HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/1988, 2 - CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY COUNCILMAN SETTLE TO CONSIDER PLACING THE TWO RENT STABILIZATION MEASURES ON BALLOT.city Or san Ais owp0
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Steve Henderson, Assistant to the CAO
SUBJECT: Consideration of request by Councilman Settle to consider placing the
two rent stabilization measures on ballot.
CAD RECOMMENDATION:
Review the six major alternatives, take public testimony, and direct
staff to return with further analysis and /or appropriate resolution.
BACKGROUND:
Situation
There have been two significant developments during the past several
weeks concerning our Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Regulations
(SLOMC Chapter 5.44). First, the Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee
on Rent Stabilization was submitted January 7, 1988. This report
consists of a number of proposed substantive amendments to the
present City ordinance. Secondly, certain residents, including Mrs.
Leola Rubottom, are spearheading an effort to place a rent
stabilization ordinance on the ballot (possibly November, 1988). If
successful, this initiative ordinance would replace the existing City
regulations.
Councilman Settle has requested that the Council consider placing
these two items on the ballot for the citizens to choose.
This report presents a %range of major options available to the
Council. It identifies six alternatives which may be placed into
three distinct categories. They are: 1) maintaining the existing
regulations, 2) a complete and thorough review of the existing
regulations, and 3) resolution of the differing approaches by the
ballot process. The Council may choose any of the alternatives or a
workable combination of them.
MAJOR ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintaining the Existing Ordinance. Since the Council modified
the rent stabilization regulations replacing the Mobile Home Rent
Review Board with itself as the hearing body in June of 1987, no
application has been submitted by residents or park owners. The
Council postponed taking any further action on the re- examining and
changing the City's current mobilehome rent regulation ordinance'at
that time deferring to the process of giving the park owners and
residents an opportunity to work together and resolve their
differences. The Council could choose to maintain the existing
ordinance for the present and consider taking another course at a
later time.
4q---1 -
illl city of San IL ; OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
2. Reinstate Review of Existing Ordinance. In June of 1987, the
Council postponed taking any further action on the re- examining and
changing the City's current mobilehome rent regulation ordinance at
that time deferring to the process of giving the park owners and
residents an opportunity to work together and resolve their
differences.
The Council may choose to resume deliberations and review of the
existing rent stabilization regulations and modify as desired. This
task might be done in conjunction with reviewing and possibly
incorporating portions of the Owners- Residents Committee report and
the proposed initiative. This option may take a considerable amount
of staff and Council time to pursue and complete. Although much of
the research has been previously reported, approximately nine
recommendations require final action. In addition, two
Councilmembers are new to the Council and have not previously acted
on these issues.
3. Ad Hoc Committee Final Report. A representative group of park
owners and residents has been meeting for more than six months and
have recently submitted a revised ordinance for the Council's
consideration. The Ad Hoc Committee's Final Report is an outgrowth
of the June 1987 Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council
further postponed discussions of the previously submitted Rent Review
Board recommendations for six months. During this time, park owners
and residents were to negotiate mutually acceptable revisions to the
Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Their recommendations address most, if
not all, of the substantive issues left undecided by Council in June
1987.
The Council may choose to explore the recommendations of the Ad Hoc
Committee and accept, reject, or modify the suggested amendments.
This alternative will require some commitment of time by the staff
and the Council.
4. Initiative Petition Proposal. A group of mobilehome residents,
headed by Mrs. Rubottom, is again pursuing the initiative process as
a remedy to the on -going rent stabilization regulations dilemma. The
staff and Council have received her proposed ordinance. It differs
quite significantly from the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee
or those of the Mobilehome Rent Review Board and the existing rent
stabilization regulations. A major effect of passage of the proposed
initiative measure would be that any future changes to the ordinance
could only be made at another election; the Council could not change
the ordinance.
The Council may choose to review Mrs. Rubottom's ordinance and either
accept, reject or modify the proposed ordinance.
ta -a
city of San LL OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
5. Ballot Measures (Advisory). Under the Charter and state law,
Council is able to place issues and questions before the electorate.
Such measures can be either quite general or very specific. They can
be either advisory or binding.
Advisory measures are intended to assess or gauge the desires or
direction of the voters ( "take the pulse ") on policy matters. If the
issue is framed in a general manner, great flexibility is retained by
Council to subsequently adopt rules and regulations which implement
and give effect to the desired direction or policy. The more
specific the question, the less potential flexibility. In the
present situation, a general policy statement regarding mobilehome
rent control may not be appropriate given the facts and circumstances
of the past 7 -8 years. The general City policy of protecting
mobilehome residents from sudden and unreasonable rent increases is
long established and has been vigorously defended in court. The real
issue is how best to implement this policy.
Council has two separate and distinct packages of proposed amendments
before it. One comes from a group which was organized as a result of
Council direction. The other comes from a group of local residents.
Although there appears to be some overlap in content, the packages
represent substantially divergent approaches for future mobilehome
rent control in the City. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to
place both sets of amendments before the electorate as advisory
measures. Whichever one received greater voter support could then be
enacted by Council with minor revisions as necessary to make it in
full compliance with State law.
6. Ballot Measures (Binding). Binding ballot measures are proposed
ordinances enacted directly by the people. They convey a policy
direction as does an advisory measure but go a major step further in
that no additional legislative action is required by Council.
A binding measure leaves no discretion to Council. Future changes,
no matter how small, can only be made by voter approval. As a
general rule, direct enactment of detailed and complicated
regulations is not recommended because of this difficulty. From the
perspective of the initiative backers, it does act to ensure that
future Councils do not frustrate the will of the people by
legislative action. Given the existence of other well - established
checks and balances (recall, referendum) binding measures are
somewhat in disfavor from a representative democracy /Council
prerogative viewpoint.
DISCUSSION
Given the relative merits of the above alternatives, and the long and
sometimes troubled history of mobilehome rent control in San Luis-
a-3
-;and; specific ory me
ortaint.
lia,ve, to be take 'n'-s"
esda-y
ATTACHMENT: Matftx.
i. epara e
lur.8e,
i'miroidd..
_J
L N
a m
z r
c m
a n
K RI
0
� n
• a
H
�D n
m o
m A
m
N
:. r_• ,h T 4 ca. ^�,�
.. .,.,h
V et tu�.'yV_.,X f , 4 �. ._
I`ll, r�� '
^Y'
- h to
.' /-i -. - -.�, �uu, Y
L Jam_ w,�t��-
>'a �v4 t ����•� C'
_
:..a :s' �.� ..T � !Y"i}•,�
-Tr ,9ii�'- ].'L'��•+.L�"G' 7.a --� ,'I'
r'
1
nmotnro`a'
��
Z O$Z
v0XH
H N
5A 8
• m Z
OD
r
y A _•k 1�
•_T�lr
Z
.
.�tv-
m0 V
p]C:
'n h
N N.
M.O. •,
..I•••
A
!v
Z
m=S r m.
yy
t7L
yy
CE
7°
-
33
N S�
•CHO
HSxxyy5pp
z m my
•N'1 Z
N z 00
x n 0
n0
[mv t�v lq+l
02 C
0ZH^
Z��
mqP°
HZ
LpO�. p�ngpN
m
N
N
r
°
.e m
K
�
A N
s
a m
m n
v i
N
v v
o�
x
3
;
z
oo
oK
o
r
c
M
m
H
'v
Aa
c
m
m
z
N
N
y
M
t*
N n
00
Z
+1
m
A
m
tnn z
An
0 >
o a o
m
noon a H
z
03.
znazxm
H rao r
Om
za
n vmmN
.HVrm
•o
Ncaa
05 i Hzmo
a
L
12M
r oA
zr n n r I
�*•
y
>
Z
r m
r
ow M
L 'O V+ t•
m N
Kq
a Y M
a M
S
2'
A a Y N
M
7C0�
7C
h7
q
M m n• n
n N
N1+U
AInO
OH
O
omc.
qM
.N.
vv.. °0°
zm
z'mo
rin °OO
0 r-
toA
mM.c
M
za>m m
�'+�"�
A v
A mm
w
rS
mC
fHI1�7AC
O'NOC
O
y
c N
o
z a m
z N
o
.re m
.re
O
e
m v
�
H r 2
K
K
z O
m
ry
O H
2 N
N
N
N
K to
M
K
a
r
H
Am
Z
s
H
m
N
A
M
x
a -s
MEMORANI��JM "990 aG�A
city oe san o�i Palm S1reeUBox 8100 •San Lu s ispo,
.- cC
TO .City C n ilmembers
Ct` • � w
FROM Pam Vo �.
SUBJECT 1/19/88 MOBILEHOME REGULATIONS COUNCIL MEETING ITEM DATE 1/19/88
Leola Rubottom delivered 40 postcards from mobilehome owners (39 from
Creekside and 1 from Chumash Village) to be made available for review
prior to tonight's meeting. The postcards state that the signatories
had not been included in the Ad Hoc Committee discussion and did not
feel they were represented in that report. The postcards are available
in the Council office for inspection.
PV: dc
- MEr"ING AGENDA
ANDRE, DA I r
MORRIS CC : CowZC� l
R. ANDRE (Retired)
- BUTTERY '� MICHAEL J. MORRIS
DENNIS JAMES C. BUITERY
D. LAW
]. TODD A9ROLLA
[V\ : '� / /`Fr/�•`R� • I 1304 Padfic Street
Post Office Box 730
San Luis Obispo
California 93406 -0730
January 13, 1988 Telephone 605I543-4171
Fax Number 8051543.0752
RECEIVED
Ron Dunin, Mayor
JAN 19 1988
TY
City of San Luis Obispo al
$AN LUrS OBISBISPO, cp
Office of the Mayor
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON RENT CONTROL
Dear Mayor Dunin:
I am in receipt of your letter dated December 22, 1987.
You and the City Council have requested a report on the status of
the activities of the Ad Hoc Committee on Rent Control.
As you know by now, the Ad Hoc Committee has reached
agreement on recommended revisions to the existing rent
stabilization ordinance. A letter signed by the individual
members of the Committee, along with the proposed recommendations
has been submitted to the City Clerk for review by the Council.
The letter and the accompanying revised Ordinance I think speaks
for itself.
I would like to remark, however, that I think the
residents and the park owners worked extraordinarily hard at
reaching an agreement. For so many years, it has seemed as
though the parties have focused on their differences rather than
their compatability. The need for the change in focus should be
apparent to all. I would strongly encourage you and the Council
to further this effort by enthusiastically and speedily adopting
the recommendations of the Committee.
Thank you.
DDL:mm
Very truly yours,
DENNIS D. LAW ,
�E-:7
MEETING (A�G�AENDA
,pjt dAN -- , ,
Nand dp.Give�7' " T #
tx: uncop /
,p �' vet
s'. ersor�
San Lu .e Ubceppoo, CA R E C
e *E
yawww 18, f988
JAN 18 196
CITY CtC�^v
Mauoa Ron Du tin and
Counci,lmembene o� the City or San L.ui o Obd epo
990 Plata
San Liao Obiepo, CA 9j401
Dealt MA. Mayas and Coupe i.lmembeite :
The Rent Stabit i,,a,, ion Ozdinance % etZti.on that .t.o being o#ened
in an initiative P has been in active acheduted pzoceoa o�
obtaifung °iF"tiM" fOn .cane .time.
We .ow4pectAllly Liat the Ai dative OAdinance be placed
on the �une, 1988=1 mi th chwLj" in a binding capiaci trc.
S'
Leata Rubottom
N - ' deli wmed C
1 -18
TANG AGENDA
Jan ary 12, lU fE ,AM19 T
cc: LWAC ITEM
l #
The Honorable Mayor and
� RE CEi"VF _V
Members of City Council A- ,JA�1 1 8 i??3
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Dear Mr. Mayor and members of City Council:
As I will not be in town when the matter of the
so called "settlement or agreement" between park owners
and residents of mobile home parks is put on the agenda,
I would like to take this opportunity of presenting to
you my views and some very pertinent facts.
First, I would like to point out that this committee
was not, as far as I can learn, ever approved or appointed
by any other park residents or their organizations to repre-
sent them. These decisions made in private discussions
with park owners and or Mr. Dennis Law were never presented
to the residents of any park for their approval or discussion.
They cannot, therefore, be considered as any kind of agreement
between park owners and the home owners.
I believe you will find that in a June meeting there
was discussion with Mr. Law in which he volunteered to try
to get park owners (whom he represented) and the representa-
tives of the park residents together for the purpose of
discussing long term leases. This was not to be a discussion
of how to rewrite the present mobile home rent stabilization
ordinance.
Creekside part declined to send any representatives
to meet on this matter as we felt it was much better to meet
with our park owner direct and we had already started some
communication and negotiation with our own lease committee.
This same lease committee has been meeting with the park
owner, Mr. Edwin Evans, for the last six months and we felt
we had made some real progress in working out terms of a
long term lease No word was ever given this committee or to
anyone else, to my knowledge, that this "ad hoc committee°
was working on changes to the city ordinance.
It is obvious that such negotiations would affect the
outcome of a fair lease agreement.
If it is the intent of the present rent ordinance to
establish a degree of protection for homeowners while they
work with park owners in reaching an agreement in the form
of a long term lease, then it obvious that a background of
a secure city ordinance is parmount.
The park owners need to know there will be no special
-2-
January 12, 1988
concessions given them through changes in the ordinance.
Concessions can be obtained by negotiating with the homeowners
on leases. The reward to the park owners in working out
satisfactory leases is to take them out from under the control
of the ordinance.
It is obvious that what the park owners won in the
changes they got the committee to recommend are all the
changes they have sought in the past and were unable to get
through the process of appeal to the city council.
Vacancy decontrol, Safe Harbor, Increases in the
percentage of the C.P.I. to be used, etc. are all points
that have been brought before you repeatedly and have never
been allowed.
If the city council allows or adopts these changes they are
only rewarding the park owners for their efforts in gaining
through subterfuge what they could not obtain in an open
discussion.
There is one other point I would like to address.
I would like to go on record as protesting the eligibility
and legality of Mr. Dunin's voting on this issue. Three
of the members of the committee that drew up this agreement
submitted to you are residents of Laguna Lake Park. This
indicates quite strongly that Laguna Lake Park is very much
involved in this matter and the Mayor, as a resident,.is
also involved. This seems to me a direct conflict of
interest on his part.
Thank you for the time and interest given to my views
and for the courtesies extended to me in the past years
in hearing my thoughts on these matters.
3960 S. Higuera, # 49
San Luis obispo, Ca. 93401
541 -2927
Yours truly
AR.' Spen ®l�t�ili
Vice President, Creekside Golden
State Mobilehome Owners League n 707
F. 1:L
JAN 184 9
CITY CLC ^."
'.rvIt..!"- ".,%
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council Members:
I certainly do not approve the AD
The City Mobilehome Ordinance for the
P "-"TING ; w AGENDA
DATE ,9 •e° ITEM #
San Luis Obispoo C:.lif. '
January 17, A988 We `v
• QU Ic
HOC Committee decision regarding
following reasons:
1. Leola Rubottom and I droppedamt ;;f the Committee because
nothing was accomplished in favor of the mobilehome res-
idents. Mr. Ed Evans, owner of Creekside MH Park and
his daughter ran the meeting, also David Rva.ns, representat-
ive of the Western Mobilehome Association (Mobilehome Parks).
2. The remaining majority of the members of the Committee were
from The Laguna Lake Mobilehome Park who seldom or never att-
ended The Review Board hearings and whose Park was under a
lease. (Not 1001% were under the lease Now the want all
residents under the lease (Safe Harbor), Vacancy Decontrol
which has made mobilehomes impossible to sell, (Hidden Hills
Mobilehome Park and Morro Shores) and 100% of the CPI when
other Parks have 50%, 60% or 75% --none 100%.
3. Mobilehome Park Owners can pay for a Park in 5 years (no up-
keep of the Park in this time) and make a yearly profit of
20: %:: What business is promised a profit?
Many months were spent putting together the original Ordinance
#923 that a mobilehome owner could live with until it was destroyed
by The Review Board. The only solution would be to accept the
Ordinance accomplished by Leola Rubottom or allow it to be put on
the ballot.
The mobilehome owners have three time the investment of the
park Owners, yet are at the mercy of the Park Owners unless the
park may be purchased by the mobilehome owners or the Rent
Stabilization Ordinance allowed to operate.
Sincerely
Mrs, Adele Raymond
3057 S. Higuera Sp. 81
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401