KEEPING PACE?

In early September, June Lake residents Aron Murillo and Shay Pace were informed that their RV home—the couple’s permanent residence—was out of compliance with county regulations. They were then told they had approximately two weeks to move out, or else be imposed with substantial fines. 

The issue: the county claimed that the parcel the RV was parked on was not permitted for permanent habitation purposes, and that the RV usage was a nuisance. 

A month later, a lot has changed.

At the regular meeting of the Mono County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Director of Community Development, Wendy Sugimura, appeared to update board members. “The intention is to recognize the written public comment that was sent to the board and respond to the issues that were raised. And some of those issues include the county housing policy, code enforcement, the county’s response to a public records act request, and the history of the parcel in question.”

Sugimura described a memorandum sent to a community member, containing “land use analysis and ten solutions,” with the express intent being to provide resolutions with which the community member could come into compliance with the county’s regulation regarding his/her property usage.

“We are sympathetic,” said Sugimura.

Of course, the recipient of that memo was Murillo.

“Well, the demeanor and the sympathy has certainly changed,” said Murillo. “I think that now they’ve found what I’ve been telling them is already in existence, it [their attitude] has changed.” 

What Murillo is referring to is what he believes to be clerical error—the result of an inaccurate database in use by the county to cite property history.

“They don’t have documentation for a lot of people’s properties—not just the one we’re on,” said Murillo. “They’re referring to their database which only goes back so far. It doesn’t show everything of the parcel’s history.”

Murillo stated that he submitted a Public Records Assessment (PRA) request, to prove the historical, permitted use of RV homes on his current parcel, but that no relevant records were found in his search.

According to Murillo, “it’s possible that, at certain plots of land, the parcel numbers have changed over time, or they were fused at a certain point” making it difficult to locate historical use information.

It wasn’t until he received an email from Sugimura, containing the memo on behalf of the Community Development Department, and detailing the parcel’s property history, that Murillo received a detailed account of prior use. 

The memo claims that the department “properly and accurately fulfilled the PRA request based on information provided” but that “no relevant records were found.” However, staff continued to research the matter due to the information cited by Murillo in his public comment letter.

“By searching for the previous owner’s name, records were found indicating the current property was the result of three merged lots with different APNs and a trailer park that had previously existed onsite.” 

Further land use analysis revealed that the previous trailer park’s compliance with regulations for an RV home parcel was unknown, but since “the matter is clearly controversial as evidenced by a complaint and public comment, [it] should be referred to the Planning Commission.”

The memo then went on to detail three courses of resolution that Murillo and Pace could follow—what were entitled “immediate, medium term, and long-term solutions.” The memo also granted the couple a one-month extension until October 24, 2023 for compliance.

Murillo explained that the memo’s solutions suggested everything from relocating the RV in question to a new park, to submitting an application to construct an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) before applying for another permit to live in the RV, onsite, while that ADU was being built.

“But I feel like that doesn’t really solve the problem” siad Murillo. “We would create another housing opportunity, which is great, but why would we use that instead of something that’s already working?”

Regardless of what course of action Murillo and Pace choose to pursue, Murillo is grateful to have borne witness to the recent community mobilization in remedying the housing crisis. He credited the recent Community Housing Conversations—held last month in June Lake and Lee Vining, and spearheaded by Mono County Supervisor candidate, Paul McFarland—for drawing attention to housing issues at both an individual and county-wide scale.

“I think it helps bring the conversation to light,” said Murillo. “I think, because of that conversation, it allowed resources to come together to create a voice for something that has been an issue, but hasn’t yet been addressed.”

During Tuesday’s meeting, McFarland also appeared in front of the Board to to submit a summary report produced by the Housing Working Group—of which McFarland is a member—in regard to September’s housing conversations.

“You know, the housing crisis is deeply personal for many of us,” said McFarland. “This housing crisis didn’t happen overnight, and it won’t be solved overnight. But what’s reflected by these meetings is that the community is ready to move forward, as a collective.”

And Murillo seems to agree.

“Had I not raised my voice, I would have been out of town by now.”

Following Sugimura’s presentation to the board, Supervisor Jennifer Kreitz requested that the Board agendize the matter for future discussion.

“The public isn’t privy to that document,” said Kreitz, referring to the memorandum. “If we agendize it, it would be way more transparent than what’s happening right here, right now.”