El Dorado's attorney Mark D. Alpert made his case to city council members why the part should be subdivided into 302 resident owned lots.

Charles Richardson stated, “It’s all been a threat over rent control” and that the owner threatened if the residents voted for rent control the park would be turned into a family park; which it now is.

With standing room only over 50 people, mostly residents of El Dorado Mobilehome Park, attended the Fillmore City Council Meeting on Friday November 2, 2012. Just about all had come to voice their opposition to the Park’s subdivision/vesting map hearing.

The legal battle between the City of Fillmore and El Dorado Park began on March 5, 2009 when the owners of the park applied to subdivide the one 37.5 acre lot consisting of 302 mobile home spaces into 302 resident owned lots and the City denied the application. On September 28, 2009 a lawsuit was filed by the owners of the park. Later a survey of park residents was conducted, which was required by law, showing they overwhelmingly oppose the conversion.

At the May 9, 2012 City Council meeting a proposal was made to the Council by the park owners to settle the court case, giving the residents some concessions that included five year leases offered to all residents with rent increases being equal to the change in Consumer Price Index (with a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 8% along with an application for a 10% rent credit to low and very low income households). This was rejected by Council Members Jamey Brooks, Eduardo Gonzalez and Brian Sipes with Mayor Gayle Washburn and Council Member Steve Conaway agreeing to the settlement.

At the time the City could only reject the application if the owners had not done all that is required before applying, which includes a survey of residents’ opinion on the conversion, which had been done. But a recent court ruling now allows the City to take the results of the survey into consideration before approving or disapproving the conversion application.

The City has spent over $236,000 to date defending the residents of the park and at Friday’s council meeting Mike Cirillo with Star Management, the company that manages the park, told the Council that the litigation cost may continue if this is not settled.

El Dorado Park owner’s legal council Attorney Mark D. Alpert began his address to the Council by accusing them of a Brown Act violation due to their discussing the case in closed session and then the Council admitting to having done exactly that. He went on to discuss the benefits of the conversion which included a higher tax base for the City and that the residents are guaranteed the right to rent and not buy. The rent that would then include a form of rent control and there are no down sides to the conversion. He then gave a scathing address to the Council while giving an opinion of why this has continued in court and with a special Friday meeting stating, “It could not be more obvious that this remand hearing was scheduled on a Friday evening just days before the November City Council election for political purposes. City Council members who are candidates for re-election obviously see this as an opportunity to gain a block of votes to serve the interests of the residents of El Dorado……The City has nothing to gain by denying the application, except perhaps for some perceived short term political advantage for certain council members.” Alpert then argued the survey, which was taken two years ago, focused on the resident’s approval of becoming a family park and not buying their lots; therefore it should not be considered by the Council or the courts since the age restriction was removed.

The evening’s political attacks continued as Sandy Pella, who is running for City Council, pointed the finger in the other direction and accused three others who are also running for council seats of backing the owner of the park and attacking the residents, stating that a it was all the work of the three in conjunction with a former mayor.

Many of the residents of El Dorado addressed the Council voicing their objection to the conversion. Charles Richardson stated “It’s all been a threat over rent control” and that the owner threatened that if the residents voted for rent control the park would be turned into a family park; which it now is. He went on to say that he had moved to El Dorado in 2004 and that the park has “gone downhill” since moving there. Darlene Morantz spoke of residents concern, saying that many of the residents thought they would live there the rest of their lives. Laura Fictor said that when her lease expired her rent was raised to market value adding over $100 per month to her rent. She went on to say that her main concern was the resale value of her mobile home and that no one would buy it at the price she wanted. She said she is worried she might have to pay to move it and there is a possibility the mobile home would fall apart if moved and probably be condemned.

Council Members Eduardo Gonzalez and Steve Conaway did not attend the hearing, and replacing City Attorney Tammy Israel were Fillmore Deputy Attorney Jeff M. Malawy and Special Legal Council Charmaine Buehmer, both legal council to the El Dorado Estates vs. City of Fillmore. Malawy addressed Alpert’s accusation that a Brown Act had occurred stating there was pending litigation and there was nothing improper done in the closed session and went on to advise the Council that the new court ruling could be considered in their decision.

One of the questions the Council felt should have been relevant in this legal battle was whether a county/city may take into account the residents’ opinion and the results of a resident survey in deciding whether to grant or deny the application. A recent California Supreme Court decision, Goldstome v. County of Santa Cruz, determined a city could consider the opposition of mobile home park residents to the conversion, but only if the survey were legitimate and not a sham, when making a decision. And in doing so the city could deny the park owners application. This item has come before the Council three previous times and has always been denied.

Washburn gave a statement saying she had been involved in this (the battle with the park owner and residents) even before being on the Council and that it has always been about the cost of rent.

The recent court ruling was more than enough for the Council to vote unanimously to deny the Vesting Tentative Track Map for lack of resident support.

There was one more item on the agenda and that was the second reading and approval of shortening the water/sewer billing from 31 days to 19 calendar days which means there will be less time from the time a resident receives their bill to when it is due. The Council gave it a unanimous vote of yes.