CCMIN103001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush said the $16 was a compromise. There were certain expense items that were in dispute. Had that gone to the Pleasanton Mobile Home Committee and then to arbitration, it was possible the City's position could have been upheld and the rents would have been reduced by $18 per month. It was a significant compromise by the owners to agree to the reduction of $16 per month, which is almost everything that was being requested. She asked how the owners of the units benefited from these compromises. Mr. Roush said there was give and take in the whole process. He gave several examples. Ms. Ayala asked about the timing of the rebates? Mr. Roush believed the rebates would be paid in November. Mr. Campbell asked for clarification of the arbitration process. Mr. Roush explained that if there is a dispute between a resident and the owner, the matter would be submitted to the City Manager's office for resolution. If that decision is not satisfactory to either party, then the matter could be sent to an arbitrator who is well versed in mobile home issues. That decision would be final. There is also a provision that if the matter is sent to arbitration unreasonably or for purposes of delay, then the City has the option of paying the other side's share of the arbitration costs. Otherwise the costs were shared by all three sides. Mayor Pico invited public testimony. Jerry Wagner, 6344 Alisal Street, complained about not having enough time to read the staff report and exhibits before the Council meeting. He objected to provisions of the ordinance because it did not include vacancy decontrol which is available in the rent stabilization agreement for the other three parks. He said an arbitrator had said rent for his park should not be below those in the Fairview Mobile Home Park. At the first sale of a unit in Fairview, those rents will be above his rents. He said the mediation did not establish his rents to be at market rate. He believed the ordinance treats him differently than the owners of the parks who sign the rent stabilization agreement. He believed this was illegal. Under the agreement, he would be required to have a full time manager at his mobile home park. Under state law, a park with less than fifty residents, a full time manager is not required. He objected to statements on page three and four of the ordinance and Exhibit A-4. He said in 1991, the rents at his park had been raised by the previous owner of the park, not by him. Mr. Roush did not inform him of the option to have rent increases over a three-year period to make rents at his park equal to those at Fairview. He went to court in 1993, but it was not until late 1995 that he was allowed to raise rents. He made further accusations against Mr. Roush and complaints about the ordinance. He further stated that he owns seven units at his park and only two were indicated on the exhibit. He said he would provide written information to Council. Ms. Dennis did not recall any reference in the ordinance regarding owner controlled units. She felt the ordinance only controlled space rents. Pleasanton City Council 3 10/02/01 Minutes