HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/1995, 1 - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT. NSI MEETING GATE:
ulti1lViiIW����ull l�`�� Clty of SAn It OBISPO ITEM NM NUMB-21-95
ER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNEYi�
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILE HOME PARR
RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING
AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT.
CAO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
RECOMMENDATION: 5.44.060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME PARR RENT
STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC
ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT TO MARE 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 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 the Council for further deliberation.
JGJ/sw
Attachment: 12/6/94 Agenda Report
/-1
MEETING DATE:
wNl�III
city Q f Sal 1 luis oBi1216194
�` 7po ITEM NUMBER: /
MIMM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: JEFFREY G. JORGENSEN, CITY ATTORNE
SUBJECT: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MOBILEIL PARR
RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING
AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT.
CAO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
RECOMMENDATION: 5.44.060 (E) OF THE MOBILE HOME PARR RENT
STABILIZATION ORDINANCE CONCERNING AUTOMATIC
ADJUSTMENTS TO RENT TO MARE 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 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 Section,
expenses shall exclude capital improvements and ongoing
maintenance costs.
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. (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 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 ,
Exhibit A ` �'
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
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 Luis Obispo
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Space rent may be automatically adjusted based on
increases ar. decreas; s,.._ in expenses for common area
utilities, new government-mandated services, garbage
service and cable television, where applicable.iiex nuc 'rt
ca t z�npray.. .. ax oxggaxag aaint nance costs. The
space rent may be adjusted by' dividing tYie '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 y ninety days prior to
..............
any such increase `< 'ecrae being effective. The
notice shall state the 'amount`'of the rent increase `ar
the new space rent, the amount of the total
ncreasea "de 'eas in expenses and the nature of the
expense.
... copy"6f` 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 a,.: . de:'d based
on this section. There shall only be one such increase
.. ri ee a s'e 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 ,
Exhibit t B
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
f - 7
San Lucia Obcapo, CA
Novemben 15, 1994
Hononab.Ce Mayon, %eq. /OZ%naAd and Count i.L Memben4 San Lui,o Ob.i apo
We neap ne�ueat you to change. (v Sec_tion. o� 5.44.CbO to
amend #heed l►)ob:thage rent Stab.iLL tion Ondiuiance by chmVi
the uvnd expense %to Ante o uhen it appevw in thi.a section.
Alco, pteaae add the a onL, on decneaae, 4te4 the u,vnd inrnea,6e
edtene it " ueed in thio aeetivn.
RegandLV the sentence, ."Notice oiC the inaceaae on decaeaee eha L be
in an ting and ahatL be given as sequined by lou, no Leen than six u
y6 ption to any euch incneaae at decneaae been¢ efeLtive." TLeaee
change the u,vnd aixt to nLw4 saga ae the Lau hae changed.
Ruparf� submitted,
i
LevLa Rubottvm
3960 So. Higuena, S ce 21
San Luis 06i4po, r,�9j4o1
Exhibit C
Ism b4 =T EFING DE:
IF@I� City o� Sall„ Luis OBIf Spo ITEM 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
41 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)
Exhibit D /
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
October 10, 1994
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Jorgensen
SUBJECT: Request to Amen 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 oAr decfi:goes in expenses tes 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
yn:.:w.fgr:'�W.MVOtl'^yC.*•^...rnw `N`^�"...]`::w.v
g cAecrease in any such expenses a. es incurred during a
twelve-month period by twelve, lessl'A 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
;cw.w.+.:..x.A:.;.3
decrease 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.
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 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 inar tes 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
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
i 3
NA
RECEIVED
CITY COUNCIL
SAN Ij!Ie O61SP0.CP
C
September 12, 1994
Sore Lui4 Obiepo, CW
lona mbLe i'!JVor 9e$ PZvwied and C4 Courtci.l %fe�bene v�
Sane Lui.e 06iepo, CA
de: Chan7ea n az Od in the =.v2 .V in the Cj:4 oA San Lui4 Obi_opo'e
i7vbi,Cehome p Aidencf Lam.
.7t hae been btouyht to mu atten:lvn that the vvndivue in Section vA
$.44.Q6o neede to be chanried to more clea&bj de4ine the in4erativn 01 the
Otd i tce.
%he evad "exoeneee" cvudd en,jxm Repai u that ane not Le�a4 An a
pante ovWA to pane thnmfh. The wood "nate" morte c[earLch �eee the
ZWAeaoee in &Uilliu, new yvvex=ent-manrY.ated ,6ertvicee, Yianba7e
eeavice and cabLe televz6.Lvn. These coot 0 ane i On11� by and amounts
ane dete&mined by "tate".
fvt .ax� 'Space tent maybe autwnat cav# adiL t-, baeed on incAeaeee,
(;hw odd theAA=e ((" decneaeea)J in the ezoe+cee (CAanrye the ux0,72
ezpeneee to (�AatecamIon area utcL,iti.ea, new jvvennment-
inandatvd eertviCW Q�a9 eetvi.c:e and cable televiaivn, u,Aene apaLicabLe.
the apace tart may be eba &vi,dinrq the tv:aL incAeaee (a�d the
phraee f tam deamwe JJ Zn ouch ezpPneee ( chan>ye thin to ((Aate)) in-
avveed &wjig a tur-tve"manth. pe& ad bi t,e,e(velr ,lege .he percentage in
the C.YJ. index PA the 4av-Lve-morpd
h pe&Z .
We a u Ld appteriate . it, i_/ etou wad act on thio ad noun as pveai.Re.
SsnceeeLg,
Leola %hotlm _
3960 South Higuma, Space 21
San Lui.e 06ZOOJ CA 93401
1- 13
<EC, EIVED
CITY COUNCIL Septenber 12, 1994
CAN 1.11!1; CRISM cr
M: Honorable Mayor Peg Pinard of San Luis Obispo _
Council Manbers:
Bill RoalTmn
Allen Settle
Penny Kappa
Dave Rarero
SUBJECT: SECTI(i (E) of San Luis ebispo City Rent Ordinance, 5.44.060
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
A great number of Iaguna 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. To add "decrease" to line six (6) to read, "total increase or decrease".
Also change "expenses" to read "rates" in line six (6) of Secttor
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 a mpan{es 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 awmer 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 ronth in rents
charged for mobile hares receiving identical services here in this park.
After numerous sales involving 10% increases in mobile hone rents, we feel
confident that the difference between the highest and lovst rents in
the park is considerably greater-at.thi.s point in time.
Budgets based on fixed incoms cannot cwpe with constant assaults,
and certainly should not be affected by nonlegal 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.
vXsubmitted,
x .,t.0d-���
'Sill "and tty Hem
1860 Thelma Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
l
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
May 18, 1994
TO: City Council
PROM: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney L
SUBJECT: Mobile Horse Park Rent Stabilization
Automatic Adjustments Pursuant -to 5.44. 060 (-7)
At the April 19, 1994 City Council meeting, the attached
cor:,-.,unication 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 con.mon area utilities, new government-
mandated services, garbage service and cable television. . . . " The
apparent reason given for this request is that the owner of
Creekside Mcbile Ho-e Park has offered long term leases which do
not include automatic adjustrzents as set forth in 5. 44 . 060 (.) . 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 3,obile
::o-,.e Residency Law (Civil Code § 798. 31) was submitted in December,
1993 . (Attached for your information is the analysis of that
previous correspondence. )
COACLUSIODI
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) , 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 6 5.44. 060 (E) ?
_- Tke l',obile Hose 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
I-/5
by majority vote (5 5.44 . 141) . Therefore, the cit
ecit t choose learly
to do
has the authority to delete § 5. 44 . 060 (E) should
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 3erkelev, 17 Ca1 . 3d 129 (1976) ; Car on 14obile Hone Park
Owners As_Coc v City of Carson, 35 Ca1. 3d 184 (1983) ;
Palos Verde
Shores mobile Estates Ltd v Citv of Ics Angeles, 142 984)Cal. Pest
362 (1983) ; Fisher v City of 3erkelev, 37 Ca1. 3d 644 (1984) ;
}�ollv�.00d Concerned Citizens v City of West Hollywood, 232
Cal.App.3d 486 (1991) . While no case hos concretely defined 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 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. 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
darage 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 repair, maintenance, insurance, -
utilities, employee services, additional
amenities, and other costs of operation, and
to receive a fair return on their investment.,'
(g 5.44 . 010(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
On increase on the grounds the annual increase is not sufficient to
2
�_AV
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-ment.
(i 5,44 . 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 cor.,plex 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 for-mal
application process set forth in Section 5. 44. 070. I am unaware
of any foal rent adjustment hearings having been held by the City
since the rent stabilization ordinance was adopted in 1983 . 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 :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
crivate, 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
ten lease, but has a right to, and if such a lease otherwise
complies with the provisions of Civil Code § 793. 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- bermfit of a
lease as opposed to the Rent Stabilization ordinance. on the other
hand, a tenant is not required to enter into a long tern, 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
OTdinance to delete automatic adjustments would essentially
I3
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.
RECOu.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. " Issues which might properly support
such a deletion wouldinclude 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 'r'cssli
Attachments:
1. Leola Rubottom Letter, dated April 181 1994
2 . Jeff Jorgensen Nemo, dated December 22, 1993
3 . California Civil Code § 798. 15, et sea.
4
. r
f!ow.able Maya% 'i�ir.rc--d C-rd C,:✓ Counc-it or
San Luis Ubcapv, C-1
Pe: the ,'.lawaiko beim a?&Jn tv the bane rent cn
:.eehoide i!lvbiletv.:.e �cr..4
r'ccu:.dinz to a "Six,:,--f)ay i'atke. vt a Ant 9nc.;eiwe doted Oct. 23f* 1993,
C,wpvlui a -zer.j" ;iut have not a.c lned leaoca t::i a have ;he ;C193
;&;vuiL Li.oted oeparsteL;t on the rent orate girt mul rriLC be cre.Cuded
in a bane
%he x--44 LL"oui,J6 4fit �:e L 4'ed cad etc:ive Ja,�ucL;,t 1, i•9�4
based an `ie coot OIL ca=on. a.:ea la'jz ,jg ) new, goverruzent a%-l=led
,e„vcr�e, rcrbafe e.:vire, etc. to t.Le penh v ,:Lc.
%he -.w ;ff4 base cert coreieted vL ;t.e ca-.-eat tent in 1993 .lue
ir.G:ecze ;:f 2;n u/d the u::✓.err 1993 pa-66
j�,e ;Cr04 ,',4vee nvt vn leaeee, ui.GL be bused on a neu
r,G^t LZp
.2 PtU4 any new pcee ;lirvui&fs.
;i1e ,Eep 1/. :.e Uelt tAe daC i4.n v! ��.� oec�.is+n yr 5.44.CbU yr
:4e ,rvbl.Ce4vwe /lent S..abcLcaatr-sn Jrdyy,.e r San Luce ilbi,epv that
auo=e ro*va thZ4 di4c+ ..vz;tont p:.ac:.i.cz.
Leo.[a i?ubv;taa
396-0 Soutk llilrueria, Space 21
San Luigi Obi.epo, C4 93401
rmtooed: Sixtl Day Notice yr i?ent rva thvoe not wz leroee.
S;x4 llat /Vatire yr 1?Fr+t 9nc.-mue roa throe on leww-
ATTACI-:.SE..NT 1 �
Space: Clow
C EEI%S]C•E 1-10BILEHOY.E COMINU I TY
�;e3 1z. sicuEnA ST=EET
S;II.LUIS OBISPOi Ca 9's4u1
CctD�?i• ,'l, i543
SIXTY iAy ''1071ICE OF RENT INCREASE
Deal' FeSider.t :
The Lease rrovi=es for rz:'ts to be adjust Ed annually on ?anuary 1st. This letter
is nDtiee cf ; Jch adjvst:ent, Fro.1 a•Jg'Jst, 199 to aKuy'Jst, 1993 the Cons'J:e+• Price
increase.
j-dzx d(.'fli•-able tG the LadS2 :Dv'd frva 4, 4. 1 til i"2..9 Mhich is a 2. eY%
Thet'2fGi'2, ji•:l• r:T.t :illi r2 ir.Cl'eai23
*y S5. 47 to sci879.
T},! _ens. �•srt`.,1• pr:.yidaS fii• ;ass thi 's ;= costs i elated directly to the par
CGstS a5 Z..I'tuar adjJsted foe` lniiatiOn. Ii:lae C9St5 incl�d2wat.E1'lttl•aShSZnyi'n.2r.L
services and fees, Which this •pea'• affzeti electricity, 3 + dj,sted fc,• the CPT-
as
g0V21'nSB.'.t' feel. All •edS2S ar.d dicreasis listed inave been d '
Palk use of eleeti•icity `as rieas slightly
and the coomodity •cost has again
risen', res'.iiti'g it a., .'%eI'all increase, iLeY'eTGi'B, last Year' s poSS th1':1 of
::ill ineieas2 by s, =5 to sE.51.
1r'hiie ti-e Cost of ;a5 has increased this year, the park' s eonsu:ption of ;as to
lent ere i'eCl'Esti0n �uildin�, sal:zing pool a:.t1 spa has again decl•eas-i— YG'JI` ;l'GI•dtd
bare of this decrease is a s I.E4 pEr :Gatti reduction for a new pass thl'L Of $" [7.
iAis Deet' GCth watel` CG'SJ:�tiJn and , tra' CO:aodity cost have inel•eased
di•a:atieal]y. Your p.—mrata share of this increase is 14. 35 per :oath fel• a total
water pass thru of Mic.
Ire cost fDi• dura fres will increase an additional $1. 13 fora total pass ttir'J cf
s";•o. T`a ;.2r:it to :perate fee t`is year remained the size. Adj'Jsting last yaa+•' s
cost for C?I rei':lts in a prorata decrease of S . 31 for a total 5ovel•n:Er.t fens ;ass c
Drs✓
th.,•'1 of S, 3F. The pro;Eity tax aSS2SiRents rill 1'2:dln at 51. �•i. G�
t + 19?; will be 113. 54 and will be ] is`ed f
YG'Jr pass thr::yh, :::eC 1�! :a..vary ., Pill of
"
S ^arlt EI -O� "D':�• ,•e�: 5:atdiant and +.Sil not 'bC SViI •ect to CPI 1nCreaSde,
the above pass thrvs reflect acteal Coss incYeases and do NOT inel'Jde utilities and
Gti7ej` Chal'gas iD:1.2d d:."sCtly UyD'J• i.'ac%zentataon foi` t::2 p„SS thi''Js 15 oval:3b12
at the park office.
This notice applies to ail residents under the Momcpa2gipl'uvisiDns of the =an
Luis Obispo Rent CJntro'& Ordinance. .he Base Senti721•G725 effeCti•re� f01• Jan'Jdi'y 11
;
19^M And Mi 11 re:a1n 3 t.`.i'Guyh 71"c:.:el• rl, 1 �•
Si.1cerely,
Pat Fieoino,
Manager_
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Dece, er 22, 1993
To: City Council
FROM: Jeff Jorgensen
5
Sv37ECT: mobile Home Rent Stabilization
I have reviewed the attached letter dated December 7, 1993 from
L-eola R1::.C1%,to7, which asserts that the au-olat?c rent adjliS%Tents
allowed by Municipal Code Section 5 . 44 . 60 (E) (5. 44 :C60 (-7) ) are in
conflict with the Mobile *Hc-e Residency Law, and therefore invalid.
CON CLUSICH
Municipal Cede Section 5. 44 . 060 (7-) is nct in conflict with the
1•.obile r.-o-_e -esidency Law and is a valid subject of -.unici=al
regulation.
PwALYSIS
It is correct that the Mobile Fore Residency Law, Civil Code
Section 793. 31, rec.2ires 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 CAM 72 ,
191 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1933) . 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, 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 prc•,rides 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
)seen valid.
•
-a
.4TTAcKmENT 2 �
City Council
December 22, 1993
Page Tido
The San Luis Obispo Mobile come Rent Stabilization Ordinance is
significantly different from the Oxnard ordinance which was
invalidated in (arrin. The adjustments permitted under
ce rent Sad
Luis Obispo ordinance are specifically included in c.D_
are not a separate fee, charge, or this
r assessment. Un
situation, it appears clear that the San Luis Obispo Mobile gone
Rent Stabilization ordinance is valid under the Karrin decision.
(In addition, the 60 day notice of rent increase provided to the
tenants cf Cree+side Mobile FOme Community appears to neet the
requirements of our ordinance as to form and effect. )
Finally, the reference to Civil Code Section 798 ..43 (b) does nct
armear to be relevant or related to the question raised.
If you have f'�rther questions or coms.ents, please feel free to
contact -, a at your convenience.
JGJ/sa
attach.
cc: Leola RLbottom
'rat Fleming
John Dunn
6,
L��ccs�z.z 7, %99j
ieorar._ble i!;cYL:Z PLi/=,2 aLdVt�1 CJL"1G1 C ,„Er�'v.� Jr
San L-, •d 06L,po, Cr1
,
^e: %he iLLer.L pa.:d ;vu�.=e bei to Gat bcae renes in
Cr.2e,�td' Iilef' �
Jfe � � G.t P1J1vR ti ,1 Section 5.44.60, par. Y:�7..(i.
(.
v� GI a San 06i.epo'4 invb-Uehvrz Redi✓-&wif L= i4 to
u:h Gie � i7vbt.le�Cxe .?e:i�e.� L^u.
U., Feaz:on j. .3.=.e ante LuiA
b'e ba..ed on ,i.aG:e=ee.�
f t 'aJ'.62 �•'/L CJ—UR G:eZ '4Uj •Y1, rw jover.-Ime t r • •,1ed 'de wir-U,
jz'•der,Yice God r=e12 1 eYL:1:)n v�:e ep,_l .lep. ,
7Ae CG[i!,:•:-i.a .S.f..^�st LMJ�1.�2L Jae 144 JO LJ :rV. r""CC.i
MAR-21-95 TUE 15:00 ECC I.EGAL DEPT FAX N0, 502742761 P. 02
McETIN
GENDA
MATE 121-t TEM 0.
NCIL OJ
O
ELLENBURG Wim„ O
J._.".EY ❑
CAPITAL W C�R��G ❑
❑ OGW TEAM O CORPORATION ❑ C READ FILE ❑W ❑ PMarch 21, 1995
Via Fax and U.S. Mail
NAIILINAL HEALN-VARTERS
St?u SW MAid.Udl,Slide 700
I1,aIL.nd,0r„*.„ 472171 City Council RECEIVE- 0
City of San Luis Obispo
TArrhnn,4411274 2-11n 990 Palm Street M Q 4 2 1 1995
PO Box 8100
ta.,unsle 5W/:.'4-S.WJu San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403-8100 CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
Re: Proposed Changes to Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance
INVRSTMrtJT TVAII' r..0FFIi F.
w,.hlnrL.m,UA- Dear Honorable Council Members:
Ellenburg Capital Corporation is the general partner of the limited partnership
1,1,,.1;7, OPULATIUNS UF11Ck which owns Laguna Lake Mobile Home Park. The ownership of the park changed
Mo,,a ", earlier this year.
This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed modifications to
I AST I I. , ITRATION-;014:10- Chapter 5.44.060(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 incieases 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 rental
MAR-21-95 TUE 15:01 ECC 1 EGAL DEPT FAX N0. 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 will 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 will 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 be 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.
MPR-21-95 TUE 15:02 ECC LEGAL DEPT FAX N0, 5032742761 P, 04
We strongly oppose the proposed modifications to the ordinance and urge the Council to
decline the proposed changes.
Sincerely,
Matthew Cie rle
Associate Genera Counsel
Ellenburg Capital Corporation
MC:st
t
MEE)NG AGENDA
DATE ITEM #.r
WMA
.Arrl��
RA ❑]CHIEF
❑ DIM
'AC ❑ FIREFOF.S'I'ERNat)BILEFID%IF. P.%RA0%%NERS&SSUC I VI'10] TTORNEY ❑RECEIVED `1oLERKiORUO ❑ HF❑ M(3Wr TEAM ❑MAR 1 6 1995 ❑ c FIIE ❑❑
CITY COUNCIL
I rue n91QPO. .
March 10, 1995
Allen Settle - Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
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 5.44.060 (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 'a
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 :1719 Fax 805 .245.3331
® 1211
Surely an analysis burdened with such responses from the
city attorney should be viewed with great caution.
We agree with the city's analysis. The proposed changes can
only serve to introduce massive confusion into an aspect of
the rent control ordinance void of any interpretive
difficulties. Changing the word "expenses" to "rates" would
make the appropriate costs very difficult if not impossible
to calculate. The lack of an understandable mathematical
formula to calculate such charges is reason enough to
dissuade such a change. It is imperative that this section
be easily understood by all parties affected. The last
thing the ordinance (and the city) needs is increased
complexity.
Secondly, any changes to this section of the ordinance can
only result in confusion in relating to other definitions
applying to Capital Improvements, Rehabilitation Expenses,
and Additional Rent. Surely there are no perceived benefits
to outweigh the added complexity and procedural conflict
which will arise from confusing the application of these
already defined terms.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the proposed changes would
virtually eliminate incentive for homeowners to practice
utility conservation. By removing resident responsibility
for paying for increased utility consumption, especially
water, the city discriminates against all other utility
users in the city. Individual homeowners must remain
responsible for the effective conservation of natural
resources. This should be reason enough to deny the
proposed changes. Conversely, making park owners
responsible for residents unchecked use of utilities would
have profound and measurable impact on the "fair return on
investment" guaranteed by the ordinance.
The I.ruly appropriate position on this issue is for the
council to take no action and maintain the ordinance as
originally adopted by the voters in 1988. There is simply
no logical, political or administrative reason to continue
tampering with the voter-approved ordinance that has
functioned fairly and adequately for several years.
Ve tr y yours,
Mr. David Evans
Regional Representative
DE: je
cc: City Councilmembers
I
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 adoption .
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.
Why 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.
f _ Space: 003
CREEKSIDE MOBILEHOME COMMUNITY
3960 S. HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
September 309 1994
NINETY DAY NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE
Dear Resident :
City of San Luis Obispo Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization
Ordinance, Chapter 5. 44 allows for rents to be adjusted annually.
This letter is notice of such adjustment. From August, 1993 to
August, 1994 the Consumer Price Index moved from 442. 8 to 449. 2 which
is a 1. 4% increase. Therefore, your- current rent will be increased by
$4. 11 which is the increase in the CPI.
In addition, Section 5. 44. 0609 Paragraph E. allows "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". In addition, Section
5. 44. 060, Paragraph E. further states, "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. " The additional park
costs under this section are as follows:
Park cost for water increased by $6; 782. 22.
Park cost for dump fees increased by $1, 099. 42.
Your proportional share of this increase, effective January 11
1995 will be $3. 22 and will be listed separately on your rent
statement. The above increase reflects actual park cost increases and
does NOT include utilities and other charges billed directly to you.
Documentation is available at the park office.
This Notice applies to all residents subject to the provisions of
the San Luis Obispo Ordinance. Your new 1995 base rent, which
consists of your current rent and the. CPI increase will be $297. 76.
This change becomes effective January 1, 1995 and will remain so
through December 31, 1995.
Sincerely,
Pat Fleming,
Manager 0 C(2cye^,Se �er e/e��y,crtV J- 9¢ 5 far
C-4 17)
Space: 017
CREEKSIDE�MOBILEhGME COMmUNITY
3960 S. HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
September 30, 1994
NINETY 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. From August, 1993 to August, 1994 the Consumer Price
Index applicable to the Lease moved from 442.8 to 449. 2 which is a 1.4% increase.
Therefore, your rent will be increased by $3.90 to la-SZ-69.
The Lease further provides for additional rent for costs related directly to the
park as further adjusted for inflation. These costs include utilitiest government
services and fees, which this year affects electricity, gas, water, trash and
government fees. All increases and decreases listed have been adjusted for the CPI.
The change to the Mobilehome Residency Law, requiring a ninety (90) day notice of rent
increase has caused us to adjust the comparison period to August through July.
Park use of electricity has decreased, resulting in an overall cost decrease.
Therefore, last year' s additional rent of ic.cl will decrease by $.53 to 31.643.
While the cost of gas has increased this year, the park' s consumption of gas to
heat the recreation building, swimming pool and spa has again decreased. Your prorata
share of this decrease is a i . 16 per month reduction fur new additional rentp of
$2. 11.
This year the cost of water has increased substantially again. Your prorata
share of this increase is $2.63 per month for total additional rent for- water of
38.29.
The cost for dump fees will increase an additional i. 16 for a total of 32.E.R.
The permit to operate fee this year remained the same. Adjusting last year' s cost fur
CPI results in a prorata decrease of 3 .01 for a total of 3.31. Although property
taxes again increased, we will not be using this increase. Your additional rent for
property taxes will remain at 11.02:
Your additional rent, effective January 19 1995 will be $15.63 and will be listed
separately an your rent statement and will not be subject to CPI increases. All of
the above pass thrus reflect actual cost increases and do NOT include utilities ar,�
other charges billed directly to you. Documentation for the additional rent i.s
available at the park office.
This notice applies to all residents under the exemption provisions of the San
Luis Obispo Rent Control Ordinance. The Base Rent becomes effective January 1, 1995
and will remain so through December 319 1995.
Sincerely,
Pat Fleming,
Manager
PARKOMER ENDORS�T
r
As a Mobilehome lark Owner in the City of San Luis Obispo I
am opposed to the constant tampering with the Rent Control
Ordinance. The constant changea sgue,11ted bey certain
nt
individuals, including those currey UrI for review gn
March 21# 1995 are not necesrsary, hereby, endorse and
stand behind the letter provided by Mr. Daviiij Evans of the
Western Mobilehome Parkowners Association.
Thank You for you consideration.
bate 1 5( -ZA
gnature
4rwaR L-�1�
PARKQMER ENDORSEMENT
As a Mobilehome Park Owner in the City of San Luis Obispo i
am opposed to the constant tampering with the Rent Control
Ordinance. The constant changes requested by certain
individuals, including those currently up for review on
Maroh 21, 1995 are not necessary. We hereby, endorse and
stand behind the letter provided by Mr. David Evans of the
Western Mobilehome Pa.rkowne.rs Association.
Thank you for you consideration.
Date: A9u1-
Signature
-I-
PARKOWNER ENDORSEMENT
H
As a, Mobilehome Park Owner in the City of San Luis Obispo I
am opposed to the constant tampering with the Rent Control
Ordinance. The constant 'changes requested by certain
individuals, including those currently up for review on
March 21, 1995 are not neces:3ary. We !hereby, endorse and
stand behind the letter provided by Mr.' David Evans of the
Wedtern Mobilehome Parkowners Associatioh.
i
Thank you for you consideration.
Date;'
■r-
t; i_I B H t i LI t 1 i I t I 1_I _'i r, 4 ! '.' 1 .:0 1
PARKOWNER ENDORSEMENT
As a Mobilehome Park Owner in the City of Sari Luis Obispo I
am apposed to the constant tampering with the Rent Control
,.Ordinance. The constant changes requested by certain
individuals, including those currently up°for review on
March 21, 1995 are not necessary.' We hereby, endorse and
stand behind the letter provided by Mr. David Evans of the
Western Mobilehome.Parkowners Association..
Thank you for you consideration.
Date:
rk
PARKOWNER ENDORSEMENT.
As a Mobilehome Park Owner in the City of San Luis Obispo I
am opposed to the constant tampering with the Rent Control
Ordinance. The constant changes requested by certain
individuals, including those currently up for review on
March 21, 1995 are not necessary: We hereby, endorse and
stand behind the letter provided by Mr. David Evans of the
Western Mobilehome Parkowners Association.
Thank you for you consideration.
Date: d
Par
PARKOWNER ENDORSEMENT
As a Mobilehome Park Owner in the City of San Luis Obispo I
am opposed to the constant tampering with the Rent Control
Ordinance. The constant changes requested by certain
individuals, including those currently up for review on
March 21, 1995 are not necessary. We hereby, endorse and
stand behind the letter provided by Mr. David Evans of the
Western Mobilehome Parkowners Association.
Thank you for you consideration.
Date:
Park
PARKOWNER ENDORSEMENT.
As a Mobilehome Park Owner in the City of San Luis Obispo I
am opposed to the constant tampering with the Rent Control
Ordinance. The constant changes requested by certain
individuals, including those currently up for review on
March 21, 1995 are not necessary: We hereby, endorse and
stand behind the letter provided by Mr. David Evans of the
Western Mobilehome Parkowners Association.
Thank you for you consideration.
Date:
�(O
Paw
Park