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 0 M ES <br /> GILCHRIST RLTTPER <br /> PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br /> Mayor Jennifer Hosterman <br /> Vice Mayor Cheryl Cook Kallio <br /> Councilmember Cindy McGovern <br /> Councilmember Matt Sullivan <br /> Councilmember Jerry Thorne <br /> Pleasanton City Council <br /> March 31, 2009 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Propositions and Measures, do not require that a majority of all eligible voters vote their support <br /> to be passed. <br /> Moreover, Government Code section 66427.5 and case law explicitly prohibit cities from <br /> denying an application for Conversion due to low resident support. Section 66427.5 merely <br /> provides in Subdivision (d) that an applicant for Conversion conduct and submit a Survey of <br /> support. Pursuant to Subdivision (e) of Section 66427.5, local government authority is restricted <br /> to determining whether the Survey is conducted and submitted in accordance with the <br /> requirements of Section 66427.5. The plain language of Section 66427.5 makes clear that cities <br /> have no authority to reject an application for Conversion for lack of resident support. <br /> In addition, the Court of Appeal specifically rejected the contention that a Conversion <br /> application requires any level of resident support for its legitimacy or its approval in El Dorado <br /> Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4 1153, 1181 -82 "El Dorado <br /> As the Assembly Bill analysis to AB 930, which added the Survey requirement, 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 /> 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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.