Laserfiche WebLink
Increase that is constitutionally required by law to yield a fair return.3 <br /> <br />E. Rent Increase Effective Date: Rent Increases approved by the Rent Review Officer shall be <br />effective on the date given by the applicant in the notice to the Affected Mobilehome Owners <br />required in section 798.30 of the California Civil Code. In the event that the period for <br />determining the allowable Rent Increase exceeds 120 days, the Park Owner may recover a <br />Rent charge retroactive to 120 days after the Fair Return Application is deemed complete. <br />Delays or continuances that are mutually agreed to in writing by all parties concerned, <br />extensions authorized in this Article, and the number of days that lapse between applicant <br />receiving notice of the necessity of replenishing their cost account with the City and paying <br />the required amount pursuant to the fee payment procedure for review of Fair Return <br />Applications, including any costs of expert analysis ordered pursuant to this Article, shall not <br />be counted in determining whether said 120-day period has expired. In order to avoid undue <br />hardship on the Mobilehome Owners affected by the decision, the retroactive Rent charge <br />shall be amortized and paid over a period of five years, unless the Rent Review Officer, or <br />Hearing Officer if on appeal, determines that a different amortization period is more <br />reasonable. Interest may be charged on this amortized Rent. <br /> <br />F. Per Space Rent Adjustment Pursuant to Fair Return Standard: The allowable Rent Increase per <br />Mobilehome Space pursuant to this Section may not be increased as a result of exempt Spaces <br />in the Park. <br /> <br />[4-39-222] Settlement Proposals. <br /> <br />A. At least 10 days prior to the date specified when the Rent Review Officer will take under <br />submission a Fair Return, Capital Replacement, or Rent Reduction application filed <br />pursuant to this Article, or 10 days prior to any appeal hearing, the Mobilehome Owner <br />Representative or the Park Owner may submit a written settlement offer to the other party <br />to settle the claims or requests made in the application and to allow a decision or award to <br />be made in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the offer. <br /> <br />B. The offer shall include a statement of the terms and conditions that the offering party is <br />willing to accept, and a provision that allows the accepting party to indicate acceptance of <br />the offer by signing a statement that the offer is accepted. At the same time that the offering <br />party submits its offer to the other party, the offering party shall also file a copy of the <br />written settlement offer with the Rent Review Officer, or Hearing Officer if on appeal, in a <br />separately sealed envelope, with a statement on the outside of the envelope identifying the <br />offeror and stating that it is a written settlement offer submitted pursuant to this section. The <br />sealed copy of the written settlement offer that is filed with the Rent Review Officer or <br />Hearing Officer if on appeal shall not be opened until it is either timely accepted by the <br />opposing party or, if it is not timely accepted by the opposing party, after the Rent Review <br />Officer or Hearing Officer, as appropriate, has rendered a final decision on the application <br />or appeal. <br /> <br />C. Acceptance of the offer must be in writing and shall be signed by the counsel for the <br />accepting party or, if unrepresented by counsel, by the accepting party. <br /> <br />D. If the offer is accepted, the parties shall notify the Rent Review Officer, and the Hearing <br />Officer if the application is on appeal, and the Rent Review Officer or Hearing Officer, as <br />appropriate, shall enter the accepted offer as the final decision respecting the application or <br /> <br />3 Fisher v. Berkeley," 37 Cal. 3d 644, 693 P.2d 261, 209 (The court held that a standard allowing the landlord to <br />recover a reasonable return on investment was sufficient to withstand a facial challenge. The court suggested a <br />Net Operating Income Method would be acceptable, provided landlords' income was not indefinitely frozen at the <br />nominal amount earned in the base year.)