HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/15/1994, 5 - REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.44.060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. MiEETING DATE:
cityO� San UIS OBISpO REM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 5.44.060 (E) OF THE
MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE
CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT.
CAO BY MOTION, RECEIVE A REPORT REGARDING A REQUEST
RECOMMENDATION: 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)
i I
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
October 10., 1994
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Jorgensen
SUBJECT: Request to Ame Section 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
increases o ec eased in e3egeases rateg .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
�v.:d"iy):pY..?[
oderease. in any such egee+-�esag$ 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 o .
decrease shall be in writing and shall be given as
required 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 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 "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 overtime, 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
,j��d
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 usa e. 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
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
1
RECEIVED
SSP i !: ly`l4
CITY COUNCIL
SAN I.UIe 0615?0.C2
1
September 12, 1994
San Lui.o Obispo, 04
h'o,wnabLe Ylayoa Seg Pinnand and Cibi Council J")embeao v�
San Luio Obiepo, CA
;2e: Chang=e needed in the avAding .in the City o� San Lui.o Obi epo'e
h406i2ehame Ruidvlc�t Lary.
A hae been bsoijfht to my attention that the wording in (6) Section 04
5.44.Gbo need= to be chanwjed to more c.LeaAbj de4ine the irdRi,ti.on oZ the
OadL=ice.
The umnd "eyenoee" could enca-,j a°e zepau`e that ane not Lets.[ A4 a
paw ovwA ;o paee thAoujh. %h= woAd "+ate" mane cLea�Cr� LWiree the
increaoee in utiti;Uw, new gove&nment-mandated eeAvicee, ya=bage
eeAvice and cabte teCevioi.on. %heee root= are iaonf brc and amount=
ane detemmined by „Aatz„-
f ore exampte. "Space cent marc be avtwnat at it c adi"ted baeed on iuuneaoee,
(then add the hnaoe ((or decreaeeo)J <n the expeneeo (chancre the woad
expeneee to (�irateo)J Ax the common area utititiee, new govee4nment-
Mand d eaAViCed qac eenvice and cab.Le teLev"ion, wAere . LicabLe.
%he .6 pace sent mord bei �� by divid&zg the total LwAenae ( the
pAAaoe ((wc decneaee JJ in euch. expeneee ( chancre thio to (( JJ -
cumed dru=g. a tmeCve-maruA peuciad by tme.Cve� Ceae the pezcentage in
the C.j% 9. index A the twelve-month period. f
We mvu.Ld appaec late it i4 rwu would act on thio ae eoon ae poe.oibte.
S<ncereLr�,
Leola Aubattan _
3960 South #iFwAa, Space 21
San Lui.e Ob"po, CA 93401
f
S-S
.�ECEIVED
Clrr couNCIL Septerlber 12, 1994
CAN 1.11!S CFISPo. CA
Tlx: Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard of San Luis Obispo
Council Members:
Bill Roalnan C •—�G'�" N�11
Allen Settle
Penny Rappa
Dave Rome=
SUB.=: SECTION (E) of San Luis Obispo City Rent Ordinance, 5.44.060
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
A great number of Laguna Lake Mobile 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:. Tb add "decrease" to line six (6) to read, "total increase or decrease".
Also change "expenses" to read "rates" in line six (6) of SectiorE.
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 cm panes 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 owner 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, showed a
variation of one hundred and fifty ($150) dollars per month in rents
charged for mobile homes receiving identical services here in this park.
After numerous sales involving 10% increases in mobile home rents, we feel
confident that the difference between the highest and lowest rents in
the park is considerably greater-at,this point in tine.
Budgets based on fixed incomes 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.
c�Re full sulznitted,
11 and tty H n
1860 Thelma Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
J6
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
May 18, 1594
TO: City Council /^
FROX: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney L
SUBJECT: 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 conmon area utilities, new gcvernment-
nandated 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 previcus inquiry, which asserted that the automatic rent
adjustments allowed by 5. 44 . 060 (E) are in conflict with the Mobile
Hlo.ne 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 offer's 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) I 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 5.44. 060 (E) ?
:. T-be 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
t chooselearly
has the authority to delete § 5.44 . 060 (E)
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 Hone 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 refined the
term "just and reasonable return, " one court has described it as
one which ". . . is high enough to encourage good management, reward
efficiency and discourage the flight of capital and is commensurate
with returns on conparable investments, but not so high as to
defeat the purpose of preventing excessive rents. " San 14arcos
Mobile Fore Park Assoc v City of San Marcos, 192 Cal.App. 3d 1492
(1587) . 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
danage 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 hone 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, idaintenance, insurance, -
utilities, employee services, additional
amenities, and other costs of operation, and
to receive a fair return on their investment.,'
(§ 5.44 . 010 (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, loot 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
Ch increase on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to
2
Mir
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 automatic adjustments, when
appropriate to assure a fair and reasonable return on invest.nent.
(§ 5A4 . 070. )
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 fcr-mal rent adjustment hearings having been held by the City
since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted in 1453 . Given
the. extrennely 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 rior 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
'orivate, 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
tern lease, but has a right to, and if such a lease otherwise
complies with the provisions of Civil Code § 79a . 17 (G) the owner
" . . , shall be exempt from any ordinance, rule, regulation, or
initiative neasure adopted by any local government entity . 11(Civil Code § 748. 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
Ordinance to delete automatic adjustments would essentially
3
� - 9
penalize owners for offering long term leases that do not exactly
mirror the ordinance, and may take away incentives to offer such
leases at all.
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
an, unaware of any such instances having been brought to the
attention of the City.
JGJ/sw
cc: John Dunn
Deb Hossli
Attachnents:
1. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 18, 1994
2. Jeff Jorgensen Memo, dated December 22, 1993
3 . California Civil Code § 798. 15, et sea.
4
•
San Lute Obiopv, 6.4
,qima A ;9,/4
Cwf Counc i t 1�]eabej6 Of
San Luiz e Obia pv, C,4
Re %f.e :�uvur4a beiV cru{ �v J4 baee ,e,:,t .in
�efteide illvbUeALme
' 93
ging �v a "Siz:r-Da; ;1'v;.i.ce da Rent .?rac.:e�.�e' dated 0�. 23� i9 ,
CjeelIL ' a ,-zes'" L's t hove not oifned Lecoce cri.,Lt have :Ae /593 peen
h-,OUP6 Li.eted oepara&,i� i on ,`.fie :,ent e:utwent.and uiGL be inebaJed
In L4e bane Ae--.4.
%he p_.ee LSroup6 ,ku-t aw re Lie.-,ed and dZec;Uve ,a,uuuuj 1, i!,�,�4 uere
Swed on Lie coot vZ c=con area , new nrovejnrent ac�dated
aer,vicee, yarbaye oe,.vice, etc. to Lie park ozren.
%lie ,-w i994 bade rcrt conoioL.ed vZ &,a cur✓,eiit -zerlt in 1993 ;.4ua
.&,e C.P.S. inc,:eaoe oZ 2;9 uid &,P- cu.-✓,ent 1993 pa.oa :5nvurLa.
Me i°95 C•;'•9•, Pit Lowe nvt v t leaven, wiZL be baocd on Lie new
rc^t !iiire pLuc an, rev paoo tAAouj&U.
Ule rx.4PPez4AZty jereueet Lie dete: on v�{ ��.� eeetiun v,� 5.44.660 vt
t,�,e ;rjb.t&ja.-%..e Rent SLaSil iptivn i k2&,zv ce .L San Luis (i5iapv l 1
a ll oa* c:%hi.e d i oa:irus vr„� prae:.i ee.
SL�ce.:eGf,
Leola RuboL—"La
3960 South Nirfe4a, Space 21
Son Lure obiopv, C.4 93401
tnc wed: Sixth 1) ,1'v;ire vt Rent 9nG:ercee � Lhv4e not on Leaeee.
Si.4, Jay Notice u� Rent 9ncr.ea4e Pz thwe on lew".
ATTACINE\T 1
S ' ` r
Space: 7�
CREEKSIDE MOBILEHCY{E COMi U?:1T{
o:ca S. HIGUERA STREET
SAN.LUIS U I:PO, CA 9xyi1
Goober ;, i55x
sim DAY :40710E OF .A-ENT "INCREASE
Dear Cesidznt :
Thz Lease pro'+ides for rap{ts to be adjusted annually on January 1st. This letter•
is notice of s::c i adjust:ent. Fro: A•:gust, li9E to A{.rgust, 199s the C. ns' er• Price
index appiic:�:i: to '.he Lease roved frog 4x4. 1 to ;42. 9 which is a 2. Z% increase.
Thet zfu: z, y :+iii i2 irer'e:sed tq iS. 47 to $272.79.
o•:r i L.
The :aaco fy;t�,er- pr-a.-id-es �Qt' pass thr'+.rs :f costs related directly t0 the pari(
costs as `::tthet• adjgsted for inflation. T`ese costs include utilities, govetnaer.t
services and fees, ahieh this year affects electricity, ;as, wat.er•, trash and
gJV21'r{G2't fe25.
All ir.{ct'eas2s and dicreasiS listed have bze'n adjusted fcr the CF1.
Parkuse of alectr•icity hand the co:zoditas risen slightly Y cost has again
t•is2n, 1'25ltitilg lit an over-all increase. 7hirefore, fest year' s pass thru of il. 25'
S. x5 to
:+111 increase :+y S.• '-1• .
khiie t;.e cost of ;as has increased this year, the park' s cOnsuept'on of gas to
I tJ-e r'ect'eatiJn building, sal:rir po01 find spa has again decreaszJ. YGU1• j,t'Gt'dtd
5hdt'2 :f this decrease is a S 1. E4 pet• +oath reduction far d new pass thru Of $2. 27.
7hii ye2t' bcth wSter Co.,su;-.tIJn and the cozaoditY cost have increased
draaaticaliy. lour pr.••rata share cf this inct•2ase is 14. 35 pet• :oath for a total
water pass thru of ;S. ;5.
The cost for• du:p fres will increase an additional S1. !%3 for a total pass thru of
The ;.er :it to :~irate fee this year remained the saae. Adjusting last year' s J
cost for Cri results in a 2rorata decrease of S . ��1 for a total Govetnrent fees pass c
thr'a of S. x2. T:{e aro;frty taxi as:2sslir"S will t'2:din at Si. 2. �Orsv
Y:ur dab: t{ir::yn, 0-re=tive :an..:ary 1, 1794 will be 61::.54 and will b2 listed
2 al'.it el'• On "0{:r' r'?::: SL.ot2s2nt and wi 11 not •be subject to CRI increases. All of
the above pass thrus reflect actual cost incl eases and do NOT include utilities and
ot,Aer• charges bii:Ad d:rectiy to you. tocti.:entatlon for the pass tfirris is available
at the park office.
This notice applies to all residents under the MelogggM provisions of the San
Luis Cbispu Rent Control Ordinance. The Base Rent uaecses eff2eti•:e for January 1,
:954 and will r2:ain so t.`.r'uu5h ;ec2::cet x1, . 1:9+.
Sincer•el;+,
Pat Flemin:,
Manager_
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
December 22, 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Jorgensen
5
SUBJECT: Mobile HoMe Ren'- stabilization
I have reviewed the attached letter dated December 7, 1993 from
Leola Rubcttom, which asserts that the automatic rent adjustments
allowed by Municipal Code Section 5.44 . 60 (E) [�.44 :C6O (E) ) are in
conflict with the mobile 'H=e Residency Law, and therefore invalid.
COrCLUSIC24
Municipal Code section 5. 44 . 060 (E) is nct in conflict with the
Mobile 'Fore Residency Law and is a valid subject of nnunicipal
regulation.
ANALYSIS
It is correct that the 1•:•ebile Hose Residency Law, Civil Code
Section 793. 31, recjires 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. Greccry v. City of San Juan Camistraro, 142 CA3d 72,
191 Cal .R_tr. 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 thei•ssue raised by Leola's letter is
Karrin v. Ocean-Aire Mobile Home Estates, 1 Cal.App.4th 1066, 2
Cal.Rptr.2d 581 (1591) . 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.
ATTr cx;ENT 2
r
City Council
December 22, 1993
Page Two
The San Luis Obispo 1'obile 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 space rent and
are not a separate fee, charge, or assessment. Under this
situation, it appears clear that the San Luis Obispo Mobile Home
Rent Stabilization ordinance is valid under the Karrin decision.
(In addition, the 60 day notice of rent increase provided to the
tenants of Cree side mobile Home Community appears to meet the
requirea:ents 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 question raised.
If you have further questions. or comments, please feel free to
contact ne at your convenience.
JGJ/sw
attach.
cc: Leola Rubottom
Pat Fleming
John Dunn
- r
San L, ;,, Obi.drov, Cr1
Uccc^!Ls 7, ;SSj
/'ono,-able i"rQYvr IS4.1=111 a�G 1�1"Jt CJunCtt I"er7J'v:d J
San L.Le Obispo, CA
:Te: %he j,Uej=t pa.4d thrvu�.=� be.un tv .he base rent in
Creertd ' ,�)vbilph.rre �a,-.h
✓'t hae bee- broLcrht to rit attention j j Section 5.44.60,
vL the San 06c.epo'.a Ao6i Zehv-.z 1?e eu'enc Lery i,e in dLect con
u:h the Catq/onni a Avbi t eliomz ;?e.i AqCY [_v.
�� :�.� "G" vZ Section 5.4-x.60 cZ the Sart Luis r)o6iCeltvme i?zei:enc�e
L e.=tee, "Sxce oaf t naj be �;x+e;1 a��oted baeed vn .inc;ecre�o
r
4,1 ezav:de !��c ctramvn c:ea iGi:iee, neva jvvervrzrzt • -'ed ee:vices,
Sao de vices end ceb a = evkivn L e,:e applicable."
TIM State ilob-ZL ome 1 X8.43 Section N 44,4P
'iv'Fr.P—ver a ameozre [ [A •:e4pondLte yr z^d, Jr e�.eL :1L u•j1.LL.3� GL:vi.CP,
r..anayenelr.t 4haU dLwdo4e to 44X Arev:nez be-'u,-.e ter�r^.cf, u=.ereveA t".e
A,o= l::rran'd netea a.Lw .ae:.euree }ee va el -' '-' r-f cvrmon c:ea �tcil.i.tize,
yr e��ire-t, J-7 tor- w.in7 //Lie 6e .han Ced 5� p°r`'R :1te v-e-
LCrT.cJC LZ t:h^..j. -Cr: ;)n C`C :112 ;e• vize tJ iht Ccamon QAeLG yr dcac:ontirr ,e
ing the nezoza on the �a:u.'CJu':�Jt4 d[.te �Jr 'j ae J� .'...e CU^.^.vn C:C2 l
j and s"1iDment."
,f,Z Q'�J'�'"n tJ CJl.�ec.a.{rlg .L.LI' 'n i.k20d •t'vlJtij.''r/j UUJI r'a^.+:.Z Jitter t4 nu::, j04/Li
tJ aid tRFde pae4 thrvu�hd tU .jhe bQ.ee ra`13t. T.hLi 2Ul 6uJYJ ajhe iRue:z22
rent >l etv be tid ne_, ba,ee �o.: catca ^j ' ne v.r. .:eLt berir✓r1n�z rent Wiz.
7; .31 yr `,rte State i;v511�.4re ;Zuir'Pnc�c Lu dtujed, "� .hv.-evrren o.irll ��t
Se chces+ a !oon v;hen ;hen rent, ,j j and ivlcil.�er.'rL r.evovnablz
. . �.. "
G1tGlt.;ee �tM dffa vLL..:O uCat.,j[J.C.C�1 rel,r.fr.C+..
%he pa.ed fhrvunrd Lave bee- i.GL •• dine :heiu inception accvri!i.V tv v rt
pve,P.w:n- State Ptvbi2&Aurne Re.44eenc f Lay.
1icrv.-.d V to '"weat'd A'nno4a.-e-d Ca�a Code CJ,00jr.;u:iJn, :ir~irle 6,
Section 51 " jd.�:a taw 44 jve,.cr e4 maniea; a t! 04 cz;1 g
We are cd the frvn. ,"a .c and :he Council mamba:a 4 :he ci,t f v� San
Lii.d 06th p�o de l e-a drat=%1- or Ser...tJn 5.44.60 parapwpA „�•, ,'.4.:t l,e
illegat ace to Orae S" j i7vbiLeh=e ^` .
T*ALV you in advance rvz :out cond4=44"ion.
Sin ez
Leola ,?u6vt4aa
- I
ETING AGENDA
ITEM #. .
San�L-uis Ob Opo, CA
Novemben 15, 1994 _
Hononab& Mayon, %eg, Tinnand and Councit Membe�w u�" Jan Luih O&Apo
We ,reapeGtAdtly Ae$ueot you to c/uuzge (V Section of 5.44.060 to
amend the city Mobi2e1wr4e Yie/7t Stab.i Giption.Ordinance by changing
the mond expenve to nateo u4eit it appewc6 in thio eecti.on.
ALAo, ptenoe add the mv", oa decaeaae, a4te& the woad irwjwaae
idwre it -co used in thi e .eecti.on.
/Regarding the 6entence, ,"Notice 0� the 4ncneace on de Aeaoe ehatt be
-uz aAitng and eha.0 be given ae regained by g Lam no Lean than sixty
&V6 pnia c to any .euch inaceave on dec cease be-'w eAecti,ve." TLeaee
change the mond ix� to a zetr dap as the taw hao changed.
Reopeci fu t y submitted,
Leo-Ca Ylubott=
3960 So. Niguena, Space. 21
San Luio Obispo, (-A 93401
10EL ❑ CD7DM
„I CC ❑ FIN[J FIR
�.r- RNEY ❑ Psi;D;;" �1
G4 iU RMi ❑ CHP
Cl N4G.vTTF-Ahi 0 RE.:3DEi3
❑ :'rli:i D!�
i -mrnazimm.,
RECEIVE®
NOV 1 0 1994
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA