2002 FEBRUARY - Laserfiche WebLink

6.60.010 and conditions of a revised mobilehome rent stabilization agreement. I. The parties to the March 17, 1992, agreement reached agreement on a revised mobilehome rent stabilization agreement ("the November 1996 agree- ment"). J. The one park owner who had not entered into the March 17, 1992, agree- ment was offered the opportunity to participate in the November 1996 agreement but again refused to do so. K. The November 1996 agreement is due to expire on December 31, 2001; the parties to that agreement met during 2001 to discuss terms and conditions of a revised mobilehome rent stabilization agreement. L. With the exception of one park owner (for the property at 785 Rose Avenue), the city and the park owners have been unable to agree upon terms and conditions for a new agreement. M. Due to the lack of a significant vacancy factor and the high cost of moving mobilehomes owned by the residents in the parks, the residents do not have an alternative of relocating to other parks in which rents may be more reasonable. Mobilehome residents, unlike apartment tenants or residents of other rental stock, are in the unique position of having made a substantial investment in a residence for which space is rented or leased. Removal and/or relocation of a mobilehome from a park space is not a practical alterna- tive to accepting an excessive rent increase in that it can only be accom- plished at substantial cost, and in many instances may cause extensive damage to the mobilehome and loss of appurte- nances such as integrated landscaping and supporting structures inconsistent with the new location. N. Two (2) of the parks are senior parks and most of the residents are senior citizens, many of whom are living on fixed incomes. Because mobilehomes are often owned by senior citizens, persons on fixed incomes, and persons of low and moderate income, exorbitant rent increases fall upon these individuals with particular harshness. O. Based on numerous letters that have been written to the city council, as well as testimony heard at the city council where this ordinance was con- sidered, the city council finds that the overwhelming majority of the residents who live at Vineyard villa and the Hacienda mobilehome park, both of which have operated as senior parks, purchased their mobilehomes in those parks in good faith and on reliance from the park owners or their represen- tatives that the park would continue to be operated as a senior park. But for said representations, these residents would not have purchased their mobilehomes in these parks. If the use of these parks were changed so that the parks would no longer be senior parks, the residents' quality of life would be dramatically and negatively affected, all as described in the numerous letters and correspondence provided to the council, which are incorporated herein by refer- ence. P. The city council declares that it is necessary in the public interest to es- tablish ameans by which to resolve the 192-39 (Pleasanton February 2002)