HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-23; City Council; 12717; INTRODUCTION OF MOBILEHOME PARK RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE1-
*
L
a a, Y a 0 ;4 U C .rl
a
(d C
n m *
3 I
a
a C (d
N *
I * m
d
4
;
g
m
*rl
L, s
4
.rl U
P .d c x w
5 .rl 3 ,-I
'0 N VIM aJN
a2 a, u. a0 oz a (do
dC 0
*d cd 0c c *d sa
vo Ob
"z;A
z 0 F 0 U d z 3 0 0
1 t Cl-cf OF CARLSBAD - AGEW BILL 1: .-.
*' ' a T'TLE: INTRODUCTION OF MOBILEHOME PARK RENT DEPT
MTG. 5/23/94
DEPT.
CONTROL ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY
CITY CA
Adopt Resolution No. s approving the negative declal
introduce Ordinance No. NS-dTZ creating Chapter 5 the Carlsbad Municipal Code known as the "Mobilehome Par Control Ordinance", and adopt Resolution No. 94-143 settj
base rents.
ITEM EXPLANATION
At its meeting of May 17, 1994, the City Council received cc
on a draft mabilehame park rent control- ordinance from persc representatives of parties interested and affected by this The City Council has previously conducted numerous workshc held hearings on the necessity and desirability of regulatin! in the City's mobilehome parks. It has also authorized market rent study entitled the IIMobilehome Park Rental St
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.Il and has carefully consider
conclusions and recommendations on this issue. As its hear May 17, 1994, the Council received and considered further e\ and arguments which highlighted,.the following three major j
v' ,' + Discretion of hearing officer to award costs - The par1
may appeal the space rent established by the ordinance park owner contends that the space rent does not reprc fair and reasonable return. In addition, the homeownc appeal for a decrease in the rent if the park owner red1 eliminates services or amenities without adjusting thc
rent accordingly. These appeals will be heard by a t
officer and the filing fees and costs associated wi
appeal shall be initially borne by the party requesti Under the ordinance considered at the meeting of May 17 the hearing officer is required to award these costs prevailing party. This procedure would not allow the 1 officer discretion in awarding or apportioning costs parties. The proposed ordinance gives discretion hearing officer to award costs as appropriate und circumstances.
4 Duty to maintain - Under the terms of the ordinance diE at the meeting of May 17, 1994, the mobilehome park owl a duty to maintain physical improvements in the facilities in good working order and condition. Aft Council discussion at its meeting of May 17, 1994 section has been expanded to provide a remedy 1 homeowners to enforce this obligation.
+ Petition for exclusion - Discussion on this issue cc around who should be eligible to petition for inclus exclusion from the operation of the ordinance. Und
draft ordinance that was discussed at the meeting of F
1994, the petition for inclusion or exclusion frc
operation of the ordinance may be signed by a majority
I 1
& e
L homeowners in a mobilehome park. If a valid petit presented within 60 days of the. operative date c ordinance, then the park is excluded; otherwise included. This would permit voting by homeowners who any form of lease or rental agreement whether or not
exempt under the state Mobilehome Residency Law. The c version of that section of the ordinance is sepz attached as Exhibit A.
On the other hand, should the Council wish to restrict to only those homeowners that are currently on non- leases it will require several changes. First, where substantially all of the homeowners in a mobilehome pal on exempt leases, a majority of all homeowners could PE for exclusion. We understand that only one mobilehon meets this definition. Homeowners in the remaining would only be entitled to vote if they were on non- leases. The necessary changes to accomplish this obj are attached as Exhibit B.
The Council will need to adopt the Negative Declaration and the appropriate version of the ordinance for introduction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
City staff has conducted an environmental review for the Mob] Park Rent Control Ordinance pursuant to the guidelinc implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act i Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad,
result of that review, a Negative Declaration (declaration tl project will not have a significant impact on the environme~ been issued by the Planning Director. Justification fo action is on file in the Planning Department. No comment received during the public comments period.
Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documentat attached as Exhibit C.
FISCAL IMPACT
Administration: Annual costs associated with implementation of a mandate control ordinance are largely dependent upon the amount 01 time required to administer the program, including the process. Where possible, program costs will be recovered frl
paid by the mobilehome park owners and tenants.
Costs to administer the rent control program have been estim
$52,600. This estimate should be considered as a "best ca! includes both routine and non-routine tasks. Routine include: annual registration, collection of fees, verificai petitions, and review and approval of annual adjustments. routine tasks include annual adjustment appeals, verif ical petitions, noticing requirements, dispute resolution
associated maintenance and operating costs.
2
1 1 - a . i Annual Adiustment Armeals (Hearins):
In addition to City staff time required to monitor adjustment appeals, the ordinance provides for appointmen
Hearing Officer to preside over the appeal process. Cos
hearing officers are estimated to range from $100 to $250 pel Staff is recommending that the direct cost of the appeal pro( borne entirely by the party initiating the appeal,
Individuals or groups who appeal the annual adjustment w
required to pay an application filing fee and a Hearing dc
The deposit will be used to fund the cost of the appea: initial funds are depleted, the applicant will be requi deposit additional funds to cover any remaining costs.
Petition for Exclusion/Inclusion: Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park has indicated their desirc excluded from the provisions of any rent control ordinance
may be adopted. If at some point in the future reside Lakeshore Gardens wish to be eligible for inclusion in control program, the Fair Market Rent Study may need to be E
accordingly. However, the need for a fair market rent stuc
depend to some extent upon the number of non-exempt spaces
mobilehome park at that time. Under section 798.17 of thr
Mobilehome Residency Law, if a rental agreement is not extenc
into, then the last rental rate charged for the space unc previous rental agreement shall be the base rent for purpc applicable provisions of law concerning rent regulation (Mob: Rent Control Ordinance). The original study which included Carlsbad and Lanikai Lane cost approximately $15,000. Ex1 the study or preparing a new study for Lakeshore Gardens result in additional costs.
Voter Initiative/Referendum: The City Council is holding this special meeting since owne:
' indicated they may petition for a referendum should th Council adopt a rent control ordinance. If the owner
successful with a referendum petition, the City Council wou. the option of repealing the ordinance or placing the issue ballot. Introduction of this ordinance and subsequent adop.
it in early June should allow sufficient time to have this placed on the November 1994 ballot eliminating the expense
city of calling a special election.
Lesal Defense of A Mandated Rent Control Ordinance: If the proposed ordinance is adopted, it is probable tk: validity of the ordinance, in whole or in part, will be COI
by one or more lawsuits brought against the City. It is impc to predict the total costs which could be incurred by the ( defending a rent control ordinance. However, recent experi other jurisdictions would indicate the potential liability City at somewhere between $50,000 and $1 million.
no new rental agreement in excess of 12 months duration is z
L 3
I t - 0 a
.. EXHIBITS
Resolution No. 94- / 42 , approving the Negative Declaration
Ordinance No. ~IS-282- , creating Chapter 5.26
Exhibit A
Exhibit B Resolution No. 9fLl4.3 , setting the base rents
4 I
s 1 - I( ‘ a 0
-
1
2.
3
4
5
RESOLUTION NO. 9 4 - 14 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION REGARDING THE MOBILEHOME PARK RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE : MOBILEHOME PARK RENT CONTROL ORDINANC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
6 11 May 17, 1994, hold a duly advertised public hearing to co
7 I/ said Negative Declaration and at that time heard all p
8
9 Ordinance; and
interested in or opposed to the Mobilehome Park Rent C
10
11
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has determined thz
project will not have a significant impact on the environme
00,
$Ea
-1”w% u08
2055
ucsg
““50
>Z% Eo
LSW? m>
JUcJ
>-1z
g:?k $&
E:?
02-1:
40-1
12
13
14
15
16
17
- 18
the City Council has concurred and a Negative Declarati
issued on May 3, 1994 and approved in satisfaction (
requirements of the City of Carlsbad Environmental Prot
Ordinance of 1980 and the California Environmental.Quality Ac
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and corm
19
20
2. That the Negative Declaration is approved a1
the findings of the Planning Department, as shown in P:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Department Negative Declaration dated May 3, 1994 attached
and made a part hereof, are the findings Of the City Count
///
///
///
///
///
28 ///
I
L II) \ 0 0
8g
-> mwa, $Ec" uo8
3ULo 0I.u;
205s fy"g 9 82" u>m$ zwv) OZ-10 uusn
>"I2
0
F:? 40-1 >25 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the "3rd day of -
1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Nygaard
NOES: Council Member Finnila
ABSENT : Council
ATTEST :
&.Jed&Rd& ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City dlerk
(SEAL)
2
I1
I -
8
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESWLOCATION: City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State
Califomia
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A municipal ordinance to regulate mobilehome park Spi
rental rates in the City of Carlsbad.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proj
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality,
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of s
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a signific,
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for t
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plam
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department wit
21 days of date of issuance. if you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455.
DATED: MAY 3, 1994 MlCHAE' zqf+ J. HOLZMl LER
CASE NO: EIA 94-03 Planning Director
CASE NAME: MOBILEHOME PARK RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 3,1994
&
JG :vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1
1 0 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
BACKGROUND
CASE NO. -lj
DATE: A~ril
1. CASE NAME: Mobilehome Park Rent Control Ordinance
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A municiDal ordinance to redate mobilehome Dark Smcl
rates.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City co
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a sigmficant effect on the envj
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. Thir
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed pr
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Envir
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the j
any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will b
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any asp
project may cause a simdicant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can bc
insimificant. - These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings 'YES-sig" and '7
respectively.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the fc
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to (
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined sigdicant.
* 0 0
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
big)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards?
2. Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features?
3. Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
4. Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5. Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
6. Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply?
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources?
-
-
-
-
10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object?
YES
(insig)
-
-
-
-2-
NO
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
x
x -
x -
Y
1
-
-
1 -
I 0 0
* BIOLOGICAL F,NVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
(sig)
12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
13. Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance? -
15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
16. Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals? -
I"ANENvIR0NMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
(si&
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services? -
-3-
YES NO
(insig)
X -
X -
X - -
X -
X _I
YES NC
(insig)
X -
x - -
. e e
HUMANENVIRONMENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
(sig)
19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
control systems?
20. Increase existing noise levels?
21. Produce new light or glare?
22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
23. Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing? -
25. Generate substantial additional traffic?
26. Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
27. Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
29. Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? -
30. Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
31. Obstruct any scenic vista or creaie an
aesthetically offensive public view?
32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
-
-4-
YES
(insig)
-
-
NO
X
X
-
-
X -
X -
X -
X
X
-
-
X -
x
x
-
-
3 -
s -
s -
1 -
t L e * MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO
big) (insig)
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory. X -
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) - - X
relatively brief, definitive period of
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
36, Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
s -
s - -
-5-
I d 0 'e
" DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project applies to the municipal jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad which is located
Pacific Ocean in northern San Diego County. San Diego County is the most southwestern cou
continental United States and it is located north of the Mexican Border. Carlsbad is bounded by t:
County areas to the east; and the Pacific Ocean to the west.
The proposed project is a municipal ordinance that regulates the rent charged on mobilehome pz
in the City of Carlsbad. The ordinance has the potential to affect three (3) mobilehome home pa
City: Rancho Carlsbad; Lake Shore Gardens; and, Lanikai Lane. The ordinance would protect thr
tenants in mobilehome parks by regulating the amount of rent which can be charged by mobileh
owners in a manner which is fair and equitable to both tenants and owners.
The ordinance mandates that mobilehome park rents be established as follows: (1) Rents must be
a fair market rate study which establishes a fair market value of the right to occupy the space and
amenities and services of the park; and, (2) Rents must represent a fair and reasonable return or
owner's investment. Based on this criteria, the base rent charged mobilehome park tenants may bc
annually to reflect yearly increases in the San Diego County Housing Component of the Consu
Index, except that, the annual increase, if granted, shall be a minimum of 3% and a maximum 0:
Any park owner or tenant may appeal the base rent established by the ordinance at any time, in v
the appeal is submitted to a neutral third party arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the park o
tenant. The role of the arbitrator is to receive relevant evidence and allow the parties a r
opportunity to be heard. It is also the arbitrator's responsibility to determine whether the base ren
with the intent and purpose of the ordinance and represents a fair and reasonable return on the par
investment.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
SOIL EROSION AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS:
The proposed ordinance is structured such that the mobilehome park owners would be guaranteed
reasonable return on the park investment. With a fair and reasonable return on investment the pi
would be less likely to disinvest from the mobilehome park venture by deferring physical maint
abandoning the property. A reasonable return on the investment would ensure that the value of tht
is protected by providing sufficient funds to adequately maintain park facilities and landscaping. A
amount of landscape maintenance, including watering, fertilizing, and trimming of shrubs and gro
is all that is necessary to ensure that there are no significant erosional impacts to natural or man mi
within the mobilehome parks. With a minimal amount of landscaping to cover bare exposed soil a
additional geologic hazards such as landslides and ground failures would be reduced to below
significance. In addition, when the parks were original graded and constructed the developm
subject to standard grading and building practices as part of approved grading and building per:
further reducing the potential for geologic hazards.
Oceanside to the north; the City of Encinitas to the south; the Cities of San Marcos, Vista and unincl
-6-
4 -0 0
ALTERATION OF TOPOGRAPHY, WATER BODIES, WATER QUALITY, AND CULTURAL RESOUR
Under a "worst case" analysis in which there is the deferral of mobilehome park maintenance, clc
mobilehome park, and displacement of park residents there would not be a significant physical adver
on any of the following environmental items:
1) The topography of the mobilehome park sites would not change. In the event that a park w
any new or future development project on the site would be subject to separate environmen under CEQA;
2) No changes to the deposition of beach sands or flows of water (marine, fresh or flood) would
there would be no modification to rivers, streams, ocean beds, bays, inlets, or lakes. Any c
the physical characteristics of a site created by grading to accommodate a new type of la
development project would require separate environmental review under CEQA;
3) Impacts to cultural resources (archeological, paleontological) would not occur given the fa(
physical environmental impacts associated with the grading and construction of the existing mc
parks have already occurred.
AIR QUALITY, AND CONSUMPTION OF FUELS AND NATURAL RESOURCES:
A fair and reasonable return on investment for the park owner will ensure that mobilehome par
prematurely closed or abandoned due to the proposed regulations in the ordinance. Under the '%
analysis, park residents may be displaced by either closure of a park due to the new ordinance or
project" alternative in which tenants on fixed incomes must move because they can not afford exces:
rental rates. Tenants forced to relocate for whatever reasons would most likely have to move to
are more affordable and possibly farther inland from the coast. This relocation may potentiall
commuter distances and traveling distances to friends, relatives, and professional services, thus incr
consumption of fuels, contributing to regional traffic congestion, and contributing to regional air This increase would be considered insigmficant given the small number of residents involved. Tht
mobile homes parks potentially affected have approximately 1,028 total rental spaces/units and z
for approximately 1,542 residents (1.5 residents per spacehit) which constitutes a very small I
of the total dwelling units and population of Carlsbad (i.e. 3.7% of the total dwelling units and 2.7
City population based on 1990 census data) . Over time, and once residents are relocated into
they tend to adjust their travel and trip patterns to the characteristics of the new park locale, the1
additional. impacts would be short term in nature.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
The proposed ordinance would not have any significant adverse environmental impact on the
resources of the City of Carlsbad. Negative environmental impacts associated with native flora,
sensitive biological habitats typically occur when the land is cleared and graded to accommodatec
development project. In this case, the mobilehome parks in question are already in existence, the]
physical biological impacts have already occurred when the parks were originally graded and cc Under the "worst case analysis", if the proposed ordinance prematurely forced the closure and de1
a mobilehome park and the vacant land were allowed to return to a natural biological state, ther
-7-
0 e
o positive environmental benefit to the biological resources of the City. However, any future chang
use'resulting from the closure of a park would be subject to a subsequent environmental review und
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
LAND USE AND DENSITY:
The prupused ordinance would not alter the planned land use or density of an area. The proposed '
does not change the General Plan designation and Zoning of the mobilehome park propert
mobilehome park properties within the City are designated for residential land use at densities that from 0 to 11.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed ordinance would not change these
designations. If a mobilehome park was forced to close because of the new ordinance,
redevelopment of the site would have to conform to the appropriate residential designation and I
the General Plan. If the park owner desired to change any of these land use designations
amendments would.be subject to City Council approval and separate environmental review unde:
PUBLIC FAcILlTIES AND BFRASTRUCXUFE:
The proposed ordinance would not result in the need.for new sewer systems, solid waste s
hazardous waste control systems, nor impact existing public services. The existing mobilehome
currently connected to the City's urban support infrastructure such as roads, sewers, waterlines, tras
etc.. Under a "worst case" analysis, if an existing mobilehome park were to close as a result o
regulations there would be less residential demand on public services and infrastructure, thus
impacts to the system. Redevelopment of the site would have to be considered with those same
allowed by the General Plan and comply with the City's Growth Management Program.
NOISE, LIGHT AND GLARE:
The regulation of mobilehome park rent would not effect noise levels in or around the parks nc
physical impacts such as new light and glare. These impacts are typically associated with the gr
construction of new residential development projects, not existing ones.
HOUSING:
The availability and construction of new mobilehome parks in the City would not be adversely 2
the regulations in the proposed ordinance because new mobilehome parks are not subject to the rec
of rent control type ordinances, therefore, there is no disincentive to build and maintain r
mobilehome parks. Because a new park would not be subject to the ordinance the growth of tl
housing would not be impacted.
Historically it has been demonstrated that rent control reduces the supply of rental housing s'
proposed ordinance has the potential to impact three (3) existing mobilehome parks in the City.
small number of potentially affecred rental units (1,028 rental space/units) and the provisic
proposed ordinance to minimize disinvestment and closure of parks, the potential impacts to the C
housing supply are considered insignificant.
-8-
m e
The three potentially affected mobilehome parks within the City are not considered or classific
income residential housing units, therefore, the "worst case" potential closure of the parks d
proposed rent control ordinance would not adversely impact the City's stock of existing affordabk
CIRCULATION AND THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS:
The proposed ordinance would not generate additional traffic, impact the present transportation si
alter the present patterns of circulation and movement of people and goods. A fair and reasona
on investment for the park owner will ensure that mobilehome parks are not prematurely
abandoned due to the proposed regulations in the ordinance.
Under the ''worst case" analysis, park residents may be displaced by either closure of a park due tc
ordinance or by the l'no project" alternative in which tenants on fixed incomes must move because
not afford excessively high rental rates. Tenants forced to relocate for whatever reasons would rr
have to move to parks that are more affordable and possibly farther inland from the coast. This 1
may potentially increase commuter distances and traveling distances to friends, relatives, and prc
services, thus contributing to regional traffic congestion and a change in travel pattern. This incre,
length and change in travel movement would be considered insignificant given the small number of
involved. The three (3) mobile homes parks potentially affected have approximately 1,028 total sp;
and a potential for 1,542 residents (1.5 residents per space/unit) which constitutes a very small p.
of the total dwelling units and population of Carlsbad (ix. 3,7% of the total dwelling units and 2.7:
City population). Over time, and once residents have relocated into new areas they tend to adjust tk
and trip patterns to the characteristics of the new park locale, therefore, any additional impacts .
short term in nature.
RISK OF EXPLOSION:
The proposed ordinance would not result in the significant risk of explosion or release of h
substances. California State law requires that mobilehome park facilities and sites be maintained i
to adopted State standards. The State of California inspects mobilehome parks to ensure that the
meet health and safety standards, therefore, any type of deferred maintenance of facilities or coache
owners and tenants would be regulated by the State to minimize hazardous situations.
VISUAL AESTHETICS:
A reasonable return on the owners investment would ensure that the value of the property is pro1
providing sufficient funds to adequately maintain park facilities and landscaping. In addition, califor
law requires that mobilehome park facilities and sites be maintained according to adopted State SI
therefore, the potential for visual impacts would not constitute a significant impact. In addition, a f
rent for tenants would potentially provide them with income for home repairs and maintenance t
visual impacts.
PARKING, RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITES, EMERGENCYRESPONSE PLANS, AND WATER/RA&i
TRAFFIC:
The proposed ordinance would not affect the City's emergency response plans, alter waterborne, ra
traffic, affect parking facilities, create traffic hazards, and it would not affect the quality or qui
-9-
e e
existing recreational oppprtunities within the City. No new land use development or construction is
with this mobilehome park rent control ordinance, therefore, there are no physical development typ
such as: (1) the creation of new roads; (2) the blockage of vehicle "line of sight" along an existing ( or; (3) new residential demand on the existing public infrastructure or facilities such as waste I
systems, potable water delivery systems, and public parks.
-1 0-
1 I I e a
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and
g) no project alternative.
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significan
impact on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impact
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A "significa
is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Based on the findings of this Initial S
project has "NOt significant physical environmental impacts, therefore, there is no substantia
impact and no justification for requiring a discussion of alternatives, (An alternative would not :
impact if there is no substantial adverse impact).
resources Code Section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with sigruficant adverse impa
-11-
:m m
- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X r find the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigmficant effect on the environment, and a li
DECLARATION will be prepared.
- I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, bc
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunc
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
not be a significant effect in this 'case because the mitigation measures described on an att;
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposec
- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIROP IMPACT REPORT is required.
0
?--z3- 954
Date
- Ye 28 - 9f
Date
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE]
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-12-
f. , t ,* @
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
JG:vd
-13-
Om
f?r UUQj 408
iUC3 Ow%
~0~4
$WE
d->O ZdE I! O0U I qi
E:?
Q>rn,: ZWWg 0Z-l- =(r%o
>2%
LO
QOJ
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 I
28 I
I
f 1 0 0
ORDINANCE NO. NS-282
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CARLS MUNICIPAL CODE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 5.26 TO REGUL
MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE RENT.
WHEREAS, the City has received petitions and reque
for mobilehome rent control legislation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a number of spec
meetings at the City's mobilehome parks and received evide
and heard arguments both pro and con as to the wisdom
desirability of mobilehome rent control legislation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a special meeting
the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park on July 19, 1993 in order
carefully consider the relative positions of the park owner
the homeowner: and
WHEREAS, the City Council held special meetings at
Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park on August 4, 1993 and at
Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park on August 16, 1993 in orde~
further study the issue and receive evidence, testimony
arguments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a special meeting
the City Council Chambers on Friday, October 1, 1993 and he
testimony from mobilehome park tenants and owners and ot
interested parties, on the necessity and desirability
mobilehome rent control legislation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a regular meeting
the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, May 3, 1994 and Tuesc
May 17, 1994 and heard testimony from mobilehome park tenar
rnobiIpk/ordikjh/rev. 5/18/94
11
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
- 12
and owners and other interested parties, on the necessity
desirability of mobilehome rent control legislation; and
WHEREAS, mobilehome ownership has historically beer
economically more accessible form of home ownersh
particularly to individuals on fixed incomes, and off
substantial benefits to the community in the form of moder
cost housing; and
WHEREAS, there is a shortage of mobilehome park spa
in the City of Carlsbad resulting in a low space vacancy ra
and
WHEREAS, it is difficult to find sites for relocat
of mobilehomes due to the shortage of spaces, restrictions
U SJ Y>r; 13 the age, size and style of mobilehomes enforced by many par
UoZ~ an8 AOLlJ2
kk5K gone 15 mobilehomes; and
g$$z- 16
_ILO 14 and other requirements relating to reinstallation SZ32
$$2
E:?
>?% 17 60
WHEREAS, the cost for moving a mobilehome
0
aoA substantial, with a significant risk of damage; and
18 WHEREAS, these market conditions have contributed
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or threaten to contribute to, escalating rental rates; and
WHEREAS, a market of mobilehome park tenants has k
created producing an inequitable imbalance in the bargair
position of the park owner and the tenants; and
WHEREAS, mobilehome park tenants. have placed
substantial investment in their mobilehomes and appurtenanc
and
WHEREAS, above-market space rents and the threat
escalating rents diminishes the value of the tenar
investments in their mobilehomes; and
mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94 2
II
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0
m>- Su2
$Zcb <a8 oug
$045 crksg
5UU
h-lZ
2;sz "nu
oz-lo zLum
E"%a 002 Koa aoJ gq
00 -
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, state law permits mobilehome park owners
require tenants to improve their homes and such improveme
accrue to the benefit of the park owner by increasing the mar
value of the park itself; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to remedy t
inequitable situation and protect the rights of tenants
mobilehome parks by regulating the amount of space rent wh
can be charged by mobilehome park owners in a manner which
fair and equitable to both tenants and owners; and
WHEREAS, the city Council finds that the adoptior
this ordinance would not have a significant, substantial
adverse effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing and considering the evide
and testimony presented, the City Council finds and decla
that it is necessary, and in the public interest, to prot
mobilehome owners from unreasonable space rent increases and
assessments, and at the same time, to permit mobilehome F
owners to obtain a fair and reasonable return.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City
Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: That Title 5 of the Carlsbad Munici
Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 5.26 to read as follc
Section 5.26.010 Section 5.26.020 Section 5.26.030 Section 5.26.040 Section 5.26.050
Section 5.26.060
. Section 5.26.070 Section 5.26.080
Section 5.26.090
VXAPTER 5.2 6
Title Purpose and intent Definitions Applicability Petition for exclusion
Registration Base rent Annual adjustments to base rent
Appeal of base rent
mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94 3
II
l e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0
m> SJJ!
&Em
ow2 A,, so<<
dt5a: >A+
0002
<,a~< $:Yo
Kg$& E:;
$25
608
-I I <-
601
00 -
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
I
Section 5.26.100 Section 5.26.110 Section 5.26.120 Section 5.26.130 Section 5.26.140
Section 5.26.150
Section 5.26.160 Section 5.26.170
Allowable pass-throughs
Duty to maintain Capital expenditures Sale or transfer of mobilehomes Notification to prospective homeowner Base rent upon expiration of exempt lease under Civil Code section 798.1 Retaliation Administrative guidelines.
5.26.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the "Mobilehome E 1 Rent Control Ordinance. 11
5.26.020 Purpose and Intent.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to prot
the rights of homeowner in mobilehome parks by regulating amount of rent which can be charged by mobilehome park owners a manner which is fair and equitable to both homeowner owners e
5.26.030 Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of t chapter : (a) I'Consumer Price Indexll - the San Diego Cou Consumer Price Index (All Items - Urban Consumers, 1984 = 10
(b) gtMobilehomell - a mobilehome is a structure defined in California Civil Code section 798.3. (c) llMobilehome park" or rrparktt - an area of 1
rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation. (a) tlMobilehome park space" or "space" - a s within a mobilehome park which can accommodate the locati maintenance and human habitation of a mobilehome.
owner of a mobilehome park or an agent or representat authorized to act on behalf of the owner in connection w matters relating to tenancy of a mobilehome park space. (f) "New construction1t - any newly constructed spac
initially held out for rent after January 1, 1990. (9) tlSpace Rent" - total consideration authorized
this chapter to be received by a park owner for occupancy 0: space and services and amenities of a park. (h) 11Homeowner8t - is a person who has a tenancy ii
mobilehome park under a rental agreement as those terms i
defined in Civil Code sections 798.8 and 798.12.
where two or more mobilehome sites are rented, or held out
(e) IIMobilehome park owner" or "park owner" -
5.26.040 Atmlicabilitv. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to i mobilehome parks within the City of Carlsbad and to e: mobilehome park space within such parks except as provided this chapter, except new construction and spaces expresz exempted from this chapter by Civil Code section 798.17,
other express provisions of state or federal law. Spac
mobilpWordkjhlrev. 5/18/94 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
sa mu8
<oo, olug 3UO
*>j2 ao<a
crtS[r nun9 2;Q zwmo 022 - K~zn 003 LOW3 a01 >'% Eo
04 &EZ
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c e 0
exempted by Civil Code section 798.17 shall automatically becl subject to all provisions of the chapter upon expiration
termination of the written lease agreement.
5.26.050 Petition for Exclusion.
(a) A mobilehome park may be excluded from provisions of this chapter if a Petition for Exclusion is fi
this ordinance.
signatures of a majority of the homeowners in the park, w each space entitled to one signature counting toward majority, Spaces exempted under Civil Code section 798.17 sh be counted for purposes of determining a majority, homeowners residing in those spaces shall be entitled to s the petition, notwithstanding the exemption from the ot requirements of this chapter stated in section 5.26.040. petition shall also contain statements for exclusion from provisions of this chapter, such as a written agreement betw the homeowners and the park owner which satisfies the purp and intent of this chapter.
mobilehome park will be excluded from the provisions of t chapter, with the exception of the initial registrat
(d) If there are changed circumstances after a p
has been included or excluded the homeowners may petition
exclusion or inclusion between January 1 and March 1 of e year provided a petition meeting the requirements of subdivis (b) is filed with the city clerk, and provided further that petition shall contain statements for exclusion or inclus within the provisions of this chapter. The City Council approve, deny or condition the petition so that inclusion of park is consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapte
with the city clerk within 60 days after the effective date
(b) The Petition for Exclusion shall cont
(c) The clerk shall verify the signatures and
requirements contained in sections 5.26.060 (a) and (b) .
5.26.060 Resistration. (a) Initial Registration. Within 60 days after effective date of this chapter, all mobilehome park owners sh register the park in the manner required by this section.
(b) Registration shall include:
1) the name, business address and teleph number of the mobilehome park owner and the address to whic
address ;
2) the name, business address and teleph number of all other persons or legal entities possessing ownership interest in the park and the nature of such interes
3) the total number of spaces in the park and number of such spaces which are occupied;
4) a list of the rent charged for each spa including spaces which are exempt pursuant to section 8.25.04
5) a list of all other charges, with
description of the amount and purpose of each charge, includ
expiration dates if applicable; and
official notices shall be sent if different from the busin
mobilpk/ordkjh/rev. 5/18/94 5
I
0 0
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
6) any other information deemed necessary by C Council resolution for the implementation and enforcement this chapter.
7) a list of all services and amenities provi to park homeowners. (c) Annual Registration. Each mobilehome park ow
shall update the registration information by April 1 of e year. (d) Registration Fee. The mobilehome park ow
shall pay a registration fee to fully cover the administrat costs for the implementation and enforcement of this chapt The registration fee shall be established by resolution adjusted annually on July 1 of every year. The fee shall
paid by the end of each month thereafter. Registration fees paid by the 10th day of the month following their due date sh be delinquent and subject to penalties and interest according Chapter 3.12 of this code.
fees shall be equally paid by the park owner and homeowners the park owner shall be entitled to pass-through the amounts
be paid by the homeowners on a monthly basis, but exclud interest and penalties.
(e) Pass-through of Registration Fees. Registrat
D
a> &E& sug
an8 ow2 YU,
rrt5" goo2 a;S?
OZJO ""50 oa C% aoJ 50 >2q
Is::$
zua
12
13
14
15
16
17
IQ
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5.26.070 Base Rent. (a) The base rent for each mobilehome park sp subject to this chapter shall be established by resolution the City Council. The City Council shall make the determinat after a review of a fair market rent study applicable to space, and any other relevant information. The base rent sh represent the fair market value of the right to occupy the sg and use the amenities and services of the park. There shall
a rebuttable presumption that the base rent established by City Council is the fair market rental value of the spa There shall also be a rebuttable presumption that the base I
(b) The mobilehome park owner shall not demand represents a fair and reasonable return to the park owner.
accept space rent f0r.a mobilehome park space in excess of base rent D
5.26.080 Annual Adjustments to Base Rent.
(a) The base rent shall be adjusted annually tc percent of the yearly increase in the Consumer Price Inc
(1984 = loo), except that the annual increase shall be a mini of zero (0) percent and a maximum of eight (8) percent. Such increase shall be effective only if nont the following events have occurred:
(1) the mobilehome park owner is in violatiol
any provision of this chapter, including but not limited payment of fees:
(2) conditions exist within the mobilehome E
which violate provisions of local, state or federal law relat to the health, safety and welfare of the residents, for wk
~
27 the enforcing agency has issued a notice of correction
violations must be of a substantial nature, affecting the 28
similar notice, and such violation has not been corrected. S
mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94 6
, 0 m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
om
&E&
lUU%
u.08
JUO aOUu
et7 9 t ai On?
SL%". OZJO ""50
60 >2%
ZLu;
m>q
E:$
m>
<OJ
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for the hearing and guidelines for the decision made by
hearing officer. The resolution shall contain a nonexclus list of factors to be used in making the determination.
procedures and guidelines shall comply with state and fed€
constitutional requirements regarding the property rights of
park owner. The decision of the hearing officer shall be
writing and contain references to the guidelines adopted by City Council. The hearing officer shall keep a complete recc
mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94 7
Il
1 0 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
P Sw% m>- $Fob an8
iU, Ow8
m a035 Ed2
$;si
OZJ? z w (nu
““%O 003 Lam >rrq 50
g.;s
<OJ
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
$WE
0cn
Yr alrm 408 "wg iUC3 $044
9 "OL I 4- 25pi
OZ"? ""$0 003 Lorn >2%
&gg
4O-l
bu
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
e e
5.26.130 Sale or transfer of mobilehomes (a) All of the provisions of this chapter shl
continue in full force and effect upon sale or transfer 03 mobilehome. (b) A mobilehome park owner shall not require coerce purchasers or prospective purchasers of mobilehomes sign a lease which exempts them from this chapter under Ci Code section 798.17.
5.26.140 Notification to homeowners and Prospect
homeowners The mobilehome park owner shall provide all homeownl and prospective homeowners with a copy of the Mobilehome PI Rent Control Ordinance together with a schedule showing ' applicable space rent under this chapter prior to the time agreement to pay space rent to the park owner is, executl
subject to inspection by the City. Proof of notification shall be maintained at the park
5.26.150 Base rent upon expiration of exempt le under Civil Code section 798.17 When a lease which is exempt under Civil Code sect
798.17 expires this chapter shall automatically apply to s space and the space rent for purposes of this chapter shall include any pass-throughs prohibited by this chapter.
~ ~~~ ~
5.26.160 Retaliation It shall be unlawful for any person to retali against a homeowner for exercising any rights provided by t chapter, or registering a complaint relating to enforcement its provisions.
5.26.170 Administrative suidelines.
The City Manager is authorized to adopt s
administrative guidelines as are necessary to fully implem
the purposes and intent of this chapter.I1
SECTION 2: If this ordinance is declared invalid
unenforceable for any reason, then Ordinance No. NS-263 sh
become enforceable and in full force and effect in place of t
ordinance. Until that time, Ordinance No. NS-263 shall not
effective for any other purpose.
SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, senten
clause, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance is for
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect I, mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
n
1?1 uu~ 408
2059
dt5n:
1 sa2 n"n9
OZJO SLisa
acczo
p$
Suij
j;p
>JZ
m aoJ
00 -
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The C
Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance
each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part
portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or m
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts,
portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effect
thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall cert
the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published
least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of
Carlsbad City Council on the 23rd day of MAY I 19
and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the C
Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of
1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
ATTEST: CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
mobilpk/ordkjh/rev. 5/18/94 10
0 0
EXHIBIT A
5.26.050 Petition for Exclusion.
provisions of this chapter if a Petition for Exclusion is file with the city clerk within 60 days after the effective date of thi ordinance.
(b) The Petition for Exclusion shall contain signature
of a majority of the homeowners in the park, with each spa<
entitled to one signature counting toward the majority. Spacc exempted under Civil Code section 798.17 shall be counted fc purposes of determining a majority, and homeowners residing j those spaces shall be entitled to sign the petitior notwithstanding the exemption from the other requirements of thj
chapter stated in section 5.26.040. The petition shall als contain statements for exclusion from the provisions of thj chapter, such as a written agreement between the homeowners and tl park owner which satisfies the purpose and intent of this chaptel (c) The clerk shall verify the signatures and tl mobilehome park will be excluded from the provisions of thj chapter, with the exception of the initial registratic
(d) If there are changed circumstances after a park he
been included or excluded the homeowners may petition for exclusic or inclusion between January 1 and March 1 of each year provided petition meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) is filed wit the city clerk, and provided further that the petition shal contain statements for exclusion or inclusion within the provisior of this chapter. The City Council may approve, deny or conditic the petition so that inclusion of the park is consistent with tk purpose and intent of this chapter.
(a) A mobilehome park may be excluded from tk
requirements contained in sections 5026,06O(a) and (b) .
EXHIBIT B
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 5 D 26 REGARDING PETITION FOR INCLUSION/ EXCLUSION
............................... .~ .................. 5 o 26 o 050 Petition for ~~~dh~~i:~/Excl~sion. a mob Il.ehome .............................................................. ........ (a) park may be excluded from the provisions of this chapter if a Petition for Exclusion is filed with the city clerk within 60 days after the effective date of this
ordinance.
, (b) * Iktiticm for ExzTZ-LL "x3-Et2il: zi.rc3
Gf 2 F.ajGr;t'y cf thz bm@ewBer"y ILT: thz pzrk, ylth: each zpa+?@
ezt;tlzd to 3ftc zlepa+urz za~tlnq twrd 6,k ~tip2cr~tz
UY u WLIbbL1.
I. wr:: -2T -& sztlsfl="y tk w"= zm2 ;Et-
" hL 0
chapter, with the exception of the initial registration requirements contained in sections 5,26.060(a) and (b),
3 @Jl-J@iT [
l e a
+d+&& If there are changed circumstances after a par has been incruaed or excluded the homeowners may petition fc exclusion or inclusion between January 1 and March 1 of each yea
provided a petition meeting the requirements of subdivision (b) i filed with the city clerk, and provided further that the petitio shall contain statements for exclusion or inclusion within th provisions of this chapter. The City Council may approve, deny o condition the petition so that inclusion of the park is consisten with the purpose and intent of this chapter.
:y:g::::3::
-
# b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
2a mW8 92.:
eo8 ow2
aam
AU-0 s:2$ kt58 S"k
g$Yo KU5d
00s Lorn
t2'9 60
a>m$
aoA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 e e
RESOLUTION NO. 94-143
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SETTING THE BASE RENT
REGARDING THE MOBILEHOME PARK RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE.
WEREAS, the City authorized and conducted a fair
rent study entitled the IIMobilehome Park Rental Study by
Marston Associates, Inc." in order to determine a fair renl
for mobilehome parks located within the City: and
WHEREAS, the results of that study have been ca~
reviewed by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the study concludes that space rents wit1
Lanikai' Lane Mobilehome Park and the Rancho Carlsbad Mob:
Park should be adjusted: and
WHEREAS, the study concludes that space rents
Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park do not need to be studied i
residents located in that park have requested exclusion f~
study and rent regulation: and
WHEREAS, after careful review of this report tl
Council finds that rents should be adjusted according to 1
range of that study: and
WHEREAS, the rents have been adjusted at 75% of 1
Diego CPI for 1994 and that further revision of those spacc
are not necessary until July 1, 1995,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct
2. That the rents in the Lanikai Lane Mobileho~
and the Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome park should be ac
I - 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
- 12
~
I ,
um
SW? m> &e&, 13
SESS ekgg
:;S?
E:;
a08 ow2 iU, 14
OnL 15
ozJv 16 zum
““%n
gzs l7 UOJ
0
according to the rents set forth on the rent schedule attac]
this resolution as Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting I
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 23rd day of -I
1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Nygaard
NOES: Council Member Finnila
ABSENT: Council Member Kulchin
1
/&[A UDE A. LEWIS; Mayor
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. F&UT
(SEAL)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
I I -
RENT CONTROL OR d INANE 0
IANIKAI LANE RENT SCHEDULE
: KMA Adjusted Rent;
1994 @-75% CPI 1
;SINGLE WIDE SPACE i $4001 : $406 1
j DOUBLE WIDE SPACE/ $425; ! $432 ]
1994 @-75% CPI 1
;SINGLE WIDE SPACE i $4001 : $406 1
j DOUBLE WIDE SPACE/ $425; ! $432 ]
Lanikai Lane base rent includes trash removal. Gas, electric, cable TV, water ar
sewer services are paid by resident.
RANCHO CARLSBAD RENT SCHEDULE
KMA FAIR MARKET RENT RANGE (Lot Premiums) = $600 to $800
i# MOBILEHOMES I Rent as of 111 ' ' ' KMA Adjusted Rent Rental Amount1
1 Dec 31, 1993 I : i 1994 @ 75% CPI INCR/(DECR) '
I
I
I 34 $677 '
($45) 45 i $736 I ' . $691
($42) $635
14 ! $645, i 1 $606
14 I
($39:
I ::::I
($51) 10 $8351! $704
($49) 93 $8001 I I $751 I
($40) I $61 7 i 29 j ($41 1 $625
I
i 74 1 $7551 I I $708 ($47)
27
49 I
! $7111 I 1 . $667 : ($44)
i $7261 '1 1 $682 ($44) !
i 67 ! $783 1 $735
17
($48)
($50) $827 1 $777 ! 1
; 29 ! $871 I ($54) $81 7 !
/[Total # MH's 50211
NOTE: Proposed KMA rent structure is based upon existing individual lot local
premiums.
Rancho Carlsbad base rent includes trash removal, water and sewer services, i
cable TV. Gas and electric services are paid by resident.
EXHIBIT A TO
RESOLUTION NO. 3
&*
*. -8
ANDERSEN, KELEHER 8 SPATA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JAMES F. KELEHER
G. SiEVEN ANDERSEN 1334 PARK VIEW AVENUE, SUITE 100
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER SPATA MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 (310) 54<
TELEP
__
(3101 54
FACSI
May 23, 1994
HAND DELNERED
Mayor Bud Lewis and
City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Objections to Proposed Negative Declaration, Mobilehome Park Rent Control Ordinance and Resolution Settinq Base Rent
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members:
On behalf of David F. Dawes, the Dawes Marital Trust an South Shores Development Corporation, this is to object to th
Resolution Setting Base Rents for such ordinance. city's proposed Negative Declaration, Rent Control Ordinance an
Essentially, the City must refrain from taking any actio: to approve the foregoing matters affecting Rancho Carlsbal Mobilehome Park and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park because thl approval thereof will constitute violations of the Californi, Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the State Planning Law, the Stat' Preemption Doctrine, the United States Constitution, and thl California Constitution.
Further detail as to these objections is set forth i: attached Exhibit A and the Declaration of Jim A. Marquez.
Very truly yours,
ANDERSEN, KELEHER & SPATA -.
~ ". :t+,, \~.;'c;wxL\ ~ ..,'.,. . ~ \ ".-
'< ',, TT
Michael Christopher Spata
MCS/lc
cc: Mr. David F. Dawes
Dawes Marital Trust South Shores Development Corporation
f+'.( 5/k/ "l 0. rad
jG;c. - 7
/I 0 *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1,
2.
CEOA OBJECTIONS
Procedural Objection
a. The City Council did not hold a duly advertised
hearing on May 17, 1994 to consider the proposed N
Declaration.
b. Consequently, since counsel inquired on May 1: concerning whether a public hearing would be sch and since counsel was informed that a public hearin not be held, an objection is hereby made on the gr fundamental unfairness if the affected park ow1 their counsel are not given the opportunity to upon the Negative Declaration before the City
considers adopting the proposed Negative Declarati
Rent Control Ordinance, and the Resolution Setti Rents for such ordinance.
Substantive Obiections
a. A fair argument can be made (based upon subs evidence) that the proposed project (Rent ( Ordinance/Setting of Base Rents) may cause pote: significant direct and indirect effects/impacts uy physical and economic environment,
b. Potentially Significant Environmental Effects/Impz
The proposed Negative Declaration admits that rent( ordinances reduce the supply of rental housing Further, the Negative Declaration assumes a "worsi scenario of the affected mobilehome parks ar displacement of residents inhabiting over 1,000 mobj park spaces. Importantly, proposed Ordinance No. admits that "the cost for moving a mobilehc
substantial with a significant risk of damage. It E important, there are no existing land use desigr that would accommodate the relocation of these res
to other mobilehome parks or to other forms of affc housing, including manufactured housing,
Against this background, the Negative Declaration d evaluate the direct and cumulative impacts thz potentially significant resulting from the closl these parks, the displacement of almost 2,000 resi and the inconsistency between the land use and h elements of the General Plan to accommodate the rela of these residents within the City. The Ne
ElxTLlBlT A
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 2.
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration also did not consider the effects displacement and relocation of these residents housing needs of and the impacts upon the x welfare.
c. The proposed project will cause potentially sign direct or cumulative impacts upon (i) the altera present and planned land uses in the City, (j
substantial alteration of the density of the
population of the area, and (iii) the potentj
increasing the demand for additional affordable h
d. Therefore, the City must prepare, circulate for
review, and adopt an Environmental Impact Report considering the passage of the proposed Rental
Ordinance.
GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIONS
Ordinance Inconsistency with Housinq Element
a. The ordinance as proposed contains many provisio~ are fatally flawed based upon the State Pre Doctrine, the United States Constitution a1 California Constitution. These objection incorporated herein by reference,
b. Assuming these objections are sustained, then the PI ordinance, if adopted, would not guarantee a fair : return to the affected mobilehome park < Consequently, the ordinance would be inconsistent w
Housing Element of the General Plan because the policies and programs regarding the maintenan enhancement of affordable housing opportunities u thwarted by the potential closure of these par displacement of the residents,
C. Accordingly, the City must not adopt the PI ordinance.
Internal Inconsistency Between Land Use and Housinq Ele
a. The Land Use Element does not provide for suff affordable housing forthe potential displacement oJ residents, while the Housing Element requires th City maintain and enhance its stock of affordable hc Rent control will not promote affordable housing. 1 instance, the goal of affordable housing will be thG
2
1
2.
3
4
5
6
1.
2.
r
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
0 0
STATE PREEMPTION DOCTRINE
Duty to Maintain (Section 5.26.110)
The Mobilehome Residency Law already imposes upon tl owners the duty to maintain the premises. This directly conflicts with state law.
Automatic Application of Ordinance (Section 5.26.150)
This section prevents the park owners and the residen entering into a good faith renewal or extension of any e
long-term leases, which are exempt according to state I
the application of local rent control ordinances.
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS
United States and California Constitutional Violations Takinqs and Substantive Due Process Clauses (Prevention
Rate of Return on Investment: No Substantial Advancer Leqitimate Governmental Purpose: and Arbitrary, Caprici Unreasonable Deprivation of Property Riqhts)
a. Vacancy Control (Section 5.26.130).
This provision neither advances, nor substa: advances, any purportedly legitimate goals of the p: ordinance; that is, vacancy control will not pi affordable housing, but it will increase the cost ( housing to the mobilehome residents, except for residents in place at the time of the enactment proposed ordinance. Hence, there is no constit1 nexus between the vacancy control provision o ordinance and the goals thereof, thereby resultin! unconstitutional taking of private propert deprivation of substantive due process.
b. Annual Adjustments to Base Rent (Section 5.26.080)
(i) Cap on CPI (75%); inflationary trends nc
(ii) Limit on maximum increase to 8%: inflat
trends not met.
(iii) Chapter 5 limitations are illegal.
(iv) Park owners must be given reas opportunity to challenge and set enforcing government agency's decisi court.
3
ll 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. All .reasonable and justifiable pass-throughs I allowed, irrespective of the Mobilehome Residenl including, but not limited to, such pass-throul capital expenditures and any taxes, assessments, j charges imposed by any government entity. Fur reasonable return must be allowed on all expenditures .
d. Base Rents (Section 5.26.070)
Base Rents are not set at fair market (rental) valu upon City's own admission (low range value select
based upon fatal flaws in KMA Study.
e. Registration Fee (Section 5.26.060)
Registration fee not reasonably related to the cos1
service provided.
f. Findings of Proposed Ordinance No. NS-282
(i) Shortage of mobilehome park spaces r from exclusionary land use palicic practices of City. Any inequitable condition has been caused by City's 1i constraints on mobilehome park housi alternative manufactured housing servic
(ii) Mobilehome park owners have plac substantial investment in their park proposed ordinance will confer an windfall upon residents and impose an
wipe out upon park owners.
(iii) Market space base rents, coupled with rate of return on investment, is perm.
and mandated. Thus, protection of res. investment to the detriment of
requirements guaranteed to the park OWE
confiscatory and arbitrary,
(iv) State law requires park owners to mainta: to protect health, safety and wc
Corresponding benefit already guaranb residents by state law.
(v) Mandated rent control does not 1
(vi) No evidence of unreasonable space
affordable housing.
increases imposed by park owners.
g. Findings/Conclusions of Resolution No. 94-143
4
I/ 0 e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
(i) Mobilehome Park Rental Study contain$ flaws, and hence, City Council arbi
approves of study.
(ii) Study concludes illegally that rents sh adjusted.
(iii) Adjustment of rents to "low range" unconstitutional taking and deprivat
substantive due process.
(iv) Adjustment to 75% of San Diego CPI for an unconstitutional taking and depriva substantive due process.
(VI Further revision of space rents until I
deprivation of substantive due process . 1995 is an unconstitutional takir
(vi) Recitals are not true and correct.
(vii) Rents must not be adjusted pursuant to "A" because such rent levels are confi and arbitrary.
(viii) Mandated rent control does not 1 affordable housing.
2. United States and California Constitutional Violations o Protection Clause (Discriminatory Exercise of Power to Rc
in Area of Rent Control)
a. The purpose, goal and intent of the proposed ordi contrary to Section 5.26 . 020, is to give the mobj park residents a "hammer, 'I and thus, a discriminatc unreasonably disproportionate advantage in negotiations with the mobilehome park owners relat the consummation of long-term leases.
3. California Constitutional Violation of Substantive Due E
a. The proposed Rent Control Ordinance will not promc reasonable affordable housing needs of the City n San Diego region. To be sure, vacancy control pr
I meeting the goal of providing affordable housing. I I
b. In addition, the City has neither considere
accommodated reasonably the affordable housing ne the City nor the regional welfare if the af
mobilehome park residents are displaced resulting fr
operation of the ordinance.
5
?* 0 .I FOR THE INFORF.4ATIOf
THE CITY CCUNCIl s*&" p"TTZ
ANDERSEN. KELEHER 1 SPATA ._ . _.-. _""
ATTORNEYS AT LAW CA
G STEVEN ANDERSEN
JAMES F KELEHER
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER SPATA
1334 PARK VIEW AVENUE. SUITE 100 Gc MANHATTAN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 (3101 54(
TELEPI
-
1310) 54
FACSl
May 23, 1994
HANDDEmD
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Jeffrey Gibson, Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Negative Declaration (EIA 94-03)
Project Description: Mobilehome Park Rent Control Ordinanc Publication Date: May 3, 1994
Gentlemen:
Consistent with the Negative Declaration for the abovc
referenced project, written comments were invited to be submittc
within 21 days of the date of issuance.
Consequently, attached is a declaration from Jim i Marque2 which serves as comments to the Negative Declaration c
behalf of David F. Dawes, the Dawes Marital Trust and South Short
Development Corporation relating to Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Pa:
and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park.
Accordingly, based upon the attached comments, includil
any additional comments submitted this evening before the Ci.
Council, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Repo:
(EIR) , circulate the EIR for public review, and approve the E,
before considering the adoption of the pending Rent Contrl
Ordinance and Resolution Setting Base Rents.
Very truly yours,
ANDERSEN, KELEHER & SPATA
:$)y{( \ >p\ crc? r \. "
.J
Michael Christopher Spata
MCS / IC
cc: Mr. David F. Dawes
The Dawes Marital Trust
South Shores Development Corporation
t
II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
DECLARATION OF JIM A. MARQUE2
I, JIM A. MARQUEZ, declare as follows:
1. This declaration is submitted in support of :
Dawes, the Dawes Marital Trust and South Shores Devi
Corporation. Furthermore, this declaration serves as corm
the proposed Negative Declaration for the pending Rent
Ordinance and Resolution Setting Base Rents for such or1
Finally, this declaration is submitted in opposition to the
Negative Declaration because a fair argument can be made .
proposed project may cause potentially significant envir
effects. The following is within my personal knowledge,
called as a witness herein, I could testify competently th
2. I am the owner of Jim A. Marquez Planning and
a sole proprietorship specializing in land use and envir
planning. I have over twenty years of municipal urban plan
private sector land use planning experience. I received a
Urban and Regional Planning from California State Pol
University in 1973 and an M.P.A. from the University of
California in 1979.
3. As part of my professional experience, I s
the Director of Municipal Planning for the City of Hawthc
1980-1986. I also served in a variety of planning positi
the City of Torrance, City of Monrovia and the City of Pic( I
///
<. I
> I1 e e
1 I1 4. I have been a member of the American E
2
Conducting a Planning Commission Hearing (1984). 7
League of California Cities Planning Commissioner’s Hi 6
thereof in 1983 and 1984. I was also contributing edit01 5
Planning Congress from 1976 to 1985, and I was elected PI 4
Planning Congress. I served on the Board of Directors 3
Association, Urban Land Institute and the Southern Cal
8
9 5. During my years of experience, I have been
10
13
environmental assessments, studies and reports, and the pr 12
elements, zoning and subdivision regulations, redevelopmen 11
in the preparation, evaluation and amendment of gener
20
Element and Housing Element. 19
updated the Noise Element, Parks and Recreation Element, 18
the cites for which I have worked. Specifically, I have wr 17
either written or updated various elements of the general 16
number of cities in Southern California. In my experience 15
processed land use, development and redevelopment projec 14
relating thereto. I have also written, reviewed, evalui
21 6. In connection with my review of this matter
22
the Keyser Marston Fair Rental Value Study. 24
City‘s Land Use and Housing Elements, various City Agenda E 23
reviewed, among other things, the proposed Negative Declaral
25
26 7. Based upon my review of the foregoing docun
27 based upon my familiarity with the subject mobilehome parks
28 Carlsbad and Lanikai Lane) I it is my opinion that the C
2
).
8 I1 0 e
1
Negative Declaration, because a fair argument may be made t 2
prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and not adopt the E
project may cause potentially significant environmental eff 3
4
5
1
8. The reasons in support of my opinion are st
6 11 follows:
7
8 a, The proposed Negative Decl.aration admits that rent
9
10
ordinances reduce the supply of rental housing
Further, the Negative Declaration assumes a "wor:
11
displacement of residents inhabiting over 1,000 mol 12
scenario of the affected mobilehome parks i
13
14
park spaces. Importantly, proposed Ordinance No
admits that "the cost for moving a mobile1
15 substantial with a significant risk of damage."
16
17
important, there are no existing land use desil
to other mobilehome parks or to other forms of af 18
that would accommodate the relocation of these rl
19
20
housing, including manufactured housing.
21 /I b. Against this background, the Negative Declaration
22
23
24
evaluate the direct and cumulative impacts t
potentially significant resulting from the clc
these parks, the displacement of almost 2,000 re
25
26
and the inconsistency between the land use and
28
of these residents within the City. The 27
elements of the General Plan to accommodate the re
Declaration also did not consider the effects
3
c. I
II a
0
1
4B
displacement and relocation of these residents
2
3
4
5
housing needs of and the impacts upon the 1:
welfare.
C. The proposed project will cause potentially sign
6 direct or cumulative impacts upon (.i) the subs
7
a
alteration of present and planned land uses in th
human population of the area., and (iii) the .potent 9
(ii) the substantial alteration of the density
11 lo ll increasing the demand for additional affordable h
12 9 Therefore, the City must prepare, circul;
l3 Public review, and adopt an Environmental Impact Report
l4
15
considering the passage of the proposed Rental Control Ordi
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
l7
l8
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct a
this declaration was executed on this 23rd day of May :
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Manhattan Beach, California.
I
f,,> 9.hp(
JI MARQUEZ
1.
'- i I
"
II 4
0 0-
ANDERSEN. KELEHER 8 SPATA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
G. STEVEN ANDERSEN
JAMES F KELEHER
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER SPATA
1334 PARK VIEW AVENUE, SUITE 100
MANHATTAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90266 (310) 5
TELE
-
FAC
(310) 9
May 23, 1994
HAND REWBD
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Jeffrey Gibson, Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Negative Declaration (EIA 94-03) Project Description: Mobilehome Park Rent Control Ordinar Publication Date: May 3, 1994
Gentlemen:
Consistent with the Negative Declaration for the abov referenced project, written comments were invited to be submitt within 21 days of the date of issuance.
Consequently, attached is a declaration from Jim Marquez which serves as comments to the Negative Declaration
behalf of David F. Dawes, the Dawes Marital Trust and South Shor Development Corporation relating to Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Pa and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park.
Accordingly, based upon the attached comments, includi any additional comments submitted this evening before the Ci Council, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Repc (EIR) , circulate the EIR for public review, and approve the E
before considering the adoption of the pending Rent Contr
Ordinance and Resolution Setting Base Rents.
Very truly yours,
ANDERSEN, KELEHER & SPATA
\<<Y...kT?!
.' \
Michael Christopher Spata
MCS/lc
cc: Mr. David F. Dawes
The Dawes Marital Trust South Shores Development Corporation
I/ I
0 0-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JIM A. MAROUEZ
I, JIM A. MARQUEZ, declare as follows:
1. This declaration is submitted in support of
Dawes, the Dawes Marital Trust and South Shores Dev
Corporation. Furthermore, this declaration serves as corn
the proposed Negative Declaration for the pending Rent
Ordinance and Resolution Setting Base Rents for such or1
Finally, this declaration is submitted in opposition to the
Negative Declaration because a fair argument can be made .
proposed project may cause potentially significant envir,
effects. The following is within my personal knowledge;
called as a witness herein, I could testify competently tht
2 . I am the owner of Jim A. Marquez Planning and
a sole proprietorship specializing in land use and envirc
planning. I have over twenty years of municipal urban plan1
private sector land use planning experience. I received a
Urban and Regional Planning from California State Pol]
University in 1973 and an M.P.A. from the University of $
California in 1979.
3. As part of my professional experience, I se
the Director of Municipal Planning for the City of Hawthor ' 1980-1986. I also served in a variety of planning positic 1
~ ///
the City of Torrance, City of Monrovia and the City of Pic0
0 e-
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. I have been a member of the American
Association, Urban Land Institute and the Southern Cz
Planning Congress. I served on the Board of Director:
Planning Congress from 1976 to 1985, and I was elected E
thereof in 1983 and 1984. I was also contributing edito
League of California Cities Planning Commissioner's I
Conducting a Planning Commission Hearing (1984).
5. During my years of experience, I have been
in the preparation, evaluation and amendment of gene]
elements, zoning and subdivision regulations, redevelopmen
environmental assessments, studies and reports, and the pr
relating thereto. I have also written, reviewed, evalui
processed land use, development and redevelopment projec
number of cities in Southern California. In my experience
either written or updated various elements of the general
the cites for which I have worked. Specifically, I have WL
updated the Noise Element, Parks and Recreation Element, :
Element and Housing Element.
6. In connection with my review of this matter
reviewed, among otherthings, the proposed Negative Declarat
City's Land Use and Housing Elements, various City Agenda B:
the Keyser Marston Fair Rental Value Study.
7. Based upon my review of the foregoing docum
based upon my familiarity with the subject mobilehome parks
Carlsbad and Lanikai Lane), it is my opinion that the Ci
2
~
0 0-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and hot adopt the
Negative Declaration, because a fair argument may be made
project may cause potentially significant environmental ef
8, The reams in support of my opinion are s
follows :
a. The proposed Negative Declaration admits that rent
ordinances reduce the supply of rental housint
Further, the Negative Declaration assumes a "wor
scenario of the affected mobilehome parks I
displacement of residents inhabiting over 1,000 no:
park spaces. Importantly, proposed Ordinance No
admits that "the cost for moving a mobile;
substantial with a significant risk of damage."
important, there are no existing land use desi:
that would accommodate the relocation of these rc
to other mobilehome parks or to other forms of af j
housing, including manufactured housing.
b. Against this background, the Negative Declaration
evaluate the direct and cumulative impacts tl
potentially significant resulting from the clo
these parks, the displacement of almost 2,000 re5
and the inconsistency between the land use and
elements of the General Plan to accommodate the re1
of these residents within the City. The N
Declaration also did not consider the effects
3
I ~. a e-
l ll displacement and relocation of these residents
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
housing needs of and the impacts upon the
welfare.
C. The proposed project will cause potentially sig
direct or cumulative impacts upon (i) the sub
alteration of present and planned land uses in t:
(ii) the substantial alteration of the density
human population of the area, and (iii) the poten
increasing the demand for additional affordable
9. Therefore, the City must prepare, circul
public review, and adopt an Environmental Impact Report
considering the passage of the proposed Rental Control Ord:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct i
this declaration was executed on this 23rd day of May
Manhattan Beach, California. x h.%l
JI . MARQUEZ
3
'lt',,u
4
e
* I/ 0 0
6
1 ORDINANCE NO. NS-282
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CARLS MUNICIPAL CODE, BY ADDING CHAPTER 5.26 TO REGUL MOBILEHOME PARK SPACE RENT. 3
4
5
6
WHEREAS, the City has received petitions and reque
for mobilehome rent cont,rol legislation: and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a number of spec
7 11 meetings at the City's mobilehome parks and received evide
8
9 desirability of mobilehome rent control legislation: and
and heard arguments both pro and con as to the wisdom
10 WHEREAS, the City Council held a special meeting
l1 the Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park on July 19, 1993 in order
12
9m !3it;s 13 mw8
uo8 Ow8 iU,
9 OOU *ai 15
SLEU 0 Z -l O. 16 cuco
EOW
so44 14 u->g Ed2
092
4o-l gz: l7
0
carefully consider the relative positions of the park owner
the homeowner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held special meetings at
Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park on August 4, 1993 and at
Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park on August 16, 1993 in order
further study the issue and receive evidence, testimony
l8 11 arguments : and
19 WHEREAS, the City Council held a special meeting
2o
testimony from mobilehome park tenants and owners and ot 21
the City Council Chambers on Friday, October 1, .1993 and he
22 11 interested parties, on the necessity and desirability
23
24
mobilehome rent control legislation: and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a regular meeting
25 the City Council Chambers on Tuesday, May 3, 1994 and Tuesd
26 May 17, 1994 and heard testimony from mobilehome park tenan
27
28 I1 mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94
ll
.. // 0 0
/I
1
4
3
desirability of mobilehome rent control legislation; and 2
and owners and other interested parties, on the necessity 2
WHEREAS, mobilehome ownership has historically been
economically more accessible form of home ownersh.
5 particularly to individuals on fixed incomes, and of fc
6 substantial benefits to the community in the form of moder<
7
8
9
cost housing; and
WHEREAS, there is a shortage of mobilehome park spa(
in the City of Carlsbad resulting in a low space vacancy ra.
10 /I and
l1 // WHEREAS, it is difficult to find sites for relocat
nul SUB $ig
jLLgg 0 303s
9”5
OZ-I?
s&g<
““SO
c’?z
m>
>-lz
0 dt5“
E%? 4o-l
50
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
of mobilehomes due to the shortage of spaces, restrictions
the age, size and style of mobilehomes enforced by many par
and other requirements relating to reinstallation
mobilehomes; and
WHEREAS, the cost for moving a mobilehome
substantial, with a significant risk of damage; and
WHEREAS, these market conditions have contributed
or threaten to contribute to, escalating rental rates; and
20
21
22
23
24
WHEREAS, a market of mobilehome park tenants has b
created producing an inequitable imbalance in the bargain
position of the park owner and the tenants; and
WHEREAS, mobilehome park tenants have placed
substantial investment in their mobilehomes and appurtenanc
25 I/ and
26 WHEREAS, above-market space rents and the threat
27
investments in their mobilehomes; and 28
escalating rents diminishes the value of the tenan
mobilpk/ord/kjb/rev. 5/18/94 2
I
-
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 - :WE a> $ecb
ow2 408
iUC3 $035 >-1E at5 nun2 <G$i
OZJO z w a4
aaqo E:? pz 40-1
00
13
14
15
16
17
18
m 0.
WHEREAS, state law permits mobilehome park owners
require tenants to improve their homes and such improveme
accrue to the benefit of the park owner by increasing the mar
value of the park itself; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to remedy t
inequitable situation and protect the rights of tenants
mobilehome parks by regulating the amount of space rent wh
can be charged by mobilehome park owners in a manner which
fair and equitable to both tenants and owners; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the adoption
this ordinance would not have a significant, substantial
adverse effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing and considering the evide
and testimony presented, the City Council finds and decla
that it is necessary, and in the public interest, to prot
mobilehome owners from unreasonable space rent increases and
assessments, and at the same time, to permit mobilehome p
owners to obtain a fair and reasonable return.
l9 II NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City
.. 2oll Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
21
22
23
SECTION 1: That Title 5 of the Carlsbad Munici
Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 5.26 to read as folla
WHAPTER 5.2 6
24
25
26
27
28
Section Section
Section
Section Section Section Section
Section
Section
5.26.010
5.26.020
5.26.030
5.26.040
5.26.050
5.26.060
5.26.070
5.26.080
5.26.090
Title Purpose and intent Definitions
Applicability Petition for exclusion
Registration,
Base rent
Annual adjustments to base rent
Appeal of base rent
mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. Sfl8P4 3
II e 0
1
2
3
4
5
Section
Section Section Section Section
Section
Section Section
5.26.100
5.26.110
5.26.120
5.26.130
5.26.140
5.26.150
5.26.160
5.26.170
Allowable pass-throughs
Duty to maintain Capital expenditures Sale or transfer of mobilehomes Notification to prospective homeowner
Base rent upon expiration of exempt lease under Civil Code section 798.1' Retaliation Administrative guidelines.
6
7 Rent Control Ordinance. II
5.26.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the I*Mobilehome P(
8
9
10
11
om
&E& a08 Ow8
$035 iU,
utsa:
SW? *>
>A2
goo2 si$2 02-10 a:a:%o 00s La*
50 >:2 aoA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
5.26.020 Pumose and Intent.
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to proti
the rights of homeowner in mobilehome parks by regulating
amount of rent which can be charged by mobilehome park owners a manner which .is fair and equitable to both homeowner ' owners.
5.26.030 Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of t: chapter: (a) "Consumer Price Index1@ - the San Diego Cou: Consumer Price Index (All Items - Urban Consumers, 1984 = 10 (b) I1Mobilehomet1 - .a mobilehome is a structure defined in California Civil Code section 798.3. (c) IIMobilehome park" or lrparkrl - an area of 1,
where two or more mobilehome sites are rented, or held out rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation. (d) I1Mobilehome park spacell or tgspace81 - a s
within a mobilehome park which can accommodate the locati
maintenance and human habitation of a mobilehome.
owner of a mobilehome park or an agent or representat authorized to act on behalf of the owner in connection w matters relating to tenancy of a mobilehome park space. (f) "New construction" - any newly constructed spa initially held out for rent after January 1, 1990. (9) IlSpace Rent" - total consideration authorized this chapter to be received by a.park owner for occupancy o space and services and amenities of a park. (h) ftHomeowner1t - is a person who has a tenancy i
mobilehome park under a rental agreement as those terms defined in Civil Code sections 798.8 and 798.12.
(e) IIMobilehome park owner#' or "park owner" -
II
25
26
27
28
5.26.040 Atmlicabilitv.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to mobilehome parks within the City of Carlsbad and to e mobilehome park space within such parks except as provided
this chapter, except new construction and spaces expres exempted from this chapter by Civil Code section 798.17, other express provisions of state or federal law. Spa
mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94 4
I
/I a e
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
- 12 Zug ;$&
0Lug an8
$04S
d-->O gdz
9 I $" 6iW
003 Lo* p5 EO
iU,
0
q>m$
~asd
404
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
exempted by Civil Code section 798.17 shall automatically becc subject to all provisions of the chapter upon expiration termination of the written lease agreement.
5.26.050 Petition for Exclusion. {a) A mobilehome park may be excluded from 1
provisions of this chapter if a Petition for Exclusion is fi: with the city clerk within 60 days after the effective date this ordinance.
signatures of a majority of the homeowners in the park, w each space entitled to one signature counting toward .
be counted for purposes of determining a majority, q
homeowners residing in those spaces shall be entitled to s the petition, notwithstanding the exemption from the ot: requirements of this chapter stated in section 5-26.040. a petition shall also contain statements for exclusion from provisions of this chapter, such as a written agreement betw, the homeowners and the park owner which satisfies the purp, and intent of this chapter.
mobilehome park will be excluded from the provisions of t chapter, with the exception of the initial registrat requirements contained in sections 5,26.060(a) and (b). (d) If there are changed circumstances after a p has been included or excluded the homeowners may petition exclusion or inclusion between January 1 and March 1 of e year provided a petition meeting the requirements of subdivis (b) is filed with the city clerk, and provided further that
within the provisions of this chapter. The City Council approve, deny or condition the petition so that inclusion of park is consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapte
(b) The Pe-tition for Exclusion shall conti
majority. Spaces exempted under Civil Code section 798.17 Shi
(c) The clerk shall verify the signatures and
petition shall contain statements for exclusion or inclus
5.26.060 Reaistration. (a) Initial Registration. Within 60 days after effective date of this chapter, all mobilehome.park owners sh register the park in the manner required by this section.
(b) Registration shall include:
1) the name, business address and teleph
number of the mobilehome park owner and the address to whic official notices shall be sent if different from the busin address;
2) the name, business address and teleph number of all other persons or legal entities possessing ownership interest in the park and the nature of such interes
3) the total number of spaces in the park and
4) a list of the rent charged for each spa including spaces which are exempt pursuant to section 8.25.04
5) a list of all other charges, with
description of the amount and purpose of each charge, includ expiration dates if applicable; and
8~ number of such spaces which are occupied;
mobilpk/ordkjb/rev. 5/18/94
I
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
00, &lJz yz zg$
d:s%
$E45 uk;g :;Q OnL
oz-lu Ea%o 00s rocn
zwu)
Ez; U0-l
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
a 0
6) any other information deemed necessary by c Council resolution for the implementation and enforcement
this chapter.
7) a list of all services and amenities provi
to park homeowners. (c) Annual Registration. Each mobilehome park ow
shall update the registration information by April 1 of e
(d) Registration Fee. The mobilehome park ow
shall pay a registration fee to fully cover the administrat costs for the implementation and enforcement of this chapt The registration fee shall be established by resolution adjusted annually on July 1 of every year. The fee shall paid by the end of each month thereafter. Registration fees
paid by the 10th day of the month following their due date sh be delinquent and subject to penalties and interest accordins
Chapter 3.12 of this code. (e) Pass-through of Registration Fees. Registrat fees shall be equally paid by the park owner and homeowners the park owner shall be entitled to pass-through the amounts be paid by the homeowners on a monthly basis, but excluc interest and penalties.
year b
5.26.070 Base Rent.
(a) The base rent for each mobilehome park SI
the City Council. The City Council shall make the determinat after a review of a fair market rent study applicable to space, and any other relevant information. The base rent sk
represent the fair market value of the right to occupy the SI and use the amenities and services of the park. There shall
a rebuttable presumption that the base rent established by City Council is the fair market rental value of the spz
There shall also be a rebuttable presumption that the base 1 represents a fair and reasonable return to the park owner. (b) The mobilehome park owner shall not demand
accept space rent f0r.a mobilehome park space in excess of
base rent.
subject to this chapter shall be established by resolutior
5.26.080 Annual Adiustments to Base Rent. (a) The base rent- shall be adjusted annually tc percent of the yearly increase in the Consumer Price Inc
of zero (0) percent and a maximum of eight (8) percent. Such increase shall be effective only if nonc
the following events have occurred:
(1) the mobilehome park owner is in violatio:
any provision of this chapter, including but not limited payment of fees;
(2) conditions exist within the mobilehome 1 which violate provisions of local, state or federal law relai
to the health, safety and welfare of the residents, for wl the enforcing agency has issued a notice of correction
similar notice, and such violation has not been corrected. :
violations must be of a substantial nature, affecting the
(1984 = 100) I except that the annual increase shall be a min:
mobilpk/orcl/kjh/rev. 5/18#4 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
00,
YZ
iUU ow:
&lJE
$E$
SF2; ukrg
OZ-IO ““$0
cy$
:;sz o0u
E:; aod
zwo
50
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~
~
1
0 *
and enjoyment of the space tenancy, as determined by .
building official.
(b) The date of the annual adjustment shall be July 1 of each year.
(c) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that adjusted base rent represents a fair and reasonable return the park owner.
5.26.090 Ameal of mace rent.
(a) Upon the payment of the appropriate applicat fees and deposits, and within 60 days after notice of an ann
adjustment to base rent, a mobilehome park owner may appeal space rent established by this chapter if the park ow
contends that the space rent does not represent a fair
reasonable return.
(b) The appeal shall be heard by a hearing off i
appointed by the City Manager. The filing fees and co associated with filing an appeal shall be initially borne by
party requesting the appeal. The costs shall ultimately
awarded to the prevailing party and paid through adjustme
through an increase or decrease in the space rent appropriate. Filing fees and costs may be awarded, apportio
or denied in the discretion of the hearing officer.
(c) The appeal shall be heard within forty-five (
days after a complete application is accepted by the’ C
Manager by a park owner and served on the homeowners of e affected space. A proof of service shall be included with application. The hearing officer shall select a hearing d and notice the parties in writing at least fifteen (15) d prior to the hearing.
homeowners, or on the hearing officer’s own motion, the hear officer may issue subpenas in accordance with the provisions
Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq. Service of proc
shall be subject to the provisions of Title 3, Part 4, Chap
2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and such process shall ext
subpena, other than a park owner or homeowner, shall be p
fees and mileage as prescribed by law for witnesses in ci
actions in superior court. The fees and mileage shall be p
by the party who made the request for the subpena.
(e) The hearing officer shall receive relev
evidence and allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to heard. The hearing officer shall determine whether the SF rent represents a fair and reasonable return to the park own The City Council shall adopt a resolution containing procedu for the hearing and guidelines for the decision made by hearing officer. The resolution shall contain a nonexclus list of factors to be used in making the determination.
procedures and guidelines shall comply with state and fed€
constitutional requirements regarding the property rights of
park owner. The decision of the hearing officer shall be
writing and contain references to the guidelines adopted by
City Council. The hearing officer shall keep a complete recc
(dl At the request of the park owner or
to all parts of the state. All witnesses appearing pursuant
mobilpk/ord/kjhhw. 5/18/94 7
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
D
a> sug &a& i5:g
so4s
g%B u;s2
iLL,
utsa:
zwa(J OZJ - aaa:o
aod
tJZ
barn 092
'2;
0 -
12
13
14
15
16
17
~ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I
0 0
of the proceedings and submit it to a reviewing court or . city, if requested, along with copies of all exhibits. (f) The decision of the hearing officer will be fi: notwithstanding the provisions of section 1.20.600 of this COI
(9) Homeowners may use the procedure in this sect to petition for a decrease in space rent if the park ow
reduces or eliminates services or amenities without adjust
the space rent accordingly. An application must be submit
which contains the signatures of a majority of the homeowners the spaces subject to the space rent, with each space entit to one signature counting toward the majority. The applicat
must also include a proof of service on the park owner 0:
written claim signed by at least one homeowner specifica
requested. The proof of service must show at least 30 d notice prior to the application submittal.
(h) If an appeal is granted, the space rent determined by the hearing officer will be effective 90 dl
after homeowners are notified by the park owner of the increa:
Decreases will be effective on the first day of the mo:
following the decision.
describing the allegations against the park owner and the re1
5.26.100 Allowable Dass-throuahs A mobilehome park owner may, in addition to the b, rent, separately charge a homeowner for any fees allowed to passed through by applicable provisions of the Califor: Mobilehome Residency Law contained in Division .2, Part Chapter 2.5 of the Civil Code (Civ.Code 5 798 et seq.) successor statutes. These charges shall not be considered part of the space rent. No other separate charges shall allowed.
5.26.110 Dutv to maintain
The mobilehome park owner has a duty to keep maintain the physical improvements in the common facilities
the mobilehome park in good working order and condition and maintain or exceed the existing level of park amenities
services. A homeowner may bring a cause of action agains.
park owner pursuant to Civil Code section 798.84 provided f
homeowner first at least 30 days prior written notice of i intention to commence court action. The notice shall be
writing, signed by the homeowner or homeowners making .
allegations and shall notify the park owner of the basis of .
claim, the specific allegations, and the remedies requested
5.26.120 CaDital emenditures
Capital expenditures may be made by agreement betwl
the park owner and a majority of homeowners and agreed- u:
amounts added to space rent. Capital improvements may also
made by the park owner and the appropriate capital expen considered for an increase in space rent as permitted by
procedures set forth in this chapter.
mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94 8
,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3uz
i;g%
Q 0).
&E& q.08
20525
dCSb:
9 I a- VQ,O 5&$2 oz-lo “g9q !=%
E29
a>
>JZ
U0-l
uv
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 e
5.26.130 Sale or transfer of mobilehomes (a) All of the provisions of this chapter Shi continue in full force and effect upon sale or transfer oj mobilehome, (b) A mobilehome park owner shall not require coerce purchasers or prospective purchasers of mobilehomes sign a lease which exempts them from this chapter under Ci Code section 798.17.
5.26.140 Notification to homeowners and prospect
homeowners
The mobilehome park owner shall provide all homeown
and prospective homeowners with a copy of the Mobilehome P
Rent Control Ordinance together with a schedule showing
applicable space rent under this chapter prior to the time agreement to pay space rent to the park owner is execut Proof of notification shall be maintained at the park
subject to inspection by the City.
5.26.150 Base rent upon exDiration of exempt le
under Civil Code section 798.17
When a lease which is exempt under Civil Code sect
798.17 expires this chapter shall automatically apply to s
space and the space rent for purposes of this chapter shall
include any pass-throughs prohibited by this chapter.
5.26.160 Retaliation
It shall be unlawful for any person to retali against a homeowner for exercising any rights provided by t
chapter, or registering a complaint relating to enforcement its provisions.
5.26.170 Administrative uuidelines. The City Manager is authorized to adopt s
administrative guidelines as are necessary to fully implem
the purposes and intent of this chapter.l’
SECTION 2: If this ordinance is declared invalid
unenforceable for any reason, then Ordinance No. NS-263 sh
become enforceable and in full force and effect in place of t
ordinance. Until that time, Ordinance No. NS-263 shall not
effective for any other purpose.
SECTION 3: If any section, subsection, senter
clause, phrase, part or portion of this ordinance is for
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect
mobilpk/orci&jh/rev. 5118194 9
*
‘I
1
2
9
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
om
a> deab a08 Ow8
SO35
ci->o Edg
z42i%a OZJO
003 LOCO
zzz GO
&uz
3U,
9 O0U 4 <=
=a%o
UOJ
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/I 0 e
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The C:
Council declares that it would have adopted this ordinance i
each geetian, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, part
portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or mr
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, parts,
portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effect
thirty days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall cert
the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published
least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting Of
Carlsbad City Council on the 23rd day of MAY I 19
and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the C
Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 7th day of JUNE
1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Stanton, Kulchin, Nygaard
NOES: Council Member Finnila
ABSENT : None
APRD AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
e.* (2. k
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney /////& 6. ILPV- h, f ,,‘ A &J@/4f/A /m
LAUDE A. dkkIS, Mayor
26 11 ATTEST: Y
27
28 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Cle#k
II mobilpk/ord/kjh/rev. 5/18/94 10
ll
b 9 T 0 0
I
STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF P. "PETE" GARCIA-OVIES,.
TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR WESTERN LAND AND DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, OWNER OF RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK
The following statement is submitted on behalf of P. "Petell Garcia-Ovie
trustee in bankruptcy for Western Land and Development Company, which is ti
owner of Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. It is requested the Statement be placc
in the record of the City Council for the City of Carlsbad with respect to: Resolutic
No. 94-1 42 approving the negative declaration; the negative declaration; Ordinanl
No. NS-282; and Resolution No. 94-143. Although each of the objections set for
below applies to all four items identified above, for the convenience of the Ci
Council we have identified which item the objection is primarily directed to.
A. Resolution No. 94-142 and Negative Declaration.
1. The proposed finding that the ordinance will not directly or indirec:
affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing is not supported I
the record and is demonstrably untrue. Indeed, in the discussion section of t
declaration, in particular on page 8 discussing effects on human environmel
subcategory Housing, it is acknowledged that historically rent control reduces t
supply of rental housing stock. Indeed, historically rent control has been
disincentive for the creation of new rental housing stock and maintenance of existi
housing stock. The mere threat of rent control is a disincentive to the creation of nc
housing stock and the threat is not removed simply because "new construction" is r
subject to the present ordinance. A person considering the construction of a nc
mobile home park will certainly take into account the possibility that the ordinan
and/or enabling state statute will redefine new construction such that any new pi
will be subjected to rent control.
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\0078036,WP &(G( 5/2?/h
@"I cjq m ?:A* P.A
. T 0 0
2. Portions of the discussion section of the negative declaration ar
incorrect and at odds with the proposed ordinance. This negates the validity of tt
findings and calls the negative declaration into question.
(a) On page 6, discussion of environmental evaluation, it is stated tt
annual increase shall be a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 8%. This is not tt
text of the proposed ordinance, which allows a minimum increase of 0% and bast
the increase on only 75% of the yearly increase in the consumer price index. Tt
negative declaration is based upon a presumption the park owner will be entitled
a minimum annual increase of 3% but under the ordinance there is no guarantet
minimum increase. Indeed, as the park owner is entitled to only 75% of the C
increase, the increase will have to be at least 4% before the park owner receives tl
3% increase which the negative declaration presumes to be the annual minimum. TI
lessening of rental increases will affect the return to the mobile home park owner a1
will affect whether the rent is a fair and reasonable return. As this basic facti
assumption of the negative impact report of a 3% annual minimum increases
incorrect, the entire report is flawed and the negative declaration must be rejecte
(b) In the same section, the negative declaration assumes that t
ordinance will provide for any appeal to be submitted to a mutual third party arbitral
mutually agreed upon by the parties. That is not correct, as the ordinan
contemplates the appointment of the arbitrator unilaterally by the City Manager. TI
may affect the impartiality of the selected arbitrator and undermine the part
confidence in his or her neutrality.
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\0078036.WP 2
T 0 e
B. Ordinance No. NS-282 and proposed Rent Control Provision.
1. Objections to purported factual findings:
(a) The ordinance purports to find that mobile home ownership hi
historically been an economically more accessible form of home ownership and offe
substantial benefits in the form of moderate cost housing. However, the negati?
declaration and adopting ordinance include a finding that because the parks are n
low income residential housing units the parks and their closure would not adversc
impact the City’s stock of existing affordable housing. As the parks’ continuation
closure will not affect the City’s stock of affordable housing, rent control cannot
premised in whole or in part upon a purported benefit to the community in the fol
of moderate cost (i.e., affordable) housing.
(b) The factual finding that the ordinance will ameliorate a shorta
of mobile home park spaces in the City of Carlsbad (page 2, line 8 of the ordinanc
is contradicted by the negative declaration which acknowledges that rent control h
historically reduced the supply of rental housing stock. Negative declaration, page
under discussion Housing. The ordinance therefore directly contradicts the purport
factual basis for the ordinance.
(c) The ordinance contains factual findings that market conditia
have contributed to or threatened to contribute to escalating rental rates, and that 1
market has created an inequitable imbalance in the bargaining position of the partir
However, the ordinance proposes to allow residents of a mobile home park to opt (
of rent control on vote. If the market mandates the imposition of compulsory r(
control, allowing a park or parks to opt out of rent control will simply exacerbate 1
problem. If parks maintain artificially low rates to avoid rent control, this will deprc
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\0078036.WP 3
i 0 0
*
rents in the community and create an incorrect impression that fair rental value is le:
than it actually is, due to the artificial depressant of rent control and reduced rents 1
avoid rent control. If rent control is necessary to address the market conditions whic
the City Council purports to find, then rent control must be applied to all parks with
the City.
(d) The factual finding of escalating rents or the threat of escalatir
rents, and the determination this necessitates rent control is not supported by tl
record. The record reflects rents at Rancho Carlsbad have increased by the CPI on
since the early 1980s and the trustee has offered an Accord which would Ci
increases to a CPI component for the next 20 years. Rents at Lakeshore we
implicitly found by KMA to be below market. Rents at Lanikai were found to be bela
market except for new tenants. Lanikai has approximately 150 spaces. Rent (
many of those spaces increases at CPI only. There therefore is no basis for a findil
of rent escalation or the threat of rent escalation.
2. Objections to Rent Control Ordinance contained in Ordinance No. N
282.
(a) Section 5.26.040 appears to place all exempted spaces under re
control upon expiration of the current lease. This violates the provisions of Civil COI
§ 798.17, which permit the park owner and individual homeowners to opt out of re
control through long-term leases.
(i) This section also evidences an intent by the City that
homeowners shall eventually become subject to rent control. As all homeowners v
eventually be subjected to rent control if it is enacted, all homeowners ought
permitted to sign a petition for exclusion under § 5.26.050. Further, a homeowr
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\0078036.WP 4
f f 0 0
1
who, for example, has a few months left on a long term lease and will shortly I
subject to rent control will shortly subject to rent control is not permitted to vote evc
though his or her remaining lease tenancy is in fact no longer than persons who a
permitted to vote.
(b) Section 5.26.050 permits exclusion or inclusion by petition,
(i) To deny exempt homeowners the right to sign the petiti
for exclusion is a denial of due process and equal protection. Such homeowners sh
be affected by the imposition of rent control to the extent it causes any reduction
maintenance, closure of the park, etc. To deny persons who are directly affected
the position of rent control, albeit not subject to it, a voice in its imposition, is a der
of equal protection and due process.
(ii) Permitting a park to petition for exclusion from rent cont
undermines the factual findings, is a denial of due process, and violates eql
protection. If the market dictates the imposition of rent control, it would dictate 1
imposition of rent control on all mobile home parks within the City, not simply thc
where the residents or some minority thereof desire it.
(iii) If only non-exempt homeowners may vote, homeown
who are satisfied with park ownership, are confident concerning future rents, i
therefore sign long-term leases will be denied a vote. Effectively, only homeown
who are dissatisfied and/or distrustful of ownership will be enfranchised. This crea
a skewed voting populace and is a disincentive for ownership to offer fair i
reasonable long term leases, as persons executing such leases can no longer vote
exclusion.
(iv) The proposed petition for exclusion is ambiguous as
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\0078036.WP 5
# T e 0
whether non-resident homeowners may sign the petition for exclusion.. The seco
sentence of the Exhibit "A" proposal states that "homeowners residing in thc
spaces" shall be entitled to sign the petition notwithstanding exempt status, It
uncertain whether exempt non-resident homeowners are entitled to sign the petiti
and/or whether non-exempt non-resident homeowners are entitled to sign the petitic
Clearly, to allow non-exempt non-resident homeowners to sign the petition wt
excluding exempt non-resident homeowners would be a denial of equal protection a
due process.
(VI 5.26.050(d) is vague and ambiguous, in that there is
definition of "changed circumstances." Further, said section purports to allow
City Council to approve, deny, or condition a petition so that inclusion of the pari
consistent with the purpose and intent of the chapter. There appears to be
guidelines for the City Council to exercise this power, so it is arbitrary, capricio
vague and ambiguous. There is further apparently no provision for the City Coul
to make the reverse finding, determining that exclusion of a park is consistent v
the purpose and intent of the chapter.
(vi) Draft Exhibit "B" of Section 5.26.050 is ambiguous in t
the phrase "all or substantially all" is not defined, It also is unclear how paragra
(b) and (c) interact, as paragraph (b) provides that if all or substantially all of
homeowners are exempt, the petition for exclusion may be signed by exe
homeowners. Subsection (c) provides if all or substantially all of the homeowner:
not exempt, exempt homeowners may not sign the petition. It is unclear how
middle area, where perhaps half the homeowners are exempt would be governc
(c) Section 5.26.060(d) requires payment of a registration fec
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\0078036.WP 6
e a
mobile park owners. It appears that excluded parks are exempt from this fee und
0 5.26.050(c). Such an exclusion, although apparently mandated by Civil Code
798.1 7(e), is a denial of equal protection and due process. Further, said Civil Co
section requires that park owners not be assessed any administrative fee for exerr
spaces. The intent of the statute would further prohibit passing such
administrative fee through to exempt homeowners. To effectively avoid passing t
administrative fee through to the park owner for exempt spaces, that pro rata port
of the registration fee must be borne by the City or by the non-exempt homeown
who are subject to rent control. To require half the entire administrative fee to
borne by the park owner without regard to what percentage of the spaces are exer
would contravene the intent of Civil Code § 798.1 7(e), as a park with 50% exer
spaces would apparently pay the same administrative fee as a park with no exer
spaces. Moreover, it is unclear whether the pass through of 4 5.26.060(e) envisil
passing one-half of the registration fee through to only those homeowners who
affected by rent control. It would appear that that is the intent and mandate of (
Code 8 798.7 7(e).
(d) Section 5.26.070(b) is vague and ambiguous, as it appear
prohibit any rent in excess of the base rent notwithstanding any finding by a hea
officer that greater rent is required to ensure a fair and reasonable return.
(e) Section 5.26.080 is arbitrary and capricious in that there i
factual basis for the limitation of the adjustment to 75% of the CPI increase no
capping it at 8%. Further, it is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious to prohi
rent increase for any of the reasons set forth in 3 526,080, nor is it clear whl
the bar of an increase is limited only to the affected space or to all spaces withi
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\O078036,WP 7
I 0 e
park. It is also unclear whether the rent increase is to be calculated by the City or t
the park owner, when the calculation will be done and whether it shall be done in tin
to permit 60 days notice as required by the Civil Code for rent increases.
(f) Section 5.26.090 is vague and ambiguous as it contains
guidelines for the determination of what is relevant evidence, nor what a fair a
reasonable return is.
(9) Section 5.26.090(g) is unclear as to whether the petition fo
decrease may be signed by homeowners who are exempt.
(h) Section 5.26.1 10 requires maintenance of the existing level
park amenities and services, apparently including maintenance, to a standard bel
than good working order and condition. This violates the Civil Code by imposin
greater obligation on the park owner than is permitted. Further, this contrad
section 5.26.090(g) which permits reductions if there is a corresponding reductio
rent, so long as the level does not fall below that necessary to maintain the comr
facilities in good working order and condition. The possibility of such reducti
emphasizes the importance of allowing exempt homeowners to participate in peti
for exclusion or inclusion.
(i) Section 5.26.1 20 is ambiguous as to whether exe
homeowners may be parties to an agreement to effect a capital expenditure. If
exempt homeowners are effectively disenfranchised from involvement in ca
expenditures at the park and, if their lease permits passthroughs for ca
expenditures, they have a direct financial involvement.
(j) Section 5.26.1 50 which states all spaces shall come under
control upon expiration of the present lease violates Civil Code 4 798.17.
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\0078036.WP 8
1 * e
C. Objection to Resolution No. 94-143,
1. This resolution constitutes an impermissible delegation of the polic
powers to KMA, by setting rents at a level determined by KMA without any eviden,
taken by the City to support the determination. The City has failed to conduct
own factual investigation to justify adopting the factual determination of KMA.
D. Summary.
The foregoing objections to each ordinance, resolution, and the negat
declaration, demonstrate that they constitute a denial of due process, an improl
taking of property withoutjust compensation, effecta condemnation, are arbitrary a
capricious and deny equal protection and due process both to the park owner and 1
individual homeowners, and the ordinances are vague and ambiguous. SI
ordinances are not supported by a sufficient record to constitute a proper exercist
the police powers of the City Council for the City of Carlsbad.
Attached as Exhibit "1 I' to this statement is a chart demonstrating the eff
of rent control on the value of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. The cI
extends existing rents out for ten years based upon a presumed 3% annual CPI.
chart shows that the trustee was willing to agree to a voluntary rent accord '
would reduce the value of the park by approximately $3 million. The imposition
rent control ordinance would reduce the value of the park by approximately $7 mil
The additional deduction of approximately $4 million by the imposition of rent COI
ordinance constitutes an improper taking without just compensation ani
objectionable for all of the reasons set forth above. This is particularly true whert
trustee has submitted to the City Council a rent accord which would prc
substantially similar benefits to the homeowners without the negative impact o
C:\DMS\JSO\JLF\OO78036.WP 9
1 0 e
,
rent control ordinance,
The City Council is requested to reject the proposed ordinance.
C:\DMS\JSD\JLF\0078036.WP 10
I
EXBIBIT I Tl b
1 0 0
b
ADDE" 'IO
STA"BW ON EEZALF OF P. "PE!IE" GARcIA-Om
May 33, 1994
TO lTIE ClTY COUNCIL OI? TIE CITY OF CARLSDAD
Dear Members af the City Council:
A. JNTRODCCTION
This letter is Mtten on behalP of those possessing legal acd equitable
ownership interests in the Rancho Carisbad MobileEiome Park ('X~IX~I~I Cdsbad'') in
opposition to the City Council's proposed introduction of Ordinancc No. NS-282,
creating Chapter j.26 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. known as the "Ilo5iIekome Rent
Park Ordinance" (hereinafter referred tu as the "Rent Or<iinuncc") and it. c1 conmrrcn:
adoption of Rcsolution 305. 94- 142 ("Negative Dec!ara*Lion"> and 94-14> ("T3~5e Kern").
Despite the fact that the 0% has held hear- an the mcessity and desirability of
regulating rents, its unnectssq haste in adopting this form of Rem Ordinance bas
deprivc;d those affected from $kg due consideration to the manner In luhich the
ordinance %ill operate and ha.. resulted in an innrrfrdIy m%fte.d 2nd 1p.gdlly invalid schex
that will likely be scbjected both to a rcfcrcxdum and judicial challenge at a potr=n.Li&!
great expense to the City and its reside!rb, Because the City Council h'as unnecessarily
abbreviated its consideration of these crucial issuw SO as to mcct a prcdctcrrrined
* 0 e
May 23, 1.994
Page 2
schedule, this letter sets forth in SU~ZXII;;~~ fashion the gl&g deficiencies in the Rent
Ordinan=, Base RWLS and Negative Declaration.
R. TH’E RENT ORnTNAYCF. tKn .I, NOT WTTHSTAND JI JDIClAL SCRUTl3Y
A$ #rafted, the Rent Ordinance will result in the transfer of 3 discrete
property interest fin the form of the right to ompy a mabilehome space in.dcfinitciv at a
lower than market :en[) from the owners of Rancho Calsbad to its tenants. As such. it
constitutes a regulatory taking witbout appropriate compensation in violation of the Fifth
Anenameat of the L‘nited States Con.stitution as made applicable to Iocal action by the
Fourteenth .4mu,ndlxent. The Rent Ordinance docs not meet the test outlined by the
United States Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Costal Cornision, 483 U.S. 525
(195?). That decision requires that a government’s regulatory activity not only
substantidy ndvancs u legitimate governmend interest, but SO md’rlttfL; that the
regulation must fall proportionately on those causing the perceived problem
The Kent Ordinance does not fuffill the expressed goal of preserving .-
rnodera~e-cost housing- Ratbet, scholarly research indicates that rent control only
increases the average price of a mobilehome. !& Werner 2. 1.Iirsd.l & Joel 2. Hirsch.
“Tq~l-Ecnnomic. Anaiysis nf Rent Ccrnrmls in a MohileHomt Context: Placement
Values aad Vacancy Decontrol”, 35 UCLA LAW REVIEW 399, 462 { iY88). Tbc
proposed Kent Ordinance oniy shiits the premium from the mobilehome park owner to
the tenant. The :enant will ;hen pass this increase on to a new tenant when he/sbe SC!l
, I I I 1 e 0
#
May ZS, 1994
Page 3
the mobilehome. Rather than perrnanendy preserving moderately-priced housing, the
proposed Rent Ordinance will lead to an ever-escalating market.
Rancho Carisbad done is not responsible for the shortage of mobilehome
spaces in the City. Yonerhcless, because the Rent Ordinance does nut apply LU new
construction, docs not apply to one of the existing mobilehome parks, and allows others
to avoid its application, it piaces a disproportionate burden for .~ ad the other alleged
harms recited in the Rent Ordinance on Rancho Carfsbad. Rancho Carlsbad should not
bear the burden of overcoming the perceived park space shortage.
These two deficiencies, alrong others, render the Rent Ordinance
unconshdonally invalid on its face.
Gonsidcration crf tbc Bwe Rents ais0 demonstrates that the proposed Rea
Ordinance is confiscatory in rrature and is thus unconstitutional as applied tu Rar~ciw
Carishad. Statcd simply, he Basc Rents do not permit Rancho Carfsbad to earn a just
and reasonable return OII its property. Although the City Council has not yet adopted
rcgulatiom to providc standards for dctcnnining ahat cbrwtimtcs a "fair and rcaaonablc
return", the proposed Ume. Kenrs fails to meet any of the standards that have been
employed by cities in CaIifornia and elsewhere. For example, the silest and most
restrictive standard would allow rent levels to only cover tbc laadiord's operating COSTS
and mortgage payments. Such a standard does not even permit a return on a hdIord's
investmentt. a, K.e.nneth Ram, "Guidelines for Rrafthg Rent Control I AWS. I sssons o
I( , 0 e
May 23,1994
Page 4
A Demde“, 35 RGTGERS LAW REVIEW 723 (19831, As dcmonstratedby Exhibit A,
application of the Base Rents to Rancho Carlsbdd wodd nut aeei $is Les1; rather, beir
application wodd result in a sipificznt loss each month. It is axiomaGc that these 1eve.k
wuuld not perr~~ir Kaudlo CarLbaCl LU t;aw a hir ad rasomble i‘eturn if the City
elected to adopt regulations whi.ch permit the landowner to earn some form of return on
his investment. These additional standards i,nclude, among others, the Nct Opcratlng
lncome (“NOI”) Share Standard where rents are set in such a way .that NO1 comprises a
spedfied percentage of the landlord‘s rental income and the Percentage of Investment
Return Standard where rents are set to equal the .am of operdting expenses and
mortgage payments plus a speLfied return on the cash investment *at the landowzer
has in the properry.
This basic injustice is complicated by the fact that the Rent Ordinance doe
not provide 3 mechanism far appeal of the Base Rents. Although Section 5.26.09G is
entitled “Appeal of Space Rent”. the requirernem that any appeal must be filed ”within
60 day:, of ;m& @u%ttment to bus rent” appaently limits the uppliwlion of’ these
procedures solely to tbe Annual Adjustments to Base Rcnt contcmplatcd by Scction
5.26.080. Equ4J.y important in the absence of administrative regulation.. for determinini
what is a fair and reasonable return, Rancho Carisbad will feel the burden of the
confiscatory impact. of the Rtnt Ordimnce and the Base Rents for many monrhs and
mayhe years since it is unciear when such administrative regulations will be adopted,
* I 0 e
May 23,. 199 Pue
when the hearing olficer might issue a ruling, and when judicial review of such a
determination might be completed. Even the3, the Rent Ordinance impermissibly
dIscrirninatas henvmn the rnobihhomt? park. owner *and the mobilehome. purk tmmt by
requiring the owncr to wait anothcr 90 days before he cau begin to impose lllc ycoyerly
set rent if he prevails.
Rnallv, wc believe that the Rent Ordinance, as drafted, may run afoul of
section 1 of the Sherman Act. As wu established in fisher v. ,City of Berkeley, 37
Cal3d 644, 675 (19841, a municipal ordinance may survive such XI atlack IT it is
rationally re,larsd to 3r1 legitimate. exercise: of police power and operates in an eoen-
handed manner. This standard is not met since U1e R~J~L O~tliuucc: diriy
discriminates between s.imilarly-situated landlords through its inapplicabiIity to new
construction as envisioned by Section 526.040, the Petition For Exdusion provisions of
Section 526.050 and the Base Rents‘ exchsion of Lakeshore Gardens Mobilehome Park
Eac3 of these deficienees renders the Rent Ordinance and Base Rents as
proposed legally invalid.
C. ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE OECLARAnON TS IMPROPER
The Yegative Declaration’s conclusion that the proposed Rent Ordinance
would have no significant impact on the environment is based on thc assumption that thc
mobilehome park owners would receive a fair and reasonable return on investment and
J 1
1 9 e
May 23, 1994
Page 6
that they would thercforc not defer necessary physical maintenance and improvexxents,
nor prematurely dose the parks. As explained abavc, that assumption is invalid since
there is no cvidcncc that the owners would receive a fair and tensonable rmlrn:
Witllout a fair and rcasonable rerum, the owners would not be able to
adequately maintain park faciiilies and the lanrlscapkg. Raucho Carlsbad is situated
next to Rancho Carlsbad Creek and Cdevara Lake Creek. The proximity of these water
ways and the lack of maintenance would result in EiBnificant erosiod impact.$ to natural
and man-made slopes within the mobilehome pub. Additionally, the exposed soil and
slopes would he more suweptihle to landslides and other ground fdures.
Also, with the Rcnt Ordinancc, it is marc fitly that the rnobikhomc park
could close, thereby forciry! the relocaljun of tenanls 10 diaar~t inlaid areas, As i10ieJ ir
the Negative Dcciaration, a relocation could increase commuter distances and tmvehg
distances to friends, relatives and professional services, thus increasing the consumption
of fuels and contributing to regional trdfic congestion and air pollution problems.
Surprisingly, the Neptive Declaration concludes that the approximate!y
1,028 rental units and 1,542 residents wbjch could be dlsplaccd wouId not resent the
potential for significant impacts because of theiirimited numbers (3.7% of the tot&
dwelling units and 2.7% of the total City popdation, based on 1.990 data). To the
contray, it WWIICJ seem that any action or pruject which would hcrewe commuter and
L e
'my -23, 1Y
P;lp;e
waveling distances for that many people would, by defition, be found to have a
significant impact on the enviroment.
The closiq of orre or more of Carisbad's uristing mobilehome piirks wou
Kecessnily resut1 in rhe construction of new dwelling units elsewhere. TIX cu~,~u~tiul
of over 1,000 replacement dwelling units could have significant impacts on a myriad of
natural and mhrd resource5 in the region. Under the California Enk~onmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), these indirect impacts must be considered ir! evaluating the
impacts of the Rent Ordinance. CEQA Guidelines P 15126(a).
D. CONCTUSION
Ass-t~rning for the mnment that the Rent Ordinance preamble
XCUTdtdy rfflect~ the tnrt state of &s in Cazdsbad with rcspcct to mobilehame
tenancies, there are a number of less rtstri'ctive means of curing the described ills. By
w;ly of example, the provision of lacai incentives to new builders of mobilehone parks
would alleviate many of the perceived dangtrs. AJJitiody Rancho Carlsbad sbould
have an ogprtunily LO t?n!er- into a negotiated agrcaent with it tenants. We urge that
the City Caund not ad in haste to dapt this prnpnced schr.rnc. A carcfiii
comidcration of tbt &smativcs as wcil as a more reasoned considcratfon of thc
proposed scheme is required.
.I : ' 1
". "" .
-""-~' , &cho Carisbad Monttrly Cash Flaw Schedule Afbt Rent Cht'f!
05/29/94
h:\wnsqpaul&randW
Monthly Pet Soace
Income Space Rem (Fmm Draft Rat ordinace)
'Less: Vacancy
bs: Delinquenq
Equestrian Leme
U?lity fieirnbu~8m0nts
Miscellanaous Income Total hums
355,581
(1 wm
(3.556)
9,000 40,755
676
391,789
7C6
(21 1
(7) 1%
01 '
4 I TTj
- Fixed Expenses
Trash Disposal Utilities
AcccuntinglProfessbnal Insurance Property Taxes Administrative Payroll
Office Expensas
Total Fixed Expenses
7,146 14
66,245 131
20,? 99 40
8,169 lcf
&=e 6
9,767 19 s. 632 11
120,024 238
Lam Expenses
Loa Principat 18,665 3?
Loan Interst 286.656 - 557
Total Loan Expenses 299,321 594
Cash Flow Mote Service-OrientadE%penses (27,556) (55)
Service-Orient~Expe~sas
Security
Cable 'N Repairs & Maintenance . '
Capital Expenditures
S3wt SweepinQ Swimming Pool Maintenance
Tree Trimming
P& c:on20l
Pafk Grounds PayrolI
Building Maintenance Payroil
Janitorial
Total SEwic~-OtientedExP.~SO~
Activities Coatdinator
12,806
1,500
3,639 3,697
7,497 225
557
2=
231
0,Ot 3
6,#8
3.433
51 ,%a
26
3
7
7
15
0
1
6
0
I?
13
7
1 0:
cash Flow Afler ~errice-~~~errted~x~enses cT9vz4) (1 57)
Refurn to Owner ~p, - IS than Zero EXHkLh uq=T 0 p,
-
, E19 ' d 3!101 7 s e I FORTHE ~NFORMG
"... ___._
I THEC'TY cduNc h b
Lakeshore Gardens 1" CITY MI
7201 Avenida Encinas c
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4648
(619) 438-4069 CL
FAX (61.9) 438-3401
May 23, 1
Marty Orenyak City of Carlsbad
Subject! RENT CONTROL.
of the redent discussions and negotiations between City Officj and Staff, and concerned parties at Lanakai and Rancho Carls Mobile Home Parks, regarding REST CONTROL. We have informed that we are capable, as years of mutual cooperation t demonstrated, of working out our own agreements between
RESIDENTS, MANAGEMENT, and OWNERS, without assistance interference from outside sources. During the discussions, we as
to be kept informed of all aspects of RENT CONTROL being considr so that we could provide our input on any matters that we 1 might have any potential impact on Lakeshore Gardens. Council Staff complimented us on our success in maintaining harmony, \ no need, or desire I for Rent Control in Lakeshore Gardr encouraged our input, and agreed to keep us fully informed.
We were assured, by the City Council and Staff , that: you wanted comments and that we would be advised and consulted on all mati related to RENT CONTROL because, even though we have a benevo:
that we would be excluded from RENT CQNTROL unless the Resident Lakeshore Gardens indicated a desire to be included under ;
Lakeshare Gardens was excluded fron the KMA "Mobile Home 1 Rental Study" at the unilateral request of the Residents Lakeshore Gardens because they recognized that the rent level, both other Mobile Home Parks were comparatively higher than
rent levels at Lakeshore Gardens, and they recognized that any study, that included Lakeshore Gardens, would probably recorn higher rent levels at Lakeshore Gardens and, might thereby we
the Residents' position in our up-coming Lease negotiations bet the Residents' Lease Negotiating Conunittee ana the Own Representative. There was no objection, from the Owner or Management because we were assured that any Ordinance enacted w have no effect on Lakeshore Gardens Lease Negotiations Proced
unless there was a decision by Lakeshore Gardens Residentf
chaose t4 IM included under Rent Control, We were confident thi
could negotiate fairly, on a level ''playing field" without ha
Lakeshore Gardens MH Park has been a silent spectator through 1
and reasonable owner, ownership CUI change we were . also ass1
CONTROL *
1
*d I
e 0 0
any s1advantage1t that we believed that any rent study levels WOI
provide.
We were told that, in the event that Lakeshore Gardens Reside1 decided to request inclusion under Rent Control, the KMA "Mob- Home Park Rental Study" Would be expanded to prov: recommendations far Ofair market rent levels" at Lakeshore Gardi
comparable to those rent levels suggested for Lanakai and : Rancho Carlsbad, Everybody knew that such suggested rent levels Lakeshore Gardens would probably be considerably higher than thc
for Rancho Carlsbad, but considerably higl~ex than existing r levels presently in effect at Lakeshare Gardens. Everybo including Lakeshore Gardens Residents, knows #at rent levels Lakeshore Gardens, compared to the other two mobile home parks so reasonable that we need no rent control, and that rant cont would create more problems than it resolves, otrr Lease Negotiat procedure has provided mutual agreement for many years, Res values in Lakeshore Gardens prove this. Having the resale valuec the homes in Lakeshore Gardens holding at good levels proves t
rents are fair. When rent levels go too high the resale value the mobile homes plummet, and resale markets diminish,
disappear.
Management at Lakeshore Gardens believed the assurances giver City Council and Staff, and passed those assurances along to Birtcher Property Services Offices in Laguna NigUel- We did even feel a need to bring our attorneys into the matter. With t€
assurances, we were convinced that VB should aamplacently obst the process by which the efforts were made to resolve the proal at Lanakai and Rancho Carlsbad. To reiterate: We were assured I
we would either be unaffected by Rent Control or, if we were tc affected, our rent levels would be established by a fair ma: rental study, by having the KllA Study extended t6 include us. I can be verified, in print, on the Staff's "AGEIIDA BILL, u1
study" -= %muld result in additional costsa.
I received a telephone call from Cynthia Haas , on Thur afternoon, May 19, to inform me that all of this has changed. I told that City Legal Staff had discovered paragraph 798.17 in California Civil Code, and that the wording of that paragraph
it impossible for Council and Staff to honor the ComnitmentS assurances that had been made ta Lakeshore Gardens previously in fact, would make such action illegal, if the Rent Con
factual Contents of what she told maw I was astonished. I was k told that the Council could not stay true to the assurances we been given, if they were to adopt the Ordinance, as writ Keeping the commitments, made ta Lakeshore Gardens, means that Ordinance will have to be re-done. We believe that the ordir
should not be enacted until it can be done with the integrit
recommended far Lanakai, and probably not quite as high a8 th'
on for gxclusion-/Inclusion*, which state8 that th8
Ordinance is enacted. She did not use those words, but that wag
2
d T 0
the Council and Staff intact. Council is obligated to abide their commitments, and to execute their governing duties fair: This ordinance was obviously drafted without the knowledge of,
consideration for, the complications created by the wording of Q Paragraph 798.17. If the Staff had been aware of that, they wo1 have certainly told us.
I attended a meeting, Friday, May 20 , with Don Downrs , Ji Schumaker, and Jake Garrison, who represent the Residents
Lakeshare Gardens, I was there representing the Owner. We met W Marty Orenyak and Cynthia Haas to discuss the newly discove:
complications, of existing law, as stated in the Civil Code, the problems related to nexclusion voting eligibility", as affects Lakeshore Gardens.
At that meeting I attempted to ascertain the effect of the knowledge of CCC, par, 798.17. I asked &arty if he still planned extend the KMA Study to include Lakeshore Gardens, as he previously assured us would happen. His answer was "no", I aE why he had changed his position, after having previously told
that would happen. He said that he had been told that all Lakest Gardens Residents are on multi-year leases, and the ne
discovered law eliminated the need for such a study when multi-1 leases are in effect. He snid it had been done for Lanakai
multi-year leases. I informed him that we have Residents Who not signed on multi-year leases, and asked if he would have the study expanded to cover them, and he said "no". When T asked 1 be said that it would be too expensive. I must make the point 1 having the ICMA Study cover the two, of three MH Parks, that we
believed would be affected by Rent Control, was only acceptablc long as we were told, and believed, that Lakeshore Gardens woull
added into the.study, if it became apparent that we would affected, Marty's answer that something done, at significant c( for two Mobile Home Parks, is too expensive to be done at the I5
Mobile Home Park, is a highly discriminatory and an unaccepti and unfair position for an City Official, to take. It is prob; unconstitutional for a City to deny a service to any grouy: residents, that has been provided to ather identical gra:
because nit is too expensiveff.
RancnQ Carlskrgd because there were Residents there who were BO4
We do not want to believe that those commitments and ussura were made maliciously. We do not want to believe that council Staff consciously misled us, or tried to trick us into b
complacent. We want to believe that, when those assurances made, and when we were told that our inclusion, under Rent CQnt
would only occur after Lakeshore Gardens was studied far market rent level suggestions, that the intentions were hone
stated, and honestly believed. We fully expect to 3x tre
squally with the treatment given Lanakai and Rancho Carlsba having rtfair market rent levels" established in Lakeshore Gard comparable to those levels established at the other two MH Pa
3
, . ." " L??
0
before Rent Control becomes imminent in our Park. We do klicve, as some do, that Rent Control is meant to be a means
financial punishment for Park Owners but, 2s rather meant
provide FAIR RENT LEVELS, fair for bath the RESIDENTS and the P
OWNERS,
We want to believe that Council and Staff were unaware, as we we of the wording of CCC Paragraph 798.17, which would have disastrously unfair effect of penalizing the Owner of Lakesh
Gardens in a flagrantly discriminatory manner, if this ordinance
passed in its present form at this time.
This Ordinance, if passed now, will be extremely punitive to
Owner of Lakeshare Gardens. And, it is ironic that in the other Parks, where Residents have pressed for Rent Control as their C relief, those Owners will profit most from the newly revez circumstances, while tne park Owner who has been tne most gena and benevolent to his Residents, by keeping rents reasonable, b be severely penalized financially in an unfair and discriminat
until such time as it can be reviewed and/or revised to wxttply o caarait.laents -de b meshore Gardens, and to provide fair
equitable treatment for the Owner of Lakeshore Gardens wl resolving the probl- at hand,
As soon as I finished the conversatim with Cynthia Haas, when
told me this bad news, I contacted my boss at Birtcher, Anderson, and suggested to him that we should immediately bring attorneys into play, because, unintentionally or not, we are al
to be severely damaged by the Rent Control Ordinance, it it
passed now in its present form, and that we must require 1 assurances that we have been given be honored, by legal actio]
necessary.
The effect of CCC Paragraph 798.17 will almost certainly 1 Lakeshare Gardens into Rent Control by giving the Rasidr
Owner's Representative would have had if the KMA survey
recommended higher rents at Lakeshore Gardens.
Management, at Lakeshore Gardens did not object, when the Resid1 asked to be excluded from the KHA Study, because we did not : that we needed to have the advantage that the study might give
Owner's Representative at the negotiating table. On the other hi we Strongly object to the circumstances which have developed manner that provides a much more powerful unfair advantage for Residents' Lease Negotiating Committee.
AS a side issue, which is a different problem, but an additit reason for taking more time to study the wording and effects of ordinance, all of those people at Lanakai and Rancho Carlsbad, are locked in by leases at higher rent levels than t:
manner. ~a request that enadent of this ordinance be del8
Negotiating Committee an unfair advantage more powerful than
4
_. . .. .. . . . .. . ^. ,"\,, " -.,-, I".,, 3- 9 ,-\, 1 ! I Lkr7 .cln ccc
T e e
recammended by the KMA Study, probably believe that when the Leases expire that their rents will be reduced to the leve
suggested by KMA. This is not true. ccc 798.17 locks their rents at the elevated level, as their "base rent" level at the time t lease ends. Under Rent Control.their rents will never be reduce
mother injustice of this ordinance, as proposed, is that it wj raise the rent levels for those who can least afford it, the 1 I@& payers ut Lannkai, who happen ta be the most elderly lonq-tj
residents oP that Park, and the most deserving of rent relief.
The fallowing checklist outlines the effects of CCC, Paragr
798.17, on all Mobile Home Parks in Carlsbad, if the pres'
ordinance is enacted now:
1, Only Residents who are not signed to a TIIUlti-year le' will be immediately affected by Rent Control I have heard t, there are 40 of those at Lanakai, , and 200 at Rancho Carlsbad. Thl are an unknown number in Lakeshore Gardens. they are curren being counted, and we will be give you the number when it's kno
2 Residents, who are signed to a multi-year . lease, '
believe that they are unaffected by Rent Control, and may beli that they will eventually benefit from the Ordinance, but that
not exactly true. The effect may be delayed, but will be felt,
if they believe their current rents are too high, then they sho know they will stay high. All of those Residents at hnakai Rancho Carlsbad, who are paying rents that they believe ta be
high, and are assuming that Rent Control will give them relief, reducinq their rents when the lease ends, to the "suggested 1:
rent levels", are mistaken. Their high rents will become kk
nbase rent" when their lease expires, and will never be reducg
3, Residents, in Lakeshore Gardens, whose rents have L purposely allowed to remain %elow marketw by a generous ow will have those nbelaw market" rents converted to "base Y levels" at the end of the present lease i€ they decide to decl any new lease, thereby denying his legitimate expectation o lease including reasonable, mutually agreed, increases. Our 0% has taken the position of providing "below market rents bafancec reasonable annual increasesn, in a lease agreement that has 1 fair and mutually acceptable to the Residents. CCC, Paragr
798.17 totally upsets the balance that has allowed t
relationship to exist in a friendly and successful way.
we request that this ordinance be delayed for a sufficient am of time to resolve these probleBLS, only recently brought ta 1:
by yo- staff--problems w!h.Lch are "b-1~ punitive
discririnatory t0 the her of Lakeshoe Gardens HH Park. We (
on Yvu to keep yow word, and the word of your authorized Str which will prevent this injustice froat happening, we also SUQ! that, with tbe unforseen ltapact of wisting law, and recognitio:
5
hP , I T~CIC~~ I nl USHA CIW SNWHHCI 3XIHS3XtJl WOW Wdf0:'PB 966
. 05-23-I994 Zi4:Q3PM FROM LRKESHORE GRRDENS MH PRRK * 3 720946 1
Lanakai Owrers and Rancho Carlsbad Owners, that the Council i determined to resolve apparent inequities, it may be appropriate
and productive, since the current ordinance draft is total1 unacceptable, to reconsider the possibilities of the 'ACCORI:
process - It should be obvious to all concern that this versic Rent Control is not the WsolutiorP that aany expected it to be. I creates =re problems than it solves, We request that the vote 4
enactment of this 0rdirl-e be deferred to orwid@ time to collSid[ that, and to find wys to avoiQ the unfuir effects of the recent:
discovered developments and the potential injustices that wi: result from enactment of the ordinance in its present form, at ti present time.
Bill McLean
Manager
cc: Bob Anderson, Birtcher Property Services AI Thel, Voss, Cook, h The1 Carlsbad City Council Hembers:
Council Members: Mayor Claude (Buddy) Lewis
m Xulchin Margaret stanton
Julie Nygaard Ramona Finnila
City Attorney Ron Ball
City Manager Ray Patchett
sncl : California Civil Code, Par. 798.17 city af Carlsbad - Agenda Bill, Pages 1 61 2*
6