1301 Dove Street, Suite 800, Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone: (949) 565-1344 Facsimile: (714) 677-4004 www.rudderowlaw.com Coldren Law Offices, APLC, Of Counsel
February 22, 2022
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Email: [email protected]
City of San Leandro
ATTN: Tom Liao
835 E. 14th Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Re: City of San Leandro Mobilehome Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance CPI Calculation
Dear Mr. Liao,
Our law firm represents the property owners for mobilehome parks Bayshore Commons (San Leandro Tailer Park, LLC c/o Harmony Communities) and Trailer Haven Mobile Home and RV Park (San Leandro Mobile Home and RV Park, LP c/o Monte Christo Communities). As you know, these two park owners are disputing the CPI calculation being used by the City of San Leandro (“City”) for the Mobilehome Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“Ordinance”). Specifically, the City has advised all owners subject to the ordinance that the allowable CPI increase for 2022 will be
3.2% while our clients allege the CPI increase for 2022 should really be 4%.
This dispute lies with the interpretation of the ordinance by the City which we strongly believe is incorrect. The City is applying an average CPI for the following year instead of relying upon the CPI change from December year to year. A simple reading of the ordinance indicates the latter is the only appropriate interpretation of how the CPI is calculated. There is not any reference or use of the word “average” CPI anywhere in the ordinance. This omission in the ordinance is problematic for the City under the “plain meaning” rule in California which states that where the language of an ordinance is clear, the court will not need to look further at any other interpretation. Switzer v.
Wood (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 116, 128. A court interpreting the ordinance is not allowed to “rewrite the law or give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import of the terms used.” People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4th 999, 1008.
Our client’s interpretation is further supported by an example provided in the Ordinance as well. In the City’s definition for CPI, it refers to the CPI from 1982-1984 = 100. The annual average for that same time period was 98.4, not 100. Thus, the City of San Leandro
February 22, 2022
only example provided in the Ordinance supports our position that a December year to year calculation is the only reasonable interpretation. Lungren v. Deukmejian (California Supreme Court, 1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 (under the “plain meaning” rule words used in a statute or ordinance should be given the meaning they bear in ordinary use and the meaning may be determined from the words construed in context and even with provisions relating to the same subject matter harmonized to the extent possible).
Furthermore, we are not aware of any other City in California that applies such an “average” CPI calculation. Thus, the industry norm or standard also supports our interpretation.
We understand the City is adamant that its interpretation of the CPI calculation is the correct calculation. However, we respectfully disagree for the reasons set forth herein.
This calculation by the City, if incorrect, is costing our clients tens of thousands of dollars as well as the other park owners in the City.
We are aware of the prior and ongoing communications between the City and our clients involving this issue. Our clients have already noticed their rent increase for 2022 based on their 4% calculation and not the City’s erroneous 3.2%. It appears the parties are at an impasse at this time. Our clients intend to file an action for declaratory relief and seek a preliminary injunction whereby a local Alameda County Judge will ultimately decide this narrow issue.
In the alternative, our clients are willing to not implement the rent increase portion in dispute, and not file the lawsuit if the City will agree to have a neutral third party arbitrator (agreed upon by the parties) render a non-binding opinion on the CPI calculation. We think that may be the best path to get some finality on this issue. If our clients are content with the arbitrator’s non-binding opinion then the lawsuit can be avoided.
Please let us know how the City wants to proceed. We understand the City has been using this calculation for several years now and is not inclined to change its position which admits the calculation was always wrong. However, this dispute is costing our clients too much money not to seek clarification from a Judge or a third party arbitrator.
I can be reached by phone at 949-565-1337 and by email at [email protected].
We look forward to the City’s response. Thank you.
City of San Leandro
February 22, 2022
Very truly yours,
RUDDEROW LAW GROUP
Chris C. Chapman, Esq.
CCC/ld
cc: Maryann Sargent ([email protected])
Clients