15 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

LAW OFFICES c=trcarztsz ~ rt~~rm~~ 1'~<OFL~SS'iCl!~AL CORI'Ok ATi<l~ Karen Diaz City Clerk City of Pleasanton March 6, 2009 Page 4 overturning the requirement that an applicant make changes to a park's infrastructure to allegedly address health and safety concerns. In addition, we are currently pursuing claims for damages against the local governments involved in these actions and have recently settled a suit for approximately $1 million against the City of Pahn Springs for its actions in the seminal El Dorado case, discussed above. B. The 2002 Amendment to Section 66427.5 Addine A Requirement Of A Survey Of Resident Support Did Not Confer Additional Authority On Local Governments. In 2002, post-El Dorado, the state legislature amended Government Code section 66427 to add the requirement that the applicant obtain a survey of resident support to the other pre- existing statutory requirements ("2002 Amendment"). See Gov't Code § 66427.5, subd. (d). However, the legislature did not amend in any way the scope of authority of the local government. Rather, local government is restricted to determining whether the survey of resident support is conducted and submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 664275. The legislature left in place and untouched the explicit provision which the EI 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. Code, § 66427.5, subd. (e) (formerly Gov't Code, § 66427.5, subd. (d)); see EI Dorado, 96 Cal. App. 4°i at 1165. The 1;1 Dorado Court specifically rejected the contention that a Conversion application requires any level of resident support for its legitimacy or its approval. Indeed, giving park residents effective veto would directly conflict with the legislative intent to foster and encourage Conversions and provide for uniform statewide requirements. Id. at 1172, 1182. As the AB 930 Assembly Bil] analysis explains: This bill seeks to provide a measure of that support for local agencies to determine whether the conversion is truly intended for resident ownership, or if it is an attempt to preempt a local rent control ordinance. The results of the survey would not affect the duty of the local agency to consider the request to subdivide pursuant to Section 66427.5 but merely provide additional information. It is foreseeable that the results of this survey could be used to argue to a court that the conversion is a sham and that