Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 1 of 2 - Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Subdivi
City f Huntington 2000 Main Street o Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ® OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC. ® JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION May 24, 2010 Robert Coldren Hart, King and Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 and DENY APPEAL OF CODE REQUIREMENTS (APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL- HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION) REQUEST: To subdivide an existing 39.2 gross acres (37-06 net acres), for-rent, mobilehome park with a total of 304 units for ownership purposes. The applicant proposes to subdivide 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 project's applicable code requirements. APPLICANT: Robert Coldren, of Hart, King and Coldren LOCATION: 20701 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 DATE OF ACTION: May 17, 2010 On Monday, May 17, 2010, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map 17296. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map 17296 with findings and revised conditions of approval (which exclude Beach Blvd. improvements), and denied the appeal of identified code requirements (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, an L. Flynn, CMC City Clerk c: Boyd Hill, of Hart, King and Coldren Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E. 4'h Street, Santa Ana CA 92701 Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner Attachments: Findings and Conditions of Approval—TTM 17296 Page 7 of the 5-17-2010 City Council Action Agenda Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan m Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone:714-536-5227) FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: 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. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a mobilehome park where residents can purchase the land where the mobilehome is located is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density — Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. A. Growth Management Element Objective GM 7.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge-Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). B. Utilities Element Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to project life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). C. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land G:\NOA Approval of TTM 17296 -2- Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Objective LU 15.6: Facilitate the preservation and development of Residential Mobile Home Parks. The City's Master Plan of Drainage recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground pipeline to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline will convey storm water underground to provide relief of the drainage issues. The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non-conforming. The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development; therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent mobilehome park to ownership facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The proposed subdivision converts an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a 304 space ownership mobilehome park at a density of 8.2 units per net acres and is physically suitable for the site. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as the subdivision will provide for the replacement of existing inadequate drainage facilities to address health and safety issues per Subdivision Map Act 66428.1(d). 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. 5. Pursuant to California Government Code 66427.5, the applicant filed an Impact Report dated December 15, 2009 which analyzed the impact of the conversion on residents. In addition, the applicant obtained a Resident Survey of Support which was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and the resident that is independent of the applicant. The Impact Report was provided to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map. The results of the survey were presented to the City on March 9, 2010. The survey was considered and it was found that 105 residents opposed the conversion, 25 approved, 52 declined to comment and 124 missing. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing 304 space mobilehome park received and dated January 12, 2010 shall be the approved layout. G:\NOA Approval of TTM 17296 -3- 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required (PW): a. An onsite storm drain shall be designed and constructed per the final hydrology and hydraulics study approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Planning and Building & Safety, City Standards and per the City adopted 2005 Master Plan of Drainage. If the recommended storm drain design (of the Hydrology and Hydraulics Study) is not mutually acceptable between the Applicant and the Staff, then the applicant may request review and consideration by City Council. 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) (PW) b. The subdivider shall provide proof to the City demonstrating that the domestic and irrigation water metering for the subject project meet the requirements of the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and the 100-year storms. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. (PW) 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§ 66427.5) (PL) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following (PL): 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation) 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§ 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation), 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§ 66427.5) 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required: a. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan (PW): G:\NOA Approval of TfM 17296 -4- 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)) ii) 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)) iii) 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)) iv) 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)) v) 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)) vi) 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)) b. 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. (PW) INDEMNIFICATION AND BOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. G:\NOA Approval of TTM 17296 -5- Recommended Action: Accept request to continue Negative Declaration No. 09-006, General Plan Amendment No. 09-002, Zoning Map Amendment No. 09-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-007, and Conditional Use Permit No. 09-024 (Ward Garfield Specific Plan) to June 21, 2010. 2 Late Communications Item to be continued to June 21, 2010 Approved 7-0 11. Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 172916 and Deny Appeal of Code Requirements (Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval — Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Subdivision) Staff Recommended Action: of approval --Glude Beach Blvd. imp. and deny the appeal Gf id ell.+if. r.ierl nente Planning Commission Recommended Action: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (which exclude Beach Blvd. improvements), and deny the appeal of identified code requirements. Planning Commission's recommendation was approved with amended conditions. 22 Speakers Approved 5-2 (Carchio, hardy Flo) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 12. Approval of a City Council position on legislation, a regulation, or budget issue pending before a federal, state, or regional government as recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) Recommended Action: A) SUPPORT AB 2531 (Fuentes) Redevelopment— Economic Development B) AUTHORIZE the Mayor to send a Letter of Support for a Request for Federal Funding for Reconstruction of the Runway at the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base Approved 7-0 13. Review and take straw votes on the Charter Review Commission's recommended revisions to the City Charter City Council Action Agenda -7- May 17, 2010 CITE' OF IIUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-depar•tmental Communication TO: HONORABLE MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JENNIFER MCGRATF�, y Attorney DATE: May 17, 2010 SUBJECT: Agenda Item 11 - 5/17/10 Meeting LATE COMMUNICATION Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Subdivision—For Rent To Ownership APPLICANT: Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 APPELLANT: Shorecliff LP; JS Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 PROPERTY OWNER: Shorecliff LP; JS Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E. Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 LOCATION: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. —Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings. California Government Code 66427.5, as interpreted in several California Court of Appeal decisions, including Carson Harbor Village LTD. v. City of Carson, (March 30, 2010) No. B211777 allows cities to deny mobile home conversions from tenancy to ownership based upon lack of resident support if coupled with evidence that the owner does not expect to produce a changes in the estate interest in the property. In other words, the owner does not expect that a significant percentage of tenants will purchase the subdivided lots. Hon. Mayor and City Council Members Page 2 Late Communication-Agenda Item 411 RECOMMENDATION: If City Council chooses to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296, the City Attorney recommends that the Council adopt the following findings: 1) Pursuant to California Government Code 66427.5(d) (1), the applicant obtained a survey of resident opinion regarding conversion of the mobilehome park from tenancy to ownership. The survey results indicated minimal support for conversion. 2) The City may deny a conversion when it determines that the park owner has no reasonable expectation that the conversion will produce "a significant percentage of the mobilehome lots from tenancy to ownership." This determination may (1) consider, but not rely exclusively on the tenant survey; it also must (2) focus on the state of mind of the mobile park owner. While the state of mind standard is difficult to qualify, because it focuses on the intent of the park owner, it may be successfully utilized to deny sham conversions based on resident surveys with additional evidence of no intent to sell individual parcels. Carson Harbor Village LTD. v. City of Carson, (March 30, 2010)No. B211777. ("Carson") (Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). 3) Survey results as well as public testimony presented during the public hearings demonstrates that a majority of the residents are in opposition to the conversion. 4) The tentative map is not a "bona fide" conversion from rental to ownership because the owner lacks any true intent to achieve substantial tenant ownership of the Park. The following factors indicate that Shorecliffs owners have no reasonable expectation of tenant purchases: (a) Shorecliffs owners have refused to remedy the flooding problems, even after the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") cited the property for failure to remedy flooding/water drainage issues. The Shorecliffs owners circulated Impact Report states that the owners will consider reasonable and economically feasible measures in cooperation with the City and HOA to remedy the flooding/water issues that exist in the park. However, the owner has refused to design and construct an underground storm drain that would meet the 100-year storm, which is the City—wide standard for all development, is unreasonable. (b) The resident survey indicates only 25 tenants of over 300 tenants were in support of the conversion. Specifically, of 259 surveys mailed, 182 surveys were completed and returned. The survey results indicate that 25 persons were in support of the conversion of the mobilehome park to resident ownership, 105 persons were not is support of the conversion, and 52 persons declined to state their opinion. Given that level of support, the owner can have no reasonable expectation that any tenant but a few would purchase. 47332 Hon. Mayor and City Council Members Page 3 Late Communication-Agenda Item 411 (c) While the owner is correct that it is not legally obligated to provide actual sales prices for parcels and home owner association assessments, it cannot reasonably expect that any tenant could determine whether to support the conversion without providing full and detailed information comparing the cost of purchase with continuing to lease a parcel. Moreover, the little information provided strongly suggests that tenants will not purchase the parcels. The Impact Report does state that the current estimate of lot value is between $275,000 to $385,000 depending upon size and location. The estimated monthly assessments are $335/month (Base assessments-$210; utility-$80; reserve-$45.) Market rents are $1,850 to $2,100/month (including the $250 pass-through). Given these purchase prices, and assuming payments for 30 year fixed loans at 4.86% (per FNMA 30 year fixed Yld-90 day): For$275,000 loan,payment is $1,452.82 + $335 (HOA)_ $1,787.85/m For$330,000 loan,payment is $1,743.38 + $335 (HOA) _ $2,078.38/m For$385,000 loan,payment is $2,033.95 + $335 (HOA) _ $2,368.95/m The financial information available as well as the history of flooding/drainage issues (including a resident lawsuit against the owners of the property regarding the water issues) on the property evidences that there is no advantage to purchasing a parcel, particularly when compared to the availability of condominiums in the immediate area that sell for comparable prices, and are far more marketable than mobilehomes. JENNIFER MCGRATH, City Attorney /mv Attachment as above c: Fred Wilson, City Administrator Paul Emery, Deputy City Administrator Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Joan Flynn, City Clerk Scott Hess, Director of Planning & Building 47332 Westlaw, Page 1 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal.Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.)) P'Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. unit mobilehome park in the City of Carson. In 2002, respondent decided to convert the park's legal struc- California Rules of Court,rule 8.1115,restricts cita- ture. Up to that time, residents of the mobilehome tion of unpublished opinions in California courts. park leased the spaces on which they placed their mobilehome coaches. The proposed conversion Court of Appeal, Second District, would subdivide the park into a collection of separate Division 8. plots owned individually by each park resident, CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE,LTD.,Plaintiff something akin to a condominium arrangement in- and Respondent, cluding common space. V. CITY OF CARSON,Defendant and Appellant. In December 2002, respondent submitted its applica- No. B211777. tion to the City of Carson for the conversion's tenta- (Los Angeles County Super.Ct.No.BS112239). tive tract map. Government Code section 66427.5 of the Subdivision Map Act applied to the conversion. March 30,2010. The statute required, among other things, that re- spondent file with its application a survey of the park's residents documenting their level of support, if APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of any, for the conversion. F'' ( 6S 6427.5, subd. (d); El Los Angeles County. James Chalfant, Judge. Re- Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs versed and remanded. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1181-1182, 118 Aleshire & Wynder, William W. Wynder, Sunny K. Cal.Rptr.2d 15 (El Dorado ) [park owner must con- Soltani and Jeff M. Malawy, for Defendant and Ap- duct survey].) Over the next two years, the city re- pellant. quested and received from respondent additional in- formation about the proposed conversion. In 2005, Gilchrist & Rutter, Richard H. Close, Thomas W. respondent submitted its residents' survey showing Casparian, and Yen N. Hope; The Loftin Firm and L. only 11 percent of residents voted for the conversion Sue Loftin,for Plaintiff and Respondent. (the rest were against it or did not vote) and, in Sep- tember 2006, city staff deemed the application to be Bien& Summers, Elliot L. Bien, for Amicus Curiae, complete. (See §§ 65941, 65943.) Western Manufactured Housing Communities Asso- ciation. FN1. All further statutory references are to the Government Code. RUB IN,J. a. Proceedings Before the Planning Commission *1 The City of Carson appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the petition of Carson Harbor Upon completion of the application, section 66427.5 Village, Ltd. for a writ of administrative mandamus. obligated the city to hold a hearing on whether the By the writ, the court directed the city to approve a application complied with the statute's multiple re- tentative tract map for the conversion of Carson quirements. (Id., subd. (e) [hearing required].) Ac- Harbor Village's mobilehome park to a resident cordingly,the city's planning commission convened a owned facility. We reverse the trial court's judgment series of public hearings. The hearings addressed and remand for further proceedings. statutory requirements for the conversion, such as respondent's preparation of a tenant impact report and FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS whether the conversion was a subterfuge by respon- dent to escape the city's local rent control laws. (1d., Respondent Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. owns subd. (b).)The hearings also covered matters such as Carson Harbor Village Mobile Home Park, a 420 the park's deteriorating physical condition and whether the conversion furthered the city's general ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 2 , Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal. Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.)) development plan of preserving open space and low ings and findings. After hearing respondent's appeal, and moderate income housing. Following multiple the council affirmed the planning commission's deci- hearings, the planning commission disapproved the sion. Among the council's reasons for affirming was application in March 2007 on several grounds. First, the council's finding that the 2005 survey of support the planning commission found the conversion was submitted to the planning commission with the appli- inconsistent with provisions in the city's general plan cation did not satisfy section 66427.5's requirements. to preserve affordable housing and open space. Sec- The council found: "There is no evidence in the re- ond, the commission concluded the statutorily re- cord that the survey of support was conducted in ac- quired tenant impact report lacked sufficient informa- cordancc with an agreement between the applicant tion about the conversion's effects on the park's resi- and a resident homeowners association that is inde- dents and wetlands. Finally, the commission also pendent of the applicant or the mobilehome park denied the conversion because the survey of residents owner as required by Government Code § did not comply with subdivision (d) of section 66427.5(d)(2)." (The City Council did not consider 66427.5. The planning commission "determine[d] ... the 2007 survey that had been conducted after the that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a planning commission had denied respondent's appli- survey of support was conducted in conformance cation.) The council also rejected respondent's appeal with Government Code � 66427.5." The commis- on other grounds, including the purported inadequacy sion's resolution denying the application stated: of the tenant impact report and the conversion's in- consistency with the city's general plan. *2"There is no evidence in the record that the sur- vey of support was conducted in accordance with c. Petition for Writ of Mandate an agreement between the applicant and a resident homeowners association that is independent of the Respondent filed in the trial court a petition for writ applicant or the mobilehome park owner as re- of mandate. The petition asserted section 66427.5 quired by Government Code § 66427.5(d)(2)." preempted the city's attempt to dictate terms for the (Italics added.) conversion, such as adhering to the city's general plan, which went beyond those required by the stat- b.Appeal to the City Council ute. According to respondent, the city's review of the application was limited to assessing respondent's Respondent appealed the planning commission's de- compliance with section 66427.5, leaving the city no nial to the Carson City Council.While the appeal was discretion to deny the application for any reason pending, respondent offered incentives to park resi- other than noncompliance with the statute. Asserting dents hoping to win their support for the conversion. it had complied with the statute,respondent asked the The purported enticements included upgrades and court to order the city to approve respondent's appli- improvements to the park at respondent's expense, cation for a tentative tract map to convert the park to discounted prices for mobilehome spaces, and an resident ownership. extended phasing out of rent control for residents who opted to remain renters instead of buying their *3 The trial court issued a writ in respondent's favor. spaces after the conversion. Against the backdrop of In its minute order, the court agreed with respondent the promised enticements, respondent conducted a that section 66427.5 prohibited the city from impos- second survey of residents in July 2007 to measure ing any conditions on the city's approval of the con- tenant support for the conversion. Three hundred version beyond ensuring respondent's application fifty-six of the park's 418 residents voted, with 65 complied with the statute. (See Sequoia Park Associ- percent remaining opposed to the conversion. ates v. County of Sonoma (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1275, 98 Ca1.RRtr.3d 669 (Sequoia ) [section In September and October 2007,the city council held 66427.5 preempts local regulation of mobilehome a series of meetings to hear respondent's appeal from park conversion]; El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th the planning commission's denial of respondent's at pp. 1163-1164, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 15 [same].) FN2 application. To prepare council members for the Hence, the court found the city erred in disapproving hearings, city staff gave the council a written report the application on the grounds the conversion con- that summarized the planning commission's proceed- flicted with the city's general plan to maintain afford- O 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 3 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Non published/Noncitable(Cal. Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.)) able housing and open space. Additionally, the court version for its inconsistency with the city's general found the city was time-barred from seeking addi- plan for maintaining affordable housing and open tional information in the statutorily required tenant space. And third, the city contends the statutorily impact report about the conversion's effect on tenant required tenant impact report failed to include ade- displacement and nearby wetlands. Addressing spe- quate information about the conversion's effect on cifically the statute's requirement of a resident sur- nearby wetlands and tenant displacement. vey, the court described as "flimsy"respondent's evi- dence that the 2005 survey submitted with its appli- 2. Introduction and Substantial Evidence Standard of cation complied with the statutory requirement of Review being conducted in agreement with an independent association of residents.The court found, on the other *4 Section 66427.5 obligates a local government to hand, the second survey undertaken in July 2007 was designate a local authority to hear a mobilehome park a survey under section 66427.5, conducted pursuant owner's application for a tentative tract map for con- to such an agreement. Although the second survey version of a mobilehome park. (Id at subd. (e) ["The was too late for the planning commission's considera- subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legisla- tion, the trial court held the city had waived the sur- tive body or advisory agency, which is authorized by vey's tardiness because the city council did not reject local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or respondent's application on that ground. Rather, the disapprove the map."].) In the City of Carson, that city had concluded-wrongly, in the court's estimation- authority is the planning commission. A party ad- that respondent had not conducted the 2007 survey in versely affected by the planning commissions deci- agreement with the residents. (In fact, as we will ex- sion may appeal the decision to the city council.='-' plain, the court misstated the city's assessment of the We review the, city's denial of respondent's applica- survey's legal adequacy, and this misreading by the tion for substantial evidence; we do not review, nor court of the administrative record will figure in our are we bound by, the superior court's factual findings analysis of the significance of the two surveys.)Thus, or legal conclusions. "The scope of our review of the the court concluded, the city abused its discretion in subject administrative agency action in this case is finding respondent had not submitted a survey that identical with that of the superior court. The same satisfied section 66427.5. substantial evidence standard applies, and the issue is whether the findings of the [public agency] were FN2. Sequoia was filed after the trial court's based on substantial evidence in light of the entire decision, but the trial court correctly antici- administrative record. [Citations.] ... [W]e must ex- pated the analysis set out in the Court of amine the findings made by the [agency] itself to Appeal decision. In supplemental briefs, the determine whether they were supported by substan- parties addressed the effect of Sequoia on tial evidence, rather than limiting ourselves to a re- this appeal. view of the findings made by the trial court. [Cita- tions.] ( Desmond v. County of Contra Costa (1993) Based on its findings,the court issued a writ directing 21 Cal App 4th 330 334-335 25 Cal Rptr 2d 842-, the city to vacate its resolution denying respondent's see also American Canyon Community United for application, and to reconsider the application in light Responsible Growth v. City of American Canyon of the court's findings. The city's appeal followed. (2006) 145 Cal.AppAth 1062, 1070, 52 Cal.Rptr.3d 312.) DISCUSSION FN3. The city council's resolution denying 1. City's Contentions on Appeal respondent's administrative appeal framed the resolution as one to "affirm the planning This appeal turns on several contentions involving commission's decision to deny tentative par- the city's disapproval of the conversion application. cel map...." The resolution itself stated re- First, the city contends respondent's survey of resi- spondent's application was "submitted to dents, which the city may use to consider the "bona appropriate agencies as required by the Sub- fides" of the conversion, was legally inadequate. division Regulations of the City of Carson." Second, the city contends it lawfully denied the con- It further stated that"The Planning Commis- ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 4 Not Reported in Ca1.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal.Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.)) sion held duly noticed public hearings.... At- (4)The survey shall be conducted so that each ter consideration of the evidence and testi- occupied mobilehome space has one vote. mony, the Planning Commission voted to deny Tentative Parcel Map...." (5)The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon the filing of the tenta- 3_The Statute tive or parcel map,to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivi- Although other authorities are helpful to our analysis, sion(e). the case ultimately turns on the meaning of one stat- ute, section 66427.5. Accordingly, we set out the (e) The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing entire statute before we begin our substantive discus- by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is sion: authorized by local ordinance to approve, condi- tionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope "At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of com- for a subdivision to be created from the conversion pliance with this section. of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership, the subdivider shall avoid the economic displace- (f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the ment of all nonpurchasing residents in the follow- economic displacement of all nonpurchasing resi- ing manner: dents in accordance with the following: (a) The subdivider shall offer each existing ten- (1)As to nonpurchasing residents who are not ant an option to either purchase his or her condo- lower income households, as defined in Section minium or subdivided unit, which is to be created 50079.5 of the Health and Safely Code, the by the conversion of the park to resident owner- monthly rent, including any applicable fees or ship, or to continue residency as a tenant. charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent to mar- (b) The subdivider shall file a report on the im- ket levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted pact of the conversion upon residents of the mo- in accordance with nationally recognized profes- bilehome park to be converted to resident owned sional appraisal standards, in equal annual in- subdivided interest. creases over a four-year period. (c) The subdivider shall make a copy of the re- (2) As to nonpurchasing residents who are port available to each resident of the mobilehome lower income households, as defined in Section park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advi- monthly rent, including any applicable fees or sory agency,by the legislative body. charges for use of any preconversion amenities, may increase from the preconversion rent by an (d)(1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of amount equal to the average monthly increase in support of residents of the mobilehome park for the rent in the four years immediately preceding the proposed conversion. conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in (2) The survey of support shall be conducted the Consumer Price Index for the most recently in accordance with an agreement between the reported period." subdivider and a resident homeowners' associa- tion, if any, that is independent of the subdivider 4.Adequacy of Resident Surveys or mobilehome park owner. *5(3)The survey shall be obtained pursuant to The city's first contention on appeal is that respon- a written ballot. dent failed to comply with subdivision(d)of the stat- ute because it did not obtain a "survey of support 0 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 5 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal.Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.)) from residents of the mobilehome park for the pro- McGregor was actively involved in that. The posed conversion." ( 66 427.5,subd. (d)(1).) content and the final form was also worked out with the board through their attorney, Before the hearing, the park owner must file with its David Semelsberger." application the results of the resident survey. The survey must be conducted pursuant to an agreement *6 Against that somewhat vague description of in- between the subdivider and an independent home- volvement,the city heard testimony that the residents' owners association, it must be by written ballot, and association told residents not to answer respondent's each occupied mobilehome space is entitled to have survey,testimony from which we(and the trial court) one vote. ( 6� 6427.5, subd. (d)(2)(3)(4).)"The results drew the inference that no agreement existed with the of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency association. Respondent counters that the trial court upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be said during the hearing on respondent's petition that if considered as part of the subdivision map hearing the court "was going to change the tentative at all it prescribed by subdivision (e)." (§ 66427, subd. would be to say that the initial survey was adequate." (d)(5).) But the court's rumination does not help respondent because the court did not change its tentative-indeed, a.The 2005 Survey the court finished its thought by saying "I guess I'll leave it the way it is." In any case, we review the As we have observed, the city empowered its plan- city's decision for substantial evidence, and we affirm ning commission initially to grant or deny respon- so long as substantial evidence supports the city's dent's application for a tentative tract map. The ad- findings. ( Desmond v. County of Contra Costa, su- ministrative record compiled by the planning com- pra 21 Cal App 4th at pp 334-335 25 Ca1.Rptr.2d mission contains substantial evidence that respon- 842- American Canyon Community United for Re- dent's 2005 survey filed with its application did not sponsible Growth v. City ofAmerican Canyon supra, comply with statutory requirements because respon- 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 1070 52 Ca1.Rptr.3d 312.) dent did not conduct the survey in "agreement" with Because substantial evidence supported the finding a residents' homeowners association.F�'4 The presi- that the 2005 survey had not been conducted "in ac- dent of the homeowners association and its lawyer cordance with an agreement" between respondent each testified no agreement existed. Consistent with and the residents, the planning commission and the their testimony, it was counsel for respondent who city council could have denied the application on that conducted the survey with little, if any, visible in- ground. volvement by a residents' association, sending out the survey under counsel's letterhead and asking that b. The 2007 Survey residents return the ballots to counsel. At best, re- spondent conducted the survey, which was prepared The 2005 survey submitted to the planning commis- by its attorney, "in conjunction with" (counsel's sion was not, however, the end of the story. In July words)the association.Fns 2007,while its appeal from the planning commission to the city council was pending, respondent con- FN4. Although we review the administrative ducted a second survey in coordination with the city record ourselves for substantial evidence,we and the residents' homeowner's association, and pre- note that the trial court reached the same sented the survey's results to the city council. The conclusion that in 2005 no agreement ex- trial court interpreted subdivision (d) as allowing isted between respondent and a residents'as- respondent to file its survey upon its appeal to the sociation. city council, an interpretation the city partly con- ceded at oral argument on appeal when it acknowl- FNS. More fully, respondent's counsel testi- edged the city's planning authority included both the fied the survey was done "in conjunction planning commission and-in appellate counsel's with the Board at that time. The president Fords-the city council "by extension by right of ap- was Cindy McGregor and their attorney who peal." Working from its premise that respondent was Mr. Semelsberger ... the survey [was] could submit the results of its survey up to the time of actually disseminated by the board. Cindy its appeal to the city council, the trial court found the 0 2010 Thomson Reuters,No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 6 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal.Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.)) city waived the untimeliness of the second survey for the mobilehome park that all stakeholders- because"the City Council did not purport to deny the respondent, the residents, and the city-could support. Application based on a failure to timely present the Having at the very least implicitly encouraged re- second Survey of Support." spondent's undertaking of a second survey, the city is estopped from ignoring it. We review for substantial evidence whether waiver occurred. (See EEngalla v. Permanente Medical Estoppel against a public agency is available when Group Inc. (1997) 15 CalAth 951, 983, 64 under the special facts of the case, the interests of Cal.Rptr.2d 843 938 P.2d 903.) The city council's justice require it. ( City OL Long Beach v. Mansell resolution affirming the planning commission dis- (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462 493-495, 91 Cal.Rptr, 23, 476 cussed the particulars of only the 2005 survey. Al- P.2d 423.) As part of the process that produced the though at one point its resolution did ambiguously 2007 survey, respondent and the homeowners negoti- refer to the "survey" without elaboration, elsewhere ated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the resolution's description of the survey's vote tally significantly benefited the homeowners. The MOU made clear, however, that it was contemplating only included, among other things, upgrades and im- the 2005 survey when it stated respondent"has failed provements to the park at respondent's expense, dis- to demonstrate that a survey of support was con- counted prices for mobilehome spaces, and an ex- ducted in conformance with Government Code � tended phasing out of rent control for residents who 66427.5." The city council, to be sure, was aware of opted to remain renters instead of buying their spaces the second survey's results, but the council was as- after the conversion. As part of this process, the city sessing survey compliance based on the administra- assisted in the creation of a new survey with the un- tive record before it. That was the administrative re- derstanding that the second survey might avoid the cord from the hearings before the planning commis- deficiencies of the 2005 survey. Under those circum- sion that did not contain the 2007 survey. (The plan- stances, the city may not turn around and act as if the ning commission did not receive the results of the survey had never taken place. (See L66427.5, subd. 2007 survey because the commission had denied re- (d)(5) [survey results "to be considered as part of the spondent's application before respondent undertook subdivision map hearing"].) the second survey.) The city council did not formally find the second survey was untimely; the council just In directing the city to consider the 2007 survey, we ignored it in its resolution denying the application. express no view about whether the survey satisfies We disagree with the trial court when it drew an in- the statutory requirements for a survey of residents. ference of waiver by the council of the untimeliness Our direction is limited to precluding the city from of a survey that the council had not considered. rejecting the survey as untimely. If the city finds in Waiver of the time deadlines could only have oc- the first instance that the survey is statutorily ade- curred if the city council had taken the second survey quate, then the city must fmd respondent complied into account in reaching its decision, and then af- with section 66427.5, subdivision (d), and, as we firmatively found the survey noncompliant, because, discuss next, the city may consider the survey's re- for example, of a deficiency in the agreement be- sults in its assessment of whether the conversion is tween the homeowners and respondent. bona fide. *7 We agree with the trial court, though for slightly 5. The Bona Fides of the Conversion. different reasons,that the city council was required to take into account the second survey.The 2007 survey The city denied map approval in part based on its was a coordinated undertaking in which the city par- finding that the conversion was not bona fide. The ticipated. Indeed, the city clerk counted the ballots trial court concluded the city did not have authority and certified the vote tally, and the trial court ex- under the statute to determine the bona fides of a mo- pressly found"there is overwhelming evidence that a bile park conversion. As we explain,we disagree that second Survey of Support was performed in July a local agency is prohibited from determining 2007 ... through an agreement between [respondent] whether a conversion is bona fide. We do find, how- and the [residents' homeowners association]." The ever, that the city's view of its authority in this area city assisted the survey because it sought an outcome went too far in the other direction by being over- ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 7 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitabie(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.)) broad. We remand to the city for it to redetermine the 2, A.B.930.) Expressly in response to El Dorado, the issue in light of its statutory obligation to consider the Legislature added section 66427.5, subdivision (d) legal adequacy of the 2007 survey as guided by a which for the first time required the applicant to"ob- correct understanding of its statutory authority. tain a survey of support of residents of the mobile- home park." ( 66� 427.5, subd. (a)(1).FN7 In doing so, *8 The notion that a city may not consider the bona the Legislature identified the newly enacted survey fides of a conversion appears to have emerged from requirements as a device to assist the local agency in El Dorado, supra. That decision held that a city's approving only bona fide conversions. (See Sequoia, review of a mobilehome park conversion was limited sera 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d to confirming the park owner had complied with the 669 [the limited nature of the amendment meant the conversion statute. (See El Dorado, supra. 96 Legislature deemed the survey sufficient to address Cal.App.4th at pp. 1163-1164, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 15.) the bona fide conversion problem].) The Legislature From that holding sprang the idea that the city's re- explained its intent that local government determine view was so narrowly circumscribed that it could not the bona fides of a conversion in the uncodified por- even consider the bona fides of a conversion. (See tion of the 2002 amendments: Sequoia, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1286, fn. 6, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 669.) FNT See Statutes 2002, ch. 1143, § 2 A.B. No. 930 amending section 66427.5 to add Our examination of El Dorado, Sequoia, and the subdivision (d) mandating resident survey. 2002 statutory amendments leads us to conclude that ["It is the intent of the Legislature to address a local agency may, within strict confines, determine the conversion of a mobilehome park to the bona fides of a conversion. El Dorado concluded resident ownership that is not a bona fide that section 66427.5 did not expressly permit local resident conversion, as described by the agencies to deny a conversion to a "developer who Court of Appeal in El Dorado, sUra, 96 was engaged in a sham or fraudulent transaction Cal.AppAth 1153, 118 Ca1.Rptr.2d 15. The which was intended to avoid the rent control ordi- court in this case concluded that the subdivi- nance." ( El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at p. sion map approval process specified in 1165, 118 Ca1.Rptr.2d 15.) F'� The court expressed Section 66427.5 of the Government Code concern about the problem but found the solution may not provide local agencies with the au- rested with the Legislature. "Although the lack of thority to prevent nonbona fide resident such authority may be a legislative oversight, and conversions. The court explained how a although it might be desirable for the Legislature to conversion of a mobilehome park to resident broaden the City's authority, it has not done so." ownership could occur without the support (Ibid.) Only the courts, not local agencies, could ad- of the residents and result in economic dis- dress sham conversions. (Ibid.) placement. It is, therefore, the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ensure that FN6. The term "avoid the rent control ordi- conversions pursuant to Section 66427.5 of nance" presumably referred to past conver- the Government Code are bona fide resident sions in which not all park spaces were sold. conversions."] Instead, some were re-rented under circum- stances that allowed the landlord to avail it- Sequoia recognized that the 2002 amend- self of state law or local ordinance authoriz- ments were in response to"the continuing ing an increase over the preconversion rent. problem of mobilehome park conversion and the phrase `bona fide' ..." following The opinion in El Dorado was filed in March 2002. El Dorado. ( Sequoia, supra, at p. 1287, Later that same year, the Legislature took up the 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 669.) court's invitation and amended section 66427.5. As part of this process,the Legislature acknowledged the "This bill seeks to provide a measure of that support deficiency in the act identified by the court in El Do- for local agencies to determine whether the conver- rado that precluded local agencies from preventing sion is truly intended for resident ownership,or if it is "nonbona fide conversions." (Stats.2002, ch. 1143, § an attempt to preempt a local rent control ordinance. ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 8 Not Reported in Ca1.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Non published/Noncitable(Cal. Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.)) The results of the survey would not affect the duty of in conformance with Government Code § 66427.5." the local agency to consider the request to subdivide pursuant to Section 66427.5 but merely provide addi- Any doubt that the city has measured bona fides by tional information." (Sen. Con. Amends. to Assem. tenant support alone is dispelled by the arguments Bill No. 930 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) p. 5; italics made by the city in this appeal. The city contends that added.) the determination of a bona fide conversion does not involve an inquiry into the park owner's intent. In its *9 Stated slightly differently, it stands to reason that opening brief, the city states: "[T]he issue of whether the Legislature did not intend the survey to be an idle a conversion is bona fide is to be determined based exercise but rather meaningful input for the city's on whether there is resident support for the conver- review of the application. The statutory reference to sion application." Repeating the test in the reply "local agencies" indicates that those agencies, with brief, the city argues the second survey demonstrated their wide experience in land use matters (see gener- that the application "was wholly lacking in bona fide ally Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz resident support." But that is not what the legislative (2006)38 Cal.4th 1139, 1151,45 Cal.Rptr.3d 21, 136 amendments address. The amended language states P.3d 821), may determine bona fides in the first in- that surveys are relevant in the determination of stance. "bona fide resident conversions." A resident conver- sion is not the same as resident support.Fv8 Although the city has the legal authority to deny a conversion that is not bona fide, the city appears to FN8. The city suggests that the park owner's have misjudged its task in making that determination. state of mind is only relevant to whether the Whether the conversion is or is not bona fide turns on conversion is a "sham" ( El Dorado, supra, the state of mind of the park owners. This is seen not 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1165, 118 Ca1.Rptr.2d only from the plain meaning of "bona fide conver- 15), not whether it is bona fide. We dis- sion"but also the legislative history on which the city agree. A "sham" is essentially the converse itself relies. A bona fide conversion is one that the of "bona fide"; something that is a sham park owner expects to in fact produce a change in the cannot be bona fide,and vice versa. estate interest of a significant percentage of the mo- bilehome lots from tenancy to ownership. An inquiry *10 The uncodified legislation described the survey into the bona fides of the conversion must,therefore, as a device to enable local agencies "to determine focus on the state of mind of the mobile park owner. whether the conversion is truly intended for resident As we have observed, the 2002 legislative amend- ownership, or if it is an attempt to preempt a local ments were designed to assist local agencies to de- rent control ordinance." The level of tenant support, termine "whether the conversion is truly intended for or lack thereof, may be circumstantial evidence of the resident ownership, or if it is an attempt to preempt a presence or absence of bona fides but it is not dispo- local rent control ordinance." (Sen. Con. Amends. to sitive. "The law is not intended to allow park resi- Assem. Bill No. 930 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) p. 5.) dents to block a request to subdivide."FN9 The statute's use of"intended" and "attempt" direct attention to the park owner's state of mind. FN9.The Sequoia court struck down on pre- emption grounds the Sonoma County ordi- But the city's resolution did not focus on the state of nance that expressly tied whether or not a mind of the park owner. Rather the resolution shows conversion was bona fide to a specific per- that the city has equated the bona fides of a conver- centage of tenant support. (See Sequoia, su- sion with the level of tenant support. Section 12(c)of pra, 176 Cal.AppAth at p. 1292, 98 the Resolution states: Cal.Rptr.3d 669.) In theory, a mobile park conversion could be bona fide without any "[T]he applicant has failed to demonstrate that there resident support. For example, the park is sufficient resident support for this application suf- owner might have signed offers by third per- ficient to enable the Planning Commission to find sons to purchase all of the park's lots. and determine that approval of this application will result in a bona fide conversion to resident ownership We agree with the city that it may consider the sur- ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 9 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal.Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.)) vey in deciding whether a conversion is bona fide for tempt to impose additional requirements on a mo- that is exactly what section 66427.5, subdivision bilehome park conversion beyond those requirements (d)(5) says. As the 2002 amendments intended, the the statute identified. (Id. at p. 1274, 98 Cal Rptr.3d survey provides a measure (a yardstick, if you will) 669.) In Sequoia, the county had adopted an ordi- of tenant support, but the language is immediately nance that had several provisions governing the followed by the legal test for a bona fide conversion: county's approval of a conversion, including the con- the owner's intent to truly provide for tenant owner- version's effect on the county's general plan of pre- ship and the absence of intent to avoid rent control. serving affordable housing and maintaining open The city must decide that question in approving or common areas within the mobilehome park. Id. at denying the application; the absence of majority sup- pp. 1274-1275 1288, 1290, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 669.)The port for the conversion among residents cannot be Sequoia court engaged in a detailed and well- dis ositive!" 0 ( Sequoia, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at reasoned analysis of preemption principles. (Id. at pp. pp. 1286-1287, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 669; El Dorado, su- 1277-1282, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 669.) From its analysis, pra, 96 Cal.App. at pp. 1172-1173.) the court held section 66427.5 preempted the county's attempt to regulate the conversion process or to im- FNIO. Respondent acknowledges the results pose additional requirements beyond compliance of the survey are relevant to whether a con- with section 66427.5. (Id. at pp. 1274-1275, 98 version is bona fide. It argues only that the Cal.Rptr.3d 669.) Citing subdivision (e) of the stat- courts, not the local agency, must decide the ute, the court stated: "[W]e conclude that the ordi- issue. nance is expressly preempted because section 66427.5 states that the `scope of the hearing' for ap- 6. Inconsistency with the City's General Plan proval of the conversion application `shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section.' " 1( d. at p. 1275, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 669; see also El Dorado, The city also disapproved the application for conver- supra 96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1163-1165, 118 sion because the city found the conversion conflicted Cal.Rptr.2d 15 [same].) with the city's general plan to maintain affordable housing and preserve open space. Respondent con- 11 We tends this ground was unlawful because the city's find Sequoia s analysis persuasive. Its analy- sis supports its conclusion that "the state has taken review of the application is limited to determining for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regu- whether the application complied with the statutory requirements of section 66427.5. Respondent's con- lation" and that "[1]ocalities are allowed little scope tention rests on subdivision (e) of section 66427.5, to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script." which states, "The subdivider shall be subject to a ( Sequoia supra 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1293, 98 hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, Cal.Rptr.3d 669.) Accordingly, we see no purpose in which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, rehashing its discussion here and instead adopt its conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The holding that section 66427.5 "express[ly] preempt[s] scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of the power of local authorities to inject other factors compliance with this section." Respondent further [besides those the statute identifies] when consider- asserts the Legislature intended state law to com- ing an application to convert an existing mobilehome pletely occupy the arena of mobilehome park conver- park from a rental to a resident-owner basis." Id. at sions,and thus preempt all local ordinances and regu- p• 1297, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 669.) Hence, we agree with lations. The city disagrees, asserting that the state's the trial court that the city cannot reject the applica- regulation of mobilehome park conversions does not tion for conversion because the conversion conflicts interfere with a local government's traditional police with the city's general plan.F"—" and zoning powers. FN11. In its supplemental brief, the city The recent decision in Sequoia, supra, 176 concedes that Sequoia holds that section Cal.App.4th 1270, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 669 is dispositive 66427.5 preempts local mobilehome ordi- in establishing respondent is correct. The Sequoia nances. The city urges us not to follow Se- court closely examined the question of whether quoia. section 66427.5 preempted a local government's at- 0 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 10 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal App.2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.)) 7. Adequacy of Tenant Impact Report "complete." (See §§ 65941, 65943.) We note, ini- tially,that the"completeness"threshold exists to start The city also disapproved the application for conver- the clock running on the city's review of the applica- sion because the city found the statutorily required tion. ( Orsi v. City Council (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d tenant impact report was inadequate. Section 1576, 1583,268 Cal.Rptr. 912.)By starting the clock, 66427.5, subdivision (b) states the park owner "shall the process imposes an end time for what might oth- file a report on the impact of the conversion upon erwise become an endless series of delays, amounting residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to effectively to a pocket veto of an application for con- resident owned subdivided interest." On appeal, the version. (Accord Orsi at pp. 1578, 1586, 268 city focuses on two purported sets of broad inadequa- Cal.Rptr. 912.) Such does not, however, preclude a cies in the application: the report's failure to address city from, as a general matter, requesting more in- the conversion's effect on wetlands that were a sub- formation. (See § 65920 et seq. ("Permit Streamlin- stantial part of the city's open space, and its failure to ing Act") [supplementing permit application with adequately address economic displacement of tenants more information].) from the conversion. As for the wetlands, the city found the tenant impact report did not include infor- *12 Section 65944 expressly authorizes a local mation concerning (1) the "extraordinary measures agency processing a permit application to request the needed to meet the requirements of the California applicant to "clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise Department of Fish and Game ... [and] the unreason- supplement" information in the application. (§ 65944, able liability and maintenance responsibilities that subd. (a).) The agency may not, however, request will be borne by the resident owners following the "any new or additional information" that the agency date of conversion" and (2) "the significant remedia- had not previously identified as needed in an applica- tion costs should the park be determined responsible tion. (§§ 65944, subd. (a), 65940, subd. (a).) We rec- for contamination within the wetlands." As for tenant ognize the challenge in distinguishing between pro- displacement, the city found the report did not in- hibited "new or additional" information, on the one clude information about: (1) "the impact of the con- hand, and permitted "amplifying" or "supplement- version upon displaced residents;" (2) "the availabil- ing" information, on the other. The fact remains, as ity of adequate replacement space in mobilehome the statute explains, the city is not barred from re- parks;" (3) "the impact of rent increases on the con- questing more information once the application is tinued financial viability of non-low income non- "complete." F"712 The record does not, however, en- purchasing residents remaining as park renters;" (4) able us to find as a matter of law that the information "the likely increase in rental rates on non-low income the city sought was prohibited "new or additional" non-purchasing residents [and] the impact of such information given that respondent had already pro- rental adjustments on available disposable income vided information about wetlands and tenant dis- [and whether] ... such rent increases ... could or will placement as part of the application process. Accord- result in short- or long-term resident displacement;" ingly, since we remand this matter for other determi- (5) whether "the economic impact of annual rent in- nations,we also remand for determination of the ade- creases may result in resident displacement;" and (6) quacy of the tenant impact report. The city's review the "availability of adequate replacement space in of the tenant impact report is limited to confirming mobilehome parks." whether the report complies with section 66427.5. (See 6§ 6427.5, subd. (e) [hearing limited to deter- The trial court concluded that the city's desire for mining compliance with statute].) In reviewing the information about the conversion's effect on wetlands report's adequacy, the city, shall in the first instance, and tenant displacement was reasonable in helping determine whether the information it seeks is prohib- the city assess the impact of the conversion on the ited "new or additional" information, or information park's residents. The court found, however, that the properly sought to "clarify, amplify, correct, or oth- city wrongfully insisted that respondent provide addi- erwise supplement"the application. The city's review tional information about those effects. The court rea- may not, however, impose extra-statutory conditions soned the city could not request additional informa- for the reasons we have already discussed. (See tion-nor reject the application for missing informa- Sequoia, supra, 176 Ca1.App.4th at p. 1297, 98 tion-after city staff had deemed the application to be Cal.Rptr.3d 669;El Dorado, supra. 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1165, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 15.) 0 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page I 1 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Non published/Noncitable(Cal.Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.)) tion for writ of mandate. I would affirm its ruling. FN 12. The trial court stated: "The City Council had no discretion but to accept the First, the majority concludes, incorrectly in my view, [tenant impact report] as complete and could that the judgment must be reversed to allow the city not require new information." an opportunity to determine whether CHV obtained a proper survey of support of residents of the mobile- DISPOSITION home park for the proposed conversion as required by Government Code section 66427.5, subdivision The judgment is reversed,and the matter is remanded (d)(1).F—"' to the trial court with directions to require the Carson City Council to review the application by Carson FN 1. All further section references are to the Harbor Village, Ltd. for conversion of the mobile- Government Code. Section 66427.5 does not home park guided by the principles articulated in this define what constitutes a "survey of sup- opinion. In its review, the city council must deter- port," but even the majority agrees that this mine whether the 2007 survey complies with the term does not mean that a majority of the statute, without regard to the timing of the submis- tenants must vote in support of a conversion sion of the survey. If the city council finds the survey to allow the local agency to approve a sub- is adequate, the city council must consider the survey division of a mobilehome park. and may do so in determining whether the conversion is bona fide. In analyzing whether the conversion is I agree with the majority's conclusion that the 2005 bona fide, the city council may not, however, impose survey was not conducted in accordance with an a minimum threshold of tenant support for the con- agreement with the residents' HOA and that the 2007 version. Second, the city council may not disapprove survey was. There can be no serious dispute that the the application on the ground that it conflicts with the second survey was, in fact, done pursuant to an city's general plan. And third, the city council must, agreement between CHV and the residents' HOA-the in the first instance, determine whether the tenant administrative record is unambiguous in this regard. I impact report complies with the requirements for agree with the majority that the city is estopped from such a report as stated in section 66427.5, subdivision rejecting the 2007 survey,but part with its conclusion (b), taking into account the City Council's limited that remand is required for the city to consider it. The ability to require more information under sections city council had the 2007 survey of residents before it 65940, subdivision (a) and 65944, subdivision (a). If when it made its decision to deny CHV's tentative the city council concludes the conversion is bona fide subdivision map for conversion. The denial of the and the tenant impact report complies with statutory city council was based on its factual finding that the requirements, the city council must approve the ap- 2005 survey did not comply with the requirement that plication. If the city council concludes otherwise and it be done in agreement with the residents' HOA. We disapproves the application, the city council must review the city council's denial on this factual basis specify the grounds for its disapproval, with the trial for substantial evidence. There is no substantial evi- court retaining jurisdiction to review the application dence to support a finding of a noncompliant survey in further proceedings considering Carson Harbor of residents. The record shows that the city council Village, Ltd.'s petition for writ of mandate. (See El had the compliant 2007 survey which was completed Dorado supra 96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1182, 118 through an agreement between CHV and the resi- Cal.Rptr.2d 15.) dents' HOA. Just because the city council chose to ignore the compliant 2007 survey it does not mean *13 Each side is to bear its own costs on appeal. they should get a second bite at the apple. I CONCUR: FLIER,J. I further disagree with the majority that the 2002 BIGELOW, P.J.,Dissenting. amendment to section 66427.5, when it added subdi- I respectfully dissent. vision(d),was either by its plain meaning or its legis- lative intent, meant to grant or expand the authority The trial court in this case issued a thoughtful I I- of local governments to determine the bona fides of a page ruling, detailing its reasons for granting the peti- conversion. First, a legislative analysis cited by the 0 2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 12 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal.Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.)) trial court explicitly states that "[t]he result of the agency"-must inform a permit applicant in writing survey would not affect the ditty of the local agency whether the application is complete and accepted for to consider the request to subdivide pursuant to filing. (§§ 65929, 65943.) If the lead agency fails to section 66427.5 but merely provide [the agency with] notify the applicant one way or the other,the applica- additional information." Since the amendment to tion " `shall be deemed complete for purposes of this section 66427.5 was made directly in response to the chapter.' " ( Orsr supra, 219 Ca1.App.3d at p. 1583, decision in El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of 268 CaLRptr. 912, citing § 65956, subd. (b).) When Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 118 adopting the Permit Streamlining Act,the Legislature Cal.Rptr2d 15 (El Dorado ), it is hard to imagine a determined there was "a statewide need to ensure clearer statement to indicate that the Legislature did clear understanding of the specific requirements not intend to modify El Dorado's holding that a city's which must be met in connection with the approval of review of a mobilehome park conversion in the con- development projects and to expedite decisions on text of section 66427.5 is limited to confirming such projects."(§ 65921.) whether the park owner complied with the require- ments of section 66427.5. ( El Dorado, supra, 96 The majority agrees the Permit Streamlining Act pro- Cal.App.4th at pp. 1163-1165, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 15.) hibits a local agency which is processing a permit But, if there were any question, the intent of the Leg- application from requesting new or additional infor- islature is all the more clear because, when adding mation that it did not previously identify was needed subdivision (d)'s requirement for a survey of support, in the application. (Maj. opn. at p. 22, 268 CaLRptr. the Legislature retained section 66427.5's then- 912.) At the same time, however, the majority con- existing language, now found in subdivision (e), that cludes the record does not "enable us to find as a "[t]he scope of the hearing shall be limited to the matter of law that the information which the City of issue of compliance with this section." (Emphasis Carson sought was prohibited `new or additional' added.) information, on the one hand, [or] permitted `ampli- fying' or `supplementing' information, on the other." *14 In the same vein, I further disagree with the ma- (Ibid.) The TIR is part of the record on appeal, and I jority's conclusion that a city is at liberty-in the con- read it otherwise. There are two areas the city deter- text of a hearing pursuant to section 66427.5, subdi- mined were lacking in the TIR, justifying denial of vision (e)-to deny a conversion that is not bona fide CHV's tentative map: information on the impact of based upon a determination of"the state of mind of a conversion on nearby wetlands and tenant displace- park owner."The majority creates from whole cloth a ment information. As noted by the trial court, "[t]he rule that whether a conversion is bona fide turns on information concerning wetlands was not requested the state of mind of the park owners,and then decides before the Application was deemed complete. This that the city, contrary to the statutory scheme and the information is new and not part of a request to clarify decision in El Dorado, is at liberty to make the de- previously submitted information." As for informa- termination which falls within that purview. I part tion about tenant displacement, the TIR included in- company with that analysis. formation on the impact of conversion on residents who elect not to purchase. The city council requested I also believe the trial court appropriately found that additional information on residents who elected not any defect in the Tenant Impact Report (TIR) was to purchase. This information would not amplify or waived when the city's staff deemed the application supplement information already provided in the ap- complete. ( Orsi v. City Council (1990) 219 plication; it was a request for a new area of additional Cal.App.3d 1576, 1584-1585, 268 CaLRptr. 912 information. The city council had no authority to (Orsi).) Section 66427.5, subdivision(b), requires a deny the application once the TIR was complete and subdivider to "prepare a report on the impact of the it did so in error. conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest." *15 On a final note, I feel compelled to clarify where The Permit Streamlining Act (§ 65920 et seq.) gov- I understand this case to stand on a procedural front. ems this area of the law and provides that a public When the Legislature enacted the existing version of agency "which has the principal responsibility for the Subdivision Map Act (§ 66410 et seq.) in 1974, carrying out or approving a project"-called the "lead the Act required, in broad terms,that a tentative map ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 13 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitable(Cal.Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App.2 Dist.)) be filed and approved in accord with the provisions In light of the legislative history, I interpret section prescribed in Chapter 3,Article 2 of the Act(§ 66452 66427.5, subdivision (e), to have added a preliminary et seq.) and that a final map would then be filed and step in the subdivision process in the context of a approved in accord with the provisions of Chapter 3, mobilehome park conversion, adding a special hear- Article 4 of the Act (§ 66456 et seq.). At the time of ing on the limited issue of resident displacement un- its enactment, the Act did not include any of the sec- der the section as a whole, apart from the normally- tions involved in this case dealing with the specific followed processes for approval of a tentative map circumstance of subdividing an existing mobilehome (Chapter 3, Article 2) and approval of a final map park. (Chapter 3, Article 4). I do not believe that section 66427.5, subdivision (e), was intended to eliminate In 1991,the Legislature added section 66427.5 to the the broader structure of the Subdivision Map Act vis- Act's "General Provisions" (Chapter 1, Article I; § a-vis a tentative map and a final map, and the ap- 66425 et seq.) in a transparent attempt to provide an proval of the same. With this understanding in mind, added layer of directly-focused protections to resi- the limitation on the scope of the hearing that is pre- dents of mobilehome parks faced with the prospect of scribed in section 66427.51 subdivision (e), makes a park owner's decision to subdivide the property. sense. As I read the statutes, once a subdivider and The section's original language dealt with a funding local agency have finished the required hearing to program to assist residents in purchasing their park determine compliance with section 66427.5, the now- spaces, and is not relevant for purposes of the current deemed compliant informational materials, are ready opinion. Then, in 1995, the Legislature amended for the tentative map approval process. section 66427.5 to read in a form recognizable to us today, providing that a mobilehome park owner is *16 What all this means is that the cause before us required to "avoid the economic displacement of all today primarily deals with discrete issues concerning nonpurchasing residents" by adhering to prescribed section 66427.5, the survey of support required by procedures, including the preparation of a report on the section, and the limited hearing required under the impact of the park's conversion on displaced resi- the section to determine whether a mobilehome park dents. (Stats 1995, ch. 256, § 5, p. 883.) F'Z At the owner complied with the section. I simply disagree same time, the Legislature first added language pro- that broader issues, such as the"bona fides" of a sub- viding that "[t]he subdivider shall be subject to a division of a mobilehome park fall within the scope hearing by [a local agency having authority to ap- of section 66427.5. prove a tentative map]. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this sec- In the case before us today,the city of Carson denied tion...." (See former 6§ 6427.5, subd. (d); Stats 1995, CHV's tentative map on the grounds that CHV did ch. 256, § 5, p. 883.) The Summary Digest of the not obtain a proper survey of support under section 1995 legislation provides: "This bill would ... add 66427.5, and did not submit a proper TIR under sec- further requirements for avoiding economic dis- tion 66427.4. It appears the city considered issues placement of nonpurchasing residents, including re- under section 66427.5 at the same time it considered quiring that the subdivider be subject to a hearing on approval of CHV's tentative map. I express no view the matter, as specified." (See Legis. Counsel's Dig., on the propriety of a proceeding in this fashion,but I Sen. Bill No. 310 (1989-1991 Reg. Sess.) Summary agree with the trial court that the city improperly de- Dig., p. 75.) In 2002, the language requiring a hear- termined that CHV did not comply with section ing to determine a park owner's compliance with 66427.5, and that the city improperly determined that section 66427.5 was moved to a new subdivision (e) CHV did not comply with section 66427.4. Inasmuch when subdivision (d)'s requirement for a survey of as these were the fundamental grounds upon which support was added.(Stats 2002,ch. 1143, § 1.) the city denied approval of CHV's tentative map, the city's decision to deny approval of CHV's tentative FN2. The 1995 legislation also amended map cannot stand. section 66427.4, which requires a report on the impact of the conversion on displaced I would affirm the trial court's decision to grant the residents. writ of mandate. ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. Page 14 Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d,2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.) Nonpublished/Noncitahie(Cal. Rules of Court,Rules 8.1105 and 8.1110,8.1115) (Cite as: 2010 WL 1212376(Cal.App. 2 Dist.)) Cal.App.2 Dist.,2010. Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. v. City of Carson Not Reported in CaLRptr3d, 2010 WL 1212376 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) END OF DOCUMENT ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig.US Gov. Works. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ® Late Communication Planning and Building Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Fred A. Wilson, City Administrator FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Buil4i`,� DATE: May 17, 2010 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS —RESPONSE TO MAY 129 2010 PROPOSAL FROM APPELLANT BACKGROUND: After the Staff Report for the Shorecliff s appeal was completed on May 12, 2010, Shorecliff s submitted a settlement proposal (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) indicating that it will withdraw all litigation if the Planning Commission recommendation is left in place, with the amendment that the underground drain is designed to a 25-year(not 100-year) storm. DISCUSSION: The proposal outlines several modifications to recommended conditions of approval and code requirements primarily in an effort to reduce the appellant's costs of improvements and meeting City requirements. The appellant's proposal and staff s response is as follows: 1. PROPOSAL Revise Condition of Approval 2 to contain solely the following language, eliminating all other language: "The applicant shall extend via underground the existing 15" (HDPE) storm drain pipe now surfacing in the Park below Frankfort Ave. and Shorecliff Dr. through the subject site to the existing city drain inlet at the southeast corner of subject site. The applicant shall submit a hydraulic analysis for the current storm drain terminus which will analyze a 25 year storm event. Any improvements required by the aforementioned analysis shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works." STAFF RESPONSE Staff does not recommend revising Suggested Condition of Approval 2.a and 2.c to contain the above requested language. Analysis of the 10, 25 and 100-year storm events in the required study are standard practice by the City to provide adequate engineering data for review of street flow capacity, pipe flow capacity and flood protection of habitable structures in the area. However, portions of Condition of Approval 2.c have been omitted ("back-to-back 100-year storm analysis for onsite detention" and "mitigation of impacts from increased runoff due to development," since, upon further review by Staff, these issues were found non-applicable to the subject site. Revised Suggested Condition of Approval No. 2: Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required (PW): a. An onsite storm drain shall be designed and constructed 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. APrejeet Water Quality Management Plan (3AIQ 4P)ee g to the-e ffep to vroerrur 0030) prepared by a Lieensea Civil Engineer, shall be submitted—to the uucrrc.��all address „ eiiffent s,,.r water- n e .,ter-quality issti (ZSO 255.04A) (PW) - b. The subdivider shall re€er—to=the Califemia T`epaAmentof Housing and reE irei cents provide proof to the City demonstrating that the domestic and irrigation water metering for the subject project meet the requirements of the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and the 100-year storms. and baek t baek stet ffis. I- aAA;f;— this stida.. shall inelude-24 hour-peak baek to back 100 .oaf st,,fms f f s;to detention analysis. Any dfainage . ffitsreq'uifed by the f fementioned he r�nTc�Tcrorrc,� analysis shall be designed and eenstfueted as f:eqttifed by the Depaftment of Publ e Wofks to mitigate-impaet of inefeased funeff due t development of defreient dewnstream systems.—Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. (PW) 2. PROPOSAL Delete the following from the Code Requirements (Explanation in Parentheses) a. The City Attorney approval language in Planning Code Requirement La. (Approval of CC&Rs is subject to Department of Real Estate not City Attorney approval) STAFF RESPONSE Staff does not recommend modifying this Code Requirement as it is standard practice for city staff to review and approve CC&R documents as to form and completeness. PROPOSAL b. Public Works Pre Final Map Submittal Code Requirement 2 (The Regional Board Order does not apply because the Map is not a development or significant redevelopment; also, Govt. Code § 66427.5 preempts the condition, which is not a code requirement) 2 STAFF RESPONSE Upon further review by City Staff, a portion the text within Condition 2.a, which requires submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan, has been omitted since the subject Tentative Map application does not include a "development" or "significant redevelopment". PROPOSAL c. Public Works Pre Final Map Recordation Code Requirement 9 (The Park existed prior to the drainage fee ordinance, and the condition for construction for construction of the drainage system will take care of the drainage improvements requirements; also Govt. Code § 66427.5 preempts the code requirement) STAFF RESPONSE This Code Requirement shall not be waived since Section 14.48.060, "Applicability," of the City's Municipal Code, Chapter (14.48 "Drainage"), shall apply to all subdivisions of land and the development of all land within the drainage area unless the fees were previously paid by prior development. The subject application is for approval of a Tentative Tract Map which is defined as a "Subdivision" by the California Subdivision Map Act. Additionally, no evidence has been presented by the Applicant to the City nor do City records indicate that the required drainage fee has been previously paid by prior development on this site. However, as stated in the project's Code Requirement 9 (pg. 356), Public Works will accept construction of the onsite master planned storm drain facilities, by the applicant, in lieu of payment of the $572,175 Drainage Fee, which is allowed by Section 14.48.030 of the City's Municipal Code. 3. PROPOSAL Clarify that compliance with the Fire Department Code Requirements is per HCD standards by inserting the words "in accordance with HCD standards" after the words "flow test" in Code Requirement La. and after the words "HBFC Section 508.1" in Code Requirement Lb. STAFF RESPONSE Upon further review, staff supports modifying this Code Requirement to include the language as proposed. Revised Code Requirement: 1. HBFC Section 508.1 Required water supply - Fire hydrants and water supply systems. This Fire Code regulation is based upon requirements set forth in Title 25 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 2, Subchapter I. Article 6-Fire Protection Standards for Parks (this can be found at www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/mp/mpRe sJ html ). a. Documentation of a current flow test in accordance with HCD standards and in compliance with HBFC Section 508.1 Required water supply 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 HBFC Section 508.1 in accordance with HCD standards shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department by a licensed C-16 contractor or licensed Fire Protection Engineer. 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Hart, King & Coldren proposal dated and received May 12, 2010 SH:HF:EE:JD xc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works Tony Olmos, City Engineer Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner Jan Richards, Administrative Assistant 4 K,,!:em HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com May 12, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112t4848-3003-3670v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714) 374-1573 Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Park Owner Proposal re Conditions and Code Requirements Dear Mr. Hopkins: This letter follows up on our meeting of April 29, 2010 with the Mayor and two City Council Members and City Staff. We appreciate the willingness of the City to work with the Park Owner on this Application. As you recall, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss how we could achieve the City's objectives regarding accepting and undergrounding City water and at the same time limiting the Park Owner's costs for the drainage improvements. The City refused to accept a cost cap, but agreed to work with the Park Owner to establish mutually agreeable criteria that would circumscribe the Park Owner's voluntary commitment to construct the improvements as a condition for approval of the Map. I say "voluntary" because in my opinion the City cannot lawfully impose such a condition. The Park Owner's proposal is as follows: 1. Revise Condition of Approval 2 to contain solely the following language, eliminating all other language: "The applicant shall extend via underground the existing 15" (HDPE) storm drain pipe now surfacing in the Park below Frankfort Ave. and Shorecliff Dr. through the subject site to the existing city drain inlet at the southeast corner of subject site. The applicant shall submit a hydraulic analysis for the current storm drain terminus which will analyze a 25 year storm event. Any improvements required by the aforementioned analysis shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works." 2. Delete the following from the Code Requirements (Explanation in Parentheses) A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkolaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 ATTACHMENT NO. k i HI - k HAPT. k.I1JD .S: COLEDPE14 Travis Hopkins City of Hungtington Beach May 12, 2010 Page 2 a. The City Attorney approval language in Planning Code Requirement 1.a. (Approval of CC&Rs is subject to Department of Real Estate not City Attorney approval) b. Public,Works Pre Final Map Submittal Code Requirement 2 (The Regional Board Order does not apply because the Map is not a development or significant redevelopment; also, Govt. Code § 66427.5 preempts the condition, which is not a code requirement) C. Public Works Pre Final Map Recordation Code Requirement 9 (The Park existed prior to the drainage fee ordinance, and the condition for construction of the drainage system will take care of the drainage improvements requirements; also Govt. Code § 66427.5 preempts the code requirement) 3. Clarify that compliance with the Fire Department Code Requirements is per HCD standards by inserting the words "in accordance with HCD standards" after the words "flow test" in Code Requirement 1.a. and after the words "HBFC Section 508.1" in Code Requirement 1.b.. As stated in prior correspondence, the City's Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements are preempted by several express provisions of State Law, including but not limited to Government Code Section 66427.5 (e) and Health and Safety Code Section 18300 (a). Therefore, the Park Owner's proposal is intended to be a compromise to resolve the Appeal. In summary, if these proposed three changes to the Planning Commission decision are adopted by the City Council, we will not initiate any further legal action on the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements, and we will dismiss our pending lawsuit when the statute of limitations for the Map has run without any challenge. Please advise by close of business May 13, 2010 if the City will accept this proposal. The Park Owner reserves all of its rights regarding the Appeal if this compromise proposal is not accepted. Again, thank you for your cooperation in these matters. Respectfully submitted, HART, KING & COLDREN R S r a�Ap icants/App nts RS BLH/dr cc: Mayor and City Council via City Clerk (by e-mail only) 36014.11214848-3003-3670v_i ATTACHMENT NO. . C H;!'RT. Y!14 cD LID REN Travis Hopkins City of Hungtington Beach May 12, 2010 Page 3 Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner (by e-mail only) Fred Wilson, City Administrator (by e-mail only) Scott Hess, Director of Planning (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Supervisor (by e-mail only) Tony Olmos, City Engineer (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer (by e-mail only) 36014.112/4848-3003-3670v.1 ATTACHMENT NO. .3 Council/Agency Meeting Held:_ Deferred Continu d: 6111/A010 App oved ❑ on ition II Ap roved ❑ Denied le s Sig tune o /too Council Meeting Date: May 3, 2010 Department ID Number: PL 10-013 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Administrator PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and Deny Appeal of Code Requirements (Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval - Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Subdivision) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Robert S. Coldren of Hart, King & Coldren, of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (ATTACHMENT NO. 3). The request is to subdivide an existing for-rent mobilehome park (Huntington Shorecliffs - 20701 Beach Blvd.) into 304 spaces for ownership purposes. In addition, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial of their appeal to Staff identified code requirements. Planning Commission's Recommendation is to approve the Tentative Tract Map with conditions of approval (which exclude Beach Blvd. improvements) and deny the appeal of identified code requirements. Staff's Recommendation is to approve with revised conditions of approval (which include Beach Blvd. improvements) and deny the appeal of identified code requirements. The appellant is requesting approval without certain conditions of approval and code requirements because they assert they are not permitted by State law (Alternative Action No. 1). Financial Impact: Not Applicable. Planning Commission Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1), and deny the appeal of identified code requirements. Planninq Commission Action on March 9, 2010: A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: -683- Item 8. - wage 'I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/3/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 10-013 AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Shier Burnett, Scandura, L<ivengood; Delgleize., , NOES: Farley ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY SHIER BURNETT, TO DENY THE APPEAL OF IDENTIFED CODE REQUIREMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Staff Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 2), and deny the appeal of identified code requirements. Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions(s): 1. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with modified findings and modified conditions of approval and the appeal of identified code requirements (Applicant's Request - Appeal)." 2. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and direct staff accordingly." 3. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial." Stem 60 - Page 2 -684- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/3/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 10-013 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant / Appellant: Robert S. Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Property Owner: Shorecliff LP; Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E. Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. — Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park) Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 represents a request for the following: A. To subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres (37.06 net) into 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park for ownership purposes. B. The applicant also filed an appeal of the Code Requirements identified by Staff applicable to the project pursuant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant proposes to subdivide the "for rent" park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). Also, 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. 8). Subdivision of the park for proposes of converting it from for-rent to ownership is regulated by provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), Title 25, Subdivisions. B. BACKGROUND Past Actions: A subdivision application to convert the mobilehome park from 304 for-rent spaces to 309 lots for ownership purposes was denied with findings by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2009 based on insufficient information that would substantiate compliance with the SMA and HBZSO (ATTACHMENT NO. 11). The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. On November 16, 2009, City Council also denied the proposed subdivision based on findings and the facts that the subdivision will result in an increase in the number of lots, lacking compliance with the common open space requirements, insufficient impact report, and lack of evidence that the survey of support was prepared in agreement with a homeowners association independent of the property owner -685- Item 8. - Page 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/3/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 10-013 (ATTACHMENT NO. 12). Subsequently, the applicant filed for a petition for writ of mandate in Orange County Superior Court challenging the action taken by the City in denying the subdivision. On January 12, 2010, the applicant submitted this revised Tentative Tract Map depicting 304 proposed lots. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission approved the applicant's request at a public hearing on March 9, 2010, with findings and modified conditions of approval; and denied the appeal of identified code requirements (ATTACHMENT NO. 10). The Planning Commission's modification included deletion of staff's suggested conditions of approval relating to Beach Boulevard improvements. Written comments were received at the hearing from the applicant and several from residents; the applicant, applicant's representatives, and two residents gave verbal testimony in support of the project, and seven residents of the mobile home park spoke in opposition. Testimony in support focused on State law regulating the processing of mobile home park subdivisions and that the City could not place any requirements on Tentative Map approval outside of Government Code § 66427.5. Most notably, applicant asserts that any conditions regarding health and safety imposed by the City are preempted by State law. Testimony in opposition centered on two main issues: that cost of improvements would be passed on to the residents and that there are numerous unresolved maintenance issues within the mobile home park. (ATTACHMENT NO. 7) D. APPEAL: On March 19, 2010, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (ATTACHMENT NO. 3). The appeal letter states that certain findings for approval, conditions of approval, and identified code requirements are unlawful and have no nexus to the proposed subdivision. E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff does not support the applicant's contentions that the proposed conditions and code requirements, not specifically preempted by State law, are unlawful (ATTACHMENT NO. 9). The suggested findings for approval, conditions of approval, and identified code requirements provide the basis for a recommendation of approval by ensuring that public health and safety is maintained. Applicable standards excerpted from the HBZSO and Municipal Code are required following map approval and prior to recordation of a final map and independent of State law. Staff does not believe the findings for approval, conditions of approval, and identified code requirements are unlawful or preempted by State law as offered by the appellant and as such, recommend that the City Council deny the appeal. The proposed subdivision changes the Huntington Shorecliff's Mobilehome Park from a rental park to a resident ownership park and the applicant has complied with the minimum Item S. - Page 4 -686- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/3/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 10-013 submittal requirements pursuant to State law for converting from for-rent to ownership. In addition, the proposed subdivision complies with the applicable minimum development standards per Chapter 210.04 and 210.14 of the HBZSO. The Planning Commission approved the request to subdivide with modified conditions of approval (eliminating conditions related to Beach Blvd. frontage improvements). Staff continues to support a recommendation to include suggested conditions of approval that requires Beach Boulevard frontage improvements to ensure public safety is maintained. A complete analysis of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 along with recommended findings for approval is provided in the Planning Commission staff report dated March 9, 2010 (ATTACHMENT NO. 6). F. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and denial of the appeal of identified Code Requirements based on suggested findings and conditions of approval in Attachment No. 1 and on the following: - The subdivision with the conditions identified herein is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance including compliance with public health and safety requirements. - Impacts to residents associated with purchasing and non-purchasing lots, maintenance and repair of infrastructure, estimated sales price of the lots, and other costs are adequately analyzed in the impact of conversion upon residents report satisfying Government Code § 66427.5. - Evidence that the tenant survey was prepared in agreement with the homeowners association was provided satisfying Government Code § 66427.5. 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. Strategic Plan Goal: Maintain and enhance public safety. The proposed subdivision will assist in resolving existing public health and safety issues related to failing infrastructure. The subdivision will allow for additional housing opportunities and enhance the quality of life for residents within the community. -687- Item 8. - Page 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/3/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 10-013 Attachrnent(s): • Descrip, ion 1. Suggested Findings & Conditions for Approval — Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (Planning Commission Recommendation 2. Suggested Findings & Conditions for Approval — Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (Staff Recommendation 3. Appeal Letter from Robert S. Coldren of Hart, King & Coldren, dated March 19, 2010 4. Project Narrative dated and received January 12, 2010 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 received January 12, 2010 6. Planning Commission Staff Report—Tentative Tract Map No. 17296, dated March 9, 2010 7. Draft Minutes of March 9, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting 8. Appeal of Code Requirements dated and received February 19, 2010 9. Government Code Sections 66427.5 & 66428.1 d 10. Planning Commission Notice of Action dated March 10, 2010 — Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 11. Planning Commission Notice of Action dated September 23, 2009 12. Request for Council Action Staff Report dated November 16, 2009 13. PowerPoint Presentation Slides (tern 6. - Page 6 -688- ATTACHMENT # 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: 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. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a mobilehome park where residents can purchase the land where the mobilehome is located is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density — Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. A. Growth Management Element Objective GM 7.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). B. Utilities Element Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to project life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). Attachment 1 A Item 6. - Page 8 -690- C. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Objective LU 15.6: Facilitate the preservation and development of Residential Mobile Home Parks. The City's Master Plan of Drainage recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground pipeline to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline will convey storm water underground to provide relief of the drainage issues. The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non-conforming. The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development; therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent mobilehome park to ownership facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The proposed subdivision converts an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a 304 space ownership mobilehome park at a density of 8.2 units per net acres and is physically suitable for the site. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as the subdivision will provide for the replacement of existing inadequate drainage facilities to address health and safety issues per Subdivision Map Act 66428.1(d). 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. 5. Pursuant to California Government Code 66427.5, the applicant filed an Impact Report dated December 15, 2009 which analyzed the impact of the conversion on residents. In addition, the applicant obtained a Resident Survey of Support which was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and the resident that is independent of the applicant. The Impact Report was provided to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map. The results of the survey were presented Attachment 1.2 -691- Item 60 - Page 9 to the City on March 9, 2010. The survey was considered and it was found that 105 residents opposed the conversion, 25 approved, 52 declined to comment and 124 missing. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing 304 space mobilehome park received and dated January 12, 2010 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required (PW): a. An onsite storm drain shall be designed and constructed 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. 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. (ZSO 255.04A) (PW) b. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. (PW) 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 § 66427.5) (PL) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following (PL): 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation) 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 § 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 Attachment 1.3 Item B. - Page 10 -692- conversion (commencing at the time of final map recordation), 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§66427.5) 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required: a. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan (PW): 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)) ii) 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)) iii) 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)) iv) 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)) v) 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)) vi) 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)) b. 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. (PW) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Attachment 1.4 -693- (tern 6. - Page I I ATTACHMENT #2 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: 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. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a mobilehome park where residents can purchase the land where the mobilehome is located is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density — Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. A. Growth Management Element Objective GM 7.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). B. Utilities Element Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to project life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). Attachment No. 2.1 -695- Item 8. - Page 13 C. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Objective LU 15.6: Facilitate the preservation and development of Residential Mobile Home Parks. The City's Master Plan of Drainage recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground pipeline to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline will convey storm water underground to provide relief of the drainage issues. In addition, the Beach Boulevard frontage will be improved to provide safe pedestrian access and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non-conforming. The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development; therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent mobilehome park to ownership facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision. D. Circulation Element Objective CE 6.1: Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to Caltrans and City- wide standards. The Beach Boulevard frontage along the mobilehome park will be improved to provide safe pedestrian access pursuant to SMA 66428.1(d) to address a public health and safety issue. Currently, there is no sidewalk and curb along the frontage and pedestrians are required to either walk within the public right of way or on an unimproved dirt path adjacent to Beach Boulevard. The proposed sidewalk improvements will close a gap in the sidewalk along the west side of Beach Boulevard and allow safe pedestrian movement for the public and residents of the mobilehome park. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The proposed subdivision converts an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a 304 space ownership mobilehome park at a density of 8.2 units per net acres and is physically suitable for the site. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as the subdivision will provide for the replacement of existing inadequate drainage facilities and addition of a pedestrian sidewalk along the Beach Boulevard frontage to address health and safety issues per Subdivision Map Act 66428.1(d). 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. Attachment No. 2.2 Item 8. - Page 14 -696- 5. Pursuant to California Government Code 66427.5, the applicant filed an Impact Report dated December 15, 2009 which analyzed the impact of the conversion on residents. In addition, the applicant obtained a Resident Survey of Support which was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and the resident that is independent of the applicant. The Impact Report was provided to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map. The results of the survey were presented to the City on March 9, 2010. The survey was considered and it was found that 105 residents opposed the conversion, 25 approved, 52 declined to comment and 124 missing. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL —TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing 304 space mobilehome park received and dated January 12, 2010 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required (PW): a. 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. 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. (ZSO 255.04A) (PW) b. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. (PW) 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 § 66427.5) (PL) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following (PL): 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation) 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 § 66427.5) Attachment No. 2.3 -697- Item B. a Page 15 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation), 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 § 66427.5) 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required: a. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan (PW): i) 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)) ii) 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) iii) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) iv) Erosion control measures (via vegetative ground cover) shall be planted along the slope between the newly required sidewalk per Condition of Approval 5.a.ii and the existing block wall along the project's Beach Boulevard frontage. v) 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)) vi) 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)) vii)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)) viii) 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)) ix) 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)) Attachment No. 2.4 Item 8. - Page 16 -698- x) 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)) b. 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. (PW) 6. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architect/Inspector. (PW) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Attachment No. 2.5 -699- Stern 6e - Page 17 ATTACHMENT #3 K& C HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coidren rcoldren@hkciaw.com March 19, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY a Honorable Mayor and City Council ' City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 9264$ c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk -"-� RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") >s Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Appeal of 3-09-10 Planning Commission Action Finding re and Imposition of Preempted Conditions and Code Requirements for Approval of Application Dear City Council Members: This letter constitutes the Park Owner Applicant's Appeal of the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission "actions": (1) requiring General Plan consistency in its "Finding for Approval" number 1; (2) imposing "Conditions of Approval" numbers 2-5; (3) denying the appeal of the Planning and Building Department Director's decision to apply City Code Requirements set forth in the enclosed City letter dated March 3, 2010. A copy of the City's March 10, 2010 "Notice of Action" is enclosed herewith. 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. In good faith, the Applicant has and continues to be willing to meet with City Staff to negotiate a resolution of the Conditions and Code Requirements so long as they do not dramatically increase the cost, cause any delay in accomplishing this subdivision, or invest the City or staff with discretion or judgment which could impede, defeat or delay the recordation of the final Map. For example, phrases such as "to the satisfaction of Public Works Department" is too vague and ambiguous, and while existing staff may appreciate the spirit of compromise and collaboration which would lead to a successful subdivision, any such assurance does not exist respecting future staff interpretation. The Appellant wants to continue to provide safe and excellent mobilehome park living environment, and looks forward to continuing to work to maintain and improve it with the City for the benefit of the City and our park residents. At the Planning Commission hearing the Applicant expressed a willingness to spend money to improve the drainage situation in the park. 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 -701- Item 8. - Page 19 HK& C HART, KINO & COLOREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 2 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, Robert S. Coldren of 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 the January 12, 2010 letter accompanying the Application, the letter dated February 19, 2010 appealing the City's Code Requirements to the Planning Commission, a letter dated March 3, 2010 directed to the Planning Commission responding to Commissioner Study Session comments, and a letter dated March 8, 2010 containing the Applicant's proposed compromise position regarding proposed City Conditions and Code Requirements. These letters constitute part of the administrative record before the Planning Commission and are already before the City Council and therefore are being enclosed with this Appeal for your convenience. In addition, the Applicant requests that City Staff include the entire administrative record for the appeal of the prior application for Tentative Map No. 17296, which appeal was before the City on November 16, 2009. 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 January 12, 2008 letter accompanying the Application explains, the Application for subdivision is to enable the conversion of the existing Huntington Shorecliffs rental mobilehome park to resident ownership. 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: 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 Item 00 - Page 20 -702- HART, KING & GOLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 3 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 day is long past. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal_App.4th 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] 36614.11214821-4532-3269v.1 -703- Item 8. - Page 21 HK&C HART, KING & C0LDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 4 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.App.4th 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.App.4th at 1296) 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 36014.1 1 214 82 1-4 5 32-32 69v.9 Item 8. - Page 22 -704- H a K&C HART KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 5 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) 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: 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 -705- Item 8. - Page 23 H K,&s. - C HART. KING & C©LOREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 6 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 .._.[JJ] ... [%] 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 Cai.App.4th at 1294) Based on the foregoing legal analysis, it is clear that the Planning Commission imposition of General Plan requirements in its "Finding for Approval" number 1, imposition of "Conditions of Approval numbers 2-5 and imposition of Code Requirements are preempted and therefore unlawful and invalid under the holding of Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma. The remainder of the this Appeal letter will address each matter on appeal. FINDING FOR APPROVAL NO. 1 UNLAWFULLY REQUIRES GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Appellant does not appeal the finding of consistency itself inasmuch as Appellant (a) agrees the project is consistent, and (b) contends that the finding is in consequential surplusage for the reasons discussed herein. Applicant does take issue with the Commission's implied finding that such an express finding is required as a predicate to approval of the project. Insofar as this condition implicates any of the substantive conditions appealed from, Applicant does appeal from this finding and thus request either (a) that the finding be revised to state merely that "the project is consistent with the general plan_ . .", or (b) that the finding be deleted. Finding for Approval No. 1 unlawfully discusses and incorporates requirements for general plan consistency for approval of the Application. As the above citations demonstrate, Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma made clear that general plan and zoning consistency finding requirements cannot lawfully be imposed for approval of a subdivision that is for conversion of an existing mobilehome park to resident ownership. (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1294) Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, only HCD has the authority to impose health and safety requirements for drainage infrastructure within the Park. "[T]he department shall adopt regulations to govern the construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance of parks and lots within the parks. The regulations adopted by the department shall establish standards and 36014.11214821-4532-3269v.1 Item 8. - Page 24 -706- HART, KING & COLpREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 7 requirements which protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of parks." (Health & Safety Code, § 18610) The regulations adopted by HCD under that Act clearly pertain to drainage infrastructure within mobilehome parks: "The park area and park roadways shall be so graded that there will be no depressions in which surface water will accumulate and remain for a period of time that would constitute a health and safety violation as determined by the enforcement agency. The ground shall be sloped to provide storm drainage run-off by means of surface or subsurface drainage facility." (25 Cal. Code Regs., § 1116 (a)) "To provide for unanticipated water entering the area beneath a unit, accessory building or structure, of building component, that area shall be sloped to provide for drainage to an approved outside drainage way. Other positive passive drainage methods may be approved by the department as an alternate, in accordance with section 1016 of this chapter." (25 Cal. Code Regs. 1116 (c)) "Drainage from a lot, site, roadway or park area shall be directed to a surface or subsurface drainage way and shall not drain onto an adjacent lot, or site." (25 Cal. Code Regs., § 1116 (d)) 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 to the infrastructure within existing mobilehome parks in connection with conversion to resident ownership: For example, local ordinances which impose inspection, lot standards, or infrastructure requirements within a mobilehome park at the time of home installation, conversion, or sale generally are expressly and/or impliedly preempted by the MPA ...." (April 21, 2008 HCD Information Bulletin 2008 — 10 (MP), page 1 [underline added]) Therefore, the Planning Commission's "Finding of Approval" number 1 which pertains to mobilehome park consistency with General Plan requirements for Park drainage infrastructure and for off-site sidewalk and curb and gutter is unlawful and must be overturned by the City Council. Both Government Code Section 66427.5 and Health and Safety Code Section 18300 (a) preempt that finding requiring consistency with the City's General Plan for approval of the Application for subdivision to convert to resident ownership. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2-5 UNLAWFULLY EXCEED THE 36014.11 2/4821-4532-3269v-1 -7 07- item 8. a Page 25 FiK& C HART. KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 8 PREEMPTIVE LIMITATIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66427.5 As explained above, the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma clearly held that the City cannot impose conditions in addition to those imposed by Government Code Section- 66427.5, nor can it even impose the requirements of Section 66427.5 in a duplicate fashion. Planning Conditions 3 and 4. These conditions duplicate or attempt to duplicate the preemptive provisions already imposed by State law under Government Code Section 66427.5 and are therefore unlawfully imposed by the City. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1298) In addition, Condition 4 unlawfully imposes the rent control provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) at the time of final map recordation rather than at the actual time of conversion to resident ownership (i.e., sale of first lot) (See El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1178-1179 [conversion occurs upon the sale of the first lot]) Public Works Conditions 2 and 5. As discussed above, mobilehome park conversion pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 does not provide the opportunity for the City to impose Park infrastructure requirements, outside the park exactions, or requirements for investigation. City regulation of Park water and sewer service is expressly preempted by the Mobilehome Parks Act and HCD regulation. (See 25 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 1240-1284) The Planning Commission apparently relies on Government Code Section 66428.1 for its authority to impose Public Works Conditions 2 and 5. There are at least three reasons why the City cannot rely on the "health and safety" provision of Section 66428.1 to impose those conditions and requirements. First, this Application is pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5, which does not allow for City imposition of additional requirements. As the Court of Appeal recently stated: "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 1299) Government Code Section 66428.1 only applies to conversions initiated by two-thirds of the park residents. This Application is initiated by the Park Owners pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5. Therefore, Section 66428.1 does not apply. Second, the Court of Appeal recently rejected imposition of health and safety requirements for a mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership under Government Section 66427.5. As the Court of Appeal stated: "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 36014.11214821-4532-3269v.9 Item Sm - Page 26 -708- HK&,C HART. KING & CCL DREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 9 requirements imposed by section 66427.5, ... (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety; ... 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) The Court of Appeal rejection of local agency health and safety requirements for mobilehome conversion in Sequoia is appropriate given that the Mobilehome Parks Act was expressly enacted to ensure mobilehome park health and safety. (Health & Safety Code, §§ 18250- 18254) Therefore, City jurisdiction over health and safety matters has been preempted by the Mobilehome Parks Act. Third, assuming, arguendo, that the "health and safety" language of Government Code Section 66428.1 were applicable, Section 66428.1 limits its application to "significant" health and safety conditions relating to Park "design or improvements." In this situation, the health and safety concerns raised by the City are related to: (i) a drain pipe constructed and maintained by the City on City property that opens up onto the Park property and sends water along the park streets, (ii) a CalTrans drainage ditch constructed and maintained by CalTrans on CalTrans property that causes percolation onto the Park property, and (iii) sidewalks and curbs and gutters maintained by the City outside of Park property. Government Code Section 66428.1 was never intended to cause park owners to fix health and safety issues created by public agencies or non-park facilities outside of their parks. The City should not treat the Application as a means to force the Park Owners to solve these City and CalTrans "problems." Additionally, there is no constitutional nexus between the improvements required by Conditions 2 and 5 and the Application. (See Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825) The Application does not seek increased use or construction of new improvements, but merely to map existing HCD approved "lots." There is no new development that will cause new or different impacts to City services or adjoining property. Thus, the City cannot demonstrate any connection between the exactions (requirements for drainage facilities, sewer facilities, sidewalk and curb and gutter) and the Application for a tentative map for mere conversion to resident ownership. Finally, the City cannot rely upon U.S. NPDES regulations to "trump" State preemption of mobilehome park regulation with respect to the conditions imposed. The City has no authority under the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2009-0030 to impose requirements for a Water Quality Management Plan because the Application does not contemplate "new development" or "redevelopment" under that Order that would trigger any requirement for such a Plan. Further, that Order does not impose any requirement on the City to condition map approval on such a Plan_ 36014.11214821-4532-3269v.1 -709- item 8e - Page 27 HKS-,-,C HART, K}N13 & COLOPEN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 10 Indeed, there is insufficient nexus between any of the conditions and the project, since (a) approval of the project is a largely "ministerial" act, (b) nothing will change physically, (c) there is no burden imposed on the community or the City as a result of the project, (d) it is not a "project", and (e) the determinations of the Planning Commission insofar as it determines that at least certain of the conditions were unwarranted given the "burden-benefit" analysis are accurate. CODE REQUIREMENTS UNLAWFULLY EXCEED THE PREEMPTIVE LIMITATIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66427.5 All of the same above arguments pertaining to Subdivision Map Act and Mobilehome Parks Act preemption of City Conditions apply with equal force to the City Code Requirements that the Planning Commission upheld by means of denial of the Applicant's appeal of those Code Requirements. Indeed, ironically, while the Notice of Action reports denial of the Applicant's appeal of those Code Requirements, "Finding of Approval" number 1 attached to the Notice of Action expressly acknowledges the non-applicability of the Code Requirements that the Notice of Action states are applicable: "The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Resident Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non-conforming. The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development, therefore, the non-conforming_development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision." As indicated in the Applicant's February 19, 2010 and March 8, 2010 correspondence, the Applicant is not objecting to non-preempted code conditions, but instead is objecting to: Planning Department Code Condition 1.a. pertaining to Planning Department Review of CC&Rs (preempted); Public Works Pre-final Map Submittal Code Conditions 1 and 2 pertaining to hydrology report and water quality management plan (preempted); Public Works Pre-final Map recordation Code Conditions 7-10 (preempted and no nexus), and requests modification of Fire Department Code Conditions 1.a. and 1.b. to require hydrant and system testing to the same standard that would be required by HCD (preemption) 36014.11214821-4532-3269v.1 Item 8. - Page 28 -710- HK&C MART, Kt-JL3 & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 11 CONCLUSION AND REQUEST In conclusion, certain Planning Commission Findings, Conditions and Code Conditions are unlawful and have no nexus to the Application. Therefore, the City Council is respectfully requested to approve the Application, without Finding No. 1, without Conditions 2-5, and without those Code Requirements specified in the preceding paragraph. Respectfully submitted, HART, KING & OLDREN Robert S. C r for Applica is/Appellants RSC/BLH/dr Enclosures: March 10, 2010 Notice of Action Letter $2,704 Appeal Fee January 12, 2010 Application letter February 19, 2010 Code Requirements Appeal letter March 3, 2010 letter re Commissioner comments March 3, 2010 Code Requirements letter March 8, 2010 letter re Conditions and Code Requirements April 21, 2008 HCD letter cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Ethan Edwards, Associate 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) Herb Fauland, Planning Supervisor (by e-mail only, without enclosures) 36014.11214821-4532-3269v.1 -711- item 8. - Page 29 HK&C HART, KING & GOLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach March 19, 2010 Page 12 bcc John Saunders (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Michael Cirillo (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Burt Mazelow (by e-mail only, without enclosures) 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 Item g. - Page 30 -712- 8 • ■ f �-� Huntington Beach Planning Commission 9 g 0 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 7 NOTICE OF ACTION March 10, 2010 Robert Coldren Hart, King &Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVETRACT.MAP NO. 17296(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION—FOR RENT TO OWNERSHIP & APPEAL OF CODE REQUIREMENTS) APPLICANT: Robert Coldren, Hart, King &Coldren APPELLANT: Shorecliff LP; JS Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 REQUEST: To subdivide the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, approximately 39.2 acres, into 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park for ownership purposes. The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park.to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. The project also includes PROPERTY an appeal filed by the applicant of the applicable code requirements. OWNER: Shorecliff LP; Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E. Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 LOCATION: 20701 Beach Boulevard, 92648 (west side of Beach Boulevard, south of Indianapolis Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: March 9, 2010 On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was conditionally approved. In addition, the appeal of the Planning and Building Department Director's decision of applicable Code Requirements was denied. Attached to this letter are the findings and conditions of approval. Please be advised that the Planning Commission reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for and there may be additional requirements prior to commencement of the project. It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the conditions of approval and address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Phone 714-536 5271 Fax 71-713 1540 wv item 8. - Page 31 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: 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_ FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a mobilehome park where residents can purchase the land where the mobilehome is located is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density — Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property, or any applicable spec plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. A. Gfowth MaMement Element Objective GM 7.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). 3. Utifities Element Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to project life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System _ and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). G1PC1NOA1201W-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shoreciifts Attachment]_1 Item S. - Page 32 -714- C. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined .in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Objective LU 15.6: Facilitate the preservation and development of Residential Mobile Home Parks. The City's Master Plan of Drainage recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground pipeline to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline will convey storm water underground to provide relief of the drainage issues. The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non-conforming. The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development; therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent mobilehome park to ownership facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development The proposed subdivision converts an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a 304 space ownership mobilehome park at a density of 8.2 units per net acres and is physically suitable for the site. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as the subdivision will provide for the replacement of existing inadequate drainage facilities to address health and safety issues per Subdivision Map Act 66428.1(d). 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. 5. Pursuant to California Government Code 66427.5. the applicant filed an Impact Report dated December 15, 2009 which analyzed the impact of the conversion on residents. In addition, the applicant obtained a Resident Survey of Support which was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and the resident that is independent of the applicant. The Impact Report was provided to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map. The results of the survey were presented G.1PCINOAi20 1 013-9-201 0 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.2 -715- Item B. - Page 33 to the City on March 9, 2010. The survey was considered and it was found that 105 residents opposed the conversion, 25 approved, 52 declined to comment and 124 missing. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing 304 space mobilehome park received and dated January 12, 2010 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department.for processing and approval, the following shall be required(PW)* a. An onsite storm drain shall be designed and constructed 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. 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. (ZSO 255.04A) (PW) b. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. (PW) 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§ .66427.5)(PL) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following (PL): 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation) 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§ 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 G_\PC\NOA\2010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorediffs Attachment 1.3 Item 8. - Page 34 -716- J conversion.(commencing at the time of final map recordation), 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'§66427.5) 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map,the following shall be required: a. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan (PW): 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)) ii) An ADA compliant access ramp shall 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)) iii) 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)) iv) 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)) v) 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)) vi) The existing 8-inch baddlow 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)) b_ 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. (PW) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. G--1PC\NOA\2010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.4 -717- Item S. - Page 35 HK& HART, KING & COLDREN Boyd L Hil bhill@hkciaw.com January 12, 2010 Our File Number 36014.11214826-6788-7621v.1 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Hand Delivered Ethan Edwards, City Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17926 Dear Mr. Edwards: Please find enclosed the Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map 17926 ("Application") for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park located at 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 CShorecliffs"). The Application is the first step in the conversion of Shorecliffs from a rental to a resident-owned mobilehome park. The Application is to create numbered residential lots corresponding to the existing 304 Shorecliffs rental spaces currently permitted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") and lettered lots corresponding to each non-contiguous portion of the existing common areas. The Application is submitted pursuant to California Government Code Section 66427.5, which expressly preempts local agency requirements for subdivision of existing mobilehome parks to enable conversion to resident ownership. Section 66427.5 prevents physical displacement of residents by requiring that residents have the option to purchase the lot created from their existing space or to continue leasing that space. Section 66427.5 prevents economic displacement of residents by placing limits on post-conversion rent increases, especially for low income residents. As a simple subdivision to enable conversion to resident ownership under Government Code Section 66427.5, the Application does not involve any "physical change" or "change in use" of Shorecliffs. Instead, the subdivision simply creates legally recordable property boundaries out of the existing configuration of HCD approved rental spaces and common areas. Therefore, Section 66427.5 eliminates many of the requirements that would exist for a subdivision of raw land or for a subdivision to enable a new use of an existing development, such as requirements for environmental review, soils and engineering studies, dedications and exactions, etc. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5, all that must accompany the Application is the Tentative Tract Map, the applicable fee, a resident survey, and a conversion impact A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714,432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com j Fx 714.546.7457 Item 8. - Page 36 .716- Bin a r.—. .i a r*%,.,cxc HART, KING & COLDREN Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 2 report, which conversion impact report must provide notice to residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing (the option is loosely labeled in Section 66427.5 (a) as an "offer). (See El Dorado Palm Springs Associates v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1180) Therefore, the enclosed Application includes the following attachments, some of which are enclosed with this letter, others of which are currently on file with the City or will be subsequently filed with the City: 1. Mao. Eleven copies of Tentative Tract Map No. 17926, the September 8, 2009 version which shows 304 spaces, which were previously submitted to the City with our prior application. As per our telephone conversations, the City still retains those copies of that version of the Map in its file, and the City will treat those Map copies as part of this new Application. 2. Fee. The filing fee in the amount of$10,500 is enclosed. As we discussed, the City previously reviewed the individual lots in connection with the prior application and has agreed to waive the per lot fee of $30 for each of the 304 residential lots under this new Application. 3. Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents. A copy of the December 15, 2009 Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents is .enclosed, plus an Affidavit of Mike Cirillo attesting to the mailing of copies of the Report to the Residents on December 15, 2009. As the Report explains, the California Legislature only requires that the Report discuss the potential for economic displacement upon those residents who will continue to rent their spaces upon conversion, and does not require any discussion pertaining to economic impacts upon those residents who will purchase lots. 4. Resident Survey Results. Shorecliffs entered into an agreement with the homeowner's association to conduct a survey of resident support for the conversion. A copy of that agreement is enclosed. According to that agreement, the homeowner's association was to have conducted the survey by the.end of the year 2009 and was to have provided the City with the results, but the association has not done yet done so. The homeowner's association now states that it will provide the survey results to the City by mid-January. Per our conversation, the City will begin processing the Application without the survey results, but will not issue notice of completion until receipt of the survey results. It is important to note that the Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) survey requirement only pertains to whether the conversion is a "sham"to avoid local rent control, and the City has no rent control. 5. Data and Reports. As explained above, Government Code Section 66427.5 preempts any additional City requirements for data and reports beyond those required by Section 66427.5. Therefore, most of the data and reports listed in Paragraph 5 of the Application are not applicable, as explained below: 36014.112/4826-6788-7621v.1 -719- Item 8m - Page 37 HART. KiNG & COLOREN Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 3 5(a) Environmental Assessment Form. Conversion of a rental mobile home park to residential ownership is exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301 (k) (existing facilities-division of existing single family residences into common interest ownership where no physical changes -occur); for the same reasons as the express statutory exemption for resident initiated conversions contained in Public Resources Code Section 21080.8. 5(b) Preliminary Title Report. A Preliminary Title Report dated December 21, 2009 is enclosed. 5(c) Preliminary Soils and Engineering Geology Report. There is no "physical change' or "change in use" of Shorecliffs. Therefore, no soils or geology reports is necessary or required under Government Code Section 66427.5. 5(d) Public Notification Requirements. Public notification materials are enclosed. 5(e) Photographs of the Subject Property. Photographs of Shorecliffs are enclosed. 5(f) Written Narrative: (1) Existing Use of the Property and Present Zoning. Shorecliffs is situated on a single parcel (APN 0247250-72) consisting of approximately 39 acres and operated as a mobile home park permitted for 304 mobile home spaces. Shorecliffs is currently zoned RMP. The General Plan Designation is RMH-25. Shorecliffs 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. Shorecliffs is improved with 2 clubhouses and pools, office, conference center, and laundry facilities. There is an RV storage lot on Shorecliffs property. (2) Proposed Use of the Property. There is no proposed "physical change" or "change in the use" of Shorecliffs. The proposed use of the Shorecliffs is to maintain the existing use as a mobile home park. 36414.112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 Item 8. - Page 38 -720- HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 4 (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, a Shorecliffs Homeowners Association will be formed customary covenants, conditions and restrictions utilized in planned mobile home communities will be prepared and submitted to the California Department of Real Estate for review and approval. 5(g) Coastal Development Permit Application. Shorecliffs is not within the Coastal Zone and no permits are required. The enclosed materials should provide the City with a complete Application once the survey results are submitted (assuming the homeowner's association complies with its agreement). As we discussed, please promptly advise whether the Application is complete and begin processing the Application with the Subdivision Committee so that we may hold the Subdivision Committee meeting and have Planning Commission Study Session and Hearing during the month of February. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Best Regards, HART, KING & COLD EN Soyd L. Hill d,.W cc: John Saunders Michael Cirillo Robert S. Coldren Burt Mazelow 360 14-112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 -721 m Item 8. a Page 39 HART. KING & CCtt_DREN Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 5 Enclosures: Subdivision Application [Tentative Tract Map dated September 8, 2009 previously provided] Application Fee Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents Affidavit of Mike Cirillo re mailing of Report Preliminary Title Report dated December 21, 2009 Public Notification Materials Photographs 36014.i 12/4826-6788-7621 v.1 Item B. e Page 40 -722- FILE UUPT HART, KtNG & CQLDREN Boyd L.Hiii bhili@hkctaw.com February 19, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112I4848-8137-8053v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission 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 Horne Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") ARPeal of Protect Impiernentation Code Requirements and Suggested Conditions Dear Commissioners: This letter constitutes and sets forth the basis for the appeal by the Park Owners, of the February 9, 2010 purported "Planning Director decision" applying project implementation code requirements for the Park subdivision. 2 A copy of the purported "Planning Director decision' letter is enclosed herewith. The purported '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 checklist 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 February 9, 2010 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 a February 9, 2010 letter from the .Planning--Department-A--copy of-the-"Suggested--Conditions-of-Approval"-letter-is--also--enclosed- herewit. ' Shorecliff LP,JS Stadium,LLC,Huntington BSC Park,LP, Shorecliff Main, LP Z Attached to this letter is a$494 check, which duplicates the amount the Park owners previously submitted for a determination of similar code requirements,which the Planning Commission previously refused to consider. Therefore,Park Owners request that this second 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 714.546.7457 -723- item 8. - Page 41 "K P"' C d-K HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 2 We respectfully request that the Planning Director 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) 176 Cal.AppAth 1270, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. In Sequoia Park Associates, the California Court of Appeal held that State law pertaining to mobilehome parks, particularly the Subdivision Map Act (Govt. Code, § 66427-5 (e)) and the Mobilehome Parks Act (Health & Safety Code, § 18200 et seq.), 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. [underline added] 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 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1297) 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: 36014.112l4848-8137-8053v.1 Item go - Page 42 -724- HART, KING & COLDREM Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 3 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1299) 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1288- 1292) 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. 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1299) 36014.11214848-8137-8053v.1 -725- Item 8. - Page 43 HK&C H , N Planning Commission City-of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 4 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1275) 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1279) 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) 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) "I[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 36014.11214848-8137-8053v_1 Item 6. a Page 44 -726- HART, KING & r-OLLIREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 5 within the parks." (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse, supra, 127 Cal.AppAth 1483, 1493) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1282) 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 which the HCD could make loans to low-income residents and resident organizations to facilitate conversions. (Scats. 1984, ch. 1692, § 2, adding Health & Saf. Code, §§ 50780-50786.) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1292-1293) 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 been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1295) 36014,112J4848-8137-8053v.1 -727- Item 8m - Page 45 K&C HART, KING & CCII_DREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 6 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 subfect 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1298) 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1299-1300) 36014.11214848-8137-8453v.1 Item 6e - Page 46 -728- HHK&,C EN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 7 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 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 amich "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." 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1294-1296) Conversion Impact Reports are Necessarily Limited in Scope The conversion impact report need only discuss the impacts of conversion on those residents who will continue leasing their spaces. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5) 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 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 -729- Item 8. a Page 47 HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 8 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.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.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.AppAth 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 February 9, 2010 conditions letter from the Planning Department and 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 Item 8. o Page 48 -730m _ HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 9 object to and appeal (as may be necessary) the Planning Director decision to impose all of the municipal code requirements set forth in the February 9, 2010 code requirements 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 February 9, 2010 code requirements letter. The Park Owners appeal the imposition of all other municipal code requirements, as set forth in the February 9, 2010 letter. The Park Owners also reject and object to the Planning Department and Public Works Department conditions of their 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. The Park Owners look forward to moving ahead expeditiously with conversion of the Park. Best Regards, HART, KING & COLPR N Boyd ill BLH/dr Enclosure: Check No. 3085 for$494 February 9, 2010 Conditions Letter February 9, 2010 Code Requirements Letter Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma case CC" Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Mike Vigliotta, Assistant-City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner (by e-mail only) 36014.11 214848-8137-8053v.1 -731® Item 8. a Page 49 HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 10 bcc John Saunders (by e-mail only) Michael Cirillo (by a-mail only) Burt Mazelow (by e-mail only) 36014.112I4848-8137-BO53v.1 Item 8. a Page 50 -732- REFERENCE NO DESCRIPTION INVOICE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT TAKEN AMOUt4T PAID 021810 2/18/10 494.00 494.00 CHECK DATE CHECK NO PAYEE DISCOUNTS TAKEN CHECK AMOUNT 18/10 3085 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I 94.00 "- - HUNTINGTON=SI-OREC FFS'`' . . . 29� . . .::Nwwf_�at.com TekBaulmc.714b36•Z518 -- SANTAANA,-CA'92703.=5147 171 4}480=6828, . _:.. ':'<.:.':. :.:.,:_:"': . _.:._ : ..".----:: . . . , .'.. : .: •": .;•:- ...;,.,.t;HEGK°NO:._a,•:::.> -.AMO�JNT Memo :.3085 _ Feb 18i=201fl_ $494st?(f AY: FourHundretlluneiy H our.:and-00/100 Dojlars_ o-THE. . � CHTY--OIa`HL7N1'INGTN BEACH ATUR II®OO 4013 Silo -1; 1 2 2 20 1 1981: 12 O 5 30 5 a ICINTING"I"ON SHORECLII=FS 3085 IEFERENCE NO. DESCRIPTION INVOICE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT TAKEN AMOUNT PAID Q 1810 2/18/10 494.00 494.00 CHECK DATE CHECK NO PAYEE DISCOUNTS TAKEN CHECK AMOUNT 18/10 3085 CITY OF 1IUNTINGTON BEACH S494.00 7UCT DL.nA20F+ USE WITH S150D O&EUDPE PRINTED IN U.S.A_ A -733- A Item 8. - Page 51 t �J it untIn -ton Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMEN T OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) 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 requirements, 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 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 248.24A, 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 lice 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 714-536-5561 or at ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Ethan Edwards Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,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 Fauland,Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorecliff,LP,cto Mike Cirillo,Star Management,1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-ilb.org Item 8. - Page 52 -734- �10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING and BUILDING DEPARTMENT HuNTINGTON 8EACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-55611 ethan.edwards@surfc€ty-hb.org PROJECT DtSCRIPTION: 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 January 22, 2010. 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. -735- Item 8. - Page 53 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 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 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. Item 8. - Page 54 -736- Jj " HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT xuNTINcroN HEACn PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PL NG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 /ETHAN.EDWARDS(a-SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-16921 SBOGART(a7SURFCITY-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 existirig site-drainage arid 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: l_ 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 -737- item 8. - Page 55 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 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. 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 ii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type. a 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) &. 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) G.EdwardsTlanning Commission\Shoredifts Aeach 20701 TfM 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 2-2-10.doc Item 8. v Page 56 -738- Page 3 of 4 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'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&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) 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 (I T-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 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$13,880 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$572,175. '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$572,175, 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) G.lEdwardsTlanning CommissionlShorecliffs\Besch 20701 T M 17296(r'A 2010-023)Dcv Req 2-2-10,doc -739- hero 8. - Page 57 Page 4 of 20.All landscape irrigation and planting installation shalt 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 232.040) 2]-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. THE FOLLOVANG DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES: 1. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved Improvement, Strom Drain and Landscape Plans. G_tEdwaTds'Planniag Comrnission\Shorecliffs\Beach 207O 1`1-TM 17296^2010-023)Dcv Req 2-2-10.doc Item 8m ® Page 58 -740- J. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH —�-- FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO.2010-023:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2010-005(17296) PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH: BLVD., HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE I E-MAIL: 714.536.55611 ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb-org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE-MAIL: 714.536.5531 /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 January 22, 2010. 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 entitfement(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 parts 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 I.Article 6-Fire Protection Standards for Parks(this can be found at www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/mplmr)Rggs.htmI). c. Per Title 25 CCR§1308, if 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(314)-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 legally existed prior to September 26,2002 or if the fire 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 Tittle 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 NFPA24, 1977 ATTACHMENT NO. -741- Item 8. a Page 59 Edition, shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department by a licensed C-16 contractor or licensed Fire Protection Engineer. c- Fire Lanes shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#41.5, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings 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 parks 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(1-1/2")brush stroke- i. An inspection is required to confirm the parks 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_ 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 Clear-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) 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. Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department.Administrative Office City Hall—2000 Main Street, 5"'Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.huntingtonbeachca,gov If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at 714.536.5411 SAPreventionkl-oevelopmenni-Planning department-Planning Applications,CUP's12010 CUP'slS ho re cliff Mobile Hoare CUP letter PA#2010-023 02-09-10 DM 09-04-09.rif 2 ATTACHMENT NO. Item 6. - Page 60 -742- .1� City of Huntington Beach • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9264E DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION)— SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Dear Mr. Hill, Please find enclosed suggested conditions of approval for the aforementioned project, received from Public Works and Planning Department for the consideration by the Planning Commission. If you would like a clarification of any of these items or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-536-5561 and/or the Public Works Department representative— Steve Bogart(714-374-1692)- 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. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change- Sincerely, Ethan Edwar s Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike vigliotta, Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Shorecliff,LP,c!o Mike Cirillo,Star Management,1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 ProJect Fite Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfc:ity-hb.org -743- Item B. - Page 611 wo NIP CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L eeo" PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: February 8, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIF> S 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: Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVENT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. The following is a list of suggested conditions of approval deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated January 22,2010_ A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will 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. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department of 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. Item 8. a Page 62 -744® Page 2 of 2 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 standarda,.in-.eW. at_annua} 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) -745- Item 60 - Page 63 i� Ji HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT NUN1nNGTON BEACH SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 1 ETHAN.EDWARDS@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART,SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 71 4-374-1 6 92 1 SBOGARTOSURFGITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. 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. RB-2009-0030) prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance_ The WOMP 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. 3. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. 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, G:1EdwardsWlannino Commission%horccfflMBeach 20701 T IM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.dix Item 8. - Page 64 -746- Page 2 of 3 environmental review and other permission granted by Caltrans 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. The required Improvement Plan for the subject project 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) c. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04,ADA and SMA 66428.1(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) 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 66428A(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 66428.1(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)) h- 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)) 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 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. 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 backnow device to comply with current Water Standards. (Resolution 5921, Title 17 State Regulation, SMA 66411.5(a), and SMA 66428.1(d)) 2 GAEdwudsTlanning Comm issioMShoreclifrs\Beach 20701 TPM 17296 QA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc -747- Item 6e - Page 65 1. 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) 4. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architecttinspector. 3 G.1Edwards\Pianning COmmission\ShorccliM\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-M)Conditions 2-2-i O.doe Item 80 - Page 66 -748- J JA City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9264$ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) —SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Dear Mr. Hill, Please find enclosed suggested conditions of approval for the aforementioned project, received from Public Works and Planning Department for the consideration by the Planning Commission. If you would like a clarification of any of these items or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-536-5561 and/or the Public Works Department representative— Steve Bogart(714-374-1692). 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. Please note that it the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change. Sincerely, Ethan Edwar s Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart.Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Shorecliff,LP,Go Mike Cirillo,Star Management,1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Projdct File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfclty-hb.org -749- Item 8. - Page 67 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANKING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT SUGGESTED.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner TELEPHONEIE-MAIL_: (714) 536-55611 ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. The following is a lit t of suggested conditions of approval deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated January 22, 2010_ A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will 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 mod cations: 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: a.. The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department of 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. Item 8. - Page 68 -750- Page 2 of 2 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) -751- Item B. - Page 69 m41 HUNTINGTON BEACH . PUBLICWORKS DEPARTMENT HUIMNGION BEACH SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 1 ETHAN.EDWARDS .Sam URFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART,SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-16921 SBOGARTA-SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. 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. 3. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. 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, GAF dwards\Planning Comm issionLShorecliffs\3=h 20701 ITM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc Item 8e - Page 70 -752- Page 2 of 3 environmental review and other permission granted by Caltrans 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. The required improvement Plan for the subject project 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic-and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) c. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04,ADA and SMA 66428.1(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) 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 66428.1(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)) h.. 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)) 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. The existing 8-inch backfiow 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)) 2 Q\Edwards\Planning Commission\ShorecliffS\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc -753- item 8. - Page 71 l_ 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) 4. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architectfinspector. 3 G:WAwards\Pl anning Commission\.Sborecliffs\Bcach 20701 TIM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2 2-1 O.dcc Item 8. - Page 72 -754- Smich Client[Preferences 7 Sian out t'.c:!Heto INEearch±�research Tasks,. het a DocumenYt-'Shepard'.&--,Alertsc. otal Litigate Transactional Advisor` 'Counsel Selector Dossier H swry FOCUS'm Terms Search Within original Results(I-3) i7A Advanced__. Source: Lgg4>1...1>CA State Cases,Combined Terms: name{sequoia park associates) Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search} FSelect for FOCUS rm or Delivery 176 Cal, App, 41th 1270, *; 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669, **; 2009 Cal.App.LEXIS 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 176 Cal.App. 4th 1270; 98 Cal. Rptr.3d 669; 2009 Cal.App. LEXIS 1397 August 21,2009, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Later proceeding at Sequoia Park Associates v.County of Sonoma, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 11292 (Cal.,Oct. 20, 2009) Review denied by, Request denied by Sequoia Park Assocs.v. County of Sonoma, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 12846(Cal.,Dec. 2, 2009 PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. SCV240003, Raymond 1. Giordano,Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 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 § 66427.5 in accordance with the constitutional principle of preemption set forth in Cal. Coast.,art. XI, § 7.The ordinance was expressly preempted because A 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 mobilehome.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 CORE TERMS:conversion, resident, mobilehome park, ordinance, subdivider, mobilehome, preemption, ownership, tenant,state law, general law, mobile home parks, map, preempted, local ordinance,rental, tentative, locality, rent, space, local authority, parcel map, household, housing, manufactured, approve, local legislation, local government, fully occupied, indicia LEXISNEXISi&HEADNOTES 'S Hide Civil Procedure>Aooeals>Standards of Resew>Pe Novo Review t.) 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'---- &tmpFBSe1=a11&totaldocs=&ta,- '"' ^' -755- Item 8. - Page 73 vet a vocumeait- oy rany Iiame-sequoia parx associates rage_z of i v Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments HNz;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 HN3+See Cal. Const.. art. XI, f 7. Governments>local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governmentsi HN4+_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 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. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Reoulations C. Governments>State&Territoria I Governments>Relations With Governments Real Prooem Law>Zonino&Land Use>Ordinances`fir! 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 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 the locality. More Like This Headnote Governmenj >LLosal GovemmenLE>Ordinances&Regulations Governments >State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments HNB±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 -r= Government>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments fi HNU+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>Subdivisions Es HNs±See Gov. Code. q 66427.5, Reai Property Law> Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions{ HNs±Under Gov. Code, q 66427.5, subd. Ce- , a city council only has the power to determine if a subdivider has Item 8. - Page 743•conn/research/retrieve?ec=&ptt,-75f-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldoes=&tag._. 2/18/2010 .+...I-r.—- A Rr,1i J %fI 1 J 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 11 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 Reai Proogrty Law>Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Su_bdivision5«* HNxo$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. More Like This Headnote j Shenar&ze,Restrict By Headnote Governments>l ocal Governments>D!jries&Powers Real Pronertv Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances t HN11 tRegulatison of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. More Like This Headnote Governments>Legislation>Effect&Operation>AmendmentsK, Governments>_Legislation>1M.,oretation t,' 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 Pronertv Law>Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances t Htv'3—*Gov. Code, § 66427.5, subd. fe),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 HEADN OTES/ SYLLABUS B Nide 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 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: (Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. SCV240003, Rayiiiond]. Giordano,Temporary fudge.') - Pursuant to California Constitution article VI section 21. The Court of Appeal reversed the order and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a new order 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, 1i 7.The ordinance was expressly preempted because 6 66427.5, subd. (e), limits the scope of a hearing for approval of a conversion application to the issue of compliance with q 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.) [*1271] https;//www-lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus-757&tmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&ta1 item 18. m Page 75 HEADN OTES CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES C40)±(1) Municipalities§ 55—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Considering State and Local 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_ cA(2)+(2) Municipalities§55—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. cA0)!(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 clearly [*1272] 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. cA(a),{.(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 statute,it is clear that the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied by state law. cA(5)+(5) Municipalities§56—Ord inances—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. cA(15)+(6) ljMobilehomes,Trailers, and Parks § 3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned— Local Regulation Preempted.—Under Gov. Code, 8 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 (*1273] 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. 11(1)¢(7) PMobiiehomes,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 p/Pa�er76'.cozr/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'®��-'&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item Bo ac.4uvxa pain aaavLaaLrN Wage D oI 19 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. "(9)1(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 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. CA(10)!(10)Mobilehomes,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. CA(")_+(II) Mobilehomes,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 [*1274] enacted an ordinance that imposed [*1275) 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 3 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 g 66427.5. jCal. Real Estate Law&Practice (2009)ch. 472, §472.35; Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice (2009)ch. 126A, Constitutional Law, § 126A.24.] COUNSEL: Bien &Summers,Elliot L. Bien 0'and Catherine Meulemans for Plaintiff and Appellant. The Loftin Firm, L. Sue Loftin. and Michael Stump .for Rancho Sonoma Partners, Eden Gardens,Sundance Estates and Capistrano Shores as Amid Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Steven M. Woodside_, County Counsel, Sue A. Gallagher and Debbie F. Latham r, Deputy County Counsel,for Defendant and Respondent. Aleshire&Wynder, William W. Wynder_and Sunny K.Soltani for California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, City of Carson and the City of Los Angeles as Amid Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. JUDGES: Opinion by Richman., I., with Haerle.,Acting P. J., and Lambden .,J., concurring. OPINION BY: Richman OPINION [**672] RICHMAN.,J.—One of the subjects covered by the Subdivision Map Act(Gov. Code,-§ 66410 et seg.) 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 [***2] 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 Coun -of S6nor�ia Cburi """. - Me{ ty�enacted an ardiriance with the professed-aim"o€'impiernenting'-t estate 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."(Id. subd. e .)We further conclude that [***3] 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pusl_759-&tmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&ta1 Item 8. - Page 77 LreL a r»cur<uciu-- uy rarty Ivanie-sequoia park associates rage d ox L 9 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 56427.5.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 [**673] 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 [*1276] 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 Community Development's] power in the area."This order is the subject of Sequoia's appeal. 1 FOOTNOTES i 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(aJ(21--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.App.4th 1090, 1097-1098 f53 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 fallback 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, fn. 13 [120 Cal. Rotr. 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 xNlTour 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.App.4th 119, 132 f38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5751; Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon(2002) 97 Cal.Apn.4th 335. 339F.118 Cal. Rotr. 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 66427.5, 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 tells us that section 66427.5 must be considered in the context [***7] of the"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. [*1277] 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-werechallenged-on federal-constitutional--[*-*674] grounds-(e.g:i Tobe- .Qtyof- Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 F40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 402,_892 P.2d 11451 [vagueness]; Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660,679-680 F51 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. cA{I)F(1) But HN2#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 CA(2)t(2) In California, [***8] preemption of local legislation by state taw is a constitutional principle. NN3Z"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, 5 7.)The standards governing our inquiry are well established. According Item 8. - Page 781.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus_760-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldoes=&tag... 2/18/2010 vvr...._.......�...��,.._... ..J a w.�J ...,...... .,....i...,a.,.t••"s..+u�...,aw�v.� �cssv i va a� to our Supreme Court: NN4s`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 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.] [*1278) "(3)7(3) "Moreover, NNsTthe'generai 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 taw 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 f45 Cat. Rptr. 3d 21, 136 P.3d 8211, [***10] 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 j**675] 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 [citations]."(Sherwin-Williams Co. v, City of Los Angeles(1993)4 Cal.4th 893, 898 f 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215, 844 P.2d 5341.) HN6TCA(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 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 Cat.4th 1061, 1068 [63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 67, 162 P.3d 5831.) ""TCA[5)V(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 [*1279] 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 [204 Cal. Rptr. 897, 683 P.2d 1150 ; [***12] accord,American Financial Services Assn. v. City of Oakland(2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239 1252, 1261 [23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 104 P.3d 8131; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994)7 Cal.4th 725, 751 r29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804, 872 P.2d 1431.) 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 f209 Cal. Rptr. 682, 693 P.2cl 2611, quoting Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 862 [76 Cal. Rptr. 642, 452 P.2d 9301), and whether the local law mandates what state law forbids, or forbids what state taw mandates, (Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows, Inc. v. - County of Los Anweles(2002) 27 Cal.4th`853, 866 f 118 Cal. Rpm 2d 746,44 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. [**676] Since 1979, the state has had the Mobilehome Residency Law, which comprises almost 100 statutes governing [***13] 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. 4 798.17, 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'e761-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tal Item'& --Page 79 "extensively regulate[] the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents."(Greening v. Johnson (1997) 53 Cal.Aop.4th 1223, 1226 r62 Cal. Rptr. 2d 214 ; accord,SC Manufactured Homes,Inc. v. Canyon View Estates, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 663, 673 [56 Cal. Rptr.3d 791; People ex reL Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment, Ltd. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 102, 109 1`3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4291.) FOOTNOTES 2 The Mobiiehome Residency Law has been construed as not otherwise preempting or precluding adoption of residential rent control. (See Civ. Code;vri 1954.25; Cacho v. Boudreau (2007) 40 Cal.4th 341, 350-r53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 43, 149 P.3d 4731, and decisions cited.) [*128fl] Even earlier, in 1967, the state enacted the Mobiiehome Parks Act(Health &Saf. Cade, li& 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 [26 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. 18300 subd. (a).)The few exemptions from this prohibition are carefully delineated.3 FOOTNOTES _ 3"This part shall not prevent local authorities of any city, county,or city and 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 pursuant 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 mobiiehome park, under [***16] 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),) [**677] Then there is the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 (Health&Saf. Code, §§ 18000-18153),which regulates the sale, licensing, registration, and titling of mobilehomes.The Legislature declared that the provisions of this measure "apply to all parts of the state and supersede"any conflicting local ordinance. (Health &Saf. Code, $ 18015.)The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is in charge of enforcement. (Health &Saf. Code, §§ 18020, 18022, 18058.) [*1281] 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, i$s 18552 [HCD to adopt"building standards" and"other regulations for... mobilehome accessory buildings or structures"], 18610 [HCD to "adopt regulations to govern the construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance of parks and lots within" mobilehome parks), 18620 [HCD to adopt"regulations regarding the construction of buildings in parks that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"], 18630 [plumbing], 18640 ["toilet, shower, and iaundry facilities in parks"], 18670 ["electrical wiring, fixtures, and equipment...that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"].) -3com/research/retrieve?cc=&puF' l&tmpF$Sel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item B. - Page 60 ' -762- At present,the HCD has promulgated hundreds of regulations that are collected in chapter 2 of division 1 of title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. (Cal,Code Reps.,tit. 25, 6§ 1000-1758.)The regulations exhaustively deal with a myriad of issues,such as"Electrical Requirements"(id., &15 1130-1190),"Plumbing Requirements"(id.,4� 1240-1284), "Eire Protection Standards"(id., >x§ 1300-1319),"Permanent Buildings and Commercial Modulars" [***18] (id., r 1380-1400),and'Accessory Buildings and Structures"(id.,Ei8 1420-1520). The regulations even deal with pet waste (id.,q 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, §4 18550, 1 8871.) Enforcement is shared between the HCD and focal governments(Health &Saf. Code, q 18300,subd, (f), 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, 6 18300, subds. (,b}_fe).) Local initiative is restricted to traditional police powers of zoning,setback,permit requirements,and regulating construction of utilities. (Gov. Code, 4 65852.7; Health &Saf, Code, 4 18300, subd. (Q), quoted at fn. 3, ante.) 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. &8 18500, V3500.5, 18500.6, 18505; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, ii� 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. (Cal, 1*12821 Code Regs., tit. 25, E& 1006.5, 1012.) [**678] It is the state that fixes the fees to be charged for these permits and certifications (Health &Saf. Code, 5§ 18502, 18503; Cal. Code Reps., tit. 25, &fi 1008, 1020.4, 1020.7, 1025),and sets the penalties to be imposed for noncompliance (Health &Saf. Code, && 18504, 18700; Cal. Code Pegs.,tit. 25, A� 1009, 1050, 1370.4). Sometimes,the state assumes exclusive responsibility for certain subjects, such as for earthquake-resistant bracing systems.(Cal. Code Reps.tit. 25, § 1370.4, subd. (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.)"[IJt is clear 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 (Q),quoted at footnote 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 italics omitted.)A city or county must accept installation of mobilehomes manufactured in conformity with federal standards. (Gov. Code, 5 65852.3, subd. (a).)Their power to impose rent control on mobilehome parks is restricted if the park 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 664275 is a fairly straightforward 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 [***21] purchasing residents. In its entirety it provides as follows: HN87'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: [*1283] "(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. [**679] "(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 https://w-"w.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'e �`&tmpFBSe1=all&totaldocs=&ta; Item'8o'- Page 81 vvr�++�v........a..v..aa vJ � r, a.ra.aav vvY wvara ruaa�awuvva4rvv 1 U.�Y A V VA A_/ 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% 11(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. 1*1284] 11(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. (Stars. 1991,ch. 745, § 2,p. 3324.)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, p. 883.)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.Avp.4th 1153 [118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151 (El Dorado). At issue in E!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 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 o. 1157.) The trial court denied the park owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. [**680] The owner appealed, contending [***25]"that its application for subdivision is governed by section 66427.5. It relies on subdivision (d) [now subdivision-(e)l 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, r*12851 1157- 115 .) 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."(26 Cal.Apl).4th at p. 1158.) 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 5prings's 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-mobilehomes-and-tlhemselves:'(E/Dorada-supra;'3b Cal.-App 4th4153;Z161.) The court also held the language of subdivision (e)of section 66427.4 dispositive on this point. (96 Cal.App.4th at op. 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 shalt 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. Item�e -e'���� '- com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'_- - '&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 "(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." cA(s)7.;(6) But, and as particularly apt here,the court sustained the park owner's argument about section 66427.5, subdivision (di, concluding that HNTunder 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, 1163-1164.)Although the court did 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 IM,did not allow such considerations [***28] to be taken into account:"[T]he City lacks [*1286] authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the tentative [**681] 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(96 Cal.App.4th 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 o. 1174, fn. 17.) FOOTNOTES 6 Nevertheless, the El Dorado court did seem to indicate that there was an available remedy for Palm Springs's 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 D. 1166, fn. 10), there was no such restriction [***29] on the judiciary."Mhe courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or failed transactions"(td, 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. (El Dorado,at pp. 1166, 1177-1179,citing Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park(1996)47 Cal.App.4th 1168 r55 Cal. Rptr. 2d .282].) 1A(z);t.(7) One other point of El Dorado is significant. HN"V#Me 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(96 Cal.App.4th at op. 1191-1182.)The court concluded: "The [***30] legislative intent to encourage [*1287] 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.) FOOTNOTES z The 50 percent argument was based on Health and Safety Code section 50781,subdivision (m),which specifies that one of the definitions of`resident ownership"is"ownership by a resident organization of an interest in a mobilehome park that entities the resident organization to control the operations of the mobilehome park."The argument was that -- "resident ownershipofthe park,-and-control of-operations-of-the parker can only occur-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.Apn.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 mobilehornes 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 1111 and the requirement of a"survey of support of residents'whose results were to be filed with the tentative or parcel [**682] 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'_��'&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&ta; I$elr>l�'.e'e Page 83 v v..—v.......r.... ..J -...._..J - ........... .1..... Jr— --'O_ e_ -_ _- in Section 66427.5 of the Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent nonbona 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."(Scats. 2002,ch. 1143, § 2.)a 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 some aspect of the operation or effect of the bill. Common examples of`plus sections'include sevembility clauses, saving clause, 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 y.Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 858-859,fn. 13 189 Cal. Rptr.2d 279, 984 P.2d 4861.)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 [***33] 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 f 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 90 P.3d 11681.) The Ordinance The 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(Pub. Resources Code, $ 21000 et seq.). 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(mislabeied 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 [***34] laws with regard to the conversion of mobile horime 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 [**683] provisions apply to ail conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership, except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government Code [Sectionl 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 [***35] Sonoma County Code." Section III opens by providing several definitions of terms used in the Ordinance and in chapter 2S of the Sonoma County Code. "`fAbbile Home park Conversion to Residerst 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 Nome 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 [*1289] 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 apartment project, [***36] 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."' Sgel B. -'Pag-7 84_com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'��66&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 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 hark Conversions to Resident Ownership. -25-39.7(a)Applicability.The provisions of this Article IIIB 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 5 66428.1. "25-39.7(b)Application Materials Required. 11(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 fd)of Government Code Section 66427.5 The 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 represent [**684] 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; [*1290] "ii) Identification of the anticipated method and timetable for compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), 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 time table for determining the rents for non-purchasing residents pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)(1), and, to the extent available,identification of the number 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, fighting, 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 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 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 [*12911 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: https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'----- Tie&tmpFBSe1=all&totaidocs=&ta,Btem'8e =nPage 85 vv� •�••,•,•••��••��� "J �,r •..wuv .,v..i...v a..�..sa sti awauvvaassvu L G l+ a-T va 1 J "a)A survey of resident support has been conducted and the results filed with [**685] 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 Genera) Plan,any applicable Specific or Area Plan, and the provisions of Chapter 26 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 [***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 with this Chapter shows that more than 50%of resident households support the conversion to resident ownership, the conversion shall be presumed to be a bona-fide resident conversion. [*1292] "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%but not more than 50%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. %) Where the survey of support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and with this Chapter shows that less than 20%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 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 of space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or [**686] 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 z 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§ 66427.5 (a)." Tire-Ordinance Is Expressly-Preempted by Section-66427:5 - CA(S)¢(8) It is a given that""'s aregulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. (E.g., Big f*1293] Creek, supra. 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1151-; IT Corp. v. Solano County Board of Supervisors(1991) 1 Cal.4th 81, 85, 95, 99 [2 Cal. RDtr. 2d 513, 820 P.2d 10231; City of Burbank v. Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority(1999) 72 Cal.Avp.4th 366, 376 r85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 281.) 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(1985) 39 Cai.3d 256, 262-266 (217 Cal. Rotr. 1, 703 P.2d 3391; Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Board(1984)35 Cal.3d 858, 868-869 1`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, pp. 3323, 3324, 3325,adding§§ 66427.5, 66428.1 &amending & 66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.)This was seven years '-"-_- = com/research/retrieve?cc=&pusl - - ' ktmpFBSe1=a11&1ota1docs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item B. - Page 66' -766- after the state had declared itself in favor of converting mobilehome parks to resident ownership,and at the same time established the Mobiiehome 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, p. 6114, adding Health&Saf.Code. 64 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. [**687] The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section."(§ 66427.5, subd. (e), italics added.)The [*1294] italicized language is, in its own way, comprehensive. But the contrasting constructions the parties give it could not be 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. (a).) 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 curiae 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—bath 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 curiae 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. Y3 For example, a subdivider is required to"file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents" (S 66427.5, subd. (b)),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 curiae:"Surely,the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content... . [I] ... [¶] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." FOOTNOTES ii The County and supporting amici curiae 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 r 175 Cal. Rotr. 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-_t_he County's-approach.There are three such statutes—sections 66427.4, 66427.5, and 664128.1. And if they are considered as a unit—which [*1295] they are, as the three mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act 12---a coherent logic begins to emerge. FOOTNOTES x2 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 [253 Cal. Rptr. 1, 763 P.2d 8521; County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie(1942) 19 Cal.2d 634, 639 [122 P.2d 5261;In re Washer (1977) 200 Cal. 599, 606 f254 P. 9511.) It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning [**688] 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus'-769&tmpFBSe1=a11&tota1does=&ta,Item.8e"® Page 87 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 mob€lehome 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. (E 66427.4,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.(Id., subd. Lel.) 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 [***501 parks into other uses and shall not prevent local agency from enacting more stringent measures." fdl,italics added.) At the other end of the continuum is the situation covered by section 66428.1,subdivision (a), which provides: "When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobi€ehomes 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 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. (T] (3)The existing parcels which exist prior to the proposed conversion [*1296] 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 [***S1] 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 is what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority,you have this power, but no more. [**689] As previously mentioned, the Legislature amended section 66427.S 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) [***52] 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.Aan.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 "bona fide"conversions mentioned in the unmodified portion of the enactment that accompanied the amendment. 101) ,(g) 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. S3(El Dorado. supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1163-1164, 1166 *12971 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: NN12T"[W]hen 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 1278 Cal. Rntr. 614 805 P 2d 8731, quoting Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721. 734 F180 Cal. Rptr.496, 640 P 2d 11S1; accord, People v. Maloney(2003)30 Cal.4th 1145, 1161 [135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 602, 70 P.3d 10231; People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90 100-101 F65 Cal Ratr. 2d 610 939 P.2d 13101.) FOOTNOTES 3.3 Ef 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 Ca1.App.4th 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 [***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 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. "-------- '�- =� com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus.'------"&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item 0e - Page 88 -770- vva-sa,yvv..u�....... a.J a .,...eJ a•waav uv+.laavau.rasa at aswvvauwu a ur,a. s i va a ca00)F-(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 NNxafisubdivision (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. [**690] 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 o. 1068; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, supra-7 Cal.4th 725, 751; People ex ref. 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. [*1298] 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. [***56] 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, 4 50780,subd. (b).)The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy. (Health &Saf. Code, 4 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."(S 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. Thee is more."Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts [**691] 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, citations omitted; accord,Sig 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 [*1299] 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 Regulatlons."(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 Section 66427.5(a)"and"a copy of the impact report required by Government Code Section 66427.5(b)."(Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(d), subd. (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 Las 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 [***59] 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 https://vvww.lexis.com/research/retrieve?ec=&pusi_771-�_-tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag Ite -8e _ Page 89 ___ __T______ _J ____J _______ -__A______r--__ _ - - .._Q_ -- -- _- [***60] 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).) 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 ,f2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 741, 751,fn. 5, 754-758 r90 Cal.Rptr. 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" [*1300] according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually [**692] invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions. is 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. FOOTNOTES xs 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),subd. (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 amici curiae, 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 § 50780, subd. (a)(1),W.) 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 nonpurchasing 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. cafsii:(1g} 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 section 664275 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 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 [***63] function of the Legislature, not a court."(State Building&Construction Trades Council of California v. Duncan (2008) 162 Cai.Aoo.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. [*1301] 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 _, I., concurred. Source: Legal>!.../>CA State Cases,Combined:11 Terms: name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search) View: Full DateMme: Thursday.February 18,2010-5:18 PM EST Signal Legend: - Warning:Negative treatment is indicated - Questioned:validity questioned by citing refs - Caution_Possible negative treatment - Positive treatment is indicated - Citing Refs.Vfiith Analysis Available - Citation information available '�'�- "-Y�•~•° 1�~ ; com/research/retrieve?cc=&pu!-'-- --'&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item 8. o Page 90 �772- •Click on any Shepard's signal to Shepardize®that case. Search Research Tasks Get a Document j Shepard Alerts j Total Litigator Transactional Advisor E Counsel Selector History I Delivery Manager I Dossier I Switch Client I Preferences I Sion Out I Help ?� About LexisNexis I Terms&Conditions I Contact Us SNiv- Cgpvright© 2010 LexisNexis,a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus`-- &tmpFBSel=all&totaidocs=&tafQtem'8y a Page 91 K& C FILE COPY HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkc#aw.com March 3, 2010 Our Re Number: 36014.112/4821-5016-6789v.1 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FACSIMILE Planning Commission 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") Response to Commissioner Questions from Study Session Dear Commissioners: This letter provides supplemental information regarding the above-referenced Application in response to questions raised by the Commissioners at the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission Study Session. 1. This Application is a Renewal of the Prior Application. This Application is in some respects a mirror image of the prior application for a vesting tentative tract map for conversion of the Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park to resident ownership. The prior application contained a map for 309 rental spaces because of a mistaken belief by the Park Owners that there were 309 Housing and Community Development ("HCD") approved spaces rather than the 304 spaces under the current permit. However, prior application made it clear that the applicant was proposing to subdivide the existing mobilehome park, with no increase in density. Rather than allow the Park Owners to amend the map to show 304 spaces, the City denied the prior application. The Park Owners do not agree that the prior application was properly denied for that or any other stated reasons, and has filed a protective lawsuit challenging that denial. In the interest of moving forward without litigation, the Park Owners filed the present Application with a corrected map showing 304 spaces. This Application also provides an updated resident survey conducted by the now existing homeowners association and a conversion impact report with additional information requested by the City and residents. 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 Item S. - Page 92 -774- HK&C Hmrr, KING & r_OLO; EN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 2 2. Resident Survey Results Were Properly Obtained and Submitted. As stated above, the resident survey was conducted by the now existing homeowners' association pursuant to an agreement, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. Pursuant to that agreement, the homeowners' association submitted a certification of the survey results and the survey forms to City staff. According to Ethan Edwards and the Subdivision Committee, survey is complete and the survey forms are compliant. The survey forms are available for review at the Planning Department; they were too voluminous to include in the staff report. 3. The Survey Results Cannot be the Basis for Denial of the Application. The recent Court of Appeal decision in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma ("Sequoia") makes it clear that the survey results cannot be the basis for denying a tentative tract map application for a conversion to resident ownership. The County of Sonoma ordinance at issue had established minimum survey results criteria for approval of a subdivision. The Court of Appeal in Sequoia rejected the use of survey results as a criteria for denying subdivision: "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 (2009) 176 Cal.AppAth 1270, 1299-1300) Thus, the City cannot establish its own subjective requirements for whether the conversion is appropriate. Trial court decisions that are contrary to Sequoia cannot be relied upon and have no precedential value. The Orange County Courts are bound to follow the Sequoia case on this matter. (Cuccia v. Superior Court (2007) 153 Cal.AppAth 347, 353-354) The California Supreme Court refused to review the Sequoia case, thereby allowing it to stand as binding precedent. The reason for the resident survey requirement in Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) was to help prevent "sham" conversions where a park owner subdividers to avoid rent control but fails to carry out conversion. (See Govt. Code, § 66427.5 [2002 Amendment Note]; see also El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1165) As the Legislative History for Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) clearly states: "This bill seeks to provide a measure of that support for local agencies to determine whether the conversion is truly intended for resident ownership, or if it is an attempt to preempt a local rent control ordinance. The results of the survey would not affect the duty of the local agency to consider the request to subdivide pursuant to section 66427.5 but merely provide additional information. It is foreseeable that the results of this survey could be used to argue to a court 36014.112/4821-5016-6789v.1 -775- (tern 8. - Page 93 HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 3 that the conversion is a sham- and that the rent formulas in Section 66427.5 should not be applied. The fact that a majority of the residents do not support the conversion is not however an appropriate means for determining the legitimacy of a conversion. The law is not intended to allow park residents to block a request to subdivide. Instead the law is intended to provide some measure of fiscal protection to nonpurchasing residents." (A..B. 930 Legislative Committee Report) Given that there is no rent control in the City of Huntington Beach, the resident survey results thus cannot be the basis for denial of this Application. 4. The Conversion impact Report Was Served on Residents and is Adequate. The requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 are expressly designed to protect against economic displacement of those residents who decide not to purchase but to continue renting their spaces at the Park. They are not designed to protect those residents who may determine to purchase based on subsequent information that will become available to the residents during the subsequent process of obtaining a Department of Real Estate White Report. Thus, the conversion impact report that is required to be filed with the City and disseminated to the residents prior to the City hearing on the tentative map is only required to address the Government Code Section 66427.5 protections against economic displacement of residents. Those protections include the resident right to continue renting space at the Park and the statutory rent control provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 (f). The conversion impact report filed by the Applicants covers those matters. While in an effort to avoid confrontation, the Park Owners have modified the prior conversion impact report to accommodate the expressed concerns of the City, the Park Owners continue to assert that the prior form of impact report met all of the legal requirements as well. Similar forms of impact reports have been approved by many other jurisdictions. The Sequoia decision discussed whether cities could determine their own criteria for what a conversion impact could include. The Sequoia decision held that all the cities could require is compliance with the express provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5, and nothing else. The City cannot impose its own criteria for a conversion impact report: "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 1294-1297) The Application contains a copy of the conversion impact report and an affidavit of Mike Cirillo stating that the report was served on all residents in compliance with Government Code Section 36014.112/4821-5016-6789v.1 Item 6e - Page 94 -776- h, t "KCKU MART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 4 66427.5 (c), A copy of that affidavit was not included by staff in the Study Session report, but is enclosed herewith for your reference. Also, in compliance with the Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ. Code, § 798.56 (g) (1)), notice of the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission hearing was mailed to all residents more than 15 days prior to the hearing on this Application, on February 19, 2010. A copy of that notice and of the affidavit of Tisha Anderson is enclosed herewith for your reference. 5. On-Site and Off-Site Improvements and Plans Cannot Be Required The City's consideration of the Application boils down to two legal questions, which questions the Applicant has now raised at every one of the nearly ten meetings with City staff and elected officials, including last week's Subdivision Committee meeting, First, does the City agree that Government Code Section 66427.5 provides the exclusive bases for approval or denial of the Application, and if not, what other enabling legislation allows the City to impose which other conditions. Second, does the City agree that its role regarding the "survey" is to determine if it was properly conducted? For whatever reason, the City, to date, has not provided guidance, but has simply acted as though it disagrees with the Sequoia decision. With regard to the first question (we already addressed the second question), the City attempts to impose requirements for a water quality management plan, for an on-site drainage system and for off site drainage, curb and gutter in the CalTrans right of way along Beach Boulevard. The City claims that it is authorized to impose such requirements based on various statutes, ordinances and permits. The City's attempt to impose such requirements is preempted by the express exclusion of Government Code Section 66427.5. According to Sequoia, under Government Code Section 66427.5, the City cannot impose any requirements not expressly set forth in Section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1296-1299) Therefore, the Court of Appeal in Sequoia rejected any city requirements that the park owner provide for park or off-site infrastructure or address health and safety concerns. Furthermore, the City cannot impose requirements for on and off-site exactions that do not satisfy the constitutional nexus requirement. Under that nexus requirement, the City must document the connection between the exaction and the projected impact of the development. Not only must the required nexus exist, but specific findings must show that the required dedication is reasonably related to the impact. (See Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825) Here, the City cannot satisfy the nexus test or make such findings. There will be no added impact to City services as a result of the Application for a mere paper conversion. There will be 36014.11214821-501"789v.1 -777- Item 8. - Page 95 HAFT. KING & COLOREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 5 no new hookups to the City's drainage system and no additional trips along Beach Boulevard resulting from the Application. The City cannot rely on the "health and safety" language in Government Code Section 66428.1. The Application is not a conversion under Section 66428.1. Sequoia makes clear that under Section 66427.5, the City cannot impose additional requirements, even for health and safety issue. The health and safety language in Section 66428.1 is intended to address "significant" or urgent matters of health and safety caused by Park "design and improvements,„ not matters that have been existing for more than 25 years as a result of City design and improvements such as the City's drain pipe constructed in 1985 that flows onto Park streets or by Cal Trans lack of .improvements along the Beach Boulevard frontage. The City cannot rely on its drainage fee ordinance. City Code Chapter 14.48 pertaining to drainage fees was enacted in 1975, more than five years after the construction of the Park in 1970. The fees may only be charged upon the earlier of the building permit or the subdivision of the property. The building of the Park took place before the City's ordinance. Government Code Section 66483 (a), upon which the City Code Chapter 2.48 is based, requires that the City ordinance be in place more than 30 days before the development of the property in order for drainage fees to apply.' Similarly, the City does not provide any information about Cal Trans requirements or contemplated use for its right of way along Beach Boulevard that would justify the City's requirements for curb and gutter, sidewalk and other improvements that the City would require along Beach Boulevard. Finally, the City has no authority under Regional Board Order No. R8-2009-0030 to impose a requirements for a project Water Quality Management Plan because the Application does not contemplate "new development" or "redevelopment" under that Order. Further, that Order does not impose any required on the City to condition map approval on such a Plan. I Assuming that the fee could be applied, it would have been applied in 1975 at the time of the City ordinance,and the amount would be$2,800 per acre for zone 8B where the Park was located,for a total amount of Si 12,000. 36014.1 1214821-501"789v.1 Stern 6e - Page 96 -778- HK&C HART, KING & C❑LDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 6 in conclusion, as we expressed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the City has no authority to impose any additional requirements on this simple conversion to resident ownership Application. The Park Owners are willing (indeed anxious) to work with the City and will consider reasonable conditions, but they object to the City imposition of any unlawful condition for approval of the Application without their consent. Thank you. HART, KING & COLDREN 4 /Idren o e S Enclosures: Agreement re survey with HOA Cirillo Affidavit re mailing of conversion impact report Anderson Affidavit re mailing of notice of Planning Commission hearing cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner (by e-mail only) 36014.1 1 214 82 1-501 6-6 789v.1 -779- Item 8m - Page 97 HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 7 bcc John Saunders (by e-mail only) Michael Cirillo (by e-mail only) Burt Mazelow (by e-mail only) 36014.11214821-5016-6789v.1 Item 8. - Page 98 -780- U I U.NTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MORILMOME PARk RESIDIENT"PORT SURVEVA4GREEMENT Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) requires that the owners of a mobilehome park that seeks to convert the parkte residerit ownership obtain a survey of resident support to be considered by the local agency with the subdivision application. The survey rmist be conducted -by written ballot pursuant to an agreement between the park owner and-the horneawncr's association. This constitutes the Agreement between the Park Owners of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobil home Park and the Hantington Shorecliffs Homeowners' Association pertakaingto a swwe7y of'resident-support. 1. Survey Form. The survey ballot,form that shall be used for the survey of xe-sident support' for -the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehowo Park conversion to resident ownership shall be the attached "Survey re Conversion to Resident ONVnership." This survey form shall be revised before distribution to the residents only for the purpOs6 of inserting the date of the '*Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents,"the date-by which the survey is to lie returned and the address of the Homeowners' Assmiation. 2. Conduct of Su- .. The survey shall be con-ducted by the Homeowners' Association in the following mariner. Wfthi.n ten (10) days following notice ft-om the Park Owners that the"Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents"has been sent by the Park Owners to the Residents, the Homeowners' Association Board of Directors-will cause to bf,- distributed by hand delivery one survey f6rni to each Park- resident space. The Park Owners shall.provide,the Homeowners' Association Board of Directors with a oemplete list of the names and addresses of all residents who are entitled-to participate in the survey. The survey fortias shall provide a date. for ret.=- of the st—ovq w° the Horneo,xners"Association, which date is seven: (7) days from the date of distribution.of the survey, 3- Tabulation of Res OR:the eighth day following distribution of the sunwy,the Homeowners.' Association Board of Directors shall meet to review the ballots to confirrn that they have-beers si gar-d.by festderiis and to ta6ulatv,,the results of the completed forms. 4. Submittal af.Results, Irnmedintely following the tabulation of the survey results, the Homeovi-aers" Association Board-of Directors shall submit the survey results in a letter famat to the City of Huntington.Beach Planning Director, Scat Hess, with a copy to the Park-ONvners. If the City makes a request, the Homeowners' Association shad provide the ojigind survey forms and all other written materials pertainhig to the survey to the City. On-Behalf of Park Owners: On B, half of onleoullers, Association j Print Na' nlea ic Print Name: 0 0 ate: 7 Date. 36014.1124849-7245-4917v.3 SHORECLIFFS-HOA AGREEMENT RE RESIDENT SURVEY -781- item 8. - Page 99 HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK SURVEY RE CONVERSION TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP The owners of Huntington Shoreciiffs Mobilehome Park intend to file an application with the City of Huntington Beach to subdivide the existing Park into separate lots that exactly correspond to the existing rental spaces. The purpose of the subdivision application is to convert the existing rental mobilehome park to resident ownership. Upon conversion,the existing residents will have the opportunity to purchase the land they are currently leasing. Significant benefits may be available to mobilehome owners who also own the land, including better financing rates, broader financing options and control over common areas. California law requires the Park owners to give the existing residents the option to either purchase or continue leasing their existing mobilehome rental spaces upon conversion of the Park. Those who continue leasing will obtain certain protections pertaining to post- conversion rent increases. Those protections are explained more fully in the "Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents"dated December 14,2009. California law also requires the Park owners to obtain a written survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. As required by law, this survey is being conducted by the Park homeowner's association,which is independent of the Park owners. Each occupied mobilehome space is requested to fill out one survey form. The results of the survey will be tabulated by the Board of Directors and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. These results will be considered at the City's hearing on the subdivision application. Please indicate below whether or not you support conversion of the Park to a resident- owned mobilehome park. Please fill out and sign this survey form and return it to the Homeowner's Association at (address] by [date]. Only those survey forms that are completed, signed and returned no later than , 2009 will be counted. Be assured that the Board of Directors of you Home Owners Association has reviewed this survey quite carefully. The Board has also reviewed the statutory requirements for this survey. If you state that you do NOT support the subdivision of the Park, NO RETALIATORY ACTION WILL OR MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU BY THE PARK MANAGEMENT. 36014.11214833-7842-2789v.1 1 SHORECLIFFS-RESIDENT SURVEY Item 8. - Page 100 -782- I support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park from a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned mobilehorne park. I do not support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park from a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned mobilehome park. I decline at this time to either support or not support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park from a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned mobilehome park. Space No. (Signature) Date: (Print Name) 36014.112/4833-7842-2789v.1 2 SHORECLWFS-RESIDENT SURVEY -783- Item a. m Page 101 Certification of Mailing of Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents (Government Code Sections 66427.5 (c)) I,Mire Cirillo, am the President of Star Mobilehome Park Management,which is the Property Manager for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. On behalf of Shorecliff,LP,Huntington 3SC Park, LP, 3S Stadium,LLC, and Short-cliff Main,LP,the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park,I certify that on December 15,2009, I mailed the attached"Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents,"to all Huntington Shorecliffs Residents as shown on the attached mailing list. I did so by-placing true copies of the Report in envelopes addressed to each homeowner and deposited such envelopes in the United States Mail at Santa Ana,California. I also certify that the attached mailing list is a true and correct list of the names and address of all tenants residing in Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Parke I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct of my own knowledge. Executed on December 29,2009 at Santa Ana,California. Mike Cirillo Item 8. - Page 102 -784- Charles-Baur Barbara Heint Thelma Evans Dreama Baur Sharon Hein! 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 3 Space 1 Space 2 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490B Donna Edwards Donna Ladow Constance Liberatore 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 4 Space 5 Space 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Lou Collett@ William Seymour Charles Schock Hyunok Col letta 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 8 Space 9 Space 7 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John Edwards Jeff Fordell Jim Fribley Evelyn Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Jeannine Fribley c/o Deborah Edwards Space 11 20701 Beach Boulevard 9291 Power Drive Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Space 12 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Elleen Long Dave Wells Dee Bell 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 13 Space14 Space 15 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Patti Mills Beverly Hill Kathleen Nielsen CIO Sean Mills 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 19744 Beach Blvd., Suite 339 Space 17 Space 18 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Joseph Sanders Stevan lovan Ralph Calderon Susan De Bore! Sanders Ann fovan Ramona Calderon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 19 Space 20 Space 21 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mary Clyde Catherine Brown Dianna Whitley C/O Sharon Lynn 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 8321 Cade Circle Space 23 Space 24 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Gelsomine Curatola Nancy Contilii-Thompson Jerry Stover 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 26 Space 27 Space 28 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Nellie Crew Mary McGowan Billy Harbison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Irene Harbison Space 29 Space 30 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490B Space 31 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 -785- Otero 8. - Page 103 Henry Huffman Vivian Morgan Darrell Primrose Florence Huffman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 33 Space 34 Space 32 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dorothy Morehouse Sharon Hammer Arnold Steele 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Marlene Steele Space 35 Space 36 2d701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 37 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Thelma Keenum Joseph Mallard Robert Sturrock 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Lorie Sturrock Space 38 - Space 39 1230 E.Windsor Road Huntington Beach,CA 92648--4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-490B #116 Glendale, CA 91205 Alberta La Chapelle Robert Sweet Mery Dahlen 20701 Beach Boulevard Hila Sweet Rosemary Dahlen Space 41 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 42 Space 43 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,-CA 92648A908 .tames Greulich - Kathy Tague Lynne Cluff 20701 Beach-Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 44 Space 45 Space 46 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Vida Sykes Lauren.Simms Shelley Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 47 Space 48 Space 49 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Vicki Guenther Ken Bennett Kathleen Hogan 20701 Beach Boulevard Lana Bennett 19821 Windjammer Lane Space 50 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 51 Huntington Beach,CA 92648--4908 Richard Plummer Buster Kini Lucille Laurin Inez Plummer Margaret Kini 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 55 Space 53 Space 54 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Catherine Gwynn Doris Williams Gail Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 56 Space 57 Space 58 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Murphy Bank Ron Smith Barbara Hanson Attn:Jon Dominguez Kathy Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard PO Box 9725 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 61 Fresno, CA 93794 Space 60 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Item 6. - Page 104 -786- Jinn Constantine Bob Speiser Sharon Ewald -Ede Kershaw Evelyn Speiser 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 64 Space 62 Space 63 Huntington Beach,CA 9264SA908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Joe Burki Donald Warren Charlaine Argirakis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard' Space 65 Space 66. Space 68 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-A908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Steve Hedden Steryn Nick Nannes Albert Wiessmer Cheryle Hedden c/o Allen M Reedy Billi.Wiessmer 20701 Beach Boulevard 4590 MacArthur Blvd STE 370 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 69 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Space 72 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Frank O'Brien Robert Atchue Carolyn Butts Sheila O'Brien Nancy Atchue 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 75 Space 73 Space 74 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA .92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Peter Hamel Christine Schumacher Bonnie Bennett Nadine Hamel 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 77 Space 78 Space 76 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648--4908 Julia Johnson Don Rasmussen Leda Untoria Joyce Zeiler Lea Ann Young 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 82 Space 79 Space 81 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.4908 John Guesno Mary Vaughn Dee Rey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 83- Space 85 Space 86 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648-4908 Jaynes Greulich Mike Merritt Billy Bergeron 20701 Beach Boulevard Lois Merritt Margaret Bergeron Space 87 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 88 Space 89 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Frederick Krueger Linda Ford David Schlack Nancy Krueger 20701 Beach Boulevard Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 91 3645 South 3850 West Space 90 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 West Haven,UT 84401 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 David Schlack Joanne Gravitt Haan Dinh Tran Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Mai T, Pham 3645 South 3850 West Space 94 20701 Beach Boulevard West Haven, UT 84401 Huntington Beach,CA 9264E A908 Space 95 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 -787- Item 8. - Page 105 William Roberts Celia A- Gordon Elizabeth Rosenkranz Estelle Roberts 20701 Beach,Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 97 Space 98 Space 96 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Ken Dalton Sharan Long Jeane Jaffe 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 99 Space 100 Space 101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Walter A.Richter Joan Van Horn Johnny Dee Dellosso Verna R. Richter Patricia Bonner 20701 Beach Boulevard 606 N.Auburn Avenue 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 104 Sierra Madre, CA 91024 Space 103 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Bob Mascorro Roy Weber Fran Crandlemire Lana Mascorro Karen Weber 20701 Beach Boulevard 1 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 107 Space 105 Space 106 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Kent Bewley Jorge Festini Florence Harris Karen Bewley fancy Festini C/O Maureen Parco 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 1450 N.W. Fresno Ave. Space. 108 Space 109 Bend, OR 97701 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Paul Ragains Steve Harrington Marion Fieweger Cheryl Ragains Sandra Harrington 20701 Beach Boulevard 2804 Hinton Circle 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 113 Elk Grove, CA 95758 Space 112 Huntington Beach, CA 92648--4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Karen Weidmann Dixie Morgan Kathy Kent Cheryl Kruly 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 115 Space 116 Space 114 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.A908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Willi Gross Jim Chojokov Charles Asendorf 20701 Beach Boulevard CIO AAA Action ATTN:Acctg Dept Phyllis Asendorf Space 117 13101 Jefferson Street 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 9264SA908 Garden Grove, CA 92844 Space 119 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Chuck Potter Rob Champion Bill Rasch 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Dorene Rasch Space 120 Space 121 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 122 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-49013 i Don Lyons Petronella Berry Ron Bondick Sally Lyons 20701 Beach Boulevard Jan Bondick 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 124 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 123 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 125 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach. CA 92648-4908 { I I ,item 8® - Page 106 -788- Paula McIntosh King Larry Trautman Randal Hetrick 73124 Crosby Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard Florence Erickson Palm Desert, CA 92260-6715 Space 127 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 128 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Frances Ludt Felipe Zapata Sue Vanderwall Louise Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 130 Space 131 Space 129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Patricia McCabe Mark Goodman Beverly Peterson 20701 Beach Boulevard - Judy Goodman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 132 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 134 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 133 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Elizabeth Clark Gisele J.Fouts Verle Ankeny 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 135 Space 136 Space 137 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Joan Goodman Gary Rollins Paul Stanton 20701 Beach Boulevard 9812 Theresa Avenue Margie Stanton Space 138 Anaheim,CA 92804 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 140 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Evora McCulloch Helen Logins Jack Sullivan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 141 Space 142 Space 143 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 9264"908 George Nazarofi Celia Bradford Jan G Moskewich Susan Nazarotf 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandra J Moskewich 16360 Chella Drive Space 145 20701 Beach Boulevard Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 146 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Bev Carlson George Yates Ron Peach 20701 Beach Boulevard Donna Yates Vicki Peach Space 147 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 148 Space 149 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-A908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 George Smith Betty Reese Mary Crosby l 20701 Beach Boulevard Nancy Hall Reese 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 150 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 152 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-490B Space 151 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Jackie Jacobs Teresa Kelley-Brownell Judi lbarra 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 153 Space 154 Space 155 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 -789- Item 8® - Page 107 Mary Landin Thomas Newland John Newman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Newman Space 157 Space 158 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 159 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Vivian Brown John McGrew Bob Hall 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 160 Space 161 Space 162 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Harold Jones Betty Evans Bill Drew Nanette Jones 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 164 Space 165 Space 163 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Carl Ackermann Bob Truitt Joan Hudson Jacque Ackermann Arlene Truitt 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 168 Space 166 Space 167 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mike Steele John Magennis Jerry Gilday Sheral Steele Susie Magennis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 171 Space 169 Space 170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648AGO8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Harry Cargill Dolores Smith Buster Cobb Victoria Cargill 20701 Beach Boulevard Jacqueline Cobb 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 173 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 172 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 174 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Nadene Weber Donald Prince Madaline Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Margaret Prince 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 175 20701-Beach Boulevard Space 177 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 176 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John McClinton Ron Bastien Norma Starnes Clarice McClinton Elinor Bastien 20701 Beach Boulevard CIO Tom McClinton 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 180 PO Box 135 Space 179 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Kailua, Hl 96734 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Gary Rollins Barbara Marousek Larry Schrock 9812 Theresa Avenue Terri Marousek Maureen Schrock Anaheim, CA 92804 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space182 Space183 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Robert Lupo Marian Beck D Ellsworth Loretta Lupo 20701 Beach Boulevard J Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 185 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 184 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 186 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Item 8. - Page 108 -790- Shirley Moss Craig Roalf Greg Mansfield 434 Larkin Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Kaysville, UT 84037 Space 188 Space 189 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Earl Nelson Bessie Burke Jeremy Deex Louise Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 12161 Oak Leaf Drive 20701 Beach.Boulevard Space 191 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Space 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Rosa Dalton Katherine Eistad Donna Blackman 16276 Skyridge Drive 20701 Beach,Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 Space 194 Space 195 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Lois Mills Gary Hill Joe Kimes 20701 Beach Boulevard Christina Hill Linda Kimes Space 196 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 197 Space 198 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Strada Calvin Dana Lee Cummings 20701 Beach Boulevard Sharon Dana 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 199 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 200 Huntington Beach,-CA 92WA908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Roger Criswell Marina Wilson Scott Steeper Mindy Criswell 20701 Beach Boulevard Susan Hawk -20701 Beach Boulevard Space 203 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 202 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 204 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Diane Lomond Darlene Ruttman Eric Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 205 Space 206 Space 207 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Betsy Noss Jeremy Goldman Sherry Sollazzo 20701 Beach Boulevard Judy Goldman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 208 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 212 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 209 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Shirley Crabtree Bob Viiss Dick Mancinelli 20701 Beach Boulevard Claire Miss Dorothy Mancinelli Space 213 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 214 Space 215 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Dixie Bright Robert Vandygrift Therese Young 20701 Beach Boulevard Wendelyn Vandygrift 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 216 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 218 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.4908 Space 217 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 -791- Item 8e a Page 109 Daniel Rodriguez Rick Danell Sam Robinson Patricia Manrique-Rodriguez Martha Danell Rosemary Robinson 12761 Orange Avenue 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Chino, CA 91710 Space 220 Space 221 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Charlie Brown Harold Lyons Delia Sutherland Cynthia Brown C/O Karen Dykema 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 9746 Cedar Court Space 225 Space 223 Cypress,CA 90630 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Dave Schoenherz Melvin Levis Richard Reed Christy Schoenherz Patricia Lewis = Lynn Reed 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 226 Space 227 Space 228 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Alice Butler Vince Bove Joe Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Esta Bove 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 229 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 231 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 230 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Sharon.Robison Albertina Wessmer Bob Kraehling 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Sherry Kraehling Space 232 Space 233 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 9264B-4908 Space 234 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Doris Coppola Warren Zarnott Jackie Visco-Gray Edward Baur Anne Coulter 21171 Amerwick Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Space 235 Space 236 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Davis John Berens Jack Williams Diane Davis Darieen Berens Claudia Williams 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 238 Space 239 Space 240 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Diane Alden Vicki Flood Alan Riley 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 241 Space 242 Space 243 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Richard Gillespie Gary Tiveron Ronald Rennegarbe 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Barnard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 244 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 246 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 245 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648--4908 Jim Jordan Marie Burns Glenn Smith Flora Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard Joyce Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 248 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 247 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 249 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Item 8e - Page 110 -792- Shirley Lewis John Mu€loy Albert Tegenian 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandi Mulloy 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 250 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 252 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 251 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Bob Gardner Jack Morrey Crystal Rogers Doris Gardner Maureen Morrey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 256 Space 253 Space 254 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 9264"908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dick Haney Don Luckham Paul Cannon Betty Haney - Lori Luckham Doris Cannon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 256 Space 2577 Space 258 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 9264.8--4908 Ronald McKennell Bill Hall Frank Razanskas Janet McKennell Leva Hall Lisa Razanskas 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 259 Space 260 Space 261 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Judy Adams Paul Lee Joan Walker 20701 Beach Boulevard Soon Park 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 262 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 264 Huntington Beach, CA 9264"908 Space 263 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Bob Gardner Beverly Richardson Dick Porch Janice Gardner 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 266 Space 267 Space 265 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Dottie Hamilton Chuck Calderone Bob Palmer 20701 Beach Boulevard Mary Calderone Margie Palmer Space 268 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 269 Space 270 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Shirley J.Myers Antonia(Toni)Reed Staff Fieldhouse Deborah G. Douglass 20701 Beach Boulevard Jill Fieldhouse 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 272 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 271 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 273 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Carol Cosione Terry Van Orden Patsy Davison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 274 Space 275 Space 276 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648•-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mel Knutson Karen McGrew Frances Stockton Suzanne.Knutson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 278 Space 279 Space 277 Huntington Beach, CA 9264"908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 -793- Item 8e a Page III Emil Rasmussen Dale Athey Mike Lytle Mary Rasmussen _ Sandra Athey Lee Lytle 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 280 Space 281 Space 282 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4968 Majel Miller Gene Moore Mary Jo Casino 20701 Beach Boulevard Stefanie Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 283 _ 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 285 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 284 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA, 92648-4908 Gladi Halpern Richard Lippard Myrrha Eberly CIO Lisa Halpern Judith Lippard 20701 Beach Boulevard 2945 S_ Fairview Street, Unit A 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 288 Santa Ana,CA 92704 Space 287 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648A908 Flo Bradley Madeline Seymour Helga Lothert 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 289 Space 290 Space 291 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.4908 Curtis Turdil George Riley Frank Krafka Susan Turrill Sandra Gargano Joanne Thomas 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 292 Space 293 Space 294 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Robin Bowers Larry Harries Jerry Daquila 20701 Beach Boulevard Pamela Hames Linda Daquila Space 295 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 296 Space 297 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 William Faber Michael Ritter Arnold Garfield Norma Faber Linda Ritter 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard -20701 Beach Boulevard Space 300 Space 298 Space 299 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Delores O'Neil Adda Boniillas Lorraine Runnels 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 301 Space 302 Space 303 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Junice Kallister Monique Maloney Patricia(Pat)Stephenson CIO Joyce Grimm Hien Nguyen 20701 Beach Boulevard 18514 Santa Cruz Circle 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 306 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Space 305 Huntington Beach, CA 9264"908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Judith Johnson Kathy Hanson 1908 W. Steinbeck 20701 Beach Boulevard Anthem, AZ 85086 Space 308 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Item 8e - Page 112 -794- Certification of Mailing of Notice of Hearing to Residents- (Civil Code Section 798.56(g)(1)) 1,Tisha Anderson,am the Office Manager of Star Mobilehome Park Management,which is the Property Manager for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. On behalf of Shorecliff,LP,Huntington BSC Park,LP,JS Stadium,LLC, and Shoreeliff Main,LP,the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilebome Park,1 certify that on February 19, 2010,1 caused to be mailed the attached"Notice of Hearing"to all Huntington Shorecliffs Residents as shown on the attached mailing list. I did so by causing to be placed true copies of the Notice in envelopes addressed to each homeowner and deposited such envelopes in the IJnited States Mail at Santa Ana, California. 1 also certify that the attached mailing list is a true and correct list of the names and address of all tenants residing in Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above is true.and correct of my own knowledge. Executed on February 24, 2010 at Santa Ana,California. Tisha Anderson, Office Manager -795- Item 8e - Page 113 HK& C HART, KING & COLDREN Boyd L Hill bhiil@hkclaw.com February 19, 2010 File No.36014_i1214852-2655-5397v.1 TO: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Paris Residents Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 17296("Application') Notice of March 92010 Planning Commission Hearing on Application Dear Resident: Please take notice that Shorecliff, LP, Huntington BSC Park, LP, JS Stadium, LLC and Shorecliff Main, LP,-the Owners of the Huntington Short-cliffs Mobilehome Park, will be requesting approval of the above-referenced Application at a hearing before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on March 9, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the following location: City Council Chambers City Hall, Lower Level City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92W The Application is to subdivide the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park into individual lots according to the current configuration of mobilehome spaces as set forth in the current operating permit from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, thereby allowing current Park residents the opportunity to purchase their lots, if they so choose, or to continue leasing. The impact of the subdivision on Park residents is explained in the "Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents," which was submitted to the City with the Application and which was previously mailed to you on December 15, 2009. Very truly yours, HART, KING & CC DREN Soyd� . Hilr A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714-432,8700 i www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 Item 80 - Page 114 -796- 091-9/0919a NaAV PAa algllegtaoa ww L9 x utw 9Z letruo;ap allanugj 09[9109190 AJOAV gllnn a{q►tedwoo„8/S Z x„t azls{agel Charles Baur Barbara Heim Thelma Evans Dreama Baur Sharon Heinl 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 3 Space 1 Space 2 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Donna Edwards Donna Ladow Constance Liberatore 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 4 Space 5 Space 6 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Lou Colletta William Seymour Charles Schock Hyunok Colletta 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 8 Space 9 Space 7 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John Edwards Jeff Fordell Jim Fribiey Evelyn Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Jeannine Fnbley 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 11 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 10 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 12 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92MA908 Eileen Long Dave Wells Dee Bell 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 13 Space 14 Space 15 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Pattl Mills Beverly Hill Kathleen Nielsen 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 16 Space 17 Space 18 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA90B Joseph Sanders Stevan lovan Ralph Calderon Susan De Bord Sanders Ann lovan Ramona Calderon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 19 Space 20 Space 21 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Mary Clyde Catherine Brown Dianna Whitley 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 22 Space 23 Space 24 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Gelsomine Curatola Nancy Contilli--Thompson Jerry Stover 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 26 Space 27 Space 28 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Nellie Crew Mary McGowan Billy Harbison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Irene Harbison Space 29 Space 30 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92W-4908 Space 31 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery'1�5160/8160 ` . Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160181-60 -797- Item 8e - Page 'I 15 0919/0919®tltaAV aane alggeoruoa ulut Lg x mtu 9Z 11?WJOj ep apanuq 09p/0915®AiaAV ql!m alggedwoo„g/g Z x„l.azis lagtj > y Henry Huffman Vivian Morgan Darren Primrose Plorence Huffman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 33 Space 34 Space 32 Huntington Beach,CA 92MA908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dorothy Morehouse Sharon Hammer Arnold Steele 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Marlene Steele Space 35 Space 36 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Space 37 - Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Thelma Keenum Joseph Mallard Robert Sturrock 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Lorie Sturrock Space 38 Space 39 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 40 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Alberta La Chapelle Robert Sweet Meer Dahlen 20701 Beach Boulevard Hila Sweet Rosemary bahlen Space 41 - 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 42 Space 43 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 James Greulich Kathy Tague Lynne Ciuff 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 44 Space 45 Space 46 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vida Sykes Lauren Simms Shelley Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 47 Space 48 Space 49 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vicki Guenther Ken Bennett Kathleen Hogan 20701 Beach Boulevard Lana Bennett 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 50 2-0701 Beach Boulevard Space 52 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 ( Space 51 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Richard Plummer Buster Kini Lucille Laurin Inez Plummer Margaret Kini 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 55 Space 53 Space 54 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264RA908 Catherine Gwynn Doris Williams Gail Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 56 Space 57 Space 58 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Murphy Bank Ron Smith Barbara Hanson 20701 Beach Boulevard Kathy Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 59 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 61 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 ( Space 60 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 0516018160 ` . Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible aver Avery 05160/8160 Item 8. - Page 116 -798- 09t9/09l.go AWAV Zane 41411UUWIYJ WW 19 x rvw 56 itu}jv}op attain tij 09 G9/091.50 kaAv tttrnn alq!tsdwo3„8lS Z x„t azls lagej Jim Constantine Bob Speiser Sharon Ewald Ede Kershaw Evelyn Speiser 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 64 Space 62 Space 63 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Joe Burki Donald Warren Charlaine Argirakis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 65 Space 66 Space 68 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach;CA 92648-4908 Steve Hedden Steryn Nick Nannes Albert Wiessmer Cheryle Hedden 20701 Beach Boulevard Bilp Wiessmer 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 70 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 69 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 72 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Frank O'Brien Robert Atchue Carolyn Butts Sheila O'Brien Nancy Atchue 20701.Beach Boulevard 2.0701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 75 Space 73 Space 74 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490a Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Peter Hamel Christine Schumacher Bonnie Bennett Nadine Hamel 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 77 Space 78 Space 76 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Julia Johnson Don Rasmussen Leida Untoria Joyce Zeller Lea Ann Young 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 82 Space 79 Space 81 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John Guesno Mary Vaughn Dee Rey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 83 Space 85 Space 85 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 James Greulich Mike Merritt Billy Bergeron 20701 Beach Boulevard Lois Merritt Margaret Bergeron Space 87 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 88 Space 89 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Frederick Krueger Linda Ford David Schlack Nancy Krueger 20701 Beach Boulevard Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 91 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 9D Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA908 Space 92 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 David Schlack Joanne Gravitt Haan Dinh Tran Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Mai T.Pharn 20701 Beach Boulevard ; ; Space 94 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 93 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 95 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 49I38 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible aver Avery 12516018160 -799- Item 8. - Page 117 09 L$l0%90 AIaAVsaAE elggUUWOD WW Lg x wW gL 1eiwul al►a8aI[ol{j {t918/Q9L c�1G8AV ti1rAA eiggEdmoo K815 Z x„t ozls label William Roberts Celia A.Gordon Elizabeth Rosenkranz Estelle Roberts 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 97 Space 98 Space 90 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Ken Dalton Sharan Long Jeane Jaffe 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Bead Boulevard Space 99 Space 100 Space 101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i9O8 Walter A.Richter Joan Van Horn Johnny Dee Dellosso Verna R_ Richter Patricia Bonner 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 104 Spare 102 Space 103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92848-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bob Mascorro Roy Weber Fran Crandlemire Lana Mascorro Karen Weber 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 107 Space 105 Space 106 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4903 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Kent Bewley Jorge Festini Florence Harris Karen Bewley !Nancy Festini 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 110 Space 108 Space 109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Paul Ragains Steve Harrington Marion Fieweger Cheryl Ragains Sandra Harrington 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 113 Space 111 Space 112 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Karen Weidmann Dixie Morgan Kathy Kent Cheryl Kruly 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 115 Space 116 Space 114 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4%8 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Willi Gross Jim Chojokov Charles Asendort 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Phyllis Asendort Space 117 Space 118 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 119 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Chuck Potter Rob Champion Bill Rasch 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Dorene Rasch Space 120 Space 121 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Don Lyons Petronella Berry Ron Sondick Sally Lyons 20701 Beach Boulevar4} Jan Bondick 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 124 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 123 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 125 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648�490B label size 1"x 2 5f8"compatible with Avery 0516018160 s t=tiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible aver Avery 05160/8160 Item 8. a Page 118 -800- 09=91-9 tvany cane alglIealnoa Will L9 X ww 56 teuuof ap a41U1rul►j 091-8/09[go JanV ILRlM alq{tptlwoa w8t5 Z x yj azls RCIP1 Paula McIntosh King Larry Trautman Randal Hetrick 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Florence Erickson Space 126 Space 127 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 128 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Frances Ludt Felipe Zapata Sue Vanderwall Louise Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard. 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 130 Space 131 Space 129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Patricia McCabe Mark Goodman Beverly Peterson 20701 Beach Boulevard Judy Goodman 2D701 Beach Boulevard Space 132 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 134 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 133 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Elizabeth Clark Gisele J,Fouts Verle Ankeny 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 135 Space 136 Space 137 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484903 Joan Goodman Paul Stanton 20701 Beach Boulevard Margie Stanton Space 138 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 140 Huntington Beach, CA 9264&4908 Evora McCulloch Helen Logins Jack Sullivan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 141 Space 142 Space 143 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 George Nazaroff Celia Bradford Jon G Moskewich Susan Nazaroff 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandra J Moskewich 2-0701 Beach Boulevard Space 145 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 144 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 146 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bev Carlson George Yates Ron Peach 20701 Beach Boulevard Donna Yates Vicki Peach Space 147 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 148 Space 149 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648A908 George Smith Betty Reese Mary Crosby 20701 Beach Boulevard Nancy Hail Reese 207D1 Beach Boulevard Space 150 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 152 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 151 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Jackie Jacobs Jeremy Deex Judi lbarra 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 153 Space154 Space155 Huntington Beach,CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label site 1"x 2 5t8"compatible with Avery 8516018160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 -801- Iterlrta 8. - Page 119 V9 t8JU919(,)AraAn;rane algtleuuru;r ruw Ly x W UJ y6 4MIU1 op 0140nv44 • {l9 E8109 i��Many Ulrnn atgt;etltiEos„815 Z X„i azls Intel �; Mary Landin Thomas Newland John Newman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Newman Space 157 Space 158 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 159 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vivian Brown Jahn McGrew Bob Halt 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701-Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 160 Space161 Space162 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 4908 Harold Jones Betty Evans Bill Drew Nanette Jones 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 164 Space 165 Space 163 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Carl Ackerrnann Bob Truitt Joan Hudson Jacque Ackermann Arlene Truitt 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 168 Space 166 Space 167 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92WA908 Mike Steele John Magennis Jerry Gilday Sheral Steele Susie Magennis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 171 Space 169 Space 170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Harry Cargill Dolores Smith Buster Cobb Victoria Cargill 20701 Beach Boulevard Jacqueline Cobb 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 173 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 172 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 174 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Nadene Weber Donald Prince Madaline Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Margaret Prince 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 175 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 177 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 176 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John McClinton Ron Bastien Norma Starnes Clarice McClinton Elinor Bastien 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 180 Space 178 Space 179 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Barbara Marousek Larry Schrock Terri Marousek Maureen Schrock 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 182 Space 183 Huntington Beach,CA 82648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Robert Lupo Marian Beck D Ellsworth Loretta Lupo 20701 Beach Boulevard J Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 185 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 184 ; Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 186 Huntington Beach.CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 d label Size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery°516018160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible aver:Avery 0516018160 (tern 8. e Page 120 -802- U9t tf(UytS®tuantt zdnt:alygrutuw wu L'd a ww yG at w�v;np crrnnuµ 09;9109[9,&rtrany IRVA alglfedWOD a$/5 Z x�L azlS laq-0l Shirley Noss Craig Roal( Greg Mansfield 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 187 Space 188 Space 189 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Ear!Nelson Bessie Burke Jeremy Deex Louise Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 191 Space 192 Space 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648--4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Rosa Dalton Katherine Elstad' Donna Blackman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 193 Space 194 Space 195 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Lois Mills Gary Hill Joe Kimes 20701 Beach Boulevard Christina Hill Linda Kimes Space 196 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 197 Space 198 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John Strada Calvin Dana • Lee Cummings 20701 Beach Boulevard Sharon Dana 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 199 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 200 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Roger Criswell Marina Wilson Scott Steeper Mindy Criswell 20701 Beach Boulevard Susan Hawk 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 203 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 202 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Diane Lomond Darlene Ruttman Eric Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 207fl1 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 205 Space 206 Space 207 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264849o8 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Betsy Noss Jeremy Goldman Sherry Sollazzo 20701 Beach Boulevard Judy Goldman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 208 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 212 Huntington Beach,CA 9264SA908 Space 209 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Shirley Crabtree Bob Viiss Dick Mancinelli 20701 Beach Boulevard Claire Viiss Dorothy Mancinelli Space 213 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 214 Space 215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dixie Bright Robert Vandygrift Therese Young 20701 Beach Boulevard Wendelyn Vandygrift 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 216 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 218 Huntington Beach.CA 92648-4908 t Space 217 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach.CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 518"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 ' Etiquette de formal 25 ram x 67 mrn compatible avec Avery 65160/8160 -803- Itetm, 8. a page 121 D9Lglog15gAiany Jane aiq!}euwua taw L9 x taus SL IUWJU;ep NVIfulij 09t8/051SO/uaAV IplM alglledwoJ kB/S Z x,,t EqS legei f Daniel Rodriguez Rick Danell Sam Robinson Patricia Manrique-Rodriguez Martha Danell Rosemary Robinson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 219 Space 220 Space 221 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Charlie Brown Harold Lyons - Delia Sutherland Cynthia Brown 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 224 Space 225 Space 223 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dave Schoenherz Melvin Lewis Richard Reed Christy Schoenherz Patricia Lewis Lynn Reed 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 226 Space 227 Space 228 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Alice Butler Vince Bove Joe Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Esta Bove 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 229 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 231 Huntington Beach,CA 9264E-4908 Space 230 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Sharon•Robison AlberGna Wiessmer Bob:Kraehiing 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Sherry Kraehling Space 232 Space 233 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 234 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Doris Coppola Warren 2amott Jackie Visco-Gray Edward Baur Anne Coulter 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 237 Space 235 Space 236 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92W4 4.908 John Davis John Berens Jack W Iliams Diane Davis Darleen Berens Claudia Wiltiarns 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 238 Space 239 Space 240 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Diane Alden Vicki Flood Alan Riley 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 241 Space 242 Space 243 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490B Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Richard Gillespie Gary Tveron Ronald Rennegarbe 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Barnard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 244 2D701 Beach Boulevard Space 246 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 245 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Jim Jordan Marie Burns Glenn Smith Flora Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard Joyce Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 248 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 247 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 249 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 0516018160 am ttiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 Item 8" o Page 122 -804- 09!H(U%5@ tudAtf Jan'dl4!}eaulva tuw L,9 A LULU yG It—j ap 041oU1a114 09LO109190 kGAV IWA! SlgiWduloa 81g.Z x„I.2xts legel Shirley Lewis John Mulloy Albert Terienian 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandi Mulloy 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 250 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 252 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 251 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bob Gardner Jack Morrey Crystal Rogers Doris Gardner Maureen Morrey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 255 Space 253 Space 254 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dick Haney Don Luckham Paul Cannon Be#ty Haney Lori Luckharn Doris Cannon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 256 Space 257 Space 258 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Ronald McKennell Bill Hall Frank Razanskas Janet McKennell Leva Hall Lisa Razanskas 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 259 Space 260 Space 261 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Judy Adams Paul Lee. Joan Walker 20701 Beach Boulevard Soon Park 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 262 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 264 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 263 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bob Gardner Beverly Richardson Dick Porch Janice Gardner 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 266 Space 267 Space 265 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Dottie Hamilton Chuck Calderon Bob Palmer 20701 Beach Boulevard Mary Calderone Margie Palmer Spade 268 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 269 Space 270 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Shirley J. Myers Antonia(Toni)Reed Staff Fieldhouse Deborah G.Douglass 20701 Beach Boulevard .fill Fieldhouse 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 272 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 271 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 273 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92MA908 Carol Cosione Terry Van Orden Patsy Davison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 274 Space 275 Space 276 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490B Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mel Knutson Karen McGrew Frances Stockton Suzanne Knutson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 278 Space 279 Space 277 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 518"compatible with Avery 1'516018160 Etiquette de format 25 trim x 67 mm compatible aver Avery 05 1 6 018 1 6D -805- Item 0. - Page 123 U9t131U9[-jO1UdAV Lane elygeuu:uu ww/-y x Will 56}eunut aN 0}{e3"u4-1 09G8/0919��r2n�q�an aigl;edwa3�g/S_r;x„f azls laq>;l d Emil Rasmussen Dale Athey Mike Lytle Mary Rasmussen Sandra Athey Lee Lytle 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 280 • Space 281 Space 282 Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA903 Huntington Beach,CA 92548-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Majel Miller Gene Moore Mary Jo-Casino 20701 Beach Boulevard Stefanie Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 283 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 285 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 284 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Gladi Halpern Richard Lippard Myrrha Eberly 20701 Beach Boulevard Judith Lippard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 286 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 288 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 287 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Flo Bradley Madeline-Seymour Helga Lothert 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 289 Space 290 Space 291 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-49D8 Curtis Turrill George Riley Frank Kratka. Susan Turrill Sandra Gargano Joanne Thomas . 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 292 Space 293 - Space Z94 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Robin Bowers Larry Harries Jerry Daquila 20701 Beach Boulevard Pamela Harries Linda Daquila Space 295 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92548A908 Space 295 Space 297 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 William Faber Michael Ritter Arnold Garfield Norma Faber Linda Ritter 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 30D Space 298 Space 299 Huntington Beach,CA 92 64 8-49 08 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Delores O'Neil Adda Bonillas Lorraine Runnels 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 2D701 Beach Boulevard Space 301 Space 302 Space 303 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648A908 Junice Kallister Monique Maloney Patricia(Pat)Stephenson 20701 Beach Boulevard Wien Nguyen 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 304 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 306 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 306 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Judith Johnson Kathy Hanson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 307 Space 308 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 518"compatible with Avery®516018160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 (tern 60 - Page 124 -806- e n€1�f '��® City of Huntington Beach _'` • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING March 3, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION)— CODE REQUIREMENTS (REVISED) 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 requirements, 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 Flanning 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 Subdivision Ordinance to require that your project satisfy the following development standards. 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, and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714- 536-5561 or at ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Ethan Edwards Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vgliotta,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 Fauland, Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorecliff,LP,c/o Mike Cirillo,Star Management, 1400 F Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 8074-1540 Item 80 - Page 125 1 - � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING and BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH REVISED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE .----- ------ ._..._.......... ........... REQUIREMENTS DATE: March 3, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714)536-5561/ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME 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 January 22, 2010. 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. (HBZSO Section 253.12.H) 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 250.16) 2. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange prior to conversion of the mobilehome park. (HBZSO Section 253.22) 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 the tract map are proposed during the plan check process. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the Item 8m - Page 126 -808- s Page 2 of 2 original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (HBZSO Section 251.18) 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed Planning Commission approval. (HBZSO Section 248.16) 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. (HBZSO Section 251.14& 16) 6. 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. -809- Item 8. - Page 127 �J ° HUNTINGTON BEACH - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNT{NGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.-CODE.REQUIREME TS DATE: MARCH 3, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 22, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 / ETHAN.EDWARDS(a)_SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/ SBOGART(a)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 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 Specificatiions. 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, in accord with Suggested Condition of Approval 2.c, for existing site drainage and tributary upstream drainage shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. (ZSO 255.12) 2. 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. (NPDES) Item 8. - Page 128 -810- Page 2 of 3 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1. The Tentative Tract Map received and dated January 22, 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: c. Design Specification: 6. 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 ii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: • CD Recordable (CD-R)650 Megabytes 7. Improvement Plans, in accord with Suggested Condition of Approval 5.a, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (ZSO 255.12) CADocuments and Settings\edwardse\Loca1 Settings\Temporary hitemet F_�11_01\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)1 Item 8. - Page 129 Page 3 of 3 a. 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) b. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 253.12K) c. If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA) 8. 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) 9. A Drainage Fee for the subject subdivision shall be paid at the rate applicable prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map. The current rate of$13,880 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$572,175. 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$572,175, Public Works will accept the construction of the-on- site master planned facilities per the City of Huntington Beach, Municipal Code Section 14.48.030. 10. Any work within the Caltrans right-of-way (in accord with Suggested Conditions of Approval 5.a.i through 5.a.iv) requires an Encroachment permit which 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. Item 8. - Page 130"aidse\Local Settings\Temporary lntemet E.81 wO1\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Rey}3-3-1O.doc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH --- FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: February-29, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLCATION NO.08-190:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD., HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714)536-5561/Ethan.Edwards@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL.: 714.536.55311 dmaresh@surfcity-hb-org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF 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 January 22,2010. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying existing requirements which must be verified to be in compliance and 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. 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 maintain compliance with the following City of Huntington Beach Fire Code requirements and applicable City Specifications: 1. HBFC Section 508.1 Required water supply-Fire hydrants and water supply systems.This Fire Code regulation is based upon 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.hed.ca.gov/codes/mn/mpRegs.htmi ). a. Documentation of a current flow test in compliance with HBFC Section 508.1 Required water supply shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department on the current HCD MP532 form. b_ Documentation of the fire hydrant and water supply systems compliance with HBFC Section 508A shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department by a licensed C-16 contractor or licensed Fire Protection Engineer. Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall --2000 Main Street, 5"'Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www-huntingtonbeachca.gov If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at 714.536.541 SAPreventionl1-Developmental-Planning Department-Planning Applications,CUP's12010 CUP'slShorecliff Mobile Home CUP letter 02- 25-10 DM_rtt 1 ATTACHMENT Nn_ -813- Item 8. - Page 131 -HK&u HART, KING Fx COLDREN Robert&Coldren reoldren@hkcbaw.com March 8, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112l4830-1118-2341v.1 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FACSIMILE Planning Commission 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") Applicant Position re Conditions and Code Requirements Dear Commissioners: Please consider this letter in conjunction with the march 5, 2010 E-mail directed to Scott Hess from Robert Coldren, which has been distributed to you by Staff. My client does want to engender a harmonious, constructive, cooperative collaboration with the City and appreciates the time and effort the City Staff and Commission has spent in that regard. We are pleased that City Staff has determined that the Application complies with Government Code Section 66427.5 and is recommending approval of the Application. We remain concerned about certain of Staffs recommended Conditions and Code Requirements. This letter provides the Commissioners with a summary of the Applicant's position regarding the City Staff's recommended Conditions and Code Requirements. Applicant's position is further explained in the Applicant's letter to the Commission dated February 19, 2010, a copy of which is included in the Staff Report as Attachment 5. Staff is apparently relying on Government Code Section 66428.1 for its authority to impose certain of the Conditions and Code Requirements. There are at least three reasons why the City cannot rely on the "health and safety" provision of Section 66428.1 to impose those conditions and requirements. First, this Application is pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5, which does not allow for City imposition of additional requirements. As the Court of Appeal recently stated: "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) 176 Cal.App.4th at 1270, 1299) Government Code Section 66428.1 only applies to conversions initiated by two-thirds of the park residents. This Application is initiated by the Park Owners pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5. Therefore, Section 66428.1 does not apply. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 l www.hkelaw.com l Fx 714.546,7457 Item 8. - Page 132 -814- &. HART, KING & COLL REN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 2 Second, the Court of Appeal recently rejected imposition of health and safety requirements for a mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership under Government Section 66427.5. As the,Court of Appeal stated. "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 measure against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. ... 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) Third, assuming, arguendo, that the "health and safety" language of Government Code Section 66428.1 were applicable, Section 66428.1 limits its application to "significant" health and safety conditions relating to Park "design or improvements." In this situation, the health and safety concerns raised by the City are related to a drain pipe constructed and maintained by the City on City property that opens up onto the Park property and sends water along the park streets and to a CalTrans drainage ditch constructed and maintained by CalTrans on CalTrans property that causes percolation onto the Park property. Government Code Section 66428.1 was never intended to cause park owners to fix health and safety issues created by public agencies. The City should not treat the Application as a means to force the Park Owners to solve these City and CalTrans "problems." In addition, as set forth in our letter dated (March 3, 2010, there is no constitutional nexus between the Application and the proposed improvements. A copy of that letter is included in the Staff Report as Attachment 12. Finally, please note that the Applicant's positions herein are necessarily presented as a "package." For example, the Applicant is willing to accept and conditionally accept a number of conditions even though they may not be legally imposed upon Applicant. The following is a chart that summarizes the Staff suggested Code Requirements and Conditions for approval of the Application, and the Applicant's position for each, for easy reference during the hearing. 36014.11214830-1118-2341 v_1 _81 5- Item 8. a Page 133 K COZ .C HART, KING & CGLDr2EN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 3 Requirement or Applicant Applicant Reasons or Suggested Condition Position Changes Planning & Building Department Code Requirements. 1.a. CC&R submittal Conditionally Accept Not authorized per Government Code and approval by City Section 66427.5 and Business & 90 days before final Professions Code Section 11010 map Applicant will submit CC&R for information as a courtesy, but objects to condition of approval 1.b. Final Tract Map Accept Fees 2. Final Tract Map Accept Recordation with County 3. Procedure for Accept Changes to Tentative Map 4. Ten-day appeal Accept period 5. Two-year Accept Tentative Map period with possible extension 6. Check for Notice Accept of Exemption 36014.1121483DA 118-2341 v.1 Item 8. - Page 134 -816- HART, KING & C©LDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 4 Requirement or Applicant Applicant Reasons or Suggested Condition Position Changes Public Works Code Requirements Prior to Submittal of Final Map 1. Hydrology and Conditionally Accept Not authorized per Government Code Hydraulic Analysis Section 66427.5 and Business and Profession Code Section 11010 (DRE will require reserve study) Applicant will conditionally accept if cost of study is capped at $25,000 and if the City deletes language requiring the Applicant to perform any work 2. Project Water Not Accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; Not Quality Management authorized by RWQCB Order No. R8-2009- Plan 0030 because not a new development or redevelopment; No State mandate on Applicant, but rather on City Public Works Code Ft guirements Prior to Recordation of Final Main 1. Approved Final Accept Map layout 2. Final Map include Accept title report 3. Final Map Accept consistent with Tentative Ma 4. Myiar and print Accept copy to Public Works 36014.1 1 214 830-1 1 1 8-2 34 1 v.1 -817- Item 8. - Page 135 HHK&C N Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 5 Requirement or Applicant Applicant Reasons or Suggested Condition Position Changes 5. Comply with Accept County requirements to tie Final Map to horizontal control system and provide digital graphics file 6. Design criteria and Accept file format for digital graphics file version to County 7. Improvement Conditionally Accept Only for those improvements agreed to Plans for Conditions herein of Approval 8. Public Works Fees Conditionally Accept Only for those improvements agreed to herein 9. Drainage Fee at Conditionally Accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; current rate or Drainage fee post-dates park construction Construction of Drainage System Applicant will provide $112,000 payment up front, and up to an additional $250,000 in increments based upon sale of certain number of lots so long as fees benefit Park; Applicant will not construct system 10. Encroachment Not Accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; Permit for work within Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No CalTrans right of way nexus; City required to obtain encroachment permit per City Code if CalTrans does not agree 36014.1 1 21483 0-1 1 1 8-2341 v.1 Item 6® - Page 136 -618- H K V S., C HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 6 Requirement or Applicant Applicant Reasons or Suggested Condition Position Changes Fire Department Code Requirements 1.a. Flow test in Conditionally accept City has recently adopted City-wide mirror of compliance with HCD requirements; Applicant accepts HBFC 508.1 condition that will test to same standard that would be required by HCD k 1.b. Fire hydrant and Conditionally accept City has recently adopted City-wide mirror of water supply system HCD requirements; Applicant accepts compliance with condition that will test to same standard that HBFC 508.1 would be required by HCD f Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. Tentative Map Accept shall be approved layout 2.a. 4nsite storm Not Accept See 9 Public Works Code Requirement Nos. ! drain per drainage 2 (pre-map submittal) and 9 (pre-map plan, soils report, and recording) above WQMP 2.b. Refer to HCD for Not Accept Not authorized per Government Code domestic and 66427.5 and Health & Safety Code Section irrigation water 18300 (a); HDC is the exclusive metering enforcement agency requirements 2.c. Hydrology and Conditionally Accept See Public Works Code Requirement No. 1 Hydraulic Analysis (pre-map submittal) 36014.11214830-1118-2341 v.1 -819- Item 8. a Page 137 HK PI& C HART,,KING & MZLOREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 7 Requirement or Applicant Applicant Reasons or Suggested Condition Position Changes 3. Provide option to Accept City cannot impose condition duplicative of purchase preemptive State law (Cat. Const., Art. 11, Sec. 7) 4. a. Avoid economic Accept City cannot impose condition duplicative of displacement of non- preemptive State law (Cal. Const., Art, 11, purchasing non low Sec. 7) income residents by four-year step up to Applicant willing to offer, in addition to State market rent following law requirements, long-term five year lease final map starting now at fixed rent levels 4.b. Avoid economic Accept City cannot impose condition duplicative of displacement of non- preemptive State law (Cal. Const., Art. 11, purchasing low- Sec. 7) income residents by limiting rent increases Applicant willing to offer, in addition to State to four year average law requirements, long-term five year lease percentage increases starting now at fixed rent levels capped by CPl 5.a.i. Curb and gutter Not Accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; along Beach Blvd Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot purchase costs 5.a.ii. Sidewalk along Not accept Not authorized per Govt, Code 66427.5; Beach Blvd Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot purchase costs 5.a.iii. A©A ramp Not accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; along Beach Blvd Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No nexus; Will increase residents rentals and tot purchase costs 38014.112(4830-1118-2341 u.1 Item 8e - Page 138 -820- K.(ey",C HART, KING & OOLORI7 V Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 8 Requirement or Applicant Applicant Reasons or Suggested Condition Position Changes 5.a.iv. Erosion Not accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; control measures Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No along Beach Blvd. nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot purchase costs 5.a.v. ADA ramp at Conditionally accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; Delaware and Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No Mermaid nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot purchase costs Applicant will pay up to $30,000 total for non Beach Blvd. ADA compliant ramps listed in Condition 5.a.v-ix. 5.a.vi. ADA ramp at Conditionally accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; Delaware and Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No Frankfort nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot purchase costs Applicant will pay up to provide up to $30,000 total for non Beach Blvd. ADA compliant ramps listed in Condition 5.a.v-ix 5.a.vii. ADA ramp at Not accept Duplicate of Condition 5.a.vi. Delaware and Frankfort 5_a_viii. ADA ramp at Conditionally accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; E Shoreciiff and Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No Frankfort nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot purchase costs Applicant will pay up to $30,000 total for non Beach Blvd. ADA compliant ramps listed in Condition 5.a.v-ix 36014.1 1 234830-1 1 1 5-2 341 v.1 -821- Item 80 - Page 139 HK&C HART. KING & COLOREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 9 Requirement or Applicant Applicant Reasons or Suggested Condition Position Changes 5.a.ix. ADA ramp on Conditionally Accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; Hill and Frankfort Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot purchase costs Applicant will pay up to $30,000 total for non Beach Blvd. ADA compliant ramps listed in Condition 5_a.v-ix 5.a.x. replace current Accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; 8-inch backflow Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No device configuration nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot with backflow device purchase costs conforming with current Water Standards 6. Landscape and Not Accept Not authorized per Govt. Code 66427.5; planting required to Govt. Code 66428.1 not applicable; No be approved by City nexus; Will increase residents rentals and lot purchase costs; Exclusive HCD jurisdiction Indemnification and Conditionally Accept Exact language and scope must be agreed Hold Harmless upon 36014.1 1 214830-1 1 1 6-2341 v.1 Item 8. - Page 140 -822- [fit a HART, KING d COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 10 In conclusion, we trust that the foregoing demonstrates the willingness of the Applicant Park Owner to go to great lengths to accommodate concerns of the City and residents despite not being required by law to do so. Indeed, the Applicant's position would greatly benefit the City by assisting the City in completing its drainage system and in helping the City avoid potential liability resulting therefrom. Thank you. HART, KING& COLQREN rt . C cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner (by e-mail only) 36014.1 1 214830-1 1 18-2341 v.1 -823- Item 8. - Page 141 STATE OF CAL IEQRNIA,BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AQ5NCY Arnold Sshwananeoaer_Gamernor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - DIVISION OF CODES AND STANDARDS 1800 THIRD STREET,SUITE 260,P.O.BOX 1407 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95912-1407 (916)445-9471 FAX (916)327-4712 From TDD Phones 1(800)735-2929 www.hed.ca.gov April 212008 Information Bulletin 2008—10 (MP) TO: Local Government Planning Agencies Local Building Officials Mobilehome Park Operators and Residents Mobilehome Park Interested Parties Division Staff SUBJECT: VALIDITY OF LOCAL ORDINANCES RELATING TO INSTALLATION OF NEW MANUFACTURED HOMES AND/OR SALE OR CONVERSION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS A number of local governments are enacting or enforcing ordinances relative to the physical operation and condition of mobilehome parks and recreational vehicle parks that are in conflict with the preemptive nature of the Mobilehome Parks Act("MPA"), found in Health & Safety Code]"H&SC"] sections 18200, et seq., and the Special Occupancy Parks Act("SOPA"), found in H&SC sections 18665, et seq.. Throughout this memorandum, there are references to "manufactured homes", "mobilehome parks"and "the Mobilehome Parks Act"; however, unless otherwise noted, the same issues and rules apply to recreational vehicles or park model trailers, recreational vehicle parks,and the Special Occupancy Parks Act. This memorandum's purpose is to provide information and clarification for local government officials and those involved with mobilehome parks and manufactured home installations or sales that state law restricts local government authority attempting to regulate the physical structure and operation of mobilehome parks—whether privately-owned, resident-owned, or in the process of conversion. For example, local ordinances which impose inspection, lot standards, or infrastructure requirements within a mobilehome park at the time of home installation, conversion, or sale generally are expressly and/or impliedly preempted by the MPA, and the only valid authority for imposing and enforcing these requirements is the California Department of Housing and Community Development("HCD") or local enforcement agencies that have assumed jurisdiction to enforce the MPA. Statutory Provisions Governing Preemption California courts have established guidelines for when local ordinances are preempted by state law. The general rule is that, if an otherwise valid local ordinances conflicts with preemptive state law, it is invalid. A"conflict" exists if an ordinance"duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by state law, either expressly or by implication". In addition, preemption is implied if the area is so fully covered by state law as to indicate it is exclusively a matter of state concern; it is partially covered by state law but the state coverage indicates that a paramount state concern will not allow additional Item Sm - Page 142 -824- Information Bulletin 2008-10 Page 2 local action; or there is partial state coverage but the adverse effect of a local ordinance on state residents outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. The MPA contains an express preemption,with minimal express authority for local ordinances. In addition, the Legislature's findings support its intent to allow only very restrictive authority for local government action within the boundaries of a mobilehome park. In the MPA, subdivision(a) of H&SC section 18300 provides that"the MPA and HCD regulations apply to all parts of the state and supersede any ordinance enacted by any city,county, or city and county,whether general law or chartered, affecting parks."Subdivision (g)and (h)of section 18300 provide the limited specific exceptions to the general state preemption,stating that the MPA does not preclude local governments,within the reasonable exercise of their police powers, from doing any of the following: * Enacting certain zones for mobilehome parks within the jurisdiction, or establishing types of uses and locations such as senior mobilehome parks, mobilehome condominiums, or mobilehome subdivisions within the jurisdiction. [subdivision (g)(1)] *Adopting ordinances, rules, regulations or resolutions prescribing park perimeter walls or enclosures on public street frontage, signs, access, and vehicle parking; or prescribing the prohibition of certain uses for mobilehome parks. [subdivision (g)(1), emphasis added] * 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 or to dispose of sewage when the facilities are located outside a park. [subdivision (g)(2), emphasis added]- * Requiring a permit to use a manufactured home or mobilehome outside a park which permit may be refused or revoked if the use violates the MPA or the Manufactured Housing Act. [subdivision (g)(3), emphasis added.] * 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,. [subdivision (g)(4), emphasis added] * Prescribing and enforcing setback and separation requirements governing manufactured home, mobilehome, or mobilehome accessory structure or building installation outside of a mobilehome park. [subdivision (g)(5), emphasis added] Other provisions directly addressing preemptive authority include H&SC sections 18253, 18400.1, 18605, 18610, and 25 CA Code of Regulations (CCR), section 1000. Permissible Local Government Regulation and Standards Local governments do have some authority to regulate certain physical components in a mobilehome park. Also, pursuant to subdivision (b) of H&SC section 18300, they may assume MPA enforcement authority and become a "local enforcement agency" ("LEA"), rather than relying on HCD inspectors. As stated above, subdivision (g) of H&SC section 18300 provides express authority for local governments, within the reasonable exercise of police powers, to adopt zoning ordinances to -825- (tern Sm a Page 143 Information Bulletin 2008-10 Page 3 allow or prohibit parks and certain park uses, and for park perimeter walls or enclosures on public street frontage, signs, access, and vehicle parking. Also, subdivision.(h) of that section allows local governments, within specified parameters, to establish new park density, to require recreational facilities, and to require setback and separation requirements for manufactured'housing outside of parks, but no greater than those permitted by applicable ordinances for other affordable housing forms. H&SC section 18691, subdivision (b), permits a local government that is the MPA enforcement agency to enforce within parks its own fire code that imposes standards equal to or greater than the restrictions in the California Building Standards Code ("CBSC") and other state requirements. In addition, a local government which is not a local enforcement agency may assume fire prevention authority and impose certain portions of its fire code within a park. Subdivision (e) of H&SC section 18501 and Title 25 CCR, section 1032, permit a local government to approve or deny approval for any construction permit to build or increase the size of a park or to add multifamily manufactured housing based on "compliance with all valid local planning health, utility and fire requirements". (H&SC §18501, emphasis added). The use of the word "valid" implicitly excludes requirements preempted by the MPA, allowing, for example, flood plain ordinance compliance, the minimum size of a park's land parcel, whether a septic system sewer hook-up is required, where and whether off-site drainage is permitted, and/or the number and spacing of fire hydrants. Local Ordinance Provisions Which Are Preempted General Background In implementing the Legislature's comprehensive statewide program to establish and enforce park standards for construction, maintenance, repairs, and occupancy, the Department's statutory and regulatory standards impose standards for virtually every aspect of a park's or a manufactured home's physical conditions, except for those expressly left to local government action in subdivision (h) of H&SC section 18300. With respect to construction of a new or expanded park, or installation of multifamily manufactured housing, HCD regulations require evidence of local approvals from the local planning agency; the health, fire, and public works departments; the agency responsible for flood control; the serving utilities; and any other state or federal agency or special district that has jurisdiction and would be impacted by the proposed construction. (25 CCR §§1020.6, 1032). Similarly, HCD or the LEA may require local approvals for construction of a permanent building under the ownership or control of the park within a park if that installation May impact local services. Most other types of construction, replacements, installations, and alterations require an MPA enforcement agency permit and inspections (25 CCR § 1018), but no local approvals. HCD regulations govern both park construction and manufactured home installation standards and procedures. Generally, the regulations require that a home and other structures on a park lot use not more than 75% of the lot space (25 CCR §1110) and that the home and structures have specified set-backs and separations from lot lines and structures (tern 8. - Page 144 -826- Information Bulletin 2008-10 Page 4 (25 CCR §1330). In addition, a "manufactured home" is a specific preemptive definition in H&SC section 18007 and a recreational vehicle (including a park model) is a specifically defined term in H&SC section 18010. As a result, a local government cannot impose restrictions on the minimum or maximum size of a manufactured home to be installed on a -fnobilehorrie park lot (ordinance precluding--two-story manufactured homes found invalid in County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Cal.App.40', 1483, 26 Cal.Rptr 3d 543) or whether a park model or recreational vehicle can be installed on a recreational vehicle lot. Examples of Preempted Ordinance Provisions The following italicized sentences are examples of local ordinances that have been brought to HCUs attention and that area preempted by state laws and regulations. "if there has been no Title 25 inspection within 3 years, one must be obtained". H&SC sections 18605 and 18610 provide that HCUs rules govern park maintenance and operation. No express or implied exception exists in H&SC section 18300 permitting local governments to impose inspection requirements related to park maintenance. "The Park owner shall provide a list of all Title 25 deficiencies found on inspection and evidence that all deficiencies have been corrected." Pursuant to H&SC sections 18605 and 18610, HCUs rules govern park maintenance and operation. Pursuant to the preemptive restrictions in H&SC section 18300, no express or implied exception exists permitting local governments to impose enforcement requirements related to park maintenance. In addition, the MPA does not require correction of all deficiencies: * The MPA expressly permits extended periods for repairs to achieve correction of deficiencies. H&SC section 18420, subdivision (c)(4), permits the enforcement agency to defer repair requirements as long as there is a "valid reason why a violation has not been corrected, including, but not limited to, weather conditions, illness, availability of repair persons, or availability of financial resources...." The MPA permits an inspector to not cite a violation of the MPA if it is not an imminent hazard. (subdivision (d) of H&SC section 18420) "Written documentation from HCD shall be obtained demonstrating that the park complies with all applicable Title 25 requirements." The MPA governs performance of inspections and issuance of reports of violations or corrections and does not require HCD or an LEA to perform inspections to ensure compliance with "all applicable" Title 25 requirements. A "complaint inspection" involves resolution of a specific complaint. A"park maintenance inspection" involves identification and resolution of only hazards which are either an immediate risk to life, health, and safety, requiring immediate correction; or those constituting unreasonable risks to life, health or safety, requiring correction with 60 days (H&SC §18400.3). No other violations of Title 25 are recorded. "Proof of remediation of any Title 25 violations shall be confirmed in writing by the California Department of Housing and Community Development." In addition to the obvious issue that a local government cannot require HCD to perform any duties related to parks, HCD does not have enforcement responsibility for many of the state's parks and therefore has no information regarding any identified violations or proposed or completed remedies in those parks subject to LEA enforcement. -827- Item 8. a Page 145 Information Bulletin 2008-10 Page 5 "Prior to installation of a new home on an existing lot, there shall be two covered and paved parking spaces on the lot." Subdivision (f) of Title 25 CCR section 1106 expressly and fully regulates paving for driveways and roadways, stating that paving generally is not required; therefore,local governments may riot impose paving requirements. Title 25 CCR sections 1110, 1116, and 1118 regulate lot standards, precluding local government lot standards such as covered parking or a specific number of on-lot spaces. [While H&SC§18300(g)(1) provides local governments with authority to regulate"vehicle parking", that authority is narrowly interpreted and harmonized with the preemptive nature of the MPA by allowing local government ordinances to reasonably require a specified number of parking spaces within the boundaries of the park (to avoid public street parking), but without imposing their own specific location.] "No manufactured home may be installed on a lot of less than 4000 square feet, with a minimum depth of 75 feet and a minimum width of 50 feet, at least a fifteen-foot setback from any other home, and at least a ten-foot separation between all structures on the lot other than an attached cabana or covered patio." The MPA implicitly preempts local authority to establish lot sizes by virtue of the standards in 25 CCR sections 1110 and 1118; see also, 25 CCR section 1106(e); in addition, subdivision (g) of H&SC section 18300 allows local governments to establish "density", not lot sizes or locations. The set-back and separation requirements are expressly established by 25 CCR section 1330; in addition, by implication, local action is precluded with respect to setbacks and separations because, in subdivision (h)(3) of H&SC section 18300, the Legislature authorized local action in this area only for manufactured homes sited outside of mobilehome parks. "The sides of the park facing a public street and the sides facing residential construction shall have walls high enough to block sight access of the roofs of the mobilehomes with ivy or other permanent foliage coverage, and no mobilehome shall be closer than 15 feet from the wall or fence." The locality is authorized, by subdivision (h) of H&SC section 18300, to regulate only the wall or enclosure on the public street frontage, not other sides of the park. The locality is authorized to establish a set-back for the wall or enclosure on the public street frontage, but all other set-back and separation requirements (within the boundaries of the park) are preemptively established by the MPA regulations. "Every lot in a mobilehome park shall have no more than one mobilehome and one storage shed, and foliage shall be consistent with the surrounding area." This ordinance establishes "lot standards". When H&SC section 18300 was amended in 1981, the express authority for local governments to regulate "landscaping" and establish standards for lots, yards, and park area in mobilehome parks was deleted by the Legislature, depriving local authority for this regulation under the MPA. "All on-site utilities shall be installed underground." Utility construction requirements are preempted either by the PUC for utility-owned utilities, and/or by Title 25, CCR, which permits overhead utilities. New parks built after 1997 must have gas and electric services owned, operated, and maintained by the serving utility. See, Public Utilities Code section. 2791, Title 25 CCR, section 1180(g). Item Ike - Page 146 -828- Information Bulletin 2008-10 Page 6 "Prior to final approval of a park conversion, all lots shall be surveyed to be equal in size, clearly demarcated by landscaping, and lot lines approved by the Planning Department shall be recorded with the County Recorder." A mobilehome park remains a mobilehome park before, during, and after conversion; see, H&SC section 18214, subdivision (a), which provides, ""Mobilehome-park" is-any-area or-tract of land where two or more lots are rented or leased, held out for rent or lease, or were formerly held out for rent or lease and later converted to a subdivision, cooperative condominium,or other form of resident ownership..." (emphasis added) Thus, the preemptive provisions which applied to a park prior to, during, and after conversion. 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. Conclusion The State Legislature, in its enactment and subsequent amendments to the Mobilehome Parks Act and the Special Occupancy Parks Act, has established clear preemptive authority with regard to state regulation of the physical construction and operational standards for mobilehome parks and recreational vehicle parks. Conversely, both expressly and impliedly, the Legislature has narrowly limited local government authority to legislatively mandate any activity or requirements with regard to the physical standards, physical operation, or physical status of a park. A number of local ordinances addressing park standards for construction, maintenance, operations, or conversions to subdivisions or other forms of resident ownership likely are invalid because the two state Acts preempt them. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please feel free to contact our office at the address above. Sincerely, Kim Strang Deputy Director -829- Item 8. - Page 147 Item B. - Page 148 -830- HK& C HART, KING CDL<DREN Boyd L.Hill bhill@hkclaw.com January 12, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112/4826-6788-7621v.1 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Hand Delivered Ethan Edwards, City Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. 2000 Main Street ' r `f P.O. Box 190 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17926 Dear Mr. Edwards: Please find enclosed the Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map 17926 ("Application") for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park located at 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 ("Shorecliffs'). The Application is the first step in the conversion of Shorecliffs from a rental to a resident-owned mobilehome park. The Application is to create numbered residential lots corresponding to the existing 304 Shorecliffs rental spaces currently permitted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") and lettered lots corresponding to each non-contiguous portion of the existing common areas. The Application is submitted pursuant to California Government Code Section 66427.5, which expressly preempts local agency requirements for subdivision of existing mobilehome parks to enable conversion to resident ownership. Section 66427.5 prevents physical displacement of residents by requiring that residents have the option to purchase the lot created from their existing space or to continue leasing that space. Section 66427.5 prevents economic displacement of residents by placing limits on post-conversion rent increases, especially for low income residents. As a simple subdivision to enable conversion to resident ownership under Government Code Section 66427.5, the Application does not involve any "physical change" or "change in use" of Shorecliffs. Instead, the subdivision simply creates legally recordable property boundaries out of the existing configuration of HCD approved rental spaces and common areas. Therefore, Section 66427.5 eliminates many of the requirements that would exist for a subdivision of raw land or for a subdivision to enable a new use of an existing development, such as requirements for environmental review, soils and engineering studies, dedications and exactions, etc. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5, all that must accompany the Application is the Tentative Tract Map, the applicable fee, a resident survey, and a conversion impact A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 i www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 -831- Item 8. - Page 149 H K EZO C HART KING & COLDREN Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 2 report, which conversion impact report must provide notice to residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing (the option is loosely labeled in Section 66427.5 (a) as an "offer"). (See El Dorado Palm Springs Associates v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1180) Therefore, the enclosed Application includes the following attachments, some of which are enclosed with this letter, others of which are currently on file with the City or will be subsequently filed with the City: 1. Map. Eleven copies of Tentative Tract Map No. 17926, the September 8, 2009 version which shows 304 spaces, which were previously submitted to the City with our prior application. As per our telephone conversations, the City still retains those copies of that version of the Map in its file, and the City will treat those Map copies as part of this new Application. 2. Fee. The filing fee in the amount of $10,500 is enclosed. As we discussed, the City previously reviewed the individual lots in connection with the prior application and has agreed to waive the per lot fee of $30 for each of the 304 residential lots under this new Application. 3. Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents. A copy of the December 15, 2009 Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents is enclosed, plus an Affidavit of Mike Cirillo attesting to the mailing of copies of the Report to the Residents on December 15, 2009. As the Report explains, the California Legislature only requires that the Report discuss the potential for economic displacement upon those residents who will continue to rent their spaces upon conversion, and does not require any discussion pertaining to economic impacts upon those residents who will purchase lots. 4. Resident Survey Results. Shorecliffs entered into an agreement with the homeowner's association to conduct a survey of resident support for the conversion. A copy of that agreement is enclosed. According to that agreement, the homeowner's association was to have conducted the survey by the end of the year 2009 and was to have provided the City with the results, but the association has not done yet done so. The homeowner's association now states that it will provide the survey results to the City by mid-January. Per our conversation, the City will begin processing the Application without the survey results, but will not issue notice of completion until receipt of the survey results. It is important to note that the Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) survey requirement only pertains to whether the conversion is a "sham" to avoid local rent control, and the City has no rent control. 5. Data and Reports. As explained above, Government Code Section 66427.5 preempts any additional City requirements for data and reports beyond those required by Section 66427.5. Therefore, most of the data and reports listed in Paragraph 5 of the Application are not applicable, as explained below: 36014.112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 Item 8. - Page 150 -832- K,, HART. KING & COLDRIE N Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 3 5(a) Environmental Assessment Form. Conversion of a rental mobile home park to residential ownership is exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301 (k) (existing facilities-division of existing single family residences into common interest ownership where no physical changes occur), for the same reasons as the express statutory exemption for resident initiated conversions contained in Public Resources Code Section 21080.8. 5(b) Preliminary Title Report. A Preliminary Title Report dated December 21, 2009 is enclosed. 5(c) Preliminary Soils and Engineerinq Geology Report. There is no "physical change" or "change in use" of Shorecliffs. Therefore, no soils or geology reports is necessary or required under Government Code Section 66427.5. 5(d) Public Notification Requirements. Public notification materials are enclosed- 5(e) Photographs of the Subject Property. Photographs of Shorecliffs are enclosed. 5(f) Written Narrative: (1) Existing Use of the Property and Present Zoning. Shorecliffs is situated on a single parcel (APN 024-250-72) consisting of approximately 39 acres and operated as a mobile home park permitted for 304 mobile home spaces. Shorecliffs is currently zoned RMP. The General Plan Designation is RMH-25. Shorecliffs 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. Shorecliffs is improved with 2 clubhouses and pools, office, conference center, and laundry facilities. There is an RV storage lot on Shorecliffs property. (2) Proposed Use of the Property. There is no proposed "physical change" or "change in the use" of Shorecliffs. The proposed use of the Shorecliffs is to maintain the existing use as a mobile home park. 36014.112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 -833- Item S. - Page 151 HKEE HART, KING & C;OLOREN Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 4 (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, a Shorecliffs Homeowners Association will be formed customary covenants, conditions and restrictions utilized in planned mobile home communities will be prepared and submitted to the California Department of Real Estate for review and approval. 5(g) Coastal Development Permit Application. Shorecliffs is not within the Coastal Zone and no permits are required. The enclosed materials should provide the City with a complete Application once the survey results are submitted (assuming the homeowner's association complies with its agreement). As we discussed, please promptly advise whether the Application is complete and begin processing the Application with the Subdivision Committee so that we may hold the Subdivision Committee meeting and have Planning Commission Study Session and Hearing during the month of February. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Best Regards, HART, KING & COLD EN Boyd L. Hill d, 1W cc: John Saunders Michael Cirillo Robert S. Coldren Burt Mazelow 36014.1 1 214 826-6 788-762 1 v.1 Item 8m - Page 152 -834- HKJ�C HARIT KING & rOt DREN Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 5 Enclosures: Subdivision Application [Tentative Tract Map dated September 8, 2009 previously provided] Application Fee Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents Affidavit of Mike Cirillo re mailing of Report Preliminary Title Report dated December 21, 2009 Public Notification Materials Photographs 36014.112/4826-6788-76210 -835- Item 8® - Page 153 Items 6e a Page 154 -836- TRACT MAP NO. 17296 SECTIONSITE + 11.lo—I VICINITY MAP i4 'a .. ....... pit jig it— �7 7 V-P EMMUMM Iola FIL T (D TRACT MAP NO. 17296 A PORTION OF THE.11 111 QUARTER OF A t L F J i 1 11 qq co ............... jo -839- Item 8. - Page 157 Jl City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building BY: Ethan Edwards, AICP, Associate Planner G DATE: March 9, 2010 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 'MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBI L EHOME PARK SUBDIVISION—FOR RENT TO OWNERSHIP) APPLICANT: Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 APPELLANT: Shorecliff LP; JS Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 PROPERTY OWNER: Shorecliff LP; JS Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E. Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 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 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots. - Converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park into 304 lots for ownership purposes. - The request includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements identified by staff. e Staffs Recommendation: Approve Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 based upon the following: - The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning& Subdivision Ordinance- - Impacts to residents associated with purchasing and non-purchasing lots, maintenance and repair of infrastructure, estimated sales price of the lots, and other costs are adequately analyzed in the impact of conversion upon residents report satisfying Government Code § 66427.5. - Evidence that the tenant survey was prepared in agreement with the homeowners association was provided satisfying Government Code § 66427.5. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to A. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings and suggested conditions for approval (Attachment No. 1)." B_ "Deny the appeal of the identified Code Requirements." #B-2 Item 8. - Page 158 -840- i f � { h v , NOON■ ! MU Now ME I�[y lTS � - '�►�' a i �� � � i � 1 ■ ae ? �•�`����rzFOF'/�� v,.�1� `f `. Y I;�� r v"% Y�� `v�v}}��!/♦ -����:°��OF!�1C��9', 1 a]w i°r�o.;'�� �IOU g i rsr tk�f'I q O�p 77 ia1 �!TIm- Ic p t v,�� Miw Y y/! 11j 3I� jut, 1 !�{�ttI ` qqqg II•• Sl a i1i � �_ I{ '������i��`"1`����1�11`�'S7"•i ��19� ��V§�12 ���1g`�l li� y�U..,l�� ry .'' 1 hut°*+ °y� � p II ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS}: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and direct staff accordingly." C. "Approve the appeal of identified Code Requirements (Applicant's Request)." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Tentative Tract M�No. 17296 represents a request for the following: ' A. To subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres(37.06 net)into 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park for ownership purposes- B. The applicant has also filed an appeal of the identified 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 acres (37.06 net acres), for-rent, mobilehome park with a total of 304 units for ownership purposes. The 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 February 19, 2010 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. 9). 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 plus 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 lots ranging in approximate size from 3,036 sq. ft. to 5,994 sq_ ft. Permitting and enforcement authority over the mobilehome park lies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD is the enforcement agency regarding compliance with state laws regarding mobile home parks. The Huntington Beach Fire Department has assumed responsibility for enforcement of fire code related state and local laws. 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 20, et-al. Government Code § 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 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 (see Attachment No, 6). The SMA also requires the subdivider to obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park. The applicant submitted the survey results, which indicates out of a total of 259 surveys sent; 182 were returned. Of the 182 returned surveys, 52 declined to state their opinion, 105 indicated they do not support the conversion and 25 indicated support of the conversion (Attachment No. 7). PC Staff Report—3/9/2010 3 10sr24 TTM 17296 Huntington Shorediffs Item 6. - Page 160 -842- The applicant has submitted a letter to address questions raised at the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission study session(Attachment No. 12) As background, a subdivision application to convert the mobilehome park from 304 for-rent spaces to 309 lots for ownership purposes was denied with findings by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2009 based on insufficient information that would substantiate compliance with the SMA and Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. On November 16, 2009, City Council also denied the proposed subdivision based on findings and the facts that the subdivision will result in an increase in the number of lots, lacking compliance with the common open space requirements, insufficient impact report, and lack of evidence that the survey of support was prepared in agreement with a homeowners association independent of the property owner. The applicant filed for a petition for writ of mandate in Orange County Superior Court challenging the action taken by the City in denying the conversion. Mugs: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General flan Designafions: �r m a�'"..o�'r-:._ "i]tY"=:dJ►7 d x . „-.Y . r Sr •w.rit ,.n..,s.x.,�'_iv nr+ n4�i Subject Property: RMH-25 (Residential Medium RAW(Residential Mobilehome Mobilehome park High Density—Max. 25 units Park) r 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 RM14-25-d(Residential RMH Single family and multi- (across Delaware St.): Medium High Density— OS-PR(Open Space—Parks and family residential and Design Overlay) Recreation Subdistrict) public 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 consistent with this designation and the objectives and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Growth Management Element Objective GM 7.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. PC Staff Report—3/9/2010 4 10sr24 T"rM 17296 Huntington Shorecliffs -843- Item 8. - Page 161 The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows_ The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). B. Utilities Element Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to project life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA.66428.1(d). C. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan(as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Objective LU 15.6: Facilitate the preservation and development of Residential Mobile Home Parks_ The City's Master Plan of Drainage recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground pipeline to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline will convey storm water underground to provide relief of the drainage issues_ In addition, the Beach Boulevard frontage will be improved to provide safe pedestrian access and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non- conforming_ The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development, therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent mobilehome park to ownership facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision_ PC Staff Report—3/9/2010 5 10sr24 TTM 17296 Huntington Shorediffs Item 8e - Page 162 -844- D. Circulation Element Objective CE 6.1: Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to Caltrans and City- wide standards. The Beach Boulevard frontage along the mobilehome park will be improved to provide safe pedestrian access pursuant to SMA 66428.1(d) to address a public health and safety issue. Currently, there is no sidewalk and curb along the frontage and pedestrians are required to either walk within the public right of way or on an unimproved dirt path adjacent to Beach Boulevard. The proposed sidewalk improvements will close a gap in the sidewalk along the west side of Beach Boulevard and allow safe pedestrian movement for the public and residents of the mobilehome park_ State Law Compliance: The following is a state law compliance matrix which compares the proposed subdivision with the requirements of Government Code § 66427.5 (Avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing tenants) of the Subdivision Map Act: ISSUE STATE LAW PROVISION PROVIDED Option to Rent or (a)The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to Yes(Attachment No. 6) Own 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. Impact Report (b)The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the Yes(Attachment No_ 6) Filing conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident olt-ned subdivided interest. Impact Report (c)The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of conversion Yes(Attachment No. 6) Distribution upon residents 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. Survey (d)(1)The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents Yes(Attachment No. 7) of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. Independent (d)(2)The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with Yes(Attachment No. 7) of Subdivider an agreement between the subdivder and resident homeowners' association,if any,that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park oxvner. Format (d)(3)The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. Yes(Attachment No. 7) Voting (d)(4)The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied Yes (Attachment No. 7) mobilehome space has one vote. Results & (d)(5)The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local Yes(Attachment No. 7) Reporting agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map,to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision (e)_ Scope of Hearing (e)The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative Yes (Attachment No_ 1) 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. Table is continued on next page PC Staff Report —3/9/2010 6 10sr24 TTM 17296 Huntington Shorecliffs -845- item 8. - Page 163 ISSUE STATE LAW PROVISION PROVIDED Avoid Economic (f)The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic Yes (Attachment No. 1, Displacement displacement of nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the suggested condition of following: (1)As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower approval No. 4(a)&(b)) income household,as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code,the monthly rent, 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 nonpurebasing 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 re orted period. Zoning Compliance: This subdivision is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park(RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the requirements of that zone. The existing 304 unit mobilehome park is considered non-conforming to the current standards of that zone. The park does not comply with the minimum required 60,800 sq. ft. common open space, storage and site coverage. The proposed tentative tract map to convert from rental to ownership does not include the creation of new lots or development, therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required meet the current provisions of the HBZSO. The following is a zoning conformance matrix for information purposes which compares the existing mobilehome park with the development standards of Sections 210.06&210.14 of the HBZSO_ ISSUE CODE PROVISION PROVIDED Min. Building Site 10. acres 39.2 acres (37.06 net acres) Max. Building Height 20 ft. Complies Max.Accessory Structure 15 ft. Complies Height 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. to 5 ft. Storage Min. 150 cubic feet of enclosed storage Unable to Verify space Fencing and Iandscaping 6 ft, high screen wall and 10 ft. wide Screen wall provided_ landscaped planter. Landscaping along Beach Blvd. not provided, Table is continued on next page PC Staff Report—319/2010 7 10sr24 TTM 17296 Huntington Shorediffs Item 6. - Page 164 -846- ISSUE CODE PROVISION PROVIDED Boat and Trailer Storage Screened from view by a 6 ft. high fence Complied with. or wall. Maximum site coverage Max. 75%for each individual Unable to Verify manufactures home. Common Open Space 60,800 sq.ft(min. 200 sq. ft. per unit) 38,043 sq.ft. 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 February 25, 2009 and voted 5-1 (Farley-No) to recommend approval of the request to the Planning Commission with suggested conditions of approval. 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, 9. The Committee also reviewed Suggested Conditions of Approval applicable to the project if approved. Updates were made to the Suggested Conditions of Approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning &Building Department at the meeting_ The updates were in an effort to address health and safety issues associated with the proposed subdivision pursuant to SMA 66428.1(d). Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services and Planning and Building have reviewed the proposed subdivision and provided a list of applicable code requirements_ 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&R's and a hydraulic and hydrology analysis, payment of fees, and processing requirements for final map review. The Code Requirements letter was transmitted on February 9, 2010. The applicant contends that a majority of the code requirements are "unlawful" pursuant to State law. The applicant has appealed the February 9, 2010 code requirements with the exception of Planning and Building Department Code Requirement Nos. 1(b), 2(a), 4, 5, and 8 and Public Works Department pre-final map recordation Code Requirement Nos. 1-6. The Departments of Planning and Building, Public Works, and Fire have subsequently updated the identified code requirements PC Staff Report-3/9/2010 8 10sr24 YFM 17296 Huntington Shorediffs -847- item 8. - Page 165 (See Attachment No. 10) to ensure compliance with State Law. Staff does not support the applicant's contentions that these requirements are"unlawful." Public Notilcalion: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on February 22, 2010, 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 March 2, 2010, 29 comments opposing the request have been received (see Attachment No. 8). Application Processing Dales: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): February 5, 2010 April 6, 2010 (50 days) Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 was filed on January 12, 2010 and deemed complete February 5, 2010. ANALYSIS: The major issues with the processing of the application is inadequacy of infrastructure within the park that may never be addressed if the conversion takes place without the proposed suggested conditions of approval including the City code requirements_ The applicant complied with the minimum requirements of State Law regarding the report of impacts of conversion on the residents and the survey of resident support Infrastructure In reviewing the proposed subdivision and tentative tract map staff has raised concerns with existing inadequate infrastructure within the mobilehome park. First, problems with the park's existing surface storm drainage patterns, the existing water system and the existing sanitary sewer system have been areas of major concern with the residents who feel these issues will never be addressed if the proposed conversion to individual tot ownership takes place. The park was originally established in 1969 and developed with a surface storm gutter that meanders through the existing private street in the park. Individual mobilehome sites within the park were designed to drain their storm water directly to the surface storm gutter within the private streets. The problem with this design is that the roadway elevations have risen due to multiple pavement overlays over the years increasing the height of the pavement. The resulting pavement elevation is higher than many of the mobilehome sites which negatively affects the original drainage pattern. 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. As was discussed, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has jurisdiction over most aspects of the operation maintenance, health and safety of mobilehomes and mobilehome 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 PC Staff Report-3/9/2010 9 10sr24 T TM 17296 Huntington Shorediifs Item 8® - Page 166 -848- with the proposed subdivision and tentative map. The applicant contends that when the park subdivides, the owners and tenants will maintain and repair the park at adequate levels. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum)to convey storm water flows. Construction of a storm drain pipeline will not only convey storm water underground, but will allow the addition of drain inlets at the individual mobilehome sites to allow relief of the drainage issue. As a final measure to mitigate the storm water drainage effects, construction of an underground pipeline will allow the addition of storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPXs National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Second, there are pedestrian problems with the existing frontage of the park configured as it is today. Currently, there is no sidewalk and curb along the frontage and pedestrians are required to either walk along the public highway or on an unimproved dirt path adjacent to Beach Boulevard. Staff recommends that the Beach Boulevard frontage along the mobilehome park be improved to provide safe pedestrian access ensuring public health and safety. This improvement would also be designed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey storm water. The proposed minimum sidewalk improvements are intended to close a gap in the sidewalk along the west side of Beach Boulevard and will allow for safe pedestrian movement for the public and residents of the mobilehome park. Report on Impacts of Conversion on the Tenants The SMA requires that the subdivider prepare a report on the impact of the conversion upon tenants of the mobilehome 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" (see Attachment No. 6) with the application for subdivision and distributed the report to the residents of the mobilehome park on December 15, 2009, a minimum 15 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing as required by State Law. The report references Government Code § 66427.5 and states that each existing tenant will have the option of either buying or continue renting the proposed space where their mobilehome is located with statutory restrictions on rent increases. Suggested condition of approval No. 4.a. and b. further clarifies that the statutory restrictions on rent increases shall not commence until the final map is recorded. The report also identifies an estimate of what the non-purchasing residents can expect to pay for rent. The report states that residents on long-term Ieases 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. Staff considers the submitted impact report as sufficient in that it meets the minimum requirements as prescribed by Government Code § 66427.5. Survey of Resident Support The SMA requires the subdivider and homeowners association enter into an agreement to conduct a survey of resident support. The survey must be conducted by a homeowners association (if any) independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. The results of the survey must be presented to the local agency to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing process. A written survey was conducted by the Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowners Association, in January 2010. The results of the survey were submitted to the City on January 19, 2010. There were a total of 259 surveys sent out Of the 259; 182 surveys were completed and returned. The survey results indicate that 25 persons were in support of the PC Staff Report --3/9/2010 10 1Osr24"1TM 17296 Huntington Shorediffs -849- Item 8. - Page 167 conversion of the mobilehome park to resident ownership, 105 persons were not is support of the conversion, and 52 persons declined to state their opinion (see table below)_ A copy of the results is provided as Attachment No. 7. Some of the ballots returned included comments primarily relating to the lack of support for the conversion and issues with inadequate drainage. Staff considers the submitted survey of resident support sufficient in that it meets the minimum requirements as prescribed by Government Code § 66427.5. ...,:,:�r.c.r .uo ..,� '....-<:::_ _,.r.-r..r ..;;,,z nxi_->-,..,:. ..ns.-,.. - ..y=-a-s rrsrr:..:�,rrt..a;>.•. �� tom:-;'�, EN'i'� �=5. -�� � D.�:,� S nO •a�. �� Old '_O �'� �� �> I?�== •,.t..�:..?S:.:t .vx,�rrz`,x,�-.";a:;T.',..,xerw .::,a::(� - .:,-rem... ,,3 >.,•t. .>rl.xx� :,3Y _�:,� x :�•.:amfa':;�.�:4- _,i�>.. w.. ..xy; . �;3a�:. .;"-Z: - '-6E. ,•y._. .N: �F%'Y;-,: .,- :`>.U'=t y"at,,.��•. .�s-,,a.i;>y :�-->«,.;E>L-, e"�':�`•... _ z�„'hrv�-. �5�`y^,. 'a,"_�s'`A-.-'r..,Zisz s:'�w`.r•::...,: •^T�...g'.:R w:'s`�K' �':'sua.;*•.c,.:.�:.z....:. ...+��• ;::ti:�i..,,.3. ,i`.sa.^- -',Y,.0,�',,.._ ++�� .-�- 'rxu"t�,�.'2?+c:ti:r-..=�2`'-.`v�.�.. .a _r :�.rx';p;n:. Y._: •r�'w•.., -:rr':r-' �' -�,_. _o,�x..a 5�`t rY .,?:;E=y: ,ta. 3: �: f�..v� .i.,..e•z. %.-. a• 5: �,.,.,-� ,�� `.^�=�- - .,^r__� �.��.<:�.: xz.�tx.. r-�..�:w <a.,,.tr;:�r. .�:��v.� � :x"�Y•- �<.�>�"= a. ,ac;i�.: %.�,.r-`s - :.:'�,n.•�,'e..- ..}. .:.;x=:v .'�:, ..�._ -::crr! _:s=Fa.�.>�:ii rds:.,, s.-s-..�i' µ:�y.,�. ^'Lfti y Y: - .kM` _3,. .�_>� .�_` _::af r✓,v^-.t s,y.,x,,c<' �=a `a`;-: :-cthr''I.:c-= :iiz 259* sent and 182 returned=70% *(306 total- 18 vacant-29 no info=259 total surveys) 25 = 14% 105 = 58% 52=28% Appeal of Code Requirements In reviewing the proposed subdivision, staff identified a list of code requirements applicable to the project and forwarded the list to the applicant on February 9, 2010. On February 19, 2010, the applicant appealed the list of code requirements. The appellant contends that a majority of the code requirements are "unlawful" pursuant to State law. However, the appellant does agree with Planning and Building Department Code Requirement Nos. l(b), 2(a), 4, 5, and 8 and Public Works Department pre-final map recordation Code Requirement Nos. 1-6. Staff does not support the applicant's contentions that these requirements are "unlawful" in that Government Code § 66427.5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Government Code to apply such as SMA 66428.1(d). The code requirements identify applicable standards excerpted from the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code which must be followed after approval and prior to recordation of a final map and independent of State Law. Staff has revised what it believes are applicable code requirements (See Attachment No. 10) that address public health and safety pursuant to SMA 66428.1(d). Staff does not believe the code requirements are preempted by state law as proffered by the applicant and as such, recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal. SUAiMARY: The proposed subdivision changes the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park from a rental park to an ownership park. The impacts on residents associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure, estimated sales price of the lots, and other costs are generalized in the impact report, and the survey of resident support was completed- Staff recommends approval for the reasons discussed in this report and with the findings and suggested conditions of approval in Attachment No. 1. PC Staff Report -3/9/2010 11 10sr24 TTM 17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Item 8. - Page 168 -850- AITTACEIWNTS: 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval—Tentative Map No. 17296 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 dated January 12, 2010 3. Project Narratives received January 12, 2010 4. Code Requirements Letter dated February 9, 2010 5. Appeal Letter dated February 19, 2010 6. Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents dated December 15, 2009 7. Summary of the Survey of Residents dated January 19, 2010 8. Comment letters received from residents of the mobilehome park 9. Draft Minutes of the February 25, 2010 Subdivision Committee meeting. 10.Revised Code Requirements Letter dated March 3, 2010 11. Government Code § 66427.5/Government Code § 66428.1(d) 12. Hart,King& Coldren letter dated received March 03, 2010 SH:HF:ee PC Staff Report—3/9/2010 12 I Osr24 TTM 17296 Huntington Shorecliffs -851- Item 8. - Page 169 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: 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. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a mobilehome park where residents can purchase the land where the mobilehome is located is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density — Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. A. Growth Management Element Objective GM 7.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). B. Utilities Element Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to project life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). PC Staff Report—3/9/20I0 Attachment No. I.I Item B. - Page 170 -852- C. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Objective LU 15.6: Facilitate the preservation and development of Residential Mobile Home Parks. The City's Master Plan of Drainage recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground pipeline to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline will convey storm water underground to provide relief of the drainage issues. In addition, the Beach Boulevard frontage will be improved to provide safe pedestrian access and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non- conforming. The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development; therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent mobilehome park to ownership facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision. D. Circulation Element Objective CE 6.1: Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to Caltrans and City- wide standards. The Beach Boulevard frontage along the mobilehome park will be improved to provide safe pedestrian access pursuant to SMA 66428.1(d) to address a public health and safety issue. Currently, there is no sidewalk and curb along the frontage and pedestrians are required to either walk within the public right of way or on an unimproved dirt path adjacent to Beach Boulevard. The proposed sidewalk improvements will close a gap in the sidewalk along the west side of Beach Boulevard and allow safe pedestrian movement for the public and residents of the mobilehome park. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The proposed subdivision converts an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a 304 space ownership mobilehome park at a density of 8.2 units per net acres and is physically suitable for the site. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as the subdivision will provide for the replacement of existing inadequate drainage facilities and addition of a pedestrian sidewalk along the Beach Boulevard frontage to address health and safety issues per Subdivision Map Act 66428.1(d). PC Staff Report—3/9/2010 Attachment No. 1.2 -853- Item 8. - Page 171 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. 5. Pursuant to California Government Code 66427.5, the applicant filed an Impact Report dated December 15, 2009 which analyzed the impact of the conversion on residents. In addition, the applicant obtained a Resident Survey of Support which was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and the resident that is independent of the applicant. The Impact Report was provided to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map, The results of the survey were presented to the City on March 9, 2010. The survey was considered and it was found that 105 residents opposed the conversion, 25 approved, 52 declined to comment and 124 missing. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing 304 space mobiiehome park received and dated January 12, 2010 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required (PW): a. 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. 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. (ZSO 255.04A) (PW) b. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD) for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. (PW) 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 § 66427.5) (PL) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following (PL): PC Staff Report—3/9/2010 Attachment No. 1.3 Item 8. - Page 172 -854- 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation) 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 § 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation), 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 § 66427.5) 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required: a. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan (PW): i) 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)) ii) 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval_ (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) iii) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04,ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) iv) Erosion control measures (via vegetative ground cover) shall be planted along the slope between the newly required sidewalk per Condition of Approval 5.a.ii and the existing block wall along the project's Beach Boulevard frontage. v) 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)) vi) 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)) PC Staff Report—3/9/2010 Attachment No_ 1.4 -855- Item 8. - Page 173 vii)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)) viii) 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)) ix) 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 SNIA 66428.1(d)) x) 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 SNIIA 66428.1(d)) b. 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. (PW) 6_ All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architect/Inspector. (PW) INDEMNIMCATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof PC Staff Report—3/9/2010 Attachment No. 1.5 Item 8. a Page 174 -856- SL U abed - •g LU041 -Lra8- 'QN 1N1NOV11V „ ate !!}} Tit lkkkklk k !Elkk }} k ! k kk ! fit• Ss ,3e 'cF € - _{i'�1�� ............._._..__..__.._. __ • __-_— -- '.�, s` iie:i.i.............s_e'1iFat� - , 111111V.:1111::1111:?11:11'lP IPA ,X" e-- if i is is — i_ sf le' �sz,�%♦ 1� \ t F ic:• *� :�. „1 is H' � ei A >Ss 1=• 8i Hi 3=• 1F {!f, �15 HD' SF -. _--__ 7 �D /N TRACT MAP NO. 17296 NO�i[etl `/I INP CllYOl NUN)INOION BEIcn .�.+.��.�......w......•««+.................. c0✓NIYOFORANCE.st fEOPCA{liORNd • •v0.Q1/ON of INE E l CW—Il W 1NE sOUlnf.sl OUMIER Of _........_e._............._.._..-._... SITE - _ _ sECiroN rf,rowNSmPf$o{/nt RANGf rt wEsr _y...•......_•_ d • EOASUBO/wslOunUFnOSEfi •.�•..N,•...»•,YM^ W VICINITY MAP • �'C'::'.:r' `tk�a'_�::.yi::a::.: _ ! .�_....may;•__-.. _........._�.._ co it`i:l�iTrl�_ _ _ - - _ _ ___ _ -'---du�T�� _�_^_� _ � -� _ _ _ -x _ }'_:r:::AS'T ,.�.•...�..._.:"..T�t�.'L;:^":ET:,'1.�.:F:' �• ��i,l �.� '4 t .10'�' •... � �� w ' i 9�� � � � I � �ovacn,nnon: ..,..-....... ... J___ ,3; ,,, � q aecono owN�s•woau@gmloEna• I � i N HART, KING & COLDREN Boyd L.Hill bhili@hkclaw.com January 12, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.11214826-6788-7621v.1 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL Hand Delivered Ethan Edwards, City Planner 'a City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. ' 2000 Main Street - 1 P.O. Box 190 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17926 Dear Mr. Edwards: Please find enclosed the Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map 17926 ("Application") for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park located at 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 ("Shorecliffs"). The Application is the first step in the conversion of Shorecliffs from a rental to a resident-owned mobilehome park. The Application is to create numbered residential lots corresponding to the existing 304 Shorecliffs rental spaces currently permitted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") and lettered lots corresponding to each non-contiguous portion of the existing common areas. The Application is submitted pursuant to California Government Code Section 66427.5, which expressly preempts local agency requirements for subdivision of existing mobilehome parks to enable conversion to resident ownership. Section 66427.5 prevents physical displacement of residents by requiring that residents have the option to purchase the lot created from their existing space or to continue leasing that space. Section 66427.5 prevents economic displacement of residents by placing limits on post-conversion rent increases, especially for low income residents. As a simple subdivision to enable conversion to resident ownership under Government Code Section 66427.5, the Application does not involve any "physical change" or "change in use" of Shorecliffs. Instead, the subdivision simply creates legally recordable property boundaries out of the existing configuration of HCD approved rental spaces and common areas. Therefore, Section 66427.5 eliminates many of the requirements that would exist for a subdivision of raw land or for a subdivision to enable a new use of an existing development, such as requirements for environmental review, soils and engineering studies, dedications and exactions, etc. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66427-5, all that must accompany the Application is the Tentative Tract Map, the applicable fee, a resident survey, and a conversion impact 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 ATTACHMENT 0 3 _859- Item 8. - Page 177 ii-4`1K Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 2 report, which conversion impact report must provide notice to residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing (the option is loosely labeled in Section 66427.5 (a) as an "offer"). (See El Dorado Palm Springs Associates v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1180) Therefore, the enclosed Application includes the following attachments, some of which are enclosed with this letter, others of which are currently on file with the City or will be subsequently filed with the City: 1. Map. Eleven copies of Tentative Tract Map No. 17926, the September 8, 2009 version which shows 304 spaces, which were previously submitted to the City with our prior application. As per our telephone conversations, the City still retains those copies of that version of the Map in its file, and the City will treat those Map copies as part of this new Application. 2. Fee. The filing fee in the amount of $10,500 is enclosed. As we discussed, the City previously reviewed the individual lots in connection with the prior application and has agreed to waive the per lot fee of $30 for each of the 304 residential lots under this new Application. 3. Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents. A copy of the December 15, 2009 Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents is enclosed, plus an Affidavit of Mike Cirillo attesting to the mailing of copies of the Report to the Residents on December 15, 2009. As the Report explains, the California Legislature only requires that the Report discuss the potential for economic displacement upon those residents who will continue to rent their spaces upon conversion, and does not require any discussion pertaining to economic impacts upon those residents who will purchase lots. 4. Resident Survey Results. Shorecliffs entered into an agreement with the homeowner's association to conduct a survey of resident support for the conversion. A copy of that agreement is enclosed. According to that agreement, the homeowner's association was to have conducted the survey by the end of the year 2009 and was to have provided the City with the results, but the association has not done yet done so. The homeowner's association now states that it will provide the survey results to the City by mid-January. Per our conversation, the City will begin processing the Application without the survey results, but will not issue notice of completion until receipt of the survey results. It is important to note that the Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) survey requirement only pertains to whether the conversion is a "sham" to avoid local rent control, and the City has no rent control. 5. Data and Reports. As explained above, Government Code Section 66427.5 preempts any additional City requirements for data and reports beyond those required by Section 66427.5. Therefore, most of the data and reports listed in Paragraph 5 of the Application are not applicable, as explained below: 36014.112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 ATTACHMENT NO. - - Item B. m Page 178 _660- Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 3 5(a) Environmental Assessment Form. Conversion of a rental mobile home park to residential ownership is exempt from CEQA pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301 (k) (existing facilities-division of existing single family residences into common interest ownership where no physical changes occur), for the same reasons as the express statutory exemption for resident initiated conversions contained in Public Resources Code Section 21080.8. 5(b) Preliminary Title Report. A Preliminary Title Report dated December 21, 2009 is enclosed. 5(c) Preliminary Soils and Engineering Geology Report. There is no "physical change" or "change in use" of Shorecliffs. Therefore, no soils or geology reports is necessary or required under Government Code Section 66427.5. 5(d) Public Notification Requirements. Public notification materials are enclosed. 5(e) Photographs of the Subject Property. Photographs of Shorecliffs are enclosed. 5(f) Written Narrative: , (1) Existing Use of the Property and Present Zoning. Shorecliffs is situated on a single parcel (APN 024-250-72) consisting of approximately 39 acres and operated as a mobile home park permitted for 304 mobile home spaces. Shorecliffs is currently zoned RMP. The General Plan Designation is RMH-25. Shorecliffs 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. Shorecliffs is improved with 2 clubhouses and pools, office, conference center, and laundry facilities_ There is an RV storage lot on Shorecliffs property. (2) Proposed Use of the Property. There is no proposed "physical change" or "change in the use" of Shorecliffs. The proposed use of the Shorecliffs is to maintain the existing use as a mobile home park. 36014.112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 ATTACHMENT NO. -861- Items 6m - Page 179 HK,5, C Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 4 (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, a Shorecliffs Homeowners Association will be formed customary covenants, conditions and restrictions utilized in planned mobile home communities will be prepared and submitted to the California Department of Real Estate for review and approval. 5(g) Coastal Development Permit Application. Shorecliffs is not within the Coastal Zone and no permits are required. The enclosed materials should provide the City with a complete Application once the survey results are submitted (assuming the homeowner's association complies with its agreement). As we discussed, please promptly advise whether the Application is complete and begin processing the Application with the Subdivision Committee so that we may hold the Subdivision Committee meeting and have Planning Commission Study Session and Hearing during the month of February. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have- Best Regards, HART, KING & COLD EN Boyd L_ Hill d, W CC John Saunders Michael Cirillo Robert S. Coldren Burt Mazelow 36014.112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 ATTACHMENT O.. 3.- Item 8. a Page 180 -862- CHKI11'"" . Ethan Edwards January 12, 2010 Page 5 Enclosures: Subdivision Application [Tentative Tract Map dated September 8, 2009 previously provided] Application Fee Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents Affidavit of Mike Cirillo re mailing of Report Preliminary Title Report dated December 21, 2009 Public Notification Materials Photographs 36014.11214826-6788-7621 v.1 ATTA(a- MT NO. 3 .y -863- item 80 - Page 181 ./� City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET" CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) 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 requirements, 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 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 248.24A, 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 714-536-5561 or at ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Ethan Edwards Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,Deputy City Attorney Gerald Caraig,Building and Safety Department—714-3f4-15I5 Dann Maresh,Fire Department—714-536-5531 Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorecliff,t.P,do Mike Cirillo,Star Management, 1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana.CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org ATTACHMENT N . tA.o Item 8. - Page 182 -864- e H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING and BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3 HUNTINGTON REACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/ethan.edwards@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 January 22, 2010. 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_ TT MUIT 11r1 -865- Item 8. a Page 183 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 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 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. T� I NO. q-7 - Item 6. - Page 184 -866- • J� HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 /ETHAN.EDWARDS(cDSURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGART(cilSURFCITY-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. (ZSO 255_121 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 ATTACHMENT O,__y.3 -867- Item 8e - Page 185 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 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: 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 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) G.\EdwardsTlanning Comm ission\ShorechffsTeach 20701"f"rm 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 2-2-10.doc ATTACHMENT �. Item 80 - Page 186 -868- Page 3 of 4 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'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&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 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$13,880 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$572,175. 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 $572,175, 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) GAEdwardsTlanning Commission\Shoreclif]sTeach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 2-2-10 doc ATTACHMENT NO. � s _869- Item 8e a Page 187 Page 4 of 4 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 shalt 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. 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, Strom Drain and Landscape Plans. G.Tdwards\Planning Comm ission\ShorecIiffsTeach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 2-2-1 O.doc ATTACH " N . Item 8. e Page 188 m87O- HART, KING & CDLDREN -�_-• _._. Boyd[..Hill bhill a@ m_ hkclaw.co February 19, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.11214848-8137-8053v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission 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 and Suggested Conditions Dear Commissioners: This letter constitutes and sets forth the basis for the appeal by the Park Owners' of the February 9, 2010 purported "Planning Director decision" applying project implementation code requirements for the Park subdivision. 2 A copy of the purported "Planning Director decision" letter is enclosed herewith. The purported "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 checklist 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 February 9, 2010 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 a February 9, 2010 letter from the Planning Department. A copy of the "Suggested Conditions of Approval" letter is also enclosed herewit_ Shorecliff LP,JS Stadium,LLC, Huntington BSC Park, LP,Shorecliff Main,LP 2 Attached to this letter is a$494 check,which duplicates the amount the Park owners previously submitted for a determination of similar code requirements,which the Planning Commission previously refused to consider. Therefore,Park Owners request that this second 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 1 Fx 714-546.7457 ATTACHMENT NO. �. -871- Items 8. - Page 189 HK& C MART, KING & CdLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 2 We respectfully request that the Planning Director 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) 176 Cal.App.4th 1270, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. In Sequoia Park Associates, the California Court of Appeal held that State law pertaining to mobilehome parks, particularly the Subdivision Map Act (Govt. Code, § 66427.5 (e)) and the Mobilehome Parks Act (Health & Safety Code, § 18200 .et seq.), 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. [underline added] 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 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1297) 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: 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 ATTACHMENT NO, (terra 8. - Page 190 -872- m�as HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 3 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1299) 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1288- 1292) 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. 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1299) 36014.112/484 8-8137-8053v-1 TACHIMENTNO,_ -873- Item lea - Page 191 HK& C HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 4 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1275) 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1279) 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) 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) "I[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 36014.112/4 848-8137-8053v.1 ATTACHEAENT No . 5X Item 8. - Page 192 -874- �� HART, KING & GDLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 5 within the parks." (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1493) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1282) 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 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.) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1292-1293) 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 been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1295) 36014.11214848-8137-8053v.1 -875- Item 50 - Page 193 " - Cr; HART. KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 6 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 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1298) 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1299-1300) 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 ATTACHMENT Vie_ 5 5 1$em 60 - Page 194 -876- HK&C HART, KING & CDLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 7 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 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 some substantive content .... [J[] ... [¶] 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. ... 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1294-1296) Conversion Impact Reports are [Necessarily Limited in Scope The conversion impact report need only discuss the impacts of conversion on those residents who will continue leasing their spaces. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5) 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 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 ATTACHMENT NO 5.- f. -877- Item 8. - Page 195 "HK&C N Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 8 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.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.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 CaiApp_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 February 9, 2010 conditions letter from the Planning Department and 36014.112l4848-8137-8053v 1 ATTACHMENT Item 8. ® Page 196 -878- HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 9 object to and appeal (as may be necessary) the Planning Director decision to impose all of the municipal code requirements set forth in the February 9, 2010 code requirements 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 February 9, 2010 code requirements letter. The Park Owners appeal the imposition of all other municipal code requirements, as set forth in the February 9, 2010 letter. The Park Owners also reject and object to the Planning Department and Public Works Department conditions of their 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. The Park Owners look forward to moving ahead expeditiously with conversion of the Park. Best Regards, HART, KING & COLPR N BVoydill BLH/dr Enclosure: Check No. 3085 for$494 February 9, 2010 Conditions Letter February 9, 2010 Code Requirements Letter Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma case cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner (by e-mail only) 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 -879- Item 8. - Page 197 HKc""x'1C HART, KING & CQLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 10 bcc John Saunders (by e-mail only) Michael Cirillo (by e-mail only) Burt Mazelow (by e-mail only) 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 ATTACHMENT NO..75 Item 8. - Page 198 -880- City of Huntington Beach ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coidren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECt_IFFS SUBDIVISION) 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 requirements, 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 rote 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 Subdivision Ordinance to require that your project satisfy the following development standards. Should you disagree, pursuant to Section 248.24A, 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 714-536-5561 or at ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Ethan Edwards Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,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 Fauland,Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorecliff,LP,clo Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surf city-Worg ATTACHMENT NO. 5. J0 -881- Item B, - Page 199 1B CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING and BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/ethan.edwards@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 January 22, 2010. 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 ,_ s • t Item 8. - Page 200 -882- 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 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 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. ATTACHIMENT NO --- -��3- Item 8. - Page 201 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MWINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLiFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLAITS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 /ETHAN.EDWARDS(7SURFCiTY-HB_ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGART(c-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 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: L A Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for existing site drainage and tributary upstream drainage shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval- (ZSO 255A2) 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 ATTACHMENT N ,,_5.13 Item 8. - Page 202 -884- Page 2 old 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: 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 fife 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 ii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: 6 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. Ali 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) G: dwaids\Ptanning Com miss ion\Shoreclifts\Beach 20701 TI'M 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 2-2-1 O.doc _885- Item 8e - Page 203 Page 3of4 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: 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&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 (I T-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9'of brown trunk). b. "Smart irrigation controllers" andtor 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 232.0413) 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 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$13,880 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$572,175_ 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$572,175, 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 232.08E and C) G.TdwatdsT1ammnp COmmission�ShorecliffSU3cach 20701 TI M 17296(11A 2010-023)[>cv Req 2-2-10.doc T HME T 114 5. 115 Item 8. - Page 204 -886- Page 4 of 4 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 232A4D) 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. 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, Strom Drain and Landscape Plans. G:1Edwards\Planwng Commission\Shorec}iffsUBcach 20701 T1-M 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 2-2-10.doc -887- item 8. a Page 205 A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH t5FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO.2010-023:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2010-005(17296) PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD., HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714.536.5561 /ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb-org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE-MAIL: 714.536.5531 /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 January 22, 2010. 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 - 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, if 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 legally existed prior to September 26,2002 or if the fire 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 Tittle 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 NFPA24, 1977 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 5.t? Item 8. e Page 206 -666- Edition, shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department by a licensed C-16 contractor or licensed Fire Protection Engineer. c. Fire Lanes shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings 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 parks 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 (1-1/2")brush stroke. i. An inspection is required to confirm the parks 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. 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 Clear-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) 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_ Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at.- Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall--2000 Main Street, 51h Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.huntin(itonbeachoa.gov If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at 714.536.5411 S 1Prevention\1-Developmenni-Planning Department-Planning Applications,CUP's`2010 CUP's%Shorecliff Mobile Home CUP letter PA#2010-023 02-09-10 DM 09-04-09 rtf 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 5• 0 _889- Items 8. a Page 207 Jj City of Huntington Beach ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No.17269(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) — SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Dear Mr. Hill, Please find enclosed suggested conditions of approval for the aforementioned project, received from Public Works and Planning Department for the consideration by the Planning Commission. If you would like a clarification of any of these items or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-536-5561 and/or the Public Works Department representative— Steve Bogart (714-374-1692). 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. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change. Sincerely, Ethan Edwar s Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Shoreclift,LP,do Mike Cirillo,Star Management,1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org ATTACHMENT Item 8® - Page 208 -890- H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANKING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/ethan.edwards@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 suggested conditions of approval deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated January 22, 2010. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will 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. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department of 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. AT T [AE -�91 Item 8. - Page 209 Page 2 of 2 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) ATTACHMENT ,,c.z 1 Item B. - Page 210 -892- e 1a 04 HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 I ETHAN.EDWARDS rr_SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/EMAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGART(ab.SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. 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. 3. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. 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, (;:\Edwards\Planning C0M1n1'n0 n\Shorecfiffs\L3each 20701 TC✓t 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc ATTACHMENT NO._s z2 -893- Item Ida - Page 211 Page 2 of 3 environmental review and other permission granted by Caltrans 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. The required Improvement Plan for the subject project 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) c. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04,ADA and SMA 66428.1(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) 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 66428.1(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)) h- 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)) 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. 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)) 2 GAEdwards\Planning Commission,\Shoreclifis\13cach 20701 ITM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10_doc Item 8e - Page 212 -894- I- An onsite storm drain shaft 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) 4. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architect/inspector. 3 GT-dwards\Planning CommissioDlShorecldfs\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc ATTACHMENT NO. �5-itA -895- Item Be - Page 213 ` 1i City ®f Huntington Beach ® 2000 MAIN STREET CAUFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth: Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION)— SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Dear Mr, Hill, Please find enclosed suggested conditions of approval for the aforementioned project, received from Public Works and Planning Department for the consideration by the Planning Commission. If you would like a clarification of any of these items or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-536-5561 and/or the Public Works Department representative— Steve Bogart(714-374-1692), 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. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change. Sincerely, Ethan Edwar s Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Shorecliff,LP,c/o Mike Ciril€o,Star Management,1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org ATTACHMENT NO, Item 6e e Page 214 -896- t �a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-55611 ethan.edwards@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 suggested conditions of approval deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated January 22, 2010. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will 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. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department of 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. ATTACHMENT N110, 5.2 6 -897- Item 8. - Page 215 Page 2 of 2 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) Item B. m Page 216 _696- .tt HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HU"NGTON BEACH p� SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 /ETHAN.EDWARDS@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGART(a-)-SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. 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. 3. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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, 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, G_TdwardsU'3anning Commission\Shorecliffs\Bcach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.&K ATTACHMENT ,__.�_.2& -899- Item 8. - Page 217 Page 2 of 3 environmental review and other permission granted by Caltrans 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. The required Improvement Plan for the subject project 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) c. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04,ADA and SMA 66428.1(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) 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 66428.1(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)) h_ 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)) 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. 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)) 2 G\Edwards\Planning Comm ission\Shoreclii7s\13e wh 20701 FIM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc ATTACHMENT NO. s zit Item 8. - Page 218 -900- I. 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) 4. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape ArchiteGUInspector. 3 G.\AdsvardsTlanning Comm ission\Shor"Ii1hTeach 20701 TTIM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doe ATTACHMENTNO -901- Item 8e - Page 219 S—tch Cheat=Preferences Sion Out:'.Help Search "i2esearch TasksGet a Document=.Shepard's�iAferts7ota}LiBgatorTransactional Advisor�Counsel Setector bossier tfisten; FOCUSTm Terms Search Within original Results(1-3) Advanced... Source: Legal>!...1>CA State Cases,Combined Terms: name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search) -4FSelect for FOCUS'-"or Delivery 1] 176 Cal. App. 4th 1270, *; 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669, **; 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 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 176 Cal. App. 4th 1270; 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669; 2009 Cal.App. LEXIS 1397 August 21, 2009, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Later proceeding at Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 11292 (Cal.,Oct. 20, 2009) Review denied by, Request denied by Sequoia Park Assocs. v. County of Sonoma, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 12846 (Cal., Dec. 2, 2009 PRIOR HISTORY: [***I] Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. SCV240003, Raymond J. Giordano, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.Const., art. VI, § 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§ 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), 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 mobiiehomes 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, general law, mobile home parks, map, preempted, local ordinance, rental, tentative, locality, rent, space, local authority, parcel map, household, housing, manufactured, approve, local legislation, local government, fully occupied, indicia LEXISNEXIS® HEADNOTES Hide Civil Procedure>Apoeals>Standards of Review>De Novo Review Hru f 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 ATT CHI �IJT Nu.____5.31 con /research/retrieve?cc=&pusl-- ---'&tmpFBSel==a11&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item go a Page 220 -902- Get a Document- by Party Name- sequoia park associates Page 2 of 19 Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations Q Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments*efle HN21 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 ty HN3;See Cal. COnst., art. XI, 5 7. Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations +! Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments HN4iA 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 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. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments ett Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances til 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 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 the locality. More Like This Headnote =s Governments>Local Governments>OrdinanCeS&Regulations wv Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments' HN6;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 t: Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments n 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>Subdivisions t HNs±See Gov. Code, � 66427.5. Real Property Law> Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks> Subdivisions r HNs+Under Gov. Code, � 66427.5, subd. (e), a city council only has the power to determine if a subdivider has AT TA C H E:�,J T N 0,_s.32 https_//www.lexis.com/research/retr'eve?cc=&pus-903-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&t; Itelr>r>t B. - Page 221 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 5 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 Real Property Law>Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions HN10-4Case 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. More Like This Headnote Shepardfze.,Restrict By Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Duties&Powers C4 y� Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances`� NN12±Regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. More Like This Headnote Governments> Legislation>Effect&Operation>Amendments jQ Governments>Legislation>Interpretation t., 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 k-, Real Prooertv Law>Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances HN13±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. More Like This Headnote HEADNOTES/ SYLLABUS iHide 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 mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis to submit various reports required by state taw. 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.*) • Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21. The Court of Appeal reversed the order and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a new order 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, J., with Haerle, Acting P.J., and Lambden,J.,concurring.) [*1271] ATTACHMENT NO, s 33 httvs://www.lexis.coty/research/retrieve?cc=&push-F=I&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs &tag... 2/18/2010 Item 8e - Pane 222 -904- Uet a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 4 of 19 HEADNOTES CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES "(1)-t(1) Municipalities§ 55—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Considering State and Local 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. cA(2);(2) Municipalities§55—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. cA(3)+(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 clearly [*1272] 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. cA(4)$(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 statute, it is clear that the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied by state law. cA(5)+-(5) 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. CA(6)A(6) Mobilehomes,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 [*1273] 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)+(7) Mobilehomes,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 ATTACHMENT NO 5-N https://w-,vw.IexIs.coiydresearch/retrieve?ec=&pus-905-&tmpFBSe1=al1&tota1docs=&t Item 80 - Page 223 __ _ __ „, ..»..J ..... - Vw- -11------0 1 Q6G J V1 1 7 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 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. cA(10)3(10) Mobilehomes,Trailers, and Parks § 3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned— Local Regulation Preempted.—Gov. Code, fi 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. cA(11)+(11) Mobilehomes,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 [*1274] enacted an ordinance that imposed [*1275] obligations upon a subdivider submitting a mobilehome park conversion application that went beyond the obligations required by Gov. Code, q 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 r 66427.5. [Cal. Real Estate Law&Practice (2009) ch. 472, 6 472.35; Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice(2009)ch. 126A, Constitutional Law,.§ 126A.24.1 COUNSEL: Bien &Summers, Elliot L. Bien _*and Catherine Meulemans for Plaintiff and Appellant. The Loftin Firm, L. Sue Loftin _and Michael Stump.for Rancho Sonoma Partners, Eden Gardens, Sundance Estates and Capistrano Shores as Amici Curiae 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&Wynder, William W. Wynder_and Sunny K. Soltani for California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, City of Carson and the City of Los Angeles as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. JUDGES:Opinion by Richman J., with Haerle.,Acting P. J., and Lambden .,J., concurring. OPINION BY: Richman OPINION [**672] RICHMAN-,J.—One of the subjects covered by the Subdivision Map Act(Gov. Code. 5 66410 et seg.) 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 [***2] 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."(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.S. 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."(Id., subd. e .)We further conclude that [***3] 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 ATTACH IE, T N0 1 Itemt8. «Page 224om/research/retrieve?cc=&pull---®� 4ctmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 (jet a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 6 of 19 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 [**673] 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 [*1276] 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 Community Development's] power in the area."This order is the subject of Sequoia's appeal. 1 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 f 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 fallback 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 fn. 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 trN-*, 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 Cat App 4th 119 132 r38 Cal Rptr. 3d 5751; Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 335 339 r118 Cal Rptr. 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 66427.5, 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 tells us that section 66427.5 must be considered in the context [***7] of the"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. [*1277] 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 [**674] grounds (e.g., Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1069 1084 r40 Cal Rptr. 2d 402 892 P 2d 11451 [vagueness]; Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660 679-680 [51 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. "(1)i(1) But HN27 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 ca(2)7(2) In California, [***8] preemption of local legislation by state law is a constitutional principle. ftf"7i7"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 ATTACHMENT NO.__t�.3o https://www.lexis.cor /research/retrieve?cc=&pus-9®7-&tmpFBSel=all&total docs=&t,Item ga - Page 225 to our Supreme Court: NN4 F 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 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.] [*1278] CAf3)7(3)"Moreover,"s7the'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, 1149-1 i50 [45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 136 P.3d 8211, [***10] 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 [**675] 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 [citations]."(Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles(1993)4 Cal.4th 893, 898 f 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215, 844 P.2d 5341.) HN6:j:CA(4):i7(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 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 [63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 67, 162 P.3d 5831.) HN7-+CA(5)?(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 [*1279] 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 [204 Cal. Rptr. 897, 683 P.2d 1150 ; [***12] accord,American Financial Services Assn. r. City of Oakland(2005)34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252, 1261 [23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 104 P.3d 8131; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994)7 Cal.4th 725, 751 r29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804, 872 P.2d 1431_) 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 [209 Cal. Rptr. 682, 693 P.2d 2611, quoting Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 862 [76 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 (118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 746,44 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. [**676] Since 1979, the state has had the Mobilehome Residency Law,which comprises almost 100 statutes governing [***13] 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 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 htlns-//xvw-,v lexie rOmlrese arc h/retri eve?cc=&pus} --I &tmpFBSe1=a11&tota1does=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item 6e e Page 226 -906- Get a Document-by Party Name- sequoia park associates Page 8 of 19 "extensively regulate[] the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents."(Greening,v. Johnson (1997)53 Cal.App.4th 1223 1226 [62 Cat Rptr. 2d 2141; accord,SC Manufactured Homes, Inc. v. Canyon View Estates, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 663 673 [56 Cal Rptr. 3d 791; People ex rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment Ltd. (2003) 111 Cal App 4th 102 109 f3 Cal Rytr. 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.4th 341, 350 f53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 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 v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Cal App 4th 1483 1489-1490 f26 Cat Rytr. 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, § 18300, subd. (a).)The few exemptions from this prohibition are carefully delineated.3 FOOTNOTES a"This part shall not prevent local authorities of any city, county, or city and 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 pursuant 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 [***16] 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. (q).) [**677] Then there is the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 (Health &Saf. Code, §§ 18000-18153), which regulates the sale, licensing, registration, and titling of mobilehomes. The Legislature declared that the provisions of this measure "apply to all parts of the state and supersede"any conflicting local ordinance. (Health &Saf. Code, § 18015.)The Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD) is in charge of enforcement. (Health &Saf. Code, §§ 18020, 18022, 18058.) [*1281] 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, 1§ 8253; 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], ]8640 ["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"].) ATTACHNAENT NO. https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pus-909-&tmpFBSel==all&totaldocs=&t�Item 8. - Page 227 At present,the HCD has promulgated hundreds of regulations that are collected in chapter 2 of division 1 of title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, 44 1000-1758.)The regulations exhaustively deal with a myriad of issues, such as"Electrical Requirements"(id., 44 1130-1190),"Plumbing Requirements"(id., 44 1240-1284), "Fire Protection Standards"(id., 44 1300-1319),"Permanent Buildings and Commercial Modulars" [***181 (id., 4A 1380-1400),and"Accessory Buildings and Structures"(id., 44 1420-1520).The regulations even deal with pet waste (id., 4 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, 4 18300, subd. (a).) Mobilehomes can only be occupied or maintained when they conform to the regulations. (Health &Saf. Code, 44 18550, 18871.) Enforcement is shared between the HCD and local governments (Health &Saf. Code, 5 18300,subd,, 18400, subd. (a)),with HCD given the power to"evaluate the enforcement"by units of local government. (Health&Saf.Code,4 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, 4 18300, subds. (b)-(e).) Local initiative is restricted to traditional police powers of zoning, setback, permit requirements, and regulating construction of utilities. (Gov. Code, 4 65852.7; Health&Saf.Code, 4 18300, subd. (q), quoted at fn. 3,ante.) 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, 44 18500, 18500.5, 18500.6, 18505; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, 44 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. (Cal. f*12821 Code Regs., tit. 25, 44 1006.5, 1012.) [**6781 It is the state that fixes the fees to be charged for these permits and certifications (Health&Saf. Code, §4 18502, 18503, Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 25, 44 1008, 1020.4, 1020.7, 1025), and sets the penalties to be imposed for noncompliance(Health &Saf. Code, 44 18504, 18700; Cal.Code Regs.,tit. 25, 44 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, 4 1370.4. subd. (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, 4 65852.7.)"[I]t is clear 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 (q) quoted at footnote 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.Ao).4th 1483, 1493 italics omitted.)A city or county must accept installation of mobilehomes manufactured in conformity with federal standards. (Gov. Code, 4 65852.3, subd. (a).)Their power to impose rent control on mobilehome parks is restricted if the park qualifies as"new construction."(Gov. Code, 4 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 straightforward 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 [***21] purchasing residents. In its entirety it provides as follows: NxB+"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: [*1283] "(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. [**679] "(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 httns-//w ,w.le,xis_corn/researchiretrieve?cc=&pus),T„F-1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item 8. a Page 228 -910- (Jet a Document- by Farty Name- sequoia park associates Fage I of 19 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. [*1284] "(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, p. 3324.)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, p. 883.)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 f 118 Cal. Rar. 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 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 p. 1157.) The trial court denied the park owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. [**680] The owner appealed, contending [***25]"that its application for subdivision 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, f*12851 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."'(96 Cal.App.4th at p. 1158.) 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's argument about section 66427.41 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 mobilehomes 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. (96 Cal.App.4th 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 pa rks. "(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. https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?ec=&pus -911-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&t� Item 8e - Page 229 "(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." cAM (6) But,and as particularly apt here,the court sustained the park owner's argument about section 66427.5, subdivision (d),concluding that NN9Tunder it the city council'only had the power to determine if[the subdivider] had complied with the requirements of the section."(Ei Dorado, supra,96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1163-1164.)Although the court did 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 jam, did not allow such considerations [***28] to be taken into account:"[T]he City lacks [*1286] authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the tentative [**681] 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(96 Cal.App.4th 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.) FOOTNOTES 6 Nevertheless,the Ei Dorado court did seem to indicate that there was an available remedy for Palm Springs's 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, in. 10),there was no such restriction [***29] on the judiciary."[Tjhe 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. (El Dorado, at pp. 1166, 1177-1179, citing Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park(1996) 47 Cal.Anp.4th 1168 f55 Cal. Rptr. 2d cAf7IT(7) One other point of El Dorado is significant. H",0-*—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.Ayy.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(96 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1181-1182.)The court concluded:"The [***30] legislative intent to encourage [*1287] 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.) 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"resident ownership"is"ownership by a resident organization of an interest in a mobilehome park that entities 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 only occur 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 (d} and the requirement of a "survey of support of residents"whose results were to be filed with the tentative or parcel [**682] 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.Apo.4th 1153. The court in this case concluded that the subdivision map approval process specified httns-//www lexie com/research/retrieve?ec=&ptisb---I&tmpFI3Sel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item 8. - Page 230 -912- vet a sjucumem- oy rarty ivame- sequoia parx associates rage i L or 1 v in Section 66427.5 of the Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent nonbona 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.)$ ! 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 some aspect of the operation or effect of the bill. Common examples of'plus sections'include severability clauses, saving clause, 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, in. 13 1`89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279, 984 P.2d 4861.)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 [***33] 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 j14 Cal. Rotr. 3d 1,90 P.3d i168 .) The Ordinance The Ordinance has eight sections, but only three—sections I, I1, and II1—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(Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et sea.). 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. [*1288] _ 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 [***34] 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 [**683] 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 fSectionl 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 66427.41 and by Section 26-92-090 of Chapter 26 of the [***35] 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 [*1289] 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 apartment project, [***36] 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."' TT 1 T NO, - � �1 .,Ai https://w,,w.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc—&pus -g13-ktmpFBSel=all&total docs=&t,Item 8. - Page 231 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 IIIB 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 [***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 represent [**684] 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; [*1290] "ii) Identification of the anticipated method and timetable for compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), 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 time table for determining the rents for non-purchasing residents pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)(1}, and,to the extent available, identification of the number 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 LZ(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 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 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 [*1291] 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 shalt be approved only if the decision maker finds that: httn, //.nrunu 1--, corn/researcWretrieve?cc=&puss--- I&tmpFBSel=all&totaldoes=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item 8. - Page 232 -914- Get a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 14 of 19 "a)A survey of resident support has been conducted and the results filed with [**685] 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 Chapter 26 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 [***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 with this Chapter shows that more than 50% of resident households support the conversion to resident ownership, the conversion shall be presumed to be a bona-fide resident conversion. [*1292] "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% but not more than 50%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 support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and with this Chapter shows that less than 20%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 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 of space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or [**686] 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§ 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 § 66427.5 (a)." The Ordinance Is Expressly Preempted by Section 66427.5 cal8l7(8) It is a given that HN"Tregulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. (E.g., Big f*12931 Creek, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1151; IT Corp. v. Solano County Board ofSuvervisors (1991) 1 Cal.4th 81, 85, 95, 99 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513, 820 P.2d 10231; City of Burbank v. 8urbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority(1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 366, 376 t85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 281.) 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] (Griffin Development Co. v. City of Oxnard(1985) 39 Cal.3d 256, 262-266 f217 Cal. Rptr. 1, 703 P.2d 3391; Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Board(1984) 35 Cal.3d 858, 868-869 r201 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, pp. 3323, 3324, 3325, adding§6 66427.5, 66428.1 & amending66427_4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.)This was seven years https://www.lexis.com/rescarch/retrieve?ce=&pug-915-&tmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&t Item 8. - Page 233 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, p.6114, 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, 30 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. [**687] The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section."($ 66427.5, subd. (e), italics added.)The [*1294] italicized language is, in its own way, comprehensive. But the contrasting constructions the parties give it could not be 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. (a).) 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 curiae 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 curiae 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. 13 For example, a subdivider is required to"file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents"(§ 66427.5, subd. (b)),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 curiae: "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." FOOTNOTES ii The County and supporting amici curiae 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[175 Cal. Rptr. 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 66427.4, 66427.5, and 66428.1.And if they are considered as a unit—which [*1295] they are, as the three mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act 1Z—a coherent logic begins to emerge. FOOTNOTES 12 Because sections 66427.4, 66427.51 and 66428.1 all deal with the subject of mobilehome park conversions,it is appropriate to consider their) together_ (E.g., bValker v. Superior Court(1988) 47 Cal.3d 112, 124,fn. 4 f253 Cal. Rptr. 1, 763 P.2d 8521; County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie (1942) 19 Cal.2d 634, 639 f 122 P.2d 5261; In re Washer (1927) 200 Cal. 599, 606 f254 P. 9511.) It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning [**688] 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 TACHI E T N 0 5•y5 hftns-//wwA, 1pyl z �onl/researeh/retrieve?ec=&pusl„ =i&tmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item 8. - Page 234 _916- vet a uumnent- ny rarty Name- sequoia parx associates Yage 16 of 19 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 mobiiehome 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. (§ 66427.4,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 mobiiehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobiiehome park"as a condition of approving or conditionally approving the change. (Id.,subd. u.) 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 mobiiehome [***50] parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures."(Id., subd. (d),italics added.) At the other end of the continuum is the situation covered by section 66428.1,subdivision (a), which provides:"When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobiiehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobiiehome 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: [¶] (1)There are design or improvement requirements necessitated by significant health or safety concerns. [1](2)The local agency determines that there is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new parcel or tentative and final map. [$] (3)The existing parcels which exist prior to the proposed conversion [*1296] were not created by a recorded parcel or final map. [1] (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 is what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority,you have this power, but no more. j**689] 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) [***52] 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.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 "bona fide"conversions mentioned in the unmodified portion of the enactment that accompanied the amendment. CA(9)4(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. 13 (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153 1163-1164 1166 [*12971 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: HN12„'[W]hen 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 r278 Cal Rptr. 614 805 P 2d 8731, quoting Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 734 r180 Cal. Rptr. 496 640 P.2d 1151; accord, People v. Meloney(2003) 30 Cal.4th 1145, 1161 [135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 602, 70 P.3d 10231; People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cai.4th 90, 100-101 r65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610, 939 P.2d 13101.) 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 p. 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 [***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 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. https://www.lexis.com/researcWretrieve?ec=&pus -917_xtmpFBScl=all&totaldocs=&t�Item)) 8. a Page 235 c^tlol V(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 Hx137?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. [**690] 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. 1068; 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. [*1298] 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. [***56] 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. M.)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."(q 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. Thee is more."Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts [**691] exist if the ordinance duplicates ... general law ..- ."(Lancaster v. Municipal Court(1972) 6 Cal.3d 805, 807-808 f100 Cal. Rptr. 609, 494 P.2d 6811, citations omitted; accord, Big Creek, supra, 38 CalAth 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 [*1299] 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 Section 66427.5(a)"and"a copy of the impact report required by Government Code Section 66427.5(b)."(Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(d), subd. (3), M.) 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 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 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 hrt"Q-//.,nlnx, 1—ic �orii/research/retrieve?ce=&pusr— ' �rtmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Item 8. - Page 236 -3'9 6- Uct a 1J000U cnL- Dy rarty ivanie- sequoia park associates rage 1601 1y [***60] 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).) FOOTNOTES 14 Although it is not discussed in the briefs, a recent decision by Division Three of this district suggests these I 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 f90 Cal. Rotr. 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" [*1300] according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually [**692] invite—a purely subjective inquiry,one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions. 35 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. 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, 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),subd. (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 amici curiae, 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, 15 50780, subd_(a)(1), M.) 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 nonpurchasing 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. CA011T(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 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 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 [***63]function of the Legislature, not a court."(State Building&Construction Trades Council of California v. Duncan (2008) 162 CaLAPP.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. [*1301] 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 ., J., concurred. Source: Legal>!.../>CA State Cases,Combined Terms: name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search View: Full Dale(Time: Thursday,February 18,2010-5.18 PM EST 'Signal Legend: - Warning:Negative treatment is indicated - Questioned:Validity questioned by citing refs Caution:Possible negative treatment - Positive treatment is indicated - Citing Refs-With Analysis Available > - Citation information available TA i E N 3 N 0 https:Hw.iw.]exis.com/research/retrieve?ce=&pus_91 g_&tmpFBSel=al]&totaldocs=&t�item 8. - Page 237 `Click on any Shepard's signal to Shepardize@ that case. Search(Research Tasks I Get a Document I Shepa Alerts I Total Litigator I Transactional Advisor I Counsel Selector History I Delivery Manager I Dossier I Switch Client I Preferences I Sign Out I Help k!L �ciSlVeXi About LexisNexis I Terms&Conditions I Contact Us Copyright n 2010 LexisNexis,a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. ATTACHMENT IWD. 5_.q� ht.tnt:/hvww lexie c;om/research/retrieve?cc=&push--=t&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Itetrvt► B. e Page 238 -920- m . H" K- HART, KING & CQL_DREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com December 15, 2009 Fife No.36014.112l4837-1724-7749v.1 TO: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Residents Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Application for Tentative Tract Map to Subdivide Park Conversion Impact Report Dear Resident: Please take notice that Shorecliff, LP, Huntington BSC Park, LP, JS Stadium, LLC and Shorecliff Main, LP, the Owners of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park, will submitting within the next two to three weeks an Application to the City of Huntington Beach for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the Park. The purpose of the subdivision will be to give the residents the option if they so choose to purchase their spaces that they are currently renting. No resident one will be forced to purchase his or her space, and the residents may continue renting their spaces. We are providing the residents with the enclosed "Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents" that will be filed as part of the Application. The Report explains the legal protections against economic displacement for those residents who will continue renting their spaces following the conversion. You will also soon receive from the Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowner's Association a tenant survey form that will ask your opinion about the conversion. Please promptly complete and return that survey. Once the Application has been submitted to and accepted by the City, there will be public meetings and a hearing before the City Planning Commission. We will provide you with advance notice of the hearing once it is scheduled. We also anticipate having one or more meetings with the residents to discuss the conversion and its implications prior to the City hearing. We will keep-y6—u posted. Very truly yours, HA/. r Ro Enclosure: Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714A32.8700 J www_hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7 TTACH T NO. 6.(O -921- Stem 8. - Page 239 No- HART, KING COLDREIN REPORT ON IMPACT OF CONVERSION UPON RESIDENTS Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park December 15, 2009 SECTION I. 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") located at 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. The subdivision will be created by the conversion of the Park from rental spaces to resident owned lots. This Report is being filed with the City of Huntington Beach ("City") as part of the "Application" and is being 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." This Report contains the Applicant's assessment of the economic impact upon non-purchasing Park residents of conversion to resident ownership as required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (b). The Applicant's assessment is that non- purchasing residents will not be economically displaced because they can continue renting the home site. Rents will not be increased due to the conversion. There are statutory limits on post-conversion rent increases for those non-purchasing residents. Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) does not require that this Report discuss economic impacts of conversion upon Park residents who choose to purchase their rental spaces. Those residents are not being forced to purchase their spaces. The Applicant need not and indeed is arguably prohibited under the Subdivided Lands Act from disclosing potential lot purchase prices or homeowner association assessments. (El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs,supra, 96 Cal.App_4th at 1177) Notwithstanding the limited requirements for this Report, the City and Homeowner's Association ("HOA") have requested that it include additional information that might assist Park residents choosing to purchase their spaces. By including that additional information, the Applicant does not admit that such information can lawfully required to be included and does not waive its legal rights to contend that the Report complies with Government Code Section 66427.5 without that additional information. That additional information does not constitute a legally binding commitment or offer on the part of the Applicant. 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 Item 8. - Page 240 -922- l .. Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents December 15, 2009 Page 2 SECTION 11 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. The Applicant is not by this Report committing to make such applications or to any certain Conversion Date. 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 Doane: The "Roane" 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. 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 NON-PURCHASING RESIDENTS WILL NOT BE ECONOMICALLY DISPLACED BY CONVERSION Non-purchasing Residents will not be economically displaced as a result of conversion.. Following the Conversion Date, ail Residents will have the opportunity to either purchase the Lot on which their Home is situated or to continue renting their Space. (Govt. Code § 66427.5 (a)) The Application does not encompass rent increases for non- purchasing Residents. Non-purchasing residents enjoy statutory protections against post conversion rent increases that would not otherwise be available without conversion. (Govt. Code § 66427.5 (f)) Therefore, upon conversion of the Park to resident ownership, non- purchasing Residents are protected against economic displacement, assuming that rent increases could result in economic displacement 3 6014.11214823-0383-2325 v.1 2 ATTACHMENT O- 6.Z -923- item 8. - Page 241 HAP Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents December 15,2009 Page 3 3.1 Non-Purchasing Residents Are Protected From Displacement by the Option to Continue Leasing with Statutory Protections Pertaining to Rent Increases Following the Conversion Date, 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 rent increases. The statutory provisions limit the amount and timing of rent increases following conversion. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5 (f)) 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, initially following the Conversion Date 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 following the Conversion Date by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion. Post Conversion Date rent increases for lower income households are further limited in that the monthly rent cannot 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. 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" to Residents, assuming, without admitting, that increases in rent can be considered an economic displacement. 3.2 Residents Cannot Be Economically Displaced by Purchase of Their Spaces Because They Are Not Forced to Purchase Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) does not require that this Report address potential economic displacement upon residents who intend to purchase the Lots on which their Home is situated. The language of Government Code Section 66427.5 is expressly 36014.112/4823-0383-2325 v.I 3 TTACN T NO. Item Ba - Page 242 -924- %L '...., HG:RT- K!M�, & G0LDFEN1 Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents December 15,2009 Page 4 limited to steps intended to avoid economic displacement from conversion upon non- purchasing residents. The Residents are protected from economic displacement pertaining to potential sale of the Lots upon conversion by having both the option to purchase their Lots at the eventual sales price and the option to continue renting their Space following the Conversion Date. 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, the Resident is not required to move and may continue to rent his or her Space following the Conversion Date. This Report cannot make determinations about economic impacts to the purchasing Residents. That is because any sale price for the Lots and HOA assessments will not be established until some time after the tentative map subdivision approval. After tentative map approval, the subdivider must next follow procedures and obtain approval for 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 purchasing Residents be established. The purchasing Residents will then learn the price for their Lot only after the Department of Real Estate approves the subdivision and issues its public report on the subdivision. Of course, all of this will also require appropriate financing accommodations. Nevertheless, as previously explained, because the Resident has the option to either purchase his or her Lot or to continue renting his or her Space under whatever rental 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. By way of accommodation to the HOA and the City, and without waiving any rights to claim that this Report is adequate without any information pertaining to purchasing residents or to estimates of value as of the yet unidentified Conversion Date, the Applicant provides the following information requested by the City and the HOA: a. Current estimate of potential Lot value: Approximately $275,000- 3 8 5,000, depending on the size and location of the lot. b. Current estimate of potential monthly assessment: "Base" assessment of approximately $210 per Lot, with an. additional "utility" assessment of approximately $80 per Lot, and a budgeted reserve contribution of approximately $45 per Lot per month 36014.1 12/4823-0383-2325 v.1 4 ATTA -925- Item 8e - Page 243 IN Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents December 15, 2009 .Page 5 (assuming the accrued reserves are fully funded prior to close of the first escrow) c_ Current estimate of potential market rent: Approximately $1,600 to $1,850, inclusive of the approximately $250 in "pass-throughs" many residents currently pay. d. Statement re Water Drainage Issues. The City and residents are concerned about surface and percolating groundwater drainage from the Park. The Applicant has retained an expert to analyze Park water drainage and will consider reasonable and economically feasible measures in cooperation with the City and HOA to address water drainage issues that might exist within the Park. 3.3 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. The Applicant will try to arrange for preferred lenders who will provide favorable financing terms for the Residents. 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 through the HOA. 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 36014.112/4823-0383-2325v.1 ATTACHMENT NO. b-s !$ear 60 - Page 244 -926- Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents December 15, 2009 Page 6 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. 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 Mobilehome 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 park to 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)) 3 6014.112/4823-03 83-2325v.1 6 9.ATTACHMENT IN 6.6 -927- Item 8- - Page 245 Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents December 15, 2009 Page 7 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 statutorily protected from economic displacement by the option to either purchase their Lots or continue renting their Spaces with statutory restrictions on rent increases. Residents with 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 facts believed to be true, 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 conversion in accordance with the applicable valid and enforceable laws. Dated: December 15, 2009 Hart, King &Co en B3 Y Z-By obe Col en Attorneys for Applicant Shorecliff L.P. JS Stadium, LLC Huntington BSC Park, LP Shorecliff Main, LP 36014.112/4823-0383-2325v.1 7 TTAfiET UJ. 6 _ Item 8. - Page 246 -928- Exhibit A California Government Code Section 66427.5 36014.112/4823-038 3-232 S v.I ATTACHMENT NO. 6-'S -929- Item B. - Page 247 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 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 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 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 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. ATTAC � T NO. 6 Item B. - Page 248 -930- Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowners Association 20701 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 January 18, 2010 Mr.Ethan Edwards City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 100 S. Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Sub-Division Application Resident Survey Results 1-15-2010 Dear Mr. Edwards: Attached please find the results of the current survey from the residents of Huntington Shorecliffs with a re-cap attached. Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter. Ve trul yours, 0 Madeline Seymour Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowners Association Board Member �,�G Q� -931- Item 8. - Page 249 Huntington Shorecliffs Survey 1-15-10 Sp.# Name Sup. Op. Decline Vacant P. O. No Info Comment 1 Baur 1 2 Heinl 1 3 Evans 1 4 Edwards 1 5 Ladow 1 6 Liberatore 1 7 Colletta 8 Se mour 1 9 Schock 1 10 Edwards 1 11 Fordell 1 12 Frible 1 13 Long 1 14 Wells 15 Bell 1 16 Mills 17 Hill 1 18 Nielsen 1 19 Sanders 1 20 lovan 1 21 Calderon 1 22 Clyde 23 Brown 24 1 25 1 1 26 Curatola 1 27 Thompson 1 28 Stover/Whissen 1 29 Crew 1 30 McGowan 1 31 Haarbison 1 32 Huffman 1 33 Morgan 1 34 Primromse 1 _ 35 Morhouse 1 36 Hammer 37 Steele 38 Keenum 1 39 Mallard 1 40 Sturock 41 LaCha elle 1 42 1 43 Dahlen 1 44 1 45 Ta ue 1 1 46 Cluff 1 47 Sykes 1 48 Simms 1 1 49 1 Item 8. - Page 250 -932- Huntington Shorecliffs Survey 1-15-10 S .# Name Sup. Op. Decline Vacant P. O. No Info Comment 50 1 51 Bennett 52 Hogan 53 Plummer 1 54 Kini 1 55 Laurin 56 G nn 1 57 Williams 1 58 Jordan 1 1 59 1 60 Smith 1 61 Hanson 1 1 62 Kershaw 1 63 Speiser 1 1 64 Ewald 1 65 Burki 66 Warren 1 68 Ar irakis 1 69 Hadden 1 70 1 72 Wiessmer 1 73 O'Brien 74 Atchur 75 Butts 1 76 Hamel 1 77 Schumacher 1 78 Bennett 79 Zeller 1 81 Rasmussen 1 82 1 83 Sheneman 1 85 Vaughn 1 86 Schwenneber 87 1 88 Merritt 1 89 Bergeron 1 90 Krueger 1 91 Ford 1 1 92 Bohl 1 93 Warren 94 1 95 Tran 1 96 Roberts 1 97 Gordon 1 98 11 99 Dalton 1 100 Lon 1 101 Jaffe 102 Richter 1 103 Van Horn 1 -933- Item 8. - Page 251 Huntington Shorecliffs Survey 1-15-10 Sp. # Name SUP. op. Decline Vacant P. O. No Info Comment 104 Dellosso 105 Mascorro 106 Weber 107 Crandlemire 1 108 Bewle 1 109 Pestim 110 Harris 111 1 112 Harrington 1 113 Fiewe er 1 1 114 Buckland 115 Morgan 116 Kent 117 Gross 1 118 Slavin 119 Asendorf No vote 120 Potter 1 1 121 Champion 1 122 Rasch 123 Lyons 1 124 Berry1 125 Bondick 1 126 Kin 1 127 1 128 Hetrick 1 129 Ludt 1 130 1 131 1 132 McCabe 1 133 Goodman 1 134 1 135 Clark 1 136 1 137 1 138 1 139 Evans 140 Stanton 1 141 Mc Culloch 142 Lo ins 1 143 Sullivan 1 144 1 145 Bradford 146 Moskewich 147 Carlson 1 148 1 149 Peach 1 150 Smith 1 1 151 Reese 152 Crosby 153 1 Kr A'�L-ANAIEN . N0. 7.3 Item 8. - Page 252 -934- Huntington Shorecliffs Survey 1-15-10- Sp.# Name Sup. Op. Decline Vacant P. O. No Info Comment 249 Smith 1 250 Lewis 1 251 Mulloy 1 252 Te'enian 253 Gardner 1 254 Morre 1 255 Rogers 1 256 Hane 1 257 Luckham 1 258 Cannon 1 259 Mc Kennell 1 260 Hall 261 Razanskas 1 262 1 263 1 264 Walker 1 265 Gardner 1 1 266 Richardson 267 Porch 268 Hamilton 1 269 Calderone 1 270 Palmer 271 M er 1 272 Reed 1 273 Fieldhouse 1 274 Coscione 1 275 Van Orden 276 Davison 277 Knutson 1 278 McGrew 1 279 Stockton 1 280 IRasmussen 1 281 Athe 282 Lytle 1 283 Miller 1 284 Moore 1 285 Casino 1 286 1 287 Li and 288 Eberly1 289 Bradley1 1 290 Seymour 1 1 291 Lohert 1 292 Turrili 293 Gargano, 294 Krafka 1 295 Bowers 1 296 Harries 297 jDaquila 1 298 IFaber ATTALAMENT NO. T LJ -935- Item 8. - Page 253 Huntington Shorecliffs Survey 1-15-10 R.# Name Sup. Op. Decline Vacant P. O. No Info Comment 9 Ritter 1 0 Garfield 1 301 O'Neil 1 302 Bonillas 303 Runnels 304 Kailister 305 Malone 306 Stephenson 1 1 307 1 308 1 25 105 52 18 6 34 15 Total Returns 182 TTMMT . 2. Item B. o Page 254 -936- Certification of Mailing of Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents (Govermnent Code Sections 664275 (c)) 1, Mike Cirillo,am the President of Star Mobilehome Park Management, which is the Property Manager for the Huntington Shorecliffs.Mobilehome Park. On behalf of Shorecliff, LP,Huntington PSC Park, LP,JS Stadium,LLC, and Shorecliff Main,LP, the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park, I certify that on December 15, 2009, 1 mailed the attached"Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents,"to all Huntington Shorecliffs Residents as shown on the attached mailing list. I did so by placing true copies of the Report in envelopes addressed to each homeowner and deposited such envelopes in the United States Mail at Santa Ana,California_ I also certify that the attached mailing list is a true and correct list of the names and address of all tenants residing in Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above is true and correct of my own knowledge. Executed on December 29, 2009 at Santa Ana,California. -W✓if Mike Cirillo ATTCMET NO. -7. -937- Item 8. - Page 255 Charles Baur Barbara Hein[ Thelma Evans Dreama Baur Sharon Heinl 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 3 Space 1 Space 2 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Donna Edwards Donna Ladow Constance Liberatore 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 4 Space 5 Space 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Lou Colletta William Seymour Charles Schock Hyunok Colletta 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 8 Space 9 Space 7 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Edwards Jeff Fordell Jim Fribley Evelyn Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Jeannine Fribley c%Deborah Edwards Space 11 20701 Beach Boulevard 9291 Power Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Elleen Long Dave Wells Dee Bell 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 13 Space 14 Space 15 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Patti Mills Beverly Hill Kathleen Nielsen ,/o Sean Mills 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 19744 Beach Blvd,, Suite 339 Space 17 Space 18 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Joseph Sanders Stevan lovan Ralph Calderon Susan De Bord Sanders Ann lovan Ramona Calderon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 19 Space 20 Space 21 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mary Clyde Catherine Brown Dianna Whitley C/O Sharon Lynn 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 8321 Cade Circle Space 23 Space 24 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Gelsomine Curatola Nancy Contilli-Thompson Jerry Stover 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 26 Space 27 Space 28 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Nellie Crew Mary McGowan Billy Harbison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Irene Harbison Space 29 Space 30 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4908 Space 31, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Item 8. m Page 256 -938- Henry Huffman Vivian Morgan Darrell Primrose Florence Huffman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 33 Space 34 Space 32 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648--4908 Dorothy Morehouse Sharon Hammer Arnold Steele 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Marlene Steele Space 35 Space 36 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 37 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Thelma Keenum Joseph Mallard Robert Sturrock 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Lorie Sturrock Space 38 Space 39 1230 E.Windsor Road Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 #116 Glendale, CA 91205 Alberta La Chapelle Robert Sweet Mery Dahlen 20701 Beach Boulevard Hila Sweet Rosemary Dahlen Space 41 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 42 Space 43 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 James Greulich Kathy Tague Lynne Cluff 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 44 Space 45 Space 46 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Vida Sykes Lauren Simms Shelley Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 47 Space 48 Space 49 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vicki Guenther Ken Bennett Kathleen Hogan 20701 Beach Boulevard Lana Bennett 19821 Windjammer Lane Space 50 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 51 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Richard Plummer Buster Kini Lucille Laurin Inez Plummer Margaret Kini 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 55 Space 53 Space 54 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Catherine Gwynn Doris Williams Gail Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 56 Space 57 Space 58 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Murphy Bank Ron Smith Barbara Hanson Attn: Jon Dominguez Kathy Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard PO Box 9725 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 61 Fresno, CA 93794 Space 60 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4908 -1 .C; MEi"N' 'T NO. -939- stem 8. - Page 257 Jim Constantine Bob Speiser Sharon Ewald Ede Kershaw Evelyn Speiser 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 64 Space 62 Space 63 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Joe Burki Donald Warren Charlaine Argirakis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 65 Space 66 Space 68 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach, CA 9264SA908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Steve Hedden Steryn Nick Nannes Albert Wiessmer Cheryle Hedden c/o Allen M Reedy Billi Wiessmer 20701 Beach Boulevard 4590 MacArthur Blvd STE 370 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 69 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Space 72 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Frank O'Brien Robert Atchue Carolyn Butts Sheila O'Brien Nancy Atchue 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 75 Space 73 Space 74 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Peter Hamel Christine Schumacher Bonnie Bennett Nadine Hamel 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 77 Space 78 Space 76 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Julia Johnson Don Rasmussen Leida Untoria Joyce Zeller Lea Ann Young 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 82 Space 79 Space 81 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Guesno Mary Vaughn Dee Rey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 83- Space 85 Space 86 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 James Greulich Mike Merritt Billy Bergeron 20701 Beach Boulevard Lois Merritt Margaret Bergeron Space 87 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Space 88 Space 89 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 t-rederick Krueger Linda Ford David Schlack Nancy Krueger 20701 Beach Boulevard Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 91 3645 South 3850 West Space 90 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 West Haven, UT 84401 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 David Schlack Joanne Gravitt Hoan Dinh Tran Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Mai T. Pham 3645 South 3850 West Space 94 20701 Beach Boulevard West Haven, UT 84401 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 95 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 TME:N Item 8. - Page 258 -940- William Roberts Celia A. Gordon Elizabeth Rosenkranz Estelle Roberts 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701. Beach Boulevard Space 97 Space 98 Space 96 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Ken Dalton Sharan Long Jeane Jaffe 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 99 Space 100 Space 101 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Walter A. Richter Joan Van Horn Johnny Dee Dellosso Verna R. Richter Patricia Bonner 20701 Beach Boulevard 606 N.Auburn Avenue 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 104. Sierra Madre, CA 91024 Space 103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Bob Mascorro Roy Weber Fran Crandiemire Lana Mascorro Karen Weber 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 107 Space 105 Space 106 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Kent Bewley Jorge Festini Florence Harris Karen Bewley Nancy Festini C/O Maureen Parco 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 1450 N.W. Fresno Ave. Space 108 Space 109 Bend, OR 97701 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Paul Ragains Steve Harrington Marion Fieweger Cheryl Ragains Sandra Harrington 20701 Beach Boulevard 2804 Hinton Circle 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 113 Elk Grove, CA 95758 Space 112 Huntington Beach; CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Karen Weidmann Dixie Morgan Kathy Kent Cheryl Kruly 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 115 Space 116 Space 114 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Willi Gross Jim Chojokov Charles Asendorf 20701 Beach Boulevard C/O AAA-Action ATTN:Acctg Dept Phyllis Asendorf Space 117 13101 Jefferson Street 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Garden Grove, CA 92844 Space 119 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Chuck Potter Rob Champion Bill Rasch 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Dorene Rasch Space 120 Space 121 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.1908 Space 122 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Don Lyons Petronella Berry Ron Bondick Sally Lyons 20701 Beach Boulevard Jan Bondick 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 124 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 123 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 125 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach. CA 92648-4908 -941- Item 5. - Page 259 Paula McIntosh King Larry Trautman Randal Hetrick 73124 Crosby Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard Florence Erickson Palm Desert, CA 92260-6715 Space 127 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 128 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Frances Ludt Felipe Zapata Sue Vanderwall Louise Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 130 Space 131 Space 129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach, CA 9264BA908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Patricia McCabe Mark Goodman Beverly Peterson 20701 Beach Boulevard Judy Goodman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 132 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 134 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 133 Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Elizabeth Clark Gisele J. Fouts Verle Ankeny 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 135 Space 136 Space 137 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Joan Goodman Gary Rollins Paul Stanton 20701 Beach Boulevard 9812 Theresa Avenue Margie Stanton Space 138 Anaheim, CA 92804 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Space 140 Huntington Beach, CA 9264BA908 Evora McCulloch Helen Logins Jack Sullivan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 141 Space 142 Space 143 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 George Nazaroff Celia Bradford Jon G Moskewich Susan Nazaroff 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandra J Moskewich 16360 Chella Drive Space 145 20701 Beach Boulevard Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 146 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bev Carlson George Yates Ron Peach 20701 Beach Boulevard Donna Yates Vicki Peach Space 147 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 148 Space 149 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 George Smith Betty Reese Mary Crosby 20701 Beach Boulevard Nancy Hall Reese 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 150 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 152 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 151 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Jackie Jacobs Teresa Keltey-Brownell Judi ibarra 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 153 Space 154 Space 155 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Item 6. - Page 260 -942- Mary Landin Thomas Newland John Newman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Newman Space 157 Space 158 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 159 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vivian Brown John McGrew Bob Hall 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space160 Space161 Space162 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 9264BA908 Harold Jones Betty Evans Bill Drew Nanette Jones 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 164 Space 165 Space 163 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Carl Ackermann Bob Truitt Joan Hudson Jacque Ackermann Arlene Truitt 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 168 Space 166 Space 167 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mike Steele John Magennis Jerry Gilday Sher-at Steele Susie Magennis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 171 Space 169 Space 170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Harry Cargill Dolores Smith Buster Cobb Victoria Cargill 20701 Beach Boulevard Jacqueline Cobb 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 173 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 172 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 174 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Nadene Weber Donald Prince Madaline Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Margaret Prince 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 175 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 177 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 176 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John McClinton Ron Bastien Norma Starnes Clarice McClinton Elinor Bastien 20701 Beach Boulevard C/O Tom McClinton 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 180 PO Box 135 Space 179 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Kailua, Hl 96734 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Gary Rollins Barbara Marousek Larry Schrock 9812 Theresa Avenue Terri Marousek Maureen Schrock Anaheim, CA 92804 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 182 Space 183 Huntington Beach, CA 9264 8-4 908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Robert Lupo Marian Beck D Ellsworth Loretta Lupo 20701 Beach Boulevard J Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 185 1 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 184 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 186 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 -943- Item 8. m Page 261 Shirley Moss Craig Roalf Greg Mansfield 434 Larkin Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Kaysviile, UT 84037 Space 188 Space 189 Huntington Beach, CA 9264BA908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Earl Nelson Bessie Burke Jeremy Deex Louise Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 12161 Oak Leaf Drive 20701 Beach.Boulevard Space 191 Los Alamitos,CA 90720 Space 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Rosa Dalton Katherine Elstad Donna Blackman 16276 Skyridge Drive 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Riverside,CA 92503 Space 194 Space 195 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Lois Mills Gary Hill Joe Kimes 20701 Beach Boulevard Christina Hill Linda Kimes Space 196 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 197 Space 198 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Strada Calvin Dana Lee Cummings 20701 Beach Boulevard Sharon Dana 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 199 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Roger Criswell Marina Wilson Scott Steeper Mindy Criswell 20701 Beach Boulevard Susan Hawk 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 203 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 202 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 204 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Diane Lomond Darlene Ruttman Eric Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 205 Space 206 Space 207 Huntington Beach, CA 92648--4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Betsy Noss Jeremy Goldman Sherry Sollazzo 207D1 Beach Boulevard Judy Goldman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 208 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 212 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 209 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Shirley Crabtree Bob Vliss Dick Mancinelli 20701 Beach Boulevard Claire Viiss Dorothy Mancinelli Space 213 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 214 Space 215 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Dixie Bright Robert Vandygrift Therese Young 20701 Beach Boulevard Wendelyn Vandygrift 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 216 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 218 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 217 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 AT 4 NT , -� .� 3 Item 8e - Page 262 -944- Daniel Rodriguez Rick Danell Sam Robinson Patricia Manrique-Rodriguez Martha Danell Rosemary Robinson 12761 Orange Avenue 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Chino, CA 91710 Space 220 Space 221 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Charlie Brown Harold Lyons Delia Sutherland Cynthia Brown CIO Karen Dykema 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 9746 Cedar Court Space 225 Space 223 Cypress, CA 90630 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Dave Schoenherz Melvin Lewis Richard Reed Christy Schoenherz Patricia Lewis Lynn Reed 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 226 Space 227 Space 228 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Alice Butler Wince Bove Joe Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Esta Bove 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 229 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 231 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 230 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Sharon.Robison Aibertina Wressmer Bob Kraehling 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Sherry Kraehling Space 232 Space 233 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 234 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Doris Coppola Warren Zarnott Jackie Visco-Gray Edward Baur Anne Coulter 21171 Amerwick Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Space 235 Space 236 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Davis John Berens Jack Williams Diane Davis Darleen Berens Claudia Williams 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 238 Space 239 Space 240 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Diane Alden Vicki Flood Alan Riley 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 241 Space 242 Space 243 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Richard Gillespie Gary Tiveron Ronald Rennegarbe 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Barnard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 244 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 246 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 245 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Jim Jordan Marie Burns Glenn Smith Flora Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard Joyce Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 248 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 247 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 249 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 A N T N 0, -945- Item 6m - Page 263 Shirley Lewis John Mulloy Albert Te6enian 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandi Mulloy 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 250 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 252 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 251 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Bob Gardner Jack Morrey Crystal Rogers Doris Gardner Maureen Morrey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 255 Space 253 Space 254 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Dick Haney Don Luckham Paul Cannon Betty Haney Lori Luckham Doris Cannon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 256 Space 257 Space 258 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92-648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Ronald McKennell Bill Hall Frank Razanskas Janet McKennell Leva Hall Lisa Razanskas 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 259 Space 260 Space 261 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Judy Adams Paul Lee Joan Walker 20701 Beach Boulevard Soon Park 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 262 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 264 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 263 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Sob Gardner Beverly Richardson Dick Porch Janice Gardner 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 266 Space 267 Space 265 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dottie Hamilton Chuck Calderone Bob Palmer 20701 Beach Boulevard Mary Calderone Margie Palmer Space 268 - 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 269 Space 270 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Shirley J.Myers Antonia (Toni) Peed Staff Fieidhouse Deborah G_ Douglass 20701 Beach Boulevard Jill Fieldhouse 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 272 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 271 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 273 Huntington Beach, CA 92648A908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Carol Cosione Terry Van Orden Patsy Davison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 274 Space 275 Space 276 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mel Knutson Karen McGrew Frances Stockton Suzanne Knutson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 278 Space 279 ,pace 277 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 juntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACHMENT NO. -7. 15 Item 6e - Page 264 -946- Emil Rasmussen Dale Athey Mike Lytle Mary Rasmussen Sandra Athey Lee Lytle 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 280 Space 281 Space 282 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Majel Miller Gene Moore Mary Jo Casino 20701 Beach Boulevard Stefanie Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 283 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 285 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 284 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Gladi Halpern Richard Lippard Myrrha Eberly C/O Lisa Halpern Judith Lippard 20701 Beach Boulevard 2945 S. Fairview Street, Unit A 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 288 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Space 287 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Flo Bradley Madeline Seymour Helga Lothert 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 289 Space 290 Space 291 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Curtis Turrill George Riley Frank Krafka Susan Turrill Sandra Gargano Joanne Thomas 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 292 Space 293 Space 294 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Robin Bowers Larry Harries Jerry Daquila 20701 Beach Boulevard Pamela Hames Linda Daquila Space 295 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 296 Space 297 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 William Faber Michael Ritter Arnold Garfield Norma Faber Linda Ritter 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 300 Space 298 Space 299 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Delores O'Neil Adda Bonillas Lorraine Runnels 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 301 Space 302 Space 303 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Junice Kallister Monique Maloney Patricia (Pat)Stephenson CIO Joyce Grimm Hien Nguyen 20701 Beach Boulevard 18514 Santa Cruz Circle 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 306 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Space 305 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Judith Johnson Kathy Hanson 1908 W. Steinbeck 20701 Beach Boulevard Anthem, AZ_ 85086 Space 308 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 -947- Item 6. - Page 265 Sharon Dana Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd. #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 February 23,2010 Planning Commission and Sub-Committeee on Subdivisions Department of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 FEB 23 RE:HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION ATTN: Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners I vehemently oppose the subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park at this time. Huntington Shorecliffs is a Senior Park, This means one of residents of the homes here must be 55 years of age or older. Many of the residents are in their 60's,70's, and even in their 80's and 90's. These residents deserve the protection of the City of Huntington Beach. Huntington Shorecliffs is in the middle of a lawsuit for the failure to maintain the Park. The Mobile Home Laws require property owners to be responsible to have a dry,safe bed on which to put mobile homes. There is always standing water around the Park,which is an open invitation to mosquitoes and vermin. I have put together some pictures to show the deplorable conditions that some of the Huntington Shorecliffs homeowners have had to endure for years now. These pictures show only a small portion of the many homes that are suffering from water intrusion both under the homes and around the property, causing unhealthy conditions of molds and mildews. Because of the road conditions,the water cannot escape from the property. In many instances it remains in place for many weeks. It can also cause the homes to become unstable and begin to sink and collapse into the mud and muck under the homes. Many people in the Park are spending money every year to have their homes re-leveled and stabilized because of the water intrusion. There is also water intrusion every time a new home is placed in the Park, as these homes are installed at a higher level that the existing home, and the older homes around a newly installed home. There is a storm drain in the Park that empties from several storm drains(perhaps as many as 8)located on Frankfurt Avenue, located above Huntington Shorecliffs. This water runs completely through the Park before draining out. This storm drain has a basin that always contains water,and the drain itself is always putting discharge into the Park, every time someone washes down their driveway or the street in front of their house into the street drain, it washes into Huntington Shorecliffs. When it rains,the water just gushes into the Park. The drain in front of the Park has also overflowed this year on January 19, 20 10- It overflowed through the brick wall on the Beach Blvd- side of the property, and allowed oily, greasy, grimy mucky water to flow into people's yards and under their houses. There is also a bus stop along this drainage ditch. If the bus driver pull up too close to the edge of the street, the person getting off the bus goes tumbling down A,TT Item 8. - Page 266 -946- Sharon Dana February 23, 2010 page 2 into the drainage ditch. This has happened on several occasions. This is a senior citizen bus stop, for all our residents that do not drive. I understand that the City of Huntington Beach wants to make a sidewalk and curbing mandatory for the approval of the subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs. I have to object. The property owners have always passed on all costs of doing business to the residents that Iive here. I believe that it is totally unfair to make the residents of the 304 homes located in this Park the only people responsible for paying for such an expensive improvement--an improvement that will benefit the appearance of Beach Blvd. for the whole City I might add. Also, the new street light that have just been installed--will they have to be ripped out and re-installed if such an improvement goes through? Who put the new street lights in, anyway? Who is responsible for such a dangerous bus stop? I would bet you could go all over Orange County and not find a more dangerous bus stop. Perhaps the subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs is inevitable,but I believe that this is not the time for it. the new owners purchased the property more than 2 years ago. They have done nothing to solve any of the problems. Because all costs are passed onto the residents, our cost for property taxes on the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have gone from approximately $26.00 per space to$179.74 per space. Now that they want resident support for the subdivision, they have hued an Hydrologist, or a water engineer. So far, no one has heard anything as far as resolutions to the many problems that beset Huntington Shorecliffs. The new owners have bought the property at top dollar, before the crash, and now want to get their money back as fast as possible. A subdivision would leave all the residents holding the bag for the costs and repairs that should have been made years ago. It's a question of take the money and run_ The resident survey has not shown support for a subdivision. A recent court decision by Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge,the Hon. Paul P. Burdick,ruled that Government Code Section 66427.5 requires local jurisdictions to consider the results of resident support surveys, required by subsection 66427.5(e), in determining whether to approve of deny mobilehorne park subdivision conversion applications. Again i am asking that you deny iiie application for a conversion to a subdivision for Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park at this time. The Park owners have an obligation to act responsibly for the obligations they assumed when they purchased this land. Very truly yours, ,IL, 'Zl) Sharon L. Dana -949- Items 8. - Page 267 9 �Z R. nq'x�b +� 9' �✓ I��n'r t*Et ,.c .q:F a� MOP,, FOZ rl kjin (, i� `*T1 ev�v s t71 • r ., rt `I �<\ +E,N,� ._ / rJlfst• it,N;Pf'+. a�. Y y 1 d Y '� l r fjl ks k,S 1+{k� t ���,tpppS, ltt,I f �l ' c 15i}s"r bt •,',�, b 1 P W7. A y ........ ° X'�}r bey ry51 t, v � r ,'• - I k F�' -, ;• .� IY )1 r ^' k Iv g It ,Se vi+rV C '. x, r .� t'.��r 'ai ���' .. . •F, _ - -,:: _ /. .c> �rl91� ''1�.°t7, 4k� FI� +"�(r i {�� d >�. E °�w,J. ..._ •. ', ... .- .":"_ - ^. ,-._, a'�-.�( ��4�p �C fi� /, K f �,�, )12 I✓�� h; ti1-.; ��4 t'�.1��-E�;Y�P's�^�6 folios "tl a/In,` �i:'rwV p6� 1xv I ;1 t r ' tf i °3 2 Ec d 8+ k 1 I W> �r���Ye � 's-A:a fst ��" N � 1 Y/�♦ 1 5/5/'i. k �!F'N'll�afi � S �. ',; } 4j SS 1, d S bI�' '" r L., 1c.IP •I�'L �.^�M'-0�i}{ `} ( t j I i I 4 ���3 rH.'J;l��` th<i rv.,l =F� (>+�_ x � �' v'✓�+,I } F +•,'�a 3 :`, �� �: 01��ya r t1�„ s^73 r4� J �iitkrr{�d +yt . st4k�f a ! �I+11 p k } 9 x 4,/ +� /Y �r >`'�l r I 1�rW Own 4, a F � • s 7 ri Y - J s i 31. --------------- r � •:C f fr.��-:: fib. � yJ�#_' S F. r 6 .� r • A s � r 1 4 x L -: r � ^ff l •� � !• .�'r°L '� r rye f v� � �''a '� <�. � a ♦ 4 � t �C(t� l;'a # ar � s'2y � n t , ,�' Sf ie ,q„ t• '* s+' ; k'' ?' r",A° to �� * t .yam,.•r n. r� r �Ti5 r <wcY, `,r !• 3.fi • i ip. tY "Rn. a�� r4 E-.: a�',r rs r �r� �♦ err f .ar `,m r't _1r ♦ ,, E ��. "�' .£r.'r ♦ d, �' r s, p�._.f!a�c'6 � t'i Y.J. �4�� �. ,t r ♦ � :. �"'k'Cv t�'T-� �'a•-� � t� r+ -n r.'y �"' r � .L�, `Y N i♦. ti 1 �r r _ F '. a e. NI ` --_ -_. ...,J'.:. �.3_:'�'s ,._..1.." �� .� �-z*�1'K Lz'rw• � ""-�`� ;I�7 t�� L } _•c � �' ��_ ..�- _ Yc �`- •�3js � C _ r { ps t . 1 m _ ! t .. .e ♦" ' e t r f - �fg ♦ G' � s r 4d ate - ,x"i sT.+# fW Vl�r S Ir -r , ° ✓S IP Iz— y: .g ti .♦r L tc w J. ..: _y ➢�3 q s ni�w+w -a'��v1'i t s ter�I c+- ?'r-trr r�,~��`' '� �, 3� '�`S �-�•d<r'°"y.i R ;�� 2 +',-y-��`3 r .`' ."s at``. xt z- - •'�s t °' ,�' v �`L'' "_. 'cy8 j.i?stSf'A` `_�i4 �...er$ � 1 ..J •ram ...-.:.,a .ra' .......:: .. r-i.�'tw" ..�fy e£�:.,..,,..L•��r���3�A� r. �,t;.<,ceY..,cl L•r"s �' ,�_, k �. r _ X + 3 f d v r x a p L. E v 2 o_ p , MW Hot RM r F' on w ' 6 et t tc s r F S } -3 -:"$ yam.; l ��3`_"` .a,•� ""wiSui 3,g., r L7 3" � +-c :. ways low F.EE�"rc�-'t+rb&��L` EX-e, r cQ .y y.4 .�. .,.�� rs •" a.�=£'+"a�' .`�-'�Lam' a_'p�--.� _ � � z q t Y — R a �s 3 4. r _ - x i 7 • 5 a I t Z' - �' - Y � S '� t ail -49 , RM mod'' � f sue•" -. �i t � Y • J ' 1 i E S t 1 I i'. - t F . 10 U TSt� ni aYr }/ $ r �f�. F♦ w t ��c a _• �`, .. I_l� Sit; � O t i 4 T X'Y ` �\af - ,1i . � �'.' �.�S� �n� .. >.•��'4..`' E 'S`�' -�i>�� M1 � >`fti�� '�¢!�•x���+' 114j f F - � F.. 4 r C - � ...� F." + '�� \-nty. Fy T.•. rf � i� tiF !.� Y��; - .. �t f � :5 2��1 � ,��„ rr 1 � _..;� � ��`_ ;,� AJ J .:v ���?°�}'i il+{`{fr��f���r �t�"•f� - t F it I ti �� !� '' � h r x ♦ 1 t� �-l�♦t i ♦\ '•4M yt !yi`!�lra r F: '''i I }t,e'L�J•rt'r4�(S\t R`e,(I} y,1 iw/i•�fitylc dr�fr 7� �, S 1 ,1ll l J ` '� i iq F \1�♦ .{�; dl`a, ��Tl\ GZ 1n J. A' YJf� J�tF- .._Y r.tTl�r'/ > \/�'((;'t �1 '.�♦ �i\•�yt lid (\I �dIT-1: .�� 4�yµ �, ;�i ♦r _ �% (I- � t��� s ) L Z � `L♦{ I Y� i� 1-.•e s t�'iysi ty` -" d _' ,y / 4 / Alt yt 1 ��K�w � s 3♦ -St y' 11� / y A / 1f /♦ ;_ t1 {e , y \ \ �FY 1 c `. ;.'t' "`-.r a .: w , a :7 i 1 i i ,l �`� t ,, �)si 1`f'I 'i,� Yt' i �+S• i y s -1. `x 9 tl�� � � / � ,`I� C b\ �>(A '\�}r is rr 7, 5F{ \ht 4\• �s ' `,.+ v ,•v . i y � y 3a}`ylfyy'{ya7l,,�� � ` � '^,1J!a�C��*°��, 1 �}`HG�4r(►; >>�a;.,T., nip. 4A yy:�,,,+„o- 1 j 4 V/ e� AYE lr/i L—M —U.:*� i,r..4 f �1, Fti < r�tr �,,.. � y ♦h -3,-`.'tits 7 ♦ ?vI 3 { x KA Y t ua� ... yqyq 4 •? Y € rx' x i Y � • � J d r g r1 s h� F r x r i � ". �"i ..i.. � .'�ix iF t�,}f '.�,� ��-r :`:.II d Gs•. 6 }9',,,, e'� e .e.t � p� �^ J c `. ii � . 1� � y f V 1� t Y � 3 y e r t L MIT Yam' v .. ..... i 1P .hn t r� r 83, - - N t N o t } V2. Y � I C ' 1 g,. #83 d:rarr- trd j z ti - x - b \ E 5 t t . � �� � �� :iC��'��:.'r•.•ng'rhkii::.'vr bo zi _ OR lom WERE • Yy r`WR YG LFORMISIj Y.• s �- - 1`Y �� r _ w 5. 1 Y [ t z � - rx� / _ :z� per;.: � .. �1 �Z ✓�y �� r 4e>•_ � � 'L I� �t �� a rl`_ e` j . r, ##157 y C,;i�y 1 IN� / _ �e s c ,.s o� ✓ y r .-x- U* 50 Fin- Y 't s s..o- +c av f • ... _ ct YPON,IT 1 S (y y x C .lair • - f . • s=c . �;;�,., .r �,�, tea,,.. �;•,.. •, '� Y' xx� t tll� IF F.- ° 4 r } t y 1 t1U Y t rn+r Fi )t S h t 9 y �1 /I 1 \ _.r �t + r��F�I�,t�fLl,r��t r'��l•�'t r •t r'�', :e\JI C ') ill , (1p I t'` s4rdf"{ Kr •�P ✓ � +,�)i l �•� �Il iYl\1,�\; 1! ) r f d1 0 It 1� ,� 7• "t`�, k'Wp'+'�^� ^� ���f�"�+�I�✓�1 ' t +. I�x�? �: •.6, t ! r {1 (r`., >` a' •iA7•, + Y 1'k ,, .�'Yf+ , *�` ia' i), ''1�1 1?y /-�. 5 ..,� Ste. , I ,t�. Pft -,., ��\��T' ( 'tj� 1 �+7'��,�p•+° i ���{ , �` �*t. I i�j t � A. f f.:lI� + ,7,xiy�: , , , ,sa i ,� •,\\•, �. r;.t.l ppi j11• '� i IAfin r1' ,.,Y. .,,.n;, bt. I 1 • +t r "th.t f fl') �' { t � I:.rr , I t S P{'• .I 6 w-.S� t t I 1� +1::, g l'•'7Y'S 1 •t! �" i I �1,a i'r Lr• ti ...,l;;1. � 1 �j• ',.. v ,� r �_, r 'e�Yt u� {j, .. ,1 � g+,t:a t �'r t q � 1•' �r y , ' ItpA 1, ,: 1� 1<.i-, +�� �u'� < I+ ti; + G :���•' , d�l�1 ,l .rk•+1 � � �f�``: . r + , rJ�fl�r 1. \ I(//I'� ,L� ., I�+Jtry o Id l '. •., i�a,, ��'1 f$ �' ; td�i Yt�, 1 1.p.. ,�' a' yitl'- II .,,f'I � It?,... ,, ��a� , } ,n��, t+¢rlr+ ^l � ,.. :a>sr� 'Y:•f 11f f(',I�itk bK f 1 •�'� �;. �2a rS )4 , :,� 1,�li�a>P�r�i� ,) - Vr Mj�II�x(I:� I.t.•4' .L ar:' iY .,�u .. r. '`4r � a � •�� � '� 5 I dY�t4 r �b�y'`t/'.,��J W`1 '�:(,� .� '�I��G`'�' •«� f yVA;,F ,!' t `t }j IrI.I t:� h'' 'yr. An1{Fr,`�I t +•• �, .'�i.�Y�l I,W f %�' _k, })r y.;r �t iw�7r .�.�r '��..� PIS yAt'�,,V,+J.�syQ;•� ,rE %iW� t y) i`) I.(.,' l u'.i:I' ::;'., `9' ,l d t+tld ) Y_�. 1 S .R '+ rI VSir S� f U{ F)1.�'1. { ,J `i`;`'� 6 I .,y .�S,S°4 � '15 t h,y,' ,kJ �+ '�1 - N•'�' iA f fr4t`1 1T-'4x I J '1�r F.S-�:,, 1`6,1.4t ',. ,,+ .i. .., •..TI -.,..,:' ., _ aK'' [ ,•la t�! c w E�!.`� �/..J Y -;`.¢. I '�A lfr�),> �.vr'f.,Y 1 t r (13!ff y� .\') ,f ♦ e'ft;/ I ' /�j�.(.'- `, �! -.d�\.� 5.r U. .�"; 4tl ' A^ �`A. ::fli � '� Fli•11 �J��,.,1 1 '�. �',,hin 9Qkll.. � .J•..,� � •` . y ,,y�. ��I}a, ,t i ,y:. (9� ...A: ,Wp +f A.r ,�r >Pw'i`1',+`°, :�'+` ,•:11rS,},A t1i��,hl.,f.�j t,. t. :l'�.�,�,� )'-I� -;:yl•. �.; IF { r..d ,�,*� -+ t�L"•� .:4k, } �.4`�, �l rl,..:.J � :Ci ``' 1 ',V! 4j I :i:}iJ ':1 \'r H. �J 1.1� 1:�.... :.; '<.!. \.u,. .,iFt`F :,i1�. ..a ,�f�.),,,,yl•}tlr u., �'..1•.ly V;>,1.1 •t1�' rrd } +l '.�, ,','� �Q)•. 1 J, ':t,,:, Mo, + .191 1�'. i� il,,,`r \+1,. V' .1'.' •�'; t., 1:)6 '1'" d• illt 1 4i v, ..•. �i.i a .'.<t:. rd,: ' 4 Ge,r1,+ ,�•.r•r� �•�.: 'i- y�l. ,': 1 .S.�H rld ,?x .,I. :1 ,�.� '.i• ,e�t ti+a1 5 .},•.; nr.e p 7 0 . •t,,.I t ..,f4 . Y, S:+S: 'h E ktA.)j(s1 , :+arQ? �,11.,riM 'nv Y. 3 j1 �.�r.r•t,)"y. (. ,1 �:y ❑..xzr F r ia'(1,Yry.�e` o r .1-. .'rh1+. �J,. .�. I:." d ',• -( ^IC 1'V. i 3 .t-19 '�E�i`_' I.. h. ..•.d i .+,(�.,• .r,l�,:. Ysf •\\ q�� :.:1. a `.v,. .e.11t tc S1, 7 e\P.. rs,,, 1•' ...t ,.npit,.,�, 7 '1, n 1:.,. .,..,J 1 1, >< Mi r. ^ .3l +. 1:-ci,•4�"' f '�„ tl` } t ,.a ,a15'l� ,r, ',I.,a+..s i.` .1J '�;✓ il$tr., t F ,:, ,,•+ r,taf^ ,I d i. .1, t:4 I'.' �11'_Y a. •f;� :•Ic , N a': "lt.s.. '.k. 7�, :i:` 1..<r;). q a b ) >„"Jiti� , •.,.c,�,,< a P.,.1�",;.��^,ip':V! •l A 7 :. rY,.. '... :i :x' � �'/Ipp�IE++'��41.d+t:..,�tII., ,r ivy K..7 .�,{+,',..tµ.7,x ,.{,, „��': �'. {'wv � ��� t "G', QJ�.(.).fSad.J3�bu:. ,.,!. + :)uY.j},1}.�,��,�,. ,,�,,., , :� ,,,Q,;l.•.. � '1�A XfA.u.,f,fAY;: 1 .yl...:....•,y'Y, tRt4'b,:i)�' ,'1,a:'.. ,f 1:�• ��; . i:./+ +:Y"r:, `'..�., :"1r d+rf4 S ,`:).°e �4, ,,E: Fj)s.. �', y Ic.:A.,, �.IifiA .. .{h:Ft•)4.))rr .iep- ., 6fA �j� .�.. 1, , x ""Ia .•.i;�; ..F'A i9h. �:�xt�,�"� .ai,� .ra< ut .., u:�t:.r ,... 1Qt,}"r h,'t„��� i /rJ q?t!( f, ;jvY+f ri+,J •�' I• I� �lr + „r 1 , x ,. R.5 `>.,. ,{ tt e)'. a ,y N+ '•1�..'�^lirs.S 1 ,.'3 ': b. .i:; }Y": -+ ..:. '�Rita,t'�A}i .6.113 ,Qt.,: #t"S`r1r ,.�'t a• ., S r1�. ,.. , ,. ;-:,.. o. .P.+.:!A= ��, °t x h- �f ',1 -ra;u. -`� �L1 1} •a t IS ,.:. '.. it t:, t ,.. .. •'.; ..4 I, C,.,a,.. r ;P4'e gg I„t.�. a ,.•:m �..•Q"d i .,,,t, � '.::' �....:: ,.U,hr ,1.)� , ,. ){. i,l:�. `P c`a i, ?+ '•� '/.. �\i�,�id J. .aA t., ,t .., ( 1 \,+,,.jt: fi.4 A,f I,e,t-y ,1 { l'r{.1 "r LA.�. i t•t.'-' :1''u .. .n '�,.<a� si C,,, :::., ... �t:.Ew t¢�1 61.•r:r`:, :.:. Sk�i,�,(. .V't�;Q1 141. :t ,!A .:I. E- .1•:,,' ,}:1... ,�", s , ;Cu •i� `! .(� � ,.:, .,• { x,.1.�', I :N''1• n 1' 'ti . ��' A'• . �,' ,� a r `3. ^I:tH ) r ,+ dQ� g°Nlo ) ,iRr;fi {{tt•r}dp{ t1!r t ly ,{l4 { colt Il �.•Y ,.�.+ {1: T<rIV�{Y l7� " :i..•,e . ..,,., .,.: �... 1�`,rIt t �f Frip rlx N... + .::...:.,.c k I. t • +1 �', R A)wii'� I;, rt i'.- I,f( e:�:}'..�t�, '31,1,(� { do 4'E t{vJ\:vl. pl t ` !',xy •r 4( t. + I (iF S14., 1.�. ) {. ,,j'`I.r 1 '.I `y St1P •r ):4.: Wt it, `�.-rh'\ E;,�,,` I ^'r -.c ,It ,:,'t)+{.t�i }(�1Y'.J,(S I},.( ��. � "Q.1,.-r N • r • lt ( r1 , 1 I 1ply i,,1�n}r r , + , .t = t A F f• � :.I'. c :.lF1 rit)r 0.51'. -. 1 , tl Y ,- i �, tr vWtu�t • I �t c �!XtIFilr('1 \yY�lP,F(xrtTA. r 1:(i( It l Iei`OF rr):rl(. ,I11 }���bY ( Iwy7 l (7i{,il {++1'F .,� ,I)11- -1 t f`i itJ( �, i1 ) 1�1 x w \,o• �'� r 1 �i 1,�. Y � r 7'1:�1,tl, � ��'T• E b1t \�:t \ ���;�tJ. tm6® � - - Y - v� � A s SNOW NNW Ml zZL TE ,i F 1� r , gk j192" z" Bz Z!�4 g� x t U !104�I S Ito All, I k at l: vtsl v4 AW I a kX'T* .0i .............. t7 .-I V I iA,1; VI"O A I. V-4- Nv ;I, In MI. or ;dm 1.m ral #i t �� a� i r L ,t. +t °i ij'✓J t fts"�... r M'k r 5 �... - _ `^' .f',_ � � y � v 4 Omit 3 ! 3, .,s t`'t�, r �F `r��21`'.��t{ei5 >� �Jai �p^�1. , -• a 5 ff A" � t +y��aj ,4; 4° t r@• '$ tZ k' { 9p`;'Nd,\ u7WCN ( i�.Y l 7.. Y7^F1 Ti' r _ 1 I �E"' + m r x T�'i-��,r.d2jrY" �` t '� rl"i rµ7,`°rr��s(• y'�,� 3 � �'��;' y �.fi 0. Kvyy„n]�K"l^ t'�? �eJA, {F� F� i I 5 � �J t 1.17`r71 rtl'r?e tip`Ott,.� x 5'f f { �1 art TTS� .. a a I a J ryfey! tM , t y4 F I y"A Y 4 ..) P r 1 @fR 32i3"`Gh .i'i a 1t; i ;V1 r r 2ty .. k': JF � +F�,7 5 +,Y rr 1t*i' 11. opt yT a �° i�,�+�� + S eAT� ��� � r �ir! iw{6a E yi YKy%7� - f �•�i -.'�. �... .. }Y ,1�, I �ti„ tat tltk�Vi F.;.z iv r - vS tP>�3t ) \��" $� i b'i :,., /3 7� a'�£C' �`'M`` ".;r k< t"kt ,��"`8•,r�2G j�"' �3t 7 s�• 7�t� (Vt�`���"� r e\5 c ::}'��v I�'<�' 'k���:�! * �},v�5r x��tit .. � ..✓., 1�'9a I °4 -` y ,. �{y ii - r •' ro +s skx x 1 2 y s� r1 > o t .�p • _*. d .� n`!is d'��}a1 s S.[ A a,' �rrxe f�M.. Wat`s un,t�rtrY�t y�.�.{wt� 'i�' .: '• , m. r g fi 1+ --Gry ! y (t+t k, ti. - f:L4*bi' S;.,,.i. '.�, - _ .._ .. :W.•. , . 7x Jy n. Ni e l rr ,'l f. °v r.c i i �•' a r7 y it 1 F s;d�; 1 ,. v �{y�r ,sk+ v; - �` t ` •t a f ,� tMY, s. Z svtl+ E' . ..'i aft ni•., [ri 7 i p s n t1 �� 3L�r w`il i S xR x r _ x i -' _. - r^ tr t f bs �, r�h. t r4 R a •� r ..Ss �� .... _...t i -•r a :�..n � t.t�t '. c 4 y i 1 yt 14 1— 4! ' i � Y r! ! u '� r i•:° 7Y!3 n .-'jam,,,,/' i 4L i yy0 ! ?! f � ,ai t1 ti31p. y a f } !r, Z•.. d 1' itffi 1 t d rt ✓ a '"> � a, X �c l�r...r ! ;:.k. ! Y P- l �s.- - i � �•hM��'�"+�r'tk s4 e ,.t, �r 't t! r�� � v k �f�� .} y�s NS%�k � t a -:..! t ir'jl. •Ilv�. t.' 1, ,ge ,�i. 9 Wil" s +' nir,ir w t.1R fh° ti. A x r 1 it y S,+,r �ts'"": :�ys ! v 3J.' 'N•r",�"� l9'� .'Y4 st'+p�.rd�� ?�f 3'C 0 I ^'S✓L,: rr� , ,�.. t�a Je��W y�'k,lr� �t r�.'�{Y � 6 � - '.. L :t y !l 4 y t ' I 4 d k �r�}`•>� �Sr �i� s. t _ r. t 4 � , y�l 9 at M1:,� d'' rd 1 :`i 'i p r��4.." ?s — � •� e�,. r -- -0at.. .t snr yXS v 3 d F F a ' 3 h D�r � z �y �•.1 r s.•y UT .p� �.. v� W r fj n t Z WX ws .. e ,,7�` r� ri � b(A. '. �IY�/��Y•f�j� x- w• .s' �k 4 Z 7f j t p -f 3 �� 'V••Yr -�k r ,,' y,, h`. f � .. `� '�'� � - `sky • , 4 r S "v- - j �• y Y-et 7 • a' � � f g y_ . " x �dS l� � } 9 - Zr - - v 3 3s i 1J. � C y - '.,. ,.• ,.. ,.:�r -.. ,.. ., , r l.n:'.;; °?.+,., - 't ::� .:�.5..(tl� �i.. ".. - ' _ 1.O p•d.,•' r71 a t�\�+Vl<�,1.1y ,).•.\f, tt e¢� �, r. - ,�r 11 i t ,• r f f }.�' EYL �.'1,'. " •.Ld: t t• Sv \ yL1B��;•t0 Q a � f I�I.1 , _ e, i �!, -�,�i a� s 'TI Z X 1 � Y P rS.'`; 1 - yo ,4 ♦i.' j \ a \ - .. ii .,. .p. , � -1 JLa I � :}::1�fG11' z.'�\1�n�U ��s�P➢p+l �+�;����. ,ti.,' y �l tt,, ,� � �,:r ro-, I �I"•,{ii 1 J:�titt ?btZ6kdi ��,-' _ '',. \ �„ � ,...D�' - \ C \ 1l�', ._1' 1 I ��:.•+1nt �� �:�Y }';',\h (.�.a� - l3 t;iti.1��.;»�{�114yp�.,r Y'�\'� 1,,4\!� 1,11 t.'l�l •sm 1 fir:.,,, i'.'p,:a. '.;:\. 1. t. .':1' nr z+f n,'; t !?tr �,� .. r.•.•..: _ p}�.��''r�'Y�r?��,S�?�y��s�, (t�\n iy i a, 1t 1111r E�� - ... ¢t. _.a 'f�L+. .,: h D.,. y a ,4 1; 1 ..Je Itl i _ ;ai. ',1yt�� ,�tV,S �'•��.� r..( 1 1,. - l7 +�. .<L \ ,,.., 1 ,ti \ t � 5..�1 - �'I \ Ra��4�41j1y���?•��.\��,r�H7♦t �•'l 41J,t4tia t� N. � 1}Iw � st�• J;': j \ \ grFv Cs t � 1 .. ' .. ,hut c•.^�►1�x:�`� �i kV � N l �.,, r ° 1�\'\•1 +, r I p :ur, ra24 _ ".`"..k-♦' ' .� .q-,. •�._ � � �,._". 'l: - 1 y 1?• ,n Iry;� as 1 �� sl�,�ly Al { , ' e t ^_ .; (I •. { 1'�t�wA; A}; ' .,. :...:,.: R k.: ` F1,++ �^ Y.=:\ yi�i"fir �,�• �.p �gy�F�y" � r.}r; s rt�I.• �:f ':°....,. •1 t e'A 1 :.- - :+z y a p 'c 1+:, •, �,q J,.,..f st\6 1 i7, '�•Iti\\; I 'i, 1 t l zs A.> �'� t.; \i ,•� � b: �i.'i.\'�+y, i Q,:'jl ¢'��y t 7 y°':. � r ., .. tt� ..r :r e.iN".... .. .' � 4 �'�7g[Y�• i Y !t r r 1' r... .. Dl�.'• c R' - -1 I � �l e ,w r/T��� � �re i��T1} �iu�{r a�"tV " 'D� �- lI�S ra t %1 F S .: :. ':.. _ t I '� c��� 1 `Gav%� .. •� 4 : �S \ ��'s{;m �:; '1� 1 Ir c�k��; ' • i:` S� 11 �i��p1.. .:I I •, t� ''�\��;a�,}�.^L �h6!� �.,'i 'e: �Ur 1 acl;' 1�,r-: :l� u� _ t 1 N iz _ �+l'xw 1�8,} a��•Cyyl" � �t'y�11 z t, f UN, I IX 1 d 4vt�ts.�.,tt� rtNl� ! 1 rfi s t�'blf cty� °4 Y - .t t 'f}4' FPr' •r j t rr `1 �� IXDi ° �✓ I.: t: � #Y t s��� /S cai`}r', r {rtG: � \ ! s �;�y\Y.' ?'P�i' \���• ��� � .-r � � � fs JJ C 11¢L r` N af5 I���Y � �.� '4� �.�.� ,. 3 v �"� � 5 r,� I � �� I i��¢+ �; t✓t � /+" xl d y �;'—' ,.' � ",,.: � ^ �� ,�.. �s•.F+f m.'j,�y\�wi"i"1u�.�•7�'15'trf� c,..,,=�i,t�rt11�', \ s � 11� •a � .?,:,. x: �bn� t� fJ 1° ylr 1A 7 ,e ,'4t,• p15 �,�.:rY `Tr+'aim•' __ n � YI I�. i R �1 .. _ .- Y.y ayr^.�1�t1�. er�i},tt^�f°110 ` e` f��-�•!" e.,,.,i.' 1—�11 '1 �( � .. 1 _ } , �. �JI!��+Q r��'f ,'t a'Z@�"�iria.~ '�i� � s,• e1�.7' {4 Ir 1 !n ., -�. .� � t _ '. :iL . J,Pa Yyt rct rlr1 '.; _'�"�.��}��1�//�.) 1 n � � '�1 � � �' : ♦• ye rj�>i�r�. r w �`�� ✓ 1 �+ /��,� � r 1� 'C,e��l � �tt it'P', t 'e. v �+y�;Y'o ,�.-. *1 J .wa nh\\fir ,i+r/�" � • � `�'�.r 9s t2 '�`Y, I 1'' y 1 ' +" :;'�:'` '3'��4''' Fa;rf;rl ic.yVYa�1r\Y s ,�, ei/�_,.. 'r-1���iM�►t►'�►•�'„ 1 t�..s 'i'Y, l4.a�. "'� i 1,' i�l�w"�.r�r".�e f.r.' .{. •`. ' ;;,,� .1.\�� a�,t�mbl p'.. �' t.1':o ip./ ,:tY A'c: rstt 'a 'aa. .ttie'I•A 4 1 , '. '.' Yea '�iir�.\+r�+� r z, a 1,yi 'I 1 ��. Ir` � J �� I '�.+!'. ,�� �Sy' � _Y' �i. ..;�I}y,,,l//irn�..� � ni.t •.1 1 , i. a 4? 1� fi i t r! 1 r,� ..sJ rt� e r �, at ,<a r• 7Y,1e ZI '� It•t��M ~i ~t I �1 err. '.e �Y '`�_ a e IY i a1;1/Cai ir•.1�+ J / { •' l� - }nl \ w.• ti o Py 4 1 ,r -r ! '""�"J'''. !s�� `1/v,t� 1 �t!d �lr t. ,„tr;' ,� � _ i.r ire� 1�A,��"µrG` ti tj < i-..1pp qR� t?l• .a, .. IfJs� t} 1 ��i�t lr`��11 4II ' y .4 � ' ,h 1. �7- Vl SI u y a tS.Y t �y1/�• v 1' �•��1.. `.: P,' Y t Jr 1 ( , . , �./L i •Il H t� � 1 �<! l kt�� I Jt'�F`Y �1h•,ry�N r !�� -{ o u �-�. .1� r. :. ' r 1 a ', � t - �s ( FyI� •� a 1 r=� r `T{M ..qq r IY., ,i�. I• ., tln :. Y r Ir J+�:+1 a �ml'rt; SY ' t Irra`"• '' . �S{ v,rj YJ�3 ..rrj t r s ri 1 r n Yy 7: � h d., t ! is •. q. r . r ,s tytt t t. ti ,�•' 7 \rJ't+l ...s h \'! r �\ t s JIJ9 r t r " rr�l!!�„,. �: r•,n yr. r .%,, r...._ • '�q,t. � 0 `�e' ✓__�i�, •1 y q' ..}, <4 rY D�J=J Q„ �.. _ '+t -- � i��3 I.: a',' -v .` r/- 1Y 1yv y 1 ld9 v}'��'S��Ja, 1._ ' �i'' ''tt' `t1 a,:.. Jw q� ✓ tl l l' 47?''I YSG�,�� 11J . J • �9e + 1 �: Y g � r}Y,:' Ya i 1 � n�,_{�P d ' v t T� . N; 'Y J / Al MM - a tw. 'r.X. :.. '' .'t Y s9s•- I.y �s a � �t \� 1 t� qs sn�+* _:i;'i ' 1 D r�. �;: Yd✓"k���S��y�91 �' f.. _1 t. +T ;!0� JJp. I�, J �_f ! ti.'. t1 •JY rl.{ ( 'I��� 1 r �+J�r•. M ..\ I.. '' �v' i i i.�a y a � {Mr...Y �' i ♦ •i(t '� , -. ry` � �°m t r .:�' 79.y �r .,{. ®.. �:., a�'.r� c'k 'e-.�.���t �+.� f ,,'t, �.�,.?.t Ib °dC' �.�,�.1i t ..14g1��� .'�•�lf-A'�'1(�J'. t u 9 ' t ,< t'�i`�z ;..:, . (..,, a" � tip �i ,'{Jsyv �14 1 r ' f.•r. t_, .1 I' 7 {.t.• p rr.,,, .. _. 1 Il' t { ;. ° 1.r....:-.:.•--- t s^{ 1 �S e t a!t 7 rfl - ,� , �,�� es p�y rr •. �z'. �P[t�l' a. y�'xrL' rI1r7!,fi^T{tzq���(R :.� '% ,.�I, .� .._.•..,...--- - .? 1"+1 t p, 4 i ' ..t� Fir:'. t, r 1 �.An i 4�r •a-• spi.-.z�: �- e r t' 1�a 1� ��n'I Y � :`J _ ,tr.v.-'�r�l.� Y sot `'s'��� .�.L h- a J+,>N.; �I �..tS, A+,r Yam+ ,' ' ,r lYKS 1 •�. J!�N Y tt Y y e� �� r., ,.n p ' �� �rWr-l��d' Jay, I :�✓31� 'y� t�� �� ��' ( � r)rrQ v Y,.�r r)fit' J� f!yt�•sy f5fW +I F Ii !� I�'n.'�r `r ~ad+! I�r i(T�alj n�:. .11'.t. ��.%N, 7� �r b !�(,�•�' t%�Y�• I t '.. _ ra�?�, ;,*:. _.; y � '� .1 / E... j y, ,�I y �•� i _ r� S�aJ.Qj�J�i�,�+'+t6 � �'.: !���.'�. �y�� ;_, 4 u, -: r x::.�, •.'i _ <. .- i 1 y.^s,-_ r;; {y. ,,�� i >�e1.. Ir W y :y's �)�,{ ,�) {�",,._• • Jj •:. .' l; '' -Q .:.?,,1, :.. ;. .. .,... .- ...� '-�: .. +. yP �~!nt�,�S,� :.�V if'. OWlft _ `J d :.7 , 1 � xt a� Yt ` �r r\ I .1: � I �r I `r �t J f�'; R l , (�•.J I��)s,: 11,. `� _•,... !`°�'�'`�K�,y'ra 3.� �`x� ,.`6�yy�°�.S.,r"r./ t.�fi,,yht\ �}":,'rf fr fr-'�'1I t.ila �j�£�y �,�q i.:r'�rl1l , 1 „?_ ..= •.., -ar,,T ,,hsu � ,,• .� .I:'f-.'{". -. . \ ,:,,, a�' Ir+-r. rT 1 ; z.�} y-,'i t ?r:r.'ft J�4 yr ,.,..• ,:..�, ,. ,,:.� :.:. _ ? �:;,', .. ... „,,,i.i i,:� s t F:.�{g�.� Y4 1 !°^ t ,'- �,N` r...,,� S 1 r :Y( .; n.i1� I£ _ i,,!.�1 � :.. .' J -..::.>.�' 1, '.tt a � � a �;'4 � ✓M1C'.,: > '';r CF! � -ryr �,t Y�y f ;In� )S .�!� d tfi'a 11 � d p ( 1 1. � ><a"^'"� ?g A✓ -� � 'a`l 1�, �Y .,- �. �.l « p�;i. IY 'd%'1115'1f I +.�`�' - +ii',.� �,r(;�•,s..s' y�.!a't p '-�,. li: vF s .? � � to r Crlf� r ry j �, �� �• T.� ..,� :.�44 - ,lr �'.�t! - ,•,+r�ix ;+<. / '`+. r;a �r/. ,w.�p , tt}; S + r.S.lff� u'<.. , �: ;.t ` IJ ! Yd \A /f' 1^.F"° 'ir# 'ri ,;�, ,, - .: -:: � is v ( >,• t ri:yrr t r r r�o.-.//}Y\� r�.z _�, r��,pi tfx� ��, '�3 u� +.'1 } t � r 'mow v h i )aC r. ! � � / rx •sv^ kt 1 i i. 5t.- '� jP r h{ y i- • a - rr 2 0 .. S� � I j4� a f, _\Y f� f f� r r' 1-� .r• r ', ,1,. FtPH"yht ..:-v t !C''" 1/ t S�s r �� / r , 'v } r,✓ T "% 5i �;'t v r7�1�.t' n 'I! ,. '�"� .r-�i i. -'rrA•}�w €+..�: rWx - '`+e�IN * :. 'i7 1°,: . y ,�t ' q tt `„y�. {� 11��f tx r'�.+L�'tr��.r Y NL i \ •• `fY•� i�� �`�1 £ x �f ra 1 V axt 1 41 'f y 1 t .a o ),P ti at<y'� u a#f .�L:� L r I + I,•� y ��r "� �v Ir1�yt�+`_'F.r 3� �i�i+•�. �'� "4: �rr(L,r r it lj .,r}��� rr�.y rT a .., rc. �f,( - ��y1 +!y 't .\1` t +r ', 3 1 r\" _a.. <�r•r>.nr"t' r�� t t r v v (.1 t `• r'1�}, ,S , -.'}• _ i {a,�'�,�{�:t�£5�z1 i c..^ r Y "T•t) Yyy�d4.:: I .. t t v�;%' � 1 y�S �.. -'Fi r1( _ �R♦ I'��r't� �� Y f�I�+ t I �� )dA E f � Sr Y�' '�r t 1..::. I �`�t�t t;• ) i3O - `b i t Lrrr1 •� Rt��t tt krl t.^! t :r r t • r t t r a ty� Y'�r`. 1 v £r:.l 4 wu11 ,� Y y ✓ p"xR ,� -,\ e 2 a 1 h 1},�' 1 )1 f ♦ 14a 5 1 r y5M " � •, !"' ��. EI'r- �' r1".y.if I ,r, p1 + !. 48y {`t 1 n :.t /Sf 1 ><? t lsr I ys( r r,. t `.�.t' ':` - 4pc. lk �, r�+ ,.r: - 1 vu�• r.. .. I: •Ir,'{' `( ..6 r .{"f r,' r.L�-.ai t>}l'rl. ..5n t71 w r+ + 1v' ♦ 1 '.':1. . � �'� f " -:e,, ...,. 4 ..} . .�• n., ..;,. :.'.. .:. ;. ., .:. ... .. .,.{2. -„ul rl of',nh'F >, i o�t?7 w 1Y� ;.1 r,l..r.. j y �:�i I- � „7t,}XI: .,.,. .. �- =} r. � :.. :• - ....;. :. r., �� '.£.S.•v t,.Sr:: .45 f i 51 v.:y,ai s.�, � t., t 1' 't :n - 'at.�1L�e S- . " < �, .. ,, �.•y' ?.?4�� :"��nna )� A" (, a �:fy tM1 i, a � t. r' x�l,pl,, .v "s-.,,- ..e ,..: .,,t',.: po :':y < ".'° : ..,5 -..:, ..__ I' .•.� n, R H.a J :: �>.c. o nt .t i n/ r - ri t! ,.,:.. ..: ;: r.;, '�, ,.,, Jd t.•.. �t•' ,:.: .Iri�t" � �.: ,,+ i rl �}t „k7 a i'. \ H Y p �j l �'b 1� ., . ... � ..- - :. '�: Y' � � l� �n s'.Yi' t tv!S `7 rfu i s;K 4 r �ti � r v It •al'i a r•e� 1 ^� ,;...:._ t���:,• . . �s:,;:u �i y���} eary yf i1) x� ,r ,� r t I 1 1�. ,1`. 3 r r , �. i r\�'x .. .. y 't1F•+. ;:��,,'s{�'E, "S sM1#��r;,�'rJCkM1,0 , StY7��"IN J 1(,:S,7H(4 P r•1 9r .fi F <,': 4 `4,t hey+{`,'' .. ,..- _ �•. r. ;: � ': � ,. � v Yr�:; 'S+ `� ,. ;P i.{ ".t,�(�'�iy�I'E 5,(4� Yi'J.M1 t' I- -�:1 �i 9 a9,V ri S Y 4.c Y� `,Ifs ��yl F��;t � ••dt �," \ �� I R;� fa a! ,... rr:, n�'#�p w:'9�,�r� h •.\xh�,.k 'r''"��, �.d',#9 C17,f ,,, fr c { F �i �rh•Dcr". ,iY>z° �!i - 4' }�MIN Y t. ,�►. t.-.1? F P r 1,.�,{qj e 't >t�. A r', r ey,;:. � �4t i �S, �4�` �IT�vi�r �n� �°� t'�L}�r..• ,. �r t '� lr n (x,'� � �y 7 - _ �C �• y�Ctl`: ♦ l �NI�z5'#' � t \,T_. Le rtV• IIXl d�,�. � - l i �Y�'� E, \l °\tx�e ey't�ta'"._ r ?f + btht�2 r,.:.. l� _ b �, r � ..;� _ ':i' I CI 7: t 1q ` o • v ,f J. �► 7 r r.,�4 I �� k I� .. t � .., ft�t l .'r a' r � r r- _ ♦ � �'eY �' t` � 4 .�t r.�. { r,2, �' t � �S �! b y,u �.,hl y e, 4 µfnu�yp „i - t 4 •� .. . f . r i l .'•Yg i ,.i I tr i I' t !r f I ►, R�� `,. .! qr�M iy^� � .� yy .Jj� ��'.r''" �,. 4 t , y2 k :`]f: � t�o �`-fri,y^� r�1� �.� l Ili}..i F tTp[ Jf D I. 1 f{� � •'y 1,4 b .. t 4y$�,,��'eFkr" �Yr�' .: ��_-f , .�.;: �ti•}� ± 'G a ;faY eta^:? 1.:kN: 'a ' ;.-~ _ �,��,.�'��� `x ��I S .4'�a.f+�{.+r�4�led ���i� �:,' 4 r r r � � l�. 3t � M+a � _, j b ter �' t ,r?'' t f •1 I A �•IY^!l' y V i �.. `1i� ��Yj� �+ I.l ..� f) r T :� { Qx Nz� f l"y ,Y4 '�'�l� u. ._ � rD .. +�£ v}t � � tf 5(p }�S,t�e' _ .y � <t•,; YfRV 4} la r. ( .'Y - _ 42, II.. f f l 7 y R,,�rr'rz } t,•; t r•�j` V\ t1 '... .ail' ',� T t ?�G..,, >LF.�f,...� hy.FiN. ♦''e,�,.�a�}2 k''Ln�.3...' �p '• e1 ,. t •�% �R r(� 4f� .. ';VA ' rf ;.� 4 a Sf yi,8 p Yyr 3 'sf•ir �y,r..:�,t 4a�:•:.. 'k w1�� r�,�;,' �,t !. J t ry "\a. 5 '}i,l',Sa i � f, _ .� �, �r� :fhr . 'li h,^•� t+; ''''1 ",r�»�P , 6t h 11 j: a( W. aP .� _- 15 9�,[{Jl 4'!''t' 4 J � r C J11 �t r': A � \.\A����,,kp ��{� •`� !t `,t - "d,:b"• ••. .e ` 1 1 .,rt... _.,,;_.,-_• ,�"•:- .11nyti 1F iK-Xr (1 .1:. ti - w� 'x -I.y i`'^:�"q, 1 :A \1��`,`. '`s rt-yk�."fi�'•5T 1, .y:rt;,. �rsd+o 1 �'r��t�3�nc�'�:.. - k.';��s,�\�' " 3:D- - _ ,�7, 1 p.. 0: .:51�11. •,\" it (;t .,:.: it\•'�Lj�° y- FFr ,.f,:"... s It., � Q•. r-. 7'n •-C ��a�M1�b)� i,tv:1 ,•y � i1�:,.r� .... x . J 'y -P ..,., ': 1' 1 1 W tm .. :\' � Y � T tt : IS , r �1:.qr: � I.. ,1 1 ". 1 :1:, ' t {" N rnr',ma i +"�: ,a . '1. ;'- 5,,�� •r/.1•;'.,, f tb ...��• a� +,,� 1.`a .. 4. :.S.J.PI a. t� t`. ;, ::('Qr' c � ..;.;'.::. - ;11�b��1 >'['I'S7 1.yp�e4+•�.r \�' t w. - A.,�.eai�.« •�, �Y,'I"K. ,is."\ a �,.,�. tid x{ ,.., a ,...����.� : �;,'\..x.•1,1�•�,t, ly` r 5: �)t l;' » F ,mt...:..�cr4. a:-".j:. INV.� •(� :r,'�i':•i I) ::, da73+a'�r_%',� ;-,'. :. AF.�a•*',tby 11,1 j 1 .� t,. ,sw :i�r:1. dii? Tj ,•.11(�.,..l i 4...11.. __ i`.;.�s;btu' .' ,..'. ... - I ..•.mr x ��1{' '11 ( i'<,+ /\. ,:...• t wY i 7 �•'d tr1«�'ro. ;S:• - Qa , - 7 <j,`�C. 1 .:,. �••A11X, `�.:, ...�; ; ,ti\'�i•'d' 1 Q• F .x. - •.;[ u' tt , ,i`�,:IS 'd,i.,p xb f. f a� ;k - /a __ J{ i\t � I:, Q .4n.� I. '.r :�• ``W' � t ?,�:�' •�.�';�Ih;}}f> 1�� 117x•Y •,1: q`' ,.'A':h�t�{a s 1 i �S �'• �: 1 �\t d .1'" yj 1'� 1! � t y!'�� \,�Y•" l a1• '::i}aan:. Y� 1' :,',:•: � ,.�-: •.., , :� _ ..c,::x-: �,U.ea� Z}� tt �7", ry,, t er r ;.y. /.. �>tV. :�'� t�'•:.\.':•Y�f i �-�j�9"t .,;p.J• R � ;,,r +'jV r�lll�'13 VII f •riaa.nu�+ '11l'•_�:, ,\' ..\"l�" �h'. . •�.'�ti V ��••i,:,,• `+,l Y' "' ..I �' .r,. f rr,.' ,.,..,::.�c:.�": '� h: 1..,:. t _ r t i:;J '.5,� 'i ,.�`.. t l�':a1 S ),,war 1;(,( 4 x ,'1 i r #'l� b � 1,,,. l�l t.,.,, 1 p, �.._ .r^lJ! i ': 'r�. 9�a�.•�''.a'J , � :�t: , ,51' '• r.•, ') ' "t,. \r.3.1i',l vn7c� ��.J� I :!IJ r. taY9 }� ..;� :,, , 1` v,>a � S• wea ,. ,r.�. ,�.1{ �1 ..��yy1t ,(.� :. :tt,J.1' • 't t ,, >.. Z ,,:}.,. � r 1 {r ;,o.. 0 3u.�Jya ",{ yl�.\� -:1}i'. J, i.�Km-"t. ro d',.;5'N1 'fi'1 •Y'<•r�.,. yl4nq J r,: 4 � .,.::r 11 It :,y..::., _ ,..r f G,.:.i: --....: � � .' .I.._. � ?•{ .(1.:'- i1 J' ,1�r?< ...11 �t 6 4,, .... J• a,; I �i .. 4 ,� r gr ill• �';>'`I �' 4�•�•,'. 1,{{••,2.S• ,�yr t3 a � r te „t a rt�:+ :�1 ,i�;,;,,=� -. i't i•r C}. 1 �`�•r1Y i'� 7�'C'Nr, .JI' q i. <, _ ..J '..e :V`.4 .1{�t?' c 1 Y"v,�; a r 'I l�,.:�'��c.`►.,.� � ..h'� � l•.•-. •'r. rx; ', �t:e r, s �. ,.t.p. . ;! 41 ' S 'J.y , , %S'; :1;� •1. �.'��rcran •%1r J'?+';y! ,'t•''t- IIy9 1.' a..,ry�n .EfJ:f.. ;h ml1Fs1'1,;.. -.13 5•,l•.ti9. ' r ..1,. -ggy,.,,:7aY. r> J a • A t xa3/1�p -a... p 15':t' �";iAp;,.. (. �1 ,i,••' h�P...:�' 11r: 1.,gS..la�.. w�•y. � '.4, , a,.. ..t. r, J.,(:7' •Sy, �Y?.. :rd. 6" �Fd')'� .. a da;..71•° ;si. ,1���� �. I ?•. 'k�y� 1., <'h r,` ^ - t� t i3. .J I c r t ,'L.y .:�. Y d :l';,:1 1' \ ,9 5,.,✓. u crr 1�r k�,y.• ie.t ..(1, ! '. 'ol enne uc,1 )v •�R_, CV{Wa W1. :q..• ,c's. _ - <ldr,aa� :-S �`� s '.�r•.:Yr. r , '1 .Ir, to .e,St.�.r.[..tt. •t s. ,c� .l[{,,,�y i. ,.pY•?r. L�l,:.�. V { . "'.ta.�, tt. ,��� �i ..}tr [) �,. �'Y.,Y',..r,r.•.. n (ail � �l :�r,.it91j yT, 4� 1,.�• ,� `.4' �(�' s. a. - 0 ne t•e r ,4�b �I '; a. t `, u z� , A ,"� it S SI S t g .a:' ;%};'• i >\'.� - r 7' �at�'f:'/;. .. . i fit' t � 5 1 5 ftyG n I gt591a.�- yL� t ,l �..,t ,x,t"Ja nl, �.�• ;� r� •+ 1'.�' ,,., ::'' � ,: ...�: '.�,..- •. r r 1 y ..;� �, 1' '••t e N? M�� l ('y1��[� 5., r "c ra 1•, '3 t r Y` .', r�+jA r"�r� '••a�`�S3Jr,;,.l Y � yt.,:,t+kwe .;.QQ:{ki.•;`„�Ilt'Jp'1' t, �':ti.�'In ��: 1 •g:,;-"� - ,,�ZI;1[a r/ \,l c r1,4 � 1.. 1:',�.r�t ',�.` '�i� •f>�i,pyg b' q�`�'�. (k'.�7� ,� ,i.�l'gn.p .,{Is�,73.r.n 4\, '1 'N:1 C. -^' • ��d.� 1 S t ? r.,� '� !' l,.:N�d�,k'�: ).•a�V?� 1S 9r1"'y C1•P 'C'�+G'�I! Via` t� ,�' C' ; ,!.�S ..�;1. .; ,,�,a�(,i. •� p�e�•�S �t,tl ,t �. V' -�: t:M1 , fA?'„y,.�'\ ,d\ ��C.,.;�:') �11 .1::�: htnl. `h"� y:`='. - %W,S7•'i��4... ;�+` ., ,ti a,.�ii! 1 -+'� r>: _ ��1 ,.x��1 �y" �` :ar. n ;ag sL. , +; t,,.�3( ti,. '' � ,gl'#r,i;',\ Y: `�: _ � t .;x. !, `, 4�•, s..�e � �r �.�, ..r'\'' �t,, � t 'r *ui'!'c,'`,'I'*11; ' 7,`.�A,:'IN�';, ';"ly Y,.. J��\;,,,,}}1: i�.�I;,... ..' :' "- 1�,�:.i�� / t1.A �i•y�,s•Ks�A4 '.:,.- 7a,.�nl Ylf A..: ,��Aew'�'a '�l't���, �f5 t� u.tt� r 13.: • ;: ••., •F �,, a,.;a.71., r xr•4•t. u;- 1 cot.. 7 � �$•>r 'sJi. •J. i.� •E �� ql� �� r.. /e _.. lrt -F!;.r•��,.. ;.. ''"y� :.,., .�lr .,,.,,. -T-" I ".e. . �:. .:. - �,;�CI�i \; ;». '9°'"p �t,d`Yd,+g�',.`ixd,"9§v ?�.,1, '��. �, �1#;�,',�':�'� �^�e� -- :. : ,..;� �, r�;l Y?. �ia;,1R.kYap' �m I ,; 1 ,r<,;'. �- :• ' y. �, �w.'.F�I{�;S - !: � �C��• '+�.'� n "� �;t.r}q..Y� ll. �,,. `•., .A lam.'`' �a' •� 3i •�''i� 5 I t}..�fti .:'.', - ,,i t. .ti �'1 4.^i{ :'�: — �IR7:. Ia' 4 I�� Y�' �.F�\ :�� �f;, - ,� . ,�u rat, .t *'?vl d •• fr d, 5 l t 'cb Q{(> � a �> �'' t o o ��,." .aSr, ,t.,.� c,',,tH.J[a ,k ti• �f, J' � r n 0_1 ��� •� '�'�wx>�t.:,,�" �. w y ,. o ., .}�'• >, ..xe til I t;. '\S r A •b+i �'` Yti• C - .,.,,� • '.,� ' ♦�-.:. �.,.q „(;•�,. '} �4 t.+:... ;,,, +�w,r t 'm1 P - - ',(� dy - _ � ��t .:N, y o.S 1.' f`7}- �s• ..:'(, w 4b 1.�, 1�' �1t �,.v' .€;t S• .: _.�,..�..�'{\,• � a , ,'j; ` i3• - {.. Ni' ,a . j,,, l:�` ! :t h �'"ky e - v r�'i' c I�'f'�`S►r � t:. �l r.°'S,�wii �` 6Jso i �? ���'� 9�•r. .,. � ,;fl ,�, R ,.J�. ,i t� h 1",• aMr!� 'tS ''l i'1>r '.• > ��. eayli., '.�' ,�. !�� ,r:' r1;; ' ;_,1 : �3 u,'�l�ic, ,.. . "C��� ipG. e Y:;�'!� ,: ^.:, _,:-.: i'',.1 r 4.. � �.f•�' 9 � r :v r e ;�d.,.,e'li1 .�7. .y+�r(,:aJ:..,'rd�' " �'• '�i ,1.�� •1`y d .n �:" y:,�,r (,. '.c - .r=::' - - - r:;�Y.. °' ,� w�1 �''. '.b'd� :�1, r.,,d ,. r.« I•'t;{).t ,'! 1�����C ,t:� J. �:, f{ _,... _. �.;,, tl� ..d:; ^ p,:��r �. 's :.�_. •H� ifl� 'e ',a pj,t: Al -K'q sl l'3 t.:.:.: :' '`.,•...0 ;,,�,� ,���� - _ -�`� �•.+.zr�Jxrs¢., .� .�. ' :.;y..xn'� '� 6• j, .� n i h,f/S.�s J t.e t: �.. ..'f r't"ypa'oL--w� ��ii,.Y� '�'+Jr", '�1 '•Yv' �iti [ I, r•;,4':, 1 tit•�,. � ) ,.�' S.a ,, ..yrtt.�1�.�'• x M�,� 1J; ati a t41;.1 3 ri ,: sr•.�.ogi t:: i�',L� '.�. ,�" ;v� r•Yf l�'V 2," �' 1 '> It yt:[, 'I b taz.�im+arn�nn:� � •N-' A 5 rfr J�.:;� ..�� { �� :� i"�S S� � AIH { [tr r 5 r w- �� �.y �fS :,r}r: � -' 3' �''�S.A�J 7 1� it"' �ilp jf,�• ) ! .t- .�' .I"��"-'il ��i: �dE ,r � °y.[_VI' i ,��'•. ti.,;t, ' b.'y' a�17'.Sz-jr ,ti i u. �';,,. ry0. 1 i"..l ,I. e' .a �,�,,�,,,+• � '�. �'s ,r� '.3,T"47 Zak. •,t4' � y, ,�, b tq..jQ'.t-0 f 7Jn,43. ;. ,t � �1 V -i., :y5r-v3,ii> J�a�s..�0 :i(,r'-.-�11♦,Y;. t�i:'t .. . , t>'. � J�a1< �- S 1 �3'r..lfnt 1�%.. .< .r.At.:6' f Js.,.4.�r_Y S. {. r }�� ,.)j.,'J' •'�T IJ,F� 'rl ,�` 4:.t,'F t ` ,f.•.• 1 :.x'\`.,''^h �J n, '�r"�ilp t� 4 3f,.- r • <e<vr::- <•. r.1'.¢{. 1 Via;-Z;d�,i Y.�:l��}}b. Ck =ri,:' �.YF1'r �. j„liar '' 1 a�t.- -r �..�n r <�., .i1,J�'r'S'. a 1i 1. � t�.:r,'b,3•.,' -.:i. :-:.. ,�,t,. 'y '•l \ �.�tr :+. �,) .:.,.J; :.:. :NM..3,•.. , y.T..',., ��'� ..4r LL h.;i. .d :).$ r _ .'sW.r. f r. .,R' 1�7,�rS s �-=•r* _ .� �i 4. � p ll\ W , 1�1 �+.t 1. iA%fl�,na1 9 :-. ''vS/ry ti ,l Na ,t 1:. '{ ,s ,r ;�"• 1)..: t a,u� s N,l''. �. r ,xti p .; tl u / n( ! -. "!:"•s":.:, ..,�; .,. 1 1(�,1.;:"id;?.. •r :.�, "1,.: :. rl.:..: ;:q. , .'.; .,. ,ii � (•J. . � •� hj•; > '.�R ;(•,... Y y�$,w'p YKl 1�r.:- rI Y•,1 �.I/ _1t. P,.. 'r 1� ,I �, a �q+ 'ail )sF �1 -# .; tl�'tt �----� � ^�y>'rl t'�.r t� F r t t,F, �1. ,r• 1 sit �' r* •11 .. '�• �S,l'�(,�l1, r�r �..:u :! .: � :. ,;:r' Ih �„����i J I v�'' � �-'> t�r .. ,•d; �•. � tt..-..� �-: .' t e €�+��kt•.;.,'„.7, • R. d�'!�i;dl`'rt s ;'11; ri't,.t�t ntnl�;'"A it La i ,t;. •^ ....a.` r�� � y .S, r�,' �N'�,�,��..4.�;;i �•;,.. - ),.. 1,, ,I l '.. '. .. `�37;'�i!�. t ;7,1d +, ;a- ,r „ I� �i�p ` ?�lyl����tl;_ ,: .. ..,�` I F dt"��1J UU :St, : '`ii I�,.�.i �1'(,.' ,r.. >''n ..,•:,,.�? gt Nr - �,� .�-g a,1S;i)� �,),;1 r ... .:... •. .; i 1 , TOM" „i' �r:.�� -tr `r�� .:;G;.1,,,-IJ„�� t are• hNd✓ g �."•;'� r �..trtK:�t?' .'S'I'R71." i= ItJ t,. \° - - a.im°'` ` s .t :�.�[ ,-„' .:..��t l; {S,?.7, i7eS�'- •' ,:.,'�': :a..:: y r ,,.; t F 77 •� n ,/ I _.�* � v',r?u a�tJr t•: S7 r -� �1;,'+,�he+r•4.�, -•F t�'. .!•� `'?t�l' _ rtr',.x:5`Y•:.�.{st c F,r,'r Tt.a,-- �vz .F' a.4f���..� i 1., �, r �- f r / r ;.:{ ''�. �Pe'c et''i.�'o\, y ``:i$t •N {xJ yUyJ>► wrr 1— r.5 �.. W 4., `4 ,L+�1 .f � '� j 4�J/ _ p1 r+;�,� t i ,A. tasf ��' �� r�JI I 1Y` 't t�1 aC•� 9'"S "�� `�•In"i( 1��] rj �. yt r r13�.., fr ',�:� -.1� ! i•. L+¢���YRtr('+i.t$l \ fr _, , a:',, '''�..e S`":� sQril�Mwr✓Jinx M` ` a't {tt;,� �Sutikj 5ia Jy;ti {' s m <tON plYf �� •'.�f t, f ,F �3f:, �`ak�J���'r "y f�k >. , r _,, ti t.3y�^'f�ir\�:' �x �y�.'� &' r f t .sz' 1� 114. d r- � V ( ri( t-t r }f f S f• �e �eepp � �RAi�s d r•� �`1 ,�t, r f e r .`c (- , y y j f�j,�� Y.. .�a. 1 �,,,}� '!' t" r '�i �, l ,y»tt a r r, it t� tl y s` ;f, '�r te'�t Af 1r7 r�A �t J x t , .•'t p`y A , s d `_ ate..- ,il� C'� i ! y ♦ , Ata Jt1, ! J d f ` IQ �fxf t 4if 9 f Jj1 y ?I; M 'e " i 'r�?�'.�� .�.. rt3t'f r; fi 1• t s !'v+ WC r, F 7'fk . t; j � t ti•JP �^. t F"t �' �'y�. rr � a Y �A a r is .➢ 1 J{e � R .J f .�l���, �,J J i si: 1.�� fiV�`N��f( ;� W".r"`�. "'C"' :..:�,"e`,1 V` �y�'� Wjt,r r ..�tY f f�J t'M Yl' ,! u ` -rx,: i y4S � ft 1 x ,jrtr, .1 .:cu: ,sc•' r'• {�,jt dSr..•: � r r `f� -j�`! J t f �"5t' ti � 5! �,�'} ` t'�'3�Y�. a { "f�� � t Litae��o%' -e.j I e r i,t{ I i _ ..:'�___ _ �:Z03 �� -._ _ t �,,��'� .;d+►` d��!jtr� ` }�hk.; \ t✓ a "'i•. { �1�i j/4 (vrto, �SI t t y"�t l7i f p 5 �'. ry5'1' i�6 y' f. ��p� T S 4 a �Y 9+ i, ♦�� $�'��n:r' - '�.-moo,�, �' e: ' _ sir-' '""a '�y,,G• � y , yt� • 9 C y��'�o � 3 t�- 1 rxd r�E� e t _ .t _ ,I S ., ..✓ m }.,V.r ` -. 1 ,����S��t: Q! r _ ���p��t ri7 ` ib 7 -f� }., ' ;• �tyy�iSs' - ,.; �}k��h�, a . 3! 5 ���5 r A u r 1 e �; 4 ♦ r ''� -+' e !�'u'.t.`:u J 1 •, 0 f �� x��y a�'Yi`'uft 3 - f ..:i r ref 7t ,"J.. r ✓�4r ,'F� 1 �"S '��X�Fihi• '� t � 1 Lazy"`_ �� � �f'��,Ni r t �.�C�YV��,,Si��(` �+ {� r uwK' a �t�. ?,f•a r \ i:. INfrbi fi .' iQ7, • ��'M�a {2 v �- - . y+s��{tdr�i^� k,�l r� � ��t t� 0.t� r 1 i � � rt.. `�� ) � 'fY iYrs .. �i } 4....... • ( r�6`br'r - ,;f i�tyy?�1" ,e'• t f -.Gil ,k5r vD i P - �t, "��1r➢����irfrr4 a ,) xx ) f �, �prr t �,� �� �I��� hi t4 V y. f .- p9vJijl.>i u1� l ' - l,lk 7n rrx: �yg MJ 4 Y iti+P tf t r9 �G�. - •a)`r�7 � t � '�' 1�>�rn z'r�5p! ,++7 t� \G s�✓i i tl� t tr ' u. ° - «rx?.:; ,..: .',. - •e u��-'��» 3 _,Y� - -..'� R f,r ) \w..�`'- 'k,��, y .i.,�n' +t .t'Tt 5 it//N"\ '�. 4- .CY. � rJ eA. ,� l' 4p �,r Y .�! S f, I.i 1 Y+1. •! ti� {`4r + 5,!..y6. - r SLd\ @ ,r.,.e�,1�k6q Ga'?1� a I C � � �:� k r .9,r7�t;� � ♦'. `'�ti ,'�'�,'.,rSR'1 4 e 2.. ,fit 1�rPa ,tr.?:J.k'a!� P-Ct �r 4 .; �ix R 1 i.,J":+ y A 7}.e �JK `\ � c -:(r5,"•4 x' e Y l��{ G. r,, r fd _:t... •�+'.� \fiht 1?.mad.*-p b 3r .�'+ Kr '-��dSLx ( ,� .,. - '1t -•d�} kz-z�"�u,.•.ft r t ::I i .�;.yf�'4{�tl�l.�Yr ?, .Y � �f, r ,;'sl'•) �� r_.� �,( rwn r, 4 +,yi��u .eF�a'�wiv,h � r� #���.� I i�x,,tJ�6�rr r ,:r - �. n i( .1.,r.4.�•� 2• ., February 21,2010 4 Mr. Ethan Edwards City Planner 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mr.Edwards: I am a resident of Huntington Shorecliffs mobile home park. I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and many of the other residents here. The new owners of the park have decided that they want to subdivide this park so that residents can purchase their land. Great idea if you can afford it. The purchase price that the HOA has mentioned is$250,000-375,000. Most of the residents that live here cannot afford such prices and with all the problems this park has who would want to take them on.Who is going to give a senior a 30 year loan. With all the problems here it is not even a good investment for those who can afford it.On top of that the HOA fees will be$290 a month. Once a lot is sold all bets are off on rent prices which means many people will have to leave their homes. These homes cannot be sold now because of the high rents. There are 34 homes on the market now and have been sitting there for months. A few people have walked away. Neighbors have recently received rent increases of$275.00 per month and were told that next year will be the same or more. Some seniors are on Section 8 and there is talk that the owners want to rescind that. This subdivision is really going to be a hardship for us. Many homes have mold problems due to the water sitting under their home. After the recent rains,when walking I was shocked at all the standing water that still has not dried up and has no where to go. Apparently,during the rains the culvert on Beach ran over and spilled into the park under houses. Also, water overflowed from storm drains on Frankfurt and was carried through the park,another problem that we will have to deal with if the park is subdivided. Residents here have filled out 2 surveys and both times voted -no subdividing_ The City Council has turned the subdivision down twice. If the subdivision goes through residents like myself will have to at some point give up their homes and lose a considerable amount of money and at our age for some it could be disastrous financially. Please take this into consideration when considering the subdivision. I could go on and on about the treatment we have received since the new owners took over but that is irrelevant at this point. Sincerely, Mary Jo Casino G O Ms Mary Jo Casino in20701 Beach Blvd Spe 295 Huntington Beach,CA 92645 r:� 9 'ENT NCB-- 2 -977- Item 8. - Page 295 O _ I?" ILI O O � O Item, B. m Page 296 �� gar"V'HW:NT -978- v\ ! - 1 z If 14, I r sv . -979- Item B. - Page 297 To: City of Huntington Beach Ethan Edwards, City Planner � -� ! }.� I �)1 2000 Main Street r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - _ From: Larry and Maureen Schrock Space 183 Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Date: February 25, 2010 Subject: Supporting or Opposing the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Senior Mobile Park, 20701 Beach Blvd, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 My wife and I have spent many hours discussing the pros and cons of the proposed subdividing of Huntington Shorecliffs Senior Mobile Home Park. We bought our coach in 2002 (Space 183) with the intent of spending the rest on our lives here. Therefore, this is a major decision that not only effects how we spend our remaining years but also for all the seniors living in the 306 units in the Park and their families upon the resident's death. The financial implications and the final impact it will make is of huge importance to all concerned. We spent our lives preparing for the future. Making the wrong decision at this time in our lives could destroy everything we worked for with no time or ability to recover financially or otherwise. With the little information we now have, it seems we are trapped. If we remain renters the owner can raise our rent to the point that we can no longer afford to live in our homes. A home we cannot sell to recoup any of our investment because of the high rent. And buying the lot our home sits on will be the only thing of value because the owner will want top dollar for the lot leaving our mobile home the only flexible part of the transaction. Which means our home will have little to no value in todays or in the foreseeable future of the real estate market. T he Park also has many issues such as poor drainage and wafer problems which if we buy Our lot now becomes our problem. An example is that we have to level our coach every year because the jacks deteriorate and sink into the soil because of the moisture. We have to replace several jacks each time the coach is leveled. There is a huge water storage tank in the RV storage yard that collects the water runoff from the hill (Frankfort St) behind our coach. This water is then pumped into the street during the night or early morning hours. This is on the same side of our coach that the moisture causes problems under our home. As a precautionary measure we have installed fans, at a cost of approximately $1,000, at each end under our coach to try to eliminate some of the dampness. Another concern is the Planning Departments recommendation for approval of eliminating Beach Blvd. "ditch" outside the park (side walk, trees, etc.). This is a great idea but anyone who buys or rents a lot here in the park will be paying for it. The problem being is that the Item 8e - Page 298 -980- Owner will include the cost of the upgrade in the purchase price or rental fee for all the lots, so in essence the residents of the park will be paying for the improvements to Beach Blvd., thus increasing financial burdens. This is a Senior Park and many residents who have lived here for a long time are on fixed incomes. Why address this issue now at our expense when our rent is being already increasing at a staggering rate? As example we have already experienced a large increase in our rent due to the changing ownership of the park resulting in higher property taxes which have been passed on to the residents. Our taxes have gone from $1,826.79 in 2009, to $2141.19 in 2010. Plus we paid Orange County Treasures Office for 2009 taxes in 2009 were $670.30. (When we moved into Huntington Shorecliffs in 2002 our property tax pass though was $11.00 per month. With new ownership our monthly pass through is$179.74 as of February 1, 2010). Some new residents who own their coach are now paying $1,600 per month just for the land their coach sits on with no ceiling in site. This is what residents who are under old contracts ($600 to $900 per month) have to look forward to when their contracts expire and new contracts are implemented within the next year or two. All of this said my wife and I feel we need to have more information about the final decisions relating to rent, pass through fees, and ages of residents, price and responsibility of ownership if buying lot, affordable loans, and any other implications of subdividing the Park. These and other issues will determine whether we support or oppose the subdivision, or have to walk away from our investment and home if the owner of the Park makes it financially impossible for us to live in Huntington Shorecliffs. It is our desire is to stay if possible. n N -981- Item 8. - Page 299 L Vv Ij A R jig j7 � Ao�17 lb 6U 'a ,A FTA,,(2H NIE N T N 0 Item 8. - Page 300 -982- j Ila- gTIACHNIENT NO--2--&,i- -983- Item 8. - Page 301 February 22, 2101 - City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Planning Commissioners 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: ITEM A-1, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION) Dear Planning Commissioners, I agree with the assignment with many others regarding Huntington Shorecliffs; the park owners projected value for the land is totally out of line. He is no-doubt simply trying to re-coop his initial investment for the park to begin with, by creating a greatly inflated and fabricated market value. It was just a few years ago,that I could sell a brand new high-end Hallmark manufactured home,all HUD standards, 1566 sq.ft.,2-bedroom, 2-bath,with a den, in that park for under$275,000,and that included the full outside package requirements(delivery, setup, awnings, carport,new cement driveway, walkways, brick-work in the front, with landscaping and a sprinkler system, etc.). And keep in mind, that price also included what it took us,or any other dealer,to get a space in that park to begin with,plus remove the old home,and to fully prep the lot for a new home. In fact, this price would actually be lower today because of the real estate market and current state of the economy. In my personal opinion,but from actual industry experience,the price the new park owner has estimate for just the lots themselves is totally bogus and completely devalues all the homes themselves, even the new ones. It is definitely not the solution to any issues the residents have,but actually created far more, while allowing a park that is a cash cow anyway for the owner, to make even more money,but now at the total expense of all the residents. Furthermore, I've been in this business long enough to know that one can come up with any type numbers they want in order to justify an already predetermined objective. A so-called market value is rather subjective in this business, for a rental mobile home park is actually valued by the income it produces, not any projected profits by this conversion. In this particular case, even if I took a similar resident owner park in Fullerton,the numbers from the actual comps over the last two years still would not even come close to what is being projected here. Yet, let's even take into consideration the fact that Huntington Shorecliffs is close to the ocean, yet, it is still out of line. I personally feel the final decision of our Council whether to support these numbers or not, could be totally politically. Unfortunately,the thinking is becoming more of... "if you can't afford it, someone else can." In fact, I've even been told that we should be happy that we got to stay this close to the ocean for a Iong as we have, but our time is coming. Item 8. - Page 302 -984- Page 2 John Sisker This callus and backward thinking reminds me of the tongue and cheek phrase in the Disney movie Pocahontas, when England encountered Indians already living here when they arrived, and that was... 'tyou were just using our land before we got here." We're quickly becoming second class citizens, with little to no say in our own destiny. As I said,this decision could very well be political,actually with the decision already made.Now,who is up for re-election or seeking a higher office? The final vote will tell the truth! Sincerely, 1 / P J Sisker Founding Director Manufactured Home Owners Networkjsisker@Ttynet.com (714)536-3850 www.mfghomeowners.net . -985- Item 8. - Page 303 -z FL.ER ?0 Ill F i ta DE PT Z12 �.�L�� i � 4 - c�i-^,i� �c.�+ci � _ _ >���, �v i>i�� Y ,✓��"=l/�c-�C-_-�J /�--`--mac—C/Y��i�-✓..-w-l.�l\ �./ e 4 H M i NO.-jai— Item 8. e Page 304 -986- if 7 c/ , o - t . i i i 7 1 - y - 1 I -987- Item 8e - Page 305 •Jt' ., .-ti i '1'Y•Uhjt ,fqi,., � 1 t 'l f I}titf��) , O,+j 'yi >n '�„ f '+eM ,.A > aS'>p��Y+ 't: � t} T�.;J� / r+J���q41 �•PF_� '� _ 1,� � s, •"•1 f n � �'��J. 1p �•. �� x+ }f,.I 1t `,t }e,•It, 'F^iA 1 yr,fs- },SM t ';.,. ry.lo�.,.,.�r, fHfit r' ^+.1y '�•�``�4�n•,�Ws I :l 45 >'� /✓ �({�: 1 1:frvSr j;F ���:� ,J�1'rp':..� a,i v v ... /;> I "•y%`'{'t•1�t i tE Fr i � -� .. ..,,•Ttwc t�^"iar .;,:.. ;�• " .'. r. s,.}'+i 1,�i �t� J '� (4�W;4°D�t r r��� `r. K10 .. [ rr •�,4u ::. ©M , k�rp pr t /��Y{�(t' •�J F .Y s .. rfa/it .. �. , ,✓ r L s,�$SSi ��tl'f .,� s , .��t .� t 't l y���i; � r� '��,, r .'� '' ! t:l , �a������r4 4wt � � �• 'dP��� � �T.,1 i.,W ; 1.. r ; �jt 'r < .r -.i' YiV Ky'� pdt �r4 U ;k}• P ox Y 4 ! ! tf)1d uo t6� ✓ i.•r%b• rt 'r ' f�, al -^.,tl ° • <,• � 1) P� •�4c \ � �f ' '.'� � 6 ,y!� I:f Il+j �t'rS^f ''V � i(} '✓�" r,�S r - � 1:.; t r: ,�5r sti t r i'yjsa 9�fye tr,�d f �,} � - � :�;; P 1iu•::t 4a1'+�Q r try'_ 4 :'1 t}� . IPA 11'+I11F511 C 811 y rt��'' r t �r�1� , • er J 't ;i. s;1 'hrdrlri,/A�f��(1'�1�7�Y��4"�1 ��,yh� �: N� - t } 5:t,` t r.n •{ 1 y: 7i 1'r`. ';.t {I re '!'4t q><ti+kp lhl•,5�1 +pf :`q� f ANI N 1 db� � '- � � , ;a..i�Yr (�° t r _xl+r�.:IMt{,�"t �i .�S•!sP �ip� �l l(i��41r4������. ' � p',.. �. '. �•�:_.-... ` ,•�• .. .. . � 4q 'Q � Mtt.t. fit,,�,�P��:�(f��7 IS�I�AF�°�Ilt isl�� �/ir.+�;r •�. .. 11•, !rv. - t --.:� � � '� '. �e's /."�. f 1pFxs f/p�� J1�� i4vd� �,4,. t�..: �e' `�•. ,"n ,. ,, � r �. 1�1{� t'iylt'S (,��II �9� ,�i�7 ��m, wu q.�,� b4� ,+ k $tf ` 1�+i >ixb���;bt� yk Z�,• ,.- t •�'tF r�tYF,;�'. �`C t; :�°���A�•( Pj, r(,. _ '''t 7r•''tiiw�r• ` ; +�Y ,�s;l,,;w ' � , t ..tl A 'Q'..F. Jv;'l �o , Wvv "!& most, G x 51�1 -98$9- Item 8. - Page 307 2070 J BCACh U R GrE Af T .f)5 we- kInaw T ere 0-Ye M / iv� 5 _ G-3GZ14,S I ThQ C 14crij ; T key k ©pe fe ss )j � Pr(�L,e � �! j e�oy�,� VICTCAIS 4Ow M 0IrA T ,R T T YlC cr?S t U -F U 6 V13 �fc1 e y�-T up ,(VA o u,Y T� Y vv a l I a e 1� q w�i 4 e T k e ire,T o� tit. t h e ncc-v oyl �,U`C l ti' v T6 c� eCe551DOB ��� �ti�Vne1L� 1 C'...1JC'V_� LU I}e,Yc C_D ST �4�cre a 5e -For k V,C'-,Z J) S 's 'PAvK, a Does ,/u.r. cw �l�Ye 5 G� i t✓l y,�cv S uo 1e ` o All : i I a 0 �r�. 6 , ! For good 10 O lr , her&� Law qq -ds , He q,3c 6e- Tht Va icee �-��r r roc The Poor i �e c c r 1JOW �YIT,5 � A J Ce5 �3v Erl i� t � Ct�by� �e�e�u L t cs 0 LL V- 5 Yn o TIn r, 5D Item B. ® Page 308 -990- JE I m)i—te � cm-L- 7 0 -T� ru- our C�- 5 ro -yy) o w,- j,-c v-'- 9,0 W, T�c:- rA I yl A3 e. fie- v- hP ve atc d T kc- da/yTroLv5 y\&-A2 1' hj e C f::,, n L-,5 L11-Yl 5 t� -T t 0 V-0 0 n e To 'aYl C) -tYo-5 s 't- L't Ve- ,- 5 'J&ay J,670J Sp, a7/ A,-T T A C H M,E N T N 0 Item B. - Page 309 Request: 3920 Entered on: 02/18/2010 4.:00 PM Customer Information Name:Joyce Zeller Phone:714-319-9481 Address:20701 Beach Blvd#79 Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Email:chassy536@verizon.net Request Classification Topic:Contact an Executive Request type:Comment Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Ethan Edwards Entered Via:Web Dept:Planning Description 1 am writing regarding proposed changes to the terms of residency for Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehomes in Huntington Beach,where I currently reside. It is my understanding that the City has turned down two previous requests by the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs to change our park and subdivide the lots for individual sale. I reside with my 88 year old mother and provide 2417 care for her due to her advanced Alzheimers and dementia. Neither one of us would be financially able, nor would we be receptive to families with children,to purchase the lot our home currently sits on. It is extremely important to me and for my mother's continuity of care that we be able to rely on stable housing. If the current status of this park is changed, I believe we would not have that comfort level. I am asking the city and the Planning Department to again deny Huntington Shorecliffs owners the ability to subdivide and sell individual lots. Thank you in advance for your time in considering my concems. If I have not voiced my concern to the correct person/department,would it be possible to let me know? Sincerely, Joyce L.Zeller Julia F Ellik Reason Closed Joyce&Julia, Thank you for your comments.They will be included as part of the record and fowarded to the Planning Commission for their review. Date Expect Closed:03/04/2010 Date Closed: 02/22/2010 08:04 AM By: Ethan Edwards Enter Field Notes Below/ _ Notes: Huntington i Beach PLAWNG DEPT Notes Taken By: Date: i®reach.com/surfcity/pnntrequest �992 irid=351510&type=0 2/22/2010 Item 8. - Page 3 t' _ ? Dear Mr.Edwards; My name is Joseph Moore and I live in Huntington Shorecliffs space #231. 1 have lived here for 6 years and was planning on living here until I passed away. I invested all my money into my home and I love living in Huntington Beach. I worked for 42 years in the Huntington Beach High School Dist. And thought I would have a good retirement. Now I have a big problem because our park was sold and the new owner wants to subdivide this property. The problem is neither I.nor most of the people who live here want to buy the property that our homes sit on because we can't afford to. They say that I would have to pay about $375,000.00 for this small amount of land. I am paying the bank for my home, and I have bills lift over from when my wife was sick and died. Now the new owner is not giving us a lease and he can and is increasing our monthly rent as much as he wants. I just received a letter the other day telling me that my rent is going up another $275.00 a month and I was told that it is most likely going to go up another $300.00 next year. I started 6 years ago paying about $950.00 and now with the rent hike I have to pay $1,700.00 a month. We can't sale our homes because no one is going to buy in here with the cost of rent. I truly am scared that I and a lot of my seniors neighbors who live here our going to be priced out of our own homes with no means to relocate. I hope you will take all of this in consideration and pass the word to the city planning commission before you let us old people be pushed aside. We need your help and I hope you don't let this subdivision go forward. Thank you. Joseph A. Moore _ 20701.Beach Blvd. #231 1 s Huntington Beach, Ca. 32648 -993- Item 8. - Page 311 22 oposel 4-o Wta aua ateo �!�cdu9' try�ce k&4-�r2. lV 2 are �s�� «tee ian<��x c6wz,- Lzl� sell 4k:.a a-.Z�'S Lvf-� Item 8. - Page 312 -994 �+Tl�.t�¢�N1E N0. 8•y6 Oct— C � ..sue a hm S4AaA� NT �: :_ n ' N.O. ,DIME, 995® Item Be - Page 313 Ethan Edwards, City Planner City of Huntington Beach, California 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, California 92648 Feb. 19, 2010 Re: Study Session, Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Dear Mr. Edwards, My wife and I have been residences of the subject park for 8 years. When we occupied our space Huntington Shorecliffs was presented to us to be a senior park which would naturally mean a lot of retired people. It was then and still is a senior park with no efforts to convert it to a family park that I am aware of. I mention this because out of the 300 plus units in the park I know very many seniors in this park that are on a fixed income, as my wife and I are, who would not be able to afford the current fees plus the additional costs that would be passed on to the tenants. This, of course, this would mean our having to relocate. Many are currently very happy with the park and would like to remain in Huntington Beach. Please consider these conditions as you ponder the request to subdivide. Thank you, Robert&Arlene Truitt 20701 Beach Blvd. SP167 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Item 60 - Page 314 -996- 20701 Beach Blvd.#51 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 _ - February 18,2010 Ethan Edwards,City Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mr. Edwards, We are writing you regarding the proposed subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. We are residents here and have been for over 20 years. We are very disturbed and worried about this proposal. We,like some of the others in this park,thought this would be where we retired and would spend our later years in relative peace. Such is not the case.Most of us do not have what the cost of this property per lot would cost. If we continue to rent and the rents sky rocket to meet market value that still equals economic eviction for some of us.Many of our neighbors are running scared.This is evidenced by the number of empty homes for sale. Those who can afford to sell out and leave...DO. We,unfortunately,are not among them. In the years since this whole process has begun,the stress has been unbearable.No maintenance has been done in the park since the new owners have taken over.The streets in the park haven't been slurried in years.Nothing's been done about the steep pitch in the street in front of our coach.It's so steep that at least 5 different people have fallen that we personally know of due to the state of the road.People constantly drive on the wrong side of the road to avoid the"dips"at every intersection of our street, also avoiding all stop signs.When it rains we can't walk across the street,the water is so deep and fast running! The owners have already torn out one of our laundry rooms to make an office. We understand they want to remove one of the pools to add more coaches to the park. We object to this,as well. We pay more and more each year as they raise our rents and they give us less and less. Once this conversion happens,our coach will be worthless. Where could we find someone to buy this small lot for more than a new home costs? Yours truly, Y�ennet . B nnett Lana K. Bennett -997- Item 8. - Page 315 a. Jannarv/February;2010 GSMOL Californian Page 7 - {r ENCOURAGING COTUR RULING : << COURT RULES decision had "acknowledged" that "re- states that the results of the required Sur- TIIAT THE RFSLILTS OF quiring a conversion to be bona fide or vey shall be considered by the local RESENT SPORT SUR- supported by residents is forbidden under agency reviewing the application as part state law." He then argued that section of the subdivision map hearing required VEY MUST RE CONSIDERED 66427.5(e)simply required the County to by Government Code section 664275(e). IN DECIDING WIIETIIER TO determine that the Survey was"conducted Based on this plain and clear language, APPROVE OR REECT A 1VI0- and submitted"so it could be preserved for the Court finds that a local agency con- court review in possible future litigation. sidering a subdivision application under Assistant Santa Cruz County Government Code section 664275 is re- SION CONVERSION Counsel,Jason Heath countered Mr.Cas- quired to consider(i.e.,take into account, APPLICATION parian's argument by pointing out that the deliberate on,weigh,etc.)the results of the Sequoia decision only ruled that local reg- resident survey in determining whether to By mobilehome owners'rights ulations were preempted by section approve,conditionally approve,or deny 66427.5 and that it did not address the the application." attorney, Will Constantine issue of whether or not the County could Several weeks after Santa Cruz "consider"the results of the resident sup- County's hearing, Mr. Casparian again After the veto of AB 566,and the dis- port survey in deciding to approve or re- made his same argument to a three judge appointing appellate decision in Sequoia Ject the conversion application. Mr.Heath panel of the Second Appellate Division in v.Sonoma County,there is finally some then relied on the clear directive contained the case of Carson Harbor Village v City great news in our fight to stop the forced in subsection 66427.5(d)that the County of Carson. At that hearing, like Judge conversions of mobilehome parks to sub- was to"consider'the survey results when Burdick,the presiding justice responded divisions that are pursued against the acting on a conversion application. He to Mr.Casparian that it was not possible wishes of the residents of the parks. That also pointed out that AB 930's (section to interpret section 66427.5(d)'s directive .yews is that,on December.30;2009;Santa 66427_5(d)and(e))uncodified legislative that the results of a resident support sur- Cruz County Superior Court Judge, the intent section clearly states that it is the vey are "to be considered"by a local ju- Hon. Paul P.Burdick,ruled that Govern- legislative intent of AB 930 that the sur- risdiction by simply determining that the ment Code section 66427.5 requires local veys are to be used to prevent non-bona survey was"conducted and submitted"so jurisdictions to consider the results of res- fide resident conversions,which it defined it would be available to a future court. ident support surveys,required by subsec- as conversions that did not have resident The Appellate Court's decision in Carson tions 66427.5(e),in determining whether support. Harbor Village is scheduled to be the is- to approve or deny mobilehome park sub- Judge Burdick agreed with Santa sued by March 1,2010 and we are hope- division conversion applications. Cruz County that section 66427.5 required ful that it will be similar to Judge Judge Burdick's decision was is- a local jurisdiction to consider the results Burdick's Alimur decision given the sim- sued in the case of Paul Goldstone Trust of a resident support survey in determining ilarity in the arguments that were made in U.T.D. v County of Santa Cruz (Santa to approve or reject a conversion applica- both cases and how the judges responded Cruz Superior Court Case Number CV tion, At the hearing,Judge Burdick re- to them. While we wait,we can celebrate 164458 - 2009). In that case,the Park sponded to Mr.Casparian's arguments by Judge's Burdick's decision that affirms owner's attorney, Thomas Casparian of verbally stating that it was not logically that GSMOL's efforts in sponsoring AB Richard Close's law firm, Gilchrist & possible to interpret section 66427.5(d)'s 930 several years ago, and successfully Rutter,filed a Writ of Mandate asking the directive that the survey results"are to be lobbying it through to enactment,have fi- court to overturn the decision of the Santa considered" by the local jurisdiction in nally provided us with the tools that are Cruz County Board of Supervisors,which making their decision to, instead, mean needed to stop the flood of forced conver- had rejected the conversion application of that they are merely to determine whether sions that would have inundated Califor- Ahmur Mobilehome Park based on its res- or not the surveys were conducted and nia without those protections. ident support survey's vote of 97 to 2 in submitted. Judge Burdick's subsequent For more information you are opposition to the conversion, thereby, written decision then stated: welcome to contact me by telephoning me demonstrating that it was a non-bona fide ",lie Court finds that Government at my office: 831-420-1238. inversion.lacking resident support. ,Mr. Code section 66427.5, subsection (d)(5), Casparian argued that the recent Sequoia is clear and unambiguous on its face,and NO. Item 6e - Page 316 -998- 20701 Beach Blvd., Space 220 FEB r, jch Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome ParkHuntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntin February 22, 2010 �--- To the Huntington Beach City Council Members: Re: Proposed Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Ladies and Gentlemen, This is to urge you, as you discuss the subdivision of this senior mobilehome park, to please also very seriously consider the best interests of the senior citizens residing in this park. We have been residents of Huntington Beach for 40 years, raising our large family here, and several of our children, now adults, reside with their families in or near this city. We are both professional people with good educations. Like many parents who invested themselves in large families, we did not enter our senior years with a significant financial estate. As our seniority approached, we thoughtfully and carefully prepared for it by downsizing from a large home to the mobilehome we purchased and in which we currently reside in Huntington Shorecliffs. We have been here for 11-112 years. The terms and conditions represented to us when we considered moving here were financially acceptable for Ion--term residence, and we purchased our home and moved in with confidence, expecting to live here for the rest of our lives. We were both working full-time when we came here, but we anticipated the time would come when we would no longer be able to work, and under the Landlord's terms of residence in existence here at that time, we believed we would be able to remain here. This is a rather "funky" park with regard to utilities, but we have good-naturedly endured the inconvenience of frequent un-announced water shutoffs, some for long periods of time. We quickly learned to keep many large bottles of water handy, for drinking and washing up and flushing the toilets. We keep a 50-gallon metal drum filled with water in our back yard just in case. There have been times when one of -999- Item 8e - Page 317 February 22, 2010 Page Two us has been in the shower lathered up with soap only to have the water shut off without any warning. The Park Manager previous to the current one told us that the utilities plans for this mobilehome park have been lost, and when Sacramento was consulted, they did not have them either. So the utilities here are something of a mystery. Mold has always been an issue in our home. So far, we have been able to keep it under control by treating it ourselves at our own expense. However, we do not know if that will always be sufficient. Since the previous owner laid new asphalt on the roads in the park, water now pools for several feet in the area at the foot of our steps. Algae grows there. We are not surprised that some of the residents have much more serious problems with mold if water is standing in larger amounts near or under their homes. A serious issue we have regarding this park is that we can no longer trust the representations made to us. When it became apparent that the park was being renovated by the previous owners (a family), naturally the residents became concerned that it might mean a sale was in the offing. Subsequently, a member of the family and his attorney called a meeting with the residents where he reassured us that no sale of the park was being contemplated. We were in attendance at that meeting. Escrow on the sale of the park closed one month later. When it became apparent to us, the residents, that the former park owner had no interest in our welfare and that we were on our own, the residents retained legal counsel, and have been attempting to resolve several serious issues within the park through legal means, including lawsuits. We are not so unfair as to attribute the behavior of the previous owners to the current owner. However, we made our careers for many years in commercial real estate, and consider ourselves fairly knowledgeable. The current owner bought this property just at the height of the real estate bubble, right before it burst, the worst possible time for an investment. Naturally, he did not buy this property to lose money, but to make money. Apparently, he has decided to pursue the course of subdividing the property as the likeliest to provide him with a profit. It is the American way to prosper if you can. However, I hope it is also still the American way to do so with fairness. So we are asking you to please look at the a . •s2 Item 8e - Page 318 -1000- February 22, 2010 Page Three situation in this.mobilehome park not only in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of the lives that will be affected, for better or for worse, by your decisions. As you contemplate what to do, please consider that you are deciding the fate of your fellow citizens. Please, please do not just consider what is best for the City, or what is best for the owner of the park, but also consider what is best for the people that live here and call this place "home". Here are just some of the important points we urge you to consider: 1. If the property is subdivided, what are the lots going to cost? Will any of the residents be able to afford to buy their lots so that they can remain in their homes? Remember, most of us are on limited fixed incomes. 2. Even if we could afford to buy our lots, who will be responsible for the sorry state of the utilities and the fact that the original plans cannot be found, even if we could afford to make repairs? 3. Who will be responsible to remedy the"standing water" problems that are causing mold issues here? This is a serious health concern. 4. We learned recently that street water runoff from Delaware Street, draining onto Frankfort, is emptying into our mobilehom6 park from a sewer pipe that opens onto the surface of the land near the top of the driveway opposite our home. So whatever is lying on the surface of those streets is being dumped here. I don't want to think what that might include_ Do we have a serious health hazard here? Who is responsible? 5. We understand the City Council is contemplating requiring the owner of the park to fill in the Beach Boulevard "ditch" and put in a sidewalk and trees there. That is a wonderful idea, but who is going to pay for such a great expense? If the current owner follows the pattern of the former owners, then he will pass through the expense to us, the residents. Is that your intention? How in the world will we be able to absorb that expense? 6. The present owner is in the process of raising all of the rents way beyond what any of us anticipated, or were told to expect, when we moved into this park under the previous owners' leases. Among the residents, there is -1001- Item 90 - Page 319 February 22, 2010 Page Four dismay regarding the past, uncertainty about the present, and fear for the future. Will our homes even have any resale value when the future of this park is finally determined? Again, we ask that you thoughtfully and carefully consider the future of this mobilehome park, remembering that you are deciding the fate of the people who live here, and who have invested all or most of their financial resources, as well as their hearts, in their homes. We hope our trust can be restored through your actions. Sincerely, Richard F. and Martha M. Danell /Copy to: Huntington Beach City Planner A PAL Item 8. - Page 320 -1002- ��� -1003-� ��� ,r�! Item 8e - Page 321 Fern 8. e Page 322 -1004- OU ' �4 f !y�"�{yr..rA+wR'Tt��r7 - �� '.Ti� 3. Rt y5 •4.�9 4 Al . - �'{,'7f4��4�£r tr'�vrx•, �' l,,,y�fi�[tn��, e a1�ytS} t c. ?{��p�,♦� err .f. s!j r F�ii\L��� }� l)1� ",l c4tr:t > .�Tini at'Z"'ryys1 -7k5 �• ._ �U#is jib+, a - ,! :A. ' 1 51 4}t�;�>��Fyr��(f YhC.��'s �, s - 4'j'4' " r f �, +Ftii.t�+r Zf 1�i�l!} i� t t�Zs� ♦. ? ,.0 " t '�74i.. - •� ��\ � x s rtii� 't`F! `'�,�fS;Y f,J�tizf �a':- ��`� �rar ' Aw :Z. t t ti a5 i17 i r f yt k•t v k t w Li'AllL-�`"�'!5'>�=,�"'•" .. f r 1 v�N 1rL.Qf} F57("' t3'� � •n 1 i y < Sr a Sv ytr f d ------------- 4 ! 1 Lf•" e ,. . " >. 1� yr• � t Y-� 1 1 1 ° r l a -15 Sharon Dana, Resident 23 Huntington Shorecliffs rA Bch 20701 Beach Blvd. #200 } t-;,amen gko"pf.P�. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 February 22, 2010 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Attn: Ethan Edwards, City Planner Dear Mr. Edwards, This is regarding the request for subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. It is my understanding that one of the requirements that the owners must meet to subdivide is the building of a sidewalk over the drainage ditch on Beach Blvd. While this is a worthwhile project, and one that is long overdue, I do not feel that the people residing in the 304 homes in Huntington Shorecliffs should be the ones to shoulder the burden of paying for this alone--and this is what would happen if it is a subdivision requirement. The owners of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have always passed along any expense to the residents. This would be no exception. While the projected price of$275,000 to $385,000 sounds reasonable for a place to live in Huntington Beach, people have already purchased the home that sits on this land. These people are seniors on fixed incomes. Seniors that have purchased these homes with the intent of spending the rest of their lives there. Now they will be economically evicted, because they cannot afford to live in their homes. And the homes have become virtually worthless and unsellable because of the conditions in the Park, and the because of the subdivision. There are many issues that are unresolved within the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. The current owners of Huntington Shorecliffs have been in possession of the property for more that 2 years now. There were many existing problems within the Park. When the current owners bought the Park, they bought the problems associated with being land owners and landlords. Some of the issues are: A Unresolved water drainage problems, which allow water to stand for long periods of time under and around homes, leading to molds &mildew under, in, and around residents homes. • The repaving of streets within the Park that are so much higher than the homes, thus trapping water under existing homes, again causing mold problems, and causing homes to sink into the mud and muck. • The storm drains that carry water from Franklin Avenue streets and run through the Park before they drain out, carrying pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers,animal feces, trash, dirt, gas,motor oil and brake fluid residues from cars that use the city streets, leaving unhealthy residues all through the Park. Item 8. - Page 324 -1006- s ` Sharon Dana February 22,2010 Page 2 • When the streets were repaved,the pitch was altered,making it dangerous and almost impossible for many of the senior residents to walk in their neighborhoods without losing their balance and taking life threatening falls,thus making many seniors virtual prisoners in their own homes. • The infrastructure of Huntington Shorecliffs is almost 40 years old,and in dire need of updates to the electrical grid to support the additional needs of the new homes being brought into the Park. The sewers,too, are having problems. What better way to solve the problems than to dump the responsibility back onto the residents! • There are also lawsuits pending in court seeking resolution for these issues. When the current owners bought this Park,they were aware of these issues. How can the land be sold, when the condition of the land is the very issue at the heart of the lawsuits? Should people buy the lots in this Park,they become landowners in the Park,and risk becoming liable for any penalties that might be adjudicated against the Park owners. ® The owners of Huntington Shorecliffs have said that no one will be economically evicted-- You will not be forced to buy,you may continue to rent. What is the Market Rate Value of a lot in a Mobile Home Park--a small plot of earth where you already have in place a home that you already own? And if you are low income and decide to continue renting,your rent increases will be CPI rent increases only. But that is only after the rents are brought up to "Market Rent", and "Market Rent" will be an amount decided by the current owners. There is no ceiling on "Market Rent". And Mobile Homes are NOT Mobile. They cannot just be picked up and moved. Most senior citizens living in Mobile Homes have their life savings tied up in their homes, and the homes themselves become worthless in a subdivision of a Park. How many seniors will lose their homes? How many have no where else to go? I ask you to please help protect the Senior Citizens residing in mobile homes within the City of Huntington Beach. One of the issues at hand is that a landowner is responsible for giving residents of Mobile Homes a dry, safe bed to put their home on. Now the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs want to dump the responsibilities and problems on seniors with limited and fixed incomes. Please help the Seniors that are residents of Huntington Shorecliffs protect their homes by denying the Subdivision. Thank you. Very truly yours, Sharon Dana, Resident, Huntington Shorecliffs President--GSMOL 571 HOA Board Member--Huntington ShorecliffsAlf` ` ,: ' 'MY -1007- Item 3® - Rage 325 eo 1� KP7 0 p T 414 f4- fqce Item 8. - Page 326 -1008- Sharon Dana, Resident--Huntington Shorecliffs 20701 Beach Blvd.#200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 February 22, 2010 Ethan Edwards, Huntington Beach City Planner �� D 200 Main Street (�? P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 S'6 RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park—Possible Oil Hazarduo�n }°�YppT. Dear Mr.Edwards, It has come to my attention that there is a possible oil hazard within the proposed subdivision area of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. A map has come into my possession that shows the location of various oil drilling locations in the Huntington Shorecliffs location. One of the drilling locations is within the perimeters of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. I have written the City before,in a letter dated September 17, 2009 regarding this issue. Immediately after the Subdivision Meeting of September 9, a resident of Huntington Shorecliffs approached me and asked me if I knew whether or not the oil well that was drilled within Huntington Shorecliffs was capped off properly—legally and in such a manner that would prevent future leakage. 1, myself, did not even know about any oil well drilled withhin the Park_ So I requested more information. I was told that a map was available,and I asked for a copy. I was given a copy of the enclosed map, showing oil wells drilled locally.The well in question is labeled "Manco Prodn# 1—Sandralu-53-6200". Is the safe closure being given any attention? Also,when the lots come ul sale, what happens to the lots surrounding this well. Although this well is shown to be in the roadway, it is very unlikely that this well is drilled in a completely straight line downward. It is a possibility that this well angles out under lots that could be individually sold. Under the subdivision,this is a matter that would become the responsibility of the Huntington Shorecliffs HOA. What guarantees of safety do residents have concerning how this well was capped off? Was this well filled with water before it was capped off? Is it contributing to the water issues and drainage issues the Park is experiencing? The change of status that is being considered in Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park does not involve new construction. I was told that because new construction is not involved,there will be no inquiry into the status of this well,or how this well was capped. Does that mean that the City itself is not responsible to the senior and elderly residents for issues that concern their welfare and safety? Thank you in advance for any help or information you can give me. Very truly yours, Xbalo- Sharon L. Dana HOA Board Member--Huntington Shorecliffs President--GSMOL Chapter 571 (714) 374-0082 f�-€ar N r - .. CC:- Steve Bogart--Sr. Civil Engineer--Public We--- T 9 rtment $�+�s�Item 8m _ page 327 Sharon Dana Huntington Shorecliffs 20701 Beach Blvd. #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 September 17,2009 Mr. Rami Talleh Senior Planner,Dept.of Planning City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street P.O. Box I90 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 RE:Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park—Possible Oil Hazard Dear Mr. Talleh, It has come to my attention that there is a possible oil hazard within the proposed subdivision area of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. A map has come into my possession that shows the location of various oil drilling locations in the Huntington Shorecliffs location. One of the drilling locations is within the perimeters of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Immediately after the Subdivision Meeting of September 9,a resident of Huntington Shorecliffs approached me and asked me if I knew whether or not the oil well that was drilled within Huntington Shorecliffs was capped off properly—legally and in such a manner that would prevent future leakage. I,myself,did not even know about any oil well drilled withhin the Park. So I requested more information. I was told that a map was available,and I asked for a copy. I was given a copy of the enclosed map, showing oil wells drilled locally. The well in question is labeled "Manco Prodn# 1--Sandralu-53-6200". Do you have any information regarding the well in question? If not, who would I contact for such information? Thank you in advance for any help or information you can give me. Very truly yours, Sharon L. Dana Director—HOA President—GSMOL Chapter 571 (714) 374-0082 CC:- Steve Bogart—Sr. Civil Engineer Public Works Department Item 8. - Page 328 -1010- I ro pw'/ GCNEVA a AVE A1rF C,rP 6 Llwtt 4_".. Z)Z: Q Q U �21.4368 ', � 1'03 5A�pd N" I�'� �.�i�1•ii Q Z FRoANKF' RT Avto F �f Q f• / C.•ru.CYsw/n1J H•f Clsrp /� x l 6r/dOn lt�rJa' �d ELMIRA z AVE 1�46•ae7e n S2•`JBCJIT uN'A7 a c�. 1 Ylrn,narlA•/� DETROIT AV n H I A 3 n P/odurinp Prdserli rs,/nc � /\ "SvprrioAr•Grrhor/" 23-4413 p, O Y54.4600 Chtrron 3 _ .i '"r"'•n Cht�ro17 � y grnl wrrrA° SALTI MORE m �z2•s3eo /�`�. 1 1 V)y 2 i 2 !/•O d r/Cl/ TI �.. 23.4340. AIs W ATt�ANT�. AVE • � 4sn.-•cpny.r�d./�. Fox O,! Cr ' 1 New/pnd- I �' 2 'flJl,rr' 1 23.46211e�a�(tnora"IQ 13 30.6724 .,'•�i'223482 + t, j She!%Co,11 Arad,In� 1 Ip �j �, 'J 21-2766 Z IA 1 =F. ldc,(,C "hippy Coo. 82.2"e +4 Yi A Oomc bl Ca. tvr([td,a v•t' 'Nrn/ond-B�rcn 4"d'AI ,•� � 3S•4527 Y x ��a � s � t•c �` C) Che Y ro'l 74 tsor1 loos.NA P" u Fox Ori Ce• I .mot 2 /N e iv,Jswr fw/�aJd Fs.o.rG.>•r/iw/.. �T //t�� ,rlk"f ' Aoy,lly �61•aa93 4 'i¢ J rn,n W{ Am,nog!U$4,Irye,, Madeline J. Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd. #290 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 V February 18, 2010 o�©i� 3each Mr. Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Sub-Division Dear Mr. Edwards: As you are aware there are 2 court cases pending in Superior Court of Orange County,one pertaining to the illegal termination of 117 leases, illegal rent raises,and the other failure to maintain. Why is the City entertaining this Sub-Division application before these cases are settled? If this or the first application are approved the persons purchasing their lots will become involved as another defendant in the failure to maintain lawsuit as it pertains to the land owners. How does the City view this application not a change of use? Even if it stays a mobile home park, it will no longer be a park with for lease lots. The owner states that no one will be evicted. This statement is in now way correct. IF you can afford to stay you can pay their extremely high rent or loose your home. My home will be worth 0 if this change of use/application goes through. What is the definition of a mobile home park at the City level? There are so many water problems in this park it boggles the mind. We have a City storm drain dumping into our park from approximately 10 City owned and maintained catch basins above the park on Frankfort and many other streets including the alley. We have oily water draining through our park, insecticides,animal feces, and pesticides including many other elements not healthy for anyone, let alone the elderly who reside in this park. The owners think all our water problems can be solved with everyone installing rain gutters on their homes. 95% of the homes in this park already have rain gutters. These gutters do not create the water problem in this park. The streets in this park are starting to crumble along the concrete drain in the center. This is due to water constantly seeping to the surface. The infrastructure in this park is approaching 39 years. Do we have maintenance logs showing the care of this infrastructure? I don't know as we are not allowed to see these, if they exist. The homeowners will become responsible for the maintenance of this aging infrastructure. How unfair is it to purchase your lot and not know what kind of infrastructure problems will be occurring in the future? The current owners won't care as they will no Ionger be responsible for it. How convenient. Mr. Saunders, et al,purchased a mobile home park approximately 39 years of age. What have they done since purchasing this mobile home park as to the maintenance of the infrastructure? We have had fire hydrant problems flooding the streets with water and mud until those pipes could be repaired. This is just the start of the maintenance problems coming. P0 4 '! $ y Item 8e - Page 330 -1012- City of Huntington Beach Mr. Ethan Edwards,Planner February 28, 2010 Page 2 It has also come to our attention there is an abandon well at the North side of the park approximately in front of spaces 185 — 188. Has this well been capped correctly,was the well flooded with water before capping? Has the City investigated to make sure this well was capped according to code? My home was flooded for the first time during the last rains due to neighboring properties not maintaining their driveways, and the elevation of that lot being above mine. I have installed concrete on this side of my home to ward off the water from this neighbor's overwatering,but the last rains were too much for the dirt area between the fence and concrete barrier so my home experienced flooding undemeath. We are forced to live like this every day of every year. The owners won't do a thing;they are waiting for the sub-division to go through so they can put these maintenance problems onto the home owners,new land owners and tenants. We live in sub-standard conditions, County Health Department refers us to the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Huntington Beach refers us to HCD, HCD refers us back to the City. Do you know what it's like to not be able to go to a government agency and get some answers? Every one of the departments of all levels of government pertaining to the sub-standard conditions in this park has stated "sorry we can't help you, call *****". If the City mandates the park owner to improve Beach Blvd. myself and everyone living in this park will pay for it. The current economic impact report submitted to the City and home owners in the park is way too low and actually a joke. How can the City of Huntington Beach, in good conscience, pass this application and economically evict the senior citizens in this park? This is a travesty. Please vote to deny all applications by this owner to convert this park from the use it was meant for. Very truly yours, Madeline J. Seyin -1013- k Item 8e - Page 331 Mr. Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Sub-Division February 22, 2010 Page 2 One of your conditions of the current application is the improvement of Beach Blvd. Who do you think is going to pay for this? We are, the residences of this park. The owner won't absorb this cost as part of doing business, the residences will be getting, yet another assessment. We have already had 2 property tax assessments since these owners purchased this park. This is a senior park(55 years and older) and most of the people living here are on Social Security and/or Pensions and investments. The present owner says he is going to raise the monthly rent to $1475 and/or above. This rent for some people is a raise of$400 to $600 a month. These rent raises will be enforce when the Department of Real Estate dose their final approval of this sub-division so what is the"market rent"going to be? The law states he must take 4 years to bring the rents to"market rent",but if that raise starts at$1475 or above what is their"market rent" going to be? $2000 a month?$2500 a month? Mr. Saunders, et al, are economically evicting everyone currently living in this park on fixed incomes. So the City of Huntington Beach will be known as the City against affordable housing for Seniors. I sure wouldn't want to be a part of that City government. I moved into this park signing a contract to pay $800 a month with small increases from time to time. I don't know what I will do when my rent goes through the roof. I can't move my home to another park as there are no spaces available. My home will be worth nothing if this sub- division goes through as I can't sell it. If I could sell my home right now I will be losing in excess of$100,000 due to the current high rents. Again, another type of economic eviction to Seniors. Please, I implore you to deny all applications for this sub-division. Very truly yours, i William J. S ymour Item 80 - Page 332 -1014- February 20, 2010 13 City of Huntington Beach 4t`�tl� �F 2000 Main Street Huntington.Beach, Ca 92648 Attn: Ethan Edwards, City Planner Dear Mr. Edwards, This is regarding the request for subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. don't understand how this can even be considered with all of the following issues: • The unresolved water drainage problems which allow water to stand for long periods of time under and around homes • Storm drains that carry water from Frankfort Avenue through the mobile home park carrying pesticides,fertilizers, animal feces,trash, dirt and motor oil to the streets that are higher than the homes, thus trapping water under them • This water problem is causing mold and mildew and is a health threat • When these streets were put in,the pitch of them makes it almost impossible for the seniors to walk through their neighborhood without losing their balance and falling • There are also lawsuits pending in court seeking resolution for these issues. When the current owners bought this park they were aware of these problems. Now they want to dump the responsibilities and problems on seniors with limited incomes. Doesn't this seem like a case of elder abuse? would like for the city of Huntington Beach to consider their senior citizens and please reject the request for subdividing of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Respectfully, Judi Smith 01 Beach Blvd. #186 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 -1015- Item 8e - Page 333 ���� February 20, 2010rB 2�2t�1�ch City of Huntington Beach Q` �= 2000 Main Street `"��� Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Attn: Ethan Edwards, City Planner Dear Mr. Edwards, This is regarding the request for subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. I don't understand how this can even be considered with all of the following issues: • The unresolved water drainage problems which allow water to stand for long periods of time under and around homes • Storm drains that carry water from Frankfort Avenue through the mobile home park carrying pesticides, fertilizers, animal feces,trash, dirt and motor oil to the streets that are higher than the homes, thus trapping water under them • This water problem is causing mold and mildew and is a health threat • When these streets were put in, the pitch of them makes it almost impossible for the seniors to walk through their neighborhood without losing their balance and falling • There are also lawsuits pending in court seeking resolution for these issues. When the current owners bought this park they were aware of these problems. Now they want to dump the responsibilities and problems on seniors with limited incomes. Doesn't this seem like a case of elder abuse? I would like for the city of Huntington Beach to consider their senior citizens and please reject the request for subdividing of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Respectfully, p Pamela Smith 20701 Beach Blvd. 4186 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Item 8e - Page 334 -1016- February 20, 2010 r6 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ��,t�n�` r V Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 - -= Attn: Ethan Edwards, City Planner Dear Mr. Edwards, This is regarding the request for subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. I don't understand how this can even be considered with all of the following issues: • The unresolved water drainage problems which allow water to stand for long periods of time under and around homes • Storm drains that carry water from Frankfort Avenue through the mobile home park carrying pesticides,fertilizers, animal feces, trash, dirt and motor oil to the streets that are higher than the homes, thus trapping water under them • This water problem is causing mold and mildew and is a health threat • When these streets were put in, the pitch of them makes it almost impossible for the seniors to walk through their neighborhood without losing their balance and falling • There are also lawsuits pending in court seeking resolution for these issues. When the current owners bought this park they were aware of these problems. Now they want to dump the responsibilities and problems on seniors with limited incomes. Doesn't this seem like a case of elder abuse? I would like for the city of Huntington Beach to consider their senior citizens and please reject the request for subdividing of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Respectfully, Dorothy Ellsworth 20701 Beach Blvd. #186 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 -1017- Item 8s - Page 335 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Planning Commissioners 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4 Re: ITEM A-1, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17296(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION) Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing to you regarding the Item A-1 resubmittal by Hart, King and Coldren(HK&C)on behalf of the Park Owner for a Subdivision Request for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park to be presented at the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. 1 have read the Staff Report and other City Reports,and the Request and documentation submitted by HK&C and Government Code Section 66427.5, upon which HK&C base their request This project is planned so that the Park Owner may get a maximum amount of money from the existing homeowners,and avoid any costs related to future maintenance, repairs or upgrades of common property. HK&C states that they will be in compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and that this proposal will in no way cause economic displacement of the existing homeowners. I disagree. This Subdivision Request is in deed,a Planned Contrived Economic Displacement of existing residents, and a form of Eider Abuse. The Park Owner does not care if people cannot afford the costs that are being demanded. These costs are calculated to be beyond the means of the majority of the residents. The Park Owner knows exactly what the income is of the homeowners and is raising these costs accordingly. The homeowners are being threatened that if they do not agree with this Subdivision, they have no choice but to either pay the demands or quit(move)! This a Senior Park where the majority of the people are on fixed incomes and are currently only marginally able to pay their existing mortgages, rents and utilities with money left over for food, gas, medication, and necessities. The following is based on the information submitted by HK&C: Current estimate for Purchase: $275,000 to$385,000 for the lots: Based on 6% interest, $275,000 would mean$1648.76 per month, plus the$335 Assessment below, for a total of$1983.76 per month_ Tack this amount on top of the existing mortgage. Based on 6% interest, $385,000 would mean$2308.27 per month, plus the$335 Assessment below, for a total of$2643.27 per month. Tack this amount on top of the existing mortgage. Current estimate of potential monthly Assessment by HK&C: Base: $210 per Lot Utility: $80 per Lot Reserve: $45 per Lot Total: $335 per Lot per Month. Item �. - Page 336 -101�- P° c �� a.r ` I •`�O . Current estimate of potential Market Rent for other than low income: $1600 to$1850(plus utilities).Tack this amount on top of the existing mortgage. This is not a pretty picture! This is DEADLY and OUTRAGEOUS! The Stress factor alone,will cause many elderly to become sick and die. This a very real effect caused by monetary problems among the elderly. They stop eating,cannot afford medications and lose the will to live. Whatever will happen to those who still owe mortgages? About six to 12 months down the road,they will probably do as homeowners recently did in Huntington By The Sea Mobile Estates when the Park Owner raised the rents up beyond the homeowners'means....just walk away...and the Huntington Shorecliffs Park Owner(after he already received his payments for the lots)will just laugh his way to the bank. The mobile homes will have no resale value and the lender loses too. The Park Owner will probably just resell the lot and mobilehome,or move another one in its place. The low income homeowners will not be able to keep up the new space rents and eat too. Some still owe mortgages. They will still have to pay the$335 per month"Assessment"If this Subdivision("Condo- izing")gets approved, it will quickly be spread to many of our Mobilehome Parks in Huntington Beach....and elsewhere in the State. Please stop this attack on the only affordable housing left for Seniors and low income citizens. These are good law-abiding voting citizens. Please deny this Request for Subdivision. Sincerely, Mary Jo Baretiich, President Cabrillo Wetland Village(aka. Cabrillo Mobile Home Park) 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy#23A Huntington Beach, CA 92646 "'HMENTNO 9--it -1019- Item lie e Page 337 February 17,2010 Ethan Edwards,City Planner 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,Ca.42648 Dear Ethan Edwards,City Planner, This letter is in reference to the impending issue of subdivision in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park at 20701 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach. My wife and I are retired and have lived in this park for almost 12 years. We moved here with the intention of staying until we no longer can take care of ourselves. There have been many problems in the park over the years,including water drainage problems due to in part ' drainage from surrounding city streets which are at a higher elevation and a high water table under the Park itself. We have weathered these problems and still desire to live here although the rent has risen considerably since we have been here which is understandable. Now the present owner wants to subdivide the park, offering to sell the lots that our units sit on, for an enormous amount,that we are unable to afford and many residents feel the same way. Being that we are in our mid-seventies,and only on Social Security and a small pension of$250 per month,we are just keeping our heads above water financially as it is. The thought of moving at this time of our lives is very stressing,as we cannot afford any place in Huntington Beach and would be forced to move to another city or town in California or most likely out of state. With this information in mind, we ask you to not recommend the subdivision of this park now or in the future. Sincerely; Ronald S.Bastien 20101 BEACH BLVD H179 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. _ HI N p k NCO. 6- -71- Item 8. - Page 338 -1020- 19Feb2010 City of Huntington Beach F 0 Luiu Ethan Edwards City Planner Department of Planning 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I'm writing in reference to Huntington Shorecliff subdivision of the park lots for sale. Property address:20701 Beach Blvd. HB 923648 I have written letters to Star Management informing them of the lack of proper drainage which causes flooding and standing water through out the lot and under my mobile home.The lack of proper drainage is causing the lot to sink and damage to my mobile home.(SP 157)I have sent Star Management five certified letters regarding the gas meter not being properly supported as well as the lack of proper drainage. I have pictures from last years and this current storm flooding of the lot my mobile home sets on. I'm not the only resident in the park that has failure to maintain issues this is an on going problem through out the park."These issues have not been address at this time.According to Park Management electrical appliances cannot be installed without approval from management due to the electrical grinds condition.But no mention of repairing or replacing the outdated grid. I don't feel a subdivision should be approved until the failure to maintain lawsuits are settled.This seems like a tactic by Star Management representing the owners not to spend money to make corrections and to force the subdivision even with the survey shows the residents did not want it. What I have learned is when you buy a lot in a converted park you are NOT purchasing a lot in a Resident Owned Park . The owner still controls the park until at least 51%of the lots are sold. Instead of the stability of a resident owned park where everyone has equal stake in the outcome,a converted park could prove to be a hodgepodge of renters, owners and speculators. Instead of"all for one", it's "every man for himself'...I for one don't want to see this happen. Upon doing some research I found that M. Grillo and Star Management and park owners have judgements against them from San Fernando Valley and Mountain View mobile home park, and the closure of Conejo Mobile Home Park, the residents prevailed in their lawsuit against the owners and Cirillo. ATTA J,A, ?rr7 IT0, 8 -7 3 -1021- Item 8. - Pave 339 Recent Court Ruling: Judge Burdick agreed with Santa Cruz County that section 66427.5 required a local jurisdiction to consider the result of a resident support survey in determining to approve or reject a conversion application. The court finds that Government Code section 66427.5, subsection(d)(5), is clear and unambiguous on its face, and states that the results of the required survey be considered by the local agency reviewing the application as part of the subdivision map hearing required by Government Code 66427.5(e). Based on this plain and clear language the Court finds that local agency considering a subdivision application under Government Code section 66427.5 is considered(i.e.,take into account deliberate on,weigh.ete) the results of the resident survey in determining whether to approve,conditionally approve,or deny the application. http://articles.latimes.eom/2009/J*ul/27/locallme-mobile27 Fillmore City Council began with Closed Session conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation, El Dorado Estates ,City of Fillmore.The representative for El Dorado Mobile Home Park Estates is Mike Cirillo of Star Management.Cirillo filed an application on March 5, 2009 for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map.The application proposes to convert the existing 302-space park from a rental park into a resident-ownership park where park residents would be able to purchase the lot(s)their coach sits on. City staff has been working with Cirillo and the park's legal counsel,Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C),in reviewing and processing the application in accordance with the Fillmore Municipal Code,the State Permit Streamlining Act,the State Subdivision Map Act,and the State's Mobilehome Parks Act. A Letter of Incompleteness,dated April 1,2009,was sent to Star Management.Application was re-submitted on June 10, 20o9,deemed incomplete on July io,re-submitted July 23, deemed incomplete on August 19th.An Appeal of Incompleteness to Planning Commission was filed on September 2,decision was made to uphold City Staffs"incomplete" determination on October 21, 20o9.A request on behalf of Star Management was filed on October 22 to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to city council.An Appeal of Determination of Incompleteness,presented Tuesday night by HK&C partner Mark Alpert, covered five"incomplete items": Offer to purchase,with estimated price and estimated space rent; 6o day required Notice; Demand for 43 new parking spaces under Fillmore Code; Property Right"Peer Reviewed"by certified inspector;and FEMA map and flood calculations. Alpert, representing El Dorado Mobile Park(owner Nancy Watkins),refuted each "incomplete item"citing case law(Sequoia case),lack of city authority, and pre-empting of local ordinance.According to Alpert,the April 1st Letter of Incompleteness did not expressly state Star Management's application was "incomplete". He also stressed that El Dorado residents were advised about the option-to-buy,and that a tenant impact report will be served on residents at least 15-days before hearing.Alpert stated that since his client is not an apartment building, etc.,they are not subject to several of the eity's demands.And that the city has no authority to require an inspection of any kind regarding the "so called Peer Review IA- Items 8. - Page 340 -1022- Inspection Report,"but added that the inspector was licensed,a statement that was refuted by city staff, who said they spoke with the inspector directly. He said that although he retains several certifications,he is not a licensed building inspector.The point may be lessoned by the fact that only one permanent common structure is involved in the inspection,the park's clubhouse. Alpert continued to build his case for reversal of the Fillmore Planning Commission's requirements by stating additional parking spaces are"impossible,it's functional now."He emphasized that a condo-conversion is not a new project,and therefore not subject to the same stringent guidelines,using the 43 parking space requirement as an example.Alpert stated the items of incompleteness present"no real purpose, no interest to serve or advance... an effort to slow down the process"or as he put it several times, "kicking the can down the road to delay." Alpert said that park residents,the park owner and the city gain nothing by the demands, and suggested the Fillmore Planning Commission reverse their requirements_ Attorney Charmaine Hilton Buehner,an associate with Myers,Widders,Gibson,Jones& Schneider, said HK&C had sent an 85-page fax to the city Tuesday morning with additional arguments.City Planning Assistant Veronica Ortiz-De Anda said the city is given a"broad brush"for strict regulations concerning FEMA's Flood Plane Management Requirements.The city of Fillmore is constrained by federal law and acts,she said,which preempt state law and requirements,and Fillmore Municipal codes. El Dorado resident Alan Hair stated that Star Management"has a different Pitbull in attendance tonight_"He said they"spout law when it serves their purpose.When it comes to obeying laws they look the other way.They have lied to the citizens of Fillmore. Please vote NO on this appeal." El Dorado resident Paul Schifanelli,Vice President of Voice of El Dorado Mobilehome Association,said that a"majority condo conversion at this time would be devastating". Schifanelli said much of the original infrastructure is over 3o-years old and condo conversion is not practical,also citing escalating condo dues and expenses. He reminded council that the park consists of elderly tenants and that"age and debt"would burden them. He said the Association had invited park owner Nancy Watkins and Cirillo to HOA meetings,with no response."We simply desire fair leases and fair stabilized rent,and a maintained parr" Schifanelli added that no 1-5 year leases have been offered,and asked the city to insist the park owner does their share. Mayor Walker expressed that council is"duty bound to protect the health and safety of our citizens." Council member Jamey Brooks asked that two items be added to the application; New Map Subdivision 10-26, and Evidence Residential Impact report.Motion to uphold City Staffs Application Deemed Incomplete, plus modifications articulated by Brooks,passed,5-o. This is the same pattern that we are experiencing here at Huntington Shorecliff. Mary Landin SPC 157 Huntington Shorecliffs A c'�AHNIEN`T_ -1023- Item 8. - Page 341 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MINUTES February 25, 2010 Room B-7, Civic Center 4:00 P.M. Subdivision Committee Planning Commissioners Present: Chair Blair Farley, Commissioner John Scandura, Commissioner Elizabeth Shier Burnett Subdivision Committee Staff Members Present: Scott Hess, Chief Bill Reardon, Tony Olmos Staff Present: Herb Fauland, Debbie DeBow, Steve Bogart,Darin Maresh, Applicant Present: Boyd Hill, Robert Coldren TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION) APPLICANT: Boyd Hill, Hart,King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBDIVIDER: Shorecliff LP; Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main,LP, c/o Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E. Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 ENGINEER: R.T. Quinn &Associates, 1907 Border Avenue, Torrance, CA 90501 REQUEST: To subdivide the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park, approximately 39.2 acres, into 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park for ownership purposes. Public Works Department, Fire Department and PlanningDepartment Comments: SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 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. ATTACHMENT NO. q ,o Item 80 - Page 342 -1024- 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval,the following shall be required: a. The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department of 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. c. 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. d. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. e. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. 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) G:Subdivisions/MINUTES/SD 022510 MIN.doc 2 T C-AfttKf � -) G . t L �i4g� PEA t91 -1025- Item B. - Pave 343 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required: a. 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. b. 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. c. The required Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: i) 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)) ii) 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) iii)ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) iv) Street lights shall be installed along the Beach Boulevard project frontage. Lighting standards shall be per City of Huntington Beach guidelines. (ZSO 255.04) v) 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)) vi) 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)) vii) 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)) G:Subdivisions/MINUTES/SD 022510 MIN.doc 3 k\ �; CI JAMI I N O G Item 6e - Page 344 -1026- viii) 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)) ix)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)) x) Damaged curb and gutter along the Frankfort Avenue frontage (at Hill Street) shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard PIan No. 202. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) xi)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)) xii) 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) All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architect/Inspector. Subdivision Committee Member Comments: Herb Fauland,Planning Manager, stated the purpose, location, zoning, and existing use of the subject site. He presented an overview of the proposed project and the suggested findings and conditions of approval as presented in the attachments. Steve Bogart, Principal Civil Engineer, reviewed the Public Works Department recommended conditions of approval. Rob Coldren, applicant, asked staff if Condition No. 2c is state mandated. Mr. Olmos confirmed that it is a requirement under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Mr. Coldren asked for clarification on whether the run off should be accumulated and delivered to an underground line on the property or outside of the property. Mr. Olmos reviewed the recommendations from the 2005 Master Plan of Drainage which specify a pipeline system running through the property. Mr. Coldren asked if that system was intended to handle run off from Delaware Street or the Mobilehome Park. Mr. Olmos stated that the pipeline should accommodate run off from both sites. Mr. Coldren asked staff for clarification on Condition No. 5a. Mr. Olmos stated that any work in the Caltrans right-of-way requires permits from Caltrans and specified the location of the right- of-way in relation to the site. Mr. Coldren asked if the block wall which separates the park from G:Subdivisions/MINUTES/S13022510MIN.doc 4 �1" a ""�*1Q ,� N ,A @n, t.'0 s n ¢' w. -1027- Item 8m - Page 345 Beach Boulevard is located in the right-of-way and Mr. Olmos stated that GIS indicates that the block wall is not in the right-of-way. Mr. Coldren asked staff to provide Caltrans contact information to address this and staff agreed. Mr. Coldren asked if staff had received complaints regarding the onsite sewage system beyond the letter prompted by the original application. Mr. Bogart stated that he was unsure. Mr. Olmos noted that staff has not tested the sewage system and was relying on comments from the residents of the park. Mr. Coldren stated that he is unaware of any sewage problems onsite and did not have any cause for a sewage analysis. Mr. Olmos stated that staff would need to review California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)records for complaints. Mr. Coldren asked if the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements are triggered by the subdivision itself or if it the improvements required for subdivision trigger the ADA compliance. Mr. Olmos stated that ADA improvements included under health and safety provision in the Subdivision Map Act (66428.1 d). Mr. Coldren asked if staff had notified the applicant prior to this request about any of the issues raised in the conditions of approval and stated that he had not previously been made aware of any ADA compliance issues. Mr. Olmos stated that for projects it is standard protocol to review and address ADA compliance whenever an area is being improved. He noted that the drainage deficiency was addressed in the Master Plan of Drainage. Mr. Coldren stated that he had not been made aware of any of these concerns or of the Master Plan of Drainage prior to the subdivision request. Mr. Olmos stated that these improvements are triggered by the subdivision request. Mr. Coldren stated that there is a misconception that the subdivision will raise rental fees at the site and noted that after the sale of the first lot the site will voluntarily be subject to state wide rent control. Boyd Hill, applicant, asked staff for an estimate of how much water currently drains through the pipe at Frankfurt. Mr. Olmos stated that it is approximately 14 cubic ft. per second. Mr. Hill asked for an estimate of how much of that water would be run off from the park. Mr. Olmos stated that he did not know. Mr. Hill asked if there had been an analysis of how much of the sidewalk usage would be park residents and how much would be the general public. Mr. Olmos stated that no analysis had been completed but that he could consult with Public Works Traffic staff on that subject. Commissioner Scandura asked for clarification on whether the onsite sanitary sewer system addressed in Condition No. 5b is the system that conveys sewage and rain water from the units. Mr. Olmos stated that there are separate systems so only the sanitary sewage system is being addressed in that condition. Chair Farley asked if the drainage system being discussed involves the onsite rainwater drainage that residents have expressed concern about in previous hearings. Mr. Olmos stated that the onsite rain water drainage system was not addressed in the Master Plan of Drainage and therefore is not addressed in these conditions. Chair Farley asked if the onsite rain water drainage and the lot pad heights would be addressed if the site were undeveloped prior to subdivision. Mr_ Olmos confirmed this, noting that a grading plan and a plan check for utilities would have been required. Chair Farley asked why those issues were not Currently addressed as health and safety concerns. G:Subdivisions/MINUTES/SD 022510 N4IN.doc 5 �2 Item 8. - Page 346 -1028- � i V Mr. Olmos stated that staff was requesting that an analysis be performed to see what might be done to address the drainage issues. Commissioner Scandura asked if a hydrology study would address those concerns. Mr. Olmos stated that it would be addressed in the pipeline engineering analysis. Mr. Fauland reviewed modifications. to the Planning and Building Department recommended conditions of approval. He recommended that Condition Nos. la and lb be stricken. Mr. Olmos stated that Condition No. lb would require erosion control and Mr. Fauland asked that Public Works staff provide wording for a condition on erosion control. Mr. Fauland recommended that Condition Nos. 2a, 2b, and 2d be stricken. Mr. Hess noted that Condition Nos. 2a and 2b are required by state law and had been included for information purposes. Commissioner Scandura stated that it might be best to retain Condition No. 2d for clarification. Mr. Coldren stated that Condition No. 2d was unnecessary and caused preemption issues due to state law already addressing the issue. Chair Farley asked if the meters would be city meters. Mr. Olmos stated that the site had a private water system and that only the pipe going into the site would be monitored by the city. Mr. Fauland stated that staff would be recommending minor modifications to Condition Nos. 4a and 4b to clarify that the four year period commences at the time of recordation of the final map. He stated that staff also recommended that the standard indemnification and hold harmless condition be included. Chair Farley asked for clarification on the amenities referenced in Condition No. 4b and whether the cost of the site improvements could be passed on to the low income residents at a higher rate. Mr. Fauland stated that the language of this condition is verbatim from the Subdivision Map Act and that it is at the discretion of the Subdivision Committee or the Planning Commission to add clarity. Chair Farley stated that he would like more protection for low income residents on this matter but stated that the matter could be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting Developer Comments: Mr. Coldren stated that he supported eliminating Condition Nos. la, lb, 2a, 2b, and 2d. He stated that the original application was submitted for 309 spaces due to a mistaken belief that the HCD permit was issued for that number of spaces. Mr. Coldren asked staff to eliminate Condition No. 3 as it mirrors state law and is therefore unnecessary. Mr. Coldren asked for clarification on the city's position on whether that Government Code Section 66427.5 allows for conditions not stated within the section and if the city believes it has the opportunity to consider the results of the resident's survey in considering its approval of the subdivision map. He stated that he felt all of the recommended conditions of approval violate Government Code Section 66427.5. Mr. Olmos asked Mr. Coldren if he had reviewed section 66428.1 and Mr. Coldren confirmed that he had. Mr. Hess asked Mr. Coldren what assurance the city would have of improvements being made without having those improvements conditioned. Mr. Coldren stated that the property owner could enter into a contract with the city, the owner could donate money to the city for the requested analyses, or that the conditions of approval could be modified to be agreeable to all participants. Mr. Hess asked Mr. Coldren what guarantees the residents of the park had that the property owner would adhere to the limits on rental fee increases if it is not a condition of approval. Mr. G:Subdivisions/MINUTES/SD 022510 MIN.doc 6 ( T',A C f ~' -'I 029- Item 8. - Page 347 Coldren stated that the property owner might be willing to negotiate an agreement with the city but that he would need to verify that. Mr. Coldren stated that the subdivision will not force the residents to purchase.their sites but will merely provide the opportunity to do so and clarified that there would be indefinite rental control for the low income residents and that the four year adjustment would apply to the remaining residents. Chair Farley asked what the rental rate is for the site. Mr. Coldren stated that there are several rates and agreed to provide that information to the commission. A MOTION WAS MADE BY JOHN SCANDURA, SECONDED BY SCOTT HESS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFIED CONDITIONS AND FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. (5-1; FARLEY VOTING NO). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing 304 space mobile home park received and dated January 22, 2010 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval,the following shall be required (PW): a. 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. 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. (ZSO 255.04A) (PW) b. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. (PW) 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) (PL) G:Subdivisions/MINUTES/SD 022510 MIN.doc 7 b _1QS 2 ENT l Item 8. - Page 348 -1030- 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following(PL): 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(commencing at the time of final map recordation)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(commencing at the time of final map recordation), 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) 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required: a. 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. (PW) b. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan (PW): i) 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)) ii) 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and-approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) iii)Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan ASSA. (ZSO 25-5.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) iv) Erosion control measures (via vegetative ground cover) shall be planted along the slope between the newly required sidewalk per Condition of G:Subdivisions/MINUTES/SI)022510 MIN.doc 8 OSD0225) ATTACHME NT O,_�.-7 -1031- Item 8e a Page 349 Approval 5.b.1i and the existing block wall along the project's Beach Boulevard frontage. v) 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)) vi)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)) vii) 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)) viii) ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the south curb returns of Frankfort Avenue at ShorecIiff Drive (at the subject site's .northerly entrance)per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) ix)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)) x) 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)) xi)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)) 6. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architect/Inspector. (PW) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. G.Subdivisions/MINUT) S/SD 022510 M1N.doc 9 H AN'N O AT Item 8. - Page 350 -1032- J� City ®f Huntington Beach • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING March 3, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECL.IFFS SUBDIVISION) — CODE REQUIREMENTS (REVISED) 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 requirements, 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 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_ 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- 536-5561 or at ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb_org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Ethan Edwards Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,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 Fauland,Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorecliff,LP,c/o Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project FileATT (� - r � ' � � �g�� T' po " 3 Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 7' " -' '540 �1®33- Items g. - Page 351 JJr0ffllCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MOO ` PLANNING and BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH REVISED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: March 3, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/ ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME . 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 January 22, 2010. 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. (HBZSO Section 253.12.H) 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 250.16) 2e The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange prior to conversion of the mobilehome park. (HBZSO Section 253.22) 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 the tract map are proposed during the plan check process. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the ATTACHMENT Item 8® - Page 352 -1034- Page 2 of 2 original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (HBZSO Section 251.18) 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 shall not become effective until the ten calendar day appeal period has elapsed Planning Commission approval. (HBZSO Section 248.16) 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. (HBZSO Section 251.14 & 16) 6. 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. IR ` 'N -1035- Item B. - Page 353 J� HUNTINGTON BEACH ~-h _ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: MARCH 3, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 22, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 / ETHAN.EDWARDS(a)SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/ SBOGART(a),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 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, in accord with Suggested Condition of Approval 2.c, for existing site drainage and tributary upstream drainage shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. (ZSO 255.12) 2. A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WOMP) 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. (NPDES) K (teen 8. - Page 354 -1036- Page 2 of 3 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL DE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1. The Tentative Tract Map received and dated January 22, 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: 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 tile: ____.DWG • Drawing Interchange file: DXF ii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: A CD Recordable (CD-R) 650 Megabytes 7. Improvement Plans, in accord with Suggested Condition of Approval 5.a, shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts_ (ZSO 255.12) ATTACH NRE-Y'rp ' ID , ,l C"Documents and Settings\edwardseALocal Settings\Temporary hrtemet r_1®3.7-\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)De. Item 8. a Page 355 Page 3 of 3 a. 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) b. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 253.12K) c. If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA) 8. 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) 9. A Drainage Fee for the subject subdivision shall be paid at the rate applicable prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map. The current rate of$13,880 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 $572,175. 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 $572,175, Public Works will accept the construction of the on- site master planned facilities per the City of Huntington Beach, Municipal Code Section 14.48.030. 10. Any work within the Caltrans right-of-way (in accord with Suggested Conditions of Approval 5.a.i through 5.a.iv) requires an Encroachment permit which 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. 10 ledwaidseTcal Settings\Tepora Intemet I\Beach 20701 1-1 N1 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 3-3-10 docItem 8. a Page 356 �1® 8 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -�-- FIRE DEPARTMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: February 29, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLCATION NO.08-190:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD., HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/Ethan.Edwards@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714.536.5531 /dmaresh@surfcity-hb-org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF 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 January 22,2010. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying existing requirements which must be verified to be in compliance and 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. 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 maintain compliance with the following City of Huntington Beach Fire Code requirements and applicable City Specifications: 1. HBFC Section 508.1 Required water supply- Fire hydrants and water supply systems.This Fire Code regulation is based upon 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.htmi ). a. Documentation of a current flow test in compliance with HBFC Section 508.1 Required water supply 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 HBFC Section 508.1 shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department by a licensed C-16 contractor or licensed Fire Protection Engineer. Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall -2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.huntingtonbeachca.gov If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at 714.536.541 S:\Prevention\1-Development\1-Planning Department-Planning Applications,CUP's\2010 CUP's\Shorecliff Mobile Home CUP letter 02- 25-10 DM rtf 1 ATTACHMENT Nn In c -1039- Item 8. - Page 357 66427.5. Avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing tenants 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 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. Item 80 - Page 358 -1040- A `-F CAHMENI T NO. i, c� 66428.1. (a)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: (1)There are design or improvement requirements necessitated by significant health or safety concerns. (2)The local agency determines that there is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new parcel or tentative and final map. (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. (b)The petition signed by owners of mobilebomes in a mobilehome park proposed for conversion to resident ownership pursuant to subdivision(a) shall read as follows: MOBILEHOME PARK PETITION AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SIGNING THIS PETITION INDICATES YOUR SUPPORT FOR CONVERSION OF THIS MOBILEHOME PARK TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP. THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONCERNS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF , COUNTY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS THE TOTAL COST FOR CONVERSION AND PURCHASE OF THE PARK IS $ TO $ , EXCLUDING FINANCING COSTS. THE TOTAL COST TO YOU FOR CONVERSION AND PURCHASE OF YOUR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IS $ TO$ , EXCLUDING FINANCING COSTS. IF TWO-THIRDS OF THE RESIDENTS IN THIS PARK SIGN THIS PETITION INDICATING THEIR INTENT TO PURCHASE THE MOBILEHOME PARK FOR PURPOSES OF CONVERTING IT TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP,THEN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW PARCEL, OR TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT MUST BE WAIVED, WITH CERTAIN VERY LIMITED EXCEPTIONS. WAIVING THESE PROVISIONS OF LAW ELIMINATES NUMEROUS PROTECTIONS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU. Buyer, unit #, date Petitioner, date (c)The local agency shall provide an application for waiver pursuant to this section. After the waiver application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, the local agency shall approve or deny the application within 50 days. The applicant shall have the right to appeal that decision to the governing body of the local agency. (d) If a tentative or parcel map is required, the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in-lieu fees shall be required by the local agency. In no case -1041- TAAC1'r!Nf stem 'io - Page 359 shall the mitigation of a health or safety condition have the effect of reducing the number, or changing the location, of existing mobilehome spaces. (e) If the local agency imposes requirements on an applicant to mitigate a health or safety condition, the applicant and the local agency shall enter into an unsecured improvement agreement.The local agency shall not require bonds or other security devices pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66499) for the performance of that agreement. The applicant shall have a period of one year from the date the agreement was executed to complete those improvements. (f) If the waiver application provided for in this section is denied by the local agency pursuant to the provisions of subdivision(a), the applicant may proceed to convert the mobilehome park to a tenant-owned, condominium ownership interest,but shall file a parcel map or a tentative and final map. The local agency may not require the applicant to file and record a tentative and final map unless the conversion creates five or more parcels shown on the map. The number of condominium units or interests created by the conversion shall not determine whether the filing of a parcel or a tentative and final map shall be required. (g)For the purposes of this section, the meaning of"resident ownership" shall be as defined in Section 50781 of the Health and Safety Code. 1l•Z Otero B. - Page 360 -1042- HK& C HART, KING & C©LIOREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com March 3, 2010 Our File Number: 36014,11214821-5016-6789v.1 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND FACSIMILE ° Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street �� `�=f Post Off A4 � � Q,,q9 Q Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Me Attn: Scott Hess, Director of Planning RE:. Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Response to Commissioner Questions from Study Session Dear Commissioners: This letter provides supplemental information regarding the above-referenced Application in response to questions raised by the Commissioners at the February 23, 2010 Planning Commission Study Session. 1. This Application is a Renewal of the Prior Application. This Application is in some respects a mirror image of the prior application for a vesting tentative tract map for conversion of the Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park to resident ownership. The prior application contained a map for 309 rental spaces because of a mistaken belief by the Park Owners that there were 309 Housing and Community Development ("HCD") approved spaces rather than the 304 spaces under the current permit. However, prior application made it clear that the applicant was proposing to subdivide the existing mobiiehome park, with no increase in density. Rather than allow the Park Owners to amend the map to show 304 spaces, the City denied the prior application. The Park Owners do not agree that the prior application was properly denied for that or any other stated reasons, and has filed a protective lawsuit challenging that denial. In the interest of moving forward without litigation, the Park Owners filed the present Application with a corrected map showing 304 spaces. This Application also provides an updated resident survey conducted by the now existing homeowners association and a conversion impact report with additional information requested by the City and residents. 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 AT TAC " I FE IN D' O. 12 . o _ -1043- Item 6. - Page 361 HK.8kC HART, KING « CGLORFN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 2 2. Resident Survey Results Were Properly Obtained and Submitted. As stated above, the resident survey was conducted by the now existing homeowners' association pursuant to an agreement, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. Pursuant to that agreement, the homeowners' association submitted a certification of the survey results and the survey forms to City staff. According to Ethan Edwards and the Subdivision Committee, survey is complete and the survey forms are compliant. The survey forms are available for review at the Planning Department;they were too voluminous to include in the staff report. 3. The Survey Results Cannot be the Basis for Denial of the Application. The recent Court of Appeal decision in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma ("Sequoia") makes it clear that the survey results cannot be the basis for denying a tentative tract map application for a conversion to resident ownership. The County of Sonoma ordinance at issue had established minimum survey results criteria for approval of a subdivision. The Court of Appeal in Sequoia rejected the use of survey results as a criteria for denying subdivision: "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 (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299-1300) Thus, the City cannot establish its own subjective requirements for whether the conversion is appropriate. Trial court decisions that are contrary to Sequoia cannot be relied upon and have no precedential value. The Orange County Courts are bound to follow the Sequoia case on this matter. (Cuccia v. Superior Court (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 347, 353-354) The California Supreme Court refused to review the Sequoia case, thereby allowing it to stand as binding precedent. The reason for the resident survey requirement in Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) was to help prevent "sham' conversions where a park owner subdivides to avoid rent control but fails to carry out conversion. (See Govt. Code, § 66427.5 [2002 Amendment Note]; see also El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1165) As the Legislative History for Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) clearly states: "This bill seeks to provide a measure of that support for local agencies to determine whether the conversion is truly intended for resident ownership, or if it is an attempt to preempt a local rent control ordinance. The results of the survey would not affect the duty of the local agency to consider the request to subdivide pursuant to section 66427.5 but merely provide additional information. It is foreseeable that the results of this survey could be used to argue to a court 36014.112/4821-5016-6789v.1 Item 8. - Page 362 -1044- HK(&� C HART KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 3 that the conversion is a sham and that the rent formulas in Section 66427.5 should not be applied. The fact that a majority of the residents do not support the conversion is not however an appropriate means for determining the legitimacy of a conversion. The law is not intended to allow park residents to block a request to subdivide. Instead the law is intended to provide some measure of fiscal protection to nonpurchasing residents." (A..B. 930 Legislative Committee Report) Given that there is no rent control in the City of Huntington Beach, the resident survey results thus cannot be the basis for denial of this Application. 4. The Conversion impact Report Was Served on Residents and is Adequate. The requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 are expressly designed to protect against economic displacement of those residents who decide not to purchase but to continue renting their spaces at the Park. They are not designed to protect those residents who may determine to purchase based on subsequent information that will become available to the residents during the subsequent process of obtaining a Department of Real Estate White Report. Thus, the conversion impact report that is required to be filed with the City and disseminated to the residents prior to the City hearing on the tentative map is only required to address the Government Code Section 66427.5 protections against economic displacement of residents. Those protections include the resident right to continue renting space at the Park and the statutory rent control provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)_ The conversion impact report filed by the Applicants covers those matters. While in an effort to avoid confrontation, the Park Owners have modified the prior conversion impact report to accommodate the expressed concerns of the City, the Park Owners continue to assert that the prior form of impact report met all of the legal_requirements as well. Similar forms of impact reports have been approved by many other jurisdictions. The Sequoia decision discussed whether cities could determine their own criteria for what a conversion impact could include. The Sequoia decision held that all the cities could require is compliance with the express provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5, and nothing else. The City cannot impose its own criteria for a conversion impact report: "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 1294-1297) The Application contains a copy of the conversion impact report and an affidavit of Mike Cirillo stating that the report was served on all residents in compliance with Government Code Section 36014.11214821-5015-6789v.1 -1045- Steep 80 - Page 363 HK&C HART, KINf3 & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 4 66427.5 (c). A copy of that affidavit was not included by staff in the Study Session report, but is enclosed herewith for your reference. Also, in compliance with the Mobilehome Residency Law (Civ.Code, § 798.56 (g) (1)), notice of the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission hearing was mailed to all residents more than 15 days prior to the hearing on this Application, on February 19, 2010. A copy of that notice and of the affidavit of Tisha Anderson is enclosed herewith for your reference_ 5. On-Site and Off-Site Improvements and Plans Cannot Be Required The City's consideration of the Application boils down to two legal questions, which questions the Applicant has now raised at every one of the nearly ten meetings with City staff and elected officials, including last week's Subdivision Committee meeting. First, does the City agree that Government Code Section 66427.5 provides the exclusive bases for approval or denial of the Application, and if not, what other enabling legislation allows the City to impose which other conditions. Second, does the City agree that its role regarding the "survey" is to determine if it was properly conducted? For whatever reason, the City, to date, has not provided guidance, but has simply acted as though it disagrees with the Sequoia decision. With regard to the first question (we already addressed the second question), the City attempts to impose requirements for a water quality management plan, for an on-site drainage system and for off-site drainage, curb and gutter in the CatTrans right of way along Beach Boulevard. The City claims that it is authorized to impose such requirements based on various statutes, ordinances and permits. The City's attempt to impose such requirements is preempted by the express exclusion of Government Code Section 66427.5. According to Sequoia, under Government Code Section 66427.5, the City cannot impose any requirements not expressly set forth in Section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1296-1299) Therefore, the Court of appeal in Sequoia rejected any city requirements that the park owner provide for park or off-site infrastructure or address health and safety concerns. Furthermore, the City cannot impose requirements for on and off-site exactions that do not satisfy the constitutional nexus requirement. Under that nexus requirement, the City must document the connection between the exaction and the projected impact of the development. Not only must the required nexus exist, but specific findings must show that the required dedication is reasonably related to the impact. (See Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825) Here, the City cannot satisfy the nexus test or make such findings. There will be no added impact to City services as a result of the Application for a mere paper conversion. There will be 36014.11214821-5016-6789v,1 ATTACH M N I N¢fit, Item 8. - Page 364 -1046- HKWI-S�C HART. KING & MOLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 5 no new hookups to the City's drainage system and no additional trips along Beach Boulevard resulting from the Application. The City cannot rely on the "health and safety" language in Government Code Section 66428.1. The Application is not a conversion under Section 66428.1. Sequoia makes clear that under Section 66427.5, the City cannot impose additional requirements, even for health and safety issue. The health and safety language in Section 66428.1 is intended to address "significant" or urgent matters of health and safety caused by Park "design and improvements,° not matters that have been existing for more than 25 years as a result of City design and improvements such as the City's drain pipe constructed in 1985 that flows onto Park streets or by Cal Trans lack of.improvements along the Beach Boulevard frontage. The City cannot rely on its drainage fee ordinance. City Code Chapter 14.48 pertaining to drainage fees was enacted in 1975, more than five years after the construction of the Park in 1970. The fees may only be charged upon the earlier of the: building permit or the subdivision of the property. The building of the Park took place before the City's ordinance. Government Code Section 66483 (a), upon which the City Code Chapter 2.48 is based, requires that the City ordinance be in place more than 30 days before the development of the property in order for drainage fees to apply.' Similarly, the City does not provide any information about Cal Trans requirements or contemplated use for its right of way along Beach Boulevard that would justify the City's requirements for curb and gutter, sidewalk and other improvements that the City would require along Beach Boulevard. Finally, the City has no authority under Regional Board Order No. R8-2009-0030 to impose a requirements for a project Water Quality Management Plan because the Application does not contemplate "new development" or "redevelopment" under that Order. Further, that Order does not impose any required on the City to condition map approval on such a Plan. Assuming that the fee could be applied,it would have been applied in 1975 at the time of the City ordinance,and the amount would be$2,800 per acre for zone 8B where the Park was located,for a total amount of$112,000. 36014.1 1 214 82 1-50 1 6-67 8 9v.1 ATTACHMENT -1047- Item 8. - Page 365 "Ke- C HART, KING & COLOREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 6 In conclusion, as we expressed at the Subdivision Committee meeting, the City has no authority to impose any additional requirements on this simple conversion to resident ownership Application. The Park Owners are willing (indeed anxious) to work with the City and will consider reasonable conditions, but they object to the City imposition of any unlawful condition for approval of the Application without their consent. Thank you. HART, KING & COLDREN Xv 4deS../ld:ren Enclosures: Agreement re survey with HOA Cirillo Affidavit re mailing of conversion impact report Anderson Affidavit re mailing of notice of Planning Commission hearing cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) Ethan Edwards,Associate Planner (by e-mail only) 36014.11214821-5016-6789v.1 ATTAC ��T N�l; i2 5 Item 8. - Page 366 -1048- I a a C H,0.k2T. K4NG & CC,}LpF2£S�f Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 3, 2010 Page 7 bcc John Saunders (by e-mail only) Michael Cirillo (by e-mail only) Burt Mazelow (by e-mail only) 36014.1 1 21432 1-50 1 6-67 89v.1 -1049- Item 6. - Page 367 HUNTINGTON.SHOI2ECLIhFS;uMOBILE110ME PAR RESIDENT SiJ$'POR SURVEY AGRE)rIKENT Government Code Section 6642.7.5 (d) requires that the ow=rs of a mobilehome park that seeks to convert the park,to resident ownersbip obtain a suncy of resident support to i be considered.by the local agency with the sabdivisim application. The survey mtist be condneted by written ballot.pursuant to an agreement between the park owner and the homeowner's association. This constitutes the Agreement between the Park Ou mers of the Hunti-PKM Shoreetiffs Mobilchome Park and the Huntington Sho3recliffs flnnieowner3'Association pertaining to a survey oftesident support. 1 1 1. Survey Form. The survey ballot.form that shall be used for the survey ot'resident` support- for the I-Tuntington Shoreetiffs Mobitehonie Park conversion to resident ownership shall be the attached "Survey .re Conversion to Resident Ownership," This survey form shall be revised 15efor,�distribution. to the residents only for the purpose of inserting dae elate of the"Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents."the date by whi"c.h the survey is to be returned and the address of the Homeowners'Associations. i 2. Conduct of S.urve . The survey shall. be conducted by the ss liorrzeo�ners' Aociation in the folloN-ing manner, Within ten (10) days following notice from the Park Owners that the"Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Rc,5idents"has been seat by the Park Owners to the Residents,.the Homeowners' Association Board of Directors will cause to be distributed by F=d delivery one survey form to each Park resiident space. The Park Owners shall provide:the klomeowners' Association Board of Directors with a complete list of the names and addresses of all residents who are entitled.to participate in the survey. The survey forms shall provide a date for return of the suxvcy to the I101neo-�«ers' Association, which date is seven (7)days froxn the date of distribution of the survey, 3. _Tabulation of 1{esults. On the eighth day follow.[ng distnbutidon of the survey,the fumeo.wners' Association.Bowwd of Directors shall meet to review'the.ballots to canfift r. that they have been signed by residents and to tabulate the results of the completed f6nns, 4. Submittal ofResulis. Immediately following the tabulation of the survey results, the. florheowners' Association Board of Directors shall submit the survey results in a letter format to the City of 1-ittntington Beach Planning Director, Scutt Hess, with a copy to the Parr Owners. If the City makes a request, the homeowners` Association .shall provide the original survey forrns and all other written materials,pertaining to the survey to the City. On Behalf of.Park t}wners: On B half af' onneo'wnms' Association Print NamcK,. Print Name_ 0 E _+ { <. j : _ � \� �� � .•`/ ;♦� Date -�-- C }ft Date 16014 ;12/4849-7245-49I7v.1 Sl ORFCt..IF S-HOA AtrF2S; MENT RE RESIDEt+T SURVF'Y ATTACHMENT NO, kL.7 Item 8® - Page 368 -1®5®- HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK SURVEY RE CONVERSION TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP The owners of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park intend to file an application with the City of Huntington Beach to subdivide the existing Park into separate lots that exactly correspond to the existing rental spaces. The purpose of the subdivision application is to convert the existing rental mobilehorne park to resident ownership. Upon conversion,the existing residents will have the opportunity to purchase the land they are currently leasing. Significant benefits may be available to mobilehome owners who also own the land, including better financing rates, broader financing options and control over common areas. California law requires the Park owners to give the existing residents the option to either purchase or continue leasing their existing mobilehome rental spaces upon conversion of the Park. Those who continue leasing will obtain certain protections pertaining to post- conversion rent increases. Those protections are explained more fully in the "Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents"dated December 14,2009. California law also requires the Park owners to obtain a written survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. As required by law, this survey is being conducted by the Park homeowner's association,which is independent of the Park owners. Each occupied mobilehome space is requested to fill out one survey form. The results of the survey will be tabulated by the Board.of Directors and submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. These results will be considered at the City's hearing on the subdivision application. Please indicate below whether or not you support conversion of the Park to a resident- owned mobilehome park. Please fill out and sign this survey form and return it to the Homeowner's Association at [address] by [date]. Only those survey forms that are completed,signed and returned no later than ,2009 will be counted. Be assured that the Board of Directors of you Home Owners Association has reviewed this survey quite carefully. The Board has also reviewed the statutory requirements for this survey. If you state that you do NOT support the subdivision of the Park, NO RETALIATORY ACTION WILL. OR MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU BY THE PARK MANAGEMENT. 36014.112,14833-7842-2789v.1 l SHORECLIFFS-RESIDENT SURVEY ATTACHMENT ""0, -t � 1 -1051- Item 8. m Page 369 T I support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park from a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned mobilehome park. I do not support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park from a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned mobilehome park. F7 I decline at this time to either support or not support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park from a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned mobilehome park. Space No. (Signature) Date: (Print Name) 360I4.I ID4833-7842-2789v.1 2 SHORECLIFFS-RESIDENT SURVEY TACHM N� N. �2 � Item 8. - Page 370 -1052- Certification of Mailing of Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents (Government Code Sections 66427.5 (c)) 1,Mike Cirillo,am the President of Star Mobilehome Park Management,which is the Property Manager for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. On behalf of Shorecliff,LP,Huntington BSC Park,LP,1S Stadium,LLC, and Shorecliff Main,LP, the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park, I certify that on December 15,2009,1 mailed the attached"Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents,"to all Huntington Shorecliffs Residents as shown on the attached mailing list. 1 did so by placing true copies of the Report in envelopes addressed to each homeowner and deposited such envelopes in the United States Mail at Santa Ana,California. 1 also certify that the attached mailing list is a true and correct list of the names and address of all tenants residing in Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. I declare under penalty of perjury under the Iaws of the State of California that the above is true and correct of my own knowledge. Executed on December 29,2009 at Santa Ana,California_ Mike Cirillo ATTACHMENT NO, ,Z. ,p -1053- Item Bo - Page 371 Charles Baur Barbara Heinl Thelma Evans Dreama Baur Sharon Heinl 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 3 Space 1 Space 2 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Donna Edwards Donna Ladow Constance Liberatore 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 4 Space 5 Space 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Lou Colletta William Seymour Charles Schock Hyunok Colletta 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 8 Space 9 Space 7 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Edwards Jeff Fordeli Jim Fribley Evelyn Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Jeannine Fribley c/o Deborah Edwards Space 11 20701 Beach Boulevard 9291 Power Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 12 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Eileen Long Dave Wells Dee Bell 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 13 Space14 Space 15 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Patti Mills Beverly Hill Kathleen Nielsen c/o Sean bills 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 19744 Beach Blvd.,Suite 339 Space 17 Space 18 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Joseph Sanders Stevan lovan Ralph Calderon Susan De Bord Sanders Ann lovan Ramona Calderon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 19 Space 20 Space 21 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mary Clyde Catherine Brown Dianna Whitley C/O Sharon Lynn 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 8321 Cade Circle Space 23 Space 24 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Geisomine Curatola Nancy Contilli-Thompson Jerry Stover 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 26 Space 27 Space 28 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Nellie Crew Mary McGowan Billy Harbison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Irene Harbison Space 29 Space 30 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 31 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACH%M, 1: T N''�: ►2 ► 1 Item 8. - Page 372 -1054- Henry Huffman Vivian Morgan Darrell Primrose Florence Huffman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 33 Space 34 Space 32 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648.4908 Dorothy Morehouse Sharon Hammer Arnold Steele 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Marlene Steele Space 35 - Space 36 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 37 Huntington Beach,CA 92WA908 Thelma Keenum Joseph Mallard Robert Sturrock 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Lorie Sturrock Space 38 Space 39 1230 E.Windsor Road Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 #116 Glendale,CA 91205 Alberta La Chapelle Robert Sweet Mery Dahlen 20701 Beach Boulevard Hila Sweet Rosemary Dahlen Space 41 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 42 Space 43 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach;CA 926484908 James Greulich Kathy Tague Lynne Cluff 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 44 Space 45 Space 46 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Vida Sykes Lauren Simms Shelley Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 47 Space 48 Space 49 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 9264BA908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vicki Guenther Ken Bennett Kathleen Hogan 20701 Beach Boulevard Lana Bennett 19821 Windjammer Lane Space 50 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 51 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Richard Plummer Buster Kini Lucille Laurin Inez Plummer Margaret Kini 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 55 Space 53 Space 54 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Catherine Gwynn Doris Williams Gail Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 56 Space 57 Space 58 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Murphy Bank Ron Smith Barbara Hanson Attn: Jon Dominguez Kathy Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard PO Box 9725 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 61 Fresno, CA 93794 Space 60 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACHMENT Nk-, 12. �2- -1055- Item 8. - Page 373 Jim Constantine Bob Speiser Sharon Ewald Ede Kershaw Evelyn Speiser 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 64 Space 62 Space 63 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Joe Burki Donald Warren Charlaine Argirakis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard' Space 65 Space 66 Space 68 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Hunfington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Steve Hedden Steryn Nick Nannes Albert Wiessmer Cheryle Hedden do Allen M Reedy Billi.Wiessmer 20701 Beach Boulevard 4590 MacArthur Blvd STE 370 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 69 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Space 72 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Frank.O'Brien Robert Atchue Carolyn Butts Sheila O'Brien Nancy Atchue 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 75 Space 73 Space 74 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Peter Hamel Christine Schumacher Bonnie Bennett Nadine Hamel 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 77 Space 78 Space 76 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,_CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Julia Johnson Don Rasmussen Leida Untoria Joyce Zeiler tea Ann Young 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 82 Space 79 Space 81 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Guesno Mary Vaughn Dee Rey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 83- Space 85 Space 86 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 James Greulich Mike Merritt Billy Bergeron 20701 Beach Boulevard Lois Merritt Margaret Bergeron Space 87 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 88 Space 89 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Frederick Krueger Linda Ford David Schlack Nancy Krueger 20701 Beach Boulevard Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 91 3645 South 3850 West Space 90 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 West Haven, UT 84401 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 David Schlack Joanne Gravitt Hoan Dinh Tran Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Mai T. Pharn 3645 South 3850 West Space 94 20701 Beach Boulevard West Haven, UT 84401 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 95 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACH IENT NO,-- Fern 8. - Page 374 -1056- William Roberts Celia A. Gordon Elizabeth Rosenkranz Estelle Roberts 20701 Beach,Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 97 Space 98 Space 96 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Ken Dalton Sharan Long Jeane Jaffe 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 99 Space 100 Space 101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Walter A. Richter Joan Van Morn Johnny Dee Dellosso Verna R. Richter Patricia Bonner 20701 Beach Boulevard 606 N. Auburn Avenue 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 104 Sierra Madre,CA 91024 Space 103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Bob Mascorro Roy Weber Fran Crandlemire Lana Mascorro Karen Weber 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 107 Space 105 Space 106 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490B Kent Bewley Jorge Festini Florence Harris Karen Bewley Nancy Festini C/O Maureen Parco 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 1450 N.W. Fresno Ave. Space 108 Space 109 Bend,OR 97701 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Paul Ragains Steve Harrington Marion Fieweger Cheryl Ragains Sandra Harrington 20701 Beach Boulevard 2804 Hinton Circle 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 113 Elk Grove, CA 95758 Space 112 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Karen Weidmann Dixie Morgan Kathy Kent Cheryl Kruly 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 115 Space 116 Space 114 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Willi Gross Jinn Chojokov Charles Asendort 20701 Beach Boulevard C/O AAA-Action ATCN:Acctg Dept Phyllis Asendorf Space 117 13101 Jefferson Street 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Garden Grove, CA 92844 Space 119 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Chuck Potter Rob Champion Bill Rasch 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Dorene Rasch Space 120 Space 121 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 122 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Don Lyons Petronella Berry Ron Bondick Sally Lyons 20701 Beach Boulevard Jan Bondick 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 124 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 123 Huntington Beach, CA 92648--4908 Space 125 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTIACHMENNT NO.__a. t -1057- Item 8. e Page 375 Paula McIntosh King Larry Trautman Randal Hetrick 73124 Crosby Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard Florence Erickson Palm Desert, CA 92260-6715 Space 127 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4909 Space 128 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Frances Ludt Felipe Zapata Sue Vanderwall Louise Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 130 Space 131 Space 129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Patricia McCabe Mark Goodman Beverly Peterson 20701 Beach Boulevard Judy Goodman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 132 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 134 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 133 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Elizabeth Clark Gisele J. Fouts Vede Ankeny 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 135 Space 136 Space 137 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Joan Goodman Gary Rollins Paul Stanton 20701 Beach Boulevard 9812 Theresa Avenue Margie Stanton Space 138 Anaheim, CA 92804 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92548-4908 Space 140 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Evora McCulloch Helen Logins Jack Sullivan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 141 Space 142 Space 143 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4906 George Nazaroff Celia Bradford Jon G Moskewich Susan Nazaroff 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandra J Moskewich 16360 Chella Drive Space 145 20701 Beach Boulevard Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 146 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Bev Carlson George Yates Ron Peach 20701 Beach Boulevard Donna Yates Vicki Peach Space 147 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 148 Space 149 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 George Smith Betty Reese Mary Crosby 20701 Beach Boulevard Nancy Hall Reese 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 150 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 152 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 151 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Jackie Jacobs Teresa Kelley-Brownell Judi lbarra 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 153 Space 154 Space155 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACHME T , �z_ .► ,. Item 8. - Page 376 -1058- Mary Landin Thomas Newland John Newman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Newman Space 157 Space 158 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 159 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vivian Brown John McGrew Bob Hall 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 160 Space 161 Space 162 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Harold Jones Betty Evans Bill Drew Nanette Jones 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 164 Space 165 Space 163 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Carl Ackermann Bob Truitt Joan Hudson Jacque Ackermann Arlene Truitt 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 168 Space 166 Space 167 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Mike Steele John Magennis Jerry Gilday Sheral Steele Susie Magennis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 171 Space 169 Space 170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Harry Cargill Dolores Smith Buster Cobb Victoria Cargili 20701 Beach Boulevard Jacqueline Cobb 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 173 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 172 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 174 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Nadene Weber Donald Prince Madaline Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Margaret Prince 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 175 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 177 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 176 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John McClinton Ron Bastien Norma Starnes Clarice McClinton Elinor Bastien 20701 Beach Boulevard C/O Tom McClinton 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 180 PO Box 135 Space 179 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Kailua, Hl 96734 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Gary Rollins Barbara Marousek Larry Schrock 9812 Theresa Avenue Terri Marousek Maureen Schrock Anaheim,CA 92804 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 182 Space 183 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Robert Lupo Marian Beck B Ellsworth Loretta Lupo 20701 Beach Boulevard J Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 185 1 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 184 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 186 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACH L: T -1059- Item g. - Page 377 Shirley Moss Craig Roalf Greg Mansfield 434 Larkin Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Kaysville, UT 84037 Space 188 Space 189 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Carl Belson Bessie Burke Jeremy Deex Louise Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 12161 Oak Leaf Drive 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 191 Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Space 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 926448-4908 Rosa Dalton Katherine Elstad Donna Blackman 16276 Skyridge Drive 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Riverside, CA 92503 Space 194 Space 195 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Lois Mills Gary Hill Joe Kimes 20701 Beach Boulevard Christina Hill Linda Kimes Space 196 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 197 Space 198 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John Strada Calvin Dana Lee Cummings 20701 Beach Boulevard Sharon Dana 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 199 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 200 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Roger Criswell Marina Wilson Scott Steeper Mindy Criswell 20701 Beach Boulevard Susan Hawk 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 203 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 202 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 204 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA908 Diane Lomond Darlene Ruttman Eric Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 205 Space 206 Space 207 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Betsy Noss Jeremy Goldman Sherry Sollazzo 20701 Beach Boulevard Judy Goldman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 208 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 212 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 209 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Shirley Crabtree Bob Viiss Dick Mancineili 20701 Beach Boulevard Claire Viiss Dorothy Mancinelli Space 213 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 214 Space 215 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dixie Bright Robert Vandygrift Therese Young 20701 Beach Boulevard Wendelyn Vandygrift 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 216 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 218 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 217 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Item 8. - Page 378 -1060- Daniel Rodriguez Rick Danell Sam Robinson Patricia Manrique-Rodriguez Martha Danelt Rosemary Robinson 12-761 Orange Avenue 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Chino, CA 91710 Space 220 Space 221 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Charlie Brown Harold Lyons Delia Sutherland Cynthia Brown CIO Karen Dykema 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 9746 Cedar Court Space 225 Space 223 Cypress,CA 90630 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Dave Schoenherz Melvin Lewis Richard Reed Christy Schoenherz Patricia Lewis , Lynn Reed 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 226 Space 227 Space 228 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Alice Butler Vince Bove Joe Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Esta Bove 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 229 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 231 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 230 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Sharon Robison Albedina Wiessmer Bob Kraehling 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Sherry Kraehling Space 232 Space 233 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 234 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Doris Coppola Warren Zarnott Jackie Visco-Gray Edward Baur Anne Coulter 21171 Amerwick Lane 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Space 236 Space 236 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 John Davis John Berens Jack Williams Diane Davis Darleen Berens Claudia Williams 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 238 Space 239 Space 240 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Diane Alden Vicki Flood Alan Riley 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 241 Space 242 Space 243 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Richard Gillespie Gary Tiveron Ronald Rennegarbe 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Barnard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 244 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 246 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 246 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Jim Jordan Marie Burns Glenn Smith Flora Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard Joyce Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 248 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 247 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 249 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACHMENT INO: �z • I9 -1061- Item 8. - Page 379 Shirley Lewis John Mulloy Albert Tedenian 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandi Mulloy 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 250 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 252 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 251 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Bob Gardner Jack Morrey Crystal Rogers Doris Gardner Maureen Morrey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 255 Space 253 Space 254 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Dick Haney Don Luckhem Paul Cannon Betty Haney - Lori Luckham Doris Cannon 20701 Beach Boulevard ' 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 256 Space 257 Space 258 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Ronald McKennell Bill Hall Frank Razanskas Janet McKennell Leva Hall Lisa Razanskas 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 259 Space 260 Space 261 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Judy Adams Paul Lee Joan Walker 20701 Beach Boulevard Soon Park 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 262 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 264 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 Space 263 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 - Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490B Bob Gardner Beverly Richardson Dick Porch Janice Gardner 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 266 Space 267 Space 265 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4909 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dottie Hamilton Chuck Calderone Bob Palmer 20701 Beach Boulevard Mary Calderone Margie Palmer Space 268 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 269 Space 270 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Shirley J.Myers Antonia(Toni)Reed Staff Fieidhouse Deborah G. Douglass 20701 Beach Boulevard Jill Fieldhouse 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 272 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 271 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 273 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Carol Cosicne Terry Van Orden Patsy Davison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 274 Space 275 Space 276 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Mel Knutson Karen McGrew Frances Stockton Suzanne Knutson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 278 Space 279 Space 277 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACH IENT o,--,z • 15 Item 6m - Page 380 -1062- Emil Rasmussen Dale Athey Mike Lytle Mary Rasmussen Sandra Athey Lee Lytle 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 280 Space 281 Space 282 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Majel Miller Gene Moore Mary Jo Casino 20701 Beach Boulevard Stefanie Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 283 , 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 285 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 284 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648-4908 Gladi Halpern Richard Lippard Myrrha Eberly C/O Lisa Halpern Judith Lippard 2D701 Beach Boulevard 2945 S. Fairview Street,Unit A 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 288 Santa Ana,CA 92704 Space 287 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Flo Bradley Madeline Seymour Helga Lothert 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 289 Space 290 Space 291 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Curtis Turrill George Riley Frank Krafka Susan Turrill Sandra Gargano Joanne Thomas 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 292 Space 293 Space 294 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Robin Bowers Larry Hames Jerry Daquila 20701 Beach Boulevard Pamela Harries Linda Daquila Space 295 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 296 Space 297 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 William Faber Michael Ritter Arnold Garfield Norma Faber Linda Ritter 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 300 Space 298 Space 299 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Delores O'Neil Adda Bonillas Lorraine Runnels 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 301 Space 302 . Space 303 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Junice Kallister Monique Maloney Patricia (Pat)Stephenson C/O Joyce Grimm Hien Nguyen 20701 Beach Boulevard 18514 Santa Cruz Circle 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 306 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Space 305 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Judith Johnson Kathy Hanson 1908 W.Steinbeck 20701 Beach Boulevard Anthem,AZ 85086 Space 308 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 ATTACHM Tfib . �Z .zo -1063- Item 80 - Page 381 RaC6 +0c1 <T V E>MRR 2 2010 l 7:2S Certification of Mailing of Notice of Hearing to Residents (Civil Code Section 798.56 (g)(1)) 1,Tisha Anderson, am the Office Manager of Star Mobilehome Park Management,which is the Property Manager for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. On behalf of Shorecliff, LP,Huntington BSC Park,LP,JS Stadium,LLC,and Shorectiff Main,LP,the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park,I certify that on February 19,2010, 1 caused to be mailed the attached "Notice of Hearing"to all Huntington Shorecliffs Residents as shown on the attached mailing list. I did so by causing to be placed true copies of the Notice in envelopes addressed to each homeowner and deposited such envelopes in the IInited States Mail at Santa Ana,California. I also certify that the attached mailing list is a true and correct list of the names and address of all tenants residing in Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct of my own knowledge. Executed on February 24,2010 at Santa Ana,California. Tisha Anderson, Office Manager TRCHIMEN N10 Item 8e - Page 382 -1064- ' Recai ved <TlIE)MAR 2 2040 T7:26 HART, KtN3 & COLDREN Boyd L.M bh'lb@hkeiaw.COM February 19, 2010 Ffle Ka.36014.112/4852-2555-5397v.1 TO: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Residents Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.17296("Application") Notice of March 9,2010 Planning Commission Hearing on Application Dear Resident: Please take notice that Shorecliff, LP, Huntington BSC Park, LP, JS Stadium, LLC and Shorecliff Main, LP, the Owners of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park, will be requesting approval of the above-referenced Application at a hearing before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission on March 9,2010 at 7:00 p.m.at the following iocation: City Council Chambers City Halt, Lower Level City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 The Application is to subdivide the Huntington Shorectiffs Mobilehome Park into individual lots according to the current configuration of mobilehome spaces as set forth in the current operating permit from the California Department of Housing and Community Development, thereby allowing current Park residents the opportunity to purchase trieir lots, if they so choose, or to continue leasing. The impact of the subdivision on Park residents is explained in the "Report on Impact of Conversion upon Residents," which was submitted to the City with the Application and which was previously mailed to you on December 15, 2009. Very truly yours, HART, KING& CO DREN i ar Boyd tell 1W A Proiessional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714.432,8700 i www.hkctaw.com!Fx 714-546.7457 ATTACHMENT 1i1J -tz.Zz -1065- Item 6e - Page 383 Reuel ved CTi/E�MRE2 2 20�o �7:26 ' ©9191091go N9Ay aaAe alq!jl?CWoa WW L9 x ult8 gZ ietuJul ap aus111141 0919/09150A18AN ui!nn alglledWC- .,8l5 Z x„1 ans label Charles Baur Barbara Hein! Thelma Evans Dreama Baur Sharon Hein! 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 3 Space 1 Space 2 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4903 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92W-4908 Donna Edwards Donna Ladow Constance Liberatore 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 4 Space 5 Space 6 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Lou Cotletta William Seymour Charles Schock Hyunok Colietta 20701 Beach Boulevard 2D701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 8 Space 9 Space 7 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John Edwards Jeff Fordell Jim Fnbiey Evelyn Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Jeannine Fribley 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 11 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 10 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 12 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Eileen tong Dave Wells Dee Bell 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 13 Space 14 Space 15 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Patti Mitts Beverly Hill Kathleen Nielsen 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 16 Space 17 Space 18 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Joseph Sanders Stevan lovan Ralph Calderon Susan De Bord Sanders Ann lovan Ramona Calderon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 19 Space 20 Space 21 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Mary Clyde Catherine Brown Dianna Whitley 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 22 Space 23 Space 24 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Gelsomine Curatota Nancy Contitli-Thompson Jerry Stover 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 26 Space 27 Space 28 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Nellie Crew Mary McGowan Billy Harbison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Irene Harbison Space 29 Space 30 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 31 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 95160r8160 k quette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery°516018160 TTACWME T $s i L3 Item 8. e Page 384 -1066- ' Recet ved <TUE)tARR 2 20�p 1T;2T 0918/Q9L9®fd3Ay aaAe alMneowoo afar L9 x mtu 9Z 1;M01 ap a#tanutid 09 E8/09 Lqe ftaAy Lalm atgtiRdtuoo.,8/5 Z x„;azls tagq Henry Huffman Vivian Morgan Darrell Primrose Florence Huffman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 33 Space 34 Space 32 Huntington Beach.CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dorothy Morehouse Sharon Hammer Arnold Steele 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Marlene Steele Space 35 Space 36 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 37 —- Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Thelma Keenum Joseph Mallard Robert Sturrock 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Lorie Sturrock Space 38 Space 39 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 40 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Alberta La Chapelle Robert Sweet Mery Dahlen 20701 Beach Boulevard Hila Sweet Rosemary Dahien Space 41 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard HuntiVon Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 42 Space 43 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 James Greulich Kathy Tague Lynne Cluff 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 44 Space 45 Space 46 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vida Sykes Lauren Simms Shelley Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 47 Space 48 Space 49 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vicki Guenther Ken Bennett Kathleen Hogan 20701 Beach Boulevard Lana Bennett 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 50 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 52 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 51 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Richard Plummer Buster Kini Lucille Laurin Inez Plummer Margaret Kini 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 55 Space 53 Space 54 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Catherine Gvgnn Doris Williams Gail Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 56 Space 57 Space 58 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Murphy Bank Ron Smith Barbara Hanson 20701 Beach Boulevard Kathy Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 59 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 61 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 60 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de formal 25 mm x B7 min compatible avec Avery e5160/8160 ATTAC H ME-ENT ir . j -Z q -1067- Item 8. - Page 385 Rocoi v®d tYVE>MRR 2 20/0 17:27 09i8/09 G5ra AJ2Ay pane algtXuruou WW L9 x ww 56;ewsul arr d8auulk,i 0918/091-90 fjaAV gl!x%algslEdWOe w8J5 Z x,1 021s€agvi Jim Constantine Bob Speiser Sharon Ewald Ede Kershaw Evelyn Speiser 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 64 Space 62 Space 63 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Joe Burki Donald Warren Char€sine Argirakis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 65 Space 66 Space 68 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach;CA 92648-490B Steve Hedden Steryn Nick`dannes Albert Wsessmer Cheryie Hedden 2D701 Beach Boulevard Biili Wiessmer 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 70 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 69 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-49M Space 72 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Frank O'Brien Robert Atchue Carolyn Butts Sheila O'Brien Nancy Atchue 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 75 Space 73 Space 74 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Peter Hamel Christine Schumacher Bonnie Bennett Nadine Hamel 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 77 Space 78 Space 76 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Julia Johnson Don Rasmussen Leida Untoria Joyce Zeller Lea Ann Young 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 82 Space 79 Space 81 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-49D8 John Guesno Mary Vaughn Dee Rey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 83 Space 85 Space 86 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92848-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 James Greulich Mike Merritt BMy Bergeron 20701 Beach Boulevard Lois Merritt Margaret Bergeron Space 87 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 88 Space 89 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Frederick Krueger Linda Ford David Schlack Nancy Krueger 20701 Beach Boulevard Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 91 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 90 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 92 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 David Schlack Joanne Gravitt Hoan Dinh Tran Deborah Schlack 20701 Beach Boulevard Mai T.Pham 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 94 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 93 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 95 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/6"compatible with Avery©5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 AT AITACHNIENT Item 8. a Page 386 -1068- Recel ved (7UE)MAR 2 2010 1T:28 09l&`09[9&AraAV cane elg1leaWeo tutu C9 x W W gG XW301 ap allariultd n 0918fp91�1(1aAV qj!M aplO Woo R81S Z X.j aztS lapel William Roberts Celia A_Gordon Elizabeth Rosenkranz Estelle Roberts 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 97 Space 98 Space% Huntington Beach,CA 92648-49o8 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490B Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Kerr Dalton Sharan Long Jeane Jaffe 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 99 Space 100 Space 101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Walter A.Richter Joan Van Horn Johnny Dee Deliosso Verna R. Richter Patricia Bonner 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 104 Space 102 Space 103 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bob Mascorm Roy Weber Fran Crandlemire Lana Mascorro Karen Weber 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 107 Space 105 Space 106 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Kent Bewley Jorge Festini Florence Harris Karen Bewley Nancy Festini 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 110 Space 108 Space 109 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Paul Ragains Steve Harrington Marion Fieweger Cheryl Ragains Sandra Harrington 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 113 Space 111 Space 112 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Karen Weidmann Dixie Morgan Kathy Kent Cheryl Kruly 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 115 Space 116 Space 114 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Willi Gross Jim Chojokov Charles Asendorf 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Phyllis Asendorf Space 117 Space 119 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 119 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Chuck Potter Rob Champion Bill Rasch 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Dorene Rasch Space 120 Space 121 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Don Lyons Petronella Berry Ron Bondick Sally Lyons 20701 Beach Boulevard Jan Bondick 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 124 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 123 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 125 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5t8"compatibfe with Avery 95160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 0516018160 ATTACHMENT Ni-) -1069- Item 8. - Page 387 Reco)ved �TIiE)MAR 2 207n 1T:28 09t8/09ly�nJan{�cane alg:leawos u;w 19 x ww 56 leuuuJ ap aWuultd Y 0918l0919@ henV 18im algitedwon 9,5 Z x u l.aZls tsgel Paula McIntosh King Larry Trautman Randal Hetrick 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Florence Erickson Space 126 Space 127 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 128 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Frances Ludt Felipe Zapata Sue Vandeswatl Louise Green 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 130 Space 131 Space 129 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Patricia McCabe Mark Goodman Beverly Peterson 20701 Beach Boulevard Judy Goodman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 132 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 134 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 133 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Elizabeth Clark Gisele J.Fouts Verle Ankeny 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space135 Space136 Space137 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4905 Joan Goodman Paul Stanton 20701 Beach Boulevard Margie Stanton Space 138 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 140 Huntington Beach.CA 92648-4908 Evora McCulloch Helen Logins Jack Sullivan 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 141 Space 142 Space 143 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 George Nazaroff Celia Bradford Jon G Moskewich Susan Nazaroff 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandra J Moskewich 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 145 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 144 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 146 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bev Carlson George Yates Ron Peach 20701 Beach Boulevard Donna Yates Vicki Peach Space 147 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 148 Space 149 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 George Smith Betty Reese Mary Crosby 20701 Beach Boulevard Nancy Hall Reese 20701 Beach Boutevard Space 150 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 152 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4909 Space 151 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 .Jackie Jacobs Jeremy Deex Judi Ibarra 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 153 Space154 Space 155 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264a-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/B"compatible with Avery 051 E0/M0 Etfquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 1�1516018160 ATTACH ME- � � �s���, i2 .Z-7 Item 8. - Page 388 -1070- R�ce�vgc► (TiJE)MAR 2 2q'10 77:25 09t8/09 l5@ MAV aMAe Mlyueuucus ww Lu A ww SG;t uiu;vp M44o11v9 J 09€8109 is®f IaAy gllnn aittgedwoo 81ca Z x !azts lagrl "4 Mary Landin Thomas Newland John Newman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Newman Space 157 Space 158 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 159 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Vivian Brown John McGrew Bob Hall 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701.Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 160 Space 161 Space162 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-490B Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Harold Jones Betty Evans Bill Drew Nanette Jones 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Reach Boulevard Space 164 Space 165 Space 163 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Carl Ackermann Bob Truitt Joan Hudson Jacque Ackermann Arlene Truitt 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 168 Space 166 Space 167 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Mike Steele John Magennis Jerry Gilday Sheral Steele Susie Magennis 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 171 Space 169 Space 170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Harry Cargill Dolores Smith Buster Cobb Victoria Cargill 20701 Beach Boulevard Jacqueline Cobb 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 173 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 172 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 174 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Nadene Weber Donald Prince Madaline Edwards 20701 Beach Boulevard Margaret Prince 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 175 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 177 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 {: Space 176 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John McClinton Ron Bastien Norma Starnes Clarice McClinton Elinor Bastien 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 180 Space 178 Space 179 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Barbara Marousek Larry Schrock Terri Marousek Maureen Schrock 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 182 Space 183 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Robert Lupo Marian Beck D Ellsworth Loretta Lupo 20701 Beach Boulevard J Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 185 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 184 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 186 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648.4908 laael size 1"x 2 518"compatible with Avery 05160/81 GO ' kiqueite de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05 1 60/81 60 HIM � N- `, �z .z A TAC � -1071- Item 8. a Page 389 Reca�voU �TVE)MAR 2 2010 1T:2S UyLtilt)9 t icy nldnp cans alyr;eucuuj uuu Jy x ww y6{ewiu;ap oµonv!}y t}9i8(G9t•soldand tllw+alggEduroa„8/5 Z x,.#ans taget " Shirley Moss Craig Roalf Greg Mansfield 20701 Beach Boulevard 20704 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 1B7 Space 188 Space 189 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Earl Nelson Bessie Burke Jeremy Deex Louise Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 191 Space 192 Space 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4903 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Rosa Dalton Katherine Eistad Donna Blackman 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 193 Space 194 Space 195 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Lois Mills Gary Hill Joe Kimes 20701 Beach Boulevard Christina Hill landa Kimes Space 196 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 197 - Space 198 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 John Strada Calvin Dana Lee Cummings 20701 Beach Boulevard Sharon Dana 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 199 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 201 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 200 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Roger Criswell Marina Wilson Scott Steeper Mindy Criswell 20701 Beach Boulevard Susan Hawk 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 203 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 202 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Diane Lomond Darlene Ruttman Eric Nelson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 205 Space 206 Space 207 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Betsy Noss Jeremy Goldman Sherry Sollazzo 20701 Beach Boulevard Judy Goldman 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 208 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 212 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 209 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Shirley Crabtree Beb Vliss Dick Mancineili 20701 Beach Boulevard Claire Viiss Dorothy Mancinelli Space 213 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 214 Space 215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dixie Bright Robert VandygO Therese Young 20701 Beach Boulevard Wendelyn Vandygrift 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 216 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 218 Huntington Bea(-h,CA 92648-4908 1 Space 217 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 518"Ccmpatible vvfth Avery 0516018160 Elignelte de format 25 mm x 67 mm comp2tihle 8vec Avery°516018160 ATTACH MEN t), yz .z� Itern 8. a Page 390 -1072- Recef vau (Ta-tE))AAR 2 2ola �7;29 09t8/t19GqO/UaAV erne alplterruaru unu Ly x urro 56 IMUJd1r a440iia11d fl9 t8l091�fuany rlit�n elq±tedwoa SIG Z x.,t 92t5 ia9Ei , t Daniel Rodriguez Rick Danell Sam Robinson Patricia Manrique-Rodriguez Martha Danell Rosemary Robinson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 219 Space 220 Space 221 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Charlie Brown Harold Lyons • Delia Sutherland Cynthia Brown 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 224 Space 225 Space 223 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dave Schoenherz Melvin Lewis Richard Reed Christy Schoenherz Patricia Lewis Lynn Reed 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 226 Space 227 Space 228 .Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Alice Butler Vince Bove Joe Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Esta Bove 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 229 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 231 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 230 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Sharon Robison Aibertina Wlessmer Bob Kraehling 207DI Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Sherry Kraehling Space 232 Space 233 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4903 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 234 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Doffs Coppola Warren Zarnott Jackie Visco-Gray Edward Baur Anne Coulter 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 237 Space 235 Space 236 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-49o8 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648--4908 John Davis John Berens Jack Williams Diane Davis Darleen Berens Claudia Williams 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 238 Space 239 Space 240 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Diane Alden Vicki Flood Alan Riley 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 241 Space 242 Space 243 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Richard Gillespie Gary?nreron Ronald Rennegarbe 20701 Beach Boulevard Linda Barnard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 244 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 246 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 245 Huntington Beach,CA 92MA909 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Jim Jordan Marie Burns Glenn Smith Flora Jordan 20701 Beach Boulevard Joyce Smith 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 248 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 247 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 249 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 518"compatible with Avery°5108160. 1=tiquette de format 25 mm x 67 rnm compatible avec Avery(�5108160 ATTA C H M ENil T 7- . 3v -1073- (tern 8. - Page 391 R---9 <f <TUE>MAR 2 2010 17:3D 09181U%%"-1AV lane alq}euwuv ww jy x gum yb;ruuvt oP v}}attut+j 09t8109k!3ADfJDAV flit*algli2dW0:),, f5 e x rtt azl5lagel Shirley Lewis John Mulloy Albert Teqenian 20701 Beach Boulevard Sandi Mulloy 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 250 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 252 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 251 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bob Gardner Jack Morrey Crystal Rogers Doris Gardner Maureen Morrey 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 255 Space 253 Space 254 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dick Haney Don Luckham Paul Cannon Betty Haney Lori Luckham Doris Cannon 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 256 Space 257 Space 268 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Ronald McKennell Bill Hall Frank Razanskas Janet McKennell Leva Hall Lisa Razanskas 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 259 Space 260 Space 261 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Judy Adams Paul Lee Joan Walker 20701 Beach Boulevard Soon Park 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 262 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 264 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 263 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Bob Gardner Beverly Richardson Dick Porch Janice Gardner 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 266 Space 267 Space 265 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Dottie Hamilton Chuck Calderone Bob Palmer 20701 Beach Boulevard Mary Calderone Margie Palmer Space 268 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 269 Space 270 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Shirley J.Myers Antonia(Toni)Reed Staff Fieldhouse Deborah G.Douglass 20701 Beach Boulevard Jig Fieldhouse 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 272 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 271 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 273 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Carol Cosione Terry Van Orden Patsy Davison 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 274 Space 275 Space 276 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92548-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264H-4908 Mel Knutson Karen McGrew Frances Stockton Suzanne Knutson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 278 Space 279 Space 277 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1°x 2 518"compatible with Avery°5160/8160 3 • Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery c'516018160 Item 80 - Page 392 -1074- Racer-d LTUE�MAR 2 20lO 17:30 Uyt8/t19t5®runny ►ane digt;euwvu LULU LUX ww 96 4utwul by 04401 v?1J ; 0918/09t5®�an�y��aiq�tedwoo g815 Z x„t azrs lager - ` Emil Rasmussen Dale Athey Mike Lytle Mary Rasmussen Sandra Athey Lee Lytle 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 280 Space 281 Space 282 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beads,CA 92648.4%8 Majel Miller Gene Moore Mary Jo Casino 20701 Beach Boulevard Stefanie Moore 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 283 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 285 - - Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 284 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Gladi Halpern Richard Lippard Myrrha Eberly 20701 Beach Boulevard Judith Lippard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 286 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 288 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 287 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Flo Bradley Madeline-Seymour Helga Lothert 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 289 Space 290 Space 291 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Curtis Turrill George Riley Frank Krafka. Susan Turrill Sandra Gargano Joanne Thomas . 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 292 Space 293 • Space 294 Huntington Beach,CA 926484%8 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Robin Bowers Larry Haines Jerry Daquila 20701 Beach Boulevard Pamela Hanes Linda Daquila Space 295 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 296 Space 297 - Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 William Faber Michael Ritter Arnold Garfield Norma Faber Linda Ritter 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beads Boulevard Space 30D Space 298 Space 299 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Delores O'Neil Adda Bonilias Lorraine Runnels 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 301 Space 302 Space 3D3 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Junice Kallister Monique Maloney Patricia(Pat)Stephenson 20701 Beach Boulevard Hien Nguyen 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 304 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 3D6 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Space 305 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Judith Johnson Kathy Hanson 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 307 Space 308 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntingtor,Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 65160/8160 Etiquetle de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible aver Avery 05160/8160 ATTACH NALIff -1075- Item 8® - Page 393 Item 8. - Page 394 -1076- PC Minutes LRAFT March 9,2010 Page 11 B-2, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION) Applicant: Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren Appellant: Boyd Hill, Hart, King & Coldren Request: To subdivide the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobjle Home Park, approximately 39.2 acres, into 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park for ownership purposes. 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: Ethan Edwards STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to A. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." B. "Deny the appeal of the Code Requirements." The Commission made the following disclosures: • Commissioner Mantini has visited the site, attended the study session, attended the public hearing, spoken to staff, spoken to the residents, spoken to the applicant, and discussed the project with Councilman Dwyer. • Commissioner Scandura has visited the site, spoken to the residents, attended the Subdivision Committee meeting, spoken to staff, attended the study session and attended the public hearing. • Vice Chair Speaker has visited the site, attended the study session, spoken to staff and attended the Subdivision Committee meeting. • Chair Farley has attended the study session, attended the Subdivision Committee meeting, attended the public hearing, visited the site and spoken to the residents. • Commissioner Shier Burnett has visited the site, spoken to the residents, attended the Subdivision Committee meeting and attended the study session. • Commissioner Delgleize has visited the site, spoken to staff and attended the study session. • Commissioner Livengood has visited the site, met with staff, attended two study sessions and attended the public hearing. • Commissioner Shier Burnett. Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner, gave the staff presentation and an overview of the project. Commissioner Mantini asked staff about requirements for public access on Beach Blvd. City Engineer Tony Olmos noted that this would be processed through CalTrans, via an encroachment permit. Commissioner Scandura asked what authority the city has regarding the infrastructure implementation. Deputy City Attorney Ili Mike Vigliotta said that the city's authority is derived from the Subdivision Map Act, the Health and Safety 10p=0309 -1077- Item S. - Page 395 PC Minutes A F 'r March 9,2010 Page 12 code and city code requirements. Mr. Scandura asked if the city can require these modifications without an application to act on and Mr. Vigliotta said no. Mr. Olmos noted that the city would not take action on these items without the subdivision application. Herb Fauland, Planning Manager, noted that there are several Late Communications for this item, including a letter from the applicant and letters from residents. Commissioner Livengood asked about the status of the on-site oil well. Fire Division Chief Bill Reardon noted that the well was drilled in 1953 and capped in 1958. He said that if there is no evasive grading at the well, then it should not be a cause for concern. Commissioner Livengood asked for the cost of improvements, both on and off- site. Mr. Olmos said the on-site improvements would cost approximately $609,000 and full improvements to Beach Blvd. would cost approximately $1.7 million. Commissioner Scandura noted that the applicant has proposed to help pay towards the on-site improvements, but not the full amount. Mr. Olmos confirmed this. Mr. Scandura asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to agree to funding amounts. Mr. Olmos noted that the drainage fee is standard. He recommended putting the applicant's funds into an account and paying for the improvements in their order of priority. Mr. Olmos also noted that changing funding amounts would mean revising existing city code. Chair Farley spoke regarding a Late Communication email received on March 5, 2010. He asked for an analysis of the current average rental rate for the lots, and Mr. Edwards said that staff does not have those figures. Mr. Farley noted that no matter what the existing rents are, they would still jump to $1,650 if the subdivision is approved. Mr. Edwards confirmed this. Mr. Fauland stated that the applicant had requested thirty minutes to speak and noted that four members of the applicants team had submitted public speaker requests. Chair Farley stated that the Commission would allow for 15 minutes of speaking time and that if additional time was needed, the commission would vote on that. Mr. Hess asked if the applicant was asking for 30 minutes for each team member and noted that each team member would be entitled to four minutes each. Mr. Coldren stated that he was requesting 30 minutes total. Chair Farley stated that each team member would be given four minutes to speak for a total of. 16 minutes. Mr. Coldren asked for additional time as the applicant and stated that the members of his team would be speaking separately as public speakers. Chair Farley stated that Mr. Coldren would be allowed 15 minutes and his team members would be allowed four minutes each. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Robert Coldren, applicant, spoke in favor of Item No. B-2. He said that the proposed subdivision is not about changing the grading, but an opportunity for current renters to purchase their lots. He also said that statewide rent control would be enforced. He said that he feels the conditions of approval are not lawful. 10p=0309 (teen 60 - Page 396 -1078- PC Minutes March 9,2010 Page 13 F- Jonn Saunders, applicant/property owner, spoke in favor of Item No. B-2. He said that lot rents go up when leases expire and are currently averaging $1300- $1400 a month. He said he sees no downside to the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Scandura discussed rent increases resulting from leases expiring. He noted that if this project is approved, it won't be effective until the subdivision is recorded. He asked Mr. Saunders if he would raise the rents. Mr. Saunders said that the rents go up when the leases expire, regardless. Mr. Scandura asked if the rents would have a yearly increase and noted that rent control lasts four years. Mr. Saunders said that the rent control four year term applies to non- low income housing. Commissioner Delgleize discussed the possibility of no rent increases. Mr. Saunders said that rent increases have built-in policies to help renters subsidize, forgive or defer unpaid increases. Ms. Delgleize asked who would respond to renters' issues and Mr. Saunders noted that it would be his staff. Boyd Hill, of Hart, King & Coldren, spoke in favor of Item No. B-2. He said that under state law, the code requirements have been preempted. He said that the site has no Beach Boulevard frontage, only a wall. He stated that independent of the Subdivision Map Act the city does not have the authority to enforce these changes and that the authority lies with the Department of Real Estate. He urged the Planning Commission to view this project from a liability perspective. Chair Farley asked if the results of the tenant survey would have an impact in preventing the proposed subdivision and if this was case law. Mr. Hill stated that it is part of legislative history of the tenant survey requirements. Mindy Criswell, with four minutes donated by Mary Vaughn, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. She cited concerns with financial burdens for the residents, as well as mold. She asked that the project be denied or postponed until the current lawsuits are settled. Donald Prince, resident, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. He cited concerns with flooding and provided the Planning Commission with pictures of the site. William Seymour, resident, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. He cited concerns with flooding, sewer problems and other repair issues. He said that he disagrees with the proposed Beach Blvd. improvements and fears the cost for those will be passed onto the residents. Sharon Dana, resident, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. She said she has concerns that the costs for the on-site and off-site improvements will be passed onto the residents. She also said that the map is inaccurate as the oil well is not identified. Commissioner Shier Burnett briefly discussed Section 8 assistance eligibility for Huntington Shorecliffs residents. Philip Anshutz, Saunders Property Company, spoke in favor of Item No. B-2 and encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the subdivision. 10p=0309 -1079- Item 8. - Page 397 PC Minutes �. , A F T March 9,2010w,, Page 14 Steve Gullage, president of the Huntington Beach Mobilehome Owners Association, spoke regarding Item No. B-2. He said that he was reluctant to speak either for or against the proposed project, but that he does have concerns with rent increases, lot deterioration and mildew. Mary Jo Baretich, Cabrillo Mobilehome Park, asked the Planning Commission to deny Item No. B-2. She says that the applicant is not in compliance with city codes and fears economic displacement of the senior residents. Scott Steeper, president of the Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowners Association, spoke regarding Item No. B-2. He noted that he is in support of subdivision, as he wants to purchase his lot. He noted that many current residents may be unable to purchase their units, as it can be difficult for a senior citizen to secure a 30-year mortgage. He said that he hopes the property owner will work with the residents to come to an agreement and that litigation won't benefit either side. Sue Sanders, resident, spoke regarding Item No. B-2. She said that she is considering purchasing her lot and would like that option to remain open to her. Jonn Saunders, applicant/property owner, spoke in favor of Item No. B-2. He noted that the city's pipe gushes water into the Mobilehome park and he would like the city to fix this. He also cited issues with a CalTrans drain on Beach Blvd. He said that the park has only one sewer problem and that there are no problems with the capped oil well. He also said that he would make every effort to accommodate those homeowners/renters who qualify for assistance under Section 8. Commissioner Shier Burnett asked Mr. Saunders if rents would increase if the subdivision were to be approved, and Mr. Saunders said yes. She also asked about the residents' complaints of flooding. Mr. Saunders said that they try and address these issues and fix them. He said that the biggest flooding problems at the site result from the city's pipe and the CalTrans drain. Ms. Shier Burnett asked if he has addressed residents' complaints of sinking or tilting lots. Mr. Saunders said that he has not received complaints from his tenants regarding those issues. Commissioner Delgleize noted that making improvements would benefit both the property owner and the tenants and address health and safety issues. Mr. Saunders said that he feels the main cause of the flooding is the city's pipe and the CalTrans drain. Commissioner Livengood asked Mr. Saunders if he determined which residents were eligible for Section 8 assistance, and Mr. Saunders said yes. Barbara Hamm, resident, spoke against Item No. B-2. She said that since she has lived at Huntington Shorecliffs, her rent has almost doubled. She cited concerns with the oil well and the lack of proper drainage at the site. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Livengood said that he has concerns with the possibility of residents' economic displacement, as Section 8 housing assistance was 10p=0309 Item 8. - Page 398 -1080- PC Minutes March 9,2010 DRAF] Page 15 terminated. Mr. Vigliotta said that it is not the Planning Commission's purview to consider economic displacement when making their decision. Mr. Livengood also noted that the proposed improvements to Beach Blvd. would cost approximately$7,000 per lot and the proposed improvements to Huntington Shorecliffs would cost approximately$2,000 per lot. He also said that he has concerns with flooding and health issues. He stated that he feels that these improvements are the park owner's responsibility and should not impact the residents financially. Chair Farley noted that the total proposed improvements, both on Beach Blvd. and within the park, would cost approximately$2.3 million. He noted that this would be an approximate $7,565 cost per lot. Commissioner Scandura noted that he has concerns with the way the proposed lots are labeled. Mr. Edwards noted the Tentative Tract Map process allows for some revisions and errors, such as the omission of the oil well. He also said that these will be corrected prior to the issuance of a Final Tract Map. Commissioner Scandura noted that with beach frontage properties, there are fees to pay for frontage improvements. He said that he feels the fees would be unreasonable for the residents and asked if the fees could be levied on the park owner. Mr. Olmos noted that the park owner could enter into a deferred payment agreement, enabling the fees to be paid over a period of years. Mr. Scandura said that he has concerns with rent increases and the infrastructure of the park. He noted that if the Planning Commission does not approve the subdivision, the rents will increase. He said that if the Planning Commission approves the subdivision, rents will increase, but at a controlled rate. He also noted that the city cannot mandate that the park owner make the infrastructure improvements unless the subdivision is approved. He also recommended that if the applicant chooses to pay for infrastructure improvements (outside of a fee), then the decision to approve such a payment should be the City Council's purview. Commissioner Shier Burnett recommended discussing the tenant surveys. Mr. Vigliotta noted that the law is unsettled. He said the statute reads that tenant surveys regarding the subdivision are to be considered, but the court cannot deny approval due to the survey results. He said that the Planning Commission should consider evidence in addition to the residents' survey results. Commissioner Shier Burnett said that she has concerns with the recommended improvements to Beach Blvd. She said that funding these improvements should be the responsibility of the park owner, not the residents. She recommended removing the Beach Blvd. improvements from the conditions of approval. Commissioner Farley said that he would support the conversion if the residents did, and it is clear that the residents do not. Commissioner Livengood directed the Planning Commission's attention to Public Works Code Requirement attachment 10.5, item#9, regarding the drainage fee. He recommended that instead of a fee, this condition be changed to requiring the park owner to make the recommended improvements to the site. I Op=0309 -1081- Item 8. - Page 399 PC Minutes , March 9, 2010 . Page 16 Commissioner Speaker referenced the applicant's letter to Director of Planning& Building Scott Hess dated March 9, 2010. He noted that the rents are proposed to be $1,650 in the first year, $1,750 in the second year and$1,850 in the third year. He cited concerns with these rent increases and said that he agrees that the drainage needs to be fixed. Mr. Vigliotta noted that the Planning Commission cannot control the rents. Commissioner Livengood noted that if the subdivision is approved, then Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome park will have the second highest rental rates for mobilehome parks in the city. He noted that he was prepared to make a motion. Mr. Olmos discussed Code Requirement attachment 10.5, item#9, regarding the drainage fee. He noted that the language is already written into this condition that the property owner may make the required park improvements in-lieu of paying the drainage fee. Mr. Hess noted that staff wants to encourage the property owner to make the improvements. Mr. Hess directed the Planning Commission's attention to condition of approval#2a (attachment 1.3) regarding the onsite storm drain. Commissioner Livengood noted that the park owners may pass the fee onto the homeowners and renters and that the Planning Commission cannot control that. He recommended strengthening the wording on Public Works Code Requirement item#9. Mr. Olmos noted that if the property owner constructs the storm drain, then no fee will be required. Chair Farley said that the best way to protect the homeowners and tenants is to respect their vote. Commissioner Scandura noted that the law doesn't say that the residents have veto power. He noted that staff is recommending modifying condition of approval #2a to read that a onsite storm drain shall be designed and constructed prior to the issuance of a Final Tract Map. Mr. Olmos confirmed that the property owner can either pay the fee or construct the storm drain. Commission Delgleize asked staff the approximate cost of the storm drain. Mr. Olmos said it would be $572,000, based on a fee-per-acre engineer's estimate. He also noted that the estimate was five years old. Mr. Hess recommended deleting Code Requirement attachment 10.5, item#9. Mr. Speaker spoke regarding fees collected from property owners/applicants for conditioned improvements. He said if the fees are sufficient to cover the cost of the improvements, then the city makes those improvements and if the fees are insufficient, then the city, doesn't make those improvements. He also noted if the fees collected are more than what the improvements cost, the property owner/applicant receives a refund. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mantini, Scandura, Speaker, Shier Burnett, Delgleize, Livengood NOES: Farley 1 OPCM0309 Item S® - Page 400 -1082- PC Minutes R A F T March 9,2010 Page 17 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY SHIER BURNETT, TO DENY THE APPEAL OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mantini, Scandura, Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett, Delgleize, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: 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. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a mobilehome park where residents can purchase the land where the mobilehome is located is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density — Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. A. Growth Management Element Objective GM 7.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). B. Utilities Element Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to project life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch I Opcm0309 -1083- Item 8. - Page 401 PC Minutes Li '- March 9,2010 Page 18 diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). C. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specked in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Objective LU 15.6: Facilitate the preservation and development of Residential Mobile Home Parks. The City's Master Plan of Drainage recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground pipeline to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline will convey storm water underground to provide relief of the drainage issues. The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non-conforming. The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development; therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent mobilehome park to ownership facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The proposed subdivision converts an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a 304 space ownership mobilehome park at a density of 8.2 units per net acres and is physically suitable for the site. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as the subdivision will provide for the replacement of existing inadequate drainage facilities to address health and safety issues per Subdivision Map Act 66428.1(d). 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. 5. Pursuant to California Government Code 66427.5, the applicant filed an Impact Report dated December 15, 2009 which analyzed the impact of the conversion on residents. In addition, the applicant obtained a Resident Survey of Support which was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and the resident that is independent of the applicant. The Impact Report was provided to each resident of the mobilehome park 10p=0309 Item 8. a Page 402 -1084- mRAFTPC Minutes March 9,2010 Page 19 at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map. The results of the survey were presented to the City on March 9, 2010. The survey was considered and it was found that 105 residents opposed the conversion, 25 approved, 52 declined to comment and 124 missing. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing 304 space mobilehome park received and dated January 12, 2010 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required(PW): a. An onsite storm drain shall be designed and constructed 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. 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. (ZSO 255.04A) (PW) b. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. (PW) 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§ 66427.5) (PL) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following (PL): 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation) 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§ 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation), except that in no 10p=0309 -1085- Item So - Page 403 " RAFTPC Minutes March 9,2010 Page 20 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§ 66427.5) 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required: a. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan(PW): 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)) ii) An ADA compliant access ramp shall 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)) iii) 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)) iv) 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)) v) 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)) vi) 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)) b. 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. (PW) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. I Op=0309 Item 8. - Page 404 -1086- -1087- Item B. - Page 405 fILE HART, KING & C©LDREN Boyd L.Hill bhill@hkclaw.com February 19, 2010 _ Our File Number: 36014.11214848-8137-8053v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission 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 Project Implementation Code Requirements and Suggested Conditions Dear Commissioners: This letter constitutes and sets forth the basis for the appeal by the Park Owners' of the February 9, 2010 purported "Planning Director decision" applying project implementation code requirements for the Park subdivision. 2 A copy of the purported "Planning Director decision" letter is enclosed herewith. The purported "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 checklist 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 February 9, 2010 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 a February 9, 2010 letter from the Planning Department. A copy of the "Suggested Conditions of Approval" letter is also enclosed herewit. 1 Shorecliff LP,JS Stadium,LLC,Huntington BSC Park,LP, Shorecliff Main,LP 2 Attached to this letter is a$494 check,which duplicates the amount the Park owners previously submitted for a determination of similar code requirements,which the Planning Commission previously refused to consider. Therefore,Park Owners request that this second 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.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 Item 8. - Page 406 -1088- HART, KING & COLDREN _Boyd L..:Hill bhill@hkciaw.com February 19, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission 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 Horne Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Appeal of Project Implementation Code Requirements and Suggested Conditions Dear Commissioners: This letter constitutes and sets forth the basis for the appeal by the Park Owners' of the February 9, 2010 purported "Planning Director decision" applying project implementation code requirements for the Park subdivision. 2 A copy of the purported "Planning Director decision" letter is enclosed herewith. The purported "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 checklist 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 February 9, 2010 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 a February 9, 2010 letter from the Planning Department. A copy of the "Suggested Conditions of Approval" letter is also enclosed herewit. ' Shorecliff LP,JS Stadium,LLC,Huntington BSC Park, LP, Shorecliff Main,LP 2 Attached to this letter is a$494 check,which duplicates the amount the Park owners previously submitted for a determination of similar code requirements,which the Planning Commission previously refused to consider. Therefore, Park Owners request that this second 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.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 -1089- Item 8, - Page 407 HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 2 We respectfully request that the Planning Director 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) 176 Cal.AppAth 1270, a copy of which is enclosed herewith. In Sequoia Park Associates, the California Court of Appeal held that State law pertaining to mobilehome parks, particularly the Subdivision Map Act (Govt. Code, § 66427.5 (e)) and the Mobilehome Parks Act (Health & Safety Code, § 18200 of seq.), 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. [underline added] 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 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1297) 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: 36014.11214848-8137-8053v.1 Item 8. - Page 408 -1090- K. HART, KfN S & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 3 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1299) 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1288- 1292) 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. State Mobilehorne 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1299) 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 -1091- Item 8® a Page 409 HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 4 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1275) 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1279) 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) 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) "I[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 36614.11214848-8137-8453v.1 Item 8. a Page 410 -1092- H K I:&`It C HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 5 within the parks." (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1493) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1282) 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 Jmprovise 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.) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1292-1293) 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 been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1295) 36014.11214848-8137-8053v-1 -1093- Item 8e - Page 411 HART, KING il. CQLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 6 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1298) 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, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1299-1300) 36014.11214848-8137-8053v.1 Item 8. - Page 412 -1094- HART, KING & C©LDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 7 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 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 some substantive content .... [¶] ... [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. ... 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, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1294-1296) Conversion Impact Reports are Necessarily Limited in Scope The conversion impact report need only discuss the impacts of conversion on those residents who will continue leasing their spaces. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5) 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 36014.1 1 214 84 8-81 37-8 0 5 3v.1 -1095- Item 8. - Page 413 HART, KING & CQLOREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 8 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: 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.AppAth 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 February 9, 2010 conditions letter from the Planning Department and 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 Item 6e a Page 414 -1096- Ar 11 K! HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 9 object to and appeal (as may be necessary) the Planning Director decision to impose all of the municipal code requirements set forth in the February 9, 2010 code requirements 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 February 9, 2010 code requirements letter. The Park Owners appeal the imposition of all other municipal code requirements, as set forth in the February 9, 2010 letter. The Park Owners also reject and object to the Planning Department and Public Works Department conditions of their 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. The Park Owners look forward to moving ahead expeditiously with conversion of the Park. Best Regards, HART, KING & COLPR N Boyd ill BLH/dr Enclosure: Check No. 3085 for$494 February 9, 2010 Conditions Letter February 9, 2010 Code Requirements Letter Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma case cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner (by e-mail only) 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 -1097- Stern 80 - Page 415 .4 HART, KING & COLDREN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach February 19, 2010 Page 10 bcc John Saunders (by e-mail only) Michael Cirillo (by e-mail only) Burt Mazelow (by e-mail only) 36014.11214848-8137-8053v.1 Item 8. - Page 416 _1098- 000 City Of HiL.Aingt®n Beach Hunt Main ingtonBe BeStreet Huntach,CA 92648 714-536-5200 Receipt February 19,2010 Huntington Shorecliffs Receipt Number 172009 Cashier 1400 E.4th St Batch# 20100219100PC2244 SANTA ANA CA 92701 Dept.of Issuance Planning Department Amount Paid $494.00 Permit/License# 20100023 Payment Method Check Amount Outstanding $0.00 Fee Amount Paid Appeal Director Decision(PC-Pub Hear) $475.00 Automation Fee $19.00 -1099- Item 8. - Page 417 City ®f Huntington Beach • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) 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 requirements, 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 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 248.24A, 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 714-536-5561 or at ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, Ethan Edwards Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,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 Fauland,Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorecliff,LP,c/o Mike Cirillo,Star Management, 1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org Item 8. - Page 418 -1100- JJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING and BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUNTINCTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-55611 ethan.edwards@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 January 22, 2010. 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. e1101_ Item 8. - Page 419 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 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 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. Keen 8. - Page 420 -1102- HUNTINGTON PEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HVWINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 1 ETHAN.EDWARDS(a-)-SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692 I SBOGART@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 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 fist 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_ (ZSO 255.12) 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 -1103- Item 8. a Page 421 0 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 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. f. 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 o Drawing Interchange file: DXF ii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: m 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 253A2K) G:T:dzvards\Plan:zing Commission\Shorecliffs113each 20701 TfM 17296(PA 2010-023)�v Rcq 2-2-10.doc Item 8. - Page 422 -1104- Page 3 of 4 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' 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&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) 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 (I T-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 Arbonst 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$13,880 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$572,175, 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$572,175, 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 232.088 and C) &EdwardsTtanning Comm ission\Shoreciiffs\13each 20701 T-1'M 17296(11A 2010-023)Dcv Rect 2-2-10.doo -1105- Stem 8. a Page 423 Page 4 of 4 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 232.44D) 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 Fife 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- 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, Strom Drain and Landscape Plans. 0:1EdwardsTlanning Commission\Shorecliffs\$each 20701"ITM 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev 12eq 2-2-1 O.doc Item 60 - Page 424 -1106- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT Fe PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS. PLANNING APPLICATION NO,2010-023:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2010-005(17296) PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD., HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714.536.55611 ethan.edwards@surfcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE' DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE-MAIL: 714.536.5531 /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 January 22, 2010. 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 - 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/mpRe sq html }. c. Per Title 25 CCR§1308, if 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 legally existed prior to September 26,2002 or if the fire 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 Tittle 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 NFPA24, 1977 1 ATTACHMENT NO. -1107- item 8. - Page 425 Edition, shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department by a licensed C-16 contractor or licensed Fire Protection Engineer. c. Fire Lanes shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings 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 parks 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 (1-112") brush stroke- i. An inspection is required to confirm the parks 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. 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 Clear-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) 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. Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 5th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.huntingtonbeachca.gov If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at 714.536,5411 S:1Preventionll-Developmenni-Planning Department-Planning Applications,CUP's12010 CUP'slShorecliff Mobile Rome CUP letter PA#2010-023 02-09-10 OM 09-04-09_rtf 2 ATTACHMENT NO. Item 6e - Page 426 -1106- ./.� City ®f Huntington Beach .::...............:........ _ _ ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 PL.AtNNIN DEPARTMENT F E O G February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION)— SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Dear Mr. Hill, Please find enclosed suggested conditions of approval for the aforementioned project, received from Public Works and Planning Department for the consideration by the Planning Commission. If you would like a clarification of any of these items or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-536-5561 and/or the Public Works Department representative— Steve Bogart (714-374-1692). 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. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change. Sincerely, Ethan Edwar s Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta,Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Shorecliff,LP,Go Mike Ciriilo,Star Management,1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Y Fax 714-374-1540 www,surfcity-hb.org -1109- Item S. - Page 427 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/ethan.edwards@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 suggested conditions of approval deemed applicable to the proposed project - based on plans received and dated January 22, 2010. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will 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. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to reidentify 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. Item 8. - Page 428 -1110- Page 2 of 2 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) -1111- item 8. a Page 429 �J HUNTINGTON BEACH HPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 I ETHAN.EDWARDS@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART,SENIOR CIVIL, ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 71 4-374-1 692 1 SBOGART(a-SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. 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. 3. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PR10R TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1. Encroachment permits for work within the Caitrans' 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, G:tEdwardsiPIanningCommissioniShorecliffskBeach 20701 iTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Canditians 2-2-10.doc Item 8e - Page 430 -1112- Page 2 of 3 environmental review and other permission granted by Caltrans 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. The required Improvement Plan for the subject project 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) c. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04,ADA and SMA 66428.1(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) 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 66428.1(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)) h. 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 66428A(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. 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)) 2 GAEdwardsTlanning ConunissionlShvrecliffslBeach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-1O.doc -1113- Item g. - Page 431 I. 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) 4. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architect/inspector. 3 GAEdwardsTlanning Comm ission\Shoreclifb\Beach 2070f TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc Item B. ® Page 432 -1114- ::... . it ® Huntington each ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING February 9, 2010 Boyd Hill Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) — SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Dear Mr. Hill, Please find enclosed suggested conditions of approval for the aforementioned project, received from Public Works and Planning Department for the consideration by the Planning Commission. If you would like a clarification of any of these items or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-536-5561 and/or the Public Works Department representative— Steve Bogart (714-374-1692). 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. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change,the list may also change. Sincerely, Ethan Edwar s Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Mike Vigliotta, Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Shorecliff,1_P,clo Mike Cirillo,Star Management,1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfclty-hb,org -1115- Item 8. - Page 433 J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: February 8, 2010 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: Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-5561/ethan.edwards@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 suggested conditions of approval deemed applicable to the proposed project - based on plans received and dated January 22, 2010. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will 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. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department of 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. Items 8. m Page 434 -1116- i Page 2 of 2 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) -1117- Item B. - Page 435 .J HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON REACH SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PILING APPLICATION NO. 2010-0023 DATE OF PLANS: JANUARY 12, 2010 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER ETHAN EDWARDS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEJE-MAIL: 714-536-5561 /ETHAN.EDWARDS@-SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGARI@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. 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. 3. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FILIAL 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, Ci:tEdwardslP)annino Commission\ShorecfifPslL3each 20701"I-TM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.d0c Item 8. - Page 436 _1118- Page 2 of 3 environmental review and other permission granted by Caltrans 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. The required improvement Plan for the subject project 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. This required sidewalk shall be constructed to accommodate or modify the adjacent earthen storm drain channel to convey the 100-year flood and supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, compliant with County of Orange and City design criteria shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) c. ADA compliant access ramps shall be installed on the Beach Boulevard frontage (where the new sidewalk will intersect with the existing driveway entrance to the park) per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A. (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(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) 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 66428.1(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)) h. 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)) 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. 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)) 2 G:TowardstPlaaningCommissiornAShorecliffs\Beach2070t TTM I7296(PA 2010-023)Cojiditms2-2-fO.doc -1119- Item tie - Page 437 I. 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) 4. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed, inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architect/Inspector. 3 0-.WlFvards\Planning Commission\ShoreciiifslBeacli 20701 TT1vl 1729b(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc Item 8. - Page 438 -1120- Get a Document -by Parry Name - sequoia park associates Page 1 of 19 Swirch Client l Preferences Sion Out E Help Search: ,Research Tasks= Get a Document;s5hepard's"' Alerts" Total Litigator Transactional Advisor Counsel Selector` Dossier;tlison I FOCUSTM Terms Search Within:original Results(1-3) „, Advanced... Source: Legal>!.../>CA State Cases,Combined„€ Terms: name(sequoia park associates) Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Searchl SSelect for FOCUSTM or Delivery 176 Cal,App. 4th 1270, *; 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669, **; 2009 Cal,App. LEXIS 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 176 Cal. App.4th 1270; 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669; 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397 August 21, 2009, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Later proceeding at Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 11292 (Cal., Oct. 20, 2009) Review denied by, Request denied by Sequoia Park Assocs. v. County of Sonoma, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 12846 (Cal., Dec. 2, 2009 PRIOR HISTORY: [***I] Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. SCV240003, Raymond J. Giordano,Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, £ 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� 66427.5 in accordance with the constitutional principle of preemption set forth in Cal. Const., art. XI, 5 7. The ordinance was expressly preempted because§ 66427.5,subd. (e), limited the scope of a hearing for approval of a conversion application to the issue of compliance with h 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 mobilehomes 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,general law, mobile home parks, map, preempted, local ordinance, rental, tentative, locality, rent, space, local authority, parcel map, household, housing, manufactured,approve, local legislation, local government, fully occupied, indicia LEXISNEXIS® HEADNOTES H Hide Civil Procedure>Appeals>Standards of Review>P2 Novo Review� J 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 https://www.lexis.comi/research/retrieve?cc=&pt-1121-&tmpFBSel=all&tolaldocs=&1Item 8® - Page 439 Get a Document -by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 2 of 19 Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations t,"I #�y Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments HNz;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 .' H143ySee Cal. Const., art. XI, 5 7. Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations + Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments HNa+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 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. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations _tZ1 Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments Ns: Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances F�}I "Iv5.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 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 the locality. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulation*t!t Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments ' HN6;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 Ggvgrnmenss>Or &Regulations r Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments HN7tTo 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>Subdivisions H_+ HN8.y See Gov. Code, � 66427.5. Real Prooertv Law> Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions ! HNs+Under Gov. Code, 6 66427.5, subd. (e}, a city council only has the power to determine if a subdivider has Item B. - Page 440com/research/retrieve?cc=&pt-1122-&tmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document- by Party Name- sequoia park associates Page 3 of 19 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 q 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 Real Property Law>hlobilehomes&Mobile home Parks>Subdivisions HNID_+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. More Like This Headnote E Shei)ardize: Restrict By Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Duties&Powers ems? Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances�!+t Hral_+Regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. More Like This Headnote Governments>Legislation>Effect&Operation>Amendments Governments>Legislation>Interpretation f� 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 Wit- Real Property Law> Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions 4«s. Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances u� HN13A.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. More Like This Headnote HEADNOTES/ SYLLABUS =Hide 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, 15 66427.5.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. (Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. SCV240003, Raymond J. Giordano, Temporary Judge.') - Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21. The Court of Appeal reversed the order and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a new order declaring the ordinance invalid. The court held that the ordinance was preempted by q 66427.5 in accordance with the constitutional principle of preemption set forth in Cal. Const.,art. XI, 5 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 4 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. J., and Lambden,J., concurring.) [*12711 Mips://www,lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&p,-1123-&1mpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=& Item 8s - Page 441 Get a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 4 of 19 HEADNOTES CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES cA(x)*(1) Municipalities § 55—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Considering State and Local 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. cA(2)1(2) Municipalities § 55—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. CA(3)A(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 clearly [*1272] 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. CA(4)±(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 statute, it is clear that the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied by state law. cA(s)y(5) 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. "01)1(6) Mobiiehomes,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 [*1273] 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. cAt7)±(7) Mobilehomes,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 Item Be - Page 442com/research/retrieve?cc=&pt-1124-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document - by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 5 of 19 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(a)+(S)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)+(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 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, cA(10)1(10) Mobilehomes,Trailers, and Parks§3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned-- Local Regulation Preempted.—Gov. Code, ✓x 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. CA(11):+(11) Mobilehomes,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 [*1274] enacted an ordinance that imposed [*1275] 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_q 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 g 66427.5. [Cal. Real Estate Law&Practice (2009) ch. 472, &472.35; Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice (2009) ch. 126A, Constitutional Law, 6 126A.24.] COUNSEL: Bien &Summers, Elliot L. Bien - } and Catherine Meuiemans for Plaintiff and Appellant. The Loftin Firm, L. Sue Loftin -and Michael Stump.for Rancho Sonoma Partners, Eden Gardens, Sundance Estates and Capistrano Shores as Amid Curiae 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&Wynder, William W. Wynder:and Sunny K. Soltani for California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, City of Carson and the City of Los Angeles as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. JUDGES: Opinion by Richman .,J., with Haerle., Acting P. I.,and Lambden .,I.,concurring. OPINION BY: Richman . OPINION [**672] RICHMAN -,J.—One of the subjects covered by the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code. 5 66410 et seg.) 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 [***2] 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 the"scope of the hearing"for approval of the conversion application"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section." (I� subd. e .)We further conclude that [***3] 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 littps://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pi-1125-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&l Item 8e - Page 443 Get a Document-by Parry Name - sequoia park associates Page 6 of 19 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 [**673] 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 [*1276] 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 Community Development's] power in the area."This order is the subject of Sequoia's appeal. ' FOOTNOTES i 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 Franclsco (2007) 146 Cal App 4th 1090 1097-1098 r53 Cal Rptr, 3d 4021,"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 fallback 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.Agn.4th 744, 766, fn. 13 1120 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 HNsTour 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 Cos Angeles(2006) 136 Cal.Aop.4th 119, 132 [38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5751; Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon (2002) 97 Cal.Aop.4th 335, 339 [118 Cal. Rntr. 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 66427.5, 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 tells us that section 66427.5 must be considered in the context [***7] of the"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. [*1277] 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 [**674] grounds(e.g., Tobe v. City of Santa Ana (1995)9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 i40 Cal Rptr. 2d 402, 892 P 2d 11451 [vagueness]; Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660 679-680 [51 Cal Rgtr. 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. CA(l)7(l) But HN2Vfor 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 CAl217(2) In California, [***8] preemption of local legislation by state law is a constitutional principle. HN37"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 Itelltt'ti 60 - Page 444com/research/retrieve?ec=&pt-1126-ktmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document- by Party Name- sequoia park associates rF Page 7 of 19 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 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.] [*1278] CA(3)4(3)"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_ofSanta Cruz(2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1149-1150 [45 Cal. Rptr, 3d 21s 136 P.3d 8211, [***10] fn. omitted (Big Creek),) There are three"recognized indicia of intent":"'(i)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 [**675] 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 [citations]."(Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles(1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 898 f16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215, 844 P,2d 5341.) H1V11 CA(4).t,(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 [***li] 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 [63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 67, 162 P.3d 5831.) H'v7:,cA(s)7F:(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 [*1279] 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 Deukmeiian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal.3d 476,485 [2204 Cal. Rptr. 897, 683 P.2d 1150 ; [***12] accord,American Financial Services Assn, v. City of Oakland(2005) 34 CalAth 1239, 1252, 1261 f23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453, 104 P.3d 8131; Morehart v, County of Santa Barbara (1994)7 Cal.4th 725, 751 [29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804, 872 P.2d 1431_) 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 [209 Cal. Rptr. 682,693 P.2d 2611, quoting Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 CaL2d 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 CalAth 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows, Inc. v, County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 CalAth 853, 866 [118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 746, 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. [**676] Since 1979, the state has had the Mobilehome Residency Law, which comprises almost 100 statutes governing [***13] numerous aspects of the business of operating a mobilehome park. (Civ. Code, EiFi 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, q 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?ec=&pL-1127-4_tmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&t Item 8. - Page 445 Get a Document- by Party Name- sequoia park associates Page 8 of 19 "extensively regulate[] the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents."(Greening v. Johnson (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1226 1762 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2141, accord,SC Manufactured Homes,Inc. v. Canyon View Estates,Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 663, 673 1`56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791; People ex rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment Ltd. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 102, 109 1`3 Cal. Rptr.-3d 4291.) FOOTNOTES z 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(20071 40 Cal.4th 341, 350 [53 Cal, Rptr. 3d 43, 149 P.3d 4731, and decisions cited.) [*1280] Even earlier, in 1967, the state enacted the Mobilehome Parks Act(Health A 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 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, 5 18300,subd. (a).)The few exemptions from this prohibition are carefully delineated. 3 FOOTNOTES 3"This part shall not prevent local authorities of any city, county, or city and 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 adapting 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 pursuant 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 [***16] 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. (q).) [**677] Then there is the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 (Health &Saf. Code, q§ 18000-18153), which regulates the sale, licensing, registration, and titling of mobilehomes. The Legislature declared that the provisions of this measure "apply to all parts of the state and supersede"any conflicting local ordinance. (Health&Saf. Code§ 18015.)The Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD) is in charge of enforcement. (Health &Saf. Code, §§ 18020, 18022, 18058.) [*1281] 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, 1& 8253; see also Health &Saf. Code, 6§ 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"].) Item 8m a Page 446com/research/retrieve?cc=&pt-1128-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 9 of 19 J. At present,the HCD has promulgated hundreds of regulations that are collected in chapter 2 of division 1 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., qq 1130-1190),"Plumbing Requirements"(id., 1240-1284), "Fire Protection Standards"(id., §5 1300-1319),"Permanent Buildings and Commercial Modulars" [***18] (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, tr§ 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, S 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. (q),quoted at fn. 3, ante.) 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 HCD. (Cal. r*12821 Code Re-gs., tit. 25, §§ 1006.5, 1012.) [**678] It is the state that fixes the fees to be charged for these permits and certifications (Health&Saf. Code. §§ 18502, 18503; Cat. 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 Reas., tit. 25, §§ 1009, 1050, 1370, ). Sometimes, the state assumes exclusive responsibility for certain subjects,such as for earthquake-resistant bracing systems. (Cal. Code Regs.,tit. 25, § 1370.4. subd. (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 [***20] regulation to the specifically enumerated exceptions[in Health and Safety Code section 18300,subdivision (q), quoted at footnote 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 italics omitted.)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 park qualifies as"new construction."(Gov. Code, g65852.11, 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 straightforward 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 [***21] purchasing residents. In its entirety it provides as follows: HN87"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: [*1283] "(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. [**679] "(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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?ec=&pi-1129-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&1 Item 8. - Page 447 Get a Document -by Party Name,- sequoia park associates Page 10 of 19 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. [*1284] "(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, p. 3324.)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. [***241 256, § 5, p, 883.)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,Aoy,4th 1153 1118 Cal. Rotr. 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, sutra, 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 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 p. 1157.) The trial court denied the park owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. [**680] The owner appealed, contending [***25]"that its application for subdivision 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, [*12851 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."'(96 Cal.App,4th at p. 1158.) 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's 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 mobilehomes 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. (96 Cal.App.4th 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. Item go - Page 44gcom/research/retrieve?ec=&pr-113®-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldoes=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document- by Party Name,.- sequoia park associates Page 11 of 19 "(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." cn(6)T(6) But, and as particularly apt here,the court sustained the park owner's argument about section 66427.5, subdivision (d), concluding that HN9qunder 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, 1163-1164.)Although the court did 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 s'd ,did not allow such considerations [***28] to be taken into account: "[T]he City lacks [*1286] authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the tentative [**681] 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 (96 Cal,App.4th 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.) FOOTNOTES 6 Nevertheless, the El Dorado court did seem to indicate that there was an available remedy for Palm Springs's 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 [***29] 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 o. 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. (El Dorado, at pp. 1166, 1177-1179, citing Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park(1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1168 1`55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2821.) c M( F(7)One other point of El Dorado is significant. HN1O�FThe 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 (96 Cal.Anp.4th at pp. 1181-1182.)The court concluded: "The [***30] legislative intent to encourage [*1287] 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.) :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"resident 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 only occur 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 Cai.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 [**6821 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 https://wwwlexis.com/researcbJretrieve?cc=&pt-1131 3ztmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&1 Item 8® - Paige 449 (jet a Document- by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 12 of 19 in Section 66427.5 of the Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent nonbona 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 s 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 severabillty clauses, saving clause, 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 (89 Cal. Rotr. 2d 279,984 P.2d 4861.)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 [***33] 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 1`14 Cal. Rotr. 3d 1,90 P.3d 11681.) The Ordinance The 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(Pub. Resources Code, F4 21000 et seq.). 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. [*1288] 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 [***34] 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 [**683] 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 rSectionl 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 [***35] 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 [*1289] 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 apartment project, [***36] 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."' Item 8. - Page 450com/researeIVretrieve?cc=&pIL-1132-ktmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document - by Party Name,- sequoia park associates Page 13 of 19 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 IIIB 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 [***37] with an agreement between the subdivider and an independent resident homeowners association, if any, was obtained pursuant to a written ballet, 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 represent [**684] 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, [*1290] "ii) Identification of the anticipated method and timetable for compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 (a), 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 time table for determining the rents for non-purchasing residents pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)(1),and,to the extent available, identification of the number 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 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 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 [*1291] 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: https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pt-1133-ktmpFBSe1=a11&tota1docs=&i Item 8® - Page 451 Get a Document -by Party Name.- sequoia park associates Page 14 of 19 "a)A survey of resident support has been conducted and the results filed with [**685] 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 Chapter 26 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 [***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 with this Chapter shows that more than 50% of resident households support the conversion to resident ownership, the conversion shall be presumed to be a bona-fide resident conversion, [*1292] "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% but not more than 50%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 support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and with this Chapter shows that less than 20%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 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 of space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or [**686] 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 5 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 5 66427.5 (a)." The Ordinance Is Expressly Preempted by Section 66427.5 CA(3)V(S) It is a given that HN11'tregulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. (E.g., Big r*12931 Creek, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1151; IT Coro. v. Solano County Board of Supervisors(1991) 1 Cal.4th 81, 85, 95 99 F2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513, 820 P.2d 10231; City of Burbank v. Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Aiwort Authority(1999)_72 Cal App 4th 366 376 f85 Cal Rotr. 2d 281.) 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] (Griffin Development Co. v. City of Oxnard(1985) 39 Cal.3d 256, 262-266 [217 Cal. Rotr. 1 703 P.2d 3391; Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Board(1984) 35 Cal.3d 858, 868-869 T201 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, pp. 3323, 3324, 3325, adding §& 66427.5, 66428.1 &amending § 66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.)This was seven years Item 8. - Page 452com/research/retrieve?cc=&pt-1134-ktmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document-by Party Name- sequoia park associates __ Page 15 of 19 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,p. 6114, 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. [**687] The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section."(� 66427.5,subd. (e), italics added.)The [*1294] italicized language is, in its own way, comprehensive. But the contrasting constructions the parties give it could not be 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. (a).) 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 curiae 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 curiae 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"0 66427.5 subd. b ),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 curiae: "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 11 The County and supporting amici curiae 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 (175 Cal. Rptr. 336, 630 P.2d 521], 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 66427.4, 66427.5, and 66428.1. And if they are considered as a unit—which [*1295] 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, 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 1`253 Cal. Rptr. 1, 763 P.2d 8521; County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie (1942) 19 Cal.2d 634, 639 (122 P.2d 5261; In re Washer (1927) 200 Cal. 599, 606 r254 P. 9511.) It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning [**688] 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pt-1135-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&l helm 8m - Page 453 Get a Document- by Party Name- sequoia park associates Page 16 of 19 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. (§ 66427.4. 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. (Id subd. (0.) 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."(Id.,subd. ,{d.)•, italics added.) At the other end of the continuum is the situation covered by section 66428.1, subdivision (a), 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: [1] (1)There are design or improvement requirements necessitated by significant health or safety concerns. [¶] (2)The local agency determines that there is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new parcel or tentative and final map. [¶] (3)The existing parcels which exist prior to the proposed conversion [*12961 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 is what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power, but no more. [**689] 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) [***52] 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.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 "bona fide"conversions mentioned in the unmodified portion of the enactment that accompanied the amendment. ca(5)#(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.13 (El Dorado,supra,96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1163-1164, 1166, f*1297] 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: 11147'[W]hen the Legislature amends a statute without altering portions of the provision that [***531 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 Cal. Rptr. 614. 805 P.2d 8731, quoting Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 734 [180 Cal. Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 1151; accord, People v. Melonev(2003) 30 Cal.4th 1145, 1161 [135 Cal. Rotr, 2d 602, 70 P.3d 1023]; People v. Ledesma (1927), 16 Cal.4th 90, 100-101 [65 Cal. RDtr, 2d 610, 939 P.2d 13101.) 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.Any,4th 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 diapositive 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 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. Item 8. - Page 464com/research/retrieve?cc=&pL-1136-Y4tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document- by Party Names- sequoia park associates Page 17 of 19 cA(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 HN134subdivision (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. [**690] 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- 1068; 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. [*1298] 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. [***56] 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. M.)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."(q 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 [**691] exist if the ordinance duplicates ... general law... ."(Lancaster v. Municipal Court(1972) 6 Cal.3d 805, 807-808 1`100 Cal. Rptr. 609, 494 P.2d 6811, citations omitted; accord, 8qq 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 [*1299] 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 Section 66427.5(a)"and"a copy of the impact report required by Government Code Section 66427.5(b)." (Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(d),subd. (3), M.) 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 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 https://www.lexis.com/researchlretrieve?cc=&pt-1137-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&1Item 8e - Page 455 Get a Document- by Party Narn.e- sequoia park associates Page 18 of 19 [***60] days"from the issuance of the subdivision public report...pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 11018.2."(rd., § 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.Aa).4th 741, 751,fn. 5, 754-758 1`90 Cal. RDtr. 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" [*1300] according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually [**692] 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. FOOTNOTES :Ls 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),subd. (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 amici curiae,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, § 50780, subd. (a)(1), M.) 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 nonpurchasing 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. caf1-1lV(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 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 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 [***63] function of the Legislature, not a court."(State Building& Construction Trades Council of California v. Duncan (2008) 162 Cal.AD)-4th 289, 324 176 Cal. RDtr. 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. [*1301] 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 ,,I., concurred. Source: Le4at>t.../>CA State Cases,Combined 1i Terms: name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search I Sugqest Terms for My Search) View: Full Date/Time: Thursday,February 18,2010-5:18 PM EST *Signal Legend: Warning:Negative treatment is indicated - Questioned:Validity questioned by citing refs 4+ - Caution:Possible negative treatment 0.- Positive treatment is indicated 0- Citing Refs.With Analysis Available 0- Citation information available Item 6. - Page 456com/research/retrieve?cc=&pt-1138-&tmpFBSel=a11&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Get a Document- by Party Narr►.e - sequoia park associates r _ Page 19 of 19 "Click on any Shepard s signal to Shepardize®that case. Search I Research Tasks I Get a Document I SheAard I Alerts I Total Litigator I Transactional Advisor[Counsel Selector History I Delivery Manager I Dossier I switch Crent I Preferences I Sion Out I Help f � About LexisNexis I Terms&Conditions I Contact Us L Copyright Cc� 2010_t_exisNexis,a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?ec=&pi-1'139-&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&1Item Bo - Page 457 Item 8® - Page 458 -1 14®- 66427.5. Avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing tenants 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 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. -1141_ Item 8. a Page 459 66428.1. (a) 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: (1) There are design or improvement requirements necessitated by significant health or safety concerns. (2)The local agency determines that there is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new parcel or tentative and final map. (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. (b) The petition signed by owners of mobilehomes in a mobilehome park proposed for conversion to resident ownership pursuant to subdivision (a) shall read as follows: MOBILEHOME PARK PETITION AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT SIGNING THIS PETITION INDICATES YOUR SUPPORT FOR CONVERSION OF THIS MOBILEHOME PARK TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP. THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONCERNS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF , COUNTY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS THE TOTAL COST FOR CONVERSION AND PURCHASE OF THE PARK IS $ TO $ , EXCLUDING FINANCING COSTS. THE TOTAL COST TO YOU FOR CONVERSION AND PURCHASE OF YOUR OWNERSHIP INTEREST IS $ TO $ , EXCLUDING FINANCING COSTS. IF TWO-THIRDS OF THE RESIDENTS IN THIS PARK SIGN THIS PETITION INDICATING THEIR INTENT TO PURCHASE THE MOBILEHOME PARK FOR PURPOSES OF CONVERTING IT TO RESIDENT OWNERSHIP, THEN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A NEW PARCEL, OR TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT MUST BE WAIVED, WITH CERTAIN VERY LIMITED EXCEPTIONS. WAIVING THESE PROVISIONS OF LAW ELIMINATES NUMEROUS PROTECTIONS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO YOU. Buyer, unit #, date Petitioner, date (c) The local agency shall provide an application for waiver pursuant to this section. After the waiver application is deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943, the local agency shall approve or deny the application within 54 days. The applicant shall have the right to appeal that decision to the governing body of the local agency. (d) If a tentative or parcel map is required, the local agency shall not impose any offsite design or improvement requirements unless these are necessary to mitigate an existing health or safety condition. No other dedications, improvements, or in-lieu fees shall be required by the local agency. In no case Item 60 - Page 460 -1142- shall the mitigation of a health or safety condition have the effect of reducing the number, or changing the location, of existing mobilehome spaces. (e) If the local agency imposes requirements on an applicant to mitigate a health or safety condition, the applicant and the local agency shall enter into an unsecured improvement agreement.The local agency shall not require bonds or other security devices pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 66499) for the performance of that agreement. The applicant shall have a period of one year from the date the agreement was executed to complete those improvements. (f) If the waiver application provided for in this section is denied by the local agency pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (a), the applicant may proceed to convert the mobilehome park to a tenant-owned, condominium ownership interest,but shall file a parcel map or a tentative and final map. The local agency may not require the applicant to file and record a tentative and final map unless the conversion creates five or more parcels shown on the map. The number of condominium units or interests created by the conversion shall not determine whether the filing of a parcel or a tentative and final map shall be required. (g)For the purposes of this section, the meaning of"resident ownership" shall be as defined in Section 50781 of the Health and Safety Code. -1143- Item B. a Page 461 Item 6e - Page 462 -1144- 0 Huntington Beach Planning Commission e 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION March 10, 2010 Robert Coldren Hart, King & Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION — FOR RENT TO OWNERSHIP & APPEAL OF CODE REQUIREMENTS) APPLICANT: Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren APPELLANT: Shorecliff LP; JS Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Robert Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 REQUEST: To subdivide the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, approximately 39.2 acres, into 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park for ownership purposes. 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; Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, c/o Mike Cirillo, Star Management, 1400 E. Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 LOCATION: 20701 Beach Boulevard, 92648 (west side of Beach Boulevard, south of Indianapolis Avenue) DATE OF ACTION: March 9, 2010 On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was conditionally approved. In addition, the appeal of the Planning and Building Department Director's decision of applicable Code Requirements was denied. Attached to this letter are the findings and conditions of approval. Please be advised that the Planning Commission reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for and there may be additional requirements prior to commencement of the project. It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the conditions of approval and address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 1 -1145-540 v item 8. - Page 463 Notice of Action:TTM No. 17296 March 9,2010 Page 2 Subdivision Ordinance in order to expedite the processing/completion of your total application. The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan, reflecting conformance to all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. 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 March 19, 2010 at 5:00 PM. The conditional approval of a tentative map shall expire 24 months from its approval. The period of time may be lengthened if the project is subject to section 66452.6(a), (b), and (c)of the Subdivision Map Act. "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 Ethan Edwards, the project planner, at ethan.edwards(aD-surfcity-hb.orq or (714) 536-5561 or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at(714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess,AICP, Secretary Planning Commission By: A,Qj� Herb Fauland, Planning M nager SH:HF:EE:kdc Attachment: Findings and Conditions of Approval—TTM No. 17296 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Mike Vigliotta, Senior Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer Gerald Caraig, Permit-Plan Check Manager Property Owner Project File Item 8e - Page 464 -1146- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: 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. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a mobilehome park where residents can purchase the land where the mobilehome is located is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-High Density — Max. 25 units per acre) on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code. A. Growth Management Element Objective GM 7.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). B. Utilities Element Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to project life and property from flood hazards. The City's Master Plan of Drainage which was adopted by the City in 2005 recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground 24-inch diameter pipeline (at minimum) to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline to convey storm water underground will provide relief of the drainage issue. This will also allow additional storm water treatment methods that comply with the US EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and remedy a public health and safety issue complying with SMA 66428.1(d). GAPG\N0A\2010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorediffs Attachment 1.1 -1147- Item 6. - Page 465 C. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1.1: Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Elements of the General Plan). Policy LU 7.1.3: Allow for the continued occupancy, operation, and maintenance of legal uses and structures that exist at the time of the adoption of the General Plan and become non-conforming due to use, density, and/or development requirements. Objective LU 15.6: Facilitate the preservation and development of Residential Mobile Home Parks. The City's Master Plan of Drainage recommends replacement of the existing surface storm gutter with construction of an underground pipeline to convey storm water flows. The recommended condition of approval to construct a storm drain pipeline will convey storm water underground to provide relief of the drainage issues. The mobilehome park was established in 1969, before the adoption of the current General Plan and zoning ordinance. The existing mobilehome park is located in the Residential Mobilehome Park (RMP) zone and does not fully comply with the present development standards and is considered non-conforming. The proposed tentative tract map does not include the creation of new lots or development; therefore, the non-conforming development standards are not required to comply with the current provisions of the HBZSO. The subdivision to convert the existing for-rent mobilehome park to ownership facilitates the preservation of an existing legal use (mobilehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The proposed subdivision converts an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park to a 304 space ownership mobilehome park at a density of 8.2 units per net acres and is physically suitable for the site. 3. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as the subdivision will provide for the replacement of existing inadequate drainage facilities to address health and safety issues per Subdivision Map Act 66428.1(d). 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. 5. Pursuant to California Government Code 66427.5, the applicant filed an Impact Report dated December 15, 2009 which analyzed the impact of the conversion on residents. In addition, the applicant obtained a Resident Survey of Support which was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the applicant and the resident that is independent of the applicant. The Impact Report was provided to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map. The results of the survey were presented G:\PC\N0A\2010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.2 Item B. - Forage 466 -1148- to the City on March 9, 2010. The survey was considered and it was found that 105 residents opposed the conversion, 25 approved, 52 declined to comment and 124 missing. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing 304 space mobilehome park received and dated January 12, 2010 shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required (PW): a. An onsite storm drain shall be designed and constructed 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. 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. (ZSO 255.04A) (PW) b. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements. (PW) c. The required Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis for the subject project shall analyze 10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms. 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. (PW) 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§ 66427.5) (PL) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following (PL): 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 (commencing at the time of final map recordation) 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§ 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 G:\PC\NOA\2010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.3 -1149- Item 8. - Page 467 conversion (commencing at the time of final map recordation), 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§ 66427.5) 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required: a. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan (PW): 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)) ii) An ADA compliant access ramp shall 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)) iii) 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)) iv) 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)) v) 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)) vi) 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)) b. 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. (PW) INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. G:\PC\NOA\2010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.4 (tent 8. - Page 468 -1150- -1151- Item 8. - Page 469 1013 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. Item 8. - Page 470 Fax -1152.1540 www.surfcity-hb.org Notice of Action:TfM 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 rtallehCa)surfcity- hb.orq 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 -11 v3- Item 8m - Page 471 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; GAPC\N0A\09\9-22-09 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorediffs Attachment 1.1 Item S. - Page 472 -1154- 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. G:\PC\NOA\09\9-22-09 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.2 _1155- Item 8. a Rage 473 Item 6e m Page 474 -11 56m