Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGomez Paper Copy Scans 20240816ANTH ONY C. RODRIGUEZ ATTORNEY AT LAW 1300 CLAY STREET SUITE 600 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94612 TELEPHONE 1510> 464-8022 April 29, 1999 Jeffery G. Jorgensen, Esq. City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 94301-3294 f<ECt:.ivt:O MAYO 3 '999 offlCE Of CITY ATTORNEY Re: Request for Vacancy Decontrol Dear Mr. Jorgensen, I am writing to request the City Council to amend the current mobilehome rent stabilization ordinance, so as to allow rents to be increased to market rates following a turnover in tenancy. This request is based on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, (9th Cir. 1997) 124 F. 3d 1150. Below is a more detailed analysis of this request. In Richardson, the City of Honolulu passed an ordinance regulating rent increases on lands that had been leased to build condominiums. As a result of those rent controls, pre-existing condominium owners were able to sell their condominiums at above market rates, so the total housing cost to the new condominium owner was essentially the same both before and after the enactment of the rent control ordinance. Because the ordinance did not "substantially advance" the "legitimate state purpose" of providing affordable housing, the Richardson court found that it amounted to an unconstitutional "regulatory taking", writing as follows: "Land use regulations do influence the value of property, but to be constitutional, they must do so in a manner that substantially furthers a legitimate government interest. Nollan, 483, U. S. at 834, 107 S. Ct. at 314 7. Ordinance 91-96 does not do this. It regulates the use of the lessors' property interest in a manner that does not substantially further the goal of creating affordable housing. The absence of a mechanism that prevents lessees from capturing the net present value of the reduced land rent in the form of a premium, means that the Ordinance will not substantially further its goal of creating affordable owner-occupied housing in Honolulu. Incumbent owner occupants who sell to those who intend to occupy the apartment will charge a premium for the benefit of living in a rent controlled condominium. The price of housing ultimately will remain the same. The ordinance thus J e ffery G. Jorgensen, Esq. A p ri l 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 P a g e 2 effects a regulatory taking. See id. (regulation must substantially advance a legitimate state interest); We accordingly hold that Ordinance 91-96 violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. " As you know, a person looking to live in a manufactured home community in the City of San Luis Obispo must usually (i.) buy a manufactured home from a pre-existing tenant and (ii.) rent a manufactured home space from one of the City's parkowners. Because the City has placed controls on the amount of rent parkowners can charge for their spaces, pre-existing tenants are able to receive a "premium" when they sell their homes, far in excess of their true fair market value. For example, assume that in an unregulated market a person wanting to live in a manufactured home community was willing to pay $500 per month in mortgage costs for a $50,000 manufactured home, plus $500 per month in rent for a manufactured home space, or $1,000 per month in total housing costs. However, if rent control limits the space rent to $400 per month, such a person will be able to pay $600 per month in mortgage payments, for the same $1,000 in total housing costs. Thus, pre-existing tenants are able to sell their manufactured homes to such people for $50,000, plus a "premium" equal to the current value of the $100 per month rent savings. In short, because new tenants pay essentially the same total housing costs whether or not there is rent control, vacancy control does not "substantially advance" the "legitimate state purpose" of preserving affordable housing. Instead, it creates a monetary windfall for tenants who are moving out of the manufactured home community. Because the City's ordinance does not "substantially advance" its purpose. the City's ordinance amounts to an unconstitutional "regulatory" taking. In conclusion, the "regulatory taking" created by the Honolulu ordinance in Richardson is virtually identical to the "regulatory taking" created by the vacancy control aspects of the City's current rent control ordinance. Accordingly, the City is respectfully requested to meet with the parkowners' attorneys to discuss in good faith the amendment of its ordinance, so as to allow rents to be increased to fair market rates following a turnover in tenancy. Because the failure to enact such an amendment could result in the filing of lawsuits requesting literally millions of dollars ifr;;;:... dama e laims, the City is requested to schedule that meeting forthwith. The Cit is also requested to provide this office with a vance no ice o a proposed amendments and/or meeting~ regarding all proposed amendments to the ordmance. Finally, you should also be advised that the United States Supreme Court has recently Jeffery G . Jo rgen sen , E sq . A pril 29 , 19 99 P age 3 den ied a petition fo r a W rit of C ertiora ri w ith respect to the N inth C ircuit C our t of A ppeals' d e c ision in R ichardson v. C ity and C ounty of H onolu lu , (9th Cir. 124) F. 3d 1150. Accordingly, the Richardson case is binding authority for all United States District Courts in the Ninth Circuit. The Richardson case is also persuasive authority for all Superior Courts in the state of California. Thank you for taking the time to review this letter. I look forward to receiving a list of dates that the City is able to meet to discuss the impact of the Richardson case on the City's ordinance. If you would like to discuss any of these issues by telephone, please call me directly at (510) 464-8022. Very truly yours, ~C LJSh Anthony C. Rodriguez cc: Ellen Kelleher, Esq. 72/LAGUNA/JORGENSEN.LTR NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE RANCHO SAN LUIS MOBILE ESTATES EFFECTIVE DATE OF INCREASE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2001 SPACE NO: 77 Dear Resident: Increases in the park's operating expenses require that we adjust the rents at Rancho San Luis Mobile Estates, effective September 1, 2001. Since our last increase, the City of San Luis Obispo has raised the monthly charges we pay for water and sewer service and trash collection. These increases total $2.17 per space per month. As your leases provide, we will be passing these increases onto park residents on a pro rata basis. As you can appreciate, these increases are beyond the park operator's control, and represent costs that go directly to the city and the trash disposal company. Please know that we appreciate everyone's efforts at trying to keep these expenses down. In addition, as you know, the cost of living has gone up for everyone. Your lease provides that rents may be increased every year by the amount of increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This year's increase was 3.28 percent, so your space rent will increase by 3.28 percent beginning September 1, 2001. Finally, your leases provide that rents may be increased every year by the amount of increase in ground lease payments that the park operator makes to the owners of the land upon which the park is located. Although the park operator's payments will increase beginning in September, they have decided to forgo an increase for the ground lease payments this year. However, the park's operator is not waiving its right to receive a ground lease payments increase in future years. In summary then, your rent will increase effective September 1, 2001, by the following amounts: 1. 2. Government mandated adjustment Consumer price adjustment TOTAL $2.17 $11.07 $13.24 Therefore, your space rent as of September 1, 2001 will be $350.82. Rancho San Luis Mobile Estates Matiager 7 F:INETIRIRANCH0021D0CSI0 I rcntnot. wpd -✓· )--u • __ ') .) ~ () -f '\ _< ,.,;., Q ( '\ OJ J,0,0 7 3 3"1- '""~ :~£- :.J - Y, L 37 2-. 1/ 7 'ic 3. (, ·7 1i '),. 7, la i-fl;L/. ?C, Yrt"'- L -~ , -::,.,. ' -1.-1 ..-J../ .l ("' /6 .3 < --2 7 . ·.s l Jo. (.;,'7 ~(,_yp ~J- 3o .if/_ ?o -~. 7o S-/ 7L I I 1 ---- i \ _...,_'a_, _c_'l j ~l~. '-/ ~ \ -:=====~: . _ _,.. -- ' --- / \ JC I • y ✓ JOHN W. BELSHER HOWARD MARK BECKER STEVEN P. ROBERTS GREGORY A CONNELL BELSHER & BECKE R ATTORNEYS AT LAW 412 MARSH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 RECEIVED ScP 1 2 2005 SLO CITY ATTORNEY TELEPHONE (805) 542-9900 FAX (805) 542-9949 E-MAIL slolaw@belsherandbecker.com September 8, 2005 VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL 805-781-7409 Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo RE: Willow Creek ~~a!JJ. Miller) Dear Mr. Lowell: A client of mine, John Miller, purchased a mobilehome in the Willow Creek Mobilehome Park. The space (24) is governed by City rent control. Unfortunately, Mr. Miller did not obtain approval of the Park owners before closing escrow. Thereafter, the Park determined he could not qualify as a tenant (since he does not intend to occupy it), nor could he sublease his unit as he originally planned, under Park rules. Rent tendered by Mr. Miller has been rejected by the Park. The Park now demands double the old rent, long term leases, ground leases, and other indicia of the Park's belief in the inapplicability of your ordinance to the space. In my view the sale is voidable, if not void, as violative of Civil Code §798.74. Should the parties rescind the sale and the former owners re-take possession and tender all back rent payments, is it the City's view that the space would continue to be governed by rent control and the space rent unchanged by the attempted sale to Mr. Miller? Please call or write if you would be so kind to assist us. Sincerely, . Belsher JWB/ab cc: client P:\Angela's Files\John's clients\Miller, John\City Attorney Lowell 01.wpd C. 2-£, 2- 111111111~ !1~111111111 I City 0~ san uus OBISpo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 13, 2004 John Dunn P.O. Box 2479 Avila Beach, CA 93424-2479 Dear John: Enclosed is a copy of Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization, Chapter 5.44 of the Municipal Code. You might also want to look up Civil Code § 798 et seq. at www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html . Let me know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, nathan P. Lowell City Attorney JPUcp Enclosure The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. I Claudia Pr~ws - Mobilehome Stuff to John Dunn Page 1 I From: To: Date: Subject: Claudia, Jonathan P Lowell Prows, Claudia 2/12/04 3:54PM Mobilehome Stuff to John Dunn Please copy our Mobilehome Ord. (Chapt. 5.44), print this email with the link to look up Civil Code 798 et seq. http://www.leqinfo.ca.gov/calaw.html and send both to: Mr. John Dunn P.O. Box 2479 Avila Beach, CA 93424-2479 Many thanks. Jonathan ~II lijlllll!II II\ I city o~ san uus os1spo 990 Palm Strnet, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-~ ~ ~ February 10, 2004 ./ / D Anthony C. Rodriguez Attorney at Law 1425 Leimert Blvd., Suite 101 Oakland, CA 94602-1808 Re: Request for Records: Administration of Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mr. Rodriguez, In response to your request received on February 2nd, please be advised that the City of San Luis Obispo has spent $28,2145.19 in legal defense costs. Lee Price, CMC City Clerk j c: City Attorney The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. A N T H O N Y C. RODRIGUEZ ATTO RNEY AT LAW 1425 LEIMERT BOULEVARD SUITE 101 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94602 -1808 TELEPHONE (510) 336-1536 FACSIMILE J..510) 336-1537 January L6, 2004 City Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 Re: Request for Public Records/ Administration ofMobilehome Rent Control Ordinance To Wh om it May Concern: This office represents the own ers of Besaro Mobilehome Park, which is located at 4141 Deep Creek Road in Fremont, California. My clients are attempting to obtain inform ation regarding the ann ual expenditure on rent control for each jurisdiction in the state of Californi a with a rent control ordinance impacting mobilehome parks. By this letter, you are requested to provide documentation showing the total amount of money incurred with respect to your mobilehome rent control ordinance each year since its original enactment, including any and all amounts incurred for administration, attorneys' fees, court costs, dam ages and other litigation expenses. Once this inform ation is obtained, my clients intend to submit it to the Go vernor's office, together with an estimate of the loss of income tax revenue and property tax revenue resulting from the various mobilehome rent control ordinances throughout the state of California. This request for documentation is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act. If advanced payment is required for the requested records, please advise. Very truly yours, {fe<fl C Wu) An thony C. Rodriguez cc: David Beretta 106/B ESARO/CLERKS.LTR PROPOSAL FOR A PARTIAL SOLUTION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING By Steve Sanders and John Ridley Background SLO county is undergoing one of the most cataclysmic increases in real estate values in California history. Cataclysmic because it dramatically widens the gap between county- wide salaries and the cost of housing. Mobile home ownership provides a housing haven for many working and retired families. Mobile homes are the only housing consistently priced at a level affordable to most residents of SLO. However, affordability of mobile homes is largely dependent on the cost of park rents. Unfortunately an alarming trend is affecting many mobile homeowners in SLO county. Due to the rapidly rising cost of land, out of area investors are purchasing mobile home parks, then intentionally chasing the existing residents out by overpricing space rent. They will then develop the land as something else, or generate a return on investment in the 50% to 60% range over a period of years, permanently removing existing affordable housing stock. In our park, for example, the proposed price increase will be from roughly $400 per month to $1,100 per month, almost a three hundred percent increase. Few of the residents there, especially retired seniors on fixed incomes, could afford such an mcrease. Recommendations It should not be the role of government to impede capitalism. In fact government should encourage the private sector to create more jobs and more housing. But government must also protect citizens from gouging and unfair treatment. In particular, SLO county is being asked by the state to meet its affordable housing responsibility and there may be an opportunity for the county to do just that, while still rewarding investment. We believe there may be a compromise solution that would both provide an equitable return to the investor and permanently protect availability of affordable housing stock. We believe that jurisdictions in SLO should do what jurisdictions in Orange County did over twenty years ago, when they protected mobile homeowners in Treasure Island from eviction and dramatically increased rents, exactly the kind of thing that is happening here in SLO. The jurisdictions protected existing homeowners by cooperating in an arrangement to sell the property to the homeowners. The investment company made money, the jurisdictions protected economically disadvantaged citizens and the homeowners got to stay where they were, buying the property on which they lived. The new landowners purchased the land in our park for approximately $30,000 to $35,000 per space, depending on the costs of acquisition. We believe that mobile home spaces would appraise for between $50,000 and $53,000. Our association, and most associations like ours, would be willing to pay market price to the investors, and further would be willing to absorb the cost transitioning from rental to ownership. We have been in contact with at least two, well known, local financial institutions, able and willing to finance such a transition. Further, the lenders have expressed interest in providing permanent financing of the land for existing park residents. Eminent Domain is a tool usually reserved for uncooperative landowners and is certainly a tool that could be employed here, particularly as the benefit to the general public in preserving affordable housing is clear. In this case, however, should the investors be w illing, a cooperative exercise of Eminent Domain may allow the investor to avoid short term capital gains, which would im pro ve the net yield on their investment by providing a significant tax benefit. ·· Program • A purchase agreement would be reached with the investor/ landowners to for the mobile homeowner's association to purchase the property at finished space value (appro xim ately $52,000 in our case). • T he m obile hom eow ner's association w ould accept the responsibility for planning and subdividing the site. • T he m obile homeowner's association would bear the responsibility for payment of all expenses in re-mapping and approving the site. • A coopera tive agreem ent betw een the jur isdiction and the landowner would be reached to work through a voluntary taking. • T he juri sdiction would cooperate through the subdivision and deliver services where possible to expedite the process. Monies spent on the conversion and staff time not directly reimbursed might be considered in kind match for federal programs. • On approval of the subdivision by the DRE, a private lender would "take out" the entire park and pay off the investor through the jurisdiction's eminent domain process. • Private lenders would then provide individual loans to purchase the individual lots, and the bulk loan would be repaid with proceeds from the individual closings. Pro-rata real estate and other taxes and expenses would be passed through the sale, which is common to real estate closings. At a purchase price of $52,000 at today's rates and terms, the monthly payment would be $311 per month. With a common area or association fee of $50 and taxes of around $60 per month payments would be very close to what rent is right now. At $52,000 per unit the investor would realize a profit of nearly $6,000,000 or an annual return of 67%. Even if closing expenses and carry eat into profits there would be a return of 50% or more. If the owners, county staff and the DRE are cooperative, this could be processed and closed within a year, resulting in the above returns. If cooperative, the owners would also be viewed as benevolent for causing ownership to happen where it otherwise may not have occurred. This procedure, or something like it, can be a model for ownership conversion and retention of affordable housing throughout San Luis Obispo County and the State of California. Moreover, it is the right thing to do. This plan is far more equitable than forcing people out of their homes, which is the present procedure. We ask for your support in creating and implementing this "Win/Win" program and we encourage your endorsement of same so that we may begin negotiating with park owners in earnest. RO N A LD L. EN D EM A N DO N A LD R. LIN C O LN KEN N ETH C. TU R EK HE N R Y E. HEA TER DAV ID SEM ELSB ER G ER JA M E S C. ALLEN GEO R G E H. KA ELIN Ill LINDA B. REICH ENDEMAN, LINCOLN, TUREK & HEATER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 600 "e" STREET, SUITE 2400 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. 92101-4508 TELEPHONE (619) S44·0123 FACSIMILE, RECEIVED orc'Tt§4l~i- Dave Hirsch City Attorney City of Simi Valley Simi Valley, CA 93063 -~c=-----------""--.-"-~'.1::....:="_';;;,,'·'_-~ 1:_~-_-2:::::_-:::_1-i-- December 7, 1998 ;, ;. CRIM. -::;~, I· CIV . ••. SECRETARY •. •::;_ERK - F ' CLERK - P C::.:'·....::._\l -i--------------- .. , .. l.C,.cc.:.ic~I(----------- Re: Montclair Parkowners Association, Hacienda Mobile Home Estates v. City of Montclair, et al. USDC Case No. CV 98-6723 R(AJWx) Montclair Parkowners Association, et al. v. City of Montclair San Bernardino Superior Court No. RCV 35814 Dear David: My partner, Don Lincoln, indicated that you were interested in obtaining the enclosed copies of the pleadings in the above two companion actions. As you will see, both actions challenged the facial constitutionality of the City of Montclair's newly enacted vacancy control provision in its mobilehome rent control ordinance. The Federal action was filed first; the State action was filed a day later. The Federal action proceeded entirely under the U.S. Constitution and tried to capitalize on the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 124 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1997). The State action alleged solely state constitutional infirmities and contained an England reservation with respect to plaintiffs' federal claims. The Federal Court dismissed the action pursuant to Younger abstention and therefore never reached the complaints' merits. One week later the State Court sustained a demurrer to the entire complaint without leave to amend. We expect an appeal in both actions. questions, feel free to give me a call. If you have any Sincerely, Henffla0 ( _ HEH:cg Enclosures cc: Jeffrey Epp (w/o encl.) . J,. August 15, 1995 Enclosed is a letter that is being received by p:eople living in mobilehome parks. The initiative group wants to get residents to send cards in backing the initiative. The signatures appearing in the letter are Park managers living in mobilehome.parks and working for the Park owners. If you would like any more information please call Ray Niemesh, Thank You, ~<J~ ""_,) f)~~.~ ~\J ~~ /7-?'V---,,~ .. ~< !f#J . tr,- 7}~ Raymond Niemesh ~- - 3960 S. Higuera St. #17 :f Sn Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7442 ~ RECEIVED f~UG 2 2 i995 CITY COUNCIL! --~I\:\\ 1 •1·- r'-·:-·Ji)_ f"':~ AUc ·1 , 1995 Californians for M ., 333 S. Grand Ave. Suite 2920 Los Angeles CA, 90071 (213) 891-2822 Fax: 891-2828 Fax: 891-9226 As fellow mobilehome residents, we are writing to request your support for the California Mobilehome Fairness Initiative which will appear on the March 1996 ballot. Mobilehome rent control has been a complete failure in California, having the opposite effect from what its promoters originally envisioned. • We alJ know that government interference in the private marketplace distorts prices and throws the balance between supply and demand out of whack. • The controversy and publicity generated by rent control battles have reflected badly on mobilehome living in general, contributing to reduced demand and a decline in mobilehome re-sale prices. • Rent control has reduced maintenance and improvements in existing parks. Park owners in rent-controlled jurisdictions have been unable to afford needed maintenance and improvements because the rents they receive often don't cover their operating expenses. • According to the state's Legislative Analyst, the government bureaucracies and litigation necessary to enforce local mobilehome rent control ordinances are costing California taxpayers millions of dollars each year; money that could be better spent on police, fire and other necessary public services. • The threat of mobilehome rent control has driven up rents for everyone (park owners have raised rents to protect their investments from future rent rollbacks, as frequently happens when rent control is imposed). The California Mobilehome Fairness Initiative offers a better solution. It phases-out rent control through a process of vacancy de-control. Rent control is eliminated only when a tenant moves out. The initiative also provides a 10% rent reduction for those truly in need. This provision applies everywhere in California where rent control is not in effect. Paid for by Californians for Mobile home Fairness ... a coalition of mobile home park owners, managers and resident representatives in California. ID #95-4437597 We support the Mobilehome Fairness Initiative because it will eliminate government interference in the private marketplace, it will end the controversy and negative publicity over rent control, it will improve maintenance in existing parks, and it will provide assistance for those truly in need. Please join fellow mobilehome residents in supporting the Mobilehome Fairness Initiative by filling out and returning the enclosed, postage-paid postcard today. Your support will help ensure passage of the initiative, put an end to rent control, re-institute market forces, and improve the quality of mobilehome living for all of us. Sincerely, ~ ~ Kimberly White ~~w~ Leslie Wrampe Lisa Davis P.S. Please return the enclosed postage-paid card today to help ensure passage of the California Mobilehome Fairness Initiative. " One Couple's Experience with Mobilehome Rent Control Al and Adele Foster lived at the Swan Lake Mobilehome Park in western Riverside County, a lovely 714 space park built around a seven acre lake with a clubhouse and two pools. It was for adults only (all residents over 21 years) and their rent was about $250 per month. Shortly after moving in, the idea of rent control came up and they decided it was a good concept. As President of the local GSMOL Chapter, Al led the effort to pass the ordinance. Following its passage, Al and Adele began to notice changes in their mobilehome park. First the grass was not watered, then it stopped being maintained. Finally, virtually all maintenance for · the park stopped and the park became a disgrace. .. Over the next four years the park was sold several times. Despite rent control, the rent was increased to over $370 per month. The adult park was changed to a family park. Some of their new neighbors were dr~g users and the weekend parties were almost non-stop. Crime increased significantly, with robberies and vandalism a fairly common occurrence. Some long-time neighbors were unable to sell their mobilehomes, so simply abandoned them. Al and Adele decided it was time for them to get out. They had a difficult time selling their mobilehome, and finally had to take a $12,000 loss from the original purchase price. During this period, a comparable home in Folsom appreciated as much as $30,000 to $40,000. By moving to a mobilehome park in Folsom they were able to find the lifestyle which they lost through rent control. Al was working hard to ensure that they never would have to be forced to live in a rent controlled park again. Unfortunately, a sudden heart attack claimed Al, but Adele is secure in her Folsom home. Sacramento Realtor Fall, 1993 Paid for hy Californians for Mobilehornc Fairness ... a coalition of rnobilehorne park owners, managers and resident representatives in California L a s t y e a r it w a s b ro u g h t to y o u r a tt e n t io n th a t th e P a rk O w n e r o f th e V ill a g e M o b ile H o m e P a r k (J o h n H o u g h ) h a d u tiliz e d a n in c o rre c t c o s t o f liv in g in c re a s e in c a lc u la t in g re n t in c re a s e s a t th e P a r k b e g in n in g J u ly 2 0 0 9 , re s u ltin g in a b o u t 1 8 re s id e n ts b e in g o v e r c h a r g e d . Y o u b ro u g h t th is to th e o w n e r's a n d h e c o n f ir m e d th a t h e d id n o t re a liz e th a t th e re n t c o n tro l o rd in a n c e u tiliz e d th e S ta te C P I in d e x ra t h e r th a n th e fe d e r a l C P I in d e x . B a s e d o n th a t c o r re s p o n d e n c e , a n d th e fa c t th a t h e h a d u s e d th e w ro n g in d e x in th e p a s t, M r. H o u g h p ro v id e d re f u n d s to th e s e re s id e n ts fo r re n ts p a id fr o m J u ly 2 0 0 6 th r o u g h J u n e 2 0 0 9 . T h e m a n n e r in w h ic h th o s e re fu n d s w e re c a lc u la te d , h o w e v e r, w a s q u e s tio n e d b y th e re s id e n ts . A c c o r d in g ly , I a s k e d M r . H o u g h to p ro v id e to u s th e b a s e re n ts th a t w e re in e ff e c t w h e n th e in c o r re c t C P I w a s fi rs t a p p lie d to th e b a s e re n ts . B y u s in g th o s e b a s e re n ts a n d a p p ly in g th e c o r re c t C P I fo r th e fo llo w in g y e a rs , w e w o u ld b e a b le to d e te r m in e (a ) w h a t th e b a s e re n ts s h o u ld c u r re n tly b e a n d (b ) if a d d it io n a l re f u n d s w e r e in o r d e r . M r . H o u g h p r o v id e d th a t in fo r m a tio n to m e a n d I m e t w ith h im to g o o v e r th e d a ta . It tu rn s o u t th a t a d d it io n a l re f u n d s a re in o rd e r , p r im a rily b e c a u s e M r. H o u g h , fo r w h a te v e r re a s o n , e le c te d n o t to ra is e th e re n ts fo r J u ly 2 0 0 7 th r o u g h J u n e 2 0 0 8 a lth o u g h h e c o u ld h a v e ra is e d th e m b y 3 .3 %. (H e a ls o c o u ld h a v e ra is e d th e re n ts fo r J u l y 2 0 0 9 th ro u g h J u n e 3 0 2 0 1 0 b y .1 % but chose not to do that either ) I provided to Mr. Hough my calculations for refunds to the three residents for which he provided me rent information. Those calculations are in the file that I· will put on your desk. As importantly, those documents also establish what the base rents are for July 2009/June 2010 so that the correct CPI index can be applied to the correct base rent. Mr. Hough indicated that he would prepare similar calculations for the other affected residents and provide refunds as appropriate. The only glitch that I see is that in reviewing the file it appears that he may have made an additional refund to the residents in December 2009 for the July 2009- December 2009 time frame. I did not have those amounts when I made my calculations but I have a call into Mr. Hough to confirm such refunds were made. Assuming they were, then the refund amounts shown on my calculations would be reduced. It would have no bearing, however, on the base rents, as now properly calculated. I don't know that this will completely satisfy Judy Dunlap but one of the sheets that I prepared concerns her rents so you should be able to explain to her why her base rent for July 2009/June 2010 is $341.34. I know this is somewhat confusing so if you have questions on it, you can certainly call me or email me. Michael (;,'2G-'-f 11 l~lllll!I If I City or San nus OBISpo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 4, 2010 John Hough Village Properties, LLC 962 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Village Mobile Home Park Dear Mr. Hough, I am following up to your question of how to interpret the phrase: "the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park ... " in section 5.44.060(E) ofthe San Luis Obispo Municipal Code when determining how to allocate a rent increase or decrease pursuant to that section. Section 5.44.020(F) defines space rent to mean: "the consideration, including any security deposits, bonuses, benefits or gratuities, demanded or received in connection with the use and occupancy of a mobile home space in a mobile home park, or for housing services provided, but exclusive of any amount paid for the use of a mobile home dwelling unit." The issue that has arisen in Village Mobile Home is that for some spaces, you rent both the space and the mobile home dwelling unit without apportioning the rent between the space and the dwelling unit. In this scenario, for the purposes of calculating the allocation of the increase or decrease in rent pursuant to section 5.44.060(E), you should not attempt to artificially break out the space rent from the dwelling unit rent for the spaces in which you rent both. Instead, you should treat the total rent as the space rent. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me at (805) 781- 7141 or avisveshwara@slocity.org. ~;;lly Y o,urs, ~k_ Andrea S. Visveshwara Assistant City Attorney cc: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7 41 O. ,111 11111111 !f I City or San uus OBISJ)O 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 May 27, 2010 John Hough Village Properties, LLC 962 Mill Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Village Mobile Home Park Dear Mr. Hough, I am in receipt of your letter dated May 20, 2010. I would like to thank you for providing the information regarding the refunds and a copy of your proposed notice to the residents. In reviewing the proposed notice, it is unclear whether the decrease in utilities has been apportioned correctly to the units. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code section 5.44.060(E) provides: Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases or decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television where applicable, excluding capital improvements or ongoing maintenance costs. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase or decrease in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent/or each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park .... Based on the notice, it appears that the decrease in utilities may have been passed through on a per space basis, instead of on the proportion of the rent paid by a space as required by the ordinance. Please confirm that the decrease in utilities will be apportioned on a space's proportional share of the rent in compliance with the ordinance. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact me at (805) 781-7141 or avisveshwara@ slocity.org. -~YoL Andrea S. Visveshwara Assistant City Attorney cc: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. May 20, 2010 IRFrr-nrr::o- MAY 2 4 2010 I .SLO CITY ATTORNEY ~-- Ms. J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Dietrick: Enclosed please find the Ann ual Increase letter to the homeown ers and tenants at the Village Mobile Home Park for the year ending 2009. Because of the delays in recalculating the increases dating back to 2004, this increase will not take effect until September of this year. Typically this notice in provided in March and put into effect in July. Also enclosed is a copy of the State of California consum er price index calculator for the year 2009. This index is the one I was instructed to use by your office. Mr. Roush and I worked to establish "true" base rents from 2004 through 2009 with a chart designed to provide each homeowner with a history of the increases. It is my understanding you were involved with the evaluation of this chart and the application of the Mobilehome Ordinance to the allowed vs. applied increases through the years. I will assume the final version of the format that Mr. Roush provided me was fully approved by you. I utilized this chart and his formula to establish 2009 "true" base rents and provide refunds to the homeown ers as appropriate. Each homeown er was provided a chart and refund check last week. I believe this concludes our responsibility as far as refun ds is concerned. Moving forward, we will this week, provide the Ann ual Increase letter enclosed to each homeown er utilizing the existing "true" space rent and apply a 1.8% increase. This new rent will begin in September so as to allow the 90-day notice requirement in the Ordinance. Regardless of our efforts to fully explain both the process and result of this corrective measure, I suspect your office, and you individually, may receive additional inquiries from some of the more concerned residents who are reluctant to discuss it with me directly. If there is anything furt her I can do to clarify this process or the results, please give me a call. It is my sincere hope we have brought this circumstance to a final conclusion. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STATISTICS & RESEARCH CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CALCULATOR 1 Select an Index I Los Angeles - Anaheim CPI ..-1 2 Select index type I All Urban Consumers ·I 3 Select beginning month I December ·I Beginning Index value 4 Select beginning year i 2008 ·I t 219.62 t 5 Select ending month I Dec ember I ... I Ending Index Value 6 Select ending year I 2009 1·1 1 223.643 1 Based upon the Index, index type, and the time period you have specifed, the percent change in the Consumer Price Index is equal to: 1.8% May 19, 2010 To All Village Mobile Home Park Homeowners and Tenants: In accordance with Section 5.44.60(B) of the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance, the maximum monthly space rent may be increased no more than once a year based on the percentage change in the consumer price index (CPI). Specifically, the ordinance allows an increase in the maximum monthly space rent at a rate equal to 100% of the CPI, up to 5% and 75% of the percentage change above 5%, to a maximum of 9%. The CPI increase for the annual period from December 2008 to December 2009 was 1.8%. By the formula above, the increase for the coming year will be 1.8%. Also in accordance with the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance Section 5.44.060(E), pass-through charges may be automatically adjusted based on any increase/decrease in the expenses for water, sewer, trash, etc. As a result of less usage primarily due to significant vacancy within the park, the 2009 cost for water, per space, per month was $37.15 down from $43.82. Thank you for your efforts to conserve water. This decrease is a welcome change to the typical increases. It continues to be the responsibility of each and every occupant in the park to conserve water. Please be reminded that washing automobiles and other vehicles within the park is prohibited by the park rules. The cost for sewer service for 2009 also went down. This will reduce your monthly expense from $45.61 to $38.37 based on the January to December 2009 billings. Whi le we cannot explain this reduction, it is good news. Trash pick-up remained approximately the same. Eliminating the trash bins at the rear of the property did a great deal to discourage major trash dumping and the need for special pick-ups. Remember, leaving items outside the trash containers is prohibited by park rules. When individuals leave large items in the trash area outside the container, it reflects directly on your monthly cost as we need to have special pick-ups and trash area cleanups. Please report and offenders to management to help prevent this problem. The new monthly rate for trash will be $21.50 up slightly from $20.89 the previous year. Therefore, and in compliance with the California Civil Code 798.30, this is a 90- day notice of rent adjustment. Your space rent due on September 1, 2010 will include these rent adjustments. Based on these allowable adjustments your new space rent will be $ _ Allowable pass-through expenses will be as follows: Water $37.15 per month Sewer $38.37 per month Trash $21.50 per month Total $97.02 per month SPACE# _ Sincerely, John Hough Manager, Village Properties, LLC Last year it w as brought to your attention that the Park O w ner of the V illage M obile Hom e Park (John Hough) had utilized an incorrect cost of living increase in calculating rent increases at the Park beginning July 2009, resulting in about 18 residents being overcharged. Y ou brought this to the ow ner's and he confirm ed that he did not realize that the rent control ordinance utilized the State C P I index rather than the fe deral C P I index. Based on that correspondence, and the fact that he had used the w rong index in the past, M r. Hough pro vided refunds to these residents fo r rents paid from July 2006 through June 2009. T he m anner in w hich those refunds w ere calculated, how ever, w as questioned by the residents. A ccordingly, I asked M r. Hough to pro vide to us the base rents that w ere in eff ect w hen the incorrect C P I w as first applied to the base rents. By using those base rents and applying the correct C P I fo r the fo llow ing years, w e w ould be able to determ ine (a) w hat the base rents should currently be and (b) if additional refunds w ere in order. M r. Hough provided that info rm ation to m e and I m et w ith him to go over the data. It turn s out that additional refunds are in order, prim arily because M r. Hough, fo r w hatever reason, elected not to raise the rents fo r July 2007 thro ugh June 2008 although he could have raised them by 3.3%. (H e also could have raised the rents fo r July 2009 through June 30 2010 by .1 % but chose not to do that either ) I provided to Mr. Hough my calculations for refunds to the three residents for which he provided me rent information. Those calculations are in the file that I will put on your desk. As importantly, those documents also establish what the base rents are for July 2009/June 2010 so that the correct CPI index can be applied to the correct base rent. Mr. Hough indicated that he would prepare similar calculations for the other affected residents and provide refunds as appropriate. The only glitch that I see is that in reviewing the file it appears that he may have made an additional refund to the residents in December 2009 for the July 2009- December 2009 time frame. I did not have those amounts when I made my calculations but I have a call into Mr. Hough to confirm such refunds were made. Assuming they were, then the refund amounts shown on my calculations would be reduced. It would have no bearing, however, on the base rents, as now properly calculated. I don't know that this will completely satisfy Judy Dunlap but one of the sheets that I prepared concerns her rents so you should be able to explain to her why her base rent for July 2009/June 2010 is $341.34. I know this is somewhat confusing so if you have questions on it, you can certainly call me or email me. M ichae l HO M E O W N E R: SPACE B "'-il-- Space rent increase Rent roll Adjustments previously per CPI amount was: Monthly difference Annual difference paid to Homeowner Total adjustment due RENT IN 2004-2005 36D,d"¾ ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2004 CPI Lh4-% -~~ .~') RENT FOR 2005-2006 ':>/3.tf-9 '? t3, '46i -o - ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2005 CPI Lt,-S-% RENT FOR 2006-2007 ':S J.'1, s- °' ? 3/. ;)-') ? .,D 4Lf elfD Lf'(.-t/o ·3. ()() ft-Pl~c;,v . b~ AbbQlA!i;;e INCREASE DEC 2006 CPI RENT FOR 2007-2008 ~?-7.-S-7 '5'3i.~~ ~ r ?o l.fi-f.: 'fO 'b9f40 L s:71 ~ ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2007 CPI y..;). '10 RENT FOR 2008-2009 3i.JI. .J Lr 3 r,. (;:s i0,~7 /)-3 ~'-1:J ,7,/(r; ~~r1'tff 4ft, fr:!JJ~0? 0 o/c Ald,;9lo4~ INCREASE DEC 2008 CPI RENT FOR 2009-2010 ·3 '-4( ' =s '-I- 3~1 ~lP ~ /o. J-~ loJ,.C,o ~ ..... - C, --- lo:i.. .. 9 o ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2009 CPI t7"> -~ , • ,., • V "°' ,~L -+ T~DlVl-i ftl)/l.tc__ tOC,/[0 H O M E O W N E R: n ~ SPACE /F t9 Space rent increase Rent roll Adjustments previously per CPI amount was: Monthly difference Annual difference paid to Homeowner Total adjustment due RENT IN 2004-2005 ~3Sr0.$ ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2004 CPI 'f, L{ 0/4 RENT FOR 2005-2006 3 '-/7, -, '7 31./9, 7 7 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2005 CPI 4:r S- c/o RENT FOR 2006-2007 ~'3(Q5, SlJ 3 tt;r. &~ V r 1:s t./9rJ1, 'f-(i, .~ g r-S~ A' "31.~~NCREASE DEC 2006 CPI I 0 o/~ I RENT FOR 2007-2008 l ~·7=,ws--, St) "3ltlr. u3 tfrt3 L{Cj r J'?t, <rr .. s« L. 51, H) ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2007 CPI lf: • )- 'to RENT FOR 2008-2009 '3 80 r i>" 3 q J , ~ 3 /{ (t(g I 37. 7& ~7r j)._ ~-;;. I /2- 1'9'/J'-l.Z,ff" 0% AbbQlNED INCREASE DEC 2008 CPI RENT FOR 2009-2010 3<JU, S'(" l/-011~1- i, r 3q ;;.__ o3 I '7 {) +- -o- "'J-4 3 I' 9 0 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2009 CPI gos, 19· ,+TfH~-Dllotf 1H A.«- H O M E O W N E R: ~, - SPACE C- ~ Space rent increase Rent roll Adjustments previously per CPI amount was: Monthly difference Annual difference paid to Homeowner Total adjustment due RENT IN 2004-2005 ')---r,' j 8' ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2004 CPI 4,4 <lo RENT FOR 2005-2006 J..°10110 ~ '?Oc/D ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2005 CPI 4r-~1o RENT FOR 2006-2007 ·3 03. lf' ~ 0 fo, $-:8' 3 r'-f ?> 'ti ,/(p ? ~,r../-0 ~~ 7C, ~()u GQ ofc Abb--.lEO INCREASE DEC 2006 CPI RENT FOR 2007-2008 ·30·3,{) -~o~fs-g j. 4 3. tff, i ~ ~). .. iv L.. '-I-I, iP <./ "? ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2007 CPI '-f.). v/o RENT FOR 2008-2009 'J \ ~, ~g 3).S,40 't.s s- It t.f , ;J c./- 7 ),:J..c/ S-/, s-2- f!.1 f) l l e;;,-T / O¼ A l::l::8 W ED INCREASE DEC 2008 CPI RENT FOR 2009-2010 a IS, s« 7:,37,17 J-( .. ~q 7--. I 3, 9 0 ~ -o- ~ I fr', °t 0 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2009 CPI 'J-S"-3, l./-3 A-- T H-12. oot 11 frf) k L H O M E O W N E R: _ S P A C E _ Space rent increase Rent roll Adjustments previously per CPI amount was: Monthly difference Annual difference paid to Homeowner Total adjustment due RENT IN 2004-2005 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2004 CPI RENT FOR 2005-2006 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2005 CPI RENT FOR 2006-2007 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2006 CPI RENT FOR 2007-2008 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2007 CPI RENT FOR 2008-2009 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2008 CPI RENT FOR 2009-2010 ALLOWED INCREASE DEC 2009 CPI S T A T E O F C A L IF O R N IA DIVISION OF LABOR STATISTICS & RESEARCH CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CALCULATOR 1 Select an Index I Los Angeles - Anaheim CPI l•I 2 Select index type I All Urban Consumers I • I 3 Select beginning month I Decem ber I ... I Beginning Index value 4 Select beginning year j zoos I ... I i 219.62 1 5 Select ending month I Decem ber l·I Ending Index Value 6 Select ending year i 2009 I ... I 1 223.643 1 Based upon the Index, index type, and the time period you have specifed, the percent change in the Consumer Price Index is equal to: 1.8% TV N O . K3Z 2 PARK & APTS ~ME VILLAGE M H 6 4 5 3 MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 7 8 9 10 FROM A~VQ _ . .1. · p;;p •~g ,-;1.1. _-_ ~ , 11 - 12 13 14 ieNANTNAME lJNtT ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOO BASE unurv ALL OTHER 1= ~ ~ 10TPI. REMAINING LOSS ' (IF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) NO. RENTAL CHARGE MISC. IIM().NT BALANCE OF RENT DATE DATE FROM TO RATE CHARGE:$ OW'lClED t,MO.x,rr FAOMPRIOR = DUE ALLOWANCES RE I IN O U T (THI S PE RI OO ) (THI SPERIOO ) l'ERIOO ~SPE R100 ) • "'•'J J ' .. I ')t ··-;;; 1J. • ' I -~. ' ,, ' '. ,,. ' ' ,. I ' ••••VACANT•••• HSE ' ~ ·: j: ... :'-. '' I - , •l·~ .• - \) ... , ' -,.. ' ' '. ,J ' ., ~;-, ••••VACANT•*** A01 ' If : I ' r ~-•· !•, ' ' . ' J;l,_.:,.. -· ' \'II.I ,h ' . ' I I ,l_ .-Ll ~. I\;, JI 1' ' ' ' ~ " Al9 4al 7~4 ":l"'i i c:; 11 4 ~? to,;_ I "'i "'i 7 ?1 ' ~ ~: .;__~"-..!. ITV ,\10. K37 NAME VILLAGE )'f H PARIC & .PT$ MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FROM 11 Aug 1 09, To Aug 31 09 12 13 14 TENANT NAM E UNIT ACTI\IITY . RENfAL PE.RIOO BASE UTILITY All OTHER ~ safflm ~ ~ R~M_AINING J,..0S$ ~! V USi NO ' ,RENTAL CHARGE MISC. , . · CQJ.f:C1ED ElALANCE OF l'IENT QF ACANT , /loB SUOH) · DATE DAT 1 ~ FROM rq RATE CHARGES (THI~> (THl~P> "=Of\ (l'HSf'EAOO) , oue ALLOWANcss R IN OU. · \ ""... ,J h "L_,, n I A46 : : 77500 : , -:. • ·': 77500 ~•, .. ; , l'l : : r 1• I t."" : -~ I •. ~;_; I I ";\_J', ·-• I , • ~ ~I-., I I r/< _ 1'. .' t• T \ ~"·•~V AC A H T **** A 4 7 , . ,_: ~ . : , , '.''_ Ii.·~: : ':. - ; ,: : r : ,. )!·~_:1..•1. : ;-~ 111 \:-i_ -~ ~~~d~ . : I If , I . , !,'g ~ 1 . ~ r ! . ) • I A48. , 3,2522 4645 11482 ~; ,.,( 48649 ~~ , .. -~ ·, ,.·.•;·: '. ----- .. ~.;,;c ~-~ ' __ ,_,...,., ITV NO. K37 NAME VILLAGE }'J 2 3 4 TENANT NAME ~F VACANT, UST M SUCH) u NO. H PARK & APTS .!'• -·----··· ----·~----·--- ........... -··· I FROM Ayg 1 ~~ ro Aug 31 0~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ENTALP,E~I QASE ,I UTILITY I ALL OTHER SE~TY 10TAL ~ ll11!",ti. REMAINING }0$8 RENTAL CHAFIGE ISC. OEP09 11'$ ~ 0/llED IWl:1.Nf 13ALANOE 0 RENT Cl-t~RGES , CHAMED ~ROMPRIOR caJ..EC1ED REI TO RATE (THISPERIOOI (l"HISl!jiRJ90) PERIOD (THI SPi:RIOP) DUE ALLOWANCES .. .. ' lil'.i : ' '"ll -.;,~ ~ '"( . ' .. ' ~,-·r• ···,~Y:, ' : ' ' . ' m I ~!"i• 11482 A57 A59' A60 B12 67500 ' 11482 ,·:,, i 78982 .. ' . ' ' ' n ' 80000 3459 11482 .. : .... , 94941 i 800~0! I 1. '.~:~ ·; I 80.000 s12gs 5,ntl RTY N O . K37 NAME VIi,LAGE 1f H PARK & APTS 2 3 4 5 6 7 MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 8 9 10 FROM 11 Aug 1 09 To Aug 31 09 12 13 14 TENAN INAM E UNIT ACTIVITY ~NTAL PEAIOO R~~ UTILITY ALL OTHER SE;Q,IFITY lOTAL ~ 'IOTAL REMAINING LOSS ' CHARGE MISC. ~ ~ ~PRIOR N.tCUIT BALANCE OF RENT R; (IF VACANT, LIST AS SUCH) NO. DATE DATE FRO M to RATE CHARGES CQJ.ECle[) DUE ALLOWANCES '"' ()OT (TH SPERIQO) (THS P6RIOO ) PellOll ~81'1:FIIOO) "'II;•: , ' ~- . I .. ~ ... 1~ .. -. ' .. ' ,.·,r••" ' -" ,,., l : ,,.., ~ •'J ·., I ~ ' . I . ;>ii, ~ C03 39650 3025 ,.J, 54157 "' .! Go ..I _,. I ••-• V 1: -~"" ;. t.- j '.;l : ,,."'-~. ' oil .~ '> I ' ~ ' ; •,, " . ' ~•••VACANT•••• C05 1~ -~ : ;1 . ,I; '. ~ . ' , ( ' : ' ( .J: tl ~'1 ' "' : ••••VACANT•••• C06 I .. ~ ~ . Q~: ' : fl .-, ., j· ~ ' ' -- ' ~~ ' ' /~ L1. ~ ! / C08 33777_ 2201 11482 r: ~• 47460 ' i f ' " . -~ ' :.'i . ' \ ..!L...,_, ,:iii!'~· _,,_,,,,, TY N-0. I MONTH SUMMARY REPORT I TO f;;?,-).;.-.'2 $_ .:..0 ~"··-,7 NAME VILLAGE M H PARK ... APTS FROM ~e!w1 1 10 _..,....:)'" i:,.. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 TENANT NAME UNIT ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY All OTHER SECURfTY TOTAL BALANCE "TO TAL REMAINING LOSS RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEPOSITS SCHEDU!£D I ONcD AMOUNT BALANCE OF RENT (IF VACANT, LIST AS SUCH) NO. DATE DATE RATE CHARGES CHAC\GED AMOUNT FROM PRIOR COLLECTED DUE ALLOWANCES II REM IN OUT FROM TO (fHIS PERIOD) (fHIS PERIOD) PERJOD (THIS PERIOD) ¥•••VACANT•••~ HSE ••••VACANT•••~ A01 A07 7~ 101:99\ 114~a21 I ss1:a11j -30 300:591 40:92 114821 4564311_ _ -8.B -3544.11 61:871 111.te.2 54110' ••••VACANT•••~ A08 A09 33{::01 61:021 114:321 I 5.!..!IJ!:,;..,,c:-!,;a,.,_ . .bj• !-----+---+-----'-f-----+-+---------,-----if--- "'-**+--VACANT**_*;ij A.1_0 ! .U2. 3--1_._541 1_3f5.a 1148:"?' 59277 *-"'"**VAC.e •. N'fH·**' Al5 xt s - ·4@~24 45:53 1.14:a2 56759 ••••VACANT•••~ A24 *••~VACANT•••~ A25 TY N O . i-:37 2 N A M E VI !...L A G S 3 4 M H PARK 5 T E N A N T NA M E (IF VACANT, LIST AS SUCH) UNIT NO. ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD DATE IN DATE I FROM OUT TO MONTH SUMMARY REPORT &. APTS FROM Feb 1 10 TO F'0b 28, __ _l~?i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 BASE UTILITY All OTHER SECURITY TOTAL BALANCE TOTAL REMAINING LOSS RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEPOSITS SOiEDUI..ED ONED ,'MOUNT BALANCE OF RENT RATE CHARGES CHARGED AMOUNT FROM PRIOR COUEC TEl DUE ALLOWANCES II REM (THIS PERIOD) (THIS PERIOD) PERJOD (THIS PERIOD) A39 77500 5 7 :3 4. 114i821 947551 795@3 225:53 114:52 1135:45 -55 625:00 40:87 114;82 : 780:59 -:10 394:7: 102:20 111:.s2! 511:74 ~•••VACANT•••~ A40 ~•••V ACANT•••4 A41 A43 525:001 6 2 5 :0 0 1 -58 ¥•••VACANT•••~ A44 A46 *••*VACANT ·!H ' • 4 t-<_4.7 A 4 8 ~'.:fSJ2l0/ 55:55 114.:82! 775:00 32522 93:55 111:a21 995:48 77500, 53tm9 :R TY •lO . I MONTH SUMMARY REPORT I !='eb ' 10 rn Feb 28 10 v.•-.7 NAME VILLAGE l<f H PARK &.. APTS FROM .:, , .. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 - ' TENANT NAME UNIT ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SECUR!"TY TOTAL BALANCE 10T-'L REMAINING LOSS RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEPOSITS SCHEDULED ONED AM<X,NT BALANCE OF RENT (IF VACANT, LIST AS SUCH) NO. DATE DATE FROM RATE CHARGES CHARG ED AMOUNT FROM PRIOR CXJU..ECTED DUE ALLOWANCES II RE~ IN OUT TO [fHIS PERIOD) [fHIS PERIOD) PERIOD [fHIS PERIOD) * +---i- +<VACANT**** A56 A57 70000 70C?Y:00 15800 -I' -1'-.- "'VACANT•)'-.,.** A58 !· B03 550:00 55;39 J.1-1i82 720:2111 -20 I """~"'"""'VACANT***!< 805 B12 351:6,;J - --- 83:44 11Aa2 54.~:i391 cRTY xo, fe:3 7 NAME VILLAGE: :M. H PARK APTS I MONTH SUMMARY REPORT I 10 rn Feb 28 10 8.. FROM Feb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ;! TENANT NAME UNIT ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SEC\JRlTY TOTAL BALANCE "TOTAL REMAINING LOSS NO. RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEPOSITS SCHEDULED ONED .aMOlM" BALANCE OF RENT (IF VACANT, LIST AS SUCH) DATE DATE FROM RATE CHARGES CHARGE D AMOLM" FROM PRIOR COll.ECTED DUE ALLOWANCES II REI IN OUT TO (THIS PERIOD) (THIS PERIOD) PERIOD (THIS PERIOD) c·03 77500I I I 77500! 33$191 24:411 114:a21 _ I 4.75:-121 ~ 6 ':c:; i 1.14;82 -545:991 359,66 .L.1\.-ol - 450:00 41:87 114:82 se,s:ss 39650 35:57 1 1 LL:a ':l 54·7:39 .... .,. _._~ :-4 ~•••VACANT•*•~ C05 ••••VACANT•••~ C06 C08 3~37,77, l_S~~ 11~±:a.2 453::=;,5 :":.••-•VACANT**.;,.,[ C09 S T A T E O F C A L IF O R N IA DIVISION OF LABOR STATISTICS 8c RESEARCH CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CALCULATOR 1 Select an Index I Los Angeles - Anaheim CPI 1 ... , 2 Select index type j All Urban Consumers 1·1 3 Select beginning month I December 1·1 Beginning Index value 4 Select beginning year 1·1 187 5 Select ending month I Decem b er 1 ... 1 Ending Index Value 6 Select ending year -.f2?04 1·1 I 195.2 I Based upon the Index, index type, and the time period you have specifed, the percent change in the Consumer Price Index is equal to: 4.4% STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STATISTICS & RESEARCH CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CALCULATOR 1 Select an Index I Los Angeles - Anaheim CPI 2 Select index type j All Urban Consumers 3 Select beginning month I December 4 Select beginning year j 2004 5 Select ending month j December 6 Select ending year I .., I Based upon the Index, index type, and the time period you have specifed, the percent change in the Consumer Price Index is equal to: Beginning Index value 1 19s_2 1 Ending Index Value 1 203.9 1 4.5% STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STATISTICS & RESEARCH CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CALCULATOR 1 Select an Index I Los Angeles - Anaheim CPI 1 ... , 2 Selec t index type j All Urban Consumers 1·1 3 Select beginning month • Beginning Index value 4 Select beginning year • I 203.9 ' • 5 Select ending month , ... , Ending Index Value 6 Select ending year l·I I 210.6 ' Based upon the Index, index type, and the time period you have specifed, the percent change in the Consumer Price Index is equal to: 3.3°0 STAT E O F CA LIFO R N IA DIVISION OF LABOR STATISTICS & RESEARCH . CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CALCULATOR 1 Select an Index J Los ~ngeles - Anaheim CPI l·I 2 Select index type I All Urban Consumers 1·1 3 Select beginning month ~eml:le~ 1·1 Beginning Index value 4 Select beginning year <f oo6 I • I I 210.6 I 5 Select ending month jDe'cemberj 1·1 Ending Index Value 6 Select ending year ::.t;2001:) I • I I 219.373 I Based upon the Index, index type, and the time period you have specifed, the percent change in the Consumer Price Index is equal to: . STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STATISTICS & RESEARCH CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CALCULATOR 1 Select an Index j Los Angeles - Anaheim CPI I • I 2 Select index type j All Urban Consumers 1·1 ~cem~er !, 3 Select beginning month I ... I Beginning Index value 4 Select beginning year J 2007 I ... I 1 219.373 1 5 Select ending month [ December I ... I Ending Index Value 6 Select ending year 1200s Fl 219.62 Based upon the Index, index t¥pe, and the time period you have specifed, the percent change in the Consumer Price Index is equal to: 0.1% NO. K37·' ... NAME VILLAGE M H f>ARI(" 2 3 4 5 6 TENANTNAME UNIT ACTIVITY NTAL PERIOD BASE RENTAL OF VACANT, UST ,.S SUCH) NO. DATE iAJf FROM TO RATE IN HHHfVACANT'**** ~ C>IARGEO (THIS PERK)()) Hhu•VACANT****I AOl 4,5~:4 '* REM ;? .,,,,,,-/ M J ~ 0 v tu !Yw- 0 s- -a~~ hwv ~-~ ..-,--- )I J~ o>' iTY N O . 1{37 NAME VI!.LAGE M Fl P,.RK i; APT'S 2 3 4 5 6 TENANf NAM E I.NT ACTIVITY AL PERIOD BASE OF VACN<r, UST M SUCH} NO, FIENTAL DATE OATS FROM TO RATE IN OUT .,_ ~ 1!'· .; ~ .!.fil/11 .. ~~·,;.: r·•·i~,. J; :, A44 ' ' 65000 •1694 ' ,. ' JL ... 775,0L~ -~·66i1eii i'. I ·- I ~, -- I !TY ~q. UK~7 ~1!i-~_Y. .,N'A.ME· V~IJ..~j3£f 11 R .fAR'tf .&. APtTS: ~ ':.fir"! /1••-••J•ll --••••••.r,;■,.- ••~ -••• '}.''~J..•~ FROM Jy.l 1. . 04 ro 4U,\ 3.t 04 2 3 4 ~· 5.-:<; ,., 6 < 7· /i; IJ;ij,. > ,9 10 -~~ ... t1 1:z' 13 14 ~ - . ..e_• TENANT NAM E l.NT ACTIVITY ENTAI. PEAIOO BASE , UTILITY AU. OTHER ~ - lOT,li.. BAI.ANGE & l'IEMAINING LOSS RENTAL ',: ,CHARGE MISC. IICH:IUB) OM:D BALANCE , OFRENT ~ ~F VACNfT , UST AS SUC H) NO. DATE 0 TE FROM TO RATE CHARGES OiAR',EO ~ l'A0"1 PFIIOfl <XUECTl:ll DUE . ALLOWANCES RE IN OIJT ,;... (fl-IS PEFQ)) (Tl,t'SPeRIOO) PEfl0D l (TH8 PERI OO) ~ _,:;, 1 ASS I ' I II ~-e,sooo1 I < I _,~(. :1 31.~e: ' . ' . 80:3 ****VACA~T**** BO~ ' · .. . 80.8 - ****VACANT***~ Bl~ ' ' l ·' I ' I I 6493 ' : •I 32621 ;---= I 4oobol.. I 29S5 .. I I .,._• Q50Q 3755 I ' -_ l 62500 ~583 6500 0 51P1 ' l ' 545po 41r-i:4 I ' '• r~~•\.r,I~.-• J,,1 ._ I'.•••: ..__ al- p ·: :l.1 ~· r: ·: ' 80000 ;;a91 S9;Q7 .. .... !'~' 91SO ' : I ' ' ' ' 66;19 59~7 RTY NO. lt37 NAME 1v:tL.LA_G& M ff ~~R~ & APTS .. I~: l'Wl.-1. I J t ,._.W l11-IIWl~l I I I 1 ... 1 -•• It I -;.i: 'I- J\.l1 .1 04 TO Jul. 3-l Q FROM ... ~.. )'i. 2 3 4 .,,,5 6 7 8 ,. 10 11 12 13 14 TENANTNAM~ UNIT ACTIVITY ENTAL PERIOD BASE , , unurv /\L L3THE R SEClA '!Y ;, ' '!UT.Al ~ lOTAI. "REMAINING LOSS Al;NTAL " CHARGE MISC. ~lS. . ~ sa-mAB) PNO:ifr BALANC!:: OFAENT (IF VACANT, WST AS SUCH) NO. · DA'TE ~Jf FROM to RATE :I ~ 1 J CHARGES Cl'WlGED ~-9 (THS~) FROMPAOA ~~ DUE.,·· ALLOWANCES IN , . (THIS PERIOO) Pl;ROO ::--~ ~f, ~ < ----=-..'..__G_~ ' ' ·' -, ****VACAliT*IHf'*I C05 ' ' ' ; L C0.6 5000 552 ' 2~69 17~~ 9t,221! ' 42~:3 - !TY N O . K3 & APT,S 2 NAME VtLLAGE 3 4 5 I.NT , I ACTlVITY' !RENTAL PERIOD NO. DATE DATE FROM TO I" OUT ~,> 6 7 18' 11 12 TO i,3·- - 14 ~~,..-- ~· .__.._. ~NAME OF VACNff , LIST Nil SUC H) BASE ~AL. 'IOTAI. &1 ~ ONED FR:>l,l l'ROR PEROo &1 REMAINING I LOSS BALANCE OF AENT DUE ALLOWANCES I TY NO. K31 NAME Vll .. LAG£ JiJ ff P~RK .& AP1'$ ' ~. 1: ••. .., ••.•. -~·-····· •••. ··-· -··. '.tliJ:t FROM Max: 1 :05 1° tUa:r 31 05 ' ~-- ?,,. 5 , i "! ' '.1._.vn!'t'i 10· r•~:~ 11 ·12 13 14 2 3 4 ~ 7 -...1 . .,_, 9 fENAN TNAM E l.NI" M. PE/'l lOO BASE UTILITY ' OTH ER " ~ c-J ~ - ~ REMAINING LOSS NO. REN TAL • ,. . i:.CHARGE MISC. CIM:D BALA NCE OFREI IIT (If VACNlt, UST NJ SUCH) ~ .oMa.NT FROt.1 PA!OA ~) DATE TO RA~ CHA RG£S /Iri s PfRjQ()) DUE ; ALLOWAN CES ;.~ PeAl0D 'Y NO. K 3r _,._ NAME VI½L~(?~ ., 11, JJ PA~K J. Af>:~ t [' MONTH SUMMARY REPORT -·.•),I. FROM" nar 1 05. To ttar 31 r r,-; ,. ·2 I ti .!''}(; ... -, .. ,,:.. 16' •·-···- 11 - 12 14 3, 4 •· ~5 • 7 8 ,:i,., "' 9 ':).'( 13 TENANTNAME \.NT ACTIVITY BASE I .. - . UTILITY ",Ail Oi'H ER SECLff'IY " 10T-"I.. IW,.AIU 10TAI.. REMAI NING LOSS OF VACANT, US T NJ SUC H) NO. RENTAL F.- . • -CHARGE .· MISC. 06POSml SCH3lU£D ~PAOR N.«:IJ:,T' BALAN CE OF RENT DA TE DATE FROM TO RATE ., . CHAR GES 1 ~ =m:.~ · .. ~ OWE• ALLO WAN CES IN n11T .• PEflOD ' ' 63~7,. ' ' _ -- 5408 • ;'"Ri-:' •! ij03 5~5,0CZ 41~1 ' I 805 I --..i I I I 808 : ~ i 8 0 fd.0 16 9!8 1 t I · I , /, ~ : ~ I ' I \ I ' B10 , : -._ ; ' •1 I t i l ,£w fi2:s, Gai1.1 59107 ITV N O . ___Ji37 \\' . NAME 2 'rENANT NAM E FROM Mar '.l' 0~, ro llat: 31 !D~ 8 ~ ~~. 10 11 ' 1.2 .. 13 14 " All OTttER SECI.A lY ,. 1'CITAL F& TOT..._ REMAINING LQSS MISC. OEPOOI TS ~ ',~ BAI.ANCE OF RENT CHARGES (nt~ (fHSPEROO) PEAOQ ' . (THS Pl,ROI;)) DUE ALLOWANCES " f ~ .... ". -,,,, ,._, 4691 .-,. : ' 1 ••• 4:VA_QANT• • • ••••'t'_,\~Altt••• $ 21i0'4 Rl\l/ NO Kit •· .: :t . ;!_. ___! NAME · 1 ~ . ft. ii i'u.,· 'P""'es V ,L.a..AGE •M, ff r,.rm.n, .. & A 1; . 3 4, 5 .. 61 TENAMTNAM6 ~" VACNff, uar NI SUCHI I.NT NO , .. * * *1V ACANT ••••·I, L FROM .. "'\i' 1 05 H 1'3' 9 to . '!af,ll... , . fll;MAINIG >I ,,LOS$ . ., 8 ~ , ' r, 'eM:1<~ ,, , OF RENT., ~ R , 'Cl©l!LE , t,,i ', • ,OU.I: ' ALLOW ~CES ITMS!E~OO); ' ' · ' • ~*'V ACAkif'!_• •'!:L xa~ik ?'~O,~o[ i.~l.~~. ,?S62'· 24,-~ ~ ~..,. . .,.,rw.,.,,. ' ,"!,1, 1l'j W .t.,J t.,W,.1., . • .;», ,l.J'L-...,.;.-- _ _., :rM f .~ ' ' " r~i~'\it a .. •~l//1~ ;?" , . **i!Y~C~}IT•***, A10, I : I : ***VACA.MT**** All -'--·- ,. _I I II [ ___ ! !S 4. 41~t1 ' I r : I ' ·' 2509' , Al.7 ' !5327,, !, .. , .. I ' . .41 '3 .: : ~497 6Ql43 : ' ' ' ' if JHtV A:C ~~T ***tt i' A 2 4 I : ., / YI-!~· :K~·"' 2 TENANT NAM!$ ffF VAcANT, UST ,N3 QIC}i) °FR0M "~' ~ ·0$ :ro -~~ :u 01 _ 3 4 5 6 7 8 g 10 11 13 "' Ul"Jtl'. ~Cll '(tTV ·~~·.i:'.pe. :•M81S ,, i, [. r11cr(y·. ~~ 101','1., flE~lNIN~ JOSJ,., ~, - - , _ {1 • , - ~ , ,El -~~ "-,,. ,...~ ~ 111<: qtfi'~C)E , : ·1,., U. .f3ALANGE · REN NO. II;' OAT DA1' 1'111~"' ,,ii!TO "· DUE~•~ AUbWANCES I RE '" n1aT Pil '\_f; ;~i,j, ) I ~ I ' PEJII ',!' (11:f &~O,G) ~ A_4S '***'<~~A:Nt***tt.l A46 . 1 'i-a,Q 'l:7e~ ' !iQ~_Q ~TY :N O ,. . t( ....:.......:.:;c_~- N'AME V,'.lbl,J\Sji ff ~'', P»\,R,K, ~ A.P1S. 4 FAoM /s,U(;J 1 0 5 . To Aug 31 05 11 1•2, 13 1'4 ~,1:. J 7e;' ~.<>, : . I ,· I As! r : - . : , ; - - - -W l ~ - . f . . ' ' Jl,~k _;_ ' .. ,ti~-~. ! i ' r~r~~·?, 'I : . , . ,· ·;, : . ~~r ,.~ ~ .,;•,. ·,,··t,~·: • . ' ' ., .1 ~I · • ' '. 1 'f 1 · • I ' l ,,~ __________ 7 ~··· ... .. 1 ~e~ E>OM,. ,.,.. . ·"., • :a.111112 .. , ... · ,1. •. .A ~. .. ,., r T : - ,. , A61 : : 1·osbo 364.1 · • • ' • ' • , • •· • , I RENT69 I I ** * V ACAN·t•·••~ 801 . ' ' ***VACANTiftHtd E}-03 , . : .. : . : -- i ., I ***V A C AN T **** 80 5 , I ~-,~e:j; I II·· ,,..131':'J<ti '; I _: . h: ~-s,,.,·,: · I , . - . : ,. : I \ci:1i" I II' ,_.-•3tr:,t. 1 I 1"-~~~11, :I $ 808 : S2500 5165: ' ***VACAIIT•"••I 810 I ' I I I I S1l·· ;·• ~'tii~~g . ~2~9J 6 0 ~0 :1:iTVNO. K - 05 FR0M /t;Q, 1 13- . 1 To _Aa9t 3-1 . 4 -05 REMAINING IIALANCE' oue -'. : ' ~ -31 a I ' ,. ::='----'--+.--= . *.VA~4•ttl:~*.** ,.C0.1 ' ' .ta:i : , 3: *·**.YA(AKT****' .¢04. __ . :. **•VACANT***~ COS· ***VAG';.NTfHt*.* CbS ' ***VA(:A ?JT•.**'. C:07 . , oa • * .. ,ffY'.AU Nt·• * ** ·C0=9"'--, ·--+---'--f'-----~--il---~ ***VAO'Afft *'~"•JCB0'-31. I II : ~'\._ .!.'. i6ss OIIIIIEN1' Al,LOW .-,N~ I •.t j FY ~9'- 4 . • .... _ .. NAME , i,¼1w1 ~ ,,;c.H ~.~4:~i. §s ~:rt$. .31' 4 ' s ·~· •, .'<'; . i:! ~ ·I 1 a~,,., r:0 t ~• I ·: t-11£.i. ' •,{ t . l,_ it·· .t' Ito,. .. ., · 1 ~ * * f'V "~~.f;J' ! ~H·~ !:,, -,..~ 5 ~½ ·-{ , ?!"id:.'.31 4 ,,., 72~i ~ < ~:........_,____". ' .h_.1:,. ~*•*VACART~**~ 421 ·;_ ****VACANT**~~ Ai4 -- ---- - "' ' ·' i" ~"~' .. , ....... ~ 52'.l:1~"1 -:~- R'l'V'N<!>. !<~:?~ i'' .!....!...~~----=-------,__ NA1ME VIL½,f.tG-E;. M 3 NAME ,,, ~. IJIT NJ IWCH! 00 NO. ~ . ii 7 ~ ~ UTI LJfY CHAl'IG& FROM' . M~y ... 1,, . 0'6. tG "1-1 RJ:MAININ4) BM.ANCI;; !MIU ,· ·: 'II ·, , , L ' .. ' ' ~ ,g ' ' ' If' ~-~· _ _!'._ "--' ii\ I I ,__,,__~}.'."_,_,_ ; ---, ' ' ~,,--; -~. ~•-., ,-.1.-,---r _1, ,·A-,... ~~\i, .. ~.~t~l!"I';, -~1--t"·-~ ~•,,;i.t.•11'• '-":~.'(~ :'t.""·.,..~,~-,.,:,"'1tf!"·~.~ •"·•·:.• .. ~ru .t. ~ •. , .,. . :~ . IBl'~~_!cJ' ~,;_'l7. -~ ~ ' ('Jl,:j..-{ 1~ ; li9' l ,, ,ll ,-L• I , .. ,'.: **VACAttr,)~•·~{ .A47 ; r I . •/11· :r,, • ' ' 11$POL -'----"------_!,__·' _ 49.7:2 .>:!t! -- ~ :- / ~ ' ' I • t ·t A4,8 .. , •• l:__~~ ,i.l f ' .,, ' ,, ,., ~, 1"1 ,. ,· :.i.~,,. 389~..r· _ .. ., , •. R ,~,.," · _ - , ' , ~!qt} ·~ · · :, ,J · · ,- '· : · · II • c· l , , ·· ",;c- I ···' ' :· .1- •·•~. ; J • · ' '-~I , .::::·") l · ' i ' J ' ?. • .~ ::; ' I i · II ,RT'( NQ, J(:S,1 ~- . "" 11,si¥ · · J,; I QB'.,•. ,, ".1~' 13 ro ff~)! 4~1' ,Q6 14 ,, ,, ... , ' "" TENANT NAME (IF VAC'NT, UST. /IS Sl,l&;NI RE;~AININGI BAI.ANOE OU£ LC): ,flEttT AU.QWl'NC&$ ,, .)~ .: ' ' ·-·~ •;u-1 Tt<"' ,, '· ,!_}l__,___,_.____ __ ..c....,__:,J, .. ) ·, ' ., ' ,, ·, ., ' ,--- }~.l-5-l',. ~53QS' . 5l3:.t& ,, .~:!?1 . . ' ~ , __ ,, . ;iQ·O'.st, ... ltr " !II• ' ; . '-{ .. ,r .:a.! :.J r ,., ' l ~ S?5Qo' '--'-----~ iifi** ' • s1, RI ~. ifrt'v: NO.. NAME V ~~.1:,:!\G :td ' j . . 4,' ... C rte.x. ~ 'i2 .. ,06 1.a; ro Ma}( 31 , 06-. 1'4 • . . ; r :, ' '(• ' ' r 1'~ ,., ,7 ~ ~ v ~m :~•-*- 41~ 0,p!L. 'j ,It·** ' .it. ,. ~, · .. -· .:,;,, , l - " .. . f. <9Atl,j-. **-~~- :!. ... , ,, \ ·i,11 ~ '(if'** 1, l. !~•~:II• ,..: ..... J l,~, ,, , -~9~ .. :,_ - •* * V fi,C A »'!,*.~~ it:f.-:.·~t}~ .. J, ·:1 '1[1 .,;_.!~- Y N O . " "le'!':< ~ME VI~l,.AGE M 1t PAR}(.£~&' APTS , ~ ~~l ·- '" ·-,.;,1;:: FROM ~':~•Jig .l -, 06 To Aog 31, , 06 K37 , ... ~- -~·- 2 . ¢#~ . 3 ,((r-,.; 4 ' 8 , 'il!",J;!' .,is II ' 't 7 ,\'Ii;;;-:• 8 ::.;.,J C. 9 , ~~ "'I'! 10 11 , i.~ 12 13, 14 ,.- __ \· .. ~ ~ I REMAINING · J'· · loss BAI.ANGE I\ OF RENT DU£ ALLOWAN(:ES ¾\;,~~ 7 NAME 3 1,,111,Lr:inr M H Pt::mH: R- r1PT'1i:} 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FROM 11 IF ,. M;1y 1. 0/ TO !''\'\,t.:i_ ~./ ...... ..... J. 12 13 14 , :lO.SS OF'.REl\ll ,,. 1fU)'.NA'~d~ "'l' i1--1,-~- v ,~,:nN r ,hlHH' ,4:D_;_ ~~~:::r:=r==r=tl '~~ .. , Jd'~t:·:·-,1H1=/#,'~~-1 = •1t·*"' ·*VncnNT·it .. ,H,H(I nt7.!t r-,~i < •X-•l-l··l<Hr \,l ncANT •!(--lH,- 1 l~fltf} • t1 .1. 'l, ' ""t:.;"1'(', .... ~:t :..; .' 'i'!..:' ' 3\'::Fl ' 4£.:]fa!? /,1.:?:ii'it :I.' ~-)tl!e10t;1;, ~-t·'iHoH,.q:::,c;..c.mn •!\-¾·/.\-~· fH 1 "' .. , .t ,:.~ :~;t '~ 'J: •. ' ' 1i'.'.~~'::H *•~1oiv;:-ict~N1·-1l'-i.H•~· ni ~r-, A 1 0 -~ JHH; Vf'f;(.U·H ·U *ill· f\2 j 5~::iilJ!JK'' 21~~13~.'.li I ;-::rf.t~41 1t-,i-..;,H1-v1 ~1::t~Nl ~* * 14 n;:-::i1- -~~11:1..:"~:-...:.-.:. j"> r,1r~·-,,-~lf'' ~;.}~;) .:.;-~:.~ J1 ' l ' ~~,el:•:_,,;31, l G6l{tt1211:;; .· ' I . . ' ~~~ I ·' " '' lo<',.. ...... ~~-! l ;: rt~ .. ~: ;1, .-, 'L ., I i ,, :,v ·~ {, ,,, ' ; ' ' .,. I J P R O P E R TY N O . f{ "l~··_;t NAME '-' 1 u .. .f~ur::: M H PAI~!,( & APr3 1 2 \ l• ~MO~;~:;~;~;MARV Bl:!P.OR1i ,. · . ·, .t•-.\, , ··r . · ' t7" ~--~ 3 TO tv~ .~-~ t,,: ·:,:;; IM.TE rt-10 1, ·,;: TEi)IAJ(ft NAME I· . Qlr VA~'m°,,iWS'f}~ ~UQH), , , ,. ;, :.<.:. UNI T , NG>. ,, FROM 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ----,-~~--~- AQTl,VIT't'. , , RE.WAL .!'Ef\iq9· . ~it " · ·~ · t)Tn.,. · . A4. QTH'¥t . .~~ safflm ~ ra ~(·l!>A')iE DAlE,ljff\0M ' r,-' •\. ·@'AA'm I~"··' t,•'(!)!if\~~I: 1 ''l'c1:1~les. ~ · ~!;Xim .. FFIOMP!'lleR · ~ ~IN oY,t '.I '; ·'., \'\; . ..;• , c \: 1_ '· : ' fll'.ll~PEAIOOJ ('llll8Pl!~OOJ, PERIOD ~S~MI • ·:.,\,. ~-r,·1 ,'<" :i' ,. -,/ ~ ~ , ,;.:. ·-;,•►. . 11<; 1 I ,". • ~ .i" .. 1~'l' I · II I'. t•l.;.;11, J --·--· 2 i'>[ ~ ,J" lC) 1 tt35 ' n:;~rDQJ ' ".:::,11•·;: -'it, '" ~ >:,; ....... 7 t~G 11.,,,t . ·jw. I l;,i.) f~'/'1 ' l ' ,, 1, -.r;-?t.,; ·" • i.i,, !•'1, J l •Jidt'•-!(·•11-vnc~~,NT!:l'·~-•1Hil A~1 . J 4 ' ~· I!, 'l '' ., ~w>,:,L,:J; : ' rt4G ?7f)t.1}17.! 1,, ·, ' , i..•r l'~·,,;:· ·y; .. ., 7"'':,,..."Jll . :. ......];i.-.rdJ-'l..~ i '-,,,t.l~.• IJ',f ' 1 .-1«\rl.'lJ"'IQ'°" • "1;, ,.• .. ,JI:,, ~"'-' i~ &~ .~ .. J(,11- 1t W404NT *"lf*W/ Wt-:'.! ' I ·:· ff .. })1 ~·1·,,1 ,. 1.! ,..,}: ~.J t I ..L__,_•: n-4t1 I ' l ' ( ' I I ' '"I' I I / , I I ~ ,· . ii: , .· ◄ :_;:,} I 1 ·, ! e~;t,tj\ __ :~51~~~;4 .,,. '~fi ·r, ~· : 47~~!-~ , _"< · :)·':·L:· ,1 • : ";r,~·n ) PROPERtv NO. t 2 3 4 5 6 H;.'!,'7 NAME v T LL OGE M H Pf\M< a. i.~PT\:-, -~~• ... '-! .. _.-.:: ,t • flt!•~.-: .. ,~,. ~:··'· '\.;II\-.-..~• . Mb~TH · SU~~R'i ·til.SPO~l' 7 8 9 10 FROM Me,\·' ~2 11 t;;.l'? l•'i,:1 v· TO 13 14 . DATE ·1-,1. . . ''.tENANIJ''lll·'.1/\ME'..··· ..... , · l -~Iii':.~. ' , · ~ :· o;nvi;fy· •~·' fi~~f.L P .. rod . . ,i -~~ii. .PAIP·' PFVACA_t:r.r;.M~~-Elll~fl) ' °'. r.JP, : :. Q~ilf_~;,,Q:, .. ,,~~M-, .,.:_, p' .;~~<- .' •t\ • ' ,I; ,,.:.~f,. ',l\J" ... ,.~ ';{'i . , \i :i,'. 1'\~·~111i!l~Jf< ,~,9_,t:., ,!'ti•·· ~,'·',i !,' J ,J¥-,, ib, ' }:-;'' . r I ' ;' '~·.;r'~ \ ,, ,1C¢;1J..; ''\' ,::·' ~ )1·~ ·.'t ·,!'l,:t· ~~·· ~· ~·-., ·(, /1\ ~.Jh "' •. ,. tuJ:(li'ti' ,; ,,-¼-Mt~.e~.· ' ,,,~· .. I>< . ,fi! Al;'IGI;. , i fl)HA1'i<ile~ . " (IHI~) ,,·,., i. , ~~ ·J , \ 'A,·';,J, '•r.~ ;;1 ·,i« ~ ~ob) ~ FAO MPRI OR !'!!~.·,. ' )/1• ·a · (fflll,~Clf?) ·~. t~ •REMAl·N· l~G ? .. , '•• i.oss BALA NCE OF REN bi:ll: ' ·,. i Ali,1,0WANI i;:,, .... 1i,.:1 ' ' e;;;2~~tl1Q'.i !.iS1'X::1 ' ' 74j-67 ' ,., I, l !'} 11• ' - f i "15':l :, {· l/1" ··,u ,, ,. ~m ;¢1..,1 ,,P :tt '.,/f( , • .,_,.__1 •lhlt-l'i -.: vnc~~N, l(,➔r ~ .. ~. u05 { " ;1-,,1,r ''j"t:i' ,, 1,,. r1S ,I ,.r•\J1f1'.1\ ... , .,j ~ I • if I f I i! , _\~ • ; 1 I ' • J_;_"f i• ;,' J, O • /"' .r:.wt:.'l t)C.<.)'i',Hl t·u·+.:..,~ .,,.J, '•' -~ ,,,.,. '.l ->·«1:N .. ·,, . ••l',l", , .. ':\'' .. 1 (!) ' I ., , 'J/~, I \··J. 1 t J . ''t' h.• Ii. ·~ti 3 ' ' . . ~ .. ..! \ ' ... ' ~· • : ~' l l.:' . t \ :' ' .;1 ·~ iii \..·'r-~·iH,lf.)C14NlJ.t•:.HHI. l:Hilt : I' J]· 1cli ~ :,(,l,., .\ ~ . ~ . : • ; ' ·: : •~ : _• II. } :i: iH 2 : ~ J31:8¢" t;;;..:ffll4 '/ i~ f.S. 7 . . , : · ti,:-';CJ r~1t, ~~ -- :_ _ _ _; __ L ·~ ·'··J .t:, -,~, i ,fn;;; ., ' . t,:", :n PR O PERTY NO. h37 r· \ ~\\~,s>N1'~:·SU_MM,f~;; R~~omr 1 2 & <-)PT!3 9 10 FROM l\'tf.A '.1 :l ('.17 11 12 13 TO t:;,:, \. 14 Q~Tfl - f~NANT~E P~O . . aF vAc;,t,1r.,:u$r A$ ·suc~i ,, ' t:~: ;~· ' \, 131 e,,-. ,jj ** *' W\CANT ~""' iHI ' f'!tlt , li~0:~ •JM:HHt, v m:nNl -l( •i;Ht .. · Cfillt 1; * ·li· ,ii, V f➔Cfil\ff!Ht··~ · C1~•:·1 •" * •l!· •* v ncm..i r * *·-\'t · Ctilf:, lt !HHi V ncnN. I ·lHl+' G07 C0£\ ' '' ' 71,E,, ' ,. ' ' .ml!I.I '~ ~ooj 8 l:7t\ ' ' '+FZ\:5 :I. '~t-\~b,e: ~•,;~1.1::: 1 (S\~::i l '.,i:- ,, J ,I,-~ ·,:;! ' I _,_, ' ~ 7 tr,(; ...;i, ·'! l ' ~ F=OR /.~ fa 1: t'i -::,, 45~71 ' ei:r: ~.t 1"'1 .::ir.:1.~ '<" --·t!aj .4e1u1. ,, ., :~;13~~~j•1a .. I ,\\' : { . -~ ,- FIEMAl~IN_.G , •BAlANCi: ' liiUE L . .l'•'I : . .. .'f i\l . ' o·~i\, ALL(l)WAN ) Y N O . K37 2 NAME VILLAGE 11 H PARK & APTS 3 4 5 6 7 MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 8 9 10 FROM --u.a,.~~ 11 12 13 14 I TENANT NAME UNIT ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SECU'ITV "TOTAL EW.ANCE "TOTAL REMAINING LOSS (IF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) NO . RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEPOSITS ~ ONfD MIGl.,NT BALANCE OF RENT DATE DATE FROM TO RATE CHARGES OWlGED Fl'IOMPRIOA (X)UECTED DUE REN IN OUT {THIS PERIOO) (THIS PERIOD) PERIOD (THIS PERIOD) ALLOWANCES I . ' , . ,. ' : ~ : . ~ ' : , ****VACANT**** HSE ' : .. ·,'-·l ! : . . ~'. ( ,. .·, -· . ! .. : .. . :i' \ iic•: , , : ••••VACANT**** A01 , : . , , ·: ' I ~l , !"'j , •• . ::,; ~- : ::: ,. :~: : 77~0Cil 4617 7467 ' , 89584 '-:32 - , ; A07 l SS67 7~67 . - 461:1'2 ., : o" . : .. : : ·' ' ".1 ·~- ' ' ••••VACANT**** : .. " l -~ : A08 : ' • , : . ~ ' • i ~ t - ~. : ' , A12 : ,, .. ~ : ,\' . . .. : : ye ••••VACANT**** A15 : ~,.'I: - I • ' "- ' : :i. ~- t: .. : : .. ' a, "" : A19 : : " 3696:'..: 5~07 7.67 49.3? n -16 ., ~ ' .r, : : , .. - ., : : ~ ~ ••••VACANT••*• A24 .~ ' ' ' I r•, t L -~ .1 . '· .. ( ••••VACANT***• A25 :... : ': t'IJ. : '• . , ..;--·~,,:.r 'r, ........ 'I..._, ~k .. H: I NO. K37 NAME VILLAGE 1'J H PARK & APTS [ MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FROM 11 May 1 08 ro May 31 08 12 13 14 I TENANT NAME UNIT ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SEClR JY lOTAL _ BAI./INCE l'OTAL REMAINING LOSS (IF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) NO RENTAL CHARGE MISC. ~ $CHEDUIH) CMl:D J>MC)lM' BALANCE OF RENT DATE DATE FROM TO RATE CHARGES AMiDI.M FROM PRIOR == DUE REM ~ IN OUT (THIS PERIOD) (THIS PEAI00) PEFIOO (THt S PERIOD) ALLOWANCES •-. ~ 4' ' . -~. ' ' •'· 7750'2 7750~ ... -50Q ' . A46 : :;i) : • 0: l ' ~ I t_ " ' '' : : .. C ' : '" : : ' : . ' i; ***VACANT***◄ A47 m, ' ' ; ' : : ' : ; I . ' ~i:~ w. 1'°·,,i .;!' ,1 : . ::...Ill ,, ~ , A48 : 14~06 7467 "I; 51~9~ ..;. ·' . ' : : ,. .. I ~~'f :,.....{-~ ~ .... ,~,.#-.., I :TV NO . • . .K37 NAME VILLAGE M H PARK & APTS MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FROM May 1 08 11 12 13 rn Hay 31 08 14 I TENANT NAME UNIT ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SE~TY lOTPL BALNCE ~ REMAINING LOSS (IF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) N O . RENTAL CHARGE 1',11SC. ~ SCHEDULED CMS) BALANCE OF RENT .f DATE DAT!; ,'MdUNT · . FAO MPRIOR COI.LEITTED FROM TO RATE CHAAGl:S (THI$ PERIOD) (rHIS PERIOD) PERIOO (THIS PERIOD) DUE A!.LOWANCES RE, IN OUT .. - 65~0CZ 6~9~ 7~67 , ' 79~6:;; -~-4 '. B08 : 80~0CZ 1~7e 7467 . ' 8853? " ; . . : I \.- ! ... : . ,·. ·. ·r - .,.:. ; : : : ., ' : ••••VACANT•••• B10 : " : ' ' ' - ' ,-, . - ' C3_3~zs) ,-~ I t lll~ 1 [', L.,-, B12 se.13:; 7.,.67 ll', 45€;2E t..,,., ' -~ : : ' ~ : -~~ ;..;..::..__.J,;- -•~.r1:_:~ ... • N O . .K37 NAME VILLAGE M H PARK & APTS MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FROM ,, Hay 1 08 rn May 31 08 12 13 14 I TENANT NAME UNIT AGnVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SEC+ft1Y TOTAL EW.MICE lOTAL REMAINING LOSS RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEl'OSITS SCHEOU.ED ONED >MaNr BALANCE OF RENT (IF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) NO. DATE DATE FROM TO RATE CHARGES CHARGED AA1CJU!,/T FROMPRIOR OClU.ECTEO DUE REN I IN OUT (THIS PERIOD) (THIS PERIOD) PERIOO (THI S PERIOO) ALLOWANCES I ~. '" ,. ; : : : : .:-: ~ \.~,.: : JI (~: 1•••VACANT***i B16 : 1,;' . : ,. ,, : ., ' ··' - : ,,.,•:l: ' : "'t : C03 .. , 46~9E : ' ' . " : ' ' ,LI ' .. ' .. ' ' r;J .... : : : : : . ; : \ ' ***VACANT•••• C05 : : i; ·;_ "J!r, ' I ,. ~-: ' ' " ' ' ' "'~ r:.-(1-: : • ~ ,1 .,. l ,., : ~: ~l?.•. ~ • : ' : - .. ~·; ,, ' •••VACANT•••• C06 : ... I ' : ' : : ~: ' : : ..... : 1,:- i..: .. : 'C_,~0~) 134~ 746'j 39~7~ ,. I .1 ,·. ' C08 I. : ' : "'Ii ,., . _,' : ~!:'a~ 'i l I . '·•• .. (_ ,.;.. -f. •~ I _..:..:..,. ........... .:.ico:..,,,_:.~ -~~~· nYNO. K37 NAME VILLAGE J".I H PARK & APTS MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FROM Aug 1 08 11 12 13 TO Aug 31 08 14 T E NAN T NA M E U N IT A GTIV ITY RE NTAL PE R IOD BA SE UTlp TY All OT.H E.A SE CUA. · TY 10T.ot BALANCE ro:r111... REMAINING LQSS i~ (IF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) NO. . RENTALM CHARGE MISC. ~ ~ FROM~ ~o BALANCE OF RENT DfJ E t~f FRO M TO RA TE C H A RGE S (THI S PE R IOO ) (THI SP~RIOO ) PERI OD (THI S'l>E RI OO ) D U E ALLOWA N CES R ' Iii ··- . ! I I I I " ·~I, ., ,·, I ****VACANT**** HSE : · ' ' ' • · .. : ,, ., ' ' ~ ' ·;·,., .. :·~,: ;r;: :;;,_,. ! r,W .:, J ~ ,. •:t,l ••••VACANT***,. A01 · " ' : ,, -~~ 1-~ , ' I .,, •-r1 A07 35.1~7' 5318 90:30 .. ,.': 494p·5 ·;!,-~s 1 ~ I lt," l"'l ' !- "I I ****VACANT•••• A08 ' "' ;· ' . : ~ -~ -~, ' ~ A12 : 333:73 11887 9030 . ~.: 54290 ,, ' . : "' , I t \, :1 ' ;:;;d:· I I!' ••,.•VACANT•,.** A15 , ' .,, ~ . ' • s' · I }_/ : ~ ~I.I I : ! u~,.1" '. "; JI [1 {'!! ,.'_,\~ A19 392:33 41:11 90:30 , : 523:74 ~"'-·~; ~ . --• I • - -. :· .-; ' -·· ~,. \ ~ ' ,.... .., ' t.i;, ****VACANT**** A24 : , -: : '·;',; , ) 1•: ; ~-\··- 1 ,· ~ •• __,.....,.,, ,.,..--~• ~" •• .,...,v E R TY N O . K37 NAME V IL L A G E l'I H PARK & AP T S 2 3 4 5 6 7 MONTH SUMMARY REPO R T 8 9 10 FROM ------------ 11 Aug 1 08 Aug 31 08 TO 12 13 14 f TE NA N T N A M E U NI T ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SECUA 'l'Y TOTAL BAlANCE ~ REMAINING LOS.S (IF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) NO. RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEPOSITS SCHEilUlm o.liEo BALANCE OF RENT DATE OATE FROM TO RATE CHARGES OiAR3EO :IIMClUl,/T FROMPAIOA A IN OUT (THI S PERIOD) (THIS PERIOD) PEROO (THI S PERIOD) DUE ALLOWANCES ~. ~, ' : ' I 1[1oi"~" ,..,. : ! A46 775jl)0 ,. 77500 C : : : •.. ,· : ,. .. t~• .. ~ ~ a,.._'~ I I : : ' : t ,, .. ••.• i ••••VACANT•••• A47 . " ... ' : r . = . .:I .. ' 1J .. . IA 9030 iti 45509 : A48 : 31331 ,, ,. : _,,:_ :· - •.. ,.,.,J ,,. :: ............... .:.~.' .--...., ERTY NO. K37 NAME VI LL AGE M H PARK & APTS MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FROM _ 11 Aug 1 08 Aug 31 08 TO 12 13 14 IE TENANT NAME UNIT ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALLbTHER SECI.R TY TOTAL 8'11.ANCE TOTIII. REMAINING LOSS D (IF VACAITT, UST AS SUCH) NO. RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEPOSITS SCf-ElUlED OM:D AIOOUNT BALANCE OF RENT DATE DATE FROM TO RATE CHARGES OiAA3EO AMOUNT FROMPfllOR OQUECJE D DUE R] IN OUT (THI S PERIOD) (THI S PERIOD) PE R OD (THI S PERIOD) ALLOWANCES ~ 67500 67 06 ·,..:.1~2 - : 90~0 832~6 J; I : : .,. : : : : ' : : ' : : : : "I • : : l ' 547;42 78;34 ' ' !' ,. ' ' .... ! ' I~.~--, I •.:' '• ' : "' ' ' ' ' ' . B12 3~ 4506 90,30 ' 486:9 : : j I : :J ii"· I : = ..,,.,,...,__ ' ~,..t R TY NO. K37 NAME VILLAGE M H PARK & APTS MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FROM ------------ 11 Aug 1 08 Aug 31 08 TO 12 13 14 I TE NA NT NA M E UNIT. ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SE ClR TY lOTAI. ~ lOTAL REMAINING LOSS QF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) NO. RENTAL CHARGE MISC. DEPOS ITS SCHEUJLED ONED AM0UNT BALANCE OF RENT ~ AMOLNT FAOMPR!PR = RE DATE DATE FROM TO RATE CHARGES (™I S PERICO) (THIS PERICO) PEROO (THI S PERICO) DUE ALLOWANCES IN OUT I • ... ~ ...I : •' ~- 77500 : 5458 82958 7500 ·~ I C03 38198 2395 9030 : 49623 ' ' : ~ .. . -~ ,, ' . : : ·, : . ' : ****VACANT**** C05 : : •·' o ~ I : : ' -,,-, < I ., . ' ' : ' -: ****VACANT**** C06 ' . ' : ., : : ' . ' ''"l : : : ' : ; .. :?_ ~· : : l -. ~ ' r,. I ~! -: • C08 32540 1225 90t30 42795 '., ,._ .... : : .. , I ... C : r1 ·, .'I\: =--1 ... .-1.:·, ..:!2...~i:...,._~- -v N'_,. K37 2 NAME VI LL AGE 11 H f> AR~ & APTS MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 FROM tn.a f 1.- -~- ..IO.J:Lil.Y-, ..l~!l./'?l , ... 11 12 13 14 TENAN TNAM E UNlt ACTIVITY RENTAL PERIOD BASE UTILITY ALL OTHER SEC\.9TY rori>i.. MINIC£ lOTi>I.. REMAINING LOSS ' NO. FIENTAL CHARGE MISC. DE PO SITS SCf£ClJLED OM!D MAOI..NT BALANCE OF RENT RE~ OF VACANT, UST AS SUCH) ~ NAl»IT F~PRIOR CXllJ:C1cD DATE DATE FROM TO RATE CHARGES (THIS PERI OD) (TltS PERl()O) ~ (T111 6PERIOO) DUE ALLOWANCES IN OUT .. ' ·i" ~ I .. ,. ' - ,, ·1 ■ • . , ~ ~ ... . '~ ·1 ..... , .. ' I I " ' ' ' ' .._ . .1;' .,, ' -.***VACANT**** ' ' ' .'.': \ ' ' HSE ' ' . ' ' •·· I ,:' - ' ' 1·•.1-, . . -~ .. ' ,, ·-·· ' ;• I : I . . ' : '· .. ' ' " •,1 I ~- I ' l ►'''· I ' ' I ' ' ,: ,. . ••••VACANT•••• A01 ' ' "' ' ' ' ' . ' ,'.' ,, . ' " ' .. '· I ..... ~ ' '. '" A07 ' : "" : '' ' - ·- . . ~ ' .. ' " : ·; : : ' .. ' ◄• I . ' ' ; ' "":"._.-ii.. ••••VACANT•*** A08 ' : ' ·' : ,I'." ' I ' ' - •. , ' .I.... ' ,~ r LI ., .. ' ' ' : .... : ' ' ' l ' ~ ' ,, ' ,. I , A12 ' 6308 9030 . ' ~ - ' ' '-- .. ' . ' : : 'I ;.; . .. ' '. : : I' ' - ' j -~' ~•••VACANT:!'"*** A15 ' r l ' : ' ' ,' ' ' ' : - ' : .. . ' -~ 4, ' ' : '· " d". \ I ' Al9 : : 2736 w :-~ 509g9 : . ' ' - ' - . ITY KO. K37 2 NAME VILLAGE It, H PARK & APTS 3 4 5 ' 6 7 MONTH SUMMARY REPORT 8 9 10 FROM 11 May 1. 09 To May 31 09 12 13 14 TENANT NAM E UNIT ACTIV ITY . fU;NTAL l'&l'IIOO BAS E UTILI TY AU.OTHER l!EO.AlY "11:JTAL ~ 11:JTM. REMA INING LOS S R~T:AL CHARGE M ISC, 0El'OSfTS ~ N,ICIMI' SAlA NCE OF FIENT (IF VACANr , UST NJ 8UCH> NO. DAT£ OATf CiflARlED l'ROM PROA ~ RE fN OU f'RO M TO RATE CHARGES cntS PERODI (TH SPEflOI)) PEFIOD DUE ALLOWANCES ! .. .... , ~ I '-·· ........ , .,i f .:~ '- ~: ;r: ' ' :.~:\ ~ iJ ' ' s3Ji,4 ,~' . ' ~ A46 I 775J0 ' ' t;i-·· p.-:·)·\:i· 775~0 : ) ,_ ~t- ' : ~- I . ~,;_;.~- .: •. J..,-" ' '." s • ' ·•·· . ,_ : ' ' ' ' ' .. ·r<" : I ' ,, f ~. - ' li'!.f' ·._ ' 1• **•VACANT••** A47 ' ~ ,.1 1~·' ,. ;::_: '"• ~• ,,L •t~--- 'Hl l ' ·~ ;..,- . .;.• :'II• 01 I ,1 ~ -Ji .. __ ,, ..... _, . . ~ ' ' ·• ,_ ! - f·: r-·' ~~i~- ~ .~ ' ~· ' t· ;~.13$-\ • r. ~ t r" A48 6987 90~0 ' 47348 r ,.. ' • ~~·,,; l "'\_':'.1 ;~ ' ., ... ' ' l'I. •• ' " .. ' ' i ' ".,i· ' 'f' ~ ,:,_ ·,! ,, -i,.:'' ' - ,l• ",·.,. •J: ' ' ,, 'l ~ • ! I ••••VACANT*-*** A49 ' < . ~ I .,!., I._; ,< 1,_.--: . .. '' ~ ---·· . - - ~ ......... ,,, .,., ___ ~,-.- .. ..,._' ' ~~ ,x~· :rv NO. K37 NAME VILLAGE M H PARK & APTS 2 3 5 6 7 TENANTNAME ENTAL PEAIOO l\ASE UTILITY ~F VACANr , UST AS SUCl-i) NO . REf\lTAL CI-IARG.E DA TO· RATE 67r5~0I ' A56 I : ' 1 · II 4028 ' ..., B12. 2871 5505 I ' 4320 6491 MONTH SUMMARY REPOAT Ii 9 10 ALL OTHER seQJRlY TOTII.. MISC, OEPOSfT'S ~ CAARGEo CHARGES /THiSl'ERlOO) (THSPER!OO) : "'· !; ,.~ I ' 9030 ~I' •• 80558 o' • 700~0 52804 .,- ' 45568 -----, ' I 53981 ' ' 130 .. ' 4 I, w· "" '. , ' ' 1"::~- ~-· ':1 I 115$0 "" i, 84401 ,,·: < "' ' 9090 ,. , 47787 l'y.o (' ' 90~e,l I ~".{" I 47815 t~ t r'l ti -~ ; 9030 FROM Ma~ i:-' 09 TQ M~;31 09 11. 12 13 14 ~ ~ REMj NING LOSS BA NCI; OF RENT ,ROt,IPRIOll ~ DUE A~LOWANCES II RE l!EROO : -638 - -· - 17800' I :,,. , .. I "~v 22~5 672,as ~30 4943 9030 814'73 :..22 1963 ~767 9030 9030 90~'2! ' 47~1 90~0 ' ' 3971 9030 88493 ' ' -'1149 ' 67797 765~0 ' I 938~21 ':"'3 80000 ' 48164 •l ~ ..\-<. RTY NO. K37 2 NAME VILLAGE l'J H PARK & APTS 3 4 s 6 7 M O N T H SUMMARY R E PO R T 8 9 10 FROM 11 May .1~ 09 rnM~y 31 09 12 13 14 TENANT NAM E UNIT ACTIVITY l'lENf AL PER100 BAS E UTILITY , ALL OTHE R SEO.RTY lOTAL twANCE 10T.a!. REMA INING LOSS ·• I RENTAL CHARGE :~ MISC. OEPOSll'S SCIEllU.ED OMiO MICUlf BALA NCE OF Al:NT ~ (IF VACNfr, 1.18T M SUCH) NO. DATE DATE FFIOM TO RATE CHARG ES ~ - ' ~ ~ ~ DUE AU.OWAN CES REl f . IN our , ,. & .... ,1 I'', ... ;.~·:· - C03 : 1 l 381$8 26$0 90$0 - , '''•:: 498$8 . ." 1;.:,_; ,,, i ,,, ·· · • ' ~~- r: .• '- I l ~ .J •1 >~•• .... ·•-;:j • t;. l},, ••••VACANT**** C05 ' ' '·~;, : ·~ ,!·,~: "' 1 •·''; • • .I,,. ·-· ,._ ••• .,. "''· "- i.., t · • 1 • ~ -:~ ' •.. • . """ ' t • t. I 4 • t 1 ~. '' -.. •; ' ~, ' . ~ ~ ' ri·• ••••V A C A N T ••.•• C06 .~ , ~-.," "' . - i{ .: : ( '"".,°: . f . • Ji. I ' .,_ •. ~ • • -,:~ ... ' I -,, ;j ~ I ¥, '-: _ '-,·- "B-dll •!Ill" ~~1· ~~';~- c.~~.i ~ !1~1111111 111 I City O~ san uus OBISJ)O 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 M arch 22, 20 10 Jo hn H ou gh 962 M ill Street S an L uis O bisp o, C A 934 0 1 V ill age M ob ile H om e P ark D ear M r. H ou gh , T his w ill fo ll ow up your con versation s w ith M r. R oush con cern in g the in fo rm ation th at th e C ity is requ estin g con cern in g how the ren t in creases at the V ill age M obile H om e P ark have been calculated . R ecentl y you refu nded to the residents at the P ark overp aym ents of their rents stem m ing fr om an in cor rect calculation of the all ow able ren t in creases un der the C ity's R ent Stabili zation O rdin ance fo r fi scal years 2006/2007, 2007/200 8 and 200 8/2009 . So m e residents, how ev er, hav e qu estion ed how you have calculated th e refu nds in that th e lett er tra n sm ittin g th e refu nd check s sim p ly pro v ided the doll ar am ounts of the refu n ds but did not set fo rth how the am ou nts w ere derived . A s you discussed w ith M r. R ou sh , w hat w e w ou ld lik e to see are the rents fo r the sp aces that w ere in effect fo r the 2005/2006 fi scal year, the C PI in crease th at w as app li ed to th ose rents (that app aren tl y w as in corr ect) and the C P I increase that shou ld have been app lied to those ren ts. W e w ou ld then need to brin g those num bers fo rw ard fo r the sub sequ ent years, in order to con fi rm that the am ou nt of the refu nds has been calcu lated correctly . F or ex am ple, assum e the rent at a particu lar space fo r 20 05/2006 w as $4 00 and you applied a 4% C PI in crease as of July 1, 200 6 but th e corr ect C PI w as on ly 3%. T hat w ou ld yield a $4/m on th differen ce or a $4 8 refu n d fo r the 2006/2007 fi scal year. B u t w hen calc ulatin g th e rents fo r 2007 /2008, if you used the higher num ber (i.e., $4 16 ) ra ther than $4 12 , th en even if the correct C PI w ere app li ed (w h ich presu m ably you did in calcu lating the refu nds), the resid ents w ere still overch arged because the base num ber w as in corr ect. W e believ e that is the con cern of the resid en ts and in order to all eviate th at con cern , w e need to see the m ethod that you em p loy ed in calc u latin g th e refu nds. If you have question s befo re pro vid in g this in fo rm ation to us, please contact M r. R ou sh at 78 1- 714 1. O n ce you have the in fo rm atio n , please con tact M r. R ou sh so that you can arra nge a convenient tim e to m eet w ith him to go ov er the calculation s. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. ----- ---- -------- --- February 4, 2010 Resident/Owner . Village Mobile Home Park 145 South Street Space f;-/Z San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 l . Dear Resident/Owner: Enclosed you will find two refund checks from Village Properties LLC in the amounts of$ 1/1. '/() and $ iZ i./() . These checks represent a refund for overpayment of a portion of the monthly space rent for the time period of July 2006 through June 2007 and July 2007 through June 2008 respectively. The differential adjustments for these two pay periods were 1.63% for July 2006 through June 2007 and 3.05% for July 2007 through June 2008. These refunds represent the final computations necessary to correct the miscalculations beginning in December of 2005. We will inform the City Attorney, Ms. J. Christine Dietrick of our completion of this accounting. In March we will P!QVide you with our annual rent adjustment letter. As always, this letter will advise you of the new monthly amounts to begin in July 2010 for water, sewer and trash as well as any applicable cost of living increase. . -, = .-- Sincerely, c::~~t:~._c,;..., ¼~~ ~aLanphar Village Properties, LLC cc: J. Christine Dietrick James Buttery Jan uary 5, 2010 Resident/Own er Village M obile Hom e Par k 145 South Street Space g .. /Z- . San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Resident/Owner: Enclosed you will find a refund check from Village Properties LLC in the amount of$ ·7 7, / b . This check represents a refund for overpayment of a portion of the monthly space rent for the time period of July 2008 through June 2009. During this time frame your rent was $ 3 5 /. ls but should have been $ 3 If S'. z r) based on the correct application of the proper index which indicated an increase of 4.2% rather than 6.14%. The difference of$&. t/~ per month was multiplied by 12 months to determine the amount of refund enclosed. · · · ·· - · · - - ~~~-~---- We are continuing to work backwards through the years of 2007, and 2006. We will continue to inform the City Attorney, Ms. J. Christine Dietrick of our progress. By March we hope to provide you with a single check representing the refund of all remaining overpayments of rent, back to the time period beginning in July of 2006 which was the first year of an incorrect increase. Again, we apologize for these errors and assure you it will not happen in the future. Thank you for your understanding and patience. Sincerely,_ ~ ~ Village Properties, LLC cc: J. Christine Dietrick James Buttery .. REr:E1 ..JED FEB - 3 2009 SLO CITY ATTORNEY February 4, 2010 Ms. J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Dietrick: Enclosed please find a copy of the most current correspondence sent to each of the homeowners entitled to a refund for '06/'07 and '07/'08 at The Village Mobile Home Park. The examples enclosed are those of Judy Dunlap (B-12) and Bonnie Santos (C-08), as they were the individuals who originally brought this error to your attention. These checks represent the final refunds for the calculation errors in the CPI cost of living increases for the respective years. I will be providing Mr. Buttery with a complete explanation of the process to rectify the errors. I believe this concludes our refund obligation. I will continue to keep you informed of future increases as they are implemented subject to the correct CPI index. Should you have questions or concerns feel free to contact me. I believe your paralegal has all my contact information. John C. Hough Village Properties, LLC cc: James Buttery Enclosures F e b ru a ry 4, 20 10 R e sid e n t/O wn er V ill ag e M ob ile H o m e P ar k 14 5 So u th Str e et Sp ace f; - I Z San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Resident/Owner: Enclosed you will find two refund checks from Village Properties LLC in the amounts of$ J./1. '/() and $ fZ l/ () . These checks represent a refund for overpayment of a portion of the monthly space rent for the time period of July 2006 through June 2007 and July 2007 through June 2008 respectively. The differential adjustments for these two pay periods were 1.63% for July 2006 through June 2007 and 3.05% for July 2007 through June 2008. These refunds represent the final computations necessary to correct the miscalculations beginning in December of 2005. We will inform the City Attorney, Ms. J. Christine Dietrick of our completion of this accounting. In March we will provide you with our annual rent adjustment letter. As always, this letter will advise you of the new monthly amounts to begin in July 2010 for water, sewer and trash as well as any applicable cost of living increase. ~erely, ~ --~--~ .- ~~ Lanphar Village Properties, LLC cc: J. Christine Dietrick James Buttery Febrnary 4, 2010 Resident/Own er Village M obile Home Par k 145 South Street Space (! - 0;1 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Resident/Owner: Enclosed you will find two refund checks from Village Properties LLC in the amounts of$ 31 ~ t.f O and $ ~;;, FD . These checks represent a refund for overpayment of a portion of the monthly space rent for the time period of July 2006 through June 2007 and July 2007 through June 2008 respectively. The differential adjustments for these two pay periods were 1.63% for July 2006 through June 2007 and 3.05% for July 2007 through June 2008. These refunds represent the final computations necessary to correct the miscalculations beginning in December of 2005. We will inform the City Attorney, Ms. J. Christine Dietrick of our completion of this accounting. In March we will provide you with our annual rent adjustment letter. As always, this letter will advise you of the new monthly amounts to begin in July 2010 for water, sewer and trash as well as any applicable cost of living increase. Sincerely, ~- ~- ulia Lanphar Village Properties, LLC cc: J. Christine Dietrick James Buttery 11111111 C.JG.tf lillllll!III ~II I City or San uu s OBISJ)O 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 February 3, 2010 Judy Dunlap Village Mobile Home Park 145 South Street, Space B-12 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Rent Overcharges Dear Judy, Thank you for your letter dated January 7, 2010 concerning the recent notice and rent refund check that you received from Village Properties. I apologize for not responding earlier to your letter but with Jonathan's recent transition to Northern California, I have had to balance a number of competing priorities. I concur with your assessment that it has taken entirely too long for the park owner to make what should be a fairly simple calculation of the rents that were overcharged to the residents for the years in question. Coincidentally, I recently spoke with the Park Owner about the refunds. He anticipates that all the refunds will be completed by no later than the early part of March. Thank you for your patience on this matter. Please feel free to call or write me if you have other concerns. JCD/cp The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. R E C E I\/E D JAN - 7 2009 SLO_QTY ATTORNEY January 7, 2010 Ms. J. Christine Dietrick Assistant City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Dietrick Enclosed please find the most recent correspondence with the Homeowners at the Village Mobile Home Park. As was previously indicated, we are going forward with the refund program resulting from our use of the incorrect CPI. At the writing of this letter, refunds for two years have been completed and we are working on the two remaining years. I have included the refund letters for the two individuals who originally brought the problem to your attention. This will assist you in case you receive further communication from these individuals. We will continue to provide you with updates as they are available. We anticipate completing the refund project no later than early March. Should you have questions or concerns please feel free to contact me by email at alairnjohn@yahoo.com or by phone at 441-1511. . Hough illage Properties, LLC cc: James C. Buttery January 5, 2010 Resident/Own er Village Mobile Home Park 145 South Street Space 13 - /Z.. San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 I Dear Resident/Owner: Enclosed you will find a refund check from Village Properties LLC in the amount of$ 7 7, / /p . This check represents a refund for overpayment of a portion of the monthly space rent for the time period of July 2008 through June 2009. During this time frame your rent was $ 3 Sl, (;,3 but should have been $ 3 t/S. Z () based on the correct application of the proper index which indicated an increase of 4.2% rather than 6. 14 %. T he difference of$ lo. '/'g per month was multiplied by 12 months to determ ine the amount of refun d enclosed. We are continuing to work backwards through the years of 2007, and 2006. We w ill continue to info rm the C ity A ttorney, Ms. J. Christine Dietrick of our progress. By M ar ch we hope to provide you with a single check representing the refund of all remaining overpayments of rent, back to the time period beginni ng in July of 2006 which was the first year of an incorrect increase. Again, we apologize for these errors and assure you it will not happen in the future. Thank you for your understanding and patience. Sincerely, Julia Lanphar Village Properties, LLC cc: J. Christine Dietrick James Buttery January 5, 2010 R esident/Owner V illage M obile Home Park 145 South Str eet Space C:-- g San Luis Obispo, C A 93401 D ear Resident/Own er: E ncl osed you will fi nd a refun d check from V ill age Pro perties LL C in the amount of$ 71~ Z</ . T his check represents a refu nd fo r overp aym ent of a portion of the m onthl y space rent fo r the tim e period of July 2008 thr ough June 2009. During this time fram e your rent w as$ 3;2.5·" </O but should have been$ 3/9. s/6 based on the correct application of the proper index which indicated an increase of 4.2% rather than 6.14%. The difference of $5, 9{ per month was multiplied by 12 months to determine the amount of refund enclosed. We are continuing to work backwards through the years of 2007, and 2006. We will continue to inform the City Attorney, Ms. J. Christine Dietrick of our progress. By March we hope to provide you with a single check representing the refund of all remaining overpaym ents of rent, back to the time period beginni ng in July of 2006 which was the first year of an incorrect increase. Again, we apologize for these errors and assure you it will not happen in the future. Thank you for your understanding and patience. Sincerely, Julia Lanphar Village Properties, LLC cc: J. C hr istine D ietrick Jam es B uttery Jan uary 5, 2010 Resident/Own er V ill ag e Mobile Hom e Par k 145 South Street Space 8 - IZ · San Lui s O bispo. CA 93401 Dear R esident/O wn er: Enclosed you w ill find a refun d check from V ill age Properties LLC in the am oun t of$ 7 7, / l~ . This check represents a refun d for overpaym ent of a portion of the m onthl y space rent fo r th e tim e period of Jul y 2008 through Jun e 2009. Durin g thi s tim e fram e your re nt was $ .. ~5/, b-3' but shoul d have been $31/.S-. Zr) based on the correct application of th e pro per in dex w hi ch indicated an increase of 4.2% rather than 6.14%. The difference of$b. !/~ per m onth w as m ultiplied by 12 months to determ ine th e am ount of refun d enclosed . W e ar e continuin g to w ork backwar ds through the year s of 2007, an d 2006. W e w ill continue to info rm the City A ttorn ey, M s. J. Chri stine D ietrick of our progress. By M ar ch w e hope to pro vide you wi th a sin gl e check representin g the refun d of all rem ainin g overp aym ents of rent, back to th e tim e period beginnin g in Jul y of2006 which w as th e first year of an incorrect increase; A gain , w e apologiz e fo r th ese errors an d as sur e you it wil l not happen in the futur e. Th ank you fo r your un derstan ding an d patience. Sincerely, ~~~ ulia Lanphar V ill ag e Properties, LLC cc: J. Chri stine D ietri ck Jam es Buttery December 16, 2009 Ms. J. Christine Dietrick Assistan t City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Dietrick: Enclosed please find a copy of the correspondence sent to each of the homeown ers entitled to a refun d as a result of our error in calculating the 2009 increase per the Consumer Price Index. Sixteen homeown ers received this letter with their individual refund amounts. We are presently working on correcting previous years that may have been incorrect. This, as you might imagine is a more extensive forensic effort. We hope to have that data assembled and refund checks, as warranted, mailed to those effected by late January. I will keep you posted as to our progress. Please contact me if you have questions or concerns. My cell phone num ber is 441-1511. My email is alairnjohn@y ahoo.com. Ii .. Hough / illage Properties, LL cc: James C. Buttery December 15, 2009 Resident/Own er Village Mobile Home Park 145 South Street Space __ San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Resident/Own er: Enclosed you will find a refun d check from Village Properties LLC in the am oun t of$ . This check represents a refun d for overpaym ent of a portion of the monthly space rent for the months of July through December 2009. This refund is the result of an inadvertent miscalculation in the Consum er Price Index increase from last year that becam e effective beginni ng with your July 2009 space rent. Your space rent was incorrectly over billed by $ per month. The refund check represents six months of overpayment. We apologize for this error and have adjusted your monthl y rent to correct this miscalculation. We are also investigating the years 2006 through 2008 for possible incorrect increases. We are working with M s. J. Chri stine Dietrick, the newly appointed City Attorney to rectify these circum stan ces. This problem was the result of utilizin g the incorrect Consum er Price Index. We will advise you of any additional errors an d provide refun ds as necessary. For the months of January through June 2010 please pay $ as your space rent. W ater, sewer and trash expenses will remain the same and your rent slip wi ll reflect your individual utilities cost. We will do our best to get corrected rent slips from our billing company prior to February rent slips being delivered. At that tim e the corrected space rent will appear on your monthly rent slip. Your next rent increase, if warr anted, will occur in July of 2010. We will provide you with the necessary inform ation more than 90 days in advan ce of the increase as is requir ed by law. Sincerely, Julia Lanphar Village Properties, LLC cc: Chri stine Dietrick Jam es Buttery 111 ~ 1 11111 '11 I city of san uns osspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 December 10, 2009 Jo hn C. Hough Village Properties Ll C 145 South Street San Luis Obispo, C A 93401 Dear Mr. Hough: Enclosed is the notice of rent increase that was referenced, but not included, in Ms. Dietrick's November 24, 2009 correspondence to Village Properties. In the future, please provide a copy to the City of any notice(s) of change in rent as stated in Section 5.44.060.E of the Municipal Code, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Claudia Prows Paralegal /cp Enclosures The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 11/17/2009 10 :5 8 805545510 4 STAPLES #737 PAGE 03/04 MarchJ~W09 To All Village Mobile Home Park Homeowners and Tenants: In accordance with Section 5.44.60(.B) of the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance, the maximum monthly space rent may be increased no more than once a year based on the percentage change in the consumer price index (CPI). Specifically, the ordinance allows an increase in the maximum monthly space rent at a rate equal to 100% of the CPI) up to 5% and 75% of the percentage change above 5%, to a maximum of 9%. The CPI increase for the annual period of December 2008 was 3. 8%. By the form ul a above, the increase for the coming year will be 3.8%. Also :in accordance with the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance Section 5.44.060(E), pass-through charges may be automatically adjusted based on any increase/decrease in the expenses for water) sewer, trash, etc. As a result of some city increases and a much larger usage, the 2008 cost for water per sp ace was $43.82 up from $32.36. This is a substantial increase. Please, make every effort 110 conserve water. This increase is somewhat rate related but is also very much the result of greater use . .It is the respopsibility of each and every occupant in the park to conserv e water. Please be reminded that washing automobiles and other vehi cl es w ithi n the park is prohibited by the park rules. The cost for sewer service, as a result of the city rate increase last year and the projected increase in 2009, will change the monthly expense from $36.30 to $45.61 based on the last 12 months billing. Trash pick-up was the only bright spot in expenses as the annual cost of trash pick-up dropped slightly. This may be the result of fewer "special" pick-ups. Remember, leaving items outside the trash area is prohibited by park rules. When individuals leave large items in the trash area outside the container, it reflects directly on your monthly cost as we need to have special pick-ups and trash area cleanups. Please watch for offenders and report them to management to help prevent this problem. The new monthly rate for trash will be $20.89 down from $21.64. Therefore, and in compliance with the California Civil Code 798.30, this is a 90- day notice of rent adjustment. Your space rent due on July 1, 2009 will include these rent adjustments. Based on these allowable adjustments your new space rent will be $ 2,:3 Z 71 . Allowable pass-through expenses will be as follows: Water $43.82 per month Sewer $45.61 per month Tra sh $20.89 per month Total. $110.3.2 per month SPACE# C -, .... 8 _ ~c:#<¼('- ~~.Hough Manager, Village Properties) LLC Chapter 5.44 Page 1 of 2 5.44.060 Base space rent-Determination-Allowable increases without hearing. A. The "base space rent" for purposes of this chapter shall be the monthly space rent charged as of March 15, 1982 plus any increases otherwise allowed, pursuant to this chapter. The maximum monthly space rent for any space under a lease, upon expiration of the lease, shall be no more than the rent charged in the last month of said lease. In parks where there is an exemption because 66.67 percent of the spaces are governed by a lease with an initial term of no less than one year, then the maximum monthly space rent shall be the space rent designated in leases for comparable spaces. A schedule of current rents in the park shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the park. B. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the maximum monthly space rent may be increased no more than once a year based on the percentage change in the CPI, or nine percent, whichever is less, calculated as follows: 1. The maximum monthly space rent may be increased at a rate equal to one hundred percent of the CPI up to five percent and seventy-five percent of the CPI in excess of five percent calculated as follows: a. The change in space rent shall be calculated by dividing the ending CPI index by the beginning CPI index. b. If the resulting quotient is less than 1.05, then it shall be multiplied by the space rent. The resulting product shall be the new space rent. c. If the resulting quotient is greater than 1.05, then the difference between the resulting product and 1.05 shall be multiplied by seventy-five percent. The resulting product shall be multiplied by the space rent and that product shall be added to the sum derived from Section 5.44.060(8)(1 )(b) above. The sum shall be the new space rent. d. The beginning CPI index shall be the index for the month used as the ending index for the last CPI adjustment. e. The ending CPI index shall be the index for the month twelve months after the beginning index. 2. At least every two months the city administrative officer shall publish, by means of an advertisement or similar notice in the newspaper, the percentage change of the CPI allowed under this subsection B for the twelve-month period immediately preceding the month for which CPI information has been most recently published by the appropriate federal agency. 3. It is the intention of this subsection B to allow for automatic increases in space rent based on changes in the cost of living as measured by the CPI. The limitations on such increases are intended to minimize the immediate impact drastic changes in the CPI might have on residents. The limitations are not intended to prevent ultimate adjustments to allow owners to receive a fair return on their property. C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. However, such increase shall not exceed ten percent of the then existing space rent and may not be relied upon any more often than once in any thirty-six-month period as the basis to increase rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from subletting of the mobile home space as may be allowed by state law, should such become state law, then upon any such subletting the space rent may be increased up to ten percent of the then existing space rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from vacation of the space, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be provided for in this chapter. D. No owner shall either (1) demand, accept or retain a rent of or from a tenant in excess of the maximum rent permitted by this chapter, or (2) effect a prohibited rent increase by a reduction of general park facilities and services. However, an owner may modify the nature of park services if reasonable allowance is provided to the tenant. For example, if the owner elects to submeter water so that tenants pay for water consumed by them, then tenants shall receive a reasonable reduction from their base space rent. http://v..rww.codepublishing.com/ca/SanLuisObispo/sanluisobispo05/SanLuisObispo0544.... 12/10/2009 December 3, 2009 Ms. J Christine Dietrick Assistan t City Attorney City of San Luis Obsipo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Dietrick: ~ \ R E_CF:.\\tt=:D-\ OEC - B 1fifi9 SLO Cl}Y ATTORNEY I am in receipt of the correspondence sent to Ms. Lan phar and Village Properties, LLC dated November 24, 2009. Thank you for bringing this situation to our attention. Your first paragraph references an atta chm ent of a notice of rent increase. However, your letter did not include such an attachm ent. We would appreciate it if you could forw ard this docum ent to us at your earliest convenience to be certain we are talking about the sam e thing. For the purpose of this correspondence, I will assume we are. I am apparently less fam iliar than I should be with Chapter 5 .44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. I apologize for this shortcoming, but I am not a lawy er. That having been said, I will tell you I believe I followed the sam e method as the previous own er of the park in calculating rent increases. Part of the problem may be that I have used the United States Depart ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI index not the S ta te of C ali fo rni a D ivision of L abor S tatistics. I w ill utili ze thi s site an d the calculator in the fu tur e. S in ce I am n ot an att orney I felt it would be prudent and expeditious to meet with my attorney to better understan d any errors I may have made in rent increase calculations. I met yesterday with my attorney Mr. Jam es Buttery concerning this matter. In d iscu ssion s wi th hi m , it is cl ear I used the incorrect index as I used U.S. All Cities A v erage, an d n ot the L A/ An ahi em/Ri verside index. I will resolve this matter imm ediately w ith the six teen h om eown ers wh o receiv ed in crease n otices. T h ose in volved wi ll be inform ed in wr itin g of the err or an d receiv e refu n d ch eck s fo r an y ov erp aym en ts befo re the en d of th e year . I wi ll copy you wi th th e corr esp on den ce I prov ide to those in volv ed . IfI can b e of furth er as sistance in th is m att er please contact me directly. My cell p hon e is (80 5) 44 1-15 11. M y em ail is alaim john @ yahoo .com . ill age P rop ert ies LLC C c: K en H am pian , C ity M an ager S h ell y S tan wy ck , A ssistant C ity M an ager Jonath an P. L ow ell , C ity A tt orn ey Jam es C . B u tt ery , An dre M orri s an d B utt ery December 3, 2009 M s. J Chri stine Dietrick Assistan t City Attorn ey City of San Luis Obsipo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear M s. Dietri ck: IR~~EIVED DEC - 8 2009 SLO CITY ATTORNEY I am in receipt of the correspondence sent to Ms. Lanphar and Village Properties, LLC dated November 24, 2009. Thank you for bringing this situation to our attention. Your first paragraph references an attachment of a notice of rent increase. However, your letter did not include such an attachment. We would appreciate it if you could forward this document to us at your earliest convenience to be certain we are talking about the same thing. For the purpose of this correspondence, I will assume we are. I am apparently less familiar than I should be with Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. I apologize for this shortcoming, but I am not a lawyer. That having been said, I will tell you I believe I followed the same method as the previous owner of the park in calculating rent increases. Part of the problem may be that I have used the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI index not the State of California Division of Labor Statistics. I will utilize this site and the calculator in the future. Since I am not an attorney I felt it would be prudent and expeditious to meet with my attorney to better understand any errors I may have made in rent increase calculations. I met yesterday with my attorney Mr. James Buttery concerning this matter. In discussions with him, it is clear I used the incorrect index as I used U.S. All Cities Average, and not the LA/ Anahiem/Riverside index. I will resolve this matter immediately with the sixteen homeowners who received increase notices. Those involved will be informed in writing of the error and receive refund checks for any overpayments before the end of the year. I will copy you with the correspondence I provide to those involved. Ifl can be of further assistance in this matter please contact me directly. My cell phone is (805) 441-1511. My email is alairnjohn@yahoo.com. Cc: Ken Hampian, City Manager Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney James C. Buttery, Andre Morris and Buttery 1!111111111111 ,11 I City 0~ san uus OBISpo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 November 24, 2009 Julia Lanphar Village Properties, LLC 145 South Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. Lanphar: The attached notice of rent increase was forwarded to our office by one of the park's residents with an inquiry regarding the accuracy of the rent increase noticed under the City's rent stabilization ordinance, Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Mobile home park rent increases are governed by section 5.44.060 of the City ordinance, which allows for automatic increases based on the percent change in CPI. For your last increase, you appear to have utilized a 3.8% CPI increase, for the period December 2007 tlu·ough December 2008. This appears to be incorrect. As you will see, the attached CPI index calculator from the State Department oflndustrial Relations website shows the increase for the relevant period to be .1 %, not 3.8%. Thus, it appears that you may be overcharging the park's residents. Please review the enclosed ordinance and the CPI Index calculation and contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss resolution of this discrepancy. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. f....~···/· J. Christine Dietrick Assistant City Attorney JCD/cp Enclosures (2) cc: Ken Hampian, City Manager Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805} 781-7410. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STATISTICS & RESEARCH CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CALCULATOR 1 Select an lndex I Los Angeles - Ana~eim CP~ 1·1 2 Seleet index type j All Urban Consumers , ... , 3 Select beginning month I December ~ Beginning Index value 4 Select be~im1ing year / 2007 , ... , 1 219.373 1 5 Select ending month .I December 1·1 Ending Index Value 6 Select ending year J zoos I ... I I 219.62 I Based upon the Index, index type, and the time per.iod you have specltec, the percent change in the Consumer Price Index is equal to: 0.1% San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 5.44.060 Base space rent-Determination-Allowable increases without hearing. A. The "base space rent" for purposes of this chapter shall be the monthly space rent charged as of March 15, 1982 plus any increases otherwise allowed, pursuant to this chapter. The maximum monthly space rent for any space under a lease, upon expiration of the lease, shall be no more than the rent charged in the last month of said lease. In parks where there is an exemption because 66.67 percent of the spaces are governed by a lease with an initial term of no less than one year, then the maximum monthly space rent shall be the space rent designated in leases for comparable spaces. A schedule of current rents in the park shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the park. B. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the maximum monthly space rent may be increased no more than once a year based on the percentage change in the CPI, or nine percent, whichever is less, calculated as follows: 1. The maximum monthly space rent may be increased at a rate equal to one hundred percent of the CPI up to five percent and seventy-five percent of the CPI in excess of five percent calculated as follows: a. The change in space rent shall be calculated by dividing the ending CPT index by the beginning CPI index. b. If the resulting quotient is less than 1.05, then it shall be multiplied by the space rent. The resulting product shall be the new space rent. c. If the resulting quotient is greater than 1.05, then the difference between the resulting product and 1.05 shall be multiplied by seventy-five percent. The resulting product shall be multiplied by the space rent and that product shall be added to the sum derived from Section 5.44.060(B)(l)(b) above. The sum shall be the new space rent. cl. The beginning CPI index shall be the index for the month used as the ending index for the last CPI adjustment. e. The ending CPI index shall be the index for the month twelve months after the beginning index. 2. At least every two months the city administrative officer shall publish, by means of an advertisement or similar notice in the newspaper, the percentage change of the CPI allowed under this subsection B for the twelve-month period immediately preceding the month for which CPI information has been most recently published by the appropriate federal agency. 3. It is the intention of this subsection B to allow for automatic increases in space rent based on changes in the cost of living as measured by the CPI. The limitations on such increases are intended to minimize the immediate impact drastic changes in the CPI might have on residents. The limitations are not intended to prevent ultimate adjustments to allow owners to receive a fair return on their property. C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. However, such increase shall not exceed ten percent of the then existing space 'rent and may not be relied upon any more often than once in any thirty-six-month period as the basis to increase rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from subletting of the mobile home space as may be allowed by state law, should such Printed from Folio Views Pagel San L uis O bispo M unici pal C ode become state law, then upon any such subletting the space rent may be increased up to ten percent of the then existing space rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from vacation of the space, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be provided for in this chapter. D. No owner shall either (1) demand, accept or retain a rent of or from a tenant in excess of the maximum rent permitted by this chapter, or (2) effect a prohibited rent increase by a reduction of general park facilities and services. However, an owner may modify the nature of park services if reasonable allowance is provided to the tenant. For example, if the owner elects to submeter water so that tenants pay for water consumed by them, then tenants shall receive a reasonable reduction from their base space rent. E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases or decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable, excluding capital improvements or ongoing maintenance costs. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase or decrease in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060.B, but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase, or decrease, shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than ninety days prior to any such increase or decrease being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase or decrease, the new space tent, the amount of the total increase or decrease in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase or decrease based on this section. There shall only be one such increase or decrease in any twelve-month period. (Ord. 1279 § 1, 1995; Ord. 1268 § l, 1994; Ord. 1226 § 2, 1992; Ord. 1173 § 1, 1990; Ord. 1167 § 1, 1990; Ord. 1146 § 2, 1989: Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) Printed from Folio Views Page2 1 1 /1 7 /2 0 0 9 1 0 :5 8 ~ .,.-.. S1'APtES 8055455104 PAGE 01/04 STAPLES #737 Store# 737 323 Madonna Rd San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 546-6100 " (805) 546-6104 Fax 1We'II do it right the first time - guaranteed. Rlack & while copies • Color copies • custom printing • Binding • FoldlnA • Wide-format copying • Custom stamps • UPS shipping and more that w as easy: 5/06blz~v_ooga15 P A G E 0 2 /0 4 1 1 /1 7 /2 0 0 9 1 0 :5 8 8 0 5 5 4 5 5 1 0 4 S T A P L E S #7 3 7 Villa9e Mobile Home Park &...Apanments 145 South Str eet San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1 Phone/Fax (805) S43-1056 i March 17, 2009 145 South St. Space CO& San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear , Enclosed is the annual notice regarding the July 2009 rent increase & pass- through charge adjustment. Please review this information carefully, as this will be the only notification of the approved increase. Sincerely, Julia Lanphar Village Propert ies, LLC Encl osure l l /1 7 /2 0 0 g 1 0 :5 8 8 0 5 5 4 5 5 10 4 S T A P L E S #7 3 7 P A G E 0 3 /0 4 M arch ,15, 2009 To All Village Mobile Home Park Homeowners and Tenants: In accordance with Section 5.44.60(.B) of the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance, the maximum monthly space rent may be increased no more than once a year based on the percentage change in the consumer price index (CPI). Specifically, the ordinance allows an increase in the maximum monthly space rent at a rate equal to 100% of the CPI, up to 5% and 75% of the percentage change above 5%, to a maximum of9%. The CPI increase for the annual period of December 2008 was 3.8%. B y the formula above, the increase for the coming year w ill be 3.8 %. Also :in accordance with the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance Section 5.44.060(E), pass-through charges may be automatically adjusted based on any increase/decrease in the expenses for water, sewer, trash, etc. As a result of some city increases and a much larger usage, the 2008 cost for water per space was $43.82 up from $32.36. This is a substantial increase. P lease, m ak e every effort 1to conserve water. This increase is somewhat rate related but is also very much the result of greater use. ,It is the responsibili ty of each and every occupant !O the park to conserve water. Please be reminded that washing automobiles and other vehicles w ithi n the park is prohibited by the par k ru les. The cost for sewer service, as a result of the city rate increase last year and the projected increase in 2009, will change the monthly expense from $36.30 to $45.61 based on the last 12 months billing. Trash pick-up was the onl y bright spot in expenses as the annual cost of trash pick-up dropped slightly. This may be the result of fewer "special" pick-ups. Remember, leaving items outside the trash area is prohibited by park rules. "When individuals leave large items in the trash area outside the container, it reflects directly on your .m onthJy cos,t as we need to have special pick-ups and trash area cleanups. Please watch for offenders and report them to management to help prevent this problem. The new monthly rate for trash will be $20.89 down from $21.64. Therefore, and in compliance with the California Civil Code 798.30, this is a 90- day notice of rent adjustment. Your space rent due on July 1, 2009 will include these rent adjustments. Based on these allowable adjustments your new space rent will be $ ;i.3 Z. 7 7 . Allowable pass-through expenses w ill be as follows: Water $43.82 per month Sewer $45.61 per month Trash $20.89 per month Total $110.32 per month SP~~8 r // ~c·-7r9 ~ . ohn Hough M anager, Village Properties, LLC 11/17/2009 10 :5 8 8055455104 STAPLES #737 PAGE 04/04 March 26, 2008 To All vmage Mobile Home Park Homeowners and Tenants: In accordance with Section 5.44.60(B) of the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance, the maximum monthly space rent may be increased no more than once a year based on the percentage change in the consumer price index (CPI). Specifically, the ordinance allows an increase in the maximum monthly space rent at a ~ ,; rate equal to 100% oft CEI.,.u .. o 5% and 75% of the ercenta e chan e bov O ... P (:/llf''o/..Q...; a maximum of9%. he CPI increase for the erio of December 2006 to December 2007 /tv~-= was 6.53%. By the formula above, t e increase or t e comm ear will be 6.1 o, J) ln--1 {J{f' Also in accordance with the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Control --rftJ;vi Ordinance Section 5.44.060(E), pass-through charges may be automatically adjusted ,0 d 'I based on a1ny increase/decrease in the expenses for water, sewer, trash, etc. In July of 2007 the City of San Luis Obispo again raised the rates of both water and sewer resulting in an increase to the consumer, The increases are water 13% and sewer l l %. As a result of these city increases and additional usage. The 2007 cost for water per space is $32.36 up from $29.96. Please, make every effort to conserve water. This increase is somewhat rate related but is also very much the result of greater use. It is the .-esponsibi;litt.,o.f.each and every occupant in the park to_conserve water. Please be reminded that washing automobiles and other vehicles within the park is prohibited by the park rules. The: cost for sewer service, as a result of the city rate increase last year and the projected increase in 2008, will change the monthly expense from $25.19 to $36.30 based on the last 12 months billing. SLO CO WASTE MGNT AUTHORITY through AB939 has levied a monthly increase of 2% of the gross billing fee. Remember, leaving items outside the trash area is prohibited by park rules. "When individuals leave large items in the trash area, it reflects directly <:>n your.,,monthlI cost as we need to have special pick-ups and trash area cleanups. Please watch for offenders and report them to management to help prevent this problem. A:; a result of these issues, the new rate for trash will be $21.64. This figure reflects several special pick-ups and cleanup. Therefore, and in compliance with the California Civil Code 798.30, this is a 90- day notice of rent adjustment. Your space rent due on Jnlv_L,2008 will include these rent adjustments. . . Based on these allowable adjustments your new space rent will be $ ~b f 'W 0, Allowable pass-through expenses will be as follows: Water $3 2,36 per month Sewer $36.30 per month Trash $21.64 per month Sincerely, Total. $90.30 per month SPACE# 'J3jz_. John Hough Manager, Village Properties, LLC I .• '. .,.·. "/?>I~- -- J ~~ i .. •·.:. . . - :: , .. : ~- t; •• .J :_':". .· .. · .... ·,.:~·- :. .. :.• ,; .... ·· .. _;_. _ _._: .. 1.l:\- .·.· : .- ·:.-·_._. :. :.>-·- - ... · ·._-: . . . . L. :·A r{TntA·. --:. 'L _{'.T7."'"[j1s-. :"~.~-: ... -~-~- .-.tl..~U '£,-· ... -. -<~. _: ·. :.- . . -~·--•.· ·--:··--.: . .,• : ;- .. .... __ .,, .. ·-.'.' ... ·. -_·,_ .. ,~~~~G,~1/}~NTJ .. ·• :._.··_ · --T~mi of l~ Months·-~r Month to.Mo~~-·. · · .: · ·. .. -. . ~- -- . . , .... ~: ~- ..... .: ·._:~-:: ~ . . - . ,._ ... · -.~: ~ .;..• ... ~, . . '. , . . .- . ~-;. -- . ,,- . ; . •. ·. ,.._._._ . . ·-· . -~ . ~. -;· .. :-,· :.·. ,._ .. . , . . . ~ , .. -· . -~ .. : .. ·. .· .; .-·.·: . . .· . This P a rk is an •-·:~<Jnal ~e1:.l~~;~pp~,rtu~~fy fr~vi(}~r. ·•·.we,:l:ft~lr:;~;~n;t@ .· 11111£t!l!!:1 ~1f!~Z 1 ·. ·,.· 1 .. . . . . . · SPECIFIC INFORMATION. . . . •·····• . •_::.-· . --.<k -G . - --.e~J •'f.--11-ll ',:' :' - . . , . -- . ~< · ->~ ii _- , ·:·•-~~rp=):Cll~~k.-~~~~P_rt~~~~)C::>:: : : .'::::'.<·. - .-, ·· .-:· - _ ':f) · ·The,te~~y c~~t~d·,~d~r this .Agree~ent ~~ ~e-f<:>r a p~ri~d.qftwelve ·(-12)'montlis: _ !' .. ~~a:·· -~~aU .. ·:c~jppieii'.~e - - -Q1:1·_-- _.· · -~-- -- -· .--~- .... : :.·. ~, ~Q~ __ :_ aij_d . /iI?,cI ·,· ·. pn . . :,··,. > ./, .: ,,,•:. . .. 20~im fosssoo~e{terniin at¥'ui.aicprdati ce_withtp~~enps .. . , . . .:_~f~4,w~~:f;:~~;_- , · (? . .Thf,!enan~r:P~~ej;~~rriils_Agr~~m~nj sh~l be op~ ~o~#}-to-m~~t;h_~,~s!_~d -~~all "1~m.rr:enceon · ,~(~ _ -/ • · ,_2~~ I_~ - _ . '·_. __ . ' .. ·. _ · .. _ _ -~ -:. __ ·' ._ . : r , •• • • ·• . ·:•_; ......... ' ., .• - .. · ... · . .--; .. i _·. }I9.pi~?~ff;\Wi#ils . ~ . :· ,j;,j •.: . ·_. ··_ .· . Jnt¢hti,op_~J1r 4~-I~t~d:: ·. :...,- ,; => · J ~4· · · -- '.::~~~t: c~tlBJ~t~fu;·~aJ~¢rit ~_;et:i9~tt1lipre¼i=>7~ -• : ---~•--- · 4 ~ ·:'5:>z..- ~---: :·, ,. •· : :- tfoll~: arid - .....,..,.. J.----,---..,.._-=--~--,-~--- .. . . . . · .. . . . . ·· ..... : <;:en~($·_'_· -·-. ··_..,....,., ., .. ·:_-.·.:.-··. : Base Rent;' · . . . · ·;;;, . . . ~ . . '-.- .. · .. :- ' ,_ .. :-._ ,::··:-::· - .. · .· ·':": ;! ·. ·.· .·- •· '.,:. · 1.s ·· : Utilitiei . .. :: .. . A:. •. Provided .and ~ep~tylJl>iJled to lf6m~oVliler: \1/ater, Sewer and Trash: .· .. B. - Provided without separate chargeto Hcnneo'1Vller: No11e .•.. - · C. · : Contracted with 1h6 appropriate_utilify company-:or provider and paid directly .. J>y Homeown er: G2:5, electric?ieleph~rie an~:cti.ble°tt~~~viiioii.: .· . · ., · .. · --.... . • _ . · •-· __ . <. · -· ·. · _----• ~· ... . - 1.6 - Occupants _OfQ]opi.le4q~~- upon ~e ~()ww:~ll~~Ill~Ilt date oftl1~s Agreement: . . · - .. .. ' .· ·; ·, . . . .. · .. - A. .Homeowners as listedon the last page ~f this Agr~em,ent~ • •. • • I•• •••' •- ''• '•• •• • • •••.';.• • ••.•••••.-.•.•; •.• :.• •: ,•. 3 . ··_ -: . . _.·: · ... : ... --'. ... ~~-~_ •. t.H_~i.r.:~_:_;t_e·· .. t,:_·_~ME,t __ ·_sts··.·~.i .. _?.- . .'~.o'";t:;=~f ~•qescn~=t~~ .ij~m~~: ._ .. : ~: I.• r • .,, • .-:\ .. ••: •( ;,:;. .:.: • :-· ·.. ..: .... • ·4 .. . • .-1... .... ·•· ··. . . • ;•••:•:.:•;_• • :-•~:-••.-••_••• 0 _.:_ .. --~ •~••••• :•••••: :,•: :• ·•. ·:-Lr· .. ~ 0 0 - • 0 -• 0 .• •:. .: •L •••: . The tenancy created und~r this Agreeni~nt shall be for the term specifie_d in paragrapq 1.2 .. • -: •• - •. ,.:: : •• ~: :·' !' t }. -· .J .,-··:·-·: ::>i .. ··RE . -:~~·~JN"CJPF;1!f~~ASO~~,~·~~*-YI~~-~fES~ ... . · · ·_. 5.) .·: -Hoinf;:o~er ·~h~.P~Y Ji(ailyance (with~~ 9edU:~tion or offset) to Owii~{ on the·~--·~·-. dayof~ach~on!}i: ·.· .. _,·.·.··: · · ~: : ·. · .· -~: · -:.· · : ·. ··:··. ·. · · .·· · .·. •. ~A-: .. the Base R~1:1L~ defuied in paragraph ~,2-.bel~;~~ ~ay be ·adjusted).-~ th~ · · _ .. ;- 'event rent is pr~-~t~d {<:>r any z:eason- ~deftp;is' Agr~emin(._it_~h~.:-~ej>rfr-r~ted ·op,: 1:fie• ~lcijs·_o( a_.thirty _ · . :(30Jdaymoiit;h>• .·:·.: ····\.,.. · · ··· . '. :· '· . .' . ·_: •.··,;~:~_'i_:_,.·._ ...... _::· ... ,- .. r.·•·· ·-,;/ •. -:r ,., .· · f':.'-."°;:··_ •, .. .. ;•,. ~;· •:: ~- .. . , .• -· B. · · >~11~~:j~\~~8rg~~:~iµ~iJo'.~()ri{~~~~r.tf-·~~ti~~:'ea~~-~311tµ\: · ._:;~ .: ·. , f·"' · • · -~i~tti~~iiiiiit~IJJf;til~I~-•-- . .~~1:J;>e~on shall not, 1:tow~yer, -~pply:if pr:qpib1te~ }?y CmJCoc:l~_ §798, et ~eq. grpt.J:l e! <!pplical?,l~la'Y,": _ • ... -~"~~::~~t~:11.~~J.:i!!K?~£;1tl°iifu!~1·• service and cable tei~vh,ion ~·:peri:nitted by Section 5.44:060 ·oftlie City,ofSaii:Luis'Ob_i$po ri~f6oritrol'. · . _.ordn,iance.. . .. . .. '... ' '· . . . . . . . . ;,• ·'· . '· · .. ··:.·:; . • , :· ! ( · .. I ~ i·· ! t ! . ! ·,. ! · · . . . .. · . . · E: · •· All rentpayabl; hereunder shall be paicl by check :oririoney ~i<ie;to 0"'1l~r ~t tl}e ·. · Park Office or' Stich .other address as provided .by-Q-wner 11pqn notice to Homeo wn er .. Qwn¢r_l.Ilay,. upon at least ten (10) .days' wri~~n notice to Homeowner, require 1ia~e11do be made in cash 9r equivalent, . , ·. . . . . . . . .• .·. ·. {I) ·. )f fue rent is-not~aid totlieoffic~:by 5:l)0 pJ¥.ml the sixth (6tp.) ,~y ()f . the month.. the late charge ~pe¢_iji~d _pi paragraph 1 .4 ·above shall be charged to cover Owner's. cost for . additional accounting and c9Uecti~ti expe.µses.. ·' · . . · :· - ·_:: ! ... · · •· · : ; . . :" . 0 . . ._ · .. , · ·.. . • . . ·• · •· · .. ·. ·. · ·. . • . . · .. · -·• .(2) . Ac,lditioiially; the handling ~µi:irge spe.~~fied ~ paragrapli 1.4 abmie .shall , .be required for ~l:l ~hecks re1:llnied. by tl;te fomk due to insuffi.~ient fluids )n . Honie9wnets 1:1ccowif ~t for . .· any other reason: . . . . . . . . . . (3) Late charges -and returned check haridling · charges ni;y be in~reliSed . pursuan~ to govein~g law. 5 K-~rr•J.l :_ " ... ,, . - : · _· -- . . · · _'.:... · · is}· -:·:\iuiy.~a,~-~~t: of ~e~t- b;;Holeo~er·-shali:~:pe apj?li,~d- to- dis;4ii'.rge <-~-" . : . any past due am oun ts, fuGlµ~g, )mt i:iot Iimi ted to, late ch~ges, check hancllitlg' charges, key charges, . . . · : ~!~~t:J;.s;i~::-;=ti~J:}!";t:~:ik,~!~:!.."'.'t:°:'oie~::.v:ti -· . · _:;,i§.2 ,: ·-.~-A;d)~tm~~~ to 13,?Se._R~nt. 'Th~ Base Rerit shall.be the ~<;>unt.SpC;?_c;ifi~ci ~ p~~ph · ·. :· C,;": . · l.4 _a~<;rve,~p may.·~~ raised at_m,iy tjrµe'by/)WJ;ler l_lpon at_l~ast -mn ety (90}_days'_n6ticf,to Honieowri et. .. _f: ~-- .... ~er_,m*es:'n'o rep~~f?!:11:atioj(cfr warianty·tb.at any site or_ten~cy-~ eli~bJe;·for re,n.t coµtrol._Jfa,t)ajy _· -··. '! i I. f I i . I i ~- :r ! i ·• \ t '. 6~ •--"UTIL .. · . -ITIE·-··_. ·s_. : ·_ . .· ·-. . . -~ . fl ·._ ,Owri ~i .. sJial_l provide and .separately bill Jo Homeown er for :t1:1~ foUqyvms',u.tilitjes:: Water, sewer, tr~Ii> Upon sixty {6P} gays' notice' to Homeown er; Own er may requireH omeown er to contract: with 'the appropriate :utiljty provider for service 'ajiq t<;> ,pay directly Jor one Of: all pf ._tile tit:i!~tif!S ' which]1~ve:previousl)'heeti:~~piu:ately billed t9 Hom~o'3/.Il er. ·.rn:sucli~yel!,~ Hpµi~own er _II!ay :h~ recj~ed' . to pay a_.<:1~p9sit tothe.utility provider and/or may be charged at a rate 'for $e utility OT 'service which · differs from the rate theii currently charged by the Park,'. . .. . . . . . . . . . ' · . . ·· · . 62 .. Utility rates-charged by Owner which are-governed b}',law shall be billedrat the · maxim um rate as allowed bylaw, Utilities not so governed shall be charged by Own er to Homeown er by;' at the election of Owner, one of the following: · . . . . . ... . . .· . . . . . . ·. . .' . .. . . . . . . •, ;• ... ' ' ' •' .• ' ·, k 'The rate an:d fees the servicing utilityPr utility_proy~der)n the are;:i ii;J. wNc;h the ' - Pm:tis1Qf~!~4 ihar~? for d~lxvering s~id utility'an,d'ijtility servi_ces to single family detacped resi<ience~: . , .. . . ... - ... -.~·:<-;~,-,...,..._ .•• ~.-::----·-·· .. -; ;:-;-·.-~_--::- .. _.- .. :s:-··.--:::·····.--;··-:'-.·-.•-.•·-"c: ._ ... _ , ... ··:·!:-:.-·.·-.- ·:-,:•-: -~: ·;·:.. . . . . . . · . . . . B. . The iun ou,nt bilied to uwner by the pro-?iditi g ui:ility ~d ~~.µty senrice ;for the · . entire Pru-k, divided by the nUlllber ofsp~ces in the P~k. In cl_eterminiiig these ~<:>uri.'t5:, tlJ.e charges Inay, · .. · . at the election of Owner,. be annualized and be cohsider~d oil a full twelve (12)-mqntlJ. basis. . ' ' C . Arn_asonable method determined bJarbitr.ation; as _set forth her~m. · -- ~ : . -· -;--:----~-- --- . --···:···--,- ·······-··: ---·.·: ·:-·-: .· :· . . . . ·. . - .. 6 • councn acenoa nepont Meelina Date C, q 9-/ I - : "em Number F R O M : S UB JE C T : C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O Jeffrey G . Jorgensen, Ci4ttorney M obil ehom e R ent Stabil iz ation O rdinance C A O RE C O MME N D A T IO N R eview and C onsider R equests fo r A m endm ents to the San L uis O bisp o M obil ehom e R ent Stabiliz ation O rdinance D ISC U SSIO N At the June 3, 1997 City Council meeting, several mobilehome tenants requested various amendments to the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance. This request had previously been . submitted to the City in writing on April 15, 1997, and the City Attorney prepared a confidential analysis for the Council on May 15, 1997. The City Council directed that the City Attorney's memorandum be made available to the public, and the matter be brought back for discussion at a later date. At this time the Council should review the request and determine whether further action is desired. Since the June 3, 1997 meeting, the City has received additional correspondence on this matter, which is attached for your information. · FI SC AL IM P A C T There is no fiscal impact at this time. Should amendments be made or additional enforcement of the San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance be needed, it could impact staff time in both Administration and City Attorney Offices. A tt achm ent: May 15, 1997 Memo from Jeffrey G. Jorgensen (A) Correspondence ( B) ..5-I :, M EM O R A N D U M From the Office of the City Attorney May 15, 1997 To: From: Subject: City Council Jeff JorgenseUty Attorney Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance - Request for Amendments By letter dated April 15, 1997, a copy of which is attached as (A), the City has received a request from several mobilehome park tenants to amend the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The four proposed amendments are as follows: 1. Vacancy Control. a. Request. Section 5.44.060(C) of the current ordinance limits rent increases on a change of ownership of a mobilehome to not more than 10% once in any 36 month period. Such a limitation is commonly referred to as "vacancy control." The tenants have requested the deletion of Section 5.44.0G0(C), which would presumably have the effect of prohibiting any rent increase upon a change of ownership of a mobilehome. b. Analysis. In analyzing ,this request, it is helpful to review the history of this Section. The 10% rent increase limitation was contained in the original ordinance adopted by a vote of the people in 1988. In 1990, based on the Federal District Court decision in Hall v. City of Santa Barbara (which held that a substantially similar provision was a "physical" taking of property), the City Council amended the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance to delete vacancy control. In 1992 the United States Supreme Court held in Yee v. City of Escondido that vacancy control did not constitute a physical taking of the park owner's property. As a result, mobilehome tenants requested the City to restore the 10% limit on rent increases on a change of ownership, and the City Council agreed .. Therefore, the May 7, 1997 letter from Betty _Henson, attached as (B), is incorrect in asserting that" ... vacancy control was not reinstated .... " In essence, the tenants now wish to delete entirely any increase in rent on change of ownership. This would conflict with the ordinance adopted by a vote M A Y 15, 1997 MEMO FROM JORGENSEN (A) of the people in 1988, and substitute a competing statutory approach which was also on the ballot in 1988 but failed to gain voter approval. The issue of whether vacancy control constitutes a "regulatory" as opposed to physical taking has still not been resolved by the courts and probably will not be finally settled until there is a United States Supreme Court decision on point. Therefore, caution should be taken to avoid inadvertently leading the City into potential takings litigation. The current vacancy control provision is part of a comprehensive, balanced approach which was negotiated by a blue-ribbon committee appointed by the Council and approved by the voters. As discussed further below, the un ila teral rem ova l of it will change the balance of the ordinance. The Council should carefully consider whether such a change, as well as the other requests, is warranted or advisable without broader public input. 2. Passthroughs. a. Request. Section 5.44.060(E) of the current ordinance allows for automatic adjustments of rent, commonly referred to as passthroughs, for" ... increases or decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new government- mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable, excluding capital improvements or ongoing maintenance costs." The tenants are requesting the deletion of all automatic increases except for utilities. b. Analysis. The elimination of passthroughs except for utilities, coupled with the deletion of the 10% rent increase on change of ownership, would significantly change the balance and structure of the ordinance, and could force a greater reliance on formal applications for rent increases pursuant to Section 5.44.070. This would potentially generate greater conflict over rents. A s has been stated on num erous previous occa sions, the validity of a m obileh om e rent control ordinance is dependent upon whether it provides the ow n er with an opportunity for a "fair return" on investment. The courts have con sisten tl y held that failure to allow a fair return constitutes a taking of the owner's property for which the City is liable. The provision for a10% increase on change of ownership and the automatic passthroughs can be considered a safety mechanism which allows rent to increase gradually over time, which in turn helps avoid the potential for a taking, and for rents to approximate a fair return on investment. If these provisions are deleted, then the only option available to the owner is to seek a formal adjustment to rent under the hearing process set forth in Section 5.44.070. This would add significantly to the administrative burden of the City. (Since adoption of the ordinance is 1988, there has never been a formal rent adjustment hearing.) 2 If rents are not allowed to increase gradually over time, there is a risk that ultimately a larger rent increase will need to be granted in order to provide a fair return. Granting a large rent increase would be a difficult and unpleasant task in the face of tenant opposition. To the extent rent increases are not granted where warranted, the City runs the risk of exposure to takings litigation. 3. R ent A dju stm ent F actors. a. R equest. Section 5.44.090 of the current ordinance sets forth a broad range of factors which may be considered in evaluating an application for a rent increase. It also provides a formula for determining a fair return, and an alternative methodology in the event the formula does not work. The tenants are requesting the deletion of this section and replacement with new provisions which appear to apply only to "capital improvements" and "capital replacements." Capital improvements require approval by a majority of tenants. Capitol replacements are not defined, but there are specific limitations on capital replacements of utility lines. b. A n alysis. The proposed changes would significantly change the framework of the ordinance, and do not fit well into the overall regulatory structure. The focus on "capital improvements" and capital replacements" ignores other relevant factors which should be considered in determining a "fair return." Given the fact that a park owner is entitled to a fair return, the voter approval requirements for capital improvements and limitations on capital replacements may actually requ ire litigation against the City if a rent adjustment is denied on that basis, but the owner can otherwise show that an increase is necessary to assure a fair return. When this request is combined with the previous requests to delete the 10% rent increase on change of ownership, and to remove all passthroughs except utilities, it becomes clear that the flexibility of the ordinance is being seriously weakened, and without flexibility the potential for conflict and litigation increases greatly. 4. M iscell an eous. a. R equest. The tenants assert that the reference to 5.44.040(F) in the current ordinance is incorrect and should be changed to 5.44.040(E). In addition, they have requested that a claim of exemption under 5.44.040(B) may be objected to" ... on the grounds that any part of the lease is in violation of State Mobilehome Residency Laws. b. A n alysis. · In reviewing this request, I was unable to understand what it means, since the reference to 5.44.040(F) appears to be correct. I therefore requested clarification from Leola Rubottom, and her April 29, 1997 response is attached as (C). Unfortunately, her response did not provide much 3 clarification. The only way the request makes sense is if it is related to mobilehome park owner exemptions under 5.44.030(F). For the purpose of analysis, I will assume this is what they meant. The original Section 5.44.030(F) adopted by the voters in 1988 provided an exemption from mobilehome rent stabilization for "spaces in a mobile home park in which at least 66.67 percent of said spaces are governed by a lease with an initial term of more than one year." This was commonly known as the "safe harbor" provisions, and was designed as an incentive to reward a park owner who was willing to offer a long term lease favorable enough to gain acceptance by at least 66.67 percent of the spaces by exempting the remaining tenants who did not sign leases from rent stabilization protection. In 1992, at the request of tenants, these "safe harbor" provisions were deleted so that regardless of how many tenants entered into long term leases, the remaining tenants who did not sign leases would still be protected by rent stabilization. This action rendered 5.44.040 inoperable since it related directly to the safe harbor provisions in 5.44.030(F), which were now deleted. Nevertheless, 5.44.040 was retained in the ordinance to allow for any preexisting exemptions before the amendment. Therefore, the proposed changes to 5.44.040 do not make sense since the reasons for the existence of 5.44.040 have been deleted. Although not clearly stated, it appears the true nature of the request may be to further limit the exemption under 5.44.030(E), which provides that tenants who have signed long term leases are exempt from protection under the rent stabilization ordinance during the term of the lease. The tenants appear to be requesting that the exemption only apply if the lease is in compliance with the State Mobilehome Residency Laws, and that the tenants would haye a formal right to object on this basis. The problem with this approach is that it would require the city to be the arbiter and enforcer of the State Mobilehome Residency Laws whenever a tenant objected based on the terms of a private lease entered into between owner and tenant. Up to this point, the City has refrained from this approach because it does not have the staff or expertise to do so, and has limited its involvement with mobilehomes to rent stabilization only. To do otherwise would impose a tremendous administrative burden on the City in a complex and highly contentious area. In addition, it has the potential to embroil the City in essentially private legal disputes over the terms and enforcement of private leases. 4 CONCLUSION The proposed changes would significantly modify the structure of the current ordinance which was a compromise measure adopted by the voters in 1988. It would remove flexibility from the ordinance, and force greater reliance on formal rent adjustment hearings. To the extent it prevents owners from having a clear and reasonable mechanism to achieve a "fair return," it may expose the City to significant legal liability and costs. It would greatly increase the City's involvement in mobilehome disputes by requiring the City to interpret and enforce the State Mobilehome Residency laws, and may entangle the City in private disputes over leases. Al l of these will impose a tremendous administrative burden on the City (and potentially create a new work program which is currently not budgeted). For these reasons, and as discussed above, the proposed cha:nges are not recommended. JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Bonnie Gawf KenHampian Cindy Clemens Attachments: April 15, 1997 Letter from Rubottom, etal. (A) May 7, 1997 Letter from Betty Henson (B) April 29, 1997 Letter from Leola Rubottom (C) Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (D) 5 ·--... San Luis Obispo, CA April 15, 1997 TO: Mayor Allen Settle and San Luis Obispo City Council Members: We respectfully request that you change'the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance in the following four ways, and place this request on the Agenda no later than the end of May. 1. 5.44.060 (C). This should be omitted. See number 1 on list of attachments. 2. 5.44.060 (E) Most of this item should.be omitted. See number 2 on list of attachments. 3. 5. 44. 090 Application for Rent Adjustment - Evaluation - Relevant Factors. See number 3 on list of attachments. 4. 5. 44. 040 (F) Should be changed to 5. 44. 40 (E) . This reference is incorrect. 5.44.040 (B) Please replace with Attachment Number 4. ~~ Betty Henson ~~- Bob Souther)!( ,i ) ---- - .... Attachment 1. 5. 44. 060 (C) should be omitted. The rent on a mobilehome space must be paid whether it is occupied or not. When a mobilehome changes ownership, the park owner does not render a service, nor incur an expense, so there is no need for compensation. In the case of Yee vs. Escondido, in 1992, the United States Supreme Court, in an unanimous 9-0 decision, ruled that vacancy control is not a taking of the park owner's property. (See copy enclosed.) 2. 5. 44. 060 (E) . A park owner can apply for and receive an adjustment in rent under the guidelines of 5.44.070 "Application for rent adjustment - Fee - Contents." Most mobilehome parks in San Luis Obispo do not have pass throughs if they are not. on leases. Omit all of (E) except: Leave the automatic increases or decreases to the mobilehome owners utilities. This includes any government mandated cost where applicable. Any notice of an increase or decrease shall be in writing and shall be required by law, no less than ninety (90) day~ prior to any such increase or decrease becoming effective. The notice shall· state the amount of rent increase or decease and specify the new space rent. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administration officer. There _shall·be only one such increase or decrease in a 12-month period. 3. 5. 44. 090 Applications for Rent Adjustment - Evaluation - Relevant Factors. Replace as follows: a. The cost of capital improvements shall be approved by the majority of the homeowners of the occupied spaces within any park. This approval must be in writing with all required signatures. b. Costs of capital replacement for utility lines shall be allowed only when, and to the extent, that park owner receives less income from utilities than the expense incurred of administering the sub- metering, if any, and from maintaining or replacing the utility. lines. Documentation shall be required. c. Any improvements or replacements, regardless of amount, can be allowed if such improvements or replacements have been ordered by a court or competent jurisdiction, such as any city, county, or state agency, or are of an emergency nature and required to preserve the health and safety of the home owners. d. Costs of capital improvements, if any, must be averaged on a per space basis, and amortized over a period not less than sixty (60) months, and excluded from the rent amount on which calculations of future rent increases are based. When the capital improvement (s) is paid off, the assessment shall be reduced by the amount of any rrent; increase imposed to cover. t_he capital improvement(s). e. Costs of capital replacements, if any, must be averaged on a per space basis, and amortized over a period not less than sixty (60) months, and are to be treated as an assessment to be paid off over not less than sixty (60) moths, and excluded from the rent amount on which calculations of future rent increases are bas~d. When the capital repl?cement (s) is paid off, the home-owner's rent 5,-9 ( rent shall be reduced by the amount of any rent increase imposed to cover the cost of capital replacement(s). f. Costs of capital improvements oir'capital replacements may be passed through only if related to a capital improvement or capital replacement work completed during the twelve (12) months preceding the date of notice of. any rent increase given and not to any work in progress at the time notice of any rent increase is given. · 4. 5.44.040 (F) This reference changed to 5.44.040 (E). 5.44.040 (B) Change to read: exception may be filed by tenant (s) the lease is in violation of State is incorrect, and should be An objection to the claim of on the grounds that any part of Mobilehome Residency Laws. . ,.- . :·.- ,,_. r) -3 s-10 NOTI CE: Tb i3 opinion u subj ect to Ierrnal revi sion before publication in the preliminuy prin t of the United States Reports. Readers are req uested to notify the Re porter cf Decisions, Supreme Court of the United Stat.e;,, Wa,h• ington, D.C. 20M3 , o(a.ny typogra phical or other (annal errors, inorder that con-ecti oru ma y be ma de before the pre liminary print goes to pl""C33 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 90-1947 JOHN K YEE, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFOilli!A, FOURTH APPEILATE DISTRICT [April 1, 1992) JUSTICE O'CONN OR delivered the opinion of the Court. The Takings Clause of the Fift h Amendment provides: "[Nlor shall private property be taken for public use, · without just compensation." Most of our cases interp reting the Clause fall within two distinct classes. "Where the governm ent authorizes a physical occupation of property (or . actually tak es title), the Takin gs Clause generally requires compensation. See, e. g ., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhat- tan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 426 (1982). But where the governm ent merely regula tes the use of property, compen- sation is requir ed only if considerations such as the purpose· of the regula tion or the extent to which it deprives the own er of the economic use of the property suggest that the · regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner to bear a burden that should be borne by the public. as a whole. See, e.g., Penn Central Tra nsp. Co. v. New York City , 438 U.S. 104, 123-125 (1978). The firs t category of cases requires courts to apply a clear rule; the second necessaril y entails complex factual assessments of' the purpo ses and economic effects of government actions; Petitioners own mobile home parks in Escondido, Califor- nia. They contend that a local rent control ordinan ce, when viewed agains t the backdrop of California's Mobile home Residency Law, am ounts to a physical occupation of their "i-'- . L"-/-( .:··: ~- ·-.~--:·· .. --~- · .. _:-::~-:.-:_; .::.,:·. -~ ·;.·::.~. -:.'-- '}- ._... ·. - . ' - -· 2 90-194 7-0PlliION YEE u. ESCONDIDO · .. ·. -- ···-·-· .. .-.-_.: _, property entitling them to compensation under the first . category of cases discussed above. I The term "mobile home" is somewhat misleading. Mobile- homes are largely immobile as a practical matter, because the cost of movin g one is often a significant fraction of the value of the mobile home itself. They are generally placed permanently in parks; once in place, only about one in every hundred mobile homes is ever moved. Hirsch & Hirsch, Legal-Economic Analysis of Rent Controls in a Mobile Home Context: Placement Values and Vacancy Decontrol, 35 UCLA L. Rev. 399, 405 (1988). A mobile home owner typically rents a plot of land, called a "pad," from the own er of a mobile home park. The park owner provides private roads within the park, comm on facilities such as washing machines or a swi m m ing pool, and often utilities. The mobile home owner often invests in site- specific improvements such as a driveway, steps, walkways, porches, or landscaping. When the mobile home owner· wishes to_ move, the mobile home is usually sold in place, and the purchaser continues to rent the pad on which the mobile home is located. .:- . In 1978, California enacted its Mobilehome Residency" Law, Cal. Civ. Cede Ann , §798 (West 1982 andSupp.1991). The Legislature found "that, because of the high cost of moving mobilehomes_, the. potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobilehomes, and the cost oflandscaping or lot preparation, it is necessary that the owners of mobilehomes occupied within mobilehome parks be provided with the uni que protection from actual or constructive eviction afforded by the provisions of this cha pter." § 798.55(a). The Mobilehome Residency Law limits the bases upon - which a_ park owner may termina te a mobile home owner's · tenancy. These include the nonpayment of rent, the mobile .- home owner's violation of law or 'park rules, and the park -- ·.·· ·· S-IJ- :~~-~-Bi~~~tu'-a~~: , ~.-_.·· ::~ . ~. ----: {. · .. • 90-194 7-0PINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 3 owner's desire to change the use of his land. § 798.56. While a rental agreement is in effect, however, the park owner generally may not require the removal of a mobile- home when it is· sold.· § 798.73. The park owner may neither charge a transfer fee for the sale, § 798.72, nor disapprove of the purchaser, provided that the purchaser has the ability to pay the rent, § 798.74. The Mobilehome Residency Law contains a number of other detailed provi- sions, but none limit the rent the park owner may charge. In the wake of the Mobilehome Residency Law, various communities in California adopted mobilehome rent control ordinances. See Hirsch & Hirsch, supra, at 408-4 11.. ~e voters of Escondido did the same in 1988 by approving Proposition K, the rent control ord.in.ari.ce challenged here. The ordinance sets rents back to their 1986 levels, and prohibits rent increases without the approval of the City. 'Council, Park owners may apply to the Council for rent increases at any time. The Council mu.st approve any increases it determines to be "ju.st, fair and reasonable," after considering the following nonexclusive list of factors: (1) changes in the Consumer Price Index; (2) the· rent charged for comparable mobile home pads in Escondido; (3). the length of time since the last rent increase; (4) the· cost of any capital improvements related to the pad or pads at issue; (5) changes in property taxes; (6) chan ges in any rent paid by the park owner for the land; (7) changes in utility charges; (8) changes in operating and maintenance expens- es; (9) the need for repairs other than for ordinary wear and tear; (10) the amount and quality of services provided to the· affected tenan t; and (11) any lawful existing lease. Ordi - nance § 4(g), App. 11-12. Petitioners John and Irene Yee own the Friendly Hills and Sunset Terrace Mobile Home Parks, both of which are located in the city of Escondido. A few months after the adoption of Escondido's rent control ordinance, they filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court. According to the complaint, "Itlhe rent control law has had the effect of .. f) -u .· .... :: . ~ .. · ·• . . ~. ~:-· ~-:. ;,. ~-/ -.~ ·.'•'··:· ~.- ""· ~- : . ·.. ;.-.:_: .. ··:· :.-i·.· . .. , . - .. . ··. . .·-_ .. 4 90-194 7-0Pill ION YEE v. ESCONDIBO . - depriving the plaintiffs of all use and occupan cy of [their] real property an d gran ting to the tenan ts of mobilehomes presently in The Park, as well as the successors in interest of such tenants, the right to physically permanently occupy an d use the real property of Plaintiff." Id., at 3, 'I[ 6. The· Y ees requested dam ages of six million dollars, a declaration that the rent control ordin an ce is unconstitutional, an d an injunction barri ng the ordin an ce's enforcement. Id., at 5-6. In their opposition_ to the city's demurr er, the Yees relied alm ost entir ely on Hall v. C ity of Santa Barbara, 833 F. 2d 1270 (CA9 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 940 (1988), which had held that a simil ar mobile home rent control ordinan ce effected a physical takin g under Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982). The Yees can didly admi tted that "in fact, the Hall decis ion was used (as] a guide in draft ing the present Complain t." ·2 Tr. 318, Points & Authorities in Opposition to Demurr er 4 ... The Superior Court neverth eless sustain ed the city's demurrer an d dismissed the Yees' complain t. App. to Pet. for Cert. C-4 2. . . Th e Y ees were not alone. Eleven other park own ers filed simil ar sui ta agains t the city shortly afterwards , and all· were dis mis sed. By stipulation, all 12 cases were consoli- .. dated for appeal; the parti es agreed tha t all would be submi tted for decision by the California Court of Appeal on the briefs and oral argum ent in the Yee case. Th e Court of Appeal affirm ed, in an opini on prim aril y devoted to expressing the court 's disagre em ent with the reas onin g of Hall. Th e court concluded: "Loretto in no way suggests that the Escondido ordin an ce authorizes a perma- nen t physical occupation of the lan dlord's property and therefore constitutes a per se takin g." 224 Cal. App. 3d 1349, 1358 (1990). The Californi a Supreme Court denied review . App. to Pet. for Cert. B-41. Eight of the twelve park own ers, includin g the Yees, joined in. a petition for certi orari . We gran ted certiorari ,··-·•,._ 502 U. S. _ (1991), to resolve the confli ct between the · '7 -~------~ .(• .. · .. : ·. ~ ·. 90-194 7-0 PIN IO N YEE u. ESC.QNDIDO 5 decis ion bel ow an d those of tw o of the fe deral C ourts of Appeal s, in Hall, supra, an d Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barnegat Township Leveling Board,·898 F. 2d 347 (CA3 1990). .... .., II P etiti on ers ~o not claim th a t the ordi nary rent control sta tute s regul a tin g hous ing thr oughout the coun try vi olate th e T akin gs C la us e. B ri ef fo r P eti tioners 7, 10. C f. Pennell v. San Jose, 485 U. S. 1, 12, n. 6 (1988); Loretto supra, at 44 0. Ins tead, th eir ar gum ent is predi cated on th e un us ual economi c rela ti ons hi p betw een par k own ers an d m obil e h om e own ers . P ark own ers m ay no longer set re nts or deci de w ho th eir te nan ts will be. AB a resul t, acco rdin g to -'~ ·. peti ti oners , an y re ducti on in th e rent fo r a m obile hom e pad . · caus es a corre spon din g in cr eas e in th e val ue of a m obil e . ,. hom e, bec aus e th e m obil ehom e own er now owns , in addi tion , - . ' to a m obil e hom e, th e ri ght to occu py a pad at a rent below th e val ue tha t w oul d be set by th e fr ee m arket. C f. Hirs ch & Hirs ch , 35 U C LA L Re v., a t 425.. B ecaus e un der th e C aliforni a M obil eh om e Res idency L aw th e park own er . .. cann ot evi ct a m obil e hom e own er or eas il y convert th e. -~ . : pro perty to oth er us es , th e argum ent goe s, th e m obile hom e·.·.,/ own er ise ffecti vely a perp etual te nan t of th e park, an d th e ~,- .. ~,,_. -. in cre as e in 'the 'mobile hom e's val ue th us re presents th e·\·?~··'<· · ri ght to occu py a pa d at below -m arket re nt in defini tel y. : · · An d beca us e th e M obil eh om e Re sidency L aw permi ts th e m obil e h om e own er to sell th e m obil e hom e in place, th e m obil e h om e own er can re cei ve a pre mi um fro m th e pur - chas er co rr es pondin g to this in cre as e in val ue. Th e am oun t of this premi um is not limi te d by th e M obilehom e Re sidency Law or th e E sco ndi do ordin an ce. AB a re sul t, peti ti oners con cl ude, th e ren t contr ol ordinan ce has trans ferre d a dis cre te interest in lan d-th e ri ght to occu py th e lan d in defini tel y at a sub-mar ke t rent-fr om th e park own er to. th e m obil e hom e own er. P eti ti oners conte nd tha t wha t has been trans ferr ed fr om par k own er to m obil e hom e own er is fJ -P .... £ ·-: . ·- ··.·-· ..,. .... 6 9 0-1 9 4 7 -0 P IN IO N YEE u. ESCONDJDO no less than a right of physical occupation of the par k own er's lan d. Thi s ar gum ent, w hil e perhaps wi thin the scope of our regul atory takin g cas es, cann ot be squar ed eas ily wi th our cas es on physical takin gs. The governm ent effects a physical taki ng onl y w here it requires the lan down er to · submi t to the phys ical occupation of hi s lan d. ''This elem ent of requir ed acqui escence is at the heart of th e concept of occu pation." FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U. S. 245,252 (1987). Th us whether th e governm ent floods a lan down er 's propert y, Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 W all . 166 (1872), or does no m ore than requir e the lan d- own er to suffer the ins tall ation of a ca ble, Lo retto, supra, the T akin gs Claus e requir es com pens ation if the govern- m ent authoriz es a com pelled phys ical in vas ion of propert y. But the Escondi do rent control ordinan ce, even when cons idered in conj un cti on wi th th e Californi a M obilehom e Re sidency La w , auth oriz es no such thin g. Petitioners volun taril y re nte d th eir lan d to m obile hom e own ers . At leas t on th e fa ce of th e re gul ato ry scheme, neith er th e City nor th e Sta te com pels petitioners , once th ey have rente d their property to tenan ts, -to contin ue doin g so. To th e contr ary , th e Mobilehome Re sidency La w provi des: th at a par k own er w ho wis hes to ch an ge the us e of hi s lan d m ay evi ct his tenants, albeit wi th six or twelve m onths notice. Cal . Civ. Code Ann . § 798.56(g). Pu t blun tly, no govern- m ent has requir ed an y physical in vas ion of. petitioner s' property. Petitioners ' te nan ts w ere in vi ted by petitioners , not fo rc ed upon th em by the governm ent. See Flo rida P ower, supra, at 252-253. Whil e th e "right to ex cl ude" is doubtl ess, as petiti oners as sert, "one of th e m ost essential sti cks in th e bun dl e of rights that ar e comm onl y chara ct er- iz ed as property," Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979), we do not fin d tha t ri ght to have bee n tak en from petitioners on the m ere fa ce of th e Escondido ,.- ordinance. s-16 90-194 7-0 P lli IO N YE E u. ESCONDIDO 7 Petitioners suggest that the statutory procedure· for changing the use of a mobile home park is in practice "a kind of gauntlet," in that they are not in fact free to change the use of their land. Reply Brief for Petitioners 10, n. 16. Because petitioners do not claim to have run that gauntlet, however, this case provides no occasion to consider how the procedure has been applied to petitioners' property, and we · accordingly confine ourselves to the face of the statute. See Keystone Bitumino us Coa l As sn. v. Debenedictis, 480 U.S. 4 70, 493-495 (1987). A different case would be presented were the statute, on its face or as applied, to compel a landowner over objection to rent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy. See Florida .. , . Power, supra, at 251-252, n. 6; see also Nollan v. California Coa stal Comm'n, 483 U. S. 825, 831-832 (1987); Fresh Pond Shopping Center, Inc. v. Callaha n, 464 U. S. 875, 877 (1983) (RE HN QUIST , J., dissenting). .. On their face, the state and local laws at issue here merely regulate petitioners'.use of their land by regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant. "This Court has consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate housing conditions. in general and the. landlord-_ tenant relationship in particular without paying compensa- tion for all economic injuries that such regulation entails." Lo retto, 458 U. S., at 44 0. See als o Florida Power, supra, at 252 ("statutes regulating the economic relations of landlords and tenants are not per se takings"). When a landowner decides to rent his land to tenants, the govern- ment may place ceilings on the rents the landowner can charge, see, e.g., Pennell, supra, at 12, n. 6, or require the landowner to accept tenants he does not like, see, e.' g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 261 (1964), without automatically having to pay compensa- tion. See also Pruney ard Shopping Center v; Robins, 447 U. S .. 74, 82-84 (1980). Such forms of regulation are analyzed by engaging in the "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries" necessary to determine whether a regulatory "j••- 17 -10 .. -:. ~- . 5-17 8 9 0 -1 9 4 7 -O P IN IO N YEE v. ESCONDIDO taking has occurred. Kaiser Aetna, supra, at 175. In the words of Justice Holmes, "while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." Pennsy lvania Coal Co. v.· Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922). Petitioners emphasize that the ordinance transfers wealth from park owners to incumbent mobile home owners. Other forms of land use regulation, however, can also be said to transfer wealth from the one who is regulated to another. Ordinary rent control often transfers wealth from landlords to tenants by reducing the landlords' income and the tenants' monthly payments, although it does not cause a one-time transfer of value as occurs with mobile homes. Traditional zoning regulations can transfer wealth from those whose activities are prohibited to their neighbors; when a property owner is barred from mining coal on his land, for example, the value of his property may decline but the value of his neighbor's property may rise. The mobile home owner's ability to sell the mobile home at a premium may make this wealth transfer more· visible than in the ordinary case, see Epstein, Rent Control and the Theory of Efficient Regulation, 54 Brooklyn L. Rev. 741, 758-759 (1988), but the existence of the transfer in itself does not· convert regulation into physical invasion.': · · · ·· Petitioners also rely heavily on their allegation that the ordinance benefits incumbent mobile home owners without benefiting future mobile home owners, who will be forced to purchase mobile homes at premiums. Mobile homes, like · motor vehicles, ordinarily decline in value with age. · But the effect of the rent control ordinan ce, coupled with the restrictions on the park ·owner's freedom to reject new tenants, is to increase significantly the value of the mobile . home. This increased value normally benefits only the tenant in possession at the time the rent control is imposed. See Hirsch & Hirsch, 35 UCLA L. Rev., at 430-:,-431. Petitioners are correct in citing the existence of this premium as a difference between the alleged effect of the ;:. ;9 -!( 5-18 ·:.~: .-·... . 90-194 7-0PINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 9 Escondido ordinance and that of an ordinary apartment rent control statute. Most apartment tenants do not sell anything to their successors (and are often prohibited from charging "key money"), so a typical rent control statute will transfer wealth· from the landlord to the incumbent tenant and all future tenants. By contrast, petitioners contend that the Escondido orclinance transfers wealth only to the incumbent mobile home owner. This effect might have . some bearing on whether the orclinance causes a regu latory taking, as it may shed some light on whether there is a sufficient nexus between the effect of the orclinance and the objectives it is supposed to advance. See No llan. v. Califor- nia Coa stal Comm'n, supra, at 834-8 35. But it has nothing to do with whether the ordinance causes a physical taking. Whether the ordinance benefits only current mobile home owners or all mobile home owners, it does not require petitioners to submit to the physical occupation of their land. The same may be said of petitioners' contention that the ordinance amounts to compelled physical occupation because it deprives petitioners of the ability to choose their incoming tenan ts.' Again, this effect may be relevant to a regulatory taking argument, as it may ·be one factor -a reviewing court would wish to consider in determinin g whether the orclinance unjustly imposes a burden on petitioners that should "be compensated by the government, rather than remain[ing] disproportionately concentrated on, 1Strictly spuking, the Escondido rent control ordinance only limits rents. Petitioners' inability to select their incomin g tenants is a product of the State's Mobilehome Residency Law, the constitutionality ~fwhich bas never been at issue in this case. (The State, moreover, has never been a party.) But we understan d petitioners to be makin g a· more subtle argum ent-that before the adoption of the ordinance they were · able to influence a mobilehome owner's selection of a purchaser by threatening to increase the rent for prospective purchasers. they disfavored, To the extent the rent control ordinance deprives petitioners ·of this type of influence, petitioners' argument is one we must consider, /)-/)_ . . . . .-_:· _,. ~ . ....:.._.;...,...~. 10 90-194 7-OPINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO .. a few persons." Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S., at 124. But it does not convert regulation into the unwanted physical occupation of land, Because they voluntarily open their property to occupation by others,. petitioners cannot assert a per se right to compensation based on their inability to exclude particular individuals. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S., at 261; see also id., at 259 ("appellant has no 'right' to · select its guests as it sees fit, free from governmental regulation"); Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S., at 82-84. Petitioners' final line of argument rests on a footnote in Loretto, in which we rejected the contention that "the landlord could avoid the requirements of [the statute forcing her to permit cable to be permanently placed on her property] by ceasing to rent the building to tenants." We found this possibility insufficient to defeat a physical taking claim, because "a landlord's ability to rent his property may not be conditioned on his forfeiting the right to compensa- tion for a physical occupation." Loretto, 458 U.S., at 439, n. 17. Petitioners argue that if they have to leave the mobile home park business in order to avoid the strictures of the Escondido ordinance, their ability to rent their. property has in fact been conditioned on such a forfeiture. This argument fails at its base, however, because there has simply been no compelled physical occupation giving rise to a right to compensation that petitioners could have forfeit- ed. Had the city required such an occupation, of course, petitioners would have a right to compensation, and the city might then lack the power to condition petitioners' ability to run mobile home parks on their waiver of this right, 'Cf. No lla n, 483 U. S., at 837. But because the ordinance does not effect a physical taking in the first place, this footnote in Loretto does not help petitioners. With respect to physical takings, then, this case is not far removed from FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245 (1987), in which the respondent had voluntarily leased /l -/3 90-194 7-0PINION YEE u. ESCON:plDO 11 space on its utility poles to a cable television compan y for the in stall ation of cables. The Federal Go vernm ent, exercisin g its statutory auth ority to regul ate pole attach - m ent agr eem ents, substan tiall y reduced th e ann ual rent. W e rejecte d th e 'respondent's claim that "it is a taking un der Loretto for a tenan t in vi ted to leas e at a rent of $7.15 to re m ain at th e regul ated rent of $1.79." Id., at 252. W e exp lain ed tha t "it is the in vita tion, not th e rent, tha t mak es the diff erence. The lin e whi ch separ ates [this cas e] from Loretto is th e unam bigu ous distin ction between a ... lessee an d an interloper wi th a governm ent licens e." Id., at 252-253. Th e dis tin cti on is equall y un am bigu ous here. Th e E scondi do rent contro l ordinan ce, even cons idered agains t th e backdr op of California 's M obilehom s Re sidency La w, does not auth orize an un w an te d phys ical occu pation of petitioners ' pro perty . It is a regula tion of petitioners ' use · of th eir pro perty , an d thus does not am oun t to a per se takin g. Ill . .. .. In this Court, petitioners attempt to · chall enge the ordinan ce on two addi tional gro un ds : Th ey argu e tha t it cons titute s a denial of substan tive due pro cess an d a· regul ato ry takin g. Neither of th ese claim s is properly before us . Th e firs t w as not rais ed or addr essed below, an d the second is not fair ly in cluded in th e question on whi ch w e gran te d ce rti orari . A Th e Yees di d not include a due pro cess claim in their com plain t. N or di d petitioners rais e a due process claim in th e Court of Appeal . It was not un til their petition I for revi ew in th e Californi a Suprem e Court that petitioners finall y rais ed a substan tive due pro ces s claim . But the Californi a Suprem e Court deni ed dis cretionary re view.· Such a deni al , as in this Court , exp re sses no vi ew as to th e m eri ts. See People v. Triggs, 8 Cal . 3d 884 , 890-8 91, 506 P. 2d 232, 236 (1973). In short, petitioners di d not rais e a 5 .. ;.( 12 90-194 7-0PINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO ...... . - substantive due process claim in the state courts , and no state court has addressed such a claim. In reviewing the judgments of state courts under the jurisdictional grant of 28 U. S. C. § 1257, the Court has, with very rare exceptions, refused to consider petitioners'. claims that were not raised or addressed below. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 218-220 (1983). While we have expressed inconsistent views as to whether this rule is jurisdictional or· prudential in cases arising from· state courts, see ibid., we need not resolve the question here.· (In cases arising from federal courts, the rule is prudential only. See, e. g., Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 17, n. 2 (1 980).) Even if the rule were prudential, we would adhere to it in this case. Because petitioners did not raise their substantive due process claim below, and because the 'state courts did not address it, we will not consider it here. ·. · B As a preliminary matter, we must address respondent's assertion that a regulatory taking claim is. unripe because petitioners have not sought rent increases. Whil e respon- dent is correct that a claim that the· ordinance effects a regulatory taking as applied to petitioners' property would - be unripe for this reason, see Williamson County Regional P la nn ing Com m 'n v. Ham il ton B ank of Johns on C ity7 473 U. S. 172, 186-197 (1985), petitioners mount a facial challenge to the ordinance. They allege in this Court that the ordinance does not '"substantially advance"' a '"legiti- mate state lnterest'" no matter how it is applied. See Nollari v. California Coastal Comm'n, supra, at 834; Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260 (1980). As this allegation does not depend on the extent to which petitioners are deprived of the economic use of their particular pieces of property or the extent to which these particular petitioners · are compensated, petitioners' facial challenge is ripe. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. Debenedictis, 480 U. S:, at 495; Agins, supra, at 260. 90-1947-0PINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 13 We must also reject respondent's contention that the regul atory takin g argument is not properly before us because it was not made below. It is .unclear whether petitioners made this argum ent below: Portions of their complaint and ·briefmg can be read either to argue ·a regulatory takin g or to support their physical takin g argum ent. For the same reason it is equall y ambiguous whether the Court of Appeal addressed the issue. Yet petitioners' regul atory takin g argument stands in a posture different from their substantive due process claim . Petitioners unquestionably rais ed a takin g claim in the state courts. The question whether the rent control ordinan ce took their property without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Am endment's Takings Clause, is thus properly before us. Once a federal claim is properly _ presented, a party can make any argum ent in support of - that claim; parti es are not limi ted to the precise argum ents they made below. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Cren- shaw, 486 U. S. 71, 78, n. 2 (1988); Gates, supra, at 219-220; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 u .· s. 193, 197-198 (1899). Petitioners' argum ents tha t the ordinan ce consti- tutes a trucing in two different ways, by physical occupation and by regulation, are not separate claims. They are rather separate arguments in support of a single claim -tha t the ordinan ce effects an unconstitutional takin g. Havin g raised a taking claim in the state courts, therefore, petitioners could have formulated any argum ent they liked in support of that claim here. A litigant seeking review in this Court of a claim properly raised in the lower courts thus generally possesses the ability to fram e the question to be decided in any way he chooses, without being limited to the mann er in whicli the question was fram ed below. · Whil e we have on occasi on - rephras ed the question presented by a petitioner, see, e.g.,- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 502 U. S. _ (1992), or requested the parties to address an importan t question of law· _not raised in the petition for certiorari, see, e.g., Payne v. If -I IP . ·---· ---- -·.--·---.---·.· 14 90-1947-0PINION· YEE u. ESCONDIDO - .. Tennessee, 498 U. S. _ (1991), by and large it is the petitioner himself who controls the scope cif the question presented. The petitioner can generally frame the question as broadly or as narrowly as he sees fit. The framing of the question presented has significant consequences, however, because under this Court's Rule 14.l(a), "[o]nly the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court." While "[t]he statement of any question presented will be deemed to comprise every subsidiary question fairly included therein," ibid., we ordinarily do not consider questions outside those presented in the petition for certiorari. See, e.g., Berkeme r v. McCarty , 468 U.S. 420, 443, n. 38 (1984). This rule is prudentialin nature, but we disregard it "only in the most exceptional cases," Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976), where reasons of urgency or of economy suggest the need to address the unpresented question in the case under consideration. Rule 14.l(a) serves two important and related purposes. First, it provides the respondent with notice of the grounds upon which the petitioner is seeking certiorari, and enables the respondent to sharpen the arguments as to why· certiorari should not be granted. Were we routinely to consider questions beyond those raised in the petition, the respondent would lack any opportunity in advance of litigation on the merits to argue that such questions are not worthy of review: Where, as is not unusual, the decision, below involves issues on which the petitioner does net seek certiorari, the respondent would face the form.id.able task of opposing certiorari on every issue the Court might conceiv- ably find present in the case. By forcing the petitioner to· choose his questions at the outset, Rule 14.l(a) relieves the respondent of the expense of unnecessary litigation on the - merits and the burden of opposing certiorari on unpresen- ted questions. Second, Rule 14.l(a) assists the Court in selecting the cases in which certiorari will be granted. La.st Term alone .. 90-194 7-0PlliION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 15 we received over 5,000 petitions for certiorari , but we have the capacity to decide only a small fraction of these cases on the merits. To use our resources most efficiently, we must grant certiorari only in those cases that will enable us to resolve particular ly important questions. Were we routine- ly to entertain questions not presented in the petition for certiorari , much of this efficiency would vanish, as parties who feared an inability to prevail on the question presented would be encouraged to fill their limited briefing space and argum ent time with discussion of issues other than the one on which certiorari was gran ted. Rule 14 .l(a) forces the parti es to fo cus on the questions the Court has viewed as parti cular ly importan t, thus enabling us to make efficient use of our resources. We gran ted certi orari on a single question pertainin g to the Takin gs Clause: "Two federal courts of appeal have held tha t the trans fer of a premium value to a departin g mobilehome tenan t, representing the value of the right to occupy at a reduced rate under local mobilehome ·rent control ordinan ces, constitute[s] an impermissible takin g. Was it error for the state appellate court to disregard the rulin gs and hold tha t there was no taking under the fifth and fourteenth amendments?" This was the question presented by petitioners. Pet. for Cert. i. It asks whether the court below erred in disagreeing with the holdings of the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circui ts in Pinew ood Estate s of M ichig an v. B arnegat Towns hip . Le veling Boa rd , 898 F. 2d 347 (CA3 1990), and Hal l v. City . of Santa Bar baro , 833 F. 2d 1270 (CA9 1987), ce rt, denied, 485 U. S. 94-0 (1988). These cases, in turn, held th.at mobile . home ordinan ces effected physical takin gs, not regulatory takin gs. Fairly construed, then, petitioners ' qu~stion presented is the equivalent of the question "Did the court below err in finding no physical takin g?" Wh ether or not the ordinan ce effects a regula tory takin g is a question rela ted to the one petitioners presented, and perhaps comple me ntary to the one petitioners presented, .... I) -;f 16 90-1947-0PINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO but it is not "fairly included therein." Consideration of whether a regulatory taking occurred would not assist in resolving whether a physical taking occurred as well; neither of the two questions is subsidiary to the other. Both might be subsidiary to a question embracing both-. Was there a taking?-but they exist side by side, neither encompassing the other. Cf. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Haroco, Inc., 473 U. S. 606, 608 (1 9 8 5 ) (question· whether complaint adequately alleges conduct of racketeerin g enterprise is not fairly included in question whether statute requires that plaintiff suffer damages through defendant's conduct of such an enter- prise). Rule 14.l(a) accordingly creates a heavy presumption agains t our consideration of petitioners' claim that the ordinance causes a regulatory taking. Petitioners have not overcome that presumption. While the regulatory taking question is no doubt importan t, from an institutional perspective it is not as importan t as the physical takin g question. The lower courts have not reached conflicting results, so far as we know, on whether similar mobile home rent control ordinances effect _regulatory takin gs· .. They ha ve reached confli cting results over whether such ordi- nances cause physical takin gs; such a conflict is, of course, - a substantial reason for granting certiorari under this . . Court's Rule 10. Moreover, the conflict is between two courts whose jurisdiction includes California, the State with the largest population and one with a relatively high percentage of the nation's mobile homes. Forum-shopping is thus of particular concern. See Azul Pacific o, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 948 F. 2d 575, 579 (CA9 1991) (mobile home park owners may file physical taking suits in either state or federal court). Prudence also dictates awaiting a case in which the issue was full y litigated below, so that we will have the benefit of developed argum ents on both sides and lower court opinions squarely addressing the question. See Lytle v: Househo ld Manufacturing, Inc., 494 U.S. 545~ 552, ;9 -/f ,j I / / ( ' 90-194 7-0PlliION YEE u. ESCONDIDO . ,·'" . . .. 17 n. 3 (1990) (" Applying our analysis ... to the facts of a particular case without the benefit of a full record or lower court determinations is not a sensible exercise of this Court's discretion"). In fa ct, were we to. address the issue here, we would apparently be the first court in the nation to determine whether an ordinance like this one effects· a regulatory taking. We will accordingly follow Rule 14.l(a), and consider only the question petitioners raised in seeking · certiorari. We leave the regulatory taking issue for the · California courts to address in the first instance. IV We made this observation in Loretto: "Our holding today is very narrow. We affirm the traditional rule that a· permanent physical occupation of property is a taking. In such a case, the property. owner entertains a historically rooted expectation of compensation, and the character of the invasion is qualitatively more intrusive than perhaps any other category of property regulation. We do not, however, question the equally substantial authority upholding a State's broad power to impose appropriate restrictions upon an owner's use of his property." 458 U. S., at 441. We respected this distinction again in Florida Power, where we held that no taking occurs under Loretto when a tenant invited to lease at one rent remains at a lower regulated rent. Florida Power, 480 U.S., at 252-253. We. continue to observe the distinction today. Because the· Escondido rent control ordinance does not compel a land- owner to suffer the physical occupation of his property, it does not effect aper se taking under Loretto. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is accordingly Affirmed. . •: .s--J.7 ..... - . M a y o r A l l e n S e t t l e a n d S a n L u i s O b i s p o C i t y C o u n c i l M e mb e r s S a n L u i s O b i s p o C i t y H a l l S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 D e a r M a y o r a n d C i t y C o u n c i l M e mb e r s : W e 'r e su r e y o u a g r e e t h a t m o b i l e p a r k o w n e r s i n t h i s C i t y a n d C o u n t y c h o s e t o c o n v e r t t h e i r p r o p e r t y t o i t s p r e s e n t u s e , a n d w e r e n o t c o e r c e d to d o s o . M o b i l e h o m e p a r k s a r e c o n s i d e r e d p r o f i t a b l e in v e s t m e n t s b y w i d e l y r e s p e c t e d b u s i n e s s p u b l i c a t i o n s , s u c h a s F o r t u n e M a g a z i n e a n d th e W a l l S t r e e t J o u r n a l . T h e L a gu n a L a k e S c h e d u l e o f R e n t s a t t a c h e d h e r e d e m o n s t r a t e s th e w i d e d i s p a r i t y i n r e n t s w h i c h e x i s t i n m a n y p a r k s . T h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e o f $1 6 3 .4 8 i n t h e m o n t h l y r e n t o n t w o s p a c e s r e c e i v i n g th e sa m e se rv i c e s . T h e a t t a c h e d t a p e o f 2 8 6 sp a c e r e n t s in Laguna Lake Mobile Park shows a total of $102,826.83 gross income per month. This does not include monthly space rents from the Recreational Vehicle hookups or the monthly rents from the storage space Recreational Vehicles. The amount of rent charged per mobile home space has a direct correlation on mobile home sale possibilities in any park. If rents are unreasonably high for the area, or will become unreasonably high upon resale, the home owner is unable to find a buyer. Thus, a homeowner faces the situation of being unable to afford the rent, being unable to physically move his home, and being unable to sell his home. The result is a captive group of mobile home owners, and a grave imbalance in the bargaining position of park owners and mobile home owners. Vacancy control was part of the original Rent Stabilization Ordinance voted into law by the people of San Luis Obispo. It was Lat e r removed due to an adverse decision of a court in the c·ity of S,?-nta Barbara. HOWEVER, vacancy control was not reinstated when •-.,t,.J:;e U.S. Supreme Court declared rent control ordinances were not only legal but a necessity in 1992. Our surveys show mobile home buy~ts are very resistant to monthly rents in excess of $400 per month in this area.· . · We respectfully request vacancy control be reinstate~ECE·] V E:D Sincerely, , .. ,. 7 ·,,.;/ \,li\l . I, n The Mobile Home Owners of the City of San Luis Obispo. CITY COUNCIL.: I ,_.., . '"PO, CA r. ·'-t.D, ;",t-t..,._,;_;j..., .,.e1. \ :P.·.c..'r;.-,1_;,?- .... /Jc--r--v'.~'J-;/~ . .,-7 .• . . - 1/ -, ✓.) -· . ' ., 9 . . P . - /i , <J. 5 fi-t • . tf:-;:,, ..• - ~•-;- . Q ' tL.-<i.-<.1--c---c->--eL,.· . /'7 •'1,,/ .>-J f I CJ L ? ,..-:; • -- / CC1' --I ~L-;;ty J /~1-., ,/. j'. l ...... ~. ( Laquna Lake Schedul of Rents - 1997 I 301.49I 327.58. . > 337.57 ( 341.30 352.58 -~ 1363.70 373.26 2>91.86 ... 301.65 330.00 337.57 \ 341.30 i . 352.73 383.70 374.17 '392.22 -· - .. -, - 301.761 330.06 337.74 341.51 352.73 ,, 363.70 374.30 · 392.23 - I 310.47 ·-.330.06 337.74 341.53 \352.73 363 .85 374.51 392.23 - 310.471 ,- ~7.74 342.98 353.18 375.81 330.27 384 .54 392.94 I 330.27 336.44 ~.00 353.30 ·365.35 375.82 3S3.50 310.531 310.83 330.27 339.31 / 345.25 353.45 365.78 375.94 394.15 I 312.08 330.28 339.42 345.25 353.45 366.22 376.67 394.79 312.08 1330.91 339.42 345.25 I 353.45 367.52 3TT.03 396.42 - ' 318.82 : 330.91 /341.15 345.25 354.44 367.55 3TT.14 1300.97 320.72 /330.91 \ 341.15 345.88 354.51 388.00 3TT.26 300.97 .. 320.72 1330.91 i, 341.15 346.98 2.54.58 368.~ 1 378,30 300.97 .. 320.72 1330.91 '341.15 /. 347.52 355.40 388.70 378.74 400.69 320.72 330.91 ;341.15 347.52 355.40 368.89 379.19 403.27 320.72 330.91 . •341.15 l._~47.52 356.19 369.64 379.87 404.78 \ 320.72 I 330_91 341.15 347.57 356.68 369.66 380 .64 407.93 : ! 320.72 330 911 341.15 347.58 357.80 369.86 380.81 400.53 320.72 1 341.15 347.69 358.53 370.01 381.24 410.08 320.72 i 330.91 341.15 347.69 358.54 370.02 382.55 410.28 .. 7::: ' 320.72 330.91 341.15 348.82 358.56 . 370.26 382.74 410.76 320.73 330.91 ~1.15 ~8.82 ,- I 358.72 I 370.26 382.78 412.58 I -··.- . 320.73 330.92 ' 341.15 348.85 358.72 371.30 . 383.46 413.41 \ . 320.73 /331.11 \ 341.15 348 .85 358.72 371.31 383.46 421.91 ' \ - 320.88 I 331.11 341.15 348.94 358.72 371.48 384.90 '424.03 320.88 331.11 I 341.15 348.94 358.74 371.69 385.03 \.424.03 320.88 331.11 i 341.15 348.95 359.11 372.02 388.18 430.87 ... \ 320.88 331.11 ' , 341.15 34-8.99 359.32 372.07 386.37 432.95 . ' 320.88 331.11 341.16 349.00 359.60 372.17 1 386.37 \ , 432.95 -- - 320.88 332.75 341.16 349.69 380.03 3°?2.17 - 386.37 463.79 (. 320.88 332.82 _i 341.30 349.70 360.03 372.17 387.29 464 97 ' I 320.86 333.09 341.30 349.70 360.04 . 372.18 3&3.21 .,.- / j 320.88 335.96 341.30 349.87 360.15 372.18 ·388.39 1=.· . I ~ 320.88 335.00 341.30 350.18 360.35 372.19 389 .74 I - 322.46 335.96 341.30 350.18 380.91 .372.33 389.87 322.49 335.98 341.30 350.18 362.02 ,372.33 390 .05 1 324.40 336.24 341.30 ~ .... -~351.39 362.06 372.64 390.94 325.65 i337.57 341.30 351 57 10 363.70 373.03. 39 1.64 . ( San Lui» 0b½po, CA Apili 29, 1919 7 To : 'Je/1- J o~en , San /.JJ.u, O b.wpo C i.:b; A:t.±oNWf I) ean: Je.fl- J The (-ollowi..ng- Lt, J..n/-o ltlTlO.lio n ilud:. !f-OU nequecded p e/C. oun: phone. conve/C.- -oai:1..on Apili 25, 1997. l e/t.en.Ce w 4 . (5 o4 lf oOLIOJ (FJ. The F ~ ~ co ndo minium ouneno -« .ohip 1.o:1:..6 and we. ane noi: a condominium. compl.exo I he oecxiori belo w ind. Eeases and i.enani.-1.andlo Ni. ltelailoruJzi.p-o uiu..ch Lt, no pald. of a condominium complex ; • Ref.vtence :w (5.'/?1 .• 0W) (B) S ed:J..o n. 10 of- C 1teek6.i.de 1 .o Lease: Lt, Lri viataciori of- 79 cJ. 18 of :the S:1:a;te /iiobilehome Re.oi.d~ Laur, Sed:J..o n 11 of: [1teelu,.i..de 1-o Leaoe: .601f6 no cdhea. _peMon rT1a!f- neside. on :th.e f_/r.eJTU/206 wd.h.oui:. ih.e panh» WlU..il.en. conserd., //iu, vi.aicde» 798 o]Lf of :the Si.aJ:.e. !;iobileiwme Rv.ii.d.eT2?/- Law. Secti on 15 of. ih.e [1teeh.ei..d..e Lease vl..oh:d.e,e 798026. ~ of. enbuJ of a mo bi.Leho me: b!f- panh. ~o Sed:J..o n. 18 of- ih.e CIW!.lu,i.d.e l.e€l,6 eo BUf/'!Niltan.6 ~ lUfJM of i.enancJ; cann ot be zaheri oid: of- ih.e Lease wi.i:h.oui:. vi..o ~ ii. T/2.i..,t, .u, a violatio n of- 798.17 , 18, 19. The Lease: .6~ a bw,pvr. of- a mobi.1.eh.ome has w i.ahR. ove/C. ih.e Lease: o/ ih.e ,eeJ.hvr., if- :tlie. ,eell..rvc. Lt, on a Lease; Thi..a Lt, a uaiven: of- ih.e ienanu, ~. . cc: !Ill.en 5 ei:;ll e, /i}~:;-01t of- San L.ui..-6 0bi.opo [owu:.iJ. fl/embvu, of- San Lu.Lo Obi.6po · R~C:1:-~_,; "',~·---- .'. i • • - ,,. L:., 1-J .... , . .. - ;)/;' 5.4 4 .0 10 -5 .4 4 .0 10 c 1:1 ap ter 5.4 0 RE P EALE D * "Chapter 5.40, "Adult Entertainment Establishments," §§ 5.4 0.010-5.4 0.170, derived from Ord. 925 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code §§ 4800-4815, and Ord. 967, § 1, 1983: prior code § 4816 was repealed by Emergency Interim Ord. No. 1281, § 1, 1995. Subsequently, Ord. No. 1281 was repealed by Ord. No. 1286 and "Adult Entertainment Establishments" was set out in Chapter 17.95 of this code. C h ap ter 5.4 4 M O B IL E H O ME PARK RE N T STAB IL IZATI O N * Se c ti on s: 5.4 4.0 10 Purp o se an d in ten t. 5.4 4.020 D efin iti o ns . 5.4 4.030 E xem p tio n s. 5.44 .040 M ob il e h o m e p ar k own er ex em p tio ns .un d er- Secti o n 5.44 .030(F ). 5.4 4.050 C ity coun cil -P o w ers an d d u ti es. 5.4 4.060 B as e sp a ce ren t- D etermin ati o n -All ow ab le in creas es wi th o u t h earin g . 5.4 4.0 70 A p p li cation for- ren t adj u stm en t-F ee-C o n ten ts- N o tice of req u est-H earin g . 5.4 4.080 A p p li catio n for ren t adju stm en t-C o n d u ct o f h eari n g . 5.4 4.090 A p p lication for ren t adju stm en t-E v al u ati o n - R elevan t facto rs.· 5.4 4.10 0 A p p li catio n forn en t adjus tm ent=-H ear-in g-« D etermin ati o n . 5.4 4.110 A pp li cation for ren t adjustm en t-H earin g - Ap p eal . 5.4 4.12 0 R en t in creas es-n o t made in conf orm it y wi th p rovi sion s- T en an t's right to refu se to p ay . 5.4 4.13 0 A ction s brou gh t to recover p o ssession of m ob il e h om e sp a ce-R etal iatory · evi ction gr oun ds fo r d en ial . 5.4 4.140 O wn er to p rovi d e ten an ts wi th cop y of th is ch ap ter. 5.4 4.141 Am en dm en t. 5.44.142 Severab ili ty. "Prier history: Ords. 923, 1020, 1077, 1079, and 1091; prior code §§ 4800 through 4802, 4804 through 4809 and 4811 through 4813. 5.4 4.010 P urp o se an d in ten t. A. There is presently within the city and the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces for the location of mobile homes. Because of this shortage, there is a very low vacancy rate, and rents have been for several years, and · are presently, rising rapidly and causing con- cern among a substantial number of San Luis Obispo residents. B. Mobile home tenants, forced by the lack of suitable alternative housing, have had to pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a further reduction in their standard of living. C. Because of the high cost and impracti- cability of moving mobile homes, the poten- tial for damage resulting therefrom, the re- quirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative homesites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this council finds and declares it necessary to protect the .owners ,- and occupiers of mobile homes from unrea- sonable rent increases, · · · · · (San Luis Obispo 1-96) 12s · u- I [The next page is 135] .5-3 / R2WWZ2& &&S .~¾i!i a 5.44.020-5.44.020 while at the same time recogn izing the need of park.own ers to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental 1ncome sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, mainte- n a n ce, in su ran ce, u tilities, employee servi ces, ad dition a l a m en ities, a n d oth er costs of op er- ation , a n d to receiv e a fai r retu rn on th eir prop erty . D. T h is cou n cil fi n d s th a t th e p resen t low v a ca n cy ra te a n d fr equ en t in crea ses a re p a r- ticu la rly h ar d u p on a n d u n fa ir to resid en ts of m ob ile h om e p a rk s wi th in th e city . L ar g e n u m b ers of th ese resid en ts are sen ior citizen s an d oth ers on fi x ed in com es w h o in stall ed th eir m ob il e h om e s in th e city w h en th e presen t in fl a tion ary ren t in crea ses cou ld n ot rea son ably h a v e b een fo reseen . E. T en a n ts in m ob ile h om e p a rk s desirin g to sell th eir m ob ile h om es · m a y h a v e diffi - cu lty fi n d in g b u y ers b eca u se, u p on a ch a n g e of ow n ersh ip , th e p a rk ow n er is able to rai se th e ren t w ith ou t reg ar d to th e city 's m ob ile h om e ren t sta b ili za tion ord in a n ce. F . T h is cou n cil fi n d s th a t it is in th e b est in terests of th e citizen s of th e C ity . of S a n L u is O b isp o to assist th ose w h o are seek in g to sell th eir m ob ile h om es an d th ose w h o ar e seek in g to bu y su ch h om e s to h ave th e sa m e fai r ren ta l protection as is affo rd ed to th ose w h o rem a in in th eir m ob ile h om es wi th ou t sa le. T h is cou n cil fi n d s th a t th e v a ca n cy con - tro l prov ision s origi n a ll y in cl u d ed in th e m o- b ile h om e ren t stab il iza tion ord in a n ce w h en it w a s app rov ed b y th e v oters. w a s a n effec- tiv e a n d b en efi cia l p rov ision fo r th e p eop le of S a n L u is O b isp o li vi n g in m ob il e h om e p a rk s, · · an d · sh ou ld b e rein sta ted . T h is cou n cil fu r- th er fi n ds th a t p rov ision s all ow in g a n n u a l . · ren t in crea se s tog eth er w ith prov ision s al- lowi n g ren t in crea ses u p on a sh ow in g of n e- cessity p rotect th e p ar k ow n er's rig h t to a · - fa ir retu rn on in v estm en t; th u s eli m iri a tin g th e n eed fo r ren t in crea ses a b ov e ten p ercen t u p on ch a n g e of own ersh ip . G . H ow ev er, th is cou n cil recogn izes th a t a ren t sta b iliza tion ord in a n ce m u st b e fa ir an d . eq u ita b le fo r a ll p a rties a n d m u st pro v id e ap - prop ria te in cen tiv es fo r m ob il e h om e pa rk op - era tors to con tin u e th e ir pa rk s profi ta bly , a s w ell a s to att ra ct a d d ition a l in v estors fo r n ew p a rk s. (O rd . 12 2 6 § 1, 19 92 : O rd . 11 17 (p art), 19 8 8 ) 5.4 4.020 D e fi n it io n s . F or th e p u rp ose of th is ch a p ter, certa in w ord s a n d ph ra ses u sed h erein ar e defi n ed as fo ll ow s: A . "C a p ita l im p rov em en ts" m ea n s th ose im p ro v em en ts, n ot prev iou sly loca ted in th e m ob il e h om e p a rk , th a t m a teria ll y add to th e v a lu e of th e prop erty an d app reciably pro- lon g it s u sefu l li fe or ad ap t it to n ew u ses, a n d w h ich m ay be am ortized ov er th e u sefu l life of th e im p rov em en t in a ccorda n ce w ith th e In tern a l R ev en u e C ode an d regu la tion s issu ed p u rsu a n t th ereto; pro v id ed, th a t th is defi n ition sh a ll b e lim ited to ca p ita l im p rov e- m en ts ap p rov ed by m ore th a n fi fty percen t of th e ten a n ts in th e a ffect ed pa rk . B . "M ob ile h om e p a rk " m ea n s an area of la n d w h ich ren ts sp a ces fo r m ob ile h om e dw elli n g u n its. C . "M ob ile h om e p a rk ow n er" or "ow n er" m ea n s th e ow n er, lessor, op era tor or m a n - . ag er of a m ob il e h om e p a rk . D . "M ob il e h om e ten an t" or "ten a n t" m ea n s a n y p erson en titled to occu py a m ob ile h om e w ith in a m ob il e h om e pa rk p u rsu a n t to • ow n ersh ip of th e m ob il e h om e 'or u n d er a ren tal or lea se a gr eem en t w ith th e own er, of th e m ob il e h om e. E . "R eh a b ili ta tion w ork " m ea n s an y ren - ov a tion or rep a ir w ork com p leted on or in a m ob ile h om e p a rk p erfo rm ed in ord er to com p ly w ith th e direct ion or order of a pu b li c ag en cy or pu b li c u tili ty , or to m ai n ta in · ex - istin g im p rov em en ts in a sa fe a n d u sab le con - 13 5 (San Luis Obispo 1-93) kE4iif~(.MWZ9¥Z.-,J!WJtWWW&tW:4Ul&i&S an wewww aa -..a:zzm .x;zxc . 5.4 4 .030-5 .-4 4.040 dition , or to rep ai r dam age resu ltin g fr om fi re, earth qu ak e or oth er ·casu al ty . F . "Sp ace ren t" m ean s th e consideration, in cl u din g an y security deposits, bon uses, ben - efi ts or gr atuities, dem an ded or receiv ed in con n ection w ith th e u se an d occu p an cy of a m ob ile h om e sp ace in a m obile h om e par k , or fo r h ou sin g servi ces provi ded, but ex cl usiv e of a ny a m ou nt pai d fo r th e u se of a m obile h om e dw elli n g u n it. G . "C h an g e of ow n ership " m ean s th e sale, ren ta l tra n sfer, or exch an g e of a m ob ile h om e su bject to th e provi sion s of th is ch apter, ex- cep tin g the tra n sfer to ten an t's sp ou se by gi ft, b eq u est or devi se. H . "H earin g offi cer" m ean s th e du ly ap- poin ted h earin g offi cer selected fr om a pan el of qu al ifi ed hearing offi cers. A h earin g of- fi cer sh all h ave n o fi n an cial in terest in eith er a m obil e h om e park or a m obile hom e n or hav e been a residen t of nor reside in a m ob ile h om e park. I. "A pp ell ate pan el" m ean s a panel of three qu a lifi ed h ear in g offi cers. A paneli st sh all h av e n o fi n an cial in terest in eith er a m ob ile h om e park or a m obile hom e nor h ave been a resid en t of n or reside in a m obile hom e p ark . J. "C P I" m ean s th e C on su m er P rice In d ex (19 6 7 = 10 0) Al l It em s, Al l U rban C on sum ers, fo r th e L os A n g eles/L on g B each /R iv ersid e sta n da rd m etro poli tan statistical area pu b- lish ed by th e B ureau of L ab or Statistics ' U n ited Sta tes D epartm en t of L abor. If the C P I is n ot hereafter pub li sh ed, then ahy sub- stitu te in dex, or, if non e, th en th e in d ex m ost cl osely resem b lin g th e C P I sh all b ecom e the n ew C P I.· K . "Q u alifi ed H earin g O ffi cer:" T h e city ad m in istra tiv e offi cer sh all m ain tain a list of av aila b le qu alifi ed hearin g offi cers. Q u ali- fi ed -h earin g offi cers shall be person s exp eri- · en ced in fi n an cial an d accou ntin g m eth od s w ith k n ow ledg e of m ediation process an d ru les of eviden ce. (O rd. 111 7 (part), 19 8 8). 5.44.030 E x em p tion s. T h e prov ision s of th is chap ter shall not . apply to th e fo ll ow ing tenan ci es in m obil e hom e parks: A . M obil e h om e par k spaces rented fo r non- residen tial u ses; . · B . M obile hom e parks m anaged or oper- ated by th e U nited States G ov ernm ent, the state of C alifo rn ia, or the cou nty of San L uis O bispo; C . T enancies w h ich do n ot ex ceed an occu- pan cy of tw en ty day s and w h ich do not con- tem plate an occup an cy of m ore than tw enty .days: D . T enanci es fo r w hich any federal or .state law or regu lation specifi cally prohibits rent regu lation; E . T enancies covered by leases or contract s w h ich pro vide fo r a ten ancy of m ore than a year, bu t only fo r th e du ra tion of such lease or con tra ct . U pon th e expira tion of or other term in ation of any such lease or contra ct , this chapter shall im m ediately be appli cable to the ten ancy . N o ren t in creases other than that al low ed under the pro vi sions of the lease shal l be al low ed du rin g the dura tion of such a lease or· contra ct. F . Spaces in a m obil e hom e park w hich sell s lots fo r fa ct ory -bu il t or m anufa ct ured hou sin g , or w h ich provides con dom inium own - ersh ip of su ch lots, bu t only w hen the dw elli ng u n it an d th e un derly in g in terest in the space it is located up on are in the sam e ow nership. (O rd. 1228 § 1, 1992: O rd. 11 17 (part ), 1988) · 5.4 4.040 M ob il e ho m e p ark own er - exem p tion s u n d er S ection 5.44.030(F). --i~ A . An y m obil e hom e park ow n er 'claim in g '' an exem p tion u n der Sect ion 5.4 4.030(F) shal l com ply w ith the fo ll ow ing requirem ents and procedu res: · 1. Such m obile hom e park ow ner shal l fil e w ith the ci ty cl erk a statem en t setting fo rth th e basic fa cts up on w hich th e cl aim fo r ex- (San Luis Obispo 1-93) 13 6 iJ--3 5.44.050-5.44.060 . emptionrests, such as total number of spaces, number· on long-term leases, identity of spaces on long-term leases, expiration date for each long-term lease and any other information de- termined necessary by the city administra- tive officer to evaluate the claim. · 2. The statement shall include a listing, by space riumber and name, of each tenant not on a long-term lease and who would be affected by the claim of exemption. In addi- tion, the owner shall provide proof of service that all tenants have been notified of the claim of exemption and of the fact that a tenant may file an objection within thirty days. 3. The statements required to be filed above shall be confidential and not public records unless and until a hearing officer determines otherwise as necessary to conduct a hearing as set forth in subsections (D) or (F) of this section. B. An objection to the claim of exemption may be filed with the city clerk within thirty days after the notice of claim has been served. The objection shall state the grounds of the objection. The only acceptable grounds for ob- jection is that the owner in fact does not have two-thirds of the spaces in the park on long- term leases. C. If an acceptable and timely objection is received the owner and the tenant(s) filing the objection shall meet and confer to nego- tiate in good faith and attempt to reach an agreement. Ifno agreement is reached within thirty days of the date of filing of the objec- tion, the owner shall within ten days notify the city administrative officer that an agree- ment or resolution to the 'objection has not been reached. The city administrative officer shall proceed to select a hearing officer as set · ·-- forth in Section 5.44.070(E-). D. The hearing officer shall set and con- duct a hearing as set forth in subsections (E) and (G) of Section 5.44.070. The. hearing of- ficer shall determine whether the claim of exemption is valid, taking into account all relevant evidence, facts and circumstances necessary to come to a decision. E. The hearing officer's charges shall be paid by the city .. F. An appeal may be taken from a decision of the hearing officer as set forth in Section 5.44.110, including the obligation for the costs of the appellate panel as set forth in subsec- tion (D ) thereof. (Ord. 11 46 § 1, 1989) 5.44.050 City council-Powers and duties. Within the limitations provided by law and in addition to any other powers and duties the council has, the city council shall have the following powers and duties: A. To meet from time to time as required to receive, investigate, hold hearings on, and pass upon the issues relating to mobile home park rent stabilization as set forth in this chapter; B. To direct staff to make or conduct such independent hearings or investigations as may be appropriate to obtain such informa- tion as is necessary for the council to carry out its duties; C. To adopt, promulgate, amend and re- scind administrative rules, as it deems appro- priate to effectuate the purposes and policies of this chapter. (Ord. 11 17 (part), 1988) · 5.44.060 Base space rent- Determination-Allowable increases without hearing. A. The "base space rent" for purposes· of this chapter shall be the monthly space rent charged as of March· 15, _ 1982 plus any in- creases otherwise allowed, pursuant to this chapter. The maximum monthly space rent for any space under a lease, upon expiration of the lease, shall be no more than the rent charged in the last month of said lease. In 136-1 (San Luis Obispo 1-93) · 5.4 4.060-5.4 4.060 p ar k s w h ere there is an exem ption because 6 6 .6 7 p e r c e n t o f t h e s p a c e s a r e g o v e r n e d b y a le a s e wi t h an initial term of no less than one year, then the maximum monthly space rent shall be the space rent designated in leases for comparable spaces. A schedule of current rents in the park shall be posted in a conspic- uous place in the park. B. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the maximum monthly space rent may be increased no more than once a year based on the percentage change in the CPI, or nine percent, whichever is less, calculated as fo llow s: 1. The maximum monthly space rent may be increased at a rate equal to one hundred percent of the CPI up to five percent and seventy-five percent of the CPI in excess of five percent calculated as follows: a. The change in space rent shall be calcu- lated by dividing the ending CPI index by the beginning CPI index. b. If the resulting quotient is less than 1.05, then it shall be multiplied by the space rent. The resulting product shall be the new space rent. c. If the resulting quotient is greater than 1.05, then the difference between the resulting product and 1.05 shall be multiplied by seventy-five percent. The resulting product shall be multiplied by the space rent and that product shall be added to the sum derived from Section 5.44.060(B)(l)(b) above. The sum shall be the new space rent. d. The beginning CPI index shall be the index for the month used as the ending index for the last CPI adjustment. · e. The ending CPI index sh.all be the index for the month twelve months after the begin- · ning index. · · 2. At least every two months the city ad- ministrative officer shall publish, by means of an advertisement or similar notice in the newspaper, the percentage change of the CPI allowed under this subsection B for the twelve-month period immediately preceding the month for which CPI information has been most recently published by the appropriate federal agency. 3. It is the intention of this subsection B to allow for automatic increases in space rent based on changes in the cost of living as mea- sured by the CPI. The limitations on such increases are intended to minimize the im- mediate impact drastic changes in the CPI might have on residents. The limitations are not intended to prevent ultimate adjustments to allow owners to receive a fair return on their property. C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. However, such increase shall not exceed ten - percent of the then existing space rent and may not be relied upon any more often than once in any thirty-six-month period as the basis to increase rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from subletting of the mobile home space as may be allowed by state law, should such become state law, then upon any such subletting the space rent may be increased up to ten percent of the then existing space rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from vaca- tion of the space, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the commu- nity. Nothing in this· paragraph shall pre- clude an adjustment as may otherwise be pro- vided for in this chapter. ;~- D. No owner shall either (1) demand, ac- _ • • :•. I•. cept or retain a rent of or from a tenant in excess of the maximum rent permitted by this chapter, or (2) effect a prohibited rent in- crease by a reduction of general park facili- ties and services. However,· an owner may modify the nature of park services if reason- able allowance is provided to the tenant. For example, if the owner elects to submeterwater (San Luis Obispo 1-93) 136-2 S-35" 5 .4 4 .0 7 0 -5 .4 4 .0 7 0 sq _that .tenants pay for water consumed by them, then tenants shall receive a reasonable reduction from their base space rent. E. Space rent may be automatically ad- justed based on increases or decreases in ex- penses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage ser- vice and cable television, where applicable, excluding capital improvements· or ongoing ·maintenance costs. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase or de- crease in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the per- centage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the · park. Automatic adjust- ments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pur- suant to Section 5.44.060.B, but shall be con- sidered as additional rent. Notice of the in- crease, or decrease, shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than ninety days prior to any such increase or de- crease being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase or decrease, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase or decrease in expenses and the na- ture of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding com- putation of the space rent increase or de- crease based on this section. There shall only be one such increase or decrease in any twelve-month period. (Ord. 1279 § 1,1995; Ord. 1268 § 1, 1994; Ord. 1226 § 2, 1992; Ord. 1173 § 1, 1990; Ord: 1167 § 1, 1990; Ord. 1146 § 2, 1989: Ord. 1117 (part), 1~88) 5.44.070 Application for rent adjustment-Fee-Contents- Notice of request-Hearing. A. Except for automatic increases in base rent allowed under Section 5.44.060, an owner or tenant may file with the city clerk an ap- plication for a rent adjustment ("application")- . "I'h e application shall state the amount of the adjustment for each space affected and. the reasons for the adjustment. 1. An application shall be accompanied by the payment of a fee as may be established from time to time by the council. 2. An application filed by an owner shall be accompanied by a statement that the tenant for each space affected has been served either personally or by mail with a notice de- scribing the application and the change in rent or services. 3. An application filed by a tenant shall be accompanied with a statement stating that the owner has been either personally or by mail served with the application and with a statement designating not more than three persons to act as representatives for the spaces affected and containing the names and ad- dresses of tenants representing no less than fifty-one percent of the spaces affected by the application and supporting the application and established by a secret election. 4. A statement shall accompany the appli- cation and shall notify. the receiving party that he/she has thirty days to file an objec- . tion and if one is not filed within the time allowed, then the application will be automat- ically granted. . .. B. An objection to the· application may be. filed with the city clerk within thirty days after the notice of application has been served. 137 1)-t _.:.----- (San Luis Obispo 5-95) 5 .4 4 .0 7 0 -5 .4 4 .0 7 0 The objection. shall identify the portions of the application objected to and shall state the grounds of the objection. 1. A copy of an objection filed by an owner shall be mailed to each of the designated tenant representatives. 2. A copy of an objection filed by a tenant shall be mailed to the owner. The tenant's· objection shall designate not more than three persons to act as representatives for the ob- jecting tenants. The objection must be accom- panied by a statement containing the names and addresses of tenants representing no less than fifty-one percent of the spaces affected by.the owner's application and verifying that they object to the application, established by secret ballot election. C. If no objection is filed to an application within the time allowed, or if less than fifty-one percent of the tenants support an objection to an application, then the applica- tion will be automatically granted. D. If an objection is filed within the time provided, then the owner and the tenant rep- resentatives shall meet and confer to nego- tiate in good faith an agreement regarding the application. Either party may request a mediator of their choice to assist in the nego- tiations, but this is not required. If an agree- ment is reached within sixty days, then the tenant representatives shall notify all ten- ants affected by the agreement. The tenants shall have ten days to approve or disapprove of the agreement. If tenants representing a majority of the spaces affected fail to disap- prove of the agreement then the agreement shall be binding on the owner and ·a11 tenants affected. The city clerk shall be notified that an agreement has been reached. The state- ments made in negotiations and 'any agree- ments reached but not approved shall not be admissible in any subsequent hearings re- garding the application. E. If the owner and the tenant representa- tives fail to reach an agreement within the · time provided or if a majority of the tenants disapprove 9f an agreement reached, then the applicant shall within ten days notify the city administrative officer that an agreement has not been reached. The city administrative of- ficer shall obtain a list of no less than five qualified hearing officers. Owners and ten- ants may each delete one person from the list of qualified hearing officers within seven days and one· of the remaining persons · shall be selected by the city administrative officer as the hearing officer. Appointment of the hearing officer .shall be completed no later than twenty-one days after filing of the no- tice that an agreement has not been reached. F. The hearing officer shall set a hearing on the application complying with the require- ments of this section no less than ten days and no more than thirty days after his ap- . pointment. The hearing officer shall notify the owner and tenants, in writing, of the time, place and date set for the hearing. No hearing or any part thereof may be continued beyond thirty days after the initial hearing date, without the applicant's consent. If the hearing officer approves an application as requested or as modified, the same shall take (San Luis Obispo 5-95) 138 ·5~7 -- --------- ------------ --- ------ ---- ---------------------------- -- -- :., .' ' 5.44 .080-5.44 .090 effect as noticed by th e own er or as th e heari ng offi ce r may oth erwi se dir ect. (O rd. 1117 (part ), 1988) 5.44.080 Application fo r rent adjustment- Conduct of hearin g. A . All revi ew beari ngs conducted by th e hear - ing offi cer shall be conducted in acc ordan ce with th e Ral ph M . B ro wn A ct, at Secti on 54950 et seq . of th e Cali fo rn ia G overn m ent Cod e and acc ord- ' ing to the ru les of the A m erica n A rbitra tion A ss ociation. B. All interested parti es to a heari ng m ay have ass istan ce from an attorn ey or such oth er pers on as m ay be design ated by th e parti es in presenting evi dence or in setti ng fo rth by argument their position. All wi tnesse s shall be sw orn in and all testi m ony shall be under pe nalty of pe rjury. C. In th e event th at eith er th e ow ner or the tenant(s) should fail to appear at th e hea ring at th e specified tim e and place, th e heari ng offi cer m ay hear and review such evidence as m ay be presented and m ake such decisions as if all par - ties had been present. D . O w ner and affected tenants may offer any testim ony, docum ents , wri tten declara tions or oth er relevant evi dence. E. Form al ru les of evidence shall not apply. F. Mi nutes shall be tak en at all revi ew hear - ings . (O rd. 1117 (part ), 1988) 5.44.090 Application for rent adjustment- Evaluation-Relevant fa ctors. In evaluating th e applica tion th e council m ay consider, along wi th all oth er factors it considers relevant, changes in costs to the own er attri buta- ble to increas es or decr eas es in mas ter lan d and/ or_ fa cilities lease rent, utility rates, pro perty · tax es, insura nce, adverti sing, vari able mortga ge interest ra tes, em ployee costs, norm al repair and m aintenance, and oth er consid era tions, includ- ing, but not lim ited-to, rehabili tation work, cap- ital im provem ents ,' upgra di ng and addi tion of am eni ties or servi ces, net opera ting income, and the level of rent necessary to perm it a jus t and reas onable return on th e own er's pro perty. A . In applyin g th e fo regoing fa ctors, the hear - ing officer shall utiliz e th e maintenan ce of net ope rating incom e (-M N OI) fo rm ul a. Under the MN O I all ow able gr oss rents are cal culated as fo llow s: all ope ratin g expenses fo r th e tw elve- -month pe riod ending D ecem ber 31, 1981 are sub- tracted from all · operating expenses for the tw elve-m onth period im m ediately preceding the da te of the applica tion for which expe nse da ta is avail able. In th e event operating expenses ar e not avail able fo r th e period ending December 31, 1981, th en expe nses fo r a tw elve-month period reas onably close to D ecem \>e r 31, 1981 m ay be substituted. The difference shall be added to gr oss annual rent bas ed on ,rental rates in effect on M ar ch 15, 1982. The sum shall be th e all ow- able gr oss annual space'rent.The all owable gross space rent shall be fairly apporti oned be tw een all spaces in th e park. The space rent determ ined under the M N O I fo rm ula shall be adjusted as fo llow s: 1. There shall be an adjustment to allow fo r inflation cal culated as fo llows: the net opera ting incom e (N O I) for the b~ period shall be cal cu- lated by subtra cting the park's opera ting expenses fo r th e twelve-m onth period ending D ecembe r 31, 1982, from the par k's annual gross space rent base d on the space rent in effect on M ar ch 15, 1982. The CPI index for th e m onth most recently available prior to filing th e applica - tion shall be di vided by th e CPI index for M ar ch, 1982. The resulting quotient shall be m ultiplied by the base pe riod N O L This shall be th e adjusted N O L The operating expenses tor the twelve- month pe riod im mediately preceding th e da te of th e applica tion for which info rm ation is avail - able shall be added to th e adjusted NOL The sum shall be th e inflation-adjus ted gross space rent. The all ow able space rent shall be th e greater of the space rent cal culated using th e M NOI for- mula and the space rent adjusted fo r inflation. 2. In calculating M N OI there shall be, an adjustm ent to th e gr oss space rent in effect on M arch 15, .1982, if the heari ng officer determ ines th at the gr oss space rent in effect on that date did 138-1 (San Luis Obispo 7-88) · not allow the owner to receive a just and reaso n- able return on his pro pe rty. 3. If th e .hearin g · officer concludes that the MN O I fo rm ul a, an d th e adjust m ents th ere to , does not provi de a just an d reaso nable re turn to th e own er, th en th e hearin g offi ce r m ay apply an y reaso nable fo rm ula, incl udi ng a re turn on investm ent, a re tu rn on fair market value, or return on eq ui ty , to determi ne a space rent which will all ow th e own er to rec eive a fair an d reaso n- able return on his pro pe rty. B. The heari ng offi cer shall · not consider incom e ari sing from spaces leased in th e par k purs ua nt to Secti on 5.44 .030E of this chapter. Lik ewise , the heari ng officer shall not consider a pro ra ta porti on of th e expe nses of park ope ra - tion attri buta ble to th e leased sp aces . (O rd. 1117 (part ), 1988) 5.44.100 Application fo r rent adjustment- Hear ing-Determination. A . The heari ng officer shall make a final deci- sion no later than twenty· days after the conclusion of the heari ng. Th e heari ng officer's decision shall be based on the preponderance of the evidence submitted at the heari ng. The deci- sion shall be based on findings. All parti es to the hearing shall be advised by mail of the heari ng officer's decision and findings. B. Pursuant to his findings, the heari ng officer may: 1. Perm it the requested adjustment to become effective, in whole or in part ; or 2. Deny the requested adjustment; or 3. Permit or deny, in whole or in part, requested reductions of, or charges for, facilities or services. . C. Any decision of the hearing officer shall be final unless, within fift een days after mailing of the decision and findings, the owner or any . affected tenant appeals the decision. · D. The heari ng officer's charg es shall be paid. by the city. (Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) 5.44.110 Application for rent adjustment- Hearing-Appeal. A. An y appeal from a decision of the hearin g officer shall be filed with the city clerk. Th e appellant shall also mail a copy of the appeal to the respo ndin g party . The appeal shall state the grounds on which it is based. An appeal filed by a tenant shall be accompanied by a statement con- . taining the nam es and addresses of the tenants supporting the appeal . Th e appeal must be sup- ported by at least fifty-one percent of the tenants affected by the appeal . B. Upon filing of a valid tlppeal, the city administra tive officer shall obtain a list of no less than seven quali fied heari ng officers. The hear- ing officer who previously acted shall not qualify. Owners and tenant representatives may each delete one person from the list of qualified hear- ing officers within seven days, and three of the remaining persons shall be selected by the city administrative officer as the appellate panel. Appointment of the appellate panel shall be completed no later than twenty-one days after . filing the appeal . . C. At the time set for consideration of the appeal , the appellate panel shall review and con- sider the record of the heari ng officer's hearing as well as the decision and finding of the heari ng officer. After review and consideration, the appellate panel may either (1) determine that a furth er heari ng shall be held, or (2) ratify and adopt the decision and findings of the heari ng officer. If a further hearing is conducted, the appellate panel may, upon conclusion of that heari ng and in no event more than thirty days thereafter, modify or reverse the decision of the hearing officer, only if the appellate panel finds that there has bee n an abuse of discretion or that there is no substan tial evidence to support the heari ng officer's decision. The appellate panel's decision shall be final and no appeal may be taken to the council. D. If the part y filing the appeal is unsuc- cessful, then that part y shall pay the appellate (San Luis Obispo 7-88) 138-2 [)- 9 ~- ·-•·~.---------- 5.4 4.12 0 -5.4 4.14 2 p an el's ch ar ges. If th e resp on d ing part y is un suc- cessfu l, th en both p arti es an d the ci ty sh all shar e · eq u ally -i n p a ym en t of th e ap p ell ate pan el's ch ar ges. (O rd . 111_7 (p art ), 1988) 5.44 .12 0 R ent increases not m ade in confo rm ity w it h provisions- Tenant's righ t to refu se to pay. A ten an t m ay refu se to pay any in creas e in rent , n o t m ad e in con fo rm ity wi th this chapter. S uch refu sal to pay sh all be a defe n se in any action b ro u gh t to recover p ossession of a m obile hom e sp ace or to coll ect th e rent increase. (O rd. 1117 (p art ), 19 88) action w as bro u gh t in retali ation fo r the exercise of any righ ts con ferr ed by thi s ch ap ter shall be gr ou n d s fo r den ial : (O rd . 111 7 (p art ), 1988) 5.4 4 .13 0 A ctions bro ught to recover possession of m obil e hom e space- R eta liatory eviction gr ounds fo r denial. N o tw ith sta n d in g S ectio n 5.4 4 .12 0 , in any actio n bro u gh t to reco ver p ossessio n of a m obile ho m e sp ace, th e cou rt m ay consid er as gro u nds fo r den ial an y violatio n of any pro visio n of this ch a p ter. Furt h er, th e d eterm inatio n that -the 5.44.140 O w ner to provide tenants w ith copy of this chapter. A n y ten an t offered a lease or con tra ct w hich if accepted an d fu ll y execu ted w ou ld be exem pt fr om the pro vision s of th is ch ap ter (Section 5.4 4.030E ) sh al l at th e tim e of th e offer also be pro vided wi th a copy of th is ch ap ter. (O rd. 1117 (part ), 19 88) 5.44.141 Amendment. T he pro v ision s of th is chap ter m ay be am en ded by a m ajori ty vot e of the city cou ncil. (O rd . 11 17 (p art ), 19 88) · 5.44.142 Severability, If any port io n of th is chap ter is fo und to be invali d , then that sh al l in no w ay affect the valid- ity of the rem ain ing p ort io n s of this chapter. (O rd . 11 17 (p art ), 19 88) -,.<r" 138-3 <San Luis Obispo 7-~s, P.9lt-!¥1%JM4i+... ;. Q CJQ!Q.31.l#!-9f?,.Q_ .a ... A.&4 £C f _ A CORRESPONDENCE (B) n"t2'f' •l~I .i<: : .. ,.,r-(·r•,,,.~-.-~Cr l"' .. •1.t 1 ,.-..,.J...,vJ.l.' ... •l,'.!\.il I ful3~75i1;·19.e\fi~~.~ Gal•' :, ,._,,., r-d'·,,,- ,__ .. ~~_c.'~'.:.-., .. · .... v• ... --. .;:.• :, •. '. ~ -.i ,~ '.;, RECEIVED JUL O I_ 1qqfi SLO CITY COUNCIL ~ ~ NCIL CAO □ ACJ,c€:r rlT"fO RNEY □ CLERK/ORIG D M G M T TE A M □----- □ CDD DIR □ FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ R E C DIR □ U TIL D IR □ P E R S DIR ;!,,-_: d/.;f~/77. '. /~~- d ~ CJyZ fJ74~ /Z . . c;:,0~ ~ . 7440 / ~, ._:VJ~ I~ f o/ A--,!.;~~ -ll-eZ-v d~ ~~ /1<4;/-~~-- -9 ~~1~~ ~ ~ -~-1 ~ ~ /4_~./4;g-~~ -~~~~ )~~~- # J c~µe/~ I ~ ~✓~;; J~--. ~~~$/ .,,;' ~_U' - {/ f/ / ~,,L._,, /.- .. :,__~ ~~ ; 16 y'f fr:,~~ ~ ~~~CZ, 7'J p✓ Rc1a:r, m ;;; a c c :,m u 11 ;],or toture CQ.IJfl(":il UX''?tir") 't-19-9? i•yor Allen Settle 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CJ\ 93401 Dear r,:ay or Settle, 10~9 Kerry Drive San Luis Obispo,Ci\ 93405 June 27, 1997 RECEIVED JUL O 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL I writing you as a mcbilehome owner here is San Luis Obispo, I would like to be covered by a rent Ordinance that would fully protect me from unfair rent increases and other char~es. The present rent ordinance here in San Luis Obispo nees to be amended or changed to "mend" lts flaws. Chan2es that I would like would include: Revokin~ the 101 increase in ren: at resale Protecting of mobilehome owners from unreasonable rent increases Rents should be allowed to drop during slumps in the economy Audits of the park owner BE 1-~\DE TO ENSURE RAISES are within Ordinance limits Park owners claim to need rent increases or pass-throughs need to be substantiated Please work to help us mobilehome owners in these matters. Thank you very much. Sincerely, . ' ;:.__\ -t.~ ~- ~. -1:.~'-"'- L__ Albert Drake lll"tjll/NCIL C COO OfR B"C'AO C FIN DIR □ APt,0 C FIRE CHIEF ,,lll"AHORNEY.~. C PW DIR □ CLERK/ORIG C POLICE CHF □ IIGLIT TEAM □ REC DIR □ 0 UTIL DIR □ □ PERS DIR J ul y 6 , - 1 9 9 7 Mayor All~n Settle 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, Ca. la' Co UNCIL ·~~~o 0'~TTORNEY liJ""C LERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □----- □ □ COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF. D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR Dear Sir: 1 would like to bring to your attention that an inequity exists • in our current San Luis Obispo Rent Stab,lization Ordinance. This ordinance is in need of an amendmenr because it is unfair to us who live in Mobile Home parks. Many mobile homes are resold often and with a 10% increase in space rent each time, this can iead to high rents for some. In addition this makes older coaches especially hard to sell as well as newer ones. The original concept for mobile home living was to make it affordable for retirees or families with low incomes. This has been especially true of San Luis Obispo due to the high cost of home ownership. This space rent increase makes it hard to sell some even newer coaches without cutting the price and taking a loss. There is no audit on these space increases done to insure they're within the intent of the ordinance. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a Brief in 1992 with their opinion regarding the legality of rent control for mobile home owners. It was agreed that not only was it legal, but a neccessity. I would appreciate your sharing this letter with the others on the Council and give it your consideration when the hearing for this comes up on August 19. I will be out of state but hope my "voice" will be heard. I rest my case. Sincerely, Catherine C. Schattler J960 S. Higuera St. Sp. 176 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 9J401 RECEIVED JUL O 8 1qqR SLO CITY COUNCIL \3u:::iE1n l··IE,1 ... :::,-1·1 3860 S. Higuera D-1 EH ... U ~ t::ti ?::>1· 0 J. 7 ..... 7- .. c?? savings into a mobile home here, because I thought at the tjme it would be the most economical way to live. l had to pay an outrageous and unfair price, $29,500 for a new small double wide, and $40,000 for the SPACE that it sits on. In Nevada when we bought a home, and land it was all ours, even if it was in a park, we would just pay reasonable rates for the use of the park and pool. Only in SL□, CA, can something this illegal be gotten away with by these rich and greedy park owners!! d: To add insult to injury I have to pay almost $300 for my space that I paid $40,000 for! Which is also double what other owners pay for the same space. 1 don't object alt all having to pay for garbage, water, and the use of the pool, but $300.00 should be against the law!. Plus the fact that they are always raising the rent every year~ and raising what ever items they wish to, with no acceptable reason except the fact that they can get away with it!! commercial art, and I have to eat humble starving pie and work for $5.50 an hour. I can barely take care of myself, and my young teenage daughter. If you and our council members cannot help us who do we have to turn to for help and protection of our rights as tax paying citizens???? PLEASE HELP US with making this ordinance protect the r E.'n t er·!:,-. . ,11/·-...._ f~; -· F· :---- .:-:._\ i' . , .. ....... \_· .·· : . R E C E IV E D JUL 1 ~ 1997 SLO C ITY CO U N C IL ',•,;· ~ ,,,.,,, Dat-9, if 2;,s1~d:z0d --~ --------·- NCIL ~~~~- ~·,-oRNEY D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □--- □ D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE C~" D REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR San Lai» ObiApo, (ji :}ult; 9, 1997 7 o: Alleri Seill.e, ftlG.ljOll. and San Luu, ObiApo Council !11emhe/t/.> hr.om: Leo1.a Ru.hoti:.om hr.om i.h.e b~IIJ i.h.e mobi.Lehome nerd. .6:i:abi..1.i..y:i;li..on ~!r.di..nance uao f.on i.h.e pnotec;lion of. mobileh.ome ouneno ~t exce-1.0..Lve nenxo ; I he San Lui» Ob..i..op'l._ ondinance no J..ong,en doe» i.h...L.6. 'l?en:t.6 ane exce.o.o..Lve and · corduruie to . Jt.i.Ae. I he nerd. .oiabil..L~n o/UUJUJ.n.C.e ..i..6 hand to undenodand and .ou.hject :to m..i..6..Lnie/tfl'l.eiau.on iri maru; p1.ace1. ftlo.ot nesiderd:o in. mobileh.ome panh» a/te »eniono and. famil.l-e-1 on pxecL incomes ; Wh.en nerd» ane Loo lz¼h., i.h.e onJJ; al.i:.eNl.ai:1..ve ..i..6 to ,t,e/.1. and ~ don't ~ .6ell. Wh.en i.h.e mobileh.ome ,t,i.,;l,:, on i.h.e panh. ounen» 1.an.cL I th.e neaiderd» mucd: PG.lf ih.e nerd. even th.o~ ..Lt ..i..6 unoccupied; 9/ tlie home doeori 't .oe/.1. i.mm edi..ai.el.J; iJw; mucd: wa1.h. Gl.lX1.lf and 1.ei:. :th.e pard« ouster: iak£. i.h.e mobileh.ome, oil. -oe/.1. ..Lt cheap. 7/2...L.o hao happened mol'l.e th.an once. Hop~ i.h...L.6 can be c:.hanc;.ed• 1. /Jele.i.e 5 .44 .050 ( {). At i.h.e pne.oen:ht;.iJn'!:_, fallft Owne/t/.> can M.i.Ae th.e nerd. 1(JJ~ i/- a tenani. deci.~ :lo .oel.1.. fu h.ome: /hit, ..i..6 j.w.>t an exbta chwc.r;.e_ wlih.ou;t jw.,tJ./.i-cai:.i.on. 9n th.e U.S. Supneme Cowd. dec..i..6..Lon, Yee v.o (,.oconcli.d.o, 9 j~ voted 9-0 :that Vacan.c.lf conil'l.oJ.. uxu, not a p~..Lca1- :ta.hi..ng. of- pa.AA ownen 1 .6 p1tope.Jd.J;. 2. /Jei..e±.e mo-61. o.f- 5 .44 .05 0 ( {). Th.e .oeci..Lon to be de1-e±ed ..i..6 h.al'l.d to u.nd.e/t/.>tand and. amb-lij11-ow.,, and ~u.hject to mi..6..i.nte/tfll.e±a:li.on. A J.m;. pe/t/.>on ..i..6 at a 1.0-01., to unde/t/.>tand ..Lt. I lie fallft olJJfUVr. can 1tece..Lve an a.djw.,tment ..Ln nent u.nd.vc. i.h.e ~le-6 of. 5 .'f'l.070 ''Appli.c.a:lion f.ol'l. Rent Adjudment-iee-{onteni-6." . /1/o.ot mobileh.ome paJlft-6 ..Ln San Luu., Ob..i..opo do not h.ave pa,6.6-iMo+ .if. iJw; a.1t e not on J..e.aoe.o. / \_ _,. J. l?ep1.ace 5. 44. (fJO wlih. littach.merd. # J. 7 /2.e nepl.acement mol'l.e cl..o.oehj mee±.6 th.e need.ti of. i.h.e pa.AA- owne/'l. and i.h.e tenant. llny, 1.all.fj,€- co-oi.6 iJLc.wvc.e.d · when i.h.e pcvrh. need.ti .i.mp1to vement :that both. i.h.e p_allft owne/'l. and i.h.e i.enan.:0_ want could e.ao.L¼ be a~eed upon blf a 5/Jb vote of. th.e tenan;UJ llL f.a.von •. //2...i..6 would ..i.Mwr.e .6UCCR...6.61 M weJ..J.. M ./..e.o1., J..i..h.eu;. to be m..i..6..Lnte/tf1,eted. 4. !l.o .6i.mp1.y- a iljp..Lng, coMeci..Lon cf. a l'l.e/-e/'l.ence. 5 .44 .OJO (F) ..i..6 ..i.ncol'l.l'l.eci and ,t,/wuJ.d. tp :lo [X1!d- ( [}. 'Pal'l.:l (/) ll.~ to condomi..n.J..wn pnoje.ctt, ,cieiLi.rzg, J..oi.6 and h.o~. 11.vr.e ih.el'l.e ..i..6 a mo~1t-moJdr;;-a-fj,€-e ll.e1.alioM!up. 5 .Lflf_.()i;O ..i..6 ..Lnvvlved will 1.andlol'l.d-:tenan.i 1te1.at..i.oM/up.6 • 5. Change 5 .Lf'I .o4 0 ( B). We a/'l.e cu,fwu;; f-o_l'l. i.h.e pnov..i..6..Lon f:ol'l. tenan:liJ on J..ea.oe.o i.o liave a 1t.ecoW1..6e by. i.h.e p1teva.Ll.1nfl State 11Jobi.1.eh.vme Re.o..Ldenq; Law. We have J..eft th.e woll.d.i.m;f to if OU. 5..i.nceJT..e!!f, //] ___ y:' '---7"/ / --:-J!p------' r;./j--~~ -fc.~__., I jt,,.c.f:_v ,,,,LffJ t~ Leo1.a f<.u.ho:t:tom 3960 So. lli..cjileM, Space 21 San L.u...i.-6 Obi.Apo, (,A 93401 7 e1..eplwne - Y-11-6159 The Honorable Allen Settle Mayor of San Luis Obispo · San Luis Obispo, CA July 9th, 1997 Sir: My family and I reside in the Silver City Mobile Home Park, 3860 S. Higuera, space #207, here in San.Luis Obispo .. \Ve along with a number. of.other.residents in this park are concerned about the 10% rent increase levied on each new resident by the park ownership whenever a mobile home is sold. This is an unjustified as well as unfair procedure the owners impose on anyone wishing to purchase a mobile ·home in this park or area. When this inflated rent is added to a mortgage payment, it can cause a potentially qualified buyer to go elsewhere, if not to another city, to find affordable housing. It's tantamount to actually penalizing new residents. Also, the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance needs to be rewritten where- as a common householder possessing an average IQ can understand it. The legal ease should be interpreted in an abc manner, thereby making it clearer to the homeowner just exactly what his or her rights are, as well as what rights the parkowners have, making it equitable for all. Tacking on a 10% rent increase to anyone wishing to buy your mobilehome only exacerbates the problem, especially when no reasonable explanation is given. Any assistance you might render in alleviating this unfair procedure would be greatly appreciated by us all. Respectfully yours, owner ... - ,. ,. -: ·-· .: 1032 Jane Drive San. Luis Obispo, CA 93405 July 12, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle Members of the City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: Retain this document ';]or future Council rneeling <l-1q-q'7 Date, if ager.dlze~_ - ~iNCIL ·~AO cr'ATTORNEY1 D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □----- □ D CDD DIR D FIN DIA □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF D REC DIA □ UTIL DIR D PEAS DIR As a resident of Laguna Lake Mobile Home Park I want to urge your support of the changes in the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance which will be fair to both park owners and mobile home owners. The disparity of the rents in our park demonstrates the great need for the changes in this ordinance which will go before the Council on August 19. Yours very truly, Rosemary Johnson RECEIVED .I I.IL 1 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ---CF:EEkS 1 DE--- ; ! I: . i , I . i 1 i j i i I i ! I! ' . . ' : I I : ' : i ; ; ; ' ' I • l . i ! . : i ; j I' . i Tenants will ask for a little h:elp To the editor: From the beginning the pur- pose of the "Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance'' was for the protection of the c*ptive renters In mobile home parks against excessive rents. The ordi- nance has failed to hold rems at an acceptable level. Rent increases over the Con- sumer Price Index (CPi) quickly exceed the ability of a person on a fixed income to pay. The ordi- nance allows pass-throughs, which are maintenance' costs, to be added to the.rent. The park owner's cost of maintenance should be included in the rent in- stead of added to the rent. This allows an 18 percent or higher in- crease in Clne yl'ar. . ~ Homeowners in mobUe home parks occupy a space at the invi- tation of the park owner, As co- proprietors, this has put the land in the hands of the tenant, but this doesn't give the park owner lh1' right (o dirl;1tc ll'l'IIIS free of all government regulations .. Vacancy control is protection of tenant's property. It does not allow a rent increase upon re- sale. Mobile home owners are trying to survive by going bt1ore 11H' <'ily C11111H·il t\ug, l!J ti, ~k for changes in the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinahcj, and to make sure the rents d(>n't increase just because a te~arlt sells his mobile home. Leol a Rubott om San Luis Obispo . : . ; . ' l . i ·., . i~ . . • i-. t.:J....::: \. P' __ _li 5,5/ . I I . I : I ---CF:EEt<:::; I DE--- E:[15_542:,11 12, To the: editor; • I i ~ow interesting that in the July 11, 1997 issue of the TT Da id Conga;-;ton' s column refers to SLO as a"town that is! notorious for · ' outla~dish rents." No argument here. Rowever, in the same issue is a letter to the:ea from Leola Rubotfom claiming that the Mobilehorne Rent Stabilization Ordinance 11 ' I · f has jf;ailed to hold rents at an acceptable level" despite the fact that ~LO mobilehome space rents are among the lowest in the state! •' for cdmparable cities. · I M,rs. Rubottom goes on to say that residents are charged "pasl- 1 t hr ouqhs , which are maintenance costs." This is blatantly untrue; as Mrs. ~ubottom ~ell knows the ordinance spec~fically prohibits cha, ging tenants for maintenance costs. She knows this because she was instru~ rnenta~ in having this provision inserted into the brdinance. j · ~he only costs which may be passed through to.residents are gov- ernme~t mandated costs such as sewer, trash and water.Do the citibens of Sa~ Luis Obispo agree with Mrs. Rubottom that mbbilehorne resi~ents shoul~n't have to pay for the increased costs of these services ~at every:other inhabitant of the city must bear? I doubt it. I Mrs. Rubottom would also do away with the 10%. increase in SP,ace rent ~llowed when a home sells. How this threatens. her "survival "I is a ~ystery since it will never affect her tenancy. ~very economic study ever done concurs that rent control creates below ,market rents. The resale increase allows parks to move clos:er to a 'f;air market rent without cost to the current tenant. Does tie incre~se prevent homes from selling? Absolutely not! Our park is exper~encing our most prolific sales year in over ten years. ~axpayers of SLO should be wary of Mrs. Rubot~om and her sm~ll group,iof hard-core activists. Heed the City Attorney's Mernorandu to the city Council regarding these proposed amendments: '!The proposed changes would significantly modify the struct re of th~ current ordinance which was a compromise measure adopted 9y the voters in 1988. It would remove flexibility from the ordinance, ~nd fore grea~~r reliance on formal rent adjustment hearing~. To the exte t it privents owners from having a clear and reasonable mechanism o achieye a "fair return", it may expose the City to significant 1 gal liab:i,lity and costs." ·fhe Council should resist the efforts of a small group of ,. ·- . _ .... _- extr~1ists · to gain political favor and in the process place the· City:~n legal jeopardy • • I Pat Fleming, mana er Creekside Mobileh me Comm sari Luis Obispo .i• , I : I ; ! ! ' . ; ;· , .. 1852 Th elm a Driv e San Lu is Ob ispo , CA 93 405 Reta!r, this oocument tor future Ct;)lJnci1 r.1e:":lif>'J f.::~~~!2I, =- July 11, 1997 Mayor Alan Settle Members of the City Council City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: As a resident of Laguna Lake Mobile Home Park,I want to urge your support of the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance which will be fair to both park owners and mobile home owners. The disparity of rents in our park demonstrates the great need for this ordinance. Yours very truly, .,:::_~ ' ·-·/ "/jff H. T. Edwards ~ 1852 Thelma Dr. ~ San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-6238 □ COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR RECEIVED J lJ L 1 4 1997 SLO ClTY COUNCIL 5-.53 ~)62,~~ ' . ~ ~ -~ ~~ ' 1/J · '1 ,1 r ~ . . ,··· · -IY~-~/ · · · · : : Hary Ewaskoy , ·' . -'~- • 1 3960 S. Higuera St. Spc 11 ~~/ :i "j;-~-------- ':" '"': ,.,.,., :' '"'~-- :1.t-:::~~-s-_:. ~ ~-~--~~--- ~-~-~~--1-~-~ ~av~-~. ~~<4:;,~-- ~ ~'-~~-~-- .\ ... '-. . . ---· - .- ,• : ~ . ., . ' ··- -~ -- ----- t &, __ ~_, '. . ' '. ' ',,.;-,;~~,a- -~~ ~ ----~.......,,r~-=--o '. ' ·------------- ;-· - -- - ·- --··-····· --~~~~-----·· ~ ·. ~ ~~fa_~~~----- ·-~ ~ ~C0:µ-~-----·-···-· _jµµ?{G\~--~---~~ ~~ ~ ~-~V:--.~~-·· .,, --~;..~-~~-(~-~--- ' ----~ -~--~-~-.:~ ~-~---~--~, . ____ :_··---···"··3;:t;:~-1-- ····:·------· "··-~. ~ . --~-~:;-=_ ~:~~ ~ RECElVED JUL 1 4 1997 · .... •·- Retain this docu1Pent tor I future Councii meeting ~/9-97 · · .Date, if "qsr.diz.ej · --------'·....;. __ :.:...---- t ") " ---··· -··-- -----·- ----·- .. ------------------------- -- -- --··· .. - -------- ---------- ·- -----------·· -··· -- --- ·-- ~ ,~: -~-. ~-- --·--··-· -- ---~--~-~-~---·· ·--·· -~ . __ ;;&d~~~-~--- ----~-~-f-~- : '' -~-·· ·-·-··•-: __ _;_~.:..---.· .- ~ .· .. · - ~ft~~-------~- . . . . - ff'q,,4,_~--~ ~ _;,_, ~- --- ··· .4-:.-~/-~ -~ -~-~ ~-, ..... - - . - - ... - . -- --.If~-&~ ~ ~--~-- ~--~- ~--84- ~ ~--~/ ~/ ~~ .. ·-~~-~... ... ,, _: ... ' !B'CJ)l:JNCIL l!J-'CAO . D Af,AO CB'1i:llORNEY D CLERK/ORIG .. D MGMT TEAM □----- □ ·o-CDD DIR - .... - D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR -~·· ,, ... -···.7:n~ '' OUNCIL ~~¥a . ~TOR NEY.~ □ CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □--- □ □ CDD DIR □ FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR ~-~~- ;__ . Mrs. Kenneth R. Jordan 3960 S. Higuera St. Spc 44 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . RECEIVED JUL 1 7 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ·s-ss J u l y 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 '-~~i~CIL TJ'b£AO C ~AlTORNEY ·. D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □----- □ D COD DlR D FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR C PERS DIR Mayor Allen Settle and City Council Members 990 Palm, City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo City Hall, CA. 93401 Retain this document fgo future Council ni-eeting __ F~-- 1~9- 9 '7 _ Dat'3, i1 ~Q6r.d:ze=l__ Dear Mayor and Council Members: we hope our sincere words will explain how very much we require changes in our City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The changes we request are not unfair, but instead are items we need if we are to survive. It's very frightening to be unable to afford to stay in a home you own, when you pay considerable rent for a tiny space. Most of us really have no other place to go. When the first Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance came into effect in 1982, it did not contain an allowance giving a 10% rent increase on resale to a park owner. Our research indicates that allowance did not take place until 1992. It has become a disaster whenever a mobilehome is sold, and rent increases grow by larger and larger percentage increments. We learned from GSMOL head offices that 92 cities in California have Rent Ordinances, and 57 of these DO NOT have rent increases on resale. Vetters Management Company controls a large number of mobilehome parks in California. The Vetters Company recommend against rent increases on resale. They have found it is actually to the park owners' advantage, because tenants feel more security, and take a far keener interest in keeping the landscaping beautiful around their well-kept home. The result is a more attractive and desirable park, which has gained greatly in value, and has been given a much higher rating by appraisers. We sought expert advice on the MNOI factor which we asked you to delete. That factor is too complex for clear interpretation. There is even a stipulation on Page 138-2, which states that should this formula not provide a just return for a park owner, a hearing officer may apply any other reasonable formula. That indicates that even the writer of this formula is not convinced this factor is viable. One the other hand, mobilehome owners need BOTH a lawyer and an appraiser to confront a park owner who uses this formula. No challenge to the park owners' figures is included in the formula. We cannot afford two expensive experts. There are already other provisions for a hearing for a rent adjustment for park owners in another section of the Ordinance. We also need the Ordinance to conform to the Mobilehome Residency Laws. These are not spur-of-the-moment laws, but were carefully evaluated, passed by both State Legislative Houses, and signed by the Governor. We thank you for your courtesy in hearing our case, and respectfully request you to decide in favor of granting these changes which allow worried Seniors to remain in their homes. Sincerely,_ Bill 1860 JUL 1 7 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL and Betty Henson Thelma Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ~~~<JJ--4~ : . . ... -·: -: .. - . ~:. _. ...... ·. . . . . . .-_.:~ . . . . . ·. .. _ .. ·_:··.:\.> :· . - .. ~.. . -----~- . _:_::=:.-. _.::_ --· . . ~ . : .-. . . :_ ' .-.· __ .,_ .......... . · .... __ .. ·:· :--: .. · · ..... . . . . ·, . . . '· . . . .. • .. · . . _ .... '.. . . _.. . . . ·,._,_ .... ···. . . . . . . . -·;· ·. . . . --~ . .. . . _- . =i....' •• _,..:_ I -~ ~ ·•. I 1 Most of Municip al Mobile Home R ent Control Law Upheld in Fe d eral Court 11 Both Sides See Something to Like in Latest Ruling federal jud . in a 55- page opinion handed own this week, has struck down one of the most con- troversial provisions of tbe City of Malibu's Mobilehome Rent Stabilization C' rdinance , but upheld the right of the city to control mobilehomc rents. "We are gratified," said Torn Gibbs, an attorney for the Adam- son Companies which owns the Point Dume Club Mobilehome Park. "The opinion struck down the most onerous provisions - rollbacks and a free.1..e." "The bottom line is our point has been validated," agreed Gar- ren Hanken. who represents the Kissel Company. which owns the Paradise Cove Mobilehome Park. "The plaintiffs recognize that rent c?ntrol is perrnissible , but the ~ · city went far beyond thnt." ~ ·.· But Malibu City Attorney -, · Christi Hog in took .i different { ·' approach to the decision saying, * . "OT1e of the critical questions was :. if Y•)U could have rem stabiliza- FIRST DAY-In-house City tion in Malibu. n~ judge ruled it Attorney Christi Hogin's first did not amount to a constitutional day in her new pro fes sional tak.in5." capacity came replete with Overall. the court concluded court action on Malibu's that the city may intervene to municipal mobile home law. ad just the balance of tbe econom- ic relationship between tenants in federal and state court. They n.nd park owners, the City Arter- were successful in having the nev addcd. city's law thro w n out in state ~~~ .. c....:W:::,:e~f ce.::::.:...l_w_e_p_re_v_.u-:-:. 1,...cd...,..-=w=-e-are-- court and the city is curre ntl y · not unhappy with the decision." appealing !Mt decision. Hogin said. The Malibu City This week's dee is ion could Council is expected to discuss th~ cost the city millions of dollars in federal opinion at :i dosed door damages that is expected io be •c · t ·1• ~t meeting on sought hy the nark owners, their , -~~t\J n 3 I .- ne x , , ·> 1- June 13. Hagin acknowledged that "the court questioned base rents" striking out the city's attempt to rollback those base rents to a pre- existing level. "She ruled that provision did not have the goal of protecting the tenants." from future potc:ntially unlimited Increases, Ho gin added . Both park owners have chal- lenged the rent control ordinance 1,i. .,. -·-~--- attorneys say. "We'Il definitelv seek a trial unless we can reach a settle- meat," said Hanken, who added his client may have suffered damages in excess of S 1.5 mil- lion. "We ha Yen 't done a full work out," he said, "There is sub- stantial damage the Kissel Com· pany has incurred." Gibbs agreed saying, "We will go for damages." Indicating that Adamson had "not yet done an analysis," it remains unclear what amount would be sought, he said . "I don't think they arc entitled to a damage award. nus is a very narrow decision," Hogin responded when asked to com- ment about damage claims. According to a press release issued by the city, the opinion "concludes that the city's mobile- home park rent stabilization ordi- nance validly protects the park tenants' investment in their mobilehomcs (the investment value includes the homeowner;' improvements and its location) and protects park residents who have fixed or relatively low incomes." The opinion is not the final decision in the case , according to the city attorney, who said that should the opinion form lhe basis for the final judgment in the case -as most court observers expect to be the case-the city mav amend its ordinance to corn- pl). with the opinion or appe;il \'nc ruling. No decision has yet been ~n this._f-!1.•gin ad_t.l_i.:d_. __ BY RILL KOENE KF._R __ -· ·•--"" -·--· "":" - . :.- = .-. : ·= :1 =-~.: - · ~ : · · ·= t ; t-13.!..:: '-~ Post-Proposition 199-: Now what? 0 ne of the things voters were saying when they voted against Proposition 199 in March was that they wanted the rent control issue to be handled at the local level. WMA's track record with local in- itiatives has always been good. In fact, In rnc111y cutes and counties where Proposition 199 lost by a wide margin, the same voters had previously turned down local resi- dent-sponsored rent control initia- tives by similar margins. With that in mind, WMA's local government staff is going "back to the future" and refining the local initiative process that ha s worked so well for the paH 20 years. ln looking over WMA's "Local Rent Control Initiative Campaigns" list, some interesting observations can be made. Following are various types of local initiatives that both park owners and residents have em- ployed over the years, with varying degrees of success. Campaigns to defeat rent control Initiatives WMt\ staff has worked on many such campaigns over the years with a high degree of success - orgarnz- Ing local WMA members and others to defeat rent control initiatives that mobilchome community rest- dents, city councils or boards of su- pervisors have been placed on the ballot. Defeating this type of initia- tive has been a great weapon ever since mobilehorne park rent con- trol first reared its ugly head. Repealer Park owners or an elected body place tlm imuauve on the ballot to repeal an exuung n-nt control ordi- nance. Such an etrort was success- fully accomplished in the City of Delano in 1994. Property rights initiative This type of initiative has been used in several cutes and counties over the years with mixed results. If successful. the property rights in- itiative repeals the existing ordi- nance and prohibits the elected bod}' from passing rent control in the future A vote of the people would be the only way another rent control ordi- nance could be passed. Such an ap- proach take s the rent control issue away from local politicians and places it before the voters, where the industry has a better chance of winning. Successful examples of this anad, on rent control occurred in the cities of Burhrigarnc and Napa . Referendum WMA has also employed the ref- erenduru over the years, with mixed result» .\ referendum is the process used when an elected body pass rent control ordinance and the ers are encouraged to overturn elected officials' decision at next available election. Refe dums have been done In r mount, El Monte, Laguna Be Vista and Carlsbad. · San Luis Obispo model This model is, in effect, a control initiative that the park c ers sponsor to replace a particu · onerous ordinance. Such an e 1 was done successfully Int ,.. --1 ! San Luis Obis~, where , t I 1 would proba ly have been 1 featcd. This type or rent centre dinancc looks a lot like a lease The theory behind this appr , is simple: If the. political env i ment prevents a total repeal c i existing ordinance, at least it c \ replaced with something mud ter and the voters are not ask abolish rent control. • • • WMA's local government plans to refine all of the abov ltiatives and tailor them to se! cities and counties throughot state. One type of initiative r not work in one area of the but lends itself to successful , cation in another. Polling and groups would need to be us order to determine If a campa feasible and what ki11rl it shou' Using various local election tailored to a specific pclitica] ronmcnt, is a more surgic: preach to stopping or r -, rent control. It will t homework and patience to .5-S1 •. • ••--..-.--~•..av e._.._.,._.-~....---•~•--'-,. • . : ·._:: · _ _. ; ; -~-:~~~;~:J.'.~ ~~ ·--~ ~~/- .. . - .. - / "1?vlA's local government staff is going "back to the future" and refining the local initiative process that has worked so well for the past 20 years. each approach to the point where· the statewide rent control list is ac-: tually shrinking each year, rather than growing. WMA has more expertise and fire power to apply lo defeating rent control at the local level than any other organization ln the state. Its current goal is to not only defeat rent control initiatives as they crop up, but to repeal as many existing ones as possible. It will take time and significant pre aration, but It can all WI t one. · D avid Evans is }V]vfA 's regional rep- resentative for the Central Callfomia Area. He cm, be reached at 901 Eagle Lane, Frazier Ptirk, CA 93225; 805/ 245-3719. June 1996 • WMA Reporter 35 .·. ··:. . .. ·_ :,- .. :_ "::._ .... : ._· .. ~·-,._;,,·• ~·.. . .,· .. ' . --1-~ .: .· . · .. · .. C a sa D e l R io R e s id L .• £S Association, Inc. B u d g et S u m m a ry 1994 · MONTHLY Fixed Costs Corporate Franchise Taxes Insurance Taxes & Licenses $ 2.00 3,013.00 277.00 3,292.00 Operating Costs Electricity 250.00 Gas 500.00 Water 2,131.00 Sewer -988.00 Trash --2,279.00 Landscaping 500.00 ANNUAL $ 25.00 36,150.00 3,325.00 39,500.00 Sw1mm1ng Pool 400.00 Cleaning Service 500.00 8_ep~a_rr_s_&_M_ai_nt_e_n_an ..... ce::::::---,,'--- 750.00 Auto & Truck 175.00 =-'------------------~~- Te I e phone 150.00 .. Sal an:--. e-s-- =P-ark---:-M-=-a...,..in_t_e-na_n_c_e--:&-:M:-:--an_a_g_e-rs 6=-,o-=--o=-o-.O-O Payroll Taxes -550.00 15.173.00 Administration Management Legal Accounting Office TOTAL COST OF OPERATIONS 1,000.00 250.00 ' 150.00 500.00 1,900.00 20,365.00 Reserves 1994 BUDGET BUDGET PER UNIT 3,260.00 $23,625.00 $ 94.50 3,000.00 6,000.00 25,570.00 11,850.00' 27,360.00 6,000.00 4,800.00 6,000.00 9,000.00 2,100.00 1,800.00 72,000.00 6,600.00 182,080.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 1,800.00 . 6,000.00 22,800.00 244,380.00 39,120.00 $283,500.00 $ 1.134.00 5-i,J., c a s a · d e l r io m o b ile e sta te s IlZ4 n. Sl ll!IJ rd Ph on e 92 5-3 737 November 1, 1993 Re: Casa Del Rio Resident Association, Inc. Dear Member: Attached is the 1994 Budget S~rnmary for Casa Del Rio Resident Association, Inc. Please note that your monthly Association Dues will be $94.50 effective January 1, 1994. There will be an Organizational Meeting for the Members of the Association on December 15, 1993. The meeting will be held at 7:30 P,M. in the clubhouse. The purpose of the meeting is to elect a Board of Directors, review the 1994 Budget Summary, and discuss any new business. To ensure Members' representation on the Board, not less than 20% of the Members of the Board shall be elected solely by the vote of the Owners, other than the Declarant. We are looking forward to meeting with you and working with you for the good of Casa Del Rio Mobile Estates. Ri~ B. Wells Managing General Partner . -._, .... ,;_·;: .:.-: .. '- . !!rfr;. 'Barodra 'Xfappert ·. (V · 3960 So:"th 9figuaa, #96 ·. ·,L. \_; San Luis CJ.6ispo · .. · · ... · - Cafifomia 93 401 . . · Aetaln thl:3 ,jocumen~'. for future Cou ncii rneeti09 ?-(CJ-CJJ Ju.1.i; 1 ]:th 1997 . ,..- Dean: /Th.v1)lt. Allen. Se:1::1:1.e. and [l..i:i; [oun.cU. /lkmbe/U>: [/ h.opefu,lt.;j uard: i.o be one o/ i.h.e majoleilJ; i.n ~ :thi..-6 1£:1:hvr. i.o v,ou.! !J:U In. ~ce and co~ i:h.e.. no:li..ce. !J neceiv ed ~ i:.o a po.M.i..bl.e 1$ Reni:. !Jnc.Jt£aoe upon lt.e6a1.e.. !J thi..nh. and {-eel Lto oUVta.fj.ll-ouo Idea, p.l.t.lA v~ unf,.auc. i:.o mobi.te» home: OW/1£/C,6, J:to VeAlf obvcou», p aM. OIJ)f1£/C.6 CLlc.e .oeeh.i.ru;J. an eaAV, Ul_:lll zo zahe: advardaqe: of- uo homeounexs, wlu..ch. lll.af2lj ane Serda»: [Lti..J£!U> on p.xed. Income; !J am DcJ-J!vl{[[l.J/ FOR Rf!{1 OR!XJMV(l/ □ COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR 0 UTI L DIR 0 PERS DIR RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL Mr ,A llen Settle , Ma yor, San Lu is Obispo , Ca , 990 Pa lm St , San Luis Ob ispo , Ca , 7,2 8 ,9 7 Retair, I his documen~tor luturc Council nie~ting <t-N~t/7 Dear Sir, I urgue you to vote to change the flaws in the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilation Ordinance, which I feel at this time is unfair to Mobile Home Owners in lagina Lakes Mobile Home Estates, Sincerely Yours, rl/ffi~--, Melvin S, Dennis, M,D, 1716 Carolyn Drive San Luis Obispo, Ca 9:3405 (805) _546-0906 RECEIVED JUL O \ 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ~iNCIL □ COO DIA D AJ;AO □ FIN DIA "'-'· ·-'~TTOANEY.J'.!;}; ~ □ FIRE CHIEF □ CLEAKIOAIG . □ PW DIA □ MGMT TEAM □ POLICE CHF □ □ REC DIA □ □ UTIL DIR - □ PEAS DIA IJ'tA o"vl.. □ FIN.Jo,Ft REO/FfVEO ~gRNEY ~ ~~~~HIEF J . □ CLERK/ORIG D POLI CE CHF LJ L 2 1 1997 □ MGM T TEAM D REC DIR D D UTIL DIR SLO CITY POUNCIL ~ □ o PERS DIR ~·Lo~L~~~;. .. . ...... ·- ·····-··---- ··-- -. -··-··- ·····-··-········-·····-······-·····-· - --········-· ·····················-··••··• •··-··········· __ .. ····---········ .9. ~._._('e,Si~·-··-CLt·--·-~'~··· ···-··---•-·· ·-······ -·· ·-·-···-- ·-. ·•········ ~cl ~-·- .... $) ... _ko.OJ.-0~, . .(_,O P .~ . . 6~tu..o..b~ ~\-t. 0-·--·~t ·- .. ······~~ . 5-t-Lch_.~······~J?;~~~~O.-h~ . It~~~· +o ~-th .I~~ .. ·········· . , .. \{)n ~ ·-fX:\A.\··· rnobvl.JL_._ b~e . _L>C:)_ -·~ ..... · l~r-' i~.~~~:·_l~Ln·~- ! Sl we-u.l;d hCl.-1.K -:to f~-\t:, (~ . . ~ ~~ ~cu . . . - - . -- . ·- . - .. . . _ Knaw, o~··· h~·-·-·~-- _ -·~·--'n.~·-· .. 10 ,.-:e,o_~ .~ rr~ L rr:--obi_,l,z_,/ . , ... .;y ~. OOL. 1J rd, .. t . l:Lci .. 01...- lM::\ c~ i Q..bl_a_,.. - - ·- - . . . ·-··· - ·-· ·--· I - ...9. .\~t U'.)O.,c.te-ci -to±e.u. .. ~.-::!6t- - ... .... . .. i~<T.5' \\~~ .. __ 0-od __ ····-G~ ·--· ·?··L .. / ~~··--· ....... - . . .S\clc . -h~.e.w C\.R.A..,a _ ~o.c..ua.::b ~·r· ~d . ~ rnvolv--ed .. d.o- .. ~ ~epres.e.nt-····-· ··-·· .. '(Y\e, (oc \'D0--0~ . ob , l"O j -~b ba rs ) _ . ... Q .. (~t ~ ··-ti~. -··~C.:?t5··~E:-1t···-·· . ....... ... . .. . ty,w\°%··~ ... ~- .. w ,th .~.~~ _ _ pett,~ ~1JlD-L-n~. _ .OA":\d .. _ .. ~•·-···· . __ . .. .... . . ~~ .. ~\9o~th .... -~~s1du...._ ~~ex.n.ent.._ ·····-·-·· . .. 0-.,Hel ···~~\vw.n;~············ ···~~~n.i:%( I .. .. ..... ... . .... ;;;J c.vu,½,c· ;= s,~ _X , I I -c: a ~m:ss ~ s 1--,-ce_,f- --f+rmL cf1l d .ee., 0-.-rc d /tw.rc / 1 vecl Ii) {J,r ~'?ft clc js/ 6 /-uJ ~ 1/£oJ5. :r. fu_,/ epi..e,J1 1. 4 ~ she doe s J r., w i LI nof Jo 1-'n ~ h <YW1 .e ~" ers u e~~ ~ CLr-L ~s~-f (!.mn_p(~~ .T.f ~ d6'£t e..rtjoi{ t,J ~ ~ 1 11 ti( ~ y s fizy.j~ I M oY'-L---, :L1Y) -~~...,.~'-- DD IR / AO D FIN IR . ~ ~9~ D FIRE CHIEF [J...,lrf1ORNEY D PW DIR □ CLERK/ORIG D POLICE CHF D MGMT TEAM D REC DIR □--- DUTILDIR =---u.. i) (!__e,k 1 ~□ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..~D~PE;.:RS~DIR::...J ~-;:__, (}cd vJ S {)[µ_L I fJD --~---~ D CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR RECEIVED JUL 2 ~ 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL • U--\:J V U 1\'v 11... ~ v · ~ -I .. i ~i.i.1;¼~~ J e~i;," ~ ~~}d!~';, I i ··--·· .Qate, :-if ~Q_f;.(',t;:l.:;-$;; D MGMT-,TEAM D REC DIR ~---=~~"---- ~ /'. <':Cc g ~i~s06~R ~~!' ~t:rjtYl ~,d&I / aAJl n-1-t~tf Ht hf'/#~ ~- * /a?$c/4,d /f..,rr....e. ~d ~tiY1/a{l-e'. c:tt' ~~-7 10-e fi;y=, aX k-4~ ~Ltcki.e./~ (-07tpc?~h;uu,r)-£ =fa~ . ,t£~~#~7f ~~ $a4&?/tY?U?-.~~ y/4 /c¾ 4-/f,~t'~~ ~ ~/d~ ~zv1~ ¼{~ /~~~( I " / • .~/'-?~? ?/ .AIM~·/. ?"A--e /0 ¼ ~a4-e ~ AU-dh_ a:;2- F,:.,<.-C -~ a.- 5/~ ~~ C7Pl ~ ~/??1.oliM~a-u~ ft1A ~ 01,0t/~ ;;1- 4 ~ /~ ~/UJ- ~La-t{:JR, # ?"'1'½ /~4/4.~~ ~ ~&1 t?ZK--t /lno-&U~ t?t/~. . o2. 4xk . .d!E?:EP dt 1:J- ~J1 /l#hL:/4u ~~) /Up-cvtL£.~ ~ pl ~ M ~ ~ ~ . /JM;j Ci:Uule ✓~/ -~ ~ m!4 ~. RECEIVED .IIJL Z 9 1997 SLO CJTY COUNCIL --- Reta;n tnis ,:;ccument for lutur~ Co1Jncil meeling - &!-Ed9-7- K~A~ ~le-- - Datl') il 6;~$r.d;ze::i _ I ••:..• ---- t1 ?l--e-6-~ ~ +L-e_ (0~ re--vt- <. ~'~ ~ ~~ 0---- AA /')h ~k ~L ~ .. -C+- ' s ft>¼-8!½ '--'~~ ,.. s~~- ~~B ~ lf)Js S'Cl'h-e. Dv- ~Lu ~ s''-<oS-- - - - , - G--ro U N C IL D C D D DIR - -- - ,.. ....... ,.,. .... - ·~ ~ m LJI I = n r:1r::: CHIEF 10 RN tY ; . C:i• t-t ECl=tV E D CKtEi-lK/0:::J i.: . _;.~:; CHF D l'~t.1J TJ .. ' L .. :.c G irl •1_3 ·,; • ·h,,J - .... .. - .,:_v -- I I U UIII.. 1h11 AU o U l 199/ D / D PER S DI R -sro C IT? COONCIL : .r,'j ff - , , ,._. •rt) Ir t/l!tvv✓~ CfY/~?vvj•->ltJ{;/(_. ~ M+ 110Nnoa 1,110 o,s l66t t l 9nv 03Al3:J3cl / August 4, 1997 ~0· .. ·~1L· ~gRNEY ~~~RK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □ / ,n Q;Y.. \A I:',( / D CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR MEETING -AGENDA / lATE g.,lCJ--C,1 ITEM #_8 __ To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo My husband and I have owned a mobilehome in Creekside Mobilehome Community for twenty five years. We met Ed Evans at a rules committee when he first purchased the park. We were very impressed at his pride, concern, and generosity towards Creekside. I, Martha Stevens, have now been employed by Creekside as Office Manager for seven years. I have continually witnessed Ed Evans' fairness towards the residents, and willingness to work problems through. The mobilehome residents, recently asking for a change in the rent control, only represent a minority of residents in our park. My family and neighbors are not a part of this group, and are embarrassed to have this association forced upon us. The citizens of San Luis Obispo voted to accept the rent control as it was stated in Measure D. Since this voting, you as the City Council, upon the request of this minority group, have chipped away the original rent stabilization, making it unstable. We purchased our mobilehome in 1972 for $18,000. We could now easily sale this home for $60,000. Why shouldn't the park owner be allowed to make a profit, when we, as homeowners, can? I do not feel that a ten percent increase on turnovers is unreasonable. If this minority political group is so unhappy living in a beautiful community; then why don't they move? Where else would they find quality living for under $310? Please take these facts into consideration when reviewing their request for changes in the San Luis Obispo City Rent Control. 9n·s~ //11 Phil and Martha Stevens sp. 64, Creekside Mobilehome Community RECEIVED AUG 1 j 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL August 11, 1997 Gordon and Evelyn Stevens 3960 S. Higuera Sp#lOl San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 ... .,COUNCIL 0,,CAO IJJ,ACAO 10";.1 fORNEY [B" CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM D . , Ki D CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE .CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR MEETING '>ATE r ,q-11 AGENDA - t::' ITEM# o __ Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We moved to San Luis Obispo from Monrovia, two and a half years ago. When purchasing our home at Creekside Mobilehome Community, we were aware of an increase in our rent. This increase seems fair, but the peace and tranquillity that we have bought into has been disrupted by a seemingly small political group. The reason for writing this letter, is that we are not part of this group, and they are completely out on their own. How can this group say that homes will not sell with this increase? We moved into Creekside because it is a beautiful establishment. The increase did not discourage us in any way, but this element of unrest has been bothersome. We are in our seventies, and live on a fixed income, as many other residents in Creekside do. We are all able to live a happy comfortable life, and pay our own way. We do not need this minute group voicing an opinion which is not our own. Please listen to our voice of concern, we do not want any changes to the rent control ordinance. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, RECEIVED AUG 1 ~ 1997 . SLO CITY COUNCIL d COUNCIL l:i',CAO g,ACAO II{ )(r mRNEY @' CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM D " r;tluYf1 D CDD DIR □ FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR D POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR D PERS DIR AGENDA t::". ITEM ff 'J_ August 8, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 I Dear Mayor: We respectfully request that you delete the 10% increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents . . Sincerely, CONNIE ROBERTSON 1800 Thelma • San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 RECEIVED AUG 1 3 1997 SLO crrv COUNCIL M s. W anda Leanos 333 Elks Ln. Spc 1 -:-;~--:- San Luis Obispo, CA 934 ~----f°'-... : l [.:: '\ ··) ·1 ·';'•. ,·:· ,·, ,.:.,·• ~IL Gl-ACAO CLAHOR E'r'. □-&!:ERK/ORIG g M~_?r ~M □ 7 D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR RECEIVED JU l 2 ~ 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL R E C E IV E D ,IIJL 2 9 1997 SLO C\TY COUNCIL ------------ Retain this e:Jccument tor tutum Cour;dl rneeling ----,m--K-:--:--~-- . .A-i"\_-~-;;;---;-;---l -e_.. _j __ D__'x~-fi,d~=-=.---t----- a -----m-------------fDJ-s S'<l'J.--e- Dv- ~LD ~ s'Lf o S- -,n--------------------------- --------m---------------- UNCIL - -- □ COD DIR ~ ,..,., ~·~ 1-J l't VII n r-:r.:: CHIEF ; 'C:;l ·i.:;.p: - ,r ., -- □ / L . ; _\; CH F Rt-=e-1=1-vEu 1 ... ,.:.C l)iii u uTit-mD:l'rR __:___J D PERS DIR ~U iJ O l f997 -sco-crrvcnmrc1L Dat'9, if ager:dLzed · ...._--~:.:. ·--·----- Retain th!s do~umen_t ';Jor future Counc:11 m eeting F'·~ 19~97 Date: TO: FROM: RE: July 31, 1997 City Council Secretary 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93~01 Lucille Rivas Should the 10% rent increase on resale of mobilehomes be banished? Please distribute to all city council members. O U NC IL ~1v .. gn;f TQ R NEY D CLER K/O RIG D MGMT TEAM □----- □ D CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIA □ PERS DIR Dear City Council Members; My name is Lucille Rivas, I live in the city of San Luis Obispo, I am 53 years old, a widow, work part time, and I am a mobilehome owner. I am very concerned about the 10% rent increase on resale of mobilehomes in this city. I would like to see the increase banished. Persons who are in the same financial category as myself choose to live and purchase mobilehomes. Most times because that is ALL we can afford. As the ordinance stands at the pr~sent time, it is to protect mobilehome owners from unreasonable rent increases. The ordinance does not do that. Rents are on an endless upward spiral, accelerating with larger rent increases after each resal~, making a ho~e unsaleable. Rents never drop in mobilehome parks, regardless of a slump in the economy which may cause falling rents in other sectors. Some of us are getting older and the economy is getting higher. The 10% increase on resale has forced a sharp decline on prices of mobilehomes and an unrealistic increase in the rents park owners charge. The park owners are not audited so no check is made to ensure raises are within Ordinance limits. PLEASE, members of MY city council I implore you to VOTE YES on banishing the 10% rent increase on resale of mobilehomes. 8::;;;;;;Jvs?,:J Vu~f lle Ri;asr• RECEIVED AUG O 4 1997 SLO CIT '! CO U NCIL Aug. 1, 1997 CITY COUNCIL City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Retain this document for futurn Council meeting -~-11-CJ .......... 7_ ....._ o_at_-e. if agsr.dl::ed __ _. Dear City Council Members, My wife & I live at 3960 s. Higuera #169 (Creekide). My wife has lived here 8 years & I have lived here 7 years; and in that time we came to know Ray Neimesh, Barry Kaufman, and Leola Ruebottom, mainly by going to meetings. First of all they do not represent the homeowners, or are not our spokespersons. Barry Kaufman tried to make the City Council believe that he was representing us at the meeting about the FOOD 4 LESS store; he just took that upon himself which made him feel important. We never gave him that right to go to the City Council meeting and speak for us, the homeowners. Ever since we have lived here that small group of troublemakers have been causing trouble wherever they can. We feel that the park should have the right to raise the rent accordingly, after a person sells a mobilehome, and a new home- owner takes possession. If they are telling you that they represent us (the homeowners) they are lying. Actually, it can't be having much effect on the sales of homes in this park; as they seem to be selling pretty fast. I hope you take all the facts into consideration, before making a decision. If they keep pressing this issue, and succeed; a lot of us could be facing a rent increase Thank you for your kind attention. Mr & Mrs Xerineth Hartman 3960 S. Higuera #169 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 UNCIL ~f~o ca'ATWRNEY D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □----- □ C COO DIA C FIN DIR C FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR RECEIVED AUG O 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL /~ ... . . . . . . -.-~_..,. .:· ~ ·: .· . D CDD DIR D FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR D POL:C::: cur CJ RG; : . 1 □Li.LL I D PG1'.-, u1:1 Retaln this document ;;J,or future Council meeting ~-/ 9 ~ qi_ __ Date, if agsr.d!~:~~-- July 18, 1997 Dear Maril t G'1 ~c,/ ~ SW It was with some concern that I was recently contacted by Barry Kaufman via the Creekside Mobile Home Park in regard to the current rent control ordinance. It is painfully evident to the majority of tenants I have surveyed at Creekside that Mr. Kaufman and several others have developed what some call the "Chicken Little. ..1.~ :eference to rent control and related matters. Kaufman and group apparently hove p0 \nnvJledge of the principles of economics and the market place which drives them. The :- • , ·-, : e saying that the owners only purpose in life is to rip off homeowners with particule · , ' ., ;,:> people on fixed incomes. No one disputes the need for checks and balances to ensure a fair deal for al1 _ l lovever, to yield to the arguably pathetic hysterics presented which, if accepted, would eJk, i;v-,h: "tl isculate the rights of the parks owners to achieve a reasonable return on their invest. 1c nt. , , )odfically, the owners should and must have a right to adjust rents upon (re) sale of home; ff) Ow , .ark, The Tax Assessor's Office does it with fixed foundation properties throughout ii ic r > 111li, -~o why not mobile home park owners? The costs associated with maintaining and hr 1 :'0\'1ri-:: mobile home parks are marked by the same inflationary pressures as experienced e\;cn_;,Miv:::1 c <_·.1'.,<'-;. So why does this group think that there should be a free lunch for them? If you were to carefully survey those of us who are not politically vociferous bu i. still vote en masse you will find that we have a sense of fair play for all concerned. hlf, . 1\.huh ,, ,'1 hac:. been reported to imply to various elected officials that he can deliver votes. f"1;1·l1, 1_·)c re.,, 1,, \'r~•.t( .r The Sky is Falling hysterics convince few and alienate most. We urge the previously hard fought rent control agreement be left intact :.1• d :Jrtxot1 we:. Respectfully, and cy Thompson pace #197 - Creekside Mobile Home Park San Luis Obispo, CA MoujM /I-lie //l S e,Y-{-/ e qqo /Ja,/m 3/re.e--f UNCIL CAO □)C AO IE( ATT ORNEY □ CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □---- □ □ CDD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR D'2ar Mr. S<bl-fle-) T a,µ,t t,,uv-~ +,~ --h:> f!_ttlC07A.ro. r,rz.., !:J8vl -/-cJ ddeJe., fi-e 10),, re,,vtf ///ICV--e£LS~ ern 'fi-e- so.le o~ Mob;/~ hci"YlA.es, M ~ tif,tiJ'-t'hV- / tve..s I;, <dl.t-U111C<S?t /1/loh;;e, hcJYl,te pal'k.. o.,,u cJ she- t's ftLJ1.>1.5 @ 'lg I, o» ;J.lh"' JU-oYJ"fh rc;4/Lf-, 7he. re:,e,i i qoe-' o/-' M-YJ A« :y,_s+, lier h!5Y1<e.. 1-s l<f1 -!',,.,- sede. =j -rite (Jropuf-ts OW Y?et' nos agree_cl -fo sei· '-1-&e ~os-f O .9 ('bvt-f +o $Y 3fT.oo -f2M '-ltte ;,1~ owne,.r, 'Thai- ts alreo1 o vu· +ti e- o<. u ev- ~ e r et,t 1 +:-c,y- MO h, I e h iJYJ,1 e OL-v'>'l e r.:s' 1 ~ 3LO 0lj af leas+ $ too.ss, /lllra MD'fh(h/' has /1cr-d /l/0 o~r"S fo pav-dco.-.r,e__ he« JM,l)h;(e, hcJYhe.,, ;';,, </-/4.e /a.<1f i--u_10 1v1Cn1fftt1, a,11d T b.Ll/~v6 if .!s beca?<f~ e>f +lte. h1~h rep{f Wv1d +li.e fCSS;b;l/fJ Of hau1~'.j ~ 10>., ;ncrec,.se U;:7cJ'Y1 p1,u' alcase: . PI eo.se vo-1--e --1-v d eJ el-e, #ie I()).., r~ f {0 e, 5 ale. o--9 fUiJ 0 ~ I 0 h..eJYl,1 LS • Sr~ cer vS > ~l/r)kt/) ;;>7 s-- D.ef /IA.cw 0-/-. Seu{ /,.u(s cY/:J{spo, &. q 3C/cJS:- RECEIVED f UG O 7 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL / Retaln this document for -] future Council rnee!ing ~ - I ~ ~ 9 2----- Dat'3, if ager.dr?.ed L..--•-·--···'------ ~UNCIL □ COD DIR ~ANEY g ~wi~IEF-· . ···•········-···--·--··-·~~:,~_lf:2! □ CLERK/ORIG □ POLICE C H F--- -·-··· ---··-·-·-•· .. -··-·-~ff' ~ D ~G M T TEAM g ~~~~I~ .... ·-···---· ---·· .. ····--····-··----/O . 'J '7 ... /JI~ ;O~_ .. L.:ig;-~; ~~~~~~-□-PEiiiR .. s o.m .... _._·----······--·-- -···---------· _ .. k ~ ~/q, ct111d :f' JJ)~ . ~-~~-·-········--··. · ..... ·-······ ···-··· ..... ft-:~_li_~-o/--~--1=- »-» ~ _./} · . · . -~·-·--··---·--·-;:::·----•··-·-··-·-·-·-·------- _. .. . . . rl .. -- . . . . ~ /tJ.~~ ... Cn(.~ er/~~ . . ;J /J. ·~·-~·~·····-········-···--······---·-········· -·- ··-·- -;_· .... ·-·· i~ .;au:_,.~.~ av.I). Ch(~~ --·----······---·-· .. --.-·•--··---····· . ... .... ·-·-·---·--··-----···-·-------·-----·---····· -· ..... _._ . . . .... .. . •··-·-·-· --- ·---------···------ -····--··-·- -------------- ·-··-····••-- -·-···--·--· ····----··· .. -·-····-·-·- -· .. ··----·-·-·----------- --'------------- ---·-·-··-·-••- .. ·•· ....... ······- ···----- .... ... ··---·· ·------------ ·--·-------------~-··· .. -· ... ---·-----·---· .. · ·--·--· ----·- ....... -- .. ····-· ....... ·-··-···-·------------------ --·········----- ---··· -···- -------------,--------- --- -·--- -- .. -··•-·· -· ----- -· . -----· ---J ~ ! .. j ~ ~ '\r'-l ..,, "'\ ~ Re,ali I th;:-: d~--dme1.t ,or future Council meeiing ?- J c>;'-q.J_ _ Dd·t•~ ;f ro.•,cr,rj1-;-ej -- --,.'-,,,,C'~.J , ... -· -----·- Mobilehome Community 3960 SOUTH HIGUERA • SAN LUI S OBISPO • CALI FORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805 /543-7113 August 5, 1997 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo This letter is to address the hysterical claims being made by a GSMOL committee in their effort to repeal the 10% increase in space rent allowed when a mobilehome sells. This committee has made claims that mobilehomes are impossible to sell and that poor widows are being forced to abandon their homes. Does the city verify the facts involved or is this committees word simply accepted as fact? Fact: 18 mobilehomes have been sold in Creekside in 1997 through the end of July. Three more are currently in escrow and we have offers pending on 2 more. In surveying the other parks in town, virtually all report banner sales years. Fact: Only 2 homeowners in Creekside have qualified for Section 8 housing assistance through the Housing Authority. Managers in other parks confirm few HUD recipients. Is the city doing its homework to verify the need for any change to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance? We have seen no evidence of it. The scariest thing happening in mobilehome parks in this city is the campaign of emotional terrorism being conducted by this GSMOL committee. They prey upon our most vulnerable senior citizens, telling them that if this war is not won, their homes could be in jeopardy. A recent paper circulated to our residents claimed that these current changes ''are a matter of survival for most of us". This is emotional terrorism perpetrated upon senior citizens for the sole purpose of seeking political victory by these GSMOL activists. It's time the City of San Luis Obispo stopped pandering to this element. □ COD DIA □ FIN DIA· D FIRE CHIEF □ PW D:R C· H . ~, .· [~ ;-, .•. ' .. 0 u.u L,.i □ Pl:RS DIR RECEIVED AU:, 0 7 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ; H e ta ln th is d o cu m e n t f~r · fu tu re C o u nd l m e e tln o <?--- J 9--C/7 ~ . · DatA if <> .,.,,,-·rF-,--· ...i .____.~"..;.._' 1 -~J:,""' , J .... ,V•=-- RECEIVED t.UG O 7 1997. SLO CITY COUNCIL San Lui» Obi.A po, CA AlliJI-UJt 5, 1997 UNCIL ~9~0 ~TORNEY D CLERK/ORIG , D MGMT TEAM □---- □ □ CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR D UTIL DIR □ PEAS DIA Reta;n thi; document f o. rd future Cour,cil meeting __ <C,-~_19:_f+ ,J Oat~, 1f 8Q6r.d,l.e-..1 ,__ ,..... ---· 7 o: HonolC,q._bJ..e ft)ay,o/(_ Settle and. [ounc.il {l)emhew., of- San D.J.iA Obi.Apo ht.om: Leola Rubottom Due to i.h.e necerd: pM.6affe of_ i.h.e y .S .11 .0 .L. oponaoned bi..,U 11B 591 in i.h.e cdcd:« leg,u,lai:.wc.e, Sec.:lfon 798 .86 of- i.h.e fr)obilelwme R.e.6.uiencv, Law //.G./2 been amended; and. we do nod: feel il i./2 j.w.,:tiJ.iP.-e.d. to Lahe. up i.h.e Lime of- i.h.e mm;o/(_ and. c.i..hj c.ounc.il iri nevi.eui, No. 5 of OU/( l(efffled /.o/(_ ~ in 5 /14. 04o ( B) of- i.h.e C l..i:J; of- San Lui» ObiApo Re.rd. Si.abli.a:ti.on OIUU.IUUzce whidi /(_ead/2__ "We ane cu,ki.tig, f-o/(_ Lenard:o on fe.Me/2 Lo have i.h.e /(ec.oUMe 0J.- i.h.e p/(_evCJi.!.i..nff Si.ate ;l)ob,ilejwme- ReAid.erl.C'f Lam', i» no 1-o~ nece/2.6CVC.V,• (h.e new amendment :to 798.86 Of- i.h.e Si.ate i1)ob.i.J..e.lwme Re/2.uienq; Lam al.1.oux, mobi.Eehome ouneno _to f!O to 6rnail ciaim» courd: and at i.h.e dL1C11.ei:.i..on of i.h.e courd: to be auanded /1,2, (J(X] f-o/(_ each. wLllfuJ.. vi..ol.a;lion of. manaqemerd., We w.i.i:Jub.a.w i.h.e /(_e.c;f'-e,c,:t No • 5 d.v.,or..i..&ed. above. 7 /2.i.,t, w.lll leave i.h.e f-oU/( ollig,i.nal /(_e.c;f'-e/2:t.6 io be conaidened, Thank !JOU fo1t !fOM :lune and. coMid.e/(af.i..on. ~~ Leal.a Rubottom ]960 South. H-Lf!UVUI., Space 21 San Lui» Obi.Apo, CA 93401 7 ele.pfwne.: RECEIVED AUG O 7 1997 SLO ClTY COUNCIL Helen Gautney 3960 s. Higuera #172 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo £) 0 .• ~ -P.-0--.-----B-ox---8-r(j{) q cro r,!!,J.-,1VI,, · San Luis Obispo, CA 93401· 8100 August 4, 1997 On August 19, 19~7 a small group from Creekside Mobilehome Community will be challenging the City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. They have sent out a letter entitled "Points to Prove the 10% Rent Increase Should Be Banished". We find this letter to be full of misinformation and most of their points are totally irrelevant to the subject. Creekside management has written a six page rebuttal to this, which I hope you will read. out of 215 units in Creekside, only 34 are under rent control. The rest of us have signed a lease which we feel is quite equitable to both management and homeowner. The group representing Creekside Homeowners do not represent the total Creekside Community. Their meetings are open to all, but only a very small number attend. We found their meetings to be unfairly hostile to Creekside management. They don't seem to have any real conception of what it takes to run a busi- ness like Creekside. They are constantly complaining about an assortment of things. We visited and researched all the mobilehome parks in the area before buying at Creekside two years ago. It is a beautiful, well managed park and very affordable for San Luis Obispo. It has many ammenities which are included in our ~ent. It is a shame the small number of complainers you will hear at your meeting can't relax and enjoy their park. The vast majority of us are too content to come to meetings so you will only hear from the few who seem to thrive on their discontent. There are always a few like that in every crowd. Please just remember they don't speak for all of the Creekside Homeowners. / Very truly yo'1,;,: fl. f~~Jn.A/ Helen (Mrs. ~lifford) ;-;;;Jey ~NCIL □ ;.d,,o lirAHORNEY D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □----- □ D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR □ PERS DIA RECEIVED t. r;,, o 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL Retain this document for future Council meeting 8'-/9-92 August 4, 1997 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo I recently purchased a mobilehome in Creekside Mobilehome Community. I was told prior to the purchase what the space rent would be and obviously I found that rent to be fair and reason- abl~ or I would not have purchased the home. The fact that a previous owner may have paid less is totally irrelevant. There seems to be a small but very vocal group in this park with a political agenda to pursue. Please do not count me as a follower of this group. I understand that the current rent control law was a negotiated compromise and it seems to have kept rents at a low level compared to other coastal areas of California. It seems to me that a small group of activists should not be dictating changes to what was a balanced compromise. ~~CIL o NJ-KO f( A·1 1ORNEY 0 CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □----- □ D CDD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIA DUTIL DIR □ PERS DIR RECEIVED !.\UG O 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ~NCIL □ ACAO ~ORNEY liirCLERK/ORIG □ M G M T TEAM □ . .i""".,.....--H--.,.-- C! CD!) DIR i::I FIN fll ::l D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR D PERS DIR MEETING q..q AGENDA ~ DATES -/ 2trEM#-52__ Toi Mayor Settle and City Council members: I am enclosing a clipping from the Western Mobilehome Association newsprint stating that they are going after cities with rent control ordinance since defeat of Prop. 199. We are not asking for the defeat of the mobilehome rent ordinance, just to fine tune it in places that need it. Under Section 544. 060, the Park owners are allowed 100% of C. P. I. to cover increases in common areas which includes utilities, government expenses, etc. In section E it states that space rents may be automat- ically adjusted, based on increases or decreases in common areas, utili t Le s , etc. The Park owners, under the ordinance 544.070 can file for a rent adjustment if 100% of C.P.I. isn't sufficient. Under section 555.060, Article C, where Park owners recieve rate Lnc r ea ae of 10%, when a mobilehome is sold, called vacancy control. I don't think the residents negotiating the ordinance in 1987 didn't believe that rents were going to increase so fast. My rent has increased from $195,00 in 1987, to $292.67 in 19970 The space rents vary in our Park from <jj292.67 to 4>353.76. It is getting very hard to sell mobilehomes today and only at a reduced price. When real estate prices are going up, rnobilehorne prices are going down. The Park owner has no expense involved on a sale of a mobilehome. They do nothing to that space whatsoever. I thank you for your time in reading this letter, also to take these views on the matter enclosed. The. Park manager is always saying "We can't discriminate against children or people moving into the Park." Park owners discriminate against people moving into the Park, also residents selling because Park owners are charging more space rent, but.giving nothing more in return. What is this but discrimination. R E C E IV E D AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL Ray· Niemesh 3960 S. Higuera# 17 , ~u)~ Post-Proposition 199: Now what? 0 ne of the things voters were saying when they voted . agatnsi Proposition 199 in March was that they wanted the rent control issue to be handled at the local level. WMA's track record with local in- itiatives has always been good. In fact, In many clues and counties where Proposition 199 lost by a wide margin, the same voters had previously turned down local resi- dent-sponsored rent control Innta- nves by similar margins. With that in mind, WMA's local government staff is going "back to the future" and refining the local inltlative process that has worked so well for the past 20 years .. · In looking over WMA's "Local Rent Control Initiative Campaigns" list, some interesting observations can be made. Following are various types of local initiatives that both park owners and residents have em- ployed over the years, with varying degrees of success. Campaigns to defeat rent control initiatives WMA staff has worked on many such campaigns over the years with a high degree or success - organtz- Ing local WMA members and others to defeat rent control initiatives that mobilchorne community resl- . dents, city councils or boards of su- pervlsors have been placed on +he ballot. Ddeating this type of initia- tive has been a great weapon ever since mobilehorne park rent con- -. trol first reared its ugly head. Repeater Park owners or an elected body by Dut:irl Eca»: place thb init1.1t1, .. e on the ballot to repeal an exnung rent control ordi- nance. Such an effort was success- fully accomplished in the City of Delano in 1994. Property rights initiative This type of initiative has been used in several cities and counties over the years with mixed results, If successful. the property rights in- itiative repeals the existing ordi- nance and prohibits the elected bod}' from passing rent control in the future. A vote of the people would be the only way another rent control ordi- nance could be passed. Such an ap- proach takes the rent control issue. away from local politicians and places it bcf ore the voters, where lhe industry has a better chance of winning. Successful examples of this attack on rent control occurred in the cities of Burlingame and Napa. Referendum WMA has also employed the ref- erenduri: over the years, with mixed results.A referendum is the process used when an elected body passes a rent control ordinance and the vot- ers are encouraged to overturn the elected officials' decision at the next available election. Releren- durns have been done in Para- mount, El Monte, Laguna Beach Vista and Carlsbad. San Luis Obispo model ' This model is, in effect, a terr control initiative that the park ow ers sponsor to replace a partlculanj onerous ordinance. Such an effor, was done successfully In the City o: San Luis Obispo, where a repeale would probably have been de feared. This type of rent control or dinancc looks a lot like a lease. The theory behind this apprcacl is simple: If the political environ ment prevents a total repeal of a1 · existing ordinance, at least it canb replaced with something much bet ter and the voters are not asked t abolish rent control.' • • • WMA's local government sta plans to refine all of the above ir ltiatives and tailor them to selecte cities and counties throughout tr, state. One type of initiative migt not work in one area of the stat but lends itself to successful appl cation in another. Polling and foci groups would need to be used I order- to determine if a campaign feasible and wliat kind it should b Using various local election tool tailored to a specific political em ronrncnt, is· a more surgical a preach to stopping or eradicath rent control. lt will take muc homework and patience to l"'!fii "1MA's local government staff is going "back to the future" and refining the local· initiative process that has worked so. well for the past 20 years. each approach to the point where the statewide rent control list is ac- tually shrinking each year, rather than growing. · WMA has more expertise and fire power to apply to defeating rent control at the local level than any other organization in the state. Its current goal is to not only defeat tent control initiatives as they crop up, but to repeal as many existing ones as possible. It will take time and significant preparation, but lt can and will be done. ■ David Evans is ~\/NfA 's regional rep- resentative for the Central Califomi,i . Area. He can be reached at 901 Eagle Lane, Frazier Pcirk, CA 93225; 805/ 245-3719. . June 1996 • WMA Reporter 35 .. B"'C OJ)NCIL . tX:'AO D AS,J,.O B"AJjO RNEY lld"t LERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □ ,, □ COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF D REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR OUNCIL ~ D ACAO ~RN[.:Y 0"tL ERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □~--H--x-:- D COD DIR O FIN DIR O FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR O POLICE CHF □ REC DIR O UTIL DIR O PERS DIR MEETING 9 97 AGENDA ~- DATE '?-/ - ITEM# .. 3960 S~ Higuera St. Sp. 67 San Luis Obis00, Ca. 93401 Hon o r a b Le City Mayor i?.;. Council {,Iembers: I 1,i sh to e!,1D1' a s i z e the reasons for Ute "10% rent .i nc r e a s e on r e s a Le " as is tLe City He11t Stabilization Ordinance. deleting allowed in 1. The sale of a robile home does not involve any expense or .l a bo r by the park own e r , The t r a n s a c t i.em is bet we e n tl.e r.ome cwn e r and the buyer •. Thus, there is no v oI i d r e a s o n for the p a r k o wn e r to raise the re n. t , on the s p a c r:: t l: e mo b i 1 e horn e ".s i t s " on • 2. Th e p a r k own e r is not being "c u t out" of keeping pace w.i th .i nfLn t i on . Annual C.i:.I. ad j u s t.me n t is f ac t o r ec in rental ;_,.gree,.:ents, thus a Ll.ovri rig annual i·,crea~.es_ i:1 rent. Thus permitting what could be re- f er re c1 to 2 ~" "cl o ib L e dipping 11• 3. The e n su i nj; s c e n o r i o s have be c or..e all too f r e q ue n t , t re 11.1.cter rent ine1aities (Hi% more t h an the rie i g hbo r s ) kills tr e Lones 1s s a l e , 'I'ho ug h the hone rna y no Lo ng e r be occupied, t+ e ovm e r 1111.•st continue to pay s p ac e rent .. So the owue r ends t,,:i selling to t he ;,ar1l: own e r at a 0reatJ.y r e o i.c e d p r i c e or just by wa Lk i rig away f r oru it. i-:ot many c;:-,: afford this. Of t he sc pe op Le , raa n y are w.i dows on very li'.·,ited .i nc orae , I oppose the 11.10% rental increase on resale" aand hope yon w.i Ll, vote at tLc Aug. 19ti: Council meeting to delete it f ror» the rent o r d in anc e , rr,, , r o anx concern. you for ;our attention and hored for RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA £•. · DATE $-l9-q2 ITEM#_ ~ -~--- August 8, 1997 , . ::.:c~,,_~: ,i;:1 -U D, 111 !,;i! D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIA D POLICE CHF D REC DIA DUTIL DIR D PEAS DIR Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Reference: Chapter 5.44 of the Municipal Code Gentlemen: This letter addresses a component of the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Specifically Section 5.44.060, Paragraph C., permitting an in- crease of up to 10 percent in space rent upon change of ownership. This pro- vision is arbitrary and is not supported by logic or economic reality. Further reference is made to the sentence which permits an increase in space rent resulting from a vacating of the space. The ordinance states that such increase shall be based upon "fair market value in the community". No pro- vision is made for a mechanism which identifies "fair market value". Paragraph C., as delineated in the ordinance, needs to be eliminated or re- placed by a provision which permits adjustment in space rents, both upward and downward, based upon a valid economic index. Only such a provision for adjusting space rents would be equitable to both mobilehome park tenants and park owners. Respectfully yours, ~J,~ Louis J. Shuster 1032 Murl Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL O UN CIL iJ-,e')(o D ACAO ~10RNEY '2:(G LERK/O R IG D MG M T TEAM 0 -,,'j '--Lo ~~ D CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIR E C H IEF D PW DIR D POLI C E CHF D REC DIR D U TIL DIR D PER S DIR MEETING AGENDA\ ~ DATE 'q-/9-97 ITEM#~ August 8, 1997 City Council Members 990Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear City Council Members: We respectfully request that you delete the 10% increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, R ECEIVED AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL □ CD D DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIR E CH IEF □ PW DIR □ PO LI C E CH F □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PER S DIR MEETING AGEND'"- DATE $--19-9ZITEM #: a - August 8, 1997 City Council Members 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear City Council Members: We respectfully request that you delete the 10% increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, (?~,~ RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ~IL ~NEY D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM D ...,,.,_,__,___ D GDD Dli=l □ FIN DiR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR IYlt t ll N u AlitNUA - ~ DATE z-Jlf-97 ITEM# o . . □ COD DIR D FIN DIR . D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL.DIR D PERS DIR -)/r Lz.:--v/4.L Jr,;_,a ~~· -" -- "/71AJuV11 4f , /4 d~ ,t,. & ,,,, d2l./ . .._,,... :.\ , .. ·' ----------------------- RE ~g N C IL □ !;,£'AO R"'MTORNEY ~-ERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM ~- □ COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR MEETING /a 9~GENDA DATE ~- 1- _ TEM # - <7_ August 8, 1997 - Mayor Allen Settle 990 Pa/rn San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 I Dear Mayor: - ~ ---- ~ JO DIR .: DIR ~ .IE CHIEF l ,V DIR 0 CLEF; I OL/CE CHF 0MGM7 C REC DIR o ___ ,.J UT/L DIR 0~ 0 PERS DIR -- We respectfuJJy request that you delete the 10¾ increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, . ~?sO 1;r; /·Q/---19-w ~ ''{7-e. (J~vrv (' (_, AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CJTy COUNCIL Mrs Jean Page 180<fThelrna Dr Sau Luis Obispo, CA " 93405--6238 IVltfflNG AGENDA - C- OATE z-19-qry ITEM# d . 1817 Gath3 Dive Sal tus Ob !:p], 93405 August 4, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Dear Mayor Settle, I am v...riting regarding a matter that will be heard before City Council on August 19. It concerns the rent increase of 10%, 'Mlich is allowable under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance upon the sale of a mobile home. My neighbors and I at the Laguna Lakes Mobile Home Estates ask your help in prohibiting the oontinuation of this rent increase. ~NCIL =ANEY Gi-'tLERK/ORIG g M~TEAM ~ □ COD DIR 0 FIN DIR 0 FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR In our park, for example, there is over a $165 difference between the highest and lowest rent dlarged. The rent bears no relationship to the age or size or oondition of the mobile home. It is directly related to the number of times a given unit has been resold. Residents in our park receive no extra services for a higher rent - it is simply an artificial number, caused by a 10% increase in rent ead7 and every time a unit is sold. The park owner has added no value to the transaction nor do the park owners' expenses rise as a result of a resale. I believe a number of arguments can be made as to vVhy such an artificial bump is unfair to mobile home owners: 1. The 10% increase in resale has forced a sharp decline in the prices for which mobile home owners are able to sell their property. The first question a prospective buyer asks is "What is the rent?" They are often discouraged by the answer, especially when they learn it is 10% over the current rent, for no discernible reason. 2. The park owner is not required to report to the City any 10% increases on a resale. This lack of accountability means park owners are not subject to any audit or double check to ensure raises are within Ordinance limits. 3. Please remember that many mobile home residents are elderly and on fixed incomes. Any unwarranted rent increases such as the 10% resale bump can result in a significant reduction in their standard of living. And that is less money they have available to fix and maintain their mobile home residences. 4. The park owner has not in any way "earned" such an increase. No extra services are provided nor expenses incurred by the park owner as the result of a unit resale.This provision of the Ordinance, in my opinion, gives the park owne~rs~t:.::oo~-------i much economic power over the mobile home owners. RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL - MEETING AGENDA :f" DATE ~-19-1/? ITEM#--- D ear City C oun cil, W e have been residents of C reekside M obile Home Park for the last 25 years and have enjoyed the luxury of reasonable rent in the past years. The residents of C reekside are being represented by an exclusive organization that stated in an article, "residents of this park have abandoned their homes, because of the cost of rent". We have never seen this happen in the years that we have lived here. These people who are telling you they "represent us", are "full of hot air". They represent what ever they deem important to them. I personally attended a city council m~eting on the approval of Food 4 Less Market and stated to you that "Barry Kaufinan ctio"hot.reprensent me or my neighbors". We were never asked our opinion or input. This man is on a "Solo Mission to please him self'. I have been verbally harassed by Mr. Kaufinan, on several occasions for stating my opinion. I personally can handle this but a lot of our residents are senior citizens who can not and will not stand up for themselves. It's to bad that people like Mr. Kaufinan cannot· let us live in our own home in peace. We were not informed that this topic, until it was already on your agenda. IfMr. Kaufinan was a representative of Creekside Mobile Home Park, one would think the residents would have known of this issue? Cordially, Barbara Riekki Daryl Riekki ~NCIL· ~~gRNEY ~E,RK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM D ~--E-,-,~-✓-- □ COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF □ REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PER S DIR thank you ~t€kk( · 1 S1bo ~ llfv1<2,e'A- #a6 _5,.4v l-.n:5 tJ.dl6jJO__,, ~-/}-1~tJ/ RECEIVED ;!tU~1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL M E E TI N G AGENDA .c::: DATE $--f?-j7 ITEM#_·~-- Mayor Allen Settle and City Ouuncil Members 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 I moved into Laguna Mobile Home Park November 1996. My rent went up from the previous owner (I assume it was 10%). On January 1, 1997, two months lat~r, it went up another 10%. January 1, 1998 I will be faced with another 10%. Where will this all end? I understand most everyone here is on a fixed income. Rents paid to Park Own ers leave the area - in this case Florida. Park renters, mostly seniors, buy groceries, clothes, gas and other services in San Luis Obispo. Once we buy into a Mobile Home Park, we cannot move, which after several rent increases makes our home unsaleable. We do not own the land we are sitting on, so are at the mercy of our landlord. Most of us came from nice houses and now are on fixed incomes, which is a reduction in our standard of living. Also my taxes on a very common mobile home are as much as on my nice house down south. Nine Justices of the Supreme Court unanimously agreed rent control for mobile home owners is not only legal but a necissity. The SupBeme Court decision allows City Councils to change the ordinance without risk of lawsuit. I'm asking you, Mayor Settle, and City Council Members, to grant us rent control, and protect us from unfair rent increases, and other charges. ~UNCIL ~gRNEY iil"tLERK/ORIG D MG M T TEAM □ c' ~ □ CDD DIA □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR \_--:1) Sinperely, ri ( /1() /) jl 1~:1 tVr-j/,,~ /:, 21/l,Jlu~fx__rv M<=!;,;f jorie L. Van Tuyl,e 629 Gathe Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 REC EIVED AUG 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL / □ COD DIR ~~CIL . □ FIN DIR •·· □ FIRE,CHIEF ··. □ PW DIR ' ·. .,,··~r ANEY CHF LERK/.ORIG. . D POLICE M □ REC DIR g MGCMTTEA .. ·. □ utu DIR r---tl ~R=-Ec;::;-;E::-;-: L .:o flY"'. . ·. □ PERS DIF U;~iiiiiiiiiiii~.iiii.i--r-AUG 1 4 1997 SLO CITY C O U N C IL /Vi tti INli AlitNUA DATE '1 ·Jf/.;91 ITEM# ½ 13,, 1c;97 ~ '-7-yvy ~ ='+ = ~ fl ,t.,c,/h /$-(A µ .,/,/~ u~· J..-,u., ta _ /--u..-1A.-e--r---( /'7 ~~ p1 r :" / cl / o ~ ~ ,,0->-- ~ r /)~ ~· D~ ~ .C~ ,,,;:;-<.A--,r .&~ ~ ;~. /4 ~.~ ~ ✓;- ?~.-,~ ~1~~ ,,c, ~. ~n-u,,__,,.. /4~-c,0v ;(_,,½'-' _:U,, ~"--" .~+Cc~ /4o ~ CL-,,,,__,J ~,,f._ #u ~ u-c,-,,,_.,_,_ 7'½ l~ 41~ ;;u, l~ ~ ,t;;A , .~ h ,-,Lu,c,<-= ~' ,l~--'- /u v_;-f...,,.,"u---, --/_,,__ ~~ tr-,.,, •z_~ /J--cJ_z. I -~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ o=rt .cc . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )1~ ~ j~c,, ?-.~~~ /.06~ ~·;~ ~--x~~~- c.,,L 7' 3 "f O :,- '· ·, Aug. 13, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm St. SLO, CA 93405 Dear Mayor Settle, III" ,GOU NC IL U~AO rr;(}{CAO tif,A-TTORNEY liJ" CLERK/ORIG ~ ~MT TEAM ti □ CDD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR I am writing regarding a matter that will be heard before City Council on Aug. 19. It concerns the rent increase of 10%, which is allowable under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance upon the sale of a mobile home. My neighbors and I at the Laguna Lake Mobile Home Estates ask your help in PROHIBITING the continuation of this rent increase. ~~ Ruth A Starr 1621 Gathe Dr. SLO, CA 93405 RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING a 1A AGENDA C, DATE g,f r,1 ITEM ff __ d_ AUGUST 1 4 , 199 7 MAYOR ALLEN SETTLE CITY COUNCIL 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93401 RE: CITY RENT ORDINANCE AUTOMATIC 10% INCREASE ON RESALE OF MOBILE HOMES DEAR MAYOR SETTLE: 1B' ,C OUNCIL ~J;AO 0,ACAO e',A TT ORNEY tr CLER K/ORIG g ,MT TEAM [a' D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLI CE CHF D REC DIR D UTI L DIR D PERS DIR WE A~E RETIREES IN OUR 80's WHO ARE LIVING ON A fIXEU INCOME IN A MOBILE HOME PARK~ WE ARE ASKING THAT THE COUNCIL REMOVE FROM THE CITY RENT ORDINANCE THE AUTOMATIC 10% RENT INCREASE TO THE NEW OWNER ON PURCHASE OF A ~tOBILE HOME.. IF THIS ORDINANCE CON- TINUES IT WILL MAKE THE SALE OF MOBILE HOMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE AND NECESSARY TO SELL AT A GREAT LOSS TO THE PRESENT OWNERS. THANK YOU. PH : 5 4 4 - 6 8 1 7 SINCERELY %,~ /. /.? ~, / t~~~@t) /.#0/ C>-'.~~¥~ V A15GHN AND B~Y FI SHER -/1, r, rf-'Mrs. Betty Fisher \ " 1833 Gathe Dr. i-' San Luis Obispo, CA 93405) MEETING AGENDA t::' DATE i--19-q11TEM #_r;t_ Aug 14, 1997 Mayor A. K. Settle San Luis Obispo City Council Dear City Officials: I'm writing to express disapproval of the City Ordinance that makes it possible for mobile park owners to raise the rent automatically on a home that is sold. This is just a legal excuse for raising the'rent. In fact--i t is the s t r-aw that breaks the camel's back. Higher rent? No sale of the home. Sincerely, Virginia Fritcher 1608 Garnette Dr San Luis Obispo, Ca 93405 Laguna Lake Mobile Park, 1801 ~ 7~~&,,_ Prefumo Canyon Rd,SLO UNCIL ~~o ~TORNE¥ ti1 CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □I ti □ COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL M E E TI NG . AGENDA r" DATE £11_cl'] ITEM#_ff....__··_ August 8, 1997 Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Reference: Chapter 5.44 of the Municipal Code Gentlemen: 11a' fiOUNCIL ri'.,CAO ef,,ACAO ff/ATTORNEY e1 CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM ol ti D COD DIR □ FIN DIA □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIA □ UTIL DIA □ PERS DIR This letter addresses a component of the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Specifically Section 5.44.060, Paragraph C., permitting an in- crease of up to 10 percent in space rent upon change of ownership. This pro- vision is arbitrary and is not supported by logic or economic reality. Further reference is made to the sentence which permits an increase in space rent resulting from a vacating of the space. The ordinance states that such increase shall be based upon "fair market value in the community". No pro- vision is made for a mechanism which identifies "fair market value". Paragraph C., as delineated in the ordinance, needs to be eliminated or re- placed by a provision which permits adjustment in space rents, both upward and downward, based upon a valid economic index. Only such a provision for adjusting space rents would be equitable to both mobilehome park tenants and park owners. Respectfully yours, Louis J. Shuster 1032 Murl Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 R E C E IVE D AUG 1 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING . · AGENDA .r:-' DATE <l--lCJ -C/7 ITEM #-cL---- 8-15-97 Dear Honorable Mayor Settle and City Council Members: My name is Barry ~~aufman and I've been living at 3960 South Higuera Street since 1982. Going back to March of 1996, I want to thank the City Council for adopting a resolution opposing proposition 199, which not only helped our effort but made mobilehome owners proud to live in San Luis Obispo. I know now how precious our existing ordinance is. A good ordinance is necessary, not only to protect the major investment San Luis Obispo residents have in their mobilehomes, but I feel it leads to better leases as well. This is the time to make the ordinance all it can be. We have seen how amazingly recession proof mobilehome parks are through the nineties, while a nunber of mobilehome owners tried for years to sell homes worth less than the loan balance. For a potential mobilehome buyer, if their mortgage plus space rent exceed a certain formula, a bank loan may be denied hurting both the mobilehome seller and the buyer. That's one reason rent increases allowed by the ordinance are critical. Even with a decent electronics job I was required to pay a 35% down payment or I didn't qualify for the loan. I appreciate the privilege it is to live in San Luis Obispo and accept the unique economy of a small market, such as lower wages compared to metropolitan areas. I don't mind working two·jobs just to make ends meet with mortgage, rent and maintenance expenses. However, comparisons to high apartment rents near campus are invalid since they are driven by a student population with high turnover rates, large amounts of wear and tear, lower rents in the sunnier plus other economic factors. We know now that it costs between $90 to $125 per month per space,:< to operate a mobilehome park and charging more than a park owner needs for a fair return hurts the mobilehome owners who are co-proprietors in this equation. Speaking for the mature mobilehome owners, unjustifiably high rent increases are like eviction notices to those who have lost both their spouses and spouse's pension at the same time. My goal is to make their final years as comfortable and worry free as possible. I've personally spent thousands of dollars improving the looks of my mobilehome, by having siding installed, and I'm proud to live in an award winning mob1lehome park. I also wish the best to investors who do business in San Luis Obispo. Yes, they are in business, but I'm here to remind them they are in the business of affordable housing. Pardon the analogy, but ever since mobile homes started to wear skirting, the temptation for exploitation began! for discussion on the proposed amendments. □ COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR □ PERS DIR Sincerely, ~F~-- San Luis Obispo mobilehome owner ( ,:, Maintenance fees are a quote from a September 10th, 1996 lecture by ~(en Turek, a partner in the law firm of Endeman, Lincoln, Turek and Heater (619) 544-0123. He is involved with converting mobilehome parks to resident owned parks statewide and knows the numbers. REC EIVED titrn 1 R 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA :' DATE f?-19-f/7 ITEM #_Q: __ Efil@@fill@· 3860 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 543-9439 August 14, 1997 / IIJ".C0 t1NCIL =· =Ji~Y liJ-'CL ERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □------ 0--:::: L .Y fl__,,, □ COD DIA □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR To The Honorable Mayor and City Council Of San Luis Obispo , As Property managers of Silver City Mobile Lodge for the past 13 years, we enclose the following information and facts to let you know the the mobilehome rent stabilization ordinance, that was approved in 1988, has been working very well for our Mobilehome Park. When we interview prospective mobilehome buyers, we spend a great deal of time explaining the current mobilehome rent stabilization ordinance (MRSO). From January 1996 to present date, 36 mobilehomes have been sold in our Mobilehome Park. At no time during these transactions, has a sale been turned down when the 10% increase was applicable. We have never received a formal or informal complaint regarding the current San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance. An immense amount of time and effort was spent by Park Owners, as well as many of the Mobilehome Residents, to establish a workable mobilehome ordinance. It would be incomprehensible to amend the current MRSO for a small group of activists. The Owners and Management of Silver City Mobile Lodge look forward to the continuation of the current MRSO. Your~uly, ~ ~ ~ ~ J:F-3---;;- RoZ.~n~ . Property Managers ,, '• RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL / lZf ,QOUNCIL uT,.CAO P!' b,C AO IIY~fORNEY UY CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □ . , n llJ". /VI )J'. / City Council Member, I am writing to you, as I will be out of town during the Aug. 19th meeting. The 10% rent increase on the resale of mobile homes should NOT be eliminated. It was passed by the voters in 1988, and the will of the people needs to be honored. D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR I Please know that Leola Rubottom, Barry Kaufman, Bob Souther, Betty Henson and Ray Niemesh DO NOT represent a majority of owners in Creekside Mobilehome Community, even though they would have you believe otherw ise. They represent a handful! of troublemakers who were either too stubborn or too foolish to sign a lease and now find themselves actually paying a slighty higher rent because of their decision. The several hundred voters of this Park will be closely following your vote on this important matter. The Rent Control Ordinance has been working well for nine years. DO NOT mess with it ! Thank you for your consideration in this. Jon Lomax Creekside #37 RECEIVED MJG 1 3 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL M E E T IN G DATE <J-/~-11 AGENDA :: IT EM #.-L __ August 11, 1997 Rose DuBois 3960 S. Higuera Sp#l 14 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I have been a resident at Creekside Mobilehome Community for twenty five years. During this time I have never felt such turmoil that the small political group has caused in our park. This group wants to remove the ten percent increase on resale, and I have no affiliation with this group. Please note that these few are alone in their desire to change the rent control. I have • contentedly lived in this park for twenty five years, and their recent disruption angers me. You as City Council Members can put the peace back into our park by rejecting their request for changes in the rent control. Thank You. Sincerely, ·~~ D,,,)~ ~OUNCIL ~~o effa fO RITT:Y tf CLER K/O RIG □ MGM T TEAM 0 , I □ CDD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR D PO LI CE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR Rose DuBois Sp. 114, Creekside Mobilehome Community REC EIVED AUG 1 8 199? SLO CITY COUN1.}f - ~ ... ,._ .... Ji M EE TI N G D ATE Z-f9-~7 AGENDA ) ITEM# _ August 12, 1997 Dear Mayor Settle, This letter is in regards to the requested changes to the ten percent resale increase in the rent ordinance. We voted for the ordinance in 1988, and we worked with the management of Creekside to establish the lease with the ten percent resale increase included. We want the ordinance to stay as it was voted for in 1988. If any changes are to be made to this ordinance, they should be done so by majority vote of the public. We have lived at Creekside Mobilehome Park for over ten years. We have been very happy with the lifestyle we have here at Creekside, and we do not want it to change. The minority that is coming to the City Council with these requests, do not represent our views. We believe that the ten points brought to the Council, in order to persuade the Council to change the ordinance, are based on emotions and not facts. We know many people who have purchased mobilehomes with the ordinance in place. Most of these people live on fixed incomes. Please do not.let the emotions of the minority change what the majority voted for in 1988. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, ?,rtA ~u-;;;;;- {:X~ /:~__,_,,,,./,, Raymond P. Burton Creekside Residents COUNCIL C!:YCAO [i';Y.(CAO Ml IORNEY. [B""cLERK/ORIG □ t·.iGMT TE 1 □ ,,,_._.__,.+r-...-- D CDD DIR D FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLI C E CHF □ REC DiR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR RECEIVED AUG 1 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL M EETIN_G . t't q7 AGENDA - ~ DATE '6-h..,, ITEM #__d__ August, 1997 To Honorable Mayor Settle and All members- of San Luis Obispo City Council An item to note is that there are TWO provisions in the City Rent Stabilization Ordinance which allow a park owner to ask for a rent adjustment. The one we ask you to delete is 544.090. This item is exceedingly complicated, and subject to quite different interpretations. In fact, it is so complicated that mobile home owners must hire two experts (an appraiser and a lawyer) in order to reply to the park owners' UNCHALLENGED statements. No proof is required from the park owner.in this part of the Ordinance. This creates a financial burden which mobilehome owners just can't afford. We ask you to delete .90 and leave .70 to fairly handle all requests for rent changes. We sincerely thank you for your time and effort required to evaluate our requests. Betty Henson, Associate Manager, Region 8 GSMOL 18 60 Thelm a D r/;;s ~93405 113"<,;0UNCIL 1:Ji:AO Q'A CAO 12rA9 r"OR EY G"C LERK/ORIG D !.'iGMT TEAii! D. ~,, v;{'_i.1///./ D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR D UTIL DIR D PERS DIR ll RECEIVED AUG f 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL A ugust 8, 1997 M ayor A llen Sett le 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 l 1!:r'Q,OUNCIL B"tAO C;r';(cAO !Zl-11)..-1 OJiNEY rz;v(;LERK/ORIG D MGMT TE □ ( IZJ-::: □ COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR D ear Mayor: We respectfully request that you delete the 10% increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, RECEIVED AUG 1 9 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL . .:.;••••., MOBILE HOME PARK VACANCY CONTROL 428 G) 6/16/92 directed staff to report back oc~C~'i:,0 Mobile Home Park Vacancy ~~\rol MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ® 9/15/92 428 received report regarding amendments and directed staff to solicit additional input from the public and document findings for implementing vacancy decontrol. Further, MICROflCHEO. to identify impacts of continuing the providions for people under lease and not subject to vacancy decontrol. MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION 428 0 10/20/92 receive and file information from tenants representatives and owners. 11/1 5 /9 4 - st a f f d i r e cte d to am end Sec . E to in - cl u d e "d ecreas e s" aft er inc r ea s e s ; a d d "e x clu d ing any ca p ita l im p r o v em e- n t s or o n g oin g ma in ten an ce "; and , am en d "n o le s s tha n 90 day s pr io r ... " ( 4 2 8) 12 /6 /94 - no a c t i on ta k e n on pub lic he arin g . (428 S e n io r L e g a l Services Project San Luis Obispo Legal Alternatives Corporation August 19, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle Members of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo · 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Mobile home ordinance re: vacancy control Dear Mayor Settle and members of the City Council: tiYCJ)Y NC IL ~o ~ANEY [!K;L ERK/ORIG D MGM T TEAM D , D COD DIA D FIN DIA . D FIR E CHIEF D PW DIR D POLI C E CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR On behalf of the senior clients of the Senior Legal Services Project who live in mobile home parks in San Luis Obispo, we offer the following information which you may find useful in considering the above ordinance on your agenda. If we understand the measure correctly, an amendment to this ordinance would restrict the rights of mobile home park owners to automatically increase the space rent in their parks by 10% whenever a coach within the park changes ownership. Many of these elderly mobile home park residents feel they are being held captive in their homes in part by the current language. Those who purchased coaches within the past several years are already paying much higher rents than resident of parks who have been there longer, in part because of the 10% rent increase which took effect when they purchased. As their circumstances change ( e.g., a spouse dies or becomes incapacitated, · medical reasons, loss of income, etc.) and they need to sell their coach, they find it very difficult if not impossible to find a buyer willing to absorb the 10% increase in addition to the already high space rental. · Our clients have expressed fears that this ordinance inhibits their ability to find a buyer. They cannot afford to move the coach out of the park, raising the specter of their having to abandon their equity and their residence if they have to move away. In addition, some park owners are requiring the prospective buyer to sign a lease for longer than 5 years. That space is then removed altogether from the existing rent control laws, permitting not only the initial rent increase of 10%, but also removing all limits on what the park owner can continue to charge as rent. This makes it harder to find a buyer. PO Box 14642 San Luis Obispo California 934 06 (805) 543-5140 llONnoo xuo 07S L6m 6 l snv 03/\1303t:J M a y o r S e tt le a n d C ity C o u n c il Au gu st 19 , 19 9 7 P a g e 2 M o b ile h o m e p a rk re n ts u s e d to in cl u d e u tilit ie s . H o w e v e r, m a n y p a rk o wn e rs h a v e in s ta ll e d u tility m e te rs a t e a c h sp a c e a n d a re p a ssin g o n th e c o st o f u tilitie s in a d d itio n to th e in c r e a s e d sp a c e re n t. O n e p a rk in O c e a n o h a s c a lc u la te d hi s co u n ty p ro p e rty tax e s a n d is a d d in g th a t c o st to e a c h m o n th 's b ill in g a s w e ll . W e h o p e y o u w ill c o n sid e r th e p lig h t o f o u r se ni o r p o p u latio n in d e te rmi n in g h o w to r e so lv e th e v a c a n c y c o n tro l o r d in a n c e p ro b le m . O ur c ity 's se n io r p o p u latio n is g ro w in g a s it is e v e ryw h e r e . T h e s e p e o p le liv e o n a fi x e d in c o m e , w h ic h d o e s n o t ri se a s fa st a s th e c o sts th e y a re e x p e c te d to b e a r. T h a nk y o u fo r y o u r c o n sid e ra tio n . V e ry tru ly y o u rs , ~hJ ANGIE KING Project Director San Liii» ObiA_p_o, [tl llupud. 18, 1997 D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR D UTIL DIR D PERS DIR MEETING/& 07 AGENDA < DATE c;~ 7--, ITEM# 0 . 7 o: frla!jOIC. Au.en Setile and [-U:Jj [owicil of- .Jan Lui» Ob,u,po Fir.om: Leala Ru.boil.om Fie.om :i:h.e. b~ :i:h.e. irJobilR.h.ome Ren:t St.abLli...yai.o n OIC.CU.J1an.C£. uxis f-o1C. :i:h.e. p1C.otecti..on o/ mobi1e.lwrne. owne.Jt/2 a.tpi..nt,1- exce.a -0i.ve IT.e.J7L6, 7/2.e San f.u.i..c, Ob,u,po OM.i..na.nce no lorz.c;;ex does t/2.,u,. 'Reni-6 ane exce.M i.ve and cordiinue to we. 7h.elC.e ane: pard:o of- t.h..e 'Rent St.abLli..yz;uon 0NU...'Ul.11c.e hn 'Cd. i.o undesudand. and in. mom; p.!..ac.e.6 -0u.bj.,eci :to m,u,.i...ni:.e,;rp ;ud.,a;ti.o n. /~0-0:t nes.ideni» i.n mobi.Lehome panh» ane »enio n» and (..am.ili e,1 on f-i-.xed incomes, When nerd» ane too h.u;Ji, dhe. on.u; <Ll.:te.Nza:ti. ve ,u, to -0ell and tli~ don 1 :t ~ -0ell ~ auxu;. When tlie mobi.Lehome -0il-6 on i.h.e. panh. ounen: 1 .6 Land , :i:h.e. neaiderd: muod: pav, :i:h.e. nerd: even ~ i.t ,u, unoccupied: J/ the. home doeon. 1 :t -0ell ~, tli~ mucd: u.xzlh. ai.tXllf and let i.h.e. panh. ounen: zahe. i.h.e. mobileh.ome 01t .6ell i.t a± a v~ low p1W::.2. i.n o/UUVr. j.olC. i.t to ,1ell, We CVt e ~ (-.olC. (-.owe. dlfl/1fje-6 i.Ji i:h.e olCdi..nan.ce thcd. wot.d.d. VIU..JUJ il.. ba~ i:.o be.i..nJ; an .i.Jv.,huun erd of- p1to:tecti..on f-o1t i:.h..e mobilelwm e <JWr/.e/lA • A-0 i.t ,u, wu.±t.e.n ,ww, i.t-6 pwipo,1e and llM.i:. i.t doe,1 ,u, ~ tlie paM. ou.neJC. a p1C.of-i.i.. c~ needed.: 1 • Uele:te 5, 44 , OSO ( () • Ai. tlie p1te-6 en:f. :liJ::_e-, paM. ol.Ul.vt.6 can. /Ca.U,e i.h.e lC.eni 1 (f;~ if- a i.eriat d de.~ to ~ell fu home. //2..u, ~ a p~ everi bej.ol(e a i.enan:t:. ~ moved. i.n. //2..u, ,u, j,uo:t an exvr.a duvr.c;;e- wi.:f.h.o u:t j».,oi:.ifJ..ca-:lw n. Jn i.h.e. U.S .. Su.plC.eme [owc.:t decu,i.on, Yee. v-0 {_,ocoru:Li..do 9 judc;et, voted 9-0 tlia± vaCOflC.lj cvni_/(oL uxu, not a :t.aki.ng, of- pa;c/2. OIU1£/t .1.6 p1tope/lhj . 2. Delete mo-1i. of- 5. 44 .OSO ( [). 7 h.e. .6eci:.i.o n to be d..e1.ei.ed. ,u, h.aJtd to I./.IUWl/2t.and. and ambli?ol..U) • J:t ,u, al-6 0 2,ubjeci i.o m,u,.i...rd..e.llf.1C.e:ta±i.o n. A 1..aff peMon ,u, a± a lo,0,0 to un.deMi.and i.t. :Jn ih..e. oMin.an c.e. no w :f:h.eM. CVt e i:mo .6ec.ii.o M de.voted. io Ifill/A :i:h.e. pa.AA oUYUVt. can 1tec.e.i.ve an adj,u6imen:i.. Onl.J;. one ,u, needed. 7 h.e. ~ ou:nvr. can 1C.ecei.ve an adjr.u,tmen:f. i.n 1ten:f. u.nd.el( tlie ~ o!- 5. 44,070 ''Appli.- ca±i.o n f-01t nent lldJ-uo!:men:f.-Fee-{on:teni-6. ". Ji. ~- ofl- "A pcvch. owne,c. can. 1te- cei.ve w.-z. ~ {-o1t each. 2,pace afJec.i.2.d and tlie 1tea-0on j.o1t tlie adjiu,imen:i.. 5. 44 ,{X)O ( {) a-0 i.t IC.eadt, no w ih.e paM Ol/XUVC. doe.-6 not h.ave to p1C.Ove h.e. n.e.edo :i:h.e. Jten:f. i.nclteaoe • -1- RECEIVED AU17 1 R 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL He1t.e ~ ih.e pcvck. own.eA. can Jr.R..C.ei..ve an. adj.wd:meni:. un.deJt. 5.44.(]10. 4. J.o .oi.mphj a i:ljpi..ng- connecxio ri <j, a It.~. 5.44.0J0 (F) Ls inconneci: and .oh.oul.d. <JO to paJd. ( f) . 'f)a.Jd ( f') ~ to condominium pMp c:u, -oelling Led» and. lwl.U)-0if . He1t.e ih.elt.e .w a mollhJa<J-0 1t.-mo !WjO-rpe llR.laiio ndu..p. 5. 44 .040 i» in volv ed uili:.h. Iandtond-denani: Jr.e!.cdl..on-ohi.p.o. 5. We ha ve w.i.i:1u:br.a.w OWt. ~t. /-o 1t. chanqe iri 5 .44 .oo ( B). Si.nee ih.e ~ of- AB 59( · and. il ha-a been made a pcvd. o/ the Stat.e fl)obileh.ome. Y<e.oid.enc.Jj Law a-a 798 .86, il C O V eM ih.e came th.int; we uen e. M ~ /-o1to On beha.1/- of- the mobi.1.eh.ome. xenard:s, J uxird: to Eahe: :th.i..o oppo~ to zhanl: ~ou. f-o1t ~owe. conaidenaxi.on. and. ~ ~u can do to expedid:e tfl.e6e chan qeo wLll be ~ appneciaied ; Si.JLceA.e4J-, .-·'J (/ ;J ~--~L /~'.'~~ <..~>µ: --< .--C~ f.- -f.,,l / Leo.I.a Rubottom 3960 South. Hi.t;puvra_, Spa ce 21 San Lui» Ob.wpo, CA 9 ]401 Te.Lep 6159 -2- July 29, 1997 Hetain thls document for tuture Counc:li rnee!ing </-/ C)-97 DatA ;~ ----,~r:a'(-;o.-! ..._ -..:..• _11 _"b~, ..... v +J -~- Mr. and Mrs. Lefto · 3960 S. Higuera Sp #49 , San Luis Obispo CA 93401 - ' Mayor Allen Settle and City Council Members: My husband and I own a mobilehome in Creekside Mobilehome Park. We were very upset when we received a letter from our GSMOL/CHA committee members urging us to write a letter (attached) to you complaining about the increase of rent when a mobilehome is sold. The letter started out by telling us they felt they could make the rent increase vanish. We bought our mobilehome in July of 1995 and were fine with the rent increase, as previous home owners and apartment dwellers, we were used to the rents or the property taxes increasing every year as everything in the free world does. On the second page of this letter they gave us examples of what we should be writing in our letter, as if we can't think of things ourselves. This is an example of the things we put up with on a monthly basis from these committee members. They are A LW A Y S angry at something or someone and are A LW A Y S trying to tell us how rotten we have it here. They gave us examples like, rents NEV ER drop regardless of the slump in the economy. What is that about? I have never lived in a place where rents drop. If they know of such a place why don't they move there now. They also said the people were having to abandon their homes because the rent increase after resale is making a home unsellable. I have seen many new residents moving in and many for sale signs being taken out of windows. If these people are abandoning their homes it is probably because they have bought something else before they sold their home or they had it priced so high that no one· would buy it anyway regardless of the rent increase upon resale. Also stated in the letter was that rent increases and pass-throughs are unsubstantiated. Do they realize they get a cost of living increase every year in their Social Security checks and that is for the cost of living adjustments made when prices on everyday things go up at the local grocery store? Yes, even electricity, garbage and water go up in price every year also. They also feel that they have SU F F ER ED a reduction in their standard of living making it impossible to pay for their necessities such as dental care and insurance. What does that have to do with anything? If they don't have enough money for insurance or dental care they should check out their budgets first and then start calling their local Social Security office and harass them for more money instead of harassing the par - _ anager, park owner, residents and anyone else who will listen. - ·p~~ ~-,..UNlll!C1111L .... __.~□~C~D!'ID l!l!Ol!IR .... □ FIN DIR D O □ FIRE CHIEF ORNEY □ PW DIA D CLERK/ORIG D POLICE CHF D MGMT TEAM D REC DIR D D UTIL DIR D □ PEAS DIR RE,._ ... ·i:::o 'L_·-~1 ·.} ... _ Av0 0 i 1397 SLO err. -~- - ',,,,-.,, . ,. . They also stated in this letter that residents are being PUSHED into assuming duties which are the responsibility of the park owners, such as resolving disputes and sweeping streets. I have personally never seen anyone being pushed into anything they did not want to get into in the first place. Also, what if anything, does this have to do with the rent increase after the resale of a mobile home? If they feel they have the right to harass everyone (park owner, park manager, and you) about the rent increase wouldn't you think they might harass someone if our streets were not being cleaned or people were getting into unsolvable disputes instead of writing it in a letter? The only people I ever hear of causing any disputes are these few activist committee members. They ended the letter with rents paid to park owners will leave this area completely. Most SENIORS buy groceries, clothes, gas and services in our city. Do they think that the money they pay at the grocery store or the clothing shop or the local gas station is staying in this city? If they do they are as brain dead as they sound in this letter. This is a FAMILY park and most of the residents that are now living here are NOT SENIORS! They are young families. This certain group have constantly been doing only what THEY feel should be done and it is harming the residents here who are happy with the way things are at the park. The GSMOL/CHA meetings are so ridiculous that they scare the normal minded resident away so they can get down to their agenda, which I believe, is to cause trouble for everyone else in the park who thinks differently than they do. We also have a Creekside Homeowners Association here at the park but you would never know it as all of the money we raise at pancake/french toast breakfasts, rummage sales and so on helps the GSMOL and these certain people, as they decide where the money goes. When instead it should be helping the CHA get things done AT THE PARK FOR THE RESIDENTS. My husband and I, as well as, MANY of the other residents will not attend any functions at the park as we do not want OUR money going outside of the city to help enforce these fights that occur all the time with the GSMOL and the park owners. I feel that the GSMOL has valid points in some areas, but I am sick and tired of seeing our park being run by them and their activist group. In closing I would like to say that there is another side to this and I hope by this letter I have been able to voice some of my concerns. I hope that others in the park will do the same thing so you will be able to hear the majority of the parks voices instead of the close-mindedness of our little group known as the GSMOL/CHA committee. Sincerely, Mike and Desiree Lefto Creekside Mobilehome Residents 1817 Galte Dive Sen tus ObspJ, 93405 aln this do:-umE;n!;J•or turn counc:11 meeting ~ - j_J_:._9 7 ;{ ·d: .. ,,..-i Date, 11 aosL l.<,~- ------·- August 4, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Dear Mayor Settle, I am vVriting regarding a matter that will be heard before City Council on August 19. It concerns the rent increase of 10%, 'Mlich is allowaole under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance upon the sale of a mobile home. My neighbors and I at the Laguna Lakes Mobile Home Estates ask your help in prohibiting the continuation of this rent increase. RECEIVED AUG O 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL OUNCIL ~~o ar'ATTOANEY □ CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □---- □ D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR In our park, for example, there is over a $165 difference between the highest and lowest rent charged. The rent bears no relationship to the age or size or condition of the mobile home. It is directly related to the number of times a given unit has been resold. Residents in our park receive no extra services for a higher rent - it is simply an artificial number, caused by a 10% increase in rent each and every time a unit is sold. The park owner has added no value to the transaction nor do the park owners' expenses rise as a result of a resale. I believe a number of arguments can be made as to 'MlY such an artificial bump is unfair to mobile home owners: 1. The 10% increase in resale has forced a sharp decline in the prices for which mobile home owners are able to sell their property. The first question a prospective buyer asks is "What is the rent?' They are often discouraged by the answer, especially when they learn it is 10% over the current rent, for no discernible reason. 2. The park owner is not required to report to the City any 10% increases on a resale. This lack of accountability means park owners are not subject to any audit or double check to ensure raises are within Ordinance limits. 3. Please remember that many mobile home residents are elderly and on fixed incomes. Any unwarranted rent increases such as the 10% resale bump can result in a significant reduction in their standard of living. And that is less money they have available to fix and maintain their mobile home residences. 4. The park owner has not in any vVay "earned" such an increase. No extra services are provided nor expenses incurred by the park owner as the result of a unit resale. This provision of the Ordinance, in my opinion, gives the park owners too much economic power over the mobile home owners. • P a g e 2 A u g u st 4 , 1 9 9 7 5. Finally, please remember that most mobile home owners do not have the option to pick up and move wn en rents become too high. The lack of spaces in SLO and the immobile nature of many of the units mean homeowners cannot move their mobilehome. Most of us enjoy living in SLO and shop for our groceries, clothes, gas and services locally. We appreciate the protection the Ordinance has been providing us from unreasonable rent increases. We ask only that the 10% rental increase permissible upon mobilehome resale be removed from the Ordinance provisions. We thank you for your support and your willingness to listen to our concerns. Sincerely, ~$~ Cc: City Council -' .... ·.: _; .. . ···· ·: , · ..... :·._. RECEIVED AUG O 5 1997 :. •·:. SLO CITY COUNCIL . ·.· .··. ·.: j},1,,t-/,t~C1/~ ZJ#Z>~&.3 / 72 0 C-dfr'//F#E VZ: .. . .3//-/./ .)01.s $/.po c'0 :R31cJ~ . ... . ·· .. 1. Rents NEVER drop in Mobilehome Parks, regardless of a slump in the economy which may cause falling rents in other sectors. 2. Stated purpose of the Ordinance is protecting mobilehome owners from unreasonable rent increases. The Ordinance does not do that. Rents are on an endless upward spiral, accelerating with larger rent increases after each resale, making a home unsaleable. Some homeowners have even abandoned their homes from desperation. 3. The 10% increase on resale has forced a sharp decline on prices of mobilehomes and an unrealistic increase in the rents park owners charge. It gives park owners economic power over mobilehome owners. 4. The park owner is not required to report to the City any 10% increases upon iesale levied on a space. Therefore, no check or audit is made to ensure raises are within Ordinance limits. 5. A park owner's claim to need rent increases or pass-throughs are unsubstantiated. Operating costs are not provi.ded to tenants. 6. The lack of spaces means a homeowner cannot move a mobilehome. 7. Homeowners have suffered a reduct Lon in their standard of living, making it impossible to pay for such necessities as denta~ care and insurance. Fixed incomes can be stretched only so much 8. Tenants are being pushed into assuming duties which are the responsibility of park owners, such as resolving disputes and EVEN. sweeping the streets. 9. Park owners can afford a TEAM of attorneys, but mobilehome owners are often unable to afford ONE. Which group is .hurting for money? 10. Rents paid to park owners will leave this area COMPLETELY. Most seniors buy groceries, clothes, gasand services in our city. ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AM ENDING CHAPTER 5.44, THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, MA KING MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 2. The first paragraph of Section 5.44.090 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby amended as follows: "5.44.090 In evaluating the application the hearing officer may consider, along with all other factors considered relevant, changes in costs to the owner attributable to increases or decreases in master land and/or facilities lease rent, utility rates, property taxes, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage interest rates, employee costs, normal repair and maintenance, and other considerations, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital improvements, upgrading and addition of amenities or services, net operating income, and the level of rent necessary to permit a just and reasonable return on the owner's property." SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. Introduced and passed to print by the Council of the city of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of September, 1997, on motion of ------------~ seconded by _, and on the following roll call vote: Ordinance No. Page Two (1997 Series) AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVE D: City Attorney COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TRANSMITTAL FORM I. \ Department Head: Prepared By: Meeting Date: Subject/Title: \ Je.66 # G. }01t9W6en ,,. Augu-6.t 19, 7997 Mob.lt eho me. Rent S.ta.b.lU za.tl..on OJtc:Una nce - Con.6 lde1r. Re.quu.u 601t. Ame.ndme.nu Check one: ( )Public Hearing (X)Business ( )Consent ( )Appointment Approximate Discussion Time: 1 houn: . ·: ·.·. :. . -:-: Please submit this white transmittal :5lip to.the City Clerk's Office by noon Monday fifteen caleridar days prior to the Council meeting. Rerairi the yellow copy to attach to the agenda report when it is.readyfor routing. I,11clude names and addtesse.s p{ll,ppellents,.appiicants, subdividers, representatives or any parties who must be notified about thisdtem at the bottomgfthis top sheet after it bas beendetached from.the yellow copy. II. ROUTING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD approval; please attach the yellow copy to your report and route to the following departments-in the order indicated below as it applies to your report. Following approval, please initial and forward to-thenexr-department. The INITIATING DEPARMENT is responsible for obtaining all necessary signatures prior to submittal of report to the City Attorney. , .. ! .. __ / .,ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INITIAL I Personnel Finance City Attorney Asst. to CAO CAO City Clerk ' ¢/f7 I COMMENTS: H etain thi5 dCCUfrY:-i:i ~ future Coui,dl rrieeiin-g d 2.:-t..~~7--- ,__ LJ_:..-:.:...:....:.:.. .. c. .... ~':"!•,_._ ' - .... c.~- ... ~- .. -,. _:-}· ... .; ; .~ RECEIVED J UL O ;_ 1qqfi SLO CITY COUNCIL NCIL CAO □Ar.Mr r!l"'AHORNEY □ CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □---- □ CDD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR ;J,, __ ;: A;.;1";,/ 77 : /~~- -d ~ cJ;,z~J 4 ~ /Z .... ~~ ~- Lz_, ('/_ . ~cJt /~, -.:V~ I~ 1 7 /lz,_/.;e, ~ -1~ d~~~ /1u4:r-~~-- ~~~1~~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ /~-~Je,;o~~ .~~~ ~~- I ~ ~✓~,;; J~~~~v ~ ~ . • t/{/ / ~~ r, ~~~ /6J-.--9&~~ r4. ~~~CZ 7'J ;v~ Rolairi th!;: dcca m rn • :or luturn Council ulC'~tir") 't-19-9? --~- ~--l.)-'J_I~_. i! ~~~•'.?7_E:_~-- t•vor Allen Settle 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 931.fOl Dear ~ay or Settle: 10?9 Kerry Drive San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 June 27, 1997 RECEIVED JUL O 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL I writing you as a mob i Le home owner here is San Luis Obispo, I would like to be covered by a rent Ordinance that would fully protect me from unfair rent increases and other char~es, The present rent ordinance here in San Luis Obispo nees to be amended or changed to "mend" its flaws. Chanees that I would like would include: Revokin~ the 101 increase in ren· at resale Protecting of mobilehome owners from unreasonable rent increases Rents should be allowed to drop during slumps in the economy Audits of the nark owner BE a~DE TO ENSURE RAISES are within Ordina~ce limits Park owners claim to need rent increases or pass-throughs need to be substantiated Please work to help us mobilehome owners in these matters. Thank you very much, Sincerely, ~NCIL □ A/)110 ll"'Al fORNEY □ CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □---- □ C CDD DIR C FIN DIR 0 FIRE CHIEF 0 PWDIR C POLICE CHF □ REC DIR C UTILDIR □ PERS DIR J ·u l y 6, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, Ca. la'COUNCIL ·~~~o . 0' ~HORNEY · !iYCLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □----- □ D CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIA D PERS DIA Dear Sir: 2 would like to bring to your attention that an inequity exists < in our current San Luis Obispo Rent Stab,lization Ordinance. This ordinance is in need of an amendment because it is unfair to us who live in Mobile Home parks. Many mobile homes are resold often and with a 10% increase in space rent each time, this can iead to high rents for some. In addition this makes older coaches especially hard to sell as well as newer ones. The original concept for mobile home living was to make it affordable for retirees or families with low incomes. This has been especially true of San Luis Obispo due to the high cost of home ownership. This space rent increase makes it hard to sell some even newer coaches without cutting the price and taking a loss. There is no audit on these space increases done to insure they're within the intent of the ordinance. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a Brief in 1992 with their opinion regarding the legality of rent control for mobile home owners. It was agreed that not only was it legal, but a neccessity. l would appreciate your sharing this letter with the others on the Council and give it your consideration when the hearing for this comes up on August 19. I will be out of state but hope my "voice" will be heard. I rest my case. Sincerely, Catherine C. Schattler J960 S. Higuera St. Sp. 176 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 RECEIVED JUL O 8 1qqR SLO CITY COUNCIL .· . ~-;·: ,·:· ,:. . R ECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ,,•,;·---1'1')'· Datt:}, if agsca:zed __ ___:. ····----------- ur co NCIL 10"'CAO □A~ ~'i-°OR NEY D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □--- □ D COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR □ PERS DIR San Lui» ObiApo, Cil :Ju¼- 9, 1997 To: Allen Sei:.ile, /llaJjolC. and. San Lui» ObiApo (ounc.il ft)enzb eN.) fir.om: Leola Ru.hollom Fir.om th.e b~u; th.e mobileh.ome nerd: .cd:.ab.Lli...ydi-on '!..ll.d.i.nan.c e I.IXIA /ol( th.e pll.otecli..on of. mobileh.ome ounen» ~t exceo.6.Lve nerd» o I h.e San Lui» ObiApo ondinan ce no long.ell. does :th..u, o f<.erd:..6 ane exc easi: ve and · cordurui e to . Jt.i../2 e. The nerd: .6tab.Ll.L~on ondinance Lo hand. to undencdarui and .6u.Djed :to miA.i.ntell.pll.ei:.a;t..i_on Ln. rnaru; pl.aceo • /l)o.6i. Jt.eo.i.derd:..6 iri mobile.home pMM ane: oencon» and f.ami..l-{.e6 on f.i.xed Income» o Wh.en nerd» M.e too hi.gli, th.e =« alt.ell.nat.i.ve L» to .6ell and ~ don 't ~ .6eil . When th.e mobile.home .6W on ih.e panh. ouneno land, th.e neoiderd» mucd: pGif £.h.e nerd: even th.oug/2. .Lt iA unoccupied. !If- il1.e. home doeori 1t .6eil .Lmm~ ~ mucd: uxu.k QIJXJ.'j and 1..e.i:. th.e panh: ounen. tahe. th.e mobileh.ome, oil. .6ell .Lt ch.eap. Thu, h.M happened rrwll.e th.an onceo Hopef-uJ-4 iku, can. be c.haruj.ed . 1. De1..e.i:.e 5 .44 .050 ( (J . At th.e pll.e6~'!:_, pa.AA O/JJl7.e/(/.) can. IC.a.i.t,e th.e 1e.ent. 1(Jt~ if- a tenant d.ec.i d.e-6 to .6eil li.u, h.ome .' I hL6 iA pv.,t an extJc.a duvr.r;.e- w.Lth.ou± jU/2i.i./.i..cai.Lon. !In th.e U.S. Supll.eme CoUJc.t deciA.Lon, Yee v.6 c.,.6con.di.d.o, 9 j~ voted 9 -0 th.at vacan.q;. contll.ol. I.IXIA not a pfu;/2.i..cal.. :t.a.Ju.m; of. pa.M own.ell. 1 .6 p1t.opeAf.ij. 2 . !Jef.ef_e mo-6:l of- 5. 44 .060 ( {). 7 h.e -6ed.Lon :lo be d.elet_ed iA h.a.Jc.d :lo wui.eM :.tand and. ambifjuoU/2, and ~u.hjed :lo miA.i..rd:.ell.p1t.ei_ai.Lon. A l.a1f pvv.,on iA a:t a lo,M to wui.eN.):.tand .Lt. /lie pcuch. otJJne/C. can. l(ece.L ve an a~imerd:. .Ln 1e.ent. undeJt. th.e ~ec, of. 5. 44 0070 ''Appl..Lcai.L on /01t. J?ent. A~tment.-i-ee-{orderd:..6." . /i)o-6t rrwbilelwme pcvrh.-6 .Ln .San Luu., ObiApo do not h.a ve pM.6-i.Moll{lM i..f- t.h.ef!- M.e not on lea-6e6. J. l<.e.pJ..a.ce. 5. 44 .(Y/0 llJli:h. littach.men.t # J. T h.e 1t.epJ..a.cemerd moJt.e cloM.1.lj rnee±.L, th.e need..6 of. th.e pa.AA owrtell. and th.e ie.nan.t.. Ari1f 1.oJc.c;e- co.6i-6 .i.rLCUM e.d. · di.en th.e pcuch. needo .i.Jnp1t.ovement. th.at bo_th. th.e p_cvrh. own.ell. and. th.e t~ l1X1J'd could eM L!.J; be arc,eed upon by a 5/Jb vote o/ th.e ten.an.i..6 i..rl f.avoJt.. lhiA woul.d. i..n.t>UJt.e .6UCCe6.6, M well M l..eo .o ~ to be miA.i.ntell.p1ieted. Chang,e 5. Lflf .040 ( B). We aJt.e a.ofwu; /.o_ll. th.e p1e.ov.i.-6i..on (:oil. tenant-6 on l.ea.o e6 to h.ave a ll.ecoUMe b'f th.e p1e.evaili..ng. State /i]obileh.ome Y<e6.Lde/7.C'f Lm1Jo We h.a ve 1.e/-f- th.e wo lld..Lng. to vou. S.i.neeJt.e.f!f, __ .,,,-1 I , . -· / / t.z· -----·•··----··' .,/ /) '-.x; ~- /i ---:. ,' . , , <?;:·Cc..,____,,, ti f,t,.,,c.p-o -;,'./ .e-TJt-~ Leol.a Y<.u.hottom 3960 S~. H.i.rJ:-1-eJt.a , Space_ 21 San LJ.u,o Ob.u,po, CA 93401 7 ei.eplwn.e - The Honorable Allen Settle Mayor of San Luis Obispo · San Luis Obispo, CA July 9th, 1997 Sir: My fa mily and I reside in the Silver City Mobile Horne Park, 3860 S. Higuera, space #'10'7 hpvo ;n San Luis Obispo. 1"'o alonz .,,;~h " number r.t other residents ;n this .L. II J..O..:.J.\,,;., .1.LL ,___,(,l L·•···-L.:. • :"';J_t"" ·• ·rY · U.i-·.1.:.5.'vv..:1,;.,_ C.1--.:.1. '1.1.L \,,..>.L·'\..1.£.· 'LJ.~ ·•• ,\J ~ 1,.,._, J.. 1.· .._ .l.,J park are concerned about the 10% rent increase levied on each new resident by the park ownership whenever a mobile home is sold. This is an unjustified as well as unfair procedure the owners impose on anyone wishing to purchase a mobile home in this park or area. When this inflated rent is added to a mortgage payment, it can cause a potentially qualified buyer to go elsewhere, if not to another city, to find affordable housing. It's tantamount to actually penalizing new residents. Also, the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance needs to be rewritten where- as a common householder possessing an average IQ can understand it. The legal ease should be interpreted in an abc manner, thereby making it clearer to the homeowner just exactly what his or her rights are, as well as what rights the parkowners have, making it equitable for all. Tacking on a 10% rent increase to anyone wishing to buy your mobilehome only exacerbates the problem, especially when no reasonable explanation is given. Any assistance you might render in alleviating this unfair procedure would be greatly appreciated by us all. Respectfully yours, 1032 Jane Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 July 12, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle Members of the City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: Retain this document ~,or future Council rneeling <?-I q ~q'? ~UNCIL .~~o ar'ATTORNEY □ CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □----- □ □ COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR As a resident of Laguna Lake Mobile Home Park I want to urge your support of the changes in the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance which will be fair to both park owners and mobile home owners. The disparity of the rents in our park demonstrates the great need for the changes in this ordinance which will go before the Council on August 19. Yours very truly, Rosemary Johnson RECEIVED . I IJ L 1 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ---CREEKSIDE--- '! I\ . i i : ! . i '! ! ! : : . ' 1 i; '' I' : i 8055437113 Tenants will ask for a little h:e1p To the editor: From the beginning the pur- pose of the "Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinan¢e" was for the protection of the captive renters In mobile homb parks against excessive rents. The ordi- nance has failed to hold rents at an acceptable level. Rent increases over the Con- sumer Price Index (CPI) quickly exceed the ability of a person on a fixed income to pay. The ordi- nance allows pass-throughs, which are maintenance' costs, to be added to therent. The park owner's cost of maintenance should be included in the rent in- stead of added to the rent. This allows an 18 percent or higher in- crease in one year. Homeowners in mobljs ho~ne parks occupy a space at the invi- tation of the park owner; As co. proprietors, this has put the land in the hands of the tenant, but this doesn't give the park owner lh,~ right to dictate tcr1t1s free of all government regulations. Vacancy control is protection of tenant's property, It does not allow a rent increase upoj: re- sale. Mobile home owners are trying to survive by going bf,fore Ow Cily C()l!Jlcil i\ui;, W ti> illik for changes in the Mobile Horne Rent Stabilization Ordinahc~, and to make sure the rents d(>n't increase just because a te~arlt sells his mobile home. · Leo la Rubott om San Luis Obispo '. l I • P.02 \. ilf ! y. Jl • I I . I : I '! ---CREEKSIDE--- 805_5437113 P_. 03 To the: editor; . ! i ~ow interesting that in the July 11, 1997 issµe of the TT oa id Congaf;ton' s column refers to SLO as a"town that is: notorious for outla~dish rents." No argument here. Rowever, in the same issue is a letter to the:ea from Leola R u b o tt'om claiming that the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance II , I . I has ~ailed to hold rents at an acceptable level'' despite the fact that ~LO mobilehome space rents are among the lowest in the state!! for cdmparable cities. · Mrs. Rubottom goes on to say that residents are charged "pas~- , throuqhs, which are maintenance costs." This is blatantly untrue; as Mrs. ~ubottom ~ell knows the ordinance spec~fically prohibits cha ging tenan~s.for m~inten~nce co~t~. s~e knows ~his because she was insjtru~ mental in having this provision inserted into the ordinance. ~he only costs which may be passed through to_ residents are ~ov- ernment mandated costs such as sewer, trash and water.Do the citi~ens of Sa~ Luis Obispo agree with Mrs. Rubottom that rnbbilehome resi~~nts shoul~n't have to pay for the increased costs of these services that everf iother inhabitant of the city must bear? I doubt it. j ~rs. Rubottom would also do away with the 10%_ increase in SP,ace rent a l Lowed when a home sells. How this threatens_ her "survival"! is a ~ystery since it will never affect her tenancy. ~very economic study ever done concurs that rent control cr7ates belowirnarket rents. The resale increase allows parks to move closi8r to a ·(air market rent without cost to the current tenant. Does tie incre~se prevent homes from selling? Absolutely not! Our park is exper~encing our most prolific sales year in over ten years. ~axpayers of SLO should be wary of Mrs. Rubot~orn and her smlll group,iof hard-core activists. Heed the City Attorney's Memorandu to the city Council regarding these proposed arnendmen~s: '!The proposed changes would significantly modi f y the struct re of th~ current ordinance which was a c?m~romise measure ~dopted ~y the_ vote~~ in 1988. It would remove fl~xibility fro~ the ordinance, ~nd fore greatQr reliance on formal rent adJustment hearings. To the exte t it pr1vents owners from having a clear and r7asonable m7c~anism -o achieye a "fair return", it may expose the City to significant 1 gal liability and costs." ·±he Council should resist the efforts of a small group of •· :.~·: extr~~ists to gain political favor and in the process place the· City14n legal jeopardy. Pat Fleming, mana er Creekside Mobileh me Comm sari Luis Obispo , I : l ; I ' . : . f. \ ,-. i i L _ _J_t Reta;ri this dcwmer.i tor future COJJf')C,ii niet1if"'J _-..;.~/ 9- 9__.;..7_ · • Dat'9, 41_ cl-0(;.r,rj:z.ej _ 1852 Thelma Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 July 11, 1997 Mayor Alan Settle Members of the City Council City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: As a resident of Laguna Lake Mobile Horne Park,I want to urge your support of the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance which will be fair to both park owners and mobile home owners. The disparity of rents in our park demonstrates the great need for this ordinance. Yours very truly, _.-,::::__~ . . ·---·'/ .,. H. T. Edwards 1852 Thelma Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-6238 !°~CIL ~TTORNEY □ CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM □----- □ O COO DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR 0 UTIL DIR 0 PERS DIR RECEIVED J lJ L i 4 1997 SLO ClTY COUNCIL ~ )6 ~ ~~- -~- ~~ ~ ~ . -~- -~ ~2J~. '. ~H •. · . ,._,- .. ~7 ary Ewaskey , _ · ; 3960 S. Higuera St. Spc 11~~1} -----~----···---·--•-·-- San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-._<Q'l- r. _ ~~~~-- ~ ~ ~--~~---. -~-~-Aer4~-L~-~-~ ~a.v~-~ .. ~~4-~.4--. --·- ~ ~-~~~-- RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 LO CITY COUNCIL s= Retain thls docurPenl tor future Co1Jncii meeting [-/9-92 DatQ, if agsr.d:z.e::l · .._ ...... ·..:. ._::..,.- ... ---- _______ .. ~---··- _:···/} 't1·/J . ~/7. . . . --~-~~,--~· .- .. ------· ----·" \ ··. .\ A__j._·; .IJ ~ ~- --~ --- ----- i ---------- ----~. - ~ ~~ =B ·. - ~---:=~=~~:: .. ~. ~ ~ ~th_~'-~----- -~ ~ ~Cv?LJ ~--------•·-· . __ w-4?k\~~---~~ -~: ~ ~-~V:--~7-·· ... ~ ~~~ . ~ ----~--~:~-~--~ \' IL A A -- - ~-:--: ~~---~--~~ . ·-·-··-··-·--·-··~-~--~-~----: ~-- •·· ~~~~ __ v)~--~-~~::;;:;;;:::·~~-- ···-------·----------··---·----· .. ·•·- --•·--··· --·---·-··-· ·• _______ :_~-~--~---~·-· ---~~~-~4-- ----- -~ -;PH-~-~~-~--- Yd) /). ...£a.N .. . . . . .• . . . -----o--·~·-"r~· · ·------- .. --------·- ... ------- -· _:.,:_ ~-· -------~:__.-:_ :_ . ~•-~~~····.··· - e~--:~---~ --~-Cµ ~- -4---~/--~ -~ -~-~ ~ .• p .. .. .... • ... . ' ... .... . • • - - . . - - ·•· - . -- . -· --/!~~~~-~'. ~--~- ~-114- ~ ~--~} ~/ ~~~ . ~ ~-~--' -- . .· ... ITT9t!NCIL g.,CAO . D AfAY.C . CB/4T'fORNEY D CLERK/ORIG .. D MGMT TEAM □----- □ ·o-CDD DIR - .... - D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR ······~~~ OUNCIL ~~~ ~TORNEY D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □---- □ D CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR ~ //pi J 197 ~-~~- ;___ Mrs. Kenneth R. Jordan . 3960 S. Hi~era St. Spc 44 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 , RECEIVED JUL 1 7 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL J u l y 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 w:UNCIL ~~o fa'ATTORNEY D CLERK/ORIG D MGMT TEAM □----- □ D COD DIR D FIN DIA □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIA □ POLICE CHF C REC DIR C UTIL DIR C PERS DIR Mayor Allen Settle and City Council Members 990 Palm, City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo City Hall, CA. 93401 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Retain th. is document fgo future Council meeting F-19- 9'Z _ DatB, if ~~er:d:z~~-- We hope our sincere words will explain how very much we require changes in our City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The changes we request are not unfair, but instead are items we need if we are to survive. It's very frightening to be unable to afford to stay in a home you own, when you pay considerable rent for a tiny space. Most of us really have no other place to go. When the first Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance came into effect in 1982, it did not contain an allowance giving a 10% rent increase on resale to a park owner. Our research indicates that allowance did not take place until 1992. It has become a disaster whenever a mobilehome is sold, and rent increases grow by larger and larger percentage increments. We learned from GSMOL head offices that 92 cities in California have Rent Ordinances, and 57 of these DO NOT have rent increases on resale. Vetters Management Company controls a large number of mobilehome parks in California. The Vetters Company recommend against rent increases on resale. They have found it is actually to the park owners' advantage, because tenants feel more security, and take a far keener interest in keeping the landscaping beautiful around their well-kept home. The result is a more attractive and desirable park, which has gained greatly in value, and has been given a much higher rating by appraisers. We sought expert advice on the MNOI factor which we asked you to delete. That factor is too complex for clear interpretation. There is even a stipulation on Page 138-2, which states that should this formula not provide a just return for a park owner, a hearing officer may apply any other reasonable formula. That indicates that even the writer of this formula is not convinced this factor is viable. One the other hand, mobilehome owners need BOTH a lawyer and an appraiser to confront a park owner who uses this formula. No challenge to the park owners' figures is included in the formula. We cannot afford two expensive experts. There are already other provisions for a hearing for a rent adjustment for park owners in another section of the Ordinance. We also need the Ordinance to conform to the Mobilehome Residency Laws. These are not spur-of-the-moment laws, but were carefully evaluated, passed by both State Legislative Houses, and signed by the Governor. We thank you for your courtesy in hearing our case, and respectfully request you to decide in favor of granting these changes which allow worried Seniors to remain in their homes. Sincerely,. Bill 1860 RF=r.EIVED · ·cFToase note enclosureq) JUL 1 7 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL and Betty Henson Thelma Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ~~~s{8~~ ·, ·:.:. :_ ·· .. ·. •..... . . .- ... :.·: .·:·'. ·:·: :· . ·.•. --: .... ·· ·. ;·.· .. ·.- .. ·: ... . · . ·.. . .· . . . · ·.· ~ · . . .·· .. ·, .. · .. · .· .. I ~- 1 M ost of Muni cip al Mob ile H o m e R e n t C o ntrol L aw Uph e ld in Fe d e ral Court _ ■ Both Sides See Something to Like in Latest Ruling federal jud . in a 55- page opin ion handed own this week, has stru ck dow n one of th e mo st con- troversial provisions of the C ity of M alibu's Mobilehorne Rent Stabilization Crdinance , but upheld the right of the city to control mobilehornc rents. "We are gratified," said Tom Gibbs, an attorney for the Adam- son Companies which own s th e Point Dume Club Mobilehome Park. "Th e opinion stru ck down the most onero us pro visions - rollbacks and a freeze." "Th e bo ttom line is our point has been validated." agreed Gar- rett Hanken. who represents the Kissel Company. which owns the Paradise Cove Mobilehome Park. "The plai nt iffs recognize lh at ren t c?ntrol is perm issrble, but the ~ · city went far be yond th at." ~ But M alibu City A ttorn ey -, C hri_qi Hog in took ii different j '. approach to th e decision saying. ~ "Ol'le of the critical questions w as :. if you could have rent stabiliza- FIRST DAY-In-house City ti?n in Malibu. The judge ruled it Attorney Christi Hogin's first did not am ount to a co ns titu tional day in her new professional tak.in5." capacity came replete with Overall, the court concluded court action on Malibu's that the city m ay intervene to municipal mobile home law. adjust the balance of the econom- ic relationship between tenants in federal and state court. They and park owners, the City Artor- were successful in having the nev addcd. city's Jaw thrown out in state ::i:...~ .. '--w~e~f ce::::::..l_w_e_p_re_v_m--=·1,....cd-.-W:-:-,:--e-are-- court and the city is currently · not unhappy w ith the decision." appealing tht\t decision. Ho g in said. The M alibu City This week's dee is ion could Council is expected to discuss the cost the city millions of dollars in federal opinion at a closed door damages that is expected to be •c · t ·1• ext meeting on sought hy the par k owners , th eir ., -~SI\Jn a 1 ~ n " • . " June 13. Hogin acknowled ged that "the court questioned base rents" striking out the city's attempt to rollback those base rents to a pre- existing level. "She ru led that provision did not have the goal of protecting the tenants ," from future potentially unlimited incre ases. Ho gi n added. Both park owners have chal- lenged th e rent control ordinance .,. ----~-- attorn eys say. "We'll definitelv seek a trial unless we can reach a settle- meut," said Hanken, who added his client m ay have suff ered damages in excess of .S 1.5 mi l- lion. "We haven't done a full work out." he said, "There is sub- stantial damage the Kissel Corn- pan y has incurred ." Gibbs agreed saying, "We will go for damages." Indicating that Adamson had "not yet done an analysis," it remains unclear what amount would be sought, he said . "I don't th ink they arc entitled to a damage award. nus is a very narrow decision," Hogin responded when asked to com - m ent abo ut da m age claims . According to a press release issued by the city, the opinion "concludes that the city's mobile- home park rent stabilization ordi- nance validly pro tects the park tenants' investment in their rnobilehorncs (the investment value incl udes the homeowners' improvements and its location) and protects park re sidents who have fixed or relatively low incomes." The opinion is 1101 the final decision in the case , according to the city attorney, who said that should the opinion form t.he basis fo r the final judgm ent in the case - as most court observers expect to be th e case - the city mav amend its ordinance to com· ply· with the opini on or appe.a \ \Tlc ru ling. No decision has yet be en ~nthis._f"!~•ginm;:..;.lc.l_cti_. __ BY RILL KOEN'EKF.R -· ·------------ !13.l.::'•:: Post-Proposition 199-: Now what? 0 ne of the things voters were saying when they voted against Propostuon 199 in March was that they wanted the rent control issue to be handled at the local level. WMA's track record with local in- itiatives has always been good. In fact, In rnc111y cutes and counties where Proposltion 199 lost by a wide margin, the same voters had previously turned down local resi- dent-spo nsored rent control initia- tives by similar margins. With that in mind, WMA's local government staff is going "back to the future" and refining the local initiative process that has worked so well for the past 20 years. ln looking over WMA's "Local Rent Control Initiative Campaigns" list, some interesting observations can be made. Following are various types of local initiatives that both park owners and residents have em- ployed over the years, with varying degrees of success. Campaigns to defeat rent control Initiatives WMA staff has worked on many such campaigns over the years with a high degree of success - organiz- ing local WMA members and others to defeat rent control initiatives that mobilehome community resi- dents, city councils or boards of su- pervisors have been placed on tht ballot Defeating this type of initia- tive has been a great weapon ever since rnobilehome park rent con- trol first reared its ugly head. Repealer Park owners or an elected body place thi~ iniuauve on the ballot to repeal an e.x1\t1ng n-nt control ordi- nance Such an eltort W3S success- fully accomplished in the City of Delano in 1994. Property rights initiative This type of initiative has been used in several Cities and counties over the year~ with mixed results. If successful. the property rights in- itiative repeals the existing ordi- nance and prohibits the elected body from passing rent control in the future A vote of the people would be the only way another rent control ordi- nance could be passed. Such an ap- proach takes the rent control issue away from local politicians and places it bcf ore the voters, where the industry !);1s a better chance of winning. Successful examples of this attack on rent control occurred in the cities of Gut lingamc and Napa. Referendum WMA hils also employed the ref- erenduru over the ye.us, with mixed results .-\ refere ndum is the process used when an elected body passe rent control ordinance arid the vc ers are encouraged to overturn t elected officials' decision at t. next available election. Relere dums have been done In Pa• mount, E.l Monte, Laguna Beac Vista and Carlsbad. · San Luis Obispo model This model is, in effect, a rE control initiative that the park o.,,_ ers sponsor to replace a partlcula onerous ordinance. Such an eff( was done successfully In the City San Luis Obispo , where a repea would probably have been , feated. This type of rent control dinance looks a lot like a lease. The theory behind this appro, is simple: If the. political envi« ment prevents a total repeal of existing ordinance, at least it car replaced with something much t ter and the voters are not asker abolish rent control. • • • WMA's local government s plans to refine all of the above ltiatives and tailor them to selcc cities and counties throughout state. One typ e of initiative mi not work in one area of the st but lends itself to successful ap cation in another. Polling and fc groups would need to be usec order to determine if a campaig feasible and wlwt ki11rl it should Using various local election tc tailored to a specific political e ronmcnt, is a more surgical preach to stopping or eradica rent control. It will take m homework arid patience to re ., . ~--~-·· -~ .... ~~ .. -•,,::,:~,-- . .,..,. .., ...... _,•:.. . .. ':-?::- . . ·_. '; . .}~:~-~~:;,...{,J:1 :;~~ .·_ -~/ ~-- : . W?vlA'slocal government staff is g oing "back to the future" and refi n ing th e local initiative process that has worked so well for the past 2 0 years. -~ . , . --~ . . each approach to the point where the statewide rent control list is ac- tually shrinking each year, rather than growing. WMA has more expertise and Ilre power to apply to defeating rent control at the local level than any other organization in the state. Its. current goal is to not only defeat rent control initiatives as they crop up, but to repeal as many existing ones as possible. It will take time and significant pre aration, b u t It can all WI t on e. · David Evans is ~V?vfA 's regional rep- resentative for the Central Catifomta Area. He cm, be reached at 901 Eagle Lane, Frazier P,,rk, CA 93225; 805/ 245-3719. June 1996 • WMA Reporter 35 ~. . .. . ~; • : • •• •r• • • • • • .. . . · .... : , .... . . :· .. _:.,,-, :• ...... , . : . . >i, C a sa D e l R io R e sid e nts A ssoci at ion , Inc. B u d g et S u m m a ry 1994 · MONTHLY Fixed Costs Corporate Franchise Taxes Insurance Taxes & Licenses $ 2.00 3,013.00 277.00 3,292.00 Operating Costs Electricity 250.00 Gas 500.00 Water 2,131.00 Sewer -988.00 Trash ~.279.00 Landscaping 500.00 Swimming Pool 400.00 ANNUAL $ 25.00 36,150.00 3,325.00 39,500.00 Cleaning Service 500.00 '3.::.iepc...:a=ir=s-=&=-:M.:.:.a=.:i:..:.nt=e.:..:.na=n~ce::::-:-,==-......;::,,------------=-750.00 Auto & Tru:,:e,c=k.,___ -'-'17.__,,5""".0...,0.,_ . Tel~_:.ho_n-'e'--------------------'1"""5-=0=. 0-=-0 Salaries - Park Maintenance & Managers 6,0QQ..QQ_ Payroll Taxes 'sso.oo 15,173.00 Administration Management Legal Accounting Office TOTAL COST OF OPERATIONS 1,000.00 250.00 ' 150.00 500.00 1,900.00 20,365.00 Reserves 1994 BUDGET 3,260.00 $23,625.00 BUDGET PER UNIT $ 94.50 3,000.00 6,000.00 25,570.00 11,850.00 27,360.00 6,000.00 4,800.00 6,000.00 9,000.00 2,100.00 1,800.00 72,000.00 6,600.00 182,080.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 1,800.00 . 6,000.00 22,800.00 244,380.00 39,120.00 $283,500.00 $ 1.134.00 c a s a d e l rio m o bile e state s DZ4 n. SI IPJJ rd santa m•cal g3454 Phone 925-3737 November 1, 1993 Re: Casa Del Rio Resident Association, Inc. Dear Member: Attached is the 1994 Budget S~mmary for Casa Del Rio Resident Association, Inc. Please note that your monthly Association Dues will be $94.50 effective January 1, 1994. There will be an Organizational Meeting for the Members of the Association on December 15, 1993. The meeting will be held at 7:30 P.M. in the clubhouse. The purpose of the meeting is to elect a Board of Directors, review the 1994 Budget Summary, and discuss any new business. To ensure Members' representation on the Board, not less than 20% of the Members of the Board shall be elected solely by the vote of the Owners, other than the Declarant. We are looking forward to meeting with you and working with you for the good of Casa Del Rio Mobile Estates. Rihara_ B. Wells Managing General Partner , 'Mrs. ·'Ear6ara Xfarrert . ~ • .. , · Cf(" · 3960 S~utfi. ;}{iguera, #96 · ·,..L \.; San Luis 061SJJO . . _ · Cafijornia 93401 · . Retaln ♦<.j.'.1 ,-<r, ... ument for J ~,,c.;i,1 • U ;.w Uta.!v,, ,-vi f.. future Council rneeting <{~( 9-C1'] :Juh; 13th 1997 ,.... Ilean: frhfl,o1t. All.en Seil.1.e. and [1-i:J; [ou.ncU. /tlembe/v6: J lwpef.u,lhj uard: to be one of- the maj.,olli.:aj in. w~ :t:hi..6 ~ to !fOul Ju, in. ~ce and co~ the noxice J neceived ~ to a poiU>i...bLe t(f/o l{eni:. JncJteelt>e upon nesaie, J i.hinh. and f.e£L i.1:..6 ou:t:Juu;uouo Ldea, pi.ut, VVt.fl unf-aut. :to mobil..e.- !w1T1£. ounexs , Ju, Velllf obvious, panh. o~ ane ,t,eehi..ru; an. eao :; Ul_:JJf :to i:ah.e advani:.aJ;e of- uo homeouneno 1 wlu.ch. maro; Ql(.2. Senion [.i..ti..~ on f-i.xed. Incom es 2 am Dtf-:l1Vlf1 [.LY FOR Rc,NT CfRltl/VIIIV(l/ NCIL AO 0 Ar;,Af;' [I}/4"TTORNEY D CLERK/ORIG □ MGMT TEAM o _ □ 0 COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF D REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL M r ,A l l e n S e t t l e , Ma y o r , S a n L u i s O b i s po , C a , 9 9 0 Pa l m S t , S a n L u i s O b i s po , C a , 7 ,2 8 ,9 7 Retair, this docume n~to r future Counci l ni eflting _$_- !fl· t/7 - Dat~. if ~•_11er.cfz!d Dear Sir, I urgue you to vote to change the flaws in the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilation Ordinance, which I feel at this time is unfair to Mobile Home Owners in Lagina Lakes Mobile Home Estates, Sincerely Yours, ·n;a~~ Melvin S, Dennis, M,D, 1716 Carolyn Drive San Luis Obispo, Ca 93405 ( RECEIVED JUL O \ 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL llrCQUNCfl 1!!1;AO D AP,O ~HORNEY D CLERK/ORIG g MGMT TEAM D D COO DIA D FIN DIA D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIA D POLICE CHF D REC DIA DUTIL DIA D PEAS DIA NCIL D COD DIR CAO D FIN DIR . RE cf /Veo ~gRNEY ~ ~wi~HIEF D CLERK/ORIG D POLICE CHF J LJ L 2 f 1997 □ MGMT TEAM D REC DIR D D UTIL DIR SLO CITY (;OUNC/L ....J o o PEAS DIR .·. ~~Lo~L~~~,~~ - .•.......................................................... -··········· . . - - - .... ----•--------·- ---- -- .... - --- -- .. . . --- - ·- ---- -·· -·--- -- ·- .. . ... - -- . - --- ---·· . -- ·--· -- --- ----------· ·•·· ... - . -- -· ---· - ····- - --- -- - . --·· . ····-------·· -··-···--··· ···--- ······· .... .. ··•- ... ····-· _. S. .mue .. __ .cesi~-·· .. CLt.~-.~l~ -······-······--········· .. ~~ct .. ~ Sl ko.e,y_)~' ~no~ . . .... -.5~hA..o-ti~ ... U-?6.v.u.. 0---···~t._ .... -·~~·················· .$t,LC-h ... CL,OCD-~J2;-L00 . bLO--b L~-- -···················· -· .. io .. ~cn..ct __ .. ~ ·0 ... b.~ ~ eueo _ ······-···· . . . ..l,k. ~.~ h o..ve . -to .. ~-··~···-·\Clx:cL :L -·· ·-· . . .. _ - \0.n~.--~·-····mob~--- b~e· ue ~. . . .. . . ··~·- , ··-···.3)···-v::1.,_LL ... ~.\~·-J·}Y.t.r?9). Le\ .. ~·-····· . -·. -· .· ... ~~~~~:{l)~~~(~~:-: ~~1 ~~ . ·'·- - . - -- . -· .... Kncru..J,n~ .. - .. ~--··-·~-· ·--··~--'n~-··· . . lo reo.~ ~ ~9<-1 ... _ rr,obl.-~1 ·- _: ... ~- - . ..s . d..t&.,_ OOL. trd flt _£:La ~-.OL ... U.,O (~. ···- i ob~.. . .. -· ·-·· - .. .. .. ·-·- . - . . I-·- .--9. .\~t .. W0---=1-ed -to ±e.u -~~ .. -· . ·~<I.':J .. t\~~ .. -.0-od _G.~ -~-.L./ ~.-. . ........ -· .. _$\cit; b~~~ ~oc.ua..:bor,, 1 a,cd -· .. ~ \nvo v-ed d.o_ .. N .T v.-epre~C\t . . .. . . .. '(Yl e. . (.o r. .. ~.'-'\-·Ob·-·;·r-o~~~bbocs_)_ _ ····-······ - l) ·- . .C~t .. ~e.'._.ti ~-·· -~C??o··~~t _... . · · · · ·· · ~'~ •··~-~_-w,tb-~ ~~ _ _ __ .P ett,,":X Cc5Yn P l0-c...,,n·~ . a..Dd ··-· Gonc.sv,_n;;a_ . . .. ... . ·- . . . . . ~~· ~.~o-tt"-\ ~~s 1-CU- . ~~ exn en t.. .. .. . ·- ..... ~ ~:':,.Q,\VW.D;i\ - ~~~~- ! . .. . d c.u1.d.~ 1 ( ) .. . . . "·I:~ ': - I l_l l- • \')I, i ~ ' '4. t • • ;~ \ ~ ' C "',,_II :_!_(,.. / :J .._ l.,_J1 '•'.!: :; ~ I, ' .X ~ / 1~ ucJ7JcS$ f:Ju. s~+- -fo,»c chi d a__, C<.-tl d ~ I 1..rU,C I I) (}r .cuc. ?5'{ dz_, fo-/ e,,/-W~ ljecJS . S. f u) ejAe,-f1'f _ a~ she doe s J L wi l I no+ Jo /;'vn ~w h.C5Yrl.e(Jy0" ers: u e~~ ~ ~ ~sk+--f- (!,e,mp( a,~ 1f ~ clGYG-f ½J 5v( 10~ ~ 1 I I ti( ~ y s firµ_,[c;L Wl~ I ~ -~~~~~ DD IR J AO □ FIN 1R . ~ ~~~· □ FIRE CHIEF [J...i\"flQRNEY □ PW DIR □ CLERK/ORIG □ POLICE CHF □ MGMT TEAM D REC DIR □ --- □ UTIL DIR ~~~m/..,..□------~□~PE~RS~DIR~ ~~(1svc/ . ----- 1..)(:1 i:it.\::::,<':':H'l i·1iD1"·:,:;.h 3860 S. Higuera D-1 ::3 L.. C.i :i C~ (.~1 ~:;; ::~:~ .q. () J. C::i.t.·/ r··lnh:i.11':,) humE! pi::i!"k!, 1,,,ih:i.,::h i.:.ur .. nc,)ci u1_,t t.u l.,,.,. ,,f,,. rnui::-t c: t) -::. t:. 1 Y' :i ~·~. ri d ffi'::i with no way out. Wher1 I moved here the prices of mobile savings into a mobile home here, because I thought at the time it w□uld be the most economical way to live. I had t□ pay an outrageous and unfair price, $29,500 for a new small Nevada when we bought a home, and land it was all ours, even if it was in a park, we would just pa y reasonable rates for the use of the park and pool. Only in SL□, CA, can somethinq this illegal be qotten away wit h by these rich and greedy park owners!! Ta add insult to injury I have to pay almost $300 for my space that I paid $40,000 for! Which is also double what other owners pay for the same space. I don't object alt all having to pay for garbage, water, and the use of the pool, but $300.00 should be against the law!. Plus the fact that they are always raising the rent every year, and raising what ever items they wish to, with no acceptable reason except the fact that they can get away with it!! T h e y ad d o n o u r b i l l s a ll so r t s o f e x t r a ch a rq e s e v e r y o t h e r m o n t h o r so , w h e n e v e r th e w h im m o v e s th e m . I h a v e h a d th is m o b i l e ho m e u p fo r sa le fo r six ye a r s w it h ·n o o f f e r s as y e t ! N o t o n ly ca n I no t se ll it for the horrendous amount I paid, but I have even lowered the price $15,000!, and still not one offer. No one want to pay these prices and then still have to pay an unfair rent space that is always going upward in cost. The stated purpose of the SL□ Rent Stabilization Ordinance is to protect m□bilehome owners ·From the 10% rent increase upon sale, and from unreasonable rent increases. The Ordinance does not do that. Rents are on an endless upward spiral, accelerating with larger rent increases after each resale, making a home unsaleable. Some people in my parl: have thrown in the towel and abandoned their homes from sheer hopeless, desperation! Never once have our landbar□ns lowered our rents, or any other item, they even have the cold, heartless, and greedy nerve to charge anyone $10.00 a day for being even one day late on our rent check. They do not care one ounce if we have lost our jobs, or are old, and sick, and on a fixed income, going without doctor and\or dentist care because of lack of money. The recession we are in, and the low wage jobs in this town make life almost unlivable. I looked for two years for a job in this town, I have to settle for a job that only pays $5.50 an hour. I'm 52 years old, I had a Nevada teachers credentials, also a degree in c o m m e r c i a l a r t , a n d I h a v e t o e a t h u m b l e s t a r v i n g p i e a n d w o r k for $5.50 an hour. I can barely take care of myself, and my young teenage daughter. If you and our council members cannot help us who do we have to turn to for help and protection of our rights as tax paying citizens???? PLEASE HELP US with making this ordinance protect the fh,,-..nk . [i] council acenoa R€pORt Meeting Date Oct: 7 7997 Item Number CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: SUBJECT: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance CA O RE C O M M EN D A TIO N G ive Final A pproval to an A m endm ent to the San Luis O bispo M obilehom e R ent Stabiliz ation O rdinance Deleting a 10% R ent Increase on Change of O w nership D ISC U SSIO N On September 16, 1997 City Council meeting, the Council voted to introduce Ordinance No. (1997 Series), to print, amending the San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which deletes a 10 % rent increase on change of ownership. Ordinance No. (1997 Series) is now ready for final passage and will become effective thirty days after the date of its final passage. JGJ/sw A T T A C H : Ordinance No. (1997 Series) ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AM ENDING CHAPTER 5.44, THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, TO DELETE RENT INCREASES ON CHA NGE OF OWNERSHIP, AND MA KE MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.0l0(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring to sell their mobile homes may have difficulty finding buyers if, upon a change of ownership, the park owner is able to raise the rent above the annual rent increases otherwise allowed by the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance." SECTION 2. Section 5.44.0l0(F) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "F. This council finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo to assist those who are seeking to sell their mobile homes and those who are seeking to buy such homes to have the same fair rental protection as is afforded to those who remain in their mobile homes without sale. This council further finds that provisions allowing annual rent increases together with provision allowing rent increases upon a showing of necessity protect the park owner's right to a fair return on investment, thus eliminating the need for rent increases upon change of ownership." SECTION 3. Section 5.44.0l0(G) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "G. 'Change of ownership' means the sale, rental transfer, or exchange of a mobile home subject to the provisions of this chapter, excepting the transfer to tenant's spouse by gift, bequest or devise (which shall not be considered a transfer for purposes of this ordinance)." SECTION 4. Section 5.44.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. Ordinance No. Page Two (1997 Series) SECTION 5. Section 5.44.060(C) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may not be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be provided for in this chapter." SECTION 6. The first paragraph of Section 5.44.090 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby amended as follows: "5.44.090 In evaluating the application the hearing officer may consider, along with all other factors considered relevant, changes in costs to the owner attributable to increases or decreases in master land and/or facilities lease rent, utility rates, property taxes, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage interest rates, employee costs, normal repair and maintenance, and other considerations, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital improvements, upgrading and addition of amenities or services, net operating income, and the level of rent necessary to permit a just and reasonable return on the owner's property." SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of September, 1997, on motion of _____________ , seconded by _, and on the following roll call vote: O rdinance N o. Page Three (1997 Series) AYE S: NO ES: A BSE N T : M ayor A TTEST: City Clerk A PPRO VE D : City A ttorney FR O M : SU B JE C T : council ac en o a Q€pOQt CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Jeffrey G. Jorgenseity Attorney M obilehom e R ent Stabiliz ation O rdinance C A O RE C O MME ND A T IO N C onsider an A m endm ent to the San Luis O bispo M obilehom e R ent Stabiliz ation O rdinance D eleting a 10% R ent Increase on C hange of O w nership D ISC U SSIO N Meelina: Date I At the August 19, 1997 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to bring back a draft ordinance which would amend the San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance by eliminating the 10% rent increase on change of ownership, and make other minor technical revisions. The proponents of the amendment argue the 10% rent increase on change of ownership provision makes it difficult to sell a mobilehome, decreases the mobilehome's value when it does sell, results in a wide variation in rents within mobilehome parks depending on the amount of turnover, and is difficult to enforce because there are no reporting requirements to the City. Opponents of the amendment argue there is no evidence to support claims that mobilehomes are difficult to sell or the selling price is substantially affected, and if the 10% increase is deleted, the owners will have no alternative but to apply for a general rent increase under other provisions of the ordinance in order to obtain a fair return on investment. In fact, some park owners have indicated their intention to apply for across-the-board rent increases if the ordinance is amended as requested. As previously discussed in the May 15, 1997 memorandum from the City Attorney, the current vacancy control provision is part of a comprehensive, balanced approach which was negotiated by a blue-ribbon committee appointed by the Council and approved by the voters. The removal of the rent increase on change of ownership provision will change the balance of the ordinance which could force a greater reliance on formal applications for rent increases (pursuant to Section 5.44.070). This would potentially generate greater conflict over rents, and ultimately may result in greater rent increases to existing tenants than might otherwise occur since rent increases would no longer be allowed to be passed on to new tenants. There is a substantial concern that if the amendment is adopted, and the park owners apply for general rent increases, there will be further requests by tenants to amend the ordinance to protect them against such rent increases (i.e., changing the formula by which rent increases are calculated, or establishing a rent review board). To the extent the City attempts to prevent the park owners from obtaining a fair return on investment, the City then becomes potentially liable for a "taking" /-/ Council Agenda Report - Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Page2 of the park own ers' property . FISCAL IM PACT There is no imm ediate, direct fiscal impact resulting from deletion of the rent increase on change of own ership provision. However, if the park own ers apply for general rent increases, or the tenants request additional am endm ents, such as the creation of a rent review board, then the increased adm inistrative and legal burden on the City may be very signi ficant. It should be noted that there has never been an application for rent increase since the ordinance was adopted in 1988. In addition, the City only has an indirect role in any rent adjustm ent heari ngs under the curr ent ordinance. Changes to either of these factors could have serious workload implications. AL TERN ATIVE S Alternative 1: Should the Council wish to delete the 10% rent increase on change of own ership as directed at the August 19, 1997 City Council meeting, you should introduce to prin t the ordinance attached as Exhi bit A. Alternative 2a: Th e Council may wish to consider some middle ground concerni ng the am ount of rent increase which would be allowed on change of own ership. There appear to be two primary options in this regard. The first would be to limit the rent increase on change of own ership to the CPI Adjustm ent as set forth in 5.44.020(J). This would substantially lower the allowed rent increase on change of own ership under curr ent economic conditions, but could result in greater increases if the inflationary pressures experienced in the past return . It would have the advantage of being linked to a standard which is related to the cost of doing business and therefore would have some rationality. A disadvantage may be the perception that it would be difficult or complex to calculate. Alternative 2b: A related alternative would be to assign a lower percentage increase than the current ordinance. This would have the advantage of simplicity. As indicated at the August 19, 1997 meeting, several Californi a cities have a 5% limit on rent increases on change of own ership. This would probably be as good a number as any. If the increase was allowed on each change of own ership (rather than once in any 36 month period as currently provided in the ordinan ce) the concern about enforcement would be elimi nated. Whi le it is possible there could be greater increases than curr ently allowed if there were multiple turn overs, on balance, it would probably result in lesser increases overall and still allow the park own er to approximate a fair return on investm ent. Should the Council wish to choose some middle position, this would be staffs recomm endation. Alternative 3: The Council could choose to leave the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance as curr ently wri tten. Thi s would preserve the flexibility and balance adopted by the voters in 1988. Attachment: Ordinance /-.J- ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AM END ING CHAP TER 5.44, THE SAN LUIS OBISPO M OBILE HOM E RENT STAB ILIZA TION ORDINANCE, TO DELETE RENT INCREASES ON CHA NGE OF_ OW NERSH IP, AND MAKE M INOR TECHNICAL CORRECTION S. BE IT ORDAI NED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.0I0(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: C "E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring to sell their mobile homes may have difficulty finding buyers beeause if, upon a change of ownership, the park owner is able to raise the rent without regard to the eity's mobile home rent stabilization ordinanee above the annual rent increases otherwise allowed by the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance." SECTION 2. Section 5.44.0I0(F) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "F. This council finds that it is in the. best interests of the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo to assist those who are seeking to sell their mobile homes and those who are seeking to buy such homes to have the same fair rental protection as is afforded to those who remain in their mobile homes without sale. This eouneil finds that the vaeaney eontrol provisions originally ineluded in the mobile home rent stabilization ordinanee when it was approved by the voters was an effeetive and benefieial provision for the people of San Luis Obispo living in mobile home parks, and should be reinstated. This council further finds that provisions allowing annual rent increases together with provision allowing rent increases upon a showing of necessity protect the park owner's right to a fair return on investment, thus eliminating the need for rent increases above ten pereent upon change of ownership." · SECTION 3. Section 5.44.0l0(G) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "G. 'Change of ownership' means the sale, rental transfer, or exchange of a mobile home subject to the provisions of this chapter, excepting the transfer to tenant's spouse by gift, bequest or devise (which shall not be considered a transfer for purposes of this ordinance)." Exh,i,,bLt A /-3 Ordinance No. Page Tw o (1997 Series) SE CTION 4. Section 5.44.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. SE C T ION 5. Section 5.44.060(C) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby am ended as fo llow s: "C . The m aximum monthly space rent of a tenant may not be increased by the ow ner w hen there is a change of ow nership affecting a mobile home. H ow ev'eF, such incFease shall not exceed ten peFcent of the then existing space Fent and m ay not be Felied upon any moFe often than once in any thiFty si,r month peFiod as the basis to incFease Fent. In the event of change of mvneFship Fesulting from subletting of the mobile home space as may be allmved by state lav:, should such become state law, then upon any such sublett ing the space Fent m ay be incFeased up to ten peFcent of the then existing space Fent. In the event of change of owneFship Fesulting from vacation of the space, then the space Fent may be adjusted to faiF maFket Fent in the community. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be provided for in this chapter." SECTION 6. The first paragraph of Section 5.44.090 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby amended as follows: "5.44.090 In evaluating the application t earin officer may consider, along with all other factors it conside =--~ievant, changes in costs to the owner attributable to increases or decreases in master land and/or facilities lease rent, utility rates, property taxes, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage interest rates, employee costs, normal repair and maintenance, and other considerations, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital improvements, upgrading and addition of amenities or services, net operating income, and the level of rent necessary to permit a just and reasonable return on the.owner's property." SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this C ity. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days aft er its final passage. Ordinance No. Page Three (1997 Series) Introduced and passed to print by the Council of the city of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of September, 1997, on motion of ___________ _, seconded by _, and on the following roll call vote: AYE S: NOES: AB SENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVE D: City Attorney /-5 ORDINAN CE NO. (1997 Series) AN ORDINAN CE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AM END ING CHAP TER 5.44, THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MOBILE HOME RENT STAB ILIZA TION ORDINAN CE, TO DELETE RENT INCREASES ON CHAN GE OF OWNE RSHIP, AND MAKE MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. BE IT ORDAINE D by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.0l0(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring to sell their mobile homes may have difficulty finding buyers if, upon a change of ownership, the park owner is able to raise the rent above the annual rent increases otherw ise allowed by the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance." SECTION 2. Section 5.44.0l0(F) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "F. This council finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo to assist those who are seeking to sell their mobile homes and those who are seeking to buy such homes to have the same fair rental protection as is afforded to those who remain in their mobile homes without sale. This council further finds that provisions allowing annual rent increases together with provision allowing rent increases upon a showing of necessity protect the park owner's right to a fair return on investment, thus eliminating the need for rent increases upon change of ownership." SECTION 3. Section 5.44.0l0(G) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "G. 'Change of ownership' means the sale, rental transfer, or exchange of a mobile home subject to the provisions of this chapter, excepting the transfer to tenant's spouse by gift, bequest or devise (which shall not be · considered a transfer for purp oses of this ordinance)." SECTION 4. Section 5.44.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 5. Section 5.44.060(C) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: Ordinance No. Page Tw o (1997 Series) "C. The maxi mum monthly space rent of a tenant may not be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherw ise be provided for in this chapter." SECTION 6. The fir st paragraph of Section 5.44.090 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby amended as follows: "5.44.090 In evaluating the application the hearing officer may consider, along with all other factors considered relevant, changes in costs to the owner attributable to increases or decreases in master land and/or facilities lease rent, utility rates, property tax es, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage interest rates, employee costs, normal repair and maintenance, and other considerations, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital improvements, upgrading and addition of amenities or services, net operating income, and the level of rent necessary to permit a just and reasonable return on the owner's property." SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thir ty (30) days after its fin al passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day 9f September, 1997, on motion of ___________ _, seconded by _, and on the following roll call vote: /-1 Ordi nance N o. Page Three (1997 Series) AYE S: NOES: AB SENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk AP PROVE D: City Attorney /--f MEETIN.G _//A..,./J?AGENDA / ~ JATE l/-"'f t7 7 ITEM # __ l!,3reelq,ide Mobilehome Community 3960 SOUTH HIGUERA • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CALIFO RNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543-7113 Dear Resident, September 8, 1997 Thursday September 11, 1997 7:00pm Community meeting with General Manager Paul Dylewski On August 19, 1997 the City council, at the request of less than 2% of the mobilehome residents of San Luis Obispo, considered removing the provision of the Rent Control Ordinance that allows for a 10% rent increase on resale of a mobilehome. Should the City Council proceed with this action it may have a profound impact on mobilehome park communities. Enclosed you will find a letter from an attorney representing several parkowners in town outlining the parkowners' po"siti0[!_9_!l the issues involved. You are in:vffedto review-this-·ietter· as these latest events may~m~ct park owpers_and_r~~_ideDts alike. I will be in the Park from 10:00am to 4:00pm on Thursday, September 11th to discuss these and other issues. If you would like to discuss these issues privately please drop by the park office during those hours as I would be happy to meet with you individually. We will convene a park-wide meeting for all residents that evening at 7:00pm. Please plan to attend and have your voice heard. Paul J. Dylewski Genera l M anager D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR R E C E IV E D SEP 1 2 -1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL A N T H O N Y C . R O D R IG U E Z ATTORNEY AT LAW 1'3()0 (:LAY STHEET SUITE C!OO i : ·. ! VIA FACSIMILE A N D F E D E R A L E X P R E S S (805) 781-7109 A ugu st 13 , 19 97 C ity C o uncil, C ity of San Luis O bispo 990 Palm Street ~an Luis Obispo, C ali fo rn ia 93401 R e: Proposed Am endm ents T o R ent C ontro l O rdinance D ear C oun cil M em bers: I am an attorney specializing in legal issues involving mobilehome parks. One bf my particular areas of expertise is litigation involving mobilehome rent control ordinances. I have been asked to represent several parkowners in/San Luis O bis po w ith respect to the proposed amendments to the San Luis Obispo rent control ordinance. ,specifically, I hav e been ask ed to advise th e C ouncil of the foll ow ing legal is sues ;regarding both th e current ordinan ce an d th e pro posed am endm ents: 1.) VACANCY CONTROL: There is admittedly a great deal of uncertainty "regarding the legality of vacancy control throughout California. For example, although the United States Supreme Court has found that vacancy control does not constitute a :''physical taking" of property , th e high court has never deterrr f.:ed whether vacancy .control results in a "regulatory taking". Yee v. C ity of Esconciidq (19 92) 503 U .S . 519. If the City eliminates the current 10% increases allowable ~ollowing a turnover in tenancy, th e park ow ners intend to challenge that am endm ent on the ground that it resu lts in a "regu latory " tak ing. 2.) NO INCREASE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: In/Valparaiso Associates . v. C ity of Cotati, 97 Daily Journal D .A .R . 9336, the court fou~d a regulatory taking would exist if rent control resulted in fewer affordable housing units, rather th an more. Although the evidence has not been fully developed in San Luis O b ispo , it is ob vious that rent control has not resulted in an increase in rnobilehorne spaces in your city. i Again, if the Council adopts the proposed am endm en ts, my cl ients inten d to challenge : the very existence of rent control in San Luis O bispo under the ~alparaiso case. I <;.:ouncil Members August 13, 1997 ]?age 2 3.) "PASS THROUGH" OF CAPITAL IMRPOVEMENTS: In Sierra Lake Reserve v . .Q.ty_pf Rocklin, (1991) 938 F. 2d. 951, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that a re~t control . ordinance must not only allow t~e pass-through ~f cap~tal [mprovements, 1t must allow parkowners to recover a fair return on their capital expenditures. Because parkowners have a constitutional right w pass through capital expenditures it is obvious that any attempt to allow tenants to veto those pass throughs violates the Sierra Lake case. If the proposed amendments to the.San Luis Obispo rent control ordinance arc adopted, the parkowners also intend to file: an action against the City under the Sierra Lake case. · ' .. 4.) FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT: Regardless of how the City Council tesponds to the proposed. amendments to the ordinance, it is clea'r that the City cannot prohibit the parkowners from earning a fair return on their investments. If the City Councll eliminates still another source of income for the parkowners, each and every one of my clients intends to apply for any and all rent increases necessary to receive a ~ ir return on investment. Although some of my clients are still accumulating the nformation necessary to apply for a fair return, a preliminary analysis demonstrates r at the following parkowners require at least the following rent' increases in order to receive a fair return on investment: PARK Laguna Lake Silver City Creekside WHlow Creek Oceanaire SPACES 300 297 215 82 67 INCREASES PER SPACE PER &ONTH $77.48 $89.78 $69.62 $74.70 $84.52 In the past, most of the parkowners have been-willing to .accept less than a fair return in order to avoid litigation with the City and the tenants regarding rents. .Although the parkowners must keep all of their options open; at least some of the parkowners remain willing to forgo applying for a fair return at this time if the proposed amendments are rejected. CONCLUSION: By enacting rent control the City of San Luis Obispo has not _ only lowered the parkowners' profits, it has taken money they could have used to support their own families and loved ones and given it directly tol the tenants. Although th:re is a_ ~rowing tide ~f. legal opinion against any. law th~~ fequir~s one group of pnvate citizens to subsidize another group of pnvate ciuzens, 1n the past the .. ; f o u n c il M em bers August 13, 1997 . fa ge 3 p_arko~ners have tried to live with the current ordinance, rath er th an pursu ing their bghts m court. Unfortunately, the tenants in the San Luis Obispo mobilehome pm:-k·.~ are 1·0:: t atisfied w ith th e tens of thousands of dollars in rent subsidies thef alreadv ."c ,;-;,,r-:. · :iO, ear from m y clients. Ins tead, they are now askin g for a further r ,h·.-t\:i: ir. il· arkow ners' pro fi ts, includin g fu ll vacancy contr ol. If the proposed amendments are adopted the parkowners wm , :_,, · 1 1 _. other than to pursue all of th e above legal remedies. My cl\ents :· ,:it: ,l ,h.; ; .j1 / Council not to view this proposed litigation as a "threat," but a~ a log1c;:;I r.- ,11,i ,.,. ·_, :the further erosion of their investments. · In order to avo\d 8J ; 1/l'. · 1.,,. ;,:; ?.°i c onfr onta tion betw een the parkow ners, th e C ity and th e tenants, my die:1 ,. l' .. ifu .:,. iny !request th at th e pro p osed am endm ents be rejected . : : V ery truly yours, I 1cc: David Evan s A nth ony C . R odri guez ,! MEETINB AGENDA - j DATE lf~/6-97 ITEM #~ Mobilthom1 Com mut1ity 3960 SOUTH HIGUERA • SAN LUIS OBISPO • (ALJFORlslA 93401 • PHONE 80'.i/543-7113 Dear Resident, July 25, 1997 It has come to our attention that a few resident activists have delivered a communication to residents challenging the fairness of the City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Obviously, we do not feel the authors are representing your best interest as they pursue agendas that are harmful to the park, the city, and everyone concerned. We do not feel they represent the feelings of Creekside residents as we firmly believe most residents are quite happy with the park. In fact, the only difficulties or disputes we ever see always involve these fow people. We must ask, Why does this go on? Why do they continue the harassment? We are sorry for the tone of this letter, however, understand that we have endured year after year of constant contention, attacks, trips to City Hall, and considerable wasting of time, money, and resources that could definitely have been put to better use. We are at the point where enough is enough, and we must now challenge these recent efforts very aggressively. The authors claim we have a "team" of lawyers - this is entirely false. We havo never hired an attorney for any resident matter since the ordinance was adopted and the residents chose to sign th« lease. However. Jul' to the constant threat to our business we have hired an attorney as we fin d il necessary lo go lo the l·ity rent review process to pursue issues of "fair retu rn on investm en t." This could result in an across-the-hoard incroas« on all spaces_ not under lease. Ask yourselves if you want the~·activi-;t-;;-pinio~s·p~lling you p1•r.;0;1.1lly ul--r1sk?.W1• ~-ill no long~-~atch passively as a tiny misguided group attempts lo destroy the slahilily of tlu- h-..1s1• .md tho partnership between us it represents. The Park office has a full detailed written response to the authors' "Points To Prow the 10'."o RPnl lrnw,1sl' Should Be Banished." We encourage all residents interested in the truth lo read the response. \Vl! lwn•by Pncour..gl' all residents to write to the Mayor and City Council expressing your honest opinions of your 1•xpcrwnn• c.1l the p.irk. Let the Council know these people do not represent your interests and expose thoir gross m isu ndvrst and ing». Save your elected officials the time of dealing with this nons ens e. Let them know you lu-liev« th« ord inaruv, c.1s originally passed by the voters in 1988, is fair to all concerned parties, has Iurutioncd without dotrrrncnt Lo anyone, and has kept the city out of harms way. Quite simply, leave il alone! It is time to end this unnecessary negative posturing and utilize the Homeowners Association for rosiliw act ion for the community instead of the pursuit of a few individuals' agenda and aspirations. We c.1n! convinced you c.1n• not aware of your association's actions. We hope to see you, the residents, pul an end lo this misguided use of this important representative group. We would be happy to meet with interested residents to discuss aealing an alternative resident group - one in which you will actually participate. There are positive things that can be donv given a resident association willin g to work with management. We simply want to continue to honor the commitments of our lease in fairness lo all residents of _Creekside. let a few misdirected people place yo11r security in jeopardy. We truly believe a rational thou ' 1 · this issue can and will prevail. Again, please write to the city and pul an end lo this waste. ~UNCIL C reeks ide M obi/c/1om e C om m un itv =RNEY Vci.EA1 K/O R IG ~ h9 MGMT TEAM -Ed--J-E-~~~E~i~~:::::i~~=i!R~E::.-.:C~E~l;z,V,.:E::.,D~. -::_-ip-1. ~l=:-J_=-::of~-~le\-=-,.s-:-ki~·. ~~. ~~liil ~------ .. ..-- win . va SEP 1 2 1997 Don't SLO ClTV COUNCIL Creekside RE BUTT AL Discussion of authors' "Points to Prove the 10% Rent Increase Should Be Banished" ... C onsid er thi s a po siti on paper of sorts wi th th e in te ntion of co unterin g th e paten tly fal se accusations , th e outrigh t lies, th e gro ss mi sun derstan di ngs an d th e obvi ous irr elevan ce of th e 10 item s (ideas ?) given residents fo r wri tin g to th e city co uncil. W e w ould, frankl y, be em barras sed to use th ese item s as in telli gent reas ons th e C ouncil should co n sid er rem o vin g th e 10% rent in creas e on resal e pro visions of th e rent co ntro l ordinan ce. As you wi ll see , th e su b stan ce behin d th ese "poin ts " is dr eadfu lly lackin g in m erit. Ea ch of th e 10 points wi ll be resta ted wi th rebuttal comm ents to fo ll o w . Th ank you fo r rakin g th e tim e to read th is. W e ar e convi nced a ra tional , in telligent concl u sio n wi ll prevai l. 1. "R ents N E VE R drop in M ob ilehom e Parks , regardless of a slum p in the econom y w h ich m ay cause fa lli ng rents in other sectors ." Th e rents in a rent-co ntro ll ed di st ri ct ar e co ntro lled by th e C P I in dex. Thi s is a chosen legal baro m eter of eco nomi c activi ty an d genera l pri ce s in given geo gra phic m arkets. Th e San Luis O bispo (SL O ) ordinan ce uses th e C P I In dex to co ntro l in creas es in rents as th ey ar e in dexed fo r infl ation from th e bas e year . Th e ordi nan ce also onl y al lo w s fo r 75% of th e in creas e above 5%, as w ell as , in dexin g both up an d down . If th c C PI In dex ever w ere to go down so w ou ld th e rents ! T o as sum e a "slum p" in th e econom y necessari ly tran slates in to low er rents is fa lse logic an d poo r eco nomi cs. D o th e auth ors ha ve proo f of fal lin g rents in oth er sectors? D o they have proo f offa._l lin g rents ~ SL O ? W e don 't think so. R ent levels in SL O ar e som e of th e hi gh est in th e ~e ... ~5~g:f2r m ob ileh om e residents ! ~ C(/lrG/, o-,,e,..r ? c:>{' GL flo0, rc/4-~1h fa...,:=:'~{:;_ . M ob ilehom e par k rents in SL O are 20-30% below co m para ble rents in th e: sta te - SL O is generally an fc!. · V • - ex pens ive place to live. A t th e sam e tim e rents are kept low th e goods an d servi ce s need ed to opera te th e park h ~/J,:) '. 0 r cost m o re in SL O th an in m etro south ern C al ifo rni a. T o as sum e alrea dy low er th an avera ge rents can support -~ --;/' nc; . · ( [ . L cc . ;-~ /~,-6 high er th an aver~ge ex pens es 1s fa ulty . ,,. .,, , ,:,>(y .o rC ;u u P v_,;:. /2-_ o . -i:,, /. 1_;::. · Th e ordin an ce ad opted th e C PI In dex beca use alm ost every oth er ordi nan ce m th e sta te uses 1t to contro l , -?/· r rent increas es. It is th e C PI In dex th at ca uses rents to go up or down , not th e par k own ers. If th e C PI Index ·- - t ..r declin ed fr om one year to th e next th e rents w ould decreas e accordingly l .InteJSP..t0RlyJ f th e re9,ts W9-"S too}i/.¥1 beca use th ey "never drop " w ouldn 't th ere be vacan cies in m obilehom e ifaB<[? W ouldn 't15 aff 6Wik rs'tft£osiil g · rental in com e because th eir rents ar e too hi gh? Th e hom e sale s data fo r th e par k stro ngly pro ves th e exact opp osite of th e auth ors' co ncl usion - th ey are quite sim ply wr ong! Wh y w ould 45 peo ple buy into C ree kside over th e las t co up le yea rs if th e rents w ere too high ? Surely, th ere arc oth er housin g options fa r less expensive. 2. "S tated purpose of the ordin a n ce is protecting m ob ilehom e ow ners fr om unreasonable rent increases. T he ordinan ce does not do that. R ents are on an end less upw ard sp iral, accelerating w ith larg er rent increases after each resale, m ak ing a hom e unsalea ble. Som e hom eow n ers have even aband oned their hom e fr om desperation." Thi s effort at logi c is fri gh te nin g. Th e sta ted purp ose of th e ordinan ce is also to pro vide a fa ir retu rn on in vestm ent to th e own er of th e busin ess. Th e ordin an ce is design ed spe cifical ly to tak e both part ies righ ts into co nsidera tion . D o th e auth o rs pro vi de evi dence tha t th e ordi nan ce is N O T doin g its job? An d, w hat ki nd of evidence w ou ld pro ve thi s? O r ma ybe, thi s is a subjective sta tem ent of em otion not bas ed on fa ct. R ents are on th e sam e up w ard sp iral as th e C P I Index - th e sam e econom y w e all live within. Is th ere som e reas on m obilehorn e own ers sh ould receive a special exem ption fr om th e Am eri can econom y? 2 - Dear Resident, July 25, 1997 Th e following are additional co mm ents that were not included in the lett er dated July 25, 1997 sent to all residents of the park. These comm ents are equally im portan t but were left out of the letter you received in an effort to keep the first correspondence to one page. Pleas e consider the followin g. Th is small group of activists-have for year s mi sunderstood the purpose, intent and fun ction of the ordinan ce. They have sustained thems elves on gross mi sun derstan din gs of established cas e law and don't hesitate to broadcast thi s thr ough co rrespondence such asth eir "Points To Prove the 10% Rent Increase Should Be Bani shed." For · exam ple, stating tha t pass-throughs are illegal is sim ply incorrect as thi s is firml y esta blished by existing cas e law; to sugg est a city can not be sued over changes to the ordinance is dan gerous and ign orant - cities across the co untry are being sued over the mere existence of rent control; an d sta ting tha t rent control is a necessity begs the question of why it isn't law in every city in the nation. Th e authors pay no min d to the history of the ordinan ce - that it was negotiated for over one year at great effort by a comm ittee of homeo wn ers and park own ers representing near ly every park in SLO, tha t it was voted into law by the citizens of SLO, tha t it has fun ctioned without co st or detrim ent to the city or homeown ers for alm ost 10 years, and that the Cree kside leas e is gu aranteed assurances of future operations and the stability of the comm unity. Since the enactment of the ordinan ce, certain elements have been on personal crusades to flex political muscle, to ign ore the voters of the city and perpetuate their own version of rent controls founded in a gross misunderstan din g of economi c logic, business rea lities and existing mobilehome law. Th e authors of the letter are sim ply stirri ng up trouble. To think they are furthering some cause or figh ting against gross injustice sim ply isn't true. We are compelled to respond to the untruths, errors in judgment, and outright lies contained in their correspondence. Th e basis of the request to remove the 10% increase on resale is completely lacking in logic, has no economic or factual data supporting it (the da ta, in fact, refutes their conclusions,) is based on certain lies and, in many cases the arguments are totally irrelevan t to the issue they've raised. Most of the argu ments are fraught with emotion and lacking in an y facts or figures to support the emotional and subjective conclusions - 4 of the l O points arc untrue and 5 of them are completely irrelevant to their topic. Ask yourself, are they proving why the l 0% rent increas e should be bani shed? We think not. Let's not be fooled by this veiled attempt at emotional coe rcion. How man y of you non-leas e residents who sign ed the rent reduction application realize your "representatives" have challenged Creekside under the California Civil Code? Do you know the Civil Code provides for recovery of our legal fees should we prevail? Do you understan d their effort hopes to recover approxim ately 14<: of inflation on pass-throughs since 1994 - costs/pass thr oughs reviewed each year by the city staff and deemed correctly calculated and applied? In so doing they've put each of you at personal risk for attorneys fees incurred in our defense. (Th e 80+% who are on the leas e are in no way affected by this.). The Park office has our response to the city regarding thi s action and we suggest you rea d it carefully. W e ha ve been informed by the city attorney we are legally correct on each issue. Do you rea lly want these people leadin g you into a poorly though t-out effort that could leave you liable for thousan ds of dollars ~legal fees? Next tim e you are asked to sign your name to something please think twice. Cu ~'( tt o~( J I tze( -~.( e y, J ~ '7: l1. d iY- o ;,,-(J: 7l /10 -1- -Q y._ 0 fYh<1C ;__, ,0{c,·vtt ,;,,-,0 1 wof..,{lcl d c·Zt<f~fy Pleas e review the Rebuttal docum ent that follows. / ' · -h_ · 1 f_ -· p teere. I rie: }-OJ/ d C,1-} -r. MEETING_, ..,,, AGENDA ·,~ DATE q-/b---, 1 ITEM # _____ September 11, 1997 ME MORAND UM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: · Council Colleagues ~ Council Member Dodie Williams Council Action re Mobile Home Rent Stabilization ~UNCIL ::?c~o ~j,10RNEY 19""CLERK/ORIG D t,.lGMT TEAM D I l9":: D COD DIR □ FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR · D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR □ PERS DIR Regarding the August 19th meeting, I am convinced the Council has taken the first step toward setting itself up as a rent review boar d to respond to the wishes of a vocal group of mobile home park residents. Dur ing the hear ing, a num ber of residents who were satisfied with current ordinance provisions and objected to the requested change, addressed the Council and expressed their views. But it seem ed that one gro up in part icular had the ear of the C ouncil. It 's interesting that C reekside, the one park w ith an excellent lease an d w here many residents not on the lease are actually paying hi gher m onthly rent, is w here the greatest outcry occurs. T he com pro mi se ordinance w hich w as passed in 1988 by City residents had several fe atures built in to pro tect residents. Over the years a very vocal gro up has w orked successfu lly to rem ove those fe atur es and underm ine the ordinance. T his latest effort to delete the 10% increase on change of ow nership, ifw e acquiesce, w ill trigger im m ediate requests fo r rent increases from par k ow ners. In m y view , it w ill result in higher rents fo r the very people w ho led the char ge. R em em ber that the 10% increase affects onl y new residents who know the rental amount coming in. A s fo r the charge that it drives hom e sales down, one only has to look at current sales num bers to see the flaw there. Sales are up in every park. It is m y opinion that w e could reduce the 10% to a lesser am ount, extend the term from 36 to 60 m onths, or som e com bination of both. T o rem ove entirely the ability to raise rent on change of ow nership is the issue w hich w ill trigger new requests fo r increases. It is also apparent that the activist gro up w ill petition the C ouncil to deny an y park ow ner requested increases. T his scenario has m ajor im plication fo r both staff and Council in that it w ill require signi ficant staff tim e an d sets the stage fo r contentious C ouncil hearings as w ell as potential litigation .. In closing, it seem s a sham e to undo the effort s of a large gro up of citizens w ho w orked fo r m onths on an ordinance that didn't satisfy an y one fa ction, but did include som ething fo r every one. It has serv ed us w ell. C o u n c il A g e n d a . T u e s d a y ,A u g u s t 1 9 , 19 9 7 5. MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION (JORGENSEN/428 - 1 hr.) Consideration of requests for amendments to the San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization ordinance. ♦ RECOMMENDATION: Review and consider requests for amendments. FINA L A C TIO N : Staff directed to bring back draft ordinance to eliminate the 10% rental increase on sale and modify section 544.030 to remove provision (F) (3-1-1, DR absent, OW opposed). A. ADJOURNED. 8 R o b e rt S o u th e r 3 9 6 0 S o u th Hi g u e ra S t., S p c . 77 S a n L u is O b is p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 A u g u s t 1 1 , 19 9 7 B o nn ie G a w f , C ity C le r k S a n L u is O b is p o C ity H a ll 9 9 0 P a lm S tr e e t S a n L u is O b is p o , C A 9 3 4 0 1 R e : R e s p o n s e to le tte r o f o p p o s itio n to a p p li c a tio n fo r r e n t a dju s tm e n t al Anthony C. Rodriguez, Attorney at Law dated June 24, 1997 Dear Ms. Gawf: • Statue of Limitations: This appears to be an admission of wrongdoing. However, consider that from the time of initiation to the present the fault remains in non-compliance with the Ordinance 5:44:060 A and D, as if the Ordinance does not exist. Further, if the Statue of Limitations does apply, how is it that Management can go back six years to find an alleged error and recalculate pass-thrus (see attached a) ' • Failure to Comply with Ordinance: The petition did not contain exact amounts for adjustment because that would be a matter for discussion as I do not know the exact number of spaces involved. That could not be given to me by the office tho they should have it readily available. I supplied to the City all the information necessary in support of the petition to the best of my ability. If we are going to quibble over the crossing of t's and the doting of i's, then the honesty of the issue is lost into the morass of Iegaleze, which in the latter of the opposition letter says the City cannot consider state law (part 3); that intersecting case law parallels this situation (part 4); and then, as usual, the threat of legal action causing us harm and humiliation (part 5). That is tacky, at best! To summari ze, an action was tak en in disregard for the Ordina nce. This was not caught by the City, which does not speak well for the Administration of the Ordinance. The inequity continues, year after year! If the park owner is honest, he will recognize the error made and reconcile the problem. If not, then the Tenants and the City are then aware of the inequities of the Ordinance, particularly with its Administration, in order to strengthen protection for your constituents. Sincerely, .,, ~ f.D./ubf~~ cc: Ron Settle, Mayor Jeff Jorgensen, Esq. Ed Evans c/o Paul Dylewski C re e k sid e M o b ile h o m e C o m m u n ity 39 60 S. Hquera Street San Luis Obispo, California 9340 1- I]. / (_)"-·/ / REVISED NINE1Y DAY NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE December 14, 1996 Dear Barry Kaufman, Space# 95 This lette r serves as a revision of your Ninety Day Notice of Rent Increase dated October 1, 1996. The Creekside lease provides for rent adjustments annually on January 1st. This letter is notice of your adjustm ent. From August, 1995 to Augus t, 1996 the Consumer Price Index increased from 456.3 to 464.9 representing a 1.9% increase. Your base rent will be increased by $5.46 to $292.67 and will be effective January 1, 1997 and remain the same through December 31, 1997. The lease provides for additional rent for costs (also adjusted for infla tion) related directly to the park. These costs include utilities, governm ent services and fees, property taxes and unins ured losses. All increases and decreases have been adjusted for the CPI increase of 1.9%. ♦ Park use of gas decreased $.53 per month per space resulting in a decrease in additional rent for gas from $1.68 to $1.15. However, an audit of prior year pass-through computations has uncovered an error in 1990 (for 1991) of$.37 that has gone uncharged for several years. As a result, this $.37 will be added back this year (but not for any previous year) for an overall decrease of$.16 makin g additional rent for gas $1.52. ♦ Park use of electri city decreased $.13 per month per space resulting in a decrease in additional rent for electri city from $1.63 to $1.50. ♦ Park use of water increased $1.07 per month per space resulting in an increase in additional rent for water from $8.61 to $9.68. / . ♦ The cost for County dump fees increased 19°11 over last year resulting in a $.50 increase in additional rent from $2.01 to $2.51. - -- ·- ·· . ~· . .. ':· .. ♦ Effective January 1~ San Luis Garbage began billing the park on a monthly basis.;Dae to last year's two- year invoice there was a substantial decrease in the cost of garbage fees (due to only 8 months of charges). Your additional rent for garbage will be decreased $.61 from $.20 to a net decrease of ($0.41). ♦ City, County and State governm ental fees increased slightly this year. Your additional rent will be decreased $.01 from $.46 to $.45. ♦ The additional rent for property taxes will again remain $1.02. ♦ The lease provides for recovery of Uninsured Losses "not actua.Dy compensated by insurance and not caused by the tortious conduct of Park ... " Due to the extens ive flood damag e to the creek and adjacent park area necessary repairs resulted in expenditures of$92,539.14. The lease provides that the "Park wiD be responsible for the deductible portion of all insured losses or the first 5% or $20,000 of all uninsured losses, whichever is greater." This results to a total of $72,539.14 to be allocated over a 15 year period. The lease c:- also provides for "the cost of financing shall also be considered an "unins ured loss .. " however, this cost has not been included in the total. Your prorata increase in additional rent is $1.87 per month. However, pursuant to the letter to the Creekside Home Own ers Association dated December 4, 1996 this charge will be deferred to a later date. ,.-;- . ,-, -:', _,,.. ' .-- .• ·- .. ,:;.. (,,. . .. -,.. f- ; . ,.. , ,-, :..,. ,. r ::-,-:,:,v,;,,..r-. . C ,-,- ~-;,,,- Your additional rent effective January 1, 1997 of $16.27 will be listed separately on your rent statem ent and is not 1 · a-/c subject to future CPI increases. The above stated items reflect actual cost increases and do nQtinclude utilities and f' ·".'.',: ,./ other charges billed directly to you. Docum entation for the additional rent costs is availab le at the park office. This ,- _1 _ .. notice applies to all residents under the Creekside Lease Agreement. · ·· J '' Sincerely, Creekside Mobilehome Community C it y C o u n c il M e e t in g T u e s d a y , A u g u s t 1 9 , 1 9 9 7 - 7 :0 0 p .m . P a g e ? D a v id E v a n s , W e s t e rn M o b il e H o m e P a r k O w n e r s A s s n ., s t a t e d t h a t m e a s u r e D w a s a c o m p r o m is e a n d w a s d e c id e d b y a v o t e o f t h e p e o p le . H e s t a t e d t h a t m o s t p e o p le in t h e p a r k s a r e s a t is fi e d w it h t h e o r d i n a n c e ; t h a t o t h e r c it ie s in t h e C o u n t y h a v e a 1 0 % r e s t r ic t io n b e c a u s e le s s d o e s n o t w o r k . H e a d v is e d C o u n ci l t o r e t u rn t o t h e o r ig in a l m e a s u r e D p r o v is io n s . B o b S o lo m a n , L a g u n a L a k e E s t a t e s G e n e r a l M a n a g e r , c la r ifi e d t h a t t h e d iff e r e n c e in s p a c e r e n t s is m o s t ly d u e t o t h e d iff e r e n c e in t h e s iz e a n d lo c a t io n o f t h e s p a c e . D e s ir e e L e ft o , C r e e k s id e M o b le H o m e P a r k , s t a t e d t h a t s h e h a d n o p r o b le m p a y in g t h e in c r e a s e in t h e re n t w h e n t h e y fi r s t m o v e d in t o t h e ir m o b ile h o m e . R a y N e i m is h , C r e e k s id e M o b ile H o m e P a r k , s t a t e d t h a t h e is in f a v o r o f t h e p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s . H e s a id t h a t h is r e n t h a s in c r e a s e d fr o m $1 9 5 t o $2 9 2 in t e n y e a r s . H e s a id t h a t h o m e o w n e r s a r e n o t g e tt in g fa ir m a r k e t v a lu e fo r t h e ir h o m e s . L u c ill e R e b a s , o w n e r o f t w o m o b ile h o m e s in S L O , s t a t e d t h a t it is n o t e a s y t o s e ll a m o b ile h o m e , a n d t h a t p a r k o w n e r s fr e q u e n t ly a s k fo r m o r e t h a n a 1 0 % in c r e a s e u p o n t h e s a le o f a h o m e . S h e s a id t h e r e s h o u ld b e c o n t r o ls b y t h e C it y . L o is R e in h a rt s t a t e d t h a t p a r k o w n e r s fo u g h t fo r M e a s u r e D b e c a u s e it w a s t o t h e ir a d v a n t a g e o v e r M e a s u r e E . A g e n tl e m a n w h o id e n t ifi e d h im s e lf a s a n a s s o c ia t e m a n a g e r f o r a m o b ile h o m e p a r k r e g io n c la im e d t h a t m a n y s t a t e m e n t s w e r e m a d e in e r r o r t h is e v e n in g . D o u g la s F o g e y , M is s io n T r a ile r P a r k , s t a t e d t h a t t h e h o m e o w n e r s a t t h e p a r k w h e r e h e li v e s in v e s t in t h e p a r k b y c le a n in g it a n d k e e p in g it u p . W ill ia m W ils o n , M a t t h e w s P a r k o w n e r , s t a t e d t h a t h e r e lie s o n t h e 1 0 % in c r e a s e a ll o w e d b y t h e o r d i n a n c e in o r d e r t o m a k e c a p it a l im p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e p a r k . D e lo r e s V a n H o rn , M o r ro B a y M o b ile H o m e o w n e r , n o t e d t h a t w h e n h e r u t ili t ie s in c r e a s e d s h a r p ly , s h e h a d n o r e c o u r s e . M ic h a e l B o y s e r , M is s io n T r a ile r P a r k , a s k e d C o u n c il t o in v e s t ig a t e t h e f o r e c lo s u r e o f t h e p a r k . M a y o r S e t t le r e t u rn e d d is c u s s io n t o t h e C o u n c il . C it y A t t o rn e y J o r g e n s e n r e c o m m e n d e d t h e d e le t io n o f 5 .4 4 .0 3 0 F , a s it is n o lo n g e r r e le v a n t t o t h e o r d i n a n c e d u e t o p r io r a m e n d m e n t s . H e a d v is e d C o u n c il t h a t t h e d e le t io n o f t h e f o r m u la f o r d e t e r m i n i n g fa i r r e t u rn w o u ld r e n d e r t h e o r d in a n c e u n c o n s tit u t io n a l. M o v e d b y R o a lm a n /S m it h t o d ir e c t s t a ff t o b r in g b a c k a d r a ft o r d in a n c e t o e li m in a t e t h e 1 0 % r e n t a l in c r e a s e o n s a le a n d m o d if y s e c t io n 5 4 4 .0 3 0 t o r e m o v e p r o v is io n (F ) (3 -1 -1 , W illi a m s o p p o s e d , R o m e r o a b s e n t ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Settle adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. to Tuesday, September 2, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 9/16/97 BG:dr Bonnie L Gawf, City Clerk Te.1.eg~am Ttu bune 9/76/97 Battle looms over mobile home rents SAN Luis OBISPO the amendment will attend a public hearing during the City Council By Jamie Hur1y meeting at 7 p.m. today at City Hall. Telegram-Tribune So will Anthony Rodriguez, an Oakland attorney specializing in Nine years of smooth driving for mobile home rent control cases, the city's mobile home rent control who was hired by the owners of ordinance ended with a request for Creekside and four other mobile an amendment. home parks in the city. Rodriguez A group of mobile home owners . · said Monday his clients own about lead by Leola Rubottom has peti- · 900 of the 1,300 mobile home park tioned the city to eliminate the part spaces in the city. . of the ordinance that allows mobile Passage of anamendment elimi- home park owners to rais~ space nating the 10 percent rental in- rents by 10 percent following the crease following sales could end up sale of a coach. . ,, costing all mobile ho1;Ile owners ··1t devalues our mobile homes, more rent Rodriguez said. said Hu bottom, who has lived in the He said.his five clients planned to Creekside ~lohile Hom~ Cornmuni- apply for across-the-board monthly ty, 3!)(i0 S. 111guera St., since 1984. rent increases. Such increases are Hu bot tom said Monday the allowed under the ordinance if the specter of a JO percent_ increase in owners can prove they are not re- rent scares off prospective buyers. ceiving a fair return for their in- "There have been a few (buyers) vestment. who couldn't meet this," she said. The proposed general rent in- "(Ow11C'r::.) Inst sales because of it." creases range from $69.62 at Creek- Rubottom and others who back side to $89.78 at Silver City Mobile ~·- - ... ~ .... Home Lodge. His other clients are Laguna Lake Mobile Estates, Wil- low Creek Country Estates and Oceanaire Mobile Home Parle He also threatened to sue the city for the "taking"of property because the removal of the sales-generated rent increases reduces the value of the parks. . . "I question whether they would· carry that through," City Council- woman Kathy Smith said Monday. Smith said she is vacillating · about the future of the ordinance. She said some mobile home owners have said they do not support the proposed amendment. The council agenda information prepared by City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen includes the options of passing the amendment, reducing • the rent increase to 5 percent or . leaving the ordinance as is. · Smith said she was willing to consider lowering the sales-gener- Pl ease see RENT, B-2 RENT from s-1 ated rent increase if not elimin at- ing it. Park owners must under- . stand that the ordinance deserves a · new look, she said. "I think they have to live in the real world," she said. "Maybe they need an adjustment." Councilman Bill Roalman, who along withS mi th and Mayor Allen Settle voted last month to consider the proposed amendment, favors the amendment. "Frankly I'm surprised at the range of options that are coming · back to us," he said Monday. "I thought we were very specific.about " elimin ating the 10 percent increase ~ upon sale." [; He was also angered by the pro- " posal to apply fol'. park-wide rent in- creases. · "I think they are trying to fright- en elderly people on fixed incomes." The issue has struck a discordant .note with both mobile home and park owners. "Mobile home rent· control statewide is basically a very con- tentious issue," Jorgensen said ; Monday. "There is a lot of litigation . and a lot of conflict over this ques- tion." He said the park owners would probably have to apply for and not receive a general rent increase to pursue a suit claiming the city had "taken"- property by limiting the value they can have in the property. Jorgenson noted that local park owners have never applied for a general rent increase since the city's mobile home rent control or- dinance was passed by voters in 1988. The ordinance was written by a committee of. mobile home and park owners. H allows park owners to raise rerits once a year based on the Consumer Price Index. "This (amendment) will truly disrupt the balance," said Paul Dylewski on Monday. He is the gen- eral manager of EPI Limited Part- nership, which owns the Creekside park. . . · . "We have to stand opposed to it and do what is possible to protect our right, which is what everyone is allowed to do." · · · ' / . ·:TING 'lL 01 AGENDA ~ ' lJAfE 1,,. -, -,_ ITEM # __ {T_ LAGUNA LAD MOBIL! ESTATES HOMBOWNBRS ASSOCIATION (A Califon.I.a Noa-Pront Corporation) 102-4 St.pkai e Drin Sa Lail Obispo, Cal ifonia 93405-6260 Tuepboae : 105 544 5411 Fu : BOS S~ 5411 Araoldlvpantt Pnaiclat August 19,1997 Allen Settle, Mayor City of San Luis Obispo a COD DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □ REC DIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIR Dear Mr. Settle, You will recall the meeting at lunch a while back with Ron Dunin and myself. Among other things we talked about a need to revisit the San J,uis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance, particularly, to re-instate a Rent Review Board or similar agency. At the time we talked about the best way to approach the matter; and you suggested putting it on the City Council agenda. J~ater, we were notified that this would take place on August 19, but in the meantime Ron and I requested that our presentation be postponed to September 16. I received the packet of mobilehome issues from Mr. Jorgenson and noticed that all of them surrounded the matters about which the people of Creekside park, especially Mrs. Rubottom, were concerned. This reinforced my belief that the issue which concerned Ron and me would indeed be on September 16. This letter is a request t6 confirm the September time on the agenda, rather than tonight, August 19. We respectfully urge you to consider this request, Arnold Burghardt RECEIVED AUG 1 9 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ,.... "'/)" /q,..f- 0 MEETIN] /b q? AGENDA / .TE ff..'_ - ITEM # _ '1u..,:J......n....1 "1...L}rn..L1L..,, <:5 -</°tp Ni~< e/2£L..~f¥--' d cl P Jori..o{ [_,vUQ ~+'";' G_, 9 3 -s/o I ~NCIL $gRNEY '-,: D"CLERK/ORIG □ t,lGMT TEAM El ,. ,, ca( L, .1'..i7_,/ D CDD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR D POLICE CHF □ REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR C· TJwrzk_ ~s)~,a..Jw/1- 13 /! s· C/i~Pvi&-J'JI-; 0~md) ~-0-LJILyi-«7 c~ 93 0; / FHiCl;IVG:O SEP 1 2 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ,/..,·o . 7 ;· (/ ,,,-,' . ,_' / _/ ,.· ,..-- \.: -.:, '• ;, . -, '. t-----/ ,'!I Dear Council Membe D COD DIR D FIN DIR D FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF D REC DIR DUTIL DIR D PERS DIR -~.ETING AGEN1J'Al>-Gf7 uATE q-Jb-97 ITEM# _ We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as Measure D. These few people are not a true representation of the majority of residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo ... This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor" provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park. Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent upon resale of the mobile home. With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city & the park owners as well. We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the . original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988. Thank you, -tkLJA ~ ,...---, ti@~ /~ ·, ,-;- /-a✓L' ~ , ,,,/~ 11 '--jfu:j l!ta~~ RECEIVED SF.P 1 6 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ., . .'. ~~Jtt rnU:- -- ."" J , tJ~'.~U ·--- //421ti .. ,f, d?:v,.,,,, Jca] ~~1h (\ ! \ \ /;dY/mAJL> t? &~ f&r; L, /Jwe/ ( C>ERRY CARLSON J/J/nE-5 ;j/t 5·.-9& C;J ~PxP~¥~ Dear Council M em bers, W e reside in the Creekside M obile Hom e Com m unity in San Luis Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as Measure D. These few people are not a true representation of the majority of residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo ... This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor" provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park. Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent upon resale of the mobile home. With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city & the park owners as well. We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988. Thank you, SARAH R oi31N [NDE-Rr- µ✓lk///4// <f), 5/VJJff,,d:T J°c;/i~1~/q /1, /1~-J-=Jer .. . ~ ~\JI.--,~. '°b<o V/J~D f: • ,v1 f'-. ~g_ t?mA#Mfl)ff~ g;W3,,j,04 A. 'Jr;F/(J:j Ma,.-tt ~v~ Mi4ilTI-IA L; s-, ~vt-(VS., '> ,, Dear Council Members, We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis. Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as Measure D. These few people are not a true representation of the majority of residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo ... This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor" provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park. Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent upon resale of the mobile home. With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city & the park owners as well. We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988. \ q\;i l; Alc e;z •£:ld ~'YO// 7 D e a r C o u n c il M e m b e r s , W e r e s id e in th e C r e e k s id e M o b il e H o m e C o m m u n ity in Sa n L u is O b is p o . It has been brought to our attention that a very small group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as Measure D. These few people are not a true representation of the majority of residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo ... This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor" provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park. Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent upon resale of the mobile home. With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely , --~~veryone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city & the park owners as well. We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988. Thank you, "" . :.. . ·- ·-- ~Jtl~~ -~'ft, j!J. f?rruzeU,, &;;{;t; 'J? rlJ2 (c';,d;~ 7JZ4/u;~ L ~ F . --------------- 7-- - ---- . ' Dear Council Members; · We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent-Control Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as Measure D. · These few people are not a true representation of the majority of residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo ... This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor" provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park. Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent upon resale of the mobile home. With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city & the park owners as well. We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988. --=--___.....~tJJ-~;......a....;:;fr;ye ·'f(;)., sis:J::Dcwlr:2:,-= jcjcL, c::, ~lk~,Js .t,;{W1 ~1~J S7 f/«4 JikM JI~ t C I IP <l 4.J e. S-<144 1 tt5 l - C- \ Fellow Residents - this is a letter that will be presented to the City Council before Tuesday's Meeting. Please consider signing it. If possible please plan to attend the meeting to show your support & if you wish to, voice your opinion, comm ents &/ or concerns. Dear Council Members, We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988. as Measure D. These few people are not a true representation of the majority of residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo ... This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor" provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park. Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent upon resale of the mobile home. With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city & the park owners as well. We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988. Thank you, . ]I~ ~ ~Q&~·· Fellow Residents - this is a letter that will be presented to the City' Council before Tuesday's Meeting. Please consider signing it. If possible please plan to attend the meeting to show your support & if you wish to, - voice your opinion, comm ents &/ or concern s. Dear Council Members, We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988. as Measure D. These few people are not a true representation of the majority of residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo ... This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor" provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park. Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent upon resale of the mobile home. With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city&. the park owners as well. We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988. Thank you, --bdJ,L..-· +-~---"'--· /A--) __ &_s_0---=-------1-b p_tu:-e___ - I oo ~~ rvlor6~f-e ·~?~. ~f-- ;q1.7 D e a r C o u n c il M e m b e r s, W e r e s id e in th e C r e e k sid e M o b il e H o m e C o m m u n ity in S a n L u is O b is p o . It h a s b e e n b r o u g h t to o u r a tt e n ti o n th a t a v e ry sm al l gr o u p o f r e s id e n t s is a tte m p ti n g to a lte r th e R e n t-C o n tr o l · O r d in a n c e th a t w a s a p p r o v e d in th e G e n e r al E le c ti o n o f 1 9 8 8 a s M e a s u r e D . T h e s e fe w p e o p le a r e n o t a tru e r e p r e s e n ta ti o n o f th e m ajo ri ty o f r e s id e n t s th a t w ill b e im p a c te d b y th e a lte r a ti o n o f a M e a s u re a lr e a d y a p p r o v ed b y th e p e o p le o f S an L u is O b isp o ... T h is g r o u p p r e v io u s ly a s ke d fo r th e r e m o va l o f th e "S a fe H a r b o r " p r o vi s io n w h ic h al lo w e d al l th e r e sid e n ts to b e tre a te d e q u al ly if a m ajo ri ty h av e sig n e d a le a se a gr e e m e n t w ith in a p ar k. N o w t h e y ar e a s ki n g fo r th e r e m o v a l o f th e 1 0 % in c r e a se in re n t u p o n re s al e o f th e m o b il e h o m e . W it h th e s e c h a n g e s to th e o ri g in a l O r d in a n c e , it w ill a d v e r s e ly affe c t e v e ry o n e w h o r e n t s o r o w n s a m o b il e h o m e in th is city & the park owners as well. We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988. Thank you, /~r,, /1 . ) VJrv?~.,~ . . : (r&tY'-1'.nc- IA ~ ~y~ 11 l 1 l l I ( / / / .. : ! ' A TTO R 1'EY .,T L AW l.300 CLAY s·1·.1u.:l\:T SUITE 600 o.-.1,LAND. C A T,lF O R N lA 0401!.! T K T,E I'II O :-; II: <1:1 10• ,tO~·llOlh! September 15, 1997 Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq.· gity Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo 9.90 Palm Street an Luis Obispo, California 94301-3294 •• I . ; . '' .• ! . ' R e: V acancy Control/Regulatory Taking MEETIN~. . AGENDA ,_:/ DATE 2;L(sl9 7 ITEM #-""""_ .; ·: I • ear M r. Jorgensen, This.office represenrs the owners of several mobilehome pa1ks in San Luis Obispo. My c ients have authorized the fil in g of a lawsuit challenging the City Cofnci l's decision to implement fu ll vacancy control for all m obilehom e spaces w ithin the San Luis' Obispo City lim its. P lease advise whether a transcript or a tape recording of the City Council's! most recent meeting on this s · bject is available. In addition, please advise whether you are autho ized to accept service of my c ients' lawsuit on behalf of the City. Thank you for your antic ipated cooperation in this regard . . ; ; : ·;; ! : . ' H OUNMIORGENSN.LTR ,. , '. . i ,; : 2:0 "d Very truly yours, {kkfe_, RJ,' Anthony C. Rodriguef':J □, r.n .. ···1·-·• ~l.,1~\J .... oc·1 rrT.i·.-.J ®fORNeY o-ctERK/ORIG ~~M 0 . OCDD DIR O.flN DIR □ FIRE c: ::=:.~ □ PW DIR □ POLICE Cli;: · ORECDIR □ UTIL DIR □ PERS DIA RECEIVED SEP 1 5 1997 SLO C!_!y_CLERK: ANTHONY C. RODRIGUEZ ATTORNEY_..,. LAW 1;300 CLA Y STREET SU IT.E:,;oo Septem ber 15, 1997 Bonni e G awf City Clerk, City of San Lui · Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Californ iai94301-3294 , l R e: Silver Cit M obilehom e Park Dear Ms. Gawf, This offi ce represent the owners of Silver City M obilehom e Park. My clients intend t file for a rent increase of a~ lease $89.78 per m onth, pursuant to th e City's rent stabilizatio ordinance. Accordingly, please forward this offi ce the fo llowing docum ents: I.) A certifie~ copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including any and all a endrnents to the ordinance; 2.) A certifie copy of any regu lations that may have been ena cted regarding im p ementation of the ordina nce; ; I . : 3.) Any and 11 fo rm s the City has developed either for filing an application or for objecting to an application. Thank you for your f-nticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any question · regarding this subject please to not hesitate to call. cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq. City Attorney, City o San Luis Obispo 54/LAGUNA/CLERK3.LTR Very truly yours, Cmtc. ~' Anthony C . Rodriguez h P . 0.2 ' ! , .. '!. ; I ,, ·. ;; : ,. ' I • ••: . :,. '::; '.;. • I•; : !: ' . . :i . i: . . ,i '!. i;' , I •; : I '.;: '' . : : 1' . '\. : '. I:\ I : j • , I: . I• . ! . '. •I \• . '. I:: '. ' ' I ' : : i. I l j: • I:, , r ':·' ,'. ''' . ! . i: ! A N T H O N Y C. RODRIGUEZ ATTORN!;Y AT I,bW 1300 er.A Y i;,-r,u;,:T SU1TE600 Septem ber 15, 1997 Bonn ie G aw f City Clerk, City of San Luis O bispo 990 Palm Street San Luis O bispo, C ali fo rn ia 4301-3294 Re: O ceanaire M o ilehom e P ark D ear Ms. Gawt, T his office represents he ow ners of O ceana ire Mobilehome Park. My clients intend to fil fo r a rent increase of at lea st }84.52 per space , pur suant to th e C ity's rent st abilization ordina nce.I A ccording ly, please forw ar l. th is offi ce th e fo llow ing docum ents : 1.) A cert ifi e copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, incl uding any and all a endm ents to the ordinance; Po ili;l3 ; : 2.) A certifie copy of any regu lations th at m ay have been enacted regarding imp em entation of the ordinance; '' ' 3.) A ny and 11 fo rm s the City has developed either fo r fil ing an appli cation or for objecting to an application. T hank you fo r your intici pated cooperation in th is regard. If you have any question regarding th is subject please do not hesitate to call. V ery tru ly yours, ~cu ,· A nthony C . R odrigue'v .. ' ; I;, l \i' ;; : 11 • I , 11 • : }: ' , , ' : I . ; I : ' • : l I j. 'I. .. I ti' ! i • . '' : I: : . ; ! . ':. l j '. I 1; ' . r\ l . : cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq. City Attorney, City cif San Luis Obispo S4/Lf\GUNA/CU,RK6.LTR '. . '. J . · i 'I : i . .: l. ' 11 : ' ,I · !·. '., I, i r: . :! : ; : j. : i . ii. •'I . !l : i' i: . i; : ·:. L I! . ·] ''· . \; ' i' : i ANTUONY C. RODRIGUEZ ATTORt-:1!:'i AT L,>,.W 1300 OLAY 8TREJ~,:' $VITE: 600 TELEPU0'.'1~; <:1101 ~')4.eooo September 15, 1997 Bonni e Gawf City Clerk, City of San Lur· Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Californi 94301-3294 Re: La un.a Lake Mobilehome Park Dear Ms. Gawf, P.Q4 . :·. . ,, . , :l. . ·;. '!: :i : !i :: . ;l • 'j . I! . . !: • . : ! . !l I'. ' :! . ·I . :; i ! ; I . i; . . ii. . i ~ ' 1: • 1· i' ,. I!. : I:, . :j '.' This office represen s the owners of Laguna Lake Mobilehome Park. My clients inte9d to file for a rent increase o at least $77.48 per space, pursuant to the City's rent stabilizati n ordinance. Accordingly, please forward this office the following documents: I.) A certified copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including any and all a endments to the ordinance; : i: ! I I : i ;:- 1;_ 2.) A certifi d copy of any regulations that may have been enacted regarding im lementation of the ordinance; , I : j: ' . . . i; 3.) Any and. all forms the City has developed either for filing an application ot for objecting to an application. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any questio s regarding this subject pleas do not hesitate to call. cc: Very truly yours, ~y~~!=;b Jeffrey G. Jorgense , Esq. City Attorney, City f San Luis Obispo 54/L,\OUN.VCLERK2.LTR I , , I '. :; .. '. j: . : :, • i' j; .. I I: , 1: ti . '1 I l ' .. : ! A N T H O N Y C. R O D R IG U E Z A T T O R N E Y h T L t\V.f 1~00 CJ,A Y .BT ~Y.E T SVITEOOO Septem ber 15, 1997 B onn ie G aw f C ity C lerk , C ity of San Lu isi O bispo 990 Palm S treet S an L uis O bispo , C ali forn ia 9 4301-3294 R e: W ill ow C reek! M obile hom e Park D ear M s. G aw f, .. : . i T h is offi ce rep resent I the ow ners of W ill ow C reek M obilehom e Park. M y cl ients inten to fil e for a rent increase ofjat least $74 .70 per space, pursuant to the C ity's rent stabilizatio ordina nce. Accordingly, please fo rw ard this offi ce the fo llow ing docum ents: I.) A certifijd copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including any and all atendments to the ordinance; 2 .) A certifie~ copy of any regulations that m ay have been enacted regardin g im p lem entation of the ordinance; 3.) Any and ln forms the City has developed either for filing an application or for objecting to an application. .· .; Th ank you for your rnticipated cooperation in this regard . If you have any question regarding this subject ple ase, do not hesitate to call. cc: Very tru ly yours, awi cu~ A nthony C . R odri guez Jeffrey G . Jo rgensen E sq . C ity A tt orn ey, C ity f San Luis O bispo 54/1..,'\0UNAIClERKS.LTR P.05 . '. I I:• ;; : I;•: Ii I .. • I : I. : I: ... · il, : : ':·' : ! : !! ,• , 11 • ; :· I , ! I . i : I l_ ~ • I;! : i:: : ll: .. ' . ; : ~ . . . ) ! : ' I:•,' I l: ' : j .. • I • • I : j. ; ! ! I :: • A N T H O N Y 0. RODRIGUEZ .I\TTOR :-:EY A T LAW 1300 CLAY STREET SUITE600 0Al{L.I\NO. C'ALU'OR:-<I ... O ~O lZ TF.;Lr.PHONI':: •610> 4 ~4 -S O D il September 15, 1997 Bonnie Gawf City Clerk, City of San Lu s Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Californi 94301-3294 R e: Dear Ms. Gawf, ', ,; cc: Very truly yours, {]»J1cu· Anthony C. Rodriguez~ Jeffrey G. Jorgense , Esq. City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo 5•11.AOUNAICLei'.KJ.LTR ; • i • • '. ~ !) ,, ' '• ,. 'i : '• I: . ! ; ' ; . : , , : ; ; ; i !· . ! ! ): This office represents the owners of Creekside Mobilehorne Park. My clients intend to le for a rent increase of at leas~ $69.62 per space, pursuant to the City's rent stabilization ordinan e. Accordingly, please forwafd this office the following documents: 1.) A certified copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including any and all amendments to the ordinance; I 2.) A certified copy of any regulations that may have been enacted regarding irrif lernentation of the ordinance; 3.) Any an1 all forms the City has developed either for filing an application or for objecting to an application. Thank you for youJ anticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any questio s regarding this subject pleas' do not hesitate to call. '. '. ,: . i: '. i l . : ' j. ; i • I '' '.' 11 :i : ii . ! : \ i: : i: '; i. ~.~EETIN,!J a7 AGENDA / JATE Z-/6--, ITEM# __ co u n c u m ern on an ou m September 8, 1997 TO: FROM: City Council SUBJECT: Possible Implication to a Ordinance ritcw i(ACAO [~HORNEY, HCLERK/ORIG ~~I,AM 0 ·D DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF □ PW DIR □ POLICE CHF □RECDIR. 0 UTIL0IR OPERS0IR Mobile Home Rent Stabilization The purpose of this memo is not to deal with the substance or content of the mobile home matter before you as the City Attorney has done that in his memo. Rather, my purpose is to point out some potential ramifications or implications to a change in the present ordinance. As you know, matters relating to mobile home parks are under the control of the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development. To my knowledge, the only area of potential city regulation, which the City has exercised, is in the area of mobile home rent stabilization. What the city desires in this arena is self-evident, an ordinance that accomplishes its purpose and, to the degree humanly possible, is fair and considerate of both mobile home park tenants and owners. As set forth in the City Attorney's memo, and as some of you will intimately recall, the City went through an extraordinary exercise in 1988, bringing the two parties of interest together, having them work out an agreement, which was then placed on the ballot and overwhelmingly ratified by the City's voters. As a result, we have an ordinance which, perhaps in the minds of most, has worked well in that it has created relative peace, has discouraged overly adversarial stances, and has not unduly strained City resources by having the City act as a mediator, peacemaker, fact-finder, record- keeper, etc. My concern is that changes to the existing ordinance, with the potential reactions and counter- reactions, may destroy the delicate balance which was created by the 1988 process. If this were to happen, whether through intent of the parties or inadvertently, then there is the danger that the Council would be drawn into the fray as the rent review board or the Council would designate a separate rent review board. In either event, either body would be taking on a significant and difficult and often-times contentious role, and would require significant staff assistance to do this job. Wendy, Ken and I have spent some time discussing this matter and have concluded that the CAO's office can not take on this responsibility under present circumstances. To do so would mean that our present overall management-of-the-city responsibilities would have to be changed, either getting rid of or short-changing some functions, or that new staffing, permanent or contractual, would have to be provided. Even with the additional staffing, the workload· of the --., ,:, MEETIN.G QJ AGENDA / JATE t_- /6 .. 1 ITEM # _ ~ co uncn memonanoum September 8, 1997 TO: FROM: City Council John Dunn, City Administrative Office ' SUBJECT: Possible Implication to a Ordinance [l(cw ii(ACAO lil1,HORNE'i' HCLERK/ORIG ~ftil5AM D ·D DIR □ FIN DIR □ FIRE CHIEF D PW DIR D POLICE CHF □REC DIR DUTIL DIR □PERS DIR Mobile Home Rent Stabilization The purpose of this memo is not to deal with the substance or content of the mobile home matter before you as the City Attorney has done that in his memo. Rather, my purpose is to point out some potential ramifications or implications to a change in the present ordinance. As you know, matters relating to mobile home parks are under the control of the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development. To my knowledge, the only area of potential city regulation, which the City has exercised, is in the area of mobile home rent stabilization. What the city desires in this arena is self-evident, an ordinance that accomplishes its purpose and, to the degree humanly possible, is fair and considerate of both mobile home park tenants and owners. As set forth in the City Attorney's memo, and as some of you will intimately recall, the City went through an extraordinary exercise in 1988, bringing the two parties of interest together, having them work out an agreement, which was then placed on the ballot and overwhelmingly ratified by the City's voters. As a result, we have an ordinance which, perhaps in the minds of most, has worked well in that it has created relative peace, has discouraged overly adversarial stances, and has not unduly strained City resources by having the City act as a mediator, peacemaker, fact-finder, record- keeper, etc. My concern is that changes to the existing ordinance, with the potential reactions and counter- reactions, may destroy the delicate balance which was created by the 1988 process. If this were to happen, whether through intent of the parties or inadvertently, then there is the danger that the Council would be drawn into the fray as the rent review board or the Council would designate a separate rent review board. In either event, either body would be taking on a significant and difficult and often-times contentious role, and would require significant staff assistance to do this job. Wendy, Ken and I have spent some time discussing this matter and have concluded that the CAO's office can not take on this responsibility under present circumstances. To do so would mean that our present overall management-of-the-city responsibilities would have to be changed, either getting rid of or short-changing some functions, or that new staffing, permanent or contractual, would have to be provided. Even with the additional staffing, the workload of the • < office would be significantly changed, as the need for supervision, policy clarification, dispute resolution, handling "wild fires" etc. would present situations which would have to be dealt with immediately. In fact, staffing a rent review board would pose a workload issue m any department, and added staffing would be needed regardless of organizational location. It is not our present purpose to say that the City Council should not change the existing ordinance. That is your proper role and judgment. It is my role to point out that this is a situation ripe with the potential for "unintended consequences", that these consequences will have to be dealt with and that, for someone (if not many) that process is very time and labor intensive. A new police officer is instructed that one of his most potentially dangerous assignments is getting caught in the middle of a domestic dispute. In a similar fashion, even if the City were to increase its role in this "fairness/peacemaking" function, that in itself presents no guarantee that the situation will either be improved or that the parties to the dispute will be satisfied with the results. A little bit of history may be helpful (there are others who were around at that time and, therefore, could do a better job of describing this). Approximately fifteen to twenty years ago, the City Council created a Mobile Home Rent Control Board. After some years of hard work accompanied by much contentiousness, the Council eventually disbanded the Board. At about that same time, the Human Relations Commission had its own staff, separate from the City. About ten to twelve years ago, the HRC staff had been integrated into City staff, however the CAO's office had a staff member who worked full time on HRC/mobile home rent control matters. The main thing this brief history teaches me is that "there is no free lunch." If the city, by plan or inadvertently, is drawn more closely into matters of dispute between the mobile home park tenants and owners, there is definitely a consequence to the City Council (how you spend your time) and to the staff ( adequacy of staff resources and when they are assigned). In conclusion, and in reiteration, it is not my role to presume the proper course of action on this matter. Like you, I can only guess and speculate as to "what might happen" if you take one course versus another. It is my role to remind you that the City has been down a certain road before, with consequences unrewarding to all parties. Mostly, I wanted to state my concern that there are potential "unanticipated consequences" which we should keep in the backs of our mind as we contemplate changes to the nine-year-old ordinance, and as we potentially create a more activist role for the City in this arena .. .;:~_.i.i.:i.,i: . : .i;;;;i~:i ; ;:i:i:j~j~~:- ' .. _ .. NTHONY . RODRIGUEZ I i [i Attorn y at Law !13~ _Clay sf eet, Suite 600 ·0,a!~l~nd, C~li(ornia 94612 ; •1 r ~1= (s1 > 46 4-8022 I Jax: (SI ) 464-8023 ! ';; I .. I '' .. ; 'I, '' , -! i ''' l I . i : ; : T To: ,? A N s M I T T A L Ser¥ J°DQ_~~ I Ca» A1TDt.M5 Fox#: From: Date: Pages: Re: Anthony C. Rodriguez ·r /1sl1r '' I . !_·.;· 1·•••. '•. ·, -;·· .·.,. 10"d I . '' : '. i ·., .A.T'TORJ\"EY .,T LAW U00 CLAY S·1·H.i,:KT aorrs eoo O .'\l{L ,1.l\D . CAJ,IFOR::,,,I.\. 04012 'Tl<:T,Ef'IIO~ll: ce,101 <tG·HI021! September 15, 1997 ',:: I . ; : I . •:: : ,: : ' I . : ... l : .. ! : : : I I ·. I I : , .. l : .: ; Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq. ¢ity Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street an Luis Obispo, California 94301-3294 Re: Vacancy Control/Regt_1latory Taking . ~ ! . . . ; ! : ear Mr. Jorgensen, This office represents the owners of several mobilehome pa1ks in San Luis Obispo. My c ients have authorized the filing of a lawsuit challenging the City Corncil's decision to implement full vacancy control for all mobilehome spaces within the San Luis' Obispo City limits. Please abvise whether a transcript or a tape recording of the City Council's! most recent meeting on thi s s · bject is available. In addition, please advise whether you are autho ized to accept service of my c ients' lawsuit on behalf of the City . Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. I .. I : ! I Very truly yours, ~C_. ~- Anthony C. RodrigueN Hi AOUN.o\/JORGENSN.LTR \ ,: ; '. I ; I I , I i I Z:0. d '·:: : ,: ! ''' : . ' , ·: I I ' : :/ I '': i I I ! ; ,'I• l I!: ! :: I. ''. '' : . : Bpnnie Gawf City Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo 9 · 0 Palm Street S n L uis O bispo, C ali forn ia 94301-3294 D ar Ms. G aw f, This offi ce represents the ow ners of Silver City M obilehom e 1 P ark. My clients intend to file fo r a rent increase of at le ast $89.78 per m onth, pursuant to ~he C ity's rent stabili zation ord inance. A ccordingly, ple ase fo rw ard this offi ce th e fo llow ing docum ents: 1.) A certifi ed copy of th e rent stabili zation ordinanle , including . any and all am endm ents ro th e ordinance; I 2.) A certifi ed copy of any regu lations that m ay have been ena cted regarding im plem entation of th e ordinance; 3.) A ny and all fo rm s th e City has developed either fo r fil ing an appli cation or fo r objecting to an application. T hank you for your antici pated cooperation in this regard. If you have any questions re arding th is subject please do not hesitate to call. cc Re: .A.'l'T O RNEY ... T l..'1.W 1300 er.xv STIH1ET S U IT £M o O .'1.K L AN D. C,H,IFO R!\'I.'\ 0461~ TELF.Pl-10=-!<: <5101464-8022 Septem ber 15, 1997 Silver C ity M obilehom e Park '.: . '. ·i j V ery tru ly yours, ~y~.R ~h Jeffrey G . Jo rgensen, Esq. City A ttorn ey, C ity of San Luis O bispo 54/L GVNMCLERK3.LTR £0"d I I 1· ! : i I' .A."i'"i'Oi,:NJj:Y- Xl' L.-.W 1300 CLA}." STR£1!:T SUIT£ 600 OAKLAND. C.A.LIFOR!',lA O_.Oll! Tltl,RPHO:-rlt •Gl0• 464-60!!!! - Septem ber 15, 1997 j. i . : . j ... ! . ' i':' i .. f. I : I I . ; ! I I j l ! <i I I I ! ! I:: I . ; : I : : : ! I : . : I ; i I ! J B nn ie G awf C i y C lerk, C ity of San Luis Obispo 99b Palm Street Sa Luis Obispo, Califo rn ia 94301-3294 '.' •: 1 I :: 1 . ; I ! . :'. ! •, l ! i . I; ' D ar M s. G aw f, I T his offi ce represents th e owners of Oceanaire M obilehom e Pa k. My cl ients intend to file fo a rent increase of at least $84.52 per space, pursuant to th e City's ent stabilization ordinance. ·ccordingly, please fo rw ard this offi ce the following docum ents: ; :: ! ' ' ·: ( : · 1 i I ! I . i i I I ! I l : I C Re: Oceanaire M obilehom e Park 1.) A certified copy of th e rent stabili zation ordinan e, including any and all am endm ents to the ordinance; 2.) A cert ifi ed copy of any regu lations chat ma y have een enacted regarding im plem entation of the ordinance; 3.) Any and all fo rm s th e City has developed either for fil ing an applic ation or fo r objecting to an application. I Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any questions re arding this subject please do not hesitate to call. Very tru ly yours, ~C.U fjrj A nthony C Rodriguez I I Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq. C ity Attorney, C ity of San Luis Obispo $•I AGUNAICLERK6. l,TR t-0 "d 'i • : l i 'I I ; .. ! : : ! . ; : ! I : : : ,, , ,'. I . • l !' I ''. I i .. 't I : : i 1 i :i l :: 1. I ; . ' '' ; : ! . : I,• 1 .• I 'I .. ; : ATTORNEY AT L.-1.W 1!300 CLA\' ST.1.:11:ls:'l' SUITE600 O.-'ll(L.-1.1'D, C.-1.LIF OR!IIIA 9-¼612 .; ; .: : . TEl.EPH0:-1£ •IH O • 4U -4 ->l 0 1!1! Septem ber 15, 1997 Bonn ie Gawf dity Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo 9 0 Palm Street S n Luis Obispo, Californi a 94301-3294 • J j • .. : l: ... : . ii . ! ' ':: : . ; ' • ; I '!; .. ' '. .: ; . '·.; ~ ·; : :: ' l ' ~ I :: ! Re: Lagu na Lake M obilehom e Park ear M s. G awf, This office represents the owners of Lagu na Lake Mobileho c Park. My clients intend file for a rent increase of at least $77 .48 per space, pursuant to the City's rent stabilization o d inance. Accordingly, please fo rward th is office the following d curn ents: Thank you fo r your anticipated coopera tion in this regard. If you have any questions r. garding this subject please do not hesitate to call. C 1.) A certified copy of th e rent stabilization ordinalce, including any and all am endm ents to the ordinance; 2.) A certified copy of any regulations that may havej, been enacted regarding im plem entation of the ordinance; 3.) Any and all form s the City has developed eithe for filing an application or fo r objecting to an application . Very truly yours, ~y~~:=b Jeffrey G . Jo rgensen, Esq. City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo i '. S• LACUNMCLERK2.LTR £0 "d I • I I I I , I ! I ! I . ; ' l i .. I I I ! ·, ·: ! '!. : '. i. .A.TTOR:-:EY -~:r r •• >.W 1300 CL.-.Y STR F.ET SUITE<l00 O .>\l{L _.1,?-D . C A L !f'O H N !.'I. 9~6lZ September 15, 1997 B nnie Gawf Ci y Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street Sah Luis Obispo, California 94301-3294 ; . I ' ; ·:I, : • i • I: i I ., ,, . ! : I ! ; ii I . ; : I i I • s ! i ! I, l l. l I I l ' I l I ) i . Re: Willow Creek Mobilehome Park D ar Ms. Gawf, This office represents the owners of Willow Creek Mobileho e Park. My clients intend to file for a rent increase of at least $74.70 per space, pursuant to he City's rent stabilization o <finance. Accordingly, please forward this office the following do uments: ; ': . : ;. ! ; · · i l '. ·:;: ''•; : C • I I " ! I ; : I ': . i I ! ; : '•) . . : ! . 90"d 1.) A certified copy of the rent stabilization ordinan e, including any and all amendments to the ordinance; 2.) A certified copy of any regulations that may have een enacted regarding implementation of the ordinance; 3.) Any and all forms the City has developed either for filing an application or for objecting to an application . Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any questions re. arding this subject please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, awtei.i Anthony C. Rodriguez Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq. City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo : ' ' S4 "OONAICLGRKS.LTR I ! i I I t I i, I I . ! . ; ' [: i : . i: C : ,, I I I : , f: ! . : : : I) ! > l I . , : i i ; i; : I: I ., 'I • I I ; l' II .. > i ; ;. i; I . : . 1 ! '.: ! '. I/ I I ; . ·. i . ' • I l I .. : .. ; : I ! .. •I: ; . : . ':;: 1 ;;; Re: A T T O R ~E Y .... T L AW 1300 CLhY STREET SUIT£ 000 0Al<LAIXD, CA.Lll"OR~IA 94612 TELEPHONE 1:;101 40~-liO~~ September 15, 1997 . onnie Gawf ity Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo 90 Palm Street an Luis Obispo, California 94301-3294 Creekside Mobilehome Park ear Ms. Gawf, Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any questions r garding this subject please do not hesitate to call. .. ': ) ! '·• ' i l I ! I I. i ':: ! ) ; . . ; ~ , .• i This office represents the owners of Creekside Mobilehorne P rk. My clients intend to file or a rent increase of at least $69.62 per space, pursuant to the City' rent stabilization ordinance. I ccordingly, please forward this offi ce the following documents: 1.) A certified copy of the rent stabilization ordina ce, including any and all amendments to the ordinance; 2.) A certified copy of any regulations that may hav been enacted regarding implementation of the ordinance; 3 .) Any and all forms the City has developed eithe · for filing an application or for objecting to an application . cc: . ' '.' L0"d Very truly yours, ~c~· Anthony C . Rodriguezh I Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq. City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo 5 1LAGUNAICL£RK4.LTR COU N CTL AGENDA RE) ~RT TR AN SMITTAL FO RM I. Department Head: Prepared By: Meeting Date: Subject/Title: Jeo6 Jo.1tgenh en J e.6 6 J 01tg enJ, e.n 9/76/97 Mobile.home Rent S:tabi.Li..za;Uon 01td,lmtnce. Check one: (X )Public Hearing ( )Business ( )Consent ( )Appointment Approximate Discussion Time: Please submit this white-transmittal slip to the City Clerk's Office.by noon Monday fifteen. calendar days prior to the Council m~tirig. . Retain th~ yellow copy to attach to the agenda report when it is· ready for routing. yiclude names lllld address~s )if)1.ppellents., applicants, subdividers, representatives or any parties who must be notified about this item-at.the bottom of this top sheet after it has been detached from the yellow copy. II. RO U TING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD approval, please attach the yellow copy to your report and route to the following departments in the order indicated below as it applies to your report. Following approval, please initial and forward to the next department: The INITIATING DEPARMENT is responsible for obtaining all necessary signatures prior to submittal of report to the City Attorney. ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INITIAL I I Personnel Finance City Attorney Asst. to CAO CAO City Clerk -z . 3 COMMENTS: • < _; council acenoa uepont Meelin1 Date ·F R O M : SU B JE C T : CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Jeffrey G . Jorgensei ty A tt orn ey M obilehom e R ent Stabiliz ation O rdinance C A O RE C O M ME N D A T IO N C onsider an A m endm ent to the San L uis O bispo M obilehom e R ent Stabiliz ation O rdinance D eleting a 10 % R ent In crease on C hange of O w nersh ip D ISC U SSIO N A t the A ugust 19 , 19 97 C ity C ouncil m eeting, the C ouncil directed staff to bri ng back a dra ft or din an ce w hi ch w ould am end the San Luis O bispo M obilehom e R ent Stabilization O rdinan ce by elim inating the 10 % rent increase on change of ow nership, an d m ak e other m in or techni cal revisions, T h e pro ponents of the am endm ent ar gue the 10% rent increase on change of own ershi p pro vision m akes it diffi cult to sell a m obilehom e, decreases the m obilehom e's value w hen it does sell, results in a w ide vari ation in rents w ithi n m obilehom e parks depending on the am ount of tu rn over, and is diffi cult to enfo rce because there are no report in g requirem ents to the C ity . O ppon ents of the am endm ent argue there is no evidence to support cl aim s that m obilehom es are diffi cult to sell or the sell ing pri ce is substantially affected, and if the 10% increase is deleted, the ow ners w ill have no alt ern ative but to apply fo r a genera l rent increase under other pro visions of the ordin ance in order to obtain a fa ir retu rn on investm ent. In fa ct, som e park ow ners have indicated their intention to apply fo r acro ss-the-boar d rent increases if the ordinan ce is am ended as requested. A s previously discussed in the M ay 15, 1997 m em ora ndum fr om the C ity A ttorn ey, the curr ent vacancy contro l pro vision is part of a com prehensive, balan ced appro ach w hi ch w as negotiated by a blue-ri bbon comm itt ee appointed by the C ouncil and appro ved by the voters. The rem oval of the rent increase on change of ow nershi p pro vision w ill change the balance of the ordinan ce w hi ch cou ld fo rce a gr eater relian ce on fo rm al applications fo r rent increases (p ur suan t to Section 5.4 4.070). T hi s w ould potentiall y genera te gr eater confli ct over rents, and ultim ately m ay result in gr eater rent increases to existing tenants than m ight otherw ise occur since rent increases w ould no longer be all ow ed to be passed on to new tenan ts. T here is a substantial concern that if the am endm ent is adopted, and the park own ers apply fo r genera l rent in creases, there w ill be fu rther requests by tenants to am end the ordinan ce to pro tect th em against such rent increases (i.e., changing the fo rm ula by w hich rent increases are calc ulated, . or establishi ng a rent review board). To the extent the C ity attem pts to prevent the par k own ers fr om obtaining a fa ir return on investm ent, the C ity then becom es potentially liable fo r a "taki ng" • < Council Agenda Report - Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Page2 of the park own ers' property . FISCAL IMP ACT There is no imm ediate, direct fiscal impact resulting from deletion of the rent increase on change of ownership provision. However, if the park own ers apply for general rent increases, or the tenants request. additional amendments, such as the creation of a rent review board, then the increased administrative and legal burden on the City may be very signi fican t. It should be noted that there has never been an application for rent increase since the ordinance was adopted in 1988. In addition, the City only has an indirect role in any rent adjustm ent hearings under the curr ent ordinance. Changes to either of these factors could have serious workload im plications. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: Should the Council wish to delete the 10% rent increase on change of ownership as directed at the August 19, 1997 City Council meeting, you should introduce to print the ordinance attached as Exhibit A. Alternative 2a: The Council may wish to consider some middle ground concerning the amount of rent increase which would be allowed on change of ownership. There appear to be two prim ary options in this regard. The first would be to limit the rent increase on chan ge of own ership to the CPI Adjustment as set forth in 5.44.020(J). This would substantially lower the allowed rent increase on change of own ership under current economic conditions, but could result in greater increases if the inflationary pressures experienced in the past return. It would have the advan tage of being linked to a standard which is related to the cost of doing business and therefore would have some rationality. A disadvantage may be the perception that it would be diffi cult or complex to calculate. Alternative 2b: A related alternative would be to assign a lower percentage increase than the current ordinance. This would have the advantage of simplicity. As indicated at the August 19, 1997 meeting, several California cities have a 5% limit on rent increases on change of own ership. This would probably be as good a number as any. If the increase was allowed on each change of ownership (rather than once in any 36 month period as currently provided in the ordinan ce) the concern about enforcement would be eliminated. Whi le it is' possible there could be greater increases than currently allowed if there were multiple turnovers, on balance, it would probably result in lesser increases overall and still allow the park own er to approxim ate a fair return on investment. Should the Council wish to choose some middle position, this would be staffs recomm endation. Alternative 3: The Council could choose to leave the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance as currently written. This would preserve the flexibility and balance adopted by the voters in 1988. Attachment: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AM ENDING CHA PTER 5.44, THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, TO DELETE RENT INCREASES ON CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, AND MA KE MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.0l0(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring to sell their mobile homes may have difficulty finding buyers because if, upon a change of ownership, the park owner is able to raise the rent without regard to the city's mobile home Fent stabilization ordinance above the annual rent increases otherwise allowed by the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance." SECTION 2. Section 5.44.0l0(F) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "F. This council finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo to assist those who are seeking to sell their mobile homes and those who are seeking to buy such homes to have the same fair rental protection as is afforded to those who remain in their mobile homes without sale. This council finds that the vacancy control provisions originally included in the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance ,.vhen it was approved by the voteFS vms an effective and beneficial prnvision for the people of San Luis Obispo living in mobile home parks, and should be reinstated. This council further finds that provisions allowing annual rent increases together with provision allowing rent increases upon a showing of necessity protect the park owner's right to a fair return on investment, thus eliminating the need for rent increases above ten percent upon change of ownership." SECTION 3. Section 5.44.0l0(G) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "G. 'Change of ownership' means the sale, rental transfer, or exchange of a mobile home subject to the provisions of this chapter, excepting the transfer to tenant's spouse by gift, bequest or devise (which shall not be considered a transfer for purposes of this ordinance)." Exh,i,bd A Ordinance No. Page Two (1997 Series) SECTION 4. Section 5.44.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 5. Section 5.44.060(C) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: "C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may not be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. However, such increase shall not exceed ten percent of the then existing space rent and may not be relied upon any more often than once in any thirty six month period as the basis to increase rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from subletting of the mobile home space as may be allowed by state law, should such become state law, then upon any such subletting the space rent may be increased up to ten percent of the then existing space rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from vacation of the space, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be provided for in this chapter." SECTION 6. The first paragraph of Section 5.44.090 of the San Luis Obispo M unicipal code is hereby amended as follows: "5.44.090 In evaluating the application the council hearing officer may consider, along with all other factors it considered relevant, changes in costs to the owner attributable to increases or decreases in master land and/or facilities lease rent, utility rates, property taxes, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage interest rates, employee costs, normal repair and maintenance, and other considerations, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital improvements, upgrading and addition of amenities or services, net operating income, and the level of rent necessary to permit a just and reasonable return on the owner's property." SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. Ordinance No. Page Three (1997 Series) Introduced and passed to PRINT BY THE Council of the city of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of September, 1997, on motion of ____________ , seconded by _, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVE D: City Attorney O RD INAN CE NO . (1997 Series) A N ORD INA NCE O F TH E CITY OF SA N LU IS OBISPO AM E N D IN G CHA PT E R 5.44, TH E SA N LU IS OBISPO M O BIL E HOM E RE N T STA BILIZA TIO N ORD INA N CE, TO DEL E T E RE N T IN CRE A SES ON CHA NG E OF OW NE RSH IP, A N D MA KE M IN O R TE CH NICA L CO RRE CT IO N S. B E IT O R D A IN E D by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as fo llows: SEC T IO N 1. Section 5.4 4.0l0(E) of the San Luis Obispo M unicipal Code is hereby am ended as fo llows: "E. Tenants in m obile hom e parks desiring to sell their m obile hom es m ay have difficulty finding buyers if, upon a change of ow nership, the park owner is able to raise the rent above the annual rent increases otherw ise allow ed by the M obilehom e Rent Stabilization Ordinance." · SEC T IO N 2. Section 5.4 4.0l0(F) of the San Luis Obispo M unicipal Code is hereby am ended as fo llows: "F . This council finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the C ity of San Luis O bispo to assist those w ho are seeking to sell their m obile hom es and those w ho are seeking to buy such hom es to have the sam e fair rental protection as is afforded to those w ho rem ain in their m obile hom es w ithout sale. This council fu rther finds that provisions allow ing annual rent increases together w ith provision allow ing rent increases upon a showing of necessity protect the park ow ner's right to a fa ir return on investm ent, thus elim inating the need for rent increases upon change of ownership." SEC T IO N 3. Section 5.44.0l0(G) of the San Luis O bispo M unicipal Code is hereby am ended as fo llows: "G . 'Change of ow nership' m eans the sale, rental transfe r, or exchange of a m obile hom e subject to the provisions of this chapter, excepting the transfer to tenant's spouse by gift , bequest or devise (w hich shall not be considered a transfe r fo r purposes of this ordinance)." SEC T IO N 4. Section 5.4 4.040 of the San Luis O bispo M unicipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. SEC T IO N 5. Section 5.4 4.060(C) of the San Luis Obispo M unicipal Code is hereby am ended as follows: Ordinance No. Page Two (1997 Series) "C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may not be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be provided for in this chapter." SECTION 6. The first paragraph of Section 5.44.090 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal code is hereby amended as follows: "5.44.090 In evaluating the application the hearing officer may consider, along with all other factors considered relevant, changes in costs to the owner attributable to increases or decreases in master land and/or facilities lease rent, utility rates, property taxes, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage interest rates, employee costs, normal repair and maintenance, and other considerations, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital improvements, upgrading and addition of amenities or services, net operating income, and the level of rent necessary to permit a just and reasonable return on the ow ner's property." SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of September, 1997, on motion of ------------~ seconded by _, and on the following roll call vote: Ordinance N o. Page Three (1997 Series) AYE S: N O ES: A BSEN T: M ayor A TTEST: City Clerk A PPROVE D: City A ttorney 1 7/. ./ . - - R E S O L UTION NO . 8490 (1996 Serie s ) A R E S O L UT I O N OF THE C IT Y COU N CIL OF TH E CITY O F SAN LU IS O B I SPO O PP O S ING TH E STATE IN I T I A TIV E BAL LOT MEASU RE TIT LED TH E M O B I L E H OM E FA IRN E S S AN D REN TAL A SSISTAN CE ACT (P R OP O S IT I ON 199 ) WH E R EA S , a state initiative measure titled "The Mobilehome Fairness and Rental Assistance Act" (Proposition 199, hereafter "Mobilehome Initiative") has been certified for the March 26, 1996 election ballot and, if it becomes law, would preempt all local ordinances regulating rents on any mobilehome park space; and WH ER EA S , the Mobilehome Initiative would detrimentally impact the ability of a local jurisdiction to regulate local mobilehome rent stabilization issues; and WH E R EA S , this Council has opposed and continu~s to oppose any legislation which seeks to restrict the City's ability to regulate mobilehome rent stabilization matters. N OW , TH ER E F O R E , BE IT RESO LV ED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that it opposes the passage of the Mobilehome Initiative (Proposition 199). B E IT FU R T H E R RESO LV E D that the Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo be authorized to send a copy of this Council Resolution opposing the Mobilehome Initiative to the State Legislature, other cities within the State of California, and to other concerned organizations, officials, and individuals. On motion of Williams , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: Romero A y e s : Council Members Williams, Romero, Roalman, Smith and Mayor Settl N o e s : None A b s ~n t : None R-8490 Resolution No. 8490 (1996 Series) Page Two the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this___§_!..!:: day of February , 1996. Mayor Allen Settle Assistant City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: DATE: 7 /22/96 I. ORIGINATED BY: COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM 1 \. (\1 !, '- i \\ Je.UiLe£' G. ]o/reen6e.n (1 \\ MEETING DATE: 2/6/96 I • SUBJECT: Public Hearing Business ~sent Circle One) Part I (white) fo rm ru st be subm itted to the City Clerk's Off ice on the Frida y be fo re the Tue sday Agenda Review me eting. Please forward name s and add resses of prope rty owne rs, appe llants, subd ivide rs, app licants, or any pa rties wh _o rru st be no tified abou t this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if po ssible. II. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT ROUTING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD app roval, please attach Part 11 (cana ry) to your repo rt and rou te to the fo l lowing depa rtme nt heads in the order ind icated be low. Following app roval, please initial and send on. ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INIT. PERSONNEL FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CAO CAO CITY CLERK NOTE: The initiating de pa rtme nt head is respon sible for ob taining ill ne cessary signa tures (other depa rtme nt heads and consultants) prior to subm ittal of repo rt to the City Attorney, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMMENTS: I. ijhite: Prelim Notification Slip II. Canary: Agend a Repo rt Rou ting Slip III. Pink: Depa rtme nt Copy ,iu~mi1111~ IJlll\\1 city o~ san lurs oeispo •111.011111 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETJNG DATE: Z/6/96 ITEM NUMBER: FROM: SUBJECT: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen~ Resolution Opposing the IIMobilehome Fairness and Rental Assistance Act" CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a Resolution Opposing the "Mobilehome Fairness and Rental Assistance Act" Discussion: On May 3, 1994, 't.he City Council . adopted Resolution No. 8288, opposing the "Mobilehome Fairness arid Rental Assistance Act," which was being circulated for signatures at that time. The Initiative qualified for the ballot and will appear as a ballot measure at the March 26, 1996 election. The measure would invalidate the City's Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance and preempt any further local regulation of mobilehome rents. At the June 6, 1995 City Council Meeting, the Council was again asked to adopt a resolution opposing the "Mobilehome Fairness and Rental Assistance Act." At that time, it was felt a resolution closer to the election would be more effective in bringing the issue to the attention of the voters. With the State primary election now scheduled for March 26, 1996, this would appear to be an appropriate time to adopt another resolution. JGJ/sw Attach. 1: Attach. 2: Proposed Resolution Resolution 8288 RESOLUTION NO. (1996 series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OPPOSING THE STATE INITIATIVE BALLOT MEASURE TITLED THE MOBILEHOME FAIRNESS AND RENTAL ASSISTANCE ACT WHEREAS, a state initiative measure titled "The Mobilehome Fairness and Rental Assistance Act" (hereafter "Mobilehome Initiative") has been certified for the March 26, 1996 election ballot and, if it becomes law, would preempt all local ordinances regulating rents on any mobilehome park space; and WHEREAS, the Mobilehome Initiative would detrimentally impact the ability of a local jurisdiction to regulate local mobilehome rent stabilization issues; and WHEREAS, this Council has opposed and continues to oppose any legislation which seeks to restrict the City's ability to regulate mobilehome rent stabilization matters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that it opposes the passage of the Mobilehome Initiative. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo be authorized to send a copy of this Council Resolution opposing the Mobilehome Initiative to the State Legislature, other cities within the State of California, and to other concerned organizations, officials, and individuals. On motion of _________ , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Atiac.h.me,n,t 1 R e s o l u t i o n N o . P a g e T w o (1 9 9 6 Se r i e s ) t h e f o r e g o i n g R e s o l u t i o n w a s p a s s e d a n d a d o p t e d t h i s __ d a y o f ______ , 19 9 6 . M a y o r A l l e n Se t t l e A T T E S T : C i t y C l e r k A P P R O V E D A S T O F O RM : 8288 RESOLUTION NO. (1994 Series) A RESOLUTION OF TIIE COUNCIL OF THE Cl1Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OPPOSING TIIE "RENTAL ASSISTANCE" INITIATIVE WH EREAS, mobilehome owners in San Luis Obsipo are overwhelmingly senior citizens and low-income families living on fixed retirement or severely-limited incomes; and, WH ERE AS, nearly 100 California counties, cities and towns have passed some form of mobilehome rent protection ordinance to safeguard these vulnerable elderly and low- , income families from excessive rent increases; and, WH ERE AS mobilehome owners are somewhat captive due· to the shortage of available mobilehome park rental spaces; WH EREAS the City Council opposes any statewide pre-emption of local control to make policy responding to the crisis in mobilehome park space rents and availability; and, WH EREAS mobilehome owners often forfeit their only asset, their homes, when they cannot pay excessive rents; and, WH EREAS an initiative now in circulation, misleadingly titled the "Rental Assistance" initiative would void the meaningful protection in those 100 ordinances; and, WH EREAS that initiative is being misrepresented as one which would assist mobilehome owners in meeting their rents, rather than one which would allow mobilehome park landlords to raise rents without restriction, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council opposes the "Rental Assistance" initiative currently in circulation, and directs that such opposition be communicated to the Legislature and the Governor and those advocacy organization to which we belong. R-8288 Att.ac.hme..n:t. 2 O n m otio n of Roalman , seconded by Settle , and -------------- ---------· on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Roal man, Settle, Rappa, Romero and Mayor Pinard NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 3rd day of May ·, 1994. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: MEETING DATE: ✓ AAI 4-4-95 1n ITEM NUMBER:c-v FROM: SUBJECT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTO'fill EYcff PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMA'l'IC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. GIVE FINAL,PASSAGE TO ORDINANCE NO. 1279 (1995 SEijIES) AMENDING SECTION S.44.060(E) · OF TH~, MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. . ~ . . . p on March 21, 1995, the City Council passed to print an amendment of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, .Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent,Stabilization Ordinance concerning automatic adjustments to ren~, making such adjustments applicable to both increases or decreases in expenses, to clarify that expenses do not include cap~tal improvements or ongoing maintenance costs, and to extend the notice period for such increases or decreases to 90 days, consistent with Civil Code Section 798.30. CAO RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSSION: FISCAL-IMPACT: There is no anticipated impact on City funding, either in terms of expense or savings. JGJ/sw Attachments: Exhibit A: Ordinance No. 1279 (1995 Series) c-5-1 , ~Ill city o~ san Luis osispo -.. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: 3/Zl./95 I. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ORIGINATED BY: MEETING DATE: 4/4/95 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO Tiff MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STAHI LIZATION ORVINANCE Public Bearing Business ~nsent" Circle One) RECOMMENDATION(S): G1V[ FINAL PASSAGE TO ORV1NANCE NO. 1@ (7995) SERIES AMENV1NG SECTION 5.44.060 (E) OF Tiff MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORVINANCE. Part I (white) form rust be submitted to the City Clerk's Office on the Friday before the Tuesday Agenda Review meeting. Please forward names and addresses of property owners, appellants, subdividers, applicants, or any parties who rust be notified about this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if possible. II. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT ROUTING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD approval, please attach Part II (canary) to your report and route to the following department heads in the order indicated below. Following approval, please initial and send on. ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INIT. I PERSONNEL FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CAO CAO 3 CITY CLERK NOTE: The initiating department head is responsible for obtaining ill necessary signatures (other department heads and consultants) prior to submittal of report to the City Attorney, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMMENTS: l. White: Prelim Notification Slip 11. Canary: Agenda Report Routing Slip III. Pink: Department Copy \ city o~ san tuts ostspo llllilillihm 1111s1I COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: 4-4-95 ITEM NUMBER: FROM: SUBJECT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEYV PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. CAO RECOMMENDATION: JGJ/sw Attachments: Exhibit A: Ordinance No. 1279 (1995 Series) CONCERNING GIVE FINAL PASSAGE TO ORDINANCE NO. 1279 (1995 SERIES) AMENDING SECTION 5.44.060(E) OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK . RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE. DISCUSSION: On March 21, 1995, the City Council passed to print an amendment of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance concerning automatic adjustments to rent, making such adjustments applicable to both increases or decreases in expenses, to clarify that expenses do not include capital improvements or ongoing maintenance costs, and to extend the notice period for such increases or decreases to 90 days, consistent with Civil Code Section 798.30. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no anticipated impact on City funding, either in terms of expense or savings. O R D I N A N C E N O . 1 2 7 9 (1 9 9 5 S e r i e s ) A N O R D I N A N C E O F T H E C O U N C I L O F T H E C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O A M E N D I N G S E C T I O N 5 .4 4 .0 6 0 (E ) (1 9 9 5 ) O F T H E S A N L U I S O B I S P O MU N I C I P A L C O D E R E G A R D I N G M O B I L E H O M E P A R K R E N T S T A B I L I Z A T I O N O n M a r c h 2 1 , 1 9 9 5 , t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o C i t y C o u n c i l v o t e d t o i n t r o d u c e O r d i n a n c e N o . 1 2 7 9 (1 9 9 5 S e r i e s ), w h i c h a m e n d s C h a p t e r 5 . 4 4 . 0 6 0 (E ) o f t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M u n i c i p a l C o d e r e l a t i n g t o a u t o m a t i c a d j u s t m e n t s t o r e n t , m a k i n g s u c h a d j u s t m e n t s a p p l i c a b l e t o b o t h i n c r e a s e s o r d e c r e a s e s i n e x p e n s e , t o c l a r i f y t h a t e x p e n s e s d o n o t i n c l u d e c a p i t a l i m p r o v e m e n t s o r o n g o i n g m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s , a n d t o e x t e n d t h e n o t i c e p e r i o d f o r s u c h i n c r e a s e s o r d e c r e a s e s t o 9 0 d a y s , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h C i v i l C o d e S e c t i o n 7 9 8 .3 0 . T h e C o u n c i l m u s t v o t e a g a i n t o a p p r o v e t h e o r d i n a n c e b e f o r e i t c a n t a k e e f f e c t . T h a t a c t i o n i s t e n t a t i v e l y s c h e d u l e d f o r A p r i l 4 , 1 9 9 5 , a t a r e g u l a r C i t y C o u n c i l m e e t i n g t o b e g i n a t 7 :0 0 p .m . i n t h e C o u n c i l C h a m b e r s o f C i t y H a l l , 9 9 0 P a l m S t r e e t . C o p i e s o f t h e c o m p l e t e o r d i n a n c e a r e a v a i l a b l e i n t h e C i t y C l e r k 's O f f i c e i n R o o m #1 o f c i t y H a l l , 9 9 0 P a l m S t r e e t . F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n , c o n t a c t C i t y C l e r k , D i a n e G l a d w e l l a t 7 8 1 -7 1 1 0 . MAR-21-95 TUE 15:00 ELLENBURG CAPITAL CORPORATION ECC LEGAL DEPT FAX NO. sn~2742761 P. 02 IVitETING __AGENDA / DATE Jd1,r,s::)1EM H-- ll' ..,GOUNCIL M"CAO l("~AO rY'gTORNEY '1"CLERK.ORIG 0 MGMT TEAM 0 CREADFILE -~ D CDDDIR D FINDIR □ FIRE CHIEF D PWDIR D POLICECHF D AECDIR D UTILDIR D PERS DIA March 21, 1995 Via Fax and U.S. Mail NAIIONAI. H£:>.L)Ql1ARTF.RS I'ortl.md, <.)rvi4'\t11\ \Ji11Jl T,·lcphnn,- ~n; /274 221)(1 WJ...,hini,;ton, D.l... WI::,l' L: ,; <>l'l:ll,\T/U1':i llrl'IC.:t I N:f" I ', , ll'l'HATION•; OFl'ICI• l h.1Jr...,.1h.•r, 1·1orh.J:, City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street PO Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403-8100 RECEIVED M~R 2 1 1995 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Re: Proposed Changes to Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance Dear Honorable Council Members: Ellenburg Capital Corporation is the general partner of the limited partnership which owns Laguna Lake Mohile Home Park. The ownership of the park changed earlier this year. This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed modifications to Chapter 5.44.0GO(E) of the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization ordinance. We believe that the changes to the ordinance are unnecessary as there is no need for modifications to a statute that appears to be working well. The proposed amendments to the ordinance involve adding the term "decrease" in certain sections, specifically excluding capital improvements and maintenance costs from automatic rent adjustments, and modifying the time period for rent increase notices to 90 days. We have no objection to modifying the time period from 60 to 90 days to conform with state law. However, we do object to the other proposed changes for the following reasons: 1. The current ordinance allows automatic rent adjustments based on increases in expenses of providing certain services. The proposed amendment would allow automatic decreases when there is a corresponding decrease in service expenses. However, the proposed change is redundant and will create unnecessary ambiguity. As the ordinance is currently written, the automatic increases in rent based on increases in expenses is permissive and not mandatory. Thus, the property owner has the option of absorbing the increased expenses or making adjustments to the rent.al HAR-21-95 TUE 15:01 ECC LEGAL DEPT FAX NO. 5032742761 P. 03 amount based on the increases. The property owner is not required to increase the rent when the expenses increase. By the same token, the property owner already has the option of decreasing rent when the service expenses decreases. Adding the term "or decrease" does not clarify the statute or make any specific obligation to decrease the rent based on decreased expenses. On the contrary, adding the term "or decrease" creates a false expectation that a decrease is mandatory rather than permissive. Such a false expectation will certainly lead to additional hearings and litigation. In addition, making a decrease mandatory without making an increase mandatory raises questions about whether the ordinance would interfere with the owner's right to a reasonable return on the investment. 2. The change would discourage efficiency on the part of the property owner. Requiring a corresponding rental decrease because of decreases in expenses will discourage property owners from seeking more economical ways of controlling expenses. Rather than conserve or consolidate procedures to maximize economy within the confines of the ordinance, property owners wi11 have no incentive to do so. Such a waste of resources is contrary to public policy. 3. Excluding ongoing maintenance costs from the automatic adjustment provision unfairly burdens the property owner. The property owner is required to provide and maintain services to the tenants. If the owner fails to maintain the services and facilities, the tenants are likely to bring a failure to maintain lawsuit against the owner. By not allowing maintenance costs to be included in the adjustment, the owner is forced to absorb all maintenance costs, whether they are routine or extraordinary. Such an obligation is likely to unconstitutionally interfere with the owner's right to a reasonable return on the investment. 4. Without the ability to adjust rents for capital improvements, it is unlikely that the owner wilt make any substantial improvements to the property. Without an ability to recover the costs, the owner is essentially cost-prohibited from making any improvements to the property except at his own expense. An inability to recover the expenses for capital improvements requires the owner to gamble at being able to recover the expenses and does not allow the owner to freely increase the value of his investment. We believe that the ordinance does not need to he changed and that the proposed changes will simply create unnecessary problems, ambiguities and future litigation to clarify and interpret the ordinance. The ordinance currently meets the needs of the park owners and the tenants. It should not be modified at the whim of a tenant and at the further expense of the park owner. ~AR-21-85 TUE 15:02 ECC LEGAL DEPT FAX NO. 5032742761 P. 04 W e str ongly oppose the proposed modifications to the ordinance and urge the Council to decline the pro posed changes. A ssoci ate G enera Counsel E ll enburg C apita l C orpor ati on M C :st \ W M A @EST F. R:-S '9Oll ILE HO\I E P.·\ R x o w>, E RS ~soc IATIO:-S RECEIVED MAR 1 6 w~s MEE11NG AGENDA / DATE' &-~-gs-:ITEM #---- CITY COUNCIi,.; ~AN 1 111c f'\J::uc:.ro. qA March 10, 1995 Allen Settle - Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 ~UNCIL ~~o M' J TTORNEY ~CLERK.<>RI G D MGMT TEA M D COO DIR D FIN 01111 D FIRECHIEF D PWOIIII D POLICECHF D REC DIR D UTILOIA D ,-ERSOIR RE: Proposed changes to rent control ordinance. Dear Mayor Settle; As the council knows, Mrs. Leola Rubottom wrote to you on September 12, 1994, again,· requesting certain changes to the voter approved rent control ordinance. She has requested amendments to Section S.44.060(E) of the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance concerning automatic adjustments to rent as summarized in the Council Agenda Report dated December 6, 1994. Our position appears fully supported by the city attorney. In reviewing the Council Agenda Report on this subject a specific theme stood out. The City attorney used the following terms to report on the issue; "add to the complexity of the ordinance and its administration ... additional areas of contention ... procedural conflict ... problematic in several ways ... thereby changing the current balance ... significant administrative burden to the city ... creates environment for conflict ... create ~ potentially significance ambiguity .•. create and inequitable relationship ... affect the quality of services provided ... discourage conservation .•. creates several interpretive timing and accounting problems for the city."· Regional Office: HC 2 Box 8057 • Frazier Park California 93225 • 805 245 3719 Fax 805.245.3331 ~ @ Su r e l y a n a n a l y s i s b u r d e n e d w it h su c h r e sp o n s e s fr o m th e c i t y a t t o r n e y sh o u l d b e vi e w e d w it h g r e a t c a u t i o n . We a g r e e w i t h th e c i t y 's an a l y s i s . Th e p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s c a n on l y se r v e to in t r o d u c e m a s s i v e c o n f u s i o n in t o a n a s p e c t of th e r e n t c o n t r o l o r d i n a n c e v o i d o f an y in t e r p r e t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s . C h a n g i n g th e w o r d "e x p e n s e s " to "r a t e s " w o u l d m a k e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c o s t s ve r y d i f f i c u l t if no t im p o s s i b l e to ca l c u l a t e . Th e la c k of an un d e r s t a n d a b l e m a t h e m a t i c a l fo r m u l a to c a l c u l a t e su c h c h a r g e s i s r e a s o n e n o u g h to d i s s u a d e su c h a c h a n g e . It is im p e r a t i v e th a t th i s se c t i o n b e e a s i l y u n d e r s t o o d b y a l l p a r t i e s a f f e c t e d . Th e la s t th i n g t h e o r d i n a n c e (a n d th e ci t y ) ne e d s is in c r e a s e d co m p l e x i t y . Se c o n d ly , an y c h a n g e s to th i s se c t i o n o f t h e o r d i n a n c e c a n on l y re s u l t in c o n f u s i o n in r e l a t i n g to o t h e r d e f i n i t i o n s ap p l y i n g to C a p i t a l Im p r o v e m e n t s , R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Ex p e n s e s , an d A d d i t i o n a l R e n t . S u r e l y th e r e ar e no p e r c e i v e d b e n e f i t s to o u tw e i g h th e a d d e d co m p l e x i t y an d p r o c e d u r a l co n f l i c t w h i c h w il l ar i s e fr o m co n f u s i n g th e ap p l i c a t i o n o f th e s e al r e a dy d e f i n e d te r m s . Th i r d ly , a n d m o s t im p o r t a n t l y , th e p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s w o u l d vi r t u a l l y e l i m i n a t e in c e n t i v e fo r h o m e ow n e r s to p r a c t i c e ut i l i t y co n s e r v a t i o n . By r e m o v i n g re s i d e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r p a y i n g fo r in c r e a s e d u t i l i t y co n s u m p t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y w a t e r , th e ci t y d i s c r im i n a t e s ag a i n s t al l o t h e r ut i l i t y u s e r s i n th e c i t y . In d i v i d u a l ho m e o w n e r s m u s t r e m a i n re s p o n s i b l e fo r th e e f f e c t i v e c o n s e r v a t i o n o f na t u r a l re s o u r c e s . Th i s sh o u l d b e re a s o n e n o u g h to d e n y th e p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s . C o n v e r s e ly , m a k i n g p a r k ow n e r s re s p o n s i b l e fo r r e s i d e n t s un c h e c k e d us e of u t i l i t i e s w o u l d ha v e p r o f o u n d a n d m e a s u r a b l e im p a c t o n th e "f a i r r e t u r n o n in v e s t m e n t " g u a r a n t e e d b y th e o r d i n a n c e . Th e l.ruly appropriate position on this issue is for the council to take no action and maintain the ordinance as o r i g i n a l l y a d o p t e d b y t h e v o t e r s i n 1 9 8 8 . T h e r e i s s i m p l y n o l o g i c a l , p o l i t i c a l o r a dm i n i s t r a t i v e r e a s o n t o c o n t i n u e t a m p e r i n g w i t h t h e v o t e r -a p p r o v e d o r d i n a n c e t h a t h a s f u n c t i o n e d f a i r l y a n d a d e q u a t e l y f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . V~y :rf l y y o u r s , j(/{Aft(f 0 ti~ Mr. David Evans Regional Representative DE: je cc: City Councilmembers _,. San Luis Obispo Rent Control History In 1983 the San Luis Obispo City Council enacted the city's first mobilehome rent control ordinance. In the ensuing years mobilehome rent control was constantly in front of the Council. Administration of the ordinance had become unreasonably time consuming and wasteful of city resources to city staff and council members alike. By 1987 it was obvious the ordinance had serious flaws resulting in unfair treatment of the parties involved. At this point the Council directed its Rent Review Board (five appointed members from the community) to hold hearings at the mobilehome parks and make recommendations for changes to the ordinance. After several months of study the Rent Review Board concluded that the ordinance was unfair to park owners and suggested several specific changes to create a more balanced and equitable ordinance. The City Council was politically unable to act on the Rent Review Board recommendations and asked park residents and park owners to form an Ad Hoc Committee to examine the Rent Review Board's suggestions and negotiate a compromise ordinance that would be fair and acceptable to both parties. The Ad Hoc Committee was comprised of several park owners, managers, and residents from nearly every park in the city. The Committee convened many times over the ensuing 12 months. After countless hours of negotiation and compromise the Committee endorse a proposed Rent Stabilization Ordinance incorporating most of the recommendations of the Rent Review Board. The Committee presented the compromise ordinAnce to the City Council for adoptlon. Before the Council could act on the proposed ordinance, Mrs. Leola Rubottom objected and presented to the Council her personal (and quite onerous) version of a rent control law. It is important to note that Mrs. Rubottom was asked to be a member of the Ad Hoc Committee and did in fact attend the first meeting. Mrs. Rubottom then declined to participate. Instead, she took it upon ·herself to write her own rent control law which proved to be more onerous than the original ordinance already recognized as unfair by the Rent Review Board. Most in the city had already recognized that under the previous ordinance park owners faced considerable economic difficulty impacting the ongoing viability of their business property. Mrs. Rubottom' s confiscatory ordinance offered even less economic viability to the parks than the original ordinance the city wanted to change. The Council, faced with two different proposed ordinances chose to let the voters of the City of San Luis Obispo make the decision, placing both versions on the June 1988 ballot. The resident/owner compromise ordinance was labeled Measure "D" and Mrs. Rubottom' s was Measure "E". Measure "D" was endorsed by seven of the eight citizen members of the Rent Review Board, several former Council members and community leaders. Measure "D" then became the clear choice of the voters on election day - the taxpayers had spoken. The negotiated ordinance, created by mobilehome owners and park owners collectively, has been an enduring success. The first four to five years saw no city resources or time wasted on the issue of rent control. The ordinance has been used as a model by several other cities throughout the state struggling with mobilehome rent control. Measure "D" was the result of long hours and the hard work of negotiation and compromise between the parties impacted. The voters agreed and it has worked! As a result, the mobilehome owners in the City of San Luis Obispo enjoy some of the lowest comparable rents in the state. As housing in the city has become prohibitively expensive, mobilehome park residents have enjoyed and unfair advantage over the average family attempting to enter the single-family housing market. Mobilehome park living has become the only affordable housing opportunity in the city. Mobilehome park residents would agree their rents are extremely low compared to rents in city's without rent control. In the past two years, a very small group of mobilehome owners, with Mrs. Rubottom leading the way, has conspired to change the ordinance to serve their particular interest. They have been slowly chipping away at the ordinance, constantly demanding changes despite no evidence of abuse or unfairness under the existing ordinance. In fact, the changes made last year to the ordinance were an effort to make it resemble the lease in effect at her park which the proponents of rent control refused to sign but 80% of her neighbors did sign. It appears, Mrs. Rubottom can't decide which form of "protection" she prefers. While many of these changes at first glance appear to be minor, they threaten the balance of a negotiated ordinance involving great economic compromise by parkowners and the resounding support of the voter. The prior Council appears to have sent Mrs. Rubottom the message that she alone can change the ordinance by simply writing a letter and making her requests. The Council has given the appearance that a single individual, armed with no empirical or other evidence, wields more power than the voting majority whose welfare is entrusted to city government. This is a dangerous precedent for city government to provide. It is just this attitude which led to the "rent control wars" of the mid-80' s with residents continually demanding unfair concessions and park owners forced to seek legal advise and pursue litigation to protect their property rights. Wh y are a handful of mobilehome residents being allowed to manipulate at will a voter-approved ordinance to their own personal and subjective desires? The voters of San Luis Obispo chose the "fair measure" to ensure reasonable rents for mobilehome park tenants and keep the city out controversy. The will of the voters should not be so easily disposed of. We request that the City Council not allow this small activist group to destroy the balance of an ordinance, adopted by the voters, that has provided rent stability for many years. The city must stop wasting valuable public resources catering to the whims of a very small group of individuals and allowing continual changes to an ordinance which has been problem free and fair to all parties. We ask that the city stop revisiting the ordinance at the request of one person. I crtv or san ll j OBISPO J n f. ~ 1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT F R O M : S U B J E C T : C A O R E C O MM E N D A T IO N : JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTOR:HEYW" P R O P O S E D AM EN D M EN T TO TH E M OB I L E HO M E PA R K R EN T ST A B IL I ZA TI O N O R DIN A N CE C ONCERN IN G UT O MA T IC A D J U S TM E N TS TO R E N T . IN T R O D U C E AN O R DI N AN CE AM E N D IN G SE C TI O N S.4 4 .0 6 0 (E ) O F T H E M OB IL E H OM E PAR K RENT ST A B I L I Z A T IO N O R DIN AN CE CO N CE RN IN G A UTOMA TIC A DJ U S T M E N T S T O R EN T TO MA KE SU CH A D J U S TME NTS A P P t IC A B L E TO B O T H IN CR EA SE S O R D EC REA S E S IN EX P E N SE S , TO CLA R I F Y THA T EX PE N S E S DO NOT IN C L U D E CA PITA L IM PR O V EM E N TS OR O NGOIN G MA I N T E N AN C E CO ST S , AN D TO EX TEN D THE N OTIC E P E R I O D FO R S UC H IN CREA S ES OR D EC R EA S E S TO 90 DA Y S , C O N S I S TE N T W I T H C IV IL C OD E § 798 .3 0. At e December 6, 1994 City Council Meeting, the attached Council Age da Report was continued to a date uncertain because the then ex'sting vacancy on the Council and potentia~onflicts of interest bY. two council members precluded action on the item. With the s bsequent appointment of Councilwoman Smith, · t is now appropriate t bring this matter back to ~he Council for f rther deliberation. GJ/sw Attachment: 12/6/94 Agenda Report I-I l\ij\\1 City O~ san lUIS OBISPO . I COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEET ING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: / FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMM ENDATION: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORN E PROPOSED AM ENDMENT TO THE MOBILE PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINAN CE CONCERN ING AUTOMA TIC ADJ USTMENTS TO RENT. INTRODUCE AN ORDINAN CE AM ENDING SECTION S.44.060(E) OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINAN CE CONCERN ING AUTOMA lIC ADJ USTMENTS TO RENT TO MA KE SUCH ADJ USTMENTS APPLICABLE TO BOTH INCREASES OR DECREASES IN EXPENSES, TO CLA RIFY THA T EXPENSES DO NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OR ONGOING MA INTENAN CE COSTS, AN D TO EXTEND THE NOTICE PERIOD FOR SUCH INCREASES OR DECREASES TO 90 DAYS, CONSISTENT WITH CIVIL CODE§ 798.30. DISCUSSION: At the November 15, 1994 City Council Meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance concerning automatic adjustments to rent, in response to a request from Leola Rubottom. That request and the previous analysis from the City Attorney's Office is attached for your information. The proposed ordinance included with this agenda report will carry out the City Council's direction at the November 15, 1994 Council meeting and will make the following amendments to Section 5.44.060 ( E) : 1. It will apply automatic adjustments to both increases and decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television. 2. It will clarify that for the purposes of this expenses shall exclude capital improvements and maintenance costs. Section, ongoing 3. It shall extend the notice period for automatic adjustments to 90 days to bring the ordinance into consistency with Civil Code§ 798.30. OPTIONS: Option 1: If the Council wishes to amend the automatic adjustment provisions as discussed above and as previously directed, adopt the attached ordinance (Exhibit A). This is the staff recommended alternative. /-.@. .---"",. ,option 2: Take no action and leave the automatic adjustments as currently written. This would maintain the ordinance as originally adopted by the voters in 1988. Option 3: If the Council wishes to change the word "expenses" to "rates," give staff direction to return with a revised ordinance. In light of the previously submitted analysis, this is not recommended. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Council adopts the ordinance as recommended, it should have no fiscal impact on the City. It may result in a slightly greater administrative burden in interpreting the ordinance, but will prevent capital improvements and ongoing maintenance from being added to rent as automatic adjustments. The impact this may have on actual rents is somewhat speculative, but could be potentially significant depending upon the facts of each particular case. JGJ/sw cc: (attached distribution list) Attachments: Exhibit A (Proposed Ordinance) Exhibit B (Legislative Draft of Ordinance) Exhibit C (letter from Leola Rubottom) Exhibit D (Previous Report) ., ORDINANCE NO. (1995 series) An Ordinance of the Council of the City of San Luis Ob ispo Deleting Chapter 5.44.060(E ) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Relating to Autom atic Adju stments to Rent in Mobile Home Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases or decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable, excluding capital improvements or ongoing maintenance costs. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase or decrease in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase, or decrease, shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than ninety days prior to any such increase or decrease being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase or decrease, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase or decrease in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase or decrease based on this section. There shall only be one such increase or decrease in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of O r d i n a n c e N o . (1 9 9 5 S e r i e s ) P a g e T w o 1 9 9 5 , o n m o t i o n o f , s e c o n d e d b y _______________ , a n d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g r o l l c a l l v o t e : A y e s : N o e s : A b s e n t : M a y o r A l l e n S e t t l e A T T E S T : C i t y C l e r k , D i a n e G l a d w e l l A P P R O V E D A S T O F O RM : C i t y A t t o r n e y ORDINAN CE NO. (1994 Series) A n O r d i n a n c e o f t h e C ouncil o the c·r~__..,,r Luis Obispo Deleting Chapter S.44.060(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Relating to Automatic Adjustments to Rent in Mobile Home Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the- Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1, Section 5. 44. 060 {E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases or decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new g.overnment-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable, excluding capital improvements or ongoing maintenance costs. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase or decrease in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060{B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase, or decrease, shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than ninety days prior to any such increase or decrease being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase or decrease, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase or decrease in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase or decrease based on this section. There shall only be one such increase or decrease in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for·and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of Exh,lbU A 1-4 O r d ina nc e N o . Pa ge T wo (199 4 Se ries) G on mo tion of A ye s : N o es : A b s e n t : _________________ , seconded by , an d on the following roll call vote: Mayor Allen Settle A T T E ST : Cit y C ler k , Diane G ladwell AP P ROV E D A S TO FO RM : · Cit y Atto r ney J-5 ........ OR D IN AN CE NO . (1 994 se r ie s) A n O r d in a n c e o f the Co u n ci l o f Lu is Ob i s p o D ele t in g Ch a pt e r S.4 4 .060 (E ) of the L u i s Ob i s p o Mun i c ip a l Cod e Relatin g to A u t o m a t ic Adju s t m en ts to Rent in M obile Hom e Parks BE IT O R D A IN ED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. Space E.~1:1:~ !!!?.¥ .. ?~----~~~omatically adjusted based on ~~~r1~!!!, 2!!!'®!!:~:1,R!i!1t~1:m:ii:f::s s!~:ic~~~mo;ar~~~: service and cable television, where applicable!{:g~p;l;µi;l;~lfg 11mw.#:iit t¥miJrstviMn1ru,§: i?:w @ns-sWns-: mi1ijn#:in:inii @:§§#i§ :··· · · ·rrne ·spade ·re"ritinay be ·a:ajustedby·· dTvTdfiig ·thetf6"tarTricrease pjfjgJ~grg~l(sJ~ in any such expenses incurred during a tt/elve'::moFtEh period by twelve' less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increasei ll!~,,!~~!9!t1:~a~; ~=ssinthw:ni ts~n;tyafl~in~~~ 1 ~a~~ ~~~~~ ~-~- any such increase p@]]g:gqjfgj.fi(i befng····erfective. The notice shall state the 'afu6tihf'"'of the rent increase 8$ gggfg?i/$.$, the new space rent, the amount of the total' lhc'Fease°]!Qpili!#:ii@m@i!Jjg in expenses and the nature of the expense .. A C6p"y ·or·the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase o!i::a.e:cwl~!ij~)based on this section. There shall only be one 'such''fricrease Btt:aeorease. in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The.ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of Exh.l bd B f-(p .----._ Ordinance No. (1994 Series) Page Two 1994, on motion of , seconded by _______________ , and on the following roll call vote: Ayes: • Noes: Absent: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladwell APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 1-7 San Lui» Obi.Apo, CA lvovemb e1t 15, 1994 ·11ono1t.a.b.Le. fflcu;o1t, tp€{} tpi.MaJu:1. and. Cvunt:..i.i. /l)emhe/r/2 vJ San 1..1.Lu., Obi.Apo We 1teapect(ul11f 1t~e/2i. !JOU iv~({) Secxio n. o/ 5.44.C60 to CJfTl2JUi iAe. c.i.i:J;. /1/obi..J..eh.ofT/E. 'f?e:d:. 5:w.bi.1..i..~n O!ld..ulafl.Ce blf chanqinq. the wo!td ex.pen.6e i.o naxes wh.e:i i.:t appeaAA iri i:h..w oecxion, ALA o, pLecv.,e add i:h.e IJ.IOM.-6 1 01t decn eas e, a/-f:.e!t :th.e IJ.IO!td incneas e idl.2/le. i.:t IA /.U)ed. In: i:h..w .tJed:ion. i.<v.,pecf(ui_4, .6u.bmi.il.ed, ~ i..eol.a f<u.holivrn 3960 So. ll~eJta , Spa ce 21 San Lui» Ob.wpo, CA 9J4o 1 Exfu b-U: C /-f . ....._ /. fiilVJllr~l\1 City 0~ san lUIS OBISPO s COUNCIL AGEN□A REPORT MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMSER: ...__ __ 5_ FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMMENDATION: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.44.060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. BY MOTION, RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND 5.44.060(E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION . ORDINANCE, AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION ON ANY DESIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE, ORDINANCE. ' DISCUSSION: buring the communications section of the October 25,. 1994 Ci~y Council meeting~ the Council directed staff to return on a future agenda with a business item to address a request by Leola Rubottom to amend Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.concerning automatic adjustments to rent. At the October 4, 1994 City· Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare-an analysis of the request which is attached for your information. If the Council desires to further amend Section 5.44.060(E), it should provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance with the proposed amendments and bring it back as a public hearing item. JGJ/sw Attachments: Letter from City Attorney (10/10/94) Exh,{.b.u V 1-7 MEMORA NDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY October 10, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJ ECT: City Council Jeff Jorgensenae(' Request to Amen«Vsection 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance Background: During the communications section of the October 4, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an analysis of a request by Leola Rubottom and Bill and Betty Henson to amend Section ,5.44.060(E) of the ·Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (please see attached letters). As you may recall, the Council previously amended Section 5.44.060(E) at the request of Leola Rubottom to exclude automatic rent adjustments from the calculation of annual cost of living increases allowable under Section 5.44.060(B). That amendment was finally adopted by the Council on August 16, 1994, and took effect on September 16, 1994. At previous hearings, Ms. Rubottom proposed an essentially identical change to the current request, but formally withdrew it at the August 16, 1994 meeting. The requested change is set forth in legislative draft as follows: "E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on ~~~~~~~=~ I §;Eg~~85@!~~~n~~n~~~:~~:~e~~:t!:!r~~~e~~mm~~r~~~: service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase @&=!~~i~~~~,h i~e~~;d s~~ht::r~=~elsefftt~\ ~~~~~~~~g~u~~nf h: CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase SE srn'.§fi:~:#.§ shall be in writing and shall be given a''s r"iifqi.iTred by law no less than sixty days prior to any such 1 • /-lo ~ .~ .... - increase being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase based on this section. There shall only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. Analysis: As noted in.previous memos on this subject, the City Council has broad authority to modify the Mobile Horne Rent Sstabilization Ordinance to protect the public. interest, so long as an adequate mechanism _remains in the ordinance to ensure a "fair return on investment" to the park owner. The proposed changes address two primary issues: ~ 1. Increases and Decreases. The first issue is a request to apply the automatic adjustments to both increases and decreases in specified costs. While it seems unlikely in today's economic environment that such costs will actually decrease, there does not appear to be any legal reason why such an amendment could not be adopted. However, it will add to the complexity of the ordinance and its administration, and may provide additional areas of contention over when increases or decreases have occurred, how they are calculated, when and how often they are applied, whether adequate notice has been given, and whether refunds should be required. It is a matter of judgment for the Council to determine whether the perceived benefit of the proposed change (as it actually affects rent) will outweigh the added complexity and procedural conflict which may arise. Should the council wish to pursue this modification, there would need to be additional changes from those proposed in order to maintain consistency. · 2. Expenses ve: Rates. The second. issue is a request to change the way automatic adjustments are calculated from increases in "expenses" to increases in "rates." This proposal is problematic in several ways. : It would represent a significant change in the way in which automatic adjustments have been previously calculated, thereby changing the current balance in the ordinance between the protection of excessive rent increases to tenants and the provision of a fair return on investment to the park owner. As previously noted, to the extent this balance is changed over time, it may simply shift pressure to apply for rent adjustments under Section 5.44.080. The City· has never held such a rent adjustment hearing since the ordinance was adopted in 1988, and a shift in emphasis toward such hearings would represent a significant administrative burden to the-city, as well as create an environment for conflict. A more important concern is that the proposed change would create a potentially significant ambiguity. 2 I-I/ ~ For example, if the automatic adjustment were limited to an i n c r e a s e in r a t e s f o r common area utilities such as water, it would n o t a l l o w fo r a n a u t o m atic adjustment if there is an increase in water usacre. Thus, the change would effectively freeze all charges f o r w a t e r , r e g a r d l e s s of the amount used, after the effective date o f t h e o r d i n a n c e u n t i l s u c h t i m e a s t h e r e w a s a rate increase, and t h e n o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e r a t e i n c r e a s e . T h i s would appear to c r e a t e a n i n e q u i t a b l e relationship not contemplated at the time the o r d i n a n c e w a s adopted. In turn, it could potentially affect the quality of services provided or, conversely, discourage conservation. It would further create an ambiguity with respect to new government mandated services since it could be argued that an a u t o m a t i c adjustment would only be allowed for new government m a n d a t e d s e r v i c e s w h e n t h e r e i s a n increase in rates, but not upon im position of the new mandate. Finally, changing "expenses" to "r a t e s " c o u l d c r e a t e s e v e r a l in t e r pretative, timing, and accounting problems for the City in administering the ordinance. ased upon the above analysis, it would be my recommendation that the Council not consider changing "expenses" to "rates. 11 In a September 12, 199 4 letter to the City Council, Ms. Rubo t t ora expresses the concern that, "The word 'expenses' could encompass repairs that are not legal for a park owner to pass through .... 11 This seems to indicate a fear that expenses would be interpreted to mean ongoing maintenance and/or capital improvements. As an alternative to the proposed change, the Council may wish to consider using the word "charges, 11 or by specifically excluding maintenance and capital improvement projects from the definition of expenses. If you have further questions or comments concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. JGJ/sw attach. cc: John Dunn • , 3 /-/;;), ~ 'R E C E lV E D CITY COUNCIL ~AN I.I.II~ 061S?O. CP. .Sepf..embl!.lt 7 2 I J 9911 San. LJUA 06v..po, Cli /l<.),u;11.a.bl..e 1iJ~v1t 'i)e.1} ~>.uvl0./fl1. and Ci.iJ; C<.)u.11cJ.l. ,l/e7!De.M ot San. Lui» ObLopo, {,A i~e: Cltan 9-eA needed UL ili.e 11)()1-.t!..L'U} in the: C'li.i; '4 San LJUA Obv..po 1 /.) ,'i]obi..1.ehom.e. 'l<eA i.d.en.ci; Law. Jt. hao _6~ 6,-..o,v;Af iv ~ ail..ud.i.on. tAai:. ili.e wr.duu; UL (c) Seci.i.J;n. ol 5 .44 ,050 need» t..o be cluiN;ed f.v mo,-..e cl.etllU..lj, d.e.f.J.-,,.e ili.e i.11i..erd:.i..L)n. oL tA.e. Or.duuu~e. ' F o,-.. excmpl..e : ''Space 1ten.t mai; 6e au.i.omat ica l4, a.dj.u.,:,t..ed based on. i.J tC/teat, eA , ( t.h.en add tJi.e.. pNta.,()e ( ( 0 1t deClte.a/.JeA)) in ili.e. e.xp €/U>eA ( cAcvup. :tA.e. w,ul. exp eM eA to ( ( N1i.eA )) /,i;1t tAe. connwn. 01tea 1,d i l.i ti e4, nesu 9oveA1V11en.t- . ~ 4elt v.i.ceA 1 (Ja/Wa~ .o e,i v.i.c.:e and. cahLe i.d.e. vLo.i.on 1 ~~e1te appl..i.ca.6Le. lh.e .opac.e lt2lii mai; be ~i..e.d. br; d.i..vJ.d.uu;. ili.e tot.a.I.. .ulCltea.oe ( ddJ. tli..e plUtaAe ( ( 01t d.e.cA.iaoe ) ) in such: e.x:pen.oeA 7 cAcvup. tAw za ( ( lfN.2.)) in- cwvi.e.d. ~. a iwe.J..ve-mon.ili. peJti.od br; f.wel..ve, l...e.MJ :tA.e. pe1tcerd:..o..cp. UL ili.e C • jJ .J. £n.dex: {.t;1t t/z.e i.we/.. ve-monilL pe.;r..wd, " Ule wul.d. appA.ecui.t.e . .i.l. if. ~ou 11.JOui.d. act. on. ~ a.o .ooon a.o pouJJJ..e.. /-13 ~ .<E C E lV E D Sc P 1 i:. l'fi•; ( J CITY COUNCIL <:.hN 11 J!<; CRISPO. C,. 'IO : Honorable .Mayor Peg Pinard of San Luis Obispo Council .Members: Bill P-oalman Allen Settle Penny Rappa Da ve F.are ro September 12, 1994 SUBJECT: SB:"I'lOi~ (E) of San Luis Obispo City Pent Ordinance, 5.44.060 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Me..inbers: A great nurooer of Laguna I.a~e 1'bbile Estates residents request certain changes in this paragraph, as is listed below: a. To substitute the word "rates" for expenses in line two (2) of Section E. b. To add "decrease" to line six (6) to read, "total increase or decrease". 1'.lso change "expenses" to read "rates" in line six (6) of Section E. c. To add "decrease" in line thirteen (13) to read "increase or decrease" in Section E. The reason for our request is as follows: Utility o:mpanies refer to their charges as "rates", not expenses. A repair to a utility falls under the heading of maintenance, and main- tenance is included in C.P.I. figures. Use of the word "expenses" allows the par k o ... 'Tler to add his cost, of repairs which he is not legally entitled to pass through to tenants. A sUIVey taken from park figures of t\-.lO years ago, showed a variation of one hundred and fifty ($150) dollars per rronth in rents charged for rrobile hOin:s receiving identical services here in this par k. Af:ter nurrerous sales involving 10% increases in rrobile hare rents, we feel cor,if ide.T)t that the difference between the highest and loNest rents in th~ par k is considerably greater~at .. this point in tirre • . Budgets based on fixed inc:orres cannot cope with constant assaults, and certainly should not be affected by non-legal pass-throughs. We will greatly appreciate your consideration of our fair request, and we would like to see this matter added to the Council Agenda as soon as it is possible. ~~ ~d· ttyHe~ 1860 Thelma Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 /-If ~- HEHORA HDUH FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 18, 1$94 TO: FROM: SUBJ ECT: City Council Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney 11 Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Automatic Adjustrnents Pursuant-to S.44.060(E) At the April 19, 1994 City Council meeting, the attached cornrnunication item from Leola Rubottom was referred·to staff for an analysis and response. Leola has requested the deletion of Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the Hobile Home ~ark Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which allcws for automatic idjustrnents of rent based on. ''increases in expenses for co~mon area utilities, new gcvernrnent- r::andated services, garbage service and cable television .... 11 The apparent reason given fer this request is that the owner of Creeksi~e Mobile Ho~e Park has offered long term leases which do not include automatic adjust~ents as set forth in S.44.060(E). The inference is this constitutes a "discriminatory practice." A previous inquiry, which asserted that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by 5.44.060(E) are in conflict with the Mobile Ho~e Resicency Law (Civil Code§ 798.31) was submitted in Dece~ber, 1993. (Attached for your information is the analysis of that previous correspondence.) CO N C L U S I O N The City Council has the authority to delete Municipal Code § 5.44.060(E) provided an adequate mechanism remains in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure a 11fair return on investment." The fact that a park owner offers long-term leases wit~ ~revisions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is net a "discriminatory practice. 11 Therefore, should the Council wish to consider deletion of§ 5.44.060(E), it should do so on some basis other than an alleged discrimination . . A N A L Y S I S l. Does the City Council have authority to delete the automatic adjust~ent provisions of§ S.44.060(E)? T.:;,e Hobile Honie Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was adopted by • voter approval as an initiative measure in 1988. However, the City Council specifically re~ained the authority to amend the ordinance • ... . /-15 ~ b y m a j o r i t y v o t e (§ 5 .4 4 .1 4 1 ). T h e r e f o r e , t h e C i t y C o u n c i l c l e a r l y h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d e l e t e § S .4 4 .0 6 0 (E ) s h o u l d i t c h o o s e t o d o s o . H o w e v e r , i t s h o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a r e n t c o n t r o l o r d i n a n c e w i l l r e s t u p o n w h e t h e r t h e o r d i n a n c e p e rn i t s t h e l a n d l o r d t o e a r n a "j u s t a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n ." A l o n g l i n e o f c o u r t d e c i s i o n s s u p p o r t t h i s f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t . B i r k e n f e l d v . C i t y o f B e r k e l e y , 1 7 C a l .3 d 1 2 9 (1 9 7 6 ); C a r s o n M o b i l e H o rn e P a r k O w n e r s A s s o c . v . C i t y o f C a r s o n , 3 5 C a l .3 d 1 8 4 (1 9 8 3 ); P a l o s V e r d e S h o r e s M o b il e E s t a t e s , L t d . v . C i t y o f L o s Jrn o e l e s , 1 4 2 C a l. A p p . 3 d 3 6 2 (1 9 8 3 ); F i s h e r v . C i t y o f B e r k e l e y , 3 7 C a l. 3 d 6 4 4 (1 9 8 4 ); W e s t H o l l y w o o d C o n c e r n e d · C i t i z e n s v . C i t y o f W e s t H o l l y w o o d , 2 3 2 C a l .A p p .3 d 4 5 6 (1 9 9 1 ). W h i l e n o c a s e h a s c o n c r e t e l y ~e f i n e d t h e t e r m "j u s t a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n ," o n e c o u r t h a s d e s c r i b e d i t a s o n e w h i c h 11 ••• is high enough to encourage good management, reward efficiency and discourage the flight of capital and is comr.,ensurate ·1.;i th returns on comparable investrr,ents, but not so high as to defeat the purpose of preventing excessive rents.'' San Harcos Mobile Ho~e Park Assoc. v. City of San Marcos, 192 Cal.App.3d 1492 ( 198_7). Conversely, a denial of a just and reasonable return con~titutes an unconstitutional taking of property which requires ccmpens a't i cn. 3irkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (1976). The City's rent stabilization ordinance recognizes the' need for balance by including in the Purpose and Intent section, the following provision: · .. "Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for carnage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and. site preparation, the lack of· alternative home sites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this Council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile horne s from unreasonable rent increases while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, ro'aintenance, insurance, - utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their investment •11 (§ 5.44.0l0(C). Emphasis added.) Host rent control ordinances allow an annual increase based on the percentage change on the consumer price index or a portion thereof (in the case of San Luis Obispo, 100% of the CPI up to 5% and 75% of the CPI in excess of 5%). However, even with an annual increase . provision, a procedure .must be provided by which an owner can seek ·: an fncrease on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to 2 • /-/(p ~ , ·,-,.. I / ! provide a just and reasonable return. Thus, the San Luis Obispo ordinance also provides for an application for rent adjustment over and above the CPI increase, and any autornatic adjustrnents, when appropriate to assure a fair and reasonable return on invest~ent. ( § 5A 4 • O i O • ) Some cities provide fer automatic adjustments in their rent control ordinances. Others do net. The potential advantage of automatic adjustments is the ease of administration which may result. The disadvantage is that the adjustments may result in slightly higher rents than a more complex and staff intensiv~ hearing procedure. The difficulty with sirr1ply eliminating the automatic· adjust:iilent previsions of Section 5.44.060(E) is that while it may provide for a modest reduction in rent increases in the short terrn, it may also simply result in shifting requests for rent increases to the formal application precess set forth in Section 5.44.070. I am unaware of any fcrrnal rent adjustrnent hearings having been held by the City since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted i~ 1988. Given the extre~ely contentious, ti~e consuming, and litigious r.earings held in many other cities, this may be an enviable record. In light of this, the Council nay wish to determine ~hether there ar~ significant reasons fer changing the current balance in the ordinance ~rior to taking any action on this matter. 2. Does the fact that a park owner offers long-term leases with provisio~s different from the provisions of the Rent stabilization Ordinance constitute a "discriminatory practice"'? Whether a park cvne z decides to offer a long term Le a se , and whether a tenant decides to accept such a lease, is a purely ~rivate, voluntarv decision between the parties which has nothing to do with discrimination and is largely beyond the ability of the City to regulate. A park owner is not obligated to offer a lcng tern lease, but has a right to, and if such a lease otherwise complies with the previsions of Civil Code§ 798.17(G) the owner " shall l:e e>:eTT;pt frcm any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative z.e a su r e adopted by any local government entity .... 11 (Civil Code§ 7S8.17(A) .) The owner's decision rnay be motivated by a number of reasons (such as stability and predictability), but generally will be based upon the perceived economic·berrefit of a lease as opposed to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. on the other hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long term lease, and may opt for the protection of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance if the tenant perceives a greater economic benefit in doing so. It depends upon the relative value of benefits offered in the lease. In both instances, it is a matter of choice based upon the terms and conditions of the entire agreement. To call such a process of negotiation a "discriminatory practice" does not seem to be a supportable premise. Further, to single out one provision of a . long term lease as a reason for amending the Rent Stabilization ·: Ol:"dinance · to delete automatic adjustments would essentially 3 ... /-17 ~ penalize owners for offering long term leases that do not exactly mirror the ordinance, and may take away in~entives to offer such leases at all. :RECOM.MEND.i!ITION Based upon the above analysis, it is respectfully recommenced that § 544.060(E) not be deleted based upon an unsupported notion of "discriminatory practice. 11 Issues which might properly support such a deletion would include whether the automatic adjustments have resulted in excessive rent increases or have been abused. I am unaware of any such instances having been broU:3ht to the attention of the City. JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Deb Hossli Attach:::-.ents: 1. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 18, 1994 2. Jeff Jorgensen Merno, dated December 22, 1993 3. California Civil Code§ 798.15, et sea. 4 .. /-/q ~ SUJ't L uis U 6 .w p iJ , [:i Apl"..il i S, i 9'/4 /-!l)rw.-.al:Le. 11latJl),t i'Lr.,..a--..d a-id [i.h; (_ywu:.i..l. (/e,-:ibe,~ v,l- 5an LJJi.A fJbi..opc), (;I · 7,L.£. ?u,~ £1:✓.c.Ju.9-~ i.~.t ~-..e fut.ed. c11.d. e,'/ec.Li..ve JOJiJ..UJ./Vj 7, i-1'1.4 w.a.,·.e. !x . .:- i.d. I.in :de. cc.,.o.t ()/. c ~-::::: c),"l a.,-.. ea u.i ✓-Lit .i e-1 , r. eJ:J 9c.J VE:./"✓.,;. E:.n.t ,-:-,::.1u!a:t. ed ✓-,e,, vixe» 1 p-ba;e, .ou vice 1 e..tc. i'-1 .l,~e ,rxv- .. 4. <);.:r...::.,,r . Tt,« r.e» 1994 base: r.u..t cr.;,-~.w.te.d. c;{. tf..e c.u,-.;;e.n.t ,-..en.t In: i99J pl.LJA tl.e. C.i' .J . .i.r.c...-..~e. .4 2}o ~u:1. ..:...L..e. '~-.....er...t 7'i'I] ~ i,}.,,c;:.i./..,. 7}.e. i995 (i·J .J., /.,;,,1. ..:...~c;.oe ri.l)t ,m LeJUJe,o, w.i.1..1. 6e 6eu-cd. vn. t.,~e nei» r.e."'..t f.i.r.,-...e p~ ar..'f r.e.w p=-o-4 t.Jv.l)Uf'1w. ~'le. l"..U,?ecf1nllJ;. ;;e,i;ue..~t t..~e de.Ld.i.J;n c.JL ({) .oe .. d..i..un 1,)/. s .44.05 0 of. ..:.,L..e, ;l]v!Ji...L~~O.":'J!. i?e.rz.t. 5~6.i.J.i.Ja.t..i..J.;n. Or..dti.QJu:..e. 1 !..i;1t San lui...6 IJb~pc.J tkt. o.L/.,.;;:;~ ,LJ;,'t tJi.w d.i..,:,e,ur,~I),,:; p,-..aci..i..c...e. / ;_J ) . -:.J. ..; -- 11.... / (;_•' . . , .. ~- ( ., ., .. -· ---. - ···~ -· . fnc.i.r;.oed: 5.i.xi.r DaJJ A',;ti.c..e. c.J/. ,?Uc.t. J~~e.ac e. f.i.;1t i.lw -oe. ncd: V,"l Leases; 5.iJ.i.i; Oar; ,foi.i..c.e. o"f- t~u.t. JnCAeaA e. "f-,;1t .thtJ~e. ,.m Lease» • . . ... A TT ACJ-~,E~T 1 c~.EE!-:Sl C-E i•:G3 l Lrn c;,·,E CQ ~j',t,;~n TY 3~cJ s. HIGuc~A ST~EET S~N LUIS O?lS~O, CA 93~01 Cd ob~1• SIXTY D~Y NOTICE CF RENT 1NC~E~SE ih2 Li:'o:i! ;.,•;,·d:es i sr r e r.t s to be .;.djusted ,;nn1.1ally 011 Jar,u.ary 1st. Th i s l e t t e r- is n c t i c e cf•;:;~;. .. dj•~~t:cnt. r,·~~ A-.;~•Jst, Vi92 to A•.1g•Jst, 1993 ti-.e Cs:ir.s•J..e1· Pi-ice !;,d!x .. ppji,:ibl! :o ti·,11 Lease s cve d fro~ 4.30:..1 to :. .. 2.s ;..hich is a 2.1?.~ i ncr e .. s e • " 'J'. . . h •c- 4-" ,~-~ -'!I Thci-if..:,:•i, ·1~•;1" ,·.:;,., :·i1 J. cc l~C,.EO:Si..:i .:;• '-'• , -.o 1..:1.__._,·~. :hi! :..HS! f•.!;·~~.~i· ~r~•.•i~:s fc,1• ~as5 th1·1.1s :if costs related dinctly to tlie pa,;~ c c s t s .;..s f:;d~cl' odj,;;ted f;,1• inflation, T:-·,ese c e s t s incl•Jdi!·•Jtilities, ~--nn,:e;-,t s e rv i c e s and fees, .,;hich this ,e:1· affects 11hct:-icity, ;as, wat.e1·1 tr,.sl1 .1rd govtrr,i.::-,t·/ee:, i'.:tll i;-,cn~Hs o:id Ccci·ease'S listed iiave b e en adj•Jsted f c.: the CPI. ?a,·~ •JH of e l e ct r i c i t y ~..s r i s e n slightly and t~,e co;;iodity·ccst has a;;ain r t s e n, ns•.1iti:-ig L, :n c ve r s l l i r.c r e a s e . i!'-:ci·efvr~, last ;·ec:1·1 s p s s s tr,ru .,f il.c:-· ,dll i ncr e s s e ':q S.~-:i ;:, S.:',2l. l-:hiie t~: ,::::,st cf ;oS has Incr e e s e d tnis year, the p.;.1·i<1 s c c n s u e p t i c n of ; .. s to heat tl":e r e cr e .. ti,:,:, ~•.ii1diilQ1 1,d::ir.g pool ci,IJ <:pa has again c e cr e a s sJ, Y,;w ;rc1·ata ~:; ... re ~f thi; dectHse j; a S 1.24 ;E1' ;;r,nt:i recfoction fo1' a new pass thr•J of S2,27. i:·,i-, ,·e .. 1· cdh .. it.;1• cc;;s:.1;;;:-ti-,;i cnJ tJ-,t· co:.H,dity .:-est haH :ncreaHd d,·a:atically. 'r'our ~;--:-,·ata ,hue cf this i~cnase is !4,3S per :::onth fc1· a total '"at~r pcss th1·1J ~f ;~.:'C'. 7he cost fo,· d,1:::;, f:H will inc:nase an acditior.al Sl. lJ fw a tot.al ;-as; t~,·•J of f2,::,E-. i)";,1 ;:nil: to .:~c·;•,.te fH t:-,:s yH1· n::,.ir,ed t~e s.;,:e, Adj•Jstin~ lost yH1·' s cost fer C~l ni1JltS in a ;,nrata c'ecnase of S • ~1 for a total Govern:H,t feH ;::Hs "..,; tr11 .. " cf 5 32 Th~ µrc,.·cd·,• ta:< HHsHcr,ts ,.-ill n:ain at Sl.~2. ,._r' Y:-.,.,·,··' ,,: •• ~ -. ✓.]-~ ~v' • • tr,:-:.:;n, !:'f~-:~he .~;,.r.:.,;.ry l, 1,:;.:. will :,e ~13,:A a;id ...-ill l:•e li\t?d ,S<'pc:1·.;hiy··o:'l -;o,;,• n::~ ~ • .;t .. .iu,t. .:nd ~d:l n,;t 'b!: S1JiJject tc c;:,1 ii,crea~n. Ali. of thi abov~ pass thr~s r~fl~c:t act~al cost inc~tases and do NOT include Ytilities .. nd vt:iE,' ch:l"!,l<'i ~n:=d d;,·:',:tjy t-, )"J1J, i:·oc1.,.l:11t1:1~l1Jn f01• the p.:1H th"r,j:. b j•;ai~.lble at the park office, Thh notic! appli~s to dil ,·esi.!ents •.m~e:• th! ... prCJvisioi,S of the 2an :..,Jis Gbitµ.J ?.H,t C..;nt1·1Jl 01·cjr,u.ce. -;-:,=' ~ .. H ?.11;,t i.)11co:e; ,.ffecti..-e for J,;;;i•.1d1·y l, l,~4 c:\::d will n:.:.in D t:-.n,:.i;h !).ce:-.c ... 1• 311 .!";~:.. Si,·,.: e,·e l :, !='at Fll,dng, Mar,.a~,;r-_ ·' ;,.~O ~ MEMO RAND UH FROH THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 22, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Jef ~ Jorger.s:r~ . . . ~ob1le Herne ~en~ s~ab1l1zat1on I have revie~ed the attached letter dated December 7, 1993 fro~ Leola Rubctton, ~hich asserts that the autonatic rent adjustments allowed by Municipal Code Section 5.44.60(E) r,.44;C60(E)) are in conflict with the l.Zcbile r.c:-:-;e ~eside,;cy Law, and therefore ir-.valid. CONCLUSION Hunici1:al Ceca Section 5.~4.060(E) Hobile r.o;:-.e ~esic:~ncy La·..; arid is regulation .. . ... 1s nc t; a valid in ccnflict ·..;it:i t h e subject of mun i c i pa), It is correct that the Hcbile Eoi:',e Residency Law, Civil Code Section iSa.:31, re<;:'Jires that, 11a hcnecvne r shall not be charged a fee for ether tha:1 rent, utilities and incidental reasonable charges fer services actually rendered. 11 Ho· .. ever, \.:hat ccns t i tutes rent, particularly under a rent control ordinance, is not pree~pted by state legislation and is left to the broad discretion of the local agency. Greccrv v. Citv of San Juan Cacistrano, 142 CA3d 72, 191 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1SS3). In addition, in the absence of a rent control ordinance, rent can be established at whatever level the park owner c::etermir.es, s~bject only to market forces. '!'he only case addressing the fssue raised by Leol~'~ Jetter is Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Horne Estates, l Cal.App.4th 1066, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (1S91). The Karrin case inv,lidated a rent control ordinance of the City of Oxnard which permitted a mobile home park owner to add a monthly capita 1 improvement assessment to the monthly bill in addi tio:i to regular rent. The rent control ordinance specifically p r cv i d e s that s uch a s s e s arae rrt s should not be considered rent. The Court invalidated this provision because it directly conflicted with civil Code Section 798.31. However, the Court was careful to point out that had the increase been added to rent rather than billed separately as an assessment, it would have ~en valid. •. • ~. ATT,~,CHME~T 2 /- :i, ~ C i t y C o u n c i l D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 1 5 9 3 ?a g e T w o 'J h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o H o b i l e E o m e R e n t S t a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e O x n a r d o r d i n a n c e w h i c h w a s i n v a l i c a t e d i n :<a r r i n . •:rh e a d j u s t r..e n t s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o o r d i n a n c e a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y i n c l u d e d i n s o a c e r e n t a n d a r e n o t a s e p a r a t e f e e , c h a r g e , o r a s s e s s m e n t . U n d e r t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i t a p p e a r s c l e a r t h a t t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M o b i l e H o ~e R e n t S t a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e i s v a l i d u n d e r t h e K a r r i h d e c i s i o n . (I n a d d i t i o n , t h e 60 day notice of r~nt increase provided to the tenants cf Creekside Mobile Horne Community appears to ~eet the requirewe~ts of our ordinance as to form and effect.) Finally~ the reference to civil Code Section 798 .. 43 (b) does net appear to be relevant or related to the questton rafsed. If you have further questions or ccrane nt s , please feel free to contact ~a at your convenience. JGJ/sw attach. cc: Leola :Rubotto;;i ?at Fleming J'ohn Dunn .. ~. Sc.'1 WA 06i.-o,r,i;, CA LJ.:.cc.de,'t 7, i<i<iJ Nor:i;,· .. d!.e /ia7c;,'t ? i.,--,n.c;~ c..--..d Cit.:; C vwnci.l. , ~et:1b,:..,~ v/. San L0A C6i.,jpv, CA 7.L.e. Wed.. ;xu,-11 i}v,vt":/·.A bwu;. c..d..d.e.::!. zo .t.-1l~ 6Me /',.E/l.t .ui [;-..e.e}•.Ai.Le ,ryvbif..eA (.)-;.e ?Ci.ft. Jt ha,~ ~e.e/t 6,-,.i.;7~.t i,.; r..:;. a.i..teti.tL;n t)cl Sec.u.i.;n 5 .44 .60, ;xv~,,,- .. apl-i. "t' c)/. t}.e SG/1. 1..0.A 06i..opc) 1 -11 ,~ol:i..1.e.~cr...e. Rv.-1.i!e.,,i,r:,.y. U:JJ i..ti in. di..,-..ec.t.. c.or.p.,i.d. ~ t}.e. Ca.J.i./.:.;,.~ ,•?c)~i../.d:.x-:-..e i'?e...!i..d..e.'71:..!f UJ.:), '.-) LIIJ.'lf 1, -'" ,..,,,61"'1 I-'''° l" 'J1:11i. ') ·,.; 1 c./1.!Jf-'"9·,. L. c;,-- -•~cz..vn ) . -,-f. '..,I c,- --:.e .... a;1 !..U.A r oc cce: v.'7.e ,.u~c.,-,7 ~ .o~EA, ''Space /',.~!"'....t ,~ be: c.:.d.:.;r..nt✓-~ ci:!.pct..ed bC:~ed vrt ,i.r;e,:e.::.~~ i..-'1 ~r..c.e /..:.;,t C~r:i,m c::e.a ,-til..ifieA 1 ne» c.;;Ye,,-.,.,.,;,..uz..t ma . .n..d..al.ed .ce..-..vice..o, I I # p,.bap. ~e.,rnic.e c.'id c.ctLe. .telev.£..!J...:;l'l i.:.14.e..-..e. 9p1...i..c..a.!:Le.. '' 7.~e [c.Li.(.:.;.·."J.a 3.-',,f e i~v!:i..l.e. ... ~:>r."ie ?.ui.:!.e..--q '-=I:) ,-','o. 798, 4] Se.di..:;.,. ( 6) .:~ 11l.!.IU.r.ave.1t a .~r.)7.e.t.l..:Y".J:::..1 i..o ,-..e...!pr.:,r~:i...:.le !...;,... ~/,/ 1 (.),'t el..e.c.i.,-..:..C w_;J. i Lit·, -:-e,: ~,i...c.z., r.~;.e.-r.u:f. af.t:.ll. c!.i.Ac.!-o~e. t..J tJ-.e /·...;;r,.:_:;!J1e5:, 6e(.v,-..e t.e.iu:..'"'.c'/, ,:}..e.--.e~.,e;-,. L L.e 1-.r,;."'IU:.,:;:.;r.£/t '1, r.:e.ie.1t c.l~c; . ..-..e.=..!~e-11 po_ 011. e.J.ec.i..r. i ,-/-'-f- t= C:.Y.r.'i.:XL c.,-..e.a ,!.rci Li ;lie..~, c;,. ~.R..'".i., i.,~'7 1-!+':.Li.r7, I ,/2.i..ti ~'1 ce. /·~ed. ,;'f ,~~7 .;:. .. ~ .~o-:-..e- :.'~vt L ,'t .t}.c..t r'":;,-.:f..i.;;n '-'l ..t.J:.e .:,e,.-; vice ;!,.; L~c. -:v,:.':ivn a,1~ t..),'t C..W c.:J r.ti..,-..:..i.e. I.!,~ - I : .i..,'l.t!. t..~e me.te.,t vn t.~e ,L..:.,.-:-:ci;;!.:J':v~ .cde Ll.)11. di l{.t 1.:.~ ,.;l ..:.~e c.:;.-:-.-:-::.;., C"~-..:!:.Z !.::.ci..1..- , I I 1 • • • .J • • ,, ~ an.: e..s~:,jeJ'l..t . r:(.);:) 1c.i. . .r7 L--.c,-..~e.,d r; e.x.t. ~ 't • , 7'i8 .J 1 ,.;,{. t.Ae .S:,.,f e t';c;;:~~(X:".e ;?u.l..deric.:; la.::J ~--',,f e..:i, '~-i .~i;:::e(>..:r.U /.J.:..cU.. r..c..t be~ a ,!.u. /.i,;1t ol.J:.e1t .den ;:er..t, ut.i.Liiie.ti ~ i.Jicule.r:.:..d.. ,-..e.::..~,.;r.ab.le. c.tuv .. ;u /.;,t ~e;:vJ'..:c:.c uc:_.!11,,14 ,~1:.1..f,:,d." Ue. .a;-.~ ~}-..i_ry. tJi.e /t'r;n. tla~.tt ~u.l. i,~~ (.~ rr.£mhe.-w c{. :.f.e ci4, tJ,I .. Sc.n. ~ Obu,pl.) t.o. de.l..et.e. .tha'": ,:x:A.t.. o/. _.5e.ct..Lon. 5, ~4 .60 pa.r.a,,-.aph. "f_'' ,t. L..c..: L~ i..li.e.:;d- a C.C.l.),'"d.t.ri.r i.:J l)U;'f. .)t...::.:!..e. ,- ·1iJ6i..1.eli ;;me. i{eA~J Lc.w . 7., N?JJi.u..r; f"U ut adva;ic.e f"'lt 7ou,'t co/1,/.)~on. ' - . C ity o r San lors OBISpo -.. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: 3/7/95 I. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL PORK ORIGINATED BY: le H M W G. JoJt.ge.n.6e.n MEETING DATE: 3/27/95 SUBJECT: PJt.op0.6 e.d Ame.ndme.n,t to .the. Mobil e. Home. Pa.Jt k. Re.n,t S,tabili za.U on ( Pul:>lic -Bea~i~ Business Consent (Circle One) G>'LtU:1't6t).a.-C~ttc~tu.1.g Aeete1Mctie Ad1t:t6XJld!J1.ti., to R~nt RECOMMENDATION(S): Irdx odu ae: an Ondl nanc.e. Ame.ndl nq Se.c.ti on 5.44.060(E) of. tne. Mob,Lf.e. flame Pa1t fz. Rent S.tabil iza.tM n Ondinanc.e. Conc.e.Jtni nq Au;t oma:tic. A.d {u .6.tme.n.:U .to Rent to Make. .6u.c.h Admu..6 .tm en.:U App.U.c.a.ble. :to Both Tnc.lLe.M e..6 olt Ve.c.lLe.M e..6 ,ln Expe.n.6e..6, :to Cla,ll,,l ~u tha;t Expe.n6e..6 do no.t inc.l u.de. Capi:t a.1 ImYJILove.me.nt-6 OIL Onaoina Mcu..1'l✓te.nanc.e. CM .:U . a.nd :ta £xt e.nd .the Nati c.e. PeM ad 601t Su.c.h IncA e.M e..6 on. Ve.cA e.M e..6 :to 90 Va.y.6, Con.6,l,6 .ten:t wi:t h C,lvil Code, Sec;t,,lon 798. 30 Part I (wh ite) form na.Jst be subm itted to the City Clerk's Office on the Friday before the Tuesday Agenda Review meeting . Please forward name s and add resses of prope rty owne rs, appe llants, subd ivide rs, applicants, or any parties who na.Jst be notified about this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if possible. II. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT ROUTING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD approval, please attach Part II (canary) to your report and route to the fol lowing department heads in the order indicated below. Following approval, please initial and send on. ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INIT. PERSONNEL PINANCE CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CAO CAO CITY CLERK NOTE: The initiating department head is responsible for obtaining ill necessary signatures Cother department heads and consultants) prior to submittal of report to the City Attorney, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMMENTS: I. White: Prelim Notification Slip II. Canary: Agenda Report Routing Slip III. Pink: Department Copy ]nll\Mli\1\\\\1\ l\\j\\\\ City or san u11S OBISPO •111111111 111111 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT M EE_TINB O~TE: 3-21-95 ITEM N UM BER: FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMMENDATION: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY~ PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.4 4 .0 60 (E ) OF TH E MOB IL E HOME PARK RENT ST A BI L I ZA TIO N ORDIN A NCE CONCERN ING AUTOMA TIC AD JU STM EN TS TO R EN T TO MA KE SU CH A DJUSTMENTS A P PL ICA BL E TO BO T H INCR EA SE S OR DECREA SES IN E X PEN SES , TO CLARIF Y THAT EXPEN SES DO NOT IN CLUDE CA PITAL IM PROVEM ENTS OR ONGOIN G MA IN T E N A NC E CO S T S, AND TO EX TEND THE NOTICE P E R IO D FOR SU C H INCREA SE S OR DECR EA SES TO 90 D A YS , CON S I S T E N T WIT H CIV IL CO D E § 798.30 . D IS C U S S I O N : At the December 6, 1994 City Council Meeting, the attached Council Agenda Report was continued to a date uncertain because the then existing vacancy on the Council and potential conflicts of interest by two council members precluded action on the item. With the subsequent appointment of Councilwoman Smith, it is now appropriate to bring this matter back to ~he Council for further deliberation. JGJ/sw Attachment: 12/6/94 Agenda Report • , . I • 1m,1 City O~ san lUIS OBISPO l!tiili!I I I COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: / FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMMENDATION: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILE RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.44.060(E) OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMAiic ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT TO MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENTS APPLICABLE TO BOTH INCREASES OR DECREASES IN EXPENSES, TO CLARIFY THAT EXPENSES DO NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OR ONGOING MAINTENANCE COSTS, AND TO EXTEND THE NOTICE PERIOD FOR SUCH INCREASES OR DECREASES TO 90 DAYS, CONSISTENT WITH CIVIL CODE§ 798.30. DISCUSSION: At the November 15, 1994 city Council Meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments to Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance concerning automatic adjustments to rent, in response to a request from Leola Rubottom. That request and the previous analysis from the City Attorney's. Office is attached for your information. The proposed ordinance included with this agenda report will carry out the City Council's direction at the November 15, 1994 Council meeting and will make the following amendments to Section 5.44.060 (E) : 1. It will apply automatic adjustments to both increases and decreases in expenses for common area utilities, . new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television. 2 • It will clarify that for the purposes of this expenses shall exclude capital improvements and maintenance costs. Section, ongoing 3. It shall extend the notice period for automatic adjustments to 90 days to bring the ordinance .into consistency with Civil Code§ 798.30. OPTIONS: Option 1: If the Council wishes to amend the automatic adjustment - provisions as discussed above and as previously directed, adopt the attached ordinance · (Exhibit A). This is the staff recommended alternative. / / I- .. , Option 2: Take no action and leave the automatic adjustments as currently written. This would maintain the ordinance as originally adopted by the voters in 1988. Option 3: If the Council wishes to change the word "expenses" to "rates," give staff direction to return with a revised ordinance. In light of the previously submitted analysis, this is not recommended . . FISCAL IMPACT: If the Council adopts the ordinance as recommended, it should have no fiscal impact on the City. It may result in a slightly greater administrative . burden in interpreting the ordinance, but will prevent capital improvements and ongoing maintenance from being added to rent as automatic adjustments. The impact this may have on actual rents is somewhat speculative, but could be potentially significant depending upon the facts of each particular case. JGJ/sw cc: (attached distribution list) Attachments: Exhibit A (Proposed Ordinance) Exhibit B (Legislative Draft of Ordinance) Exhibit c (letter from Leola Rubottom) Exhibit D (Previous Report) O w n e r /M a n .a g e r '.'V ill o v v- O re e k M o b ile H o m e P a rk" 35 0 0 ,B u llo c k La n e S 2.n L u is O b is p o , C A 93401 i' ent, Tenant Association Va11e Vista Mobile Home Park 333 Elks Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Mission Trailer Park 546 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association San Luis Mobile Home Park 2994 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park 3395 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Si' City Mobile Home Park 3c J. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Oceanaire Mobile Home Park 1121 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Colonial Manor Mobile Homes , 255 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Village Mobile Home Park 145 South Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Leola Ru.bo:lt om 3960 So. Higuvw., Space 21 San LLJ..M> Ob..w po, CA 93401 E & Be:lt y Hen.oon 1~o0 Thelma V1t . San Lu..Lo Ob-Upo, CA 93405 ,-'resident, Tenant Association low Creek Mobile Home Park 3500 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Manhew's Mobile Home Park 274 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Mission Trailer Park 546 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Chumash Village Mobile Home Park 3057 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park 3395 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Creekside Mobile Home Park 3960 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Oceanaire Mobile Home Park 1121 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Laguna Lake Mobile Estates 1801 Prefumo Canyon San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Vil!age Mobile Home Park 145 South Street San Luis Obispo, CA_ 93401 Ven1U.h Law P.O. Box 7 30 San Lu..Lo Ob..w po, CA 9 34 O 6 Owner /Manager j f\N Valle Vista Mobile Home Park ~ J 333 Elks Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Matthew's Mobile Home Park 274 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager San Luis Mobile Home Park 2994 Higuera Street San Ll;JiS Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Chumash Village Mobile Home Park 3057 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Silver City Mobile Home Park 3860 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Creekside Mobile Home Park 3960 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Colonial Manor Mobile Homes 1255 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Laguna Lake Mobile Estates 1801 Prefumo Canyon San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 J,i.m Bu.:U e1ty P.O. Box 730 San Lti,w Ob..wpo, CA 93406 ~- /--3 O R D I N AN C E N O . (19 94 series) An ordinance of the council of the city of·· San Luis Obispo Deleting Chapter S.44.060 (E ) of the San Luis Obispp Municipal Code Relating to Automatic Adjustments to Rent in Mobile Home Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the,_ Council of the City of San Luis ob i spo e SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 06 0 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases or decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable, excluding · capital improvements or ongoing maintenance costs. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase or decrease in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month .. period. The quotient shall be allocated to the. space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of·determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44 .0 G0 (B ), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase~ or decrease, shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than ninety days prior to any such increase or decrease being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase or decrease, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase or decrease in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase or decrease based on this section. There shall only be one $UCh increase or decrease in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for·and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of· _ Exhibli A 1-4 O r d i n a n c e N o . (1 9 9 4 S e r i e s ) P a g e T w o 1 9 9 4 , o n m o t i o n o f , s e c o n d e d b y ______________ , a n d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g r o l l c a l l v o t e : A y e s : N o e s : A b s e n t : A T T E S T : C i t y C l e r k , D i a n e G l a d w e l l M a y o r A l l e n S e t t l e A P P R O V E D A S T O F O RM : · C i t y A t t o r n e y 1-5 O R D I N AN C E N O . (1 9 9 4 s e r i e s ) A n O r d i n a n c e o f t h e c o u n c i l o f t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o D e l e t i n g C h a p t e r 5 .4 4 .0 6 0 (E ) o f t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M u n i c i p a l C o d e R e l a t i n g t o A u t o m a t i c A d j u s t m e n t s t o R e n t i n M o b i l e H o m e P a r k s B E I T O R D A I N E D by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. Space :r::~ri1:: 111a,y l:,~ au tioma t.Lca Ll.y adjusted based on t~~r1~~=:, 8~!cli~!i!!!!!:!1 t\1:m::g:;:;s s!;:ic~;::~;a.:r::;~;: service and cable television, where applicable):;[~g)lfµp@pg p:11w.1;1ru:::::rn1=melp]vgmgnli]:§1J:111§:wn1::::::11:w.niin:1n.i1tm#:1§1~:-:-·········1rhe Efpade· refrt·may··5e adjiistea·oy··aTvTdTrig ·thet··t6"t·ar·Tfrcrease g i.; ljgq#gigg in any such expenses incurred during a fweiv'e'::foohth period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increasefil p# ggp#g\,;$,gJj shall be in writing and shall be given as FeqtifFed'b§law no less than sixty n$.n@IY days prior to any such increase gpjf:q;gJ;#:ii($$. befng·········e"f f ecti ve. The notice shall state fhE'''afootihf'' of the rent increase Or ,~!!!!!!'\:q~]:;jdfiasi@a~: ::;:~se:hean~m~':i:t n~~u;~e oi0~!'; expense. =· '.A❖copy'.of''❖fhe notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve qu~i:;tJc:,r:ii:; :r-t=.gctrding computation of the space rent increase §@::::p;gqj:f:iij$jfbased on this section. There shall only be Ori e·· s"tich····rncrease BiEiJ!'.§8E$!!i@" in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The.ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of ExhlbU B /-(p O r d i n a n c e N o . (1 9 9 4 S e r i e s ) P a g e T w o 1 9 9 4 , o n m o t i o n o f ., s e c o n d e d b y a n d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g r o l l c a l l v o t e : A y e s : • N o e s : A b s e n t : M a y o r A l l e n S e t t l e A T T E S T : C i t y C l e r k , D i a n e G l a d w e l l A P P R O V E D A S T O F O RM : C i t y A t t o r n e y 1-7 San. Lui» ObiApo, CA Novemhe;r. 15, 1994 0 llono1U1.bl.e. fl'lcu;o1t, 'Petj 'i'iJinaJrd and Cvwu:.il /l)emheN.> 4 San. ~ ObiApo We 1te.6peci..p,luf 11.€.Cf-Le.d. 'jVU. za ~ ( {) Sed.i..on. of 5. 44. «o to amend the c.i..i.J;. fllobi..J..eh.orrie 'f?e.111. S:tabih..yw.-on. 01UUJUJfl.C.e b!f CM.11tfUUJ :th.e uond. ex.pe;u,e io IUJ.i.€-6 11.ih.en i..i. a.ppe.a.1UJ iri i:lu..A oecxion, A.uo, pLeLU,e add. i:h.e wv/UU,, 01t decnease 1 , a.f-t:.vr. :th.e UX)!td. incnease u)l.e/U!!. i..i. iA uoed Iri i:Ju..A secxiori, /.(e/.)pe.cf(uJJJ;. LJU.Om.i.i.i.e.d. 1 ~ Leo la i?u.oottorn ]960 So. 11.iJ;uelUl, Space 21 San ua: Obi.Apo, [A 9]4o1 ExMbil C /-f C ity 0 ~ san lUIS OBISPO 3 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEEilNG DATE: s FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMMENDATION: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.44.060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. BY MOTION, RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND 5.44.060(E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION. ORDINANCE, AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION ON ANY DESIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. ' DISCUSSION: buring the communications section of the October 25,- 1994 city Council meeting~ the Cotincil directed staff to return on a future agenda with a business item to address a request by Leola Rubottom to amend Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.concerning automatic adjustments to rent. At the October 4, 1994 City· Council· meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare.an analysis of the request which is attached for your information. If the Council desire~ to further amend Section 5.44.060(E), it' should provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance with the proposed amendments and bring it back as a public hearing item. JGJ/sw Attachments: Letter from City Attorney (10/10/94) 1-7 MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY October 10, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJ ECT: City Council Jeff JorgensenaCr" Request to Amen«Vsection 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance Background: During the communications section of the October 4, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an analysis of a request by Leola Rubottom and Bill and Betty Henson to amend Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (pleaie see attached letters). As you may recall, the Council previously amended Section 5.44.060(E) at the request of Leola Rubottom to exclude automatic rent adjustments from the calculation of annual cost of living increases allowable under Section 5.44.060(B). That amendment was finally adopted by the Council on August 16, 1994, and took effect on September 16, 1994. At previous hearings, Ms. Rubottom proposed an essentially identical change to the current request, but formally withdrew it at the August 16, 1994 meeting. The requested change is set forth in legislative draft as follows: "E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on in<:=r7a7es 8:5re;~:e:£~:~:§:s'.~: in e>Epenses F¾:s~:§ f'?r common area utilities,· new g6V~iriment-mandated·~~rvices, garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase ~!!~~i§~~~,hi~e~~~ds~~ht::r~=~el 5 e~1=~~, ~:~~~~~~g~u~~nfh: CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase BE d"e'Erea'se shall be i ' ' ' ,;;,,,,,,,,, ,.,., ... ,.,.,.,,,.,.,,, .... ,,,.,.,.,,,._.,.,., ... ,.,-,.-=- n writing and sha 11 be given as r·equTfed by law no less than sixty days prior to any such .. 1 • I-lo ~ in c r e as e be in g ef f e c t iv e . Th e no t ic e sh a ll st a t e th e am ou n t of th e re n t in c r e a s e , th e new sp a c e re n t , th e am ou n t of th e tot al in c r e a s e in ex p e n s e s an d th e nat u r e of th e ex p en s e . A co p y of th e no t ic e sh a l l be g iv e n to th e cit y ad m in ist r at iv e of f ic e r . Th e ci t y ad m in is t r at iv e off ic er sh a ll hav e th e au t h o r it y to re s o lv e qu e st io n s re g ar d in g com pu t at io n of th e sp a c e ren t in c r e as e b a s e d on th is se c t io n . Th e r e sh a l l on ly b e on e su c h in c r e a s e in an y tw e lv e -m on th pe r io d . Analysis: As noted in.previous memos on this subject, the City Council has broad authority to modify the Mobile Home Rent Sstabilization Ordinance to protect the public. interest, so long as an adequate mechanism remains in the ordinance to ensure a "fair return on Lnves tment;" to the park owner. The proposed changes address two primary issues: - 1. Increases and Decreases. The first issue is a request to apply the automatic adjustments to both increases and decreases in specified costs. While it seems unlikely in today's economic environment that such costs will actually decrease, there does not appear to be any legal reason why such an amendment could not be adopted. However, it will add to the complexity of the ordinance and its administration, and may provide additional areas of contention over when increases or decreases have occurred, how they are calculated, when and how often they are applied, whether adequate notice has been given, and whether refunds should be required. It is a matter of judgment for the Council to determine whether the perceived benefit of the proposed change (as it actually affects rent) will outweigh the added complexity and procedural conflict which may arise. Should the council wish to pursue this modification, there would need to be additional changes from those proposed in order to maintain consistency. 2. Expenses vs. Rates." The second. issue is a request to change the way automatic adjustments are calculated from increases in "expenses" to increases in "rates." This proposal is problematic in several ways. : It would represent a significant change in the way in which automatic adjustments have been previously calculated, thereby changing the current balance in the ordinance between the protection of excessive rent increases to tenants and the provision of a fair return on investment to the park owner. As previously noted, to the extent this balance is changed over time, it may simply shift pressure to apply for rent adjustments under Section 5.44.080. The City· has never held such a rent adjustment hearing since the ordinance was adopted in 1988, and a shift in emphasis toward such hearings would represent a significant administrative burden to the City, as well as create an environment for conflict. A more important concern is that the proposed change would create a potentially significant ambiguity. 2 I-I/ ~ ,. . For example, if the automatic adjustment were limited to an increase in rates for common area utilities such as water, it would not allow for an automatic adjustment if there is an increase in water usage. Thus, the change would effectively freeze all charges for water, regardless of the amount used, after the effective date of the ordinance until such time as there was a rate increase, and then only to the extent of the rate increase. This would appear to create an inequitable relationship not contemplated at the time the ordinance was adopted. In turn, it could potentially affect the quality of services provided or, conversely, discourage conservation. It would further create an ambiguity with respect to new government mandated services since it could be argued that an automatic adjustment would only be allowed for new government mandated services when there is an increase in rates, but not upon imposition of the new mandate. Finally, changing "expenses" to "rates" could create several interpretative, timing, and accounting problems for the City in administering the ordinance. Based upon the above analysis, it would be my recommendation that the Council not consider changing "expenses" to "rates." In a Se ptem ber 12 , 1994 letter to the City C ouncil, M s. Rubottom expresses the concern that, "The word 'expenses' could encompass repairs that are not legal for a park owner to pass through .... " This seems to indicate a fear that expenses would be interpreted to mean ongoing maintenance and/or capital improvements. As an alternative to the proposed change, the Council may wish to consider using the word "charges," or by specifically excluding maintenance and capital improvement projects from the definition of expenses. If you have further questions or comments concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. JGJ/sw attach. cc: John Dunn • , 3 /-/;), ~ 'R E C E lV E D Srp 1 , lU\I• , C ,,. ""' CITY COUNCIL ~.AN I.I.II~ 061S?O. CP. /ic;11c;11.a.bi.e. 1i}~c;1t 'i?et; ~'.iJvia.Ad and C.ilJJ [c;wu:J..J.. ,l/embe.lt.6 of. San Lui» Obi..t:ip,;, CA i?e: C luvl.9-eA needed In. ihe i:x;l"..c!i..'19 in. ll:.e C'i.:t.i; c;f. San Lui» Obv..pc; 1.o /i)obi.J..eh.o:ne. 1<eA~ La», Jt ku, been. b1to,irJz:t to ~ ail.efli.i.on. iJuii:. i:lte. IJ)C)l".duu; in ( f.} Se.ci.i..o n. of. 5 .44 .CbO need» zo be cli.anr;ed f.C) mo1te. c.Lec.JU.J; d.ef..i.n.e. ili.e i.Jzi..eJli.i..on. o/. tA.e Or..d.uuui.ce. fc;1t enimp l.e.: ".Space. 1teni:. mai; be. aJ.de)(nO.fi caLL.y. ad.j.u.,tJt.ed. based c;n. .u1e1te.a.oeA 1 ( :th.en add i.A.e._ plvrru,e ( ( 01t dee1ter.v.ieA)) .i.n. i:li.e. eJ<fe/1..oeA ( cluvup. tA.e. UX)11.d. expen..oeA to ( ( ltCli.eA)) fi)lt :t.A.e. conmoa a1tea uti li ti es, new (JOVeNIITleni:.- . ~ .oe1tv.i.ce.J1 c;wJ,a~ ~e1t.v.i.c;e. and cahJ.e ie1.e.vv.,.i.c;n1 Ul~e/1.e. app.li..ca.bl.e.. I h.e. -4pace. ltUd. lTlll1f be. ~ br; di.v~ ih.e i.otJ:JJ.. ,U1.C11.e.a.t>e. ( dd.d. ih.e.. p/vuu,e { ( Olt ~e. ) ) .i.n. .4u.cJi. ~eA { cluvup. i/i.v., f.c; ( ( IUlie.)) .i.n.- CJ.JM.ed _ ~ a iwel.ve.-monili. pelti..txL br; ime.1.ve, ~ tA.e. pe1tcerii.a.r;£- .i.n. ih.e. C. l; .J • £rid.ex ~It ili.e. twe.l.. ve.-monilL peA.1.ixl.. 11 Ule IJ.X)ul..d. a.pplf.eci.ate i.:t i./- ~ou wouhl. Cl.cf. on. i/i.v., 0.4 .tJoon. 0.4 po.o,j.}j,Le., J .i.n.ce.Jte!-f. I ~ Leola. 1?u.bot.i.om 39ei0 Sou:.th. Hi..cpvra_, Jpa.ce. 21 San WA Obi..t:ipo, CA 93401 /-13 ~ <ECElVED SEP 1 i:. l'fjL; f 0 CITY COUNCIL . C:.flN I. I J!C:. C'RISPC'. Cfi 'IO: Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard of San Luis Obis:i;:o Council Members: Bill PDalman Allen Settle Penny Rappa Dave Panero September 12, 1994 SUBJ.EX:T : SD:TION (E) of San Luis Obis:po City Rent Ordinance, 5.44.060 tear Honorable Mayor and Council Me.rnbers: A great number of Laguna lake Y.obile Estates residents request certain changes in this paragraph, as is listed l:elow: a. To substitute the word "rates" for expenses in line two (2) of Section E. b. To add "decrease" to line six (6) to read, "total increase or decrease" • .hlso change "expenses" to read "rates" in line six (6) of section E. c. To add "decrease" in line thirteen (13) to read "increase or decrease" in Section E. 'Ihe reason for our request is as follows: Utility a:mpanies refer to their charges as "rates", not expenses. A repair to a utility falls under the heading of maintenance, and main- tenance is included in C.P.I. figures. Use of the word "expenses" allows the park o ... mer to add his cost; of repairs ·which he is not legally entitled to pass through to tenants. - A survey taken from park figures of two years ago, she-wed a variation of one hundred and fifty ($150) dollars per nonth in rents charged for rrobile hares receiving identical services here in this park. Af:ter nurrerous sales involving 10% increases in rrobile hare rents, we feel cor,ifident that the difference l:etween the highest and lowest rents in the park is considerably greater:-at .. this i:oint in time. Budgets based on fixed incarres cannot cope with oonstant assaults, and certainly should not be affected by non-legal pass-throughs. We will greatly appreciate your consideration of our fair request, and we would like to see this matter added to the Council Agenda as soon as it is :possible. ~i? ~d· ttyHe~ 1860 Thelma Drive San Luis Obis:po, CA 93405 H E H O RA N D U H FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 18, 1594 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Jeff Jorge nse n , City 'A ttorney 11 Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Automatic Adjustments Pursuant-to 5.44.060(E) At the April 19, 1994 City council meeting, the attached cornrnunication item from Leola Rubottom was referred·to staff fer an analysis and response. Leola has requested the deletion of Section 5. 4 4. 060 (E) of the l·~obile Home ?ark Rent Stabil i zatiori ordinance, which allows for automatic idjustrnents of ren~ based on. ''increases in expenses for ccmrnon area utilities, new gcvernrnent- r::ancated services, garbage service and cable television ...• " The apparent reason given fer this request is that the owner of creeksite Mobile Horne Park has offered long term leases which do not include automatic adjust~ents as set forth in S.44.060(E). The inference is this constitutes a "discriminatory practice." A previous inquiry, which asserted that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by S.44.060(E) are in conflict with the Mobile Ho~e Residency Law (Civil Code§ 798.31) was submitted in Dece~ber, 1993. (Attached for your information is the analysis of that previous correspondence.) CONCLUSION The City Council has the authority to delete Municipal Code § 5.44.060(E) provided an adequate mechanism remains in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure a "fair return on investrnent.11 The fact that a park owner offers long-term leases wit)) provisions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is net a "discriminatory practice. 11 Therefore, should the Council wish to consider deletion of§ 5.44.060(E), it should do so on sorne basis other than an alleged discrimination • . ;..N~LYS! S l. Does the city council have authority to deiete the automatic adjustment previsions of§ S.44.060(E)? T.:;,e Hobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was adopted by • voter approval as an initiative measure in 1988. However, the City Council specifically re~ained the authority to amend the ordinance .. ~. /-15 ~ -:·' ,• by majority vote(§ 5.44.141). Therefore, the City Council clearly has the authority to delete § S.44.060(E) should it choose to do so. However, it should also be noted that the validity of a rent control ordinance will rest upon whether the ordinance permits the landlord to earn a "just and reasonable return." A long line of court decisions support this fundamental requirement. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (1976); Carson Mobile Home Park Owners Assoc. v. City of Carson, 35 Cal.3d 184 (1983); Palos Verde Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. City of Los Anoeles, 14 2 Cal. ).pp. 3d 362 (1983); Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 37 Cal.3d 644 (1984); West Hollywood Concerned Citizens v. City of West Hollywood, 232 Cal.App.3d 4S6 (1991). while no case has concretely ~efined the term "just and reasonable return," one court has described it as one which 11 ••• is high enough to encourage good management, reward efficiency and discourage the flight of capital and is comr.,ensurate with returns on comparable investments, but not so high as to defeat the purpose of preventing excessive rents. 11 San Marcos Mobile Ho~e Park Assoc. v. City of San Marcos, 192 Cal.App.3d 1492 ( 19~7). conversely, a denial of a just and reasonable return con5-titutes an unconstitutional taking of property which requires c crnpens e t Lcn , Birkenfeld v. city of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 ( 197 6) . The City's rent stabilization ordinance recognizes the" need ~or balance by including in the Purpose and Intent section, the following provision: .... :- "Because of the high cost and impracticability of :moving mobile homes, the potential for camage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of· alternative home sites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this Council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficie.nt to cover increases in costs of repair, ro'aintenance, insurance, - utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their investment. 11 (§ 5.44.0l0(C). Err,phasis added.) Host rent control ordinances allow an annual increase based on the percentage change on the consumer price index or a portion thereof (in the cas~ of San Luis Obispo, 100% of the CPI up to 5% and 75% of the CPI in excess of 5%). However, even with an annual increase . provision, a procedure .must be provided by which an owner can seek ·: an fncrease on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to 2 • /-/{p ~ p r o v id e a ju st an d re a s o n ab le re t u r n . Thu s , th e Sa n Lui s Ob is p o o r d i n a n c e a l s o p rov id e s fo r an ap p lic at io n fo r ren t ad ju s t m en t ov e r an d ab ove th e CP I in c r e a s e , an d an y au t o m at ic ad ju st m en t s , wh e n ap p r op r iat e to ass u r e a fa i r an d reas o n ab le re t u r n on in v est ~en t . ( § 5A 4 . O i O • ) sorne cities provice fer automatic adjustments in their rent ccntrol ordinances. Others co net. •rhe potential advantage of aut ome t i c adjustrnents is the ease of administration which may result. The disadvantage is that the adjustments may result in slightly higher rents than a more co~plex and staff intensive. hearing procedure. The difficulty with simply eliminating the automatic· adjustwent previsions of Section 5.44.060(E) is that while it may provide for a rnodest reduction in rent increases in the short term, it may also sirnply result in shifting requests for rent increases to the forrnal application precess set forth in Section 5.44.070. I am unaware of any fcrii,al r errt adj1.:st;7,ent hearings having been he l d by the City since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted in 19Sa. Given the extrerr.ely contentious, ti~e consuming, and litigious r.earings held in many other cities, this nay be an enviable record. In light of this, the Council ~ay wish to determine ~hether there ar~ significant reasons fer changing the current balance in the ordinance Frier to taking any action on this matter. 2. Does the fact that a park o~ner offers long-term leases ~ith provisio~s different from the provisions of the Rent stabilization Ordinance constitute a "discriminatory practice"? Whether a park cvne r decides to offer a long term Le a se , and whether a tenant decides to accept such a lease, is a purely orivate, voluntarv decision between the parties which has nothing to do with discrimination and is largely beyond the ability of the City to regulate. A park owner is not obligated to offer a long tern lease, but has a right to, . and if such a lease otherwise complies with the previsions of Civil Code§ 79a.l7(G) the owner 11 shal 1 be e>:e:i:pt frcm any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative r.e aaur e adcpted by any local government entity .... 11 (Civil Code§ iS8.l7(A).) The owner's decision may be motivated by a number of reasons (such as s~ability and predictability), but generally will be based upon the perceived economic-benefit of a lease as opposed to the Rent stabilization Ordinance. On the other hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long ter:m lease, and may opt for the protection of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance if the tenant perceives a greater economic benefit in doing so. It depends upon the relative value of benefits offered in the lease. In both instances, it is a matter of choice based upon the terms and conditions of the entire agreement. To call such a process of negotiation a "discriminatory practice" does not, seem to be a supportable premise. Further, to single out one provision of a . long tern lease as a reason for amending the Rent Stabilization ·· · ·: o:tdinance · to delete automatic adjustments would essentially 3 ... /-17 ~ ,.,., : penalize owners for offering long term leases that do not exactly mirror the ordinance, and may take away in~entives to offer such leases at all. REC01"..HEND]\TION Based upon the above analysis, it is respectfully recommended that § 544.060(E) not be deleted based upon an unsupported notion of "discriminatory practice." Issues which might properly support such a deletion would include whether the automatic adjustments have resulted in excessive rent increases or have been abused. I am unaware of any such instances having been brought to the attention of the City. · JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Deb riossli Attachr:,ents: l. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 18, 1994 2. Jeff Jorgensen Me~o, dated December 22, 1993 3. California Civil Code§ 798.15, et sea. 4 ~. /-If/ ~ sUJl L~ UciAP.", c.-1 Ap.r..il. i S, i 9'/4 f!c;:w .·.a l:Le. l'b;v,'t. ;->v..,..a,,·.d a,,d [i.h) {.,cJu.nci.1. ,:Je;:ibe,".A ,4 5an i..J.u.A <JbiAp", [-I · 7Ae. ?~ti t},.;;.ou.t;}...t) .t ~.t ~~e Utd.ed c.1ui e,~lv:.i.i...ve Januw u; 7, i-r"'i.4 we.,-...e. 6c..t,i.d. 011 de C(),6 .t of. c~-:i:::(),'1 al;ea id iLi t j e-6, nesa o.vvu.r.n:en.t mc .. ~ed I . j' /.JeA v~, p.ba,;e t>u vice, e..tc. .tcJ ~~e. 1CXVL~ cJ:.:r...vr. 7Ji..L if9S (i' .J. 1 ,1-,;,r. L~0,6e ruu: cJ1t LEA.l>e-6, w.i..li. be. beu,cd. 011 L~e new r.e:•..t ,!.u;w-..e p.f.w., ari!f r.em p~.6 t.lv.cJ~lui. . · ~'le ,....uped/•1L.4 ,,~~t i..~e ·de.l.d.J..i;n of. (f..) ,6e.c:i.1.tm IJ/. 5,44.060 of. LL..e. ;l)vb.i...L e.,fo,':'J!.. Re.n.t. jLa b.i...Li..;ai.i..,.;n. v.r.d..u ;m :c.e. (.i;?L San lw Vb~?" t..Ac.:t. aJ.l. ,.;;.;!) ,{i,;11. t.hi..6 c!..u,c,-..iJ;,.i.n::,t l),"',_l- p,UJ c:Li..c.e. • 5L'1.Ce.,-.w;, _Jt) .-, \., .• • )...,c. .. ~~- ·'- ., __ .• Le.vi.a i"?uhvi.i.o:n }960 Soui../2. llifu v..o., J'ixi:ce 21 San Lui» O bu p(), ["1 93401. fru:.1.l)~e.d: Si..xi..J Ocu; A'l)t..i..c.e. a,l. ,?ent. Jn.v~~e. ~ ~.6e. nvi. (),'1 LctUe-6. 5.iJ.i.J; Oay. i\-'l)ti.t:.e. ()/. J~ud. Jnc,,;.U).Ae, fl)?I. t.Ac;.tJe. on .Le.t.J.,6-eA • ... ATT A C J~lE~T 1 "'· C ~EE1'S l C-E xos l L Er.c~·,E CO.V.i~t.,;~ff,·t 3~~3 S. HIGu~~A ST~EET 5~N.LU1S O~lS~O, CA 93~01 Cct obe1· - ~ .,;,, t SlXTY DAY NOTICE CF RENT !~CRE~SE Cear Resld:;,t: The Li:aH p,•,;•ti:es i cr r e r.t s t:i be .;.djusted ann1.1ally Cl'\ Jar1uory 1st. This l e t t e r- is z c t i c e cf-.,,;~:-, .;dj•~st:ent. F.-..;J A-.;~•JSt1 n':2 to A•.1i;•Jst1 1'93 the C.;ns•J.;e1· Pr i c e !:-,d:>< appH~.abi! ~.:, ti-,1! Lease e eve d fro-1 43➔.1 to ~ .. 2.s ... h i ch is a 2.~1. i ncr e a s e , Thcn f..;n, p-;1• ,-~;.t :·dll c.; ir:cn.:Hd b;· i5,4i t c 5.:iS._i,. 7h! :.H~! f•.:r~h~r ~r;vid~~ f_..- ;:ss tl-,n1s ':If costs .-elated directly to the p.;1·~ c c s t s ~s f:;d!":er .. C:j•Hted f,;1• inflation, Ti~ese c o s t s in..:l•Jde·•;tilities, g,;nrr1H:-,'. s e rv i c e s and fees, ,.;hich this 1e:1• affects e l e c t r i c i t y, ;,H1 wat.e1·1 tr..sh .:r.:l g.;vi:rr,J:.!:-,t·.,.rn,, ;.11 :;-,c1·e..Hs ,;;;d Ccci·e .. s..-:; listed iiave be e'n adj•;sted f cr the CPI. ?,.,•i< •J~e of .-l:d1·;city :- ... s r i s e n slightly .and tl·,e c e e s e d i t y -c e s e ha s .;i;ain r i s e n, ns•.dti:19 L, s n c v e r s l I lr,,:n .. s e . i~ci"efvn.'1 last ,·ec,·'s pass thru .,f il.c:-· ;.;ill i:-,Cl"HH °:J'/ S.~-S t::i S2,2l. 1.:hVie t~= s:;-,st cf iiiS has i nc r e e s e d this ye.-f, the park's c cn s uept i cn of g..s to heat tr.e r e cr e .. ti.:-:, b•.Ji!ding, s .... i::ir,g pcol .::-,J ~pa ha s .. gain decre..s:-J, Y;;•J1· ;rcrata s:;ue ~f this decl"HS e is a s l. 24 p,• :;c,;;t:, recfoct ion for a :;ew pass thr1J of 52, 27, 7:-di ,·e.;i• bdh ... · .. tu cc;:s,.,.,:-ti..in .,ni.J tJ-,t· co:adity ccst have increaSEd c,·a: .. tic .. lly, Your i:,r~,· .. ta share cf this i:-:crease is Slt,3S plr :onth fci- a total '"at:r pc.ss th1·1J 'jf i!:i.SC'. ,r.e cost fo,· d,1:.;, f::s 1o.ill inctease an additional $1. 13 fw a total ;-..sr. t~r·•J of sz.,,E-. i!':c ;:nit to ~;c;•,;te fte tl",:s y11 .. 1· n.-r.air.ed t~e s.;::e, Adj•Jstin~ last yHr' s coit fer c;i1 rB•Jlts in a ;:)l"c-rata ceci-ecse of s • ~1 fw a total Govern:H,t feH pass 1,v t:-11"" cf S.32, Tht1 µrc;ed;· ta:< H,cSHcr,ts ,-·ill n:,;in .. t $1.~2. ✓.}-:;~~ Y::,•.;;• i-~• thr:.:~h1 ~ff!•:~i'.e _T.,;-,,;;.ry !1 1,:::. will ~e s13,:;4 .;nd 1oo·ill t,e list?d _Sc.'Qcl".itih•··on .,..,,;,• n::; H.:tc.iH,t .and ~d:l !'lilt 'b!: S1J~ject to c;i1 i;,crea~•:!!, Ali of iha abO'li! p.;ss t:-iriJi nfli!ct ad•.:al cost ir,c·nases ,.nd do NOT inc:1'.,de •Jtilities .. nd i:,ti;e,• ch:1°!Jci ;,n:=c d:,·~ctly t-, yo•J, i::·oc• .. ,nn'.: ... ~ll)n f01• the p .... u th"i-,jt b ,j•.-ai:.lble at the park offiie. Thi» :;otic! appii;:s to ell ,·esi~e:;ts ,.;n~e:• th~ A ... pn1visior1s cf the 2an :..-Jis Gbitµll ?.Hit C..;nti·vl Or,:jr,u.ce. °7lH ~..st ?.11;,t i,c1cc.:as tffecti·,e for J~;11.1d1°y l, 1;;4 .;~d will n::.;.i:', :.:> ::-,rou;h D.cnt-c1· 3l, .Vit::.. Si ,·,c e,·e l y, .• /---~O ~ ,1$ HEHORA HDUH FROH THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 22, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJ ECT: city Council Jeff Jorgenser~ ~obile Horne Ren~ Stabilization I have revie~ed the attached letter dated December 7, 1993 from Leola Rubcttorn, which asserts that the autonatic rent adjustments allowed cy 1•:unicipal Code Section 5.44.60(E) [.5.44;C60(:E)) are in conflict with the l.Zcbile r.c::-;e ?.esidency Law, and therefore irwalid. CONCLUSION Hunicioal Coca Sectio:, 5.~4.060(:E) is net in conflict ·..:it:i tr.e Hobile- r.c::-.e :Resicency La·,..r ar:d is a valid su~ject of ;7,unicipal regulation. · It is correct that the Hcbile Eor:,e Residency Law, Civil Code Section ,sa. 31, r e qu i r-e s that, 11a hcrae owne z shall not be charged a fee for ether tha:, rent, utilities and incicental reasonable charges fer services actually rendered. 11 ~o· .. .eve r , what constitutes rent, particularly uncer a rent control ordinance, is not pree~pted by state legislation a~d is left to the broad discretion of the local agency. Grecorv v. City of San Juan caoistrano, 142 CA3d 72, 191 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1SS3). In addition, in the absence of a rent control ordir.ance, rent can be established at whatever level the park owner cetermir.es, subject only to ~arket forces. The only case acdressing the fssue raised by Leola's letter is Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Home Estates, l Cal.Ap~.~t~ 1066, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (1991). The Karrin case inv~lidated a rent control ordinance of the City of Oxnard which permitted a mobile home park owner to add a monthly capital improvement assessment to the monthly bill in additio:1 to regular rent. The rent control ordinance specifically pr cv i c e s that such e s s e s smerrt s should not :Ce considered rent. 'X-he Court invalidated this provision because it directly conflicte~ with civil Code Section 798.31, However, the Court was careful to point out that had the increase been added to rent rather than billed separately as an assessment, it would have 1:-een valid. · · .. .. ~. ATTACHME~T 2 Cit y Coun cil Dec em b er 22 , 1S9 3 Pag e Tw o 'J h e San Luis Ob isp o H ob il e H om e R en t St ab il i za t io n Or d in an c e is sig n i f ic antly dif fer en t fr o m th e Oxn ar d ord in an c e wh ic h w as in v a l id at ed in Kar r in . Th e ad ju s tm en t s p er m it t ed un d e r th e Sa n Lu is Ob isp o ord in an ce ar e sp ec i f i c a l ly in c lu d e d in so ac e ren t an d ar e not a sep ar at e fee , ch a r g e , or as s e s sm en t . Und er th i s sit u at ion , it ap p ear s cle a r th a t th e San Lu is Ob isp o M ob ile H o~e R en t .S t ab il izat io n Ord in an c e is v a l i d un d er th e Kar r ih dec is io n . (In addition, the 60 day notice of r~nt increase provided to the tenants cf Creekside Hobile Home Co:mmunity appears to r..eet the requirerr,e;-jts of our ordinance as to form and effect.) Finally; the reference to Civil Code Section 798 •. 43 (b) does not appear to be relevant or related to the questton rafsed. If you have further questions or com~ents, please feel free to contact ~eat your convenience. JGJ/sw attach. cc: Leola Rubottom ?at Fleming John Dunn · .. . . ~. 7,1..e. W e.::d ~ t.J-vw7t~ bei.119 a.t!d.e.d t» .l1t! base r.e.ri.t bi Cr..ul~iLe. ,n,()bi..l.,e}.,x;.e ,1c.,-Jt Jt ~ !Je.e."I. br.ou.;At to r.47 a.li..e.rti.J..vn t}iai. Sec.ii.i;n 5 .44 .60, ~~9-"-aplt 11 ( 1 4- t}..e. San. 1..uJ.A Oci.Apo, .a ,'t/obile..1.c.r..2. Rv..i.J:VIC!f ~ i...6 ui di,,,-..e.c.t. corf-Li..c.t. ~ t}.e. C a.J.i./..;,..;,,i._a ii 06 i..i. e. 4.::,.-:-.e i? e.! i.t!..e."li:.!f 1.:w • ?C'ta.;,-..:.:,.11 "P' d. St:.c.ti,m 5 A~ .60 c!. t.1.e .Sa.11 l!.1.UJ /)()!:i..i.e.'1.vme ;?u~c.'iC!J. - I (., I I I ~ ~~u, "5pac.e r.v-d •~ 6e c:.d.:.r.a: i..c.t:.Llt;. c;dj,u,ot.ed. bq~e.d i;n ,Lil e.::~! €-6 i.-t ex.:>V"..a.? /_;,;It Cc..r.✓-W/1 C,,e.:2 ( •f i Li fi ~ I ne» ~()Ve,1'~'111'..VI.C mwu!.at_ed ~e,,~ ViCe..6 J I I I • . I l . • I JI p;>a;.e .ce.r.va.e. cna catu:« :.e.l.ev,L,!J..:.)11. !!)12.,,e a.ppl.i.ca ;;l.e. 7.~e CcJ.4.:.;,-..,-..i.:J. 5t::de. 1~()/;i..J.2..l.,,:;me i'<uL:!.e.-u:.:;, La» (i'o, 798.4] 5£CtJ..~.-i (6) .:~ 11:.:./:.e.r.eveA a -~c.>-::et.l.:r~'t v.i ;;.upor..:~Le. L;,. ~¢, vJt el.eci.,-.i.c c•tiLif·, a .. ~.·i.t:.e.1 r..cria;e:ru.t. .afd..L c!.i...o c!-o~e. 1-:.; t}.e. l·...:..:r..:_:;::.n~ ce.f.c,;r.e t.e.i~,.,.c.'/, ,:i.e.."./,,€/',, t':.e f.c;.ne..:;::r..e.A. '.; m e.i e.-t cl :,!,) .,.e.::..:~e.a p 01t e.!.e.t:.f.;-.i c/Jl· fc1t cv.-r.-r.:x, c,-:ea /,rc.i Li:'; e.:,, vlt e.tp-T..e.r.f., i..ru:.ldi.r'9 J.!-:;,L.i..i.ri..;, rsi: c.=n Ce -~e.d oy. .~~'7 .::r.e hw..e- :.'!!r.Clt L,. t.L~ r"':;?.::..i.:m c.•l ..:he .:,e.-..v.::c.e ;!I) i.1., .:v,,.'iivfl Q./t~ (),t w~r~.!J.2. t.:/.;- 1 : L-v; i,~e. me.te,'t vn ~1.e. ,b:~:coi.:r.v~ ~i..f.e. f.01t C'i iLd J .:..~ o,l ..:.~e. c.:>-;;.-:-:~, l".,c.::z ;'-~c..J..- ~ arid e.t;:.:.i..p:,~E.J'li • II U.'e a1te c..o,,...i.;y, tlc.e. /ic;n. tla~-t a.Jul tlc.e. (,~ tr.e..r.:be.,~ of. iJ..e 9 4, 5aJ'I. ~ Obi.Api, .to d.e.Le:t.e th.a--: 1XJLi. o/. Se.di.on 5 .~·!; .6o pa,;.ar.apli. "{.'' t}d.. L1> Lll.~ ac.c.o,,~ w ()wt ji.::.t.e i:1o6li.elt;)l'ilc. /?e.:,~; UJJJ, 7_ N?-'Ji.iJu; f"U bi ad vance /o/t 701..1,t corv..~on. , ... D A T E : 11/11/94 I. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ORIGINATED BY: SUBJECT: ·-, '\ J e.6 6'1._e.!f J oll.g e.YL6 e.n ( f I MEETING DATE: l MobUe. Home. Pa1tk Rent S:tab,l..U,za;U on O1tcU.nanc.e Amendment 12/6/94 Public Bearing Business Consent (Circle One) Intfl.odu.c.e. a.ndOII.cU.nanc.e. Amending Se.c.tio n 5. 44. 060 IE) o{i RECOMMENDATION(S): _ :the. tdobUe. 1/ome. Pcvr.f< Rent S:tabili za;U on O1tcUnanc.e. Con.c.eJtning Au;tomati c. AdjM:tment.6 :to Rent :to Make. Suc.h AdjuJ.i :tmen:t.6 App~c.abf.e. :to Bo.th Inc.Jr..e.<L6 eo o!r.. Ve.Me<L6eo in £xpe.YL6eo, :to Cf.cvr..l6y :tha.:t Expe.Y!,6v., do no:t inc.tu.de. Cap.l:tal ImplI.ove.m e.n;tJ.i oil. Ongoing Munte.nanc.e. CoJ.i:U , and to Extend :the. No.t.l c.e. Perd od {io!t Such. InMe.<L6e6 on ueaneases to 90 VayJ.i, CoYL6 .lJ.i:ten:t wUh CivU Code secxio« 198.30. Part I (white) form lllJSt be subm itted to the City Clerk's Office on the Friday before the Tuesday Agenda Review meeting. Please forward names and addresses of property owne rs, appe llants, subd ividers, applicants, or any parties who lllJSt be notified about this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if possible. II. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT ROUTING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD app roval, please attach Part II (canary) to your report and route to the following departme nt heads in the order indicated below. Following approval, please initial and send on. ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INIT. ::3 PERSONNEL FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CAO CAO CITY CLERK NOTE: The initiating department head is responsible for obtaining ill necessary signatures (other department heads and consultants) prior to subm ittal of report to the City Attorney, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMMENTS: I. White: Prelim Notification Slip II. Canary: Agenda Report Routing Slip III. Pink: Department Copy ( 0 i\\lM\l~\~11\ 1r1Villil\ij\\\ City 0~ san lUIS OBISPO MJ n::. ,, couNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: FROM: SUBJECT: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNE4v PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILE 1 OME . PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE AUTOMA TIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. CONCERNING CAO RECOMM ENDATION: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION S.44.060(E) OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMA~IC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT TO MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENTS APPLICABLE TO BOTH INCREASES OR DECREASES IN EXPENSES, TO CLARIFY THAT EXPENSES . DO NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OR ONGOING MAINTENANCE COSTS, AND TO EXTEND THE NOTICE PERIOD FOR SUCH INCREASES OR DECREASES TO 90. DAYS, CONSISTENT WITH CIVIL CODE§ 798.30. DISCUSSION: At the November 15, 1994 City Council Meeting, the city Council directed staff to prepare amendments to Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance concerning automati6 adjustments to rent, in response to a request from Leola Rubottom. That request and the previous analysis from the City Attorney's Office is attached for your information. The proposed ordinance included with this agenda report will carry out the City Council's direction at the November 15, 1994 Council meeting and will make the following amendments to Section 5.44.060 ( E) : 1. It will apply automatic adjustments to both increases and decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television. 2 • It will clarify that for the purposes of this expenses shall exclude capital improvements and maintenance costs. Section, ongoing 3. It shall extend the notice period for automatic adjustments to 90 days to bring the ordinance into consistency with Civil Code§ 798.30. OPTIONS: Option 1: If the Council wishes to amend the automatic adjustment provisions as discussed above and as previously directed, adopt the attached ordinance (Exhibit A). This is the· staff recommended alternative. Opt ion 2: Tak e no act io n and le a v e th e au t o m at i c ad ju s tm en t s as cu rrent ly w r it t e n . Th is w ou ld m a i n t a i n t he or d in a n c e as or ig in a l ly ad opted by th e vot er s in 1988. Option 3: If the Council wishes to change the word "expenses" to "rates," give staff direction to return with a revised ordinance. In light of the previously submitted analysis, this is not recommended. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Council adopts the ordinance as recommended, it should have no fiscal impact on the City~ It may result in a slightly greater .administrative burden in interpreting the ordinance, but will prevent capital improvements and ongoing maintenance from being added to rent as automatic adjustments. The impact this may have on actual rents is somewhat speculative, but could be potentially significant depending upon the facts of each particular case. JGJ/sw cc: (attached distribution list) Attachments: Exhibit A (Proposed Ordinance) Exhibit B (Legislative Draft of Ordinance) Exhibit C (letter from Leola Rubottom) Exhibit D (Previous Report) Owner/lJ.anager •.\'illow Creek Mobile Home Park" 3SOO Bullock Lane S2.n Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ?resident, Tenant Association Valle Vista Mobile Home Park 333 Elks Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager !,'iission Trailer Park 546 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association San Luis Mobile Home Park 2994 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager ~ancho San Luis h',obile Home Park 3395 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Silver City Mobile Home Park 3850 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ovmer/Manager Oceanaire Mobile Home Park 1121 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Colonial Manor Mobile Hornes i 255 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . ' Owner /Manager Village Mobile Home Park 145 South Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Le.o.f.a. Ru.bo:Uom 3960 So. Hi9ue.Jta, Space. Z 1 San LuM Gb.-Lbpo, CA 93401 w.l & Be.:Uy He.n1.ion 1860 Thelma. VJL. Sa.n Lu.-Lb Ob-< .. b°po; CA 9 34 0 5 'resident, Tenant Association , ,'illow Creek l,',obile Home Park 3500 Bullock La ne San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Marthew's l,'iobiie Home Park 274 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Mission Trailer Park 546 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner/Manager Chumash Village Mobile Home Park 3057 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Rancho San Luls Mobile Home Park 3395 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Creekside h'iobile Home Park 3960 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Oceanalre Mobile Home Park 1121 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner/Manager La guna La ke Mobile Estates 1801 Prefumo Canyon San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Village Mobile Home Park 145 soinh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ve.111u.h Law P. 0. Box 7 30 San Lt(,.{).i Ob.-Lo po, CA 9 34 0 6 Owner/Manager J (\(V Valle Vista Mobile Home Park ~ J 333 Elks Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Matthew's l,'io bile Home Park 274 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager San Luis Mobile Horne Park 2994 Higuera Street San l.uls Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Chumash Village Mobile Horne Park 3057 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Silver City Mobile Home Park 3860 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Creekside Mobile Home Park 3950 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner /Manager Colonial Manor Mobile Homes 1255 Orcutt Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 President, Tenant Association Laguna La ke Mobile Estates 1801 Prefumo Canyon San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 J -<.m B LI.ti: e.Jz.y P.O. Box 730 San Lli,u Ob.-Lo po, CA 9 34 0.6 +.. ORDINANCE NO. (1994 Series) An Ordinance of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo Deleting Chapter S.44.060(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Relating to Automatic Adjustments to Rent in Mobile Horne Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases or decreases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable, excluding capital improvements or ongoing maintenance costs. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase or decrease in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase, or decrease, shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than ninety days prior to any such increase or decrease being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase or decrease, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase or decrease in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase or decrease based on this section. There shall only be one such increase or decrease in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ . day of ExJubd A Ord in an ce No . (1 994 Se r ies ) Pag e Tw o 1994 , on mot ion of , se con ded by _______________ , and on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladwell APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ORDINAN CE NO. (1994 Series) An Ordinance of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo Deleting Chapter S.44.060(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Relating to Automatic Adjustments to Rent in Mobile Horne Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: E . Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases g@:: 4:§8;'§@-§§§: ]in expenses for common area utilities, new ·gOveiri:ment-mandated services,_ garbage service and cable television, where applicable}{g~g~µgi:¥ffl9' !~!2!i,1:~1,,,~,,~:1;~Glllii~~,,0::r1rii\\\4l!l!~§T~~::?~: qi; q.g§:pg~$g in any such expenses incurred during a tw'ei'Ve:::'.foOnth period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increasej qp\g§@#;g~~g;: shall be in writing and shall be given a·s FequTFed <BY law no less than sixty ri.:$ngtJy days prior to ~~{ i teuc:ha ~~crttaste 1~!3f'!=!~~,~ o le f~t ··:1::c;~~:~ase T~E q.ggif:g?'.§@, the new space rent, the amount of the totaY ::tffCFease!!qji; i:f~#fg~$ij in expenses and the nature of the expense.'·K cOp§<olfhe notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase g),@\@:g!gipg~i§@!!]based on this section. There shall only be Orie s"i:icff··rncrease 8£!'.lg39#gij$g in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. · This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The.ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of Exhlbit B O r d i n a n c e N o . (1 9 9 4 S e r i e s ) P a g e T w o 1 9 9 4 , o n m o t i o n o f , s e c o n d e d b y _______________ , a n d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g r o l l c a l l v o t e : A y e s : N o e s : A b s e n t : • .. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladw~ll APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney San I..J.uA Obi.Apo, CA NoveJT!Drvr. 15, 1994 ·llonoM.bl.e /T',G.lj,0 1t, 7>et/ 7> 'Innand: and (vwu:.il ())emD e/1/2 u/ San LJ.LiJ., Obi.Apo We 11.e.oped./d4- 11.€1:fl ~:d. lj'i)U to chanqe ( t) Sed.i.J.m o/ 5 .44 .ao to amend iJie c.i.-4 /l}obileh.o")e '/?vii:. 5:f.abLli..~n OIU1iJ ian.ce blj duv~u; t.h.e uond. ex.pe.fL6e io nai.e» wh.2.n .i.J:. appe.,::vr.,o Iri i:.lti./2 oecxion, A.wo I pl_ea6 e add the IJJ0/1£U,, '011. decn eas e., aJ.i.vt the /JJOM incn eas e UJll..€/1£. .i.J:. 1-6 U.6 ed. Iri i:h.iA -6 e.c:l:.i.v n • . Exluba C 'J:r,m:1~1;11 ··~lil't\\1 city o~ san lurs osispo E57fo/ sC □U N CIL A G E N D A A E P □A T MEIT ING OAiE: ITEM NUMBER: FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMMENDATION: JEFFREY G. JO~GENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.44.060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. BY MOTION, RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND 5.44.060(E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION ON ANY DESIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. ; DISCUSSION: During the communications section of the October 25,. 1994 City Council meeting~ the Council directed staff to return on a future agenda with a business item to address a request by Leola Rubottom to amend Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.concerning automatic adjustments to rent. At the October 4, 1994 City· Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare-an analysis of the request which is attached for your information. If the Council desires to further amend Section 5.44.060(E), it' should provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance with the proposed amendments and bring it back as a public hearing item. JGJ/sw Attachments: Letter from City Attorney (10/10/94) s--1 .. : MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY · October 10, 1994 T O : F R O M : SU BJ E C T : city Council Jeff Jorgensen~ Request to Amen"Vsection 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance Background: During the communications section of the October 4, 1994 City council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an analysis of a request by Leola Rubottom and Bill and Betty Henson to amend Section,5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (please see attached letters). As you may recall, the Council previously amended Section 5.44.060(E) at the request of Leola Rubottom to exclude automatic rent adjustments from the calculation of annual cost of living increases allowable under Section 5.44.060(B). That amendment was finally adopted by the Council on August 16, 1994, and took effect on September 16, 1994. At previous hearings, Ms. Rubottom proposed an essentially identical change to the current request, but formally withdrew it at the August 16, 1994 meeting. The requested change is set forth in legislative draft as follows: "E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on in~r7a7es s:Bfs:£:sg~:~:~':½:}~: in e>:penses r~:'.s'.£'.§ = common area utilities, · new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted. by dividing the total increase @~!~~~~~~~,hi~e~1~ds~~\::r~=~el 5 el-~~~\ ~:~~~~~~g~u~~nfh! CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase Br g)~'.g;f;§;~Ji~ shall be in writing and shall be given a:''s' i"eiJuTfed by law no less than sixty days prior to any such •. 1 • increase being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase based on this section. There sh~ll only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. Analysis: As noted in.previous memos on this subject, the City Council has broad authority to modify the Mobile Home Rent Sstabilization Ordinance to protect the public. interest, so long as an adequate mechanism _remains in the · ordinance to ensure a II fair return on investment" to the park owner. The proposed changes address two primary issues: - 1. Increases and Decreases. The first issue is a request to apply the automatic adjustments to both increases and decreases in specified costs. While it seems unlikely in today's economic environment that such costs will actually decrease, there does not appear to be any legal reason why such an amendment could not be adopted. However, it will add to the complexity of the ordinance and its administration, and may provide additional areas of contention over when increases or decreases have occurred, how they are calculated, when and how often they are applied, whether adequate notice has been given, and whether refunds should be required. It is a matter of judgment for the Council to determine whether the perceived benefit of the proposed change (as it actually affects. rent) will outweigh the added complexity and procedural conflict which may arise. Should the council wish to pursue this modification, there would need to be additional changes from those proposed in order to maintain consistency. 2. Expenses vs. Rates. The second. issue is a request to change the way automatic adjustments are calculated from increases in "expenses" to increases in "rates." This proposal is problematic in several ways. : It would represent a significant change in the way in which automatic adjustments have been previously calculated, thereby changing the current balance in the ordinance between the protection of excessive rent increases to tenants and the provision of a fair return on investment to the park owner. As previously noted, to the extent this balance is changed over time, it may simply shift pressure to apply for rent adjustments under Section 5.44.080. The City· has never held such a rent adjustment hearing since the ordinance was adopted in 1988, and a shift in emphasis toward such hearings would represent a significant administrative burden to the City, as well as create an environment for conflict. A more important concern is that the ·proposed change would create a potentially significant ambiguity. 2 For example, if the automatic adju stm ent were lim ited to an increase in rates for common area utilit ies such as water, it would not allow for an automatic adjustm ent if there is an increase in wat er usaoe. Thus, the ch anqe would effectively freeze all charges for water, regardless of the amount used, after the effective date of the ordinance until such time as there was a rate increase, and then only to the extent of the rate increase. This would appear to create an inequitable relationship not contemplated at the time the ord inance was adopted. In turn, it could potentially affect the quality of services provided or , conversely , discourage conservation. It would further create an ambiguity with respect to new government mandated services since it could be argued that an au tomatic adju stment would only be allow ed for new government m andated services when there is an increase in rates, but not upon imposition of the new mandate. Finally, changing "expenses" to "rat es" could create sever a 1 interpretative , timing, and accounting prob lems for the City in adm inistering the ordinance . Based upon the above analysis, it would be my recommendation that the Council not consider changing "expenses" to "rates. 11 In a Sep tember 12, 1994 letter to the City Council, Ms. Rubottom exp resses the concern that , "T he word 'e xpenses' could encompass rep airs that are not legal for a park owner to pass through .... " This seems to indicate a fear that expenses would be interpreted to mean ongoing maintenance and/or capital improvements. As an alt ernative to the proposed change, the Council may wish to consider using the word "charges, 11 or by specifically excluding maintenance and capital improvement projects from the definition of expenses. If you have further questions or comments concerning this matter, ple ase feel free to contact me at your convenience . JGJ/sw attach . cc: John Dunn • , 3 ·REC ElVED CITY COUNCIL <;AN 1.1_11~ 051S?O. CP .s'i'Ji.e.//zi)e.lt 12 I 7 991; SCJ/1. LJ.LiA 06.i.AprJ, (:4 N 01101ta.6LR. 1i/~v11. 7? er; ~> .i.n.fia.Nf. ~ C i.i.J;. C vw1 ci..1.. , l) e71.De/'iA vf.. SQ/I. Lui» 06Lopl), (,A i? e : C h.al1-JeA needed iri ilte wr..c.L19- in. if..e C"i.i.J;. v/- San. LJ.LiA 06.i.A pv 1 .1 /;Jv6i.J..e}w:ne i?ea~ law. Jz ha» _6~ 6,.w1u)it i.v ~ ailen:ti.vn. iJi.ai. ili.e IJ)C)rku; iri (f) Se.ci.J...o n. vf. 5 .44 ,()':)() needs xo be duirv;e.d f.,; mo,.e c.let:VWj d.e.p_,ie i.lie J.ni..vlU..J.)n. v,{. tJi.e Q,,...d..i..;,a;~e. . The w?td. 11 expeMe.tJ II cou.l.d. €/lC..{),·,~,:xu.o 11.2.oai.Ji.,t, tltai:. a/te noi: Le..y-af !..v11. a 1'XV!ft. ()l!YWt to ~ tA,.rJULjA • The wNi. '" ,w.l. e II man e c1..ewt1.J; ~ /ea i.he .u1C/1. €/UJ ea iri u.i..i 1..ii. i ea ; n w 9() v~ ~ ed. .6 e1t v Lees, ~.ha9-2- .6 Vt vice and cab Le t.e.1..e vLo.i...vn. • I /2.eti e Cl.)d✓., Q.lt e i..d.eni..J../-ed Dtj- a; u:i. Q/Tlu/.Jfl:UJ Me dezenmined bi; "naxe '", Fo11. e.x.ampLR. : ".Speice 11.ent ma.If be aJ..d.c;maf ico 1..LJ;. ~t.e.d. bQ.1 ed. ()17. .u1CA ea.a ea , ( th.en add tJi.e._ plvta.o e ( ( O,t deCl7.ecJ/2e.tJ)) In. :t/1.2. exp€/1,,6e,t, ( ~ i.lie IJX),ui. ex.pen..1e,a ii; ( { NJ.ie.6)) ~,t t.Ae C07ll7!0 n. Q.lt ea td i 1..i t.i es, neui 9-oveN11T1ent- · · . ~ .6e1tv.ic~, ~a9-2- Ae1tv.i.c.:e ~ cab/:e f.e.1..e vLo.i.on, !.!.l~e1te Cl./'ioLJ.,ca6J.e. / h..e Apace serd: mm;. be a.c£;,u,ct..ed Dtj, dJ.. v.i.d.i.n.r;. ilte wt.al.. iJu:A eo,t, e ( dd.d. t.h.e. p/1.NUJ e ( ( ()II. ~e ) ) .i...n. Au.di. e.x_,?e.1UJ e.tJ r ~ iJi.Lo i.() ( ( lta.ie)) .i.n.- c.wt.ltR.d ~. a f.weJ.. ve-mvn.ili. peA.i.od. btj, iweL ve, ~ i.lie p e1t cen:f.a.r;e. .i.n. the [.P.J, £ru1ex. jJJ11. i.lie iJ.::,e_/_ve-mon.tlL pett.i..od., 11 Ule IJX)u.1.d appl[eci..afe .i.i. .i.(.. ~ou. 11.)0u.l.d. ad. on. iA.i../2 a,t, A()Vn. M po.6W l..e.. s-s <EC ElVED s E P 1 i:. 1,,,,; , 0 CITY COUNCIL <:.M.j 1.11!'- CF:1$PCI. Cf' TO : Honorable Y..ayor Peg Pin ar n of San Luis Obispo Council }Eiu rs: Bill RoaL-nan Al len Settle PeJ"1J1Y P-a ppa Dave ?.are ro Septembe r 12, 1994 S1JB.ID:1': SECT IO~ (E) of San Luis Obispo City Pe nt Or din an ce, 5.44.060 De ar Ho norable Ma11or and Council Me.rnbers: A great numbe r of Laguna Lake M:>bile Estates residents requ est certain changes in this paracr aph, as is _listed bela,.,,: a. To sub stitute the word "rates" for expenses in lin e tv.c (2) of Section E. b. To acid "decrease" to line six (6) to read, "to tal .increase or decrease", Jilso chanqe "expenses" to read "rates" iJ1 line six (6) of Sec tion E. c. To add "decrease" in line thi r....ee n (13) to read "in crease or oecrease" in Section E. '.me reason for our requ est is as follows: Utility o:,;rpani es refer to their charges as "rates", not expens es , A repai r to a utility falls un c5er the heading of rra in tenan ce, an d rrain- tenan ce is included in C.P.I. figur es. Use of the wo rd "expen ses11 allow s the park o,-'Tler to add his cost, of repairs which he is not legally entitled to pass thr ough to tenan ts. A surve y tak en from park figur es of i:\-0 years ago, showed a variation of one hundred and fifty ($150) collar s per rronth in rents ch arged for no bile hare s receivin g iden tica l service s here in this park. Af ter nurre rous sales involvin g 10% increases in rrobile heme rents, we feel co r,ifident that the difference between the highest and lo..,iest rents in the park is considerably greater:-at .. thi s poirr t in tine . 31.ldgets based on fixed incorre s canno t cope with co nstan t assaults, and certainl y should not be affected by non-legal pass-throu ghs . We will greatly appreciate your co nsideration of our fair requ est, and we would li.'<e to see thi s rratter added to the Co uncil Agenda as soo n as it is i:cssi.b le. ~4~ ~:~~ 1860 TheJJra Dr ive San Luis Obispo , CA 93405 HEHORA HDUH FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Hay 18, 1594 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Jeff Jorgensen, cit y Att.orneyff Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Automatic Adjustments Pursuant·to 5.44.060(E) At the April 19, 1994 City Council meeting, the attached communication item from Leola Rubottom was referred·to staff for an analysis and response. Leola has requested the deletion of Section 5. 4 4. 060 (E) of the l·~obile Home ?ark Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which allows for automatic idjustrnents of ren~ based on. 11increases in expenses for common area utilities, new gcvernrnent- r::ancated services, garbage service and cable television .... 11 The apparent reason given fer this request is that the owner of Creekside Mobile Ho~e ?ark has offered long term leases which do not include automatic adjust~ents as set forth in S.44.060(E). The inference is this constitutes a "discri:ininatory practice. 11 .; previous inquiry, which asserted that the automatic rent adjust~ents allowed by 5.44.060(E) are in conflict with the Mobile Ho~e Residency La~ (Civil Code§ 798.31) was submitted in Cece~ber, 1993. (Attached for your information is the analysis of that previous correspondence.) CONCLUSION The City Council has the ~uthority to delete Municipal Code § 5.44.060(E) provided an adequate mechanism remains in the ?.ent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure a "fair return on investr.ient.11 The fact that a park owner offer~ long-term leases witb ?revisions different from the provisions of the Rent stabilization Ordinance is net a 11discri;ninatory practice. 11 Therefore, should the Council wish to consider deletion of§ 5.44.060(E), it should do so on s crne basis other than an alleged discrir.iination. ~~ALYSJS 1. Does the city council have authority to delete the automatic adjust~ent provisions of§ 5,44,060(E)? T4':e Hobile Hor.1e Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was· adopted by 'voter e ppz ova I as an initiative measure in 1988. However, the City Council specifically re~ained the authority to ame~d the ordinance •. ~. by maj ority vot e (§ 5 .4 4.141). Ther e fore , the City Coun c il clearly ha s the au t hcrity to dele t e § S.44.0 60(E) sh o uld it cho ose to do so . Ho~ev er, it sh ou ld als o be noted th at the validity of a rent c o n t r o l ord in an ce wi ll rest upon wh eth er th e ord in ance pern its the la nd lo r d to ea rn a 11ju st and reas o nable retu rn .11 A lo ng line of c o u r t dec is ions su p po rt this f un de me rr t a L req uir ement .. Bir kenfeld v. C i ty of Be rkel e y , 17 Cal .3d 129 (1976 ); Carso n Mobile Horne Park own er s Assoc . v. C it y of Carson, 35 Cal.3d 184 (1983); Palos Verde Shores M o b il e Est at e s , Ltd . v. Cit y of Los An o ele s, 142 Cal.App.3d 36 2 (1983); Fisher v. City of Ber k e ley , 37 Cal. 3d 644 (19 84); West H ol ly -..:o o d Con cern ed cit iz e n s v. City of W est Hollywood, 232 C al .A p p .3d 466 (1 99 1 ). While no case has conc retely ~e f ined the te r m 11j u s t and rea so n ab le retu rn , 11. cne court has descr ibed it as o ne whic h 11 ••• is hi gh en ouc;h to en c ourage good manag ement , reward ef f i c i enc y and disc our age the flight of capit al an d is c omr.e ns ur a t e wit h re t u r n s on compa r ab I e in ve s t merr t s , but not so high as to def eat th e · pu rpose o f preven ting excessive rents. 11 San Harccs Mob i le Ho ~e Park Asso c. v. Cit v of San Marco s , 192 ~al.A p p .3d 1492 (1 S 8.7). co n verse ly , a de nia l of a just an d reas·onable return co n ~t i tutes an un c on sti tutio nal tak in g of property which requires c on.p e n s e t Lcn , 3ir kenfeld v. cit y of Berkeley , 17 Cal.3d 129 (1 9 7 6 ). Th e C ity 's r e n t stab iliz atio n ord inan ce recogn izes the" ne e d .fer b a l an ce b y in c lu din g in th e P~rpose and In tent section, th e fo llow ing p rov i sio n: · ... ·, 113 ec au se of th e hich cost an d i;m ,r ac tic ab il ity of mo v in g mobile ., homes, the ·pot en t ial for dam ag e r esu lt i n g there from , the re q u irement s relat in g to th e instal la tio n of mobile homes , in c lud i n g per;n i ts, 1 andscapin g an d sit e p r ep ar at io n , th e lac k of · alt er nativ e home sites for mob ile home res iden ts, an d the subs ta n t ial inve stmen t of mob ile home own er s in such h orn es, th is Coun cil fin ds and dec lar es it nec e ssar y to pro tect the ow n ers an d occup i er s of lilob ile ho mes from unr e asonab le rent incr ease s wh il e at th e s ame tim e re c ogn iz in g the need of par k own er s to receive a su it able prof it on their proper ty with rental inc ome su fficien t to cov er incr ease s in costs o f r e p a ir , ni'aintenance, insuran ce, - u tilitie s, employee serv ic es, additio nal a.m en i t ie s, an d other costs of operat ion, an d to re c eive a fair return on th eir investment.11 (§ 5 .4 4.0 l0 (C). Err.p h asis ad d e d . ) Ho st r e n t contro l ord i n an c e s all o w an annual incr eas e base d on the p e r c en tag e cha n ge on th e co n surr.er pric e index or a port io n thereof (in th e cas e of S an Luis Obispo, 10 0% of th e CP I up to 5% and 75% of th e CP I in ex ce s s o f 5%). However , even wit h an ann ual increase . p r ov is ion , a pr o ced u r e n u s t be provid ed by ~hich an ow ner can seek ·: an f n c r ease on th e gr oun ds the ann u al increas e is not suffic ient to 2 • - . p r o v 1 c e a j u s t 2 n d r e a s e n a b l e r e t u r n . T h u s , t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o o r d i n a n c e a l s o c r e v i c e s f o r a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e n t a d j u s t m e n t o v e r a n d a b o v e t h e ~?I i n c r e a s e , a n d a n y a u t o m a t i c a d j u s t m e n t s , w h e n a p p r c p r i a t e t o a s s u r e ~ f a i r a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t . ( § 5A 4 . 0 7 0 • ) So::.,e cities prov ice fer automatic adjustments in their rent ccntrol ordinances. Others do net. The potential advantage of automatic adjustments is the ease of administration which may result. The disadvantage is that the adjustments may result in slightly higher rents than a mere complex and staff intensiv~ hearing procedure. The di ff ict1l ty with siii,ply el irriinating the aut cma t i c a d jus t me nt; previsions of Section 5.4 4 .0 6 0 (E ) is that while it may provide for a mcde s t reduction in rent increases in the short t e rm , it rnay also simply result in shifting requests for rent increases to the formal annlication orccess set forth in Section 5.4 4 .0 70 . I a~ unaware oi-any fcrrnai rent adjustment hearings having been held by the City since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted ifi 1983. Given the extremely contentious, ti~e consuming, and litigious hearings held i:1 ;;,any ether cities, t h i s may be an enviable record. In light of this, the Council ~ay wish to deterrnine ~hether there ar~ significant reasons fer changing the current balance in the ordinance frior to ta~ing any action on this matter. 2. Does the fact that a park owner offers long-term leases with provisio~s different frora the provisions of the Rent stabilization Ordinance constitute a 11discrirninatory practice11? ivhether a p e r x cvne r decides to offer a long term Le a se , and wh e t he r a tenant c ec i c e s to accept such a lease, is a purely orivate, voluntarv decision between the parties which has nothing to do with discrimination and is largely beyond the ability of the City to regulate. A park owner is not obligated to offer a long tern lease, but has a right to, and if such a lease ct.ne rv i s e complies with the previsions of Civil Code§ 79 3.1 7 (G ) the owner 11 shall ce e>:e:i;~t fre:n any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative z.e a s ur e adcpted by any local government entity .... " (Civil Code§ 798.17(A) .) The owner's deci~ion may be motivated by a number of reasons (such as stability and predictability), but generally will be based upon the perceived economic·berrefit of a lease as opposed to the Rent stabilization Ordinance. On the other hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long term lease, and may opt for the protection of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance if the tenant perceives a greater economic benefit in doing so. It depends upon the relative value of benefits offered in the lease. In both instances, it is a ;natter of choice based unon the terms and conditions of the entire agreement. To call such a process of negotiation a "discriminatory practice" does not seem to be a supportable pr em i s e . Further, to single out one provision of a . long term lease as a reason for amending the Rent Stabilization ·: Ol"dinance · to delete automatic adjustments would essentially 3 ... pen al ize own er s fo r offering long te rm leas es th at do no t exactly m i r r o r th e ord ina nce, an d may tak e away in ~enti v e s to of fer such le a s es at all . · :RECO:'..H ENDA TI ON Bas ed up on th e abo v e analy sis , it is respectfully reco mm enced that § 544.060(E) n o t b e ce le te d bas ed upon an unsup p ort ed notion of "d i s c r i m na t or y prac t ic e. 11 Issue s wh ich might prop erly support such a de let io n would include wheth er the au t om atic ad justments have resu l ted in exc e ss ive ren t inc rease s or have been ab used. I am un aw ar e o f an y such inst anc e s havin g been broll9 ht to the at t en t io n o f th e City . J G J /sw c c : J oh n Dun n Deb i-:oss l i .;t tach r:-.eri ts: 1. Le ola R ubott om L e t ter , date d Apr il 18, 19 94 2. Je f f Jorg en sen M e rno, dat e d Dec emb er 22, 199 3 3 . C al if orn ia C i vil Code § 79 8.15, et sea . 4 .. f-10 Su.n LUUJ U!:.wp,;, (.-/ .:i,,;-.·-'' 1•s 1•0c/:I, ''f ...(.,,(,. 1 I 'f l!v.-.t.).·.11!:Le l'b.t;v-'t. i'Lr.,.~~d and C.i..iJ;. {_vu.nc.il. (}e,-;iLJe,",4 v,l. .Sa.n ~ Ub.wprJ '· C-1 . Re: . 7 f..e. ?~-U> t}✓.v:.1,/..,t, bu"'/- a.dc!.c.d t.r.; t.,'i.iz, base ;-.e.;:i. .i..n. r .. :~eeJ0~ 1'!],.;!:i../.eJ,.JJ.":'.{!. ?a.r..,\ 7Ae. p~t> t.}._,~(.)Uf f....t> i..Li. ~.e wt.ed end e,'/er.:U..ve 'jaJiLI.W Uj 7 1 if'i.4 u.>2.,".2.. !:,C.!,ei vn .t~e C(.)~t (.)/. c~·:.-::1)."1 a.,,e.a 1d il.i tie~ 1 r.<WJ $'.vvu-✓,.r,;crit ,":'.t:..-..:!.at.e..d .,_,e.-w.i.LR.A , pba;e. t>€.,,vi.c.e.1 de. t.r.; t.Je pa.A~ v:.:r...vr. 7/ze ,-.e.:.:; ;97!/ base ;.O".i cc;.-~.w:...ed. v/. :U-..e c.LV✓-€./U: ,,en.t .i..n. 7993 p.1.J.v., U..e. (P.J. Lr.c.-.~e 4. 2}~ .::.Jd. :../:.e ~..,,~er..t 19'1] ~ i.}..,w:.J.,/·..t>. SL-..c e,,,-~ I, ,7/i.;~.2,,_ .... Le.vi.a )<u.bvli.v:n JfuO SouiJi. ll~eAa.,· j:"N.Ce 21 Sa..-i Lui» 06.wp", (/1 93401. // ) -~.-; .. /l.. / t·· . • (.. ~- ~- ( ~-;~J. ·-·· .-. ·••41, _ ... ~- {nc.1..v~ed: Si..:d.J /Jai; A'v.t..i.J:..e. (.)1L Rent Jn.c..,~e.r.J.-oe fa;1t .t.Av~e not. v.-i Lc.M~. SiJ..i..J; Oay. ,1,.".ti.c.e vi J~u.t Jr.CA.e.ace /v,t · iA.c;-t>e 011 Leas e» • .. ... ATTJ>.CJ-::-'.E:'\T l s. ~!( .. ~ ·. C :=.EE!-S J[,E i•'.G: l L EJ-:c~·.E C o~;-,c~n j"( 3;~~ 3. H]Guc~A ST~EET :,::N LUlS C?-l=i='01 C~ 93~i;•l i 59 3 SJXTY D~Y NOilCE CF RENT l~C;E~S~ C, ~ ~ 1· F: E S J d: i, t : c:., ••.. ~ _,.c\...t'•~- it•..:..l,u ,,._., de:__ i~12 Le.;s2 ;:.,•.,·,des i cr r e r.t s to be .;djusted s nnua l l y en Jar,u,;,·y 1st. i:-iis l e t t e r- is zc t i c e cf ~=x:-,_cdj•~~t:eilt. F,-❖J P.-.;g1JSt1 1';92 to A1.r;•;st1 1$93 the C..:ir,s•;.:r,· Pr i c e j:-,c:x cppji,:,;bie :., ti·,~ Le s s e s cve d fro~ ~.3.:,,1 t c ~:..:•.s ;..hich is a 2.01. i ncr e e s e , -,-._ ••. z ••... ,, .,.L ,,•1• ••• :.,c•••••.:· 1-, •• •<:' 4- L.~ 5:-,:i -~ , , 1 s::: 1 c , ~-: r , 1 ... •~ 1 , .• , , •, .-, 1 1 1.1 s::: • • • 1 c-.: ~ t' w - , , ..) • , " tJ '- ...... , ,, • 7;-,,1 ;_H se f•.i:·::-,~i• ;:r;-vid~s f':,1• ;~ss th1·1.1s :,f costs r e l s t e d directly to the p,;1:k cc, st s ~ s f :; rt :-: c ,. .; d j •J: t c d f., 1• i ;.f 1 .; t i c n, Ti", e 5 e c 0 st s i n,: h de •; t i l i t i e s 1 ~ "n n. .:e :-, ; ' ;: 1· y 2· CE S • .i . r c .I._. C ,._ i ,., 2· • " •• ,. • r r e c t . ~ J • "t ,. 1· C' 2· ._ Y " • c ,., • t E ,. ,1- r. <,., ... .1 _., c:,i).,,J ,ee .. , t"'r il • ,. ~II> ,c: C:1 1 '!;; ) ~ C'I.. I • ':;10•1 nc:.. '\, c -•1 ..:,,tJ g:;v,;i-r,r..=:-,t·/n:. Hll i r.cr e .. s e s .;;;d c a cr e a s e s li:ted ;,ave be en cd j1;s ted fc,· the CPI. ?ci·~ •JH of e l e c t r i c i t y r,;;s r i s e n slightly .;;,d t~.e c o c s c d i t y cost ~,;s a;ain r l s e n, n,,.1jtl::g L, .:n c ve r s l I .r.c re s s e . i~.nf.:.re1 l s s t ,·ec1·1s p s s s t r.r u .,f il.~s· ,..-ill i r.cr e s s e ':,;'/ s.::.:i !o S2.2l. 1-,:hi~e t~:: c c s t c,f ;.;s has increased thh ye<'>r1 the p..:.ri<1 s co ;isu :::,tiilil of ;cs to :-ieat tr.e recn.;.ti.:-:1 :-•Jii.::!in21 5,d::ir.g pc..ol cr11J ':pa h..s c::~ain c ecr e e s eJ . Yc.•;1• ;rc,·..,ta s:; ... n ~f thj; dect.,;.se is a i J.24 pi· ;;:,;,t:, red1.,ction fw a new p?.ss thr1J of S2,27. T:·,i-. ·1e .. i· cd h -.·~t.,,· cc,:-,s:.r;;;:.-tL .i:-i .;.nJ tr,<!· co:,1,:,dit, .:·est hava- :nci·eaHd c,·a: ... tically. 'i'ou1• ~-~,·.;ta ,Mc.,-e cf this j;;cnase is !4,35 pc1• :onth fci- a total ,-.·ct~r pcss t:-i,~1J ~f ;~.;=. Tr.e cost fo,· :fo:.;:, f,n 1-iill incnase ,;n acditior.al U. l-3 fo1· a tot.al ;-cs!i t~r·•J cf i2,C·c-, i )';,1 ;:r:H to ,;.-;•:te fu t~.:s ye.;.1· n:.aiud t~e s .. :e. ~dj1;stin~ ).;st y~:1·1 s cost fer C.:'I rn•;lt;, i:i a ;,nrata ctcnase of S • ~1 fw a total Govern:H,t fns p.;sr, 1,v t~w·~ c,f s,j;:•. Thi! µ,·c;ut.,- ta:< :S!cS H rn ts ,dll rr :c?.i:i et Sl.('.2. l,J ~:~v- Y ::,•~;• i~ .. th:·:.:;h1 :;ff!•:~i-.e .~;.-:.:.;ary !1 i;q,:. will :,e Sl3 ,5 4 .;;-;d ,-,·ill t,.- li~td if _s,.:pei·.;tei-;"·o:-i ·,il1 ;,• n;:; ~~atn.u,t .:nd ,,ijl n0 t ·b:- s•;i,ject til C;:>I i;-,crea~~~. Ali of ii",e abovl! p,;ss thriH nflcct acti.:.;l cost ir,,:"r:,.;ses ,;:-id do NOT inch;cJe 1Jtilities .;rid vti·,e,' ch:1·!:lc• ;,11:::d d:ndiy t-., yo•;, i:·oc• •. nn';,;,~2\)n foi• tl~e p,;,s:. th"r1j., j; -..·~ai:.able at the pu~ offic·e. :.. •Ji s Thh :'lotic~ applies to cil tcsi.:e;-its •;ns:f:' the Gciq:~ RH1t C..;nti·.;;l Orcir,u.o. -;-;,,;: i?-.;sl ri,;;;t ,.:...--.:J will n:..?.i:,:;., ~~.r-~v;h :::.c.r.':-c1• .;J1 .!;9.:.. 112sc~. iSdilaa.!11 p1·CJv is i or1 s c, f the :i?.il " f f cc t i ·.- e · f o ,. Jc- n 1.1 .. ,· y l 1 Si tic e,·e 1 :, !="at Fiecii:,g, Mor,.;..gct•- .• HEHORA HDUH FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 22, 1593 TO: F R O X : S'O"BJECT: city council Jeff Jorsenser~ ~obile Horne Ren~ Stabilization I have revie~ed the attached letter cated December 7, 1593 from Leola Rubctto~, ~hich asserts that the autor:iatic rent adjustments allc~ed by Municipal Cece Section 5.44.60(E) (,.44:C60(E)) are in conflict · ... •ith the l~cbile r.c::-,e ?.esidency Law, and therefore invalid. CO~CLUS!C~ Municipal Coca Section s.,4.060(E) l·~obile r.o:-:-.e ~esic~:;cy La·..; a nd is regulation. is nc t; a valid in cenf 1 ict ·..:i t:1 t h e subject of ;7,tinicipal It is correct tr.at the l-~cbile r.o;:-,e Resicency Law, civil Cece Section 7So.31, r e qu i r e s tr.at, 11a hora e owne r' shall not be charged a fee for ether tha::1 r e rrt , ut i 1 it ies and incicent al r e a s criab l e charges fer services actually rendered. 11 ;-;o·..,:ever, 'what ccns t i tutes rent, particularly uncer a rent control ordinance, is not pree~pted by state legislation a~d is left to the broad discretion of the local agency. Greccrv v. Citv of San Juan Cacistrano, 142 CA3d 72, 191 Cal.Rptr. t..7 (1583). In a d d i t i on , in the abs e nc e of a rent control ordinance, rent can be established at whatever level the "' . "" . ' ' .. 1 t '-· .. ~ parA owner ce~erm1~es, su~Jec~ on y o ~ar~e~ ~orces. 'I'he only case addr e s s i nq the i~ssue raised by 1-eola' s letter is Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Horne Estates, l Cal.Ap~-~t~ 1066, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (1991). The Karrin case invalidated a rent control ordinance of the City of Oxnard which perr.iitted a mobile heme park owner to add a monthly capital improvement assessment to the monthly bill i:1 additio:1 to regular rent. The rent control ordinance specifically pr cv i c e.s that such a s s e s smerrt s should not c e considered rent. The Court invalidated this provision because it directly conflicte~ with Civil Code Section 798.31. However, the Court wa~ careful to coint out that had the increase been added to rent rather than bill~d separately as an assessment, it would have 1;.Een val id. · · •. l r • - . .~ TT.!.CHJ,\E~T 2 S-13 City counc i l December 22, 1S93 Pase Two The San Lu.is Cb.i s po Vi obi 1 e Eoj'j1e Re nt; Stabi l .i zat ion Ordinance is significantly different from the Oxnard ordinance which was invalidated in :-<arr.in. The a d j us t merrt s pe r mi tted under the San Luis Obispo ordinance are specifically included in soace rent and are not a separate fee, charge, or a s s e s smerrt , Under this situation, it appears clear that the San Luis Obispo .Mobile Ho;.,e :Rent stabilization Ordinance is valid under the Xarrih decision. (In addition, the 60 day notice of rint increase provided to the tenants cf cr e exs i c e Viobile HoTile Community appears to r.e e t; the requireii.e:-:ts of our ordinance as to f o r m and effect.) Finally; the reference to Civil Code Section 798 .. 43 (b) aces not appear to be relevant or related to the questton rafsed. If y cu h av e f'-1rther questions or c omr.e nt s , please feel free to conta~t ~a at your convenience. JGJ/S'.J attach. cc: Leola ~ubcttcrn ?at Fleming John Dunn .. ~. --- (:-1 /;'c;,.-.r),-..::!:!.e /b.!i.;,'t ?i.,-,n.t;.,•..d c..-.d C J:;1 Cvw:,c.i.1. ,~€.-"1~,,:,,•...j v/. SC/1 ~ Cl:ijpc), {:-1 "' ;•,e : 7.1..e. We...::d. PA t},.,,,vu./·-A L'W29, CI:!.:!.ed i.r; .dt! bace: ;;e.ri.t .u. C,.,e_e}....:i.!.e i~(.)fi./..e.A r.>,,e i")c.,-..,~ 7'·/8 .J 1 v/- tJ..e. 5t.t:..f 2. t':o!:i...f..2..~cr..e i?ude.'14- ~ ~ • .J.,,f ~, 1~-i .~r):::e..>-..:r.u ~.:-.c:..J..L .~..:.:t. Se ~ a 1 le.e. 1 !..i:,1t vi.J.vt i.'u:-'1 1te.r.f., d iLitie.c a.nd. i..i:w.!e.r:.!.cl. ,~e::..~vr.t::.!..e. c.'uv .. 1eA f.,;;t ~t:.1.VU~ uC:._:,,,,/ /..y. ,~;?,,,..:!,:.d. 11 i,/,e a;;e ~/-~ tJ..e -~·"'n.. tla ~11. a:ul t.le C~ r. .. 2r.J;2.-w cl. t./:.e ci...b. vl. Sc.rt ~ Ob.wp,; .io _6d e.te. .u~~ r=. o/. _Secil.on 5 .~·4 .60 pQ/.!ar;,-.apA "er, .::)d i..!J i..U..e.:pL aC.C r)l'L.ul'} i.:.J (.)u.-t · ..)i.:..::..a rb6.i...L e../z;)-:.a, i?eA ~J Le», 7 Aa.l'J.: M L'V U i..ri adva/u:« I ,.;/I. L'OU-'t con.eid.1:,r.ftf i 0 11 • . . v......,..,_, r , 1:ilrll:l\\\Wl\\l!\\ijl r:: 1·il city o~ san LUIS OBISPO 9 COUNCIL AGEN□A REl=JORT f✓,EETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: s FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMMENDATION: JEFFREY G. JO~GENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.44.060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. BY MOTION, RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND 5.44.060(E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION ON ANY DESIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORI)INANCE. ; DISCUSSION: During the communications section of the October 25,. 1994 City Council meeting~ the Council directed staff to return on a future agenda with a business item to address a request by Leola Rubottom to amend Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Horne Rent Stabilization Ordinance concerning automatic adjustments to rent. At the October 4, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare-an analysis of the request which is attached for your information. If the Council desires to further amend Section 5.44.060(E), it should provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance with the proposed amendments and bring it back as a public hearing item. JGJ/sw Attachments: Letter from City Attorney (10/10/94) 5--1 MEMORA NDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY October 10, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Jeff Jorgensen~ Request to Amen«Vsection 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance Background: During the communications section of the October 4, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an analysis of a request by Leola Rubottom and Bill and Betty Henson to amend Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Horne Rent Stabilization Ordinance (please see attached letters). As you may recall, the Council previously amended Section 5.44.060(E) at the request of Leola Rub6ttorn to exclude automatic rent adjustments from the calculation of annual cost of living increases allowable under Section 5.44.060(B). That amendment was finally adopted by the Council on August 16, 1994, and took effect on September 16, 1994. At previous hearings, Ms. Rubottom proposed an essentially identical change to the curr~nt request, but formally withdrew it at the August 16, 1994 meeting. The requested change is set forth in legislative draft as follows: "E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases §zjls~s;:~:A:§:~:§ in expenses #~:!§~:§ for common area utilities I ·new"··gov·ernrnent-rnandate·a·······s;°efrvices I garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase §'.#fifH~'gjfg'.?'.$'.g in any such expenses f:ffe.&.i:&'$, incurred during a t:t"/eTVe'Zfodnth period by twelve, les's·'·'t:he percentage in the CPI index for the twel ve-rnonth period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall~~ C::?.!.1~.~9-.~:r.ed as additional rent. Notice of the inc3:ease Si g)~J;);g~;&.g shall be in writing and shall be given as 'r"e{ftiTFiid by law no less than sixty days prior to any such 1 • i n c r e a s e b e i n g e f f e c t i v e . T h e n o t i c e s h a l l s t a t e t h e a m o u n t o f t h e r e n t i n c r e a s e , t h e n e w s p a c e r e n t , t h e a m o u n t o f t h e t o t a l i n c r e a s e i n e x p e n s e s a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e x p e n s e . A c o p y o f t h e n o t i c e s h a l l b e g i v e n t o t h e c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r . T h e c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r s h a l l h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o r e s o l v e q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g c o m p u t a t i o n o f t h e s p a c e r e n t i n c r e a s e b a s e d o n t h i s s e c t i o n . T h e r e s h a l l o n l y b e o n e s u c h i n c r e a s e i n a n y t w e l v e -m o n t h p e r i o d . Analysis: As noted in.previous memos on this subject, the City Council has broad authority to modify the Mobile Home Rent Sstabilization Ordinance to protect the public. interest, so long as an adequate mechanism remains in the ordinance to ensure a "fair return on Lnve s trnerrt" to the park owner. The proposed changes address two primary issues: ~ 1. Increases and Decreases. The first issue is a request to apply the automatic adjustments to both increases and decreases in specified costs. While it seems unlikely in today.' s economic environment that such costs will actually decrease, there does not appear to be any legal reason why such an amendment could not be adopted. However, it will add to the complexity of the ordinance and its administration, and may provide additional areas of contention over when increases or decreases have occurred, how they are calculated, when and how often they are applied, whether adequate notice has been given, and whether refunds should be required. It is a matter of judgment for the Council to determine whether the perceived benefit of the proposed change (as it actually affects rent) will outweigh the added complexity and procedural conflict which may arise. Should the council wish to pursue this modification, there would need to be additional changes from those proposed in order to maintain consistency. 2. Expenses vs. Rates. The second issue is a request to change the way automatic adjustments are calculated from increases in "expenses" to increases in "rates." This proposal is problematic in several ways. : It would represent a significant change in the way in which automatic adjustments have been previously calculated, thereby changing the current balance in the ordinance between the protection of excessive rent increases to tenants and the provision of a fair return on investment to the park owner. As previously noted, to the extent this balance is changed over time, it may simply shift pressure to apply for rent adjustments under Section 5.44.080. The city· has never held such a rent adjustment hearing since the ordinance was adopted in 1988, and a shift in emphasis toward such hearings would represent a significant administrative burden to the·City, as well as create an environment for conflict. A more important concern is that the proposed change would create a potentially significant ambiguity. 2 For ex am p le , if th e au t om at ic ad ju stm e n t w e r e li m i t ed to an in crea se in rat e s for com m o n ar ea u t il it i e s su c h as w at er , it w ou l d not al lo w for an au t om at ic ad ju s tm e nt if th e r e is an in c r e a s e in wat er usag e . Thu s , th e ch a n g e wou ld e f fec t i v e l y fr e e z e all ch a r g e s for wat er , reg ar d le ss of th e am ount u se d , a f t e r th e e f fect iv e d at e of th e ord in an c e un t il su c h t im e as th e r e w a s a ra t e in c r e as e , a n d th en on ly to th e ext e n t of th e ra t e in c r ea s e . T h is w ou l d ap p e a r t o cr eat e an in eq u it ab le re la t io n sh ip not con t em p l a t e d at th e t im e th e ord in an ce was ad o pt ed . In tu rn , it co u l d p ot e n t ia ll y af f ec t th e qualit y of se rv ic e s pr ov id e d or , c o n v e r se ly , d i s c o u r ag e con se rv at io n . It wou ld fu r th er cr eat e an am b i g u i t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o new gov er nm ent m and at ed se r v ic es si n c e it c o u l d be ar gu ed th at a n au tom at ic ad ju stm ent w ou ld on ly b e all o w ed fo r ne w g o v er nm e n t mand at ed serv ic e s whe n th e r e is an in c r e a se in r at e s , bu t no t u p o n im posit io n of th e new m an d at e . F in a l ly , ch a n g i n g "e x p en s e s " t o "r ate s " could cr eat e se v e r a l in t erp r et at iv e , tim i n g , an d ac c ou n t i n g pr ob le m s for th e Cit y in ad m in i st e r i n g th e o r d i n a n c e . Base d up on th e ab ov e an a ly s is , it wou l d be m y re c om m end at io n th a t th e Cou nc il not con s id e r ch an g in g "e x p e n s e s " t o "r at es . 11 In a September 12, 1994 letter to the City Council, Ms. Rubottom expresses the concern that, "The word 'expenses' could encompass repairs that are not legal for a park owner to pass through .... " This seems to indicate a fear that expenses would be interpreted to mean ongoing maintenance and/or capital improvements. As an alternative to the proposed change, the Council may wish to consider using the word "charges," or by specifically excluding maintenance and capital improvement projects from the definition of expenses. If you have further questions or comments concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. JGJ/sw attach. cc: John Dunn • • 3 'R E C E lV E D CITY COUNCIL <;AN I.I.II~ OBISPO. CP. .Se,rJ:tenlb~ 12, 7991i San Lui» ObiApo 1 CA 1 ' ;1 /la,,\ {l_.e,1U,e .1/\ ~ I J .-o ~ { . NvnollLl.bl..e. d~oll '!?er; ~)i.Nia.lu:I. and Ci.:tJ;. [owu:.i.1. ,l}e,-;ib eM of. San. ~ ObiApa, (,A i<e: C nan.9-e..6 needed i.n f.h.e wr..d.L"l9- i.Ji. t.f..e C"i.i.J; of. San. Lui» · ObiApo 1 -6 /i]obileli.ome. i?e.oi.tl.e.n.cJ; Law . Ji. ha» _De.2/L 61lo1J.rjhz to ~ o.ilefli.i.on tla:t. :t/2.e IJ)<)r.di.Jv; i.n ( [) Sedi.J.m of. 5. 4 4 • CbO needs zo be cluinr;ed iv mone cl.etl/Wj- d.ef.J.ne. f.h.e bzi.erd.i.»n of. tlie Or.d.i.Jw ir:.e • 7 he woNi. "exp ens es II could efl.C.J.),·,1,oa,t,,t, ~ iJiai. aJt e not. Le..ri! j.oll a 1'JO.Ah O!LYlell to pa,o-6 t.Jz.;i.ou.r;J,.. 7 he /J)l)Jtd. "11Lli e11 mane e1.R.aJw; ~le..6 t.Ae Lncneases in. u:li...1.i ti e..6; neui 9ov~-mandai.e.d. senvixe», ~at;e- .oe11. vixe and. cab Le t.el...e vi.A i..on. I he..o e CJJ..oi:/., aJt e i..den:tJP-e.d. Dif ar ui. amourd» all e dexenmin ed b'f 1111£Ji.e. 11 • foll e.x.afT1i.'Jl..e.: "Space: nerd: mQlj, be au:i.omafi cai.4J. a.d.j,ut,t.ed. based on incneaseo 1 ( zhen. a.d.d the._ pMa.oe ( ( Oil dec;i.ecv.,e.o)) in. i:/1.e. expeMe.o ( cluvup. tlie IJ)l),,d exp eM e.-6 to ((IILl.i:.e..6)) ~ll i.h.e. comm.o n aJt ea 1d.ilitie.o, nw 9ove11.nment- _ ~ .6e11.vi..c~, ~a~ .oe11.vi..ce and ca.bl.e tel..e.vi.A i.on, w~e11.e °!f:ti.i.ca bLe. / Ae .opace. 11.i!.ni:. maJJ, be Of1i.u,o :te.d. b'f di..v~ t.h.e to to.1. i.notea.6e ( the. plWU>e ( ( Oil ~e ) ) i.Ji. ,:,ud,. expe.Me.o ( cluvup. i./2.iA to ( ( IILl.i:.e.)) i.n- CUMR.d ~. a ime.1..ve-moni.h. pe.Ai..od. br; iJJJel..ve, W.t, f.h.e pe.;i.cent.a.t;e. i.n :th.e C. ij .J. £ndex /JJll t.h.e t.we.1. ve-{ll ontlL prvr.uxl., " /Ve UX)u.J.d app/1.eci..ai.e . il j_/. v,ou. IJ)()u.Ld. act on t.h.iA a.6 ,:,oon a.6 po.owl..e.. Si.nceAe!-1f., ~ leoLa 'Ru.b ottom 39ri0 Soui.h. fli..tpvta_, Jpace. 27 San. LJJiA Obi.Apo, CA 93401 s-s <E C E lV E D SEP 1 i:. l'i''1•, f . J CITY COUNCIL c;i\N 1..1 nc; C'RISPO. C/1 TO: Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard of San Luis Obispo Council Membe rs: Bill Roalman Allen Settle Penn y Rappa Dave Rome ro Septembe r 12, 1994 SUBJECT : SECT ION (E) of San Luis Obispo City Rent Ordinance, 5.44.060 ~ar Honorable Mayor and Council Me.rnbe rs: A great numbe r of Laguna lak e Mobile Estates residents request certa in chan ges in this paragraph, as is listed below: a. To substitute the word "rates" for expenses in line two (2) of Section E. b. To add "decrease" to line six (6) to read, "total increase or decrease". Also change "expe nses" to read "rates" in line six (6) of Section E. c. To add "decrease" in line thi rtee n (13) to read "increase or decrease" in Section E. The reason for our request is as follO'ws: Utility oornpani es refer to their charges as "rates", not expens es. A repai r to a utility falls under the heading of maintenance, and main- tenance is included in C.P.I. figur es. Use of the word "expen ses" allO'ws the park owner to add his oost of repairs which he is not legally entitled to pass thr ough to tenants. A surve y tak en from park figur es of two years ago, showed a variation of one hundred and fifty ($150) dollars per rrorrth in rents charged for nobile hooe s receivin g identical services here in this park. Af;t.er nurre rous sales involving 10% increases in nobile hone rents, we feel CODfident that the difference between the highest and lO'west rents in the park is considerably greater-:-at .. thi s point in tine . Budgets based on fixed inc::ome s cannot cope with constan t assaults, and certain ly should not be affected by non-legal ?ass-thro ughs. We will greatly appreciate your consideration of our fair requ est, and we would like to see this matter added to the Council Agenda as soon as it is possible. ~~t~ ~d- ttyHe~ 1860 Thelma Drive San Luis Obispo , CA 93405 M E M O RA N D U M FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 18, 1994 TO: PROK: SUBJECT: City Council Jeff Jorgensen, city Attorney 11 Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Automatic Adjustments Pursuant-to 5.44.060(E ) At the April 19, 1994 City council meeting, the attached cornrnunication item from Leola Rubottom was referred:to staff fer an analysis and response. Leola has requested the deletion of Section 5. 4 4. 060 (E ) of the l•~obile Horne J?ark Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which allows for automatic idjustments of rent based on ''increases in expenses for common area utilities, new gcvernrnent- i::cndated services, garbage service and cable television .... 11 The apparent reason given fer this request is that the owner of Creeksite Mobile Horne Park has offered long term leases which do not include automatic adjust~ents as set forth in 5.44.060 (E ). The inference is this constitutes a "discriminatory practice." A previous inquiry, which asserted that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by 5.4 4 .0 60(E) are in conflict with the Mobile Hone Residency Law (Civil Code§ 798.31) was submitted in Dece~ber, 1993. (Attached for your information is the analysis of that previous correspondence.) CONCLUSION The City Council has the authority to delete Municipal Code § 5.4 4.060(E) provided an adequate mechanism remains in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure a "fair return on investment." The fact that a park owner offers long-term leases wit~ provisions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is net a "discriminatory practice. 11 Therefore, should the Council wish to consider deletion of§ 5,44.0 60 (E), it should do so on some basis other than an alleged discrimination. ANALYSIS l. Does the City Council have authority to delete the automatic adjustment provisions of§ S.44,060(E)? T41e Hobile Home Park Rent Stabilization ordinance was adopted by 'voter approval as an initiative measure in 1988. However, the City Council specifically re~ained the authority to amend the ordinance (A_ ... 5-7 by majority vote (§ 5.44.141). Therefore, the City Council clearly has the·authcrity to delete § 5.44.060(E ) should it choose to do so. However, it should also be noted that the validity of a rent control ordinance will rest upon whether the ordinance perm its the landlord to earn a "just and reasonable return." A long line of court de6isions support this fundamental requirement. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (1976); Carson Mobile Home Park Owners Assoc. v. City of Carson, 35 Cal.3d 184 (1983); Palos Verde Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd . v. City of Los Anoeles, 142 Cal.A pp .3d 362 (1983); Fisher v. city of Berkeley, 37 Cal. 3d 644 (1984); West Hollywood Concerned Citizens v . City of West Hollywood, 232 Cal.App.3d 466 (1991). While no case has concretely ~efined the term 11just and reasonable return," one court has described it as one which 11 ••• is high enough to encourage good management, reward efficiency and discourage the flight of capital and is commensurate with returns on comparable investments, but not so high as to defeat the purpose of preventing excessive rents. 11 San Marcos Mobile Hone Park Assoc. v. City of San Marcos, 192 Cal.App.3d 1492 ( 198_7). Conversely, a denial of a just and reasonable return cons,Jitutes an unconstitutional taking of property which requires compensation. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129 ( 197 6) . The City's rent stabilization ordinance recognizes the" need .for balance by including in the Purpose and Intent section, the following provision: .. "Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements· relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of· alternative home sites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this Council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repa.ir, rn'aintenance, insurance, - utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their investrnent.11 (§ 5,44.0l0(C). Emphasis added.) Most rent control ordinances allow an annual increase based on the percentage change on the consumer price index or a portion thereof (in the case of San Luis Obispo, 100% of the C.PI up to 5% and 75% of the CPI in excess of 5%). However, even with an annual increase . provision, a procedure ~ust be provided by which an owner can seek ·: an increase on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to 2 • p r o v id e a ju st an d re a s o n a b le re t u r n . Thu s , th e Sa n Lu is Ob i s p o or d in an c e als o prov id e s fo r an ap p li c at i o n fo r re n t ad ju s t m en t ov e r an d ab ov e th e CP I in c r e a s e , an d an y au t o rn at ic ad ju st rn en t s , w h e n ap p r op r iat e to as s u r e a fa i r an d rea s o n ab le re t u r n on in v e s t m e n t . ( § SA 4 . 0 i O . ) Some cities provide fer automatic adjustments in their rent control ordinances. Others do net. The potential advantage of automatic adjustments is the ease of administration which may result. The disadvantage is that the adjustments may result in slightly higher rents than a more complex and staff intensive. hearing procedure. The difficulty with simply eliminating the automatic· adjustment provisions of Section 5.44.060(E) is that while it may provide for a modest reduction in rent increases in the short terrn, it may also simply result in shifting requests for rent increases to the formal application precess set forth in Section 5.44.070. I am unaware of any fcrrnal rent adjustment hearings having been held by the City since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted in 1988. Given the extrerr.ely contentious, time consuming, and litigious r.earings held in many other cities, this may be an enviable record. In light of this, the council may wish to determine whether there ar~ significant reasons for changing the current balance in the ordinance prior to taking any action on this matter. 2. Does the fact that a park owner offers long-term leases with provisions different from the provisions of the Rent stabilization Ordinance constitute a11discrirninatory practice"'? Whether a park owner decides to offer a long term Le ase , and whether a tenant decides to accept such a lease, is a purely orivate, voluntarv decision between the parties which has nothing to do with discrimination and is largely beyond the ability of the City to regulate. A park owner is not obligated to offer a long term lease, but has a right to, . and if such a lease otherwise complies with the provisions of Civil Code§ 798.17(G) the owner 11 shall be e>:e:npt frcm any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative ne asur e adopted by any local government entity .... 11 (Civil Code§ 798.17(A) .) The owner's decision :may be :motivated by a number of reasons (such as stability and predictability), but generally will be based upon the perceived economic·berrefit of a lease as opposed to the Rent Stabilization ordinance. on the other hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long term lease, and may opt for the protection of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance if the tenant perceives a greater economic benefit in doing so. It depends upon the relative value of benefits offered in the lease. In both instances, it is a :matter of choice based upon the terms and conditions of the entire agreement. To call such a process of negotiation a "discriminatory practice" does not seem to be a supportable premise. Further, to single out one provision of a . long term lease as a reason for amending the Rent Stabilization ·: O'l:'dinance to delete automatic adjustments would essentially 3 ... penalize owners for offering long term leases that do not exactly mirror the ordinance, and rnay take away incentives to offer such leases at all. RECOY.i.MENDATION Based upon the above analysis, it is respectfully recommended that § 544.060(E) not be deleted based upon an unsupported notion of "discriminatory practice. 11 Issues which might properly support such a deletion would include whether the automatic adjustments have resulted in excessive rent increases or have been abused. I am unaware of any such instances having been broU:9ht to the attention of the City . •.. JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Deb iiossli Attachr:-,ents: 1. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 18, 1994 2. Jeff Jorgensen Merno, dated December 22, 1993 3. California Civil Code§ 798.15, et seq. 4 ... ;)-10 SUit LIU..!J Ubi.Api;, C,-1 Apr..i..L i S, i 9'/4 f!vnJ.),-.atl.e i'b;vit i'.uv,~-..d and [ilJ; [vW?ci..J.. ()e,":lJe,~ v/ .. 5Q/1 Lui» Obi..opc), C:-1 . r.'cc.c),-..duui za a ''51..xh;JJo.lf NvtJ..c.e v/. a i<eni:. J.,ic,-..~i,' da;t.ed Oc.t. 23 i i99J, C,--...ud-...cde 1,erder..6 t}d have ncd: ,jLrd. LCJUJ tY.J wlil. have :.f..e. i7'9J l'X,64 tfv,()"•,L wt.ed -ow:v..a1d·J. ()fl :l~e. ,-..eri.f.. .atat.er..u.f. and. u.;Ll/.. 6e included ....,,~ . I # i.n ~~ e base: r. cr ..t • ll·..e. :,u..c t}.,;;. oi.J.,,, '..a i.1u.::t ~. e Li....ot. d. w id ef.1.e ciJ.. ve :}QJ iua/u 1. 7 i .CU 4 uer: ..e. / 7 11 4111- !:,ct,ed. on i,~e co~.t of. cv,•,1:::,.1:1 a,,ea ui i l..i fie~, new 9.vver.rui.ent mc.ru!at.e.d. ,:, €.Ii. v ~ 1 ~bci'r .ce.,-..v ic e , e..t c • ,fo ~~ e ,Da/1,4. o~ • Tlie ,.-.~ ;99!; 6Me r..u.i. cv.~~i.A.te.d. v/. 1J..e CJ.V✓-e.11:t. ,,ent in: i99J pi.J.v., V..e. [.'f'.J. u.c,,e.ue v,f. 2}o wd V..e. cu.,v.er..t 79</J ~ Lt•-..v:.J..~)..t,. 7}-2. i99S c.iJ.J., /.()II. i..,~v-oe ruii: ()/t LeaAM, w.U.J.. 6e 6eu,ed. on tie nea ..-.~:it /.J-9v..e pJ..w., aJ"i!j neui paA,tJ tlv..v~lw. . ~·Je r..e.oped/• lLLJ; ,,~~~.t t..~e deLd.i.J;n vf. ( C.) .ce.di .. on I)/. 5 .44. OSO 4 t..,L..e, ;1)v6i..l.e,~o::ie. Re.n.t. J:.£J.6i.1.i.J~n. Ur,d..i .. nmit:.2. ~It San. lui...c Ubi..opc) tJu:.i:. al..l.():i;~ /;;it ~ dJ..ae,-:.iJ;,.i..ri.a:tvr..,; p,uici.i.t:.e.. // -~ ... ; - /1.,. /) r:.·· . . , ;- ~- ( ,,..,., ...... ....... -···~ -· .... {ru:.l..o.ced.: Si..xi.1- Dai; A'ot.i.c.e. of. 'i?en:t J~:-,.ew.ie ~11. thv,tJe not. on Lc.o./2 e..c . SiJ.i.J; Oat i\-'l)i.i..c.e o/ 7~ud. Jn.cr.e.aAe /1)/f. ~o.tJe 1)11 /.e.(J,6-e,,t, • •. ... A TT ACJ-:!,\E~T 1 5.-1( C:.EEKSJC,E i•:03llEHC;>·,E CO~i~L~nTY 3Sc3 s. HIGUcRA ST~EET s;.N LUlS O~JS~O, CA 93~01 G e t o b € 1· - ' ~ .. ' SIXTY DAY NOTJCE OF RENT INC~E~SE Deer Resid:;,t: Th e Le s s a p,·0·1i:lB for r e r.t s to be .;.djusted a nnua l l y en Janu.ary 1st. T!'lis l e t t e r- is notice cf •,;=;i::-, .. dj•~st.:ent. F,·o~ A-.;~•JSt1 Vi92 to A1.1g•Jst, 1993 the C-0ns1He1· Pr l c e !;,d:>< appjic.:bie t o ti-,.? L.?aH s ov e d fro-l 4.3➔.l to .:..:.2.s ... h i ch is a 2.01. i ncr e a s e • .,-,._. • .t:. • '' •• ••-L ,,·1• •-- :-.c•••••..: 1-,,, •C' 4- L,-, ,::-,~ -,n 1,1c)C 11..•;e 1 1."J•.11 l·.,11, ,',l l L..ic- i nc r e s s e c -1 l,.,,,,Je I 1.w '-""•.';• Th~ :..H ~~ f•.::·:h~,· pr c v i c e s fc,1· pass tl-.1·•.1s of costs r e l e t e d directly to the pa1·~ c cs t s ~s f:;r-t:icr acj,;.ted fo1• inflation. Ti-;ese c o s t s i ncl vo e ut Ll i t i e s , gonrr,Hnt Hr-vices and fees, ,~h1c:-i this 1e:I' af f e ct s electricity, ;;a~, wat.e1•, t r a s h .!r,d govffr,r.::;,t .~n .. ;.11 i ncr e as e s .;nd Ccc1·ease-.; listed hav e b e en adj1Jsted f c r the CPI. :. ;:, u ~ 'J ~ 2 o f e l = ct ti c i t y h a s ri H n s l i g ht l y a n d t l-, e c o ;;., o d i t y .: c s t h a s c g a i n r i s e n, ns1.1iting L1 s n c v e r a l l i r.c re a s e , 7;:uef.::,1·t11 lest 1·ea,·'s pass t hr u .,f il.c:s· ;.;ill i r.cr e s s e ':J 1 s.::.5 to S2.2l. 1,,,:hile tJ-:~ cost of gas has increased this ye.;,r1 the pc'.rk' s c o n s u e pt Lc n of gas to heat the r e cr e s t i cn :.•Jilding, s..ii:.:ir,g pool cii11J spa has again c ecr e e s eJ, Yc1J1' prcrata s:;are of thi~ c e cr e e s e i3 a J l.24 p e r ant:, r e duc t i cn fo1• a new pass th 1•1J of S2,27. Ti·,is ·;e .. 1· b c t h ... ·;.t.;,• cons:.1~;:.-ti.Jn c\nJ t:-.~· c c ea cd i ty cc s t have i nc r e s s e d dr·a~atically. Your ~r•:-r•ata s har e cf this i ncr e a s e is 14,35 pet· e cnt h fci- a total \~at:l" pass th 1·1J of i5. ;C', The cost fo,· d:.1.:;:i f:~s wili incnase an additional $1.13 fw a total ;•css th i-•J of ;~·.(',t'. The ,:,:·l·::it to ~Pc'i':te f~e t:-,is yf-:1- 1·e1.air,ed the s~::e. Adj1Jstin~ last y~::.r' s cost for- c;,1 re~•Jlts in a ;:ire-rat a cecnas2 of S • M for a total Govern::ent fns pass "...; tl-,t"~ of s.3::·. Th~ j.Jl'c,:ed1· ta;< Ht.:sHi:rits ,~ill re-ain ct Sl.02. ✓, 1 .:;~~ Yo•~.• ~: .. ii thr:.:;h, fff!dhe .~;,.r.:~;;.ry !1 l,~.; will ~e S13,54 and will t,., list?d .sc1p.::1•.;tri-;-:or1 ·,o,;,• n ::; Hatuu,t .and ,d:il n1Jt ·b~ s•JiJject to Cr'I increaHs. Ali of th~ .. bovi! pass t:ir1H rrdl2ct actr.:al cost ir,c)·tases and do NOT incl1.1de 1Jtilities and vt;ifr' ciHr!;c• ;,u::d d:,·.-cti.y t,J y..:>•;, i:·oc, .... rnt&~llJn for• the p.;,H th-r,js. j:» _.•,ai~.abli! at the puk offic·e. This notic~ applies to all ;•esicents •;nde:• th-e • prc.,visions of the 2an :_,Jis Gbitµv ?.rrrt C..;nt1·vl Orcir,u.ce. 7h~ i3,.s.? Rc?;it bc?cc,.:;ie~ cffecti·,e for Jc,,i1.1,!1"1 l, l9S4 .. ::d will .-e ;:.;;i:, n ::-,n,u;h Drcc:-.t.,;1• 311 .1S90:.. Pat FlHii;ig, M ar,e1 g e r-_ .• ... H E M O RA H D U M FROM T H E O FF IC E OF TH E CI T Y ATT O RN E Y December 22, 1993 T O : FROM: S UBJ E C T : City Council Jeff Jorgens:rrr. . . . Mobile Horne ~en~ s~ab1l1zat1on I have revie~ed the attached letter dated December 7, 1993 from Leola Rubcttorn, which asserts that the autornatic rent adjustments allowed by Municipal Code Section 5.44.60(E) [,.44:C60(E)) are in conflict with the Mobile Hc~e Residency Law, and therefore invalid. CONCLUSION Hunicioal Cece Section 5.¼4.060(E) Mobile Ho;:-,e Resid~:,cy La·..; arid is regulation. is net a valid in conflict with the subject of rnun i c i pa L It is correct that the Vicbile r.oi:',e Residency Law, Civil Code Section 7 9 a. 31, raqu ires that, 11 a horne owne r shal 1 not be cha r q ed a fee for ether than rent, utilities and incidental reasonable charges for services actually rendered. 11 Ho·.,,:ever, what constitutes rent, particularly under a rent control ordinance, is not preempted by state legislation and is left to the broad discretion of the local agency. Greccrv v. City of San Juan Cacistrano, 142 CA3d 72, 191 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983). In addition, in the absence of a rent control ordinance, rent can be established at whatever level the park owner determir.es, subject only to market forces. The only case addressing the fssue raised by Leol~' :=i Jetter is Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Home Estates, l Cal.App.4th 1066, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (1991). T~e Karrin case inv,lidated a rent control ordinance of the City of Oxnard which permitted a mobile home park owner to add a monthly capital improvement assessment to the monthly bill in addition to regular rent. The rent control ordinance specifically pr cv i c e s that such e s s e s sme rrt s should not be considered rent. The Court invalidated this provision because it directly conflicted with Civil Code Section 798.31. However, the Court w a s careful to point out that had the increase been added to rent rather than billed separately as a~ assessment, it would have 1;.een val id . .. • ~. .A. TTACHMENT 2 S-13 City council December 22, 1993 Page Two 'I·he San Luis Obispo Hobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance is significantly different from the Oxnard ordinance which was invalidated in Karrin. The adjustments permitted under the San Luis Obispo ordinance are specifically included in snace rent and are not a separate fee, charge, or assessment. Under this situation, it appears clear that the San Luis Obispo Mobile Ho!':i e Rent Stabilization Ordinance is valid under the Karrih decision. (In addition, the 60 day notice of rent increase provided to the tenants of Creekside Hobi le Home Community appears to me e t the requirements of our ordinance as to form and effect.) Finally~ the reference to Civil Code Section 798 .. 43 (b) does not appear to be relevant or related to the questton rafsed. If you have further questions or c omraerrt s , please feel free to contact ~a at your convenience. JGJ/s·.,; attach. cc: Leola Rubottom Pat Fleming John Dunn .. .. . Sen. Lui» 06w,,;,.;,, CA ilc.ccm!:c.-t 7, i 79 J Hvr.,.;,,,dLe /ia7i;1t ?L~,.;u:.;-.d, cr.d Ci..4, C,.;,u.nc.u.. ,~e.r.ib..v..a ,.;,f. Sen. b.w 06Ljpo, CA Ji. AM beer: 61:.ou.r;}.i. xo rr.:; at.f_erLtivn tJia.t. Seci.i..vn 5 .!.ti.,. 60, pa.;..a9,11.apl1. ''[,'' o,{. t}.e SQ/1 1..0..,a 06Lopo 1 ..; 1~06.U..e/-..cr..e fou.i.d€./l.C.lf ~ .u, l'1. di.,-._ec.t. e,or./-J.-i.ci. ~ t..u. C a.li/-v ,.~ , ~06 j..J_ e/1.0.,..e i? ~ i..c!.eru:.i; ~ • ?C/!Ll9--~.p,1i. "c"I/ v/- Sec.t.i.,m 5 .4-!.t .60 o/. tie .Sall Lui» /)Q/.Ji..J..e)wme i?UJ.i..di..'iC!f Lau: /.J f,., .J eA 1 "Space 1..::r.f. ,~ c e ~c.d4t- cid.~.ted 6~/.J ed. vn .,u.e,, e.::..c ea i.,'1, ~e /.01t C(.)71.r.wn c,-;,ea ,,t-Jl.lfiVj, /7£i.:J f,.;,ver .. 111r..vi..t r.uvu:!.ai.ed /.Je.-,;.v.ice./.J1 'r"7-ba;e .;€Av.ice end cable t.el.evi.,!.u.;n l.:iu.,,e a.ppli.ca.!:l.e. '' 7.1e C~-v..J..a. 3-ta.te i'hbi..J..e..~vme 'R~~ru:.i; Lao :;'o. 798.4] Sed..i.o., (6) ~~ 11L!.I W..eve1t a ,4t.>7le.c;i.:r..ivt lo ,-;,upvri:i..!:Le !_i;,._ ~/.J, c.)lt ele.c:l,u.::. u.fil.if,, ..;e,,._vi..c.e.1 rr,a,--,a:;e-nv.f. ..;)u:.L/.. ~cl.o/.Je i:..iJ t..t....e /·.:,r,:~:;-.:.n~ 6e(.LJ1.e t.enar..c.'I, L!.l !..U.e ~e.1t t., L..e ho:ne.v~'..; me..-:e.Jt cl~v :;-~~w.~ ~-o~ e.l..e.cb:ic~·4 t= Cr.Xr.'7l:Xt e,.,ea {.r,ciL.ifi~, v1t ~.;:.,..i., ~ ~~. I h..i.A CC,'1. be /u:vu:.L.ed b'f ,~7 .;:t.e ho-:-..e- '-'~.vt /,;,t t.}~ p~.,..:f..i.::m c.':~ tli.e .:,e,.-;,v..::.ce .;:c.) i.}.'l!. ..:v,i.'iivrt a.1tec.c Q,t c!.ui co r...f..i.tw.e LJ./.J- i..'1.9 t.1e me.te.Jt c.)11 i.,~e /·...:;,-::cc.)~e,,-..4 .oile /01t d ; L.d u .. ~ LJ 1 l ~¼e co,,.'.';i;,., ""-•C.::Z /-~c..U..- i..i...i.,,v., a,ru:!, ~0.p:,,e.rz,f. • II rzr.X:J 9-c~ ;_,.., er. e.26 e.d r;e;d ~t. Acee),"~ t.v "/,/ed.'.; Amr;t.ai.ed Cai.J../,o,-.rtJ..a. Co~e cl,)(l~fjfution, 11'ili..c,l_e 6, Sec:twn 5, ''.date I.AJJJ 1;upe,-;,cedeA m.ani.Li..pal.. c.),t cJ...4 I.Jw . 11 U-'e ar.e C/.,½ tli.e Hvn. tla~1t aJu.i tJi.e Cl)W'IC,.U_ rr..e.r..be..'iA of. tJ..e. ~ vf. SQ/'I. L.u.Lo Ob~po t. o c!.eL.e.te t.Jui.t._ 1::x:.A:t. of: S ecil..011 5 . 4 4 • 60 oa;.ar..aph. 11 {,' 1 t., lid i..j 1-ll.~ acc olf.J.!i..n.; w VU.It jt..=i.,e dobli elwmc. i<eAl..i.!2J1.cJ l.cJJJ. 7_ fu;1.11h.i.Ju; 1'".l l'1. advan.ce tv,t 7ou,t C O M ~o n.. ' D A T E : 10/27/94 I. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ORIGINATED BY: r-.f-i '-/•/ Je.66 Joll.gen1,e.n , / · 11/15/94 MEETING DATE: RECOMMENDATION(S): Btj Motion, Rec.uve. a Re.pol{;(: Re.gaJtcllng a Re.qu<Ut :to Amend Sec..:tlo n 5.44.060(E) 06 :the MobUe Home. Rent Stabilization OJtd.£nanc.e., and Pnovid e. S:ta.{,,{,, wU h V.£Jt ec.t.£o n on any Vv.i .£Jt e.d Amen.dme.n:a to :the 011.d,ln.a.n.c.e .. Part I (white) form n.Jst be submitted to the City Clerk's Office on the Friday before the Tuesday Agenda Review meeting. Please forward names and add resses of property owne rs, appe llants, subd ividers, applicants, or any parties who n.Jst be notified about this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if possible. II. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT ROUTING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD app roval, please attach Part II (canary) to your report and route to the following departme nt heads in the order indicated below. Following approval, please initial and send on. ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN 3 PERSONNEL FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CAO CAO DATE OUT INIT. JO-Z 1 CITY CLERK NOTE: The initiating department head is respon sible for obtaining ill necessary signatures (other department heads and consultants) prior to subm ittal of report to the City Attorney, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMMENTS: I. White: Prelim Notification Slip JI. Canary: Agenda Report Routing Slip Ill. Pink: Department Copy ' .. l;):/i:1;1\\\~l\lll\\~!li1m~11lt\\l city o~ san tuts OBISPO · mSti:a.r, COU N CIL AGENDA REPORT ITE!,1 NUtv;SER: /"/ FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMMENDATION: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEYCJ REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.44.060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. BY MOTION, RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING A REQUEST TO AMEND 5. 44. 060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, AND PROVIDE STAFF WITH DIRECTION ON ANY DESIRED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. ; DISCUSSION: buring the communications section of the October 25,. 1 9 9 4 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to return on a future agenda with a business item to address a request by Leola Rubottom to amend Section 5 .4 4 .0 6 0 (E ) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance concerning automatic adjustments to rent. At the October 4, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare-an analysis of the request which is attached for your information. If the Council desires to further amend Section 5 .4 4 .0 6 0 (E ), it should provide direction to staff to prepare an ordinance with the proposed amendments and bring it back as a public hearing item. JGJ/sw Attachments: Letter from City Attorney (1 0 /1 0 /9 4 ) MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY October 10, 1994 TO : FR OM : SUBJECT: City Council Jeff Jorgensen~ Request to Amen«~ection 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance Background: During the communications section of the October 4, 1994 City Council meeting, the Council directed the City Attorney's Office to prepare an analysis of a request by Leola Rubottom and Bill and Betty Henson to amend Section 5.44.060(E) of the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (please see attached letters). As you may recall, the Council previously amended Section 5.44.060(E) at the request of Leola Rubottom tb exclude automatic rent adjustments from the calculation of annual cost of living increases allowable under Section 5.44.060(B). That amendment was finallj adopted by the Council on August 16, 1994, and took effect on September 16, 1994. At previous hearings, Ms. Rubottom proposed an essentially identical change to the current request, but formally withdrew it at the August 16, 1994 meeting. The requested change is set forth in legislative draft as follows: "E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases Ozj,i,¢t=¢:i~?.~g~: in expenses fffi.J:g'.g for common area utilities I . new •" gOver'nment-mandate"d :·s·e·rv ices I garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted py dividing the total increase §#:::;~:lg.¢);;§i§§.§ in any such expenses. #~i;g$' incurred during a twe1ve·::::fo6nth period by twelve, less··tffe percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase Br g~'.fig?i;i;g shall be in writing and shall be given ;a's "requTFed by law no less than sixty days prior to any such 1 increase being effective. The notice shall state the am o u n t o f t h e r e n t increase, the new space rent, the a m o u n t o f t h e t o t a l in c r e a s e in e x p e n s e s a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e x p e n s e . A c o p y o f t h e n o t ice shall_be given to th e c i t y a d ministrative officer. The city administrative o f f i c e r s h a l l h a ve the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase based on th i s s ection. There shall only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. Analysis: As noted in previous memos on this subject, the City Council has broad authority to modify the Mobile Home Rent Sstabilization Ordinance to protect the public interest, so long as an adequate mechanism _remains in the ordinance to ensure a "fair return on investment" to the park owner. The proposed changes address two primary issues: · - 1. Increases and Decreases. The first issue is a request to apply the automatic adjustments to both increases and decreases in specified costs. While it seems unlikely in today's economic environment that such costs will actually decrease, there does not appear to be any legal reason why such an amendment could not be adopted. However, it will add to the complexity of the ordinance and its administration, and may provide additional areas of contention over when increases or decreases have occurred, how they are calculated, when and how often they are applied, whether adequate notice has been given, and whether refunds should be required. It is a matter of judgment for the Council to determine whether the perceived benefit of the proposed change (as it actually affects rent) will outweigh the added complexity and procedural conflict which may arise. Should the council wish to pursue this modification, there would need to be additional changes from those proposed in order to maintain consistency. 2. Expenses vs. Rates. The second_ issue is a request to change the way automatic adjustments are calculated from increases in "expensesll to increases in "rates." This proposal is problematic in several ways. :. It would represent a significant change in the way in which automatic adjustments have been previously calculated, thereby changing the.current balance in the ordinance between the protection of excessive rent increases to tenants and the provision of a fair return on investment to the park owher. As previously noted, to the extent this balance is changed over time, it may simply shift pressure to apply for rent adjustments under Section 5.44.080. The City· has never held such a rent adjustment hearing since the ordinance was adopted in 1988, and a shift in emphasis toward such hearings would represent a significant administrative burden to the City, as well as create an environment for conflict. A more important concern is that the proposed change would create a potentially significant ambiguity. 2 For example, if the automatic · adjustment were limited to an increase in rates for common area utilities such as water, it would not allow for an automatic adjustment if there is an increase in water usage. Thus, the change would effectively freeze all charges for water, regardless of the amount used, after the effective date of the ordinance until such time as there was a rate increase, and then only to the extent of the rate increase. This would appear to create an inequitable relationship not contemplated at the time the ordinance was adopted. In turn, it could potentially affect the quality of services provided or, conversely, discourage conservation. It would further create an ambiguity with respect to new government mandated services since it could be argued that an automatic adjustment would only be allowed for new government mandated services when there is an increase in rates, but not upon imposition of the new mandate. Finally, changing "expenses" to "rates" could create several interpretative, timing, and accounting problems for the City in administering the ordinance. Based upon the above analysis, it would be my recommendation that the Council not consider changing II expenses t1 to t1 rates .II In a September 12, 1994 letter to the City Council, Ms. Rubottom expresses the concern that, "The word 'expenses' could encompass repairs that are not legal for a park owner to pass through .... " This seems to indicate a fear that expenses would be interpreted to mean ongoing maintenance and/or capital improvements. As an alternative to the proposed change, the Council may wish to consider using the word "charges, 11 or by specifically excluding maintenance and capital improvement projects from the definition of expenses. If you have further questions or comments concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. JGJ/sw attach. cc: John Dunn 3 REC ElVED Sr-I) 1 ,' )U\I• ' [ ': l l'-1 CITY ccut-Kll C:,/.-N 11_11c:. CSIS?O. C.A .. Se .. zd.emben. 7 2, 7 991{ Sdn LJ.U_,6 Ob.wpo, (:4 I,' on onable. ti )~vii. 'l? €9- ? Ulf1.11./".d. and C i4, C ounci.L , 1 tember:» v/ San Luu, Ob.wpo, CA ;?e: (lu1119-e6 needed Ln :the o,;r,d..i..:u; in. :the Cw; v/ SQ/1 Lui» Ob.wpv 1-6 1i)ob.U...eJwm.e i?eo~ Law. !Ii. luu, been 611.01~ :to ny ati:.erdi..vn. :t.hni. :the wor..d.J..,u; Lr: ( {) Sec:Lwn. 4 5 . 4 4 , ()jQ needs to be cli.a:m-;eJ. t v mone clea/Wj d.ef.-ui.e. L~e Lrd.erd.Lan of :t,u_ O,.d..i..nanc.e • /,~e o,;r.d. "expenseo II couixi erLc.o:yxu,-0 11.2.DQ.L,'t-6 t.Ju:d. Q./i.e ncd: 1.er1/: /,o11. a pa;-.h. v:.ir,e;r to fXl/2-6 :Uv..vUfjli. The. aond. 111 M.i.e11 morie cl..eaAlJ; ~1€.6 ~ .UI..C/£etl/.)M in u.ti li jj ea i new 9-vv~...,,.,arid..a:t ed. .oe/i. YLC.e.-6, ~a~ -6eAYLC.e and cabl..e :teJ..ev.i.Ai..vn.. I lieo e CJJ&A a./i.e i..d.Iv di/ied by. wui amourd.s a;; e c!.e:tv-.,,.uzed bif 11/1.Cd.e. '' • fcJ11. exama ce : "Space Ii er d. r.1D.1f be a.i.d ,xnoi) caLJ...y. a.dj.,ut,ted. bas ed. vn. iJ lC/1. ea,o e6 , ( :Ui..en add :l/2e._ pMa/2e ( ( Vlt c! eC/i.e.w., e.o)) in. :tJi.e €.Xf eM e-6 ( chanqe. fu uond €XfeMe6 w {(r..a.i..e.6 )) /.t;1t tJie conmo ri Mea u.fili tJe/.J , new 9vveN1.1T1 erd.- _ ~u::!azed. .oe/i. vi..ce6 , F..ha r- .o eA vice wui. cabl.e ie.1.e v .i.Aivn 1 1:J~e/i.e o.ppi.i..c.o. bi.. e • I he. -:ipace. 1terd. ~ be o..d,;~i.ed. b'f div~ :the wt..al.. i..n.C/1.ea,o e ( ddd. fu p/Lll.a/2 e ( ( 01t ~e ) ) in. -0 uc.h. ~?€/UJe-6 ( dw.rup- :lh..i..-6 to ( ( Mie)) i.n.- CUNLe.d. wJ..r19- a twei.. ve-m on.:tf.. pe.11..i...od. b'f t.we.i.. ve, 1-eM ~ pe!ic~ i.n. :::li.e C. i .J, index (-o 11. VLe :twe.1. ve-mvn.iJL penJ..od.. 11 s i.n.Ce/i. 01-' ~ Levi.a '/?u.holiom 3900 SvidA fl~, Space 27 JQ/1 LJ.U.A Ob.i.Apr,;, CA 93407 <E C E lV E D l.'.'r-1) 1 i'. 11.:v,. ,.) - r . ✓ ✓ , , 0 CITY COUNCIL CJ,N I l)IC, ('i=-ISP0. c» 'IO· Honorable l1~yor Peg Pinc..ro of S2.Jl Luis Obispo Counci I 1"12,"ibsrs: Bi 11 RoaL"'l'\::J1 J.i..lle.,, Settle Pe.,-my Rappa Dave ~ro Septe-nbe r 12, 1994 SUBJ'T.C T: SE:CTIO'.~ (E) of Sc.;"1 Luis Obispo City Rent Ordin ance, 5. 44. 060 D2c..r Honorable !-iayor and Counc i I Me.rnbe rs: .!I. great numbe r of Lcguna Lake Vobile Estates residents requ est certain changes in this parecraph, as is listed below: a. T'o substitute the word "rates" for expenses in line two ~2) of Section E. b. To add "decrease" to line six (6) to read, "total increase or decrease". Al so chance "expenses" to read "rates" in line six (6) of Section E. c. T'o add "decrease" in line tJ1irc..ee n (13) to read "increase or decrease" in Section E. Tne reason for our requ est is as follows: Uti lity 00il'pc.J1i es re::er to their charges as "rates", not expe nses. A repair to a uti li ty fa ll s under th e headin g of ma in te nan ce, an d ma in - te nance is included in C.P.I. figur es. Use of th e word "expe nses" all ows th e park a~')')er to add his o:::st of repai rs whi ch he is not legally entitled to pass tJu-ough to tenan ts . A survey taken from par k fi gur es of t-wa year s ago, shooed a var iatio n of one hun dr ed an d fifty ($150) doll ar s pe r rrorrth in ren ts char ged fo r oo bile hare s receivin g identical serv ice s here in t.riis par k. After nlF;'€rous sales involving 10% in creases in oo bile ho.-re rents , we feel co nf ident th at, th e diff erence be u-1ee n th e hi ghest an d lowest ren ts in t.rie park is co nsiderab ly gr eater-:-at .. thi s po in t in tirre . 3ll doets ba sed on fix ed in com2 s cann ot co ne with co nstan t assaults, an d certain ly should not be affecte d by non-leg ai pass-thr oughs. he will gr eatl y appreci ate your co nsideration of our fair request, and we woul d li ke to see thi s rrat.ter added to th e Coun cil Agenda as soo n as it is po ssib le. ~IL~ ~~~~ 1860 Thelma Drive San Lui s Obispo , CA 93405 HEHORAHDUH FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 18, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Ccuncil Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney 11 Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Automatic Adjustments Pursuant to 5.44.060(E) .~t the .~.pr i 1 19, 19 9 4 City ccunc i 1 rne e t i nq , the attached co~~unicaticn item from Leola Rubottom was referred·to staff fer an analysis and response. Leola has requested the deletion of Section 5.44.0E0(E) of the l·~cbile Horr.e Park Rent Stabilization Crdinance, which allows fer autornatic idjustrnents of rent based on. 11i~creases in expenses for ccffirnon area utilities, new gcvernrnent- r.a nda t e d services, garbage service and cable television .... 11 The apparent reason gi·.,;en fer t h i s r e que s t; is that the cvrie r of creeksi~e Mobile Hone ?ark has offered long term leases which do not include automatic adjust~ents as set forth in 5.44.060(E). The inference is this c cris t i t ut.e s a "discriminatory pr a c t d c e v " A previous inquiry, ~hich asserted that the automatic rent adjust;7,e:--,ts a l l c, .. .e d by 5.44.060(E) are in conflict with the Viobile ~c~e Residency Law (Civil Code§ 798.31) was submitted in Dece~ber, 1993. (.2;ttached for ycu r information is the analysis of that previous correspondence.) CONCLUSION T;:e City Council has the authority to delete Viunicipal Code § 5.44.060(E) provided an adequate mechanism remains in the ?-ent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure a 11fair return on investr.,ent. 11 The fact that a park owner offer~ long-term leases wit~ ~revisions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is net a "discriminatory practice. 11 Therefore, should the Council wish to consider deletion of § 5. 44. 060 (E), it should do so on so:me basis ether than an alleged discrimination. r>.~Jl.LYSIS 1. Does the city council have authority to delete the automatic adjustment provisions of§ 5,44.060{E)? T.:;-;e Viobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was adopted by 'voter approval as an initiative measure in 1988. However, the City Council specifically retained the authority to a:mend the ordinance by majority vcte (§ 5.44.141). Therefore, the City Council clearly has the authcrity to delete § 5.44.060(E) shculd it choose to do so. However, it shculd also be noted that the validity of a rent control ordinance will rest upon whether the ordinance perm its the landlord to earn a 11just and reasonable return. 11 A long line of court decisions suppott this fundamental requirement. Birkenfeld v. citv of 3erkelev, 17 Cal.3d 129 (1976); Carson Mobile Horne Park Owners Assoc. v. City of Carson, 35 Cal.3d 184 (1983); Palos Verde Shores Mobile Estates, Ttd. v. City of Los Anoeles, 142 Cal.App.3d 362 (1983); Fi sher v. City of Berkeley, 37 Cal.3d 644 (1984); West Holl y·vwod Concerned Citizens v. City of West Hollywood, 232 Cal.App.3d 486 (1991). ~hile no case has concretely ~efined the term 11just and reasonable return, 11 crie court has described it as cne which 11 ••• is high enough to encourage good management, reward efficiency and di sccurage the f 1 ight of capital and is c orar.ens ur a te with returns on ccr.pa r ab l e .i nve s t rnerrt s , but not so high as to defeat the purpose cf preventing excessive rents. 11 San l;~arcos Mobile ~o~e Park Assoc. v. Citv of San Marcos, 192 ~al.App.3d 1492 ( 1987). Conversely, a denial of a just and r e a scnab l e return con~titutes an unconstitutional taking of property which requires c cmpe ns a t a cn . 3irkenfeld v. city of 3erkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (1976). The City's rent stabilization ordinance recognizes the' need fer balance b y including in the Purpose and Intent section, the fcllcwi~g prevision: "Because of the high cost and irr,practicabil i ty of mov i nq r.,obile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, 1 andscaping and site preparation, the lack cf alternative home sites for mobile horne residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such hornesj this Council finds and declares 11: necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile h orne s from urrr e a s oriab l e rent increases while at the sam e time recognizing the need of park owners to receive ~ a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficie.nt to cover increases in cos ts of repair, rne d n t e n ance, insurance, - utilities, employee services, additional ame n i t Le s , and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their investment •11 (§ 5.44.0l0(C). Emphasis added.) Most rent control ordinance~ allow an annual increase based on the percentage change on the consumer price index or a portion thereof (in the case of San Luis Obispo, 100% of the CPI up to 5% and 75% of the CPI in excess of 5%). However, even with an annual increase provision, a procedure nust be provided by ~hich an owner can seek , an increase on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to 2 provide a just 2nd re2scnable return. Thus, the San Luis Obispo ordinance 2lso provides for an 2pplication for rent adjustment over and abcve t~e C?I increase, and any automatic adjustments, when appropriate to assure a fair and reasonable return on investment. ( § 5A 4 • 0 7 0 • ) Some cities provide fer automatic adjustments in their rent control ordinances. Others do net. The potential advantage of automatic adjust~ents is the ease of administration which may result. The disadvantage is that the adjustments may result in slightly higher rents than a ~ore co~plex and staff intensiv~ hearing procedure. The c i r r i cuj t y with s i r.p l y eliminating the aut cma t i c adjust::i1ent provisions cf Section 5.44.060(E) is that while it rnay provide for a modest reduction in rent increases in the short terrn, it rnay also simply result in shifting resuests for rent increases to the formal aoolication orccess set fcrth in Section 5.44.070. I arn unaware oi-any fcrm2i rent adj~st~ent hearings having been held by the City since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted ifi 1988. Given the extrernely contentious, ti~e consuming, and litigious hearings held i:1 T:.ar-,y other cities, t h i s may be an enviable record. In light of this, the Council ~ay wish to determine whether there are· sign1r1c2nt reasons fer changing the current balance in the ordinance ;rior to taking any action en this matter. 2. Does the fact that a park owner offers long-term leases with provisio~s differeht fro~ the provisions of the Rent stabilization Ordinance constitute a "discriminatory practice'''? i•:-hether a p a r k cvr.e r d e c i de s to offer a long term lease, and v.'hether a tenant decides to accept such a lease, is a purely crivate, vol~nt2rv decision between the parties which has nothing to co with discrimination and is largely beyond the ability of the City to regulate. A park o~ner is not obligated to offer a long t e r n lease, but has a right to, and if such a lease otherwise complies with the previsions cf Civil Code§ 798.17(G) the owner 11 shall c e e>:e:i::;;t f r cra any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative z.e a s u r e adopted by any local government entity .... 11 (Civil Cede§ 798.17(A) .) The owner's decision may be motivated by a number of reasons (such as stability and predictability), but generally will be based upon the perceived economic·berre fit of a lease as opposed to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. On the other hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long term lease, and may opt for the protection of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance if the tenant perceives a greater economic benefit in doing so. It depends i.;pcn the relative value of benefits offered in the lease. In both inst2nces, it is a ~atter of choice based upon the terms and conditions of the entire agreement. To call such a process of negotiation a "d i s c r Lrn i ria't cz y practice" does not seem to be a supportable prernise. Further, to single out one provision of a long term lease as a reason for amending the Rent Stabilization Ol"dinance to celete automatic adjustments would essentially 3 penalize o~ners for offering long term leases that do not exactly mirror the ordinance, and may take away incentives to offer such leases at all. · :RECO~.:.M E:KDAT I O N Based upon the above analysis, it is respectfully recommended that § 544.060(E) not be deleted based upon an unsupported notion of "discriminatory practice. 11 Issues v h i ch might properly support such a deletion would include whether the automatic adjustments have resulted in excessive rerit increases or ~ave been abused. I an unawa r e of any su ch instances having been brought to the attention of the city. · JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Deb r.cssli .l.ttachr:-.ents: - 1. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 18, 1594 2. Jeff Jorgensen ½erno, dated December 22, 1993 3. California Civil Code§ 798.15, et sea. 4 \. L . ·1. • .Ju.--i :1.1..-!i U.:J..Lpu, .; .:, ·s ·c1,!, ''i''"..L,t.. I I I I I-, Pv.~..!J_-·.£Jl:i.e /1)~_,e,;.1 i)i..N-~,d and () .. i.1) [ow,c.i..J.. (]e.,TiUe,·~ u/ .. \:n ~ 06Lopu, C-1 ?e: i..Li. ~:e wi.ed end e//ec...U...ve Ja,,il)il)i,~J, 7, i1'i.4 uerie: cf. co.·.-.,;:v.-i a.,:e.a L·ii/.,it;·e.61 ri eiu aovenruzeru: ;:-c..'7..Jate.d I # .c-€.✓~ vix:e , e.::c. i.,.; i.ie o:v-J. r.J:.:ri.G/1. I ~·-1e ;-~~e.cf1".l/..J;. aec ueo i: L~e dei.ci..i .. J.xt v!.. (it.) .6€.d i..Jm vt. 5. 44. 050 vl. 1 , 7 _ , L 1 1 dd!.. ;iJvbi.J...eiv,":le J?erJ:. ..'l!.116.i...li..Ja.;li..u., J,•..c!..u;w.r:..e 1 !.v /1. San Lui» Ub.wpu t.fd c.:.J..l..,.;~~ 1 !..:,;,,._ l},..JJ.i d.i..,:,c.,·.,if,'.i..rdv,·.; p,·..aci.J...c.e. {nc.1.. ,:u, ed : ~. C :=.EE ;-;s l r E ;,:c 3 j L u-:c~·.E C G',i',L~,1 l ,.,, 3:c-3 3. HiGUE;::H SEEET ::.::N LUiS Ci3i'.:i='O, Crl 93.:,(';l Cc t c, t:: 1· - . ~.i 1 i5S3 SIXTY D~Y ~□TICE CF RE~T l~C:=.E~SE C ? C 1· 2 E s ; C : i, t : 1:-,e L?.;;2 ;:,·;;,·,i::n fer r s r.t s to be s.d j u s t e d 2nn1.1ally on Je nua r y l s t , ::-iis l e t t e r- is r.c t i c e cf ~,x:-, 2dj•.st:rnt. Fi-c•.~ ~-.:gust, 1'~2 to P.1.1g•Jst, 1593 the Ccr.s o r e r ~·dee j;,d;;x .::p;•}i,:;bi~ :;i th~ Le s s e s c ve d fro~ ~.3-'.i.1 to ~.:..:•.a ;..hich is a 2.01- i r.c r e s s e . T ;i :: J - c f ,:,. i • ? s .,. ;. ,,; 1 • : • .; :-, t : •;j 1 l t- e i j; c , · ~ .: ~ ~ .j b / ; ~I. 4 7 t o ; 2 i 2 .. ~ 9 . ::-:: ~:e.~~ f1.::-::-1~r· pr c v i c e s fr,r· ;:.ss thr·1.1s :,f costs related ~irectly to the F«=-1·~ c cs t s .;.s f:.:1·t:.~1· s djc s t e d fc,1• i;,flcticil, T;•,e.e c o s t s i nc l ud e u t i l i t i e s , ~c•n n , .. rr-,t s r 1· v i c es .:: n ::l f e n , ,,:, : c:. t li i s i?;; 1• .:: f f c ct s e l ~ ct :-i c i t y, ; ,; s , 1-.· 2 t. e 1·, t r a 5 :-i 1 ;-, d g:•Vt:l"r,r.::-,t _fu;. ;:.;11 i r.c r e s s e s ci,j c e cr e a s e s l i s t e d ;-,ave b e en 2dj1Jsted f c r the CPI. i'e1•;_ •..:~e of e l e c t r i c i t y :-,cs r i s e n slightly e,,d t:-,e c c c e cd i t y c c s t h s s e~cin r i s e n , n:1.1iti,,g i,1 ;;;, ~·.,r:11 .r.c re e s e . 'i;-:;;,-efc,n•, last )'Ec1·1 s ;.;ss thi·u _,f fl.cs· ·..,·ill i r.c r e s s e '::,1 S.~5 to S2.2l. i..::-:i}e t;:e c c s t ,.f ;-cs hes i r.c r e a s e d this y e s.r , the p2-.1·i-(1 s c o r. s c e p t i cn of g a s to ~eat t r.e r e cr e s t i co ~·..:ildiil2, s ... ·i::ir.g po o l 2~,J s pa has c:~ain c e c r e a s eJ. Yc1;1• ;;rc1·c.ta s:-,are =:-f t h i s c e cr ee s e i; a ; l.24 p,· ;;c,,,th r e di.c t i c a for· a ;;ew p s s s t hr u of S2,27, J>·1i'i '/E C.l' beth .-,·:.t 1:1·· C V ii $:.1:;~.t j..,);"l enJ tr.~ cc::.1udity .:·est hcvc? ir.c, .. ~cse,d c ,·.;:. c. t i c .; 11 y. "r' c• w· v ·:•,·at a : h c re c f th i s i ,, c 1· e c s e i s 1 4. 3 5 p e 1· : o;, t h f c 1· a t ct a l ,,·ct : J, ;-e ~ i t h 1 · 1J c f 1 ::. • ;. C' , ,r,e cos': fo,· :fo;:,;, f,n ..-iii i:-,c/'ease an additior:al $1.1,3 fr,1• a totel ;-ess t:-i,-,J of ;~·.:.s. i~a ;:}·;:it tv ;:;,c·t':te fre t:-,~s y~:.l'" r·e~a.ir.Ed t~e sc:e. Adj1Jstii1~ ):st yr!:., .. ,$ co~t fc-r C;>! re,1JH, i:-i a ;:irc-J"ata C:fcrease of i .01 fo1· a total Gove1·n::H,t fe=:s ;.;ss Y;; '~ i' i o : ; t h :· : .: ; h , = : f ! •= ~ i ·.,· e _: : ;, : .. , c i .. 'I 1 : 1 ; S .=. w i 1 l ~ e _s,cpa1·..;t~iy-:c,n yo,,;,• 1·e;:~ ,,.=.t.-icr,i ;;;d ,,ill n>Jt·:c:- :;1.ii:lji:ct i ;., " - b o" ~ ·• • < :. • '-1· 1.i - 1· ~ ~ ' ·ct • ,. t,. · l - • s" t' ; • -·, .. • c c s · n d ., o •""' C r'I,; r·c.,,. ~ll > ,;l"C' ,::,_ 0,C, \..\J •ll'- :"C. .. ~ Cl ;,J v t ;~ f ,, c i",;; 1· !::'" ; i:, 1 i : ~ d d: ,·=ct l y t .:, yo 1;. i:· o c ,_.; ~ n t .s ~ i 0 n f o 1• tl·, e p..;.., ~ t h·1· ,j:, i :; ,; .,. a i ! ..; b 1 e .=.t the pc.d< offic·e. ~13.54 c,,d 1-.·ill t•e list ?d t o c;::i I i :-,ere as~ s. Al i. of NOT include utilities and This ,,otic~ app1i;:s t.:i cdl ;•esit:ents 1.;nce:· th: fi►c;nia.. prCJvision; of the 2a:-i :.. •.ii s G b i. i: v R r f1 t C ,.; ;-, t n, 1 0 n! i r, -=- ,. Ci? • -;- ;,°'= 2, a s e ;:; " ;·, t i.J " c c. ;;; e s e f f c c t i ·, e f o r J"' n •.1 6 1 • , l , 1SS4 ,:,;-;j 1-.·ill 1·=;..;:.i:, ;;i t~.r~:~;h i::?ec,.t-i1• 31, .l';S~. Si,·,c1:rel1, Pct Fluii;1g, Mcr,.;.g rt'- HEHORAHDUH FROH THE OFFICE OF THE C.ITY ATTORNEY December 22, 1993 TO: FROM: SuBJECT: City Council Jeff Jorser;ser.c;r__ . . .. ~ob1le ~o~e ~e~1.. Stao1l1zat1on I have r e v i ev e d the attached letter d a t e d December 7, 1993 f r cra r , .,... ..... .,_.,_ ···, • -c:c:--,.-'- .:..,.__.,_ .:....._e -, .. .:.. --.:..; r ..._.:.. - •.: .. c:.:..- .,.,.:.. _.eo_a :-<;\.:,.,C1..1..0::l1 w.l_C;"1 c. __ :::_ 1..S 1..;;c.1.. 1..J; c.-.1..0,.,c.t._C €;.1.. c.OJu-1..;"e.11..S allowed by ~unicip2l Cece Section 5.44.60(E) [~.44:C60(E)J are in conflict with the Mobile Ec~e ?esicency Law, and therefore invalid. co::cr.usrcN Munici~al Cece Section 5.44.060(E) Vicbile :-:c:-:.e ~esi:::e?iC:f L2.·,.1 2.~d is reg-..ilaticn. is net in conflict ~it~ t~e a valid s ub j e c t; of :77,t.:nicipal J._~.i?>.LY SIS It is correct tr.at t.h e Vicbile EoT:".e ?esidency Law, Civil Code Section 793.31, r e cu i r e s t h e t , 11a hor.e owrie r shall net be charged a fee for ether than r e rrt , -..:til i ties and incidental reasonable c ha r c e s fer services actually rendered. 11 ~o·.,.:ever, \..'hat constitutes rent, particularry under a rent control ordinance, is not preempted by state legislation and is left to the broad discretion of the local agency. Greccrv v. Citv of San Juan Caoistrano, 142 CA3d 72,. 191 Cal.Rptr. t,7 (1933). In e c d i t i c n , i:, the e b s e r.c e of a rent control ordinance, rent ca:, be established at whatever level the park cwner deterrni~es, s~bject only to ~arket forces. The only case addressing the fssue raised by Leol~'~ Jetter is Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Eorne Estates, 1 Cal.App.4th 1066, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 -(1991). The Karrin case inv~lidated a rent control ordinance of the City of Oxnard which perrnitted a mobile heme park cwr.e r to add a rr:onthly capital improvement assessment to the morrt h l y bill in addi tio:-1 to regular rent. The rent control ordinance specifically p r cv i d e s that such a s s e s s ne r.t s should not c e considered rent. The Court invalidated this provision because it directly conflicted ~ith Civil Code Section 798.31. However, the Court was careful to point out that had the increase been added to ren~ rather than billed separately as an assessment, it would have l:--e en v a 1 id . ' . .A. TT.!.CHl·\E\T 2 C i t y Co u r.c i I D ec em b er 22, 1593 ?ag e T \.\'O Th e S ah Luis O b isp o M o b i l e E orn e R ent Stab i liz at io n O r~in an ce is s i g n i f ica~t ly di ffer e nt fr o rn th e O x n ar d ord in an c e w h ich w as in v a l id at ed in :-:ar r.i n . 'Th e ad jtis tr.,ents p e r m i t t e d u n de r th e Sa,1 Lu i s O b is?O or d in an c e ar e sp e c i f i c a l ly in c lu d e d in sn ac e rent an d a r e n o t a sep ar at e fe e , ch a r g e , or a s s e s s rn e rrt . U n d er th is s i t u at io n , it ap p ear s cl e a r t h a t; th e San L u i s O b isp o Jfo b ile n o ;;-.e R e n t S t ab il i zat io n O rd in an c e is va lid un d e r th e K ar r ih dec is io n . (In ad d it io n , th e 60 da y n o t ic e o f re nt in c r ea se p ro v id ed to th e te n an t s cf C reek s id e !fo b i le n o;il e Cc:-:-,rr,un i ty ap p ea r s to r.,eet th e r e qu i r ez.e nt s of cu r ord in a n c e as to fe rn an d effec t .) Fii1 al l y ; t.h e re fer en c e to C iv i l Code Se c tio n 798 . .43 (b ) dc e s ne t ap p ear to be re lev an t or re l a te d to th e que s t i~n ra ise d . If ycu h av e f·c::rt :1er que s t i o n s o r c cra r.e rrt s , ple a s e fe e l free to c o n t ac t ~a at your co n v e n i e n c e . JG J /s ·,1 at t ach . c c : L~o la R u b o tt o m ?at rlem in g J o h n D u n n .. S c..!'l U-!.L-6 U!:w,r:iv J C,-1 Ll..:.cc,:.!:,2.,1. 7, i<i'<i'J /;',.;r.u,-.:::!:!..e /)crt;,'I. ?i .. n.1';!;;.l".d cr.d c~ Cv1.!./'iW /e1:1!:>0-~ vl- SC.11 ~ C6L;pv, (1 7,L..e. W e.ccJ. r -6 Uv,uu .. ;J-~ bw19 d.c!.e::i. zo ..:..!:~ bac e ,~e.ru: .u1 C,-..e.e.l-<LJ.c!e ,ryvSi.i.eJ.,x,,e 'Pc.,,.,~ Jt. f..v.i ~,ee.,.,, b;;,.;7t.d.. ::.v ,,'I- a.i.;::e,tti:;r1 LW Sew..011 5 .!-14 .60, pa.,·.:1r..t1p,'i. 11 (,' 1 o,l- t_Li..e Sa11 Lui» O!:.u-po 1-6 ,~<.Jb.U.e.-l.,,;x:-..e Ru.i.c'.e.rio;. La» .w .ui d.i.. .. M .. d .. c.on/-ild:.. /! .. :ili t}..e c~l"vJ....a ,1a!::.i....J..e...t✓.,..e i?~.u:!..e..'10; 1....2:). 7,L,e [c..J.i?.;,·,rJ....a :S::n.::e /)a!:.i....J..e.,l.,;x;e '?ui..:! . .en9 Lai» ,;',.;. 798,4] Sed..i..0,'7. (6) -t~ Il l I • '•L,./ I .J • .J'J_".J . ~ur.,e\1€)t a /:(.)7'€,!):,:.r..e,"( JA ,,U?c:,n:.:...::,.1.,G 1 :.....i.;li. ;,,-_,;, (.),"( ececxrux: U.d /,t' c,c.,~VJ....C..2.1 rcnaaeserd: .:il..c.1.../.. d..v.,c/..,.;~e t..:.J t)...e i...:r..e.;;::r:u 6e!.v,~e t.er.11.nc.1..L, Li}.,2.r.e~'vt f....L...e ,- - . I , /2 :;.-n e..:,:;~;£A 1.6 r.,e.,.:e.ll c..l....:.iv .,..e.-=..!u.-:e.6 fCY.>_v/i. e.1.e..c...t;-~ !..c/1.. CtYr.'T.:.>rL c.,~e.a ,!~cjLJfje...61 c;,, ~~;.e,,r.i., i_ru:..b.&..:; 1..-L-;} ... ::..i..n...:;, I Ai.a ~'1 b e ,L~e.J bf F".1 .. y..-_r'9- .::f.e hoae- ~'l~c;.)t ti.)/f. t-Ld r,..~,-~:.;,'7. c•l ~lie. .;.e-~v.i.c.e tc; L~r?... ~V,t'Tic.>n a..,1e,c..o v ... t c!,u;c.:..:;;nf . .i.;~ I.!,~- ' : .i ... r19 :..} .. e me..:::.e,'t vri t.~e ,L..:;.-:;cc;o:o~ -ti..:.e /011. d.iht1.:6 a,l ..'...':e co-::.-::c,1 r-,~ ,'--c...i...1..- • .J • ,J • .J II ~ c..ru- ~~-'•iV-1.A. • J'1 ar',}ifj.irz. t.;; c.r.;.l/..ed.i...7 Lll...e,,rL -~M .t.,L,,,;;u..:...!,0.i c)U,/1._ x..,· .. 1 ov.v.. J....~ fl(.):!) 9cJ ... rc.; t.v add :..}.ue :>.:..c-o t)v.v,2.c}✓., t.a ;:t.e ba~e ,,e.r:i. • T/: .. i.....~ tdil c..1..1.vw :....t.e iJ;o:~e.d I r . 1:e..rd (J;:;,:__e i..J 6e. L~.!. r~ !x .. ,~e 1 !..o,, a:..J..w .!...c :"/,.;n,:J 0 1 L ,,e.:d. b€fllv~ nex.i. ~'• 7'·i8,J1 v~ tJ.e 5:n:"e. t','o~-~~cr..e i7u.i..c.1e..11c; la!.:J ~ • .J.nfu,, '~-i ,~o:::eO-.J.€./1. ~.1.C.i..l... r..:..;t. be ~ a ,lee (.;:,1t v/J:ur. t..b ;.er:i, i..dj/__i:fie..tJ a.nd i..nci...:!u:;:d... ,-.e..::..o vr.ab.Le. c...tuv- .. ;u- fV/l ~tVl V U t:'.-0 uc~ ,,e;..=i..,-.d. '' < _.)• .J 1/1•• .J.I· 1 .J .Je.d.C ,·:,/. •CI C .J'.J .J' liC.C.V.r-..c..J..,-i;. ... o we.,-_._ -6 nn.'1,.;.;:,c,;: a"-'--f-U .r..lUA o.::e Q1i,o.,. u,, on, s ec:lw fl. 5 J I/ ~i..t:.i.e. 1..aw ,6U!) e,, CU U) mc.rJ...c:i..oal.... ()/f. CLi..LJ_ ,UW • I/ I I --, £Ce aJi e C/.,,1--~ tli.e /-i',.;11 • tla uc 1t a,,i.J t.J.. e C ~ f1'.er.. b 2., ·14 ci.. t.J.. e 9 v/- Sa.rt ~ ObL6po :t.o d..ei...de tJ~~ 1::x:J"".i:. ot 5ect...i..ori 5. 44 .60 pw·:0.v"-2.f ·J.. "f_ ,, L Ltd_ Lt> i..1.1.~ ac.c.o.r-k,, :...o OU.It j~ d a6.i....J..e./2a.-;.<!. i<t?A~J lcJD . ~ N?-'Ju..rv; fOU i..ri a.c!.vwu:.e /o/1. 7ou.., coM.i...t.!.v,f/ l on. ' ... San 1-uJ.A ObLopo, CA NovemDe/C. 15, 1994 . .. llono1ta.bl.R.. f11ClljoJt., 7>e.c; y)innaJr.d. and. Cowu:J..1 /l)ernheN.J or.san Lui» ObiApo We Jt.e1p~ 1t.~e.d- you f.o chanqe. ( {) Section o/ 5. 44. {X).O f.o amend ihe ci.:hj /})obileh.ofl/€.· Y<eni. Sto.bili~n OIUWzanc.e by, d1ar11;;v19- ih.e. 11XJM. expe.JUJe i.o naieo whE.ti d appea.N.J in. i:h.iA seccio n, ('- ll.loo, ple1"1/2 e add i.h.e uonds , on: decn eas e, aj.i.e.Jt. i.h.e uo nd i.nclt.eaA e / O wluvr..e d Lo used. Iri i:h.iA secxio n, 1,?e/2p~ lJubmil.i.ed, ~ Leola Ruboi.i.om 3960 So. llliJUe1t.a, Space 21 San 1-uJ.A ObLopo, (A 9J4o1 RECEIVED NOV 1 0 1994 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA I I O R D I N A N C E N O . 1268 (1994 Series) An Ordinance of the council of the city of San Luis • • r Obispo Amending Chapter 5.44.060(E) of the San. Luis Obispo Municipal Code Relating to Automatic Adjustments to Rent in Mobile Horne Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5. 44. 060 (B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than sixty days prior to any such increase being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the. space rent increase based on this section. There shall only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. Exhibit A 0-1268 Ord in an c e No . Pag e Tw o 1268 (1994 Series) INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the 19th day of _J_u_l_y'-------- 19 94, · on motion of Vice Mayor Settl.e , seconded by Council Member Rappa , and on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Rappa and Roalman, and Mayor Pinard Noes: None Absent: Council Member Rome r o.: yor 7g Pinard APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~°'r/U ~Attrnr Ordinance No. 1268 (1994 Series) FINALLY PASSED this 16th day of._A_u~g~u_s_t , 1994, on motion of __ V_i_c_e_M_a..<...y_o_r_S_e_t.:_t_l_e , seconded by Council Member Roalman , and on the following roll call vote: ---=="-=-"~-.c;...;;:.=----c'-'-===~------- AYE S: Vice Mayor Settle, Council Members Rappa and Roalman, and Mayor Pinard NOES: None AB SENT : Council Member Romero ATT EST: ·· l~\\1 city o~ san Luis osrspo -.;:i, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: 8/4/94 I. ORIGINATED BY: COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ' (', ! l I Je.M,1u1.J:f G. Jo1t gen~e.n '- · 1 MEETING DATE: 8/16/94 SUBJECT: Mobil e Home Pan i: Ren.t S:ta.b-lll za.ti.on 01td.lnanc.e Public Bearing Business consent (Circle One) RECOMMENDATION(S): __ G_1~_·v_e_n~_·na1. __ pa_~_h_a_g_e._t_o_0_1t_cU_'na_n_c._~_N_o_._12_6_8_(_19_9_4_S_vu_·u_) Amen.cUn.g Chap.te.Jt 5. 44 on the San. LtU-6 Ob-i..6po ~iun,lc.,i.pa.l Code Part I (white) fo rm ru st be subm itted to the City Clerk's Off ice on the Friday be fo re the Tuesday Agend a Review me eting. Please forward name s and add resses of prope rty owne rs, appe llants, subd ividers, app licants, or any pa rties who ru st be notified abo ut this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if po ssible. II. After DEPARTMENT HEAD app roval, please attach Part II (canary) to your repo rt and route to the following depa rtme nt heads in the order ind icated be low. Following app roval, please initial and send on. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT ROUTING SLIP ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INIT. PERSONNEL FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CAO CAO C " Q/ )j'/' " ( CITY CLERK NOTE: The initiating de pa rtme nt head is respon sible for obtaining ill ne cessary signatures (other depa rtme nt heads and consultants) prior to subm ittal of repo rt to the City Attorne y, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMMENTS: J. White: Prelim Notification Slip JI. Canary: Agend a Repo rt Routing Slip III. Pink: Depa rtme nt Copy i\lll\!lli\\\\lii Ill\\\\ City or san LUIS OBISPO a11n11111,11I COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: ITEM NUMBER: FROM: SUBJECT: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, city Attorneq' Amendment to the Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance concerning Automatic Adjustments to Rent CAO RECOMMENDATION: Give Final Passage to Ordinance No. 1268 (1994 Series) Amending Section 5. 44. o 60 (E) of the Mobile Horne Park Rent stabilization Ordinance to clarify that automatic adjustments to rent shall not be included in base space rent for the purpose of determining CPI increases. SUMMA RY DISCUSSION: On July 19, 1994, the City Council passed to print an amendment of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance to clarify that automatic adjustments to rent shall not be included in base space rent for the purpose of determining CPI increases, but shall be considered as additional rent. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no anticipated impact on City funding, either in terms or expense or savings. JGJ/sw attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 1268 (1994 Series) 2. Legislative Draft Legislative Draft SLOMC § S.44.060(E) E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. 1■1,a,111,,11111111 addi?t1ona1::rent~·········· '.NOtice···· ot·····the····rncrease·····shiilT···· be······1n W'Fftfrig gf{d'~hiill be given as required by law no less than sixty days prior to any such increase being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase based ont his section. There shall only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. t-~. ... ...... 'l\1ll\1 city or san tuts osispo GJlili:iiiilH:::1111 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEE~G DATE: 7-7-9 4 ITEM NUMBER: FROM: SUBJECT: CAO RECOMMENDATION: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTOfillEY'?~ ./ PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. Introduce an Ordinance to Print Amending Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent stabilization Ordinance to clarify· that automatic adjustments to rent shall not be included in base space rent for the purpose of determining CPI increases. DISCUSSION: At the June 7, 1994 City Council meeting, the City Council considered a communication item from Leola Rubottom requesting deletion of Section 5-44. 060 (E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which allows for automatic adjustments of rent based on " ... increases in expenses for common area utilities,. new government mandated services, garbage service and cable television .... " Previous analysis from the City Attorney's Office dated May 18, 1994, and December 22, 1993, is attached for your information. As an alternative to. the complete deletion of all automatic adjustments under Section 5.44.060(E), the Council directed staff to return with an ordinance amending Section 5.44.060(E) to clarify that automatic adjustments to rent shall not be included in base space rent for the purpose of determining CPI increases, but shall be considered as additional rent. The effect of such an amendment would be to still allow automatic adjustments, while avoiding compound rent increases, which may be perceived by mobile home tenants as unfair. The proposed ordinance will carry out the ::::::::s intent. ~ t \s Option 1: If the Council wishes to amend the automatic adjustment provisions as discussed above, pass to print the attached ordinance (Exhibit "A"). This is the staff recommended alternative. Option 2: If the Council wishes to delete automatic adjustments entirely, pass to print the attached ordinance (Exhibit "B"). In light of the previously submitted analysis of May 18, 1994 and December 22, 1993, this is not recommended.. · option 3: Take no action and leave the automatic adjustments as currently written. This would maintain the ordinance as originally adopted by the voters in 1988. ,/ Op t io n 4: If the Council has additional concerns or proposed revisions not considered in the report, continue this item with additional direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Council adopts the ordinance as recommended, it should have no fiscal impact on the City. It may result in a slightly lower overall rate of rent increases to tenants in the future depending upon the unique circumstances of each case. JGJ/sw Attachments: Letter from City Attorney (5/18/94) Legislative Draft, SLOMC § 5.44.060(E) Exhibit A Exhibit B MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 18, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJ ECT: City Council Jeff Jorgensen, city Attorneyff Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Automatic Adjustments Pursuant to 5.44.060(E) At the April 19, 1994 City Council meeting, the attached communication item from Leola Rubottom was referred ·to staff for an analysis and response. Leola has requested the deletion of Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which allows for automatic adjustments of rent based on. "increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government- mandated services, garbage service and cable television .... " The apparent reason given for this request is that the owner of Creekside Mobile Horne Park has offered long term leases which do not include automatic adjustments as set forth in 5.44.060(E). The inference is this constitutes a "discriminatory practice." A previous inquiry, which asserted that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by 5.44.060(E) are in conflict with the Mobile Horne Residency Law (Civil Code§ 798.31) was submitted in December, 1993. (Attached for your information is the analysis of that previous correspondence.) CONCLUSION The City Council has the authority to delete Municipal Code § 5.44.060(E) provided an adequate mechanism remains in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure a "fair return on investment." The fact that a park owner offers long-term leases wit~ ~revisions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is not a "discriminatory practice." Therefore, should the Council wish to consider deletion of§ 5.44.060{E), it should do so on some basis other than an alleged discrimination. ANALYSIS 1. Does the city council have authority to delete the automatic adjustment provisions of§ 5.44.060(E)? T~e Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was adopted by '' voter approval as an initiative measure in 1988. However, the City Council specifically retained the authority to amend the ordinance ... .J-5 b y m a j o r i t y v o t e (§ 5 .4 4 .1 4 1 ). T h e r e f o r e , t h e C i t y C o u n c i l c l e a r l y h a s t h e au t h o r i t y t o d e l e t e § 5 .4 4 .0 6 0 (E ) s h o u l d it ch o o s e t o d o so . H o w e v e r , it sh o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d th a t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a r e n t c o n t r o l o r d i n a n c e w i l l r e s t u p o n w h e t h e r t h e o r d i n a n c e p e rm i t s t h e la n d l o r d t o e a r n a "j u s t an d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n ." A lo n g l i n e o f c o u r t d e c i s i o n s su p p o r t t h i s fu n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t . B i r k e n f e l d v . C i t y o f Be r k e l e y . 17 C a l .3 d 1 2 9 (1 9 7 6 ); C a r s o n M o b i l e H o m e P a r k O w n e r s A s s o c . v . C i t y o f C a r s o n , 35 Ca l .3 d 1 8 4 (1 9 8 3 ); Pa l o s V e r d e Sh o r e s M o b i l e E s t a t e s , L t d . v . C i t y o f L o s A n g e l e s , 1 4 2 C a l .A p p .3 d 36 2 (1 9 8 3 ); F i s h e r v . C i t y o f B e r k e l e y , 37 C a l .3 d 6 4 4 (1 9 8 4 ); W e s t H o l l y w o o d Co n c e r n e d C i t i z e n s v . C i t y o f W e s t H o l l y w o o d , 2 3 2 C a l .A p p .3 d 48 6 (1 9 9 1 ). W h i l e n o c a s e h a s c o n c r e t e l y d e f i n e d t h e t e r m "j u s t a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n ," on e c o u r t h a s d e s c r i b e d it a s o n e w h i c h "· .. is h i g h en o u g h t o en c o u r a g e g o o d m a n a g e m e n t , r e w a r d e f f i c i e n c y an d d i s c o u r a g e t h e f l i g h t o f c a p i t a l an d is c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h r e t u r n s on c o m p a r a b l e in v e s t m e n t s , b u t n o t so h i g h a s t o d e f e a t t h e p u r p o s e o f p r e v e n t i n g ex c e s s i v e re n t s ." S a n M a r c o s M o b i l e H o m e P a r k A s s o c . v . C i t y o f S a n M a r c o s , 19 2 C a l .A p p .3 d 14 9 2 ( 19 8 7 ). C o n v e r s e l y , a d e n i a l o f a ju s t a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n c o n s t i t u t e s an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t a k i n g o f p r o p e r t y w h i c h r e q u i r e s c o m p e n s a t i o n . B i r k e n f e l d v . C i t y o f Be r k e l e y , 17 C a l.3 d 12 9 (1 9 7 6 ). T h e C i t y 's re n t st a b i l i z a t i o n o r d i n a n c e r e c o g n i z e s t h e ' n e e d fo r b a l a n c e b y in c l u d i n g in th e Pu r p o s e a n d I n t e n t s e c t i o n , t h e fo l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : "B e c a u s e o f t h e h i g h c o s t an d im p r a c t i c a b i l i t y o f m o v i n g m o b i l e h o m e s , t h e p o t e n t i a l fo r d a m a g e re s u l t i n g t h e r e f r o m , th e r e q u i r e m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e in s t a l l a t i o n o f m o b i l e h o m e s , in c l u d i n g p e r m i t s , la n d s c a p i n g a n d s i t e p r e p a r a t i o n , t h e l a c k o f a l t e r n a t i v e h o m e si t e s fo r m o b i l e h o m e re s i d e n t s , an d th e su b s t a n t i a l in v e s t m e n t o f m o b i l e h o m e o w n e r s in su c h h o m e s , th i s C o u n c i l f i n d s a n d d e c l a r e s it n e c e s s a r y t o p r o t e c t th e o w n e r s an d oc c u p i e r s o f m o b i l e h o m e s fr o m u n r e a s o n a b l e r e n t in c r e a s e s while at the sam e time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, maintenance, insurance, - utilities, employee serv ices, additional am enities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their investment." (§ 5.44.0l0(C). Emphasis added.) Most rent control ordinances allow an annual increase based on the percentage change on the consumer price index or a portion thereof (in the case of San Luis Obispo, 100% of the CPI up to 5% and 75% of the CPI in excess of 5%). However, even with an annual increase provision, a procedure must be provided by which an owner can seek an increase on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to 2 •·- p r o v i d e a j u s t a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n . T h u s , t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o o r d i n a n c e a l s o p r o v i d e s f o r a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e n t a d j u s t m e n t o v e r a n d a b o v e t h e C P I i n c r e a s e , a n d a n y a u t o m a t i c a d j u s t m e n t s , w h e n a p p r o p r i a t e t o a s s u r e a f a i r a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t . ( § 5A 4 • O 7 O • ) Some cities provide for automatic adjustments in their rent control ordinances. Others do not. The potential advantage of automatic adjustments is the ease of administration which may result. The disadvantage is that the adjustments may result in slightly higher rents than a more complex and staff intensive hearing procedure. The difficulty with si~ply eliminating the automatic adjustment provisions of Section 5.44.060(E) is that while it may provide for a modest reduction in rent increases in the short term, it may also simply result in shifting requests for rent increases to the formal application process set forth in Section 5.44.070. I am unaware of any formal rent adjustment hearings having been neld by the city since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted in 1988. Given the extremely contentious, time consuming, and litigious hearings held in many other cities, this may be an enviable record. In light of this, the Council may wish to determine whether there are· significant reasons for changing the current balance in the ordinance prior to taking any action on this matter. 2. Does the fact that a park owner offers long-term leases with prov isions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance constitute a "discriminatory practice"? Whether a park owner decides to offer a long term lease, and whether a tenant decides to accept such a lease, is a purely private, voluntary decision between the parties which has nothing to do with discrimination and is largely beyond the ability of the City to regulate. A park owner is not obligated to offer a long term lease, but has a right to, and if such a lease otherwise complies with the provisions of Civil Code§ 798.17(G) the owner " shall be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local government entity .... " (Ci_vil Code § 798 .17 (A).) The owner's decision may be motivated by a number of reasons (such as stability and predictability), but generally will be based upon the perceived economic· berrefit of a lease as opposed to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. On the other hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long term lease, and may opt for the protection of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance if the tenant perceives a greater economic benefit in doing so. It depends upon the relative value of benefits offered in the lease. In both instances, it is a matter of choice based upon the terms and conditions of the entire agreement. To call such a process of negotiation a "discriminatory practice" does not seem to be a supportable premise. Further, to single out one provision of a long term lease as a reason for amending the Rent Stabilization 01:'dinance to delete automatic adjustments would essentially 3 .... p e n a l i z e ow n e r s f o r o f f e r i n g lo n g t e r m l e a s e s t h a t d o n o t e x a c t l y m i r r o r t h e o r d i n a n c e , a n d m a y t a k e a w a y i n c e n t i v e s t o o f f e r su c h le a s e s a t a l l . RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis, it is respectfully recommended that § 544.060(E) not be deleted based upon an unsupported notion of "discriminatory practice." Issues which might properly support such a deletion would include whether the automatic adjustments have resulted in excessive rent increases or have been abused. I am unaware of any such instances having been brought to the attention of the City. JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Deb Hossli Attachments: 1. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 18, 1994 2. Jeff Jorgensen Memo, dated December 22, 1993 3. California Civil Code§ 798.15, et seq. 4 .... .San LI..UA Ubi.AP.v, (,A AplU.1. 18, 19'14 Hvrw!W.b.le /l)Qf!-V/l ';) Lnnand: and. Cw; (_,vuncil /l)embeM v/ .San i..J..Li..-6 ObiApv, [tl Re: The JXM.6 tlvwwfa beuu; added i.v iJi£. base nerd: iri (__ /leelv.,ide /1/vb.U..elwme. 7>aM /lcc ondina i.o a ''S.i..xi:1;-IJQfl, !VvliCR.. v/- a 'i<eni. JnC/T..eM J.' dai.ed Oct. 231 1993 1 C l{ee./u,de ICeni:.eNJ th.ai. have not ✓-,.u;;n ed 1..eM C6 will have the 199 3 pat,.o i:lvr.vw/u! .li.A i.ed .oe.pcvrat,e.u; on f.h.e nerd: ,t,f.af_emeni:. and. wil.l. be iru:.1.ud.ed .UL the bas e: nerd., . The pa,M iJvwu<Jlu, i:Jud. we1t e .li.A i.ed and ef/.ecli.ve JwUJ.£J.Ju; 1, l{i<J..4 ioeae: bas ed. on ih.e coed: vf- comm on a/t ea uf.i.,,li_f_j_ e,1, new 9-v vennm erd: mandaxed .oe/l v Lees, ffa.Abac;e- ,t,e/l v ice, ei.c. to ih.e pcvck ounen , 7/ie new 1994 base: nerd: c<!rv.,i.A ted. v/- f.h.e cu/oi erd: nerd: iri 1993 p,lu,t, the C .'P .J. incnease. vf- Z}o and. ih.e cu/uterd: 1913 pcuµ:, fu owfa . T .M. 1995 C. ,> .J. , /o/l ih.v.oe nod: oa Leao eo , wi..,l/_ be bas ed on ih.e new nerd: ~ pJ.Lv., aru; new pM.6 fu o+. - We l(e,t,pect(ul!J; 1t€L/i11-e-oi. ih.e del..ei.ivn v/- ( {_.) oecxi: .. on of- 5. 44. o60 v/- the. tl)obilelwme. i?eni. St.ab.i.li~n. i.JIUU.JuuLCR.. (.o1t San LI..UA Ob.i.'1po :/:Jud. ailvUJ-1 (.olC ih.i.A clv.ic/liJninaiv!Uj- p1Caci..u::.e. {ncl..o,c,ed : S.i..xi:J; D~ Noi:i..c£. o/ Rent Jru:.1t e.w.,e j.o1t ih.oae. not on l.eM e,t,. S.i.x.tlj, IJalj- !Voi:..u::.e. of- Y<eni:. !lne1teMe. "f-01t i)w,t,e on 1.ecu,e,c, • ... ATTACHMENT 1 J-1 CREEKSIDE MDBILEHOME COMMUNITY 3360 S. HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 October 1593 SIXTY DAY NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE Dear Resident: Space:lllllt , v~,:,.,v/v L<.J; de:::_ The Lease provides for rents to be adjusted annually on January 1st. This l2tter is notice cf s:;ch acj u s t e e n t . Fr·o,~ A,.igust, 1192 to A1.1g1.1st, 1993 the Co n s ua e r- Price Index applicable to the Lease·~oved fro~ 434. 1 to 442.8 ~hich is a 2.0~ increase. Therefore, y cur r·-~nt \·iill be i ncr e s s ec b1· $5. 47 to $273. 79. The :..ease f•.i:"th~r provides for pass thr•.ts of costs related directly to the p ar k costs as further adjusted for inflation. These custs include utilities, governient services and fees, which this y e ar affects electricity, gas, wat.er, trash and government f e es , All i ncr e as e s and d e cr e a s e s listed have bee'n adjusted for the CPI. Park use of electricity has risen slightly and the commodity cost has again risen, r-e s u l t i n q in an overall i ncre a s e , Therefore, last year's pass thru of $1.86' will increase by S.35 to S2.21. While the cost of gas hai increased this year, the park's consumption of gas to heat the recreation bu i Ld i nq , swimming pool and spa has again de cr e a s eJ. Your pr-o r e t a share of this decrease is a S 1.24 per month reduction for a new pass thru of $2.27. This year· bath water consu~pti0n anJ th~ com~odity cast have increased dramatically. Your prorata share of this increase is $4,35 per ~onth for a total water pass thru of SS.&&. The cost for du~p Faes will increase an additional Sl. 10 for a total pass thru of S2,06. Th e p e rn i t to cp.,,-•ate fee this year remained the s e a e , Adj•.isting last year's cost for CPI results in a prorata decrease of S .01 for a total Government fees pass thr~ of $,32. The property tax assess~ents will remain at $1,02. Yo1.ir pass th,-6.:;h, ,dfa!,::ti'le .7ar,:_.ary 1~ 19<34 will ::ie $13,54 and will be listed j2parately on your ren~ stat~1enl ~nd will not ·b~ subject to CPI increases. All of the ab~ve pass thr~s reflect act~al cos~ increases and do NOT include utilities and ut:1er charg~c; bll:ad d i r e c t Iy to you. C·oc• . .iHntatian for the pass tn·r•i;; is av a i i ab l e at the park offi~e. This notice applies to ail ,·esidents unde r the • provisions of the San :..,.tis Ob i s pc Rent Cunb·ul Or-d i r.anc e , 7he Basa R,rnt b e c o a e s e f f e c t i v e for Jan•.1ar·y 11 1994. a;,d will remain so t:irough _Dece:nbei' 31, 1594. Si ,1c: er· el y, Pat Fleming, Mar.ager_ ..J-f__ 2~S0 3. HIGUERA STR~E7 I ~ •• , Lr; SIXTY DAY NOTICE OF RENT IN~RE~SE City of Sarr Luis Obispo ~obile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Chapter 5.44 a l l ow s for r e n t s to bE 2.dj1J;;t1:,j ... s r.nua l l y , This letter is notice of such ac j u s te e nt . F1·0.1J A•.ig•.1st1 1992 to Auyust, 1993. the Co n s ue e r- Price Index moved f r-o n 1d4. 1 ~o .'.t.'.t2, 8 1~hi:.:;; 1 s a 2. !Zi; i ncr-e a s e , Therefore, y o ur- curr e n t rent wll l be increased by ~4.~~ which is the increase in the CPI. -:-:,~ 1'1S2. pa s s i;h1•1.1 of iE.5'3 cur r-e n t l v l i s t e d s e p ... •.r·at>:?i.y on y o ur- re n t ste1i:.ement will be included in your new base rent. In adc~tion, S1:ct:;.Jn 5.44,:Z.Gio, Par·agraph E. allows "Space rent roay be aut o e at i ce l Iv adjusted based on i ncr e a s e s in e xpe n s e s for' canon area utilities, new fii.•'-'ti'r·,,mc:nt rr,,;,ndatEd s e r v i c e s , gar·baf;e service .•• ", Ir, add i t i o n , Section ::i.44.0G0, ;:aragraph E. f ur-t h er- states, "The space rent may be adj u s t e d by dividing the total i ncr e as e in any such e xpe n s e s i ricur-r e d dur i nq a t w e Lv e+a o n t h period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-~onth period, The quotient shall be a::ocated to the s~dce rent for· each space in the park ~ased on the amount the space r e nt relates to total s pac e rent fo r- the pc1rk." The ac!diti.oni:11 park costs llnder this section ~re as fo!ll~~: r e.. ·· ,, . .. •. ·- \.J = ... ' .. • w: . .... ,'i-:.;.\,, t:f ;·i:,:.i,' ;.•i\.li,..i'.:<·';~: ... a: ~hc\i''': ~-f ~ .. h i; i ncr e a s e , e f f e ct .. v e Ji1:"1i.~dr·r l, ::;::·.:, ,·.li~ b e 5.2~-- 7~e a~~ve i~cr~a~~ ref:i2ts act~a~ ~ark cost increas2s ~nj t0es ~:T .~c:u~2 uti:ities ~-. I•- ., ,., , ': 1· ·-; . ~ !'" ~ =2 :0 L . ~ ~ : -.:. ._, i f · l,; ·- t : / '--···· --- _ .. ,_ ... \. ·, c c. '.• ;: I i . ·, ... ;.:,t:•~·~1c..·1 ~.,~4.i.:••:il'-, .- ... .1.~ ;..;.: :~ .• :c.,.r:._ .... :.:,./, i·j·· • .1.~ L'il6,ly~ i:.,J~•-1illc'4 -:fo-::ct.1ve Jc,.,,: .. :c-.rf 1, 1·1!➔·¼ and w i l 1 r :1 r.1 a i n s o t ~; r o 1.1 g h · Dec e li1 be r 31 , 1 9 9 4 • ... j-9 MEMORANDUM F R O M T H E OF F I C E O F TH E CI T Y A T T O RNE Y December 22, 1993 TO: FROM: S UBJ E C T : City Council Jeff JorgensenW Mobile Home R/nf stabilization I have reviewed the attached letter dated December 7, 1993 from Leola Rubottom, which asserts that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by Municipal Code Section 5.44.60(E) [,.44;~60(E)] are in conflict with the Mobile Home Residency Law, and therefore invalid. CONCLUSION Municipal Code Section 5. 44. 060 (E) is not in conflict with the Mobile Home Residency Law and is a valid subject of municipal regulation. AN ALYSIS It is correct that the Mobile Home Residency Law, Civil Code Section 798.31, requires that, "a homeowner shall not be charged a fee for other than rent, utilities and incidental reasonable charges for services actually rendered." However, what constitutes rent, particularly under a rent control ordinance, is not preempted by state legislation and is left to the broad discretion of the local agency. Gregory v. City of San Juan Capistrano, 142 CA3d 72, 191 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983). In addition, in the absence of a rent control ordinance, rent can be established at whatever level the park owner determines, subject only to market forces. The only case addressing the issue raised by Leola's letter is Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Home Estates, 1 Cal.Ap~.~t& 1066, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (1991). The Karrin case invalidated a rent control ordinance of the City of Oxnard which permitted a mobile home park owner to add a monthly capital improvement assessment to the monthly bill in addition to regular rent. The rent control ordinance specifically provides that such assessments should not be considered rent. The Court invalidated this provision because it directly conflicted with Civil Code Section 798.31. However, the Court was careful to point out that had the increase been added to rent rather than billed separately as an assessment, it would have l}een valid . ... _ ATTACHMENT 2 C i t y C o u n c i l D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 19 9 3 P a g e T w o T h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M o b i l e H o m e R e n t S t a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e O x n a r d o r d i n a n c e w h i c h w a s i n v a l i d a t e d i n K a r r i n . T h e a d j u s t m e n t s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o o r d i n a n c e a r e sp e c i f i c a l l y i n c l u d e d in sp a c e r e n t a n d a r e n o t a se p a r a t e fe e , c h a r g e , o r a s s e s s m e n t . U n d e r t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i t a p p e a r s c l e a r t h a t t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M o b i l e H o m e R e n t S t a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e is v a l i d u n d e r t h e K a r r i n d e c i s i o n . (I n a d d i t i o n , t h e 6 0 d a y n o t i c e o f r e n t i n c r e a s e p r o v i d e d t o t h e t e n a n t s o f C r e e k s i d e M o b i l e H o m e C o m m u n i t y ap p e a r s t o m e e t t h e r e qu i r e m e n t s o f o u r o r d i n a n c e a s t o fo r m a n d e f f e c t .) F i n a l l y ~ t h e r e f e r e n c e t o C i v i l C o d e S e c t i o n 79 8 ._4 3 (b ) d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o b e r e l e v a n t o r r e l a t e d t o t h e q u e s t i/on raised. If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. JGJ/sw attach. cc: Leola Rubottom Pat Fleming John Dunn .... J-// San Lui» Obwpo I CA DecCJTID .vr. ?, 1993 llono11.a bl..e 1i)a1j,01t 7>.uvla/U1 and. CJ...h;- [ou.n c.U.. ,~em b!VrA o/. San Lui» Obi../2po, CA /(e: 7 he We.gal pa,o .o ilur.o+. beu-u; added i:.o th e bace nerd: In [1r.ee./UJ.ufe 1'rJobi..1.el1.0 me 'fcvch. Ji:. ha» been. b1tow;Jit to ffllf a:lt en.li on. :th.at Secf.J_vn. 5. 44 .60, panaqnaph: "c" of. the San Lui» Obi../2 po '.o i'rJobil eh.vme l?v.,i..d.e.nclf LJUlJ .w La dineci: corz0-c-t wiJJi the Ca.,u_/-v lT./U..a ,ryvb.u eh.vme Re-1i.d.e.no; law. 'Pa.1ta<J,17.0.fh. "{," of. Sec:li..on 5. 44 ,60 o/ i.h..e Sa.n LL.U.A l}obi.1.elwme i<e,oi..den.9- law sxaie», "Space nerd: mm; be a.u.tomati.callJ;. adj)Mi:.ed. baaed on ).n C1t e.aA e/.! Lri expen.-1e /01r. comm on. a1t ea u.:liJ .. i..:li..v.,, f1£1.J} 9-ove//J1/nef zi. mandai.ed »envcceo , ~ba'l-2- .oe1r.vi.ce and ca ble lel ev.i.A .w n duvr.e app.cicabl.e," 7 h.e C a.J.i/.oJr.n..i..a 5t.ai.e /))obil eh.vme fl. M~ Law No • 79 8 • 4 J S eci.L ori ( b) .oi:.ai:.eA · "uhene: ve1t a hom eouner: i../2 1te/.!p oM i..b l..e {.o 1t r;;a ,1 , 01t eLe c:brJ...c u.:li.1i..i:J; ,e, e1t v Lee , maJUl~ .olza.U.. w cL o-1e i:.o the h.om eo1JY1.e1t bef.01te i:.er1.anC1f, uk.ne.ve1t the homeounen: '.o meie»: al/.,o measunes <J,M _ 01t eL ~ /.01r. comm on a1tea /.aci li tie/.! 1 _01t ~, i.ncl.w:i.i.ru; ~. I h.i../2 can. be lulru:!J.ed. bif ,o<1.lfUZ9- tJie home - Ol!.nelt f-o,t t./,..a:t. poll.±i..on o/. the .c.e,,v.i.ce to i./-..e .:.cn117ion. a1tea.o 01t d.i...o coni:..i.Jw.e u.,,1- i..J--u; i.h..e mei..eA. on L~e h.vm.e.011Y1.e.M -1i..J:.e fOlt utJ..d.2iv., o,L J)i.e C()(Tlr,'.Ofl. Mea f.a.ci..1..- i.i..i.,v., and e.q u.i..p rneni:. , II Jn ad.di t.,i on i:.o coll eci:.i.Ju;t .i...1..1.e,;a.J- pau, :l~o+ Ou.It ,r:x:vth. 01JY1.e1t i../2 rt<)ll} 9-oi..nf; to add i.h..v.,e pa.o-1 ilvc.owj)v., :to th.e 6M e 1teni:.. I h.i../2 w.U.1.. allow i.h.e U1.C1te£1Aed. 1teni:. ~e ta be i:.li~ new bcv.,e /-0,1. caL Cl.J.i.a.li oM of- 1tv ii:. beJJ,lll'l.llllJ- next. 1j-£ilA, 7'18 ,J 1 o/ the .Si.ai:.e. /Jobi.1.eh.(.)(Tl e i?v.,.i..d.en.9- ~ d:aJ:.e-11 ''ri h.ome011.Y1.e1t -1hall rw i:. be ch.aA ~ a f.ee (.i;1r. oi:h.e1t than 1r.eni:., t.dJ..1J..:t.i.v., and. .uic.i.den.f.al. IT.ea/2 ona bl..e c.Awti;e-1 /011. .6vt v.i.ce.a u.ci.u.alu; 1tr2J.d,:.,·,d. 11 7 h.e pa,a.o ilur.ou.tju, h.ave been .i_.lle,;aJ- .o.ui.ce i.h.e.i.Jt .ui.ce.p:li..on accoJtµ.Ul;.J _to OU/t ;J,OVeltfU.fUJ 51:.ai:.e. /Jiobil.elwrn e l?e,e,i..de.ncJ; Law . Acc o~ i:.o "Weoi.'.o Annot.ai:.ed. CaJ..i../-o l1.rl..i..a [ode Co10tdu.h'on, 111ti:.i...c1..e 6, s eciJ.on. 5 I II ,t,f.ai_e ./..aw .ou.p etr..ced.e-1 ~aL O It c.i.J:J; ./..aw O II U/e aJt e Mhi.111J, i:.h.e Hon. /lla!f4)1t atu.L i.h..e COW1.C.i..1. rn.eJTl b VTA of. i.h.e c/;;:'I; e/ Sa.rt LJ.lU> Ob.i.Apo to delete :th.at_ p<Vd. ot Sec.li on 5. 44 060 par.ac;w.p h. "c I :l'iai. .i.A .i_.ll~ acco~ to ol.J.lt .)f.a.:te. i'1o b.u elwme 'i?e-1.i..d..eno; LJUlJ. 7_ lumh.i.fl.9, 'jOU. in. ad.vwLCe /01r. 'jOIJ.lt coM ~on • .... Legislative Draft SLOMC § 5.44.060(E) E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. l@§§m:i#:iw.§l!rnt:~si:J!§lJngif;@itiirni:P.P.])lifatjittlirnl=ifilf.t.gt.ifi§@Wiij@2irnti:J;?.&1t:::f ;gg7]iii !iRg#.;;glpipuJ:::m1:::::jng:++::11n2:fs1::aittffitts;k@eliq::::rnw.n:trn~uu~~::::::@p~@it:@i:rknt!:'t 1@21ttPni:rrs.1A1rw§$¥I@m::::si@~#m#.n:~n:§t::@Rwr::i=ns10gijJt!?::¥t:pµp$v)tn*1Ds§. §jgpp:jf9fi;jf]lle@:1:~::@tf2iQJ]:U!iiltt1fp@[sififfi~J1@+1+tf fjj§@\\fts@n:~:fil~:&tWl1: ::: §f§ a,:aa±ea:anaat:tren:e~···········Not·1ce·····o·f ·····the······1ncrea·se····· sha11·····5e·····1n wrftThg'<and''sliall be given as required by law no less than sixty days prior to any such increase being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase based ant his section. There shall only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. J-11/ Sec. 798.11. "Resident" is a homeowner or other person who lawfully occupies a mobile home. Sec. 798.12. "Tenancy" is the right of a homeowner to the use of a site within a mobilehorne park on which to locate, maintain, and occupy a mobilehome, site improvements, and accessory structures for human habitation, including the use of the services and facilities of the park Sec. 798.14 Unless otherwise provided, all notices required by this chapter shall be either delivered personally to the homeowner or deposited in the United States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the homeowner at his or her site within the mobilehome park · ARTICLE 2_ RENTAL AGREEMENT __798.15. The rental agreement shall be in writing and shall contain, in addition to the provisions otherwise required by law to be included, all of the following: (a) The term of the tenancy and the rent therefor. (b) The rules and regulations of the park (c) A copy of the text of this chapter shall be attached as an exhibit and shall be incorporated into the rental agreement by reference. Management shall provide all homeowners with a copy of this chapter prior to February 1 of each year, if a significant change was made in the chapter by legislation enacted in the prior year. (d) A provision specifying that it is the responsibility of the management to provide and maintain physical improvements in the common facilities in good working order and condition. (e) A description of the physical improvements to be provided the home- owner during his or her tenancy. (f) A provision listing those services which will be provided at the time the rental agreement is executed and will continue to be offered for the term of the tenancy and the fees, if any, to be charged for those services. \ provision stating that management may charge a reasonable fee for services relating to the maintenance of the land and premises upon which a mobilehome is situated in the event the homeowner fails to maintain such land or premises in accordance with the rules and regula- tions of the park after written notification to the homeowner and the failure of the homeowner to comply within 14 days. The written notice shall state the specific condition to be corrected and an estimate of the charges to be imposed by management if the services are performed by management or its agent. (h) All other provisions governing the tenancy. Sec. 798.16. The rental agreement may include such other provisions permitted by law, but need not include specific language contained in state or local laws not a part of this chapter. Sec. 798.17. (a) Rental agreements meeting the criteria of subdivision {b} shall be exempt from any orrlinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local gov: 'ental entity which establishes a maximum amount that a landlord 1-._/charge a tenant for rent. The terms of such a rental agree- ment shall prevail over conflicting provisions of such an ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure limiting or restricting rents in mobile- home parks only during the term of the rental agreement or one or more uninterrupted, continuous extensions thereof. If the rental agreement is not extended and no new rental agreement in excess of 12 months' duration is entered into, then the last rental rate charged for the space under the previous rental agreement shall be the base rent for purposes of applicable provisions of law concerning rent regulation, if any. The first paragraph of a rental agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall contain a provision notifying the homeowner that the agreement will be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local governmental entity which esta- blishes a maximum amount that a landlord may charge a tenant for rent. (b} Rental agreements subject to this section shall meet all of the following criteria: (1) The rental agreement shall be in excess of 12 months' duration. (2) The rental agreement shall be entered into between the manage- . ment and a homeowner for the personal and actual residence of the homeowner. (3 ) The homeowner shall have at least 3 0 days from the date the rental agreement is first offered to the homeowner to accept or reject the agreement. - (4) The homeowner who executes a rental agreement offered pursuant to this section may void such agreement by notifying management in writing within 72 hours of the homeowner's execution of the rental agreement. · (c) The homeowner shall have the option to reject the offered rental agreement and instead accept a rental agreement for a term of 12 months or less from the date the offered agreement begins. In the event the homeowner elects to have a rental agreement for a term of 12 months or less, including a month-to-month agreement, the agree- ment shall contain the same "rental charges" terms and conditions as the offered rental agreement during the first 12 months, except for options contained in the offered rental agreement to extend or renew the agreement. (d) Nothing in subdivision (c} shall be construed to prohibit management from offering gifts of value, other than rental rate reductions, to home- owners who execute a rental agreement pursuant to this section. · This section does not apply to or supersede other provisions of this part or other state law. Sec. 798.18: (a} A homeowner shall be offered a rental agreement for (1 ) a term of 12 months, or (2 ) a lesser period as the homeowner may request :or (3 ) a longer period as mutually agreed upon by both the homeowner and management. 1 (b} No such agreement shall contain any terms or conditions with respect to charges for rent, utilities, or incidental reasonable service charges that would be different during the first 12 months of the agreement from the corresponding terms or conditions that would be offered to the home- owners on a month-to-month basis. \'() ~ ~ I"") E-< z UJ ~ u ~ E-< <I'. , ORDINANCE NO. (1994 Series) An Ordinance of the coun9il of the city of San Luis Obispo Amending Chapter S.44.060(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Relating to Automatic Adjustments to Rent in Mobile Home Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than sixty days prior to any such increase being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase based on this section. There shall only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. Exhibit A J-lf Ordinance No. (1994 Series) Page Two INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of 1994, on motion of , seconded by _______________ , and on the following roll call vote : Ayes: Noes: Absent: Mayor Peg Pinard ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladwell j-/6 ORDINANCE NO. (1994 Series) An Ordinance of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Deleting Chapter S.44.060(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Relating to Automatic Adjustments to Rent in Mobile Horne Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and repealed. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of 1994, on motion of , seconded by _______________ , and on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Mayor Peg Pinard ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladwell APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~,O'.r ~A;~nep~~- Exhibit B J-11 ·--·-·•··- . ·-- ~--- ij\Mm1w~ l\ij\\l City O~ san lUIS OBISpo ~ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: 6/13/94 I. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ORIGINATED BY: J e -6{,/te lj C. JoJt.9 ei'!/2 e.n MEETING DATE: 7/5/94 SUBJECT: 1\iobile. f-/ome. PCUtf?. Re.vu: Stabilization, Au..torra..J:.J...c. Adju.,,!);.(Jne.n.:Ui :t.o Re.n;t Public Bearing Business Consent (Circle One) RECOMMENDATION(S): Ame.nd Se.c.Uon 5.44.060(E) of .t)te. Pobile. Home. PCUtb. Re.vd Sta.bilizcvli...on OJt.cU.nanc.e. t» Cfo.,u f u Au.:t.omatic. AdjuJ.i.tme.Yl-tli .to R.e.,1.,t ShcvU uo: be. foc...Cu.dc..d in Bct.oe. Spac.e. Rc..n:t. foll. the Pu.11.;oMe. o(, Ue.,.te/1 . .mJ..ri,i.r:.9 CPI foc./t.e.a.!.)eli. Part I (white) form ru st be subm itted to the City Clerk's Office on the Frida y be fore the Tue sday Agend a Review me eting. Please forward name s and add resses of prope rty owne rs, appe llants, subd ividers, app licants, or any pa rties who ru st be notified abo ut this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if po ssible. I I. REV IEW IN G DEPAR TM ENT ROUTIN G SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD app roval, please attach Part II (canary) to your repo rt and route to the fo llowing depa rtme nt heads in the order ind icated be low. Following app roval, please initial and send on .. ROUTIN G OR DER DEPAR TMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INIT. I PERSONN EL FINAN CE CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CAO CA O c·ITY CLERK NOTE: The initiating depa rtme nt head is respo nsible fo r ob taining ill ne cessary signa tures (other depa rtme nt heads and consultants) prior to subm ittal of repo rt to the City Attorne y, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMM ENTS : I. ~hite: Prelim Notification Slip II. Canary: Agenda Repo rt Routing Slip III. Pink: Depa rtme nt Copy 11 11imrn11111111 l\\)ll\1 city o~ san LJIS osispo llllil11ill;111111I CO U N C IL AGENDA REPORT MEET ING DATE: 7-5-94 ITEM NUMBER: FR OM : SU BJEC T : CAO RECOMM EN DA TIO N : JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEYF PROPO SE D AM EN DM ENT TO TH E MOB IL E HOME PA R K RENT STABILIZA TIO N OR D IN AN CE CON CERN IN G AUTOMA T IC ADJU STMEN TS TO REN T . In tro du ce an Ord inance to Prin t Am en d ing Se ction S.4 4.0 60(E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance to cJarify that au tomatic adju stmen ts to rent shall not be included in base space ren t for the pu rp ose of determ in in g CPI in crea se s. DISCUSS IO N : At the June 7, 1994 City Council meeting, the City Council considered a communication item from Leola Rubottom requesting deletion of Section 544. 060 (E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which allows for automatic adjustments of rent based on 11• • • increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government mandated services, garbage service and cable television .... 11 Previous analysis from the City Attorney's Office dated May 18, 1994, and December 22, 1993, is attached for your information. As an alternative to the complete deletion of all automatic adjustments under Section 5.44.060(E), the Council directed staff to return with an ordinance amending Section 5.44.060(E) to clarify that automatic adjustments to rent shall not be included in base space rent for the purpose of determining CPI increases, but shall be considered as additional rent. The effect of such an amendment would be to still allow automatic adjustments, while avoiding compound rent increases, which may be perceived by mobile home tenants as unfair. The proposed ordinance will carry out the Council's intent. OPT IONS : op t io n 1: If the Council wishes to amend the automatic adjustment provisions as discussed above, pass to print the attached ordinance (Exhibit 11A11). This is the staff recommended alternative. Op t io n 2: If the Council wishes to delete automatic adjustments entirely, pass to print the attached ordinance (Exhibit 11B11). In light of the previously submitted analysis of May 18, 1994 and December 22, 1993, this is not recommended. Optio n 3: Take no action and leave the automatic adjustments as currently written. This would maintain the ordinance as originally adopted by the voters in 1988. Option 4: If the Council has additional concerns or proposed revisions not considered in the report, continue this item with additional direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Council adopts the ordinance as recommended, it should have no fiscal impact on the City. It may result in a slightly lower overall rate of rent increases to tenants in the future depending upon the unique circumstances of each case. JGJ/sw Attachments: Letter from City Attorney (5/18/94) Legislative Draft, SLOMC § 5.44.060(E) Exhibit A Exhibit B MEMORA NDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 18, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: city Council Jeff Jorgensen, city Attorneyff Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Automatic Adjustments Pursuant to 5.44.060(E) At the April 19, 1994 City council meeting, the attached communication item from Leola Rubottom was referred·to staff for an analysis and response. Leola has requested the deletion of Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which allows for automatic adjustments of rent based on. "increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government- mandated services, garbage service and cable television .... " The apparent reason given for this request is that the owner of Creekside Mobile Home Park has offered long term leases which do not include automatic adjustments as set forth in 5.44.060(E). The inference is this constitutes a "discriminatory practice." A previous inquiry, which asserted that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by 5.44.060(E) are in conflict with the Mobile Home Residency Law (Civil Code§ 798.31) was submitted in December, 1993. (Attached for your information is the analysis of that previous correspondence.) CONCLUSION The City Council has the authority to delete Municipal Code § 5.44.060(E) provided an adequate mechanism remains in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure a "fair return on investment." The fact that a park owner offers long-term leases wit~ ~revisions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is not a "discriminatory practice." Therefore, should the Council wish to consider deletion of§ 5.44.060(E), it should do so on some basis other than an alleged discrimination. ANALYSIS 1. Does the city Council have authority to delete the automatic adjustment provisions of§ 5.44.060{E)? T--he Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was adopted by "voter approval as an initiative measure in 1988. However, the City Council specifically retained the authority to amend the ordinance ... by majority vote (§ 5.44.141). Therefore, the City Council clearly has the authority to delete § 5.44.060(E) should it choose to do so . However, it should also be noted that the validity of a rent control ordinance will rest upon whether the ordinance permits the landlord to earn a "just and reasonable return." A long line of court decisions support this fundamental requirement. Birkenfeld v. city of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (1976); Carson Mobile Horne Park Owners Assoc. v. City of Carson, 35 Cal.3d 184 (1983); Palos Verde Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 142 Cal.A pp.3d 362 (1983); Fisher v. city of Berkeley, 37 Cal.3d 644 (1984); West Hollywood Concerned citizens v. City of West Hollyw ood, 232 Cal.A pp.3d 486 (1991). While no case has concretely ~efined the term "just and reasonable return," one court has described it as one which 11 ••• is high enough to encourage good management, reward efficiency and discourage the flight of capital and is commensurate with returns on comparable investments, but not so high as to def eat the purpose of preventing excessive rents." San Marcos Mobile Horne Park Assoc. v. City of San Marcos, 192 Cal.App.3d 1492 ( 1987) . Conversely, a denial of a just and reasonable return constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property which requires compensation. Birkenf eld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 12 9 ( 1976) . The City's rent stabilization ordinance recognizes the' need for balance by including in the Purpose and Intent section, the following provision: "Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including perrni ts, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative home sites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this Council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, maintenance, insurance, - utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their investment." (§ 5.44.0l0(C). Emphasis added.) Most rent control ordinances allow an annual increase based on the percentage change on the consumer price index or a portion thereof (in the case of San Luis Obispo, 100% of the CPI up to 5% and 75% of the CPI in excess of 5%). However, even with an annual increase provision, a procedure must be provided by which an owner can seek ';, an increase on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to 2 .... provide a just and reasonable return. Thus, the San Luis Obispo ordinance also provides for an application for rent adju stment over a n d a b o v e the CPI increase, and any automatic adju stments, when a p p r o p r i a t e t o a s s u r e a fair and reasonable return on investment. ( § SA 4 • 0 7 0 • ) Some cities provide for automatic adjustments in their rent control ordinances. Others do not. The potential advantage of automatic adjustments is the ease of administration which may result. The disadvantage is that the adjustments may result in slightly higher rents than a more complex and staff intensive hearing procedure. The difficulty with simply eliminating the automatic· adjustment provisions of Section 5.44.060(E) is that while it may provide for a modest reduction in rent increases in the short term, it may also simply result in shifting requests for rent increases to the formal application process set forth in Section 5.44.070. I am unaware of any formal rent adjustment hearings having been neld by the City since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted in 1988. Given the extremely contentious, time consuming, and litigious hearings held in many other cities, this may be an enviable record. In light of this, the Council may wish to determine whether there are· significant reasons for changing the current balance in the ordinance prior to taking any action on this matter. 2. Does the fact that a park owner offers long-term leases with provisions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance constitute a "discriminatory practice"? Whether a park owner decides to offer a long term lease, and whether a tenant decides to accept such a lease, is a purely private, voluntary decision between the parties which has nothing to do with discrimination and is largely beyond the ability of the City to regulate. A park owner is not obligated to offer a long term lease, but has a right to, and if such a lease otherwise complies with the provisions of Civil Code§ 798.17(G) the owner " shall be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local government entity .... " (Civil Code§ 798.17(A} .) The owner's decision may be motivated by a number of reasons (such as stability and predictability), but generally will be based upon the perceived economic--berrefit of a lease as opposed to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. On the other hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long term lease, and may opt for the protection of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance if the tenant perceives a greater economic benefit in doing so. It depends upon the relative value of benefits offered in the lease. In both instances, it is a matter of choice based upon the terms and conditions of the entire agreement. To call such a process of negotiation a "discriminatory practice" does not seem to be a supportable premise. Further, to single out one provision of a long term lease as a reason for amending the Rent Stabilization ';, 01:'dinance to delete automatic adjustments would essentially 3 ... p e n a l i z e ow n e r s fo r o f f e r i n g lo n g t e r m le a s e s th a t d o n o t ex a c t l y m i r r o r th e or d in a n c e , an d m a y ta k e aw a y in c e n t iv e s t o o f f e r su c h le a s e s at al l . RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis, it is respectfully recommended that § 544.060(E) not be deleted based upon an unsupported notion of "discriminatory practice." Issues which might properly support such a deletion would include whether the automatic adjustments have resulted in excessive rent increases or have been abused. I am unaware of any such instances having been brought to the attention of the City. JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Deb Hossli Attachments: 1. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 18, 1994 2. Jeff Jorgensen Memo, dated December 22, 1993 3. California Civil Code§ 798.15, et seq. 4 ... .San Lui» UbiA P.cJ I (,ti Apllil. 18, 19CJ4 Hononab/.« /l)QJjVll 'P..i..rvuvui and Cw; (_y un cil. t1iem.beM v/ .San. Lui» Obi.A pcJ I (;I Re: The J-XlA.o iMv1.1J.Jv., bei.Ju; added t.v ilie baoe: nerd: iri Ll(eeN.,i.de fl)vbilelwme. 'PaM. A ca ondina f.o a ''Si.xh;-IJOJf /vvi.i..c.e vf. a t?ent. 2,ic.Jr.eMJ.' daz ed Oct.. 23; 199 3 1 C JLeeluide nerd.en» i:.liai:. ha ve not /.l.uyi.ed Leaoe» will have ilie 199 3 pa,M :tlvc.v+. wted -tJ~j ort the nerd: ,,:,t.aiemenf. and will be i.nd.uded iri .the be nerd., . The pau, :tlvc.ouc;Jv., tlw.i:. uene: .li.-6 1.ed and efl-eru ve Jai ll.1.WUJ- 1 , 119. 4 weJLe based on :Ute coed: o/ common anea ui.i.J.i.i:J..e , new <JOVellnmenf. mandated -1vr. vi.CEA, fPA Oa'J-2- .,:,vr. v i...ce, etc • to :the panh. cJWUVC. • The new 1994 base nerd: c~M i.A ted of. :lh.e cunnerd: nerd: Ln: 1993 p.!.J.u, ilie [.'P .J. Incnease v/ 2Jb and t.h.e cu/uierd: 19</3 pat,,t, t.lvi.ouy/u,. 7 .lie 1995 C j> .J. 1 /011. ilz.o/.le nod: on Leaoe» 1 /1.J.U.L be DCU>ed on. ilz.e new nerd: /J-r;.w..e p.!.J.u, aru; new pM-6 tlvi.v+. We 1te6p~ 11.ep.ie-tJi. ilz.e dec exi.o n. of. ( C.) seccion cJ/ 5 J-14 .o60 of. ilie /1Jvbi..1..elwme Rent. St.ab.i..li~n UNUJ 1a.nc.e. /.oil San Lui.A ObiApo iJz.at ailoll)/.) f.v 1t fJz.u., du., CIU.JTUJ ta:f:.Ol'"l.lj- p11.aci.i..c.e. • .Si.ncvr.eu;' - JO /:_/ ') -~-i ... ,/')'_e... c,,--C...1--. . / r---• <-/:.,_a-{_,{. C ,-, ·•-·· Leal.a J?uboliom ]960 Souilz. 111-'JueM.1 Space 21 San. Luu, Obi.A po, [ii 93401 {nclv,,:,ed: Si.xh; /Jo.i; Noi.ic.e of.. 1?eni. Jfl.CIT.e.a/2e /-_o1t i:.h.o-tJe nvi. on 1.e.Me-tJ. 5.i.x.tJ; /Ja'f 1Voi.i...ce o/ Neni:. Jnc.Jr.e.a/2e /01t i./2.v,,:,e vn Le.cu.,et, • .... ATTACHMENT 1 CREEKSIDE MDBILEHOME COMMUNITY 3960 S. HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Space:~ . ZJ,:,~'10 ✓u; 'Je.__ October 31, 1593 SIXTY DAY NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE Dear Resident: The Leas2 provides for rents to be adjusted annually on January 1st. This letter is notice cf such adj u s t a e n t , Fr o e A,~g•.1st, 1992 to Aug1.1st, 1993 the Co n s ue e r Price Index applicable to the Lease a o v e d f r o a 434.1 to 442.8 wh i ch is a 2. 0°:' increase. Fh e r e f o r e , y o ur: r'-:,,t :·iill be i ncr e s s e c b1· $5. 47 to $278. 79. The ;_e.,,.se f•.id h ~r provides for pa s s t hr-us o f costs related directly to the pa r k c o s t s a s f ,.ir t h e r adj ;.1 s t e d f o r i n f 1 a t i o n , n , e s e c \J s t s i n c l 1.1 d e · 1.1 t i 1 i t i e s I g o v e r n iD e n t services and fees, 1~hich this year affects electricity, ~as, wat.er, trash and government f e es , All i ncr e as e s and d e cr-e a s e s listed have bee'n adj,.isted for the CPI. Park use of electricity has risen slightly and the commodity cost has again risen, r e s u l t i nq i:1 an overall i ncre a s e , Therefore, last year's pass thru of $1.86" will increase by S.35 to S2.21, While the cost of gas hai increased this year, the park's consumption of gas to h e at t h e r e c r e at i o n b 1.1 i l d i n g , s .-1 i lliill i r: g po o 1 a n d s pa h a s a g a i n d e c r e a s e .J , Yo •.1 r pro rat a share of this decrease is a$ 1.24 p e r a o n t h r e duc t i o n for a new pass t hr-u of $2,27. Th i s 1edl' both ..iat1?r c o n s ua pb i o n arid t h e c o en od i t y cost have increased draiDatically. Your prorata share of this increase is 54,35 per month for a total 1~at2r pass t hru of !::i,,;o, The cost for du~p faes will increase an additional $1. 10 for a total pass thru of $2,06, Th e p e ra i t to c p e r a t e f e e this year remained the s e n e , Adj•.1sting last ye2.r' s cost for CPI results in a prorata decrease of$ ,01 for a total Government fees pass thr~ of S,32. The property tax assess~ents will re~ain at $1.02. Your pass thr:J;h1 effecti~e January 1, 19g4 will be S13,54 and will b2 listed _seoaratt:h· on 'z'O:Jr' re;~~; state.nenl and viill not ·b~ s1.1iJject to CPI increases, Ali. of the ab6ve pass thr1.1s reflect act~al cos~ incre~ses and do NOT include utilities and o t h e » ci-,arye> bil:ed d i r-e c t l y to y o u, C·oc1 . .n e n t e t i c n for the pass tri'r tis is av a i l ab l e at the park offi~e. This notice app l i e s to all r e s i c e nt s 1mder the , •• pr-uv i s i o ns of the San :..0.1is Oo i s pc Rent Co nt r c l Or-d i nanc e , ";"he Base Rent b e c c a e s e f f e c t ive for Jan1.1ary 1, 1994 c:'\;-id will remain :;o t:-,rough Decer:ber 311 1,94. Pat Fleming, Mar,aget"_ ... 2~S0 3. H!GLlERA STREE: SIX T Y DA Y NO T IC E OF RENT IN C RE~SE City of San Lu is Ob isp o ~ob ile H om e Park Ren t Sta b ilization Ord in ance, Chapter 5 .4 4 a ll o ;,;s for r e nt s to t-E 2.d j1JstE;j ._;r,n ua lly . Th is l e t t e r is notice of such e c j u s ts e nt , Ft'DI h1.iQtJSt, 1992 to Aug 1J st , 1993 th e Con s ue e r Price Ind ex moved fr ail 11,.;;4,1 to -1.'.t2,8 hh i::; 1s a 2.C,i; i ncr e a s e . Th e r e f o r e , yo1Jr cur-r s nt r e nt 1-1111 be in c r e a s e d by 54.3~ wh ic h is th e in c rea »e in th e CPI. "'."'.1e 1'353 p a s s th 1·1.1 of i6.5'3 cur r o nt Lv l i s t e d s e par a t e l y on y our re nt statement w il l be in c lu d ed in yo ,Jr new ba se ren t. In adc i t i cn , SEct;.;:,n 5.44,:Z,C,0, Paragraph E. allo w » "S pace r e nt n;ay be a u t o ae t i c e Ll y ad ju st ed based on i nc r e a s e s in e xp e n s e s f o r co nn o n area utilities, new y(.•",'t:'1,.,ih·nt rr,f;,n d at€d s e r v i c e s , gat·b a~e serv ic e .•• ", Ir, add ition, Section ::i,'-14.0t-01 ;::·a ra g r a p ~, E. f ur t h e r- sta tes, "T h e sp ac e rent ma y be adju sted by div id in g th e total i nc r e a s e in an y such ex p en ses i nc u r r e d d1.1n ng a t w e l v e r a o nt h per iod by twelve, less th e pe r c e n t a g e in th e CP I in d ex for th e tw elve-~onth per iod , The quotient shall be a :!o c ~t ~d to the s~~ce ren t fo r· each sp ac e in th ~ park ja sed on the amount th e space r·e n t re l s t e s to to ta l sp ace ren t fc,1• th e pc1 rk." Th e- aC.:d iti on.:d park costs urid e r this se c t i c,n a re ai fo ,1t ~~: , .. 'w: .. ' . ,"I:,.:.\. t:f .I. i IL "( C -;1 :, t? :j .J / ~ ~ : ) 2 1 B • , '(.. . \' :., :.i . · ,:•; · \..· J-, -;, : '; ~ :, , • c1 : :- h .:.~ i .. ~ .:- f ~-- h : -;. i n .:: ,- e a :; e , e f f t: ,.:· t . v e J o :", ,.: ct(· ')" 1 1 ~ :; :i ., ... 1 ~ ~ b e 3. 3 2-. 7~e a~~ve i~cr~a i:? r2f:i2ts actw a ~ ~ark cost i~c rea s~s bn~ t02s ~:T ,nc:u~i utilities ~. I·- .. ·1 . I -: I. ·- •. u ·:- .. ~ :: :. L . 1 : ";. ...: '..J ' : \.: ._ t. : ' • • .. .., ' .. ) j r1 • ~- i \ w t i c· C' ::<. r ; : ;_ ~ ~ -~ v i:: • .1 --· ... ·- • ' . L. : ~ ~- ~- i; , ., - '··. :_jc,.::·~1e,;·. ~.,tf.t.~.c.r, ..... .1.~ u . .: :~~:t..i~ .... :..:./. i-i-,J.~ L·j10,1~1£ i:,r.:c, .. 1tt:-=:t cf;-~Li..:1ve J61,:.:c.r1· 1, 1·:(3·t and "i:l r e n a i n so t~,r"·u•Jgh · De ce ab e r- 31, 1994. MEMORA NDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 22, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: city Council Jeff JorgensenW Mobile Home R/nf stabilization I have reviewed the attached letter dated December 7, 1993 from Leola Rubottom, which asserts that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by Municipal Code Section 5.44.60(E) [p.44:~60(E)J are in conflict with the Mobile Home Residency Law, and therefore invalid. CONCLUSION Municipal Code Section 5.44.060(E) Mobile Home Residency Law and is regulation. · ANALYSIS is not in conf 1 ict with the a val id subject of municipal It is correct that the Mobile Horne Residency Law, Civil Code Section 798.31, requires that, "a homeowner shall not be charged a fee for other than rent, utilities and incidental reasonable charges for services actually rendered." However, what constitutes rent, particularly under a rent control ordinance, is not preempted by state legislation and is left to the broad discretion of the local agency. Gregory v. City of San Juan Capistrano, 142 CA3d 72, 191 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983). In addition, in the absence of a rent control ordinance, rent can be established at whatever level the park owner determines, subject only to market forces. The only case addressing the issue raised by Leol~'s Jetter is Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Horne Estates, 1 Cal.App.4th 1066, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (1991). The Karrin case invalidated a rent control ordinance of the City of Oxnard which permitted a mobile home park owner to add a monthly capital improvement assessment to the monthly bill in addition to regular rent. The rent control ordinance specifically provides that such assessments should not be considered rent. The Court invalidated this provision because it directly conflicted with Civil Code Section 798.31. However, the Court was careful to point out that had the increase been added to rent rather than billed separately as an assessment, it would have be en valid . .... ATTACHMENT 2 C i t y C o u n c i l D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 9 3 P a g e T w o T h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M o b i l e H o m e R e n t S t a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e O x n a r d o r d i n a n c e w h i c h w a s in v a l i d a t e d i n K a r r i n . T h e a d j u s t m e n t s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o o r d i n a n c e a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y i n c l u d e d i n s p a c e r e n t a n d a r e n o t a s e p a r a t e fe e , c h a r g e , o r a s s e s _sm e n t . U n d e r t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i t ap p e a r s c l e a r t h a t t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M o b i l e H o m e R e n t St a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e i s v a l i d u n d e r t h e K a r r i n d e c i s i o n . (I n a d d i t i o n , t h e 60 d a y n o t i c e o f r e n t i n c r e a s e p r o v i d e d t o t h e t e n a n t s o f C r e e k s i d e M o b i l e H o m e C o m m u n i t y a p p e a r s t o m e e t t h e r e qu i r e m e n t s o f ou r o r d i n a n c e a s t o f o r m a n d e f f e c t ~) F i n a l l y ~ th e r e f e r e n c e t o C i v i l C o d e S e c t i o n 7 9 8 .. 4 3 (b ) d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o b e r e l e v a n t o r r e l a t e d t o t h e q u e s t Lon raised. If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. JGJ/sw attach. cc: Leola Rubottom Pat Fleming John Dunn . ,, ... San /...u.J.A O bu p o , CA o~cCJTIDVL 7, 1993 !lonoM.b!..e tlato1t 'i'i.Jvwu:l and Ci..i:J; Cvunc.i..l. ,~embe,u, o/ San Lu.iA Obupo, CA /~e: 7 he i.J.J.eg.al p<M-6 ilvr.o+. bw29- added to tAe base nerd: Lri C 1te.efw i.de t~vbLLelwme '?ciM Ji MA Oe.2/1. b1to~ to "llf ati:.eni:.J..vn t.h.at S eci.ioa 5. 44. 60, pOAar-,a.ph. "{_'' v/ the San Lui» Obupo '.o i~obLLeh.ome · 'i<.eAi..dV7.Clf LJ111) u, iri dinecs: conf-li.-ct will the [a.J.i../-o Nii.a ,ryobLLeh.ome f?eoi.d.ena; Law. ?0Aa9Mfh. "C' o/ Seci:J..r.m 5 J,4 .60 o/ ili.e San Lui» l}obLLeh.ome i?eoi.den9 Law d.afeo, "Space nerd: ma1f be a.ui.omalica.1.h; adjud .. ed baoed on }.nCIT.ea./.:,e/.> Iri ex.pe.n.6 e /01t comm on aAea ui.i. ... LLli..M, new 9-0 vennmer d: mandai.ed /.>elt vice,; 1 r;wz.ba'}'?- .ae..-wice. an.d cable telev.i.A.i.1.m duvie app.li..c.a.bl..e." Th« Ca.JJ./.vr.nJ...a "S:tat..e /l)obLLeh.ome 'Reoi..d..encJ;- law No. 798.4] Section (b) .aiate-6 "uhene ves. a homeounea u, 1te/.>pon,~i..bl..e ?JII. <jl16, oil. eleci.lT.J..c u.h"l..ii:J;. oenvi.ce., /1Ulfla'}eme.ni:. ,:,/1.ail c!.JJ.,cJ.o,:,e i..o :the h..cxneo/JYl.vt. be.j.vll.e i:.er1an.CJ;, uiw.,ie.vvc. i:Jz.e homeounen: 1 t, mece»: a..!Ao meaou/ieo <ja/2 _ 011. el..~ /.011. commorL a11.ea /aci 1) tie,:,, Olt ~~ I .i.ncl..u.~ ~. I /2.u, can be h.an.d!..ed b~ I~ ihehome- ()l!.r.e/l. f-O,t t.w;t_ pol1.f.}_on, <4 i:.Ji.e 4e-.vice to iJ..'<!.. (:OliililOn Qlt eM VIL W coni:J.Jw.e Ll./.:,- VUJ- ili.e mehvt on ili.e lwm.co!lYlvv., /.>lie f.01t u.i:.J..11lj_eo of- J)i.e co'Tlr.'.on a.r..ea {-a.cil..- : .J.: _. __ _/ • __ .J. II ~ QflJ:]. ~iup:n~ u. • Jn addi :lion to cv.U..ec.:ti.Ju; .i....ll ~ pa,M :llvr.v+- oUA ,ocvJ>. owie1t u, now 90-Ul.lj to add i:Ji.et,e pM,:, th.ll.oui)v., to t.h e ba.,~e 1teni:.. I /2.u, wLl..l. a.l!..vw ili.e .utC11.ea.aid 1teni f..¼u-te to be i:Jzo?. new bMe /0,7. c.aJ.CLJ..1..ati..v,v., of. /lent be.tJJ.mUfl.lJ nexi. ij£a/t, ?C/8 .} 1 of- :/:Jie .Sto..te /)o6LLe✓~ome ;?e,;i..den9 LJ111) .aw.i:.e,c,, ''rl h.ome01.:.Y?.e1t ,:,/2ali.. rwt be Ch.O.Jt,je.!. a /ee f-o1t v.th.eJT. t..h.an. 1teni. 1 u.t..i..J.J.il e.o and i..JzciJ.lerd.al.. 11.ecL/.)onabl..e J ,. • • ,. J JI/ CIUiAljeA f-011. .6VtV.{.Ce,a c..LU:.J .. /J.J.,U.Jj i{i2J1J...1.c.,·,e.,_,, • A ccv~ to "Ulv.d. 1 -6 Annotated [al..i/nlVl..i.a Code C onoli...t.uti..on, tllti:J..d..e 6, s ec:li..vn 5 I II ,:,i.a:le 1.au; ,6 u.pe.r..ced.e.o ~aJ_ 011. ci..i:J; !..aw. II U:e aJte cv.,hiJu; the Ii on . /: la~1t and ili.e (, oUflcLl me;nOe/1.,6 of. ili.e ~ 0(. San Luu, Obu,po to d.el..ete that_ p<Vti. of: Seci:J..on 5 ,44 .60 pQ/".aCj/W-/Jh. "{, 1 tl1.ai. i.A LU ~ aCCO/UUJlij- to (.)Ult jtaie i'lobueliome /?e,:,.i...d.v-to; law. T_ ~~ i;-ou. .ut ad.van.ce /01t. fOwt coM~ii.on • ... _ Sec. 798.11. "Resident" is a homeowner' or other person who lawfully occupies a mobile home. Sec. 798.12. "Tenancy" is the right of a homeowner to the use of a site within a mobile home park on which to locate, maintain, and occupy a mobile home, site improvements, and accessory structures for human habitation, including the use of the services and facilities of the park. Sec. 798.14 Unless otherwise provided, all notices required by this chapter shall be either delivered personally to the homeowner or deposited in the United States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the homeowner at his or her site within the mobilehome park. · ARTICLE 2. RENTAL AGREEMENT c... 38.15. The rental agreement shall be in writing and shall contain, in addition to the provisions otherwise required by law to be included, all of the following: (a) The term of the tenancy and the rent therefor. (b) The rules and regulations of the park. (c) A copy of the text of this chapter shall be attached as an exhibit and shall be incorporated into the rental agreement by reference. Management shall provide all homeowners with a copy of this chapter prior to February 1 of each year, if a significant change was made in the chapter by legislation enacted in the prior year. (d) A provision specifying that it is the responsibility of the management to provide and maintain physical improvements in the common facilities in good working order and condition. (e) A description of the physical improvements to be provided the home· owner during his or her tenancy. (f) A provision listing those services which will be provided at the time the rental agreement is executed and will continue to be offered for the term of the tenancy and the fees, if any, to be charged for those services. (r · provision stating that management may charge a reasonable fee for services relating to the maintenance of the land and premises upon which a mobilehome is situated in the event the homeowner fails to maintain such land or premises in accordance with the rules and regula- tions of the park after written notification to the homeowner and the failure of the homeowner to comply within 14 days. The written notice shall state the specific condition to be corrected and an estimate of the charges to be imposed by management if the services are performed by management or its agent. (h) A ll other provisions governing the tenancy. Sec. 798.16. The rental agreement may include such other provisions permitted by law, but need not include specific language contained in state or local laws not a part of this chapter. Sec. 798.17. (a) Rental agreements meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) shall be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local governmental entity which establishes a maximum amount that a landlord mav charqe a tenant for rent. The terms of such a rental agree- ment shall prevail over conflicting provisions of such an ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure limiting or restricting rents in mobile· home parks only during the term of the rental agreement or one or more uninterrupted, continuous extensions thereof. If the rental agreement is not extended and no new rental agreement in excess of 12 months' duration is entered into, then the last rental rate charged for the space under the previous rental agreement shall be the base rent for purposes of applicable provisions of law concerning rent regulation, if any. The first paragraph of a rental agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall contain a provision notifying the homeowner that the agreement will be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local governmental entity which esta- blishes a maximum amount that a landlord may charge a tenant for rent. (b) Rental agreements subject to this section shall meet all of the following criteria: (1) The rental agreement shall be in excess of 12 months' duration. (2) The rental agreement shall be entered into between the manage- . ment and a homeowner for the personal and actual residence of the homeowner. (3) The homeowner shall have at least 30 days from the date the rental agreement is first offered to the homeowner to accept or reject the agreement. · (4) The homeowner who executes a rental agreement offered pursuant to this section may void such agreement by notifying management in writing within 72 hours of the horneowner's execution of the rental agreement. · (c) The homeowner shall have the option to reject the offered rental agreement and instead accept a rental agreement for a term of 12 months or less from the date the offered agreement begins. In the event the homeowner elects to have a rental agreement for a term of 12 months or less, including a month-to-month agreement, the agree- ment shall contain the same "rental charges" terms and conditions as the offered rental agreement during the first 12 months, except for options contained in the offered rental agreement to extend or renew the agreement. (d) Nothing in subdivision (c) shall be construed to prohibit management from offering gifts of value, other than rental rate reductions, to home- owners who execute a rental agreement pursuant to this section. This section does not apply to or supersede other provisions of this part or other state law. Sec. 798.18: (a) A homeowner shall be offered a rental agreement for (1) a term of 12 months, or (2) a lesser period as the homeowner may request :or (3) a longer period as mutually agreed upon by both the homeowner and management. 1 (b) No such agreement shall contain any terms or conditions with respect to charges for rent, utilities, or incidental reasonable service charges that would be different during the first 12 months of the agreement from the corresponding terms or conditions that would be offered to the home- owners on a month-to-month basis. t-') E- :z; (..LJ ~ u i=; E- <i: , L e g i s l a t i v e D r a f t SLOMC § 5.44.0GO(E) E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to th~ space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. 12Jtsm:~:t;:~9::: ::::::~:2:tlM§§m@nt!i#.tit#::2:: ttiffe:tt§ttr::;1\1;n2iJigg2:rt llltz:r: :1n.1t:it lllilllfifH1$tij1::1Ijiliiliiilllllllllilllil!!li~t~ll11llliiillill:llilll §!~'.s:1:'i:W:!§n:ttt:§]@1 1::~::g'.9:Q!(:I§) :;:it tdiY:@:::::r: i§ggj£:@J{::tlf@ill]@:§h:iii.A,Hif !J~gJ::]\§.}t a:aa1t1onaJY\rent~···········Not·1ce······o·f·····the·····1ncrea·se····shaI1·····5e······1n Wf'itTrig' Krid'''''§'hgll be given as required by law no less than sixty days prior to any such increase being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase based ont his section. There shall only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. ORDINAN CE NO. (1994 Series) An Ord in ance of th e Cou ncil of the city of San Luis Ob isp o Am en d ing Chap t er 5.44 .0 60 (E ) of th e Sa n Lu is Obisp o Mu n icipa l Cod e Rela ting to Au tomatic A dju stm ents to Ren t in Mobile Hom e Park s BE IT OR DAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage' service and cable television, where applicable. The space rent may be adjusted by dividing the total increase in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-month period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the space rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park. Automatic adjustments to rent authorized by this paragraph E shall not be included in "base space rent" for the purpose of determining CPI increases pursuant to Section 5.44.060(B), but shall be considered as additional rent. Notice of the increase shall be in writing and shall be given as required by law no less than sixty days prior to any such increase being effective. The notice shall state the amount of the rent increase, the new space rent, the amount of the total increase in expenses and the nature of the expense. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administrative officer. The city administrative officer shall have the authority to resolve questions regarding computation of the space rent increase based on this section. There shall only be one such increase in any twelve-month period. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. Exhibit A Ord in ance No . (1 994 Se r ie s ) P ag e Tw o IN TR ODUCE D AN D PA SSE D TO PR IN T by the Counc il of th e City of S a n L u i s O b i s p o a t i t s m e e t i n g held on th e __ day of 1 9 9 4 , o n m o t i o n o f , s e c o n d e d b y ______________ , a n d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g r o l l ca ll vote : A y e s : N o e s : A b s e n t : M ay or Peg Pin ard A T T E S T : C i t y C l e r k , D i a n e G l a d w e l l APPROVED AS TO FORM: ORDINANCE NO. (1994 Series) An Ordinance of the council of the city of San Luis Obispo Deleting Chapter 5.44.060(E) .of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Relating to Automatic Adjustments to Rent in Mobile Home Parks BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5. 44. 060 (E) of the San Lu i.s Obispo Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and repealed. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the __ day of , 1994, on motion of , seconded by ______________ , and on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Mayor Peg Pinard ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladwell APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~/4r -- ij, ' ~ i A1;~ne~~ Exhibit B · .. : MEEl. J DATE ~-?-ff MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY May 18, 1994 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorneyff Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Automatic Adjustments Pursuant to 5.44.060(E) At the April 19, 1994 City Council meeting, the attached communication item from Leola Rubottom was referred to staff for an analysis and response. Leola has -requested the deletion of Section 5. 44. 060.(E) of the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which allows for automatic adjustments of rent based on "increases in expenses for common area utilities, new government- mandated services, garbage service and cable television .... " The apparent reason given for this request is that the owner of Creekside Mobile Home Park has offered long term leases which do not include automatic adjustments as set forth in 5.44.060(E). The inference is this constitutes a "discriminatory practice.'' A previous inquiry, which asserted that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by 5.44.060(E) are in conflict with the Mobile Home Residency Law (Civil Code§ 798.31) was submitted in December, 1993. (Attached for your information is the analysis of that previous correspondence.) CONCLUSION. The City Council has the authority to delete Municipal Code § 5.44.060(E) provided an adequate mechanism remains in the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to ensure a "fair return on investment." The fact that a park owner offers long-term leases with provisions different from the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance is not a "discriminatory practice." Therefore, should the Council wish to consider deletion of§ 5.44.060(E), it should do so on some basis other than an alleged discrimination. ANALYSIS 1. Does the city council have authority to delete the automatic adjustment provisions of§ S.44.060(E)? The Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was adopted by voter approval as an initiative measure in 1988. However, the city Council specifically retained the authority to amend the ordinance ... by majority vote(§ 5.44.141). Therefore, the City Council clearly has the authority to delete§ 5.44.060(E) should it choose to do so. However, it should also be noted that the validity of a rent control ordinance will rest upon whether the ordinance permits the landlord to earn a "just and reasonable return." A long line of court decisions support this fundamental requirement. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (1976); Carson Mobile Home Park Owners Assoc. v. City of Carson, 35 Cal.3d 184 (1983); Palos Verde Shores Mobile Estates, Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 142 Cal.App.3d 362 (1983); Fisher v. City of Berkeley, 37 Cal.3d 644 (1984); West Hollywood Concerned citizens v. city of West Hollywood, 232 Cal.App.3d 486 (1991). While no case has concretely defined the term "just and reasonable return," one court has described it as one which 11 ••• is high enough to encourage good management, reward efficiency and discourage the flight of capital and is commensurate with returns on comparable investments, but not so high as to defeat the purpose of preventing excessive rents." San Marcos Mobile Home Park Assoc. v. City of San Marcos, 192 Cal.App.3d 1492 (1987). Conversely, a denial of a just and reasonable return constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property which requires compensation. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley, 17 Cal.3d 129 (1976). The City's rent stabilization ordinance recognizes the need for balance by including in the Purpose and Intent section, the following provision: "Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative home sites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this Council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases while at the sam e time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, maintenance, insurance, utilities, employee serv ices, additional am enities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their investment." (§ 5.44.0l0(C). Emphasis added.) Most rent control ordinances allow an annual increase based on the percentage change on the consumer price index or a portion thereof (in the case of San Luis Obispo, 100% of the CPI up to 5% and 75% of the CPI in excess of 5%). However, even with an annual increase provision, a procedure must be provided by which an owner can seek an increase on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to 2 p r o v i d e a j u s t a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n . T h u s , t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o o r d i n a n c e a l s o p r o v i d e s f o r a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e n t a d j u s t m e n t o v e r a n d a b o v e t h e C P I i n c r e a s e , a n d a n y a u t o m a t i c a d j u s t m e n t s , w h e n a p p r o p r i a t e t o a s s u r e a f a i r a n d r e a s o n a b l e r e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t .· ( § SA 4 • 0 7 0 • ) Some cities provide for automatic adjustments in their rent control ordinances. Others do not. The potential advantage of automatic adjustments is the ease of administration which may result. The disadvantage is that the adjustments may result in slightly higher rents than a more complex and staff intensive hearing procedure. The difficulty with simply eliminating the automatic adjustment provisions of Section 5.44.060(E) is that while it may provide for a modest reduction in rent increases in the short term, it may also simply result in shifting requests for rent increases to the formal application process set forth in Section 5.44.070. I am unaware of any formal rent adjustment hearings having been held by the City since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted in 1988. Given the extremely contentious, time consuming, and litigious hearings held in many other cities, this may be an enviable record. In light of this, the Council may wish to determine whether there are significant reasons for changing the current balance in the ordinance prior to taking any action on this matter. 2 . D o e s t h e fa c t t h a t a p a r k o w ne r of fers long -t e rm le a s e s wit h p r o v i s i o n s di f f e r en t fr om t h e p rov i s i on s of th e Ren t Stab i li zatio n O r d i n an ce c o n st i t u t e a ••d is c r im i n at or y p r a c t i c e "? Whether a park owner decides to off er a long term lease, and whether a tenant decides to accept such a lease, is a purely private, voluntary decision between the parties which has nothing to do with discrimination and is largely beyond the ability of the City to regulate. A park owner is not obligated to offer a long term lease, but has a right to, and if such a lease otherwise complies with the provisions of Civil Code§ 798.17(G) the owner " shall be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local government entity .... 11 (Civil Code§ 798.17(A) .) The owner's decision may be motivated by a number of reasons (such as stability and predictability), but generally will be based upon the perceived economic benefit of a lease as opposed to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. On the other hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long term lease, and may opt for the protection of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance if the tenant perceives a greater economic benefit in doing so. It depends upon the relative value of benefits offered in the lease. In both instances, it is a matter of choice based upon the terms and conditions of the entire agreement. To call such a process of negotiation a "discriminatory practice" does not seem to be a supportable premise. Further, to single out one provision of a long term lease as a reason for amending the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to delete automatic adjustments would essentially 3 • p e n a l i z e ow n e r s fo r o f f e r i n g lo n g t e rm l e a s e s t h a t d o n o t e x a c t l y m i r r o r t h e o r d i n a n c e , a n d m a y t a k e a w a y i n c e n t i v e s t o o f f e r s u c h l e a s e s a t a l l . RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis, it is respectfully recommended that § 544.060(E) not be deleted based upon an unsupported notion of "discriminatory practice." Issues which might properly support such a deletion would include whether the automatic adjustments have resulted in excessive rent increases or have been abused. I am unaware of any such instances having been brought to the attention of the City. JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Deb Hossli Attachments: 1. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 18, 1994 2. J~ff Jorgensen Memo, dated December 22, 1993 3. California Civil Code§ 798.15, et seq. 4 San Lui» Obi.AP.a, (,A Apill 18, 19<;4 · 11vrw 1ea bl..e /1/aJJ-olr. 'PiJvi.alrd. and [i.,ti; [ounci.1. /l)em beJL6 o/ .San. Lui» Obi.Apo, [ti Re: The ~-6 i:lvr.ow.,;)u, beuu; added :to the base: neni: · in (_Jceeluii.de. /1/obli.elwme 'i'a.M Acco~ :to a ''Si.xtJ;-IJaJJ tVoi.i..ce. ~/. a 'l?eni:. J.n CJt ~J.' daJ:.ed Od.. 2], 199], [1t.ee/u,.i..de Jr.eni:.eM i:lzai. have not ,,:,4Jned 1.eati eA wW.. ha ve the 1993 piu,.6 i:lvr.o+. fu :ted ,,:,q:xvuii:.eu; on. i:h.e nerd: ,,:,i:.ai:.emen:t and wW.. be i.n.clud.ed iri tlie. base: nerd., · . The ~,,:, i:lvr.v+ :thai:. uene: fu :ted. and ef./.e ci:.i.. ve :}a.nuaJClj 1 , 1994 we.Jr£. bas ed on i:li e cod o/. common anea ~, IU!.lJJ c;ove/VIJTl en:t mandated. -1e1r. v Lee» 1 <jGA ba',}£- -6eJr. v Le e , eic: to the pa;rk. OIUU:Vt.. Tlie new 1994 base nerd: conocsced o/ 1:h.e. cunnerd: nerd: in. 199] p-UL6 iAe. C .~) .J. incn eas e of. 2Jo and the cu/oierd: 19</J pcuu, i:lvr.01.1.ifa . Tk 1995 [.i>,J., /.oil. dhose not on Leaoeo , wi.1.1.. be baaed on iAe. new nerd: /J.tJwie pi.w., aru; new pM -6 :tlvr.our;Ju,. We Jr.e-6ped/aJ.4 1tepi.e.6t ih.e del.~n v/. ( c, .) oeccion. o/. 5. 44 .(~0 of. ilie tlJobli.eh.orne nent Stabiliyiii.on UJUl.ijl.{1fu:,e. f.o1r. San LLUA Obi.Apo i.hai.. ail oux, /.o1t :ilu.A diACIU.llLUU1:f.01Uj pllaci:.i.c.e.. Si.n.c.fV!-Wf' _Y-) // ·-fJ-e_·--· C.?j_e.-a,--12~-- - - /f--<---~-C- t",-,-•--- Leol.a Ruhottom ~960 Svui:h 111-f!U eAa 1 Space 21 .5an. i..u,u, ObLopo, (II 9 ]401 f_ncl v-6ed : Si.xi:J; DaJJ 1Voti.c.R. o/ i?eni. 8nc1teMe ~Jr. i.h.o,,:,e not on Lecu,e,,:,. S-i.xiJ; IJaJJ /Vot.i.ce v/. nent JnC1CeMe {o1t i:.h.o-6e on Lecu,et, • ATTACHMENT 1 C ~E E P-S : G: MOB ILEHOME COMMUl-l: TY .. . 2~1~.0 3. HIGUERA STREl.7 ~H~ LUi~ CB!SPO, er ~j~Jl SIXTY DAY NOTICE OF RENT INCRE~SE Dear f(2~ident: City of San Luis Obispo ~obile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, Chapter 5.44 allows for rents to be adjusted annually. This letter· is notice of such adjustment. Fro~ Augustt 1992 lo Auyusl1 1993 the Consumer Price Index moved from 11J4, 1 to .:i.;.::, 6 1-.hicii 1 s a 2. IZ:i~ 1 ncr e as e , Therefore, y our- current rent wi 11 be increased by ~4.9~ which is the increase in the CPI. The 15S3 pass thru of ,s.51 currently listed sep~ralely on your rent statement will be included in your new base rent. In adc i t i o n , Section 5,44.0601 Par·agraph E. allows "Space rent lliay be auto~atically adjusted based on incr~ases in expens2s for• co111mon area utilities, new gi.•·.i~r,,mt:nt 16c:,ndated s erv rce s , gar·ba!;e service .•• ", Ir, add i t i o n , Section !:i.4tt.0&ili1 ;:-aragraph E. further states, "The space rent 111ay be adjusted by dividing the total increase in any such expenses incurred during a twelve-111onth period by twelve, less the percentage in the CPI index for the twelve-Month period. The quotient shall be allocated to the s~ace rent for each space in the park based on the amount the space rent relates to total space rent for the park." The additional park costs under this section are as follc~~-: Par~ cost for 2lectriciLy ~ncreased by i9~5.50, "7hc ~c:ii'K co s t ~ r,, ..... j ',,,J, u1.1mp fees by $21 823, 62. Y~: .. 1: ;:-i'u}.jC•:·t.=.:.,ia: :2h.::-.r1: ~;f ~hi·;, i ncr e as e , efft:ct.ve Joi·,1.\c:\r''y' l, ~·=J~:.:. .·,1ll be 5.3~. 7he a~Gve increaie r2f:e2ts actya~ ,:iark cost increases ~n~ ~~es NOT inc:u(e utilities :Jt) ~ ~ ;:::.• ·:·, •G ~ ndr,~ .: , ~.-· , .... L"; cc.~!~, i .• ... ·,· ,.:. •. . I':<: r', 1 ~; ~; ·➔ ... t :.'; ·-~ i; !' e !it, \Ari',~ 1..:·i-1 - ~ ~., ~ : ~ 3 2 ;-.,u:.,;., ;~ -; .-- ., a:1L ~- h c t o L he ,:i r o,,, i "' i ,_, ,L, . ., • • , • .: .-_. ·-' n ~ J s. t ·.:. . .:, r , J •• .-- .._ :_._ ( ~ · :: i , -;_ :~--~;·; :...,.Ii S •: ,1 \; I t i ',I: ::.:;1:,.:·~1c,;·, ::,, 44, i.::,ol:-, ... .,~ J;i ;.;~:i:;-(.,, ~/. i'i,d':> C:il611~-= i:,;.;(:,Jillt:c. ~r: 2ci,;1ve jc:,i,Uc,l'y' 1, 1j'3•+ and will r e aa i n so t~1ro•.igh· Dec-ember 31, 1994. CREEKSIDE MOBILEHOME COMMUNITY 3560 S. HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Space: ... , /J,:,1-,6/v "'-',,'Je_ October 1593 SIXTY DAY NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE Dear Resident: The Lease provides for rents to be adjusted annually on January 1st. This letter is notice of such adjustment. Fro,11 A,Jgust, 1992 to August, 1993 the Con sus er- Price Index applicable to .the Lease ~oved fro~ 434. 1 to 442.8 which is a 2.0~ increase. Th er-e f or-e , your r·•~ilt 1·,ill be increased b1· 15. 47 to $278. 79. The ~ease further provides For pass thrus of costs related directly to the park costs as further adjusted for inflation. These costs include·utilities, government services and fees, which this year affects electricity, gas, wat.er, trash and government fee·;,, All increases and d acr-e as e s listed have been adjusted for the CPI. Park us e of electricity has risen slightly and the commodity-cost has again risen, resulting in an overall i ncr-e a s e , Therefore, last year's pass thru of $1.86 will increase by $,35 to $2,21. While the cost of gas hai increased this y~ar, the park's consumption of gas to heat the recreation bu i l d i nq , swiuing pool and spa has again decr-e a s ed , Your- prorata sh~re of this decrease is a S 1.24 per month reduction for a new pass thru of S2.27. This year· bath water consumption clnd the com~odity cost have increased· dra~atically. Your ~rorata share of this increase is S4.35 per month for a total water pass thru of 15.66. The cost for du~p f~es will increase an additional $1, 10 for a total pass thru of $2.06. Thi per~it to cp~rate fee this year remained the same. Adjusting last year's cost for CPI results in a prorata decrease of l , 1211 for a total Government fees pass 1,v thrt, of $,32. The property' t ax a s s e s s a e nt s will re,11ain at $1.02. o>" ✓,-~~€/ Your pa s s !;hrc:.1f;h, effe,::ti'le Janr .. ary 11 19g4 will be $13,54 and will be listed jeparately on your ren~ state•ent and will not ·be subject to CPI increases, All of the ab~ve pass thrus reflect actu~l cost incre~ses and do NOT include utilities and other charg~~ o i l l ad d i re c t l y to you. Doc: .. a ent at i cn for the pass t hr-u s is av a i Lab l e at the park offi~e. This notice applies to all ;•esidents und er- the W provisions of the San ~uis Obisµo Rent C0ntrul Or~inance. The Base Rdnt bdco~es effective for January 1, 1994 and will remain so through Decs nb ar 311 1994. · Sii1cer·ely, Pat Fleming, Mar,ager MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 22, 1993 TO: F RO M : S UBJ E C T : City Council Jeff Jorgensen~ Mobile Home R/nf Stabilization I have reviewed the attached letter dated December 7, 1993 from Leola Rubottom, which asserts that the automatic rent adjustments allowed by Municipal Code Section 5.44.60(E) [5.44.060(E)] are in conflict with the Mobile Home Residency Law, and therefore invalid. CONCLUSION Municipal Code Section 5. 44. 060 (E) is not in conflict with the Mobile Home Residency Law and is a valid subject of municipal regulation. · ANALYSIS It is correct that the Mobile Home Residency- Law, · Civil Code Section 798.31, requires that, "a homeowner shall not be charged a fee for other than rent, utilities and incidental reasonable charges for services actually rendered." However, what constitutes rent, particularly under a rent control ordinance, is not preempted by state legislation and is left to the broad discretion of the local agency. Gregory v. city of San Juan Capistrano, 142 CA3d 72, 191 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1983). In addition, in the absence of a rent control ordinance, rent can be established at whatever level the park owner determines, subject only to market forces. The only case addressing the issue raised by Leola's letter is Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Home Estates, 1 Cal.App.4th 1066, ~ Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (1991). The Karrin case invalidated a rent control ordinance of the city of Oxnard which permitted a mobile home park owner to add a monthly capital improvement assessment to the monthly bill in addition to regular rent. The rent control ordinance specifically provides that such assessments should not be considered rent. The Court invalidated this provision because it directly conflicted with civil Code Section 798.31. However, the Court was careful to point out that had.the increase been added to rent rather than billed separately as an assessment, it would have been valid. ATTACHMENT 2 C i t y C o u n c i l D e c e m b e r 2 2 , 1 9 9 3 P a g e T w o T h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M o b i l e H o rn e R e n t S t a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e O x n a r d o r d i n a n c e w h i c h w a s i n v a l i d a t e d i n K a r r i n . T h e a d j u s t m e n t s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o o r d i n a n c e a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y i n c l u d e d i n s p a c e r e n t a n d a r e n o t a s e p a r a t e f e e , c h a r g e , o r a s s e s s m e n t . U n d e r t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i t a p p e a r s c l e a r t h a t t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M o b i l e H o rn e R e n t S t a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e i s v a l i d u n d e r t h e K a r r i n d e c i s i o n . (I n a d d i t i o n , t h e 6 0 d a y n o t i c e o f r e n t i n c r e a s e p r o v i d e d t o t h e t e n a n t s o f C r e e k s i d e M o b i l e H o rn e C o rn rn u n i t y a p p e a r s t o m e e t t h e r e qu i r e m e n t s o f o u r o r d i n a n c e a s t o f o r m a n d e f f e c t .) F i n a l l y , t h e r e f e r e n c e t o C i v i l C o d e S e c t i o n 7 9 8 .4 3 (b ) d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o b e r e l e v a n t o r r e l a t e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n r a i s e d . I f y o u h a v e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s o r c o m m e n t s , p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t m e a t y o u r c o n v e n i e n c e . J G J /s w a t t a c h . c c : L e o l a R u b o t t o m P a t F l e m i n g J o h n D u n n San Lui.A Obu,po, CA Dccemb e.tt ?, 1993 llono11.C1.b.le /t)aifolt 'P.i.mlaltd. and Ci..i:.J; Counc.U. i~embeM of. San Lui» Obu,po, CA Re: 7 lie W egaJ.. fXlA-6 iM.o+ bei.ru; added i.o :t.h.e base nerd: Iri C 1teeh.tii.de /ijobi.1..eh.ome 7>aAh. Jt. has been. b1to~ to nu; atienl:.i .. o~ t.hai:. Secti..on. 5 .44 .60, panaqnaph: "c" ot ihe. San Lui» Obu,po '.o (f/obi.J..eh.orne J?e,,1i..d.en.c.!f LJ1JJJ i» iri dineci: conµ;.,c:t wi..i1z. th.e Ca,u_/-oNWJ. l~obLl..eh.ome 'Re.oi.t:l.enc.J; Law. 'PCJJr.a.ri-afh. "c," o/ Secti..vn. 5 .44 ,60 of. the San Lui» (:)obi.l.eh.ome Ne.o.i..d.et1.Clj Law »iaie», ''Spac.e nerd: mm; be GJ..d omati..cal11f adjw.,te.d. based. on. incneaee» in. expen.,oe /01t comm on a1t ea ui:.i l..i liet>, new <JOVfVt.l'IITle11.i mandai.ed .oe1tv.Lceo, <jWtlxi.c;e- .oe1tv.Lce and ca ble te/..ev.u,i.on. duvr.e app.cica bc e;" 7/2.e [aJJ./.oNW:1. :Si:ai.e /r1obi.l.eh.ome f<e1i.denq;. Law No. 798.43 Sed..i..on. (b} .of.ate6 "uhene ven. a hon eoua er: i» 1te1pon..o i.h .l..e. p1t ()G-.O, 01t e.lecf.JrJJ:. ~ senvice , mana.~ .oliall du.,c!,o.oe t.o t.Ae haneouner: bef.o1te tenan.CJ;, dien.eve1t th.e homeounea '.o meden: al.Ao measunes <;o..o Olt eL~ /.01t common a1t ea f.aci Li :li..e,,1, 01t ~, .i.n.c.lllcl.uu ~• lh.u, can be h.Jn.dt.ed. b'f ,~ Vieh.ome- own.e/C. f.01r. tJ,.at poilion. o/. the .6e-tv.i.ce t.o i:Ae ,;:.o,(ll/2on. a;r.ea.o 01t di.:t,con.:ti..nue. u.o- ~ th.e me:f.e.Jr. on th.e h.o me.011Y1.eM .oile /01t uti li..t .i..iv., of- .Die com mon cvr.ea f.a.cLl..- i..t.i.v., and epu.prnen.t. " Jn ad.di ti vn i:.v coilec±JJu; i.11.e;;al pa,M i:.Mv+ owr. p<Vth. Ol1Y1.elt .L.o now 9-0.i.Ju;_ to add t.Ae.oe ~.o i:.Mourj)v., to ih.e lxu,e 1r.en.t. I /2..i..o wLll.. aJ..J..vw i:.h.e .i.nCJtea.oed 1teni. ~e tv be i:.h.o:?. new ba.oe f.o11. cal..cul.a:li..orv., of- 11.enl:. b~UJl.9- next ~• ?C/8 .]1 o/ i:h.e .Si:ai.e /lobi.1 .. e.lwme i7.e1.i..d.en9 Law .oi.ate.o, ''A h.ome()(J;f7.eJt .ohail rwt be ch.aJc~ a f..ee. f»1r. oi:h.e1t i:.h.an ;r.eni., t.d:J..J.J...:l e.o and .i.,zci..deni.al.. 1r.ea.o ona b.l..e. du:vr.,;e.o /01t .ovr.v.i.ceo u.cl:.u.a..U.ij 11.&id&led." 7 /ze pa,M iM.ou(jM h.ave been W~ .o.i.nce t./2.e.i.;r. .i.ncep:ti..on accolUU..nij tv owe. ;1ove/UU.111J Si:ai.e fliobi...le.h.ome f<e.oi.t:l.enc.J; Lam . Acco~ i:.o "Weoi:. '.o An.nr;,i:.ated. Cailf.oMi.a Code Cv,ud:.ii.ut.i on, Alti:J...c.1..e 6, Secti..on. 5, ".oi:.ai:.e .law .oupe1tced.e.o ~a.l 011. cli:.J;. .law . 11 We a1t e a.ohJ.m; :l:h.e lion. /lla~1t aJld. th.e (,OIJfl.Ci.l. rnembe;u, of- th.e c.:-J1/; o/ San. 1...ui...o Ob.L.opo to du.e:i:.e. t.h.a1_ p:vr.i. o/ Sec:ti..on 5. 44 .60. pa1ta<]lt0fh. 'c ' th.at. .L.o Wecpl acco/CJUJUj, to owr. .Si.ate /i)vbLl..ehorne 'Re.oi.t.Len.CJ; Law . 7 h.a,~ v,ou .i.n advance fOlt v,owr. coM~on. Sjgvr.~, _/7 ~ ---nr--· ~-f'-- ~-,::r-t,--t-~-- Z!.eot.a f<ubottom Sec. 798.11. ... "Resident" is a homeowner or other person who lawfully occupies a mobile home. Sec. 798.12. "Tenancy" is the right of a homeowner to the use of a site within a mobilehome park on which to locate, maintain, and occupy a mobilehome, site improvements, and accessory structures for human habitation, including the use of the services and facilities of the park. Sec. 798.14 Unless otherwise provided, all notices required by this chapter shall be . i either delivered personally to the homeowner or deposited in the United I States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to the homeowner at his or her site I within the mobilehome park. ARTICLE 2. RENTAL AGREEMENT -. 798.15. 1e rental agreement shall be in writing and shall contain, in addition to the provisions otherwise required by law to be included, all of the following: (a) The term of the tenancy and the rent therefor. (b) The rules and regulations of the park. (c) A copy of the text of this chapter shall be attached as an exhibit and shall be incorporated into the rental agreement by reference. Management shall provide all homeowners with a copy of this chapter prior to February 1 of each year, if a significant change was made in the chapter by legislation enacted in the prior. year. (d) A provision specifying that it is the responsibility of the management to provide and maintain physical improvements in the common facilities in good working order and condition. (e) A description of the physical improvements to be provided the home- owner during his or her tenancy. (f) A provision listing those services which will be provided at the time the rental agreement is executed and will continue to be offered for the term of the tenancy and the fees, if any, to be charged for those services. (r' A provision stating that management may charge a reasonable fee for ~ervices relating to the maintenance of the land and premises upon zhich a mobilehome is situated in the event the homeowner fails to maintain such land or premises in accordance with the rules and regula- tions of the park after written notification to the homeowner and the failure of the homeowner to comply within 14 days. The written notice shall state the specific condition to be corrected and an estimate of the charges to be imposed by management if the services are performed by management or its agent. (h) All other provisions governing the tenancy. Sec. 798.16. The rental agreement may include such other provisions permitted by law, but need not include specific language contained in state or local laws not a part of this chapter. Sec. 798.17. ~a} · Rental agreements meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) shall be exempt ' from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any · local gover-vn ental entity which establishes a maximum amount that a landlord n .harge a tenant for rent. The terms of such a rental agree· 2 < ment shall prevail over conflicting provisions of such an ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure limiting or restricting rents in mobile- home parks only during the term of the rental agreement or one or more uninterrupted, continuous extensions thereof. If the rental agreement is not extended and no new rental agreement in excess of 12 months' duration is entered into, then the last rental rate charged for the space under the previous rental agreement shall be the base rent for purposes of applicable provisions of law concerning rent regulation, if any. The first paragraph of a rental agreement entered into pursuant to this section shall contain a provision notifying the homeowner that the agreement will be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or initiative measure adopted by any local governmental entity which esta- blishes a maximum amount that a landlord may charge a tenant for rent. (b) Rental agreements subject to this section shall meet all of the following criteria: (1) The rental agreement shall be in excess of 12 months' duration. (2) The rental agreement shall be entered into between the manage- . ment and a homeowner for the personal and actual residence of the homeowner. · (3) The homeowner shall have at least 30 days from the date the rental agreement is first offered to the homeowner to accept or reject the agreement. · (4) The homeowner who executes a rental agreement offered pursuant to this section may void such agreement by notifying management in writing within 72 hours of the homeowner's execution of the rental agreement. . · (c) The homeowner shall have the option to reject the offered rental agreement and instead accept a rental agreement for a term of 12 months or less from the date the offered agreement begins. In the event the homeowner elects to have a rental agreement for a term of 12 months or less, including a month-to-month agreement, the agree- ment shall contain the same "rental charges" term s and conditions as the offered rental agreement during the first 12 months, except for options contained in the offered rental agreement to extend or renew the agreement. (d) Nothing in subdivision (c) shall be construed to prohibit management from offering gifts of value, other than rental rate reductions, to home- owners who execute a rental agreement pursuant to this section. This section does not apply to or supersede other provisions of this part or other state law. Sec. 798.18: (a) A homeowner shall be offered a rental agreement for (1) a term of 12 months, or (2) a lesser period as the homeowner may request or (3) a longer period as mutually agreed upon by both the homeowner and management. (b) No such agreement shall contain any terms or conditions with respect to charges for rent, utilities, or incidental reasonable service charges that would be different during the first 12 months of the agreement from the corresponding term s or conditions that would be offered to the home- owners on a month-to-month basis. ~ t ~ ~ "1 I") E-< z UJ ~ u ~ ~ !c {lflJ ~ R ENT O NT RO L: INV IN t HO U SIN G or landlords hying to get rid of rent contro l in M assachu- setts, D enise Jillson was the perfe ct poster girl. Jill son, a youth fu l worki ng m other who rented out a fo ur -fa m ily house in Cam - bridge, projected an im age th at was about as far from th at of th e rapacious sluml ord as one could get. She crisscro ssed the Bay State in 1994, w ooing support for a ballot initiative that would finally drive a stake through rent contro l's hear t. W hile m ost of th e m oney for the cam - paign had com e from corp ora te landlords with hundreds-e ven thousands-of rental uni ts, it was Jillson' s fa ce th at M as sa- chusetts saw in newspapers, on televi sion and at town m eetings. An d she went arm ed w ith powerfu l am m unition, such as th e fact th at Cam bridge's m ayor, a lawy er, was hi m - self gettin g a deal in a rent-controlled apart- m ent at $425 a m onth. The once-strong tenant gro ups of Cam bridge, Bosten and Bro okli ne, th e onl y thr ee places in th e state that had rent control, stru ggl ed to respond. O n Election D ay, th e landlords w on by a hair, 51 to 49 percent. It wasn't the first tim e M assachusetts 1994 battle in M assachusetts, however, control is essential to m ain tainin g a mi ddle- th e landlords' fo rtu nes have im proved. class character in hot real estate markets. One year later, the Californ ia legisla- "W ithout rent control, M anh attan woul d be ture severely diluted rent law s in such m ore monolithi c an d less interestin g," says stro ngholds as Berkeley and Santa M on- M ichael M cKee, the policy di rector of the ica. Last year, Ill inois becam e the 33rd New York Tenants & Neighbors Associa- state to ban local govern m ents from tion, th e state's largest tenant gro up. "It adopting rent control, Even in New York all ows people wi th wil dly different in come State, where a noisy 1997 campaign to levels to live next door to each other." end rent contro l hit a human blockade- The landlords argue that they should New York City's 2.7 m illion rent-con- notbefo rcedtosubsidi zeth atgoal.M ore - tro lled tenants-landlords managed to over, they say, rent contro l makes reno- eke out a few concessions. vating old units or building new ones Rent contro l was never in tended to have unpro fitable. An d that, they argu e, tight- such stayin g power. e-ns th e rental mar- It began as an em er- [l] C H R I S T O P H f R S W O P f ket, especially in gency warti m e m ea- places such as New sur e to address housing shortages, Several York, where finding an apartm ent is places adopted it during the First W orld already tougher th an finding a job. W ar, and the federal govern ment applied Ironi cally, landlords in California brough t it nationally dur ing W orld W ar II, along rent contro l on themselves. W hen the tax - w ith other price contro ls. Aft er W orld W ar limi tin g ini tiative Proposition 13 was on th e II, however, onl y New York State kept rent ball ot in 1978, landl ords promi sed tenan ts contro l in place. that lower property taxes would be passed Three decades after the war, however, on to th em in lower rents. But after Prop. rent contro l came back in vogu e as a 13 passed, rents contin ued upwar d, an d ten- response to ram pant inflation. New York an ts ralli ed aroun d loc al rent co ntro l. greatly exp an ded its rent laws, an d enablin g Since th en, Californ ia landlords have law s passed in M assachusetts, Californ ia, battl ed rent co ntrol vociferously at both the N ew Jersey, M aryland and W ashington, local and state levels. Beginning in 19 83, Landlords have long fought to abolish rent controls, and they've almost always lost. But lately things have begun to go their way. landlords had tried to kill rent contro l. Their assaults, from local referenda to law - suits, began as soon as th e state passed its enabling law in 1970. They won som e early efforts to water dow n rent control in Boston and Bro okl ine, but still the law s stu ck. "T he in itiative was our only option left," says Jill son. "The reality w as, we'd tri ed everythin g else and fail ed." U ntil recently, that was the case just about every w here. Lan dl ords have always despised rent contro l an d have fo ught bit- terly to abolish it in the sm attering of states that allow localities to have it. But re nt contro l, bolstered by the support of legions of tenants, m any of whom have benefited from it fo r decades, alw ays seem ed invincible. Beginning with the D .C. M ore than 200 towns and cities sub- sequently adopted rent-control laws. The laws, kn own in some places as rent "stabiliza tion," tak e m an y fo rms, but in all cases the intent is the sam e: to cap the am ount by whi ch landl ords can raise rent. Som etim es, th e cap is written in to law, but in m ost cases, a local rent board sets th e cap each year. Stronger laws maintain low re nts even when a tenan t m oves out, an d all ow depart- ing tenants to pass th eir rent-controlled apartm ents on to relatives or roomm ates. W eak er laws, such as "vacan cy recontrol," let rents rise to th e m arket ra te at th e start of each new tenan cy, an d m ay restri ct han d- m e-downs. Tenant gro ups argu e th at stro ng re nt Jim Costa, a Dem oc ratic As semblym an an d later senator, introduced a bill every year to weaken th e strict er rent-contro l ordi- nances in thestate, Costa's legislation was quashed year after year by th e powerfu l Senate president pro tern, Democrat David • Roberti . "Roberti told th e lan dl ords th at we had a reasonable fo rm of rent control, and not on bis watch woul d he see it lift ed," says Christine M innehan, a lobbyi st for th e . W estern Center on La w and Poverty and Roberti ' s fo rm er adviser on the issue. The landlords di dn't stop twi sting arms· an d fillin g cam paign coffers in Sacram ento, however, and over tim e, th e equation turn ed in th eir favor. Roberti was term - lim ited out of offi ce in 1995. The once- pow erfu l tenant movem ent of the 1970s 28 G D V E R N I N G January 1998 · IBLE NO MOR E declined considerably. And the politically liberal days of Democratic Governor Jeny Brown gave way to a more conservative era under Republican Pete Wilson. "The landlords really hung in there," says Peter Dreier, a rent-control expert at Occidental College in Los Angeles. 'They kept themselves in the game, so when ten- ant organizations began to wither and the political climate changed, they could use rent control as a symbol of what's wrong with government." It was all the grease the Costa bill needed, and it slid through the legislature in 1995 with barely a whimper of opposi- tion. The primary impact fell on Santa Monica, Berkeley, West Hol- lywood, Cotati and East Palo Alto. Those cities, which had the strictest rent laws in the state, were forced to accept the much-weaker vacancy recon- trol version used in several other Califor- nia cities by 1999. With this wind at their backs, landlords thought the time was right to take on rent control in its greatest bastion, New York And the climate was better than at any time in recent memory: Anti-rent- control Republicans held both the gover- nor's mansion and the state Senate. In December 1996, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno unleashed a storm of his own before a roomful of cheering landlords: If the Democratic-controlled Assembly balked at his plan to completely end rent control in two years, he said, he would kill any effort to renew the laws, _ ~ which otherwise would expire . on June 15, 1997. - Bruno's ultimatum, how- ever, galvanized tenant groups in New York City, where almost all of the state's 1.2 million rent-con- trolled apartments are. "Joe Bruno did us a big favor," says tenant advo- cate McKee. "By April, there was hardly a tenant anywhere down- state that didn't know this was an issue coming up." Tenant groups lobbied downstate GOP senators with lots of renters in their districts. They formed an alliance with labor unions, which sent masses of pro- testers to Albany and kicked in some cash. The key, however, was television advertising aimed at Republi- can Governor George E. Pataki. Although . Pataki hadn't taken a position on the issue, tenants knew he stood with the landlords. They accused Pataki and U.S. Senator Alfonse D' Amato of masterminding the assault on rent control. Meanwhile, landlord leaders fractured around different strategies and never aggressively waged a public response. They were used to fighting their battles behind the scenes with campaign cash and arm-twisting. Instead, they got a media spectacle that rarely reflected them favor- ably. "All the headlines were scare stories, that if regulations ended everyone would be on the streets," says Dan Margulies, executive director of the Community Housing Improvement Program, a land- lord group. In May, Pataki broke his silence and weighed in with a plan known as vacancy decontrol. More moderate than Bruno' s two-years-and-die approach, vacancy decontrol would regulate units out of the system as tenants move out. Eventually, it would achieve Bruno's goal: the end of rent control. Sheldon Silver, the Democratic Assem- bly speaker, rejected the plan, and a stare- down in Albany continued. With the June 15 deadline looming, screaming headlines ticked down the days to crisis, and polls showed Pataki taking a pounding for not resolving the issue. Thousands of scared · tenants flooded legal help hotlines, fueling the tension. Finally, Pataki blinked. An agreement was announced at 2 a.m. on June 16 that will keep rent con- trol alive in New York-at least for another six years, when the laws are set to expire again. But the agreement was far from a total victory for rent-control advocates. It allowed landlords larger rent increases on regulated units; and killed hand-me-down rights to nieces, nephews, aunts and uncles. A sweet- ener included long-sought advantages in housing court that tenant groups despised. Yet even though they gained some ground, New York landlords were clearly disappointed that they didn't get more. "Keeping the battle behind the scenes didn't work in past years, and having it up front didn't work this time," Margulies says. "Neither seems to work in New York, where you just have such an entrenched group of tenants and a bunch of ele.cted officials who run scared on this issue." m A11nie Lunsford illustration ;,- January 1998 G D V f R N I N G 29 11 1)\ll\\1 City or san LUIS OBISPO ,ii COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: 11/12/92 r. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ORIGINATED BY: Jeff Jorgensen cf{ MEETING DATE: 12/1/92 SUBJECT: Amendments Ordinance Public Hearing Business RECOMMENDATION(S): Give Final Passage to Ordinance No. 1228 (1992 Series) Amending Chapter 5.44 Part I (white) form rrust be submitted to the City Clerk's Office on the Friday before the Tuesday Agenda Review meeting. Please forward names and addresses of property owners, appellants, subdividers, applicants, or any parties who rrust be notified about this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if possible. I. llhite: Prelim Notification Slip II. Canary: Agenda Report Rou ting Slip III. Pink: Department Copy ,:i:)::::l\\l~lilll\\Wi1l',imil~\\1 city o~ san Luis osispo · Sa tt'.~.r, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1✓,Ecflr\'G DATE: 12-1-92 ITE!,'i NUMBER: FROM: SUBJECT: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorneyj~ Amendments to The Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance Concerning Exemptions for Parks with 66.67% of Spaces Under Lease Agreements and Parks With Condominium ownership CAO RECOMMENDATION: Give Final Passage to Ordinance No~ 1228 (1992 Series) Amending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to. Delete Exemptions 5.44.0J0(F) and (G) and Add a New Exemption (F) Concerning Condominium ownership. SUMMARY DISCUSSION: On November 10, 1992, the City Council passed to print an amendment of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 5.44.030, to delete the exemption for parks with 66.67% of spaces under lease agreements from the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and to modify the exemption for parks with condominium ownership so that the exemption would only apply where the dwelling unit and the underlying interest in the space it is located upon are in the same ownership. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no anticipated impact on City funding, either in terms or expense or savings, with the exception of potential litigation. Costs of any such litigation are too speculative to project at this time. JGJ/sw Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 1228 (1992 Series) 2. Legislative Draft ORDINAN CE NO. 1228 (1992 Series) An Ordinance of the council of the city of San Luis Obispo Am ending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to Delete Exemptions 5.44.030F and G From Mobile Home Park Rent stabilization. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.030 Exemptions, is hereby amended to delete subparagraphs F and G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code so that the new Section 5.44.030 shall read as follows: 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United states Government, the state of California, or the County of San Luis Obispo; C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. order to first qualify for this exemption. F. Spaces in a mobile home park which sells lots for factory-built or manufactured housing, or which provides condominium ownership of such lots, but only when the dwelling unit and the underlying interest in the space it is located upon are in the same ownership. ATTACHMENT 1 O r d i n a n c e N o . 1 2 2 8 (1 9 9 2 S e r i e s ) P a g e T w o S E C T I O N 2 . T h i s o r d i n a n c e , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e n a m e s o f c o u n c i l m e m b e r s v o t i n g f o r a n d a g a i n s t , s h a l l b e p u b l i s h e d o n c e i n f u l l , a t l e a s t t h r e e d a y s p r i o r t o i t s f i n a l p a s s a g e , i n t h e T e l e g r a m T r i b u n e , a n e w s p a p e r p u b l i s h e d a n d c i r c u l a t e d i n t h i s C i t y . T h e o r d i n a n c e s h a l l g o i n t o e f f e c t a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f 3 0 d a y s a f t e r i t s f i n a l p a s s a g e . C o u n c i l o f t h e C i t y o f d a y o f , __________________ , s e c o n d e d b y ________________ , a n d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g r o l l c a l l v o t e : I N T R O D U C E D A N D P A S S E D T O P R I N T b y t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o a t i t s m e e t i n g h e l d o n t h e 1 9 9 2 , o n m o t i o n o f E Y E S : N O E S : A B S E N T : M a y o r R o n D u n i n A T T E S T : c i t y C l e r k , P a m V o g e s A P P R O V E D : C i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e r C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D i r e c t o r LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.44.030 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the county of San Luis Obispo; c. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. F. Spaces in a mobile home park in which at least 66. 67 percent of said spaces arc governed by a lease with an initial term of ~().:t:=E? =t:r.ti:i.!1 c:il'lE:!······YE?? 1-" wHwsm!l!]l§M~:~:§: :::: ~!9~§::::::::@gp 1111111111~11!11!i!lll111111il1!(11:lf ili~il~!illll lll&iillif-iillllll . . G~ ··n obT I C .h cimC piirlii"i:3"\ihTch sell lots for factory built or manufactured housing, or which provide condominium ownership of such lots, even if one or more homes in the development are rented or leased out. ATTACHMENT 2 O R D I N AN C E N O •. 12 2 8 (1 9 9 2 S e r i e s ) An Ordinance of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Amending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to Delete Exemptions 5.44.030F and G From Mobile Horne Park Rent Stabilization. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.030 Exemptions, is hereby amended to delete subparagraphs F and G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code so that the new Section 5.44.030 shall read as follows: 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the county of San Luis Obispo; C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. F. Spaces in a mobile home park which sells lots for factory-built or manufactured housing, or which provides c0ndominium ownership of such lots, but only when the dwelling unit and the underlying interest in the space it is located upon are in the same ownership. I "•._:_,.,· . -. . .•- .c . Ord in anc e No . 1228 (1992 Series) Page Two SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the 10th day of November , 1992, on motion of Council Member Roalman , seconded by Council Member Reiss , and on the following roll call vote: :AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council Members Roalman, Reiss, Pinard, and Rappa None Mayor Dunin ~~---◄ t ~Ron Dunin ATTEST: APPROVED: Officer . I ·~----✓ -.~'. • I Ordinance No. 1228 (1992 Series) / FINAL LY PASSED this 1st day of December 1992 on motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Council Member Roalman, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: AB SENT: Council Members Settle, Roalman, Rappa, and Mayor Pinard None Council Member Romero M ayor Pe inard I ATTE ST: r . , ,/ I DATE: J0-30-92 I. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ORIGINATED BY: Jeff Torcrensen MEETING DATE: 1.1-10-92 SUBJECT: Dro:co~ed Ainendmeuts to tbe Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Pubiic Bearing Business Consent (Circle One) 0:FdiRaRc@ Concerning Exerupti aus far Parks with 66, 67~0 of Spaces Un.d0;r J.@e1.s@ Agreeltl®ts aud Parks with r.opdaminium Ownership RECOMMENDATION(S): Red eve Report Regarding Proposed Amendments to Hobile Hom@ P:ul- ReJ:it StabiJ j zati au Qrd i uance and Provide Staff \-/ith Direction a§ 'to irny Pre+"errecl Amendments, Two Ordinances are Included for Council Part I (wh ite) form 11a.1 st be subm itted to the City Clerk's Office on the Frida y before the Tue sday Agenda Review meeting. Please forward name s and add resses of prope rty owne rs, appe llants, subd ividers, applicants, or any parties who 11a.1 st be notified about this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if possible. II. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT ROUTING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD app roval, please attach Part II (canary) to you r repo rt and route to the following department heads in the orde r indicated below. Following app roval, please initial and send on. ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INIT. PERSONNEL FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY 2 ASST. CAO 3 -C=A~O _ <' CITY CLERK NOTEf The initiating departme nt head is respon sible for obtaining !l!. necessary signatures Cother departme nt heads and consultants) prior to subm ittal of report to the City Attorney, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMMENTS: I. White: Prelim Notification Slip II. Canary: Agenda Repo rt Rou ting Slip III. Pink: Depa rtme nt Copy 1111:,:rn\Wl\\ll\\~l~ll't\\l city o~ san Iuis osrspo gg_ r· S COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT. h',EE11NG DATE: 11 -10-92 ITEM I\IUMBER: FROM: SUBJECT: Jeffrey·G. Jorgensen, Ci~y Attorne Proposed Amendments to The Mobile P rk Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance Concerning Exemptions for Parks with 66. 67% of Spaces Under Lease Agreements and Parks With Condominium Ownership CAO RECOMMENDATION: Receive a Report Regarding Proposed Amendments to the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and Provide Staff with Direction as to any Preferred Amendments. Two Ordinances are Included for Council Consideration. BACKGROUND: At the October 20, 1992 Council meeting, the City Council passed to print Ordinance No. 1226 reinstating vacancy control provisions in the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. In addition, the Council continued consideration of proposed amendments to the exemptions for parks with 66.67% of spaces under lease agreements and parks with condominium ownership to November 10, 1992 for further review. DISCUSSION: 1. Lease Exemption. The City has received two letters dated September 14, and October 16, 1992 from the law firm of Swanson and Dowdall, on behalf of the owner of Creekside Mobile Home Community, objecting to the deletion of the exemption from mobile home park rent stabilization for parks in which at least 66.67% of the spaces are governed by a long term lease. (Copies of the September 14 and October 16, 1992 letters are attached for your information.) The basis of the objection is as follows: "Our client has qualified for this exemption by offering a long-term lease to Creekside residents which include substantial economic concessions by our client." (These leases were, in fact, negotiated by our client with the residents.) Those concessions were made in reliance upon the present 'safe harbor' exemption. Thus, oui client's right to have this exemption is vested and any attempt to withdraw that exemption would constitute an invalid impairment of an established economic/property interest without due process of law. 11 (Page 2, paragraph 3, 9/14/92.) . A g e n d a R e p o r t P a g e Tw o P a l a c i o de A n z a v . Pa lm Sp r in g s R e n t R e v i e w C o m m is s i o n , 20 9 C a l .A p p .3 d 1 1 6 (1 9 8 9 ) i s c i t e d a s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n . In P a l a c i o , t h e C a l i f o r n i a Co u r t of A p p e a l co n s i d e r e d a p r o v i s i o n in t h e P a l m S p r i n g s R e n t C o n t r o l O r d i n a n c e w h i c h a l l o w e d fo r th e i n c l u s i o n o f c e r t a i n i n t e r e s t p a y m e n t s as co s t s a l l o w a b l e fo r th e p u r p o s e o f c a l c u l a t i n g "n e t op e r a t in g in c o m e . 11 The plaintiff purchased an apartment building in reliance on the provision and subsequently applied for a hardship rent increase based on interest payments made to purchase the apartment building. The rent increase was denied by the Rent Review Commission. Subsequently, the rent control ordinance was amended to eliminate the provision. The court held that the interest provision: 11 ••• created land-use property rights which became vested in Palacio when the financing of the apartment purchase was undertaken in reliance on the existing rent control laws. In this sense, Palacio enjoys a situation or status analogous to that of one who has ~stablished the right to pursue a nonconforming use on land following a zoning change. (City of Santa Barbara v. Modern Neon Sign Company, 189 Cal.App.2d 188 (1961). Any attempt to retroactively apply the repeal of the guidelines debt financing cost allowance to Palacio' s vested rights would constitute an invalid impairment of an established economic/property interest without due process of law." (Id. at p. 120.) While the facts of the Palacio case are different from those before the Council, the reasoning of the decision may nevertheless be applicable in the event the Council chooses to delete the lease exemption entirely and detrimental reliance can be proven. The Council also received comments at the October 20, 1992 meeting from tenants who expressed concern that those who chose not to enter into a lease could be treated unfairly if they received no protection at all, and even if afforded the same rights as tenants under long term leases, inequities would result if there were multiple leases with different terms in effect within a park. In an attempt to address these concerns while recognizing the economic interests of the park owner, a proposed amendment to the exemption is set forth in the ordinance attached as Exhibit "A"~ The exemption for parks in which at least 66.67% of spaces are governed by a long-term lease would remain, but would only apply to parks which qualified for the exemption prior to October 20, 1992:- The practical effect would be to limit the exemption to Creekside Mobile Home Community -- the only park which has established an exemption to date. All other parks within the City would be subject to the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance with respect to spaces not covered by long-term leases. In addition, the exemption would only apply if the exempt spaces were afforded Agenda Report Page Three at least as favorable terms and conditions of tenancy as those initially offered to tenants who entered into long-term leases to first achieve the 66.67% exemption. This provision should address the concerns expressed where there may be different leases within a park. (For reference, a copy of the June 15, 1988 Creekside lease which was relied upon to obtain the exemption is attacheg.) 2. Condominium ownership. Very little comment was received on the issue of deleting the exemption for condominium ownership, and it does not appear that significant legal issues would be raised by doing so if applied prospectively. However, rather than simply deleting the exemption, it is suggested that the exemption should be amended to make it clear that it would apply only when the dwelling unit and the underlying interest in the space it is located upon are the same ownership. Thus, in the case of a park conversion where a coach owner chooses not to purchase the condominium interest, the rent stabilization ordinance would apply, Conversely, if a coach owner chose to purchase the condominium interest and subsequently rented the unit, it would not be subject to the rent stabilization ordinance since it would be for all practical purposes equivalent to a conventional condominium, single family residence, or apartment, none of which are regulated. OPTIONS: option 1: If the Council wishes to amend the lease exemption provision as discussed above, pass to print the attached ordinance (Exhibit "A"). In light of the issues raised in the Palacio case, this is the staff recommended alternative. Option 2: If the Council wishes to delete condominium exemption provisions entirely, pass attached ordinance (Exhibit 11B11). the to lease print and the Option 3: Take no action and leave the exemptions as currently written. Coupled with the Council's concurrent action to reinstate vacancy control, this would maintain the ordinance as originally adopted by the voters in 1988. Option 4: If the Council has additional concerns or proposed revisions not considered in the report, continue this item with additional direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: If the Council decides to delete the lease exemption entirely, it should be recognized that there is a high probability of litigation, and a corresponding commitment of time and money. The Agenda Report P a g e F o u r c o s t s of any such litigation are too speculative to predict at this t im e . A t t a c h m e n t s : O r d i n a n c e (E x h i b i t "A ") O r d i n a n c e (E x h i b i t l'B ") L e t t e r d a t e d Se p t e m b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 2 L e t t e r d a t e d O c t o b e r 1 6 , 19 9 2 P a l a c i o d e A n z a v . P a l m S p r in g s R e n t R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n c r e e k s i d e L e a s e ORDINAN CE NO • (1992 Series) . An Ordinance of the Council of the city of San Luis Obispo Am ending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to Amend Exemptions S.44.030F and G Regarding Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization. • BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5~44.030 Exemptions, is hereby amended to amend subparagraphs F and G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code so that the new Section 5.44.030 shall read as follows: 5.44.030 Exemptions. The.provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the County of San Luis Obispo; C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but onLy for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or · contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. F. Spaces in a mobile home park in which at least 66.67% of said spaces are governed by a lease with an initial term of more than one year, and where a claim of exemption has been established pursuant to Section 5.44.040 prior to October 20, 1992. Provided, however, this exemption shall not apply unless at least as favorable terms and conditions of tenancy shall be irrevocably applied to all tenants of exempt spaces as were initially offered and accepted by tenants of comparable spaces in order to first qualify for this exemption. Ord inan ce No . Pag e Tw o (1 99 2 Ser ie s ) G . Sp aces in a mobile home park which sells lots for factory-built or manufactured housing, or which provides condominium ownership of such lots, but only when the dwelling unit and the underlying interest in the space it is located upon are in the same ownership. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1992, on motion of , seconded by ________________ , and on the following roll call vote: EYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk, Pam Voges APPROVED: City Administrative Officer Community Development Director LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.44.030 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the county of San Luis Obispo; C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy. of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. F. Spaces in a mobile home park in which at least 66. 67 percent of said spaces are governed by a lease with an initial term of ;:g:~ffip§i{L9.fijif!!fijn~f!!iii,:ill!l!liillJliiilJ.lll!/j/Jl!jl!liili:111 JJJJJ//i/1:1 ii!i~ii:1111i!i~lll1ililllllliiill!lil!l!illlill1!1!1l 1 ll 1l!lil!lll1ili!I !iliil!ilillilll1111111iilll:;111111111rtliii!l!lilllllii llli1illl!iii!l!l!~illliilll1lliliiff illlllt::1:1111111!1111 lil~il.i[&!;::;~:1~:::7:::~~~ sell$' lots····tor· .. ·fa·ctOfy-buil t or manufactured housI'nq , or which provide§ condominium ownership of such lots, even Tf one or m6re homes in the development are rented or leased iitlli\llili-Wtf&tllll ORDINAN CE NO. (1992 Series) An Ordinance of the Council of the city of San Luis Obispo Am ending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to Delete Exemptions S.44.030F and G from Mobile Home Park Rent stabilization. BE IT.ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.030 Exemptions, is hereby amended to delete subparagraphs F and G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code so that the new Section 5.44.030 shall read as follows: 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California; or the county of San Luis Obispo; C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; · E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases oxher than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. EXHIBIT "B" Ord in ance No . Pag e Tw o (1 99 2 Se r ie s ) IN T RODU CED AND PA SSE D TO PR IN T by th e Coun c il of th e City of Sa n Lu is Ob isp o at it s meet in g held on th e day of ,. 1992 , on mot ion of , se cond ed by fo llow in g ro ll call vot e : and on th e EYE S : NOE S : ABSE NT : M ay or Ron Dun in ATTEST : City Cle rk , Pam Voges APPR OV ED : Offic er Dir ect o r LEGISLATIVE DRAFT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.44.030 5.44.03-0 Exemptions~ The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the county of San Luis Obispo; c. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Ten~ncies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. F. Spaces in a mobile home parJc in which at least 66. 67 percent of said spaces arc governed by a lease with an initial term of more than one year; G. Mobile home parks which sell lots for fa7tory bu_ilt or ma.nu,factured h~using, or which provide condominium ownership of such lots, even if one or more homes in the development arc rented or leased out. OCT 16 '92 12:26 -IRNSON RND DOWDRLL 998 P02 C. B~f:NT SW.ANSON TE:'-.R'r llr. 00Vf'C'._LL T':"'iOft,,,\AS M, OtlCSICR S W A N S O N A N D DOWDALL AiTORNEYS AT 1..,1.W LINOA ..J. Lt:S"rC~ ..JIM P. ~At--&ACC.1111;. ""4AU•t:.t:.N A. '"'IA.,-C:.P•llll:\..L.. L.CVINE: f;08!:.R1" 0. WIL.t..lA.M5,0N • ..,IR, KATHlllYN L, esir.1.,,NNICR DAWN ~- ..)0"""NS0N P. 0. BOX 2:SC4 4 HUTTO,.. CCNTRE DR1V£ eu,.,.e zoo SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707·0.504 Tt:L.l:"'HO N I: 1714) 765·:?:>00 FAC Sl"'•LC 171~) 7g5.3l!OS SAN OIEGO '4 3 e CAMINO 01:t.. .. ,o goUTH SUJTt: 101 SA.N DIEGO. CAL,.lf'CIIU•ll4 g,21oa -r a::~c .,H o N e: 1e1g1 e e e.-e i c c ,.AC:lll,..ILE 11!!1!;1) e e e-e ie e O U R 1"1L E: N O ,------ October 16, 1992 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL / City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Additional Arguments In Opposition To Proposed Amendments to "Safe Harbor" Exemption Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter provides additional information on behalf of our client, the owner of the Creekside Hobilehorne Community ("Creekside''), as to why the elimination or substantive revision of the "safe harbor'' provisions of the. oi.t::r'o Hobl.l.c Ilvme r'c:a:x. I\<wHL. .:,l.,a,L,l.11.t-0.l...i.vu 0.1.u.l.ua.u~-= ( ··o.Lulue1u\,;e .. ) would not only be unlawful, but also unreasonable. This information is intended to supplt.;ment the points made in my earlier letter to you of September 4, 1992. As other representatives of the City's park owners will address other issues relating to the proposed amendments to the Ordinance, I will not duplicate those comments here. Please understand, however, that our client concurs in and supports the positions taken by these other park owner representatives. SUMMAR Y OF RE AS ONS WH Y THE EL IMIN ATION OR SUBSTAN TIVE RE V ISION OF THE SAF E HARB OR PR OVIS IONS WOUL D BE ILL EGAL AND UNRE AS ONAB LE In my earlier letter, you were advised that our client had qualified for the safe harbor exemption by offering a long-term lease to Creekside residents which included substantial economic concessions by our client. These leases were negotiated by our client•.with the residents and the concessions were made in reliance on the safe harbor exemption. Further, our client has expended approximately $200,000 and made other economic commitments in reliance on the safe harbor provisions. Thus, an elimination or substantive revision of those provisions would be unlawful for the reasons cited below and in my letter of September 14, 1992. OCT 15 '92 12:27 '1NSON RND DOl,JDRLL 998 P03 City Council City of San Luis Obispo October 16, 1992 Page 2 My earlier letter also drew your attention to several practical reason• why the elimination or substantive revision of the safe harbor provisions would be unreasonable. One such reason would be that there would be insufficient income to adequately maintain and operate Creekside. Thus, the value of the residents' homes would depreciate and Creekside would become a much less desirable place to live. Further, such action would result in seventy percent of the residents paying more rent than their neighbors; an obvious unacceptable conflict. Other practical reasons supporting those submitted earlier are discussed below. THE NEGOTIATED LEASE PROVISIONS ARE BETTER THAN THOSE FOUND IH THE ORDINANCE As will be shown from what follows, our client made a number of economic concessions in the lease the residents signed which provide more protection to the residents than that provided by the Ordinance. For example, the term of the lease is for ten years; therefore, it will continue to apply even though the Ordinance may be changed or eliminated. A good exaJnple of the protection afforded in this respect is' the fact that the rent increase to a buyer of a rnobilehome owned by a resident who had signed the lease is limited. Thus, during that period when the Ordinance allowed unlimited vacancy decontrol, residents signing the lease benefited substantially. The Consumer Price Index portion of the rent adjustment formula in the lease is also more advantageous to the residents than the one found in the Ordinance. For example, the lease contains a provision which limits the CPI rent adjustment to the most recent increase in the Cost of Living Adjustment ("COLA") for Social Security benefits. In addition to the above, the lease provides that the rent of a buyer of a rnobilehome can only be increased once during the initial 10-year term of the lease. At the time the lease was offered, the Ordinance provided for a 10% increase every three years in these situations. If amended as now proposed, thi6 same limitation will be reactivated in the Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides for rent increases ·based on a whole variety of operating expense increases. The lease limits such rent increases much more severely than the Ordinance. For example, no rent increase may occur unless the increase in operating expenses for property taxes and government services and improvements (a very broad term including such things as utilities and other governmentally-driven operating expenses) increases by more than the increase in the CPI. This means that if the CPI increases in any one year by, for example, 5%, and these operating expenses increase by 5% or less, no rent adjustment is made for the increased operating expenses. If the increase exceeds the CPI, OCT 15 '9 2 12 :2 8 ,'.:lNSON RND DOWDRLL 998 P04 City Council City of San Luis Obispo October 16, 1992 Page 3 · only the increase above the current year's percentage increase in the CPI may be added to the rent. ' Another example of the lease severely limiting operating expense rent adjustments is the limitations found on capital improvement expenses. Fi,.-i:t-, .:::any ,...,,.I"t+:=.l irnprr.:-ucmcrd: ooo:et ovor ~10,000 h.::a.c to ho .c:.pp:rovcci hy a majority vote of the residents before it finds its way into a rent increase. Also excluded from capital improvement costs were such things as the rehabilitation and preservation of streets and driveways which occurred within two years of the original date pf the lease, the redecorating of the clubhouse, repair of the jacuizi roof, and the rebuilding of the car-wash. Again, had our client operated under the Ordinance, all of the above items could have been included in the residents' rent. The lease also excludes from rent increases virtually all of the other operating expense increases our client will normally experience. The Ordinance, however, allows these other operating expenses to be used for rent increase-purposes. Our client's lease also gives the residents the right of first refusal to purchase Creekside. This right is not provided for at all by the Ordinance. Indeed, under the Gregory v. City of San Juan Capistrano decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, it would be an unconstitutional taking of our client's property for the Ordinance to attempt to give such rights to the residents. Because our client made these substantial lease concessions in order to qualify for the safe harbor exemption, our clients' right to have those provisions remain as they are have vested. There is no substantive legal difference between the reliance of our client on the safe harbor provisions of the Ordinance than there was in the Palacio de Anza case, where the purchaser of an apartment house relied on certain provisions found in the Palm Springs rent control ordinance at the time the apartment house was purchased. Further, there is no valid regulatory purpose for amendments to the safe harbor provisions. '. Therefore, another reason why said amendments are unlawful. ' ' the proposed this too is OUR CLIENT RAS SPENT SUB STAN TIAL MONIES AN D COMM ITTED HIMSELF TO ECONOMIC PLAN S FOR CREEKSIDE IN RELIAN CE ON THE SAF E HARB OR PROV ISIONS From a legal standpoint, a person can acquire the right to prevent government from changing the provisions of an ordinance because they have acted in some substantive way in reliance on existing provisions in OCT 16 '92 12:28 . s~NSON AND DOWDALL 998 P05 City Council City of San Luis Obispo October 16, 1992 Page 4 the ordinance. This "vesting" of rights z e eu Lt;e not only from reliance such as shown above but also from making certain economic commitments· which cannot now be changed. This too is another reason why the safe harbor provisions may not be eliminated or substantively changed with respect to our client. In our client's lease he made a commitment to perform a number of major items of maintenance and repair in Creekside. Part of that commitment was that he would not seek reimbursement of those normal operating expenses from the residents. This was done even though our client could have recovered those operating expenses under the terms of the Ordinance if the lease had not been entered into with the residents. In addition to the substantial maintenance and repair items our client committed to in the lease, he also, in fact, made a number of other improvements to Creekside. In total, the money spent on these efforts approximates_$200,000. In making these economic commitments, our client depended on the safe harbor provisions of the Ordinance continuing to operate in the future. This because if , these provisions of the Ordinance were changed so residents not signing the lease received a lower rental rate than those who did sign, there would be insufficient money to justify these very substantial expenditures. In effect, our client's recovery of this approximately $200,000 will only occur over a long period of time and only if rents for non-leased spaces continue as presently provided by the Ordinance. In addition to the actual commitment of the approximately $200,000, our client budgeted for the future operation of Creekside to include the same rent for all of the spaces in Creekside as permitted by the safe harbor provisions. This commitment means our client's hands are tied as to the future operation of Creekside. Thus, if the income from the non- leased spaces diminishes because of a change in the safe harbor provisions, our client will be injured. THERE ARE A NUMB ER OF PRA CTICAL REASON~ WH Y IT WOlJLD BE UN FAIR AN D UN RE AS ONAB LE TO MODIFY THE SAF E HARB OR PROVISIONS Creekside residents have benefited from our client's lease for a number of reasons. One is that Creekside remains by far the nicest of all of the major mobilehome communities in the City, while at the same time its rents are clearly amoriq the most reasonable. Data submitted on Creekside to the Council indicates that resales of residents' mobilehomes have remained very high over the past number of years and the value of those mobilehomes has approximately doubled. Thus, as.this OCT 16 '92 12:29 qNSON AND DOWDALL 998 P06 City Council City of San Luis Obispo October 16, 1992 Page 5 experience has continued since 1988 when the lease was signed by Creekside residents, it cannot be said that our client's actions have had a detrimental effect. Indeed, it should be obvious from the earlier description of the severely limited rent increases provided for by the lease that residents will continue to benefit in the future with a corresponding benefit in the value and increased salability of their mobilehomes. Eliminating or making a substantive change to the safe harbor provisions will have the practical effects of reduced mainte.nance, reduced mobilehome values and pitting one resident against another; all of which have been noted earlier. The practical detrimental effects of these results are obvious. SUMMAR Y. I am aware from discussions with your City Attorney and others that there is a belief our client has not complied with the safe harbor provisions. This results because in approximately half a dozen cases our client asks new residents who were purchasing mobilehomes from residents who had not signed the lease to sign a different lease which provided for slightly different rent terms. Respectfully, it is my opinion that the Ordinance does not preclude that differential in treatment, particularly as I understand all or substantially all of these instances occurred when there was unlimited vacancy decontrol. I have also known our client and been his attorney for the better part of 12 years. I can assure you based on that knowledge that it was not our client's intention to behave inconsistent with the Ordinance. Despite these factors, if it is the Council's intention that all purchasers of mobilehomes in Creekside . be treated the same, I do concur that a clarification of the Ordinance is appropriate. I can also assure you that our client will not object to such a clarification. I would submit, however, that a clarification of this nature n~eds additional discu~sion and should not be dealt with at the upcoming Council meeting where the other proposed revisions to the Ordinance are to be considered. In part this is because our client is the only park owner in the City who presently qualifies for the safe harbor exemption. Ther~fore, as our client is presently out of the state and will not return until after October 20, 1992, it is appropriate to wait until he can participate in these discussions and provide all the information the Council needs to reach a decision. OCT 16 '92 12:30 'ANSON AND DOWDALL . _ -~98 _ _P07 -.--c.-,--, •• ..,.._ .• -=.-=•·=-·=-:-, •. ..,. .•. ~ •.. ~ ... ~ .. -- .... -. _ City Council City of San Luis Obispo October 16, 1992 Page 6 Thank you very much for your kind attention and consideration of the foregoing. Please understand that because of my various trial commitments, I was unable to provide tis information for the Council's consideration any earlier. CBS:llt:001LT6 cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney Client Dennis Law, Esq. David Evans, WMA SEP 14 '92 lS:40 . JANSON AND DOWDALL S95 P03 ·r C. •Ji:EN,. Sv.,ANSON T~~IQY R. ~O_.CALL ,-MCMAS M, oie:scq SWANSON AND DOWDALL ATTORNEYS AT 1...AW 1.1NDA .J. 1.eSTER .JIM P. ,-.,.'°",..ACLK. MAURECN A HATC.-.C.~L LE.V1NS:, .. ceEi:..T o. WILL•A ..... SO"-'. JR. J<A.THRYN L.. =,t•fl.,JNNtrrr..-< ROBIN 0, E1•L£:R OAWN 1: • ..JO HNSO N P. 0. JtO X 2S04 4 ,-.V TTO N C.C.NTFiE. 0RIYC SUITC 200 CA~JTA A~IA, CALI FOP.'-1 I.A 0?71"17-n.<;n..i TS.:L.t;tt-t-'\ON£ 17441 '1SS-3500 F'AC{;)MIL£ 171-41 755-.:;sos MYLENE. M; c .. CHOW AO,.._,,-,.,sT•ATOq September 14, 1992 .....,...,.,., r11...Di. ,,.;.., _ City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 PalmStreet San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Arguments In Opposition to Proposed Amendments to the Mobilehorne Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Our firm represents the owner of the Creekside- Mobilehome Community. The purpose of tpis letter is to provide basic reasons as to why the Council should reject the proposed amendments to the City's Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization ordinance. Please understand that because the City did not notify our client and the other park owners of the City's consideration of these proposed amendments, it was not possible for me to prepare and transmit this letter earlier. Since the points made in this letter explain the significant risk and expenses which the City will incur if the proposed amendments are adopted, I would hope that each of you would nonetheless find time to give serious consideration to what follows. StJ'MKARY OF' REASONS l. Historically the Ordinance has worked without problems and the City cannot point to abuses by park OWJlers: At the meetings this past week between San Luis Obispo park owners and members of the City Council and the City's staff, it was clear that the present ordinance is operating -without problems and the City is unable to point to abuses by park owners. Thus, the proposed amendments are unnecessary. 2. Th• City faces significant litigation expenses and risks if the proposed amendments are adopted: The City Attorney's report to the Council clearly identifies that there is a high probability the City will be sued if these amendments are adopted. That same report explains that these litigation expenses will be _·very substantial and the City will run the risk of substantial exposure to damages. SEP 14 '92 15:40 ''JANSON RND DOWDALL 595 P04 City Council/City of San Luis Obispo September 14, 1992 Page 2 3. The elimination of the "Safe Barbor'' exemption is illegal: The present ordinance provides, in effect, that if a park owner obtains the voluntary consent of two-thirds or more of his residents to a long-term lease, the entire park is exempt from the ordinance. Our client has qualified for this exemption by offering a long-term lease to Creekside residents which includes substantial economic c c n c o o 0 :i.c n o b:t O U ~ c.1.i.cnt. (Tl,ccc 11::ai:,,,;;1:5 W t:!.L ~, Lu .rac-c , nego-cla-cea by our client with the residents.) Those concessions were made in reliance on the present "safe harbor" exemption. Thus, our client's right to have this exemption is vested and any attempt to withdraw that exemption would constitute an invalid impairment of an establi~hed economic/property interest without due process of la\.l. 4. The procedures the City is utilizing to consider adoption of the proposed am •ndm ents are uofairz The absence of any notice to park owners of the City's consideration of these am endm ents is unques- tionably unfair. D E T A IL E D DI S C U S S IO N OF IS S U E S What follows is a detailed discussion of the four issues outlined above. As will be seen from what follows, your decision to reject the proposed am endm ents not only ma kes i..rnrn.i nently good comm on sense; you really have no alternative in today's recessionary environm ent which is adversely affecting the City's budget. · THE ORDINANCE HOW W O RK S It is my understanding from my discussions with our client that in the :m.oct.:i.n.9'a ho :o.nd. otho:- po.rll ovncro hc:.d w.i.i;h mcrn.b c:i.:o ,;,£ the CvL.u1,,.l.l. au~ the City's staff this past week, no one connected with the City was able to identify any significant problem or reason as to why the present Ordinance was not functioning properly. No abuses by park ow ners of the present vacancy decontrol provision were identified. Nor were any -substantive reasons given to support the am endm ent which would eliminate the "safe harbor" exemption. The fact that the Ordinance is functioning properly is further supported by the absence of any informa tion to the contrary in the report by the City Attorney to the Council. Another key fact to be rememb ered is _that the Ordinance was negotiated with the City's assistance by the park owners and the residents. L I T IG A T I O N E X P E H S E AN D R I S K The City Attorney's report to the Council makes this point far better than I ever could. The City Attorney clearly puts the. Council on notice that the legal issues connected with the proposed am endm ents are unsettled and will likely not be resolved for several years until a case SEP 14 '92 15:41 IRNSON RND DOWDRLL City Cou~cil/City of San Luis Obispo September 14, 1992 Page 3 595 P05 reaches the United States Supreme Court. The City Attorney also warns the City Council of the "high probability of . litigation" if these amendments are adopted. That same report points out that litigation of this type is ~xtraordinaiily expensive; in my experience and in the · experience of other attorneys representing park owners throughout California, the City will spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating the "t.ak.i nq" and other issues which will result from adoption of the amendments. A current audit of rent control administrative and litigation expenses in the City of Escondido discloses that, to date, that city has spent more than $1 million on mobilehorne park rent control. The City's Attorney's. report makes yet another llnportant point. Specifically, other cities and counties throughout California have and are making the decision not to adopt similar amendments because of the expense and risk connected with the inevitable litigation. What they are doing is making a smart business decision to sit back and wait until these issues are decided in the Courts. ELIMINATION OF THE SAF E HARB OR EXEM PTION IS ILL EGAL Several years ago, our client offered long-term leases to all residents. That offer was deliberately designed to take ad~antage of the Ordinance's "safe harbor" provisions. This lease was extensively negotiated with our client's residents. Our client structured the lease to include a number of significant economic concessions so that a suffi- cient number of residents would be induced to sign the lease and Creek- side would fall within the safe harbor provisions. One major concession in the lease was to limit "vacancy decontrol" rent increases much.more · than allowed by the Ordinance. Over 70% of the homesites in Creekside accepted the lease, thereby qualifying all of the homesites in Creekside for the safe harbor exemption. 'T.he illegality of el.uninating the safe harbor provisions is best deaonstrated by a recent case involving an apartment purchase which was s-t:ibject to the City of Palm Springs rent control ordinance. That case is known as Palacio de Anza v. Palm ·springs Rent Review Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 116, 120. In the Palacio de Anza decision, the California Court of Appeal dealt'with a situation where an apartment was purchased at a time when the Palm Springs rent control ordinance provided for rent adjustments based on certain operating expense increases. That rent control ordinance was later amended to eliminate those provisions. The Court of Appeal held the apartment owner's rights to rent adjustments under the repealed provisions were "vested." Therefore, the apartment owner was still entitled to receive those rent adjustments as to do otherwise would constitute an invalid impairment of an established economic/property interest without due process of law. SEP 14 '9 2 16:42 -•JRNSON RND DOWDRLL 695 P06 city Council/City of San Luis Obispo September 14, 1992 Page 4 Substantively, the Palacio de Anza facts are identical to those of our client. In Palacio de Anza, a decision to purchase an apartment was made based upon the allowability.of certain operating exp~n~es under ~he Palm Springs rent control ordinance. Our cl.ie;1t m~de a _s1.m1.lar decision by locking himself into rent adjustment limitations in his long-term lease. In making that decision, our client depended on the safe harbor provisions allowing him to obtain those. same rent adjustments from the residents who did not sign ·the lease. Thus, elimination of the safe harbor provisions has the same illegal effect on our client as they did on the apartment owner in Palacio de Anza. Further, in our client's lease are a number of rent adjustment provisions which are essentially the same as allowed by the Ordinance and are necessary to provide for sufficient income to adequately maintain and operate Creekside. Thus, elimination of the safe harbor provisions will have the effect of depreciating the value of th e hom es of all Creekside residents and ·making Creekside a much less desirable place to live. The fact that 70% of the residents will pay more rent than their neighbors also.creates unacceptable conflicts. THE C IT Y 'S P R OC E D URE S ARE UN FA IR Failing to disclose the City's coneideration of amendments to the Ordinance to the park owners cannot logically be justified. Certainly the City knew the park owners would be extremely concerned about any B.lnendment to the Ordinance; therefore, non-disclosure is unjustified. CO N C L U SIO N Your City is one of the few in California which has enacted mobilehome park rent control and substantially escaped the trauma, expense and risks many, many other cities and counties have experienced. There is really quite a simple reason for this. Your Ordinance was negotiated between the park owners and residents and attempts to take somewhat of ;a middle ground • .Adoption of these amendments will drB.lnatically change t\ho pr.ac:icnt ~dtl1At-.inn. This is true because, as shown above, the expenditures and risks connected. with these amendmerrc s cannot l.Jc justified under any conceivable set of circumstances. The fact is that mobilehome residents are not being detrimentally impacted in any significant way by the Ordinance as it now operates. Thank you very much for your kind· attention and consideration of the points made in this letter. Please understand that if our client or I SEP 14 '9 2 15 :4 3 JRNSON RND DOWDRLL City Council/City of San Luis Obispo September 14, 1992 Page 5 may be of further would be more than 595 P07 City's staff, we CBS:sj:009LT55 cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney Ed Evans David Evans - WMA • n·concluded to prove the ents which fit of the DE ANZA v. PALM SPRINGS RENT REVIEW COM'N 209 Cal.App.3d 117 Cite as 257 Cal.Rptr. 121 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 1989) "And what you're going to need to find by a . preponderance of the evidence, that the defendants need to prove before tlia t im- munity applies, is the following: " ". . . the fifth element, if these gentle- men acted with malice, [the] privilege doesn't apply. So even if you should find all .of the other elements are there, if you determine that they acted with malice, it doesn't matter. The law is not going to allow these gentlemen to walk away after they have done something wrong, when their conduct has been deemed to be in the conscious disregard of Jeanne Gannon's rights, and they willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those bad consequences to her." (Emphasis added.) In his rebuttal argument plaintiff's counsel added, "It is their burden of establishing that each and every one of the elements that I dis- cussed before is present before a privilege or a qualified immunity applies, and let's not be confused about that." (Em- phasis added.) Contrary to the assertions by plaintiff's counsel, we are convinced his argument created prejudicial confusion in the minds of the jurors. The instruction erroneously injected the question of negli~ gence into the equation and suggested the defendants had the burden to negate mal- ice and the other factors which would pre- clude application of section 43.7, · subdivi- sion (b). The closing argument of plain- tiff's counsel only compou11ded the error. The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, consistent with· the views ex- pressed in this opinion. Because the de- fense substantially contributed to the er- rors we have identified, the parties shall bear their own costs. SCOVILLE, P.J., and SONENSHINE, J., concur. * Parts II, III and IV are not published; they ·do not meet the standards for publication con- 209 Cal.App.3d 116 ..... _ .JJ,16PALACIO DE ANZA, etc., et ai., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PALM SPRINGS RENT REVIEW _ COMMISSION, Defendant. and · - Respondent, TENANTS AT PALACIO DE ANZA. __ -, APARTMENTS, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. -~ ,_ . _ No. E004109. 1.21 : .• ""i.', . .' Court of Appeal, Fourth District,'. Division 2. · · ) , · '- March 3, 1989. Certified for Partial Publication.• • . Landlord brought action for adminis- trative mandamus to compel city rent re- view commission to reconsider and grant its request for hardship rent increase. The Superior Court of Riverside County, Frank Moore, J., denied the writ and landlord appealed. The Court of Appeal, Campbell, P.J., held that repeal of rent control guide- li~e prior to final trial court judgment did not moot landlord's action. ., , __ .. Reversed with directions. Mandamus e::=>16(1) Repeal of guideline for hardship rent increase concerning purchase-money · fi- nancing interest payments prior to entry of judgment in landlord's action for· writ of administrative mandamus to compel city' rent review 'comrnission to reconsider land- lord's request for hardship rent increasE:_ did not moot landlord's action, but rather guideline created land-use property' rights which became vested in landlord when .fi- nancing of apartment purchase was under- taken in reliance on existing rent control laws:· West's Ann.CaLC.C.P. § 1094.5. ·,_. · -1.117Allen 0. Perrier, Palm Springs, for plaintiffs and appellants. tained in rule· 976(b), California Rules of_ co'urt. - - r . _-) ·:·:::- i ... : ... 1 2 2 257 CALIFORNIA REPORTER 209 Cal.A pp .3d 117 No appearance for defendant and respon- dent. Joan Baumgarten, Palm Springs, for real parties in interest. OPINION - CAMPBELL, Presiding Justice. This case involves a dispute between the landlords of a Palm Springs apartment complex ("Palacio") and the Palm Springs Rent Review Commission ("Commission") concerning the proper application of Palm Springs' initiative rent-control provisions to the rents to be charged at..l.l.18that apart- mentcornplex. The real parties in interest are the tenants of the apartment complex (".Tenants"). Palacio appeals from a judgment of the trial court denying Palacio's petition for a writ of mandate to compel the Commission to grant Palacio a hardship rent increase. :• .. .; FACTS >on April 8, 1980, the citizens of the city of Palm Springs adopted an initiative rent- control ordinance. In general terms, this Initiative Ordinance: (1) limited rent in- creases to rates of no more than three- fourths of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") over any period of time in question; (2) prohibited rent increases from being imposed more frequently than once a year; (3) did not contain a "hardship increase" provision for landlords other than a provision which de- clared the ordinance to be non-applicable to those rental properties as to which the ini- tiative ordinance would operate in a "con- fiscatory" manner; and (4) required that a determination as to whether such a confis- catory impact had occurred in any one par- ticular case be made by the courts. The Initiative Ordinance also permitted the City Council of Palm Springs to "supplement" the Initiative Ordinance "so long as Palm Springs in no way diminishes any protec- tion which this ordinance affords to ten- ants."·. (Initiative Ordinance, § 10.) Ori October 1, 1980, the Palm Springs City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1117. This ordinance apparently was adopted to forestall a constitutional challenge to the initiative rent-control ordinance. Ordi- nance No. 1117 supplemented the Initiative Ordinance by creating a Rent Review Com- mission and providing for hardship increas- es in rents over and above those allowed by the Initiative Ordinance in certain limited circumstances. On November 18, 1983, the Commission conveyed a written recommendation to the City Council that the City Council adopt "Guidelines For Hardship Rent Increases" ("Guidelines"). The Guidelines set forth a very specific format and procedure for evaluating landlord applications for hard- ship rent increases. In accordance with the Commission's recommendation, the City Council adopted the Guidelines by resolu- tion on December 7, 1983. On January 18, 1984, the Palm Springs City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1213. This ordinance was intended to simply re- state and codify (as part of the municipal code) the provisions of the prior rent-con- trol ordinances, not to supersede or repeal any of those provisions. .1J.190n May 31, 1985, having inquired into and directly relied. upon the rent-control provisions then in effect in Palm Springs, Palacio purchased the rental complex at issue in this case. On April 29, 1986, Pala- cio petitioned the Commission for a hard- ship rent increase. This petition was op- posed by Tenants. The Commission con- ducted an extensive evidentiary hearing as to whether Palacio qualified for a hardship rent increase under the provisions of the Guidelines and the several ordinances. On June 13, 1986, the Commission denied Pala- cio's petition. Central to the Commission's decision was the Commission's determina- tion that the provisions of the Guidelines relied upon by Palacio were invalid as be- ing inconsistent with the Initiative Ordi- nance. On July 30, 1986, Palacio petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative man- damus (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5) to compel the Commission to reconsider and grant Palacio's request for a hardship rent in- DE ANZA v. PALM SPRINGS RENT REVIEW COM'N 209 Cal.App.3d 121 Cite as 257 Cal.Rptr. 121 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 1989) crease. Following extensive briefing and DISCUSSION argument, the trial court denied Palacio's petition for a writ of mandate on Novern- ber 24, 1986. The trial court held that the Commission had not the power to declare the Guidelines invalid, but that the Com- mission had been free to disregard the Guidelines inasmuch as they (the Guide- lines) were not mandatory in nature. Judg- ment was entered pursuant to the trial court's ruling on December 16, 1986. Just one day prior to the entry of [udg- ment in this case, on December 15, 1986, the Palm Springs City Council had adopted Resolution No. 16072. Resolution No. 16072 repealed that portion of the Guide- lines which had served as the primary basis of Palacio's request for a hardship rent increase-the inclusion of purchase-money financing interest payments in costs allow- able for the purpose of calculating. "net operating income" ("NOI").1 Palacio thereafter moved the trial court for an order granting a new trial. The trial court denied Palacio's motion, and Palacio thereupon filed the instant appeal. On appeal, Palacio makes the following principal contentions: (1) The Commission was bound to follow the Guidelines; (2) The Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the Com- mission's decision improperly denied Pala- cio a just and reasonable return on its property. In response, the Tenants argue that the entire case was mooted by...l.!,20the City Council's adoption of resolution No. 16072 and that the Commission did in fact have the authority to declare the Guide- lines invalid. · As set forth in greater detail below, we agree with the substance of Palacio's con- tentions. However, because of the poten- tially dispositive character of the issue, we first address the issue of mootness. Additional facts will be referred to, as needed, in the discussion which follows: I. An "adequate" NOi is central to Palm Springs' concern that landlords be able to receive a fa ir return on their rental holdings. The greater the num ber, am ount and types of costs "allowed" 123 I MOOTNESS Tenants contend that the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 16072 prior to the entry of judgment in this case, repeal- ing the Guideline provision upon which Pa- lacio relied most heavily in petitioning for a hardship rent increase, has mooted this en- tire case. In support of their position, Ten- ants cite the general proposition that a right of action which has been created sole- ly by statute is destroyed by the repeal of that statute (absent a savings clause) prior to the right's being reduced to final judg- ment. (See, e.g., Graczyk v. Work. Comp. App. Bd. (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 997, 229 Cal.Rptr. 494.) However accurate that general proposition might be as a state- ment of California law, it has no application to the case at hand. The Guidelines and rent-control ordi- nances did not create a statutory "right of action" in Palacio. Rather, those enact- ments created land-use property rights which became vested in Palacio when the financing of the apartment purchase was undertaken in reliance on the existing rent- control laws. In this sense, Palacio enjoys a situation or status analogous to that of one who has established the right to pursue a nonconforming use on land following a zoning change. (City of Santa Barbara v. Modern Neon Sign Co. (1961) 189 Cal. App.2d 188, 11 Cal.Rptr. 57.) Any attempt to retroactively apply the repeal of the Guidelines' debt financing cost allowance to Palacio's vested rights would constitute an invalid impairment of an established eco- nomic/property interest without due pro- cess of law. Notwithstanding the adoption of Resolu- tion No. 16072, Palacio continues to enjoy the benefit of the Guidelines' debt financ- ing cost allowance provisions which were in effect when Palacio assumed its purchase debt1J.21obligation. It now remains to ana- lyze the Commission's application of those provisions in this case. fo r the purpose of calc ulating NOi, the sm aller the NOi itself will be-thus m aking it m ore likely that a hardship rent increase would be allowed. 124 I i II-IV•• I ' ! 257 CALIFORNIA REPORTER V DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed. The • trial courtis directed to conduct further pro- ceedings in this matter consistent with this opinion. In particular, the trial. court is directed to issue a writ of mandate compel- ling the Commission to reconsider Palacio's application for a rent increase . with a di- rection to apply the Guidelines strictly to the facts adduced in support of that appli- cation." Appellants shall have their costs on appeal. . McDANIEL and HOLLENHORST; J~.; concur. 209 Cal.App.3d 121 209 Cal.App.Sd 245 . _wsUNITED ARTISTS COMMUNICA- . TIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. . CITY OF MONTCLAIR, et al., · Defendants and Respondents. No. E005085. .. _ · Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2. March 10, 1989. · As Modified March 31, · 1989. · Review Denied· May 23, 1989. Certiorari Denied Oct. 16, 1989. See 110 S.Ct. 280. ...il4 6Lillick McHose & Charles and Barry J. London and Michelle M. Marchant, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and appellants . Demchuk, Krueger & Robbins and Den' nis A. Krueger, Chino, for defendants and respondents. James K. Hahn, City Atty., City of Los Angeles, Pedro B. Echeverria, Sr. Asst. City Atty., Richard A. Dawson, Asst. City Atty., and Michael L. Klekner, Deputy City Atty., as amici curiae on behalf of defen-' dants and respondents. Cfty passed ordin~nce· imposing tax on . admission tickets, but excepting from tax ** See footnote *, ante. 3."" In light of our requirement that the Comrnis- . sion reconsider Palacio's application, we have · declined to address the "allowable expense" is- . sues raised by Palacio with respect to the allow- events· conducted for charitable purposes and for various types of organizations: Movie theater owner/operator/managers brought action for declaratory and injune. tive relief regarding constitutionality of the tax. The Superior Court, San Bernardino County, . William Pitt Hyde, J., entered judgment in favor of city and its director of finance, and theater plaintiffs appealed; The Court of Appeal, McDaniel, J., held that tax, whose burden fell disproportion- ately upon businesses engaged in protected speech-two theaters and two adult book stores with viewing booths-was unconsti- tutional as applied to theater plaintiffs. Reversed with directions. Constitutional Law <P90.4(4), 228.5 Theaters and Shows <P3.20 City ordinance imposing tax on admis- sion tickets was unconstitutional as applied to theaters, where the burden of the tax in reality fell disproportionately upon busi- nesses engaged in protected speech-two theaters and two adult book stores with viewing booths, notwithstanding the broad- ly worded applicability of the tax. U.S. C;A. Const.Amends. 1, 14. OPINION McDANIEL, Associate Justice. United Artists Communications, Inc., Vis- ta Theaters, Inc., and General Cinema The· ance of certain management fees and an as- sumed annual increase of 10 percent in overall operating costs. These are issues which the Commission should be allowed to consider in .. light of the directions we give in this opinion, l.J;\lTED 20'1 Ca].App.3d 2• stre Corporatio h,a,·e appealed f the City of ~ Cru tcher, City's tfrely defendan1 )owing a trial action for decla: related to the co admissions tax. In October H pas sed Ordinanc arti cle 5 to cha Montclair Munic Article 5, knov Law of the City six percent tax 1 sion ticket for th any event held." Events are de: theatrical perfor ances, operas, at of art or handier speec hes, fairs, c eries, or any otl which an admiss privilege of view tion 3-5.503(2).) Events conduct it.able purposes, . the benefit of cl: gio us, charitable military, state, c, nizations or assoc long as no profit any individual. ( The purpose o was declared to assist in coverin municipal service covered under th The plaintiffs o as managing ager loca ted in City. emas, other bush tially subject to Holiday Skating Grand Prix Race taurants which cl I. Or th · e Integrate, ::., of the condition- 'jodividual defen- ~ut firs~ rnak- •,-._;.· a.scertam the ~,.., h' ~ •bill'Oen on L is I' jp.struction left ,;, p,:<l to resolve J tM co~c.ept of 11, subdiv1s1on (b) . ~''of the statute ~-: p],· has no ,t;!Ill J • ,,,. ·. old question · ied immuni- , ''?Jrtion of the · the jury that ' · proving the - the second -~ defendants their conduct · • n concluded · to prove the · ents which efit of the .t•·. ~:- .·· !· r t.·. -~ .. ~.:- 121 .:_'".:· ... - •."':." .;.-_ DE ANZA v. PALM SPRINGS RENT REVIEW COM'N 209 Cal.App.3d 117 Cite aa 257 Cal.Rptr. 121 (Cal.App. 4 m«, 1989) "And what you're going to need to find by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendants need to prove before that im- munity applies, is the following: " ... the fifth element, if these gentle- men acted with malice, [the] privilege doesn't apply. So even if you should find all of the other elements are there, if you determine that they acted with malice, it doesn't matter. The law is not going to 'allow these gentlemen to walk away after they have done something wrong, when their conduct has been deemed to be in the conscious disregard of Jeanne Gannon's rights, and they willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those bad consequences to her." (Emphasis added.) In his rebuttal argument plaintiff's counsel added, "It is their burden of establishing that each and every one of the elements that I dis- cussed before is present before a privilege or a qualified immunity applies, and let's not be confused about that." (Em- phasis added.) Contrary to the assertions by plaintiff's counsel, we are convinced his argument created prejudicial confusion in the minds of the jurors. The instruction erroneously injected the question of negli- gence into the equation and suggested the defendants had the burden to negate mal- ice and the other factors which would pre- clude application of section 43.7, subdivi- sion (b). The closing argument of plain- tiff's counsel only compou~ded the error. The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, consistent with the views ex- pressed in this opinion. Because the de- fense substantially contributed to the er- rors we have identified, the parties shall bear their own costs. 209 Cal.App.3d 116 ;J,J_16PALACIO DE ANZA, etc., et 11!., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PALM SPRINGS RENT REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendant. and · ·• Respondent, TENANTS AT PALACIO DE ANZA . APARTMENTS, Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. · No. E00410~. :. : ., Court of Appeal, Fourth District.' _··· Division 2. March 3, 1989. Certified for Partial Publication.• • ·. . Landlord brought action for adminis- trative mandamus to compel city rent re- view commission to reconsider and grant its request for hardship rent increase. The Superior Court of Riverside County, Frank Moore, J., denied the writ and landlord appealed. The Court of Appeal, Campbell, P.J., held that repeal of rent control guide- line prior to final trial court judgment did not moot landlord's action. , ..... Reversed with directions. SCOVILLE, P.J., and SONENSHINE, J., concur. Mandamus ¢::>16(1) Repeal of guideline for hardship rent increase concerning purchase-money fi- nancing interest payments prior to entry of judgment in landlord's action for· writ of administrative mandamus to compel city' rent review commission to reconsider land- lord's request for hardship rent increa:s~ did not moot landlord's action, but rather guideline created land-use property rights which became vested in landlord when fi- nancing of apartment purchase was under-_ taken in reliance on existing rent control laws. · West's Ann.Cal.C.C.P. § 1094.5. ·, · * Parts II, III and IV are not published; they do not meet the standards for publication con- : ... _·· =::. '· ...l.li7Allen 0. Perrier, Palm Springs, for plaintiffs and appellants. tained in rule· 976(b), California Rules of_ co'urt. 122 No appearance for defendant and respon- dent. Joan Baumgarten, Palm Springs, for real parties in interest. OPINION - . CAMPBELL, Presiding Justice. This case involves a dispute between the landlords of a Palm Springs apartment complex ("Palacio") and the Palm Springs Rent Review Commission ("Commission") concern ing the proper application of Palm Springs' initiative rent-control provisions to the rents to be charged at..ll 18that apart- menCcomplex. The real parties in interest are the tenants of the apartment complex (".Tenants"). Palacio appeals from a judgment of the tri al court denying Palacio's petition for a writ of mandate to compel the Commission to grant Palacio a hardship rent increase. FACTS 257 CALIFORNIA REPORTER i · Ori April 8, 1980, the citizens of the city of Palm Springs adopted an initiative rent- control ordinance. In general terms, this Initiative Ordinance: (1) limited rent in- creases to rates of no more than three- fourths of the percentage increase in the Co nsumer Price Index ("CPI") over any period of time in question; (2) prohibited rent increases from being imposed more frequently than once a year; (3) did not contain a "hardship increase" provision for landlords other than a provision which de- clared the ordinance to be non-applicable to those rental properties as to which the ini- tiative ordinance would operate in a "con- fisca tory " manner; and (4) required that a determ ination as to whether such a confis- ca tory impact had occurred in any one par- ticular case be made by the courts. The Initiative Ordinance also permitted the City Council of Palm Springs to "supplement" the Initiative Ordinance "so long as Palm Springs in no way diminishes any protec- tion which this ordinance affords to ten- ants.": (Initiative Ordinance, § 10.) · On October 1, 1980, the Palm Springs City Council adopted Ordinance No. 111 7. This ordinance apparently was adopted to 209 Cal.App.3d 117 forestall a constitutional challenge to the initiative rent-control ordinance. Ordi- nance No. 111 7 supplemented the Initiative Ordinance by creating a Rent Review Com- mission and providing for hardship increas- es in rents over and above those allowed by the Initiative Ordinance in certain limited circumstances. On November 18, 1983, the Commission conveyed a written recommendation to the City Council that the City Council adopt "Guidelines For Hardship Rent Increases" ("Guidelines"). The Guidelines set forth a very specific format and procedure for evaluating landlord applications for hard· ship rentincreases. In accordance with the Commission's recommendation, the City Council adopted the Guidelines by resolu- tion on December 7, 1983. On January 18, 1984, the Palm Springs City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1213. This ordinance was intended to simply re- state and codify (as part of the municipal code) the provisions of the prior rent-con- trol ordinances, not to supersede or repeal any of those provisions. ..ll,1sOn May 31, 1985, having inquired into and directly relied upon the rent-control provisions then in effect in Palm Springs, Palacio purchased the rental complex at issue in this case. On April 29, 1986, Pala- cio petitioned the Commission for a hard- ship rent increase. This petition was op- posed by Tenants. The Commission con- ducted an extensive evidentiary hearing as to whether Palacio qualified for a hardship rent increase under the provisions of the Guidelines and the several ordinances. On June 13, 1986, the Commission denied Pala- cio's petition. Central to the Commission's decision was the Commission's determina- tion that the provisions of the Guidelines relied upon by Palacio were invalid as be- ing inconsistent with the Initiative Ordi- nance. On July 30, 1986, Palacio petitioned the trial court for a writ of administrative man- damus (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5) to compel the Co mmission to reconsider and grant Palacio's request for a hardship rent in- ~ .~·. DE ANZA v. PALM SPRINGS RENT REVIEW COM'N 209 Cal.App.3d 121 Cite a• 257 Cal.Rptr. 121 (Cal.App. 4 D1,t. 1989) crease. Following extensive briefing and DISCUSSION argument, the trial court denied Palacio's petition for a writ of mandate on Novern- ber 24, 1986. The trial court held that the Commission had not the power to declare the Guidelines invalid, but that the Com- mission had been free to disregard the Guidelines inasmuch as they (the Guide- lines) were not mandatory in nature. Judg- ment was entered pursuant to the trial court's ruling on December 16, 1986. Just one day prior to the entry of judg- ment in this case, on December 15, 1986, the Palm Springs City Council had adopted Resolution No. 16072. Resolution No. 16072 repealed that portion of the Guide- lines which had served as the primary basis of Palacio's request for a hardship rent increase-the inclusion of purchase-money financing interest payments in costs allow- able for the purpose of calculating "net operating income" ("NOI'').1 Palacio thereafter moved the trial court for an order granting a new trial. The trial court denied Palacio's motion, and Palacio thereupon filed the instant appeal. On appeal, Palacio makes the following principal contentions: (1) The Commission was bound to follow the .Guidelines; (2) The Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the Com- mission's decision improperly denied Pala- cio a just and reasonable return on its property. In response, the Tenants argue that the entire case was mooted by..1..L20the City Council's adoption of resolution No. 16072 and that the Commission did in fact have the authority to declare the Guide- lines invalid. As set forth in greater detail below, we agree with the substance of Palacio's con- tentions. However, because of the poten- tially dispositive character of the issue, we first address the issue of mootness. Additional facts will be referred to, as needed, in the discussion which follows: I. An "adequate" NOI is central to Palm Springs' concern that landlords be able to receive a fa ir return on their rental holdings. The greater the num ber, am ount and types· of costs "allowed" 123 I MOOTNESS Tenants contend that the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 16072 prior to the entry of judgment in this case, repeal- ing the Guideline provision upon which Pa- lacio relied most heavily in petitioning for a hardship rent increase, has mooted this en- tire case. In support of their position, Ten- ants cite the general proposition that a right of action which has been created sole- ly by statute is destroyed by the repeal of that statute (absent a savings clause) prior to the right's being reduced to final judg- ment. (See, e.g., Graczyk v. Work. Comp. App. Bd. (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 997, 229 Cal.Rptr. 494.) However accurate that general proposition might be as a state- ment of California law, it has no application to the case at hand. The Guidelines and - rent-control ordi- nances did not create a statutory "right of action" in Palacio. Rather, those enact- ments created land-use property rights which became vested in Palacio when the financing of the apartment purchase was undertaken in reliance on the existing rent- control laws. In this sense, Palacio enjoys a situation or status analogous to that of one who has established the right to pursue a nonconforming use on land following a zoning change. (City of Santa Barbara v. Modern Neon Sign Co. (1961) 189 Cal. App.2d 188, 11 Cal.Rptr. 57.) Any attempt to retroactively apply the repeal of the Guidelines' debt financing cost allowance to Palacio's vested rights would constitute an invalid impairment of an established eco- nomic/property interest without due pro- cess of Jaw. Notwithstanding the adoption of Resolu- tion No. 16072, Palacio continues to enjoy the benefit of the Guidelines' debt financ- ing cost allowance provisions which were in effect when Palacio assumed its purchase deb!JJ.21obligation. It now remains to ana- lyze the Commission's application of those provisions in this case. fo r the purpose of calc ulating NOI , the sm aller the NOI itself will be-thus m aking it m ore likely that a hardship rent increase would be allow ed. 124 257 CALIFORNIA REPORTER II-IV•• V DISPOSITION . The judgment is reversed. The . trial ~ourt is directed. to conduct further pro- ceedings in this matter consisten t with this opimon. In particular, the trial court is directed to issue a writ of mandate compel- ling the Commission to reconsider Palacio's application for a rent increase . with a di- rection to apply the Guidelines strictly to the facts adduced in support of that appli- cation.! Appellants shall have their costs on appeal. · . IifcDANIEL and HOLLENHORST, jJ.; concur. 209 Cal.App.3d 245 . .Jl4sUNITED ARTISTS COMMUNICA- TIONS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs . and 1ppellants, v. CITY OF MONTCLAIR, et al., · Defendants and Respondents. No. E005085. · Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2. March 10, 1989. . As Modified March 31, 1989. Review Denied May 23, 1989. Certiorari Denied Oct. 16, 1989. See 110 S.Ct. 280. 209 Cal.App.3d 121 ...il-4 6Lillick McHose & Charles and Barry J. London and Michelle M. Marchant, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and appellants. Demchuk, Krueger & Robbins and Den' nis A. Krueger, Chino, for defendants ind respondents. James K. Hahn, City Atty., City of Los Angeles, Pedro B. Echeverria, Sr. Asst. City Atty., Richard A. Dawson, Asst. City Atty., and Michael L. Klekner, Deputy City Atty., as amici curiae on behalf of defen-' dants and respondents. . City ·passed ordinance imposing tax on . ad~ission tickets, but. excepting from tax • • See footnote •, ante. 3.: In light of our requirement that the Commis- '. sion reconsider Palacio's application, we have · declined to address the "allowable expense" is- sues raised by Palacio with respect to the allow- events conducted for charitable purposes and for various types of organizations; Jlfo~ie theater owner I operator /managers brought action for declaratory and injune. tive relief regarding constitutionality of the tax. The Superior Court, San Bernardino County, William Pitt Hyde, J., entered judgment in favor of city and its director of. finance, and theater plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal, McDaniel, J., held that tax, whose burden fell disproportion- ately upon businesses engaged in protected . speech-two theaters and two adult book stores with viewing booths-was unconsti- tutional as applied to theater plaintiffs. Reversed with directions. Constitutional Law <!?90.4( 4 ), 228.5 Theaters and Shows <!?3.20 City ordinance imposing tax on adrnis- · sion tickets was unconstitutional as applied to theaters, where the burden of the tax in reality fell disproportionately upon busi- nesses engaged in protected speech-two theaters and two adult book stores with viewing booths, notwithstanding the bread- ly worded applicability of the tax. U.S.- C;A. Const.Amends. 1, 14. OPINION McDANIEL, Associate Justice. United Artists Communications, Inc., Vis· ta Theaters, Inc., and General Cinema The- ance of certain management fees and an as- sumed annual increase of 10 percent in overall operating costs. These are issues which the Commission should be allowed to consider in . light of the directions we give in this opinion. u'?\"ITED I ZfJ'9 Ca1-4.pp.3d 24 ~tre C,orporatio1 hHe i;.ppealed fr die City of Y Cr.it.c.hei-, City's tively defendant k>wing a trial t ~cti on for declar n:lot.ed to the co: J.dmissions tax. In October 19 ~sed Ordinance arti cle 5 to cha Montclair M unici Article 5, know Law of the City six percent tax 1 sion ticket for th, an y event held." Events are dei theatrical perfor: ances, operas, atl of art or handier speeches, fairs, c eries, or any oth which an admiss privilege of view tion 3-5.503(2).) Events conduct itable purposes, ; the benefit of ch gious, charitable military, state, c, niza tions or assoc long as no profit an y individual. ( The purpose o was declared to assist in coverin municipal service co,·ered under th The plaintiffs o as managing ager located in City . emas, other busii tially subject to Holiday Skating Grand Prix Race ta ura nts which cl I. Or th · e integrate, r e v i s e d 06-15-88 LEASE AGREEMENT NAME OF RESIDENT(S): SPACE NUMB ER: Th is lease is entered into as of the below date of execution by and between Park as Lessor, and the Resident as Le ssee, For Pu rposes of clarity, the Le ssor is referred to as Park and the Lessee as Resident. The Ca lifo rnia Civil Code Section 798.17 authorizes this notice; this lease will be ex empt from any ordinance, rule, regulation or initiative measure adopted by any local government entity, which establishes a maximum amount that the Park may charge Resident for rent during the term of this lease. Park and Resident recognize the Creekside Homeowners As sociation as the Re sident representative on specifi ed issues described herein. will be form ed and exist pursuant to Section 798 of the Ca lifornia Civil Code. The Association 1. DES CRI PT I~ OF THE PREMISES AHD FACILITIES: Park leases to the Re sident and Resident hires from Park the space indicated above within above mobile home park which is to be used as a residence by Resident and for no other purpose during the term of this lease. Park and Resident may mutually agree on other purposes. Park is responsible for providing and maintaining the existing services and physical improvements in good working order and condition. provide: Th e foll owing is a description of the physical facili ties, which Park will continue to A. Re creation buil ding: features include meeting room, kitchen, card room (ping pong) and pool room, including furniture and equipment. B. Heated swimm ing pool and jacuzzi, including furniture. C. Corrun on Ar e as : , includes streets, guest parking, street lights, park area, lawn areas, driveways and perimeter fences. D. Laundry Facilities. E. Al_l un derground utilities but not limited to: gas system, electric system, sewer system, water system, fire hydrants and associated water valves and cable TV. F. Park shall promptly restore any of the services articulated in paragraphs A, B, C, D and E above in the event of a failure. In addition, Re sident shall have the right to use common area facilities including swimming pool, clubhouse and laundry facili ties, at reasonable hours as may be posted at the facility. Also, subject to avail abil ity, the Pa rk. provides storage facility in the Park for Residents. Use of this storage area is governed by a separate agreement and fees for such use are not included in spare rent. 2. TERM : Th e term of this Lease shall be for the period Lndf ce t ed in the space provided below, comm encing on the first day of January 1988 and ending: Ini tia 1 De cember 31, 1993 December 31,·1998 Th e term of this Lease may be extended pursuant to the AUTOMATIC RENEW AL PROVISIONS in Section 25 of this Lease. Th e Lease Anniversary Date will be January 1st of each year during the t_erm of this Lease, including any extensions per section 25. Beginning on Resident's 1989 Le ase Anniversary Date, the then current rent will be adjusted each year based on increases or decreases in the Consumer Price Index and the pass throughs noted in sections 4 through 8 below. 3. REN T: Resident shall pay to Park$ .<-:=-- per calendar month as the new base rent. Th e rent shall be payable in advance on the first day of each calendar month commencing on the first day of October, 1988. All rent shall be paid at the office located within the Park without any offset or deduction whatsoever. Should the rent not be paid by the 5th day of the month, a late charge of $10.00 may be charged to cover Park's costs for additional accounting, office and collection expenses. Additionally, a handling charge of S5.00 may be required for all checks returned by the bank due to insufficient funds in the Re sident's account or for any other reason. Th is pr ovf s i on shall not be construed as a waiver by the Park should the Park fail to enforce any provision hereof after any default on the part of the Resident. Fu rthermore, the acceptance of payments shall not constitute a waiver of any breach of rule, regulation or any covenant of this Lease agreement or Park regulations, nor shall such acceptance affect any notice, demand or suit hereunder, wh ere the Resident is already in default. It i_s the in tent of this Le ase to provide a formula that a nows rents to maintain a leve 1 that keeps up with infl ation without putting 'undue fi nanci al burden on the Resident. Should rent be increased in excess of the percentage increase of the Social Security Co st of Living Adjustment (COLA) benefits, Park will at its sole option, upon individual application by those persons receiving Social Security benefits or eligible for Section 8 Rental Assistance on a case by case basis, extend hardship consideration based upon evidence of such need. (, \ 4. AD JU STMENT OF RENT BY CON SUME R PRI CE IND EX: Each year on the Lease An niversary date, the then current rent will be adjusted by the following formu la: lOO'l-o of the Co nsumer Price Index (CPI) from O'l-o to 5'l-o and 75c1, of any increase over 5%. If the rent in eff ect on January 1, 1988, for example, was $200.00 and the CPI increase wa s 7%, this portion of Resident's rent adjustment would be 5¾ plus 1.5% (75% of the excess 2%), or 6.5%--making a total rent of $213.00 in this instance. Th e CPI used will be the one published by the Bureau of La bor Statistics, All Urban Consumers, Lo s Angeles, Anaheim and Riverside (1982-84~100). On th e Le a s e An niv er sa r y da te s for 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 there will be an additional rent adjustment equal to 2% of the rent in effect on January 1, 1988. If that rent was $200.00, an additional S4.00 would be a dde d to the re n t. In the example above, the rent on January 1, 1989 would then be $217.00. In ca lc u la ting the addi t iona l 2°-'<•, the 1988 ba s e figu r e w ould be use d , lim iti ng th e inc r e a s e in the exa m ple above to $4 .0 0 in ea c h of the ye a r s spe c i fied. Sh o u ld the C P I (n o t inc lu ding th e addi t iona l 2% fa c to r ) a dju stment allowed under this section exceed 8~, the fu ll inc r e a s e w ill be pe rm itte d so long as the percentage of increase above 8'l-, does not exceed the pe r c e n ta ge inc r ea se of the Cos t of Liv ing Adju stm e n t (C O L A ) for So c ia l Se c u r i ty be ne f i ts du r ing th e m o s t re c e n t C O L A pe r io d . In othe r wor ds , if the C P I re n t a dju s tm e n t a ll ow e d by th is se c t ion we r e lO'l-o and th e m o s t re c en t inc r e a se in C O LA w e r e 8 1/2% th e m axim um re n t inc r e a se wou ld be 8 1/2% plus , if app li c a b le , th e add itiona l 2~. De c r e a se s in th e C P I w ill re s u lt in ren t de c r e a s e s us ing the sa m e form u la fo r re n t inc r e a se s pr ov ide d in th is se c t io n . In the eve n t of a na t iona l ca ta s tr ophic ec o nom ic eve n t the pa r tie s m ay m u tua lly ag re e to re ne gotia te thi s le a s e . Th e pe r c e n ta ge inc r e a se or de c r e a s e in the C P I w i ll be _c a lc u la te d by com pa r ing th e m os t re c e n t m on th of Augu s t w ith th e C P I for th e Augus t of the pr e v iou s yea r . If th e Index is disc ou nte d or re v ise d du r ing th e te r m of this Agr e e m e n t , suc h oth e r gove r nm e n ta l indic e s or com pu ta tions w ith whic h it is re pla c e d sh a ll be us e d in or de r to ob ta in su bs ta n tia lly the sa m e re s u lt as w ou ld be obta ine d if the inde x ha d no t be e n dis c oun te d or re vi se d . In the eve n t a loc a l Sa n Lu is Obisp o in dex w e r e to be es ta bli she d by the Bur e a u of La b or St a tis t ic s , Re s ide n t and Pa r k m ay m utua ll y agr e e to am e nd th is se c t io n . 5. AD JU S DIEN.r OF RENT FO R REAL P R OP E R.TY T AXE S : If the co s t of pr ope r ty tax e s inc r e a s e s or de c r e a se s by an am oun t equ a l to or Ie ss tha n the ac tu a l pe r c e n ta ge inc r e a s e or de c r e a se in the C P I , whic h is de s igna te d in se c t io n 4 above , no am oun t w i ll be adde d to the cur r e n t re n t . T o de te r m ine if pr ope r ty tax e s ha ve inc r e a se d , the m os t re c e n t pr ope r ty tax bill ac tua ll y re c e ive d by Le s so r w ill be use d (i .e ., it w il l be com pa r e d w ith th e pr ope r ty tax bi ll fo r th e imm e dia te ly pr e c e din g pr ope r ty ta x ye a r to de te r m ine if pr op e r ty ta xe s ha ve in c r e a se d fr om one pr ope r ty tax ye a r to the othe r.) If the co s t of pr ope r ty tax e s inc r e a se s or de c r e a se s by an am ount gr e a te r tha n the ac tu a l pe r ce nt a ge inc r e a s e or de c r e a s e in the C P I , the n the re n t sh a ll be adju s te d ba se d on the in c r e a s e or de c r e a se in the Pa r k 's pr ope r ty tax e s . Th is adju s tm en t sh a ll be pr or a te d equ a ll y to ea c h sp ac e . F or exam p le , if re a l pr ope r.t y ta xe s inc r e a se by $20 0 .0 0 in exc e s s of th e am oun t a llow e d by the above C P I lim ita tio n , an d if the r e ar e 200 sp a c e s in the Pa r k , ea c h sp a c e w ould be cha r ge d $1 .0 0 ad di tiona l re n t for th e fol low in g Le a s e yea r . Pr o pe r ty tax e s ar e de fi ne d as al l gene r a l and sp e c i a l re a l es ta te ta xe s ; pe r s ona l pr ope r ty tax e s , bonds , fee s cha r ge s and su rc ha r ge s and as se s sm e n t s or othe r cha r ge s m a de in lie u of re a l pr ope r ty tax e s (w he the r ac tua ll y pa id or unpa id at the tim e of the re nt inc r e a se ) le vie d upon or pa ya b le in co nne c t io n w ith th e la nd , fix tu re s an d im pr o vem e n ts co ns t itut ing the m obi le hom e pa r k . Th e y a ls o inc lude any tax or exc ise on re n ts or any oth e r tax , how eve r it m ay be de s c r ibe d , wh ic h is le v ie d or as s e s s e d aga in s t the Pa r k as di r ec t su bs t i tu tio n , in who le or in pa r t , fo r an y re a l pr ope r ty ta xe s . 6. AD JV S DIENT OF RENT FO R GO VE RNMENT SE R VICE S AND IMP R OVE '.'IE NI S :' Exa m ple s of suc h ite m s ar e ut ili tie s , fi r e pr o te c t io n , pa r am edic se rv ic e s and othe r se rv ic e s and ne w or cha nged se r vic e s or im pr ove m e nts . Re s ide nt 's re n t w i ll a ls o be inc r e a s e d or de c r e a s e d bec a u se of inc r ea s e s or de c r e a se s in ex is ti n g , the re qu ir em en t for ne w or cha nge d , im pr ove m e n ts , se rv ic e s or fe e s cha r ge d to the Pa r k or re qu ir ed by gove r nm e n t bodie s or othe r s . Inc r e a s e or de c r e a se s unde r th is se c tion w ill be bille d se pa r a te ly as addi tio na l ren t on you r m onth ly ren t st a te m e n t so tha t the C P I in c r e a s e s in se c t io n 4 he r e in do no t ap ply . Any adde d co s t inc ur re d by th e Pa r k for im pr ovem e n ts sh a ll be re im bur se d by the Re s ide nt to the Pa r k on a pr o r a te d ba s is or equ a l a l loc a t ion fo r ea c h sp a c e as pr ov ide d unde r uninsu r e d lo s se s in se c tio ns 7(a ) an d 7(b ). If th e co s t of gove r nm en t se rv ic e s and im pr o vem e n ts inc r e a s e s or de c r e a s e s by an am ount e1ua l to or le s s tha n the ac tua l pe r c e n ta ge inc r e a se in the CP I re fe r r e d to in se c tio n 4 above , the n no am ount w ill be ad de d to or su b tr a c te d fr om th e re n t . 7. ADJUSIME.\7 OF RE.\'T FOR IJNL'iSURED LOSSES: If the Par k ha s su f fe r e d a pr ope r ty lo s s no t ac tu a lly com pe ns a te d by insur a nc e and no t ca u se d by the to r tious co nduc t of Pa r k or its ag e n ts or em p lo ye e s , th e Pa r k m ay inc r e a s e re n t in additio n to othe r adju s tm e n ts to re n t pr ov ide d he r e i n . Any inc r e a se in re nt ba s e d on unin su re d lo s s e s sha ll be ca lc u la te d as fo llow s : (a ) Th e un insur e d los s sha ll be sp r e a d ov e r a num be r of ye a r s ba s e d on the am ou nt of the lo s s . T he num be r of ye a r s sha ll be com pu te d in ac c or da nce w ith. the fo ll ow ing sc he du le : uxrxsunro LO S S YE A R S 0 -s 5,0 00 2 0 - 10 ,0 00 3 0 - 25 ,0 0 0 5 0 - 5,0,0 00 8 0 - 75 ,0 0 0 10 S:5,000 and ove r 15 (2) 06/88 (b) the uninsured loss shall be divided by the number of years in the schedule set forth above and the quotient of that computation shall be divided by the total number of spaces in the Park, which quotient shall in turn be divided by 12, and the total shall reflect the dollar increase in the monthly rent payment. (c) Th e uninsured loss is defined as the total restored to "prior design and function condition" repair or replacement of any property loss for wh ich the Park is not actually compensated by insurance. In addition, if the Park finances repair and replacement of such uninsured losses, the cost of financing shal 1 also be considered an "uninsured loss." (d) Th e "uninsured loss" provisions shall be appli cable only to those losses not covered in section (e) below or for wh ich there is no insurance available to the Park at competitive prices from companies rated A-X or better authorized to do business in the State of California and listed in the most recent edition of Best Key Rating Gu ide to Insurance. Park will use due dil igence in attempting to locate such insurance. Resident shall not be subject to any increases in rent as a result of any insured losses. (e) Park will maintain subject to availability as provided in section (d) above the following insurance coverage for the benefit of Creekside: Ba sic Park Package: *Broad form and Comprehensive Ge neral Liability. *Pr operty Coverage--All Ri sk/Replacement Co st excluding flood and earthquake. *Flood and Earthquake (DIC). Difference in Co nditions Policy including earthquake and flood with Sl,000,000 stop loss limit on property and loss of rents. Th e property coverage will be maintained at current replacement values used for the Parks 1987 insurance policies as adjusted for inflation by the full amount of the CPI. Park will be responsible for the deductible portion of all insured losses or the first 5% or $20,000 of all uninsured losses, whichever is greater. Loss of rents is not included in losses under this section. (f) Increases under this section will be bill ed separately as additional rent on your monthly rent statement, so that the CPI increases in section 4 herein do not apply. On ce the cost of an uninsured loss has been completely recovered from Resident by paym ent of increased rents, the additional rent charged for that uninsured loss will be discontinued. Uninsured l.os se.s are not subject to prior approval by Resident(s). Park shall provide Resident inform ation regarding any rent increase allowed under this section. (g) An exa mple of the computation or uninsured losses is as follows: Uninsured Loss Example Assume a flood occurred during the year. If it cost the Park $31,750.00, including financing, to remove mud and rocks from streets the cost to be passed through to the Re sidents would be calculated as follows: $31,750.00 less (5%) S1,750 $30,000.00 divided by 8 years $3,750.00 divided by 300 spaces $12.50 divided by 12 months $30,000.00 $3,750.00 S12.50 $1.04 per space (monthly share of repair cost) for 8 years (h) Insurance policies included in subsection (e) above shall be made available to residents or Creekside Homeowner' s Association Board of Di rectors for review to assure residents that adequate coverage is maintained to minimize any uninsured losses. 8. CAP ITAL IMP ROVE ME Mr S ADJUS'.DiEKT: "Capital lm provemen t" means those improvements in the park that materially add to the value of the property and appreciably prolong its useful life or adapt it to new uses, and which may be amortized over the useful life of the improvement provided in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. Rent may be increased for any capital improvements made by Park, only if made in accordance with this section. Th e total effective cost to Park for capital improvements will be verified by a statement from Park's accountant that these are the total costs. Th e "cost" of capital improvements shall consist of the actual cost of the improvement, including legal and engineering fees related to said improvements, plus all interest, points, and other costs and charges relating to the borrowing of any sums by Park to make such capital improvements. All capital improvement costs over $10,000.00 shall be subject to a majority vote of Re sidents (one vote per space) who have signed this Lease or the approval of Creekside Homeown ers Association. Ch arges to Residents shall be made equally to Residents in accordance with allocations provided in Sections 7(a) and 7 (b). Th e cost of any item of improvement up to 510,000.00 shall be at the sole expense of Park under this section. Improvements required by government under section 6 of this Lease will not be subject to a vote. Park agrees that rehabilitation and preservation of streets and driveways will occur within two years of the original date of this Le ase. Park further agrees to redecorate the clubhouse, repair jacuzzi roof and rebuild the carwash. Th e costs of such rehabili tation and redecorating will be paid by Park and will not be passed through to Re sidents. 9. UTILITIES AND CITHE R CHAR GES: Utilities and other charges are additional rent. Re sident shall pay utility charges at the prevailing rates set by the serv ing utility companies wh ich the Park is authorized to charge Residents for the following utilities: natural gas, electricity and sewer. Water will be included in the base rent for a max imum monthly allowance of 800 cubic feet. Resident will pay monthly the prevailing rates for all water used in excess of 800 cubic feet. Should the gove r nm en t require metering of water, rents wil l be reduced on a prorata basis by averaging the Creekside historical annual metered usage for all single and double spacp~ pver the prior three years' period. Re sident will then, after the reduction in ren~, pay for the actual metered water used based upon the then prevaili ng commodity charge. · In addition, Par k 11h a ll furnish trash (3) 06/88 disposal. Resident shall pay the Park directly for cable television: the charge shal 1 not exceed the residential consumer charges of the "servicing" cable company in the San Luis Obispo area. These charges shall not be subject to the CPI adjustments set forth in Section 4. 10. RESIDENT 'S OPT ION ro TERMIHATE LEAS E: This Lease and Resident's tenancy may be terminated at the option of the Resident on 30 days written notice providing the Re s i.dent; moves from the Park and removes the mobilehome from the Park or by assignment of this Lease as provided in Section 18. 11. USE PRO HIBllED : Resident shall not permit the leased premises or any part thereof to be used for any purpose than as a residence for the persons listed above without prior approval. No other person may reside at the premises without the Park's prior written permission. Such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld. Guests are permitted under the terms of the Commu nity Guidelines and the 1-bbilehome Residency La w . In exceptional circumstances, for reasons of ''hardship" Park may grant special written permission to allow others. to occupy residence during an extended absence. Park shall not unreasonably deny such requests but Park has sole discretion regarding such requests. Resident shall assume full responsibility for substitute Resident(s) to Park in any such case. 12. GUIDELIHF..S AND PARK REGULATI ~S: During the term of this lease, Resident shall comply with all the Park "Community Guide lines", a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, which may be 'changed from time to time pursuant to the terns of Section 798.25 of the California Civil Code. The Park will meet and confer with Resident and Creekside Homeowners Association prior to amendment of any such rules. 13. MAIN.IENANCE OF llIE lDHESIIE PREMISE S: The Park may charge a reasonable fee for services relating to the maintenance of the land and premises upon which the mobilehome is situated in the event that Resident fails to maintain such land or premises in accordance with the rules and regulations_ of the Park. Park may levy charges for failure to maintain the premises only after Park has notified the Resident in writing of such failure and Resident has not complied within 14 days. The written notice shall state the specific condition to be corrected and an estimate of the charges to be imposed if the Resident does not correct the condition and the Park or its agents perform this service. 14. ABANDONMENT PROHIBITED: Resident shall not vacate or abandon the premises at any time during the term hereof. If Resident shall abandon, vacate or surrender their premises, any personal property belonging to Resident left on the premises shall be deemed to be abandoned at the option of Park. 15. PARK'S RIGHT OF E:Nl'.'RY: Resident shall permit Park and the agents and employees of Park to enter into and upon the leased premises (space only) at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting· the same and for the purpose of posting notices of non-responsibility for alterations, additions or repairs without any rebate of rent and without any liability to Resident for loss of quiet enjoyment. The Park or its agent may enter a mobilehome without prior written consent in case of abandonment of the mobilehome or an emergency. 16. ATIORNEY' S FEES AND COURT COSTS: If any action at law or equity shall be brought to recover any rent, utility fees or other charges due under this lease or on account of any breach of, or to enforce or interpret any of the covenants, terms or conditions of this lease or the rules attached hereto or for the recovery of possession of the leased premises, the prevailing parties shall be entitled to recover from the other party as part of the prevailing party's costs, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, the amount of which shall be fixed by the court and made a part of any judgment or decree rendered. In the event of a dispute regarding calculation of rent increases or decreases the Park and the Board of Directors of the Creekside Homeowners Association shall meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event the dispute is not resolved the Park and the Creekside Homeowners Association shall submit to arbitration using an arbitrator and the rules propounded by the American Arbitration Association. The provision shall in no way be construed as a waiver of Park's right to enforce the agreement in unlawful detainer proceedings where the law would otherwise allow. 17. WAIVER: The waiver by Park of the failure of Park to take action in any respect by any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition or ·subsequent breach of same, or any other term; covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent by Park shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any proceeding by Resident of any term, covenant or condition of this lease other than the failure of Resident to pa_y the particular rent so accepted, regardless of Park's knowledge of such proceeding breach at the time of accepting such rent. 18. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBIE.I:rl NG: Resident shall have neither the right nor power to sublet the leased premises, or any portion thereof, or any mobilehome located thereon and any such subleasing shall be void. Resident shall not assign this lease without first obtaining the approval of the Park. Such approval may be withheld if the Park is not notified in advance of the proposed assignment and approval or disapproval shall be governed by Civil Code Sections 798. 73 and 798. 74. Further, any and all buyers/transferees of the mobilehome shall execute an assignment of this Lease and, failing to do so, shall have no rights of tenancy. Because the beginning rent in this lease to existing Residents is below reasonable market levels, Park may increase rents upon the sale or other transfer of the mobilehome or subletting, should subletting ever become allowed, to a level which reflects a more reasonable value of the space, services and amenities the Park provides. This value is the New Lease Rent, which at the commencement of this Lease is S__ per month. Only.one such adjustment shall occur during the initial term of this Lease. The New Lease Rent will be adjusted each year under the terms of Sections 4 through 8 and other provisions of this Lease. (4) 06/88 In the event of the sale or transfer of the mobilehome during any extension term, defined as any five year term by which the initial Lease may be extended, rents may be increased no more than once by an amJunt not to exceed 10% of the New Lease Rent in effect at the end of the preceding lease term as further adjust~d under Sections 4 through 8 and other provisions of this Lease. The minimum reasonable market rents will be the New Lease Rent as adjusted annually under the terms of this Lease. Transfers to spouses, children, parents or the· purchase by Resident of another rnob i.Le h ome in Creekside which is to be used as their primary residence are exempt from such increase. 19. RESPONSIBILITY OF PARK: The Park shall have the responsibility to provide and maintain the _physical improvements in the common facilities, described in section 1, in good working order and condition. A reduction in the level of services or facilities provided by the Park will be offset by a reduction in rents. Any reduction in service will require the approval of the majority of residents (one vote per space) or the approval of the lbmeowner's Association. 20. NOl'.ICE OF CHAN GE IN RULES AND REX;ULATICfiS: Park management shall, after having been provided by Resident with at least 10 days prior written notice of the matter to be discussed, meet and consult with Resident either individually or collectively on the following matters regarding general operations of the Park: 20.1 Amendments to the Park Community Guidelines, which are the rules and regulations attached hereto. 20.2 Standards for maintenance and construction of physical improvements in the Park. 20.3 Additions, alterations or deletions of services, equipment and physical improvements. 20.4 Rental agreements of Leases offered per California Civil code section 798.17. Any change in the Park Community Guidelines shall not be construed as a change in this Lease agreement. Any such change in the Park Community Guidelines shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Ca Li fo r n i a Civil Code as amended from time to time. 21. TRANSFER OF PARK'S DUERESI: In the .event Park transfers its interest in the Park or any portion thereof, Park shall be automatically relieved of all· obligations hereunder accruing after the date of such transfer. Such obligations under this lease shall be binding on the new owner pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 22. GO VE RNING LA W: This Lease agreement shall be governed by and construed pursuant to the la~s of the State of California. 23. AHENDHEN'.rS: Any amendments to this Lease agreement shall be in writing, signed by the Park and the Resident. 24. INCORPORATION OF RULES AND LAW: Park and Resident hereby acknowledge that the rules and regulations "Community Gu_idelines" of this mobilehome park, as amended from time to time, are incorporated herein by this reference. In addition, the cont en ts of Sections 798 through 799. 6 of the California Civil Code, as amended from time to time, are incorporated in this Lease as though fully set forth. Should this Lease conflict with the present or future provision of the California Civil Code sections known as the Mobilehome Residency Law, those provisions of the Ca_l~!ornia Civi_l _Cod_~ __ shall prevail in the appropriate interpretation, and the balance of this lease agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 25. AUTOHATIC RENEWAL OF nus LEASE: UNLESS PARK NOl'.IFIES RESIDENT IN WRITING AI LEAST 120 DAYS lI\ ADVANCE OF DIE EXPIRATION OF DIE IlfITIAL TERMS OF rats LEASE, nu s LEASE WILL AUTOKATICALLY BE EXTENDED IO A TERM OF AN ADDITIONAL 60 MONTHS. THIS IS AN "EXTENSION 'IERM". THE AUTOHATIC RENEWAL OF nu s LEASE HAY CONTINUE FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL SUCCESSIVE 60 MONTI! EXTENSION TERMS UNTIL nu s LEASE HAS BEEN AIJTOMATICALLY RENEWED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 MONTHS. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS IF PARK NO'IIFIES RESIDENTS IN WRITING AT LEAST 120 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE BEGINNING OF ANY ONE OF THESE ADDITIONAL EXTENSION 'IERMS THAT THIS LEASE IS NCYI BEING' EXTENDED. ALL OF THESE AUTOMATIC RENEWALS WILL BE ON THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS PRESENTLY FOUND IN THIS LEASE. IF Th'O THIRDS OF DIE SPACES WHO HAVE SIGNED THIS LEASE GIVE WRITTEN NO'IICE THAI THEY DO NOT ',JANT THIS LEASE AUTOHATICALLY RENEWED, THIS PROVISION WILL NO'I BE APPLICABLE. THIS NO'IICE MAY ONLY BE GI~N BY RESIDENT BETWEEN DIE lWIH DAY AND THE 90TH DAY PRECEDING THE EFFECTIVE DA:re OF EACH OF THE AUTOMATIC RENEWALS. IF RESI.DEN.r CONTINUES TO LIVE IN CREEKSIDE AFIER THE INITIAL TERM OF THE LEASE HAS EXPIRED (OR AFTER ANY EXTENSION OF DIE IlflTIAL TERM) THE TERMS OF THIS TENANCY, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF THE INITIAL RENT, UTILITIES, PASS THROUGHS, AND OTIJER CHARGES RESIDENT WILL PAY PARK, WILL BE THE AMOUNT CURRENTLY BEING PAID AT !:-IE END OF TIIIS LEASE AS THEY HAY BE FURTIIBR ADJUSTED BY PARK ON WRITmN NOTICE TO RESIDENT OR. AN AMOUNT WHICH PARK IS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO CHARGE. THIS LEASE IS OFFERED TO RESIDENT FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO TEN YEARS WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR UP IO TI:IREE ( 3) ADDITIONAL 60 MONTil EXTENSIONS. PARK AGREES TO CONTINUE TO OPERA'IE AS A MOBILE HOME PARK FOR THE TERM OF THE LEASE PWS ANY EXTENSIONS THEREOF. 26. ACKN O WLE DGE MENT : Park and Resident agree that this Lease, together with matters incorporated herein, contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the lease of said space in this mobile home park, and that this lease agreement may only be altered as allowed by law or herein above provided. This Lease supercedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of Resident or the Park. The Resident acknowledges that he or she has received copies of the California Civil Code Sections 79S through 799. 6 and the Park rules and regulations which are called Community Guidelines which are referred to above and incorporated by reference. The Resident further acknowledges that he or she has received a copy of (5) 06/88 this Lease Agreement and all attachments thereto and agrees to be bound by the terms set forth. Resident further acknowledges that he or she has received a copy of San Luis Obispo City Rent Stabilization Ordinance and has had an opportunity to read this ordinance before signing this Lease. 27. EHlHEH'.[ IXMAI N: The rights of Resident and Park shall be deter,mined by the California Law of Eminent Doma Ln , 28. ZONING AND USE PERMIT INFO RHAn ON: The nature of the zoning which the Park operates under is: R-2-S. The Conditional Use or other permits required to operate the Park are not subject to expiration or renewal. The land on which the Park is located is not leased from someone else. 29. RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: In the event Park receives an offer to purchase which it intends to accept, or intends to make an offer to sell the Park, then before accepting or making any such offer, the Park shall first give to the Creekside 1-bmeowners Association a right of first refusal. The Park shall give to the Association a written notice describing the terms and conditions of the prospective sale. The Association may elect within forty five (45) days thereafter to purchase the Park on the tenns and conditions described. In the event the Association fails to elect to purchase within the time provided, then the Park is free to sell the park on the terms and conditions described so long as the sale takes place within eighteen (18) months. In the event it does not, then a new notice must be given to the Association as provided above. This first right of refusal is given to the Association only, and is not granted to any ind i vidua 1 resident within the park. This right of first refusal does not apply to transfers to any member of Park owner's family or to any entity in which the Park owner retains a controlling interest. 30. PARTIAL INVALIDITY: If any part of this Lease or any document referred to in this Lease is, in any way, invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease or the other document shall not be affected, and will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. The same is true if the application of any part of this Lease, or any document referred to in it is, in any way, invalid or unenforceable to any person or circumstance. 31. DAIE nus LEASE BECDHES EFFECTI VE: If this Lease is not accepted by two-thirds of the Spaces in Creekside by August 1, 1988 (and these Leases are not canceled per Civil Code 798.17), Creekside will have the option, in its sole discretion, not to be bound to this Lease. Creekside will have a reasonable period of time after the deadline date to notify Resident whether Creekside has received the required number of Leases or has elected to accept a lesser number. 32. EXEClITION: This Lease is signed by you at ,k _f}__.m., on ~ 19 PLEASE NOTE: SECTION 25 OF nus LEASE CONT.AIMS AN AUTOHA:r:[r RFJ/EWAL PROVISION. Re sfden , Resi~ .. Resident Resident NOIICE: IF YOU ARE ]l{E PERSON(S) WHO ORIGINALLY SIGNED THIS LEAS E, YOU HAY CANCEL THI S LEASE BY NOTIFYING PARK IN WRITING WITHIN 72 HOURS OF TIIE TIME YOU SIGNED THIS LEASE. THIS WRIT.rEN NOTICE DOES NOT APPLY TO PERSONS TO WHOM THIS I.EAS E IS ASSIGNED . This Lease is signed by us on 19, CREEKSIDE MOBILEHOME COMMUNITY ///JU BY \ ( f,) 06/88 -•, A ORDINANCE NO,. 1226 (1992 Series) An Ordinance of the Council of the city of San Luis Obispo Am ending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and Section 5.44.0G0C Relating to Space Rent Increases in Mobile Home Parks Upon Change of ownership BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 5.44.010 Purpose and intent. A. There is presently within the city and the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces for the location of mobile homes. Because of this shortage, there is a very low vacancy rate, and rents have been for several years, and are presently, rising rapidly and causing concern among a substantial number of San Luis Obispo residents. B. Mobile home tenants, forced by the lack of suitable alternative housing, have had to pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a further reduction in their standard of living. C. Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative homesites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases, while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, maintenance, insurance, utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their property. D. This council finds that the present low vacancy rate and frequent increases are particularly hard upon and unfair to residents of mobile home parks within the city. Large numbers of these residents are senior citizens and others on fixed incomes who installed their mobile homes in the city when the •- ' ' .. Ordinance No. 1226 (1992 Series) Page Two present inflationary rent increases could not reasonably have been foreseen. E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring to sell their mobile homes may have difficulty finding buyers because, upon a change of ownership, the park owner is able to raise the rent without regard to the city's mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. F. This council finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo to assist those who are seeking to sell their mobilehomes and those who are seeking to buy such homes to have the same fair rental protection as is afforded to those who remain in their mobilehomes without sale. This Council finds that the vacancy control provisions originally included in the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance when it was approved by the voters was an effective and beneficial provision for the people of San Luis Obispo living in mobile home parks, and should be reinstated. This council further finds that provisions allowing annual rent increases together with provisions allowing rent increases upon a showing of necessity protect the park owner's right to a fair return on investment, thus eliminating the need for rent increases above 10% upon change of ownership. G. However, this council recognizes that a rent stabilization ordinance must be fair and equitable for all parties and must provide appropriate incentives for mobile home park operators to continue their parks profitably, as well as to attract additional investors for new parks. SECTION 2. Section 5.44.060C of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. However, such increase shall not exceed ten percent of the then existing space rent and may not be relied upon any more often than once in any thirty-six month period as the basis to increase rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from subletting of the mobilehome space as may be allowed by Ord in anc e No .. 122 6 (1 992 Se r ie s ) Pag e Th ree st at e law , sh ou ld su ch bec om e st at e law , th en up on an y su ch su b le tt in g th e sp ace ren t m ay be in c rea sed up to ten p e r c e n t o f t h e th en ex ist in g sp ac e rent . In th e ev en t of c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p r e s u l t i n g f r o m v a c a t i on of th e sp ace , t h e n t h e s p a c e r e n t m a y b e a d j u s t ed to fa ir m ark et ren t i n t h e c o m m u n i t y . N o t h i n g in th is par ag rap h sh all p r e c l u d e a n a d j u s t m e n t as m ay oth e rw ise be pr ov id ed for i n t h i s C h a p t e r . S E C T I O N 3 . T h i s o r d i n a n c e , t og eth er w ith th e nam ~s of counc il mem ber s vot in g for an d ag ain st , sh all be pu b lish ed onc e in fu ll , at le ast th r ee day s pr io r to it s fin al pas sag e , in th e Te leg r am Tr ib un e , a new sp ap er pub lish ed an d cir cu la t ed in th is City . Th e ord in an ce sh all go in t o effect at th e exp ir at ion of 30 day s aft er it s fin a l passa ge . IN TRO DU CED AND PA SSED TO PR IN T by th e Cou nc il of th e City of San Lu is Ob isp o at it s meet in g held on th e 20th day of October , 1992, on motion of Council Member Roalman , seconded by Council Member Pinard , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council Members Roalman, Pinard, Rappa, and Reiss None Mayor Dunin Mayor Ron Dunin - ATTEST: APPROVED: ' ' ' ~· .. Ordinance No. 1226 (1992 Series) FINALLY PASSED this _l_o_th day of _N_Jo_v_em_b_e_r _ 1992 on motion of __ Co_u_n_c_i_l_M_em~b_e_r_R_o_a_lm_· a_n , seconded by _C_o_u_n_c_i_l_M_e_m_b_e_r_R_a.:...pp=--a , and on the following roll call vote: AYE S: Council Members Roalman, Rappa, Pinard, Reiss, and Mayor Dunin N O E S: None AB S E NT : None t ◄ A TI E S T : I ~\MIU~ l~\\I city o~ san luts ost spo -=..t C O UNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: I. COUNCIL AGENDA TRANSMITTAL FORM ORIGINATED BY: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: Mohi]e Hnme RPnt StRhili7Rtinn Or~inance Public Hearing Business c:5 nse11t (ei--rc¼e--0~~ Part I (white) form rrust be submitted to the City Clerk's Office on the Friday before the Tuesday Agenda Review meeting. Please forward names and addresses of property owners, appellants, subdividers, applicants, or any parties who rrust be notified about this item to the City Clerk with Prelim Notification slip, if possible. II. REVIEWING DEPARTMENT ROUTING SLIP After DEPARTMENT HEAD approve l, pl ease attach Part I I (canary) to your report and route to the following department heads in the order indicated below. Following approval, please initial and send on. ROUTING ORDER DEPARTMENT DATE IN DATE OUT INIT. PERSONNEL FINANCE I CITY ATTORNEY ASST. CAO CAO 3 CITY CLERK NOTE: The initiating department head is responsible for obtaining ill necessary signatures (other department heads and consultants) prior to submittal of report to the City Attorney, CAO and City Clerk Offices. COMMENTS: I. ~hite: Prelim Notification Slip II. Canary: Agenda Report Routing Slip III. Pink: Department Copy 1lllM\li1\WI\\ llm\\ City O~ san lUIS OBISPO - ■:h'lllm 118 C O U N C IL A G E N D A R E P O R T M EET IN G DATE: 11-10-92 ITEM N U M BER: FRbM: SUBJECT: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City AttorneyCff The Control of Rents Upon the Sale ff Mobile Hornes Located in Parks Subject to Mobile Horne Rent Stabilization CAO RECOMMENDATION: Give Final Passage to Ordinance No. 1226 (1992 Series) Amending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and Section 5.44.060(C) Establishing Control of Rents Upon the Sale of Mobile Hornes Located in Parks Subject to Mobile Rent Stabilization. SUMMA RY DISCUSSION: On October 20, 1992, the City Council passed to print an amendment of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Section 5.44.060(C), to provide for the control of rents upon the sale of mobile homes (otherwise known as "Vacancy Control"), limiting the increase in monthly space rent when there is a change of ownership, to no more than 10% within any 36 month period. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no anticipated impact on City funding, either in terms of expense or savings, with the exception of potential litigation. Costs of any such litigation are too speculative to project at this time. Attachments: Ordinance No. 1226 Legislative Draft ORDINANCE NO. 1226 (1992 Series) An Ordinance of the council of the City of San Luis Obispo Am ending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and Section S.44.060C Relating to Space Rent Increases in Mobile Home Parks Upon Change of ownership BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 5.44.010 Purpose and intent. A. There is presently within the city and the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces for the location of mobile homes. Because of this shortage, there is a very low vacancy rate, and rents have been for several years, and are presently, rising rapidly and causing concern among a substantial number of San Luis Obispo residents. B. Mobile home tenants, forced by the lack of suitable alternative housing, have had to pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a further reduction in their standard of living. C. Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative homesites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases, while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, maintenance, insurance, utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their property. D. This council finds that the present low vacancy rate and frequent increases are particularly hard upon and unfair to residents of mobile home parks within the city. Large numbers of these residents are senior citizens and others on fixed incomes who installed their mobile homes in the city when the O r d i n a n c e N o . 1 2 2 6 (1 9 9 2 S e r i e s ) P a g e T w o p r e s e n t i n f l a t i o n a r y r e n t i n c r e a s e s c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y h a v e b e e n f o r e s e e n . E . T e n a n t s i n m o b i l e h o m e p a r k s d e s i r i n g t o s e l l t h e i r m o b i l e h o m e s m a y h a v e d i f f i c u l t y f i n d i n g b u y e r s b e c a u s e , u p o n a c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p , t h e p a r k o w n e r i s a b l e t o r a i s e t h e r e n t w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e c i t y 's m o b i l e h o m e r e n t s t a b i l i z a t i o n o r d i n a n c e . F . T h i s c o u n c i l f i n d s t h a t i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c i t i z e n s o f t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o t o a s s i s t t h o s e w h o a r e s e e k i n g t o s e l l t h e i r m o b i l e h o m e s a n d t h o s e w h o a r e s e e k i n g t o b u y s u c h h o m e s t o h a v e t h e s a m e f a i r r e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n a s i s a f f o r d e d t o t h o s e w h o r e m a i n i n t h e i r m o b i l e h o m e s w i t h o u t s a l e . T h i s C o u n c i l f i n d s t h a t t h e v a c a n c y c o n t r o l p r o v i s i o n s o r i g i n a l l y i n c l u d e d i n t h e M o b i l e H o m e R e n t s t a b i l i z a t i o n O r d i n a n c e w h e n i t w a s a p p r o v e d b y t h e v o t e r s w a s a n e f f e c t i v e a n d b e n e f i c i a l p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e p e o p l e o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o l i v i n g i n m o b i l e h o m e p a r k s , a n d s h o u l d b e r e i n s t a t e d . T h i s c o u n c i l f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t p r o v i s i o n s a l l o w i n g a n n u a l r e n t i n c r e a s e s t o g e t h e r w i t h p r o v i s i o n s a l l o w i n g r e n t i n c r e a s e s u p o n a . s h o w i n g o f n e c e s s i t y p r o t e c t t h e p a r k o w n e r 's r i g h t t o a f a i r r e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t , t h u s e l i m i n a t i n g t h e n e e d f o r r e n t i n c r e a s e s a b o v e 1 0 % u p o n c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p . G . H o w e v e r , t h i s c o u n c i l r e c o g n i z e s t h a t a r e n t s t a b i l i z a t i o n o r d i n a n c e m u s t b e f a i r a n d e q u i t a b l e f o r a l l p a r t i e s a n d m u s t p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e i n c e n t i v e s f o r m o b i l e h o m e p a r k o p e r a t o r s t o c o n t i n u e t h e i r p a r k s p r o f i t a b l y , a s w e l l a s t o a t t r a c t a d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t o r s f o r n e w p a r k s . S E C T I O N 2 . S e c t i o n 5 .4 4 .0 6 0 C o f t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M u n i c i p a l C o d e i s a m e n d e d t o r e a d a s f o l l o w s : C . T h e m a x i m u m m o n t h l y s p a c e r e n t o f a t e n a n t m a y b e i n c r e a s e d b y t h e o w n e r w h e n t h e r e i s a c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p a f f e c t i n g a m o b i l e h o m e . H o w e v e r , s u c h i n c r e a s e s h a l l n o t e x c e e d t e n p e r c e n t o f t h e t h e n e x i s t i n g s p a c e r e n t a n d m a y n o t b e r e l i e d u p o n a n y m o r e o f t e n t h a n o n c e i n a n y t h i r t y -s i x m o n t h p e r i o d a s t h e b a s i s t o i n c r e a s e r e n t . I n t h e e v e n t o f c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p r e s u l t i n g f r o m s u b l e t t i n g o f t h e m o b i l e h o m e s p a c e a s m a y b e a l l o w e d b y O r d i n a n c e N o . 1 2 2 6 (1 9 9 2 S e r i e s ) P a g e T h r e e s t a t e l a w , s h o u l d s u c h b e c o m e s t a t e l a w , t h e n u p o n a n y s u c h s u b l e t t i n g t h e s p a c e r e n t m a y b e i n c r e a s e d u p t o t e n p e r c e n t o f t h e t h e n e x i s t i n g s p a c e r e n t . I n t h e e v e n t o f c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p r e s u l t i n g f r o m v a c a t i o n o f t h e s p a c e , t h e n t h e s p a c e r i n t m a y b e a d j u s t e d t o f a i r m a r k e t r e n t i n t h e c o m m u n i t y . N o t h i n g i n t h i s p a r a g r a p h s h a l l p r e c l u d e a n a d j u s t m e n t a s m a y o t h e r w i s e b e p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h i s C h a p t e r . S E C T I O N 3 . T h i s o r d i n a n c e , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e n a m e s o f c o u n c i l m e m b e r s v o t i n g f o r a n d a g a i n s t , s h a l l b e p u b l i s h e d o n c e i n f u l l , a t l e a s t t h r e e _ d a y s p r i o r t o i t s f i n a l p a s s a g e , i n t h e T e l e g r a m T r i b u n e , a n e w s p a p e r p u b l i s h e d a n d c i r c u l a t e d i n t h i s C i t y . T h e o r d i n a n c e s h a l l g o i n t o e f f e c t a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f 3 0 d a y s a f t e r i t s f i n a l p a s s a g e . c o u n c i l o f t h e c i t y o f d a y o f , ___________________ , s e c o n d e d b y _________________ , a n d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g r o l l c a l l v o t e : I N T R O D U C E D A N D P A S S E D T O P R I N T b y t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o a t i t s m e e t i n g h e l d o n t h e 1 9 9 2 , o n m o t i o n o f A Y E S : N O E S : A B S E N T : M a y o r R o n D u n i n ( A T T E S T : C i t y C l e r k , Diane Gladwell APPROVED: Legislative Draft of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 5.44.010 5.44.010 Purpose and intent. A. There is presently within the city and the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces for the location of mobile homes. Because of . this shortage, 1 there is a very low vacancy rate, and rents have been for several years, and are presently, rising rapidly and causing concern among a substantial number of San Luis Obispo residents. B. Mobile home tenants, forced by the lack of suitable alternative housing, have had to pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a further reduction in their standard of living. C. Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative homesites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases, while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, maintenance, insurance, utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their property. D. This council finds that the present low vacancy rate and frequent increases are particularly hard upon and unfair to residents of mobile home parks within the city. Large numbers of these residents are senior citizens and others on fixed incomes who installed their mobile homes in the city when the present inflationary rent increases could not reasonably have been foreseen . ..... g:t::t:tw.i~n~:nw.~: :J;@::tmi1iei:+@/In1m1tm@)M®ita:@~illi.in.s p§:::::§;+ +:::::: 1Ptt~J;1::::1r,r,2Pw+:~tt:9.:2mm§::1:::1ii!#:IJ:::m:gy;;r:::r:1™:;;i%im gµJ.i@y::@wn@®.P:9.t eMY~@t~tIJM~@ ~:@~i~M::Ai.PP:fi :ijf§n:@ns~J:@:A ilililillllllllliil!i!ilill:illiillllfilf:IJ!itllll:itlll ~~~~:::::111111111111111i11:1111111;~;;;;;;;;;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;$.;;;:;;;;;fi;; l:Hiltt:t@fipg}.tiiwi ?§II!l!n:!Itsww;$~!:n~f 1 :P¥!]/t)JtE:i@~!R¥:ii§¥ iillilli:l!ill~lll 1 l ll1lli1lli111illilllllilili gpg]p§ifHiElw§W.i+fFERY:&ilw.§n];p§:itl@pjii,JilwiRBWifsEi l$.Jln 11 .. a11;1111•m1 ., •••• · · ···@B~ · ·· Howev e r , this council recognizes that ·a rent stabilization ordinance must be fair and equitable for all parties and must provide appropriate incentives for mobile home park operators to continue their parks profitably, as well as to attract additional investors for new parks. Jee J October 19, 1992 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis O bispo, CA 93403-8100 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council COPISTO: D • Denotes Action O FYI ~J:ooncil ~CDDDIR. ~ CAO O FIN. DIR. W~CAO D FIRE OilEF [y,/A ~ 0 rw DIR. [iJ-"'CLERl(/ORIG. 0 POLICEOi 0 MGMT. TEAM O REC. DIR. 0 C. READ FILE O L DIR 1w' TC [Y FROM: RE: Diane Gladwell, City Clerk {'/ J M o b ile H o m e R en t Sta bili z~o ~ C orrespo nde nc e There was one letter that was inadvertently placed in the "opposition" section that should have been placed in the "support" section. The letter is from Bruce E. Stanton of Crosby and Stanton, Attorneys At Law. I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. ·DRG:cm (;Jre elq,ide MEETING AGENDA / DATE ?-Lr-<Jot.. ITEM # ---- Mobilthomt Commuoity 39(,0 Soun, H1cuERA • SAN Lu is OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543-7113 SALES RECORDS- 19 83-1991 (A LL HOMES SOLD IN CREEKSIDE) YEAR HOMES SOLD AVERAGE SELLING PRICE 19 83 SINGLEWIDES- 1 4 '- $20,300 DOUBLEWIDES- 5 $41,975 19 84 SINGLEWIDES- 35 $20,900 DOUBLEWIDES- 8 $42,400 19 85 SINGLEWIDES·- 1 9 $25,400 DOUBLEWIDES- 9 $43,600 19 86 SINGLEWIDES- 22 $25,800 DOUBLEWIDES- 9 $54,200 19 87 SINGLEWIDES- 1 4 $29,515 DOUBLEWIDES- 3 $54,833 19 88 SINGLEWIDES- 1 4 $31,057 DOUBLEWIDES- 5 $60,625 19 89 SINGLEWIDES- 1 9 $35,638 DOUBLEWIDES ·- 2 $71,750 19 90 SINGLEWIDES- 1 3 $41,000 DOUBLEWIDES- 4 $80,950 19 91 SINGLEWIDES- 1 2 $42,867 DOUBLEWIDES- 3 $67,000 (R ange $49,000-$87,000) R E C t::IV E D SEP 1 " 1992 CITY COUNCIL SA N LUIS OBISPO, QA COPISTO: D • Denotes Action g; 0 fYI ~ Council CD D DI R. ~ CAO FIN. DI R. ~ ACAO - 0 FIRE OilEF al' ATTORNEY O FW DIR. ~ a.ERK /OR IG . 0 PO LI CE 0-L 0 MGMT. TEAM O REC DIR. □ ..,,C. READ FILE R, UTIL DIR. ~ :r-T ¥-1 FILE MEETING AGENDA -~DATE 9-tS--(2: ITEM I ,/ September 8, 1992 San Luis Obispo City Council P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Council Members: At the September 15 meeting on rent stabilization, I would appreciate it if you would please consider removing 5.44.30 "F" pertaining to the exemption of all residents who did not sign the lease due to not agreeing to some of the conditions of the lease. This leaves these residents of the parks with no pro- tection. These mobilehome owners·deserve:thersame~protection accorded all other mobilehome owners in our city. Thank you, Mildred Netolicky 3960 S. Higuera San Luis Obispo, 93401 CA RECE;VEr" ,,. .. , ,:.· ,, ~ .· ,--.-~ SE~1992 CITY CL[l'llC COPIES TO: D • Denotes Action O FYI [1 Council 0 CDD DIR. 0 CAO O FIN. DIR. ca ACAO O FIRE GIIEF 0, A'ITORNEY O ·FW DIR. ~ 0.ERK/ORIG. 0 POLICE GI. 0 MGMT. TEAM O REC. DIR 0 C. REA D ALE O .,,uTI L DIR. 0 T.T, 0' Pt/..€ 1 1 S e p t e m b e r 19 9 2 S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C a . MEETING AGENDA DATE ~/Gf~TEM # I Mayor Ron Dunin P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403-8100 Dear Mr. Dunin: My wife, Jo Ellen, and I li~~ at 1032 Kerry, San Luis Obispo Ca., in Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. ' This letter asks for your support of amendments to the City Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance which are the subject of public hearing, Agenda item #1, for the September 15, 1992 City Council meeting. The residents of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance 1117 at the June 7, 1988, Special Municipal Election. This Ordinance contained Section S.44.060C which provided for vacancy control, (Controls what rent a park owner may charge a new mobilehome owner and tenant), when a tenant in a mobilehome park sells their mobilehome. On June 6, 1990, the City Council gave final passage to Ordinance No. 1168 amending this Secion of Ordinance 1117 providing for vacancy decontrol of rents when a tenant sells a mobilehome. This was done under threat of suit by mobllehome park owners based on certain rulings by State and lower Federal courts. This summer the Supreme Court ruled unaminmously that vacancy control is not the takine of property as had been ruled by the lower courts. P le a s e su p p o r t th e r e t u r n of v a c a n cy control to the C i t y M o b il e h o m e Pa r k R e n t St a b i l i z a t i o n O r dinance. Section S.44.030(F) provides an exemption to the pro~isions of this Ordinance for mobilehome parks which sell lots for factory-built or manufactured housing, or which provide co n d o m in iu m ow n e r s h ip of such lots. The owner of our mobilehome park proposes to convert our rental park to a condominium for mobilehomes. Thus, the park will be exempt from the provisions of the Ordinance. I am sure that the thought behind thi~ exemption was that residents that own their mobilehomes and the space on which it sits do not need rent stabilization. This presumes that there will be no tenants in a mobilehome park where there is condominium ownership. In our case, because of the proposed price and age of our tenants, there are likely to be many more tenants than resident owners for many years to come. These people will be just as vulnerable as tenants in a rental park. It seems strange that other forms of resident ownership, such as stock cooperatives, are not exempt. Please consider amendment to this section to cover all forms of resident ownership, but tie the exemption to the nercentage of the park that is resident owned. 0 coPIES TO : . • Denotes A cti o n O FYI ~ Council . rz" COD DIR. l..f!2" CAO O FIN. DIR. (?'ACAO O FIRE GDEF ~TI'ORNEY D FW DIR. tJ Cl.ERK/ORIG. 0 POLICE GI. 0 MGMT. TEAJvf O REC. DIR. 0 C. READ FILE O UTIL DIR. Gr?: -r. CY ss« S~1~ \JcLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA M C JG AGENDA DATE f-1~~e;~ ITEM II ---- I To City Council Members, San L~is Obispo c/o City Hall, San Lu~s Obispo, CA 91401 COPIES TO· O• . [5 Denotes Action O FYI August 25, · 19c ~: D CDDDlR. l3 ACAO . 8 FIN. DIR. ~~-□~~ D MciitlORf G. o: POLICE oc 0 · . TEAM O REC. DIR ' ~zrDFrLE ~LQlR FIi./;; Many mobile park residents have signed petitions to ask you to reinstate vacancy control. Many California cities have already done so. The Supreme Court judges gave their unanimous approval to the legality of vacancy control. I feel the council members of our city should protect its mobilehome owners from the abuses which occur when rents are raised merely because a mobilehome is sold. It works a hardship on the buyer as well as the seller,- and delivers a windfall to the park owner which he doesn't need and has not earned. Please correct this injustice. Sincerely, R E C E IV E D SEW(1992 w~:ERK _SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA_ t) . •• • -------•- .. --•· •-·--;;-••-••. - •••-•-•-~•n••-••• -· ·•• • . ,j(,L) _ R E C E I V E D SEP " l \99~ . August 25, 1992 QITV E;\bERK SAN LUIS 06\SPCl, CA To City Council Members, San L~is Obispo c/o City Hall, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Many mobile park residents have signed petitions to ask you to reinstate vacancy control. Many California cities have already done so. The Supreme Court judges gave their unanimous approval to the legality of vacancy control. I feel the council members of our city should protect its mobilehome owners from the abuses which occur when rents are raised merely because a mobilehome is sold. It works a hardship on the buyer as well as the seller, and delivers a windfall to the park owner which he doesn't need and has not earned. Please correct this injustice. lij\\1 city o~ san . .11s osispo ail COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: 9-15-92 ITEM NUMBER:/ F R O M : E C O MM E N D A T I O N : Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorneyw Proposed Amendments to the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance Concerning Rent Increases Upon Change of ownership, and Certain Exemptions Receive a Report Regarding Proposed Amendments to the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and Provide Staff with Direction as to Any Preferred Amendments. Two Ordinances are Included for Council Consideration. D I S C U S S I O N : At the June 16, 1992 Council Meeting, Councilman Roalman presented a communication item to the Council on the issue of mobile home park vacancy control, in response to a request from Mr. Bill Henson and a petition signed by 2 3 9 mobile home owners. The Council directed staff to bring back a report on the legal validity of mobile home park vacancy control regulations in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Yee v. City of Escondido, and to draft a proposed ordinance reestablishing mobile home park vacancy control in the City of San Luis Obispo. Since the June 16th meeting, the City has received additional requests to reinstitute vacancy control, as well as to delete the exemptions from the rent stabilization ordinance for parks with 66.67 percent of spaces under lease agreements (SLOMC 5.44.0J0F), and parks with condominium ownership (SLOMC 5.44.0J0(G). (Copies of the various citizen requests are included as Attachm_ent 1.) _ ~ ~ r BA C K G R O U N D :· ~ -t In July 1989, the U.S. District Court entered its final decision in the case of Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, holding that the vacancy control provisions of the City of Santa Barbara Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance constituted an unconstitutional "physical" taking of property. (The Santa Barbara ordinance was substantially similar to San Luis Obispo's ordinance at the time, limiting rent increases on sale to no more than 10%.) The City of Santa Barbara settled the · case, and it therefore became binding law in the federal courts, at least with respect to California. In January 1990, the city received a request from Western Mobile Home Association to amend the City's rent stabilization ordinance to delete its vacancy control provisions in light of the Hall decision. In June 1990, the City Council amended the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance to delete vacancy control. A minor /-/ , Agenda Report Page Two technical revision was also adopted in July 1990 to establish a process for determining fair market rent on decontrol. After the Hall decision, the federal courts continued to strike down vacancy control regulations as "physical" takings. However, several California state courts refused to follow the logic of Hall. As a result, the Supreme Court accepted the case of Yee v. City of Escondido in order to resolve the conflict. In April 1992, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the vacancy control provisions of the Escondido mobile home rent control ordinance against the argument that such provisions constitute a "physical" taking of the park owners property. The decision is a logical one to the extent that it is difficult to imagine how a regulation can ever be considered a physical occupation of land. At the same time, the Court left the door open, under the proper set of circumstances, for an argument that vacancy control provisions constitute a regulatory taking. (A copy of Yee v. Escondido is attached.for your information, as attachm ent 2.) The Yee decision has been hailed as a victory by both sides. Mobile home tenants claim it is a complete vindication for the legal validity of vacancy control. Park owners assert it was practically an invitation to relitigate the issues on a "regulatory" taking theory. Since Yee, several cities have adopted or readopted vacancy control provisions. Not surprisingly, the Yee decision has generated extensive litigation throughout the State. (Mr. Louis Shuster, a mobile home park tenant, has submitted extensive material on vacancy control in other California cities, which is available in the Clerk's file for further Council review.) STATUS OF CURRENT LITIGATION: Attachm ent 3 is a June 1, 1992 Memorandum from David H. Hirsch, Lompoc City Attorney and Chairman of the League Mobile Home Rent Control Committee, on the status of current litigation after Yee. The memorandum gives an objective overview of the unsettled legal issues involving vacancy corrt r o l . since June 1, the case of Sandpiper Mobile Village v. City of Carpenteria was set for reargument under a regulatory taking theory and was heard by the Court on July 22, 1992. A decision is pending. The decision in Azul Pacifico v. City of Los Angeles was vacated by the United States Court of Appeal on July 23, 1992, and therefore the discussion concerning Azul is no longer relevant. Within San Luis Obispo County, both the cities of Grover City and Arroyo Grande have recently established vacancy control. Grover City was sued in San Luis Obispo Superior Court on August 5, 1992 on various inverse condemnation and civil rights theories in the case of Le Sage Enterprises v. City of Grover City. The City of Arroyo Grande has likewise been threatened with litigation, and it /-d\ .. Agenda Report· Page Three appears that park owners are pursuing their administrative remedies as a prelude to filing a suit. Morro Bay has received requests to reinstitute vacancy control but is waiting to see the outcome of current litigation before proceeding further. In June 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission. This case had been carefully watched by legal scholars because it was anticipated that the newer, conservative members of the Court would use Lucas as a vehicle to fashion new rules with respect to regulatory takings, which could also affect vacancy control. To most observer's surprise, the Court issued a narrow decision which, while departing from traditional takings analysis, was not the sweeping revision many people had anticipated. It appears now that the Court intends to proceed in·a deliberate and incremental fashion1 perhaps waiting for the right case with the right facts, before making any major changes. Therefore, it is uncertain at this point whether there will be significant changes to the law of regulatory takings which might affect vacancy control. OPTIONS: Option 1: In light of the unsettled legal issues concerning regulatory takings and the high probability that litigation will be forthcoming if the City reinstates vacancy control, the Council may wish to.defer action until such time as the legal issues have been clarified. At the very least, it may be prudent to see what the results are in Sandpiper Mobile Village v. City of Carpenteria and Le Sage Enterprises v. City of Grover City before proceeding further. Option 2: If the City Council wishes to reinstate vacancy control, pass to print the attached ordinance (Exhibit A) . This would essentially restore the vacancy control provisions deleted in June, 1990. Option 3: If the Council wishes to delete the exemptions from the rent stabilization ordinance for parks with 66.67 percent of spaces under lease agreements (SLOMC 5.44.0J0F), and parks with condominium ownership (SLOMC 5. 44. 030G), pass to print the attached ordinance (Exhibit B). Option 4: If the Council desires to reinstate vacancy control and delete the exemptions described above, you should consider adopting both ordinances simultaneously. Option 5: If the Council has additional concerns or proposed revisions to the mobile home park rent stabilization ordinance, continue this item with additional direction to staff. l-3 ,. , Agenda Report Page Four FISCAL IMPACT: If the Council decides to reestablish vacancy control, it should be recognized that there is a high probability of litigation, and a corresponding commitment of time and money. As the ultimate resolution of the regulatory taking issue may ultimately be made by the Supreme Court, it may be a lengthy and expensive process . . Attachments: Exhibit "A": Exhibit "B": Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Proposed Ordinance Proposed Ordinance Copies of Citizen Requests Yee v. Escondido Memorandum from David Hirsch I-'+ ORDINAN CE NO. (1992 Series) An Ordinance of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo Am ending Chapter 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and Section S.44.060C Relating to Space Rent Increases in Mobile Home Parks Upon Change of ownership BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.010 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 5.44.010 Purpose and intent. A. There is presently within the city and the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces for the location of mobile homes. Because of this shortage, there is a very low vacancy rate, and rents have been for several years, and are_presently, rising rapidly and causing concern among a substantial number of San Luis Obispo residents. B. Mobile home tenants, forced by the lack of suitable alternative housing, have had to pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a further reduction in their standard of living. c. Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative homesites for mobile home residents, and the. substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases, while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, maintenance, insurance, utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their property. D. This council finds that the present low vacancy rate and frequent increases are particularly hard upon and unfair to residents of mobile home parks within the city. Large numbers of these residents are senior citizens and others on fixed incomes who installed their mobile homes in the city when the EXHIBIT "A" O r d i n a n c e N o . P a g e T w o (1 9 9 2 S e r i e s ) p r e s e n t in f l a t i o n a r y r e n t in c r e a s e s c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y h a v e b e e n f o r e s e e n . E . T e n a n t s in m o b i l e h o m e p a r k s d e s i r i n g t o se l l t h e i r m o b i l e -h o m e s h a v e h a d d i f f i c u l t y f i n d i n g b u y e r s b e c a u s e , u p o n a c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p , t h e p a r k o w n e r w a s a b l e t o r a i s e t h e r e n t w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e c i t y 's m o b i l e h o m e r e n t st a b i l i z a t i o n o r d i n a n c e . F . T h i s c o u n c i l f i n d s t h a t i t i s i n t h e b e s t in t e r e s t s o f t h e c i t i z e n s o f t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o t o a s s i s t t h o s e w h o a r e s e e k i n g t o s e l l t h e i r m o b i l e h o m e s a n d t h o s e w h o a r e se e k i n g t o b u y s u c h h o m e s t o h a v e t h e s a m e f a i r r e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n a s i s a f f o r d e d t o t h o s e w h o r e m a i n in t h e i r m o b i l e h o m e s w i t h o u t sa l e . T h i s c o u n c i l f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t p r o v i s i o n s a l l o w i n g a n n u a l r e n t in c r e a s e s t o g e t h e r w i t h p r o v i s i o n s a l l o w i n g r e n t i n c r e a s e s u p o n a s h o w i n g o f n e c e s s i t y p r o t e c t t h e p a r k ow n e r 's r i g h t t o a f a i r r e t u r n o n i n v e s t m e n t , t h u s e l i m i n a t i n g t h e n e e d f o r r e n t i n c r e a s e s a b o v e 1 0 % u p o n c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p . G . H o w ~v e r , t h i s c o u n c i l r e c o g n i z e s t h a t a r e n t st a b i l i z a t i o n o r d i n a n c e m u s t b e f a i r a n d e qu i t a b l e f o r a l l p a r t i e s a n d m u s t p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e i n c e n t i v e s f o r m o b i l e h o m e p a r k o p e r a t o r s t o c o n t i n u e t h e i r p a r k s p r o f i t a b l y , a s w e l l a s t o a t t r a c t a d d i t i o n a l in v e s t o r s f o r n e w p a r k s . S E C T I O N 2 . S e c t i o n 5 .4 4 .0 6 0 C o f t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M u n i c i p a l C o d e i s am e n d e d t o r e a d a s f o l l o w s : C . T h e m a x i m u m m o n t h l y s p a c e r e n t o f a t e n a n t m a y b e in c r e a s e d b y t h e o w n e r w h e n t h e r e is a c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p a f f e c t i n g a m o b i l e h o m e . H o w e v e r , s u c h i n c r e a s e s h a l l n o t e x c e e d t e n p e r c e n t o f t h e t h e n e x i s t i n g s p a c e r e n t a n d m a y n o ~ b e r e l i e d u p o n a n y m o r e o f t e n t h a n o n c e i n a n y t h i r t y -s i x m o n t h p e r i o d a s t h e b a s i s t o i n c r e a s e r e n t . I n t h e e v e n t o f c h a n g e o f ow n e r s h i p r e s u l t i n g f r o m s u b l e t t i n g o f t h e m o b i l e h o m e s p a c e a s m a y b e a l l o w e d b y st a t e la w , s h o u l d s u c h b e c o m e s t a t e l a w , t h e n u p o n a n y s u c h s u b l e t t i n g t h e s p a c e r e n t m a y b e in c r e a s e d u p t o t e n p e r c e n t o f t h e t h e n e x i s t i n g s p a c e r e n t . I n t h e e v e n t o f c h a n g e o f o w n e r s h i p r e s u l t i n g f r o m v a c a t i o n o f t h e s p a c e , t h e n t h e s p a c e r e n t m a y b e a d j u s t e d t o fa i r m a r k e t r e n t in t h e c o m m u n i t y . N o t h i n g i n J-(p Or din an c e No . Pag e Th r ee (1992 Se r ie s ) th is parag r ap h sh a ll prec lu d e an ad ju stm en t as may oth erw ise be prov id ed for in th is Ch ap t er . SE CT IO N 3. Th is ordin an ce , tog eth er w ith th e nam es of cou nc il mem ber s vot in g for an d aga in st , sh a ll be pub lish ed on ce in fu ll , at le ast th r ee day s pr ior to it s fin al pas sag e , in th e Teleg ram Tr ib u n e , a new sp ap er pub lish ed an d cir cu la t ed in th is Cit y . Th e or din an ce sh a ll go in to eff ect at th e exp ir at ion of 30 day s aft er it s fin a l passag e . IN TR ODUCED AN D PA SSE D TO PR IN T by th e Cou nc il of th e City of San Lu is Ob isp o at it s meet in g he ld on th e day of , 1992 , on mot ion of , se c ond ed by ________________ , and on the fo llow in g roll ca ll vot e : EYE S : NOE S : AB SE NT : M ay or Ron Du n in ATTEST : City Cle r k , Pam V oge s APPR OV ED : Dir ect or /-7 Legislative Draft of San. Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 5.44.010 5.44.010 Purpose and intent. A. There is presently within the city and the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces for the location of mobile homes. Because of this shortage, there is a very low vacancy rate, and rents have been for several years, and are presently, rising rapidly and causing concern among a substantial number of San Luis Obispo residents. B. Mobile home tenants, forced by the lack of suitable alternative housing, have had to pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a further reduction in their standard of living. C. Because of the high cost and impracticability of moving mobile homes, the potential for damage resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative homesites for mobile home residents, and the substantial investment of mobile home owners in such homes, this council finds and declares it necessary to protect the owners and occupiers of mobile homes from unreasonable rent increases, while at the same time recognizing the need of park owners to receive a suitable profit on their property with rental income sufficient to cover increases in costs of repair, maintenance, insurance, utilities, employee services, additional amenities, and other costs of operation, and to receive a fair return on their property. D. This council finds that the present low vacancy rate and frequent increases are particularly hard upon and unfair to residents of mobile home parks within the city. Large numbers of these residents are senior citizens and others on fixed incomes who installed· their mobile homes in the city when the present inflationary rent increases could not reasonably have been foreseen. 1-<i 1BnglJJpgp~:i:enn~Et:ti::: iw.§.n:§:: ts~i :1g:::::w.:tui~:1ti#:J:,#&n1 :2n llllliilillliiil!l~litliil1il1Ri~!lltffii!li!i~ ···················$.B~•··········· HOwever;·······this······counciI······recogriTzes· that a rent stabilization ordinance must be fair and equitable for all parties and must provide appropriate incentives for mobile home park operators to continue their parks profitably, as well as to attract additional investors for new parks. Legislative Draft of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 6.44.060C c. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a i.i;,i;r~iii:@§P\i\1il~ii!i!llile!iililfllfliil~lli!I ~liil!li\lliiliiilit#.llii.lif!liili!ilifl.llt!!lil!i liii!l!4iil11illlililtiilif liil1 iitl111\\\\1ii\1Jiif illllilli1 llilllitiif liitilll.iil(ll\llilii rr·ovrac-a;···hci"~icver;· Tt "ilha11·· he· uriia\ifur a:na--· a violation of this chapter for an owner to intentionally and willfully increase the monthly space rent of a tenant above the fair market rent in the community for the purpose of forcing the tenant to sell his mobile home to the owner, his agent, or representative. The owner shall use normal and prudent business practices in establishing the new fair marJcct rent amount for each space. The city council recognizes that the ad hoe L --4 e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a f . a ::y g i v ~n s p a c e w h e n::; m a r k e t r ?n t a m o u n t fo r o w n e r s h i p a f f e c t i n g a ,e r ~h e r e is a c h a n g e o f l e a d t o f a .. o r i t . . m o b i l e h o m e t h e r e o t h e , i s m , d i s c r i rn i n a t · n c a n r e n t s t a b i l i z a t · m i o n , e v a s i o n o f s u b s t a n t i a l . i o n o r d i n a n c e buyers eeenem>e uneertaint· f' and n and sellers f f er beth erefore th .. o mobile h shall ,e owners of each m b'lomes. . _once, and not mo .o i e home parJc beginning of each cal d re than once at the spac · en ar yea :e in the parJc the .; r ! post for each amount which will be :cv. fa_ir marJcet rent change of ownership d· . stablishcd upon the for the mobile home :~:ng that calendar year space. ':Phc park m·ner i uatcd upon any ginen ::1:he. eitl'. elerl,; andsh:~!1fcovide said 1ist list in the off. post a copy of l?arlc. ~l'o rent shall :cc. of the fflobilc hofflc in excess of the pro .. i ~ imposed or collected r sions of said 1· t is . /-/() ORDINAN CE NO. (1992 Series) A n O r d i n a n c e o f t h e c o u n c i l o f t h e city of San Luis O b i s p o Am e n d i n g C h a p t er 5.44 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to Delete Exemptions 5~44.030F. and G from Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1. Section 5.44.030 Exemptions, is hereby amended to delete subparagraphs F and G of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code so that the new Section 5.44.030 shall read as follows: 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the county of San Luis Obispo; C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which · do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. · Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of council members voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least three days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. The ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of 30 days after its final passage. EXHIBIT "B" I-I/ O r d i n a n c e N o . P a g e T w o (1 9 9 2 Se r i e s ) I N T R O D U C E D A N D PA S S E D T O PR IN T b y th e Co u n c i l o f th e C i t y o f Sa n Lu i s Ob i s p o at it s m e e t i n g h e ld on t h e d a y o f , 19 9 2 , on m o t i o n o f , se c o n d e d b y fo l l o w in g ro l l ca l l v o t e : ________________ , an d on th e EY E S : N O E S : A B S E N T : M a y o r R o n Du n i n A T T E S T : C i t y C l e r k , Pa m V o g e s A P P R OV E D : O f f i c e r /-!~ LEGISLA TIVE DRAFT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.44.030 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home parks spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the county of San Luis Obispo; C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. F. Spaces in a mobile home parJc in which at least 66. 67 percent of said spaces are governed by a lease with an initial term of more than one year: G. Mobile home parJcs which sell lots for factory built or manufactured housing, or which provide condominium ownership of such lots, even if one or more homes in the development arc rented er leased out. L-13 Ju l y 6, 1992 M r .B i l l R o a l rn a n Ci t y of Sa n L u i s O b i s p o P.O. Bo x 8100 S a n L u i s O b i s p o , CA 93401-8100 De a r C o u n c i l m a n R o a l rn an : W h e n r e n t co n t r o l wa s re m o v e d fr o m th e Sa n Lu is Ob i s p o Or d i n a n c e C h a p t e r 5 .4 4 , th e re s u l t ha s be e n a la r g e in c r e a s e in r e n t w h e n a rn o b i l e h o rn e is so l d . T h i s hi.l s h a d i.l ne g a L i.v 0 Qf f e c t on m o b i l e h o m e sa l e s . A s -.:e k no w h o u s e s a Lo s ar c s Lo v. S a l e o f a m o b i l e h o m e is al m o s t im p o s s ib l e . T h e m o b i Le h o m c ow n e r s wh o d i d n o l. s i q n a le a s e b o c a u s c th e y d i d no t fe e l it w~s in th i e r b e s t in t e r e s t s were le f t w i t h no pr o t e c t i o n . M o b i l e h o m e o w n e r s e f f e c t e d by o r d i n a n c e S.~4 .30 paru- g r a p h "l?" d e s c r v e th e s a m c pr o te c t i o n as ot h e r mo r i Lc h o a.e o w n e r s in ou r c o m m u n it y . I w o u l d l i k e t o ma k e a pr o p o s a l th a t th e v ac u n c y co n ~r o l .l i m i ta t i On t O pr O t CC t m Ob i 1 e h Om e r CS i c1 C n t. S f r O Ill C X CC ~, S i V C re n t in c r e a s e s w h e n a va c a n c y o c c u r s b e re e s t a b l i s h e d . I w o u l d l i k e to p r o p o s e t h a t. the ex e m p t i o n .:5.4Ll.30 ''f''' be r e m o v e d fr o m th e S a n L u is O b i s p o RG n t St a b il i z a t i o n O rd i n a n c e . Th e s e a r e v e r y I mp o r t an t to mo b i Le h o mc own cr s . I v o u j d a p p r e c i a t e y u r g iv in g th e m yo u r seY ious c o n s i d e r a t i o n . S in c.:e 1·e 1v , 0 t)_J; ck;tir Ea r l C le s t e r 3060 S. Ilic_:ruera ~~2 ·_ 2 Sa n L u is Ob is p o , C~ 93L'J01-;L]58 (805) 5L]3-Gll5 ~UG 6 1992 CITY Cl.EliK SAN LUIS OGISPO, c» ATTACHMENT 1 RECEt\/ED JUN 2 ~ \992 June 22, 1992 CITY CLERK SAN LUI'.:; OB~PO, CA Ms. Penny Rappa, Vice Mayor City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Subject: Rent Stabilization for Mobilehome Resident$ Dear Ms. Rappa: This communication seeks to inform you of recent developments in community control of rent adjustments for mobilehome residents. Copies of Rent Control Ordinances were obtained from the following_cities: San Jose San Bernardino Lancaster Oxnard Escondido Yucaipa Grover City Ventura (County) A. Vacancy Control of Mobilehome Rents Review of the ordinances for these communities reveals that all but one of these ordinances require a Board's approval or specifically limit increases in mobilehome space rents when a vacancy occurs. In the City of Oxnard reinstatement of vacancy control has been recommended by the city attorney, and may have been enacted as an ordinance amendment at this writing ... B. Exclusion of "Condominium" Parks from Rent Control Only two of the ordinances cited above contain exemptions or exclusions from rent control protection for tenants in mobilehome parks. Ordinances for the City of Oxnard and the County of Ventura include a list of exemptions identical in wording to that found in ordinances for both the County and City of San Luis Obispo. C. A Proposal for Council Action Given this sampling of rent control ordinances pro- tecting mobilehome residents in communities similar to San Luis Obispo, the following requests are proposed: 1. That vacancy cpntrol limitation be reestablished in the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance to protect mobilehome residents from excessive rent increases when a vacancy occurs. /-/~ City of San Luis Obispo June 22, 1992 Page 2 2. That the exemption of tenancies in mobilehome parks with 66.67% of the rental spaces governed by a lease, or in parks which provide condominium ownership of lots, be removed from the San Luis Obispo Ordinance (5.44.030). Mobilehome owners renting spaces in mobilehome parks affected by these exemptions are deserving of the same protection accorded all other mobilehome tenants in our com- munity. Should you wish to review a copy of the ordinances cited herein, they are in the possession of Ms. Cindy Clemons, Assistant City Attorney. ~ly: 4Lu44 Louis J. d:ster 1032 Murl Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-2260 cc: Jeff Jergenson, City Attorney Jim Wills /-/ft:, tJ t:i=J JNG AGENDA L. ~ ~- /~-92. ITEM# COMM .1 i111111111111111 1111111111111111:1i1.1 c rtv o~ san uu s oe is po 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403·8100 June 15, 1992 COMMUNICATION ITEM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Council Colleaguesp ' / Councilman ~~n MOBILEHOME PARK VACAN CY CONTROL I have received a communication from Mr. Bill Henson requesting that the Council place on its agenda the issue of vacancy control as an amendment to the City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance. A copy of a petition signed by 239 mobilehome owners is attached. I believe it warrants some discussion or review by the Council. I, therefore, request that Council direct staff to bring this back with a report examining the recent Supreme Court's decision allowing a city to prohibit an increase in mobilehome space rent at the time the mobilehome is sold and draft an ordinance similar to the one the City had before. Also attached are recent newspaper articles reviewing this issue. Thank you. BR/PV:cm Attachments c: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer (w /o attachments) Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer (w /o attachments) Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney (w /o attachments) Pam Voges, City Clerk (w /attachments) J-17 W h a t D o e s T h e p e c ts io n 1r1ec:111 r •r: Drue• •• ·~ c..i,.w-'a CoWIMI Nm• 1h111 rho Supremo Cowt hoa ...-ndcr cd h• lon g,o,.,ul"CI da;J,J on In Yi:c r Q1x a! E,,;gnd!da. lhc mo~I• •~•e~ qucl'\ion for OSMOL membcn i1: '"Whlll doc~ ii iul m C,An 7" J,'olJo11,1cd t>y: "Ho"' doc• tho CIISC Bpply 10 me?'" You ncod luok no further for 1hc MS"'CI IO 1ho•c qucioiiuna I or one thlna I.here I• no doubt. Ju•• ,kc O'C0t1 nc,r'1 un,ullmou1 opinion clell(ly held INl t on 111 (oc~ the E.scon• dido Or~UNV1 c.c did NOT resuh izl a "phyalelll bu.Ina" of I.he por k ""'ncr'1 propc ny. A• a rc 11uh. Holl x Socio 6111': b.lwi. 1\/ld ull od1or ciuct whkb havo rr.llcd upon \lie "phy~lcul IAkl 11&" lheory of l;!llil. •~ OVERRUI.EO. As Sun mc,o ~11amc:r Oon Lincoln of Endo- !'111111. lJ:1col,i, 'T'l1re lr A Hca.16 &o een- claely au~c.d; ".l:iAU I! dc:lld. • Tho IAA uo of "phy~ICII.I 11Wn1" wDJ tho prlma,,. luuc D"llucd In au v111:a.nc:y comrol c~c• 10 dliie. Tho S11pn;mo C011n. Ill the hfshe&t eeun In lhc 11111d, hua now eeee 11nd (or All decided this i .. ue nauir,,1 the part owner,. But whut 1100111 tho i1~uc of •re,ul11- 1ory w:.lnaT' lvfany r,nnr. owner or-sunl• ·iotlon1 nnd u11on,cy1 un: grou ping thi1 luuc ln 1111 ~tr.empt to 1olv11ac aomo- rhlna rrom the Cnurf~ dccl•ln11, They poln1 oul 1ha1 bccliu~c the C.:<>Un fuilcd to rule upo,, "'n,auwrory u.klna." but uukcd ,o 111u~h 11hnu1 it. un open lnvlw• 1!on hta bee n .. icntlcu for rark u•ncn 10 ~n1lnuc lholr dwlltni~ "° a new, A"" even ITIIIIC rmn1i.l11J, 1l1<nry, In• uocd, f:mn Layton, co•utllhor of OSMOL'a Supreme Cow, brier cnu n member o( I/le flrm o( Shuic. Mihaly it Wcln~r.ei-, r«otni7.cJ< l.M1 this wouhl be the p111k owner,' loglcul next n10••· '"I( they _wl~h 10 conllnue their bu 11lr ~illinst YIICllllCY con~ n:guuitl,111<, 1hcy wlll h4vc 10 chllllcn~c th e.'><= pro- tections under Q re.ula1ory lllr.ln~ •hc.oi,,.· •he s:iid. . Don Liocoln ill 10 no1u ~al 1h11 is 11 Lhrc Gt 10 be 1.11.1:on iaiously, • Allhougb~ clc.irly llfled rhc ~ '1ho6Q w,' h did no1 tpc,:ilii:All y Nie our other ch~llcnscs," ho auld. '"In f..c:1. 11,1{tl\ln 1wcnty•four houn of the ~ do:lslori. EAeondido 111u, ~ucd a6uln in a cue contend In~ ~t !u; mobilehnmc ~QI ordJn= eOIUUW1"J 4 deniw or 1ubs1A11clv~ duo procc,1 Qlld a ,e.uui- 1-0f)' lakln&, lt I.a clCAl tblll lllthouah lhe murtlclpwltlc., lll!O rc.ddws h~vc 1110n 1 mQJor buwe the 111111 It not o-,cr. W)lile we Cllll rcjoico !hat li:11.1 b 110 more, "'e c011D0t A!Tord 10 become over corl!ic.lc111 but muat be ever vl'1llint 011d be pre• piu-e.d 10 d.::rend ~nst llllY ne"" ch.ii· lcnsc~ • But wh:11 ch~nce doc., the "rcaul:1• tory w.l n1"1hc.ol")' 11:ivo or =ccc.dinrl Why wun·, II rulscd in tbc Supromr C,;,unlllons with the p:i.rllO'l'ncrJ' n41wr daim1? There la 1pcc1.1l;tlQn 1h:i1 Me-.,c"' 1 •• icllo und Bork, .,.ho rr•· 1cn1cd tho Yccs' c~c. knew 1l1111 11,.. vorca "'ere nOI there 10 ~uppol\ Ir. 111ul lhu~ did not W'~uc lhc "f'Ciul11111r7 1,,1., ina" luuc. In I 990, tllc Supr,·inc ~ 'u111r decided u CA.<c culled ~\.'ulih•1• Cc 111 /11u,d 011 !a1,c, [:> <t U: C'-1 '-1 a- .::~ :::::. a- - rr v, -- o· w - U) d8 C"I. ~ !a u >- 03 <l UJ ~ ~ r:c I· ----~ . Page 4 • Speclal Supreme Court Edition M ay, 1992 What does the decisf on mean? . (.'u,1tl111mJfr11m PJJ,:r J ~ 111hkh lbo r- OU fihlY dl~iu1od reeulALOf'.V !Ak lnaa In a non-rc.11 1 eontr0l r:o nlCJ.L While Ju,. rico O'Conllor JIM COIT'CCII)' IIAtcd lhal no C.:..U(ornl~ c1110 hlUI prcvioualy Ill>' plied II l'l:lt\llUtOI")' t.o.Jr.J r,p 111\Wyala ID n,n1 ord illlll\cc, num~• ul iromia tloclf.lon1 b11ve luuc.d d~illiori., 11,1hidl f11Yor {(ll;IU aovcmmcnt rcsulotio11. "Phy1lclll uw nir" 1111uly~u l'tq U IIU ll >Jricl look at one aimplc !~: "11 there • I.Dl:ina or ootT" I! ""· I.he ti.n do.,.,nct m11o111'10c:om~lfn01.cueclos.cd. Bu, In consldcnn1 a "'rc11ul111ory.w:- ln1.• a coun tw Ibo llbWcy Lo look I& ~Y !uo:tc11, lncludJn& !be Inten ded !)IIIJ'OCO and public polli:y bciund I.he re;111111lo11. lf, f0Uo111\0g a complete (QOk 01 the flll:l&. lbe J.;w 1' aci:n as aolna "'° fDI\ II w!U bo btlcl io 114 1 "reau~10.ry 1Aklt11,"Th111, by 1.h c ""Y 11111= o! lho lhc.ol)', il &howd bo culcz for clclc.i to defl:l)d GS,IWIII 1 "reillliitory w:.!111" av•~ INIII It WAS 10 dc!cod 05JUM .l:!Jlll. Fruri uiylOII 11u, n~ lh111 Judsc Ko-dnw. tho ~t ol ..&11 , /roni- Cllily l!IA)' hil'l'Calrtlid)" mt~ thilt lhli nc11 "rci11l111ory uwn,· ~ry Will !IOI 111ccccd, "Remember tb111 ,iJd1c Kozin.,k.i ·, clc,ci,ion in ~ruJ Pn cifi•q) C:i!Y o/ Lo, N)•Clc"' finds lhAI Lo. A11a c1~• •4'11tlC )' CQIUl'OJ prov lslon 111bsWlllWly lldvllllcti w 01)"1 Lcait.i• JnJIIC &O't"CnlmCllt~cofp~ c~~\linc bomc.o wccn fro m ~cd mobilcbomo ·vllliua due to l'CII' IOIII· ini," ~he wd. •Hc11.1so,oocllldcd w,- liot ic Siem, f rrk Bero:,:; x Clrx sf .8.acl:lio. !hat a "i.nii.oJJY idcnd'-'11 m~ bllc}1Qmo-.11C1111Cyeonll'Olpmvl&ionw111 r:11lOlllllly rclalQd IO thc lc•ltimlilc 110-.• emmo01 purp,o,so o( ku9 1ni m ob il .. h0111c rent from be.coming prohil,iuv cJy Ill~ nnd Ullll did 1101 viol.lllC park own: en· 111bstnntivc due pro;w ri.,tu,, • It thu11eom1 fAi.r ID co .cw:lu do lhAI 6.lthough the '«Ar la not o-,e,, thc !Ollp, tJt buti.lc hAS bccll fou&,bl acd won. U a "rcJUIAto,y taki.0 1" WAI UIO bcac IV• CIIIIC oJ DWICk for pClli, CM'IICll, tbor would ~\IC VJCli It f'im Jt IIOllt' ~pro- 1tn11 "Plan B."' and is on!)- beins en>■ plo:ro4 bccwac "PlallA" !Ailed. tJnlil a CllJC ~ clcd dod ... ~, nnd.t y~ co11tt0I 10 be IID llnCOlalllllllolllll "rci\1- IIIUl ry lill:ina. • II ls ~tU IIDJ CIRnal no m1111cr !low IIWI)' 11ew WCAll lll"C 11111.do by park OWIICII. How doc, lho ~ do:wOll Apply 10 yo11?Thewwc:dcp:.nd.lll))011 wbclhcr )'OIi llvo In II Jwisdlccio11 wllb I l"CAI CC IIU'O I ordinanco. lf )'OIi do riot. the "dctb bli vc ~ clCAltod " ior you tdty or CGUIIO' ID DOW C'OIISJ dOI and ~Pl oo.. •~comrolpr01"doawoul4 be A key !)Alt of Ill)' alldi crdiD.Anc,o. If )'0llt ci'1 1w a real cOIIU'OI otdl- llOIICO mid clld nlURmOYO i&a V1ICllllCY co n=!~on thr &D ,lhc yaboul d bf COIi~ Tbcir loll ~ Wlnal bna bcc;i vlodlwtd. Ind llicy IIC0d do IIOUIUII,, .. l! )'0111' di)' did rtmovo YICIIIIC )' CQD- r:rol. lllh01J Id tc rclnsllllcd Ill ~I Tell )'OW' l'Cpl'ClellwiVCI lbai ~ 111d ica omprln1Ar'Ddc:.d,aAdlhAlthclllllC.U.Ocl theory o( •;,..a11lotory w.:1111" &ho11ld n0t bt c11011ab to ~vent aovcmtncnt from protcctlna Its nc,c,Qy el1Jz.:n1. I.!. ls undeQ.!Ablc 1h41 ~ dl~ n.x ~- cid'c llll'l:w~ conilccied wh.b VOC:tlnC)' conuol. But it 1ro.s11'1 ,upposcd t0I Tbc CIIJCI d.id dc.c:idii the luuc.i that were bc(oro le. 111d by a 11nanlm0u1 ccunt. bc.ld ur favor of mobllchomo owner,, The pnck ow ner, lll'C oow ''bchlrld the S bllll." lt h ~ -..ho face A at,:,ep 11phlll clim b, The tido In thia --...at· hns ~en A definite cum. 111d ll!LhDll.h t.~o p:i.-k ow~ hllvc ~nc-..cd the ir ~I:. !ho road Lo a toUJJ vlctoiy la cl cw1 y vi• lblo llhc.Ad. J-l'l " 0 ll. .-., Vacancy Control ··-· I a [ J a 0 I}'. I a [ J H u I J 0 u 0 V M " I 0 [ N (Tl I I{) " -- I I ~ J -.t, ..., ·c ity.o f S an Ios ePu ts.in . Vacancy C ontro l OU<t aod rou.olks \brollp C~RloOtluuv-.c:an,;yco,,-- hllchomeowncnl\.l,"Cdl'l<l>Cn. U■loa OIJ - 1\JU vauncy ouC ullfum1 & .-c in mo pro0CM crol Mllnaooc li legJ.llhc~'()Ukl Al Jn&s time~ od,cs cil- oom-ol. (l'ropotlcd) of adding oc rdnsbting VXJIDCJ arocni:, lhci, onliruooc lo ad,l lo and ClOOllllcs haw: adJod or OJ y "'\'ucalpa - r-u n YI- O>OlrolOfWlOISIOCS la rolD{lllallloc Ibis lmp)IWll ~ lo mo- are golllg IO add \'ICl.ncyronirol cutj ~ (l>ror,osoo) wllb the ~ Yee vs. Qty if blldlome ollil'ICff lo Ul(it ciiJ. ioltlthonlin.i.ooct.. l.iua.l t,cio-.., Otj oi Morga,, IUII • Va- E,ooodldo U.S. Sopeme C.0..- Wdl ll ~ aod ct:tj did .-c somcorthcm.lfjOUidlyoc cucy oontrol (U1oll, 1101 rollng, Our;orlhc rin1 lo do Iha O!i Apd) 6. lhc full dcy :owidl coonry rw 110IDC1hlog lo lhe koow11) ...ulhtOlyolSm.kklir.bome vo ted OYtrwbclmlaGIY lo •ub.pltd!ldmbowaoowc Alll1 of OOOf1': 1/ic 017 or Of St ale Ptesl dell I DAV t "rnt.ll"a:l'Clalc vaclJM;)' OOOlrol or CIJUNn: II wflh OOI cc:adc.-s. liscood ld-0 who Coogt,u.hc good •~- rcnaonlo-iJl-aOc ll2n1k:norrao-- 011 ol Sw J,u. 1\111 .-.. Cigl,I bdoo, the U.S.. Supn:nic ()G. Sq,(. 10. olli.11 re-- Sao bild,orne3.." aocy coraot Cowl. fooc's Ory Coondl llddod • pro- 1hc Oty or SM I oo.c: and thdl Cit 1 ol Su lltt-oaidJ "° - r111 ..,re lhae art mllDy. 1JUnr .woo ao lhdr rent <lOdJOI onli- M■)'OC Suun llammer, o~ f-ull vaaocy ooorrol. Olha gD\'UIDOttU tlul la>"C r-c- D&IIC% 1ba1 1J()Oll mcci pl ol oaU· ~dcmomuaa:Ulicirrooocro \'tatnn Coo aty - l:J'ifo or- lmtaled ncancy OOlllrol U111 I fica!Joa dw the U.S. Supreme 110pra,en-c\bcllksi}'k-..imo- 110 ... "!ridle>-a-hlcu. ha>'CIIO~of.110plcasoe OlyoC O.nanf •2.S ~Of S75. tan tia,c ood scod me a DCW:fo la\\ fii1 y -· J \ I I w1lidleYU lJ kg_ cliWio: or asbo,t1101c. · RtCF-IVi=O MAY ? q 1992 Cl rt CLE:l'<r. -,;A~ lU IS O OI SPO . CA Rent Control Made Simplet R6lr,qulst CO(.Wf ffflOOl'B 811 opin ion with l)Op'.Jl lst punch Thii ~ b,u loog 1D21ill(ainod •hal roo1 OOOl rol ;i ncp1.m loog-tcnn dT oct on the aupply of o.fToolaNc bow:· 0<>1 the wisdom ol rrol OOOlrOl uide.. liule ~ ran.s.im IIOO<JI iD ooosriruuooalily. 1 .. a ~ docui<,n,. lb: U .S; Sl:!pnu,c Court bai rukd Iha& the ~ Amc:odooail a ri&kJ ol laodJonh are - inhiflg<:d wbm f'CDI u ,qr. Ci&ia ha n: "broed J'O"'O'-. Juuitc Saodra Duy O' wro<c.. IO ~ubk the laoolood lalanl rdwon.kip wilhooC payiog ~ t01"ell roooomic injuries U... IOCh reg,,• laoon rou,jh. - ' 11-0'W -, v,a, cil}' will c:.r.a-ci;c it, ooastirnoonoJ§ .,_, booomca " pure.ly polinul question. IIDd smoe 1..-x JUt nimha landlo,-,h_ the balaooe ol powa- ml!)' DOW dull lboo gh this dociaiooiOOOJa u, aca,c .in.-olving rwo E . nollilchoax: paob. ii II likdy 10 ltl'Cll gibm the kp,J 1-is .be OOOlrOl of ..,..._ l"Cllla &I ......a a, SpalX rrols i~ nobikholllcptrb. Tbc a.iJc Rdnqoi.,t OOUJt loms ,aidaro ml .>piaicio wid> • populiat dfa::t. .J In Cali!omia'a l'COI oomol wv the ocnrral im po,t,,oce oC troOpS o{d,cc.lifomiaMobikhome Par\nwna-a~ od the ooe D1k. end ~Goldco SIMC Mobtl1- Ownaio 3 oa lb: otha",lm 1101 ■1-.y,ibomr-ccoginnd. M~ owncnhi p cm be cmand J hacnln-c. and the park q,co hcaTil r 1o win tq,cal oe rca C>OOlrol in (amoog pu,.xs ) Los Allgd,,I Cami)<. I Mot,iJdwm,c o,raen. l,c,oora,a, wbo fflll MOIi boc own uJ <f..-dlinga thM occupy thclaoo. an:thc capibl.ut.s o( the n:xri1Ji c1ns.. u !bar , bod l'CIIC caoool be ooowlk:d. lhci, ~ 1m"OlvunaJ& i.J ~ IIDd IJicy ha~ ( oogj,I lim:dy lhc yca,-a forprolr:aioo.. They arc:the mocss-pa .. lhcO<ll - powaful 1tm1111 poop in the "'"- Tim time. they woo big,: The .:x.,t ·, docmoa - oot rmda-c,J r.w my - ''":i" we DOi e.. bul lo, lht Cityof&ooo.bdo agaiml p,in:O'Wnc:O I a0<.1 haw: Yoe. Ocar ly. OOW"CYa". the dcicmoo q on political infi llCOC t fo, th: iUle', 800.000 mooilchomc dwdlcn - w.l bdlilld than the fw lllOf'r mmcroo3, uill-<o-OO-OflP'• mr.od qmtmcU d-..-clltn. I ::or,_rri&lil l'19l. L,., Antda T""° ~pri,,u,l lry paw.i.u:icn..._ June 9, 1992 Dear City Councilman Jerry Reiss: Enclosed please find 239 signatures from mobilehome owners . These signatures represent a request that "v acancy control" be placed on your agenda and considered for rein statement to the Rent Stabilization Law . We were limited by time from gathering more signatures . No one we approached refues to sign. If the num ber is not sufficient, please advise·u s of the addition num bers which are ne.eded and we. will su pp Ly them. Sincerely, - ~/~ Bill Henson J-Jo '':\ '),' ' I 0-- )?XJI) )a'(;,'p (/'~ 0- ff I, ,./ J,To: CITY COUNCIL .~EMBER SUBJECT: Reinstatement of "vacancy control" to Rent Stabilization Law: On April 1, 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that Escondido or any other jurisdiction could prohibit an increase in mobilehome space rent at the time the mobilehome is sold. A new buyer may occupy the mobilehome at the same rent charged to his seller. We request that vacancy control be added to Section 5.44.060C of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. A number of cities and counties have already added vacancy control to their ordinances and some of these are listed below: City of San Jose City of San Bernardino Ventura County City of Oxnard Union City City of Yucaipa City of Morgan Hill Please consider ,adding San Luis Obispo to the list. _,:,,....,_.·.;......:,...._~--~--=----,-:-----~----------------- Sincerely, ........ ~ 1 ~•as removed from the Rent Stabiliza- Vacancy Contrc w a Court Case in Santa Barbara in tion Law due to 1990. some mobile homes change hands far more often than others, so as a result of this ~hange! large variations in rent often exist in m?bile homes which sit side by side. (Often a difference of $60 or more a month exists.) At pres~nt, an increase in rent is allowed when a mobilehome is sold. A recent supreme court decision empowe:s cities to outlaw the rent increase when a mobileho~e is sold. This allows rents to be more equitable and fair • PRINT NAME P!l:TRic. ,0: ID -~_IGN NAME r::::)~Y'-. -·--------- _._u __ -- ---- -- .. ADDRESS: J0:,2_ (nu_ .. L O..-e..1v~ s J,,~ cJ ADDRESS: ADnRESS: I~ :J-() J),()vv,,uz:lv N,,V ~L.D ' ' PRINT NAM E 119 cJlv 11 · ·r,////&7(_ ADDRESS:/l.J...7' w'T,f_;t/f:T/c 0,f SIGN N~f= -~~~.22~--G,-t/ _5/J AJ ~ 015 1 ~l~). (-~ C/ 3 ~ou , PRINT NAME /.J.J./l..Y1.JF G, '12A1vso A.2 ADDRr:ss: /b2 I GA!?N£7T£ DI( SIGN NAM E 0~ e:;' ~~ . ---~~~::....,.,,..., .......,,_,......,,,.,""""""-===== PRINT NA,\,f~~O. t\.?C ( J (.).... R, Q.. ADDRESS: ~G~~-~c~~M PRINT NAME //-,..,,.._&r4·v J----L~~_._----1 ADDRESS: SIGN NAME I I I _; .. ,--. I ; ----.;.·••--·~----- ·--· ---- _,;;,.;=====--- ..;;-;,;;;- .. --·-.;;-;;;;-..,;--;;;;.;;;,;;;-cr.ii=:==i""F--~- -=-="--~-~- =-~-~====~~-===-""-=-=-=-:=,- PRINT NAME 3e-t-t-.n/ , -,,_s..-,?1. ADDRESS': ~ · !r&d SIG~ NAME,,.-----.~ rr..:'.:L , ~-a-~~- . I /) ( Iii - /\.4 ... ~ OL'l..J~--w 3.LO, PRINT NAME ,-._ - ·;J J, I ,' 0 {> I 5 (_ ' JC O I, ADDRESS: SIGN NAME _r_R-"-I~NT~N_AJ-.~IE--=-!;_--=-\ e...=..!..N ~=11'&R-- 1,..:, w A 1) .. S ~-D~~oQQ ADDRESS: l q; t') b ,...'\:'"D ~c,--y-o__ ~I\ . ADDRESS ·;i·;;;;- ~~---[)~ - ADDRESS: . (/1 --~~ {.!A·, I 7 o1-7 $cz..LL -•·----··- - -· PRINT NAME ADDRESS: _ _::S.:_:I G::.:_:N'._·~~NAM=E...:;· ·.;.:.::.;Z::...:~:::':::~~f:=:::::::::==:======!=-=--::=-/:::cf:::::/:::tl,:;:;.~0,_ ~ffi-~::;,:;::::::;I)_..,~1 ~'..!".J;=_=·~..:!!"....e'_.- __ =_-._ PRINT NAME l5J...l}.1/c :r L~v/,,J /,1 /,/ 1 -/ SIGN NAME /..? ~(:t._,!:C..½6_.-_- ADDRESS: J 7o? ~--'"4r.._.y PRINT NAME l)a "ciJli, R/; / 11'..r" 5 ADDRESS: _ /'d,t-Cf'._.i__ ------=-----'----'+---'-"-----1--~--+ I '7 {· '> ~ ,\..y, ~ {i '!!- , f/ i t </ . ( °3 '/- [ :;: SIGN NAME :-.r ADD'<ESS: , ,,, ,-- __ , SIGN NAME '~ .. ' v_•-.~ . '- PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRES~ :I) ~(c, ~..,L,:M--'/ ,(0 .,c . (/a_ , . - ---~_L ' . - PRINT NAME I} t:-- /1/7? ,-, ?-, /? SIG!•lNAME .a.e .. J:71.~1;:1~ ► PR IN T NA M E -··-···-···-···-----· .----- SIGN NAME ADDRESS: PRINT NAME ADDRESS: ______ ..:___:..._:__::::_..:__..:...:._,1:......=::...c....<-'--"'-i'.""--"'l....-1...----j S T G N NAME / 00 I PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: Io I ( .Ja 17 e_ DR. . ADDRESS: /0D1 -.Jan~ Dr- -· ---------- ADDRESS: /r:J 05 SA-N~ )7t2-- PRINT NAME ADD~ESS: - ll (J_ ,(\. , I o V:) ~ 1-Y'-' . SIGN NAME _I O.~.L ~~--- PRINT NAME Co::tb'<.t..- /~,' mbb s I GN NAME C Cr/~a-~0.c\..,,la~"""'==l"::r.:±e,,()~l 7===.J==u==~=D=={"'==.~"""""""'~-=- p RI NT NAME ~l!_V' ~_i4--"0..,__,s...,,<:,.«.-,;..c..w..--- SIGN NAME ,die ~ --J t/, ... -· --- -----·--·-·----- --------·- PRINT NAME Vo,-<a77-rr--r c::A;--,:=;:-n,·s-tiv ADDRESS: ADDRESS: /f o/ (!lktn.. E: l>t?.. SIGN NAME ADDRESS: Id :). ~ c//.)]V~ f) /( CM e;J y os: . SIGN NAME' PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME 1 m_ou,.u==--= ·1 ADDRESS: ---~~------'--------'---'-c..=..----'---------'i _,_sI __ G..,N __ N .... N- .... 1..,_E.....,__.,....,..,, ''""';;...,··,-,.a,,,c;..., ..;.,;,.;,,-:, ....... ,,.;:;..--i:-;a......,-;.;;r· _ _ -·-- ! _ . .,, =-7.,ADDRES~•r -=~-=::..:.:~=:=-=T=N=:"--A=:c.=E=··--',C•'-:-=-=··-=- =-·=== = __ ""'_ .. =. ~ __ =, =-=~~~-~- ~-~- 4lAODSES~ - - ME! ...... PRINT NAl,!E OYM nrwic ·iiittt en UC w::rrzc nn:r m·csa PRINT NANE i I - ... ·-· - .. ._._. ~D~.-...mo~ ........ ,~.., .. ,.,,_...,.,...,._,=:!!'!• ~-~-A!e!'lT"""-""·-""-='""•!!!· =============- PRINT NAME I ADDRESS: ·,,. SIGN NAME ............... __..- L ~~~-~'"'!""!"'.rn•:-~--:·~~~~:':~~!--- - ''"!.':'=~:.~ r---······":.~-• ....... ~------=---~~==- PR I NT NAME -iADDRESS: I I SIGN NAME SIGN NAME __ P_R_I_N_T-NAf.--1E ........ • ..,......,.....,.,._.,.....,.....,... --- . -----"""~ .... -= ......... t;;~~~- -S_I..,_G..,_N~N-Af._1_E_--'---'--------...:.......:,__ I PRINT NAME SIGN NAME PRIN_j NAME ADDRESS: ADDRESS: PRINT NAME . ADDRESS: _...:....:.....:....:.....:....:..--'..------------------, SIGN _Ni\M..E ~-!M!.. .. ADDRESS: ----------~----------1 PRINT NAME SIGN NAME . PRINT NAME ADDRESS: _______ ___;:__;:__...:,_ -J SIGN NAME -·· ·.. --- I I i' } / _r_R_r _NT_N_A_r.._1 E _ __.2~e~.s~·~.s 1.s::...... -L--'·~-D~A" ; 5 A ,J.-µ..,,/ ~ SIGN NAME ADDRESS': ) Lj ~(.¥,., '.:;I,/ --l-<A./' PRINT NAME SIGN NAME D>- c 11-"i-196: ADDRESS: PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: PRINT NAME SI~,- - ADDRESS: PRINT NN-1E SIGN NAME ADDRESS PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADD11ESS: PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: ;:z::;::;~ - -- - PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME PRINT NA.ME SI_GN NAME ADDRESS: PRINT NAME ADDRESS: ---···•····- ----- PRINT-NAME SIGN_ N_f\ME. . .. ADDRESS: /\ PRINT NAME SIGN NAME . ADDRESS: PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: '\ I . RINT NAME / ADDIµ:SS: · pr< _r ___:· /_:.-_cf_\-=-L .... :...c.J_.--'- ... .!...\:) ..,......::1 '-t"--.,'_.-1.,-'-.,v'--l-',1,_ .. ~_,- __ -1 / J·,. ,: Q,(\, -' '-- { ,<._· \ s 'i.. (_J ---- ---------· ----- ADDRESS: ----- !? I 2 l1 C"-'1 ,_c . ADnRESS: SIGN NAM E PRINT NAME SIGN NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS: IS .. ~;.(~'.~--~,--·. {~-- _l_l_~ ~ NT_~-~~I_E_ J,'~ -C :c/- ;-_. ..A~ _ /._.., _- ./4.0 __ . __ _ ~I.9_~--~~-S;.~ · r ~- ~.-/-: __ & ,,._1-r:, / F, l• (!_ ct-L;--C, ADDRESS PRINT_ NAME /Ziv::.,: 1~ rl/h,&d../1.-· -----f ADDnEss: SIGN_ N~~~ ?7:~~'.i __ .J..b',-{,~ SIGN NAME /.i; . A) ,r- .•: .:-. L 'G< ,~. t- / ..: . z-_- C /'t...J ~ PRINT NAME ~ \I ( k ,._ I ( - _-, ' . ...) () ' L...- / /] ' SIGN NAM E [.-,_< _ _;:_,·1_,:_.--/I ✓--!,rz..,,,\...{'{-;,r>t PR I NT NAME g,_µr__.·.·~".1'--'-'-=----<.....'---"-'.,__,_-'-"- .,.._,_._-1 SIGN NAME ~'z, t.·C {.:.'. ,:r?!J~-d G"vt,--;4 • ADDRESS ✓, , r- Cf ,.-, ,. : : ,lo-·_-~(; l- . :1}_✓-l,;rt/✓.:J./~_j_/ _, · - ADDRESSX 6 :J.J }'JL-(t.,L..1-f.._ C\. ~) h.(' _ADDRJ;SS: ,1/ V ,/ I r:i· ' . /~__r-/'i:ft:.'-Hl-4!.---,,l.,.,.__) ,n ..,.. ~ __ P_R_IN_T_N_AM_E_-:S:_t:._~_£_-/_V_L=_A __ N_l_v_. _£_1_-~L-~_-te. -.ADDRESS: 1 tJ ,,2.!J- NII N<!'I ]),<;',/ .5 L.. o SIGN NAM E , -{J/l,;!-?"-<', C:{ -:»;./4 ,~~~- ~(; . '. '.;: ' . ,: - . . - - (21 ~~ !+/_/~) ,- 7f;U~'<; ADDRESS: If ~ '--,. PRINT NAME ~ ) .. Ccyj-_ 1/5{o;.· o/ ·1 . ~✓-~(? c:;-:. (J .. SIGN NAME (>Le__./, •. / - . (_ ~ ( .... - PRINT NN-1E ADDRESS: SIGN NAME ... --· -- PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME - . -- PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME -- PRINT NAME ADDRESS: . -- ···- - - ... ··- -- -· .•. SIGN NAME - .... PRINT NAME ADDRESS: -·. - -···· SIGN NAME -· , .. _._.,.., . .,.,. .. _ ... ... -. --·- -- - .. --=- - - --- .. ... PRINT NAME ADDRESS --------- ·---- ·- --- -- - -- - -- -- -----·· --- ---- --- . -- - .. -- ------- - - - -·- - -·· - . - -· ---- SIGN NAME ---,.-,. - -· - PRINT NAME ADDRESS: - -- - SIGN NA},1c .. ·- : ... -- -- ·- --· -- - PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME . ·-- -·· ----· -- ·- -· ··-. - ----··- --·· ---·-··:a ··-··-- - -- -- PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS: ... SIGN NAME --- PRINT NAME ADDRESS: - . SIGN l'{AME .......... - .. - --- . --- -- -- - . PRINT NAME ADDRESS: ,. SIGN NAME ...... :. -·- . --·· ·--- -- --· -- ---- --- -- -- PRINT NAME ---- - - -- - .. .. ADDTU:SS: .. ' SIGN __ NA_ME --· ·-- --·- ... PRINT NAME . ADDRESS: SIGN NAME PRINT NAME - ADDRESS: ~ SIGN _NAME .. -· - ·•· ... ·- .. /~i --•·-·· -- w u.w.::x=::::z:.::= __ ·-·------=======~~===- PR I NT NAME~fi/f (), -.flt_o~r,:_~-- ADORESS 0 : /(;,I/, -;:;,a..--fl,e ])R. C...' I · l'i't rJ C. :::,,1 ..- 1 '-.../l \.... Z . c:JOC 11 _1---v1~ i!_Jo,sfo, l_-o · /,-..> -,o~ . S_IGN NAM~ _ ~l.<..!L _!-':· _ r-'-c/4(..a.,, PRINT NAM E 2-;;7-17/ fy r-_ /.dee- SIGN NAME ,;j{-6;,,__;__ ~ ~ ADDRESS: ADDRESS: l G 6 9 - lJ- ct!t:O Ct, ✓l ± c , PRINT NAM E ADDRESS: SIGN NAME ADDRESS: /0 J.-9 -✓'({ .... ._,_; /4t,, _s_r.;..;.;G-=~-'--N-"'~=~=;;;;.;· -:.:::.Al.::::::.i~.cu..,✓.~~=-;:S"\;--::;=~="-- !:::::.• -~-,u~=======t;~~-~:~-?~~.ft1-23.:i;£J~ PRINT NAME l-~A c__:n✓u3: )('J(J?-l/;v ADDRESS: -✓:~·,_:;7 < ,--<;..--.,._,e__27',-,, s I G N NAME ,-;;::, - ,;__~ r - e,,,, '.?J;:,, ~ ,;(<~ 0,- P--t~ ,_,& {,'-- p,? ye l - PR I NT·- NAM E u/ ~/!; ;n -- . ~=:v-=;;~1 <'.f=h=-?====¼'=A=D=DR=J:=-ss : / Cl 3 &, ~,-✓r /4~ '{:)::7" - - ~ I G N NAME /j __ /.-✓.tf!e~:...~L ,1-;;~ ':{/(?!,_/fl{_'?_() h .!5/?<: '!__ _!) j- ~---"2\J lt PRINT_NAME_:a i 1'1: ADDRESS: -"-'-'·~-~--~~~_.....-----< / C' 3 3 l'>uvJ!./ Lf._v' . ·sr_GN NAME. (a..(,___(d,~~s.~--g~ _ k _/L~(!J,,1,_ :.cL.- ✓~- _ 9 PRINT ~AME {/!£0 /) /(E/'IIY 177 ADDRESS: / u2 ~; /"'l<1/..'t. /),('J/ll SIGN ,.NAM E~,,_,j J/_/Jm._1..cl..ff . ,5)N iv1.r 0/1/5-PO, {I) ,9.511!:_f!. PRIN T NAM E · , ✓- -1_-·r:, ----~-~·~·-D~A W~¥-----L :..0~..J-=~-L~------ - I! I' I I I-Bo .. .. . Jll SQ tMlftCSCltY' --. PRINT NAME _j £,, )-ll.-L-<.-rr ADDREss: 11, -01 -1Hf'. DP - .?IGN NAME~~,a~ ~,v L ,,-~ ctf'if1"1Y7d_/4~;,{c1!' ··--ri~I.NT N.J\ME MY Rc:6 N ;l.h?_fJ'rl I ;:;;DB.ESS.: /a/ ;l_ K~~ I~--✓ "7>R s I GN NAME M A, _,, £--<- ;; - ~ /' ADnRESS: SIGN NAME PRINT NAME AnDRESS: SIGN NAME -·--··a;,;;;,;o- ....... ------==- ..... -----=--=a::a""""'-~----,-- ... -----=-·---- ............. """"',,,.....,.,,,.,· .-,,,, .. .-. - PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME .. -- PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGN NAME PRINT NAf.lE ADDRESS: --·-~-_....;._-~ ·--·=-..c:.··---'-----'----''---'----j /-----------------'---~ SIGN NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS: ··-----·---·--'------------'----1----------__:_-=---- S I GN NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME PRINT NAME ADDRESS: _ ___:..·....c~··c....· '-"' ·---------'------'-'---1--'----------'-------c SIGN NAME '=""·--·-·=·=-,=··=----=-=----·---'-. ... -.-·•--·=~~~ ~~=• ..... =-=-·If==================~- PRINT NAME ADDRESS: PRINT NAME .. --- ·-· SIGN._N1\ME -· PRINT NAME - SIGN NAME ... -··-·--·· ...... ·-- PRINT NAME - ·- SIGN NAME ~ .. ADDRESS: ADDRESS: ADDRESS: I ; ------=-----~=c;.;·=····....;·=··· =·· ;:...;·=·-=t =..;;;.;;;;;·· =========,=;;.;;· ...... I-B l ADDRESS: I g 0>() YH f L.H A DIJ. I ADDRESS: ADDRESS: PRINT NAME SIG N NAM E ADDRESS: ;6's-3 ~a- k. PR INT NAME SIG N NAM E PRINT NAME /28(/l-Tf{; ADDRESS: ---r/2 c Lm A - /J't/ O '?:w ive_ . ---- - -- . ADDRESS: //?, 3 -f;n--z.,,:,,,") V£,vc PRIN T NAM E J o 1-1 /V .f', j t? ;--t R J3 E /? (;. ADDRESS: SIG N N~~:_:Jd;7 I r1~2 ~7:: __ . I O J 7- V Tc./ J?~;,.r?; pr. PRI.NT NAM E j <:', I\ r..f y, ? (=\ ('7 ADDRESS: ---- :: ;:~N~~ t~.::~f2!:"~- ci.c7· (i:·~· (::{;.:::=1;=- =L=l===t-=AJ;;.;2~DR;:;;;;, E;k· ~;;;;;;s;.::2'~:a..--..,::J:;:_._;l;;;;l:~.Ca.;;· ~L;_t;'!c~~·-·;;;;;::_/4~-~··,:.ic"' ...... ,...,,,,,,.,._ -~~~~AM E 2/-_0:-_y~Yl'::!:-_~~~ 1 s-s: .1-i4 "-- ;J/L., PRINT NAM E E.~1 'l-/l4r-'T//. A:-v ,,v C L 7 ~t'/. .. ADDRESS: / jJ .'? C, 7/2L~•4 . SJG N._.N/\_t!t~--5_~~~-~ 4+,_ . 4--4 ct:J/46 ti7,,; 9-_!'r_:7_~ PRINT NAM E SIGN NAME ADDRESS: --------•·•·-·· ·•-······. _· ... :.;:.·:.:.:.~-:-.·.~··:-:·.-:~;_-=:: : .. · • PRINT NAM E ADDRESS: -------------------! SIG N NAME . : . . .. - - . . - . -- - .. i: ··- ·····•···---•··•-·--. --.--· =·==-1 i : ~ i . _ _::.---:.:--:::-:.::;;·--~===--=-:.::-:::---::::;.._=====~-;,;;;; __ ;;;;;_ ~-~-~---~--- --===========- S_~ GN NAME /t . .:>-t:.../-- ., ADDRESS: PRINT NAME f,..AJ/L=-1u..11...=- ?"k-.s oA fll- ADDRESS: ADDRESS: IJOCf 1-t/N N .:D'R t1 J t- 5'(),rv /...«isD6/sPo, CA---93)/of" PRINT NAM E Ct{A R t.,,~5' A. W H t-1-.tlA 1-r ADDRESS: / 7{) o 7fl-cLt1,11- Die, u,;., SIGN NAM E. ~o . _ Id~~----- ... .fl!!!!..b0.!!__C?_(_!Jsro CA 111-ru- ;.. PRINT NAME£L J0 ~- G,.~/1 ADDRESS: SIGN _NAME _.::J,{o} ~. ~--,,-·---:---:----- !_!~1 e~r1t>J1 1/6,, .J ., I ! V-33 -·-··-·-------- PRIN':' NAME A i- I c : ,3. L-:- M E!<.'j ~-----.- ADDRESS: SIGN NAME ADDRESS: 17 o _1!1?A .tnuv M.J . PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: /11 -j_~~ • ADDRESS:I J1t J .,,_.,,,, .... ~,,,,, ___:.=...:..::...=.~~.1..'lt=:...=JC :::-=n '-~----.~ __ ~ .. ·--~- 7.. ~0 /J-~ ~_2_ ~ Cj_ijS- PRI NT NAME\-",/ .XI , u-~--,/P~ ADDRESS :T .. , / ,,, .n~. . .. - - w.../.!/.L'l .. !1'1 · !U .? "V° I 7 I e, h--e Mz- 7 ,.,, SI_G_N __ ~~lE ... wd/<,,-hr'.'--Jc=~- - 59/J I, )s tf_Jn.J"'_e t-1. ~ tfClS - ~~I~T_.!:_l~~I_E __ V,· . .\"_j-_; j__."_~-- - 0_,' 2.11--: ~ - AD_D~f:.5.S __ /__ 7(? Jf __ ~ ~' - _ SI_~_N __ ~J\J-~~---~~~ ~ __ ' =.;___&, _ 13~ PRIN T NAM~ Ad\/ t5_ ~-v1)i) Jar J\DDnESS:70__77/i~J-hCV <;D.t: SIGN_NAME-~~-- £,~kif~/9(. G± < PRINT NAM E 1--l.M\ I-\ e;,'-.J t-vVS,/~C:::: c~t: ';-' ADDRESS: 1'67.-1· 0,rr2.rJ c:TJ f. ()rl s r GN NJ\.tvf E ,~/' o:ttr;J,/Jr//' WJj J-€'i.,~ 1...9...__,, C.:, r, t-J LGt':i 00 (l,r[~ c. k c-0 L\C ,::s '--L...-'-"--'-- ADDRE-ss:; g-0 Y/flE'L tv/ AJ) R .. Sil yJ_ c..:, s 0.B , s er, CA q_'31/Jr ______ ADDRESS: t.?.J-L ~~~ ,1Yu --5-"'__,__L__,. CflL__ ~---252 ,t:£: PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME . PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME I ~ P R I N T N A M E S I G N N A M E A D D R E S S : P R I N T N A M E [ x e \ .,,~. C- ; \_ I,... ADDRESS:/ g 0- 'i ·S ev~-C... ~ _ SIG~- N~-~E u,~~~-~~( S"'.,.._'R '(,~:J ~£.~; G..,_, ~+<> < PRINT NAME (_~A/rC:L:: £. KR~-/-(!. ADDRESS: ;g-11,3~~£~-~-.;.,__- - S~GN_NAME &.:.._,~ L,~~Jl :5 L..0 __ c /f ?~~/~v-_ PR~_NT_ N~~!E e_,A_f V,!/ _ :> £' /~£ ADDRESS: SIGN NAME , 0 1 rz-09 r;-) 12_//c TTE f1-_o PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME PRINT NA!>fE _org_o., C.n __ l.r CJ Y_eJy --· ----·-- AD_n~~_SS_L~_c?/_ _ _ SI_G_N ~AM~ _ _ _ ~ 1 --tu _(!/, _ ( cuu1 a~ 7:5_/c_ I I lt3S' I ; --··----;:-;•A"".: .. 7.c.·C::::. ====== ·--========-==r:======;:::_-==- . - ··--·--···- . ADDRESS: 1 ,::, o <;- J .. L~-v--A-....._ ~· .?✓t~ .. .,..__,...._ £ ;:;· &0 -1~ .L 4--,..= >f-«, ·_, 0 .Lr<--y¢ r~INT NAME L ,Jv✓ 1(1. L J , f)cJti PJ ! ADDRESS: / 'i r ( rS-c-, y1J{1 !Jr s_~GN NAME ';;q1AJ,J.{ (} .. Ji/37?}✓1- S L u PRINT NAME SIGN NAME PRINT NN,1E ADDR.ESS: SIGN .NAME , __ .... , - .. ·.· --··· ·- ·.. - ·- . c-=-:-:--==.·:::::-·= ... :'- • ..:-=··=·'·-=···======='===±=============== 1 ADDRESS: PRINT NAME --------------------·, SIGN NAME PRINT NAME ' I ADDRESS: ·----------------1 SIGN NAME ; ,..--,----- .. _,-,--,--.,,.-,.,.,..,.,-=·=-··...,,·'""'--·'""'--=-·=""======~==========-- l ADDRESS: PRINT NAME SIGN NAME .,.,....~===-= ...... -:-: .. -c-: .. =.-·-:-: .. = ... ~ .. 0,-,: ... ======================= PRINT NAME I ADDRESS: SIGN NAME . . -~-► _._ •... ,, .• ;••······--,.•···-···..,...• -~.-.-...-:-,-~---= .. === ! ===========·=====·-===-· I ! ADDRESS: l -•--~~~~- ..... ·.c:;:;;.c--:.:.·::·;::-..::-:::: .. :::;; ... ::;;: .... :::;: .... ;:;:;, .• -;; .. i:c,·~--=·--··~••·;:;; .... .:;;; .. ~;;:;;.-;;,; .. ;;:;- .. ,c;:;;, ... :,:;.,,~ ... e::;: ... ~ •. •=t· ::::; .... :;;,: ... =:.- .:;_; .... := .. =--3'--~=:=-·~·-;:;;,: .... ~ ... ;:;:; .• ,:c: .• ===··=··;z .... ~ ... ::;: ... ::::, .. =:::; ..• ~.--•:2!!·•··==··~-...--~ PRINT NAME PRINT NAME - ... Annn.ESS: S JGl'{ __ Ni\1:11:..,...-,-cc--- .. - .... - .. -- .... -:-: .. ·=·-=··•·=--·=· ·=-=======r==========""""'°"""""""'""""".,,._._ PR.INT NAME SIGN NAME PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS: .... ,..___ ADDRESS: i i i i-3/::, --·-· ··- ---·---·· ----- -· ··====r - - ·- - PRINT NAME ADDRESS': --------·-··-- -··-- .. --------- SIGN NAME ,. PRINT NAME ro.: k ?),'>f/4 .) 7:,,N" ADDRESS: SIGN NAME /4/ /'k~ It tt'O l/11' t'Y /, I.--:,/ ✓-~ - .... - PRINT NAME (}_ (:" <)/,?_ r, ,' ,V {I 0 I/Vy;,_,',~Cl._ ADDRESS: SIGN NAME ff . /4 r: . 1/2 (' C/ /' rt->: t<.7,,. lJ c,f' ,,,,,,. ~-=-- ('- -~-c:i , ..... , ... ...-u ~:__ -: .. , .... -c.".--L---1..rt_....,' -, - PRINT NAME Qo}o ti,,J, Ve Id AOnRESS: -- -· .. K J v-e ri On'vc. SIGN ~N, 1 ~,~ •• lt;1 lL 2hLd J(,,c>} 'o/'3 tf ~;,_;- z:n::-.nnn N~1'!E __ ~ ,-../J~ ~1 - - -- PRINT I,/ JI / -5,.,v ADDRESS: . - ·- SIGN NN-1~~~ '-{£) ,1_P-1~ lt.l't; y<,'i,u-,, /0,,, ~ j_ 0 q::r ye;_,....--- ' 1 1::mia [,(f/7 Ar I= (( Cr;} A V (1< ........ PRINT NN>IE ADDRESS: ~ . 11/~tliZ~ J,~-:Lr / 0 )_ i? SIGN NAME - - . •.·.·.--.-. - :~ • > .... • •.,;-: ...:...:=:. •. I -•.. -••••••- ,:_•_ - . --- , __ - PRINT NN-.IE ADDRESS ·- ·- - -- .. ··- -··- - - - - ·-. - -··---- - ·- - . -- -· -· ··-· .. SIGN NN>IE - -, ... - ... - -., ..... ,.,_ .. _..., --- ·-- ·- PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NN>IE . -- . ·- -------- -- ~ PRINT NAME ADDRESS: . SIGN NA.1-.IE - .. -· -·- ·.-......--™' -· = n PRINT NN>1E ADDRESS: SIGN NN>IE ... - ·- ... .. - . .. ---· .. - - :I&. PRINT NAME ADDRESS: SIGN NAME . - 7277:r ................... --- -· ~ -- . -- ·-· - PRINT NN>1F. ADDRESS: .. - SI_GN NN>iE ··•····· ·--· ·----·- ·-·- .... ~-- .. -y__,_, -- - ,.,r,21:s e:ze .,..c- PRINT NAME ADDRESS: . ·' SIGN NAME -· ·••·---·. -··-·------· ;;r:x:- - ------ - . - -· - PRINT NN>iE - - __ , ADDRESS: .... ·-·· ···-----· S _l ul'!__N.J\M_I: __ ·- - _,,_ __ _..........,..__ --- PRINT NN>IE ·--- ADDRESS: SIGN NAME - . -· . ·-·-·---- ·•- --- ----- ... .. ·-· --~--- -- ·•-·-····----·--·-- ---~··· ... -· ----~-- - . PRINT NAME - ADDRESS: SI G!'l NAME ... . - . . ... - . .-, ~-- - -- ·-·-····-. ·- - •···. - .... -------····--,. -~ T O : C I T Y C O U N C I L M E M B E R SU B J E C T : R e i n s t a t e m e n t o f "v a c a n c y c o n t r o l ",t o R e n t S t a b i l i z a t i o n L a w : O n A p r i l 1 , 1 9 9 2 , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r u l e d t h a t E s c o n d i d o o r a n y o t h e r ju r i s d i c t i o ~ c o u l d p r o h i b i t a n i n c r e a s e i n m o b i l e h o m e s p a c e r e n t a t t h e t i m e t h e rn o b i l e h o rn e i s s o l d . A n e w b u y e r m a y o c c u p y t h e m o b i l e h o m e a t t h e s a m e r e n t c h a r g e d t o h i s s e l l e r . W e r e q u e s t t h a t v a c a n c y c o n t r o l b e a d d e d t o S e c t i o n S .4 4 ,0 6 0 C o f t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o M u n i c i p a l C o d e . A n umb e r o f c i t i e s a n d c o u n t i e s h a v e a l r e a d y a d d e d v a c a n c y c o n t r o l t o t h e i r o r d i n a n c e s a n d s o m e o f t h e s e a r e l i s t e d b e l o w : C i t y o f S a n J o s e C i t y o f S a n B e r n a r d i n o V e n t u r a C o u n t y C i t y o f O x n a r d U n i o n C i t y C i t y o f Y u c a i p a C i t y o f M o r g a n H i l l P l e a s e c o n s i d e t a ~d i n g S a n L u i s O b i s p o t o t h e l i s t . ·- ~ ..... ,,.~----------·-~--=,...,,..,------- Sincerely, vacancy control was removed from the Rent Stabiliza- tion Law due to a court case in Santa Barbara in 1990. some mobile homes change hands far more often than others, so as a result of this ~hange! large variations in rent often exist in m~bile homes which sit side by side. (Often a difference of $60 or more a month exists.) At pres~nt, an increase in rent is allowed when a mobilehome is sold. A recent supreme Court decision empowe~s cities to outlaw the rent increase when a mobileho~e . is sold. This allows rents to be more equitable and fair. i i/-3<] __,_I ..c..· ·_. ·--':'- •• _.,_-_r_: ~··--~'·'-· ----1--A_n_n_R_E_s_s_: -~ ,· ·· L 1,/ l r( " , .,\. ·,t '' , .1. ·7 / '-·- l j .. 't: {' / ,I --I i , , ' .'.: 1· ''//. '< ,1 C ( SIGN NAME _--;,, ))/;·c·,,t· .>t"l.:t{ ,·.·C.t' I,1..·'I , •.. v,v·c•v-•7·,,, - -' ··- ------ --ES::Zzil ::z:n:s:nr cu e s PRINT NAME i..__:. '·i,: I PRINT NAME :-! 1--· i ..... -'1 \·:. _., J- -, !•-· ' AODRESS: -,:c/ . C.• <:") . f /. SIGN NAME '.' .. -- J .~--l .. L-.: .. -~L,._L_. -- --· (~ C ·.I . -- ,,, ;:- l ··',, / ::-;:~_· I. S I.GN NAME J-31 ·=-.'-~· -· :..:=___;;:_;;.;::=======:; .. PRINT N/\ME(1;111([;..' 111,:r ===========:'.::::::;=======- -=============-=-=---=-:.:::.~ __ -:-:.:__::.....-:.- C' . - ,).,'r/JI :T.L!-1' ADDRESS• '; <'JI .-·. ' . (,,,,.. I I ,, ,. r,·,-~,- .,4 ... ·r I'/(. .., ltLfD r \ .,. ............ _ ... ._:___ - ---;-;:----- - d - ·/Tl 7 1-7 ~ ;f' i?. -:_;?.I"< I ----- -- I I 1+41 l ... ,, .•. ----- ._ · 1 · =::J'·i:.:......------- .... ·- •·• ··- PR~NT N1'!"'f..t:J.M.y-=1~~· ---~---_, __ A_n_DR_E_-s_s_:-.l~'N.o S, fl I Guf';{.7/l tf JJL/ •--:.=-======== ' i I l l-'f3 ! 15 2 2 112 SCPRE!'l1E COCRT REPORTER John K. YEE, et al., P_etitioners v. CITY OF ESCO~DIDO, CALIFOR:\"IA. ~·o. 90-1947. Argued Jan. 22, 1992. Decided April 1, i992. Mobile home park owners brought ac- tion and claimed that local rent control ordin~nce, when viewed against backdrop of California's Mobilehome Residency Law, amounted to phys ical occupation of their property entitling them to compensation under the_ takings clause. The Superior Court of San Diego County, No. N42268, Don Martinson, J., sustained city's demur- rer to complaint and dismissed the action. ?,fobile home park owners appealed. Elev- en other cases were consolidated with the mobile home park owners' case. The Court of Appeal, 224 Cal.App.3d 1349, 274 Cal. Rptr. 551, affirmed. Petition for certiorari was filed in eight of the twelve cases. The Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor, held that: (1) the rent cor,trol ordinance did not amount to physical taking of park owners' property; (2) whether ordinance violated park owners' su bstantive due process rights was not properly before the Su- preme Court; and (3) whether ordinance constituted regulatory taking was not prop- erly before the Supreme Court. Affirmed. Justices Blackmun and Souter con- curred in the judgment and filed opinions. l. Eminent Domain <::=2(1) Where government authorizes physical occupation of property, or actually takes title to the property, the takings clause generally requires compensation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 2. Eminent Domain <Z:=>2(1) Where government merely regulates use of property, compensation is required under the takings clause only if considera- tions such as the purpose of the regulation or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the economic use of tr,e property su g - gest that the regulation has unfairly s in- gled out the property owner to bear burden that should be borne by the public 2.s a whole. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 3. Eminent Domain e=o2(1) The government effects physical tak- ing only where it requires the landowner to submit to the physical occupation of his land. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 4. Eminent Domain <;;::::2(1.l, 10) Whe~r,er the government floods land- owner's property or does no more thin require landowner to suffer installation of cable, the takings clause requires compen- sation if the government authorizes com- pelled physical invasion of property. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 5. Eminent Domain ¢=2(1.1) Landlord and Tenant <::=200.11 Local rent control ordinance, when viewed against backdrop of California Mo- bilehome Residency Law, which limited the bases upon which mobile home park own- ers could terminate mobile home owner's tenancy, did not amount to compensable taking of mobile home park owners' prop- erty; ordinance did not compel park owners to suffer physical occupation of their prop- erty since owners voluntarily rented their land to the mobile home owners, and noth- ing on face of regulatory scheme compelled park owners to continue renting property to tenants. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code §§ 'i98 et seq., 798.55(a). 6. Federal Courts ~511 Whether statutory procedure for changing use of mobile home park was in practice "a kind of gauntlet" that prevent- ed mobile home park owners from chang- ing the use of their land and terminating mobile home owner's tenancy could not be considered on petition for certiorari which claimed that local rent control ordinance, A T TA CH ~lE N T 2 J-4'-f Y E E v. CITY OF ESCO:\'DIDO, CAL. Clte as 112 S.Ct. 1522 (1992) 1523 when viewed against backdrop of Califor- nia's Mobilehorne Residency Law, amount- ed to physical occupation of mobile home park owners' property entitling the park owners to compensation under the takings clause; park owners did not claim to have ru n that gauntlet. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend, 5; · West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 798 et seq. 7.' Eminent Domain e=Z(l.l) ,. When landowner decides to rent land to tenants, government may place ceilings on rents landowner can charge, or require landowner to accept tenants he does not like, without automatically having to pay compensation under the takings clause. U.S._C.A. Const.Amend. 5 .. 8. Eminent Domain e:=2(1.l) Landlord and Tenant <i:=200.11 · Fact that local rent control ordinance, when viewed against backdrop of Calif'or- nia's Mobilehome Residency Law, transfers ~-ealth from mobile home park owners to ncumbent mobile home own ers did not 'mandate determination that local rent con- trol ordinance amounted to compensable physical taking of mobile home park own- ers'. property; ordinance did not compel . mobile home park owners to suffer physi- cal occupation of their .property, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 798 et seq. 9. Eminent Domain <:::=2(1.1) '_- Allegation that local rent c~ntrol or di- . nance, .. when viewed against backdrop. of . California's Mobilehome · Residency Law, benefited incumbent mobile home owners . without benefiting future mobile home . o,,,;·~ers had nothing to do with whether the . ordinance caused compensable physical tak- _ ing of mobile home park owners' property; · ordinance did not require mobile home park -owners to submit to the physical occupa- ·tion of their land. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend, . 5; West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 798 et seq. · 10. Eminent Domain c:::::=2(1.l) .. Claim that local rent control ordinance, . when viewed against backdrop of Califor- nia's Mobilehome Residency Law, deprived I .• mobile hom e park owners of ability to choose incoming tenants did not mandate determination that ordinance amounted to compensable physical taking of park own- ers' property; because park owners_ volun- tarily opened their property to occupation by others, park owners could not assert per s e right to compensation based on their inability to exclude particular individuals. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; West's Ann.Cal, Civ.Code § 'i98 et seq. 11. Federal Courts ct:=508 Whether local rent control ordinance violated mobile home park owners' substan- tive due process rights could not be con- sidered on petition for certiorari which claimed that local rent control ordinance, when viewed against backdrop of Califor- nia's Mobilehorne Residency Law, amount- ed to compensable physical taking of mo- bile home park owners' property; owners did not raise substantive due process claim in the state courts, and even if rule against addressing questions not raised below were prudential, adherence to the rule would have been appropriate. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14. 12. Constitutional Law ¢::46(1) Claim that local rent ordinance, when viewed . against backdrop of California's Mobilehome Residency Law, amounted to regulatory taking was ripe for judicial re- view even though mobile home park own- ers had not sought rent increases; claim amounted to facial challenge to ordinance, and mobile home park owners alleged that ordinance did not SU bstantially advance le- gitimate state interest no matter how it was applied. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. _ 5; West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 798 et seq. . . 13. Federal Courts <!::=508 · Although it was unclear whether mo- bile home park owners made regulatory taking argument below in action which as- serted physical taking challenge to local rent control ordinance, regulatory taking argument could have been raised on peti- tion for certiorari; arguments that ordi- nance constituted taking by physical occu- ;· ! t {. ' ., ;: t /~-J 1524 112 SUPREME COVRT REPORTER patiori and by regulation were not separate claims, but, rather, were separate argu- ments in support of single claim. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 14. Federal Courts e=,511 Once· federal claim is properly present- ed, party can make any argument in sup- port of that claim; parties are not limited to precise arguments they made below. 15. Federal Courts <t:=511 Vi'hether local rent control ordinance, when viewed against backdrop of Califor- nia's Mobilehome Residency Law, amount- ed to compensable regulatory taking of mo- bile home park owners' property could riot be considered on petition for certiorari which· claimed that ordinance amounted to compensable physical taking of owners' property;: regulatory taking question was not fairly included in question on which certiorari was granted, and prudence die- tated a~·aiting case in which issue was fully litigated below. U.S.C.A. Const. Arnend.i 5; U.S.Sup.Ct.Rule 14.l(a), 28 us.c.x. Syllabus • The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause generally requires just compensa- tion where the government authorizes a physical· · occupation of property. But where: the Government merely regulates the property's use, compensation is re- quired 'only if considerations such as the regulation's purpose or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the property's economic use suggests that the regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner to bear'a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole. Petitioners, mobile· home park owners in respondent Escondi- do, California, rent pads of land to mobile home owners. When the homes are sold, the new owners generally continue to rent the pads, ,· Under the California Mobile- home Residency Law, the bases upon which • The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of t.he Court but has been prepared by ihe Re, porter· of Decisions for the convenience of the a park owner may terminate a mobile home owner's tenancy are limited to, in ier alia, nonpayment of rent and the park owner's desire to change the use of his land. The park owner may not require the removal of a mobile home when it is sold and may neither charge a transfer fee for the sale nor disapprove of a purchaser who is able to pay rent. The state law does not limit the rent the park owner may charge, but Escondido has a rent control ordinance set- ting mobile home rents back to their 1 %6 levels· and prohibiting rent increases with- out the- City Council's approval. The Supe- rior Court dismissed lawsuits filed by peti- tioners and others challenging the ordi- nance, rejecting the argument that the or- dinance effected a physical taking by de- priving park owners of all use and occupan- cy of their property and granting to their tenants, and their tenants' successors, the right to physically permanently occupy :;: use the property. The Court of Appe, affirmed. Held: 1. The rent control ordinance does not authorize an unwanted physical occupation of petitioners' property and thus does not amount to a per se taking. Petitioners' argument-that the rent control ordinance· .authorizes a physical taking because, cou- pled with the state law's restrictions, it increases a mobile home's value by giving the homeowner the right to occupy the pad indefinitely at a sub-market rent-is unper- suasive. The government effects a physi- cal taking only where it requires the land- owner to submit to the physical occupation of his land. Here, petitioners have volun- tarily ·rented their land to mobile home owners and are not required to continue to do so by either the City or the State. On their face, the laws at issue merely regu- late petitioners' use of their land by regu- lating the relationship between landlord and tenant. Any transfer of wealth from park owners to incumbent mobile home reader, Sec United Stales v. Detroit Lumber C 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 267, 50 LE.. 499. )-40 YEE v. CITY OF ESCO~DIDO, CAL. Cite u 112 S.Ct. l 52.2 (l 992) 1525 owners in the form of SU b-market rent does · not itself convert regu lation into physical invasion. Additional contentions made by 'petitioners-that the ordinance benefits · cm-r ent mobile home owners but not future . "owner s, who must purchase the homes at ~pr·e_miums resulting from the homes' in- creased value, and that the ordinance de- prives petitioners of the ability to choose their incoming tenants-might have some bearing on whether the ordinance causes a ·regu latory taking, but have nothing to do _ with whether it causes a physical taking. Moreover, the finding in Loretto v. Tele- · prompter Manhattan CA TV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 439, n. 1 i, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 3178, n. 11; 73 L.Ed.2d S6S-that a physica l taking · claim cannot be defeated by an argu ment that a landlord can avoid a statute's restric- . tions by ceasing to rent his property , be- cause his ability to rent may not be condi- tioned on forfeiting the right to compensa- tion for a physica l occupation-has no rele- . vance here, where there has been no physi- cal taking. Since petitioners have made no attempt to change how their land is used, · 'this case also presents no occa sion to con- sider whether the statute, as applied, pre- : vents them from making a change. Pp. 1528-1531. 2;· Petitioners' claim that the ordi- . nance constitutes a. denial of substantive 'due process is not properly before this Court because it was not raised below or · . addressed by the state courts . The ques- - tion whether this Co urt's customary refus- ·al. to consider claims not raised· or ad- : dressed below is a jurisdictional or pruden- tial rule need not be resolved here, beca use even if the rule were pru dential, it would . bea dhered to in this case. Pp. 1531-1532. .·_ ,,: 3.· Also improperly before this Co urt · is petitioners' claim that the ordinance con- :· stitutes a regulatory taking. The regula- . ~ry taking claim is ripe for review; and · the fact that it was not raised below does . not mean. that it could not be properly ·:--raised before this Co urt, since once peti- :, tio ners properly raised a taking claim, they 'could have formulated, in this Co urt, any argument they liked in support of that claim. Nonetheless, the claim will not be considered because, under this Co urt's Rule 14.l(a), only questions set forth, or fairly included, in the petition for certiorari are considered. Rule 14.l(a) is prudential, but is disregarded only where reasons of urgency or economy suggest the need to address the unpresented question in the ca se under consideration. The Rule pro- · vides the respondent with notice of the grounds on which certiorari is sought, thus relieving him of the expense of unneces- sary litigation on the merits and the burden of opposing certiorari on unpresented ques- tions. It also assists the Co urt in selecting the cases in which certiorari will be grant- ed. By forcing the parties to focus on the questions the. Co urt views as particularly importa nt, the Rule enables the Co urt to use its resources efficiently. Petitioners' question presented was whether the lower court erred in finding no physical taking, and the regu latory taking claim is related to; but not fairly included in, that question. Thus, petitioners must overcome the very heavy presumption against consideration of the- regulatory taking claim, which they have not done. While that claim is impor- tant, lower courts have not reached con- flicting results on the claim as they have on the physica l taking claim. Prudence also dictates awaiting a case in which the issue was fully litigated below, to have the bene- fit of developed arguments and lower court opinions squarely addressing the question. Thus, the regu latory taking issue should be left for the California courts to address in . the firs t instance. PJ). 1531-1534'., 224 Cal.App.3d 1349, 274 Cal.Rptr. 551 (1990), affirm ed . O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Co urt, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHI TE, STEVENS, SCALI A, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined . BLA CKMUN, J., and SOUTER, J., filed . opinions concurri ng in the judgm ent. Robert J. Jagiello, Running Springs, Cal., for petitioners. /--4-7 15 2 6 112 SliPRDfE COCRT REPORTER nently in parks; once in place, only about one in every hundred mobile homes is ev er moved. Hirsch & Hirsch, Legal-Economic Justice O'C0:-'2\0R delivered the opinion Analysis of Rent Controls in a Mobile of the Court. Home Context: Placement Values and Va- (1, 2] ·The Takings Clause of the Fifth cancy Decontrol, 35 CCL<\. L.Rev. 399, .:05 Amendment provides: "[Njor shall private (1988). A mobile home owner typically property be taken for pu• use, without rents a plot of land, called a "pad," from just compensation." Most of our cases in- the owner of a mobile home park. The terpreting the Clause fall within two dis- park owner provides private roads within tinct classes. Where the government au- the park, common facilities such as wash- thorizes a physical occupation of property ing machines or a swimming pool, and of- (or actually takes title), the Takings Clause ten utilities. The mobile home owner often generally requires compensation. See, e.g., invests in site-specific improvements such Loretto · v. Teleprompter Manhattan. as a driveway, steps, walkways, porches, or C 'TV C rp 4 ·3 US '19 426 102 ~ Ct landscaping. When the mobile home own- ·" 0 ., 0 • • .. 1 ' ~- • 3164, 3171, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). · But er wishes to move, the mobile home is where the government merely regulates usually sold in place, and the purchaser the use of property, compensation is re- continues, to rent the pad on which the quired only if considerations such as the mobile home is located. · purpo se of the regulation or. the extent to In 1978, California enacted its Mobile- which it deprives the owner of the econom- home Residency Law, Cal.Civ.Code An· ic use of the property suggest that the § 798 et seq. (West 1982 and Supp.1991, regulation has unfairly singled out the The Legislature found "that, because of property owner to bear a burden that the high cost of moving rnobilehornes, the should be borne by the public as a whole. potential for damage resulting therefrom, See, e.g., Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New . the requirements relating to the installs- York City, 438 U.S. 104, 123-125, 98 S.Ct. · tion of mobilehomes, and the cost of land- 2646, 2659, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978). The scaping or lot preparation, it is necessary. first category of cases requires courts to that the owners of mobilehornes occupied apply a clear rule; the second necessarily within mobilehome parks be provided with entails complex factual assessments of the the unique protection from actual or con- purposes and economic effects of govern· structive eviction afforded by the provi- ment actions. sions of this chapter." § 798.55(a). Petitioners own mobile home parks in The Mobilehome Residency Law limits Escondido, California. They contend that a the bases upon which a park owner may local rent control ordinance, when viewed terminate a mobile home owner's tenancy. against the backdrop of California's Mobile- These include the nonpayment of rent, the home Residency Law, amounts to a physi- mobile home owner's violation of law or cal occupation of their property entitling park rules, and the park owner's desire to them to compensation under the first cate- change the use of his land. § 798.56. gory of cases discussed above. While a rental agreement is in effect, how- ever, the· park owner generally may not require the removal of a mobile home when it is sold. § 798.73. The park owner may neither charge a transfer fee for the sale, § 798.72, nor disapprove of the purchaser, provided that the purchaser has the abilit-: to pay the rent, § 798.7 4. The Mobilehorr. Residency Law contains a number of other I The term "mobile home" is somewhat misleading. Mobile homes are largely im- mobile as a practical matter, because the cost of moving one- is often a significant fraction of the value of the mobile home itself. They are generally placed perma- Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Y E E v, CITY OF ESCO?\DIDO; CAL. cu .... 112 s.cc 1522 om) 1527 detailed provisions, but none limit the rent the park owner may charge. · In the wake of the Mobilehome Residen- cy Law, various communities in California adopted mobile home rent· control ordi- nances. See Hirsch & Hirsch, supra, at 408-411. The voters of Escondido did the same in 1988 by approving Proposition K, the rent control ordinance challenged here. The ordinance sets rents back to their 1986 levels, and prohibits rent increases without the approval of the City Council. Park owners may apply to the Council for rent increases at any time. The Council must approve any increases it determines to be "just, fair and reasonable," afte r consider- ing _ the following nonexclusive list of factors: (1) changes in the Consumer Price Index; (2) the rent charged for comparable mobile home pads in Escondido; (3) the n gth of time since the last rent increas.e; ,4) the cost of any capital improvements relate d to the pad or pads at issue; (5) changes in property taxes; (6) changes in any rent paid by the park owner for the land; (7) changes in utility charges; (8) changes in operating and maintenance ex- penses; (9) the need for repairs other than for ordinary wear and tear; (10) the amount and quality of services provided to the affected tenant; and (11) any lawful existing lease. Ordinance § 4(g), App. 11- 12. : Petitioners John and Irene Yee own the Friendly Hills and Sunset Terrace Mobile Horne Parks, both of which are located in the city of Escondido. A few months after the adoption of Escondido's rent control ordinance, they filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court. According to the complaint, "[t)he rent control law has had the effect of depriving the plaintiffs of all use and occupancy of [their) real property and granting to the tenants of mobile- homes presently in The Park, as well as the successors in interest of such tenants, the ight to physically permanently occupy and .se the real property of Plaintiff." Id., at . 3, ~ 6. The Yees requested damages of six ·million dollars, a declaration that the rent control ordinance is unconstitutional, and an injunction barring the ordinance's en- forcement. Id., at 5--6 . In their opposition to the city's demurrer, the Yees relied almost entirely on Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 12i0 (CA9 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 940, 108 S.Cl 1120, 99 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), which had held that a similar mobile home rent control ordinance effected a physical taking under Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). The Yees candidly admitted that "in fact, the Hall decision was used [as] a guide in drafting the present Complaint." 2 Tr. 318, Points & Authorities in Opposition to Demurrer 4. The Superior Court nevertheless sustained the city's demurrer and dismissed the Yees' complaint. App. to Pet. for Cert. C--42. The Yees were not alone. Eleven other park owners filed similar suits against the city shortly afterwards, and all were dis- missed. By stipulation, all 12 cases were consolidated for appeal; the parties agreed that all would be submitted for decision by the California Court 9f Appeal on the briefs and oral argument in the Yee case. . The Court of Appeal affirmed, in an opin- ion primarily devoted to expressing the court's disagreement with the reasoning of Hall The court concluded: "Loretto in no way suggests that the Escondido ordinance authorizes a permanent physical occupation of the landlord's property and therefore constitutes a per se taking.'.' 224 Cal. App.3d 1349, 1358, 274 Cal.Rptr. 551 (1990). The California Supreme Court denied re- view. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-41. Eight of the twelve park owners, includ- ing the Yees, joined in a petition for certio- rari. We granted certiorari, 502 U.S.--,. 112 S.Cl 294, 116 L.Ed.2d 239 (1991), to resolve the conflict between the' decision below and those of two of the federal Courts of Appeals, in Hall; supra, and Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barne- gat Township Leveling Board, 898 F.2d 347 (CA3 1990). J-if-9 1528 112 Sl.:PRD1E COL'RT REPORTER II Petitioners do not claim that the ordinary rent control statutes regulating housing throughout the country violate the Takings Clause. Brief for Petitioners 7, io. Cf. P enn ell v. S an Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 12, n. 6, 108 S.Cl 849, 858, n. 6, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988); L orett o sup ra, 458 U.S. at 440, 102 S.Ct. at 3178. Instead, their argument is predicat- ed on the unusual economic relationship between park owners and mobile home owners. Park owners may no longer set rents or decide who their tenants will be. As a result, according to petitioners, any reduction in the rent for a mobile home pad causes a corresponding increase in the val- ue of a mobile home, because the mobile home owner now owns, in addition to a mobile home, the right to occupy a pad at a rent below the value that would be set by the free market. Cf. Hirsch & Hirsch, 35 UCLA L'Rev., at 425. Because under the California Mobilehome Residency La w the park owner cannot evict a- mobile home owner or easily convert the property w other uses, the argument goes, the mobile home owner is effectively a perpetual ten- ant of the park, and the increase in the mobile home's value thus -represents the right w occupy a pad at below-market rent indefinitely. And because the Mobilehome Residency Law permits the mobile home owner w sell the mobile home in place, the mobile home owner can receive a premium from the purchaser corresponding w this increase in value. The amount of this pre- mium is not limited by the Mobilehome Residency Law or the Escondido ordinance. As a result, petitioners conclude, the rent control ordinance has transferred a discrete interest in land-the right w occupy the land indefinitely at a sub-market rent- from the park owner w the mobile home owner. Petitioners contend that what has been transferred from park owner to mo- bile home owner is no less than a right of physical occupation of the park owner's land. cases, cannot be squared easily \\'ith cur cases on physical takings. The govern- ment effects a physical taking only where it requir es the landowner to submit to the physical occupation of his land. "This ele- ment of required acquiescence is at the heart of the concept of occupation." F CC v. F lor-:da P oue r C orp., 4SO U.S. 245, 252, 107 S.Ct. li07, 1112, 94 L.Ed.2d 282 (198i). Thus whether the government floods a landowner's property, Pumpe/ly v. G ree n B ay C o., 13 Wall. 166, 20 L.Ed. 55i (1872), or does !"JO more than require the land- owner to suffer the installation of a 'cable, Loretto, supra, the Takings Clause re• quires compensation if the government .:.'J• thorizes a compelled physical invasion of property. But the Escondido rent control ordi- nance, even when considered in conjunction with the California Mobilehome Residency Law, authorizes no such thing. Petitioners voluntarily rented their land to mobile home owners. At least on the face of the regulatory scheme, neither the City nor the State compels petitioners, once they ha \'e rented their property to tenants, w contin- ue doing so. To the contrary, the· Mobile- home Residency Law provides that a park owner who wishes to change the use of his land may evict his tenants, albeit with six or twelve months notice. Cal.Civ.Code Ann. § i98.56(g). Put bluntly, no govern- ment has required any physical invasion of petitioners' property. Petitioners' tenants were invited by petitioners, not forced upon them by the government. See Florida Pow er, sup ra, 480 U.S. at 252-253, 107 S.Cl at 1112-1113. While the "right to exclude" is doubtless, as petitioners assert, "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly charac- terized as property," Kaiser Aetna v. Unite d Sta tes, 444 U.S. 164, 176, 100 S.Ct. 3S3, 391, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979), we do not find that right to have been taken from . petitioners on the mere face of the Escondi- do ordinance. [3-5] This argument, while perhaps (6) Petitioners suggest that the stati within the scope of our regulatory taking · wry procedure for changing the use of a J-50 Y E E v . C IT Y O F E S C O :\D ID O , C A L . Cite a, I 12 S.CL 152.2 (J\>92) 152 9 mobile home park is in practice "a kind of gauntlet," in that they are not in fact free to change the use of their land. · Reply Brief for Petitioners l 0, n. 16. Because petitioners do not claim to have run that gauntlet, however, this case provides .no occasion to consider how the procedure has been applied to petitioners' property, and we accordingly confine ourselves to the face of the statute. See K eyston e B itu m i- nous Coal A ssn. v. D ell ene dic tis , 4S0 U.S. 4'i0, 493-495, 107 S.Ct. 1232, 1246-1247, 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987)_, _ A different case would be presented were the statute, on its face or as applied, to compel a landowner OH:r · objection to rent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy. See F lo ri da P ow er, sup ra, 480 U.S., at 251-252, n. 6, 107 S.Ct., at 1111-1112, n. 6; see .. also N o llatt v. Californ ia C oas tal r,,mm 'n, 483 U.S. 825, 831-832, 107 S.Ct. i, 3145--3146, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987); , res it P on d S hopp ing Cen ter, In c. ·v. C al- lahan, 464 U.S. 875, 877, 104 S.Ct 218, . 219, 78 L.Ed.2d 215 (19S3) (REH~QliJST, J., dissenting). [i] On their face, the state and local laws at issue here merely regulate petition- ers' us e of their land by regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant. "This Court has consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate hous- . ing conditions in general and the landlord- tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic inju- ries that such regulation entails." L orett o, 458 U.S., at 440, 102 S.Ct., at 3178. See also Flo ri da P ow er, sup ra, . 480 U.S., at 252, 107 S.Ct., at 1112 ("statutes regulating the economic relations of landlords and ten- ants are not p er se takings"). When a landowner decides to rent his land to ten- ants, the government may place ceilings on the rents the landowner can charge, see, e.g ., P en n ell , sup ra, 485 U.S., at 12, n. 6, 108 S.Ct., at 857-858, n. 6, or require the landowner to accept tenants he does not ·:e, see, e.g., Hea rl of A tl an ta Mote l, Inc. . United S tates; 379 U.S. 241, 261, 85 . S.Cl 348, 359, 13 L.Ea'.2d 258 (1964), with- out automatically ha Ying to pay compensa- tion. See also P ru n ey ard S hoppin g Cen - ter 11. R obins , 447 U.S. 74, 82-84, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 2041-2042, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980). Such forms of regulation are analyzed by engaging in the "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries" necessary to determine whether a regulatory taking has occurred. Ka is er A etn a, su p ra , 444 U.S., at 175, 100 S.Ct., :;.t 390. In the words of Justice Holmes, "while property may be regulated to a cer- tain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." P enns vlca n ia C oa.l Co. v. M ah on , 260 U.S. 393, 415, 43 S.Ct. 158, 160, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922). . (8) Petitioners emphasize that the ordi- nance transfers wealth from park owners to incumbent mobile home owners. Other forms of land use regulation, however, can also be said to transfer wealth from the one _who is regulated to another. Ordinary rent control often transfers wealth from landlords to tenants by reducing the land- lords' income and the tenants' monthly pay- ments, although it does not cause a one- time transfer of value as occurs with mo- bile homes. Traditional zoning regulations can transfer wealth from those whose ac- tivities are prohibited to their neighbors; when a property owner is barred from min- ing coal on his land, for example, the value of his property may decline but the value of his neighbor's property may rise. The mobile home owner's ability to sell the mo- bile home at a premium may make this wealth transfer more visible than in the .ordinary case, see Epstein, Rent Control and the Theory of Efficient Regulation, 54 Brooklyn L.Rev. 741, 758-759 (1988), but the existence of the transfer in itself does not convert regulation into physical inva- sion. (9) Petitioners also rely heavily on their allegation that the ordinance benefits in- cumbent mobile home owners without ben- efiting future mobile home owners, who will be forced to purchase mobile homes at premiums. Mobile homes, like motor ve- hicles, ordinarily decline in value with age. 1530 112 SCPRD1E COCRT REPORTER But the . effect of the rent control ordi- nance, coupled with the restrictions on the park 'owner's freedom to reject new ten- ants, is to increase significantly the value of the mobile home. This increased value normally benefits only the tenant in posses- sion at the time the rent control is imposed. See Hirsch & Hirsch, 35 l;CLA L.Rev., ;;.t ~30-431. Petitioners are correct in citing the existence of this premium as a differ- ence between the alleged effect of the Es- condido· ordinance and that of an ordinary apartment rent control statute. Most apartment tenants do not sell anything to their successors (and are often prohibited from charging "key money"), so a typical rent. control statute will transfer wealth from the landlord to the incumbent tenant and all future tenants. By contrast, peti- tioners. contend that the Escondido ordi- nance 'transfers wealth only to the incum- bent mobile home owner. This effect mightbave some bearing on whether the ordinance causes a regulatory taking, as it may shed some light on whether there is a sufficient nexus between the effect of th_g_ ordinance and the objectiYE:S it is supposed to advance. See ,Vollan 1,•. Californ ia - coa.sta.l Comm 'n, supra, 483 U.S., at 834- S35, 107 S.Ct., at 3147-3148. But it has nothing to do with whether the ordinance causes a physical taking. Whether the ordinance benefits only current mobile home owners or all mobile home owners, it does not require petitioners to submit to the physical occupation of their land. (10) The same may be said of petition- ers' contention that the ordinance amounts to compelled physical occupation because it deprives petitioners of the ability to choose their incoming tenants.' Again, this effect may be relevant to a regulatory taking argument, as it may be one factor a review- !. Strictly speaking, ihe Escondido rent control ordinance only limits rents. Petitioners' inabili- ty to select their incoming tenants is a product of the· State's Mobilehome Residency Law, the constftutionality of which has never been at issue. in this case, (The State, moreover, has never been a party.) But we understand peti- tioners to be making a more subtle argument- ing court would wish to consider in deter- mining whether the ordinance unjustly im- poses a burden on petitioners that should "be compensated by the government, rath- er than rernainjir.g] disproportionately con- centrated on a few persons." Penn Cen- tral Transp. Co. v. Sew York City, 433 U.S., at 124, 93 S.Ct., ;;.t 2659. But it does not convert regulation into the unwanted physical occupation of land. Because they voluntarily open their property to occupa- tion oy others, petitioners cannot assert a per se right to compensation based on their inability to exclude particular individuals. See Heart of Atlanta Medel, Inc. v. United States, 3i9 U.S., at 261, S5 S.Ct., at 359, see also id.,:at 259, 85 S.Ct., at 358 ("appel- lant has no 'right' to select its guests as it sees fit, free from governmental regula- tion"); . Pru neyard Shopping Cente: Robins , 447 U.S., at 82-84, 100 S.Ct 2041-2042. Petitioners' final line of argument rests on a footnote in Loretto, in which we re- jected the contention that "the landlord could avoid the requirements of [the stat- ute forcing her to permit cable to be perma- nently placed on her property] by ceasing to rerit the building to tenants." We found this possibility insufficient to defeat a physical taking claim, because ''a landlord's ability to rent his property may not be conditioned on his forfeiting the right to compensation for a physical. occupation." Loretto, 458 U.S., at ~39, n. 17, 102 S.Ct., at 3178 n. 17. Petitioners argue that if they have to leave the mobile home park business in order to avoid the strictures of the Escondido ordinance, their ability to rent their property has in fact been condi- tioned on such a forfeiture. This argument fails at its base, however, because there has simply been no compelled physical oc- _that before the adoption of the ordinance they were able 10 influence a mobilehome owner's selection of a purchaser by threatening I crease the rent for prospective purchaser: • disfavored. To the extent the rent control "'· _ . nance deprives petitioners of ihis type of influ- ence, petitioners' argument is one we must con- sider. Y E E v . C I T Y O F E S C O ~D ID O , C A L . Cite as 112 S.Ct. 152.2 (1992) raised or addressed below, and the second is not fairly included in the question on which we granted certiorari. 1531 .. cup_ation giying rise to a right to compensa- tion _that petitioners could have forfeited. Had the city required. such an occupation, :·of course, petitioners would have a right to . ·co~pensation, and the city might then lack ; the power to condition petitioners' ability to run mobile home parks on their waiver of : this right, Cf. Nollan, 483 U.S., at S37, 107 S.Ct., at 3148. But because the ordi- . ~a~~e does not effect a physical taking in the first place, this footnote in Loretto :CJoes_ not help petitioners. . With respect to physical takings, then, . this case is not far removed from F CC v. Florid a Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245, 107 S.Cl 1107, 94 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987), in which the respondent had voluntarily leased space . on its utility poles to a cable television . company for the installation of cables. The · Federal Government, exercising its statu- ' tory authority to regulate pole attachment . agreements, substantially reduced the an- nual rent. \Ve rejected the respondent's .. claim that "it is a taking under Loretto for · a tenant invited to lease at a rent of $7.15 · to remain at the regulated rent of Sl.i9." Id., 480 U.S., at 252, 107 S.Ct., at i112. We · explained that "it is the invitation, not the · rent, that makes the difference. The line ~ which separates [this case] from Loretto is ·the unambiguous distinction between a ... lessee and an interloper with a government · license." Id.; at 252-253, 107 S.Ct., at 1112.· The distinction is equally unambig- . uous here. The Escondido rent control or- ~ dinance, even considered against the back: · drop of California's Mobilehome Residency Law, does not authorize an unwanted phys- · . ical occupation of petitioners' property. It is a regulation of petitioners' use of their property, and thus does not amount to a . per se taking. III . In this Court; petitioners attempt to chal- . Jenge the ordinance on two additional .grounds: They argue that it constitutes a denial of substantive due process and a . regulatory taking. Neither of these claims · is properly before us. The first was not A [ 11) The Yees did not include a due process claim in their complaint. Nor did petitioners raise a due process claim in the Court of Appeal. It was not until their petition for review in the California Su- preme Court that petitioners finally raised a substantive due process claim. But the California Supreme Court denied discretion- ary review, Such a denial, as in this Court, expresses no view as to the merits. See People v. Triggs, 8 Cal.3d 884, 890-891, 106 Cal.Rptr. 408, 412, 506 P.2d 232,236 (1973). In short, petitioners did not raise a sub- stantive due process claim in the state courts, and no state court has addressed such a claim . In reviewing the. judgments of state courts under the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1257, the Court has, with Yery rare exceptions, refused to consider peti- tioners' claims that were not raised or ad- dressed below. Ill inois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 218-220, 103 S.Cl 2317, 2321-2323, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). While we have ex- pressed inconsistent views as to wh:th:r this rule is jurisdictional or prudential m cases arising from state courts, see ibid., we need not resolve the question here. (In cases arising from federal courts, the rule is prudential only. See, e.g., Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14; 17, n. 2, 100 S.Cl 1468; 1470, n. 2, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980).) Even if the rule were prudential, we would adhere to it in this case. Because petitioners did not raise their substantive due process claim below, and because the state courts did not address it, we will not consider it here. B . [12) As a preliminary matter, we must address respondent's assertion that a regu- latory taking claim is unripe because peti- tioners have not sought rent increases. 1-53 '· i; 15 32 112 Sl:PRDfE COL'.RT REPORTER While respondent is correct that a claim that the ordinance effects a regulatory tak- ing as. applied to petitioners' property would be unripe for this reason, see Wil- liams on County Regional Planning Comm,'n_ v._ Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 1S6-197, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 311S.:.3]?2; 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), petition- ers mount a facial challenge to the ordi- nanc~:_'. They allege in this Court that the ordinance · does not "'substantially ad- vance; ~,'a.'' 'legitimate state interest' i, no matter how it is applied. See Nollan. v. Calijo';.,;iia Coastal Comm 'n, su pra, 483 U.S., .a.~ 834, 107 S.Ct., at 3147; Agins v. Tiburon; 447 U.S. 255, 260, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980). As this allega- tion does not depend on the extent to which petitioners are deprived of the economic use of their. particular pieces .of property or the ex-tent to which these particular peti- tioners are compensated, petitioners' facial challenge is _ripe. See Keystone Bitumi- nous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S., at 495, 107 S.Ct., at 1247; Agins, supra, ~47 U.S., at 260, 100 S.Ct., at 2141. [13] • We must also reject respondent's contention that the regulatory taking argu- ment is not properly before us because it was not made below. It is unclear whether petitioners made this argument below: Portions of their complaint and briefing can be 'read either to argue a regulatory taking" or to support their physical taking argument, For the same reason it is equal- ly ambiguous whether the Court of Appeal addressed the issue. Yet petitioners' regu- latory. taking argument stands in a posture differe'nt . from their substantive due process claim. [14t Petitioners unquestionably raised a taking· claim in the state courts. The ques- tion whether the rent control ordinance took their property without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Tak- ings Clause, is thus properly before us. Once a federal claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of that claim; parties are not limited to the precise;. arguments they made below. Bankers Life & Casuaitv Co. v. Cren- shaw, 486 U.S. 'i1, ";8, n. 2, 108 S.Ct. 1645, 1650, n. 2, 100 L.Ed.2d 62 (1988); Gates, supra, 462 U.S., at 219-220, 103 S.Ct., at 2322-2323; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193,. 197-198, 19 S.Ct. 3i9, 380-381, 43 L.Ed. 665 (1899). Petitioners' arguments that the ordinance constitutes a taking in two different ways, by physical occupation and by regulation, are not separate claims. They are rather separate arguments ;:-i support of a single claim-that the ordi- nance effects an unconstitutional taking. Having raised a taking claim in the state courts, therefore, petitioners could h;;. Ye formulated any argument they liked in sup- port of that claim here. A litigant seeking review in this Court of a claim properly raised in the lower courts thus. generally possesses the ability to frame the question to be decided in r way he chooses, without being limited the . manner in which the question was framed below. i'\"hile we have on occasion rephrased the question presented by a peti- tioner, see, e.g., Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 502 us. -, 112 S.Ct. S55, 116 L.Ed.2d 764 (1992), or requested the parties to ad- dress an important question of law not raised in the petition for certiorari, see, e.g., Payne v. Tennessee, ~98 U.S.--, 111 S.Ct. 1031, 112 L.Ed.2d 1032 (1991), by and large it is the petitioner himself who con- trols the scope of the question presented. The petitioner can generally frame the question as broadly or c.S narrowly as he sees fit. The framing of the question presented has significant consequences,' however, be- cause under this Court's Rule 14.l(a), "[o]nly the questions set forth in the peti- tion, or fairly included therein, will be con- sidered by the Court." While "[t]he state- ment of any question presented will be deemed to comprise every subsidiary ques- tion fairly included therein," ibid., we ordi- narily do not consider questions outs · those presented in the petition for certic ri. See, e.g., Berkemer 11. McCarty, 468 /-5'1 Y E E v . C I T Y O F E S C O :-i D ID O , C A L . Clte as I I 2 S.CL I 522 (I 992) 1533 · U:S; _420, 443, n. 38, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3152, n. 38; 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). This rule is prudential in nature, but we disregard it "only in the most exceptional cases," Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481, n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 3097; 3046, n. 15, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (19'i6), where reasons of urgency or of economv . s~ggest the need to address the unpreserit- ed question in the case under consideration. Rule 14.l(a) serves two important and related purposes. First, it provides the re- ·. spondent with notice of the grounds upon . which the petitioner is seeking certiorari, and enables the respondent to. sharpen the _ arguments as to why certiorari should not be granted. Were we routinely to consider questions beyond those raised in the peti- . tion, the respondent would lack· any oppor- . tunity in advance of litigation on the merits to· argue that such questions are not wor- thy of review. Where, as is not unusual, the decision below involves issues on which · the petitioner does not seek certiorari, the respondent would face the formidable task of opposing certiorari on every issue the Court might conceivably find present in the case. By forcing the petitioner to choose · his questions at the outset, Rule 14.l(a) relieves the respondent of the expense of · unnecessary litigation on the merits and the burden of opposing certiorari on unpre- sented questions. Second, Rule 14.l(a) assists the Court in selecting the cases in which certiorari will be granted. Last Term alone we received over 5,000 petitions for certiorari, but we . have the capacity to decide only a small fraction of these cases on the merits. To use our resources· . most efficiently, we must grant certiorari only in those cases . that will enable us to resolve particularly · important questions. Were we routinely to • entertain questions not presented in the petition for certiorari, much of this efficien- · · cy would vanish, as parties who feared an · inability to prevail on the question present- ·. ed would be encouraged to fill their limited briefing space and argument time with dis- :· cussion of issues other. than the one on · ;,,_,hich certiorari was granted. Rule 14.l(a) forces the parties to focus on the questions the Court has viewed as particularly impor- tant, thus enabling us to make efficient use of our resources. [15] We granted certiorari on a single question pertaining to the Takings Clause: · "Two federal courts· of appeal have held that the transfer of a· premium value to a departing mobile home tenant; representing the value of the right to occupy at a re- duced rate under local mobilehome rent control ordinances, constitute[s] an imper- missible taking. Was it error for the sta te appellate court to disregard the rulings and hold that there was no taking under the fifth and fourteenth amendments?" This was the question presented by petitioners . Pet. for Cert. i. It asks whether the court below erred in disagreeing with the hold- ings oft he Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits in Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barnegat Toicnship Leveling Board, 898 F.2d 347 (CA3 1990), and Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F.2d 12'i0 (CA9 198i), cert. denied, ~85 U.S. 940, 108 S.CL 1120, 99 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988). These cases, in turn, held that mobile home ordi- nances effected physical takings, not regu- latory takings. Fairly construed, then, pe- titioners' question presented is the equiva- lent of the question "Did the court below err in finding no physical taking?" Whether or not the ordinance effects a · regulatory taking is a question related to · the one petitioners presented, and perhaps complementary to the one petitioners presented, but it is not "fairly included therein." Consideration of whether a regu- latory taking occurred would not assist in resolving whether a physical taking oc- curred as well; neither of the two ques- tions is subsidiary to the other. Both might be subsidiary to a question embrac- ing both-Was there a t..aking?-but they exist side by side, neither encompassing the other. Cf. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Haroco, Lnc., 4i3 U.S. 606, 608, 105 S.Ct, 3291, 3292, 87 L.Ed.2d 437 (1985) (question whether com- plaint adequately alleges conduct of racke- ' 1534 112 SCPRD 1E COCRT REPORTER teering enterprise is not fairly included in question whether statute requires that plaintiff suffer damages through defen- dant's conduct of such an enterprise). Rule 14.l(a) accordingly creates a heavy presumption against our consideration of pefitioners' claim that the ordinance causes a regulatory taking. Petitioners have not overcome that presumption. While the regulatory taking question is no doubt im- portant, from an institutional perspective it is not as important as the physical taking question. The lower courts have not reached conflicting results, so far as we know, on whether similar mobile home rent control ordinances effect regulatory tak- ings. They haue reached conflicting re- sults over whether such ordinances ca use physical takings; such a conflict is, of course, a substantial reason for granting certiorari under this Court's Rule 10. Moreover, the conflict is between two courts whose jurisdiction includes Califor- nia, the State with the largest population and one with a relatively high percentage of the nation's mobile homes. Forum-shop- ping is thus of particular concern. See Azul Pacifico, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 948 F.2d 5i5, 5,9 (CA9 1991) (mobile home park owners may file physical taking suits in either state or federal court). Prudence also dictates awaiting a case in which the issue was fully litigated below, so that we will have the benefit of developed argu- ments on both sides and lower court opin- ions squarely addressing the question. See Lytle v. Household Manufacturing, Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 552, n. 3, 110 S.Ct. 1331, 1336, n. 3, 108 L.Ed.2d 504 (1990) ("Applying our analysis .. ~ to the facts of a particular case without the benefit of a full record or lower court determinations is not a sensible exercise of this Court's discretion"). In fact, were we to address the issue here, we would apparently be the first court in the nation to determine whether an ordinance like this one effects a regulatory taking. \Ve will accordingly follow Rule 14.l(a), and consider only the question petitioners raised in seeking certiorari. We leave the regulatory taking issue for the California courts to address in the first instance. IV we· made this observation :n Loretto: . "Our holding today is· Yery narrow. We affirm the traditional rule that a permanent physical occupation of proper- ty is a taking. In such a case, the prop- erty owner entertains a historically root- ed expectation of compensation, and the character of the invasion is qualitatively more intrusive than perhaps any other category of property regulation. \Ve do not, however, question the equally sub- stantial authority upholding a State's broad power to impose appropriate re- strictions upon an owner's use of his property." · 458 U.S., at ~41, 102 S.Ct., at 3l'i9. \Ve respected this distinction again in Florida Power, where we held that no tak- ing occurs under Loretto when a tenant invited to lease at one rent remains at a lower regulated rent. Florida Pou-er, 480 U.S., at 252-253, 107 S.Ct., at 1112-1113. We continue to observe the distinction to- day. Because the Escondido rent control ordinance does not compel a landowner to suffer the physical occupation of his prop- erty, it does not effect a per se taking under Loretto. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is accordingly Affirmed. Justice BL~CKMUN, concurring in the judgment. I agree with the Court that the Escondi- do Ordinance is not a taking under this Court's analysis in Loretto v. Tele- prompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982). I also conclude that the substantive due process and regulatory taking claims are riot properly raised in this Court. For that reason, I, unlike the Court, do not decide whether the regulatory taking claim is or is not ripe, or which of petitioners' !-Sb · JA C O B S O N v. U .S . Clle iu 112 S.Ct. 1535 (1992) 1535 argu m ents w ould or w ould not be relevant to such a claim .. • '. J ust ice S O U T E R , concurring in th e _. judgm ent. . . .... I concur in the judgm ent and w ould join the Co u rt 's opinion except for its referenc- es to the relevance and sign ifi ca nce of peti- tioners ' allegations to a claim of regu lato ry ta king . -.. .... Keith JACOBSON, Petitioner v. UNITED ST ATES .. No. 90-11 24. Ar gu ed N ov. 6, 1991. D eci ded A pri l 6, 1992. D efendant w as convicte d in the U nite d Sta te s D istri ct Co urt fo r th e D istri ct of N ebras ka of rece ivin g child porn og raphy · th roug h th e m ail and he appealed. The Co urt of A ppe als fo r. th e E ighth Cir cuit, · 893 F .2d 999, revers ed but, on reheari ng en bane, affirm ed 916 F .2d 467, and cert iora ri w as gra nte d. Th e S uprem e Co urt ; Justi ce · Wh ite , held th at G overn m ent did not esta b- . lish th at defendant, w ho had received m ail - _, · ing s fr om th e G overn m ent purpo rti ng to be . fr om · organiz ati ons asserti ng individual ri g hts , w as predispo sed to com m it th e of- ' fense pri or to firs t conta ct by G overn m ent. . R evers ed. · •: · : Justi ce O 'Co nnor dissente d and fil ed -inion in w hich Chief Justice. R ehnquist .1d Justi ce K ennedy join ed, and in w hich Justice S ca li a joined in part. l. Criminal Law <Z=>3i(S), 1222 G overnm ent ·. m ay use undercover agents to enfo rce the law . 2. Criminal Law <1:==37(3, 4) :· In th eir zeal to enfo rce the law , · govern m ent ag ents m ay not originate a cri m inal desig n, im plant in an innocent per- son's m ind the disposition to com m it a crim - inal act, and then induce com m ission of the cri m e so that the G overnm ent m ay prose- cute . 3. Criminal Law <1:==330, 569 · · ·· W here G overn m ent has induced indi- vi dual to break the law and defense of entra pm ent is at issu e, prosecuto r m ust prove beyond reasonable doubt that defen- dant w as disposed to com m it the crim inal act pri or to fir st being approached by govern m ent ag ents . 4. Criminal Law ¢='3i(3; 8) . A g ent deployed ~ sto p tr affic in il- leg al dr ug s m ay offer th e opportunity to buy or sell dru g s and, if off er is accepte d, rn a ke an arrest on the spot or late r. 5. Criminal Law ¢=37(6), 569 G overn m ent did not esta blish that de- fendant had a predisposition, independent of govern m ent action, to receive childp er- nogr aphy throu g h th e m ail w here evi dence show ed that he w as ready and w illi ng to com m it the off ense only afte r G overn m ent 'h ;d eng ag ed in tw o' and one-half years of undercover acti vity consisting of cornrnuni- ·ca ti ons fr om · fi ctitious organizations and pers ons atte m pti ng to convince defendant that he had the right or should have the · ri ght to eng ag e in behavior proscribed by the law .. 18. U .S .C .A . § 2252(a)(2)(A ) . · 6. Criminal Law ¢='347, 569 . . . E vidence th at defendant had ordered and received, at a ti m e w hen it w as legal to do · so, tw o m ag azines show ing nude te en· ag e boys w as of litt le probati ve value in esta blish ing his predisposition to receive prohibite d child porn ography th rough the m ails. 18 U .S .C .A . § 2252(a)(2)(A ). 1-57 ... , .... _ -~----· ~ -,--···.·-- .·- .- '• ·-:,:. :,.' ••• ·.~ ,:.' ••• ►. M E M O R A N D U M Kt:.CEiVED JUt~ 0 3 1992 June 1, 1992 OffJC[OF c;n J.Ti~y To: city Attorney Depart~ent Mobilehome Rent Control Committee From: David H. Hirsch, Cow~ittee Chairperson and City Attorney, city of Lompoc Subject: Post Yee GSHOL Attorney strike Force Meeting As was indicated at the League Cracker Barrel Session on April 23, 1S92, a meeting had bee~ calle~ by the General Counsel for GSXOL to discuss life after Yee. At the Cracker Barrel Session I advised that I would be attending that meeting, and wouid report to the Co:mJnittee aften.1ard. Accordingly, the following are some of the highlights. Update on significant cases .At the meeting, which was attended by attorneys handling most of the major cases, it was reported that new suits were being filed or threatened in cities throughout the State. Apparently, park owner attorneys are at various stages of "regrouping". Some are reportedly advising their clients to go through the administrative process of seeking increases, and then bring regulatory taking lawsuits. Others are irr~ediately filing new suits, or reframing old ones to include regulatory taking challenges. Others are apparently advising _their clients that in their view, there is not much hope in pursuirig a regulatory taking theory. Still others are renewing efforts to force execution of long-term leases which would be exempt from rent controls. As far as specific cases, several should be mentioned. Michelle Kenyon reported that a Petition for Writ of Certiorari has been filed \·:ith U. s .. Supreme ccur t; in an e f fcrt to z-ev e r s e s i1:rra r,2.:ke Reserve v. City of Rocklin, 938 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1991), since it is contrary to the new Supreme Court precedent. set in Yee v. City of Escondido. Don Lincoln reports that he is representing several cities in what he called a II full panoply'' of cases. This includes new suits against Escondido that have been filed on the basis of regulatory taking. It was noted that in two of these cases park owners are operating at a loss, so plaintiff's attorney, Robert Jagiello, ~ay want to take them "all the way". 1 AT TACHM EN T 3 /-5'/ D o n a l s o h a s b e e n r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e c i t y o f C a r p e n t e r i a i n a H a l l - t y p e t a k i n g c a s e , S a n d o i o e r M o b i l e V i l l a c e v . C i t y o f C a r c e n t e r i a , w h i c h h a s b e e n p e n d i n g b e f o r e D i v i s i o n 6 o f t h e 2 n d J..p p e l l a t e D i s t r i c t f o r t h e l a s t f e w m o n t h s . S h o r t l y a f t e r Y e e w a s c e c i c e d , M r . J a g i e l l o r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e C o u r t a l l o w t h e c a s e t o b e r e a r s u e d o n t h e b a s i s o f a r e g u l a t o r y t a k i n g c h a l l e n g e . C a r p e n t e r i a ' s s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f i n r e s p o n s e w a s f i l e d o n M a y 8 t h , a n d c o n t a i n s a n e x c e l l e n t a n a l y s i s o f o u r s i d e o f t h e r e g u l a t o r y t a k i n g i s s u e . W h i l e t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t m a y s i m p l y s i d e s t e p t h e q u e s t i o n b e c a u s e i t h a d n o t b e e n r a i s e d a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , t h a t i s s u e i s b e f o r e t h e m a n d t h e r e i s a t l e a s t a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e y c o u l d c o n f r o n t i t . S h e l l e y B r o w n e r e p o r t e d t h a t s h e a l s o h a s s e v e r a l c a s e s w i t h H r . J a g i e l l o o n t h e o t h e r s i d e , t h a t a r e a t v a r i o u s s t a g e s i n S t a t e a n d f e d e r a l c o u r t , i n c l u d i n g t h e a p p e l l a t e l e v e l . E e i s a p p a r e n t l y a l s o t r y i n g t o b r i n g r e g u l a t o r y t a k i n g c h a l l e n g e s i n t o t h e s e c a s e s . G w e n P o i n d e x t e r r e p o r t e d o n t h e s t a t u s o f A z u l P a c i f i c o v . C i t v o f L o s A n c e l e s . T h e r e i s c u r r e n t l y a P e t i t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h e 9 t h C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s . P..s y o u k ri o w , i n d i s c u s s i n g v a c a n c y c o n t r o l J u d g e K o z i n s k i , c i t i n g N o l l a n , d i d s a y t h a t " T h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e c i t y 's d e c i s i o n t o · i n s u r e c o a c h o w n e r s a g a i n s t u n s c r u p u l o u s l a n d l o r d s i n t h i s w a y i s a l e g i s l a t i v e q u e s t i o n , n o t a j u d i c i a l o n e ... t h e r e i s a s u f f i c i e n t n e xu s b e t w e e n t h e c h a l l e n g e d p r o v i s i o n a n d a l e g i t i m a t e j u s t i f i c a t i o n ." O n e c o n c e r n i s t h a t r e h e a r i n g m a y b e g r a n t e d . J u d g e K o z i n s k i c o u l d t h e n p o t e n t i a l l y r e w r i t e h i s o p i n i o n i n s o m e m a n n e r t h a t i n e f f e c t s a y s , "O p p s , I m a d e a m i s t a k e - i t 's n o t a p h y s i c a l o c c u p a t i o n t a k i n g - i t 's a r e g u l a t o r y t a k i n g ." W h i l e t h i s s c e n a r i o m a y n o t o c c u r , i t i s a t l e a s t a p o s s i b i l i t y . T h o s e a t l a s t w e e k 's m e e t i n g s e e m e d t o e x p r e s s c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n c e r n t h a t J u d g e K o z i n s k i 's i d e o l o g i c a l m o t i v e s m a y c a u s e h i m t o r e w r i t e h i s o p i n i o n i n s o m e m a n n e r t h a t w i l l n o t b e f a v o r a b l e t o c i t i e s . I t 's n o t c l e a r w h e n t h e C o u r t w i l l m a k e a d e c i s i o n o n t h e P e t i t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g . T h e r e w a s a l s o c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t m a j o r f u t u r e a r e a s o f l i t i g a t i o n w i l l b e o v e r p a r k c 0 n v e r s i o n s (S h e l l e y B r o w n e i n d i c a t e d s h e c u r r e n t l y h a s a n u m b e r o f p a r k c l o s u r e c a s e s p e n d i n g ) a n d l o n g -t e r m l e a s e s . A l s o , i n a d d i t i o n t o a c t i o n s b e i n g b r o u g h t b y t e n a n t s t o g e t o u t o f l o n g -t e r ~ l e a s e s , s o m e c i t i e s . a r e l i t i g a t i n g p r o s p e c t i v e t e n a n t p r o t e c t i o n o r d i n a n c e s .. I n f a c t , J e f f r e y E p p r e p o r t e d t h a t E s c o n d i d o h a d r e c e n t l y w o n s u c h a c a s e a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e r e b e i n g n o p r e e m p t i o n . 2 .. Threatened Litigation and SL;.11s Cities that adooted vacancy decontrol based upon threats of litigation are t~king varying aooroaches as to what to do after Yee. s ome , such as San Jose, Frer.,ont, and San Bernardino, have immediately adopted new ora1nances prov101ng vacancy control. Others are getting advice f r orn their city attorneys that they should hold off and see what happens in the regulatory taking cases that are being brought. At the same_ time, tenant groups in rnany cities are beginning to bring significant pressure on city councils to readopt vacancy control. The bottom line is that city councils are being placed in a very difficult position with respect to hew to proceed after the Yee decision. In the course of discussing matters, one of the attorneys vh o represents tenants, made an impassioned ple~. He urged that GSMOL should rally its members 2 n d use the political process to bring pressure on cities to readopt vacancy control. This suggestion was balanced by attorneys representing cities who were at the ~eeting. It was explained that each city has to make its own decision. This led to an extensive discussion about how the reality facing cities is that regardless of the ~erits, they can expect to be sued by mobilehome park owners. Threatened litigation is being used quite effectively as a tactic to discourage cities from adopting ordinances. One of the attorneys in attendance went so far as to state that he believed that there was a conscious program to make it economically unfeasible for cities to have rent control. A parallel was drawn to "SL.h.PP" suits, and Don Lincoln suggested a new acrony-m: "SLJlJ1" ( Strategic Litigation Against Hunicipa 1 i ties) . The result of this discussion was the suggestion that there needed to be some form of legislative remedy, possibly something along the lines of prevailing party attorney's fees that allow cities to recover their costs of defending meritless lawsuits. Since legal challenges to vacancy control are constitutionally based, it would appear there may be a possible preemption problem. At any rate, at the meeting it was indicated that this proposal could be brought to the attention of the City Attorney's Department Legislative ComJnittee. Accordingly, I have recently written the Department's Presid~~t, StavR Eckis, to b~ing this suggestion to.his attention. New Law Review Articles There are two new law review articles that have been published on the subject of rent control and takings. One is by Ken Baar, and appears in the Winter 1992 Volume of the· Urban Lawy e r . This article is entitled "The Right to Sell the 'Im'mobile Manufactured Home in Its Rent Controlled Space in the 'Im' mobile Home Park: Valid Regulation or Unconstitutional Taking?". The other article appears in a recent edition of the Southwestern University Law Review and is entitled "Regulatory Takings Law in the l990's: The Death of Rent Control? 11• This article was written by R. s. Radford, 3 an at t o r n e y af f i l i a t e d w i t h th e P a c i f i c L e g a l F o u n d a t i o n . It m i g h t al s o b e n o t e d th a t th e G S M O L h a s r e p o r t e d t r.a t. their amicus brief in Yee, that was prepared by Fran Layton, uC ~erkeley Professor Joseph Sax, and their General Counsel Bruce Stantcn, is going to be published in an upcoming edition of the Loyola Law Review. · Ken Baar's Urban Law-yer article and the publication of the GSMOL brief are significant in that they provide scme citable analysis regarding the problems that vacancy control is seeking to address (i.e. , the II sunk costs II in the form of the investment of the tenants, potential abuses, etc.). This relates to another matter discussed at the meeting~ There was significant disagree~ent as to the wisdom of including "findings" as part of the adoption of any new ordinance. There was more of a consensus, however, that it was desirable to at least devalop a ~ecord when adopting a new vacancy control ordinance, to better withstand pote-ntia 1 regulatory taking challenges. GSMOL is going to try to create some empirical infor~ation to help in that respect. Document Bank At the Cracker Barrel Session it was agreed that the Cor.~ittee should create a new "post-Yee" document bank, and otherwise continue to provide a vehicle through which information can be coordinated. Accordingly, please remember to send copies of relevant pleadings and ordinances. In this respect, JoAnne Speers has suggested that a certain amount of judgment should be used to only submit documents that are relevant and do not duplicate other materials (i.e~, those that contain new arguments or other material that has particular merit). Also, when submitted, please include a brief s umrna r y so that the League is in a position to better advise as to what is available. Confirmation for Mailing List In order to better manage those that are on the. mailing list for the· Committee, at your earliest convenience please complete the enclosed form confirming that you want to continue 'co remain on t.h a list. Copies of this confirmation should be sent to both JoAnne Speers at the League headquarters in Sacramento and to my office. 4 1-(o/ .. . . ;/ • \ ... ORDINANCE NO. 1167 (1990 Series) AN ORDINAN CE AM ENDING SECTION S.44.060(C) OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE, ELIMINATING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON MOBILE HOME RENTAL ADJUSTMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo: SECTION 1: Section 5.44.060(C) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. Provided, however, it shall be unlawful and a violation of this Chapter for an owner to intentionally and wilfully increase the monthly space rent of a tenant above the fair market rent in the community for the purpose of forcing the tenant to sell his mobilehome to the owner, his agent or representative. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least ( 3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the 15th day of May, 1990, .. - • Ordinance No. 1167 (1990 Series) Page Two on motion of Coun cilm an Roalm an , seconded by Councilw om an Pinard and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Coun cilm ernbers Roa lm an , Pina rd , Ra ppa and Reiss None ABSENT: .Mayor Dunin ~'::)_. - - - - C • i¼ayor.Ron Dunin APPROVED: O r d i n a n c e N o . 11 6 7 FINALLY PASSED this __ _Mh_ day of June 19 9_Q_ on mo t i on of __ C~o~u=n=c~i=l=m=a=n'---"R=o~a=l=m=a=n'------------· seconded by ________ C_o_u_n_c_i_l_w_o_m_a_n_P_in_a_r_d , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Roalman, Pinard, Rappa, Reiss, and Mayor Dunin None ABSENT: None ~---..._-=w-L_--= a::_~_.::__~---~ - · ayor Ron Dun in ATTEST: --~~~~ City C1lerk Pam Vo s I , .. A m e n d m e n t R e q u e s ts 1 . D e le te 1 0 °/4 r e n t in c re a s e o n v a c a n c y . 2 . D e le te a ll a u to m a tic a dju s tm e n ts to r e n t e x c e p t u tilitie s . 3 . D e le t e c u r re n t fo r m u la fo r d e te r m in in g "fa ir r e tu r n ", a n d s u b s titu te m ajo r ity te n a n t a p p ro v a l. 4 . C h a n g e 5 .4 4 .0 3 0 _{fl_to 5 .4 4 .0 3 0 {El . Am end m ent Re qu ests 1. D ele te 1 Oo/o rent increase on vacancy, 2. Delete all automatic adjustments to rent except utilities. 3. Delete current formula for determining "fair return", and substitute majority tenant approval. 4. Change 5.44.030 _{_E)_to 5.44.030 _(fil. Amendment Requests 1. D e lete 1 Oo/o rent increase on vacancy. 2 . D elete all automatic adjustm ents to rent e x c e p t u tilit ie s . 3 . D e le te current fo rm u la fo r d e te rm in in g "fa ir re tu r n ", a n d s u b s titute m ajority tenant a p p ro va l. 4 . C h a n g e 5 .4 4 .0 3 0 LE}_to 5 .4 4 .0 3 0 .(fil . A m endm ent R equests 1. Delete 10°/o rent increase on vacancy. 2. Delete all automatic adjustments to rent except utilities. / 3. Delete current formula for determining "fair return", and substitute majority tenant approval. 4. Change 5.44.030 {fl_to 5.44.030 _(fil . 11111111 1111111111111111 I city 0~ san uus OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 .. June 4, 1997 Ray Niemish 3960 So. Higuera, #17 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance Request for Amendments Dear Mr.Niemish: Following up on the City Council direction on June 3, 1997, enclosed please find a copy of a memorandum I sent to the City Council in response to previous requests (Rubottom, April 15 and April 29, 1997; Henson, May 7, 1997). The City Council requested that I provide you with a copy of this memo prior to scheduling this matter for discussion at a future City Council meeting so you would be able to review it and comment. At this point, it is anticipated that this matter will be scheduled for the first available meeting in August, which because of various City Council vacation plans is currently scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 1997. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further, prior to the Council hearing. If I may provide you with any additional information or clarify any of the issues, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, City Attorney ~ The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. lQ:J Telecommunications Device for the Deaf {805) 781-7410. . . i11111111111111111111111111111 1 !1 I city of san uus onspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 .. June 4, 1997 Barry Kauffman P.O. Box 383 3960 So. Higuera St., #95 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance Request for Am endments Dear Mr. Kauffman: Following up on the City Council direction on June 3, 1997, enclosed please find a copy of a memorandum I sent to the City Council in response to previous requests (Rubottom, April 15 and April 29, 1997; Henson, May 7, 1997). The City Council requested that I provide you with a copy of this memo prior to scheduling this matter for discussion at a future City Council meeting so you would be able to review it and comment. At this point, it is anticipated that this matter will be scheduled for the first available meeting in August, which because of various City Council vacation plans is currently scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 1997. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further, prior to the Council hearing. If I may provide you with any additional information or clarify any of the issues, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ?fl; Jeffr ey .J gensen City Attorney ITT The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. lQ:J Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 11111111 l!llllllll!ll. !fl I City 0~ san uus OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 .. June 4, 1997 Betty Henson 1860 Thelma Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Re: Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance Request for Amendments Dear Betty: Following up on the City Council direction on June 3, 1997, enclosed please find a copy of a memorandum I sent to the City Council in response to previous requests (Rubottom, April 15 and April 29, 1997; Henson, May 7; 1997). The City Council requested that I provide you with a copy of this memo prior to scheduling this matter for discussion at a future City Council meeting so you would be able to review it and comment. At this point, it is anticipated that this matter will be scheduled for the first available meeting in August, which because of various City Council vacation plans is currently scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 1997. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further, prior to the Council hearing. If I may provide you with any additional information or clarify any of the issues, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~~- City Attorney fil The City of Sa_ n Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. lQJ Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. 111111111111ij 11111111111111111 If I city o~ san uus osspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 .. June 4, 1997 Robert R. Souther 3960 So. Higuera St., #77 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance Request for Amendments Dear Mr. Souther: Following up on the City Council direction on June 3, 1997, enclosed please find a copy of a memorandum I sent to the City Council in response to previous requests (Rubottom, April 15 and April 29, 1997; Henson, May 7, 1997). The City Council requested that I provide you with a copy of this memo prior to scheduling this matter for discussion at a future City Council meeting so you would be able to review it and comment. At this point, it is anticipated that this matter will be scheduled for the first available meeting in August, which because of various City Council vacation plans is currently scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 1997. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further, prior to the Council hearing. If I may provide you with any additional information or clarify any of the issues, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, :ff!zf::r City Attorney r.cl The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. lQJ Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. , ··, Carole Dempsey Secretary LAGUNA LAKE MOBILE EST ATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (A California Non-Profit Corporation) 1024 Stephanie Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93405-6260 Telephone: 805 544 5481 F ax : 805 544 5481 Arnold Burghardt President J cf( v RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1997 Karen Johnson Treasurer Dodie Williams, council member City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street DearDodie, I am sure that the City Council, and especially Mr. Jorgensen, are growing weary of the complaints of mobilehorne residents. I believe there are valid reasons for the obvious discontent among the 3000 or so voter-tenants, and I would like to address the most egregious from the point of view of one of these tenants. Vacancy control ( a 10% bump in rent to anew buyer): You were pretty well overwhelmed with testimony on this issue at the meeting of Tuesday, August 19. Bob Solomon, manager of Laguna Lake Mobile Estates, stated that he had not received one complaint. The reason for this is that new buyers are uninformed as to the rent structure. They are anxious to establiship residency, and are willing to accept the rent as is. Furthermore, as the new buyer settles in and becomes acquainted with his neighbors, the reality of the rent payment becomes clearer. And the cornplaint comesto.me as president of the Homeowners Association. So, as Bob Solomon does not receive complaints, I do. Vacancy control is undesirable for another important reason. It results in inequality among resident owners. With frequent sales of one unit as compared with a long-term resident, the disparity in price grows to an unreasonable spread. In addition, a 10% bump in rent has a dampening effect on the market value of the unit. I would like to suggest that tohave equity between the homeowner and the park owner, so that the park owner receives a reasonable return on investment, that the 10% bump be discontinued. andthat anadiustrnent be made inthe annualrentchanzein the Citv Ordinance. This would tend to stabilize rent adjustments as well as the market value ofthe unit. ' Unlawful rent increases: This is a contentious issue. A little history. Mobilehome parks were usually developed by a single entrepreneur, orafamily, and they were, to a degree, benevolent souls. They would provide coffee pots and coffee, and cookies, and Christm eatrees, and pay fer park-wide parties, and greet people. A real generous lot. But not today. Wall Street caught hold of a potential pot of gold. The result is corporate ownership. Laguna Lake Mobile Estates is one of 30 parks owned by the Ellenberg Corporationheadquarted in Florida. Sue me! This is the attiitude of Ell-Cap, And sowe did. ( the Homeowners Association of Laguna Lake Mobile Estatesj And it hasbecome a very complex suit with lawyers' fees escalating. I won't go into tile details. It would be too exhaustiing. Suffice it to say, that Ell-Cap is in Chapter H . bankruptcyin Federal Court in Los Angeles, and that our suit with the former owner, Hedley, which reached settlement, is also tied un in L.A. ~ May 1 respectfully suggest that the cumbersome procedures for the settlement of disputes that are in the Ordinance be reviewed. further, I would like to suggest that in the place of the unwieldly Ordinancerequirernents, a Rent Review Hoard, ora similar entity be established. The fees payable to our attorneys have grown to approximately $30,000. Wouldn't the city rather have this bounty than a local lawyer. A fee for the use of a Rent Review Board would not be unreasonable. _ .... _, I would be willing to meet with any interested persons in exploring these issues with a desire to bring equity between the park owners and the homeowners. ~( 2 Arnold Burghardt .. c. c .. AU en Settle, Mayor Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney San Luis Obispo, CA April 15, 1997 ,· TO: Mayor Allen Settle and San Luis Obispo City Council Members: We respectfully request that you change the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance in the following four ways, and place this request on the Agenda no later than the end of May. 1. 5.44.060 (C). This should be omitted. See number 1 on list of attachments. 2. 5.44.060 (E). Most of this item should.be omitted. See number 2 on list of attachments. 3. 5. 44. 090 Application for Rent Adjustment - Evaluation - Relevant Factors. See number 3 on list of attachments. 4. 5.44.040 (F) Should be changed to 5.44.40 (E). This reference is incorrect. 5.44.040 (B) Please replace with Attachment Number 4. Sinserel~y _ .s/:». n~ ~LtL- 'Hfv~ Leola Rubottom ~ ~. Betty Henson ~~-- Bob Souther)!( ) fl-L .J,._ ~ -~· .: . ~ . . - ,·' ( Attachment 1. 5.44.060 (C) should be omitted. The rent on a mobilehome space must be paid wheth~r it is occupied or not. When a mobilehome changes ownership, the park owner does not render a service, nor incur an expense, so there is no need for compensation. In the case of Yee vs. Escondido, in 1992, the United States Supreme Court, in an unanimous 9-0 decision, ruled that vacancy control is not a taking of the park owner's property. (See copy enclosed.) . . 2. 5. 44. 060 (E) . A park owner can apply for and receive an adjustment in rent under the guidelines of 5.44.070 "Application for rent adjustment - Fee - Contents." Most mobilehome parks in San Luis Obispo do not have pass throughs if they are not. on leases. Omit all of (E) except: Leave the automatic increases or decreases to the mobilehome owners utilities. This includes any government mandated cost where applicable. Any notice of an increase or decrease shall be in writing and shall be required by law, no less than ninety (90) day~ prior to any such increase or decrease becoming effective. The notice shall state the amount of rent increase or decease and specify the new space rent. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administration officer. There shall·be only one such increase or decrease in a 12-month period. w 3. 5. 44. 090 Applications for Rent Adjustment - Evaluation - Relevant Factors. Replace as follows: a. The cost of capital improvements shall be approved. by .. the majority of the homeowners of the occupied spaces within any park. This approval must be in writing with all required signatures. b. Costs of capital replacement for utility lines shall be allowed only when, and to the extent, that park owner receives less income from utilities than the expense incurred of administering the sub- metering, if any, a~d from maintaining or replacing the utility. lines. Documentation shall be required. c. Any improvements or replacements, regardless of amount, can be allowed if such improvements or replacements have been ordered by a court or competent jurisdiction, such as any city, county, or state agency, or are of an emergency nature and required to preserve the health and safety of the home owners. d. Costs of capital improvements, if any, must be averaged on a per space basis, and amortized over a period not less·than sixty (60) months, and excluded from the rent amount on which calculations of future rent increases are based. When the capital improvement ( s) is paid off, the assessment shall be reduced by the .amount; of any rent increase imposed to cover the capital improvement(s). e. Costs of capital replacements, if any, must be avBraged on a per space basis, and amortized over a period not less than sixty (60) months, and are to be treated as an assessment to be paid off over not less than sixty (60) moths, and excluded from the rent amount on which calculations of future rent increases are based. When the capital replacement (s) is paid off, the home owner's rent ' rent shall be reduced by the amount of any rent increase imposed to cover the cost of capital replacement(s). f. Costs of capital improvements ofrtcapital replacements may be passed through only if related to a capital improvement or capital replacement work completed during the twelve (12) months preceding the date of notice of. any rent increase given and not to any work in progress at the time notice of any rent increase is given. 4. 5. 44. 040 (F) This reference is changed to 5.44.040 (E). 5.44.040 (B) Change to read: exception may be filed by tenant(s) the lease is in violation of State incorrect, and should be An objection to the claim of on the grounds that any part of Mobilehome Residency Laws. /j -3 M a y o r A l l e n Se t t l e a n d Sa n L u i s O b i s p o C i t y C o u n c i l M e mb e r s S a n L u i s O b i s p o C i t y H a l l S a n L u i s O b i s p o , C A 93 4 0 1 D e a r M ay o r an d C i t y C o u n c i l M e mb e r s : W e 1re sure you agree that mobile park owners in this City and County chose to convert their property to its present use, and were not coerced to do so. Mobile home parks are considered profitable investments by widely respected business publications, such as Fortune Magazine and the Wall Street Journal. The Laguna Lake Schedule of Rents attached here demonstrates the wide disparity in rents which exist in many parks. There is a difference of $163.48 in the monthly rent on two spaces receiving the same services. The attached tape of 286 space rents in Laguna Lake Mobile Park shows a total of $102,826.83 gross income per month. This does not include monthly space rents from the Recreational Vehicle hookups or the monthly rents from the storage space Recreational Vehicles. The amount of rent charged per mobile home space has a direct correlation on mobile home sale possibilities in any park. If rents are unreasonably high for the area, or will become unreasonably high upon resale, the home owner is unable to find a buyer. Thus, a homeowner faces the situation of being unable to afford the rent, being unable to physically move his home, and being unable to sell his home. The result is a captive group of mobile home owners, and a grave imbalance in the bargaining position of park owners and mobile home owners. Vacancy control was part of the original Rent Stabilization Ordinance voted into law by the people of San Luis Obispo. It was La.t.e r removed due to an adverse decision of a court in the Cd.t.y of S,9-nta Barbara. HOWEVER, vacancy control was not reinstated when ·,;,t,.l;e U. S . Supreme Court declared rent control ordinances were not pn1Y. legal but a necessity in 1992. Our surveys show mobile home buY~ts are very resistant to monthly rents in excess of $400 per month in this area. . · We respectfully request vacancy control be reinstate~ECEJ V E:D Sincerely, The Mobile Home Owners of the City of San Luis Obispo. CITY COUNCIL: / r-~~, · ·:--po,CA ' ,}g_,,,'-i.D. r+: .. _,;._,j_• _/!,]-, \.!f)· . .:-t,-f..:.-y___, )✓e-r---•>'c'l-/~ /) .. . I V P' -- . -- J .., . SL· s fi-, , (A;:., .•• L-o•-;- . ~ tL-<i--<:J.-:::--c-;--eL?-· · /J'-JA.,,J ->-·:.; ' 1 CJ L- ? ·" ,:;Z_~ - J I~- /<)CJ --7~ / - \. .... , t_. . / . ,, . .. - ,:'. f ( Lacuna Lake Schedulaof Rents - 1997 I , 301.491 327.58 • :--- 33 7.57 ( 34 1.30 35 2.58 _. 136 3.70 373.26 39 1.88 .. -·· . .. 30 1.65 330 .00 33 7.57 I 34 1.30 i - 35 2.73 363 .70 374.17 '392 .22 -· '•' - 30 1.76 1 330 .06 337.74 34 1.51 35 2.73 363 .70 374.30 ·392 .23 . \ - 310 .4 7 - .. 330.06 33 7.74 34 1.53 '352.73 383 .85 374.51 392 .23 - 310.47 1' / . 34 2.98 375.81 330.27 ~7.74 353.18 384 .54 392 .94 310 .63J 330.27 338.4-4 345 .00 35 3.30 365 .35 375.82 393.50 310 .63 330 .27 339 .31 ( 34 5.25 353 .45 365 .78 375.94 394 .15 I 312 .08 330 .28 33 $.42 34 5.25 353 .45 366 .22 376.67 394 .79 ' 339.42 345.25 36 7.52 3TT .03 398 .42 312.06 i 330 .91 I 353.45 . . /341.15 ' :300 _97 318.62 : 330.91 34 5.25 354 .44 36 7.55 3TT .14 320.72 /330.91 \ 341.15 34 5.88 354 .51 388.00 3TT .26 300 .97 .. 320.72 1330 .91 i,34 1.15 34 6.98 354 .58 368 . ~ 1 378,30 300 .97 320.72 1330 .91 . 34 1.15 /. 34 7.52 355.40 388 .70 · 378.74 400.89 320 .72 330 .91 ;34 1.15 34 7.52 355.40 388 .89 379.19 40 3.27 320.72 33 0.91 . 341.15 i 34 7.52 356 .19 36 9.64 379.87 404 .78 \ I 330_91 ·- 320.72 341.15 34 7.57 356.68 369 .66 380 .64 40 7 9"3 ! 320.72 330 .91 34 1.15 34 7.56 35 7.80 36 9.88 380 .81 400 .53 320.72 i 330.91 341.15 34 7.69 358 .53 370.01 38 1.24 410 .08 320.72 ! 330 .91 34 1.15 34 7.69 358 .54 370.02 38 2.55 410.28 .. 7::: ' 320.72 330 .91 : 34 1.15 34 8.82 358 .56 . 370.26 38 2.74 410.76 .. ,- 320.73 330.91 l 04 1.15 04 8.82 358 .72 I 370.26 382.78 412.$8 I -··t"J . 320.73 330 .92 34 1.15 34 8.85 358 .72 371.30 383.46 413.41 \ . 320 .73 /3 31.11 \ 34 1.15 348 .85 358 .72 371.31 383.46 421.91 ' \ - 320.88 I 331.11 341.15 34-8.94 358 .72 371.48 384 .00 '424 02 320.88 331.11 I 341.15 34 8.94 35 8.74 371.69 385 .03 - \.424 03 320.88 331.11 i 341.15 348.95 359.11 372 .02 386 .18 430 87 ·-· \ 320.88 331.11 I , 341.15 348 .99 359.32 372.07 - 386 .37 432.95 . 320.88 331.11 34 1.16 34 9.00 35 9.60 372.17 ' 386 .37 I , 432.95 -- .. 320.88 332.75 341.16 34 9.69 360.03 3°72.17 - 386 .37 453_7g 320.88 332.82 f 341.30 349.70 360.03 372.17 387.29 4o4 97 ' I 320.88 333.09 341.30 34 9.70 360.04 - 372.18 38 8.21 j 320.88 3 35.96 341.30 34 9.87 360 .15 372 .18 388 .39 . ~ 320.88 335.00 34 1.30 350 .18 360 .35 372.19 389 .74 I ~ 322.46 335.96 34 1.30 _ 350 .18 36 0.91 372 .33 38 9.87 322.49 335.98 34 1.30 3-50 .18 362.02 ,372.33 390.051 324.40 336.24 341.30 ~-"'' 351.39 362.06 372 .64 390.9-4 325.65 i337.57 34 1.30 351 57 10 363 .70 373.03. 39 1.84 ( San LJ.Li...6 ObLapo, [A Ap.>r.il.. 29, 1997 .. /Jea1t. :Jeff- I The /--oliowi..mj- La .i.n:f-oJUna.:tLon ihai. ljOU nequecded p<Vt. oua phone convex- ,e,ai:.1.o n Ap!Cil 25, 1997. le./lenC.e to 4. (5o4Lto040) (F). The F ~ ~ condominium ounenc-- ,e,hJ..p l..o:lt, and we a.Jt.e not a coru:l.omi.ni.i.u complex. !he -6e.c±i..on below i..ncl Eeas ec and xenard -dandto nd. lrR.la:ti..oru,hi.p,e, uliich. La ,w pa.Jt.i of. a condominium compl.ex; R~ce to (5.'l!f..040) (8) 5ed1..on 10 of- Cl(eeft6 .ui.e.1-o Lease .u, iri v.i..ol.ai:.1.on of. 79cJ.18 of. the.State /iiobilelwme 'Re.oi..denc.Lj Law. S ed.i..on 11 o/ [ neeheide 1 .6 Lease: -6~ . no cdhen. _peMon f11alf neaide on the pnemcse» w.i.ih.oui :th.e panh» Wlr.i.±ten conserd., I /2_;_,t, vi.oicde» 798 .]ff of. the Sicd.e !;iobileiwme 'N.e6id~ Lam. Sec;li_on 15 of- :th.e C l(eehai.de Leaoe vl.aiai es 798 026. 1UrJkl:. of. en:bu; o/ a mob.i.hdwme blj pcvck ~• Sed:1..on 18 o/ :th.e [Jt.eelu,i.d.e ~e. Bwpvr/ilt.an..6 pvcee IU.{/M of. i.enanq, cannot be daheri =: o/ :th.e Lease wi.thoui vi.o~ i.t. 7 /2_;_,t, La a vi..ol.cdJ.on o/ 798.17,18,19. The. Lease. .60JjA a bllljR-l' of. a mobilelwme has to ta.he oveJt. t/2.e Iease of. :the .oel.hvc., 4 tk -oell.fvt. La on a Lease, Th.Lo La a uaiven. of. the Lenard» ICigh;u, • cc: 111.len Seli.J..e, /1/af!Olt. o/ San 1..1.Li/2 Ob.Lapa C ounci.L t>/embeM of. San Lui» ObL6po - .. . Ji i111i111111111~111111111 !fl I city o~ san uus oespo V 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 April 30, 1997 .. Ron Dunin, Chairman Arnold Burghardt, Chairman LLME Homeowners 1801 Prefumo Canyon Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Dear Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter of April 24, 1997, requesting that the City" ... reinstate the (mobile home) review board with powers to hear and to enforce the provisions of the ordinance." As you may recall, the current Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was adopted in 1988 after having been approved by a vote of the people. While there have been numerous changes to the ordinance since its initial adoption, there has never been a "review board" with broad powers to make determinations under the ordinance. Rather, there is a hearing process for rent adjustments requested by the park owner which includes the appointment of a hearing officer after meet-and-confer efforts have failed. Therefore, the request to "reinstate" a review board is somewhat inaccurate in that there has never been one under the current regulations. (The Human Relations Commission had a landlord-tenant mediation program in the mid-1980's, but that role has since been assumed by the County.) Therefore, the essence of the request appears to be to amend the current Rent Stabilization Ordinance to create a review board. This would constitute a major change from the current process and could create a significant new work program for which there is no funding or staffing. Experience in other communities has indicated that mobile home disputes are extremely contentious, time-consuming, and often end in litigation. Therefore, such procedures have not proven to be more effective than our current ordinance, which on the whole has worked quite well. In addition, it is questionable whether a major change to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance-should be made unilaterally, since the ordinance was originally adopted by a vote of the people. If you have any questions concerning options available under the current ordinance for pursing your differences with Ellenberg Capital, you may wish to contact City Attorney l,[7 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. lQJ Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. ·. . ' '·,_ ! Jeff Jorgensen. In the meantime, your letter has been forwarded to the City Council, - along with my response . .. unn ~~~ministrative Officer cc: City Council Jeff Jorgensen,· City Attorney+, - ~ - - - • • ·•l'.I .. , M E M O R A N D U M From the O ffi ce of the C ity A ttorney April 28, 1997 To: .- .- From: Subject: City Council Jeff J~r~ensen 9t Request for "Reinstatement" of the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Review Board Attached is a letter from Ron Dunin and Arnold Burghardt requesting the City to " ... reinstate the review board with powers to hear and to enforce the provisions of the ordinance." As you may recall, the current Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance was adopted in 1988 after having been approved by a vote of the people. While there have been numerous changes to the ordinance since its initial adoption, there has never been a "review board" with broad powers to make determinations under the ordinance. Rather, there is a hearing process. for rent adjustments requested by the park owner which includes the appointment of a hearing officer after meet and confer efforts have failed. Therefore, the request to "reinstate" a review board is somewhat misleading in that there has never been one under the current regulations. (The Human Relation~'Commission tad a landlord-tenant mediation program in the mid- 1980's, but that program was discontinued for budget and other reasons.) The essence of the request appears to be to amend the current Rent Stabilization Ordinance to create a new review board. This would constitute a· major change from the current process. Depending on the scope of review granted to the Board, this could create a significant new work program for which there is no funding or staffing. Experience in other communities has indicated that mobilehome disputes are extremely contentious, time consuming, and often end in litigation. An expanded role for the City would potentially draw us into the same kinds of disputes other cities have experienced where mobilehonie rent control is politicized through formal hearings before the City Council or a subsidiary body. Finally, the Council should carefully consider whether a major change to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance should be made unilaterally, since the ordinance was originally adopted by a vote of the people. · .... -·- (- ( If you have fur ther questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.' JGJ/sw attach. cc: • John Dunn Ken Hampiari .· ·,·:· ' . . . . . . . . ·~ ' ... I .:----··- ( . LAGUNA LAKE MOBILE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 1801 PREFUMO CANYON ROAD SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA, 93405 APRIL 24,1997 CITY 6~ SAN LuI~~BISPO MAYOR SETTLE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, SUBJECT: REINSTATEMENT OF THE MOBILEHOME RENT STABI~IZATIO~ REVIEW BOARD. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE MOBILEHCME OWNERS OF LAGUNA LAKE MOBILE ESTATES ARE LIVING IN INTOLERABLE CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW OWNERS, ELLENBE~G CAPITAL. THE SAN LUIS OBISPO RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE IS OUTDATED, CONFUSING TO THE AVERAGE PERSON, OPEN TO PROVINCIAL INTERPRETATION BY LAWYERS, AND IT LACKS PROPER AND SOUND REVIEW. FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS THE CITY ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN UNABLE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN PARK OWNERS AND HOME OWNERS, RESULTING IN COSTLY LEGAL PROCEDURES AND WITH VERY LITTLE SATISFACTION. To COMPOUND THE PROBLEM T~E PARK OWNERSHIP.OF LAGUNA LAKE MOBILE ESTATES HAS RECENTLY CHANGED AND WITH IT A NEW SELF- SERVING INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE. -~~~ THE BOARD OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AFTER MANY MEETINGS AND EXPENSIVE RESEARCH, HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE BEST AND ONLY SOLUTION TO THE ONGOING DISPUTES rs TO REINSTATE THE REVIEW BOARD WITH POWERS TO HEAR AND TO ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. - To BRING EQUITY TO THE THOUSAND~ OF MOBILEHOME TENANTS IN . THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE PRIORITY TO·THIS DISMAYING ~~ ARNOLD BURGHARDT, CHAIRMAN LLME HOMEOWNERS AssocIATr·oN · BOARD OF DIRECTORS ·, .• .. -~ . ~ ·. :·. . . RECEfVED , . APK ,~ o 1'#Jt .. .- ,, ,. RE CE IV ED _NOV .1 i} \9% CITY COUNCIL: '')b.J'I I ~ 00\~p() ~.A. To Mayor Settle and all City Council Members: If th.e attached letter seems toDstrongly worded," I apo Log Lz e-, However, it has·come as. quite a shock .to know the San Luis Obispo Rent Ordinance is. considered·to be the weakeit Ordinance by the Western·Mobilenark Owners Association. . - . I ani enclosing.-the P.rovisions for Hearings whic}:l is part of the SAnta Barbara Ordinance. The San Luis Obispo County Rent Control Ordinance als6 has g6od -provisions for Hearings when they are needed. By eliminating A!lY provisions· for hearings· when there are reasons to suspect a violation, our:City- Rent Ordinance is almost completely powerles~. ·r have contacted GSMOL members in Laguna Lake Mobile Park, Creekside Mobile Park and Silver City. ~-Te are all very hopeful that our Ordinance will be provided with a plan for calling for a Hearing when one is required. We would all appreciate it if you will study the enclosed, and respond to our.request for more .protection. Sincere~L Betty Henson, Associate Manager,·. Re g i.on 8, California 1860 Thelma Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 .. . · .- ,· - ----:- .-------=---;.------ -----~-- -: .... October 31, 1996. To Mayor Settle and All City Council Members· c/o City Hall San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . .. Sub)ect: Do~s the .San Luis.Obispo Rerit Stabilization Ordinance Protect.Mobile Rome Home Owners ·If Their Residency Is Under A Month-To-Month Tenancy? If No t , When Does It Ever Do So: Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Many of the residents of Laguna Lake Mohile Estates are contemplating choosing_ th~ monnh-j.o-cnont h residency for 1997 .• However, the following pzob Lem should be addressed by the City Council before residents take this step: If a park owner v Lo La'te s · the Rent Stabilization Ordiance, and creates terms or. char ge s which violate the Ordinance, is the following measure ·necessary: The residents must seek relief by hiring an attorney, rather than presenting the violation · to the City Council? After that, the City Attorney refus-es to help the re·s:fdents because there is litigation? If the?t is.~correc·t·;.we really don't have a viable rent ordinance,· do we? Golden State Mobile Home Owners' ·League reeently spent 3/4 million dollars statewide to defeat Prop 199, which robbed us of ·rent control. A total of $9,000 or more was_ contributed in taguna Lake Mobile Estates. Did we waste our money? We h. had rent increases amounting to $40.00 per space in the last two- years under··a lease ··extension. This -Ls a hardship indeed·to most of ·we elderly residents who do · not have wage ·increases I Are we to be left to the not- so-tend~r mercies of a large conglomerate because we lack a viable rent ordinance? · It is vital·that we· receive.a timely- answer as we are limited in time to making. a choice. '}Te: need facts spelled out clearly in order t6 ch6ose a·~ourse of action for the coming year. Thanks for your ... cooper at t.on . Sincerly, Betty Henson, . .. .. . . _ Assoctate Manager, Region 8, GSMQ 1860. Thelma Drive, .San Luis Obispo, 93405 ( l MOBILEHOME RENT CONTROL RULES FOR HEARINGS T~e follo~ing rules, together with applicable provisions of Santa BarBara County ordinances, sh~ll govern hearin~s held pursuant to the Santa.Barbara Courity Mobilehorne Rent Control Ordinance: . 1.- Definitions. The following definitions shall apply: a. "Arbitratoi" means the arbitr~tor who makes decisions pursuant to the Santa Barbara County Mobilehorne Rent , . . Control Ordinance. b. "Clerk" means the Clerk for the Santa Barbara County Mobilehorne Rent Control Ordinance; the Clerk is the manager of the Real Property Division of the County Department of - Public Works or his designee, and mail should be sent to Real Property Manager, Department of Public·works, 123 East Anaparnu Street, Santa Barbaia, California 93101. c. "Management" means the owner of a mobilehome park or hi~ agent~ or representative~. d. •~omeowners" means the owners of mob I l.e horne s in - the rnobilehome park, responsible for paying rent to m~ria~emen~e e. · "Homeowner majority" is fifty percent (50%) plus one (1) vote or more oE the nu~ber of votes homeowners of~ mobilehorne park· are eptitled to ca~t a~ the ti~e'bf ~otiri~~ A homeowner is·entitled to 6ast one (1) vote for e~ch'mbbileh~~e- site that he.is renting in the ~~bilehome park ana· that ·is ( ( l ,• -.. i •ccupied by a mobilehome; provided, however, that no homeowner ,ho is a party to a leaie is entitled to cast· a vote for the site :hat is the subject of the lease. The total number of votes 1omeownet's are en~itled to cast equals the total number of ~obilehome sties rented) occupied by mobilehomes and not subject to a lease at the time of voting. f. "Homeowrier representativeN means the person or persons designated by the homeowners on whom all notices and. papers may be served on behalf of the homeowner majority and who is empowered to enter into stipulations and agreements on behalf . • of the homeowner majority. g. "Petition" means the document filed by homeowners with the Clerk to obtain a hearing or by homeowners or management to obtain a review by the Board of Supervisors. h. "Petitioner" means the party who files a petition with the Clerk. i. "Respondent" means the pa~ty against whom the petitioner seeks determination of a rent sched~le o~ a ieview of the Arbitrator's decision. j·. "Verification" means. that a petition has been verified; date pf verification is the date the Clerk notifies the parties_that a verified petition is on file and that a hearing will be set. 2. Meet and Confer. a. Management shall include in its riotice of rent increase a time and ~lace .for a m~et ~nd confer session whenever the amount of that Lnc re a s e exceeds 75% of· the CPI as used in the .. ·.--· -2..:.- - .. --~-- - ~- ------- --------- - _. -- \ Mobilehome Rent Ccintrol O~dinance. Meet and confer shall be scheduled between seventeen (17) and twenty-five (25) days following the date in the nritice of increase· unles~ otherwise agreed to by the parties. Meetings shall be held within the· mobilehome P¥1.rk or at another location agreeable to the parties. No .later than ten (10) days following the date in the notice of increase, m~nagement shall make available to representatives selected by homeowners a detailed list of expenses ahd income, including utility costs and charges, for the prior four (4) years unless such is unavailable-on account of transfer of o~nership_of th e pa r k , toge t her with any other information upon which an increase is based. b. The contents of paragraph 2a above shall be included in the notice of rent increase in substa~tially the following form: "In accordance with provisions of the County Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance and Rules for Hearing, we are providirig you with the following information: "The increase in this notice is greater than 75% of the increase in the Consumer Price Index. A ~- meet and confer session is scheduled for (date) at (place) to discuss the basis for this increase. You must send representatives to this session. If you fail to send representatives to this session~·you.may be forfeiting youi right to a hearing to contest this. increase. Your .. . ··- ------.------•- - - - ,. ·------- .. ---------~ 3 .. ( .... ( representatives may obtain information upon which this increase is based at (place) beginning (date) •. If the date for meet and confer is not c o'nv e n Le n t; for_ your representatives, it may be . . . possible to-cha~ge that date by consulting with (person) " .. c. Management shall have no more,than four representatives at the meet and confer session(s) and shall include at least one representative personally familiar with the basis for the rent increase, inc~uding income/expense documents, and with sufficient authority to make decisions binding on park management. a. Homeowners shall have no more than four representatives at the meet and confer session(s) ,. and these representatives shall have sufficient authority to make decisions binding on all homeowners in the park subject to veto by th~ homeowners. If homeowners provide four- representatives, one representative who is not a park resident may be included. e. Any settlement agreement resulting from meet and confer shall be put into writing, signed by all representatives, and circulated among homeowners. Such settlement agreement shall be effective in lieu of the noticed increase unless vetoed by the homeowners. f.· Homeowners may veto a settlement agreement by filing a valid petition to ~bntest the noticed increase pursuant to Rule 3 below. The filitig of a valid petition shall nullify_ the agreement. ~4- ( 3. Petitions. a. No later than forty-five (45) days after the d~te ~fa notice from mariagement increasing the maximu~ rent schedule, mobileho~e owriers of that park may file a petition requesting a :1earing. ...... b.· The petition shall be dated and signed by th~ 1omeowners and the homeowners' representativ~. The petition shall contain the following: (1) The name and address of· the homeowne~s and of the mobilehome park i~volved. (2) The date of the notice increasing rent, the ~mount of the proposed increase, and the effective date of the 9roposed increase. (3) The name of the ho~eowners' representative.·. (4) The date the previous rent· schedule was first charged. c. There is no right to an 'individual hearing, and a petition mu~t be siined by at least a homeo~ner majority within forty-five (45) days of the noticed increase before a hearing will be set. d. A~sa~ple peti~ion may be obtained from the office of the Clerk. 4. Verification of Petition. a. T·he · Clerk shall determine whether the petition was timely filed and cont~ins all required iriformition. The.Clerk shall reject ~ny petition not meeting these criteria and promptly . notify. the homeowners' r-epr e s en t a tLve thereof. If a .petition is ( - ( (',---" .. ~ ( ( so rejected, the homeowners may thereafter file another petition for the same relief, subject to the same requirements and time . . for filing as the original petition. · Petitioris not rejected are deemed verified, and the Clerk will promptly notify homeowners .... and management that a verified petition is on file and a hearing will be set. b. At the Clerk's request, manag~ment shall furnish the names of- all homeowners not subject to a lease as of the . . . . deadline for filing petitions, a copy of· the notice of-incr~ase, and the date the previous rent schedule was first charged~ Failure to provide this information within a reasonable time of .,, request shall be deemed an automatic waiver of any objection to the petition's validity. 5. Hearings. a. After the petition has been verified, the.Clerk shall set a hearing and shall promptly notify both par~ies 6f the tim~, date, and place for the hearing~ and of the available arbitrators. (ll The Clerk shall provide management with the name and address of the-hameowners·• attorney, if any, and the name and address of the homeowners' representative. The~c1erk. shall provide the homeowners' representative with the name and address of management's attorney, if any. (2) ·The Clerk shall not reveal.to mariagement the· names -0f homeowners ~ignjng or not si~ning the petitibn-for· hearing. ( ( (' .. ' (3) Seivice of notice may be made on the attorheys for both par~ies or, if there is none, 6n the homeowners.• representative for the homeowners and on the representative 'o f : record for management. 6. •'J'.'ime for Hearing. A petition shall be heard and decided within ninety (90) days of its filing unless time is exten~ed by agreement of the parties. 7. Notice. The Clerk shall set.a petition for hearing ,not less than £arty (40) days or more than sixty (60) .days after it has been filed, and shall within fourteen (14) calendar days of filing send the parties notice of the time and place set for hearing. The Clerk shall also give any public notice iequired by law. The notice to the parties shall be in substantially the following form, but may include other information: "You are herebi notified that a hearing on the homeowners' petition will be held on the day of , 19 , at ------- ,. at the hour of ------------ • ------ You.may be present at the hearing,. may but need·not -'. be represented by counsel, ~ay present any relevarit evidence, and will be ·given full opporturiity to croas~examine all witriesses testifyin~ against you~ You are entitled to the issuance of subpoenas ' . to compel the-attendance of witnesses and the production df books1°documents or other sources of -7- e v i d e n c e b y applying to the Clerk for the Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance, at -------- ----------------------- • · You will be.r~sponsible for paying any mileage or attendance ~~fees in ~pnnection with subpoenas so issued." A statement of facts contained in the homeowners' petition shall be sent with such notice to m~nagement of the ·mobilehome park concerning which the petition w~s.filed, but the names of homeowners signing the petitio~ ~hall b~ orni~ted therefrom and shall not be sent or revealed~ 8. Management's Objections And Response.· a. Management may file objections to the homeowners' petition on the following grounds: that the petition was not timely filed, that the petition d6es not contain m~terial information required by the applicable rules and.ordinance(s), and/oi that the proposed increa~e fails to exceed 75% of th~ CPI as defined by the Mobileh6me Rent Confrol Ordinance. ·1£ such objections are not made as provided in this Rule, they shall be deemed waived. b. Management shall file a respons~ to the homeowners' petition. This response shall consist in relevant ~- facts, argument and law in support of the proposed increase and shall contain as an exhibit a detailed list of expenses and income for the prior four years unless such is tinavailable on account of a tran~fer of o~~ership of the park.~ In addition to other expenses ahd income,· ~~is list shall include utility costs and charges. Failure to .file a response will result in a sixty ----·--• ------···-·--·---· ·--··-··---. ~--- --•-·"' .. I\ (60) day delay in the e1fective date of any incre~se granted by the Arbitrator. c. Time and form foi objections and responses sh~ll be: (1) No more than ten (10) 8 1/2" x 11" double- spaced, ~ingl~-sided, t~pewi.itte~ pages each, exclusive of exhibits. (2) Filed with the Clerk no more than fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Clerk's verification of :he petition. (3) Served on the homeowners' attorney or, if :here is none, on the homeowners' representative on or before the iling deadline in Rule 8c(2) above. d. Management's filing fee: (1) Management shall pay a filing fee at the time c· filing its response. (2) The amount of this fee shall be equal to Ten illars ($iO.OO) for every space in the park controlled by the ,bilehome Rent Control Ordinance. (3) This fee shall be in the form of a personal eek, bank check, or money order payable to "County of Santa rbara." ~- (4) Fifty perderit (50%) of the filing fee shall refunded to management provided tha~ the Clerk is notified no 3S than seventy-two (72)• hOL;lCS prior to the hearing that neowners have withdrawn their.petition. ·~- -9- \ ( .. ' (5) Manag~ment may pass on to homeowners, as a one-iime-only increase, an amount equal to fifty ~ercent (50%) of the filing fee in Rule 8d{2) above less any refunds from Rule 8~ ( 4) .abo've , 9 ~ 'Home own e r e ! Counter-Response. Homeowners may file a counter-response. to managementis r~spons~. If hom~owners file a counter-resppnse, it shall consist irt relevant facts, arguments, and law in opposition to the proposed increase and· shall be: a. No more than ten (10) 8 1/2" x llw double-spaced, single-sided, typewritten pages, exclusive of exhibits. b. Filed with the Clerk no more than twenty~eight (28) days from the date of the Clerk's verification of the homeowners' petition. c. Served on management's attorney or, if there is none, on the owner or his representative on or before the filing deadlihe in Rule 9{b} above. d. Hom~owners' duty to file a counter-response is optional, and failure to file shall be without legal consequence. 10. Subpoenas. . Before the hearing has commenced, the Clerk shall :r. issue subpoenas and ~ubpoenas duces tecum at the request of either party in accordance with the provisions of Secti6n 1985 of the Code of Civil' Procedure. After the hearing has commenced, the Arbitrator. may issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces t e cum , . . . . . . . Such p r oce ss shall extend to all parts of the state . . : and be served in accord~nce with the provisions of Sections 1987 ._ - '- -10- .. .. / - and 1988 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No witness shall be obliged to attend at a place out of the county in which he resides unless the distance is less than 150 miles from his place of r e s Lderice , except th_at, upon affidavit of either party showing that the t~~timony oi such witness is material and necessary, the Arbitrator may endorse on the subpoena an order requiring the attendance of such witness. All witnesses appearing pursuant to subpoena, other than the parties, shall receive fees, arid all witnesses appearing pursuant to subpoena, except the parties, shall receive mileage in the same amount and under the same circumsiances as prescribe~- . ,,. by law for witnesses in civil actions in a superior court. W~tnesses appearing pursuant to subpoena, except. the parties, who attend hearings at points so far removed from their residences as to prohibit return thereto from day to day shall be entitled, in addition to fees and mileage, to a reasonable per diem compen- sation for expenses of subsistence for each day of actual attendance and for each day necessarily occupied ih traveling to and from the hearing. Fees, mileage and expenses of subsistence shall be pai~ by the party at whose request ~he witn~ss is subpoenaed. · 11. Discovery. There is no right of discovery. 12. Appointment,·Selection, and Payment of Arbitrators. An Arbitrator ~hall preside at all heirings and " rehearings regarding maximu~ ren~ increase sch~~ules under th~ Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance·and shall make findings and (.,•·- ( . / \. decisions on such increases in accordance ~ith the provisions of the Ordinance and these Rules~ The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final except_as otherwise specifically provided. a. Qualifications. Arbitrators shall be attorneys .. currently licensed to practice law in the State of California or ~ertified public accq~ntants currently licensed by the State of !alifornia. Arbitrators shall hav~ no financial interest in ,obilehome parks. b. Appointment. (1) The.staff of the Real Property Division of te Department of Public Works shall submit to the Board of .. pervisors a list of qualified candidates for Arbitrator. (2) By a majority vote, the Board of Supervisors 111 appoint five (5) candidates frbm this list to form a panel prospective arbitrators. (3) The staff ·of the Real Property Division~hall ?0Se additional candidates in the event that resignation or ~r removal reduces the panel to less than five (5). (4) A p~nelist shall disqualify himself or elf from serving as irbitrator in a particular matter where L· ~ is a.conflict of interest. c. Selection of an Arbitrator for a Hearing. (1) After the petiti6n of·a h6m~owner ~ajority een filed and verified, the Clerk shall notify each party of· JP three (3) available·panelists on the list. Each party choose two of the three to serve~~ Arbitrator at the 1 lA-1-:-- llA-2 ( {2) If the parties choose the same two panelists, then the panelist highest on the list shall be selected, and if later he cannot. serve, then the other panelist shall be selected. ' ' .- .. (3) If the parties choose only one panelist in common, then that panelist shall be selected, and if later he cannot serve, then- the fourth panelist on the list shall be considered togethe~ with the others and each party shall again choose two (2} panelists.·· (4) After a pan~list has ser~ed as Arbi~rator at a heaiing, _the name of that panelist shall be placed at the bottom of the list of panelists. ,,. . a . Selection for Rehearings. (1) A panelist who served as Arbitrator for a 1earing shall serve as Arbitrator on any rehearing so far as io s s ible. (2) If the panelist who·served as Arbitrato4 for he hearing cannot serve as Arbitrator for the rehearing, then an rbitrator for the rehearing shall be selected in accordance with ule 12(c) above. e. Payment. ~- (1) Arbitrators shall be paid for hearings and ihearings at the same hourly rate as hearing officers for the .n t a Ba r ba r a County Civil Service Commission. (2) Time spent in preparation for hearings is .. . eluded in the hourly hearing_ rate and shall not be billed parately. •. -·--- --·- - -- ---·----- ------·-- - -- ·- --- ---- - . - --- ---- -- -- -· --- -- ( (3) No more than two (2) total hour~ may be. billed for the analyzing evidence and preparing the Statement of Decision and Findings. (4) ~he source of payment shall be the filing _. - fees of homeowners and management so far as possible. 13. Record. Hearings shall be reported by a court reporter. The official rec6rd of a hearing, which shall c6nstitut~ the exclusive record for decision of the issues at ~hy review, rehearing, or judicial review, shall incl~de: all written notices; all papers and documents filed prior to the proceedings; all exhibits admitted and rejected as evidence.during the proceedings; .a list of participants present; the reporter's transcript; a statement of all materials officially noticed; the ruling on each exception or objection, if any; and all findings, decisions and orders. The reporter need not transcribe the notes of the proceedings unless requested .to do· so by a patty or the Clerk. 14. Official Notice. In reaching a decision, official notice may be taken of any fact which may be judicially noticed by the courts of this state. Parties ~resent at the hearing shall be informed bf the matters to be noticed, and those m~tters shall be noted in the recotd, referred to therein, or appended thereto~ Eithet party s~all be given a reason~ble-opportunity on request to refute the officially noticed matters by eiidehce or by written or oral .. : "."'14- ( _ presentation of authority, the manner of such refutation to be determined by the Arbitrator. 15. Hearings. a. All hearirigs held before an Arbitrator shall be open to th~~public, j~d_ ~otice thereof given as required by law, except as specifically provided in Rule 19. (1) Ali participation by th~ publi6 shall be channeled through the respective attorneyi for homeowners ~nd management or, if there is none, through their respective representatives. The attorney·for each parti or, if ihere is hone, the respective representative shall determine the participation of individual members of _the public and_ the content of that participation~ subject to the ruling of the Arbitrator. (2) The Arbitrator or Clerk may exclude members of the public for conduct which is unruly or disorderly and which disrupts or threatens to disrupt the proceedings. b. Each party to a hearing may be represented by attorneys or. other persons of the party's choice. c. Each party shall have these rights: to call and examine witriesses; to introduce exhibits; to cross-examine opposing witnes~es on any matter relevant to the issues even though that matter was not covered in the direct examination; td · imp~ach any witness, regardless of which party _first ~alled him to testify; and to rebut the evidence against him~ d. Heirings need not be conducted_according to _ technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence is admissible if it is ~he sort of evidence on which -1~- - _:..... .... ( .r -~ ·responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the _conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of an y common law or statutory r~le which ~ight make improper the admission of such evidence. "o v e r objection in civil actions. He~rsay evidence may .... be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a . . finding unless it would be admissible over ob j e c t.Lon in civil actions. The rules of pri~llege shall be ~ffectiv~ to the extent that· they are otherwise required by statute to be recognized at • the hearing. e. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. 16. Evidence Required by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator may request either party to provide pertinent books, records and papers. However, management may substitute an affidavit by a certified public accountant, as long as the affidavit contains the information sought from such books, records and papers, and as_ long as such certified public accountant is available for cross-examination at the hearing concerning such statement. A subpoena duces tecum shall not be issued for the books, records or papers on which such statement was based. Failure or refusal of a party to produce material requested by a Boatd rnay·be. considered by the Arbitrator as evidence that such rnate~ial, if prod~ced, would be adverse ~o such party. ------· -····-····· --------· _;::....:c.... __ ( (, .. 17. Relevant Evidence. a. In determining petitirins, the Arbitrator shall consider all relevant factors to the extent evidence thereof is Lnt r oduc ed by either party or produced by either party on request .... of the Arbitrator. b. sucih relevant factors may include, but are not limited to, increas~s in management's ordinary and necessary maintenance and operating expenses insurance and repairs; increaies in property taxes and fees and.expenses· in c6nnection with -Operating the park; capital improvement~; increas~s in services~ furnishings, living space, equipment or other amenities. 18. Decision. The Arbitrator shall consider management's response and homeowners' counter-response, if any, prior to rendering his decision. The Arbitrator shall prepare the written decision, which shall include a statement of the issues, the findings of facts on which the decision is based, and the rent schedule imposed. The decision shall be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and shall state the time for seeking review by th~ Board of Supervisors and judicial review as provided in Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision shall be signed by the Arbitrator and fil~d as a public record with the Clerk no later than thir~~ (30) days following the hearing •. The Clerk shall s~rve a copy of th~ decision on each party or through such party's attorney or, ·1£ there is none, through the party's representative. -------·- -17- ( \ I .. ( 19. Continuarices. Continuances may be granted by the Arbitrator for good cause. shown, provided that suffidient time remains after the· continuapce to com~lete the hearing within the time allowed; parties may~waive the limitatibn on time~ . . A party seeking a continuance shall apply. therefor within ten (10) calendar days foll6wing the ~ime the party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the event or facts establishing cause for the continuance. A ~onti~uance may be granted after such time has lapsed only if the partf seeking the c~ntinuance is not responsible fqr and has made a good faith effort to prevent t~e event or fact establishing good cause. ' . - - Continuances may be granted by the Arbitrator after discussion with both parties and without public hearing. 20. Contempt. If any person in proceedings before the Arbitrat6r d~sobeys or resists any lawful order qr refuses to respond to a subpoena, or refuse~ to take the oath or affirmation as a witness or thereafter refuses to be examined, or is guilty of misconduct during a hearing or so near the place thereof as to obstruct the proceeding, the Arbitrator may on his own motio~, or shall on request of a pa{ty and such party's prepayment of the cost therefor, certify the pertinent pa_rts · of the record and file the same· with a superior court in and for Santa Barbara County. If such action is taken ~n-the: Arbitrator~s own motion, th~ Arbitrator shall be r~sponsible for· prosecuting the proceeding in court. If such action is taken on request of a party, that party : .• f ·~ • -- --18- .. (, shall be responsible for prosecuting the proceeding in court. The court may thereupon issue an order directing ·the person to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be pun Lsh ed.Ie s for con t.ernp t , The "o r d e r and a copy of· the ·certified .... record shall be served on the persons. Thereafter, the court shall have jurisdiction·of the matter. The s~me proceeding shall be had, the same penalties may be imposedj and the person charged may purge himself of the contempt in the same way_as i~ the case of a person who has committed a contempt in the trial of a civil action before a superior court. 21. Oaths. In any proceeding before an Arbitrator, oral testimony offered as evidence shall be taken only on oath or affirmatio~, and the Clerk, his designee, and the Arbitrator have the power to administer oaths and affirmations and to certify to offiriial acts. Oaths of witnesses may be g_iven individually or en masse. Witnesses should be asked to raise their right hands and to swear or affirm that the testimony they shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 22. Motions. ~- All motions by the parties shall be in writing, unless made on the record during hearing,_ and shall clearly state the action requested and the ~rounds relied on. 23.. Review by the Board of Supervisors. a. The deciision of the· Arbitrator shall be reviewed by the· Board of supe r v Ls o r s upon.a petition alleg_ing prejudicial abuse of discietion. ' Abuse of di~ctetion is established where ( C .. the Arbitrator has failed to proceed in the manner required by law, the decision is not supported by findings, or the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. b. This review shall ordinarily be made on the record alone: howe~er, the Board may el~ct to hear oral argument from the parties, their representatives, and/or their attorneys. The Board shall affirm ot reverse the Arbitrator:s decision in whole or in part and may remand the.case to the Arbitrator for reconsideration in light of the Board's ~eview or~ where. appropriate, the Board may make-a new decisidn without 'remand. c. The petition fbr review shall be filed by a party or his representative with the Clerk of the Ordinance n6·1ater than the fifteenth judicial day following the date the Clerk mailed the Arbitrator's decision to the parties. the Board shall have no discretion to consider late petitions. A proof of service showing service on the opposing party or his representative shall accompany the p~t{tion filed with the -Clerk. A response, if any, shall be served and filed within fifteen (15) judicial days of the filing of the petition. d. The Clerk shall furnish the Board with the official record of the hearing, except that a copy of the ._ ... reporter's transcript shall be.included only where requested by the petitioner or res~ondent. The requesting party ~hall pay the cost of the reporter's tr~nscript plus one copy to be furnished to. the opposing party. e. The Board shall render its decision no later than thirty {30) judicial days ·lollowin~ -its receipt of.all pleadings, .... -- . ·,...20- .. . ... ( ( records and transcripts, as covered in subparagraphs c and d above. The decision of the Board is final o~ the d~te sigried, and there shall be no further review or appeal except as specificilly~provided ~y Rules 24 and 25. 24. Rehearings. Rehearings ·are -available only on matters iemanded by :he Board of Supervisors. The Clerk shall s,et a rehearing within :wenty (20) judicial days following the tlate which the Board's ecision becomes final. 25. Judicial Review. Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 are Jplicable to judicial review of Arbitrators' decisions under the \nta Barbara County Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance and Rules. C:sm 25/86 07C ~-