The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-16-2017 - GordonCOUNCIL MEETING:- NO.: �,,,�'��' ITEM From: Kirby Gordon[ Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 1:15 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.o> Subject: February 16 Rental Inspection Meeting Kirby K. Gordon Attorney at Law #0061313 Pismo Beach, CA. We have a new email address. Please update your contact information. This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for the confidential use of the person(s) names above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete/destroy the original. Any reader other than the intended recipient is hereby notified that any review dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. J February 13, 2017 San Luis Obispo Council cIM0ICOUnc,l1;a 1locitV.01'Lr The Gordon Law Firm Professional Set -vice Since 1974 Kirby K. Gordon Attorney at Law #061313 Pismo Beach, CA ( RE: February 16 Rental Inspection Meeting My Clients: San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owner's Association, (SLOPBOA) Steve Barasch and Christopher Hay, (R-3 Zoned Property Owners) Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the City Council: I represent the SLOPBOA and the above individual property owners and I am writing to you to request that you repeal the Ordinance due to the numerous conflicts and inconsistencies between this Ordinance and Ordinance 1472, Our position is that the Ordinance as originally noticed and approved by the San Luis Obispo City council on or about May 19, 2015 only applies to rentals in the City's R-1 and R-2 zone, and that properties zoned R-3 and R-4 (multi -family) are excluded as they are actually covered by Ordinance NO. 1472 (2005 Series Ordinance) No. 1616 is consistent throughout in referring to properties in R-1 and R-2 zones commencing with the Recital section. "Whereas, over the past several years, the City has experienced an increased level of complaints regarding the existence of substandard rental housing within the R-1 and R-2 zones; and (emphasis added) Whereas... 80% of which involve substandard, overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of single family and duplex unit in the R-1 and R-2 Zone districts; and" (emphasis added) Whereas, the City Council finds that rental dwelling units within the R-1 and R-2 zone districts often lack proactive property management and other similar devices typically found in multi -family developments within the R-3 and R-4 zones... "Whereas, the City Council finds that there is a need for a proactive and systematic program to inspect rental housing units within the R-1 and R-2 zone districts..." (emphasis added) The basic rules of statutory interpretation state that the "fundamental task is to ascertain the Legislature's intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute". Smith v. Superior Court 2006 39 Cal 4" 77,83. The starting point is the plain language of the statute itself. Hunt v. Superior Court 1999 21 Cal 4t" 984, 1000. One only has to look at the Recitals above to determine that the statute applies to rental housing units in the R-1 and R-2 zones. The purpose of the statute is clearly enunciated. Words are always given their ordinary and usual meaning and should be read in the context of the purpose of the statute (IBID-Hund). "words and phrases given a particular meaning in one part of the statute must be given the same meaning in other parts of the statue". Brigs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal 41" 1106, 117. If the language is unambiguous the governing body is presumed to have meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs. Hunt, Supra 21 Cal 4t" at P. 1000. The fact that the statute applies to rentals in the R- I and R-2 zones (also referred to as the "zone districts") is unambiguous. The statute makes reference to the R-3 and R-4 zones and states that the properties in these zones generally have..." proactive property management and other similar devices..." Therefore, there is no need to include those properties in the R-3 and R-4 zones in this statute as they already are governed by the 2005 Ordinance. Pursuant to the legal maxim "expression unis est exclusion alterius:" The expression of some things in a statute necessarily means the exclusion of other things not expressed. Gikas v. Zolin (1993) 6 Cal 4t" 841, 852. Staff cannot now unilaterally create an interpretation that extends the plain meaning of the statute to rentals in the R-3 and R-4 zones by suggesting that there use and/or building code classification is similar to those uses in the R-1 and R-2 zones and consequently that they should also be subject to the rental inspection ordinance. In Cummings, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 36 Cal 4" 478, 487. The Court stated that "The words of a statute (must be construed) in context... harmonizing the various parts of an enactment by considering the provisions at issue in the context of the statutory framework as a whole." When you look at both the 2015 ordinance and the 2005 ordinance you can readily confine that they are complementary, but mutually exclusive in their subject matter. The 2015 Ordinance only applies to rentals in the R-1 and R-2 zones and the 2005 Ordinance only applies to the rental properties in the multi -family R- 3 and R-4 zones. However, City Staff has expanded their interpretation to include rentals in all zones. Due to the City Staff's misinterpretation of the plain language of the Ordinance and their overreaching it is in the best interests of the City to repeal Ordinance No. 1616 (2015 Series). Sincerely yours, Kirby K. Gordon Attorney at Law KKG/j c Cc: Leslie Halls, San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owner's Association Stephen Barasch, San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owner's Association Christopher Hay, Property Owner