Filed 4/23/20

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

EL ROVIA MOBILE HOME PARK, 

LLC,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

CITY OF EL MONTE,

Defendant and Respondent.

B295640

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BS172209)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Mitchell L. Beckloff, Judge. Affirmed.

Dowdall Law Offices and Terry R. Dowdall 

for Petitioner and Appellant.

Olivarez Madruga Lemieux O’Neill and Rick R. Olivarez; 

Demetriou, Del Guercio, Springer & Francis, Jeffrey Z. B. 

Springer and Leslie M. Del Guercio for Defendant and 

Respondent.

__________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

After respondent City of El Monte (the City) enacted rent 

control for all mobilehome parks, petitioner El Rovia Mobile 

Home Park, LLC (El Rovia LLC) applied for a base year rent 

adjustment to $665 per month per space. The City agreed that El 

Rovia Park (the Park) space rents were below market value, but 

found that the lawful rent for the 2012 base year was $525 per 

month. El Rovia LLC appealed this decision to an administrative 

law judge, who agreed with the City’s findings. El Rovia LLC

then sought a writ of administrative mandamus. In the writ 

proceeding, El Rovia LLC claimed that the base rent year should 

have been 2015, not 2012, and the base rent should be $665, not 

$525. The trial court denied the writ. 

At the heart of the dispute is the City’s 2015 rent control 

Ordinance No. 2860, which at least for some purposes states that 

in the calculation of rents, the base year is the “2012 calendar” 

year. (El Monte Ord. No. 2860, Mun. Code § 8.70.080, subd.

(C)(1).)1 El Rovia LLC contends that the City’s use of 2012 as the 

base year violates the holding in Vega v. City of West Hollywood

(1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1342 (Vega). It claims the administrative 

law judge “arbitrarily refus[ed] to adjust the base date rent to one 

that reflects general market conditions.”2 Specifically, El Rovia 

1 Ordinance 2860 was later codified in El Monte Municipal 

Code section 8.70.010 et seq. Where appropriate, we use the 

Municipal Code citation. 

2 In Vega, the Court of Appeal held that the California 

Constitution required municipalities implementing rent control 

to allow property owners “to start rent calculations with a base 

date rent similar to other comparable properties.” (Vega, supra,
3

LLC asserts the base rent year should have been 2015 (not 2012, 

the year identified in the rent control ordinance and utilized by 

the City) and argues substantial evidence does not support the

finding that $525 was the reasonable base rent. We affirm, 

concluding that the administrative law judge applied the correct 

base year for rent control and substantial evidence supported its 

findings of the base year rent.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Rent Control History in the City 

In 2012, the City enacted Ordinance No. 2811, which 

established rent control for large mobilehome parks in the City.3

The ordinance placed a moratorium on mobilehome rent 

increases in the two largest parks (Brookside with 421 spaces and 

Daleview with 175 spaces). It did not apply to smaller 

mobilehome parks such as the Park, which had only 77 spaces.

As part of its rent control process, the City retained an 

expert to evaluate mobilehome rental rates. In a report dated 

July 25, 2013 (the Waronzof Report), the expert expressed 

concern that the largest mobilehome park in the City, Brookside, 

had significantly higher rents than other mobilehome parks in 

the City and the region. The report also observed that most of 

the mobilehome park residents in the City were in the lower 

223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1352.) Vega’s focus is not on the date 

selected as the base rent date under rent control, but on the rent 

level that properly reflects the market conditions on that date. 

3 We mention Ordinance No. 2811, and later 

Ordinance No. 2829, only for historical purposes. The present 

dispute is governed by Ordinance No. 2860, enacted in 2015. 
4

income range; and many parks in the City were smaller and older 

than those in the region surrounding the City. 

In September 2013, the City approved its second rent 

control law, Ordinance No. 2829.

4 That ordinance placed ceilings 

on rental rates and rent increases only at the two largest 

mobilehome parks in the City. The ordinance acknowledged 

concerns expressed in the Waronzof study: there was a shortage 

of housing in California; 80 percent of households in mobile

homes in the City were in poverty; relocation of mobile homes is 

difficult, costly, and damages the home; mobilehome parks are 

susceptible to excessive and unfair rent increases due to private 

sector ownership; and monthly rents for certain mobilehome 

spaces in the City had exceeded the average rent for area 

apartments. 

The 2013 ordinance also required the City to retain a 

consultant to conduct another demographic and economic study 

of mobilehome housing in the City. This study was subsequently

undertaken by Dr. Kenneth K. Baar, MAI, a recognized expert on 

mobilehome park issues.5 Baar found that mobilehome rent 

control in the City was triggered by exceptional rent increases in 

one large park (Brookside), which contained about one-third of all 

the mobilehome park spaces in the City. Baar observed that rent 

increases in the other parks had not been a matter of serious 

concern. 

4 Again, we mention this second ordinance only to give 

historical perspective. 

5 MAI stands for Member Appraisal Institute, and refers to a 

professional designation for real estate appraisal.
5

2. Ordinance No. 2860 

On August 4, 2015, the city council approved Ordinance No.

2860, which replaced the earlier rent control ordinances and 

extended rent control to all mobilehome parks in the City, 

regardless of size. It is this law that drives the present dispute. 

In the preamble of Ordinance No. 2860, the city council 

acknowledged California’s severe housing shortage, the unique 

problems associated with mobilehome ownership, the prior efforts 

to regulate a segment of mobilehome parks in the City, and the 

Baar report. Section 8.70.010, subdivision (A) describes the 

purposes of the ordinance as preventing excessive and 

unreasonable rent increases, preserving available mobilehome 

spaces in the City, enabling mobilehome owners to preserve 

equity in their mobile homes, permitting park owners to receive a 

fair return on their investment, and preserving affordable spaces 

for rent in the City. 

Ordinance No. 2860 states that no rent can be charged in 

excess of the rent in effect as of July 1, 2015, unless the City 

authorizes the increase through an application process.

(§ 8.70.050.) The ordinance identifies 2012 as the base year for 

rent and rebuttably presumes the net operating income received 

by the park owner in 2012 was fair and reasonable. (§ 8.70.080, 

subd. (C)(1).) The ordinance states: “It is expected that a rent 

increase within the limits of [the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

increase provision after the base year rent is established] will 

provide the mobilehome park owner with a fair and reasonable 

return.” (§ 8.70.080, subd. (A).) 

A rent increase is authorized in the following situations:

(1) a rise in the CPI (§ 8.70.060), (2) in-place sales of mobilehomes 

(§ 8.70.075), (3) maintenance of a fair return standard 
6

(§ 8.70.080), and (4) new capital improvements (§ 8.70.100). The 

fair return standard in section 8.70.080 is evaluated with a 

maintenance of net operating income (MNOI) formula for 

assessing the necessity for increases. The MNOI formula offsets 

a park owner’s operating income by its operating expenses, and 

compares the base year’s net operating income to the year in 

which the owner applies for a rent increase. (§ 8.70.080, subd. 

(E).) 

Although the rent in fact charged in the base year is 

presumed to be the base rent under rent control, the ordinance 

allows for the mobilehome park owner to rebut the presumption 

that it had been receiving a fair return in the base year. The 

owner may demonstrate this by “evidence provided by the 

mobilehome park owner to the city of gross income, operating 

expenses, and the determination of net operating income for the 

base year and current year.” (§ 8.70.080, subd. (D).) For 

example, under section 8.70.080, subdivision (D)(2), park owners 

can present evidence at a rent control hearing to show that it did 

not receive a fair return in the base year because “gross income 

during the base year was disproportionately low due to 

exceptional circumstances.” In adjusting the base year rent 

under, subdivision (D)(2), the City shall consider (1) whether 

some residents were charged reduced rent, (2) whether the low 

rent was attributed to property destruction, (3) the pattern of 

rent increases in the years prior to the base year and whether 

those increases reflected increases in CPI, (3) whether base 

period rents were disproportionately low in comparison to the 

base period rents of other comparable parks in the City, and 

(4) other exceptional circumstances. (§ 8.70.080, subd. (D)(2).) 
7

Ordinance No. 2860 also provides “[n]othing in this chapter

shall preclude the [c]ity [m]anager or hearing officer from 

granting an increase that is necessary in order to meet 

constitutional fair return requirements.” (§ 8.70.080, subd. (H).)6 

3. El Rovia Park

The Park is one of the 33 mobilehome parks in the City. 

There are approximately 1,427 individual mobilehome spaces for

public rental. The Park has 76 spaces and is one of two parks in 

the City that are age-restricted for residents 55 years or older. 

The existing permanent improvements on the property (an office 

and laundry room) were built in 1950. 

In early 2013 and prior to petitioner El Rovia LLC’s

purchase of the Park, Matthew Davies (one of El Rovia LLC’s 

principals) examined the rental history of the mobilehome park

and determined that rents in the Park were in the low $200s per 

month range. At about that same time, Davies met with the 

mayor and city attorney and became aware of the rent control 

measure under consideration for the larger mobile home parks. 

This early legislation did not cover the Park. El Rovia LLC

purchased the Park for $2,642,500 in mid-2013 with the intention 

of gradually raising rents to market levels, which it believed to be 

in the high $600s. 

4. Rent Adjustment Application

In 2015, after El Rovia LLC had purchased the Park, the

City enacted Ordinance No. 2860, the law at the heart of the 

6 The “constitutional fair return requirements” is an 

apparent reference to the appellate court decisions in Vega, 

supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1342, and Birkenfeld v. City of 

Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129 (Birkenfeld). 
8

present dispute. As earlier observed, the ordinance placed all 

mobilehome parks in the City under rent control. It appears that 

by September 10, 2015, roughly a month after 

Ordinance No. 2860 was adopted, El Rovia LLC was charging 

rents as high as $550 per month per space.

On October 7, 2016, El Rovia LLC submitted to the City a 

petition for rental adjustments, seeking to increase rents for all of 

the Park’s 76 spaces to $665 per month. The petition included a 

real estate appraisal report prepared by John Neet, MAI, in 

which Neet expressed an opinion that the market value of spaces 

at the Park was $665 per month as of September 10, 2015. This 

conclusion was based on Neet’s analysis of six other mobilehome 

parks – Daleview (the only other age-restricted park in the City), 

three other parks in the City, and two parks outside the City, 

neither of which were age-restricted.7

In a November 2, 2016 letter, the City advised El Rovia 

LLC that the petition was incomplete because it lacked the 

income and expense information required by section 8.70.080, 

subdivision (D) for the MNOI analysis. After receiving no 

response from El Rovia LLC, the City sent a letter on January 23, 

2017 seeking further information. On February 10, 2017, El 

Rovia LLC submitted further information but did not include the 

net operating income information specified in section 8.70.080, 

subdivision (D). On March 10, 2017, the City again notified El 

Rovia LLC that it still deemed the petition incomplete. 

7 Daleview was one of the two large (100 plus spaces) 

mobilehome parks affected by the City’s initial rent control 

ordinances of 2012 and 2013. 
9

In a March 15, 2017 letter, El Rovia LLC asserted that the 

City was required to process its application and argued that the 

City must establish a base year rent as of 2015 pursuant to Vega 

v. City of West Hollywood, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d. El Rovia LLC 

refused to provide any further financial information and 

demanded that the City deem its application complete. 

In a letter dated March 22, 2017, the City pointed out that 

El Rovia LLC had still failed to provide all of the information 

required by section 8.70.080, subdivision (D). However, the City 

stated that it would “move forward” with the application. The 

City retained James Brabant, MAI, of Anderson & Brabant, Inc., 

to review Neet’s appraisal, and formulate an opinion of the space 

rental value of the Park for the 2012 base year. Brabant 

reviewed Neet’s report and took issue with (1) Neet’s failure to 

use 2012 as the base year as required by the ordinance, (2) Neet’s 

factually inaccurate report of average rent at Daleview, (3) Neet’s 

unexplained use of two parks outside of the City (one with very 

high rent and neither having age restrictions), and (4) Neet’s 

failure to consider 2015 Park rents that ranged from $500 to 

$550. 

Brabant concluded that: “Of the four parks Neet used that 

are comparable according to the ordinance (Daleview, Santa Fe 

MHP, Capri Gardens and Vagabond Villa), the two that in my 

opinion are superior to the subject had adjusted average rents 

ranging from $676 to $700 per month. The two parks rated 

inferior to the subject had average adjusted rents ranging from 

$515 to $520 per month. The three most recent rents negotiated 

in June and July of 2015 at the subject park were at $550 per 

month which is consistent with the comparable data that 

brackets that amount. Therefore, it is my opinion that Neet’s 
10

conclusion of an average rent of $665 per month in 2015 is 

overstated.” 

Using the four parks identified as comparable and two 

additional parks Brabant deemed relevant, Brabant appraised 

mobilehome park rents in 2012, the base year identified in the 

ordinance. He analyzed each property as either being superior or 

inferior to the Park and examined the rents for each—ranging 

from $400 to $700 per month. He concluded that the average 

rental value of $525 per month per space was the reasonable base 

rent for the Park as of 2012. Brabant provided a second opinion 

that “based upon a review of 2017 Registrations from park 

owners, contacts with park management, and inspections of the 

various parks,” “the average rental value of El Rovia [Park], as of 

April 2017, is $575 per month, including sewer.” 

In a May 18, 2017 letter, the city manager informed 

petitioner that the City had completed its review of the rent 

adjustment application, that in 2012 the fair rental value for the 

Park spaces was $525, and that the fair rental value of the Park 

spaces as of April 2017, was $575 per month per space.

8 

On June 6, 2017, El Rovia LLC appealed the City’s 

determination and requested a hearing. 

5. Administrative Hearing

On September 6, 2017, an administrative law judge (ALJ) 

with the State of California Office of Administrative Hearings 

8 The difference between the monthly rent of $525 in 2012 

and monthly rent of $575 in April 2017, the month preceding the 

Brabant report, was presumably based on the city’s assessment 

that El Rovia LLC would be entitled to further rent adjustments 

in the five years after the base rent had been set. 
11

heard El Rovia LLC’s appeal of the City’s base rent 

determination. At the hearing, El Rovia LLC presented 

testimony from Davies, one of its principals, and its appraiser,

Neet. Davies testified that when considering the purchase of the

Park in 2012, the Park’s rents were just over $200 per month per 

space. Upon purchasing the Park in mid-2013, El Rovia LLC 

planned to raise the rents to market levels, which it considered to 

be in the high $600s per month. Davies stated that El Rovia LLC 

was not making a claim that it was not receiving a fair return; it 

was making a Vega challenge to the manner the base rent had 

been established. 

El Rovia LLC asserted 2015 (the year Ord. No. 2860 was 

adopted) must serve as the base year because it exhibited market 

conditions immediately prior to enactment of the rent control for 

smaller mobilehome parks. El Rovia LLC submitted Neet’s 

report as evidence that as of September 10, 2015, the market 

value of the spaces at the Park was $665 per month per space.

Neet also testified consistently with his written report. 

In contrast, the City argued that the City had lawfully 

established 2012 as the base year by ordinance. It presented 

Brabant’s report and testimony. Brabant reiterated his earlier 

stated concerns about Neet’s analysis and testified consistent 

with his report that, as of 2012, space rental value at the Park 

was $525.9 Brabant interpreted section 8.70.080, subdivision 

(D)(2)(d), which allows for adjustment of the base year rent when 

there are exceptional circumstances, as controlling El Rovia

9 Brabant explained that he used the terminology “ ‘space 

rental value’ ” rather than “ ‘fair market value’ ” because 

Ordinance No. 2860 does not use the term “ ‘fair market value.’ ” 
12

LLC’s application. Under that subsection, a rent adjustment is 

available when a park owner’s base period rents are 

disproportionately low in comparison to base period rents “ ‘of 

other comparable parks in the city.’ ”

The ALJ determined that 2012, not 2015, was the lawful 

base year, and the year for making base rent adjustments, based

on the language of the statute (§ 8.70.080, subds. (C) & (D)(2)(d)) 

and the City’s broad discretion to establish a base year of its 

choice. The ALJ observed that the ordinance’s use of 2012 as the 

base year was reasonable because that date preceded the 

imposition of the first rent controls in the City, making 2012 

more likely to be reflective of general market conditions and 

uninfluenced by rent control legislation. The ALJ also reasoned 

that choosing 2012 as the base year was reasonable given that 

the Park is an age-restricted park, and the only other agerestricted park in the City was one of the two large parks that 

were the subject of the 2013 rent control ordinance. Therefore,

gauging 2015 rents unaffected by rent control in comparable 

parks would be difficult as one of the most similar was already 

rent controlled. The ALJ also found El Rovia LLC had made no 

claim that the rents resulting from the use of 2012 as the base 

year deprived it of a fair return. 

Relying significantly on the Brabant report (the only 

evidence of market conditions in 2012), the ALJ concluded that El 

Rovia LLC was “entitled to a base year rent adjustment, as of 

2012, of up to $525 per month per space . . . .” The court found,

“The value of $525 per month per space . . . is reasonable 

considering El Rovia’s location within the range of superior and 

inferior comparable properties.” The ALJ further explained that 

El Rovia LLC’s “various arguments were not persuasive that Mr. 
13

Brabant failed to provide a valid opinion as to general market 

conditions in 2012. Mr. Neet did not offer any competing 

opinions concerning general market conditions in 2012. Further, 

without any analysis of market conditions in 2012, the proper 

base year, [a]ppellant failed to offer an alternative and valid 

value determination upon which any party can base a request for 

a rent increase.” 

6. Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus 

On May 1, 2018, El Rovia LLC filed its first amended 

petition for administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil 

Procedure section 1094.5 to set aside the City’s denial of El Rovia

LLC’s application to set a base rent of $665 and to require the 

City to set a “base rent” based on 2015 market conditions.

On October 9, 2018, El Rovia LLC filed its Motion for 

Judgment on the Petition for Administrative Mandamus. On 

December 12, 2018, the court denied El Rovia LLC’s petition,

essentially agreeing with the ALJ’s analysis. On February 4, 

2019, the court entered judgment denying the petition. El Rovia

LLC timely appealed. 

7. Separate Facial Challenge

On August 1, 2017, before it filed its administrative writ 

petition, El Rovia LLC filed an action in the Los Angeles Superior 

Court entitled, El Rovia Mobile Home Park LLC v. City of El 

Monte, case No. KC069501. The complaint asserted a “facial” 

challenge to the City’s ordinance alleging that there was no 

rational basis for imposing rent controls upon the smaller parks 

in the City. The City filed a demurrer which the trial court

sustained with leave to amend. El Rovia LLC declined to amend

and appealed the ensuing judgment. (El Rovia Mobile Home 
14

Park v. City of El Monte (Mar. 21, 2019, B288134) [nonpub. opn.]

(El Rovia I).) 

Our colleagues in the Second Appellate District, Division 

One, affirmed the dismissal of all causes of action, save one –

which was based on El Rovia LLC’s claim that the City had failed 

to demonstrate the “constitutional fact” of a housing shortage to

justify rent control under Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 129. 

On August 29, 2019, following remand to the trial court, El Rovia 

LLC voluntarily dismissed El Rovia I. 

DISCUSSION

El Rovia LLC argues that: (1) 2015, not 2012, is the lawful 

base year for the determination of base rent adjustments and

(2) the ALJ’s contrary decision was not supported by substantial 

evidence. After explaining the legal landscape for El Rovia LLC’s 

rent adjustment application, we address each argument in turn.

1. Rent Control Adjustment Principles 

As mentioned above, Ordinance No. 2860 expressly states 

that the base year for mobilehome rent is 2012 and presumes the 

net operating income received by the park owner in 2012 was fair 

and reasonable. (§ 8.70.080, subd. (C)(1).) Pursuant to the 

ordinance, there are four authorized reasons for a rent increase, 

one of which is maintenance of a fair return. (§ 8.70.080)

Throughout the rent control adjustment application process, El 

Rovia LLC repeatedly asserted it was not seeking a base rent 

increase on any of these four grounds. 

Rather, El Rovia LLC explicitly sought a “ ‘Vega’

adjustment.” In Vega, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1342, the 

defendant city had enacted a rent control ordinance that set the 

rent charged at an earlier fixed date (the base date rent) as the 

starting point for fixing maximum rents. The landlord of a nine-
15

unit property sought to adjust the base date rent because the 

rents on the property had been considerably suppressed since 

well before the base year due to “peculiar circumstances.” (Id. at 

p. 1344.) The City’s rent control commission refused to adjust the 

base rent because the landlord had not provided evidence of the 

amount of return generated by comparable buildings, despite 

recognizing the appraisal evidence submitted by the landlord 

demonstrated the base date rents charged were 

disproportionately low. (Id. at p. 1347.) 

The Vega court concluded that based on constitutional 

concerns, “a property owner must be permitted . . . to start rent 

calculations with a base date rent similar to other comparable 

properties.” (Vega, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at p. 1352, citing 

Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 129.) The court reversed and 

remanded the matter to the rent control commission with 

instructions to “set the landlord’s base date rents consistent with 

the appraiser’s evidence of rents for comparable units and then 

apply the [o]rdinance’s maintenance of net operating income 

formula to establish the current maximum allowable rents.” 

(Vega, at p. 1352.)

10 Our Supreme Court’s holding created a twostep process: “After [1] base date rents are established which 

reflect general market conditions, then [2] the Commission 

should apply and maintain the net operating income formula of 

the [o]rdinance.” (Vega, at p. 1351.)

10 We observe that Ordinance No. 2860 appears to anticipate 

a Vega adjustment as it provides: “[n]othing in this chapter shall 

preclude the [c]ity [m]anager or hearing officer from granting an 

increase that is necessary in order to meet constitutional fair 

return requirements.” (§ 8.70.080, subd. (H).) 
16

As El Rovia LLC’s brief on appeal makes clear, this case 

presents a claim for a Vega determination of the base year rent 

for the Park. 

2. Standard of Review

On appeal we are tasked with reviewing the ALJ’s decision, 

not the trial court’s. “Appellate review of the factual basis behind 

a decision by a rent control board or agency is governed by the 

substantial evidence standard. . . . ‘[W]e consider all relevant 

evidence in the administrative record, beginning with the 

presumption that the record contains evidence to sustain [the 

agency’s] findings of fact.’ . . . ‘[I]n the absence of an 

unconstitutional and confiscatory taking, the courts [are] not 

authorized to interfere with the actions of the local rent 

boards . . . .’ ” (Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson

(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 840, 865–866 (Colony Cove).) In applying 

the standard, we focus on the decision of the agency rather than 

that of the trial court and “ ‘answer the same key question as the 

trial court . . . whether the agency’s findings were based on 

substantial evidence. [Citations.]’ ” (MHC Operating Limited 

Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 218–

219 (MHC).) 

“To the extent that the administrative decision rests on the 

hearing officer’s interpretation or application of the Ordinance, a 

question of law is presented for our independent review.” (MHC, 

supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at p. 219.) “However, a rent control 

board’s interpretation of a rent control ordinance and its 

implementing guidelines is entitled to considerable deference. 

[Citations.] ‘The burden is on the appellant to prove the board’s 

decision is neither reasonable nor lawful.’ ” (Colony Cove, supra,

220 Cal.App.4th at p. 866.)
17

3. We Find No Error in the City’s Selection of 2012 as 

the Base Year 

El Rovia LLC first contends that the ALJ erred in using 

2012 rather than 2015 as the base year rent when ruling on its 

request for an adjustment. El Rovia LLC reasons the base rent 

year should be 2015 because the ordinance regulating the smaller 

parks was enacted in 2015 and froze rents in that year. We 

disagree. 

Here, El Rovia LLC sought to adjust the “base rent.” The 

City does not quarrel with El Rovia LLC’s right to seek a base 

rent adjustment. The parties dispute the starting point. The 

ordinance expressly identifies 2012 as the base year for initial 

rent determinations, and it rebuttably presumes that the net 

operating income received by the park owner in 2012 was fair 

and reasonable. (§ 8.70.080, subd. (C)(1).) Nowhere in the 

ordinance is 2015 identified as the base year for assessing 

increases in rent. We are not asked to engage in statutory 

interpretation to give meaning to an ambiguous ordinance. The 

base rent year is clearly established. El Rovia LLC’s argument is 

that, as a matter of constitutional law, the City was required to 

establish 2015 as the base year. 

We start our analysis with an established principal: The 

City is entitled broad discretion in selecting the base year under 

rent control. “Mobilehome rent control ordinances are accorded 

particular deference as rational curative measures to counteract 

the effects of mobilehome space shortages that produce 

systematically low vacancy rates and rapidly rising rents.” 

(Carson Harbor, Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental 

Review Bd. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 281, 290 (Carson Harbor).) “It 

is within a city’s prerogative and legislative authority ‘to 
18

determine what rent control scheme it will adopt’ and ‘to decide 

what base year to employ in its rent control ordinance.’ ” (Colony 

Cove, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 874, quoting MHC, supra,

106 Cal.App.4th at p. 223 & fn. 4.) 

“Fair return is the constitutional measuring stick by which 

every rent control board decision is evaluated.” (Carson Harbor, 

supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 288.)11 This standard evaluates 

whether the rent control ordinance results in an impermissible 

confiscatory taking. “While a fair return is constitutionally 

required, ‘the state and federal Constitutions do not mandate a 

particular administrative formula for measuring fair return . . . .’ 

[Citations.] Thus, ‘rent control laws incorporate any of a variety 

of formulas for calculating rent ceilings.’ [Citations.] ‘Under 

broad constitutional tolerance, California cities may enact 

various forms of residential rent control measures to satisfy the 

just, fair and reasonable rent standard. [Citation.] Public 

administrative bodies, charged with implementing and enforcing 

rent control measures, are not obliged by either state or federal 

constitutional requirements to employ any prescribed formula or 

method to fix rents.” (MHC, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at pp. 220–

221, Carson Harbor, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 290 [“the actual 

method utilized to regulate rents is immaterial so long as the 

result achieved is constitutionally acceptable”].) 

11 “A ‘just, fair and reasonable’ return is characterized as 

sufficiently high to encourage and reward efficient management, 

discourage the flight of capital, maintain adequate services, and 

enable operators to maintain and support their credit status. 

However, the amount of return should not defeat the purpose of 

rent control to prevent excessive rents. [Citation.]” (Carson 

Harbor, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 288–289.)
19

Here, the City’s selection of 2012 as the base year was 

reasonable, constitutional, and factually supported by the record. 

Contrary to El Rovia LLC’s assertions, rent control ordinances 

typically use “the rent charged on a fixed prior date ‘as a starting 

point for the fixing of maximum rents on the theory that it 

approximates the rent that would be paid in an open market 

without the upward pressures that the imposition of rent control 

is intended to counteract.’ ” (Vega, supra, 223 Cal.App.3d at 

p. 1349.) 

As the ALJ found, 2012 preceded the enactment of any of 

the three rent control ordinances in the City, the first of which 

was limited to the two larger parks. Thus, “[i]t is sensible to now 

use 2012 as a base year for all parks in the City, because that 

year predates when any park in the City was subject to rent 

control and when the general market could be expected to react.” 

By using 2012 as the base year, the City was able to consider all 

the mobilehome parks in the City, none of which were under rent 

control at the time. This was critical to the City’s assessment of 

comparable properties (all mobilehome parks) in its 

determination of whether “exceptional circumstances” existed to 

depart from the actual rent charged in the base year of 2012. 

(§ 8.70.080, subd. (D)(2) [“Exceptional Circumstances in the Base 

Year. The gross income during the base year was 

disproportionately low due to exceptional circumstances”].) 

Because the City was in a rent control-free environment in 2012, 

the City’s use of 2012 as the base year was reasonable. Although 

not part of our standard of review, we observe this is what the 

ALJ found and what the trial court found. 

We reject El Rovia LLC’s argument that under Vega or any 

other rule of law, the City was required to select 2015 as the base 
20

year. To the extent El Rovia LLC argues that using 2012 as a 

base year is unfair, El Rovia LLC has failed to produce any 

evidence that this is the case. El Rovia LLC also failed to show 

that, as a matter of law, 2015 is the base year. Such an 

argument is contrary to the language Ordinance No. 2860. 

We find telling that, on repeated occasions in its appellate 

briefs, before the trial court and before the ALJ, El Rovia LLC 

made no claim that the rent resulting from the application of the

2012 base year deprives it of a fair return. Based on the 

foregoing, we see no Vega concerns about the City’s selection of 

2012 as the base year and conclude there was no error in using 

comparable 2012 rental rates to determine base year rent.

4. Substantial Evidence Supports the Base Rent 

Determination of $525 

The City determined that the rents actually charged Park 

tenants in 2012 did not provide a fair rate of return – they were 

unreasonably low due to exceptional circumstances. This 

required the City to adjust upwards the base year rent under 

section 8.70.080, subdivision (D). El Rovia LLC argues that

insufficient evidence supports the City’s determination that $525 

was the lawful, adjusted base rent. It contends, instead, the only 

substantial evidence on which the ALJ should have relied was its 

expert’s appraisal, who found $665 as the adjusted base rent. To 

borrow a phrase often used in politics, this argument is a nonstarter. Neither El Rovia LLC’s expert, Neet, or any El Rovia 

witness presented evidence of what would be a reasonable base 

rent adjustment using the ordinance’s 2012 base year. Neet’s

appraisal was based solely on 2015 rents. He was silent on the 

2012 rents. For this reason, El Rovia LLC’s substantial evidence 

argument on the base year adjusted rent is essentially an attack 
21

on the City’s selection of 2012 as the base year, an argument we 

have rejected. 

Substantial evidence does support the City’s finding that 

$525 was the reasonable adjusted base rent for 2012. We agree 

with the ALJ’s conclusion that Brabant’s appraisal report and his 

testimony provide sufficient support for 2012 adjusted base rent 

of $525. Brabant was well qualified as an expert on mobilehome 

park rent control and performed extensive analysis to reach his 

conclusion. In addition to two additional comparable mobilehome 

properties which Brabant selected, he also considered four of the 

six mobilehome properties that Neet used, only excluding the two 

properties located outside the City. Brabant’s report and 

testimony explained why he pegged the comparable properties as 

either more or less valuable than the Park and why a base year 

rent of $525 for the Park was most appropriate on the spectrum 

of mobilehome rents in the City. 

Without citation to the record, El Rovia LLC argues that 

the “[e]ngagement [p]arameters of the City” tainted Brabant’s 

report. Specifically, El Rovia LLC asserts: “Mr. Brabant refused 

to incorporate the rates of other close parks outside of El Monte 

even though many were far closer than other mobilehome parks 

in the City and all in the same San Gabriel market area.” At 

trial, Brabant testified that he did not use properties outside of 

the City to determine the base year rent because inclusion of 

such properties was “contrary to the ordinance,” which solely 

addressed mobilehome park rents within the City. The City was 

entitled to accept Brabant’s evidence and reject Neet’s. At most, 

El Rovia LLC’s argument is an invitation that we reweigh the 

evidence. We may not do that. (See Donley v. Davi (2009) 

180 Cal.App.4th 447, 456 [“We ‘ “do not reweigh the evidence; we 
22

indulge all presumptions and resolve all conflicts in favor of the 

[agency’s] decision. Its findings come before us ‘with a strong 

presumption as to their correctness and regularity.’ 

[Citation.]” ’ ”].)

DISPOSITION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment denying appellant El

Rovia Mobile Home Park, LLC’s first amended petition for 

administrative mandamus. Defendant and respondent City of El 

Monte is awarded its costs on appeal. 

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.