218 Properties, LLC v. City of Carson

The City of Carson and its city council appeal from the trial court’s judgment directing Carson to approve the mobilehome conversion applications of 218 Properties, LLC, and Imperial Avalon Mobile Estates, LLC. We reverse the trial court in part and direct it to enter judgment affirming Carson’s disapproval of the application for conversion by 218 Properties, LLC. We affirm, however, the trial court’s judgment to the extent it directs Carson to approve the application for conversion by Imperial Avalon Mobile Estates, LLC.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

1. Background 1

Traditionally, mobilehome park residents have owned the mobilehome coaches in which they lived, but did not own the plots of land that their *186 coaches occupied. To encourage ownership of plots by residents, the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.) 2 at section 66427.5 provides a method by which a mobilehome park owner can convert the park from a community occupied by tenants who rent their plots into a community akin to a condominium association, in which residents own their plots.

Converting a mobilehome park into a resident-owned community affects rent control. Upon the park owner’s very first…

I concur in the judgment and reasoning of the majority opinion. I write separately to acknowledge that, in a prior case, I expressed the view that former section 66427.5 of the Government Code 1 — which then governed an application for a subdivision map to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned park—should not be interpreted to give authority to a local agency to deny such an application on the ground that the conversion was not “bona fide” in light of a survey of residents of the park. (See Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson (Mar. 30, 2010, B211777) [nonpub. opn.j (dis. opn. of Bigelow, J.) (Carson Harbor Village).) The Supreme Court denied review in Carson Harbor Village on June 17, 2010 (SI82526), and, in the years since, at least two Courts of Appeal construed former section 66427.5 to give authority to a local agency to deny a conversion based on “consideration” of a survey of residents. (See, e.g., Chino MHC, LP v. City of Chino (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1069 [ 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 753 ].) It is fair to say that, whatever my views on the interpretation of former section 66427.5 may have been, that view will no longer carry the…

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

1. Background1

Traditionally, mobilehome park residents have owned the mobilehome coaches in which they lived, but did not own the plots of land that their coaches occupied. To encourage ownership of plots by residents, the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.)2 at section 66427.5 provides a method by which a mobilehome park owner can convert the park from a community occupied by tenants who rent their plots into a community akin to a condominium association, in which residents own their plots. Converting a mobilehome park into a resident-owned community affects rent control. Upon the park owner’s very first sale of a plot, all residents lose the protection of local rent control regardless of whether the owner sells any more plots. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1164-1165 (El Dorado).) For lower-income residents, state rent control law instead takes effect. (§ 66427.5, subd. (f)(2).) For all other residents, rent control disappears entirely. (§ 66427.5, subd. (f)(1).) Because a mobile park owner can escape local rent control by selling just one plot, an unscrupulous park owner can abuse the…