Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1301 Dove Street, Suite 800, Newport Beach, California 92660 <br />Telephone: (949) 565-1344 Facsimile: (714) 677-4004 www.rudderowlaw.com <br />Coldren Law Offices, APLC, Of Counsel <br /> <br /> <br />February 22, 2022 <br /> <br />VIA EMAIL ONLY <br />Email: tliao@sanleandro.org <br /> <br /> <br />City of San Leandro <br />ATTN: Tom Liao <br />835 E. 14th Street <br />San Leandro, CA 94577 <br /> <br />Re: City of San Leandro Mobilehome Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance CPI <br />Calculation <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Liao, <br />Our law firm represents the property owners for mobilehome parks Bayshore <br />Commons (San Leandro Tailer Park, LLC c/o Harmony Communities) and Trailer <br />Haven Mobile Home and RV Park (San Leandro Mobile Home and RV Park, LP c/o <br />Monte Christo Communities). As you know, these two park owners are disputing the <br />CPI calculation being used by the City of San Leandro (“City”) for the Mobilehome <br />Space Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“Ordinance”). Specifically, the City has advised <br />all owners subject to the ordinance th at the allowable CPI increase for 2022 will be <br />3.2% while our clients allege the CPI increase for 2022 should really be 4 %. <br />This dispute lies with the interpretation of the ordinance by the City which we strongly <br />believe is incorrect. The City is app lying an average CPI for the following year instead <br />of relying upon the CPI change from December year to year. A simple reading of the <br />ordinance indicates the latter is the only appropriate interpretation of how the CPI is <br />calculated. There is not any re ference or use of the word “average” CPI anywhere in <br />the ordinance. This omission in the ordinance is problematic for the City under the <br />“plain meaning” rule in California which states that where the language of an ordinance <br />is clear, the court will not ne ed to look further at any other interpretation . Switzer v. <br />Wood (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 116, 128. A court interpreting the ordinance is not allowed <br />to “rewrite the law or give the words an effect different from the plain and direct import <br />of the terms used.” People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4 th 999, 1008. <br />Our client’s interpretation is further supported by an example provided in the <br />Ordinance as well. In the City’s definition for CPI, it refers to the CPI from 1982 -1984 <br />= 100. The annual average for that same time period was 98.4, not 100. Thus, the