My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
10A Action 2019 0603
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2019
>
Packet 2019 0603
>
10A Action 2019 0603
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/3/2019 3:20:09 PM
Creation date
5/29/2019 3:40:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
6/3/2019
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
Ord 2019-010 PAD
(Approved)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Ordinances\2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
12 <br /> <br />ii. The Base Year expense is not a reasonable projection of average past <br />expenditures for that item in the years immediately preceding or following <br />the base year. <br /> <br />iii. The prior year expense is not a reasonable projection of expenditures for that <br />item in recent years or of future expenditures for that item. <br /> <br />iv. If a particular item of expense exceeds the normal industry or other <br />comparable standard for the area, the Park Owner shall bear the burden of <br />proving the reasonableness of the expense. To the extent that it is found that <br />the expense is unreasonable it may be adjusted to reflect the normal industry <br />standard. <br /> <br />v. A Base Year expense is exceptionally low by industry standards and/or on <br />an inflation adjusted basis is exceptionally low relative to the prior year <br />expense although the level or type of service for which the expense is <br />incurred has not changed significantly. <br /> <br />vi. An increase in maintenance or management expenses is disproportionate to <br />the percentage increase in the CPI, while the level of services has not <br />changed significantly and/or is not justified by special circumstances. <br /> <br />D. Constitutionally Required Fair Return: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Chapter, <br />the Rent Review Officer or Hearing Officer, if on appeal, is authorized to approve any Rent <br />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 /> <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.) <br />710
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.