Upland City Council Reviewing Two Options to Restore and Modernize the Mobilehome Rent Review Ordinance

At the Monday May 11, 2026 City Council meeting, the Council will review two different proposed options for restoring and updating Upland’s Mobilehome Rent Review Ordinance following the inadvertent repeal of the previous ordinance during the municipal code omnibus cleanup process.

Both proposed ordinances are designed to protect mobilehome residents from unreasonable rent increases while also recognizing that mobilehome park owners are entitled to a fair and reasonable return on their investment and the ability to maintain and improve their properties.

The staff report explains that mobilehome residents are uniquely vulnerable to rent increases because mobilehomes are difficult and costly to relocate. Residents often own the mobilehome itself while renting the space beneath it, creating what courts have described as a “captive market.” The report further notes that many mobilehome residents are seniors living on fixed incomes and may spend a significant portion of their household income on space rent, utilities, insurance, and related costs.

The report presents two distinct approaches for Council consideration.

Option 1: “Restoring” Ordinance

The first option would largely restore the City’s previous Mobilehome Rent Review Ordinance with only limited updates necessary to comply with current state law and modern administrative practices.

This version maintains much of the structure, terminology, and procedures from the prior ordinance that existed before repeal.

Under this option, annual rent increases would generally be limited to 80% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a maximum increase cap of 7%. In years of unusually high inflation, the ordinance would allow an increase above 7% under a specific formula tied to CPI growth.

This version also preserves several features from the historical ordinance, including:

• A formal arbitration process for disputes involving rent increases beyond the allowable cap

• A larger role for homeowners associations in representing residents

• Existing lease protections and certain vacancy control related provisions

• Appeals of arbitration decisions to the City Council

The arbitration process under this version is more formal and legal in nature. If a park owner seeks an increase beyond the allowable annual amount, the matter could proceed through arbitration with presentation of evidence, testimony, and ultimately review by the City Council if appealed.

The ordinance includes numerous factors that may be considered during arbitration, including:

• Changes in CPI

• Comparable rents in the Inland Empire

• Utility costs

• Capital improvement investments

• Operating and maintenance expenses

• Services provided to residents

• Inflationary pressures

• Property values

• Other financial considerations impacting the park owner’s ability to receive a just and reasonable return

The report notes that this version contains a more complex procedural structure with additional administrative and legal processes.

Option 2: “Revised” Ordinance

The second option presented by staff is a significantly revised and modernized ordinance designed to streamline administration and simplify the process for residents, park owners, and city staff.

The report states this version was drafted to create a cleaner, easier to administer ordinance with clearer procedures and updated terminology.

One of the most notable changes is the annual rent increase formula.

Under the revised ordinance:

• Annual rent increases would be the greater of 3% or 100% of CPI

• Annual increases would be capped at 5%

This creates a lower maximum annual increase while also guaranteeing a minimum annual increase for park owners even during years of low inflation.

The revised version also replaces the prior arbitration structure with a Hearing Officer process administered by the City.

Instead of arbitration and City Council appeals:

• The City would appoint a neutral Hearing Officer

• The Hearing Officer would conduct hearings on requested increases beyond the allowable cap

• The Hearing Officer would issue a written decision

• Judicial review through the courts would still remain available

The revised ordinance also establishes a formal “Rent Administrator” role responsible for overseeing implementation and administration of the ordinance.

Another significant feature is the inclusion of a “meet and confer” process. Before proceeding to a formal hearing, the City would facilitate an informal discussion process between park owners and homeowners or their representatives in an effort to resolve disputes before escalation into formal proceedings.

The revised ordinance also:

• Removes outdated procedural language

• Simplifies hearing procedures

• Creates more standardized administrative rules

• Clarifies notice requirements

• Modernizes definitions and terminology

• Removes some of the more cumbersome procedural steps contained in the original ordinance

The report specifically notes that the revised ordinance would be easier for staff and applicants to work with without becoming overly complicated or administrative in nature.

Key Policy Differences Between the Two Options

While both ordinances are intended to protect residents from unreasonable rent increases while allowing park owners a fair return on investment, they approach the issue differently.

The “Restoring” version focuses more heavily on preserving the original ordinance structure, maintaining arbitration procedures, preserving broader appeal rights, and retaining stronger homeowners association involvement.

The “Revised” version focuses more on administrative efficiency, simplification, modernization, and creating a more streamlined hearing process overseen by the City.

One of the clearest differences between the two proposals is the annual rent increase structure:

Restoring Ordinance

• 80% CPI

• Maximum 7% cap

• Potential increases above 7% during certain high inflation periods

Revised Ordinance

• Greater of 3% or CPI

• Maximum 5% cap

The revised version therefore creates a lower maximum increase cap while also guaranteeing a minimum increase threshold.

Comparison to Other Cities

The staff report also includes a comparison of mobilehome rent control ordinances from neighboring cities, including:

• Chino

• Colton

• Fontana

• Montclair

• Rancho Cucamonga

• Redlands

• Rialto

• San Bernardino

• Yucaipa

The comparison highlights varying approaches to CPI formulas, annual increase caps, vacancy control provisions, and hearing structures used throughout the Inland Empire.

Environmental Determination

The report states the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because adoption of the ordinance does not create a direct or foreseeable physical impact on the environment.

Council Direction

Ultimately, the City Council will need to determine which framework best balances:

• Protecting mobilehome residents from excessive rent increases

• Ensuring fairness and predictability

• Maintaining clear administrative procedures

• Allowing park owners the opportunity to receive a just and reasonable return on investment

This discussion represents an important step in correcting the prior repeal of the ordinance while ensuring the City adopts a legally compliant and workable long-term framework moving forward.

Disclaimer: The Upland Update is an independent community resource and is not affiliated with the City of Upland. This is my personal initiative to keep residents and businesses informed about key issues, city developments, and community events that impact our daily lives. My goal is to ensure you have clear, transparent, and timely information to stay engaged and involved in shaping Upland’s future.

James Breitling

(909) 342-2523

info@theuplandupdate.com

© 2025. All rights reserved.