to be passed thru automatically without an application process from the city.

Finally, I vrant to restate how beneficial it was in 2019 when the city, YMRA, MHET and WMA held an informal discussion before the biennial review process. The public hearing process has limits to finding common ground and seeking solutions but legally necessary. Understandably, this meeting didn't take place this year. I hope that at some point it can be reinstated. I thought it was helpful to this process.

Thank you for seeking out our input. I look forward to the discussion at the commission and council meetings. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions about our recommendations.

Sincerely,
.tulle Paule, Regional Representative
40335 Winchester Rd. ;'E-165
Terneculo, CA 92591
39 -43-

Attachment D
City of Yucaipa
January 17, 2022 JAN 18 ZC22
I Rent conm trot Comissioners, General Se'vicpsl
I am co.,I€used anti somewhat troubled about the lack of rules ccej parties aoout the pending biennial review of the rent stabilization ordinance. There was a thorouch article about the commission in the News Mirfor but there was no pubic notice given about the review.

As I understand it, email notifications are sent automatically to park owners, park management '
companies and to organizations that support and represent the causes of the park owners:

MHET and WMA-
An email is also sent to the chairman of VARA who then bears the responsibility of notifying mobile home residents of Yucaipa's e-1 parks. I would like to see some torm of public announcement made, for example, a brief announcement in the local paper submitted by (tie city. , -;"�
Obviously, the park owners and vie residents have very different stakes in the biennial review process and in other actions taken by the commission and city council v4ith regard to our mobile home communities_
Themembers of the former group are understandably interested in increasing profits 1:v increasing rents and getting a fair return on their investment- This is, after all, a business venture for theist.

The latter group, also understandably, are primarily interested in maintaining affordable rents and protecting their investments in their homes.

The former groups consist of members who are generally more educated and familiar with business practices and who.occupy a more elevated socio-economic position. more ..... .. .......

The latter group consists mainly of lower income lay people, many of w1nom are seniors or disabled folks.

The loaner groups have considerable access to resources such as experts, attorneys and competent writers and public speakers.

The latter group consists of volunteers who have very little access to such resources. t implore you, the commissioners, to remain cognizant of this imbalance in representation and take it into consideration during the biennial review and during any other decisions or actions lll
That may arise during itlAr9ev-rterm of set -vice. Hopefully, with the guidance of the city staff, the David and Goliath situation that exists can be made more equitable_ 10 I
r)
40 IM

Submission to Vie Yucaipa Mobtlehorne Rent Review Cominissioll Commissioners,
First of all, I veant to stank you for accepting positions oil this board. I know that the job can be Oallenc ng and I appreciate your willingness to accept t1le responsibilities involved.

Althouch some ot our ordinance is complex and ditficult for me and other lay people to understand, I think that Vie document is pretty balanced and well thought out for title most part and any suggested c�ianges should be very carefully and cautiousiy considered. Please bear with me as .1 try to address some of the issues that I am concerned about.

15.20.060. *Vlost important 'to tile at, rltijs rinse is the current process for selecting resident representatives. -laving a resident representative seems to me to be tile most efficient way to accomplish the goal of facilitating basic communication beNveen the city and the residents. in the absence oT a representative, I would think that the only way the city could fulfill its obligation of notifying resicents of relevant actions or pending related decisions would be to mail notices or ovier informational materials to each home. It might make more sense to make the process of selecting and retaining representatives easier. Meanwhile, since many parks currently have no rep, most residents are not informed about city actions that may directly impact them.

As tile ordinance reads now, the resident representative must be elected by 51% of the park residents on an annual basis. I agree that a traditional election with a simple majority is tile best way to initially select someone to assume that position_ My concern has to do vJtll requiring an election every year. As I stated before, at this time, very few of out parks have a representative. -1 believe the number is less than 10 out of 41 parks, I find that number to be very disappointing.

I became the resident representative for my park in 2018. Tfie voting process was somewhat grueling for me because it required me to ti,,ialk the park to distribute ballots door to door to 147 homes and I am seriously mobility challenged. Meeting my neighbors individually and letting them know v4ho I was was a positive experience and I can certainly see tile value of that interaction especially "or Vie initial vote. However, I think a yearly vote is problematic, unnecessary .. . 1I 11 I I and 11 exc. . ess I ive suggest e . s t a longer term, maybe 3 or 4 vears, or possibly
eliminating a term requirement altogether. I think that it would be reasonable to retain representatives indefinitely unless there is a complaint, the rep is no longer able to do the job or someone comes for vard to challenc .le for the position. in any of Those events, it would make sense to initiate a formal election.

Thank you for your service to the community and for your consideration of rily concerns.

Jo Sutt
kkaysle 117g
41 -45-

Attachment E
Received
i vets City of Yucaipa
From: Mitch Emerson JAN 9 2022
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:50 AM
To: Kim Everts General Services/
Subject: Re: 2022 Annual Mobilehome Park Registration - Valle Nett" erk's Department Attachments: image001.png
Hello Kim, as the owner of Valley Breeze MHP I am concerned about a few issues located within the Rent Control Ordinance. First, it has been brought to my attention that since the parks NOI adjustment was approved in 2009 any of our "Vacant" or "Empty" spaces that are moved from schedule S? to schedule 4 will not include the rent increases gained from the 2008 NOI? This is not logical nor fair, it will discourage the park owners who have filed NOl's from filling any empty spaces. it was my understanding that any Rent increase, CPI or NOI was on the space regardless of occupancy. This item needs to be cleared up immediately in all fairness. Also, the current 80% annual CPI adjustment is punitive/biased against the park owners. I think 100% is only fair, our costs go up just like the tenants. Sincerely, Mitchell Emerson, owner of Valley Breeze
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022, 07:55 Kim Everts wrote:

Anytime before 1pm would be great.

From: Mitch Emerson
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:27 PM
To: Kim Everts
Subject: Re: 2022 Annual Mobilehome Park Registration - Valley Breeze Sure, what time?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 19:00 Kim Everts wrote:

Hi Mitch:

Would you be able to set some time aside tomorrow to discuss an issue in relation to Space No. 47? Kim Everts
Deputy Rent Administrator! Records Tech CNIC
City of Yucaipa
City Hall • 34272 Yucaipa Blvd • Yucaipa, CA 92399
1 42
IM

Attachment F
Kim Everts
From: Aleta Rudrich Received
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:00 AM City of Yucaipa To: Kim Everts
Cc: Helga Reese, Jake Rudrich; Horst Rudrich Jr"AN 11 2GZ2 SL]bjOC'L- Suggestions for MRRC
A Attacriments: Rent Review Request.pdf General Services/ City Clerk's Department
Please see attached our items to consider for the upcoming Rent Review. If you have any questions, please let us know.

Thank you,
A I -, t a Q L- d ri ch
Partner
Du �ric� `atnH . , C1 I � ly "Agmr.

I
43 -47-

Rzidtich FamiIv Mamacement
1233 W. C:.=cent Ave.

Redlands, CA 92373
Ph: 909-557-3tO26
ZmaiL rudrir-'i6(a--=nxom
January 9, 2022
City Of YLCa*fpa Vob`ehome Rent Pev 9w Comm*ss1on,l`AR.RC) EmaP:

Re: Biennial Review Study Session to review the Vot)ilehome Rent, Stabilizatio n Ordinance
Dear Vs. Crawford,
I hank you or 'Ine o;)Por4unitv -,o provice input for this study session. Our recornmenda*.ions are as follows:
#1 Increase annual permissible Increases to 100% of CPI. The current 80%o*'CPiisnot sustainab'a over several years of ownership, especiaty as parks age and exoenses 4110 ma;'main them increase. Parks w:#,h already low rents have no way to catch up on 'air market rent w� hout having to U,ilize the MNOI process. Increasing to 100% will signi9cantly reduce the need nor MNOI applications. 'Wh2 Implement full vacancy decontrol, recontrol. Allow'ng the rent to be raised 'o a fair markevaiue unon the ownership change or a mobile wi',l also significantly reduce he need forMN01 appl!cations.

Limita-ions could be added, such as a9mit on tyre amount and the teauency it could be raised.

Our experience w,`11h our MNOI application under the current rent control and the City's handling of it hurt our residents.

We are a family par,nership that owns and operates Grandview West Mobile Home Estates on 24 St. We purchased tn�s park in 19S4, 'In 2010 it became necessary torecuest a rent increase as expenses were increasing and profits were dwind"no. We requested a S1523-ncrease whic) was approved by the Rent Commission. However, the City Council denied it, we believe for political purposes. We then sued the City and won. Th's resulted in our residents having- to pay not only the aCdi*ionaf $63 per month, but an additional $30 oer month for five years to cover attorney 4ees, How is this fair to our residents? An ex , neclallon isset for ,he residents that thern4reases are covenno the park exoenses and providing a prolft to the owners over a oenod of 'ime, when they are truly not, We avoided requesting an MNO� increase as long we could because of its reputation. However, wefelt we had no choice. ':'he only other option was to sell the property, and the purchaser of an unprofitab!e business would not tie in the best interest of the mobiles Tome owners. The process was Fong, expensive ., I� L It
and painful for a'I involved. 't has s�-,nricant!y strained our relationship with our residents that is still felt to this day, Wa bel�eva the current limitations and process ultimate!y sets up to hurt the very peopfe rent control is meant to protect. In the short term, rent control is great for the mobilehome owners. in the long -ter 3i, it is harmful. We feel 'frinplementng the above requests will provide a lasting and suslainab!-- path for boti park owners and *,' elr residents.

Thank you for taking the time "ohearand consder our requests for changes to the current rent control process.

Sincerely, iwra-�Iil
Rudricti Family Management
Ownel, I Operators of Grand-viewNest and Hidden Va![ey
Hedy Rudr'ch, Helga Reese, Jakob Rudrich, Ho—,t Rucinch, Neta Rudric-. 44 EN

Attachment
Kim Everts
From: Peter Wang ReCeivec
Sent: I'vIonduy, Jamuaryl0, 20229:26PM City OfyoCaip�
To: Kim Everts; Julie Pau|e '
Subject: Feedback for regulations of mobile home parks inthe City, , N 1 l Uyy
Kim: G8Oera|SerYlce5/
Tbankyou for your work inthe mobile home parks. [1tY[)e�_)artnn80t Here are mythought's.

1. 1 like to propose a changed CPI adiustment for the coming year. In the past 15 years, CPI has been very low so the adjustment for a percentage of CPI has put space rent in mobile home parks way behind from current market conditions. In comparison, the other rent amount that is charged by housing such as houses and apartments has grown hic,berthan CPI. The discrepancy isforever increasing and causes unrest among park owners. | propose afull CPI increase for all spaces with acap of6%/ Even with this new formula, the average space rent inall mobile home parks in the City will not likely create higher rent than the average neighborhood around us.

2. 1 also propose a partial vacancy decontrol if not a full vacancy decontrol. |nother cities, wehave either parietal orfull vacancy decontrol once amobile home has turnover. The argument isthat ifspace rent istoo high then mobile homes vviUbehard1use||. However, partial vacancy decontrol is warranted because existing homeowners have already enjoyed lower rent for years, the transfer of lower rent to a newcomer will basically transfer interest that mobile horne owners who have never been entitled to in the first place. A formula can be put forth such as a 10% rent increase of current rent ora$S0increase of the space rent.

3.Mediation should beencouraged between park and mobile home owners, Instead ofaformal hearing process that costs money and time, | like topropose mediation asanalternative, After myhearing onCarriage Trade, ! was able to negotiate two settlements with Executive and Nor1hview.

Sofar, Our relationship with mobile home owners has been rather amicable instead of against each other. Some Cities require amediation process first and hearing asthe next step. It should bring people together for discussion. One civil advocate for mobile home parks has made this process too confrontational and we need to consider other alternatives tostreamline this process.
4'|believe the mobile home parks commissioner may need tochange. Most assignments are tothese folks who have little traininainthis matter. A group ofcommissioners will behard tofind. One orafew experienced people should take it over so their decisions can make le -al and business sense with guidance from the City attorney. �/+thinkthe City ufYucaipa has mgreat future with sa,vev staff including Jennifer �and you, |haveheandpositive comments about the city lately. The real estate value also reflects this inrecent years. Mobile home parks operation inahealthy and business -like way will benefit the entire city, mobile home owners and mobile home park operators. The current ordinance has too strincent restrictions that are outdated without reflecting the economic reality that we have today.

Any business is not an island but rather existing in the content of the environment where we are all in.

Peter Wang
45 lug

Attachment H
"Kim Everts Deceived
From: George Turk
Sent: Wednesday, January 12,2022 2:09 PM VIAN 12 ZOZZ
To: Kim Everts
Sub - ect: Comments for the Mobilehome Park Rent Control Stud}'�"ey s gj ServiceSl City Clerk's rjeo,3rtment
Millennium Housing, under its affiliate COACH of San. Diego, Inc. is a. 501c3 non-profit that owns the Rancho del Sol and Grandview East manufactured home communities, We acquired both parks back In 2001, so we are long-time non-profit owners in Yucaipa. "Ie would offer the following suggestions:
40 Allowing 100% of CPI, instead of the current 80%, seems only fair, particularly when the actual CPI is running at 71;3' or so. Many of our costs —insurance, salaries, material costs, utilities —are rising even faster than that. The 4% Cap in the Ordinance would protect residents from runaway inflation, but going from. 80% to 100% offers at least some relief to Parkowners, even non-profit ones.

Some increase on. turnover would also be fair, and might prevent some Parkmwners from going through the MNOI appeal process. If an Owner knows that rents can be increased, somewhat over time, there's less need to petition the City for a one-time large increase. Some cities allow turnover rents equal to the 3 highest rents in the Park (which puts, a limit on increases), or perhaps to the average rent in the Ci r, or a formula of some sort—ai ythin, t) i , that allows revenues to keep up with inflation and allow for monies for capital improvements. • Simplifying the pass -through of Capital Improvements. Under the current Ordinal -ice, an.

Owner is discouraged from upgrading the Park, due to existing low rent -controlled rents, limits on CPI & turnover, and the difficulq, in recapturing that expenditure. If an Owner could predict upfront what increase would be allowed, there might be more motivation to reinvest in the Park.
• There's a Meet -and -Confer process for capital improvements, i.e., if a majority of residents agree, an Owner can pass on capital improvement costs per a negotiated deal with the residents. Perhaps that idea could be applied to MNOI adjustments. If residents agree to a. "dear on rents, shouldn't that be good enough for the city? Our two parks were built in the early 1960s, and are nearing their 60-year anniversaries. While we've spent a couple million dollars on upgrades (without asking for a pass -through), they are older parks, after all.

Thanks again for the opportunity to offer input.

George Turk
President
46 -50-

IOAN^l 7\N' V
ANNE
611 Anton Blvd., Suite 890
Costa Miesa, CA 92626
(949)521 5-5 100 ext. 302
p -j
47 Attachment I
a augustacominunities.org
400 N hio:inlain Avenue, Suite 205 - Up`ar,d, Ca'i o.r909-9,a1.0192 a 91786 CC�;vl.vt'UNITI E'S Received T .

City Of YLlcaipa
JAN 18 2022
January 19, 2022
General Services/
Dear Members of the MRRC: City Clerk's Department
I am writing on behalf of Augusta Communities, a 501(c)3 affordable housing non-profit that owns valley View Mobile Nome Park, a 77-space senior park located at 12995 61h Street in Yucaipa. Augusta has been providing affordable housing to valley view residents for 22 years. This letter is written in response to the City's request for comments on Yucaipa's Mobilehome Rent Stabilization ordinance.

1. Develop p0cies that prohibit unreasonable rent increases for existing residents while providing adequate funding for ongoing maintenance and longer -term improvement projects. a) Permit vacancy decontrol. Base rents are adjusted only after a home is sold or abandoned. New residents contract at the new base rent but then are protected from unreasonable rent increases into the future. our internal study showed that if a vacancy decontrol model had been applied in Valley View, rent revenue would have increased to approximately the same level that was approved through the recent MNOI process, and residents would have avoided the temporary rent increase now in effect.
b) Permit an annual increase of 100% of CPI with a reasonable cap. Full CPI averages just 2% a year when measured over an extended period of time. Full CPI is a reasonable increase that will help fund ordinary operations and make some headway in savings for long-term improvements. Placing a 5°l cap on rent increases eliminates unanticipated peaks.
c) Capital improvement adjustments resulting from health and safety related projects, including those mandated by law, should be approved by the governing body (not by the vote of the residents) and prior to the commencement of construction. The current ordinance discourages park owners from improving their properties. The risk of having a project rejected after the bills have been paid is too high. Also, it is nearly impossible to find financing for a high cost project without knowing hour it will be repaid. The park owner bears the responsibility for keeping the physical infrastructure safe and well -kept and they should be encouraged to do so. - ... _ _.. ......... ............

2. Develop a separate rental adjustment policy for 501(c)3 housing non-profit owners. Nonprofits do not make a return on investment —a concept central to the MNOI formula. Non -profits must keep rents affordable, but they also must pay their bills and set aside funds for long-term capital needs. Legitimate administrative expenses that are unique to nonprofits should be allowable under the MNOI process.

3. Simply the MNO1 process. The MNOI process it far too complex and expensive. Costs associated with the process ultimately get pushed through to park residents ($4.38/month city registration fee for all park residents and the $15.66/month, 5-year temporary rent increase for Valley view residents) — Increasing the cost of owning a mobilehome in Yucaipa.

Sincerely,
�eTaylor46'1
-'
Executive Director
48 -52-

Attachment J
Received
City of Yucaipa
January 20, 2022
General Services!
City Clerk's Leo rtrnent
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard
Yucaipa, California 92399-9950
Via Email: keverts-:equcaipa,org
Eel Aire Mobile Estates, LLC
Post Office Box 760, Alpine, CA 91903
Phone: 19091 797-9085
glacierint c gmail.com
RE: Biennial Review of the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Yucaipa Municipal Code [YMC] 15.20) and Administrative Rules
Dear City of Yucaipa,
We are writing this fetter to discuss some concerns and suggestions for changes to the ordinance that should be beneficial to all parties. In life and in business, transactions should be mutually beneficial to those parties involved. Most provisions of this ordinance are beneficial to the City and short term beneficial to the resident, leaving the park owner with little to be desired. • We are very concerned with the passage of AB 2782, whereas by 2025 almost our entire community will be under rent control, with very below market rents in these times of skyrocketing inflation and no recourse. We understand this is a state law, but the imposition of the City's ordinance is what makes this affect us so severely. Our leases have always been fair and only increased by CPI yearly, but soon those lease provisions will be voided. Three decades of 80%Q CPI is very onerous on the Park Owner, and 100% CPI is fair to all parties. With greater inflation as we are seeing now, that gap widens faster! 100% CPI gives consistency and security for the resident and allows the park owner to recoup the added costs each year, improve the community and pay fair wages. Many residents in the past chose these long term lease options and those options have been taken away. 80% CPI only benefits short term residents because in the long term the park is unable to keep up with rising costs and improvements become luxuries not worth the cost. Additionally, housing costs rise due to below market rates and residents pay more in interest to banks while financing homes that residents used to be able to pay cash for.

This year is especially burdensome with 7.9% CPI from November 2021 over November 2020 and the option of o_a 50% increase due to the 4% cap on increases. CPI is the inflation that we are all seeing and our costs are also substantially increasing, certainly not by just 4%a1 This 4%fl ceiling needs to be eliminated to allow communities to attempt to keep up with rising costs. If this is not feasible, perhaps a reasonable 2% floor should be in place to make up for this in years of lower inflation, or the 2.32% increase "lost" this year (80% of 7,9% is 6.32%-4%= 2.32% lost) should be allowed to be "made up" in future years with less than 4%. This 2.32% loss of potential increase for June 2022-May 2021 is more than our entire increase percentage allowed for June 2021-May 2022! 49 -53-

• The ordinance is entirely written to benefit the resident and city, and as such all rent control fees should be passed on 100%, not 50%, to the resident. These fees have gone up substantially in recent years and there is little we can do to make this loss up. • Vacancy de -control makes sense for the market and for our community and its control has hurt us in recent years, In the last 4 years we have purchased old homes and pulled them out, had dealers put in new ones and since they were "vacant' they fell under City control and we could not set the rent nor could we even charge the previous rents at that space if they were never subject to City Control. In fact, just this year had to have our rent nearly $60 lower on a site than it was 7 years ago (so considering 80'S CPI increases on that it is much more than a $60 loss), since when it was East occupied it was on a lease and not subject to city control. Due to the vacancy control we can only charge to average rent of all controlled spaces. People were willing to buy the homes at the higher rental rate and are paying top dollar for the selling homes. Single wide homes are selling for $130k in our community that sold for half of that 2 years ago, with high interest rate loans where banks are profiting rather than having market rate rents that would allow improvements to the community.

This year has shown inflation that we have not seen in years and it hurts everyone, specifically those that have no recourse to keep up, like Mobile Nome Parks that operate in Yucaipa. Instead, we are given "options" of increases that are half keeping up with inflation and rising costs to be controlled by the city.

The lack of fairness in this ordinance is not sustainable and we request some reasonable changes and considerations so that we may continue to operate. We do want to add how much we appreciate how helpful the City Rent Administrator, Kim, has been in recent years helping understand the ordinance and the responsiveness for our Rent Increase Applications and questions; however, we request options for fair rent increases, fair fees and fair vacancy de -control. Thank you for your time and consideration and should you have any questions please call or email so that we may better explain our proposals.

Sincerely,
Jordan Conway Pursglove
_ For Bel. Aire Mobile Estates, LI.0
Pace Z
50 -54-

Attachment K
Peceived
Kim Everts Cit,t of Yucaioa
From: Ian Dyer JA N - 2 0 ZO 2Z
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 939 PM
To: Kim Everts; Jennifer Crak%,fotA___ GenErP-1 Sprvices/ Cc: sd,[email protected]: Paule, Julie (julie@pauleconsul
' qtlg ccrn rob rt(. et.AQIM; Talley,
Vickie ([email protected])
Subject: RE: Biennial Review of the Mobilehorne Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Yucaipa Municipal Code (YMCI §15.20) and Administrative Rules
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Rent control is the best way to destroy a city, other than bombing.

Assar Lindbeck, Swedish economist & Nobel Prize Committee Chairperson Rent control limits the funds available to improve mobilehome parks. Therefore, parks deteriorate.

This can be changed. As mobilehome parks in Yucaipa improve, crime will drop, schools will be safer and the city will be nicer.

Here are two win -win solutions to improve parks:
1, Full vacancy decontrol
Full vacancy decontrol hurts no one and helps everyone. It means that when a space goes vacant or the park buys it, the space rent can be raised to market. a. It does not affect the rent of existing residents at all. b. When a mobilehome owner sells, the park has an incentive to pay more than anyone else, raising the price the mobilehome sells for.
c. The park owner has an incentive to make the park nicer, so it attracts market rate tenants who invest in their home and care about their community. This benefits all residents.

Mobilehome residents often oppose vacancy decontrol. They fear it will open the floodgates.

But in reality, vacancy decontrol benefits existing residents, because without raising rent on anv existing tenant, at gives the park owner more funds to improve the park, and more reason to do so. It justifies installing nicer, newer homes, which improves home values for all residents in the Dark, and makes the park nicer.

2. 100% of CPI
Space rents should increase at CPI, so parks can be maintained. a. Rents will still be FAR below market rents, because the increases are on space rents that are already 20-40% of market rents.
b. CPI increases far slower than actual rents in SoCal, so at CPI space rents will still be increasing far slower than market rents.
c. The current law limiting increases to 80% or capping at 4%, means that while actual park expenses rise by CPI (electric, water, wages for maintenance, asphalt, lighting, 51 -55-

repairs, much more), each year, the park recovers less than that, so tnings deteriorate, because the money isn't there to maintain and improve,
d. CPI increases of 100% will still leave rents 60-80% below market. e. Full CPI increases will benefit all of Yucaipa, because nicer parks attract nicer residents, who live and work and go to school with ail the other residents of Yucaipa, Everyone benefits.

These two solutions together will also save the whole city money, because park owners will have less need to file MNO1 & Capital Improvement rent increase applications, which often lead to major expense and lawsuits.
2 52
-56-

Attachment L
Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents Association (YMRA)
PO Box 1.052, Yucaipa, CA 92399
yucipaYMRA.com
Chairperson Gomez, Vice -Chairperson Miller and Commissioners:

YMRA requests your consideration of the following proposals and recommendations presented on behalf of mobilehome park residents in the Cite of Yucaipa, Thank you for your service on this Commission and your efforts to give a fair hearing to all stakeholders.

Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson

1. Annual Adjustments - Park owners and their representatives are again asking for annual rent increases of 100% CPI with no cap. If the Rent. Stabilization Ordinance is so onerous, why do park owners/investors continue to purchase parks in the City? They state the increase is needed to meet rising park expenses and allow monies to be set aside for capital improvements. Ok, if owners want the 1.00% CPI increase in order to provide for capital improvements, then they don't need the current provision for passing these costs through to residents and that should be removed. As mentioned by MHET in their written presentation, California last year passed a law limiting increases on residential rentals in the state to 5% plus CPI, but neglected to mention the 10% cap, and that the law does not apply to mobilehome parks. In July AB 978 became law and does extend rent control to some mobilehome parks. It allows an increase of 3% plus CPI with a cap of 5%. This law does not apply to parks in Yucaipa, but if it did I would have gotten an increase this year of $19.67 instead of my actual increase of $15.74. If the owner had been able to increase the rent by 100% with no cap, my rent would have gone up $31.08.

This may not seem like much to you, but to those of us on fixed or low incomes, it is significant. Other cities in California are passing ordinances to limit rent increases on mobilehome park residents. For instance, Santa Maria is now considering a rent stabilization ordinance. In October 2021, Santa Ana City Council passed citywide rent control, including mobilehome parks, which caps rent hikes at 3% or 80% of CPI, whichever is less.YMRA recommends Option ##4: Retain the existing language fthe Ordinance and Rules without change — maintain 80% of CPI and 4% cap.

2. Exempt Long -Term Lease from AB 2782 — Based on current California state law, YMRA recommends no changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to spaces subject to long-term leases.

3. Rent Adjustments Upon Vacancy — In -place transfers - Park owners are currently allowed to raise the space rent when a mobilehome is removed from the park or destroyed by fire or natural catastrophe and the owner does not intend to replace it, or the home is voluntarily abandoned in place by the owner. This change would allow removal. of rent control. whenever the ownership of a mobilehome in a regulated space changes, including voluntary sale by the owner or through inheritance. The argument is made that an agreement can be reached between the park owner and potential resident as to the amount of space rent to be assessed. Park owners/representatives state this would allow them to raise the space rent to "current market rent." The prospective mobilehome buyer could choose how much rent they want to pay.

Owners argue this change would not affect current residents and would perhaps eliminate the need for an MN1OI application in the future. Who is to determine what current market rent is? Would the park owner inform the prospective buyer of the average rents within their park? In other parks? Would consideration be given to the fact that space rents vary a great deal among parks in the City? Average monthly space rent ranges from a low of $228.67 to a high of -57-

$650.00 (based on average park space rent as of April 2022). Tine rate can vary within a park by as much as $300.00. This change would only make differential rates worse. Yet without this information, the buyer cannot realistically make an infornied decision. In concurrence with Staff, YMRA recommends no changes to the existing prohibition on rent adjustments at the time of an in -place transfer of a mobilehoinne.

4. Rent Adjustments Upon Vacancy — Other than In -place Transfers — YMRA recommends Option #2, continue to allow space rent to increase by (1) the combined average of rent - controlled spaces in the park plus 10% or (2) $35.00, whichever is less.

5. Rent Adjustments Upon Vacancy — Spaces vacant because empty for an extended period of time — YMRA has no recommendation.
b. Rent Adjustments Upon Vacancy — Sale of Park -owned Mobilehome to Existing or New Resident — YMRA Recommends Option #2, Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without any changes.

7. Pre-Approval/Automatic Pass Through of Capital .improvement Costs — YMRA concurs with Staff and recommends no changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to capital improvement rent adjustment with one exception. In the event this Commission approves changes to the formula for calculating the annual space rent increase, such as raising the base from 80% to 100% of CPI and elimination of the 4% cap, then provision for pass -through of capital improvement costs should be removed from the Ordinance and Rules relating to capital improvement rent adjustments. Stakeholders have said they need the change to annual rent increases to allow for setting money aside for capital improvements. They should not be allowed to bill the residents twice for the same capital improvement.

8. Annual Registration Form Requirements — YMRA recommends Option #1. Amend the Ordinance and Rules to clarify information required on the annual registration form.

9. Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (MRRC) - YMRA recognizes that it is sometimes difficult to find persons willing to volunteer for this responsibility. However, we are convinced that review by ordinary City residents is the best way to assure a fair hearing for all sides and provide the transparency necessary for an equitable resolution to any problem. In addition, the extra costs which would be incurred if one or more hearing officers, or "a few experience individuals," had to be hired on a fee or hourly basis would add to the cost already borne by both parks and residents to fund the actions of MRRC. YMRA recommends no change to the MRRC.

10. Simplify the MNOI Process —YMRA concurs with Staff and does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the procedures or requirements for special rent adjustments.

11. Waiver of Filing Fee — Decrease in Rents Based on Loss of Park Amenities — Due to the lack of resources, legal counsel, financial experts, etc., available to the average mobilehome park resident, the filing fee of $1,750.00 required to file for a rent adjustment based on. loss of amenities is a strong disincentive to filing such an applicationn. While the deferment or waiver of this fee for park residents may lead to an increase in the number of appeals filed, it is probable there is a long-standing difficulty which needs to be addressed. Many residents are reporting they are unable to use the park clubhouse, swimming pool, etc., and there appears to be no other way to ensure park owners allow use of the amenities residents are paying for. Pending some other solution to this problem, YMRA requests a waiver or deferment of the $1,750.00 filing fee for park residents pending resolution of the application.

12. Selection of Resident Representatives — YMRA recognizes the strong advisability of each park having a Representative to act as liaison with the City. As pointed out by Staff, only 7 of the 41 parks in. Yucaipa have a resident representative. The lack of such a representative was made very obvious when this hearing was announced. The only persons notified of the hearing SM

were park owners or their representatives and myself as Chairman of YMRA. Unfortunately, I was informed of the date of the hearing after our monthly newsletter had been printed and sent for distribution. As a result, we were unable to notify residents who might have an interest in attending. Had more parks elected a representative, they could have been notified and passed that information on to their park residents. It is even more difficult to recruit resident representatives than it has been to recruit members of this Commission. As a result, YMRA and other interested parties propose a modification of the Ordinance and Rules pertaining to the election of such representatives. YMRA suggests acceptance of Option 42, which would result in the representative, once elected, having to face election again only upon their resignation or a challenge from another resident. The election could be held at any time during the year, rather than only during January each year. These changes will enable the office to more easily be filled.

13. Public Notice/Email Notice for Comment for the Biennial Review Process — As I mentioned before, notice of this hearing was not published in a way to alert interested residents who might waist to attend. YMRA concurs with Amendment YMC 15.20.140 proposed by Staff for improved notification to the public and mobilehome park residents.

14. Property Tax Pass Thru Upon Sale of Park — YMRA recommends no changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to treatment of property taxes.

I.S. Develop a Separate Rental Adjustment Policy for 501(c)3 Housing Non -Profit Owners — YMRA concurs with Staff and recommends no changes to the Ordinance or Rules to create a separate procedure or policy regulating the determination of permissible rent adjustments in non-profit parks such as Valley View.
-59-

Attachment M
Jo sutt
Public Comment attached
Item 1- See attached comment
Item 2- No change
Item 3- No change
Item 4- No change
Item 5- No change
Item 6- No change
Item 7- No change
Item 9 - See attached comment
item 10- No change
Item 11- See attached comment
Item 12- See attached comment
Item 13- See attached comment
Item 14- No change
Item 15- No change
re In

AA 1 name is Jo Sutt artil live in Wildwood Canyon IN/lobile Estates at 34111 Wildwood Cyn. Rd., M0
I have owned my coach for 35years. AA
I
First of all, I want to thank you all for serving on this commission.

I ask that you consult in the booklet of administrative rules, —.1.0002 regarding study sessions and W 031, addressing interpretation anti modification of administrative rules. It appears'Chat these sections provide the commission with the capability of pausing the proceedings of this hearing and temporarily suspending the rules in order to convene brief study sessions. This would allow for short communicative exchanges in place of, or in addition to, the 3 minute monologues allowed under public comment rules. Sometimes it can be very clear that those monologues are inadequate for the purposes of this hearing.

Please be aware that there are three distinct factions involved in,and impacted by,the biennial review of the rent control ordinance.

The City of Yucaipa is represented by a host of city staff members and various processional consultants hired bythe city. Naturally, their prime objective is to help the city fulfill its responsibility to its citizens while also preventing unnecessary expenditures and avoiding costly litigaiion.

The second group is composed of the park owners and their representatives and Consultants, fall of whom are well paid professional people. Their goal, as is the case with all businesses, is to maximize Drofiis and achieve a fair return on their investments, which may amount into the millions of dollars.

Of course the third group is mobile home residents. Some own their homes and some rent.

Since The majority of mobile home residents hover somewhere around poverty level, most share the same objective: they needlo keep their homes affordable and protect their own comparatively small investments. The next step down the socio-economic ladder for many of ihem is simply homelessness. There is only one grout) attempting to represent and advocate for the residents. That group is YMRA, which is composed of volunteers from very diverse backgrounds. Most are seniors who are also trying to keel) their own mobile homes affordable.

The mobile home residents are clearly at a serious disadvantage in terns of available resources and competent representation. Please bear this "David and Goliath" scenario in mind during these proceedings.

Also please note that of the 11 submissions from stakeholders, 9 are representing park owners' interests, I is from an individual resident and only 1 is representing the residents of 3,000 rent controlled spaces in Yucaipa.
-61-

Item 1 ... Annual adjustments
I think it's important to remember that the city of Yucaipa has a reputation for having one of the most balanced and well conceived rent control ordinances in the state. I understand that it has served as a model for other communities when they have been developing their own. Pdthough suggested changes must be given consideration, I implore this commission to use great caution and to take all evidence and testimony into account before making any major alterations to the document.

Park owners claim that it is "only fair" that rents should be based on 100% CPI, especially in this time of inflation, but it is not that simple. The whole scenario must be considered and other factors must be taken into account. For example: Who is paying for capital improvements? Currently that would be the residents. Who benefits from such improvements? Certainly both parties benefit; residents because of improved living conditions and the resulting increased value of their mobile homes and the park owners due to increased property value of the park.

Balance has to be considered in every aspect of the ordinance.

I SUIPPOrt option #4,.. Retain existing language of the ordinance and Ruies without change -maintain 80% CPI and 404 cap.

Item 9- the MRRC
I am aware that it has been quite problematic to find people to populate the rent review commission in the past. I'm curious about what prompted the current commissioners to accept their positions on this year's commission? I wonder if they might have any insights or suggestions that might help alleviate that problem in the future? It might also be worthwhile to consult with other cities to see how they have addressed and maybe rectified the problem.

Meanwhile, even given the difficulty of finding candidates, I continue to believe that the MRRC is still the best option available. It seems to me that having several individuals to hear various cases, examine the evidence and arguments and to consider the staff advice and recommendations, lends more of a chance for a balance between economic wisdom, fairness and compassion than relying on a single hearing officer. I also think that City Council would be so busy with other matters that they would be hard pressed to devote the time and energy to study rent control issues to the depth that may be required.

Please retain the MRRC.
-62-

Item 11-Filing feelrent reductiontloss of amenities
This item presents some problems for everyone. In a significant number of parks around the city, clubhouses, pools, etc. are either closed or unusable. The use of these amenities is part of the Cost of the rent. In many cases, the owner/manager takes advantage of the fact that the only way residents can reduce their rents is by paying a #1,700 filing fee to the city so they can present their case. Some know that that is a prohibitive amount of money for the resident and use that as an opportunity to simply ignore the problem.

YMRA suggests that the filing fee be waived or deferred and later be paid by the loser after the matter has been resolved by the city. I agree with that stance but would welcome any suggestions to help bring justice to the affected residents.

Item 12
With regard to item 12, which addresses resident representatives, I urge you to select option 2 in place of the current requirements. As a representative for my own park and a person with mobility issues, I findthe voting requirement to be extremely physically taxing. Obviously.. it is an essential part of the initial process of selecting someone for the position but making it a step that needs to be repeated annually seerns redundant and unnecessary. I think that once a representative is selected he or she should retain that position indefinitely until he or she resigns or someone challenges for the job.

Item 13-Public notification
obviously a critical element of acquiring evidence and input from stakeholders is appropriate and timely notification of pending meetings and actions by the MRRC and (lie city.

I want to point out, first of all, that the YMRA newsletter is only distributed in parks where there is a resident willing to volunteer to pass them out door to door, so there are a large number of mobile home residents who do not receive them.

Secondly, please be aware that the email notification of the date and time for this meeting was sent after the newsletter for May had already been printed so there was no effective way to pass that information to residents. it is also important to note that only the YMRA chairman was alerted about submitting written comments by a specified deadline,which, again., leaves out a significant number of residents.

I support adopting the staff recommendation for improving the public notification process.
-63-

Attachment N
Agenda Item No.

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
A Regular meeting of the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission of the City of Yucaipa, California was called to order in the Council Chambers, 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, California, on May 17, 2022, at 1:00 PM.

PRESENT: Brandy Gomez, Chairperson
Bob Miller, Vice -Chairperson
Randy Allen, Commissioner
John Chiu, Commissioner
William Reagan, Commissioner
Amy Greyson, Commission Attorney
Jemiifer Crawford, Rent Administrator
Kimberly Everts, Deputy Rent Administrator
ABSENT: None

CONVENE MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW COMMISSION
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Chairperson Gomez.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Susan Taylor, resident of Hillcrest Mobilehome Park, expressed her concerns pertaining to rent adjustments and fair return policies. Ms. Taylor stated that she does not own a computer and relies heavily on the YMRA and the local newspaper for current information and requested that notice of any future mobilehome-related meeting be published in the Newsmirror.

The public comment was closed.

COMMISSION BUSINESS

1. SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2021.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes of November 24, 2021.

ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER ALLEN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE THE COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 24, 2021.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION

2. SUBJECT: BIENNIAL REVIEW OF MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION

ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 1 of 17
littps://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services_City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
e

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
RECOMMENDATION: That the City of Yucaipa Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (MRRC) conduct a review of the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Yucaipa Municipal Code Chapter 15.20) and the Administrative Rules last amended by Resolution No. 2020-67, and direct staff as appropriate.

1. SUBJECT: ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS (Issue raised by stakeholders) RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC consider the options presented pertaining to the Animal Rent Adjustment formula.

DISCUSSION: Rent Administrator Crawford presented Subject No. 1 of the Staff Report and the following options for MRRC consideration:

Option #1: Amend YMC §15.20.080(A) and Rules §3.0001(13)(3), to provide that the park owner may increase the rent in each regulated space once annually, by 100% of the increase in CPI, or by a 4%, 5% or 6% cap (options proposed by some stakeholders) of the current space rent, whichever is less.

Option #2: Amend YMC §15.20.080(A) and Rules §3.0001(B)(3), to provide that the park owner may increase the rent in each regulated space once annually, by 100% of the increase in CPI and eliminate the 4% cap.

Option#3: Amend YMC §15.20.080(A) and Rules §3.0001(B)(3), to provide that the park owner may increase the rent in each regulated space once annually, by 80% of the increase in CPI, or by 4% of the current space rent, whichever is less and include a minimum percentage increase of 2%.

Option #4: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without change — maintain 80% CPI and 4% cap.

Option #5: Other possibilities, as may be suggested by MRRC.

Public Comment
Rayna Carinichael, resident of Wishing Well Mobilehome Park, stated that she has been a resident of the park for 25 years and in that time the Park has sold four times.

Ms. Carinichael stated that the current owner is moving in dilapidated homes and renting those homes for $1,700 and $2,000hnonth and the amenities that residents pay for are being maintained by the residents themselves, with little to no participation from park management.

Rent Administrator Crawford responded to public comment.

Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, submitted a statement for Commission review and consideration and stated that park owners and representatives are requesting rent increase of 100% of CPI, some with no cap, to meet rising park expenses. Ms.

Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 2 of 17
https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Senices_City ClerkiMOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-65-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
Dalton questioned whether park owners should continue buying mobilehome parks if the Ordinance is so burdensome that they need to request more substantial rent increases and the ability to pass -through the costs of capital improvements to residents. Ms. Dalton made reference to a bill that passed the Assembly that applies to certain mobilehome parks and allows rent increases of 3% plus CPI, with a cap of 5%, which is similar to Yucaipa.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, stated her support of Option #4 and reminded everyone that there are three distinct factions involved in and impacted by the Biennial Review process. Ms. Sutt stated that the City of Yucaipa is represented by staff and professional consultants hired by the City to help the City fulfill its responsibly to its citizens while preventing unnecessary expenditures and avoiding costly litigation. The park owners and their representatives and consultants, all of whom are well -paid professionals tasked with maximizing profits and achieve a fair return on their investment. Finally, the mobilehome residents are concerned with keeping their homes affordable and protecting their comparatively small investments. Ms. Sutt stated the residents are at a clear disadvantage in terms of available resources and competent representation. Ms. Sutt asked that the Commission bear this in mind as the meeting continues.

Linda Evans, resident of Hidden Village Mobilehome Park, asked that the Commission keep in mind that not everyone can survive a steep rent increase and the option to relocate to a more affordable home or facility is seemingly non- existent. Ms. Evans added that there is a five-year waitlist to apply for local retirement facilities.

Robert Evans, representative of Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET), stated that all parties are seemingly in agreement with finding ways to avoid special rent adjustment applications to the City and, therefore, his position is to recommend that the Commission amend the Ordinance to permit annual rent adjustments by 100% of CPI (referencing AB 1482), allowing park owners keep up with rising costs.

Julie Paule, representative of Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA), stated that the Commission's one guiding principle should be to limit the number of special rent adjustment application hearings. Ms.Paule stated that park owners are not looking to get rid of the Ordinance altogether. They are simply seeking 100% of CPI. Ms. Paule added that with the true CPI for the inland Empire being closer to 10%, a 4% rent increase is a rent decrease, and it is this restriction that drives park owners to seek relief through the special rent adjustment application process.

Tony Slaick, former YMRA Chairperson, stated that park owners basically receive an automatic rent increase of 80% of CPI or 4% of space rent, whichever is less Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 3 of 17
https://yucaipa.sharepOint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes!2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
each year. Park owners are also allowed to pass on costs to residents for capital improvements within the park. Mr. Slaick offered that if the Ordinance were amended to allow for rent increases of 100% of CPI, residents should not have to pay for costs associated with capital improvements and not pen -nit park owners to automatically pass -through those costs. Mr. Slaick stated his support of Option #

4. Harold Foster, resident of Yucaipa Village Mobilehome Park, stated that everyone is impacted by rising costs but, for the senior community, social security checks are not increasing with the rate of inflation. Mr. Foster stated that the Rule of 72 infers that rent, increased 4% each year, will double in 18 years. This means that you will move in at 55 years of age and need to move out at 70 years of age. Mr. Foster added that there are no senior housing developments with openings and residential housing is simply not affordable.

Attorney Greyson clarified that the statement related to Assembly Bill 978, which was mentioned during public comment, does not have any application to the City of Yucaipa.

Rent Administrator Crawford addressed questions raised by Commissioners.

After Mobilehome Rent Review Commission discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN, SECOND BY VICE -
CHAIRPERSON MILLER, CARRIED 4-0-0-1 (COMMISSIONER CHIU
ABSTAINED), TO APPROVE OPTION #4 TO RETAIN THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE AND RULES WITHOUT CHANGE —
MAINTAIN 80% CPI AND 4% CAP.

2. SUBJECT: EXEMPT LONG-TERM LEASE FROM AB 2782 (Issue raised by stakeholders)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to spaces subject to long-tenn leases.

DISCUSSION: Commission Attorney Greyson presented Subject No. 2 of the Staff Report.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated her support of no change to the Ordinance or Rules.

Robert Evans, representative of MHET, stated his support of the long-term lease exemption.

Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 4 of 17
https://yucaipp.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-67-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
Rent Administrator Crawford and Commmission Attorney Greyson addressed questions raised by Commissioners.

After Mobilehome Rent Review Commission discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY VICE -CHAIRPERSON MILLER, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER REAGAN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE NO CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE

OR RULES RELATING TO SPACES SUBJECT TO LONG-TERM
LEASES.

3. SUBJECT: RENT ADJUSTMENTS UPON VACANCY -- IN -PLACE
TRANSFERS (Issue raised by stakeholders)
RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC make no change to the existing prohibition on rent adjustments at the time of an in -place transfer of a mobilehome.

DISCUSSION: Commission Attorney Greyson presented Subject No. 3 of the Staff Report and the following options for MRRC consideration:

Option #1: Amend YMC §15.20.050(A) and Rules §3.0001 to allow the park owner to increase rents to market rent upon a vacancy resulting from an in -place transfer (as defined); but retain all other existing Ordinance language including the requirement that upon re -occupancy following the in -place transfer, the space is placed immmediately back under rent control and only subject to the permissible annual adjustments or MRRC-approved rent adjustments.

Option #2: Amend YMC § 15.20.050 and Rules §3.0001 to allow the park owner to increase rent to market rent upon a vacancy resulting from an in -place transfer (as defined), include specified limitations on the increase amount and number of times the same space may increase due to vacancy; but retain all other existing Ordinance language including the requirement that upon re -occupancy the space is placed immediately back under rent control and only subject to the penmissible annual adjustments or MRRC-approved rent adjustments.

Option #3: Retain all existing language of YMC § 15.20.050(A) and the Rules without change. The City would continue to prohibit any increase in rent upon the in -place transfer of a mobilehome (Category #4).

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, questioned whether allowing park owners to increase space rent to market rent is feasible and who will detennine what current market rent will be and how will it be calculated? Ms. Dalton recommended no Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 5 of 17
https://yucaipa.sliarepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services_City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
e

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
change to the Ordinance or Rules.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, stated that she recommends no change to the Ordinance or Rules.

Robert Evans, representative of Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET), stated that vacancy decontrol would discourage park owners from applying for special rent adjustment applications and referred to the 2017 analysis provided by Dr. Baar.

Conunission Attorney Greyson addressed questions raised by Commissioners.

After Mobilehome Rent Review Commission discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, SECOND BY VICE -
CHAIRPERSON MILLER, CARRIED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER CHIU
VOTED NO), TO APPROVE OPTION #3 TO MAKE NO CHANGES TO

THE EXISTING PROHIBITION ON RENT ADJUSTMENTS AT THE
TIME OF AN IN -PLACE TRANSFER OF A MOBILEHOME.

4. SUBJECT: RENT ADJUSTMENTS UPON VACANCY -- VACANCY

RESULTING FROM VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT OR REMOVAL OF

MOBILEHOME OR DESTRUCTION OF MOBILEHOME AND VOLUNTARY

TERMINATION OF TENANCY
RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC consider the options pertaining to rent adjustments upon vacancy resulting from voluntary abandomnent or removal of mobilehome or destruction of mobilehome and voluntary tennination of tenancy.

DISCUSSION: Rent Administrator Crawford presented Subject No. 4 of the Staff Report and the following options for MRRC consideration:

Option #1: Amend YMC § 15.20.050(B) and Rules § 3.0001 to eliminate the cap of $35 and let space rents increase based on the combined average of rent - controlled spaces in the park, for vacancies resulting from Categories #1, #2 or #3; but retain all other existing Ordinance language, including continue to require that upon re -occupancy the space is placed immediately back under rent control and only subject to the pennissible anrival adjustments or MRRC-approved rent adjustments.

Option #2: Retain all existing language of YMC § 15.20.050(B) and the Rules for vacancy adjustments under Categories #1, #2 and #3 without change. The City would continue to allow space rent to increase by (1) the combined average of rent- Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 6 of 17
https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GencralServices/Shared Documents/General Services City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
•,

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
controlled spaces in the park plus ten (10) percent, or (2) (thirty-five dollars ($35.00)), whichever is less.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated her support of Option #2.

Robert Evans, representative of (MHET), stated his support of Option #1.

Bob Mattox, stated that an investor in a park determines whether the investment is profitable before a park is purchased. Based on that assumption, Mr. Mattox asked why we continue to discuss the need to increase rents.

Harold Foster, resident of Yucaipa Village Mobilehome Park, stated his concern with rising rents while his home is more valuable to him when the rent is lower.

Rent Administrator Crawford responded to public coininent.

After Mobilehome Rent Review Commission discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, SECOND BY VICE -
CHAIRPERSON MILLER, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE OPTION #1 TO AMEND YMC §15.20.050(B) AND RULES § 3.0001 TO ELIMINATE THE CAP OF $35 AND LET SPACE RENTS INCREASE BASED ON THE

COMBINED AVERAGE OF RENT -CONTROLLED SPACES IN THE
PARK, FOR VACANCIES RESULTING FROM CATEGORIES #1, #2, OR #3; BUT RETAIN ALL OTHER EXISTING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE,

INCLUDING CONTINUE TO REQUIRE THAT UPON RE -OCCUPANCY

THE SPACE IS PLACED IMMEDIATELY BACK UNDER RENT

CONTROL AND ONLY SUBJECT TO THE PERMISSIBLE ANNUAL
ADJUSTMENTS OR MRRC-APPROVED RENT ADJUSTMENTS.

5. SUBJECT: RENT ADJUSTMENTS UPON VACANCY -- ADJUSTMENTS ON

SPACES THAT HAVE BEEN VACANT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN
EMPTY FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME (Issue raised by stakeholder) RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC consider the options pertaining to park owned vacant spaces that have been unoccupied for an extended period of time.

DISCUSSION: Rent Administrator Crawford presented Subject No. 5 of the Staff Report and the following options for MRRC consideration:

Option #1: Amend the Ordinance to include a definition for a space that is vacant (empty) for more than five consecutive years, and to provide that the base Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 7 of 17
https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sitesiGencralServices/Shared Documents./General Services City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-70-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
rent following the vacancy will then be determined by the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park plus 10%.

Example: For Space #16, the new base rent would be $437.94, calculated as follows:

Combined average + 10% of Combined Average = New Base Rent $398.13 + ($398.13 x 10%) = New Base Rent
$398.13 + $39.81 = $437.94
Space base rent would be set at $437.94 for the new resident. (Note: The combined average of the space rents in the park is $398.13. The highest rent -controlled space in the park is $410.31. The new rent for Space #16 would be $27.63 more than the highest rent -controlled space in the park, of $410.31.) Option #2: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without any changes.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated her support of Option #1.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, expressed her support of Option #l.

Robert Evans, representative of Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET), stated his support of Option #1.

Jon Warren, owner representative of Las Casitas Mobilehome Park, stated that he refers to long-standing homeowners as legacy residents and expressed a passion for affordable housing. Mr. Warren stated that there needs to be a balance between keeping rents low and being able to maintain a clean and safe cominunity for residents, which, in turn, raises the value of the homes in the park. Mr. Warren further stated that vacancy adjustments are an avenue that park owners may utilize to keep rents low for existing residents while still being able to maintain their parks and make improvements.

ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER REAGAN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE OPTION #1

TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION FOR A

SPACE THAT IS VACANT (EMPTY) FOR MORE THAN FIVE

CONSECUTIVE YEARS, AND TO PROVIDE THAT THE BASE RENT

FOLLOWING THE VACANCY WILL THEN BE DETERMINED BY THE

COMBINED AVERAGE OF RENT -CONTROLLED SPACES IN THE
PARK PLUS 10%.

Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 8 of 17
littps://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services —City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-71-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022

6. SUBJECT: RENT ADJUSTMENTS UPON VACANCY -- VACANCY

ADJUSTMENTS ON SALE OF PARK -OWNED MOBILEHOME TO
EXISTING OR NEW RESIDENT (Issue raised by City stafj)
RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC consider the options pertaining to determination of base rent upon sale of a vacant park -owned mobilehomes to a new resident.

DISCUSSION: Rent Administrator Crawford presented Subject No. 6 of the Staff Report and the following options for MRRC consideration.

Option #1: Amend YMC § 15.20.050(C) to provide that if the park owner sells a park -owned mobilehome to a new resident, the base rent shall be the combined average of rent -controlled spaces in the park plus 10%.

Example: Space #20 is a park -owned home rented to Mr. Smith for $400 per month. Mr. Smith moves out of the park, and the park owner sells the mobilehome to Mr. Jones. The combined average of the space rents in the park is $400. The new base rent for Space #20 would be $440, calculated as follows:

Combined average + 10% of Combined Average = New Base Rent $400 + ($400 x 10%) = New Base Rent
$400 + $40 = $440
Space base rent would be set at $440 for the new resident.

Option #2: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without any changes.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated her support of Option #l.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, expressed her support of Option #1.

Robert Evans, representative of Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET), stated his support of Option #1.

Jon Warren, owner representative of Las Casitas Mobilehome Park, stated his support of Option #1 and provided clarification in regard to a park owner obtaining title of a dilapidated home.

ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN, SECOND BY
CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE OPTION #1 TO AMEND THE YMC § 15.20.050(C) TO PROVIDE THAT IF THE PARK Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 9 of 17
https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Sliared Documents/General Services City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-72-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022

OWNER SELLS A PARK -OWNED MOBILEHOME TO A NEW

RESIDENT, THE BASE RENT SHALL BE THE COMBINED AVERAGE
OF RENT -CONTROLLED SPACES IN THE PARK PLUS 10%.

7. SUBJECT: PRE -APPROVAL / AUTOMATIC PASS THROUGH OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PASS -THROUGH (Issue raised by stakeholders) RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to capital improvement rent adjustments.

DISCUSSION: Commission Attorney Greyson presented Subject No. 7 of the Staff Report.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated that park owners should not be able to automatically pass -through capital improvements without input from residents first.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, stated that an automatic pass -through would be a big mistake and stated her support to maintain the existing language of the Ordinance.

Robert Evans, representative of MHET, requested that the Ordinance is changed to allow for pre-approval/automatic pass through for capital improvements.

ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER REAGAN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE NO CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE

OR RULES RELATING TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RENT
ADJUSTMENTS.

8. SUBJECT: ANNUAL REGISTRATION FORM REQUIREMENTS (Issue raised by stafj)
RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC consider the options pertaining to the annual park registration requirements.

DISCUSSION: Commission Attorney Greyson presented Subject No. 8 of the Staff Report and the following options for MRRC consideration:

Option #l: Amend the Ordinance and Rules to clarify that the annual registration fonn shall include specified infonnation relating to month -to -month spaces, spaces subject to long -tern leases, park -owned, manager spaces, and vacant spaces. This amendment would be declarative of existing law as set out in the Ordinance and Rules.

Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 10 of 17 https://yucaipa.sliarepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices!Shared Documents/General Services City Clerlo'MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-73-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
Option #2: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules without any changes.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated her support of Option #1.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, stated her support of Option #1.

Rent Administrator Crawford and Commission Attorney Greyson addressed questions raised by Coininissioners.

After Mobilehome Rent Review Coni nission discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER ALLEN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE OPTION #1 TO

AMEND THE ORDINANCE AND RULES TO CLARIFY THAT THE

ANNUAL REGISTRATION FORM SHALL INCLUDE SPECIFIED

INFORMATION RELATING TO MONTH -TO -MONTH SPACES, SPACES

SUBJECT TO LONG-TERM LEASES, PARK -OWNED, MANAGER
SPACES, AND VACANT SPACES. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE

DECLARATIVE OF EXISTING LAW AS SET OUT IN THE ORDINANCE AND RULES.

The Commission recessed for 10 minutes.

The Commission reconvened.

9. SUBJECT: MOBILEHOME RENT REVIEW COMMISSION (MRRC) (Issue raised by stakeholders)
RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC consider the options pertaining to the MRRC.

DISCUSSION: Rent Administrator Crawford presented Subject No. 9 of the Staff Report and the following options for MRRC consideration:

Option #1: City Council holds an evidentiary hearing to consider the application and issues final decision; appeal eliminated.

Option #2: City Council hears the application; appeal to Hearing Officer.

Option #3: Hearing Officer holds an evidentiary hearing to consider the application and issues final decision; appeal eliminated.

Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 11 of 17 https://yucaipa.sliarepoint.com/sites/GeDeralServices/Shared Documents/General Services_City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-74-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
Option #4: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance and Rules pertaining to the procedures for City approval of special rent adjustments, capital improvement rent adjustments, and rent adjustments based on elimination or reduction of a service or amenity.

Public Commen
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated that City Council does not need the added responsibility of hearing mobilehome special rent adjustment applications.

Ms. Dalton stated to ensure a fair and impartial hearing process, it is important to have volunteer representatives of the coimnunity serve as commissioners. Ms.

Dalton further stated that hiring a hearing officer is not cost effective as those costs would likely be passed on to residents.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, stated her support of Option #4.

Debbie Shipley, resident of Lakeview Mobile Estates, stated her support of Option #4.

Janet Greenwood, resident of Northview Mobilehome Park, read several letters into record on behalf of residents of Northview Mobilehome Park.

After Mobilehome Rent Review Commission discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY VICE -CHAIRPERSON MILLER, SECOND BY
CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE OPTION #4 TO

RETAIN THE EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE AND

RULES PERTAINING TO THE PROCEDURES FOR CITY APPROVAL

OF SPECIAL RENT ADJUSTMENTS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RENT

ADJUSTMENTS, AND RENT ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON
ELIMINATION OR REDUCTION OF A SERVICE OR AMENITY.

10. SUBJECT: SIMPLIFY THE MNOI PROCESS (Issue raised by stakeholders) RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the procedures or requirements for special rent adjustments.

DISCUSSION: Commission Attorney Greyson presented Subject No. 10 of the Staff Report.

Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 12 of 17 https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GencralServices/Shared Documents/General Services City Clerl✓MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-75-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated that she recommends no change to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the procedures or requirements for special rent adjustments.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, stated that the MNOI process appears to be the most painful and suggested that the Coimnission consider the opportunity to include brief study sessions as part of the hearing process in order to improve on the dialog between stakeholders. Ms. Sutt also recommended no change to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the procedures or requirements for special rent adjustments.

After Mobilehome Rent Review Commission discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER ALLEN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE NO CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE

OR RULES PERTAINING TO THE PROCEDURES OR REQUIREMENTS
FOR SPECIAL RENT ADJUSTMENTS.

11. SUBJECT: WAIVER OF FILING FEE — DECREASE IN RENTS BASED ON

DISCONTINUANCE OR REDUCTION OF A SERVICE OR AMENITY (PARK RESIDENT/REPRESENTATIVE APPLICATION) (Issue raised by stakeholder) RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules pertaining to the waiver/defennent of the $1,750 application/appeal fee for residents.

DISCUSSION: Rent Administrator Crawford presented Subject No. 11 of the Staff Report.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated that she understands that it costs money to hold a reduction of service or amenity hearing, but the process is inherently inequitable because residents do not have the same access to advice and resources as do park owners and the City. Ms. Dalton requested that the Commission consider a waiver or deferment of the application fee.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, stated that this item presents substantial problems for residents of the mobilehome parks in the city as many clubhouses, pools, etc. are closed or simply unusable and park owners ignore the problem. Ms. Sutt stated that the use of these amenities is part of the rent paid by residents. Ms. Sutt requested that the Cominission consider deferring the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 13 of 17 https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Senices_City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-76-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
application fee of $1,750, to be paid by the losing party once the issue is resolved by the City.

Rent Administrator Crawford and Conunission Attorney Greyson addressed questions raised by Commissioners.

After Mobilehome Rent Review Commission discussion, the following Motion was made:

ACTION: MOTION BY VICE -CHAIRPERSON MILLER, SECOND BY
CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, CARRIED 4-1 (COMMISSIONER REAGAN

VOTED NO), TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE NO

CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE OR RULES PERTAINING TO THE
WAIVER/DEFERMENT OF THE $1,750 APPLICATION/APPEAL FEE
FOR RESIDENTS.

12. SUBJECT: SELECTION OF RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVES (Issue raised by stakeholders)
RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC consider the options pertaining to the selection of resident representatives.

DISCUSSION: Rent Administrator Crawford presented Subject No. 12 of the Staff Report and the following options for MRRC consideration:

Option 41: Amend the Ordinance to change the tern, once elected, from annual to 3 (or 4) years (option proposed by stakeholders). Election to be held at any time during the tenn if the representative resigns or is challenged.

Option #2: Amend the Ordinance to eliminate the teen, once elected (option proposed by stakeholder). Election to be held at any time during the tern if the representative resigns or is challenged.

Option #3: Retain the existing language of the Ordinance pertaining to the selection of the resident representative.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated her support of Option #2.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, stated her support of Option #2.

Robert Babcock, resident of Lakeview Mobile Estates, expressed his concern with certain amenities that remain closed to residents while improvements are made.

Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 14 of 17 https://yucaipa.sharepoint.coin/sitesiGeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-77-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022
ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER ALLEN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE OPTION #2 TO

AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO ELIMINATE THE TERM, ONCE

ELECTED, AND AN ELECTION TO BE HELD AT ANY TIME DURING

THE RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE TERM IF THE REPRESENTATIVE
RESIGNS OR IS CHALLENGED.

13. SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE/EMAIL NOTICE FOR COMMENT FOR THE BIENNIAL REVIEW PROCESS (Issue raised by stakeholder)
RECOMMENDATION: That the MRRC Amend YMC § 15.20.140 as follows (the additions are marked by italic/bold text):
"Biennial Review. This chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council in odd - numbered years to determine whether it is still appropriate and whether there should be any modifications of its provisions. The Rent Administrator shall issue notice of the biennial review and submittal deadline to the Resident Representative (or if no representative, posted pursuant to Section 15.20.060) and advertised once in the local adjudicated newspaper."
DISCUSSION: Rent Administrator Crawford presented Subject No. 13 of the Staff Report.

Public Coimnent
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated that YMRA was not notified in time to include the Biennial Review meeting notice in the once monthly newsletter and, as a result, inaccurate information spread throughout the mobilehome park community. Ms. Dalton stated her support of staff s recommendation that the notice be published in the local newspaper and emailed to resident representatives.

Rent Administrator Crawford responded to public continent.

Jo Sutt, resident of Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park, thanked City staff for their assistance and stated her support of staff s recommendation.

ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN, SECOND BY
CHAIRPERSON GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND YMC § 15.20.140 AS FOLLOWS:
"Biennial Review. This chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council in odd - numbered years to determine whether it is still appropriate and whether there should be any modifications of its provisions. The Rent Administrator shall issue notice of the biennial review and submittal deadline to the Resident Representative (or if no representative, posted pursuant to Section 15.20.060) and advertised once in the local adjudicated newspaper."
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 15 of 17 https://yucaipa.sliarepoint.com/sites,/Genera] Services/Shared Documents/General Services —City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
i

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022

14. SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX PASS THRU UPON SALE OF PARK (Issue raised by stakeholder)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules relating to treatment of property taxes as operating expenses under YMC §§15.20.100(A) or (B) or the Rules, §§4.0003 or 4.0004.

DISCUSSION: Commission Attorney Greyson presented Subject No. 14 of the Staff Report.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated her support of staff s recommendation to snake no change to the Ordinance or Rules.

Robert Evans, representative of MHET, suggested that the Commission allow property tax pass thru upon sale of park in order to avoid MNOI applications to the City.

ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIRPRESON GOMEZ, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER ALLEN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE NO CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE

OR RULES RELATING TO TREATMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES AS
OPERATING EXPENSES UNDER YMC §§ 15.20.100(A) OR (B) OR THE RULES, §§ 4.0003 OR 4.0004.

15. SUBJECT: DEVELOP A SEPARATE RENTAL ADJUSTMENT POLICY FOR 501(C)3 HOUSING NON-PROFIT OWNERS (Issue raised by stakeholder) RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance or Rules to create a separate procedure or policy regulating the detennination of pennissible rent adjustments in non-profit parks such as Valley View.

DISCUSSION: Commission Attorney Greyson presented Subject No. 15 of the Staff Report.

Public Comment
Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, stated her support of staff s recommendation to make no change to the Ordinance or Rules.

ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER REAGAN, CARRIED 5-0, TO APPROVE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE NO CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE

OR RULES AND NOT CREATE A SEPARATE PROCEDURE OR POLICY
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes

https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
-79-

City of Yucaipa
Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 17, 2022

REGULATING THE DETERMINATION OF PERMISSIBLE RENT
ADJUSTMENTS IN NON-PROFIT PARKS SUCH AS VALLEY VIEW.

Additional Public Comment
Chairperson Gomez allowed additional public comment from the following speakers:

Shirley Dalton, YMRA Chairperson, explained the role of YMRA in the special rent adjustment application process and her concerns with the costs associated with a hearing.

Tony Slaick, fonner YMRA Chairperson, stated that the cost ($1,750 filing fee) to apply for a decrease in rent based on discontinuance or reduction of a service or amenity is built into the maintenance of the Ordinance. Mr. Slaick stated that the bookkeeping is not hard and recommended that the filing fee is deferred, and the losing party held responsible for the cost.

Carole Eden, resident of Valley View Mobilehome Park, stated that she was not aware of the meeting today or the notice provided in December 2021 and asked to be notified in the future.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned.

Chairperson
ATTEST:

Jennifer Crawford
Assistant City Manager/City Clerk
APPROVED AT THE MEETING OF:

Mobilehome Rent Review Commission Minutes Page 17 of 17 https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites./GeneralServices%Shared Documents/General Services City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/MRRC/Minutes/2022/05172022 Biennial Review.docx
M

Exhibit I
2021 CITY OF YUCAIPA
General Services/City Clerk Dept.

PARK SPACES
Source: 2021 Annual Registration
g

BASE RENTS

LONG-TERM LEASE (LTL) SPACES
Source: 2021 Annual Registration

BASE RENTS

RENT CONTROL SPACES
**
( Source: 2021 Adjusted Space Rents [CPI
Increase])
Mobilehome Park
Address
Total
Spaces
Park
Owned
LT
Lease
Rent
Control
Vacant
Pads
PO
Vacant
Coaches
RO
Vacant
Coaches
LTL High
Base Rent
LTL Low
Base Rent
LTL
Average
Base Rent
RC
High
Base Rent
RC
Low
Base Rent
RC
Average
Base Rent
Aladdin Mobilehorne Park
12813 7th Street
96 43
0 53
0 13
0 $0.00
$0.00
$369.85
$303.85
$356.24
Avalon Mobilehome Park *
35011 Avenue E
85 48
0 37
4 7
0 $0.00
$0.00
$398.04
$361.47
$391.48
Bel Aire Mobilehome Park
13060 2nd Street
111
17 14
80 2
0 0
$560.00
$338.05
$411.29
$652.70
$323.52
$405.00
Bonanza Mobileholne Park *
13645 5th Street
83 10
0 73
1 2
0 $0.00
$0.00
$393.46
$339.69
$389.73
Caravan Mobilehome Park *
12656 2nd Street
70 1
0 69
1 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$343.95
$283.57
$301.22
Carriage Trade Manor MHP
12874 California St
97 21
0 76
0 5
0 $0.00
$0.00
$382.94
$351.511
$365.86
Crafton Hills Mobilehome Park
31816 Avenue E
159
2 105
52 0
0 0
$418.60
$323.14
$381.39
$426.36
$335.88
$374.31
Crestview I Mobilehome Park *
12220 5th Street
145
4 73
68 1
0 0
$351.86
$316.09
$344.51
$359.89
$329.03
$346.85
Crestview II Mobilehome Park
12821 4th Street
55 32
0 23
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$493.30
$294.16
$390.42
Eldorado Mobileholne Park 1 *
35218 Fir Street
217
3 0
214
1 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$536.45
$389.32
$455.58
Executive Mobilehome Park
10622 Bryant Street
152
2 0
150
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$510.19
$398.66
$460.25
Fremont Heights Mobileholne Park*
12151 Fremont St
114
4 0
110
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$618.90
$531.99
$568.97
Grandview East Mobilehome Park 1
12655 2nd Street
99 3
0 96
1 1
0 $0.00
$0.00
$513.34
$280.92
$403.26
Grandview West Mobileholne Park *
12700 2nd Street
51 0
0 51
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$425.29
$360.94
$385.82
Green Valley Mobilehome Park
12414 4th Street
109
101
0 8
0 20
0 $0.00
$0.00
$353.96
$341.74
$349.79
Hidden Valley Mobilehome Park *
12680 4th Street
60 0
0 60
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$355.45
$342.28
$350.67
Hidden Village Mobilehome Park*
12582 2nd Street
81 1
0 80
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$460.78
$392.10
$419.57
Hide -Away Mobilehome Park
34447 Yucaipa Blvd
46 7
21 18
1 0
0 $778.54
$417.85
$610.52
$382.94
$380.73
$382.81
Hillcrest Mobilehome Park *
33600 Calilnesa Blvd
196
70 0
126
23 1
0 $0.00
$0.00
$547.82
$454.42
$479.78
Hitching Post Mobilehome Park
34642 Yucaipa BLvd
110
7 0
103
4 0
0 $550.00
$500.00
$533.33
$479.69
$228.67
$336.03
Holiday Mobilehome Park
34184 County Line Rd
128
88 0
40 0
1 0
$0.00
$0.00
$342.56
$258.75
$301.63
Knollwood Mobilehome Park
12941 2nd Street
124
32 23
69 0
1 0
$524.57
$349.09
$401.08
$533.54
$330.64
$399.44
Lakeview Mobile Estates
11050 Bryant Street
296
2 0
294
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$554.51
$466.14
$519.06
Denotes Non -Profit Status
Senior Park
* Base rents subject to change with City approval of annual CPI increases that take place throughout the year -81- Page 1
Updated 6/21/2022 https://yucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services -City Clerk/MOB ILEHOME FILES/Linked Spreadsheets/2021/2021 Summary

Exhibit I
2021 CITY OF YUCAIPA
General Services/City Clerk Dept.

PARK SPACES
Source: 2021 Annual Registration

LONG-TERBASE M LEASE (LTL) SPACES
Source: 2021 Annual Registration

BASE RENTS

RENT CONTROL SPACES
("Source: 2021 Adjusted Space Rents ]CPI
Increase])
Mobilehome Park
Address
Total
Spaces
Park
Owned
LT
Lease
Rent
Control
Vacant
Pads
PO
Vacant
Coaches
RO
Vacant
Coaches
LTL High
Base Rent
LTL Low
Base Rent
LTL
Average
Base Rent
RC
High
Base Rent
RC
Low
Base Rent
RC
Average
Base Rent
Las Casitas Mobilehome Park
33848 Avenue G
70 8
25 37
1 0
0 $628.30
$383.54
$559.86
$637.98
$267.06
$562.32
Melody Lane Mobilehome Park
12688 California St
32 1
0 31
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$346.55
$263.83
$305.48
Mission Valley Oaks Mobilehome Park *
12367 4th Street
76 1
66 9
0 0
0 $695.00
$575.00
$613.46
$650.00
$588.11
$616.04
Mount Vista Mobilehome Park
13061 2nd Street
56 23
0 33
0 3
0 $0.00
$0.00
$380.55
$277.84
$287.73
Mountain View Mobilehome Park
12726 California St
77 8
0 69
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$346.55
$261.03
$300.08
Northview Mobilehome Park *
10675 Bryant Street
129
11 1
117
3 1
0 $265.65
$265.65
$265.65
$383.35
$245.14
$344.88
Park Terrace Mobilehome Park *
12177 3rd Street
73 2
0 71
2 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$329.42
$329.42
$329.42
Patrician Mobilehome Park *
34480 Countyline Rd
137
11 0
126
0 1
0 $0.00
$0.00
$381.12
$334.78
$359.80
Rancho Del Sol Mobilehome Park'
12361 4th Street
110
4 0
106
4 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$513.27
$335.61
$465.17
Skyline Village Mobilehome Parr
12650 California St
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$560.00
$300.00
$363.85
Twin Pines Mobilehome Park
12300 5th Street
93 82
0 11
0 17
0 $0.00
$0.00
$620.06
$338.54
$372.48
Valley Breeze Mobilehome Park*
13576 California St
87 34
0 53
10 3
0 $0.00
$0.00
$410.31
$395.32
$398.33
Valley View Mobilehome Parke*
12995 6th Street
75 13
0 62
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$427.19
$341.54
$384.91
Westwind Mobilehome Park
12380 4th Street
86 68
0 18
0 5
0 $0.00
$0.00
$380.09
$233.32
$287.21
Wildwood Canyon Mobilehome Park
34111 Wildwood Cyn
147
1 0
146
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
$363.46
$281.01
$3116.87
Wishing Well Mobilehome Park*
13063 5th Street
73 22
0 51
1 1
0 $0.00
$0.00
$338.15
$249.69
$277.53
Yucaipa Valley Mobilehome Park
12710 3rd Street
104
25 63
16 0
2 0
$814.85
$425.85
$564.15
$375.61
$375.18
$375.56
Yucaipa Village Mobilehome Parr
12830 6th Street
82 0
0 82
0 0
0 $0.00
$0.00
r $530.58
$363.73
$379,96
Total Spaces: 1
4,1911
8121
3911
2,988
.60
84 0
Total RCAverages: $449.03 $338.08 $386.86
All Age/Family Park Spaces: 2,164
Senior Park Spaces: 2,027
Denotes Non -Profit Status
Senior Park
Base rents subject to change with City approval of annual CPI increases that take place throughout the year -82- Page 2
Updated 6/21/2022 https:Hyucaipa.sharepoint.com/sites/GeneralServices/Shared Documents/General Services -City Clerk/MOBILEHOME FILES/Linked Spreadsheets/2021/2021 Summary

Exhibit II
Nov. 1'3, 2019
From: Kenneth Saar, Consultant
To; Jennifer Crawford and F,tobilehome Rent Review Commission This memo is in response to comments from the Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents Association regarding my reports and to requests by City Staff for information about the annual allowable rent increase.

Comments Re: Submission of Yucaipa 14obilehome Residents Association YI RA) (Sept. 26, 2019
YMRA Comment:
'The City of Yucaipa's financial expert Ken Saar has cited that it has been ruled in the cours that CPI increases as low as.40% have been deemed to be fair." SAAR Response:

The foregoing statement seems to indicate that I have stated that annual rent increases ("GPI increases") equal to 40% of the percentage Increase in the GPI have been deemed; fair by the courts. Hovvever, my comments in regard to 40% of GPI have involved questions* about what growttt�"�in riet:operating income must be permjUed in fair return cases: In tie context of considering a.11owable rent under fair return standards (rather than the adequacy of annual increase standards), I have .indicated that the courts have uphei'd standards which provide for increasing net operating income by 40% of. the percentage in the GPI since the base year.

In order to provide. for growth, in net operating ircome,..allowable resit increases must.cover ,
increases iii operating costs and avow for the required growth in net operating. i com..e.. Assuming .. . that operating costs increase at the same rate as. the CPI, rent increases equal to more than Z,0% of the: percentage increase in the GPI would be required in order to provide for fair return. iNh to he portion of 1.rent aItoce,ed to net operating income may increase at only.40% of the percentage increase in the CPI, the portion of rent used for. operating. expenses, would have to increase at the same rate as ibe CPI. The prec1se amount of the rent increases that are required to provide a fair retum.for a particular park depends on the particular circumstances, including the ratio ©f operatng expenses o 1 6oirie"ar d tha`rate of increases in operating costs, which may be hioher or lower than the rate of increase in the CPI.

',04RA Cornmen-t
'-An a sgudv done b..t,tie Ci., o! Yucailvasfinanciaf exnett, Ken Baar, Jfha8 beenx&,Portfeda !i39for -
every 4106M dollar increase in a mobile {tonne p6r,'; space rent, would resull iri -SI,000 of decteased mobYe home vaLe. Wh an allowabie 51% or S25 soace rent increase, a homeotifner woutd n7o-St R-e1 y ha ve to discount their spli.ing pdca Py approximately $2,50-9. 00 as opposed 10 obtaining a sx1a price olS2,500 higher under the currePtordinance. Considefing that park owners 'have. never had art opprrfunify to raise rents in any form related to a vacqnc5i, this l�Oufld,be a SUbstantial Change and a Sim lfflcan t benefri to park owners, especialty with grid ire consids raffon of P, umber three,"
BAAR Response:
11he passage reled on by YNIRA. did not slate tnat it Was MY Conclusion that: 'every ten solar r-r ed mo Dile home
' increase 1r) a Moll."ile home park space rent, kfiou-t M-SUR in 0 eas- i VOO f de V41e." Instead, h1he pas -sage t. stated that t1rus was a common conclusion in analyses of the issue by appraisers and economists. (7maditionally, economists and appraisers projected that each $100 increase ;n space rer�,s would lead to a $10,000 reduction in the value of a rnoblRehome."',' It is generally accepted and seen, as, economically rat' One I conduct that Mcarning mob". tome MfnefS consider Lheir overali costs, ;ncluding space rent, in detennining wimi price they are w1fing nt Jehome park.* Following this rr.bdel of conduct ,o pay for a rnob'�ehome tint a re ed space In mob' assuming other factors are equal, prospective mobilelhome ownerslow'd be wilUng to pay less for a mobi'ehome on a space vivid hig.,ier space rents.

T �e prqeclion oat each ten do1ar rent increase would lead to a $1,000 decrease in the value of the mobJehorrie on the space is based on the assumptions vIan economic modell (which I'S now decades otd).ralher than actual data. Apartf-rom space rents, varjabes eirecting purcbmse prices of moW.'ehomes. include, but are not, Pmifed to, tne prices of alternate housing and moftaaae interes-, rates. QuaraNfication through empYcal researdhof the precise impact of space rents on MWehorne va!ues is subject to the pro `:erns of isolating in a statistical analysis the impact , of one mriable (space rent) from the Impact of nuraerous ot.. r variab�!es that effect mob-flehorne prices.

R a ar 'a" �,:d. P cj -.Li i, N I &.� SAh km npe-eks . w d M 61- i M1, S r, a : C I'm=.; C's j a 1% 11 a 11 r--, P. '27 :120 G." rc ;Y n -. t Ce , I % r I is sk, t:l. C I t Y of Marina�.

Responses to Stagy Inquieles
T'he impact that a 103% of CPI annual increase standard from IM to 2009 ;as opposed to the actual 80% of CPI standard) would have had- on the allowab!e increase in the Yucaipa Village -fair return case.

In 2011, in the Y UcalPa kh'Ilarge case, the Yucaipa Mobi!enorne Rent Review Commission dv-.erminied that a rentincrease of SvO 1.29 was recuired to permit a fair return 2 (!`V.R:RC lResolultion 2011-52)
The rent revenues in Yacaipa Vilage increased frorn. 1996 to S259,750 in 2009.3 (This total for 2009 Includes the gro ss schedVed rents of S233,182 for 2009, reported in the ffiair return applcation, and an inclusion in the rental income of a saving of S25,215V in operating expenses, which' the PaCk Owner reafized by fsansferring water and sewrer costs to the in 2009.) If rents had been permitted "to increase by 100% of t-e percentage increase in the CPI from 1996 to 2009, the rent' prior to tie fair re,4jrn detern'tination (Including an amount to accournt for the nev'f saying frornwatter and sewer passm-ough) wou,d have been S119,611hicher(S279,332 instead of S259,750). Consequently, the rent increase required to provide a fair return wotid have been $119,811 ($20.131soacelrnonih) lovmr. In terms of monthly space rents, die increase in the Fair turn re . deelsion wou'd have been S5 r.15 Mslead of $81.29.

The.impact of Increasing the ,annual ,alloviable increase from 8:0%,to 10001'a of the percentage increase In.the CPL
In the past 35 years 14 983-2018) the CPI.has increased by an average of 2.83% per year.

Assumin gg a P. a ve rao e increase in 11he CPI of 2, 831 % in f utu re years, if a 100% of CIPI standard wa, s adopted the annual Increase woUd be 0.57%,�J. er on the R e averag -183% stead of 2.2V-' :,). -Jki-1.

The largest annual increase twas 6.58% which occurred in 1 990,- Since 1996, tJie largest annual increase was 4.46%.

In Une Last. ten years the. CP1 has increased Ivan average of 2% per year; the lamest annual increase in the past ten years was 3.6%.

Since Yucaipa's ordinance coniains a 4% CAP on. alowable annual fincreases, tile annual allov.1aWeincrease could not be increased by Caere than 0.8g13 as a consequence of replacing Uhe 80'Mo of CPI standard with, a 100% of CPI annuaf increase standard.

U I I 1hec'nart.belowill strates the differences in allowable annual increases that would take place under 80% and.1 Orj% of CPI standards.
jg�7 total do
— es not Mudd; a tentporatyimrease of $1 1':61 th-a WAS authorizOd to cover One costs ofthe. application, ror U! c purposeg of dtt o.r nx ihing wh a r reti is perunt ted a stir rdurn 1 2 0 0-4 A-P s cons id erzd 1-1 ic eum tit vear. 4 $2j
.39 X $2 spBcts x-121.noftVas . ..... ....... . .............. . .... 4';
-85-

Comparison Annual Rent Increases
Undee WS of !'-'Pi* and of CRI Standards
Difference
HVpavieticzl
AVlowable Annual
Projections of
i Rent I ncre-ase
Niowable Annual
Aliowabe
Percentage
Current
RentIncrease If
Increase in the
Ordinance
z1ome, o.1cPl With
'nr I -reases Under
�
'
n;A,,dl00%,,
I nor
CPOver p
SOX of CPI With 4% c" p
CPJ Stan6ards
Year
:1 4% CAP
with 4,Vj CAP
......... ------

4.0% 12%

5. 4.0%

6.0%
4M4
02%
4X%
-86-

Exhibit III

VIA EMAIL ONLY
December 8, 2021
City of Yucaipa Mobilehome Park
Owners/Management Companies
WMA
Attn. Julie Paule, Regional Representative
40335 Winchester Road, #E-165

CITY OF
4�
MHET
Attn. Robert Evans, Inland Empire Representative
25241 Paseo de Alicia, Ste 120
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
[email protected]
Yucaipa Mobilehome Residents Association
Attn. Shirley Dalton, Chairman
P.O. Box 1052
Temecula, CA 92591 Yucaipa, CA 92399
[email protected] sd.vmraPgmail.com
Re: Biennial Review of the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (Yucaipa Municipal Code [YMC] §15.20) and Administrative Rules
PLEASE BE ADVISED that the City of Yucaipa Mobilehome Rent Review Commission (MRRC) will be conducting a Biennial Review Study Session to review the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (YMC §15.20) and Administrative Rules. As a reference, the most recent version of YMC §15.20 and the Administrative Rules may be accessed via the City's website at https://vucaipa.org/mobilehome-community/­ .

It is requested that any questions and/or suggested changes that you would like to have reviewed at the Study Session regarding YMC §15.20 and/or the Administrative Rules be submitted (in writing) via email to [email protected] or via mail to City of Yucaipa, Attn. General Services/City Clerk Department, 34272 Yucaipa Blvd., Yucaipa, CA 92399. The deadline for all parties to submit their written questions and/or suggested changes is Thursday, January 20, 2022, at 5:00 pm.

THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES TO DISCUSS MUTUAL CONCERNS AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE STUDY SESSION.

Information received from all parties concerned will be categorized and included in the agenda report that staff will present to the MRRC for consideration. Once the meeting date has been finalized, I will send you a notice via email advising you of the date and time.

After the Study Session, the MRRC recommendations along with staff recommendations will be presented to the City Council for their review and consideration at a publicized meeting, which you will be invited to attend.

If you have questions regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 909-797-2489, ext. 236 or Kimberly Everts at ext. 221.
sincerely,
Jennifer Crawford
Assistant City Manager/Rent Administrator
Cc: Yucaipa MRRC
City of Yucaipa
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA 92399-9950
909/797-2489 FAX 9096790-9203 wNv-,v.yucaipa.org