15 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 2 Memo to Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 19, 2009 residents of these Parks throughout the State began to lobby their city councils and boards of supervisors to adopt rent control ordinances that would put a limitation on either the amount of rent a Park owner could charge and/or the amount the rent could be raised. 1'hesc lobbying efforts were, for the most part, successful and many cities/counties State wide adopted such regulations. These rent control regulations have been extensively litigated in state and federal courts. The Park owners have argued that such regulations, among many things, are unconstitutional in that they prevent the owner from making a fair rehun on investment. Por the most part, the courts have upheld these regulations so long as it can be demonstrated that the regulations permit the owner to make a fair return on his/her investment. (It's obviously substantially more complicated than that but since that isn't the matter at issue here, I am not going to go into further details on that matter.) Rent Control in Pleasanton In the late 1980's mobile home residents in Pleasanton lobbied the Council for rent control. In lieu of adopting an ordinance, however, the City was able to negotiate rent stabilization agreements with the various park owners. These agreements provided the same protection as an ordinance but avoided potential litigation. Because these agreements have had terms of five or six years, they have been subject to periodic renegotiation. Moreover, in the early 1990's, one park owner-Jerry Wagner- refused to enter into a new agreement. The City therefore adopted a mobilehome rent stabilization ordinance, codified in Chapter 6.60 of the Municipal Code, that applies to any Park owner that does not have an agreement with the City. Negotiations with the other Park owners, however, have been successful and a string of agreements between the owners and the City have been approved since 1988. 'fhe most recent agreements, including the one with the Park owner of Vineyard Villa, were approved by Council in October 2007. Under the Vineyard Villa agreement, rents in 2008 ranged from $500 to $912, depending on when the resident moved into the Park. I have been advised that the Park owner has deferred any rent increase thus far in 2009. "Conversion" of Vine~rd Villa In the summer of 2007, the Park owner started the process to convert Vineyard Villa to what is called "residential ownership", meaning that the mobile home spaces would be "converted" to condominium spaces, notwithstanding that the physical layout of the Park would not change. For all intents and purposes, the site would still look like a mobile home park, but the conversion, if approved, would permit the owner to sell the individual spaces/lots. Existing residents would have the right of first refusal and for those who elect not to purchase his/her lot, such residents could remain in the Park and continue to pay rent (more on that later). Thus, the Park owner seeking conversion of residential ownership states that no resident is displaced and that residents now have the opportunity for real property ownership. Unlike other mobilehome residential conversions that are occurring state wide, this conversion is different in that the Park owner has agreed not to begin lolling any of the lots for ten years. (He states that his reason for deferring the sales is part of his estate planning.) The Park Owner has also agreed to extend the term of the 2007 Rent Stabilization Agreement from 2012 until 2017 (this provision is in the Agreement) if the conversion is approved. Notwithstanding that the state law has provisions about what