Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Roush stated that he could not advise, based upon the current state of the law, <br />that this is the safest course of conduct. He noted that in his conversations with <br />attorneys who represent cities exclusively in mobile home law, there are arguments <br />to be made with respect to the applicability of Section 66427.5, but to get there it’s <br />going to take an adverse decision at a City Council level, taking it to a trial court <br />level, and then getting it to a Court of Appeal. He stated that this is a route the City <br />may or may not be interested in following and that his role is to provide the best <br />guidance in terms of what the current law is, recognizing that the way new law is <br />made is that cities challenge the status quo. <br />Chair Pearce referred to the Palm Springs decision and inquired if this primarily <br />related to the economic implications of the residents who chose not to buy. She <br />stated that she thought any broader discussion by the court was mostly because <br />they were only asked to discuss a very narrow question and that there seems to be <br />a lot of reliance by the applicants on this case that is fairly narrow. <br />Mr. Roush agreed. <br />Chair Pearce stated that she was aware of the murkiness around Section 66427.5 <br />and the legislative history surrounding the purpose of the survey. <br />Mr. Roush stated that there is legislative history that supports both the applicant’s <br />point of view and the point of view of some cities that feel it only should apply in a <br />broader context. He added that the applicant’s side of it has had better success at <br />the trial court level than have cities at this point. <br />Commissioner Fox stated that she has issues as to whether the survey was bona <br />fide and whether there was support. She added that the law states the applicant <br />should obtain a survey of support of residents, and she did not consider 20 percent <br />of 208 units to be a survey of support. She noted that only one in five residents or <br />less actually supports the conversion, and in terms of the survey that was <br />conducted, she would not consider the survey valid if they are being asked now to <br />respond on something that will occur in the future. <br />Commissioner Fox continued that the other issue is that some sections of the State <br />law in the Subdivision Map Act state that there are some specifications for <br />non-purchasing residents regarding what types of protections they have for rent in <br />the future, but it does not specify that State law protections only concern a portion of <br />the current residents. She indicated that she had questions regarding whether it <br />was a bona fide survey of support, issues with the findings required under the <br />Subdivision Map Act itself going over structures, and issues with the current <br />affordability of the units in the park. She noted that the City’s General Plan includes <br />goals regarding affordability of units, and she does not want to lose affordable units. <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated that he personally thought this was a good <br />opportunity for the residents, assuming that 85 percent or higher would be included <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 25 of 29 <br /> <br />