Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/140471
COMMUNITY LAW Will California Park Owners Begin Heading For the Exits? BY MARK ALPERT With the political changes in Sacramento, the ernments could consider or use the surveys. The tenant advocates are pressing their agenda with Court did acknowledge, however, the lack of new vigor in 2013. Once again, they are push- resident support in and of itself could not block a ing to amend the subdivision conversion statute conversion. (Government Code ยง 66427.5). They are adThe worst decision for park owners, Goldstone vocating for changes, which would allow local v. County of Santa Cruz, was decided in early governments to deny conversions not supported 2012. Goldstone held local governments could by a majority of residents and which would give deny subdivisions if the subdivision was not supsuch governments authority to implement their ported by a majority of residents. Although not own "conversion" reguexplicit, the Court lations. There are even seemed to adopt They are advocating for the view that a rumblings for statewide rent control for mobile or changes, which would allow local "bona fide"conhome parks. "non-sham" Conversions under governments to deny conversions version is, by defSection 66427.5 have inition, one not supported by a majority of supported by a been a favored exit strategy for park ownmajority or at least residents and which would give a large percentage ers, resulting in related litigation all over the such governments authority to of tenants. Chino state. Recent decisions MHC v. City Of applying Section implement their own "conver- Chino, decided in 66427.5 have been a late October sion" regulations. "mixed bag." The de2012, took a decision in Sequoia Park cidedly more proAssociates in 2009 was the "high water mark" for park owner view, concluding that a local limiting the interference of local governments in government was required to approve a subdiviconversions since the Ordinance was amended in sion unless there was overwhelming opposition by 2002 to add the requirement that tenants be sur- the tenants. The Court also made clear its view veyed regarding their support. Based on that de- that a bona fide conversion was one in which the cision, many local governments and lower courts park owner truly intended to convert it to tenant have approved conversions despite resident op- ownership. Unfortunately, the Chino decision position. Subsequent reported decisions by dif- still encourages tenants to attempt to block subferent appellate courts have chipped away at and divisions or extort favorable terms in exchange offered different interpretations of Section for support for the conversion. 66427.5. The 2010 decision in Colony Cove v. Late last year, the California Supreme Court Carson held that local governments could "con- issued a decision directly relevant to conversions sider" the resident survey results, but the Court in coastal zones, Pacific Palisades Bowl v. Los Andid not provide any guidance as to how local gov- geles. The Court in that case held that local govJULY 2013 26 THE JOURNAL ernments did have some authority to review conversions for compliance with the Coastal Act requirements (and other state laws). The ultimate impact of this holding is not entirely clear, but it makes clear that local governments can impose conditions relating to the replacement of affordable housing in a coastal zone. Under the existing statute, which has been relatively favorable to park owners, there still has been substantial resistance to subdivisions in many local communities, in some cases, even where no rent control exists. The processing of a subdivision for Pacific Mobile Home Park in Huntington Beach is a good example. Pacific initiated a subdivision in 2010 with the support of a majority of the residents in the Park. The City fought Pacific's subdivision Application. Pacific had to file a lawsuit after the City denied the Application. The City not only aggressively defended the lawsuit, but attempted to extort a favorable result by filing a cross-complaint seeking immediate physical removal of homes owned by park tenants who the City claimed were "trespassing" on an unused City right of way for decades. The City's denial of the subdivision Application was reversed in July 2012, which resulted in the City approving the subdivision in November 2012. However, on December 3, 2012, the newly elected City Council voted to rescind the approval. Pacific then obtained a court order invalidating the vote and barring reconsideration of the subdivision Application by the City. That court order still did not stop the City two weeks later from voting to confirm their illegal December 3 vote. This did not sit well with the Judge who issued the order. The Court granted Pacific's Application to set a trial 28 \