Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7b - Introduce An Ordinance Amending Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization SLOMC Chapter 5.44 Item 7b Department: Attorney Cost Center: 1501 For Agenda of: 8/18/2026 Placement: Public Hearing Estimated Time: 60 Minutes FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Prepared By: Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, SLOMC CHAPTER 5.44 RECOMMENDATION Introduce a draft Ordinance Amendment entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Amending Chapter 5.44, Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, to apply restrictions on space rent increase upon transfer (5.44.060(C)) to certain existing long-term leases and to require park owners/operators to provide notice to tenants. (5.44.143)” Attachment A POLICY CONTEXT Chapter 5.44 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates maximum space rent increases in mobile home parks. Until January 1, 2025, state law required local ordinances to exempt long-term leases from their mobile home rent control ordinances. As permitted by Assembly Bill 2782, the City removed the long-term lease exemption from its Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHPRSO) on June 2, 2026, with the ordinance becoming effective July 2, 2026. DISCUSSION Background The City first enacted mobile home park rent stabilization in 1981 to control the allowable increases for space rent in a mobile home park, as those terms are defined in SLOMC 5.44.020. The Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHPRSO or RSO) has been amended twelve times, most recently in June 2026. Mobile home parks in California are also subject to the state Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL.) The MRL is not a rent stabilization ordinance. However, a prior provision of the MRL affected rent stabilization in that it mandated exemption of all long-term leases from local rent stabilization ordinances (RSOs.) This meant that, if a local jurisdiction had an RSO, the jurisdiction was required to exempt leases longer than 12 months in duration from the protections of the RSO. (Civ. Code §798.17.) In 2020, this section of the MRL Page 319 of 357 Item 7b was modified dramatically by Assembly Bill 2782. AB 2782, which went into effect on January 1, 2021, retroactively made an exception to the long-term lease exemption requirement for mobile home space leases entered into between February 13, 2020, and December 31, 2020, and then repealed the state law exemption requirement entirely on January 1, 2025. The effect of AB 2782 was to eliminate, as of January 1, 2025, the state -mandated requirement that long-term leases be excluded from any local mobile home park RSOs. In response to this change in state law, and to bring long-term mobile home park residents within the protections of the MHPRSO, the City eliminated the long-term lease exemption from the MHPRSO on June 2, 2026, with adoption of Ordinance No. 1757. This change went into effect on July 2, 2026. Following adoption of Ordinance No. 1757, the City received correspondence from mobile home park tenant advocates and park owner representatives requesting clarification on the “retroactive” effect of the Ordinance; that is, whether long-term leases in existence as of July 2, 2026, remained exempt from the MHPRSO or were now subject to its protections going forward. (Attachment B.) In a letter dated June 1, 2026, legal counsel representing South Peak, a mobile home park within the City, asserted that application of the Ordinance to existing long-term leases would violate the Contracts and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Correspondence from a tenant advocate, on the other hand, indicated that failure to extend the protections of the MHPRSO to existing long - term leases would violate state law (AB 2782.) In response to these conflicting assertions, the Council met in closed session on June 16th and again on July 21st to confer with legal counsel regarding potential exposure to litigation related to the City’s potential application of Ordinance No. 1757 to existing leases. Following those discussions, staff is bringing forward a further amendment to the MHPRSO that would clarify that certain existing long- term leases, regardless of execution date, are subject to the provision of the MHPRSO that restricts space rent increase upon transfer of ownership of the mobile home. Section 5.44.060(C) of the MHPRSO states that the maximum monthly space rent may not be increased more than ten percent of the then-existing space rent when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. City staff have heard directly from mobile home park residents with long-term leases who reported being subjected to extremely significant space rent increases upon transfer (in some cases above 200%) that adversely impacted their ability to sell their units or significantly dim inished the sales value of the units. The draft Ordinance in Attachment A, if adopted, would make Section 5.44.060(C) (space rent increase upon transfer) applicable to all pre-July 2, 2026, long-term leases that either 1) are silent regarding space rent increases upon transfer, or 2) expressly allow increases above 10% (the limit in the MHPRSO.) The proposed amendment would ensure that all existing mobile home tenants, regardless of when their leases began, are protected from unreasonably high space rent increases when they sell or otherwise transfer their mobile home. The intent of this option is to expand the protections of the MHPRSO to address a concern that has actually been raised to the City, while still respecting to the fullest extent Page 320 of 357 Item 7b reasonable the privately negotiated terms of existing private contracts. Protecting the ability of a mobile home park resident to sell their home and/or preventing exorbitant space rent increases from severely diminishing the value thereof are significant and legitimate public purposes, particularly in light of the fact that mobile homes are one of the most significant sources of affordable housing in the City. The effect of the proposed approach would be to subject existing long-term leases to the transfer upon sale rent increase limitations of the MHPRSO, but to leave other provisions of those existing long-term lease agreements unaffected for the remainder of their current terms. Long-term leases executed on or after July 2, 2026 (and all other leases not otherwise exempted by Section 5.44.030) are subject to the full terms of the MHPRSO. The draft Ordinance would not affect negotiated annual space rent increases in excess of MHPRSO limits of any long-term leases that were executed prior to July 2, 2026. Those rent increases would continue to be determined by the terms of the lease. Figure 1: Applicability of MHPRSO by Lease Type Executed before July 2, 2026 Executed on or after July 2, 2026 Silent on space rent increase upon transfer Subject to 5.44.060(C) Subject to MHPRSO Expressly allows increase above 10% upon transfer Subject to 5.44.060(C) Subject to MHPRSO Limit increase upon transfer to no more than 10% Exempt from MHPRSO Subject to MHPRSO Other Revisions to Chapter 5.44 Vacation of Park Space Existing language in Section 5.44.060(C) has caused confusion for some mobile home park residents and owners, particularly the language stating: “In the event of change of ownership resulting from vacation of the space, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community.” A park owner in the City has taken the position that “vacation of the space” means that the existing owner moves out and sells or ot herwise transfers their ownership. This interpretation would render the remainder of that provision meaningless, so for the sake of clarity as to Council’s intent in protecting against unreasonable rent increases upon sale, the draft Ordinance proposes to change that language to: In the event of change of ownership resulting from vacation of the space removal of the mobilehome from the space and termination/abandonment of the space lease, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community. Staff believes this change helps clarify that the space rent may only be increased to market if the existing mobile home is removed from the space and a new one (with a new Page 321 of 357 Item 7b owner) moves into that space. The draft Ordinance also clarifies that a park owner would not be allowed to increase space rent to market rate if an existing mobile home is replaced by its current owner. Required Notices by Owners Additionally, Council has directed staff to present amendments to the Ordinance to require park owners or operators to notify their residents of this and future changes to the MHPRSO. This change is necessary because the City does not have, and cannot reasonably obtain, the contact information for every mobile home resident within the City. Park owners and operators are in a much better position to provide this information to their residents. Staff have proposed to implement this change by adding a new section 5.44.143 to the MHPRSO. The change would require an owner to notify all residents of the Ordinance proposed herein (if adopted) and all future amendments to the MHPRSO within thirty days of the change, as well as any other changes in law or policy that affect mobile home park residents. An owner’s failure to provide the required notices, as directed by the City, could subject them to criminal penalties under Chapter 1.12 and/or administrative penalties under Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code. Previous Council or Advisory Body Action On May 5, 2026, the Council introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 5.44 to remove the long-term lease exemption from the MHPRSO prospectively. On June 2, 2026, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1757 removing that exemption. On June 16, 2026 and on July 21, 2026, the Council met in closed session with the City Attorney regarding anticipated litigation arising from communications from both park owners and resident advocates. Public Engagement The public had an opportunity to comment at the public hearing introducing Ordinance No. 1757 eliminating the long-term lease exemption from the MHPRSO and at the subsequent City Council meeting on its adoption. Notice of this public hearing was published in the New Times on July 23, 2026, as required by law, and the public will have an opportunity to provide comment both before and during the hearing. Notices were sent on July 8, 2026, to all owners and operators (as registered with the CA Department of Housing & Community Development) of mobile home parks within the City regarding the passage of Ordinance No. 1757. The Notice advised that any further changes to the MHPRSO will be duly noticed for introduction and final adoption by the City Council. CONCURRENCE The Community Development Department concurs with the recommendation. Page 322 of 357 Item 7b ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The recommended action is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, as it does not have any foreseeable impact on the environment, and it is therefore exempt from environmental review. FISCAL IMPACT Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: Funding Identified: Fiscal Analysis: Funding Sources Total Budget Available Current Funding Request Remaining Balance Annual Ongoing Cost General Fund $ N/A $ $ $ State Federal Fees Other: Total $N/A $0 $0 $0 There is no immediate fiscal impact anticipated, but subsequent investigation of alleged violations and/or enforcement action will require significant staff resource in the City Attorney and/or Community Development Department. Litigation challenging Council action would result in significant legal defense costs and reallocation of City Attorney’s Office staff resources potentially totalling tens of thousands of dollars, even if the City were to prevail, as would be expected. Partial expansion of the MHPRSO to existing long-term leases may affect the workload of Code Enforcement officers and Administrative Hearing Officers if enforcement action is taken against park owners, but such potential impact is difficult to estimate. ALTERNATIVES Council may decline to introduce the Ordinance. Council may leave the MHPRSO as is, with the long-term lease exemption simply removed from the Ordinance. This will likely result in continued correspondence and/or legal threats from both park owners and resident advocates regarding its ambiguity. It may also leave long-term tenants with leases that began prior to July 2, 2026, subject to exorbitant space rent increases when they sell or otherwise transfer their mobile home to a new owner. Page 323 of 357 Item 7b Council may direct staff to amend the Ordinance to expand applicability of the MHPRSO. Council could direct staff to return to Council for introduction an Ordinance which subjects all existing long-term leases, without regard to execution date, to all provisions of the MHPRSO. This approach could expose the City to incr eased litigation risk. There is litigation on this issue currently making its way through California courts and staff would recommend that the Council monitor and evaluate the final outcome of that litigation before proceeding with this alternative. ATTACHMENTS A - Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 5.44, Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance B - Legislative draft C - Park Owner and Tenant representative correspondence Page 324 of 357 O ______ ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2026 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.44, MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE, TO APPLY RESTRICTIONS ON SPACE RENT INCREASE UPON TRANSFER (5.44.060(C)) TO CERTAIN EXISTING LONG-TERM LEASES AND TO REQUIRE PARK OWNERS/OPERATORS TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO TENANTS (5.44.143) WHEREAS, the City’s municipal code, Chapter 5.44 (known as the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance [MHPRSO]), limits the maximum amount a mobile home park operator may increase space rent within a mobile home park annually and upon transfer of ownership of a mobile home; and WHEREAS, prior to July 2, 2026, long-term leases were excluded from the protections of the MHPRSO pursuant to the City’s ordinance and as previously required by state law (former Civil Code § 798.17); and WHEREAS, a change in law in 2021 (Assembly Bill 2782) allowed local agencies to remove the long-term lease exemption from their mobile home rent stabilization ordinances; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2026, the City Council voted to adopt Ordinance No. 1757 (2026 Series), removing the long-term lease exemption from the MHPRSO, a change which went into effect on July 2, 2026; and WHEREAS, as adopted, Ordinance No. 1757 only applies to leases executed on or after July 2, 2026; WHEREAS, residency in mobile home parks provides one of few affordable housing options within the City; WHEREAS, unlimited space rent increases upon change in ownership of a mobile home make it more difficult for tenants in mobile home parks wishing to sell their mobile home to find buyers and/or may diminish or deprive homeowners of the investment in their mobile homes by suppressing the sales value of mobilehome units sold in place, while effectively transferring value to park owners; and WHEREAS, unlimited space rent increases upon change in ownership of a mobile home erode the supply of affordable housing options for prospective buyers by significantly increasing the overall costs to purchase and occupy a mobile home if the space rent increase upon sale or transfer is unpredictable and/or unlimited; and WHEREAS, the City has a substantial interest in preventing the rapid erosion of affordable housing provided by mobile home parks that results from unlimited increases of space rent upon sale or transfer of a mobilehome in place, and in protecting mobile Page 325 of 357 Ordinance No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 2 O ______ homeowners wishing to sell their mobile homes from unlimited space rent increases upon sale that diminish or transfer the value of their investments in their units to mobilehome park owners and discourage investments in the maintenance of safe mobilehome units in the City . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Council hereby finds and declares the following: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as the findings of the City Council. 2. The City reiterates and herein incorporates by reference its findings codified in Section 5.44.010 (Purpose and Intent) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. 3. The City has received complaints from mobile home residents within the City wishing to sell their mobile homes that the park owner/operator intends to increase their space rent by two hundred percent or more and City staff have verified these claims through review of notifications of space rent increase upon sale. 4. Absent regulation by the City, tenancies exempted from the MHPRSO under Section 5.44.030 are not afforded the protection against unlimited space rent upon transfer of ownership under Section 5.44.060(C), which limits such increases to no more than ten percent (10%) of the prior space rent. 5. The City has a substantial interest in protecting and preserving the long-term availability and affordability of tenancies in mobilehome parks, and in protecting mobilehome park tenants who must sell their homes in place against the loss or significant diminution of their investments in their mobilehomes resulting from exorbitant increases in space rent upon sale or transfer of their homes. 6. The allowable increases in space rent upon transfer permitted herein are intended to and do provide landlords with reasonable returns on investment s in local mobilehome parks. 7. The Council has considered various options to advance its interests set forth herein and has determined that the Ordinance herein is narrowly tailored to advance the City’s substantial interests. SECTION 2. Chapter 5.44, Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization, of the Municipal Code is amended by adding Subsection (F) to Section 5.44.030 as follows: 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home park spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the county of San Luis Obispo; Page 326 of 357 Ordinance No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 3 O ______ C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Spaces in a mobile home park which sells lots for factory-built or manufactured housing, or which provides condominium ownership of such lots, but only when the dwelling unit and the underlying interest in the space it is located upon are in the same ownership. F. Tenancies entered into before July 2, 2026, covered by leases or contracts that provide for a tenancy of more than one year (“long-term tenancy”), except as provided in Section 5.44.060(C). SECTION 3: Chapter 5.44, Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization, of the Municipal Code is amended by modifying Subsection (C) of Section 5.44.060 as follows: C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. However, such increase shall not exceed ten percent of the then existing space rent and may not be relied upon any more often than once in any thirty-six-month period as the basis to increase rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from subletting of the mobile home space as may be allowed by state law, should such become state law, then upon any such subletting the space rent may be increased up to ten percent of the then existing space rent. In the event of removal of the mobilehome from the space and termination/abandonment of the space lease, the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community. For clarity, replacement of a unit by an existing tenant who is continuing their residency within the park does not constitute removal of a mobile home for the purpose of a rent adjustment contemplated by this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be provided for in this chapter. Notwithstanding the exemption for long-term tenancies that existed prior to July 2, 2026, as set forth in Section 5.44.030(F), such tenancies that are subject to leases or contracts that either: 1) do not expressly address or limit the allowable increase in space rent upon sale, transfer, or any other change of ownership of the mobile home , or 2) that expressly allow increases in space rent upon sale, transfer, or any other change of ownership of the mobile home, at a rate above ten percent (10%), are subject to this Subsection (C.) SECTION 4: Chapter 5.44, Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization, of the Municipal Code is amended by adding a new section 5.44.143 as follows: 5.44.143 Required notices by park owners A. Initial Notice. Prior to execution of any agreement for a tenancy within a mobile home park, the owner or operator of a mobile home park shall provide each homeowner and tenant with a copy of this Chapter. Page 327 of 357 Ordinance No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 4 O ______ B. Notice of Amendments. Following notice by the City to a mobile home park owner or operator and within thirty (30) days of adoption of Ordinance No. [XXXX], or any subsequently noticed amendment to this Chapter, the owner or operator shall provide written notice of the amendment to each homeowner and tenant. Such notice shall be provided within thirty (30) days after any amendment becomes effective. C. Other Notices. Whenever directed in writing by the City, the owner or operator shall provide written notice of any matter affecting mobile home park tenants, including but not limited to a change in law or a new or amended rule, policy, regulation or land use. Such notice shall be provided within thirty (35) days of mailing of such direction by the City. D. Method of Notice. Notice as required by subsection (B) or subsection (C) shall be deemed sufficient if it is: 1. Delivered personally to the homeowner or tenant, with proof of service; 2. Mailed by first-class mail to the address of the mobile home space, with proof of service; 3. Electronically transmitted, if the homeowner or tenant has consented to receive notices electronically; and 4. Posted in a conspicuous location accessible to all homeowners and tenants within the mobile home park; posting shall supplement, and not replace, individual notice. E. Violation. Failure to provide any notices required in this Section within the time periods and by the methods set forth herein shall be a violation of this Chapter subject to the provisions set forth in Chapter 1.12 and Chapter 1.24. SECTION 5. Publication. Within fifteen (15) days after its passage, the city clerk shall cause a summary of this ordinance to be published at least once, with the names of those city council members voting for and against the ordinance, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the city. SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be considered a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this Ordinance. INTRODUCED on the 18th day of August 2026, and finally ADOPTED on the 1st day of September, 2026, by the Council of the City of San Luis, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Mayor Erica A. Stewart Page 328 of 357 Ordinance No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 5 O ______ ATTEST: ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, 2026. ______________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk Page 329 of 357 Page 330 of 357 Chapter 5.44, Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization, of the Municipal Code is amended by adding Subsection (F) to Section 5.44.030 as follows: 5.44.030 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following tenancies in mobile home parks: A. Mobile home park spaces rented for nonresidential uses; B. Mobile home parks managed or operated by the United States Government, the state of California, or the county of San Luis Obispo; C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occupancy of twenty days and which do not contemplate an occupancy of more than twenty days; D. Tenancies for which any federal or state law or regulation specifically prohibits rent regulation; E. Spaces in a mobile home park which sells lots for factory-built or manufactured housing, or which provides condominium ownership of such lots, but only when the dwelling unit and the underlying interest in the space it is located upon are in the same ownership. F. Tenancies entered into before July 2, 2026, covered by leases or contracts that provide for a tenancy of more than one year (“long-term tenancy”), except as provided in Section 5.44.060(C). Chapter 5.44, Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization, of the Municipal Code is amended by modifying Subsection (C) of Section 5.44.060 as follows: C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may be increased by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home. However, such increase shall not exceed ten percent of the then existing space rent and may not be relied upon any more often than once in any thirty-six-month period as the basis to increase rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from subletting of the mobile home space as may be allowed by state law, should such become state law, then upon any such subletting the space rent may be increased up to ten percent of the then existing space rent. In the event of change of ownership resulting from vacation of the space removal of the mobilehome from the space and termination/abandonment of the space lease, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community. For clarity, replacement of a unit by an existing tenant who is continuing their residency within the park does not constitute removal of a mobile home for the purpose of a rent adjustment contemplated by this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be provided for in this chapter. Notwithstanding the exemption for long-term tenancies that existed prior to July 2, 2026, as set forth in Section 5.44.030(F), such tenancies that are subject to leases or contracts that either: 1) do not expressly address or limit the allowable increase in space rent upon sale, transfer, or any other change of ownership of the mobile home, or 2) that Page 331 of 357 expressly allow increases in space rent upon sale, transfer, or any other change of ownership of the mobile home, at a rate above ten percent (10%), are subject to this Subsection (C.) Chapter 5.44, Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization, of the Municipal Code is amended by adding a new section 5.44.143 as follows: 5.44.143 Required notices by park owners A. Initial Notice. Prior to execution of any agreement for a tenancy within a mobile home park, the owner or operator of a mobile home park shall provide each homeowner and tenant with a copy of this Chapter. B. Notice of Amendments. Following notice by the City to a mobile home park owner or operator and within thirty (30) days of adoption of Ordinance No. [XXXX], or any subsequently noticed amendment to this Chapter, the owner or operator shall provide written notice of the amendment to each homeowner and tenant. Such notice shall be provided within thirty (30) days after any amendment becomes effective. C. Other Notices. Whenever directed in writing by the City, the owner or operator shall provide written notice of any matter affecting mobile home park tenants, including but not limited to a change in law or a new or amended rule, policy, regulation or land use. Such notice shall be provided within thirty (35) days of mailing of such direction by the City. D. Method of Notice. Notice as required by subsection (B) or subsection (C) shall be deemed sufficient if it is: 1. Delivered personally to the homeowner or tenant, with a proof of service; 2. Mailed by first-class mail to the address of the mobile home space, with a proof of service; 3. Electronically transmitted, if the homeowner or tenant has consented to receive notices electronically; and 4. Posted in a conspicuous location accessible to all homeowners and tenants within the mobile home park; posting shall supplement, and not replace, individual notice. E. Violation. Failure to provide any notices required in this Section within the time periods and by the methods set forth herein shall be a violation of this Chapter subject to the provisions set forth in Chapter 1.12 and Chapter 1.24. Page 332 of 357 1 From: Nick Pardo Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 8:58 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: URGENT CLARIFICATION: State Law AB 2782 and Municipal Code 5.44.030(E) Dear Mayor Stewart, City Council Members, and City Attorney Dietrick, I am writing to provide an urgent factual correction regarding the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.44.030(E) regarding Mobilehome Rent Control which was discussed during Open Session on May 5th, 2026. During the meeting (around 1:38 in the recording), Councilwoman Marx raised a question regarding whether the proposed ordinance would apply retroactively to existing leases. Assistant City Attorney Kersten responded that as written, it would not, but minimized the impact, stating the state law only applies to leases signed after February 13, 2020, and not to older leases. Under current California state law, this is no longer accurate. While Assembly Bill 2782 did initially target leases signed on or after February 13, 2020, the legislation included a strict sunset provision for all older leases. As of January 1, 2025, California Civil Code § 798.17 was completely repealed. Consequently, state law no longer provides an exemption from local rent stabilization ordinances for any long-term leases, regardless of whether they were signed decades ago. While I understand the legal distinction that removing Section 5.44.030(E) from our municipal code is not "retroactive" in the sense of recovering past rent increases, the critical point is that removing this loophole will allow the city's rent stabilization protections to apply prospectively to all existing leases moving forward. I urge the city to clarify this, correct the record, and ensure that all existing leases are covered by this provision moving forward. I believe (City Attorney, please confirm) the simple removal of the exemption, coupled with state law already covers all leases moving forward, regardless of when they were signed. However, leaving Page 333 of 357 2 any ambiguity on this issue leaves long-term mobilehome residents in San Luis Obispo vulnerable to unauthorized rent increases that contradict the current protections guaranteed by state law. To remove any ambiguity, I strongly urge the city council to amend the ordinance to include one of the following: 1. A statement to the effect of: "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing and future tenancies, regardless of the date of lease execution." 2. A statement directly referencing/deferring to the state statutes regarding required rent control exemptions (preferred). This method will prevent the need to update the ordinance again the next time state law changes. The current state law went into effect in 2021 but there has been a 5 year lag time to update the local statue that has put residents at risk. Thank you for your ongoing work to align our city ordinance with state law and protect our community's residents. Sincerely, Nick Pardo Page 334 of 357 1 From: Nick Ubaldi <nick@harmonycom.com> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:47 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO Mobile Home Park RSO Hello everyone, I am writing to follow up on my previous email. To date, I have not received any requests for meetings. As a local business owner and one of the stakeholders who will be directly impacted by the proposed change to the ordinance, I remain fully available and would welcome the opportunity to meet with any interested parties. I believe it would be highly valuable for decision-makers to hear firsthand from a local stakeholder on how this proposal will affect businesses like mine, as well as its potential negative impact on affordable housing in our city. Please feel free to reach out if you would like to schedule a discussion at a time that is convenient for you. I am happy to coordinate at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Best regards, -Nick 6653 Embarcadero Dr. Ste C Stockton, CA 95219 Page 335 of 357 2 Main: (209) 932-8747 nick@harmonycom.com From: Nick Ubaldi <nick@harmonycom.com> Date: Friday, May 22, 2026 at 3:43 PM To: Whitney McDonald <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Erica A Stewart <estewart@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Sadie Symens <ssymens@slocity.org>; Christine Dietrick <cdietric@slocity.org>; Timothea Tway <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO Mobile Home Park RSO Dear Mrs. McDonald, Thank you for your prompt reply. I have never had any issues with police response during my years of ownership. I have had several positive interactions with city officers, who have always been professional and pleasant to work with. In fact, those officers complimented us on the significant improvements at South Peak and Mathews. They expressed amazement at the transformation that has taken place and noted how challenging those parks were a decade ago. Those same officers are the ones who shared with me that they often would not respond to certain calls in those locations in the past. I am very proud of the substantial financial and operational investment we have made to turn these parks around and I appreciated their recognition of that fact. In turn, I want to acknowledge that the city has done an excellent job cleaning up the streets and creek embankments surrounding these properties. The removal of tent cities, encampments, and derelict RVs, which had been associated with repeated vandalism and burglaries impacting residents, is greatly appreciated. I had hoped the progress we have made with these parks would be recognized at the city level, which is why I requested a meeting to discuss the challenges we currently face. I believe it is important to include all stakeholders in these conversations, particularly those providing much-needed affordable housing. I did not see any mention in your email of whether you would be willing to meet. Would you be available for a discussion? I’m ready and available to meet with anyone at the city who would be willing. If the council or any city staff would like to meet please reach out to me directly at this email address. Thank you, -Nick On May 22, 2026, at 12:59 PM, McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> wrote: Good afternoon, Mr. Ubaldi. I am forwarding your email to our entire City Council, as this matter involves an item on the June 2, 2026 City Council agenda that our entire City Council will consider. While I do not believe our staff have misinterpreted or misled the City Council in any way concerning the Municipal Code amendments proposed for adoption, I have also copied our City Attorney and Community Page 336 of 357 3 Development Director for their review of the information you have provided below in case any additional clarifications are needed for the Council’s consideration of this item on June 2nd. Finally, I would like to respond to one particular claim raised in your email. To be clear, in no event do San Luis Obispo Police Officers ever refuse to respond to calls for service. This is true of calls for service to your park and of every other street and neighborhood in our City. Sincerely, Whitney McDonald pronouns (she/hers) City Manager City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E WMcDonal@slocity.org T 805.781.7114 C 805.550.8349 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nick Ubaldi <nick@harmonycom.com> Sent: Friday, May 22, 2026 9:27 AM To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Mobile Home Park RSO Dear Mayor and City Manager, I am writing with urgent concern regarding the proposed amendments to the City’s mobile home park rent stabilization ordinance, specifically the elimination of the long-term leasing provision. As a long-standing business owner in both the City and County of San Luis Obispo, I strongly believe this change would be detrimental. City staff appears to be misinterpreting what AB 2782 did . That legislation removed the long- term lease exemption from state law; it did not outlaw it. The state returned full discretion to local jurisdictions. The City is not required to remove long-term leasing; the decision remains yours. Long-term leases are not a loophole, as City staff has characterized them. This is a talking point advanced by resident activists that is misleading the Council. Rather, they serve as an essential safety valve within the ordinance. They function as mutually agreed-upon rent controls that clearly establish future rent terms for both parties, allowing park owners to address rising costs the current rent structure does not fully accommodate, while continuing to protect existing residents. Without this provision, sustainable operation becomes extremely difficult and park closures are likely, further straining the region’s affordable housing supply. The current ordinance has operated successfully for over thirty years exactly as prior City Councils intended. It does not require revision. Removing the long-term leasing provision now would reverse commitments that property owners have relied upon since its adoption. South Peak provides a compelling example of its value. Ten years ago, it was a derelict property where police often refused to respond to calls. Through nearly $10 million in private investment, made possible by long-term leases, South Peak was transformed it into a clean, well-maintained community that preserves affordable housing the City might otherwise have lost. Today, ninety percent of our residents hold long-term leases, many of whom received contractual discounts at purchase of up to $35,000 per home in direct reliance on the ordinance. Page 337 of 357 4 We do not believe the City has authority to terminate these existing, lawfully executed leases mid-term. While the City could decline new long-term leases going forward (despite the negative impact such a policy would have on the City’s affordable housing stock), canceling existing contracts would raise serious legal issues. Market space rents in San Luis Obispo average approximately $1,500 per month. Our existing tenants pay roughly $600 on average, with turnover increases capped at just $60 under the current 10% limit, while our operating costs continue to outpace CPI. We respectfully urge the City to maintain the existing ordinance, including the long-term leasing framework that has benefited both residents and the broader community for decades. I am happy to provide supporting data and am available to meet in person or via Zoom to discuss this matter further. Would you be willing to take a 30 minute meeting? -Nick 6653 Embarcadero Dr. Ste C Stockton, CA 95219 Main: (209) 932-8747 nick@harmonycom.com Page 338 of 357 1 From: Nick Pardo Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2026 9:00 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: URGENT CLARIFICATION: State Law AB 2782 and Municipal Code 5.44.030(E) Dear Mayor Stewart, City Council Members, and City Attorney Dietrick, I am writing to follow up on the email I sent earlier this month regarding the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.44.030(E). I have not yet received a response or confirmation regarding this critical legal clarification. To briefly reiterate, during the May 5th Open Session, the Assistant City Attorney stated that state law rent control exemptions apply to older long-term leases. This is factually incorrect. As of January 1, 2025, the sunset provision in Assembly Bill 2782 took full effect, completely repealing California Civil Code § 798.17. There is no longer any state-level exemption from local rent stabilization for long-term leases, regardless of the date they were signed. I am pressing this issue because the ambiguity matters. Corporate park owners, such as Harmony Communities, have a documented history of aggressively exploiting any silence in local ordinances to push through unauthorized rent increases that far exceed CPI. By simply deleting the exemption from the municipal code without adding a declaratory statement, the city leaves a vacuum of legislative intent. Park owners will inevitably claim that the amendment only applies to new leases, forcing vulnerable residents into expensive legal battles to prove otherwise. We can prevent this entirely by ensuring the ordinance explicitly states one of the following: * "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing and future tenancies, regardless of the date of lease execution." * A direct reference to the updated state statutes for rent control exemptions, ensuring automatic compliance with state law moving forward. Page 339 of 357 2 Could the City Attorney's office please confirm receipt of this correspondence and clarify that the current amendment does in fact apply protection to *all* long term leases, consistent with State Law intent, and also if the city intends to add explicit protective language to the ordinance moving forward? Thank you for your time, your service to our city, and your dedication to protecting San Luis Obispo's mobilehome residents. Sincerely, Nick Pardo On May 12, 2026, at 20:58, Nick Pardo wrote: Dear Mayor Stewart, City Council Members, and City Attorney Dietrick, I am writing to provide an urgent factual correction regarding the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.44.030(E) regarding Mobilehome Rent Control which was discussed during Open Session on May 5th, 2026. During the meeting (around 1:38 in the recording), Councilwoman Marx raised a question regarding whether the proposed ordinance would apply retroactively to existing leases. Assistant City Attorney Kersten responded that as written, it would not, but minimized the impact, stating the state law only applies to leases signed after February 13, 2020, and not to older leases. Under current California state law, this is no longer accurate. While Assembly Bill 2782 did initially target leases signed on or after February 13, 2020, the legislation included a strict sunset provision for all older leases. As of January 1, 2025, California Civil Code § 798.17 was completely repealed. Consequently, state law no longer provides an exemption from local rent stabilization ordinances for any long-term leases, regardless of whether they were signed decades ago. While I understand the legal distinction that removing Section 5.44.030(E) from our municipal code is not "retroactive" in the sense of recovering past rent increases, the critical point is that removing this loophole will allow the city's rent stabilization protections to apply prospectively to all existing leases moving forward. I urge the city to clarify this, correct the record, and ensure that all existing leases are covered by this provision moving forward. I believe (City Attorney, please confirm) the simple removal of the exemption, coupled with state law already covers all leases moving forward, regardless of when they were signed. However, leaving any ambiguity on this issue leaves long-term mobilehome residents in San Luis Obispo vulnerable to unauthorized rent increases that contradict the current protections guaranteed by state law. To Page 340 of 357 3 remove any ambiguity, I strongly urge the city council to amend the ordinance to include one of the following: 1. A statement to the effect of: "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing and future tenancies, regardless of the date of lease execution." 2. A statement directly referencing/deferring to the state statutes regarding required rent control exemptions (preferred). This method will prevent the need to update the ordinance again the next time state law changes. The current state law went into effect in 2021 but there has been a 5 year lag time to update the local statue that has put residents at risk. Thank you for your ongoing work to align our city ordinance with state law and protect our community's residents. Sincerely, Nick Pardo Page 341 of 357 DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 284 NORTH GLASSELL STREET Area Code 714 Writer’s Direct Dial:FIRST FLOOR TELEPHONE 532.2222 ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866-1409 FACSIMILE 532.3238 ADMIN@DOWDALLLAW.COM I N R EPLY R EFER T O: Terry R. Dowdall 714-532-2222 June 1, 2026 Via Electronic Mail: WMcDonal@slocity.org,estewart@slocity.org,emailcouncil@slocity.org ,ssymens@slocity.org, cdietric@slocity.org ,TTway@slocity.org City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Request to Forbear until the Law Is Vetted for its Unintended Consequences: Item 5k: "Update to Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance to remove long-term lease exemption for state law compliance." Dear Gentlepersons: These offices represent the owners and operators of South Peak, a mobilehome park located in the city of San Luis Obispo, and I write on their behalf. It has come to my attention that the city Council is in the process of the promulgation of “ORDINANCE NO. 1757 (2026 SERIES)AMENDING TITLES 5, 16, AND 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, URBAN LOT SPLITS, MOBILE HOMES, AND OTHER CLARIFICATIONS AND CHANGES TO REGULATIONS.” According to the staff report, one objective of the amendment is as follows: “Update to Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance to remove long term lease exemption for state law compliance.” The amendment would rescind §5. 44. 030 (E.) which states: E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts which provide for a tenancy of more than a year, but only for the duration of such lease or contract. Upon the expiration of or other termination of any such lease or contract, this chapter shall immediately be applicable to the tenancy. No rent increases other than that allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease or contract. Please be advised that this proposed amendment is preempted by the Mobilehome Residency Law (Division 2, Part 2, Title 2, Chapter 2.5 of the California Civil Code, Civil Code §§798, et seq.) (Hereinafter “MRL”), specifically,inter alia, Civil Code §798.18 (a) which states as follows: Page 342 of 357 DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W City Council June 1, 2026 Page -2- “A homeowner shall be offered a rental agreement for (1) a term of 12 months, or (2) a lesser period as the homeowner may request, or (3)a longer period as mutually agreed upon by both the homeowner and management.” The MRL provides express and implied lease protection against intrusion by governmental interdiction. Long-term leases represent a legally binding agreement supported by express authorization of the MRL and constitutional contract clauses of state and federal constitutions. The amendment would,inter alia, violate the Contracts and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by retroactively and unlawfully impairing existing contractual obligations. Rental agreements with a term of more than “12 months” by “mutual agreement” in this case are supported by financial commitments from the park owner with monetary value of more than $30,000. Truncating new agreements and/or the rescission of existing long-term leases would completely eviscerate the discrete and fully vested property right based on existing law, including all value and benefits to landlord and tenant alike. Further, the long-term leases in effect at this time contain arbitration clauses based upon the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA does not permit the unilateral rescission of federal arbitration clauses by municipalities, properly adopted under the terms of federal law (pursuant to the supremacy clause). The park owner has sought to confer with city staff regarding this issue without success. On behalf of the park operator and owner, demand is respectfully made to forbear from the passage of the proposed amendment at this time, for purposes of the legal vetting not been undertaken to date. In this regard, such a forbearance may well avoid needless cost to all parties for the pursuit of legal remedies. Please be advised that all rights are reserved while invitation to further dialogue is pending. Thank you for your attention to the foregoing. Please feel free to contact this office if there are any further questions or comments. Very truly yours /s/ Terry R. Dowdall for DOWDALL LAW OFFICES, APC cc: Mobilehome Park Owners of the City of San Luis Obispo, WMA SAN_LUIS_OBISPO_C_ATTY_JU_1_2026_v_7.wpd Page 343 of 357 1 From: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:43 PM To: Nancy Gomez <nancy@harmonycom.com>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Jason Dilday <jason@harmonycom.com>; Matt Davies <matt@harmonycom.com>; Terry Dowdall <trd@dowdalllaw.com> Subject: RE: Request to Forbear Bcc: CC Dear Mr. Dowdall: I have reviewed your letter and am seeking some clarification of your position. The Ordinance introduced by the City Council on May 5 and scheduled for adoption tomorrow night neither requires nor prohibits any particular lease term, so I am unclear as to the relevance of Civil Code Section 798.18 to the action before the Council. The ordinance as currently presented does nothing more or less than remove an exemption from the City’s Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance that was previously required by state law and is no longer required, due to a change in state law. In other words, the City ordinance amendments are in exact alignment with the state statutory discretion provided by state law, not preempted by state law. It appears your concern relates to the application of the current ordinance amendment to leases that were executed prior to its introduction. The City has not currently asserted that existing leases would be affected by the ordinance as presented, so I am aware of no legal reason that the Council could not proceed with adoption of the ordinance as introduced. Please advise if you are asserting authority that would preclude the Council’s action, but the authority you have cited has no application to the ordinance amendments currently before the Council. Your client’s argument that the Council should make a different policy decision, i.e., to maintain an exemption that is no longer required by state law, and contravening arguments submitted by local park residents that the Council should make findings and additional amendments to make the amendments applicable to existing long term leases were received and certainly can be considered by the Council, but neither of those actions is reflected in the version of the ordinance currently on the Council’s agenda. Best, Christine Christine Dietrick pronouns she/her/hers City Attorney Page 344 of 357 2 City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E cdietrick@slocity.org T 805.781.7140 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Nancy Gomez <nancy@harmonycom.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 2:54 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Jason Dilday <jason@harmonycom.com>; Matt Davies <matt@harmonycom.com>; Terry Dowdall <trd@dowdalllaw.com> Subject: Request to Forbear Good afternoon, Attached please find correspondence from attorney Terry Dowdall. Thank you, Nancy Gomez Paralegal 6653 Embarcadero Drive, Ste. C Stockton, CA 95219 Direct: (209)926-7457 Main: (209)932-8747 nancy@harmonycom.com Page 345 of 357 1 From: Nick Pardo Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2026 11:22 PM To: Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Cc: Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Re: URGENT CLARIFICATION: State Law AB 2782 and Municipal Code 5.44.030(E) Dear Vice Mayor Francis, Mayor Stewart, and City Council Members, Thank you for getting back to me, Emily. I was very happy to see that Ordinance 1757 was officially passed during the Tuesday, June 2nd City Council meeting. One final note I wanted to settle on is that, while I did push for more explicit language in my earlier emails, I want to make it clear that what the city just accomplished with Ordinance 1757 was "enough." My primary goal in all this was to ensure the city is fully aligned on the fact that Ordinance 1757, as adopted, does indeed protect all long-term leaseholders moving forward for future rent increases, regardless of when those contracts were originally signed. As noted previously, the Assistant City Attorney’s comments on May 5th run counter to established legal precedent. Under California law, a municipality does not require explicit "retroactive" language for a repealed exemption to immediately bring existing contracts under its purview for future actions. The simple deletion of the exemption clause was legally sufficient. You did it! What our community needs now is a unified understanding of exactly what this ordinance accomplished. If a resident bound by an older long-term lease approaches the city because a park owner is imposing a rent hike that violates Chapter 5.44, staff must be prepared to look at the facts and confidently enforce the code. If the city misinterprets its own newly amended ordinance, it will leave some of our most vulnerable residents exposed to predatory corporate practices. Thank you all again for your time. Sincerely, Nick Pardo Page 346 of 357 2 On Sat, May 30, 2026, 9:51 PM Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Nick, Thank you for the follow up email. Apologies for the delayed response. We had a great deal of correspondence over the last two weeks. I appreciate you bringing this back to the top of the inbox. I will connect with the City Attorney’s office and ensure that our intent is clear in the updates that were made during the May 5th hearing. Take care and thank you for your advocacy for residents of the mobile home parks. Emily From: Nick Pardo Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2026 9:00 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City Attorney@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City Attorney@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: URGENT CLARIFICATION: State Law AB 2782 and Municipal Code 5.44.030(E) Dear Mayor Stewart, City Council Members, and City Attorney Dietrick, I am writing to follow up on the email I sent earlier this month regarding the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.44.030(E). I have not yet received a response or confirmation regarding this critical legal clarification. To briefly reiterate, during the May 5th Open Session, the Assistant City Attorney stated that state law rent control exemptions apply to older long-term leases. This is factually incorrect. As of January 1, 2025, the sunset provision in Assembly Bill 2782 took full effect, completely repealing California Civil Code § 798.17. There is no longer any state-level exemption from local rent stabilization for long-term leases, regardless of the date they were signed. Page 347 of 357 3 I am pressing this issue because the ambiguity matters. Corporate park owners, such as Harmony Communities, have a documented history of aggressively exploiting any silence in local ordinances to push through unauthorized rent increases that far exceed CPI. By simply deleting the exemption from the municipal code without adding a declaratory statement, the city leaves a vacuum of legislative intent. Park owners will inevitably claim that the amendment only applies to new leases, forcing vulnerable residents into expensive legal battles to prove otherwise. We can prevent this entirely by ensuring the ordinance explicitly states one of the following: * "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing and future tenancies, regardless of the date of lease execution." * A direct reference to the updated state statutes for rent control exemptions, ensuring automatic compliance with state law moving forward. Could the City Attorney's office please confirm receipt of this correspondence and clarify that the current amendment does in fact apply protection to *all* long term leases, consistent with State Law intent, and also if the city intends to add explicit protective language to the ordinance moving forward? Thank you for your time, your service to our city, and your dedication to protecting San Luis Obispo's mobilehome residents. Sincerely, Nick Pardo On May 12, 2026, at 20:58, Nick Pardo <wrote: Page 348 of 357 4 Dear Mayor Stewart, City Council Members, and City Attorney Dietrick, I am writing to provide an urgent factual correction regarding the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.44.030(E) regarding Mobilehome Rent Control which was discussed during Open Session on May 5th, 2026. During the meeting (around 1:38 in the recording), Councilwoman Marx raised a question regarding whether the proposed ordinance would apply retroactively to existing leases. Assistant City Attorney Kersten responded that as written, it would not, but minimized the impact, stating the state law only applies to leases signed after February 13, 2020, and not to older leases. Under current California state law, this is no longer accurate. While Assembly Bill 2782 did initially target leases signed on or after February 13, 2020, the legislation included a strict sunset provision for all older leases. As of January 1, 2025, California Civil Code § 798.17 was completely repealed. Consequently, state law no longer provides an exemption from local rent stabilization ordinances for any long-term leases, regardless of whether they were signed decades ago. While I understand the legal distinction that removing Section 5.44.030(E) from our municipal code is not "retroactive" in the sense of recovering past rent increases, the critical point is that removing this loophole will allow the city's rent stabilization protections to apply prospectively to all existing leases moving forward. I urge the city to clarify this, correct the record, and ensure that all existing leases are covered by this provision moving forward. I believe (City Attorney, please confirm) the simple removal of the exemption, coupled with state law already covers all leases moving forward, regardless of when they were signed. However, leaving any ambiguity on this issue leaves long-term mobilehome residents in San Luis Obispo vulnerable to unauthorized rent increases that contradict the current protections guaranteed by state law. To remove any ambiguity, I strongly urge the city council to amend the ordinance to include one of the following: 1. A statement to the effect of: "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing and future tenancies, regardless of the date of lease execution." 2. A statement directly referencing/deferring to the state statutes regarding required rent control exemptions (preferred). This method will prevent the need to update the ordinance again the next time state law changes. The current state law went into effect in 2021 but there has been a 5 year lag time to update the local statue that has put residents at risk. Page 349 of 357 5 Thank you for your ongoing work to align our city ordinance with state law and protect our community's residents. Sincerely, Nick Pardo Page 350 of 357 DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A P R O F E S S I O N A L C O R P O R A T I O N A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 284 NORTH GLASSELL STREET Area Code 714 Writer’s Direct Dial:F IRST F LOOR TELEPHONE 532.2222 ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866-1409 FACSIMILE 532.3238 ADMIN@ DOWDALLLAW.COM I N R EPLY R EFER T O: Drew D. Helms ddh@dowdalllaw.com #10739 July 6, 2026 Christine Dietrick City Attorney's Office 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 cdietrick@slocity.org RE: Amendment to Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance Dear Ms. Dietrich: I understand that the City of San Luis Obispo passed the amendment to remove the exemption from the City’s Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and that the amendment went into effect July 2nd. The purpose of this letter is simply to confirm that the City does not assert that existing leases are affected by this amendment, as stated in your email to Mr. Dowdall on June 1 (Subject: “RE: Request to Forbear”). Relying on your representation in that email, it is the understanding of this office and our client that this amendment does not apply retroactively to leases executed prior to the amendment for their duration. Thank you for your attention to the foregoing. If you have any further comments, or if I have misstated your prior communication or the City’s position, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Very Truly Yours, Drew D. Helms For DOWDALL LAW OFFICES, A.P.C. cc: Client C:\Users\drewh\Dowdall Law\Dowdall Law - Documents\_Ana\1 Harmony Matters\South Peak v. City of San Luis Obispo #10739\Correspondence\26-07-06_ City Attorney re RCO Amendment_DDHv2.wpd Please note: This letter shall not be construed as accepting or admitting any of the statements in correspondence or documents to which this letter responds which are not specifically addressed here. Page 351 of 357 1 Symens, Sadie From:Nick Pardo Sent:Monday, July 20, 2026 11:59 AM To:Francis, Emily Cc:Dietrick, Christine; Stewart, Erica A; Marx, Jan; CityClerk; City_Attorney; E-mail Council Website Subject:Re: URGENT CLARIFICATION: State Law AB 2782 and Municipal Code 5.44.030(E) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Mayor Stewart, Vice Mayor Francis, City Council Members, and City Attorney Dietrick, I am writing to request clarification regarding the City’s official stance on Ordinance 1757 and provide clarification on core legal precedent ahead of your Closed Session (Item 1.b) tomorrow, July 21. I have reviewed the July 6 letter to City Attorney Dietrick from Drew D. Helms of Dowdall Law Offices. Mr. Helms asserts: "Relying on your representation in that email [June 1], it is the understanding of this office and our client that this amendment does not apply retroactively to leases executed prior to the amendment for their duration." As I warned in my earlier correspondences, the distinction here is critical: • Retroactive Application: Attempting to claw back or penalize rent increases that occurred before Ordinance 1757 was passed. The city is correctly not doing this. • Prospective Application to Existing Contracts: Applying the newly updated Chapter 5.44 to future rent increases on existing leases. Applying a repealed exemption to future actions on existing contracts is prospective, not retroactive. When California Civil Code § 798.17 expired on January 1, 2025, the state removed its mandate that forced municipalities to exempt long-term leases (including existing ones), returning full authority to the city to regulate all mobilehome leases. San Luis Obispo explicitly exercised this authority by passing Ordinance 1757 and deleting Section 5.44.030(E) from the municipal code. By deleting Section 5.44.030(E), the City Council deliberately removed its local exemption for long-term leases. Under standard principles of statutory interpretation, the plain text of the amended code is what governs. Because the updated ordinance contains no carve-out or "grandfather" clause to exempt existing leases from prospective application, the overarching rent stabilization rules now apply to all leases, regardless of when they were executed. The statutory weight of the enacted code supersedes any informal email correspondence, such as the June 1st email referenced by Dowdall. This strict reliance on the plain text follows the exact same precedent that occurred at the state level. When park owners sued to block the prospective application of the state's repeal to existing leases, the Sacramento Superior Court firmly rejected their request to halt the law (Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association v. State of California, Case No. 34-2022- 00332244). The judge ruled: "Plaintiffs fail to show irreparable harm to them absent a preliminary injunction and further fail to show a likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of the Contracts Clause and Due Process Claims." Page 352 of 357 2 If the city allows Dowdall Law Offices' July 6th letter to stand uncorrected, corporate park owners will use the City Attorney's June 1st email as administrative precedent to illegally hike rents on existing leaseholders, forcing our most vulnerable residents into court. I strongly urge the City Attorney’s Office to immediately issue a written response to Dowdall Law Offices clarifying the following: • Ordinance 1757 does not seek retroactive clawbacks of past rent. • However, because the city council explicitly deleted the local exemption (Section 5.44.030(E)), the city’s rent stabilization ordinance applies prospectively to all future rent increases for all leases, regardless of the date of execution. Please confirm receipt of this email and advise on how the city intends to correct the public record with Dowdall Law Offices. The community is relying on you to enforce the protections you just passed. Sincerely, Nick Pardo On Thu, Jun 4, 2026 at 11:21 PM Nick Pardo > wrote: Dear Vice Mayor Francis, Mayor Stewart, and City Council Members, Thank you for getting back to me, Emily. I was very happy to see that Ordinance 1757 was officially passed during the Tuesday, June 2nd City Council meeting. One final note I wanted to settle on is that, while I did push for more explicit language in my earlier emails, I want to make it clear that what the city just accomplished with Ordinance 1757 was "enough." My primary goal in all this was to ensure the city is fully aligned on the fact that Ordinance 1757, as adopted, does indeed protect all long-term leaseholders moving forward for future rent increases, regardless of when those contracts were originally signed. As noted previously, the Assistant City Attorney’s comments on May 5th run counter to established legal precedent. Under California law, a municipality does not require explicit "retroactive" language for a repealed exemption to immediately bring existing contracts under its purview for future actions. The simple deletion of the exemption clause was legally sufficient. You did it! What our community needs now is a unified understanding of exactly what this ordinance accomplished. If a resident bound by an older long-term lease approaches the city because a park owner is imposing a rent hike that violates Chapter 5.44, staff must be prepared to look at the facts and confidently enforce the code. If the city misinterprets its own newly amended ordinance, it will leave some of our most vulnerable residents exposed to predatory corporate practices. Thank you all again for your time. Sincerely, Page 353 of 357 3 Nick Pardo On Sat, May 30, 2026, 9:51 PM Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Nick, Thank you for the follow up email. Apologies for the delayed response. We had a great deal of correspondence over the last two weeks. I appreciate you bringing this back to the top of the inbox. I will connect with the City Attorney’s office and ensure that our intent is clear in the updates that were made during the May 5th hearing. Take care and thank you for your advocacy for residents of the mobile home parks. Emily From: Nick Pardo Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2026 9:00 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City Attorney@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City Attorney@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> Subject: Re: URGENT CLARIFICATION: State Law AB 2782 and Municipal Code 5.44.030(E) Dear Mayor Stewart, City Council Members, and City Attorney Dietrick, I am writing to follow up on the email I sent earlier this month regarding the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.44.030(E). I have not yet received a response or confirmation regarding this critical legal clarification. To briefly reiterate, during the May 5th Open Session, the Assistant City Attorney stated that state law rent control exemptions apply to older long-term leases. This is factually incorrect. As of January 1, 2025, the sunset provision in Assembly Bill 2782 took full effect, completely repealing California Civil Code § 798.17. There is no longer any state-level exemption from local rent stabilization for long-term leases, regardless of the date they were signed. Page 354 of 357 4 I am pressing this issue because the ambiguity matters. Corporate park owners, such as Harmony Communities, have a documented history of aggressively exploiting any silence in local ordinances to push through unauthorized rent increases that far exceed CPI. By simply deleting the exemption from the municipal code without adding a declaratory statement, the city leaves a vacuum of legislative intent. Park owners will inevitably claim that the amendment only applies to new leases, forcing vulnerable residents into expensive legal battles to prove otherwise. We can prevent this entirely by ensuring the ordinance explicitly states one of the following: * "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing and future tenancies, regardless of the date of lease execution." * A direct reference to the updated state statutes for rent control exemptions, ensuring automatic compliance with state law moving forward. Could the City Attorney's office please confirm receipt of this correspondence and clarify that the current amendment does in fact apply protection to *all* long term leases, consistent with State Law intent, and also if the city intends to add explicit protective language to the ordinance moving forward? Thank you for your time, your service to our city, and your dedication to protecting San Luis Obispo's mobilehome residents. Sincerely, Nick Pardo On May 12, 2026, at 20:58, Nick Pardo > wrote: Page 355 of 357 5 Dear Mayor Stewart, City Council Members, and City Attorney Dietrick, I am writing to provide an urgent factual correction regarding the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 5.44.030(E) regarding Mobilehome Rent Control which was discussed during Open Session on May 5th, 2026. During the meeting (around 1:38 in the recording), Councilwoman Marx raised a question regarding whether the proposed ordinance would apply retroactively to existing leases. Assistant City Attorney Kersten responded that as written, it would not, but minimized the impact, stating the state law only applies to leases signed after February 13, 2020, and not to older leases. Under current California state law, this is no longer accurate. While Assembly Bill 2782 did initially target leases signed on or after February 13, 2020, the legislation included a strict sunset provision for all older leases. As of January 1, 2025, California Civil Code § 798.17 was completely repealed. Consequently, state law no longer provides an exemption from local rent stabilization ordinances for any long-term leases, regardless of whether they were signed decades ago. While I understand the legal distinction that removing Section 5.44.030(E) from our municipal code is not "retroactive" in the sense of recovering past rent increases, the critical point is that removing this loophole will allow the city's rent stabilization protections to apply prospectively to all existing leases moving forward. I urge the city to clarify this, correct the record, and ensure that all existing leases are covered by this provision moving forward. I believe (City Attorney, please confirm) the simple removal of the exemption, coupled with state law already covers all leases moving forward, regardless of when they were signed. However, leaving any ambiguity on this issue leaves long-term mobilehome residents in San Luis Obispo vulnerable to unauthorized rent increases that contradict the current protections guaranteed by state law. To remove any ambiguity, I strongly urge the city council to amend the ordinance to include one of the following: 1. A statement to the effect of: "The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all existing and future tenancies, regardless of the date of lease execution." 2. A statement directly referencing/deferring to the state statutes regarding required rent control exemptions (preferred). This method will prevent the need to update the ordinance again the next time state law changes. The current state law went into effect in 2021 but there has been a 5 year lag time to update the local statue that has put residents at risk. Page 356 of 357 6 Thank you for your ongoing work to align our city ordinance with state law and protect our community's residents. Sincerely, Nick Pardo Page 357 of 357 1 Amendment to the Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance August 18, 2026 Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney 2 Background ➢MHPRSO adopted in 1981 to regulate allowable space rent increases ➢On June 2, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1757, which amended the MHPRSO to eliminate the long -term lease exemption. This went into effect July 2nd. ➢This was prompted by CA Assembly Bill 2782, which repealed the state law requirement that local ordinances exempt long -term leases from their rent stabilization ordinances as of January 1, 2025 ➢The City received conflicting assertions about the “retroactive” application of Ordinance No. 1757 (application to long-term leases that existed before the effective date) 3 Background ➢The Council met in closed on June 16th and again on July 21st to confer with legal counsel regarding potential exposure to litigation based on the conflicting legal assertions raised by park owner and resident advocates ➢The proposed amendment is intended to clarify the application of the MHPRSO to long-term leases ➢The proposed amendment makes other clarifying and substantive changes to the MHPRSO 4 Space Rent Increase Upon Sale ❖Section 5.44.060(C): Monthly space rent cannot be increased more than 10% when there is a change of ownership of the mobile home ❖Previously excluded residents under long-term leases wishing to sell their mobile homes ❖City staff have heard from mobile home park residents with long- term leases who reported being subjected to extremely significant space rent increases upon transfer (in some cases above 200%) 5 Proposed Applicability of the MHPRSO Executed before July 2, 2026 Executed on or after July 2, 2026 Silent on space rent increase upon transfer Subject to 5.44.060(C)Subject to MHPRSO Expressly allows increase above 10% upon transfer Subject to 5.44.060(C)Subject to MHPRSO Limit increase upon transfer to no more than 10% Exempt from MHPRSO Subject to MHPRSO 6 Effect of the Proposed Ordinance •Leaves other provisions of existing long-term lease agreements (including annual space rent increases)unaffected for duration of current term •Long-term leases executed on or after July 2, 2026 are subject to full terms of MHPRSO •Does not affect negotiated annual space rent increases within existing long-term leases •Does not recover past rent increases •Does not ban long-term leases 7 Other Revisions: Vacation of Park Space •Section 5.44.060(C) also states “In the event of change of ownership resulting from vacation of the space, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community.” •Amendment clarifies intent: In the event of change of ownership resulting from vacation of the space removal of the mobilehome from the space and termination/abandonment of the space lease, then the space rent may be adjusted to fair market rent in the community.For clarity, replacement of a unit by an existing tenant who is continuing their residency within the park does not constitute removal of a mobile home for the purpose of a rent adjustment contemplated by this paragraph.” 8 Other Revisions: Required Notice by Park Owners ➢Existing Code (5.44.140) requires owners to provide copy of the MHPRSO to prospective tenants whose leases would be exempt from the MHPRSO ➢Proposed addition would require owners to: ➢provide all new residents with a copy of the MHPRSO ➢Provide notice of any amendments to MHPRSO to all residents ➢Provide notice of any other change in law or policy affecting mobile home residents, as directed by the City 9 Summary of Ordinance 1.Pre-July 2nd long-term leases are subject to MHPRSO provisions governing space rent increase upon transfer if their leases allow such increases above 10% 2.“Vacation of the space” changed to “removal of the mobilehome from the space and termination/abandonment of the space lease” 3.Owners required to provide notice of MHPRSO, amendments thereto, and other changes in law or policy affecting mobile home residents 10 Questions?