CCMIN052097 - Laserfiche WebLink

the grounds. The setbacks were not being honored and trailers set direcfiy against the street. He hoped Council would recognize that the park is in violation and take action to enforce the code. Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagstone, said when the Planning Commission heard this appeal it was a 4-1 vote to deny. He had concerns about the way the City handled it. The original application was to memorialize the thirty-third spot. Yet the staff report reflected a whole range of grudges that staff had with the applicant. This was not an appropriate response from the City. The concern he has is that the City has helped create the bad tenant/landlord relationship on this property through its ill advised rent control of mobile home parks. Are seniors living in apartments not deserving of rent control? Why should the City be in the business of telling only specific property owners what they can do with their property. When a development for Signature Properties is approved the City does not tell them what the property can sell for. The rent was set too low to begin with, thus creating a maintenance problem. He said the ultimate use for this park would be single family dwellings, not a mobilehome park. He did not wish any hardship on the people there, but why create a whole new class of people constantly moving in and out. He felt the City has had unreasonable attitudes toward Mr. Wagner and his business venture. He felt it was unreasonable for the Planning Commission to deny the application. He urged Council to allow Mr. Wagner to rent the thirty-third space. ._ Jack Dove, 3263 Vineyard Avenue,//114, bave a brief history of state regulation of mobilehome parks. He said the people in mobilehomes parks would love to be living in Ruby Hills but their economic status does not allow them too. There are several elderly people living in the mobilehome park. In 1992 when the ordinance was first passed, there was a listing of which units were mobilehomes and over the years this has diminished. If your unit is considered an RV, every six months it has to be uprooted and moved out of the park for a certain number of hours and then it can come back. The landlord can say sorry you can not come back. He said there were no new mobilehome parks being built, so the owners do not have much choice. He said if the City has an ordinance then it needs to act on it and protect the people and allow them to live in dignity as they have for a long time. Chris Schlies, 699 Peters Avenue, the park has improved over the years. He indicated Mr. Wagner has no desire to move people out of the park. One resident has been there since the 1940's. Attrition was caused by some who did not want to pay back rent. Mobilehome units deteriorate as they get older and there is no market for single-wides. People want to live in double-wides now and this park is unable to accommodate them. That is why Mr. Wagner wants to allow RV's into the park. Under state law, after nine months the unit, whatever it might be, will achieve mobilehome status. He said the application is for a use that has been going on since 1974. He said the subdivision map showed 32 spaces, of which 12A was not one. Mr. Wagner would like to be able to use 12A, which is now vacant. He would like the flexibility to move trailers around if need be. He said if Council decides to leave it at 32 spaces, to at least allow the 33 spaces remain. He also asked Council not to make Mr. Wagner remove the concrete slab. He said the rent for the RV's is the same as for the mobilehome Pleasanton City Council 05/20/97 Minutes 24