My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2009
>
081809
>
13 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2010 2:02:26 PM
Creation date
8/13/2009 4:33:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
8/18/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Law OFFICES <br /> GILCHRIST RUTTER <br /> PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br /> Jennifer Pearce, Chairperson <br /> Arne Olson, Vice Chairman <br /> Commissioner Philip Blank <br /> Commissioner Anne Fox <br /> Commissioner Kathy Narum <br /> Commissioner Gregory M. O'Connor, Alternate <br /> Pleasanton Planning Commission <br /> January 22, 2009 <br /> Page 2 <br /> As the Assembly Bill analysis to AB 930, which added the survey of support, explains: <br /> The results of the survey would not affect the duty of the local agency to consider <br /> the request to subdivide pursuant to Section 66427.5 but merely provide <br /> additional information. It is foreseeable that the results of this survey could be <br /> used to argue to a court that the conversion is a sham and that the rent formulas in <br /> Section 66427.5 should not be applied. The fact that a majority of residents do <br /> not support the conversion is not however an appropriate means for <br /> determining the legitimacy of the conversion. The law is not intended to allow <br /> park residents to block a request to subdivide. Instead, the law is intended to <br /> provide some measure of fiscal protection to nonpurchasing residents. (Emphasis <br /> added.) <br /> However, despite the clear language of Section 66427.5 and El Dorado, we are aware of <br /> at least two cities that, bending to political pressure rather than following the clear mandate of <br /> the law, denied Conversion applications on the putative basis of the results of the survey of <br /> resident support. In both of those cases, it became necessary for this firm to seek and obtain <br /> writs of mandate against those cities. <br /> In Carson Harbor Village, Ltd v. City of Carson, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. <br /> BS 112239, the Honorable James C. Chalfant held, <br /> The City argues that section 66427.5(d)(5) provides that the results of the survey <br /> "shall be considered" as part of the subdivision compliance hearing. How can the <br /> City consider the "Survey of Support" if it can not use the results? The answer is <br /> that the City is to consider the Survey of Support to ensure it has been prepared as <br /> required. It may not use the results to deny the Application based on lack of a <br /> bona fide conversion. That is an issue for presentation in court. <br /> In Palm Springs Investment, Inc. v. City of Palm Springs, Riverside Superior Court Case <br /> No. INC070631, the Honorable James A. Cox, held, <br /> The language in El Dorado at pages 1165 -66, states that the determination of <br /> whether an application for a map is a "sham is a decision to be made by the <br /> courts and not a local agency. This holding in El Dorado appears to have been <br /> left unaltered by the AB 930 amendments. Accordingly, the City's finding of a <br /> non -bona fide application does not provide a defense to the requested writ. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.