Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles
55 Cal. 4th 783
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Palisades Bowl sought to convert a 170-unit mobilehome park in the coastal zone from tenant occupancy to resident ownership but failed to file coastal development and Mello Act applications initially.
- The trial court granted a peremptory writ mandating the City to deem Palisades Bowl’s map complete and evaluate it without Coastal Act or Mello Act compliance.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the Coastal Act and the Mello Act principles require state-law compliance even for mobilehome park conversions under the Subdivision Map Act.
- Three statutory schemes—Coastal Act, Mello Act, and Subdivision Map Act—govern development in the coastal zone and can have overlapping applicability to park conversions.
- The majority holds that mobilehome park conversions to resident ownership are developments under the Coastal Act and thus require coastal permits and Mello Act compliance, overriding Palisades Bowl’s 66427.5-centric view.
- The dissent argues that 66427.5 governs only the process for compliance with that section and that a park conversion does not change density or intensity of land use, so Coastal Act and Mello Act do not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership count as development under the Coastal Act? | Palisades Bowl: no, conversion does not change density/intensity. | Werdegar majority: yes, subdivision-like changes fall within development. | Yes; conversions are developments requiring Coastal Act permits. |
| Does Government Code section 66427.5 preempt or exempt such conversions from Coastal Act and Mello Act compliance? | Palisades Bowl: section 66427.5 preempts other state laws. | City: section 66427.5 does not preclude other state-law compliance and hearings. | No; section 66427.5 does not exempt from Coastal Act or Mello Act requirements. |
| Is section 66427.5 interpretable to require exclusive review limited to section 66427.5, excluding other statutes? | Limit hearing scope to compliance with section 66427.5. | Harmonize with Coastal Act and Mello Act; additional review possible. | No; hearing scope may address other state-law compliance. |
| Do the Coastal Act and the Mello Act apply to park-conversion proceedings even when the Subdivision Map Act governs the map process? | These acts should not apply if only a title change occurs. | Coastal Act and Mello Act apply to developments within the coastal zone, including conversions. | Yes; both acts apply alongside the Subdivision Map Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yost v. Thomas, 36 Cal.3d 561 (1984) (Coastal Act interpretation and liberal construction)
- DeCicco v. California Coastal Com., 199 Cal.App.4th 947 (2011) (development scope beyond traditional land-use notions)
- Gualala Festivals Committee v. California Coastal Com., 183 Cal.App.4th 60 (2010) (coastal permit exemptions and flexibility of the Act)
- Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park, 47 Cal.App.4th 1168 (1996) (timing and scope of section 66427.5 effects)
- El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 (2002) (limitations on local conditions to prevent sham conversions)
- Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, 176 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2009) (preemption of local regulation of park conversions)
- Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 187 Cal.App.4th 1487 (2010) (Legislature's intent to limit local regulation of conversions)
- Gardner v. County of Sonoma, 29 Cal.4th 990 (2003) (Subdivision Map Act as primary regulatory control)