CCMIN120396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Christopher Schlies, 699 Peters Avenue, Suite B, representing Jerry Wagner, indicated there are three major reasons he considers the proposed ordinance not good public policy. Rent control is a disincentive for a property owner to maintain the quality of the property. He referred to the capital recovery rules, the 5 % cap and cited hypothetical examples. He believed the ordinance and amendments can prevent an owner from recovering legitimate costs and threaten the quality of the park. The second point is that state law requires that an owner receive a fair rate of return. He referred to the three methods that allow an owner to adjust rents: Formula A - cost of living; Formula B - review of actual expenses; and through a fair rate of return heating. He believed that Formulas A and B do not work as written, which only leaves the fair rate of return hearing, and that is an expensive and time consuming process. Such a hearing was held regarding this property and in 1995 the rents were adjusted up 30-40% above what was set in 1992. The proposed ordinance is still using the 1992 rents. The third point is that Council should enact regulations appropriate for the affected constituency. The residents of the Pleasanton Mobilehome Park do not want this ordinance. It is only to track an agreement that was enacted with other mobilehome park owners. He presented a petition from some of the Pleasanton Mobilehome Park tenants and referred to letters that had been submitted previously. If that is not enough, Council is invited to come and talk to the residents. He did not think Council should rely on the comments of Mr. Dove because he does not live in the park and does not represent the residents. Mr. Schlies indicated Mr. Wagner has no opportunity to have representation on the Pleasanton Mobilehome Committee. The adopted ordinance has taken a great deal of staff time and he felt it has been harmful to the residents of Pleasanton Mobilehome Park. Council should review the staff recommendations with a more critical eye and not just adopt the staff recommendation. Further, he believed there was no need to amend the ordinance at this time and suggested taking more time to review it. Due to the lateness of the hour, Council discussed what items should be heard this evening. It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to consider only item 6i and continue everything else. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Michelotti and Pico NOES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Dennis, and Mayor Tarver ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Ayala, to fin|~h the agenda this evening. The roll call vote was aS follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Ayala, Dennis, Michelotti, Pico, and Mayor Tarver NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 20 12/03/96