Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1980-12-16; City Council; 6410-1; Mobile Home Rents
[r t_ITY OF CAPE,313AD (( "+BILL NO. aopt. lie -ad DATE: December 16, 1980 City F.tty. DEPARTMENT: City Manager City Mgr. i tiub E t: r __ MOBILE HOME RENTS Statement of the Matter ; On October 28, 1980 Council adopted an urgency ordinance declaring a moratorium on rental increases on mobile home spaces for 60•days. Council also directed that a negotiating committee be formed within each park and that the parties attempt to reach agreement by January 1, 1981. In Addition, Council directed that City Attorney prepare an ordinance to regulate mobile home rents. On December 2, 1980 Council moved to place the proposed ordinance on the December 16, 1980 agenda. All parties have received copies of the ordinance. t PROGRESS TO DATE s 1. Rancho Carlsbad. Negotiating committee and owners have entered into a one year agreement which provides for arbitration. 2. Lakeshore Gardens. Negotiations have not occurred because owner has not met with residents. Owner unwilling to enter into.agreement with residents. I 3. Lanika�/Solamar. Both owners have indicated a willingness to enter into an agree- { ment similar to Rancho Carlsbad. All park owners are opposed to extending the moratorium or adopting a regulatory ordinance. Most mobile home owners (residents) seem to prefer -extending the mora- torium while a committee works out details of a regulatory ordinance. } Park owners wish to raise tents January 1, 1981 between 6% and 13%. The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce -and the Realty Board are opposed to any rent regulation. ; THE REGULATORY ISSUE The main arguments against regulation are: 1. There is insufficient evidence of hardship or general community benefit to justify legislative intervention. 2. Rent regulation will precipitate litigation. 3. Rent regulation will create administrative and political burdens for the city. 4. Rent regulation will discourage new investment in housing construction. 5. There is an adeauate supply of mobile home units in North County available for sale at this time (86 units for sale in Carlsbad, 4,f)00 units under construction in North County). h L �k . .oft%t t'* Maint.arguments against regulation (cont'd) 6. Mobile home residents in Carlsbad do not qualify under federal guidelines as low income families (2 person household must receive less than $1,07Q monthly to qualify under HUD guidelines). 7. The federal government may withhold federal funds from cities with rent control ordinances. Arguments favoring rent regulation include: 1. Mobile home owners are "captives" to the park owner in that they cannot readily relocat, without excessive cost. 2. Mobile home owners under present law do not receive fair treatment in the determination of rental levels. 3. Many cities in California are moving into mobile home rent regulation. 4. Recent court decisions support local rent control ordinances even where financial hardship is not an issue (City of Clovis). S. There is a limited supply of vacant spaces in mobile home parks in Carlsbad (6 vacant out O+f 1i41 spaces) and no new parks proposed. 6. Proposed rent increases are unreasonable and should not be based on cost of living raises. ALTERNATIVES Based on testimony offered at the hearing, Council may wish to consider the following alternatives: 1. Do nothing. Moratorium will expire December 28, 1980. Rent increases could go into effect January 1, 1981. 2. Extend moratorium. Continue negotiation of rents. Continue to review ordinance. 3. Modify moratorium. Revise ordinance to provide that moratorium is lifted when owners and residents enter into agreement on how to handle rental increases. Rancho Carlsbad would be immediately free of moratorium. 4. Adopt regulatory ordinance. if this is done it will take 45 days to become effective. Extension of moratorium may be desired. Commitments from mobile home owners or association may be desirable to cover costs of litigation. -2- t I 4 Exhibits 1. Housing Report dated 12-11-80 2. Mobile Home Park Rents Ordinance 3. Moratorium Ordinance 4. Rancho Carlsbad letter and agreement 5. Chamber of Commerce letter 6. Solamar Mobile Estates letter 7. Carlsbad Board of Realtors letter 8. Birtcher Pacific - Lakeshore Gardens RECOMMENDATION If Council desires to regulate rents in mobile home parks, it is recommended that the arbi%�ration approach be selected and that the moratorium be continued until the ordinance is adopted. It is further recommended that City ask G.S.M.O.L. and mobile home owners"associations to undertake legal defense if ordinance is litigated. If Council prefers the voluntary approach, it is recommended that the moratorium be extended for an additional 60 days'or t until written agreements are entered into within each park (the Rancho Carlsbad approach). -3- 1 X AGENDA BILL NO. 6410 - Supplement #1 - ACTION SHEET Council Action: 12-16-80 Council lifted the moratorium in those parks which have a signed agreement (Solamar and Lanakai), or a park where those objecting to the increase to not exceed 50% . Council directed that the moratorium remain in effect on those parks where a dispute exists, and that the rents remain frozen at the current 'rate. Theimoratorium is to continue for 60 days, and when the rent increase has been agreed upon, it shall be retroactive to January 1, 1981. Council adopted Ordinance No. 9572, as reworded by the City Attorney, to implement their motions. Council found there to be no disputes in Lanakai and Solamar Parks. i Council directed staff to continue to gather and review appropriate material as may be available for future consideration of the feasibility of a regulatory ordinance. 4 I Fwrice. ,` f k MEMORANDUM t. DATE: December 11, 1980 TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: Jack E. Henthorn, Housing and Redevelopment Directo k 't SUBJECT: MOBILEHOME PARK ANALYSIS: h `r On October 22, 1980, the staff of the Housing and Redevelopment Department ' prepared a report in response to a request from the City Manager's Office to survey the availability of mobilehome living units in the Carlsbad and North County housing markets. This is an update of that report. RENT CONTROL HISTORY Historically, the courts have generally agreed that rent control is warranted if the following conditions are met: 1. A verifiable housing shortage exists in all forms of housing. 2. This shortage has resulted in landlords charging exorbitant rents. 3, Exorbitant rents, have resulted in a substantial detrimental economic impact on residents. In a benchmark case (Birkenfeld) the California Supreme Court held that rent { controls are,wi"thin a city's police power and may be imposed if a sufficient factual basis exists to suPI) such controls as,a rational curative measure. ; The main -factual basis involved was the existence of a housing shortage and the adverse effects of the exploitation of such shortage by the charging of exorbitant rents on poor people and elderly. The primary "consititutionalt° fact upon which the necessity and validity of rent controls depend is the actual existence of a housing shortage. 1. HOUSING AVAILABILITY ANALYSIS: Total City Population 35,761 Mobilehome Tenant Population 2,090 Percent of City Population 5.8% Total Number of Housing Units 14,400 Number of Mobilehome Spaces 1,141 Percent of Total 7.1% Vacancy Rate for all Housing 9% Vacancy Rate for Mobilehomes .2% A Avaitability of Mobilehomes: t. In the previous report we indicated a vacancy rate of .2% for mobilehomes in Carlsbad. This figure reflects 6 vacant spaces that are available at Rancho Carlsbad. Eighty mobilehomes are presently on the market in Carlsbad. This indicates that 7.5% of the total spaces are available for occupancy to a prospective buyer. Mobilehome park residents -have the alternative of selling their coaches for a price which equals or exceeds their investment and finding other forms of alternative housing. E Breakdown by Mobilehome Park Mobilehome Park Spaces Population Units on Availability ` Market Rate M Rancho�Carlsbad 504 1,000 54 plus 6 empty spaces 12 Lakeshore Gardens 382 608 17 4.5- Solamar 109, 160 4 3.7 Lanikai Lane 146 250 _ 5 3.4' 1;141 2,090 86 7. 5 % 7, Increasing Supply of Mobilehome Spaces in North County i A telephone survey of planning departments in North County indicates that about 4,000 units are now in various stages of development: Escondido - 1,500 units s Escondido - 700 units t Vista - 150 unit;: Escondido - 150 units Oceanside - 450 units TOTAL 2,915 units 3 R-1 Mobilehome Zoning Projection County unincorporated area - 1,000 units 1st year (1981) # incorporated area - no estimate ,t 2. RENT ANALYSIS• The City of. Carlsbad has five mobilehome parks. Mobilehome space rental ' in Carlsbad vaiies from park to park. The average rental range in Carlsbad is between $194-261 per month. This includes a low of $145 and high of $405. J Due to high cost of transportation, relocation of coaches is not common; j sales are normally "in park". Mobilehome coaches are showing appreciation rates parallel to those of conventional housing in the same area. The three largest parks in Carlsbad are Rancho Carlsbad, Lakeshore Gardens, and Lanakai Lane. Each park exhibits a marked difference in rates due to -2- ; location, amenities, service, etc. Generally, rates in Carlsbad are higher than .other areas due to climate, proximity to the Pacific Ocean, community ambience, access to shopping, and the existence of high quality parks. Each park offers a variety of rates with variation due to size of lot, distance from facilities, lakefront location et al. At a deluxe park like Rancho Carlsbad, space rental varies from $305 to $405. The rates include water, trash pick-up, sewer fees, cable TV, facilities use and maintenance, plus'reduced rates at adjacent golf course. Rancho Carlsbad is highly landscaped with mature trees, green spaces, and lake complete with waterfalls. Facilities at Rancho Carlsbad include clubhouse complex with kitchen and billard room, library, swimming pool, crafts center and classroom, complete physical fitness room with sauna, lockers showers, indoor shuffle board center, therapy pool, and three acres for tenant gardening. At Lakeshore Gardens, space rental ranges from $160 to $210. Rates include water, trash pick-up, sewer fees, cable TV, facilities and maintenance. Lakeshore Gardens is landscpaed with many lakes and wide green spaces. It has a large fully-equiped with ample amenities. These include swimming pool, large recreation hall with kitchen, pool tables, card room, enclosed shuffle board courts, family care center, jaccuzzis, and barbecue facilities. Lanakai Lane rates range from $140 to $180. Rates cover trash and sewer only. This is a smaller park and does not boast the amenities of the other two, as reflected by lower rental rates. a nAn) increase for each mobilehome park has not exceeded the 3. DETRIMENTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT: Most issues of this nature deal with a population so financially destitute as to be unable to pay rents charged by landlords. Staff has been unable to verify that this case exists. In fact, liquidation of the substantial value in a mobilehome of the in the parks in question would permit the resident to seek alternative forms of housing. The public testimony from proponents of the ordinance should include income levels, savings, and other economic assets of the tenants. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development would define as low- income a two (2) person household that has an income of *$1,070 a month. The maximum housing outlay should be $250 a month. * Includes 10% of asset value plus all forms of income (pensions, s amenities, dividends, social security, interest, etc.) Historically, the imposition of rent control has resulted in certain disadvantages to the community. Among them are: - Discourages Housing Production - Lowers Housing Quality ; - Causes Inequities in the Housing Market - Long -Term Market Dislocations The Reagan transition team's Urban task force has unanimou*ly recommended that Federal funds be with held from communities having rent control. JEH:al -3- errs rm TABLE "A" J t, AVRRARF ?x TmrnPASF RFNTAT. RATES Housing C.P.I. Index RANCHO CARLSBAD LAKESHORE GARDENS LANAKAI LANE SOLAMAR 1977 7.7 63.0 12.0 -0- -0- -0- 1978 12.4 16.0 9.75 6.33 7.0 1979. ._ 22.6 11.5 8.75 6.33 7.0 1980 16.5 13.0 13.0 6.33 7.0 * No increase previous four years. I 1 1 3 ORDINANCE NO. 3124 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 5.32 TO REGULATE MOBILEHOME PARK RENTS. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Title 5 of the Carlsbad Municipal f 'Code is amended by the addition of Chapter 5.32 to read as follows: t CHAPTER 5.32 MOBILEHOME PARK RENT REGULATION 5.32.010 Purpose and intent. There is presently 1 within the City of Carlsbad and the surrounding areas, a shortage ! of spaces for the location of mobilehomes. Because of the snort- j age there is a low vacancy rate, and rents have been for several years and are presently in some parks rising rapidly and causing concern among a substantial number of Carlsbad residents. Because of the high cost of moving mobilehomes, the potential for damage, resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation { of mobilehomes, including permits, landscaping and site prepara- tion, the lack of alternative homesite- for mobilehome residents t and the substantial investment of mobilehome owners in such homes, t the City Council finds and declares it necessary to establish a means which, if followed, can provide protection to the owners and occupiers of mobilehomes from unreasonable rent increases while at the same time recognizing the need of mobilehome park owners to receive a reasonable return'ori their property and rent t, increases sufficient to cover the increased cost of repairs, maintenance, insurance, upkeep and additional amenities. The procedures contained herein are intended to enhance resolution of unreasonable increases in rents by making it advan- tageous for mobilehome owners and mobilehome park owners to establish a better understanding for each others positions through communication, hopefully resulting in an agreement on the amount of rent to be charged. However, if an agreement cannot be reached the City Council has determined it necessary and in the public interest to have the disagreement resolved by binding arbitration. 5.32'.020 Definitions. Words used in this chapter shall ' have the meaning ascribed to them in this section: (1) "Arbitration" means a process conducted in accordance with the California Arbitration provisions contained 4 in Section 1280, et seq. of the Califonnia Code of Civil Procedures. (2) "Arbitrator" means a certified arbitrator selected pursuant to this chapter on a case by case basis from a list ' furnished by the American Arbitration Association. (3) "Majority" means a si.mrle majority of a quorum of at least two-thirds of the residents of a park. f j (4) "Owner" means the owner, lessor, operator, manager i or designated agent of a park. (5) "Park" means a mobilehome park which rents spaces a for mobilehome dwelling units. (6) "Park Committee" means the Mobilehome Park Committee to be established in each mobilehome park in accordance with this chapter. -2- i (7,i "Resident`means dny person -entitled to occupy a c mobilehome dwelling unit pursuant to ownership thereof or a rental or lease arrangement with the owner of the subject dwelling unit. (8) "Rent" means the consideration, including any benefits or fees, in connection wits the use and occupancy of a mobilehome space in a park, or the transfer of a lease or rental agreement for park space, services and amenities, or subletting, f but exclusive of any amounts paid for the use of the mobilehome r dwelling unit. 3 5.32.030 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall only apply to a park which: ' t (1) Contains more than twenty-five spaces; and f (2) Where an association of residents has been formed, and a writ•:en notice has been filed by the association with the } f cwner containing: (1) the name and mailing address of the associa- tion; (2) the names and addresses of the association's officers; (3) the names and addresses of the persons authorized to represent 1 the association in dealings with the owner; and (4) certification t } that the membership of the association includes all residents of !� more than 50% of the spaces within the park. r 5.32.040 Rental information. Within thirty days after j notice to an owner by a residents' association of their existence, the owner must provide to association a current monthly rental rates and fees schedule showing the rent for each space within r the park, the schedule which was in effect one year preceding the i date of activation of the association and the date and amount of ' any increases in rent during the interim. ' -3- "N 5.32.050 Formation, of park committee. The owner and residents association of a park shall establish a park committee consisting of five members --two representatives of the owner, two representatives of the residents, and a fifth member to be elected by the other four members. Foar members shall constitute a quorum and any action of the park committee shall require an affirmative vote of not less than three members. 5.32.060 Advance.notice of rent increases. Not later than sixty calendar days before an increase in rent is to become applicable, an owner shall provide written notice thereof to the association and to the residents of the park. The notice shall provide for the indication by the residents of their acceptance or rejection of the proposed increase. 5.32'.070 Residents response to notice:. Within ten days of receipt of a notice pursuant to section 5.32.060, the residents shall reply to the owner indicating their acceptance or rejection of the proposed increase. The replys may be reviewed by the residents association. The owner shall notify the residents of the results. 5.32.080 Acceptance of increase. If a majority of the residents accept the proposed increase in rent, it will become effective nn the effective date designated by the owner on the advance notice of rent increase. 5.32.080 Rejection of increase. If a majority of the residents reject the proposed increase, the matter may be referred -4- 1W .. to the park committee by the owner or the residents' association. 5.32.090 Meeting of park committee. The park committee shall meet promptly to consider any proposed increase which is re- ferred to them and shall investigate, hold hearings and take any other reasonable steps necessary to resolve the matter. The committee shall establish their own rules and procedures. In making their decision, the committee shall be guided by the pur- poses and intent of this chapter. Upon request the owner shell make available to the committee such information and records concerning the operation of the park as are reasonably necessary to a determination of costs of operation and a reasonable return on the property. The committee shall render a decision within thirty-five days after the owner's advance notice of a rent increase. The committee shall promptly notify the residents of their decision and the reasons therefor. The owner and the residents association shall each be responsible for paying one- half of the costs of the committee. 5.32.100 Residents petition. Residents shall have ten days after notice of the decision of the park committee within which to file a petition for review. Upon a written petition of fifty per cent of the residents requesting review of a decision of the park committee the committee shall refer the matter to arbitration in accordance with this chapter. If a petition with the required number of signatures is not filed within the ten day period the decision of the park committee will become effective on the same date as designated by the park owners on the advance notice of rental increase. -5- 1 A 5.32.110 Owners request for arbitration. The owner may << within ten days of the committee's decision file a written request for arbitration with the committee. Upon receipt of such request the committee shall refer the matter to arbitration in accordance with this chapter. 5.32.120 Initiation of arbitration. Upon receipt of a petition pursuant to Section 5.32.100 or an owner's request pursuant to section 5.32.110, the committee shall immediately notify the other party, take steps to select an arbitrator, and do anything else required to secure a speedy resolution of the arbitration. The committee may require the owner and the residents association to each deposit fifty per cent of the estimated cost of arbitration. 5.32.130 Arbitration. The arbitrator shall determine L the rights of the parties in accordance with the law, including this chapter. The award shall be subject to review as to the { ' arbitrator's application of the law by any court having jurisdic= 9 � tion of the matter, whether or not any mistake of the law shall Appear upon the face of the award. As to all questions of fact, f however, the determination of the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be binding upon all parties and shall be deemed final and conclusive. Each party shall be entitled to written findings of fact and, conclusions of law as to all issued determined by the award. Subject to the above limitations and to Section 5.32.180, the award granted by the arbitrator shall be binding upon all parties to the arbitration. -6- . - - 4r — 5.32.140 Venue. For the purpose of litigation or ti arbitration, venue shall lie in the North County Judicial n District, County of San Diego, State of California, or, if such venue cannot be exercised, in the Federal or State Court nearest to the North County Judicial District, County of San F Diego. i. 5.32.150' Standards for arbitration. The arbitrator shall give due consideration to the purposes and intent of this �! chapter in reaching a decision. In evaluating the rent increase proposed by the owner, the arbitrator shall also consider -in- creased costs to the owner attributable to increases in utility ,1 rates and property taxes, insurance, advertising, gover.nnental assessments, cost -of -living increases attributable to incidental services, normal repair and maintenance, capital improvements, i upgrading and addition of amenities or services as well as fair J I rate of return on the property. i :i 5.32.160 Arbitrator's decision. The arbitrator shall make &final decision within ten days after the conclu- sion of the hearing and notify the committee. The arbitrator may require the owner to: (1) Reduce the rent to a rate as determined by the arbitrator; (2) Continue the rent as it existed prior to the notice of increase; (3) Increase the rent to a rate set by the arbitrator, or to the rate requested by the owner. -7- t i Any rent increases which have been collected by an owner, pursuant t to an increase which is the subject of a resident's petition for arbitration and which is later determined by the arbitrator to have been excessive, shall be either returned to the tenants or credited to future rental charges. The committee shall promptly notify the residents of the arbitrator's decision. 5.32.170 Costs. The costs of arbitration shall be paid one-half by the owner and one-half by the residents' association. The deposit collected by the committee shall be used to pay the costs. Any excess shall be refunded. Any deficit shall be paid in equal shares by the owner and the resi- dents' association. 5.32.180 Individual Resident's rights Residents shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of residents' associations formed pursuant to the Provisions of this chapter, or to refuse to form, join in or participate in the activities of such associations. Residents shall also have the right to negotiate individually and directly with the owner, and to establish the terms and conditions of their tenancies, including rent, by separate agreement with the owner, which shall supercede the terms and conditions of any negotiated agreement between association and the owner, any decision of the park committee and any decision of the arbitrator. An owner shall not discriminate against any resident for an exercise of the rights established by this chapter, or coerce any resident with respect to the exercise of such rights. -8- L r. (a) (b) (c) (d) r 5.32.190 Enforcement. Violation of the provisions of this chapter shall not constitute a crime. A residents' association may at any time bring.an action in the courts of this State alleging a viola tion by an owner of any of the terms of this chapter, ' including, but not limited to, the existence of a level of rents in excess of that allowed and may seek a court order requiring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. A landlord may at any time file an action in the courts of this State alleging a violation by an association of ; i the provisions of this chapter, and may seek a court order directing compliance with the provisions hereof. The owner may not enforce a rent increase in excess of that allowed by this chapter. In the event an owner increases tents without complying with the provisions of this chapter, such an increase shall be deemed null and i void, residents shall not be required to pay such in- 3 crease except to the extent it is specifically estab- lished by an individual written contract between the ! resident and landlord, and any resident who is sought to be excluded from the park through an unlawful } t detainer action brought by the owner to enforce evic- tion, shall have a right to assert the invalidity of such increase as a defense to the unlawful detainer proceedings is failure of the resident to pay such increase. -9- , 4� L 5,32.200 Limitation on fees and assessments. A resident shall not be charged any fee for other than rent and reasonable charges for services actually rendered. A resident shall not be charged a security deposit nor a fee for entry, installation hookup, or landscaping, except as specifically permitted under Section 798.37 of the Civil Code, as a condi- tion of any tenancy. There shall be no imposition by the owner of any fees or assessments until such assessments or fees have been approved in writing by residents,represanting more than fifty per cent of the spaces within the park. 5.32.210 Retaliatory eviction. Notwithstanding Section 5.32.190 above, in any action brought to recover: posses- sion of a rental unit the court may consider as grounds for denial 1 an violation of any y provision of this chapter. Further the determination that the action was brought in retaliation for the 't exercise of any rights conferred by this chapter shall be grounds for denial. Any action brought within three months of the determ- ination of a petition filed with the park committee shall be presumed to be retaliatory: this presumption affects the burden of proof, and is rebuttable by the owner. 5.32.220 Severability. If any provision or clause of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circum- stance is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other chapter provisions or clauses or applications thereof -10- 1 r: which can be implemented without the invalid provision or clause or application, and to this end the provisions and clauses of this chapter are declared to be 'severable. ALTERNATIVE ORDINANCE WHICH EXTENDS THE MORATORIUM WITH AN EXCEPTION FOR PARKS WHICH HAVE REACHED AGREEMENT ON A PRIVATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE. u V ], ORDINANCE NO. 9572 2 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA EX- 3 TENDING THE MORATORIUM ON RENTAL INCREASES ON MOBILEHOME SPACES WITHIN THE CITY OF 4 CARLSBAD. 5 6 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, 7 hereby finds and determines as follows: 8 1. On October 28, 1980, the City Council adopted 9 Ordinance No. 9565 imposing a moratorium on rental increases 10 within the City of Carlsbad. 11 2. The problem which the City Council found to exist 0 12 and which necessitated Ordinance No. 9565 continues to exist in a 13 the City. g oZ< 14 3. The City Council is in the process of considering E3<LL 15 the adoption of an ordinance to deal with the problem. W z a 16 4. Pending the adoption of such an ordinance, there ZO�v -> a 17 is an urgent necessity to continue to temporarily stabilize the 18 situation. 19 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of ' 20 Carlsbad, California, does hereby ordain as follows: 21 SECTION 1: Ordinance No. 9565 declaring a moratorium 22 on rental increases on mobilehome spaces within the City of 23 Carlsbad, is hereby extended for a month period. This 24 moratorium shall automatically terminate if (1) the City Council 25 finds that the moratorium is no longer necessary, or (2) an 26 ordinance regulating mobilehome park rents in the City of 27 Carlsbad is adopted and becomes effective. 28 SECTION 2: The provisions of this ordinance shall not M U 1 appiy to a mobilehome park if the City Council finds that an 2 agreement for that park has been reached between the park owner 3 and the elected representatives of the park's mobilehome owners' 4 association on rent increases or which provides a procedure for 5 resolving disputes over rent increases. 6 SECTION 3: This ordinance is hereby declared to be 7 an emergency ordinance adopted as an urgency measure to protect 8 the public health, safety and welfare and shall take effect 9 immediately upon its adoption. The facts constituting the 10 emergency are set forth in Ordinance No. 9565 and above in 11 this ordinance. c 12 SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the a a13 adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a copy hereof to g o W z 14 be published as required by law. Z W S o�7 15� INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a m- a- LL , _ meeting W ` W z a 16 of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held zc-m > a 17 on the day of , 1980, by the following vote, 18 to wit: 19 AYES: 20 NOES: 21 ABSENT: + 22 23 24 RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor ATTEST: 25 3 1 26 27 ALETHA 7L. RAUTENKRANZ, City C er�k 48 (SEAL) i i 4 i 14 14 1` 2 3 4' 5i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 a 13 C¢ �a " 14 LL ? a S W 2 °'<L' 15 LL W Who 16 Z'Co � 17 a U 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ri ORDINANCE NO. AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON RENTAL INCREASES ON MOBILEHOME SPACES WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. On October 28, 1980, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 9565 imposing a moratorium on rental increases within the City of Carlsbad. 2. The problem which the City Council found to exist and which,necessitated Ordinance No. 9565 continues to exist in the City. 3. The City Council is in the process of considering the adoption of an ordinance to deal with the problem. 4. Pending the adoption of such an ordinance, there is an urgent necessity to continue to temporarily stabilize the situation. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 9565 declaring a moratorium on rental increases on mobilehome spaces within the City of Carlsbad, is hereby extended for a month period. This moratorium shall automatically terminate if (1) the City Council finds that the moratorium is no longer necessary, or (2) an ordinance regulating mobilehome park rents in the City of Carlsbad is adopted and becomes effective. SECTION 2: This ordinance is hereby declared to be zr l ti —A MIT 4 . 2 r i 3 { 4 i i 5 6 7 t 8 9 10 11 0 m 12 J CE $o'Z 13 -4 Z W 2 SUS0Q Y. W 15 W Zo V CCm 16 zo H �a a 17 U v 18 r 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 an emergency ordinance adopted as an urgency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare and shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The facts constituting the emergency are set forth in Ordinance No. 9565 and above in this ordinance. SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify -to the ,adoption of this ordinance and shall cause a copy hereof to be published as required by law. INTRODUCED, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a _ meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the day of , 1980, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: I ABSENT: ATTEST: ALETHA L. RAUTENMANZ (SEAL) RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor _?_ f 1� do , F4 '•i �jV b it 5200 EL CAMINO REAL ■ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 ■ (714) 438-0333 `"tea ;, ,��"�• December 10, 1980 The Hon. Ronald Packard Mayor of the City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Proposed Mobile Home Park Rent Control Ordinance Dear Mayor Packard: Thank you for your letter of December 3, 1980, and for the enclosed copy of the City Attorney's proposed ordinance for the regulation of mobile home park rents. I am pleased to inform you that the mobile home owners in Rancho Carlsbad and the Management of Rancho Carlsbad have reached an agreement for negotiating their differences in regards to appropriate rent levels. Enclosed please find a copy of that Agreement executed by the Park owners and the elected officials of the various mobile home owners' associations. Because the above -referenced Agreement has been reached, I have not taken the time to review the ordinance which you were kind enough to send to me. I am confident that the City Kttorney did an excellent job in drafting the proposed ordinance, but in the face of the Agreement which has been reached betwsen-the Management and the mobile home owners it is respectfully submitted that it will not be necessary to have any ordinance enacted by the City of Carlsbad. In fact, it was the purpose of entering into the enclosed Agreement to avoid the necessity of any City intervention by way of ordinance, morat_irium, or otherwise. 1 r ' December 10, 1980 The Hon.. Ronald Packard Mayor of the City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Y Page Two a In fact, the Agreement between the mobile home tenants and the Park Management is expressly conditioned on no action being taken on the part of the City of Carlsbad. In fact, both the tenants and Park owners a: would consider any such ordinance as a direct inter- ference with contractual relationships. It is the intention of the Management of this park t to cooperate in every way possible to persuade the y owners and tenants of the other mobile home parks in Carlsbad to adopt an agreement similar to the one reached at Rancho Carlsbad. Such an agreement would be reached between the parties on a voluntary basis without the necessity of City intervention. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you personally for your sincere efforts in assisting in the negotiations which led up to this Agreement. Kindest regards. Sincerely, k+ Ronald S. Schwab ; i t� if�f ;t '1 E� LETTER OF AGREEMENT This letter of agreement i3 between Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park Owners and Mobile Home Owners in Rancho Carlsbad, as represented by Rancho Carlsbad Civic Association and Rancho Carlsbad GSIMOL, Chapter 789. Whereas: there currently exists a dispute between Rancho Carlsbad Mobile home Park Owners and Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Owners relative to 1981 User -fees (Rents) for use of space, present servi^e and amenities of the Park; and Whereas: both the Park Owners and the Mobile Home Owners are in favor of a means of solving the dispute other than through Government regulations; and Whereas: the City of Carlsbad took action on October 28th, 1980 instructing Park Owners and Mobile Home Owners to get together through a Negotiating Committee; and establish an Arbitrator approach if necessary as a final solution; and Whereas: the Park Owners have indicated a desire and willingness to proceed with a Negotiating Committee; and Whereas: the Mobile Home -Owners through their representative organiza- tions - the Rancho Carlsbad Civic Association and Rancho Carlsbad GSMOL, Chapter 789, have indicated a desire to establish a Negotiation Committee; therefore it is agreed the following steps in procedure will be followed to resolve the dispute. NEGOTIATING PROCEDURE 1. Immediately following the Park Owners notice of increase in User - fees (Rents), the Mobile Home Owners will be polled for acceptance or rejec- tion, (For 1981 User -fees (Rents) this has been done). 2. Should a simple majority of the Mobile Home Owners by spaces cur- rently occupied reject the proposed increase in User -fee (Rents), there shall be formed within two (2) weeks a Negotiating Committee consisting of seven (7) members. Three members shall be selected by Park Owners, three selected by Mobile Home Owners and one (1) selected by the six. In addition, two -(2) non -voting, non -discussion alternates shall be selected by and for the Mobile Home Owners and two (2) for the Park Owners, to sit in all meetings and actively replace a Committee member only in case of absence of the -regular member. Should the six members decide unanimously that a swenth member is not needed, then the committee shall proceed with six members. 3. The Negotiating Committee shall meet at times and intervals sufficient to arrive at a mutually agreeable User -fee (Rents) within 20 days after for- mation of the Committee. The Negotiating Committee shall consider all evidence presented to it. The Mobile Home Owners and Park Owners shall be encouraged to present facts and testimony for the committee members to consider. These facts may be presented with the assistance of a spokesman or counsel. k 1t 4. A two -third (2/3) vote of the Negotiating Committee will be required to agree on a User -fee (Rents) to be presented to the Mobile Home Owners for acceptance. 5. After a User -fee (Rents) has been agreed by the Negotiating Committee, the Mobile Home Owners shall be polled for acceptance or rejection. A simple majority vote of the Mobile Home Owners by spaces (one space equals one vote) will be required to accept or reject. In the event the vote is to reject, then the procedure set forth in Paragraph 6, 7, & 8 below shall be followed. 6. Should the Negotiating Committee be unable to agree upon acceptable User -fee (Rents), the Mobile Home Owners by spaces (one space equals one vote), shall be polled for acceptance or rejection of the Park Owners proposal and if rejected by a simple majority, the dispute will be submitted to binding arbitration. The Arbitrator will be selected by the Negotiating Committee according to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The Arbitra- tor will be given 10 working days if possible after receipt of the case to arrive at his decision. The decision of the Arbitrator, will be final and binding upon both parties retroactive to January 1, 1981. The Arbitration hearing will be held and conducted according to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association and applicable California law. 7. Each party shall submit such evidence as they feel is necessary to support their respective positions in the dispute in determining if a rent increase is necessary or requ''red and if so, is it fair and equ:table to the Mobile Home Owners and will it provide the Park Owners sufficient funds to operate the Park, with -a just and reasonable return on his property. Suggested testimony furnished for his consideration may include but not be limited to, the services and amenities provided, the value of the property and capital improvements, taxes, operating expenses, the value of the Mobile Home Owners coaches, their increased costs in upkeep, including but not limited to increased costs in electricity and gas, etc. However, whenever any tesimony is submitted, the Arbitrator shall make the determination to include or exclude any testimony which he feels 1 is not germane and material to the dispute. " 8. The cost of the arbitration will be shared equally by the Park Owners and the Mobile Home Owners. t 9. This agreement is not intended to supersede or contradict the laws of the State of California generally or as they pertain specifically to mobile - home parks, mobilehome park rents, and otherwise, as they are now enacted or enacted in the future by the California State Legislature or the California State Constitution. Further, this agreement is specifically conditioned on the City of Carlsbad taking no action by way of ordinance or otherwise to direct influence or control directly or indirectly the rent levels in Mobilehome Parks in Carlsbad. Page Two of Three i N 3.. ' Date RANCHO CARLSBAD By Ronald S. Schwab, General Partner i Approved in Form and Content by Members of Negotiating RANCHOD Committee By David F. Dawes, General Partner ,j iX -R. S a n RANCHO CARLSBAD CAVIC -ASSOCIATION By Earle Collart, President l y I Carl Neisw nder RANCHO CARLSBAD G.S.M.O.L., Chapter 789 .F By R. A. Swanson, President ; ' k 1 i Y cc: Earle Collart R.A. Swanson David F. Dawes f Ronald S. Schwab Irving Rich Carl Neiswender s i { �i i Page Three of Three a t CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POST OFFICE BOX 1605 CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 -, (714} f29.5924 December 6, 1980 /r � 1 TO: Chamber Housing Committee and Carlsbad City Council Members FROM: Jerry Rombotis, President ' 1 RE: PROPOSED MOBILE HOME ORDINANCE In a letter to the Chamber, dated December 3, 1980, Mayor Ron Packard indicated the Carlsbad City Council will be reviewing this proposed ordinance at the Tuesday, December 16th Council meeting. "In order to assist the Council in reaching a decision, it is requested that you submit your comments on the proposed ordinance in writing. We would ask that your comments be received by the City Clerk on or before December 10." Mayor Packard further indicated it was his hope that,the action to adopt the ordinance would not be necessary, that the council does not desire to exercise its authority in so sensative an area as rent regulation. He further indicated he has been encouraged by the progress which is being made in resolving this problem through voluntary negotiation between the parties. "However, .if a reasonable approach cannot be worked out by the parties then it may be necessary for the Council to intervene." I've attached several articles from local newspapers covering the subject of Rent Controls. The Chamber Board of Directors have expressed their concerns over the adoption of any "rent control" regulations which would adversely impact the potential for investment in housing stock in Carlsbad. The Board is particularity concerned over rental housing which is in very short supply and would be most difficult to develop,under any rent controls. The Board feels the best way to eliminate the problem is through allowing, even giving builders of rental units incentives to build rental units ... as well as mobile home parks, thereby reducing the competition for rental space or housing. Chapter 5.32 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code would be amended through the passage of the proposed ordinance. The 11 pages of the ordinance may be of particular interest to you and may be secured at the City Clerk's office in.City Nall. THE , DEADLINE FOR YOUR RESPONSE IS DECEMBER 10 Note: The Chamber's Housing Sub -Committee has met on several occasions and wiLL be meeting again this next week to review a draft proposal, which will be shared with each of the Housing Committee members, the Chamber Board of Directors and then sent to the Council for their consideration. A great many hours have already been spent by Jim Anderson, Don Wooaward, Jack Henthorn and the staff in dev,-loping this proposal for your review. You will be notified as soon as it is complete. The sub -committee appreciates your understanding. CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - OFFICES. ELM AVENUE AT OLD SANTA FE DEPOT c Eight -I onth Study Council Says Deregulation �rCCUSU III F1 ing Diem WASHINGTON — After eight months of intensive studies, the Council on De- velopment Choices for the '80s recently. warned that the nation would face a se- vere housing crisis in the next five years unless it frees itself of outmoded regulations that thwart the attempts of the market to provide affordable housing. Substantial deregulation is necessary, the council said, in order to reduce the costs of development and provide housing within peo- ples means. In announcing prelimi- nary recommendations, Gov. Bruce Babbitt of Ari- zona and Harold S. Jensen, co-chairmen of the council, said •the• proposed policy shifts are in direct response to key demographic changes, mounting. energy and cost .constraints and new market forces that are already working to reshape the physical character of this nation's cities, suburbs and non -metropolitan areas as well. The bipartisan Council on Development Choices was launched in•March,1980 by the Urban Land Institute, with financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment. The 37 members of the council, all high elect- ed officials and executives from -private sector finan- cial institutions, design firms and development cor- porations; were charged with finding new�approach- es to the many interlocking problems of development and change in America's man-made environment. "Both the -public and pri- vate sectors must deal with new conditions in a positive manner if there is to be con- tinued improvement in the quality and efficiency of our communities," the council's preliminary, report said. "A failure to pay attention to the issues will result in community development decisions that will prove to be very costly,' These issues center around a series of key mar- ket and social needs, dc- fined by the council as fol. lows: the need to redpce the growth of energy consump. tion; the need to promote the social and economic mobility of disadvantaged Americans; the need to maintain profitability in de- velopment activities; and the need to provide public facilities and services at the least cost. In meeting the needs, the council considered these choices as best suited to the changing conditions of the '80s: — Increase the compact- ness of metropolitan and non -metropolitan fringe de- velopment.. The great bulk of development will contin- ue to occur in the suburbs, but with changing patterns to reduce the costs of public services and cut energy consumption. — Accelerate the process of in -fill and redevelopment in existing communties, re- turning underutilized urban properties to active use. — Increase the mix of land uses, revising local regulations to perrWt and promote the integration of residential, commercial, recreational and light in- dustrial structure. — Increase transporta- tion choices, including -pub- lic transit, car pooling and van pooling (and walking opportunities to jobs and shopping) in order to cut down on car use. — Provide an adequate supply of housing of differ- ent types and at various cost levels to meet multiple needs, including those of young people and the elder- ly. — Organize existing and newly developing areas into "urban villages," a new community form that ties together all the above de- velopment choices: afford- able housing, transportation alternatives, mixed uses, in - fill and redevelopment, and compact new growth. The council report stressed that the urban vil- lage concept can be applied to central city areas, sub• urbs and small towns. The objectives, according to the council, are "to form com- munities at the scale of sev. eral neighborhoods, a scale at which public facility and service efficiencies can be, achieved through careful pinaning and a scale at which a balance between jobs and housing can real- istically be achieved. The report cited the ex- ample of Phoenix, Ariz., which is now encouraging the formation of nine urban villages: subeity centers, (Continued on F-16, Col.1) IT �A 59 F-16 THE SAN DIEGO UNION Sunday, November 30, 1980 lit I - - ■ • - uereauaTlon .. . (Continued from F•13) each with its own sense of identity, to be linked by an effective bus system. Saying that in many areas the development market is already moving in the directions foreseen by the council, the group out- lined six broad types of ac- tion that might be taken by public and private sectors, with specific suggestions with each, including these -examples: 1. Redefining develop- ment goals: — All jurisdictions — cit- ies, towns, counties, region- al agencies and states — should start at once to reas- sess and redefine the goals inherent in their develop- ment plans, regulations and policies. The council, in• -luding economic develop- nent, affordable housing, :ompactness, mixed -use and other key choices. — Where states act to dace new burdens on local pyernments, they should rovide needed financial nd technical support to lo- alities. — In redefining national olicies the federal goern- Ient should adjust them to tsure that they encourage an adequate supply of af- fordable housing. — A broad spectrum of private sector representa. tives should be consulted in the reassessment of devel- opment goals and programs in order to win widespread consensus for action. 2. Revising development regulations: Among the significant policy actions concerning development regulations suggested by the council are the following: — Allow increased densi- ties and reduce require- ments for lot and yard sizes, setbacks and street widths. — Reformulate zoning district provisions to elimi- nate single -use zones wher• ever possible and simplify regulatory procedures for reviewing projects with more than one use. — Provide density bonuses for developments, which provide a greater mix of uses, high public amenities and improved de- sign. — Ensure provision of an adequate supply of develo. pable land and monitor land prices in efforts to keep cost increases down. — Streamline regulatory procedures to reduce com- plexity, delay and uncer- tainty, including statuatory time allowances for permit reviews to enhance certain- ty In the development pro- cess, — Remove rent controls and condominium conver- sion bans, while, providing assistance to elderly and poor households subject to displacement. — Permit conversion of single-family homes to' in- clude small rental units in areas of high housing cost where population increases can be absorbed. — Adopt cost-cutting code provisions for housing rehabilitation and adaptive use. — Eliminate restrictions on manufactured housing, and experiment with new forms of manufactureed housing and other housing types. Adopt state policies discouraging the use of local population caps or other growth management devices leading to exclusion and steep housing -cost in- creases. — Adjust state and feder- al environmental policies to help reduce the costs and delays involved in required environmental impact statements. — Revise federal FlIA, VA and FHMA standards i that impose unnecessary, costs of housing construe• tion and maintenance. — Broaden tests of public purpose for the u`e of emi- nent domaln`to include eco- nomic development and en- ergy conservation. — Permit the delegation of eminent domain powers to private ,organizations acting as redevelopers under public plans on proj- ects meeting critical devel- opment choice§. — Allow ,the establish- ment of "development zones," accompanied by regulatory modifications to encourage private Invest- ment..Zone designations could be used to help devel- op urban villages or mixed - use projects. 3. Revising development finance and tax policies — Key suggestions for changing finance and tax policies to promote devel- opment goals include the following: — authorize tax-free home purchase savings ao- counts for non -homeowners. Such income would be ex- empt from income taxes on the basis that funds will be withdrawn later only for buying &.home. Interest on &these funds would also be tax-free. — Exempt from income taxes any interest earned on savings used for mort- gage lending purposes. — Encourage creation of equity sharing Investment programs. — Encourage pension funds to increase invest- ments in residential mort- gages. Develop federal -state - local cooperative assistance programs to provide a com- prehensive package of fi• nancial aids on a multiyear j basis In order to create a more certain Investment climate. — Give preference to fi- nancial aid requests for housing or community de- velopment that promote greater use of public trans- it, and give preference to iranslt grants that encour- age compact, mixed -use de- velopment. V Mortgage Loan Scheme Title Coverage Available For For Severs .Ann.omeeuI New Mortgages ANAHEIM —Homeowners who tI• the sale of their homes by Announcing the program during the annual convention of the National nance taking back first mortgages from buyers will be able to use the services Association of • Realtors, FNMA Chairman and President Oakley Hunt • SAN DIEGO — Title Insurance and Trust has developed title insurance _ of professional mortgage lenders — convert the loans to cash it thdy er explained that this "would provide assurance to both home sellers and coverage for lenders who are authorized to use renegotiable rate and wish — under a new home seller loan program announced by the Federal borrow -buyers that the ,loans were properly and soundly transacted by mortgages (RRMs) as security for the repayment of loans. The new coverage National Mortgage Association. experienced •loan origination pro- protects the priority of the lien of the lender throughout the fire of the losn. Fannie Mae, the nation's largest single Investor in residential said its new program will. fessionals." Once a loan was made, the FNMA -approved leader would collect Charles 13. Sheppard; vice president and senior associate title counsel for mortgages, provide consumer safeguards to both buyers and sellers, while at the same monthly payments, make insurance and tax payments, and handle other Title Insurance and Trust's San Diego division, said the new coverage is time offering a financial backstop to details entailed, in servicing a Principal and interest particularly beneficial to a lender in instances when an RAM is structured I home sellers who accept purchase money mortgages from buyers. mortgage. payments would be torwarded,to the as a series of short-term notes by a long-term deed of trust.tablisht Previously, there had been no es• which individuuaalswhomakesuchlomechanism an could, seller, as collected. - to If and when the'seller coud a nvertthemortgagetocash,heh secured Reralsfederallywhich rcharteredf savings sev sell them, thus converting them to should that become desirable or do so by arranging, through the ap• proved lender, to sell the loan to and loan associations in the San Diego area, differ from variable -rate cash, necessary. Under Fannie Mae's new program, a Fannie Mae, which .would base its purchase price on current mortgage mortgages in that any change lathe interestrate for anRRKissubject to, at certain Intervals, while �--- home seller can contract with an FNMA -approved lender to perform market rates. It the prevailing mortgage interest rate was ,at or: below the on the mortgage of- negotiation a, typical variable rate mortgage forautomatic adjustments in the services associated with ori• ginating the loan and collecting the rate fered to Fannie Use. the seller would provides the interest rate at prescribed 'in - monthly payments. mortgage would be originated Theto receive the full face value of the loan; if the prevailing rate was above the tervals. Sutficlent intormatin_muat re- using FNMA's standard mortgage documents and in accordance with mortgage rate, he would receive a lesser amount. The lender handling s flected In the public re cords to apprise hoiders of junior liens that the FNMA's credit and appraisal' sales can charge a tee R to rate n the loadjust`aan secured by as guidelines. fthe or this service.transaction f November 30, 1980 , AN ANSWER TO A DRE4 FOR OTHERS, A WRONG -MOVE low -Cost Housing Loans Draw Cheers, Jeers (Continued from B-1) rn were flooded with calls from anxious, potential c buyers. he county ,is getting ready now to sell $100 million th of tax-exempt bonds, and hopi3 to -make public a of the participating lenders by next month. But right •, the picture is not as bright as hoped for, with only ut a dozen potential lenders, and, none yet officially ed up for the program. me major lenders have decided not to participate in program. and the state's Housing Bond Credit Com- tee, which approves the bond amounts, is concerned h the whole program, not only in San Diego, but state- e county narrowly received the committee's -ante to issue up -to $100,million worth of bonds, h, if fully sold, would enable between 1,100 and 1,500 buyers to participate in the program. was somewhat of a fluke, actually. The committee, wised of Gov. Brown, the California Housing Finance icy president, state treasurer, stale controller, -and director of finance, voted 2.2 on the amount of the tv's bond issue. Brown.was absent from the Nov. 5 meeting when San Diego county's program was considered. The 2.2 vote was on a motion to postpone consideration of the county's program. Because the committee did not convene a spe- cial meeting in time, the proposal was technically ap• proved. But CHFA President Frank Paiducci said if tho committee had reconsidered the program. "it probably would have been scaled back" to 580 million or $90 mil- lion. The committee reduced San Bernardino s proposed $100 million mortgage revenue bond program to $38 mil- lion, and Fresno County's $30 million program to $22 million. Brown in recent weeks has warned against the rapidly expanding use of the tax-exempt government bonds to help what is turning out to be middle- and upper -income buyers secure low -interest loans. lie has said such use of government credit could fuel inflation and further lower the slate's credit rating The rating allows the state to borrow money to finance its projects. "The office of planning and research said that the amount of these (housing) bonds went from 16 percent in 1977.78 to 50 percent of all lax -exempt bonds issued in 1979.80," Patitucci said, "That rapid explosion causes some concern because the state's credit positon has got- ten worse." Supervisor Jim Bates was the sole dissenting vole among supervisors in approving the income limits for the program, calling it a "big bonanza' for the middle -in- come bracket. The program will allow persons, with. incomes of be- tween $19,100 and $28,700 to qualify f(;r the low -interest loans to purchase existing housing including housing re- quiring rehabilitation. Following the mortgage revenue bond program re- quirements, the county used the highest median income, selected from county, state or federal figures. The highest median income is the state's — $23.900 annually -- and provisions call for persons earning between 80 and 120 percent of the median income to be eligible for the loans. thus the $28,700 top income love) Although program provisions call for half of the loan money to go to persons earning less than $19,100, Bates said with the high income figures, the program does not (Continued on B-5, Col.1; 1- t low -Cost loans By SUZANNE MONEY I SM wnw, TM Soo 0*0 thiaa They rent a two -bedroom apartment in Spring Valley for $300 a month, and with a growing young daughter, and their -dreams in tow, Chris and Mark Frazier have found a $450 house for sale that they would very much like to buv. It would be the couple's first house. But the only way they say they can afford to buy it, with a joint income of about $2000 a year, is through the county's mortgage revenue bond program, which will soon be offering low• interest loans to perhaps as many as 1,500 home buyers. "I just consider us average Americans," said Chris FrazAit'"It's the old American dream that you can't reach now. This program is our last hope of being able to afford a decent house payment." Her husband, Mark, 26, is an Army veteran, and has applied for a low -interest Cal -Vet loan But the word is there may be a year's wait to be even considered for a loan. "I'm bitter about that," she said. "Because i i For Housing• • # that's one of the lines they use to lure you into the military." t After spending lots of time thumbing through i the telephone book, making calls to savings and + loamassocfations, and checking out other home buys, Chris said that the "cheapest payment we could find was $419 a month, with 10 percent , down, which is reasonable, but is pushing it to the max for us. We have a little one to care for. I don't want to eat beans the rest of my life just to afford a house." ) The Fraziers have been waiting for word on ' which lenders will be participating in the county's program, designed to offer mortgage interest rates of about 12 percent. They're afraid they might lose the house because it is being sold privately, and although the seller has been patient and cooperative with them, they know he cannot wait forever. The Frazfers aren't the only ones waiting for word from the county, After; the Board of Supervisors approved the income limits for the ' program in October, the housing department and even reporters who wrote about the pro - (Continued on B•4, Col.1) ..County Draws Cheers, Jeer' .4 t /4 'I just consider us average Americans: says Chris Frazier, shown with her daughter Stacy, 2, in their Spring Valley apartment. She and her husband Mark Q have'the old American dream that you can't reach 4.r' ) j now. 'This program is our last u�s.�,xitzs .. i r t" hope of being able to afford a decent house payment: The program is the county's mortgage revenue bond program and because of it the couple hope to get their I y first house. l+ _ Stoll Pnoh by e4 RamO •fi W i• 0 County Galled - r- L oan r-flan 'Bonanza' (Continued from B4) rqngly enough address the needs of the low-income. "The working poor are paying the freight for a few cky winners; he said. 2e Housing Bond Credit Committee is also concerned t the income limits being too high, and the problems r labuse that exist, Patitucci said. "If you had a;20,00C•Income, and had bought a house r �530.000 several years ago, sold it now for $110,000, u d have $80,000 in equity. You could get a $50,000 loan ,der this program, and buy yourself a $130,000 house. iose are the kinds of things that make the demands for is program insatiable, and lend emphasis to suburban velopment," instead of concentrating the loan money "economically deprived areas," Patitucci said. "Sure, everybody wants to take advantage of something at would -cost them less, everybody wants something .e;' he said. "The question is, how much below market tes should mortgages be at the'cost of public govern - County housing and community development director ibriel Rodriguez said the program will enable persons buy housing ranging from $40,000 to $50,000 on the "low fell to $75,000 to $80,000 on the "high side." He said "a concern has been expressed that this pro - am is not going to serve Ahe very low-income. To a glee, that's correct. But not ever was it said this pro - am was going to be limited to the low-income, and to be allstic about it, you do have to earn a certain level of Torre to purchase a home these days. Our mandate is to ah with the low- and middle -income. This is but one source to do so." B4pervisor Roger Hedgecock also said the bond pro - ant is "not meant to address the issue of the poorest in r Society. It's not the whole answer, but is part of a )re reasonable approach to governmental assistance to s art of the population" Ilgdgecock and Rodriguez both said by allowing mid- ! -income persons who are now renting to buy, more otal units will be freed for those in need of rental "There is no evidence to that," contends Ben Montijo, executive director of San Diego city's Housing Commis. sion. "You have a limited supply of •honsing. Much more effective would be if the money would be targeted'for the construction of new units." The City Council, acting as the housing commission. rejected participating in the county's program, as have tiie cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista and Oceanside. That means that persons seeking to buy homes using the coun- ty's low -interest loans in those areas will be unable to do so. The city of San Diego's participation was considered important because it was estimated that one-third of all loan applications would be for houses in the city. County officials say the city opposed the program be- cause it is now planning a similar bond program, and felt the county's was in direct competition. Dlontijo dismisses that charge, saying the county's in- come limits are too high, and that the city would have little control of the program. In a recent report to the housing commission, he also said that the county's income'Oligibility guidelines "could cause use of bond issue proceeds tq be competitive with normal savings and loan mortgage lending activity." And, Alontijo said in a rctent interview, "we perceive the housing crisis as being the cost of housing and the supply of housing. If you're not designing'prograrns that achieve both of those goals, you're not best utilizing that tax-exempt resource." Many lenders reportedly dropped out of the county's program because the city will not participate. • "Many bids were made subject to the city of San Diego going into the program, because that's where you have the lower -priced homes to take advantage of," said Ned• Smith, an official with Colonial Mortgage. But Rodriguez said, "We've had what we consider to be quite an adequate response from lenders and developers, There's been a question that this program does not'stimu- late the economy through having new construction occur. We have said from the beginning, this program was not designed to encourage the construction of new housing or condominiums. We are trying to impact the existing stock of available housing, by making it more within the reach of households to take advantage of." ; Neither San Diego Federal nor Home Federal savings and loan associations will be participating in the pro- gram. Said San Diego Federal first vice-president Tom Carter, "we saw a couple of problems. The income limit of $28.700 is high compared to the people we're trying to help. And lenders were upset they were not involved in i putting the financing package together.with the county." Carter also said the county requirement for a non- refundable 1.1 percent "upfront" in the loan processing was another sore point. "We could charge 2 percent. That's a difference of 9/10 of a percent (for the lender)," he said. "Typically, we get 1% percent on the loans we record." County housing planner Mary Grana said that if sav- ings and loans are "servicing the loans, they will make the money over the 30-year period. They're getting low - interest money to be lending out. The money is really being made on the (loan) servicing:' Carter also said "without the city being involved, it was questionable if we could r;oduce enough loans. But main- ly. we think that revehue bond financing is there to serve people who cannot participate in the normal marketplace for housing. Granted, we're in a high-priced market for housing here. But persons with a median income of $23,000, $24,000 have historically gone through savings and loans. This (program) is a circumvention of the nor- mal system of borrowing money." - - - ; T "We are not participating, essentially, because we'rG concerned if this program is really for the public good," said Home Federal senior vice-president Richard Christo• pher. "It does not encourage new construction, which we feel is very important, as well." In the meantime, Chris Frazier is keeping her fingers . crossed. That's about all she can do right now. ; "I do not like lo)king at the future and thinking I have - to pay rent le someone for the rest of my life," she said. VO_C":"'4 /.z -io -e Solar=ar Nobile Estates -" C'_ ' 6&u�' 195 Palomar Airport Roaw A Ir f Carlsbad, California. 92008 'e .,y � ,reJr Mr. Lee L. Rautenkranz December 8, 1980 City Clerk, City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear 111r. Rautenkranz: In at least partial compliance with requests from the office of the Vayor, Ronald C.'Packard, directt•d to the various mobile home parks in the City of Carlsbac', �e are reporting the followine, information from Solamar Ilol.i.e Estates (Solamar) : The residents of Solamar are organized into an Association with monthly dues of �1.00 per space collected on our monthly rental bill: and paid to the Association Treasurer by the park owner. Current officers of the Association are: Frank Kosmatin, "'resident, 203 Sea Dreeze Barbara Simmono, Vice Pres. 6602 Easy St. Ruth Blanchard, Secretary, 201 Sea Breeze Joseph Ferri, Treasurer, 6612 Easy St. Phil Weaver, Purchasing, 6502 Easy St. (All Carlsbad, California 92008) The above officers constitute the Board of Directors of the Association. (Board). By direction of the Board, 5 candidates iqcre named on a ballot, 2 to be elected as the residents represenl"-We7o• to the committee recommended for each park in the I`a*or's letter of November 5, 1930. Elected as a result on November 24th 1930 were Ceor e Brissey, 6529 Easy Zt. Lichael yenny, 6523 2asY 3t. ale are informed by Fir. Bill Peschke, 6534 Tawy St., Park I•:.anager, that Mr. Don Pender, Park O.fner, ;ras advised of such election. As of Dec. 7, 1980 we have had no notification from Iir. Pender as to ni.s-orninati.ons for the proposed committee membership. In order to develop preliminary information the resident re- presentatives prepared a Questionaire (copy attached) for distribution to all ex_istin� reLid aces (park owner'o ex- cepted), total 106. Folloginv is a recap of the information obtained .from 59 Que:tionaires returned (56 a). (residents wre ,given from November 28, 1980 to December 7, 19g0 to return =vestionaires. The results were turned in anonymously). k 1 — 2 — RECAP 1 As a place of residence, are you generally happy at Solamar? Yes 52 880 ITo 0 125 no response 2 Are y ou satisfied with the approximately 7% rent increase to be effecti,e Jon. 1, 1981? Yes 45 76 No 12 20 0 No response 4% If not, what do you believe would be reasonable? None 6 10% 2e 2 3 5 5 8 Other 2 3;0 3 How many persons reside in your mobile hove? 1 14 2e,. 2 39 66 3 2 3, 7 ,y n� rresponse 4 What is your approximate total annual income? Less than "5,000 4 7; 15,000 to MOO 8 140 7500 to 310,000 = 11 l9" 010,000 to 15,0008 14% ,___ Over 15,000 _ 19 32;' 14,1 no response 5 In the event you are not satisfied with the proposed rent increase how do you feel a resolution of your dissatisfaction should be handled? a. Netaotiations betgeen park residents and the park ovmer by the committee which has been established at the request of the Carlsbad City Council domposed of two park residents, two park owner representatives and a fifth iuember selected by agreement of the other four. b. By an arbitration ordinance of the City of Carlsbad realizing this will cost each resident r,75.00 to $100.00 annually in fees for ar- bitrator and cith expenses. c. Other suggestions. (cort'i hued ) 1 A 23 35� q B 1 2% 0 59% (no response) s" In view of the results no further action is contemplated by the undersigned at this time. ;inter ly yours i George Briasey , Aee;vl Michael h nny j cc: I'm. Bon tender �' C� 5 � 3- F ' a ' t S � M A i t i r jl { 4 t e i i # i 1 � 1 �i F>'_L :AR IMIT REVIEW _qt STIC i'W`RE This questionaire has been prepared by your elected representatives in conjunction with a request by the city of Carlsbad to determine a fair rznt practice for IiOBILE HOME TENANTS. The tenants of Solamar Mobile 'Estates have been given notice that effective Jan. 1, 1981 their rents• will be increased approximately �7%. Please answer all the following questions. All' -the information will be kept confidential.end anonymous. 1 As a place of residence, are'you generally happy at Solams ? Yes _ NO Do you have any specific complaints? If so please list on reverse side. 2 Are you satisfied with the approximately 7% rent increase to be effective Jan. 1, 1981? Yes No If not, what do you believe would be reasonable? none 21% 50 other ' 3 How many persons reside in your mo idle home V-.. 4 What is your approximate total annual income? less than $5000.00 55000.00 toa7500 $7500.00 to $10;000 $10,000 to $15,000 over $15,'000 5 In the event you are not satisfied with the proposed rent increase how do you feel a resolution of your dissatisfaction should -be handled? a. Negotiations between park residents and the park owner by the committee which has been established at the request of the Carlsbad'City Council composed of two park residents twopark owner representatives and a -fifth member selected by agreement of the other four. b. By an arbitration ordinance of the City of Carlsbad re- alizing this will cost each resident $75.00-$100'.00 annually in fees for arbitrator and city expenses. c: Other suggestions. Comparison Charts Follow: Range Increase ; ,Rancho Carlsbad $295.00 - $465.00 _ 13% increase t bake Shore Gardens $160.00 - $210.00 13% increase hanikai Zane $141.00 - Si80.00 10% increase Solamar Estates $176.00 - $266.00 7% increase ` These questionaires should be deposited in the ballot box in the club house by Sunday, Dec. 7, 1980. L CAK,_SBAD ,BOARD OF REALTIJRS. 2558 ROOSEVELT STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 REAL`TOR" PHONE 714-729-1141 December 10, 1980 Hon. Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mayor and Council Members: • � A�SpC1A'FIgN C7 • fl,'�' 1rg0 � The Carlsbad Board of Realtors has reviewed a proposed ordinance to regulate mobile home park rents which is scheduled for consideration by your Honorable Body on December 16, 1980. Pursuant to your request for written comments on the proposal by December 10, we offer the following and respectively urge that this proposed mobile home park rent control ordinance not be adopted. Historically, the City of Carlsbad, along with most California municipalties, has strongly opposed outside binding arbitration as a means of settling disputes with public employee groups. We find it ironic that the City would consider imposing such a requirement as a means of settling disputes between mobile home park owners and their tenants. According to a report prepared by your staff -there is a present mobile home park vacancy rate in Carlsbad of 7.5% within which units are available on the market, and a .2% vacancy rate for vacant pads. These statistics would indicate that there continues to be an opportunity in the City for those who desire mobile home living. The solution to the problems of the low vacancy rate for vacant pads can only be solved through the development of additional mobile home parks. The adoption of any form of rent control, including the proposed system of binding arbitration, will serve as a disincentive to the development of new parks and will exacerbate the existing pad shortage. A review of rental rates charged in other mobile home parks around San Diego County does not indicate that rents charged in Carlsbad are out of line. Con- sidering the amenities provided by some of our parks and the City's proximity to the ocean, it would be logical to assume that pad rents in this area would be appreciably higher than in inland areas. Both the incoming Reagan adminiscration and the outgoing Carter administration have recommended that new HUD policies be adopted aimed at reducing or elim- inating HUD grants and loans to those communities in which rent controls are in effect. Should these policies be adopted, and the proposed ordinance en- acted, any forthcoming sanction could severly penalize the residents of our City. REALTORIP—is a regkslered mark whiCh identifies a Professional in teal estate who subscubes to a stnct Code of Ethics as a member of the, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS Y_ Honorable -Mayor and City Council Page Two It is our considered recommendation that you reject the proposed mobile home park rent control ordinance, and instead, continue to urge that park owners and tenant groups establish a voluntary mechanism for dealing with any problems which might exist. We further recommend that you examine existing City policies with respect to new mobile home park siting and revise those that do not ade- quately encourage and assist the development of new park facilities. The Carlsbad Board of Realtors will be most happy to work with you and any other interested groups in this regard. Sincerely, LAEL DEWHURST Vice President cc: Dave Dawes &,Ron Schwab - Rancho Carlsbad Rick Wells - Lakeshore Gardens Jack Robinson - Lanikai Lane Don Penner - Solamar Mobile Home Park Frank Aleshire, City Manager Jack Hinthorn, Housing & Redevelopment Dept. I L ' Ak BIRTCHER PACIFIC 2761/r_p7..z ✓ateM+�In �rn�una ✓ tsefT��t�otiiue 926'77 - a.�Xtua Z^.oren 7/4 December 9, 1980 Mayor Ronald C. Packard CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Proposed Mobile Home Park Pent Ordinance Dear Mayor Packard: We have had a chance to review the proposed ordinance and have the following comments as it pertains to Lakeshore Gardens Mobile Home Park. 1. As managing agents of the park, Birtcher Pacific is totally against any sort of rent control or rent review sponsored or supervised by the City. It is our feeling that we can come to terms with our residents without the threat of rent control. 2. We are opposed to arbitration as it will be very costly for both parties and may prove a hardship on the residents who have to pay one-half the cost. 3. The ordinance mentions rapidly rising rents and unreasonable increases in rents which do not pertain to our park, as we at this point have not kept up with inflation nor have we passed on operating cost increases. 4. Section 5.32.150 lists standards to be considered and it should be more clearly stated that cost of living increases and increases in costs attributable to services shall be part of this Section. r Mayor Ronald C. Packard December 9, 1980 Page 2 We hope that this ordinance will not be passed as it will affect the residents adversely and will also slow down or stop any future development of any mobile home parks in the City. Sincerely, Richard V. Wells Vice President Property Management RVW/mks d� a 4 t t 1200 ELM AVENUE CAfiIMMiCD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the Mayor QCitp of Carldab .December 3, 1980 I The City Attornay has prepared a proposed ordinance to regulate mobile home park rents. The ordinance provides for a fivc memrar committee to be formed in each mobile home park. The purpose of the committee is to review and make rcccmnendaticns on rent increases. If agreement is not reached, either the owners or the residents may take the matter to binding arbitration. ''Phis ordinance will be considered by the City Council at a meeting to be held on Tuesday, December 16, 1980. At that same'meeting the Council will also consider whether or not to extend the moratorium on -obile home park rents. In order to assist the -Council in reaching a decision, it is requested that you submit your comments on the proposed ordinance in writing. We would ask that your comments be received by the City Clark on or before December 10. It is my hope that it will not be necessary for the Council to adopt this ordinance. The Council does not desire to exercise its authority in so sensitive an area as rent regulation. I have been encouraged by the progress which is being made in resolving this problem through voluntary negotiation between the parties. However, if a reasonable approach cannot be worked out by the parties there it may be necessary for the Council to intervene. TELEPHONE: (714) 438.5561 f Please continue your efforts to reach agreement and keep my office informed of your activities. Working together I believe we can find a satisfactory solution to this difficult problem. Very truly yours, j RONAI.D C. PACKARD Mayor RCP:idg Eno. I ORDINANCE O. All ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 5.32 TO REGULATE I:OBILEHOME PARK RENTS. The City Council of the City, of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That Title 5 of '-.he Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Chal ,5.32 to read as follows: . ....mow....... r �..�. MOBILEHOME PARK RENT REGULATION 5.32.010 Purpose and intent. There is presently within the City of Carlsbad and the surrounding areas, a shortage of spaces for the location of mobilehomes. Because of the short- ; i age there is a low vacancy rate, and rents have been for several ; years and are presently in some parks rising rapidly and causing concern among a substantial number of Carlsbad residents. Because of the high cost of moving mobilehomes, the potential for damage, resulting therefrom, the requirements relating to the installation of mobilehomes, including permits, landscaping and site prepara- tion, the lack of alternative homesites for mobilehome residents and the substantial investment of mobilehome owners in such homes, the City CL !ncil finds and declares it necessary to establish a means which, if followed, can provide protection to the owners and occupiers of mobilehomes from unreasonable rent increases while at the a time recognizing the need of mobilehome park I .ter "•'` r . owners to receive a reasonable return on their property and rent increases sufficient to cover the increased cost of repairs, maintenance, insurance, upkeep and additional amenities. The procedures contained herein are intended to enhance resolution of unreasonable increases in rents by mating it advan- tageous for mobilehome owners and mobilehome park owners to establish a better understanding for each others positions through communication, hopefully resulting in an agreement on the amount of rent to be charged. However, if an agreement cannot be reached the City Council has determined it necessary and in the public interest to have the disagreement resolved by binding arbitration. M 4 • 5'.32'.020 Definitions. Words used in this chapter shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section: (1) "Arbitration" means a process conducted in accordance with the California Arbitration provisions,contained in Section 1280, et seq. of the Califonria Code of Civil Procedures. } (2) "Arbitrator" means a certified arbitrator selected i pursuant to this chapter on a case by case basis from a list 's furnished by the American Arbitration Association. (3) "Majority" means a simple majority of a quorum of at least two-thirds of the residents of a park. � (A) "Owner" means the owner, lessor, operator, manager or designated agent of a park. (5) "Park" means a mobilehome park which rents spaces for mobilehome dwelling snits. (6) "Park Committee" means the Mobilehome Park Committee to be established in each mobilehome park in accordance with this chapter. I.. (7) "Resident" means any person entitled to occupy a mobilehome dwelling unit pursuant to ownership thereof or a rental or lease arrangement with the owner of the subject dwelling unit. (8) "Rent" means the consideration, including any benefits or fees, in connection with the use and occupancy of a mobilehome space in a park, or the transfer of a lease or rental agreement for park space, services and amenities, or subletting, but exclusive of any amounts paid for the use of the mobilehome dwelling unit. 5.'32.030 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall only apply to a park which: (1) Contains more than twenty-five spaces; and (2) Where an association of residents has been formed, and a written notice has been filed by the association with the owner containing: (1) the name and mailing address of the associa- tion; (2) the names and addresses of the association's officers; .(3) the nar+es and addresses of the persons authorized to represent the association in dealings with the owner; and (4) certification that the membership of the association includes all residents of more than 50% of the spaces within the park. S.32.040 Rental information. Within thirty days after notice to an owner by a residents' association of their existence, the owner must provide to association a current monthly rental rates and fees schedule showing the rent for each space within the park, the schedule which was in effect one year preceding the date of activation of the association and the date and amount of any increases in rent during the interim. -3- w 14 i1 N 5.32 050 Formation of mark conunittee. The owner and residents association of a park shall establish a park committee consisting of fire members --two representatives of the owner, two representatives of the residents, and a fifth member to be elected ; by the other four members. Four members shall constitute a quorum action of the park committee shall require an affirmative ; and any vote of not less than three members. ' 3'.32.'060 _ Advance notice of rent 'increases. Not later than sixty calendar days before an increase in rent is to becometo ; applicable, an owner shall provide written notice thereof the i shall Association and to the residents of the park. The notice s provide for the indication by the residents of their acceptance i or rejection of the proposed increase. 5 '32'070 Residents response,to notice. Within ten 5 •} days of receipt of a notice pursuzAnt to section 5.32.660, the residents shall reply to the owner indicating their acceptance i or rejection of the proposed increase. The replys may be reviewed t by the residents association. The owner shall notify the residents of the results. ' i 3'32 080 Acceptance of increase. If a majority -of the residents accept the proposed increase in rent, _it will become { effective on the effective date designated by the owner on the advance notice of rent increase. i ' 5.32 080 Rejection of increase. If a majority of the residents reject the proposed increase, the matter may be referred -4- ' f to the park committee by the owner or the residents' association. .5 32',090 Meeting of park committee. The park committee shall meet promptly to consider any proposed increase which ,is re- ferred to them and shall investigate,'hold hearings and take any other reasonable steps necessary to resolve the matter. The committee shall establish their own rules and procedures. In making their decision, the committee shall be guided by the pur- poses and intent of this chapter. Upon request the owner shall make available to the committee such information and records concerning the operation of the park as are reasonably necessary to a determination of costs of operation and a reasonable return on the property. The committee shall render a decision within thirty-five days after the owner's advance notice of a rent increase. The committee shall promptly notify the residents of ? their decision and the reasons therefor. The owner and the t residents association shall each be responsible for paying one- half of the costs of the committee. 5.32.100 Residents petition. Residents shall have ten days after notice of the decision of the park committee within which to file a petition for review. Upon a written petition of fifty per cent of the residents requesting review of a decision of the park committee the committee shall refer the matter to arbitration in'accordance with this chapter. If a petition with the required number of signatures is not filed within the ten day period the decision of the park committee will become effective on the same date as designated by the park owners on the advance notice of rental increase. K ;� i 5.32.110 `Owners request for arbitration. The owner may within ten days of the committee's decision file a written request for arbitration with the committee. Upon receipt of such request the committee shall refer the matter to arbitration in accordance with this chapter. 5.32.120 Initiation of arbitration. Upon receipt of a petition pursuant to Section 5.32.100 or an owner's request pursuant to section 5.32.110, the committee shall immediately notify the other party, take steps to select an arbitrator, and do anything else required to secure a speedy resolution of the arbitration. The committee may require the owner and the residents association to each deposit fifty per cent of the estimated cost • of arbitration. 5.32.130 _Arbitration. The arbitrator shall determine the rights of the -parties in accordance with,the law, including this chapter. The award shall be subject to review as to the arbitrator's application of the law by any court having jurisdic- tion of the matter, whether or not any mistake of the law shall appear upon the face of the award. As to all questions of fact, ? however, the determination of the arbitrator or arbitrators shall y be binding upon all parties and shall be deemed final,and conclusive. Each party shall be entitled to written findings of fact and i conclusions of law as to all issued determined by the award. Subject to the above limitations and to Section 5.32.180, the award granted by the arbitrator shall be birTding upon all parties to the arbitration. s -6- , 5.32.140 Venue. For the purpose of litigation or arbitration, venue shall lie in the North County Judicial District, County of San Diego, State of California, or, if such venue cannot be exercised, in the Federal or State Court nearest to the North County Judicial District, County of San Diego. 5.32.'150; Standards for arbitration. The arbitrator shall give due consideration to the purposes and intent of this chapter in reaching a decision. In evaluating the rent increase proposed -by the owner, the arbitrator shall also consider in- creased costs to the owner attributable to increases in utility rates and property taxes, insurance, advertising, governmental assessments, cost -of -living increases attributable to incidental services, normal repair and maintenance, capital improvements, upgr,2ding and addition of amenities or services as well as fair rate of return on the property. 5.32.160 Arbitrator's decision'. The arbitrator shall make a final decision within ten days after the conclu- sion of the hearing and notify the committee. The arbitrator may require the owner to: (1) Reduce the rent to a rate as determined by the arbitrator; (2) Continue the rent as it existed prior to the notice of increase; .(3)• increase the refit to a rate set by the arbitrator, or to the rate requested by the owner. Any rent increases which have been collected by an owner, pursuant to an increase which is the subject of a resident's petition for arbitration and which is later determined by the arbitrator to have been excessive, shall be either returned to the tenants or credited to future rental charges. The committee shall promptly notify the residents of the arbitrator's decision. 5.32.170 Costs. The costs of arbitration shall be paid one=half by the owner and one-half by the residents' association. The deposit collected by the committee shall be used to pay the costs. Any excess shall be refunded. Any deficit shall be paid in equal shares by the owner and the resi- dents' association. 5.32.180 Individual Resident's rights. Residents shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of residents' associations formed pursuant to the. provisions of this chapter, or to refuse to form, join in or participate in the activities of such associations. Residents shall also have the right to negotiate individually and directly with -the owner, and to establish the terms and conditions of their tenancies, including rent, by separate agreement with the owner, which shall supercede the terms and conditions of any negotiated agreement between association and the owner, any decision of the park committee and any decision of the arbitrator. An owner shall not discriminate against any resident for an exercise of the rights established by this chapter, or coerce any resident with respect to the exercise of such rights. -8- s 5.32.190 Enforcement. (a) violation of the provisions of this chapter shall not constitute a crime- (b) A residents' association may at any time bring an action in the courts of this State alleging a viola- tion by an owner of any of the terms of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the existence of a level of rents in excess of that allowed and may seek a court order requiring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (c) A landlord may at any time file an action in the courts of this State alleging a violation by an association of the provisions of this chapter, and may seek a court order directing compliance with the provisions hereof. (d) The owner may not enforce a rent increase in excess of that allowed by this chapter. In the event an owner increases rents without complying with the provisions of this chapter, such an increase shall be deemed null and void, residents shall not be required to pay such in- crease except to the extent it is specifically estab- lished by an individual written contract between the resident and landlord, and any resident who is sought to be excluded from the park through an unlawful _ detainer action brought by the owner to enforce evic- tion, shall have a right to assert the invalidity of such increase as a defense to the unlawful detainer proceedings is failure of the resident to pay such increase. -9- 5,32.200 Limitation on fees and assessments. A resident shall not be charged any fee for other than rent and s reasonable charges for services actually rendered. A resident shall not be charged a security deposit nor a fee for entry, installation hookup, or landscaping, except as specifically permitted under Section 798.37 of the Civil Code, as a condi- tion of any tenancy. Thera shall be no imposition by the owner 4 of any fees or assessments until such assessments or fees have been approved in writing by residents representing more than fifty per cent of the spaces within the park. i 5.32.210 Retaliatory eviction. Notwithstanding Section 5.32.190 above, in any action brought to recover posses- sion of a rental unit the.'court may consider as groun& for denial , any violation of any provision of this chapter. Further the determination that the action was brought in retaliation for the s f exercise of any rights conferred by this chapter shall be grounds for denial. Any action brought within three months of the determ- ination of a petition filed with the park committee shall be presumed to be retaliatory: this presumption affects the burden ,{ of proof, and is rebuttable by the owner. i 5.32.220' Severability. If any provision or clause of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circum- stance is held to be unconstitutional or to be otherwise invalid by any court of competent j-.xrisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other chapter pro••isions or•clauses or applications thereof -10- which can be implemented without the invalid provision or clause or application, and to this end the provisions and clauses of this chapter are declared to be severable. -11- F 10 CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POST OFFICE BOX 1605 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (714� 729.5924 December 15, 1980 To: Mayor Ronbald C. Packard Vice Mayor•Mary Caster Councilman "Buddy" Lewis Councilman "Lefty" Anear Councilwoman Ann Kulchin Re: Mobile Home Rent Program The Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce has on previous occasions indicated its concern for the adoption of an ordinance which would establish a form of "rent controls" for the mobile home segment or any segment of Carlsbad's housing stock. The Board of Directors have expressed their concerns that such an action would have negative, rather than positive impacts on the development of future housing for all income levels. The issue is of prime concern to those who are directly affected, both the owners and operators of the mobile home parks and the tenants of the parks. The increases in cost of operations, need to capitalize the investment in competition to other forms of financial opportunities enter the picture in these days of increased inflation and its costs. On the other hand, we do understand that residents of the mobile home park are concerned by the increased cost of Living in a home that can not readily be moved without a great amount of expense. The Chamber has tried for the past several years to create UNITY in our community that will have the residents, businesses and government headed in one direction that is POSITIVE in nature. We see the articles in the newspapers of proposals that would restrict the distribution of Federal funds to communities } with mandatory "rent controls", and no matter what an ordinance is called, if the intent is to control rents, it could be interrupted that way. Funds for Senior Citizens, subsidized housing, "Block grant" funds, highways, training programs, library funds, police programs, and many, many more could be include which represent a sizeable amount of the City's budget. We know this ordinance is directed to a limited number of people who reside in the mobile home parks, but the spin-off impacts affect every segment of our community. The investment of funds into low and middle income housing projects could be a thing of the past, if the Council should adopt such an ordinance at this time. The City Planning Commission and the City Council have held discussions on the creation of a permanent Mobile Home Park zone. The Planning Commission is to hold public hearings on rezoning properties to Mobile Home Parks. ,Currently, the mobile home parks operate within a Conditional Use Permit. With a more permanent zone, the owners and tenants would be able to enter into longer terra Lease agreements, equitable to all parties concerned, removing the short term situation of a C.U.P. Y 1 The Chamber Board of Directors have adopted the position to encourage the development of MORE housing at various levels and type., rather than LESS. The Chamber's Housing Committee is working dilegently ;a find solutions to ways of financing and constructing housing for people of AL income levels so they, f as we, can continue to enjoy living in Carlsbad. We still feel the ability of private business to provide more housing will be tilu- ost effective way to 1 reduce the pressures for regulatory controls on any or all segments of the housing needs of our community. We hope to have a report ready for .Ubmission to the Council early in 1981. i If you have any questions, the Chamber stands ready to assist in any way possible that will bring an equitable solution to the whole problem of housing in Carlsbad, including that of the mobile home parks, condominimums, apartments, single family or multiple family residences. }4 t Sincerely, �i Don J. Brown Executive Vice President i( l� i 1 �I it f� I I I� ` K1 �l t� I + I e I I I ij-r r wktF. . LETTER OF AGREEMENT / Z —16 This letter of agreement is between All -Coast Enterprises, Inc., the owner of Solamar Mobile Estates (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER") and Solamar Mobilehome Owners Association (hereinafter referred to as "RESIDENTS"). i1 r nities of- 4-lie Pa*kp an i� Z�,r s: botbbathe WN" and RESIDENTS are in favor of a means of solving�y�, � k w1Government regulations; and Whereas: the City of Carlsbad took action on October 28th, 1980 instructing Park Owners and Mobile Nome Owners to aet together through a Negotiating Commit- tee; and establish an Arbitrator approach if necessary as a f inal solution; and Whereas: the OWNER has indicated a desire and .willingness to proceed with a Negotiating Committee; and Whereas: the RESIDENTS through their representative organizations have indicated a desire to establish a Negotiation Committee; therefore it is agreed the following steps in procedure will be followed to resolve the v� NEGOTIATING PROCEDURE 1. Immediately following the OWNER's notice of increase in User -fees (Rents), the RESIDENTS will be polled for acceptance or rejection. 2. Should a simple majority of the RESIDENTS by spaces currently occupied reject the proposed increase in User -fee (Rents), there shall be formed within two (2) weeks a Negotiating Committee consisting of five (5) members. Two members shall be selected by tie OWNER, twq selected by RESIDENTS and one (1) selected by the four. Should tine four members decide unanimously that a fifth member is not needed, themo.the committee shall proceed with four members. 3. The Negotiating Committee shall meet at times and intervals sufficient to arrive at a mutually agreeable User -fee (Rents) within 20 days aft-r forma- tion of the Committee. The Negotiating Committee shall consider all evidence presented to it. The OWNER and RESIDENTS shall be encouraged to present facts and testimony for the committee members to consider. These facts may be presented with the assistance of a spokesman or counsel. 4. A four -fifths (4/5) vote of the Negotiating Committee will be required to agree on a User -fee (Rents) to be presented to the RESIDENTS for acceptance. S. After, a User -fee (Rents) has been agreed by the Negotiating Committee, the RESIDENTS .shall be polled for acceptance or rejection. A simple majority vote of the RESIDENTS by spaces (one space equals one vote) will be required to accept or reject. In the event the vote is to reject, then the procedure set forth in Paragraph 6, 7, & 8 shall be followed. 6. Should the Negotiating Committee be unable to agree upon acceptable User -fee (Rents), RESIDENTS by spaces (one space equeals one vote), shall be polled for acceptance or rejection of the OWNER'S proposal and if rejected by a simple majority, the dispute will be submitted to binding arbitration. The Arbitrator will be selected by the Negotiating Committee according to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The Arbitrator will be given 10 working days if possible after receipt of the case to arrive at his decision. The decision of the Arbitrator will be final and binding upon both parties retroactive to January 1, 1981. The Arbitration hearing will be held and conducted according to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association and applicable California lsw. 7. Each party shall submit such evidence as they feel is necessary to support their respective positions in the dispute in determining if a rent increase is necessary or required and if so, is it fair and equitable to the RESIDENTS and will it provide the OWNER sufficient funds to operate the Park, with a just and reasonable return on his property. Suggested testimony furnished for his consideration may include but not be limited to, the services and amenities provided, the value of the property and capital improvements, taxes, operating expenses, the value of the RESIDENT'S coaches, their increased costs in upkeep, including but not limited to increased costs in electricity and gas, etc. however, whenever any testimony is submitted, the Arbitrator shall make the determination to include or exclude any testimony which he feels is not germane and material to the dispute. 8. The cost of the arbitration will be shared equally by the OWNER and the RESIDENTS. 9. This agreement is not intended to supersede or contradict the laws o. the State of California generally or as they pertain specifically to mobile- ho*, parks, mobilehome park rents, and otherwise, as they are now enacted or enacted in the future by the California State Legislature or the California State COnstitution. Further, this agreement is specifically conditioned on the City of Carlsbad taking no action by way of ordinance or otherwise to direct influence or control directly or indirectly the rent levels in Mobile - home Parks in Carlsbad. Date /I- Approved in Form and Content by Members of Negotiating rnmmittee f rayu TWO Of TWO 1 MR MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN MY NAME IS CARL NEISWENDER OF 3474 DON JUAN DR., CARLSBAD. I AM A MEMBER OF THE MOBILE HOME OWNERS NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE OF RANCHO CARLSBAD. SOME OF YOU MAY BE UNAWARE THAT I AM ALSO A FORMER MAYOR OF THIS FINE CITY. THE LATTER PUTS ME IN A RATHER UNIQUE POSITION TO BETTER UNDERSTAND !, THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE PRESENT PROBLEM. l' WE IN OUR PARK HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNIi•Y TO STUDY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TITLE 5 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 5.32 TO REGULATE MOBILE PARK USERS FEES IT IS THE OPINION OF THE MOBILE HOME NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE OF RANCHO CARLSBAD THAT, THERE ARE MANY ERRORS AND LOOPHOLES IN THE i PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AND IF ENACTED IN ITS PRESENT FORM, WOULD FAIL TO MEET COURT REQUIREMENTS AND WOULD FAIL TO STAND THE TEST OF TIME. SINCE YOU AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE STATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN THAT, YOU REFUSE TO ENTERTAIN THE SETTING UP OF A HEARING BOARD OR A FAIR PRACTICE'RENT COMMISSION AND DO NOT WANT TO MAKE CARLSBAD A RENT CONTROL CITY (AND I MIGHT ADD NEITHER DO WE) IN EFFECT ANY ORDINANCE ENACTED BY THIS COUNCIL, MERELY SETS UP THE MACHINERY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF THE PARTIES IN DISPUTE, BY SETTING UP COMMITTEES FOR EACH SIDE AND IF NEED BE BINDING ? ARBITRATION_ IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT HOWEVER THAT RANCHO CARLSBAD, THROUGH ITS PARK ASSOCIATIONS AND NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE HAVE ALREADY AGREED E TO A PROCEEDURE IN WRITING WHICH ENTAILS THE INTENT OF THIS CITY AND SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES. y; WE FEEL THAT MUCH WORK SHOULD BE DONE SO THAT IF AND WHEN AN ORDINANCE IS ENACTED, IT BE A CLEARLY DEFINED INSTRUMENT, FAIR TO THE PARK OWNERS AND FAIR TO THE MOBILE HOME OWNERS. ONE OF THE BASIC FACTS OVERLOOKED IN THIS KIND OF A SITUATION IS THAT EACH OF THE PARTIES IN DISPUTE SHOULD BE PLACED ON AN EOUAL FOOTING, BECAUSE MOBILE HOME OWNERS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RENTERS.OR LESSEES IN THE SAME SENSE AS APARTMENT DWELLERS, BASED ON THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF THE OWNERS OF MOBILE HOMES, OWNING THEIR OWN HOMES, AND RENTING OR LEASING A SPACE OF EARTH FROM MOBILE PARK OWNERS TO PLACE THESE HOMES ON, WITH TREMENDOUS COSTS TO REMOVE THEIR HOMES AND IN EFFECT BECOME CAPTIVES OF MOBILE PARK 4� t -2- OWNERS. IN FACT WE ALL KNOW THAT, AS OF JULY 1, 1980 MOBILE HOME OWNERS BY LAW ARE REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES ON HEW HOMES AND ARE RECOGNIZED AS OWNERS OF A HOME AND NOT OWNER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE. ACTUALLY THE PARITES IN DISPUTE ARE TWO OWNERS, OWNER OF THE PARKS AND OWNERS OF THE COACHES. WE FEEL THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE DOES NOT PUT BOTH OWNERS ON AN EQUAL STATUS, AND IT NEEDS MUCH MORE WORK, THOUGHT AND REVISION TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. FURTHERMORE, WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO SUBMIT OUR VIEWS, SUGGESTIONS AND OPINIONS ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL. a THEREFORE, WE FEEL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOT AT THIS TIME TAKE ANY ACTION ON THIS ORDINANCE AND TABLE AT THIS TIME ALL DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT MATTER. AND THAT A COMMITTEE BE FORMED WITH ONE OR TWO MEMBERS FROM EACH MOBILE HOME GROUP AND PARK (DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PARK) TOGETHER WITH YOUR ATTORNEY AND ONE OR TWO CITY COUNCILLORS. t THEY SHOULD MEET AND COME UP WITH A FAIR AND EQUITABLE PRO- POSED ORDINANCE AND THEN REPORT BACK TO THIS COUNCIL AT THE CONCLUSION ; OF THEIR MEETINGS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. i WE THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU TABLE DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND SET UP SUCH A COMMITTEE. t 1 ' HOWEVER, IN ASKING THIS COUNCIL TO TABLE DISCUSSION AND ENACT- MENT OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME, WE FACE ANOTHER SERIOUS PROBLEM. ' r WE ARE ALSO ASKING THIS COUNCIL TO EXTEND THE MORITORIUM FOR ¢ ANOTHER 60 DAYS.. WE FEEL THAT THIS WILL GIVE THE PARTIES SUFFICIENT TIME TO TRY AND WORK OUT THEIR PROBLEMS. t IF THIS COUNCIL FEELS THAT EXTENDING THE MORITORIUM IS NOT IN ORDER, THEN WE REQUEST THAT ANY INCREASE REQUESTED BY MANAGEMENT OF THESE PARKS, BE PUT INTO LN INTEREST BEARING TRUST FUND. WE FURTHER AGREE THAT ANY RENT INCREASE WORKED OUT BY THE PARTIES DURING NEGO- TIATION AND OR AN ARBITRATOR'S AWARD, BE RETROACTIVE TO THE RENT REVIEW DATE IN EACH PARK, IN FAIRNESS TO THE PARK OWNERS. WE MAKE THIS REQUEST BASED ON THE FOLLOWING REASONS: •NO.1 IF PARK OWNERS RECtIVE THEIR REQUESTED INCREASE, THEY HAVE .�. '�. —3— NO INCENTIVE TO SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE MOBILE HOME OWNERS NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE. NO 2 THEY COULD VERY WELL TAKE THE POSITION, "I HAVE MY INCREASE LET THEM SWEAT. I WILL SIT WITH THEM AT MY CONVENIENCE". NO 3 WITH HIS REQUESTED INCREASE IN HIS POCKET HE COULD HAVE USE OF MONEY WHICH ULTIMATELY MAY BE NOT HIS TO USE. NO.4 IT WOULD NOT ONLY GIVE THE PARK OWNERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STALL NEGOTIATION BUT ALSO ARBITRATION. NO 5 WHETHER ONE LIKES TO USE THE TERM OR NOT, IN EFFECT THIS PRO— POSED ORDINANCE IS A FORM OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE PLACED ON AN EQUAL FOOTING. BY ALLOWING PARK OWNERS TO RECEIVE AN INCREASE WHICH THEY UNILATERALLY SET UP, WOULD IN FACT SWING THE PENDULUM IN FAVOR OF THE PARK OWNERS. THIS IS UN— FAIR AND NOT THE AMERICAN WAY. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO OUR REQUESTS. -a-- WE FEEL THAT THE TIME HAS COME, IF OUR REQUESTS ARE GRANTED, FOR THE DISPUTING PARTIES TO ROLL UP THEIR SLEEVES -AND GO TO WORK TO FIND AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION TO THEIR PROBLEMS. IF BOTH PARTIES HAVE OPEN MINDS AND WILL GIVE SERIOUS CONSID— ERATION TO EACH OTHERS POSITION, TO SOLVE THEIR DIFFERENCES SO, THAT EVEN IF AN ORDINANCE IS ENACTED, ITS IMPACT WOULD HAVE NO'EFFECT UPON THE PARTIES FOR THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE COUNCIL. WE WANT TO BE JUST AND FAIR TO THE PARK OWNERS AND WE ASK THEM TO RECIPROCATE. WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE ISN'T THE INTENT OF THIS COUNCIL TO SEND THE PARTIES TO THE BARGAINING TABLE.????? ISN'T THIS THE END RESULT????? ARBITRATION WHILE WE DO NOT FEEL THAT ARBITRATION IS THE PERFECT ANSWER TO THE PROBLEMS OF THE PARTIES, (UNLESS THE PARTIES ARE FORTUNATE TO ACQUIRE THE SERVICES OF AN ARBITRATOR WHO IS AN EXPERT IN THE MOBILE HOME FIELD) AND WE FEEL THAT ARBITRATION SHOULD BE AVOIDED IF POS— SIBLE, AT LEAST IT TAKES THE MATTER OUT OF THE POLITICAL ARENA DEVOID OF EMOTIONS AND PUTS THE MATTER ON A BUSINESS LIKE BASIS. IN CONSIDERING OUR REQUEST, CONSIDER FOR A MOMENT THE FACT THAT IF A PARK OWNERS RECEIVE HIS SET INCREASE, HAS FULL USE OF THIS Al MONEY, IT MIGHT BE WORTH HIS WHILE TO TAKE THE DISPUTE TO ARBITRATION, WHICH MIGHT TAKE TWO ORYNREE MONTHS, AND THEN IF HE RECEIVES AND AD- VERSE DECISION, APPEAL THE MATTER IN THE COURTS EVEN THOUGH, HIS ATTORNEY, KNOWLEDGEABLE IN ARBITRATION MATTERS, KNOWS THAT A COURT WILL ONLY OVERTURN AN ARBITRATOR'S DECISION IF: i 1. HIS DECISION IS CONTRARY TO LAW { 2. HIS DECISION IS CONTRARY TO THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. i HE KNOWS HE HAS NO CHANCE OF OVERTURNING THE ARBITRATOR'S DE- CISION, BUT MIGHT BE WILLING TO SPEND THE COST`WHILE HE STALLS AND t HAS USE OF THE MONEY THE RENT INCREASE HAS AFFORDED HIM. ` I DON'T THINK THAT I HAVE TO TELL THE COUNCIL HOW -LONG IT TAKES IN THIS STATE TO CONCLUDE A COURT CASE. WHILE IT HAS NEVER BEEN MY INTENTION TO WASTE THE TIME OF THIS COUNCIL WITH ARGUMENT WHICH WILL COME UP DURING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ' THE PARTIES, NEVERTHELESS I MUST POINT OUT ONE SUCH ARGUMENT TO SHOW YOU THAT OUR REQUESTS MADE TO YOU MAKE SENSE. IN ALL MOBILE HOMES THE VAST MAJORITY OF INHABITANTS ARE SENIOR CITIZENS, MOST OF WHOM ARE RECEIVING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. LAST JULY THESE PEOPLE RECEIVED AN.INCREASE OF ABOUT 14% UNDER THE COST OF LIVING FORMULA. t i NOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT IN MAKING UP THE FORMULA ON THE COST OF i LIVING, THE BUREAU OF STATISTICS IN WASHINGTON, USES FOOD, CLOTHING, M i� ELECTRIC, GAS, MEDICAL ETC. TO NAME BUT A FEW ITEMS, INCLUDING HOUSING. RENT INCREASES ARE BUT A SMALL ITEM IN ELEVATING THE COST OF LIVING. YET PARK OWNERS HAVE REQUESTED INCREASES IN RENTS IN PERCENT- AGES WHICH ARE EQUAL OR EVEN EXCEED THE COSTS OF LIVING INDEX DES- PITE THE FACT MOST OF THE INHABITANTS OF THESE PARKS ARE ON A FIXED INCOME, MANY OF WHOM ARE WIDOWS. ITS INCREDIBLE. IN,ONE SELFISH SWOOP, THEY ARE ASKING MOBILE HOME OWNERS TO LITTERALLY WIPE OUT THIS COST OF LIVING INCREASE, AND THIS, DISPITE THE FACT THAT THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE GRANTED TO THEM CONSISTED OF ALL ITEMS WHICH MAKE UP THE COST OF LIVING INDEX. IT IS NO SECRET THAT THE COMBINED VALUE OF THE COACHES EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE PARK. L -5— IN CONCLUSION, WE URGE THAT YOU GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO OUR REQUESTS, WE ASK THAT YOU TREAT MOBILE HOME OWNERS IN THE SAME MANNER YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED, IF YOU IN FACT WERE MOBILE HOME OWNERS AND PLACED IN SUCH A PREDICAMENT. THE ONLY ORDINANCE THAT WE, THE MOBILE�HOME OWNER RESIDENTS, WANT,IS ONE THAT WILL REQUIRE THE PARK OWNERS TO SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE ANY CHANGE OF CURRENT LEASE, INCLUDING SERVICES AND RENT.— AND THIS MUST BE DONE EVERY YEAR BEFORE A NEW LEASE IS PRESENTED TO THE MOBILE HOME OWNERS —.WE DO NOT PARTICULARLY WANT { THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE A HEARING BOARD, OR SET UP A FAIR RENT PRACTICE COMMISSION. WE SIMPLY WANT TO BE PLACED ON AN 'EQUAL BAS19:WITH MANAGEMENT.AN� NUALLY, UNLESS THE PARTIES NEGOTIATE OTHERWISE. THE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, IF UNABLE TO ARRIVE AT A MUTUAL AGREEMENT, MUST SUBMIT THE ISSUE TO BINDING ARBITRATION. h 0 I 1 SOUTH SHORES DEVELOPMENT CORP. POST OFFICE BOX NO, 84 • DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA 90241 • (213) 928.2900 December 23, 1980 Frank Aleshire City Manager City of Carlsbad City Hall Carllbad, CA Dear Mr. Aleshire: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of December 22nd, please find the following enclosures: I. My letter of November 17th to the residents of Lanikai Lane along with a copy of a ballot which I asked them to complete and return. 2. My letter of November 23rd reporting the results of that election and asking them to meet with me in group, so that we might discuss any problem that might be on their minds. 3. A cover letter under date of December 15th to the residents of the Park giving them the final tally of the vote plus advising them of certain matters which had taken place since my last communication to them and to that letter the attachments of my response to the com- mittee under date of December 15th along with a copy of the Letter of Agreement that I intended to enter into with the Park. If you will read in the letter of December 15th, you will note that the final number of votes returned was 88 out of a possible 140. This gave us 63% of the eligible spaces voting and of that amount 47 spaces cast a notice that they felt the increase effective January 1, 1981 was fair while 41 felt that it should be reviewed by the rent review committee. This is in substance what I reported to the City Council on the evening of Dec- ember 16th. I also stated at that time that nevertheless I would still be happy to meet with the committee and resolve any differences that might exist between the residents and management. You had avised me that they indicated to you that I was unwilling to meet with them and nothing could be further from the truth. The truth of the matter is that I have not heard from them nor have my managers heard from them relative an answer to my offer under date of December 14th. We do know that one member of the committee is out of town for the holidays, how- ever we have no information as to the status of the balance of the members LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA Frank Aleshire December 23, 1980 Page 2 It must be pointed out to you that I not only was willing to meet with the committee but I also have met with the Park in general at which time there were only 51 people in attendance representing 34 spaces in the Park. Con- sidering that the Park has 146 spaces of which 140 are not under my control in any fashion, I would doubt that that was indicative of a major upheavel in the Park relative my reasonable rental increase. I would also call your attention in each instance of the City Council's public hearing relative the matter, there was no spokesman or no resident of Lanikai Lane who raised his voice in opposition. You may be interested in knowing that in the December 16th meeting, the only people in attendance were Mr. Deyoeger and Mr. and Mrs. Si Bass. Mr. Bass is the president of the local chapter of the GSMOL and Mr. Deyoeger is of course on a committee that they appointed. I'd also like to point out to you that the GSMOL does not represent all of the people in Lanikai Lane. This statement is made based upon information given to me by Mr. Bass. I specifically do not: know who is and who is not a member of GSMOL but I am relying on a statement that he has made on more than one occasion. You advised me that they intended to circulate a petition showing that 51% of the people are opposed to the rent increase. You know and I know that they certainly will be successful in such an effort since people do not honestly vote their feelings when confronted by a neighbor demanding that they support them in their action against me. I believe that the real test of whether or not a dispute exists in Lanikai Lane will be on January 1st when the people pay their rent and we can determine then whether or not 51% of the people are opposed to it. Both my managers and I feel strongly that the vast majority of our people are very contented and satisfied. However, if we find that there is evidence to believe that this may not be entirely true, then it is my intention to seek the independent vote being taken by a certified public accounting firm to determine just exactly where we do stand. As I told you over the phone, I think our whole discussion is mute because I believe that the matter will be resolved in a court of competent juris- diction and I am fearful for the residents as I believe that they will be quite surprised to find that their increases may be far greater in some parks than have been announced when reasonable and just increases are allowed. I don't believe this to be the case in Lanikai Lane as our position has and will remain to be one of being fair and just. In light of this inquiry now coming before you, I would hope that you would read in the entirety my correspondence to the residents of Lanikai Lane and see if you find in this correspondence anything but a very fair and interested attitude. Frank Sleshire December 23, 1980 Page 3 I know that you join with me in hoping that this matter will soon be behind us so that we may proceed in an orderly fashion in our businesses. Very truly yours, t Enclosures i LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK 6550 PONTO DRIVE • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 • (714) 438.2942 November 17, 1980 Dear Resident: Recent developments at two mobile home parks in Carlsbad have given concern to the residents of those parks. They have sought help from the City Council of the City of Carlsbad in the form of a restraint on the amount of their rental increases. Lanikai Lane was not a part of this dispute but was swept into the legislation enacted by the City Council following the complaints filed by the residents of the other parks. It was clear, by listening to those who spoke at the public hearing, that they did not want rent control. It was also clear that the Council did not want rent control. The devastating effect on a community or any agency that has enacted rent control is clear for anyone to see. It would serve no purpose to detail the history of these cases in this letter. Unfortunately, even though everyone felt that they did not want rent control, that is exactly what came out of the Council. A rose by any other name is still a rose. And rent control by any other name is still rent control. It may be called rent review, or rent stabilization, or rent arbitration or in the case of the City of Carlsbad, rent moratorium. Nonetheless it is still rent control. It is the position of the owners of Lanikai Lane that we will not only comply with the law, we will move together with the residents to maintain a pleasant environment in our park both from a physical point as well as from a mental point, thus reducing any opportunity for friction in the park. Lanikai Lane has long held a position of reasonable rental adjustment. This has resulted in our rents being: (1) lower than the increase caused by inflation; (2) the lowest by far of any of the parks in Carlsbad and (3) most competitive with all of the parks in the North San Diego County area. The recent rental adjustment which will be effective January 1, 1981, subject to action by the Carlsbad City Council, has met all of these standards and we find it to be fair and just. While there appears to be little if any opposition to the increase, we must and should comply with the guidelines set down by the City Council. To that end we need your input. You have several choices as I interpret their guidelines: (1) You may indicate your acceptance of the increase that is to becorr��R effective January 1, 1981. 'e_ V F\1 -2- (2) You may request that a committee be formed to study the rental increase. This would include two residents, two representatives of ownership and a fifth independent member. Mr. Si Bass, President'of the Lanikai Lane Chapter of the Golden State Mobilehome Owners League (GSMOL) has indi- cated that he is willing to appoint the two residents to the committee if it is formed. This would be entirely satisfactory to us if it follows your wishes. However you may net be a member of GSMOL and you may wish the selection made in some different manner. This too is acceptable to us. Please, however, do not interpret my listing this alternative as any indication of my disapproval of the committee being formed in part by the selection of a GSMOL representative. (3) And I assume that you would have the right to ignore the entire matter if you wish. I am asking that you give your input to us before 12:00 noon on Sa November 22nd, by marking your preference an the attached reply. ASSURED, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, YOUR POSITION WILL NOT NOW OR IN THE F i am satistied that we can come to an open honest decision of facts wit out resorting to unwarranted friction between us. 0 I pledge my cooperation with you. Will you indicate yours by a quick response. We can then proceed following your wishes and I am sure that we can find accord between us by working together. Sincerely, Encl: Preference Ballot Letter Relative Moratorium on Mobile Home Rents from Mayor Ronald C. Packard Ak _ W i9 . CARLSBAD MORATORIUM ON i MOBILE HOME RENTS AS IT AFFECTS ; LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK I am satisfied with the rental increase scheduled to become effective January 1, 1981 I would like to have a Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park Rent j Review Committee formed. { AND 3 i [� I would like GSMOL to appoint the two resident members OR I want some other selection process used n May I suggest the following members for consideration: I have no time and I am not interested in any of this. Let ❑ someone else study the matter. Name Space No. NOTE: MANAGEMENT AND OWNERSHIP HAVE PLEDGED AND REAFFIRM THEIR POSITION y TAKEN WHEREIN THE VOTING ON THIS BALLOT WILL IN NO WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESIDENT AND THE MANAGER OR OWNER EITHER IN THE PRESENT OR THE FUTURE. LANIKA1 LANE MOBILE HOME PARK 6550 PONTO DRIVE • CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 • (714) 438.2942 November 24, 1980 Dear Resident: I am sure that you would be interested in the results of the recent voting relative the Mobile Nome Park Rent Review Committee. All ballots received up to and including Saturday night have been counted. There was the pos- sibility of 141 votes. We actually received 80 ballots which represents 56.73% of those eligible. The vote was 41 in favor of the recent increase and 39 requesting the forma- tion of a committee. This results in 51.25% in favor and 48.75% requesting the committee be formed. Prior to the distribution of my last letter, I had planned to call for the committee if as few as 25% of those voting requested the formation. Clearly then with 48.75 calling for the committee, it should be formed. It should be noted that the call for the committee is the request of 27.66% of the residents in the park. As I heard the ordinance passed and as described in the November 5, 1980 letter of Mayor Ronald C. Packard, the Committee was only to be formed when a request to do so was by the resi- dents of a park. I would assume that this meant a majority of those in the park. However with 27.66 requesting the committee, their voices should not be ignored but heard. You should be aware of the fact that Mayor Ronald C. Packard told Mr.. Si Bass, President of the Lanikai d.S.M.O.L. in meeting with the presidents of G.S.M.O.L. from each of the Carlsbad Parks last Thursday, that each park had to form the committee. As a matter of record, this is clearly not what was passed at the City Council meeting. But that point is mute as I concur with the 39 people that a committee would be beneficial. YOU ARE URGED TO VOTE Mr. Si Bass has advised me the G.S.M.O.L. will seek the vote of each resident in selecting the two members from the residents. Whether you are a G.S.M.O.L. member or not and regardless of how you voted or even if you did not vote, you should at this time let your voice be heard in selecting your representa- tive. Every resident of the park is eligible to represent you. Please, let us make sure that this democratic process works. Vote for those you want to represent you so your position may be heard. L -2- As I understand the voting, G.S.M.O.L. is only taking the lead in making sure that the two are chosen. They too want participation in the form of voting and committee membership by each of you. CONCERN SHALL BE NOTED Several who voted to approve the increase as well as a.few who voted for the committee indicated certain concerns they had with the policies of manage- ment of Lanikai. You may be assured that management will review these con- cerns as well as sharing all of them with the committee when it is formed. That is not to guarantee that they all will be settled to your satisfaction, but they will be studied to determine if action is warranted. PLEASE COME TO SPEAK WITH ME I have been invited by Mr. Si Bass to attend the G.S.M.O.L. meeting to be held on Wednesday night. This is Thanksgiving Eve and I asked to be excused due to a family commitment as well as the heavy freeway traffic. I did, however, volunteer to meet with all residents of the park on WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6th at 7:00 P.M. This was accepted. If you have something you would like to say to me or if you just want to listen, please come. I have asked our managers to provide coffee and cookies, so if for no other reason, come just to fellow- ship. I again pledge to you my cooperation and hope we can obtain a greater parti- cipation than the 27% that voted in our last request. Sincerely, LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK 6530 ►ONTO ORIV[ CAftZSAO. CAUFORNIA 9200E • I714) 43E-2942 December 15, 1980 Dear Resident: I have, since the general meeting held in the clubhouse on the night of December 3rd, thought many times that I wanted to write you and give you some input as to the results of that meeting. Unfortunately, pressures of the day to day operation were such that I am embarrassed that this reply to you is not particularly timely. I am sure, however, that you will under- stand. The meeting was most beneficial to me and I trust it was beneficial to those in attendance. I was somewhat disappointed in that the attendance was rather light with 51 people representing 34 spaces in our Park. I am sure that an educational process took place both.for those in attendance as well as for myself and I would have liked to have had everybody share in that experience. The laws of the State of California are such that you are now entitled to have these meetings at any time you feel a need to do so. I assured the group that evening as I assure you now that I will comply with that within reasonable timing and will be happy to meet with you in groups or in indivi- dual situations in the future. I do in fact look forward to them as I felt that our first meeting was beneficial. You may be interested in the final results that came in on the small survey/ election that I conducted relative the Carlsbad moratorium on mobile home park tents as it affects Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park. I had previously advised you of the results as of our cutoff, date of 12 noon, however there were some brought to the office after that date and there were also some received by mail. .We had a total of 88 votes cast out of a possible 140.. We eliminated the voting of the manager; relief manager, Dr. Durfey and three individual spaces that were currently vacant. This gives us 63% of the eligible spaces.voting and of that amount 47 cast a notice that they felt the increase effective January 1, 1981 was fair while 41 felt that it should be reviewed by the rent reviewcortmittee within the structure of the park. Percentagewise this gives us 53j% of those voting in favor and the balance indicating a request for review. I add that it is my interpretation that it did not necessarily mean that all those that voted for the review were not necessarily opposed to the increase but rather that the entire matter of rents be reviewed by the committee. I would hope that if we find it necessary for any future polling, that we do get'a participation greater than the 63% of this poll. I was advised'by the representative of the GSMOL that they made a door to door survey in the park and found that 75 of the spaces wished. the committee while 40 were not home. There was no indication -2- as to the balance. I was subsequently advised by the GSMOL that they had formed a committee and that committee was composed of the following: 1. Mary McCabe - Space 123 2. Ed Deyoeger - Space 117 Alternate Rae Simonson - Space 23 Alternate Ruth Coyle - Space 117 After the meeting of the evening of December 3rd, I continued the meeting with the committee in which they expressed certain concerns that they carried to me from the general residents. I have prepared a reply to those concerns and have attached that reply to this letter so that you may have a direct access to both what I perceive to be their positions plus my response. They had indicated to me that it was their intention to circulate this information to you and I felt that by my doing it on a direct basis,. it would simply save both time and money on the part of the committee. I would appreciate you read- ing very carefully my entire response and the attachments thereto, inasmuch as I feel that it is very important that we have your knowledge of what is taking place at the present time. By the time you receive this letter I will have met again with the City Council at the City of Carlsbad and would hope that our voluntary compliance with negotiating our rents within the park will be sufficient to satisfy the con- cerns expressed to the Council and that there be no further intervention by governmental bodies. It is my personal belief and one that I expressed at the general membership meeting that no one will gain from forced action by the City of Carlsbad. I have stated at the meeting and to some of you on an individual basis prior to that, that our rents at Lanikai Lane were very fair and just. I think that by any standards that you would want you use, you would have to agree with me. A recent article that I read in one of the reports that is circulated to me, seemed to support this position and I would like to quote it to you at this time: nta Barba as after the developer ble housing'. "Under this agreement, the rent for the 95 'affordable spaces' will be set a $175.00 per month, which is at the lower end of the current market area rents. To insure that the rents will remain affordable, the developer agreed to tie those spaces to the county's mobile home park rent control ordinance which limits increases toil% of the C.P.I. 13 "The remaining new spaces are exempt from the county rent control for the first five years." • 4- Neither you nor I know the exact location of this park other than it is in northern Santa Barbara County and neither of us know what amenities the park might include but it certainly is another indication the the rents at Lanikai Lane are fair and just. I'm satisfied that out of the situation that we were thrust into by the action of the situation at Lakeshore Gardens and the ensuing council action, that we will together be able to develop a new dialogue that will be fair and equitable to both of us and from which we can both be well satisfied as to the growth in the future. Again, permit me to please ask you to read carefully the response to the committee as I know that it is their desire that you have this information. Very truly yours, lam- • - " 1/1- JACK E. ROBINSON JER:dc SOUTH SHORES DEVELOPMENT CORP. POST OFFIca BOX NO. 84 • DOWNIY. CALIFORNIA >iC241 • (213) >i28.2S00 4 •. v DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1980 TO: MARY McCABE - Space 123 ED DEYOEGER - Space 117 RAE SIMONSON - Space 23 RUTH COYLE - Space 117 FROM: JACK E. AOBINSON SUBJECT: LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK RENT REV[EW.BOARD Permit me to respond to the issues that you raised in our first meeting. I trust that I clearly understand them, however in light of the heavy meeting with the general residents, I could have overlapped the concerns. This entire issue may be settled in one,way or another by the City Council in the meeting scheduled for December 16th, however I felt that my position should be stated prior to that meeting. No. 1 - "Disturbed and Unhappy Residents" I am not totally satisfied that this statement truly represents the condi- tion at Lanikai. Our survey does not support that claim, however, in answer, Management, both resident and ownership, will strive to make Lanikai an even more pleasant place to live commensurate with our physical and financial ability to do so. No. 2 - "Communication" A concern was expressed over the lack of response of "ownership manage- ment" to respond to concerns of the residents. In answer, we acknowledge this as a pr alem and plan to develop a system of appeal, still keeping the resident manager as the first spokesman for us. This system will be placed in effect prior to March 1, 1981 and each resident will be advised of the manner in which it will function. No. 3 - "Capital Improvements" The committee suggested that the Park had not been maintained and no improvement has been %iade. This is totally without foundation. We have and will continue is maintain the Park in a good and acceptable condition. One of the first matters that I covered with our new resident managers was the preparation of a Long Range Maintenance/Improvement Schedule. Quoting from my field -report of October.15, 1980., "11. Robinson requested that management prepare a Long Range Maintenance/Improvement Schedule. List items under categories of Immediate, 1/12 months and 115 years." LANIKAI LANE MOBILE HOME PARK CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA 0 This has not 3"— been completed. The pressure c� lay to day operations, the rental increases and the holidays have preciudea this Trom,compietion. It will be completed, reviewed; adopted and the residents advised prior to March 1, 1981. It would be well for the committee to give to the manager any input you may have on this issue. I must add that the statement that some residents were ashamed to have visitors is in my opinion unwarranted. And that the subject of maintenance is a two-way street. The residents need to also maintain their"homes so that they will not become unsightly to their neighbors. In the greater part this is now their attitude and I trust it will continue and expand to other residents. No. 4 - 111981 Rent Increase" The rent increase that I placed in effect for January 1, 1981, is a fair and just increase. Certainly there are those who may disagree, but there appears to be support that it is fair. While we would all like to see a zero inflation rate and a zero rent increase, this is not the current economic condition. In light of all factors, the increase is fair and will stand as stated. We will produce a rental chart, showing both the rent rate before and after the increases by space and size of unit. This will be available in the office of the Park for public in- spection. I see no reason why this cannot be done by January 1, 1981. No. 5 - "Increase Rent - Sale of Unit" It has been our past practice to increase the rent on a space where the unit is sold by a sum of $25.00 per month. There is a sound basis for this action, however it is clear that this is a source of concern to the residents. I would then propose this change: (1) The rate of increase on all future sa`ies shall be $15.00 per month; (2) This increase shall not be made on the occasion of a second or subsequent sale made within two years of either the prior $25.00 increase or any future $15.00 increase. Each resident will be advised of this policy and the policy will be posted in the office of the Park. I believe that this then concludes my response to the concerns you expressed. How- ever, in addition, I would like to share with you the following information. I believe that the residents of Lanikai join with me in the position that we can resolve any differences we have on a local "in park" negotiation without action of the City of Carlsbad. Rancho Carlsbad and Solamar have both agreed to enter into a "Letter of Agreement" calling for a committee such as ours and for the further action of binding arbitration if an accord cannot be reached by the com- mittee. I am attaching a copy of their agreement. I have decided that such action on our part would best carve the residents of Lanikai and I will advise the City Council of my action on December 16th. You had indicated that you would circulate my response to the residents and I have taken the liberty of addressing a letter to them and attaching this response to you. I hope that this will then aid you. Sincerely, JACK E. ROBINSON i _1_y _ _ � LETTER OF AGREEMENT This letter of agreement is between the owner of Lanikai Lane Mobile Home Park (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER") and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Owners Association (hereinafter referred to as "RESIDENTS"). Whereas: there currently exists a dispute between the OWNER and RESIDENTS relative to 1981 User -fees (Rents) for use of space, present service and amenities of the Park; and Whereas: both the OWNER and RESIDENTS are in favor of a means of solving the dispute other than through Government regulations; and Whereas: the City of Carlsbad took action on October 28th, 1980 instzucting Park Owners and Mobile Home Owners to get together through a Negotiating Commit- tee; and establish an Arbitrator approach if necessary as a final solution; and Whereas: the OWNER has indicated a desire and willingness to proceed with a Negotiating Committee; and Whereas: the RESIDENTS through their representative organizations have indicated a desire to establish a Negotiation Committee; therefore it it agreed the following step, in procedure will b6 followed to resolve the dispute. NLGOTIATING PROCEDURE 1. Immediately collowing the OWNER's notice of increase in User -fees (Rents), the RESIDENTS will i-)e polled for acceptance or rejection. 2. Should a simple majority of the RESIDENTS by spaces currently occupied reject the proposed increase in User -fee (Rents), there shall be formed within two (2) weeks a Negotiating Committee consisting of five (5) members. Two members shall be selected by the OWNER, two selected by RESIDENTS and one •(1) selected by the four. Should the four members decide unanimously that a fifth member is not needed, then the committee shall proceed with four members. 3. The Negotiating Committee shall meet at times and intervals sufficient to arrive at a mutually agreeable User -fee (Rents) within 20 days after forma- tion of the Committee. The Negotiating Committee shall consider all evidence presented to it. The OWNER and RESIDENTS shall be encouraged to present facts and testimony for the committee members to consider. These facts may be presented with the assistance of a spokesman or counsel. 4. A four -fifths (4/5) vote of the Negotiating Committee will be required to agree on a User -fee (Rents) to be presented to the RESIDENTS for acceptance. S. After a User -fee (Rents) has been agreed by the Negotiating Committee, the RESIDENTS shall be polled for acceptance or rejection. A simple majority vote of the RESIDENTS by spaces (one space equals one vote) will be required to accept or reject. In the event the vote is to reject, then the procedure set forth in Paragraph 6, 7, s 8 below shall be followed. 6. 'Should the Negotiating Committee be unable "t6 agree upon- acceptable User -fee (Rents), RESIDENTS by spaces (one space equeals one vote), shall be palled for acceptance or rejection of the OWNER's proposal and if rejected' }st a simple majority, the dispute will be submitted to binding arbitration. The Arbitrator will be selected by the Negotiating Committee according to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, The Arbitrator will be given 10 working days if possible after receipt of the case to arrive at his decision.. The decision of, the Arbitrator will be final and binding upon both parties retroactive to January 1, 1981. The Arbitration hearing will be held and conducted according to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association and applicable California law. 7. Each party shall submit such evidence as they feel is necessary to support their respective positions in the dispute in determining if a reQt increase is necessary or required and if so, is it faix and equitable to the RESIDENTS and will it provide the OWNER sufficient funds to operate the Park, with a just and reasonable return on his property. Suggested testimony furnished for his consideration may include but not be limited to, the services and amenities provided, the value of the property and capital improvements,'taxes, operating expenses, the value of the RESIDENT'S coaches, their increased costs in upkeep, including but not limited to increased costs in electricity and gas, etc. However, whenever any'testimony is submitted, the Arbitrator shall make the determination to include or exclude any testimony which he feels is not germane and material to the dispute. S. The cost of the arbitration will be shared equally by the OWNER and the RESIDENTS. 9. This agreement is not intended to supersede or contradict the laws of the State of California generally or as they pertain specifically to mobile - home parks, mobilehome park rents, and otherwise, as they are now enacted or enacted in the future by the California State Legislature or the California State Constitution. Further, this agreement is specifically conditioned on the City of Carlsbad taking no action by way of ordinance or otherwise to direct influence or control directly or indirectly the rent levels in Mobile - home Parks in Carlsbad. Date Approved in Form and Content by Members of Negotiating Committee Page Two of 7%do Victor 0. Bergquist Will Hall Joseph A. Tengler Joseph Bastone Members Alternates NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE LAKESHORE GARDENS ASSOCIATION Chapter 683 Region 7 GOLDEN STATE MOBILEHOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 7104 Santa Cruz, Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 January 10, 1981 Mr. L. E. Martindale 9200 Sunset Boulevard, 0418 Los Angeles, Califoruia 90069 Dear Mr. Martindale We are writing to you directly in hopes that this will lead to resolution of impasse regarding proposed rent increases at Lakeshore Gardens. As you are undoubtedly aware, we had one meeting with Mr. Ron Birtcher and Mr. Richard Wells in an attempt to reach agreement on an equitable increase in rent, but were unable to resolve our differences. Inasmuch as any final decision will have to be made by you or Mr. Bronson, we want to be aura that you have our views firsthand, uncolored by transmission through a third parson. With all due respect to Mr. Birtcher, who undoubtedly was doing what he felt was best for your interests, and his, his report to you could not help but be influenced by his ova viewpoint. This letter is not intended as an afftont to him, since he treated us cordially, but rather to make sure that you have a clear understanding of our thinking. Our meeting with Mr. Birtcher was courteous and friendly, but we left with the impression that the only justification offered for the size of the proposed increase was that our rents are not sufficient to cover both the decrease in purchasing power of the dollar and increases in operating costs. In our opinion (and we believe in the opinion of any unbiased, knowledgable person), this clearly is an unsound premise. We agree that you are entitled to recover increased operating expenses, but to expect us to maintain the purchasing power of the dollar for Mr. Bronson while our, own dollars are de- clining in value and hurting us more than him is patently unreasonable. Although we indicated that we were ready to recommend acceptance of any increase that could be proved to be legitimately justified by higher oper- ating costs, no concrete eviden^e of that was offered. We realize that some increase is justified, since out investigation has disclosed specific in- creases in costs of suph +terns as water and sewer and expected increases in trash pickup charger.. Also, ve know that taxes have increased this year but are still below thi+ 1975 levee. In addition, we have estimated by extrapo- lation the possiblit increases -in other operating costs, based on actual figures disclosed to us by Mr. Bacon several years ago to explain the reasons for a rent increase at %hat time. In total, the operational increases that we can determine on 1.1.d basis of limited data available to us can at most justify a rent inc,�•_asa far below the amount demanded, and even less than we have indicated ae were willing to settle for. If we can be shown by actual facts that we�are mistaken, and that what you ask is justified by higher operating costs, we will withdraw our objections aad recommend acceptance of your proposal. In other fields of collective bar- gaining it has long been an accepted procedure, upheld by courts, that the negotiating committee should be supplied with all material and data necessary to make a sound judgement. Thin requirement is included in mobilehome rent control legislation for other cities and is expected to be included in an ordinance now being drafted in Carlsbad. Obviously, it would be a good gesture on your part to offer this voluntarily. The ordinance being drafted, and soon to be adopted, appears certrin to in- clude the provision that rent disputes that are rot resolved by negotiation must be submitted to binding arbitration. We are prepared to follow that course, if necessary, but would prefer to resolve our differences by friendly personal negotiation. Our relations in the past have been very pleasant and we have consistently extolled the virtues of Lakeshore Gardens and of Mr. Bronson as the owner. We would like to continue that attitude and we are sure that from a public relation standpoint Mr. Bronson would want to age it continued. Unfortunately, the current rent confrontation has shown Lakeshore Gardens management as un- cooerative and disinterested welfare there.he home owners tratiun proceedings would unc:aubtedlyre result in further adverse publicity. As you are undoubtedly aware, most of us at Lakeshore Gardens are living on relatively fixed incomes, many of them quite marginal, and a large increase in rent, on top of other spiraling costs, will require some downward adjust- ment in living standards. On the other hsnd, a more moderate rent increase would make little difference in Mr. Bronson's living standard. We are asking simply for consideration of the relative financial status of both home owners and park owners. Possibly, a personal discussion with you or Mr. Bronson could beet achieve what we have been unable to achieve with Mr. Birtcher. We are sure you are as desirous as we are to have this problem settled without arbitration and before another extension of the moratorium is necessary. We would like to hear from you as soon as possible. Cordially LAUSHORE GARDENS NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE VICTOR 0. BERGQL'ISS " JOSEPEi A. TENGLERJ�wC% VOB/wfh Copy to: lion. Ronald Packard, Mayor of Carlsbad Each member of the Carlsbad City Council Mr. Ron Birtcher f 1� e - 7 January 14, 1981 Mayor,Ronald Packard, City Council Members, Diary Casler, Anne xulchin, Claude Lewis, Girard Anear, Frank Aleshire,City Manager, Vincent S. Biondo Jr. ,City Attorney Dear City of Carlsbad : After con--iltation with other mobilehome Owners Negotiating Committees in the City of Carlsbad, enclosed you will find a copy of our suggestions on proposed changes and comments on Ordinance NO. 3124. We wish to thank you for your interest and consideration in this matter. 4 1 On behalf of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Owners Negot- iating Committee. Sincerely yours, jl'�rving J. Rich Esq. SUGGESTED CHANGES ORDINANCE NO' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, A1MDING TITLE 5 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 5.32 TO REGULATE MOBILE HOME PARK RENTS. Intent and Purpose Strife which jeopardizes the Public Health, Safety or Interest of both the Mobilehome Owners and Mobilehome Park Owners can be avoided if both Mobilehome Owners and Mobilehome Park Owners each recognize under law one anothors property owners rights in their relation to one another and recognize under law that neither party in relation to one another have the right to engage in acts or practices which jeopardize the Public Health, Safety or Interest, Experience has proved that protection by law of the right of Mobile Home Owners to organize and bargain collectively by encouraging practices fundamental to the friendly adjustment of disputes arising out of differ- ences as to rent increases or conditions of living in Mobilehome Parks by rostoring equality of bargaining power between Park Owners and Mobilehome Owners dub to the unique positions of the parties in that, both are property owners, and dub to the high cost of moving mobile homes, the potential for damago resulting therefrom, the requiroments relating to the installation of mobilehomos, including permits, landscaping and site preparation, the lack of alternative homesites for mobilehome residents and the substantial invostments of rrobilehomo owners in such horses. , 1 ea.,.,,r.•, WA.- ` �� r-• t 1 yr t f -2- There is presently within the City of Carlsbad and surrounding areas, i a shortage of spaces for the location of mobilehomes. Because of the shortage there is a low vacancy rate and rents have been for several years, and are presently in some parks, rising rapidly and causing concern and anguish among a substantial number of mobilehomo owners and residents of Mobilehomes in Carlsbad, most of whom are senior t citizens on fixed incomes. i i The City Council finds and declares it is necessary to establish a 1 means, which if followed, can provide protection to owners and occupiers of mobilehomes from unreasonable rent increases while at the same time recognizing the need of mobilehome park owners to receive a reasonable k return on their Property and rent increases sufficient to cover increased cost of repairs, maintenance, service, amenities; insurance, upkeep and additional amenities. It is hereby declared to be the Policy of the City of Carlsbad to encourage the practice and proceedur© of Collective Bargaining and Protecting mobilehome owners of full freedom of association, self organiza- tion and designating representatives of their own choosing for the purpose j of negotiating the terms and conditions of rent, rent spaces, and rent increases of mobilehome parks, based on present services in affect, present r amenities in affect and for additional amenities. The procedures contained herein are intended to enhance resulution of unreasonable increases in rents by making advantageous for both mobilehome ,4 owners and mobilehome park owners to establish a better understanding for each others Positions through collective bapgainingi and communication, hopefully resulting in an agreement for fair and equitable rent increases. , , t � -3- If ho•.mver, an agreement cannot be reached via Ccllective Bargaining between the parties, the City Council has deterrd nod it is necessary and in the Pui.,i.ic Interest to have the dispute re361ved by BINDING ARBITRATION. Selection of Arbi----trator 2. PA,�' ?_ 5.32.020 DE�INITIOidS 2 Comment: We believe that, in line one (1). the word "Certified" should be eliminated, unless the California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1280 of seq (which we have had time to study) provides other - :rise, for the following reasons: (a) Anyone familiar with arbitration knows how an arbitrator is selected by the Amorican Arbitration Association (hereinafter referred } to as "AAA") ' (b) Usually AAA sends out a duplicate lists of arbitrators to both parties involved, with a background of each arbitrator. (c) AAA asks the parties to indicate their preference 1, 2, 3. (d) If the parties indicate one arbitrator from the list regardless of preference of either party, that arbitrator is aelected. (e) If the lists are returned to AAA and both parties have not indicated a preference for any arbitrator jointly, two more lists are sent ` out. AFTER T}JREE LISTS AND JJC ARBITRATOR IS PICKED, AAA NAMES THE ARBITRATOR. t ;•Jo feel that the ordinance should readi-that,days after noyifi-- cation to the Park Owners that their "last offer" was re octed the Dartios fail to aeroo on an ix�partia arbitrator hen ho disoutA shall be submitted to AAA and the arbitML0X _ s}La:L, Q �Q � xlJ1t2S�f A 1A, _ram Comment: Mobilo Home Park Rents disputes are a now type of dispute for arbitration. With due resp(et for AAA, it is doubtful if they have a list of qualified arbitrators who are knowledgeable in the "Mobile Home Field" and the word 'certified" would prevent the parties from choosing a "qualified arbitrator" knowledgeable in the Mobile Home Field from serving as an arbitrator. The elimination of the word "certified" gives the parties first choice to select an "export" in the field. Ma orit 3. PAGE_?_ (3) PAGE ) (a) We believe that, a majority should be 51% of all Mobile Home Owners in the Park, eligible to vote and voting. (b) The term "Resident" is used here. Let's look at this term. In our Park the Park Owners, to the best of our knowledge, do not lease or rent their NEa COACHES fe sale. Only Mobile Home Owners sublet their coaches. Thoroforo, any lease must be made with the Mobile Home Owner. Even if a coach is sublet, the owner must pay the rent to the Park. Since many of these coaches are rented for less than a year, due to your definition, those residents could vote on a rent increased proposed oven though a rent increase might only affect the Mobile Home Owner and an.. absentee Mobile Home Owner who might not be a resident at the time, could NOT VOTE. Unless a sub -lease expires at the same time as the time of "rentraview+l, the Mobile Home Owner is the party that would be affected by a rent increase. This to be chocked out with other Parks. Pate 3 (7) "Mobile home Owner" means any person or persons as one owner, entitled to occupy a mobilehome dwelling pursuant to ownership thereof. I ri� L -5- Paee 3 5.32.030 OK i ;t Paste 3 5.32.030 (!t) Change the word "resident" to mobilehome owner. lhanpo 50t to 601 and add the word "occupied" before the word spaces. j Note: Whenever the word "residents" is used in this ordinance change to read "mobilehome ounort'. i Whenever the word "petition" is used change to "ballot". i Page 3 (8) "Rent" weans consideration. including services, amenities and # benefits in connection with the use and occupancy of a mobilehome space in <E the nark. Delete rest of (8). i Pa a 319) "Association" means the Mobilehome Owners Organization representing i at least sixty (601) percent of Mobilehome Owners in the park. ( Committee Selectinc !t 5. PADS h 5.32.050 i'OR)4ATION Of A PARK COMMITTER. '+1e ob.iect to this_},rocedure. We fool that it should be as follows: " i 1. A r'minimum" of two representatives of the Mobile Home Owners and a like amount to represent the Park Owners, plus alternates. 2. We do not feel that an odd person is of any value to the negotiations z unless that odd member is a CONCILIATOR without any vote. F Conciliator i Comment; A Conciliator can be most helpful in negotiations. Normally a Conciliator will meet with both parties and listen to their positions. He then separates the partios in separate rooms and tries to find out from each "what is their "real position" in the "dispute" and works between the two 1 parties to reach a tentative agreement. All too many times, a Company will V. v _6 not put on the table what they really intend but would take a position with a Conciliator. "I am not putting this out as an offer, but if you can got the other committee to agree on this offer (told to you only), I will put it on the table at a formal meeting of the parties". The Conciliator then goes into session with the other party and if they agree, he then calls the parties back into session and at that time the owners out out their proposal which is accepted by the other Committee and a tentative agreement is reached, subject to a vote of the Mobile Home Owners. Two Committees The concont of making 'one Committee" we feel is all wrong. In effect, there are two Committees, one representing the Park and the other, the Mobile Home Owners. Association , Sends out Ballot 6. PAGE 4 5.32.070 RESIDENTS RESPONSE TO NOTICE. 'lo object to this procedure. It is done in reverse. The Association } should send out the ballots for the replies, NOT THE UWNF.R.S. The owners should have a right to be present when the ballot box is open. THE BALLOT ; SHOULD BE SEMET. Owners voting should be chocked off from prepared list. If the Farb Owners are not present at the counting of the ballots The Association shall notify the Park Gwners of the result. 7. PAGE 5.32.090 While we have no objections to the first part of this section we do object to the last two paragraphs. Comment: 'Ao do not object to the Committees going back into negotiation to try and resolve the issue before going into arbitration, but unless after a fair period of time, no now offer is proposed by the Park Owners the dispute Y • -7- should go to arbitration. However, if there is a "now offer" and the Park Owners take the position that this is their "final offer", now ballots sh-)uld be sent out to the Homo Owners and if the last offer is rejected by the majority of Mobilehome Owners, then arbitration. Comment: NO COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE THE FIN U SAY ON -A RENT INCREASE ONLY THE MOBILE H614E OWNERS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT _TO ACCEPT OR REJE'.T. Resident Petition No 8. PAGE 5 5.12.100 RESIDENT PETITION. Change any reference to the word "Petition" to "Ballot" We object to this procedure. The second ballot takes care of this and any association of any weirh,t and knowledge, in its Fay -laws provides for a recount or roview. ABSOtDTELY NOT NErESSARY. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD REFRAIN PROM interference with Associations, its By-laws and its members right and duties. Either Party Request Arbitration i 9. PAGB 6 5.32.110 OWNERS REOU3ST FOR ARBITRATION RITHER PARTY shalt have the right to request arbitration. The word "owners" is used. Both parties are owners. 10. .32.120 All this should say is that the costs for the impartial arbitrator should be borne equally by both parties. Upon the rojection of the "final offer" of the Park Owners, the Park Owners shalt be notified and the steps outlined for the initiation of arbitration shall be followed, and the Committee shall do everything required to secure speedy resolution of the arbitration. Delete last sentence. -8- Arbitration City Council Stay Out 11. PAGE 6. 5.32.130 ARBITRATION - Delete Entire Section This section is not necessary. No City Council should tell an arbitrator his rights. Nor should they tell any court what to do. Any arbitrator, who is an arbitrator, must consider the legal rights of the parties in the dispute, under Inv, which is subject to court review. A court will not overturn an arbitrator'- decision unless: 1. His decision is contrary to law. 2. His decision goes contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence. rt s rt rt sss c s s rt s s s s s* s**# rt s* s s s* s s s* sort * s*### s rt s Agreement Reached In Negotiation MINIMUM ONE YEAR LEASE OR LONGER PERIOD AS THE PARTIES MAY AGREE UPON Please ,Tote: One item we neglected to mention. If a tentative Agreement is reached and approved, such tentative agreement should be for a minimum of one year or unless the parties agree on a longer term, and shall include all present services and amenities enjoyed by the Mobile Home Owners the previous year. Otherwise we are all wasting our time if an Agreement is reached without including services and amenities and a Park Owner attemps to open up the contract or agreement a few months later or who refuses to give the tenants a one year lease on the amount agreed to. Resident Voting Rights You use the term "Resident" - We contend that only Mobile Home Owners should have the right to vote on a rent increase. tie also believe that each coach should have one vote. # * # * t # rt * * * * # # f * rt s 4 # s * # * # • rt • # # s # # * s * rt rt rt # # rt . P. 1 I -9- Council Stay Out 12. PAGE 7 5.32.150 STANDARDS FOR ARBITRATION. - Delete We contend that this section is illegal and unconstitutional in that it , Points out standards only for the PARK WNER and NOT THE OWNERS OF THE M03ILS 4 HOMES. THERE' ARE 'MO PARTIESTO SUCH A DISPUTE BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS. } ;ouncil Stay Out { t 13. PAGE. 7 5.12.160 ARSITRATORTS DE ISION - Delete f -- AGAIN, THE CITY COUNCIL IS USURPING ITS LHGjISLATIVE POWER, by stating 1 what an ARBITRATOR MAY DF;IDE. This section be eliminated completely. PAGE_7 5.12,170 COSTS - Delete f If OBJr^,,',T MOST STRENUOUSLY TO THE LANGUAGE USED AT THE TOP OF PAGE 8. � i If the matter goes to arbitration or if the PARTIES ARE STILL NEGOTIATING, NO O'dNEcR SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT ANY INCREASE INTO OPERATION. (1) The Council should sot a moratorium during these two Periods. or (2) The proposed increase by the Park Owner should be put into an interest f bearing trust account until a decision is made through negotiations and/or arbitration. i (3) Or a status quo on any rent increase until the matter is resolved, but any increase should be retroactive to the rent review date, to protect Park Owners. Why do we take this position? I. It would be advantageous for the Park Owner to put the increase into ? effect pending negotiations or arbitration. He would have the use of monies that { may not be his, and the Mobile Home Owners would lose interest on their money. i R� -10- 2. It would be advantageous for a Park Owner to stall negotiations or arbitration for a long period of time. 3. It might even be advantageous for a Park Owner to appeal an adverso decision by an arbitrator to the Courts. In the meantime even if he lost his anooal, he would have full use of the monies he was not entitled to. PARTIES IN tlEGOTIATIONS IN COLLBOTIVE BARGAINING SHOULD BE Oil EQUAL STATUS 111- PAGE 8 ;.32..170 :OSTS i Wo have already commented on this subject. i Individual j Rights j 15. PAGR 8 5.32..180 INDMIML RESIDENTS RIGHTS The insertion of this section is incredible. Unless there is some under- lying legal reason for this, this section SHOULD BE DELETED. Comment; On one hand you state that an arbitrator's award is binding on all parties. You also stato that an association should be formed by Mobile Home 0•ners j to roorosont them in negotiations and that there must be 6g in the association. 4 ',le boliovo it should bo 09 of all Mobile Homo Owners. Regardless of any nano riven, you are talking about 1100LLWTIVE r BARGAINING WITH AN isL'?:T M C01-11IT 23E REPRESENTING THE MOBILE HOME OWNEt. Therefore, by vote or by arbitration all Mobile Homo Oanors should be bound, otherwise this ordinance will not be worth the paoor it is written on. If a Park Owner is satisfied with a negotiated agreement or an arbitrators award.... do you believe that he would give individual Mobile Homo Owners a lessor rent to Day? He would demond the rent increase and if they did not nay, HE 'MULD i EVICT TH04.... for NON PAYMENT. L 0 SMI do pay taxes. Included in those tsxos al-e casts for schools. Now some of us have no children. Should we take the position because we have no children to send to schools that we should pay less taxes. Of course not. EVERY VOBILE HO , O'MNER SHOULD BE BOUND .... by the result. NO ASSOCIATION could got their membors to ray half the costs of arbitration if this section was loft in any ordinance. If, on the other hand, negotiations or an arbitrator's award is in the ',•iobilo Home Ownnrs' favor, :could they nay more? You cannot have your cake and oat it. The dangers involved in this proposed arbitration is a time limit t set un for negotiations and arbitration THAT CANNOT BE ii;C. Anyone who r Is familinr with arbitration KNOl1.3 THESE TDtE LIMITS CANNOT BE MET. IT f WOULD 39.' A DISASTER TO THE 2•103IL3 H0;•A's 0;,njMS TO ALLO:t A PARK O:+1NER TO PUT IN HIS INCREASE DURING SUCH TLC AS NEGOTIATIONS AND/OR ARBITRATION I IS CARRIIM ON .... OR COURT APPEAL. ! In conclusion, w•) realize thnt it is easy to find fault. We do bolieve in the sayin? "Don't find fault - find a remody". 'Ile have tried f to outline our objections, not to find fault but to find a romody in order to anact an ordinance that is fair and equitable to BOTH PARTIES - NOT Mr. PARTY OR TH5 OTH:R. and we thank you for the opportunity to tell you or thoughts on the subjoat rattor and your considoration. 'Jo fool this ordinance is far reaching and must be carefully thought out and each dot -ail oxnlained to the pnrtios in this dispute before enactment. We both will havo to live with such an ordinance and we fee. that you have the power in your hands to onact an ordinance that 1k -12- wit: be well thought out and the envy of all California, giving just consideration to BOTH O:,NW, the Park and the Mobile Home Owners, and one which will stand the test of time. Respectfully submitted, N9,a0TI,%TI,+ i ODtTff TTCS ROCHO MUMS30 MOBILE HOME OWNERS a. mi W, I o ORDINANCE NO. _ 3124 AN ORDINANCE OF' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AIMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPT.L CODE BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 5.32 TO REGULATE MORILEMOME PARK RENTS.-_ The City Council of. the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Thot Title 5 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the addition of Chapter 5.32 to read as follows: CHAPTER 5.32 MOBI.LENIONE PARK 1UMT Ri;GUL20PION ' S.32.G10 Pur.pos: Thera is presently within "lie City of Carlsbad and the .surrounding areas, a shortage Y Because of the short of spaces L•o.. the location of: mobilehomes. � `' age there is a lC1v vac..ricy rate, and rents hav2 been for several year;. and are presontly in some parks rising rapidly and causing 4 concern among a substantial number of Carlsbad residents. Because of the high cos- of aiovi.:ig mobileha;nies, the potential for d,"noge, resulting the:rrfi.om, the requirements relating to the installation of: mobilehomes, including pexvits, landscaping and site prepara- tion, the lack or alternative homesites for mobilehome residents and the substantial investment of mobilelicme owners in such homes, the City Council. finds and declares it necessary to establish a means which, if followed, can 1%rovide protection to the owners and occupiers of, mobilehomes from unreasonable rent increases while: at the same time recognizing the need of mobilahome park I owners to receive a reasonable return on their property and rent increases sufficient to cover the increased cost of repairs, maintenance,insurance, upkeep and additional amenities. The procedu37Qs contained herein are intended to enhance rc<.olution of unreasonable increases in rents by making it advan- i tageous ; or mobi lehonee owncrs and mobi.lehomc park owners to establish a better undci.-tanding ;cr each others positions threugII conen.unicat-ion, hopefully rc:;ulti.ncl in an agreement on the amount of rent to he charged. Ilowever., if an agreement cannot be reariaesd 3 thr. City Cuuncil has detur3nine l it ncces::ary and in the public interest t.o have the resolved by binding arbitrut:ic.n. S. 32. D of il3:'i oils . Words used in this c'na:-ster sh: 1. 1 have the 3.ierening ascribod to them in this section: (1) "ArbiLration" u:cans a process conducted in aCC9rdancr� withil,c Caliia�n:a Arbitration urovisions contained E in Section 1.280, ot. %cq. o� the Cali£orr?a Cade of civil Procedures. f r (2) "Arbitrator" means a certified arbitrator selectucl pursuant. to this Chapter on a cane by carQ h<-Rts from a 1Jtst furnished by the American T.rbitrati.on Association. (3) "majority" means a simple majority of a geiorwt of at least two-th:i r ds of the residents of a part,. t (4) "Owner" m(--ans the owner, lessor, operator, n3FinaclCa7 or designated agent of a par),. (5) "Park" moans a mobilehome pnrk which rents spaces for mobi.lohome dwalling units. (6) "Park Conunittce" means the Mobilehome Park Committee to be established in each mobilehome park in accordance with this T (7) "Resident" means any person entitled to occupy a mobilchome dwelling unit pursuant to ownership thereof or a rental or lease arrangement with the owner of the subject dwelling unit. (8) "Rent" means the consideration, including any } i benefits or fees, in connection with the use and occupancy of a ` mobilehomc. space in a park, or the transfer of a lease or rental agreement for part: space, services and amenities, or subletting, f , but exclusive of any amounts paid for the use of the mobilehome dwelling unit. i a' L € 55.32.030 Abplicabi.lity. The provisions of this chapter 7 # i shall only apply to a park which: a (1) Contains more than twenty-five, spaces; and i : I (2) Where an association of residents has been formed, } and a W-7itLen notice has 1_een .filed by the association with the k owner containing: (1) the name and mailing address of the associa- i tion; (2) the names and addresses of the association's officers; (3) the iiames and addresses of the perscns authorized to represent 3 } the association in dealing: with the owner; and (4) certificati.on + s that the membership of the association includes all residents of J more th•.n 50% of the space:, %-Athin the park. +i i d 5.32.040 _Rental information. within thirty days after notice to an owner by a residents' association of their existence, f the owner must provide to association a current monthly rental £ rates and fees schedule showing the rent for each space within the park, the schedule t.,11ich was in effect one year preceding Ole date of activation or the association and the date and amount of any increases in rent during the interim. -3- .' 5.32:.050 formation of park corrumittee. The owner and residents association of a park shall establish a park committee consisting of five members --two representatives of the owner, two representatives of the residents, and a fifth member to be elected by the other four members. Four members shall constitute a quorum and any action of the park committee shall require an affirmative vote of not less than three members. 5.32.060 Advance notice of rent increases. Not ].ate: than "sixty calendar days before an increase in rent is to become applicable, an owner shall provide written notice thereof to the association and to the residents of the park. The notice shall provide fo17 thC' iradacation by the residents of their acceptance or rejector of the proposed increase. 5.32.070 "Re!Aclents reeponse to notice. Within ten days of receipt of a notice pursuant to section 5.32.060, the residents shall reply to the owner indicating their acceptance or rejection of the proposed increase_. The replys may be reviewed 1 by the residents association. The owner shall notify tPe residents of the results. 5.32.030 ncrert<ancn of incroo se. If a majority of the residents accept the proposed increase in rent, it will become effective on the effective date designated by the owner on the advance notice of rent increase. 5.32.080 Rejection of increase. If a majority of the residents reject the proposed increase, the matter may be referred -4- to the park coNmi.ttca by the owner or the residents' association. 5.32.090 I4eeting of park. committee. The park committee shall meet promptly to consider any proposed increase which is re- ferred to them and shall investigate,,hold hearings and take any other reasonable steps necessary to resolve the matter. The 1 committee shall establish their own rules and procedures. In making their decision, the committee shall be guided by the pur- poses and intent of this chapter. Upon request the owner shell make available to the committee such inforraation and records concerning the operation of the park as are reasonably necessary to a determination of costs of operation and a reasonable return on the property. The committee shall render a decision within thirty-five days after the owner's advan^e notice of a rent increase. The committee shall promptly ,otify the residents of their doci.,Aon and the reasons therefor. The owner and the residents associatio,: dial.l each be responsible for paying one-- half of the costs of the committee. 5.32.100 I:rsidents_petiticn. Residents shall have ten days after notice of the decision of the: park committee within which to file a petition for review. Upon a written pct.Lti.on of fifty r._r cent of the residents requesting review of a decision of the marl: committeu the committee shall refer the matter to arbitration in accordance wit.h this chapter. If a petition with t he required number of si tar,atures is i.-t filed within the ten day period the decision of the pail: committee will become effective on the same date as designated by L-he park owners on the advance notice of rental increase. 1. L 5.32.21.0 _0%-.nors request for. arbitration. The owner may within ten days of the committee's decision file a written request for arbitration with the committee. Upon receipt of such request the committee shall refer the matter to arbitration in accordance with this chapter. 5.32.120 Initiation of arbitration. Upon receipt of a petition pursuant to section 5.32.100 or an owner's request pursuant to section 5.32.110, the committee shall. immediately notify the other party, take steps to select an arbitrator, and do anything else required to secure a speedy resolution of the arbitration. The committee may require the owner and the residents as^oriai non to each (ler) AL firty per cent of the estimated cost: of arbitrat:ioli. 5. 32.130—Arbitration. The arbitrator shall detarmine the rights of the pantie, in accordance with the law, including this chapter. The award shall be subject to review as to the arbitrator's application of the law by any court Having jurisdic- tion of the whether, of not any mistake of the Law shall. appear upon the ,face of the award. As to all questions of fact-, however, the determination of the arbitrator or arbitrators shall bc: binding upon all Parties and shall bs deemed final and conclusive. Each party shall be entitled to written findings of fact and conclusions of law as to all issued determined by the award. Subject: to the: above: limitations and to Section 5.32.180, the award grunted by the arbitrator shall be binding upon all partirs to the arbitration. -G- i 1 I 5.32.140 Venue. For the purpose of litigation or � • arbitration, venue 'shall lie kn the North County Judicial f District, County of San Diego, State of California, or, if # such venue cannot be exercised, in the Federal or State Court i ff nearest to the North County Judicial District, County of San { r+ Diego. ,z 3 " I i 5.32.1.50 Standards for arbitration. The arbitrator shall give due consideration to the purposes and intent of this chapter in reaching a decision. In evaluating the rent increase sj proposed by the owner, the arbitrator shall also consider in- creased costs to the owner attributable to increases in utility rates and property taxes, insurance, advertising, governments' 1' f: i aSSessme11 cost -of -living increases attributable to incidental 1; f services, normal repair and maintenance, capital improvements, a € upgrading and addition of amc:niti.cs or services as well as fair rate of return on the property. ; =t 1 5.32.160 Arbitrator's deci.sion. The arbitrator F shall. mahe a final decision within ten days after the conclu.'- f • sion of the hearing and notify the cormnittee. The arbitrator ,I may require the owner- to: ` . (1) Reduce the rent to a rate as determined by the � r. arbitrator; ' (2) Continue the rent as it existed prior to the t notice of increase; # (3) Increase the rent to a rate set by the arbitrator, or to the rate requested by the owner. _7_ i v Y� 4: Any rent incrgases which have been collected by an owner, pursuant to an increase which is the subject of a resident's petition for arbitration and which is later determined by the arbitrator to have been excessive, shall be either returned to the tenants or credited to future rental charges. The committee shall promptly notify the residents of the arbitrator's decision. 5.32.170 Costs. The costs of arbitration shall be - paid one-half by the owner and one-half by the residents' WISociation• The deposit collected by the committee shall be used to pay the costs. Any excess shall be refunded. Any 1 deficit shall be paid in equal shares by the owner and the resi.- i dents' association. i :;.32_.-IG0Individual Resident's rights. Residents Shall have tl,e right to form, join, and i j participate in the activities of residents' associations formed pursuant to the Provisions of this c;Mpter, or to refuse: to form, join in or r participate in the activit-ics of such associations. Residents shall. also ht:ve t;1e right to negotiate individually and directly with the owner, and to eStabli:.11 the terms and conditions of their tenancies, including rent, by Separate agreement with the o►cner, which shall suporcede the terms and conditions of any negotiated agreement between association and the owner, any decision of the par}: committee and any decision of the arbitrator. An owner shall not discriminate against any resident for an exercise of the rights established by this chapter, or coerce any resident with respect to the exercise of such rights. -8- 9 5.32.190 rnfarcement. (a) Violation of the provisions of this chapter shall not constitute a crime. (b) A residents, association may at any time bring an action in the courts of this State alleging a viola- tion by an owner of any of the terms of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the existence of a level of rents in excess of that, allowed and may seek a court order requiring compliance with the provisio;js of this chapter. (c) A landlord may at any time file an action in the courts of "'s State a7.legiD9 a violation by an associatio;i of t W V-)'Ovi ;ionn of this chapter, and may see)• a court order direr t i -q compli.zi,Ice with tile provisions hereof. (d) 'Pile ov-ier may not enforce: a rent increas' i.:i excess o2; that by this chapter. In the event an owner incroa,: cs rents without: compiyinU with the provisions of this chapter, such an increase shall be deemed null and voi.cl, residents shall not be required to pay such in- crease except to the extent it is specifically estab- lished by u,l individual written contract betwecll the resident ziud lrndlord, and any resident who is sought t:o ba excluded from the park through an tjnlawful dQUIiner action brought by the owner to enforce evic- tion, shall hava a right to assert the invalidity of such increase an a defense to the unlawful detainer prorreclimJc iu failure of the resident to pay such increase. -9- r1 5,32.200 Limitation on fees and assessments. A resident shall not be charged any fee for other than rent and reasonable charges for services actually rendered. A resident shall not be charged a security deposit nor a fee for entry, A installation hookup, or landscaping, except as specifically permitted under Section 798.37 of the Civil Code, as a condi- tion of any tenancy. There shall be no imposition by the owner Of a»y fees or assessments until such assessments or fees have been approved in writing by residents representing m, than Fifty per cent of the spaces within the park. 5.32,210 , t•ali.atory eviction. tlotwithstanding Section 5.32.190 above, in any action brought to reco—it posses- sion of a rental unit the court, mcy consider as grounds for denial any violation of any provision of this chapter.. Further the ' determination that: the action was brought in retaliation for the exercise of any rial,ts conferred by this chapter shall be grounds for denial. Any action brought within three months of the determ- ination of a petition filr-d with the park committee shall _�e presumed to be retaliatory: this presumption affects the bvrde:: Of proof, and is rebutt.aM.e. by the owner. 5.32.220 srverzaiiilli.ty. If any provi,sai.on or clause of this ch,.pter or the appl tion th;reof to any person or circum- stance is held to be unc011Stitu;ional or to be otherwise invalid by any court of campatent jurisdiction, :.filch invalidity shall not affect other chapter provi ur clatlscs Or applications thcrcor -10- i I r� 1 which can be xmPlen#ented without the invalid r provision or clause ? or application and 4-- t}' h I xs end the provisions and clauses of ? this chapter are declared to be severable. 4 f i t F � 1 a i 1 1 � f y -11-