Goldstone v. County of Santa Cruz
143 Cal. Rptr. 3d 906
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Goldstone, as trustee of the Alimur Mobilehome Park, appeals from a writ petition challenging the Board of Supervisors’ denial of a conversion from rental to resident ownership.
- Goldstone sought to rely on section 66427.5 to ensure the Board only assessed compliance with the statute, not resident support for the conversion.
- A resident survey showed 1 of 121 residents in support and 119 opposed; the accompanying TIR described income, age, and disability demographics.
- The Board denied the conversion as presumptively not bona fide based on less-than-50% resident support; staff and planning commission recommended denial.
- After Sequoia Park Associates v. Sonoma County influenced a repeal of the ordinance, the matter was remanded for reconsideration and additional hearings.
- The trial court and the Court of Appeal ultimately held that the Board could consider resident survey results when evaluating the conversion, not merely whether formal compliance occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether survey results may be considered in the decision | Goldstone: consider only compliance with 66427.5 | County/HOA: survey results must be considered in the hearing | Survey results may be considered |
| Scope of the hearing under 66427.5(e) | Scope is limited to compliance with the statute | Results may inform discretionary denial of a bona fide conversion | Scope allows consideration of survey results within hearing |
| Whether the conversion can be denied for lack of resident support | Conversion refusal cannot hinge on majority support; bona fide conversion matters | Legislature empowered denial to prevent non-bona fide conversions | County may rely on survey results to deny a conversion |
| Role of the 2002 amendments and related caselaw (El Dorado, Sequoia Park, Colony Cove) | Owner’s compliance and bona fide conversion require strict adherence to statute | Legislature intended to allow consideration of residents’ support to prevent displacement | Statutory framework permits consideration; the Board acted within authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, 176 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (invalidated ordinance relying on rigid percentage presumptions)
- Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 187 Cal.App.4th 1487 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (survey contents are relevant; not purely ministerial duties)
- El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (limits on local authority to impose extra conditions beyond 66427.5)