The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/19/1997, 5 - MOBILEHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE council M�i�Da.p-0 -9 AQcnaa Repont him Num6.. CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Jeffrey G.Jorgensen,Ci 4ttorney SUBJECT: Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance CAO RECOMMENDATION Review and Consider Requests for Amendments to the San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance DISCUSSION At the June 3, 1997 City Council meeting, several mobilehome tenants requested various amendments to the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance. This request had previously been submitted to the City in writing on April 15, 1997, and the City Attorney prepared a confidential analysis for the Council on May 15, 1997. The City Council directed that the City Attorney's memorandum be made available to the public, and the matter be brought back for discussion at a later date. At this time the Council should review the request and detennine whether further action is desired. Since the June 3, 1997 meeting, the City has received additional correspondence on this matter, which is attached for your information. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact at this time. Should amendments be made or additional enforcement of the San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance be needed, it could impact staff time in both Administration and City Attorney Offices. Attachment: May 15, 1997 Memo from Jeffrey G. Jorgensen (A) Correspondence (B) yMAY 15, 1997 MEMO FROM JORGENSEN (A) ,SOL. MEMORANDUM From the Office of the City Attorney May 15, 1997 To: City Council From: Jeff JorgensenC (,ity Attorney Subject: Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance— Request for Amendments By letter dated April 15, 1997, a copy of which is attached as (A), the City has received a request from several mobilehome park tenants to amend the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The four proposed amendments are as follows: 1. Vacancy Control. a. Request. Section 5.44.060(C) of the current ordinance limits rent increases on a change of ownership of a mobilehome to not more than 10% once in any 36 month period. Such a limitation is commonly referred to as "vacancy control." The tenants have requested the deletion of Section 5.44.060(C), which would presumably have the effect of prohibiting any rent increase upon a change of ownership of a mobilehome. b. Analysis. In analyzing this request, it is helpful to review the history of this Section. The 10% rent increase limitation was contained in the original ordinance adopted by a vote of the people in 1988. In 1990, based on the Federal District Court decision in Hall v. City of Santa Barbara (which held that a substantially similar provision was a "physical" taking of property), the City Council amended the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance to delete vacancy control. In 1992 the United States Supreme Court held in Yee v. City of Escondido that vacancy control did not constitute a physical taking of the park owner's property. As a result, mobilehome tenants requested the City to restore the 10% limit on rent increases on a change of ownership, and the City Council agreed. ,Therefore, the May 7, 1997 letter from Betty Henson, attached as (B), is incorrect in asserting that "... vacancy control was not reinstated...." In essence, the tenants now wish to delete entirely any increase in rent on change of ownership. This would conflict with the ordinance adopted by a vote .5-S �,.}xfy4•tirf �yX �-.rcx �• 1�. .i.7� Y �. u:l�' A 1 )• N a „ r v of the"people in 198_8, and substitute a competing statutory approach4which , r was alsonon the ballot nn 1988'but failed-,t gain voter-approval4 " A. gr The.issue of-whether vacancy control-constitutes a"reeulatord' as opposed to ,ter physical`taking�has still not been resolved by the cour--ts and probably will riotm , 4 be finally'set 1 d.untnl th-fe,is a United States'Supreme Court decision on point. Theefore,,caution shouldbe taken,to avoid inadvertently leading the City:'into potentialakin_s!g anon: g- -g - ` z Thecurrent vacancy control rovision is art of:a com rehensi re; balanced° s �" #, approach3wluchCwas negotiated by a Mize-ribbon committee appointed by 1 A f Council and'approvedby the voters As discussed further below, the uTila'te al'removal,of it will change the balance:of:th6 ordinance. The Councils xr .. . should carefully consider whether such a change, as well as`the other requests,fE' sem•_ , is warranted or advisable without broader public;input: 2: .Passthronghs. - l - a ,G Request. Sedtion,6A4 06Q.(E) of the current ordu'iance allows"for automatic dustments of,rent, commonly referred to as passthrouglis; nncre sesodecreases,irz expenses fo_"r common area utilities, new,government`, mand'atedser ices, garbage service and.cable:television,where applicable; a k _ excluding capital improvements or ongoing maintenance cost"s " The are requesting the&16tion of all automatic increases except for utiliiaes b" OAnalysis. Theelimin`ati'on of passthroughs except°foiutilities; ,.°r4 ' coupwcid nth,the'de'letion of the 10%rent increase on change:of owneisliip; ,r would significantly change the balance and structure of the ordinance,qnd, Y •- 660, d foice.a- ater reliance on formal applications for rentdnereases pursuaantjto.'Section 5.44.070, This would potentially generate greater conflict]�5 ..' over rents a As'has beemstated on niimerous previous occasions; the valiihty mob ehome reni control ordnance,is^dependent upon whether rt�provides ir} x owner with an opportunity°for.a-`fair:return"on investment: The courts,,hhve:' cons stently,held that failure-to allow'a fair return constAde-Sna taking of`t-he , owner's property;for which the,City is,liable- The provision for a10% increase r,,,. on change ofiownerslup and theautomatic passthroughs can be considered a; + safety,mechanism'which allows<rentto`increase ftadu—QYbver time, which inl »r turn'�helps.avo d tliespotential for a taking, and for.rents to approximate;a,fair° return on' vestment: . If these provisions are deleted_, then the only option; availablpjto the;owner•is,to -seek afor- ng adjustment to rent unddrihe liearuig�r . k� .f`' r - process set forth in Section 5.44.070,`This would add sigriific`antly to the Y. administrative l?urdein of the City. (Since adoption of the ordinance there has never been a,forma'1 rent adjustment hearing) '1`� M �fi ', s 1 A. .� ter.. r)Q. 5P ' ' :~ y l 5d�1 lr "t ..�la ✓ '1n �.s `u If rents.are not allowed to increase gradually over time, there is:a risk that ultimately a larger rent increase will need to be granted in order to provide'a fair return. Granting a large rent increase would be a difficult and unpleasant task in the face of tenant opposition: To the extent rent increases are not granted where warranted, the City runs the risk of exposure to takings litigation. 3. Rent Adjustment Factors: a. Request. Section 5.44.090 of the current ordinance sets forth.a.. broad range of factors which may be considered in evaluating an application for a rent increase. It also provides a formula for determining a fair return,.and an alternative methodology in the event the formula does not work. The:., tenants are requesting the deletion of this section and replacement withmew . provisions which appear to apply only to "capital improvements" and `-`capital replacements." Capital improvements require approval by a majority of. tenants. Capitol replacements are not defined, but there are specific limitations on capital replacements of utility lines. b. Analysis. The proposed changes would significantly change the. framework of the ordinance, and do not fit well into the overall regulatory structure. The focus on "capital improvements" and capital replacements. ignores other relevant factors which should be considered in determininga "fair return." Given the fact that a park owner is entitled to a fair return,.the voter approval requirements for capital improvements and limitations:on.. capital replacements may actually require litigation against the City if a rent adjustment is denied on that basis, but the owner can otherwise show that an . increase is necessary to assure a fair return. When this request is combined with the previous requests to delete the 10% rent increase on change of ownership, and to remove all passthroughs except utilities, it becomes clear that the flexibility of the ordinance is being seriously weakened, and without. flexibility the potential for conflict and litigation increases greatly: 4. Miscellaneous. A. Request. The tenants assert that the reference to 5.44.040(F'):in the current ordinance is incorrect and should be changed to 5.44.04-0(E). In . addition, .they have requested that a claim of exemption under 5.44.040(B).may be objected to "... on the grounds that any part of the lease is in violation,of State Mobilehome Residency Laws. b. Analysis. ' .In reviewing this request, I was unable to understand what it means, since the reference to 5.44.040M appears to be correct. I therefore requested clarification from Leola Rubottom, and her April: 9!`0l response is attached as (C). Unfortunately, her response did not provide,much . 3. . clarification. The only way the request makes sense is if it is related to mobilehome park owner exemptions under 5.44.030(F). For the purpose of analysis, I will assume this is what they meant. The original Section 5.44.030(F) adopted by the voters in 1988 provided an exemption from mobilehome rent stabilization for"spaces in a mobile home park in which at least 66.67 percent of said spaces are governed by a lease with an initial term of more than one year." This was commonly known as the "safe harbor" provisions, and was designed as an incentive to reward a park owner who was willing to offer a long term lease favorable enough to gain acceptance by at least 66.67 percent of the spaces by exempting the remaining tenants who did not sign leases from rent stabilization protection. In 1992, at the request of tenants, these "safe harbor" provisions were deleted so that regardless of how many tenants entered into long term leases, the remaining tenants who did not sign leases would still be protected by rent stabilization. This action rendered 5.44.040 inoperable since it related directly to the safe harbor provisions in 5.44.030(F), which were now deleted. Nevertheless, 5.44.040 was retained in the ordinance to allow for any preexisting exemptions before the amendment. Therefore, the proposed changes to 5.44.040 do not make sense since the reasons for the existence of 5.44.040 have been deleted. Although not clearly stated, it appears the true nature of the request may be to further limit the exemption under 5.44.030(E), which provides that tenants who have signed long term leases are exempt from protection under the rent stabilization ordinance during the term of the lease. The tenants appear to be requesting that the exemption only apply if the lease is in compliance with the State Mobilehome Residency Laws, and that the tenants would have a formal right to object on this basis. The problem with this approach is that it would require the city to be the arbiter and enforcer of the State Mobilehome Residency Laws whenever a tenant objected based on the terms of a private lease entered into between owner and tenant. Up to this point, the City has refrained from this approach because it does not have the staff or expertise to do so, and has limited its involvement with mobilehomes to rent stabilization only. To do otherwise would impose a tremendous administrative burden on the City in a complex and highly contentious area. In addition, it has the potential to embroil the City in essentially private legal disputes over the terms and enforcement of private leases. 4 6 CONCLUSION The proposed changes would significantly modify the structure of the current ordinance which was a compromise measure adopted by the voters in 1988. It would remove flexibility from the ordinance, and force greater reliance on formal rent adjustment hearings. To the extent it prevents owners from having a clear and reasonable mechanism to achieve a"fair return," it may expose the City to significant legal liability and costs. It would greatly increase the City's involvement in mobilehome disputes by requiring the City to interpret and enforce the State Mobilehome Residency laws, and may entangle the City in private disputes over leases. All of these will impose a tremendous administrative burden on the City (and potentially create a new work program which is currently not budgeted). For these reasons, and as discussed above, the proposed changes are not recommended. JGJ/sw cc: John Dunn Bonnie Gawf Ken Hampian Cindy Clemens Attachments: April 15, 1997 Letter from Rubottom, etal. (A) May 7, 1997 Letter from Betty Henson (B) April 29, 1997 Letter from Leola Rubottom (C) Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance (D) 5 .5-7 t San Luis Obispo, CA April 15, 1997 TO: Mayor Allen Settle and San Luis Obispo City Council Members: We respectfully request that you change' the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance in the following four ways, and place this request on the Agenda no later than the end of May. 1 . 5 .44 .060 (C) . This should be omitted. See number 1 on list of attachments . 2 . 5 .44 .060 (E) Most of this item should be omitted. See number 2 on list of attachments. 3 . 5 .44 .090 Application for Rent Adjustment - Evaluation - Relevant Factors . See number 3 on list of attachments . 4 . 5 .44 .040 (F) Should be changed to 5 .44 .40 (E) . This reference is incorrect . 5 .44 .040 (B) Please replace with Attachment Number 4 . Sin�,erely, nenson Leola Rubottom Bet Barrs Kauf an Bob Souther.X J JAJ -1 ppR , 6 iy - c�n 00014CI Attachment 1 . 5 .44 .060 (C) should be omitted. The rent on a mobilehome space must be paid whether it is occupied or not . When a mobilehome changes ownership, the park owner does not render a service, nor incur an expense, so there is no need for compensation. In . the case of Yee vs . Escondido, in 1992, the United States Supreme Court, in an unanimous 9-0 decision, ruled that vacancy control is not a taking of the park owner' s property. (See copy enclosed. ) 2 . 5 .44 . 060 (E) . A park owner can apply for and receive an adjustment in rent under the guidelines of 5 .44.070 "Application for rent adjustment - Fee - Contents . " Most mobilehome parks in San Luis Obispo do not have pass throughs if they are not . on leases . Omit all of (E) except : Leave the automatic increases or decreases to the mobilehome owners utilities. This includes any government mandated cost where applicable. Any notice of an increase or decrease shall be in writing and shall be required by law, no less than ninety (90) days prior to any such increase or decrease becoming effective. The notice shall state the amount of rent increase or decease and specify the new space rent. A copy of the notice shall be given to the city administration officer. There shall- be only one such increase or decrease in a 12-month period. 3 . 5 .44 .090 Applications for Rent Adjustment - Evaluation - Relevant Factors . Replace as follows : a. The cost of capital improvements shall be approved by the majority of the homeowners of the occupied spaces within any park. This approval must be in writing with all required signatures . b. Costs of capital replacement for utility lines shall be allowed only when, and to the extent, that park owner receives less income from utilities than the expense incurred of administering the sub- metering, if any, and from maintaining or replacing the utility . lines . Documentation shall be required. c. Any improvements or replacements, regardless of amount, can be allowed if such improvements or replacements have been ordered by a court or competent jurisdiction, such as any city, county, or state agency, or are of an emergency nature and required to preserve the health and safety of the home owners . d. Costs of capital improvements, if any, must be averaged on a per space basis, and amortized over a period not less than sixty (60) months, and excluded from the rent amount on which calculations of future rent increases are based. When the capital improvement (s) is paid off, the assessment shall be reduced by the amount of any rent increase imposed to cover. the capital improvement (s) . e . Costs of capital replacements, if any, must be averaged on a per space basis, and amortized over a period not less than sixty - (60) months, and are to be treated as an assessment to be paid off over not less than sixty (60) moths, and excluded from the rent amount on which calculations of future rent increases are based. When the capital replacement (s) is paid off, the home -owner Is rent J • rent shall be reduced by the amount of any rent increase imposed to cover the cost of capital replacement (s) . f . Costs of capital improvements of+ capital replacements may be passed through only if related to a capital improvement or capital replacement work completed during the twelve (12) months preceding the date of notice of. any rent increase given and not to any work in progress at the time notice of any rent increase is given. 4 . 5 .44 . 040 (F) This reference is incorrect, and should be changed to 5 .44 .040 (E) . 5 .44 .040 (B) Change to read: An objection to the claim of exception may be filed by tenant (s) on the grounds that any part of the lease is in violation of State Mobilehome Residency Laws . �Y N077CE:This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers axe requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,Supreme Court of the United States,Wash- ington,D.C.20543,of any typographical or other formal errors,in.order that corrections tray be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No.90-1947 JOHN K YEE, ET AL., PETITIONERS u. CITY OF ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [April 1, 19921 JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "(N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Most of our cases interpreting the Clause fall within two distinct classes. Where the government authorizes a physical occupation of property(or . actually takes title), the Takings Clause generally requires compensation. See, e. g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhat- tan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 426 (1982). But where the government merely regulates the use of property, compen- sation is required only if considerations such as the purpose of the regulation or the extent to which it deprives the owner of the economic use of the property suggest that the - regulation has unfairly singled out the property owner to bear a burden that should be borne by the public's a whole. See, e.g., Penn Central Transp. Co. v. Nein York City, 438 U. S. 104, 123-125 (1978). The first category of cases requires courts to apply a dear rule; the second necessarily entails complex factual assessments of the purposes and economic effects of government actions. Petitioners own mobile home parks in Escondido,Califor- nia. They contend that a local rent control ordinance,when viewed against the backdrop of California's Mobile home Residency Law, amounts to a physical occupation of their 90-1947—OPINION 2 YEE v. ESCONDIDO property entitling them to compensation under the first category of cases discussed above. I : The term"mobile home"is somewhat misleading. Mobile- homes are largely immobile as a practical matter, because the cost of moving one is often a significant fraction of the value of the mobile home itself. They are generally placed permanently in parks; once in place, only about one in every hundred mobile homes is ever moved. Hirsch & Hirsch, Legal-Economic Analysis of Rent Controls in a Mobile Home Context: Placement Values and Vacancy Decontrol, 35.UCLA L. Rev. 399, 405 (1988). A mobile home owner typically rents a plot of land, called a "pad," from the owner of a mobile home park. The park owner provides private roads within the park, common facilities such as washing machines or a swimming pool, and often utilities. The mobile home owner often invests in site- specific improvements such as a driveway,steps,walkways, porches, or landscaping. When the mobile home owner' wishes to move, the mobile home is usually sold in place, and the purchaser continues to rent the pad on which the mobile home is located. In 1978, California enacted its Mobilehome Residency' Law,Cal. Civ. Code Ann.§798(West 1982 and Supp. 1991). The Legislature found "that, because of the high cost of moving mobilehomes, the potential for damage resulting - therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobilehomes,and the cost of landscaping or lot preparation, it is necessary that the owners of mobilehomes occupied within mobilehome parks be provided with the unique protection from actual or constructive eviction afforded by the provisions of this chapter." §798.55(a). The Mobilehome Residency Law limits the bases upon which a.park owner may terminate a mobile home owner's tenancy. These include the nonpayment of rent, the mobile home owner's violation of law or park rules, and the park` . r 94-1947—OPINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 3 owners desire to change the use of his land. §798.56. While a rental agreement is in effect, however, the park owner generally may not require the removal of a mobile- home when it is- sold. §798.73. The park owner may neither charge a transfer fee for the sale, §798.72, nor disapprove of the purchaser, provided that the purchaser has the ability to pay the rent, §798.74. The Mobilehome Residency Law contains a number of other detailed provi- sions, but none limit the rent the park owner may charge. In the wake of the Mobilehome Residency Law, various communities in California adopted mobilehome rent control ordinances. See Hirsch & Hirsch, supra, at 408-411..The voters of Escondido did the same in 1988 by approving Proposition K, the rent control ordinance challenged here. The ordinance sets rents back to their 1986 levels, and prohibits rent increases without the approval of the City. 'Council. Park owners may apply to the Council for rent increases at any time. The Council must approve any increases it determines to be `just, fair and reasonable," after considering the following nonexclusive list of factors: (1) changes in the Consumer Price Index; (2) the rent charged for comparable mobile home pads in Escondido;(3). the length of time since the last rent increase; (4) the cost of any capital improvements related to the pad or pads at issue;(5) changes in property taxes;(6) changes in any rent . paid by the park owner for the land; (7) changes in utility charges;(8)changes in operating and maintenance expens- es;(9)the need for repairs other than for ordinary wear and tear,(10)the amount and quality of services provided to the affected tenant; and (11) any lawful existing lease. Orth.- ance §4(g), App. 11-12. Petitioners John and Irene Yee own the Friendly Hills. and Sunset Terrace Mobile Home Parks, both of which are located in the city of Escondido. A few months after the adoption of Escondido's rent control ordinance, they.filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court. According to the complaint, "[t]he.rent control law has had the effect of 90-1947-OPINION 4 YEE u. ESCONDIDO depriving the plaintiffs of all use and occupancy of [their] real property and granting to the tenants of mobilehomes presently in The Park, as well as the successors in interest of such tenants, the right to physically permanently occupy and use the real property of Plaintiff." Id., at 3, 16. The Yees requested damages of six million dollars, a declaration that the rent control ordinance is unconstitutional, and an injunction barring the ordinance's enforcement. Id., at 5-6. In their opposition to the city's demurrer, the Yees relied almost entirely on Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F. 2d 1270 (CA9 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 940 (1988), which had held that a similar mobile home rent control ordinance . effected a physical taking under Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 (1982). The Yees candidly admitted that"in fact, the Hall decisionwas used [as] a guide in drafting the present Complaint ," 2 Tr. 318, Points & Authorities in Opposition to Demurrer 4.. .The Superior Court nevertheless sustained the city's demurrer and dismissed the Yees' complaint App. to Pet. for Cert. C-42. The Yees were not alone. Eleven other park owners filed similar suits against the city shortly afterwards, and all were dismissed. By stipulation, all 12 cases were consoli-. dated for appeal; the parties agreed that all would be submitted for decision by the California Court of Appeal on the briefs and oral argument in the Yee case. The Court of Appeal affirmed, in an opinion primarily ` devoted to expressing the court's disagreement with the reasoning of HaU. The court concluded: "Loretto in no way suggests that the Escondido ordinance authorizes a perms- . neat physical occupation of the landlord's property and therefore constitutes a per se taking." 224 Cal. App. 3d 1349, 1358 (1990). The California Supreme Court denied review. App. to Pet for Cert B-11. Eight of the twelve park owners, including the Yees, joined in a petition for certiorari. We granted certiorari,.._..: . 502 U. S. _ (1991), to resolve the conflict between the p h - 90-1947-OPINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 5 decision below and those of two of the federal Courts of Appeals, in Hall,supra, and Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barnegat Township Leveling Board,.898 F. 2d 347 (CA3 1990). - Petitioners do not claim that the ordinary rent control statutes regulating housing throughout the country violate the Takings Clause. Brief for Petitioners 7, 10. Cf.Pennell v. San Jose, 485 U. S. 1, 12, n. 6 (1988); Loretto supra, at 440. Instead, their argument is predicated on the unusual economic relationship between park owners and mobile home owners. Park owners may no longer set rents or decide who their.tenants will.be. As a result, according to .,. . . petitioners, any reduction in the rent for a mobile home pad causes a corresponding increase in the value of a mobile home,because the mobilehome owner now owns,in addition to a mobile home, the right to occupy a pad at a rent below the value that would be set by the free market. Cf. Hirsch & Hirsch, 35 UCLA I,. Rev., at 425.. Because under the California Mobilehome Residency Law the park owner cannot evict a mobile home owner or easily convert the'.. property to other uses,the argument goes,the mobile home owner is.effectively a perpetual tenant of the park, and increase in'the mobile'home's value thus represents the right to occupy a pad at below-market rent indefinitely. And because the Mobilehome Residency Law permits the mobile home owner to sell the mobile home in place, the mobile home owner can receive a premium from the pur- chaser corresponding to this increase in value. The amount of this premium is not limited by the Mobilehome Residency Law or the Escondido ordinance. As a result, petitioners conclude, the rent control ordinance has transferred a discrete interest in land—the right to occupy the land indefinitely at a sub-market rent—from the park owner to the mobile home owner. Petitioners contend that what has been transferred from park owner to mobile home owner is S-/.S 94-1947-OPINION 6 YEE u. ESCONDIDO no less than a right of physical occupation of the park owners land. This argument, while perhaps within the scope of,our regulatory taking cases, cannot be squared easily with our cases on physical takings. The government effects a physical taking only where it requires the landowner to submit to the physical occupation of his land. ' 'his element of required acquiescence is at the heart of the . concept of occupation." FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U. S.245, 252(1987). Thus whether the government floods a landowner's property, Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 (1872), or does no more than require the land- owner to suffer the installation of a cable, Loretto, supra, the Takings Clause requires compensation if the govern- ment authorizes a compelled physical invasion of property. But the Escondido rent control ordinance, even when considered in conjunction with the California Mobilehome Residency Law, authorizes no such thing. Petitioners voluntarily rented their land to mobile home owners. At least on the face of the regulatory scheme,neither the City nor the State compels petitioners, once they have rented their property to tenants, to continue doing so. . To the contrary, the Mobilehome Residency Law provides.that a park owner.who wishes to change the use of his land may evict his tenants, albeit with sig or twelve months notice. Cal. Civ. Code Ann. §798.56(g). Put bluntly, no govern- ment has required any physical invasion of.petitioners' . property. Petitioners' tenants were invited by petitioners, not forced upon them by the government. See Florida Power, supra, at 252-253. While the "right to exclude" is doubtless, as petitioners assert, one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly character- ized as property,"Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 176 (1979), we do not find that right to have been taken from petitioners on the mere face of the Escondido ordinance. 90-1947—OPINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 7 Petitioners suggest that the statutory procedure for changing the use of a mobile home park is in practice "a kind of gauntlet,"in that they are not in fact free to change the use of their land. Reply Brief for Petitioners 10, n. 16. Because petitioners do not claim to have run that gauntlet, however, this case provides no occasion to consider how the procedure has been applied to petitioners'property, and we accordingly confine ourselves to the face of the statute. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v.DeBenedictis, 480 U. S. 470, 493-495 (1987). A different case would be presented were the statute, on its face or as applied, to compel a landowner over objection to rent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy. See Florida Power,supra,at 251-252,n. 6;see also Nollan v. California Coastal Comm.'n,483 U. S.825,831-832(1987);Fresh Pond Shopping Center, Inc. v. Callahan, 464 U. S. 875, 877 (1983) (REHNQUISI`, J., dissenting). On their face, the state and local laws at issue here merely regulate petitioners',use of their land by regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant. ' `his Court has consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate housing conditions,in general and the,landlord-. tenant relationship in particular without paying compensa- tion for all economic injuries that such regulation entails." Loretto, 458 U. S., at 440. See also Florida Power, supra, at 252 ("statutes regulating the economic relations of landlords and tenants are not per se takings'). When a ` landowner decides to rent his land to tenants, the govern- ment may place ceilings on the rents the landowner can charge, see, e. g.,Pennell, supra, at 12, n. 6, or require the landowner to accept tenants he does not like, see, egg., Heart ofAtlanta Motel,Inc. v. United States,379 U. S. 241, 261 (1964),without automatically having to pay compensa- tion. See also Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. ,74, 82-84 (1980). Such forms of regulation are analyzed by engaging in the "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries" necessary to determine whether a regulatory a s-i1 1 r 90-1947—OPINION 8 YEE u. ESCONDIDO taking has occurred. Kaiser Aetna, supra, at 175. In the words of Justice Holmes, "while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too .far it will be recognized as. a taking." Pennsylvania Coal Co. v:Mahon, 260 U. S. 393, 415 (1922). Petitioners emphasize that the ordinance transfers wealth from park owners to incumbent mobile home owners. Other forms of land use regulation, however, can also be said to transfer wealth from the one who is regulated to another. Ordinary rent control often transfers wealth from landlords to tenants by reducing the landlords' income and the tenants' monthly payments, although it does not cause a one-time transfer of value as occurs with mobile homes. Traditional zoning regulations can transfer wealth from those whose activities are prohibited to their neighbors; when a property owner is barred from mining coal on his land, for example,the value of his property may decline but the value of his neighbor's property may rise. The mobile home owner's ability to sell the mobile home at a premium may make this wealth transfer more visible than in. the ordinary'case, see Epstein,Rent Control and the Theory of Efficient Regulation, 54 Brooklyn L. Rev. 741, 758-759 (1988), but the existence of the transfer in itself does not convert regulation into physical invasion. Petitioners also rely heavily on their allegation that the ordinance benefits incumbent mobile home owners without benefiting future mobile home owners,who will be forced to purchase mobile homes at premiums. Mobile homes, like motor vehicles, ordinarily decline in value with age. -But the effect of the rent control ordinance, coupled with the restrictions on the park -owner's freedom to reject new tenants, is to increase significantly the value of the mobile . home. This increased value normally benefits only the tenant in possession at the time the rent control is imposed. See Hirsch & Hinch, 35 UCLA L. Rev., at 4307-431. Petitioners are correct in citing the existence of this premium as a difference between the alleged effect of the i 90-1947—OPINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 9 Escondido ordinance and that of an ordinary apartment rent control statute. Most apartment tenants do not sell anything to their successors (and are often prohibited from charging"key money"), so a typical rent control statute will transfer wealth'from the landlord to the incumbent tenant and all future tenants. By contrast, petitioners contend that the Escondido ordinance transfers wealth only to the incumbent mobile home owner. This effect might have. some bearing on whether the ordinance causes a regulatory taking, as it may shed some light on whether there is a sufficient nexus between the effect of the ordinance and the objectives it is supposed to advance. See Nollan v. Califor- nia Coastal Comm'n,supra, at 834-835. But it has nothing to do with whether the ordinance causes a physical taking- Whether the ordinance benefits only current mobile home . owners or all mobile home owners, it does not require petitioners to submit to the physical occupation of their land. The same may be said of petitioners' contention that the ordinance amounts to compelled physical occupation because it deprives petitioners of the ability to choose their incoming tenants.' Again, this effect may be relevant to a regulatory taking argument, as it may be one factor•a reviewing court would wish to consider in Beterminin g whether the ordinance unjustly imposes a burden on petitioners that should"be compensated by the government, rather than remaining]disproportionately concentrated on. ------------- 'Strictly speaking, the Escondido rent control ordinance only limits tioners'inability to select their incoming tenants is a Product rents. Pati of the 3tatti hers'Mobihome Residency Law,the constitutionality of which has never been at issue in this ears• (The State, moreover, hasver been a party) But we understand petitioners to be making re subtle argument—that before the adoption of the ordinance they were able to influence a mobilehome owner's selecttion f by treatening to increase the rent for prospectivepurchasers. disfavored. To the extent the rent control ordinance a we deprivee petitioners of this type of influence,petitioners'argument sfi 90-1947-OPINION 10 YEE u. ESCONDIDO a few persons." Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City, 438 U. S., at 124. But it does not convert regulation into the unwanted physical occupation of land. Because they voluntarily open their property to occupation by others,. petitioners cannot assert a per se right to compensation based on their inability to exclude particular individuals. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S., at 261; see also id., at 259 ("appellant has no 'right' to select its guests as it sees fit, free from governmental regulation"); Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S., at 82-84. Petitioners' final line of argument rests on a footnote in Loretto, in which we rejected the contention that "the landlord could avoid the requirements of [the statute forcing her to permit cable to be permanently placed on her property] by ceasing to rent the building to tenants." We found this possibility insufficient to defeat a physical taking claim,because"a landlord's ability to rent his property may not be conditioned on his forfeiting the right to compensa- tion for a physical occupation." Loretto, 458 U. S., at 439, n. 17: Petitioners argue that if they have to leave the mobile home park business in order to avoid the strictures of the Escondido ordinance, their ability to rent their. property has in fact been conditioned on such a forfeiture. This argument fails at its base,however, because there has simply been no compelled physical occupation giving rise to a right to compensation that petitioners could have forfeit- ed. Had the city required such an occupation, of course, petitioners would have a right to compensation,and the city might then lack the power to condition petitioners' ability to run mobile home parks on their waiver of this right` 'Cf. Nonan, 483 U. S., at 837. But because the ordinance does not effect a physical taking in the first place, this footnote . in Loretto does not help petitioners. With respect to physical takings,then,this case is not far removed from FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U. S. 245 (1987), in which the respondent had voluntarily leased 4 , 13 S�� 90-1947-OPINION YEE u. ESCONDIDO 11 space on its utility poles to a cable television company for the installation of cables. The Federal Government, exercising its statutory authority to regulate pole attach- ment agreements, substantially reduced the annual rent. We rejected the respondent's claim that "it is a taking under Loretto for a tenant invited to lease at a rent of$7.15 to remain at the regulated rent of$1.79. Id., at 252. We explained that"it is the invitation,not the rent, that makes . the difference. The line which separates [this case] from Loretto is the unambiguous distinction between a . . .lessee and an interloper with a government license." Id., at 252-253. The distinction is equally unambiguous here. The Escondido rent control ordinance, even considered against the backdrop of California's Mobilehome Residency Law, does not authorize an unwanted physical occupation of petitioners'property. It is a regulation of petitioners'use of their property, and thus does not amount to a per se taking. III In this Court, petitioners attempt to- challenge the ordinance on two additional grounds: They argue that it constitutes a denial of substantive due process and a- regulatory taking. Neither of these claims is properly before us. The first was not raised or addressed below, and the second is not fairly included in the question on which we granted certiorari. A The Yees did not include a due process claim in their complaint. Nor did petitioners raise a due process claim in the Court of Appeal. It was not until their petition Jor review in the California Supreme Court that petitidners finally raised a substantive due process claim. But the California Supreme Court denied discretionary review." Such a denial, as in this Court, expresses no view as to the merits. See People v. Triggs, 8 Cal. 3d 884, 890-891, 506 P. 2d 232, 236 (1973). In short, petitioners did not raise a L 90-1947-OPINION 12 YEE u. ESCONDIDO substantive due process claim in the state courts, and no state court has addressed such a claim. In reviewing the judgments of state courts under the jurisdictional grant of 28 U. S. C. §1257, the Court has, with very rare exceptions, refused to consider petitioners' claims that were not raised or addressed below. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 218-220 (1983). While we have expressed inconsistent views as to whether this rule is jurisdictional or prudential in cases arising from state courts, see ibid.,we need not resolve the question here. (In cases arising from federal courts, the rule is prudential only. See, e. g., Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14, 17, n. 2 (1980).) Even if the rule were prudential,we would adhere to it in this case. Because petitioners did not raise their substantive due process claim below, and because the state courts did not address it, we will not consider it here. B As a preliminary matter, we must address respondent's assertion that a regulatory taking claim is'unripe because petitioners have not sought rent increases. While respon- dent is correct that a claim that the ordinance effects a regulatory taking as applied to petitioners'property would be unripe for this reason, see Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City", 473 U. S. 172, 186-197 (1985), petitioners mount a facial challenge to the ordinance. They allege in this Court that the ordinance does not "`substantially advance'" a "`legiti- mate state interest'" no matter how it is applied. See Nollan v. California Coastal Comm.'n, supra, at 834;Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260 (1980). As this allegation does not depend on the extent to which petitioners are deprived of the economic use of their particular pieces of property or the extent to which these particular petitioners are compensated, petitioners' facial challenge is ripe. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v.DeBenedictis, 480 U. S.; at 495;Agins, supra, at 260. S-� 90-1947-OPINION YEE v. ESCONDIDO 1.3 We must also reject respondent's contention that the regulatory taking argument is not properly before. us because it was not made below. It is .unclear whether petitioners made this argument below: Portions of their complaint and briefing can be read either to argue •a regulatory taking or to support their physical taking argument. For the same reason it is equally ambiguous whether the Court of Appeal addressed the issue. Yet petitioners'regulatory taking argument stands in a posture different from their substantive due process claim. Petitioners unquestionably raised a taking claim in the state courts. The question whether the rent control ordinance took their property without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause,is thus properly before us. Once a federal claim is properly . presented, a party can make any argument in support of that claim;parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made below. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Cren- shaw, 486 U. S. 71, 78, n. 2 (1988); Cates, supra, at 219-220; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U.'S. 193, 197-198 (1899). Petitioners' arguments that the ordinance consti- tutes a taking in two different ways,by physical occupation and by regulation,are not separate claims. They are rather separate arguments in support of a single claim—that the ordinance effects an unconstitutional taking. Having raised a taking claim in the state courts, therefore, petitioners could have formulated any argument they liked in support of that claim here. A litigant seeking review in this Court of a claim properly raised in the lower courts thus generally possesses the ability to frame the question to be decided in any way he chooses, without being limited to the manner in which the question was framed below. While we have on occasion rephrased the question presented by a petitioner,see,e. g., Ankenbrandt v.Richards,502 U. S._(1992),or requested the parties to address an important question of law• not raised in the petition for certiorari, see, e. g., Payne v. 90-1947-OPINION- 14 YEE u. ESCONDIDO Tennessee, 498 U. S. _ (1991), by and large it is the petitioner himself who controls the scope of the question presented. The petitioner can generally frame the question as broadly or as narrowly as he sees fit. The framing of the question presented has significant consequences, however, because under this Court's Rule 14.1(a), "[o)nly the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court." While "[t)he statement of any question presented will be deemed to comprise every subsidiary question fairly included therein," ibid., we ordinarily do not consider questions outside those presented in the petition for certiorari. See, e. g., Berhemer v..McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 443, n. 38 (1984). This rule is prudential:in nature, but we disregard it "only in the most exceptional cases," Stone v. . Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976), where reasons of urgency or of economy suggest the need to address the unpresented question in the case under consideration. Rule 14.1(a) serves two important and related purposes. First, it provides the respondent with notice of the grounds upon which the petitioner is seeking certiorari,and enables the respondent to sharpen the arguments as to why certiorari should not be granted. Were we routinely to consider questions beyond those raised in the petition, the respondent would lack any opportunity in advance of litigation on the merits to argue that such questions are not worthy of review. Where, as is not unusual, the decision below involves issues on which the petitioner does not seek certiorari,the respondent would face the formidable task of opposing certiorari on every issue the Court might conceiv- ably find present is the case. By forcing the petitioner to choose his questions at the outset,Rule 14.1(a)relieves the respondent of the expense of unnecessary litigation on the merits and the burden of opposing certiorari on unpresen- ted questions. ' Second, Rule 14.1(a) assists the Court in selecting the cases in which certiorari will be granted. Last Term alone 90-1947—OPINION YEE v. ESCONDIDO is we received over 5,000 petitions for certiorari, but we have the capacity to decide only a small fraction of these cases on the merits. To use our resources most efficiently, we must grant certiorari only in those cases that will enable us to resolve particularly important questions. Were we routine- ly to entertain questions not presented in the petition for certiorari, much of this efficiency would vanish, as parties who feared an inability to prevail on the question presented would be encouraged to fill their limited briefing space and argument time with discussion of issues other than the one on which certiorari was granted. Rule 14.1(a) forces the parties to focus on the questions the Court has viewed as particularly important, thus enabling us to make efficient use of our resources. We granted certiorari on a single question pertaining to the Takings Clause: `Two federal courts of appeal have held that the transfer of a premium value to a departing mobilehome tenant, representing the value of the right to occupy at a reduced rate under local mobilehome rent control ordinances, con.stitute[s) an impermissible taking. Was it error for the state appellate court to disregard the rulings and hold that there was no taking under the fifth and fourteenth amendments?" This was the question presented by petitioners. Pet. for Cert. i. It asks whether the court below erred in disagreeing with the holdings of the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Ninth Circuits in Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barnegat Township Leveling Board, 898 F. 2d 347 (CA3 1990), and Hall v. City of Santa Barbara, 833 F. 2d 1270(CA9 1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S.940(1988). These cases,in turn,held that mobile home ordinances effected physical takings, not regulatory takings. Fairly construed, then, petitioners' question presented is the equivalent of the question "Did the court. below err in finding no physical taking?" Whether or not the ordinance effects a regulatory taking is a question related to the one petitioners presented, and perhaps complementary to the one petitioners presented, s-�s 90-1947-OPINION 16 YEE u. ESCONDIDO = but it is not "fairly included therein." Consideration of whether a regulatory taking occurred would not assist in resolving whether a physical taking occurred as well; neither of the two questions is subsidiary to the other. Both might be subsidiary to a question embracing both— Was there a taking?—but they exist side by side, neither encompassing the other. Cf. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Haroco, Inc., 473 U. S. 606, 608 (1985) (question whether complaint adequately alleges conduct of racketeering enterprise is not fairly included in question whether statute requires that plaintiff suffer damages through defendant's conduct of such an enter- prise). Rule 14.1(a) accordingly creates a heavy presumption against our consideration of petitioners' claim that the ordinance causes a regulatory taking. Petitioners have not overcome that presumption. While the regulatory taking question is no doubt important, from an institutional perspective it is not as important as the physical taking question. The lower courts have not reached conflicting results, so far as we know,on whether similar mobile home rent control ordinances effect .regulatory takings. .They have reached conflicting results over whether such ordi- nances cause physical talangs; such a conflict is, of course,' a substantial reason for granting certiorari under: this Court's Rule 10. Moreover, the conflict is between two courts whose jurisdiction includes California,the State with the largest population and one with a relatively high percentage of the nation's mobile homes. Forum-shopping is thus of particular concern. See Azul Pacifico,Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 948 F. 2d 575,579(CA91991)(mobile home park owners may file physical taking suits in either Mate or federal court). Prudence also dictates awaiting a case in which the issue was fully litigated below, so that we will have the benefit of developed arguments on both sides and lower court opinions squarely addressing the question. See Lytle v.Household Manufacturing, Inc., 494 U. S. 545, 552, 1 aU 90-1947-OPINION YEE v. ESCONDIDO 17 n. 3 (1990) ("Applying our analysis . . . to the facts of a particular case without the benefit of a full record or lower court determinations is not a sensible exercise of this Court's discretion"). In fact, were we to.address the issue here, we would apparently be the first court in the nation to determine whether an ordinance like this one effects a regulatory tal ng. We will accordingly follow Rule 14.1(a), and consider only the question petitioners raised in seeking certiorari. We leave the regulatory taking issue for the California courts to address in the first instance. N We made this observation in Loretto: "Our holding today is very narrow. We affirm the traditional rule that v permanent physical occupation of property is a taldng. In such a case, the property. owner entertains a historically rooted expectation of compensation, and the character of the invasion is qualitatively more intrusive than perhaps any other category of property regulation. We do not, however, question the equally substantial authority upholding a State's broad power to impose appropriate restrictions upon an owner's use of his property." 458 U. S.,at 441. We respected this distinction again in Florida Power, where we held that no taking occurs under Loretto when a tenant invited to lease at one rent re•*+Adn at a lower regulated rent. Florida Power, 480 U. S., at 252-253. We. continue to observe the distinction today. Because the Escondido rent control ordinance does not compel a land- owner to suffer the physical occupation of his property, it does not effect aper se taking under Loretto. The judg7hent of the Court of Appeal is accordingly Af razed. ` ,� a Cfl o Mayor Allen Settle and San Luis Obispo City Council Members San Luis Obispo City Hall San .Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor and City Council Members : We' re sure you agree that mobile park owners in this City and County chose to convert their property to its present use, and were not coerced to do so. Mobile home parks are considered profitable investments by widely respected business publications, such as Fortune Magazine and the Wall Street Journal . The Laguna. Lake Schedule of Rents attached here demonstrates the wide disparity in rents which exist in many parks . There is a difference of $163 .48 in the monthly rent on two spaces receiving the same services. The attached tape of 286 space rents in Laguna Lake Mobile Park shows a total of $102, 826 . 83 gross income per month. This does not include monthly space rents from the Recreational Vehicle hookups or the monthly rents from the storage space Recreational Vehicles . The amount of rent charged per mobile home space has a direct correlation on mobile home sale possibilities in any park. If rents are unreasonably high for the area, or will become unreasonably high upon resale, the home owner is unable to find a buyer. Thus, a homeowner faces the situation of being unable to afford the rent, being unable to physically move his home, and being unable to sell his home. The result is a captive group of mobile home owners, and a grave imbalance in the bargaining position of park owners and mobile home owners. Vacancy control was part of the original Rent Stabilization Ordinance voted into law by the people of San Luis Obispo. It was 14ter removed due to an adverse decision of a court in the City of Santa Barbara. HOWEVER, vacancy control was not reinstated when U.S. Supreme Court declared rent control ordinances were not ,Anly legal but a necessity in 1992 . Our surveys show mobile home bilydrs are very resistant to monthly rents in excess of $400 per mojj�Oi in this area. We respectfully request vacancy control be reinstate� T_; , Sincerely, The Mobile Home Owners of the Cit1y_ of San Luis Obispo. ^.<ctnr COUNCCI ca r, Laguna Lake Schedul of Rents - 1997 301.491 327.56 . 337.57 ( 341.30 352.56 _ 383.70 373.26 391.86 301.65 330.06 337.57 341.30 352.73 383.70 374.17 392.22 301.761 330.06 337.74 341.51 352.73 363.70 374.30 •392.23 310.47 330.06 337.74 341.53 .352.73 363.85 374.51 392.23 310.471 330.27 7.74 342.98 353.18 384.54 375.81 392.94 310.63 330.27 338.44 345.06 353.30 365.351 375.82 393.50 310.631- 10.63 330.27 339.31 f 345.25 353.45 365.78 375.94 394.15 312.081 330.28 339.42 345.25 353.45 366.22 376.67 394.79 312.06 ;330.91 339.42 345.25 353.45 367.52 377.03 396.42 318.62 :-330.91 j 341.15 345.25 354.44 367.55 377.14 "396.97 320.72 11330.91 , 341.15 345.88 354.51 388.06 377.26 396.97 320.72 330.91 I,341.15 346.98 354.58 368.11 378,30 396.97 320.72 1330.91 ' 341.15 /347.52 355.40 388.70 378.74 400.69 320.72 330.91 ;341.15 347.52 355.40 368.89 379.191 403.27 320.72 330.91 . 341.15 1347.52 356.19 369-641 379.87 404.78 f 320.72 . 330.91 341.15 347.57 356.68 3%.661 380.841 407.93 320.72 330.91 341.15 347.68 357.80 369.86 350.811 409.53 320.72 j 330.91 341.15 347.69 358.53 370.01 381.24 410.08 320.72 f 330.91 341.15 347.69 358.54 370.02 382.551 410.28 320.72 1 330.91 341.15 348.82 358.56 0.26 382.74 410.76 320.731 330.91 341.15 345.82 358.72 _,370.28 382.78 412.58 320.731 330.92 ! 341.15 348.851 358.72 371.30 383.48 413.41 320.73 /331.11 341.15 348.85 358.72 371.31 383.48 _421.91 320.88 531.11 1 341.15 348.94 358.72 371.48 384.90 _424.03 320.88 331.11 341.15 348.94 358.74 371.69 385.03 1424.03 320.88 331.11 341.15 348.95 359.11 372.02 386.18 430.87 320.88 331.11 .. 341.15 348.99 359.32 372.07 388.37 432.95 320.88 331.11 341.16 349.00 359.60 .372.17 388.37 432.95 f 320.88 332.75 341.16 349.69 360.03 372.17 - 388.37. 463.79 I320.88 332.82 ! 341.30 349.70 360.03 372.17 387.291. 46497 I 320.881 333.09 341.30 349.70 360.04 372.18 388.21 I 320.88 335.96 341.30 349.87 360.15 372.18 388.39 320.881 335.96 341.30 350.18 360.35 372.19 389.74, 322.46 335.96 341.30 350.18 380.91 .372.33 389.87 322.49 335.98 341.30 350.18 362.02 ,372.33 390.05 324.40 336.24 341.30 351.39 382.06 372.64 .390.94 325.65 1337.57 341.30 351 57 '363.70 373.03. 391.84 San Luis Obiepo, CA Apnit 297 1997 To: aeg aongeneen, San Liu.o Obi,epo City Attorney L7ean Yeff, The pz&wi ng .i,e .i nom wlian that you neque oted.pen our phone conveA- aati.on Apni,e 25, 1997. to 4. (5.41,040) (F). The F neAA6 to condominium ouneno- e/zip late and rue ante not a condorwuum comptex. /he 6ection beLoru .feaeea and tenant�landtond nelationefzipe u�iiriz ie no pant o a cond&a&uum comp-Lex. 2qxAence to (5.415 .040) (Li) Section 10 of Cneehai�e'.a .Cease i4 in violation o� 79d.18 o� the State Mobitehome 1 eeidency Lama Section 11 of Cneeho•ide'e .teaee eaye no otheApeuon may nee.ide on the pnemi�eo W4,tlzaut the panha wkitten convent. I h�.c vi.olrct" 798.341 o� the State t b i,tenome Ree i dv_c Lam. Section 15 4 the Cneehaide Zeaoe vi.o&tee 798,2*. 'Y`qU o� enbW 4 a mobitehome by pante management. Section 18 0� the Cneehbide .Lease. 6uyzn/tnan6fenee night o� tenancy cannot be taken out o� the .Lease without vcotating it. Thio is a violation oe 798,17,18,19. The Leaoe eaya a buyer o� a mobi,Lehome hQo to take oven the &we oA the ee ten, the .6e. &,% ih on a te"e. T kite .i.e a aai.ven o� the tenante nights. Sinceneery, Leola 12ubottom cc: Atten. Settee, Mgyon o� San L ui.o Obispo Council Membene o4 San L4uo Ob.i,epo dry C1r�,.nrrNC1L . c 5.44.010-5.44.010 Chapter 5.40 conformity with provisions— Tenant's right to refuse to REPEALED* pay. 5.44.130 Actions brought to recover *chapter 5.40, "Adult Entertainment Establishments, §§ possession of mobile home 5.40.010-5.40.170, derived from Ord. 925 § 1 (part), 1982: p eviction prior code§§4800-4815,and Ord.967,§1,1983:prior code space—Retaliatory §4816 was repealed by Emergency Interim Ord.No.1281,§ grounds for denial. 1, 1995.Subsequently,Ord.No. 1281 was repealed by Ord. No. 1286 and "Adult Entertainment Establishments" was 5.44.140 Owner to provide tenants set out in Chapter 17.95 of this code. with copy of this chapter. 5.44.141 Amendment. 5.44.142 Severability. *Prior history: Ords. 923, 1020, 1077, 1079,and 1091; prior Chapter 5.44 code §§ 4800 through 4802, 4804 through 4809 and 4811 through 4813. MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STABII�7.ATION* 5.44.010 Purpose and intent. A. There is presently within the city and Sections: the surrounding areas a shortage of spaces 5.44.010 Purpose and intent. for the location of mobile homes. Because of 5.44.020 Definitions. this shortage,there is a very low vacancy rate, 5.44.030 Exemptions. and rents have been for several years, and 5.44.040 Mobile home park owner are presently,rising rapidly and causing con- exemptions:under Section cern among a substantial number of San Luis 5.44.030(F). Obispo residents. 5.44.050 City council—Powers and B. Mobile home tenants,forced by the lack duties. of suitable alternative housing, have had to 5.44.060 Base space rent— pay the rent increases and thereby suffer a Determination—Allowable further reduction in their standard of living. increases without hearing. C. Because'of the high cost and impracti- 5.44.070 Application for rent cability of moving mobile homes, the poten- adjustment—Fee—Contents— tial for damage resulting therefrom, the re- Notice of request—Hearing. quirements relating to the installation of 5.44.080 Application for rent mobile homes,including permits,landscaping adjustment—Conduct of and site preparation, the lack of alternative hearing. homesites for mobile home residents, and the 5.44.090 Application for rent substantial investment of mobile home adjustment—Evaluation— owners in such homes, this council finds and Relevant factors." declares it necessary to protect the owners 5.44.100 Application for rent and occupiers of mobile homes from unrea- adjustment-Hearing— sonable rent increases, Determination. 5.44.110 Application for rent adjustment—Hearing— Appeal. 5.44.120 Rent increases-not made in [The next page is 1351 (San Luis Obispo 1.96) 128 S-3/ 5.44.020-5.44.020 while at the same time recognizing the need G. However, this council recognizes that a of park.owners to receive a suitable profit on rent stabilization ordinance must be fair and their property with rental income sufficient equitable for all parties and must provide ap- to cover increases in costs of repair, mainte- propriate incentives for mobile home park op- nance,insurance,utilities,employee services, erators to continue their parks profitably, as additional amenities, and other costs of oper- well as to attract additional investors for new ation, and to receive a fair return on their parks. (Ord. 1226 § 1, 1992: Oid. 1117 (part), property. 1988) D. This council finds that the present low vacancy rate and frequent increases are par- ticularly hard upon and unfair to residents of 5.44.020 Definitions. mobile home parks within the city. Large For the purpose of this chapter, certain numbers of these residents are senior citizens words and phrases used herein are defined as and others on fixed incomes who installed follows: their mobile homes in the city when the A. "Capital improvements" means those present inflationary rent increases could not improvements, not previously located in the reasonably have been foreseen. mobile home park, that materially add to the E. Tenants in mobile home parks desiring value of the property and appreciably pro- to sell their mobile homes-may have diffi- long its useful life or adapt it to new uses, culty finding buyers because, upon a change and which may be amortized over the useful of ownership, the park owner is able to raise life of the improvement in accordance with the rent without regard to the city's mobile the Internal Revenue Code and regulations home rent stabilization ordinance. issued pursuant thereto; provided, that this F. This council finds that it is in the best definition shall be limited to capital improve- interests of the citizens of the City.of San ments approved by more than fifty percent of Luis Obispo to assist those who are seeking the tenants in the affected park. to sell their mobile homes and those who are B. "Mobile home park" means an area of seeking to buy such homes to have the same land which rents spaces for mobile home fair rental protection as is afforded to those dwelling units. who remain in their mobile homes without C. "Mobile home park owner" or "owner" sale. This council finds that the vacancy con- means the owner, lessor, operator or man- trol provisions originally included in the mo- 'ager of a mobile home park. bile home rent stabilization ordinance when D. "Mobile home tenant" or "tenant" it was approved by the voters was an effec- means any person entitled to occupy a mobile tive and beneficial provision for the people of home within a mobile home park pursuant to San Luis Obispo living in mobile home parks, ownership of the mobile home or under a and-should be reinstated. This council fur- rental or lease agreement with the owner_of ther finds that provisions allowing annual. the mobile home. rent increases together with provisions al- E. "Rehabilitation work" means any ren- lowing rent increases upon a showing of ne- ovation or repair work completed on or in a cessity protect the park owner's right to a mobile home park performed in order to fair return on investment; thus eliminating comply with the direction or order of a public . the need for rent increases above ten percent agency or public utility, or to maintain.ex- upon change of ownership. isting improvements in a safe and usable con- 135 (San Luis Obispo]•93) S-3� 5.44.030-5.44.1040 dition,or to repair damage resulting from fire, 5.44.030 Exemptions. earthquake or other'casualty. The provisions of this chapter shall not . F. "Space rent" means the consideration, apply to the following tenancies in mobile including any security deposits,bonuses,ben- home parks: efits or gratuities, demanded or received in A. Mobile home park spaces rented for non- connection with the use and occupancy of a residential uses; mobile home space in a mobile home park, or B. Mobile home parks managed or oper- for housing services provided, but exclusive ated by the United States Government, the of any amount paid for the use of a mobile state of California, or the county of San Luis home dwelling unit. Obispo; G. "Change of ownership"means the sale, C. Tenancies which do not exceed an occu- rental transfer, or exchange of a mobile home Pancy of twenty days and which do not con subject to the provisions of this chapter, ex- template an occupancy of more than twenty cepting the transfer to tenant's spouse by gift, days; bequest-or devise. D. Tenancies for which any federal orstate H. "Hearing officer" means the duly ap- law or regulation specifically prohibits rent pointed hearing officer selected from a panel regulation; of qualified hearing officers. A hearing of- E. Tenancies covered by leases or contracts ficer shall have no financial interest in either which provide for a tenancy of more than a a mobile home park or a mobile home nor year, but only for the duration of such lease have been a resident of nor reside in a mobile or contract. Upon the expiration of or other home park. termination of any such lease or contract,this I. "Appellate panel"means a panel of three chapter shall immediately be applicable to qualified hearing officers. A panelist shall the tenancy.No rent increases other than that have no financial interest in either a mobile allowed under the provisions of the lease shall be allowed during the duration of such a lease home park or a mobile home nor have been a resident of nor reside in a mobile home park. or contract. J. "CPI" means the Consumer Price Index F. Spaces in a mobile home park which (1967 = 100)All Items,All Urban Consumers, sells lots for factory-built or manufactured for the Los Angeles/Long Beach/Riverside housing,or which provides condominium own- --tnndard metropolitan statistical area pub ership of such lots,but only when the dwelling lished by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unit and the underlying interest in the space United States Department of Labor. If the it is located upon are in the same ownership. CPI is not hereafter published, then any sub- (Ord. 1228 § 1, 1992: Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) stitute index, or, if none,then the index most 5.44.040 Mobile home park owner closely resembling the CPI shall become the exemptions under Section new CPI. 5.44.030(F). K "Qualified Hearing Officer:" The city A. Any mobile home park owner claiming.,.. administrative officer shall maintain a list of an exemption under Section 5.44.030(F)shall available qualified hearing officers. Quali- comply with the following requirements and fied-hearing officers shall be persons experi- procedures: enced in financial and accounting methods 1. Such mobile home park owner shall file with knowledge of mediation process and with the city clerk a statement setting forth rules of evidence. (Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) the basic facts upon which the claim for ex- (San Luis Obispo 1-93) 136 S-�3 5.44.050-5.44.060 emption rests,such as total number of spaces, ficer shall determine whether the claim of number on long-term leases,identity of spaces exemption is valid, taking into account all on long-term leases, expiration date for each relevant evidence, facts and circumstances long-term lease and any other information de- necessary to come to a decision. termined necessary by the city administra- E. The hearing officer's charges shall be tive officer to evaluate the claim. paid by the city.. 2. The statement shall include a listing, F. An appeal may be taken from a decision by space number and name, of each tenant of the hearing officer as set forth in Section not on a long-term lease and who would be 5.44.110,including the obligation for the costs affected by the claim of exemption. In addi- of the appellate panel as set forth in subsec- tion, the owner shall provide proof of service tion (D) thereof. (Ord. 1146 § 1, 1989) that all tenants have been notified of the claim of exemption and of the fact that a 5.44.050 City council—Powers and tenant may file an objection within thirty duties. days. Within the limitations provided by law and 3. The statements required to be filed above in addition to any other powers and duties shall be confidential and not public records the council has, the city council shall have unless and until a hearing officer determines the following powers and duties: otherwise as necessary to conduct a hearing A. To meet from time to time as required as set forth in subsections (D) or (F) of this to receive, investigate, hold hearings on, and section. pass upon the issues relating to mobile home B. An objection to the claim of exemption park rent stabilization as set forth in this may be filed with the city clerk within thirty chapter; days after the notice of claim has been served. B. To direct staff to make or conduct such The objection shall state the grounds of the independent hearings or investigations as objection. The only acceptable grounds for ob- may be appropriate to obtain such informa- jection is that the owner in fact does not have tion as is necessary for the council to carry two-thirds of the spaces in the park on long- out its duties; term leases. C. To adopt, promulgate, amend and re- C. If an acceptable and timely objection is scind administrative rules, as it deems appro- received the owner and the tenant(s) filing priate to effectuate the purposes and policies the objection shall meet and confer to nego. of this chapter. (Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) tiate in good faith and attempt to reach an agreement.If no agreement is reached within 5.44.060 Base space rent— thirty days of the date of filing of the objec- Determination—Allowable tion, the owner shall within ten days notify increases without hearing. the city administrative officer that an agree- A. The "base space rent" for purposes-of ment or resolution to the 'objection has not this chapter shall be the monthly space rent been reached. The city administrative officer charged as of March 15,.1982 plus any in- shall proceed to select a hearing officer as set creases otherwise allowed, pursuant to this - forth in Section 5.44.070(E). chapter. The maximum monthly space rent D. The hearing officer shall set and con. for any space under a lease, upon expiration duct a hearing as set forth in subsections (E) of the lease, shall be no more than the rent and (G) of Section 5.44.070. The. hearing of- charged in the last month of said lease. In 136-1 ( 1 (San Luis Obispo 1.93) 5.44.060-5.44.060 parks where there is an exemption because allowed under this subsection B for the 66.67 percent of the spaces are governed by a twelve-month period immediately preceding lease with an initial.term of no less than one the month for which CPI information has been year, then the maximum monthly space rent most recently published by the appropriate shall be the space rent designated in leases federal agency. for comparable spaces. A schedule of current 3. It is the intention of this subsection B to rents in the park shall be posted in a conspic- allow for automatic increases in space rent uous place in the park. based on changes in the cost of living as mea- B. Except as otherwise provided in this sured by the CPI. The limitations on such chapter, the maximum monthly space rent increases are intended to minimize the im- may be increased no more than once a year mediate impact drastic changes in the CPI based on the percentage change in the CPI, might have on residents. The limitations are or nine percent, whichever is less, calculated not intended to prevent ultimate adjustments as follows: to allow owners to receive a fair return on 1. The maximum monthly space rent may their property. be increased at a rate equal to one hundred C. The maximum monthly space rent of a percent of the CPI up to five percent and tenant may be increased by the owner when seventy-five percent of the CPI in. excess of there is a change of ownership affecting a five percent calculated as follows: mobile home. However, such increase shall a. The change in space rent shall be calcu- not exceed ten percent of the then existing fated by dividing the ending CPI index by the space rent and may not be relied upon any beginning CPI index. more often than once in any thirty-six-month b. If the resulting quotient is less than 1.05, period as the basis to increase rent. In the then it shall be multiplied by the space rent. event of change of ownership resulting from The resulting product shall be the new space subletting of the mobile home space as may rent. be allowed by state law, should such become c. If the resulting quotient is greater than state law, then upon any such subletting the 1.05,then the difference between the resulting space rent may be increased up to ten percent product and 1.05 shall be multiplied by of the then existing space rent. In the event seventy-five percent. The resulting product of change of ownership resulting from vaca- shall be multiplied by the space rent and that tion of the space, then the space rent may be product shall be added to the sum derived adjusted to fair market rent in the commu- from Section 5.44.060(B)(1)(b)above.The sum nity. Nothing in this paragraph shall pre- shall be the new space rent. clude an adjustment as may otherwise be pro- d. The beginning CPI index shall be the vided for in this chapter. index for the month used as the ending index D. No owner shall either (1) demand, ac-„ for the last CPI adjustment. cept or retain a rent of or from a tenant in e. The ending CPI index shall be the index excess of the maximum rent permitted by this for the month twelve months after the begin- chapter, or (2) effect a prohibited rent in- ning index. crease by a reduction of general park facili- 2. At least every two months the city ad- ties and services. However,an owner may ministrative officer shall publish, by means modify the nature of park services if reason- of an advertisement or similar notice in the able allowance is provided to the tenant. For newspaper, the percentage change of the CPI example,if the owner elects to submeter water (San Luis Obispo 1.93) 136-2 5.44.070-5.44.070 so that.tenants pay for water consumed by 5.44.070 Application for rent them,then tenants shall receive a reasonable adjustment—Fee—Contents— reduction from their base space rent. Notice of request—Hearing. E. Space rent may be automatically ad- A. Except for automatic increases in base justed based on increases or decreases in ex- rent allowed under Section 5.44.060,an owner penses for common area utilities, new or tenant may file with the city clerk an ap- government-mandated services, garbage ser- plication for a rent adjustment("application")- vice and cable television, where applicable, .'The application shall state the amount of excluding capital improvements or ongoing the adjustment for each space affected and. maintenance costs. The space rent may be the reasons for the adjustment. adjusted by dividing the total increase or de- 1. An application shall be accompanied by crease in any such expenses incurred during the payment of a fee as may be established a twelve-month period by twelve,less the per- from time to time by the council. centage in the CPI index for the twelve-month 2. An application filed by an owner shall period. The quotient shall be allocated to the be accompanied by a statement that the space rent for each space in the park based on tenant for each space affected has been served the amount the space rent relates to total either personally or by mail with a notice de- space rent for the park. Automatic adjust- scribing the application and the change in ments to rent authorized by this paragraph E rent or services. shall not be included in "base space rent"for 3. An application filed by a tenant shall be the purpose of determining CPI increases pur- accompanied with a statement stating that suant to Section 5.44.060.13,but shall be con- the owner has been either personally or by sidered as additional rent. Notice of the in- mail served with the application and with a crease, or decrease, shall be in writing and statement designating not more than three shall be given as required by law no less than persons to act as representatives for the spaces ninety days prior to any such increase or de- affected and containing the names and ad- crease being effective. The notice shall state dresses of tenants representing no less than the amount of the rent increase or decrease, fifty-one percent of the spaces affected by the the new space rent, the amount of the total application and supporting the application increase or decrease in expenses and the na- and established by a secret election. ture of the expense.A copy of the notice shall 4. A statement shall accompany the appli- be given to the city administrative officer. cation and shall notify the receiving party The city administrative officer shall have the that he/she has thirty days to file an objec- authority to resolve questions regarding com- tion and if one is not filed within the time putation of the space rent increase or de- allowed,then the application will be automat- crease based on this section.There shall only ically granted. be one such increase or decrease in any B. An objection to the'application may be twelve-month period. (Ord. 1279 § 1,1995; filed with the city clerk within thirty days Ord. 1268 § 1, 1994;Ord. 1226§2, 1992; Ord. after the notice of application has been served. 1173 § 1, 1990; Ord.' 1167 § 1; 1990; Ord. 1146 § 2, 1989: Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) 137 (San Luis Obispo 5-95) -36 S 5.44.070-5.44.070 The objection.shall identify the portions of E. If the owner and the tenant representa- the application objected to and shall state the tives fail to reach an agreement within the grounds of the objection. time provided or if a majority of the tenants 1. A copy of an objection filed by an owner disapprove of an agreement reached,then the shall be mailed to each of the designated applicant shall within ten days notify the city tenant representatives. administrative officer that an agreement has 2. A copy of an objection filed by a tenant not been reached. The city administrative of- shall be mailed to the owner. The tenant's ficer shall obtain a list of no less than five objection shall designate not more than three qualified hearing officers. Owners and ten- persons to act as representatives for the ob- ants may each delete one person from the list jecting tenants.The objection must be accom- of qualified hearing officers within seven days panied by a statement containing the names and one of the remaining persons shall be and addresses of tenants representing no less selected by the city administrative officer as than fifty-one percent of the spaces affected the hearing officer. Appointment of the by.the owner's application and verifying that hearing officer shall be completed no later they object to the application, established by than twenty-one days after filing of the no- tice that an agreement has not been reached. secret ballot election. F. The hearing officer shall set a hearing C. If no objection is filed to an application on the application complying with the require- ments of this section no less than ten days fifty-one percent of the tenants support an and no more than thirty days after his ap- . objection to an application, then the applica- pointment. The hearing officer shall notify tion will be automatically granted. the owner and tenants,in writing,of the time, D. If an objection is filed within the time place and date set for the hearing.No hearing provided, then the owner and the tenant rep- or any part thereof may be continued beyond resentatives shall meet and confer to nego- thirty days after the initial hearing date, tiate in good faith an agreement regarding without the applicant's consent.If the hearing the application. Either party may request a officer approves an application as requested mediator of their choice to assist in the nego- or as modified, the same shall take tiations, but this is not required. If an agree- ment is reached within sixty days, then the tenant representatives shall notify all ten- ants affected by the agreement. The tenants shall have ten days to approve or disapprove of the agreement. If tenants representing a majority of the spaces affected fail to disap- prove of the agreement then the agreement shall be binding on the owner and-all tenants affected. The city clerk shall be notified that. an agreement has been reached. The state- ments made-in negotiations and 'any agree- ments reached but not approved shall not be admissible in any subsequent hearings re- garding the application. (San Luis Obispo 5-95) 133 S37 • F 5.44.080-5.44.090 effect as noticed by the owner or as the hearing A. In applying the foregoing factors,the hear- officer may otherwise direct. (Ord. 1117 (part), ing officer shall utilize the maintenance of net 1988) operating income (MNOI) formula. Under the MNOI allowable gross rents are calculated as 5.44.080 Application for rent adjustment— follows: all operating expenses for the twelve- Conduct of hearing. -month period ending December 31, 1981 are sub- A. All review hearings conducted by the hear- tracted from all operating expenses for the irig officer shall be conducted in accordance with twelve-month period immediately preceding the the Ralph M.Brown Act,at Section 54950 et seq: date of the application for which expense data is of the California Government Code and accord- available.In the event operating expenses are not ing to the rules of the American Arbitration available for the period ending December 31, Association. 1981, then expenses for a twelve-month period B. All interested parties to a hearing may have reasonably close to Decem> er 31, 1981 may be assistance from an attorney or such other person substituted. The difference shall be added to as may be designated by the parties in presenting gross annual rent based on rental rates in effect evidence or in setting forth by argument their on March 15, 1982. The sum shall be the allow- position. All witnesses shall be sworn in and all able gross annual space'rent:The allowable gross testimony shall be under penalty of perjury. space rent shall be fairly apportioned between all C. In the event that either the owner or the spaces in the park. The space rent determined tenant(s) should fail to appear at the hearing at under the MNOI formula shall be adjusted as the specified time and place, the hearing officer follows: may hear and review such evidence as may be 1. There shall be an adjustment to allow for presented and make such decisions as if all par- inflation calculated as follows: the net operating ties had been present. income(NOI)for the base period shall be calcu- D. Owner and affected tenants may offer any lated by subtracting the park's operating testimony, documents, written declarations or expenses for the twelve-month period ending other relevant evidence. December 31, 1982,from the park's annual gross E. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply. space rent based on the space rent in effect on E Minutes shall be taken at all review hear- March 15, 1982. The CPI index for the month ings. (Ord. '1117 (part), 1988) most recently available prior to filing the applica- tion shall be divided by the CPI index for March, 5.44.090 Application for rent adjustment— 1982. The resulting quotient shall be multiplied Evaluation—Relevant factors. by the base period NOI.This shall be the adjusted In evaluating the application the council may NOI. The operating expenses for the twelve- consider, along with all other factors it considers month period immediately preceding the date of relevant, changes in costs to the owner attributa- the application for which information is avail- ble to increases or decreases in master land and/ able shall be added to the adjusted NOI.The sum or facilities lease rent, utility rates, property shall be the inflation-adjusted gross space rent. taxes, insurance, advertising, variable mortgage The allowable space rent shall be the greater of interest rates, employee costs,normal repair and the space rent calculated using the MNOI for- maintenance, and other considerations, includ- mula and the space rent adjusted for inflation. ing, but not limited-to, rehabilitation work, cap- 2. In calculating MNOI there shall be,an ital improvements, upgrading and addition of adjustment to the gross space rent in effect on amenities or services, net operating income,and March 15,•1982,if the hearing officer determines the level of rent necessary to permit a just and that the gross space rent in effect on that date did reasonable return on the owner's property. 138-1 �� (San Luis Obispo 7-88) 5-39 5.44.100-5.44.110 not allow the owner to receive a just and reason- 5.44.110 Application for rent adjustment— able return on his property. . Hearing—Appeal 3. If the hearing'officer concludes that the A. Any appeal from a decision of the hearing MNOI formula, and the adjustments thereto, officer shall be filed with the city clerk. The does not provide a just and reasonable return to appellant shall also mail a copy of the appeal to the owner, then the hearing officer may apply the responding per, The appeal shall state the any reasonable formula, including a return on grounds on which it is based.An a investment, a return on fair market value, or appeal filed by a tenant shall be accompanied by a statement con- return on equity,to determine a space rent which tjaining the names and addresses of the tenants will allow the owner to receive a fair and reason- able return on his property. supporting the appeal. The appeal must be sup- ported by at least fifty-one percent of the tenant B. The hearing officer shall not consider affected by the appeal. income arising from spaces leased in the park B. 1_Jpon filing of a valid appeal, the city pursuant to Section 5.44.030E of this chapter, administrative officer shall obtain a list of no less Likewise,the hearing officer shall not consider a than seven qualified hearing officers. The hear- pro rata portion of the expenses of park opera- ing officer who previously actedAhall not qualify. tion attributable to the leased spaces. (Ord. 1117 Owners and tenant representatives may each (part), 1988) delete one person from the list of qualified hear- ing officers within seven days, and three of the 5.44.100 Application for rent adjustment— remaining persons shall be selected by the city Hearing—Determination. administrative officer as the appellate panel. A. The hearing officer shall make a final deci- Appointment of the appellate panel shall be sion no .later than twenty'days after the completed no later than twenty-one days after conclusion of the hearing. The hearing officer's filing the appeal. decision shall be based on the preponderance of C. At the time set for consideration of the the evidence submitted at the hearing. The deci- appeal,the appellate panel shall review and con- sion shall be based on findings. All parties to the sider the record of the hearing officer's hearing as hearing shall be advised by mail of the hearing well as the decision and finding of the hearing officer's decision and findings. officer. After review and consideration, the B. Pursuant to his findings,the hearing officer appellate panel may either (1) determine that a may: further hearing shall be held, or (2) ratify and 1. Permit the requested adjustment to become adopt the decision and findings of the hearing effective, in whole or in part; or officer. If a further hearing is conducted, the 2. Deny the requested adjustment; or appellate panel may, upon conclusion of that 3. Permit or deny, in whole or in part, hearing and in no event more than thirty days requested reductions of, or charges for, facilities thereafter, modify or reverse the decision of the or services: . hearing officer, only if the appellate panel finds C. Any decision of the hearing officer shall be that there has been an abuse of discretion or that final unless, within fifteen days after mailing of there is no substantial evidence to support the the decision and findings, the owner or any hearing officer's decision. The appellate panel's affected tenant appeals the decision. decision shall be final and no appeal may be 13 The hearing officer's charges shall be paid taken to the council. by the city. (Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) D. If the party filing the appeal is unsuc- cessful, then that party shall pay the appellate , (San Luis Obispo 7.88) 138-2 s-39 5.44.120-5.44.14? panel's charges.If the responding party is unsuc- action was brought in retaliation for the exercise cessful,then both parties and the city shall share of any rights conferred by this chapter shall be equally-in payment of the appellate panel's grounds for denial:(Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) charges. (Ord..1117 (part), 1988) 5.44.120 Rent increases not made in 5.44.140 Owner to provide tenants with copy of this chapter. conformity with provisions— Any tenant offered a lease or contract which if Tenant's right to refuse to pay. accepted and fully executed would be exempt A tenant may refuse to pay any increase in rent , from the provisions of this chapter (Section not made in conformity with this chapter. Such 5.44.030E) shall at the time of the offer also be refusal to pay shall be a defense in any action provided with a copy of this chapter. (Ord. 11I7 brought to recover possession of a mobile home (part), 1988) space or to collect the rent increase. (Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) 5.44.141 Amendment. The provisions of this chapter may be 5.44.130 Actions brought to recover amended by amajority vote of the city council. possession of mobile home space— (Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) Retaliatory eviction grounds for denial. 5.44.142 Severability. Notwithstanding Section 5.44.120, in any If any portion of this chapter is found to be action brought to recover possession of a mobile invalid,then that shall in no way affect the valid- home space, the court may consider as grounds ity of the remaining portions of this chapter. for denial any violation of any provision of this (Ord. 1117 (part), 1988) chapter. Further, the determination that-the 138-3 (San Luis Obispo 7-8S1 ' 3�O CORIZES-PONDENCE �B) Np- PI LL LL W Z0 Lu Lu - UO Cl LL LL d d¢ a 01� ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ m U c o -ti, i W = U W 3 !� U¢~U� ❑ ❑❑❑❑ Retain W.--'ccartmu,w:or Iuaua Counc+r me^.t+7 r-19-97 _ Cate,i aeerd:e� 1029 Kerry Drive -- San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 June 27, 1997 Payor Allen Settle RECEIVED 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 JUL 0 1 1997 Dear bap or Settle: SLO CITY COUNCIL I writin', you as a mobilehome owner here is San Luis Obispo. I would like to be covered by a rent Ordinance that would fully protect me from unfair rent increases and other charges. The present rent ordinance here in San Luis Obispo nees to be amended or changed to "mend" its flaws. Chnnaes that I would like would include: Revoking the 10 increase in ren` at resale Protecting of mobilehome owners from unreasonable rent increases Rents should be allowed to drop during slumps in the economy Audits of the park owner BE t;ADE TO ENSURE RAISES are within Ordinance limits Park owners claim to need rent increases or pass-throughs need to be substantiated Please work to help us mobilehome owners in these matters. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Albert Drake NCIL D CDD DD D RN DI 0 D FIRE C D EF ORHEY�. D PW DIR RNRIO D POLICE CHFDMT TEAM D REC DIR UTIL DIR D PERS DIR �� July 6, 1997 FlINTAD ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF Mayor Allen Settle ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR 990 Palm ❑ PERS DIR San Luis Obispo, Ca. Dear Sir: I would like to bring to your attention that an inequity exists in our current San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance. This ordinance is in need of an amendment because it is unfair to us who live in Mobile Home parks. Many mobile homes are resold often and with a loo increase in space rent each time, this can lead to high rents for some. In addition this makes older coaches especially hard to sell as well as newer ones. The original concept for mobile home living was to make it affordable for retirees or families with low incomes. This has been especially true of San Luis Obispo due to the high cost of home ownership. This space rent increase makes it hard to sell some even newer coaches without cutting the price and taking a loss. There is no audit on these space increases done to insure they're within the intent of the ordinance. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a Brief in 1992 with their opinion regarding the legality of rent control for mobile home owners. It was agreed that not only was it legal, but a neccessity. I. would appreciate your sharing this letter with the others on the Council and give it your consideration when the hearing for this comes up on August 19• I will be out of state but hope my "voice" will be heard. I rest my case. Sincerely, c Catherine C. Schattler 3960 S. Higuera St. Sp. 176 93 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 401 Refainthi for future C01jr..'61 roeefirr,) RECEIVED �?� J U L 0 8 1ggF Cdfe, it 2gEr._ze7_ SLO CITY COUNCIL ~� «�^ future Council weelin . ' Li rdzed z:ll'� Susan Marsh 3860 S. Higuera D-1 SLQ, CA 93401 544--9235 7-7-97 Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members: In August 1991 I moved from Nevada to SLO, intC�; Si1� a' City Mobile home park, which turned out to ie the most costly, and biggest mistake of my Ife. *nu �(ter struggling for 6 and a ha1 � I am sti1l Stuck here with no wa, C3u1'-" I moved here the prices of mobile honeE; were high, and I unfortunately put all my savings into a mobile home here, because I thought at the rjme it would be the most economical way to live, l had to pay an outrageous and unfair price, $29, 500 for a new small double wide, and $40, 000 for the SPACE that it sits on. In Nevada when we bought a home, and land it was all ours, even if it was in a park, we would just pay reasonable rates for the use of the park and pool . Only in SLO, CA, can something this illegal be gotten away with by these rich and greedy park owners ! ! To add insult to injury I have to pay almost $300 for my space that I paid $40rO00 for ! Which is also double what other owners pay for the same space. I don"t object alt all having to pay for garbage, water, and the use of the pool , but $300.00 should be against the law! . Plusthe -Fact that they are always raising the rent every year, and raising what ever items they wish to, with no acceptable reason except the fact that they can get away with it ! � [hey add on our bills all sorts of extra charges every other month or so, whenever the whim moves them. I have had this mobile home up for sale for six years with no offers as yet! Not only can I not sell it for the horrendous amount I paid, but I have even lowered the price $15,000!, and still not one offer. No one want to pay these prices and then still have to pay an unfair rent space that is always going upward in cost. The stated purpose of the SLO Rent Stabilization Ordinance is to protect mobilehome owners from the 10% rent increase upon sale, and 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 people in my park have thrown in the towel and abandoned their homes from sheer hopeless, desperation! Never once have our landbarons lowered our rents, or any other item, they even have the cold, heartless, and greedy nerve to charge anyone $10.00 a day for being even one day late on our rent check. They do not care one ounce if we have lost our jobs, or are old, and sick, and on a fixed income, going without doctor and\or dentist care because of lack of money. The recession we are in, and the low wage jobs in this town make life almost unlivable. I looked for two years for a job in this town, I have to settle for a job that only pays $5.50 an hour. I'm 52 years old, I had a Nevada teachers credentials, also a degree in commercial art, and I have to eat humble starving pie and work for $5. 50 an hour. I can barely take care of myself, and my young •teenage daughter. If you and our council members cannot help us who do we have to turn to for help and protection of our rights as tax paying cit.i.zens??':'? PLEASE HELP U5 with making this ordinance protect the renters. Thank y A,� 3xo s NB�ss iz9 _ gills RECEIVED J U L 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL oil Retain thie o , ,n�ent for future Cou:x:A r:'eetir✓g 7-/94 2 _ Date,if aosrd'=ad rTEAM CDD DIR FIN DIR FIRE CHIEF PW DIR POLICE C REC DIR UTIL DIR PERS DIR 5#7 San L.uio Obiapo, CA l7 U0eG�/�' YuJ-y 9, 1997 ,g600b4 rZ&- To: Atten Settee, Rlayon and San Luia Obiopo Counci.L Membered fnom: Leola Rubottom Fnom the beginning the mobi,Lehome Acct ntab.i,Cijation ondinance urea P% the pnotection 4 mobitehome oaneAo agairwt exceo.o.i.ve nento. The San Luie Ubiepo ordinance no Zongen doee thio. Yenta ane excednlve and continue to . &Zde. The hent etabiliption ordinance <,o hand to undenatand and bubfeci to mioi.Rtenpnetaiion in mann pCaceo. filoat neoidenta .in mobiiehome panlzs ane neni_ono and jmai2ie4 on Aixed lwomed. When nerzfn ane too high, the on& altennateve co to netC and they don't a.[urrc6a nett. When the mobUehome. n.ctd on the pante owmeu land, the neo.identa muds pay the neat even though it <a unoccupied. 9f the Name doedR't neU i mediateey they muat walh auny and .Let the pante owzen take the mobitdwme, on nett it cheap. %Ain fan happened mone than once. Nop4ut y thin can be changed. 1. Delete 5.44.050 (C). At the pneden4ime, panh ounen.6 can naive the hent 1016 a tenant decides to neLL hid home. This An aunt an extnaw.ithout if R. 9n the U.S. Supneme Count. dectacon, Yee vn 6nco , 9 ¢� 'voted9-0 that vacancy contnot wan not a pfuyeicat taking oA pante ownen'n pnopenty. 2. De.tete moat 4 5.44.060 (&. The rection to be deleted cn hand to unde�wtand and ambiguous, and nubyect to miaintenpnetatiDn. A .Cay pennon ih at a .Loan to undenntand it. The parch ownen can nece_i_ve an a4u4knenf .in nent undert the guidelines oA 5.44.070 "Wp.Lication 4on Rent Adfun#ment4F e-Corztenta." Idoat mobiiehome panho in an Luta Obtapo do not have pa6,6-tAAoughn .4 they ane not on teanao. 3. Replace 5.44.090 with Attachment 3#3. The neplacement mone cCone V meeta the needs o� the pante oanen and the tenant. Any tanrge caotn incwmzed-when the panh needs impnovement that both the pante ounen and the tenanta want could eaaity be agreed upon by a 51156; vote oA the tenants .in Avon. Thio would insure 6uccems an we.U. as .Leen AAA, ' to be miaintenpneted. 4. 96 7ty a bRing contecti•on a A96enence. 5.44-030 (f) is inconnea and awPd to ( 'Pant (f) neiico to condancini um pnoyecto ne " .Coto and haute. � thence i.d a montgagon-mortgagee nelationdhip. 5.44.040 is involved azth LandCond4"=ni neeationaA", 5. Change 5.44.040 (B). We ane aching fon the ppnovid.Lon �on tenants on leaaeo to have a necowcoe by the pnevai,l ing State ltlobi tehame ?eoidencry Law. We have tet the wonding to you. Scnce cel y, 4 L.eota Yubottom 3960 So. hfiguena, Spa p 21 -- San r,,:., Obizpo, C 93 Rolakn th:: dc-cumeilt or TeCephone - 541-6159 iLaure coutx:i�focaiirg 8=/L- udi9 S'�8 Fileii-I I or . _ 08t�_� algid'"•C��j�:!EJ . The Honorable Allen Settle July 9th, 1997 Mayor of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA Sir: My family and I reside in the Silver City Mobile Home Park, 3560 S. Higuera, space X207, here in San.Lu: s Obispo. ;^le along with a.number.-of other.residents in this park are concerned about the 10% rent increase levied on each new resident by the park ownership whenever a mobile home is sold. This is an unjustified as well as unfair procedure the owners impose on anyone wishing to purchase a mobile home in this park or area. When this inflated rent is added to a mortgage payment, it can cause a potentially qualified buyer to go elsewhere, if not to another city, to find affordable housing. It's tantamount to actually penalizing new residents. Also, the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance needs to be rewritten where- as a common householder possessing an average IQ can understand it. The legal ease should be interpreted in an abc manner, thereby making it clearer to the homeowner just exactly what his or her rights are, as well as what rights the parkowners have, making it equitable for all. Tacking on a 10% rent increase to anyone wishing to buy your mobilehome only exacerbates the problem, especially when no reasonable explanation is given. Any assistance you might render in alleviating this unfair procedure would be greatly appreciated by us all. Respectfully yours, Tob right Mobilehome owner 1032 Jane Drive Retain this document for San. Luis Obispo, CA 93405 future Council meetirog q-I g--9? July 12, 1997 Date, if agardized_ UNCIL :103:CDD,GAAO A�CAO EF t&'ATIORNEY�❑ CLERKIORIGHF ❑ MGMT TEAMMayor Allen Settle ❑13 03 UTIL DIM R Members of the City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: As a resident of Laguna Lake Mobile Home Park I want to urge your support of the changes in the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance which will be fair to both park owners and mobile home owners. The disparity of the rents in our park demonstrates the great need for the changes in this ordinance which will go before the Council on August 19. Yours very truly, / Rosemary Johnson RECEIVED All- 1 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL S'S� ---CREEKS IDE--- e-055457113 it I ; 1 Sao, `blit, Tenants will. ask for a little help To the editor. ' From the beginning the pur- pose of the"Mobile Hgme Rent Stabilization ordinance"was for the protection of the optive renters in mobile home partes ' against excessive rents.The ordi. nance has failed to hold rents at an acceptable level. Rent increases over the Con- srnner Price Index(CPI)quickly exceed the ability of a person on a fixed income to pay The ordi. nance allows pass-throughs, which are maintenance costs,to be added to the rent.The park owner's cost of maintenance should be included in tlje rent in. stead of added to the rent.This allows an 18 percent or higher in- crease in one year. Homeowners in mobAe home parks occupy a space at the invi- tation of the park owner,As co- proprietors,this has put the land in the hands of the tenant,but i this doesn't give the park owner ' I110 right to diclatc hs'urs f-eel of all government regulations Vacancy control is protection of tenant's property!It does not allow a rent increase upon re- sale.Mobile home owner$are trying to survive by going before rhe r'ily r'wmcil Aug. 19 tip k for changes in the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinahc�, ' and to make sure the ren: dgn't increase Just because a tenajit sells his mobile home. Leda Rubottorn San Luis:041spri i ---CREEKS 1LE--- 80554S7 11 i I . I i . To the editor; ow interesting that in the July 11 , 1997 issue of the TT Da id Conga ton's column refers to SLO as a"town that isnotorious for outla dish rents." No argument here. however, in the same issue is a letter to the: ed from Leola Rubot'�om claiming that the Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance "has .ailed to hold rents at an acceptable level" despite the fac that SLO mobilehome space rents are among the lowest in the state• for comparable cities. ► rs. Rubottom goes on to say that residents are charged "pas - throu.9hs, which are maintenance costs." This is blatantly untrue; as Mrs. �ubottom well knows the ordinance specifically prohibits cha ging.. tenants for maintenance costs. She knows this because she was instru-: mental. in having this provision inserted into the ordinance. The only costs which may be passed through to. residents are gov- ernmezt mandated costs such as sewer, trash and water.Do the citi- ens of SaYJ Luis Obispo agree with Mrs. Rubottom that mobilehome residents shouldn't have to pay for the increased costs of these services tat every other inhabitant of the city must bear? I doubt it. Irs. Rubottom would also do away with the 10% increase in space rent allowed when a home sells. How this threatens her "survival"� is a i4ystery since it will never affect her tenancy. .4very economic study ever done concurs that rent control creates below market rents. The resale increase allows parks to move closer to a 'ff'air market rent without cost to the current tenant. Does tie increjse prevent homes from selling? Absolutely not! Our park is experiencing our most prolific sales year in over ten years. :Taxpayers of SLO should be wary of Mrs. Rubottom and her sm all group. of hard-core activists. Heed the City Attorney's Memorandun to the Qty Council regarding these proposed amendments: :,'.The proposed changes would significantly modify the structure of the current ordinance which was a compromise measure adopted by the voters in 1988. It would remove flexibility from the ordinance, and forc great4r reliance on formal rent adjustment hearings. To the exte t it pr vents owners from having a clear and reasonable mechanism o achiele a "fair return", it may expose the City to significant 1 gal liability and costs." '�he Council should resist the efforts of a small group of extreists to gain political favor and in the process place the City ;Tn legal jeopardy. Pat Fleming, mana er Creekside Mobileh me Comm San Luis Obispo i 1852 Thelma Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Reta!n this dcGumert for future Cwnc.;i rileoling 9 -/ 9- 97 Cate,a s- cdizej _ July 11, 1997 Mayor Alan Settle . Members of the City Council City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council: As a resident of Laguna Lake Mobile Home Park,I want to urge your support of the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance which will be fair to both park owners and mobile home owners. The disparity of rents in our park demonstrates the great need for this ordinance. Yours very truly, H.T.Edwards 1852 Thelma Dr. San Luis Obispo,CA 934Q5-6238 FE33� ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR [RECEJ Il L 1 4 1997 IVED O UTY COUNCIL ,S-S3 1 I II � j• i ,. . -� I I I , � I ' I I i I� I I ��• j � , to 0 13 0 0 ❑ C7 9l7 Wim_ Ol �,■ =39 CZ') O mOm C Ci0LO m fi7 i � ❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑b ••0 T71 m-amoco tg �zo IIIl1l[FF� I I i o101:7C ,STC j ' I I ,ti - 0 I � I w i • 111 I 10 OUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR CA ❑ FIN DIR ❑ AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY a ❑ PW DIR ❑ CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ ❑ PERS DIR q 16 Mrs.Kenneth R Jordan 3960 S.Higuera St.Spc 44 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RECEIVED J U L 17 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL $�J r[3 UNCIL ❑ CDD Din0 D FIN DIR AO O FIRE CHIEF TORNEY D PW DIRERIUORIG D POLICE CHF MT TEAM D REC DIR Retain this document for July 17, 1997 0 P DERS IR future Cpouncil meeting Mayor Allen Settle and City Council Members Date, 9 agerdizej _ 990 Palm, City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo City Hall, CA. 93401 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We hope our sincere words will explain how very much we require changes in our City Rent Stabilization Ordinance . The changes we request are not unfair, but instead are items we need if we are to survive. It' s very frightening to be unable to afford to stay in a home you own, when you pay considerable rent for a tiny space. Most of us really have no other place to go. When the first Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance came into effect in 1982, it did not contain an allowance giving a 100 rent increase on resale to a park owner. Our research indicates that allowance did not take place until 1992 . It has become a disaster whenever a mobilehome is sold, and rent increases grow by larger and larger percentage increments . We learned from GSMOL head offices that 92 cities in California have Rent Ordinances, and 57 of these DO NOT have rent increases on resale. Vetters Management Company controls a large number of mobilehome parks in California. The Vetters Company recommend against rent increases on resale. They have found it is actually to the park owners ' advantage, because tenants feel more security, and take a far keener interest in keeping the landscaping beautiful around their well-kept home. The result is a more attractive and desirable park, which has gained greatly in value, and has been given a much higher rating by appraisers . We sought expert advice on the MNOI factor which we asked you to delete. That factor is too complex for clear interpretation. There is even a stipulation on Page 138-2, which states that should this formula not provide a just return for a park owner, a hearing officer may apply any other reasonable formula. That indicates that even the writer of this formula is not convinced this factor is viable. One the other hand, mobilehome owners need BOTH a lawyer and an appraiser to confront a park owner who uses this formula. No challenge to the park owners' figures is included in the formula. We cannot afford two expensive experts . There are already other provisions for a hearing for a rent adjustment for park owners in another section of the Ordinance. We also need the Ordinance to conform to the Mobilehome Residency Laws . These are not spur-of-the-moment laws, but were carefully evaluated, passed by both State Legislative Houses, and signed by the Governor. We thank you for your courtesy in hearing our case, and respectfully request you to decide in favor of granting these changes which allow worried Seniors to remain in their homes. Sincerely, Bill and Betty Henson FF�� 1860 Thelma Drive, San Luis Obispo, �CA 993405 �Freasen EOote .enclosure) J U L 1 7 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL 3�'(0 a:: ��' '.yy� �- � �- ��` F' Most Ofnicipuo oneRent'. ol Law MUpheldMe Court ® Both Sides See Something to Like in Latest Ruling federal jud in a 55- June 13. anomcys say. Page opinion handed Hogin acknowledged that "the "We'll definitely seek a trial own this week, has court questioned base rents" unless we can reach a settle- struck down one of the most can- striking out the city's attempt to rnent," said Hanken,who added troversial provisions of the City rollback those base rents to a pre- his client may have suffered of Malibu's Mobilehome Rent existing level. "She ruled that damages in excess of $1.5 trill- Stabilization C rdinance, but provision did not have the goal of lion. "We haven't done a full upheld the right of the city to protecting the tenants," from work out,"he said,"There is sub- control mobilehomc rents. future potentially unlimited stantial damage the Kissel Com- "We are gratified," said Tom incases,Hogin added pany has incurred." Gre ibbs,an attorney for the Adam- Both park owners have chal- Gibbs agreed Saying, "We will son Companies which owns the lenged the rent control ordinance go for damages." Indicating that Point Dume Club Mobilehome Adamson had "not yet done an Park. "The opinion struck down rj. analysis,"it remains unclear what the most onerous provisions— __ amount would be sought,he said. rollbacks and a freeze.- _ "I don't think they are entitled "The bonom Iine is ouroint �= P ..�• to a damage award.This is a very has been validated;' agreed Gar. •,, narrow decision," Hogin _ cert Hanken• who represents the responded when asked to com- Kissel Company,which owns the mere about damage claims. Paradise Cove,'vlobilehome Park. According to a press release "The plaintiffs recognize that rent issued by the city, the opinion control is permissible, but the "concludes that the city's mobilc- city went far beyond that." � home park rent stabilization ordi• I But Malibu City Attorney ranee validly protects the park Christi Hogir, took a different tenants' investment in their approach to the decision saying, m �� mobile-homes (the investment "One of the critical questions wasf value includes the homeowner' if )-.nr could have rent stabilize- FIRST DAY—lel-house City improvements and its location) tion in Malibu.The judge ruled it Attomey Christi Hogin's first and protects park residents who did not amount to a constitutional day in her new professional have fixed or relatively low taking." capacity came replete with incomes. Overall, the court concluded court action on Malibu's The opinion is riot the t'inal that the city rray intervene tomunicipal mobile home It3w, decision in the case,according to adjust the balance of the econom• the city attorney, who said that is relationship between tenants in federal and state court. They should the opinion form the basis and park owners, the City Artor- were successful in having the for the final judgment in the nev added. city's law thrown out in state case—as most court observers "We feel we prevailed. We art court and the city is currently expect to be the case—the city not unhappy with the decision." appealing that decision, may amend its ordinance to com- Hogin said. The Malibu City This week's decision could ply with the opinion or appeal the Council is expected to discuss the cost the city millions of dollars in ruling. No decision has yet been federal opinion at a closed door damages that is expected to be made on this.Hugin added. %e%sion at its next rneeting on sought by the park owners. their BY RIEKoi:INEKF.R . l -- -- -• -i 'rill =+:.-u� :•1��= = v� - ''-"--= - -_- A - 7- � Post-Proposition 199: Now what? ne of the things voters were used when an elected body pass saying when they voted rent control ordinance and the against Proposition 199 in ers are encouraged to overturn March was that they wanted the elected officials' decision at rent control issue to be handled at next available election. Refe the focal level. dums have been done In P WMA's track record with local in- mount, EI Monte, Laguna Be itiatives has always been good. In Vista and Carlsbad. fact, In many cities and counties where Proposition 199 lost by a San Luis Obispo model wide margin, the same voters had This model is, a effect, a previously turned down local resi- control initiative that the park c dent-sponsored rent control initia- by Da•r'd Evans ers sponsor to replace a : tives by sinillar margins. onerous ordinance. Suchh aan e n e With that in mind, WMA's local was done successfully in th-171 government staff is going "back to place this initiaii%t on the ballot to San Luis Obisppoo, where the future" and refining the local repeal an existing trnt control ordi- I wouldrobably have u..n ntrc initiative process that has worked so nance. Such an elrort was success- S feared. This type of rent ease. well for the past 20 years. fully accomplished in the City of , dinance looks a tot like a lease.lease. In looking over WMA's "Local Delano in 1993. 1 The theory behind this aper Rent Control Initiative Campaigns" ; is simple: If the.lxOlitical env list, some iritrresting observations Property rights initiative - meat prevents a total repeal c can be made. Following are various This type of initiative has been existing ordinance, at least it c types of local initiatives that both used in several cities and counties replaced with something mutt park owners and residents have em- over the year's with mixed results. If ter and the voters are riot ask ployed over the years, with varying successful, the property rights in- abolish rent control. degrees of success. itiative repeals the existing ordi- _ ------ nance and prohibits the elected Campaigns to defeat rent body from passing rent control in WMA's local government the futureplans to refine all of the aboc control initiatives A vote of the people would be the itiatives and tailor them to sel WMA staff has worked on many only way another rent control ordi- cities and counties throughot such campaigns over the years with nance could be passed. Such an ap- state. One type of initiative r a high degree of success—organiz- proach takes the rent control issue not work in one area of the ing local WMA members and others away from local politicians and but lends itself to successful to defeat rent control initiatives places it before the voters, where cation in another.Polling and that mobilchome community resi- the industry has a better chance of groups would need to be us dents, city councils or boards of su- winning. Successful examples of order to determine if a carnpa pervisors have been placed on the this attack un rent contrul occurred feasible and xlrut kind it shoo' ballot. Defeating this type of initia- in the cities of Butlinganie and Using various local election tive has been a great weapon ever Napa. tailored to a specific political since mobilehome park rent con- ronment, is a more surgic; trol first reared its ugly head. Referendum proach to stopping or WMA has also employed the ref- rent control. It will Repealer erenduru over the years,with mixed homework and patience to Park owners or an elected body results A refertndum is the process . s59 _ WMA's local government staff f is going `back to the future" and ref lining the local initiative process that has worked so well for the past 20 years. each approach to the point where the statewide rent control list is ac-. tually shrinking each year, rather than growing. WMA has more expertise and fire power to apply to defeating rent control at the local level than any other organization in the state. Its current goal is to not onlydef at rent control initiatives as they crop ap, but o repeal as many existing ones a�ossi e. w to e time a�igni cant preparation, but Itcant preparation, but It can and Will a done. David Evans is WMA's regional rep- resentative for the Central California Area. He can be readied at 901 Eagle Lane, Frazier Park, CA 93225, 805/ 245-3719. June 1996 • WMA Reporter 35 d%o u. G-�c..�. v-� .fin as�.t t• Roo-& 4F X&. eL AA tv all; Casa Del Rio Res.iderns Association, Inc. Budget Summary 1994 MONTHLY ANNUAL Fixed Costs Corporate Franchise Taxes $ 2.00 $ 25.00 Insurance 3,013.00 36,150.00 Taxes & Licenses 277.00 3.325.00 3,292.00 39.500.00 Operating Costs Electricity 250.00 3,000.00 Gas 500.00 6,000.00 Water 2,131.00 25,570.00 Sewer —988.00 11,850.00' Trash -2,279.00 27,360.00 Landscaping 500.00 6,000.00 Swimming Pool 400.00 4,800.00 Cleaning Service 500.00 6,000.00 _epairs & Maintenances 750.00 9,000.00 Auto & Truck 175.00 2,100.00 Telephone 150.00 1,800.00 Salaries- Park Maintenance & Managers 6._000.00 72,000.00 Payroll Taxes 550.00 6.600.00 15.173.00 182,080.00 Administration Management 1,000.00 12,000.00 Legal 250.00 3,000.00 Accounting ' 150.00 1,800.00 Office 500.00 6.000.00 1.900.00 22.800.00 TOTAL COST OF OPERATIONS 20,365.00 244,380.00 Reserves 3.260.00 39.120.00 1994 BUDGET $23.625.00 $283.500.00 BUDGET PER UNIT $ 94.5.0 $ 1,134.00 S-6� casa del ria Mobile estates n3A rL rd &Mta maria ml 93454 Phone 925-3737 November 1 , 1993 Re: Casa Del Rio Resident Association, Inc. Dear Member: Attached is the 1994 Budget Summary for Casa Del Rio Resident Association, Inc . Please note that your monthly Association Dues will be $94 .50 effective January 1 , 1994. There will be an Organizational Meeting for the Members of the Association on December 15 , 1993 . The meeting will be held at 7: 30 P.M. in the clubhouse. The purpose of the meeting is to elect a Board of Directors , review the 1994 Budget Summary, and discuss any new business . TO ensure Members ' representation on the Board, not less than 200 of the Members of the Board shall be elected solely by the vote of the Owners , other than the Declarant. We are looking forward to meeting with you and working with you for the good of Casa Del Rio Mobile Estates. Robert J Hedley Richard B. Wells Managing General P rtner Managing General Partner S43 Rela"n 21rs document for 9&s. Boma x(qFw future Council fine7tinq . 3960 South 51i wa,.096 9"„r /_q / .,San Luis Obispo 1�idit?, 8y£C "��• Cafe mia 93401 �!' deluly 13th 1997 Dean /►)anon AU-en Se.&& and Cz;ty CouncU l►lembeno: 9 finp4atbi want ;to be one o� the maj.04a f in uvtitting th" tettea to yowl 9" In nektence and conce4ning the notice 9 received netateirrg to a poae.i b.Le 10% /gent Srn6wwe upon Aeaa,Le. 9 think and PeeL .e to outAagaoue idea, pluo very unIaiA.to mobi&— home oaneu. 9to veng obvi,oue, pante oavl ane aeefi,ing an eaeey uvy to tape advantage oA a6 homeounena, uAZcAff&ny ane Seru oA C4Up ee on ixed .income. 9 am O 9NAI-tL Y FMI Y,&1 UlWMVCL! Sincew4 NCI. D CDD DIR AO D FIN DIR D APP D FIRE CHIEF U(TTORNEY D PW DIR ❑ CLERKlORIG O POLICE CHF D 41Gd1T TEAM D REC DIA p D UTIL DIR D D PERS DIR RECEIVED J U L 14 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL Mr-Allen Settle, Mayor, San Luis Obispo, Ca. 7,28,97 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo. Ca. Retain INS Document for future Cound mentinG g-le-9� cat?,a egerA;zel Dear Sir. I urgue you to vote to change the flaws in the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilation Ordinance, which I feel at this time is unfair to Mobile Home Owners in lagina Lakes Mobile Home Estates. Sincerely Yo,u/r&. Melvin S. Dennis, M.D. 1716 Carolyn Drive San Luis Obispo. Ca 93405 (805) 546-0906 EE CDD DIqO FlN DIR� TO FIgE CHIEF PW Din POLICE CHF AEC DlqRECEIVED UTIL DIR PERS DIA JUL 0 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL l iJ JnvIL LJ vv L+ ver, CAO ❑ FIN DIR . FJ EC�IVED �o ❑ FIRE CHIEF ATIORNEY ❑ PW DIR � ❑ CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF 1 1991 ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR ITY ❑ O PERS DIR 0UNCIL MEWA m_,,A. .._ _._ _ ....__.. ._ WO ._._.... `tea h -do ha e -�-o l.Q.a►�.e,--_�1- �.-....._lar _ ;. .... -_. r-tie.A& ry_ _...rnab.Lkz-_-...heave. .-.._moo_ _- ... _... I ry%AA - u - ir\ rent _- � _ _.c�� _ roof--_ _-�`►-,c�. __. � _._ _ .. -c��__---�-,.rear. t� -4-� --+eu a. d►---.__C-�s - --- ----- - ._ 5��, -harms-ems.c..R.n� ----�o_C.�.a�-t► �sr�,...,-_..GLx,c�...__.... c4NzAj,=:o k^nvocv-ed . T........r- or . r�o.n.. . e m` -- b -._._._.... ---- en -................. ..... est - in CLULl y cd hum l� G she doe S � � tollI rlof JoI.� 1 - -e S f V I 0 Y IL DD IR AO ❑ FIN OR ❑ ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF U� I, ❑ PW DIA 0 CLERKIORKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ ❑ PERS DIR RECEIVE J U L 21 1997 SLID CITY Ll 3COUNCIL S�7 n�c6.wnn�i.onaoe ; 33 S e 1 / San Ln s OL CA 934 Q • I F � , Rcta;r,thE:-JoCarrtiTt'Or 1 luture 9ounKiii oca!6rg 99a .,oma ,�CZ� /9q7 law 41(A f6kFNCIL ❑ CDD DIR fig- ❑ FIN DIR X310 ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑..A�fORNEY ❑ PW DIR ❑-@tEkJORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGM T M ❑ REC DIR ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR RECEIVED ❑ ❑ PERS DIR J U L 2 b 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL Ot2if4t?• `_-� uti�tlll:.tl>t M-M ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF +!ut D�KMORNEY ❑ PW DIR 9� ❑,Et.'Ekkiom ❑ POLICE CHF + e? ❑ MGMT:TEAM ❑ REC DIR irat , y _z - Q� -ALL ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ ❑ PERS DIR a•�<� gem, la4c 4-lf;4; -z5 W �%%��b�.Le y�l�rn-e. ��2 ��510� dam• fl�a��2r�i1�)or�l� � .�rd�l/ >46 ✓LOGY�td� •�/ ��` -o % �a a-e opt a¢ �� u- f��a7�i•P/J av7�I /712(•��`�itl� v!/v72�— meg RECEIVED .I I1 L 2 9 1997 j SLO CIT`r COUNCIL a J901. S-�4 Rnt'din this o';jjr er:t for tuh�re Ca} ,c.o meeting 1�I 1 Cate.j" sgerd;zej cj os UNCIL ❑qDIR p��a MID— E3 Fill Dim. r0 Nc"::; L' U ❑ 0 PERS DIR SLO Int M�FTINr��_9 GENDA L. c TEM # E ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FlN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PW DIR t] POLICE CHF ❑ REC DIR O UTIL DlR ❑ PERS DIR August 8, 1997 [03� ]DIR Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 i 0 P Dear Mayor: We respectfully request that you delete the 10% increase on space rent of mobile homes.at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CI-,J Y COUNCIL MrsJcan rage ,' t>3047Ldma� 993 2,owbv 'CA 61C' Tel ;MEETING 14 I/qG&DA . � � " N Gliv>✓ �� '0� DA F!1rnli DIR aero ':;t �..�1 U[ 11�c L�li„iD.Iv ❑ FGLICE CHF ❑ IlN�A4T P.f 13ReC DIR — ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ ❑ PERS DIR c 4 )skh .tom cod � ;zz R iIz ate? . ti. 20UNCIL 7UTILDIR IR :. 0 R ❑ ACAO IiIEF - iORNEY DIA MEETING AGENDA �CLERKIORIGE CHF DATE ❑ MGMT TEAMIR �ltEM #LE ❑ IRIR Tot Mayor Settle and City Council members : Iam enclosing a clipping from the Western Mobilehome Association newsprint stating that they are going after cities with rent control ordinance since defeat of Prop. 199. We are not asking for the defeat of the mobilehome rent ordinance, just to fine tune it in places that need it. Under Section 544.060, the Park owners are allowed 100% of C.P.I . to cover increases in common areas which includes utilities, government expenses, etc . In section E it states that space rents may be automat- ically adjusted, based on increases or decreases in common areas, utilities , etc . The Park owners, under the ordinance 544.070 can file for a rent adjustment if 100% of C.P.I. isn't sufficient . Under section 555.060, Article C , where Park owners recieve rate increase of 10%, when a -mobilehome is sold, called vacancy control. I don't" think the residents negotiating the ordinance in 1987 didn't believe that rents were going to increase so fast. My rent has increased from $195.00 in 1987, to $292.67 in 1997. The space rents vary in our Park from ,,6292.67 to $353.76 • It is getting very hard to sell mobilehomes today and only at a reduced price. When real estate prices are going up, mobilehome prices are going down. The Park owner has no expense involved on a sale of a mobilehome. They do nothing to that space whatsoever. I thank you for your time in reading this letter, also to take these views on the matter enclosed. The,.Park manager is always saying "We can't discriminate against children or people moving into the Park. " Park owners discriminate against people moving into the Park, also residents selling because Park owners are charging more space rent , but -giving nothing more in return. What is this but discrimination. Ray Niemesh RECEIVED 3960 S. Higuera # 17 AUG 1 1 1997 541_3632� f ' SLO CITY COUNCIL % ` � Post-Proposition 199: Now what? 0 ne of the things voters were used whcr.ar, el:cted body passes a saying. when they voted rent control ordinance and the vot- against Proposition 199 in ers are encouraged to overtum the March was that they wanted the elected officials' decision at the rent control issue to be handled at next available election. Referen- the focQl level. dums have been done In Para- WMA's track record with local in- - mount, E1 Monte, Laguna Beach, itiatives has always been good. In Vista and Carlsbad. fact, in many cities and counties where Proposition 199 lost by aan Luis Qbispo model wide margin, the same voters had This model is, in effect, a ren- previously turned down local resi- control initiative that the park ow dent-sponsored rent control initia• by Din id t vans ers sponsor to replace a particularly tives by similar margins. onerous ordinance. Such an effort With that In mind, WMA's local was done successfully in the City of government staff is going "back to place this initiative on the ballot to San Luis Obispo, where a repealer the future" and refining the local repeal an existing rent control ordi- would probably have been de. initiative process that has worked so nance. Such an effort was success- feared-This type of rent control or. well for the past 20 years. fully accomplished .in tate City of dinance looks a lot like a lease. In looking over WMA's "Local Delano in 1994. The theory behind this approach Rent Control Initiative Campaigns- is simple: If the political environ• list, some interesting observations Property rights initiative ment prevents a total repeal of an can be made. Following are various This type of initiative has been existing ordinance,at least it can be types of local initiatives that both used in several cities and counties replaced with something much bet- park owners and residents have em- over the years with mixed results.If tar and the voters are not asked to ployed over the years, with varying successful, the property rights in- abolish rent control. degrees of success. itiative repeals the existing ordi- nance and prohibits the elected • Campaigns to defeat rent body from passing rent control in WMA's local government staff control initiatives the future. plans to refine all of the above In. WMA staff has worked on many A vote of the people would be the Itiatives and tailor them to selected such campaigns over the years with . only way another rent control ordi- cities and counties throughout the a high degree of success—organtz• nance could be passed. Such an ap- state. One type of initiative might Ing local WMA members and others proach takes the rent control issue not work In one area of the state, to defeat rent control initiatives away from local politicians and but lends Itself to successful appli- that mobilehome community resi= places it before the voters, where cation in another.Polling and focus dents, city councils or boards of su- the Industry has a better chance of groups would need to be used in pervisots have been placed on rite winning. Successful examples of order�to determine if a campaign is ype ballot. Defeating this tof initia- this attack ori rent control occurred feasible and what kind it should be. tive has been a great weapon ever in the cities of Iluilinganre and Using various local election toots, since mobilehome park rent con- •. Napa. tailored to a specific political envi- trot first reared its ugly head. ronment, is- a more surgical ap- Referendum proach to stopping or eradicating WMA has also employed the ref- rent control. It will take much Repealer erenduri:over the years,with mixed homework and patience to r^fine Park owners or an elected body' results. A referendum is the process r r - i WMA-s local government staff f is going "pack to the future" and refining the local initiative process that has worked so. well for the past 20 years. each approach to the point where the statewide rent control list is ac- tually shrinking each year, rather than growing. WMA has more expertise and fire power to apply to defeating rent control at the local level than any other organization in the state. Its current goal is to not only defeat rent control initiatives as they crop up, but to repeal as many existing ones as possible. It will take time and significant _preparation, but It can and will be done. ■ David Evans is WMA's regional rep- resentative for the Central California Area. He can be reached at 901 Eagle y Lane, Frazier Park, CA 93225; 805/ 245-37I9. 5 35 June 1996 • WMA Reporter 4 _'1EET1, _� AGENDA 1JATE ITEM # Auc:ust i2 , _9017 San Luis Obispo City CouncilVroOUNCIL [3 CDD DIR O ❑ FIN DIR 990 Palm Street AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF '��rrTTIORNEY [3PW DIR � San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 ❑ CL 7IORI E3REC DI[3 POLICE R ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Honorable City Council : Laving had sewer problems at my residence at 975 Broad Street in the past , I attended the community meeting re- garding the City' s Sewer Lateral Rehab Program. Since that time I again had a stopage problem and was advised that my lateral needed to be replaced. I hired Brinar Construction, who replaced i.t out to the main line in the street , at a cost of $3 , 820 . 00 . Several weeks later my problem re-occurred . I contacted Frank Brinar of Brinar Construction, who met with City employees regarding the problem. Upon investigation, it was determined there was an on-going problem in the City ' s main line. The City employees stated they planned to clean the' line monthly until it could be ..wrI:ier:i7ntly 1c—salved . Considering what has taken place and my expense attempt- ing to solve the situation, I am requesting some reimbursement through the City' s Rehab Program. My being a single, working lady the cost of the repairs was a considerable item outside of my budget. Thank you for your consideration in this matter . Sincerely, rye Lucille Mello r Furs Lucille T Mello .:.. .'....L:;.':, 97 5 Broad St San Lnis Obispo,CA 93401-3502 RE01, C AUG 1 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ''"ETIt�G AGENDA ITEM # Aug. 13, 1997 CIL ❑ CDD DIR [r:,r,PAO ❑ FIN DIR Mayor Allen Settle ❑ FIRE CHIEF 990 Palm St. RNEY ❑ PW DIR KIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF SLO, CA 93405 TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Settle, I am writing regarding a matter that will be heard before City Council on Aug. 19. It concerns the rent increase of 10%, which is allowable under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance upon the sale of a mobile home. My neighbors and I at the Laguna Lake Mobile Home Estates ask your help in PROHIBITING the continuation of this rent increase. Tha you, Ruth A. Starr 1621 Gathe Dr. SLO, CA 93405 RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEET I �_� AGENDA DATE '� ITEM # August 8, 1997 Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council ONO ❑]DIR 990 Palm Street �" AO ❑San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CAO ❑TIORNEY ❑CLERKIORIG ❑Reference: Chapter 5.44 of the Municipal Code o �G�T TEAM p❑ Gentlemen: This letter addresses a component of the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Specifically Section 5.44.060, Paragraph C.,permitting an in- crease of up to 10 percent in space rent upon change of ownership. This pro- vision is arbitrary and is not supported by logic or economic reality. Further reference is made to the sentence which permits an increase in space rent resulting from a vacating of the space. The ordinance states that such increase shall be based upon "fair market value in the community". No pro- vision is made for a mechanism which identifies "fair market value". Paragraph C., as delineated in the ordinance, needs to be eliminated or re- placed by a provision which permits adjustment in space rents, both upward and downward, based upon a valid economic index. Only such a provision for adjusting space rents would be equitable to both mobilehome park tenants and park owners. Respectfully yours, Louis J. Shuster 1032 Murl Drive RECEIVED San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 AUG i 5 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL — -4EETIN AGENDA .oATE F 119-92 ITEM # �OUNCIL ❑:FIRE IR �AO ❑ ,ACAO ❑ HIEF AUGUST 14 , 1997 ,ATTORNEY ❑[5 CLERK/ORIG ❑ CHF❑ M MT TEAM ❑ RMAYOR ALLEN SETTLE ❑ RCITY COUNCIL ❑ IR 990 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF. 93401 RE : CITY RENT ORDINANCE AUTOMATIC 10% INCREASE ON RESALE OF MOBILE HOMES DBAR MAYOR SETTLE: WE ARE RETIREES IN OUR 80' s WHO ARE LIVING ON A FIXED INCOME IN A MOBILE HOME PARK .. WE ARE ASKING THAT THE COUNCIL REMOVE FROM THE CITY RENT ORDINANCE THE AUTOMATIC 10% RENT INCREASE TO THE NEW OWNER ON PURCHASE OF A MOBILE HOME.. IF THIS ORDINANCE CON- TINUES IT WILL MAKE THE SALE OF MOBILE HOMES ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE AND NECESSARY TO SELL AT A GREAT LOSS TO THE PRESENT OWNERS. THANK YOU. SINCERELY VJ%96HN AND BE2TT'Y FISHER PH : 544-6817 (/ �� 9✓Mra.Betty Fisher 1833 Lathe Dr. r San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 MEETING AGENDA ITEM # 8-15-97 Dear Honorable Mayor Settle and City Council Members: My name is Barry Kaufman and I've been living at 3960 South Higuere Street since 1982. Going back to March of 19969 I want to thank the City Council for adopting a resolution opposing proposition 199, which not only helped our effort but made mobilehome owners proud to live in San Luis Obispo. I know now how precious our existing ordinance is. A good ordinance is necessary, not only to protect the major investment San Luis Obispo residents have in their mobilehomes, but I feel it leads to better leases as well. This is the time to make the ordinance all it can be. We have seen how amazingly recession proof mobilehome parks are through the nineties, while a number of mobilehome owners tried for years to sell homes worth less than the loan balance. For a potential mobilehome buyer, if their mortgage plus space rent exceed a certain formula, a bank loan may be denied hurting both the mobilehome seller and the buyer. That's one reason rent increases allowed by the ordinance are critical. Even with a decent electronics job I was required to pay a 35% down payment or I didn't qualify For the loan. I appreciate the privilege it is to live in San Luis Obispo and accept the unique economy of a small market, such as lower wages compared to metropolitan areas. I don't mind working two jobs just to make ends meet with mortgage, rent and maintenance expenses. However, comparisons to high apartment rents near campus are invalid since they are driven by a student population with high turnover rates, large amounts of wear and tear, lower rents in the summer plus other economic Factors. We know now that it costs between $90 to $125 per month per space` to operate a mobilehome park and charging more than a park owner needs for a Fair return hurts the mobilehome owners who are co-proprietors in this equation. Speaking for the mature mobilehome owners, unjustifiably high rent increases are like eviction notices to those who have lost both their spouses and spouse's pension at the same time. My goal is to make their Final years as comfortable and worry Free as possible. I've personally spent thousands of dollars improving the looks of my mobilehome, by having siding installed, and I'm proud to live in an award winning mobilehome park. I also wish the best to investors who do business in San Luis Obispo. Yes, they are in business, but I'm here to remind them they are in the business of affordable housing.. Pardon the analogy, but ever since mobile homes started to wear skirting, the temptation for exploitation began! for discussion on the proposed amendments. �NCIL ❑:FIRE R W ❑ Sincerely, 2 6GAO ❑ HIEFh3%(ORNEY ❑F CLERK/ORIG ❑ CHF❑ MGMjTEAM ❑ R BARRY UFMAN❑ O R San Luis Obispo mobilehome owner ❑ IR ( 8 0 5 ) . 5 4 3 - 1 3 8 4 Maintenance fees are a quote From a September 10th, 1996 lecture by Ken Turek, a partner in the law firm of Endeman, Lincoln, Turek and Heater (619) 544-0123. He is involved with converting mobilehome parks to resident owned parks statewide and knows the numbers. RECEIVED AUG 1 9 1997. SLO CITY COUNCIL CDD �fCAOUNCIL :RE RR -ETIN AGENDA f'•f�AO CHIEF DATE.ITEM ��-�� ITEM # ��1 iORNEY R Cil CLERKIORIG E CHF San Luio Obi,. o, Ctl ❑ MGMT TEAM IRAuguat 18, 1797 ❑_ IRDIR To: hlayat Attic Settle and Ckty Counci.L o� San LLL44 Obcapo FAom: Leata A2ubottom FAom the beginning .the illobi 1pJ me. /lent Stabiltpiion Ordinance. ruu A,% the pnotecti.on o� mvbttehome oaneu aga iat exr .enive rento. The San Lui.o Ob"po Ordinance no .lyW doeo thio. 2ent6 ane excenaive and contirate to Alae. There ane panto off the %lent Stabi.lip&on Ordinance .hacd.to.ardei4tand and .n many, p&Cea , ub fecf ,to ,i L teApAetati.on. Moot reo.idente in mobiteliame panho ane ben ox6 and fanu_Li on Pxed incorne.6. When Aertn are ,too hiYA, the only attennative 44 to net and LAeg don't aluago net. Aight ataxy. When the mobitehome acro on the parA owrzen'n Zand, the reo.idenf meet part' the rent even tlu� it th unoccupied. 5� the home doesn't nett. innediatebi, they must watA away and .Cet the pa4A oune c taAe the mobi.Lehome an nett it at a vetg tau pni.ce in ordeA t.oA it to neU- wle axe aohirug PIE PUIX changed an the ordinance that would king it bath to becng an 41wtnument o� protection Aon .the mobileAmne awteu. An it cn my-iter nom, 4" puApone and what i f do" " guarantee the panA owneA a pnof ib. Cham;" needed: I. JeLete 5.44.060 (0. At the pAeoent .time, panA omneu can roi.oe .the rent 161% a tenant decideA to nett hie Acme. This c ceatee a perw2ty even begone a tenant moved in. This so Punt an extra change without f„�# �t:�n. 9n tAe U.S. Supreme Count deciei.on, Yee vn Cncondido 9 jdgee voted 9-0 Liat vacancy control wu not a ta” o� pa)& 0unen1.6 pAopettg. 2. Detete moat o�f 5.44.060 (6). The 6ecti.on to be deleted id AaAd to undex tand and ambirduoun. 9t io atao nubfent to mi.ainteApAetatian. A tag person AA at a .Latta to uiYlenotand it. 9n the ordinance now there ane two 6ec :Dna devoted to uny6 the parA ourwA can Receive an adfsutment. Only one io reader/. The panA ourcelt can Aecei.ve an ad f untment in rent undeA the gteidzGine o 4 5.44.070 "Aplau- cation PA %lent fldjlre#me�+t-Fee-�ontercto.". 9.t a#anto oA6 "A parA wwieA can re- ceive an adiu6bnerLt p,% each apace affected and the Aeaaon P,% the adfuetment. 5.44.C60 (0 ay, a Aeado nam the parAz orzeA doer not have to prove he needy, the Aent incAeowe. j. ;-*Zare 5.44.090 with Attachment 0. TAe Aep&cemerct more ciaoey meets the needs 4 the path omen and the tenant. A wj .large coAto "=u&wd when the path needs improvement that both the path owner and the tenanto want could w4ity be agreed upon by a 5116 vote o� the tenanto in Am%. Thin wvutd inouAe mirror , an wet ay,, .Lean L hety to be mi oirctp Aeted. RECEIVED -1- pU;T +. 8. 1997 SLO CITY COUNICIL Here again the pante wrr+en can necetive an adjustment under 5.44.070. 4. 76 sirup.!# a typing coAaecti.on a Aqeicence. 5.44.030 (F) io incoAnecit and utd go and frau , pH( , (F� 'eAw to condvmin i um pnv feato ne,t c�,� 10;1!4 *n¢ �gagon-w�ntr�agee Aetationehip. 5.44.o�fo i,o invutved a.Lth .la mU"cd tenant neCativnahtpo. 5. We have mithdna"z gun neVeot P% change in 5.44.040 (8). Sing the paoeage q AB 591 and it has been made a pant o� the State Mobi lehome /?eeidency Lau, as 798.86, 4-1 coveA4 .the .Dame thing we rugine aching An. On beW o� the mobileAome tenants, 9 ¢ant to tahe thio ,rpoA&n&f to thank you A,% rgoun con4ideAation and anything you can do to expedite these chancgeo raLU be g".a 4 appreciated. Sincere Gg, .� JAI C Leola ?ubottam 3960 South Hicguena, Space 21 San Lut.o Obi.epo, CR 93401 %elephvne 541-6159 -z- -MEETING AGENDA jATE 'L q 7 ITEM # August 12, 1997 Dear Mayor Settle; This letter is in regards to the requested changes to the ten percent resale increase in the rent ordinance. We voted for the ordinance in 1988, and we worked with the management of Creekside to establish the lease with the ten percent resale increase included. We want the ordinance to stay as it was voted for in 1988. If any changes are to be made to this ordinance, they should be done so by majority vote of the public. We have lived at Creekside Mobilehome Park for over ten years. We have been very happy with the lifestyle we have here at Creekside, and we do not want it to change. The minority that is coming to the City Council with these requests, do not represent our views. We believe that the ten points brought to the Council, in order to persuade the Council to change the ordinance, are based on emotions and not facts. We know many people who have purchased mobilehomes with the ordinance in place. Most of these people live on fixed incomes. Please do not let the emotions of the minority change what the majority voted for in 1988. Thank you for your time. LWCAO ❑ CDD DIR Sincerely, ❑ FIN DIR❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑ PWDIR ❑ POLfCE CNF,Ten�Burton ❑ REC D!R ❑ UT DIR Raymond P. Burton ❑ PERS Dili Creekside Residents RECEIVED AUG 1 8 1997 SL® CITY COUNCIL _ .,IEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # August 11, 1997 Rose DuBois 3960 S. Hiiguera Sp#114 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I have been a resident at Creekside Mobilehome Community for twenty five years. During this time I have never felt such turmoil that the small political group has caused in our park. This group wants to remove the ten percent increase on resale, and I have no affiliation with this group. Please note that these few are alone in their desire to change the rent control. I have contentedly lived in this park for twenty five years, and their recent disruption angers me. You as City Council Members can put the peace back into our park by rejecting their request for changes in the rent control. Thank You. COUNCIL DPERSDIR IR r 0 19"ACA0 HIEF Sincerely, e( liORNEY d CLERKIORIG POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM IR �i ❑ ` IR IR Rose DuBois Sp. 114, Creekside Mobilehome Community RECEIVED AUG 1 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL )ATE IN� � q7 AGENDA ITEM # August, 1997 To Honorable Mayor Settle and All members of San Luis Obispo City Council An item to note is that there are TWO provisions in the City Rent Stabilization Ordinance which allow a park owner to ask for a rent adjustment. The one we ask you to delete is 544 . 090 . This item is exceedingly complicated, and subject to quite different interpretations . In fact, it is so complicated that mobile home owners must hire two experts (an appraiser and a lawyer) in order to reply to the park owners ' UNCHALLENGED statements. No proof is required from the park owner. in this part of the Ordinance. This creates a financial burden which mobilehome owners just can't afford. We ask you to delete . 90 and leave .70 to fairly handle all requests for rent changes . We sincerely thank you for your time and effort required to evaluate our requests . Betty Henson, Associate Manager, Region 8 GSMOL 1860 Thelma Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 OUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR CAO ❑ FIN DIR ACAO [3FIRE CHIEF �l iORNEY ❑ PW DIR E9'CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ 6iGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR R CEIVED AUG 1 8 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL I-TING 'q AGENDA DATE J ITEM # LAGUNA LAYS MOBILE ESTATES HOMBOWNEES ASSOCIATION (A CaIIiorsia Non-Pmfkt Corporation) 1024 S%pboato Ddn Sm lain Obbpo, Colifoaia 93405-6260 Tolopboas : 805 544 5481 Fa: : 903 SU 5481 Comte D=Wey Ahold BwSkanit Hoa JobMWO Santorp Pnddoot T� August 19, 1997 NCIL 0CDD DRi C 0 O FIN DIR AO 0 FIRE CHIEF Allen Settle, Ma or . iORNEY ❑ PDIR y @'C'_GRKIORIG 0 POO LICE CHF City of San Buis Obispo ❑ hG TT AM O REC DIR ❑ 0 UTIL DIR -= O PERS DIR Dear Por . Settle, You will recall the meeting at lunch a while hack with Ron Dunin and myself. . Among other things we talked about a need to revisit the San Luis Obispo Rent Stabilization Ordinance, particularly, to re-instate a Rent Review Board or similar agency. At the time we talked about the best way to appfoach the matter ; and you suggested putting it on the City Council agenda . Dater, we were notified that this would take place on August 19, but in the meantime Ron and I requested that our presentation he postponed to September 16 . I received the packet of mobilehome issues from Por. Jorgenson and noticed that all of them surrounded the matters about which the people of. Creekside park, especially Mrs . Rubottom, were concerned . This reinforced my belief that the issue which concerned Ron and me would indeed be on September 16 . This letter is a request to confirm the September time on the agenda , rather than tonight , August 19 . Ode respectfully urge you to consider this request, Arnold Burghardt RECEIVED AUG 1 9 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL �!JIEETIN AGENDA ATE ITEM # August 8, 1997 FAO O CDD DIR 13 FIN DIR 0 FIRE CHIEF Mayor Allen Settle O PW DIR 990 Palm O POLICE CHF O REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 O UTIL DIR &7% O PERS DIR Dear Mayor: We respectfully request that you delete the 10% increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, RECEIVED AUG 1 9 1991 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETINP AGENDA DATE `!9` G7 ITEM # _ Senior Legal Services Project San Luis Obispo Legal Altematives Corporation NCIL ❑ CDD DIR August 19, 1997 90 0 FIN DIR O'�OAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF T- RNEY 0 PW DIR Mayor Allen Settle C9-CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF Members of the City Council O MGMT TEAM 1] REC DIR City of San Luis Obispo O PERS D R 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Mobile home ordinance re: vacancy control Dear Mayor Settle and members of the City Council: On behalf of the senior clients of the Senior Legal Services Project who live in mobile home parks in San Luis Obispo, we offer the following information which you may find useful in considering the above ordinance on your agenda. If we understand the measure correctly, an amendment to this ordinance would restrict the rights of mobile home park owners to automatically increase the space rent in their parks by 10% whenever a coach within the park changes ownership. Many of these elderly mobile home park residents feel they are being held captive in their homes in part by the current language. Those who purchased coaches within the past several years are already paying much higher rents than resident of parks who have been there longer, in part because of the 10% rent increase which took effect when they purchased. As their circumstances change (e.g., a spouse dies or becomes incapacitated, medical reasons, loss of income, etc.) and they need to sell their coach, they find it very difficult if not impossible to find a buyer willing to absorb the 10%increase in addition to the already high space rental. Our clients have expressed fears that this ordinance inhibits their ability to find a buyer. They cannot afford to move the coach out of the park, raising the specter of their having to abandon their equity and their residence if they have to move away. In addition, some park owners are requiring the prospective buyer to sign a lease for longer than 5 years. That space is then removed altogether from the existing rent control laws, permitting not only the initial rent increase of 10%, but also removing all limits on what the park owner can continue to charge as rent. This makes it harder to find a buyer. -Ilolvnoo /k.uo ois PO Box 14642 1661 6 1 9114 San Luis Obispo 43n13038 California 93406 A ~on (805)543-5140 Mayor Settle and City Council August 19, 1997 Page 2 Mobile home park rents used to include utilities. However, many park owners have installed utility meters at each space and are passing on the cost of utilities in addition to the increased space rent. One park in Oceano has calculated his county property taxes and is adding that cost to each month's billing as well. We hope you will consider the plight of our senior population in determining how to resolve the vacancy control ordinance problem. Our city's senior population is growing as it is everywhere. These people live on a fixed income, which does not rise as fast as the costs they are expected to bear. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, O� 61 ANGIE KING Project Director MILUINU AGENDA ATE ITEM #_..K, LZACAO UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR 0 ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRECHIEF JORNEY ❑ PW DIR ERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF MT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR August 11, 1997 Gordon and Evelyn Stevens 3960 S. Higuera Sp#101 San Luis Obispo, Ca.93401 Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St San Luis Obispo, Ca.93401 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We moved to San Luis Obispo from Monrovia,two and a half years ago. When purchasing our home at Creekside Mobilehome Community,we were aware of an increase in our rent. This increase seems fair, but the peace and tranquillity that we have bought into has been disrupted by a seemingly small political group. The reason for writing this letter, is that we are not part of this group, and they are completely out on their own. How can this group say that homes will not sell with this increase? We moved into Creekside because it is a beautiful establishment The increase did not discourage us in any way,but this element of unrest has been bothersome. We are in our seventies,and live on a fixed income, as many other residents in Creekside do. We are all able to live a happy comfortable life,and pay our own way. We do not need this minute group voicing an opinion which is not our own. Please listen to our voice of concern,we do not want any changes to the rent control ordinance. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, f9}y Gordon and Evelyn Stevens RECEIVED AUG I 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MR 'MEETING AGENDA .1TE 't`1' ITEM #0 HIEFiORNEY CLERKIORIG CHFAugust 4, 1997 ❑ MGMT TEAM Rp IRDIR To:The Honorable Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo My husband and I have owned a m6bilehome in Creekside Mobilehome Community for twenty five years. We met Ed Evans at a rules committee when he first purchased the park. We were very impressed at his pride,concern, and generosity towards Creekside. I,Martha Stevens, have now been employed by Creekside as Office Manager for seven years. I have continually witnessed Ed Evans' fairness towards the residents,and willingness to work problems through. The mobilehome residents, recently asking for a change in the rent control,only represent a minority of residents in our park. My family and neighbors are not a part of this group,and are embarrassed to have this association forced upon us. The citizens of San Luis Obispo voted to accept the rent control as it was stated in Measure D. Since this voting,you as the City Council,upon the request of this minority group,have chipped away the original rent stabilization,making it unstable. We purchased our mobilehome in 1972 for$18,000. We could now easily sale this home for$60,000. Why shouldn't the park owner be allowed to make a profit,when we,as homeowners,can? I do not feel that a ten percent increase on turnovers is unreasonable. If this minority political group is so unhappy living in a beautiful community,then why don't they move? Where else would they find quality living for under$310? Please take these facts into consideration when reviewing their request for changes in the San Luis Obispo City Rent Control. Phil and Martha Stevens sp. 64, Creekside Mobilehome Community RECEIVED AUG 1 3 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL '''EETING AGENDA ..ATES"_ITEM # EJ COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR dJCAO ❑ FIN DIR ICAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF IORNEY ❑ PW DIR Cd CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ PiGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR August S, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor: We respectfully request that you delete the 10% increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, CONNIE ROBERTSON 1800 Thelma•San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 RECEIVED AUG 1 3 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA " ANTHONY C.RODRIGUEZ .ITE V�, 9� ITEM # ATTORNEY AT LAW 1300 CLAY STREET SUITE 800 OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94812 TELEPHONE(810)484-8022 VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS (805) 781-7109 August 13, 1997 CSINNCIL ❑ CDD DIR (y�g0 ❑ FIN DIR MAPAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF City Council, City of San Luis Obispo WT-ORNEY ❑ PW DIR 990 Palm Street �CLERKIORIG [3 POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR San Luis Obispo, California 93401 p.�__ C) UTIL DIR t3 ❑ PERS DIR Re: Proposed Amendments To Rent Control Ordinance Dear Council Members: I am an attorney specializing in legal issues involving mobilehome parks. One of my particular areas of expertise is litigation involving mobilehome rent control ordinances. I have been asked to represent several parkowners in San Luis Obispo with respect to the proposed amendments to the San Luis Obispo rent control ordinance. Specifically, I have been asked to advise the Council of the following legal issues regarding both the current ordinance and the proposed amendments: 1.) VACANCY CONTROL: There is admittedly a great deal of uncertainty regarding the legality of vacancy control throughout California. For example, although the United States Supreme Court has found that vacancy control does not constitute a "physical taking" of property, the high court has never determined whether vacancy control results in a "regulatory taking". Yee v. City of Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. 519. If the City eliminates the current 10% increases allowable following a turnover in tenancy, the parkowners intend to challenge that amendment on the ground that it results in a "regulatory" taking. 2.) NO INCREASE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING: In Valparaiso Associates v. City of Cotati, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9336, the court found a regulatory taking would exist if rent control resulted in fewer affordable housing units, rather than more. Although the evidence has not been fully developed in San Luis Obispo, it is obvious that rent control has not resulted in an increase in mobilehome spaces in your city. Again, if the Council adopts the proposed amendments, my clients intend to challenge the very existence of rent control in San Luis Obispo under the Valparaiso case. RECEIVED AUG. 1,, 5 1997:, SLO CITY COUNCIL Council Members August 13, 1997 Page 2 3.) "PASS THROUGH" OF CAPITAL IMRPOVEMENTS: In Sierra Lake Reserve v. City of Rocklin, (1991) 938 F. 2d. 951, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that a rent control ordinance must not only allow the pass-through of capital improvements, it must allow parkowners to recover a fair return 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 control 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 eliminates still another source of income for the parkowners, each and every one of my clients intends to apply for any and all rent increases necessary to receive a fair return on investment. Although some of my clients are still accumulating the information necessary to apply for a fair return, a preliminary analysis demonstrates that the following parkowners require at least the following rent increases in order to receive 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 tenants 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 • Council Members August 13, 1997 Page 3 parkowners have tried to live with the current ordinance, rather than pursuing their rights in court: Unfortunately, the tenants in the San Luis Obispo mobilehome parks are not satisfied with the tens of thousands of dollars in rent subsidies they already receive each year from my clients. Instead, they are now asking for a further reduction in the parkowners' profits, including full vacancy control. If the proposed amendments are adopted the parkowners will have no choice other than to pursue all of the above legal remedies. My clients request the City Council not to view this proposed litigation as a "threat," but as a logical response to the further erosion of their investments. In order to avoid a full scale legal confrontation between the parkowners, the City and the tenants, my clients respectfully request that the proposed amendments be rejected. Very truly yours, am �• Anthony C. Rodriguez cc: David Evans 521=luis abispdcouo<dl bm M 71NG AGENDA ITEM #. -6) 3860 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 cll ❑ FINDDIRR gAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF RNEY [3PW DIR �YAI (805) 543-9439 LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ ❑ UTIL DIR August 14, 1997 [Y ❑ PERS DIR To The Honorable Mayor and City Council of San Luis Obispo As Property managers of Silver City Mobile Lodge for the past 13 years, we enclose the following information and facts to let you know the the mobilehome rent stabilization ordinance, that was approved in 1988 , has been working very well for our Mobilehome Park. When we interview prospective mobilehome buyers, we spend a great deal of time explaining the current mobilehome rent stabilization ordinance (MRSO) . From January 1996 to present date , 36 mobilehomes have been sold in our Mobilehome Park. At no time during these transactions, has a sale been turned down when the 10% increase was applicable. We have never received a formal or informal complaint regarding the current San Luis Obispo Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance. An immense amount of time and effort was spent by Park Owners, as well as many of the Mobilehome Residents, to establish a workable mobilehome ordinance. It would be incomprehensible to amend the current MRSO for a small group of activists . The Owners and Management of Silver City Mobile Lodge look forward to the continuation of the current MRSO. Yours ul� Ro n a✓nddina Constance Property Managers RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL mLLin1ly HUCIVUH VE -/ - 7 ITEM#e_ 1817 Gathe Drive San Luis Obispo,93405 August 4, 1997 90yNCIL O CDD DIR Erc Mayor Allen Settle W ❑ FIN DIR I C ❑ FIRE CHIEF RNEY ❑ PW DIR 990 Palm Street LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 O MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR �-- ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Dear Mayor Settle, I am writing regarding a matter that will be heard before City Council on August 19. It concerns the rent increase of 10%, which is allowable under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance upon the sale of a mobile home. My neighbors and I at the Laguna Lakes Mobile Home Estates ask your help in prohibiting the continuation of this rent increase. In our park, for example, there is over a$165 difference between the highest and lowest rent charged.The rent bears no relationship to the age or size or condition of the mobile home. It is directly related to the number of times a given unit has been resold. Residents in our park receive no extra services for a higher rent—it is simply an artificial number, caused by a 10% increase in rent each and every time a unit is sold. The park owner has added no value to the transaction nor do the park owners'expenses rise as a result of a resale. I believe a number of arguments can be made as to why such an artificial bump is unfair to mobile home owners: 1. The 10% increase in resale has forced a sharp decline in the prices for which mobile home owners are able to sell their property. The first question a prospective buyer asks is "What is the rent?" They are often discouraged by the answer, especially when they learn it is 10% over the current rent, for no discernible reason. 2. The park owner is not required to report to the City any 10% increases on a resale. This lack of accountability means park owners are not subject to any audit or double check to ensure raises are within Ordinance limits. 3. Please remember that many mobile home residents are elderly and on fixed incomes. Any unwarranted rent increases such as the 10% resale bump can result in a significant reduction in their standard of living. And that is less money they have available to fix and maintain their mobile home residences. 4. The park owner has not in any way "earned" such an increase. No extra services are provided nor expenses incurred by the park owner as the result of a unit resale.-This provision of the Ordinance, in my opinion, gives the park owners too much economic power over the mobile home owners. RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL • Page 2 August 4, 1997 5. Finally, please remember that most mobile home owners do not have the option to pick up and move when rents become too high. The lack of spaces in SLO and the immobile nature of many of the units mean homeowners cannot move their mobilehome. Most of us enjoy living in SLO and shop for our groceries, clothes, gas and services locally. We appreciate the protection the Ordinance has been providing us from unreasonable rent increases. We ask only that the 10% rental increase permissible upon mobilehome resale be removed from the Ordinance provisions. -We thank you for your supportand your willingness to listen to our concerns. Sincerely, Carole Dempsey Cc: City Council "SETING AGENDA -ATE 9-242 ITEM # Dear City Council, We have been residents of Creekside Mobile Home Park for the last 25 years and have enjoyed the luxury of reasonable rent in the past years. The residents of Creekside are being represented by an exclusive organization that stated in an article, "residents of this park have abandoned their homes, because of the cost of rent". We have never seen this happen in the years that we have lived here. These people who are telling you they "represent us", are "full of hot air". They represeaLwhat ever they deem important to them. I personally attended a city council meeting on the approval of Food 4 Less Market and stated to you that "Barry Kaufman ch-a'not reprensent me or my neighbors". We were never asked our opinion or input. This man is on a "Solo Mission to please himself'. I have been verbally harassed by Mr. Kaufman, on several occasions for stating my opinion. I personally can handle this but a lot of our residents are senior citizens who can not and will not stand up for themselves. It's to bad that people like Mr. Kaufman cannot let us live in our own home in peace. We were not informed that this topic, until it was already on your agenda. If Mr. Kaufman was a representative of Creekside Mobile Home Park, one would think the residents would have known of this issue? Cordially, Barbara Riekki C UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR Daryl Riekki A 0 C3 FIRE CHIEF iORNEY 13 PW DIR b I / LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR r ❑ 13 UTIL DIR �� 13 PERS DIR thank you l i RECEIVED 4AA 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA E 1-2- 17- ITEM #_ 7 Mayor Allen Settle and City Ouuncil Members 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 I moved into Laguna Mobile Home Park November 1996. My rent went up from the previous owner (I assume it was 10%) . On January 1 , 1997, two months later, it went up another 10%. January 1, 1998 I will be faced with another 10%. Where will this all end? I understand most everyone here is on a fixed income. Rents paid to Park Owners leave the area - in this case Florida. Park renters, mostly seniors, buy groceries , clothes , gas and other services in San Luis Obispo. Once we buy into a Mobile Home Park, we cannot move, which after several rent increases makes our home unsaleable. We do not own the land we are sitting on, so are at the mercy of our landlord. Most of us came from nice houses and now are on fixed incomes , which is a reduction in our standard of living. Also my taxes on a very common mobile home are as much as on my nice house down south. Nine Justices of the Supreme Court unanimously agreed rent control for mobile home owners is not only legal but a neeftsity. The Supreme Court decision allows City Councils to change the ordinance without risk of lawsuit. I'm asking you, Mayor Settle, and City Council Members, to grant us rent control , and protect us from unfair rent increases , and other charges. Sincerely, FLMGMTjTEAMj ❑ CDD DIR Ma jorie L. Van Tuyl ❑ FIN DIRX29 Gathe Drive O FIRE CHIEFPW DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 9340,5❑ POLICE CHF❑ REC DIR❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR RECEIVED AUG 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL F :❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑.FIRE,CHIEF [3 PW DIR ❑ POLICE CHF MttlINli AIitNUA ❑ REC DIR DATE ITEM # ,❑ UTIL DIR [3 PERS DI AUG 1 4 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ��` �� 479 7 � J � UG�t-yr.�ir�• � •Lr�ft.e.ra� �r`-� '(�v`-.�4,t-�t-a�" `"YiU..�t� ..rim ��irr,-c►�/ �"'•!� !moi-vT�` �li,c ,cam,-�c,z, � U-rr a MATIN 9 97 AGENDA DATE_ITEM # ['arzC UNCIL ° CDD DIR ° FIN DIR O ° FIRE CHIEF ORNEY ° PW DIR RKIORIG ° POLICE CHF T TEAM ° REC DIR City Council Member, ° UTIL DIR ° PERS DIR I am writing to you, as I will be out of town during the Aug. 19th meeting. The 10% rent increase on the resale of mobile homes should NOT be eliminated. It was passed by the voters in 1988, and the will of the people needs-to-be honored. Please know that Leola Rubottom, Bary Kaufman, Bob Souther, Betty Henson and Ray Niemesh DO NOT represent a majority of owners in Creekside Mobilehome Community, even though they would have you believe otherwise. They represent a handfull of troublemakers who were either too stubborn or too foolish to sign a lease and now find themselves actually paying a slighty higher rent because of their decision. The several hundred voters of this Park will be closely following your vote on this important matter. The Rent Control Ordinance has been working well for nine years. DO NOT mess with it ! Thank you for your consideration in this. Jon Lomax Creekside #37 RECEIVED AUG 1 3 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL uul ill 177! 10:17 GF77yb7I-i j4 LAW OFFICES _ PAGE 02 MEETIN DATE - /9-9 AGENDA =_ DAv>a sr. JoHN ITEM # AMMY AT LAW 3 L43T PI UMOA,3urM 210 SANTA BARBARA,CALIFORNIA 93101 (403)%3-7722•(OW)%5-1016 FAX CM)%5-7134 sem(:d_ 0euo,com August I1, 1997 Via FAX and mail Mayor Allen Settle City Council Fn OUNCIL CDD DIR City of San Luis Obis O O FIN DIR AO O FIRE CHIEF 990 Palm Street TTORNEY O PIN DIR San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ERVORIG O POLICE CHF C�ITTFJW O REC DIR l7 UTIL DIR Attention: Bonnie L. Gawf, City Clerk � oPtt18DIR RC: Food_¢- rea !w A-aA� TK Development Project Tract 2202 - South Higuera Street Leh Turn Out City Council Agenda of August 19, 1997 Request for Continuance Dear Mayor Settle and Honorable City Council Members: On behalf of Applicant, TK Development, I request a continuance of the referenced agenda item from August 19, 1997' to September 2, 1997. I was just informed that Council Member, Dave Romero, will be on vacation on August 19, 1997. Applicant respectfully requests that this matter be continued to the first Meeting in September so that it may be heard by the full Council. Res fly submitted, David St. John DSJ:mt C Vic Montgomery, RRM Design Group client E D 997 LERK WONG AGENDA NCIL ❑ CDD DIR DATE �. ITEM # TT ❑ FIN DIR ❑ AGAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Ell � RNEY [3 PW DIR LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF C3 MGMT TEAM 0 REC DIR p ❑ UTIL DIR E3 PERS DIR RE EIVED C,u�! 7, 1 ,?7 7 AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL ej �,G tin2� 3 r'O O r 7 7i 7n� AAA- 3 spa IEETING AGENDA �O�CIL C3CDD DIR[3 FIN DIR DATE. -19-1ITEM # ❑ ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF &<�fRA)RNEY ❑ PW DIR 0-fLERKJORIG ❑ POLICE CHF O MGMT TEAM p REC DIR p ❑ UTILDIR 3960 S. Eiguera St. Sp. 67 O PERS DIR San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Honorable City Nlayor & Council Members : I 1-dsb to etIlDhasize the reasons for deleting the 1110%a rent increase on resale" as is allowed in t1l.e City Rent Stabilization Ordinance. 1. The sale of a mobile home does not involve any expense or labor by the park owner_ The transaction is between V e home owner and the buyer_ 1,1111S, there is no valid reason for the pari: owner to raise the rent ,. on the space the mobile home "sits" on. 2. The park outiner is not being "cut out" of keeping pace with inflation. Annual C.P.I. adjustment is factored in rental agreements , thus allowing annual iacreaseS in rent. Thus permitting what could be re- ferred to as "double dipping", 3. The ensuing scenarios have become all too frequent. the higf,•er rent inequities (107c more than the neighbors) kills the hotnes 's sale. Though the home may no longer be occupied, the owner must continue to pay space rent. So the owner ends up selling to the par$.. ot,,ner at a greatly reduced price or just by walking away fron: it_ Not many ca:: afford this. Of these people, riany are widows on very limited income. I oppose the "10% rental increase on resale" aand hope you will vote at the Aug. 19th Council meeting to delete it from the rent ordinance.. Thank you for ,our attention and hoped for concern. Yours tru ,. Anita J,� Richardou Garcia E EIVED1 1 1997v e%A1 W i 14EETING AGENDA .ATE - 9 ITEM#-- CIL .. ,;;,I rORNEY 13 FIRE CHIEF �LERWORIG 13 13 PO DIR August H, 1997 MGMT TEA POLICE CHF ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Reference: Chapter 5.44 of the Municipal Code Gentlemen: This letter addresses a component of the Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Specifically Section 5.44.060, Paragraph C., permitting an in- crease of up to 10 percent in space rent upon change of ownership. This pro- vision is arbitrary and is not supported by logic or economic reality. Further reference is made to the sentence which permits an increase in space rent resulting from a vacating of the space. The ordinance states that such increase shall be based upon "fair market value in the community". No pro- vision is made for a mechanism which identifies "fair market value". Paragraph C., as delineated in the ordinance, needs to be eliminated or re- placed by a provision which permits adjustment in space rents, both upward and downward, based upon a valid economic index. Only such a provision for adjusting space rents would be equitable to both mobilehome park tenants and park owners. Respectfully yours, � r Louis J. Shuster RECEIVED 1032 Murl Drive AUG 1 1 1997 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SLO CITY COUNCIL '1EETING Q p.� AGENDA NCIL ❑ CDD DIR LATE _19� / ITEM # ❑ FIN DIR O ❑ FIRE CHIEF RNEY ❑ PW DIR RKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF T TEA ❑ REC DIR [13: ❑ UTIL DIR 17 PERS DIR August 8, 1997 City Council Members 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear City Council Members: We respectfully request that you delete the 10%increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, 4 ua.". �ht,a /FBF EAUG1 1 CIL M«t 11vu AGENDA `ATE�ITEM#!.� IL ❑ CDD DIR EAO ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF NEY ❑ PW DIR IORIG ❑ POLICE CHF TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR August 8, 1997 City Council Members 990 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear City Council Members: We respectfully request that you delete the 10% increase on space rent of mobile homes at the time of resale. Fixed incomes make it extremely difficult to adjust to the unreasonable escalating rents. Sincerely, 1 RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1997 SLO CITY COUNCIL "cTING AGENDA 4TE -1t-97ITEM # IL ❑ CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR 0 R Nole ❑ FIRE CHIEF f iORNEY ❑ PW DIR ❑ CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR O ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR 8 -3 -'? 7 ova RECEIVED AUG 1 1 1997 a SLO CITY COUNCIL IYIC[.III1U AUtNUA •.�� ITE Z-10-17 ITEM # C CIL 0 CDD DIR 0 FIN DIR 0 FIRE CHIEF A'i iORNEY 0 PW DIR ❑ CLERIQORI4 0 POLICE CHF ❑ L;GMT TEAll 0 RED DIR Eg3 0 UTIL DIR 17 PERS DIR ch 9,3 'f a-jlr ,erg ALA&La 4 Oi i VZJ. 12, RECEIVED sir MY 6th r~� ANTHONY C. RODRIGUEZ ATTORNEY AT LAW 1300 CLAY STREET SUITE 600 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA 94612 TELEPHONE (510) 464-8022 VIA FACSIMILIE AND VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS (805) 781-7109 June 24, 1997 Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk San Luis Obispo City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 RECEivL� JUN 2'A+oo-7 SLO CITY CLERK Re: OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RENT ADJUSTMENT/ SAN LUIS OBISPO RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE SECTION 5.44.070 Dear Ms. Gawf, This office represents the owners of Creekside Mobilehome Community, which is located at 3960 South Higuera Street in San Luis Obispo. I have been retained to prepare an opposition to the application for rent adjustment that was apparently filed with the City Clerk's office by several tenants at the park on May 30, 1997. The parkowners object to the tenants' application for each of the following reasons. 1.) Statute of Limitations: The statute of limitations for violation of an ordinance is one year, if the claim involves a penalty or a forfeiture. See Code of Civil Procedure Section 340 (1). If the claim does not involve a penalty or a forfeiture, the statute of limitations for violation of an ordinance is three years. See Code of Civil Procedure Section 338 (a). In this case, the tenants' complaint is based on an alleged error in their October 31, 1993 rent increase notices. However, the tenants' petition was not filed until May 30, 1997, some three years and seven months after the allegedly defective notices. Therefore, regardless of whether the one year or the three statute of limitations applies, the tenants' claims are time barred. 2.) Failure To Comply With Ordinance: Pursuant to Section 5.44.070 (A) of the City's rent control ordinance an application must contain certain information, including all of the following: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk June 24, 1997 Page 2 a.) The amount of the requested rent adjustment for each space at the park and the reasons for the adjustment; b.) A statement indicating how the parkowner was served with the application; c.) A statement designating the name of the tenants' representative and the names and addresses of tenants from at least 51 % of the affected spaces at the park; and d.) A statement indicating that if an objection is not filed within 30 days the application will be "automatically granted". In this case, the tenants' petition does not set forth the amount of the requested rent adjustment for each space or give any explanation as to how that adjustment should be calculated. In addition, the tenants' petition does not indicate how that the parkowners were served or who the tenant representative will be. Moreover, the tenants' petition does not indicate that 51 % of the affected tenants have signed the petition, or that the failure to file an objection will result in the petition being "automatically granted". Because the tenants' petition does not comply with the above requirements of the City's ordinance, the tenants' petition should be rejected for these reasons as well. 3.) The City Has No Jurisdiction To Decide Dilutes Under State Law. It is well settled that local rent control boards do not have the authority to resolve disputes arising under the California Mobilehome Residency Law. Mobilehome West Homeowners' Assn. v. Escondido Mobilehome West, (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 32, 46-47. In this case, the tenants apparently claim that the parkowners' lease violates Civil Code Section 798.18 (b). Before seeking an adjustment in rent from the City's hearing officer under such a theory the tenants must first establish in court that Civil Code Section 798.18 (b) has in fact been violated. Because the City has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving Civil Code Section 798.18 (b), the tenants' petition must be rejected on this basis as well. 4.) State Law Does Not Prohibit "Rent" Increases Based On Increased Opgrating Expenses: It is well settled that parkowners can "pass through" increased operating expenses to their tenants, provided those "pass throughs" are labeled rent. As stated by the Court in Robinson v. City of Yucaipa_,(1994) 28 Cal. App 4th 1506,1514-1517: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk June 24, 1997 Page 3 "Residents contend that any ordinance that permits rent to be fragmented into a number of separate assessments is void as contrary to public policy... So long as an increase is a rent increase, rather that a separate fee or assessment, it is permissible under the Mobilehome Residency Law. The increase here, under the ordinance, was a rent increase and therefore permissible. The City's ordinance provides for a rent increase adjustment rather than for an impermissible assessment. Thus, we conclude the residents are mistaken in their interpretation of the law" In this case, the tenants apparently argue that the "pass throughs" included in their 1993 rent increase notices somehow violate state law. Because the tenants' claims are contrary to state law on this subject, the tenants' petition must be rejected for this reason as well. 5.) Attorneys Fees and Costs: In any action involving the California Mobilehome Residency Law the losing party must reimburse the prevailing party for its attorneys fees. See Civil Code Section 798.85. In this case, the tenants claim that the parkowners rents somehow violate Civil Code Sections 798.18 and 798.31. If the parkowners are required to take legal action to rebut the tenants' claims, the parkowners will be entitled to recover their attorneys fees from the tenants. Because the tenants' petition is doomed to failure the City should reject that petition out of hand, before any additional attorneys fees are incurred. This is especially true because several of the petitioning tenants apparently were not advised of their potential liability for the parkowners' attorneys fees when they signed the petition, and therefore may be exposed to claims in amounts far greater that the amounts they are purportedly attempting to recover. 6.) Conclusion: The tenants' claims are based on the parkowners' October 31, 1993 rent increase notices, and are therefore barred by the statute of limitations. However, even if the tenants claims were not time barred, the City has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising under Civil Code Sections 798.18 and 798.31. Moreover, even if the City could adjudicate such disputes, there is nothing illegal about including "pass throughs" in the tenants' rent. Finally, even if such "pass throughs" were illegal, the tenants have failed to comply with the terms of the City's ordinance, including failing to calculate the amount of the alleged rent overcharge for each space at the park. Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk June 24, 1997 Page 4 In short, the tenants' petition is both procedurally defective and substantively without merit. Accordingly, the tenants' petition must be rejected before any more resources are expended on this matter. Very truly yours, 04,4c 01 J6 Anthony C . Rodriguez cc: Jeff Jorgensen, Esq. Ed Evans Paul Dylewski Robert Souther 50/Creekside/cilyderk P1 i-'_ Robert Souther 3960 South Higuera St., Spc. 77 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 August 11, 1997 Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk San Luis Obispo City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RECEIVED AUG 1 2 1997 SLO CITY ."ILERK Re: Response to letter of opposition to application for rent adjustment �'y Anthony C. Rodriguez, Attorney at Law dated June 24, 1997 Dear Ms. Gawf: Statue of Limitations: This appears to be an admission of wrongdoing. However, consider that from the time of initiation to the present the fault remains in non-compliance with the Ordinance 5:44:060 A and D, as if the Ordinance does not exist. Further, if the Statue of Limitations does apply, how is it that Management can go back six years to find an alleged error and recalculate pass-thrus (see attached a) ' Failure to Comply with Ordinance: The petition did not contain exact amounts for adjustment because that would be a matter for discussion as I do not know the exact number of spaces involved. That could not be given to me by the office tho they should have it readily available. I supplied to the City all the information necessary in support of the petition to the best of my ability. If we are going to quibble over the crossing of is and the doting of i's, then the honesty of the issue is lost into the morass of legalize, which in the latter of the opposition letter says the City cannot consider state law (part 3); that intersecting case law parallels this situation (part 4•); and then, as usual, the threat of legal action causing us harm and humiliation (part 5). That is tacky, at best! To summarize, an action was taken in disregard for the Ordinance. This was not caught by the City, which does not speak well for the Administration of the Ordinance. The inequity continues, year after year! If the park owner is honest, he will recognize the error made and reconcile the problem. If not, then the Tenants and the City are then aware of the inequities of the Ordinance, particularly with its Administration, in order to strengthen protection for your constituents. Sincerely, cc: Ron Settle, Mayor Jeff Jorgensen, Esq. Ed Evans c/o Paul Dylewski cy.J�lJ C�IZ �Q O✓v` d C crn cJ��i uvta AIk) Q- JCIZ C-CrYYVW\-�CCA.-Ud �,°-�" wJ � �! �/11� �� v�� -vim / � W � •C� a-0 ��n ca-�1-�.s�r,r`rs. c� d Ccsn CsUvvvs. T c c,/ cC- Li - Wes.. LJ/t, UL cLca �� CfU1J. cTbAi- jj-,IA, ci -,P- cLU CrL C 1 � r 5. 4JAJ C� u o wv, r ouv� c( cI cc� e,. ��} � ram. 7 � {� rG� fYY1 C.0 �,(�t,t PJa 00 C� ilk&A d au f JA CW JA a c-L • JAI C t,(7 cc e.e U-,C� CU �.�.�. �c�ric�, cam. cl �9�-�.,n.c� �-�-�,c�-�,.� .� can cs•�•�,w� cl_. v �� 0- 8� CQ CA -a C cur. G crn d� CL � V) cnti `�c ,l'�- a - J-ryv� C" °-� �1� 5 L4 U -z s Creekide Moklehome Community 3960 S- hiquera Slreel San Luis Ck,po, California 93401 REVISED NINETY DAY NOTICE OF RENT INCREASE December 14, 1996 Dear Barry Kaufman, Space # 95 This letter serves as a revision of your Ninety Day Notice of Rent Increase dated October 1, 1996. The Creekside lease provides for rent adjustments annually on January 1st. This letter is notice of your adjustment. From August, 1995 to August, 1996 the Consumer Price Index increased from 456.3 to 464.9 representing a 1.9% increase. Your base rent will be increased by $5.46 to $292.67 and will be effective January 1, 1997 and remain the same through December 31, 1997. The lease provides for additional rent for costs (also adjusted for inflation) related directly to the park. These costs include utilities, government services and fees, property taxes and uninsured losses. All increases and decreases have been adjusted for the CPI increase of 1.9%. ♦ Park use of gas decreased $.53 per month per space resulting in a decrease in additional rent for gas from $1.68 to $1.15. However, an audit of prior year pass -through computations has uncovered an error in 1990 (for 1991) of $.37 that has gone uncharged for several years. As a result, this $.37 will be added back this year (but not for any previous year) for an overall decrease of $.16 making additional rent for gas $1.52. ♦ Park use of electricity decreased $.13 per month per space resulting in a decrease in additional rent for electricity from $1.63 to $1.50. ♦ Park use of water increased $1.07 per month per space resulting in an increase in additional rent for water from $8.61 to $9.68. ♦ The cost for County dump fees increased_ 190i, over last year resultinv, in a $.50 increase in additional rent from $2.01 to $2.51. - - ♦ Effective January Vt San Luis Garbage began billing the park on a monthly basis -mac to last year's two- year invoice there was a substantial decrease in the cost of garbage fees (due to only 8 months of charges). Your additional rent for garbage will be decreased $.61 from $.20 to a net decrease of ($0.41). ♦ City, County and State governmental fees increased slightly this year. Your additional rent will be decreased $.01 from $.46 to $.45. ♦ The additional rent for property taxes will again remain $1.02. ♦ The lease provides for recovery of Uninsured Losses "not actually compensated byinsurance and not caused by the toi ous conduct ofPark... " Due to the extensive flood damage to the creek and adjacent park area necessary repairs resulted in expenditures of $92,539.14. The lease provides that the `Park will be responsible for the deductible portion ofall insured losses or the first S°fo or $Zd, OW ofa if uninsured losses, whicheverisgreater. " This results to a total of $72,539.14 to be allocated over a 15 year period. The lease . also provides for "the cost of financing shall also be considered an "uninsured loss.." however, this cost has not been included in the total. Your prorata increase in additional rent is $1.87 per month. However, pursuant to the letter to the Creekside Home Owners Association dated December 4, 1996 this charge will be deferred to a later date. F rr p- Your additional rent effective January 1, 1991 of ILcLz7 will be listed separately on your rent statement and is not subject to future CPI increases. The above stated items reflect actual cost increases and do ngr t include utilities and; • �r other charges billed directly to you. Documentation for the additional rent costs is available at the park office. This notice applies to all residents under the Creekside Lease Agreement. Sincerely, Creekside Mobilebome Community