13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush stated that there is certainly a difference of opinion held by city attorneys throughout the State concerning what the proper interpretation is for Section 66427.4 and the interplay between that Section and Sections 66427.5 and 66428.1. He noted that the Palm Springs' decision indicates that Section 66427.4 did not apply because it was not considered a residential conversion, and it does not talk about Section 66428.1. He indicated that he thinks if an argument were to be made that this conversion should not go through, the Commission would look to Section 66428.1 where 2/3 support is needed in order to eliminate the ability of the city to say no. Cities have made the argument at the trial court level unsuccessfully, but in the absence of an Appellate Court's decision, if the City takes the position that Sections 66427.4 or 66428.1 apply, the City will likely be joining in the litigation stream. Mr. Roush stated that he could not advise, based upon the current state of the law, that this is the safest course of conduct. He noted that in his conversations with attorneys who represent cities exclusively in mobile home law, there are arguments to be made with respect to the applicability of Section 66427.5, but to get there it's going to take an adverse decision at a City Council level, taking it to a trial court level, and then getting it to a Court of Appeal. He stated that this is a route the City may or may not be interested in following and that his role is to provide the best guidance in terms of what the current law is, recognizing that the way new law is made is that cities challenge the status quo. Chair Pearce referred to the Palm Springs decision and inquired if this primarily related to the economic implications of the residents who chose not to buy. She stated that she thought any broader discussion by the court was mostly because they were only asked to discuss a very narrow question and that there seems to be a lot of reliance by the applicants on this case that is fairly narrow. Mr. Roush agreed. Chair Pearce stated that she was aware of the murkiness around Section 66427.5 and the legislative history surrounding the purpose of the survey. Mr. Roush stated that there is legislative history that supports both the applicant's point of view and the point of view of some cities that feel it only should apply in a broader context. He added that the applicant's side of it has had better success at the trial court level than have cities at this point. Commissioner Fox stated that she has issues as to whether the survey was bona fide and whether there was support. She added that the law states the applicant should obtain a survey of support of residents, and she did not consider 20 percent of 208 units to be a survey of support. She noted that only one in five residents or less actually supports the conversion, and in terms of the survey that was conducted, she would not consider the survey valid if they are being asked now to respond on something that will occur in the future. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 16 of 19