HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1992, 9 - FINANCIAL WARNING URGENCY -1 MEETING DATE:
city Of San tins OBISPO 6-16-92
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM N MBER:
From: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Subject: Financial Warning
CAO RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the attached resolution opposing State
efforts to take revenues from cities and direct staff to send
copies of the resolution to the Governor and members of the
Legislature representing San Luis Obispo County.
DISCUSSION
The City may be facing an immediate financial crisis. This week
the Governor, the Speaker and the Minority Leader of the Assembly,
the President pro tem and the Minority Leader of the Senate are
making decisions which could have a disastrous effect on cities.
Last year the Stto dealt with a $14 billion deficit; this year
they have a $11 Billion deficit. They are proposing to take $1
billion from cities in the form of greatly-reduced vehicle license
tax and the elimination of the AB 8 property tax assistance. In
the case of San Luis Obispo, this could be a $2 million take-away,
which represents about ten percent (10%) of our General Fund
budget.
JD:mc
Attachments: Fact Sheet
Resolution
League of CA Cities Bulletin
h/budged
COPIE:ST0:
❑'DqXAMAd= ❑ FYI
1kr ° URwrsAo ❑ F�
OFL�ff, ❑ flWnUL
CHIEF
oxlc. ❑ Pouaca
RECEIVED � M W'TEAM o RM D.
JUN 1 6 1992 ��
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBIS.PO,IA
I',i it ill ll .Illi'' '' li�il
i� city of San IDIS OBISPO
FACT SHEET
THE STATE CONTINUES ITS BUDGET GRAB FROM CITIES
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
BACKGROUND =THE STATE'S BUDGET CRISIS
To assist in identifying solutions to the State's $11 billion budget gap, Legislative "working
groups" have been formed, including one on how local government can help solve the
State's fiscal crisis. This working group has developed 68 options in an effort to target $1
billion in budget cuts and grabs from California cities. The most significant of these is
shifting away from cities two traditional sources of their revenues - vehicle license fees
and a portion of property taxes - in order to provide funding for State programs and service
responsibilities.
This approach to funding the State's budget shortfall is wrong. Cities have also been hard-
hit by the recession, and have already made tough revenue and expenditure decisions.
These proposed budget grabs simply pass the buck for the State's fiscal problems to cities,
who are neither responsible for the State's revenue shortfall, nor responsible for providing.
State services or programs.
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED?
The most serious of the State's budget grabs would shift vehicle license fees and a portion
of property taxes away from cities and allocate them to programs and services that are State
responsibilities.
This proposal would cost the City of San Luis Obispo $2 million annually.
HOW WILL THIS AFFECT THE CITY?
Two options are available to us in addressing this major shortfall: increasing local revenues
.or reducing service levels. The City has already made very tough decisions in both of these
areas over the past several years, including fee increases for planning, engineering, building,
water, and sewer services, increases in our business and transient occupancy taxes, and $3.1
million in expenditure reductions during our 1991-93 budget process. Additionally, the City
is committed to a program of productivity improvements that has already resulted in a
reduction of 7 positions. Contrary to the State's handling of its fiscal affairs, the City has
addressed its financial needs in a responsible and forthright manner, and it is being
punished by the State because of it.
Service vnpacts. On the expenditure side,-this budget grab represents almost 10% of our
General Fund operating expenditures. This level of expenditure cuts - coming on top of
reductions already made -would significantly impact our ability to provide essential services
to our citizens. It is not possible at this time to say what specific programs would be
affected or by how much - this is a decision that would be made by the Council during an
open public hearing process (an approach that the State itself does not use); however, it
9�
should be noted that police and fire protection services account for almost 50% of General
Fund operating programs; and other key programs financed by the General Fund include
street maintenance, parks & recreation (including child care), and financial support for
many cultural and social service activities such as La Fiesta, the Mozart Festival, Farmer's
Market, and the homeless shelter.
F.xmnples of possible service reductions. Offsetting this shortfall solely through expenditure
cuts would require the equivalent reduction of 38 police officers (we only have 41 police
officer positions, and 56 sworn police positions in total).
It is unlikely that police services would be impacted to this degree. However, since public
safety services represent almost 50% of General Fund operating costs, it is equally unlikely
that police and fire services can be unaffected by this budget grab. If this reduction is
simply distributed proportionately among all General Fund programs, staffing would have
to be reduced as follows:
Required F.zisting
Reductions Regular Staffing
Police 11 83
Fire 7 55
Public Works 9 68
Community Development 4 26
Recreation 2 71
Other Departments 5 �$
TOTAL 38 281
WHY SHOULDN'T CITIES HELP THE STATE?
■ The State's budget problems are its own. It is unfair to ask cities to solve problems
that they did not create.
■ Cities have already helped the State. Over the last year alone, the State has shifted
(or outright taken) over $500,000 annually from the City of San Luis Obispo in
cigarette in-lieu revenues, fines & forfeitures, booking-fees, sexual.assault exams,
and property tax administration fees.
■ Cities are facing the same kind of revenue shortfalls as the State due to the
recession, and have already made tough budget decisions on both the revenue and.
expenditure side because of it. It is simply unfair to ask cities to do more; further
budget reductions will. have a very significant impact on the delivery of essential
services to the community.
ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATATS FOR THE STATE?
Yes. For example, the.State's existing revenue system includes $20 billion in loopholes that
are not being used at all to close their $11 billion budget gap. As long as the State fails
to close these loopholes, it is wrong to force cities to drastically reduce essential health and
safety services.
S3
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DECLARING A FINANCIAL EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, State officials have determined that the State budget gap of$11 billion
can be reduced in part by taking away revenues now received by cities; and
WHEREAS, if revenues are. taken from cities and shifted to the State, cities will
experience a drastic drop in services or be forced to raise taxes to maintain services; and
WHEREAS, city officials are declaring a fiscal emergency to oppose State taking
of city revenues and to urge fiscal responsibility by the State; and
WHEREAS, city governments have maintained fiscal responsibility in the face of
staff and revenue reductions comparable to reductions in other levels of government; and
WHEREAS, city taxpayers should not be asked to assume responsibility for funding
State services; and
WHEREAS, the State could reduce its budget gap by eliminating tax loopholes in
the existing tax system estimated at $20 billion annually.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the cities of San Luis Obispo County
jointly oppose any State actions that solve their budget gap that take away needed
revenue from cities.
7
w
On motion of seconded by
and on the following role call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was pased and adopted on this day of 1992.
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
ty 4rinance
Direc or
g:budget.res
9-�
KNOW
111100' RECEIVED 'Ut"I 1 5 i9�2
RossiLeague of California Cities
1�m ak 1400 K STREET • SACRANAENTO,CA 95614 . (916)444-5790
California Cdies
work Together
DeliverUrgent Materials Please
June 10, 1992
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Managers, Police Chiefs, Fire Chiefs
FROM: Hal Conklin, League President
Dave Mora, City Managers Department President
Vincent Jimno, Police Chiefs Department President
Tom Robertson, Fire Chiefs Department President
Don Benninghoven, League Executive Director
RE: Budget Conference Committee Hearing on State Budget Deficit
The Budget Conference Committee heard today (Thursday, June 10) a report from a
working committee made up of Legislators and charged them to help balance the State's
budget by making specific recommendations to take $1 billion plus from local
government. A letter transmitting the report is attached because the principles included
impact cities. We've also included responses related to these principles. We believe
They are seriously considering achieving their goal by taking cities' share of property taxes
and/or vehicle license fees.
To fight this effort, cities must unite in a way as never before. The real leverage cities
have is to meet directly with Legislators, generate the media's attention and get citizens
behind us. Sample media materials and grass roots plans have been sent to the
President of each Area City Managers Group as well as all public information officers..
Suggestions for actions include press conferences (which should include elected officials
and police/fire officials); editorial board meetings; placement of op-ed stories; letters-to-
the-editor and to Legislators campaigns; involvement of local employee
associations/unions; delegation visits to Sacramento; cable programming (including
showing the League's fiscal video); and Town Hall meetings with area Legislators.
We are transmitting a great deal of information in this packet, including the potential
loss for each city from property tax cuts and the loss of vehicle license fees, in the hopes
that all city officials will join in this statewide effort to preserve city revenues. To help
you, several key arguments have been developed which are the basis of our opposition to
the State's proposals. These include:
1
1. Cities Have Been Cutting Since Prop. 13
Voters told government to cut. and cities did. Right after Prop. 13 passed, cities
statewide cut 10,000 employees (during the same period, the State added 10,000
employees). Library hours were slashed, recreation programs became dependent on fees
and street maintenance was deferred. Cities tried to maintain their police and fire
departments and were successful.
Two years ago when the State passed SB 2557 and the recession became a reality for
cities, further cuts were made. In fact, cities now contribute directly or indirectly 5240
million of local dollars to the State's general fund (SB 2557 fees, cigarette taxes, trial
court funding, etc.) The same reasons that are causing pain for the State are causing
pain for cities. Unfortunately, while cities have kept cutting, counties and schools have
increased their costs. In a release yesterday, the State Employment Development
Department announced that in the 12 months from May, 1991 to May, 1992, cities
statewide have eliminated 800 jobs while counties increased their employment by 7,500
and schools increased their total staff by 7,200. The State is down 6,100 employees
during this period.
2. Police and Fire Are The Services To Be Cut
Because cities have already decimated their library, recreation and maintenance budgets,
the only place left to cut is police and fire. Cops and fire fighters are being laid off by
cities throughout the State, from Los Angeles, which has reduced their police strength by_
400 officers, to the small Northern California community of Weed, which cut half its
police force in half due to SB 2557, from two police officers to one. More than half of
most city budgets fund public safety. Does the Legislature really want fewer police
officers on our streets? That's what this proposal will do.
3. Cities Are Not A Part Of State Government
Cities are completely independent government agencies from the State. While counties
and schools are funded by the State's general fund and carry out State programs, cities
use their own revenues sources to pay for locally-determined services. While counties
and the State collect money for cities (and are paid to do so), there are no State general
fund dollars that go to cities. Therefore, if cities aren't a drain on the general fund and
don't take away from the State's resources, why should cities be forced to pay for local
services and state services? This is also why it's unreasonable to ask cities to help
balance the State's budget. They are asking for equal pain and we feel equal should
correlate to the drain on the State's general fund.
4. City Funds Are Going To Counties Yet Counties Haven't Raised Their O%7t Taxes
When SB 2557 passed, counties were given authority by the Legislature to raise business
license taxes and utility user taxes. Only five of the 58 counties implemented a business
license tax while 96 percent of cities levy this tax. The majority of city residents pay a
utility users tax, yet, only four counties have levied this tax. In fact, seventy percent of
cities raised taxes in the last year to balance their budgets.
2
9-7
5. It's Time To Stick Together
While some cities feel sales taxes should be shared and others aren't as reliant on
property taxes, this is a critical time for cities to work together in a common bond to
fend off the State. By dividing cities, the State will surely conquer us.
6. Give Local Examples Of Budget Cuts
Provide specific local examples of cuts made last year to balance this year's budget, cuts
made during the year to keep the budget in balance and cuts anticipated should the
property tax and VLF proposals be enacted. While using scare tactics is not our
intention, publicly explaining reality to the public, media and Legislature is critical.
The next step in the budget adoption process is a meeting of the budget conference
committee tomorrow, June 11 in Sacramento. They've not announced if they will take
testimony, however, it's unlikely. It might be a good day to bring delegations to
Sacramento to lobby your Legislators on behalf of cities.
There are three main activities that we need all city managers and elected officials to
participate in, including:
1. Participate In Local Lobbying Efforts
Each city manager can help organize local activities and be part of the Area Managers
Group activities. The list of activities above can be duplicated by individual cities, too.
Z. Brief The City Council In Public About State Proposals
As soon as possible, city councils should be briefed publicly about the impact of losing
property taxes and/or VLF income. This will hopefully generate additional news stories,
encourage editorials and therefore get the attention of Legislators.
3. Tell Us What You Do And What You Hear
Please send copies of your letters to the League so that we can include your individual
stories and anecdotes in statewide materials. In addition, please let us know what
feedback you hear, good or bad, from Legislators. This is a critical aspect to our
lobbying efforts.
Finally, the attached letter from the Local Government Working Group is receiving
considerable play in the media and is the subject of much discussion among local
government officials. The memo suggests, presumably to the Budget Conference
Committee, six criteria to be considered when the Budget Conference Committee begins
its examination of state and local fiscal relationships. Listed below is each of the six
"criteria" along with a suggested response from the perspective of a city official:
1. Revise the post-Proposition 13 bailout of local governments recogn_zi_ng that the State
General Fund can no longer afford bailout.
3
7V
Response: There is no more "bailout". This is a term which has been conveniently coined
by the State to help justify its potential grab of city property tax revenues. The property
tax monies going to local government after passage of Proposition 13 were established in
ABY 13 years ago as the permanent, stable and long-term solution to local finance. It
was not, as now being depicted by the Legislature, a temporary one-time gift to local
government which would be subject to take-back in the future.
Second, cities have often helped the state financially during the decade of the 1980's and
into the early 90's. When the State has failed to make hard decisions about its budget
and its inconsistent revenue stream, they have turned to local government and grabbed
local revenue sources to support the state budget. This consistent pattern is evident in
such state take-aways as Liquor License Fees, Highway Carriers Uniform Business Tax,
Business Inventory Property Tax Relief, Cigarette Tax, Drinking Water Regulation Fees,
Booking Fees, Property Tax Administration Charges and Fines and Forfeitures. This
should not be a one-way street with the State reaping all the benefit from the state and
local fiscal relationship. Cities have also 'bailed out" the state. This should count for
something in the budget deliberations. The factual situation surrounding the property tax
allocation system established in AB 8 certainly raises serious credibility problems for the
State's claim that it has some "right" to now reclaim this money.
2. Remove the related state mandates if the bailout ends.
Response: The League would fully support the removal of mandates place on local
government by the State, whether they are "related" to any budget cuts or not. This
should not be considered as a direct trade-off for taking the 'bailout" money from local .
government, but should be provided to local government as a recognition of the.
desperate financial conditions in which local governments now find themselves. There is
a long list of state mandates being offered by the League which should be removed.
State-mandates are not only expensive, but seriously distort local priorities and services.
3. Allow local officials to manage their own affairs and determine their own revenues.
ReEponse: The League has long supported a greater revenue base for local governments.
This not only allows greater flexibility when setting local service levels, but also
establishes an accountability between local governments and their citizens. Programs and
the revenues to support those programs will be subject to citizen scrutiny. These new
revenue sources must, however, be protected from state take-over. It is unacceptable and
unaccountable for the state to rely on local revenue raising authority to close gaps in the
state budget, which happens frequently under the cur7ent system.
Second, this "criteria" is in direct contradiction to criteria 1,4,5 and perhaps 6.
4
94
4. Modifv the situs allocation of sales tax.
Response: This criteria has no direct or logical link to the state budget or state budget
deficit. As we understand the proposal from its limited description, the proposal would
be to reallocate sales tax revenues based on some criteria other than jin& presumably
population or some yet undefined "needs" formula. There is no direct state general fund
gain from this proposal. It appears to only move sales tax revenues around among local
governments. Therefore it deserves no serious consideration in the State budget process.
The second problem with this proposal is the detrimental impact it will have on
economic development. Among the favorable results of encouraging a diverse
commercial base in a community is the development of a strong tax base for a
community. Without this incentive, which this proposal removes, communities will lack
the tax base and therefore the infrastructure and services to support commercial and
industrial development. Without this incentive, commercial development will be less
likely to occur and it will have a direct and negative impact on economic development.
This is the wrong direction to be taking in the midst of a failing California economy.
5. Restrict redevelopment activity to its historic purpose of financing infrastructure and
housing,
Response: This criteria borders on deception because of its simplicity. Conceptually, it is
difficult to disagree with the proposal, yet, the specific recommendations offered by the
Local Government Working Group go far beyond the limitation of redevelopment to its
"historic purpose". We reserve any final judgement about this proposal until the details
are discussed and furnished to the parties of interest.
6. Simplify the tax-raising and -allocation 5. stY ems.
Response: This criteria, as the proposal to restrict redevelopment activity to its "historic
purpose", is overly simplistic in its goal and until more substance is unveiled to elaborate
on its purpose, it is impossible to comment. Many city revenues over the history of
California-have been lost to the state under the guise of "simplicity". We could not
support this criteria if it led once again to a State grab of local revenues.
Thank you for your efforts. It's everyone working together that will hopefully negate, or
at least minimize, any impact of the budget bn cities. Please don't hesitate to contact the
League at 916/444-5790 or via fax, 916/444-8671, if you have any needs.
P.S. Attached is a cartoon which might be helpful in telling our story. Feel free to use
it in city publications and try to get your local newspaper to use it, too!
5
1
' •t
J
::..
IL
e
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
STATE CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO.CAUFCRNIA
55814
June S. 1992
:.on. Alfred E. Alauist, Chair
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Eon. John Vasconcellos, Chair
Assembly Ways and Means Committee
State Capitol, Room 6026
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Gentlemen:
With this letter, the Local Gover?=ent Budget Working Group
completes your charge.
In addition to reviewing the four issues cited in your May 26 . '
letter, our Working Group examined the ' state/local and 11n- .
cal/local fiscal relationship. We met twice and held a pub-
lic meeting last week to invite comments. Local officials ..
and other interest groups reviewed our options for reforming
local finance.
The Working Group suggests six criteria to examine .the
state/local fiscal relationship:
1. Revise the post-Proposition 13 bailout of local
governments, recognizing that the State General
Fund can no longer afford the bailout.
2. Remove the related state mandates if the bailout
ends.
3 . Allow local officials to manage their own affairs
and determine their own revenue sources.
4. Modify the situs allocation of sales tax.
5. Restrict redevelopment activity to its historic
purpose of financing infrastructure and housing.
6. Simplify the tax-raising and -allocation system.
Alcuist & Vasccncellcs
Jure 8, 1992
Page 2
Taken together, cur Working Grcup believes that these crite-
ria could develop options that .could save the State General
Fund uD to $5 billion in 1992-93 .
The Working Group looked at more nearly 80 options but we are
not yet recommending specific options. Our Working Group has
not reached consensus (or even majority agreement) on any
option; many remain highly controversial.
The Working Group emphasizes that any restructuring nust bal-
ance competing state and local needs. We have not had any
information from your other Working Groups, so it is impos-
sible to advise you on how our suggested criteria may affect
their work. We would need to know more about their work be-
fore offering specific recommendations. We recommend that
you consult with the appropriate policy experts before you
finally settle on any reforms.
It is our intention to begin a detailed examination of how
the criteria might apply to the options.
Very truly yours,
CALSENAT �2 RUBE.*I S. AYALA ASSEMLYMAN SAM FARR
SENATO B GESON. S C
Al R ES M. CALDERON SEMBLYMAN PHILL P I,SZTSERG
ASSEMBLYMAN RICHARD L.,-MOUNTJOY
NOW
NOW League efCalifornia Cities
f am Ek 7400 K STr ET SACRA'JE^JTO.[;, 5Z)fi1= f5161•4:-5i50
Va1:107^r f'rfi
'Walk W NT URGENT URGENT
Sacramento, CA
June 11, 1992
TO: All Mayors and City Managers
RE: Budget Working Group Appears Focused On Taking City Property Tax and VLF
On Thursday, June 4, the Legislature's Local Government Budget Working Group held a brief public hearing
on a "Briefing Paper and Options'which contains 76 options developed by their staff on how local government
can help solvethe state's budget deficit. The Working Group heard opposition from the League, as well as the
many city officials present who responded to the League's request to cities from the districts of Working Group
legislators.
Based upon comments of legislators on the Working Group and some of their staff,it appears that the primary
target will be cities' Property Tax and Vehicle License Fee revenues (VLF), which could most easily be shifted
to schools and/or counties to reduce state responsibilities for funding their programs. The following summarizes
likely approaches:
Property Tax As much as $2.8 billion in property tax revenue could be shifted from cities, special
districts and counties to schools,so that the state could reduce its obligation to school funding by the
same amount. The amount of$13 billion has been described as a more probable amount. This is
referred to as the "Reverse AB 8 Bailout" option because it would reverse the amount of "bailout'
provided to cities in 1979 by AB 8 (Chapter 282, Statutes of 1979). In 1979-80, approximately $772
million was shifted from schools'property tax base to cities, counties and special districts,and the state
replaced that revenue to schools from state funds. This was referred to then as a "permanent'
replacement for the one-time bailout in 1978-79 to mitigate the property tax losses after Proposition 13
(that bailout only covered one-third to cities'losses). It is claimed that the AB 8 shift is now worth $2.8
billion after growth in property tax revenues over the last 12 years,and cities'share is approximately$1.1
billion. For over 12 years now, cities have relied on this as part of the tax base.
Vehicle License Fees. Cities currently receive approximately $900 million annually in VLF revenues.
One of the options is to shift all or part of this amount to counties, so that the state can, in turn,
reduce its funding of county health and welfare costs. The California Constitution guarantees VLF as
a revenue to cities and counties,however it does not specify how much goes to each,and the Legislature
can enact a statute that would change cities' current share.
Attached is a print-out that estimates the losses to cities if all of the VLF is taken, as well as an estimate of
each city's share of a shift of $13 billion in property tax from cities, counties and special districts. Not
included in this analysis is the cancellation and/or reversal of the no/low property tax shift,which is also being
considered by the Working Group. The Local Government Working Group will be making recommendations
to the Legislature's Budget Conference Committee on Tuesday June 9. Members of the Budget Conference
Committee are: Senators Alquist, Hart and Hill; Assembly Members are Vasconcellos, Hannigan and Wright.
Cities should immediately contact their Senator and Assembly Member,as well as the Governor and members
of the Budget Conference Committee. If possible, it is most effective if city officials can meet face to face with
their legislators,either in their field office or in Sacramento. Otherwise, cities should communicate by personal
telephone calls to their legislator and/or overnight mail. Each city should describe their current budget situation
A
and how the loss of property tax or VLF would affect them. As an example, Salinas delivered the message to
Assembly Member Sam Farr that they've paid 51 million to their county as a result of SB 2557 and trial court
funds and have already enacted a business license tax and utility users tax. The county, on the other hand,
refused to implement either tax and has actually added staff. Every city in Assembly Member Farr's district has
delivered the same message in the same fashion and the impact is definitely being felt. Some of the League's
arguments against taking property tax, VLF, or other city revenues include:
1. Cities are already sharing the same budget pain as the state. The State Employment Development
Department reports that the state and cities are the only levels of California government that have less
employees in 1992 than in 1991. All other local governments have increased their number of employees
(counties,special districts and schools). Cities have essentially the same revenue base as the state(e.g.,
sales tax) and the recession has caused severe revenue losses for cities throughout the state. Cities
receive little or no state general fund revenue;city costs are paid for locally and do not affect state costs.
In the current 1991-92 fiscal year, cities statewide have already eliminated over 4,200 city jobs in spite
of the fact that 70% of the cities have had to increase taxes and fees.
2. Cities have already repaid the state for the so-called"bailout". In prior years,the state has already taken
from cities: 1/2 of all non-parking fines and forfeitures, Cigarette Tax, Booking Fees,Property Tax
Charges, Liquor License Fees, Highway Carriers Uniform Business Tax, Financial Aid to Local
Agencies, and reimbursement for the Business Inventory Exemption. In just the last two years alone,
the state has taken over 5240 million in annual revenues from cities.
3. Rather than shift local government revenue to the state, allow/require local government to make cuts
or fund shortfalls for their owat programs locally. Local government should be given the authority to
make service cuts and/or raise revenue locally in response to state funding deficiencies. Counties have
revenue authority they have not used,yet are still asking for money from cities(who have already raised
taxes). Only rive of the 58 counties have levied a Business License Tax(over 430 cities,or 96%levy this
tax); only four counties have levied the Utility Users Tax (a majority of city residents pay the Utility
Users Tax).
4. Local government should be given additional revenue authority to replace any revenues shifted to the
state, e.g,local Cigarette Tax authority to replace amounts shifted to the state;local sales tax authority
to cities (counties already have countywide sales tax authority for general fund purposes); reduce the
voter approval requirement for general obligation bonds to simple majority, eliminate local matching
requirements for transportation funds.
H:\ltS\jh\bdg:cuu.fax
- 9-ice
VLF Revenues Property Tax VLF Revenues Property Tax
FY 92-93 79/80 Bailout FY 92-93 79/80 Bailout
City Plus Increment City Plus Increment
----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------__--____-_----=C
Adelanto 5341,31-3 $20,787 Cerritos S1,857,240 SO
Agoura Hills 5720,720 s0 Chico $1,514,205 $237,636
Alameda $2,799,720 $2,192,806 Chino 52,092,860 5636,184
Albany 5578,655 5417,155 Chowchilla 5225,225 $58,168
Alhambra 52,927,925 51,061,732 Chula Vista $4,913,370 51,076,906
Alturas $115,385 538,886 Claremont 51,127,858 $434,345
Amador 57,277 5757 Clayton $278,066 553,684
Anaheim 59,681,210 $2,120,250 Clearlake $424,463 s0
Anderson 5298,856 672,175 Cloverdale $182,779 592,220
Angels Camp 597,367 534,776 Clovis 51,916,145 5399,349
Antioch $2,307,690 5529,882 Coachella 5639,293 $47,161
Apple Valley $1,767,150 so Coalinga $309,251 581,582
Arcadia 51,690,920 $745,596 Colfax 548,164 613,573
Arcata $544,005 $179,536 Colma. 539,848 s0
Arroyo Grande 5504,158 5121,876 Colton 51,458,765 5348,938
Arvin S33D,908 54,401 Colusa 5176,715 550,197
Artesia $545,T8 s0 Commerce $426,195 s0
Atascadero 5810,810 s0 Compton &3;177,405 51,032,312
Atherton 5249,480 5176,604 Concord 53,915,450 51,129,416
Atwater 5791,753 $144,T5 Corcoran 5488,565 s88,us
Auburn 5386,348 5113,845 Corning 5213,964 547,006
Avalon $104,297 $104,523 Corona $3,059,595 $604,983
Avenal S3E2,883 s0 Coronado $925,155 5629,020
Azusa $1,450,103 5492,225 Corte Madera $289,328 5207,169
Bakersfield 56,524,595 51,876,341 Costa Mesa s3,413,025 $1,436,233
Baldwin Park $2,446,290 $319,693 Cotati $213,D98 $33,473
Banning 5796,950 5132,370 Covina $1,505,543 5660,806
Barstow 5762,300 5254,093 Crescent City $164,241 520,868
Beaumont 5358,628 $88,561 Cudahy 5803,880 s0
Bell 51,226,610 5160,316 Culver City $1,349,618 5657,419
Bellflower 52,182,950 s0 Cupertino 11,424,115 590,577
Bell Gardens 51,502,078 5132,986 Cypress 41,531,530 5387,188
Belmont 5855,855 5273,688 Daly City 43,350,655 51,351,824
Belvedere 575,537 5137,375 Dana Point $1,148,648 s0
Benicia 5913,028 5702,890 Danville. &1,141,716 s0
Berkeley 53,610,530 54,746,624 Davis $1,718,640 5853,897
Beverly Hills 51,115,730 52,593,818 Delano 5857,588 $162,022
Big Bear Lake 5194,040 s0 Del Mar $172,557 $121,948
Biggs 557,519 $9,161 Del Rey Oaks $57,519 528,847
Bishop 5122,315 $48,524 Desert Hot Springs 5464,310 569,813
Blue Lake $44,352 $21,226 Diamond Bar 51,864,170 SD
Blythe $417,533 $100,056 Dinuba 5469,508 5106,233
Bradbury $28,760 511,757 Dixon $400,208 5148,067
Brawley 5696,465 $259,690 Dorris $31,878 &8,173
Brea 51,162,508 5432,055 Dos Palos $148,302 $38,418
Brentwood 5304,920 559,356 Downey 53,208,590 51,327,088
Brisbane 5105,683 $100,325 Duarte 5727,650 $107,175
Buena Park $2,453,220 $792,136 Dublin $871,448 $0
Burbank 53,354,120 $2,699,586 Dunsmuir $75,537 S4B,583
Burlingame $945,945 $499,176 East Palo Alto 5843,728 s0
Calexico 5694,733 $160,713 El Cajon 53,125,430 5836,330
California City 5274,601 5246,691 El Centro $1,195,425 5414,408
Calimess $247,748 $o El Cerrito $798,683 5705,640
Calipatris 5100,139 $41,998 El Monte 53,804,570 5943,071
Calistogs $157,658 576,672 El Paso De Robles $698,198 $194,331
Camarillo $1,923,075 SO El Segundo 5531,878 5154,144
Campbell 51,264,725 5387,437 Emeryville 5208,766 5412,855
Canyon Lake 5356,895 s0 Encinitas $1,957,725 40
Capitols $355,163 $59,620 Escalon 5170,132 545,810
Carlsbad 52,276,505 51,028,582 Escondido $3,911,985 $737,023
Carmel $150,035 $78,820 Etna 629,106 $8,518
Carpinteria 5488,565 $106,066 Eureka 5965,003 $540,203
Carson 52,927,925 s0 Exeter 5265,073 584,010
Cathedral City 51,181,565 $0 Fairfax 5245,149 5186,991
Ceres 5984,060 $135,810 Fairfield 52,966,040 6957,370
1
VLF Revenues Property Tax VLF Revenues Property Tax
FT 92-93 79/80 Bailout FT 92-93 79/80 Bailout
City Plus Increment City Plus Increment
Farmersville. S229,556 523,819 Laguna Niguel $1,739,430 SO
Ferndale $47,471 511,561 La Habra $1,815,660 $706,209
Fillmore $431,393 $101,616 La Habra Heights 5220,894 SO
Firebaugh S172,211 537,512 Lake Elsinore S765,765 $56,825
Folsom 51,264,725 5117,492 Lakeport 5159,044 $60,894
Fontana $3,378,375 S402,038 Lakewood $2,560,635 5196,266
Fort Bragg $217,429 532,497 La Mesa $1,671,100 $585,704
Fort Jones S22,669 56,320 La Mirada S1,491,663 s0
Fortuna S314,449 S50,222 Lancaster S3,627,855 s0
Foster City $994,455 s0 La Palma $540,540 $215,395
Fountain Valley 81,867,635 5645,294 La Puente S1,313,235 s0
Fowler $126,819 $28,002 La Ouinta 5514,553 SD
Fremont $6,150,375 $2,467,142. larkspur 5407,138 $381,425
Fresno 513,250,160 S5,309,210 Lathrop S244,283 SO
Fullerton $4,067,910 51,712,178 La Verne S1,OB2,813 $467,889
Galt $382,883 532,231 LawndaIe S975,398 50
Gardena $1,E29,520 $633,816 Lemon Grove S854,123 5143,558
Garden Grove 55,131,665 51,125,658 Lemoore S495,495 $174,892
Gilroy S1,105,335 S230,122 Lincoln S270,270 $46,528
Glendale $6,389,460 S2,375,6E7 Lindsay S300,589 $98,E93
Glendora $1,685,723 $562,455 Live Oak 5164,588 S34,340
Gonzales S183,645 560,023 Livermore S2,058,210 $929,767
Grand Terrace $450,450 $0 Livingston $305,786 572,975
Grass Valley $323,111 5118,184 Lodi $1,843,38D 5687,999
Greenfield S276,334 $30,410 Loma Linda 5691,268 5114,792
Gridley $164,241 551,098 Lomita 5677,408 SD
Grover City $412,335 $67,288 Lompoc S1,337,490 $222,784
Guadalupe $196,639 S16,808 Long Beach S15,31B,765 $12,498,805
Gustine S138,254 S40,468 Loomis 5203,569 s0
Half Moon Bay $342,169 S37,894 Los Alamitos S422,73D $145,510
Hanford $1,155,578 S301,151 Los Altos 5925,155 $574,155
Hawaiian Gardens 5493,763 523,034 Los Altos Hills $261,608 559,361
Hawthorne 52,550,240 5717,555 Los Angeles $124,033,140 $114,541,808
Hayward S4,095,63D $2,421,073 Los Banos $554,400 $138,055
Healdsburg S335,239 $153,963 Los Gatos 5959,805 5436,303
Hemet 51,696,118 S298,482 Loyalton $31,532 $4,532
Hercules S627,165 575,860 Lynwood 52,193,345 5420,134
Hermosa Beach 5637,560 5732,980 Madera 51,100,138 $184,161
Hesperia $1,943,865 s0 Mammoth Lakes 5174,983 SO
Hidden Hills S63,756 S31,174 Manhattan Beach $1,126,125 5876,612
Highland $1,285,515 s0 Manteca 51,460,498 5312,777
Hillsborough S377,685 $407,037 Maricopa 542,620 55,073
Hollister S703,395 5104,420 Marina $895,703 5145,586
Holtville $174,983 $73,593 Martinez S1,122,660 $597,263
Hughson $117,117 S15,044 Marysville $440,055 S215,355
Huntington Beach 56,410,250 S3,115,925 Maywood S990,99D $106,504
Huntington Park S2,013,165 $527,050 McFarland 5257,276 522,347
Huron 5172,211 $29,850 Mendota $252,945 542,326
Imperial 5155,232 $83,415 Menlo Park $999,653 5444,834
Imperial Beach S940,748 $288,500 Merced $2,023,560 $636,632
Indian wells 5101,178 S5,162 Millbrae 5720,720 $283,584
Indio $1,399,860 5262,269 Mill Valley 5457,380 5578,999
Industry S23,562 $584,604 Milpitas S1,884,960 5572,823
Inglewood $3,898,125 S1,465,901 Mission Viejo $2,609,145 s0
Ione S245,149 S10,680 Modesto S6,036,030 S1,179,596
Irvine 53,960,495 S390,274 Monrovia 51,266,458 5841,944
Irwindale 537,076 5159,407 Montague $49,203 515,842
Isleton $29,453 S23,168 Montclair $1,020,443 $387,475
Jackson S129,938 524,405 Montebello S2,096,325 S611,131
Kerman $210,499 S34,665 Monterey 81,119,195 $491,268
King City 5287,595 S95,451 Monterey Park S2,144,835 S1,020,601
Kingsburg 5264,206 558,740 Monte Sereno $112,959 $2,994
La Canada Flintridge S673,943 s0 Moorpark 5906,098 So
Lafayette S816,D08 SO Moraga 5564,795 $123,669
Laguna Beach x829,868 S687,312 Moreno Valley $4,570,335 50
2
9-/7
VLF Revenues Property Tax VLF Revenues Property Tax
FY 92-93 79/80 Bailout FY 92-93 79/80 Bailout
City Plus Increment City Plus Increment
Morgan Hill 5867,953 $242,606 Rialto $2,678,445 $401,500
Morro Bay $336,971 S183,932 Richmond 53,208,590 53,543,708
Mountain View $2,387,3E5 S1,480,831 Ridgecrest 51,015,245 5157,212
Mt. Shasta $124,047 $34,061 Rio Dell 5105,683 510,525
Napa $2,231,460 $969,856 Rio Vista 5124,740 $47,928
National City $2,030,490 5453,123 Ripon 5284,130 $71,223
Needles $190,575 S80,5E9Riverbank S370,755 $120,437
Nevada City $99,446 543,676 Riverside 58,250,165 $1,412,709
Newark S1,332,293 S759,849 Rocklin 5805,613 585,665
Neuman $159,390 S39,SE9 Rohnert Park $1,323,630 5192,998
Newport Beach 52,359,665 $2,308,790 Rolling Hills 564,449 S9,093
Norco S826,403 S270,172 Rolling Hills Estate $274,601 SO
Norwalk $3,316,005 SD Rosemead S1,829,520 SO
Novato $1,685,723 $440,714 Roseville S1,742,895 5262,136
Oakdale $452,113 $195,979 Ross S75,191 592,895
Oakland $13,094,235 S12,684,669 Sacramento $13,343,715 S7,521,408
Oceanside S4,799,025 S1,493,329 Salinas $3,911,985 51,035,210
Ojai $268,538 S140,514 San Anselmo S414,D68 5358,837
Ontario 54,809,420 $1,386,503 San Bernardino $6,091,470 51,388,956
Orange S3,967,425 S1,306,619 San Bruno $1,372,140 $364,149
Orange Cove S201,836 522,596 San Buenaventura 53,267,495 $1,086,942
Orinda 5583,153 s0 San Carlos S925,155 S397,016
Orland $187,110 585,158 San Clemente 51,495,148 $446,991
Oroville 5426,195 $196,282 Sand City 56,584 $3,415
Oxnard $5,072,760 51,694,655 San Diego 539,833,640 512,530,509
Pacifica S1,335,758 5648,261 San Dimas $1,150,380 5231,401
Pacific Grove S568,260 $254,417 San Fernando 5814,275 $369,105
Palmdale $2,917,530 s0 San Francisco, $25,249,455 s0
Palm Desert 5859,320 so San Gabriel 51,314,968 5507,270
Palm Springs $1,457,033 51,629,844 San Jacinto $724,185 S54,788
Palo Alto 51,950,795 51,340,173 San Jose S27,823,950 S7,5B8,538
Palos Verdes Estates 5469,508 5432,023 San Juan Bautista $54,747 $12,984
Paradise S900,9D0 s0 San Leandro $2,408,175 S1,383,709
Paramount $1,774,080 s0 Sanger 5621,968 S214,360
Parker 5290,194 $19,790 San Joaquin 591,476 58,684
Pasadena S4,625,775 S3,352,598 San Juan Ca istrano S232,976
Patterson 5320,513 548,420San Luis OSP; $1 472,625 S417,418
Perris S945,945 $62,311 an arcos 51,453,UZU8
Petaluma S1,550,588 5477,760 San Marino $448,718 S738,93B
Pico Rivera $2,075,535 s0 San Mateo 53,045,735 5923,869
Piedmont 5375,953 $791,550 San Pablo 5914,760 5151,231
Pinole 5627,165 5225,387 San Rafael 51,763,685 $741,631
Pismo Beach 5266,805 S64,413 San Ramon 51,254,330 So
Pittsburg $1,713,443 5612,905 Santa Ana 510,564,785 53,201,377
Placentia S1,450,103 $447,902 Santa Barbara 53,028,410 5826,471
Placerville 53011455 $117,039 Santa Clara 53,288,285 $955,121
Pleasant Hill $1,098,405 s0 Santa Ctarita $4,213,440 SD
Pleasanton $1,822,590 51,016,498 Santa Cruz $1,746,360 5655,771
Plymouth $29,106 57,632 Santa Fe Springs 5537,075 S437,393
Point Arena $14,207 $2,700 Santa Maria 52,217,600 5394,204
Pomona $4,729,725 $2,114,516 Santa Monica $3,028,410 51,860,923
Porterville $1,098,405 S214,636 Santa Paula 5895,703 5297,871
Port Hueneme s6B9,535 $265,367 Santa Rosa 54,164,930 $1,370,053
Portala $77,616 $17,604 Santee $1,867,635 SO
Portola Valley $146,223 527,076 Saratoga 6971,933 6147,747
Poway S1,573,110 s0 Sausalito S251,213 5290,205
Ranco Cucamonga 53,828,825 5299,322 Scotts Valley $316,181 544,421
Rancho Mirage $362,093 $0 Seal Beach s883,575 5519,658
Rancho Palos Verdes $1,448,370 $119,017 Seaside $1,386,000 3277,035
Red Bluff $445,253 $170,749 Sebastopol $252,079 $95,505
Redding 52,522,520 5664,440 Selma 5545,738 5117,837
Redlands $2,234,925 $889,777 Shafter 6351,698 639,037
Redondo Beach 62,117,115 51,605,552 Sierra Madre 5374,220 &285,292
Redwood City 52,380,455 51,26D,579 Signal Hill $292,793 59,479
Reedley 5602,910 $105,869 Simi Valley $3,527,370 SO
3
I r�
VLF Revenues Property Tax VLF Revenues Property Tax
FT 92-93 79/80 Bailout FT 92-93 79/80 Bailout
City Plus Increment city Plus Increment
Solana Beach 5457,380 s0 Yreka $244,283 587,797
Soledad S478,170 548,358 Yuba City 51,049,895 $421,085
Solvang 5168,399 s0 Yucaipa 51,226,610 so
Sonoma 5291,060 5127,767
Sonora $148,995 552,885
South El Monte $7.58,0;5 50 STATEWIDE
South Gate 53,063,060 579,978 TOTALS U52,275,101 5348,840,122
So Lake Tahoe 5784,823 5614,512
South Pasadena 5838,530 5972,235
So San Francisco $1,936,935 5969,708
Stanton $1,086,278 5205,610
St. Helena 5176,715 S65,029
Stockton 57,678,440 52,786,759
Suisun City $816,008 559,715
Sunnyvale 54,175,325 52,227,853
Susanville 5407,138 5148,165
Sutter Creek $66,528 $16,392
Taft $226,958 547,890
Tehachapi 5212,231 564,866
Tehama $13,860 52,671
Temecula 51,094,940 SD
Temple City 51,091,475 s0
Thousand Oaks 53,693,690 s0
Tiburon 5270,270 5141,291
Torrance $4,639,635 62,935,256
Tracy $1,313,235 6377,557
Trinidad $12,474 54,610
Tulare $1,264,725 5290,381
Tulelake 535,690 59,159
Turlock S1,574,843 5290,220
Tustin 51,895,355 $376,134
Twentynine Palms S445,253 s0
Ukiah $518,018 5105,963
Union City 51,923,075 51,007,705
Upland $2,273,040 5936,138
Vernon $5,198 $823,573
Vacaville $2,713,095 $604,961
Vallejo $3,977,820 51,103,563
Victorville $1,675,328 s0
Villa Park 5219,161 598,565
Visalia 52,830,905 5670,955
Vista $2,626,470 $447,666
Walnut $1,029,105 673,231
Walnut Creek $2,148,300 5752,925
Vasco 5590,783 $33,088
Waterford $191,441 $12,893
Watsonville $1,105,335 $396,106
Weed $108,801 525,890
West Covina 53,371,445 $1,168,640
West Hollywood 51,259,528 s0
Westlake Village 5262,474 50
Westminster S2,76B,535 5364,009
Westmorland $50,589 515,292
West Sacramento $1,058,558 s0
Wheatland 562,717 512,309
Whittier $2,747,745 5701,570
Williams $91,476 s22,754
Willits $177,581 $80,513
Willows $213,964 590,204
Winters 5171,483 $51,040
Woodlake 5211,365 s26,221
Woodland $1,463,963 $912,014
Woodside 5177,581 545,072
Torba Linda $1,909,215 s0
Yountville $117,464 $14,238
4
9.-�q
M«TING AGENDA
LkIA-9Z-IA-9ZITEM # COMMA
�illllll IIIIIII�������IIII �IIIIIIII I�
IIII III city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
June 15, 1992
COMMUNICATION ITEM
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Councilman n
SUBJECT: MOBILEHOME PARK VACANCY CONTROL
I have received a communication from Mr. Bill Henson requesting that the Council place
on its agenda the issue of vacancy control as an amendment to the City's Rent Stabilization
Ordinance.
A copy of a petition signed by 239 mobilehome owners is attached. I believe it warrants
some discussion or review by the Council.
I, therefore, request that Council direct staff to bring this back with a report examining the
recent Supreme Court's decision allowing a city to prohibit an increase in mobilehome
space rent at the time the mobilehome is sold and draft an ordinance similar to the one the
City had before.
Also attached are recent newspaper articles reviewing this issue.
Thank you.
BR/PV:cm
Attachments
c: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer (w/o attachments)
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer (w/o attachments)
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney (w/o attachments)
Pam Voges, City Clerk (w/attachments)
What Does The Decision 8neall r
at move a.nuytaaL copoeeo oetmaet OSMOLY supreme tole brief arta n
Now moa liarSuprema Crum boa to mberefmolimcfSbdm-hilhalYts .
moored its long-owd ied decision 1n WdnboW.teeoyair 111111 biawwW
• "If they wish cclukaae their battle
ic""What tion
t a OSMOL member eft vec Conwl regulations.
is:-'What dere m oU mcanT'Followed agoi aney
by:"How dna the Coe applY to mal` they wla have to ehallanga those P(at'
You need led norunts"fur theanswer toedtms under a regulatory taking
to that gaanioml them."she sold.
Of am thing there to eco dmat Jus Oca Lincoln OIs0 eotat do this is u
tke O'Connor's unanitnotra oPldea t6tsnt m be token WromlyW the=
Cloudy held Nat an its face.the Eseao- Aow.'itdidn t specs
•dtadorv,hdWnatapedLedlymlemr lowa
dldo Ordinance did NOT anuli In o other ohdleugm." he sold, "tat fact. U,
, V
N
"physkd taking"of the park ownu'a within twcmyfour hours of the YSe
pmpeery.As a mull.fR11 v 5..210 firs+ dodslon.Escondido war sued aguln in +� P Y
b=and ail other am which have relio � IakrhB"t� a Casa outstanding Out itsmobitehome / � W u)
t�Hall am OVERRULED. As Sm tem"amwnadated a tleeiol of Cj
CO
go
Diemummy Don Lincoln of Enda sabaiandve due process and a resdla•
man.l laeola.Tumk R Houser ate too- tpyltre mo residents have won 2
elaoly awed:"HaU h dead." Q. (� J
The Issue of"Physical U&4'woo amyorboale the waris•eatover.While
the primary issue argued in an vacancy we can mjoiea thaga Is no more,we
tonna wsa to data.The Suptame CmnctaRofdroboa meovacoMtknl
Cam a the highest wart In the hard. . but must be ever vigilant end be pre-
Ix
has now once mrd for all decided this pared to defend osalais day new dnl-
Osso npkw the park owners. leeges
But what about the tssuo of'ogala- But what Chance does tlx"reg Qla•
torymkingTManyporkownerosual- mrymldng"thoon'havaofLtaeedi ll.r
motions and wtorneys ase grasping this Why wasn't it raised In the Sup ome
Issue In an suampt to wlvogt:some, Cmnalongwith die parkownees'eahcr
thing from the Court's deciskm.They claims7 There is aPeculslon that
point out thin because the Court failed Metans Jagidlo and Rork.who pre
to tab upon-pasuialY taking."but seated Rho Yui cm knew that thr
talked so much about it,ate open invite• voles were not there to suppil it.tasg
lice has been extended for park owner Ilius did an urges The"I egulwory ed• .
eco Coca K their ehalkaV oo a new, ins"ieaC In 1490.the Sutm•me L'wn
and avmn euuc pmtnWagl,theory. in. decided aease calledNellnnvK91ilw-
dood. Fran Layton. eco-outhor of Continued anPage 4
Page 4 Spedal Supmme Court EdIdon J May,1992
What does the decision mean?
CowwardJrmn Pagc J Pro L ayma has noted the fudge would have use;it r9%L Jt now seise" theory of-1egulsmry talons'should
.I.Conant .— ..len which then Ko*Xki.that orddtHX tali a ftww am*71an V and is tab buns aa• not be onaugh to prevent govemmant
caahlydireuuedtegolotmyrakingsIn edlypssylatvedersdyeosaw4thotehis ployedboeouae"PlanA`�Ued.Until a feompee so Moodyeidstm�
ts noateat rroetrol cow Willie Jus. neu Yesnhaw7tokws'theorywlaeol ease 4 ceded which atsds vtataaY II h emdaol11blo that 7th old not de
awn-rcuto rhoaeortectlyatandthm succeed. "Remember that isidge eomcoltoboonutvouldladonal'Yesu- tddeoff ltineseonne ted withvaeoeey
no California Case has pmvwudy t� �tiaskitidal wssn1°° " • beery taking.' 4 is g_�dmllannl no Cashel.Biltkwam'tpdppo11edtelThe
plied a mllu4aoey tadags attalysis to city-of 1,04 A.°.les•flab that to max how many aewtEteoaasme& tam did dedda Rho JAM Ills were
rem oAmanee. mntaow CAftmtis Asksalaa' •a�Y taeaol provblots by Pwnem bdso h,and by a umdleow want
decisions have Issued decieats iwhich aubemaoallsko
yodv&wcx EaCliylk�4 How does the Xs dodpw apply to held in kbvor of mobilehome Ownw-
ansa vCataeotparPaaeuflstotaulog yoa?Themnwer6pendsonwhetber Thepodtowaeasaaow'behlndthe8
fav Physical r mdyw�iXIIIH a a existing hantwwheo hmm tim mod Yeo Uva hl a Judsdiefin Whk a lam boll"k is ft Who face a 810**a
mitt look at aro simple fact:"is them mobildhome valm be to to gag• ==I Wallace.If you do ML tho dk&The tido In thk•rrair has taken
a taking a ear It so.the landowner itss."ahs A""lb also Coodit"Ca► "docks bevobaeh ekmted"lerymraq a definite tam and although the lark
oaratbeeanpeasste6lfnoLesueedwaQ lien w etervn r ,artem, d[v et or COARY to new eomider cad adopt ownem have nwwod thole t W-L the
8th b tawldafing a�tdsery.mk. RlSk ih Ihd o vkmdly ardcodtgl ma oast Wbeaneytamolprottedaawadd toad m a Rad vletary le dcatly v lalble
Ins.'a coat 1101100$bWq to loots a bUekomevtemeYmnnolpaov4iaoaraa be o ked Pott of 110'ash ce&WAXI. shored
many fa<ron.fadadtn8thowMadod rmlot10gymlamdmt5aiegld=cgo" UYear dp.has atmteomdOr&
purpose and stabile potiey behind the otomom ptrIns I of mob-I adxa and did=mmovo its Vamacy
tagaladoslf.WlhwioBaCaaWaotook ltotaemmf ell'--amiogProbl6i UV* tonhp{ptoaodtbnaRvj ,rhgahmld
attbofnen.the law issewasplus too hishaadrhwdidnotvidmepor MW be eoasmtdated.Tbdr tough sten
fan U wM be held to he a"tegUWM tri Wbtmatrve due PC=fishb: hu boo vlod�Oat tidy hood dD
ffj�al"d
lOavaYttoplmIt dale$Cams far m Conclude shoe nouns,
beemkrfareWa$to dekapghdtewornotevo4re� lfymciWdidnmovdvaemq•eoo-•"tegt+ta+mY tcammliubeatilboehdvron,lto a olnell=Wbdldasmmdtsc IUU
� u wd11 ro adaod ogdutst of owk for"* � mfj,ang naddua�oer�u ad
milli I- I
� 11 JAI
111al l .20128, 1111
m JBC
If
its
wan
a
ge
C
�yin
9t
o
9 .64 gall
V118 b � ra
T O d NC W 1ki021 Nttw1 I ONfl00 0b S T NOW ZS - S T - Hnr
June 9 , 1992
Dear City Councilman Jerry Reiss:
Enclosed please find 239 signatures from mob.ilehome owners.
These signatures represent a request that "vacancy control"
be placed on your agenda and considered for reinstatement
to the Rent Stabilization Law.
We were limited by time from gathering more signatures. No
one we approached refues to sign. If the number is not
sufficient, please advise us - of the addition numbers which
are needed and we will supply them.
Sincerely,
Bill Henson
d
�t1 TO: CITY COUNCIL MEMBER �
SUBJECT: Reinstatement of "vacancy control" to Rent
Stabilization Law:
On April 1, 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that Escondido or any
other jurisdiction could prohibit an increase in mobilehome space
rent at the time the mobilehome is sold. A new buyer may occupy
the mobilehome at the same rent charged to his seller. We request
that vacancy control be added to Section 5. 44 .060C of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code. A number of cities and counties
have already added vacancy control to their ordinances and some of
these are listed below:
City of San Jose
City of San Bernardino
Ventura County
City of Oxnard
Union City
City of Yucaipa
City of Morgan Hill
Please consider adding San Luis Obispo to the list.
Sincerely,
Vacancy Control was removed from the Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law due to a court case in Santa Barbara in
1990 .
Some mobile homes change hands far more often than
others, so as a result of this change, large
variations in rent often exist in mobile homes
which sit side by side. (Often a difference of
$60 or more a month exists. ) At present, an
increase in rent is allowed when a mobilehome
is sold.
A recent Supreme Court decision empowers cities
to outlaw the rent increase when a mobilehome
is sold. This allows rents to be more equitable
and fair.
I
f
f _
PRINT NAME !� I ADDRESS:
rATRiC;� /�1 S You STe.R !0 3 2 I�► u �Rr
SIGN NAME S ,t u r s d> s o. /� yo S
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : Qtr oQw S �
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME Ze E, N ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME ] L(�G C/e�ix_, /l¢ 6 /� Gvk.�/-e. _ 4i Zt �„CJ
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :.
r
SIGN NAM jy � - - � �U /C(if/ �• L . l�
PRINT NME SrrI492onl �, Deese ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME �• �n ADDRESS :
1613 ?2�4�
SIGN NAME
PRINT NA ". ADDRESS
SIGN NAME �• G U
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME — ADDRE �S
_ 4UCcs. � 1�C��✓� /�/7
SIGN NAME, J� z�
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : 1 ����ARN � � D,
SIGN NAME 5►d�1u� � �8i5 �� Cf1- g3�05
PRINT NAME 0 �, -- _A/ ADDRESS: f6 .}-. 9 �,2n/8-r7 4)1�
SIGN NAME �j � �� ti 06 /5
L
PRINT NAME /Al/�Y.tJF �i4/U ADDRESS: ��Z GA,e vC-TT D �
SI-GN NAME ��// _ °5' 4 '�
PRINT NAME _t�G, pt.,'(L a ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME , M / -e- - ADDRESS:
-713 •
SIGN. NAME _ -
PRINT NAME�j,�eG4P�-T 97 14 ADDRESS : ,/2t '
SIGN NAME ,��,t �✓- JCt 2
PRINT NAMEv ADDRESSG'ri
: ✓S ;2 �/
SIGN NAME Ji 0,, / O G'
aor" :. '9'
• 1
}
yl
1
...... .._.-.
p • 1
PRINT NAME 1Se �:�.� 4�e , saw, ADDRESS:
G roe C),
SIGN NAMEr---'�� �c
PRINT NAME ^: c / s ADDRESS:
1 ' , � r
SIGN NAMEmamsmam
�y
PRINT NAME r /J ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -
PRINT NAME1 2.N A n,% G? e ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME � rte-- n � � � � ��c����•
v-no�X --
PRINT NAME - ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME <
PRINT NAM/
r= r, /2; :>� _ G �= ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME I " _
PRINT NAME �/�( __•
ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME` Q_ �u ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME J:__A so ri
PRINT NAME e� sDA
SIGN NAME L / H
PRINT NAM (J ADDRESS:
SIGN NAM
PRINT N ADDRESS :
�1 /J
SIGN NAME" ctit✓ G�f� 1 7
PRINT NAME JE ADDRESS : /
SIGN NAAME (�-
PRINT NAME v ADDRESS:
SIGN.`NAME ._.._.:._
PRINT NAME �N1Tk�� 1 ��A� IAZ - ADDRESS :
SIGN NAMt
PRINT NAME m Ie I G s ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME . 1 al. -=-
PRINT NAME n 7,5 Z4PE47411uE ADDRESS :
SIGN NAMF.
r.Y
fI C � L EU i �✓ . - ADDRESS':
PRINT NAME �// ��
SIGN NAME � .w y� J
PRINT NAME C� - ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
J
1 91"S y
SIGN NAME /� cin &44%0 a G"4 ' 3 'f i
PRINT NAME1:5,ADDRESS : 7-) �,
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME - ` � J/,L ADDRESS:
i
SIGN NAME" �'- s J--�� >-f 4i -�/',: -... r` t-- d. ✓ Cr
- --
PRINT NAME C ADDRESS d T )
SIGN NAME
PRINT 4NAME ;F7 ADDRESS:.
SIGN NAME _... ,-
PRINT NAME ADDRESS'
SIGN NAME IQOT
PRINT NAME — ADDRESS: of
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME 5 5 /� ��Flj ADDRESS.:
SIGN NAME `
PRINT NAME ADDRESS.:
S.I-GN NAME
PRINT - NAMME 1/� �i ADDRESS
L-61 II s � -
SIGN'`NAME._._
PRINT NAME ADDRESS• - D
SIGN- NAME
PRINT -NAME e K o✓e . ADDRESS : 1014 h'r t(xY De-
SIGN NAME ,z 5,91 -✓ D lS Oet 1,1 j itos-&L
--- ---
PRINT NAME .ADDR.ESS :
12r-
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRLNT NAME Jvvine �'4rIs
ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME - JODI
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME �,r,�
PRINT NAME Va� « �u �d ADDRESS:
SIGN NAM E y,^ U D 9 Jct n e� Dr
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : (�
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME i,�,r,� ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS. -
SIGN
DDRESS _SIGN NAME
PRINT'NAMEC='G fl g L / l� �/1� ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME �'yl
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : ;;p
SIG
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS: 1 ,01 -1
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME .5 L o- fi N ADDRESS:
/ p / z
SIGN NAME L<6 , /� ` _ , G.4 `Z 3 q 647
PRINT NAM ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME 3y�✓`
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME.-.-_-
. PRINT -NAME �\ - ADDg . .5 -�� _
SIGN-.NAMEr 1�l n -
PRINT NAMEM f4(c��j rc (z 7-6 /'A 0 i_ - ADDRESS : Iq
SIGN NAME -.-_---
PRINT NAME AQ ADDRESS
SIGN NAMF.
1. I
PRINT NAME A , Opb* ADDRESS
r
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME w�rl��/�/_�LyDiSG� /G1 ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME /' l dos C'GH r2 E d2
PUNT NAME �p ,�r�tSdr/ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS
PRINT NAME :
-
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMEADDRESS : --
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:.
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME FADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
SIGN -----
PRINT -NAME - _ _ _ -- --. ADDRRSS: - -
SIGN NAME ..
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDR_ESS :.
SIGN NAME.
PRINT NAME ADDRESS': f Q d
_ � Gss,�. L b,�„ ..S
SIGN NAME D CA'93 6:
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME - ADDRESS :
SIGN"NAME
PRINT -NAME - - - - ADDRESS : -
SIGN NAME ..
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME � � L !� 'y" 1.-.v 1� I ti �f ADDRESS' CZ/i 1� u L y (,' p
SIGN
PRINT NAME ? �� ADDRESS :
SIGN NAM, I . /ADD
,��
c-
PRINT NAME I � � • �� ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME w ��1 oll"m a.-_
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME -cl��" ��(,�ll. 1• i_/ �'(
PRINT NAME /,. ���� �., ADDRESS : �7
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
_
SIGN NAD1
PRINT NAMME '/ / / r / ADDRESS
SIGN NAME' - - �• G cr �-� .. �• �- '�
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
eC6 �7- t=c 'ci►i/ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
— --- 1-77 R - I r ^ - d ADDRESS: Al
PRINT NAME p
SIGN NAME -r %G� ✓�. '2rn �Il�f/
PRINT NAME) —�;�j . ! ADDRESSj�
i -
SIGN NAME L7.
PRINT NAME IV�!ly �/� /-SCG 1� ADDRFSS:
SIGN
NAME
_ 1 �c ` YYL dZ S`•�_�• z .
PRINT NAME ^-J� ADDRESS:
N} NAME
PRINT :NAME ADDRESS : -
/033 45&
SIGN NAME1 -- ----.. _
E�t/E A Nle _ ADDRESS : asmG o
PRINT NAME l D�'
I D B S /lA,59 /Je y J S
SIGN NAME � � �` �"
PRINT NA. ( S - 1v �`� ADDRESS : V7
S I _ ,i .
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : /
/ 1
_SIGN NAME �-
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
SIGN NAMEPRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NANM
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME ---- -.-_-
PRINT NAME - - - - - ADDRESS: - -
SIGN NAME .
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME sib n) ? orL r2 �S ADDRESS: /61// Ga.f/) e PRE .
SIGN
PRINT N 12 ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME /�/,, cQ Ax : -
PRINT NAME �d e ADDRESS : {
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME �jQN/ �' i�Z � ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME li �`i' j�-3 7
PRINT NAME / �C.vSO ADDRESS :/O
/ 'v
SIGN N ,M G �✓ � c ' _ �uj
PRINT NAME �y�o�cfE: _ ADDRESS : —
G32
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ` �� .i1 �_ �} �f ADDRESS
SIGN NAME . - - s - y 3a�j`
PRINT'NAM E ��/ z���-� 0 f�/� /SSU /N/ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME � �, v ��
PRINT NAME DA1r!/ti' 1DSTE;'? ADDRESS :
/o Y9
SIGN NAME r-> f ,
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMEf�� �pyy� /� r�(� ADDRESS : %C7 3/0
SIGN NAME � . - /�nZv/5
PRINT NAME �' _ L` ADDRESS :
SIGN NAMEy ,
PRINT NAME �/��/� - E/�/� TT ADDRESS : .1G2E �(1�'L
SIGN NAME '
li�s�1
/vzbis , L :3305
PRINT NAME �F, i DAA/rd /l,�M - ADDRESS:
oi3 �9Q iJ Jam•
SIGN_.NAMt �
PRINT NAME, / S ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ,L�� ADDRESS :
SIGN NAMF. � u Z • /% ,,,�_ ._ . _ . . cum_�' v �35�0
I
PRINT NAME .J ADDRESS : GLj�A
SIGN N � �: r✓ - - � ��-!s ��/ i5 v- � .�'�
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMEY-7 �/ ADDRESS :: ick i 2 SER%?�/
SIGN NAME 4.u/ll
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME, ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME _
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
SIGN NAME —
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME —
PRINT NAME TADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGNR NAME.._--
PRINT -NAME — _ _ _ ADDRESS: —
SIGN NAME.
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
_ SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
e;
PRINT NAME i1 � LSF � i"5 .- �� SB ADDRESS : �LM� D A •
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ,E, ADDRESS :
SIGN NAT1E / Ol T -
PRINT NAM �� a-ra ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME -x,/ ./
PRINT NAME �4NId� /`�(, /� S ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
.PRINT-NAMEL ADDRESS :
er
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME L TTj��2c; ADDRESS : --
SIGN NAME
- - - - - -
PRINTT NAME -
/1' T ADDRESS
-
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME r�Ce � Cp `js ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -a
PRINT
Dom -
PRINT NAMEo ��� �° 0 !-! R �.!_=/t' (s ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME J e � nj � R �, P_ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME , -
PRINT NAMEQ-iI C- - L� ADDRESS
SIGN NAME a V.�,��
PRINT NAMEJ�NADDRESS :, � X12
SIGN NAME fve S: p� o�re . - viii 93 vS-
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME4 _ C` �. � 0 S
PRINT NAME TGi �,4Q�`7H_ f���''r L�,..cy. .. ADDRESS: l f1 .y (
SIGN NAM
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAMF.
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
eA7R�e Ehrhor,., O-v
SIGN NAME _ ✓,
PRINT NAME f o?�EfzT L 114E ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME _ /!'nd yi✓y Z,iP.
NAME
PRINT C'kAl"E /is oAH4- ADDRESS :
_ �Av- ,J
SIGN NAME �`Tl'2 l• C/VN 'bR
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
1-70q
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
E.46-off
SIGN NAME '
PRINT NAMEMe h _ ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME - - - - -
ADDRESS
_PRINT NAME-/'.�p �2�_ �1f_�_ - - -- =- - -
SIGN NAME 7/7- P,_ -
PRINT=NAME E3 'e l� SHA �' �� L'� G ESS:7 '
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMEL, (�•S ADDRESS:
SIGN NAM E =2r
U 110 1 S 7P0
PRINT NAME ? �y },, ADDRESS: /�YL ��j�-�
7 v�'TGaz Gt SO h(i1(.�j� JCS 7yQ i
SIGN NAME (.!
PRINT NAME S ADDRESS :
/ ? Oo
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME-Z Cr �� �,M � fl� - ADDRESS .
SIGN NAME
SIGN NAME r � _ ADDRESS :
NRE-S
cS,::•17&r
PRINT NAME
�R�5 v�oe�sJ
SIGN NAME /70/ADDRESS
PRINT NAME ,3Zi5- {/A� A � / �
PRINT .NAME ADDRESS : oRi
✓
Qai sro GA
SIGN NAME C! __...
PRINT NAME 104 ea- N ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME -- --
PRINT NAME M CJS I ADDRESS :
� ( .Ct
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
4SIGN NAME /�O '�� •
PRINT NAME �, ADDRESS :
SIGN NAMEtL
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME- S
PRINT-N E �' ADDRESS :./ '`
SIGN NAMEi.
PRINT NAME ADDRES
_ APs ! 7A Ths-e Vii-•
SIGN NAME �,{J • - .�• - — - -- - -.. 54
-- -- - -
PRINT W; Q, � , �/'/�- e- ADDRESS /6 94_
---------------
SIGN NAME—
PRINT NAM
AMEPRINTNAME as / � f AD DRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : �61 671t'L c-TF6 Oft
SIGN NAME "}�'' WAJ�i� ( lttic�- Jl�tvWo50�(�poj ck •�
PRINT NAME K 0 - ` - -- L- - ADDRESS: /1i�L n'I,L��1J '
SIGN NAME, , 5✓✓'� -Sp./�/{� L'] S C,'F 15 CA 9
PRINT NAME eGn/ ADDRESS : �d7�7/lam°�hrlcz
SIGN NAME Al
PRINT NAME Lia2(PS S ADDRESS :l13 -D
SIGN NAAiEtie��;oo
.PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN .NAME.._..(aiIr� ._
C2 -- ADDRESS :
PRINT NAM_ �� -' T' -
SIGN NAME S7-,4w I !/!S
PRINT NAMEADDRESS :
SIGN NAME -
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS':
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME '�� ADDRESS : `
SIGN NAME z
PRINT NAME rr { ' Gt ADDRESS : -
C Y � � ur� W• �
SIGN NAMEjq,,��y�� -
PRINT NAME l ADDRESS : /9'/3
SIGN NAME - � � LC� - CR 93`f°✓-
PRINT NAME � 4� (//,✓ L-- ADDRESS :
p
SIGN NAME � � � Dr1� lWJ T7;5
PRINT NAME DO R i S �. Q �A R� S ( �( ADDRESS :
/
� .80
SIGN NAME 6l .
PRINT NAME O(�� —�� �,� ✓ --- — - ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME _ t LV� ` ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME h_
PRINT NAME 73 e Ltla, f )lir6cl4 ADDRESS '
SIGN NAME
J ADDRESS:
PRINT NAME el14- (,!�%C.' lt' �/I'/ . -
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : �
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ----- ADDRESS :
_ _ _
SIGN NA ME
PRINT NAME '� � .t�� �� •� '�{ S ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME _.._
09P,Za
PRINT -NAME - -- ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME -
sz.,
PRINT NAME �dADDRESS :
e �n � u.�laA / n
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME S Ls ADDRESS :
I
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMEADDRESS :
rtic� k , Coct - ooSr �v-�
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME L e�' i✓� J , �C� D �-� ! ADDRESS : 1
SIGN NAME ' � J L L
�f
PRINT NAME a cE sT� �T' ADDRESS : ��3�
SIGN NAME ' SLS 93�di
PRINT NAME 0 ADDRESS :
� 83 � C7GinelT� � �
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME S 0 ADDRESS
SIGN NAME ��I J- ,� °� 9 3 /dS
PRINT NAMEz5las i ll e- �C{o ✓ �-� y # ADDRESS :
l �/ 7�a t/r�t�7`f e -3�k-.-7
SIGN NAME
-
PRINT NAME -D6YLY► ���I,�� �J ADDRESS
SIGN NAMEjA��f',,, —
PRINT NAME ADDRESS'
SIGN NAME G
PRINT NAME 1 ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME 6 ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN. DAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN _--
PRINT NAME - - - - -- - ADDRESS : -
SIGN NAME .
PRINT .NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME _ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME _
e
i
- _ I
pi
P
f'
i.
PRINT NAME _ _ ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME _ - .
PRINT NAME ADD/REBS :
SIGN NAME �/-
PRINT NAME /t ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME (� / E- c cf
PRINT NAD1EADDRESS:
ld ' J6 f /<a re ri. C)rl'Ve y 3 4(&
SIGN NAME
�. _
PRINT NAME 5. N ADDRESS-:
SIGN_-
NAME' `Z'C1 lG 9{(;
PRINT .NAME �,�,j� k 7-IS r C'/rr? ADDRESS -
SIGN
DDRESS :SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME-
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:
SIGN NAM E ._. --
PRINT NAME - - _ ADDRESS:
SjuN _NAMt -
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
SIGN NAMEtADDRESS :PRINT NAME
SIGN NAME.
TO: CITY COUNCIL *MEMBER
SUBJECT: Reinstatement of "vacancy control".to Rent
Stabilization Law:
On April 1, 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that Escondido or any
other jurisdiction could prohibit an increase in mobilehome space
rent at the time the mobilehome is sold. A new buyer may occupy
the mobilehome at the same rent charged to his seller. We request
that vacancy control be added to Section 5 .44 . 060C of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code. A number of cities and counties
have already added vacancy control to their ordinances and some of
these are listed below:
City of San Jose
City of San Bernardino
Ventura County
City of Oxnard
Union City
City of Yucaipa
City of Morgan Hill
Please consider adding San Luis Obispo to the list.
Sincerely,
Vacancy Control was removed from the Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law due to a court case in Santa Barbara in
1990 .
Some mobile homes change hands far more often than
others, so as a result of this change, large
variations in rent often exist in mobile homes
which sit side by side. (Often a difference of
$60 or more a month exists. ) At present, an
increase in rent is allowed when a mobilehome
is sold.
A recent Supreme Court decision empowers cities
to outlaw the rent increase when a mobilehome
is sold. This allows rents to be more equitable
and fair.
I
PRINT NAME Lev l Q. uhosrko ADDRESS': 3 e
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME � l� menrt ne /L' c �z5h
ADDRESS : 3 =� ( n 7 /64 st•Kh-�� 7
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS:�, d Sv 12 .
SIGN NAME l �/ - S kLoG. �''. �!D/•
PRINT NAME --- --- - - - I ADDRESS : 39�p 5. f�iyuera� ' 3
SIGN NAME 6 SL4� �LlrS D�lS D ' �� 83414
PRINT NAME �A�
ADDRESS :
SIGN NPk-ME E. SAN LU/S O,f3lSPo. CA `T3s�o/
PRINT NAME AD ��� 7
jS' "�v l
SIGN NAME1
� �s C�
PRINT NAME Ivo I S RD�i,!
! ADDRESS 29�,L --5 _- ' -s%F �p
SIGN NAME yN, _ 1- ' Ai k car -G-
_RINTPRINT NAME
NAME _ — ` ADP.RESS
A44RY e- as W -
SIGN NAME
PRINT �NAME— — ADDRESS :
�~��
SIGN NAME
-- PRINT-NAME _.t ADDRESS �C) _A—`
��0 a � � U
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME o - - -- ------ ADDRESS :3 qoe $, r7 t��e✓/°�
SIGN NAME S L
ADDRESS '
PRINT NAME
s-
SIGN NAME
9 6
PRINT NAME /�I� /� �f'C' ADDRESS : � �• � � Q,
SIGN`NAME
PRINT NAME f,�t�� L '-yC 7C/t - ADDKESS
Ll
SIGN NAM 7/ _ _ . ---- 7/
PRINT N -
S'rj lV 6 ADDRESS :
a •
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME (1 ST/ �✓ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
k�
'RINT NAME _ ADDRESS : .
I ` c
'SIGN NAME t (� '� . .
'RINT NAME „2 �� y ADDRESS :
. 4
>I G N NAME -
'RINT NAME ADDRESS
>I GN NAMEIT
-
'RINT NAME ������ �� l� j ADDRESS :
3I GN NAME
- e
)RINT NAME, aR -� 3 L j ADDRESS : 40 J, I6vU I'?
SIGN NAME
?RINT NAME ADDRESS : 1`
AlSIGN NAM$—�
?RINT NAME Se ADDRESS
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAE ( , ADDRESS : C CC- A -I
SIGN NASI - vL71
PRINT NA }}
SIGN N �« j/
PRINT NAMEf-��D�
L � ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME Q3 _
PRINT NAbtE{ /� — DDR SS
Cs,DI) A S
SIGN NAME S � U S 61915go 3 U
PRINT NAD4E olen ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME /' ( / /u .S C1 S _
v
DDR &SS �S00f�
PRINT NASI d �
S N N,�1E
TOWAIS ADDRESS :
SIGN_N_AME ---
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : G /Q-
SIGN NAME
PRINT NA�Edfa- a-eI ADDRESS : 3 fL S, ,(- live-�'�-_..__.�j
SIGN NAME �jah Lv�s Ob 15
LNTAME �) 6a, �,rzs ADDRESS :
53
ME - -
?RINT NAME ICv ADDRESS :JjC o �7, fq�
SIGN NAME _ — - --- - �3 �
PRINT NAME �� ��j �O - - ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME / T5 y ADDRESS :_35,61,0 S62
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMF. O �sPF j ADDRESS /pZj
Q —
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME4i,1`l/�/ � �?(jS` p� -
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME _ROLk) ADD/RESS3�f(y0
SIGN N E --- - ---- - �a CA
- --- - --
PR^INTNAME jOCA-J a I'LOlog C1CuSK ADDRESS : :3
SIGN NAME ��`�"uC f'� l
PRINT NAME j05c_ fN A/IE l`o L / G Il Y ADDRESS :35 O S Ll �w
SIGN NAME I ate, O C13 y-
LPRI.NT. NAME &� ADDRESS/:
N NAME j�`/l /� (_/S (�J/Swnd.
PRINT NAME -` pp RESS
ft�S'I�ENC'E� 9�0
SIGN NAME �PRINT NAME ADDRESS -SIGN NAME
�� �--
9 /
PRINT NAME 3 Y/ - DDR S : `3 �O
SIGN NAME
ADDRESS : 396 o S' 1-41 C"LAM
PRTNTn�-
SIGN_N_AME
ADDRESS :3160 -----
PRINT NAA4E Q $n,
5A!d �ULs {s �
SIGN NAME �Tm. . .__. — •-
PRINT NAME ,4J. ADDRESS :3 6dtzmJ_?J.
SIGN NAME.
"P
'RINT NAMEy ' Tf ' ADDRESS
;IGN NAME
ADDRESS :
'RINT NAME ; /j '� V ')
;IGN NAME
IRI NT NAME it, ADDRESS *c
;IGN NAME
?RINT ...NAMES ---- �(� �� ADDRESS : 9lc%ts �Lt �
SIGN NAME. � '/Z ' C'Y,.: c•c.-� L':� tz C�a_ • /�J `�f l
T
?RINT N ( ` j �� j ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME el
PRINT NAME.-), ; T / ADDRESS : ,
/
C--
SIGN NADs
PRINT NAMR-rf-fv. S .�l' C/✓ [-CfL' -- ADDRESS
E '
SIGN NAME � �: 1,.� J..,.:.� �-��' � •�.
PRINT NAME G ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ADDRESS :
,JfSIGN NAME
PRINT NAME , �% ADDRESS :
� r/ E. r �
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME ��� 7 r2 'H� �et7D ADDRESS : )�� � / C-, � �y2
SIGN NAME I
PRINT NAMECi
ADDRESS :
SIGN NAME .c.i� i� .� a c- L� S �,s P6 V -
PRINT NAME t' ADDRESS • T -
AME
SIGN NAME
pRT*rr .�,.,,.- ,Liiv L- r� 2 - ADDRESS : �i ..d.S4
SIGN NAME C _1_ -� _'- -- --
S;.GN --'---- --� ADD : 3 �r= ( - �. -�
PRINT NAME (� �- RESS S . . -
- � _
SIGN NAME V q
PRINT NAMEo.-� `IGEN- 1� (t��' \ ADDRESS :
SIGN NAM .
PRINT NAME ADDRESS: i iG G Il-t c ".. a-�- 1 i-7
�'�
SIGN NAME
. .
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : j� C t (I Lc'
0, < ?
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAMES tA
AoZ
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME OC :-, �I:\T'� b'.1• �; AirJ i� i.i' '_.7 q^ �y
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME -`���. � -f;^ � t 1AD
-
SIGN NAMEOb '_, ( � �q�''�_
ADDRESS :
PRINT NAME ,-_, -. � ,.� L-I� l �
SIGN NAM � .� I _LL
-, ADDRESS
PRINT NAME � `/�_// _ J_r/i'
SIGN NAMEi • LCl -./ -;'�C' �'
.�.�• y Griot- '
PRNAME i
INT
/ ADDRESS:
SIGN NAME / /. ,�% � ,�!'� i',�, �1�. �_ - ' '.v•
-- -
PRINT NAME :` _ _ - ADDRESS: c cS-
SIGN NAME ' L� .C.=31 �' C ✓� `! >y3
PRINT_ NAME . v .r 1, I ADDRESS
SIGN NAME - /� i' _/ 5i?�✓`tj, S �O�J% S _ j cz
PRINT NAME ADDRESS : /
/' i � S 'e' C e
SIGN NAME
PRINT NAME J ADDRESS :
` � � L
SIGN NAME
v ADDRESS Gl i;•� �-�
PRINT NAMESIG ��
Tf-5 NAME rfc< _ '' �v,� • J. L C 'S
..r..T ., �rylLL iC L D l£? r"o L v/C - ADDRESS : �� .� -
r,.. ,
SIGN _NAME �'�7-✓0,.�.� ) �r�rc �- ��/�
`�
PRINT NAME
ADDRESS :
i
SIGN NAME ��-� ]tc -- •� +_.� �'�
c ,
PRINT NAME ""7/7C �' C ADDRESS : 6 L
SIGN NAME aC-���•t ��e;. � _ _ - --