13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST RUTTER PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Karen Diaz City Clerk City of Pleasanton March 6, 2009 Page 3 purchase. Local governments, such as the City of Pleasanton, cannot impose additional restrictions. Indeed, the El Dorado Court conclusively determined that: (i) Government Code section 66427.5 controls a mobilehome park Conversion from a rental park to a resident -owned park (Id. at 1158 -63); (ii) the purpose of Government Code section 66427.5 is to provide uniform statewide standards for converting rental parks into resident -owned parks, thereby promoting Conversions to home ownership (Id. at 1169 1170); (iii) the requirements set out in Government Code section 66427.5 are exclusive and local government has no authority to impose additional conditions (Id. at 1164, 1166); (iv) if the requirements of Government Code section 66427.5 are met, the local agency must approve the Conversion application (Id. at 1165, 1167); (v) local government does not have the ability or the authority to determine whether a Conversion is "bona- fide" or not (Id. at 1165); and, (vi) mobilehome park residents do not have and cannot have the ability to veto a Conversion by withholding support for a Conversion application (Id. at 1172, 1181 -82). Although a handl of local governments, in a misguided attempt to frustrate and delay Conversions, have either passed illegal ordinances attempting to impermissibly regulate Conversions or have approved illegal resolutions which have impermissibly denied applications for Conversions, with one exception, these attempts have all failed.' Thus far, this firm has obtained several writs of mandate from trial courts throughout California, including Riverside County, Los Angeles County, San Mateo County, and Santa Barbara County, compelling local governments to correct their illegal attempts to frustrate and delay Conversions. Specifically, we have obtained writs (i) compelling two (2) local governments to overturn resolutions which impermissibly denied Conversion applications for their alleged failure to evidence resident support; (ii) invalidating a local ordinance that attempted to impose illegal conditions on Conversions, such as requiring that applicants meet certain health and safety requirements within the parks, provide certain maintenance documents and engineering reports, and submit a tenant impact report containing extensive and burdensome information not within the local government's proper discretion or consideration, in violation of Section 66427.5; (iii) vacating a resolution requiring an Environmental Impact Report as part of the Conversion process; (iv) vacating ordinances which imposed illegal temporary moratoriums on Conversions; (v) overturning the requirement that Conversions must comply with local general plans and/or specific area plans, including affordable housing requirements; and, (vi) The exception is with regards to the County of Sonoma in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Superior Court, Case No. SCV 240003. There, a temporary judge issued a bare -bones opinion less than one page long upholding Sonoma County's ordinance regulating Conversions. This case is currently on appeal.