Laserfiche WebLink
LAW OFFICES <br /> GILCHRIST RUTTER <br /> PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br /> Karen Diaz <br /> City Clerk <br /> City of Pleasanton <br /> March 6, 2009 <br /> Page 2 <br /> I. Local Governments Have No Authority To Impose Additional Conditions On <br /> Mobilehome Park Conversions. <br /> A. Local Government's Power Is Strictly Limited To Determining If Owners Have <br /> Complied With Specific Requirements Of Government Code Section 66427.5. <br /> Under California law, local governments are clearly preempted from legislating in the <br /> area of mobilehome park Conversions. In El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, <br /> 96 Cal. App. 4th 1153 (2002) "El Dorado the California Court of Appeal directly addressed <br /> the limitations on local government's authority in reviewing a mobilehome park Conversion <br /> application and held that local governments "only had the power to determine if [the <br /> applicant] had complied with the requirements of [Section 66427.5]." 96 Cal. App. 4th at <br /> 1163 -64 (emphasis added). In fact, this law firm was responsible for successfully litigating this <br /> very issue in El Dorado, as well as in several trial court cases throughout California, discussed <br /> herein. <br /> In El Dorado, the City of Palm Springs "Palm Springs conditionally approved El <br /> Dorado's mobilehome park Conversion application. However, the Palm Springs City Council <br /> imposed three conditions not found in Government Code section 66427.5. See id. at 1156 -57. <br /> The Court of Appeal applied the plain and unambiguous language of the statute and held that <br /> Palm Springs had no power or authority to impose conditions on El Dorado's Conversion <br /> application other than those found in Section 66427.5. <br /> Although Palm Springs argued that the conditions it imposed were designed to prevent an <br /> abuse of the Conversion process by a possible fraudulent or "sham" Conversion intended only to <br /> avoid the local rent control ordinance, the Court found that "section 66427.5, subdivision (d) <br /> [now subd. (e)] provides that `The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of <br /> compliance with this section.' Thus, the City lacks authority to investigate or impose <br /> additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the <br /> tentative or parcel map." Id. at 1165 (emphasis added). <br /> Accordingly, under El Dorado, local government authority is strictly limited to <br /> confirming that Conversion applications comply with the requirements contained in Government <br /> Code section 66427.5, which requires, in sum that: (i) existing tenants each receive an option to <br /> either purchase their lot or continue their tenancy; (ii) the applicant file a tenant impact report on <br /> the Conversion; (iii) the applicant submit a survey of support for the proposed Conversion by <br /> written ballot from the residents; (iv) the applicant shall be subject to a hearing by the local <br /> government limited to the issue of compliance with Section 66427.5; and, (v) state rent control, <br /> as detailed in subdivision (f), applies to all tenants who elect not to exercise their right to <br />