HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/1997, 1 - MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE council»(� °i°°�
acEnda Repo Rt It=Num6.. ,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Jeffrey G.Jorgensen;City Attorney
SUBJECT: Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Consider an Amendment to the San Luis
Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Deleting a 10% Rent Increase on Change of Ownership
DISCUSSION
At the August 19, 1997 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to bring back a draft
ordinance which would amend the San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance by
eliminating the 10% rent increase on change of ownership, and make other minor technical
revisions.
The proponents of the amendment argue the 10% rent increase on change of ownership provision
makes it difficult to sell a mobilehome, decreases the mobilehome's value when it does sell, results
in a wide variation in rents within mobilehome parks depending on the amount of turnover, and is
difficult to enforce because there are no reporting requirements to the City.
Opponents of the amendment argue there is no evidence to support claims that mobilehomes are
difficult to sell or the selling price is substantially affected, and if the 10% increase is deleted, the
owners will have no alternative but to apply for a general rent increase under other provisions of the
ordinance in order to obtain a fair return on investment. In fact, some park owners have indicated
their intention to apply for across-the-board rent increases if the ordinance is amended as requested.
As previously discussed in the May 15, 1997 memorandum from the City Attorney, the current
vacancy control provision is part of a comprehensive,balanced approach which was negotiated by a
blue-ribbon committee appointed by the Council and approved by the voters. The removal of the
rent increase on change of ownership provision will change the balance of the ordinance which
could force a greater reliance on formal applications for rent increases (pursuant to Section
5.44.070). This would potentially generate greater conflict over rents, and ultimately may result in
greater rent increases to existing tenants than might otherwise occur since rent increases would no
longer be allowed to be passed on to new tenants.
There is a substantial concern that if the amendment is adopted, and the park owners apply for
general rent increases, there will be further requests by tenants to amend the ordinance to protect
them against such rent increases (i.e., changing the formula by which rent increases are calculated,
or establishing a rent review board). To the extent the City attempts to prevent the park owners
from obtaining a fair return on investment, the City then becomes potentially liable for a"taking"
Council Agenda Report-Mobilehome Rent Stabilization
Page 2
of the park owners' property.
FISCAL EWPACT
There is no immediate,direct fiscal impact resulting from deletion of the rent increase on change of
ownership provision. However, if the park owners apply for general rent increases, or the tenants
request additional amendments, such as the creation of a rent review board, then the increased
administrative and legal burden on the City may be very significant. It should be noted that there
has never been an application for rent increase since the ordinance was adopted in 1988. In
addition, the City .only has an indirect role in any rent adjustment hearings under the current
ordinance. Changes to either of these factors could have serious workload implications.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Should the Council wish to delete the 10%rent increase on change of ownership as
directed at the August 19, 1997 City Council meeting, you should introduce to print the ordinance
attached as Exhibit A.
Alternative 2a: The Council may wish to consider some middle ground concerning the amount of
rent increase which would be allowed on change of ownership. There appear to be two primary
options in this regard. The first would be to limit the rent increase on change of ownership to the
CPI Adjustment as set forth in 5.44.020(n. This would substantially lower the allowed rent
increase on change of ownership under current economic conditions, but could result in greater
increases if the inflationary pressures experienced in the past return. It would have the advantage of
being linked to a standard which is related to the cost of doing business and therefore would have
some rationality. A disadvantage may be the perception that it would be difficult or complex to
calculate.
Alternative 2b: A related alternative would be to assign a lower percentage increase than the
current ordinance. This would have the advantage of simplicity. As indicated at the August 19,
1997 meeting, several California cities have a 5% limit on rent increases on change of ownership.
This would probably be as good a number as any. If the increase was allowed on each change of
ownership (rather than once in any 36 month period as currently provided in the ordinance) the
concern about enforcement would be eliminated. While it is possible there could be greater
increases than currently allowed if there were multiple turnovers, on balance, it would probably
result in lesser increases overall and still allow the park owner to approximate a fair return on
investment. Should the Council wish to choose some middle position, this would be staff's
recommendation.
Alternative 3: The Council could choose to leave the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance
as currently written. This would preserve the flexibility and balance adopted by the voters in
1988.
Attachment:
Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING CHAPTER 5.44, THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE,
TO DELETE RENT INCREASES ON CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, AND
MAKE MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 5.44.010(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
"E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring to sell their mobile homes
may have difficulty finding buyers beeause if, upon a change of ownership, the
park owner is able to raise the rent '
above the annual rent increases otherwise allowed
by the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance."
SECTION 2. Section 5.44.010(F) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
"F. This council finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the
City of San Luis Obispo to assist those who are seeking to sell their mobile
homes and those who are seeking to buy such homes to have the same fair
rental protection as is afforded to those who remain in their mobile homes
without sale.
This
council further finds that provisions allowing annual rent increases together
with provision allowing rent increases upon a showing of necessity protect the
park owner's right to a fair return on investment, thus eliminating the need for
rent increases aheve ten peFee$t upon change of ownership."
SECTION 3. Section 5.44.010(G) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
"G. `Change of ownership' means the sale, rental transfer, or exchange
of a mobile home subject to the provisions of this chapter, excepting the
transfer to tenant's spouse by gift, bequest or devise (which shall not be
considered a transfer for purposes of this ordinance)."
Exki.b.i t A
-3
Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
Page Two
SECTION 4. Section 5.44.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 5. Section 5.44.060(C) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
"C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may not be increased
by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home.
lathe event of ehange-ef
_A1 I A-MWe d-by state law, sheiffild F-;]-IP-.h hPAAMP F#R*A ]A , then Upell any sue
subletting the spaee rseat may be iner-eased up te ten per-eent of the then
A 9-A P-_A*_i-A-;—; ef the spaee, then the spaee rent may be adjusted to fair m—Arket- FP__;_;*_
im the . Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as
may otherwise be provided for in this chapter."
SECTION 6. The first paragraph of Section 5.44.090 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal code is hereby amended as follows:
"5.44.090 In evaluating the application the eeianei I hearing officer may
consider, along with all other factors it considered relevant, changes in costs to
the owner attributable to increases or decreases in master land and/or facilities
lease rent, utility rates, property taxes, insurance, advertising, variable
mortgage interest rates, employee costs, normal repair and maintenance, and
other considerations, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital
improvements, upgrading and addition of amenities or services, net operating
income, and the level of rent necessary to permit a just and reasonable return
on the owner's property."
SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of
council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior
to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated
in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days
after its final passage.
Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
Page Three
Introduced and passed to print by the Council of the city of San Luis Obispo at
its meeting held on the day of September, 1997, on motion of
seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING CHAPTER 5.44, THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
MOBILE HOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE,
TO DELETE RENT INCREASES ON CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, AND
MAKE MINOR TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 5.44.010(E) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
"E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring to sell their mobile homes
may have difficulty finding buyers if, upon a change of ownership, the park
owner is able to raise the rent above the annual rent increases otherwise
allowed by the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance."
SECTION 2. Section 5.44.010(F) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
"F. This council finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of the
City of San Luis Obispo to assist those who are seeking to sell their mobile
homes and those who are seeking to buy such homes to have the same fair
rental protection as is afforded to those who remain in their mobile homes
without sale. This council further finds that provisions allowing annual rent
increases together with provision allowing rent increases upon a showing of
necessity protect the park owner's right to a fair return on investment, thus
eliminating the need for rent increases upon change of ownership."
SECTION 3. Section 5.44.010(G) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
"G. `Change of ownership' means the sale, rental transfer, or exchange
of a mobile home subject to the provisions of this chapter, excepting the
transfer to tenant's spouse by gift, bequest or devise (which shall not be
considered a transfer for purposes of this ordinance)."
SECTION 4. Section 5.44.040 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 5. Section 5.44.060(C) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is
hereby amended as follows:
Ordinance No. (1997 Series)
Page Two
"C. The maximum monthly space rent of a tenant may not be increased
by the owner when there is a change of ownership affecting a mobile home.
Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude an adjustment as may otherwise be
provided for in this chapter."
SECTION 6. The first paragraph of Section 5.44.090 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal code is hereby amended as follows:
"5.44.090 In evaluating the application the hearing officer may consider,
along with all other factors considered relevant, changes in costs to the owner
attributable to increases or decreases in master land and/or facilities lease
rent, utility rates, property taxes, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage
interest rates, employee costs, normal repair and maintenance, and other
considerations, including, but not limited to, rehabilitation work, capital
improvements, upgrading and addition of amenities or services, net operating
income, and the level of rent necessary to permit a just and reasonable return
on the owner's property."
SECTION 7. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of
council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior
to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated
in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days
after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of September, 1997, on motion of
seconded by . and on
the following roll call vote: .
• 1 \
- Ordinance No: (1997 Series)
Page Three .
AYES:
NOES: -
ABSENT ..
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
' Z/ LJ "�EETIN � 6_9?AGENDA `
_ATE ITEM #
ff'>UNCIL O CDD DIR
❑ FIN DIR
D'AGAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
GCJ�vt� tYru.;L� r ORP7EY ❑ PW DIR
JJJJJ �// A ❑ h GMT TEAM ❑ REIR D RCHF
o ❑ RECUTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
J�rtr oS��'liitlt�t RGUIVED
SEP 1 2 1997
t�Icii2o��ccn-LC' ��5�v� SLO CITY COUNCIL
�CfJi/� 141rrutcv�z�t�Lai�s+��s-eca.��`rs/c�rzicL�a�-z �Jyz�t��j c�Los.�—
. J c_t g.Z
i LCe c�.e�C- fir-/�rw,�,-&C, c_
.vim-,a.e�J� -�.�. �Z�;s� {.�-,,.� •��,
zG�-�"-'C'C lY-C/�sh..�2 rtrc�.at.w��iite•--c:�/L /nu/tc�e�corne�
i
l_-�•C.G; �'l L l�:< .�.�L1�J�'•,'a� (,C-Gi- /V��J�i"�%�ii{,i.['��L— .
v ll✓7ul; 4t,CIZI,
LC.� , /�'i: •CGG��e,1 r'-[�_'• L.L i:-C'`.2,1:L. ALL rcc:7L 1C�Ct.c��'"�
/� _ .':J: u- �/��%IC C'�{ c"�.C=J3C� �c2,cJ` !'c'�•_-���
l�).i Iri--(�'. CtL- l-C J/GG �fL. uil9-U��..� /i7Cli�ti'. ✓,Y/.1('JLc�c.�lciFlLv1
�fL� .:ti:. " fix'.• 1.�.i�,_✓e{- Gw� ,/ .ri::lr,-i�� ,�Q_• Q/��.
7�_ p
cz
:1?6U L' -1LLc.'-cl L e.7x �3/71.� C�tL
�r � '• ''� %'L UA' /!1.1i>G�. �GC. J� .1�
[' ( ,� //�/ (,� '�jf/�' � � ♦ �� //i���/i' 1, ���� ��Q,� �} �
(/QL= !CJ/♦-l�I.l_ 7'�..� �+Z�t.Jtf'W Vc-Y/.�1'`�'� C7�'-/�t�' ��1..�/�1'RLf-/iG/Jl./ W?��
T"�..lt-T .Z./���i��-C!G"'J7�P��/GG�/•'� rVl�..e. /li���� �1L[,,�jU��i-
G.tLf...�:'L /fJ,::u� c�u/'fZt,•S-,_', �� /�w���yCpi.c.�`r.2. Gy� C�4.c4,(..2Lq,�
C.tJ..C'A '�"/�--/�-ZU`tCli��y �77c;1/.:l:A' u�.-1i�_`�t� rg'•(itlVt_• •
/_/U✓ L2 GL Lire• �1:,J,Zc��3z • Qr1�f� C
c(ci�'e 'w
aeLL
YXI-
J
11 ,
C,c/(L� f�rz!� .0/L✓ :/Ll .1/l' Y-
-� �('Utf c 'rte cZ✓
/uJlLciL', y/Lair
L/�L.�c-e �i?r;;Tcort�_�• /�Q..LCC�
�"�G:•' XIJLC'� C,f/?c� $x'1'9..;_' rw�CLZ���- ."•+'�L'�.i�G4-`�'�/!j�L
�J i��� Cy,-�^✓�,GC'�'� C.J :J.-:7-- �1t� �. A� �/cs<t. c � ,�c,9;i',�:�-
��Jlci�/4
fLU cL GtiZI� /� LQ it�Ft� .�CL'�C.�.0 4J xl�.
�lUiY7 V �!i:.t C 1.iJ:l��r_C!- �'Z:L��L�•^ 'J_r C'.L2:�_Lv
.1L/1/_1 C. I-lk
.,_.ra- '��-J�•�.�.,s fr /.�.L.�. �.0��C mak; �i'6"c.:Z Com-,
U(moi-4'`/t,L.0 L}� v-yf/,ca2zllL- L:�_�7rc.e•�--�/7.'�..c-e._2-.
AJ+u E:•C'r12.GKCLQ�Z-• L.11_t� u_.�. c.. .�,=:a-e.
'4,-N
L C.& AL'•.• n-cC Lt -L.Y• t{JC.Z.lt: /<�.Z��C'� CCa Cl2'ltj..•<1.J':. •
7CIA /C',t'M C='�r�.'Y:_ ^nL CG•t•'C:. LE'�i't... �/'/CLOG•.'_
U/c E:-
/�-i..%S`i� �� '�lZk. .'/�-•2L G-rC-^Cl C[�aL r /� /C,_�+..?1-:1/J(�+4<L1t' 'YT�LJGn,2.�.
/�u-/�.... �_�It.2 l�.�t/J� CC�c1�r�`L!1«�:-• cfi�C.!!ii... � 'c��
71///lac•Get-C'/Z�G1/��C'/��..cl%Lli1"si/'%/?/t._4' LtJd!�Yt�"' !�P�(.t ,
�l�-C-��.��F:i.�Ct..L G(r'L`'2l� L✓/� QNL� .L/LL/ZcL��.�y"�
aAzll�3.c3• C.CikeCAiCeJ�
42Y—,A._ZU4U
/��1�—/)2:.i1Lc.� /1� i' .^.,��p LC[i✓c,E::%�[/�•�`-;. 'S/12.a
i
i • .
/�2C 'I�L:L GLL.Lii � �_�. •L (i•,Ic-c..��— .l���/LCY.�QlL`�
/�i.CJLGI,C C..L.(�C� D"�21L " � iQyQ-�✓...ctrL..P
L/L�lj'�/✓L.•L�c+'r.. :b�l��ce�f--'e/[eft_C����t'�- t/�/ rq��, Q/J
ct_
l_ (-L L.:{-',_C//. G(i7 iL aUc°Li•ri' 70 '-!iI , L/C CK.-.. !/:<-.Cr/:moi LeJzY..Ll�-i
/;�ts7/�. !/G'CC �'� _ LcC/tc._� �✓`Lt. LCi.ZL'. =Lcl2tic__Lcy-..
Guc.e—
49
`�LLCliiiL2�'77i=2/
Cie
Q oY
MEET
AGENDA
�ATE IN`s /6 9? f
ITEM # /
- i rec4ide
Mohilehome Community
3960 SOUTH HIGUERA • SAN Luis OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543-7113
Dear Resident, September 8, 1997
Thursday September 11 1997 7:00pm
Community meeting with General Manager Paul Dylewski
On August 19, 1997 the City council, at the request of less than 2% of the
mobilehome residents of San Luis Obispo, considered removing the provision of the
Rent Control Ordinance that allows for a 10% rent increase on resale of a
mobilehome. Should the City Council proceed with this action it may have a
profound impact on mobilehome park communities.
Enclosed you will find a letter from an attorney representing several parkowners in
own out ining the parkowners' position on the issues involved. You are invited to
review this letter as these-latest-even t-
atestevents may impact park owners and residents alike.
I will be in the Park from 10:00am to 4:00pm on Thursday, September 111h to discuss
these and other issues. If you would like to discuss these issues privately please
drop by the park office during those hours as I would be happy to meet with you
individually. We will convene a park-wide meeting for all residents that evening at
7:00pm. Please plan to attend and have your voice heard.
:9CLERKIORIG
❑ CDD DIR
Paul J. Dylewski ❑ FIN DIR
General Manager AC( ❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑ PW DIR
❑ POLICE CHF❑ REC DIR❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
ESEP
ED
997UNCIL
J
ANTHONY C.RODRIGUEZ • -
XTTORMEY AT LAW
1700 CLAY STREET
$IJITE COO
gAl([a�il.CALIFORMA Vy!12
TELEP340-N2(510)4Ga902.2
IIIA FACSIMILE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
(805) 781-7109
Aagust 13, 1997
City Council, City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
pan Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: Proposed Amendments To Rent Control Ordinance
Pear Council Members:
I am an attorney specializing in legal issues involving mopileh�xme paFics- One
bf my particular areas of expertise is litigation involving mot ilehc,.aac: rent control
lordinances. I have been asked to represent several parkowners in;San.Lais Obispo W.1
irespect to the proposed amendments to the San Luis Obispo rent cort�ol oidimAlce.
Specifically, I have been asked to advise the Council of the tollow:ng lrcgal issues
regarding both the current ordinance and the proposed amendments:
1.) VACANCY CONTROL: There is admittedly a great deal of Si.19�P(aii;td
regarding the legality of vacancy control throughout California. For exs;nple, a.Uo'ug'.z
the United States Supreme Court has found that vacancy control. does :lot covstkute a
"physical taking" of property, the high court has never detern�Ynea `r,?tc:ther: !Tad: irc�
ieontrol results in a "regulatory taking". Yee v. City of Escondido (19921) 543 U.S.
519. If the City eliminates the current 10% increases allowable ol1ow;Dg a hirrover u)..
tenancy, the parkowners intend to challenge that amendment n the P;.-ound. ..Jiat: it
results in a "regulatory" taking.
2.) NO INCREASE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: InfVa�l rai.sa Associates
v. City of Cotati, 97 Daily Journal A.A.R. 9336, the court fou d a rcgutatcry mkLig
would exist if rent control resulted in fewer affordable housing uptts, radler th n. more.
Although the evidence has not been fully developed in San Luis Obispo, it s obvious
that rent control has not resulted in an increase in mobilehome space: in d olll, city.
Again, if the Council adopts the proposed amendments, my clients intend tc cb.ai engpe
the very existence of rent control in San Luis Obispo under the V casc.
(+ouncil Members
August 13, 1997
Wage 2
3.) "PASS THROUGH" OF CAPITAL IMRPOVEMENTS: In Sierra Lake
eservc v. City of Rocklin. (1991) 938 F. 2d. 951, the Ninth Cit'cuit Court of Appeal
fuled that a rent control ordinaince must not only allow the p4ss-through of capital
improvements, it must allow parkowners to. recover a fair retum on their capital
expenditures. Because parkowners have a constitutional right to pass through capital
expenditures it is obvious that any attempt to allow tenants to veto those pass throughs
Violates the Sierra Lake case. If the proposed amendments to the;San Luis Obispo rent
t ontrol ordinance are adopted, the parkowners also intend to file; an action against the
City under the Sierra Lake case.
4.) FAIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT: Regardless of how the City Council
responds to the proposed amendments to the ordinance, it is clear that the City cannot
prohibit the parkowners from earning a fair return on their investments. If the City
Council elimuiates still another source of income for the parkowners, each and every
no of my clients intends to apply for any and all rent increases aecessary to receive a
air return on investment. Although some of my clients are still accumulating the
nformation necessary to apply for a fair return, a preliminary analysis demonstrates
at the following parkowners require at least the following rent increases in order to
-eceive a fair return on investment:
INCREASES PER
PARK SPACES SPACE PER MONTH
Laguna Lake 300 $77.48
Silver City 297 $89.78
Creekside 215 $69,62
Willow Creek 82 $74.70
Oceanaire 67 $84.52
In the past, most of the parkowners have been.willing to-accept less than a fair
return in order to avoid litigation with the City and the tetiants regarding rents.
Although the parkowners must keep all of their options open,! at least some of the
'parkowners remain willing to forgo applying for a fair return at this time if the
proposed amendments are rejected.
CONCLUSION: By enacting rent control the City of San Luis Obispo has not
only lowered the parkowners' profits, it has taken money they could have used to
support their own families and loved ones and given it directly to;the tenants, Although
there is a growing tide of legal opinion against any law that requires one group of
private citizens to subsidize another group of private citizens, in the past the
�Iouncil Members
Pugust 13, 1997
age 3
arkowners have tried to live with the current ordinance, ratheF than pursuing their
tights in court.
Unfortunately, the tenants in the San Luis Obispo mobijehome parks are not
atisfied with the tens of thousands of dollars in rent subsidies the already receive each
'ear from my clients. Instead, they are now asking for a further reduction in the
arkowners' profits, including full vacancy control.
If the proposed amendments are adopted the parkowner� will have no choice
bther than to pursue all of the above legal remedies. My cl'ents request the City
iCouncil not to view this proposed litigation as a "threat," but a a logical response to
khe further erosion of their investments. • In order to avo'd a full scale legal
confrontation between the park-owners, the City and the tenants, ty clients respectfully
request that the proposed amendments be rejected.
Very truly yours,
�• i��a.cX�,
Anthony C. Rodriguez
Icc: David Evans
ATTORNEY AT L.IIv
1300 CLAY STRICICT .
/ SUITE 600
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 03014 MEETING AGENDA ...
TKT.EI'IIDX6�6101,64.604f! DATE�,'�L/9 7 ITEM #
September 15, 1997
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq. '
I ity Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
an Luis Obispo, California 94301-3294
Re: Vacancy Control/Regulatory Taking
ear Mr. Jorgensen,
This.office represents the owners of several mobilehome packs in San Luis Obispo. My
c lents have authorized the filing of a lawsuit challenging the City Concil's decision to implement i
11 vacancy control for all mobilehome spaces within the San Luis,Obispo City limits. Please
a vise whether a transcript or a tape recording of the City Council's most recent meeting on this
bject is available. In addition, please advise whether you are authorized to accept service of my
rc ients' lawsuit on behalf of the City.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard.
Very truly yours,
Anthony C. Rodriguez
S41 AOUNAIJORGENSN.LTR
RECEIVED
❑ LS;: , ❑CDD DIR
c °� ❑FIN DIR SEP 1 g 1997
'',1 ❑FIRE C'::-
❑ATfOflNEY ❑PW DIR SLO OI-��,
❑• tRKIORIG ❑POLICE CN.- CLERK
0 MGM TAM ❑REC DIR
ply ❑UTIL DIR
❑ ❑PERS DIR
ZO .d -
POO.2
ANTHONY C.RODRIGUEZ
i
ATTORNEY AT LAN'
1300 CLAY STREET
SUITE 600
OAKLAND.CAI.IFOr2A'IA 9{012
TETAPHONL•t010)40"022
September 15, 1997 ;+
Bonnie Gawf.
City Clerk, City of San Lui Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Californiai94301-3294 '
f
Re: Silver City Mobilehome Park
Dear Ms. Gawf,
This office represent,; the owners of Silver City Mobilehome Park. My clients intend t
file for a rent increase of a� least $89.78 per month, pursuant to the City's rent stabilizatio
ordinance. Accordingly, please forward this office the following documents:
1.) A certified copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including
any and all an endments to the ordinance;
2.) A certified copy of any regulations that may have been enacted
regarding imp ementation of the ordinance;
3.) Any and 11 forms the City has developed either for filing an
application or mfor objecting to an application.
Thank you for your aiticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any question
71
regarding this subject please do not hesitate to call. is
;i
• .t
Very truly yours,
Anthony g C. Rodriguez
cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq.
City Attorney, City o San Luis Obispo
54a AGUNAICLERKILTR
• :i
P. 03:
ANTHONY C.RODRIGUEZ
ATTORNEY AT L.A«
1300 CLAY 6TRERT ; '
SUITE 600 ..
OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 949in j
TELEPRONE 010i9i-80x7 '
September 15,. 1997
Bonnie Gawf
City Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 4301-3294
Re: Oceanaire Mo ilehome Park
j:
Dear Ms. Gawf, '
i
This office represents a owners of Oceanaire Mobilehome Park. My clients intend to fil
for a rent increase of at least 84.52 per space, pursuant to the City's rent stabilization ordinance
Accordingly, please forwar this office the following documents:
1.) A certifie copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including
any and all an endments to the ordinance;
i .
2.) A certified copy of any regulations that may have been enacted
regarding imp ementation of the ordinance;
3.) Any and 11 forms the City has developed either for filing an
application orifor objecting to an application.
i
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any question
regarding this subject please do
not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
C. "
Anthony C. Rodriguez
cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen,. Esq.
City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo
S:A.AGUNAICLEB1C6.LT1 i
i
ii
i•
P. 04
ANTHONY C.RODRIGUEZ
ATTORNEY AT"W
1300 CLAY BTRZOT ;
:
su1TE 600
OAXL a.1D.CALIFORNIA 04012
TELSPRON£(370)4134-9002
II
September 15, 1997
Bonnie Gawf
City Clerk, City of San Lu' Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Califbmi 94301-3294
Re: Lagmuna Lace Mobilehome Park '
Dear Ms. Gawf,
This office represen s the owners of Laguna Lake Mobilehome Park. My clients intend
to file for a rent increase of at least $77.48 per space, pursuant to the City's rent stabilizati(n
ordinance. Accordingly, pease forward this office the following documents:
1.) A certified copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including
any and all amendments to the ordinance;
2.) A certift d copy of any regulations that may have been enacted
regarding im lementation of the ordinance;
3.) Any and all forms the City has developed either for filing an
application o for objecting to an application.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any questiox s
regarding this subject pleas do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Anthony C. Rodriguez
cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgense , Esq. +
Ciry Attorney, City f San Luis Obispo
541LACUN•ICLER OXM
• .I
•..r P. 05 .
ANTHONY C. RODRIGUEZ
ATT0Fa ZY AT LAZY
1800 CLAY BTFEET
SUITE 600
OAKLAND.CA1.I70HNIA 04013
TELEPHONE,61a 6G3•9022
September 15, 1997
i
Bonnie Gawf
City Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 94301-3294
Re: Willow Creek Mobilehome Park
ii
Dear Ms. Gawf,
This office representS the owners of Willow Creek Mobilehome Park. My clients inten
to file for a tent increase of at least $74.70 per space, pursuant to the City's rent stabilizatio
ordinance. Accordingly, please forward this office the following documents:
1.) A certified copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including
any and all atndments to the ordinance;
is
2.) A certified copy of any regulations that may have been enacted
regarding implementation of the ordinance;
3.) Any and �11forms the City has developed either for filing an
application or for objecting to an application.
Thank you for your ticipated cooperation in this regard. If you have any question
regarding this subject please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Anthony C. Rodriguez
cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen Esq.
City Attorney, City f San Luis Obispo
SNLACUNAKLEUS.LTR '
1 Vi
P.6 6�,
is
ANTHONY Q RODRIGUEZ
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1300 CLAY STREET
li
S WTE 600 ;
OAHLA".CALIFORNIA 04OLZ
TEL.F.PHONL^+6301 49,6800a
September 15, 1997
Bonnie Gawf
City Clerk, City of San Lu s Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Californi 94301-3294
i
Re: Creekside obilehome Park
Dear Ms. Gawf,
Thisoffice representls the owners of Creekside Mobilehome Park. My clients intend to e
for a rent increase of at least $69.62 per space, pursuant to the City's rent stabilization ordinan e.
Accordingly, please forward this office the following documents:
1.) A certif ed copy of the rent stabilization ordinance, including
any and all Imendments to the ordinance;
2.) A certifi d copy of any regulations that may have been enacted
regarding nn lementation of the ordinance;
3.) Any an all forms the City has developed either for filing an
application or for objecting to an application.
Thank you for youl for
cooperation in this regard. If you have any questiols
regarding this subject please' do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
Anthony C. Rodriguezt�
cc: Ieffrey G. Jorgense , Esq. s
City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo
5+MOUNAICLERK4.LTR i
ii
MEETIV AGENDA
DATE '��-9`7 ITEM #
,
Gree4ide
Mabilehome Community
3960 SOUTH HIGUERA • SAN Luis OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93401 • PHONE 805/543-7113
Dear Resident, July 25,1997
It has come to our attention that a few resident activists have delivered a communication to residents challenging
the fairness of the City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Obviously, we do not feel the authors are representing your
best interest as they pursue agendas that are harmful to the park, the city,and everyone concerned. We do not
feel they represent the feelings of Creekside residents as we firmly believe most residents are quite happy with the
park. In fact, the only difficulties or disputes we ever see always involve these few people. We must ask, Why
does this go on? Why do they continue the harassment?
We are sorry for the tone of this letter, however, understand that we have endured vear after year of constant
contention, attacks, trips to City Hall, and considerable wasting of time, money, and resources that could
definitely have been put to better use. We are at the point where enough is enough,and we must now challenge
these recent efforts very aggressively.
The authors claim we have a"team' of lawyers-this is entirely false. We have never hired an attorney for any
resident matter since the ordinance was adopted and the residents chose to sign the lease. However, due to the
constant threat to our business we have hired an attorney as we find it necessary to go to the City rent review
process to pursue issues of"air return on investment." This could result in a_n across-the-board increase on all
spaces not under lease. Ask yourselves if you want these activist opinions putting you personally at risk?,We
will no longer watch passively as a tiny misguided group attempts to destroy the stability of the lyase and III(!
partnership between us it represents.
The Park office has a full detailed written response to the authors'"Points To Prove the IU o Rent Increase Should
Be Banished." We encourage all residents interested in the truth to read the response. We hombv encourage all
residents to write to the Mayor and City Council expressing your honest opinions of your expenence at the park.
Let the Council know these people do not represent your interests and expose their gross misunderstandings.
Save your elected officials the time of dealing with this nonsense. Let them know you believe the ordinance,as
originally passed by the voters in 1988, is fair to all concerned parties, has functioned without detriment to
anyone, and has kept the city out of harms way. Quite simply,leave it alone!
It is time to end this unnecessary negative posturing and utilize the Homeowners Association for positive action
for the community instead of the pursuit of a few individuals'agenda and aspirations. Weare convinced you are
not aware of your association's actions. We hope to see you,the residents, put an end to this misguided use of
this important representative group. We would be happy to meet with interested residents to discuss creating-in
alternative resident group-one in which you will actually participate. There are positive thinks that can be dune
given a resident association willing to work with management.
We simply want to continue to honor the commitments of our lease in fairness to all residents of Creekside. Don't
let a few misdirected people place your security in jeopardy. We truly believe a rational thou
this issue can and will prevail. Again, please write to the city and put an end to this waste. C�l1NCIL it'
Cl :':r?
Creekside Mobilehonic Community '
ORNEY f�'i' ';i•
CLERKfORIG C1 _
0 MGMT TEAM
ner 1
R CEIVED
P J. Dylc-.vski, G� eral Mn
aager
Edwin J. Eva -
SEP 1 2 1997
SLO CIT` COUNCIL
Creekside REBUTTAL Discussion of authors'
"Points to Prove the 10% Rent Increase Should Be Banished"...
Consider this a position paper of sorts with the intention of countering the patently false accusations, the outright
lies, the gross misunderstandings and the obvious irrelevance of the 10 items (ideas?)given residents for writing to
the city council. We would, frankly, be embarrassed to use these items as intelligent reasons the Council should
consider removing the 10%rent increase on resale provisions of the rent control ordinance. As you will see, the
substance behind these "points" is dreadfully lacking in merit. Each of the 10 points will be restated with rebuttal
comments to follow. Thank you for taking the time to read this. We are convinced a rational, intelligent
conclusion will prevail.
1. "Rents NEVER drop in Mobilehome Parks, regardless of a slump in the economy
which may cause falling rents in other sectors."
The rents in a rent-controlled district are controlled by the CPI index. This is a chosen legal barometer of
economic activity and general prices in given geographic markets. The San Luis Obispo(SLO)ordinance uses
the CPI Index to control increases in rents as they are indexed for inflation from the base year. The ordinance
also only allows for 75%of the increase above 5%, as well as, indexing both up and down. If the CPI Index ever
were to go down so would the rents! To assume a"slump"in the economy necessarily translates into lower rents
is false logic and poor economics. Do the authors have proof of failing rents in other sectors? Do they have proof
of falling rents in SLO? We don't think so. Rent levels in SLO are some of the highest in the st4tte... ex t f
mobilehome residents! &Arc. o.�e r 7 o(I qr _
Mobilehome park rents in SLO are 20-30%below comparable rents in the statet
-SLO is generally
expensive place to live. At the same time rents are kept low the goods and services needed to operate the park
cost more in SLO than in metro southern California. To assume already lower than average rents can support
higher than average expenses is faulty. „!••. y r e Ac. P ,: 2
The ordinance adopted the CPI Index because almost every other ordinance in the state uses it to control '
rent increases. It is the CPI Index that causes rents to go up or down, not the park owners. If the CPI Index
declined from one year to the next.the rents would decrease accordingly, tin I if the re is w c too high
because they''never drop"wouldn't there be vacancies in mobilehome par'Ks? ouldn't parlac brs °�,i'osmg'
rental income because their renis are too high? The home sales data for the park strongly proves the exact
opposite of the authors' conclusion-they are quite simply wrong! Why would 45 people buy into Creeksidc over
the last couple years if the rents were too high? Surely, there arc other housing options far less expensive.
2. "Stated purpose of the ordinance is protecting mobilehome owners from unreasonable
rent increases. The ordinance does not do that. Rents are on an endless upward
spiral, accelerating with larger rent increases after each resale, making a home
unsaleable. Some homeowners have even abandoned their home from desperation."
This effort at logic is frightening. The stated purpose of the ordinance is also to provide a fair return on
investment to the owner of the business. The ordinance is designed specifically to take both parties rights into
consideration. Do the authors provide evidence that the ordinance is NOT doing its job? And, what kind of
evidence would prove this? Or maybe, this is a subjective statement of emotion not based on fact. Rents are on
the same upward spiral as the CPI Index-the same economy we all live within. Is there some reason mobilehome
owners should receive a special exemption from the American economv?
2
Dear Resident, July 25, 1997
The following are additional comments that were not included in the letter dated July 25, 1997 sent to all residents
of the park. These comments are equally important but were left out of the letter you received in an effort to keep
the first correspondence to one page. Please consider the following.
This small group of activistshave for years misunderstood the purpose, intent and function of the ordinance. They
have sustained themselves on gross misunderstandings of established case law and don't hesitate to broadcast this
through correspondence such as'their"Points To Prove the 10%Rent Increase Should Be Banished." For
example, stating that pass-throughs are illegal is simply incorrect as this is firmly established by existing case
law; to suggest a city can not be sued over changes to the ordinance is dangerous and ignorant -cities across the
country are being sued over the mere existence of rent control; and stating that rent control is a necessity begs the
question of why it isn't law in every city in the nation.
The authors pay no mind to the history of the ordinance-that it was negotiated for over one year at great effort by
a committee of homeowners and park owners representing nearly every park in SLO, that it was voted into law by
the citizens of SLO,that it has functioned without cost or detriment to the city or homeowners for almost 10
years, and that the Creekside lease is guaranteed assurances of future operations and the stability of the
community. Since the enactment of the ordinance, certain elements have been on personal crusades to flex
political muscle, to ignore the voters of the city and perpetuate their own version of rent controls founded in a
gross misunderstanding of economic logic, business realities and existing mobilehome law.
The authors of the letter are simply stirring up trouble. To think they are furthering some cause or fighting
against gross injustice simply isn't true. We are compelled to respond to the untruths, errors in judgment, and
outright lies contained in their correspondence.
The basis of the request to remove the 10%increase on resale is completely lacking in logic, has no economic or
factual data supporting it(the data in fact, refutes their conclusions,) is based on certain lies and,in many cases
the arguments are totally irrelevant to the issue they've raised. Most of the arguments are fraught with emotion
and lacking in any facts or figures to support the emotional and subjective conclusions -4 of the 10 points are
untrue and 5 of them are completely irrelevant to their topic. Ask yourself,are they proving why the 10% rent
increase should be banished? We think not. Let's not be fooled by this veiled attempt at emotional coercion.
How many of you non-lease residents who signed the rent reduction application realize your"representatives"
have challenged Creekside under the California Civil Code? Do you know the Civil Code provides for.recovery of
our legal fees should we prevail? Do you understand their effort hopes to recover approximately 14t of inflation
on pass-throughs since 1994 -costs/pass throughs reviewed each year by the city staff and deemed correctly
calculated and applied? In so doing they've put each of you at personal risk for attorneys fees incurred in our
defense. (The 80+%who are on the lease are in no way affected by this.). The Park office has our response to
the city regarding this action and we suggest you read it carefully. We have been informed by the city attorney we
are legally correct on each issue. Do you really want these people leading you into a poorly thought-out effort
that could leave you liable for thousands of dollars i,nL,legal fees? Next time you are asked to sign your name to
something please think twice. (��Y 46c;&1161 f l,1 Q ,r I n y"ti � o y'C f o h o
a
4-
Please review the Rebuttal document that follows.
P
41EETING AGENDA
SATE 24-1 ITEM #
September 11, 1997
MEMORANDUM LINCIL 13 CDD DIR
[13
C 0 ❑ FIN DIR
CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
TO: Council Colleagues yy��ORNEY 13 PW DIR
'LERKIORIG [3 POLICE CHF
RIGMT TEAM 13REC DIR
FROM: Council Member Dodie Williams ' 13UTIL DIR
AdAzLZ ❑ PERS DIR
SUBJECT: Council Action re Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
Regarding the August 19"'meeting, I am convinced the Council has taken the first step toward
setting itself up as a rent review board to respond to the wishes of a vocal group of mobile home
park residents.
During the hearing, a number of residents who were satisfied with current ordinance provisions
and objected to the requested change, addressed the Council and expressed their views. But it
seemed that one group in particular had the ear of the Council. It's interesting that Creekside, the
one park with an excellent lease and where many residents not on the lease are actually paying
higher monthly rent, is where the greatest outcry occurs.
The compromise ordinance which was passed in 1988 by City residents had several features built
in to protect residents. Over the years a very vocal group has worked successfully to remove
those features and undermine the ordinance. This latest effort to delete the 10% increase on
change of ownership, if we acquiesce, will trigger immediate requests for rent increases from park
owners. In my view, it will result in higher rents for the very people who led the charge.
Remember that the 10% increase affects only new residents who know the rental amount coming
in. As for the charge that it drives home sales down, one only has to look at current sales
numbers to see the flaw there. Sales are up in every park.
It is my opinion that we could reduce the 10%to a lesser amount, extend the term from 36 to 60
months, or some combination of both. To remove entirely the ability to raise rent on change of
ownership is the issue which will trigger new requests for increases. It is also apparent that the
activist group will petition the Council to deny any park owner requested increases. This scenario
has major implication for both staff and Council in that it will require significant staff time and sets
the stage for contentious Council hearings as well as potential litigation..
In closing, it seems a shame to undo the efforts of a large group of citizens who worked for
months on an ordinance that didn't satisfy any one faction, but did include something for
everyone. It has served us well.
°°EETIN AGENDA
aATE - 6"97 ITEM #
council mcmoRAnbum
IR'CA0 1:1 FIN DIR
September 8, 1997 mac ao ❑FIRE CHIEF
D�TTORNEY O PW DIR
HCLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
TO: City CouncilPL-M. � O UTIL DIR
��
FROM: John Dunn, City AdministratiO O PERS DIR
ve Office
SUBJECT: Possible Implication to a e Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
Ordinance
The purpose of this memo is not to deal with the substance or content of the mobile home matter
before you as the City Attorney has done that in his memo. Rather, my purpose is to point out
some potential ramifications or implications to a change in the present ordinance.
As you know, matters relating to mobile home parks are under the control of the State of
California, Department of Housing and Community Development. To my knowledge, the only
area of potential city regulation,which the City has exercised, is in the area of mobile home rent
stabilization.
What the city desires in this arena is self-evident, an ordinance that accomplishes its purpose and,
to the degree humanly possible, is fair and considerate of both mobile home park tenants and
owners.
As set forth in the City Attorney's memo, and as some of you will intimately recall, the City
went through an extraordinary exercise in 1988, bringing the two parties of interest together,
having them work out an agreement, which was then placed on the ballot and overwhelmingly
ratified by the City's voters.
As a result,we have an ordinance which, perhaps in the minds of most,has worked well in that it
has created relative peace, has discouraged overly adversarial stances, and has not unduly
strained City resources by having the City act as a mediator, peacemaker, fact-finder, record-
keeper, etc.
My concern is that changes to the existing ordinance, with the potential reactions and counter-
reactions, may destroy the delicate balance which was created by the 1988 process. If this were
to happen,whether through intent of the parties or inadvertently, then there is the danger that the
Council would be drawn into the fray as the rent review board or the Council would designate a
separate rent review board. In either event, either body would be taking on a significant and
difficult and often-times contentious role, and would require significant staff assistance to do this
job. Wendy, Ken and I have spent some time discussing this matter and have concluded that the
CAO's office can not take on this responsibility under present circumstances. To do so would
mean that our present overall management-of-the-city responsibilities would have to be changed,
either getting rid of or short-changing some functions, or that new staffing, permanent or
contractual, would have to be provided. Even with the additional staffing, the workload of the
office would be significantly changed, as the need for supervision, policy clarification, dispute
resolution, handling "wild fires" etc. would present situations which would have to be dealt with
immediately. In fact, staffing a rent review board would pose a workload issue in any
department, and added staffing would be needed regardless of organizational location.
It is not our present purpose to say that the City Council should not change the existing
ordinance. That is your proper role and judgment. It is my role to point out that this is a
situation ripe with the potential for "unintended consequences", that these consequences will
have to be dealt with and that, for someone (if not many) that process is very time and labor
intensive.
A new police officer is instructed that one of his most potentially dangerous assignments is
getting caught in the middle of a domestic dispute. In a similar fashion, even if the City were to
increase its role in this "fairness/peacemaking" function, that in itself presents no guarantee that
the situation will either be improved or that the parties to the dispute will be satisfied with the
results.
A little bit of history may be helpful (there are others who were around at that time and,
therefore, could do a better job of describing this). Approximately fifteen to twenty years ago,
the City Council created a Mobile Home Rent Control Board. After some years of hard work
accompanied by much contentiousness, the Council eventually disbanded the Board. At about
that same time, the Human Relations Commission had its own staff, separate from the City.
About ten to twelve years ago, the HRC staff had been integrated into City staff, however the
CAD's office had a staff member who worked full time on HRC/mobile home rent control
matters. The main thing this brief history teaches me is that"there is no free lunch." If the city,
by plan or inadvertently, is drawn more closely into matters of dispute between the mobile home
park tenants and owners, there is definitely a consequence to the City Council (how you spend
your time) and to the staff(adequacy of staff resources and when they are assigned).
In conclusion, and in reiteration, it is not my role to presume the proper course of action on this
matter. Like you, I can only guess and speculate as to "what might happen" if you take one
course versus another. It is my role to remind you that the City has been down a certain road
before, with consequences unrewarding to all parties. Mostly, I wanted to state my concern that
there are potential "unanticipated consequences" which we should keep in the backs of our mind
as we contemplate changes to the nine-year-old ordinance, and as we potentially create a more
activist role for the City in this arena.
COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR 6—�—I `
^O 13 FIN DIR :EYING _ AGEII
�'.:, 11FIRE CHIEF ATEITEM #_,,.
"cY
13 PW DIR
13 POLICE CHF
13Mu-*T TEAM ❑ REC DIR
Dear Council Memb ,13 _ [3UTIL DIR
E3 PERS DIR
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,
—2� f� 'G�I e4 Lei'i o
co ci
RECEIVED
1 6 1997
SLO CITY COUNCIL
v
n.
BERRY C N��sU r�1
r -, J. Ili ✓r C'�
v
i
\-77 1
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,
5-ARAID R o3 1 N �►�,D�R 7
�C M(+(LTHA `, SI EV IVS.
t �k
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,
c
.f � iv./ _ /�'
, - -
: ; _
._ 4 -_-
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affeqeveryone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,
c
��
�������
v
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,
F ��4d,i��l
'' -
Fellow Residents - this is a letter that will be presented to the City Council
before Tuesday's Meeting. Please consider signing it . If possible please
plan to attend the meeting to show your support & if you wish to, voice
your opinion, comments &/or concerns.
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,
Fellow Residents - this is a letter that will be presented to the City Council
before Tuesday's Meeting. Please consider signing it . If possible please
plan to attend the meeting to show your support & if you wish to, voice
your opinion, comments &/or concerns.
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,
� � l9 q 7
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent.Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home mi this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,
N S U 93yo /
v
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General_ Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you, \tO
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election'of-1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
--�11 - - - 0�-001-a�
Fellow Residents - this is a letter that will be presented to the City Council
before Tuesday's Meeting. Please consider signing it. If possible please
plan to attend the meeting to show your support & if you wish to, voice
your opinion, comments &/or concerns.
Dear Council Members,
We reside in the Creekside Mobile Home Community in San Luis
Obispo. It has been brought to our attention that a very small
group of residents is attempting to alter the Rent Control
Ordinance that was approved in the General Election of 1988 as
Measure D.
These few people are not a true representation of the majority of
residents that will be impacted by the alteration of a Measure
already approved by the people of San Luis Obispo...
This group previously asked for the removal of the "Safe Harbor"
provision which allowed all the residents to be treated equally if
a majority have signed a lease agreement within a park.
Now they are asking for the removal of the 10% increase in rent
upon resale of the mobile home.
With these changes to the original Ordinance, it will adversely
affect everyone who rents or owns a mobile home in this city &
the park owners as well.
We ask that you restore the Rent Control Ordinance to the
original wording that was voted on & approved in 1988.
Thank you,