Bolhouse v. Rental Hous. Comm.

MARIEL BOLHOUSE et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. RENTAL HOUSING COMMITTEE et al., Respondents.

H046335

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

December 22, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV325875)

In 2016, voters in the City of Mountain View (City) passed ballot Measure V, thereby amending the City Charter to add the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA). Among other things, the CSFRA imposes limitations on a landlord's abilities to terminate a tenancy and to increase rent. The CSFRA also created a Rental Housing Committee (Committee) tasked with establishing rules and regulations for administering and enforcing the CSFRA. In 2018, the Committee concluded that the CSFRA does not apply to rented mobile homes and mobile home spaces. Mariel Bolhouse and Tim Larson, residents and tenants of a mobile home park in the City, filed a writ of mandate seeking to require the Committee to reverse that decision and to promulgate rules and regulations applying the CSFRA to rented mobile homes and mobile home spaces. They appeal from the denial of that petition. We shall affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks

1. History and Terminology

Mobile homes have their origins in the travel trailers of the 1920's. (Ann M. Burkhart, Bringing Manufactured Housing into the Real Estate Finance System (2010) 37 Pepperdine L.Rev. 427, 431.) Over time, people increasingly used travel trailers as permanent homes. (Ibid.) Manufacturers responded by building larger "mobile homes," although actually moving these homes "became increasingly difficult. . . . [T]hey were a popular form of housing not because they actually were mobile but because they were affordable." (Ibid., footnote omitted.)

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development first promulgated regulations governing mobile homes in 1976. (Burkhart, supra, 37 Pepperdine L.Rev. at p. 432 & fn. 34.) Around the same time, the mobile home industry began referring to "mobile homes" as "manufactured homes." (Ibid.; Bennett v. CMH Homes, Inc. (6th Cir. 2014) 770 F.3d 511, 517-518 (Stranch, J. dissenting).) Shortly thereafter, "Congress replaced the term 'mobile home' in federal housing acts with the term 'manufactured home.' " (Burkhart, supra, at p. 432, fn omitted.)

The foregoing developments in federal oversight and terminology are reflected in California's Manufactured Housing Act, which differentiates between mobile homes and manufactured homes based on construction date, with mobile homes being constructed before June 15, 1976 and manufactured homes being constructed on or after that date.¹(Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18007, subd. (a); 18008, subd. (a).) However, California law also reflects the fact that the terms mobile home and manufactured home frequently are used interchangeably. For example, the Mobilehome Residency Law uses the term "mobilehome" to refer to both "a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code, and a mobilehome, as defined in Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code . . . ." (Civ. Code, § 798.3, subd. (a).) We shall use the term mobile home to refer to both mobile homes and manufactured homes unless otherwise noted.²

2. Unique Characteristics of Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks

As alluded to above, "[m]obile homes are largely immobile as a practical matter, because the cost of moving one is often a significant fraction of the value of the mobile home itself. They are generally placed permanently in parks; once in place, only about 1 in every 100 mobile homes is ever moved. [Citation.] A mobile home owner typicallyrents a plot of land . . . from the owner of a mobile home park. The park owner provides private roads within the park, common facilities such as washing machines or a swimming pool, and often utilities. The mobile home owner often invests in site-specific improvements such as a driveway, steps, walkways, porches, or landscaping.' [Citation.]" (Galland v. City of Clovis (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1003, 1009 (Galland).)

Some mobile home park residents own their mobile home; others rent the mobile home from its owners. " 'When the mobile home owner wishes to move, the mobile home is usually sold in place, and the purchaser continues to rent the pad on which the mobile home is located.' " (Galland, supra, at p. 1009.)

3. State Regulation

Multiple state statutes govern the use and occupancy of mobile homes. (44 Cal.Jur.3d (2020) Mobile Homes § 1.) The Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ. Code, §§ 798, et seq.) "comprises almost a hundred statutes governing numerous aspects of the business of operating a mobilehome park" and " 'extensively regulate[s] the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents.' [Citations.]" (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1279 (Sequoia Park).) "[T]he Mobilehome Parks Act (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18200-18700) . . . regulates the construction and installation of mobilehome parks in the state. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1280.) And the Manufactured Housing Act (Health & Saf. §§ 18000-18153) "regulates the sale, licensing, registration, and titling of mobilehomes." (Ibid.)

B. Factual Summary

1. Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks in the City

The City is home to six mobile home parks containing approximately 1,130 mobile home spaces. Sahara Village and Santiago Villa are among the mobile home parks located in the City. The record is not clear as to how many mobile homes in the City are rented as opposed to homeowner-occupied. And the record does not disclosehow many rented mobile homes are owned by individual homeowners and how many are owned by the mobile home parks.³

2. Measure V and the November 2016 Election

At the general election held on November 8, 2016, two ballot measures proposing to regulate rent increases—Measures V and W—were presented to the City's electorate.

Measure V, a citizen-initiated ballot measure, proposed amending the city charter to add the CSFRA. The ballot pamphlet distributed to voters included the City Attorney's impartial analysis, which explained that Measure V would "limit the amount that landlords could increase the rent[;] . . . prohibit landlords from evicting a tenant except for specified reasons[;]" and create a "rental housing committee [that] . . . would set the base rent[,] establish regulations[,] determine allowable annual rent adjustment[,] establish the amount of penalties and go to court to enforce the measure." The ballot pamphlet also included arguments for and against Measure V, and rebuttals to those arguments. The argument in favor of Measure V stated, among other things, that the measure would "[a]llow[] rents to be raised 2 to 5% annually"; "[a]llow[] larger rent increases for increased maintenance costs or property taxes or if a landlord skips a year";"limit[] evictions to specific situations"; "[e]xempt[] all units built after February 1, 1995, as well as all single-family homes, duplexes, condos and in-law units, and all new housing (does not discourage growth);" "[r]oll[] rents back to October 2015 levels;" "[c]reate[] an independent Committee to administer and enforce the law, providing flexibility, accountability and transparency;" and "[a]llow[] the creation of similar protections for mobile home residents."

Measure W was placed on the ballot by the city council. It proposed the adoption of an ordinance to regulate rents, resolve rental housing disputes, and prohibit the eviction of tenants without just cause.

The Measure V ballot materials noted various differences between the two measures. The rebuttal to the argument in favor of Measure V asserted that Measure W was "the better, smarter renter's initiative" because (1) it proposed an ordinance that could be more easily changed than Measure V's charter amendment; (2) unlike Measure V, it would "protect residents who live in newer buildings or residents who will live in buildings yet to be constructed"; and (3) it would encourage landlords to maintain and upgrade their buildings whereas Measure V would not. The rebuttal to the argument against Measure V noted that "Measure V creates a Rental Housing Committee to administer and enforce the law, comprised of a majority uninvolved in the landlord or real estate business[] [whereas] Measure W places key decisions in the hands of unknown arbitrators . . . ." The rebuttal to the argument against Measure V also claimed that Measure W allowed for greater rent increases and would "invite[] evictions for higher rents." Finally, it argued that "Measure V allows the Committee to protect mobile home residents. Measure W explicitly excludes mobile home residents."

Measure V was approved by a majority of voters; Measure W was not.

3. Key Provisions of the CSFRA

The CSFRA, as enacted by Measure V, is set forth in Article XVII of the Mountain View City Charter (M.V. Charter). As amended by the CSFRA, section 1700 of the charter states the CSFRA's title and purpose. It provides: "This Amendment shall be known as the Mountain View Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Charter Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment is to promote neighborhood and community stability, healthy housing, and affordability for renters in the City of Mountain View by controlling excessive rent increases and arbitrary evictions to the greatest extent allowable under California law, while ensuring Landlords a fair and reasonable return on their investment and guaranteeing fair protections for renters, homeowners, and businesses." (M.V. Charter, § 1700.)

The CSFRA's limitations on rent increases and evictions apply only...