13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

LAW OFFICES GILCHRIST RUTTRR PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Karen Diaz City Clerk City of Pleasanton March 6, 2009 Page 5 the rent formulas in Section 66427.5 should not be applied. The fact that a majority of residents do not support the conversion is not however an appropriate means for determining the legitimacy of the conversion. The law is not intended to allow park residents to block a request to subdivide. Instead, the law is intended to provide some measure of fiscal protection to nonpurchasing residents. (Emphasis added.) As evidenced above, the legislature amended Section 66427.5 only to add the requirement that the applicant obtain a survey of resident support to the other pre- existing statutory requirements. The legislature did not amend in any way the scope of authority of the local government. To the contrary, the legislature left in place and untouched the explicit provision which the El Dorado Court found dispositive on the issue of local governments' lack of authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent Conversions at the time of tentative map approval: "The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." Gov't Code 66427.5, subd. (e) (formerly Gov't Code 66427.5, subd. (d)); see El Dorado, 96 Cal. App. 4th at 1165. If the legislature had intended to allow the added requirement of a resident survey to give the local agency authority to deny the application based on survey results, it certainly would not have left this language in place. Instead, it is the duty of the courts to ensure that a park owner cannot use a failed or fraudulent Conversion to escape local rent control. El Dorado, 96 Cal. App. 4 at 1165 -1166, 1166 n. 10; see also Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park, 47 Cal. App. 4 1168 (1996) "Donohue In the event of a sham or unsuccessful Conversion, a court will refuse to apply the state rent provisions of Section 66427.5 in place of local rent control. Id. In this way, residents are protected from any unscrupulous park owner that might attempt to escape local rent control though a so- called "sham" Conversion in which only one or two lots are sold to residents. In Donohue, a Conversion application was filed and approved. However, the park residents were never able to obtain necessary financing and no lots were ever offered for sale or sold. In essence, the Conversion process collapsed shortly after it had begun and no resident owned any part of the park. Nevertheless, the park owner attempted to increase rents by the amounts permitted under Section 66427.5. The park residents therefore sought injunctive and declaratory relief that the park owner was not permitted to invoke the state rent control provisions of Section 66427.5. The Donohue Court agreed. It found that no Conversion had occurred, and therefore the park owner could not invoke Section 66427.5's rent provisions. Donohue, 47 Cal. App. 4th at 1173 -1177. The El Dorado Court later stated, "[A]s Donohue illustrates, the courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or unsuccessful conversions." El Dorado, 96 Cal. App. 4 at 1166 n. 10 (emphasis added).