A.
There are four mobilehome parks within the city. There are a limited number of vacant spaces in these parks and there are few additional mobilehome park spaces available in the county and adjoining communities.
B.
On January 19, 1988, the mobilehome park owners and the city entered into an agreement providing for the stabilization of mobilehome rents (hereafter the January 19, 1988, agreement). Prior to the January 19, 1988, agreement, some mobilehome space rents had increased at a faster rate than the increase in the rate of inflation.
C.
Prior to the January 19, 1988, agreement, the city council had been petitioned by the mobilehome residents to establish a rent stabilization ordinance. When the city council considered the ordinance, representatives of the park owners suggested that alternatives to the establishment of a rent stabilization ordinance be considered. As a result of that suggestion, the parties negotiated the January 19, 1988, agreement, which stabilized rents in the mobilehome parks within Pleasanton.
D.
During 1991, the park owners and mobilehome residents expressed to the city that they were interested in negotiating a new agreement. The city sponsored and facilitated extensive negotiations to eliminate the need for the ordinance first adopted in 1992. It was assisted by the Pleasanton mobilehome committee consisting of park owner representatives and mobilehome resident representatives. After several months of negotiations, a new rent stabilization agreement ("the March 17, 1992 agreement") was developed and approved by the park owners and the city. However, one of the park owners would not sign the new agreement. Without benefit of an agreement to stabilize mobilehome rents, a park owner could impose whatever rent he or she chose, to the detriment of the mobilehome residents. In fact, the one park owner who would not sign the March 17, 1992, agreement has raised the rents on mobilehome spaces within his or her park during 1992 at a rate higher than what is permissible under either the January 19, 1988, agreement or the March 17, 1992, agreement.
E.
Despite the efforts of the city and the Pleasanton mobilehome committee, the one park owner refused to enter into the March 17, 1992, agreement and accordingly, the city adopted an ordinance, later modified, to stabilize mobilehome rents in parks owned by owners who chose not to enter into the March 17, 1992, agreement.
F.
As to the mobilehome park at 4202 Stanley Boulevard, this chapter establishes 1992 as the base year for purposes of determining fair return adjustments (Section 6.60.060 of this chapter) and as part of that process, looks to the base year gross income; base year gross income is predicated on the base year rents.
G.
Under the then existing ordinance, the park owner of the property at 4202 Stanley Boulevard (the Pleasanton mobilehome park) believed that the base year (i.e., 1992) rents were not reasonable or did not reflect general market conditions and petitioned for an adjustment to the base year rents. In 1995, a hearing officer determined that effective February 1, 1993, the monthly rent for the spaces in that park was $335.00. The hearing officer did not determine the monthly rents for 1992, but because those rents were between $222.31 and $302.11 (depending on the space), presumably those rents should have been higher in 1992 (than the $222.31 to $302.11) in order to yield the $335.00 per month rent effective February 1, 1993. Accordingly, should there ever be a fair return adjustment petition for that park, the gross income for the base year (1992) shall be deemed $328.55 per space.
H.
The March 17, 1992, agreement was due to expire on December 31, 1996, and the parties to that agreement met during 1996 to discuss the terms and conditions of a revised mobilehome rent stabilization agreement.
I.
The parties to the March 17, 1992, agreement reached agreement on a revised mobilehome rent stabilization agreement ("the November 1996 agreement").
J.
The one park owner who had not entered into the March 17, 1992, agreement was offered the opportunity to participate in the November 1996 agreement but again refused to do so.
K.
The November 1996 agreement is due to expire on December 31, 2001; the parties to that agreement met during 2001 to discuss terms and conditions of a revised mobilehome rent stabilization agreement.
L.
With the exception of one park owner (for the property at 785 Rose Avenue), the city and the park owners have been unable to agree upon terms and conditions for a new agreement.
M.
Due to the lack of a significant vacancy factor and the high cost of moving mobilehomes owned by the residents in the parks, the residents do not have an alternative of relocating to other parks in which rents may be more reasonable. Mobilehome residents, unlike apartment tenants or residents of other rental stock, are in the unique position of having made a substantial investment in a residence for which space is rented or leased. Removal and/or relocation of a mobilehome from a park space is not a practical alternative to accepting an excessive rent increase in that it can only be accomplished at substantial cost, and in many instances may cause extensive damage to the mobilehome and loss of appurtenances such as integrated landscaping and supporting structures inconsistent with the new location.
N.
Two of the parks are senior parks and most of the residents are senior citizens, many of whom are living on fixed incomes. Because mobilehomes are often owned by senior citizens, persons on fixed incomes, and persons of low and moderate income, exorbitant rent increases fall upon these individuals with particular harshness.
O.
Based on numerous letters that have been written to the city council, as well as testimony heard at the city council where this ordinance was considered, the city council finds that the overwhelming majority of the residents who live at Vineyard Villa and the Hacienda mobilehome park, both of which have operated as senior parks, purchased their mobilehomes in those parks in good faith and on reliance from the park owners or their representatives that the park would continue to be operated as a senior park. But for said representations, these residents would not have purchased their mobilehomes in these parks. If the use of these parks were changed so that the parks would no longer be senior parks, the residents' quality of life would be dramatically and negatively affected, all as described in the numerous letters and correspondence provided to the council, which are incorporated herein by reference.
P.
The city council declares that it is necessary in the public interest to establish a means by which to resolve the potentially divisive and harmful impasse between park owners and mobilehome residents. After consideration of numerous factors, among which are the relatively small number of parks located within the city, the level of organization and communication between mobilehome residents in each park, and the mandates of state law, regulations which best fit the needs of the city have been selected.
Q.
The regulations which are set forth in this chapter are designed to produce stability in rent increases for mobilehome residents while recognizing the rights of park owners to receive a fair return on their investment. The standards, utilizing the concept of net operating income and a 2002 base year, intend to provide the necessary adjustment mechanisms to meet constitutional requirements.
R.
The council finds that the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter will not have a significant, substantial or adverse effect on the physical environment of the community because enactment of this ordinance involves no deviation from the general plan and no change in the present use of any property within the city.
(Ord. 1843 § 2, 2001)