HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.1 Comments_The Cross Law FirmTHE CROSS LAW FIRM, APC
8880 RIO SAN DIEGO DRIVE, SUITE 800
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-1642
TAMARA@CROSSLAWFIRMAPC.COM
TELEPHONE (619) 296-0567
FACSIMILE (619) 342-8684
January 26, 2022
Sent Via Email Only
Mark Barnard, Stacy Kurz and Megan McClurg mbarnard@chulavistaca.gov
City Council of the City of Chula Vista skurz@chulavistaca.gov
City Hall mmcclurg@chulavistaca.gov
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Chula Vista Tenant Protection Ordinance Comments/Suggestions
Dear Mr. Barnard, Ms. Kurz and Ms. McClurg,
It was a pleasure speaking with you last Tuesday and listening to your presentation
regarding the proposed Chula Vista Tenant Protection Ordinance (“Proposed Ordinance”). As
stated, my firm represents mobilehome park owners in Chula Vista and throughout California. We
deal specifically with the Mobilehome Residency Law (“MRL”) and mobilehome park-related
legal issues.
From our discussion and your video presentation last week, it appears we are in agreement
that the Proposed Ordinance was not intended to apply to mobilehome tenancies (tenancies where
the mobilehome park resident owns their mobilehome and rents the “site” (dirt/lot space) from the
park owner). These tenancies are governed by the Mobilehome Residency Law (“MRL”) Civil
Code Section 798 et seq. and are distinct from mobilehomes that are owned by the mobilehome
park and rented out to tenants (“park-owned rentals”). For consistency purposes, throughout this
letter I will refer to the mobilehome tenancies governed by the MRL as you do in the current
Proposed Ordinance “mobilehome Tenancies.”
As requested, I am putting in writing some of the suggestions I have regarding the Proposed
Ordinance and clarifying how it relates to mobilehome Tenancies.
1. Clear Definition of “mobilehome Tenancies”: The Proposed Ordinance mentions
exempting “mobilehome Tenancies” from sections 050(F) and 060(F) by stating that “this
section does not apply to mobilehome Tenants. The provision of Chapter 9.40 of this Code
shall apply.” This statement refers to the Chula Vista Mobilehome Park and Trailer Park
Conversion, which, although it governs MRL tenancies, it would be helpful if the Proposed
Ordinance added a clear definition of “mobilehome Tenants,” such as:
“Tenancies governed by the Mobilehome Residency Law” or
“Tenancies where the tenant owns the mobilehome and rents the space.”1
1 The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 uses the following language to exempt a MRL tenancy from its provisions in
CC1946.2(j) and CC1947.12(j): “This section does not apply to a homeowner of a mobilehome defined in Section
798.9.”
Letter to City of Chula Vista
January 26, 2022
Page 2 of 4
2. Mobilehome Tenancies are exempt from the entire Proposed Ordinance: It must be made
clear that the Proposed Ordinance exempts mobilehome Tenancies from the entire
Proposed Ordinance (not just 050 and 060). This includes the Just Cause provisions and
the Anti-Harassment provisions. To recap the reasons we discussed on Tuesday, why
mobilehome Tenancies need to be exempt from the entire Proposed Ordinance, is the
following list:
A. Mobilehome Tenancies must be exempt from the Anti-Harassment Provisions:
1) Habitability issues are inapplicable and governed by the MRL failure to
maintain provisions: The Anti-Harassment Provisions of the Proposed
Ordinance primarily address habitability and maintenance issues, which are not
applicable to mobilehome Tenancies. Mobilehome Tenants own their
mobilehome and are responsible for the upkeep, maintenance, and habitability
of their home. Any habitability issues that the mobilehome park owner may
have regarding a mobilehome Tenancy is to the common areas of the
mobilehome park, which are already regulated by the Mobilehome Residency
Law failure to maintain provisions.
The MRL Civil Code Section 798.84 specifically addresses notice procedures
that need to be taken if a mobilehome Tenant believes there is a habitability
issue/failure to maintain the common areas of the park. Specifically, the MRL
states as follows:
798.84. (a) No action based upon the management’s alleged failure to maintain the ph ysical
improvements in the common facilities in good working order or condition or alleged reduction
of service may be commenced by a homeowner unless the management has been given at least
30 days’ prior notice of the intention to commence the action.
(b) The notice shall be in writing, signed by the homeowner or homeowners making the
allegations, and shall notify the management of the basis of the claim, the specific allegations,
and the remedies requested. A notice by one homeowner shall be deemed to be sufficient notice
of the specific allegation to the management of the park by all of the homeowners in the park.
(c) The notice may be served in the manner prescribed in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section
1010) of Title 14 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d) For purposes of this section, management shall be deemed to be notified of an alleged failure
to maintain the physical improvements in the common facilities in good working order or
condition or of an alleged reduction of services upon substantial compliance by the homeowner
or homeowners with the provisions of subdivisions (b) and (c), or when management has been
notified of the alleged failure to maintain or the alleged reduction of services by a state or local
agency.
(e) If the notice is served within 30 days of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations,
the time for the commencement of the action shall be extended 30 days from the service of the
notice.
The Proposed Ordinance Anti-Harassment Provisions allow an immediate
private civil right of action to tenants without the notice or opportunity to
respond required by the MRL. This is in direct conflict with the MRL and
creates confusion if mobilehome Tenancies are not clearly exempt from this
section.
Letter to City of Chula Vista
January 26, 2022
Page 3 of 4
2) Sanctions and Remedies for Violations: The MRL already provides remedies,
sanctions, attorney fees and penalties for park violations of mobilehome Tenant
rights in Article 8. Actions, Proceedings, and Penalties. Specifically Civil Code
Section 798.85 provides statutory attorney fees to be provided to prevailing
parties in mobilehome Tenancy litigation. Civil Code Section 798.86 provides
mobilehome Tenants sanctions against park owners at $2,000 for each willful
violation of the MRL, as well as authorizing a civil action against park
management to enforce his/her rights under the MRL. This section also includes
rights to obtain punitive damages by the mobilehome Tenant. Civil Code
Section 798.87 authorizes a nuisance claim against a park owner who
substantially fails to maintain the common area facilities in good working
condition.
Allowing the Anti-Harassment sanctions of the Proposed Ordinance to apply to
mobilehome Tenancies will compound, contradict, and confuse the actions,
proceedings and penalties already put in place by Article 8 of the Mobilehome
Residency Law.
3) MRLPP: The Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program (H&S Code
18800-18806) was established a few years ago and authorizes the HCD to
investigate and pursue conciliation remedies arising out of a complaint by a
mobilehome Tenant. The program was set up to help resolve and coordinate the
resolution of the mobilehome Tenant’s complaint. The program is paid for by
the mobilehome park owners and the mobilehome Tenants. If either party is not
satisfied with the resolution achieved by the MRLPP, the HCD will refer the
complaint to a nonprofit legal service provider for further action at no cost to
the mobilehome Tenant. Failure to comply with the request from HCD may
result in a monetary fine. More details about this program can be found at:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/manufactured-mobile-home/mobilehome-residency-
law-protection-program/index.shtml.
If mobilehome Tenancies are not excluded from the Proposed Ordinance, the
immediate private cause of action under the Proposed Ordinance would allow
litigation as to the same issues as the MRLPP governs. This
confuses/contradicts the existing MRLPP and encourages additional litigation
outside of the MRLPP.
B. Mobilehome Tenancies must be exempt from the Just Cause Provisions of the
Proposed Ordinance: The MRL has a strict Just Cause Provision. For decades the MRL has
limited evictions of mobilehome Tenants. Civil Code Section 798.56 defines the narrow
Just Cause circumstances in which a mobilehome Tenancy may be terminated. The Just
Cause protections under the MRL take effect immediately upon tenancy. Not exempting
Mobilehome Tenancies from the Proposed Ordinance would confuse and contradict the
MRL Just Cause provisions already in place, and arguably provides mobilehome Tenants
with less protection than they have under the MRL.
Letter to City of Chula Vista
January 26, 2022
Page 4 of 4
C. Clear legislative intent that the "field" of mobilehome Tenancies be preempted by
State law (MRL): The extensive scope of the State regulation over mobilehome
Tenancies in both the MRL, the Manufactured Housing Act (H&S Code 18000-18153),
the Mobilehome Parks Act (H&S Code 18200-18700), Special Occupancy Parks Act (H&S
Code 18860-18874), and the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (CC 799.20 -
799.79), as well as the creation of separate state agencies such as the HCD and the MRLPP
to investigate, title and regulate these mobilehome Tenancies, indicates a clear State intent
to preempt local regulations in this arena.
D. Chula Vista’s Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance: Chula Vista already has a local
ordinance that governs mobilehome Tenancies known as Chula Vista’s Mobilehome Rent
Control Ordinance (CV Municipal Code Section 9.50 et seq). This local Ordinance
acknowledges the distinction of mobilehome Tenancies from general landlord
tenant/apartment issues and separately regulates mobilehome Tenancies in mobilehome
parks throughout Chula Vista. The mobilehome commission set up by the City of Chula
Vista handles not only rent control issues but other complaints that arise in mobilehome
Tenancies and mobilehome parks in Chula Vista. If mobilehome Tenancies are not exempt
from this Proposed Ordinance there will be layers of contradicting, confusing and
unnecessary State and local laws and ordinances regulating mobilehome Tenancies.
I appreciate your time and consideration of my suggested changes regarding the definition
of mobilehome Tenancies and making it clear that these mobilehome Tenancies are exempt from
the entire Proposed Ordinance. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
THE CROSS LAW FIRM, APC
By: Tamara Cross
Tamara M. Cross, Esq.
TMC:lr