Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park - appe J - 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK n.wos•*` ` JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERIC NOTICE OF ACTION November 30, 2009 Boyd Hill Hart, King and Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION) REQUEST: To subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acre into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes; and create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. In addition, the request includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, APPLICANT: Boyd Hill, of Hart, King and Coldren LOCATION: 20701 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DATE OF ACTION: November 16, 2009 On Monday, November 16, 2009, the City Council held a Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map 17296. The City Council approved the Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny with Findings Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision). If you have any questions, please contact Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner, at (714) 536- 5561, or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, ry ¢ ,yw ian L. Flynn,�CMC y Clerk c: Robert S. Coldren Attachments: Findings for Denial — TTM 17296 Page 5 of the 11-16-09 City Council Action Agenda Suter Cities.- Anio, Japan ® V,Vaitakere, New Zealaild (Telephone: 714-536-52.27) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1 . This project is located in the RMP (Residential Mobile home Park) zone and does not comply with the requirements of that zone. The five additional lots created in conjunction with the mobile home park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq. ft. per mobile home(total 1,000 sq. ft.). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobile home park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast corner of the mobile home park. Further, the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq. ft. common open space pursuant to Section 210.14 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft. in addition, the proposed additional lots will occupy an existing office and pool which constitutes approximately I I,193 sq. ft. of common open space. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 dated and received on August 4, 2009 for the subdivision of approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park and expansion of five additional lots for a total of 309 lots for ownership purposes is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RM1I-25 (Residential Medium-High Density- Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property and applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed tentative trap is not consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d): Establish a common "gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services such as child or adult- care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. LU 9.3.2(c): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft., the proposed five lot expansion does not provide the required 1,000 sq. ft. of additional common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. Furthermore the subdivision would reduce the existing common open space by 1 1,193 sq. fl. in that the four of the five additional lots are proposed to be located in an area used for offices meeting rooms and a pool. PC Staff Report 1-1-M 17296 attachment No. 1 a) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-003 with findings for approval, and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3847, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Map 33 (Sectional Map 28-5- 11) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to Pre- Zone the 6.2-Acre "Goodell" Property Located in the County of Orange to 3.2 Acres of Residential Low Density, 2.0 Acres of Open Space - Parks and Recreation and 1.0 Acre of Coastal Conservation With 6.2 Acres of Coastal Zone Overlay (Zoning Map Amendment No. 06-03);" and, Approved 6-1 (Hardy no) b) Approve Resolution No. 2009-69, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving a Property Tax Exchange Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange Regarding the Annexation of the 6.2 Acre Goodell Property to the City of Huntington Beach;" and, Approved 6-1 (Hardy no) c) Recommend approval of Annexation No. 06-002 to the Local Agency Formation Commission. Approved 7-0 3. (City Council) Request to consider appeal submitted by Robert S. Coldren of Hart, King & Coldren of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's recommendation to Deny with Findings Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision). Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial. Approved 7-0 4. (City Council) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3848 approving Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 09-006 amending Chapter 211 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), and Resolution No. 2009-72 adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 09-003 (Religious Assembly Uses in Visitor Commercial District). Recommended Action: a) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-006 with findings for approval and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3848, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 211 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance titled Commercial Districts;" and, b) Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 09-003 with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2009-72, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 09-003 and Requesting its Certification by the California Coastal Commission." Approved 7-0 Council/Agency Action Agenda— Monday, November 16, 2009 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Z6 - !2� / Deferred/Continued to: App ve ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ �Denied ,V)Z;'Cit erk' gnatur Council Meeting Date: 11/16/2009 Departmen ID Number: PL09-25 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO CIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINIST R PREPARED BY: SCOTT HESS, DIRECTOR OF PLA NIN SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION —APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL) Fstatemerit of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Robert S. Coldren of Hart, King & Coldren, of the Planning Commission's denial with findings of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). The application represents a request to subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes. In addition, this request includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request and the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending denial of the request. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on September 22, 2009: A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions(s): 1. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for approval." 2. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Boyd Hill, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Appellant: Robert S. Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. — Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park) G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -2- 11/4/2009 2:10 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PE09-25 Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 represents a request for the following: A. To subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes; and create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. B. The applicant has also filed an appeal of the applicable code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed tentative tract map is a request to subdivide an existing 39.2 gross acre (37.06 net acre), for-rent, mobile home park with a total of 304 units into 309 lots for ownership purposes. The tentative tract map depicts the creation of five additional lots for mobile home coaches bringing the total number of units to 309. The applicant proposes to subdivide the "for-rent" park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots (ATTACHMENT NO. 3). The project also includes an appeal filed by the applicant on August 27, 2009,of the applicable code requirements. The applicant contends that a majority of the code requirements identified as being applicable to the project are "unlawful" pursuant to State law (ATTACHMENT NO. 7). Permitting and enforcement authority over the mobile home park lies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD enforces the California Code of Regulation, Title 25, which establishes development and operational standards for the mobile home park. The fire authority, however, lies with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Subdivision of the park for proposes of converting it from for-rent to ownership is regulated by various provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), Title 25, Subdivisions. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission unanimously denied the applicant's request at a public hearing on September 22, 2009, with findings for denial as recommended by Planning Staff (ATTACHMENT NO. 6). Written comments were received at the hearing from the applicant and one resident; the applicant and applicant's representative gave verbal testimony in support of the project, and six residents of the mobile home park spoke in opposition. Testimony in support relied on State law regulating the processing of mobile home park subdivisions and also indicated that the survey of support is valid because the owner was unaware of an existing homeowners association at the time the survey was conducted. Testimony in opposition centered on two main issues: that the residents did not have enough information to make an informed decision' and that there is numerous unresolved maintenance issues within the mobile home park. The president of the Huntington GARCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -3- 11/4/2009 210 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 Shorecliff's Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association (HOA) also stated that the HOA was in place when the residents were surveyed. C. APPEAL: On October 1, 2009, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed project (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). The appeal letter cites State law, court decisions, and opinions stating that the findings for denial are unlawful. In addition, the letter states that staff did not respond to key issues and refused to work with the applicant in a candid, constructive, and open manner. The appeal letter states that Findings 1 & 2 "are not lawful" because general plan and zoning requirements are not applicable to this project. Staff does not support the applicant's contention that the City's requirements are not applicable because the tentative tract map application depicts the creation of 5 additional lots which is evidence that the project is not only a conversion from rental to resident ownership, but includes an expansion and is therefore considered a new subdivision. The appeal letter states that Finding 3 "is not lawful" because a city cannot impose its own criteria for the conversion impact report. Staff does not agree with this contention because the City is not imposing any criteria for the report. Rather, the City is unable to conclude that the State law requirement for an impact report is satisfied because the report submitted by the applicant fails to address the impact of conversion. The appeal letter states that Finding 4 "is not lawful" because the "Planning Commission had a mandatory duty to find that the Applicant complied with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5(d) to submit resident survey results." Staff received comments and verbal testimony from the homeowner's association president indicating that no agreement was made between the homeowners association and the subdivider prior to the survey being sent out. The applicant contends that an agreement was made with the "park activities" committee. However, no evidence of an agreement has been provided. Based on the lack of sufficient information, staff believes compliance with State law has not been met. In reviewing the proposed subdivision and tentative map, staff prepared a list of code requirements applicable to the project should the project be approved. The code requirements outline applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements, excerpted from the HBZSO and Municipal Code which are required only after approval and prior to recordation of a final map. The list�for example,requires the submission of CC&Rs and a hydraulic and hydrology analysis, payment of fees, and process for final map review. Staff does not support the applicant's contentions that these requirements are "unlawful" in that Government Code Section 66427.5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Government Code to apply. However, the appeal of the code requirements becomes a moot point as a result of Staff's recommendation to deny TTM No. 17296. GARCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -4- 11/4/2009 2:10 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMIBER:PL09-25 D. STAFF ANALYSIS: A complete overview of TTM No. 17296 along with recommended findings for denial is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 5). The analysis below summarizes the primary issues and reasons for a recommendation of denial. Park Expansion & Zoning Applicability The submitted application including the creation of five additional lots for purposes of increasing the number of mobile home coaches from 304 to 309 is considered a new subdivision application. All new subdivision applications within the Residential Mobile Home Park (RMP) zone are subject to development standards required by Section 210.14 of the HBZSO. Pursuant to Section 210.14 each additional lot created for a mobile home requires 200 sq. ft. of common open space or 1,000 sq. ft. for the five additional lots. Currently,the park does not conform to this provision in that a total of only 38,043 sq. ft. of common open space is provided in lieu of the minimum 60,800 sq. ft. Furthermore, the proposed lots will remove 11,193 sq. ft. of common open space. The five additional lots increase the parks non-conformity and do not comply with the HBZSO. Report on Impacts of Conversion on the Tenants The conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership is authorized by Government Code Section 66427.5 of the SMA (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). The SMA provides that the subdivider prepare a report on the impact of the conversion upon tenants of the mobile home park and provide a survey of resident support for the subdivision. The applicant prepared and submitted a report entitled "Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents" (ATTACHMENT NO. 9). However, the report does not identify the method upon which the non-purchasing residents will have some expectations of the rents as prescribed by Government Code Section 66427.5. In addition, the report does not estimate the potential sales price of lots after subdivision and sales price information was not available to residents when the resident survey of support was conducted. In fact, the report summarily concludes that because there is no displacement, there will be no impact. Staff considers the submitted impact report as insufficient in that it is not a report on the impacts of the conversion upon residents of the mobile home park. The report only discusses displacement and fails to discuss any other economic impacts of conversion to the residents. Survey of Resident Support Government Code Section 66427.5 requires that a survey of resident support be conducted in agreement with a homeowners association independent of the subdivider or mobile home park owner and that the decision making body reviewing the proposed subdivision consider compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 during its deliberations. A written survey was conducted by The Star Companies, the mobile home park management GARCAs\2009\PL09-24 (Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -5- 11/4/2009 2:10 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 consider compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 during its deliberations. A written survey was conducted by The Star Companies, the mobile home park management company, in April 2009. The results of the survey were submitted to the City in May 2009 (ATTACHMENT NO. 10). No information on how the survey results were tabulated was provided or who the surveys were sent to (i.e. each person or each space). There were a total of 296 surveys sent out. Of the 296; 188 surveys were completed and returned. The survey results indicate that 46 persons were in support of the conversion of the mobile home park to resident ownership, 45 persons were not in support of the conversion, and 97 persons declined to state their opinion. The survey results indicate that insufficient information has been disclosed to the tenants resulting in a majority of the residents stating that they do not support the subdivision or do not have an option regarding the subdivision. Comments received from the homeowner's association president indicate that no agreement was made between the homeowners association and the subdivider prior to the survey being sent out. The applicant contends that an agreement was made with the "park activities" committee. However, no evidence of an agreement has been provided. Based on the lack of sufficient information, staff believes compliance with State law has not been met. E. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the proposed subdivision for the following reasons and findings in Attachment No. 1: ® The subdivision will result in an increase in the number of mobile home sites from 304 to 309; ® Additional lots created reduces the amount of existing common open space and does not comply with the minimum common open space requirement of 1,000 sq. ft.; • The impacts to residents associated with conversion of the park to resident ownership are not discussed or analyzed in an impact report; and, • Evidence that the survey of support was prepared in agreement with a homeowners association independent of the owner was not provided. Strategic Plan Goal: The project is not consistent with the following Strategic Plan Goal: Preserve the quality of our neighborhoods, maintain open space, and provide for the preservation of historic neighborhoods. The additional lots created reduce the area of common open space and do not comply with the minimum open space requirement of common area for new lots. Environmental Status: The proposed project is considered categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Existing Facilities, Section 15301(k) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides that division of existing multiple-family or single-family residences into common-interest ownership are exempt where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt. C:\Documents and Settings\stephenj\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\BS39Q5GL\PL09-24 (Shorecliffs Appeal)(2).doc -6- 11/4/2009 4:55 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 Attachment(s): . . - Number No. ® - 1. Suggested Findings for Denial — Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 Planning Commission & Staff Recommendation 2. Appeal Letter from Robert S. Coldren of Hart, King & Coldren, dated October 1, 2009 3. Project Narratives, received September 18, 2008 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 dated August 4, 2009 5 Planning Commission Staff Report—Tentative Tract Map No. 17296, dated September 22, 2009 6. Draft Minutes of September 22, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting 7. Appeal of Code Requirements Letter, dated August 27, 2009 8. Government Code Section 66427.5 9. Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents, dated March, 2009 10. Survey of Residents, dated May 4, 2009 11. Planning Commission Notice of Action, dated September 23, 2009 — Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 12. PowerPoint Presentation Slides GARCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -7- 11/4/2009 2:10 PM ATTACHMENT # 1L] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: l. This project is located in the RM'(Residential Mobilehome Park)zone and does not comply with the requirements of that zone. The five additional lots created in conjunction with the mobilehome park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq.ft.per mobilehome(total 1,000 sq. ft.). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast corner of the mobilehome park. Further,the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq.ft. common open space pursuant to Section 210.14 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO). The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft. In addition,the proposed additional lots will occupy an existing office and pool which constitutes approximately 11,193 sq. ft. of common open space. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 dated and received on August 4,2009 for the subdivision of approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park and expansion of five additional lots for a total of 309 lots for ownership purposes is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density—Max. 25 units per acre)on the subject property and applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision-Ordinance. The proposed tentative map is not consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares,mini-parks,or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d): Establish a common"gathering"or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services such as child or adult- care,recreation,public meeting rooms,recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses,or similar facilities. LU 9.3.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft.,the proposed five lot expansion does not provide the required 1,000 sq. ft.of additional common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. Furthermore the subdivision would reduce the existing common open space by 11,193 sq. ft. in that the four of the five additional lots are proposed to be located in an area used for offices meeting rooms and a pool. PC Staff Report—TTM 17296 Attachment Nc, I 3. The Impact Report dated and received March 6, 2009 is not consistent with Government Code Section 66427.5 because it does not analyze the impact of the conversion on residents. Economic impacts associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure; estimated sales price of the lots; and other costs such property taxes and homeowners association dues are not discussed and analyzed in the report.Nor does the report identify the method upon which the non-purchasing residents will have some exceptions of the rents as prescribed by Government Code Section 66427.5. 4. Adequate evidence has not been provided that the Tenant Survey dated and received May 4,2009 was prepared pursuant to an agreement with a homeowners association independent of the subdivider in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5. PC Staff Report-TTM 17296 Attadunt ,'t=<<o,, i ATTACHMENT #2 + i P110, HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com October 1, 2009 Our File Number: 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street N Huntington Beach, CA 92648 = C=11 c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk o RE. Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Appeal of 9-22-09 Planning Commission Action Denying == ¢ Application/Notice of Action a _ co Dear City Council Members: This letter constitutes the Park owner Applicants' Appeal of the September 22, 2009 Planning Commission "action" denying the above-referenced Application. A copy of the City's "Notice of Action" is attached hereto as Attachment 1. This Appeal is made pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 248.20. Enclosed herewith is the Applicants' Appeal fee in the amount of$2,704 pursuant to the City's August 16, 2009 Fee Schedule. Park owner Applicants and Appellants, Shorecliff, LP; JS Stadium LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; and Shorecliff Main, LP request that all communication in this matter be referred to the Applicant's Authorized Agent, Hart, King & Coldren. The address of the Appellants/Applicants for purposes of this Appeal is the address of their Authorized Agent: Hart, King & Coldren; 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor; Santa Ana, CA 92707. Specific information pertaining to the grounds for the Appeal has been set forth in great detail in comprehensive letters addressed from the Applicants' Agent to the Planning Commission and Planning Department prior to the Planning Commission "action," including two letters dated September 18, 2009, a letter dated September 17, 2009, a letter dated September 2, 2009, a letter dated August 27, 2009 and a letter dated August 25, 2009. These letters constitute part of the administrative record before the Planning Commission and are already before the City / Council and therefore are being re-submitted with this Appeal for your convenience, and are incorporated herein by this reference. The grounds for the Appeal are summarized and set forth in the remainder of this letter. As the Application form states, the Application is for "Subdivision of Mobilehome Park." As the September 18, 2008 !etter accompanying the Application explains, the Application for subdivision is to enable the conversion of the existing Huntington Shorecliffs rental mobilehome park to resident ownership. A Professional Law Corporation 2CC Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 HK& C MART. KING & rCLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 2 The California Legislature has made clear that the State policy is to encourage conversion of rental mobilehome parks to resident ownership: 'For 25 years, the state has had the policy "to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership." (Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subd. (b)) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma (2009) 176 Cal.AppAth 1270, 1298) That State policy is part of the Legislature's comprehensive regulation of mobilehome parks to the exclusion of regulation by cities: The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation. Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script. The State's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map act in 1991. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1293 [underline added]) Indeed, the State has taken away from cities authority regarding design, construction and use of mobilehome parks: These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design" of mobilehome parks. (Health & Saf. Code, § 18253 .... (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1281; see also Health & Saf. Code, § 18300 [Mobilehome Parks Act express preemption of local regulation]) Thus, when the State enacted the mobilehome park conversion statutory section of the Subdivision Map Act (Govt. Code § 66427.5), the State intended also to include existing mobilehome conversions in its broad preemptive exclusion of local agency regulation: Section 66427.5 does not stand alone, If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control, that 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 3 day is long past. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1279) The Legislature established its preemption of city requirements for existing mobilehome park conversion in the express language of Government Code Section 66427.5 (e): The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. [underline added] The California Court of Appeal has held that the language of Government Code Section 66427.5 (e) constitutes an express preemption of local agency authority over existing mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership: We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1297) Thus, when cities are considering an application to subdivide an existing mobilehome park for conversion to resident ownership, they are limited to a mere ministerial checklist consideration of whether the applicant has complied with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5: That is what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power, but no more. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1296) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 K C HART, KING & C:OLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 4 The local requirements for existing mobilehome park conversion invalidated in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma included the following: As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application. Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66427.5, the application (1) "is consistent with the general plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2) demonstrates that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"; (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety"; and (4) the proposed conversion "is a bona-fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. 14 (Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c), subds. (1)(c)— (f), (2).) The Ordinance also requires that, following approval of the conversion application, the subdivider "shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public," for a period of 90 days "from the issuance of the subdivision public report ... pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 11018.2." (Id., § 25-39.7(d), subd. (2).) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1299) The California Court of Appeal concluded that cities could not consider general plan or zoning compliance, could not consider whether there was analysis regarding long-term management and maintenance of common facilities and infrastructure, could not consider existing health and safety conditions, and could not even impose criteria for satisfaction of the Government Code Section 66427.5 requirements: However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1299) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 "K&C HART, KIN13 F COLDRENI City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 5 The California Court of Appeal determination makes sense given the context of existing mobilehome park conversions: It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation. As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations." (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1295) The California Court of Appeal rejected arguments that cities should be allowed to go behind the applicant's compliance with the express requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 to investigate the circumstances of the compliance, such as imposing criteria for the resident impact report: Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept; if no invite, supplementary local action. For example, a subdivider is required to "file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents," but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report. And there is some force to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici: "Surely, the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content ....[¶] ... [¶] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1294) Based on the foregoing legal analysis, it is clear that the Planning Commission "Findings for Denial" are unlawful and invalid under the holding of Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma. The remainder of the this Appeal letter will address each particular finding. FINDINGS 1 &2 ARE NOT LAWFUL Findings 1 and 2 deny the Application based on the City's unlawful imposition of general plan and zoning requirements on the Application. As the above citations demonstrate, Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma made clear that general plan and zoning requirements cannot lawfully be imposed for approval of a subdivision that is for conversion of an existing 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 F AK&C HART. KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 6 mobilehome park to resident ownership. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1294) Findings 1 and 2 attempt to seize upon the Applicants' admitted mistaken belief that their existing HCD permit was for more than 304 spaces. Thus, Findings 1 & 2 seek to impose the planning and zoning requirements as if the Application were seeking to expand an existing nonconforming use. But that is not what the Application states. It clearly states on the Application form that the Applicants are seeking to subdivide their existing mobilehome park. Also within the cover letter, the Applicants make clear that their proposed subdivision is based on what the Applicants believed were the number of spaces under the existing HCD permit. Both the City and the Applicants proceeded through the entire planning process predicated on the notion that Government Code section 66427.5 governed the processing of this application. Thus, by definition, all parties agreed that the subdivision was of a physical existing mobilehome park for the number of spaces permitted by HCD. To the extent staff may have been "laying in the weeds" to convert this application into one for a non-66427.5 subdivision, staff's "gotcha" last minute abandonment of this position reflects unwarranted hostility to the project. The refusal of staff and the Planning Commission to accept for filing the offered substitute/corrected/conditioned map showing the 304 actual existing occupied lots is at the core of this appeal. The City's position that it has authority to approve the expansion of the number of existing lots and to thereby impose general plan and zoning code requirements as a result thereof is completely in excess of the City's jurisdiction. The City cannot approve new lots within the Park, as that is within the exclusive purview of HCD and was never contemplated. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, only HCD has the authority to create new lots within the Park. "Park lot lines shall not be created, moved, shifted, or altered without a permit issues to the park owner or operator by [HCD] ...." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18610.5) HCD authority over the creation of new lots is part of its comprehensive authority over "construction, use, occupancy and maintenance of [mobilehome] parks and lots within the parks." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18610) The Mobilehome Parks Act plainly states that the Act "supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county ...." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300 (a)) The California Court of Appeal has held that Section 18300 (a) is an express preemption of city regulation of mobilehome park design, construction, use and maintenance. (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1489-1490) HCD expressly reiterated in a recent Information Bulletin that cities do not have authority to impose requirements pertaining the number of lots that will be approved for the conversion of 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 HART, KING & COLOREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 7 existing mobilehome parks. Instead, the City only has authority to impose a condition for approval that the number of lots for the final map will be consistent with the number of HCD approved "lots" in the then existing HCD permit: The establishment, marking, and movement of lot lines are governed by Title 25, CCR, sections 1104, 1105, 1330, and 1428. Landscaping is not a proper form of lot marking, and lot lines must either be those in existence or moved and approved pursuant to CCR section 1105. A local government may require that the final approved lot lines be those consistent with the requirements of Title 25, since the local government has the authority to approve final lot lines as part of a subdivision approval; however, their location and marking must be consistent with Title 25. (April 21, 2008 HCD Information Bulletin 2008— 10 (MP), page 6) Therefore, the Planning Commission's finding of denial based on an incorrect unlawful assumption that the City has authority over the number of lots within the Park is in itself unlawful and must be overturned by the City Council. While not required by law, the Applicants are enclosing with this Appeal eleven (11) copies of a revised Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 that corresponds to the existing HCD permit for 304 spaces or "lots". Note that the revised tentative map does nothing more than remove the "offending" five lot lines (the "office 4" and the "orphan" lot at the Southwest corner) and thus any argument that additional "planning" or "review" by staff or the Commission represents a practical impediment requiring the Applicants to go back to square one with a new application is disingenuous at best. The Planning Commission and Planning Department unreasonably refused to accept the revised Map, claiming incorrectly that provisions of the Subdivision Map Act pertaining to the time for consideration thereof prevented their acceptance of the revised Map. Nothing in the Subdivision Map Act prevents acceptance of a revised Map to correct errors in the depiction of existing conditions. Indeed many cities and counties accept revised maps without requiring new applications and fees. The Planning Department and other City staff do not need to conduct additional review of the revised Map because all the Map does is show the existing Park improvements and HCD approved "lots", which have already been studied by City Staff. It would be a violation of the Mitigation Fee Act to require an unreasonable additional application fee to submit the revised map when no additional study is required. (See Govt. Code §66014 (a) [application fees cannot exceed reasonable cost of providing service]) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 HKo_`6_`3<C HART. KING & CC7L.DREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 8 In any event, the Planning Department and other City staff now have plenty of time to review the revised Map before the City Council hearing on the Appeal, which is a de novo review of the Application with a new time period for review. (See Govt. Code § 66452.5 (a) (3); City Code §§ 248.04, 248.20) FINDING 3 IS NOT LAWFUL If any issue was answered clearly by the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, it was the issue of whether a city could impose its own criteria for the Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) conversion impact report. As the above citations to that case demonstrate, the Court of Appeal answered that question with a rresounding "no"! (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1294) There are two important policy reasons behind the State prohibition against local agency criteria for reports on the impact of the conversion on residents. First, the Report cannot provide additional substantive protection to residents against economic displacement. Government Code Section 66427.5 already provides the exclusive statutory protections against economic displacement of residents resulting from conversion. Section 66426.5 (a) requires that the Park owner offer the residents the option of either purchasing their lots or continuing to lease their that lot from the Park owner. Therefore, residents will not be forced to terminate their leases and will not be forced to purchase, but will be provided a valuable option to purchase if they so choose. Also, Section 66427.5 (f) limits rent increases for residents who choose to continue leasing. For non low income residents, their rents, if below market value at the time of conversion, can only be raised to market value over a four year period. For low income residents, their rents can only be raised by an annual percentage that is equal to the average percentage rent increases during the four years prior to conversion. Therefore, the Report is simply a vehicle for transmitting information to the tenants about how the statutory protections prevent economic impacts to tenants resulting from conversion. Given those statutory protections, conversion should not result in actual or economic displacement of residents. The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates recognized the broad reach of those exclusive statutory provisions containbd in Section 66427.5 in protecting residents against economic displacement: 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 HK&C HART, KIND & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 9 The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuring that conversion must comport with the General Plan, especially its housing element, because that is where the economic dislocation will be manifest, by reducing the inventory of low cost housing. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(3).) In this sense however, section 66427.5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates, as it does make provision in subdivision (f) for helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1300 [underline added]) The Court of Appeal in the earlier case of El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, in comparing Government Code Section 66427.5 with Government Code Section 66427.4, clearly recognized that conversion under the limitations of Section 66427.5 will not result in economic displacement of residents: We first examine section 66427.4. It applies to "conversion of a mobilehome park to another use." Conversely, it would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a .shopping center or another different use of the property. In that situation, there would be "displaced mobilehome park residents" who would need to find "adequate space in a mobilehome park" for their mobilehomes and themselves. Thus, an impact report is required. . (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161) Second, the City's subdivision approval is simply the first and a preliminary step in the conversion process. In the normal situation, conversion begins with compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, followed by approval from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq.) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1177) After the subdivision is approved by local government, the Department of Real Estate regulates the marketing and sale of the individual units in the park. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11010 et seq.) It is illegal to sell subdivided property before obtaining a 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 "K&C HART, KING & CC.7LC)RFN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 10 public report from the Real Estate Commissioner. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11018) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1160) The City's action on the subdivision application occurs at a stage in the process where significant information pertaining to conversion such as lot purchase price and homeowner association obligations have not yet been studied or developed: Although a tenant cannot make a rational decision to buy, continue to rent, or move his or her mobilehome unless the tenant is given an option price and a proposed rental price, the tenant is not required to make such a decision until after the Department of Real Estate has approved the project and issued its public report. (Bus. & Prof Code § 11010.9) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1179) While the filing of the application and compliance with Section 66427.5 give notice to the residents of their option to purchase, the subdivider does not need to disclose a tentative price at that time because the residents do not need to decide whether to purchase at that time. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1180) In fact, the Subdivided Lands Act prevents premature disclosure of lot price information: Indeed, the giving of the disclosure notice does not authorize the subdivider to offer to sell the units before obtaining Department of Real Estate approval. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11010.9, subd. (c).) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1180) Thus, all that is required for the Report is that it give notice to the residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the statutory protections for those residents pertaining to post-conversion rent increases. At the latter time [the subdivision approval by the City], the subdivider must only notify residents that they will have an option to purchase their sites or to continue to rent them. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1180) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 HK&C HART, KING & COLDRE_N City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 11 Thus, the Report is merely a preliminary notice to residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the provisions contained in Government Code Section 66427.5 pertaining to post-conversion rent increases for those tenants. City review of the Report regarding the purchase option is simply not necessary or possible at this time because most of the information pertaining to potential purchase is not known at this time. Therefore, Finding No. 3 which imposes City criteria for the Report is not lawful and must be overturned by the City Council. FINDING 4 IS UNLAWFUL As the Sequoia Park Associates case discussion on conversion impact reports illustrates, the City is not authorized to go "behind the curtain" regarding Applicants' compliance with the checklist requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and impose its own requirements for the Application. All that Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) requires the Applicants to do is submit to the City the results of the resident survey. Sequoia Park Associates makes clear that cities cannot even impose their own requirements duplicating the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5. (See Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1300) The Applicants not only submitted the resident survey results, but also they submitted the actual survey forms themselves to the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Planning Commission had a mandatory duty to find that the Applicant complied with the requirement of Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) to submit resident survey results, and the City Council must overturn Finding No. 4. Assuming the Planning Commission had the authority to impose conditions regarding the conduct of the survey that duplicate Government Code Section 66427.5 and investigate "behind the curtain" to see if the Applicant conducted the survey in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 (d), there is substantial evidence in the record that the Applicants' complied with Government Code Section 66427.5 (d). Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) (2) only requires an agreement regarding the resident survey with a homeowner's association if there is an association: The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. [bold & underline added] 36014.11 2/4839-3831-6036v.1 HK&C HART, KIN(; & COL.DREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 12 The Mike Cirillo Affidavit submitted with the September 18, 2009 letter regarding the tenant survey states that he made an investigation and that there was no existing homeowner's association or officers with whom he could enter into an agreement pertaining to the survey at the time the survey was mailed to the residents in March 2009. The Mike Cirillo Affidavit also contains compelling, even conclusive evidence attached as exhibit 1 thereof that there was no existing homeowner's association in March 2009 in the form of the now existing homeowner's association's flyers that were distributed saying "More than ever we need an HOX and "New officers are urgently needed". Such statements made in flyers distributed by proponents of what is presently a homeowner's association expressly contradict the position of that present homeowners' association that it was in existence at the time the survey was mailed to the residents. The resident survey issue is essentially a red herring in the context of the Application. The resident survey requirement of Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) was enacted by the California Legislature for the express intent to address the issue of "sham" conversions discussed by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1164-1165. A"sham" conversion refers to a conversion initiated by obtaining city subdivision approval solely for the purpose of escaping local rent control. Because the City of Huntington Beach does not impose rent control on mobilehome parks, there is no issue of sham conversion for the City to consider. The resident survey results or the conduct of that survey is therefore meaningless with respect to the Application. In conclusion, none of the Planning Commission Findings For Denial are lawful. Therefore, the City Council is respectfully requested to approve the Application, without condition, as required by Government Code Section 66427.5. As a gesture of the Applicant's good faith, the Applicant is willing to meet with City Staff to negotiate potential conditions so long as they do not dramatically increase the cost or delay in accomplishing this subdivision. To date, the City has at all times deftly avoided confronting the issue of its position regarding the extent to which it can condition the approval of this 66427.5 subdivision. Members of the Planning Commission asked that this question be addressed. Applicants consistently, both formally and informally, requested the City's position on this pivotal issue. The fact that the City refused to work candidly, constructively, and openly with Applicants is also deserving of redress. The City Council has the opportunity to set a new tone, and right a wrong that has infected this process with hostility, suspicion, and adversarial posturing. I hope the City Council will seize this opportunity. 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 a , HK& C HART, KING & CGLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 13 Thank you. Very truly yours, HART, KIN & COLDREN Ro r for Applicants/ ppellants RSC/BLH/dr Enclosures: August 25, 2009 Letter August 27, 2009 Letter September 2, 2009 Letter September 17, 2009 Letter September 18, 2009 Letters (2) September 23, 2009 Notice of Action letter Eleven (11) copies of Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (304 spaces) cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Rami'Talleh, Senior Planner (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Fred Wilson, City Administrator (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Scott Hess, Director of Planning (by e-mail only, without enclosures) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 LISTED ENCLOSURES NOT ATTACHED AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, CITY HALL - 3R-D FLOOR ATTACHMENT #3 HK& G James R.Wilson jwilson@hkciaw.com September 18, 2008 Our File Number 36014.112/4811-7507-1234v.1 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Hand Delivered Rami Talleh, City Planner CitY 0f Hgp)ipgl0p Beach City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. 2000 Main Street SEP 18 2008 P.®. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subdivision Application (Tentative Tract Map) Dear Rami: Enclosed please find the Subdivision Application (Tentative Tract Map) ('Application') for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park located at 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntir"pt-10 Beach, CA. 92648 ("Park"). We propose to convert the Park into a resident-owned pare dv., J-� three hundred nine (309) numbered lots and one (1) lettered lot encompassing the Park common amenities (e.g., clubhouses, pools, landscaping and private streets)_ The conversion will enable Park residents to purchase their own lot. A resident who elects not to purchase their lot may choose to continue leasing their space. Park residents will not be displaced. There will not be a "physical change" or "change in use" of the Park_ Instead, the subdivision simply creates legal property lines on paper, thereby allowing the transfer of ownership of lots that already exist as mobile home park spaces. In accordance with paragraph 5 on page 2 of the Application, we are providing the following information and materials. To the extent such items are not applicable, we have so indicated- 5(a) Environmental Assessment Form. Conversion of a rental mobile home park to residential ownership is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080,08 and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15282(e)_ 5(b) Preliminary Title Report. A Preliminary Title Report dated August 21, 2008, together with the legal description of the Park property is enclosed_ A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 <n t Ph 714.432-8700 1 www.hkdaw.com ( Fx 714.546.74A7�'"�' HME .. Ir- 1K � k Rami Talleh September 18, 2008 Page 2 _ 5(c) Preliminary Soils Report and Engineering Geology Report. There is no "physical change" or "change in use" of the Park. No soils and geology reports are not required or necessary- 5(d) Public Notification Requirements. The public notification materials are enclosed. 5(e) Photographs of the Subject Property. The photographs of the Park are enclosed- 5(f) Written Narrative: (1) Existing Use of the Property and Present Zoning_ The.. Park is situated on a single parcel (APN 024-250-72) consisting of approximately 39 acres and operated as a mobile home park permitted for 308 mobile home spaces_ The Park is currently zoned RMP. The General Plan Designation is RMH-25. The.Park was constructed in 1972, is'located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, south of Indianapolis Avenue, and north of Atlantic Avenue- There. are approximately 1,900 feet of street frontage along Beach Boulevard and.approximately 1,100 feet of street frontage along Delaware Street. Street access is provided by Beach Boulevard and Frankfort Avenue. The Park is improved with 2 clubhouses and pools, office, conference center, and laundry facilities- There is an RV storage lot on Park property. (2) Proposed Use of the Property. There is no proposed "physical change" or "change in the use" of the Park. The proposed use of the Park is to maintain the existing use as a mobile home park- (3) Statement of the Proposed Improvements and Public Utilities. There are no proposed improvements or utilities. (4) Public Areas Proposed. There are no public areas proposed. (5) Tree Planting Proposed. There are no tree plantings proposed- (6) Restrictive Covenants Proposed_ Upon approval of the Application, the Park will form a Homeowners Association and prepare customary covenants, conditions and restrictions utilized in planned mobile home communities_ 36014.112/4811-7507-1234v.1 AT NO. �. Rami Talleh September 18, 2008 Page 3 5(g) - Coastal Development Permit Application. The Park is not within the Coastal Zone and no permits are required_ Inaccordance with the current City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule, we are including the Tentative Tract Map filing fee of $30,420.00 ($21,150.00 plus $30.00 for each of the 309 lots) ("Fee"). We are tendering payment of the Fee"Under Protest" and reserving all of our rights to protest and object to the Fee pursuant to applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.)- Uile �ne The regulation d bdi W-6n:of mobile parks is governed by lifomia State s Wiv ' ' ry n ��C o law, including, but not limited -overnment Code Section 66427 et seq., and ealth & Safety Section Code Section 18300 et. q-, which preempt and limit the role of lo government:� in The Citys review w d v I should s subdivision. processing a mobile home p subdivision. The Citys review and Val should not req�-,'-Ire oval I subdivisions. ivisio s. the time and resources genera tilized in rocessi onal subdivisions. The i Is excessive and bears no.reasonable relationship to the actual costs necessarily incurred by the City to process the Application. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have, Best Regards, HART, KI & COLDREN es R. Wilson JRW/dmg cc: John Saunders Michael Cirillo Robert S. Coldren Burt Mazelow Enclosures- Subdivision Application Tentative Tract Map Legal Description of Park Property Preliminary Title Report dated August 21, 2008 Public Notification Materials Park Photographs Filing Fee 36014.1 i214811-7507-1234v-1 ATTACHMENTIN("11 ATTACHMENT #4 NOTEat TRACT MAP NO. 17296 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CCVNr?'OP ORANGE,STA rf OF CALIfORNIA A PORTION OF THE EAST oNE.HALF Or THE sourHEAsr ouAttrEp OF .......... I T, SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP It SOUTH,RANGE fl WEST FOR SUBDIVISION PURPOSES VICINITY MAP GWHIC 3CAU r ........... ............. BASIS OF SEARINOS: • T IT LEGAL DISOnIPTIONI ............j 41hi .................. ...... ...... ...... .............. ........ .......... iitt 1 112 10 nth no w ............ 91 In J. W. % It ........... RECORD 0 emA D SUBDIVIDERS., Ail 212 s r. , It.1, 011, ul 3oo BENCH MARK: II re a ........... i4 1�1 tA2 49 A: KIN* U Tl�ONI 52 63 011 4`4 1:.0 70 69 60 $1 H ........... ............. i J. z NUMBERS F. ONMOOM momf PAM ........... ewe P NO. 17296 IN THE CITY OF HUNrtNOrCr4 BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE,$rArE OF CALIFORNIA A PORTION OF THE EAST ONE.HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11,TOWNSHIPS SOUTH,RANGE f I WESTE FOR SUBDIVISION PURPOSES tN lk ..to Ot-1 IV �.VF' ,� v�+ / rw%�.. ... 1ta' ;;li (�' I�I_ 23 \2 4. w- V11.1 26 ZI: A. 11.4 5:4 1A hL, �1,�[,!'L 4 4A. lit ItM1r:. Mall 1 !4 1 !L I 14 • o, �Iz r C 2.1 nr qv DFFFT,� T;Dw % S" tonw It Et ----------- --------- .................... II. BOUNDARY BSTABLJ8_EM&wT-4 AND NEW LOT NUMBERS L1114W aIJ to 4L 14 r17171, .... ..... .... 4, J; i 114 22: tOT w 0-1,lc flcus W4 -,jr (:92) ........... 2 2 ATTACHMENT #5 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 10B STAFF REPORT HUKrwcroa eua TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess,AICP,Director of PI g BY: Rami TAch, Senior Planner m DATE: September 22, 2009 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT: Boyd Hill,Hart,King&Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana,CA 92707 PROPERTY OWNER: Shorecliffs, LP, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 20701 Beach Blvd.,92648 (west side of Beach Blvd.,south of Indianapolis Ave. -- Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 request: - Subdivide an existing 304 space mobilehome park into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots- - Convert an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes. - Create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. - The request includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements recommended by staff 9 Staffs Recommendation: Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 based upon the following: - The subdivision will result in an increase in the number of mobile home sites from 304 to 309. - Additional lots created reduces the amount of existing common open space and do not comply with the additional minimum common open space requirement of 1,000 sq.ft. - Impacts to residents associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure,estimated sales price of the lots, and other costs are not discussed or analyzed in the impact report. - Evidence that the tenant survey was prepared in agreement with the homeowners association was not provided. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: e A. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial (Attachment No. I)." r-.e { ■ MOONS ► I MEMOWIN, a (% - HENN, MINE NEON NEON KEENS %,. .�1 t!< '� cy+g.. � ♦.�� � �f *!x7 '(1F_.' � ii'.l�Li_mi�w�..:t ?rl�+x'r"n. L� LEIS■ - - W'a'j,I°r� rn l A:f ar r 1"awls 1) 1 `I;p stud ilp I' t rf y Li f i �;?&v • lG.{F;Z r Sri k I!lx I i C ri y ll VA w� ( E' Ell14!f�a L, l t) a 1 w I. I� � i c e ) '�f � I It'f li [ 1 r,ja� 1 t,k� ��Q•w. }1 y EL1 y 4L/V1ff��a tt 4: i :i1 I,vF a Aid YJ..:rSi ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 represents a request for the following: A. To subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes; and create five additional lots for mobile home coaches,increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. B. The applicant has also filed an appeal of the applicable code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A)of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed tentative tract map is a request to subdivide an existing 37.06 net acre,for-rent,mobilehome park with a total of 304 units into 309 lots for ownership purposes. The tentative tract map also depicts the creation of five additional lots for mobilehome coaches bringing the total number of units to 309. I`he applicant proposes to subdivide the"for rent"park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots(see Attachment No. 2). The project also includes an appeal filed by the applicant on August 27, 2009 of the applicable code requirements. The applicant contends that a majority of the code requirements identified as being applicable to the project are"unlawful"pursuant to State law(see Attachment No. 10). The mobilehome park was established in 1969 and expanded over the next several years to its current size. The park is developed with a total of 304 units having a density of 8.2 units per net acre. The park is provided with a total of 118 guest parking spaces and a minimum of two parking spaces per unit (608 spaces). Internal circulation within the park consists of 33 ft. wide private streets with parking on one side (24 ft. wide clear). Common open areas are provided in three community facilities consisting of meeting and activity rooms and pools. The common open areas total approximately 38,043 sq. ft. The subdivision proposes to create lots ranging in approximate size from 2,432 sq. ft. to 5,772 sq. ft. Permitting and enforcement authority over the mobilehome park lies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD enforces the California Code of Regulation, Title 25, which establishes development and operational standards for the mobilehome park. The fire authority, however,lies with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Subdivision of the park for proposes of converting it from for-rent to ownership is regulated by various provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO),Title 25, Subdivisions. Government Code Section 66427.5 of the SMA requires the subdivider to provide a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to PC Report-09/22/09 3 (09sr61 TTM 17296-Huntington Shorec(iffs Copy be converted. The applicant submitted a report that concludes no displacement of residents will occur in that those residents who decide not to purchase a unit may remain renting within the mobilehome park (Attachment No. 6). The SMA also requires the subdivider to obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park. The applicant submitted a survey that indicates out of a total of 296 surveys, 188 were returned (Attachment No. 7). Of the 188 returned surveys, 97 respondents declined to state their opinion, 45 respondents indicated that they do not support the conversion of the park, 46 respondents indicated that they support the conversion. ISSUES: Subiect Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations: �a y Subject Property: RMH-25(Residential Medium RMP(Residential Mobilehome Mobilehome park High Density-Max.25 units Park) per acre) North of Subject Property RMH-25 RMH-A(Residential Medium Single family residential (across Frankfort Ave.): High Density-Subdistrict A Overlay) East of Subject Property RL-7(Residential Low RL(Residential Low Density) Single family and multi- (across Beach Blvd.): Density-Max.7 units per RM(Residential Medium family residential acre) Density) RM-15(Residential Medium Density-Max. 15 units per acre) South of Subject RM-15 RM Multi-family residential Property: West of Subject Property RMH-25-d(Residential RMH Single family and multi- (across Delaware St.): Medium High Density- OS PR(Open Space-Parks and family residential and public Design Overlay) Recreation Subdistrict) park OS-P(Open Space-Park) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation on the subject property is RMH-25 (Residential Medium- High Density—Max. 25 units per acre). The proposed project is inconsistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares,mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d): Establish a common"gathering"or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services such as child or adult- care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. PC Report-09/22/09 4 (09sr61 TTM 17296-Huntington Shoreeliffi Cow/ LU 9.3.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft., the proposed five lot expansion does not provide the required 1,000 sq. ft. of additional common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. Furthermore the subdivision would reduce the existing common open space by 11,193 sq. ft. in that four of the five additional lots are proposed to be located in an area used for offices, meeting rooms, and a pool. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park(RMP) zone and does not comply with the requirements of that zone. The five additional lots created in conjunction with the subdivision cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq. ft. per mobilehome(total 1,000 sq. ft.). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast comer of the mobilehome park. Further,the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq.ft.common open space. The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft. The proposed additional lots will occupy an existing office and pool which constitutes approximately 11,193 sq. ft. of the existing common open space and further reduces the common open space for the mobile home park. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the existing mobilehome park with the development standards of Section 210.14 of the HBZSO: ISSUE CODE PROVISION PROVIDED Individual Space Setbacks Front Min. 5 ft. 2 ft.to 5-ft. Side 10 feet aggregate,minimum 3 ft.on any 0 ft.to 3 ft. side Rear Min. 5 ft. 2 ft a 5.ft. Storage Min. 150 cubic feet of enclosed storage Not Verified. space Fencing and landscaping 6 ft.high screen wall and 10 ft.wide Screen wall provided. landscaped planter. Landscaping along Beach Blvd.not rovided. Boat and Trailer Storage Screened from view by a 6 ft.high Complied with. fence or wall. Maximum site coverage Max.-75%for each individual Not Verified_ manufactures home. Common Open Space 60,800 sq.ft(min. 200 sq. ft_ per unit) 38,043 sq. ft. Off-Street Parking- 2 space per unit 2 per unit provided Number 1 guest space/for every 3 units= 103 118 est parking spaces provided PC Report—09/22/09 5 (09sr61 TTM 17296—Huntington Shorediffs Conv.) Environmental Status: The proposed project is considered categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1,Existing Facilities, Section 15301(k) of the California Environmental Quality Act,which provides that division of existing multiple- family or single-family residences into common-interest ownership are exempt where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt. Coastal Status_ Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: The Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and tentative map on September 2, 2009 and voted unanimously(6-0 vote)to recommend denial of the request to the Planning Commission with findings based on non-compliance with open space requirements for the additional five lots. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the tentative tract map for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and applicable provisions of the HBZSO. Draft minutes of the meeting are provided in Attachment No. 4. Discussion ensued regarding the creation of five additional lots for mobilehome coaches and an access easement to an adjacent, city-owned landlocked parcel to the north of the site. The committee also reviewed suggested conditions of approval and code requirements applicable to the project if the project was to be approved. Updates where made to the code requirements by the Fire Department and Public Works Department at the September 2,2009 meeting. The Fire Department comments were updated to be consistent with the State Department of Housing and Community Development's fire safety measures. The Public Works Department comments were updated to separate conditions of approval from the list of code requirements. The applicant subsequently appealed the code requirements recommended by staff. An updated code requirements letter is provided in Attachment No. 5. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works,Fire, Community Services and Building and Safety have reviewed the proposed subdivision and provided a list of applicable code requirements should the tentative tract map be approved. The Code Requirements letter was transmitted on August 25, 2009 and updated on September 9, 2009- The updated list of code requirements is provided in Attachment No. 5.The applicant contends that a majority of the code requirements are"unlawful"pursuant to State law. The applicant has appealed the code requirements with the exception of Planning Department Code Requirement Nos. 1(b),2(a),3, 4, and 7 and Public Works Department pre-final map recordation Code Requirement Nos. 1-6. The Fire Department code requirements were updated subsequent to the applicant's appeal of the code requirements to be consistent with the State Department of Housing and Community Development's fire safety measures. The applicant is currently reviewing the changes and has not provided comments on the revised Fire Departments code requirements. Staff does not concur with the applicant's assertions in that PC Report—09/22/09 6 (09sr61 TTM 17296—Huntington Shoreclifl's Com.. government Code Section 66427.5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Government Code to apply. However, the requirements are only applicable to the subdivision should the project be approved. Further,the Department of Economic Development has expressed concerns with the lack of an access easement to the abutting City-owned parcel to the north(Attachment No. 12). The parcel is bounded by Frankfort Avenue to the north and Beach Boulevard to the east and is currently being leased by the applicant for recreational vehicle(RV) storage. The parcel is landlocked due to severe slopes on both street frontages. While the parcel is currently being used by the mobilehome park and is accessed via a common parking area,no reciprocal access easements are currently in place or provided as part of the proposed subdivision. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on September 10,2009, and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 500 ft.radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), tenants at mobilehome park,applicant, and interested parties. As of September 15,2009, 87 comments opposing the request have been received(Attachment No. 8). Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): August 28, 2009 October 17,2009 Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 was filed on September 18,2008 and deemed complete August 28,2009. ANALYSIS: Major issues with the processing of the application include creation of five additional lots, infrastructure within the park,the report of impacts of conversion on the residents, survey of resident support,and the applicant's appeal of the code requirements. Park Expansion The creation of five additional lots for purposes increasing the number of mobilehome coaches from 304 to 309 is subject to the Section 210.14 of the HBZSO. Pursuant to Section 210.14 each additional lot created for a mobilehome requires 200 sq. ft. of common open space. Currently the park does not conform to this provision in that a total of 38,043 sq. ft. of common open space is provided. Furthermore, the proposed lots will remove 11,193 sq. ft. of common open space. The five additional lots increase the parks non-conformity and do not comply with the HBZSO. PC Report—09/22/09 7 (09sr61 TTM 17296—Huntington Shorediffs Conv.) Infrastructure In reviewing the proposed subdivision and tentative map staff has raised concerns with existing infrastructure within the mobilehome park. The park was originally established in 1969 and developed with a surface drain meandering within the park. Furthermore, inadequate drainage is provided for some mobile home sites in the park. The mobile home sites drain directly to the surface drain within the private drives. The elevation of the road has been raised over the years due to resurfacing thus providing inadequate drainage for some mobile home sites. Many letters and comments have been received from residents of the park citing concerns with the infrastructure within the park such as inadequate drainage from individual spaces; surface drains carrying trash, debris, and animal feces; and faulty utility connections. The State Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)has jurisdiction for most aspects of the operation maintenance health and safety of mobile homes and mobile home parks. HCD conducts inspections periodically of the general area,buildings,equipment and utility systems of the mobile home park and each individual lot. Residents have contended that ongoing maintenance issues existing within the park have not being adequately addressed_ The applicant has not provided an assessment of the existing infrastructure and indicates that lapses in repair and maintenance of the park are matters which the City cannot address with the proposed subdivision and tentative map.The applicant contends that when the park subdivides,the tenants will maintain and repair the park at"whatever level they wish." The applicant has provided a response to the some of the concerns raised by the tenants in a letter dated August 25,2009 and but states that those concerns are outside the City's scope of review(Attachment No.9.12 to 9.13). Report on Impacts of Conversion on the Tenants The conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership is authorized by Government Code Section 66427.5 of the SMA(attachment No 13). The SMA provides that the subdivider prepare a report on the impact of the conversion upon tenants of the mobile home park and provide a survey of resident support for the subdivision. The applicant prepared and submitted a report entitled"Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents" (Attachment No. 6)with the application for subdivision and distributed the report to the residents of the mobilehome park on September 2, 2009,a minimum 15 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing as required by State Law. The report references Government Code Section 66427.5 and states that each existing tenant will have the option of either buying or continue renting the proposed space where their mobile home is located with statutory restrictions on rent increases.However the report does not identify the method upon which the non-purchasing residents will have some expectations of the rents as prescribed by Government Code Section 66427.5. The report states that residents on long-term leases will continue to have their rights under the lease after the mobilehome park is subdivided for ownership. The report concludes that no impacts to the residents will occur because residents will not be displaced as a result of the subdivision. The report does not estimate the potential sales price of lots after subdivision and sales price information was not available to residents when the resident survey of support was conducted. ,The applicant states in the impact report that the sales price can only be determined after the subdivision is approved by both the PC Report—09/22/09 8 (09sr61 TTM 17296—Huntington Shoreeliffs City and the Department of Real Estate and the applicant offers the lots for sale. The report further states that determinations about impacts to the residents resulting from the eventual sale price of the lots under the purchase option cannot be made because the sale price of lots will not be established until some time after the tentative map is approval. The report states that the time the residents,may become aware of a tentative offer price of their respective lot will be just prior to filing a notice of intention to sell with the Department of Real Estate. Staff considers the submitted impact report as insufficient in that it is not a report on the impacts of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park. The report fails to discuss the impacts of conversion on the residents including economic impacts associated with the maintenance and repairs of infrastructure; estimated sales price of the lots; and other costs such as property taxes and homeowners association dues. The report does not provide a general idea of potential operating expenses after subdivision such as the cost of maintenance and repair to existing infrastructure.The applicant indicated that a pro forma budget or a similar estimate will be submitted to the State Department of Real Estate should the subdivision be approved. This will include projected annual operating expenses for the project and corresponding proposed level of maintenance fees or assessments to be paid by individual unit owners Survey of Resident Support Government Code Section 66427.5 requires that a survey of resident support be conducted in agreement with a homeowners association independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner and that the decision making body reviewing the proposed subdivision consider compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 during its deliberations. A written survey was conducted by The Star Companies,the mobilehome park management company,in March 2009. The results of the survey were submitted to the City in May 2009. No information on how the survey results were tabulated was provided or who the surveys were sent to (i.e. each person or each space). There were a total of 296 surveys sent out. Of the 296; 188 surveys were completed and returned.The survey results indicate that 46 persons were in support of the conversion of the mobilehome park to resident ownership,45 persons were not is support of the conversion,and 97 persons declined to state their opinion. The survey results indicate that insufficient information has been disclosed to the tenants resulting in a majority of the residents stating that they do not support the subdivision or do not have an option regarding the subdivision. A copy of the results and ballot are provided as Attachment No. 7. Comments received from the homeowners association president indicate that no agreement was made between the homeowners association and subdivider prior to the survey being sent out. The applicant contends that an agreement was made with the"park activities"committee. However no evidence of an agreement has been provided. Based on the lack of sufficient information,staff believes compliance with sate law has not been met. Appeal of Code Requirements In reviewing the proposed subdivision and tentative map, staff prepared a list of code requirements applicable to the project should the project be approved. The code requirements outline applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements, excerpted from the HBZSO and Municipal Code which are required only after approval and prior to recordation of a final map. The list PC Report—09/22/09 9 (09sr61 TTM 17296—Huntington Shorediffs Con v_) for example requires the submission of CC&Rs and a hydraulic and hydrology analysis,payment of fees, and process for final map review. Staff does not support the applicant's contentions that these requirements are"unlawfuf' in that government Code Section 66427.5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Government Code to apply. The appeal of the code requirements becomes a moot point as a result of Staff s recommendation to deny TTM No. 17296. SUMMARY: The proposed subdivision would change the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park from a rental park to an ownership park. The proposed subdivision will also result in an increase in the number of mobilehome sites from 304 to 309 lots. The additional lots created reduce the area of common open space and do not comply with the minimum open space requirement of 1,000 sq. ft. of common area for new lots. The impacts to residents associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure,estimated sales price of the lots, and other costs are not discussed or analyzed in the impact report In addition,the skjn7ey was not completed as required by Government Code Section 66427.5. Staff recommends denial of the proposed subdivision for these reasons and findings in Attachment No. 1. ATTACIITUENTS: 1—St�gges�c��ind�gs�o�Benial-�entati-v�-M�-ae-1a2-96- 2--P-rejee+-Naves-feeeive�ember- 2998- 3--Tentative-T-ract-Map-to ;-2Mdate&-A-ugust-4;20 9 4. Draft Minutes of the September 2,2009 Subdivision Committee meeting. 5. Updated Code Requirements Letter dated September 9,2009 6—R-eporongn2paet-efC-orrver�ieron-Residexts-dated-A4arel6;2-(199- ---Sur-vey-o€R-esidents-dated May-4,-2809- 8. Comment letters received from residents of the mobilehome park 9. Letter from the applicant dated August 25,2009 4-0:Appeal-Letter-dated-August 27 22009- 11 a Letter from the applicant dated September 2,2009 12. Memorandum from the Economic Development Department dated September 15,2009 4-3-Gov e eat-Code-Se4iei16642-7:5- SH:HF:RT:lw PC Report—09/22/09 10 (09sr61 TTM 17296—Huntington " RAFT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES September 2, 2009 Room B-8, Civic Center 4:00 P.M_ Subdivision Committee Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Elizabeth Shier Burnett, Commissioner John Scandura, Commissioner Fred Speaker Subdivision Committee Staff Members Present: Staff Present: Scott Hess, Steve Bogart, Chief Bill Reardon, Rami Talleh, Applicant Present: Boyd Hill, Robert.Coldren TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17296(HUNTINGTON SEIORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION) APPLICANT: Boyd Hill, Hart, King&Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBDIVIDER: Shoreclifl;LP, 200 Sandpoints, fourth floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 ENGINEER: R_T_ Quinn&Associates, 1907 Border Avenue, Torrance, CA 90501 REQUEST: To subdivide approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304-space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes_ The request also includes the creation of five additional lots. The applicant proposes to convert the for rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: l. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development_ The five additional lots created in conjunction with the mobilehome park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq. ft. per mobilehome(total 1,000 sq_ ft_). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast corner of the mobilehome park. Further,the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq. ft. common open space_ The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 23,850 sq. ft. In addition, the subdivision will create several lots with less than the minimum required side yard setbacks between manufactured homes. 2. Tentative Tract Map No, 17296 for the subdivision of approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent ATTACHMENT NO. . , nAF mobilehome park and expansion of five additional lots for a total of 309 lots for ownership purposes is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density—Max_ 25 units per acre) on the subject property and f' applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance_ The proposed tentative map is not consistent with the following policies of the General Plan- LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d): Establish a common"gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods_ This center may contain services such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities_ LU 9.3.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity_ While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas total 23,850 sq_ ft_, the proposed five lot expansion is not.provided with the required 1,000 sq_ ft_ of common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. IN THE EVENT THAT THE ITEM IS APPROVED,THE FOLLOWING CODE REQUIREP ENTS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE PROVIDED. Planning Department Comments: Applicable Code Requirements 1. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required- a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Its shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney_ The CC&Rs shall identify the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association_ The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. b. Final tract map review fees shall be paid, pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council(City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule)_ (HBZSO Section 254.16) c_ Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid pursuant to the requirements of HBZSO Section 254.08 —Parkland Dedications_ The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution(City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule). 2. Prior to conversion of the mobile home park, the following shall be completed: G_Sabdivision&MWU S/SD 090209 MIN.doe 2 p /�n { A r(004'SD0�9a02) ATTA .t"IIV1PKIT IV 41 �} L) R41 A F T a. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. b. All improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved plans. 3_ The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition_ The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to parcel map are proposed during the plan check process_ Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature;an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. 4. Tentative Tract Map No, 17296 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed Planning Commission approval. 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 shall become null and void unless exercised within two(2) years of the date of final approval_ An extension of time may be granted by the Director of Planning pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. 6. The subdivision shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building & Safety Department and Fire Department, as well as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards, except as noted herein. 7. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM_ Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 8_ The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$50 for the posting ofa Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within-two(2) days of the Planning Commission's action_ 9. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the I-IBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas,check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission_ Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. The Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 for Subdivision of an existing mobile home park received and dated September 18, 2008 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. The maximum number of lots created by the subdivision shall not exceed the total number mobile home units (304) approved for the site by the California Department of Housing and Community Development_ b_ A landscaped planter between the perimeter fencing and public sidewalk improvements along Beach Boulevard shall be provided. 2_ Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: G:SubdivisionA4U4UTES/SD 090209 MIN.doc 3 (09SD0902) ATTACHMENT NO._'J Dii , AFT a. The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)to re-identify the lots if deternuned necessary- b. The Subdivider shall demonstrate to HCD compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25 pertaining to setbacks. If the mobile home park is deficient in compliance with the applicable setbacks,the subdivider shall obtain all necessary applicable alternate approvals from HCD. 3. The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her subdivided unit,which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following: a. As to non-purchasing residents who are not lower income households,the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase from the pre-conversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5) b. As to non-purchasing residents who are lower income households,the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase from the pre-conversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the _ conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5) .Public Works Comments: Code Requirements THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO RE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE CITY FOR REVEEW: l. A Hydrology'and Hydraulic Analysis for existing site drainage and tributary upstream drainage shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms shall be analyzed). In addition, this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detention analysis. Any drainage improvements required by the aforementioned analysis shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development or deficient downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency_ (ZSO 255.12) 2. Based on the Fire Department's requirement for a separate dedicated private on-site fire hydrant system, a hydraulic water analysis is required to identify any off-site water improvements necessary to adequately protect the property per the Fire Department requirements. The subdivider shall be required to upgrade/improve the City's water system per Water Standards to meet the water demands to the site and/or otherwise mitigate the G:Subdivisions/MINU FS/SD 090209 MIN_doc 4 (09SD0902) ATTACHMENT NO. S N "Fa impacts of the property at no cost to the City_ The subdivider shall provide t e site plan showing the existing and proposed on-site and off-site water improvements (including pipeline sizes, fire hydrants, meters, and backflow device locations). The subdivider shall be responsible to pay the City for performing the analysis using the City's hydraulic water model. (SMA 66428,1(d) and ZSO 255.04(E)) THE FOLLOWING(DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1. The Tentative Tract Map received and dated August 4, 2009 shall be the approved layout. 2. The Final Tract Map .shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include a title report to indicate the fee title owner(s) as shown on a title report for the subject properties. The title report shall not be more than six(6)weeks old at the time of submittal of the Final Parcel Map. 3. The Final Tract Map shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Tract Map. (ZSO 253.14) 4. A reproducible Mylar copy and a print of the recorded final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation- 5- The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9- 337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: a. Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. 6. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: a_ Design Specification: i. Digital.data shall be full size(L1)and in compliance with the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone 6(Lambert Conformal Conic projection),NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ii. Digital data shall have double precision accuracy(up to fifteen significant digits)- iii. Digital data shall have units in US FEET. iv. A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet- V. Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. vi. Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers(APN), street addresses and street names with suffix_ b_ File Format and Media Specification: vii_ Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats (AutoCAD DWG format preferred): G:Subdivisions/MINUTES/SD 090209 MIN.doc 5 (09SDO902) ATTAINMENT NO. C1 AFT AUtoCAD (version 2000, release 4) drawing file_ _.DWG • Drawing Interchange file: DXF viii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: • CD Recordable(CD-R) 650 Megabytes 7. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (ZSO 255.16C & MC 17.05) 8. All improvement securities(Faithful Performance, Labor&Material and Monument Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 255.16) 9. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 253.12K) 10. If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement may be submitted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA) I I- All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. Fees shall be calculated based on the currently approved rate at the time of payment unless otherwise stated. (ZSO 250.16) 12. A Homeowners' Association(s)(HOA) shall be formed and described in the CC&R's to manage the following for the total project area: a. Onsite landscaping and irrigation improvements b. On-site sewer and drainage systems c. Best Management Practices(BMP's)as per the approved Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) The aforementioned items shall be addressed in the development's CC&Ws. 13_Improvement Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05/ZSO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. Existing AC curb along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter per Public Works Standard Plan No. 202 and per Caltrans requirements. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) b. Six (6) foot wide sidewalk and a nine (9) foot wide curb adjacent landscaped parkway along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No. 207. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) c. The existing earthen storm drain channel along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be replaced with a 54-inch storm drain pipeline (unless otherwise designed and sized by Hydraulics Report which is submitted to Public Works for review and approval) to convey the 100-year storm flow as quantified in the City's 2005 Master Plan of Drainage. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.l(d)) d_ Street lights shall be installed along the Beach Boulevard project frontage. Lighting standards shall be per City of Huntington Beach guidelines. (ZSO 255-04) G_Subdivisioos/M1NU ES/SD 090209 MIN_doc 6 (09SD0902) ATTACHMENT NO 1- 6 DRAFT e_ ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the easterly curb returns on Delaware Street at Mermaid Lane per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) f An ADA compliant access ramp shall be installed on the southeast corner of Delaware Street and Frankfort Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428_I(d)) g. An ADA compliant access ramp shall be installed on the southeast corner of Delaware Street and Frankfort Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) It. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the south curb returns of Frankfort Avenue at Shorecliff Drive (at the subject site's northerly entrance) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.I(d)) i_ An ADA compliant access ramp shall be installed on Frankfort Avenue_ where it intersects Hill Street per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) j. Damaged curb and gutter along the Frankfort Avenue frontage (at Hill Street) shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No. 202. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) k. Based on the Fire Department's requirement for a separate dedicated private on-site fire hydrant system, the subdivider shall comply with the following requirements: ix_ The existing two (2) 4-inch compound manifold metering system serving the fire, domestic and irrigation water systems shall be replaced with a single meter for domestic and irrigation purposes only. The new meter must be sized to meet the minimum requirements of the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and constructed per Water Standards. (SMA 66411_5(a)and ZSO 255.04(E)) x_ Backflow protection devices shall be constructed per Water Standards at each fire service connection to the to the City's water system_ (SMA 66411.5(a) and ZSO 255.04(E)) 1. The existing 8-inch backflow device configuration is non-conforming placing the City's water supply at risk of potential contamination_ As a result of health and safety concerns, the subdivider shall reconstruct or replace the existing backflow device to comply with current Water Standards_ (Resolution 5921, Title 17 State Regulation, SMA 66411.5(a), and SMA 66428.1(d)) rn_ An onsite storm drain shall be designed per the final approved hydrology and hydraulics study, City Standards and per the City adopted 2005 Master Plan of Drainage. The storm drain system located within private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. A soils report, prepared by a Licensed Engineer shall be submitted for reference only. (ZSO 255.04A) 14. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments. (ZSO 232.04) G:Sub&visimns/MINUTES/SD 090209 MIN_doc 7 (09SD0902) A TTAr'UhAFKIT t uFfAFT a. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36"box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk)- b. "Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (ZSO 232.04D) c. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (ZSO 232) 15. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (ZSO 232.04B) 16. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible. (DAMP) 17. A Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Said Arborist signature shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (Resolution 4545) 18. A Drainage Fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of$13,270 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments_ This project consists of 41.223 gross acres (including its tributary area portions along the half street frontages)for a total required drainage fee of$547,029. City records indicate the current use on the subject property has never paid this required fee. Per provisions of the City Municipal Code,this one time fee shall be paid for all subdivisions or development of land. (MC 14.48) In lieu of the payment of the aforementioned Drainage Fee $547,029, Public Works will accept the construction of the on-site master planned facilities per the City of Huntington Beach, Municipal Code Section 14-38.030. 19. The current tree code requirements shall apply to this site. (ZSO 232) a. Existing trees to remain on site shall not be disfigured or mutilated, (ZSO 232.04E) and, b. (general tree requirements, regarding quantities and sizes. (ZSO 232.08B and C) 20. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to.be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect. (ZSO 232.04D) 21.Applicant shall provide City with CD media TIFF images (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City Approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work_ Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. 22. The Water Ordinance#14,52, the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements" apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. (MC 14.52) Based upon these requirements, a separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for landscaping along Beach Blvd. G:Sub&vision&1 1N[TTES/SD 090209 MIN.doc 8 (09SD0902) ATTAr PhAPKIT MO _ LJ R A r- 7 t THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES: 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved improvement plans_ Suggested Conditions of Approval THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW: L A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for the County of Orange (Order No. R8-2009-0030) prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. The WQMP shall address all current surface water quality issues. 2. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of.Housing and Community Development (HCD)for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1. Encroachment permits for work within the Caltrans' right-of-way (for construction of sidewalks, driveways, water connections, etc_) shall be obtained by the applicant or contractor from Caltrans prior to start of work_ A copy of each permit, traffic control plans, environmental review and other permission granted by Caltranss shall be transmitted to Public Works. 2. The applicant shall provide an analysis of the existing onsite sanitary sewer system. If any improvements are required per said analysis, they shall be constructed and comply with all associated requirements of HCD. 3. Prior to the recordation of the Map, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architect/Inspector- Fire Department Code Requirements_ 1. Tract Map No. 17296 for the subdivision of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile home park for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park for ownership purposes shall comply with the following requirements: a. Fire Hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24,2002 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification#407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. b_ Fire flow based on fire area and construction type(I-MFC Appendix B, Table B-105.1, Appendix C, Table C-105,1), shall be provided at 1500 gpm from each hydrant spaced every 500 feet_ c_ Private water systems shall be installed to service on-site fire hydrants_ G:Subdivision&?nNUTESISD 090209 MIN_doc 9 (09SD0902) ATTAOURACKIT KI DRAFT 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be complied with: a. A site plan depicting all locations of fire lanes shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department- b. Plans portraying the fire hydrants shall reference compliance with NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards in the plan notes and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments. c. Plans depicting the private water system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department. d_ Fire Lanes shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415,Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties. The site plan shaft clearly identify all red fire lane curbs, both in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted.No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification#415.For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. e. A current fire flow test in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code shall be performed by a licensed fire protection contractor with the supervision of the Fire Department. All test results shall be submitted to the Fire Department for Review and Approval. 3. Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the following conditions shall be complied with: a. Fire Hydrants pursuant to Code Requirement No. I referenced above, shall be installed- b. A fire service main pursuant to Code Requirement No_ 1, referenced above, shall be installed in compliance with NFPA 13 and 24,2002 Editions. c_ Private water system pursuant to Code Requirement No. I shall be installed. d. Residential(SFD) Address Numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification 9428,Premise Identification. Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shall be a minimum of four inches(T)high with one and one half inch('/2')brush stroke. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification#428,Premise Identification in the plan notes and portray the address location on the building. e. Individual units shall be identified and numbered per City Specification#409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process through the Planning Department_Unit address numbers shall be a minimum of four inches(4") armed to the units front door in a contrasting color_ For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification "09 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process, in the plan notes and portray the address and unit number of the individual occupancy area_ QSubdivisions/MINUrES/SD 090209 MIN-doc 10 (09SD0902) ATTA(1WWA1=1\1T Kin V�) D R F T 4. The followingconditions shall be maintained during construction: A g a_ Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction And Demolition. b. Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification#426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. OTHER: 5. The following conditions shall be maintained during construction: a. Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification 9431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. (FD) b. Outside City Consultants: The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants. The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule,allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) Subdivision Committee Member Comments: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner, stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing use of the subject site. Staff presented an overview of the proposed project and the recommended suggested findings for denial as presented in the attachments. Mr. Talleh stated that staff had received 76 public comments from the residents expressing concerns with the outdated infrastructure of the mobile home park.Mr. Talleh indicated that some residents had also provided photographs of the infrastructure. Mr. Talleh stated that a Late Communication had been received from the applicant in response to staffs recommendation to deny TTM No. 17296 based on the Findings for Denial. Commissioner Scandura confirmed with staff that the findings for denial were based on the fact that the proposal does not comply with open space requirements. Mr. Scandura raised concerns with the non-conforming setbacks. He asked staff if the open space requirements would be met if the applicant removed the proposed additional spaces. Mr. Talleh stated that the non-conforming setbacks were located in an area separate from the proposed additional spaces. Mr. Talleh indicated that if the applicant were to remove the proposed additional five units there would no longer be a need for additional common open space but the current common open space and setbacks would not be in conformance_ Commissioner Scandura asked how many units had non-conforming setbacks. Mr_ Talleh stated that he did not have an exact number, due to the fact that a site plan is not required for this type of application, but that it was a significant percentage of the units. G-SubdivisionSlMINUTES/SD 090209 MIN_doc I 1 (09SD0902) ATTArt4KAr-MT NO 4 11 e uwq& K03'a A F T Commissioner Speaker asked if the resident survey would be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing. Mr. Talleh indicated -that it would be included as an attachment to the September 9, 2009, Study Session Staff Report. f Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that he had distributed the updated Public Works Department suggested conditions of approval, which included updated code requirements. Chair Shier Burnett inquired if the Planning Commission would receive a copy of the required impact report. Mr. Talleh indicated that it would also be included in the September 9, 2009, Study Session Staff Report_ Mr. Talleh iterated that the staff recommends denial of the project and proceeded to present Planning Department suggested conditions of approval and code requirements in the event that the committee recommends the project for approvalto the Planning Commission. Bob Milani, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Public Works code requirements and suggested conditions of approval if the project were to be approved. Scott Hess, Planning Director, asked Mr. Milani to identify the unique conditions as the majority of items listed are standard code requirements. Mr. Milani briefly described the standard conditions and fees. He pointed out that the notable conditions included the establishment of a Home Owners Association in order to maintain on site landscaping, irrigation, on site sewers and drainage systems, and that all of these items shall be addressed in the development CC & R's. He noted that there is a required drainage fee and that no payment is on record with the City_ He stated that the drainage fee requirement would be waived with proof of payment_ Lili Hernandez, Civil Engineering Assistant, reviewed the code requirements pertaining to water systems and indicated that these requirements are subject to change. Mr. Milani reviewed the Public Works suggested conditions of approval should the project be approved. Mr. Hess inquired about the curb and gutter improvements along Beach Boulevard. Mr. Milani explained the offsite improvements listed in the suggested conditions of approval. A brief discussion ensued between Mr_ Hess, Mr. Talleh, and Mr. Bogart regarding the necessary improvements to sidewalks and curbs. Commissioner Scandura asked for clarification on required testing to determine adequate drainage. Mr. Bogart responded to the inquiries, clarifying drainage requirements. Commissioner Scandura asked if the mobile home park was in the 100 year floodplain. Mr. Talleh explained that FEMM's updated flood maps had removed the park from the 100 year flood zone. Commissioner Scandura inquired about soil reports for the area. Mr. Talleh explained that, in the absence of any new construction the tract map process does not require soil analysis. G-Subdivisions/MINUMS/SD 090209 MIN-doc 12 (09SD0902) ATTR r�U�RC1�l`C I\I� DRAFT Bill Reardon, Battalion Chief, stated that Fire Department staff had reviewed the project extensively. He clarified that the Fire Departments recommendations are actually code requirements. He noted that recent inspections conducted by the Fire Department showed that the existing underground water system complies with current standards. Chair Shier- Burnett inquired of the frequency of the fire hydrant testing cycles and if these tests were mandatory. Jeff Lopez, Deputy Fire Marshall, explained that there are two types of testing required: a back flow test which is done in a five year cycle and a mandatory annual test conducted on the hydrants themselves. He gave an in depth explanation of the testing standards and processes. He stated that the mobile home park provided testing results for four of the eight hydrants in the park and that he is expecting results for the remaining four hydrants shortly. Commissioner Scandura inquired about the fire code.requirements, paramedic response, fire lanes, and the ability for the Fire Department to locate the hydrants_ Chief Reardon responded to the inquiry by stating that the code that is being used is from ACD_ He noted that the City does keep records of the hydrant locations and that the response time to the park is very good. He stated that there are no known issues regarding fire lanes_ Robert Coldren, the applicant's representative, stated that the applicant is committed to ensuring all safety issues are addressed_ Developer Comments_ Mr_ Coldren stated that the park had been approved for 309 coaches by the Housing and Community Development Agency. He questioned if he could revert back to that permit_ He also stated that the original permit allowed coaches to be set on two separate coach lots. This \ would be an issue that the developer would like to correct_ Scott Hess, Planning Director inquired on the.City owned parcel adjacent to the park as well as the area being used for RV storage. Mr_ Coldren commented that he believes the RVs being stored are owned by both residents of the park as well as others. He stated that he would research that issue as he understood it could result in zoning violations_ The committee members engaged in a brief discussion regarding their various options and opted to follow staffs recommendation for denial. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCOTT HESS, SECONDED BY ELIZABETH SHIER- BURNETT, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. (6-0). FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development. The five additional lots created in conjunction with the mobilehome park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq. ft_ per mobilehome(total 1,000 sq. ft_)_ The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast corner of the mobilehome park_ G:Subdivisions/M1NUTES/SD 090209 MIN.doc 13 (09SD0902) AV'rA ^1 is as—►o— . aw i . . -a tf t I Further, the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq. ft. common open space. The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 23,850 sq. ft: In addition, the subdivision will create several lots with less than the minimum required side yard . setbacks between manufactured homes. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the subdivision of approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park and expansion of five additional lots for a total of 309 lots for ownership purposes is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density—Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property and applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed tentative map is not consistent with the following policies of the General Plan. LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d): Establish a common"gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. LU 93.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas F_. total 23,850 sq. ft_,the proposed five lot expansion is not provided with the required 1,000 sq. E' ft. of cbmmon.area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. QSubdivisions/MMUnS/SD 090209 MIN.doc 14 (09SD0902) ATTACHMENT NO., F City ®f Huntington Beach • 2000 MAiN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 - DEPARTMENT OF 1'[.ANPtll`IC September 9, 2009 Boyd bill Had, King &Coldren 200 Sandpointe; Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269(1-IUNTiNGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) UPDATED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Hill, fn order to assist you with your-development:proposal, .staff taas_reviewed the project sal id identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirenneo i s, excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and M1Ho ,aai Codes_ This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project implementation should the Planning Commission approve your project_ It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any¢conditions of approval" adopte(I by the Planning Commission if the project is approved_ Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change_ The Planning Director has interpreted the relevant Sections .of the Zoning and Subdivisicm Ordinance to require that your project satisfy The following.development standards_ Should you disagree, pursuant to Section 24824A,you have ten (10)days from the date of this notice to file an appeal with the Planning Department_-The appeal fee is$494.00_ If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items fisted do not apply to your project,andfor you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-374-1682 or at rtalleh@surfcity-hb_org andlor 4he respective source department(contact person below)_ Sincerer, Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Enclosure cc- Leonie Mulvihill.Senior Deputy City Attorney Gerald Caraig,Building and Safety Department-714-374-1575 Darin Maresh,Fire Department-714-536-5531 Steve Bogart_Public Works-714-536-1692 Herb F Kelley, el Panning Manager ATTACHMENT NO. F a Jason Kelley,ley,Planning Department Shorecliff.LP-200 Sandpoints, fourth floor.Santa Ana,CA 92707 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 WVr.=:r r T CiTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT i1014 GTON R"CH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: August 24,2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTiTLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-0190;TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD_, 92648(WEST SIDE OF BEACH BLVD_, SOUTH OF INDIANAPOLIS AVE_) PROJECT PLANNER: RAMI TALLEH,SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONEiE-MAIL: (714)374-1682f rtalleh@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTiNGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARR FROM RENTAL UNITS TO iNDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP_ The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated August 4, 2009_ The list is.intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation_ A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any,will also be provided upon final project approval_ If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer- 1_ Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required_ a_ At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&fRs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney_ The CC&Rs shall identify the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners'Association_ -The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map_ b_ Final tract map review fees shalt be paid, pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council (City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule)_ (HBZSO Section 254.16) c_ Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid pursuant to the requirements of HBZSO Section 254.08— Parkland Dedications_ The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution (City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule)_ 2. Prior to conversion of the mobile home park, the following shall be completed- a. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange- b. All improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved plans_ ATTACHMENT NO. � 2- p Page 2 of 2 3. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition_ The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall,be notified in writing if any changes to parcel rnap are proposed during the plan check process_ Permits shall not be issued.urltil the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission`s action and the conditions herein_ if the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO_ 4_ Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed Planning Commission approval- 5- Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 shalt become null and void unless exercised within two(2)years of the date of final approval_ An extension of time may be granted by the Director of Planning pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date- 6- The subdivision shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code,Building & Safety Department and Fire Department,as welt as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards, except as noted herein- 7- Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM_ Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays- 8- The applicant shalt submit a check in the amount of$50 for the posting of a Notice of Exemption at the County of Orange Clerk's Office_ The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two(2)days.of.the.Planning Commission's action- 9- All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO_ Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with.the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements_ Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission_ ATTACHMENT NO. 5, i HU TI GTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Hurtnn►Gymri erActt PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 PRO.IECT.NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2008-0190 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2009 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER RAMI TALLEH,SENIOR PLANNER TEL.EPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-16821 RTALLEH0_SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374--16921 SBOGART(a),SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HURTINGTON.SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above_ The items below are to meet the .City of Huntington.Beach's Municipal Code.(HBMC), Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans (Civil,Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction .(Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications_ The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction_ If you have any questions regarding these requirements, Please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner_ THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR_TO SUBMITTAL OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW: I_ A Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for existing site drainage and tributary upstream drainage shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. (ZSO 255.12) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: I- The Tentative Tract Map received and dated August 4, 2009 shall be the approved layout- 2- The Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include a title report to indicate the fee title owner(s) as shown on a ATTACHMENT NO. 5A Page 2 of 4 title report for the subject properties. The title report shall not be more than six (6) weeks old at the time of submittal of the Final Parcel Map- 3- The Final Tract Map shalt be consistent with the approved Tentative Tract Map_ (ZSO 253.14) 4_ A reproducible Mylar copy and a print of the recorded final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. 5_ The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: a_ Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor_. b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange_ 6. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: c_ Design Specification: i_ Digital data shall be full size (1:1)and in compliance with the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone 6(Lambert Conformal Conic projection), MAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. B1_ Digital data shall have double precision accuracy (up to fifteen significant digits)_ iii_ Digital data shalt have units in US FEET_ iv. A separate drawing file shalt be submitted for each individual sheet- V. Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names,pen color and layering conventions_ vi_ Feature compilation shalt include,but shall not be{itnited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers(APN),street addresses and street names with suffix_ d. File Format and Media Specification: i_ Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats(AutoCAD DWG format preferred): • AutoCAD (version 2000, release 4)drawing file: _DWG i Drawing Interchange file: _DXF ii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type-- CD Recordable (CD-R)650 Megabytes 7_ The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval_ The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts_ (ZSO 255.16C& MC 17.05) 8_ All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor& Material and Monument Bonds)and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney_ (ZSO 255.16) 9_ A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and,,approved as to form by the City Attorney_ (ZSO 253.12K) ATTACHMENT NO. 'S15 r G_\Ta11eM2MT1anning Commission120701 Beach(Huntington Shorecliffs)Tubhc Works Deparrnent code Comments 090109 doc Page 3 of 4 1 D_ If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement may be submitted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the.Subdivision Map Act (SMA) 1 _All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. Fees shall be calculated based on the currently approved rate at the time of payment unless otherwise stated. (ZSO 250.16) 12.A Homeowners'Associations) (HOA)shall be formed and,described in the CC&R's to manage the following for the total project area: a. Onsite landscaping and irrigation improvements b. On-site sewer and drainage systems c_ Best Management Practices (BMP's) as per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (NOMP) The aforementioned items shall be addressed in the development's CC&R's_ 13. Improvement Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer,shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval_ (MC 17.05/ZSO 230.84) 14.A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments_ (ZSO 232.04) a_ Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36' box tree or palm equivalent(13'-14'of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9'of brown trunk)_ b_ "Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means.to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed_ (ZSO 232.04D) 15.All-landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall -comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications_ (ZSO 232.04B) 16. Landscaping plans shall utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible_(DAMP) 17.A Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed,for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. .Said Arborist signature shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborisfs wet signature on the final plan_ (Resolution 4545) 18_A Drainage Fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance_ The current rate of$13,270 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments_ This project consists of 41.223 gross acres(including its tributary area portions along the half street frontages)for a total required drainage fee of$547,029_ City records indicate the current use on the subject property has never paid this required fee_ Per provisions of the City Municipal Code, this one time fee shall be paid for all subdvisions or development of land. (MC 14.48) In lieu of the payment of the aforementioned Drainage Fee $547,029, Public Works will accept the construction of the on-site master planned facilities per the City of Huntington Beach, Municipal Code Section 14.38.030_ 19_The current tree code requirements shall apply to this site_ (ZSO 232) a_ Existing trees to remain on site shalt not be disfigured or mutilated, (ZSO 232.04E) and, b_ General tree requirements, regarding quantities and sizes. (ZSO 232.08B and C) ATTACHMENT N®. 5-� 6ATallebV008\Plarming Commission\20701 Beach(Huntington Shorecliffs)\Public Works Department code Comments 090109.doc i J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT E gUFJT1NCTON BEACIi PROJECT IMPLEMENTATiON CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: September 4. 2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO.08-190: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO_ 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701,BEACH, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLAidNER: RAMI TALLEH,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEfE-MAIL: (714)374-16821 rtaIIeh@surfcity-hb_org PLAN REVIEWER--FIRE: -DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPi-IONEfE-MAIL: (714)536-55311 dmaresh@surfcity-hb_org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO iNDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP_ The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans�� received and dated August 4, 2009_ The Fist is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation_ A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any,will also be provided upon final project approval- if you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer-Fire. DARIN MARESH, FiRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST- 1_ Tract Map No_ 17296 for the subdivision of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile home park for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park for ownership purposes shall comply with the following requirements_ a_ Fire hydrant and water supply systems shall meet NFPA 24, 1977 Edition_ b_ Fire hydrant and water supply systems shall meet the-requirements set forth in Title 25 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 2, Subchapter 1,Article 6-Fire Protection Standards for Parks (This.can be found at- www_hcd_ca_gov/codes/mp/mpRegs_html)_ c_ Per Title 25 CCR §1308, it additional lots are installed, each lot shall have installed an accessible three-quarter (3/4)-inch valved water outlet, with an approved vacuum breaker installed, designed for connecting a three-quarter (3/4)-inch female swivel hose connection for fire suppression use- d- The following areas shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code unless conditions were legally existing prior to September 26, 2002 or it the fire ATTACHMENT NO. 5, ` Page 2 of 3 - chief determines that such a condition constitutes a distinct threat to life or property_ i_ Fire equipment access, posting of fire equipment access, parking, lot identification, weed abatement, debris abatement, combustible storage abatement and burglar bars. 2_ Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval,-the following shall be complied with-- a. Documentation of a current flow test in compliance with Title 25 shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department on the current HCD MP532 form- b. .Documentation of the fire hydrant and water supply system's compliance with NFPA 24, 1977 Edition, shall be submitted to.the Huntington Beach Fire Department by a licensed C-16 contractor or a licensed Fire Protection Engineer. c. Fire Lanes shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private., Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties_ No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire_access per City Specification# 415. Roadways must maintain compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access_ i. An inspection is required to confirm the park's compliance with regard to fire lane and apparatus access_ This inspection may be scheduled by calling (714) 536-5411_ 3. Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the following conditions shall be complied with_ a_ Residential address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428, Premise Identification_ Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shall be a minimum of four inches(4") high with one and one half inch (Yz ) brush stroke_ i_ An inspection is required to confirm the_park's compliance with regard to premise identification. This inspection may be scheduled by calling (714) 536-5411. 4. The following conditions shall be maintained during construction_ a_ Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition- b. Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification#426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites_ ATTACHMENT N®. 5.9 �. Page 3 oC 3 OTHER: a_ Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines, etc:, must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards_ (FE)) b_ Outside City Consultants:The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants. The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant,developer or other responsible party_ (FD) c_ The Huntington Beach Fire Department reserves the right to apply additional specific requirements as necessary_to reach.compliance with code requirement No. 1, referenced on page one of this document: Frye Department City 30666cations may be obtained at-- Huntington Beach-Fwe Department Administrative Office City Hall 2060 Main,Street, 5�'floor Ruatington Beach, CA 9264& or through the City.s website at-w ww.sua-Icity-hb mrg If you have any questions, please contact-the Fire Prevention Division at(714) 536-5411_ ATTACHMENT N . AUG 25 2009 `.. o. `® 28 e_ a. Huntington Beach ,= . ® a.,o_, 495 PLANNING DEPT. 71 1 e .'. August 25, 2009 Mr. Rami Talleh Senior Planner, Dept. of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 SUBJECT: Application to Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park—Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 Dear Mr_ Talleh: received a notice directed to"Interested Parties"from Mr.Scott Hess about a Subdivision Committee meeting set for September 2"d to consider a request by Shorecliff, LP to subdivide the property at 20701 Beach Boulevard_ Before I set forth my views about the proposed subdivision, I want to take serious exception to the wording of Mr. Hess's notice in the section captioned"REQUEST-" The last sentence of that section says, "The applicant proposes to convert the for rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots" On its face,that is a very benign statement_ However, it is factually not correct. It would be correct if reworded to say; "...to enable any and all interested persons or organizations to purchase lots_" As stated in the Notice, one would get the impression that the Subdivider is focused on Helping current residents participate in the creation of a Resident Owned Park,when in fact the real focus is on attracting non-resident buyers. I am writing to oppose very vehemently the Application presently under.consideration'-by the City of Huntington Beach to subdivide the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park located at 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. That application contemplates the subdivision and subsequent sale of the subdivided tots on a"condo- ized" basis. Let me be clear, though: I am not opposed in principal to the Subdivision- In fact, in principal I support the Subdivision concept. 1 am, however, opposed to approval of the Subdivision without the City of Huntington Beach placing conditions on the approval that would protect the interests of the substantially more.than 300 Senior Citizens who presently call the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park their Home_ These are people who are, by virtue of retirement, living on fixed incomes, and who are largely without the substantial resources required to retain outside Counsel to protect their interests. They rely on the City of Huntington Beach to protect their interests,just as it would protect the interests of any other citizens. ATTACHMENT N , .. c « f - - — — - -- -- —ems Here are a number of factors that I think the Planning Process should consider: First,"consider the demographics of the Park. it is a senior park_ The vast majority of the Park's residents are well beyond retirement.age_ A goodly number of them (I don't. know the exact number)can be classified as low-income persons. A substantial number, however, can be classified as"living on fixed incomes." In many cases, their mobile homes constituted their last major purchases, and they purchased their homes in the belief that their homes would provide them with a lifetime roof over their heads, at reasonable rental rates. Second, California Code Section 66427.5(hereinafter"the Code")requires the subdivider to file a report about the impact of the conversion on residents. I have reviewed the Application Fite twice and have failed to find any such impact report in the file. The Code is not very revealing about what such a report should contain, but I think it reasonable to expect that such a report would be at least as complete as any similar report about the impact of a new bridge on the snail darter or the ruby crested hummingbird_ Naturally, as one would expect,the conversion might have a tremendous negative impact on the emotional health of residents_ Beyond the emotional impact, though, the conversion will certainly have an enormous negative impact on the financial health of many, if not most, of the residents_ The Impact Report MUST address that_ Of course,at present, given the failure of the Subdivider to provide even the most rudimentary data about his plans,we residents can only guess what is in store for us. However, since the Subdivider paid about$60 Millions to acquire the Park, the average sale price of any one of the 309 lots must be close to$190,000. At that price,the Subdivider would recoup his initial purchase price_ Of course, to make himself whole for any expenses incurred while he owned the Park.the lot prices would have to be adjusted upwards._ It's safe to say that the offering price of any lot would necessarily be between$200,000 and$300,000. There are very few seniors in the Park who could afford to pay cash for that amount_ Moreover,since many lenders have suddenly"got religion"as a result of the numerous recent financial crises,the odds of a 75 year old resident being able to find favorable mortgage terms to facilitate the purchase are slim to none_ As for those residents who might elect to continue renting their lots, the Code provides in very vague terms that the subdivider may increase the pre-conversion rent rates to "market levels" in four(4)equal annual increments. Again,the Subdivider has been noticeably reticent about letting residents know what that increase might ultimately amount to. What happens to those residents who can afford neither the purchase price of their lots or the increased rent rates? This is where the too often made comparison between Apartment to Condo Conversions and Mobile Home to Condo Conversions falls apart_ In the Apartment to Condo scenario,the tenant who finds he can afford neither the price nor the increased rent can easily move elsewhere and take his*assets with him_ In the Mobile Home to Condo scenario, however,the tenant who finds that he must move elsewhere is forced to leave behind him a significant asset: his dwelling! In my own case,for example,five (5)years ago I moved into Shorecliffs and bought a brand new mobile home for$200,000 in cash_ i was working then, and was preparing for ATTACHM F A. retirement- I am retired now. If i find that I cannot afford to buy my lot OR to pay the increased rent rates,I will have to move elsewhere and leave my house—a.$200,000 investment—behind me. Even if if were practical to move a manufactured home to another site in the Huntington Beach area, I would have to pay nearly another$100,000 or more to acquire an aging mobile home on an existing space in another park,have it demolished and then have my own home moved, installed and refinished. The additional expense would be extremely high. Another area that the impact Report must address is what the impact will be on current- residents of the Subdivider's plans to change the Park's demographics. In this particular case,the Subdivider's representatives/agents have given clear signals that they are contemplating (if they have not already made the decision)changing the Park from a Senior to a Family Parka That makes good economic sense for the Subdivider, since a younger demographic will most likely have the higher incomes needed to purchase the converted lots. In my case that would have the effect of totally negating one of the two main reasons I moved into Shorecliffs. As an educator, I spent the last 44 years working with children and their parents. t loved it. However,now that 1 am retired,Kneed a break! I don't want to be puffing up with children,with their parents, and with the additional community expense required to provide safe play and recreation facilities for them- I think my view is shared by the majority of my fellow residents. incidentally, if the Subdivider does in fact intend to convert the park to a"family" park, then I submit that a substantive change of use is involved,and that the Subdivider's Application's representation that no change of use is involved is false on its face. Third, once conversion has-been approved at all levels, the Subdivider, as the owner of a all the lots in the Park,will be; perforce;the controlling member of the new Homeowners Association, and will continue as such until a majority of the lots have been sold to unrelated private parties_ it will not be until that time that we will know what our monthly Association Fees will be. Nor will we know what will be the plans for remedying common area deficiencies that already exist,and which have not as of this writing been cured. What is certain is that the Subdivider's agent, Star Management, has a palpable record of unresponsiveness. (In the interest of brevity I will not go into that at this time, but, on request, I have and can provide tangible documentation of that unresponsiveness as it relates to my own situation.) Since the Subdivider will for all practical purposes exercise virtual dictatorial power within the new Homeowners Association for a period of a least a couple if not several years, a.non-purchasing current resident of the Park will lose many, if not all, of the small protections he presently enjoys against the Park management. Fourth, the Code requires that the Subdivider provide a written survey of residents to determine the level of support for the conversion among the residents. -In addition to requiring that the survey be written,the Code requires that it be conducted pursuant to an agreement with a resident homeowner's association independent of the Subdivider/Park Owner. The Survey that the Subdivider provided to the City does not meet this last requirement. On information and investigation,the conclusion is inescapable that the Survey was improper in that it did not involve an independent homeowners association. Moreover, the agents who submitted the Survey as bona fide to the City were aware of its impropriety. Given their membership in the Califomia Bar, that raises certain ethical issues that 1 think warrant a review by the City Attorney- ATTACHMENT ' � For all the foregoing reasons, t believe that a basis exists for supposing not only that certain problems-exist within.the Park, but also within the Application itself,that render the Park unsuitable for conversion until and unless the foregoing matters have been addressed by the Park's present ownership. Until that has been done, I confess that I continue to share the suspicion_of many fellow residents that this application is nothing More than a poorly disguised attempt at a"sham Conversion," in order to do an end run around the existing City Conversion Ordinance that the previous Park owners tried, without success- Finally,it seems to me that the Planning and Development activities of any government unit should be governed by one overriding concern_ is what we are being asked to do in the interest of the General Public? There are so many factors here that appear to say NO! Yours truly toyer pace 28- untington Shorecliffs o � ' t 3 AUG 242009 The Planning Commission Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, California t' G DE?T RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision Idly wife and 1 are 17 year resident retirees of Huntington Shorecliffs living on a fixed income! During a Huntington Shorecliffs Owner General Meeting in November 2008, two informal.proposals were brought forth by their legal council. Changing Huntington Shdrecliffs from a 55 Senior Park to an open Family Park, and converting rental spaces to ownership spaces. A very vocal show of Bands by residents rejected both inquiries. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS SUBDIVISION AND REQUEST THE APPLICATION DE DENIED The Huntington Shorecliff, LP motive for this scheme is to drive + out current residents with over inflated lot prices, limitless rent increases, and offering unacceptable buyouts of ntries; can the dollar. Huntington Shorecliff LP made poor business decisions at the downturn of the real estate market! In an .effort to attain their projected profit numbers they are willing to disrupt and displace hundreds of senior citizensl Conversely, Ownership & Management are unresponsive and arrogant when problems need attending to within the park! Continuous flagrant traffic violations, speeding and failure to stole at posted signs ( install speed bumps ). Upholding Senior Park occupancy rules Sections of the park with long standing uncorrected drainage problems. Appreciate your consideration, Lori & Don Luckham Space 257 t ATTA i 1luc 21 09 11: 39a Merritt 714-960-6055 p_ 1 20701 WACH WVD,$1PACK#92 Ttil3��1� _- August 2l. 2009 The Planning Commission. Huntington Beach,CA 92643 Subject: HUNT NGTON SHORECLIFF&PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Fax: 714-374-1540 Deaucommissioners: Please-require that the owner conduct a statutorily Proper-survey of resident opinion on this subdivision_ We are-opposed-to this subdivision and request that you deny the aWication, Also,we are very concerned about the water coming under my home_ Our driveway had IV - begun to sink.&it took five(5�months five lettem f�.tke o st��aaveapate#r repair job_ The driveway,in less than three(3)weeks is already showing signs of sinking agaur_ Thebizcictop-was put ou over.stmding water_ Whether we will be-able-to afford-the rent-on our home if the wbdivivionisapproved. That if we do sell our home alter the subdivision is approved,we won't have enough money to move to aE new residence: Young people have already been allowed to move into our pwk—agailtsi all of the leases that were previously signed: If the wwd continues,we will-see higher crime ruts-,. vandalism,and increased noise levels_ - We've worked hard all of our lives&played by the rules_ It's time for our elected& appointed officials to-qart-doing what is-right for the seniorst r Mike and Lois Nterritt tl ll LS �"f Flo AUG 21 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. ATTA".HME T ` _-tilt atld tt3gar�t.l�er�erott 20701 Beach Blvd., Space#89 tiuntington Beach,GA 92648 714-374-4259 AOgust 21, 2,009 Ie Planning Commission ntington Beach-ICA'32648 Subject: HUNIHNGTON SHORECUFFS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Fax: 714-374-1540 Dear Commissioners; Pase require that the owner a riduct a statutoiiilyproper survey of resident opinion on -subdivision_ ., We are opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application. Also,we are very concerned about thc—ester coming-under-my home. -Our driveway had been sinking in 6 places-and we have-asked tttany threes-about getting it fixed,and still, several years later,it has not been fixed,or repaired_Tree blacktop veal put on over standing water_ 'Whether we will be able-to afford-the-rend on our home if the subdivision is approved_ That if we do sell our home after the subdivision is approved,we won't have enough Jutmey tomlove-to-a new fesidence_ Ybung people have akeady-been allowed to.-move into-.our park—against all of the leases that were previously signed. If the trend continues,we will see higher crime rates, :+gtdaiism,-and increased-noise lever Vl-'ve-wonted-hard all of our lives&:play by the rules_ It's time for our elected& appointed officials to sta-t doing what is right for the seniors! MEGt���C�D Bill aril Margret Berget'cn AUG 21 Zfl�9 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT d ATTACH N Y)r . Aug 2 s 09 04:48p Larry and Maureen Schrock 714-536-W24 PA G��C�C�QMC© August 21, 2009 AUG 21 2009 Huntington Seeoh PLANNING DEFT. The Planning Commission Huntington Beach,GA-92648 Subject: HUN-TMIGTON-SHORECLIFES-PROPOSED SUMMONS Fax Number: 714 374-1540 We are opposed to this subdivision and we respectfully request`that you deny the application.-- There are many reasons we think this proposed needs to be further investigated. 1) We need the owner to conduct a statutorily proper survey of residents. 2} Water-and drainage-is-a-major concern-within-the park_ There is-a.water storage, tank in the RV yard that collects the water runoff(tady,'and then dumps the water into the street during the`late-night or early morr►ft hours. -This water has-a-lot..of rust in it and it stains the concert. [it was very recently replaced as old pavement was_m a rtuned-state-_} A majof concern-is-that thts-rusty water go-in the drain--and then to the ocean_ This can't be a asset for Surf tatty_• During the time when everyone-is very unhappyL about-pollution-a"how It harms-the _.crater this_it a concern_ 3) According to-a recent survey where a subd&VMon was completed, the :slue of-al resident's coach was reduced by 95%, because..the.yalue.is-considered:in the land therefore the coach has lithe or no value_We understand this is because the land has to-be sold-before-the-resident's coach-can be-sold-Thiis is extremely hardforN seniors who invested their savings to pay for-their coach b$ i Ing they would be able-to-stay to-their home- (Our coach was-welt over_$125 0014less-.than"seven`.years ago. Currently our rent is justified, but the pass through fees add up to several hundred dollars far each resident'sspace each mor"k. 4) There have been issues,with under age residents in the.Park Which Is against the Civil Code for a senior parr The majority of the-residerts moved here because iuis'a-� Senior Park_ It-would;be-a major-concernt as-far as parking ofvehisles in-Huntington Shorecliffs,and the safety of snail children in the street if the age requirement is not in-glace_ Th t y y r �O a d au Schrock 207t Beach Blvd_Space.183 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 k€� �.. (19 11:39a Herritt i14-960-6055 P. 1 70701 WACK KVD B SKIE#go August 21,2009 The Planning Commission Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject: HUNTINGTON SHOREELIFFS-PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Pax: 714 374-1540 Dear.-Commissioners: Please-require that the owner conduct a statutorily proper survey of resident-opinion on- this subdivision We are-opposed to this subdivision-and request that yotr deny the application_ Also,we are very concerned about the water coming under my home. Our driveway had begun to sink-&-it took five(S)-months&five letters for the-owners to approveapate#- repair job_ The driveway,in less than three(3)weeks is already showing signs of sinking ag-um The blacktop wasputorroverstarrding water_ - Whether we will be able to afford-the rent-on our horne if the subdivisioa-is approved. That if we do sell our home after the subdivision is approved,we won't have enough money to move-to`a new residence. Young people have already been allowed to move into our park.—against all of.the leases that were previously signed If the trend seztrrrEres;we Qvill see higher crime rzSes;- vandalism,and i=eased noise levels. We've worked hard all of our lives&played by the rules_ It's time for our elected& appoir►-ted officials to start doing-wlsat is-right for the seniors! Me and Loserritt ���D AUG 21 7009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT i i t :1ppp Au 19,2009 Mr.Rami Talleh AUG 2 0 2009 Senior Planner,Department of Planning Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Application of Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach,CA (the"Park") Dear Mr.Talleh: As a result of the,subject pending,appi"tion and certain on-going litigation concerning the Park,the Home Owner's Association requested maps from the City Engineer's office showing the drainage of storm watermtcq Hugh and.out of the.Park. We received three maps of different scales purporting to show the drainage facilities in and around the Park_ Unfortunately,the only date indicated on one of the maps titled"Plan of Improvement"is 1%6. As pointed out in other correspondence and in meetings with various City staff,the Park is subject to potentially disastrous amounts of runoff from the neighborhood above the Park to the north_ We believe,but'have been unable to.verify,;that an.easement across the]and_which is now the Park may have been granted to an early developer of the parcels above the Park. Assuming that this was done prior to the:development ofttie Park,brat iunoff likely spread out over an open field or ran into a swamp similar to that which now exists further down Beach Blvd. It appears that the original developer of the Park failed to install proper underground drainage facilities to accommodate the runoff: The current situation is that any runoff from above the Park exits a 16"pipe just to the north of the park's main clubhouse. The water then travels through the Park via"V" gutters in the center of the streets. These gutters will likely be wholly inadequate to handle the runoff resulting from the amounts of rainfall some are projecting in the corning years as a result of global warming. We are already hearing forecasts of a "moderate"El Nino year approaching this fall and winter. Therefore,we strongly urge the City to require,as a condition of any subdivision of the Park,that the owner install appropriate and proper underground drainage facilities through the Park,whether or not they follow the old.easement_ Best Regards, L Scott C.Steeper President,Home Owners Association Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd,#204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ATTV"'WE T IPA;. V)-ip-11 it, - �e-�� ��9 ��..�v,....`S ►+9 t.� r�S S•-t,��.�v l.S rr� � f, tt --------- lJ f - ----------------- i S 1 I i ATT'ArHMFNT NOIL The Planning Commission AUG 4 Z009 Huntington Beach,Ca _ 8/22/09 Subject: Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision Commissioners Please require that the owner conduct a proper survey of the residents as to their opinion on this subdivision I am opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application I have lived here for about 5 years,put in a new home, and then observed all of the water problems in the park. I did not think it would affect me,until cracks in my driveway,caused rust to come up from the ground and stain my driveway. I don't know how the subdivision will affect my rent, but like many others here,Tam in the upper 70 age group, with a wife I take care of with Alzheimers disease.Any large increases m my expenses on my residence would be a large burden. Th you for your consideration. Paul G.Cannon Space 258,Huntington Shorecliffs_ ATTACHNIE ` ` ``a AUO 2 4 M09 i NuMingtone ch RIANNING" T, 001 i t f t ��,z.� ter►-may. �t�h>,-Q-- ��� ���- , e4e n �, 3 OOOT ����t�f��S 4-us CDC EOED AUG 2 4 7009 Huntington unfington Beach PLANNING P ANNIt LANNING DEPT Su,- vq 4AC- Aplo C"f-4� 40 a, wN S4 �6 kjq� h CA u M (J�) CC) wilt t ft,- AW&lan —4- -z Sx It4l A i C-7 W-L-- 1 14� 171 o44,kJt7,,ef (3 ATTAOMAI:M" AUG 242009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEFT 51a-A4 S � S Ot I/1s I d,1-4 J P C,�� S � �C�v i�.0 �-(�: G wnl Ems. �a�►r t�uc7� s ril i(��,e r51 4 t r L 77115 5SU,6.01 ViSl eV kit l(�c.t1 (�tf�f C/� qpo sue,© Cf SUe, dt '/f StQ•�( 42 W H CT,ICA\- 4 fT011.4 -IwC y0U1J2 �lL'U.2 CC.tIS/ � � 1s r AUG 2 4 2009 Hunti"gtO;Seam A PLANNING go , c� a, oko _kb s E ATTACH �' AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach PL4NNiNG DEP7 All � - 47 �- t� /Ie i� i AUG 242009 HT�rrtington t?each PLANNING DENT. i j T { f v� ATTAC'HM : p: MY ED AUG 2 a Zoos r i Huntington Beach ('CANNING DEPT r r j �� d47 � - _ - o _ ATW n L4 NX MT Mrs 2 C-) i E0V AUG 2 4 2009 HUniington Beach FIANNfNG DEFT. J F ATTACHMENT ' L �'V 7009EeachDEPT. E 4 ' S i t t } 3 i 9 a � RECEVE AUG 2 4 7009 Huntington Beach NNtNG DEPT Yam" 1 i 3 t 4 '4 i { li `u t �i t i i �l ;t P� AUG 4 ?Oog z ` a ` "u tin to 13 each NIN NV �vb A k\3 OY\ L-P-- AUG 2 4 Zoog Huntington 'ach PT ATTACHMENT NN( AUG F 4 1009 Hunli Jton Beach —_ NN(NG OEPT eA�P -C��lil�t�J -axe Iiii fil- � r L AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach P�ANNNG DEPT aAl fa.1d l - AUG 2 4 Zoos Huntington Beach PLAN NG DEPT. y �►� 4u eur5 c--Zk- T f(C- P(C VADeeKTI If A Al I ff rnbtr4fi- 1 /I prof ATTAr_HKAFNT gyp_�.. �4 . 4L"g 1 AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington.Beach 1 Pi-AhN(tVG DEFT i I v ATTACHME {L .;,,, AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT Ca C4d �0 V IA(6 SSia�z e r� All � S Fr i AUG 242009 f'E�JVNfNG DDEP7. o t - r l 14 J*� &-23 ATTACHMENT Mt. S RECE 4 E !� AUG 2 4 7009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. L f L t � .Z t AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach �EV Olh fT• B_ �!L<hrlrit � �YIISSits� PIVttYGDEPT �� l�uh�l h f0r1 �s,lGreGli f YS �i n c(rur s/6 it ,-Tear oofAh1lS!�-fOn erS� / �lr►� rr$u P,t�raoYpv p/ter t' se rQccrrPi 4-Ae- pct>g rf— G! �L'or?dU L `�� slaTu llpr �f`V PrdPer Survey rP-c OAtgrOrl O � rNr/s Su6drviSiQ� _ �� Co n comes-its ate -�o c u s d u t�0 r► 'r'�-, -(�,(I Q w i t1 1o0 QNOct�� �1`p-vUrm4 4L061 cis to SQp pJpr !'(µme IL9 t1 O S u�1p o r n l PG fc ct s-Q- I)a tY►a it e (�7 r/ly (j Gt sat o a k baV- een d1fC�lSSP� • 02• �i �ct►�� 11 e/�crs. Js r.o/J�'r^ d� rd 1 tl o r O S -e_ rS 'fv ty,uG� cvcr�r S F�uac�tn� tr 3. A5 s�lD�s of sa , � 4> CZY� rl 04- S u r-e-- o e V h -f-4 ma v e n t! } o r Q —C asp( '{D m o✓ Q *1e—) F eS rd e,,c- lv �. ��a ��`� v�� �� �E«b. �6•.��� PB�I�, ems. AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT O/v ATTArWhAr:kl' RECE9�'lEDD AUG z a zoos - Hunfington Beach PLANNING KEPT � 9 � fl IE AUG 2 4 2909 / H N 9t Rr cy G�I AUG 2 4 Zoos Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT t Jk� ATTt1CL- f AUG 2 4 7009 Huntington Beach ' - PtANNdNG DEPT Lo Cl o T t ATTArHhAF:NT N(N. K . r' T/fF {��A,JN1Nc Cv.•sM,Sr�� AUG 2 4 2009 j Huntington Beach t INNING D r c)tl t �Gl NUAtY)IV "/ .SM41—, ,f<'S 1�J1r}/�dS�D SJ3a/ws.a # i I L.rf�Si �<%Qur�Z� n'`�- PfC O�J�£c E'J:V�cfGr // S7�Tc,r�JCrtY i/�t�P£R SuQvEy Oi l�ESro£.v% OP�.J.d�t o� nf•s S.t3A►d.t�a,✓. 1 UCnY Co/.tc.ER-ca .46"7 -- v rx,-7 in�C wicc d-- # 77,< ItCIJT 0-I J h Y f,b tiE I Tz� S J4 czr v,s.J.✓ /s 4PapodFJ v2 1, c 4&c !a f}F(�1211 jt� pu2cy�St i'1`/ L�r l r SO ,f10SE_ I �tS't7 C,-/JGE,c-.rL7 ?/"Jcj F-G) INC.�i"t G /J��S� CoNC S �;I/' /i`r�E/I��7✓� �b PL,9d /I y i 114AtI( YOci �� YJJiC C��►S�Ok�, i7a..! C" i t t c�a n Le AUG 2 4 ?009 M/s sio yT Huntington Bach PLANNING DEPT. SubJec� /�uh /H���t YPcli{{r Aajadsed S'ccJ�s.1 s- plerse tS ur✓Py o� reslderl f oeg' t'O J on 7��1is 5u i✓is�o n . avert ovpas-e"d >16 4is suhdlvl le n aKj e5i you 4 f4iSO a-m Ilev ed:locro aAcal 4" GIYd1WGt e i� }-.hc- J?aYTs �cr rev[ �[ rKOa�Ppa1�P /r'c/iN ���1<� rs �6 yY/uc� sJ�ah�in and dm eomceroed af34" Grey ren� lvirrcgy,e �rrtoQ/ol /d 1)urcha5-Q Ae /oro/JeJ zdC- Pr of qeJ- wP wilf ke ,Xe Y6 Q np-J (2 Aer ome clN� de:�nifP'y -:-f-qrv\ At✓I�tG )CO MOO? Crud i P�crrr.�4se aim," t WE �FM U Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT °1� . a-1 art - --�''r`-' ��"-d �=�y���rt.->✓r-f% eft�i�i--�->e__ a Ore ATTACHME N m3 = AUG 2 4 Z009 Hunting!c Beach PLANNING DEPT vv CV 4�3 ATTACHMENT NO,, `' .r'Al �y SY AUG 2 4 2009 FLAN u,�tington t-ach - AUG 2 4 2000 �a-- FC,gNNi tor, e, Be 17 Zee- ,i N�pEP7- ATTAnt_IRAr'ao-r AIt-% s i r OVEDUG 2 4 2009 nting,,or Beach idu�!G DCPT_ 1JlrZ,!t—: G�WA A ��rOL/�•� fi//mil YX9Y !JAG- i1/J' �/fz Ale? jv e—,4-7 p,v �j ->-��r�,� �,CT�-� S'�T� T��Y�s�© •Y 7s .�/-'c�v.� t//,65%iP/t," ATTAr.HMFNT N I D) /I- CC OWED AUG 242009 14mt- gtan Cea--h PLANNING DEPT 0.m m sl ©� 0 It red ,P-TT vovaanct Dcar CDm k Li Co fdkkd- ro- + a (nion a L par V'l y I Ck 1--) r C)w (c) C) ATTP,,"'%HMFNT NO- AUG 242009 Mon Beach VING DENT. /chr t g wwrk, AlDile-t 1 1 ,4 q t L) Y—Y 4 1 -13 O(IAJ JoA, V ---, 510 - 5— Sv Olt/tOkf UJ(7 C) e� -14 /c/0'y r k., ATTACHMENT i I AUG 2 4 Zoos Hunt'sngton Peach PLANNING DEPT. 1 t / ,PL V. A � i f I i I r I i i i i i ATTACHMENT N , AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington peach J�A j _ PLANNiNG DEP t Mis3iwl R0,4,se zo J 1 W vcC - CL S TvF-O•eI CSA� S J U�Y�viSt o vi a � 14 0 A tt i # .. . h� � be f►c,vw1� i n� 5 v.�vs{ 0 CAS S JtJ LULS la .- �� 46 y a i4 F4 th o k, x-Ab-,, Lv`6�C- I w,tCf 4O /(4 4 -�4 X17 Ic 06 dt OL4 O�, (o lS `lsa e> V* JOLk ATTA 1-14hAP '':' . f 1 R �CEP ED AUG 2 4 7009 i Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. o -2;r . . � - -JU `� AUG 24 2QQy f FtArtrxr2 gEpr �P x 41 Wa , - . _, Coo, bX,_.,n _WtA-) blr owe,tE t ATTV HMFNI AUG 2 4 Z009 4 Hunpngtor,Beach PI-MNING DEPT_, 1 c = 1- i Y L lG ATTA !11 IN A(-Ab-' WIe# ; AUG 24 2009 Huntington Beach NN1NG DEFT t t IV i i ' J��- :✓,.cam-� '-�:�- � '-'�' _ -� �.t�tr-.� �J \J 11 j-D � ATTACHMENT �� a � ��2 AUG 24 2o09 Hu"ti'lgtor,Beach n1G D xe- v ATTACHMENT NO,0.. �.:�� AUG 2 4 2009 LANN Hu,�iFrgtor.Beach i t' 1{VG pEPT jo ad-Wn T u puke .daaa,6� 160 _ it G fun Ij ATTACHMENT NO,� : �:� u'��� j AUG 2 4 ZOQ9 - PL,nan MIAft tor,Be ch NG a { � . K p �u,b cLrvrs�oN . hut'` rl,�,'✓ � ������Gn d� �1C1h fo:N �3'N Y G'q Gr G's -1 Ir - s�f�OGfr vi S� o� bo�r- A-r-r A!N I R A r`P.9-ff- ft 5 1 AtJG 24 2009 f N r7ringtn�Beach s r J 7 ATTACH MENIF :s " -- AUG 2 4. 2009 � HLit" Beach 1 1 Iq F 4 NN G DEPT. " 0 -7 c (7 C_-1 17 'tAf ATTACHMENT NO, D AUG 2 4 2009 ,�• �� Huntington Beach c� PLANNING BENT Ica��o.Lvi`vJ ��v�� • ATTACHMENT NO. i � CAD AUG 2 4 2009 Huntingto Beach { t, �: PL4NNlMG H�PT D ATTACHMENT NO. � �°� AUG 2 4,2009 Hunting-On Sea P�VNtNG DE d t F i v ✓ y`-' Sp ATTACH ME II �;N, 6 � U E1l, AVG 2 4 2009 ' HunfVtington beach PLAMIN,D,c GAY . Ae AUG 2 4 zoos l ` Huntington Beach (� �f� i���i���__ PLANNING DEPi // t=-ma's /�� kv AUG 242009 Beach PLAINNI NG DEPT, C,-j GN" A7 ATTAC.HMPNTNO } AUG 2 4 ?oog HUalington gEach PLANNI y DEPI.- j . , led-.. �DD v Zfl- ATTACHMENT '� " AUG 2 4 20D9 'v Huntin gton Eleacki Pst1�1VNfIV�G DEPT f .L 3 U UECEWL i f t AUG 2 a 7009 ! Huntington Beach L PLANNING DEPT- f� -mot _ !�-'d ,�%'''L,J `-�-(�-•'tom' s is c « � G� �' ' ✓��L�'t%c�. .�zq,� Ile 1. Hunti h PLANNIt4G d EPT CXNnw1LS`� 1bg� amp. ���� �a-e_�� s-V >YG, A-L. °ten c� o�' uu c�'2 b w ��. c o w• e nn e� ATTACHMENT N s 2g:M_ AUG 2 4 7009 Huntington Be BeG D } C t � i 1 / i i ATTPtHMENTp . 4` tj} - 1 2 A VP PUyNon Beach NG KEPT _ r _ ' L -- ` Coll - i nTTA(:HME T NO r- AUG 2 4 2009 Huntingtor,Beach ,s PLANNING DEPT. ` A4 t � 7- T ' �► 11i s .'" � P AUG 242009 EC Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. V V e- - ATTAC;HMFNT ►1 n i n AUG 2 2009 Hun6n ING OEP-r Rttuvrrr,�G p��r. ec Parlo�j .Ix�vi� c4l� ,.ayes, PAk drIN h IRJ� At[d caj--, oJOAP I ;nL t Q-cow-tee- °P S k t f-IllyIYl �s P.h 1 o (a5S - ..e sw Ar-KI'T Idn E OL i _ 2-4010 AUG 2 a Zoos odo-�-ed L o(I v i e o ,e Ilk o ` 3/61 o C � 77t- Q � S 0- ------ - -- ---------- row saac -- ATTA(;HMENT NO. �3 ^. rU AUG 2 4 2009 �� -- Huniington Beach PLANNING DEPT She,e may O /44 7 1 Wg 'air 44 /i w y ATTACHMENT" . : : _ D The Planning Commission AUG 2 4 Huntington Beach,California 2�Q� Huniingtou SUBJECT: Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision F�Nn1�NG Apr Dear Commissioners, Please require that the owner conduct a statutorily proper survey of resident opinion on this subdivision. [If you wish to include] a I:III jppo--- -o ion app teation. [If you wish to include] I support the subdivision and request that you approve the subdivision_ [Please include at least one of the following.) Also, I am very concerned about the storm-draarsituatiorrirrthepar#:--Tfremistomr ntch water coming into our park from the hill above_ the water coming under my home from under my•neighbor's home. the standing water in and around my home during the winter rains and from the run off from the neighborhood above our park all through the year. whether I will be able to afford the rent on my home if the subdivision is approved. that if I sell my home after the subdivision is approved I won'thave enough money to move to a new residence. Thank you for your consideration_ [Nam &Space Number] The Planning Commission AV D Huntington Beach,California SUBJECT: Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision AUG 242009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT Dear Commissioners, Please require that the owner conduct a statutorily proper survey of resident opinion on this subdivision. [If you wish to include] I am opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application_ //4If you wish to include] I support the subdivision and request that you approve the subdivision. [Please include at least one of the following.} Also, I am very concerned about )('the storm drain.situation in the park_.There is too much water coming into our park from the hill above. the water coming under my home from under my neighbor's home. the standing water in and around my home during the winter rains and from the run off from the neighborhood above our park all through the year. X whether I will be able to afford the rent on my home if the subdivision is approved. that if I sell my home after the subdivision-is approved I won't have enough money to move to a new residence. Thank you for your consideration_ [Name/& Space Number] Ste#� The Planning Commission EC L" D Huntington Beach,Califomia AUG 2 4 2009 SUBJECT. Huntington Shoreeliffis Proposed Subdivision Hun6ngtcn Beach PLANNING DEPT Dear Commissioners, Please require that the owner conduct a statutorily proper survey of resident opinion on this subdivision- [Ifyou wish to include] I am opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application_ if you wish to include] I support the subdivision and request that you approve the subdivision_ [Please include at least one of the following.p Also, I am very concerned about the storm drain situation in the park_ There is too much water coming into our park from the hill above_ the water coming under my home from under my neighbor's home_ the standing water in and around my home during the winter rains and from the run off from the neighborhood above our park all through the year_ whether I will be able to afford the rent on my home if the subdivision is approved. that if I sell my home after the subdivision is approved I won't have enough money to move to a new residence_ Thank ou for your consideration_ _ Space Number The Planning Commission Huntington Beach,California gll �( ��17 ' LU SUBJECT: Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision AUG 2 4 2009 VDear Commissioners, Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT v Please require that the owner conduct a statutorily proper survey of resident opinion on this subdivision. [If you'wish to include] I am opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application. [If you wish to include] I support the subdivision and request that you approve the subdivision_ [Please include at least one of the following.] Also,I am very concerned about thestorm drain situation in the park. There is too much water coming into -� J our park from the hill above. the water coming under my home from under my neighbor's home. the standing water in and around my home during the winter rains and from the run off from the neighborhood above our park all through theyear. whether I will be able to afford the rent on my home if the subdivision is approved_ that if I sell my home after the subdivision is approved I won't have ✓ enough money to move to a new residence. Thank you for your consideration. [Name&Space Number] tit ATTAC,HMEN T 4 09I1U12009 T0E 9:12 FAX 949 S33 0733 Holly Hutchins 1�004_�004. CITY OF HU.N-DuaTO y BEACH NOTicE 015°Ptif3:1IC"HEAR NO •a�"NGT"ICACH SEFORE TH 'PLANiNiNG-COMAAIS510-N You are receiving this Notice of Public Hearing because you either own property, are a resident, or conduct business within dose proximity-of the item checked below. Ttie Planning Commission Public Hearing is scheduled for: WHEN: Tuesday.Swternber 22, 2009 TIME- 7.00 PM WHERE: City Council Chambers Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS,are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined below. A copy of the application is on fife in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Streett, Huntington Beach. Catifomfa 92648.for review-by the.public. I€.you chaltenge the.Plant ing Commission's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues-you-or-someone-else raised at the public hearing.described-in this-notice, or-in-written corresponderice delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. if there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer-to the application below. NOTICE IS H IVEN that on September 22, 2009. at 7:00 PRE in the City Council tubers, 2000-Ruin Street. Huntington ach, the Planning Commission will hold-a\ pub' aring on the following it 4_ TENTATIVE CT iWAP NO. 17296IHUNTINGT N SHORECUFFS MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION) licanL- Boyd HID. aft. Kmg & Coldren Request_ To a) subdivide approximately 39.2 -acres into 309 mbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for- _rut mobile home park into 309 lots for . ownership purposes and b)' create five additio al tots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 3 _ The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park to enable the emsting park resi ents to purchase their own lots. The project also includes an appeal filed by the appli nt of the applicable code requirements. Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west ,de of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave.) Protect Planner_ Rami Talleh ATTACHMENT NO. -% 09/15/2009 TE 9:11 Fy 949 833 0738 Holly Hutchins �\ 02 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-001 (FLOOD ORDINANCE R;EVISIONST ApaCcant; City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Chapter 222 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdvision Ordinance (HBZSO) to bring it- into conTliance with. Federal Emergency Management Agency (t=EMA): requirements_ The proposed amendment would, among others, clarify-and supplement-definitions and standards of, construction. Location: Citywide Project Planner. Ricky Ramos NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that items#1 and#2 are categorically exempt from the_provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act_ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN.that Item#2 will require a Local Coastal Program Amendment certified by the California Coastal Commission. OR FILE: A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department or the Central Library.(7111 Talbert Avenue) on Wednesday.September 16,2009 Scott Hess.Secretary Huntington Beach-Ptanning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714}53"271 Or _ C� �y oot40� r )M�9 ry i �.AAI- 1", //VO /L p � 33 -3zo MENT NO. �-?4 0911 S;2009 ME 9:12 FAI 949 833 07300 n0116 Hutchins �443I004 City of Huntington Beach 4. ® 2000 MAIN STREET CAUFORNIA 92648 OEPA11TMENT OF PLANNING � D INTERESTED PARTIES (� August 17.2009 The followi . m is scheduled for a Subdivision Committee meeting on Wednesday, Sept 2,2009,at 4:00 p.m.in Room B-8 of the Huntington Beach Civic Center,20000 Mari Street, Huntington Beach,California: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (Huntington Shoreciiff Subdivision) REQUEST: To subdivide approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered tots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes--The applicant proposes to convert the for rent park to enable th—,exis-ting park residents to purchase their own lots_ PRESENT ZONE: RMH(Residential Medium High Density) USE: Mobile Home Park ACREAGE: 39.2 acres LOCATION: 20701 Beach Blvd.,92648(west side of Beach Blvd.,south of Indianapolis Ave.) SUBDIVIDER: Shorecliff, LP,200 Sandpoints,fourth floor.Santa Ana,CA 92707 ENGINEER: R.T.Quinn& Associates, 1907 Border Avenue,Torrance, CA 90501 Comments to be considered prior to Committee action?must be received by Friday. August 28, 2W9. if you have any questions,please contact Rami Talleh,Senior Planner at 714)53 - 5271. Sincere ��a �A 0 � ` AA Sco t e AICP VYI A� Secretary, Subdivision Co Wiee _ t tIS:RT_tw_ I Attachmont(maps) '�-���� � � Lk� 1/�------7 . v � Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 ATTACHMENT C HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S_Coldren rcoldren@hkciaw.com August 25, 2009 Our File Number- 36014-11214851-1971-7124v.I ij VIA FACSIMILE, E-MAIL AND OVERNITE EXPRESS Facsimile No. (714) 374-1540 AUG 262009 Pi M11146—D P-r Subdivision Committee Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C/o Rami Talleh, Senior Planner RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No- 17296 ("Application") Response to Resident Letters Dear Committee and Commission Members: We received from the Planning Staff very few resident letters-objecting to the,above-referenced Application- Copies of those letters are enclosed herewith as Attachment 1. This letter constitutes the Park owners' response to those letters_ Theletters exhibit a profound misunderstanding by certain residents about the California process for rental mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership. The issues raised in the letters cannot even be considered by the City in acting on the Application- The letters also contain several incorrect statements. Therefore, in response to those letters, we will first set forth the legal background for the City's consideration of the Application under the Subdivision Map Act, and then we will address the particular issues raised in the respective letters. Underseparate cover, we will be addressing the numerous benefits of mobilehome park subdivision- Subdivision of the park is all about providing the Park residents with an option to purchase or remain renters forever. "Option" is the key word here. No resident will be forced to do anything as a result of subdivision- A resident that does not want to own his or her lot can continue to rent the space for the rest of that resident's life. All leases will be continued to be honored post-subdivision- Therefore, the completion of the subdivision will have no--I repeat no—impact on rents in the Park- A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714.432-8700 1 www-hkdaw-corn I Fx 714-546.7457 ATTACHMENT -:P a HK& C HART. KING & CGLDREN Rami Talleh � City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 2 As to those tenants who complain (in our view without justification) of supposed lapses in repair and maintenance, those shatters have nothing to do with subdivision, and the law is clear that the occasion of subdivision is not the place to address these issues (although when the tenants own the park they can maintain and repair at whatever level they wish). Finally,we have not had an opportunity to brief our tenants on our subdivision plans yet, and it is unfortunate that a militant vocal minority of disgruntled tenants chose to blanket the Park with misinformation and to solicit similar negative letters from the tenants_ It is gratifying that in the face of such a campaign that very few tenants have"taken the bait." THE STATE HAS AN EXPRESS POLICY TO FACILITATE MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP In 1991, the California Legislature established Government Code Section 66427-5,which is part of the Subdivision Map Act. Government Code Section 66427.5 expressly governs park owner applications for subdivision of existing mobilehome parks for the purpose of converting the rental mobilehome parks to resident ownership_ Government Code Section 66427.5 is part of the general State scheme to facilitate resident ownership of mobilehome parks: [Ijt is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this chapter, to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership ... and to help establish acceptance for resident-owned .._ mobilehome parks in the private market. (Health & Saf. Code §50780 (b)) (See Ef.Dorado.Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal. App_4th 1153, 1168- 1169[explaining the linkage between-Govt. Code§66427.5& the expression of legislative intent found in Health & Saf. Code § 50780]) THE STATE ESTABLISHED A STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING MOBILEHOME PARKS Given the State policy to facilitate resident ownership of mobilehome parks, the Subdivision Map Act at Government Code Section 66427.5 provides an exclusive streamlined process for local agency approval of existing mobilehome park tentative tract maps: The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The 36014.11214851-1971-7124v.1 9144 . ` . - FIAR- . ..iNG ;L 5 Rami Talleh `` -- City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 3 scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_ (Govt. Code §66427.5 (e)) The California Court of Appeal has interpreted Government Code Section 66427-5(e)to prevent any additional local agency requirements for subdivision approval, including, as attempted in the El Dorado case, a city requirement for a tenant majority approval of the subdivision_ The Association's interpretation would conflict with the legislative intent to encourage such conversions. Indeed the City notes that "such an onerous-condition of approval would effectively give the mobile home park homeowners' association the ability to unilaterally block the proposed park conversion unless the landlord would otherwise set his purchase price at an amount acceptable to the homeowners_" Giving the homeowners this power would conflict with the legislative intent"to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership .-.." (Health &Saf. Code§ 50780, subd_ (b)) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v_ City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal_ App.4t'at 1172 [underline added]) At oral argument, the City argued that the three further conditions it imposed were designed to prevent an abuse of the conversion process by a developer who was engaged in a sham or fraudulent transaction which was intended to avoid the rent control ordinance. The problem with the argument is that section 66427.5, subdivision (d) provides that "The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_"Thus, the City lacks authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the tentative or parcel map. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal- App.4"'at 1165 [underline added)) Thus, under Government Code Section 66427.5, the only issues that the City may consider in deciding upon an existing mobilehome park subdivision are as follows: 0 Is the tentative tract map in compliance with City requirements? 36014.11214851-1971-7124 v-1 ATTACHMEH HK&C HART. KING & COLDREN Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 4 0 Did the park owner notify residents of their option to continue leasing or purchase their lots? 0 Did the park owner submit to the City and timely mail to the residents a resident impact report? 0 Did the park owner submit the results of a,-resident survey of support of the subdivision that was conducted by written ballot in accordance with an agreement between the park owner and an independent resident homeowners' association? THE STATE PREEMPTS AND PREVENTS CITY IMPOSED CRITERfA FOR MAP APPROVAL The recent Court of Appeal decision, in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal_ App. LEXIS 1397 (Cal_ App. 1st Dist. Aug. 21, 2009) ,reaffirmed that Section 66427-5 (e) expressly precludes local agency criteria for approval of mobilehome park subdivisions: We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental . to a resident-owner basis_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397 (Cal. App. 1st Dist_ Aug. 21, 2009), at p. 54) In explaining the-above holding, the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates expressly stated that local agencies do_ not have authority to impose conditions, even conditions interpreting the particular requirements under the Subdivision Map Act, such as conditions for the appropriate content of the Government Code Section 66427.5 (c) report on the impact of the conversion upon residents or conditions relating to the level of tenant support demonstrated by the Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) tenant survey- We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's approach. Beginning with the presumption against preemption in the area of land use, it is more than a little difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only on the issues of resident support and the subdivider's efforts at avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents_ Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept, if not invite, supplementary local action_ For example, a subdivider 36014.11214851-1971-7124v.1 t& "ART. K;+tG C01—DREtd Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 5 is required to "file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents," but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report. And there is some force to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici: "Surely, the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content ....[¶] ._. [1I] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report],it may become a meaningless exercise" However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach. There are three such statutes—sections 66427-4, 66427-5, and. 66428-1. And if they are considered as a unit—which they are, as the three mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act—a coherent logic begins to emerge. It is not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see fit to grant local authorities some power, but circumscribe that power_ That is what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power, but no more. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 46-48, 51) And still more.A local ordinance is impliedly preempted if it mandates what state law forbids. (Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal_4th 1139, 1161- Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angetes, supra, 27 6al_4th 853, 866_) As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state- mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application_ Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66247.5, the application (1) "is consistent with the General Plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2) demonstrates that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"; (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety",- 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 ATTACH i _ HART. KING & CDLDIREN Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 6 and (4) the proposed conversion "is a bona fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. (Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c), subs. 1(c}-1(f), 2_) The Ordinance also requires that, following approval of the conversion application, the subdivider "shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the-general public,"- for a- period of 90 days 'from--the issuance of the subdivision public report ... pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 11018.2" (1d., § 25-39.7(d), subd_ 2_) However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. The -matter of just what 3, constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions_ And although the Ordnance employs the mandatory "shall," it does not establish whether the presumptions are conclusive or merely rebuttable_ This uncertainty is only compounded when other criteria are scrutinized. What is the financial provision that.will- be deemed "appropriate" to "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance"? Such imprecision stands in stark contrast with the clear directives in section 66427.5_ (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 58-61) LOCAL CONDITIONS ARE UNNECESSARY The streamlined process for City approval of existing mobilehome park tentative maps makes sense not only from a policy perspective of facilitating resident ownership of mobilehome parks, but also in the context of the significant State law and administrative agency regulation of mobilehome parks before, during and after tentative map approval by the City. Before a tentative map may be submitted under Section 66427.5,the mobilehome park must already be in existence with a permit from the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for the spaces that will be subdivided. 36Q14.11214851-1971-7124v.1 HK&C HART. KING & C❑LDPEN Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 7 Mobilehome park design, construction, use and operation is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the HCD under the Mobilehome Parks Act, Health and Safety Code Section'18200 et seq: These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate"specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design of mobilehome.parks (Health & Saf_ Code § 18253) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 16-17) During the subdivision process, the tenants are adequately protected by provisions of the Subdivided Lands Act that require the Park owner to prepare and Aisseminate a public report that must be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Real Estate,which report discloses and provides for, interatia, encumbrances on the Land, the status of public utilities, needed capital improvements, proposed assessments, etc. (See Bus. & Prof_ Code § 11000 et seq.) In the normal situation, conversion begins with compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, followed by approval from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act. (Bus_ & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq.) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1177) After the subdivision is approved by local government, the Department'-of Real Estate regulates the marketing and sale of the individual units in the park. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11010 et seq_) It is illegal to sell subdivided property before obtaining a public report from the Real Estate Commissioner. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11018) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1160) Following the City subdivision approval, the tenants are adequately protected by provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 under the Subdivision Map Act that protects residents against economic displacement. Section 66426.5 (a) requires that the Park owner offer the residents the option of either purchasing their lots or continuing to lease their that lot from the Park owner_ Therefore, 36014.11214851-1971-7124 v.1 ATTACHMENT' HK&_C HART. KING & COLDRLN Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 8 residents will not be forced to terminate their leases and will not be forced to purchase, but will be provided a valuable option to purchase if they so choose. Also, Section 66427.5 (f) limits rent increases for residents who choose to continue leasing. For non low income residents, their rents, if below market value at the time of conversion, can only be raised to market value over a four year period. For low income residents, their rents can only be raised.by an annual percentage,that,is equal to the average rent increases during the four years prior to.conversion- The Court of Appeal in Sequoia ParkAsso€iates recognized the-broad reach of those exclusive statutory provisions contained in Section 66427.5 in protecting residents against econoric displacement: The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuring that conversion must comport with the General Plan, especially its housing element, because that.is where.the economic dislocation -will be manifest, by reducing the inventory of low cost housing. (See Health & Saf_ Code, § 50780, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(3).) In this sense however, section 66427.5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates as it does make provision in subdivision (f) for helping non--purchasing lower income households to remain. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal, App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 61-62) The Court of Appeal in the earlier case of El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, in comparing Government Code Section 66427.5 with Government Code Section 66427-4, clearly recognized that conversion under the limitations of Section 66427.5 will not result in economic displacement of residents: We first examine section 66427.4. It applies to "conversion of a mobilehome park to another use." Conversely, it would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged_ The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping center or another different use of the property. In that situation, there would be "displaced mobilehome park residents" who would need to find "adequate space in,a mobilehome park" for their mobilehomes and themselves_ Thus, an impact report is required_ (El Dorado Palm Springs; Ltd_ v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App_4th 1153, 1161) 36014.112/4851-1971-7124 v.1 ATTA,C.HMFN k° . HART Kitts: & COLD REN' - Rami Talleh City of Hungtnngton Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 9 The City's action on-the subdivision application occurs at a stage in the process where significant information pertaining to conversion such as lot purchase price and homeowner association obligations have not yet been studied or developed: Although a tenant cannot make a rational decision to buy, continue to rent, or move his or her mobilehome unless the tenant is given an option price and a proposed rental price, the tenant is not required to make such a-decision-until after the Department of Real Estate has approved the project and issued its public report. (Bus. & Prof Code § 11010.9) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v_ City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 CalAppAth at 1179) While the filing of the application and compliance with Section 66427.5 give notice to the residents of their option to purchase, the subdivider does not need to disclose a tentative price at that time because the residents do not need to decide whether to purchase at that time_ (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v_ City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 CalApp_4th at 1180) In fact, the Subdivided Lands Act prevents premature disclosure of lot price information.- Indeed, the giving of the disclosure notice does not authorize the subdivider to offer to sell the units before obtaining Department of Real Estate approval. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11010.9, subd. (c)_) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd.-v_ City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal_App_4th at 1180) Thus, all that is required at the stage of City approval of the Application is for the Park owner to give notice to the residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the statutory protections for those residents pertaining to post-conversion rent increases. At the latter time [the subdivision approval by the City], the subdivider must only notify residents that they will have an option to purchase their sites or to continue to rent them. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v_ City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal_App_4th at 1180) The City cannot impose any conditions of its own on approval of the Application. The City has an almost ministerial duty to approve the Application if it complies with the simple checklist of requirements set forth in Government Code Section 66427.5_ 36014.11214851-1971-7124v.1 ATTACHMENT HKr-&C HART. Kl"-- & COLDFZEN Rami Talleh � City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 10 THE RESIDENT LETTERS RAISE iNAPPROPRIIATE ISSUES While the particular issues raised in each letter will be addressed separately as needed, generally, the issues raised in the letters cannot be considered by the City with respect to the Application_ Sequoia Park Associates makes clear that the Cily cannot consider -issues of Park infrastructure design, maintenant and repair or Park- comptiance with the HCD regulations under the Mobilehome Parks Act_ Park infrastructure design, maintenance and repair issues are the primary focus of the tenant letters- • Water drainage, sewer, and electrical issues (April 20, 2009 Roberts/Saparoff letter); • Water drainage isues (May 8, 2009 Criswett te"-, • Water drainage, sewer, electrical, gas issues (May 17 &18, 2009 Seymour letters); • Water drainage, electrical, cable, streets and lighting issues (May 18, 2009 Vaughn letter); • Water drainage, water, electrical, cable, streets and -lighting issues (June 15, 2009 Emerson letter) • Water drainage issues (June 11, 2009 Gardner letter) Sequoia Park Associates expressly holds that local agencies are precluded from review of park infrastructure design, maintenance or repair issues because those issues are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Department of Housing and Community Development_ One of the County of Sonoma ordinance conditions struck down in that case required to the park owner to demonstrate: that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure" (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma 2009 Cal- App_ LEXIS 1397, at P. 59) The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates rejected that and other local agency conditions of approval, stating- 36014-11214851-1971-7124v 1 ATTACHMF T ' HART. KING u CG'DREN � Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 11 However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of Section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 60) The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates concluded that it was the California Department of Housing and Community Development, not the City, that had jurisdiction to consider and review Park infrastructure design, repair and maintenance issues_ Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements relating to construction, use, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design" of mobilehome parks (Health & Saf_ Code, § 18253) (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at p_ 16-17) The only other issue that the letters raise is a request for the City to interpret and impose conditions upon the Park's compliance with the tenant survey results it submitted pursuant to Subsection 66427.5 (d). (See June 18, 2009 and July 9, 2009 Steeper letters) The Park owner complied with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) by obtaining and submitting tenant survey results to the City. The survey was conducted by written ballot pursuant to an agreement between the Park owner and an independent resident homeowners' association_ Government Code Sections 66427.5 does not require the Park owner to conduct the survey through Mr. Steeper's particular homeowners' association or to provide any particular explanation to the residents regarding the survey or any particular form of written ballot. As explained in Sequoia Park Associates, the City cannot impose conditions that attempt to tell the Park owner how to comply with Government Code Section 66427.5_ However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of Section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal- App_ LEXIS 1397, at p_ 60) Any City review of the manner in which the survey was conducted would invite a purely subject inquiry on the matter. 36014.11214851-1971-7124v.1 ATTArl. RArKi-r a,je-. is K- HART, KING- t G0 DPE.'v Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 12 The matter of just what constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize--if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's.presumptions. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 60) COMMENTS:ON PARTICULAR-RESIDENT LETTERS 1. April 20, 2009 Roberts{Saparoff Letter Thi&-letter raises unsupported infrastructure issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The letter makes a false statement about the Park sewer system. Roberts had a sewer blockage within their home and the plumber cut the pipe under their home, causing a sewage spill under their home. The sewage spill was not caused by and did not involve the.Park sewer system. 2. May 8, 2009 Criswell Letter The Criswell are not residents of the Park and their self- serving reference to litigation they support is outside the scope of City review. 3. May 17 &18, 2009 Seymour Letters These letters raise unsupported infrastructure design, maintenance and repair issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The Seymours are unhappy because they haven't been able to sell their homes which they have had on the market for over a year. 4. May 18, 2009 Vaughn Letter This letter raises design and infrastructure issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The roads are not slippery and their slope is Within HCD design standards. There is no substantiation of the libelous accusation of elder abuse. Vaughn is unhappy because she hasn't been able to sell her home which she has had on the market for over a year so that she can move out of state to be close to her children and grandchildren_ 5. June 18, 2009 and July 9, 2009 Steeper Letters This letter raises issues about the manner in which the tenant survey was conducted_ There are three independent tenant associations within the Park_ Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) does not require the Park owner to agree with every tenant association regarding the survey. It only requires that the Park owner agree with a tenant association which is independent_ The Park owner in this instance agreed with a separate independent tenant association regarding the conduct of the survey. Therefore, Mr. Steeper's claim that there was no agreement with the association he represents is without merit, 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v A ATTW-WAPKIT nir) C4 _ I HK&C HART. KING & CGLDREN Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 13 6. June 15, 2009 Emerson Letter This letter raises issues about infrastructure, design, maintenance and repair issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The roads are not slippery and their slope is within HCD design standards. There is no substantiation of the libelous accusation of harassment_ In conclusion, the enclosed letters by a very small minority of Park residents fail to raise or substantiate any issues that should be considered by the City in its review of the Application_ The City's consideration of the Application should simply be a checklist review of whether the Park owner has complied with Government Code Section 66427.5. We would be glad to further answer any questions•regarding.the.particulars of the correspondence that would be relevant and helpful to the City's decision on the Application_ Best Regards, HART, KING Robe I en BLH/dr Enclosure: Resident Letters Sequoia Park Associates decision cc_ Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) 36014.11214851-1971-7124v.1 ATTACHMENT �-j 4 j SUB DIVISION OF HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS April 20,2009 �1 SENIOR MOBIL HOME PARK ATTN: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION ANY OTHER AGENCY INVOLVED IN SUB DIVISION We are writing to ask that you deny the request of the new owners, Saunders Properties et at,to subdivide the current park sites, thus allowing the present residents to purchase their rental land sites.While it sounds magnanamous, it does not explain the following: When.they purchased there were major litigations pending The destructive water drainage needs to be corrected and the roads The aging sewer system has caused raw sewerage back-up needs correction Electrical problems corrected Mold problems While it sounds like a good move,all the major repairs will be passed on to the site owners,and we would lose the protection of Rent Control, which-would force the aged seniors on fixed income to be priced out of their homes_In addition, while this may be a creative legal maneuver,it not only is destructive to the aged residents,but their application may fait to disclose latent defects,which would enable each contract to purchase to then be disaffirmed. Instead of turning their acquired financial white elephant into financial disaster for the elderly,the new owners had the option to disaffirm their purchase from the former owners because latent defects were not revealed_There were many health and safety violations that were not fixed. For the health and safety of the residents,the sewer lines must be brought to code_ We currently have had their sewer back up into our home with major damage.They claim it is not their responsibility. A subdivision of this park should only be approved if the city requires the owners to bring everything up to code and correct all the defaults to each site independently and the common area uses. The common areas should not be owned by the seller,but by the park homeowners as community areas to be shared by a formed organization of Home Owners_ We pray that you consider the above,and send out inspectors to make corrections. Sincerely, William Roberts, Estelle Roberts, &Albert SaparolT (age 83) (age 78) (age 95) HEM 20701 BEACH BLVD SP#96 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 JUN I il Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. JUN 18 2009 gd-E)_0A_ Huntington Beach PL_A+ 1"v6:- PLANNING DEPT C< <-,01Vf/SS I d.t­� Iq&�5 FAvvr�D ATTA PSI In Ar-lk e'r .ate. � . . May 8, 2009 � tIV Rani Talteh Steven J_ Bogart, P.E_ � Senior Planner Senior Civil Engineer MAY 1 Fax 714-374-1540 Fax 714-374-1573 1 2009 Email: rtalleh surfcity-hb.org Fi;{:;,z�,ar►r_ee^h RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Dear Mr. Talleh and Mr. Bogart: This is to let you know that we do not support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs to a subdivision for the purpose of individual lots for sale. First of all the so call"Ballot Form" is in violation of code 676427.5. Most important is that there were and are several taw suits against farmer and present park owners. Most are for failure to maintain the park due to improper drainage of water. We were permanent residents at Huntington Shorecliffs, however, we were forced to abandon our manufactured home due to health problems resulting from the park owners failure to maintain the park. 30.2008.00104752—Failure to maintain LaChappelle case 07CC0961 Hamel Failure to maintain Hamel case 06CC00216-Access denied to residents case 06CCO0262—Leases;unlawful by owners to cancellchange leases 07CC01257—Declaratory Relief Case 07CC01416—Failure to maintain—See attachment, map indicates units with water problems and letter from Huntington'Shorecliffs We would like to request that any decision regarding Huntinton Shorediffs be delayed until all the above cases have been resolved. Respectfully yours, Arminda and Roger Criswell 883 Oro Grande St_ Oceanside, CA 92057 acdswe1146(§yahoo.com ATTACHMENT W , . Talleh, Rami From: Madeline Seymour lausvan@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday,May 18,2009 6.29 AM To: .Talleh,Rami Subject: Huntington Shorecliffs Sub-Division application Madeline J. Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd_ #8 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 May 17, 2009 Mr. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca_ 92648 RE: Sub-Division application-for Huntington Shorecliffs•Mobile=Home Park Dear Mr. Rami: I am writing to you today to request your assistance in not approving the above application for sub-division- There are major litigations pending in the Orange County Superior Court, Case 1107CC01416,, failure to maintain having to do. with, the water. problems in this park -- A city storm drain drains into this park at the North center of the property, winding thru the park to the Southeast corner to'another-stari-drain then out of .the park. This drain is a Health and Safety problem as there is a good possibility of the run off containing insecticides, fertilizer, animal fescues and engine oil_ This park has an elderly population and these hazards could compromise the- immune system of every person in this park. The Sewer system, Electrical and Gas lines'are all in excess-of.35 years_ The Electrical system, currently in the park, has a hard time carrying the load of the new homes that are being brought in_ There have been sewer problems inside of .people's homes. Please consider not approving this application, or at least put some demands on these owners to fix and/or bring all utilities and drainage to current--standards/codes. Inspections with reports should be required by the City before going forward with any approvals of this application. Thanking you in advance for considering the above issues. Very truly yours, Madeline J_ Seymour 1 ATT©r t4 n A p Ki a ' Page I of I Talleh, Rami From: Bill Seymour[BigBoyBarri@socal.rr.coml Sent: Sunday,May 17,2009 5:06 PM To: Talleh,Rami Subject: Sub Division application Huntington Shorediffs Mobile Home Park William J.Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd.#8 .Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 May 17,2009 Mr.Rami Talleh,Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach I. Department of Planning , 20M Main Street P.O.Box 190 . Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 RE: Sub-Division application for Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Dear Mr_Rami: I am writing to you today to request your assistance in not approving the above application for sub-division_ There are major litigations pending in the Orange County Superior Court,Case#07CC01416,failure to maintain having to do with the water problems in this park. A city storm drain drains into this park at the North center of the property,winding thru the park to the Southeast corner to another storm drain then out of the park_ This drain is a Health and Safety problem for this park as there is a good possibility of the run off containing insecticides,fertilizer,animal fescues and engine oil. This park has an elderly population and these hazards could compromise the immune system of every person in this park. The Sewer system,Electrical and Gas lines are all in excess of 30 years. The Electrical system currently in the park has a hard time carrying the load of the new homes that are being brought,in_ There have been sewer,problems inside of people's homes recently. Please consider not approving the application,or at least put some demands on these owners 16fix and/ofbring all utilities and drainage to current siandards/codes. Inspections with reports should be required by the City before going forward with any approvals of this application_ Thanking you in advance for considering the above issues_ Very truly yours, William J_ Seymour 5/18/2009 A I ACHIRVI 414 1 37 �-e MAY 18 2009 `` �untrrg - � :. 1� J - -- - a� 11 ' el4 n-rrAnoJNAca1T Kin 0 � , July 9,2009 Mr.Rami Talleh Senior Planner,Dept_of Planning JUL 13 Z009 a City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street �� 4 P.O. Box 190 ` Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re:Application to Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach,CA(the "Park")and filing of a Tentative Sub-Division Map. Dear Mr.Talleh: Further to my letter of June 18,2009,it is the position of the residents of the Park that the "survey"conducted by the owners pursuant to Govt.Code section 66427,5(d)(2)-(5) was wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of this Section. Sub-Section(d)(2)requires that a survey of all residents of the Park be carried out by the subdivider which"_shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners'association,if any,that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner." The owner failed to reach any agreement with the Home Owners' Association with respect to this survey_ In fact,the Home Owners' Association was completely unaware that a survey was to be conducted until it was presented to all the residents on approximately April 8,2009 via individual letters. The owner invited the residents to an"informal".meeting on October 27,2008 to discuss three issues,one of which was the filing for a sub-division map(Attachment No.I.) The residents had no way of knowing the import of this presentation and the consequences of the tentative subdivision map filing_ Many simply did not attend the meeting. Had the Association been appraised of the importance of this meeting it would have strenuously urged all residents to attend. When the"survey"arrived in April, most residents had already forgotten the October meeting. As a result they were totally unprepared to consider in a thoughtful manner the financial and other implications of answers they might give to the questions posed by the survey. Many residents simply did not respond or responded by noting their inability to make an informed decision without further information(in effect refusing to vote one way or the other). n-r-rA nUrk f r—k"'. ;' 3 In conclusion,we insist that the owner adhere fully to the statutory requirements of Govt. Code Section.66427.5. We also request that the City suspend its consideration of the tentative subdivision map application until an appropriate survey of the residents has been conducted. In the alternative,we request that the application be denied on the basis of the owner's failure to comply with the requirements of Govt.Code Section 66427.5. Best Regards, Scott C.Steeper President,Home Owners Association Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd.,#204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)274-9975 IAO. Op 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 October 24,2008 All Residents Huntington Shorecliffs. RE: Informal Meeting Monday,October 27,2008,6:30 p.m.large clubhouse Dear Residents: The management of Huntington Shorecliffs cordially invites you to an informal meeting to be held at the large clubhouse on Monday,October 27,2008 at 6:30 p. m.. We will be present to discuss a number of issues impacting the park. Those issues include the following: 1. The County's reassessment of the park as a result of the sale and the impact upon property taxes, 2. Some pending.changes to the park's Mules& Regulations, 3. The park's filing for a subdivision map, which would enable the residents to purchase their lots. Of course,we will be available to answer questions as well_ We look forward.to seeing you on Monday evening. Sincerely, STAR MOBILEHOME PARK MANAGEMENT By: Michael A:Cirillo For: Huntington Shorecliffs ATTACHMEN Fu JUN 19 Z009 Tune 18,2009 <� ,sE�C DEPT Mr_Rami Talleh _ Senior Planner, Dept.of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re:Application to Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach,CA Dear Mr.Talleh: This is to advise you that the members of the Huntington Shorecliffs Home Owners Association,located at 20701 Beach Blvd:;Huntington Beach,oppose the granting of the subject Application. Our objection is based on the survey of the homeowners carried out by the Owner in April of this year. The residents-were never advised of the fact that the survey was being requested as part of the subdivision application process and therefore had legal and financial implications. We will be submitting further correspondence.providing more detailed grounds.for.our objection in the near future. However,we wanted to assure that the City was on notice of our concern and opposition to the granting,of the Application.. . Best Regards, Scott C. Steeper President,Home Owners Association Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd.,#204 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 274-9975 R JUN 19-2QQ9 E i June 15,2009 Mr.Rami Talleh,Senior Planner City-of Huntington Beach Dept.of PlanningElj�ty 2000 Main St,P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re:Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Application(herein after referred to"the Park") for Subdivision/Condoization Dear Mr.Talleh, I am writing,on behalf of myself and my husband and the many other residents ofthis senior community,to register my strong opposition to the application for subdivision on the part of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park's owner Mr.John R_Saunders. As seniors on fixed incomes,"my, husband and I used our entire life savings to buy a brand new mobile home in this park in 2005,with the thought that we could enjoy low maintenance and reasonable rent on a beautiful,home,as well as the peace,calm,and mild climate of this setting for the remainder of our years.We,like most of the other residents here,have our own story,our own face of humanity. We are probably representative of those who have worked hard,served their country and the larger global community,raised productive children,and essentially been a credit to society. We found out very soon after moving in,that we,as human beings,were of no concern to the owners or management of the Park. We also discovered that the Park had many problems with the maintenance of this 40-some year-old Park and very poor relationship with residents. The major problems we have experienced here are"failure to maintain"and"economic duress"in terms of age and the health of residents. In terms of failure to maintain,our complaint centers around standing water under our structure and the possibility of mold with implications for health issues we are experiencing. Our home, which was newly-constructed,was moved onto a dry,raised lot in December 2005. Following the fast rains of 2006,I began chronic sneezing(never before experienced)and since have sought medical attention for this as well as severe fatigue and headaches(mold-related symptoms). In July,20081 re-engaged the same mobile home inspector who had originally inspected the crawl space under our home,to determine if there was water under our unit. This time,his inspection revealed pooled water under the unit and evidence of white powdery growth on the ground and supports. Other water-related or land-sinking problems include toilet flushing,cracks in the cement,doors not closing properly,and standing water on the property adjacent to our carport. In addition to personal experience with water issues,the park seems to impose an unreasonable number of"water shut-offs"and on at least one occasion(8/14/08)notice of water shut-off was put in our mail slots literally minutes before the water was shut off,leaving us no notice to set aside buckets or pans of water for temporary use. When one is in the midst of taking a shower and washing hair prior to leaving home for an important appointment,this can be unsettling and anxiety producing! The Park's water, sewer and electrical systems are all almost 40 years old. With newer homes being brought in and upgrades made to older homes,both requiring greater energy expenditure, there is real strain on the Park's capacity to provide continuous and safe utility services. f 2 In terms of maintenance and alterations,the street light located on our space regularly goes out about twice a year. Some repairs have taken up to two months from outage report_ We depend on that street light for night safety. Additionally our cable connection was unavailable due to what Time Warnerdetermined resulted from re-surfacing of the streets which clogged the cable line to our space,requiring time Warner to use the neighboring§pace's hook-up for our space's cable connection. And,there are real issues of physical safety on streets which slope into the center,making it difficult for those using walkers or wheelchairs to safely navigate the road_ Also streets with no flat surfaces are dangerous for people,like my husband,who have balance or neuropathy problems- By having no alternative but to walk in the center of the road(designed to carry water residents face the safety issues of moving vehicles and walking in water. Lastly,and.more importantly is the issue of economic duress and stress_ About V2 to%of the Park's population can be considered elderly.Many are infirm. Some do not have any family or outside support or assistance. With aging,decision-making capabilities tend to decline_ At a time when elderly people need strong support in understanding the complexities of legal issues;the management of this Park has not taken any special effort to explain the,implications of changes to their policies. They sent their lawyer and a management company representative to represent them at one meeting(which did not have 100%of Park resident attendance). This simply appeared to me as"going through the motions of communicating with residents". It seemed clear that the owner/management of the Park had goals that would shatter the dreams of the many who came here to live simple,affordable,quiet lives with others in a welcoming and friendly community. About the time or just prior to this"meet the owners"gathering,Park management sent out a notice of options for new lease agreements,offering the choice of one year or month-to-month leases. This notice contained language which could be construed as threatening: "_ residents who choose not to sign ... will be deemed to be month-to-month tenants if their 2006lewe is terminated". This caused undue stress on the part of many residents because there was no explanation for how an existing lease could be terminated. The lack of certainty as to what will happen if the park is indeed"condo-ized"constitutes what I believe is mental and emotional harassment on the part of the Park's owners. Additionally,the survey sent by management to residents asking how many thought they would want to purchase or continue to rent their space, did not come through the Homeowner's Associatioir which should be the proper-channel for such inquiries. I bring all these issues to your attention,so you might have a dearer picture of the concerns and uncertainties faced by me and other residents like me. I request that the application for subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park be denied. Thank you for your attention to this request_ Sincer , i L, den V.Emerson Yn 20701 Beach Blvd.,9158 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Cc: Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowners Association n-s�Tn �� tw if—I.IT AI^ ri "� Juno a-mail for rmgardner@juno-com printed on Thursday,June-11,2009, 10:19 AM F~ ' l �t Date:Thu l t Jun 2009 To: Rami Tellah City Senior Planner �-- 200 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 JUrV 52009 From: Robert M Gardner i 20701 Beach Blvd#253 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject: 1_ Storm Drain Water sourcing from Huntington Beach City regarding Huntington Shorech s Mobile Home Park 2.Resolution of the above and possible implications of a proposal by present owners to change the ParVs status. I am writing to express my concerns about storm drain water which comes from Frankfurt St_ above the Padc, draining into this Park_ The water runs in the Park's open streets for some distance before exiting at'another end. Storm water can contain bacterial and chemical contaminates. It is highly probable that pet feces from lawns and streets above the Park are among these contaminates at certain times_ I would like to know if a public health issue exists because of the above. There is another problem relating to water here--certain Park residents have experienced ground water and mold problems in and under their homes.These problems have existed for some time. Black mold especially has been and is a health concem for certain of the home owners_ Please consider the issues mentioned above especially in any actions or advisement provided by your office to the City or State related to the application for change in status now being made by the present Pa,m owners_ th o R Gardn Huntington Shorecliffs cc City Council Huntington Beach 1ofI Filed 8/21/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SEQUOIA PARK ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff and Appellant, A120049 v_ COUNTY OF SONOMA, (Sonoma County Super_.-CL-No. SCV240003) Defendant and Respondent. One of the subjects,covered.by the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, §_66410 et seq.) is the conversion of a mobilehome park from a rental to a resident ownership basis_ One of the provisions on that subject is Government Code section 66427-5 (section 66427.5),which spells out certain steps that must be completed before the conversion application can be approved by the appropriate local body. Although it is not codified in the.language of section 66427.5, the Legislature recorded its intent that by enacting section 66427.5 it was acting"to ensure that conversions . . . are bona fide resident conversions." (Stats. 2002, ch. 1143, § 2.) The County of Sonoma (County) enacted an ordinance with the professed aim of "implementing" the state conversion statutes. It imposed additional obligations upon a subdivider submitting a conversion application to those required by section 66427.5. The ordinance also imposed criteria that had to be satisfied by the subdivider before the application would be presumed bona fide and thus could be approved. A mobilehome park operator brought suit to halt enforcement of the ordinance on the ground that it was preempted by section 66427.5. The trial court declined to issue a writ of mandate, concluding that the ordinance was not preempted. As will be shown, we conclude that the ordinance is expressly preempted because section 66427.5 states that ATTArHhAFNT 'Mr,., �= the"scope of the hearing." for approval of the conversion application"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." We further conclude that the ordinance is impliedly preempted because the Legislature, which has established a dominant role for "the state in regulating mobilehomes,has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into.the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions, declining to expand section 66427.5 in ways that would authorize local government to.impose additional conditions or requirements for conversion approval. Moreover, the County's ordinance duplicates several features of state law, a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption. We therefore reverse the trial court's order and direct entry of a new order declaring the ordinance invalid. BACKGROUND On May 15, 2007, the County's]Board of Supervisors unanimously enacted Ordinance No. 5725 (the Ordinance)_ Sequoia Park Associates (Sequoia)is a limited- partnership that owns and operates a mobilehome park it desires to subdivide and convert from a rental to a resident-owner basis. Within a month of the enactment of the Ordinance, Sequoia sought to have it overturned as preempted by section 66427.5. Specifically, Sequoia combined a petition for a writ of mandate with causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages for inverse condemnation of its property. The matter of the Ordinance's validity was submitted on the basis of voluminous papers addressing Sequoia's motion for issuance of a writ of mandate. The court heard argument and filed a brief order denying Sequoia relief. The court concluded that section 66427.5 "largely does appear . . .by its own language"to impose limits on local authority to legislate on the subject of mobilehome conversions. "However, Ordinance 5725 seems merely to comply with, and give effect to, the requirements set forth in section 66427.5 rather than imposing additional requirements. This is certainly true for the language on bona fide conversions, tenant impact reports, and even general plan requirements. It is possibly less clear regarding health and safety,but even on this issue, the Ordinance does not appear to exceed [the County's] authority since, contrary to [Sequoia's] contention, it does not intrude on the [state Department of Housing and 2 Community Development's (HCD)] power in the area." This order is the subject of a Sequoia's appeal.' DISCUSSION The parties.agree that our review of the trial court's order is de novo because it involves a pure issue of law, namely, whether the Ordinance is preempted by Section 66427.5. (Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.AppAth 119, 132;Ruble-Vista Associates v Bacorr(2002)97 Cal.App.4th 335, 339.) But the parties do not agree on how far our analysis may, or should,extend_ Sequoia argues we should restrict our inquiry to the current version of section 66427.5, in particular paying no attention to an uncodified expression of the Legislature's intent passed at the same time that version was enacted. At the same time Sequoia also argues that we should look to a provision in a version of an amendment to the statute that the Legislature rejected in 2002. The County's approach is similarly compressed: noting that because Sequoia challenged the legality of the Ordinance on its face, the County argues that our analysis must be confined to the four corners of that enactment, and nothing else. Yet the County ranges far afield in marshalling the statutes which it incorporates in its arguments, and ' It is typical of the generally high quality of the briefing that the experienced appellate counsel for Sequoia does not treat the requirement of California Rules of Court rule 8.204(a)(2}—which directs that the appellant"explain why the order appealed from is appealable"—as satisfied with a ministerial recital of boilerplate language. He devotes more than two full pages of his opening brief to a discussion establishing that,.according to Bettencourt v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 146 Cal.AppAth 1090, 1097-1098, "Although the [trial court's] order was couched as a denial of the mandate petition alone, its effect was a dismissal of Sequoia's entire action," and thus appealable as a final judgment. He also puts forward a fall-back position, based on an obvious knowledge of this court, that, if necessary, we "could also amend the order below as this division did in similar circumstances in Gatto v_ County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.AppAth 744, 766, fn. 13, to specify the trial court's intent to dispose of the remaining causes of action." We conclude there is no need to amend the order because counsel's initial explanation is sound, and concurred in by the County. We mention this to note that this is the sort of attention to jurisdictional issues we would like to see, but seldom do. 3 n-r-rA t-%1 !w Ar-Kk-l® kirl 1 4;Lz tells us that section 66427.5 must be considered in the context of"entire continuum-of state regulation of mobilehome park subdivisions." And the County has no hesitation in arguing that the substance of the uncodified provision actually works to the County's benefit. Our view of our inquiry is that it is hardly as narrow as the parties believe. The authorities cited by the County involve situations where local ordinances were challenged on federal constitutional grounds(e.g., Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 CalAth 1069, 1084 [vagueness];Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.AppAth 660, 679-680 [equal protection]), not that they were preempted by state law. As for Sequoia's approach, it would appear feasible only if the state statute has language stating the unambiguous intent by the_Legislature expressly forbidding cities and counties from acting. But for the great number of preemption issues—particularly if the emphasis is on implied preemption—the state and the local legislation must be considered.together. Only by looking at both can a court know if the local law conflicts with,contradicts, or is inimical to the state law. As will now be shown,this is an established rule of preemption analysis. Principles Of)Preemption In California,preemption of local legislation by state law is a constitutional principle. "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal_ Const., art. X1, § 7.) The standards governing our inquiry are well established. According to our Supreme Court: "The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption_ [Citation.] We have been particularly `reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another.' [Citations.] `The common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one locality to another, then 4 the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance against an attack of state _ preemption.' [Citations.] "Thus,when local government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control, such as . , . particular land-uses,.California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature, that:such regulation is not preempted by state statute_ [Citation_] The presumption against preemption accords with our more general understanding that `it is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.' [Citations.] "Moreover,the `general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled. . . ." `Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates [citations], contradicts [citation], or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication [citations].' " ' [Citation.]" "Local legislation is `duplicative' of general law when it is coextensive therewith and `contradictory' to general law when it is inimical thereto. Local legislation enters an area `fully occupied' by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to fully occupy the area or when it has impliedly done so in light of recognized indicia of intent-" [Citation.] (Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz(2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1149-1150, fn. omitted (Big Creek):) There are three"recognized indicia of intent": " `(1)the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that is has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or(3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to 5 the' locality [citations]." (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles(1993)4 Cal.4th 893, 898.) "With respect to the implied occupation of an area of law by the Legislature's full and complete coverage of it, this court recently had this to say: ` "Where the Legislature has adopted statutes governing a particular subject matter, its intent with regard to occupying the field to the exclusion of all local regulation is not to be measured alone by the language used but by the whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme_" ' [Citation.] We went on to say: ` "State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude local regulation_" ' [Citation:] We thereafter observed: ` "Whenever the Legislature has seen fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject;the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned" ' [Citation.] When a local ordinance is identical to a state statute,it is clear that` "the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied" ' by state law_ [Citation_]" (O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007)41 Cal.4th 1061, 1068) To discern whether the local law has entered an area that has been"fully occupied" by state law according to the"recognized indicia of intent" requires an analysis that is based on an overview of the topic addressed by the two laws. " `In determining whether the Legislature has preempted by implication to the exclusion of local regulation we must look to the whole . . . scope of the legislative scheme.' " (Big Creek,supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1157, quoting People ex rel_ Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal.3d 476, 485; accord,American Financial Services Assn_ v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252, 1261;Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 751.) Such an examination is made with the goal of" `detect[ing] a patterned approach to the subject' " (Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Ca1.3d 644, 707-708, quoting Galvan v_ Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 862), and whether the local law mandates what state law forbids, or forbids what state law mandates. (Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal_4th 1 139, 1161; Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles(2002) 27 Cal.4th 853, 866.) 6 Al TACHMENT NO. :'-' - Sequoia sees this as a case of express preemption, although it argues in the alternative that the Ordinance also falls to the concept of implied preemption. These contentions can only be evaluated with an appreciation of the sizable body of state legislation concerning mobilehome parks. The Extent Of State Law In The Area Of Mobilehome Regulation Section 66427.5 does not stand alone. If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control, that day is long past. Since 1979,the state-has had the Mobilehome Residency Law,which comprises -� almost a hundred statutes governing numerous aspects of the business of operating a mobilehome park. (Civ. Code, §§ 798-799.10.) There are several provisions expressly ordering localities not to legislate in designated areas, such as the content of rental agreements (Civ. Code, § 798.17, subd. (a)(1)), and establishing specified exemptions from local rent control measures. (Civ. Code, §§ 798.21,subd. (a), 798.45.)2 By this i statutory scheme, the state has undertaken to"extensively regulate[] the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents." (Greening v. Johnson (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1226; accord, SCManufactured Homes, Inc. v Canyon , View Estates, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.AppAth 663, 673;People ex rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment, Ltd. (2003) 111 Cal.AppAth 102, 109.) Even earlier, in 1967,the state enacted the Mobilehome Parks Act(Health& Saf. Code, §§ 18200-18700), which regulates the construction and-installation of mobilehome parks in the state. (See County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1489-1490.) In this act, the Legislature expressly stated that it"supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county, whether general law or 2 The Mobilehome Residency Law has been construed as not otherwise preempting or precluding adoption of residential rent control_ (See Civ_ Code, § 1954.25; Cacho v_ Boudreau (2007) 40 CalAth 341, 350 and decisions cited.) 7 chartered, applicable to this part." (Health& Saf. Code, § 18300, subd. (a).) The few exemptions from this prohibition are carefully delineated_3 Then there is the Mobilehomes—Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 (Health& Saf_ §§ 18000-18153), which regulates the sale, licensing,registration, and titling of 3 This part shall not prevent local authorities of any city, county, or city or county, within the reasonable exercise of their police powers, from doing any of the following: "(1)From establishing, subject to the requirements of Sections 65852.3 and 65852.7 of the Government Code, certain zones for manufactured homes,mobilehomes, and mobilehome parks within the city, county, or city and county, or establishing types of uses and locations, including family mobilehome parks, senior mobilehome parks, mobilehome condominiums, mobilehome subdivisions,or mobilehome planned unit developments within the city, county, or city and county, as defined in the zoning ordinance, or from adopting rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution prescribing park perimeter walls or enclosures on public street frontage, signs, access,and vehicle parking or from prescribing the prohibition of certain uses for mobilehome parks_ "(2)From regulating the construction and use of equipment and facilities located outside of a manufactured home or mobilehome used to supply gas,water, or electricity .thereto, except facilities owned, operated, and maintained by a public utility, or to dispose of sewage or other waste therefrom when the facilities are located outside a park for which a permit is required by this part or the regulations adopted thereto. "(3)From requiring a permit to use a manufactured home or mobilehome outside a park for which a permit is required by this part or by regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and require a fee therefor by local ordinance commensurate with the cost of enforcing this part and local ordinance with reference to the use of manufactured homes and mobilehomes, which permit may be refused or revoked if the use violates this part or Part 2 (commencing with Section 18000), any regulations adopted pursuant thereto, or any local ordinance applicable to that use. "(4) From requiring a local building permit to construct an accessory structure for a manufactured home or mobilehome when the manufactured home or mobilehome is located outside a mobilehome park, under circumstances when this part or Part 2 (commencing with Section 18000) and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto do not require the issuance of a permit therefor by the department [Le., the state Department of Housing and Community Development]. "(5) From prescribing and enforcing setback and separation requirements governing the installation of a manufactured home, mobilehome, or mobilehome accessory structure or building installed outside of a mobilehome park_" (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300, subd_ (g)_) 8 ATTACHMENT ` `35 mobilehomes. The Legislature declared that the provisions of this measure"apply in all parts of the state and supersede" any conflicting local ordinance. (Health& Saf. Code, §-18015.) The HCD is in charge of enforcement. (Health& Saf. Code, §§ 18020, 18022, 18058.) These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency,not localities, that was entrusted with the authority.to formulate"specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design" of mobilehome parks (Health& Saf. Code, § 18253; see also Health&Saf Code§§ 18552 [HCD to adopt"building standards" and"other regulations--for. . . mobilehome accessory buildings or structures"], 18610 [HCD to "adopt regulations to govern the construction,use, occupancy, and maintenance of parks and lots within"mobilehome parks"), 19620 [HCD to adopt "regulations regarding the construction of buildings in parks that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"], 18630 [plumbing], 18640 ["toilet, shower, and Iaundry facilities in parks"], 13670 ["electrical wiring,fixtures, and ; 3 equipment . . . that it determines are reasonably necessary for the.protection of life and property"].) At present, the HCD has promulgated hundreds of regulations that are collected in chapter 2 of title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. (Cal.Code Regs,tit. 25, §§ 1000-1758.) The regulations exhaustively deal with a myriad of issues,such as "Electrical Requirements" (id., 25, §§ 1130-1190), "Plumbing Requirements" (id., §§ 1240-1284), "Fire Protection Standards" (id., §§ 1300-1319), "Permanent Buildings" (id., §§ 1380-1400), and"Accessory Buildings and Structures" (id., §§ 1420-1520). The regulations even deal with pet waste (id., § 1114) and the prohibition of cooking facilities in cabanas (id., § 1462). Once adopted, HCD regulations "shall apply to all parts of the state." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300, subd. (a).) Mobilehomes can only be occupied or maintained when they conform to the regulations. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18550, 18871.) Enforcement is shared between the HCD and local governments (Health & Saf_ Code, § 18300, subd. (f), 9 18400, subd. (a)), with HCD given the power to"evaluate the enforcement"by units of local government. (Health& Saf_ Code, § 18306, subd_ (a).) A locality may decline responsibility for enforcement,but if assumed and not actually performed,its enforcement power may be taken away by the HCD. (Health& Saf. Code, § 18300, subds_ (b)-(e)_) Local initiative is restricted to traditional police powers of zoning, setback,permit requirements, and regulating construction of utilities_ (Gov. Code, § 65852.7; Health& Saf. Code, §-18300, subd. (g),quoted at fn. 3,ante.) It is the state that determines which events and actions in the construction and operation of a mobilehome park require permits. (Health&Saf. Code, §§ 18500, 18500.5; 18500.6, 18505; Cal_ Code Regs,tit. 25, §§ 1006.5, 1010,"1014, 1018; 1038, 1306, 1324, -1374.5_) Even if the locality issues the annual permit for a park to operate, a copy must be sent to the HCD. (Id_, §§ 1006.5, 1012.) It is the state that fixes the fees to be charged for these permits and certifications (Health& Saf_Code, §§ 18502, 18503; Cal. Code Regs,tit. 25, §§ 1008, 1020.4, 1020.7, 1025), and sets the penalties to be imposed for noncompliance. (Health & Saf_ Code §§ 18504, 18700; Cal_ Code Regs, tit_ 25, §§ 1009, 1050, 1370.4.) Sometimes,the state assumes exclusive responsibility for certain subjects, such as for earthquake-resistant bracing systems. (Cal_ Code Regs, tit. 25, § 1370.4(a)_) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks are in the Government Code. Cities and counties cannot decide that a mobilehome park is not a permitted use "on all land planned and zoned for residential.land use as designated by the applicable general plan," though the locality"may require a use permit-" (Gov. Code, § 65852.7.) "[I]t is clear that the Legislature intended to limit local authority for zoning regulation to the specifically enumerated exceptions [in Health and Safety Code section 18300, subdivision (g), quoted at fn. 3, ante] of where a mobilehome park may be located, vehicle parking, and lot lines, not the structures within the parks_" (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse,supra, 127 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1493.) A city or county must accept installation of mobilehomes manufactured in conformity with federal standards. (Gov. Code, § 65852.3, subd- (a).) Their power to impose rent control on mobilehome'parks is 10 n°r-rA nun AMIT ktf� ; restricted if the parks qualifies as"new construction_" (Gov. Code, § 65852.11,subd. (a); c£ text accompanying fn. 2, ante.) This survey demonstrates that the state has a long-standing involvement with mobilehome regulation,the extent of which involvement is,by any standard, considerable. Having outlined the size of the state's regulatory footprint, it is now time to examine the details of section 66427.5 and the Ordinance. Section 66427S Section 66427.5 is a fairly straight-forward statute addressing the subject of how a subdivider shall demonstrate that a proposed mobilehome park conversion will avoid economic displacement of current tenants who do not choose to become a purchasing resident. In its entirety it provides as follows: "At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership, the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner: "(a)The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit,which is to be created-by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. "(b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest. "(c) The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. "(d)(1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. "(2) The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. "(3) The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. 11 "(4)The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehome space has one vote. "(5) The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision(e). "(e)The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency,which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve,or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_ "(f)The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following:. "(1)As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code,the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in - S accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards,in equal annual increases over a four-year period_ "(2)As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. This is how section 66427.5 currently reads. But its antecedents are instructive. The first version of section 66427.5, enacted in 1991, was no more than the first paragraph and subdivision (f) of the current version. (Stats_ 1991, ch. 745, § 2.) The statute was substantially amended four years later with most of what is in the current version. The only significant variance is that the 1995 version did not contain what is 12 `.i- now subdivision (d), specifying that the subdivider is to provide a survey of support. ` (Stats. 1995,ch_ 256, § 5.) The second version of section 66427.5 was the one considered by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd., v. City of Palm Springs(2002) 96 Ca1.App.4th 1153 (El Dorado). At issue in El Dorado was a mobilehome park owner's application to convert its units from rental to resident-owned. The renters opposed the conversion,"contending that they do not have enough information to decide whether to purchase or not, and the proposed conversion is merely a sham to avoid [Palm Springs'] rent control ordinance." (El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1159.) The Pahn Springs City Council approved the application,but made its approval subject to three conditions,requiring: "1) the use of a `Map Act Rent Date,' defined asthe_date of the close of escrow of not less than 120 lots; (2) the use of a sale price established by a specified appraisal firm,the appraisal costs to be paid by[the owner-subdivider]; and (3)financial assistance to all residents in the park to facilitate their purchase of the Iots underlying their mobilehomes_" (Id. at pp. 1156-1157.) N The trial court denied the park owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. The owner appealed, contending "that its application is governed by section 66427.5. It relies on subdivision(d) [now subdivision(e)] of that section, which states, in part,that the scope of the City Council's hearing is limited to the issue of compliance with the requirements.of that section' (El Dorado, supra,96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1157-1158.) Palm Springs took the position that the conditions were authorized by Government Code section 66427.4, subdivision (c),4 which authorized the city council to " `require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park.' " (Id. at p. 1158.) 4 Subsequent statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated_ 13 ATTACHMENT N O L_ �� The Court of Appeal agreed with the owner and reversed. It rejected Palm - Springs' argument about section 66427.4,5 concluding that it applied only when the mobilehome park is being converted to another use: "[I]t would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping center or another different use of the property. In that situation, there would be `displaced mobilehome park residents' who would need to find `adequate space in a mobilehome park' for their mobilehome and themselves." (El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161.) The court also held the language of subdivision (e) of section 66427.4 dispositive on this point. (Id. at pp. 1161-1163.) But, and as particularly apt here, the court sustained the park owner's argument about section 66427.5, subdivision(d), concluding that under it the city council"only had the power to determine if[the subdivider] had complied with the requirements of the section." (El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1163-1164.) Although the court did 5 At all relevant times, section 66427-4 has provided: "(a) At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, the subdivider shall also file a report on the impact of the conversion.upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion on displaced mobilehome park residents,the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks. "(b)The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. "(c) The legislative body, or an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map, may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park_ "(d) This section establishes a minimum standard for local legislation of conversions of mobilehome-parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. "(e) This section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership." 14 appear concerned that the conversion process might be used for improper purposes—such - t_ - as the bogus purchase of a single unit by the subdivider/owner to avoid local rent control—it believed the language of section 66427.5,subdivision(d), did not allow such considerations to-be taken into account: "[T]he City lacks authority to.investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions-at the time it approves tentative or parcel map. Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight, and although it might be desirable for the Legislature to broaden the City's authority, it has not done so. We therefore agree with appellant that the argument that the Legislature should have done more to prevent partial conversions or sham transactions is a legislative issue;not a legal one."6 (Id. at p. 1165.) And,the court later noted, "there is no evidence that[the owner's] filing.of an application for approval of a tentative parcel map is not the beginning of a bona fide conversion to resident ownership." (Id. at p. 1174, fn. 17.) One other point of El Dorado is significant- The court specifically rejected arguments that would require a numerical threshold before a conversion could proceed, there being no statutory support for the claim that conversion only occurred if more than 50 percent of the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is filed_ (El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal_App.4th 1153, 1172-1173) The court refused to require a subdivider to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has the support of a majority of existing residents—fixed at either one-half or two-thirds—thus satisfying the local 6 Nevertheless, the El Dorado court did seem to indicate that there was an available remedy for Palm Springs' fears concerning evasion of its rent control ordinance. Although local authorities could not themselves use section 66427.5 to halt "sham or failed transactions in which a single unit is sold, but no others," (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166, fn. 10) there was no such restriction on the judiciary. "[T]he courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or failed transactions," (id. at p. 1165) which the El Dorado court apparently equated with situations where "conversion fails" or"if the conversion is unsuccessful." (Id. at p. 1166.) The court also agreed with an earlier decision that held section 66427.5 does not apply unless there is an actual sale of at least one unit. (Id. at pp. 1166, 1177-1179, citing Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1168.) 15 ATTACH ME T' N�. authority that this was not a"forced conversion."7 ty (Id. at pp. 1181-1182_) The court 3 1 concluded: "The legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership would not be served by a requirement"that a conversion could only be made with resident consent." (1d. at,p_ 1182.) Following El Dorado, the continuing problem of mobilehome park conversion, and the phrase "bona fide," again engaged the Legislature's attention. That same year the Legislature amended section 66427.5 by adding what is now.subdivision(d) and the requirement of a"survey of support of residents" whose results were to be filed with the tentative or parcel map_ As it did so, the Legislature.enacted the following language,but did not include it as part of section 66427.5: "It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion-of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona fide resident conversion, as described by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd- V. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal_App.4th 1153. The court in this case concluded that the subdivision map approval process specified in Section 66427.5 of the Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent non-bona fide resident conversions. The court explained how a conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership could occur without the support of the residents and result in economic displacement_ It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act The 50 percent argument was based on Health and Safety Code section 50781, subdivision (m), which specifies that one of the definitions of"residential ownership" is "ownership by a resident organization of an interest in a mobilehome park that entitles the resident organization to control the operations of the mobilehome park_" The argument was that"resident ownership of the park, and control of operations of the park, can occur only when the purchasing residents have the ability to control, manage and own the common facilities in the park, i.e., when 50 percent plus 1 of the lots have been purchased by the residents." (El Dorado, supra,96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1172, 1181.) The two-thirds figure was taken from Government Code section 66428.1, which provides that "When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobilehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of converting it to resident ownership, and a field survey is performed, the requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and final map shall be waived," subject to specified exceptions_ 16 Al rAf-t1 tIArA1`Ir OLU� to ensure that conversions pursuant to Section 66427.5 of the Government Code are bona 1 fide resident conversions." (Stats. 2002,ch. 1143, § 2.)8 The Ordinance The Ordinance has eight sections,but only three—sections I, 11, and III are pertinent to this appeal-9 Section I declares the purposes of the Ordinance. It opens with the supervisors' finding that"the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to implement certain policies and programs set forth within the adopted General Plan Housing Element, and to comply with state laws related to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership. Specific purposes included: (I)""To implement state laws with regard to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership;'..(2)"To ensure that conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership are bona fide resident conversions in accordance with state law;"(3)To implement the goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element; (4)"To balance the need for increased homeownership opportunities with the need to protect existing rental housing opportunities;_ (5) "To provide adequate 8 This is what is known as "plus section," which our Supreme Court termed"a provision of a bill that is not intended to be a substantive part of the code section or general law that the bill enacts, but to express the Legislature's view on some aspect of the operation or effect of the bill. Common examples of`plus sections' include severability clauses, savings clauses, statements of the fiscal consequences of the legislation, provisions giving the legislation immediate effect or a delayed operative date or a limited duration, and provisions declaring an intent to overrule a specific judicial decision or an intent not to change'existing law." (People v. Allen (1999) 21 CalAth 846, 858-859, fn. 13.) The court subsequently explained that"statements of the intent of the enacting body . . . , while not conclusive, are entitled to consideration. [Citations.] Although such statements in an uncodified section do not confer power, determine rights, or enlarge the scope of a measure, they properly may be utilized as an aid in construing a statute." (People v. Canty (2004) 32 CalAth 1266, 1280.) 9 Section IV of the Ordinance declares that the measure is "categorically exempt from environmental review" under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section V is a severability provision. Section VI establishes the effective date of the Ordinance as "30 days after the date of its passage." Section VH repeals an existing ordinance. Section VIII (mislabeled as "Section VI") provides for publication of the Ordinance in a specified newspaper of general circulation in the county. 17 A A f!1 I Ar"80"r 90P% Y".1 n3 •'f disclosure to decision-makers and to prospective buyers prior to conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership;" (6)"To ensure the public health and safety in converted parks; and" (7)"To conserve the County's affordable housing stock." Section II-deals with the"Applicability" of the Ordinance by declaring that"These provisions apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership, except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government Code [Section] 66428.1 These provisions do not apply to the conversion of a mobile home park to an alternate use,which conversions are regulated by Government Code Sections 65863.7 and 66427.4, and by Section 26-92-090 of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code." .Section M.opens by providing-several definitions of terms used in the Ordinance and in Chapter 25 of the Sonoma County Code_ " `Mobile Rome Park Conversion to Resident Ownership means the conversion of a mobile home park composed of rental spaces to a condominium or common interest development,as described in and/or regulate&by Government Code Sections 66427.5 and/or 66428.1.' " `Mobile Dome Park Closure, Conversion or Change of Use means changing the use of a mobile home park such that it no longer contains occupied mobile or manufactured homes, as described in and regulated by Government Code Section 66427.4.' " " `Subdivision' means the division of any improved or unimproved land, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease, financing, conveyance, transfer, or any other purpose, whether immediate or future. Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way. Subdivision includes a condominium project or common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code or a community interest project, as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code_ Any conveyance of land to a 18 governmental agency, public entity or public utility shall not be considered a division of -land for purposes of computing the number of parcels.' " The heart of the Ordinance is subdivision(d) of Section III, which adds"a-new Article IHB" to Chapter 25 of the Sonoma County Code. Because of its importance,we quote it in full: "Article IIIB. Mobile Home Park Conversions to Resident Ownership. "25-39.7 (a). Applicability. The provisions of this Article XIIIB shall apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government Code§ 66428.1. "25-39.7(b). Application Materials Required. "(1)In addition to any other information required by this Code.and/or_other. applicable law, the following information is required at the time of filing of an application for conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership: "a)A survey of resident support conducted in compliance with subdivision(d)of Government Code Section 66427.5 .The.subdivider sha11 demonstrate that the survey was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and an independent resident homeowners association, if any, was obtained pursuant to a written ballot, and was conducted so that each occupied mobile home space had one vote. The completed survey of resident support ballots shall be submitted with the application_ In the event that more than one resident homeowners association purports to represent residents in the park, the agreement shall be with the resident homeowners association which represented the greatest number of resident homeowners in the park. "b) A report on the impact of the proposed conversion on residents of the mobile home park. The tenant impact report shall, at a minimum include all of the following: "i) Identification of the number of mobile home spaces in the park and the rental rate history for each such space over the four years prior to the filing of the application; "it) Identification of the anticipated method and timetable for compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), and, to the extent available, identification of 19 =-� the number of existing tenant households expected to purchase their units within the first a four(4)years after conversion; "iii)Identification of the method and anticipated time table for determining the rents for non-purchasing residents pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (t)(1),and,to the extent available, identification of tenant households likely to be subject to these provisions; "iv)Identification.of the method for determining and enforcing the controlled rents for non-purchasing households pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)(2), and,to the extent available, identification of the number of tenant households likely to be subject to these provisions; "v) Identification of the potential for non-purchasing residents to relocate their homes to other mobile home parks within Sonoma County, including the availability of sites and the estimated cost of home relocation; "vi)An engineer's report on the type, size, current condition, adequacy and remaining useful life of common facilities located within the park, including but not limited to water systems,sanitary sewer,fire protection, storm water,streets, lighting, pools,playgrounds, community buildings and the like_ A pest report shall be included for all common buildings and structures. `Engineer' means a registered civil or structural engineer, or a licensed general engineering contractor, "vii)If the useful life of any of the common facilities or infrastructure is less than thirty(30) years, a study estimating the cost of replacing such facilities over their useful life, and the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same; "viii)An estimate of the annual overhead and operating costs of maintaining the park, its common areas and landscaping, including replacement costs as necessary, over the next thirty(30) years, and the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same_ "ix) Name and address of each resident, and household size_ "x) An estimate of the number of residents in the park who are seniors or disabled_ An explanation of how the estimate was derived must be included_ 20 A ACHMEN NI t i "(c)A maintenance inspection report conducted on site by a qualified inspector within the previous twelve (12)calendar months demonstrating compliance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations(`Title 25 Report'). Proof of remediation of any Title 25 violations shall be confirmed in writing by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). "25-39.7(c) Criteria for Approval of Conversion Application. "(1)An application for the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership shall be approved only if the decision maker finds that: "a)A survey of resident support has been conducted and the results filed with the Department in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter;. "b)A tenant impact report has been completed and filed with the Department in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter, "c) The conversion to resident ownership is consistent with the.General Plan,any applicable Specific or Area Plan, and the provisions of the Sonoma County Code; "d)The conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion; "e)Appropriate provision has been made for the establishment and funding of an association or corporation.adequate.to ensure proper:long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure; and "f) There are no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety,provided, however, that if any such conditions exist, the application for conversion maybe approved if: (1) all of the findings required under subsections (a) through(e) are made and (2) the subdivider has instituted corrective measures adequate to ensure prompt and continuing protection of the health and safety of park residents and the general public. "(2) For purposes of determining whether a proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion, the following criteria shall be used: 21 "a)Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter shows that more than 50 percent of resident households support the conversion to resident ownership, the conversion shall be presumed to be a bona-fide resident conversion. "b) Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and with this Chapter shows that at least 20 percent but not more than 50 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership, the subdivider shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion. In such cases, the subdivider shall demonstrate, at a minimum, that of viable plan,with a reasonable likelihood of success as determined by the decision-maker,.is in place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within a reasonable period of time. "c)Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter shows that less than 20 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership, the conversion shall be presumed not to be a bona-fide resident conversion. "25-39.7 (d) Tenant Notification. The following tenant notifications are required: "(1) Tenant Impact Report. The subdivider shall give each resident household a copy of the impact report required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (b)within fifteen(15) days after completion of such report, but in no case less than fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing on the application for conversion. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the report to any new or prospective residents following the original distribution of the report. "(2)Exclusive Right to Purchase. If the application for conversion is approved, the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public. The right shall run for a period of not less than ninety (90) days from the issuance of the subdivision public report (`white paper') pursuant to 22 California Business and Professions Code § 11018.2, unless the subdivider received prior written notice of the resident's intention not-to exercise such right. "(3)Right to Continue Residency as Tenant. If the application for conversion is approved, the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its right to continue residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (a)." The Ordinance is-Expressly Preempted by Section 66427.5 It is a given that regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of'local government. (E.g., Big Creek,supra,38 CalAth 1139, 1151;IT Corp.-v County of Solano (1991) 1 CalAth 81, 85, 95, 99; City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority(1999) 72 Ca1.AppAth 366, 376.) We are also mindful that our Supreme Court has twice held,prior to enactment of section 66427.5, that the Subdivision Map Act did not preempt local authority to regulate residential condominium conversions. (Griffin Development Co. v City of Oxnard (1985) 39 Cal.3d 256, 262-266;Santa Monica.Pines,Ltd v.Rent Control Board (1984) 35 Ca1.3d 858, 868-869.) Given the presumption against preemption (Big Creek,supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1149),we start by assuming that the Ordinance is valid. However, this attitude does not long survive. The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation_ Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script. The state's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map Act in 1991. (See Stats. 1991, ch_ 745, §§ 1-2,4, adding §§ 66427.5, 66428.1, & amending § 66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.) This was seven years after the State had declared itself in favor of converting mobilehome parks to resident ownership, and at the same time established the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund from which the HCD could make loans to low-income residents and resident organizations to facilitate conversions. (Stats. 1984, ch_ 1692, § 2, adding Health & Sa£ Code, §§ 50780-50786_) 23 Although the Court of Appeal in El Dorado did not explicitly hold that section 66427.5 was an instance of express preemption, that-is clearly how it read the statute. And although there is nothing in the text of section 66427.5 that at first glance looks unambiguously like a stay-away order from the Legislature to cities and counties,10 there is no doubt that the El Dorado court construed the operative language as precluding addition by cities or counties. That operative language reads: "The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the [tentative or parcel] map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_" (§ 66427.5, subd. (e), italics added.) The italicized language is, in its own way, comprehensive. But the contrasting constructions the parties give it could not be more starkly divergent. According to Sequoia, section 66427.5 has an almost ministerial operation. The words of the statute"communicate unambiguously that local agencies must approve a mobilehome park subdivision map if the applicant complies with `this section' alone." The County and supporting amici argue that section 66427.5 and El Dorado are not dispositive here. Indeed, they almost argue that the statute and the decision are not relevant. As they see it, section 66427.5—both before and after El Dorado-is a statute Of very modest scope, addressing itself only to the issue.of avoiding and mitigating the economic displacement of residents who will not be purchasing units when the mobilehome park is converted. All the Ordinance does, they maintain, is "implement" and flesh out the details of the Legislature's directive in a wholly appropriate fashion, leaving unimpaired the traditional local authority over land uses. As the amici state it: "Ordinance No. 5725 does not purport to impose any additional economic restrictions to preserve affordability or to avoid displacement." 10 Such as the provision of the Mobilehome Parks Act directing that "This part applies to all parts of the state and supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, applicable to this part." (Health& Saf Code, § 18300, subd_ (a).) 24 We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's approach_ Beginning `--� with the presumption against preemption in the area of land use, it is more than a little difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only on the issues of resident support and the subdividers-efforts at avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents. Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept;if not invite, supplementary local action." Eor example, a subdivider is required to "file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents," but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report. And there is some force to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici: "Surely,the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content. . . . [11 . . . [¶}If there can be no assurance aS�to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach_ There are three such statutes—sections 66247-4, 66247.5, and 66428.1. And if they are considered as a unit--=which they are, as the three -mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act 12—a coherent logic begins to emerge. It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation. As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out,plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations" Moreover, the park has 11 The County and supporting amici note our Supreme Court stating that the Subdivision Map Act"sets suitability, design, improvement and procedural requirements [citations] and allows local governments to impose supplemental requirements of the same kind." (The Pines v. City of Santa Monica (1981) 29 Cal_3d 656, 659, italics added.) It must be emphasized, however, that the court's comments were made in the context of a local tax—and a decade before the subject of mobilehome park conversion began appearing in the Subdivision Map Act. 12 Because sections 66427.4, 66427.5, and 66428.1 all deal with the subject of mobilehome park conversions, it is appropriate to consider them together. (E.g., Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112, 124, fn_ 4; County of Los Angeles v_ Frisbie (1942) 19 Ca1.2d 634, 639; In re Washer(1927) 200 Cal_ 599, 606.) 25 A,TTACHMF:NT NfO �� 50' 'i been inspected and re-licensed on an annual basis. But the owner has decided to change. If the change is to close the park and devote the land to a different use, section 66427.4 governs. If the change is a more modest switch to residential conversion, sections 66427.5 and 66428.1 are applicable. These statutes form a rough continuum. If the owner is planning a new use, that is,leaving the business of operating a mobilehome park, section 66427.4 (quoted in full at fn. 5, ante) directs the owner to prepare a report on the impact of the change'to tenants or residents. (Subd. (a).) The relevant local authority"may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome parkresidents-to-fmd adequate space in a mobilehome park" as a condition of approving or conditionally approving the change. (Subd. (c).) But in this situation— where the land use question is essentially reopened de novo—section 66427-4 explicitly authorizes local input: "This section establishess-a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures_" (Subd. (d), italics added.) At the other end of the continuum is the situation covered by section.66428.1, subdivision(a) of which provides: "When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobilehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of converting it to resident ownership, and a field survey is performed,the requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and final map shall be waived unless any of the following conditions exist: [In (1)There are design or improvement requirements necessitated by significant health or safety concerns. [¶J (2) The local agency determines that there is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new parcel or tentative and final map- [In (3)The existing parcels which exist prior to the proposed conversion were not created by a recorded parcel or final map. f 1d (4) The conversion would result in the creation of more condominium units or interests than the number of tenant lots or spaces that exist prior to conversion." 26 rae is ars vw &9i­� -N -- So, if the conversion essentially maintains an acceptable status quo, the conversion is approved by operation of law. And the locality has no opportunity or power to stop it, or impose conditions for its continued operation. Section 66427.5 occupies the midway point on the continuum. It deals with the situation where the mobilehome park will continue to operate as such,merely transitioning from a rental to an ownership basis; and there is not two-thirds tenant support for the change—in other words, conversions that enjoy a level of tenant concurrence that does not activate the free ride authorized by section 66428.1 In those situations, the local authority enjoys less power than granted by section 66427-4, but more'than conversions governed by 66428.1. It is not surprising-that in this-middle situation that the Legislature.would see fit to grant local authorities some power,but circumscribe the extent of that power. That it what section 66427.5 does_ It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power,but no more. As previously mentioned, fire Legislature amended section 66427.5 in the wake of -El Dorado. Two features of that amendment are notable. First, the Legislature added , what is now the requirement in subdivision(d) of a survey of tenant support for the conversion, when the level of that support does not reach the two-thirds mark at which point section 66428.1 kicks in. But the Legislature did not address the point noted in El Dorado that there is no minimum amount of tenant support required for a conversion to be approved. (See El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal_AppAth 1153, 1172-1173.) As this was the only addition to the statute, if follows that it was deemed sufficient to address the problem of"bona fide" conversions mentioned in the unmodified portion of the enactment that accompanied the amendment- Second, and even more significant for our purposes, the El Dorado court expressly read section 66427.5 as not permitting a local authority to inject any other consideration into its decision whether to approve a subdivision conversion_'3 (El Dorado,supra, 13 El Dorado is also authority for rejecting the County's attempt to narrow the scope of the section 66427.5 hearing to just the issue of tenant displacement, thereby presumably leaving other issues or concerns of the conversion application to be addressed at a different hearing_ The El Dorado court treated the section 66427.5 hearing as the 27 I A ��� 96 Cal.App_4th 1153, 1163-1164, 1166, 1182_) And when it amended section 66427.5, ` the Legislature did nothing to overturn the El Dorado court's reading of the extent of local power to step beyond the four comers of that statute. This is particularly telling: " `[W]hen the Legislature amends a statute without altering portions of the provision that have previously been judicially construed,the Legislature is presumed to have been aware and to have acquiesced in the previous judicial construction. Accordingly, reenacted portions of the statute are given the same construction they received before the amendment.' " (Harris v Capital Growth InvestorsMV(1991) 52 Cal_3d 1142, 1156, quoting Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982)30 Ca1.3d 721, 734; accord,People v. Meloney(2003) 30 Ca1.4th 1145, 1161;People v Ledesma(1997) 16 CalAth 90, 100-101.) The foregoing analysis convinces us that the El Dorado construction of section 66427.5 has stood the test of time and received the tacit approval of the Legislature. We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision(e)of section 66427-5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the-power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis_ equivalent of"El Dorado's application for approval of the tentative subdivision map_" (El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 116.3-1164;see also id_, at pp_ 1174 ["section 66427.5 applies to El Dorado's application for tentative map approval"], 1182 [absence of majority tenant support for conversion not dispositive because"The owner can still subdivide his property by following . . . section 66427.5";judgment reversed "with directions to require the City Council to promptly determine the sole issue of whether El Dorado's application for approval of a tentative parcel map complies with section 66427.5"].) Even more germane is that, to judge from the language used in the uncodified provision enacted with the amendment of section 66427.5, the Legislature clearly appeared to equate compliance with section 66427.5 with the conversion approval process. 28 % 5 . The Ordinance is Impliedly-Preempted � As previously shown, local law is invalid if it enters a field fully occupied by state law,or if it duplicates, contradicts,or is inimical, to state law. (O'Connell v_ City of Stockton,supra,41 Ca1.4th 1061, 1068;Big Creek,supra,38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150.) The three tests for implied preemption are: (1)has the issue been so completely covered by state law as to indicate that the issue is now exclusively a state concern; (2)_the issue has been only partially covered by state law,but the language of the state law indicates that the state interest will not tolerate additional local input; and (3)the issue has been only partially covered by state law,but the negative impact of local legislation on the state interest is greater than whatever local benefits derive from the local legislation. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton,-supra, at p. 1150;Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, supra,7 Cal.4th 725, 751;People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino,supra, 36 CAM 476,485.) We conclude that the County's Ordinance is also vulnerable to two 'of the tests for implied preemption. The overview of the regulatory schemes touching-mobilehomes undertaken earlier in this opinion demonstrates that the state's involvement is extensive and comprehensive_ Grants of power to cities and counties are few in number,guarded in language, and invariably qualified in scope_ Nevertheless, those grants do exist. Section 66427.5 shows that the state is willing to allow some local participation in some aspects of mobilehome conversion; and section 66427.4 shows that in one setting---when a mobilehome park is converted to a different use—it is virtually expected that the state role will be secondary. The first test for implied preemption cannot be established. But the three-statute continuum discussed earlier in connection with express preemption also shows that the second and third tests for implied preemption are. For 25 years, the state has had the policy "to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership" (Health &. Saf. Code, § 50780, subd. (b).) The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy. (Health& Saf. Code, § 50782 [establishing the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund].) The 29 state clearly has an interest in mobilehome park conversions,but is willing to have local governments occupy some role in the process. The extent of local involvement is calibrated to the situation. However,when the subject is narrowed to conversions that merely affect the change from rental to residential ownership,local involvement is strictly limited. If the proposed conversion has the support of two-thirds or more of the park tenants,section 66428.1 prevents the city or county from interfering except in four very specific situations. If the tenant support is less than two-thirds, section 66427.5 directs that the role of local government"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_" (§ 66427.5, subd. (e).) In sum, the fact that the-situations where localities could involve themselves in conversions have been so carefully delineated shows that the Legislature viewed the subject as one where the state concern would not-be advanced.if parochial interests were allowed to intrude. Accordingly, we conclude that the second and third tests for implied preemption are present. There is more. "Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates . . . general law . . . ." (Lancaster v. Municipal Court (1972)6 Cal.3d 805, 807-808; accord,Bag Creek,supra, 38 CalAth 1139, 1150; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara,supra, 7 Ca1.4th 725,747.) The Ordinance is plainly duplicative of section 66427.5 in several respects, as the County candidly admits: the Ordinance"sets forth minimum . . . requirements" for the conversion application, "including: (a) submission of a survey of resident support in compliance with section 66427.51 (b)submission of a report on the impact of the proposed conversion on park residents as required by section 66427.5; and (c) submission of a copy of the annual maintenance inspection report already required by Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations." (Italics added.) The Ordinance also purports to require the subdivider to provide residents of the park "written notice of[the] right to continue residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code § 66427.5(a)" and "a copy of the impact report required by Government Code § 66427.5(b)." (Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(d), subs. 1, 3_) 30 ATTACHMENT NOY And still more. A local ordinance is impliedly preempted if it mandates what state F _ law-forbids. (Big Creek,supra,38 CalAth 1139,1161'. Great Western Shows, Inc_ v_ County of Los Angeles,supra, 27 Cal_4th 853, 866.) As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating'from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application_ Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved"only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66247.5, the application(1)"is consistent with the General Plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2)demonstrates that"appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and"ensureproper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure";(3)the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety"; and (4)the proposed conversion"is a bona fide resident conversion"as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance_14 (Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c), subs. 1(c)-1(f),2_) The Ordinance also requires that, a following approval of the conversion application,the subdivider"shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public," for a period of 90 days "from the issuance of the subdivision public report _ _ _ pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 11018.2." (Id., § 25-39.7(d), subd. 2.) However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5.--The matter of just what constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not 14 Although it is not discussed in the briefs, a recent decision by Division Three of this district suggests these provisions might also be vulnerable to the claim that they amount to a burden of proof presumption that would be preempted by Evidence Code section 500_ (See Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal_App_4th 741, 751, fn. 5, 754-758.) 31 _ ,� 4rNtT NO .A ::;� truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions.15 And although the a Ordinance employs the mandatory"shall," it does not establish whether the presumptions are conclusive or merely rebuttable. This uncertainty is only compounded when other criteria are scrutinized. What is the financial provision that will be deemed"appropriate" to"ensure proper long-term management and maintenance"? Such imprecision stands in stark contrast with the clear directives in section 66427.5. The County,ably supported by an impressive array of amici, stoutly defends its corner with a number of arguments as to why the Ordinance should be allowed to operate. The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuring that the conversion must comport with the General Plan, especially its housing element,because that is where the economic dislocation will be manifest,by reducing the inventory of low-cost housing. (See Health& Saf Code, § 50780, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(3).) In this sense, however, section 66427.5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates, as it does make provision in subdivision(f) for helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain_ In any event, we cannot read section 66427.5 as granting localities the same powers expressly enumerated in section 66427.4 that are so conspicuously absent from the plain language of section 66427.5. We assume the County was motivated by the laudable purposes stated in the first section of the Ordinance. And we have acknowledged that the County's construction of the section 66427.5 can find some plausibility from the statutory language. Nevertheless, and after a most careful consideration of the arguments presented, we have concluded that the Ordinance crosses the line established by the Legislature as marking territory reserved for the state. As we recently stated in a different statutory context: "There are is That uncertainty may be illustrated by how Sequoia perceives one part of the Ordinance_ With respect to instances where tenant support for conversion is between 20 percent and 50 percent, the Ordinance provides: "In such cases,the subdivider shall demonstrate, at a minimum,that a viable plan, with a reasonable likelihood of success . is in place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within a reasonable period of time." (Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(c)(2)(b).) Sequoia treats this as a requirement that the subdivider come forth with "financial assistance" to assist tenants to purchase their units. 32 weighty arguments and worthy goals arrayed on each side_ _ . . [and] . . . issues of high public policy. To choose between them, or to strike a balance between them, is the essential function of the Legislature, not a court." (State Building& Construction Trades Council of California v_ Duncan(2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 289,324.) Of course, if the Legislature disagrees with our conclusion, or if it wishes to grant cities and counties a greater measure of power, it can amend the language of section 66427.5. DISPOSITION The order is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new order or judgment consistent with this opinion_ Sequoia shall recover its costs. t = 33 ATTACHMENT N0. O e f Richman J. We concur_ Haerie, Acting P_J. Lambden,J. 34 aTT&if HMFNT Al 20049,Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma Trial Court: Superior Court of Sonoma County Trial Judge: Temporary Judge Raymond J. Giordano (Pursuant to Cal_ Const., art.VI, § 21.) Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant: Bien & Summers, Elliot L.Bien and Catherine Meulemans Attorney for Amici Curia_ a Rancho Sonoma The Loftin Firm,L.Sue Loftin and Partners,Eden Gardens, Sundance Estates Michael Stump and Capistrano Shores on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent: Steven M. Woodside,County Counsel, Sue AA Gallagher and Debbie F. Latham, Deputy County Counsel Attorney for Am-lei Curiae The California Aleshire&Wyndner, William W. Wynder State Association of Counties;:The.League and'Simny K Soltani of California Cities,The City of Carson and The City of Los Angeles ou behalf of Defendant and Respondent: 35 ATT!` HNAFNT N "? , . HK4S __ < HART, KING & COLOREN v} i Robert S.Cokken rcoktren@hkclaw-corn September 2, 2009 Our File Number_ 36014.t1214849-59284068v_1 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL Planning Commission Subdivision Committee City of Huntington.Beach ("City") 2000!fain Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296("Application") Objection to Staff Suggested: Findings for Denial Dear Planning Commissioners and Subdivision Committee Members: Planners plan! It is thus difficult for planning staff to deal with the concept that their ability to require design and improvement conditions, onsite and offsite improvements, etc_, has been severely limited by state law_ Similarly, City Attorneys like to provide for expanded municipal jurisdiction_ Thus, it is not surprising that for months, staff found various excuses to delay answering questions, obfuscate respecting submissions, reject applications, accept applications, fane ignorance that the filing constituted a request for a "vesting" tentative map, manufacture a tortured interpretation of state law to attempt to reject an application for a "vesting"tentative map, etc_ I recognize that i am unlikely to make many points with City staff by airing these concerns for the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission_ It is critical, however, that the City understands that my client is intent upon subdividing the mobilehome park, and it is consistent with state law. The Government Code specifies very clearly that the actions of local government in connection with the processing of a map for the subdivision of a mobilehome park are essentially "ministerial" in nature, and the fees exacted by the City, the demands for information, and the delaying tactics_ employed, as well as the currently recommended conditions, all have caused, and will continue to cause substantial damage to my client's economic interests The extraordinary delays and magnified costs will not be tolerated any longer by my client_ We have a meeting today before the Subdivision Committee, a "study session" next week before the Planning Commission, and finally, a Planning Commission hearing later this month. We have already had a number of "informal meetings"with City staff_ While such intensive activity over a subdivision application might be warranted in the case of any ordinary subdivision, or even conversion, in the case of a-mobilehome park subdivision, this is totally unwarranted and completely excessive- Further delays in these actions and requirements will not be tolerated. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe. Fourth Floor. Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714 432 8700 1 www.hkclaw corn i Fx 714 546 7457 H "�. Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 2 The "last straw' was the last "informal meeting" we had at the City_ While it was quite cordial, the City Attorney's office continued to take the position that the Assistant City Attorney had broad authority to regulate the subdivision of this mobilehome park_ And this is in spite of the fact that the California Appellate courts have, only the previous few days, spoken loudly and clearly in a well reasoned 33 page published appellate court decision (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma) removing all doubt (had there ever been any) that the subdivision process of a mobilehome park is, in fact, a virtually ministerial act, limited to a determination that the very rote and the mechanical requirements the Government_Code section have been complied with_ We have reserved our rights respecting the processing of this application as a"vesting tentative map", and reiterate that reservation here_ We further request that the Subdivision Committee clearly articulate what it believes its jurisdiction to be, and that it acknowledge that any and all conditions that it imposes must be consistent with the requirements of the "Sequoia" case and the relevant Government Code sections. Further efforts to needlessly frustrate my client's subdivision process, assuming they were ever justified by a .claimed uncertainty in the law,-now constitute nothing more than a blatant interference with client's lawful rights_ The limits of the City's opportunity to interfere with the subdivision are clearly defined in section 6CA27.5 subdivision (e)of the Government Code which states: "The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative -or parcel map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_" The words of the statute communicate unambiguously that local agencies must approve a mobilehome park subdivision map if the applicant complies with this section alone. The "Sequoia" court approvingly cites the park owner's position_ "As Sequoia points out- `Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations-' Moreover, the park has been inspected and re{icensed on an annual basis_ But the owner has decided to change_ If the change is to close the park and devote the land to a different use, section 66427.4 governs. if the 36014 11214849-5928-8068v 1 ATTACHMENT NO ��° Z 'Rams iaE+eh City of I-lungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City o=Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 3 change is a more modest switch to residential conversion, sections 66427-5 and 66428.1 are applicable.' Thus, it is crystal clear under case taw and the statute itself that City staff is quite simply'out of bounds"when it tries to impose additional requirements for this subdivision process. As the Sequoia court went on to say on page 27 of the decision: 'So, if the conversion essentially maintains an acceptable status quo, the conversion is approved by operation of law_ And the locality has not opportunity -or power to stop it, or impose conditions for its continued operation-' And the court on page 27 goes on to say- 'Section 66427.5 occupies the midway point on the continuum_ It deals with the situation where the mobitehome park will continue to operate as such, merely transitioning from a rental to an ' ownership basis, and there is not two-thirds tenant support for the change—in other words, conversions that enjoy a level of tenant occurrence that does not activate the free ride authorized by section 66428.1. in those situations, the local authority enjoys less power than granted by section 66427-4. but more than conversions governed by 66428.1_ It is not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see fit to grant local authorities some power, but circumscribe the extent of that power. That is what section 66427.5 does- It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power, but no more-' 4 And the authority that that Government Code section confers upon'total government is the authority to conduct a public hearing, to determine that the requisite survey had been done, and two or three other ministerial acts; the Government Code section does not empower the City to attempt to impose design and improvement requirements, or dictate an application that would anticipate such conditions. The City must understand that there are consequences for blindly ignoring this Government Code section, and continuing the processing of this map as if it were not constrained by the Government Code section or the Sequoia decision. I am taking such a direct and pointed approach here in the hopes that someone at the City will realize that this subdivision process 36014.1 1 214 84 9-5 928-806 8v I e �rViMENT N® pTT� "K, Rami Talieh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2,2009 Page 4 must be significantly changed, and changed immediately, in order to avoid exposing the City to damages. Two other points before addressing the specifics of the proposed Suggested Findings: First, the applicant park owner has bent over backward to attempt to accommodate the City and staffs legitimate and reasonable concerns at every stage_ For example, we have invited the fire department to work with us to enhance first responder and fire suppression in the mobilehome park and continue to be committed to do. Secondly, we have not even met with our tenants yet to discuss the subdivision process; and yet, the City has indicated that there are substantial opposition arnong our residents to the subdivision process. While the residents do not have any"veto' over our right to subdivide, we want to be absolutely certain that the City understands that we are committed to meeting with our residents (the first such meeting will be next week) and ensuring that they can make an informed decision regarding the benefits of subdivision to them. Note that the letters of concern received thus far are foram letters sent to the City at the request of some misinformed and apparently disgruntled residents; and, as discussed at the last meeting with staff, reflect a clear misunderstanding of the entire subdivision process. It is no wonder that they would accept the suggestion solicited in these letter, given the nature of the misinformation that they have received. This letter objects to the enclosed Suggested Findings for Denial of the Application that were sent to the Park by the Planning Department on August 28.2009. The Suggested Findings are based on City General Plan policies and provisions of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to common open space_ The Park, as it currently exists, is approved by the California Department of Housing for 3G9 spaces, the design and configuration of which under the "CD permit is set forth on the proposed Map_ As explained in the recent Court of Appeal decision in Sequoia Park Associates v County of Sonoma, the City is barred from applying its General Plan policies or Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance provisions to-the Application. State law provisions pertaining to mobilehome park design, construction, maintenance, use, operation, and subdivision, including those contained in the Subdivision Map Act and the Mobilehome Parks Act expressly and impliedly preempt the City's General Plan policies and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with respect to the Application- Therefore, the Park owner applicants respectfully request that the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission reject the Planning Department's Suggested Findings and approve the Application. 36014 112l4849-5928-3068v 1 ATTACHMENT No A % - HART. KING 6 CQI_DREN a Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 5 Express State Preemption of Local Agency General Plan Policies and Zoning Codes In Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal_ App_ LEX1S 1397 (CaL App. 1st Dist- Aug. 21, 2009), the California Court of Appeal held that State law pertaining to mobilehome parks, particularly the Subdivision Map Act (Gout_ Code § 66427.5 (e)), preempts application of local agency planning, zoning, subdivision and other municipal code requirements or conditions with respect to subdivision of existing rental mobilehome parks for conversion to resident ownership. The sole requirements for approval of the Application are those contained in Government Code Section 66427.5.which simply require submission of the map, a tenant survey and a conversion impact report_ Government Code Section 66427.5(e)provides. The subdivider shalt be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map_ The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_ In Sequoia Park Associates, the California Court of Appeal held that County of Sonoma planning, zoning and subdivision code requirements were expressly and impliedly preempted by Govemment Code Section 66427-5 (e), given the comprehensive State scheme of mobilehome statutes and regulations- We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427-5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at p. 54) The County of Sonoma ordinance included requirements for existing mobilehome park subdivision applications that went beyond the express requirements of Government Code Section 66427-5: As already established, section 66427-5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application. Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shalt be approved "only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant 36014 11214849-5928-8068v I ATTA"HMENT NO,. .v t�.t_YY - Ram- i alleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee .City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 6 impact report requirements imposed the section 66427.5. the application (1) `is consistent with the General Plan' and other local land and zoning use regulations, (2) demonstrates that `appropriate' financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper tong-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure% (3) the applicant shows that there are `no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to publish health or safety"; and (4) the proposed conversion "is a bona fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance_ (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cat_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 58-59) The County of Sonoma ordinance required that the subdivision be consistent with County's General Plan and provisions of'the County Code_ (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 38-41) The Planning Department in this situation similarly seeks to unlawfully impose requirements on ; the Application for compliance with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code_ p State Mobilehome Law is Comprehensive and Preemptive. As the Court of Appeal concluded in Sequoia Park Associates, local agencies cannot add =e uirements based on their general plan policies or zoning code in considering applications to suodivide existing mobilehome parks for conversion to resident ownership- However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal.App. LEXIS 1397, at p_ 60) As will be shown, we conclude that the ordinance is expressly preempted because section 66427.5 states that the'scope of the hearing" for approval of the conversion-application" shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." We further conclude that the ordinance is impliedly preempted because the Legislature, which has established a dominant role for the state in regulating mobilehomes, has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions, declining to expand section 66427-5 in ways that would authorize local government to impose additional conditions or requirements 36014.11214849-5928-8068v 1 ATTACAMENT NO.- �_ ' Ra:1:+ r aifeh City ,ngtington Beach Subdivision Committee Cify --!untington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 7 for conversion approval_ Moreover, the County's ordinance duplicates several features of state law, a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption_ .(Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 2-3) The decision in Sequoia Park Associates was based on a thorough review by the Court of Appeal of the comprehensive State statutory scheme regarding mobilehome parks_ Section 66427.5 does not stand alone_ If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control, that day is tong past. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal-App- LEXIS 1397, at p. 12) These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage- Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate `specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use and design" of mobilehome parks (Health & Saf. Code 18253 _— (Sequoia Park Associates v- County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 16-17) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks are in the Government Code_ Cities and counties cannot decide that a mobilehome park is not a permitted use "on all land planned.and zoned for residential land use as designated by the applicable local plan,- though the locality `may require a use permit_' (Gout_ Code, § 65852-7) "1111t is clear that the Legislature intended to limit local authority for zoning regulation to the specifically enumerated exceptions [in Heath and Safety Code section 18300, subdivision (9), quoted at fn_ 3, ante]of where a mobilehome park may be located, vehicle parking, and lot lines, not the structures within the parks_" (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse, supra, 127 Cal_AppAth 1483, 1493) (Sequoia Park Associates v- County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App. LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 19-20) The Court of Appeal, while recognizing that local agencies traditionally have broad powers to regulate land uses in their jurisdiction, concluded in Sequoia Park Associates that the State has taken away those powers with respect to subdivision of existing rental mobilehome parks for the purpose of conversion to resident ownership: 36014 112/4849-5928-8068v 1 ATTACHMENT NO.-I t =-n, 3 c Rami Talleh - City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 8 It is a given that regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government_ .__ However, this attitude does not long survive. The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation_ Localities are allowed We scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script. The stat&s dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map Act in 1991. (See Slats. 1991,ch. 745,§§ 1- 2, 4, adding §§66427.5;66428.1. &amending§66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.) This was seven years after the State had declared itself in..tavor.of_coaverting.mobilehome parks to resident ownership, and at the same time established the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund from which the HCD could make loans to tow-income residents and resident organizations to facilitate conversions. (Stats. 1984, ch_ 1692, § 2, adding Health & Saf_ Code, §§ 50780-50786_) (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 43- 44) It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation_ As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427-5 have .already been mapped out, platted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations_" Moreover,the park has been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 48-49) For 25 years, the state has had the policy "to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership_" (Health & Saf_ Code, § 50780, subd_ (b)_) The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy (Health & Saf_ Code, § 50782 [establishing the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund].) The state clearly has an interest in mobilehome park conversions, but is willing to have local governments occupy some role in the process. The extent of local involvement is calibrated to the situation. However, when the subject is 36014 1 12/4849 5928-8068,t ATTACHMENT NO �ti._.. ` .�. m. & COLQREv 3 Rarr_t ,ai?eh Cit f',urigtingfon Beach Subdivision Committee City .A -funtington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 9 narrowed to conversions that merely affect the change from rental to residential ownership local involvement is strictly limited. If the proposed conversion has the support of two-thirds or more of the- park tenants, section 66428.1 prevents the city or county from interfering except in four very specific situations. If the tenant support is less than two-thirds, section 66427.5 directs that the role of local government "shall be limited to the issue . of compliance with this section_" (§ 66427.5, subd. (e).). (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397,at pp_ 56-57) Conclusion In conclusion, the Park owners object -to the Planning Department's Suggested Findings and request that the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission pro ptly`move forward to approve the Application_ Very truly yours, HART,KING & COLD WE Rci,er-t' of n RSC/BLH/rb (Enclosure_ August 28, 2009 Planning Department Suggested Findings cc_ Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) ,014 11214849-5928-8068v 1 �,e 9 ATTACHMENT N®f� �g�� City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning , - Subdivision Committee (September 2, 2009) Huntington Shoreciffs Mobilehome Park Conversion SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- TENTATIVE MAP NO.17296: 1. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development_ The five additional tots created in conjunction with the mobilehome park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 2D0 sq_IL per mobilehome(total 1,000 sq_fL). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast comer of the mobilehome park. Further,the Existing 304 units are Provided with less than the minimum-required 60,800 sq.fL common open space_ The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 23,850 sq.It. In addition, the subdivision will create several lots with less than the minimum required side yard setbacks between manufactured homes. 2. Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 for the subdivision of approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31"fettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobiitehome park and expansion of five additional lots for a total of 309 lots for ownership purposes is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25.(Residential-Medium-High Density—Max_25 units per acre)on the subject property and applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance_ The proposed tentative map is not consistent with the following policies of-the General Plan_ LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares,mini-parks, or other landscaped elements_ LU 9.32(d): Establish a common`gathering"or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods_ This center may contain services such as child or adult-care, recreation,..public meeting rooms, recreational facilities,small convenience commercial uses,or similar facilities. LU 9.3.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity_ While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming cornmon areas total 23.850 sq- ft., the proposed five tot expansion is not provided with the required 1.000 sq. ft_ of common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots_ 1 ATTACHMENT NO � _ �� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICAON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME i �";_ _ rJA 1 �� TO: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner CC: Kellee Fritzal, Economic Development Deputy Direct FROM: Luis Gomez, Economic Development Project Manger DATE: September 15, 2009 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 The Economic Development Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and has the following concerns: City-owned abutting property (APN 024-250-01)located within the Mobile Home Park is land locked and lacks access easements through the Mobile Home Park_ The parcel is bounded by Frankfort Avenue to the north and Beach.Boulevard to the east and is currently being leased by the applicant for RV storage_ The parcel is landlocked due to a sever slopes on both street frontages. While, the parcel is currently being used by the mobile home park and is accessed via a common parking area, no reciprocal access easements are currently in place or provided as part of the proposed subdivision. ATTACHMENT NO.�3� ATTACHMENT #6 F ° µ MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 r` HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 5:00 P.M. —COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P A P P P P P ROLL CALL: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize Commissioner Mantini arrived at 5:05 PM. AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY DELGLEIZE, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2009, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: Mantini ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. PROJECT REVIEW(FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS) A-1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 08-008/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 (BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN) — Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager and Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposed project. Ms. Broeren noted that the focus of tonight's study session would be on public comments and questions received on Books I and II of the proposed specific plan. Commissioner Livengood asked about the cemetery located at the northeast corner of Beach Blvd. and Talbert Avenue. Ms. Broeren said that the cemetery is not within the Beach and Edinger Corridors area and would not be affected by the proposed specific plan. 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 2 Ms. Broeren said that the proposed town center/core of the Beach and Edinger Corridors would be located at Beach Blvd. and Ellis Avenue, not at Beach Blvd. and Warner Avenue. Ms. Broeren also said that Books II and III of the specific plan may be presented to the Planning Commission for approval without the inclusion of Book I. Vice Chair Farley asked about website posting of the project documentation. Ms. Broeren said that the Beach and Edinger Corridors consultant will be providing documentation in portrait format (instead of landscape) to make the documentation easier to read on the website. Ms. Broeren reported that the next study session on this project will commence with the public comments received on Attachment 4.8 of the staff report. She also noted the upcoming schedule for meetings on the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: a public meeting to be held on September 30, 2009, a study session on October 13, 2009, a study session on October 27, 2009, a study session on November 10, 2009 and a tentative public hearing date of December 8, 2009. A-2. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 07-001 (PIERSIDE PAVILION — REVISED MIX OF USES)— Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Rami Talleh, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposed project. He noted that the proposed project includes the removal of the existing theater and the addition of office space. Commissioner Speaker noted that in the past, the California Coastal Commission has indicated that they would like this site to be visitor-serving and that the California Coastal Commission had originally endorsed the theater. Mr. Talleh noted that this proposal includes the mixed use ratios for visitor-serving commercial uses as required by the California Coastal Commission. Commissioner Delgleize said that she is concerned that the project would cause a conflict with the neighboring Pier Colony residential complex. Mr. Talleh noted that no exterior modifications are proposed, that the applicant is proposing internal changes and fitting those uses within the existing building space. Commissioner Scandura asked staff if any new uses are proposed. Mr. Talleh said that any new uses would have to conform to the new Downtown Specific Plan Update, when and if it is approved. Commissioner Livengood noted that the cap on total square footage for the site is 99,000 square feet and is noted on Attachment No. 4.2 of the staff report. A-3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003/ANNEXATION NO. 06- 002/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-017 (GOODELL PROPERTY PRE-ZONING/ANNEXATION)—Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposed project. She noted that Late Communications have been received for this 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 3 project. She also noted that the public hearing for this project is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission on October 13, 2009 and that staff will be responding to comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration at that time. Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren noted that the Goodell site was included in the Environmental Impact Report for the Brightwater project. Vice Chair Farley asked about mitigation measures as listed in Attachment Nos. 3.36-3.39 of the staff report. Ms. Villasenor noted that pre-zoning mitigation measure issues will be addressed in the future. She also noted that there is no foreseeable development proposed for this site, but that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is needed now as part of the annexation process. A-4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-006 (RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY— COMMERCIAL VISITOR— SERVING ZONE)— Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposed project and noted that the public hearing for this project is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission on October 27, 2009. Commissioner Scandura noted that the California Coastal Commission is not recommending this use, which conflicts with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Vice Chair Farley asked if there are any applications for Religious Assembly uses. Ms. Medel said yes, and that staff is currently processing the request and researching the zoning issues. Chair Shier Burnett noted that this is a proactive project which will keep the city in compliance with federal law. B. STUDY SESSION ITEMS - NONE C. PUBLIC COMMENTS Roy Reynolds of PRT Strategies spoke regarding Item No. A-1 (Beach and Edinger Corridors) and mass transit strategies. Mr. Reynolds provided the Planning Commission with a handout. Chair Shier Burnett asked if PRT Strategies had been in communication with Caltrans and Mr. Reynolds said no. Gerald Chapman, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke regarding Item No. A-3 (Goodell Property) and Item No. A-1 (Beach and Edinger Corridors). He noted that he is in favor of preserving the current zoning that permits medical uses within the areas under consideration for the Beach and Edinger Corridors. He also noted that he is in favor of preserving "The Ridge" site due to its archeological resources. Scott Seaton, Peter's Landing Marina Manager, spoke regarding Item No. A-4 (Religious Assembly). He said that he has concerns with noise and asked if a school was proposed in addition to a church. Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren noted that no school is proposed and that the project proposes religious assembly uses only. 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 4 Howard Burns, resident, spoke regarding Item No. A-1 (Beach and Edinger Corridors). He said that he has concerns with property owners within the Corridors being able to keep their existing uses. D. AGENDA REVIEW (UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS)— Herb Fauland Herb Fauland, Planning Manager, reviewed the items for tonight's meeting. He advised that there is one Late Communication for Item No. B-1 and five Late Communications for Item No. B-2. Senior Planner Rami Talleh gave a brief overview of the Late Communications for Item No. B-2. Chair Shier Burnett asked if Item No. B-2 could be continued if needed and Mr. Talleh said yes. E. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Mantini noted that there will be an Orange County Transit Authority meeting regarding the expansion of the 405 freeway, to be held at the city's Central Library on September 23, 2009 from 6:00-8:00 PM. F. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Vice Chair Farley noted that on September 11, 2009, he appealed the Environmental Assessment Committee's environmental review determination of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for"The Ridge". 6:37 PM — RECESS FOR DINNER 7:05 P.M. — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Vice Chair Farley P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2009, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 5 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - NONE B-1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-001 (FLOOD ORDINANCE REVISIONS) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Chapter 222 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to bring it into compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements. The proposed amendment would, among others, clarify and supplement definitions and standards of construction. Location: Citywide Project Planner: Ricky Ramos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 with findings (Attachment No.1) and forward the draft ordinance (Attachment No. 2) to the City Council for adoption." The Commission made the following disclosures: e Commissioner Speaker attended the study session. ® Commissioner Mantini had no disclosures. Vice Chair Farley attended the study session. ® Chair Shier Burnett attended the study session. ® Commissioner Scandura attended the study session. 6 Commissioner Livengood attended the study session. O Commissioner Delgleize has visited the site. Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner, gave the staff presentation and an overview of the proposed project. Commissioner Livengood asked if the proposed revisions allow for depreciation in property values and Mr. Ramos said yes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. WITH NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DELGLEIZE, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-001 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 6 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-001 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act because the request is a minor amendment to a zoning ordinance that does not change the development standards density or intensity. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-001: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 amends Chapter 222 (Floodplain Overlay District) by, among others, clarifying and supplementing definitions and standards of construction. It is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs specified in the General Plan including: a. Goal EH 4 — Eliminate, to the greatest degree possible, the risk from flood hazards to life, property, public investment and social order in the City of Huntington Beach. b. Objective EH 4.1 — Ensure that the City's flood prevention standards and practices provide satisfactory safeguards for public and private development. c. Policy EH 4.1.2 — Establish and enforce standards which minimize financial loss and maximize protection of residents and business owners' property. The proposed amendment will bring the City's flood ordinance into compliance with FEMA requirements with the ultimate goal of increasing flood protection and minimizing loss. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 will revise the citywide flood ordinance. It will not affect the zoning of any property or the allowed uses and development standards of any zoning district. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed because Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 is necessary to comply with FEMA requirements which will enable the city to continue to be a part of the National Flood Insurance Program. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 will ultimately increase flood protection and minimize loss. 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 7 B-2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION) Applicant: Boyd Hill, Hart, King & Coldren Request: To a) subdivide approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes and b) create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. The project also includes an appeal filed by the applicant of the applicable code requirements. Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave.) Project Planner: Rami Talleh STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)." The Commission made the following disclosures: ® Commissioner Speaker has visited the site and attended the Subdivision Committee meeting. ® Commissioner Mantini has visited the site and attended the study session. • Vice Chair Farley has visited the site and attended the study session. ® Chair Shier Burnett has attended the Subdivision Committee Meeting, visited the site and spoken to staff. ® Commissioner Scandura has taken a site tour, spoken to staff and the City Attorney's office, attended the Subdivision Committee meeting and attended the study session. ® Commissioner Livengood has taken a site tour, spoken to staff and the City Attorney's office, and attended the study session. ® Commissioner Delgleize has visited the site and attended the study session. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner, gave the staff presentation and an overview of the proposed project. Mr. Talleh noted that Late Communications have been received on this project, including five letters from the applicant (one with a response from staff) and a letter from a resident regarding a possible oil well drilling location. Mr. Talleh also noted a correction to his staff report and the suggested findings, which should read "Suggested Findings for Denial" instead of "Suggested Findings For Approval." Commissioner Livengood asked about the Late Communication from a resident, which concerns an oil well at the project site. Fire Division Chief Bill Reardon said that the oil well is capped completely, is dormant and poses no threat to the residents of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Scandura asked if a Homeowners Association was in place when the residents were surveyed by Star Mobilehome Park Management. Mr. Talleh noted that many residents were present at the meeting and would be able to answer Mr. Scandura's question. Chair Shier Burnett asked about the state's Housing and Community Development Department documentation and asked how many units were 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 8 approved. Mr. Talleh said that Housing and Community Development approved a total of 304 on-site units. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Robert Colden of Hart, King and Coldren (the applicant) spoke in support of Item No. B-2. He said that the applicant is willing to eliminate five of the proposed lots. He also said that he has a map from the State Department of Housing and Community Development dated September 2008 which shows that 309 on-site lots were approved, but is willing to comply with the reduction to 304 lots. He also said that there was no Homeowners Association in place when the residents were surveyed by Star Mobilehome Park Management. Micheal Cirillo of Star Mobilehome Park Management spoke in support of Item No. B-2. He said that he was not aware of a Homeowners Association being in place when the residents were surveyed, and said that the survey is valid. Boyd Hill of Hart, King and Coldren spoke in support of Item No. B-2. He said that Government Code Section 66427 provides a guideline for local governments to follow when processing a mobile home park subdivision. He said that the Planning Commission should follow the Housing and Community Development regulations when making their decision. Mary Landin, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. She said that the residents don't have enough information to make an informed decision and lack legal representation. Robert Schaaf spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2, although he is not a resident of the Mobile Home Park. He thanked Rami Talleh for all his efforts on this project. Majel Miller, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. She stated that there are unresolved maintenance issues at the Mobile Home Park and would like to see these fixed prior to considering subdivision. Scott Steeper, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2, with four minutes of time donated by Richard Whissen. Mr. Steeper said that he is the president of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association (HOA) and that the HOA was in place when the residents were surveyed. He said that the residents don't have enough information to make informed decisions. He also said that Hart, King and Coldren did not provide the market rent or purchase price for the lots in question. Vice Chair Farley asked Mr. Steeper about HOA fees. Mr. Steeper said that the HOA is volunteer only, as none of the residents own the land. Mr. Farley also asked if Mr. Steeper had been involved in talks with the firm of Hart, King and Coldren and Mr. Steeper said no. Commissioner Scandura asked Mr. Steeper if an HOA had been in place prior to April 2009, and Mr. Steeper said yes, but the previous HOA had been disbanded. Sharon Dana, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2, with eight minutes of time donated by William Seymour and Frank Krafka. She noted that the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 9 Home Park is badly in need of repair and that the residents need more information before they can make an informed decision regarding subdivision. She also noted that the leases of 183 residents were terminated under the previous owners. Harold Lyons, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. He has concerns with needed repairs to the Mobile Home Park and said that the residents need more information before they can make an informed decision regarding subdivision. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Scandura asked the applicant about the existence of a Homeowners Association (HOA) when the residents were surveyed. Robert Colden of Hart, King and Coldren said that the residents were surveyed in March of 2009 and that the Homeowners Association (HOA) was not in place until April of 2009. He said that the HOA was assembled after the survey and recommended that the HOA conduct their own survey now. He also requested that the Planning Commission continue the project with 304 spaces. Regarding maintenance issues, he said that no violations have been received from the State of California's Housing and Community Development Department. Commissioner Scandura asked Mr. Colden how it was determined that there was no HOA in place in March of 2009. Mr. Cirillo of Star Mobilehome Park Management said that he asked two on-site managers who both said that there was no HOA in place. Planning Director Scott Hess noted that the staff report reads "Suggested Findings For Approval" instead of"Suggested Findings For Denial", but that the findings shown in the staff report are for denial. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Due to the typographical error in the staff report, which listed "Suggested Findings For Approval" instead of "Suggested Findings For Denial", the Planning Commission voted again. 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 10 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO SUBSTITUTE THE PHRASE 'ISUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL" FOR THE PHRASE "SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL" IN THE STAFF REPORT AND TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE MAPIINO. 17296: 1. This project is located in the RMP (Residential Mobilehome Park) zone and does not comply with the requirements of that zone. The five additional lots created in conjunction with the mobilehome park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open Space of 200 sq. ft. per mobilehome (total Ii1,000 sq. ft.). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used foil the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast corner of the mobilehome park. Further, the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq. ft. common open space pursuant to Section 210.14 oflthe Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The site is provided:with two recreation areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft. In addition, the proposed additional lots will occupy an existing office and pool which constitutes approximately 11,193 sq. ft. of�common open space. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 dated and received on August 4, 2009 for the subdivision of approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park and expansion of five additional lots for a total of 309 lots for ownership purposes is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density— Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property and applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed tentative map is not consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d): Establish a common "gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. LU 9.3.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 11 While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft., the proposed five lot expansion does not provide the required 1,000 sq. ft. of additional common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. Furthermore the subdivision would reduce the existing common open space by 11,193 sq. ft. in that the four of the five additional lots are proposed to be located in an area used for offices meeting rooms and a pool. 3. The Impact Report dated and received March 6, 2009 is not consistent with Government Code Section 66427.5 because it does not analyze the impact of the conversion on residents. Economic impacts associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure; estimated sales price of the lots; and other costs such property taxes and homeowners association dues are not discussed and analyzed in the report. Nor does the report identify the method upon which the non-purchasing residents will have some exceptions of the rents as prescribed by Government Code Section 66427.5. 4. Adequate evidence has not been provided that the Tenant Survey dated and received May 4, 2009 was prepared pursuant to an agreement with a homeowners association independent of the subdivider in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 11, 2009 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the August 11, 2009, Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY FARLEY, SECONDED BY MANTINI, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mantini, Farley, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Speaker, Shier Burnett MOTION APPROVED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - NONE E. PLANNING ITEMS E-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Scott Hess, Director of Planning-- reported on the items from the previous City Council Meeting. E-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Director of Planning — reported on the items for the next City Council Meeting. E-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING - NONE 09pcm0922 PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 12 F. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS F-1. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS — NONE F-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS The Planning Commission congratulated Chair Shier Burnett on the recent birth of her daughter. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 8:45 PM to the special meeting of Tuesday, October 6, 2009. APPROVED BY: Scott Hess, Secretary Elizabeth Shier Burnett, Chairperson 09pcm0922 ATTACHMENT #7 F g?-WA'.� E-1-0 AUG 2 7 Z009 HART. KING & COLDREN August 27, 2009 Our File Number 36014-112/4814-134"996v.I VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL Planning Commission Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Scott Hess, Director of Planning RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Appeal of Proiect Implementation Code Requirements, Conditions and Staff Recommendation Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter constitutes and sets forth the basis for the appeal by the Park owners' of the August 25, 2009 purported "Planning Director decision" applying project implementation code requirements for the Park subdivision-2 A copy of the purported "Planning,Director decision" is enclosed herewith_ Thepurported "Planning Director decision"to impose unlawful code requirements is a blatant improper attempt by the City Planning Department to impose an obstacle for what should be a simple check-list approval of the Application under the exclusive preemptive requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5- Therefore, while an appeal should not be necessary, the Park owners are filing the appeal out of an abundance of caution, given the statements in the August 25, 2009 letter contending that an appeal is required. By filing this appeal, the Park owners do not waive their rights to contend that an appeal regarding imposition of unlawful code conditions is unnecessary. This letter also constitutes the Park owners' objections to the Planning and Public Works Department proposed conditions of approval contained in an August 20, 2009 letter from the Planning Department- I Shorecliff LP,JS Stadium, LLC, Huntington BSC Park, LP, Shorecliff Main, LP 2 Attached to this letter Is a$494 check,which City Municipal Code Section 248-24A expressly states is not required,but which the Planning Director decision wrongfully states is required. The Park owners request that the check be voided and returned to them- A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, :Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkciaw-com I Fx 714-5467457 ATTACHMENT N C. i wi { Scott Hess _ 1 City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 2 Finally, this letter objects to the Planning Department's yet unpublished decision to recommend denial of the Application based on the Planning Department's unlawful imposition of its own conditions for the substantive content of the Park Owner conversion impact report. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider this appeal and these objections in' connection with and at the same meeting in which the Commission considers approval of the Application so that the unlawful City Staff decisions do not delay what the law requires to be a streamlined, almost ministerial, process for approval of the Application. Express State Preemption of Local Agency Requirements and Conditions The appeal and objections are based on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Aug_ 21, 2009), a copy of which is enclosed herewith. In Sequoia Hark Associates, the California Court of Appeal held that State law pertaining to mobilehome parks, particularly the Subdivision Map Act(Govt_ Code § 66427.5 (e)), preempts application of local agency planning,zoning, subdivision and other municipal code requirements or conditions with respect to subdivision of existing rental mobilehome parks for conversion to resident ownership_ The sole requirements for approval of the Application are those contained in Government Code Section 66427.5, which simply require submission of the map, a tenant survey and a conversion impact report. Government Code Section 66427.5 (e) provides: The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by.local ordinance to approve;conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. In Sequoia Park Associates, the California Court of Appeal held that County of Sonoma planning, zoning and subdivision code requirements were expressly and impliedly preempted by Government Code Section 66427.5 (e), given the comprehensive State scheme of mobitehon-te statutes and regulations: We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. 36014.112/4814-1346-0996v.1 ATTACHME T r,,.,cy,C HART. KING 6, CCLDREN Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 3 (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at'p_ 54) The County of Sonoma ordinance included requirements for existing mobilehome park subdivision applications that went beyond the express requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5: As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application. Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed the section 66427.5, the application (1) "is consistent with the General Plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations, (2)demonstrates that "appropriate"financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure'; (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to publish health or safety"; and (4) the proposed conversion "is a bona fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 58-59) The County of Sonoma code requirements included requirements for engineering reports on park common facilities and infrastructure, estimates of the useful life of such common facilities and infrastructure, an estimate of the annual overhead and operating costs of maintaining the park, its common areas and landscaping, an estimate of necessary replacement costs, and a verification of compliance with HCD requirements under Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal.App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 38A1) Similarly, in this situation, the City code requirements and proposed conditions impose general plan, and other local land and zoning use regulations, requirements for design, financing and construction and long-term maintenance of common facilities and infrastructure, and health and safety and HCD compliance requirements in connection with approval of the Application. 36014.11214814-1346-0996v-i ATTACHMENT N HK& C HART. KiNC3 E, 7° Scott Hess i .City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 4 State Mobilehome Law is Comprehensive and Preclusive As the Court of Appeal concluded in Sequoia Park Associates, local agencies cannot by their ordinances or conditions add to or even duplicate the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 in considering applications to subdivide existing mobilehome parks for conversion to resident ownership_ However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive.statutory requirements of section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App, LEXIS 1397, at p. 60) As will be shown, we conclude that the ordinance is expressly preempted because section 66427-5 states that the "scope of the hearing"for approval of the conversion application"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section-* We further conclude that the ordinance is impliedly preempted because the Legislature,which has established a dominant role for the state in regulating mobilehomes, has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions, declining to expand section 66427-5 in ways that would authorize local government to impose additional conditions or requirements for conversion approval. .Moreover, the County's ordinance duplicates several features of state law, a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 2-3) The decision in Sequoia Park Associates was based on a thorough review by the Court of Appeal of the comprehensive State statutory scheme regarding mobilehome parks: Section 66427.5 does not stand alone. If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control, that day is long past. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 12) These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage_ Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements 36014.112J4814-1346-0996v.1 HK&C HART. K Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 5 relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use and design" of mobilehome parks (Health & Saf. Code 18253 ---- (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 16-17) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks are in the Government Code_ Cities and counties cannot decide that a mobilehome park is not a permitted use "on all land planned and zoned for residential land use as designated by the applicable local plan," though the locality"may require a use permit_" (Govt. Code, § 65852.7) "1[I]t is clear that the Legislature intended to limit local authority for zoning regulation to the specifically enumerated exceptions [in Heath and Safety Code section 18300, subdivision (g), quoted at fn. 3, ante] of where a mobilehome park may be located, vehicle parking, and lot lines, not the structures within the parks." (County of Santa Cruz v_ Waterhouse, supra, 127 Cal_App.4th 1483, 1493) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App. LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 19-20) The Court of Appeal, while recognizing that local agencies traditionally have broad powers to regulate land uses in their jurisdiction, concluded in Sequoia Park Associates that the State has taken away those powers with respect to subdivision of existing rental mobilehome parks for the purpose of conversion to resident ownership-. It is a given that regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. --- However, this attitude does not long survive. The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation_ Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script. The state's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map Act in 1991. (See Stats. 1991, ch. 745, §§ 1-2, 4, adding §§ 66427.5, 66428-1, & amending § 66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.) This was seven years after the State had declared itself in favor of converting mobilehome parks to resident ownership, and at the same time established the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund from 36014-11214814-1346-0996v.1 Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 6 which the HCD"could make loans to low-income residents and resident organizations to facilitate conversions. (Slats. 1984, ch. 1692;§ 2, adding Health & Saf. Code, §§ 50780-50786.) (Sequoia Park Associates v" County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 43414) It must be recalled that the predicate-o€the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation. As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations." Moreover, the park has been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v.- County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 48A9) For 25 years, the state has had the policy"to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership." (Health & Saf. Code,.§ 50780, subd. (b).) The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy(Health & Saf. Code, § 50782 [establishing the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund].) The state clearly has an interest in mobilehome park conversions, but is willing to have local governments occupy some role in the process. The extent of local involvement is calibrated to the situation. However, when the subiect is narrowed to conversions that merely affect the change from rental to residential ownership, local involvement is strictly limited. If the proposed conversion has the support of two-thirds or more of the park tenants, section 66428.1 prevents the city or county from interfering except in four very specific situations. if the tenant support is less than two-thirds, section 66427.5 directs that the role of local government "shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." (§ 66427.5, subd. (e).) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App. LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 56-57) 36014.112/4814-1346-0996v-1 ©TT®(`_WhAPKIT .� _ . HK&C HART. KtNt—= lam '. j ;' Scott Hess City of Hungtnngton Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 7 Local Ordinances Cannot Duplicate or Condition State Requirements In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates made clear that local agencies cannot even condition tentative tract map approval on the local agencies' own interpretation of how the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 should be satisfied. -Part of the County of Sonoma ordinance that was struck down involved the County's conditions for accepting the tenant survey required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (d)_ With respect to those local agency tenant survey conditions, the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates concluded: However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5_ The matter of just what constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal-App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 60) The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates also considered, and rejected, an argument that local agencies should be'able to impose conditions for acceptance of the conversion impact report required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (b): We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's approach_ Beginning with the presumption against preemption in the area of land use, it is more than a little difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only on the issues of resident support and the subdividers efforts at avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents. Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept, if not invite, supplementary local action_ For example, a subdivider is required to "file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents," but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report_ And there is some force to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici: "Surely, the Legislature intended that the report have some substantive content _... [¶] ... [¶] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise-" 36014-11214814-1346-0996v-1 A-r-r A /!I Ilk a r—u 9� HART. K!N15 Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 8 However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach. ... It is not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see fit to.. grant. local., authorities some power, but circumscribe the extent of that power. That is what section 66427-5 does. It.says in°effect Local authority, you have this power, but no more. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 46-48, 51) Conversion Impact Reports are Necessarily Limited in Scope The content of conversion impact reports is necessarily limited given the preliminary City subdivision approval stage of the conversion when the-reports must be submitted. The City's action on the subdivision application occurs at a stage in the conversion process where significant information pertaining to conversion such as lot purchase price and a study of common area facilities and infrastructure and future homeowner association obligations has not yet occurred under the Subdivided Lands Act, Business and Professions Code Sections 11000 et seq_ Although a tenant cannot make a rational decision to buy, continue to rent, or move his or her mobilehome unless the tenant is given an option price and a proposed rental price, the tenant is not required to make such a decision until after the Department of Real Estate has approved the project and issued its public report. (Bus. & Prof Code § 11010.9) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1179) While the filing of the application and compliance with Section 66427.5 give notice to the residents of their option to purchase, the subdivider does not need to disclose a tentative price at that time because the residents do not need to decide whether to purchase at that time. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal_AppAth at 1180) In fact, the Subdivided Lands Act prevents premature disclosure of lot price information: 36014.112/4814-1346-0996v 1 HK `-` - C k-!A RT_ Y i N Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 9 Indeed, the giving of the disclosure notice does not authorize the subdivider to offer to sell the units before obtaining Department of Real Estate approval- (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11010.9, subd. (c).) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1180) Thus,.all that is required to be discussed in the conversion impact report at the stage of City approval of the Application is notice to the residents of their statutory option to purchase or continue leasing and of the statutory protections for those residents pertaining to post- conversion rent increases. At the latter time [the subdivision approval by the City], the subdivider must only notify residents that they will have an option to purchase their sites or to continue to rent them. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v- City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1180) Conclusion In conclusion, the Park owners by way of this appeal reject and object to all of the proposed conditions set forth in the August 20, 2009 fetter from the Planning Department and object to and appeal (as may be necessary) the Planning Director decision to impose all of the municipal code requirements set forth in the August 25, 2009 letter. The Park owners will only agree to accept the non preempted Planning Department code requirements 1 (b), 2 (a), 4, 5, and 8 and Public Works Department pre-final map recordation code requirements 1-6, as set forth in the August 25, 2009 letter. The Park owners appeal the imposition of all other municipal code requirements, as set forth in the August 25, 2009 letter_ The Park owners also reject and object to the Planning Department intended recommendation to deny the Application, which recommendation is based on the Planning Department's unlawful attempt to apply its own conditions for the substantive contents of the conversion impact report_ The City cannot impose any conditions of its own on approval of the Application. The City has an almost ministerial duty to approve the Application if the Application complies with the simple checklist of requirements set forth in Government Code Section 66427.5. 36014.112J4814-1346-0996v.1 HK& C Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 10 The Park owners look forward to moving ahead expeditiously with conversion of the Park. Best Regards, HART, KING & COLDREN it � Boyd Hill BLHfdr Enclosure: Check No. 8010 for$494 August 20, 2009 Conditions Letter August 25, 2009 Code Requirements Letter Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma case '. cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Ptanning,Uzinager (by e-mait onTy) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) Rami Talleh, SeniOrPlanner (by e-mail only) 36014.112J4814-1346-0996v-1 ATTACHMENT _ . k HART. K.NG D Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 11 bcc John Saunders (by e-mail only) Michael Cirillo (by e-mail only) Burt Mazelow (by e-mail only) 36014-112I4 814-1346-0996v-1 ATTACHMENT t: y �J City of Huntington Beach • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING August 25, 2009 Boyd Hill Hart, King &Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Hill, In order to assist you with your development proposal, staff has reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirenlen s, excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project implementation should the Planning Commission approve your project_ It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any conditions of approval" adopted by the Planning Commission if the project is approved. Please note that if the design of your k project or site conditions change, the list may also change_ The Planning Director has interpreted the relevant Sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to require that your project satisfy the following development standards. Should you disagree, pursuant to Section 24824A, you have ten (10) days from the date of this notice to file an appeal with the Planning Department. The appeal fee is $494.00. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an°explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items listed do not apply to your project, and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-374-1682 or at rtalleh@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department(contact person below). Sincerely, I R mi Talleh, Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Leonie Mulvihill,Senior Deputy City Attorney Gerald Caraig,Building and Safety Department—714-374-1575 Dann Maresh,Fire Department—714-536-5531 Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorediff,LP,200 Sandpoints,fourth floor,Santa Ana,CA 92707 Project File G:Talleh OOR\Pfann n Coauni sion\2 70i B acSi H ntin Shor clif s) 07 I ode Le tez. oc -- __ _,_ Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1&4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' tiOWINCTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: August 24, 2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-0190; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD., 92648(WEST SIDE OF BEACH BLVD., SOUTH OF INDIANAPOLIS AVE.) PROJECT PLANNER: RAMC TALLEH, SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 374-1682/rtaileh@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP- The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated August 4, 2009. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which.must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. 1. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. b. Final tract map review fees shall be paid, pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council (City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule). (HBZSO Section 254.16) c. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid pursuant to the requirements of HBZSO Section 254-08— Parkland Dedications. The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution (City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule). 2- Prior to conversion of the mobile home park, the following shall be completed: a_ The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange- b_ All improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved plans. ATTACHMENT NO, � e2of2 3. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to parcel map are proposed during the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. 4_ Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed Planning Commission approval. 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 shall becom_ a null and Void unless exercised within two (2)years of the date of final approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Director of Planning pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. 6. The subdivision shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building & Safety Department and Fire Department, as well as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards, except as noted herein- 7- Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM_ Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 8. . The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$50 for the posting of a Notice of Exemption at the"County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall-be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two(2)days of the Planning Commission's action. 9. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas,check with the-Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements_ Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. H. �J HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: AUGUST 20, 2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2008-0190 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2009 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER RAMI TALLER, SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1682/RTALLEH@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER -TELEPHONE/E=MAIL: 714-374-16921 SBOGART(a-)-SURFCITV-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS'MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above. The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code (HBMC), Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans (Civil, Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. If you have any-questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW: 1. A Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for existing site drainage and tributary upstream drainage shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms shalt be analyzed). In addition, this study shall include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detention analysis. Any drainage improvements required by the aforementioned analysis shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development or deficient downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency_ (ZSO 255.12) 2. Based on the Fire Department's requirement for a separate dedicated private on-site fire hydrant system, a hydraulic water analysis is required to identify any off-site water improvements necessary A-TAr'%LtnnCKIT Kin ir- lc_ P to adequately protect the property per the Fire Department requirements. The subdivider shall be required to upgrade/improve the Cit 's waters stem qy y per Water Standards to meet the water demands to the site and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the property at no cost to the City. The subdivider shall provide the City with a site plan showing the existing and proposed on-site and off- site water improvements (including pipeline sizes, fire hydrants, meters, and backflow device locations). The subdivider shall be responsible to pay the City for performing the analysis using the City's hydraulic water model_ (SMA 66428.1(d)and ZSO 255.04(E)) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1_ The Tentative Tract Map received and dated August 4, 2009 shall be the approved layout. 2_ The Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include a title report to indicate the fee title owner(s) as shown on; a title report for the subject properties. The title report shall not be more than six (6) weeks old at the time of submittal of the Final Parcel Map_ 3. The Final Tract Map shall be consistent with the approve! Tentative Tract Map_ (ZSO 253.14) 4. A reproducible Mylar copy and a print of the recorded final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation- S. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final.map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: a_ Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. 6. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: c. Design Specification: i. Digital data shall be full size (1:1)and in compliance with the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone 6 (Lambert Conformal Conic projection), NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ii. Digital data shall have double precision accuracy(up to fifteen significant digits)_ iii. Digital data shall have units in US FEET. iv. A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. V. Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. vi_ Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN), street addresses and street names with suffix_ d. File Format and Media Specification: i. Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats (AutoCAD DWG format preferred): • AutoCAD (version 2000, release 4) drawing file_ DWG • Drawing Interchange file: DXF GATalleh\2008TIanning Commission\20701 Beach(Hun(ington Shorecliffs)Tubric Works Department code Comments 082009-doc A-`-"A Fa a& a—a .— a . — 5 ii. Shaft be in compliance with the following media type: :. CD Recordable (CD-R)650 Megabytes 7- The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (ZSO 255.16C & MC 17.05) 8- All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor& Material and Monument Bonds)and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 255.16) 9. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 253.12K) 10. If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement may be submitted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA) 11. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. Fees shall be calculated based on the currently approved rate at the time of payment unless otherwise stated. (ZSO 250-16) 12. A Homeowners'Associations)(HOA) shall be formed and described in the CC&R's to manage the following for the total project area: e. Onsite landscaping and irrigation improvements f. On-site sewer and drainage systems g. -Best Management Practices (BMP's) as per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) The aforementioned items shall be addressed in the development's CC&R's. 13. Improvement Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.051ZSO 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: h. Existing AC curb along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter per Public Works Standard Plan No. 202 and per Caltrans requirements. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) i. Six (6) foot wide sidewalk and a nine (9) foot wide curb adjacent landscaped parkway along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No. 207. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) j. The existing earthen storm drain channel along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be replaced with a 54-inch storm drain pipeline (unless otherwise designed and sized by Hydraulics Report which is submitted to Public Works for review and approval) to convey the 100-year storm flow as quantified in the City's 2005 Master Plan of Drainage- (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428-1(d)) k- Street lights shall be installed along the Beach Boulevard project frontage. Lighting standards shall be per City of Huntington Beach guidelines. (ZSO 255.04) I. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed.on the easterly curb returns on Delaware Street at Mermaid Lane per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255-04, ADA and SMA 66428,1(d)) G\Talleh\2008\Planning Commission\20701 Beach(Huntington Shorecliffs)\Public Works Depaitvnent code Comments 082009.doc �- 40 Pa 4 . 4Yk m_ An ADA compliant access ramp shall be installed on the southeast corner of Delaware I Street and Frankfort Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04, ADA and - SMA 66428.1(d)) n. An ADA compliant access ramp shalt be installed on the southeast comer of Delaware Street and Frankfort Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255,04, ADA and SMA 66428.1_(d)) o. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the south curb returns of Frankfort Avenue at Shorecliff Drive (at the subject site's northerly entrance) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) p. An ADA compliant access ramp shall be installed on Frankfort Avenue where it intersects Hill Street per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) q. Damaged curb and gutter along the Frankfort Avenue frontage (at Hill Street) shalt be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No. 202_ (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) r. Based on the Fire Department's requirement for a separate dedicated private on-site -fire hydrant system, the subdivider shall comply with the following requirements: i_ The existing two (2) 4-inch compound manifold metering system serving the fire, domestic and irrigation water systems shall be replaced with a single meter for domestic and irrigation purposes only_ The new meter must be sized to meet the minimum requirements of the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and constructed per Water Standards_ (SMA 66411.5(a) and ZSO 255.04(E)) ii. Backflow protection devices shall be constructed per Water Standards at each fire service connection to the to the City's water system. (SMA 66411.5(a) and ZSO 255.04(E)) S. The existing 8-inch backflow device configuration is non-conforming placing the City's water supply at risk of potential contamination. As a result of health and safety concerns, the subdivider shall reconstruct or replace the existing backflow device to comply with current Water Standards. (Resolution 5921, Title 17 State Regulation, SMA 66411.5(a), and SMA 66428.1(d)) t. An onsite storm drain shall be designed per the final approved hydrology and hydraulics study, City Standards and per the City adopted 2005 Master Plan of Drainage. The storm drain system _located within private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. A soils report, prepared by a Licensed Engineer shall be submitted for reference only. (ZSO 255.04A) 14. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments_ (ZSO 232.04) u_ Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk)_ v_ "Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed_ (ZSO 232.04D) W. Standard landscape code requirements apply_ (ZSO 232) G:\Talleh\2008\Planning Commission\20701 Beach(Huntington Shoreclirfs)\Public Works Department code Comments 082009.doc 01,At4l PagIF 15_ All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboriculturat and ` Landscape Standards and Specifications. (ZSO 232.04B) 16. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible_ (DAMP) 17_ A Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan.and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Said Arborist signature shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan_ (Resolution 4545) 18. A Drainage Fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of$13,270 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments. This project consists of 41.223 gross acres(including its tributary area portions along the half street frontages)for a total required drainage fee of$547,029. City records indicAte the current use on the subject property has never paid this required fee_ Per provisions of the City Municipal Code, this one time fee shall be paid for all subdivisions or development of land. (MC 14.48) In lieu of the payment of the aforementioned Drainage Fee$547,029, Public Works will accept the construction of the on-site master planned facilities per the City of Huntington Beach, Municipal Code Section 14.38.030. 19. The current tree code requirements shall apply to this site. (ZSO 232) a_ Existing trees to remain on site shall not be disfigured or mutilated, (ZSO 232.04E)and, b_ General tree requirements, regarding quantities and sizes. (ZSO 232.08B and C) 20_ All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect_ (ZSO 232.04D) 21_ Applicant shall provide City with CD media TIFF images(in City format)and CD (AutoCAD only)copy of complete City Approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record_ 22_ The Water Ordinance#14.52, the "Water Efficient Landscape Requirements"apply for projects with . 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger_ (MC 14.52) Based upon these requirements, a separate water meter and backflow prevention device shalt be provided for landscaping along Beach Blvd. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES: 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved improvement plans. G:\Talleh\2008\Planning Commission\20701 Beach(Huntington Shorecliffs)\Public Works Department code Comments 082009_doc , A'I J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT NUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT III MEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: August 24, 2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-190: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: RAMI TALLEH,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714)374-1682/rtalleh@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714)536-55311 dmaresh@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated August 4, 2009. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation_ A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. 1f you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer- Fire: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST. 1. Tract Map No. 17296 for the subdivision of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile home park for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home parts for ownership purposes shall comply with the following requirements_ a. Fire Hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification # 407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. b. Fire flow based on fire area and construction type (HBFC Appendix B, Table B- 105.1, Appendix C, Table C-105.1), shall be provided at 1500 gpm from each hydrant spaced every 500 feet. c. Private water systems shall be installed to service on-site fire hydrants. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be complied with: ;1 I At :gal PNT =.3.a' 4D Pve?., f a. A site plan depicting all locations of fire lanes shall be submitted for review and a approval by the Fire Department- b. Plans portraying the fire hydrants shall reference compliance with NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification#407 Fire Hydrant installation Standards in the plan notes and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments. c. Plans depicting the private water system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department. d. Fire Lanes shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification #415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties. The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs, both in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted. No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification #415_ For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. e_ A current fire flow test in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code shall be performed by a licensed fire protection contractor with the supervision of the Fire Department. All test results shall be submitted to the Fire Department for Review and Approval. 3. Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the following conditions shall be complied with: a. Fire Hydrants pursuant to Code Requirement No. 1 referenced-above, shall be installed- b. A fire service main pursuant to Code Requirement No. 1, referenced above, shall be installed in compliance with NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Editions_ c. Private water system pursuant to Code Requirement No. 1 shall be installed_ d. Residential (SFD) Address Numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428, Premise identification. Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high with one and one half inch ('/2n) brush stroke. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #428, Premise Identification in the plan notes and portray the address location on the building. e_ individual units shall be identified and numbered per City Specification # 409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process through the Planning Department. Unit address numbers shall be a minimum of four inches (4") affixed to the units front door in a contrasting color_ For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process, in the plan notes and portray the address and unit number of the individual occupancy area. 40� of 3 4. The following conditions shall be maintained during construction. a. Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction And Demolition- b._ Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification#426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. OTHER: a. Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines, etc_, must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards_ (FD) b. Outside City Consultants The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants_ The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from she applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at A� Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 5 h floor Huntington Beath,'-CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.surfcity-hb.org If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at(714)536-5411 ATTACHMENT NC City ®f Huntington Beach • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING August 20, 2009 Boyd Hill Hart, King &Goldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF SUBDIVISION) SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Dear Mr. Hill, Please find enclosed suggested conditions of approval for the aforementioned project received from the Public Works and Planning Departments for consideration by the Planning Commission_ If you would like a clarification of any of these comments or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-374-1682 and/or the Public Works Department representative—Steve Bogart(Y14-374-1692)_ It should be noted that these suggested conditions of.approval, which may be adopted by the Planning Commission if the project is approved, are in addition to applicable`code requirements provided to you under a separate letter. Sincerely, Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Enclosure cc. Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Steve Bogart,Public Works Shorecliff, LP,200 Sandpoints,fourth floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Project File G'1Ta leh 0 8�P an in Co m si \Z 70 B acl ( n( n or li s o is tt Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surtc 1tv ht, ;erg ATTACHME "' " 41)40� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUHnNroN eras,+ PROJECT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: June 25,2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO.08-0190;TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD_, 92648(WEST SIDE OF BEACH BLVD_, SOUTH OF INDIANAPOLIS AVE.) PROJECT PLANNER: RAMi TALLER,SENIOR PLANNER TEI_EPHONEtE-MAIL: (71-4)374-16821 rtaUeh@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNiTS TO INDIVIDUAL OVMERSHIP. The following is a list of code requirements_ deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans _received and dated September 18, 2008. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation_ A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with-the requested entitlement(s), if any,will,also be provided upon final project approval_ If you have any questions regarding these requirements,please contact the Plan Reviewer. 1_ The Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 for Subdivision of an existing mobile home park received and dated September 18, 2008 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a. The maximum number of lots created by the subdivision shall not exceed the total number mobile home units (304) approved for the site by the California Department of Housing and Community Development- b. A landscaped planter between the perimeter fencing and public sidewalk improvements along Beach Boulevard shall be provided. 2. Incorporation of sustainable or"green" building practices into the design of the-proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U-S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (htfp://wwvv.usgbc_org/DisplayPage_aspx?CategorylD=19)or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (httpJ/vvww.builditgreen_orq/index_cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). 3_ Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: ge 2 of 2 a_ The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department .� Housing and Community Development(HCD)to re-identify the lots if determined necessary_ b_ The Subdivider shall demonstrate to HCD compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25 pertaining to setbacks_ if the mobile home park is deficient in compliance with the applicable setbacks, the subdivider shall obtain all necessary applicable alternate approvals from HCD_ 4. The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her subdivided unit,which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant_ (Subdivision-Map Act Section 66427.5) 5. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following: a_ As to non-purchasing residents who are not lower income households, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase from the pre-conversion rent to market levels, as defined in an-appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5) b_ As to non-purchasing residents who are lower income households, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase from the pre-conversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average.monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period_ (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5) ATTACHMENT NO._Ao 2- i t ® t HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' ]REACHSUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. i DATE: AUGUST 6,2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO'. 2009-0190 1 DATE OF PLANS: SEPTEMBER 18;2008 ( PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER RAMC TALLER,SENIOR,PLANNER 8 TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1682 f RTALLEH(a)SURFClTY-HB_ORG F PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART,'SERtIOR CIVIL.ENGINEER - TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGAR1-@SURFCITY4HB:ORG Z PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT.THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME-PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. - 1 t F i THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL.OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW: 1. A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for the County of Orange (Order No. R8-2009-0030) prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. The WQMP shall address all current surface water- quality issues. 2. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements_ THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIORTO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1. Encroachment permits for work within the Caltrans' right-of-way (for construction of sidewalks, driveways, water connections, etc.) shall be obtained by the applicant or contractor from Caltrans prior to start of work. A copy of each permit,traffic control plans, environmental review and other permission granted by Caltrans shall be transmitted to Public Works_ 1 2_ The applicant shall provide an analysis of the existing onsite sanitary sewer system. If any improvements are required per said analysis, they shall be constructed and comply with all associated requirements of HCD. 3. Prior to the recordation of the Map, all required landscape planting and irrigation shalt be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architectlinspector. i 5 CA\Docurnents and SeningsVmilanib�Deskiop\Bcach 20701 TTM 17296(PA T13D)Conditions 8-6-09 doc y t ATTAPWAPKIT Kin l Get a Document- by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 1 of 18 System Switj,C6en1!Prefer eres Sigr:Out /^T Searchf�;{Research Tasksh. Get a Document'I hepard's® Alerts Total Litigator, Transactional Advisod Counsel Selector z FOCUS'Terms= Search Within Original Results(I-1) t; Advanced... Source: Legal>/...!>CA State Cases,Combined[j Terms name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search(SucigestTerms for My Searchl 2009 Cal.App. LE)aS 1397, SEQUOIA PARK ASSOCIATES,Plaintiff and Appellant,v_COUNTY OF SONOMA,Defendant and Respondent. A120049 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO 2009 Cal.App.LEXIS 1397 August 21, 2009, Fled PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Superior Court of Sonoma County,No_SCV240003, Raymond J.Giordano,Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.Const., art.VI,f 21_). CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff mobilehome park operator appealed an order from the Superior Court of Sonoma County(California),which declined to issue a writ of mandate to prohibit defendant county's enforcement of an ordinance that imposed obligations related to mobilehome park conversion applications that went beyond the obligations required by Gov.Code, § 66427.5. OVERVIEW:The challenged ordinance,Sonoma County Ord. No. 5725,directed an applicant seeking to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis to submit various reports required by state law_The ordinance also imposed criteria that had to be satisfied before the application would be presumed bona fide for purposes of approval.The court held that the ordinance was preempted by 6 66427.5 in accordance with the constitutional principle of preemption set forth in Cal_Const.,art. XI.Ft 7.The ordinance was expressly preempted because f 66427.5.subd. (e), limited the scope of a hearing for approval of a conversion application to the issue of compliance with § 66427.5; no minimum amount of tenant support was required for approval_The court surveyed the extensive state regulation of mobilehome parks and concluded that the ordinance also was preempted by implication because the legislature had established a dominant role for the State in regulating mobilehorries and had indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion regarding conversions_Moreover,the ordinance duplicated several features of state law by requiring compliance with state reporting requirements. OUTCOME:The court reversed the order and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a new order declaring the ordinance invalid. CORE TERMS:conversion, resident, mobilehome park,ordinance,subdivider,mobilehome,preemption,ownership, tenant,state law, mobile home parks, general law, map,preempted, local ordinance, rental,tentative,locality, rent, space,local authority,parcel map, household,manufactured,approve,housing,local legislation,local government, fully occupied, bona fide resident LEXISNEXISO HEADNOTES 3 Hide Civil Procedure>Aooeals>Standards of Review>De Novo Review} HNi±An appellate court's review of a trial court's order is de novo when it involves a pure issue of law. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments o v xN2±For the great number of preemption issues--particularly if the emphasis is on implied preemption--the state and the local legislation must be considered together-Only by looking at both can a court know if the local law conflicts with,contradicts,or is inimical to the state law.This is an established rule of preemption analysis. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Duties&Powers ATTACHMEN T https://www-lexis-com/research/retrieve? m=alab8fd5542lOf8dc89bbO9f4d53la43&."vc f'xet a Document-by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 2 of 18 HN3+See Cal. Const.. art_XI. § 7. Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations Govemmentr>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments "Na+A party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption.Courts have been particularly reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another_The common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one locality to another,then the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance against an attack of state preemption.Thus, when fowl government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control,such as particular land uses,California courts will presume,absent a dear indication of preemptive intent from the legislature,that such regulation is not preempted by state statute.The presumption against preemption accords with the more general understanding that it is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations ei Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances HNs±The general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled. Local legislation in conflict with general law is void.Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates,contradicts,or enters an area fully occupied by general law,either expressly or by legislative implication.Local legislation is duplicative of general law when it is coextensive therewith and contradictory to general law when it is inimical thereto.Local legislation enters an area fully occupied by general law when the legislature has expressly manifested its intent to.fully occupy the area or when it has impliedly done so in light of recognized indicia of intent.There are three recognized indicia of intent: (1)the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to dearly indicate that is has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate dearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action;or(3)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. More Like This Headnote o Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations 4 __ Governments>state&Territorial Governmentr>Relations With Governments Hml±With respect to the implied occupation of an area of law by the legislature's full and complete coverage of it, where the legislature has adopted statutes governing a particular subject matter, its intent with regard to occupying the field to the exclusion of all local regulation is not to be measured alone by the language used but by the whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme.State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude local regulation.Whenever the legislature has seen fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject,the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned. When a local ordinance is identical to a state statute,it is clear that the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied by state law. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments iQ HN7±To discern whether a local law has entered an area that has been fully occupied by state law according to the recognized indicia of intent requires an analysis that is based on an overview of the topic addressed by the two laws. In determining whether the legislature has preempted by implication to the exclusion of local regulation,a court must look to the whole scope of the legislative scheme.Such an examination is made with the goal of detecting a patterned approach to the subject, and whether the local law mandates what state law forbids, or forbids what state law mandates. More Like This Headnote Real Property Law>Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisionsi HNa+See Gov. Code, § 66427.5. Real Prooerty Law>Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions Eli HN9i Under Gov. Code, §66427.5, subd. (e),a city council only has the power to determine if a subdivider has complied with the requirements of the section.Although the conversion process might be used for improper purposes--such as the bogus purchase of a single unit by the subdivider/owner to avoid local rent control--the language of Ij 66427.5. subd. (e),does not allow such considerations to be taken into account.A city lacks authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves a tentative or parcel map. Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight, and although it might be desirable for the legislature to broaden a city's authority,it has not done so.The argument that the legislature should have done more to prevent partial conversions or sham transactions is a legislative issue, not a legal one. More Like This Headnote ATTACHMENT NO. c�eS httpsalwww_lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=a l ab8fd554210f8dc89bb09f4d53 l a43&,c.vc Get a Document- by Party Name -sequoia park associates Page 3 of 18 Real Property Law>Mobilehomes&Mobdehome Parks>Subdivisions . HN1a+Case law has specifically rejected arguments that would require a numerical threshold before a mobilehome i_ park conversion could proceed,there being no statutory support for the claim that conversion only occurs if more than 50 percent of the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is filed.ksubdivider need _ not demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has the support of a majority of existing residents--fixed at either one-half or two-thirds--thus satisfying the local authority that this was not a forced conversion.The legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership would not be served by a requirement that a conversion could only be made with resident consent. More Like This Headnote Governments>Lgcal Governments>Outies&Powers t Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances ee` HN11+Regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. More Uke This Headnote Governments>Legislation>Effect&Operation>Amendments~ Governments>Legislation>rnter{uetation HN12+When the legislature amends a statute without altering portions of the provision that have previously been judicially construed,the legislature is presumed to have been aware and to have acquiesced in the previous judicial construction.Accordingly,reenacted portions of the statute are given the same construction they received before the amendment. More Like This Headnote Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments Real Property Law>Mobilehornes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances iQ HN13aGov.Code, § 66427.5 subd. (el,has the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. More Like This Headnote HEADNOTES / SYLLABUS 12Hide SUMMARY: CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY The trial court declined to issue a writ of mandate to prohibit a county's enforcement of an ordinance that imposed obligations related to mobilehome park conversion applications that went beyond the obligations required by Gov. Code,§66427.5.The challenged ordinance,Sonoma County Ord. No. 5725,directed an applicant seeking to convert an existing robilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis to submit various reports required by state law. The ordinance also imposed criteria that had to be satisfied before the application would be presumed bona fide for purposes of approval. (Superior Court of Sonoma County, No_SCV240003,Raymond J_Giordano,Temporary Judge.*) The Court of Appeal reversed the order and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a new girder declaring the ordinance invalid.The court held that the ordinance was preempted by§ 66427.5 in accordance with the constitutional principle of preemption set forth in Cal. Const_,art_ XI, § 7.The ordinance was expressly preempted because§66427.5,subd.(e),limits the scope of a hearing for approval of a conversion application to the issue of compliance with § 66427.5; no minimum amount of tenant support is required for approval.The court surveyed the extensive state regulation of mobilehome parks and concluded that the ordinance also was preempted by implication because the Legislature has established a dominant role for the state in regulating mobilehomes and has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion regarding conversions. Moreover,the ordinance duplicated several features of state law by requiring compliance with state reporting requirements. (Opinion by Richman,I_, with Haerle,Acting P.I., and Lambden,I.,concurring_) HEADNOTES CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES cA(1)+(1) Municipalities § 55—Ord ina nces—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Considering State and Local -' CHME . https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=a 1 ahRfrlS54�1 nfR�rR9hhf14fd.lG2I�n z�.��.. Get a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 4 of 18 Legislation Together.—For the great number of preemption issues--particularly if the emphasis is on implied preemption--the state and the local legislation must be considered together.Only by looking at both can a court know if the local law conflicts with,contradicts,or is inimical to the state law.This is an established rule of preemption analysis. "M_+(2) Municipalities§ SS—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Presumption Against Preemption.—A party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption.Courts have been particularly reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another.The common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another, then the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance against an attack of state preemption.Thus,when local government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control,such as particular land uses,California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature,that such regulation is not preempted by state statute.The presumption against preemption accords with the more general understanding that it is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication. CAM (3) Municipalities§ 56—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Test for Preemption—Indicia of Intent.—The general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled.Local legislation in conflict with general law is_void.Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates,contradicts,or enters an area fully occupied by general law,either expressly or by legislative implication.Local legislation is duplicative of general law when it is coextensive therewith and contradictory to general law when it is inimical thereto.Local legislation enters an area fully occupied by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to fully occupy the area or when it has impliedly done so in light of recognized indicia of intent.There are three recognized indicia of intent:(1)the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to dearly indicate that is has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or(3)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. CAM (4) Municipalities§56—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Test for Preemption—Indicia of Intent—Area Fully Occupied by State Law.—With respect to the implied occupation of an area of law by the Legislature's full and complete coverage of it,where the Legislature has adopted statutes governing a particular subject matter,its intent with regard to occupying the field to the exclusion of all local regulation is not to be measured alone by the language used but by the whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme.State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude local regulation. Whenever the Legislature has seen fit to'adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject,the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned.When a local ordinance is identical to a state i statute,it is dear that the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied by state law. CA(5)45) Municipalities§56—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Test for Preemption—Indicia of Intent—Area Fully Occupied by State Law.—To discern whether a local law has entered an area that has been fully occupied by state law according to the recognized indicia of intent requires an analysis that is based on an overview of the topic addressed by the two laws.In determining whether the Legislature has preempted by implication to the exclusion of local regulation,a court must look to the whole scope of the legislative scheme.Such an examination is made with the goal of detecting a patterned approach to the subject,and whether the local law mandates what state law forbids,or forbids what state law mandates. CAMI(6) Mobile Homes,Trailers, and Parks§ 3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned— Local Regulation Preempted.—Under Gov.Code,§66427.5,subd.(e),a city council only has the power to determine if a subdivider has complied with the requirements of the section.Although the conversion process might be used for improper purposes--such as the bogus purchase of a single unit by the subdivider/owner to avoid local rent control--the language of§ 66427.5,subd. (e),does not allow such considerations to be taken into account.A city lacks authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves a tentative or parcel map.Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight,and although it might be desirable for the Legislature to broaden a city's authority, it has not done so-The argument that the Legislature should have done more to prevent partial conversions or sham transactions is a legislative issue,not a legal one. cA(7)i(7) Mobile Homes,Trailers, and Parks§ 3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned.— Case law has specifically rejected arguments that would require a numerical threshold before a mobilehome park conversion could proceed, there being no statutory support for the claim that conversion only occurs if more than 50 percent of the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is filed.A subdivider need not demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has the support of a majority of existing residents--fixed at either one-half or two-thirds--thus satisfying the local authority that this was not a forced conversion.The legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership would not be served by a requirement that a conversion could only be made with resident consent. CA(8)±(8) Zoning and Planning § 3—Authority for Regulation—Traditional Local Power.—Regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government_ cA(9)a(9) Statutes § 26—Construction—Adopted and Reenacted Statutes—Legislative Acquiescence in Judicial Construction.—When the Legislature amends a statute without altering portions of the provision that have previously AT TACHET N . hffnc /l�ananuiPY;� �.,.„IrncAornhlrorr:o..o7 �7 lOF7ccn�in[oa onLLn�r. �r�, .� n n•a-, Get a Document-by Party Name -sequoia park associates Page 5 of 18 been judicially construed, the Legislature is presumed to have been aware and to have acquiesced in the previous judicial construction. Accordingly,reenacted portions of the statute are given the same construction they received before the i-- amendment. ut{1O�i(10) Mobile Homes,Trailers,and Parks§3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned— Local Regulation Preempted.—Gov.Code,§66427.5,subd.(e),has the effect of'an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. "f11j­+(11) Mobile Homes,Trailers,and Parks§3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned— Local,Regulation Preempted.—It could be assumed that a county was-motivated by laudable purposes when it enacted an ordinance that imposed obligations upon a subdivider submitting a mobilehome park conversion application that went beyond the obligations required by Gov.Code,§66427.5. The county's construction of§66427.5 also could find some plausibility from the statutory language.Nevertheless, the ordinance crossed the line established by the Legislature as marking territory reserved for the state and thus was expressly preempted by§ 66427.5. [Cal_Real Estate Law&Practice (2009),ch.472, §472.35; Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice(2009),ch. 126A, Constitutional Law,§ 126A.24.1 COUNSEL: Bien &Summers, Elliot L. Bien_4 and Catherine Meulemans for Plaintiff and Appellant. The Loftin Firm, L.Sue Loftin-and Michael Stump-for Amid Curiae Rancho Sonoma Partners,Eden Gardens,Sundance Estates and Capistrano Shores on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Steven M.Woodside_,County Counsel,Sue A.Gallagher and Debbie F. Latham Deputy County Counsel for Defendant and Respondent. Aleshire&Wyndner,William W.Wvnder_and Sunny K.Soltani for Amid Curiae The California State Association of Counties,The League of California Cities,The City of Carson and The City of Los Angeles on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. JUDGES: Opinion by Richman-,J_, with Haerle_,Acting P. l.,and Lambden_,J.,concurring. OPINION BY: Richman OPINION RICHMAN _J.—One of the subjects covered by the Subdivision Map Act(Gov.Code,§66410 et seq_)is the conversion of a mobilehome park from a rental to a resident ownership basis.One of the provisions on that subject is Government Code section 66427.5 (section 66427.5), which spells out certain steps that must be completed before the conversion application [*21 can be approved by the appropriate local body. Although it is not codified in the language of section 66427.51 the Legislature recorded its intent that by enacting section 66427.5 it was acting"to ensure that conversions... are bona fide resident conversions."(Scats. 2002,ch. 1143, §2.) The County of Sonoma (County)enacted an ordinance with the professed aim of"implementing"the state conversion statutes. It imposed additional obligations upon a subdivider submitting a conversion application to those required by section 66427.5.The ordinance also imposed criteria that had to be satisfied by the subdivider before the application would be presumed bona fide and thus could be approved. A mobilehome park operator brought suit to halt enforcement of the ordinance on the ground that it was preempted by section 66427:5.The trial court declined to issue a writ of mandate,concluding that the ordinance was not preempted.As will be shown, we conclude that the ordinance is expressly preempted because section 66427.5 states that the"scope of the hearing"for approval of the conversion application"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section."We further conclude that [*3j the ordinance is impliedly preempted because the Legislature,which has established a dominant role for the state in regulating mobilehomes, has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions,declining to expand section 66427.5 in ways that would authorize local government to impose additional conditions or requirements for conversion approval.Moreover,the County's ordinance duplicates several features of state law, a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption.We therefore reverse the trial court's order and direct entry of a new order declaring the ordinance invalid. BACKGROUND On May 15, 2007, the County's Board of Supervisors unanimously enacted Ordinance No. 5725(the Ordinance).Sequoia Park Associates(Sequoia) is a limited partnership that owns and operates a mobilehome park it desires to subdivide and convert from a rental to a resident-owner basis_ Within a month of the enactment of the Ordinance,Sequoia sought to have it overturned as preempted by section 66427.5. Specifically, Sequoia combined a petition for a writ of mandate with causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages [*4] for inverse condemnation of its property. The matter of the Ordinance's validity was submitted on the basis of voluminous papers addressing Sequoia's motion for issuance of a writ of mandate.The court heard argument and filed a brief order denying Sequoia relief.The court ATTACHMENT NO, https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=alab8fd554210f8dc89bbO9f4d53ta43&csvc... 812&2CM! "� Got a Document -by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 6 of 18 concluded that section 66427.5"largely does appear... by its own language"to impose limits on local authority to legislate on the subject of mobilehome conversions."However,Ordinance 5725 seems merely to comply with, and give effect to,the requirements set forth in section 66427.5 rather than imposing additional requirements.This is certainly true for the language on bona fide conversions, tenant impact reports,and even general plan requirements. It is possibly less dear regarding health and safety,but even on this issue, the Ordinance does not appear to exceed [the County's] ` authority since,contrary to [Sequoia's]Contention,it does not intrude on the[state Department of Housing and Community Development's(HCD)] power in the area."This order is the subject of Sequoia's appeal. ' FOOTNOTES 1 It is typical of the generally high quality of the briefing that the experienced appellate counsel for Sequoia does not [*S]treat the requirement of California Rules of Court rule 8.204(a)(2)—which directs that the appellant"explain why the order appealed from is appealable"—as satisfied with a ministerial recital of boilerplate language. He devotes more than two full pages of his opening brief to a discussion establishing that,according to Bettencourt v. City and County of San Francisco(2007)146 Cat App 4th 1090 1097-1098 1`53 Cal Rptr. 3d 4021,'Although the [trial courts)order was couched as a denial of the mandate petition alone,its effect was a dismissal of Sequoia's entire action,"and thus appealable as a final judgment.He also puts forward a fall-back position, based on an obvious knowledge of this court,that,if necessary,we"could also amend the order below as this division did in similar circumstances in Gatto v County of Sonoma (2002)98 Cal App 4th 744 766 in. 13 [120 Cal Rptr. 2d 5501,to specify the trial court's intent to dispose of the remaining causes of action."We conclude there is no need to amend the order because counsel's initial explanation is sound,and concurred in by the County.We mention this to note that this is the sort of attention to jurisdictional issues we would like to see,but seldom do. DISCUSSION The [*6] parties agree that HN17our review of the trial court's order is de novo because it involves a pure issue of law, namely,whether the Ordinance is preempted by Section 66427.5. (Apartment Assn_ of Los Angeles County,Inc. v. City of Los Angeles(2006) 136 Cal Apa 4th 119 132[38 Cal Rptr. 3d 5751; Ruble Vista Associates v. Bacon(2002)97 Cal.App.4th 335, 339 [118 Cal. Ratr. 2d 2951.) But the parties do not agree on how far our analysis may,or should, extend. Sequoia argues we should restrict our inquiry to the current version of section 66427.51 in particular paying no attention to an uncodified expression of the Legislature's intent passed at the same time that version was enacted-At the same time Sequoia also argues that we should look to a provision in a version of an amendment to the statute that the Legislature rejected in 2002. The County's approach is similarly compressed: noting that because Sequoia challenged the legality of the Ordinance on its face,the County argues that our analysis must be confined to the four corners of that enactment,and nothing else. Yet the County ranges far afield in marshalling the statutes which it incorporates in its arguments,and tells us that section 66427.5 must be considered in the context [*7] of"entire continuum of state regulation of mobilehome park subdivisions.'And the County has no hesitation in arguing that the substance of the uncodified provision actually works to the.County's benefit. Our view of our inquiry is that it is hardly as narrow as the parties believe.The authorities cited by the County involve situations where local ordinances were challenged on federal constitutional grounds (e.g.,Tobe v.City of Santa Ana (1995).9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 f40 Cal Rptr. 2d 402,892 P 2d 1-1451 [vagueness]; Sanchez v. City of Modesto(2006) 145 Cai.App.4th 660,679-680 151 Cal.Rptr. 3d 8211 [equal protection]),not that they were preempted by state law.As for Sequoia's approach, it would appear feasible only if the state statute has language stating the unambiguous intent by the Legislature expressly forbidding cities and counties from acting. cAf14(1) But NN-�+_for the great number of preemption issues—particularly if the emphasis is on implied preemption— the state and the local legislation must be considered together. Only by looking at both can a court know if the local law conflicts with, contradicts,or is inimical to the state law.As will now be shown, this is an established rule of preemption analysis. Principles Of Preemption cAt2-y—+(2) In California, [*8] preemption of local legislation by state taw is a constitutional principle. N" T"A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police,sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws."(Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.)The standards governing our inquiry are well established.According to our Supreme Court: '"" `The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption. [Citation.] We have been particularly'reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another.'[Citations.]'The common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one locality to another, then the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance against an attack of state preemption_'[Citations.] "Thus,when local government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control, such as__.particular land uses, California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature, [*9]that https_//www.lexis.cornJresearchJretrieve? m=alab8fd554210f8dc89bbO9f4d53la43&csvc__ X/?.6.;e_MW Get a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 7 of 18 such regulation is not preempted by state statute. [Citation.]The presumption against preemption accords with our more general understanding that'it is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration !� or by necessary implication.'[Citations.] 3 C3ri�(3)"Moreover,mlv5 the'general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled._.."Local legislation in conflict with general law is void.Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates[citations], contradicts [citation],or enters an area fully occupied by general law,either expressly or by legislative implication [citations].—[Citation_]" "Local legislation is'duplicative'of general law when it is coextensive therewith and'contradictory'to general law when it is inimical thereto. Local legislation enters an area'fully occupied'by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to fully occupy the area or when it has impliedly done so in light of recognized indicia of intent."[Citation.](Biq Creek Lumber Co v County of Santa Cruz L2006k38 Cal 4th 1139 1149-1150 f45 Cal Rptr 3d 21, 136 P.3d 8211, [*10]fn_omitted (Sig Creek).) There are three"recognized indicia of intent": "'(1)the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to dearly indicate that is has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate dearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or(3)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the'locality[citations] r(Sherwin-Williams Co. v_City of Los Angeles(993)_4 Cal.4th 893,898 f 16 Cal.Rptr. 2d 215,844 P.2d 5341.) HN6_CA(4)_+(4)"With respect to the implied occupation of an area of law by the Legislature's full and complete coverage of it,this court recently had this to say:-Where the Legislature has adopted statutes governing a particular subject matter,its intent with regard to occupying the field to the exclusion of all local regulation is not to be measured alone by the language used but by the whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme.-[Citation.]We [*11] went on to say: "State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude local regulation.-[Citation.]We thereafter observed:"Whenever the Legislature has seen fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject,the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned."[Citation_]When a local ordinance is identical to a state statute,it is dear that-the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied-by state law. [Citation_]".(O Connell v. City of Stockton(2007)41 Cal.4th 1061, 1068 F63 Cal.Rptr_3d 67, 162 P.3d 5831.) HN7+A(s)_+(5)To discern whether the local law has entered an area.that has been"fully occupied"by state law according to the"recognized indicia of intent"requires an analysis that is based on an overview of the topic addressed by the two laws."'In determining whether the Legislature has preempted by implication to the exdusion of local regulation we must look to the whole_..scope of the legislative scheme_'"(Biq Creek supra.38 Cal.4th 1139, 1157,quoting People ex rel_Deukmeiian v. County of Mendocino(1984) 36 Cal.3d 476,485 f 204 Cal. Rptr.897, 683 P.2d 11501; [*12] accord,American Financial Services Assn. v City of Oakland(2005)34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252, 1261 L23 Cal.Rptr. 3d 453,104 P.3d 8131;Morehart v County of Santa Barbara (19944)7 Cal.4th 725 751 [29 Cal Rptr.2d 804,872 P.2d 143].)Such an examination is made with the goal of-detecting]a patterned approach to the subject"(Fisher v. City of Berkeley(1984) 37 Cal.3d 644 707-708 f209 Cal Rptr.682 693 P.2d 2611,quoting Galvan v Superior Court(1969) 70 Cal.2d 851,862 f76 Cal_ Rptr.642,452 P.2d 9301),and whether the local law mandates what state law forbids,or forbids what state law mandates. (Big Creek supra 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles(2002)27 Cal.4th 853,866 1118 Cal Rptr 2d 74(j 44 P.3d 1201.) Sequoia sees this as a case of express preemption,although it argues in the alternative that the Ordinance also falls to the concept of implied preemption.These contentions can only be evaluated with an appreciation of the sizable body of state legislation concerning mobilehome parks. The Extent Of State Law In The Area Of Mobilehome Regulation Section 66427.5 does not stand alone. If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control,that day is long past. Since 1979, the state has had the Mobilehome Residency Law, which comprises almost a hundred statutes governing [*13] numerous aspects of the business of operating a mobilehome park. (Civ.Code,614 798-799.10.)There are several provisions expressly ordering localities not to legislate in designated areas,such as the content of rental agreements(Civ. Code § 798.17 subd. (a)(1)),and establishing specified exemptions from local rent control measures. (Civ.Code,§� 798.21,subd. (a), 798.45_) z By this statutory scheme,the state has undertaken to"extensively regulate [] the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents."(Greening y.Johnson (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1226 [62 Cal.Rptr. 2d 2141; accord, SC Manufactured Homes,Inc. v. Canyon View Estates, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App_4th 663,673 1­56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791; People ex rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment Ltd. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 102 109 [3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4291•) FOOTNOTES 2 The Mobilehome Residency Law has been construed as not otherwise preempting or precluding adoption of residential rent control. (See Civ. Code, § 1954.25; Cacho v. Boudreau (2007)40 Cal.4tfi 341, 350[53 Cal. Rptr. 3d ATTACHMENT N ®, https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=alab8fd554210f8dc89bb09f4d53la43Xrc-qvc Get a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 8 of 18 43, 149 P.3d 4731 and decisions cited.) Even earlier,in 1967, the state enacted the Mobilehome Parks Act(Health&Saf,Code, 18200-18700), which regulates the construction and installation of mobilehome parks in the state. (See County of Santa Cruz y Waterflouse (2005) 127 Cal.Apo.4th 1483 1489-1490 f26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5431.) [*14] In this act,the Legislature expressly stated that it"supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city,county,or city and county,whether general law or chartered, applicable to this part."(Health&Saf.Code. fi 18300 subd. (al.)The few exemptions from this prohibition are carefully delineated. FOOTiVOTES 3"This part shall not prevent local authorities of any city,county, or city or county,within the reasonable exercise of their police powers,from doing any of the following: "(1) From establishing,subject to the requirements of Sections 65852.3 and 65852.7 of the Government Code, certain zones for manufactured homes,mobilehomes,and mobilehome parks within the city,county,or city and county,or establishing types of uses and locations,including family mobilehome parks,senior mobilehome parks, mobilehome condominiums, mobilehome subdivisions,or mobilehome planned unit developments within the city, county,or city and county,as defined in the zoning ordinance,or from adopting rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution prescribing park perimeter walls or enclosures on public street frontage, signs,access,and vehicle parking or from prescribing the prohibition of certain uses [*15] for mobilehome parks. '-(2)From regulating the construction and use of equipment and facilities located outside of a manufactured home or mobilehome used to supply gas,water,or electricity thereto,except facilities owned,operated,and maintained by a public utility, or to dispose of sewage or other waste therefrom when the facilities are located outside a park for which a permit is required by this part or the regulations adopted thereto. "(3) From requiring a permit to use a manufactured home or mobilehome outside a park for which a permit is required. by this part or by regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and require a fee therefor by local ordinance commensurate with the cost of enforcing this part and local ordinance with reference to the use of manufactured homes and mobilehomes,which permit may be refused or revoked if the use violates this part or Part 2(commencing with Section 18000),any regulations adopted pursuant thereto,or any local ordinance applicable to that use. "(4) From requiring a local building permit to construct an accessory structure for a manufactured home or mobilehome when the manufactured home or mobilehome is located outside a mobilehome park,under l [*16]circumstances when this part or Part 2(commencing with Section 180001 and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto do not require the issuance of a permit therefor by the department [i.e., the state Department of Housing and Community Development]. "(5) From prescribing and enforcing setback and separation requirements governing the installation of a manufactured home,mobilehome,or mobilehome accessory structure or building installed outside of a mobilehome park."(Health& Saf. Code,F 18300, subd. (qJ.) Then there is the Mobilehomes—Manufactured Housing Act of 1980(Health&Saf.§§ 18000-18153),which regulates the sale, licensing, registration,and titling of mobilehomes.The Legislature declared that the provisions of this measure "apply in all parts of the state and supersede"any conflicting local ordinance. (Health &Saf.Code, § 18015.)The HCD is in charge of enforcement. (Health&Saf. Code §§ 18020, 18022, 18058.) These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage_Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD,a state agency, not localities,that was entrusted with the authority to formulate"specific requirements relating to [*17] construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design"of mobilehome parks(Health &Saf. Code, 18253; see also Health&Saf. Code ql� 18552 [HCD to adopt"building standards"and"other regulations for.- mobilehome accessory buildings or structures"], 18610[HCD to"adopt regulations to govern the construction,use, occupancy, and maintenance of parks and lots within"mobilehome parks"], 18620[HCD to adopt"regulations regarding the construction of buildings in parks that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"], 18630.[pi6mbing], 18640 ["toilet,shower,and laundry facilities in parks"], 18670["electrical wiring,fixtures,and equipment _._that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"].) At present, the HCD has promulgated hundreds of regulations that are collected in chapter 2 of title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 25. §§ 1000-1758.)The regulations exhaustively deal with a myriad of issues, such as"Electrical Requirements"(id., 25 § 1130-1190),"Plumbing Requirements"(id., §§ 1240-1284),"Fire Protection Standards"(id., §4 1300-1319),"Permanent Buildings" [*18] (id., §§ 1380-1400), and"Accessory Buildings and Structures"(id., §§ 1420-1520)_The regulations even deal with pet waste (id., 11 1114)and the prohibition of cooking facilities in cabanas (id., 1462). Once adopted, HCD regulations"shall apply to all parts of the state."(Health &Saf. Code,§ 18300,subd. (a).) Mobilehomes can only be occupied or maintained when they conform to the regulations. (Health&Saf. Code, §§ 18550, 18871.) Enforcement is shared between the HCD and local governments(Health&Saf.Code, § 18300,subd. (f), 18400, subd. a)), with HCD given the power to"evaluate the enforcement"by units of local government.(Health&Saf.Code,§ ATTACHMENT NO, VD httvs://www_lexis.com/research/relrievP? m=alahRfrl��d71(IfR�I�RQ1,l,flOfit�czl ,n�Q. _. O,'Vltin �� Get a Document - by Party Name- sequoia park associates Page 9 of 18 18306 subd.(a).)A locality may decline responsibility for enforcement, but if assumed and not actually performed, its enforcement power may be taken away by the HCD. (Health&Saf. Code § 18300, subds. fb)-(e).)Local initiative is F - restricted to traditional police powers of zoning,setback,permit requirements,and regulating construction of utilities. r> (Gov. Code.§65852.7; Health &Saf.Code,§ 18300 subd. (g),quoted at fn.3,ante.) a It is the state that determines which events and actions in the construction and operation [*19]of a mobilehome park require permits. (Health &Saf.Code,§§ 18500; 18500.5, 18500.6, 18505;Cal. Code Regs,tit. 25,§ 1006.5, 1010, 1014, 1018, 1038, 1306, 1324, 1374.5.) Even if the locality issues the annual permit for a park to operate,a copy must be sent to the"CD. (Id.,§6 1006.5 1012.)It is the state that fixes the fees to be charged for these permits and certifications (Health&Saf.Code,§§ 18502, 18503; Cal. Code Regs,tit:25,§§ 1008, 1020.4, 1020.7, 1025),and sets the penalties to be imposed for noncompliance.(Health&Saf. Code§§ 18504, 18700;Cal Code Regs tit 25 §§ 1009, 1050. 1 70.4.)Sometimes,the state assumes exclusive responsibility for certain subjects,such as for earthquake- resistant bracing systems. (Cal.Code Regs,tit. 25�§ 1370.4(a).) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks are in the Government Code.Cities and counties cannot decide that a mobilehome park is not a permitted use"on all land planned and zoned for residential land use as designated by the applicable general plan,"though the locality"may require a use permit."(Gov.Code, §65852.7.)"[I]t is dear that the Legislature intended to limit local authority for zoning [*20] regulation to the specifically enumerated exceptions[in Health and Safety Code section 18300,subdivision(9),quoted at in. 3,ante]of where a mobilehome park may be located,vehicle parking,and lot lines,not the structures within the parks."(County of Santa Cruz v Waterhouse,sera 127 Cal.App.4th 1483. 1493.)A city or county must accept installation of mobilehomes manufactured in conformity with federal standards.(Gov.Code,§65852.3,subd_(a).)Their power to impose rent control on mobilehome parks is restricted if the parks qualifies as"new construction."(Gov.Code. §65852.11,subd. (a);ef text accompanying(n. 2, ante.) This survey demonstrates that the state has a long-standing involvement with mobilehome regulation,the extent of which involvement is,by any standard,considerable. Having outlined the size of the state's regulatory footprint,it is now time to examine the details of section 66427.5 and the Ordinance. Section 66427.5 Section 66427.5 is a fairly straight-forward statute addressing the subject of how a subdivider shall demonstrate that a proposed mobilehome park conversion will avoid economic displacement of current tenants who do not choose to become [*211 a purchasing resident. In its entirety it provides as follows: NNSV�At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership,the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner: "{a)The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit,which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership,or to continue residency as a tenant. "(b)The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest. -(c)The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or,if there is no advisory agency,by the legislative body. "(d)(1)The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. '(2)The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' [*22] association, if any,that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. "(3)The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. "(4)The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehome space has one vote. "(5)The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map,to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision (e). '(e)The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency,which is authorized by local Ordinance to approve,conditionally approve,or disapprove the map.The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_ "(f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following:. "(1)As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels,as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally [*23] recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. ATTACHMENT https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=alab8fd554210t8dc89bbO9f4ri5l]14,Akr zvr• , Rr)t ;,- Get a Document- by Party Name -sequoia park associates Page 10 of 18 '(2)As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households,as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion,except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period.This is how section 66427.5 currently reads. But its antecedents are instructive. The first version of section 66427-51 enacted in 1991,was no more than the first paragraph and subdivision (f)of the current version. (Stats. 1991,ch. 745,§ 2.)The statute was substantially amended four years later with most of what is in the current version.The only significant variance is that the 1995 version did not contain what is now.subdivision !d), specifying that the subdivider is to provide a survey of support. (Stats. 1995,ch. [*24]256,§ 5.)The second version of section 66427.5 was the one considered by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002)96 Cal Apra 4th 1153 [118 Cal Rptr. 2d 151 (El Dorado). At issue in El Dorado was a mobilehome park owner's application to convert its units from rental to resident-owned.The renters opposed the conversion,?contending that they do not have enough information to decide whether to purchase or not,and the proposed conversion is merely a sham to avoid[Palm Springs']rent control ordinance."(El Dorado. supra. 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1159.)The Palm Springs City Council approved the application, but made its approval subject to three conditions,requiring:"1)the use of a'Map Act Rent Date,'defined as the date of the dose of escrow of not less than 120 lots; (2)the use of a sale price established by a specified appraisal firm,the appraisal costs to be paid by[the owner-subdivider];and(3)financial assistance to all residents in the park to facilitate their purchase of the lots underlying their mobilehomes."(Id.at pp. 1156-1157.) The trial court denied the park owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus.The owner appealed,contending [*25]"that its application is governed by section 66427.5. It relies on subdivision (d) [now subdivision (ell of that section,which states,in part,that the scope of the City.Council's hearing is limited to the issue of compliance with the requirements of that section."(El Dorado,supra,96 Cal.App 4th 1153, 1157-1158.)Palm Springs took the position that the conditions were authorized by Government Code section 66427.4,subdivision(c),•which authorized the city council to—require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park.'" FOOTNOTES 4 Subsequent statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. The Court of Appeal agreed with the owner and reversed.It rejected Palm Springs'argument about section 66427.4.S concluding that it applied only when the mobilehome park is being converted to another use:"[I]t would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged.The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping center or another ]*26]different use of the property. In that situation,there would be'displaced mobilehome park residents'who would need to find'adequate space in a mobilehome park'for their mobilehome and themselves."(Ef Dorado,supra,96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161.)The court also held the language of subdivision (el of section 66427.4 dispositive on this point.(Id.at pp. 1161-1163.) FOOTNOTES s At all relevant times,section 66427.4 has provided: "(a)At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use,the subdivider shall also file a report on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion on displaced mobilehome park residents, the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks. "(b)The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. "(c)The legislative body,or an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance [*27] to approve, conditionally approve,or disapprove the map, may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park. "(d)This section establishes a minimum standard for local legislation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. "(e)This section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership." ATTACHMENT N . � https_//wv w.lexis-com/research/rPtriPvP? Qr" 1 3� Get a Document - by Party Name -sequoia park associates Page I 1 of 18 c40617(6) But,and as particularly apt here;the.court sustained the park owners argument about section 66427.5. _ subdivision fd),concluding that HN97under it the city council"only had the power to determine if[the subdivider] had complied with the requirements of the section."(El Dorado supra 96 Cal App.4th 1153 1163-i164.)Although the court I did appear concerned that the conversion process might be used for improper purposes—such as the bogus purchase of a 9 single unit by the subdivider/owner to avoid local rent control—it believed the language of section 66427.5,subdivision (d-),did not allow such considerations [*28] to be taken into account:"[f]he City lacks authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves tentative or parcel map. Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight,and although it might be desirable for the Legislature to broaden the City's authority, it has not done so. We therefore agree with appellant that the argument that the Legislature should have done more to prevent partial conversions or sham transactions is a legislative issue,not a legal one."6(Id.at D. 1165.)And,the court later noted,"there is no evidence that[the owner's]filing of an application for approval of a tentative parcel map is not the beginning of a bona fide conversion to resident ownership."(Id.at p. 1174, fin_ 17.) FOOTNOTES 6 Nevertheless,the El Dorado court did seem to indicate that there was an available remedy for Palm Springs'fears concerning evasion of its rent control ordinance.Although local authorities could not themselves use section 66427.5 to halt'sham-or failed transactions in which a single unit is sold,but no others,"(El Dorado, supra 96 Cal App 4th at p. 1166,fo. 10)there was no such restriction [*29] on the judiciary."[T]he courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or failed transactions,"(id.at a. 1165) which the El Dorado court apparently equated with situations where "conversion fails"or"if the conversion is unsuccessful."(Id.at P. 1166.)The court also agreed with an earlier decision that held section 66427.5 does not apply unless there is an actual sale of at least one unit.(Id.at pp. 1166, 1177-1179,citing Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park(1996)47 Cal.App.4th 1168 [55 Cal. Rptr. 2d CAtzr(7)One other point of El Dorado is significant.Hrr107The court specifically rejected arguments that would require a numerical threshold before a conversion could-proceed,there being no statutory support for the claim that conversion only occurred if more than 50 percent of the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is filed.(El Dorado, supra;96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1172-1173)The court refused to require a subdivider to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has the support of a majority of existing residents—fixed at either one-half or two-thirds—thus satisfying the local authority that this was not a"forced conversion."7(Id.at pp. 1181-1182.)The court concluded:"The [*40]legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership would not be served by a requirement that a conversion could only be made with-resident consent."(Id. at D. 1182.) FOOTNOTES 7 The 50 percent argument was based on Health and Safety Code section 50781.subdivision (m),which specifies that one of the definitions of?residential ownership"is"ownership by a resident organization of an interest in a mobilehome park that entitles the resident organization to control the operations of the mobilehome park."The argument was that"resident ownership of the park, and control of operations of the park,can occur only when the purchasing residents have the ability to control,manage and own the common facilities.in the park,i.e.,when 50 percent plus 1 of the lots have been purchased by the residents."(El Dorado, supra 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1172, 1181.)The two-thirds figure was taken from Government Code section 66428.1;which provides that`When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobilehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of converting it to resident ownership, and a field [*31]survey is performed, the requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and final map shall be waived,"subject to specified exceptions. Following El Dorado, the continuing problem of mobilehome park conversion,and the phrase"bona fide,"again engaged the Legislature's attention.That same year the Legislature amended section 66427.5 by adding what is now subdivision u and the requirement of a"survey of support of residents"whose results were to be filed with the tentative or parcel map.As it did so, the Legislature enacted the following language,but did not include it as part of section 66427.5:"It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona fide resident conversion,as described by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd V.City of Palm Springs(2002) 96 Cal.AppAth 1153 [118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151.The court in this case concluded that the subdivision map approval process specified in Section 66427.5 of the Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent non- bona fide resident conversions.The court explained how a conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership could occur without [*32] the support of the residents and result in economic displacement. It is, therefore,the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ensure that conversions pursuant to Section 66427.5 of the Government Code are bona fide resident conversions_"(Stats. 2002,ch. 1143, § 2.) e FOOTNOTES a This is what is known as"plus section," which our Supreme Court termed"a provision of a bill that is not intended to be a substantive part of the code section or general law that the bill enacts, but to express the Legislature's view on Ad TACHMENT NO, Z-73 https://www.lexis.con-/researchlretrieve?—m=al ab8fd554210f8dc89bb09f4d53la43&csvc.._ 8i26.11/`r C`fet a Document - by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 12 of 18 some aspect of the operation or effect of the bill. Common examples of'plus sections'include severability clauses, savings clauses,statements of the fiscal consequences of the legislation, provisions giving the legislation immediate effect or a delayed operative date or a limited duration,and provisions declaring an intent to overrule a speck judicial decision or an intent not to change existing law."(People v Allen(1999) 21 Cal 4th 846 858-859,fn. 13 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279,984 P.2d 4861.)The court subsequently explained that"statements of the intent of the enacting z body .._,while not conclusive,are entitled to consideration. [Citations.]Although such statements in an uncodified section [*331 do not confer power,determine rights,or enlarge the scope of a measure,they properly may be utilized as an aid in construing a statute."(People v. Canty(20441 2 Cal 4th 1266 1280[14 Cal RQtr. 3d 1,90 P.3d 1168 .) The Ordinance -Me Ordinance has eight sections, but only three—sections I, II, and III—are pertinent to this appeal.9 FOOTNOTES 9 Section IV of the Ordinance declares that the measure is"categorically exempt from environmental review"under the California Environmental Quality Act.Section V is a severability provision.Section VI establishes the effective date of the Ordinance as"30 days after the date of its passage."Section VII repeals an existing ordinance.Section VIII (mislabeled as"Section VI")provides for publication of the Ordinance in a specified newspaper of general circulation in the county. Section I declares the purposes of the Ordinance. It opens with the supervisors'finding that"the adoption of this . Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to implement certain policies and programs set forth within the adopted General Plan Housing Element,and to comply with state laws related to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership.Specific purposes included:(1)"To implement state [*341 laws with regard to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership;"(2)"To ensure that conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership are bona fide resident conversions in accordance with state law;"(3)To implement the goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element; (4)"To balance the need for increased homeownership opportunities with the need to protect existing rental-housing opportunities;: (5)"To provide adequate disclosure to decision-makers and to prospective buyers prior to conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership;"(6)"To ensure the public health and safety in converted parks; and"(7)"To conserve the County's affordable housing stock." Section II deals with the"Applicability"of the Ordinance by declaring that"These provisions apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership,except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Govemment Code [Section]66428.1 These provisions do not apply to the conversion of a mobile home park to an alternate use,which conversions are regulated by Government Code Sections 65863.7 and 66427.4, and by Section 26-92-090 of Chapter 26 of the [*351 Sonoma County Code." Section III opens by providing several definitions of terms used in the Ordinance and in Chapter 25 of the Sonoma County Code. "Mobile Home Park Conversion to Resident Ownership means the conversion of a mobile home park composed of rental spaces to a condominium or common interest development,as described in and/or regulated by Government Code Sections 66427.5 and/or 66428.1.— "'Mobile Home Park Closure,Conversion or Change of Use means changing the use of a mobile home park such that it no longer contains occupied mobile or manufactured homes, as described in and regulated by Government Code Section 66427.4."" "'Subdivision'means the division of any improved or unimproved land,shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as.a unit or as contiguous units,for the purpose of sale, lease,financing,conveyance,transfer,or any other purpose, whether immediate or future. Property shall be considered as contiguous units,even if it is separated by roads,streets, utility easement or railroad-rights-of-way.Subdivision includes a condominium project or common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code or a community interest project, [*361 as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code.Any conveyance of land to a governmental agency, public entity or public utility shall not be considered a division of land for purposes of computing the number of parcels.'" The heart of the Ordinance is subdivision (d)of Section III, which adds"a new Article IIIB"to Chapter 25 of the Sonoma County Code. Because of its importance, we quote it in full: "Article IIIB. Mobile Home Park Conversions to Resident Ownership. "25-39.7 (a)_ Applicability_The provisions of this Article XI11B shall apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government Code§ 66428.1_ "25-39.7 (b).Application Materials Required. ATTACHMENT hops://www_lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=alab8fd5542lOf8dc89bhO9f4dslln4,Xkc-,zvi- 9, Get a Document-by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 13 of 18 "(1)In addition to any other information required by this Code and/or other applicable law,the following information is required at the time of filing of an application for conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership: "a)A survey of resident support conducted in compliance with subdivision (d)of Government Code Section 66427.5 The 4 subdivider shall demonstrate that the survey was conducted in accordance [*37]with an agreement between the subdivider and an independent resident homeowners association, if any,was obtained pursuant to a written ballot,and was conducted so that each occupied mobile home space had one vote.The completed survey of resident support ballots shall be submitted with the application. In the event that more than one resident homeowners association purports to represent residents in the park, the agreement shall be with the resident homeowners association which represented the greatest number of resident homeowners in the park. "b)A report on the impact of the proposed conversion on residents of the mobile home park.The tenant impact report shaU,at a minimum include all of the following: "i) Identification of the number of mobile home spaces in the park and the rental rate history for each such space over the four years prior to the filing of the application; 'it)Identification of the anticipated method and timetable for compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5(al, and,to the extent available,identification of the number of existing tenant households expected to purchase their units within the first four(4)years after conversion; '°iii)Identification [*38]of the method and anticipated timetable for determining the rents for non-purchasing residents pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5(f)(11,and,to the extent available,identification of tenant households likely to be subject to these provisions; 'iv)Identification of the method for determining and enforcing the controlled rents for non-purchasing households pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)(2),and,to the extent available,identification of the number of tenant households likely to be subject to these provisions; ^v)Identification of the potential for non-purchasing residents to relocate their homes to other mobile home parks within Sonoma County,including the availability of sites and the estimated cost of home relocation; "vi)An engineer's report on the type,size,current condition,adequacy and remaining useful life of common facilities located within the park,including but not limited to water systems,sanitary sewer,fire protection,storm water,streets, lighting,pools,playgrounds,community buildings and the like.A pest report shall be included for all common buildings and structures.'Engineer'means a registered civil or structural engineer, [*39] or a licensed general engineering contractor; "vii)If the useful life of any of the common facilities or infrastructure is less than thirty(30)years, a study estimating the cost of replacing such facilities over their useful life,and the subdividers plan to provide funding for the same; "viii)An estimate of the annual overhead and operating costs of maintaining the park, its common areas and landscaping, including replacement costs as necessary, over the next thirty (30)years,and the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same. "ix)Name and address of each resident, and household size. "x)An estimate of the number of residents in the park who are seniors or disabled.An explanation of how the estimate was derived must be included. "(c)A maintenance inspection report conducted on site by a qualified inspector within the previous twelve(12)calendar months demonstrating compliance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations(Title 25 Report'). Proof of remediation of any Title 25 violations shall be confirmed in writing by the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). -25-39.7 (c) Criteria for Approval of Conversion Application. "(1)An application [*40] for the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership shall be approved only if the decision maker finds that: ,,a)A survey of resident support has been conducted and the results filed with the Department in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter; "b) A tenant impact report has been completed and filed with the Department in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter; "c) The conversion to resident ownership is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable Specific or Area Plan,and the provisions of the Sonoma County Code; "d)The conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion; "e) Appropriate provision has been made for the establishment and funding of an association or corporation adequate to rHMENT NO. https.//www.lexis_com/researefi/retrieve? m=alab8fd554210f8dc89bb09f4d53la43&csvc__ Get a Document - by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 14 of 18 ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure; and "f)There are no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety, provided, however,that if any such conditions exist, the application for conversion may be approved if: (1)all of the findings required under subsections(a)through (e),are made and(2)the [*41] subdivider has instituted corrective measures adequate to ensure prompt and continuing protection of the health and safety of park residents and the general public. '(2)For purposes of determining whether a proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion,the following criteria shall be used: "a)Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter shows that more than 50 percent of resident households support the conversion to resident ownership,the conversion shall be presumed to be a bona-fide resident conversion. 'b)Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and with this Chapter shows that at least 20 percent but not more than 50 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership, the subdivider shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion.In such cases,the subdivider shall demonstrate,at a minimum, that a viable plan,with a reasonable likelihood of success as determined by the decision-maker,is in place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within [*42]a reasonable period of time. "c)Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter shows that less than 20 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership,the conversion shall be presumed not to be a bona-fide resident conversion. '25-39.7 (d)Tenant Notification.The following tenant notifications are required: -(I)Tenant Impact Report.The subdivider shall give each resident household a copy of the impact report required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) within fifteen (15)days after completion of such report, but in no case less than fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing on the application for conversion.The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the report to any new or prospective residents following the original distribution of the report. -(2)Exclusive Right to Purchase. If the application for conversion is approved,the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially [*43] offered to the general public.The right shall run for a period of not less than ninety(90)days from the issuance of the subdivision public report(*white paper)pursuant to California Business and Professions Code§ 11016.2,unless the subdivider ' received prior written notice of the resident's intention not to exercise such right. "(3)Right to Continue Residency as Tenant. If the application for conversion is approved,the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its right to continue residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code Section 66427.5 fa)." The Ordinance is Expressly Preempted by Section 66427.5 CA017(8)It is a given that NN" regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. (E.g.,Big Creek, supra 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1151;rT Corp. v. County ofSolano(1991) 1 Cal.4th 81, 85,95,99 [2 Cal. Rytr. 2d 513,820 P 2d 10231; QW of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority(1999Z72 Cal ADo.4th 366, 376[85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 28].)We are also mindful that our Supreme Court has twice held,prior to enactment of section 66427.5,that the Subdivision Map Act did not preempt local authority to regulate residential condominium conversions. [*44] (Grim Development Co. v. City of Oxnard(1am) 39 Cal.3d 256. 262-266 [217 Cal. Rptr. 1 703 P 2d 3391; Santa Monica Pines Ltd. v Rent Control Board(1984)35 Cal.3d 858,868-869[201 Cal. Rptr. 593 679 P.2d 271.) Given the presumption against preemption (Big Creek, supra,38 Cal.4th 1139, 1149),we start by assuming that the Ordinance is valid. However, this attitude does not long survive. The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation. Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script.The state's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map Act in 1991. (See Stats. 1991,ch.745,§§ 1-2,4,adding §§ 66427.5, 66428.1, &amending § 66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.)This was seven years after the State had declared itself in favor of converting mobilehome parks to resident ownership,and at the same time established the Mobilehome'Park Purchase Fund from which the HCD could make loans to low-income residents and resident organizations to facilitate conversions. (Stats. 1984, ch. 1692, § 2,adding Health&Saf. Code,§§ 50780-50786.) Although [*45] the Court of Appeal in El Dorado did not explicitly hold that section 66427.5 was an instance of express preemption,that is clearly how it read the statute.And although there is nothing in the text of section 66427.5 that at first glance looks unambiguously like a stay-away order from the Legislature to cities and counties, 10 there is no doubt that the El Dorado court construed the operative language as precluding addition by cities or counties.That operative language reads: "The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the[tentative or parcel] map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section."(§ 66427.5, subd. (e), italics added.)The italicized language is, in its own way, comprehensive. But the contrasting constructions the parties give it could not be ATTACHMENT NO. to https://www.lexis-com/researchJretrieve? m=alahRfriS54�infRrlrR9hhOQfd.1�2I�d2R..�., oi�a :�r.�s<� Get a Document- by Party Name- sequoia park associates Page 15 of 18 more starkly divergent. - FOOTNOTES io Such as the provision of the Mobilehome Parks Act directing that"This part applies to all parts of the state and supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city,county, or city and county,whether general law or chartered, applicable [*46] to this part."(Health&Saf. Code § 18300,subd. fal.) According to Sequoia,section 66427.5 has an almost ministerial operation.The words of the statute"communicate unambiguously that local agencies must approve a mobilehome park subdivision map if the applicant complies with'this section`alone."The County_and supporting amid argue that section 66427.5 and El Dorado are not dispositive here. Indeed,they almost argue that the statute and the decision are not relevant_As they see it,section 66427.5—both before and after El Dorado—is a statute of very modest scope,addressing itself only to the issue of avoiding and mitigating the economic displacement of residents who will not be purchasing units when the mobilehome park is converted.All the Ordinance does,they maintain, is'implement"and flesh out the details of the Legislature's directive in a wholly appropriate fashion, leaving unimpaired the traditional local authority over land uses.As the amici state it: "Ordinance No.5725 does not purport to impose any additional economic restrictions to preserve affordability or to avoid displacement_" We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's approach. Beginning [*47] with the presumption against preemption in the area of land use,it is more than a little difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only on the issues of resident support and the subdivider's efforts at avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents.Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept,if not invite, supplementary local action. 11 For example, a subdivider is required to"file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents,"but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report.And there is some fdree to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amid:"Surely,the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the[report], it may become a meaningless exercise_" FOOTNOTES m The County and supporting amid note our Supreme Court stating that the Subdivision Map Act"sets suitability,. design, improvement and procedural requirements[citations]and allows local governments to impose supplemental requirements of the same kind_"(The Pines v Cit�of Santa Monica�1981)29 Cal.3d 656,659 (175 Cat_Ratr.336 630 P.2d 5211.italics added.) [*48]It must be emphasized,however,that the court's comments were made in the context of a local tax—and a decade before the subject of mobilehome park conversion began appearing in the Subdivision Map Act. However,a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach.There are three such statutes—sections 66247.4,66247.5,and 66428.1.And if they are considered as a unit—which they are,as the three mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act 12—a coherent logic begins to emerge_ FOOTNOTES 12 Because sections 66427.4,664275,and 66428.1 all deal with the subject of mobilehome park conversions,it is appropriate to consider them together. (E.g., Walker v Superior Court(1988)47 Cal.3d 112, 124,fn.4 [253 Cal. Rptr. 1, 763 P.2d 8521; County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie(1942) 19 Cal.2d 634, 639 1122 P.2d 5261;Tn re Washer (1927)200 Cal.599,606 [254 P.9511.) It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation.As Sequoia points out:"Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out,approved under zoning and general [*49] plans,and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations."Moreover, the park has been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis. But the owner has decided to change. If the change is to close the park and devote the land to a different use, section 66427.4 governs. If the change is a more modest switch to residential conversion, sections 66427.5 and 66428.1 are applicable. These statutes form a rough continuum. If the owner is planning a new use,that is, leaving the business of operating a mobilehome park, section 66427.4 (quoted in full at in. 5,ante) directs the owner to prepare a report on the impact of the change to tenants or residents. (Subd. a _)The relevant local authority"may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park"as a condition of approving or conditionally approving the change. (Subd_ c .) But in this situation—where the land use question is essentially reopened de novo—section 66427.4 explicitly authorizes local input: This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobilehome [*50] parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures."(Subd. d , italics added.) At the other end of the continuum is the situation covered by section 66428.1.subdivision (a)of which provides:"When ATTACHMENT NO. 1 74) https.//www.lexis.com/research/retr-leve? m=al ab8fd554210f8dc89bb09f4dSl i nAlR c Get a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 16 of 18 at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobilehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of converting it to resident ownership,and a field survey is performed,the requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and Final map shall be waived unless any of the following conditions exist: [11 (1)There are design or improvement requirements necessitated by significant health or safety Y.. concerns. [11 (2)The local agency determines that there is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new parcel or tentative and final map. [11(3)The existing parcels which exist prior to the proposed conversion were not created by a recorded parcel or final map. [¶] (4)The conversion would result in the creation of more condominium units or interests than the number of tenant lots or spaces that exist prior to conversion." So,if the conversion essentially [*51] maintains an acceptable status quo, the conversion is approved by operation of law.And the locality has no opportunity or power to stop it,or impose conditions for its continued operation. Section 66427.5 occupies the midway point on the continuum. It deals with the situation where the mobilehome park will continue to operate.as such, merely transitioning from a rental to an ownership basis, and there is not two-thirds tenant support for the change—in other words,conversions that enjoy a level of tenant concurrence that does not activate the free ride authorized by section 66428.1 In those situations, the local authority enjoys less power than granted by section 66427.4,but more than conversions governed by 66428.1. It is not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see fit to grant local authorities some power, but circumscribe the extent of that power.That it what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power,but no more. As previously mentioned, the Legislature amended section 66427.5 in the wake of El Dorado.Two features of that amendment are notable. First,the Legislature added what is now the requirement in subdivision (d) 1*521 of a survey of tenant support for the conversion, when the level of that support does not reach the two-thirds mark at which point section 66428.1 for in. But the Legislature did not address the point noted in El Dorado that there is no minimum amount of tenant support required for a conversion to be approved. (See El Dorado, supra 96 Cal App 4th 1153, 1172- 1173.)As this was the only addition to the statute,if follows that it was deemed sufficient to address the problem of Rbona fide"conversions mentioned in the unmodified portion of the enactment that accompanied the amendment. cA(9)—+(9) Second,and even more significant for our purposes,the El Dorado court expressly read section 66427.5 as not permitting a local authority to inject any other consideration into its decision whether to approve a subdivision conversion. 33(El Dorado supra 96 Cal Apo 4th 1153 1163-1164 1166 1182.)And when it amended section 66427.5, the Legislature did nothing to overturn the El Dorado court's reading of the extent of local power to step beyond the four corners of that statute.This is particularly telling: HN12T+ [W1hen the Legislature amends a statute without altering portions of the provision that [*53] have previously been judicially construed, the Legislature is presumed to have been aware and to have acquiesced in the previous judicial construction.Accordingly,reenacted portions of the statute are given the same construction they received before the amendment."'(Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV(1991)52 Cal.3d 1142 1156 [278 Cai Rptr. 614 805 P.2d 873),quoting Marina Point,Ltd. v. Wolfson(1982)30 Cal.3d 721,734 f180 Cal.Rptr.496, 640 P.2d 1151; accord,People v Meloney(2003)30 Cal 4th 1145, 1161 (135 Ca! Rptr. 2d 602,70 P.3d 10231; People v. Lede 39 P.2d 1310]J FOOTNOTES 13 El Dorado is also authority for rejecting the County's attempt to narrow the scope of the section 66427.5 hearing to just the issue of tenant displacement, thereby presumably leaving other issues or concerns of the conversion application to be addressed at a different hearing.The El Dorado court treated the section 66427.5 hearing as the equivalent of"El Dorado's application for approval of the tentative subdivision map."(El Dorado,supra,96 Cal.App.4th 1153. 1163-1164; see also id., at pp. 1174 ['section 66427.5 applies to E!Dorado's application for tentative map approval"], 1182 [absence of majority tenant support for conversion not dispositive because"The owner can still subdivide [*54] his property by following ._. section 66427.5"; judgment reversed"with directions to require the City Council to promptly determine the sole issue of whether EI Dorado's application for approval of a tentative parcel map complies with section 66427.5"].) Even more germane is that,to judge from the language used in the uncodified provision enacted with the amendment of section 66427.5,the Legislature clearly appeared to equate compliance with section 66427.5 with the conversion approval process. C-A(10)*(10)The foregoing analysis convinces us that the El Dorado construction of section 66427.5 has stood the test of time and received the tacit approval of the Legislature. We therefore conclude that what is currently NN13psubdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. The Ordinance is Impliedly Preempted As previously shown, local law is invalid if it enters a field fully occupied by state law,or if it duplicates, contradicts,or is inimical,to state law. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton supra,41 Cal 4th 1061 1068; [*55] Big Creek, supra,38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150.)The three tests for implied preemption are: (1) has the issue been so completely covered by state law as to indicate that the issue is now exclusively a state concern; (2) the issue has been only partially covered by state law, but the language of the state law indicates that the state interest will not tolerate additional local input; and (3)the issue has been only partially covered by state law, but the negative impact of local legislation on the state interest is greater than whatever local benefits derive from the local legislation. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton supra at p 1150; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara supra 7 Cal 4th 725 751; People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino supra 36 Cal.3d ATTACHMENT NO. https://www.lex-ls.coinlresearch/retrieve? m=al ab8fd554210f8dc89bb09f4dil t a4"11F,ecATI- Q I � ` Get a Document - by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 17 of 18 476 485.) We conclude that the County's Ordinance is also vulnerable to two of the tests for implied preemption. The overview of the regulatory schemes touching mobilehomes undertaken earlier in this opinion demonstrates that the state's involvement is extensive and comprehensive. Grants of power to cities and counties are few in number,guarded in language,and invariably qualified in scope. Nevertheless,those grants do exist. [*561 Section 66427.5 shows that the state is willing to allow some local participation in some aspects of mobilehome conversion;and section 66427.4 shows that in one setting—when a mobilehome park is converted to a different use—it is virtually expected that the state role will be secondary.The first test for implied preemption cannot be established. But the three-statute continuum discussed earlier in connection with express preemption also shows that the second and third tests for implied preemption are. For 25 years, the state has had the policy"to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership."(Health&Saf.Code§ 50780,subd. (b).)The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy.(Health&Saf.Code,§ 50782[establishing the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund].)The state clearly has an interest in mobilehome park conversions, but is willing to have local governments occupy some role in the process.The extent of local involvement is calibrated to the situation.However,when the subject is narrowed to conversions that merely affect the change from rental to residential ownership,local involvement is strictly limited.If [*57]the proposed conversion has the support of two-thirds or more of the park tenants, section 66428.1 prevents the city or county from interfering except in four very specific situations. If the tenant support is less than two-thirds,section 66427.5 directs that the role of local government"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section."(§66427.5.subd. (e).) In sum,the fact that the situations where localities could involve themselves in conversions have been so carefully delineated shows that the Legislature viewed the subject as one where the state concern would not be advanced if parochial interests were allowed to intrude.Accordingly,we conclude that the second and third tests for implied preemption are present. There is more."Local legislation in conflict with general law is void.Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates...general law— _"(Lancaster v Municipal Court(1972)6 Cal.3d 805.807-808[100 Cal. Rptr:609,494 P.2d 6811; accord,Big Creek, supra. 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara supra 7 Cal.4th 725,747.)The Ordinance is plainly duplicative of section 66427.5 in several respects,as the County candidly admits: the Ordinance"sets forth minimum [*58] .__requirements"for the conversion application,"including: (a)submission of a survey of resident support in compliance with section 66427.5; (b)submission of a report on the impact of the proposed conversion on park residents as required by section 66427.5;and(c)submission of a copy of the annual maintenance inspection report already required by Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations."(Italics added.)The Ordinance also purports to require the subdivider to provide residents of the park"written notice of[the] right to continue residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code§ 66427 5(a)"and"a copy of the impact report required by Government Code 5 66427.5(bl."(Sonoma County Code,§ 25-39.7(d),subs. 1,3.) And still more.A local ordinance is impliedly preempted if it mandates what state law forbids.(Big Creek,supra,38 Cal.4th 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows Inc. v. County of Los Angeles,supra,27 Cal.4th 853,866.)As already established,section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application.Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall [*59] be approved"only if the decision maker finds that,"in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66247.5,the application (1)"is consistent with the General Plan"and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2)demonstrates that"appropriate"financial provision has been made to underwrite and"ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"; (3)the applicant shows that there are"no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety"; and(4)the proposed conversion"is a bona fide resident conversion"as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. "(Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c), subs. 1(c)-1(f), 2.)The Ordinance also requires that,following approval of the conversion application, the subdivider"shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public,"for a period of 90 [*60]days"from the issuance of the subdivision public report...pursuant to California Business and Professions Code§ 11018.2."(Id., § 25-39.7(d), subd_ 2.) FOOTNOTES 14 Although it is not discussed in the briefs, a recent decision by Division Three of this district suggests these provisions might also be vulnerable to the claim that they amount to a burden of proof presumption that would be preempted by Evidence Code section 500_ (See Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 741, 751, fn. 5 754-758 [90 Cal_ RQtr. 3d 1811.) However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. The matter of just what constitutes a"bona fide conversion"according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions. 15 And although the Ordinance employs the mandatory"shall,"it does not establish whether the presumptions are conclusive or merely rebuttable_This uncertainty is only compounded when other criteria are scrutinized. What is the financial provision that will be [*61] deemed"appropriate"to"ensure proper long-term management and maintenance"? Such imprecision stands in stark contrast with the clear directives in section 66427.5. "I III httpsJ/www.lexis.cont/research/retrieve?_m=al ab8fd554210Mdc89bb09f4d531a43&csvc... 8/26/200 Gret a Document - by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 18 of 18 FOOTNOTES is That uncertainty may be illustrated by how Sequoia perceives one part of the Ordinance.With respect to instances where tenant support for conversion is between 20 percent and 50 percent,the Ordinance provides:'In such cases, t the subdivider shall demonstrate, at a minimum,that a viable plan,with a reasonable likelihood of success.-.is in place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within a reasonable period of time.'(Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(c)(2)(b).)Sequoia treats this as a requirement that the subdivider come forth with'financial assistance"to assist tenants to purchase their units. The County,ably supported by an impressive array of amid,stoutly defends its corner with a number of arguments as to why the Ordinance should be allowed to operate.The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuring that the conversion must comport with the General Plan, especially its housing element,because that is where the economic dislocation will be.manifest, by reducing [*62] the inventory of low-cost housing. (See Health&Saf.Code,ti 50780, subds.(a)(1)& a 3 .)In this sense, however,section 66427.5 has a broader reach than-the County perhaps appreciates,as it does make provision in subdivision(f) for helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain. In any event,we cannot read section 66427.5 as granting localities the same powers expressly enumerated in section 66427.4 that are so conspicuously absent from the plain language of section 66427.5. CA(11)_+(11)We assume the County was motivated by the laudable purposes stated in the first section of the Ordinance. And we have acknowledged that the County's construction of the section 66427.5 can find some plausibility from the statutory Janguage.Nevertheless,and after a"most careful consideration of the arguments presented,we have concluded that the Ordinance crosses the line established by the Legislature as marking territory reserved for the state.As we recently stated in a different statutory context: "There are weighty arguments and worthy goals arrayed on each side. [and]...issues of high public policy.To choose between them,or to-strike a balance between them,Is the essential [*631 function of the Legislature,not a court.'(State Building&Construction Trades Council of California v.Duncan (2008) 162 Cal App 4th 289 324[76 Cal Rptr.3d 5071.)Of course,if the Legislature disagrees with our conclusion,or if it wishes to grant cities and counties a greater measure of power, it-can amend the language of section 66427.5. DISPOSITION The order is reversed,and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new order or judgment consistent with this opinion.Sequoia shall recover its costs. Haerle�,Acting P.I.,and Lambden 3.,concurred. q Source: Legal>I__.I>CA State Cases,Combined Terms: name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search I SSu gest Terms for My Search) View. Full Date/Tme: Wednesday.August 26,2009-530 PM EDT Search I Research Tasks I Get a Document t Shepa I Alerts I Total U ig_ator(Transactional"Advisor 1 Counsel Selector History 1 Delivery Ma nag er I Dossier I Switch Client I Preferences I San Out I Help LexisNexisAbout LexisNexis I Terms&Conditions ?Contact Us Copyright Q 2009 LexisNexis,a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. ITTAC."HMENT NOF 10-lAq https://www.lexis.com/research/retn'eve? m=a 1 ab8fd554210f8dc89bb09f4d53 l a43&..csvc ; ATTACHMENT #8j California Government Code Section 66427.5 At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created .from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership, .the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner: (a) The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. (b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest- (c) The subdivider.shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body- (d) (1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey .of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. (2) The survey of support .shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners, association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. (3) The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. (4) The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehome space has one vote. (5) The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be J considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision (e) . (e) The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section- (f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following: (1) As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. (2) As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. ATTACHMENT N®. � _ ATTACHMENT #9 HK&C HART, KIND & COLDREN Boyd L.Kll bhAl a&kdaw_com March 4, 2009 Our File Number_ 36014.112A826-5517-41470 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL (714)374-1540 C e 1 V Rami Talleh Planning Department �aR . ZQ05 City of Huntington Beach ("City") cityonq 2000 Main Street ci�Yko Y?s:oar Post Office Box 190 ffice Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map,Uo_.'17296.("Application") Submission of Revised Resident Impact Report Dear Rami. This letter will follow up on our telephone conversation this afternoon_ We discussed that the March 3, 2009 draft revised Report of Impact of Conversion Upon Residents ("Report') addresses the issues raised in the City's January 27, 2009 letter. Therefore,we are.subrnitting the revised Report in final form dated March 4i 2009 for formal consideration and acceptance by the City Planning Department. As we discussed, we anticipate the tenant survey results to be submitted within two weeks, at which point the Application should-be.complete_ Please immediately confirm acceptance of the Report as part of the Application. Thank you Best Regards, HART, KING &COLD R N Boyd Hifl j. BLH cc_ Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill,Assistant City Attorney John Saunders Michael Cirillo Robert S_ Coldren A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 ;i ATTACHMENT N HK& C HART, KING & COLDREN REPORT ON IMPACT OF CONVERSION UPON RESIDENTS Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park March 4,2009 SECTION 1. SCOPE OF REPORT This "Report on Impact of Conversion upon Residents" ("Report") is submitted by the "Applicant for'a Tentative Tract Map subdividing the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park'). The subdivision will be created by the conversion of the Park from rental spaces to resident owned lots. The Park is located 'at 20701 Beach Boulevard, City of Huntington Beach("City"),State of California,92648. The Report is being filed with the City as part of the Tentative Tract wrap App3icaiion and will be made available to the Park residents prior to the City's hearing on the Application pursuant to California Government Code Section 66427.5, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A." The Report contains the Applicant's assessment_of the impact upon the Park residents of conversion to resident ownership. The Park currently has 308 spaces,243 of which are rented under long term lease agreements, and only 50 of which rented out under month.-to month tenancies_ The - remaining spaces are either vacant (6), Park owned (6) or occupied by homes under i storage agreements with mobilehome dealers(3)_ SECTION H DEFINITIONS 2.1 Conversion Date: The "Conversion Date" is the date after the subdivision final map has been approved by the City and after the Department of Real Estate has approved the subdivision for sale and is the date on which the first Lot in the Park is sold. 2.2 Hearing Date: The"Hearing Date" is the date on which the subdivision Application is first heard by the City Planning.Commission. 2.3 Home: The "Home" is the manufactured home that occupies the Space where the Resident is living as of the Hearing Date 2.4 Lot: A "Lot" is the land and fixed improvements within the Space on which the Resident's Home is located as of the Hearing Date, plus a 11308th share of the common area and facilities and one membership in the Homeowners' Association to be formed as part of the subdivision process. A Pr6fessionai Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714.432-8700 1 www_hkciaw_com I Fx 714.546-7457 ATTACHMENT NOwz HART. KING & COLDRE" Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents March 4,2009 Page 2 2.5 Resident: A "Resident" is a person living in a Home in the Park who meets the requirements for receiving protections afforded by applicable law. 2.6 Space: The"Space"is the leased premises on which the Resident's Home is located as of the Hearing Date. SECTION III NO ECONONHC DISPLACEMENT OF RESIDENTS FROM CONVERSION BECAUSE OF STATUTORY RIGHT TO PURCHASE OR CONTINUE LEASING Upon conversion, all Residents will have the opportunity to either purchase the Lot on which their Home is situated or to continue leasing their Space with statutory protections on rental rates after the Conversion Date. (Gout. Code § 66427.5 (a), (f)) Therefore,upon conversion of the Park to resident ownership,the Residents are statutorily protected against economic displacement_ 3.1 No Economic Displacement from Sale of the Lots The Residents are protected from economic displacement pertaining to sale of the Lots upon conversion by having both the option purchase their Lots at the eventual sales price and the option to continue leasing their Space_ Government Code Section 66427.5 (a)requires the subdivider to"offer each Resident an option to either purchase his.or her ... subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant." Thus, if the Resident cannot purchase his or her Lot upon conversion,the Resident is not required to move and may continue to lease his or her Space following the Conversion Date. This Report cannot make determinations about impacts to the Residents resulting from the eventual sale price of the Lots under the purchase option. That is because the sale price of the Lots will not be established until some time after the tentative map subdivision approval. The Residents cannot make a rational decision to buy, continue to rent,or move his or her mobilehome until the tenant is given an option purchase price and a proposed rental price- (See El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd v. City of Palm Springs(2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1179-1180) After tentative map approval, the subdivider must neat follow procedures and obtain approval of the subdivision from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act. Only after approval by the Department of Real Estate will all of the factors that affect the Lot purchase price be established. The Resident will learn the option price for his or her Lot only after the Department of Real Estate approves the 36014.112/4 824-8902-5027 v.l 2 ATTACHMENT 1 - t &E HART KING & CQLOREN Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents March 4,2009 Page 3 subdivision and issues its public report on the subdivision,when the subdivider offers the lots for sale. The subdivider is not required to"disclose an offer price at the time of filing of the Application and of this Report,and indeed is forbidden by the Subdivided Lands Act from making such a disclosure at that time. The first time that the Resident may become aware of even a tentative offer price for the Lot will be several weeks or months later,just prior to filing a notice .of intention to sell_with,.the..Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act. (See Bus- & Prof_ Code § 11010.9 (c); See El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd v- City of Palm Springs(2002)96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1179-1180) Nevertheless, as previously explained, because the Resident has the option to either purchase his or her Lot or to continue leasing hig or her Space under whatever lease arrangement may be existing on the Conversion Date with the statutory rental rate protections discussed below, the Residents will.. be. protected against economic displacement from sale of the Lots upon conversion_ 3.2 No Economic Displacement from Continued Lease of the Spaces The Residents who do not exercise the option to purchase their Lots and instead exercise the option to continue renting their Spaces are protected from economic displacement by statutory restrictions on rental rafts after the "Conversion Date." Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) limits the amount of rent increases for Residents that can take place upon conversion, thereby avoiding economic displacement, if any, from any rental increases after the Conversion:Date. For non-purchasing Residents who are not lower income households,the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may only increase to market levels as determined by appraisal, and then only over a period of four years. For non-purchasing Residents who are lower income households, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may only increase by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion,except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. To qualify as a Low Income Household in Orange County, the following income limits were established for calendar year 2008. 36014.11214924-8902-5027v_1 3 C HART KING & COLOREN Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents March 4,2009 Page 4 Household Size(#of Persons) 1 2 3 4 Income Must beat or Below: $52,100 $59,500 $66,950 $74,400 Thus,under the current statutory scheme,the Legislature has defined the exclusive and preempted scope of "mitigations" respecting any "economic displacement," assuming, without admitting, that increases in rent can he considered an economic displacement. 33 Benefits of Conversion Subdivision provides Residents with a choice to own the Lot on which their Home is located. Lot ownership gives the Residents greater flexibility with regard to financing for their Homes and other credit opportunities. Lot ownership allows the Residents to control their economic future. Residents do not have to be tied to monthly rental payments if they choose. Lot ownership also gives the Residents the freedom to use their Lot without all of the restrictions or costs that a landlord might impose. The Residents will have the opportunity to control the Park amenities that they will enjoy and pay for m� through the Homeowner's Association_ 5 - SECTION IV NO CLOSURE OR CHANGE IN ZONING 4.1 No Change in Zoning or Closure The Park is currently zoned MHP. The Application does not request a zoning change. The Application does not request closure of the Park The Application seeks merely to convert the existing Spaces to Lots available for purchase. Therefore,the conversion to Resident ownership will not result in economic displacement that might occur with a zoning change or closure of the Park. This Report is not required to discuss or provide mitigation against any unlikely future closure or change of use application. It will be unlikely for the Park to close or change use following the conversion because of the subdivision of the individual lots and the common area interests.-A subsequent closure or change in use would have to take into account rights that Lot owners and the Homeowners'Association will have in their lots and in the common areas following conversion. A different report containing express mitigation pertaining to relocation would be required for any future closure or change of use application,as discussed in Section 4.3 below. 36014.11214824-8902-5027v.1 4 ATTACHMENT �. HART_ KING & COLOREN Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents March 4,2009. Page 5 4.2 Technical"Conversion"or"Change in Use Only The term"conversion"relating to a mobilehome park sometimes is used to describe the closure of the park to enable an alternative use. This is NOT what is occurring as a result of subdivision of the Park. The Park will remain a manufactured housing community,with the existing Residents having the right to either buy their Lot or to remain and rent their Space. While conversion of a rental mobilehome park to a Resident-owned mobilehome park is identified as a"change of use-"under California Mobilehoine.Residency law and under the Chapter 234 of the City's Ordinance,it is more accurately described under the Subdivision Map Act as a change in the form of ownership. The Park is not being closed and the Residents are not being required to vacate the property- 4-3 Relocation Assistance Not Applicable ' When a subdivision is created from conversion of a rental mobilehome.parklo resident ownership,a different type of impact report is required than when a subdivision created from a change of use to a non-mobilehome park use or when the mobilehome park is closed- Government Code Section 66427.5 governs the type of report that must be prepared for a subdivision which is created from conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership_ This Government Code Section 66427.5 Report,which does not deal with a change in use of the property or closure of the Park,is simply required to explain the options of the Residents regarding their choice to purchase their Lot or to-rent their Space. This Report need not discuss displacement of Residents,replacement housing or mitigation of the reasonable costs of relocation,which issues would be involved in any subdivision resulting from a change of use of a mobilehome park or from closure of a mobilehome park_ In fact Government Code Sections 66427.4 and 65863.7,which apply to subdivisions created from change of use to a non-mobilehome park use or to closure of a mobilehome park,expressly exempt from their requirements subdivisions that are created from conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership_ (See Govt. Code §§66427.4(e),65863.7(a)) SECTION V. CONCLUSION This Report discusses the impacts upon the Residents of conversion to Resident ownership pursuant to subdivision of the Park- Upon conversion, the Residents are 36014.112/4824-8902-5027v.1 5 � ATTACH MET HART. KING & COLDR£N - Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents March 4,2009 Page 6 statutorily protected from economic displacement by the option to either purchase their Lots or continue leasing their Spaces with statutory restrictions on rent increases_ Residents on long-term leases will continue to have their rights under the leases after the Conversion Date. All of the Resident protections discussed in this Report are based upon the Applicant's assessment of the currently existing statutory scheme,and are not a promise, representation, or warranty on the part of the Applicant or its agents. The operative date for the time frame and protections described above is the Conversion Date as described in Section 2.1 above. Of course, should the law change, the Applicant reserves the right to implement the conversr in accordance with the applicable valid and enforceable laws_ Dated: Hart,King&Coldren By: R. S.Cold e�cr"J s% attorneys for Applicant id n4 ShorecIiff L.P. JS Stadium,LLC Huntington BSC Park,LP Shorecliff Main,LP 36014.1t2/4824-8902-5027v.1 6 ATTACHME . Exhibit A California Government Code Section 66427. v5 36014.112/4824-8902-5027v.1 ATT©rWRAPKIT hl, Section 66427.5 of the Government Code: 66427.5.At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created -from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership,the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner. (a)The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit,which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership,or to continue residency as a tenant. (b)The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest- (c)The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least IS days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or,if there is no advisory agency,by the legislative body. (d)(1)The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion_ (2)The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners`association,if any,that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner- (3)The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. (4)The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehome space has one vote. (5)1he results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon filing of the tentative or parcel map,to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision(e). (e)The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, l` which is authorized by local ordinance to approve,conditionally approve,or disapprove the map.The scope of the bearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. (f)The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following- (1)As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households,as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code,the monthly rent,including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,may increase finni,the preconversion rent to market levels,as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards,in equal annrrai urcreases over a four-year period. (2)As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households,as definers in Sec. 50079-5 of the Health and Safety Code,the monthly rent,including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion,except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase_in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period- 5 ATTACH `, . � z� ATTACHMENT # 10 May 4,2009 The Boyd Hilt Star Comes Hart,King&Coldren vobiletome Communities 200 E.Sandpointe Ave.4th Floor Santa Ana,CA 92707-5747 1400 East 4th street Santa Ana,CA 92701 RE: Huntington Shoreelij'fx-Resident Survey 714-480-6828 714-480-6830 fax Dear Mr.Hill: The results of the resident survey have.been compiled. The pertinent information is listed below: There were 296 surveys sent out and 188 were returned. -40 Persons responded that they were in support of the conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs to resident.ownership. 23 persons indicated that they will likely finance the purchase. 8 persons indicated that they will likely pay cash for their lot. 21 persons indicated that they-were-lower income and would likely need government assistance ; to purchase their lot { 6.persons indicated that they supported the conversion but could not buy their lot. 45 persons indicated that theydv not support the conversion of the park to resident ownership. -97 persons declined to state.thek opinion. A blank copy of the survey is attached for your reference. Sincerely,. STAR MOBILEHOME PARK MANAGEMENT By: Michael A.Ciriilo For: Huntington Shorecliffs ene: survey form Matter Ref: 2008-6022-HS Subdivision ZATMW 8E0ATAIfites\2008-6022\M[KE1090504!62932.W PD VWJAL HOl15WG OPPORTUNITY HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK SURVEY OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS BALLOT FORM This ballot is provided to you pursuant to the requirements of Government Code § 66427.5. The purpose of the ballot is to show Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park resident support for the proposed conversion of the Park from a rental mobilehome community to a resident owned mobilehome community subdivision. Each occupied :space shall have one vote. Please indicate below whether or not you support conversion to a resident owned mobilehome community-subdivision and please sign and -date where indicated below. By law, we cannot provide you with an estimated purchase price at this time. ❑ I support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park from a rental mobilehome community to a resident-owned manufactured home community subdivision, and intend to purchase my space as follows: ❑ A I think I will be able to obtain, and intend to apply for financing ❑ B.. I intend to purchase my space with cash ❑ C. I think.I am a lower-income resident, and may need government assistance in order to purchase my space ❑ I support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park from a rental mobilehome community to a resident-owned mobilehome community subdivision, but cannot buy. (For example: I am sub-leasing, I am unable to obtain credit at this time or my resident status prevents me from buying a space.) ❑ 1 do-not support conversion of Huntington Shoreclifs from a rental mobilehome community to a resident-owned mobilehome community subdivision. ❑ 1 decline to state my opinion at this time. ❑ This home.represents my primary residence (check if this applies to you) 1 understand that this form does not constitute an offer to sell at a specific price, -nor is it a commitment to purchase an interest in the mobilehome community. It is merely an indication of support/non-support for the community's conversation in accordance with California Government Code § 66427.5. Signed: Space#: Name: Date- r" The information on the following page is optional and will be kept confidential The information may be used to determine the availability of financial assistance ATTACHMENT NO. ATTACHMENT # 11 ® Huntington Beach Planning Commission ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION September 23, 2009 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17296(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION) APPLICANT: Boyd Hill, Hart, King & Coldren REQUEST: To a) subdivide approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes and b) create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. The project also includes an appeal filed by the applicant of the applicable code requirements. PROPERTY OWNER: Shorecliff, LP, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave.) DATE OF ACTION: September 22, 2009 On Tuesday, September 22, 2009, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Five Hundred Forty-One Dollars ($1,541.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Two Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars ($2,379.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is October 9. 2009 at 5:00 PM. Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org Notice of Action:TTM No. 17296 September 22,2009 Page 2 "Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020." If you have any questions, please contact Rami Talleh, the project planner, at rtalleh .surfcity- hb.org or(714) 536-5561 or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at(714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission By: Herb Fauland, Planning Man ger SH:H F:RT:lw Attachment: Findings For Denial—TTM No. 17296 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred Wilson, City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Leonie Mulvihill, Senior Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer Gerald Caraig, Permit-Plan Check Manager Property Owner Project File ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. This project is located in the RMP (Residential Mobilehome Park)zone and does not comply with the requirements of that zone. The five additional lots created in conjunction with the mobilehome park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq. ft. per mobilehome (total 1,000 sq. ft.). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast corner of the mobilehome park. Further, the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq. ft. common open space pursuant to Section 210.14 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft. In addition, the proposed additional lots will occupy an existing office and pool which constitutes approximately 11,193 sq. ft. of common open space. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 dated and received on August 4, 2009 for the subdivision of approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park and expansion of five additional lots for a total of 309 lots for ownership purposes is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density—Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property and applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed tentative map is not consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d): Establish a common "gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. LU 9.3.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft., the proposed five lot expansion does not provide the required 1,000 sq. ft. of additional common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. Furthermore the subdivision would reduce the existing common open space by 11,193 sq. ft. in that the four of the five additional lots are proposed to be located in an area used for offices meeting rooms and a pool. 3. The Impact Report dated and received March 6, 2009 is not consistent with Government Code Section 66427.5 because it does not analyze the impact of the conversion on residents. Economic impacts associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure; GAPCW0A\09\9-22-09 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.1 estimated sales price of the lots; and other costs such property taxes and homeowners association dues are not discussed and analyzed in the report. Nor does the report identify the method upon which the non-purchasing residents will have some exceptions of the rents as prescribed by Government Code Section 66427.5. 4. Adequate evidence has not been provided that the Tenant Survey dated and received May 4, 2009 was prepared pursuant to an agreement with a homeowners association independent of the subdivider in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5. GAMNOX09\9-22-09 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorediffs Attachment 1.2 ATTACHMENT # 12 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 17296 HUNTINGTON MOBILE HOME PARK S te Ri 4i -f Applicant: Boyd Hill, Hart® Kin I r n Appellant: Robert Cldren® Hart® King, & Cldr n Location : 20701 a ch Blvd . November 12,, 2 REQUEST o TTM ® Subdivide an existing 4 space bile r home park into numbered Its and 31 lettered lots -r4, ( KcaP jef O Convert an existing 4 space for- rent bile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes . ® Create five additional lots for mobile home coaches . ® The re nest includes an appeal of the applicaTle code requirements recommended by staff. LOCATION AND SURROUNDINGS o Description of project IN 21 site : 1w & Approximately 37 net acre U A IWO � �j mobile home park t U'U 304 mobile homes Subject Site g 3 common areas totaling 38,043 sq . ft. U o Description of surrounding area : * Residential uses and public pa rk 4, CIZ "W7 ANALYSIS o The proposed subdivision creates five additional lots that do not provide the minimum required 1 , 000 sq . ft. common -y open area . o The proposed subdivision and five additional lots will remove 11 , 193 sq . ft. of common open space . o Ongoing maintenance issues cited by residents include : . Inadequate drainage from individual spaces, . Surface drains carrying trash, debris, animal feces, etc..., and . Faulty utility connections. ANALYSIS (CONT . ) o The Impact Report fails to discuss the impacts of conversion on the residents including : . Economic impacts associated with the maintenance and repairs of infrastructure, • Estimated sales price of the lots, . Other costs such as property taxes and homeowners association dues, and • Operating expenses after subdivision such as the cost of maintenance and repair to existing infrastructure . ANALYSIS (CONY . ) o Tenant survey . No agreement was made between the V / homeowners association and the subdivider prior to the survey being sent out. APPEAL OF CODE REQUIREMENTS o City Departments provided a list of applicable code requirements should the project be approved . j o Applicant has appealed a majority of the code requirements contending that the requirements are unlawful . o Government Code section 66427 . 5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act to protect the public health , safety and welfare . SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE o The Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and tentative map on September 2, 2009 . � o Voted unanimously (6-0 vote) to recommend denial of the request to the Planning Commission based on : • Non -compliance with the open space requirements for the additional five lots, and . Loss of existing common open space . PLANNING COMMISSION �\o The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision and tentative map on September 22, 2009 . o Voted unanimously (7-0 vote) to recommend denial of the request based on : . The subdivision will result in an increase in the number of mobile home sites from 304 to 309 . . Additional lots created reduces the amount of existing common open space and do not comply with the additional minimum common open space requirement of 1,000 sq . ft. PLANNING COMMISSION (CONY. ) • Impacts to residents associated with :J the maintenance and repair of � infrastructure, estimated sales price of f the lots, and other costs are not discussed or analyzed in the impact report. • Evidence that the tenant survey was prepared in agreement with the homeowners association was not provided . APPEAL of PC 's DENIAL • Appeal was submitted October 1 , 2009 . . Appeal letter cites state law, court decisions and opinions of why the denial is " unlawful ". • Appeal states that Findings 1 & 2 are not lawful because local requirements are not applicable . o Staff does not support the appellant's contention because the project is an expansion and as considered a new subdivision . 0 APPEAL of PC's DENIAL . Appeal states that Finding 3 is not lawful because City cannot impose criteria for impact report. o Staff does not agree because the City is not imposing criteria; rather, ghe City cannot conclude that State law -� has been satisfied . . Appeal states that Finding 4 is not lawful because the PC had a mandatory duty to find compliance with the submitted survey. o Survey must be in agreement between the homeowner's association and the subdivider. No evidence supports this requirement and State law has not been satisfied . RECOMMENDATION - �i o Staff recommends denial of Tentative Tract Map No . 17296 based on the Suggested Findings for Denial found in Attachment No . 1 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 16, 2009 $RCa4 `Tl`�►CHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Not Applicable ❑ Attached ❑ Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Not Applicable (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Not Applicable (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Certificates of Insurance (Approved b the City Attorne Attached ❑ ( pp Y Y Y) Not Applicable Attached ❑ Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Attached ❑ Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Attached Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable ❑ Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Attached p ( pp ) Not Applicable ❑ Find in s/Conditions for A roval and/or Denial Attached g pp Not Applicable ❑ . C CpLQNaT00H FOG3,NMS,OMG ATTAC HMv EHTS REVIEd!!ED � �nC� . � RETURNED;: EO.R ABED: Administrative Staff ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator (Initial) L-City Clerk \ ice. ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: For City. Clerk4 QS6 OnW RCA Author: SH:HF:EE y s5(P FROM (MON)NOV 16 2009 11:58/ST. 11 :57/No.7500000594 P 2 roCk"04'.&Cl� HART, KING & COLOREN Boyd L.Hill bhlllahkdow.com November 16, 2009 Our File Number: 36014.112/4815-6825-1141 v.1 VIA FACSIMILE Facsimile No. (714) 374-1557 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk RE: Huntington ShoreciifFs Mobile Horne Park("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Request for Continuance of Appeal of 9-22-09 Planning Commission APtion Dear City Council Members: This letter constitutes the Park owner Applicants' request for an approximate ninety (90) day continuance (to February 15, 2010) of the City Council hearing on the Applicants' Appeal of the September 22, 2009 Planning Commission "action" denying the above-referenced Application. Since filing the Appeal, the Park owner Applicants have been negotiating with representatives of the Park residents and City Staff and are taking steps in an attempt to resolve issues between the parties. Without the requested continuance, there will not be sufficient time for the process initiated among the parties to reach completion. Thank you. Very truly yours, HART, KING & COLDREN & —j 1�ff Boyd L. ill for Applicants/Appellants BLH/dr cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Fred Wilson, City Administrator (by e-mail only) Scott Hess, Director of Planning (by e-mail only) Ethan Edwards, Senior Planner (by e-mail only) A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.87001 www,hkciew.com 1 Fx 714,546.7457 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:27 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#2575 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Joan Walker Description: My name is Joan Walker. I reside in space 264 in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park at 20701 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA. I am contacting you regarding the application for the sub-division into individual lots for sale submitted by the park ownership managed by Michael Cirillo of Star Mobile Home Park Management Company. As I understand the proceedings the application in its current form was denied by the Planning Commission and has been appealed by Mr. Cirillo and legal council. I have several personal and financial concerns about the subdivision which I will not go into at this time. I do wish, however, to address my general concerns regarding the application appeal with the main one being the addition of 5 additional lots changing the park from 304 to 309 lots. This would affect us in several ways: 1. We would lose our private club house which is the only one we can use for private functions. 2. We would lose several parking places including 2 designated for handicapped. 3. We would lose a swimming pool. 4. We would lose the handicapped bathrooms which the residents are still paying for as part of an ADA attachment to our rent. Management already took away some laundry facilities and a jacuzzi when they converted that area and remodeled the offices, again what we are still paying for. 5. To relocate the in-park office would mean losing another area unknown to us at the present time. Wherever they choose to move the office would ultimately eliminate another one or more of our amenities. In addition, the very small lot immediately next to my home at the south end of Driftwood St. would be the location for one of the additional 5 lots. It, in my opinion and I'm sure yours as well if you saw it, would not accommodate any size mobile home. Again we would be losing 2 additional guest parking spots which are located there. I also believe it would be a fire hazard not only to me, but to any resident living there as well as to the condominiums on the south side of the fence since there is no outlet there. 11/13/2009 Page 2 of 2 I strongly urge you to please do what is legally possible to stop this application from going through in the manner in which the owners and managers are currently pursuing. Sincerely, Joan Walker (714) 374-8685 Expected Close Date: 11/13/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 11/13/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:38 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#2578 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Madeline Seymour Description: Please turn down this application for 309 spaces. The park currently has 304 spaces, the extra spaces asked by the applicant will take away 50% of the amenities in this park (pool, private meeting/clubhouse, offices, public parking spaces). Thank you Madeline Seymour Space#290 Expected Close Date: 11/16/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 11/13/2009 November 16, 2009 Re:--HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUB-DIVISION APPLICATION PHOTOS OF OFFICE AND CLUBHOUSE/POOL AREA APPLICANTS PROPOSED EXPANSION FOUL ADDITIONAL LOTS /� /6 0019 November 16,2009 Honorable Mayor Keith Boer Esteemed Council Members Attached you will find photos of the area the applicant is proposing as an expansion of 4 additional lots to be added to the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Application for Tentative Tract Map. If this is approved,the Park will lose not only a management office,but also 10 guest parking spaces, a swimming pool,an accompanying deck area,public rest rooms that conform to ADA specifications, and a clubhouse,known as the"Small Clubhouse",which is used for meetings and private parties. The Small Clubhouse has a capacity of 122 people,and is the only place in the Park in which a private meeting or a private parry can be held. This area is used as a gathering place and an activity center within the Park. Mr. Coldren,representing the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs,has stated publicly,"No amenities will be lost"with the approval of the Tentative Map. There are 2 Clubhouses located on the property,both having a pool. The larger clubhouse,known as the "Main Clubhouse" is a public facility. You cannot hold any private meetings or parties as this has been designated a public area for all tenants at all times the Clubhouse is open. These photos show the"Small Clubhouse"which has to be reserved for any and all uses. The pool is used by persons on a daily basis as the pool at the"Main Clubhouse"is small. This pool is perfect for someone wanting to do laps for exercise. This area houses the offices of the Park Management also. During the day it is asked that noise be kept at a minimum as the office staff is working. The loss of the facilities surrounding the office area would be a major deprivation to the residents of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Please hold Mr. Coldren to his statement that"No amenities will be lost"with the approval of the Tentative Map. Very truly yours, Sharon L. Dana Director,Huntington Shorecliffs HOA President- GSMOL 571 20701 Beach Blvd. #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 374-0082 .. o � ;. r _ li-ol 4 • dox. by. f z t � s IZZ i�',• f - y .c z s c a 5 i c3 � ink rg �Fflo �fl�n fln ,sal_ :.;�, •�!�*- —'� y_ � .:,.-u rt t�iii�� -•� .d �"`E�i n0flnAfl9nn@� - W: � v j :F3g td '�"��•'' -- f. r �y *A RIP gm Put NO z d k "" ? -?;� �' ";A 5a ow j r - 4 x« r a - a November (0 9 a { r r { t 9 � It ' ," APPLICATION Y 5 4I ! F 1t� 4 4 EA PICTURES OF OFFICE A" Y PROPOSED EXPANSION INTO FOUR ADDTIONAL LOTS i # Q f: , r d }.r :a � t y t e � ! S i I �y RECEIVED FROM-X"_ AS PUBLIC RECORD FOR Cp�1 L M E OF-- 1 �i (k CITY CLERK:OFFICE JOAN L FLYNN,CITY CLERK November 16, 2009 Re:--HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUB-DIVISION APPLICATION PHOTOS OF OFFICE AND CLUBHOUSE/POOL AREA APPLICANTS PROPOSED EXPANSION FOUR ADDITIONAL LOTS November 16,2009 Honorable Mayor Keith Boer Esteemed Council Members Attached you will fmd photos of the area the applicant is proposing as an expansion of 4 additional lots to be added to the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Application for Tentative Tract Map. If this is approved,the Park will lose not only a management office,but also 10 guest parking spaces, a swimming pool, an accompanying deck area,public rest rooms that conform to ADA specifications, and a clubhouse,known as the"Small Clubhouse", which is used for meetings and private parties. The Small Clubhouse has a capacity of 122 people,and is the only place in the Park in which a private meeting or a private party can be held. This area is used as a gathering place and an activity center within the Park. Mr. Coldren,representing the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs,has stated publicly,"No amenities will be lost"with the approval of the Tentative Map. There are 2 Clubhouses located on the property, both having a pool. The larger clubhouse,known as the "Main Clubhouse"is a public facility. You cannot hold any private meetings or parties as this has been designated a public area for all tenants at all times the Clubhouse is open. These photos show the"Small Clubhouse"which has to be reserved for any and all uses. The pool is used by persons on a daily basis as the pool at the"Main Clubhouse"is small. This pool is perfect for someone wanting to do laps for exercise. This area houses the offices of the Park Management also. During the day it is asked that noise be kept at a minimum as the office staff is working. The loss of the facilities surrounding the office area would be a major deprivation to the residents of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Please hold Mr. Coldren to his statement that"No amenities will be lost"with the approval of the Tentative Map. Very truly yours, Sharon L. Dana Director,Huntington Shorecliffs HOA President- GSMOL 571 20701 Beach Blvd. #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 374-0082 ti { wm� r fp e �h ur f g s�- y\� k `k aAMR , � -- k �I �- I 5 I —Mt 4 TIT "1 CFI I a'Ili 4�'d � Re d I I( �� uF� ��"�� ,.y4t x•"as''�,�. �. � _ tea 1h l�U�d���� 4 r - nl5 }P 'ItMi �, ap�.k aka.l3 wig, 'J6_ - ,,. n'.i •;'i' s ,i R h�a k�����ry���i ��Ipppp 4 ik s� k; i�t °4 ,f y z 4 k txw q� 4 �x 4 �' r�i"^+"�rs�F p4�+4�§ �;F }i s n �, � t t ;an �z< • Win USA z lot IR 45 NA a S t c 1 '.i ! iTwo } "may x � '" }} t� 4 y" n �„g4�� ��� ';T - - ow �� ck sWR Ix gTWMIRM g NOY e41 too MA „e-." � Y ({ �b NYLON x S(11 Ig e , ht- ,', .: F ���t�� a a- � � •,�!''� E"�': "�: �L,'.. �x-�-, ;;,��.�'��' -: k ants f✓ ear Al 7 1-91 ��'•�'">i ,~r�� I �, t�, , 4 ti � �,r I ���zi3�a 1� ,dr P�� ��� §za 3 �,'�'�� f P > IgAA � � psi wo 5� c„ S�r4 tj $ �.t..} 5 i y gg y. 4 � t�" ,yy'tr' t s �s ."�? ^4" � tea` � ^� kT•� r" ;°n ,,a'' ^� Boom IM s " r '� 9 4 ¢ e A q ti 7� 11/09/2009 MON 20:39 FAX 949 833 0738 Holly Hutchins tool/001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, November 16,.2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning,items: ❑ 1. PEAL 12E PLANNING C0MMISSIOIV!. DENIAL F TENTATIVE TRACT ,MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTOIN SHORECUFM moBiLE 1HomE PARK SU601VISION4 Appellants:-Robert S- .Coldrenr of Hart,-King & Coldeen', Shorecliff, LP; JS Stadium LLC; Huntington SSG Park, LP; and Shorecliff Main, LP AR-Wicant. Boyd Hilt, of Hart, Icing 85& -___ --_--___-- ------ coaches, inereasina the total numhPr of ,.,nits from '1f1d to 309, In addition, this zrirnmonOc nasrci'tant Fr+ ,% uvril t11C uluviblunS�aq ON' FILE: A coav of thF E i f f F 3n 5�•v^a -. FladrS rG -tEa)F -r:t:t '--� - _— -+- _ (714) 536-5227 6/7 settings\esp rzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15B\091116 11 - 9 - 09 ( �' 10 Alm, 11: 12 Joan L. Flynn, City Cleric City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach, California 92646 Rea Appeal of the planning commission's denial of tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ( Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Dome park Subdivision ) We, Lori & Don Luckham, Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, Space 257 are strongly opposed to the Subdivision and request the application be denied. A mere two months ago Huntington Shorecliff, LP was denied Subdivision Conversion by the Huntington Beach Department of Planning Committee. This Appeal is the exact same wording as the previous Huntington Shorecliff LP filing. The Huntington Beach Department of Planning Subdivision Committee listed the five categories which the Subdivision Conversion did not qualify under the City of Huntington Beach findings for the denial. Appreciate your consideration , A ''OA- x Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case A50479. PROOF OF PUBLICATIOl4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am the Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party FNovember THE CITYCOUNCILOF to or interested in the below entitled matter. F HUNTINGTON BEACH BY GIVEN that-on Monday, I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON 9, at 6:00 p.m, in the City 2000 Main Street, Huntington BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items:` general circulation, printed and published in ❑ 1. 'APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION'$DENIAL OF`TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. the City of Huntington Beach, County of 17296 (HUNTINGTON S14ORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION) Appellants: Robert Orange, State of California, and the S. Coldren, of Hart, King.& Coldren; Shorecliff, LP;'JS'Stadium LLC-,.Huntington BSC Park, LP; attached Notice is a true and complete copy and Shorecliff Main, LP Applicant:Boyd Hill, of Hart, King,& Coldren Request: To subdivide I as was printed and published on the approximately,39.2 gross acres into 309,num- bered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of following,date(s). subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for'ownership%purposes; j and create five additional lots for mobile home 1 coaches,.increasing the total number of units from,304 to 309. In addition, .this request i includes an appeal of� the applicable code requirement's pursuant,to Section 248.24(A) of the .Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Location:'20701 Beach'Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave.:-Huntington Sff��oorecliffs Mobile Home Park) November 5, 2009 Project Planner: Edwards NOTICE IS HEREBY. GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE:'A copy of,the proposed.request is on file in the' Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the ,public. A copy of the staff report,will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, November 112,2009. ALL INTERESTED: PERSONS are invited.to attend said hearing and express opinions or declare, under penalty of perjury, that the submit evidence for or against the application as outlined 'above. It .you challenge.the City foregoing is true and correct. Council's action.in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you.or someone else raised at.the public hearing described in this notice,or in written.correspondence delivered to the City at, or,prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Executed on November 5, 2009 Planning Department at(714)536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written commu- at Costa Me a, California nications to the City Clerk Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 E (714)536-5227 lished Huntington Beach Independent No- i vePubmber 5,2009 11 1-045 1 Signature Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994, case A50479. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am the Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over NOTICEOFPUBU(HEARING the age of eighteen years, and not a party BEFORE THE CITY(OUNMOF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH to or interested in the below entitled matter. II NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, l am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON November r 16, r0,09, a M:00Sp.. iHunte City gton BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of Beach,'the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: I APPEAL OF THEgeneral circulation, printed and published in SSIION'S DENIAL OF TENTATI ENNING TRA T MAP MO. the City of Huntington Beach, County of HOME PARK SUBDIVISION) Appellants: obert Orange, State of California, and the LP;S. CISdStadum of HLLC; Huntington gton BSC Park, LP; of attached Notice is a true and complete copy Harts King h&Colff dren R LP equest:To y subdivide as was printed and published on the i approximately 39:2 gross acres into.309 num- bered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of following date(s). subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes; and create five additional lots for mobile home I - coaches, .increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. In addition, this request includes an appeal of .the applicable code requirements pursuant.to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Reach'Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. - Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park) Prol'ect Planner:Ethan Edwards, November 5 2009 . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed 'request is on file'in the Planning Department; 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection'by the public: A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at .the.City Clerk's:Office on Thursday, November 12,2009. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or declare, under penalty of perjury, that the submit,evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City foregoing is true and correct. Councils'action im court,you may I be-,limited to . raising only those issues you or,someone'else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there aye-any further questions please call the Planning Department at(714)536-5271 and refer Executed on November 5, 2009 to the above items. Direct your written commu- nications to the City Clerk at Costa Mesa, California Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach '2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648, ? (714)536-5227 Published 'Huntington .Beach Independent' No- vember we mber 5,2009 111-045045 Signature NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, November 16, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION) Appellants: Robert S. Coldren, of Hart, King & Coldren; Shorecliff, LP; JS Stadium LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; and Shorecliff Main, LP Applicant: Boyd Hill, of Hart, King & Coldren Request: To subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes; and create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. In addition, this request includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. — Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park) Project Planner: Ethan Edwards NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, November 12, 2009. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 C:\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK15B\091116 (Shorecliffs appeal) (2).DOC CITY COUNCIUREDEVEI.OPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC NEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: DE 'MEETING DATE: CO ACT: ONE:- -7/y - _Sc -56—j i N/A YES NO Is the notice attached? Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? Are the date,nay and time of the public hearing correct? i - ( ) If an appeal,is the appcHant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? - 9 { ) ( ) (►�` Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? { ) ( ) ( Is a map attached for publication? ) { ) (•� Is a larger ad required? Size ( ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? I { ) (✓) { ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? if Coastal I)evelo meat Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? 3 If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept.items only) Pleas complete the following: 1, Minimum days from publicat oa to hearing date I'� 2. Plumber of times to be published I t" 3. Number of days between publications �(a� RSI A M E /r�C 4 Q First American Title Insurance Company NATIONAL HOMEBUILDER SERVICES 9130 Anaheim PI Ste 230 • Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 • (877) 659-4502 • Fax(909)477-6055 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) I, MONIQUE ESCALERA, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF A VENDOR SERVICE, THE ATTACHED . LIST CONTAINS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PERSONS TO WHOM ALL PROPERTY IS ASSESSED AS THEY APPEAR ON THE LATEST AVAILABLE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED AND FOR A DISTANCE OF 500 FEET FROM THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS : ASSESSORS PARCEL # : 024-250-72 (3DWE CERTIFY (OR DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA) THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. DATE: AUGUST 27, 2008 SIGNED SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO (OR AFFIRMED) BEFORE ME ON THIS AUGUST 27, 2008 , BY MONIQUE ESCALERA, PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME. )e,:::: -- - 110009 NOT PUBLIC WAN ACK111MUM 1�0 011M I i 9"8670 Son i 1 11 Easy Peel®Labels A Bend along line to i Q AVERY@ 5960TM i Use Avery®Template 51600 ) Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up Edge— President 0 Huntington Harbor POA 10 Sue Johnson 16 H_B.Chamber of Commerce P_O.Box 791 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 19891 Beach Blvd_,Ste. 140 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dave Stefanides (2 Orange County Assoc.of Realtors 25552 La Paz Road Laguna Hills,CA 92653 President 3 Jeffrey M.Oderman C2) Pacific Coast Archaeological 18 Amigos De Bolsa Chica RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP Society,Inc_ P_O.Box 1563 611 Anton Blvd_,146,Floor P.O. Box 10926 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Costa Mesa CA 92626-1950 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Attn:Jane Gothold Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B.Hist Society 13 Director 19 Pat Thies,President C/O Newland House Museum O.C_Ping.&Dev.Services Dept. PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd. P.O. Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 President (5 Community Services Dept. 14 Bryan Speegle 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson O.C_Resources&DeveIop.Mgt. Dept_. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd_ P.O_Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Julie Vandermost 6 Council on Aging 15 Planning Director 20 BIA-OC 1706 Orange Ave. City of Costa Mesa 17744 Sky Park Circle,#170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 P_O.Box 1200 Irvine CA 92614-4441 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200 Richard Spicer O Jeff MetzeI 16 Planning Director 21 SCAG Seacliff HOA City of Fountain Valley 818 West 7th,12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbor Circle 10200 Slater Ave. Los Angeles,CA 90017 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Jean Kimbrell 8 John Roe 16 Planning Director 22 c/o E.TI.Corral 100 Seacliff HOA City of Newport Beach 20292 Eastwood Cir_ 19382 Surfdale Lane P.O- Box 1768 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92663-8915 Dave Guido Lou Mannone 16 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA City of Westminster 21241 Lochlea Lane 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle 8200 Westminster Blvd_ Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster,CA 92683 Planning Director 24 Nancy Sebring 31 HB Hamptons HOA 38 City of Seal Beach Ocean View Elementary Sc ool District Progressive Community Mgmt. 211 Eight St 17200 Pinehurst Lane 27405 Puerta Real,#300 Seal Beach,CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Mission Viejo,CA 92691 ttiquettes fables a peler A Repliez A la hachure afin de i www.avery.com Utilisez le aaharit AVERY®s160® ! Sens de rM _�____ revLler le re6ord Poo-Uo 1-R(1t1-C,C1_AVFRV A"9�W'°C3kM t a Z7 e' ® � i j i�a r4asy Peel �@�;, + � el�a ��� along lii �' 16se AveryO Template 51600 1 Fled Paper expose Pop-up Ed M ;' Orange County Flood District Orange County Sanitation District Orange County Public Faciliti es and IPO Box 4048 10844 Ellis Avenue Resources Department Santa Ana, CA 92702 Fountain Valley, CA 92643 P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4848 ICALTRANS, DISTRICT 12 CA Regional Water Quality Board US Postal Service 3337 Michelson Drive, CN-380 3737 Main Street, #500 Attn: Growth Coordinator 6771 Warner Avenue Irvine, CA 92612-0661 Riverside, CA 92501-3339 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Fountain Valley School District Ocean View Elementary 10055 Slater Avenue Huntington Beach High School 17200 Pinehurst Lane Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Hunt Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Westminster School District Community Systems Assoc., Inc. Huntington Beach School District 14121 Cedanwood Avenue 730 El Camino Way, Suite 200 20451 Craimer Lane Westminster, CA 92683 Tustin, CA 92680 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SC Edison Company Southern Calif. Gas Co. Verizon Tract Desk, Land Rights Section 1919 State College Blvd. 7352 Slater Avenue PO Box 410 Room 515 P_O. Box 3334 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Long Beach,CA 90801 Anaheim, CA 92803-3334 JOHN SCAND FRED SPEAKE BLAIR FARLEY Subdivisio ommittee Member Subdivision mmittee Member Subdivisio mmittee Member 17492 eworth Circle c/o S& uto, 2124 Main St#195 4702 rid Way Hun ' gton Beach CA 92649 Hun gton Beach CA 92648 H ngton Beach CA 92649 Public Works— 1�t or Community ces—5tn Floor Fire Depa nt—5"' Floor (Steve Bog (Dave inguez) (Bill rdon) Police Depa nt Public Wo — 1�t Floor Planning M ger (Chief Ke mall) (Chu avis) Herb F nd Director of P1 ning Senior Plan r Mark Bixby mark or Scott He Rami T h Sharon Dan righthb(a-aol.com Bob Ri i rrighetti(r)erscinc.com ELIZABETH SH BURNETT Public Works— loor Christopher Herre, Branch Chief Subdivision mmittee Member (Terri Elliott Dept of Transportation Dist. #12 101613 Street 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Hun ' ton Beach CA 92648 Irvine, CA 92612 iU:tiiisez mirawez a ea e � v �v� ����aaharitAVE1600 ' j+_� __ �__. reveler I Pon TM ; 1-800-GO- yet IS-1 e Pem� se Ve li,ln ,��'N���"'IYYYYY�'''"'1"''''�Il,nlnll„!„1,l,lL,,,I,I,,,,III il,lm,1,l,ll,,,l„II„lnl,l,l„I„ii,,,l,l,I 11,I,nil,l„I,I,II„II,,,,II„il,,,,ilnll„a 1 po!pa�e%V 4%,r Parce1:939-50-419-00 Parcel:939-50-063-00 Parcel:939-50-598-00 Garcia Frderick&Vance Bray Steven A Cale Barry C&Donna 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 120 7645 Bay Dr 104 73042 Bel Air Rd Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5051 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5865 Palm Desert,Ca 92260-6060 IIII,,.,11lilt,,,I,IlI„1„I,1,IIJIIIIII„l111 II,L,nl1I,lL„I„IIIII„I,I,I„I,In11L„11 II„I,11I„II,,nIlln,l,l,ll,,,ll„I,,,11L„ Parcel:939-50-357-00 Parcel:939-50-325-00 Parcel:939-50-409-00 Stevens Ron Schwartz George J Mixer Family Trust 310 Lake St 108 320 Lake St 104 3 Sankaty Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5822 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5817 Henderson, Nv 69052-6670 i !lI!IInIIIr1111r11111„1,1111111111111111111(1 1111„1,II1,I11„111III,nil„Ililn,l„i11fill ILL,,II fit IIIIIIIIIlI,1111111111111111m1111 Parcel:939-50-555-00 Parcel:939-50-313-00 Parcel:939-50-203-00 Marino Donna&Michael Emery Rita Files Victoria L&Lyon Dwayne C 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 147 1423 Santiago Dr 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 113 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5186 Newport Beach,Ca 92660-4947 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-448 1 ' II,L,I,I,I,11„IIl,ili,l„I,l,1,IIn1,1„11,1) Ilii,n+1,i1111„l,lJ,,,11,1,11„IL„11,111,1 1111„111,1,111„I„11„1,1 Parcel:939-50-032-00 Parcel:939-50-545-00 Parcel:939-50-003-00 Fameron Benedicta G&Fameron Maria T G Chidester Family Trust Haritatos Jonathan S 20936 Sandbar 202 30 Sidra Cv 7668 Baypoint Dr 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5852 Newport Coast,Ca 92657-2115 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- ll,Im1I,1,11„,11111n1„IIIfinI'l„IIIIIIII 11,1,1a,1,11„1,11,In1„1,1„1,11„11,1nI1I,I lla,lnlllllllnIIIII lnl„1,1„nnl„nlII Parcel:939-50-073-00 Parcel:939-50-256-00 Parcel:939-50-202-00 Tsai Elizabeth N&Peter Eisman Binh T&Edward Whalen Holly E&Matthew 7671 Bay Dr 201 3554 W Christine Cir 1 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 113 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5872 Anaheim,Ca 92804A640 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A481 1111111,11I,l1,111111111111111111111111111111If IIII„I-II Ill IIII,II111,IIIIIIIIII11„1,,1111111 II11,Irt11IIIIInlnll Ill ul,In,111„l,lll„II Parcel:939-50-318-00 Parcel:939-50-456-00 Parcel:939-50-519-00 Benson Leigh&Dobie Gregory A Polk Family Trust Dominguez Guy 400 Lake St 304 8231 Terry Or 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 110 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5816 Huntington Beach,Ca 92647-4844 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5124 11,111„1,1,11,u1nIl,11i,11111n1„I,111n1,! I1,l,,IdifIII ill l,111IfI(II fill 111I,11111 ill II IIIi,n111IIIh fill Ill Ill ill,,111111411IfI Ill II Parcel:939-50-330-00 Parcel:939-50-310-00 Parcek 939-50-126-00 Chen Clara&Patterson Patrick R Brown Philip C&Stacey Youssef Magda A&Magdy 320 Lake St 109 400 Lake St 206 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 216 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5818 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5815 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A851 11,11111111111,I,l,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ill IIIIIII IIII„,rl,i,lll1,11111111,1 IIIl,II11111111111n,1 Ill 11 Parcel:939-50-076-00 Parcel:939-50-002-00 Parcel:939-50-621-00 Gherman Maria Locke Rosanna Lms Trust 7671 Bay Dr 204 7668 Baypoint Dr 105 18606 Santa Isadora St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5871 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- Fountain Valley, Ca 92708- 1111111,111111„11„III,InI,I,,,IiIli11I„fill I1,1,,,,11IIil,„I„II,II„1,1,1„L1,I,111,1,1 II,III,III fill[nl„11 Ill Ill IIInIII Ill 11 fill II Parcel:939-50-588-00 Parcel:939-50-391-00 Parcel:939-50-599-00 Anderson Mark S&Violet Halsch Kelly L Ashkarian John 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 315 310 Lake St 310 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 329 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5192 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5828 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5193 IIIIIIIIIII ill If1111,111111 fit I,I,IIiIIIInI11l IIIInI11111111,,I,1If Ill 11111111111111111111if 1111111 Ili IIIll Ill I1111It Ill Ill 11 Ill Ill I1111111 Parcel:939-50-573-00 Parcel:939-50-537-00 Parcel:939-50407-00 Ashkarian John Byrne Deborah S&Paul Halstead Joceiyne Trust Po Box 27091 5571 Ocean Terrace Dr 6261 Morningside Dr Anaheim, Ca 92809-0103 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-7513 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-6103 ��7a 9A�4 A�>`�� �v6lgRno �i pa���b1�.��._ rr�€�JS����bf�Pld�i�4M;� 1t i '. Il,luul,I,iln+lull,Il„l,Inl,lll,lull,,,l Il,lunl,l,Iln,lnlll,lnl,l,lnl,lllu+I„11 Il,luu,llln+l,l„I,nll) Parcel:939-50-574-00 Parcel:939-50-271-00 Parcel:939-50-384-00 Frankiewicz Family Trust Corrao Lisseth&Michael White Jeffrey&Kim 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 245 420 Lake St 301 1239 Indian Springs Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5190 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5804 Glendora, Ca 91741- 1111uu11111IrI,lnllnII1111nu1111111111111 11,lnni,11111111u11n1111n11n1„I,I,III III 11,lnni,l,ll+ull111u1,1 Parcel:939-50-527-00 Parcel:939-50-144-00 Parcel:939-50-006-00 Morcos Laila W Cycon Robert J Boyle Carol A 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 118 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 304 7668 Baypoint Dr 102 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5167 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4851 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648- Il,lunl,l,Iln,1„IIn11,1lndir111m111111 11111n111If11r11111111111(1 till IId11111111111 II+1,n1111111,1111111u11,l,1iln,111111111111 Parcel:024-212-04-00 Parcel:024-212-10-00 Parcel:024-212-11-00 Rodriguez James C And K A Trust Raczkowski Veronica M Raczkowski Veronica M 19141 Summerwood Cir 708 California St 708 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-6608 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4716 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4716 IGlu fit 111I11(11111111ItIInIlInIfIIIII(IIII 1111u,II11,11 full ItIIIf1111111111 fill ulIII 1111111dIIt111It ullr,11111111 IdId11n1111 Parcel:024-212-14-00 Parcel:024-212-15-00 Parcel:024-212-16-00 Holtz Steven J Manzo Timothy S Shuck Lucille C&Mark 707 Delaware St 705 Delaware St 703 Delaware St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4721 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4721 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A721 1111uui,1III 1111,11111f111n11n,1nI111n1i1 1111nr11111111u1u11Id11111n1r11u,11 fill II Parcel:024-212-17-00 Parcel:024-213-01-00 Parcel:024-213-02-00 Marshall Ryan Duchein Linda A Santillanes Michael 701 Delaware St 619 Delaware St 948 11 th St Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4721 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4719 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-3411 li,lnnl,I,llnulll,lllu,Il,In11111Iflu,Il 1111„�i1,111n,lln,i,ll,n,ill,In11,1„1,1,1 11,IuuI,i,Ilu,lullnlnlulln,ln,ll,l„fl Parcel 024-213-06-00 Parcel:024-213-08-00 Parcel:024-213-10-00 Mc Pamela K Davis Family Trust Ziemann Christina N&Earl 1582 Baker St 1653 James Dr 606 California St Costa Mesa,Ca 92626-3747 Carlsbad, Ca 92008-1955 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4714 Il,1,u,lll,llu,lnllulul„lln,lu,ll,lull i111„uI,1111n,1u1,11n111n11„1ul1,n1111 I1111n,111,IIminllululnlfullnlll,1n11 Parcel:024-213-11-00 Parcel:024-213-12-00 Parcel:024-213-13-00 Goode Debra K Colley Joanne Cathleen Blain Evelyn 602 California St 21112 Cocobana Ln 618 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4714 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-6433 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A714 11,1nn1,1,1I,nl„11nlu1u11,n1,1,11,1n1I 1111111,1111111r11n11IdI(I11111111+ III III 111 1111un11111111111111111,111111n,111111111111 Parcel:024-213-14-00 Parcel:024-213-15-00 Parcel:024-213-16-00 Stockton Dana S&Keith Werblin Richard D Kearney John K&Margaret 620 California St 612 California St 610 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4714 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A714 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4714 111111111,11111n1u11„I„1,1111„llId III lnl 111111n1,11111,111,11n1n1n11n,1,1111111n1 11,Innl,11111„I„llnln1,111 fill n111111111 Parcel:024-213-17-00 Parcel 024-213-18-00 Parcel:024-216-01-00 Kunze Yvonne C Uoyd Mary Louise&Thomas Pol Richard J&Van Der 611 Delaware St 613 Delaware St 617 Califomia St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4719 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4719 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A713 11,1in,1,I,i1,,,11,1lululnll,,,l,ullull,I 11,inu1,l,Il,nlullnln1,111u,1n,li„1111 NuI,1,lul1u,11,uu111ini,l,I,,,lnliulll Parcel:024-216-02-00 Parcel:024-216-03-00 Parcel:024-216-04-00 Valenzuela Paul Kappeler John L& Nan Bovie Harry G 615 California St 613 California St 1148 Prevost Pass Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A713 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4713 Henderson, Nv 89002-8948 AA S 41de d&ii a v it /aafaa�s � b t6�1� :1 Sim 5p5�/nry"pCE�"��p UE'�a5rp 16 fj Q� �cu® ®d?i�vttr , t�@fWt a� x7vW�� Il,luulll,Ilu,t„11u1,Ilull,ntu,llu11,1 tl,t„tin,11,n+ti,nl,lu,lt,tn,ll,lll,11„I ! 11,tnul,l,ll,ul„1tulnlultn,tu,tlnl!®1 Parcel 024-216-05-00 Parcel:024-216-15-00 Parcel:024-216-16-00 Jaffe Carlos Dan&Matilde Ondreicka Charles Thomas Bagdasarian A L&L K Family T 607 California St 4031 Verdugo Rd 603 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4713 Los Angeles,Ca 90065-3726 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-471 3 111ln+,t,I,1ln,1u11„I„tnlln,l,,,1tu11,1 II,InnI11,11,n1„11u1n1„11,1null,l,+,11 11,1,u,1,1111+ul,Ilt„lntultll,nntll,l,E I Parcel:024-216-17-00 Parcel:024-221-02-00 Parcel:024-221-03-00 Gonsalves Deborah L& Ronald Dias Lindsey P Adrasik Ernest E 605 California St 416 Frankfort Ave 515 Delaware St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4713 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4937 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A91 9 11,lull,ut„tu+lll,111111,u,1u111m,1u11 It,I,n+I,lllln,lullulul„lull,ttn,tlt„t Itl11,nlll,llnnl+tln1111u1,l,lll,lmu111 Parcel:024-221-05-00 Parcel:024-221-08-00 Parcel:024-221-09-00 Lau Tak L Owens Robert Sft South Lp Po Box 15404 905 England St 1797 Peninsula Pl Long Beach,Ca 90815-0404 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A309 Costa Mesa,Ca 92627-4591 1111u1,I,I+11n,lulll+ll,Iull,l,,,ulllnlll IIIIu+,l11111n,1ull„lulullllun,111u+11 1111nnl fill lu,lull,+lnl„II,I,Ill Ill III„I Parcel:024-221-11-00 Parcel:024-221-14-00 Parcel:024-221-15-00 Carrothers Lee Anne Nguyen Kimberly C Mumford Marc R&Virginia 512 California St 502 California St 503 Delaware St B Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A917 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4917 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A949 li,Innl,1,11u,l,Ill,Ill 1111111,u11111 Ill,t 1111ui111n111111111ulrllllluu,11111u1 1111,+,d,I,1ln+lullnl,+lull,lnn+lllu,ll Parcel:024-221-16-00 Parcel:024-221-17-00 Parcel:024-221-19-00 Crenshaw Annemarie&Melvin Ross John P Jr Osline Naida&Stallings James T 511 Delaware St 513 Delaware St 510 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4919 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4919 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A91 7 I11t„nl,t,t111111111„IIIIII Ill fill Illll,nll fill Ill tlllnnl,T+111n1nllnlutnt111nu,ltlu,l( Parcel:024-221-20-00 Parcel:024-221-21-00 Parcel:024-221-22-00 Alden Eric H&Martha Milliken John R&Leanne Schaffer Bret C 508 California St 506 California St 516 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A917 Huntington Beach,Ca 9264BA917 Huntington Beach,Ca 9264"91 7 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIu,,,I1+1+1,1+,1,11,11111+1+111+1 II,I,n,1,1111n,1n11n1111n11,luulllIll Ill 11+1,ni111,II,u1n11„In,1111n,111+11u1,{I Parcel:024-221-23-00 Parcel:024-221-26-00 Parcel:024-222-01-00 Chocek Jeanne Gillespie Patrick Taylor Christopher J Po Box 8063 517 Delaware St 1840 Pine St Huntington Beach, Ca 92615-8063 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4919 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2742 111111„I11,1111 Ill,11111,1,1,11,,,1,11,1„l,ll fill Ill,111111n1 fit 1111 Ill 11111IfIin Ill Ill Ill Hill fill+11111111111111If Ill 111111 Ill IIIIIII Parcel:024-222-02-00 Parcel:024-222-03-00 Parcel:024-222-04-00 Taylor Christopher J&Terri Carnival Jeffrey&Rene Santillanes Michael M 1840 Pine St 6691 Harbor Key Cir 33862 Robles Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2742 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2117 Dana Point,Ca 92629-2265 1111u fill il111 Ill 1111 Ill 1111111+1Ill1111 Ill 11 II,In1n111+u11111+,1„11,11111+11uil,lnl+1 1111111111It111(11 Ill 1 fill II1111111 Ill Ill 111111 Parcel:024-222-08-00 Parcel 024-222-09-00 Parcel:024-222-10-00 Davide Dewey D Fong C M And E T Family Trust&Fong Eilee Sheridan Mary L& Po Box 911 445 Jade Tree Dr 416 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0499 Monterey Park,Ca 91754-2538 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-491 5 IIIInI111 Ill LIIIIIIIIII,+lull,lun,il,l,l,l 11,1nn11I,11u11n1luluLl,nl+lul,lIllIII II,Im+1+1111u,11,111+11,1+,11,1,Ill IIIIIIlIl Parcel:024-222-11-00 Parcel:024-222-14-00 Parcel 024-222-15-00 Sheridan Mary L& Kouchi Family 2008 Trust Trotman Rory A 416 California St 413 Detroit Ave 406 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4915 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5222 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A91 5 � #&t r I'i '� riiiit3t�11�11at1tt1P{n�6eii i LOWN Wal q6WkAi4 14=40-AVtV AWW a ye� %§I60S ling pipf mpew ��0�Q 0 I � A IIit111111111111 Ili IIfIIIIIIitIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II,Iu,1111111u,l,IlluIIIIII lift III III Ilntll IIII„1 Ili If IIIIIII di ulrllull III u,ll lilt I I Parcel.024-222-16-00 Parcel:024-222-17-00 Parcel.024-222-18-00 Jaber Ayad&Fatina Braverman Shelby S Huynh Paul 408 California St 409 Delaware St 411 Delaware St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4915 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4918 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-491 8 111tnn1,11Ilu,lull,llnlntl,lnn,1llnl,l IIIIunlIl111n111,1l,II,II,1ild III III III(III Illluul,l,Il,ulr,ilrllnluil,luu111 lilt I l Parcel:024-222-19-00 Parcel:024-222-20-00 Parcel:024-223-01-00 Shearman Francis J&Therese Baker Darrell Kelly James M&Sharon 405 Delaware St 407 Delaware St 519 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4918 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4918 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1916 1111n,1111111n,1u1111n11nll,lu,1,1,In,l1 1l,1,u,11111,w1u1n1n1,l,tn,ltu11,1iul,l i111,1n11111n,1n1u1,1111,tn,lln,1111,11, I Parcel:024-223-02-00 Parcel:024-223-03-00 Parcel:024-223-04-00 Mehler Rose Mary John Sproul Ullom John Sproul Ullom 17821 Wrightwood Ln 755 Beverly Dr 755 Beverly Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92649-4957 Vista,Ca 92084-5328 Vista,Ca 92084-5328 11111 full 1,I11111111111111111111IuIIlllnl,l) 11 fill u1111111u1u11utu11111111111If1111111 1111un1111111u1n1111minllllullnulnl l Parcel:024-223-05-00 Parcel:024-224-01-00 Parcel:024-224-02-00 Nguyen Kimberly&Steve Kazan David Tharpe&Weisenburg Lori Gelalich 319 Elmira Ave 401 15th St 5881 Lancefetd Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4922 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4203 Huntington Beach,Ca 92649-4904 II11,rI,I,1,11,IrIIIIIIIII,IIIIll lift[l Hill lilt Il,liinl,1111uu,111111n11n1111n111,1r„11 il,l,nil,1111n,1n1,11n1,11u111unlllnl,l Parcel:024-224-03-00 Parcel:02 24- -00 Parcel:024-224-05-00 Dawson Keith Daws K ' Button Chdstoph& Po Box 6537 Pp-Bo 37 9242 Christine Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92615-6537 Hun" gto each,Ca 92 6537 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8318 11,I„nl,1111u1in11ui1,l11n,I,1n11111,1,1 II,Ir,,iI,III11,,ln1IuII,1,1n1111u111111111 1111n1,1,I,1tu,1,111u11,111u,11Iu111111111 Parcel:024-225-02-00 Parcel:024-225-03-00 Parcel:024-225-13-00 Bowles Harold R Jr Delmer Robert J&Susan Offill Guy 315 California St 305 California St 317 California St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5215 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5215 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5215 11itII III,11t14,It,11111111111111 If 111111111111 111t11 t11111111Ui111I I1I111,i11111111 H 1111111 11111111 1-111 111111 1111 If 11111111 it 11111 If fill II Parcel:024-225-14-00 Parcel:024-231-12-00 Parcel:024-231-25-00 Murray John P Van Brunt Sharlene Jelinowicz Milton A 319 Califomia St 817 Geneva Ave A 3911 Sunflower St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5215 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-8703 Seal Beach,Ca 90740-2951 11,1un1,111111 Ili III IIII111 fill n1,1,1II11111 1111111i111,111111111,111,1n1u11,r1n11 it III I I11t,,i,1 III 11111111u11u,1,III IIIIIIllr,t„II Parcel:024-231-28-00 Parcel:024-231-29-00 Parcel:024-231-34-00 Kirby Jerry B Beach Girls Lic lsenhouer Philip K 635 Hartford Ave 900 Granger Farm Way 5415 Walnut Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4748 Las Vegas,Nv 89145-8618 Yorba Linda,Ca 92886-4934 111111 fill]III 11111111111111111lI111U11111gill 1I11,IIII1111111111,I1111111n1111111,1,1I11111 111111n11111I111I111111111I1111111111,11111111 Parcel:024-231-38-00 Parcel:024-231-40-00 Parcel:024-231-41-00 Topolewski John Frank Volkoff Diana J Negrette Trust 815 Geneva Ave Po Box 129 800 Florida St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4737 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0129 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4702 11 11 fill,,1,1,I Ili fill 111111,11111111(11„1111111 II III In1,11111 fill fit la1,,11,11 fit 1utt III IIII Parcel:024-232-03-00 Parcel:024-232-04-00 Parcel:024-232-06-00 Vogel Joseph T W,chner Donald O Unger David 810 Geneva Ave 217 12th St A 822 Geneva Ave Huntington Beach, Ca- Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4876 Huntington Beach,Ca 9264BA738 `rYti UUEXesfflM19AqAffr I& w do d :amp-€OM �%i % (1,1,u1111,IImIIIIIr111IIII III IIIHIIIIIIIll i111,till,1,1in,1ullnlnl,Iilu,1,111,1,11,1 II,III III fill 11ul,Illnlnln11,1,111+,,,lI,1 I Parcel:024-232-07-00 Parcel.024-232-08-00 Parcel:024-232-12-00 Unger David Pate David M&Michelle Vidal Kevin&Rachelle 6901 Lawn Haven Dr 828 Geneva Ave 811 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2121 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4738 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4904 ills,mi1111InIIIIIIr11r,r1111111111111,1fill II,IIIIIIII,illIIlI,lIIIIIIIIII,IIIII III iIIIII 111ImII,11111n1n11„In11Ill+„1n1111ti1, I Parcel:024-232-16-00 Parcel:024-232-18-00 Parcel:024-232-19-00 Bruce Joanna J Petersen Bradley&Sandra Reha James& 1837 Pine St 802 Indianapolis Ave 830 Geneva Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2741 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4389 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A738 111IIIn111 III IIIIIIIIr11,11r111111111ur11r+11 Ililn„I,Iliiti,1u11u1n11111111111111 Ili III Illlnnl,I,iI,+,I,Iilulnlnll,lulllu,l1,1I Parcel:024-232-20-00 Parcel:024-232-21-00 Parcel:024-232-25-00 Anderson Robert L Kaftan Muriel Vander Horst Leo J 841 Frankfort Ave 837 Frankfort Ave 823 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4904 Huntington Beach,Ca 9264811904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A904 11111111111111u,lnllnlnl,+lillull11111fill II 11111rill111111 I,1,11,11rIIIllullll11111111(11 Parcel:024-232-26-00 Parcel:024-232-27-00 Parcel:024-232-28-00 Woodard Family Trust Cade Merle Taylor Rolland L& 825 Frankfort Ave 827 Frankfort Ave 19912 Potomac Ln Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4904 Huntington Beach,Ca IZ(q Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-3522 II,Inn111 Ili 111n,1n1fill III[fill III 11111 11111n1111111111111111+1,,1,111J,IIIIII III III i1,11u,1i1111n,1ul1„lnI,11111n1iu„11,11 Parcel:024-232-29-00 Parcel:024-232-33-00 Parcel:024-232-34-00 Taylor Pamta Nguyen Michael Van Dilley Dennis L 18117 Palmetto Cir 805 Frankfort Ave 819 Frankfort Ave Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-5752 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A904 11 fill IIIIIIIIIrllnIIIIIIIIII fit 1111111111fill Ii,inn111,11u,iullul+,{n1In,I,l,l,liull It,ll,ul dill till+Illrllul,,ii,llllltiul„tI Parcel:024-232-36-00 Parcel:024-232-37-00 Parcel:024-232-38-00 Ryan Peter Joseph Miltette Steven D Bui Kim Loan 707 Hill St 713 Hill St 817 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A750 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4750 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A904 1III11„l,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIlnr111n11111n11111,1 11,f,,uf1lllfu,lnlll,lnlull,lulln„1„i1 11,IInII,I,IIu,1u11„1,IInll,lnllu„lnll Parcel:024-232-39-00 Parcel:024-232-40-00 Parcel:024-232-41-00 Financial Services Inc Lahage Christopher A Whiteley Jessie 18261 Enterprise Ln A 829 Frankfort Ave 831 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-1245 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4904 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4904 11,lunf,l,llII111II11III1111111„II,11,1„1,) 11111nii,ili1,I,IIIIII111IIIIIII„IIIIIIIIIIII IIIlnIIIdIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Parcel:024-232-42-00 Parcel:024-232-43-00 Parcel:024-241-04-00 Irving Family Trust Reagoso Joseph D&Karen Dingwall Stuart R 808 Geneva Ave 806 Geneva Ave 8042 Goleta Point Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4738 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1738 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5552 11,1n,1111,11,u1nllulul,1li,fill 1111111111 ll,f+Iul,l111nllull„lul„II„111111111111) II,Inul,ilu,1111u1u1uull,ll,Illnu,l,li ParceC 024-241-07-00 Parcel:024-241-08-00 Parcel:024-241-09-00 Virgona Kimberly A Putnam Debra L Rangel Fernando& 616 Hartford Ave 618 Hartford Ave 9044 Bitteroot Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4749 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4749 Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-1402 IIIIII III 11,11,,,11IIIn11II,II11 fill IIIIIIIIII IIIIIn111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ili III IIIIIIIIIIII,uInl,ll,,luu111,n1n,H„li,i Parcel:024-24 1-10-00 Parcel:024-24 1-11-00 ParceC 024-241-12-00 Smith Brady R&Tracy Mc Joan M Kass Robin 622 Hartford Ave 624 Hartford Ave 1270 N Lucerne Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4749 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4749 Fresno, Ca 93728-1713 ROM A Is haftro An de� -WOY ; la eolulird Pap-UpTm ! 1 At tl,lnul,lllln,llll,lln„11,11n,11nn11„) li,lur,11lllln,In11u1n1uI III III fit 1111111 11,i,n,1,lllln,1,111„1n1n11,u1nl1n,l1, I Parcel:024-241-13-00 Parcel:024-241-15-00 Parcel:024-241-16-00 Bruce William M Gialenes Wallace Jay Bigley Gary 19350 Ward St 617 Geneva Ave 619 Geneva Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-3006 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4733 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A733 II,lnul,t,ll,IIn,1111u,1n11„lnu1111u+1 Il,funl,I,IIuIiI,l111n,llul,iluullnl,ll lnllulullllulut11+1,m11111u„lullull I Parcel:024-241-17-00 Parcel:024-241-19-00 Parcel:024-241-20-00 Anderson Brian T Amoroso Judith M Ramsey Gerald H& 7 Riviera 20882 Shell Harbor Cir 2098 N Pointe Alexis Dr Coto De Caza,Ca 92679-4810 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-6312 Tarpon Springs, F1 34689-2048 II,Im,I,I,1lInitlllluuIII III till 1111111111 11,1,u,1111111ulnllull,lnitull,111n+11,1 II,Iuul,l,llu,l,Illmlll,lu11,1u1,1,1111 ! Parcel:024-241-21-00 Parcel:024-241-22-00 Parcel:024-242-01-00 Stanuszek Dea M Clifford Beth A&Jeffrey Ng Del O Glen Llc 21491 Via Sombreada 611 Geneva Ave 17052 Palmdale St C Lake Forest,Ca 92630-2023 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4733 Huntington Beach,Ca 92647-5424 II,I„n111,I1u11n11,111uNulllnlluni,ll 1111uu1,I111u11n1Iu1+,InIllll,lluuulll Il,lu„1,1,Il,nlnll,Ilu,ll1lulllnll,l,lll Parcel:024-242-02-00 Parcel:024-242-04-00 Parcel:024-242-05-00 Bastien Frances Elaine&Substrust B Ingram Ken Norris Lance E 1016 Lake St 501 Frankfort Ave 711 April Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-3562 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4901 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-3775 11IIInII,I,I1uIlull,lu,III III„111,I,itill II,Inu1,1,11,uIn11,+Inlull,u(„)I III III Il,lunllllnllnllll III fill 111111111 dill IIII Parcel:024-242-07-00 Parcel:024-242-08-00 Parcel:024-242-13-00 Clancy Trust& Cefalia James J Tr Josenhans Robert J Jr 5331 Bonanza Dr 602 Geneva Ave Po Box 80582 Huntington Beach, Ca 92649AO08 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4734 San Marino,Ca 91118-8582 111Iun111111,n1u11,Il,111111111111 lilt 11111 11,1un1,1,111uin1lnlninll1l„tln,1,I,I( 11,1unI11ul,In1,111„u111nn1Illulu,lll Parcel:024-242-17-00 Parcel:024-242-20-00 Parcel:024-242-22-00 Oliver James L Lane James A Wright Claude C&Dorthy 627 Frankfort Ave 637 Frankfort Ave 4973 W Olympic Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4902 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4902 Banning, Ca 92220-5171 Ilil,u,l,l,llull„llululnll,ulnl,lllu,I 11,1uu1�1,Ilnlulnl+Iln,111l,IIl11uI„!II 111111111111111„I,III III fill 11111 till fit(III II Parcel:024-242-23-00 Parcel:024-242-25-00 Parcel:024-242-27-00 Chapman Robert L&Shari Menard Raymond E Oliver James L 606 Delaware St Po Box 1098 627 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4720 Westminster,Ca 92684-1098 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A902 Ililu+,1,1,IIuI1,II,II,I,I,InI,IIIIuIIuI,I II,1,u11,1,Iln,1,111n1n1„Ilu,Iulll,lull 11,1nn1,11111+,1u11„Iululllnlulllllull Parcel:024-242-29-00 Parcel 024-242-31-00 Parcel:024-242-35-00 Kurle Marlin C Trust Orozco Sybonei Hickman Ray 33 Whitecloud 606 Geneva Ave 622 Geneva Ave Irvine,Ca 92614-5448 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4734 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A734 IIIIIII,I,1111111111111111111111111111 fill fill I 11,lnulIIIIIIIIIIIIII11,11,III11114111111till Il,lnnl,I,Ilullullulul„IiIII IIIIII lilt II Parcel:024-242-36-00 Parcel:024-242-37-00 Parcel:024-242-38-00 Weaver Gary L Gramatzki Ingo&Hayworth Malante Scogin Billy J& 19711 Bowman Ln 620 Geneva Ave 516 Geneva Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-3101 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4734 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A732 IldIIIII1l1111uIIIIII,11111111r fill 1111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111(1111111ItIII1 11,I,II1I111(,,,Il„u,1laulllin+nllln,lll Parcel:024-242-39-00 Parcel:024-242 AO-00 Parcel:024-242A 1-00 Lewis William O And S E Trust&Lewis Suze Olson Jack D St Susan 1 514 Geneva Ave 512 Geneva Ave 3092 Hilltop Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4732 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4732 Ventura,Ca 93003-1021 frog, ® AL II,1nul,I,11n11nllnlnlull,l,iilnu,l,11 I1,1,u,I,f,il,,,Inllnlnlnll,I„11,,n,1,1I 11,1,nll,1,Il,nlulll,Iul,1111I,11l,,,uIIIII Parcel:024-242-42-00 Parcel 024-242-43-00 Parcel:024-242-44-00 Brown D A And D A 2007 Trust Winchell Danielle R&Gregory Whetsell Hard E 643 Frankfort Ave 647 Frankfort Ave 629 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4902 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4902 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4902 1IIIurI III,IIn,lullul,IIIIIIIIIIII„oil 1111 fIIln,I1„Iu,I,1,1n1uI,l,luilf„1,IIIlu,i IIIIun111111,u1n11,IluInIIIIIIllluullIII Parcel:024-242-45-00 Parcel.024-242-47-00 Parcel:024-242-48-00 Davis Karen Carlton Hermanns Kristina&Michael Mahoney Sandra&Sean 631 Frankfort Ave 4646 Wailapa Rd 633 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 4902 Kilauea, Hi 96754-5550 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4902 II,II,uI,I,IIn,I„I1„I,IIIIIIII III II,IIIIII II,In„I,l,ll+ulnll„InInll,lull„+„1+1! 1111,u,I,I,IIu+1„11,+I„1n11,Inll,u„1,1) Parcel:024-242-49-00 Parcel:024-242-50-00 Parcel:024-242-51-00 Finch Charles M Spiker Family 2000 Trust Ferrante Ann&Schaaf Robert 635 Frankfort Ave 605 Frankfort Ave 607 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4902 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4902 Huntington Beach, Ca 926484902 II,Iunl,l,llu,lnll„1„I]III,lilt I,IIIIIIII II+Iu„I,IIIIIIIIIIIIII1,II,IIIIIIIIII,IIIIIII li,lnnl,l,Illnl„Ilululullllullun,l,t<I Parcel:024-242-53-00 Parcel:024-242-54-00 Parcel:024-242-55-00 Connell Frank&Kirchner Debra Howarth David R Serafin Stef John 611 Frankfort Ave 615 Frankfort Ave 613 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4902 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4902 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A902 11+1„ul,I+llu,l„111,lIllun,1111,I,tIlu+1 Il,luuIII,l1,u1n11u1n111,n1,lu,Il,111,1 I1,lnu1,I,IIu,lullnlul,In,l,lmll,lIta l Parcel:024-250-01-00 Parcel:024-261-01-00 Parcel:024-261-02-00 City Of Huntington Beach Le Bard Harlo V&Le Bard Lucille K Le Bard Harlo V Po Box 190 308 California St 308 California St Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0190 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5216 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-521 6 Il,Inul,l+lu111uu1n11ullnlluull1u1,1 11,1,i„1,I,I1„u1,lu11,I,l,nIlln,llllul,) 11 Parcel 024-261-04-00 Parcel:024-261-24-00 Parcel:024- -26-00 Larson Ruth Casa Playa 271 E 42nd St Po Box 19528 San Bernardino,Ca 92404-1318 Irvine,Ca 92623-9528 II11,u,1,1,IIu,lullul,Iluuu111,luII,I,I II,I„11u,+,lII11,In1„In1,11n,l,l,l„IIl,I 11,I+uil+l,Ilu+I,+Ilulul,In,l,llu,l„,lll Parcel:024-261-27-00 Parcel:024-261-28-00 Parcel:024-301-01-00 City Of Huntington Beach Las Brisas Hb Llc Marcin Christine L&David Po Box 190 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 203 20981 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0190 Hermosa Beach, Ca 90254-2753 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5271 I1,1,n,1,1III,,,1„111,II,IIII,IIIIII„1,,,111 11,1,nIIll+ll+„Iul1„I„I,Iu,I,l1,Illn,lll 11,1„61,till[lilt IIL,1,,111,,,1111,,,1,,,111 Parcel:024-301-02-00 Parcel:024-301-03-00 Parcel:024-301-04-00 Alpert Mark D Stefanucci Ann Obrien John N fii 20975 Coastview Ln 20971 Coastview Ln 20965 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5271 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5271 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5271 #1,1,ud+l,Iln,lullulul,Illu,l+lul,Inll 11,1u„i,I,II,,,I„1lu1n1,1,,,I,IIull,ulll 11,1nuI,L1In+lnllulnl,I,,,I+lln,i,+,11I Parcel:024-301-05-00 Parcel:024-301-06-00 Parcel:024-301-07-00 Bruno Marcia M Butler David A Relato Lola N 21362 Andalucia Ln 20945 Coastview Ln 20941 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5744 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5271 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5271 11,1n„I,l,lln,Inlllul+II11,+IIl,,l11,11u1 11,1,u,l,l,Ilu,Inlluln(,Iu,(,IIu,I,nlll Il11,Iul,I,I1„II„1lIII,IIII„IIII,I,I,II,u1 Parcel:024-301-08-00 Parcel 024-301-09-00 Parcel:024-301-10-00 Smith Sung Suk Kiyan Hiro Reynolds Paul Michael 16331 Rhone Ln 20931 Coastview Ln 20905 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92647-4126 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5271 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5250 a 11,lII,Il1l,linlinllntlllllnit,ilIII III till 111IunlIl,11111111111111111111111111111111111 111fln,l,I,IlnIlu111 fill 111n1111111r111n1 1 Parcel:024-301-11-00 Parcel:024-301-12-00 Parcel:024-301-13-00 Walach James J Henderson Roy M Grillette Michael D 20901 Coastview Ln Po Box 7254 20891 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5250 Huntington Beach, Ca 92615-7254 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5267 It,II,nl1llliu,lllilrllu III III l,tllll III lrll 1111uu1111IIIn1nllnln11111111111111111111 1111nu111111r1111 fill Iulllu111I111 fill III I Parcel:024-301-14-00 Parcel:024-301-15-00 Parcel:024-301-16-00 Weber Robert John Delange Kristi Peters Kaye F 20892 Coastview Ln 20896 Coastview Ln 20902 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5266 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5266 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5270 1l,i,u1IIIIIIn,In111Ilulltu,ll III fill ult 11111nII,i111u111111n1u1,lu,11111111111111 111lunIII,IIIul,tllul„tllull,lln,lllu,I Parcel:024-301-17-00 Parcel:024-301-19-00 Parcel:024-301-20-00 Schade Bruce B&Freda Scannell William R&Yvonne Eubank Bruce W&Oktavec Donna J 20912 Coastview Ln 20926 Coastview Ln 20932 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5270 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5270 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5270 till,I III IIIIlu11111111111111uIIf111111111111 (I,IuuIII11nIItul,Ilu111nulIllllnnll,l Illtunlltllu111,Illt,lullnlllluuti,lnll Parcel 024-301-21-00 Parcel:024-301-22-00 Parcel:024-301-23-00 Tickner Peggy A Spoolstra Dennis L Casale Andrew B 20942 Coastview Ln 3615 Golden Hill Rd 3339 Cold Plains Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5270 Paso Robles,Ca 93446-6393 Hacienda Heights,Ca 91745-6314 1GInutll1ltnitl1l!„11,1,tu,l1lfu,lnllll I11lIIn111,t1n,nitll,lulll,1n1,11n,111n1 1l,lu,II1111IIulullnllll1ln,tllln,Inllll Parcel:024-301-24-00 Parcel:024-301-25-00 Parcel:024-301-26-00 Endo Linda Ramos Nancy Bambery Raymond J 20951 Sailmaker Cir Po Box 5806 20941 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92615-5806 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 tl,innlll,t1[till IIIIIIu111u,if III I till 1111 1111u11111111u11ultullllltluflil,uI III 111 1111u1111I111u,11111I111 fill III IIIII fill IIII Parcel:024-301-27-00 Parcel:024-301-28-00 Parcel:024-301-29-00 Petruna Kathy K&Paul Bellovich Barry Stephen Costantini Nicola D 20935 Sailmaker Cir 20931 Sailmaker Cir 5222 Dahlia Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 Los Angeles,Ca 90041-1407 i III It,III 1111111111111„1111 fill 111IIIIIIn1111 11,1,n,1t1111111111111111111111111111111,11,1t IIIInuI,llllu1111111111111111111111,111111111 Parcel:024-301-30-00 Parcel:024-301-31-00 Parcel:024-301-32-00 Hawker John R&Hawker Karen Sue Rainey Pfaff Paul L Sr Cass Jesse J 20911 Sailmaker Cir 20905 Sailmaker Cir 20901 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 11,1,Inl,l,ltnllllllnl„11111I1,I1u11n1111 1111nu1,1,11,u1ut1111nt111n1111nIlI fill l 11,I,u,1,1,1111111[Ill„tI,i111,Ildill 11111111 Parcel:024-301-33-00 Parcel:024-301-35-00 Parcel:024-301-36-00 Thakkar Shivendra Kanji Drozd Alicia C&Paul Dodson Cynthia J 20895 Sailmaker Cir 20892 Sailmaker Cir 20896 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 Il,tnnt,l,Iln,1n11n1,II,In,t,t11,IIu1,l1 11,t,InIIl1111ulullulnl,ln,l,Iln1lnl,ll Ildnulll,tt,I,l,Illnlul,Iu,llllullut111 Parcel:024-301-37-00 Parcel:024-301-38-00 Parcel:024-301-39-00 Hayhurst Dashan V&Jennifer Marianne G Lemasters Choi Miseon A&Nam 20902 Sailmaker Cir 20916 Sailmaker Cir 20922 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 111111 fill 1111If III III(1111111n111111111r,1111 1111111111111 hill till II hillhill 11 fill IIIIII! 11,tu,I1111InIfiulllltlll,I,III„wltu,i111 Parcel:024-301-40-00 Parcel:024-301 A2-00 Parcel:024-301-43-00 Mcgrath Matthew B Fernandez Robert Alan Jacobson Jodi Lynn 20926 Sailmaker Cir 7846 Beachcomber Dr 5333 Buffalo Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5251 Sherman Oaks, Ca 91401-5932 �>�Aq�1lslE��p��r 1 sQ 11 on a# hulfnxl ; EdgeTm TtW pow 04"M pop-up Iltln„I111fl,ul,,llull,l,l,ul,Ili,lun111 Bend do*Sm AVElr^ 1111r1u11itll,nlull„I„I,I,,,1,1,1,l,InIII Il,luul1l,Iln,lnllulnl,ln111f,i,lnl,1 I Parcel:024-301-44-00 Parcel:024-301-4 5-00 Parcel:024-301-46-00 Suvorov Irina P Cox Ann Taza Properties 7836 Beachcomber Dr 7832 Beachcomber Or 7826 Beachcomber Or Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5251 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5251 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-52S 1 ffnlui,lu,f,Ill,lu,fln111111111111111,1r,1 ll,luu1t1,11n,lnllul„l,f,,,i,111111111111 11,1nI1,1u,l,l,fln,l,ln,ll,,ll,llllfill u01 Parcel:024-301-47-00 Parcel:024-301-48-00 Parcel:024-301-49-00 Mueller Anne E Tortorice David A Stein Gary A 4825 E Moonlight Way 7806 Beachcomber Or 21838 Castlewood Or Paradise Valley,Az 85253-2959 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5251 Malibu,Ca 90265-3407 I II11nn1,1,11,I,inl1„1ul,fn,111,11,I111„f 11111u,111111111111111111,IIIII11,11nif III lfl li,iunlli,l1u11n11„l,Iltln,l,l,ffill ItI I Parcel:024-301-50-00 Parcel:024-301-51-00 Parcel:024-301-52-00 Goodshaw Amy&Matthew Yamazaki John G Kito Masahiko 7796 Beachcomber Or 930 Crest Ave 7786 Beachcomber Or Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5249 Pacific Grove, Ca 93950-2211 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-524 9 i f1 1I1InnIIIf 1111,111 11 it lull lilu,f,il,,nl III 1111r,n1,1,111,,1„II,III,III„IIII III fill III I Parcel:024-301-53-00 Parcel:024-302-01-00 Parcel:024-302-02-00 La Cuesta Community Assn Hansen Gary D Cortez Mary A Po Box 1931 Pine St 20921 Shellfish Ln Huntington Beach, Ca-��� Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2762 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-526 1 111i1u,1,11n,llllulnlunllllu,Il1lu,1,11 I11IIIIIIIIIIImlu fill 1r,I,lu,111111n [fill 1111n„11lllln,1n11„lul1lnll,l,l,l,Illn 1 Parcel:024-302-03-00 Parcel:024-302-04-00 Parcel:024-302-05-00 Ngokhang Chewang Wallace Janis K Zimbaldi Christine M 9740 Weare Ave 20911 Shellfish Ln 7886 Shell Cir Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-1052 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5261 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5259 11,hillfll,llu111111IIII1111u1f,111111111111 11111n111llil [fill fill 1111111n11111111111n1 ll,lunlll,llu,lnlll,lul,ln,l,l,l,llllln l Parcel:024-302-06-00 Parcel:024-302-07-00 Parcel:024-302-08-00 Ames Amparo&Earl Mccormack Barbara M Calvin Bradford D&Lisa 7882 Shell Cir 7876 Shell Cir 7872 Shell Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5259 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5259 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5259 111111nl11 III[fill IIII11,1111111itIf III[fill Il I1,lu„l,111IuIIullulullln,l,111111111itI 1111n„1,11,,,111un111„nllnll,111,mill Parcel:024-302-09-00 Parcel:024-302-11-00 Parcel.024-302-12-00 Zantos Denise Ann&Steven Thomas James E Ali Abdel Shakour 7866 Shell Cir 7875 Shell Cir 12269 Alta Panorama Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5259 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5259 Santa Ana,Ca 92705-1302 1111nn11I,11,u1,111,1unlllll„III I,uI(IIf 1I11nu111,11tnln1l,Il„111u11,1,1,1,1,1n1 1111uu1,I,IIn,ll,llnlnl,lm1,1,111,111u 1 Parcel:024-302-13-00 Parcel:024-302-14-00 Parcel:024-302-15-00 Beadleston-young Janice Hansen Roy Paige Edward J&Jennifer 16722 Edgewater Ln 7891 Shell Cir 7895 Shell Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92649-3005 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5259 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5259 111Iu11111111If III IIII111111I111111111111111If iIIII,I,i,11111111111If III I1,in1111111111itII I II11nI(if III llulnll IIIIIIlulfif III I III ln 1 Parcel:024-302-16-00 Parcel:024-302-17-00 Parcel:024-302-18-00 Mccullough Robert Roberts Charlotte R Natter Ammer S&Malik 20904 Shellfish Ln 20912 Shellfish Ln 20916 Shellfish Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5260 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5260 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5260 il,ln,Il,l,llunlltllnu,,Il11lu,tllnnlll 11,11u11,f1111nlullnlul,lu,1,1,1In1111,1 1Muni,III I,rIIuII„inIIIIIIIII III I III IIIi Parcel:024-302-19-00 Parcel:024-302-20-00 Parcel:024-302-2 1-00 Frappia Linda Williams Michael& Lester Darcia Ann&Willis 21788 Tahoe Ln 20932 Shellfish Ln 20936 Shellfish Ln Lake Forest,Ca 92630-1931 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5260 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5260 I Allk t a�11 tRE�4ttlf� itjdi ell 11QQ ! t Ut1�e��J���atilllOfS@RSP !�66( !If"W rer1 �; 1Li�QQrC 111IIu,1,1,1in,lnll„1n1,ln,l,l,11u1,1„I 1111nn111111r11111lir,in fill III,i,il„I III II Ilifoul,l,Iln,I,III,r1,i1,1n11,1,11n1,1„ Parcel:024-302-22-00 Parcel-024-302-23-00 Parcel:024-302-24-00 Perrier Richard J Adams David A Nichols Natalie 7925 Beachcomber Dr 7931 Beachcomber Dr 7935 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5269 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5269 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-526 9 I11IIu,Ill,llu,1„II„ln1,ln,Ll,I,III„I,I II,In,,I,1111u,1ullnlnl,l,ul,l,fill 11till 11111n,111,IIInnll,l,lllu,lllu,luln,l,11 Parcel:024-302-25-00 Parcel:024-302-26-00 Parcel:024-302-27-00 Todd Anissia J Walker Kim R&Nancy Prete Pamela Elaine 20951 Seacoast Cir 20945 Seacoast Cir Po Box 7082 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach, Ca 92615-708 2 111111111,1111u11 III 111111111„,I I I I I I I III l 11 111inn11f111n1lulll,lul,ln,l,l,l„llul,l llllun111111u,1nl,il,n,llunl1n,11n,11 1 Parcel:024-302-28-00 Parcel:024-302-29-00 Parcel:024-302-30-00 Crew Ellen F Joye Diane&W Dahl Keith W 20931 Seacoast Cir 20925 Seacoast Cir 19601 Ditmar Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-311 1 Ililuu1,1,11mInllnlul,Iml,Illullnl,I IIIIIn11,11Ilu,1„l1n11,l,In,I,1,II,11r1111 111111111111111ul [till l„1,IanI,I,I„llulI I Parcel:024-302-31-00 Parcel:024-302-32-00 Parcel:024-302-33-00 Aronson John R& Henry Kurt Lee Owen Cart W&Connie 20905 Seacoast Cir 20901 Seacoast Cir 20895 Seacoast Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5248 11 fill III,11111IIII,IInI fill III1,1,1n1111111 1,1111,1m1,l,inilnlI Parcel:024-302-34-00 Parcel:024-302-35-00 Parcel:024-302-38-00 Huelle Julie&Vasquez Luis Strickland Anthony&Svetlana Harth Gregory J&Y De La Mata Veronica 20891 Seacoast Cir 20892 Seacoast Cir 20906 Seacoast Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5248 (i,1unl,f,lllnlnll„I„1111„I,I,I111111111 1111nn1,1,IIn,inllulnl,l„1111,lnllul,l IIIInnIIf III u,lullnlui,in,l dill lilt IIIl Parcel:024-302-39-00 Parcel:024-302-40-00 Parcel:024-302 A 1-00 Wickstrand Alan Aouizerat Liliane Stellfox David C&Janet 20912 Seacoast Cir 20926 Seacoast Cir 20932 Seacoast Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5248 11,1n,n11nI1n,1111l1nIIIf111,,III,11,11III Ililuulii,llu,lulf„Iu1,11n1,1,1n11u1,1 11,In,i111,11u,lI,l1n1u1,1u,1,1,11,1!„It I Parcel:024-30242-00 Parcel:024-30243-00 Parcel:024-302-44-00 Tenn Lawrence F Alvarez Alex J Low Robert F 18665 Horace St 20942 Seacoast Cir 20946 Seacoast Cir Northridge,Ca 91 326-2 7 1 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5248 IIIIIIIIIIl III u111,11u1nl,I,nIIIII[III fill 1111,11111itIIlnl,,Il,,I,,I,l,n111111 fill fII IIIII,i11I lilt ,,,11,11„1ni,i,ul,l,l,1111,11! Parcel:024-302-45-00 Parcel:024-302-46-00 Parcel 024-302 A 7-00 Palomino Marilyn Blankenship D And K Living Trust Harutunian Tania 20962 Seacoast Cir 20966 Seacoast Cir 20972 Seacoast Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5248 11111II111111iIIIIIr,,l,,l,r,lluliu,ll,r,11,1 11111111„11n,1lI,IIullnn1I11,11„111111111 111111111,11111111,111„1,II,In,111111n111Id Parcel:024-302-48-00 Parcel:024-302A9-00 Parcel:024-302-50-00 Burrell Michie Cziraki lmre Stafford Jay&Sylvia 11 Goose Pond Rd 10621 Midway Ave 7952 Beachcomber Dr Ladera Ranch,Ca 92694-1333 Cerritos, Ca 90703-1522 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5268 11,1111111till„I1,nul,l,111nI,iull,(,ll„) IIIIIII III i1 III u1„111111411111111111111111111 litIn,II,1,11,I,1„lf„IuIIlu,111,111,1u111 Parcel:024-302-51-00 Parcel:024-302-52-00 Parcel:024-302-53-00 Autrey Charlotte Anne Rosillo James O&Muriel Chanin Guy&Karen Po Box 3526 7942 Beachcomber Dr 7936 Beachcomber Dr San Angelo,Tx 76902-3526 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5268 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5268 � gge ¢ eit�e� er ;; AL ina�;; $ Ufltti fdwebbeffitA l GOP !! - - r dkereHmmtWbnMWA1°"!! 4 AVE RY"SWOU,1111 All fillullnnifnnll,ll,nu,fll,lui,l,fin,fl II,I,u,I,I,Ilm1„I1u1,if,in,l,l,)lulnl,l 11,1,u,l,1,11,,,1„1lulnl,I,,,1,1,1f+,inl®f Parcel:024-302-54-00 Parcel.024-302-55-00 Parcel:024-302-56-00 Branham Carol A Paige Edward Jay Getzewich Frank Po Box 2427 7922 Beachcomber Or 7916 Beachcomber Or Cypress, Ca 90630-1927 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5268 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-526;8 IIII fill,f11 Ili,1nll„1uIII Ili IfIII1,,1r,111 11,1unili,ilullullnlul,l,uf,f,III III l,) 11,1,r1,1,f,11,u1„f hill III InIIIIIIllu,itII Parcel:024-302-57-00 Parcel:024-302-56-00 Parcel:024-302-59-00 Klatir Richard Young Diane P&Richard Ambrose Charles Anthony&Mari 7912 Beachcomber Or 7906 Beachcomber Or 7892 Beachcomber Or Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5268 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5268 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-525 2 Ililnnl,I,Il,nfullulnl,ln,l,l,l,fu,l,ll II,{nnf,{,1{ml„11,I,n,f1,{1„+u1,1,1,1,1 I1,1,u,1,I,il,nl,Illnl„f,ln+l,l,f,l,,,1,11 Parcel:024-302-60-00 Parcel:024-302-61-00 Parcel:024-302-62-00 Klein Elizabeth& Rsb Trust Callihan Michael S 7886 Beachcomber Or 16731 Bolero Ln 7876 Beachcomber Or Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5252 Huntington Beach,Ca 92649-3025 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5252 11,1[fill,l,I1Ildil,r,II,,Ill fill fill ll,dluf 11,1n,+1,1,11u,1„Iluinlul,+Ilu,ll,ul,II 11,1+a,111111+u1n11ulnl„1+,11,u1lunll l Parcel:024-302-63-00 Parcel:025-172-06-00 Parcel:025-174-07-00 La Cuesta Community Assn Jarjour Agarid&Nabil Dahl Robert A 24422 Avenida De La Carlota 460 801 Indianapolis Ave 701 Indianapolis Ave Laguna Hills, Ca 926533636 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4332 Huntington Beach, Ca 9264BA33 1 11,fin+l,I,flni,l„nfil,lul,ilnu,ffln,fl llIf+iril,l,lf+nfulf,,lulufufimifnnflf ff+f,u+f,11,,,Illu,lnf,ufllln+lullu,la){ Parcel:025-174-11-00 Parcel:025-174-12-00 Parcel:025-174-14-00 Darman Llc Thinnes Lorraine Ann Wichner Keith A 22445 Rosebriar 703 Indianapolis Ave 17400 Brookhurst St 102 Mission Viejo,Ca 92692A617 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4331 Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-3732 11+1,n,1,1,11n,11„11nu1„Iflu,nl,filu+l II,1+i,i1,I,llmlulinln+l,f,llu,ulin11,1 f1,1„nl�l,if,,,1+Jill„l,lnf,l„1,1„lnll Parcel:025-174-15-00 Parcel 025-174-16-00 Parcel:934-47-201-00 Mercurio T D 2000 Trust Johnson Marvin L Hastin Kortney 502 Avenida Lucia 19671 Quiet Bay Ln 20922 Monarch Ln 30 Newport Beach,Ca 92660-4020 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2613 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5554 11,I,ml+I,llnJuf,II,n1JIJ,1uIIIn1lJ li,I,u,lilJlnlnlll,ul,l,JJul1„11nJ If+1un1,1,11,ul,llln,ll,JJulJniJ, Parcel:934-47-227-00 Parcel:934-47-173-00 Parcel:934-47-193-00 Le Yen T&Tran Thai V Nguyen Tuan A&Tran Amy Heckart Kelly D&Hill Daniel C 20947 Cabrillo Ln 46 8039 Zuma Or 13 20874 Monarch Ln 22 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5560 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5555 11,In„I,1,IInJ„lilln,i,inl11n,11111fill IIII,n,II,II,n1u1,11u,1JulJUJlJ1ul If,1nn1�1,11min1,11n,1J„I,Inl,l+l„1,1 Parcel:934-47-241-00 Parcel:93447-226-00 Parcel:934-47-185-00 Turner T N And V S Family Trust Carlson Karin L&Hinshaw Lisa A Azizian Mina&Makoi Michael 20956 Cabrillo Ln 60 20953 Cabrillo Ln 45 20854 Cabrillo Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5538 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5558 11111+11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Ilifoul,I+11n,InIJI,,,l1,11,n,11Jim1 11,1,n,1,1,11n,1„1,11n,111111+,u,l fill III 1 Parcel:151-293-03-00 Parcel:151-293-04-00 Parcel:151-293-05-00 Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands LIc 20471 Seven Seas Ln 20451 Seven Seas Ln 20441 Seven Seas Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5030 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5030 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5030 fill,mIIIIIIn1„1+11,,,i,l+ilnn,llIII,,If 11,InnI,I,II,+,I„1,11n,I,1,11m,IIIIlnIII fl,innl,lll,nlJ,ll,nlJJln,ul,ll,+ill Parcel:151-293-06-00 Parcel: 151-293-17-00 Parcel: 151-293-18-00 Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands LIc Temple Dale W&Linda 20431 Seven Seas Ln 20452 Seven Seas Ln 20472 Seven Seas Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5030 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5027 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5027 Aik 1p MEWS ww* 11,1,nnIII,,,1,1„lil,,,fill III,,1(,11111fill Il,luIII d ll,ulrIIIIln,l,l,llu,lluIIIIII1 II,Inn1,1,11,n1r,l,1lu11,1,11 fill III r„f I Parcel: 151-293-42-00 Parcel: 151-341-01-00 Parcel: 151-341-02-00 Seaview Plaza Management Inc Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands Lic 1949 Auto Centre Dr 8031 Driftwood Dr 8011 Driftwood Dr Glendora,Ca 91740-6714 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5001 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-50(31 11,1uul,l,Ilu,l„l,llu,1,l,Ilun,Il,In,II Ililuul,I,Il,ulul,ll,ul,lnl,lu,flnnlll Ililnnlll,llu,Inl,fl,uf,l,llu,Il,„n1,111 Parcel: 151-342-02-00 Parcel: 151-342-03-00 Parcel: 151-342-04-00 Pacific Sands Lic Orange County Flood Byrom James R 8071 Driftwood Dr 8401 Heron Cir 8072 Driftwood Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5037 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5531 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-500112 II,1n,,I,II,I,Illr,nllluIIIIIIl fill IIIIII,,l II11nnI,I,IIu,lnl,ll,nl,llllmlln,nl,ll Ililunl,1,Iln,lul,ll„J,1,11,,,11,,,,,1,111 Parcel: 151-342-05-00 Parcel: 151-342-06-00 Parcel: 151-342-07-00 Pacific Sands Lic Dang Titi D Hammond Eric T& 12231 Woodlawn Ave 8042 Driftwood Dr 8032 Driftwood Dr Santa Ana,Ca 92705-3010 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5002 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5002 11,1ru,1,l,Ilu,lul,ll,I,l,l,llu,lllnnllll II,I,u,I,I,IIIulnl,llull,l,ll,ulluu,l,ll (1,Inuf,l,llu,lul,ll,nl,l,llulllunl,lsl Parcel:151-342-08-00 Parcel:151-342-09-00 Parcel: 151-342-10-00 Pacific Sands Lic Dourron N Edward Kemp Robert 8022 Driftwood Dr 8012 Driftwood Dr 8011 Ebbtide Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5002 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5002 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5O05 11,1„n1,1,11n,lnl,lln,l,l,llngill IIIIIl,1 If,ln,if,l,lln,lnllll+ul,l,lln,ll,u,l,1,1 Ililuul,l,lln,lnl,llu,l,f,lln,lfunl,l®1 Parcel:151-342-11-00 Parcel: 151-342-12-00 Parcel: 151-342-13-00 Pacific Sands Lic Pacific Sands Lic Pacific Sands Lic 8021 Ebbtide Cir 8031 Ebbtide Cir 8032 Ebbtide Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5005 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5005 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5005 f1,1,,n1,l,Il,ni„1,11u,1,1,1fu,ll,ml,1,1 11,inul,l,llu,lnl,lln,l,l,llufill IIIIIIl 1l,lu�il,l,11u,1n1,11,uf,1,11n,llunl,lnl Parcel:151-342-14-00 Parcel: 151-342-15-00 Parcel: 151-342-16-00 Pacific Sands Lic Mcconnell David R&Maria Pacific Sands Lic 8061 Ebbtide Cir 8071 Ebbtide Cir 8062 Ebbtide Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5005 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5005 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5005 11,1,n,1,I,11,,,1,,1,11nIIIIIIIII III nr,11111 11,1n,�1,1,I1n,lul,ll,ul,i,l1n,11,,ui,l,l Iflln„I,liltn,lnl,ll,„1,1,1Lu11,n,1,1,1 Parcel:151-342-17-00 Parcel:151-342-18-00 Parcel: 151-342-19-00 Bernhardt Steve& Pacific Sands Lic Pacific Sands Lic 8042 Ebbtide Cir 8032 Ebbtide Cir 8022 Ebbtide Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5005 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5005 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5005 ll,1n,,1,1,11nII,,1,11nI1,1,11,u11nn1,1,1 11,1n,,1,1,11uIlnl,llu,1,l,11un,11u,1,11 IIII,n,1,l,liu,lnl,11ui1,1,11unlllu,l,11 Parcel:151-342-20-00 Parcel:151-342-21-00 Parcel: 151-342-22-00 Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands Lic 8012 Ebbtide Cir 8011 Sail Cir 8021 Sail Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5005 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5032 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5032 11,1„nl,1,ll,ulul,I1,,1111111,,u,11milli II,IIIIIu1111u,i1 fill,uuil,1,1,1II„II,III iIIIIIu1,I,l1,„1n1,1I,IIIII,IIIIIIIIIII11,1I Parcel:151-342-23-00 Parcel:151-342-24-00 Parcel 151-342-25-00 Pacific Sands Lic Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands Lic 8031 Sail Cir 3416 Cabrillo Blvd 8061 Sail Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5032 Los Angeles, Ca 90066-1504 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5032 ll,ln„I,1,I1u,l,Il,11„11,1,I1nu111u,1,11 ll,lunl,l,lln,1u1,11u,1,1,11uu,ll,n1,11 11,l,nil,l,ilmiul,11n,1,1,11,,n,llml,ll Parcel:151-342-26-00 Parcel: 151-342-27-00 Parcel: 151-342-29-00 Pacific Sands LIc Family Trust Farnsworth Lincoln Boano-yount Vera A&Yount Larry C 8071 Sail Cir 8062 Sail Cir 8032 Sail Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5032 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5032 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5032 tlNtle f4dde!�0pWer ;; A& it>ctkIf fllQifd#epi��e6f�dtilA1011�R �gA� ,I L56a®sS�e_. riled !! t1e8A9.�''i®. �� IN i Illiuul,lilin,1n1111n1111,11nu11in,1,1) Il,innl111llullrl till 11111111111u lilt III I,I 11,1,u,11I111111nIiu11,n1,i,linnll,ll,I, Parcel: 151-342-30-00 Parcel: 151-342-32-00 Parcel: 151-342-33-00 Townend Tosh H& Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands LIc 8022 Sail Cir 8011 Mermaid Cir 3807 Via Manzana Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5032 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5023 San Clemente, Ca 92673-2630 II,I„III11111n,ii,lliiu lilt fill 1u1111111111 1111unl,Il11lnl,Il,ll III 1111111111 lilt 111111 11111r1,1111111u1n1,llluliIIIIIIIIIII1 fill 1I Parcel: 151-342-34-00 Parcel: 151-342-35-00 Parcel: 151-342-36-00 Pacific Sands Llc Rivera Joselito Pacific Sands LIc 8031 Mermaid Cir 8041 Mermaid Cir 8061 Mermaid Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5023 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5023 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5023 11,Innlilllln,lnlllln,l,lllluu,i111111,1 1111uulli,lfln1u1i11n,lIli11nu11,1111111 Il,i,r„11I III n,lril,llrttiddlimild lilt I I Parcel:151-342-37-00 Parcel:151-342-38-00 Parcel: 151-342-39-00 Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 8071 Mermaid Cir 8062 Mermaid Cir 8042 Mermaid Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5023 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5023 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5023 111luuI,l111ntlullll,ull,ullll,InlnlUl II,IuuIII,IIIu1,ll,11ll,ilull,l,Ilul,ill,l 11,1un1,11I1uIlI,I,IIuII,I,IIu,I1111n11,l Parcel: 151-342-40-00 Parcel:151-342-41-00 Parcel:151-342-42-00 Pacific Sands Llc Tan Claujean Vicky Pacific Sands LIc 9822 Lapworth Cir Po Box 6545 8012 Mermaid Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-6541 Huntington Beach,Ca 92615-6545 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5023 1111 fill,I,1111111111111 111111111If11111111 Ii 11,1,,,,11It111(111,If111itIII,111IifI111111111 Itil,utllIt III till 11111ifII1111IIr till If III III Parcel: 151-342-43-00 Parcel:151-342-44-00 Parcel: 151-342-45-00 Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands Llc 8011 Sunset Cir 8021 Sunset Cir 8031 Sunset Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5036 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5036 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5036 1iIlIu1111,II,niI,111Iuf111(1111 1111r,1 II111n,1,I111n,1,11,11u,I,flll,unll„{1„i 11,1m1111111,,,11,1,1I,,,1,l,II,i,,,i1,111111 Parcet 151-342A6-00 Parcel:151-342-47-00 Parcel:151-342-48-00 Cortes Mary Judith&Samuel Pacific Sands Llc Smith Hugh 8041 Sunset Cir 8061 Sunset Cir 8071 Sunset Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5036 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5036 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5036 111In,II,1,11ull,tl,lln,lll,llu,i,llulllil - I1,1u1il,l111mlul,Ilu,lll,ll„hillullu{ 11,lun1,1,11n11n1,11n11,l,tlliu,11i,11u1 Parcel:151-342-49-00 Parcel:151-342-50-00 Parcel:151-342-51-00 Moran Diane&Thomas Rodgers Jody R&Swenson Michael E Mlinarevic Ante 8062 Sunset Cir 8042 Sunset Cir 8032 Sunset Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5036 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5036 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5036 11111n,l,I,llu,1„Il,lilt,l,il„IIIIIIIIIlilt IrIIIIIIIIuIIIIIII,1,lII,,,1,1i„1111 III 11uI! IIIIu III Ii,1lr lilt 111111111111 lilt III(III I d11 Parcel:151-342-52-00 Parcel: 151-342-53-00 Parcel: 151-351-14-00 Pacific Sands LIc Pacific Sands Llc West Orange County United Teachers Assn 1837 Pine St 28 Old Snake Hill Rd 20800 Beach Blvd 200 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2741 Pound Ridge,Ny 10576-2100 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5288 11 It,1„n111,4{,n{n{{,{,I11,11,1,1111111itit11 IIII„n1111IIu,1uI111u11,lnI,l,liiu,llit Parcel:151-351-15-00 - Parcel: 151-351-36-00 Parcel:151-35 00 Macaulay Da " N Beachside Commununity Assn Bea chs' Co nit ssociation - / 4952 Warner Ave 223 495 am ve Huntington Beach,Ca 92649-5505 Huntingt n Beac ,Ca 05vf If,Innl,lllint1,11111u,1,1u111,lluul,lll 11,InnIlllllu,lulll 111Iu1 Ilun11 1 1til,ull,llll,nl, n11,1 I ,11un Parcel:151-351- -00 Parcel: 151-35 -00 Parcel: 151- -42-0 Beachside 0mm uni ssn Beachsi o ununi Ass Beach a Co ununi Assn 4952 W er A 223 495 am ve 2 49 am Ave 22 Hunti gton ach a 92649- 5 nting n Be Ca 92649-5505 nting n Bea c ,Ca 92649-5505 >i4ligge e i li bt$' r ;; AL ffboliEgallwamdhMasmdie lWtlie1dwebl>Iisl GOP !; rrl�r !i At I Il,l fit lilt Ilull„II,III111 III III III IIIIIfill II li,i,1 lilt IIIII[III lII11I111111I III IIIIIIfi111 Parcel- 151-3 -43-00 Parcel. 151-351-44-00 Parcel: 151-351-45-00 Beachsi Com unit s Beachsid om nil ssociation&Huntingt Makoi Michael D 4952 arner e 223 495 am v 3 20854 Cabrillo Ln 79 H tingto eac a 9264s 5505 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5558 111Inu1,11I1,n1„1,11u11,1111u,ull,lluil Ililunl,I,lin,lulllln,l,lllluu,llnlllll (111u„1,1111n11„1,11,u1il,llu,uil,wfl111 Parcel: 151-342-01-00 Parcel: 151-342-28-00 Parcel- 151-342-31-00 Cinocco Maria I Davis David B&Sharon Pacific Sands Lie 8051 Driftwood Dr 8042 Sail Cir 8012 Sail Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5037 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5032 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5032 illlnu111111nI1n11u1„fllu,111111n,1II,1 II,1uu1111I1uIl„Ilnlnl11n11,11,1„u1111 H11uu1111IIn11,IIIu1ul11n11111,1nufl11l Parcel:934-47-143-00 Parcel:934-47-144-00 Parcel:934A7-145-00 Pacific Sands Lie Pacific Sands Lie Kreisle Katherine 20812 Beach Blvd 20814 Beach Blvd 2 20816 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5293 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5293 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5293 11,1,u,11i,I1u11nllul,Il,lu,f11111n,111,1 11,11u1lil,Ilulll„u111,111uullnllllulll 1111unI,Illulllu,lnlul11,111uIfulnelll Parcel:934-47-146-00 Parcel:934 A 7-147-00 Parcel:934-47-148-00 Pacific Sands Lie Ericsson Lena&Muro Netzher Pacific Sands Lie 20818 Beach Blvd 26615 La Sierra Dr 18241 Santa Joanna Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5293 Mission Viejo, Ca 92691-6128 Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-5641 11111n11,fllln1lnl,iln,111n111n1,1,lIl„I 11111n,I,I,lln111,I,Ilu,l,lul,ful,l,l,lnl IIII,in11I,IIu1lul,llull,lnl,lulll11111u1 Parcel:934-47-161-00 Parcel:934-47-162-00 Parcel:934-47-163-00 Ching Antonio S Leggitt Angeli R&Michael Pavlick Stephen M 20893 Cabrillo Ln 1 20887 Cabrillo Ln 2 20881 Cabrillo Ln 3 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5559 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5559 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5559 11,1,n1l,l,11u11„l,I1n,1,(n111u1,1,1,I„1 1111nr11111111111111111111itluidn III IIIIIIl lidirl fill IIIIIIIIIl1111III111111IIIIII11111II Parcel:934-47-164-00 Parcel:934-47-165-00 Parcel:934-47-166-00 Nguyen Amy Holcomb Donald W&Vicki Bateman- 20875 Cabrillo Ln 4 20869 Cabrillo Ln 5 francisco Jennifer&Francisco Hot Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5559 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5559 20863 Cabrillo Ln 6 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5559 1111un111,11ni1iil,Ilu,l,lnlil,11111111u1 1111nu1,11IIu11nI111u,1,Inl,luldIIIInl IIIIIII,1111111111ul,linIIlIfIl,lr fill 1114111 Parcel:934-47-167-00 Parcel:934-47-168-00 Parcel:93417-169-00 Conger Hyun Chan Doris S&Jefferson Khreich Alana&Jean-pierre 20857 Cabrillo Ln 7 20851 Cabrillo Ln 8 8015 Zuma Dr 9 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5559 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5559 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5560 11,11,n1,f11(I,11„I,lin,111111111,III III fill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111(IIIII11I,1,N,r1i,1111 Parcel:934-47-170-00 Parcel:934-47-171-00 Parcel:934-17-172-00 Newman Alan K&Anita Lim Aileen Garra&Lim Frederic Bill Uy Lasnier Lucille 8021 Zuma Dr 10 8027 Zuma Dr 11 9582 Hamilton Ave 343 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5560 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5560 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8008 1111111111111111111111111111,1,1111n11,1111111 111 lilt lI,111 III III If111111,1„IIIit III IIIIIif IIIIIIIIII]IIIII,ia11111n,1,lr,illI III fill ull Parcel:934-47-174-00 Parceli 934-47-175-00 Parcel:934-47-176-00 Mcconnell David R&Maria Donsing Dave M Miller Craig&Laurie 8045 Zuma Dr 14 8051 Zuma Dr 15 8057 Zuma Dr 16 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5560 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5560 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5560 11(11111111 111111111111111111111111111 111111111 1111111111I,IIII,II,LI1,,,1,1„I,Inld III fill 111111111111111 fill IIII11111111111[fill 111(1111 Parcel:934-47-177-00 Parcel:934-47-178-00 Parcel:934-47-179-00 Wegner Jolie A&Tim Rocha Carlos & Laura Lasnier Lucille 20844 Monarch Ln 17 20850 Monarch Ln 18 9582 Hamilton Ave 343 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5555 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5555 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8008 ell, iliseadeaali c'S, �; n. .r�x�lQall�.ra�bat�8.tarzi4t�,'fA , ��RIQJGI�_ VY r 1 1� UNA �51600 faedl O+�elr a *a V AIRY® ru' AL 11111111111,11,1,1„1,1 [it 111111r1n1iI,11,iJ lhlllul,I,II1„Il,l,lin,1,!„11i1,L11,11,11 1LIn„111,I1n11„1,II,1,11l,1LIn1,!„ll„I Parcel:934-47-180-00 Parcel:934-47-181-00 Parcel:934-47-182-00 Pugh Family Trust Mako Ali D&Makoi Kobra Djalaipour Nguyen Luc S&Tran Quynh N 20862 Monarch Ln 20 20865 Monarch Ln 76 20859 Monarch Ln 77 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5555 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5556 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5556 1i,1,n,1,1,11uIl,,I,f1u,l,luf,llllllnflul 11,lnul,l,lln,l„f,11u,1,1„l,fulllllnl,! 11,I,n11,1,11u,1III III IIIIIIIIIl fill lilt If II Parcel:934-47-183-00 Parcel:934-47-184-00 Parcel:934-47-186-00 Cohn Seth D&Trujillo-cohn Stacy L Djalalipour&Makoi Michael Mcmullen S 20853 Monarch Ln 78 20854 Cabrillo Ln 79 20866 Cabrillo Ln 81 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5556 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5558 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5558 11,I1n,I,I,lllnful,llu,l,lnl,lnl,l,l„I,I 11,In„I,I,11n,lnllllu,l,luf,ln111,1n1,1 II,I,u,1,I,llu,l,ll,lln,l,lul,lnlll,l„1,1 Parcel:934-47-187-00 Parcel:934-47-188-00 Parcel:934-47-189-00 Alban Jon K&Marcela Roeland Bruce J &Jennifer Rask Philip C 20872 Cabrillo Ln 82 20878 Cabrillo Ln 83 20884 Cabrillo Ln 84 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5558 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5558 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5558 1l,lunl,1,Ilu,In1,11uf III III 11r111111r,1,1 111InnI,I,flu,lul,ll,nl,l„I,In1,l,lnl,l ILlunI11,11u,1n1,llml,lnl,lulllulll,l Parcel:934-47-190-00 Parcel:934-47-191-00 Parcel:934-47-192-00 Dang Nghiem Duc&Van Chang-holt Barbara C&Holt Christopher D Branley Beth 20890 Cabrillo Ln 85 20896 Cabrillo Ln 86 20868 Monarch Ln 21 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5558 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5558 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5555 I1,Iuul,l,Il,alluf111u1111u1,1nl,lul,l,l I1111,nllllllmlul,Il,all,lul,lnf,lnl,lll 11,1,1n1,I,I1n,l„1,11ull,lnhl,ll,II11,11) Parcel:934-47-194-00 Parcel:934-47-195-00 Parcel:934-47-196-00 Burdett Lorriane&Thomas Samuels Joel H Gomes Mary L&Paul 20880 Monarch Ln 23 20886 Monarch Ln 24 20892 Monarch Ln 25 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5555 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5555 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5555 1111,1n1,I,11n,Inf,11u11,1n11111111nf,l,l 11,1uu1,1,11u11u11fln,l,Inl,ln fill III III II,InnlII III n,1„f,11n,111n111u1,1n1r,lf Parcel:934-47-197-00 Parcel:934-47-198-00 Parcel:93447-199-00 Nguyen Hung T Jordan Mark T& Rodriguez Gary 20898 Monarch Ln 26 20904 Monarch Ln 27 20910 Monarch Ln 28 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5555 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5554 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5554 !1,(„nI,IIII,u1ul,IfulI,I1,1,lnl,lululf 11,1uuf,I,U,,,1„1,11uIl,lnl,lnll(„lull I1,IuIll,Illlu,lnl,Il,l,l,I„1,Inl,l,lu,11 Parcel:934-47-200-00 Parcel:93447-202-00 Parcel:93447-203-00 Nestor Michael Smith Kelby T Busyapongpakdee Harn&Chuleewan 20916 Monarch Ln 29 20928 Monarch Ln 31 20933 Monarch Ln 66 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5554 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5554 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5557 11111111111111 fill n1111[11111111(1Id11 fit II 1111nn1,1,11n,1u1,11u,1,(„1,1„1,1111,111 11111(1(111(111u1n111111111111l,lul111111111 Parcel:934-47-204-00 Parcel:934-47-205-00 Parcel:93447-206-00 Kim Joseph Y Park Heung Keun&Sung Dam Rosemarie My Tien 20927 Monarch Ln 67 20921 Monarch Ln 68 20915 Monarch Ln 69 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5557 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5557 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5557 III III III 111u1,I„1,In111n11u1111111111111I 11,1un1,1,II,u1n1,11,111,In1,1uI,InI1(11 1111111,1,1,IIIIIIIII1Il,nIIIIII,I,111In11111 Parcel:934-47-207-00 Parcel:934-47-208-00 Parcel:934-47-209-00 Awadalla Angelina&Costandi Cao Chinh Manh&Cao Tina Tuyet Vu Nguyen Canai T&Vu Frederick H T 21440 Casino Ridge Rd 20895 Monarch Ln 71 20889 Monarch Ln 72 Yorba Linda,Ca 92887-1203 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5556 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5556 IIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111(11111111 Il,lnnl,1,llu,lnllll,l,lllul,1 lilt l fill III 11,11n,f,1,11u,1,1L111„1,Iu111,a1�1ul1+,) Parcel:934-47-210-00 Parcel:934-47-211-00 Parcel:934-47-212-00 Higgins Michael J& Young Duong Bich-nhu &Chau Eile Jeannine E&Jeffrey 20883 Monarch Ln 73 20877 Monarch Ln 74 20871 Monarch Ln 75 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5556 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5556 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5556 lid li www.avery.com U18iised m..t d 1400s00-AVIRV i q h II,1,u,1,1111u,InIInI1111,I111n,111n,11,1 1111„u lilt III 11nI,IIn,I,InI1l fifth 111111 11111111111111 till,1111n1111 till I Ill Inlul ! Parcet 934-47-213-00 Parcel:934-47-214-00 Parcel:934-47-215-00 Mohundro Sylvia S Clingan John Todd&Luu Tran Boi Be4ian Vicken A 6435 Beachview Dr 20940 Monarch Ln 33 20946 Monarch Ln 34 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2663 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5554 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-555-4 111lunlIl111u,11I1111n,111u1[fill 11 lilt III Illlunl,I,lln,lnllllu,111u1,1,11,11,1u11 II,I,u1I,I,Ilu11u1111n11,lnl,lnl,ln,l,l l Parcel:934-47-216-00 Parcel:934-47-217-00 Parcel:934-47-218-00 Sorensen James &Walsh Kim Dalton Brynne C&Michael Dingwall Lori Christine&Stuart 20952 Monarch Ln 35 20958 Monarch Ln 36 8042 Goleta Point Dr 37 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5554 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5554 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5552 11,1,u11,l,Ilullul,llullliulllul11n11,1I illlnni,llllullnl,lln11,1n111 Ill Ili n III l 11111,„11if1l Ill I11411u,111111 Ill 111111 Ill l Parcel:934-47-219-00 Parcel:934-47-220-00 Parcel:934-47-221-00 Lum Family Trust Doan Bong Falletta Roberta 8036 Goleta Point Dr 38 8030 Goleta Point Dr 39 8024 Goleta Point Dr 40 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5552 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5552 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5552 11,Inul1I,Il,ninl,llu,l,lnl,ln111n11n1 11111n1111,Ill fill,lllluII Ill till III ill Mill Ililunl,lllln,lnllflu,l,lul,lu,lll,llu Parcel:934-47-222-00 Parcel:934-47-223-00 Parcel:934-47-224-00 Huynh Suong T Empremsilapa Betty&Preeprem Vu Michael H 20977 Cabrillo Ln 41 20971 Cabrillo Ln 42 20965 Cabrillo Ln 43 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 111 Ill uI111IInIlnll fill Ill 11111111ifnilul I111u1,11l,1iu11„1,11,,,1,1u111n,Ili III„I Il,innlI fill,„I„I,IIIIII,IIIIIII Ill fill III I Parcel:934-47-225-00 Parcel:934-47-228-00 Parcel:934-47-229-00 Huynh Jenny Chan Gene Hill Michael Inbar 20959 Cabrillo Ln 44 20941 Cabrillo Ln 47 20935 Cabrillo Ln 48 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 ll,i,n,I,I111n11ul,11n1111n1,1n111n11„) ll,i,����,,lIIIIIIIl1111„I,lnl,l,,,11,11l1,1 111111111111IIu,1,11,11n1111 fill Ill I I'll 11,I Parcel:934-47-230-00 Parcel:934-47-231-00 Parcel:93447-232-00 Quartoumi Amira Abu Wei Jireel Darnell Eloise&Michael 20929 Cabrillo Ln 49 20923 Cabrillo Ln 50 20917 Cabrillo Ln 51 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Ili1u,111l,lln,I,IIIIIu,I,Inl,luillullnl 11,Innl,I,II,nlnlll,l,in,I,Iul111l11(,ul II,IIn,i,I1I(,,,(u11111„IIIIIIII,„111111111 Parcel:934-47-233-00 Parcel:93447-234-00 Parcel:934-47-235-00 Ramirez Jaime A&Rachel Liao Daniel Family Trust Dinh Huong K&Luu Hai T 20911 Cabrillo Ln 52 7176 Harbor Glen Dr 313 20920 Cabrillo Ln 54 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5536 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-7440 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5538 Illlu,Il1111111r11,11 fill IIIIIIi1 Ill 11 Ill fill IIII,n111I1IIIuIIIilllull,I1,1,11nI1,lul1l 11,1n1 Ill(fill nllu Ill MlIIIIII111 Ill 11111 Parcel_93447-236-00 Parcel:93447-237-00 Parcel:934-47-238-00 Buu Vinh P& Richardson Ric Nguyen-tran Family 2001 Trust 8 Via Corsica 20932 Cabrillo Ln 56 1351 Chesapeake Dr Dana Point,Ca 92629-3357 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5538 Oxnard,Ca 93035-2155 -- II,In,11,I,lIII,IIIIIIiIIIi111II1111,11,1,fill illln,llll,fi,ninl,ilu,lllul11n11111u111 II11,II III 11If,ulnl,1l,nl11ui1l fill III ill 41 Parcel:934-47-239-00 Parcel:93447-240-00 Parcel:93447-242-00 Yundt Gail L&John Do James T&Linda Hart Rory J&Oliver Persephone 20944 Cabrillo Ln 58 20950 Cabrillo Ln 59 20962 Cabrillo Ln 61 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5538 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5538 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5538 Ill ln fill,111nuI,In1,1,IluIlll Ill(III1r111 1111nn1IIIIIIIIIIIl,11n1111,111 fill 11,Ili 111 111111,11111IIu,InI,11nIl11nl,1,11111111111 Parcel:934-47-243-00 Parcel:934A7-244-00 Parcel:934-47-245-00 Hussein Mamoun Hoang Hai T&Le Loan T K Anastasi Kevin&Patty Po Box 6557 20951 Monarch Ln 63 20945 Monarch Ln 64 Buena Park, Ca 90622-6557 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5557 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-5557 WMIIW:@tll@Fy,€@tii +, a 6s��t�llallord!$ �� d � tlongllittetto a ®§g�fod� t9�AA11�q�it�artpi��l't� � Teter�® � � II,Innl,l,lln,lul,llu,l,lnl,1u11I,1,nll 11,luul,I,Iln,lnllulnlnll,l„Ilun,l,It I1 Parcel:934-47-246-00 Parcel 024-242-52-00 Parce1:�1024-24 _00Roberts Janet&Stephen Foster M A And L M Living Trust Jaqui 20939 Monarch Ln 65 609 Frankfort Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5557 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4902 I1 11,1uuI1I,11,ulull,lui,l1lu11lllu,lu,ll 11,Inul,lilln,lullnlnl,ln,l,l,l,l,l,l,r,l Par cel: 1 0 Parcel:024-301-18-00 Parcel:024-302-10-00 Ga Newman Family Trust Unger Lynn 16312 Mandalay Cir 7871 Shell Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92649-2107 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5259 (1,lnul,l,11u11n11u1„Inll,lulll,nlnll II,Inu111,11n,1u11,11nIuILl,lullnlnll 11,InuI,I,Ilu,lullnln111ml,l,lullnl�l Parcel:024-232-32-00 Parcel:024-242-34-00 Parcel:024-302-36-00 Faris Christopher J&Judith Schlager Melanie J&Victor Geers Michael C 803 Frankfort Ave 618 Geneva Ave 20896 Seacoast Cir Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4904 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4734 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 1111i,n1,1,11u,lullulul,lu,l,llnllul,ll II,I1,1,1,1,1111111111r1 Ili 1u1111111 Its III III ll,1,u,1,I,IIu,1nllulul,lu,l,lr,l,lnl,11 Parcel:024-301-34-00 Parcel:024-232-31-00 Parcel:024-222-13-00 Newman Family Trust Schumacher Trust White Richard R 20891 Sailmaker Cir 801 Frankfort Ave 407 Detroit Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5222 11,lnul,I,1l1u1nll,+li,l,llnl,Iln,lnllll II,Ini11,I,II,nlnllnlnl,lui1,111nI1u111 11,Innl,llll,nlullnlulullu+lull„1„11 Parcel:024-301-41-00 Parcel:024-302-37-00 Parcel:024-242-46-00 Bergman James M Murphy Doris Heemstra Susan P 20932 Sailmaker Cir 20902 Seacoast Cir 632 Geneva Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5248 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4734 11,1111111111111n1,1,lIn 11111111111111111111 111Inn1111111111„1!„1„111111111111111 11111111uu,I,I,I,I„I,+I„I,Il,nt,l,l,,,ll,l Parcel:024-242-24-00 Parcel:024-232-11-00 Parcel:939-50-001-00 Benchmark Property Mgmt Llc Lachapelle Harold&Novak John Las Brisas Hb L1c 2001 Lemnos Dr 807 Frankfort Ave 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 203 Costa Mesa,Ca 92626-3535 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4904 Hermosa Beach,Ca 90254-2753 11111 gill 11,11n,1ullul,l Il,lnnl,l,lln,l„1lul+) II,I+,II,,,,,r,1,1+ ,lulnl,lli„11111u1111! Parcel:939-50-004-00 Parcel:939-50-006-00 Parcel:939- -007- Khreich Gilbert N Harris Leslie A Las B� s H Ic 7668 Baypoint Dr 103 7668 Baypoint Dr 101 230 ac' Co Hwy SW Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- rmo a Be ,Ca 90254-2753 11111111111u11111, 1nlnl,ll,ul(1,11„II,) Il,lnllr+„11,11t1i11ill 11111„ll I1,111,1 Il,l„11u+,11,I,1+1n1+,1„ 111,diLl1+,II,I Parc�Pa -008- Parcel 90-009- 0 Parcel:939-50-010 Las Las100 Bra' as Hb Ic Las Brisas Ic 2 c Coa wy 203 yam'V 23 Q Pacifi Coa wy 203 b_1 2309 Pa is C st H 03 erm a Be Ca 90254 2753 �mos ea Ca 90254-2753 Her sa ach, 90254-2753 i XoBe lnln 1l,llu,1 P01 0 Parcel:939-51 -00 Parcel:939- -013-00 LIc Las Bris b QLas as Hb2o Hwy 203\)4 2309 acif oas wy 203 �/" ` 2 9 Pa Coas 203�H Ca 90254-2753 H mo Be Ca 90254-2753 ermo a Be Ca 90254-2753 1111„11„in1,11111, Inl1, 1u1,1 n1111 Il,lnll,11u1,11 „lulu ni11111u,1 lI11,u,I,I+11n,!„11n1„l,l,lu1111,I,+llul Parcel:939-5 14- Parcel-939- -015- Parcel:939-50-016-00 Las Bris Hb c Las Br' Z c Levin Jon J&Kenton 2309 acifi oas wy 203� 230 acst 203 �P 20962 Sandbar 103 H osa ea Ca 90254-2753 H mos , a 90254-2753 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5856 ww"aw t1f1613f�11'rtAA � .h.�,mo- 'tlL� B�4i��� A�d;W t t 1® Aq 11,II,n1,1111u11u11n1nIfl+lllll,lllulll+l 1111111111IfIIIIf if]I(II lu1,111,III III III III 1 11,11111fu11it fill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlltl111111141 Parcel:939-50-017-00 Parcel:939-50-018-00 Parcel:939-50-019-00 Dunn Aspen J&Ian Las Bri H c Las Brisas LI 't 20962 Sandbar 101 230 act Coa wy 203W 2309 P ific�as wy 203� Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 5255 ermo Be Ca 90254-2753 He osa�Ca 90254- 53 lilllulllflllmfl,1,11,n1llll,luli,l,lu11) IIIII1111(,III,Ififl,lit III IIJ1n1111111 III III 111II,11uu11,1,1,1n1u1u1,11n11,l,lntlle Parcel:939-50-020-00 Parcel:939- 02i- 0 Parcel:939 50- 2-00 Gagnon Donald P Las Bri s H lc Q Las Brisa b L1 914 Helena Cir 230 acif Coas wy 203�) `Il 2309 P _ific a wy 20� Costa Mesa,Ca 92626-2958 rmos Beac , Ca 90254-2753 Her osa ea Ca 90254-2753 1fIln1lu,,,1,l,I,lul,11,1I111,fill]111111111 Il,lull,lu,lll,I,Iu1,11„I,lln,l,l,lu11I4I Illlullnn,l,l,l,lf1lnlnl111n,III,Iu111,1 Parcel:939-50-023 00 Parcel:939-50-02 00 Parcel:939- -02 0 Las Bris H Ic Las Brisas Llc Las Br s Llc 2309 i C st y 203� 2309 Pa Ic C st�H2 230 ac" c Co st Hwy 203D/V He B ' ch a 90254-2753 Herm a B ach, 27 3 H rmo B ch, Ca 90254-2753 1111u11rIIIIII I nlnlul,li,fil,l,lmll,i till,III,unlll,l,1u11,1u1,1l,11111,111111,1 11111111111,Ili fill IIIIIfnIIIIIIfl"I III,J,11 Parcel:93 0-026- 0 Parcel:939-50-027-0 Parcel:939-50-028-00 g23Pac as H lc t Las Bris Hb c Okamoto Takako SCoas wy 203 2309 acifi oas wy 203N20936 Sandbar 101 Beac ,Ca 90254-2753 He os eac , Ca 90254-2753 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5852 11,1,ufllllllu111,Ilulnldlnl,l,l,lnf,l,l 11,I,u,III+Ilullnllulul,lnnlll,lun,111 ll,lnllul„1,I,1 nlnl111n11,ll1u,11,1 Parcel:939-50-029-00 Parcet:939-50-030-00 Parcel: -031- Marroquin Eimer Jr Collier Alan A Las sas lc 20936 Sandbar 102 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 312 9 Pac Co Hwy 203 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5255 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5191 Her sa B ch,Ca 90254-2753 flf11111lIliIlI111U111111,11111111llllfllllifl 111111111,11111111111111lII 1111l111111111f11illillfllf Parcel:939-50-033-00 Parcel:939-50-034-00 Parcel:939-50-035-00 Lafrades Lita R Clements Robert R Belitz Cameron&Sarah 20936 Sandbar 203 7648 Bay Dr 102 7648 Bay Dr 101 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5255 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- Huntington Beach, Ca 92648- 11111111111111„11+111„!,) 11,luuf+1,11ufl++11itIII (l,lnlln,,,l,f,11 „1u1,11n,1d11m11,1 Parcel:939-50-036-00 Parcel:939-50-037-00 Parcel:939- -038-0 Whiteman Jeffrey R Ejercito Jonathan R&Gaboya Dayna L Las B as�H!b"c7648 Bay Dr 202 7648 Bay Dr 201 2 Pa5 Hwy 203Huntington Beach, Ca 92648- Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- erm ah,Ca 90254-2753 {1,{,111,un{,1 ,11n1u1,11u,1,1,1u,1111 Il,lull,uul,l+l,1,11 ,I,11111n,1,1,1ndII1 1111++I1,u„1,111,1u1u1n1,l1,n111,in,11,1 Parcel:93 0-039-0 Parcel: 0-00 Parcel: -00 LIsB.C.as Hb c `` n LEsa�B b LI Las Brisa Llc12ctfi oast y 203` 2 _ c ast y 20 2309 cfic C st y 203�each a 90254-2753 N ach, a 90254-2753 He osa B ach a 90254-2753 111IIIIlln,ll tl,fillIII III IfI III III fit 1111 11111111,u„1,1,111111111111111111111111111111 fill l,ll,,,u1,1,1 r I,l„l111,,,1,l,lu,ll,1 Pal- 1:9 -50-04 0 Parcel:939-5 43- Pat ce1:939- -044-0 Las B sas Llc I Las Bris Hb c '� n4 Las Br' s Hb 230 Paci c Co t Hwy 2 2309 acifi oa wy 03 `I 230 acifi a wy 20� H mo Be Ca 90254-2753 H mos ea , Ca 90254-2753 He osa ea ,Ca 90254-2753 {1,1u11nu11111 Illlnll,l,lln,l,l,ln,11,1 11,1,111u,n1,1, „Iulnl,llnll,l,l,u III) llllnll„1+, , I1u1,1 ,lflln,111,fu,11,1 Pa/939- -045- Parcel: 0-04 0 Parcel:9 -50-04 - 0 Lab c Las B ' as H Llc Las isas LI 23oa Hwy 20P—( 23 Paci st Hwy 23 Pa ' c C ast HwyNeac , Ca 90254-2753 rmos Be ch, Ca 90254-2753 Hermosa B ch,Ca 90254-2753 4s 4� WWWAN ��gyilllls n At Ijt n11ANWWONMW Il,I„Ilnu,11I,I,1nlnlnl,ll,nl,l,I,ull,1 11,Iu„I'll 1111111111111,1 11111111111111111111111u1r,IIIIIIIIIIIIr1111It I Parcel 939-5 48-0 Parcel:939-50-049-00 Parcel:939-50-0 Las Bris Hb c Lakkees Christopher Las Bris b L1c 2309 acifi 0 Hwy 203 7624 Sandstone Cir 104 23 acific C H 3 H mos Be h, Ca 90254-2753 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- ermos ach a 90254-2753 If,1ull,n„11111,1„1, 1nl111,,,I,1, „11,1 1111n11u1„1,I,i,l, 1 +,1111u,1,l,ln,ll,1 11,1u1luu,1,11i11uin ,11uli,l,lu,lltl Parcel:939 50- 00 Parcel-939-5 52-00 Parcel:939-50 0 0 Las Brisa b Llc Las Br` Hb L Las Brisa Llc 2309 P if, C st wy 203 2309 cific oast y 203 2309 cific st H 03 Her osa B ch a 90254-2753 Her os each a 90254-2753 mosa each a 90254-2753 11,1uIIn,,,11f,I,1u 11u1,11,ul11,11u1 II,In1!„n,111,I,1n1n11,11I1n,l,l,l,ullll 1111u11„n,1,11l,Iui„1111111n,1,ltlu,lla I Parce1:939-50- 4-00 Parcel: -0 Parcel:939-5 00 Las Brisa b L Las Br Hb c Las Bri s Hb 2309 P cific ast y 203 2309 acifi oa wy 203 23 Pac' Coast 203 Her osa ach a 90254-2753 rmos ea Ca 90254-2753 rmo a Beach a 90254-2753 If,inll„,IIIIIIII) u111111IfIIIIIIIf111111 1111u11„n1111,1,1 i1111111 If u11,111 If III1 11111411nu11111111u II III III Iif III IIIIII Parcel:939-50 57-00 Parcel:939-5 VCa902 Parcel:939-5 9-00 Las Brisa b Lic Las Bris s H Las Bri s Hb 2309 P cific C st y 203 2309 acifi 23 Pacif oa wy 203 Her sa Be ch, 90254-2753 H mos e -2753 erm Bea Ca 90254-2753 1111n1L„nf111f,1u1„lnl,lln,1,111u,11,) II,Inlluu,111,I,lululu1111n,11 ullll 11111,111,nI1,11f1 11 n,1, ,l,,,llal Parcel:939-50 60-0 Parcel:939-50 -0 Parcel:939- 0 0 Las Bris Hb c Las Bris b c Las B as Llc 2309 cific oast wy 203 2309 cifi o Hwy 203 2 P fc st Hwy 203 Her osa each a 90254-2753 H os e Ca 90254-2753 ermosa ach,Ca 90254-2753 111111111,11,111,111u1 .1n1,11,n111,11n11,1 Il,ln!lnu11,1,1, u1,1 u,l,l nll,l I1,1,111uu,l,l,l,fulu 1,11m111,Iu1111! Parcel:939-50- -00 Parcel:939- -065- Par:Brisa :939-50 -00 Las Brisas b LI Las Bri s Hb c La b L2309 P lfic C ast y 203 2309 acific oas wy 203 23 cific oast 203Her sa B ach, a 90254-2753 H osa eac Ca 90254-2753 Heosa ea Ca 90254-2753 111IIIIIIIIIIIJ11,1 11 ,1111 ,I,11II III11 111lu11uu11,1111fn 1u1111u,1,111n1I111 1111111,f111f11uf1,Ifn1n1,1n11,1,Ifn,If11! Parcel 939-5 7-0 Parcel:939-50 8-o Parcel:939-50-069-00 Las Bris Hb Las Brisa b L Henrichsen Lance B 2309 P cific oast y 203 2309 P 1c ast 203 7965 Bay Dr 69 Her osa ach, a 90254-2753 Her osa each, a 90254-2753 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5263 II,In111,11111111111 111111111,,,1,1,1n1f111 111In„I,1,i11n1nllnlll 11,1n11n,I,1,I11,u,I,Ilu1111n11,11,111,111 Parcel:939-5 0- Parcel:939-50-071-00 Parcel:939-50-072-00 Las Bris H c Tanaka Duane T&Linda Holguin Margaret 2309 aci Coa my 203 7671 Bay Or 103 Po Box 1845 H o Bea Ca 90254-2753 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- Avalon,Ca 90704-1845 ll,lull+unf,1,I11 , 111111n1,111n,11,f 11,1n1l,,,,,1,111 , ul, „1111 11i,1 I1,11„11,I,II,,,I„u,11,11,111„I„I,I,il,r,l Parcel:939-5 7 0 ParceI:939- -075- ParceI:939-50-081-00 Las Bris H Llc Las Bri s Hb c Tritz David And V Family Trust 2309 acif Co sf Hwy 203 230 acifi Coa wy 203 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 101 He os B h, Ca 90254-2753 H rmos ea , Ca 90254-2753 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4850 1l,1n1,l11111,1„11111111111111,11111111111111 I1,Iu,,,IIIu11111111n1,n11n,1,111111u,111 II,luu1,11111111,11,11„11i„1111IIIIIIIIIId Parcel:939-50-082-00 Parcel:939-50-083-00 Parcel:939-50-084-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Mcveigh Eileen C 21022 Cantebury Ln 3101 W Temple Ave 132 8777 Coral Springs Ct Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 Pomona, Ca 91768-3241 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6203 Sens I�Rit�si4rC-1 alit1kilK9` �i rJ�aTrio (� I AL e ® if 4 1i11uui,l,Ilnliull„!„l111141ifI III I III I11 II,IInII,I,lIIII I[III d IIIInnIIII III fill Ill„I,11u11 flit IIIIIIIIII 1 Parcel:939-50-085-00 Parcel:939-50-086-00 Parcel:939-50-087-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Butler Christopher J 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 105 3223 Moritz Dr 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 107 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4850 Huntington Beach,Ca 92649-1877 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A85® III In III 11111n,II1,IInn11111111111n1r1If11 11,1nul+1111u1,11,11u,1 1111u,n1il,ulnll,in11n,11111„111fu,l1, 1 Parcel:939-50-088-00 Parcel:939-50-089-00 Parcel:939-50-090-00 Urban Land Co Seif Mary Urban Land Co 21022 Cantebury Ln 210 Canebury Ln 9655 Carrad Ct Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 Lake Forest, Ca 92630- Alta Loma,Ca 91737-1653 II,1nnl,l,Ilu,lnllnl„dill it11u111111111) II111n,I11,ll,u,ll111u„I,Illnlnlnlnl,ll 11,11uulln,llll1u11ninll,llll,iin,nl,l1 Parcel:939-50-091-00 Parcel:939-50-092-00 Parcel:939-50-093-00 Urban Land Co Uln Lic Mele-brown Living Trust 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 111 21022 Cantebury Ln 1702 Loma Vista St Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4850 Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 Pasadena, Ca 91104-3902 11 fill III 11,11111111u,111,1 III 11[it 1111111ItII 111In111111IIu111111It11111111111(11111111III 111l,uulllu,l„111,In1uil,luln,ll,l,l,1 ! Parcel:939-50-094-00 Parcel-939-50-095-00 Parcel:939-50-096-00 Improvement Co&Mitchell Land Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 25531 Rapid Falls Rd 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 115 2659 Saddle Ridge Dr Laguna Hills,Ca 92653-5869 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4850 Covina, Ca 91724-3839 1111,Iu1,1,11u,In11n11„11,n11,11nn,flll 111lu11u,11ululllllnulllu,l,lllll,il,ul Illlull,unl111n,111,I111111u11n1,1lnIIl1 Parcel:939-50-097-00 Parcel:939-50-098-00 Parcel:939-50-099-00 Urban Land Co Mcilhenny Family Trust Gardner B L And I R Living Trust 413 22nd St 3132 Rowena Dr 308 Garnet St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-3302 Los Alamitos,Ca 90720-5230 Redondo Beach,Ca 90277-3342 1i,1uu111,1111,11,nlnll„lu fill 111111111 Il,ltn,l,ills,Inll,lluui+Ill++l++lnl,+llll 1111,n11,1,11n„1i,11uu1,1,{nlulul„{I!I Parcel:939-50-100-00 Parcel:939-50-101-00 Parcel:939-50-102-00 Urban Land Co Aguayo Larry R Birnbaum Peter S 827 E San Lorenzo Rd 21022 Cantebury Ln 21022 Cantebury Ln Palm Springs,Ca 92264-81 11 Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 {l1{u lit 1111,1„11iI1111I11111111]11111 fill n1 11111111111111u1,i,lin,Lil„11„111111111111 Il,iu11111,11,u,1,111u1,1111iiunlull1l,11 Parcel:939-50-103-00 Parcel:939-50-104-00 Parcel:939-50-105-00 Urban Land Co Improvement Co&Mitchell Land Urban Land Co 86 Sanders Ranch Rd 433 Bryson Spgs 8765 Cooperston Way Moraga, Ca 94556-2806 Costa Mesa,Ca 92627-6016 Elk Grove,Ca 95624-3047 1111111114111111111111111111 lit IIIII,I„1u1111 11111111111111111111111111111111111nl11llni,I II,I,In1,1,11,nlullulnl„1!„lullul,1lt( Parcel:939-50-106-00 Parcel:939-50-107-00 Parcel:939-50-108-00 Self Mary Urban Land Co Mitchell Land 21022 Cantebury Ln 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 127 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 128 Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4868 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A868 Ililu111111111„Inllulnlul1+11n11,11„I,l lilluli,1,II,1,1fu,Iulll,li,Illnn1,111u11 II,1,u11,I111,n1nlluln1u111,1n1,1,I1n11 Parcel:939-50-109-00 Parcel:939-50-110-00 Parcel:939-50-111-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 129 3445 Stevety Ave 1200 Pack Coast Hwy 201 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648AB68 Long Beach,Ca 90808-3024 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4850 I,11,1l1nuu11u11fllu,n111(111111u[fill 11 Ills,n1111111uu1l111uul,I,luluiulul111 (lll,u,I11111,,,11,11n1n1n11n{„f1i,11n,1 Parcel:939-50-112-00 Parcel:939-50-113-00 Parcel:939-50-114-00 Urban Land Co Heyward James E Iii Urban Land Co 5507 Sequoia Farms Dr 21022 Cantebury Ln 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 204 Centreville,Va 20120-3303 Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4850 + u U ' sffK r ;; r �If»Ittatr aim, ;; ,CAM ewe► j p �4M j AVE RY fit 11+1,u,lIl111n,1ullululull„I,+1,1111n+1 llil,nn1111uu111111un11111111 fit 11u1111 II,l++ul,l,iiiu1,+11u1„l�llnlul,lnul�I Parcet 939-50-115-00 Parcel:939-50-116-00 Parcel:939-50-117-00 Improvement Co&Mitchell Land Baroi Deborah E&Ion Gross Norman B 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 205 1441 Huntington Dr 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 207 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4850 South Pasadena, Ca 91030-4512 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-485 1 11 fill III 11111i,i1u11u1ni hill hill nlnllll 1111„1141111111111111 111111111111 liilmliilill„iul,ulin,li,lul,11111111111 Parcel:939-50-11"0 Parcel:939-50-119-00 Parcel:939-50-120-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Mitchell Land 6552 Havenwood Cir 12657 166th St 13812 Goldenwest St 100 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-6642 Cerritos, Ca 90703-2101 Westminster, Ca 92683-3862 11,Inul,11n1„11u1,11Iu1,lnlln„Ilu,lil 1111i,u1,1,I1,nlnllufulull,,Iul+I,u,ll) Illlnul,lilln,lnlli,!„1n11u1„I,Inul1 Parcel:939-50-121-00 Parcel:939-50-122-00 Parcel:939-50-123-00 Vance Family Trust Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 7612 E Saddlehill Trl 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 212 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 213 Orange,Ca 92869-2311 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4851 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-485 1 lf1ln,Il,l,lln11u11nlululfnll+l,lnnlll Ii,lnllun[fill n1111rIIIIIIIII11i„id III fit 11,lu+1u11111 fill 141111[it 11u111itIIultIf I Parcel:939-50-124-00 Parcel:939-50-125-00 Parcel:939-50-127-00 Mitchell Land&Mprovement Co Urban Land Co Merrill-palethorpe Trust 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 214 2 Spur Ln 1450 Grand Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4851 Rolling Hills,Ca 90274-5020 San Rafael,Ca 94901-2235 11,1nu111111,ulullullilnllnlnlilu„lll II,I,n,I,I,IlIu1n11,ilululi++Inl,l+,nli1 11,I+u+l,l,ll,u1„Ilulnl,iilnlnl,l+u,111 Parcel:939-50-128-00 Parcel:939-50-129-00 Parcel:939-50-130-00 Urban Land Co Rivera Dolly N&Eduardo Urban Land Co 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 218 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 219 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 220 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4851 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4851 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4851 Il1lunl,filln,f„lfuf„1,+11n1,+1i1,,n111 fl,Innlll+lfiuln11n1III IIII fill III IIIII) 1liunilit,if+ln,li,1,1n1uluillllu,l,l,i1 Parcel:939-50-131-00 Parcel:939-50-132-00 Parcel:939-50-133-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 221 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 222 125 Peterborough St 44 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4851 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4851 Boston, Ma 02215-1209 III]�I,iliIlll,ufufli,ltiful III fill 111111111 1111uI11i1,n11u,linilll 11+1,n,1i1111n,In11,11iilfi,lul,n11111i,11 Parcel:939-50-134-00 Parcel:939-50-135-00 Parcel:939-50-136-00 Improvement Co&Mitchell Land Urban Land Co Improvement Co&Mitchell Land 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 224 57 Cottage PI Dr 18611 Park Meadow Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4851 Robbinsville, Nj 94111- Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-6817 IIIli1,,1,1,11,n1n11n1i,1u11u1nl,f+u,111 1111u,itdill„11n11fill III IIIIII III III IIiIII 111111111111(it nIIIIr[if fill If+luIItI(if II(II Parcel:939-50-137-00 Parcel:939-50-138-00 Parcel:939-50-139-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Mitchell Land 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 227 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 228 4937 Pasadena Avenue Ter Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4851 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4851 Los Angeles,Ca 90042A417 11u1i11n,111nIlinlullllnllu,ll,l„1u1,1 IIIIIIIIIIIdI,nIIIII fill III III 111(11111111111 111111111111111111 fill IIII111Ii11III III III ItIII Parcel:939-50-140-00 Parcel:939-50-141-00 Parcel:939-50-142-00 Urban Land Co Floyd Alena Urban Land Co 9865 Eaglet Way 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 301 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 302 Colorado Springs,Co 80908-4798 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4851 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4851 11,I,nil,1,111111111111111111111111111 fill lll li+lunl11,I1„nll111141111111111111111111111 111111111,I,1lu,Inl,ll,ul,lnlnf,l„1,1„11 Parcel:939-50-143-00 Parcel:939-50-145-00 Parcel:939-50-146-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Improvement Co&Mitchell Land 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 303 21022 Cantebury Ln 10181 Edye Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 9264BA851 Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5444 li lR�611L� I�i41 4i�a P 5 ..H@ im i I ililslrB la ,� „� ai lerlbe, vlrD, si' 1�tAA�1Q_ 'VERY 1ulilluliti„(i111u,11111It'll it'll luIIIIII 1111mill111111111 111111[11111 1111ur11It III u11uIIIIrIIIIIIIIIII III first It I Parcel:939-50-147-00 Parcel 939-50-148-00 Parcel 939-50-149-00 Urban Land Cc Pate A Rocco Jesse Improvement Co&Mitchell Land 2201 Old Highway 20 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 308 16861 Lynn St Marshall, Nc 28753-9060 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4851 Huntington Beach, Ca 92649-390 7 Il,lunl11,I1nn111t1n1I 111Inu1,11u,llulu11111In1l,I,u,111111n! 111Inu1111f1n,1,IllIII 11n11nit III lu,lit l Parcel:939-50-150-00 Parcel:939-50-151-00 Parcel:939-50-152-00 Pearson Peggy C Urban Land Co Improvement Co&Mitchell Land 21022 Canterbury Ln 13063 Maxwell Dr 21022 Canterbury Ln Lake Forest, Ca 92630- Tustin, Ca 92782-0919 Lake Forest,Ca 92646A852 II,1inn1111i,111nnHu,lnlhil111111111„) II,I,n,I,Inl,lu11111n,1n111u,llln,llu,l I1,I,n1l,l,lli„1n111,1n1n11u1,11111u1,11 Parcel:939-50-153-00 Parcel:939-50-154-00 Parcel:939-50-155-00 Dulake Richard W& Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 1816 S 6th Ave 45405 Via Corona 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 315 Arcadia,Ca 91006-4839 Indian Wells,Ca 92210-8700 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4852 II111n1I,1111n,1ulln+lull„lilululullll II,1n11,In11i11u,11,11u1111u1ifu1111n,11 Ililun,Illiu111n11,1nu111„111n1,11,1u 1 Parcel:939-50-156-00 Parcel:939-50-157-00 Parcel:939-50-158-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Improvement Co&Mitchell Land 7101 Starlight Cir 416 M St 1439 Westridge Way Huntington Beach, Ca 92647-3543 Rio Linda,Ca 95673-2217 Chino Hills,Ca 91709-2229 11,Inul,Ili,,111ui11111111nn11,11u,1u111 II,1n1i11llnl,lnl,lu,llil,11u,111n1n1,l1 f111m,1,1111,u(u11n(nlnllu(,11,1,,,1,11 Parcel:939-50-159-00 Parcel-939-50-160-00 Parcel.939-50-161-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 19312 Saint Jude Dr 5145 Westwood Ln 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 321 Santa Ana,Ca 92705-6307 Yorba Linda,Ca 92887-2742 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A852 11111111111111111111111411IfIIIII did IIlullll (111ur11111111u1„11„Int,111u1u IIIIIIfil (1,1un111111n1fn1lnl,11n11u11i1uu1,1,1 Parcel-939-50-162-00 Parcel:939-50-163-00 Parcel:939-50-164-00 Improvement Cc&Mitchell Land Urban Land Co Urban Land Cc 21022 Cantebury Ln 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 323 Po Box 805 Lake Forest, Ca 92630-5842 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4852 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-0805 IliInnli1i11,n1n11u1u1u11111111,I,u1,11 11,InnI,(,II,r,I,,11n1,ni111,u1,i111I+I„I Illlin,1,1,11u1lull„1u1„1lulnl,I,I,I+11 Parcel:939-50-165-00 Parcel:939-50-166-00 Parcel:939-50-167-00 Bennett Aurelia& Urban Land Co Nicole Urban Land Co 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 325 18685 Main St 101 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 327 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A852 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-1719 Huntington Beach,Ca 92WA852 1111nn1111111(111111111111 till(,In111 fill III II,I„I,I,1111u,IuIl111„In11n1(till I III III Min,il,l,llu,i„f1u1r,1nfl,1lul,lu,1,11 Parcel:939-50-168-00 Parcel 939-50-169-00 Parcel:939-50-170-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Improvement Co&Mitchell Land 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 328 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 329 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 330 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4852 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4852 Huntington Beach, Ca 926481Y852 1111u,11,1,11u11nllnlnlulluil,l+lu,1,1! 11,1i,u1+I,11n,1u11u1niullulnl,llul111 flillu11,111In+1„i,1fn,l,lu,11u,1,I1n11! Parcel:939-50-171-00 Parcel:939-50-172-00 Parcel:939-50-173-00 Urban Land Co Rehberger Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 407 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 408 9861 Hot Springs Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4852 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4852 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-5327 11,1,i1,111,11ni1u11u1III III lnln1111111111 1111111111ItI1u11ullulr111,11ifInl,II III II) 11,1un111,11n1,11,11u,11,1,1n11,1n1i+1,1t Parcel:939-50-174-00 Parcel:939-50-175-00 Parcel:939-50-176-00 Urban Land Co Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 411 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 412 21022 Cantebury Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4852 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A852 Lake Forest,Ca 92630-5842 $ �A_ EBY fl 111111111111111111n1111nlfit III dilkmild 111111u111111111111111111111111111111111411111 ll,lnnl,lllln,lnflnlnln11u1111,1n,1111 Parcel:939-50-177-00 Parcel:939-50-178-00 Parcel:939-50-179-00 Kamran And Kyan Inc Mitchell Land Urban Land Co Po Box 27091 575 S Scout Trl 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy 421 Anaheim, Ca 92809-0103 Anaheim, Ca 92807-4754 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4852 II111IrIl III IIl,llu,lu,lil[lilt lll„IIIIIIIIi i111,n,I,II„iululllr11n1111111111111111111 11111u11111111 fill 1i„1ui11,1„I„1111111111 Parcel:939-50-180-00 Parcel:939-50-181-00 Parcel:939-50-182-00 Lazarus Robert L& Urban Land Co Urban Land Co 491 S Paseo Estrella 13061 Galway St 18611 Park Meadow Ln Anaheim, Ca 92807-4210 Garden Grove,Ca 92844-1633 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-681 7 IIIInniII,IIIiIIIIIII,In,111111114111111,111 11111u,iIi11i1,11un11n1lllullin111,11n11 1l,lnnlll,Ilu,l„1111,udllu,liullllllial Parcel:939-50-183-00 Parcel:939-50-184-00 Parcel:939-50-185-00 Urban Land Co Fourrier Dawn M Improvement Co&Mitchell Land Urban Land Co 3537 Voyager Cir 7124 Hawarden Dr D:z. 19132 Hamden Ln San Diego,Ca 92130-1847 Riverside, Ca 92506-5534 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-2135 11 fill 11111111,I111,llidill111111111111111fill 1111,,,11,i,III I111III111111111111 fill 111(11111 u11,I1,i,i,u,,,iI,111111111,I,i,111111i1111ti Parcel 939-50-190-00 Parcel:939-50-191-00 Parcel:939-50-192-00 Williams Germaine K Sheety Michael A Yarber Sherry 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 101 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 102 118 14th St Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4481 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4481 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4428 IIIiullu,li,nu,llul,fll,fll,iun,1f1111,1 li,inni111111I,l,IIIIIIIIII,II,I fill III III 111 11111111111(11111111u11„1u111111 lilt 14111111 Parcel:939-50-193-00 Parcel:939-50-194-00 Parcel:939-50-195-00 Dias Colin P Trust Pellon Kevin Jay Bush Gregory 995 Figueroa Ter 109 7023 Nestucca Ct 32 Remington Ln Los Angeles,Ca 90012-5918 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-6246 Aliso Viejo,Ca 92656-8054 il1llinl11111u,1n1i1liu1111111(11111 lilt]1) II,In11nu11,1,111n111mllnl„IIIn,1n,11 11,11nnllln,I,lln,l,lmllulln,I,lu,il,1 Parcel:939-50-196-00 Parcel:939-50-197-00 Parcel:939-50-198-00 Meras Cheri&Roger Stein Gary Serf Ezzat Azmi 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 107 21838 Castlewood Dr 2909 Wagon Train Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4481 Malibu,Ca 90265-3407 Diamond Bar,Ca 91765-3653 1i,1,uil,llfilnlull,iitlinl1lulfulunlll II,fuIllilr111I,11111n1u1ni11nllullu,ill - 1111,ui1111111 lilt III fill l,luili,ilinu1111 Parcel:939-50-199-00 Parcel:939-50-200-00 Parcel:939-50-201-00 Beck Eric A&Jae Sloan Family Living Trust Martin Jaydee&Ryan 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 110 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 111 6257 Surfpoint Cir Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4481 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4481 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5591 1111111111111111111111141111111111 till IIIIIIiII 11i1nlii,,iilil,ilu1l,inllluinillnlin,ll fiiinn111fliiliu,lulfiu1111,iI11,lu,nil) Parcel 939-50-204-00 Parcel:939-50-205-00 Parcel:939-50-206-00 De Boer Jeffrey&De Boer Susan Marie Laughlin Adam Chen Shirley Xiao 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 115 21838 Castlewood Dr 345 Calle Moreno Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4481 Malibu, Ca 90265-3407 San Dimas,Ca 91773-3991 11,luui,I,11ui1nllulllini1fu11nln,i,ll II,11,nI,1i111u1n11„1,IInlllinullilllnl 11,1un11f1,1,i1i1n1,1,I„llnili,l,ni,Il11) Parcel:939-50-207-00 Parcel:939-50-208-00 Parcel:939-50-209-00 Desai Ami Stephan Timothy Tonti Elizabeth&Guy 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 118 417 9th St 15773 Country Club Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4482 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4636 Chino Hills,Ca 91709-3372 1111n11111111111111111111itn1111 I'll 111111111 ll,iu,,Ili,Ilnlll,lluluinlllnlluilullll 111111111111 11111111111,If 11111111 1111111111 111 Parcel:939-50-210-00 ParceC 939-50-211-00 Parcel:939-50-212-00 Bateman Dixie D S Family T&Nambudripad K K Locascio Jean 152 Leucadia Rd 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 201 8629 Haldeman St La Habra Heights,Ca 90631-7805 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4482 San Gabriel,Ca 91775-2636 Ak n u �t�iggate� li3e� ler 1; 5>e li {dlrsl�ttt�ittti�;�i6ieidl�;; ,�iDe99 AL if 1111uu111it111llu,lnil,lnllnllr,l,llfill ll,lun(,lllln11ul1ul„lul,lnll„l,ul,Il ll,Inul,1i11n11n1lu1nl„1,lnllnlinl,l l Parcel:939-50-213-00 Parcel:939-50-214-00 Parcel:939-50-215-00 Nguyen Am&Hiep Mehta Jagdish P& Sudesh Ly Nguyen Henri B 251 Virginia Ave 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 204 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 205 Pasadena,Ca 91107-4827 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A482 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4482 fill uul11111111111111t111111111,1I1„In11111 II,I,,,11,1,11u,1n1,11nilln,lluu,11111u1 ll,In,,111,I1u11,111i,lulul,lnllnlllul, 1 Parcel:939-50-216-00 Parcel:939-50-217-00 Parcel:939-50-218-00 Parvin Ben A Felix Edmund T Guirguis Hala&Marc Po Box 1074 20732 Spindrift Ln 1516 Pacific Coast Hwy 304 La Canada, Ca 92648-4482 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6616 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4485 I11I,n,1,I,IIn,lnllulnliililnll,ilu,1111 II,I,n11,I,Ilu,lll,nllullnullu,l,llnlll I111nn1,I,I1u11„Ilnfihllnl111n,11u1111 Parcel:939-50-219-00 Parcel:939-50-220-00 Parcel:939-50-221-00 Nazari Michael G Perry Vernon Moore Theodore Abner 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 302 26085 Flintlock Ln 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 304 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4482 Laguna Hills,Ca 92653-6328 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-8412 111ln„1,1,11ui1n11u1,1n1nlfill,Illullll IIII,,u1 III fill fill 111111111111111111111If1111 1111f,1i111n1,1u1u1u1nlllulill Parcel:939-50-222-00 Parcel:939-50-223-00 Parcel:939-50-224-00 Corwin Charles M Mckay James L Beltz Jean B&Townsend Beatrice 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 305 215 Idianapolis 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 307 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-8412 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-8412 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-8412 I1,1un111111n11nllnl,ll,lnlnlu,11n1111 11,11n,1,1,11,u1nll,lnu,lll„Inllul,lnl llilnnl,I,llnilul,lliull,lull,lluunlll Parcel:939-50-225-00 Parcel:939-50-226-00 Parcel:939-50-227-00 Deppe Michael O Takeshita Suzuo Holman James E& 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 308 16566 Bordeaux Ln 20882 Sea Mist Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-8412 Huntington Beach,Ca 92649-1869 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-6301 IIIIII lilillulln11111,1,Il,ilnlu,ll„lilt 11,fun1lllu,llululnlinlln,llnll,l,ll,l II,Iu1,1,1,11n,1,il1nl,1„lnlnln,lliililI Parcel:939-50-228-00 Parcel:939-50-229-00 Parcel:939-50-230-00 Cahl Family Trust Amin Jaimini M&Mukesh Dias Arlette A&Milagres 60023 Ridgeview Or 2619 Holly Or 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 313 Bend,Or 92648-8412 Upland, Ca 91784-1139 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-8412 Ili1n11111,11u,f„Ilu,ln1111,1,iln,lllilll Ilif,u,11111111111(11111nlll fill Ill lufr III 1 Ililnnf,1,1Iu111111111u1,1u111111111111111 Parcel:939-50-231-00 Parcel:939-50-236-00 Parcel:939-50-237-00 Quitman Jeffrey A Huey James Dean Mayer Donald Paul Po Box 1975 430 Lake St 101 403 Lake St 102 Huntington Beach,Ca 92647-1975 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5297 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5221 Illlnn1111111111111111111111111111111 fill fill 1111111111111fu111411111(1111[1111111111111111 11i11n,I,111ln,1,111,11n1,11u111111n1n,ll Parcel:939-50-238-00 Parcel:939-50-239-00 Parcel:939-50-240-00 Yescas Roberta Barr Matthew Grant Hunter 430 Lake St 103 430 Lake St 104 430 Lake St 105 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5297 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5297 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5297 I1,lunl,llul,ll„i111,111111111111111111111) Il1fu,111I,11u,1,111nlul,lu,111111u141111 (111uu11Ilu1,lu,1f11un1lnul111111111(11 Parcel:939-50-241-00 Parcel:939-50-242-00 Parcel:939-50-243-00 Charron Chad Caughey Joseph Patrick Slingsby Robert 1525 Havasu PI 430 Lake St 107 2187 Kiwi Cir Placentia, Ca 92870-2903 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5298 Corona, Ca 92879-3146 111111u111111,u1u11u11IflllnIIIIIIulull) 1111n1,111,I1u,11ifluln1,1n11,1111n1n1,1 111IIIIIIIIt III I,1u11„1n111r111111,1n1u1,1 Parcel:939-50-244-00 Parcel:939-50-245-00 Parcel:939-50-246-00 Leezer Mark J&Lotz Edward L Jr Hopton John W Jr Crawford Richard W Jr 430 Lake St 201 430 Lake St 202 430 Lake St 203 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5298 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5298 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5298 llf�iliea�daeahlasieteAAt< 1�� !� „� rr1 !� At tW I' # > MEMW SAW 1111uII,,,II,,nlnlullln,l11111n11i111n11 11111n111I111u,1ullulnl111n1111,11,111u1 II,11uu111n1111111111u11u111111111n111111 Parcel:939-50-247-00 Parcel.939-50-248-00 Parcel:939-50-249-00 Ferrante Leopold Cananea Andrew Gallardo Anthony 1036 Fortune Way 430 Lake St 205 957 Sage Brush Ln Los Angeles, Ca 90042-1527 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5299 Walnut, Ca 91789-4391 1111un111111n11nllnlullln,1111111111111) II,In1,111111n1ulu,llnl1ln111u1111u1111 1111nn111111111111 Ili 11u1]111u1111r fill 1[I 1I Parcel:939-50-250-00 Parcel:939-50-25 1-00 Parcel:939-50-252-00 Scapellati Gary Yanez Jimmy J Bonilla William Wesley 430 Lake St 207 7581 Hazard Ave C 430 Lake St 301 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5299 Westminster, Ca 92683-5351 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5800 1111+1,luilllulnlnllnlln„Inllln1,111,1 111111111111111111111111111111111d I I I I I I I I I Illluullll III(fill If III fill 111u11111 fill III II Parcel:939-50-253-00 Parcel:939-50-254-00 Parcel:939-50-255-00 Kuo Joyce Y Brunelli Michael Litteral Ronald& Po Box 70403 5782 Shasta Cir 430 Lake St 304 Sunnyvale,Ca 94086-0403 La Palma,Ca 90623-1841 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5800 111111IL111IIII1111111111It111111 fill I111 Ili 11 1111111111I11111111111411,Ili 111111111 Ili 11IIfI 111l11I111I1111I11,111,111111111111111l111,1111 Parcel:939-50-257-00 Parcel:939-50-258-00 Parcel:939-50-259-00 Smookler Peggy Trust Cohen Jerome&Ruth Hill Deborah 9550 E Thunderbird Rd 25 420 Lake St 102 1803 California St Scottsdale,Az 85260-3770 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5802 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-3167 IIIlu11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Il,lun1,11111u11,ll1nn111111111,111,1111,1 Illlun1111111u11111111n11111n1,111nnlla 1 Parcel:939-50-260-00 Parcel:939-50-261-00 Parcel:939-50-262-00 Rozdal Shawn Shroot Jason Obnen Michael J 2004 Trust 420 Lake St 104 47 Gentry 420 Lake St 106 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5802 Irvine,Ca 92620-2835 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5803 1111un11 fill 111111111111111111111111111111111 1111,1u14I111u,1u11n11111111111111nIIIIIII 11,1au111111n1111111/1n1,111n11111un11, Parcel:939-50-263-00 Parcel:939-50-264-00 Parcel:939-50-265-00 Nabor Joseph C Dickinson Deborah L&Jon Cash Joan&Thomas 420 Lake St 107 420 Lake St 201 420 Lake St 202 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5803 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5803 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5803 1111nn1111111n1ullul 11 1111111 111 1111111 11 111111itIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr11u1111111,111111111 I1111u1I,1,111u1u111Ilu11I,IIIIIII11nliIII Parcel:939-50-266-00 Parcel:939-50-267-00 Parcel:939-50-268-00 Brooks Nick Dispalato Frank Karnik Rajeen K 420 Lake St 203 512 Pierside Cir 420 Lake St 205 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5803 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4676 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5804 I111nr,I1lIIlu1II111u1r11111 I'll III IIIIIrIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII„IIIIIIIlllnIIIIIInIIIII(I IIIIIIIIIII111uIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111 Parcel 939-50-269-00 Parcel:939-50-270-00 Parcel:939-50-272-00 Gasparian Albert M Palomarez Pablo Ecker Laura Yvonne 420 Lake St 206 19342 Peachtree Cir 420 Lake St 302 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5804 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5506 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5805 11111unlllu111111111nr1111111111(1111111111 111I1I1111I,I1u11nllnlu11111u1111111111111 111IfIIIIIIIIIIIdI111111u111111 I11111111111AI Parcel:939-50-273-00 Parcel:939-50-274-00 Parcel:939-50-275-00 Nordin Ray Chamberlain Shawn M Paulus James 4922 Via Alista 420 Lake St 304 420 Lake St 305 t a Verne,Ca 91750-2062 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5805 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5805 1111u11n111111111111111141111 hill 11111111111 11In11111IfIIIln111111 Ili 11111111111111111n1 11111111111111IIIII1111I,1I11In1111111 fill IIII Parcel:939-50-276-00 Parcel 939-50-277-00 Parcel:939-50-278-00 Barrera Arlene Scheiber Investments Lic Montoya Harold F 360 E 229th St 3355 Legacy Trce 9702 Melinda Cir Carson,Ca 90745-4912 Cincinnati,Oh 45237-1729 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8427 �ta41 R1I r'+1���€hur��If1n d� If It�tlli�ztle.m�ia6e# ti �... asa�is�la ra�erd�as�11�� 'it-.>�@�r 14 :1 1 k® LQ jl 1����nll,ln+111,un1,111111u1111111111fill 1111nn1111u111i,Ill fill 111111111 Ill Ill 111111 1111111li,l,Ill Ill„11n1u111u1,1111411u1Ill Parcel:939-50-279-00 Parcel:939-50-280-00 Parcel:939-50-281-00 Hardy Andrew P Leveque Glenn L Anderson Daniel E&Kelly 1207 W Fort St 206 10956 El Chino Ave 920 Lake St Boise, Id 83702-5385 Fountain Valley, Ca 92708-5313 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-3572 Il,foul,l,Iln11u11n1n1,1,11,1,11,I11„fII I,Ill,llur1111111(11111mIIIf11111II Ill Ill II N,11„Illlnllul,lnlln,l,l,llu,lln,l,l11I Parcel:939-50-282-00 Parcel:939-50-283-00 Parcel:939-50-284-00 Benson Joseph C Gilliard David W&Diane Brodsky Ira W 410 Lake St 107 106 Telfair PI 19258 Berclair Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5808 Athens,Ga 30606-3204 Tarzana, Ca 91356-5009 11,1u,,I,l,llnllull,,lul,l,lul111n1 till 11 Ill In,,I,If Ill fill 111111(11 Will 1Fl ill Ill u1 1111111111I,11,nlnll,,1,111u,lluul,11n,11 Parcel:939-50-285-00 Parcel:939-50-286-00 Parcel:939-50-287-00 Ortiila Augusto&Nilda Cauchon Audra Lefors Wayne H 410 Lake St 203 410 Lake St 204 6631 Pageant Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5809 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5809 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-6627 11 till ui,l Ill 111111111,1,11411If111111111,1ui 1111 [till IIlinll,Ill„Ill IfI,Ir111 Hill 1,1u1 11,1„uI,I,Ilu,lullul1,l11,lnl,u,llll,n 1 Parcel:939-50-288-00 Parcel:939-50-289-00 Parcel:939-50-290-00 Rosenberg Marcia Clark Frederick B Jr Appleyard Mark I 410 Lake St 206 410 Lake St 207 410 Lake St 301 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5809 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5809 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5810 11,1,1,11,1,11n,1u11u1n,111,1,1nI,111n,11 1111uu111,1,1111,u,11,nn11n,11,1,1u,1,1) 1111,n,111,111ululln1n1,1,1w1,u11111,n1 Parcel:939-50-291-00 Parcel:939-50-292-00 Parcel:939-50-293-00 Shanks John E Lounsbury Richard G Rice Of Ullrich Family Trust&Ullrich Ann 1237 Alabama St 4260 Beechwood PI 410 Lake St 304 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-3517 Riverside,Ca 92506-1152 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5810 11r11111r11 Ill 111,unllu„I1u111lulnlnll 1111u,11,1,fir,,ll Ill ulnl,l,lulIIf Ill r,ll,I 11,1nr11111I11 Ill Ill III1111111111111111r,1111 Parcel:939-50-294-00 Parcel:939-50-295-00 Parcel:939-50-296-00 Markoff Nickolas&Vasilka This Robert F Salabanzi Bastien 1184 Wyoming St 400 Lake St 101 400 Lake St 102 Golden,Co 80403-1384 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5813 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5813 11,11111111 Ill I till fill Ill IIIfil,Ilr,,111(11111 IIIInIII11(11r(ill Ill l,l till ill ullu,ll Ill Ill 11,11n11,1111n,1,,11n1u1,1,1ulnu1il,11,1 Parcel:939-50-297-00 Parcel:939-50-298-00 Parcel:939-50-299-00 Groskreutz Scott C Moreno Elaine&Eric Costa Shane 400 Lake St 103 400 Lake St 104 400 Lake St 105 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5813 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5813 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5813 11,1,n1111,1i,nlull+,1,111111u1nn11ull,l 11111 Ill I,I,Iln,l Ill uluill,intr,1111 Ill I,1 111111111111111 Ill 1111„111 hill(11„1111111if I Parcel:939-50-300-00 Parcel:939-50-301-00 Parcel:939-50-302-00 1Gnkle George Randolph Costello Family Trust Ahrens Karen Lee 400 Lake St 106 400 Lake St 107 400 Lake St 108 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5813 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5813 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5814 fill u1111111111111(11 fill 111111111IfI11111(111 11,111111111111,111 Ill till I bill 111111 Ill,1„If IIII,u,III111 till,,ll,,l„111111,11n111111111 Parcel:939-50-303-00 Parcet:939-50-304-00 Parcel:939-50-305-00 Wareh Bruce Albert Futrell Ron 2005 Trust Kennedy Karen&Marc 400 Lake St 109 400 Lake St 110 400 Lake St 201 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5814 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5814 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5814 11,1„„I,IrII,ulI,IIn1n1,1,lul,u,11,1n1) 11,1,u,I11,11,n1„Ilul„I11,1„Iu1,11,1u11 1111,,uI111111u1„11,11,11,I,Inl1,n11,1,1,1 Parcel:939-50-306-00 Parcel:939-50-307-00 Parcel:939-50-308-00 Mariano Carolyn Katsuyama Toshiya Koch Richard B. 400 Lake St 202 400 Lake St 203 400 Lake St 204 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5814 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5814 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5815 xsaanle rahacdtBoa- loR 1! 4-90� Vow i J► a�fa l 1lr e ® rlgp,�a UfI AAae�y J Al �� j il,l1u,111111uu1 fill 1111 Ill 111,II1111111„1 111111111111111111 ill ill 11111111111111 Ill fill I I11lun1,1,111„1i+11Ilnnllnl,lnill,l+Il+1 Parcel:939-50-309-00 Parcel:939-50-311-00 Parcel:939-50-312-00 Mccall Barbara J& Wright Mark D Abad Cris&Haydon-abad Janet 1163 Aviemore Ter Po Box 173 9372 Portsmouth Dr Costa Mesa,Ca 92627-4026 Billings, Mt 59103-0173 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-35343 II,Inn1,11IInil,lilt 11nI Ill it Ill ,1111 Ill 1) I11l,u,1,111,IIIlnllnln,l11u111nll,u,lll ll,luulll,IlniltIllu111111IIIIIIJIM,ll„I Parcel:939-50-314-00 Parcel:939-50-315-00 Parcel:939-50-316-00 Bruch Robert S Hill Joan Marie Bettendorf Jason R&Pistone Lisa M 400 Lake St 210 16731 Oleander Cir 400 Lake St 302 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5815 Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-2231 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5816 il,I,nn11I,,,1,111,IIu11,u111Iullnillnll Illlunl,lllluiilu,I„IIl,unlllnil1,11n1 N,1„u1,l,llnllul�ulnl,l,luluu11,11111 Parcel:939-50-317-00 Parcel:939-50-319-00 Parcel:939-50-320-00 Koch Richard B Lisi Richard A Jr Endsley James 8331 Utica Ave 130 60 Half Moon Tot 400 Lake St 306 Rancho Cucamonga,Ca 91730-7600 Ladera Ranch,Ca 92694-0216 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5816 11,Ir,1,111111111IfIIIf11111111IfIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11iInuI,11,,1iiu,Illun+111111nllnlull,l 1Inl,I,1„,nllu,llullulln,ll+IIIu,111u 1 Parcel:939-50-321-00 Parcel:939-50-322-00 Parcel:939-50-323-00 Chade Robert&Turner Ann Garberg Christopher A&Kristen Roadhouse Wilbur M 400 Lake St 307 1524 Havasu PI 7680 River Mist Ct Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5816 Placentia,Ca 92870-2903 Las Vegas,Nv 89113-6609 I1 fill Ill 11 ill r,Ill 111411111111111111111111,11I Ill Ill IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111(111111AlIitIIIIIIIII 11,lunlil,Ilu,Inllul,11,1,1n1,n,Illu,lI Parcel:939-50-324-00 Parcel:939-50-326-00 Parcel:939-50-327-00 Kuhn Dustin Wittman Gary Ray Liberto Anthony J 320 Lake St 103 2360 Littleton Cir 320 Lake St 106 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5817 Costa Mesa,Ca 92626-6367 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5817 11,111111,1111111111111 ill 11 Ill II fill IIiIIIIIII !l,liini,i,Ilii,iiil!„lilliri+llI Ill Ill IiIIII 11,1uu1,I,11n11ullnl,111111n1„nIIIuII) Parcel:939-50-328-00 Parcel:939-50-329-00 Parcel:939-50-33 1-00 Reling Michel L Pantel Arlen B Reyes Ross R 2705 Gannet Dr Po Box 687 320 Lake St 110 Costa Mesa,Ca 926264723 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0687 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5818 1111,,Ill 1i Ill,,I,1JIl Ill 11 ill If11[1111111IfI1 11dr111 I'll Ill[fill llllu,,111 ill off lllu1111 Ililni,f,Ill 11 fill l,Ilu,11u,+Nnrllln1,11 Parcel:939-50-332-00 Parcel:939-50-333-00 Parcel:939-50-334-00 Brooks Donn P Walsh Thomas Engstrom William J 560 Hidden Ridge Ct 1194 N Ridgeline Rd 20841 Shell Harbor Cir Encinitas, Ca 92024-5839 Orange,Ca 92869-1822 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-6312 11 lilt r1111 Ill u,i„il,i1+1111111[Ill,111111111 I1,lunI11,IIIIIIIIIII,IIIIII,IIII Ill IIII,IIll IIII,,,II111111 lilt Ill 1111111111111111 Jill 11111 Parcel:939-50-335-00 Parcel:939-50-336-00 Parcel:939-50-337-00 Beverly Loob Family Trust Mitchell Phillip A Cruise Mary J 320 Lake St 204 320 Lake St 205 320 Lake St 206 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5818 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5819 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5819 II,Iu,1,1,n1I11IIII+1,1++11„nll,l,,lii11,11 I111,,,11111 Ill fill Ill,Il„lilt 1111 Ill 111111itI IIII,,,II11,ll [ill Ill Iliui,lllnln,fill,1111 Parcel:939-50-338-00 Parcel:939-50-339-00 Parcel:939-50-340-00 Clarke Matthew B&Freedman Lori B Marella Diana&Paul Barth Philip 3150 Rubino Dr 205 320 Lake St 208 320 Lake St 209 San Jose, Ca 95125-6386 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5819 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5819 111111111111111111111 i,ItIIIif14111111111111111 11111111 Ill,,IInllulull„lilllrlllllul,,l,l li,lu,il,I,I1,,,I,III,III,III(I III fill till IIll Parcel:939-50-341-00 Parcel:939-50-342-00 Parcel:939-50-343-00 Nass Hilton B&Jane Kogan Leonid Stitt Todd H 3168 Blue Monaco St 2815 Townsgate Rd 330 320 Lake St 302 Las Vegas,Nv 89117-2510 Westlake Village,Ca 91361-3098 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5820 sfW&es r „ A I�giis��l� at�r;ll� ww4d"MAW f Miler&& 1��-F )--AU V I 18 I % U§@ Av@fy®f@ 1pl>d1@ WO f68 4906E :;SON 80-- P OWN j fill nr1111111u,lnllu11n111 Ili fill III IIIIII ll,ln,11+111l+u1u1l11uu+111+,+1ii+,1„11,1 IIIIIII dill 11111111111111111111111111+n111111 Parcel:939-50-344-00 Parcel:939-50-345-00 Parcel:939-50-346-00 Ruthenbeck Peter& Villa Charmante Lk; Garcia Osvaldo R 15302 Knollwood Cir 5942 Edinger Ave 113 7286 Deerwood PI Huntington Beach, Ca 92647-2753 Huntington Beach, Ca 92649-1773 Highland, Ca 92346-5407 fl,In,1111,11,u1n11n1n111+1u1n,1,l11m1 1i1lnuf1llil,ulr1111111111141 fill III IIIII111 IIIIIIII,II,III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III fill III l Parcel:939-50-347-00 Parcel:939-50-348-00 Parcel:939-50-349-00 Paschoalin Eduardo G &Ingrid Crisp Cheryl A&Michael Gilliard David W&Diana 320 Lake St 306 320 Lake St 307 106 Telfair PI Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5820 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5820 Athens, Ga 30606-3204 1111,u11,I111n111+I1u1ul,l,luln111n1,111 1111r,,,I,IIII1 fill 11111111111Ilullnlln11111 (1,in fit IfI111n111„11111111111111If III,1111 Parcel:939-50-350-00 Parcel:939-50-351-00 Parcel:939-50-352-00 Pontrelli Michael G Rice Joseph M&Linda Tabbah Alia& 310 Lake St 101 310 Lake St 102 737 N Highland Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5835 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5835 Fullerton, Ca 92832-1207 111In,1111111u11nllnlnl,lllulu,llnlllll 111IIUII,II(it ,n11,1,I11,111nlI,1n111n1{+{ I{,itu,{,Ilnlnlllu„1i1,i11,1{,nullr{,111 Parcel:939-50-353-00 Parcel:939-50-354-00 Parcel:939-50-355-00 Bhaysar Family Living Trust Davis Alan D Hockersmith Dave& 310 Lake St 104 607 N Acacia Ave 9542 Featherhill Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5835 Fullerton, Ca 92831-3413 Villa Park, Ca 92861-2615 II,11u,111,1In11ullulul,l,lulu111lnl,ll III 1,ImIIIluIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111ifIII IIIIIII,11111I1,11n11„11,111,1,11,11111111ifI Parcel:939-50-356-00 Parcel:939-50-358-00 Parcel:939-50-359-00 Cunningham John J Mayer Ernest Wood Max E 310 Lake St 107 13967 Morrison St 310 Lake St 202 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5822 Sherman Oaks,Ca 91423-1934 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5824 1111u1111 Ili Illllul„1111 fill 1111n111111111 111ullln„Inl,lnlln11111unllullnlul{I Iwllll1u11llumll,lui1n1111u1i,lu,l1111 Parcel:939-50-360-00 Parcel:939-50-361-00 Parcel:939-50-362-00 Groskreutz Scott Quinn Marie T Berke Mindi A 1551 Pegasus St 307 Colleen Ct 2047 Hornbeck Ct Santa Ana,Ca 92707-5319 Madisonville, La 70447-9361 Raleigh, Nc 27614-7095 111f,11 III fill 1,1111111111111111111111111111111 Ili 111111111111u1111111111111111111111IfIIfId IIIIIIIIIaII(II Mill(11rIIIllllnlu11,illItI Parcel:939-50-363-00 Parcel:939-50-364-00 Parcel:939-50-365-00 lcoz Olgu&Peng Tom Romualdo Evelyn P Krikorian Brandon&Haig 310 Lake St 206 310 Lake St 207 2766 Wyckersham PI Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5825 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5825 Fullerton, Ca 92833-1439 1111111,II1,11,,,1,1I1„1111111111111111]111111 1111,n,11i1111,1IfIIItII,11+111,Ili,111II1,111 11,1u„i11,Il1ninilu1,11„i,llu11nn11111 Parcel:939-50-366-00 Parcel:939-50-367-00 Parcel:939-50-368-00 Taylor Jo Ann Kruger Ellen Faith Tsakoumakis Stan 1846 Main St 310 Lake St 302 316 6th St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2725 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5827 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4602 11111+11i,IrI1IIIIIII1111111111(1,1111111111111 II,fIn11,I,IIu,lnllufnlll11u11n1,11,n11 111fIIIIfIIIIII III IIIII111111111111111 11(1 111 1 Parcel:939-50-369-00 Parcel:939-50-370-00 Parcel:939-50-371-00 Wright Mark D Timmen Jeffrey S&Penny Strange Raquel Trust Po Box 173 310 Lake St 305 6907 E Avenida De Santiago Billings,Mt 59103-0173 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5827 Anaheim, Ca 92807-5103 Ifllunlll,11u11„)InlI,I111Iniu,lllnl,I1 1111u,,I,11li1nlnilnlnl,l,11111„111,,1,11 11,I,n,Ill,flulluilul,,llilln11u11Iu,lll Parcet:939-50-372-00 Parcel:939-50-373-00 Parcel:939-50-374-00 Logan Abbey E&Stitzer Allan W Jr Seidl Adam R Menard Michael 310 Lake St 109 310 Lake St 110 427 19th St Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5822 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5822 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-3811 � 1 xlx i � or� in e 1 w avetom� g A� �f sI s � &I a ch� nL a� 16 �t�il2�a��s Ak AWOW05 qm g ahmAwnplknokmesup A 99 A 1111,,,,1 lilt in,lull„luI Ill 111ir11111111111 1111r111111,11n,lull„fn1,l,lnl111111„III 1 1111n fill l,lluul,l,llullulluII III 111(1111 Parcel:939-50-375-00 Parcel:939-50-376-00 Parcel:939-50-377-00 Lew Dolores G&Sandiego Maria L Roe Harry P&Johanna Fukami Tetsuya 310 Lake St 112 310 Lake St 113 2045 Phalarope Ct Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5823 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5823 Costa Mesa,Ca 92626-4733 11,Inulll,ll,uin11111„1nl,lnllllln,l,11 Il,lu1,1,1,iln,lnll,lu,lnll,f,nnli,l,1,1 IllInnl,I,llnllullnl„l,l,lul,III it111111 Parcel:939-50-378-00 Parcel:939-50-379-00 Parcel:939-50-360-00 Mcmurtrie Ryan Mutrie Michael A&Shelley Kall Travis 1400 Pacific Coast Hwy 201 17761 Misty Ln 310 Lake St 209 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4482 Huntington Beach,Ca 92649-4915 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-582 5 11 fill n1III,,IIlullu,llu III lifiu,llllu,ll 11+1nu1,I,lIu,11I11n1nl,l,luln,l,llllul 1111n,11,I,Il,ulnllufnl1111„IIIal1l,lln Parcet 939-50-381-00 Parcel:939-50-382-00 Parcel:939-50-383-00 Collisson Ana J&Dale Rosen Mark B Gilbert Conrad&Wright-gilbert Tia 2356 N San Benito Ct 210 De La Veaga 310 Lake St 212 Claremont,Ca 91711-1537 Santa Cruz,Ca 92648-5826 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5826 Ilrl,n,1,1,I11uinllull,l,lllulu1111,11u1 fill it dint 1111nn1111111111 fill u1Id fill fill III fit lull Parcel:939-50-385-00 Parcel:939-50-386-00 Parcel:939-50-387-00 Sachdev Shireen Duong Chi Thi Bogroff Nick J 310 Lake St 214 310 Lake St 215 310 Lake St 216 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5826 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5826 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5827 11 lilt Ill 11111111111r1,IIli,l1„I,11111 fill lilt fillu11111111u,i III fill 11111111u[Ili ItIIII 1111m111i,1,l III I Ill Iit111111111111111 Ili IIII Parcel:939-50-388-00 Parcel:939-50-389-00 Parcel:939-50-390-00 Burnett Douglas A&Stewart Robin L Shanahan Mary K& Fetter Dean&Marilyn 4745 Linda Vista Ave 310 Lake St 308 5483 Via Del Tecolote Napa,Ca 94558-9405 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5828 Riverside,Ca 92507-6406 l fill III lr11 Ill ,ll„11u,1„I itIII1,I1,1„l,l IIIIIrIII11111111it111+r1111111111111 lilt 111111 11111111111,iliulrlilull,l,I,Inl,IIIIIII Ill I Parcet:939-50-392-00 Parcel:939-50-393-00 Parcel:939-50-394-00 Martin Marvin L Martin Sandie Trust Boucher Brad A&Sakotas Julie 42917 Normandy Ln 310 Lake St 312 310 Lake St 313 Lancaster,Ca 93536-4838 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5828 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5828 11[hi IIIIIIIIuII„ff111,11d,llIIIIIInIIIIII 1111uu1rI,111I11u1ln1n1,I1lIiIIIIII(IIlr11 111lun11ll11il,lllull,llulnull,lulul[if Parcel:939-50-400-00 Parcel:939-50-401-00 Parcel:939-50-402-00 Chien Yuehchiao& Stevenson Clint Ericson Patricia J 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 101 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 102 1326 N Riverside Or Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5066 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5066 Palm Springs, Ca 92264-8142 I1+1nI,1111I1,nIullululll,ll,u,f1n111n1 II,1n1111iIlllnlull,,Ilu1f111„m,l11u11) 11,I,n11,i,Ifn,lnliullf Parcel:939-50-403-00 Parcet:939-50-404-00 Parcel:939-50-405-00 Becker Kathryn M Cgh Property Lic Schafer Randy J 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 104 7777 Center Ave 120 711 Ocean Ave 106 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5066 Huntington Beach,Ca 92647-3017 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- if111n,1,ln111111111111111111L1111111111[111 lilt]Ill III Ill Ill 1111111 Ill If Ill i91,1 Ill 1111111 1I11111111111111111111 lilt IIIIIIII fill,11111111 Parcel:939-50-406-00 Parcel:939-50-408-00 Parcel:939-50-410-00 Kristal Barbara Elaine Carter James Lewis Carol&Daniel 69729 Camino Pacifico Po Box 800 18915 Los Palominos Dr Rancho Mirage,Ca 92270-1817 West Sacramento,Ca 95691-0800 Yorba Linda,Ca 92886-2649 111111 Ill 1f111it Ill ItIIII111 Ill,111„IIIII11111 11111 Ill 1IIIIIIIIIIIIII,Ill Ill lilt 111 Ill I Ill III IIIlull,,,1r111111111111111111111ii,i,l III I111 Parcel:939-50411-00 Parcel-939-50-412-00 Parcel:939-50-413-00 Anderson Peter Gregory Nowatzki Kay Kiyomi&Stephen Needham Thomas E& 1610 W Oceanfront 8601 Antibes Way 3182 Brimhall Dr Newport Beach, Ca 92663-4518 Bakersfield,Ca 93311-1516 Los Alamitos, Ca 90720-5254 I ►U �9 f 11 &pNm 4 fiP ftdxw a&d WWW.Awmcam d A l9�eAA �t3e� All ri y 1I,1nnl,11IIu11u1dlulululldniifll,I,1 1111111,1„,nllnf111nf,In,f,lulnll,lllnl II,1n,1f,1d1ndn1flnl11ud1u,11In11,�,f Parcel:939-50-414-00 Parcel:939-50-415-00 Parcel:939-50-416-00 Roberts Vicky L Dicandilo Leslie& Richard Rogers George 21821 Seacrest Ln 8217 Aqua Spray Ave Po Box 2060 Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-8225 Las Vegas, Nv 89128-7430 Huntington Beach, Ca 92647-00450 11111111111111if11111n11111,d,Inlllu,dlll1 1111u111111111111u1Iu1n1,1,11+,,,1,11111111 1111uu111111r1,fu11n11,1dd1nnld1114all Parcel:939-50A 17-00 Parcel:939-50-418-00 Parcel:939-50-420-00 Sheats Philip Olestrom Jeanne Olestrom Jeanne 611 Lido Park Dr 4d 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 119 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 121 Newport Beach,Ca 92663-4406 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5051 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5051 111111n1111r1dfirld„I+1 III 11111hi11111sill llilnnl,llll,,,lnlll,l„111111,,,,1,If111111 1111n1u1111nu1u1111uud1d,ln1ldlu,If Parcel:939-50-42 1-00 Parcel:939-50-422-00 Parcel:939-50-423-00 Von Luft Harriet Survivors Trust&Parker Karen E Buntich Mladen&Nada 10372 Amberwood Cir 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 123 9946 Rancho Caballo Dr Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-5237 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5051 Sunland,Ca 91040-1547 I1Ili 111111111(fill 1111111n111111111111111111 11111111,11111ulinul1u11„1111111,11,1,,,f1 II111n1111111,u11„fill 11111111111111(111111( Parcel:939-50-424-00 Parcel:939-50-425-00 Parcel:939-50-426-00 Elamparo Elena R Trust Lucas Dennis Gene Battaglia Richard Joseph 5261 Polis Dr 1309 S 5th Ave 3366 Via Lido La Palma,Ca 90623-1784 Arcadia, Ca 91006-4337 Newport Beach,Ca 92663-3907 11 I1dillil I,llndrill„11,1,1,II11111111111Id 11111d1111111111111111111d11d1111111,+1,1,111 Parcel:939-50-427-00 Parcel:939-50-428-00 Parcel:939-50-429-00 Richardson Dan Carl Novell Henry Jr Weaver Lori&Norman 711 Ocean Ave 202 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 203 18006 E 28th St Huntington Beach,Ca - Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5073 Lake Tapps,Wa 98391-5707 1111n1111111111111111111111111111 fill d111,1d 111111111,11f1,1,111i1ni111d,111111 Ill 1(11111 II,1,n,1,11111111111111111111411111d11111fJI Parcel:939-50-430-00 Parcel:939-50-431-00 Parcel:939-50-432-00 Rhomberg David Evanado Anita&Eduardo Baldoni Steven M 24 Hammond F 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 206 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 207 Irvine,Ca 92618-1680 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5073 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5067 111fuiddlll111111111111 n111111111111111111i1 Ill fill III 1it Ildn,1111111111111i fill 1111d1d111111111ifI Parcel:939-50-433-00 Parcel:939-50-434-00 Parcei:939-50435-00 Coombs Living Trust Deo Anuradha E&Eknath Carter James A 18651 Clearview Ln 706 N Lariat Cir Po Box 800 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-6716 Long Beach,Ca 90815A725 West Sacramento, Ca 95691-0800 1f1I,n1d1,11d11+1,1n,1u,11,1,1nd1nddl 11111111111111111111i1nfd+nlil,find I III 111 1111n1111I,11nd1i11111111an1,1111111111111 Parcel:939-50-436-00 Parcel:939-50-437-00 Parcel:939-50-438-00 Parsaghian Mickey M Sankaram Rallabhan Hirsch Gregory L&Rita 1408 Cordova Ave 11100 Warner Ave 260 19376 Woodlands Ln Glendale, Ca 91207-1532 Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-7512 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5541 fill 1nddd111dn11,d,11dd111111111111111 lld,dlnullludludldlnn111u11nl,dd fid fill 111111r„1d11ndr1111111ddr11111111 Parcel:939-50-439-00 Parcel:939-50-440-00 Parcel:939-50-441-00 Moon Tom Comstar Holdings Ltd Sirsy Hesham& 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 214 Po Box 368 Po Box 1243 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5067 La Habra, Ca 90633-0368 Monrovia,Ca 91017-1243 fill 1r111dInif1111dnd11dd1n III IIdidd 1111m111it III nlnii„f,l 1111111d11111 fill III ill 11111111 Ill Ifd,111 Parcel:939-50-442-00 Parcel:939-50-443-00 Parcel:939-50-444-00 Cole C W Trust&Cole Barry Gorman Sean Carlo Annette Patricia&Carol John 1500 E Katella Ave 1 711 Ocean Ave 302 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 303 Orange,Ca 92867-5058 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648- Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5074 1 E16�pget g� s:, t��A�r 11 i i AX > t+� or octea�ays�la..>�ol>Iol,i�aoeRaf�� ! 5fiAq _. � s�tera 1duaM!! 1L�800,r��lifaRaf +. Easy PeO Labels A 1111111111iffill maw awe il"@ to Use Avee Template 51WO FOWF4w MMOMM @xPwA?@p p fAg@{M I a 4 Ilul,llrifIli,,u,ll,llnu11111I,III 111111111 11 fill]1n11111111111111111111r111111,hill III III Parcel:939-50-445-00 Parcel-939-50-446-00 Parcel:939-50-447-00 Anderson Lorraine W&Raymond Spira Rif I Brendzel Gary A&Roberta 7525 S Flanders St 711 f,­.( t305 2142 Momingside Ave Centennial, Co 80016-1914 Huntington Beach, Ca- � Upland, Ca 91784-7982 IIIf1+ul+Il,nlfl+u+1+1+„1,1+l11+n1l,I,IuI 11,1nn1,1,111u1n11f1111,1un11uu111nI,1 IIIIn,I111111111111111111111111111 Ill III Ill,U 1 Par 939-50448-00 Parcel:939-50-449-00 ParceL 939-50-450-00 Franklin Ferdie Kumar Vasanth Carter James A 10902 Paddock Ln 513 Garcia Dr Po Box 800 Santa Ana,Ca 92705-2539 Hemet,Ca 92545-9318 West Sacramento,Ca 95691-0800 11 fill Ill itIIIli,full Ill Il Ill Ilnnl,l Ill fill 11,1u„I,11itIIIII1111„Ilf,i Ill I III 11111111 11111 till 111111 Ill 1111111111 Ill(if 111nn11111 Parcel:939-50=451-00 Parcel:939-50452-00 Parcel:939-50453-00 Richardson Dan Carl Reid Bryan&Susan York Linda K&Stephen 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 310 1729 Sunnypark 10142 Cutty Sark Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5054 Redlands,Ca 92374-5578 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-4304 li,lunl,l,IluII,,Ilu11,1,111iu1,111n1u11 II,IIU111 Ill IIIIr,l,[it ftu+flul III lit,ltilt IliIIInIIIII111III Ill II,I+I11111,III1lf lit n) Parcel:939-50-454-00 Parcel:939-50-455-00 Parcel:939-50-457-00 Obagi Khaled Polley M Claudia Al-wardi Dhia A M&AI-wardi Hanaa A W 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 313 22531 Bass PI 3166 Orlando Rd Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5054 Canyon Lake,Ca 92587-7824 Pasadena,Ca 91107-5536 11,1nnl,Ilit„11,111,,1„IIll II,IIIII,I11fill II,InI,I,1,I1n,lullnl„111111u,lu,l1l,l,l ll,In,1,InIII111n111141111111111111111,1„11 Parcel:939-50458-00 Parcel:939-50-459-00 Parcel:939-50-460-00 Vander Heide David G Smirk John W Smirk John W 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 317 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 318 Po Box 5544 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5075 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5075 Auburn, Ca 95604-5544 ll,luu1111„III,,,llln,it ill]fill ,fill Ililt IIIII,IIIII„1111111,u1111111111111111n1,IllI 111Ill 111111111 Ill 1u111 fill Ill Ill I Ill r,111111 Parcel:939-50461-00 Parcel:939-50-462-00 Parcel:939-50-463-00 Laborde Nadine Trust Zara Diane J&Philip Szawlowski Llc 1544 Brookhaven Ave 19085 Pebble Beach Way 21 Cherbourg Placentia,Ca 92870-2912 Monument,Co 80132-8968 Newport Beach, Ca 92660-6807 1{,{uni111u,1,1,1,11,11,I,IIIIII,,,l,l14,,li 11,1uu,{1f1,Iunflilll„n11i11,n1,1,1,1u1 I1,luuI,I,11n,1„flul„1,1,11ui,1,1u,1101 Parcel:939-50-464-00 Parcel:939-50-465-00 Parcel:939-50-466-00 Okura David&Joyce Beharie Carlos&Joan Ferraro Lucia 1458 Star Ridge Dr 101 Oak Gry 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 325 Monterey Park,Ca 91754-4527 Monrovia,Ca 91016-1659 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5053 thin I1111 Ill nIIIIIIIll,it11i1111111111IfI111 11,1111111„I1r11,f,if111111r,,1„1111u1 Ill„1 11111n1111 Ill Ill r Ill nl Ill 11111uu111 Ill III Parcel:939-50467-00 Parcel:939-50-468-00 Parcel:939-50-469-00 Stanislaw Paul J Jr Carter James Maghy Susan D 26462 Silver Saddle Ln Po Box 800 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 328 Laguna Hills,Ca 92653-5734 West Sacramento,Ca 95691-0800 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5053 {1,1n,„111u,In,lluili,,,t1,1,1ut,l,liu,1 Ilil,,,,11f,11u,1u11n1n1,1,11uul,liull,l 1l,1,rollf,Iln,,1,1,11u,1„Iln+l,l,t,ln,l1 Parcel:939-50-470-00 Parcel:939-50-471-00 Parcel:939-50472-00 Telford Nancy A Hawes Norman L Raffel Lois 2653 N Mountain Ave 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 330 2024 Swan Dr Claremont,Ca 91711-1550 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5053 Costa Mesa,Ca 92626A757 Ill 1111,fill If11 11111in111,111111111111111111111111 Ill u1111111 111111r11,1,11ni{ullulul,1,11nlfml,llilt Parcel:939-50-473-00 Parcel:939-50A74-00 Parcel:939-50-475-00 Staples John Oelstrom Jeanne& Rico Michelle 25751 Dillon Rd 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 402 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 403 Laguna Hills,Ca 92653-5859 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5076 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5076 1 a Ada'sGse�Jalri;te �: _,. �.w .r�u�tsrdQ.r�gwursl�aa�-dlaa7AP a-$99-t6A_ E6� I 1 pt i, I11I11111111f I111i11II11II1f H III It III IIIII,III IIIIIIIIIIII III IIIII till III IIIIIII IIIInI III I71 11111111n II Ili 11111111(1(1111111111 111111 If If I Parcel:939-50-476-00 Parcet 939-50-477-00 Parcel:939-50-478-00 Rogers George L Clayton Carin&Rich Clayton Cadn Kay&Rich Po Box 2060 6835 Camrose Or 6835 Camrose Or Huntington Beach, Ca 92647-0060 Los Angeles,Ca 90068-3143 Los Angeles, Ca 90068-3143 IIIIIiIIl,11,IIII,I,fII1,11 III Ill hill f fill III IIIIIItIIIIIII111111111111111111111111ItIIIIIII 11111111111,IIIIIIIIL,IIIIIIIIIIIII(1111111111 Parcel:939-50479-00 Parcet:939-50-480-00 Parcel:939-50-481-00 Dumbauld William Diaz Linda&Ruben Campbell Pamela 3091 Salmon Or 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 408 8 Mohican Pk Ave Los Alamitos,Ca 90720-4662 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5068 Dobbs Ferry,Ny 10522-2321 IIIInnl[fill 1111n,11if,11,I III IIIIIif Ill IIII 11,11uII111i11II1,1nll,1u111uI1111Ium111 III IfIIIII11IIIIfIIlul Ili,11 Ill IIIInllullle I Parcel:939-50-482-00 Parcel:939-50-483-00 Parcel:939-50-484-00 Paparella Benjamin D Jr Rohani Ramin&Tran Lien A Singman Irving 8739 Frazer River Cir 2208 Pieper Ln 1251 Oakglen Ave Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-5502 Tustin, Ca 92782-1291 Arcadia, Ca 91006-2433 IIIIIIIIIiIli,IIIIIIIIIIIII III III fill,111111111 Ililm,fJ,IIInI,IIIII,,,,I,Ill,lnf„Illlill lLIn1J111111n111,1,111m111Ili1,I1,1Ili101 Parcel:939-50-485-00 Parcel:939-50-486-00 Parcel:939-50-487-00 .Forte Duane&Jill Lieberman Robert D Moore Nancy J 6225 Duneville St 16086 Tortola Cir 107 Sonora St Las Vegas,Nv 89118-3436 Huntington Beach,Ca 92649-2042 Newport Beach,Ca 92663-1740 Ili IIII,I Ili IIuIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ill 11 Ill I11111111 11,1n1i111,I1n,1,1lInIn1,111111111,111nIll 11,{nIIII,t Ill fill I„11,I,lL,Ifill r111,111IaI Parcel:939-50-488-00 Parcel:939-50-489-00 Parcel:939-50490-00 Sweet John Dahlgren&Patricia Hill John Pretel Angela C&Robert 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 416 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 417 4380 Dorking Ct Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5077 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5077 Sacramento,Ca 95864-6150 {111nlll lilt IIIIIII11J,1„IIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIII 11,1m,1,1111L11n11,IJ11111,IIlfllln141111 111111111,,11,IIII,1111,,,,1111,1,1111,111141if Parcel:939-50-491-00 Parcel:939-50-492-00 Parcel:939-50493-00 Hmss General Partnership Choi Sung Lenson L And E Family Trust 1029 Railroad St 6861 E Avenida De Santiago 711 Ocean Ave 421 Corona, Ca 92882-1948 Anaheim,Ca 92807-5101 Seal Beach,Ca 90740-6110 IIIIIIIl,N11I,111„IIlII11 HIM Ill 11,111f,n1 II,II,nl1l,Ili,I,I,I,II,111„nn1111„i111,i1 Il111IIIIIitIIIIIIr Ill illdli,u1111111,11,IIll Parcel:939-50494-00 Parcel:939-50495-00 Parcel:939-50496-00 Kwan Miranda Bo Han Thompson Family Trust Griggs Kimberly Trust 711 Ocean Ave 422 9 Thalia St Po Box 247 Seal Beach, Ca 90740-6110 Ladera Ranch,Ca 92694-0100 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-0247 Ill IIIIIIIIIIII,11111I11,11 ill IIII11I111 Ill fill Illlni,1,lliiii11i1,i,l,liii11,111,,,,11 Ill Ill IIII,n,1,1,I{i111,1111,InI,111L,n11„I11„I Parcel:939-50497-00 Parcel:939-50-498-00 Parcel:939-50-499-00 Sirsy Hesham& Rickertsen Charles A Castenholz David J 4 El Niguel Ct 1546 W Chateau Ave 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 427 Henderson, Nv 69052-6523 Anaheim,Ca 92802-1316 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5069 11,I„1il,i,ill,1I„IIi,11,I111{111„11,111L,1 1LI„lII1,II,11111,111,1„Jln,lll,,,II,I,{11 II,Ir11111111111,1,11111„111111(1 lilt 111111111 Parcel:939-50-500-00 Parcel:939-50-501-00 Parcel:939-50-502-00 Toste Joe&Matthew Dean Russell&Tamara Parker Karen E 711 Pacific Coast Hwy 428 3465 Halbrite Ave 711 Ocean Ave 430 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5069 Long Beach,Ca 90808-3315 Seal Beach,Ca 90740-6110 IIIIIIIIIIIlu,l,lu11I11n111 Ill 1111111 Ill nlf IIIImII Ill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ill,lif1111i{ IIIIIIIII Ill 1i,f1r11,I1,n,In1,fI,11„111,1Ill Parcel:939-50-503-00 Parcel:939-50-504-00 Parcel:939-50-505-00 Mullins Kenton R Triano Joseph E Bhupathy Kalavathi&Vellore 711 Ocean Ave 431 Po Box 429 180 E Main St 220 Seal Beach, Ca 90740-6110 Watertown,Ct 06795-0429 Tustin, Ca 92780-4489 i t 56ir.��dac aat,}te�k�Rlr� 1, _AMO!. .r�v�rd�r�wi,��,aa�dJsiAP 4-8®B-TE- VEBV Env NO Wkk ® owd aWv One to If Q A Aj vU,' U§@ Av@fy@�t iali §ice �@ad 114Per eut� p Edge"- � Il,l full]lllrIIIIIIIIIIIInl it 11111111111111 1111un1,11r,11111111111111111111 fill III III III 1111ur11111111111111 till nI1111,1u,1,1,11n If Parcel:939-50-510-00 Parcel 939-50-511-00 Parcel:939-50-512-00 Horton Marilyn Fuller Derek B&Schneiderman Aaron Tsai Michael Ming-ping 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 101 5000 Greenhaven St 17546 Edgewood Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-8126 Yorba Linda,Ca 92887-2655 Yorba Linda, Ca 92886-1950 II,1„u11I II1+u,I1111+1n111111 dill IIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIf111ni11111If111If1nulluIfI III Id 1111„1111IfII fill 1111u111111111111111111]11 A l Parcel:939-50-513-00 Parcet 939-50-514-00 Parcel:939-50-515-00 Nemeth Louis&Maria Cameras Kathleen Mary Haubold Mary&Wolfgang Po Box 6113 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 105 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 106 Huntington Beach, Ca 92615-6113 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-8126 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-8126 IIIIIIIIIIII,11nIIIIIIIIldit1111111111111111] 1111111(11111111n11111111111111111ifIifIn1111 111IIIIII1111111111itIif111(11111111it111111111 Parcel:939-50-516-00 Parcel:939-50-517-00 Parcel:939-50-518-00 Sanchez R J And K K Family Trust Fabregas Francisco R Jr Crews John A 1036 La Cresta PI 18401 Hampton Ct 13653 Beach St Fullerton, Ca 92835AO37 Northridge,Ca 91326-3601 Cerritos, Ca 90703-1433 IIIIII III 1111Iu11u11u1,(IlluIr111,1,1i1n11 Ililun(I11nll,llu,Illlllullulnl,linl111 1llluu111i111nIu111111+1n11IInn111u11111 Parcel:939-50-520-00 Parcel:939-50-521-00 Parcel:939-50-522-00 Ewing Ray J& Youssefian Gorgen G Bartlett David R 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 111 40 Willowbrook Ln 607 7th St Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5124 Pomona,Ca 91766-4852 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A61 2 111111n111111111111u1IfII1111,111n1n1nilll 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111till 11IfII14111111111111111111111111itIIIIIifIIII Parcel:939-50-523-00 Parcel:939-50-524-00 Parcel:939-50-525-00 Johnson Michael S Hwang Ernest W Flucke Danny C Jr&Malloy Mary 8065 Thoroughbred St 5450 Peacock Ln 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 116 Alta Loma,Ca 91701-2541 Riverside, Ca 92505-3158 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5167 111111111 fill IluIIIIIIIII(I111111111111111fill I,II,IIIII1,I111 III luIIIIIIl fill I111111111111 11,11inIIIIIII III 111111111111111111111i,1u111 Parcel:939-50-526-00 Parcel:939-50-528-00 Parcel:939-50-529-00 Griffith William H Jr Bassin Melissa&Victorine Sasha Miller Briana A&Denise 202 W Lincoln Ave M 221 W 48th St 1205 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 120 Orange,Ca 92865-1084 Kansas City,Mo 64112-3185 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5167 1111n11uIlu,Illnin111,I1n1111111if III fill III InuI(I111(11I,IIIIIIIII+IfII,1111IIIItIIII il,ifill((it 11In11111111111,111111111111111111 Parcel:939-50-530-00 Parcel:939-50-531-00 Parcel:939-50-532-00 Cruz Lucita M&Mariano Meggison Kimberly Salazar Thomas P 12641 Misty PI 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 122 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 123 Cerritos,Ca 90703-6070 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5178 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5178 I1,1,1u,111,IIi1111111u,11ullln,ll,II,1111) 1111,1111411111111111111111111111,fill III 11fill 11(11(111111111(111111111111111111111111111(111 Parcel:939-50-533-00 Parcel.939-50-534-00 Parcel:939-50-535-00 Copeland Bonnie&William Espeleta Vidal E Sweet Rozemarie 2024 9th St 2746 N Vista Heights Ave 20071 Big Bend Ln La Verne,Ca 91750A003 Orange,Ca 92867-1757 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-4811 IIIIIIIII(III11„I„111111,111111IIIIIIIIII1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlu111111n,hull 1111111111111,I,1u111n1111uun1111u,u1111 Parcel:939-50-536-00 Parcel:939-50-538-00 Parcel:939-50-539-00 Enriquez Armando Tran Khanh P Parrish John D&Kathryn 1932 Pine St 327 22nd St Po Box 77100 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2761 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-3307 Corona, Ca 92877-0103 111ilIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM1111If111111111r fill]1111 11,1nI11,(Ill,n1,111111111,1unlllullilnll 11,d„1illlu11+11,11nI+(1,1,nI111,Ilullil) Parcel:939-50-540-00 Parcel:939-50-541-00 Parcel:939-50-542-00 Hb Cal Llc Grant Marian Bohnke Joanne 1544 Mancha Dr 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 132 Po Box 65283 Boulder City, Nv 89005-3614 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5184 Tucson,Az 85728-5283 � �® � �t �t►fl r II A& MUMhu,63affluftil 41�I4ii4Z gc4��ll d 9 ! -r s8it49[id,e . r® dAa i 4k dgm1ta� i� III M-AAXWO TM AVEWO �1 li,i,u,l,l,lln,lnllnlr,il„n,Hiluu,11,1 il,lunl,I,Iln,lnil„lnl,l+n+lll„lnlull 1I,I„nI,I,IIn,1n11n1„1,lnnlllnlnl,l, l Parcel:939-50-543-00 Parcel:939-50-544-00 Parcel:939-50-546-00 Payne Randolph C Starr Robert G&Rosemary Benigno Ronald V 6201 Morningside Dr 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 136 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 138 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-6103 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5184 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5185 11,luul,lr!ln,lullul,l,,,111„n,llunlll III„till ul III nu11141„1 fill III lu,ill,1„II II,in„I,i,llu,l„Ilulul,lu„Illnlnl,l, ! Parcel:939-50-547-00 Parcel:939-50-548-00 Parcel-939-50-549-00 Womack Linda M&Michael Stookey Robert E&Suzanne Albright Regina A&Rodney 7205 Sherwood Dr 2016 Pleasant Ridge Dr 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 141 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-7031 Fort Wayne,In 46819-9514 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5185 11,In„I,l,lluilull,il„lul,llnn,llnl,ll ll,fn„1,1i11u,1ullnlnful,ll,u„Ilulill 11,1n,,l,l,lln,lull„I„I,l,n,lllul„!!n I Parcel:939-50-550-00 Parcel:939-50-551-00 Parcel:939-50-552-00 Bartlett David Bartlett David R Kimbrough Janette Irene&Kimbrouth Ronald 607 7th St 607 7th St 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 144 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A612 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4612 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5186 11,1n Ill,1 All„rlillli,li,l Alit,A Ill, 1„Ilu) I,II,II„l,,ifilllur ill l,ilul„1,ill All Ili,I 11,lu fill l,ilu,lnllnlulu1,11„lr„Illu,l Parcel:939-50-553-00 Parcel:939-50-554-00 Parcel:939-50-556-00 Tsai Shue M Family 2007 Trust Tracy Mary Theil Richard C Jr 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 145 315 Arlington Ave 1601 628 Main St Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5186 Charlotte, Nc 28203A283 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648A670 11,lulu1,11,n„11u�1ilullu,Ilnlnll,lul 11,1,,u1,1,11 [Ili IIfI I'll Il„u till(it,llid 11,1,,,,1,1(ill,,l,ill fill,l,ln,111!„1,1i„ll Parcel:939-50-557-00 Parcel:939-50-558-00 Parcel:939-50-559-00 Colacarro Michael A A Rynearson Kellie J&Todd Degrazio David&Debbie 23325 S 53rd Ave 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 150 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 206 Kent,Wa 98032-3349 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5186 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5187 11 fill nl,l Ali,ulullulr,l fit „111u1,1„111 11,1n,1,1,1a All i,l,lu III till,ll,r,l All if1r,l Il,lunllul,luli1uu11lu,ll,lu,l,lnllu 1 Parcel:939-50-560-00 Parcel:939-50-561-00 Parcel:939-50-562-00 Miller Mark Dunahay Karie W&Tim Amspoker Ross W 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 208 2800 Hinton Cir 36449 Tierra Subida Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5188 Elk Grove,Ca 95758-7649 Palmdale,Ca 93551-7956 Ilia,u,I,I,Iin,lu11n1„1INi„111„111n111 liil,a,G1i11inln1lulnlilnnlllnlil„1,1 ll,lnul,liltu,lullul,ii,l,n,lflul,l,rl,l Parcel:939-50-563-00 Parcel:939-50-564-00 Parcel:939-50-565-00 Chen Ting4i Aguilar Frank L& Aguilar Edmundo lii 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 216 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 217 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 218 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5188 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5188 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5188 11,luuli�liiillliulnl„I Ill I,,,iu,11111111 11iln„1,1,11uuI,1„1l,i,u1n,111,1,,Ill Ali il,Inu,1111„n„1lilluu,ll,l,linll,l„1il Parcel:939-50-666-00 Parcel:939-50-567-00 Parcel:939-50-568-00 Niznik Julia Ann Yao Eric M Simsian Manouc B 18551 San Marcos St Po Box 17196 927 Crescent Dr Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-6715 Irvine,Ca 92623-7196 Monrovia,Ca 91016-1538 11i1,,,,1,1in1u,lilnilli!„ll,nllliuul,ll Ililnnlhillullnululuffu,llull„u,lll 11,I,,,u111in1,1,1,11uin,ll,nll,l,lulull Parcel:939-50-569-00 Parcel:939-50-570-00 Parcel:939-50-571-00 Benigno Ronald V& Llacuna Alfonso Ragus Albadawi Adel&Suha 2935 Bluebell Ave 50 Shooting Star 2408 Santiago Brea,Ca 92821-4702 Irvine,Ca 92604-3361 La Verne,Ca 91 750-1 1 54 lfi!„n,111u,1,ilI,Ilnnill,lu,l,l,ful„11 ll,lnnlililln,1i,11u1„1,im,111,1uf1n,1 1I,I,n,Irl,ll,nl„11i,1ul,luulll,l„11,,,1 Parcel:939-50-572-00 Parcel:939-50-575-00 Parcel:939-50-576-00 Ricciardi Lorraine&Mario Johnson Jacqueline Sabry Hazem 10470 Foothill Blvd 202 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 250 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 300 Rancho Cucamonga,Ca 91730-3754 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5190 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5190 tlil?EI3 r 1'iALWMNWZ" affIh,&11 SmIsIttlB. miller n If III ill if III If III III fill(I III III III III IlllIII li,lull,111n,lllllnl,Il„I,lul,l,lli„I„II Il if III If rI III ,ln11„11nl11nl„111,,,,,1,lil Parcel:939-50-577-00 Parcel:939-50-578-00 Parcel:939-50-579-00 Miller Richard A Family Trust Lim James B Magruder Herbert S&Teri 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 301 1762 Sombrero Dr 8403 E 131 st Street Ct I Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5190 Monterey Park,Ca 91754-2264 Puyallup,Wa 98373-5402 i llillul1,I,llu1ii111uii,l,llullllllnlln,i Illlnul11,1inllulluluillnnlllllun,lll IIIIuIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII„1 sill III fill III„Ill llII Parcel:939-50-580-00 Parcel:939-50-581-00 Parcel:939-50-582-00 Mckelvey Scott Emens John Rojas Thu&Vu Thien V 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 304 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 306 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 307 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5190 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5191 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5191 (111,nIl,llliuliull,,lul11uI1111,11nuill illinnliilllullullulni,lnulllllnu,111 11iniillilllnlllinllnu11111,1nlllu,ll,11 Parcel:939-50-583-00 Parcel:939-50-584-00 Parcel:939-50-585-00 Ditmore Kelly K Muscarella Michael L Mcdonald Andrew& 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 309 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 311 3560 Pine Grove Ave Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5191 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5191 Port Huron,Mi 48060-1994 III u1,1,l,Iluilil,in111iilillunllinliul illI,n,1111ulullulrlfItIIIIIIIIfilnrllrill IIIIIIIII111111111,Illululllnuil111 full III Parcel:939-50-586-00 Parcel:939-50-587-00 Parcel:939-50-589-00 Jones-wright Family Trust Hahn Edward Hamilton Loretta Lee Of The Biederman 21 Fecamp 2904 E Echo Hill Way 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 316 Newport Coast,Ca 92657-1056 Orange,Ca 92867-1904 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5192 111Inr fill 11111111111111ni111If fill llrinfill li,lullitif111if Ill llr Ill II fill Ill Ill iu Id,11 IIIIIIIII,IIIir Ill I111 Ili 11 Ill fill Ill fill lllI Parcel:939-50-590-00 Parcel:939-50-591-00 Parcel:939-50-592-00 Miller Trust Evangelista Edmund&Salgado Smith Jeffrey 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 317 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 319 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 320 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5192 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5192 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5192 Ill 1 Ill fill Ill II Ill 1iit11ul Ill 111111111111Ill (llln,11lilllunl,l,l,innlllllnullilluil IIIIrIr1111[fill Ill Ili llif,lltlini,fill Ill III Parcel:939-50-593-00 Parcel:939-50-594-00 Parcel:939-50-595-00 Barsom Michael William Pickart Gail P Khaled Ebtasam A 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 322 7 San Mateo Way 21311 Lochlea Ln Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5192 Corona Del Mar,Ca 92625-1034 Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-6850 11i1i�n11I,11,„Iull,ii,ilfllu111111nu11,1 Illlunlililln11n11„Iu111„Iulullllfll,) uaIIIIIIIII11,Ill 111 Ill nlllu,f11Iflu,fIII Parcel:939-50-596-00 Parcel:939-50-597-00 Parcel:939-50-600-00 Mead Donna&Ting Irwin P Rylski Theresa R&Wayne Metko Michael Scott 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 325 730 13th St 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 332 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5193 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-3433 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5193 Ililuui,llllulinliul,ulli,ilfnliunil,l li,lu,lili111nllnill11u11un,111i1nuil1l iiliull,i1111Iuii1llllllflnllnllllnul,i,1 Parcel:939-50-601-00 Parcel:939-50-602-00 Parcel:939-50-603-00 Mohundro Sylvia Sue Payne Randolph C Feld Ernest&Ruth 6435 Beachview Dr 6201 Momingside Dr 1957 Malcolm Ave Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-2663 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-6103 Los Angeles,Ca 90025A705 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111i1111,1IIIIIII(IIIIII l Illluu1111I11ululiullilflnnilillu,iull 1111111,1111111111111111111111111111 Ill 11,Ir,ll Parcel:939-50-604-00 Parcel:939-50-605-00 Parcel:939-50-606-00 Duong Quan&Trang Okachi Shoji Cx Parks Jack T 4962 Ruttner Ct 713 Miyukiyama 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 341 San Jose, Ca 95111-1730 92648-5194 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5194 IIIIIIIIIII,IIIiIII,li,fifif Ill if1111i1,Ili IIll il11,u1l,lII11IIIrlllniniflnnlll,lu111111 ii,I,u1111111n,luil,Ilnill,n,lll,lf„111,1 Parcel:939-50-607-00 Parcel:939-50-608-00 Parcel:939-50-609-00 Sacharoff Gay&Steven Rosenberg Richard A Jahanbin Behfar 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 3,42 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 343 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 345 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5194 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5194 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5195 t1dfAq6kt0*f4dtftAii ;; Y (gyp szaal N�ua ; Vf9�iQgf9t l I,II Utit�#i JMaxa�Iti4uof RRft46®6@ ! _I�eBxJde « rid !) 44096alwow !I & �fld1� 16b tiV""'i 111lnulil,11n11nllnfulllu„Illlluilli,l ii,In,,11f,llu,lullnlul,lnulil,ln,l,l11 II,lnn11111in11nliu1ul,iinilli1lu,f,lal Parcel:939-50-610-00 Parcel:939-50-611-00 Parcel:939-50-612-00 Skidmore David T Richman Allison M Bryant Robert B 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 346 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 347 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 348 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5195 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5195 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-51915 11,1,nil,I,11u11n1illul,nilnlufnln,lll II,Inul,l,llllllnllnlllliluulll,luil,l,l IlIlu11111111uin11,11,nIlll,lui,l,in,1,$I Parcel:939-50-613-00 Parcel:939-50-614-00 Parcel:939-50-615-00 Strain Paul H Roadhouse Wilbur M Exec William J Gerard&Farrar James S 9112 Mahalo Dr 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 350 240 Westgate Dr Huntington Beach, Ca 92646-7841 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5195 Watsonville,Ca 95076-2452 11,1n11i1I,I,1n,1,1,111u,11u111,11u111u11 11111,11111 fill 11u1111 I'll dill f111IfI111id II+lr1111111 Ill fill ill 111u1,1nu111,1u11If21 Parcel:939-50-616-00 Parcel:939-50-617-00 Parcel:939-50-618-00 Patino Penny L Living Trust Sanders Joseph L Abu David L Living Trust 8 Hermosa Ct 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 406 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 408 Danville, Ca 94526-3507 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5196 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5196 11i1uii11u1,liufl„lafu111ul,Inlln,l111 1111,n Ill 111in,1„ll„1u111un111(111 ill ill 11111u11(hill fill fill ill l,lnul1111i„IIll l Parcel:939-50-619-00 Parcel:939-50-620-00 Parcel:939-50-622-00 Chavez Louis S&Margaret lansiti Eugene V Nonato Eloisa V&Rodoifo 1267 W Kildare St 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 413 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 416 Lancaster,Ca 93534-2232 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5196 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5196 111 Ill Ill 111I1r11f11fild111 ill if ill IfI„IfI111 1111un1,111 Ill 11 ill li1,if,I,Ill 111 fit IfIill 111111111111 Ill ill(ill 11111111111111 ill IIIf1111 Parcel:939-50-623-00 Parcel:939-50-624-00 Parcel:939-50-625-00 Attaway Mark&Sanderson Jeff Connolly Thomas Holwerda Trust& 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 418 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 420 Po Box 49958 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5197 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5197 Los Angeles, Ca 90049-0958 1111n1dIli11ni1nllnllll Ill f11 Ill ir11u111 i111,uII,1111nllnlln1ul11,u111111n1,ull Ililnu111u1111iufL,ulif1111 Ill I11111111Ill Parcel:939-50-626-00 Parcel:939-50-627-00 Parcel:939-50-628-00 Mc Carol M&Thomas Mc Carol Meredith&Thomas Seiit Mary 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 424 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 426 1200 imperial Dr Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5197 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5197 Glendale,Ca 91207-1526 llif„uliiiifl,lu,luflullnn,lllifulul,l 111Inn1,f111n,1uf1n1u11ulli,n11n111i11 (lifun,lf1i1n11unlnlllulnl,ill,luiflii Parcel:939-50-629-00 Parcel:939-50-630-00 Parcel:939-50-631-00 200 Pacific Coast Highway Unit Zeidan Adel Pinchuk Judith&Leslie 700 E Redlands Blvd U 7586 Ocean Point Dr 11425 Dona Evita Dr Redlands, Ca 92373-6168 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-6065 Studio City,Ca 91604-4253 11,1uilunllnnf111,1111f11ifill 111111111Ill 1111,n1f,l,fliulullnlulllnnlll,lulul,l II11n1,1i11fl1nfn11111n1111n111111uilfnl Parcel:939-50-632-00 Parcel:939-50-633-00 Parcel:939-50-634-00 Lan Mary Lee&Robert Rubin Sonny Abu David L Living Trust 16346 Brookstone Cir 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 449 200 Pacific Coast Hwy 408 La Mirada,Ca 90638-6530 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-5198 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5196 1111111,fIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111 I111111ifn111ullnulifu111uli,nr111 ill ill 111111111 Ill 11111111111,l,llil,nill,l,11,11„1 Parcel:939-50-635-00 Parcel:939-50-636-00 Parcel:939-50-637-00 Taylor Janet Lynne Hb Cal Llc Delaney Janet B 200 Pacific Coast Hwy M17 1544 Mancha Dr 200 Pacific Coast Hwy M30 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-5187 Boulder City,Nv 89005-3614 Huntington Beach,Ca 926485146 Iftlnullilnfniii1n111i1n1,1ulnl1n1,1,1 fl,iuill,1111uiiuffnl,lufm,11,11,1iinfl iI1ln,if,fillli,lt,11u1nfn11fnl1nlf,fnll Parcel:939-50-638-00 Parcel:939-50-639-00 Parcel:939-50-645-00 Baker Gary C&Lori Emens John&Nancy Kennedy Dawn&Michael 2110 Treeridge Cir 200 Pacific Coast Hwy M50 1314 Pacific Coast Hwy A Brea,Ca 92821-4435 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-8147 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4474 ��ggelf�sit�sser ' Alk�, IIIlahll�a�lne�l� d8000aa> c�144 Utl�it's>e�d®e6be61A1Bf�e�'�;9 ! _«L__...._....... �I�Jenlei<sbo�Jtf?Qui6fctilM'+' ,1�RS1Q_,5A Vda�X All Il,luul,I,li„,1u11u1niul,lulln,l+iull II,I,u,i,l,Ilu,1„li„I„I„I,1„Il,i,l,i„II III fill Ill 4111 Parcel-939-50-646-00 Parcel:939-50-647-00 Parcel:939-50-648-00 Mostafa Salwa Fateen Gatti Lee Ann Thomas Stephen 1314 Pacific Coast Hwy B 1314 Pacific Coast Hwy C 1314 Pacific Coast Hwy D Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-4474 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648A474 Huntington Beach,Ca 9264SA474 11,1[fill u1111111 Ill Ill Ill 1,Ill 111i+u1 Ill,111 Il,1,u,1,illl,nl,illnli,I„I,(„In,ilinll) 1I,I,+ul1li11n+1,111++1,,,11111r,1r11ir,I,I11 Parcel:939-50-649-00 Parcel:939-50-650-00 Parcel:939-50-651-00 Edwards Gwendolynn Loomer David L Gillespie Living Trust 37 Harbor Sight Dr 204 15th St B 812 13th St Rolling Hills Estates,Ca 90274-5115 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-4411 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648-3435 II+I+n,111,111+,1u11u1+i,1111,n11i1,11,1u1 II+I,u1I,1,Il+,+Inll,,In,11i,11,1„illlln,i 1lilui,1+11,u111„ilnlul,iuil,i+nlliii all Parcel:939-50-654-00 Parcel:939-50-655-00 Parcel:939-50-657-00 Cherney Michael J Brookbank Rene A Merrill Steven F 1118 Park St 816 11th St 17650 Los Alamos St Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2729 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-3410 Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-5214 11,i,u,lillu,111w1u1u1,1u+1i1,i111,Iu11 kiln+,I,1Ii„1111„111111111ui11Lin1 Ill Ill Il,i,n1I+1,11u111,11uluil,llu+lnl11i11a11 Parcel:939-50-658-00 Parcel:939-50-659-00 Parcel:939-50-660-00 Merrill Steven F Merrill Steven F Cherney Michael J 17650 Los Alamos St 17650 Los Alamos St 1118 Park St Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-5214 Fountain Valley,Ca 92708-5214 Huntington Beach,Ca 92648-2729 Robert S. Coldren Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Flr Santa Ana, CA 92707 sf�il pp�i�r " ® Rep5m A to hachure afin de I &9t tsar ldlorrad4sazv4r�Y i 5 a�� rk In mberd Poo-Un- i h Emsy lea@l0 Labels i Owto q! woY�Gane nnnnnn ap u41e amy�ey of a zaijdaa sua4@ AV@fV8 j! jalad a salPej sananbt 800-130-02 800-130-03 800-130-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 2 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 33 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4972 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4972 800-130-07 800-130-17 800-130-18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 7 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 17 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 18 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4972 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4973 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4973 800-130-20 800-130-22 800-130-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 20 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 22 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 24 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4973 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 800-130-25 800-130-28 800-130-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 25 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 28 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 32 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 800-130-35 800-130-3 7 800-130-3 8 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 35 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 37 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 38 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 800-130-39 800-130-40 800-13044 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 39 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 40 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 44 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 926484976 800-130-46 800-13049 800-130-50 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 46 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 49 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 50 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 926484976 800-130-51 800-i30-53 800-130-54 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 51 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 53 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 54 Huntington Beach, CA 926484976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648=4976 800-130-55 800-130-57 800-130-60 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach_Blvd Unit 55 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 57 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 60 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 800-130-62 800-130-64 800-130-66 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 62 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 64 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 66 Huntington Beach, CA 926484976 Huntington Beach, CA 926484978 Huntington Beach, CA 926484978 ft� lt 4 ! &min II la paE1d1@ dFk� I; G& CAY'LPmaaeet��l � 1 o dg - ,- ""ar 1a m2botd BQQ=LAMUL V6 D1� rAs z �wv�F, T ® AI T ® tt -L a ' 0 a asi l l aiif� ane nnnnnn j ap use atat{3ey el a zaildaa ®a ® zatad a saWbel sauan6i. 800-130-68 800-130-70 8004 30-72 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 68 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 70 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 7 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4978 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4978 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4978 800-130-76 800-130-77 800-130-81 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 76 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 77 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 8 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4941 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4941 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4941 800-130-87 800-130-88 800-130-90 Occupant Occupant Occupant o 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 87 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 88 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 90 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 800-130-91 800-130-92 800-130-96 Occupant Occupant Occupant .20701 Beach Blvd Unit 91 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 92 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 96 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 800-130-97 800-131-01 800-131-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 97 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 101 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 104 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4955 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4955 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4955 800-131-08 _ 800-131-09 800-131-10 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 108 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 109 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 1 10 Huntington Beach, CA 926484977 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4977 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4977 800-131-11 800-131-14 800-131-17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit t 11 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 114 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 117 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4977 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4956 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4956 800-131-18 800-131-28 - 800-131-29 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 118 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 128 20701 Beach Blvd Unit t29 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4956 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 800-131-30 800-131-31 800-131-3 5 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 130 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 131 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 135 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 Huntington Beach, CA 926484957 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 800-131-37 800-131-42 800-131-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 137 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 142 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 143 Huntington Beach, CA 926484957 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 926484958 AA&AD.9. ® 9e���• s�r Tarat� !! �� zdn-��., � ���l 1 .cAlaAV Ii a � *WX di• � I• i �09J& ane^nre�u� ap uge ainy�ey ei zatidag Jalad a sai!�e}sauan .: 800-1 1-44 800-131-48 800-131-49 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 144 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 148 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 149 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 800-131-52 800-131-54 800-13 l-55 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 152 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 154 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 1 55 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 800-131-56 800-131-58 800-131-62 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 156 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 158 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 162 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 800-131-66 800-131-70 800-131-71 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 166 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 170 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 171 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 800-131-72 800-131-73 8004 31-76 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 172 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 173 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 176 .Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 800-131-78 - 800-131-79 800-131-80 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 178 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 179 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 180 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 Huntington Beach, CA 926484960 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 800-131-84 800-131-90 800-131-93 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 184 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 190 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 1-93. Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 800-131-95 900-131-96 800-132-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 195 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 196 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 203 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 800-132-04 800-132-05 800-132-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 204 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 205 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 206 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 800-132-09 800-132-10 800-13 2-13 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 209 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 210 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 213 Huntington Beach,CA 926484963 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4963 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-496}3 00 800-t32-18 800-132-20 800432-23 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 218 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 220 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 223 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4964 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4964 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-496_4 800-132-24 800-132-27 800-132-28 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 224 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 227 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 228 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-496- 800-132-29 800-132-32 800-132-39 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 229 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 232 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 239 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 800-132-40 800-132-41 800-132-42 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 240 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 241 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 242 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4966 Huntington Beach, CA 926484966 800-132-44 800-132-46 800-132-47 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 244 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 246 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 247 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 800-132-48 -- 800-132-49 800-132-50 Occupant Occupant Occupant 10701 Beach Blvd Unit 248 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 249 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 250 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 800-132-52 800-132-53 800-132-54 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 252 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 253 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 254 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 926484962 800-132-55 800-132-57 800-132-60 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 255 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 257 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 800-132-63 800-132-68 800-132-70 Occupant - Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 263 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 268 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 270 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4967 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4979 800-132-72 800-132-73 800-132-75 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 272 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 273 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 275 Huntington Beach, CA 926484979 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4979 Huntington Beach, CA 926484980 � � ( da-do ��liFif� f 3m F 1anb ai P�7 jajad a saji���sauan t + 800-132-76 8004 32-78 800-132-83 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 276 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 278 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 2.83 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4980 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4968 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4981 800-132-84 8004 32-85 800-132-89 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 284 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 285 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 289 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4981 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4969 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-498- 800-132-91 800-132-93 800-132-94 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 291 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 293 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 294 Huntington Beach,CA 926484982 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4970 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-497t 800-132-95 800-132-96 800-133-00 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 295 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 296 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 300 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4970 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4970 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-498= 800-133-01 800-133-02 800-133-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant ': 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 301 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 302 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 304 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4971 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4971 Huntington Beach, CA 926484971 800-133-06 800-133-07 800-133-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 306 20701. Beach Blvd Unit 307 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 308 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4984 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4984 Huntington Beach, CA 92648498z 890-130-01 890-130-01 890-130-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 1 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 3 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4972 Huntington Beach, CA 92648497- 890-130-04 890-130-06 890-130-09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 4 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 6 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 9 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4972 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4972 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-497: 890-13040 890-130-11 890-130-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 10 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 11 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4973 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4973 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-497' 890-130-13 890-130-14 890-130-16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 13 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 14 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 16 Huntington Beach, CA 926484973 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4973 Huntington Beach, CA 92648497' 1 ss f d ai�aAy _a+sezla aa6ar FB sk*, n� t + 1- tl �R li 6ae ®09 14 aRR p u_}e amy�ey e�g z _i agA 5� naiad a sai����saanii 890-130-19 890-130-2i 890-130-23 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 19 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 21 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 2 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4973 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 890-130-26 890-130-27 890-130-29 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 26 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 27 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 29 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4974 890-130-30 890-130-31 890-130-34 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 30 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 31 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 34 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 890-130-36 890-13041 890-130-42 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 36 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 41 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 42 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4975 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 890-130-43 890-130-45 890-13048 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 43 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 45 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 48 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 890-130-52 890-130-56 890-130-58 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 52 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 56 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 58 Huntington Beach, CA 926484976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 890-130-59 890-130-63 890-130-65 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 59 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 63 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 65 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 926484978 Huntington Beach, CA 926484978 890-130-69 890-130-73 890-130-74 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 69 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 73 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 74 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4978 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4978 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4941 890=130-78 890-130-79 890-130-82 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 78 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 79 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 82 Huntington Beach, CA 926484941 Huntington Beach, CA 926484941 Huntington Beach, CA 926484941 890-130-83 890-130-85 890-130-86 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 83 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 85 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 86 Huntington Beach, CA 926484941 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4941 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 it ii i" ( �® 1 V I t " '--Ww 3dn W � 9 Gan 1 ;t s�' a� nae� i 0 �i as � J, � aa�ad a sa�t�e� sallan 890-130-89 890-130-93 890-130-94 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 89 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 93 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 9 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 890-130-95 890-130-98 890-130-99 Occupant Occupant Occupant 2070t Beach Blvd Unit 95 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 98 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 99 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4942 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4955 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4955 890-131-02 890-131-03 890-131-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 102 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 103 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 105 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4955 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4955 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4977 890-131-06 890-131-07 890-131-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 106 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 107 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 1 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4977 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4977 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4977 890-131-13 890-131-15 890-131-16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 113 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 115 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 1 16 Huntington Beach, CA 926484956 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4956 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4956 890-131-19 890-131-20 890-131-21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 119 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 120 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 121 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4956 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4956 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4956 890-131-22 890-131-24 890-131-25 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 122 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 124 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 125 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4956 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4957 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 890-131-26 890-131-27 890-131-32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 126 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 127 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 132 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A957 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 890-131-33 890-131-34 890-131-36 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 133 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 134 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 136 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4957 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4957 890-131-38 890-131-39 890-131-40 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 138 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 139 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 140 Huntington Beach, CA 926484957 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4957 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 1 i I -1 a -� 8-L n d al bas i 00 A3J a ntpey el , �a�ad a sat��e sa anl� 890-131-41 890-t 31-45 890-t 3 t-46 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 141 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 145 20701 Beach Blvd Unit L 46 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4951 890-131-50 8904 31-5 t 8904 31-53 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 150 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 151 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 15 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-495F 890-131-57 8904 31-59 890-131-60 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 157 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 159 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 160 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 890-131-61 890-131-63 890-131-64 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 161 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 163 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 164 Huntington Beach, CA 926484959 Huntington Beach, CA 926484959 Huntington Beach, CA 926484959 890-131-65 890-131-68 890-131-69 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 165 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 168 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 169 Huntington Beach, CA 926484959 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 890-131-74 890-131-77 890-131-79 Occupant Occupant I Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 174 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 177 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 186 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 890-131-81 890-131-82 890-131-83 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 181 2070 t Beach Blvd Unit 182 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 183 Huntington Beach, CA 926484960 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 890-131-85 890-131-87 890-131-89 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 185 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 187 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 189 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 890-131-91 890-131-92 890-131-94 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 191 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 192 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 194 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 Huntington Beach,CA 926484961 890-13 i-97 890-131-99 890-13 2-00 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit i97 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 199 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 Huntington Beach, CA 926484961 ( MW3 dn-di 1 1 oAja^v.a°�.�t ajn s I ® ;JAWOI sa 4 4 3e e lad e salrbel swan 890-1.32-01 8904 32-02 890-132-07 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 201 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 202 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 2 07 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4963 890-(32-11 890-132-12 890-132-14 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 211 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 212 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 2 14 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4963 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4963 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4963 890-132-15 890-132-16 890-132-17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 215 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 216 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 2 17 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4963 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4963 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4964 890-132-19 890-132-21 890-132-22 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 219 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 221 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 222 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4964 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4964 Huntington Beach, CA 926484964 890-132-25 890-132-30 890-132-31 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 225 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 230 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 231 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 926484965 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 890-132-33 890-132-35 890-132-36 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 233 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 235 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 236 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 890-132-37 890-132-3 8 890-132-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 237 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 238 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 243 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 926484965 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4966 890-132-45 890-132-51 890-132-56 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 245 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 251 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 256 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 926484962 890-132-58 890-132-59 890-132-61 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 258 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 259 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 261 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 890-132-62 890-132-64 890-132-65 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 262 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 264 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 265 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4962 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4967 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4967 rSftpgft do d t, #' ( 4*:;LVDM okaAV aP �r A, f �+l O 8-L f d0�! at ablj__- f f i any�e el . j ® �a�ad a sat1�Q¢sauc y 890432-67 890-132-71 890-132-74 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 267 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 271 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 274 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4967 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4979 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-498( 8904 32-77 890-132-79 890-132-80 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 277 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 279 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 280 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4980 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4968 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-496f 890-132-81 890-132-82 890-13 2-86 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 281 20701. Beach Blvd Unit 282 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 286 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4968 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4981 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4969 890-132-88 890-132-90 890-132-97 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 288 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 290 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 297 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4969 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4982 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4983 890-132-98 890-132-99 890-133-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 298 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 299 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 305 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4983 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4983 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4984 890-139-01 890-139-02 890-139-03 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 61 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 75 ' 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 175 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4941 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4960 890-139-04 890-139-05 890-139-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 167 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 198 — 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 47 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4959 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4976 890-139-07 8904 39-08 890-139-09 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 123 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 266 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 303 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4957 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4967 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4971 890-139-10 890-139-11 890-139-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 100 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 15 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 234 Huntington Beach, CA 926484955 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4973 Huntington Beach, CA 926484965 890-139-13 890-139-14 890-139-15 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 226 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 147 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 269 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4965 Huntington Beach, CA 926484958 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4967 vw vw�d d� al�fs f a1 oGaa f 1' � V`l� ylr,sY � -p -4 ici(1 d al areas i 00 ] 890-139-16 890-139-17 890-139-18 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 292 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 287 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4982 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4969 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4972 i 890-139-19 890-139-20 Occupant Occupant Occupant 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 188 20701 Beach Blvd Unit 208 Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4961 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4963 Occupant Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA %I I Occupant Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Occupant Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Occupant Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Occupant Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Occupant Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Occupant Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Occupant Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 1 Ak i j \SH-RECEIPT J HUNTINGTON BEACH -er Shari L. Freidenrich P. 0: BOX 711 - N BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 ; tj � t<' m: - - _ O Credit Card $ t Finance Approval -- - -•- ==== KRED Approval Date' — -- -- — —————— — { 73 TOTAL $ . R!ease, o;,not write,in the box.below I R ISSUING nFP4PTMFNT r.npv NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION (OR POLICE) Date: 10/1/2009 To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered NIA City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 10/1/2009 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 10/1/2009 City Council Office (1 Copy) Date Delivered 10/1/2009 Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 10/1/2009 Filed By: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park RE: Appeal of the Planning Department Action - Denying Application/Notice of Action (9/22/09) Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk (714) 536-5227 Fee Collected: $2,704.00 Form Completed by: Rebecca Ross, Sr Deputy City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION (OR POLICE) Date: 10/1/2009 To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered N/A City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 10/1/2009 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 10/1/2009 City Council Office (1 Copy) Date Delivered 10/1/2009 Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 10/1/2009 Filed By: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park RE: Appeal of the Planning Department Action - Denying Application/Notice of Action (9/22/09) Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk (714) 536-5227 Fee Collected: $2,704.00 Form Completed by: Rebecca Ross, Sr Deputy City Clerk I I CASH RECEIPT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Treasurer — Shari L. Freidenrich P. 0. BOX 711 IL HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 i � DATE Issuing Dept. U. Department C tact Phone# FUNDS RECEIVED FROM 4 Q IV IS ADDRESS I 1i LLI till l FOR Cn AMOUNT R EIVED O Cash Check# LIB3 O Credit Card Q. o Prepared Received Finance By By Approval i o' IF OBJECT= 50000 THRU 90000,FINANCE APPROVAL REQUIRED Approval Date z �g 805-in Unit, Ob'ect Sutis Sub Led er. T - T 1 T a IQ • ,L ® - - CD CD --- --- ----- -- - ---- -- -- - - N ' 0j N /��� �, ———————— ————— -- ———————— — iYd O) — - - -' - Lu YIO. ————--—— ----- -- —--—---— — ,- i ———————— ————— —— ———————— — ——— — ———— —— —— — — — F —— ———— ————— —— ——— ————— !ggA��n —————— —— ————— —— ———————— — - r ———— — — —— ——— ——— — -- TOTAL $ ,'1O f i Please do not write in the box below i No. 1177888 CUSTOMER COPY COURT SERVICE FILING INSTRUCTIONS .RETAIN BLUE COPY ONLY FOR YOUR RECORDS r Los Angeles 213 250-1111 Fax 213 250 1197 Los Angeles(West) 310 277-9111 Fax 310 277 9153 K �1 ttt Inland Empire 951 779-1110 Fax 951 779-0100 Sacramento 916 444-5111 Fax 916 443-3111 Fi Est Legal �� PP VV �8ryoCBS San Diego 1 231- 111 Fax 231-131 San Francisco 15 626-3 415 111 Fax 415 626-1331 Sant 4 a Ana 714 541-1110 Fax 714 541-8182 San Jose 408 287-9711 Fax 408 287-5852 COURT PROCESS �E S S E N G E R San Luis Obispo 805 654-1535 Fax 805 541-4450 ® B , Ventura 805 654-1535 Fax 805 654-1803 Las Vegas 702 671-4002 Fax 702 974-2223 Phoenix 602 248-9700 Fax 602 248-9727 .,_ All offices Independently owned and operated `° ©� _ ON O DATA ( 1 Web address:firstlegalsupport.com tt FIRM, DESTINATION/COURT NURE!i's• K 1:1+10 d:f�1...I7i:�E::6;1 %'€fit%J . lwaG3ST SANX)Pt:D:R14'I11, Mt%3t%1--. Ph©iae;(# ). Fax•# Ns ##dd DOCUMENTS i4 ATTY/SECRETARY � EXT: CLIENT/MATTER/ATTY.CODE CASE NO# Short title of case: HEARING � FOR:, �SET FOR:� AT DEFT/DIV ^ / ✓Y " SELF ADDRESSED STAMPED FEE -�� ENVELOPE(S)ATTACHED ATTACHED$ p.. ° ° o rl li�Q UWLSIA�U❑ ° KAA S °F E t k AS AP RESEARCH,. tv° k g, S SPEC FILE RUSH FILE SAME DAY (immedi ate) (Immediate) (Within 2 hrs. ) (Filings only) ❑ SAME DAY RESEARCH El ASAP FILE El REG FILE El NEXT DAY CFfECf£K (Allow full t obtain) day o o a Within 1 hr. W' (Filings (Within 4 hrs. s only)* Y ( ) ( ( 9 )*Y - N Y RESEARCH asr NEXT DAY S ARCH *Per agreement Allow two days to obtain 9 ( Y ) FIL E El ISSUE E S R: S []-SUBMIT OTHER: ,m ❑ RE SEARCH F CERTIF IED -F RM Complete b Y: a 3a CO PY RE UEST COPY �'.0 O REQUEST �,. . Q SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: �`�'�g a -- � 1)1i1 r VVA#f fht l d q r - ECTA::a l t sa i 4 yi I I Y 1 r / r k I G� r .. L.f PLEASNE REM°IT PAYMENTO ANGELES•° ❑ASS1GNMENT COMP, �_S LETED � ATTY.CA LED SPOKE WITH: OFFICE ALL ASSIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON REVERSE ` � v» * ` ~ TERMS & CONDITIONS The following terms and conditions apply to all services requested ofFLS& 1. Fee Schedules. Customer acknowledges receipt and review of FLSS standard fee eohedu|we as modified from time totime. Additional urhndu|aa will be supplied customer e1 any time upon request. Customer accepts and acknowledges all invoices and statements as correct unless notice im given toFUSS � within fifteen (15) days ofpresentation, 2. All invoices are due and payable upon presentation. Statements are generally issued semi-monthly. ALL fees and charges are based upon prompt pay ment. A service charge/price adjustment in an amount equal to 075% peraemi'mnnUlk/ billing period may be charged vvith respect to amounts not paid to the and of the next semi-monthly period, including unpaid service charge/price adjuatmenLs. FLG8 reserves the right to (i) defer imposing such service charge/price adjustments at any time and from time with nampeoi to any or all amounts due and any such waiver shall hot constitute waiver or FLBS's right to impose such charges at any other time or with respect to any other amounts due. Failure to include such charges of any statemenVm) shall be considered es adaferna| and */ r not as a waiver of such charges, vegand|*on of the length of deferral or number of statements, Waiver of such charges will be made in writing only. 3, Limitation of LiabilitV. In the event of any failure of FILSS to properly or timely perform instructions given, FLSS'o responsibility shall be limited |ocorrecting any defects in performance orredoing the assignment. FLSS'a liability for any direct economic damage incurred as e result orany bneaoh, foi|ure, act or omission of FL8G, its emp|oyeas, subcontractors or agents in connection with services performed shall not exceed the greater of (i) elimination or reimbursement of that portion of any FL8G charges of the services improperly or not performed or (ii) $100.00 per invoice, whether or not such dannmges result from the negligence of FLSS, its emp|nyaes, subcontractors or agents. Under no circumstances shall FLSS be liable for incidental or consequential damages, lost profits or loss of income, regardless of the amount. cause or foneseoabi|ity therefore, Any waiver of this limitation by FLSS at any time with respect to any oiainn shall not constitute a waiver of such limitation at any other orwith respect to any other asserted claim. ' ' 4 | th �� n e evant ��� acMon ka ne�8m��rytomd�otany �raU|��n�ount� dma FU� for services rendered, the prevailing party shall be entit|edAq-ieaooneb|e Bttonney's fees and coats to be paid by the losing party, . � . \ ` , , HK�m�m��^ HART KING & C[]LDREN RobeqS.Coldmn mm October 1. 2009 Our File Number: 3801*.112/48393831'8038v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach (^Citv^) 2000 Main Street -_ Huntington Beach, CA 82648 c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk RE: Huntington Shorec|iffs H0mbi|m Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ('^AppUication") Am��-��-�� F»K�n���� C��nmrmho�i�n �c* �� �a����� ' ' ' Application/Notice of Action Dear City Council Members: This letter constitutes the Park owner Applicants' Appeal of the September 22, 2008 Planning Commission "action" denying the above-referenced Application. A copy of the Citv'o ^mcdico of Action" is attached hereto as Attachment 1. This Appeal is made pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 248.20. Enclosed herewith im the Applicants' Appeal fee in the amount of $2.7O4pursuant to the City'o August 10. 2OOS Fee Schedule. Park owner Applicants and Appellants, 8honediff, LP; J8 Stadium LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; and Shorec|iff K8oin. LP request that all communication in this matter be referred to the Applicant's Authorized Agent. Hart. King & Coidren. The address of the Appellants/Applicants for purposes of this Appeal is the address of their Authorized Agent: Hart. King & Co|dren; 200 ' @endpointe. Fourth Floor; Santa Ana, CAS27O7. Specific information pertaining to the grounds for the Appeal has been set forth in great detail in comprehensive letters addressed from the Applicants' Agent tothe Planning Commission and Planning Department prior to the Planning Curnnnioeion ''ocdon." including two letters dated September 18. 2009. a !etterdoted September 17. 2008. a letter dated 8aptennber2. 2009. a letter dated August 37. 2009 and a letter dated August 25. 2009. These letters constitute part of the administrative record before the Planning Commission and are already before the City Council and therefore are being re-submitted with this Appeal for your convenience, and are incorporated herein by this reference. The grounds for the Appeal are summarized and set forth in the remainder of this letter. As the Application form states, the Application is for "Subdivision of K8obi|ehonne Park." As the September 18. 2008 !attar accompanying the Application explains, the Application for subdivision is to enable the conversion of the existing Huntington 8horao\iffs rental mobi|ehome park to resident ownership. A Professional Law Corporation 2GOSondpointa. Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 027O7 Ph714432.87OO1vmww.hkdow.comIFx714.54S.7467 HK ' C City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 2 The California Legislature has made clear that the State policy is to encourage conversion of rental mobilehome parks to resident ownership: For 25 years, the state has had the policy "to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership." (Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subd. (b)) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1298) That State policy is part of the Legislature's comprehensive regulation of mobilehome parks to the exclusion of regulation by cities: The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation. Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script. The State's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map act in 1991. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1293 [underline added]) Indeed, the State has taken away from cities authority regarding design, construction and use of mobilehome parks: These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design" of mobilehome parks. (Health & Saf. Code, § 18253 .... (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1281; see also Health & Saf. Code, § 18300 [Mobilehome Parks Act express preemption of local regulation]) Thus, when the State enacted the mobilehome park conversion statutory section of the Subdivision Map Act (Govt. Code § 66427.5), the State intended also to include existing mobilehome conversions in its broad preemptive exclusion of local agency regulation: Section 66427.5 does not stand alone, If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control, that 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 3 day is long past. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1279) The Legislature established its preemption of city requirements for existing mobilehome park conversion in the express language of Government Code Section 66427.5 (e): The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve; conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. [underline added] The California Court of Appeal has held that the language of Government Code Section 66427.5 (e) constitutes an express preemption of local agency authority over existing mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership: We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1297) Thus, when cities are considering an application to subdivide an existing mobilehome park for conversion to resident ownership, they are limited to a mere ministerial checklist consideration of whether the applicant has complied with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5: That is what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power, but no more. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1296) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v1 HK C City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 4 The local requirements for existing mobilehome park conversion invalidated in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma included the following: As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application. Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66427.5, the application (1) "is consistent with the general plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2) demonstrates that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"; (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety"; and (4) the proposed conversion "is a bona-fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. 14 (Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c), subds. (1)(c)— (f), (2).) The Ordinance also requires that, following approval of the conversion application, the subdivider "shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public," for a period of 90 days "from the issuance of the subdivision public report ... pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 11018.2." (Id., § 25-39.7(d), subd. (2).) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1299) The California Court of Appeal concluded that cities could not consider general plan or zoning compliance, could not consider whether there was analysis regarding long-term management and maintenance of common facilities and infrastructure, could not consider existing health and safety conditions, and could not even impose criteria for satisfaction of the Government Code Section 66427.5 requirements: However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1299) 36014.112/4839-3831-5036v.1 HA RT. K�r! 'l rx City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 5 The California Court of Appeal determination makes sense given the context of existing mobilehome park conversions: It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation. As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations." (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1295) The California Court of Appeal rejected arguments that cities should be allowed to go behind the applicant's compliance with the express requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 to investigate the circumstances of the compliance, such as imposing criteria for the resident impact report: Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept; if no invite, supplementary local action. For example, a subdivider is required to "file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents," but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report. And there is some force to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici: "Surely, the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content ....[%] ... [1] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1294) Based on the foregoing legal analysis, it is clear that the Planning Commission "Findings for Denial" are unlawful and invalid under the holding of Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma. The remainder of the this Appeal letter will address each particular finding. FINDINGS 1 & 2 ARE NOT LAWFUL Findings 1 and 2 deny the Application based on the City's unlawful imposition of general plan and zoning requirements on the Application. As the above citations demonstrate, Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma made clear that general plan and zoning requirements cannot lawfully be imposed for approval of a subdivision that is for conversion of an existing 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 6 mobilehome park to resident ownership. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1294) Findings 1 and 2 attempt to seize upon the Applicants' admitted mistaken belief that their existing HCD permit was for more than 304 spaces. Thus, Findings 1 & 2 seek to impose the planning and zoning requirements as if the Application were seeking to expand an existing nonconforming use. But that is not what the Application states. It clearly states on the Application form that the Applicants are seeking to subdivide their existing mobilehome park. Also within the cover letter, the Applicants make clear that their proposed subdivision is based on what the Applicants believed were the number of spaces under the existing HCD permit. Both the City and the Applicants proceeded through the entire planning process predicated on the notion that Government Code section 66427.5 governed the processing of this application. Thus, by definition, all parties agreed that the subdivision was of a physical existing mobilehome park for the number of spaces permitted by HCD. To the extent staff may have been "laying in the weeds" to convert this application into one for a non-66427.5 subdivision, staff's "gotcha" last minute abandonment of this position reflects unwarranted hostility to the project. The refusal of staff and the Planning Commission to accept for filing the offered substitute/corrected/conditioned map showing the 304 actual existing occupied lots is at the core of this appeal. The City's position that it has authority to approve the expansion of the number of existing lots and to thereby impose general plan and zoning code requirements as a result thereof is completely in excess of the City's jurisdiction. The City cannot approve new lots within the Park, as that is within the exclusive purview of HCD and was never contemplated. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, only HCD has the authority to create new lots within the Park. "Park lot lines shall not be created, moved, shifted, or altered without a permit issues to the park owner or operator by [HCD] ...." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18610.5) HCD authority over the creation of new lots is part of its comprehensive authority over "construction, use, occupancy and maintenance of [mobilehome] parks and lots within the parks." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18610) The Mobilehome Parks Act plainly states that the Act "supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county ...." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300 (a)) The California Court of Appeal has field that Section 18300 (a) is an express preemption of city regulation of mobilehome park design, construction, use and maintenance. (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1483, 1489-1490) HCD expressly reiterated in a recent Information Bulletin that cities do not have authority to impose requirements pertaining the number of lots that will be approved for the conversion of 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 7 existing mobilehome parks. Instead, the City only has authority to impose a condition for approval that the number of lots for the final map will be consistent with the number of HCD approved "lots" in the then existing HCD permit: The establishment, marking, and movement of lot lines are governed by Title 25, CCR, sections 1104, 1105, 1330, and 1428. Landscaping is not a proper form of lot marking, and lot lines must either be those in existence or moved and approved pursuant to CCR section 1105. A local government may require that the final approved lot lines be those consistent with the requirements of Title 25, since the local government has the authority to approve final lot lines as part of a subdivision approval; however, their location and marking must be consistent with Title 25. (April 21, 2008 HCD Information Bulletin 2008 — 10 (MP), page 6) Therefore, the Planning Commission's finding of denial based on an incorrect unlawful assumption that the City has authority over the number of lots within the Park is in itself unlawful and must be overturned by the City Council. While not required by law, the Applicants are enclosing with this Appeal eleven (11) copies of a revised Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 that corresponds to the existing HCD permit for 304 spaces or "lots". Note that the revised tentative map does nothing more than remove the "offending" five lot lines (the "office 4" and the "orphan" lot at the Southwest corner) and thus any argument that additional "planning" or "review" by staff or the Commission represents a practical impediment requiring the Applicants to go back to square one with a new application is disingenuous at best. The Planning Commission and Planning Department unreasonably refused to accept the revised Map, claiming incorrectly that provisions of the Subdivision Map Act pertaining to the time for consideration thereof prevented their acceptance of the revised Map. Nothing in the Subdivision Map Act prevents acceptance of a revised Map to correct errors in the depiction of existing conditions. Indeed many cities and counties accept revised maps without requiring new applications and fees. The Planning Department and other City staff do not need to conduct additional review of the revised Map because all the Map does is show the existing Park improvements and HCD approved "lots", which have already been studied by City Staff. It would be a violation of the Mitigation Fee Act to require an unreasonable additional application fee to submit the revised map when no additional study is required. (See Govt. Code §66014 (a) [application fees cannot exceed reasonable cost of providing service]) 36014 112/4839-3831-6036v.1 ek-A K City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 8 In any event, the Planning Department and other City staff now have plenty of time to review the revised Map before the City Council hearing on the Appeal, which is a de novo review of the Application with a new time period for review. (See Govt. Code § 66452.5 (a) (3); City Code §§ 248.04, 248.20) FINDING 3 IS NOT LAWFUL If any issue was answered clearly by the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, it was the issue of whether a city could impose its own criteria for the Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) conversion impact report. As the above citations to that case . demonstrate, the Court of Appeal answered that question with a resounding "no"! (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1294) There are two important policy reasons behind the State prohibition against local agency criteria for reports on the impact of the conversion on residents. First, the Report cannot provide additional substantive protection to residents against economic displacement. Government Code Section 66427.5 already provides the exclusive statutory protections against economic displacement of residents resulting from conversion. Section 66426.5 (a) requires that the Park owner offer the residents the option of either purchasing their lots or continuing to lease their that lot from the Park owner. Therefore, residents will not be forced to terminate their leases and will not be forced to purchase, but will be provided a valuable option to purchase if they so choose. Also, Section 66427.5 (f) limits rent increases for residents who choose to continue leasing. For non low income residents, their rents, if below market value at the time of conversion, can only be raised to market value over a four year period. For low income residents, their rents can only be raised by an annual percentage that is equal to the average percentage rent increases during the four years prior to conversion. Therefore, the Report is simply a vehicle for transmitting information to the tenants about how the statutory protections prevent economic impacts to tenants resulting from conversion. Given those statutory protections, conversion should not result in actual or economic displacement of residents. The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates recognized the broad reach of those exclusive statutory provisions contained in Section 66427.5 in protecting residents against economic displacement: 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 HK� ',"rc HAF-, K3suFi City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 9 The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuring that conversion must comport with the General Plan, especially its housing element, because that is where the economic dislocation will be manifest, by reducing the inventory of low cost housing. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(3).) In this sense, however, section 66427.5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates, as it does make provision in subdivision (f) for helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1300 [underline added]) The Court of Appeal in the earlier case of El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, in comparing Government Code Section 66427.5 with Government Code Section 66427.4, clearly recognized that conversion under the limitations of Section 66427.5 will not result in economic displacement of residents: We first examine section 66427.4. It applies to "conversion of a mobilehome park to another use." Conversely, it would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping center or another different use of the property. In that situation, there would be "displaced mobilehome park residents" who would need to find "adequate space in a mobilehome park" for their mobilehomes and themselves. Thus, an impact report is required. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161) Second, the City's subdivision approval is simply the first and a preliminary step in the conversion process. In the normal situation, conversion begins with compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, followed by approval from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq.) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1177) After the subdivision is approved by local government, the Department of Real Estate regulates the marketing and sale of the individual units in the park. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11010 et seq.) It is illegal to sell subdivided property before obtaining a 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 HK ,. , c City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 10 public report from the Real Estate Commissioner. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11018) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1160) The City's action on the subdivision application occurs at a stage in the process where significant information pertaining to conversion such as lot purchase price and homeowner association obligations have not yet been studied or developed: Although a tenant cannot make a rational decision to buy, continue to rent, or move his or her mobilehome unless the tenant is given an option price and a proposed rental price, the tenant is not required to make such a decision until after the Department of Real Estate has approved the project and issued its public report. (Bus. & Prof Code § 11010.9) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1179) While the filing of the application and compliance with Section 66427.5 give notice to the residents of their option to purchase, the subdivider does not need to disclose a tentative price at that time because the residents do not need to decide whether to purchase at that time. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1180) In fact, the Subdivided Lands Act prevents premature disclosure of lot price information: Indeed, the giving of the disclosure notice does not authorize the subdivider to offer to sell the units before obtaining Department of Real Estate approval. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11010.9, subd. (c).) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1180) Thus, all that is required for the Report is that it give notice to the residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the statutory protections for those residents pertaining to post-conversion rent increases. At the latter time [the subdivision approval by the City], the subdivider must only notify residents that they will have an option to purchase their sites or to continue to rent them. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1180) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 R T K City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 11 Thus, the Report is merely a preliminary notice to residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the provisions contained in Government Code Section 66427.5 pertaining to post-conversion rent increases for those tenants. City review of the Report regarding the purchase option is simply not necessary or possible at this time because most of the information pertaining to potential purchase is not known at this time. Therefore, Finding No. 3 which imposes City criteria for the Report is not lawful and must be overturned by the City Council. FINDING 4 IS UNLAWFUL As the Sequoia Park Associates case discussion on conversion impact reports illustrates, the City is not authorized to go "behind the curtain" regarding Applicants' compliance with the checklist requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and impose its own requirements for the Application. All that Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) requires the Applicants to do is submit to the City the results of the resident survey. Sequoia Park Associates makes clear that cities cannot even impose their own requirements duplicating the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5. (See Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, . supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1300) The Applicants not only submitted the resident survey results, but also they submitted the actual survey forms themselves to the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Planning Commission had a mandatory duty to find that the Applicant complied with the requirement of Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) to submit resident survey results, and the City Council must overturn Finding No. 4. Assuming the Planning Commission had the authority to impose conditions regarding the conduct of the survey that duplicate Government Code Section 66427.5 and investigate "behind the curtain" to see if the Applicant conducted the survey in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 (d), there is substantial evidence in the record that the Applicants' complied with Government Code Section 66427.5 (d). Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) (2) only requires an agreement regarding the resident survey with a homeowner's association if there is an association: The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. [bold & underline added] 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 12 The Mike Cirillo Affidavit submitted with the September 18, 2009 letter regarding the tenant survey states that he made an investigation and that there was no existing homeowner's association or officers with whom he could enter into an agreement pertaining to the survey at the time the survey was mailed to the residents in March 2009. The Mike Cirillo Affidavit also contains compelling, even conclusive evidence attached as exhibit 1 thereof that there was no existing homeowner's association in March 2009 in the form of the now existing homeowner's association's flyers that were distributed saying "More than ever we need an HOK and "New officers are urgently needed". Such statements made in flyers distributed by proponents of what is presently a homeowner's association expressly contradict the position of that present homeowners' association that it was in existence at the time the survey was mailed to the residents. The resident survey issue is essentially a red herring in the context of the Application. The resident survey requirement of Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) was enacted by the California Legislature for the express intent to address the issue of "sham" conversions discussed by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1164-1165. A "sham" conversion refers to a conversion initiated by obtaining city subdivision approval solely for the purpose of escaping local rent control. Because the City of Huntington Beach does not impose rent control on mobilehome parks, there is no issue of sham conversion for the City to consider. The resident survey results or the conduct of that survey is therefore meaningless with respect to the Application. In conclusion, none of the Planning Commission Findings For Denial are lawful. Therefore, the City Council is respectfully requested to approve the Application, without condition, as required by Government Code Section 66427.5. As a gesture of the Applicant's good faith, the Applicant is willing to meet with City Staff to negotiate potential conditions so long as they do not dramatically increase the cost or delay in accomplishing this subdivision. To date, the City has at all times deftly avoided confronting the issue of its position regarding the extent to which it can condition the approval of this 66427.5 subdivision. Members of the Planning Commission asked that this question be addressed. Applicants consistently, both formally and informally, requested the City's position on this pivotal issue. The fact that the City refused to work candidly, constructively, and openly with Applicants is also deserving of redress. The City Council has the opportunity to set a new tone, and right a wrong that has infected this process with hostility, suspicion, and adversarial posturing. I hope the City Council will seize this opportunity. 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 -TNI HK,, 1,10F: City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 13 Thank you. Very truly yours, HART, KIN &2ppellants REN Ro for Applicants/ RSC/BLH/dr Enclosures: August 25, 2009 Letter August 27, 2009 Letter September 2, 2009 Letter September 17, 2009 Letter September 18, 2009 Letters (2) September 23, 2009 Notice of Action letter Eleven (11) copies of Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (304 spaces) cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Rami Talleh, Senior Planner (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Fred Wilson, City Administrator (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Scott Hess, Director of Planning (by e-mail only, without enclosures) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 HART, KING COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com August 25, 2009 Our File Number: 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 VIA FACSIMILE E-MAIL AND OVERNITE EXPRESS Facsimile No. (714) 374-1540 AUG2 6 2009 PLAIN Subdivision Committee Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o Rami Talleh, Senior Planner RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Response to Resident Letters Dear Committee and Commission Members: We received from the Planning Staff very few resident letters objecting to the above-referenced Application. Copies of those letters are enclosed herewith as Attachment 1. This letter constitutes the Park owners' response to those letters. The letters exhibit a profound misunderstanding by certain residents about the California process for rental mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership. The issues raised in the letters cannot even be considered by the City in acting on the Application. The letters also contain several incorrect statements. Therefore, in response to those letters, we will first set forth the legal background for the City's consideration of the Application under the Subdivision Map Act, and then we will address the particular issues raised in the respective letters. Under separate cover, we will be addressing the numerous benefits of mobilehome park subdivision. Subdivision of the-park is all about providing the Park residents with an option to purchase or remain renters forever. "Option" is the key word here. No resident will be forced to do anything as a result of subdivision. A resident that does not want to own his or her lot can continue to rent the space for the rest of that resident's life. All leases will be continued to be honored post-subdivision. Therefore, the completion of the subdivision will have no—I repeat no—impact on rents in the Park. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 HK`11,1'1'_ C H,AFIT K i W U El ,.. �11R*P_N, Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 2 As to those tenants who complain (in our view without justification) of supposed lapses in repair and maintenance, those matters have nothing to do with subdivision, and the law is clear that the occasion of subdivision is not the place to address these issues (although when the tenants own the park they can maintain and repair at whatever level they wish). Finally, we have not had an opportunity to brief our tenants on our subdivision plans yet, and it is unfortunate that a militant vocal minority of disgruntled tenants chose to blanket the Park with misinformation and to solicit similar negative letters from the tenants. It is gratifying that in the face of such a campaign that very few tenants have "taken the bait." THE STATE HAS AN EXPRESS POLICY TO FACILITATE MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP In 1991, the California Legislature established Government Code Section 66427.5, which is part of the Subdivision Map Act. Government Code Section 66427.5 expressly governs park owner applications for subdivision of existing mobilehome parks for the purpose of converting the rental mobilehome parks to resident ownership. Government Code Section 66427.5 is part of the general State scheme to facilitate resident ownership of mobilehome parks: [I]t is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this chapter, to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership ... and to help establish acceptance for resident-owned ... mobilehome parks in the private market. (Health & Saf. Code § 50780 (b)) (See El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal. AppAth 1153, 1168- 1169 [explaining the linkage between Govt. Code § 66427.5 &the expression of legislative intent found in Health & Saf. Code § 50780]) THE STATE ESTABLISHED A STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING MOBILEHOME PARKS Given the State policy to facilitate resident ownership of mobilehome parks, the Subdivision Map Act at Government Code Section 66427.5 provides an exclusive streamlined process for local agency approval of existing mobilehome park tentative tract maps: The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The 36014,112/4851-1971-7124 v.1 . . HAR_� ooLonsu Rarn� T�O�h Cityigtnoton Beach Subdivision Committee City ofHunbnoton Beach Planning Commission AuQu8t25. 2OOS Page scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. (Govt. Code § 66427.5 (e)) The California Court of Appeal has interpreted Government Code Section 66427.5 (e) to pnaveniany additional |0oa| agency requirements for subdivision approval, iDC|UdiOg. as attempted in the El Dorado C8ne, a city requirement for 3 tenant majority approval of the subdivision: The Association's interpretation would conflict with the legislative intent to encourage such conversions. Indeed the City notes that `'such @n onerous condition Of approval would effectively give the nnOb)|e home park homeowners' association the ability to unilaterally block the proposed park conversion unless the landlord would otherwise set his purchase price Gt8Oamount acceptable to the horneovvners." Giving the homeowners thispower would conflict with the legislative intent "to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership (Health & Ssd' Code 85O78O. uubd. (b)\ (El Dorado Palm Springs' Ltd. v. City OfPalm Springs, supra, 96 Cal. App.4 th at 1172 [underline oddad]) Ad oral argument, the City argued that the three further conditions it imposed were designed to prevent an abuse of the conversion process bya developer who was engaged in8 sham orfraudulent transaction which was intended to avoid the rent control ordinance. The problem with the argument ia that section 66427.5' subdivision (d) provides that "The scope Of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this Section." Thus, the City lacks authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the tentative or parcel map. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of�8� Springs, nupra m. BO �o|� App�4 at11O5 [underline added]) Thus. under Government Code Section 66427.5. the only issues that the City may consider in deciding upon an existing rnObi|ehonne park subdivision are asfoUnws� * }s the tentative tract map in compliance with City requirements? HART, KING & Ci LDPE' Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 4 ® Did the park owner notify residents of their option to continue leasing or purchase their lots? ® Did the park owner submit to the City and timely mail to the residents a resident impact report? ® Did the park owner submit the results of a resident survey of support of the subdivision that was conducted by written ballot in accordance with an agreement between the park owner and an independent resident homeowners' association? THE STATE PREEMPTS AND PREVENTS CITY IMPOSED CRITERIA FOR MAP APPROVAL The recent Court of Appeal decision in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 21, 2009) reaffirmed that Section 66427.5 (e) expressly precludes local agency criteria for approval of mobilehome park subdivisions: We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 21, 2009), at p. 54) In explaining the above holding, the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates expressly stated that local agencies do not have authority to impose conditions, even conditions interpreting the particular requirements under the Subdivision Map Act, such as conditions for the appropriate content of the Government Code Section 66427.5 (c) report on the impact of the conversion upon residents or conditions relating to the level of tenant support demonstrated by the Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) tenant survey: We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's approach. Beginning with the presumption against preemption in the area of land use, it is more than a little difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only on the issues of resident support and the subdivider's efforts at avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents. Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept, if not invite, supplementary local action. For example, a subdivider 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 HA' ',.r, ;.45 i..a Six U-JLD T�'-EN Ram: TaVeh Cite of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee Char ol" Hunfington Beach Planning Commission Augusi 25, 2009 Page 5 is required to "file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents," but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report. And there is some force to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici: "Surely, the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content ....[1] ... [IM If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." - However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach. There are three such statutes—sections 66427.4, 66427.5, and 66428.1. And if they are considered as a unit—which they are, as the three mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act—a coherent logic begins to emerge. It is not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see fit to grant local authorities some power, but circumscribe that power. That is what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power, but no more. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 46-48, 51) And still more. A local ordinance is impliedly preempted if it mandates what state law forbids. (Big Creek, supra, 38 CalAth 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County.of Los Angeles, supra, 27 CalAth 853, 866.) As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state- mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application. Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66247.5, the application (1) "is consistent with the General Plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2) demonstrates that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"; (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety"; 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 HK& C HART, KING Ex 00!_D?cr.4 Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 6 and (4) the proposed conversion "is a bona fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. (Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c), subs. 1(c)-1(f), 2.) The Ordinance also requires that, following approval of the conversion application, the subdivider "shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public," for a period of 90 days "from the issuance of the subdivision public report ... pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 11018.2." (Id., § 25-39.7(d), subd. 2.) However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. The matter of just what constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions. And although the Ordinance employs the mandatory "shall," it does not establish whether the presumptions are conclusive or merely rebuttable. This uncertainty is only compounded when other criteria are scrutinized. What is the financial provision that will be deemed "appropriate" to "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance"? Such imprecision stands in stark contrast with the clear directives in section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 58-61) LOCAL CONDITIONS ARE UNNECESSARY The streamlined process for City approval of existing mobilehome park tentative maps makes sense not only from a policy perspective of facilitating resident ownership of mobilehome parks, but also in the context of the significant State law and administrative agency regulation of mobilehome parks before, during and after tentative map approval by the City. Before a tentative map may be submitted under Section 66427.5, the mobilehome park must already be in existence with a permit from the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for the spaces that will be subdivided. 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 7 Mobilehome park design, construction, use and operation is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the HCD under the Mobilehome Parks Act, Health and Safety Code Section 18200 et seq: These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design of mobilehome parks (Health & Saf. Code § 18253) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 16-17) During the subdivision process, the tenants are adequately protected by provisions of the Subdivided Lands Act that require the Park owner to prepare and disseminate a public report that must be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Real Estate, which report discloses and provides for, inter alia, encumbrances on the land, the status of public utilities, needed capital improvements, proposed assessments, etc. (See Bus. & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq.) In the normal situation, conversion begins with compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, followed by approval from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq.) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1177) After the subdivision is approved by local government, the Department of Real Estate regulates the marketing and sale of the individual units in the park. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11010 et seq.) It is illegal to sell subdivided property before obtaining a public report from the Real Estate Commissioner. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11018) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1160) Following the City subdivision approval, the tenants are adequately protected by provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 under the Subdivision Map Act that protects residents against economic displacement. Section 66426.5 (a) requires that the Park owner offer the residents the option of either purchasing their lots or continuing to lease their that lot from the Park owner. Therefore, 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 HK& C - F1ART, YHlG & M-)L D REN Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 8 residents will not be forced to terminate their leases and will not be forced to purchase, but will be provided a valuable option to purchase if they so choose. Also, Section 66427.5 (f) limits rent increases for residents who choose to continue leasing. For non low income residents, their rents, if below market value at the time of conversion, can only be raised to market value over a four year period. For low income residents, their rents can only be raised by an annual percentage-that is equal to the average rent increases during the four years prior to conversion. The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates recognized the broad reach of those exclusive statutory provisions contained in Section 66427.5 in protecting residents against economic displacement: The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuring that conversion must comport with the General Plan, especially its housing element, because that is where the economic dislocation will be manifest, by reducing the inventory of low cost housing. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(3).) In this sense however, section 66427.5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates, as it does make provision in subdivision (f) for helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal-App. LEXIS 1.397, at pp. 61-62) The Court of Appeal in the earlier case of El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, in comparing Government Code Section 66427.5 with Government Code Section 66427.4, clearly recognized that conversion under the limitations of Section 66427.5 will not result in economic displacement of residents: We first examine section 66427.4. It applies to "conversion of a mobilehome park to another use." Conversely, it would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping center or another different use of the property. In that situation, there would be "displaced mobilehome park residents" who would need to find "adequate space in a mobilehome park" for their mobilehomes and themselves. Thus, an impact report is required. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161) 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 ` . . HAP!'T, mx7S & ooLor1sw RaQQi Ta|keh City of HUngtington Beach Subdivision Committee Cdyct Huntington Beach Planning Commission AuguSt25, 20OS Page The City'S action on the subdivision 8 p|iC8tiOn occurs at a stage in the pn]C8oS where significant information pertaining to conversion such as |[t purchase phC8 and homeowner association obligations have not yet been studied nrdeveloped: Although a tenant cannot make a rational decision to buy, continue to nent, or move his or her nnobi|ehOrna unless the tenant is given on option price and proposed [antG/ price, the tenant is not required to make such a decision until after the Department of Rao| Estate has approved the project and issued its public report. (Bus. & Prof Code § 11010.8) (El DO[odO Palm 3onng4 Ltd. K City nf Palm Springs, supra, 90Ca/.AppAthat1179) VVh\\e the filing of the application and compliance with Section 66427.5 give notice to the residents of their option to purchase, the subdivider does not need to di3C|oS8 o tentative price at that time because the residents do not need to decide whether to purchase at that time. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd u City of Palm Springs, Supra, QO C8|.AppAth at 1180) In fact, the Subdivided Lands Act prevents premature disclosure of lot price information: Indeed, the giving of the disclosure notice does not authorize the subdivider to offer to sell the Units before obtaining Department of Real Estate, approval. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11010.9, subd. (c)j (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. x City ofPalm Springs, supra, 90 CaiAopAfh at 1 1OO) Thuo, all that is required at the stage of City approval of the Application is for the Park owner to give notice to the residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the statutory protections for those residents pertaining to post-conversion rent increases. At the latter time [the subdivision approval by the City), the subdivider must only notify residents that they will have an option to purchase their sites Or to Continue to rent them. (E7 Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, oupny. 96 Co|.App4th at 1 18O) The City cannot impose any conditions of its own on approval of the Application. The City has on almost ministerial duty to approve the Application if it complies with the simple checklist of requirements set forth in Government Code Section 66427.5. HK& C Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 10 THE RESIDENT LETTERS RAISE INAPPROPRIATE ISSUES While the particular issues raised in each letter will be addressed separately as needed, generally, the issues raised in the letters cannot be considered by the City with respect to the Application. Sequoia Park Associates makes clear that the City cannot consider issues of Park infrastructure design, maintenance and repair or Park compliance with the HCD regulations under the Mobilehome Parks Act. Park infrastructure design, maintenance and repair issues are the primary focus of the tenant letters: • Water drainage, sewer, and electrical issues (April 20, 2009 Roberts/Saparoff letter); • Water drainage isues (May 8, 2009 Criswell letter), • Water drainage, sewer, electrical, gas issues (May 17 &18, 2009 Seymour letters); ® Water drainage, electrical, cable, streets and lighting issues (May 18, 2009 Vaughn letter); Water drainage, water, electrical, cable, streets and lighting issues (June 15, 2009 Emerson letter) ® Water drainage issues (June 11 , 2009 Gardner letter) Sequoia Park Associates expressly holds that local agencies are precluded from review of park infrastructure design, maintenance or repair issues because those issues are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Department of Housing and Community Development. One of the County of Sonoma ordinance conditions struck down in that case required to the park owner to demonstrate: that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure" (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 59) The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates rejected that and other local agency conditions of approval, stating: 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v 1 FS A R T, >,1114 G & ti, _D E"" E_H Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 11 However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of Section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App, LEXIS 1397, at p. 60) The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates concluded that it was the California Department of Housing and Community Development, not the City, that had jurisdiction to consider and review Park infrastructure design, repair and maintenance issues: Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements relating to construction, use, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design" of mobilehome parks (Health & Saf. Code, § 18253) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 16-17) The only other issue that the letters raise is a request for the City to interpret and impose conditions upon the Park's compliance with the tenant survey results it submitted pursuant to Subsection 66427.5 (d). (See June 18, 2009 and July 9, 2009 Steeper letters) The Park owner complied with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) by obtaining and submitting tenant survey results to the City. The survey was conducted by written ballot pursuant to an agreement between the Park owner and an independent resident homeowners' association. Government Code Sections 66427.5 does not require the Park owner to conduct the survey through Mr. Steeper's particular homeowners' association or to provide any particular explanation to the residents regarding the survey or any particular form of written ballot. As explained in Sequoia Park Associates, the City cannot impose conditions that attempt to tell the Park owner how to comply with Government Code Section 66427.5. However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of Section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 60) Any City review of the manner in which the survey was conducted would invite a purely subject inquiry on the matter: 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 S wY HK HART, KING E, Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 12 The matter of just what constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County: of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 60) COMMENTS ON PARTICULAR RESIDENT LETTERS 1. April 20, 2009 Roberts/Saparoff Letter This letter raises unsupported infrastructure issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The letter makes a false statement about the Park sewer system. Roberts had a sewer blockage within their home and the plumber cut the pipe under their home, causing a sewage spill under their home. The sewage spill was not caused by and did not involve the Park sewer system. 2. May 8, 2009 Criswell Letter The Criswell are not residents of the Park and their self- serving reference to litigation they support is outside the scope of City review. 3. Ma_y, 17 &18, 2009 Seymour Letters These letters raise unsupported infrastructure design, maintenance and repair issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The Seymours are unhappy because they haven't been able to sell their homes which they have had on the market for over a year. 4. May 18, 2009 Vaughn Letter This letter raises design and infrastructure issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The roads are not slippery and their slope is within HCD design standards. There is no substantiation of the libelous accusation of elder abuse. Vaughn is unhappy because she hasn't been able to sell her home which she has had on the market for over a year so that she can move out of state to be close to her children and grandchildren. 5. June 18, 2009 and July 9 2009 Steeper Letters This letter raises issues about the manner in which the tenant survey was conducted. There are three independent tenant associations within the Park. Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) does not require the Park owner to agree with every tenant association regarding the survey. It only requires that the Park owner agree with a tenant association which is independent. The Park owner in this instance agreed with a separate independent tenant association regarding the conduct of the survey. Therefore, Mr. Steeper's claim that there was no agreement with the association he represents is without merit. 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 HHrT YIIDSa .., C Li. t`-:EN Rami Talieh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 13 6. June 15, 2009 Emerson Letter This letter raises issues about infrastructure, design, maintenance and repair issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The roads are not slippery and their slope is within HCD design standards. There is no substantiation of the libelous accusation of harassment. In conclusion, the enclosed letters by a very small minority of Park residents fail to raise or substantiate any issues that should be considered by the City in its review of the Application. The City's consideration of the Application should simply be a checklist review of whether the Park owner has complied with Government Code Section 66427.5. We would be glad to further answer any questions regarding the particulars of the correspondence that would be relevant and helpful to the City's decision on the Application. Best Regards, HART, KING Robe I en BLH/dr Enclosure: Resident Letters Sequoia Park ASsOciates decision cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v 1 SUB DIVISION OF HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS April 20,2009 SENIOR MOBIL HOME PARK ATTN: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION ANY OTHER AGENCY INVOLVED IN SUB DIVISION We are writing to ask that you deny the request of the new owners, Saunders Properties et al,to subdivide the current park sites, thus allowing the present residents to purchase their rental land sites.While it sounds magnanamous, it does not explain the following: When they purchased there were major litigations pending The destructive water drainage needs to be corrected and the roads The aging sewer system has caused raw sewerage back-up needs correction Electrical problems corrected Mold problems While it sounds like a good move, all the major repairs will be passed on to the site owners, and we would lose the protection of Rent Control, which would force the aged seniors on fixed income to be priced out of their homes. In addition, while this may be a creative legal maneuver,it not only is destructive to the aged residents, but their application may fail to disclose latent defects, which would enable each contract to purchase to then be disaffirmed. Instead of turning their acquired financial white elephant into financial disaster for the elderly, the new owners had the option to disaffirm their purchase from the former owners because latent defects were not revealed. There were many health and safety violations that were not fixed. For the health and safety of the residents,the sewer lines must be brought to code. We currently have had their sewer back up into our home with major damage. They claim it is not their responsibility. A sub division of this park should only be approved if the city requires the owners to bring everything up to code and correct all the defaults to each site independently and the common area uses. The common areas should not be owned by the seller, but by the park homeowners as community areas to be shared by a formed organization of Home Owners. We pray that you consider the above, and send out inspectors to make corrections. Sincerely, William Roberts, Estelle Roberts, &Albert Saparoff (age 83) (age 78) (age 95) iDC�I W DD 20701 BEACH BLVD SP#96 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 SUN 1 , 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. JUN 18 2009 Huntington Beach _ P�q,t/N1✓v� PLANNING DEPT. GC Cow s S /aA,) 14&55 a b May 8, 2009 Rani Talleh Steven J. Bogart, P.E. Senior Planner Senior Civil Engineer Fax 714-374-1540 Fax 714-374-1573 MAY2C�09 Email: rtalleh surfcity-hb.orq ffoo//ee (irUr;,i;,�7�r 4 ` RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Dear Mr. Talleh and Mr. Bogart: This is to let you know that we do not support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs to a subdivision for the purpose of individual lots for sale. First of all the so call "Ballot Form" is in violation of code 676427.5. Most important is that there were and are several law suits against former and present park owners. Most are for failure to maintain the park due to improper drainage of water. We were permanent residents at Huntington Shorecliffs, however, we were forced to abandon our manufactured home due to health problems resulting from the park owners failure to maintain the park. 30.2008-00104752 — Failure to maintain LaChappelle case 07CC0961 Hamel — Failure to maintain Hamel case 06CC00216 - Access denied to residents case 06CC00262 — Leases, unlawful by owners to cancel/change leases 07CCO1257 — Declaratory Relief Case 07CCO1416 — Failure to maintain —See attachment, map indicates units with water problems and letter from Huntington Shorecliffs We would like to request that any decision regarding Huntinton Shorecliffs be delayed until all the above cases have been resolved. Respectfully yours, Arminda and Roger Criswell 883 Oro Grande St. Oceanside, CA 92057 acriswe1146@yahoo.com Talleh, Rami From: Madeline Seymour[ausvan@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 6:29 AM To: Talleh, Rami Subject: Huntington ShoreclifFs Sub-Division application Madeline J. Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd. 48 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 May 17, 2009 Mr. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Sub-Division application for Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Dear Mr. Rami: I am writing to you today to request your assistance in not approving the above application for sub-division. There are major litigations pending in the Orange County Superior Court, Case #07CC01416, failure to maintain having to do with the water problems in this park. A city storm drain drains into this park at the North center of the property, winding thru the park to the Southeast corner to another storm drain then out of the park. This drain is a Health and Safety problem as there is a good possibility of the run off containing insecticides, fertilizer, animal fescues and engine oil. This park has an elderly population and these hazards could compromise the immune system of every person in this park. The Sewer system, Electrical and Gas lines are all in excess of 35 years. The Electrical system, currently in the park, has a hard time carrying the load of the new homes that are being brought in. There have been sewer problems inside of people' s homes. Please consider not approving this application, or at least put some demands on these owners to fix and/or bring all utilities and drainage to current standards/codes. Inspections with reports should be required by the City before going forward with any approvals of this application. Thanking you in advance for considering the above issues. Very truly yours, Madeline J. Seymour 1 , Page I of I Talleh, -Rami From: Bill Seymour[BigBoyBarri@socal.rr.com] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 5:06 PM To: Talleh, Rami Subject: Sub Division application Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park William J.Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd.#8 Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 May 17,2009 Mr.Rami Talleh,Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 RE: Sub-Division application for Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Dear Mr.Rami: I am writing to you today to request your assistance in not approving the above application for sub-division. There are major litigations pending in the Orange County Superior Court,Case#07CC01416,failure to maintain having to do with the water problems in this park. A city storm drain drains into this park at the North center of the property,winding thru the park to the Southeast corner to another storm drain then out of the park. This drain is a Health and Safety problem for this park as there is a good possibility of the run off containing insecticides,fertilizer,animal fescues and engine oil. This park has an elderly population and these hazards could compromise the immune system of every person in this park. The Sewer system,Electrical and Gas lines are all in excess of 30 years. The Electrical system currently in the park has a hard time carrying the load of the new homes that are being brought in. There have been sewer problems inside of people's homes recently. Please consider not approving the application,or at least put some demands on these owners to fix and/or bring all utilities and drainage to current standards/codes. Inspections with reports should be required by the City before going forward with any approvals of this application. Thanking you in advance for considering the above issues. Very truly yours, William J_Seymour 5/18/2009 Y�7 - - ` July 9,2009 Mr.Rami Talleh � J)�� Senior Planner,Dept. of Planning 411 132009 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ��� P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - Re: Application to Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach, CA(the "Park")and filing of a Tentative Sub-Division Map. Dear Mr. Talleh: Further to my letter of June 18, 2009, it is the position of the residents of the Park that the "survey"conducted by the owners pursuant to Govt. Code section 66427,5 (d) (2)-(5) was wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of this Section. Sub-Section(d)(2)requires that a survey of all residents of the Park be carried out by the ,subdivider which"...shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any,that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner." The owner failed to reach any agreement with the Home Owners' Association with respect to this survey. In fact,the Home Owners' Association was completely unaware that a survey was to be conducted until it was presented to all the residents on approximately April 8,2009 via individual letters. The owner invited the residents to an"informal"meeting on October 27,2008 to discuss three issues,one of which was the filing for a sub-division map (Attachment No.l.) The residents had no way of knowing the import of this presentation and the consequences of the tentative subdivision map filing. Many simply did not attend the meeting. Had the Association been appraised of the importance of this meeting it would have strenuously urged all residents to attend. When the "survey" arrived in April,most residents had already forgotten the October meeting. As a result they were totally unprepared to consider in a thoughtful manner the financial and other implications of answers they might give to the questions posed by the survey. Many residents simply did not respond or responded by noting their inability to make an informed decision without further information(in effect refusing to vote one way or the other). K In conclusion, we insist that the owner adhere fully to the statutory requirements of GovL Code Section 66427.5.. We also request that the City suspend its consideration of the tentative subdivision map application until an appropriate survey of the residents has been conducted. In the alternative,we request that the application be denied on the basis of the owner's failure to comply with the requirements of Govt. Code Section 66427.5. Best Regards, 1-111, Scott C. Steeper President,Home Owners Association Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd., #204 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)274-9975 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 October 24,2008 All Residents Huntington Shorecliffs. RE: Informal Meeting Monday, October 27, 2008, 6:30 p. m. large clubhouse Dear Residents: The management of Huntington Shorecliffs cordially invites you to an informal meeting to be held at the large clubhouse on Monday,October 27, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.. We will be present to discuss a number of issues impacting the park. Those issues include the following: 1. The County's reassessment of the park as a result of the sale and the impact upon property taxes, 2. Some pending changes to the park's Rules & Regulations, 3. The park's filing for a subdivision map, which would enable the residents to purchase their lots. Of course,we will be available to answer questions as weIl. We look forward to seeing you on Monday evening. Sincerely, STAR MOBILEHOME PARK MANAGEMENT By: Michael A. Cirillo For: Huntington Shorecliffs '.i L �� AIN I g 2009 June 18, 2009 Mr. Rami Talleh u' �i. Senior Planner, Dept. of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.Oo Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Application to Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA Dear Mr. Talleh: This is to advise you that the members of the Huntington Shorecliffs Home Owners Association, located at 20701 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach, oppose the granting of the subject Application. Our objection is based on the survey of the homeowners carried out by the Owner in April of this year. The residents were never advised of the fact that the survey was being requested as part of the subdivision application process and therefore had legal and financial implications. We will be submitting further correspondence providing more detailed grounds for our objection in the near future. However, we wanted to assure that the City was on notice of our concern and opposition to the granting of the Application.. Best Regards, -1-5� Scott C. Steeper President, Home Owners Association Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd., #204 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 274-9975 JUN 2009 1' June 15,2009 Mr.Rami Talleh, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach Dept. of Planning 2000 Main St.,P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re:Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Application(herein after referred to"the Park") for Subdivision/Condoization Dear Mr.Talleh, I am writing,on behalf of myself and my husband and the many other residents of this senior community,to register my strong opposition to the application for subdivision on the part of Huntington Sborecliffs Mobile Home Park's owner Mr.John R. Saunders. As seniors on fixed incomes,my husband and I used our entire life savings to buy a brand new mobile home in this park in 2005, with the thought that we could enjoy low maintenance and reasonable rent on a beautiful home,as well as the peace, calm, and mild climate of this setting for the remainder of our years.We, like most of the other residents here,have our own story,our own face of humanity. We are probably representative of those who have worked hard,served their country and the larger global community,raised productive children,and essentially been a credit to society. We found out very soon after moving in, that we,as human beings,were of no concern to the owners or management of the Park. We also discovered that the Park had many problems with the maintenance of this 40-some year-old Park and very poor relationship with residents. The major problems we have experienced here are"failure to maintain"and"economic duress"in terms of age and the health of residents. In terms of failure to maintain,our complaint centers around standing water under our structure and the possibility of mold with implications for health issues we are experiencing. Our home, which was newly-constructed,was moved onto a dry, raised lot in December 2005. Following the first rains of 2006,1 began chronic sneezing(never before experienced)and since have sought medical attention for this as well as severe fatigue and headaches(mold-related symptoms). In July,2008 1 re-engaged the same mobile home inspector who had originally inspected the crawl space under our home,to determine if there was water under our unit. This time,his inspection revealed pooled water under the unit and evidence of white powdery growth on the ground and supports. Other water-related or land-sinking problems include toilet flushing,cracks in the cement,doors not closing properly,and standing water on the property adjacent to our carport. In addition to personal experience with water issues,the park seems to impose an unreasonable number of"water shut-offs"and on at least one occasion (8/14/08)notice of water shut-off was put in our mail slots literally minutes before the water was shut off,leaving us no notice to set aside buckets or pans of water for temporary use. When one is in the midst of taking a shower and washing hair prior to leaving home for an important appointment, this can be unsettling and anxiety producing! The Park's water, sewer and electrical systems are all almost 40 years old. With newer homes being brought in and upgrades made to older homes,both requiring greater energy expenditure, there is real strain on the Park's capacity to provide continuous and safe utility services. A ' In terms of maintenance and alterations,the street light located on our space regularly goes out about twice a year. Some repairs have taken up to two months from outage report. We depend on that street light for night safety. Additionally our cable connection was unavailable due to what Time Warner determined resulted from re-surfacing of the streets which clogged the cable line to our space,requiring time Warner to use the neighboring space's hook-up for our space's cable connection. And, there are real issues of physical safety on streets which slope into the center,making it difficult for those using walkers or wheelchairs to safely navigate the road. Also streets with no flat surfaces are dangerous for people,like my husband,who have balance or neuropathy problems. By having no alternative but to walk in the center of the road(designed to carry water), residents face the safety issues of moving vehicles and walking in water. Lastly,and more importantly is the issue of economic duress and stress. About%zto 3/.of the Park's population can be considered elderly.Many are infirm. Some do not have any family or outside support or assistance. With aging,decision-making capabilities tend to decline. At a time when elderly people need strong support in understanding the complexities of legal issues,the management of this Park has not taken any special effort to explain the implications of changes to their policies. They sent their lawyer and a management company representative to represent them at one meeting(which did not have 100%of Park resident attendance). This simply appeared to me as"going through the motions of communicating with residents". It seemed clear that the owner/management of the Park had goals that would shatter the dreams of the many who came here to live simple,affordable,quiet lives with others in a welcoming and friendly community. About the time or just prior to this"meet the owners" gathering,Park management sent out a notice of options for new lease agreements,offering the choice of one year or month-to-month leases. This notice contained language which could be construed as threatening: "... residents who choose not to sign ... will be deemed to be month-to-month tenants if their 2006 lease is terminated". This caused undue stress on the part of many residents because there was no explanation for how an existing lease could be terminated. The lack of certainty as to what will happen if the park is indeed"condo-ized"constitutes what I believe is mental and emotional harassment on the part of the Park's owners. Additionally,the survey sent by management to - residents asking how many thought they would want to purchase or continue to rent their space, did not come through the Homeowner's Association which should be the proper channel for such inquiries. I bring all these issues to your attention,so you might have a clearer picture of the concerns and uncertainties faced by me and other residents like me. I request that the application for subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park be denied. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincer t Lyn2n I' Emerson 20701 Beach Blvd.,#158 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Cc: Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowners Association Juno e-mail for rmgardner@juno.com printed on Thursday,June 11,2009, 10:19 AM A Date: Thu 11 Jun 2009 To: Rami Tellah City Senior Planner uJ-) 200 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 From: Robert M Gardner JUtV 7 Z®®Q 20701 Beach Blvd#253 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Subject: 1. Storm Drain Water sourcing from Huntington Beach City regarding Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 2. Resolution of the above and possible implications of a proposal by present owners to change the Park's status. I am writing to express my concerns about storm drain water which comes from Frankfurt St. above the Park, draining into this Park. The water runs in the Park's open streets for some distance before exiting at another end. Storm water can contain bacterial and chemical contaminates. It is highly probable that pet feces from lawns and streets above the Park are among these contaminates at certain times. I would like to know if a public health issue exists because of the above. There is another problem relating to water here---certain Park residents have experienced ground water and mold problems in and under their homes. These problems have existed for some time. Black mold especially has been and is a health concern for certain of the home owners. riease consider the issues mentioned above especially in any actions or advisement provided by your office to the City or State related to the application for change in status now being made by the present Park owners. th o R Garda Huntington Shorecliffs cc City Council Huntington Beach loft Filed 9/2.1/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SEQUOIA PARK ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff and Appellant, A120049 V. COUNTY OF SONOMA, (Sonoma County Defendant and Respondent. Super. Ct. No. SCV240003) One of the subjects covered by the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, §.66410 et seq.) is the conversion of a mobilehome park from a rental to a resident ownership basis. One of the provisions on that subject is Government Code section 66427.5 (section 66427.5), which spells out certain steps that must be completed before the conversion application can be approved by the appropriate local body. Although it is not codified in the language of section 66427.5, the Legislature recorded its intent that by enacting section 66427.5 it was acting "to ensure that conversions . . . are bona fide resident conversions." (Stats. 2002, ch. 1143, § 2.) The County of Sonoma (County) enacted an ordinance with the professed aim of "implementing" the state conversion statutes. It imposed additional obligations upon a subdivider submitting a conversion application to those required by section 66427.5. The ordinance also imposed criteria that had to be satisfied by the subdivider before the application would be presumed bona fide and thus could be approved. A mobilehome park operator brought suit to halt enforcement of the ordinance on the ground that it was preempted by section 66427.5. The trial court declined to issue a writ of mandate, concluding that the ordinance was not preempted. As will be shown, we conclude that the ordinance is expressly preempted because section 66427.5 states that 1 the "scope of the hearing" for approval of the conversion application"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." We further conclude that the ordinance is impliedly preempted because the Legislature, which has established a dominant role for the state in regulating mobilehomes, has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions, declining to expand section 66427.5 in ways that would authorize local government to impose additional conditions or requirements for conversion approval. Moreover, the County's ordinance duplicates several features of state law, a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption. We therefore reverse the trial court's order and direct entry of a new order declaring the ordinance invalid. BACKGROUND On May 15, 2007, the County's Board of Supervisors unanimously enacted Ordinance No. 5725 (the Ordinance). Sequoia Park Associates (Sequoia) is a limited partnership that owns and operates a mobilehome park it desires to subdivide and convert from a rental to a resident-owner basis. Within a month of the enactment of the Ordinance, Sequoia sought to have it overturned as preempted by section 66427.5. Specifically, Sequoia combined a petition for a writ of mandate with causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages for inverse condemnation of its property. The matter of the Ordinance's validity was submitted on the basis of voluminous papers addressing Sequoia's motion for issuance of a writ of mandate. The court heard argument and filed a brief order denying Sequoia relief. The court concluded that section 66427.5 "largely does appear . . . by its own language" to impose limits on local authority to legislate on the subject of mobilehome conversions. "However, Ordinance 5725 seems merely to comply with, and give effect to, the requirements set forth in section 66427.5 rather than imposing additional requirements. This is certainly true for the language on bona fide conversions, tenant impact reports, and even general plan requirements. It is possibly less clear regarding health and safety, but even on this issue, the Ordinance does not appear to exceed [the County's] authority since, contrary to [Sequoia's] contention, it does not intrude on the [state Department of Housing and 2 Community Development's (HCD)] power in the area." This order is the subject of Sequoia's appeal.' DISCUSSION The parties agree that our review of the trial court's order is de novo because it involves a pure issue of law, namely, whether the Ordinance is preempted by Section 66427.5. (Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.AppAth 119, 132; Ruble Vista Associates v. Bacon (2002) 97 Cal.AppAth 335, 339.) But the parties do not agree on how far our analysis may, or should, extend. Sequoia argues we should restrict our inquiry to the current version of section 66427.5, in particular paying no attention to an uncodified expression of the Legislature's intent passed at the same time that version was enacted. At the same time Sequoia also argues that we should Iook to a provision in a version of an amendment to the statute that the Legislature rejected in 2002. The County's approach is similarly compressed: noting that because Sequoia challenged the legality of the Ordinance on its face, the County argues that our analysis must be confined to the four corners of that enactment, and nothing else. Yet the County ranges far afield in marshalling the statutes which it incorporates in its arguments, and ' It is typical of the generally high quality of the briefing that the experienced appellate counsel for Sequoia does not treat the requirement of California Rules of Court rule 8.204(a)(2)—which directs that the appellant "explain why the order appealed from is appealable"—as satisfied with a ministerial recital of boilerplate language. He devotes more than two full pages of his opening brief to a discussion establishing that, according to Bettencourt v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 146 Cal.AppAth 1090, 1097-1098, "Although the [trial court's] order was couched as a denial of the mandate petition alone, its effect was a dismissal of Sequoia's entire action," and thus appealable as a final judgment. He also puts forward a fall-back position, based on an obvious knowledge of this court, that, if necessary, we "could also amend the order below as this division did in similar circumstances in Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.AppAth 744, 766, fn. 13, to specify the trial court's intent to dispose of the remaining causes of action." We conclude there is no need to amend the order because counsel's initial explanation is sound, and concurred in by the County. We mention this to note that this is the sort ofattention to jurisdictional issues we would like to see, but seldom do. 3 tells us that section 66427.5 must be considered in the context of"entire continuum of state regulation of mobilehome park subdivisions." And the County has no hesitation in arguing that the substance of the uncodified provision actually works to the County's benefit. Our view of our inquiry is that it is hardly as narrow as the parties believe. The authorities cited by the County involve situations where local ordinances were challenged on federal constitutional grounds (e.g., Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 CalAth 1069, 1084 [vagueness]; Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.AppAth 660, 679-680 [equal protection]), not that they were preempted by state law. As for Sequoia's approach, it would appear feasible only if the state statute has language stating the unambiguous intent by the Legislature expressly forbidding cities and counties from acting. But for the great number of preemption issues—particularly if the emphasis is on implied preemption—the state and the local legislation must be considered together. Only by looking at both can a court know if the local law conflicts with, contradicts, or is inimical to the state law. As will now be shown, this is an established rule of preemption analysis. Principles Of Preemption In California, preemption of local legislation by state law is a constitutional principle. "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) The standards governing our inquiry are well established. According to our Supreme Court: "The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption. [Citation.] We have been particularly `reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another.' [Citations.] `The common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one locality to another, then 4 the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance against an attack of state preemption.' [Citations.] "Thus, when local government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control, such as . . . particular land uses, California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature, that such regulation is not preempted by state statute. [Citation.] The presumption against preemption accords with our more general understanding that `it is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.' [Citations.] "Moreover, the `general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled. . . . " `Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates [citations], contradicts [citation], or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication [citations].' " ' [Citation.]" "Local legislation is `duplicative' of general law when it is coextensive therewith and `contradictory' to general law when it is inimical thereto. Local legislation enters an area `fully occupied' by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to fully occupy the area or when it has impliedly done so in light of recognized indicia of intent." [Citation.] (Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz(2006) 38 Ca1.4th 1139, 1149-1150, fn. omitted (Big Creek).) There are three "recognized indicia of intent": " `(1) the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that is has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the subject matter has been partially covered by general law and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to 5 the' locality [citations]." (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 898.) "With respect to the implied occupation of an area of law by the Legislature's full and complete coverage of it, this court recently had this to say: ` "Where the Legislature has adopted statutes governing a particular subject matter, its intent with regard to occupying the field to the exclusion of all local regulation is not to be measured alone by the language used but by the whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme." ' [Citation.] We went on to say: ` "State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude local regulation." ' [Citation.] We thereafter observed: ` "Whenever the Legislature has seen fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject, the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned." ' [Citation.] When a local ordinance is identical to a state statute, it is clear that ` "the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied" ' by state law. [Citation.]" (O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 CalAth 1061, 1068.) To discern whether the local law has entered an area that has been "fully occupied" by state law according to the "recognized indicia of intent" requires an analysis that is based on an overview of the topic addressed by the two laws. " `In determining whether the Legislature has preempted by implication to the exclusion of local regulation we must look to the whole . . . scope of the legislative scheme.' " (Big Creek, supra, 38 CalAth 1139, 1157, quoting People ex reL Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal.3d 476, 485; accord,American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 CalAth 1239, 1252, 1261; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 CalAth 725, 751.) Such an examination is made with the goal of" `detect[ing] a patterned approach to the subject' " (Fisher v. City of Berkeley (1984) 37 Cal.3d 644, 707-708, quoting Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 862), and whether the local law mandates what state law forbids, or forbids what state law mandates. (Big Creek, supra, 38 CalAth 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 CalAth 853, 866.) 6 Sequoia sees this as a case of express preemption, although it argues in the alternative that the Ordinance also falls to the concept of implied preemption. These contentions can only be evaluated with an appreciation of the sizable body of state legislation concerning mobilehome parks. The Extent Of State Law In The Area Of Mobilehome Regulation Section 66427.5 does not stand alone. If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control, that day is long past. Since 1979, the state has had the Mobilehome Residency Law, which comprises almost a hundred statutes governing numerous aspects of the business of operating a mobilehome park. (Civ. Code, §§ 798-799.10.) There are several provisions expressly ordering localities not to legislate in designated areas, such as the content of rental agreements (Civ. Code, § 798.17, subd. (a)(1)), and establishing specified exemptions from local rent control measures. (Civ. Code, §§ 798.21, subd. (a), 798.45.)2 By this statutory scheme, the state has undertaken to "extensively regulate[] the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents." (Greening v. Johnson (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1226; accord, SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Canyon View Estates, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 663, 673; People ex rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment, Ltd. (2003) 111 Cal.AppAth 102, 109.) Even earlier, in 1967, the state enacted the Mobilehome Parks Act (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18200-18700), which regulates the construction and installation of mobilehome parks in the state. (See County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Ca1.App.4th 1483, 1489-1490.) In this act, the Legislature expressly stated that it "supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county, whether general law or 2 The Mobilehome Residency Law has been construed as not otherwise preempting or precluding adoption of residential rent control. (See Civ. Code, § 1954.25; Cacho v. Boudreau (2007) 40 CalAth 341, 350 and decisions cited.) 7 chartered, applicable to this part." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300, subd. (a).) The few exemptions from this prohibition are carefully delineated.3 Then there is the Mobil ehomes—Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 (Health & Saf. §§ 18000-18153), which regulates the sale, licensing, registration, and titling of 3 "This part shall not prevent local authorities of any city, county, or city or county, within the reasonable exercise of their police powers, from doing any of the following: "(1) From establishing, subject to the requirements of Sections 65852.3 and 65852.7 of the Government Code, certain zones for manufactured homes, mobilehomes, and mobilehome parks within the city, county, or city and county, or establishing types of uses and locations, including family mobilehome parks, senior mobilehome parks, mobilehome condominiums, mobilehome subdivisions, or mobilehome planned unit developments within the city, county, or city and county, as defined in the zoning ordinance, or from adopting rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution prescribing park perimeter walls or enclosures on public street frontage, signs, access, and vehicle parking or from prescribing the prohibition of certain uses for mobilehome parks. "(2) From regulating the construction and use of equipment and facilities located outside of a manufactured home or mobilehome used to supply gas, water, or electricity thereto, except facilities owned, operated, and maintained by a public utility, or to dispose of sewage or other waste therefrom when the facilities are located outside a park for which a permit is required by this part or the regulations adopted thereto. "(3) From requiring a permit to use a manufactured home or mobilehome outside a park for which a permit is required by this part or by regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and require a fee therefor by local ordinance commensurate with the cost of enforcing this part and local ordinance with reference to the use of manufactured homes and mobilehomes, which permit may be refused or revoked if the use violates this part or Part 2 (commencing with Section 18000), any regulations adopted pursuant thereto, or any local ordinance applicable to that use. "(4) From requiring a local building permit to construct an accessory structure for a manufactured home or mobilehome when the manufactured home or mobilehome is located outside a mobilehome park, under circumstances when this part or Part 2 (commencing with Section 18000) and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto do not require the issuance of a permit therefor by the department [i.e., the state Department of Housing and Community Development]. "(5) From prescribing and enforcing setback and separation requirements governing the installation of a manufactured home, mobilehome, or mobilehome accessory structure or building installed outside of a mobilehome park." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300, subd. (g).) 8 mobilehomes. The Legislature declared that the provisions of this measure "apply in all parts of the state and supersede" any conflicting local ordinance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 18015.) The HCD is in charge of enforcement. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18020, 18022, 18058.)- These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design" of mobilehome parks (Health & Saf. Code, § 18253; see also Health & Saf. Code §§ 18552 [HCD to adopt "building standards" and"other regulations for . . . mobilehome accessory buildings or structures"], 18610 [HCD to "adopt regulations to govern the construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance of parks and lots within" mobilehome parks"], 18620 [HCD to adopt "regulations regarding the construction of buildings in parks that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"], 18630 [plumbing], 18640 ["toilet, shower, and laundry facilities in parks"], 18670 ["electrical wiring, fixtures, and equipment . . . that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"].) At present, the HCD has promulgated hundreds of regulations that are collected in chapter 2 of title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 25, §§ 1000-1758.) The regulations exhaustively deal with a myriad of issues, such as "Electrical Requirements" (id., 25, §§ 1130-1190), "Plumbing Requirements" (id., §§ 1240-1284), "Fire Protection Standards" (id., §§ 1300-1319), "Permanent Buildings" (id., §§ 1380-1400), and "Accessory Buildings and Structures" (id., §§ 1420-1520). The regulations even deal with pet waste (id., § 1114) and the prohibition of cooking facilities in cabanas (id., § 1462). Once adopted, HCD regulations "shall apply to all parts of the state." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300, subd. (a).) Mobilehomes can only be occupied or maintained when they conform to the regulations. (Health & Saf: Code, §§ 18550, 18871.) Enforcement is shared between the HCD and local governments (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300, subd. (f), 9 18400, subd. (a)), with HCD given the power to "evaluate the enforcement" by units of local government. (Health & Saf. Code, § 18306, subd. (a).) A locality may decline responsibility for enforcement, but if assumed and not actually performed, its enforcement power may be taken away by the HCD. (Health & Saf Code, § 18300, subds. (b)-(e).) Local initiative is restricted to traditional police powers of zoning, setback, permit requirements, and regulating construction of utilities. (Gov. Code, § 65852.7; Health & Saf. Code, § 18300, subd. (g), quoted at fn. 3, ante.) It is the state that determines which events and actions in the construction and operation of a mobilehome park require permits. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18500, 18500.5, 18500.6, 18505; Cal. Code Regs, tit. 25, §§ 1006.5, 1010, 1014, 1018, 1038, 1306, 1324, 1374.5.) Even if the locality issues the annual permit for a park to operate, a copy must be sent to the HCD. (Id., §§ 1006.5, 1012.) It is the state that fixes the fees to be charged for these permits and certifications (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18502, 18503; Cal. Code Regs, tit. 25, §§ 1008, 1020.4, 1020.7, 1025), and sets the penalties to be imposed for noncompliance. (Health & Saf. Code §§ 18504, 18700; Cal. Code Regs, tit. 25, §§ 1009, 1050, 1370.4.) Sometimes, the state assumes exclusive responsibility for certain subjects, such as for earthquake-resistant bracing systems. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 25, § 1370.4(a).) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks are in the Government Code. Cities and counties cannot decide that a mobilehome park is not a permitted use "on all land planned and zoned for residential land use as designated by the applicable general plan," though the locality "may require a use permit." (Gov. Code, § 65852.7.) "[I]t is clear that the Legislature intended to limit local authority for zoning regulation to the specifically enumerated exceptions [in Health and Safety Code section 18300, subdivision (g), quoted at fn. 3, ante] of where a mobilehome park may be located, vehicle parking, and lot lines, not the structures within the parks." (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse, supra, 127 Cal.AppAth 1483, 1493.) A city or county must accept installation of mobilehomes manufactured in conformity with federal standards. (Gov. Code, § 65852.3, subd. (a).) Their power to impose rent control on mobilehome parks is 10 restricted if the parks qualifies as "new construction." (Gov. Code, § 65852.11, subd. (a); cf. text accompanying fn. 2, ante.) This survey demonstrates that the state has a long-standing involvement with mobilehome regulation, the extent of which involvement is, by any standard, considerable. Having outlined the size of the state's regulatory footprint, it is now time to examine the details of section 66427.5 and the Ordinance. Section 66427.5 Section 66427.5 is a fairly straight-forward statute addressing the subject of how a subdivider shall demonstrate that a proposed mobilehome park conversion will avoid economic displacement of current tenants who do not choose to become a purchasing resident. In its entirety it provides as follows: "At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created°from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership, the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner: "(a) The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. "(b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest. "(c) The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the ?nearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. "(d)(1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. "(2) The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. "(3) The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. 11 "(4) The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehome space has one vote. "(5) The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision (e). "(e) The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. "(f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following:. "(1) As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period. "(2) As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. This is how section 66427.5 currently reads. But its antecedents are instructive. The first version of section 66427.5, enacted in 1991, was no more than the first paragraph and subdivision (f) of the current version. (Stats. 1991, ch. 745, § 2.) The statute was substantially amended four years later with most of what is in the current version. The only significant variance is that the 1995 version did not contain what is 12 now subdivision (d), specifying that the subdivider is to provide a survey of support. (Stats. 1995, ch. 256, § 5.) The second version of section 66427.5 was the one considered by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd., v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 (El Dorado). At issue in El Dorado was a mobilehome park owner's application to convert its units from rental to resident-owned. The renters opposed the conversion, "contending that they do not have enough information to decide whether to purchase or not, and the proposed conversion is merely a sham to avoid [Palm Springs'] rent control ordinance." (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1159.) The Palm Springs City Council approved the application, but made its approval subject to three conditions, requiring: "1)the use of a `Map Act Rent Date,' defined as the date of the close of escrow of not less than 120 lots; (2)-the use of a sale price established by a specified appraisal firm, the appraisal costs to be paid by [the owner-subdivider]; and (3) financial assistance to all residents in the park to facilitate their purchase of the lots underlying their mobilehomes." (Id. at pp. 1156-1157.) The trial court denied the park owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. The owner appealed, contending "that its application is governed by section 66427.5. It relies on subdivision (d) [now subdivision (e)] of that section, which states, in part, that the scope of the City Council's hearing is limited to the issue of compliance with the requirements of that section." (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1157-1158.) Palm Springs took the position that the conditions were authorized by Government Code section 66427.4, subdivision (c),4 which authorized the city council to " `require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park.' " (Id. at p. 1158.) 4 Subsequent statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 13 The Court of Appeal agreed with the owner and reversed. It rejected Palm Springs' argument about section 66427.4.5 concluding that it applied only when the mobilehome park is being converted to another use: "[I]t would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping center or another different use of the property. In that situation, there would be `displaced mobilehome park residents' who would need to find `adequate space in a mobilehome park' for their mobilehome and themselves." (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161.) The court also held the language of subdivision (e) of section 66427.4 dispositive on this point. (Id. at pp. 1161-1163.) But, and as particularly apt here, the court sustained the park owner's argument about section 66427.5, subdivision (d), concluding that under it the city council "only had the power to determine if[the subdivider] had complied with the requirements of the section." (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1163-1164.) Although the court did 5 At all relevant times, section 66427.4 has provided: "(a) At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use,the subdivider shall also file a report on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion on displaced mobilehome park residents, the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks. "(b) The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. "(c) The legislative body, or an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map, may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park. "(d) This section establishes a minimum standard for local legislation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. "(e) This section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership." 14 appear concerned that the conversion process might be used for improper purposes—such as the bogus purchase of a single unit by the subdivider/owner to avoid local rent control—it believed the language of section 66427.5, subdivision (d), did not allow such considerations to be taken into account: "[T]he City lacks authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions.at the time it approves tentative or parcel map. Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight, and although it might be desirable for the Legislature to broaden the City's authority, it has not done so. We therefore agree with appellant that the argument that the Legislature should have done more to prevent partial conversions or sham transactions is a legislative issue, not a legal one."6 (Id. at p. 1165.) And, the court later noted, "there is no evidence that [the owner's] filing of an application for approval of a tentative parcel map is not the beginning of a bona fide conversion to resident ownership." (Id. at p. 1174, fn. 17.) One other point of El Dorado is significant. The court specifically rejected arguments that would require a numerical threshold before a conversion could proceed, there being no statutory support for the claim that conversion only occurred if more than 50 percent of the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is filed. (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1172-1-173) The court refused to require a subdivider to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has the support of a majority of existing residents—fixed at either one-half or two-thirds—thus satisfying the local 6 Nevertheless, the El Dorado court did seem to indicate that there was an available remedy for Palm Springs' fears concerning evasion of its rent control ordinance. Although local authorities could not themselves use section 66427.5 to halt "sham or failed transactions in which a single unit is sold, but no others," (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166, fn. 10) there was no such restriction on the judiciary. "[T]he courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or failed transactions," (id. at p. 1165) which the El Dorado court apparently equated with situations where "conversion fails" or"if the conversion is unsuccessful." (Id. at p. 1166.) The court also agreed with an earlier decision that held section 66427.5 does not apply unless there is an actual sale of at least one unit. (Id. at pp. 1166, 1177-1179, citing Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Honze Park (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1168.) 15 authority that this was not a"forced conversion."7 (Id. at pp. 1181-1182.) The court concluded: "The legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership would not be served by a requirement that a conversion could only be made with resident consent:" (Id. at.p. 1182.) Following El Dorado, the continuing problem of mobilehome park conversion, and the phrase "bona fide," again engaged the Legislature's attention. That same year the Legislature amended section 66427.5 by adding what is now subdivision (d) and the requirement of a "survey of support of residents" whose results were to be filed with the tentative or parcel map. As it did so, the Legislature enacted the following language, but did not include it as part of section 66427.5: "It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona fide resident conversion, as described by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. V. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153. The court in this case concluded that the subdivision map approval process specified in Section 66427.5 of the Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent non-bona fide resident conversions. The court explained how a conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership could occur without the support of the residents and result in economic displacement. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act 7 The 50 percent argument was based on Health and Safety Code section 50781, subdivision (m), which specifies that one of the definitions of"residential ownership" is "ownership by a resident organization of an interest in a mobilehome park that entitles the resident organization to control the operations of the mobilehome park." The argument was that "resident ownership of the park, and control of operations of the park, can occur only when the purchasing residents have the ability to control, manage and own the common facilities in the park, i.e., when 50 percent plus 1 of the lots have been purchased by the residents." (El Dorado, supra, 96 Ca1.App.4th 1153, 1172, 1181.) The two-thirds figure was taken from Government Code section 66428.1, which provides that "When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobilehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of converting it to resident ownership, and a field survey is performed, the requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and final map shall be waived," subject to specified exceptions. 16 to ensure that conversions pursuant to Section 66427.5 of the Government Code are bona fide resident conversions." (Stats. 2002, ch. 1143, § 2.)8 The Ordinance The Ordinance has eight sections, but only three—sections I, II, and III—are pertinent to this appeal.9 Section I declares the purposes of the Ordinance. It opens with the supervisors' finding that "the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to implement certain policies and programs set forth within the adopted General Plan Housing Element, and to comply with state laws related to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership. Specific purposes included: (1) "To implement state laws with regard to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership;" (2) "To ensure that conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership are bona fide resident conversions in accordance with state law;" (3) To implement the goals and policies of the General Plan Housing Element; (4) "To balance the need for increased homeownership opportunities with the need to protect existing rental housing opportunities;: (5) "To provide adequate 8 This is what is known as "plus section," which our Supreme Court termed "a provision of a bill that is not intended to be a substantive part of the code section or general law that the bill enacts, but to express the Legislature's view on some aspect of the operation or effect of the bill. Common examples of`plus sections' include severability clauses, savings clauses, statements of the fiscal consequences of the legislation, provisions giving the legislation immediate effect or a delayed operative date or a limited duration, and provisions declaring an intent to overrule a specific judicial decision or an intent not to change existing law." (People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 858-859, fn. 13.) The court subsequently explained that "statements of the intent of the enacting body . . . . while not conclusive, are entitled to consideration. [Citations.] Although such statements in an uncodified section do not confer power, determine rights, or enlarge the scope of a measure, they properly may be utilized as an aid in construing a statute." (People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1280.) 9 Section IV of the Ordinance declares that the measure is "categorically exempt from environmental review" under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section V is a severability provision. Section VI establishes the effective date of the Ordinance as "30 days after the date of its passage." Section VII repeals an existing ordinance. Section VIII (mislabeled as "Section VI") provides for publication of the Ordinance in a specified newspaper of general circulation in the county. 17 disclosure to decision-makers and to prospective buyers prior to conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership;" (6) "To ensure the public health and safety in converted parks; and" (7) "To conserve the County's affordable housing stock." Section II deals with the "Applicability" of the Ordinance by declaring that "These provisions apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership, except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government Code [Section] 66428.1 These provisions do not apply to the conversion of a mobile home park to an alternate use, which conversions are regulated by Government Code Sections 65863.7 and 66427.4, and by Section 26-92-090 of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code." Section III opens by providing several definitions of terms used in the Ordinance and in Chapter 25 of the Sonoma County Code. " `Mobile Moyne Park Conversion to Resident Ownership means the conversion of a mobile home park composed of rental spaces to a condominium or common interest development, as described in and/or regulated by Government Code Sections 66427.5 and/or 66428.1.' " " 'Mobile Home Park Closure, Conversion or Change of Use means changing the use of a mobile home park such that it no longer contains occupied mobile or manufactured homes, as described in and regulated by Government Code Section 66427.4.' " " `Subdivision' means the division of any improved or unimproved land, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease, financing, conveyance, transfer, or any other purpose, whether immediate or future. Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad rights-of-way. Subdivision includes a condominium project or common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code or a community interest project, as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code. Any conveyance of land to a 18 governmental agency, public entityor public utility shall not be considered a division of aarid'for purposes of computing the number of parcels.' " The heart of the Ordinance is subdivision (d) of Section III, which adds "anew Article IIIB" to Chapter 25 of the Sonoma County Code. Because of its importance, we quote it in full: "Article 11I13. Mobile Home Park Conversions to Resident Ownership. "25-39.7 (a). Applicability. The provisions of this Article XIIIB shall apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government Code § 66428.1. "25-39.7 (b). Application Materials Required. "(1) In addition to any other information required by this Code and/or other applicable law, the following information is required at the time of filing of an application for conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership: "a) A survey of resident support conducted in compliance with subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 66427.5 The subdivider shall demonstrate that the survey was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and an independent resident homeowners association, if any, was obtained pursuant to a written ballot, and was conducted so that each occupied mobile home space had one vote. The completed survey of resident support ballots shall be submitted with the application. In the event that more than one resident homeowners association purports to represent residents in the park, the agreement shall be with the resident homeowners association which represented the greatest number of resident homeowners in the park. "b) A report on the impact of the proposed conversion on residents of the mobile home park. The tenant impact report shall, at a minimum include all of the following: "i) Identification of the number of mobile home spaces in the park and the rental rate history for each such space over the four years prior to the filing of the application; "ii) Identification of the anticipated method and timetable for compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), and, to the extent available, identification of 19 the number of existing tenant households expected to purchase their units within the first four (4) years after conversion; "iii)Identification of the method and anticipated time table for determining the rents for non-purchasing residents pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)(l_), and, to the extent available, identification of tenant households likely to be subject to these provisions; "iv) Identification of the method for determining and enforcing the controlled rents for non-purchasing households pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)(2), and, to the extent available, identification of the number of tenant households likely to be subject to these provisions; "v) Identification of the potential for non-purchasing residents to relocate their homes to other mobile home parks within Sonoma County, including the availability of sites and the estimated cost of home relocation; "vi)An engineer's report on the type, size, current condition, adequacy and remaining useful life of common facilities located within the park, including but not limited to water systems, sanitary sewer, fire protection, storm water, streets, lighting, pools, playgrounds, community buildings and the like. A pest report shall be included for all common buildings and structures. `Engineer' means a registered civil or structural engineer, or a licensed general engineering contractor; "vii) If the useful life of any of the common facilities or infrastructure is less than thirty (30) years, a study estimating the cost of replacing such facilities over their useful life, and the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same; "viii) An estimate of the annual overhead and operating costs of maintaining the park, its common areas and landscaping, including replacement costs as necessary, over the next thirty (30) years, and the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same. "ix) Name and address of each resident, and household size. "x) An estimate of the-number of residents in the park who are seniors or disabled. An explanation of how the estimate was derived must be included. 20 "(c) A maintenance inspection report conducted on site by a qualified inspector within the previous"twelve (12) calendar months demonstrating compliance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations (`Title 25 Report'). Proof of remediation of any Titie 2.5 violations shall be confirmed in writing by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). "25-39.7 (c) Criteria for Approval of Conversion Application. "(1) An application for the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership shall be approved only if the decision maker finds that: "a) A survey of resident support has been conducted and the results filed with the Department in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter; "b)A tenant impact report has been completed and filed with the Department in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter; "c) The conversion to resident ownership is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable Specific or Area Plan, and the provisions of the Sonoma County Code; "d) The conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion; "e) Appropriate provision has been made for the establishment and funding of an association or corporation adequate to ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure; and "f) There are no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety, provided, however,that if any such conditions exist, the application for conversion may be approved if: (1) all of the findings required under subsections (a) through (e) are made and (2) the subdivider has instituted corrective measures adequate to ensure prompt and continuing protection of the health and safety of park residents and the general public. "(2) For purposes of determining whether a proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion, the following criteria shall be used: 21 "a) Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter shows that more than 50 percent of resident households support the conversion to resident ownership, the conversion shall be presumed to be a bona-fide resident conversion. "b) Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and with this Chapter shows that at least 20 percent but not more than 50 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership, the subdivider shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion. In such cases, the subdivider shall demonstrate, at a minimum, that a viable plan,with a reasonable likelihood of success as determined by the decision-maker, is in place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within a reasonable period of time. "c) Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter shows that less than 20 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership, the conversion shall be presumed not to be a bona-fide resident conversion. "25-39.7 (d) Tenant Notification. The following tenant notifications are required: "(1) Tenant Impact Report. The subdivider shall give each resident household a copy of the impact report required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) within fifteen (15) days after completion of such report, but in no case less than fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the application for conversion. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the report to any new or prospective residents following the original distribution of the report. "(2) Exclusive Right to Purchase. If the application for conversion is approved, the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public. The right shall run for a period of not less than ninety (90) days from the issuance of the subdivision public report (`white paper') pursuant to 22 California Business and Professions Code § 11018.2,unless the subdivider received prior written notice of the resident's intention not to exercise such right. "(3)Right to Continue Residency as Tenant. If the application for conversion is approved, the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its right to continue residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (a)." The Ordinance is:Expressly Preempted by Section 66427.5 It is a given that regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. (E.g., Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1151; IT Corp. v County ofSolano (1991) 1 CalAth 81, 85, 95, 99; City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (1999) 72 Cal.AppAth 366, 376.) We are also mindful that our Supreme Court has twice held, prior to enactment of section 66427.5, that the Subdivision Map Act did not preempt local authority to regulate residential condominium conversions. (Griffin Development Co. v. City of Oxnard (1985) 39 Cal.3d 256, 262-266; Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Board (1984) 35 Ca1.3d 858, 868-869.) Given the presumption against preemption (Big Creek, supra, 38 CalAth 1139, 1149), we start by assuming that the Ordinance is valid. However, this attitude does not long survive. The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation. Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script. The state's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map Act in 1991. (See Stats. 1991, ch. 745, §§ 1-2, 4, adding §§ 66427.5, 66428.1, & amending § 66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.) This was seven years after the State had declared itself in favor of converting mobilehome parks to resident ownership, and at the same time established the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund from which the HCD could make loans to low-income residents and resident organizations to facilitate conversions. (Stats. 1984, ch. 1692, § 2, adding Health & Sa£ Code, §§ 50780-50786.) 23 Although the Court of Appeal in El Dorado did not explicitly hold that section 66427.5 was an instance of express preemption, that is clearly how it read the statute. And although there is nothing in the text of section 66427.5 that at first glance looks unambiguously like a stay-away order from the Legislature to cities and counties,10 there is no doubt that the El Dorado court construed the operative language as precluding addition by cities or counties. That operative language reads: "The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the [tentative or parcel] map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." (§ 66427.5, subd. (e), italics added.) The italicized language is, in its own way, comprehensive. But the contrasting constructions the parties give it could not be more starkly divergent. According to Sequoia, section 66427.5 has an almost ministerial operation. The words of the statute "communicate unambiguously that local agencies must approve a mobilehome park subdivision map if the applicant complies with `this section' alone." The County and supporting amici argue that section 66427.5 and El Dorado are not dispositive here. Indeed, they almost argue that the statute and the decision are not relevant. As they see it, section 66427.5—both before and after El Dorado—is a statute of very modest scope, addressing itself only to the issue of avoiding and mitigating the economic displacement of residents who will not be purchasing units when the mobilehome park is converted. All the Ordinance does, they maintain, is "implement" and flesh out the details of the Legislature's directive in a wholly appropriate fashion, leaving unimpaired the traditional local authority over land uses. As the amici state it: "Ordinance No. 5725 does not purport to impose any additional economic restrictions to preserve affordability or to avoid displacement." 10 Such as the provision of the Mobilehome Parks Act directing that "This part applies to all parts of the state and supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, applicable to this part." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18300, subd. (a).) 24 We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's approach. Beginning with the presumption against preemption in the area of land use, it is more than a little difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only on the issues of resident support and the subdivider's efforts at avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents. Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept,if not invite, supplementary local action." For example, a subdivider is required to "file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents," but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report. And there is some force to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici: "Surely, the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content . . . . [1] . . . [I] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach. There are three such statutes—sections 66247.4, 66247.5, and 66428.1. And if they are considered as a unit—which they are, as the three mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act12—a coherent logic begins to emerge. It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation. As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations." Moreover, the park has '1 The County and supporting amici note our Supreme Court stating that the Subdivision Map Act "sets suitability, design, improvement and procedural requirements [citations] and allows local governments to impose supplemental requirements of the same kind." (The Pines v. City of Santa Monica (1981) 29 Cal.3d 656, 659, italics added.) It must be emphasized, however, that the court's comments were made in the context of a local tax—and a decade before the subject of mobilehome park conversion began appearing in the Subdivision Map Act. 12 Because sections 66427.4, 66427.5, and 66428.1 all deal with the subject of mobilehome park conversions, it is appropriate to consider them together. (E.g., Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal.3d 112, 124, fn. 4; County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie (1942) 19 Cal.2d 634, 639; In re Washer (1927) 200 Cal. 599, 606.) 25 been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis. But the owner has decided to change. If the change is to close the park and devote the land to a different use, section 66427.4 governs. If the change is a more modest switch to residential conversion, sections 66427.5 and 66428.1 are applicable. These statutes form a rough continuum. If the owner is planning a new use, that is, leaving the business of operating a mobilehome park, section 66427.4 (quoted in full at fn. 5, ante) directs the owner to prepare a report on the impact of the change to tenants or residents. (Subd. (a).) The relevant local authority "may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park" as a condition of approving or conditionally approving the change. (Subd. (c).) But in this situation— where the land use question is essentially reopened de novo—section 66427.4 explicitly authorizes local input: "This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting .more stringent measures." (Subd. (d), italics added.) At the other end of the continuum is the situation covered by section 66428.1, subdivision (a) of which provides: "When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobilehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of converting it to resident ownership, and a field survey is performed, the requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and final map shall be waived unless any of the following conditions exist: [T] (1) There are design or improvement requirements necessitated by significant health or safety concerns. [`U (2) The local agency determines that there is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new parcel or tentative and final map. [�U (3) The existing parcels which exist prior to the proposed conversion were not created by a recorded parcel or final map. [¶] (4) The conversion would result in the creation of more condominium units or interests than the number of tenant lots or spaces that exist prior to conversion." 26 So, if the conversion essentially maintains an acceptable status quo, the conversion is approved by operation of law. And the locality has no opportunity or power to stop it, or impose conditions for its continued operation. Section 66427.5 occupies the midway point on the continuum. It deals with the situation where the mobilehome park will continue to operate as such, merely transitioning from a rental to an ownership basis, and there is not two-thirds tenant support for the change—in other words, conversions that enjoy a level of tenant concurrence that does not activate the free ride authorized by section 66428.1 In those situations, the local authority enjoys less power than granted by section 66427.4, but more than conversions governed by 66428.1. It is not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see fit to grant local authorities some power, but circumscribe the extent of that power. That it what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power, but no more. As previously mentioned, the Legislature amended section 66427.5 in the wake of El Dorado. Two features of that amendment are notable. First, the Legislature added what is now the requirement in subdivision (d) of a survey of tenant support for the conversion, when the level of that support does not reach the two-thirds mark at which point section 66428.1 kicks in. But the Legislature did not address the point noted in El Dorado that there is no minimum amount of tenant support required for a conversion to be approved. (See El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1172-1173.) As this was the only addition to the statute, if follows that it was deemed sufficient to address the problem of"bona fide" conversions mentioned in the unmodified portion of the enactment that accompanied the amendment. Second, and even more significant for our purposes, the El Dorado court expressly read section 66427.5 as not permitting a local authority to inject any other consideration into its decision whether to approve a subdivision conversion.13 (El Dorado, supra, 13 El Dorado is also authority for rejecting the County's attempt to narrow the scope of the section 66427.5 hearing to just the issue of tenant displacement, thereby presumably leaving other issues or concerns of the conversion application to be addressed at a different hearing. The El Dorado court treated the section 66427.5 hearing as the 27 e 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1163-1164, 1166, 1182.) And when it amended section 66427.5, the Legislature did nothing to overturn the El Dorado court's reading of the extent of local power to step beyond the four corners of that statute. This is particularly telling: " `[W]hen the Legislature amends a statute without altering portions of the provision that have previously been judicially construed, the Legislature is presumed to have been aware and to have acquiesced in the previous judicial construction. Accordingly, reenacted portions of the statute are given the same construction they received before the amendment.' " (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV(1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1156, quoting Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 734; accord, People v. Meloney (2003) 30 CalAth 1145, 1161; People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 CalAth 90, 100-101.) The foregoing analysis convinces us that the El Dorado construction of section 66427.5 has stood the test of time and received the tacit approval of the Legislature. We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. equivalent of"El Dorado's application for approval of the tentative subdivision map." (EZDorado, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1163-1164; see also id., at pp. 1174 ["section 66427.5 applies to El Dorado's application for tentative map approval"], 1182 [absence of majority tenant support for conversion not dispositive because "The owner can still subdivide his property by following . . . section 66427.5";judgment reversed "with directions to require the City Council to promptly determine the sole issue of whether El Dorado's application for approval of a tentative parcel map complies with section 66427.5"].) Even more germane is that, to judge from the language used in the uncodified provision enacted with the amendment of section 66427.5, the Legislature clearly appeared to equate compliance with section 66427.5 with the conversion approval process. 28 The Ordinance is Irnpliedly Preempted As previously shown, local law is invalid if it enters a field fully occupied by state law, or if it duplicates, contradicts, or is inimical, to state law. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton, supra, 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1068; Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150.) The three tests for implied preemption are: (1) has the issue been so completely covered by state law as to indicate that the issue is now exclusively a state concern; (2) the issue has been only partially covered by state law, but the language of the state law indicates that the state interest will not tolerate additional local input; and (3) the issue has been only partially covered by state law, but the negative impact of local legislation on the state interest is greater than whatever local benefits derive from the local legislation. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton, supra, at p. 1150; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, supra, 7 Cal.4th 725, 751; People ex rel Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino, supra, 36 Cal.3d 476, 485.) We conclude that the County's Ordinance is also vulnerable to two of the tests for implied preemption. The overview of the regulatory schemes touching mobilehomes undertaken earlier in this opinion demonstrates that the state's involvement is extensive and comprehensive. Grants of power to cities and counties are few in number, guarded in language, and invariably qualified in scope. Nevertheless, those grants do exist. Section 66427.5 shows that the state is willing to allow some local participation in some aspects of mobilehome conversion; and section 66427.4 shows that in one setting—when a mobilehome park is converted to a different use—it is virtually expected that the state role will be secondary. The first test for implied preemption cannot be established. But the three-statute continuum discussed earlier in connection with express preemption also shows that the second and third tests for implied preemption are. For 25 years, the state has had the policy "to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership." (Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subd. (b).) The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy. (Health & Saf. Code, § 50782 [establishing the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund].) The 29 state clearly has an interest in mobilehome park conversions, but is willing to have local governments occupy some role in the process. The extent of local involvement is calibrated to the situation. However, when the subject is narrowed to conversions that merely affect the change from rental to residential ownership, local involvement is strictly limited. If the proposed conversion has the support of two-thirds or more of the park tenants, section 66428.1 prevents the city or county from interfering except in four very specific situations. If the tenant support is less than two-thirds, section 66427.5 directs that the role of local government"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." (§ 66427.5, subd. (e).) In sum, the fact that the situations where localities could involve themselves in conversions have been so carefully delineated shows that the Legislature viewed the subject as one where the state concern would not be advanced if parochial interests were allowed to intrude. Accordingly, we conclude that the second and third tests for implied preemption are present. There is more. "Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates . . . general law . . . ." (Lancaster v. Municipal Court (1972) 6 Cal.3d 805, 807-808; accord, Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, supra, 7 Cal.4th 725, 747.) The Ordinance is plainly duplicative of section 66427.5 in several respects, as the County candidly admits: the Ordinance "sets forth minimum . . . requirements" for the conversion application, "including: (a) submission of a survey of resident support in compliance with section 66427.5; (b) submission of a report on the impact of the proposed conversion on park residents as required by section 66427.5; and (c) submission of a copy of the annual maintenance inspection report already required by Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations." (Italics added.) The Ordinance also purports to require the subdivider to provide residents of the park "written notice of[the] right to continue residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code § 66427.5(a)" and "a copy of the impact report required by Government Code § 66427.5(b)." (Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(d), subs. 1, 3.) 30 And still more. A local ordinance is impliedly preempted if it mandates what state law forbids. (Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, l 161; Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 27 Ca1.4th 853, 866.) As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application. Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66247.5, the application (1)"is consistent with the General Plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2) demonstrates that "appropriate" financial provision- has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"; (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety"; and (4)the proposed conversion "is a bona fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance.14 (Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c), subs. 1(c)-1(f), 2.) The Ordinance also requires that, following approval of the conversion application, the subdivider "shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public," for a period of 90 days "from the issuance of the subdivision public report . . . pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 11018.2." (Id., § 25-39.7(d), subd. 2.) However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. The matter of just what constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not 14 Although it is not discussed in the briefs, a recent decision by Division Three of this district suggests these provisions might also be vulnerable to the claim that they amount to a burden of proof presumption that would be preempted by Evidence Code section 500. (See Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Ca1.App.4th 741, 751, fn. 5, 754-758.) 31 truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions." And although the Ordinance employs the mandatory "shall," it does not establish whether the presumptions are conclusive or merely rebuttable. This uncertainty is only compounded when other criteria are scrutinized. What is the financial provision that will be deemed "appropriate" to "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance"? Such imprecision stands in stark contrast with the clear directives in section 66427.5. The County, ably supported by an impressive array of amici, stoutly defends its corner with a number of arguments as to why the Ordinance should be allowed to operate. The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuring that the conversion must comport with the General Plan, especially its housing element, because that is where the economic dislocation will be manifest, by reducing the inventory of low-cost housing. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(3).) In this sense, however, section 66427.5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates, as it does make provision in subdivision (f) for helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain. In any event, we cannot read section 66427.5 as granting localities the same powers expressly enumerated in section 66427.4 that are so conspicuously absent from the plain language of section 66427.5. We assume the County was motivated by the laudable purposes stated in the first section of the Ordinance. And we have acknowledged that the County's construction of the section 66427.5 can find some plausibility from the statutory language. Nevertheless, and after a most careful consideration of the arguments presented, we have concluded that the Ordinance crosses the line established by the Legislature as marking territory reserved for the state. As we recently stated in a different statutory context: "There are 15 That uncertainty may be illustrated by how Sequoia perceives one part of the Ordinance. With respect to instances where tenant support for conversion is between 20 percent and 50 percent, the Ordinance provides: "In such cases, the subdivider shall demonstrate, at a minimum, that a viable plan, with a reasonable likelihood of success . . . is in place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within a reasonable period of time." (Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(c)(2)(b).) Sequoia treats this as a requirement that the subdivider come forth with "financial assistance" to assist tenants to purchase their units. 32 weighty arguments and worthy goals arrayed on each side. . . . [and] . . . issues of high public policy. To choose between them, or to strike a balance between them, is the essential function of the Legislature, not a court." (State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. Duncan (2008) 162 Cal.AppAth 289, 324.) Of course, if the Legislature disagrees with our conclusion, or if it wishes to grant cities and counties a greater measure of power, it can amend the language of section 66427.5. DISPOSITION The order is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter anew order or judgment consistent with this opinion. Sequoia shall recover its costs. 33 Richman J. We concur: Haerie, Acting P.J. Lambden, J. 34 A1.20049, Sequoia ParkAsso`ciates v. County of Sonoma Trial Court: Superior Court of Sonoma County Trial Judge: Temporary Judge Raymond J. Giordano (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant: Bien & Summers, Elliot L. Bien and Catherine Meulemans Attorney for Amici Curiae Rancho Sonoma The Loftin Firm, L. Sue Loftin and Partners, Eden Gardens, Sundance Estates Michael Stump wid Capistrano Shores on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent: Steven M. Woodside, County Counsel, Sue A. Gallagher and Debbie F. Latham, Deputy County Counsel Attorney for Amici Curiae The California Aleshire & Wyndner, William W. Wynder State Association of Counties, The League and Sunny K. Soltani of California Cities, The City of Carson and The City of Los Angeles on behalf of Defendant and Respondent: 35