City Council - Regular Meeting

If I had time Yeah, that's what they have. doing Hey guys,

today

Good evening. I'll try that again. Welcome to the city council for April 15th tax day. And I'm guessing that you're all here celebrating the facts that you got your taxes turned in today. Having said that, I want to note that we are starting this meeting at 6:12. And uh at this time, we'd like to ask that you participate with us as you see fit uh for the saying of the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stand indivisible with all.

Thank you. So, this may not have to be said, but if you'll turn off all noise makers that might interrupt this uh session, that would be much appreciated. And then also this evening, uh I'm happy to uh uh note that uh we do have live Spanish interpretation this evening and tonight's meeting is being provided by Claudia Medosa. Thank you, Claudia. So headsets are available at the lobby entrance for anyone who would like to use this service. So with that, I'd like to request roll call, please. Council member Ding

here. Council member Gurnie here. Council member Farrieas here. Vice Mayor Low here. Mayor Wer here. Thank you. Very good. Uh we did have a close session, but there is nothing to report on it this evening. And now I'm turning back up to the dis and uh seeking approval of our agenda. Do I have comments and or a motion? I move to uh accept the agenda. Is there a second? Second. Very good. Uh this being rather benign, I will say a verbal roll call, please. All those in favor say I. I

opposed. Motion passes unanimously.

Now, we're going to be moving on to that point in the agenda where the public is given an opportunity to speak. Now, this is the opportunity to speak on items that are not appearing on the agenda this evening. And uh we will be limiting the number of speakers to 10 on this first goound. If there is great interest and more than 10 wish to speak on items not on the agenda, there'll be a second opportunity at the end of the evening. And with that, um, I just want to remind people because it is has not been agendaized that we up here will not be able to comment, debate, or make any decision on the item you bring forward. Not that we don't care, not that we don't think it's important. It's just has to be by law publicly noticed. So, at this time, if you'd like to queue up at the podium uh in a reasonably straight line and then also please identify yourself. Uh you will have uh two minutes and uh welcome.

Thank you, mayor, council members. I'm Connie Schlayine. Uh I am chair of the cultural and fine arts commission but today I am speaking as a citizen of Soma and I wanted to bring your attention to tomorrow's big celebration of uh our new treasure artist. I'm pretty excited about it and a lot of people in our city are. Uh if you don't know, Ada Leone is the US po poet laurate 22nd and the 24th poet laurate of the United States and lives in in our valley. And so we're we're very excited and hope a number of you can join. It's free. It's at the amphitheater and uh there is a little RSVP requested but it's not exactly required for you to attend. And I hope that you will see a public display of how much people really love public art in this community. So, please come and uh enjoy. And uh council members, we'd love to introduce you and and staff as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Connie.

Hello. My name is Erin McTagert. I'm here tonight to talk about the wine country open paton tournament similar to botchi yet completely different. Uh while my parents Ken and Pat McTagert raised us kids on Botchi and actually helped found the Sonoma Botchi group and courts, I found Paton 25 years ago approximately while walking through depot park. Um it's a similar game. Um but because of that encounter, I have played Paton all over the United States in the Caribbean. I played for the US women's team in France twice and in Turkey and have friends from all over the world because of this crazy game. Um tonight I want to talk about the Wine Country Open which is hosted by the Valley of the Moon Paton Club. It's happening April 25th and 26th here at the depot courts. It is one of the largest international tournaments for Paton held in the US. Uh we have people coming from Canada, Mexico, and many of the US states to compete here in our beautiful valley. We have a variety of local businesses and patrons on and off the plaza have helped to sponsor this tournament. and the VO MPC, our club is sure that the visiting players will be staying in and enjoying Sonoma, helping our local economy. Uh we truly wish that people come by and watch some of the games, especially the finals on Sunday there at the courts in Depot Park. Uh we hope that people want to try the game. It's a very accessible, inclusive uh and friendly uh sport. And uh the VOP PC welcomes new members, especially casual players and people can be uh seen playing the game in the afternoons pretty much every day there and we welcome people to come and watch. Thank

you. And play.

Thank you, Erin. All right. Anyone else in this gathering? Seeing none, then I'm going to close public comment. And and at this point uh we are asking for a meeting dedication. I do believe my fellow council member would like to make a dedication. Thank you, mayor. I do have the one dedication. I would like to dedicate today's city council meeting to our local resident, Gary Magnani. Gary Mcnani passed away peacefully in his home in Sonoma Wednesday, April 1st. Gary enlisted in United States Navy in 1969 and during his services sailed all over the world in the Sonoma. He was working as a diesel mechanic through out marine and sonoma county to support his family. His love of cars transcendent work as collected and repaired the more than 30 different vehicles in his lifetime. Gary will be remembered for his service he provided to the native sons Paulo 111 of Sonoma Valley. His service as commander of American Legion Jack London post 489 from the 2014 and 2024.

His contributions to erection and the dedication of memorialian starter status in our local Ventai in our local veterans in the cemetery and the support he provided to fellow veterans and his role as loving and devoted grandparents as well. This is a huge loss for our community. Gary will be greatly missed by all of us. Thank you, mayor.

Very good. Thank you. Now, with that in place, uh we will continue on and I'm calling for our council members reports and comments, please. Council member.

Sure. And I will try to make this quick because we have a a big agenda ahead of us. Uh our very exciting agenda. So, um, on, uh, April 2nd, I am on I'm on the board of Snow McLean Power and attended the Snow McLean Power board meeting. Uh, there just wanted to let everybody know opportunities and rebates available. Um, but there is a uh, you can if you are have an EV EV and have the ability to charge at home, they have an EV charging at home program. um $100 for entry to enrolling into that. Uh they have a do-it-yourself tool toolkit of what you can do and go into your house to make your to to reduce your uh electrical use or talk to you about when to use your electricity. Um there's a free a energy savings box that you can that you can get. Um there's also cash rebates for home appliances if you're transitioning from gas to electricity. Um then also there's a snow clean power. They have a home thermostat upgrade for lowincome individuals, people that are on the care or fair program. You just need to have central heating in your house. There are also multiple ebike opportunities uh connecting biking to businesses and also they're doing a pilot uh bike share program in um Santa Rosa. So, one of the things just to pay attention to and follow that we're really trying to do at Sonoma Clean Power is to support the development of geothermal in Soma. It's a lot cheaper for us to get our geothermal electricity from Sonoma County or the North Bay versus shipping it in from Nevada. And it also u developing that opportunity is will be very good for the economy and bring

strong jobs. The cost of creating a transmission pipeline from Nevada it could be which the state is considering is over a billion dollars and the cost of doing the early stage exploration for geysers here in Soma is 40 million. So you just kind of compare the two and say this is cheaper to do here versus getting so it's a matter we get our electricity here versus shipping it in from another state. We keep the jobs here. We keep the revenue here. Um so the other thing I just want to say is that um in 2025 the uh goal is to keep rates uh within 3% of PG&E and they do the 3% because PG& is constantly changing what their what their costs are. So the goal of course ideally is lower than PG& but within 3% of PG& is really a very good percentage for comparable to other community uh community uh electricity organizations. Uh and then the other thing is that there we will be able to return this year 37 billion uh to rate payers and put in 39 billion in our rate stabilization fund. And that is there to put in that fund when when we're seeing higher charges from P Gen. Remember P Gen is our distributor if you're with Soma Clean Power. Sonoma Clean Power is the one that goes out and purchase the electricity for you to utilize. So um then on um April 10th I attended uh the North Bay Watershed Association conference which was very good. Uh I won't it was a full day so I'm not going to go over everything in the conference. There was a lot of really exciting information. Um, one of the things that I was very impressed by was there was a representative from Orange County. And in Orange County, they they are kind of like they talk about they're at the end

of line of all of the different water sources of the Colorado River. They're at the end of the line for their county. They're they're at the end of the line for the region. They're the last one to get water before it goes into Mexico. Um, and one of the things that they really really strongly encourage you, they have a great program and they're really doing a lot of ground groundwater recharge and and saving rainwater and storm water and they feel that that their success is by being very forward thinking and doing a significant amount of pre-planning. So, it was really so it was it was a it was a good it was a very good conference and that's all I'll say about that. But yeah, it was great. Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. during last two weeks I didn't attend any commission on the meeting and instead I was attending our community event and April the 12 that is Sunday uh morning time it was raining and afternoon I was attending uh Sonoma Valley Historic Society as sponsored the mountain cemetery tour We and hired local actors are playing the our historic figures in the Sonoma and Ghost with us with the real the life Vallejo Kroski and the boys and Sebastiani as well. Uh I very humble and thankful to be part of this show and I was a playing and the name his name is John Boris that is typical American name but actually this is a Chinese labor. He works for a Buris the family 80 years and when he was in American here maybe just 12 years old or 13 when he was and uh he already 90 years old. So the finally he was allowed to be buried in this cemetery. So he was the only and the Chinese labors was buried here and uh I'm honored to visit the event and the good thing is I see more and more out in the local communities and also visitors joining this you know cemetery tour and review the local wonderful history especially I saw a couple of and

the middle schools and the kids they are very very interested fascinated for on a local history. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you.

And on this side of the DAS, John, um let's see, on April 9th, I attended the tourism improvement district meeting and um uh they are financially sound and they were actually looking and considering some grants for um activities that will draw people to Soma. but their focus is primarily on offseason. Um, however, these were events that have been here previously out in the vineyards, if you're familiar with that. It was up in Hildsburg last year. Um, and they are trying to bring it back and um um but apparently it's a busy time of the year in July and so we're not sure how that's going to all pan out. I also attended the Sonoma Valley Library Advisory Board meeting and um nothing really uh to report there other than they still have um three vacant seats. One of those being a youth member and um if you are at all interested in the library and everything that it does and it's remarkable everything they do. um please contact the manager there and um express your interest and I'm sure they can give you an introductory tour and let you uh get a little more information as to what's involved and um and help support the community through library service. Thank you.

Very good.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I attended the Sonoma County Transportation Authority on um, Monday of of this week and I'd just like to I'll there's so much on the agenda, but I'll I'll just highlight one thing. Um, and that because you may have been reading about this. There's something called mascots. It's the Marin Sonoma Coordinated Transit Service Plan. So, it's an acronym mascots. And what they've done is worked on coordination. It's the 101 corridor, but you know, we can get there eventually. Um, but the they've increased the the smart train to 48 trips uh a week of 24 48 on the weekdays and 24 on the weekends and with more frequent service early in the morning. um Golden Gate Transit primarily they're focusing on on SMART to be mo a lot of that but there is still express service from San Rafale and San Francisco um but they've added some new trips as well but you can look this up at mascotspl.org um mascot tsplan.org or and it is also um in Spanish. in the uh internet. So uh please look at it if you're using uh transportation public um trans uh local transportation. So um what I'm hoping to do, many of you have heard this is uh work on getting the coordination from the Soma Plaza to

SMART. It's not the easiest because there's too many stops. I see a lot of head knots and I'm working on a day where we can get people together. We can go there and we can ex see how exciting it is to take the smart train because it really is a wonderful way to travel. But we really need to increase the ability for people in the valley to get to the Paluma station which is the closest one. So I'll be working on that and in the meantime please take a look at um mascots. Thank you. Very good. Let me start on back in uh March 31st, I had a chance to uh go to a train museum that's here locally at uh 8th Street East at Fremont Drive. It's real close to that huge building that at one time was going to be an Amazon warehouse. But there are some very passionate people that are restoring a steam engine number 2472 and they've already restored a Southern Pacific parlor car. And it's quite impressive right here in our backyard. And they have the aspirational goal of creating a couple of short trips. one going uh east to a bridge out there in the slooh somewhere and then go one going to the west. And so again, if uh you are a train buff, I would welcome you to check that out. Uh on the 1st of April, I attended the 22nd birthday celebration of our local uh radio and television station, KSVY, where it was well attended and it was a good celebration. on the second I had a chance to do a a personal tour of the Sonoma water system. And I think my takeaway from that is just we are blessed with an incredible water system source. And one of the facts that came out as I was looking down this tall pipe

down to a a water source below is that it is naturally filtered water that we get. Albeit they do supplement it some, but it's again we are so fortunate. On the 9th of April, I had a chance to go to the uh Sonoma Botanical Garden and they currently have started a new uh outdoor sculpture show called Spirit Guides and it's being put on by some Mexican artists by the name of Jacobo and Maria Angelus. And it was quite inspiring. It's a beautiful setting and I would encourage uh everyone to give thought about attending it. And then lastly, I had a chance to listen to a webinar this morning about our water supply. Once again, I'm um I I sit on the water advisory committee and I'm encouraged that uh well, we had uh our water total to date is 24 in of our rain. We normally have 32 approximately 32 in. Our water supply at Lake Mendescino sounds like a bunch. It's 68,400 acre feet and Lake Soma is 245,000 acre feet. The short and the long of it is that because of the the rain shortage, it is considered a dry year. But having said that, uh, the water department said that they are going to be able to meet all of the customer demands and there'll be enough of a release that allow for the normal recreational activities on the Russian River. So, that is good. However, it is imperative on our part to be prudent users of water and to continue to be good stewards of this precious resource. And with that announcement, I will quit. So, now I will ask for comments from our

city manager. Welcome. Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh, I'm honored to serve as the Soma interim city manager. Today is my eighth day. I should tell everyone my name is Christina Lovich. Um, I've experienced an incredibly warm welcome and a half and I very much look forward to working with all of you and the community and the city's exceptional staff team. So, I have a few announcements for you this evening. Um, the Cultural and Fine Arts Commission selected Sonoma Valley High School senior Sienna Kelly to receive the this just out the 2026 student creative artist award for her excellence in film. The commission also selected Cassandra Casillo for a merit award bless for their fine art submission. Uh a formal announcement is forthcoming and the council will present the check awards at a future at a future city council meeting. Um today is the last day to apply to be placed on the Alta Madron apartments waiting list. This is the affordable housing development managed by satellite affordable housing associates located at 1269 Broadway across from Train Town. Um, even though it's the last day, applications and more information are at sahomes.org. Uh, Connie, I think you already mentioned that um, the treasure arts reception honoring Ada Leone begins tomorrow at 5:30. Just to reiterate the details at the Plaza Amphitheater and Spanish interpretation will also be provided at the event. Uh, the Trashion fashion show this year is sold out. Uh, it's happening this Saturday. City Hall is among the local venues to display um a trash and fashion outfit. You can find that mannequin in front of City Hall, the upper right hand window. It's going to be lit up shortly, too. So, that's really fun. Uh it's also the last day to vote for your favorite Earth Day photo contest entry. Uh this is a partnership with Sonoma Community Center and the theme is the power of

water. That's the night of water, mayor. Um, all entries will be installed in city council chambers as part of the chambers rotating art exhibits. Um, a few more. April 22nd from 6:00 to 8, there's a citywide historic resource workshop at the vintage house. That sounds really interesting. I'm hoping to make that myself. Um, the city's inaugural Earth Day at trash and trash bash is on April 25th. There's a lot of things happening in Soma. Um, from 11 to 4. Uh, in addition to the trash and fashion, there'll be exhibits, food, and hands-on opportunities to learn. Um, there'll be a speaker series from 12 to 2, and you can get more information about the speakers um on the city's website, soma city.org. 2026 Earth Day. Uh,

and that's at the community center, I believe. Oh, thank you. Yes, at the community center. Um, the 30th anniversary Kyle Petty charity ride across America is going to start in Soma this year. Kyle Petty's a former NASCAR driver and philanthropist from the renown Petty Racing family. Um, it's very impressive. Since 1995, they've raised $23 million for Victory Junction and other children's charities. So, their group of Harley-Davidson riders motorcycles will depart from the lodge at Soma on 6:30 a.m. on Friday the 1. Uh, and last but not least, the season's first Tuesday night market is coming up on May the 5th, and the next council meeting will be the Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. And in terms of our city attorney is not present this evening, so we will then continue on. I am present online. Oh, he is online. Well, I wasn't sure. Please, uh, if our city attorney has any comments to share, please. Uh, no comments this this evening, but it's good to do an audio check. Thank you.

Very good. Good. We hear you. All right. This evening we do have one presentation and a very important presentation and um I have here in my hands a proclamation that I will read almost word for word and it is the proclaiming April 2026 as Parkinson's disease awareness month. And I have uh several people in the audience I hope here uh to receive this proclamation. Uh I believe I would love to welcome Joy and Mory Bennett uh Jan Janette Perry, Kate Jules and Kai Neval when the time comes. I would u like to at least read the proclamation and would love to have someone come forward and speak to a little bit about the Parkinson's support group. So with that, let me start by reading the proclamation. Whereas Parkinson's disease is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors and manifests in motor challenges such as tremors, rigidity, and slowness of movement as well as nonmo symptoms including depression, sleep disorders, cognitive decline, and difficulty swallowing. And there's currently no cure for Parkinson's disease. And Parkinson's disease affects more than 1 million Americans and is the second most common neurodeenerative condition in the United States. Parkinson's disease cost the United States more than 58 billion annually with nearly half born by the federal government and the remainder by American families. And the prevalence of Parkinson's disease is expected to nearly double by

2037, increasing the burden on families, communities, and the nation. Whereas millions of caregivers, family members, and loved ones are deeply impacted by Parkinson's disease and work tirelessly to provide care and support. And whereas prevention efforts addressing environmental risk factors, early diagnosis, expanded education, and access to community-based support services are essential to improving quality of life and advancing progress toward a cure. And wears lighting buildings, bridges, and other landmarks in vibrant blue on April 11th, World Parkinson's Day, serves as a visible symbol of hope and unity for individuals and families impacted by Parkinson's disease. Now therefore, I, Ron Wellander, mayor of the city of Sonoma, do hereby call upon individuals, communities, health care professionals, and organizations, both public and private, to observe this month with appropriate activities, including the lighting of landmarks in vibrant blue, to raise awareness and inspire action toward ending Parkinson's disease. So, with that, I would love to have someone come forward, and I do believe um there is the um Parkinson's support group, and I would love to have someone speak to it rather than me read about it.

Do we speak to it here, please?

Okay. Well, the Parkinson's support group, it meets monthly over at the community center on the fourth Friday of the month from 10 to 12:00. And it's a community of not only people who have Parkinson's disease, but also their family members or supporters. So all are welcome to attend whenever they can. And we also have representatives from Rock Steady Boxing, which is a boxing specifically for people with Parkinson's disease, which is led by Janette Perry, who's over here. And that takes place Monday, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 12:30 to 1:30 at their new location over by the farmhouse. So, we would be welcome to have anybody that has questions or knows anyone that would benefit from these meetings or programs.

Great. Well, thank you so much. Any comments up from the guys? No, I we I have a family member, a very close brother-in-law who has Parkinson's and just really appreciate all the work you do and how important it is to have the community organizations. I know that uh he has a group that he meets with. He lives on Whitby Island and it really it it it really makes an enormous difference. So, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Great.

And with us, I believe I'm forced to have a photoshop. So, if someone would like to join us and uh receive this uh proclamation, please come on up. All right. One, two, three. Thank you. Yes, indeed. Okay. The next item on the agenda is the consent calendar. These are items that typically are looked upon in a group and that uh they are voted on as a group unless someone up at the dis wishes to pull something. So let me start by asking my fellow council people if they want to pull any item on consent. I'm seeing no motion. I think now I do believe I'm supposed to open up to the public if there's anybody else that would like to come forward. Please identify yourself. Thank you, Mayor Winger. I'm Tom Conland. I live uh just north of the city limits and I serve on the city's climate action commission, but tonight I'm speaking as an individual. Uh and I

wanted to meet our new city manager and I'll be brief because I know you have a lot to get to tonight. Uh, my granddaughter is about to get her training wheels taken off. And I noticed on your on your consent calendar tonight, you have the citywide bike path uh design change order and that's item number 7.4. I wanted to come down and say that I support the decision to um move the funding from the original plan, the Sasarini bike path, which would have served Sasarini, but not very many other community members. And in fact, um I believe that the change will will actually be a more beneficial change for the whole town, including people that go to Sasarini. Um, I also wanted to say that I want to applaud the staff for bringing this these changes forward even though it means that the city has abandoned 95% fund funded design at that other location. So, um, just as a note, we're going to need to get more efficient about the way we make these plans. It's not current staff's issue. Um, Mike knows this and and, uh, and Ashley too. They've done a wonderful job in uh making sure this funding is being well targeted and I wanted to come here say that myself tonight. Um I do note though that uh GHD's letter in the staff report points out that this project is currently ranked as a tier three priority when in fact the city's recently completed active transportation plan has a number of other bicycle improvements ranked higher. This project's not on the high injury network. um we haven't had anybody really hurt there and but I do think it will be important for getting the community comfortable with this concept of speed cushions and the idea that there is a very safe north south route on that side of town which is the most important side of town because that is adjacent to our high injury network. So

I wanted to come and say those things tonight and uh thank you for your uh consideration and good luck with the rest of your meeting tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no more migration to the podium, I'm going to bring it back and ask for a motion. I will move to approve the consent calendar. Second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Council member Ding. I. Council member Gurnie. Yes. Council member Ferrar Rivas. Yes. Vice Mayor Lowe. Hi. Mayor Wender. Yes.

Thank you. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Now we're moving on to um 9.1 which is a study session to discuss the draft ordinance for the mobile home park closures and conversions under the city of Sonoma's municipal code and recent legislation changes. Um, before I have the staff give us uh a report, I'd like to turn over to my fellow council member.

Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Um, as some of you uh may know there uh there is part of the um conflict of interest if you will code it says that if you if you reside within 500 yards of a project that you might have some financial benefit or deficit from that uh you should recuse yourself from from that item. And as many of you know, I'm not only 500 yards from the mobile home park. It's literally my backyard. It's literally over the fence. It's one inch. So, um, and and so I'm I'm going to be leaving the meeting um, as per the advice of council, but I want to clarify a couple things prior to that. First of all, there's no some people are confusing this issue with uh our recent um districtricting elections thing that because all of my district contains the three mobile home parks and they are worried that maybe if we hadn't have done that I wouldn't be in this position. But the reality is it's where I live regardless of how we vote. So had we not done that, I still would have had to recuse myself. But some people thought it had something to do with that. And so I just want to on the record say it has nothing to do with that whatsoever. It it's absolutely because as you know, you're all my neighbors. I live right there. So um so that's that. And then the other thing is just just a little bit of um um a comment. the the code sort of implies that, you know, you might benefit from something or, you know, it may hurt the value of your home or whatever. I just want to be like very

clear with with the public in Soma. I ran for the city council for one reason, and that is to help the people in the city of Soma. I bear absolutely no benefit other than making my heart swell every time I do something to help people who live here and who live in the area. And although I have to recuse myself, I find it completely opposite to anything that I have ever said or done or will do. And I'm very sorry not to be here with my neighbors talking about this item, but know that my heart is with you. I am your neighbor and I have full confidence in this board and this staff that you will be well represented. So, thank you very much and best of luck.

Thank you. And before uh as our community development director comes to the podium to give the presentation, I'm just wanted to remind my fellow council members that this evening we are seeking to give some input and comment and direction to our staff and that uh no definitive decisions are being made tonight. So it will truly be a study session with some input. So thank you. And with that, the microphone's yours.

All right. Well, good evening, mayor and city council members and community. Um, so as stated, um, this is going to be a study session tonight where we're going to talk more about the legal and procedural requirements for mobile home park closures and conversions based on the direction that we have received from council. And in some cases, it's a um let's say a litmus test of seeing something actually in place in an ordinance format and kind of getting that feedback um from you all as well as the feedback that we got from the community um as well. So again, just as it's been a while, last meeting was in December. So I'm going to do some highlights. So, as a reminder, the city of Sonoma has three mobile home parks with over 450 units. So, Moon Valley, PBlo Serena, and Sonoma Oaks. And these units are recognized for providing an important source of affordable housing in our community. The city's housing element adopted in 2023 contains program number 11, which states that the city will update chapter 9.82 to be compliant with state law. And based on community interest, this did come up last summer and was um actually agendaized by the city council to begin that conversation. So on November 5th, um city council held a study session to discuss what do we currently have in our ordinance? So what are our rules currently? also to learn more about what those u recent state law changes were to AB 2782 and SB610. And at that meeting um staff provided all the requirements that were currently under chapter 9.82 which pertains to the closure and conversion process for mobile home

parks. On December 3rd, a city council meeting was held again a study session and that one specifically was entail um entailed getting policy direction on revisions to our existing ordinance and based on that direction staff has worked with the city attorney's office to develop a draft update to chapter 9.82 which was published in March and provided to both the mobile home owner representatives as well as the mobile home park owner representatives. both parties reviewed the proposed ordinance and has provided comments which were attached to your staff report. Since it's been a few months, I am going to um give a little bit um of a refresher on what the state law states that and those specific changes that were made to comply. Then an overview of the policy direction that was received and the changes that were then prop um proposed in the ordinance that is attached to your staff report. So I'll also highlight some of the policy questions that were raised during the discussion for our continued discussion tonight. So looking at AB 2782. So in 2020 the state legislature adopted this um law and it's intended to revise the minimum standard for mobile home conversions that are within our government code. So, the state law um as of 2020 requires that the applicant um to compensate a mobile home occupant for the full in value of the mobile home based on an appraisal if the displaced occupant cannot be relocated to another park. Before AB 2782 and under our municipal code, the relocation assistance could not exceed the cost of the relocation. Um the state law also requires that the city is to make finding that the

proposed con or whether the proposed conversion will or will not reduce housing opportunities for low and moderate income households in the jurisdiction before approving an application. And the applicant is required to provide a copy of the impact report to the owners or occupants at least 60 days before a public hearing rather than the 15 days that are in our current code. under a SB 610. This was adopted in October of 2025 and this bill contains specific provisions for the mobile home park owner that are responsible what they are responsible for in the event of a disaster. So, um, by this law, they are going to be required that the impact report required for a conversion or a closure would include a technical service inspection report from HCD. That's going to identify and the observed conditions within the park after that disaster. And that the mobile home park owner is not required to pay to the displaced resident the in place market value of the displaced resident's mobile home. So the changes that are being proposed in the municipal code that you'll see on this slide reference I highlighting in the code the specific section of the municipal code where the edits can be found in this presentation. So chapter 9.82 82 of the municipal code is what we use to establish the rules and processes required when the property owner proposes to close or convert an existing mobile home park to a different use or just to close. The city council adopted this chapter because the conversion or closure of mobile home parks can have an adverse effect on residents. Some of that might be because of the high cost of relocation or the difficulty of finding similar or

affordable replacement housing um or even comparable multiple home park spaces. The chapter is intended to mitigate these adverse impacts um in accordance with state law and at the discretion of city council. So our current ordinance dates from 2004. So to comply with 20 um AB 2782, the city made these specific changes. So we amended the code to require the report to contain an in place value that each mobile home would have if the park were not being closed and that the value would be determined by a state certified appraiser chosen by the city at the cost of the applicant and that this will not be required in the instance of a disaster. required a technical report from HCD in the instance of a disaster. Updated the notice requirement and disclosure provision to reflect the required 60 days. Required the city council to make a finding as to whether that conversion will result in a shortage of affordable housing and required the applicant to pay the inplace market value of any displaced resident's mobile home. it cannot be relocated which again will not be required in the instance of a closure due to a disaster. So now I'm going to talk a little bit more about the specific policy direction. So those were the changes that we made under state law. We had conversations at that last meeting about policy direction. And what I have done in the slides that you see before you is where it is bold and underline that is the law, the state law. Where it is bold and italics those were policy directions that we had received um at the council meeting in December. So the things other items are things that we're already doing um under the

current code. So as a reminder to close or convert a mobile home park, there are going to be a few steps in the application and review process. The first is that any person applying to change that use um close or cease operations for a mobile home park must file the relocation impact report. The city will select an independent consultant to prepare this report at the cost of the applicant and it could include additional um subconsultants including that state certified appraiser as well as the housing relocation specialist. The report must provide detailed information on the park, its residents, including the occupancy, um, and then also the proposed new use, list of comparable mobile home parks within Sonoma County, and again, we'll talk more about comparable parks on another slide because that was one of the points for future discussion. The report must also estimate the full cost of relocating that mobile home. It must also estimate the in place fair market value of any mobile home that cannot be reasonably relocated to another comparable park. A relocation plan is to be prepared that proposes measures to mitigate adverse impacts and this is with the assistance of that relocation housing specialist that was identified. the park owner must provide a free copy of the report and a copy of our municipal code to all residents 60 days before the public hearing and that furthermore new prospective residents must be notified if a conversion application has been filed. So again in looking at the slide in front of you, those items that were identified that we discussed for policy direction um are about um whether or not um the proposed new

use would be required as part of an application. Um in the in the actual code, we're saying if applicable. If there is a new use, then we would see that new use as part of the project as a whole. Um the comparable mobile home parks again I'll talk about that in another slide. A questionnaire must be circulated to all residents um with the to collect the information on the residents. That's something that we added. And then that the again the the assistance of a relocation housing specialist. So to move forward with that, the city council will hold a public hearing on that report and the conversion application. In order to approve that conversion closure or the sessation of use, the council must make specific written findings based on the evidence presented regarding any specific factors and any other they deem appropriate. And these include um as listed that the relocation impact report provides all the required information by state law and our city code that there are available mobile home lots within Sonoma County to accommodate um the displaced mobile homes at the time of conversion. Options are provided to residents disrupted by conversion. The city council must also find that the relocation plan provides for reasonable costs of relocation. that the proposed conversion will not harm public health, safety, and general welfare. And um if the proposed the conversion proposed is to another residential use, that there are opportunities for the residents to purchase or rent these new units and if displaced um would be unreasonably long time. And then lastly, whether that conversion or closure will contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities to low and moderate income households.

If the city council cannot make the required findings or impose sufficient mitigation measures to address any impacts, it must deny the application. In regards to the relocation assistance, think of this as those measures that are put into place to mitigate the impacts um on our the residents. If the application is approved, the city council may impose reasonable conditions on the applicant to mitigate the impacts of the relocation. This is going to be documented in the replacement and relocation plan. Um, and it'll adequately mit that is intended to adequately mitigate the impact upon the ability of our displaced residents of the mobile home park to be converted or closed and this allows them to find adequate housing. These conditions may include relocation assistance and or payment of the cost of physically moving that mobile home or for tenants the cost of moving to a new home up to 50 miles. Payment of a lump sum to cover um the first and last month's rent and security deposit for at a new park or replacement housing. the payment of a lump sum to compensate for the difference between the old parts rent and a new part. Um replacement housing rent um during that first year of the new teny. The in place fair market value if the home cannot be relocated and um if the park is converted or setting aside affordable units for displaced residents. additional rent subsidy to lower inome households and residents with disabilities for up to 36 months. And then the residents and applicants may also participate and agree to mutually satis satisfactory conditions.

Again, the same treatment is done to the text. Those that are in bold and italics were those that are based on direction that was received. We had conversation around um what could um these relocation assistance options look like specifically for um low income or lower income households and disabled residents. And so these are an option that is put out there for the an additional rent subsidy. The amount of time that is in here is obviously one of those items that is for discussion. Um and then the first and last month's rent at replacement housing and then rent differential. Um we're also part of what was discussed about um providing assistance for tenants. So the re other part of the relocation assistance that was added based on policy direction is that any payments that are made would be made within 90 days and then also that there be an exemption to that relocation assistance that can be requested. Um, there is a new section in the code that does allow for additional documentation to be provided that would show that there's a financial hardship or that it's not economically feasible um or would eliminate any substantially or all reasonable use of their economic value. One of the requests was what does a timeline look like um for a project to submit and some of those um notifications. Um other policy direction that we received during the conversations in December was to add a notice of intent. And so the proposed notice of intent has

that 30 days prior to the application that the um residents um will be given notice and then that proof of notice is going to be provided with their initial application to the community development director. That was the other direction that was received. Um with that review um there's no change in the timeline as far as when we receive and when we need to hire a consultant which would be within 90 days. Um the additional um direction was that we would do a questionnaire that would be circulated to residents to gather that personal information and then that would be within 30 days um of that consultant selection so that we can keep this moving forward on the timeline. Um once the relocation impact report was completed, um staff would do their review and then um set a hearing with the hearing. Um again, we have a state law requiring that 60 days prior to hearing or at least 60 days that the applicant is going to provide that final um impact report um to all the residents and homeowners. The additional direction that we had received was that the applicant would hold a community meeting at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Um, as far as processing, and we added a little bit more in the processing was that we were going the city's going to send a public notice 20 days before the hearing. Um the applicant would submit proof of service of um of them providing the RIIR to um the residents and homeowner 7 days and then a hearing would be held by city council. After hearing that again was per

direction was that a written agreement would be recorded um within 30 days of approval of a conversion or closure permit. also that the re that we talked about a minute ago was that the relocation payment would be paid within 90 days. Also um was recommended that we add the expiration which is consistent with our development projects is that the expiration is two years from the approval date with one extension for one year. discussion points. In your packets, there is uh some information around comparable mobile home parks and it um gave a definition that was in our current zoning code as well as the definition that was provided in the example from the Tri Park Committee's attorney. Um, and in looking at that, the big difference is one that they added Napa County, but then they also asked to include the Cal Enviral screen and disadvantaged communities map. And by doing that, you would um take away some of the ability of these other parks as potential relocation areas. So, I did look at Santa Rosa as an example um and that was provided in that report. And this shows you what a Calenv envirro screen map looks like. I high um boxed in in red that green color that is the city of Soma's uh mobile home parks are within that 20 to 30 uh green color. Um so not the darkest green but in not the lightest green but right in the edge. Um so there are parks um in Santa Rosa that are in the green or in even a greener area. And then there's a number of parks um that you see especially

around south highway 101 like or south of highway 12 on 101 that are in orange yellow areas. So our recommendation is to not change the existing de um definition but again it's up to um your discussion tonight. We also received um public comments again both from um the attorney representing the Tri Park Committee as well as the attorney for mobile home park owners. Um in conversation with the city attorney's office, there are three items that we do recommend going ahead and making edits um to the ordinance. And so I'm going to talk to those here. So the first is in regards to the text that says shall not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation. This was removed from state law with AB2782 and um this was an oversight. We did intend to remove that and so we are recommending to remove that and that's the text change that you would see in 9.82.065. In addition, um the comment there was a comment in regarding clarifying the role of chapter 9.82 and the subdivision map act. And so this again is a change that we are proposing. And the language that you see here in red and underline is being proposed to be added to section 9.820, which is the applicability section. and it just states that for a subdivision that is created from the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership um to be very specific and that's in accordance with the law. And then um another um comment came up around our questionnaire and confidentiality

um and the rights of park owners ability to access these questionnaires as they pro um potentially impose financial obligation. Um and staff does agree that the park owners are entitled to access the questionnaires. Um staff and the city attorney plan to amend the language which would then provide the ability for staff to create rules and regulations in order to manage that confidentiality. The intent being that uh to allow access for mobile home park owners but ensuring that third parties aren't getting access to people's private information. So, with that, this concludes um staff's presentation tonight. A lot shorter than the last one. Um but we um look forward to more conversation and questions and again our city attorney is um on Zoom and the intent is to take that direction from you all tonight and um based on that direction either we'll have another study session or we'll go ahead and introduce an ordinance. Very good. Thank you. So, I'll bring it back to the dis and ask if any of my fellow members have questions for staff.

I have lots of questions and discussion points. So, I'm trying to decide in this process the best points to do that because there's a number of items I want to bring up that haven't showed up as actual changes yet. So, uh, just want to see how we want to do that. Do we want to do that under discussion or do you want me to kind of lay those out now and then we would have them later in discussion? I'll let the mayor decide. I I might suggest that we go ahead and stick to questions. then we'll have the benefit of the public's input and then that might enrich your discussions maybe at the end and then I can make my dis suggestions. Okay.

Yeah. If you have questions maybe specific to what I've presented so far and then if other things come up and then we can have more discussion around that. It's up to you. I'm fine doing as long as Yeah. Oh, you will have plenty of opportunity. Okay, great. Thank you. So, you're gonna start it. You go ahead.

Well, so one of the things that came up was the natural disaster exemption and you made specific reference to um couple of items here. Not if the result is by disaster. So if it is a disaster that has occurred that is triggering a closure or the end of that use as a mobile home park, the state law is written and then that per SB 610, they did make those changes um probably because of that last fire that we just had down in LA area. Um that the there was two things. One is that HCD is going to come around because they're responsible for the actual homes themselves. Um so they're going to do um an observation apparently and they're going to have an inspection report that is going to be required and so we're supposed to receive that with that um relocation impact report and what's gets seen by you all for the closure. The other thing it says is that the mobile home park owner is not required to play to pay for a displaced resident for that in place market value of that mobile home. It's very specific um to that. There is a section I don't there's nothing in the state law that says that you're completely exempt from a closure process as a whole. It actually specifically states um that the whole section which is 65863.7K. It states that the whole section still applies except for the payment of the mobile home which is included in the text. Um so it's very specific in there that it it's this whole chapter still applies except for that one section that talks about payment.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I have a follow-up question to that. Um, in regards to what is the definition of a disaster and should the should should the definition does it include that that is actually uh been declared a natural disaster or health disaster or you know

yeah it has it has to be a declared um disaster from the either the president of the United States or the governor. It's the definition of disaster under the civil civil code 798.56 which does require it to be a declared emergency related to riot, insurrection, you know, natural disaster, flood, fire, etc. Yeah. And then it's just helpful, I think, if we include that language in there that, you know, and referencing that that code. So, I know this is more in the discussion stage. So, that's my question. So that's going to be one of the things I'll break.

So the entire code references this state law around the mobile home park. That mobile home park ordinance then referenced the civil code because this is a different codes that apply. So just say we'll get and we just followed the we just followed with the state lawsuit. I get that. I'll come back when we're in the discussion period. Is it possible to increase the volume of Mr. Ruben?

No, go ahead. Jack uh my question is regarding an exemption for financial hardship uh among the home the owner and in the detail or any objective you know the standard how to assess the hardship. So in the ordinance itself, just a second long packet 9.82.070. So, if you're looking at I don't know what page of the whole packet, but it's a lot of red if you're in color.

Page 68 of the entire packet. Page 15 is the of the red one. Thank you. Page 15 if you're just looking at the the one document. And David, can you say what page of the entire packet? 68. 68. Well, it's okay. It starts on 67, but the bulk of it on 68,

right? So, to justify the basis of the request of the exemption from relocation assistance, the applicant shall provide the following information. So, it's asking for profit profit and loss statements that are audited. It's asking for a statement under penalty of perjury by a contractor in regards to repairs and improvements necessary um to maintain the park. Um and then again with that audit um itemized list and a statement again that's audited by an accountant on the necessary increase to the rental rates um in order to make those repairs. And then um within the next five years, the estimated total cost of the relocation assistance, a comparison by an appraiser um on those estimated values if they were to continue as a mobile home park and if they were developing according to the proposed conversion of that park and then any other um information that is pertinent. I I look at these I couldn't see any specific or objectives from the numbers or uh any standard except in the standard for example didn't mentioned uh any disposable income because each in the family you have the income you have a social security income you have and retirement on a pension But also you had you needed to pay land rent you need to pay the food. How to you know assess these kind of

so number three okay is the total cost of the relocation assistance. So you're still going to prepare. So the questionnaire is still going to be created and that questionnaire is going to get the information from the homeowners as well as the residents. that information is collected and then it turns into numbers right like you were talking about and that's what feeds into that relocation plan that is the item number three on this list so all right thank you

and we have to every application is going to be analyzed based on the particular facts and circumstances related to that particular park so we can't provide you know a blanket a statement that if your, you know, cost can't cover 50% of your expenses, therefore you meet the relocation, uh, exemption. Um, so we we've we've drafted it in a way that allows for the council to um in consultation with the experts that would be um engaged the relocation um assistance and those other folks to to kind of make that decision and to help the council walk through those decision points.

All right. Yeah. Later on I will uh keep in the discussing this point. Thank you. Um, is there a definition of comparable housing or comparable mobile home park? Is there a definition as what that means? On page three of the 9.82.015, lot less red. page two of the ordinance drafted B I believe.

Yes, it's page three, but it starts on page two. So, then you'll have comparable housing, which is we didn't modify um from too much um from the original. We just added instead of floor area, we modified it to size and then added the word amenities. And then again, the comparable um mobile home park is um a mobile home park within Sonoma County and then substantially equal in terms of park amenities, rent, and proximity to services. Thank you. I'm sorry I missed that. It's okay. It's not in red. So it's not as it's not in red.

Yeah. So So then I'll ask this as a question now and then we can put it in discussion. So because for those two I can we add it's in the form of a question using my Jeopardy language. Now that's a form of an answer. Okay here. So comply can we add comply with current state law the housing crisis act and uniform re reallocation act as updated from time to time so that when there's updates from the state law we don't have to come back and reapprove the ordinance and also add language to both. Can we add language to both that that on the second part that those comparable park and housing be decent, safe, sanitary and locations? And I understand what we saw about the whole thing about exposed to environmental conditions. And I realize that there's all of these things that we are referring to. But I think it's just really helpful especially for the mobile home park uh the mobile home owners that this language is there because what has happened in other places and maybe it wouldn't happen here because we're doing this deep dive but things happen in a way where things move ahead and the the mobile home owners are not aware of what their right other rights are. So I think in bringing some of this language into our ordinance really supports that.

So we'll go into your list of things in just a second. I'm going to get I think two of them and you may have three. The first one is the law doesn't actually define comparable housing or comparable mobile home park. There is no definition in the law. Um I went back through it. There is no definitions period. Um there are definitions that are referenced like disaster is referenced in civil code this is that is what that is. So as far as a the definition of this is this that does not exist. Um, in a lot of cases throughout this ordinance, working with the attorney's office, we added language and pulling it from the state law and added it. We're applicable within our language. Um, so some of the edits that you see is because we're adding their words or in the case that we recognized taking out the words that they took out. And so we do want to make sure that you are aware of that there are no definitions for those words. And so referencing something like that is it doesn't lend itself in that way to to go look you wouldn't find a definition is what I'm trying to say. The other is the Housing Crisis Act only applies to development projects. They are not connected to a an actual closure. That's a completely different process. The housing crisis act is something that we have to comply with with any development project that is a residential development project. So if there's you know if that's not occurring then housing crisis act doesn't apply.

But I don't think what I was asking for was a definition because we don't know in the future if there will be better definitions that are applied by state law. What I'm asking for is that within this section we say that we would be complying clearly with state current because I think this is a really key issue of comparable housing. Um anyway, so we can get into it with the discussion. So I'm not asking for a list of defining. I'm asking for that complant and then I will review my notes on the crisising act the house housing crisis act and get back to you when we get into discussion. it. Anyway, then the the second the the language to both decent, safe, and sanitary is something I think that is, you know,

I think and Jennifer, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but we looked at including that decent, safe, and sanitary language, which is which comes from um the the housing um crisis. Yeah. And instead we just left it with excuse me a reference to the uniform housing code. Yeah.

It's also in the uniform housing code is where where is where that language is as well. That's where that language comes from. And so rather than take out specific words from a code, it's it seems easier to just reference that code. That way if that code is changed, we don't need to change the the ordinance. Yeah, this is getting a discussion. I think it's easier for lawyers. I don't think it's easier for homeowners or residents of a of a of a mobile home park. So, and so one of the things that that I do want to say before I say anything else or ask any other questions is there's been an amazing work done here by the staff. This is really really good. This is we have a very good ordinance as it is now. And what we're really trying to do is close some potential loopholes to make sure that those loopholes cannot be, you know, utilized. So going forward, thank you.

Okay, I've got a a few questions. I need a little bit of education. uh could you help me understand calviral screen and disadvantaged communities when you were sharing that and your recommendation is not to change the existing definition which is fine. I just I need some help in understanding what that is. So the state has it puts out this Kalen virro screen and the disadvantaged um communities um mapping and specifically to Kalen Varro screen um there are certain provisions in in laws um that are going to reference this um and and it sometimes it pertains to housing placement um sometimes it pertains to like environmental justice requirements ments under our general plan. And other times it's for, you know, in the disadvantaged communities being eligible for funding. Um that will help with any kind of environmental impacts of that area that are impacting um quality of life, their health, um other things like that. But in this application where it it appears that we're trying to identify if there are other available locations, is this a case where the law is saying you you you cannot relocate individuals from a park that has ceased or closed to another park that has greater environmental conditions or concerns or limitations. That's what the um proposed ordinance was um included. It did include to say if the mobile home park that's in Sonoma, as I noted, was in the 20s for both all of our parks.

Um so anything that was above, so 25 and above. Um so anything in that light green up to red um if that mobile home park was located in there they would not be a a park that would be eligible to relocate too. So the idea is the idea behind it it is to be similar in that sense. It's it's providing another level of similarity to our mobile home parks.

Okay. Thank you. Um in terms of the findings, I was am a little bit perplexed on one of the needs and that is um it talks about the um it would the closure would contribute to the shortage of housing opportunities. And I'm just thinking the dots aren't connecting for me. We're closing housing opportunities and then the finding that we have to make is whether or not it's contributing to the shortage of housing opportunities. I I don't know how one would not make that finding. So why are we doing this?

Because the state told us we had to. I don't like

I know. I know you wanted me to say that. Um that's why it's the whether it will or will not. So let's say that the let's say there is a project proposed with this closure and they are proposing affordable units that are comparable to um or replacement housing that is comparable to what is being taken out and it's being offered as available. So then in that case we're not contributing to that shortage right by the project itself that's being proposed. But in most cases, like you said, if it's just this a sheer closure, unless there's some other project we didn't plan on that's getting done the same year.

The next question I have is if a mobile home park closes, does that closure have impact on the current housing cycles arena number? And if so, what it is it what is it? So it doesn't have So the way that the Rena numbers are calculated are about our um new units. Yes.

So when a new unit gets a building permit, it it adds it up and so when you when we submit our report every year, that number is getting reported. What also is getting reported is with that new unit if something was demolished to create that unit. And that is in another column on that lovely spreadsheet. Um what doesn't get reported is just outright demolition. Does it impact numbers? Um I would have to look a little deeper. Let's say that our park was a deed restricted affordable housing you units within it. those would get reported because there's another table that does report loss of actual restricted housing or protected housing.

Okay. Then um can I make a quick question after that? Oh, sure. As long as you keep it in a question. Would that potentially it could potentially affect future reena number once you're out of the current period. It would currently it would affect future

so the place that it's going to be seen is in the finance department survey that comes out that we do report um unit loss and there is a one for mobile homes that we would report that on that report not the reena so different um and so does that play into research and HCD paying attention yes does that um affect reena allocation maybe. So remember, RENA allocation is a bigger concept. Um I'm curious to see how it rolls out in this cycle to be honest. What happens is the state gives a number of this many units to our entire region aback region the entire Bay Area and then they divide they decide how it's going to divide up and then we further talk more about how we're going to divide up um and or if we're going to go together. Napa went together and they as a community as a whole county and figured out how they were going to allocate individually. Um obviously Napa County took the majority and within city of Napa that was an agreement that was made over there. Um so there's not this one forone consideration when reena allocations roll out. It is a mathematical nonunderstood calculation.

Okay. Thank you for that. Do we have any more questions up here? And I'm seeing none at this point. So, uh, this will be the opportunity for the public to come forward. However, before you rush into that long line, how many people are would like to speak this evening?

Uh, this is America. We do want you to speak. Uh, I would simply request a couple things. be respectful of time. Repetition doesn't necessarily endear us or make us feel stronger one way or the other. Um but at the same time uh I welcome everybody if there is a desire, a quiet expression to uh have the audience support an uh a statement that's made at the microphone. A simple wave of the hand will be fine. No groans, no cheers, no clapping, just some sort of expression that it would be recognized I think would be appropriate. So, uh, with that instruction again, uh, please come, uh, make your line, come up to the das, please state your name and, uh, talk slow because we're taking notes. Good evening, mayor, council, staff, and a special welcome to Miss Alivovich, our interim city manager. Bonnie Joy Klan, homeowner, Dianzamoon Valley community. I want to thank you and we all want to thank you for your continued time and efforts with this ordinance update. We appreciate having the extension from the previous March 30th date. This project is extremely complex and we all need adequate time to understand it. We also appreciate your effort to do a third study session if needed depending on tonight's proceedings. Behind me are many of my neighbors and our supporters. As you know, our communities comprise a significant portion of affordable housing in the city. I want to emphasize also that each of the three parks is a

unique community including its ownership structure. Danszamoon Valley community is now an all-age park converted from a 55 plus park in 2010. It is a corporation owned by the Gelfan family whose homeowners are workingclass families and seniors. PBlo Serena is partly owned by the family that built it and partly by a corporation. It is a senior park. Soma Oaks is a half is half market rate rentals, the result of a conversion in 2009. The remaining 50 privatelyowned homes are still under the city's RSO. I mentioned these distinctions because it's one of the reasons we need to consider all of the customized amendments to the basic state bill AB278. These amendments take into consideration the distinct ownership situation of the three parks. The risk potential for the future forclosure and conversion varies with each park's identity. The Tri Park Committee has concluded this concern in its analysis. The protections must be all-incclusive, no loopholes. Thank you. And may we ask that you all

Thank you very much. Good evening, um, council mayor and council members and staff. My name is Lyn Marie De Vincent. Um, the tripart committee would like to use some of our time tonight to bring insights into each of the five items that we have identified as the five fixes. Um, I'm going to be talking about loophole number three, which is actually more of a gap than a loophole. The current draft ordinance provides for a concurrent review of a conversion application. It aligns with state law and can prevent homeowners from being displaced if redevelopment is delayed or never materializes. However, this requirement can be circumvented. A standalone closure application can be submitted that does not identify a proposed future use. This gap has been exploited in neighboring Sonoma County jurisdictions. What is needed to close this gap is an additional finding and certification requirement for situations in which a park owner seeks closure without identifying a new use for the property. The park owner would be required to certify the closure is not being pursued to avoid the conversion requirements. They would be required to provide evidence that their request is absolutely necessary for circumstances beyond their control. This is a balanced approach. It preserves the ordinance's procedural protections, but also allows for exceptions in limited circumstances when supported by evidence. So, we respectfully request that you direct staff to close this gap and using Mr. Constantine's letter to identify the

specific text that needs to be changed. Thank you. Um, I have two short questions that are outside of the purview of what has uh been presented. Um the first one is and this is hypothetical. If the closure of the parks for the seniors causes or creates great hardship financial, emotional, physical on the uh senior citizens. Could this be construed or considered elder abuse? And if so, is the um park owner subject to class action? Okay. The second one, my second question is, is there any sort of uh conflict of interest with the city, state, and county in terms of great financial gain by putting up milliondoll condos on these properties? If that's the case, both of these issues should be investigated.

Thank you, Regina. You should tell them your name, Regina Baker. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. How are you doing? Hardworking county workers here. And hello my fellow senior citizens who have a mobile home. I'm Patrice Schmidt. 20 years ago, we have a whole different crew up here, but 20 years ago, I knew all the members and they were for fighting for us. And boy, did they fight for us. I need to know that you will be fighting for us. us who are on rent control, social security, and senior citizens. If we're relocated, are you going to relocate us to another rent control? And if that is taken away, what happens to that rent control? Do you allocate it to another part of the city or is it taken away from you? each district and city and county is regulated to have a certain amount of uh low housing. Is it taken away and put somewhere else in the city or is it taken away from you completely? because we had a hundred homes. Thompson Property bought up and the one before them, the corporation bought up almost onethird to 40% of the houses, pulled them out, put a new one in, 3,000 is the rent. So, ours is rent control. So, did that those 50 homes that were rent control, what did you do with that? Where does that go? Do you allocate it somewhere else or do they take it away from you? Um, and excuse me, I'm sorry. I'm I came late to the party. Um, Jennifer, what do you do? Are you a lawyer for us,

for the city? I I I think it's best to direct your comments here if you don't mind. That's uh So, any more questions? Um, you've raised questions which we won't necessarily be able to answer at this point in time. we've noted them and there certainly will be some discussion following. Thank you. And I just wanted to thank her that you can do and um ditto what she said.

Good evening. Thank you distinguished mayor and council members. I'm Mary Sterns. I live at Pueblo Serenia. The draft ordinance we thank you for your hard work. It shows that you intend to protect mobile home park owners should there be a conversion or a closure. And you recognize that these parks afford uh provide affordable housing with a diverse population including families and seniors. I'm here to to briefly discuss three technical fixes. I think you fixed the first one which our attorney was concerned about that you make sure that this new ordinance applies to mobile home park conversions that require a subdivision map approval. I believe that was a change in red that was discussed. So I'm glad for that. Number two, the second definition that we would like to be clarified is the comparable mobile homes and comparable housing. We had some discussion with that the language um that was discussed about decent, safe and sanitary and located in an area not subject to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions comes directly from CFR 24.2A1 through 8 and it it was a list of of those things discussing comparable housing. So I think that's we would like those that wording to be included in the new ordinance and it can be referred the CFR can be referred to but we if we are to be displaced due to disclosure or conversion we shouldn't be made to move to something inferior unsafe or in a worse location. And so that's why that decent safe sanitary located in an area

um needs to happen. And the last one is the definition of um closure, which we would just ask you follow Will Constantine's memo that says uh you should add closure includes all closures referred to by closure contained in government code section 65863.7 as intended by that section and interpreted by the courts. Thank you very much. Mayor, City Council, and staff. My name is Jod Johnson and I'm a mobile park resident and the volunteer vice president of GSMOL, advocating for mobile park residents in 13 counties in my zone. I know firsthand about closure threats, closure loopholes being used by bad actor mobile park owners as we are referred to as ground zero where I live. Paluma, Windsor, Santa Rosa, Katadi, Lake County, Alama County, Santa Paula, Galita, Fresno, Oceanside, and more are cities and counties that had not codified city closure conversion ordinances or closed loopholes to align with AB 2782, the state law that was legislated for years into law February 13th of 2020. It was because of that position on not proactively protecting mobile park residents at city level that assault on all of the above city and counties took on massive litigation in a defensive path to defend, strengthen, and enforce closure conversion after the loopholes were used by bad actors. Another relevant fact is that never did these cities see an issue because most were run by mom and pop owners. And on their minds, all was well. no need to strengthen and align state laws. This was the costly oversight both financially and mentally health-wise for the most vulnerable senior and families living in a mobile home they own.

Proactive approaches are always less costly than defending the intent of cities in the first place. Take Little Woods Mobile Home Park in Paluma. After an attempt from large investment group park owners to get another $1,530 a month in ground rent and then denied by an arbitrator, closure was weaponized against the residents. If the language in the city's closure did not state that the park owner seeking closion closure must state what the change of use would be, then park owners after the required relocation report and a yes vote from the city to allow closure could in fact own all the mobile homes after closure raise the ground rents to $2,500 a month and gain what they were denied in an arbitration. Cottifying mandated state law and closing loopholes is a far less costly approach to any city anywhere as it comes to mobile parks. The cities I mentioned were caught off guard simply because in their mind all was well before it wasn't. Please close the required loopholes, make the revisions mandatory and not discretionary. State mobile park conversions in the language. Cover all closure attempts of mobile parks and simply protect the vulnerable. One last thing is you state about the fact that you would allow the park owners to see the relocation report before it is actually produced to the city itself. That is not a law not not allowed under the state law because it is from a private consultant that does the relocation confidentially and then produces it to both the park residents and the park owners after the city gets a hold of it. Thank you very much. Good evening, council members. Um, my name is Dean Moser and I'm here representing the Agiri family, the

owners of the uh, mobile home park Pueblo Arena. U, Mr. Airi built that park along with the Heidi. The Heidi ran out of money when they were trying to build it, but Mr. Agiri came in and helped him finish it. So, we've owned that park since the early '7s. I've been uh somebody was here earlier saying that it's a different group from 20 years ago, but it's certainly a different group from 30 years ago. And u I've been involved in uh you know, the rent control ordinance all the way since 1991, 1992. Those were the big years for the rent control. Of course, then we've had changes. and I sat in your seat as a uh uh one of the non- voting members of the rent control board at the time. But the the bottom line, what I'm trying to say is that we've been here a long time. Okay? We're not going anywhere. We do not want to close our park and neither do the other two uh mobile home park owners. Okay? Um what I'm concerned about in particular with this ordinance is uh in case of a natural disaster. Now uh the mayor mentioned that there's a specific code section or national disaster is one that occurs when a governor or president or somebody um of high authority that way uh declares a natural disaster. But what happens if uh Pueblo Serena were to burn down? That's not a natural disa national natural disaster in that sense. Okay. But it's but it's bad. So we have a situation where if we look at that code section that you know the mayor indicated uh it's not going to happen. It's not going to be a natural disaster. So but it's a it's a disaster for Pereo Serena. That's gone. So when that if that were to happen, which you know

hopefully it doesn't, but we know what can happen v paradise or the tubs fire, that type of thing. If it were to happen, I have a loan. Okay? I have to pay property taxes. I have to, you know, uh do clean up the the park itself. You don't want, you know, all the ashes sitting there. and I have to clean up the toxic waste that doesn't come from me, but it comes from the mobile homes that uh were destroyed. So, what you're what you're asking me to do under this ordinance is to now move all the people. Okay? And and I and the code section said I didn't have to pay the fair market value of the home, but I have to move everybody to comparable places. Where are the comparable places? You've seen the map. There aren't any comparable places to put 127 spaces. So, you know, have to think about that. What What happens in that case? Natural disaster. I mean, they have insurance. I have insurance, right? My insurance will probably just cover my loan. So, it's a problem. And I and I'd like you to think a little bit more about that. this ordinance has changed um didn't change it just to upgrade it to state law. Okay. Uh we our attorney sent a letter to you folks uh in November that showed simple adjustments to bring this uh ordinance into compliance with state law. Okay. It was pretty simple. this ordinance, the changes that they've made to this ordinance now uh make it uh almost a taking. Okay. Nobody can close their park economically under the terms of this ordinance. And that's what you want. I know you don't want to have a change, but the city needs to think about it a little bit too. Is that in the best interest of

everybody in the city to preclude the possibility of maybe building apartment home apartments there? I mean, I have I have uh 15 acres. Think of how many units you could get low income or otherwise on 15 acres. Okay? I I don't want to do that. I mean, we're in the mobile home park business, but you have to think about what might happen. So consider those items when you look at this ordinance. This ordinance is too tough. Nobody could close if they wanted to. It's not economic. But in particular from my standpoint, think about a disaster. Not a codified one that we talked about, but a disaster where I don't have any income coming in and I still have to do the items I discussed. Thank you very much. Thank you, council. My name is Solo and I'm with WMA. Uh we're representing mobile home park owners in the city of Sonoma here today. Um I'm here to speak to the park owners concern about this closure ordinance. Thank you first of all for providing us the opportunity to participate in this process. Um you have received our official comments and they are part of your packet today. I ask that you please read those careful those comments very carefully if you have not yet done so. In these comments, the park owner's attorney highlight six specific issues that park owners have with this draft. I would like to touch on just two of them with the time that I have. First and foremost, like Dean just mentioned, the city does not provide an exemption in the event that the park is destroyed by a natural disaster or a fire. We provided exemption language to your staff and it is included in the redline version submitted by our attorney in November of last year included in your packet in exhibit one. Without this

exemption, this document makes rebuilding a park after a natural disaster natural disaster completely out of the question. It must be included. Secondly, park owners are being asked to pay relocation costs and subsidize future rent not only to the resident owners of these mobile homes but to all non-resident persons as well. Extended family members, longtime uh residents uh uh outside of the contract, caretakers, people who these mobile home park owners have no contract whatsoever with. In a more general sense, we see this ordinance as a needless assault on some of your city's own housing providers. It's a very one-sided. It's developed based on untested drafts of and ordinances from places that have never dealt with real world a real world park closure situation. None of them have. We have provided the city with a draft of what a simple ordinance change would look like based on the experiences of property owners and attorneys who have worked in the closure and the redevelopment of these parks. If you guys are looking for a skeleton of an ordinance to look at that has been tested in the past and park owners and that has gone through the process of a park closure, you can look at the city of San Jose. It's the biggest municipality in the state with the most parks in the entire state and they have an ordinance that has been well thought out and has been used effectively in a real world scenario. This will not do it. We respectfully ask that you direct your staff to consider the draft our attorney has sent you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is John Kyle. I just want to respond a little to the uh park owner statements. First of all, um in terms of the current o owners, we have no quibbles with them. They're running a great great operation. Um the problem is is that things change. things change is with the sale and there's no pre-notice of a sale and then all of a sudden you're faced you're faced with an entirely different situation an entirely different organization that's after uh maximizing their pro their profits and recouping all their expenses from the sale. That's what we're seeing throughout the county and that was our motivation for coming coming to you um to update our ordinance to take care of that. Uh second thing is is that I've looked at the their their letter and uh the law has evolved. They're they're using older standards that were in existence and uh what we're talking about is how the law has evolved and things like the Housing Crisis Act and the Uniform Relocation Act contain a lot of definitions that we want incorporated into our ordinance. Um that's exactly the kind the kind of uh changes that our attorney has outlined in his very expert uh memorandum about the few changes. With that said, we're very much in agreement with the direction that the city is going. That draft ordinance was a good good we we were listened to. Let's put it that way. Um but you're also getting some really really high class uh legal advice from our attorney. After all, he was one of the the basic uh forces behind 2782, which is what brought in all these changes. And uh what he's what he's saying is is that loopholes get

exploited. That's lawfare is the law is how things are run these days. And uh what what we're looking at is we're looking at this ordinance being pretty much airtight. And that's what those changes are about. Um, thank you very much. Thank you, John.

Good evening. Caitlyn Cornwall, Sonoma Valley Collaborative. Um, and as you know, I'm uh here doing my best to represent, um, not just mobile home park residents, but a really wide array of interests, um, your constituents, um, including the business community, the health community, um, nonprofits and schools that serve families, etc. So, it's been a longtime priority of Soma Valley Collaborative to not let a single unit of affordable housing in Sonoma go. Uh, and that's why we've invested a lot of time working with the residents on this policy. It's really important that um that we keep our mobile home parks. We cannot replace them. Um, not only most of those homes can't be moved, but if people have to leave those parks, they will be gone from our community. They can't afford anywhere else. Um, I think you know that and we are really happy actually to see the intent that is expressed in the draft ordinance. Um, it's it's great. Uh, but as John said, there are still some loopholes and they will be exploited. There's an industry that is making money on mobile home parks and there's a power imbalance and so it's really on you and the city to um to make an ordinance that will prevent loss loss of this housing and loss of these people. Um so uh two specific things. Um one on the whole issue of comparable housing. I think it's really difficult to have something objective to use uh to determine what is comparable and so we support the use of an objective set of indicators like Kalen virus screen. You could see from the map that if you did not use Kalen virus screen, you could easily be in a situation where people are being displaced from a really nice park like Publo Arena in Santa Rosa and being put in a trailer park along Todd Road on Highway 101 where there's a lot of noise and dust and people have asthma and that's why those places show up on Cowan virus screen. We should not be

displacing people from here to a park like that. Um, so, uh, something objective that can't be that that future versions of yourself don't have to be don't have to argue about would be a really good thing. Um, so a second point kind of along those lines. Um, we would ask you to in your discussion, this stuff is very arcane. It's easy to get something wrong. So, we think it's important that you express your intent to staff so that in the future, for the sake of future council members, future planning commission members, god forbid there's a lawsuit, when this meeting is brought back up to look at, it's really clear what you meant to have happen. That you did not want anyone displaced from Soma because they lived in a mobile home park. Um, that you want to be on the side of residents because they're important to our community. things like that, general statements like that that can give the city in the future a good leg to stand on. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor and council members. Uh I'm Kate Febe, a housing policy analyst at Legal Aid of Sonoma County. Uh and I want to start by just really thanking council and staff um for all of your work on this. Um, I know this is a really complex policy area and the stakes are incredibly high. Um, so thank you so much for for your work on this uh and and your efforts to really make sure we get it right. Right. To protect folks. Um, at Legal Aid, we provide free legal services uh to low-income and vulnerable residents throughout the county. Uh and like many of our sister legal aid organizations throughout the state, what we've seen in recent years is a really significant increase uh in issues that are related to mobile home park closures and threatened closures. Uh and the impacts of those are really severe uh on on some of our most vulnerable community members. Uh so unfortunately the crisis that we're seeing play out um referenced by some other folks in their comments you know in Paluma and Windsor and Santa Rosa uh Katad and Lake County at jurisdictions up and down the state um it shows what can happen when regulations uh are not well suited to kind of the makeup of this current mobile home park industry which doesn't look the same as it did 20 years ago. Um, so, uh, we see private equity companies and corporate entities use this threat of closure, uh, and bad faith closure applications to pres pressure residents into these steep rent increases. Uh, and ultimately to try and affect mass displacement from parks. Uh, and they're successful in doing this when an ordinance isn't crafted in a strong way to prevent this. Uh so I'd really urge you to add the recommended additional finding uh and certification requirement for any closure application

that is submitted without a proposed new use for a park. Um to uh say that there has to be evidence uh and documentation provided that really show that that closure without a proposed new use is necessary for um financial reasons beyond the park owner's control. Um, I won't go into kind of the specific language in there because I know you have it in writing, but I think that's really important to make sure that that's as strong as possible um to take away this like bad faith closure tactic that we see being used locally and all over the state. Um, and then in real time, if I have a few more seconds, I would just like to cover um kind of this question about um the the exemptions from providing relocation assistance. I think the language that's in there that does require park owners to open up their books, show profit and loss statements, etc. to demonstrate financial hardship still really loose. I think we see in a lot of other jurisdictions specific language that references bankruptcy and findings around bankruptcy being used as the standard. I think that undue financial hardship is very loose language that honestly could open up a a lot of potential for litigation against the jurisdiction if it tried to actually enforce uh that down the road. Um the other thing I do want to mention HCD's memo to the county of Alama which I know was provided to council in your packet specifically calls out um the way in which the housing crisis act does apply in the case of a redevelopment of a park. Um so just wanted to highlight that u memo again for your uh your reference and then on this point of disaster um you know respectfully uh you know this is something that has already been accounted for in the way the ordinance is drafted that carve out for the um the the removal of the obligation to pay the in place market value of homes under SB 610 that is state law that is there but to kind of

create this other exemption for disasters not linked to a declared state of emergency under SP610 but kind of a ambiguous you know more localized emergency opens up a world um in which we could argue that you know there was a small fire in a home in the park it needs to close there's a flood it needs to close right um and we that then are outside of this entire framework or the obligation to pro provide relocation assistance at all um I would let state law govern in this area and if there is a legitimate reason to close and an inability to actually provide relocation assistance, that exemption language that you already have in there about undue financial hardship or bankruptcy would cover you. Sorry for going over. Thank you.

Thank you. Is through the mayor. Is there any way possibly we could be in a normal temperature versus a refrigerator? I know we have a lot of seniors, my me included. We'll see if we can accommodate that. Okay.

All right. Um, so, wow, we looks like we might need another study session. Um, you know, council staff, all this talk of government code and statutes, I want to take a minute to tell you about the beautiful senior park that we live in, Pueblo Serena. We have a wonderful resident manager and a management company that treats us fairly. We have no quarrel with Pueblo Serena or HCA, founded by Hal Airi, uh, a mom and pop operator who built those parks. As Mr. Moser was saying we're he that company is represented tonight by Mr. Dean Moser who we haven't seen since uh he gave public testimony at the 2015 hearing for the rent control ordinance. So it's wonderful to see him. His uh he um he uh retirement seems to suit him. He looks so well. Um anyway, um we do have a trending problem with the investor class now offering big money um for the chance to squeeze the last nickel out of these communities even though the owners say they won't close. It never said they weren't going to sell because I mean big dollars are being offered um shopped around uh because mobile home parks are uh are just seen as great investments. But let me get back to living in a mobile home park. You know, it's a unique lifestyle. It takes time to understand what it means to own your home but rent the land. People who move in, they don't get it. We don't, you know, we move in, we this is great. And it really takes time to get an education. And that's why you see um uh people uh you know or people who uh start to look into the the laws you know homeowners who become more involved because we see that this unique

lifestyle um has um when you own your home but rent the land and um so interested buyers are now trying to exploit this arrangement. PBLO Serena is an over 55 community that al allows people to age in place and support each other through the realities of getting older. On my culde-sac alone, we have a Vietnam uh war medic awarded for his service with P PTSD who was found peace and friendship here. Uh we have um uh another neighbor had to send her husband of 60 years to Oregon for care and now travels back and forth handling everything on her own. But when she's home, she has community here. My own husband recovered from cancer and is now cancer free. We have a resident just today coming home from hospice and a bunch of neighbors uh have been walking the dog and and helping get the home ready for um for uh this man's last days with his family. Uh two women have lost their long-term partners in just the last couple of months. This is real life and here we're able to face it with dignity, with connection, and with a peace, a sense of peace and security. So that's what's happening in our Serene PBLO and what's at stake in Soma's all of Senior's mobile home parks. So I just wanted to say before I close that um we'd really love for you to come by and and visit us. You're always welcome. We have a pan pancake breakfast every Monday morning at 9:30 and we invite you to come and join us. We have pancakes, eggs, uh organic fruit salad, and other goodies. sometimes and um you know please come see us. We'd love to have noticed so we can invite more people to come and meet um our local electeds but um but please do come. So

thank you. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you very much for all of your comments and being respectful. I appreciate that. And at this point in time, seeing no movement to the podium, I'm going to close the public section and bring it back to the DAS for discussion, further um questions and hopefully some direction to staff. How many ounces is that water container?

This is a half a gallon. This is a goal. Obviously, I'm nowhere near. Okay. Okay. So, um, questions or comments right now from, uh,

how do you sleep at night? I would never sleep at night. Excuse me. Sorry, that's off the subject. So, I was just going to make so a general statement because I realize I think that probably we're going to end up needing another study session, but you know, so I'm going to really try to focus on the intent in intent my, you know, what I would like to see our intent to be. and a few key points. But I mean, I think that that first of all, I would like to say a few words to the mobile home park owners. I appreciate what you do and the business that you do and that you are providing affordable housing to our society and our community and it is very much respected and certainly you know the goals that you have of of not selling are wonderful. I think unfortunately you know what this is being framed in is in this the current industry and the practices that are happening where corporations and private equity are taking over mobile home parks. And so the ordinance is really written in the way to pre pre protect against f you know what could potentially happen in the future. And ideally you would never be in a position where you would have to deal with this ordinance. the goal is you would never have to be and and I recognize that we probably need some more discussion around the emergency you know what what really means that there's an emergency has happened or a disaster has happened so because you you know we live in a capitalist country uh I came out of the investment world so uh I recognize that it is important that people have land ownership and that they have rights in regards to land ownership so but there is that we're really seeing that change in the industry and we've been very strong in Sonoma and it's just time for us to really kind of up what

we're doing. I think the work we've done so far has been great. I do um believe that when if we were to see larger entities whether it's private equity or corporations come in they have the capacity they have big legal teams where they can go in and they can you know look for the loopholes. So I am really intent on that the that we are closing l loopholes and I think most of the loopholes really just go back to you know state law and just making sure that those are apparent. Um, I do think that that's important because I do think that this ordinance is a doc document for the mobile home owners to be able to utilize and that as much of that information that is there for them so that they do know their rights and really know that they're, you know, so that we're we're bringing some of that state law language, not all of it, but some of that into the ordinance. we're making sure that we're referring to those. Um, so I um I think also that I concur with the fact is that there is enough in the ordinance that if if there there is enough to protect the mobile home owners in case they were in, you know, dire financial situations, I would like to see that be bankruptcy. That would be my my goal. would that would be bankruptcy. That's when they can no longer run the the the the business. I mean, the reality too is the mobile home business is a stable, sustainable source of income for mobile home owners. And the reason why corporations and industries are looking at taking over mobile homes is because of that and that they have done performed better over the years in real

estate than many other forms of real estate. So it is a business that is providing good income to the mobile home park owners. So, um, when I look at a closure, I really think of, you know, the community, what would we do with, you know, that's like almost 8% of our population that lives in the mobile home parks and and certainly wouldn't be all of them would close at the same time, but even 2% of a population, say one were to close. Um that's a significant, you know, not only to the community, the mobile home community, but to the city. That's a significant loss of business um business revenue, tax revenue, property tax revenue, all of that is, you know, significant to us. And I don't, you know, we don't, you know, have the resources to take care of that large number of a community that is would be displaced. And so we have to do everything we can to really prevent there being any, you know, that closure and conversion is not the answer that we want to see happen. We want these communities to thrive and be healthy and continue to provide the sustainable income to mobile home uh park owners that it does that it does today. Um so um I'm just making sure I'm getting all my notes. I think the other side of it that I recognize, I'm very concerned about the current environment that we're in and especially when we're looking at health care issues, Medicare, Medicaid, other resources that we've been getting from the uh federal government that are being cut. And when I look at when I've gone into the mobile home communities and met people there, what you see is the community really provides a great

service to us as the city and that services they provide to their neighbors and friends in that community. And I think it would be very it's very they also help support by doing those services local non nonprofits that also are trying to provide that support too. So the commun communities themselves almost act like a community of you know neighbors being a nonprofit to support each other and help them with transportation on all the different things. So they're really gems in our you know in our city. there. You know, we have great neighborhoods, but it's it is different. It is different in the mobile home parks. Um, so and and so it's really important for me to is for that we have the protections around the potential scams to increase rents. And so really the idea that we want to make sure that the language is very clear in regards to that if there was a closure and conversion process at the that kind that at the same time we understand what the plans are for that property. That's really important so that nobody is surprised and all of a sudden it's like no, we're not going to or they, you know, they close it and then the property lays vacant and people have been displaced or they come back and raise rents, you know, because they, you know, say they now have the capability of doing it because they've avoided the due process. Um and then the last um and I as I brought up as you understand from the comparable housing and the mobile home park I will just say this u it's it's different when the language is a little bit it just we're just asking for a little more language to be in there not a lot more language but I on the comparables I would really like to see that language added in and I know that it's there underlined but I think it's is it's very helpful for people that

live there and I think it it it could be seen as a loophole. Um and then um yeah and so that I think that that is the last that I have to say but I'd also just want to of course thank everybody for all the work that they've done on this. I do think we may end up needing another session but because I would like to go into detail on many many many of these things but I realize other people have other things that they would like to say. Thank you. Jack thank you mayor.

Thank you everyone. Yeah this is very in a complicated situation. Yeah, we try our best and our goal is protect our residents from the this placement. Why we still allow our wonderful park owner uh they can and enjoy the property the right because this is capitalism. We have we choose this system. We have to accept whatever is good or bad. In North Korea, no this kind of issue happen. But here we have to I believe we have the wisdom, we have experience, we have community power. Gather together, get it done. uh park owner today and I mentioned and you never thought about want to close it do something else you know that is the very good you know the promise to our all community I so much appreciate it because sometimes not only really happen it's kind of expectation the worry concern and if you concern something and from morning to the night and you all got a sick. So that is the give the our community is a peace of the mind and the fears like kindness I so much appreciate and the as to the these kind of laws it's very complicated my idea is we should have been a compliance because we do have AB 2782 five years ago or yeah very recently we need an exact follow

and also AB6 and the 10 also we need a follow I'm not sure how in the Sonoma County has this in the mobile home ordinance or not or because geographically and the Sonoma County or we are in the Sonoma County maybe a lot of the terms and the words conditions we can apply to our and the city's ordinance Uh another thing is I the most thing I worried about that is the uh because so many the details for example at the beginning I mentioned about financial hardship how to you know the make the subsidize how to make and you know life easier. I look at the detail and owner and the park owner provide 30 to six month you know financial assistant to support from the owner side it's very generous. Yeah, this is good. But from the resident, from the home owner side, that is terrible. That is soal one time the lungs money and let them to become the homeless because I know some of the residents invest in the park the major income from the social security. Yeah. and also not very high $2,000 each month pay $1,000 for the rent and rest of them that is $1,000 buy the food and the daytoday and the utility but every time when these kind of the living cost increased social security also every year they increased based on

the cola but this kind of increase never catch up the price we purchase or we shopping in the lucky in the safe way. So that is the reality. So the my I have done a suggestion. So the when we prepare this kind of ordinance just like an agreement three parties agreement park owner and house owner and the city and we should find the more than common grounds to avoid any controversy. If there any controversy and we can look at state law and county and other cities in this area and also for this kind of the ordinance I want to suggest maybe we can set up the two tiers and uh you know the the the the standard first it's very objective certain day or for example 60 60 days is a deadline and second layer is kind of the little bit subjective and some the exemption some the consider some the hardship and we have some of favorable the policy so in this way and we can and meet in a different situation and the residents and where feel more comfortable Again, I really hope our community join us. Actually, they already join us. They push everybody involved. That is the best way. If we understand each other and if understand what's going on and

the transparency give us the more confidence and more comfort to do everything to meet the difficulties. That is my points. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I was under the impression we were going to try to help staff go back and fine-tune this ordinance. Um, and rather than pontificate up here, um, I would like to ask staff, how can we help you tonight? So after you if you want to continue making statements or if you have any questions, but if there's certain things that you want to touch on and have discussion around, that's basically how I'm treating the comments so far or points for discussion for the group. And so if there's other continued points to bring up, then we can have a group discussion around those questions or points that are being made. um that way that I have that direction to

go look at the San Jose or Sonoma County th those types of things and then I'll come back and we'll do the study session around what specifically I'm looking looking for and what additional information you're requesting.

Okay. And Mr. Mayor, I do apologize. I probably should have made that comment through the chair, but um as such I you mentioned the San Jose policy and and I made a note of that and I we may have already looked at that but maybe we haven't but I do think it would be worthwhile to to take a look at that and see if there's anything we can glean. Um so we talked about the intent and I think you mentioned that and I I think that's very important as well. You know, we all know the importance of housing, the fact that it's affordable, that it's here. Um, I do have a little different philosophy, I guess, is uh I'm relatively pro business and, uh, mobile home park owners are in the business of providing housing and and I think there's a wonderful relationship that takes place here with Mr. Moser. Um, somebody said these are profitable investments and I'm not sure Mr. Moser would agree with that. Um, he indicated 1.2% um, profit in last year. Um, from an investment standpoint that certainly strikes me as not a good investment. Um, but I having said that, you know, there's a lot more at play here than just finances. And uh, unfortunately, mobile home park owners have gotten into a a business that um, um, that may not be as profitable, but they certainly are sitting on assets that could be profitable for somebody else. And I understand that that's the fear and and that's where we now start looking at loopholes and and the protections that we can find um to ensure fairness for

everybody. And that's my intent is not to favor one side over the other, but you know, how do we make it fair and people can go home at night and sleep knowing that, you know, they're going to have a home tomorrow. Um so what is that going to take? uh you know there's we've heard all sides of this ordinance and and I think we're making progress. Um I do think another study session will definitely be in order but um again I do want to keep moving this forward. Um, and I have several things here that came up from residents that that certainly um sound interesting and uh I'm going to have to go back and study this even further um to really clarify in my mind those specific questions. And I'm not kicking the can down the road at all. Um but um you know there's a lot of good information that's been shared tonight and u we need to digest that and I don't think there's any there is no timeline urgency associated with completing this effort is there so um we want to do it right and uh in the best interest of everyone involved my comment sir thank My colleagues have expressed a number of things that I've been kicking around in my own mind for the the last week uh thinking about how we can truly create what I would call a winwinwin. And uh I know that's very optimistic, but it's recognized that there's a tremendous richness in this community

that the that the parks provide that the residents of the parks provide to Sonoma. And that certainly is something that drew me to Sonoma way back in 1985, the diversity and the and the mix. And I love that. Um I'm not a fan of kicking the can down the road. However, sometimes the can does need to be kicked down the road and this may indeed be a time where we do need to continue to uh do a little further refining and review. I support um John's, forgive the casualness. I support John's uh recommendation that we look up and provide the San Jose ordinance and see if its application is if there's some points there that are worth evaluating from uh the other perspective and I think that's uh would be worthy. I also believe there was noted about a case in um Alamita that may again be worth reviewing in a very selfish way. I'd love to create something where we lessen our chances of lawsuits or litigation and unfortunately we live in California and I think that uh that condition that we all fear to that end I also believe that we need to take some further look uh some further definition of disaster and I think in reality I'd like to think that one could identify a threshold of academic uh academic dollar impact, economic impact that would tip it into something that has indeed a real impact to an owner. And whether that is sanctioned or approved by the governor or the president, who knows? But the reality is that something could happen.

And I would like at least to put forth some effort to see if we can't broaden the term disaster that um I would say would be more equitable in terms of if something happens out of someone's control. Uh beyond that uh I would like uh to get some feedback from our legal uh attorney about uh a lot of efforts been put forth at least been discussed about the effort of closing loopholes. I would love to hear his perspective on how effective we been in this last iteration of of this uh ordinance this draft on uh closing the loopholes. I know that we've heard a number of people express concerns that loopholes remain. So I would love I'd love a little bit of feedback on that as I keep searching for additional comment. Does anybody else uh want to share at this time?

Yeah, I I mean I actually think that this ordinance is almost there. I mean I I I believe that there's that I don't think that the loopholes are the issues around them are that big. And I think that there's you know there's a few loopholes and we we resolved one clearly. So I think we have maybe four four or five loopholes left. Uh, I don't want I personally don't want staff to think that they need to go look at an ordinance and rewrite what we have already. I don't want that to be the direction that we're we're taking with this. I do we do we all agree on that.

And also right now, you know, can we get an let me let's let's stay on this point.

I I I Yes. I would say that that certainly would not be the intent, at least my intent of wanting to to take a look at the San Jose ordinance. But what I do believe there's value in it if that ordinance does shed a light from a different perspective that may want us to revisit something in our ordinance, not a rewrite. No, we're I agree. we're we're we've got something that's headed in a good direction, but again, I think that we need to be do our due diligence and if there's uh something that we have not considered that may be applicable to our unique situation, I think we should uh at least have that opportunity.

Yes. Comment. Um what I can do is basically do what I did with the matrix in the December meeting. Um where I did the outline of all the other ordinances we looked at and I could just do compared to what we are proposing um and against San Jose and then Sonoma County. Uh that sounds uh an effective way to to to present it. So I would support that. Is that uh assuage your fear? I I think it's like around the specific the changes that we've made in the proposal.

Yeah. Yeah. And not be not beyond that. and and you know I think it's important for us to be looking at um for me it's about and I love that people recognize you know speak to us as a council as if we're going to have power around these decisions forever but we won't and there will be different councils here and there will be different part mobile park home owners no matter how wonderful they are right now at some point in the future may continue to be the same family But you never know. You never know. I used to work with families and family wealth. So things can change very, you know, drastically in a very short period of time. So I'm always looking at that for the ordinance of that. It is not about just today. It's about how do we build an ordinance that that really does work long time is sustainable.

That is right.

Um I also along those lines I think that it would be valuable and I'm going to use the term emergency exemption. You might even call it local emergency exemption. Um I think it does make sense to provide some relief in an emergency and and of course you need to define that somewhat and I think we could um for these specific properties. Um but uh I think we do want to include something along those lines. Uh yes, every single effort right now we made and should be you know pay off for the future because I already look at if everything not with a lot of the flexibility not a cover or some loophole in the future we will have the legal challenges and in order to avoid this kind of the legal challenge you or got to minimize this kind of legal challenges. You know, we should do more homework and also it's easier for our the future of city council member carry out this very solid ordinance. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, this is David. Did you want me to comment on the closing of loopholes? I would welcome it. Can you guys see me just for my edification on the screen?

Okay. Um I'm not always entirely sure what is meant by closing loopholes. I think I have heard comments saying that there is a common tactic where park owners will um claim they're going to close the park if the um tenants don't agree to an increased rent. that situation shouldn't occur in Sonoma because we have a rent stabilization ordinance that limits the park owner's ability to raise rents. So, that loophole, if it ever existed, doesn't exist in in Soma. The other one that I've heard talked about is um a supposed loophole for a park owner that has a sounds like a covert plan to change the use of the mobile home park, but they are going to in not disclose that uh plan and instead just close the park with no purported plan to do anything in the future. and then at some later date um you know 5 years later then decide to change the use and then apply for a new development permits. Um to the extent that's a loophole, it's a it's a loophole that's in state law. Um, you know, I don't think that it would be that it's legally defensible to compel a park owner to have a completed uh plans for a a new project ready in order to apply for a closure. There are many legitimate business reasons why a park owner may want to close without having a plan for a future use. So, I would not recommend that we um that we require a park owner to have a planned future use

in order to close. What I think we could do to the extent it's helpful would be to require that the park owner um disclose or declare under penalty of perjury that they don't have a plan at this point for a future use. um if they're not coming forward with that permit, if they do have a plan, it's often in their best interest to come forward with and seek that permit simultaneously because of the ability to leverage in the impact report um the possibility of future units there uh to offset the relocation assistance that they would otherwise have to be paid. Um so there are economic incentives if they actually do have a plan um for future use to have that brought forward at the time that the closure comes. So that is a change we could make. We could require them. I think that was something that the tenants suggested. I don't know if we would go as far as as um everything that Mr. Constantine had suggested, but maybe a declaration would work. Um that would potentially close that loophole. Um, and other than that, I'm not if you have if there's any other specific loopholes that you're aware of that you heard about tonight, I can I can try to address those. While we may be thinking about those other loopholes, I would I'd like very briefly if you could if you feel comfortable commenting on the two unanswered questions at this point about the potential of elder abuse and or conflict of interest on the city's part. Would you be able to render any comment on that?

Um, I am not an elder uh law attorney. Uh, but I do believe there are specific elements that were required to constitute elder abuse. And it's it would seem to me be highly likely that um a closure application could constitute such abuse. it's a a legitimate business proposition, a permit that's being requested. Um, as for conflict of interests, um, the the revenue that a city or a county uh generates from the land use entitlement that exists on their um, property that those revenues aren't revenues that go to any particular public official. Those are revenues that go to the governmental entity itself. So there's no there is no conflict of interest because no individual public official has a personal financial interest in the general revenues that are generated by property tax revenues.

Great. Thank you. While David's on the line, anybody have any other questions specifically for Mr. Rutderman? Yeah. So, um the one on section um I guess I'll start uh 982.015B

uh page Oh, it's page three. It's the top of page three. Um A, I'm sorry, that's 9.82.015A. um at the top of that where it says uh request to add enclosure includes all types of closure by government code and then you don't have to write everything about the government code but adds that language and closure includes all types of closures. Um why would that not be a loophole that could be closed? Um and then in regard to so the first one you said you have to remind me again sorry. Um, I didn't follow the first argument you made about the first loophole. So that you answer this one first and then we'll go to the second one.

So the the one about the definition of closure. Yeah.

Um, so if this is in response to the tripart committee's letters, I I was actually a little bit confused about what they were going for here. Um our in our ordinance we define closure as a specific thing which is essentially when a park owner doesn't fill vacancies such that 75% only 75% of the spaces are occupied. And so it's kind of a de facto closure like they're doing it behind closed doors. And so our ordinance and this is this is the existing language. This was the existing language that we've that we have in there now. Okay.

Provides that if that happens that you have to come and get a a a closure approval because you've essentially you've de facto closed your closing your park and so you need to go through this process. Um so there's nothing in the state law that says anything about closure. We could certainly I don't think it would would harm the language to include a provision that says you know and as closure is otherwise defined from time to time you know in the future in the government code section

I don't think that would be a problem but I just didn't really understand what they were getting at there. I think that that would address that because that there could be changes in state law and that you would want that to still continue to cover that as those changes in state law would would happen. And so then the first the first the first loophole that you talked about just your argument for that one. Do you remember the the loophole about the um bringing a application for a new development at the same time as the closure? Well, there's that one, but that Well, that one we're going to have to have a long discussion about.

Oh, the first one was the um they say that the oftentimes the park owners will say, "Agree to this outrageous rent increase, otherwise I'm going to apply to close the park because I won't be able to afford it." And so, you actually think that the language that we have would protect that type that potential sham that could happen? Yes, we have our rent stabilization ordinance that governs and because of the rent and is there a way would it help? I'm wondering does it help by having the rent stabilization ordinance mentioned or referred to in this does that make a difference?

I don't think so. It's the it's the chapter that just prior to this one in the municipal code. Um okay. So, I'm gonna I want I'm going to look into that because I think that this one this is the loophole that is of the biggest concern. this this one and also the concurrent. I think I think this I mean I do think this is a real issue and I think it's something that some

you know some outofstate hedge fund park owners have done but they do it in a lot of there's a lot of small rural counties you know lake county where they don't have rent control at in their mobile home parks and so they can easily manipulate folks by by doing this and I'm sure legal aid has seen that um in places like men

we should I think it may be happening in the county here now and then we can come back and bring an example of how that is happening you know and it's without a you know when they don't have a rent control ordinance or just you know how they've been able to get around that I mean because this is a it's a matter of these future you know the direction the industry and this is not just happening here it's happening in California it's happening all over the country I mean this is why people are starting cooperatives to build to have mobile home parks on what rock USA is doing. There's organizations that are coming to to work on this so that the so that they can ensure that people that are in mobile home parks can maintain their home and their livelihood. So I think you know to me the l you know the loopholes if the loopholes provide further insurance and they're not loopholes that really harm the mobile home park owner in regards to their business capabilities. I think, you know, I think there are loopholes that we should basically make sure that we're closing up. But in regards to the planning, I recognize, you know, it's hard for me to imagine someone's going to close something without a plan of what they're going to do. It just doesn't make sense to me. You don't like own a business and decide you're going to close a business without a plan unless that business is no longer profitable and you're either going to go into bankruptcy or it's or you're going to have to shut down part of the business or something. Doesn't make sense to me that you wouldn't have a plan. So, I think you know that those two and I realize there's issues of how that planning and permitting process works with the timing of the closure process and all of that, but that just it just doesn't make sense to me that that you know, so if you can protect people because what it allows the mobile

park home owners is to understand what that plan is in relationship to negotiations around what they may need to do in regards to actually what kind of support that they may need to get from the mobile park home owners in regards to relocation or market values of the home. So, I think it may I think it's an important thing. It's it's just transparency to me. But that's I won't go on. I won't we won't have the legal argument here. I think we're going to need

I'll hone I'll hone mine. You hone yours. Hopefully, you won't hone yours as well as I hone mine. I mean the the idea here is that you yeah maybe there's a plan but the plan that the property owner has may not be a plan that requires a development permit from the city at the time right it may be to let you know maybe the plan is to hold the property vacant y and potentially increase its marketability that way. Yeah. But if we knew right and if we knew that then we may not approve the closure. That's Well, that they can afford to pay for all the relocation benefits.

I guess that's my question because right now what we're trying to do is we're trying to codify and make very clear that should there be a closure that there is a fair series of steps and compensation that will take place. And and to me the goal should be then focused on what is the fair steps and asurances that should something happen that there will be a level of protection and reimbursement and the assistance etc etc. Whether the home whether the park owner has a plan or not doesn't change the protection does it? I I don't see that. Well why don't we look at what we have to agree to for the findings.

Right. It's the findings that are going to that's what you would have to be focusing on. findings that are important and there would be if there's no plan and they close it and it stays vacant for five years. I think that there's findings that we can't meet. Let's go to the findings

and I think within can we replace that affordable housing and I think that that's one of the issues that we're dealing with is the the issue of we are in Soma and where actually where can relocation happen. Oh, let's go find Can you Oh, it's in this one. Sorry, I have 50 million pieces of paper here. David, walk us through it, please. The findings as the findings, sure. Um, the first one is that the relocation impact report is complete. Okay. Basically,

so that so whether or not there's a plan or not, that's not impacted, is it? Right. No. Okay. whether there will exist at the time of the conversion available mobile home lots within Sonoma County to accommodate the displaced mobile homes. So, it's just whether they're going to exist or not. It's not like that they have to exist. Um that options are available to adequately mitigate the impact on residents who would be displaced by the conversion. So this is where the relocation um assistance is going to be important because then they would be paying for that.

Mhm. Then the next is the relocation plan provides for reasonable cost of relocation based on the findings in the relocation impact report. Okay. Then the proposed conversion is to another residential Oh, if the proposed conversion to another residential use. So that's this one doesn't wouldn't apply because we wouldn't have that. But this one says if the proposed conversion was to another residential use, whether the residents of the mobile home park will have the right of first refusal to purchase if for sale or rent the new units and whether the construction schedule will result in an unreasonably long displacements. So that one wouldn't apply if there was no right if they're not going to do anything.

Yeah. And then the proposed conversion will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare. And then the last one is the new one, excuse me, excuse me, about whether um the overall housing availability within local jurisdiction is going to be um materially impacted,

which that is a finding that probably would be a finding that would be really hard for us to make. Well, this finding the state only requires us to find whether taking into consideration both the impact report and the overall housing availability within Soma. The conversion will result in or materially contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities and choices for low or moderate income households. So, it's just will it impact it or won't it impact it? It's not saying if it impacts it, we won't allow it. I understand the finding. We just have to make that finding that it's going to impact it. We don't have to and it probably will impact it especially if there's nothing say that we have to mitigate the findings if there are findings. Correct. Right. Right.

Yeah. So that would have to be mitigated and that would be a hard finding to mitigate. So that's the relocation plan part and the relocation assistance. Um that's where you're mitigating.

Yeah. So with all the information that's where that relocation plan is being developed in order to mitigate those impacts on displaced residents and then what was asked at the last meeting was that we just provide a menu of options and these were our options and then was asked to also provide the lower income and a disabled household um additional options. So I'm we can either go on with the whole idea of the plan or no plan or we can think that you know it's up to you as the chair as to where we take this from now. Well I have other concerns.

I don't want to cut short any conversation up here at the dis. It's important that we do give the direction and to staff for this. If I was to take a straw vote right now, I'm guessing that the majority of us would would suggest that we have a third study session. Is that would that be a fair statement?

Okay. So, in the very least, we're going to start by giving you the request that there'll be a third uh study session. No, probably what's needed now is a little bit more specity as far as what else we would like to see done between now and the third session. And we've given some. How much more would you like?

Well, all of it. So, if you as a um so this was one of the items that came up and the recommendation the an idea that came up from the um city attorney was the affidavit component. So the question that's on the table for you is for when we bring back based on the four of you all today is do you want more than just an example of the affidavit or are you wanting more conversation and if you do want more conversation around this topic what kind of information are you looking for or questions that you're trying to answer around this because I'm not hearing this being a concern of All

right.

And so does the affidavit component satisfy a need for in regards to a potential loophole in there not being a a planning project that's being proposed, a development project. Did I hear correctly that uh under perjury the the the the request would be made that the applicant would have to identify under I guess the term was perjury that there is no plan and and based upon that David you were thinking that gives us what benefit or at least the asurances that tell me more

it would give it would probably I would hope that it would help assure the ten tenants and the and the mobile home owners that the park owner does not not have a contemporaneous plan that they're keeping secret uh when they're applying for the closure. Okay. An affidavit is is essentially a statement under penalty of perjury.

Okay. So on this one, this is what I think would be good is to look at other instances where things have happened where there's not, you know, where this what are the downsides to this not happening concurren concurrently in regards to uh the benefits. what are the benefits, you know, and and uh you know, really looking at what are the benefits to the home mobile home park owners to having this information and how does that inform them in regards or support them in regards to next steps because I realize we're talking now a closure. We're not talking about but we have to decide whether or not there's going to be that closure. Um, so I'm I'm really want to make sure that in that if I was in that instance, I would be thinking like what are all my options? Is there any way that I can be looking at a finding if I was a home mobile home owner that that is a reason why not knowing what is going to, you know, what's going to happen next really puts me at a disadvantage. So, you know, I want to go and look at look into that. So, but I you know if staff wants to look into that too as well as I think it's good because we want to look at both sides. How does that what is the true disadvantage to that to the mobile home owners and at the same time how are we protecting the the mobile home park owners rights.

Got that? I got that. So we can have the discussion. I mean we can do that work on our own too. Okay. Next item that I have is so the ones that I have so far on the uh next meeting are changes made um in the matrix. So against the Soma County and San Jose um some discussion around the emergency exemption. the ones that I presented to you tonight in regards to um the comparable mobile home park.

Yes. What more discussion or information do you want around that or do you want to have that conversation tonight?

Well, and the other thing that I actually want to see, you know, around a good number of them is the language that says that that wherever we're referring to state law state law and maybe we don't have to say it but I think it's good to say it that that that we that um we're going by state law and to any updates to that state law so that that is automatically our ordinance becomes updated as state law is updated so that every time the state law is updated we don't have to come back and have another discussion about the ordinance.

There are certain things that we may regardless have to come back for and the city attorney and I have talked about um having an overall clause in the ordinance that we could do instead of each instance doing that but rather an overall statement um of that aspect of the specific Yeah. the in the definition. Yes. In the mobile home residential law all those things gets changed and all those things apply to this and so it could be a general overall comment in there. Are you good with that?

Yeah. I mean I think an overall statement is that that would be very helpful. Um all right. Okay. I think that that's I think that that's it. Let me do one quick look. Does anybody else have any other things they want to make sure that we address?

So So we want to continue the conversation on actual like definition of comparable parks. So remember I brought up the envirro screen and disadvantaged community conversation in that. That's my one question. Do you want to continue that conversation to another study session or do you want to conclude that conversation tonight? Well, you were in in your presentation, you said uh that your recommendation is to there to be no change from the existing definition. Um but it's a policy decision. I understand that. But you have your you have a perspective on why you make that recommendation. What is the pros and cons of that please?

So um the con would be that objectivity that was mentioned. um the in that sense of likeness. So we are a very unique community and so that is going to potentially limit more if we were to do that. I do agree with what the recommended ordinance was to include another county um because we are we we're only so many communities here in Soma as a whole and when we think about where mobile home parks are traditionally, right? They're part of our older sections of town or along freeways and things like that. And so when you start looking at that's why I wanted to show that that Santa Rosa example of where these are located. They're right like for the majority along the 12 or along the 101 and ped you know as we look down the our county Rona Park Katadi Paluma all along the 101

and so that and they're within our our denser areas our older community sections. So that's why I'm saying when we start looking at the sheer number, we're really limiting where those potential relocation parks are. And would you be comfortable if we were to expand to Napa that we could put that language in?

You would you'd run into the same thing in the sense that developments in specific locations. But I'm that's why I'm just putting that out there is when we start limiting options, then we're we're we're getting you we're not um we're not weighing we're weighing an environmental factor on top of amenities like services and things like that that were already in our definition. So it's another layer.

Jennifer, do you mind if I just ask for clarification? Correct me if I'm wrong. I think at a policy level, the way I'm thinking about it, it's maybe oversimplifying, but because of the the likeness is going to be so hard to achieve in a closure that like the policy issue is, do you want to expand the scope of where they could relocate or do you want to keep it within the county which would um require inevitably the um somebody to move to an area on the map that's orange and not green? So, it's like values level which is the preference of the council from that perspective.

So I would suggest we not resolve that tonight and look into that issue

and how would you like to look into that issue more? Well, I would like to hear more from the community, from the mobile home owners, what you know, how they would weigh those two issues like understanding because we recognize too land prices are high. You know, we, you know, we recognize the overall problem that we're in and how do we actually address it within the economic environment that we're in? How do we sol resolve that? So I think it's to me I don't want to make that choice tonight for the mobile home owners. I would prefer to hear kind of like in this in this world which would you prefer? What makes more sense to you to make you more comfortable with what's going on? You know one of the things I guess for me that is really hard is one of the things that ensures health for senior citizens is socialization. And one of the ways that they get socialization is being in the community that they're in. And moving to a new community does, you know, that breaks up that socialization that exists within that community. And when that happens, it affects people's health and longevity significantly. So I'm, you know, I'm these are the factors that I want to take into consideration as we're thinking about, you know, once there's a closure. Okay, there's a closure, but then we're relocating. We're We're displacing people and what does that mean and how do we make that that I think we if it was all of us sitting here and it probably won't be all of us sitting here hopefully it will be people that feel the same way that you want to make that as you know that that has the least impact on people's quality of life as possible even though it's going to be we recognize it would be impactful. All right.

Are we currently using the um this cow and viral screen? No. Okay. And so the existing language is change. There's correct. Currently the exist the proposed language there was no change just it would just continue as Sonoma County.

What is the limitation of expanding the geographic zone? I I I'm not sure I it isn't eliminating the opportunities that exist in Soma County. We're just saying that uh we should include Napa County which to me equates into more choices which may suit different people differently or better. I mean so I again I don't understand why we would not want to include Napa County. I'm not saying that we wouldn't. I was saying that we definitely would if we're using the Calro screen. Okay. So we'll continue that and uh any Okay, please continue if you have any more um specific

so that way so if there's anything I just need if there's anything for me specifically but we'll just continue that conversation. It sounds like it was more of um more feedback from the mobile home owners themselves around that. Um let's see. I did hear in one of the comments in regards to the outright removal of the exemption for relocation assistance um and just go back to what we had which was just the bankruptcy section. That is yeah that is my major concern for our residents. You know the based on financial assistant program right now and on the paper that is the I already mentioned that is a one time deal long the money give to you and then in the future you no longer have the ownership for this mobile home if the move to other place and the rent increase by 30% and 40% because residents right now why They choose here you just they exactly just like kind of balance what the income and expenses keep a very basic lifestyle almost no any disposable in the income. So now I know that you know I already say that the owner already provided this kind of assistance and uh we appreciate the gener generosity but we want to look at if any other option for these

low income with a disability only income from social security and benefits. That is the my major concern. See if other than the city other area if any creative the way or another option I already figure out you know definitely there are several the people if like this situation they were have this kind of difficulties they were losing their house they were thank you

so but and I think the question also that you're trying to answer is whether it's the bankruptcy or is there Are there's some if it's not bankruptcy, what is the financial indicator that the mobile home park owner is having to close because of financial difficulty. So that's the clarification that you're asking. There's well it's bankruptcy is already there that that's already there as an exemption from this process overall. Mhm.

What we were asked to do in the last um meeting was to um and this was a provided as an example from another community is that at times that that cost may be such it's not that we they can't do it at all because they're going bankrupt, but maybe they don't have the ability to pay for that that whole relocation plan for all that assistance that's needed. And so what we were asked to do was provide then an exemption that's not necessarily a full exemption for providing all the relocation assistance. It could be a portion of that. And then what's that basis? And so that's what was provided in the draft ordinance. When you were speaking just a second ago um when we first started the discussion section, you had mentioned uh concern around and recommended removing of an exception to provide assistance. And so that's why I'm bringing it back. Um, and making sure if we want to continue that conversation of, you know, removing it again, you know, we put it in, if we want to remove it, what's kind of information are you wanting to help you make that decision on that specific item?

Okay. Send me to where you are because I got a little lost there. Sure. Exemption section is right after the finding. Okay. It's in near the back, right? It is. Page 14. Thank you. Okay. There we go. So, exemption from relocation assistance obligation. So, there it is. Yep. So, that section an unreasonable financial. So, that's what would is not economically feasible and would eliminate substantially all reasonable use of economic value.

So, it could be a total or partial exemption request. So they after receiving, you know, all the information about what's in that relocation assistance plan and figuring out their financials, this was added to say I can't meet those full obligations and to be able to support that. That's what we're asking for additional documentation and an additional finding. And if I can just all those additional what they would need to provide. Yeah,

if I can just chime in. This is a provision that was actually in the proposal that the tripart committee provided and it's a it's a good provision to have um because without this possibility of getting an exemption or a partial exemption, I do think we would um subject the city to a potential uh takings claim by the park owners by not by not allowing them to exit the market other than by declaring bankruptcy. Okay, which is essentially what we'd be doing. Yeah, I I think I'm comfortable I'm comfortable with this.

I also think that this section speaks to their concern about natural disasters or fires that aren't a declared state emergency that caused the um the closure of a park. I wonder if we can use this section to also uh address some of those concerns if it doesn't already. Yeah. And then if this is here, then we could define the other as a state or national. Right. And currently it is. Currently it's defined as a state or national. All right. I'm good. Sorry about that. Yes. Mr. Mayor, can I just ask for a clarification? Absolutely. From the from the body on that piece.

Sure. Um that I think what we're hearing, but just want to confirm that keeping in that langage that that allows for a partial exemption is correct direction from the body which is from me. Yes. Thank you. Stra four going back to my notes. Okay. We talked about

removing we talked about emergency disaster. We talked about future plans. The other is um you started um council member Ferrar Rivas talking about comparable housing. Y and definition were you specifically talking to what you talked about earlier about the safe and sanitary words? Yes. So what I noted I just wanted to clarify. Okay. Um and I think that's a reasonable request. Okay. Um Look at other ones. Look at state law.

Yeah, the decent, safe, and sanitary language doesn't concern me. That's that's in the uniform housing code, which is what we incorporate. So, we can repeat that language. And is it possible in the notices to residents for that to be in Spanish and English as well? That's a policy decision. Um, we do not currently put any notices in Spanish. Um, it is not our regulation to do such. So, it is a policy. You mean it would be a broader policy versus just in this ordinance? It would need three of you to tell her to do that. Oh, thank you.

And I English that was I mean we can have conversation around having um the broader conversation around the entire city. There are cities that are required to do that because of a population consideration. If a a certain percentage of their population of a a certain ethnicity that speaks a certain language. So in LA it's very common to have multiple languages go out. Um and so

yeah San Francisco too. And so that is a but that's a there's law regulations and then there's policy decisions. We do not have a law telling us we have to, but there's a policy discussion that could be had for the whole city or we can just have it for this specific ordinance. And so on this specific ordinance, I need a straw vote and we can write something. Let's have some discussion. Um, I would support this specific um, ordinance because here we were tonight with translation taking place because some of the residents are Spanish

speaking. So, um, I would support it in this and then we can come back and visit the larger policy at sometime. English is not my first language. I support that was really good. Okay, we got that straw vote. Looking for I'm sorry. I'm just looking for something I thought that we took out. I just want to make sure that it was done. Do you guys have other things you want while I'm looking through my um So, start over again.

Commissioner Gurnie, I heard a comment and I have some items, but we're going to have another study session. Are any of those items things that you need more information on for that future study session conversation that you are looking to staff or the city attorney to provide information to you? You'll have to subdivision. You didn't say specific. That's literally what you said. I have some items that I want to think about more. And so those items that you want to think about more, do you need anything from me? Um, no. I think I uh have everything

and and I will certainly have another agenda packet that will be numerous pages that will be fulfilling my curiosity. Oh, I get the what you meant by policy versus direction. I'm you know it's a little late my head I did look I did look at the time and that's why I'm not asking for you guys to make decision. I'm just making sure that I get everybody's input on things for the next meeting. Yes. And this is will be my last one and and I'm just suffering from allergies. So my head is going it's bad.

Let's try to breathe here. Did we uh did we add in the issue around the language around subdivisions? So we made that edit in there in the applicability. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. So that subdivision though If if we're considering not sub subdivision map, right?

But if we're not if we're condition if we're giving consideration not insisting that the applicant at the time of the application identify its use, where would the subdivision map come into play if that decision isn't going to be made initially? It's an so like other parts of our code, it's if these things are happening or if this is a request based on a subdivision for resident ownership. That's where that's the sentence that we wrote in there. Okay. That it wouldn't that we're not going through this process for a closure because we're going through a subdivision process to have resident owners.

Okay. Okay. Got it. Anything else? But if they're coming forward with a project that will require a subdivision, then they should then this also they'll have to do that as well basically. Okay, that's they'll have to do both. Yeah, that's after they were coming forward. Okay, understood. Mr. Mayor, I have one other point of clarification just for staff followup. um please.

This is maybe one of the beginning ones um where we were talking about future use and disclosure of that at the time of the application for um a potential closure. Just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're asking us to evaluate and follow up on, which I think is some analysis of pros and cons of requiring disclosure. We're trying to tie the the um application process for closure or conversion to you essentially compelling them to disclose a future use. Is that what you're asking us to evaluate? So we can have that discussion for I feel like we if we talk about it now we're having it in a lapse of knowledge. Yeah. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

Yeah. And to that I just want to know what the the again I'll put it differently. Pros and cons. What are we gaining from that? What is the benefit to the homeowners if the decision is going to be they're p they're applying for closure? Uh that's really what I want to know. And what is the benefit? What's the what is the con to the mobile home? Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And that's where our mobile home owners come into play in their assistance in that. Y and likewise my park. Yep. park owners. Yeah. So, we can have a real discussion about

I I just want to make a a I I think that we're only going to be able to gain from another session. And the reality is that homeowners, you have an opportunity to continue to express your concerns as they happen. We are still of the mindset that we haven't made any decision. So, this extended study session can only be good. I mean, it's going to be good. It's going to be good also for uh possibly the uh the landlords. So, again, I know that our comments have not been greeted with everybody saying yahoo and yay, but that doesn't mean that that I appreciate that. So, anyway,

I think it's yeha and yay. Thank you. So uh my last request do you have anything else either of anybody here about what more we are asking for for the next goound?

That's not something that's we can comment on because that's that's not where we're at. So, uh, I would like to then ask the question, do you have enough? Because if so, then I think we're going to move on. Yep. Yep. Okay, we're moving on. We're gonna go very quickly.

I'm going to get there. I'm getting there. So, we have um uh we did not have 10 people come forward, which means that we have nobody else that wishes to make comment on items not appearing on the agenda. So, it is with great pleasure I close this. Oh, really?