Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 31, 2015No. B250111Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
BIGELOW, P. J.,
Concurring and Dissenting. — I concur in part and respectfully dissent in part.
I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the City of Carson (City) properly considered the issue of whether Carson Harbor Village, Ltd.’s (the park) proposed conversion was inconsistent with the City’s general plan. As I indicated in Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson (Mar. 30, *782010, B211777) (nonpub. opn.), I do not read the mobilehome park conversion statute (see Gov. Code, § 66427.5)1 to have established a stand-alone process granting a park’s residents a simple veto by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Dunex, Inc. v. City of OceansideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut CreekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012