A county's mobilehome rent control ordinance applies for people who live in recreational vehicles for at least nine continuous months, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
The court said that Santa Cruz County's Mobilehome Rent Adjustment Ordinance applies to about 20 sites in a travel trailer and resort facility because residents of those sites have lived there continuously for nine months or more.
The controversy began when Willows Resort owner Harold Griffith eliminated central garbage collection service and advised residents to obtain individual service. Willows Resort residents complained to the county. A hearing officer then ruled that Griffith, under the county's mobilehome rent adjustment ordinance, had to reduce rents by $11.60 per month (the cost of garbage collection) for about 20 sites where people had maintained residences for at least nine months.
Griffith sued, arguing that the county ordinance is pre-empted by state laws prohibiting commercial rent and regulating mobilehome parks. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Robert Yonts ruled against Griffith, who then appealed. A three-judge panel of the Sixth District upheld the trial court's decision.
The court said that Griffith is subject to two state laws, the Mobilehome Parks Act (Health & Safety Code §18200) and the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law (Civ. Code §799.20). The Mobilehome Parks Act governs construction and operation of mobilehome and recreational vehicle parks. The recreational vehicle law addresses tenancies. Because the issue in this case is the right of tenants, the Mobilehome Parks Act, which Griffith argued preempts the county ordinance, does not apply, the court said.
The recreational vehicle law gives "nine month" tenants rights similar to those of permanent mobilehome park tenants, the court ruled. The state prohibition of commercial rent control specifically exempts a mobilehome park, which Griffith runs for the 20 units in question, the court held.
The Case:
Harold Griffith v. County of Santa Cruz, No. H019474, 00 C.D.O.S. 2998, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4021, filed April 18, 2000.
The Lawyers:
For Griffith: Douglas Allen, (408) 298-6540.
For the county: Pamela Fyfe, assistant county counsel, (831) 454-2040.
A Subdivision Map Act provision that gives local government a maximum of 120 days to acquire an interest in land upon which a subdivider is obligated to build improvements applies only in cases where the improvements are a condition of final map approval, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has ruled.
A developer in the City of Clovis contended that such a narrow reading of Government Code §66462.5 would place an undue burden on the subdivider because a city could wait decades before acquiring of...
Making clear that the Community Redevelopment Law "is not simply a vehicle for cash-strapped municipalities to finance community improvements," an appellate court has thrown out the City of Diamond Bar's redevelopment plan.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that Diamond Bar did not prove that its 1,300-acre redevelopment project area suffered from "blight," as defined by the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code §§33000 et seq., 33030). The...
A citizens group and an environmental organization do have a right to attorneys' fees in successful litigation regarding El Dorado County's handling of a large subdivision, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. However, the court tempered that right by saying that the aesthetic protections won by the groups and their members should be a factor in the awarding of fees. In other words, because they gained aesthetic protections, the groups might not get as much in attorneys' fees as they wou...
Mobilehome park owners in the City of Montclair can proceed with a federal lawsuit alleging that the city's rent control law is a regulatory taking, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
A federal district court had dismissed the lawsuit filed by mobilehome park owners because a similar suit was making its way through the state court system (see CP&DR Legal Digest January, 2000). However, the litigation ended early this year when the state Supreme Court refused to review an appell...
Portions of Santa Monica's rent control law have been thrown out by an appellate court because the provisions conflicted with state law. The Second District Court of Appeal said Santa Monica could not modify conditions established by state law under which landlords can increase rents for voluntarily vacated units, and the city cannot demand more information than state law requires when registering rent-controlled units.
In reviewing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (Civ. Code §1954.50), th...
In a case watched closely by ranchers and environmentalists, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld 1995 grazing regulations for public lands, including about 6.7 million acres in California controlled by the Bureau of Land Management.
Ranchers challenged Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's power to impose the new rules, which ranchers said would raise their expenses and threaten their livestock businesses. But a unanimous Supreme Court, interpreting the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. §315, said ...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
