CCMIN020601 - Laserfiche WebLink

that there are many single female senior residents. She also complained that although the owners stopped charging the 25% increase, they did not refund the money that had been collected earlier. Mr. Roush said that when he had been informed of the problem with the furnace, he called the owners. He was advised that it was fixed, but it broke again. The owners are trying to fix the system, but there are difficulties because of the age of the system. Mayor Pico suggested further follow up in the form of a letter voicing the concerns. Thomas Law, 3231 Vineyard Avenue #89, said that the rents of the mobilehome park have been regulated for the past thirteen years and he did not believe the City has been aggressive enough in requiring the new owners to abide by the agreement. He referred to a staff report from September 19 which referred to a request by staff to the owners to make adjustments to affected tenants with respect to the 25% rent increases. Mr. Law said no adjustments have been made. The City has not demanded those adjustments. He felt the staff report also showed a lack of sensitivity for the tenants. He further quoted from the September staff report regarding the 90 day notice of rent increase, which staff was to review to determine if it were in conformance with the agreement. The tenants reviewed the notice and found it to be blatantly out of compliance with the agreement. That was four months ago and staffhas still not made a determination. He did not think these were complicated issues. With regard to the Mobilehome Committee, he explained it is a committee of five; two from the park tenants, two from park owners, and the fifth is a neutral party chosen by the other four. That fifth person is the real decision maker. The park owners will vote one way, the tenants will vote the other. The first decision of the fifth person sided with the park owners and against the tenants and City staff. He noted she had only been given a copy of the agreement the day before the meeting. Mr. Roush responded that the Mobilehome Committee did take up the issue of the transfer of ownership. The decision of the Committee was that for those who moved into the park prior to the date of the purchase and sale agreement entered into by the new park owners, they would not be subject to the transfer of ownership provisions. Staff has asked for clarification on that issue and the Committee will address that on February 13. Assuming the decision holds, there are four or five tenants who would not be subject to the rent increase and four or five who would be. There is a right of appeal of that decision to an arbitrator. Ms. Ayala asked for clarification of the power of the fifth member and if it was tree she just received the agreement the night before the meeting. Mr. Roush said it is true the fifth person is the tie-breaker, similar to situations in labor arbitrations. She did receive the agreement a day or so before the meeting, but the issue involves one paragraph only. He described the three candidates for the fifth position. Pleasanton City Council 17 02/06/01 Minutes