HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 2 of 2 - Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Subdivi Item B. - Page 474 -1156- Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: 11/16/2009 Department ID Number: PL09-25 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO CIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINIS 4 R PREPARED BY: SCOTT HESS, DIRECTOR OF PLA NIN SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION —APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL) IEEEsue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Robert S. Coldren of Hart, King & Coldren, of the Planning Commission's denial with findings of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). The application represents a request to subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes. In addition, this request includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Commission denied the applicant's request and the Planning Commission and Staff are recommending denial of the request. -1157- Item S. - Page 475t REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMDER:PL09-25 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on September 22, 2009: A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize . NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions(s): 1. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for approval." 2. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Boyd Hill, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Appellant: Robert S. Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. — Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park) GARCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -2- 11/4/2009 2:10 PM Item 8. - Page 476 -1158- REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 represents a request for the following: A. To subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes; and create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. B. The applicant has also filed an appeal of the applicable code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed tentative tract map is a request to subdivide an existing 39.2 gross acre (37.06 net acre), for-rent, mobile home park with a total of 304 units into 309 lots for ownership purposes. The tentative tract map depicts the creation of five additional lots for mobile home coaches.bringing the total number of units to 309. The applicant proposes to subdivide the "for-rent" park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots (ATTACHMENT NO. 3). The project also includes an appeal filed by the applicant on August 27, 2009 of the applicable code requirements. The applicant contends that a majority of the code requirements identified as being applicable to the project are "unlawful" pursuant to State law (ATTACHMENT NO. 7). Permitting and enforcement authority over the mobile home park lies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD enforces the California Code of Regulation, Title 25, which establishes development and operational standards for the mobile home park. The fire authority, however, lies with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Subdivision of the park for proposes of converting it from for-rent to ownership is regulated by various provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), Title 25, Subdivisions. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission unanimously denied the applicant's request at a public hearing on September 22, 2009, with findings for denial as recommended by Planning Staff (ATTACHMENT NO. 6). Written comments were received at the hearing from the applicant and one resident; the applicant and applicant's representative gave verbal testimony in support of the project, and six residents of the mobile home park spoke in opposition. Testimony in support relied on State law regulating the processing of mobile home park subdivisions and also indicated that the survey of support is valid because the owner was unaware of an existing homeowners association at the time the survey was conducted. Testimony in opposition centered on two main issues: that the residents did not have enough information to make an informed decision- and that there is numerous unresolved maintenance issues within the mobile home park. The president of the Huntington GARCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -3- 11w2nn9 2.1n PNE -1159- Item 8. - Page 4773 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMEER:PL09-25 Shorecliff's Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association (HOA) also stated that the HOA was in place when the residents were surveyed. C. APPEAL: On October 1, 2009, the Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed project (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). The appeal letter cites State law, court decisions, and opinions stating that the findings for denial are unlawful. In addition, the letter states that staff did not respond to key issues and refused to work with the applicant in a candid, constructive, and open manner. The appeal letter states that Findings 1 & 2 "are not lawful" because general plan and zoning requirements are not applicable to this project. Staff does not support the applicant's contention that the City's requirements are not applicable because the tentative tract map application depicts the creation of 5 additional lots which is evidence that the project is not only a conversion from rental to resident ownership, but includes an expansion and is therefore considered a new subdivision. ' The appeal letter states that Finding 3 "is not lawful" because a city cannot impose its own criteria for the conversion impact report. Staff does not agree with this contention because the City is not imposing any criteria for the report. Rather, the City is unable to conclude that the State law requirement for an impact report is satisfied because the report submitted by the applicant fails to address the impact of conversion. The appeal letter states that Finding 4 "is not lawful" because the "Planning Commission had a mandatory duty to find that the Applicant complied with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5(d) to submit resident survey results." Staff received comments and verbal testimony from the homeowner's association president indicating that no agreement was made between the homeowners association and the subdivider prior to the survey being sent out. The applicant contends that an agreement was made with the "park activities" committee. However, no evidence of an agreement has been provided. Based on the lack of sufficient information, staff believes compliance with State law has not been met. In reviewing the proposed subdivision and tentative map, staff prepared a list of code requirements applicable to the project should the project be approved. The code requirements outline applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements, excerpted from the HBZSO and Municipal Code which are required only after approval and prior to recordation of a final map. The list�for example,requires the submission of CC&Rs and a hydraulic and hydrology analysis, payment of fees, and process for final map review. Staff does not support the applicant's contentions that these requirements are "unlawful" in that Government Code Section 66427.5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Government Code to apply. However, the appeal of the code requirements becomes a moot point as a result of Staffs recommendation to deny TTM No. 17296. GARCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -4- 11/4/2009 2:10 PM Item 8e - Page 478 -1160- REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-25 D. STAFF ANALYSIS: A complete overview of TTM No. 17296 along with recommended findings for denial is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 5). The analysis below summarizes the primary issues and reasons for a recommendation of denial. Park Expansion & Zoning Applicability The submitted application including the creation of five additional lots for purposes of increasing the number of mobile home coaches from 304 to 309 is considered a new subdivision application. All new subdivision. applications within the Residential Mobile Home Park (RMP) zone are subject to development standards required by Section 210.14 of the HBZSO. Pursuant to Section 210.14 each additional lot created for a mobile home requires 200 sq. ft. of common open space or 1,000 sq. ft. for the five additional lots. Currently,the park does not conform to this provision in that a total of only 38,043 sq. ft. of common open space is provided, in lieu of the minimum 60,800 sq. ft. Furthermore, the proposed lots will remove 11,193 sq. ft. of common open space. The five additional lots increase the parks non-conformity and do not comply with the HBZSO. Report on Impacts of Conversion on the Tenants The conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership is authorized by Government Code Section 66427.5 of the SMA (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). The SMA provides that the subdivider prepare a report on the impact of the conversion upon tenants of the mobile home park and provide a survey of resident support for the subdivision. The applicant prepared and submitted a report entitled "Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents" (ATTACHMENT NO. 9). However, the report does not identify the method upon which the non-purchasing residents will have some expectations of the rents as prescribed by Government Code Section 66427.5. In addition, the report does not estimate the potential sales price of lots after subdivision and sales price information was not available to residents when the resident survey of support was conducted. In fact, the report summarily concludes that because there is no displacement, there will be no impact. Staff considers the submitted impact report as insufficient in that it is not a report on the impacts of the conversion upon residents of the mobile home park. The report only discusses displacement and fails to discuss any other economic impacts of conversion to the residents. Survey of Resident Support Government Code Section 66427.5 requires that a survey of resident support be conducted in agreement with a homeowners association independent of the subdivider or mobile home park owner and that the decision making body reviewing the proposed subdivision consider compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 during its deliberations. A written survey was conducted by The Star Companies, the mobile home park management G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -5- 11/4/20099 2:10 PM �y -1161- Item @em ve - Page. 4 9y 9) REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER91-09-25 consider compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 during its deliberations. A written survey was..conducted by The Star Companies, the mobile home park management company, in April 2009. The results of the survey were submitted to the City in May 2009 (ATTACHMENT NO. 10). No information on how the survey results were tabulated was provided or who the surveys were sent to (i.e. each person or each space). There were a total of 296 surveys sent out. Of the 296; 188 surveys were completed and returned. The survey results indicate that 46 persons were in support of the conversion of the mobile home park to resident ownership, 45 persons were not in support of the conversion, and 97 persons declined to state their opinion. The survey results indicate that insufficient information has been disclosed to the tenants resulting in a majority of the residents stating that they do not support the subdivision or do not have an option regarding the subdivision. Comments received from the homeowner's association president indicate that no agreement was made between the homeowners association and the subdivider prior to the survey being sent out. The applicant contends that an agreement was made with the "park activities" committee. However, no evidence of an agreement has been provided. Based on the lack of sufficient information, staff believes compliance with State law has not been met. E. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the proposed subdivision for the following reasons and findings in Attachment No. 1: • The subdivision will result in an increase in the number of mobile home sites from 304 to 309; • Additional lots created reduces the amount of existing common open space and does not comply with the minimum common open space requirement of 1,000 sq. ft.; ■ The impacts to residents associated with conversion of the park to resident ownership are not discussed or analyzed in an impact report; and, ■ Evidence that the survey of support was prepared in agreement with a homeowners association independent of the owner was not provided. Strategic Plan Goal: The project is not consistent with the following Strategic Plan Goal: Preserve the quality of our neighborhoods, maintain open space, and provide for the preservation of historic neighborhoods. The additional lots created reduce the area of common open space and do not comply with the minimum open space requirement of common area for new lots. Environmental Status: The proposed project is considered categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Existing Facilities, Section 15301(k) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides that division of existing multiple-family or single-family residences into common-interest ownership are exempt where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt. C:\Documents and Settings\stephenj\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\BS39Q5GL\PL09-24 (Shorecliffs Appeal)(2).doc -6- 11/4/2009 4:55 PM Item 8. - Page 480 -1162- REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/16/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL09-26 Attachment(s)• 1. Suggested Findings for Denial — Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (Planning Commission &Staff Recommendation 2. Appeal Letter from Robert S. Coldren of Hart, King & Coldren, dated October 1, 2009 3. Project Narratives, received September 18, 2008 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 dated August 4, 2009 5 Planning Commission Staff Report—Tentative Tract Map No. 17296, dated September 22, 2009 6. Draft Minutes of September 22, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting ki 7. Appeal of Code Requirements Letter, dated August 27, 2009 8. Government Code Section 66427.5 9. Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents, dated March, 2009 10. Survey of Residents, dated May 4, 2009 D7 11. Planning Commission Notice of Action, dated September 23, 2009 — ` Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 12. 1 PowerPoint Presentation Slides G:\RCAs\2009\PL09-24(Shorecliffs Appeal).doc -7- 11w2nn4 9•1n ane -1163- Item 8. - Page 4817 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -1165- Item 8. - Page 483 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK J ATTACffiAEN`I`NO.4 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-TENTATIVE MAP NO.17296: I. 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 39,043 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 93.2(d): Establish a common"gathering"or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services such as child or adult- care,recreation,public meeting rooms,recreational facilities,small convenience commercial uses,or similar facilities. LU 9.3.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft.,the proposed five lot expansion does not provide the required 1,000 sq. ft.of additional common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots.Furthermore the subdivision would reduce the existing common open space by 11,193 sq. ft. in that the four of the five additional lots are proposed to be located in an area used for offices meeting rooms and a pool. PC Staff Report—TTM 17296 -1'167- Item A5. - Page 485'! ma rr 3. The Impact_Report dated and received March 6,20.09 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 infiastructure;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. Item 8. ssPage 486 ,^^^ -1168- -11 C9- item B. - Page 4873 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • s K 600"C C HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com October 1, 2009 Our Fite Number: 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street ; Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Appeal of 9-22-09 Planning Commission Action Denying Application/Notice of ActionZj Dear City Council Members: co This letter constitutes the Park owner Applicants' Appeal of the September 22, 2009 Planning Commission "action" denying the above-referenced Application. A copy of the City's "Notice of Action" is attached hereto as Attachment 1. This Appeal is made pursuant to Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 248.20. Enclosed herewith is the Applicants'Appeal fee in the amount of$2,704 pursuant to the City's August 16, 2009 Fee Schedule. Park owner Applicants and Appellants, Shorecliff, LP; JS Stadium LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; and Shorecliff Main, LP request that all communication in this matter be referred to the Applicant's Authorized Agent, Hart, King & Coldren. The address of the Appellants/Applicants for purposes of this Appeal is the address of their Authorized Agent: Hart, King & Coldren; 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor; Santa Ana, CA 92707. Specific information pertaining to the grounds for the Appeal has been set forth in great detail in comprehensive letters addressed from the Applicants' Agent to the Planning Commission and Planning Department prior to the Planning Commission "action," including two letters dated September 18, 2009, a !etter dated September 17, 2009, a letter dated September 2, 2009, a letter dated August 27, 2009 and a letter dated August 25, 2009. These letters constitute part of the administrative record before the Planning Commission and are already before the City Council and therefore are being re-submitted with this Appeal for your convenience, and are incorporated herein by this reference. The grounds for the Appeal are summarized and set forth in the remainder of this letter. As the Application form states, the Application is for "Subdivision of Mobilehome Park." As the September 18, 2008 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. 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 -1171- Item 8. - Page 489; HK&� HART, KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 2 The California Legislature has made clear that the State policy is to encourage conversion of rental mobilehome parks to resident ownership: For 25 years, the state has had the policy "to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership." (Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subd. (b)) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma (2009) 176 Cal.AppAth 1270, 1298) That State policy is part of the Legislature's comprehensive regulation of mobilehome parks to the exclusion of regulation by cities: The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation. Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script. The State's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map act in 1991. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1293 [underline added]) Indeed, the State has taken away from cities authority regarding design, construction and use of mobilehome parks: These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design" of mobilehome parks. (Health & Saf. Code, § 18253 .... (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1281; see also Health & Saf. Code, § 18300 [Mobilehome Parks Act express preemption of local regulation]) .Thus, when the State enacted the mobilehome park conversion statutory section of the Subdivision Map Act (Govt. Code § 66427.5), the State intended also to include existing mobilehome conversions in its broad preemptive exclusion of local agency regulation: Section 66427.5 does not stand alone, If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control, that 36014.1 12/4839-3831-6036v.1 Item 8. - Page 490 -1172- HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 3 day is long past. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1279) The Legislature established its preemption of city requirements for existing mobilehome park conversion in the express language of Government Code Section 66427.5 (e): The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. [underline added] The California Court of Appeal has held that the language of Government Code Section 66427.5 (e) constitutes an express preemption of local agency authority over existing mobilehome park conversion to resident ownership: We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect .of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1297) Thus, when cities are considering an application to subdivide an existing mobilehome park for conversion to resident ownership, they are limited to a mere ministerial checklist consideration of whether the applicant has complied with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5: That is what section 66427.5 does. It says in effect: Local authority, you have this power, but no more. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cai_AppAth at 1296) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 -1173- Item 8. - Page 491, HK&C HART, KING & COLOREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 4 The local requirements for existing mobilehome park conversion invalidated in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma included the following: As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application. Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if.the decision. maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66427.5, the application (1) "is consistent with the general plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2) demonstrates . that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"; (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety"; and (4) the proposed conversion "is a bona-fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. (Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c), subds. (1)(c) (f); (2).) The Ordinance also requires that, following approval of the conversion application, the subdivider "shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be.initially offered to the general public," for a period of 90 days "from the issuance of the subdivision public report ._. pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 11018.2." (1d., § 25-39.7(d), subd. (2).) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1299) The California Court of Appeal concluded that cities could not consider general plan or zoning compliance, could not consider whether there was analysis regarding long-term management and maintenance of common facilities and infrastructure, could not consider existing health and safety conditions, and could not even impose criteria for satisfaction of the Government Code Section 66427.5 requirements: However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1299) 36014.11214839-3831-6036v.1 Item 8. - Page 492 -1174- HART; KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 5 - The California Court of Appeal determination makes sense given the context of existing mobilehome park conversions: It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation. As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations." (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1295) The California Court of Appeal rejected arguments that cities should be allowed to go behind the applicant's compliance with the express requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 to investigate the circumstances of the compliance, such as imposing criteria for the resident impact report: Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept; if no invite, supplementary local action. :For example, a subdivider is required to "file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents," but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such a report. And there is some force to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici: "Surely, the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content ....[¶J ... [1] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at 1294) Based on the foregoing legal analysis, it is clear that the Planning Commission "Findings for Denial" are unlawful and invalid under the holding of Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma. The remainder of the this Appeal letter will address each particular finding. FINDINGS 1 &2 ARE NOT LAWFUL Findings 1 and 2 deny the Application based on the City's unlawful imposition of general plan and zoning requirements on the Application. As the above citations demonstrate, Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma made clear that general plan and zoning requirements cannot lawfully be imposed for approval of a subdivision that is for conversion of an existing 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 -1175- Item 8. - Page 493 HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 6 mobilehome park to resident ownership. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 CalApp.4th at 1294) Findings 1 and 2 attempt to seize upon the Applicants' admitted mistaken belief that their existing HCD permit was for more than 304 spaces. Thus, Findings 1 & 2 seek to impose the planning and zoning requirements as if the Application were seeking to expand an existing nonconforming use. But that is not what the Application states. It clearly states on the Application form that the Applicants are seeking to subdivide their existing mobilehome park. Also within the cover letter, the Applicants make clear that their proposed subdivision is based on what the Applicants believed were the number of spaces under the existing HCD permit. Both the City and the Applicants proceeded through the entire planning process predicated on the notion that Government Code section 66427.5 governed the processing of this application. Thus, by definition, all parties agreed that the subdivision was of a physical existing mobilehome park for the number of spaces permitted by HCD: To the extent staff may have been "laying in the weeds" to convert this application into one for a non-66427.5 subdivision, staffs "gotcha" last minute abandonment of this position reflects unwarranted hostility to the project. The refusal of staff and the Planning Commission to accept for filing the offered substitute/corrected/conditioned map showing the 304 actual existing occupied lots is at the core of this appeal. The City's position that it has authority to approve the expansion of the number of existing lots and to thereby impose general plan and zoning code requirements as a result thereof is completely in excess of the City's jurisdiction. The City cannot approve new lots within the Park, as that is within the exclusive purview of HCD and was never contemplated. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, only HCD has the authority to create new lots within the Park. "Park lot lines shall not be created, moved, shifted, or altered without a permit issues to the park owner or operator by [HCD] ...." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18610.5) HCD authority over the creation of new lots is part of its comprehensive authority over "construction, use, occupancy and maintenance of [mobilehome] parks and lots within the parks." (Health & Saf. Code, § 18610) The Mobilehome Parks Act plainly states that the Act "supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county ...." (Health & Saf. Code,_§ 18300 (a)) The California Court of Appeal has held that Section 18300 (a) is an express preemption of city regulation of mobilehome park design, construction, use and maintenance. (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse(2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1483, 1489-1490) HCD expressly reiterated in a recent Information Bulletin that cities do not have authority to impose requirements pertaining the number of lots that will be approved for the conversion of 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 Item 8. - Page 494 -1176- mK&C HART, KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 7 existing mobilehome parks. Instead, the City only has authority to impose a condition for approval that the number of lots for the final map will be consistent with the number of HCD approved "lots"in the then existing HCD permit: The establishment, marking, and movement of lot lines are governed by Title 25, CCR, sections 1104, 1105, 1330, and 1428. Landscaping is not a proper form of lot marking, and lot lines must either be those in existence or moved and approved pursuant to CCR section 1105. A local government may require that the final approved lot lines be those consistent with the requirements of Title 25, since the local government has the authority to approve final lot lines as part of a subdivision approval; however, their location and marking must be consistent with Title 25. (April 21, 2008 HCD Information Bulletin 2008—10(MP), page 6) Therefore, the Planning Commission's finding of denial based on an incorrect unlawful assumption that the City has authority over the number of lots within the Park is in itself unlawful and must be overturned by the City Council. While not required by law, the Applicants are enclosing with this Appeal eleven (11) copies of a revised Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 that corresponds to the existing HCD permit for 304 spaces or "lots". Note that the revised tentative map does nothing-more than remove the "offending" five lot lines (the "office 4" and the "orphan" lot at the Southwest corner) and thus any argument that additional "planning" or "review" by staff or the Commission represents a practical impediment requiring the Applicants to go back to square one with a new application is disingenuous at best. The Planning Commission and Planning Department unreasonably refused to accept the revised Map, claiming incorrectly that provisions of the Subdivision Map Act pertaining to the time for consideration thereof prevented their acceptance of the revised Map. Nothing in the Subdivision Map Act prevents acceptance of a revised Map to correct errors in the depiction of existing conditions. Indeed many cities and counties accept revised maps without requiring new applications and fees. The Planning Department and other City staff do not need to conduct additional review of the revised Map because all the Map does is show the existing Park improvements and HCD approved "lots", which have already been studied by City Staff. It would be a violation of the Mitigation Fee Act to require an unreasonable additional application fee to submit the revised map when no additional study is required. (See Govt. Code §66014 (a) [application fees cannot exceed reasonable cost of providing service]) 36014.112I4839-3831-6036v-1 -1177- Item 8. a Page 495- .HK&C HART. KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 8 In any event, the Planning Department and other City staff now have plenty of time to review the revised Map before the City Council hearing on the Appeal, which is a de novo review of the Application with a new time period for review. (See Govt. Code § 66452.5(a) (3); City Code §§ 248.04, 248.20) FINDING 3 IS NOT LAWFUL If any issue was answered clearly by the Court of Appeal in Sequoia.Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, it was the issue of whether a city could impose its own criteria for the Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) conversion impact report. As the above citations to that case demonstrate, the Court of Appeal answered that question with a'resounding "no"! (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1294) There are two important policy reasons behind the State prohibition against local agency criteria for reports on the impact of the conversion on residents. First, the Report cannot provide additional substantive protection to residents against economic displacement. Government Code Section 66427.5 already provides the exclusive statutory protections against economic displacement of residents resulting from conversion. Section 66426.5 (a) requires that the Park.owner offer the residents the option of either purchasing their lots or continuing to lease their that lot from the Park owner. Therefore, residents will not be forced to terminate their leases and will not be forced to purchase, but will be provided a valuable option to purchase if they so choose. Also, Section 66427.5 (f) limits rent increases for residents who choose to continue leasing. For non low income residents, their rents, if below market value at the time of conversion, can only be raised to market value over a four year period. For low income residents, their rents can only be raised by an annual percentage that is equal to the average percentage rent increases during the four years prior to conversion. Therefore, the Report is simply a vehicle for transmitting information to the tenants about how the statutory protections prevent economic impacts to tenants resulting from conversion. Given those statutory protections, conversion should not result in actual or economic displacement of residents. The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates recognized the broad reach of those exclusive statutory provisions contained in Section 66427.5 in protecting residents against economic displacement: 36014.11214839-3831-6036v.1 Item 8. - Page 496 -1178- HART, KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 9 The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuring that conversion must comport with the General Plan, especially its housing element, because that is where the economic dislocation will be manifest, by reducing the inventory of low cost housing. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subds. (a)(1).& (a)(3).) In this sense however, section 66427.5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates, as it does make provision in subdivision .(f) for helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County. of Sonoma, supra; 170 Cal.AppAth at 1300 [underline added]) The Court of Appeal in the earlier case of El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, in comparing Government Code Section 66427.5 with Government Code Section 66427.4, clearly recognized that conversion under the limitations .of Section 66427.5 will not result in economic displacement of residents: We first examine section 66427.4. It applies to "conversion of a mobilehome park to another use" Conversely, it would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a .shopping center or another different use of the property. In that situation, there would be "displaced mobilehome park residents" who would"need to find "adequate space in a mobilehome park" for their mobilehomes and themselves. Thus, an impact report is required.'.(El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs (2002)96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161) Second, the City's subdivision approval is simply the first and a preliminary step in the conversion process. In the normal situation, conversion begins with compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, followed by approval from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq.) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th at 1177) After the subdivision is approved by local government, the Department of Real Estate regulates the marketing and sale of the individual units in the park. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11010 et seq.) It is illegal to sell subdivided property before obtaining a 36014.112/4839.3831-6036v.1 -1179- Item 8. - Page 4973 HK&C HART, KING & CCLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 10 public report from the Real Estate Commissioner. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11018) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1160) The City's action on the subdivision application occurs at a stage in the process where significant information pertaining to conversion such as lot purchase price and homeowner association obligations have not yet been studied or developed: Although a tenant cannot make a rational decision to buy, continue to rent, or move his or her mobilehome unless the tenant is given an option price and a proposed rental price, the tenant its not required to make such a decision until after the Department of Real Estate has approved the project and issued its public report. (Bus. & Prof Code § 11010.9) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1179) While the filing of the application and compliance.with Section 66427.5 give notice to the residents of their option to purchase, the subdivider does not need to disclose a tentative price.at that time because the residents do not need to decide whether to purchase at that time. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v- City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1180) In fact, the Subdivided Lands Act prevents premature disclosure of lot price information: Indeed, the giving of the disclosure notice does not authorize the subdivider to offer to sell the units before obtaining Department of Real Estate approval. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11010.9, subd. (c).) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1180) Thus, all that is required for the Report is that it give notice to the residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the statutory protections for those residents pertaining to post-conversion rent increases. At the latter time [the subdivision approval by the City], the subdivider must only notify residents that they will have an option to purchase their sites or to continue to rent them. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1180) 36014.11214839-3831-6036v.1 Item 8. - Page 498 -1180- e ` J HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page.11 Thus, the Report is merely a preliminary notice to residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the provisions contained in Government Code Section 66427.5 pertaining to post-conversion rent increases for those tenants. City review of the Report regarding the purchase option is simply not necessary or possible at this time because most of the information pertaining to potential purchase is not known at this time. Therefore, Finding No. 3 which imposes City criteria for the Report is not lawful and must be overturned by the City Council. FINDING 4 IS UNLAWFUL As the Sequoia Park Associates case discussion on conversion impact reports illustrates, the City is not authorized to go "behind the curtain" regarding Applicants' compliance .with the checklist requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and impose its own requirements for the Application. All that Government Code Section 66427.5(d) requires the Applicants to do is submit to the City the results of the resident survey. Sequoia Park Associates makes clear that cities cannot even impose their own requirements duplicating the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5. (See Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1300) The Applicants not only submitted the resident survey results, but also they submitted the actual survey forms themselves to the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Planning Commission had a mandatory duty to find that the Applicant complied with the requirement of Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) to submit resident survey results, and the City Council must overturn:Finding No. 4. Assuming the Planning. Commission had the authority to impose conditions regarding the conduct of the survey that duplicate Government Code Section 66427.5 and investigate"behind the curtain" to see if the Applicant conducted the survey in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 (d), there is substantial evidence in the record that the Applicants' complied with Government Code Section 66427.5 (d). Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) (2) only requires an agreement regarding the resident survey with a homeowner's association if there is an association: The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. [bold & underline added] 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 -1181- Item 8. - Page 499i HK&C HART, KING & GOLOREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 12 The Mike Cirillo Affidavit submitted with the September 18, 2009 letter regarding. the tenant survey states that he made an investigation and that there was no existing homeowner's association or officers with whom he could enter into an agreement pertaining to the survey at the.time the survey was mailed to the residents in March 2009. The Mike Cirillo Affidavit also contains compelling, even conclusive evidence attached as exhibit 1 thereof that there was.no existing homeowner's association in March 2009 in the form of the now existing homeowner's association's flyers that were distributed saying "More than ever we need an HOA" and "New officers are urgently needed". Such statements made in flyers distributed by proponents of what is presently a homeowner's association expressly contradict the position of that present homeowners' association that it was in existence at the time the survey was mailed to thel residents. The resident survey issue is essentially a red herring in the context of the Application. The resident survey requirement of Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) was enacted by the .California Legislature- for the express intent to address the issue of "sham" conversions discussed.by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96,CalApp.4th at 1164-1165. A"sham" conversion refers to a conversion initiated by obtaining City subdivision approval solely for the purpose of escaping local rent control. Because the City of Huntington Beach does not impose rent control on mobilehome parks, there is no issue of sham conversion for the City to consider. The resident survey results or the conduct of that survey is therefore meaningless with respect to the Application. In conclusion, none of the Planning Commission Findings For Denial are lawful. Therefore, the City Council is respectfully requested to approve the Application, without condition, as required by Government Code Section 66427.5. As a gesture of the Applicant's good faith, the Applicant is willing to meet with City Staff to negotiate potential conditions so long as they do not dramatically increase the cost or delay in accomplishing this subdivision. To date, the City.has at all times deftly avoided confronting the issue of its position regarding the extent to which it can condition the approval of this 66427.5 subdivision. Members of the Planning Commission asked that this question be addressed. Applicants consistently, both formally and informally, requested the City's position on this pivotal issue. The fact that the City refused to work candidly, constructively, and openly with Applicants is also deserving of redress. The City Council has the opportunity to set a new tone, and right a wrong that has infected this process with hostility, suspicion, and adversarial posturing. I hope the City Council will seize this opportunity. 36014.112f4839-3831-6036v.1 Item 8. - Page 500 -1182- f J HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach October 1, 2009 Page 13 Thank you. Very truly yours, HART, KI & COLDREN i01 Ro r for Applicants/ ppellants RSC/BLH/dr Enclosures: August 25, 2009 Letter August 27, 2009 Letter September 2, 2009 Letter September 17, 2009 Letter September 18, 2009 Letters (2) September 23, 2009 Notice of Action letter Eleven (11) copies of Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 (304 spaces) cc: Jennifer.McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Leonie Mulvihill,Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only,without enclosures) Rami'Talleh, Senior Planner (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Fred Wilson, City Administrator (by e-mail only, without enclosures) Scott Hess, Director of Planning (by e-mail only, without enclosures) 36014.112/4839-3831-6036v.1 -1183- Item 8. - Page 501T INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT NO. 2 LISTED ENCLOSURES NOT ATTACHED AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, CITY HALL - 3 RD FLOOD -1155- Item 5. - Page 5®3 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -1187- Item 8. - Page 505� INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Li James R.Wilson jwilson@hkdaw_com September 18, 2008 Our File Number_ 36014.112/4811-7507-1234v.1 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL !-land Delivered Rami Talleh, City Planner Cl:y of 1'1LtOfitic)fOtt Beach City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept_ 2000 Main Street SEP 18 200$ P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Subdivision Application (Tentative Tract Map) ®ear Rami: Enclosed please find the Subdivision Application (Tentative Tract Map) ( Application") for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park located at 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA_ 92648 ("ParK')_ We propose to convert the Park into a resident-owned park with three hundred nine (309) numbered lots and one .(1) lettered lot encompassing the Park's common amenities (e.g_, clubhouses,pools;landscaping and private streets). The conversion will enable Park residents to purchase_their own lot_ A resident who elects not to purchase their lot may choose to continue leasing their space_ 'Park residents will not be displaced_ There will not be a"physical change" or "change in u"se" of the Park. Instead, the subdivision simply creates legal property lines on-paper, thereby allowing the transfer of ownership of lots that already exist as mobile home park spaces. In accordance-with- paragraph 5 on page 2 of the Application; we are providing the following information and materials_ To the extent such items are not applicable, we Dave so indicated- 5(a) Environmental Assessment Form_ Conversion of a rental mobile home park to residential ownership is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.08 and the California' Code of`Regulations, Title 14, Section 15282(e). 5(b) Preliminary Title Report_ A Preliminary Title Report dated August 21, 2008, together with the legal description of the Park property is enclosed_ A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana,Califomia 92707 Ph 714.432.87001 www_ _ 189 xn 1 Fx 714-b46.74AT"`'A1 CHM Item a, a Page 5071 14A.Rl- KING Rami Talleh , September 1,8, 2008 Page 2 . 5(c) Preliminary Soils Report and Engineering Geology Report_ There is no "physical change" or "change in.use" of the Park_ No soils and geology reports are not required or necessary- 5(d) Public Notification Requirements._ The public notification materials are enclosed_ 5(e) Photographs-of the Subiect Property. The photographs of the Park'are enclosed_ 50 Written Narrative: (1) Existing Use of the Property and Present Zoning_ The- Park-,-is* situated::.on .a single .parcel. (APN '024-250�-72) consisting of approximately 39 acres and operated as a mobile home park pprimMed.for..3W.-mobile_.home spaces_. The.Park is currently zoned RMP_ The General Plan Designation is RMH-25_ The Park:.was:construCted.-ir}-1972;islocated 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-.1,1.00 feet of street.frontage.along Delaware.Street: . Street access.1s-provided by Beach Boulevard and Frankfort Avenue_ The.Park is improved with 2 clubhouses and pools, office, conference .center, and laundry facilities_` There-is-an,RV-storage lot on Park property. (2) Proposed Use of the Property. There-is no proposed "physical change" or".change.in the use" of -the Park.:.-.The-proposed use of the-Park is to maintainthe existing use as a mobile home.park- (3) Statement of the Proposed Improvements and Public Utilities_ There are no proposed improvements or utilities- (4) Public Areas Proposed_ There are no public areas proposed_ (5) Tree Planting Proposed_ There are no tree plantings proposed. (6) Restrictive Covenants Proposed_ Upon approval of the Application, the Park will form a Homeowners Association. and prepare customary covenants, conditions and restrictions utilized in planned mobile home communities_ Item 80 - Page 508°7-i23a�.� _1190- ATTACHMENT NO %� ---'..axs. Rami Talleh i` September 18, 2008 Page 3 5(g) Coastal Development Permit Application. The Park is not within the Coastal Zone and no permits are required. in accordance with the current City of Huntington -Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule, we are including the Tentative Tract Map filing fee of $30,420.00 ($21,150.00 plus $30.00 for each of the 309 lots) ("Fee"). We are tendering payment of the Fee."Under Protest" and reserving all of our rights to protest and object to the Fee pursuant to applicable laws and regulations, including, but,not limited to, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code -Section 66000 et seq.)_ The regulation and subdiv' ' n of mobile home.parks is governed,by tifomia State law, including, but not limited t ovemment Code Section 66427 et seq., and ealth & Safety Code Section .18300 eL s _, which preempt and limit the role of to governments in processing a mobile-home p subdivision. The City's review and Val should not reclUire the time and resources genera tilized in . rocessi `'onal subdivisions. The Fee: is excessive and bears no.reasonable relationship to the actual costs necessarily incurred by the City to process the Application: Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have. Best Regards, HART, KI COLDREN es R_Wilson JRWldmg cc John Saunders Michael Cirillo Robert S- Coldren Burt Mazelow Enclosures: Subdivision Application Tentative Tract Map Legal Description of Park Property Preliminary Title Report dated August 21, 2008 Public Notification Materials Park Photographs fi Filing Fee 36014.11214811-7507-1234v-1 -1131 ATTHI ,NtU Item 0o m Page 509; ..�. � . . INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -11 J3- Item 8. - Page 5117 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TRACT MAP NO. 17296 OJ THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH nw.�w.marls...«x.,,r»I,.nr.,,-»,r:,,•..,n.,,••«:«.,-....,,.x.,.,.. COVNTY OF ORANGE,M rE OF CAUFORNIA IYMeOLA LIMP A PORTION Of THE EAST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST OVARTER OF SITEO ,.. w ""V"::Ww,»«..«, «...«.1. .....:..r.......•.....«...,.,r.,. FOR SU801VISIONPURPOSES VICINITY MAP OR,VXIO low °" aaux«.. rw«man.•r.nwn:'7n wi.,.r":: :.'::In I :. 4.}:.. r ! a�� i na ': � rib v:' •- ..�+i• 1� w , w1ry� .fig,.,., a tl »I ,, ,r. _ n»..T�M.w,w.M'�'":,'7:«�:•",««Ire:,.»'.".'..x I / ? ,l;Y .: 1e": i t j •t' Y nn! �} unl J, ...P! I �wt I�il ,.:.r 1 I. .".'M"��' .. wr.«.r,.x.WRS.....�,1.«.«:.�.a.1.,.r, I unt T. ., .« y.«r... .«1'L. ..:r .,ate. �15. r._x"'�r;A'tii:.�}' ... '..•11J„ Ia ri'Gi1r... .,; jK7'�f...:,:..., ,. I+' ) -!•. .... 'a1Ma`L'N}:^!.,.: •::a TI 1�.' N` .. � � .1"t'1'tP1Fa74! 'AT 1 w Nf i ..w,u r u«.n«4 m u •,+...0 «°:r«,..m✓nnun,. 111 nlwll� ' i` 3:r.i i :•N' � II' I N ...!,�ur'Iii ) 1. � .::•,1.,.., I ..... ' OeiI1'Irr m ' 8A818 OR BURIN091 I+ t i ! JIff ..«n«..«A:wrlwrr.w..««..:,..I,«.«r::«,:...,.,•,..,:.,..... ,«.,,.«.««' ,y I l t • ,is 111 N d� I r'i ` '�,�'l aL._eo i i I .�>::....n. I ni I- •4 u ^l� ,d.,....IN � h � IUD �`ry. '•1 nw«rlwyanr,u,AwlWr«.wAru x«.m...vn:....,«...«n.. : IN " I! . ,. �� q � I'.....4._... �1 1n n, ' 1n� � «0 1�" �r�• I { ��'a I:i .' a4 1y nr: •� 1� I{.I I .. nl�'••• r.!'.. ,.Y... ' lq � t : ..........I.,,h\!7 ..! q 4 �` a Yi�j. ne 1 n11•uej u, w'��,rr��llie In •ur rl ... ,.. .. .. t L m�' '� y !•I• LEGAL DEEQRIPTIONt ...A f :;;•. ... .... m1 n4 u u a u n Iuln :l4u ,!l4r�anl I N mry I I .....u•:�CJ• � rc !.... .,., ..... .in I I �� ..M1 r ;•..._, ." . ,:: ... >+ � •1 , . . 4 .I SY.j I:�„' nnl 1 �a nw I1n !{i we'r,r.�.':w«N u:x:'.,.w"",....,:✓,...... L{ w j,. ' _.. t II nRr, n .1 5' 11, :•w a : I : :............................ „ ..M.....:nL............rorr•.r.N':::.:N.,+4:nnn:rnnr,r u �ePAA .IYANW.'N::un:,:,.:ta'::::!:!:!I"`�.':u:rY::.n•:.rmunneu -•wn"'SIB"IiriM'4(p° •,7-,.} .e. [. !<• ......r. ...dCr;!I, M">•. I O' 1 v I N f � II m rxr«,egilel".nir.«.«.««,«i wiri,... � .));.. ;-,�, .. ,.• . : 1 r - �/� Y ' � is, �I 9W�' 111 !illx ,>i;•Yrr� !. !4 7Ny f.Y a Wl, �11012{' 111") 11 a ,w� 4I 0�1� I,A y' ,:..,N 1»y 1 Y)1•, ::'711 —ff0! 1• r i I I —1 ' ', r 1. t:�,1, On/�; n I'uu 1' nN•,n•�' J ` J'I ..� !:J ,h HL.M NN, f,l xl l Crl ryl.,'2,1'YEL t, �.. 1 ,1..I If y I , ' .1 ,a; H':. -�: J •� T 'LI«« LY. y,u4iwu,ww*n w:��u"•"n.w wt;�'+.�u v:Y�n 1+ rt' : J : '" "T ,'1+p Ii' .w..:.x4w«).•,..:,,ul.....,•>.r ,r. :•I• .J� .j:1 ` ... .. ,it if `Cy;;;r! tef....,I fN 4 tsl} 81 jAr 1N Nf .,,fsc Nx v«I I. ,a ,it a, ,N'R fN 1N "I C »u•,rr.«,.r.ra,w:oa.�,«. I, 4 'S'•• xl!-u• nrn :m:. :: (., r tt« mn um w: mn inn uu: uvnl ...I nm ow nNl'1� a F' ?I i� �•I,1,`�-��+ii;Y`:x»:�,`«�y.;a'�N�.'"`r':`»-•,ryi'.` ..•',l .1:yl,;._..'.'�J:.. �''., �1 I 1 1.. .,I,j mn o I '•I r) ........ .....:.........._........ ,..... .. ... .r.......... .. ...... craw w7,r ......,. .r.•f...................... 7n u.....¢a.........,_.a, /CVI•A.,:.IM:r n1lnAAa9 T"Q":::u:.:auuunarwY•r•u^::^:r;K::t.::::.a::.uvnu'ha, ...". A:xu:n::-n•'nk:'ex•:Yq(.44.. .!�' 1, l .. .;,.'� •S� : n fN I fel ' fn yp N1 .... a ...1 ro q .�.: ,N •ux .:1N '{li... i .;i' t �t1II r O SRCA DIVID ASI t ■ .� I«a"" is q mn`!•A x.n p I'' 1�:.: Im!_. v1n lI 'hr... �� Vf_"•+e:i: pEOOvO:aWNRAu,.ND •r.wt':�y 1 un: '; �1.... I! r�eC,.• .:.... Mt�.' , r�� •!. t` ( _ ! , 1,.) .1 I ... I " � ..�..1" •...� ^ e1 / I J re' I•I I F x NI ��IIt I (a.. ', +t Y 3 nm 1, I I ! u 4 tnru !y I « I d. I a I I i !.. ! !..... ..:.;,. 71 3 ! )fir: '.'r,.... L....I i^• -�, G'a+,l�r: I°..: �l�pr:'.5:� 'r t, ..:F' k: ,r,.,..I � I y� „ ul ��,: L.,........:.'• °`N.. I I.6 , 1 kc QM MARKI Ha e EN if „11 In,l r` I( [ m11 I m aul, •.A....�.... :: ,sl, , arlr , taawnaoM+weu+r««n1«F,Lrr `l ...f)1 I �:1 I, ..f rr ....:.:.... IIy;, II "w6:7.: .a':;�.M::1�::�'w":'.'7,,Y::::�:;w`Y.„;:'ii�;: , t' ' ul NI« v �� I rrt..'A _.1ra �,..'r.,.' It' ; I I w! xr..w,«„+.`•w» W ;,•,a. ,Inr 11111 nW 1r,4 1 IIMI 11« nnl III I ,�.•.•••n111 ,. , � � 1 ! r r.�1 url,w.i�;"i.••+.'�r..11.:W:e1,�...J.L'.f'�f.,C r'.:'1Y:::.ree:.�!tl,n nrMa..�nnrunInn umn:e.'n1'J�y�P'`I Ary•M6.1.,eMtA..I.P•.)Jtt}yIIp.CI n n:',+.m:.rI qe:I1:n".::sp 00 ,1.1:. ........ •... ' Im ww,•,^I4kuY.'•-,.•:,^L.r«;1,r i•n. e nN,,t'n..^tY.-..o p•.tIMMJ"'Y6,u• ".fim•�e:h'':it•f•�••I••1••"n f ��:•j`Zl�i''f{l`I ri-rwr•«T tY"a,I.�i' r�r t1'11 II t'1', h1� 'I '.a } PARKIN. G e_ eof«n 1OUr 11 I; . , TABULATIONt' rY' rL'.':.'L'J'I' }t.r'liel'Iilivan,IN ...,.,.,L..,A..,..In. 1 .p u :' ...T" A _•.�. J � L 1 I ' .•:. 1 rl•�:p y 4 r;",:'"'f' �^1��\�.f..r,, ��, ...._ ...1 ...i'' •� •� t•......:_.:.1,... ::j"�', r"'j"'.:a: M•;�r l w«,..«., e 1 i' I il.....t:r!zu„'7*'"' ,{.y .n,.,a«I'ln:,, I II«tI .a...;! tc N a�• u e e' •� ' (! i'' 1�.. I ..`i I :. .....t 1 `p •;• _.,y11', •M1 I��i wlsrw.wawl«w 1 � N iOeidlflua11N4011LNNN1010aMMYMe{ne«xNM1,f111, hf ii�l�IO��e• f1nC1Att1 •..x,••,,•« rWYIITt :n:l.n I1► ,q.,, ,,,,x,» ,« as «wnr nu!ttoY1O Ulle«pl,eourrl �!T8t6 2 �� 1[[snerl MObll[XOMI IARX W Cif.,�,� - "� «....,,• 1. «ffYa"'IR�C` ,»,..,r«.,w..,..«« � •A� Yt � ur«•,«...//."�„n'""^'r' •' .W .«,xx. �',ua�I •Ilan In ...1.-d..(,. , A. ._._._._.__.r-a,-•---`---- TR,4i:�rTL1�4P NO, 17.296 IN THE CITY OP HUNTWOTON BEACH COUNTY Of ORANGE,STATE Of CALIMANIA 1 A PORTION Of THE EAST ONE•Hltf Of THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF 1,;�. S:L j r�.✓• �I,t •,}, f•t i BECT/ON II.TOMSHIP B SOUTN,RANOE II WEST •7i;'„ ,r;. ,0 •;I '•r 7 t ii "OR SUBO/V/SION PURPOSES �� a W ��// •.te ale `��f, �';��l;,i��' ..:' I'•.I �t.l I�:`' .`�r4;t N �y Nr S . �'• X. i, . t, j' o,+/ +'str' Ir •;rr a: .�1'-�"}bT T r.,:.. r+r ✓' aie �i{I• A wLr � '°,N,' '�u} .� .,�1. ., ate� F r 1 � ` u, .';tt � •x_,,...; '�. I Dw 1�aG' ate +'.• '` 'in tl !,... \ :!ICI 1 f�,di•`�.�' `�.( aG d d ucon I, `r ,rrf"ir.. : i 9/>I •:.�i .. . tp1 VVG I N to :31'o CII r d....na . ..._.Ltvr-Id , f Ilr I `Ir i II' !i N ar ay Sf1 11, 1 • ?� �; ;•,, 1 yj '�. } n uNo wrt nitr ;T� .•,/`,' r / 1 _ ..I , Ii:F InT L ' R I � T .te dr ate "b'i..}•, ! :.",.: „'I /w",f % ,;{,` i ,'wa��•-3 ! l 2e `''p.i I'I S ;; ::; 'NAr ale wnr ,nr « ,IiZoJ•n wl '� + wl•.� N le i'rc :`ni �``� ','�•' nw` D , x...I �u....R '. ,I � )'.. �I S 1' I I' S d -•J ' I w,w; VA. 10� A' �,'. A� ' •y I` +n r .. ..,•Y/i v:, u'^1 i ^�71''I i:I '+r,''„a,.,4, I 1 I asr.te •�.•.tr ,.t,.N1SM /. r d. W11 , u I ;• ;: q' � '� 11+It'�'�'I �{��'I�4 t 1" 11' I�' Ii 'I Ij' ��' Il 'l Il � l Y4iN��.� In,r� ,r..n ,1)' �• / ..:1 rah ���� •teV�' .. .Y i ..Ni , alr II I I ! 1 I k t a4 b ,r„,u« n,.,,„ .,.. / u atr � Il 'l Il I + I ' ., ,. r : � ! �•'' ' .. !1 la 1.r� '� ..., ; .� _ : aln t�y' �. nu ,r�I7 u•'r i i I � Ir nit 1 � �� ��1(� � }��['i � i�' dr•str�.�,arJ.�,dr ate � •aSe o4 yW ale /`,� / v'/ .,t / ` ...'i i�^ Sri � i� , ";° 4u • '+!I�• 9,� I r- ! � 1' �as aee as.a,�at.':w. NItM '.ce ae1, w' � :.,. � •. .. !;I � � �I , INi i. • a2r dr NAY'w, NPr ate +tF ,w, ate NFr 'nSe %r! ' 'if , .n /� '� S�. .1.' , ?.,..PIl, ..�}y 1 ,�•i 0ir'W� '--1.j `� 7e .~/ {.I , �° r ' nle«wry I,WI � ..; � I 11 ' /"T, 1 ♦ C•vi,,.~ ,,,{"" .'il},_.....{a, ''"II �! of l , ,1 1r I �l tl J< �' �: 4: 4 �, �. 4 1 1 1 '� / / i •,• � I:.. rN �. :n ti; ,• ,. I ,, 1 II I: r , ? '.1 I I I' Ij 1 I' . � �: / rNr •�� ,y` � � ..� ' � �. an ,�.t1�� F 1l 1 !I � �, v,r,, / at•'• ...,.. 'riii �:. n+,l �.q....••�. . I q i� yi,I�II :I' ` � .—._._._._.._ --.-----.--------- Mom, «,w!:! S e.r", II nu��'� ~n., ~NI o.rnur ;,1. ..•y �u y� ! .'th !I �I`a. ,I n., I 80 D Y 8 I .._.. ` • � `.,,..�-_aJ+' i i \ ,':_•:Af... lf',�...1nt ....r : A E LOT VMBGA9 k— ..,�4.+' r 4• �,.... n ND h ^L ^.rrn ' .�;i 1.....l::«.S-•'n is'! .`w, a nuniw::.u:.wnw:n,...,.�..M wuA:,n y:r.� F«:r.6:i '�;YT,.�n• �A7 T ' 4 mn 'o r �� �y ' It!� i I,...... uu nN ,its .,AGkW.(... i !••• 0 ,11, r r� ,.r.;i°'°�.'.�..j_ ri' � I,...� .f::..,,�� I ,rW n•9 I...'»> J mr, .o ' N I � .... �i 1 "1 �� " �t vS 41 N .,f° sca.w r it•.- y.., .•". 'i I I' • .. .. ,nrr i 111 ... .,. T�• t '• , 1'I . n:1, .... >•i! 4........... ,� r,' ,.,, .,.�.� ue r ,r, " {:..... � i ,n _ ..�. ,N' �, ,rl q ::, .r-• �S• �,.�r• . 1 r. NtFIf h,a - ' lot- t6t t ar }• /. ,.. � pr /'.r Q ;;r ti:} �w N u, nr 'I w nr ( In I ... ' ... �' Lau .. 1',Z I »��Y t' `jfA}Cti•? .'.., �• i �.%�• � ........... .. .• .,ruvar;;ia �..� L1' ql ,.,,n u/^ J r•r.acwrwM�n. �:rtallor ,...rrn,wr a.,},pTInN „}u ""°,• °' I � ,Lr �y, ,iu;u r'• •.+ n I L1•, �Nr. A' n! II.` N ., .) :.: la I J 'N ..,'It ov { I u IWtt�.. / 4 w 1a, rr •I ' Clg~ rI J�� I i� I ,. .� "f'I l.y.. L.(+1.1• Y"El, �,..: NII!II nil.l 0. ...Tln •� I , ` ACV1..... ,, ...'n! -«rP r � ,. N � ,a ,ot�T. .. I. I , _,,,,, I ... alr•,I'L 1111 I I.Lid• A m, ar h`• r' ,?' �.. '. n} uri .9.. �iTt�'aw;.' � t f:M ! IN 1! .. ....� 1• I � !` �� .1 � 4 '; �' , •. 1 , Y , _ �PYI 11t '11 t tM! t r M�TON tIN21 )' 4. }H ( u I!' —y .::,.,—.C'L ' r• ,r.pnNn'• NT__ '.A: �j y � — .. •% r F —'411T�`E I, ,.+ AYtON un1 W drd dAnT$'` � 1- P�..r � oi` u> I. tj 41 I I� ul_ L...NI •1.. .yw rh lt' i i ' .l+ ' ��•(1�^,,` ' ' NIIN, r„r„wrw IWCI1111 � 'M:11h .����1p}� w.,,:•�in•N:+nrw�,na NImN,, l :.„^ �,,;};$Q�f ` y Nnr,(n MYMWOtO 17926 �ZZZ �y 1 t114R1„ MONII MOMI NONt PARK/MR 1'0�►9 1„e.iR-ttm �y.nr ti� ..,,.�a�;, \� n,,,Nw� un,+n,:.. N -1197- Item 8. - Page 515_ INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK r'..... o City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess,AICP,Director of PI g BY: Rami Talleh,Senior Planner . DATE: September 22,2009 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT: Boyd Hill,Hart,King&Coldren,200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 PROPERTY OWNER: Shorecliffs,LP,200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 20701 Beach Blvd.,92648 (west side of Beach Blvd.,south of Indianapolis Ave.- Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: e Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 request: - Subdivide an existing 304 space mobilehome park into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots. - Convert an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes. - Create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. - The request includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements recommended by staff e Staffs Recommendation: Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 based upon the following: - The subdivision will result in an increase in the number of mobile home sites from 304 to.309. - Additional lots created reduces the amount.of existing common open space and do not comply , with the additional minimum common open space requirement of 1,000 sq_& - Impacts to residents associated with the maintenance,and repair of infrastructure, estimated sales price of the lots, and other costs are not discussed or analyzed in the impact report. - Evidence that the tenant survey was prepared in agreement with the homeowners association was not provided_ RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)" -1199- Item 8. - Page 517; i _ u MEN , b�NONE � MEMO ' �■� � r v ' v .to <, r <r' �� _�C� d n 4 Ae x yi �e t Kul. � +t tom. ,�/ 1'S ..•.� �'},.F ;' "° .1 y .�J.,r ' ; C) l e ,S x vai v' �� �� ,.�- �% (� b,Pst �� �'[,., 7q }. �. 4 +-..•� �1 � �� j r � 1 a r\+3�'' 'v i �,'_' • • • 'i �� ' ib S'.J/�' K' q.-lot K •.1. <' i c_ 1 rv7,a II / d i 1[�C �i�� !ld� .�') a ��s rlr !dL'U '9�Gi l��I10,f� � ,[J°61�I• ate` �,i • + � `'til 7 ! t• f I§I81QJ2NI1�( c� I'.I,tB( � ., alb +1 � �! i �4 �ti. /��i�✓Nii� O a "i l[t L.1F 19 I� � C 10'` 1 , (• i',' G.Fu�� �� .M`F,a•v�Jy� / ,'J�C ✓O. �L11 i I, F i 1 ly "F," c:w u Vlc f f ,'\7 1f➢ .I,p fi 1' JaF�j '/,/��j�, 1') i-.a.� ' ��I i n� :I� psj',pl C , .=i.I, '(gt� v �" rl s J r � r •� un ' j\A li l�.I ` t, 11 i L - �,) J i .` ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: . A. `.`Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and direct staff accordingly." ]PROJECT PROPOSAL: Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 represents a request for the following: A. To subdivide approximately 39.2 gross acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of subdividing an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309.1ots for ownership purposes; and create five additional lots for mobile home coaches,increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. B. The applicant has also filed an appeal of the applicable code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A)of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed tentative tract map is a request to subdivide an existing 37.06 net acre,for-rent,mobilehome park with a total of 304 units into 309 lots for ownership purposes. The tentative tract map also depicts the creation of five additional lots for mobilehome coaches bringing the total number of units to 309. The `5 applicant proposes to subdivide the."for rent"park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots(see Attachment No..2). The project also includes an appeal filed by the applicant on August 27, 2009 of the applicable code requirements. The applicant contends that a majority of the code requirements identified as being applicable to the project are"unlawful"pursuant to.State law(see Attachment No. 10). The mobilehome park was established in 1969 and expanded over the next.several years to its current size. The park is developed with a total of 304 units having a density of 8.2 units per net acre. The park is provided with a total of 118 guest parking spaces and a minimum of two parking spaces per unit (608 spaces). Internal circulation within the park consists of 33 ft. wide private streets with parking on one side (24 ft. wide clear). Common open areas are provided in three community facilities consisting of meeting and activity rooms and pools. The common open areas total approximately 38,043 sq. ft. The subdivision proposes to create lots ranging in approximate size from 2,43.2 sq. ft. to 5,772 sq. ft. Permitting and enforcement authority over the mobilehome park lies with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD enforces the California Code of Regulation, Title 25, which establishes development and operational standards for the mobilehome park. The fire authority, however, lies with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. Subdivision of the park for proposes of converting it from for-rent to ownership is regulated by various provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO),Title 25, Subdivisions. Government Code Section 66427.5 of the SMA requires the subdivider to provide a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to -1201- Item 8. -,Page 5'19j PC Report—09/22/09 (09sr61 TIM 17296—Hunti..<..... ........... be converted. The applicant submitted a report that concludes no displacement of residents will occur in that those residents who decide not to purchase a unit may remain renting within the mobilehome park (Attachment No. 6). The SMA also requires the subdivider to obtain a survey of support of residents'of the mobilehome park. The applicant submitted a survey that indicates out of a total of 296 surveys, 188 were returned (Attachment No- 7). Of the 188 returned surveys, 97 respondents declined to state their opinion,-45 respondents indicated that they do not support the conversion of the park, 46 respondents indicated that they support the conversion. ISSUES• Subiect PropertyAnd Surrounding Land Use,Zonin,-And General Plan Designations: Subject Property: R1VH-25(Residential Medium RMP(Residential Mobilehome Mobilehome park High Density—Max.25 units Park) per acre) North of Subject Property RMH-25 RMH-A(Residential Medium Single family residential (across Frankfort Ave.): High Density—Subdistrict A Overlay) East of Subject Property RL-7(Residential Low RL(Residential Low Density) Single family.and multi (across Beach Blvd.): Density—Max.7 units_ per RM(Residential Medium family residential acre) _ Density) RM-15(Residential Medium Density—Max..15 units per acre South of Subject RM-15 RM Multi-family residential Property: West of Subject Property RMH 25-d(Residential RMH Single family and multi- (across Delaware St.): Medium High Density— OS:PR(Opea Space-Parks and- family-residential and public Design Overlay) Recreation Subdistrict) Park OS-P(Open Space—Park) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map designation.on the subject property is RMH-25(Residential Medium- High Density-Max.25 units.per acre). The proposed project is inconsistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares,mina-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. Stem 8, " Page 520 -1202- -- 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 11-1193 sq.ft. in that four of the five additional lots are proposed to be located in an area used for offices, meeting rooms,and a pool. Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the-Residential Mobilehome Park(RMP)zone and does not comply with the requirements of that zone. The five additional lots created in conjunction with the subdivision cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq. ft.per mobilehome(total 1,000 sq. ft.). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast corner of the mobilehome park. Further,the existing -304 units are provided with.less than the minimum required 60,800 sq.ft.common open space. The site is provided with two recreation.areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft. The proposed additional lots will occupy an existing oifice.and pool which constitutes approximately 11,193 sq.ft.of the existing common open space and further reduces the common open space for the mobile home park. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the existing mobilehome park with the development standards of Section 210.14 of the HBZSO. ISSUE CODE PROVISION PROVIDED Individual Space Setbacks Front Min.5 ft. 2 it.to 5 ft. Side 10 feet aggregate,minimum 3 ft.on any 01L to 3 ft. side Rear Min. 5 ft. 2 ft.:to.;5..ft. Storage Min_ 150 cubic feet of enclosed storage Not Verified- space Fencing and landscaping 6 ft.high screen wall and 10 ft_wide Screen wall provided. landscaped planter. Landscaping along Beach Blvd. not rovided_ Boat and Trailer Storage Screened from view by a 6 ft-high Complied with. fence or wall. Maximum site coverage Max:75%for each individual Not Verified_ manufactures home. Common Open Space 60,800 sq.ft(min.200 sq.ft.per unit) 38,043 sq.fL Off-Street Parking- 2 space per unit 2 per unit provided Number 1 guest s ace/for every 3 units= 103 118 guestparking spaces provided -1203- Item 1I. - Page 5217 PC Report-09122109 - (09sr61 TTM 17296—Hunti-111.1 . .� �. Environmental Status: The proposed project is considered categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1,Existing Facilities,Section 15-101(k)of the California Environmental Quality Act,which provides that division of existing multiple- family or single-family residences into common-imerest ownership are exempt where no physical changes .occur which are not otherwise exempt. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design.Review.Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: The Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and tentative map on September 2,2009 and voted unanimously(6-0 vote)to recommend denial of the request to the Planning Commission with findings based on non-compliance with open space requirements for the additional five lots. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the tentative tract map for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and applicable provisions of the HBZSO_ Draft minutes of the`meeting are provided in Attachment No_ 4. Discussion ensued regarding the creation of five additional lots for mobilehome coaches and an access easement to an adjacent, city-owned landlocked parcel to the north.of the site. The committee also reviewed suggested conditions of approval and.code requirements applicable to the project if the project was to be approved. Updates where made to the code requirements by the Fire Department and Public Works Department at the September 2,2009 meeting. The Fire Department comments were updated to be consistent with:tie State-Department of Housing and Community Development's fire safety measures. The Public Works Department comments were updated to separate conditions of approval from the list of code requirements: The applicant subsequently appealed the code requirements recommended by staff. An updated code requirements letter is provided in Attachment No. 5. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works,Fire, Community Services and Building and Safety have reviewed the proposed subdivision and provided a list of applicable code.requirements should the tentative tract map be approved. The Code Requirements letter was transmitted on August 25, 2009 and updated on September 9, 2009. The updated list of code requirements is provided in Attachment No. S. The applicant contends that a.majority of the code requirements are"unlawful"pursuant to State law. The applicant has appealed the code requirements with the exception of Planning Department Code Requirement Nos. 1(b),2(a),3,4, and 7 and Public Works Department pre-final map recordation Code Requirement Nos_.1-6. The Fire Department code requirements were updated subsequent to the applicant's appeal of the code requirements to be consistent with the State Department of Housing and Community Development's fire safety measures. The applicant is currently reviewing the changes and has not provided comments on the revised Fire Departments code requirements. Staff does not concur with the applicant's assertions in that Item 8. - Page 522 -1204- government Code Section 66427.5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Government Code to apply. However, the requirements are only applicable to the subdivision should the project be approved_ Further,the Department of Economic Development has expressed concerns with the lack of an access easement to the abutting Ci"wned parcel to the north(Attachment No. 12). The parcel is bounded by Frankfort Avenue to the north and Beach Boulevard to the east and is currently being leased by the applicant for recreational vehicle(RV)storage.The parcel is landlocked due to severe slopes on both street frontages.While the parcel is currently being used by the mobilehome park and is accessed via a common parking area,no reciprocal.access easements are currently in place or provided as part of the proposed subdivision. Public Notiilk-Won: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on September 10,-2009, and notices were sent to:property owners of record and tenants within a 500 ft:radius of the subject property,individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), tenants at mobilehome park,applicant,and interested parties. As of September 15,2009,87 comments opposing the request have been received(Attachment No_"8). Application Processing Dates: DATE,OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): — August 28, 2009 October 17,2009 Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 was filed on September 18,2008 and deemed complete August 28,2009. ANALYSIS: Major issues with the processing of the application include creation of five additional lots;infrastructure within the park, the report of impacts of conversion on the residents, survey of resident support,and the applicant's appeal of the code requirements. Park Expansion The creation of five additional lots for purposes increasing the number of mobilehome coaches from 304 to 309 is subject to the Section 210.14 of the HBZSO_ Pursuant to Section 210.14 each additional lot created for a mobilehome requires 200 sq. ft. of common open space. Currently the park does not conform to this provision in that a total of 38,043.sq.ft.of common open space is provided. Furthermore, the proposed lots will remove 11,193 sq_ ft_of common open space. The_fve additional lots increase the parks non-conformity and do not comply with the HBZSO. -1205- Item 8. - Pa a 523) PC Report—09/22/09 (09sr61 TTM 17296—Hunt.. . .. ..�. ...,.� Infrastructure In reviewing the proposed subdivision and tentative map staff has raised concerns with existing infrastructure withintthe mobilehome park. The park was originally established in 1969 and developed with a surface drain meandering within the park.Furthermore,inadequate drainage is provided for some mobile home sites in the park. The mobile home sites drain directly to the surface drain within-the private drives. The elevation of the road has been-raised over the years due to resurfacing thus providing inadequate drainage for some mobile home sites. Many-letters and comments have been received from residents of the park citing concerns with the infrastructure within the park such as inadequate drainage from individual spaces;surface drains carrying trash,debris, and animal feces;and faulty utility connections.The State Department of Housing and . Community Development(HCD)has jurisdiction for most aspects of the operation maintenance health and safety of mobile homes and mobile home parks.HCD conducts inspections periodically of the general area,buildings,equipment and utility systems of the mobile home park and each individual lot. Residents- have contended that ongoing maintenance issues existing within the park have not being adequately addressed_ The applicant has not provided an assessment of the existing infrastructure and indicates that . lapses in repair and maintenance of the park are matters which the City cannot address with the proposed subdivision and tentative map_ The applicant contends that when the park subdivides,the tenants will maintain and repair the park at"whatever level they wish_" The applicant has provided a response to the some of the concerns raised by the tenants in.a letter dated August 25,2009 and but states that those concerns are outside the City's scope of review(Attachment No_9.12 to 9.13). Report on Impacts of Conversion,on the Tenants The conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership is authorized by Government Code Section 66427.5 of the SMA(attachment No 13). The SMA provides that the subdividei prepare a report on the impact of the conversion upon tenants of the mobile home park and provide'a survey of resident support for the subdivision. The applicant prepared and submitted a report entitled"Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents" (Attachment No. 6)with the application for subdivision and distributed the report to the residents of the mobilehome park on September 2,2009,a minimum 15 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing as required by State Law. The report references Government Code Section 66427.5 and states that each existing tenant will have the option of either buying or continue renting the proposed space where their mobile home is located with statutory restrictions on rent increases.However the report does not.identify the method upon which the non-purchasing residents will have some expectations of the rents as prescribed by Government Code Section 66427.5. The report states that residents on long-term leases will continue to have their rights under the lease after the mobilehome park is subdivided for ownership. The report concludes that no impacts to the residents will occur because residents will not be displaced as a result of.the subdivision_ The report does not estimate the potential sales price of lots after subdivision and sales price information was not available to residents when the resident survey of support was conducted_ .The applicant states in the impact report that the sales price can only be determined after the subdivision is approved by both the Item-8, P Paye 524 -1206- t M K Nrt v 11A...-L t •C'1^ .( ��nt v c__..:.__�_ . City and the Department of Real Estate and the applicant offers the lots for sale. The report further states that determinations about impacts to the residents resulting from the eventual sale price of the-lots under the purchase option cannot be made because the sale price of lots will not be established until some time after the tentative map is approval.The report states that the time the residents may become aware of a tentative offer price of their respective lot will-be just prior to filing a notice of intention to sell with the Department of Real Estate. Staff considers the submitted impact report as insufficient in that it is not a report on the impacts of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park_The report fails to discuss the impacts of conversion on the residents including economic impacts associated with the maintenance and repairs-of infrastrucftwe; estimated sales price of the lots;and other costs such as property taxes and homeowners association dues. The report does not provide a general idea of potential operating expenses after subdivision such.as the cost of maintenance and repair to existing infrastructure.The applicant indicated that a.pro forma budget or a similar estimate will be submitted to the State Department of Real Estate should the subdivision be approved This will include projected annual operating expenses for the project and corresponding proposed level of maintenance fees or assessments to be paid by individual unit owners Survey of Resident Support Government Code Section 66427.5 requires that a survey of.resident support be conducted in agreement with a homeowners association independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner and that the decision making body reviewing the proposed subdivision consider compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 during its deliberations. A written survey was conducted by The Star Companies,the mobilehome park management company,in March 2009. The results of-the survey were.submitted to the City in May 2009. No information on how the survey results were tabulated was provided or who the . surveys were sent to(i.e.each person or each space). There were a total of 296 surveys sent out. Of the .296; 188 surveys were completed and returned.The survey results indicate that 46 persons were in support of the conversion of the mobilehome park to resident ownership,45 persons were not is support of the conversion,and 97 persons declined to state their opinion. The survey_results indicate that insufficient information has been disclosed to the tenants resulting in a majority of the residents stating. that they do not support the subdivision or do not have an option regarding the subdivision. A copy of the results and ballot are provided as Attachment No. 7. Comments received from the homeowners association president indicate that no agreement was made between the homeowners association and subdivider prior to the survey being sent out The applicant contends that an agreement was made with the"park activities"committee. However no evidence of an agreement has been provided. Based on the Iack of sufficient information,staff believes compliance with sate law has not been met. Appeal of Code Requirements In reviewing the proposed subdivision and tentative map,staff prepared a list of code requirements applicable to the project should the project be approved.The code requirements outline applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requirements, excerpted from the HBZSO and Municipal Code which are required only after approval and prior to recordation of a final map. The list PC Report-09122/09 '11 (09sr6, T-rna ,,,Q� u„n*,1tem 8^,-Page 525 for example requires the submission of CC&Rs and a hydraulic and hydrology analysis,payment of fees, and process for final map review. Staff does not support the applicant's contentions that these requirements are"unlawful"in that government Code Section 66427.5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Government Code to apply. The appeal of the code requirements becomes a moot point as a result of Staff's recommendation.to deny TTM No. 17296. SUMMARY: The proposed subdivision would change the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobdehome Park from a rental park to an ownership park.The proposed subdivision will also result in an increase in the number of mobilehome sites from 304 to 309 lots. The additional lots created reduce the.area of common open space and do not comply with the minimum open space requirement of 1,000 sq fi._.of common area for new lots. The impacts to residents associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure,estimated sales price of the lots,and other costs are not discussed or analyzed in the impact report 1n addition,the survey was not completed as required by Government Code Section 66427.5. Staff recommends denial of the proposed subdivision for these reasons and findings in Attachment No. 1. A'TTACI RIA ENTS- 4} guggaAed4yindings f1er Denial M 1729 , 2009 2008 4. Draft Minutes of the September 2,2009 Subdivision Committee meeting. 5. Updated Code Requirements Letter dated September 9;2009 1 2009 8. Comment letters received from residents of the mobilehome park 9. Letter from the applicant dated August 25,.2009 40: APFj-r---1 better dated Aug� , 2009 11. Letter from the applicant dated September 2,2009 12. Memorandum from the Economic Development Department dated September 15,2009 13. GevewAneat Code Seetief-66427.5- SH:HRRT:lw Item 8. - Page 526 -1208- DRAFT SUBDIVISION CON MIME MINUTES September 2, 2009 a "' Room B-B, Civic Center ' 4:00 P.M Subdivision Committee Planning Commissioners Present- Chair Elizabeth-Shier Burnett, Commissioner John Scandura, Commissioner Fred.Speaker Subdivision Committee Staff Members Present: StaffPresent: Scott Hess, Steve Bogart, Chief Bill Reardon,Rami Talleh, Applicant Present: Boyd Hill,Robert.Coldren TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 3t7296(HUNTWGTON-SHORECLIFFS MOBI LEHOME PARK CONVERSION) APPLICANT: Boyd Hill,.Dart, King&Coldren, 200-Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBDIVIDER: ShorecK LP, 200 Sandpoints, fourth floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 ENGINEER: R.T_ Quinn&Associates, 1907 Border Avenue, Torrance, CA 90501 REQUEST: To subdivide approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31-lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304°space for.rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes. The request also includes the creation of five-additional lots. The applicant.proposes to convert the for rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- TENTATIVE MAP NO.-17296: 1_ The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development_ The five additional lots created in conjunction with the mobilehome park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq_ ft_ per mobilehome(total 1,000 sq. ft_). The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park offcce and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast comer of the mobilehome park. Further, the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq- ft: common open space. The site-is provided with two recreation areas totaling 23,850 sq. ft. In addition, the subdivision will create several lots with less than the minimum required side yard setbacks between manufactured homes- 2- Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the subdivision of approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31.lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent -1209- Item B. - Page 527; AF T mobilehome park and expansion of five additional lots'for a total of 3091ots for ownership purposes-is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RMH-25 (Residential Medium-Thigh 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 total 23,850 sq_ fft_,the proposed five lot expansion is not.provided with the required 1,000 sq_ ft_ of common area intended to seine as a gathering or activity center for the existing-and/or additional lots: IN THE EVENT THAT THE ITEM IS APPROVED,TB E FOLLOWING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE PROVIDED_ Planning Department Comments: Applicable Code Requirements 1. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval,the following shall be required: a_ At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&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 Huntfngton 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)_ A 2. Prior to conversion of the mobile home park, the following shall be completed: Item 8. - Page 528'TT_3/SD090209M1N_dov -1210- (09SD0902) uRAF T ' a. The final map shall be recorded.with the County of Orange. b_ All improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved plans. 3. The Departments of Planning, Public.Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition_` The Planning . Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to parcel map are proposed during the plan check process.-Pennits 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 BBZSO. 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. r 8. The applicant shall submit._a check in the amount of$50 for-the posting of-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 tww(2)'days of Planning Commission's action. 9. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner,and in conformance with the BBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped-areas,checkwith the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. The Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296 for Subdivision of an existing mobile home park received and dated September 18, 2008 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: a_ The maximum number of lots created by the subdivision shall not exceed the total number mobile home units (304) approved for the site by the California Department of Housing and Community Development_ b_ A landscaped planter between the perimeter fencing and public sidewalk improvements along Beach Boulevard shall be provided. 2_ Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: G:S"VisiomWU4UTES/SD 090209 MIN.doc (09S""""" -1211- Item 8. - Page 529) RZ A ff T a. The subdivider-shall obtain necessary permits from the Califormia-Department Housing and Community Development(HCD)to re-identify the lots.if determined necessary.- b. The Subdivider shall demonstrate.to HCD compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25 pertaining to setbacks..If the mobile.home park is deficient in compliance with the applicable setbacks,the subdivider_shall obtain all necessary applicable alternate approvals from HCD. 3. The subdivider shall ofer each existing tenant an option to.either purchase'his or her subdivided unit,which is to be created by the conversion of the park to.resident ownership,or to continue residency as a tenant: (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427:5) 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following a. As to non-purchasing residents who are not lower income.households,the monthly rent,including any applicable fees or charges.for use of any pre-conversion amenities,may increase from the pre-conversion rent to market levels, as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards,in equal annual.increases over a four-year period. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5) b. As'to non-purchasing residents who are lower income households,the monthly rent,including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, may increase from the pre-conversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased-by an �> amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427.5) .Public Works Comments: Code Requirements TI$E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SURMI I'TAL OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE.CITY FOR REVIEW: 1. A Hydrologyand Hydraulic Analysis for existing site drainage and tributary upstream drainage shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval-(10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms shall be analyzed): In addition, this study shall include_ 24-hour peak back-to-back 100 year storms- for onsite detention analysis. Any drainage ,improvements required by the aforementioned analysis shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased amoff due to development or deficient downstream systems. Design of all.necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency_ (ZSO 255.12) 2. Based on the Fire Department's requirement for a separate dedicated_ private on-site fire hydrant system, a hydraulic water analysis is required to identify any off-site water improvements necessary to adequately protect the property per the Fire' Department requirements. The subdivider shall be required to upgradermprove the City's water system per Water Standards to meet the water demands to the site and/or otherwise mitigate the G:Subdivisior&/MINU MSD 090209 MM Aoc 4 (09SD0902) Item 8. - Page 530 -1212- A-r-rA f-%1AR Ar-A9T Kin LA it RIAFaimpacts of the property at na:cost to the City_ The subdivider shallprovide t e site plan showing the existing and. proposed on-site and offsite. water improvements (including pipeline sizes, fire hydrants, meters, and backflow device locations). The subdivider shall be responsible to pay the City for-performing the analysis using the City's hydraulic water model. .(SMA 66428.1(d)and ZSO'255.04(E)) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1_ . The Tentative Tract Map received and dated August 4, 2009 shall be the approved layout. 2. The Final Tract Map .shall be submitted to the City .of Huntington Beach Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include a tine 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 ofthe 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 ofPublic 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. f' b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the:County of Orange- 6- Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: a_ Design Specification: i_ Digital.data shall be full size(1:1)and in with>the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone.6(Lambert Conformal Conic projection),NAD 83 datumin accordance v6f fthe County of Orange Ordinance 3809. it- Digital data shall have double precision accuracy(up to fifteen significant digits)_ iii. Digital data shall have units in US FEET. iv_ A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. v_ Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. vi. Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers(APN), street addresses and street names with suffix.. b_ File Format and Media Specification: vii. Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats(AutoCAD DWG format preferred): QSubdivisions/bnNUTES/SD090209MfKdoc -1213- (W Item 8. - Pale 5317 Wnl RAF T AutoCAD (version 2000, release.4)drawing file: DWG , • Drawing Interchange file: DXF f` viii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type-- CD Recordable(CD-R)650 Megabytes 7. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval: The engineer shall submit cost estimates for:determining bond amounts. (ZSO 255.16C&MC 17.05) 8. .All-improvement securities(Faithful Performance,Labor&Material and Monument Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved .as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 255.16) 9. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney_ (ZSO 253.12K) 10.If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed,a Subdivision Agreement may be submitted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA) 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&Ws to manage the following for the total project area: a_ Onsite-landscaping and irrigation improvements '( b. Ott-site sewer and drainage systems c. Best Management Practices(BMP's)as per the approved WaterQuality Management Plan(WQMP) The aforementioned items shall be addressed in the development's CC&W 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.) The plans shalt comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. Existing AC curb along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter per Public Works Standard Plan No. 202 and per Caltrans requirements. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) . b. Six(6) foot wide sidewalk and a nine(9) foot wide curb adjacent landscaped parkway along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No_ 207. _(ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.l(d)) c. The existing earthen storm drain channel along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be replaced with a 54-inch storm drain pipeline (unless otherwise designed and sized by Hydraulics Report which is submitted to Public Works for review and approval) to convey the 100-year storm flow as quantified in the City's 2005 Master. Plan of Drainage_ (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(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) Item 8. a page 532RTrES'SD090209MCN_doc -1214- (09SD0902) DRAFT -e- ADA. compliant access ramps shall be .installed on the easterly curb returns on Delaware Street at Mermaid Lane per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428-1(d)) f An,ADA compliant access ramp shall be installed on the southeast corner of Delaware Street and Frankfort Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A--- (ZSO 255:04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) g. An ADA compliant access ramp shall be installed on the southeast corner of Delaware Street and FraaMort Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan.A88A (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 6.6428.1(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 2.55.04, 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.I(d)) k. Based on the Fire Department's requirement-for a separate dedicated private on site fire hydrant system,the subdivider shall comply.with the following requirements: ix_ The existing two (2) 4-inch compound manifold metering system serving the fire, domestic and irrigation water systems shall be replaced with a single meter for domestic and irrigation purposes only_ The new meter must be sized to meet the minimum requirements of the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and constructed per Water Standards. (SMA 66411.5(a)and ZSO 255.04(E)) X. Backflow protection devices shall be constructed per-Water.Standards at each fire service connection to the to the City's water system- (SMA 66411.5(a) and ZSO 255.04(E)) 1. The -existing 8-inch backflow device configuration .is non-conforming placing the City's water supply at risk of potential contamination_ As a result of health and safety concerns, the subdivider shall reconstruct or replace the existing backllow device to comply with current Water Standards_ (Resolution 5921, Title 17 State Regulation, SMA 66411.5(a), and SMA 66428.1(d)) in. An onsite storm drain shall be designed .per the final approved hydrology and hydraulics study, City Standards and per the City adopted ZOOS Master Plan of Drainage. The storm drain system located within private streets shall be private and .maintained by the Homeowner's Association. A soils report, prepared by a Licensed Engineer shall be submitted for reference only. (ZSO 255.04A) 14. A Landscape and Irrigation-Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments_ (ZSO 232.04) i G-Subdivisioiu/MV4 TrES/SD 090209 MIN_doc -1215- Item 8. - Page_533) "RAFT 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)_ "Smart-irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (ZSO 232.04D) c. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (ZSO 232) 15. All'landscape planting, irrigation. and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (ZSO 232.04B) 16.Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible..(DAW) 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 Iocations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Said Arborist signature shall be.incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans-and shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (Resolution 4545) 18.A Drainage Fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of -- Building Permit.issuance. The current rate of$13,270 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments_ This project consists of 41.223 gross acres(including its tributary area portions along.the half street frontages)for a total required drainage fee of$547,029_ City records indicate the current use on the subject property has never paid this required fee. Per provisions-of the City Municipal Code,this one time fee shall be paid for all subdivisions or development of land. (MC 14.48) In lieu of the payment of the aforementioned-Drainage Fee $547,029,Public Works will accept the construction of the on-site master planned facilities per the City of Huntington Beach, Municipal Code-Section 14.38.030_ 19.The current tree code requirements shall apply to this site. (ZSO 232) a_ Existing trees to remain on site shall not be disfigured or mutilated, (ZSO 232.04E) and, b. General tree requirements, regarding quantities and°sizes. (ZSO.232.08B and C) 20.All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified.to.be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect. (ZSO 232.04D) 21.Applicant shall provide City with CD media TIFF images(in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City Approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy' prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. 22_The Water Ordinance 1114.52,the"Water Efficient Landscape Requirements".apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger. -(MC 14.52) Based upon these requirements, 'a separate water meter and backflow prevention device shall be provided for landscaping along Beach Blvd. G:SubdivisiomIL [NLUES/SD 090209 MIN_doc 9 (09SD0902) Item 8. - Page 534 -1216- DRArv- THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RELEASE OF IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES: 1. -Complete all improvements as shown on the approved improvement plans. Suggested'Conditions of Approval THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW: 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).foi-domestic and irrigation water metering requirements- THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1_ Encroachment permits. for work within the Caltrans' right-of-way (for construction of sidewalks, driveways, water connections, etc.) shall be obtained by the applicant or contractor from Caltrans prior to start of work A copy of each permit, -traffic control plans,. -environmental review and other permission granted by 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. Prior, to the recordation of the Map, all required landscape..planting and irrigation shall be installed,inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architectllnspector. Fire Department Code Requirements= 1. Tract Map No_ 17296 for the subdivision of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile home park for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park for ownership purposes shall comply With the following requirements: a. Fire Hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification#407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. b. Fire-flow based on fire area and construction type(HBFC Appendix B, Table B-105.1, Appendix C, Table C-105.1), shall be provided at 1500 gpm from each hydrant spaced every 500 feet. c_ Private water systems shall be installed to service on-site fire hydrants. t. . G.SubdivisiorMUM,IESlSD090209MIIV_doc -1217- (09'ltem 8. a Page 535 FT DR: 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department.for processing and approval,the following shalt be complied with. a. A site plan depicting all locations of fire lanes-shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire.Depaitment. b. Plans portraying the fire hydrants shall reference compliance with NFPA.13 and 24, 2002 Edition,Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification ##407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards in the plan notes and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Fire Departments_ c. Plans depicting the private water system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department. d: Fire Lanes shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415,Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private,Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties. The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs,both in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted.No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification#415_For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Wmimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. e. A current fire flow test in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code shall be performed by a licensed fire protection contractor with the supervision of the Fire Department. All test results shall be submitted to the Fire Department for Review and { Approval- 3- Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the following conditions shall be complied with: a.. Fire Hydrants pursuant to Code Requirement No. 1 referenced above, shall be installed- b. A fire service main pursuant to Code Requirement No_ 1, referenced above, shall be installed in compliance with NFPA 13 and 24,2002 Editions_ c. Private water system pursuant to Code Requirement No. 1 shall be installed. d. Residential (SFD)Address Numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification 9428,Premise Identification_ Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shall.be a minimum of foul- inches (4')high with one and one half inch a/2-)brush stroke. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification#428,Premise Identification in the plan notes and portray the address location on the building. e. Individual units shall be identified and numbered per City Specification#409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process through the Planning Department_Unit address numbers shall be a minimum of four inches(4") affixed to the units front door in a contrasting color. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process, in the plan notes and portray the address and unit number of the individual occupancy area_ G:Subdivision&MlM rn S/SD 090209 MIN-doc (09SD0902) Item 8. e Page 536 -1218- 4. The following conditions shall be maintained during construction: R A F"r a. Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained du.ring 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 incompliance with City Specification#426,Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. OTHER-- 5- The following conditions shall be maintained during construction: a. .Discovery_of additional soil contaminationor underground pipelines, etc.,must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification 4431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards_ (FD) b_ Outside City Consultants_-The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants_ The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover- consultant fees from the applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) Subdivision Committee Member Comments: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner, stated thepurpose,-location, zoning, and existing use of the subject site: Staff presented an overview of the proposed project and the recommended suggested findings for denial as presented in the attachments_ Mr_ Talleh stated that .staff-had received 76 public comments from the residents expressing concerns with the outdated infrastructure of the mobile home park-Mr. Talleh indicated that some residents had also provided. photographs of the infrastructure. Mr. Talleh stated that a Late Communication had been received from the applicant in response to staff's recommendation to deny TTM No. 17296 based on the Findings for Denial. Commissioner Scandura confirmed with staff that the findings for:denial were based on the fact that the proposal does not comply with open space requirements: Mr_ Scandura raised concerns with the non-conforming setbacks, He asked staff if the open space requirements would be met if the applicant removed the proposed additional spaces.-Mr. Talleh stated that the non-conforming setbacks were located in an area separate from the proposed additional spaces. Mr. Talleh indicated that if the applicant were to.remove the proposed additional five units there would no longer be a need for additional common open space but the. current common open space and setbacks would not be in conformance. Commissioner Scandura asked how many units had non-conforming setbacks. Mr. Talleh stated that he did not.have an exact number, due to the fact that a site plan is not required for this type of application, but that it was a significant percentage of the units_ G:SUb&vis+i0nsUTNLrFMSD090209 MIN.doc 1-1219- (09S Item 8. - Page 537; URAFT Commissioner Speaker asked if the resident survey would be- submitted to the Planning Commission prior to. the public hearing. Mr. Talleh indicated-that it would be included- as an attachment to the September 9, 2009, Study Session Staff Report- Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that he had distributed the updated Public Works Department suggested conditions of approval,.which included-updated code requirements. Chair Shier Burnett inquired if the Planning Commission.would receive a copy of.the required- impact report.Mr. Talleh indicated that it would also be included in the September 9,2009, Study Session Staff Repoit. Mr. Talleh iterated that the staff recommends denial of the project and proceeded to present Planning Department suggested conditions of approval and code requirements in the event that the committee recommends the project for approvalto the Planning Commission. . Bob Milani, Senior Civil Engineer, reviewed the Public Works code requirements and suggested conditions of approval if the project were to be approved. Scott Hess, Planning Director, asked Mr. Milani to identify the unique conditions as the.majority of items listed are standard code requirements. Mr. Milani briefly described the standard conditions and fees. He pointed out that the notable conditions included the establishment of a Home Owners Association in order to maintain on site landscaping, irrigation, on site sewers and drainage systems, and that all of these items shall be addressed in the development CC & R's. He noted that there.is a required.drainage fee and that no payment is on record with the City_ He stated that the drainage fee requirement would be waived with proof-of payment. Lill Hernandez, Civil Engineering Assistant, reviewed.the code requirements pertaining to water systems-and indicated that these requirements are subject to change. Mr. AElani reviewed the Public Works suggested conditions of-approval should the project be -approved. Mr. Hess inquired about the curb and gutter improvements along-$each:Bouulevard. Mr. Nfilani explained the offsite improvements listed in the suggested conditions of approval. A brief discussion ensued between Mr. Hess, Mr. Talleh, .and Mr. Bogart regarding the necessary improvements to sidewalks and clubs. Commissioner Scandura asked for clarification on: required testing to determine adequate drainage. Mr. Bogart responded to the inquiries, clarifying drainage requirements. Commissioner Scandura asked if the mobile home park was in the 100 year floodplain.Mr. Talleh explained that FEMA's updated flood maps had removed the park from the 100 year flood zone_ Commissioner.Scandura inquired about soil reports for the area. Mr. Talleh explained that, in the absence of any new construction the tract map.process does not require soil analysis- i G:Subdivisious/MlNT YFES/SD 090209 MIN_doc 1 ' (09SD0902) Item 5. - Page 538 -1220- AFT Bill Reardon, Battalion Chief, stated that Fire .Department staff had reviewed the project extensively. He clarified that the Fire Departments recommendations are actually code requirements. He noted that recent inspections conducted by the Fire Department showed that the'existing underground water system complies with current standards. R Chair Shier-Burnett inquired of the frequency of the fire hydrant testing cycles-and if these tests. were mandatory. Jeff Lopez, Deputy Fire.Marshall, explained that there are two types of testing required: a-back flow test which is done in a five year cycle and a mandatory annual test conducted on the hydrants themselves_ He gave.an in depth explanation of the testing standards and processes.. He stated that the mobile home park provided testing results for four of the eight hydrants in the park and that he is expecting results for the remaining four hydrants shortly. Commissioner Scandura inquired about the fire code-requirements, paramedic response,fire lanes, and the ability for the Fire Department to locate the hydrants_ Chief Reardon responded to the inquiry by stating that the code that is being used is from ACD_He noted that the City'does keep records of the hydrant locations and that the response time to the park is very good_ He stated that there are no known issues regarding fir an - Robert Coldren, the applicant's representative, stated-that the applicant is committed to ensuring all safety issues-are addressed_ Developer Comments_ Mr Coldren stated that the park had been approved for 309 coaches by the Housing and Community Development Agency_ He questioned.if he could revert back to that.permit_ He also stated that the original permit allowed coaches to be set on two separate coach lots. This would be an issue that the developer would like.to...correct- Scott Hess, Planning Director inquired on the.City owned parcel adjacent to the park as well as the area being used for RV storage. Mr. Coldren commented that he believes the RVs being stored are owned by both residents of the park as well as others. He stated that he would research that issue as he understood it could result in zoning violations. The committee members engaged in a brief discussion regarding their various options and opted to follow stafFs recommendation for denial. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCOTT HESS, SECONDED BY ELIZABETH SHIER BURNETT, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL-OF THE TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296 WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. (6-0). FUgDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296: 1. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development. The five additional lots created in conjunction with'the mobilehome park conversion cannot be provided with the minimum required common open space of 200 sq. ft- per mobilehome(total 1,000 sq. f -)_ The five additional lots are proposed within an area currently used for the mobilehome park office and remnant landscaped area located at the southeast corner of the mobilehome park_ G-Subdivisions/MMUTES/SD090209 MIN.doc -1221- J09.Item 8. - Page 539, At- I. Further,the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq.ft. common open space_ The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 23,850 sq.ft.- In addition, the subdivision will create several lots with less than the minimum required side yard setbacks between manufactured homes. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for the subdivision of approximatelq 392 acres into 309 numbered.lots arid 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 aeie)on the subject property and applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The - proposed-tentative map is not consistent with the following policies of the General Plan: LU 9.3.2(a): Integrate public squares, mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d): Establish a common"gathering' or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services such as child or adult-care,recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities_ LU 93.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza-to encourage a high level of community activity. While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas. total 23,850 sq. ft.,the proposed five lot expansion is not provided with the required 1,000 sq. ` ft. of&moron-area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. " TTES/SD090209MINA,. I (09SD0902) Item 8. - Page 540 1222- . City .:of Huntington Beach • 2000 MAIN STREET CAUFORNIA 92648 - f DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING. S0t6mber 912009 Boyd Hill Harti King&Coldren 200 Sandpointe;Fourth Floor Santa Ana;.CA 42707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) UPDATED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr_Hill, In order to assist you with your,development--proposal,--staff has-ieviewed 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 shouid.the Planning Cosortnission 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 lest may also change_ The Planning Director has interpreted the .relevant,.Sections -of the zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to require that your project satisfy lbe.following Aeveloprnent-standards- Should you disagree, pursuant to Section 24824A,you have ten(14)days from the date of this notice to file an appeal with the Planning Department_-The appeal fee is$494.00- If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes,.or believe-some of -the items listed do not apply to your project,and/or you would like to discuss-them in further detail, please contact me at 714-374-1682 or at rtaiteh@surfcity-hb_org and/or Ahe ^respective source department(contact person below)_ Sincerely, l Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Enclosure. cc: Leonie Mulvihill.Senior Deputy City Attorney Gerald Caraig,Building and Safety Department-714-374.1515 Darin Maresh_Fire Department-714-536-5531 Steve Bogart-Public Works-714-536-1692 HesbJason FKelley. Planning Manager ATTACHMENT NO. �) I Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shoreciifl_LP,200 Sandpoints,fourth floor,Santa Ana-CA 92707 Project File "T le ` 8' a in C ss n 7 c t n n -.I�Z�e ! c L re' Item 8. - Page 5411 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUNNING DEPARTMENT i,vs iri o efscH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIRE ENTS 'DATE: August 24,2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO_-0"190;TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO_ 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD_,92648(WEST SIDE OF BEACH BLVD_,SOUTH OF INDIANAPOLIS AVE_) PROJECT PLANNER: RAMI TALLEH, SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714)374-16821 rtatleh@surfcity-hb_org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON.SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP_ The following is a.list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated August 4,2009_ The fist is.intended to.assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the variousstages of project perm tting 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 shalt be required: a_ At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rssbali 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 CG&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. b_ Final tract map review fees.shall be paid, pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council (City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule): (HBZSO Section 254.16) c. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid pursuant.to the requirements of HBZSO Section.254.08— Parkland Dedications- The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution(City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule)_ 2. Prior to conversion of the mobile home park, the following shall be completed- a. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange_ { b- All improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved plans. ATTACHMENT NO. Items 8. - Page 542 -1224- r Page 2 Of-2 3_ The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring`comptiance 'with all conditions of approval herein as.noted after each condition_ The Planning Director and.,Pul--gic Works Director shall be notifiecTin writing if any dianges to parcel rnap are proposed dunng th&,plajn .. check process_Permits sfiatl not be'tssued.unti�`fhe Plannrngrt�Diirector and Public Works Director have-reviewed and approved'the proposed cianges-for conformance with the intent of the Plannin!q Commission's action and.the matrons herein- If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an arhendinerit to the brigirial entitlement reviewed-by*the Planrirng 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 mWornur»60 days prior to the expiration date. 6_ The subdivision shall comply with all appt'rcable 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..CieWs Office_ .7be..check:shall be made out to the County of"'Orange and submitted to the Planning Department 3ndthin 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 Workks for Code requirements_ Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission_ ATTACHMENT Nn ), 3 -1225- Item 8e - Page 543) ti � -_• - J a� . .H.UNTkNGTO_ :N BEACH PUBLIG WORKS DEPARTMENT NUIti1NG30t3 IlMtH- PROJECT-IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: SEPTEMBER 1,1009 PROJECT.NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PL.NG APPLICATION NO. 2008-0190 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4,2009 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER RAMI TALLEH,SENIOR PLANNER TEL.EPHONE/E-MAIL: 71437446821.RTALLEH0_S.URFCITY-HB_ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART,SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374 4 692 1 SBOGARTO—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_I%unicipat.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 Constriction .(Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area:management Plan (DAMP). and the City Arboricuttural and Landscape Standards and Specifications_' The list is intended to assist the .applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied dcxing 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:. I- The Tentative Tract Map received and dated August 4, 2009 shall be the approved layout. 2- The Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include a title report.to indicate the fee title owners) as shovun on a -1226- ATTACHMENT NO. 5� Item 8. Page 544 "'� Paget of4 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.Parse!Map- 3- The Final Tract Map shall be consistent.with the approved Tentative Tract Map. (ZSO 253A4)' 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-recordotion. 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 fie 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 Confoimai Conic projection), MAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809_ ii_ Digital data shall have double precision accuracy (up to fifteen significant digits)_ .UL Digital data shalt°have vnks in US FEET_ iv_ A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet_ v_ Digital data shall be in comp�iance:witb:tbe.l luntirigton Beach Standard Sheets, z drawing names-,_pen color and layering.conventiorm vi_ Feature compilation shalt include,but-shall trot be%invited 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 follovvmg mile formats(AutoCAD DWG format preferred)_ • AutoCAD (version 2000,_release 4)drawing file: .DWG • Drawing Interchange file: _DXF R 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 St 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 Worts Department and,�approved as to form by the City Attorney_ (ZSO 253.12K) j ATTACHMENT NO. 515 -1227- Item 8. - Page 545. -- Page of 10., If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed,- a Subdivision Agreement maybe submitted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the.Subdivision Map Act-(SIvIA) 1.1_AD 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 CC8tR'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 (VVQMP) The aforementioned items shall be addressed in the development's CG&ITs_ 13. Improvement Plans,prepared by a Licensed Cnnl Engineer,shall be submitted to the Public Works - Department for review and approval: (MC 17.05/ZSO 230-84) I4_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 21or 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) I5_All-landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shalt comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and.Specficatioris_ (ZSO 232.04B) 16. Landsc*pg plans shall utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and. feasible_(DAMP) IT A Consulting Arborist (approved by the-City Landscape Archiitect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting-plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection-measures and locations of existing trees to remain. .Said Arborist signature shall .be -incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan_ (Resolution 4545) 18.A Drainage Fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance_ The current.rate of$13,270 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments_ This project consists of 41.223 gross acres(including its tributary area portions along the half street frontages)for a total required drainage fee of.$547,029_ City records indicate the cuurrent 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 14A8) In lieu of the payment of the aforementioned Drainage Fee $5.47,029, Public Works will accept the construction of the on-site master planned facilities per the City of Huntington Beach, Municipal Code Section 14.38.030_- 19_The current tree code requirements shall apply to this site- (ZSO 232) a. Existing trees to remain on.site shali not be disfigured or mutilated, (ZSO 232.04E) and, b- General tree requirements, regarding quantities and sizes- (ZSO 232-08B and C) ATTACHMENT NO. Item 8.,.-f a%e 546 -1228- - t - 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .. FIRE DEPARTMENT �urJraJaToiv er,4aH . PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: September 4,2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF MOBILE (-HOME SUBDIVISION t"TLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO.08-190:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO_ 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701•BEACH, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA .PLANNER: RAM[TAL-LEH,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714)374-168W rtatteh@surfaty-hb_org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: DAR1N>�AARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONEfE-MAIL: (714)536-55311 dmaresh@surfcity-hb_org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM. RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP_ The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated August 4; 2009_ -fhe'fst 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 ira conjuniion with the requested entitlemebt(s),if any,will also be provided upon final project approval- If you have any questions regarding terse requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer Fare. DARINMARESH, 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.htd-ca-govlcodes/mp/MpRegs-html)- c- Per Title 25 CC §1308, if additional lots are installed, each lot shall have installed an accessible three-quarter (314)-inch valved water outlet, with an approved vacuum breaker installed, designed for connecting a three-quarter (3/4)-inch female swivel hose connection for fire suppression use- d- The following areas shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code unless conditions were legally existing prior to September 26, 2002 or if.the fire nrr A In .�4- -1229- ATTACHP Item 8m Page 5473 Page 2 of 3 t chief determines.that such a condition constitutes a distinct threat to life or t property. i. -Fie equipment access,-posting of fire equipment access, parking, lot ideniicattion.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.curre_nt flow test in compliance with-Title 25 shall be. 'submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department on the current HCb MP532 form_ b: Documentation of the fire hydrant-and water supply system's compliance with NFPA 24, 1977"Edition,.shall be submitted to-the Huntington Beach Fire Departmentby 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 on Private., Residential, Commercial and /ndustfral Properfies. 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 inaintain compliance with City.Specification.#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access_ i_ An inspection is required to confirm the park's compliance with regard to fire lane and apparatus access_ This inspection may be scheduled by calfing . (714) 536-5411_- 3. -Prior to recordation of the final tract trap, the following conditions shall be complied With: a. Residential address numbers shall be-installed to comply vVith City Specification #428, Premise Identification_ Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shalt be:a.minimum of four inches (4") high with one and one half inch (Yz") brush stroke_ i_ An inspection is required to confirrn the_park's compliance with regard to premise identification. This inspection may-be scheduled by calling (714) 536-5411_ 4. The following conditions shall be maintained during construction_ a. Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction and-Demolition- b. Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance-with City Specification#426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction.Sites. t ATTACHMENT NO. 5,9 Item 80 - Page 548 -1230- . ""'�°— i Page 3 of OT"ER: 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 Cify Specification#431-92 Soil Clean4Jp Standards- (F®) 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•i4sptir►sible.party.(FD) c_ The-Huntington Beach-Fwe Depar nt reserves the right to apply additional specific requiremenEs as necessary 10:reach.compliance with code requirement l�io_ 1, referenced on page orb of this doca.ment Y.. Fire De artrridid 5ficatwu.n be,obtaired>atay Huntington Beach,fide-Department Administrative Office City t=talf-2(t'10*M5irfStreet, 50'floor Uuo inWca..Beach,:CA 92648:. or through the City's website at-www.surfcity--hb org If you have any questions;please confacuthe Fire Prevention Division at(T 14) 536-5411_ s ti -1231- ATTACHMEN Item 8. P ge 5495 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK G � C� C � dGD .r r eal .� AUG 2 5 2009. �� ,� 4 :_ . ,, o Beach, Huntington Beach �, s -, PLANNING IJE.PT. ;A 495 'August 25, 2009 Mr.Rami Talleh Senior Planner;.Dept_of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000-Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntingtori-Beach,CA 92648 SUBJECT- .Application to Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach-Boulevard Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park—Tentative Tract Map No 17296 Dear Mr_Talleh_ I received a notice directed to`Interested Parties"from Mr_ Scott Hess about a Subdivision Committee meeting set for September 24to-consider a request by Shores iff,LP to subdivide the property at 20701 Beach Boulevard_ Before I set 4orth my views-about the proposed subdin ision, I want to take:serious exception to the wording of ' Mr.Hess's notice in the section captioned"REQUEST' The last sentence.o.#fiat section says, `The applicant proposes to convert the for rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots." On its face,that is-a very benign.statement- However,it is factually not correct_ it would be correct if reworded to say;II._.to enable any and all interested persons or organizations to purchase lots." As stated in the Notice, one would get the impression that the Subdivider is foc:used.on helping current residents participate in the cxeation of a Resident Owned Park,when in fact the real focus is on attracting non-resident buyers_ s I am writing to,oppose very vehemently the Application presently under.considerationby the City of-Huntington.Beach to subdivide the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park located at 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648_ That application contemplates the subdivision and subsequent sale of the subdivided tots on a"condo- ized'basis_ Let me be clear,though_ tam not opposed in principal to the Subdivision_ In fact, in principal I support the Subdivision.concept_ I am, however, opposed to approval of the Subdivision without the City of Huntington Beach placing conditions on the approval thatwould protect the interests of the substantially more.than 300 Senior. Citizens who presently call.1he Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park their Home_ These.are.people who are,by virtue of retirement,living on fixed incomes, and who are largely without the substantial resources-required to retain outside Counsel to protect their interests_ They rely on the City of Huntingtori Beach to protect their interests,just as it would protect the interests of any other citizens_ -1233- ATTA rel P . -6Item 8. a Page 551, - t Nere area number of..factors that 1 think the Planning Process should consider. t. First,:consider the_demograph�cs of the:Parkk It is a senior park_ The vast majority of. the Park'&residents.are:well beyond retfretriectt age_ A goodly number of them(1 don't knoinr0*-0act number)_On be.dassifred as how income persons. A substantial riurrrber, however, rain tie clasified'as`living on fixed incomes." In many cases,their mobile homes constituted their last major purchases, and they purchased their homes in the belief that their homes would provide them with a lifetime ioof over their heads,at reasonable rental rates. Second, California Code Section 66427.5(hereinafter"the Code")requires the subdivider to file a report about the impact of the conversion on residents. l have reviewed the Application File twice and have failed to find any such impact report in the file. The Code is not very revealing about what such a report should contain,but I think it reasonable to expect that such a report would be.at least as complete as any similar report about the impact of a new bridge on the snail darter or the ruby crested hummingbird. Naturally,as one would expect,the conversion might have a tremendous negative impact on the emotional health of residents_ Beyond the emotional impact,though,the conversion will certauily have an enormous negative impact on the financial health of many,if not most,of the residents_ The Impact Report MUST address that. Of course,at present,given the failure of the Subdivider to provide even the most rudimentary data-about his plans,we residents can only guess . what is in store for us. However,since the_Stibdividerpaid about.$60 Millions to acquire the Park,the average sale price of.any one of the-309 lots must be dose to$190,000_ At that price,the Subdivider would recoup his initial purchase price_ Of course,to make ' himself whole for any expenses incurred while he owned the Park.thelot.prices Would have to be adjusted upwards.- It's safe to say that the offering price of any lot would necessarily be between-$200,000 and$300,000. There are very few seniors in the Park who could afford to pay cash forthat amount- Moreover.,since many lenders Have suddenly'got religion"as a result of the numerous recent financial crises,the odds of a 15 year old resident being able'to find favorable mortgage terms to facilitate the purchase are slim to none.- Y, As for those residents who might elect to continue renting their lots, the Code provides in very vague terms.that the subdivi&r may increase the.pre-conversion rent rates to "market levels"in four-(4)equal annual increments. Again, the Subdivider has-been noticeably reticent about letting residents know what that increase might ultimately amount to_ What happens to those residents who can afford neither the purchase price of their lots or the increased rent rates?-This is where the too often made comparison between Apartment to Condo Conversions and Mobile Home to Condo Conversions falls apart_ In the Apartment to Condo scenario, the tenant who finds he can afford neither the price nor the increased rent can easily move elsewhere and take his*assets with him. In the Mobile Home to Condo scenario, however,the tenant who finds that he must move, elsewhere is forced to leave behind him a significant asset_ his dwelling! in my own case,for example,five (5)years ago I moved into Shorecliffs and bought a brand new mobile home for$200,000 in cash. I was working then, and was.preparing for r i Item 8. - Page 552 -1234- A A ^1 1a Ar-A IT' z,:,. retirement. I am retired now, If I find that I cannot afford.to buy my lot 0114o:pay,.the, increased reef rates; I witt.iaaye to move elsewhere and-leave my_house=a:$200;000. investment_.behind me. Even.if it were practical`to move a manufactured home to another site in the Huntington Beach'area l would}rave to pay nearly,another-$100,000- or.more to an.aging.mobile home on an existing space in another.park;have it demolished and then have my own-home moved,installed and refinished. The additional expense would:be-extremely.high- Another area that the Impact Report must address-is what the impact will be on.current residents of the Subdividees plans to change the PaWs-demogralaWs.. In this-particular -case,the.Subdivider's.representatives/agents have given clear signals thit they are contemplating(if!hey have not already made the decision)changing the Park from a Senior to a Family Park That makes good economic sense for the Subdivider,since a younger demographic will most likely have.the higher incomes needed to purchase the converted lots_ In my case that would have the effect of totally negating one of the two main reasons I moved into Shorediffs_ As an educator, 1 spent the last 44 years working with children and their parents_ I'loved it_ However,now that I am retired,I-need a break! I don't want to be.putting up with children,with their parents,and with the additional community expense required to provide safe play and recreation facilities for them, 1 think my view is shared by the majority of lily fellow residents- Incidentally, if the Subdivider does in fact intend to convert the park to a'family"park, then i submit that a substantive change of use is involved;and that the Subdivider's Application's representation that no change of use is involved is false on its face- Third, once conversion has:been approved at all levels, the Subdivider,.as the owner of all the lots in the Park,will be; perforce;the-controlling member of the new Homeowners Association, and,will continue as such until a majority of the lots have been sold to unrelated private parties. it will not be until that time that we will know what our monthly Association Fees will be. Nor will we know what will be the plans for remedying common area deficiencies-that already exist,and which have not as of this writing been cured. What is certain is that the Subdivider's agent,Star Management, has a palpable record of unresponsiveness_ (In the interest of brevity 1 will not gci into-that at this time, but, on request, I have and can provide tangible documentation of that unresponsiveness as it relates to my own situation_) Since the Subdivider will for all practical purposes exercise in t virtual dictatorial power withhe new Homeowners Association for a period of a least a couple if not several years, a non-purchasing current resident of the Park will lose many, if not all, of the small protections he presently enjoys against the Park management_ Fourth,the Code requires that the Subdivider provide a written survey of residents to determine the level of support for the conversion among the residents- -In addition to requiring that the survey be written,the Code requires that it be conducted pursuant to an agreement with a resident homeowner's association independent of the Subdivider/Park-Owner. The Survey that.the Subdivider provided to the City does not meet this last requirement_. On-information and investigation, the conclusion is inescapable,that the Survey was improper in that it did not involve an independent homeowners association_-Moreover, the agents who submitted the Survey as bona fide to the City were aware of its impropriety_ Given their membership in the California Bar, that raises certain ethical issues that I think warrant a review by the City Attorney_ -1235- e1..w. ... .etetn 8. - Page 553� For all the foregoing reasons.,.[believe.that a basis exists for supposing not only that ,certain prowerns_exist within the Park;that also innthin.the Application itself;that render the;Park-unsuitable'for conversion."until and unless the foregoing matters haYe_t pen, addressed by the PaWs present ownership. Until that has.been done,l confess t at I continue to sharethesusaaon-of.marlyfellow residents thitthis-appticatibn is.n6thing inore than a poorly disguised'attempt at a"sham.Conversion;' in order to do ah end run _ around the existing City Conversion Ordinance than the previous Park owners tried, without success. Finally,it seems to me that the Planning and Deyelopment activities of any government unit should be governed by one overriding concern: is what we are.being asked to do in the interest of Ahe General Public? Where are so many factors here that appear to say NO! Yours t . pace 28 unt ngton Shorecliffs v i i Item 8. - Page 554 -1236- _ . �. .. . a ,. .:.. .. :, r ' `--✓.- AUG 2 4 2009 1 The Planning Commission Huntington$ems, Huntington Beach, Califoirnia' PLANNil DEpr RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision My wife and 1 are 17 year resident retirees of Huntington Shorecliffs living on a fixed income! During a_Huntington Shorecliffs Owner General Meeting in November.2008, two informal.proposals were brought forth by their legal council. Changing Huntington Shdrecliffs from a 55 Senior Park to an open Family Park, and converting rental spaces to ownership spaces. A very vocal show of hands by residents rejecter bona inalaiiaries. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS SUBDIVISION AND REQUEST THE ._. APPLICATION BE DENIED The Huntington Shorecliff, LP motive for this scheme is to drive out current residents with over inflated lot prices, limitless rent increases, and offering-unacceptable buyouts of--pennies.:on".the dollar. Huntington Shorecliff LP made poor business decisions at the downturn of the real estate market! In an effort to--attaki.their _projected profit numbers they are willing to disr.upt.and displace hundreds of senior citizens! Conversely, Ownership & Management are unresponsive and arrogant when.problems need attending to within the park! Continuous flagrant traffic violations,speeding and.failure to stop at posted signs { install speed bumps Upholding Senior Park occupancy rules Sections of the park with long standing uncorrected drainage problems. Appreciate your consideration, Lori S Don Luckham Space 257 r' -1237- ^.Item 8. - Page 555 r Our. 21 09 11:39a herritt 714-96d-6055 P_ 1 t • 20701 WACO! VD,MCC"t TIL1K.iTAe'.II0.1 - August 21, 2009 7hef'laArdng.€:ox�ussioa. Huntington Bush;CA 9Z643 Subjeet: HE7N-TINGTON SHOREELIFFS-PROPOSI-D SUBDHffSION Fax-- 714-374-1540 Dear-Comskissioners_ Please requ 6c that the avuner conduct a statutorily propef-survey.of resident=opinion om this subdivision- We are-opposed.to thiswbdivision and"uest that you deny tine aMicatiom Also,we are very concerned about the water coming under my home_ Our driveway.had - begun to-sn 8�it.tAek fry€5�rr�oaff B five 1etEer .fo l esrwners sa ays patdr repair job- The driveway,in less than three(3)weeks is already,showing signs of sinlang again 7he�bLcktap-wasputon-over stamling water _ Whether wewill.be-able-to affbrd-the rent-on our howe if the siubdivisiorrisapprtved_ That f we do sell ouirhome after the subdivision is approved,we won't have erau!gh money to rnovc to a new iresideriee. Young people have already been allowed to move into ouw pa*—�Mainq all oftheleases that were preN49U4},signe& If th-e-wend"sontinum.vm will-see higher crirrze motes; vandalism,and increased noise levels_ We've worked hard all of our lives&played by the rules_ It's time for our elected& appointed officials art daibg-vAiat is Fight:for the.seniorst - Mike an&Loi&Menim EOVEUD AUG 2.1 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Item 8e - Page 556 -1238- Y `' :-l�c'ITTC��r�Ge1�01'S�E'rfliY. 20701 Beach Blvd_,Space#89 - - - tivn#ingio�Bc+ach,-GA 92648 714-37"2.59 A69ust 21, -2009 'Fhe Planning Commission on BeachICA-92645 Subject: HUNT NGTON SHORECUFFS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Fax: 7I4-374 -1540 43ear Commissioners: Please require that proper survey of rmidml apiuon on tlu�SsubdivisiorL - We are opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application- A]so,we are very concerned-about ttg---%ratm-coming vuder-my-home_-- Our drive-way bad "UM sag it}6 phwes and are have-asked many theses-about getting A fixed,and still, several years later,it has not been fixcd;.or repaired_T'ne blacktop-%xas put on over standing water. 'Whether we will be-able-to afford-tteyemt-on oux-hoineiftitestib&r i§iod-is spproived_ That if we do sell our home after the subdivision is approved,we ivon't have enough 'Inoney toInove-to-a new esideam- Xbmgneople have.alieady been alkwmd to.-move into our park—against am Of the leases that were previously signed- If the trend continues,we will see higher crime rates, vandalism,-and increased noise levels. Valve-worked hard all of our lives&played by the rules_ It's time for our elected.& appointed officials to sta,-t doing-what is right for the seniors! Ell Bnl-�an:1 Margaxet Bergeron AUG 212Q09 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. t'd 69zt?btEt?1Lt -1239- n�z--rAt" utt i Item 8. - Page 557; Aixg 21 49 04:46p Larry attic Maureenn--chredc 714-533 -0024 - p.1 --- - - — - "EC COVED Apt 21,2009 AUG 212009 Huntington 8egaft PLANNING DEFT. The Planning Commission Huntington Beach,CA-92648. Subject; HUMINGTON-SHORECLIFFS-PROPOS€QSUBDIu14NS fax Number_ 714374-1540 We are opposed to this subdivision and we respectfully request'"that you deny the application. There are many_reasons we think this proposed needs to be further kwestigated- i) We need the owner to conduct a statutoriiy proper survey of residents. 2} Water-and drainage-is-a-maj"concern-within-the park- There is.a-water storage. tank in the RV yard that collects the water runoff&itfj 'and then dumps the water Mto the street during the late night or eady-morning hooFs- -This water has-a-lot.-of- rust in it and it stains the concert. (it was very-recerr'tty replaced as old pavement was in a ruined-state:}-It wtajef comern-is-that tW rusty water.go in.the drain-and,. then to the ocean_ This can't-be a asset for Sut-UG- li OwitV the-tame when evvefyori�e-is very unhappy-about-pollution,-and-have-it harms-tire -.rater this-i� a concern_ 3) According to-a recent survey where a subd`n ii-idn was completed, tht vali;e 6t'a,� resident's coach.was.reduced.:hy5%..:because.ifie�tattse:�is.aonsidered=in the:Dartd therefore the coach has little pr no value_We understand this is because the land has-ta-be-sold-before-the residents coach-can be-sold--11 -is-extremeiy haF4 f" seniors who invested"their savings to pay for-:thetr to6ChNeficving they would be' able-to stay-in-their hones (Ow coach was-well over$12S Q90}iessthan seven-.years ago_, Currently our rent is.justified, but the pass-through fees add up to several hirndr eddcitars forim-artyresrden s' space eachr 4) There have been issues month under-agz..resMents in-the:P..aric which is against the CIW Code for a senior park The majority of the`resideat-:moved here:because it-is-a, Senior-Parlc it-v rould?Cie w ni of Evsi as-W a&paMag of vehicles ir-Hunting u Shorediffs,and the safety of small children in the street if the age requirement is not in--place_ ' Th kY� �dY rr: a d a Schrock' 207 Rea+ch.8hcd-..Space.1$3 : Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Item 8. - Page 558 -1240- �trg 2> its 11:39a Merritt 714-9GO-GO55 P. 1 August 2l.2009 Tlie planning Eotnntisslos. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject: HUNTINGTON SHOREELIFFS-PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Pax: 714-374-1540 . Dear_Camcnissiarrers: Please-rcgWm that-the.owner conduct a,sWutorily proper survey of resident pinion on. this subdivision Weareopposed.tothisst"vision_and=q thatyotrdewy-the application, "F Also,we are very concerned about the water coming under my home_ Our driveway had begin W sue-&-ittook five(5}montlsr&-fve-letters for the-ova=s twappave.a,patch� repair job. The driveway,in less than three Q)weeks is already showing signs of sulking again= 1] bladacp-was-put-modersmdingwater_ VAietbei we-will be able-to aifoE the remon our home k€tl;e subdiviriert rs'appcoved- That if we do sell our borne of ier.the subdivision is approved,we won't have enough money to move-to a new resideoee- Young people have already been allowed to move into our pans.-20a nst.A.ofahe.lrases. that were pmviouAy-signed.- I€tIhe trend cosdtties;vie x.%411 see Higher crime ra vandalism,and i=ea`ced noise levels_ - We've worked hard all of our lives&played by the rules_ lCs time for our elected& appointed officials to start-doing What is_right for tho see'M! r Mike and Lois itt CLOVC D AUG 21 7009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT -1241- Item 8. - Page 559, ` Au. 19,2009 Mi.Rami Talleh 7AUG 2 0 2009 Senior Planner,Department of Planning Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Pt:MNING DEPT 2000 Main Street P.O.BOX 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re:.Application of Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach,CA (the"Park') 'Dear Mr.Talleir As a result of the:sabject.pending,applicatim and certain on-going litigation concerning the Park,the Home Owner's Association requested maps from the City Engineer's office showing the drainage of storru_v,atccinto lbrough.and-ma ofihe.Pa&-We received three maps of different scales purporting to show the drainage facilities in and around.the Parr Unfortunately,the-only date indicated on one of the maps titled"Plan of Improvement'is 1966. f As pointed out in other correspondence and iri meetings with various City staff the Park is subject to potentially disastrous amounts of runoff from the neighborhood above the Park to the north We believe,but have beery_unable to.yearifyAat.ancasement.across.thelandvAiich-is now the Park may have been granted to an early developer of the parcels.above the Park. Assuming that this was done prior tn_the.deveiopment ofthe Park,that um-off Uely spread out over an open field or ran into a swamp similar to.that which now exists further down Beach Blvd. It appears that the ori&A developer of the Park famed to.install proper underground drainage facilities to accommodate the runoff.. The current situation is that any runoff-from above the Park exits aE 16"pipe just to the north of the park's main clubhouse_ The water then travels through the Park via`C gutters in the center of the streets. These.gutters will likely be wholly inadequate to handle the runoff resulting from the amounts of rainfall some are projecting in the Item 8. - Page 560 -1242- i; r coming'years as a result of global warming. We are already hearing.forecasts of a. ,j "moderate"tl Nino year approaching this fall and winter. Therefore,we strongly urge the City to require,as a condition of any'subdivision of the Park,that the-owner install appropriate and proper underground drainage facilities through.the Park,whether or not they follow the old.casement_ Best Regards, Scott C.Steeper President,Uonae Owners Association Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd,#204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 -1243- Item 8. - Page 561, A-V-7-A %1 2■ ft�- -- - -Y 4- Q4� c;'y�r�t Iwh1G �.c vim,��•� 1 v S p S �-..L�� S b�OSc� - i t -..... - ---�� � S_�d n_1.._... _O t ( f f I s i Item 8. - Page 562 1244- The Planning Commission AUG 4 M09 Huntington Beach,Ca :- ;Esc 8/22/09 Subject:Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision Commissioners Please require that the owner conduct a proper survey of the residents as to their.opinion on this subdivision I am opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application Thave lived here for about 5 years,,put in a new home, and then observed all of the water problems in the park- 1 did.not think it would affect me,until cracks in my driveway,caused rust to come.up from the ground and stain my driveway_ I don't know how the subdivision will affect my rent, but like many others here,I'am in the upper 70 age group, with a wife I take care of with AAlzheimers disease_Any large increases in my expenses on my residence would be a large burden- Thank you for your consideration_ 4.L cc- Paul G_Cannon Space 258,Huntington Shorecliffs_ -1245- Item B. - Page 5631 � � ,� � � � �� �� �� �� ��� ���s� � S�o� � < � �� � ti � �r n � �y `� � v th�.�� � � s v, y � ` �` � q� �J � Y'� C�� � 4 � y � CeL �t� o � �� '� $ ., E 3 F i - � `�"� �'1.,�„�,�►►'s �o rn rn t ss ivy AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington 9each PLANNING O!fT i c, ApA Gi �-t'c�L'� v2Mh S�-l-L►�t c9� i� �.�-►C t S te='f'"VIK , 11 1� I I.,-tJ t / PA✓Z i/ �jc d:�. 1 :u:i 7 N .r c� rc�:�rQ� /a �v r U+�d� Pi r <�s jvu� , is �:;�c _n c t)►t n: i 4: :� Item 8. m Page 565. AUG 242009 Hunu On Beach s PLANNtNG dEPT -� L .51 o�y LrfU� rq StIOAI6 1 s 4 S E C.Quj AC A 57"c9 i cj7 ,et a Tt�l IS s t A1� qp o si_z D of S Ub Dl v(- 5"1VA( 42 - nAA CC-fAL-A /T 6 o 7 CT�/�� `_O 4 fTO/M -17fC tS /� rDye-oUC4 t yccll Co lSI 11 Cle,4 7l � Item 8. a Page 566 -1248- EUVED AUG 2 4 2009 Hunttngtor;�� P�NNiiVG d`PT mt,6� it i -`� •`�•` �19 ON ce 1�1\3 7 at -1249- Item 8. - Page 567� 3 m q r i p � P J ....................,..�.......«......,.,.�„�....� .. ,� .. ..._,� .v......�.«.....�w.....�...n..r...�, ...«..w r........«» .,.r».....« »..+-»...r.,..»..........»..�......... V. e e e � I AUG 242009 / � Huntington Bea ch PLANNING CEPT ob lie Stern 8. - Page 570 -1252- �L z ; 3 , Old f AUG 2 4 7009 { Huntington peach � C ��A1VNtNG DEPT i ^ ' F 4) O S/ 8 i 4 } f a � i Item B. - Page 572 -1254- M, �z r ' OC CIQ Ln V �........_...,.,.._ ..._ ..._......,......,........._ ,....... .......__.._. ._.,.._.w_._.......,_.,...,_....,..,....._..,_. .._.....,.._..__.. _,._....,.,.,.,,.....,....,......,....,...,_....... .., .._._...., ......,,_........._...,,._...,...,...,... .,_.........__......_..........._..... _....._.._.... AUG 2 a zoos HUM �NNIton Bea Q DF At K-k)c-\ 4 �o b, 7 s I i i i i I 1 Item 6. e Page 574 -1256- --- 1 F f' F AUG 2 4 z009 < n HU 1%R3ton�a�h N 1VG DEPr �'c�c�J �c�: /`d 4-=-•/ i�-c ter'`�d �l �<ro�ec!/7"1S .$�a/��152�J..�b�'v.`.t�.--� z I sic F _ q i I t 3 i { i i 3 -1257- &TTArt4MF I$ee't't B. - Page 575. AUG 242009 -_ INNING DEFT Item 8. - Page 576 -1258- i a . AUG 2 4 2009 } HurYington Beach UWNING DEPT 67. �- l - 1259- AT .E� ItemeB. - Page 577 iC C�aMCD AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach P7PLfiN NG KEPT y Ptf-9 C 7 item 8. - Page 578 -1260- _ d/ W o L�7 � r ♦ ,Y ] i V N lnEt� gE�UUli-�U AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT_ G� GIS� O Z 00 ow �- _ f 7�.� Item 8. - Page 580 -1262- s AUG 2 4 2009 Hun,ntingtor.Beach p.- NING DEFT_ t _ f ;/2 } t 7 -1263- Item 8. - Page 5817 3 AUG 242009 Huntington Beach ��}} PLANNING DEPT Kith /I. B. P14,hhtn t_bmontssrnn 1�'e f�ua�in fDh �s/�breGf!: s �ro as ed Skf�c�t�t rr6 n P ear Camtvttss'lonet-s .i_ aM re$keS't-ih� j�eidl 'Ypcf p� s regut* ��� o jnr- 4eoncf'ue=7� sfa'lu or-.'l� p�014le 00 . J� Surve y/ t^PS tc�¢i. s 4�f?tq ta/1 O rs�is S4f AcQlviSie•� v CtD n c-er►1� a t-e- --ro rc u 5-f--.4 u p p n 2h o ct [ Ji0 t a,Ta1. LtS 4-0 -sa ec 4a ce s-e- n.o M v A e -tw hay.� SFj een cCtscussPp� 07 a rl Q iS fo Mudd WcrI-V-r, S`�ZcCtn tr` 3. toe- e- t- -4-4 ma v e n o r et a rd m o✓-e. '{-o tt r►�e cJ E-es rd eK c -ems �, lei�D w•.�--f.�• vcvn-_• �� L►Eic�.w.�s.ts:�l , �B��S J _�� �ia�u-IC � o �.�. -i-nr- v0 �,^ L+o re S t•��rQ'�[ 6v` -1265- TT . '- M Item 8. - Page 583� LF11 C D f AUG 2 4 Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT t � _ V��J%i/G/ 4c� . , 3- Item 8. - Page 584 -1266- AUG 2 4 2049 Hun- ,�f P�NIVlA/G Seacb l - -1267- f;6 . Item 8. - Page 585L, AUG 2 4 Mog �T r_ Item 80 - Page 586 -1268- 'E CMNW s AUG -2 4 7009 Huntington Beach PLANNING dEPt s G e &2-e� O 10 �3 a- r -1269- Item 8. - Page 587s n-r-rn r n......._. e f� r o \ \ 1 J W I �" g� a ° • o0 • W W .. . .. i T�=fF PGANN1Na Cs,:�tA,,S,o:� ������ +� • } Hu.►;;N�v,� 13�A�.; c.�t►��,2,��� AUG 2 4 2009 • i pNLuAn�ti����� on,$e�, �v1VING D T_ PiZJ:�asCo • TIC ow.j£Z (2ZiJov<-r // S7�Tui�2iLY i F P12SP£Ca SOO-Vey car= AFX ioe,-,;-P OP#,J,O.J o� T�f•s Sv�'.A.d,r-�,✓- s �gc� %b /;F/ol1Q 7j /S /�P��2c7JFD v2 bC 4&c !b Aitf, 2It jV puQcy�SC �'77 �T So C-&b_osE_ �N�cJ�n rta„1cy � MduL � .¢ �J£.,•1 �,f1.�.�vc� �� / S'{Gt� .mil y AF ,CA 77aC fb�r•.ve p.e/ � F•xfJ 1niGorr� %/>`{SC Comae ems' �},2� ��hPE/lii�7r�' PL Nls41�,--) 4,40 if i /f�}f1(I( Y4v f-- A Yc�✓/L �c�SiOk:z, i7e.J -1271- Item 8. - Page 889' nv-rn �, ,w •rs .�- n nra S I E t i AUG- 2 4 2009. - l /n H l r C of M- i s siv y Hunti,�gtcn Beach. � //JJ P�Ch� �it/i1 Bt�11ii NNtNG CEPT SubJecl� u��rK aH ,1//oj'PCII{{r Rvv"sed Su��dislo sI i �fease P ��re de pWl-i'e-- l SU�✓Py O7 r PsI�PH f Op/yt101i1 on A!S 5-a ball IS10/7 . s ctwr de lis s ukia��vls 16 n aNel rl. /7�-ter erev� a �lodera�P rui.t ��er� is �6 l�lu�� s�Ho/in s� ql�v disc �ahC�rvleo� �rYJorc� dny t en�IHCY�4s� GYrc4/0 i �T LUE' �'/'P q!✓c�L4 �,�� d��JOt'�uN���/ %�D pG(Y'C nose `��(e �oro�IPi-� Gv�Fvot- or �a� GVP w;l� �oQ ab�e � o1raQ er�ltFr ohe OnA defi►+ifely cebOul AAIIIIKy I0 j #UJJ Ky�o K Sip reCs Gl Item 8. - Page 590' YIO ��hS,�PP4�/ex -1272- r t M I�- -UPrR--I-rLif AUG 2 4 7009 y T Huntington Beach PiAtlt4ING DEPT C9 zoo eLd A `/ -1273- Item 80 - Page 5911 n�-a-n nj �.. . . , MY 0 AUG 2 a 2009 Huntington Beach Pi-ANNI !G DEPT- ly 3 Item 80 - Page 592 -1274- „- -rnrlaAllF� �� AUG 4 2009 Hu��lirt9Jon Beach pE t43- _ -Cam_/6r yi�l ��_-_f�i���---, -�'-��✓Gr<c-� l �-�2-� - _ icy ,CL- Y1� -1275- Item 8. - Page 593) J/ AUG 2 4 2Upg G � � c G� zy- (tern B. - Page 594 -1276- i s' � t r DAUG 2 4 2009 Hun:i�g.or Beach �1f,8.a /�/ls/DeY ,71 7/3� AC i S I1y Vff-v 1/4 /,M ilk 3 -1277- AT TA rW hAr-Item.a. - Page 595 ' fb �CEIVED AUG 24 2009 Hemtgtert E-ea� c ` PLA�f ING DFPT ptav)YXI cornet � on Slgo red iF-T Rya J t-rr CO t* yt►v�k to icer S I-tr&x6 X, tt ,�,vo n J/La/AVq&-i/ i Y l a r) A f'0.Eta Cl SpO.ce. uk rn r > 1(o FQ Item 8. - Page 596 -1278- n-r-r�i<,o 1h fir_-Ki-r Kin a� i MW E D AUG 2 4 2009 Beach 6'!!C,DEPT . i s rzr /fv i ICO A/D �a i O(!At-joaf nV/ i f+ •5 SJ3 ?cs,c C o//,,p S,6-)�k ,-V fry s S03 t�rt/lt�cc t cJ��� v Fl Q i i e i -1279- ATTA(�HN I ec�i�` - Pale 597' r I�t G?3 Q Li e o> a T ✓ a I s r co K Le t AUG 2 4 2009 Huntington Beach PLANNiNIG DEPT f _T*Q PLA-lwt.tin C o M MIS31�� j �C�1►Tt�j ,1 PI'O sJ7' t`�i CS�Jit11 CSC �tS Ve P O;A �3SS�c1if 716� - C b N► o .5�-Y�2 - f 44LS S L✓d tutor im, �_ 4 t c9a �u c� �-•����1 O Ybe� f f_��(l�a-Bove-��- �C►� �T-�.z--t� F Lt rn�� o.e cc� o4kyt 9-10 C o"'f- t-( P IC iv - �_ i -1281?`" "`C � ..t Item 8. - Page 599i e E 'ECEO f � AUG 2 4 ZL�Q9 ' Hurt!' r::� C.�aac PLAt NING DE;,-r t 11 c Ut. — afpA�,-e-fie DC4v4 0,4 - lam•. � �. �'"�- ���Z�2��' "Lug -�2� -.� b e lllA&I Cx,.- -7tO a a %IR Ja 6- E 0 h� T -1283- Item 8e - Paege 601' w'r-w-n n I I ri�.. ... o <a u_ , oo N � r r ' N v � a NEC AUG 2 4 2009 r i Huntington Beat N1V1NG OEPT. OL l d° o 4-�ke 3 E C `� u. -1285- fi-rrn rWn)..Item 8-t - Page 603) ... . .�. . VIE -� -E0 � AGG 2 2009 Humti. oa Beach eves . f x e E i Item 8. - Page 604 -1286 ATTA i've 811 AP-4 9"T' 8 9r'S `-r � AUG 2 4 zoos Hu n9tor f t'LAfV VING D T i 4. i LoYu� v � :�i� -1287- AY Vr,gun acKs-r Item 8. - Page 605L i AUG 2 4 2009 P`pJ tor;Beams C4: Wz 3 i S cG�j`�. C� 1`- /�'K�l����a.� '��/J✓���.-f�s r�0 e�� - u� cdl v! Sl 0A) Ole/15 r let, «e op. = -14 i �4'LLX Ohl jZJ S t�N �17�d/mac dY /> tJai� Y Item 6e - Page 606 -1288- ti d c : cd r a (ffffffR44 cvco N i - AUG 2 4*2009 t«;Beach UEPT- � G � - P17 J. e-li 7�t"61cr�" r ! - G Item 8. - Page 608 -1290- A-r-rA l-Ufi AE:KlT Kl(l g' NEC D.'��D AUG 2 4 2009 . /� .�'• - �o��Y,l. Neu �vir /f F �tftrvv�DEPT. 1 -1291- n-rTnrun�Gn��Item 8. - Page 6095) D AUG 2 4 20Qg Hurtt»��,� f. � 131--14 Item B. - Page 610 -1292- - 8 t va ElV � - AUG 2 4-2oos Hantig9%r�lea Pl fwNti+K;DE f + r S J ���� ����a ,_ten- :--��'- -- '��• ��=�� i \ -1293- nT-rn OUR,.Item 8. - Page 611' FO - �..._ AUG. 2 4 2009 Nurrtiagton Be ach PLAIVN(NG DEFT Item 8. - Page 612 -1294- ED RE AUG 2 4 Zoog l4witington Beach PLAfVN(NG DEpT -1295- (teen 60 - Page 61& z - AUG 24 2009 -on Bea e F�tdING D �. i t S Item B. - Page 614 -1296- t AUG 2 4 2QOg p ItinSfon�a ch IAtVA . G . S 0, -1297- Item B. - Page615L n-P-rn r>i oa Ar ... . — . . � z GO pp 67 IL ................. M�,.._ ...._..��.._.__....... M _ . ...._ .,......_....M........,..,,�.....,.�.. .._...., . �....... .............................,....... .,. ..........,,...,......................... .............._ ....,_ ........:,.................. ..__....._.. .... .. . . S i 'RECESWED F AUG 24 7009 { Huniingion Beach PLANNING DEPTlot ce- l- 1,U T e -1299- Item 60 0 Page 6173 VID AUG 2 4 Z009 _ - p G f3eac Gh I-Dd �M w► �C> Lx,, CBS S= VYZ, 14 O p c� Iry E-, 6,A � Item B. - Page 618 -1300- i AUG 2 4 2009 HuaCmgCoG Be � Qttilt-�YL2� t y { i�fi1"W s i k,-,f4d4 i i — . . -1301- ATTACHMLl! !T.,l�-.- Page 519) �Qa� �eLd }{"nti` f1G OEVI f - AY _" i 4 .. it Item 8. - Page 620 -1302- � v y c N a ' o 0 I fo VE (tit fl.. ��l - AUG 2 4 2009 ' OA Un�.on&,ach ! C6, . �.vVR G DEPT-- S6WC6 U 1Gt�, _11 OAD) - h `� VtsIow, b - cam_<Jbd 6 &1 -4 `n E� 5A . We live - � kcx" -to wow 0� "W �IAln 010 ba _-1305-11 - a Ite,m 8. - Page 623) Al1G 2 4 2009 b dl✓ _ i 0 a � S • NX>W BOX - - Item 8. - Page 624 -'@ 306- — a AUG 2 4 2009 -71 Huntington Beata . rb� mod, RANNING DEBT #a OAPK4 AA�41 aloof YX , 7 Aelok�e- 116fole TV Yo elk ' i-r,4,0 -1307- Item B. - Page 625L n The Planning Conanission AVG 2 Huntington Beach,California 42009 "tinting gent SUBJECT Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision Dear Commissioners, Please require that the owner conduct a statutorily proper survey of resident opinion on this subdivision_ [If you wish to include o - ion app teation. . 11f you wish to includel I_support the subdivision and request that.you approve the subdivision. [Tease include at least one of-the followiiiig.j' Also, I am very concerned-about the starer-draia,situatiorr rrdie-park--: s'tommuch-water-coming into our park from the hill above- the water coming under my home from under my-neighbor's home_ the standing water in and around my home during the winter rains and from the run off from the neighborhood above our.park all through the year. whether I will be able to afford the rent on my home if the subdivision is approved. Cothat if I sell my home after the-subdivision is.approved I won't have enough money to move to a new residence. Thank you for your consideration_ [Nam &Space Num er1 Item 8. - Page 626 -1308- The Planning;Commission FE: 9� Huntington Beach,California SUBJECT: untington Shoreeli#Is Proposed Subdivision AUG 2 4 2009 H Huntington Reach PLANNING pEPT Dear Commissioners, Please require that the owner conduct a statutorily-proper survey of resident opinion on this subdivision. [If you wish to include] I am opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application. [If you wish to includel -I support the subdivision and request that you approve the subdivision_ [Please include at least one of the foII6weitg.1- Also, I am very concerned.about x the storm drain.situation in.the.park—There is too much water coming into our park from the hill above_ f, % the water coming under my home from under my neighbor's home_ 1 the standing water in and around my home during the winter rains and from the run off from the neighborhood above our park all through-the year_ X whether I will be able to afford the rent on my home if the subdivision is approved_ that if I sell my home after the-subdivision•is approved I won'.tbave enough money to move to a new residence_ Thank you for your consideration_ (Name/& Space Number] -1309- Item 8. - Page 62T FE i t The Planning Commission Huntington Beach,California BUG 2 4 2009 SUBJECT: Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT. Dear Commissioners, Please require that the owner conduct a statutorily proper survey of resident opinion on this subdivision_ [If you wish to include] I am opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application.- Tf youwishto includel I support the subdivision and request that you approve the division [Please include at least one of the followurg_j Also, I am very concerned about the storm drain situation in the park_-:There.is too much water coming into our park from the hill above_ the water coming under my-home from under my neighbor's home_ the standing water in and around my home during the winter rains and from the run off from the neighborhood above ourpark all through the year_ whether I will be able to afford the rent on my home if the subdivision is approved_ that if I sell my home after the subdivision is approved1w 4on't have enough money to move to a new residence. Thank ou for your consideration_ - Space Number i Item 8. - Page 628 -1310- The Planning Commission Huntington Beach,California � �� �� E - VSUBIECT: Huntington Shorecliffs Proposed Subdivision AUG 2 4 0 Dear Commissioners, Huritin9to»Beach PLANNING DEFT Please require that-the,owner conduct a statutorily proper survey of resident opinion on this subdivision_ 11f you wish to include] I'am opposed to this subdivision and request that you deny the application_ [If you wish to include] I support the subdivision and request that you approve the subdivision_ 1 JI'lease include at least.omo of the following l Also,I am very concerned about jthe storm drain situation in the pant_ There is too much water coming into -� " our park from the hill above_ the water coming under my home from under my neighbor's home_ the standing water in,and arouri&myhorne during the winter rains and from the run off from the neighborhood above our park all through theyear_ whether I will be able to afford the rent on my home if the subdivision is approved. that if I sell my home:after.the subdivision is approved I won'tbave enough money to move to a new residence. "Thank you for your consideration_ {Name&Space Number] Item 80 - Page 62) 09/1512009 TUF 9:12 F.0 949 333 073.3 Holly Hutchins b04/0'04 l Itf $O BiPOREi lflr'PIrMNING C0MM1:§M(5N.. - You are receiving this Notice of Public Heating because you either oven'property. are a resident, or conduct*lousiness within dose proximity-of file item checked below. TI-ie Planning Cormnisslon Public Hearing is scheduled for. -WHEN: - Tuesday.Swtember 22 200g TIME 7:4Q PM WHERE: City Council Chambe-s Huntington Beach Civic Centel 2000 Main Street.Huntington! eash CA 92648 - Ali INTERESTED PERSONS.are invited.to attend said hearing and express opinions or sift evidence for or against the application as outlined below. A copy of the application is on tilo in the Flatv-ing.DepartrneM 200UAlain Street.Huntington Beach. Cali�92648,ior review by the-public- I*f you di-i4enge ttye.Mmw-ag.CosnissloW s ac6ca in coot, you nray be limited to raising only those issuesyou-or-soctteone-else raised at the. public hearing-described-in tlus:.notioe; nor-in..wriUen .correstxmdenc:e delivered to the Guy at or prior to.the puttee hearing..if there am any further questions please call the Planning Departtinent at 536-5271 and refer-to the application below- NOTICE IS H IVEN that on September 22, 2009, at 7:00 PM in the City t;ounat ers; 2000 gain Street, Huntington the Planning Commission will hok aN on tho following ite 'l. TEKTATIVE CT MAP NO. '17296.. .HtI:NTiNt;T SHORECl.lFFS MOBILE HOME PARk CQNVERSI ii A��liicatit:- Bbycf Hill; ait. K'-nq & Cddren Recette To a)' subdivide approximately 39.2 -acres into 309 ed.:lots and 31 lettered lots for Purposes of converting an existing 304 space for.- ant-irbbiie home park into 309 lots for . ownership purposes and b)- create fve additio aI lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 3 . The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park to enable the existing park resits. to purchase their own lots: The Project also includes an appeal filed by the appfi nt of the applicable code req:rcements. Location: 20701 Beach Blvd_, 92648 (west ,de of Beach Blvd_, souk: of Indianapolis Ave.) Praiert Planner: Rani Talleh : item N. - Page 630 -1312- ATTACHMENT NO. 09/15/2009'TUE 9:11 FAX 949 833 0738 Holly Hutchins {�AQ21�04 G 2_- ZONING-.TEXT AMENDMENT NO. M- 401 (FLOOD.. ORDINANCE REVBSIQN81 Appficaret:.City.of Hkihtirigton 8eacli-Recruest: To amend Chapter 222 of the.iT`tfntingtoei Bead► Zoning 'and St vision .Ordnance (I tBZSO} to' bring it into.compliance with: Federal Eene<gency Management Agency (FEtiAA): requirements_ The proposed Miend6i6 t would, among-others,' -anct supplement-definitions-and-standards-of\ construc uori. Location. Cityv+rids Proje l'J ftsaor`R9cky Ramos. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that items#1 and#2 are categorically exempt from-the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act NOTICE IS HEREBY.GIVEN:that-itern#2 will require a Local Cxastai-Program Amendment certified by the California Coastal Commission. ON.FILE- A copy of the staff report will be available to-interested.parties at the City of Huntingtton Beach, I?lanritng';Oeparimeni 'or the Central Lr�iraf (71:11 Talbert Avenue) on Wednesday.September lS.i6o9 Scott Hess.Secretary Huntington Beach Planning C:oa"ssim 2000 Fain Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 1714}5W5271 rn r //Uc) A/0 A-10 WENT NO �•$� -1313- Item 8. - Page 631' 09/15/2009 TUZ 9.12 FAX 949 -833 07380 holly -Hutchins �003/OOA .�.� City of H.U.ntin -ton Beach rKYs 2000 MAIN STREET C11UPOFMA 92548 � I)EPAATMMT OF FILANNING INTERESTED PARTIES at2,2009, �. scheduled for a Subdivision Committee meeting on Wednesday, at 4:00 p-m.in Rooin*"of the Huntington Beach Civl67Center Maki Street,Huntington Beach,Cafifornia. TENTATIVE-TRACT MAP NO.17296 (Huntingtono Shorecliff Su6drAs16n) - REQUEST: To subdivide approximately 39.2 acres into. 09 numbered lots and 31 lettered tots for purpose,sof converting art existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park-onto 309 lots for ownerst ip purposes:-The applicant proposes to convert the for rent park for enable the-etas"park residents. to purchase their own tots-.. PRESENT ZONE: RMH(Residential Medium High Density) U.SE. Mobile Home Park ACREAGE: 39-2 acres LOCATION- 20101 Beach Blvd.,9264a(west side of beach Blvd_:south of Indianapolis Ave_) SUBDIVIDER: Shorecliff, LP,200 Sandpoints,fourth floor.Santa Ana,CA 92707 ENGINEER; R.T.Quinn 8 Associates. 1-907- Border.Avenue,Torrance, CA 90501 Comments to be considered prior to Committee action must be received by Friday.August 28, 2009. If you have any questions,please contact Rarni Tat";Senior Planner at 714)53 - 5271: $ 2_ --07 1) P � 01��= �-�� Sincere a S -� Sco I e AICP Secretary, Subdivision Co mle � D vyxAKR A � 4`� U HS:RT:Jw tl Anachmian[ maps t Phone 714-536-5271 tax 714-374-1540 Wtiitt. -.;rt�a'• prg Item 8. - Page 632 -1314- ATTACHMENT HK&C MART, KING & COLDREN Robert s.Cohen rcoldren@hkdawxarrl Of August 25, 2009 Our Fite Number_ 36014.112M4851-1971-7124v.1 VIA.FACSIMILE, E-MAIL AND OVERNITE EXPRESS Facsimile No. (714) 374-1540 'AUG 2 �QQ ' HuneiilgtCr;�� PiJiNIVtt.u%itp Subdivision Committee Planning Commission City.of'Huntington Beach ("City") 2000'Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 cfo Rami Talleh, Senior.Planner RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Response.to Resident Letters Dear Committee and Commission Members_ We received from the Planning.Staff very few resident letters-objecting to the.above-referenced Application_ Copies of those letters are enclosed herewith as Attachment 1_ This letter constitutes the Park owners' response to those letters_ The letters exhibit a profound misunderstanding by certain residents about the California process for rental mobilehome park conversion.to resident ownership_ The issues raised in the letters cannot even be considered by the City in acting on the Application. The letters also contain several incorrect statements_ Therefore, in response to.those letters, we will first set forth the legal background for the City's consideration of the Application under the Subdivision Map Act, and then we will address the particular issues raised in the respective letters_ Under separate cover, we will be addressing the numerous benefits of'mobilehorne park subdivision_ Subdivision of the park is all about providing the Park residents with an option to purchase or remain renters forever_ "Option" is the key word here. No resident will be forced to do anything as a result of subdivision_ A resident that does not want to own his or her lot can continue to rent the space for the rest of that resident's life. All leases will be continued to be honored post-subdivision- Therefore, the completion of the subdivision will have no-A repeat no—impact on rents in the Park_ A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 wwwhkciaw-corn I Fx 714-546.7457 -1315- Item 8. - Page,633) ATTA /14 1R s• HK&C "ART..KI'4G'& COLD EN _ Rami Talleh . . City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 2 . As to those tenants who complain (in our view without justification) of supposed lapses in repair and maintenance, those matters have nothing to do with-subdivision, and the law is clear that the occasion of subdivision is not the place to address°these issues (although when the tenants. own the park they can-maintain-and repair at whatever level they wish)_ Finally,we have not had an opportunity to brief our tenants on our subdivision plans yet, and it is u6fortU'1nate that'a militant vocal minority of disgruntled tenants chose to blanket the Park with MUhtonnation:and to solicit similar negative letters from the tenants_.. It i&.gratifying that in the face of such.a campaign that very few tenants-have`taken the bail THE STATE-.HAS AN EXPRESS"POUCY TO FACOUTATE MOBILEHOME PARK C 11V,ERSION`TO RESIDENT-OWNERSHIP In 1991,the California Legislature established Government Code Section 66427:5;'which is part of the Subdivision Map Act_ Government Code Section 66427:5 expressly governs park owner applications for subdivision of existing mobilehome parks for the purpose of converting the rental mobitehome parks to resident ownership- Government Code Section 66427.5 is part.of the general State.scheme to facilitate resident ownership of mobitehome parks_ [IJt is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this chapter,to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobitehome parks to resident ownership _-_ and to help establish-acceptance for resident--owned.___ mobitehome parks in the private market_ (Health&Saf_ Code§:50780(b)) (See.E1.Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v_ City of Palm Springs(2002) 96 Cal- App_4th 1153, 1168- 1169[explaining the linkage between.GovL Code_§66427.5&-the expression of legislative intent found in Health & Saf. Code § 50780]) THE STATE ESTABLISHED A STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR SUBDIVISION OF EXISTING MOBILEHOME PARKS Given the State policy to facilitate resident ownership of mobilehome parks, the Subdivision Map Act at Government Code Section 66427.5 provides an exclusive streamlined process for local agency approval of existing mobilehome park tentative tract maps: The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing.by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The 36014.11214851-1971-7124v.1 Item 6e - Page 634 -1316- HK&C HART K,'NG 6, OOLII�,Etz -Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City,of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 3 scope of the hearing shalt be limited to the.issue of compliance with this section- (Govt- Code §66427.5 (e)) The.Califomia Court-of-Appeal has interpreted Government Code Section 66427.5(eyto prevent any additional local agency requirements for subdivision approval,.including, as attempted in the Ef Dorado case,a city requirement for a tenant majority approval of the subdivision_ The Association's interpretation would conflict with the legislative intent to encourage such conversions_ indeed the City.notes that such an onerous tondit on of approval would effecti bly give the mobile home park Homeowners'association"the ability to unilaterally block the proposed park conversion unless the landlord would otherwise set.his purchase price of an amount acceptable-to the homeowners-" Giving the homeowners fhis .power would-conflict with the;legislatnre intent"to encourage and. facilitate the conversion of mobilohorrie parks to resident ownership .:__".(Health&Saf- Code§50780,subd_(b)) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v_ City of Palm Springs,supra; 96 Cal_ App_e at 1172[underline added]) At oral argument, .the City argued that the three further-conditions it imposed were designed to prevent an abuse of the conversion process by a developer who was engaged in a sham or fraudulent transaction which was intended to avoid the rent control ordinance-The problem with the argument is that section 66427-5, subdivision (d)provides that "The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section-'Thus, the City lacks authority to investigate or impose additional -conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves the tentative or parcel map- (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. V. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal_ AppAth at 1165 [underline added]) Thus, under Government Code Section 66427-5, the only issues that the City may consider in deciding upon an existing mobilehome park subdivision are as follows: is the tentative tract map in compliance with City requirements? 36014-112t4851-1971-7124v.1 -1317- Iltern 8. - Page 6351 ."K&C HART. KING & CDLDREN Rami Tatleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee " City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 4 • Did the park owner notify residents of their option to.continue leasing or.purchase their lots? • Did the park owner submit to the City and timely mail to the residents at resident impact report? • Did the park owner submit the,results of-a resident survey of support of.the subdivision that was conducted by written ballot in accordance with an agreement between the park owner and an independent resident homeowners' association? THE STATE PREEMPTS.AND PROIE�tTS CITY 1MPOS -11. TEB2tR' O1`t MAP AIRPi OVAL_ The recent Court of Appeal decision in Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cat_ App. LEXIS 1397 (Cat: App. 1st Dist: Aug_ 21, 2009) reaffirmed that Section 66427.5 (e) expressly precludes local agency..criteria.4or_approval of mobilehome.park.subdivisions: We. therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision (e) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when. considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome, park from arental . to a resident-owner basis_ (Sequoia Park Associates.v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397(Cal.App_ 1st Dist_ Aug. 21, 2009). at p. 54) In explaining the-above holding, the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates expressly stated that local agencies do- not have authority to impose conditions, even conditions interpreting the particular requirements under the Subdivision Map Act; such.as conditions for the appropriate content of the Government Code Section 6.6427.5 (c) report on the impact of the conversion upon residents or conditions relating to.the level of tenant support demonstrated by the Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) tenant survey. We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's approach. Beginning with the presumption against preemption in the area of land use, it is more than a little difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only on the issues of resident support and the subdivider's efforts at avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents. Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept, if not invite, supplementary local action. For example, a subdivider 36014.11214851-1971-7124v.1 Items 8. a Page 636 -1318- HART. K!N-G S, COLQREN ` Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beacti Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 .Page 5 is required to "file a report on the impact. of the conversion upon residents," .but the Legislature made no effort to spell out the contents of such- a report. And there is 'some force to the 'rhetorical inquiry:posed by amici: "Surely, the Legislature intended that the reportt have-substantive content ----[- __. [¶] If there can be no_.ossurance as to-the contents-of the [reportj,it may become a meaningless-exercise! Itlowever a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts:much:of the appeal in-the County's approach. There are three s.Leh. statutes—sections 66427-4. 66427:5, and. 66428.1 And if they are considered as a unit--which they are, as the three mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act—a coherent logic begins.to emerge. € 3 It is.not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see fit to grant local authorities some power, 'but circumscribe that power- That is what section 66427-5 does- It says in effect Local authority, you have this power, but no-inore. (Sequoia park Associates v_ County of Sonoma 2009 Cal_ App. LEXIS 1397,at pp_ 46-48, 51) And still more.A local ordinance.is impliedly preempted if it mandates what state law forbids. (Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal_4th 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows, Inc_ v_ County of Los Angeles, supra, 27 Cal.4th 853, .866.) As already established, section 66427-5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state- mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application- Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if the decision maker .finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66247.5. .the application (1) "is consistent with the General Plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2) demonstrates that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"; (3) the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety"; 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v-1 -1319- Item 6m - Page 6373 MART.-KING & COLDREN Rami Talleh -City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee .. . City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 6 and (4). the proposed conversion. ."is a bona .fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. (Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(,�), subs, 1(c)-1(0, 2.) The .Ordinance also requires that, following approval of the conversions application;$he subdivider`shalt give each resident:household written n6tice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwolfing-,unit.or- space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and -conditions.than those on which such unit or space.shait tie initially offered to Elie general..public,A� for a- period of 90 days `frdrrr-the issuance of the subdivision public report pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 11018.2" (1d., §-25 39 T(d), subd_ 2.) However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. The 'matter of just what � constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize---if not actually invite--a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions_ .And although-the Ordinance'ernploys the mandatory "shall," it does not establish whether the presumptions are conclusive or merely. rebuttable. This uncertainty is only compounded when other criteria are scrutinized. What is the financial. provision that.-will-be deemed "appropriate" to "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance"? Such imprecision stands in stark contrast with the clear directives in section 66427.5. (Sequoia Pafk Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal, App_ EEXIS 1397, at pp_58-61) LOCAL CONDITIONS ARE UNNECESSARY The streamlined process for City approval of existing mobilehome park tentative maps makes sense not only from a policy perspective of facilitating resident ownership of mobilehome parks, but also in the context of the significant State law and administrative agency regulation of mobilehome parks before, during and after tentative map approval by the City. Before a tentative map may be submitted under Section 66427.5,the mobilehome park must already be in existence with a permit from the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for the spaces that will be subdivided. 36014-112/4851-1971-7124v_1 Item 8. - Page 638 -1320- ATTA rUA Ar-k Vr 2,3:r HK&C HART. KING 9, COLDREN Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 7 Mobilehome park design, construction, use and operation is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the HCD under the Mobilehome Parks Act, Health.and Safety Code Section`18200 et seq: These statutory schemes indicate that the state is dearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency,not localities,that was entrusted with the authority to formulate"specific.'requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use,:and design of mobilehome-parks (Health &Saf_ Code § 18253) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cat.App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 16-17) During the subdivision process, the tenants are adequately protected by provisions of the Subdivided Lands Act that require-the Patk"awner ty.pi-�pare•:aad"dsserri nate a public report that must be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Real Estate,which report discloses and provides for, inter-alias encumbrances on the land,-thelstattis of,public utilities, ` needed capital improvements, proposed assessments,etc. (See Bus_ &Prof_Code§ 11000 et seq.) , In the normal situation, conversion begins with.compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, followed. by approval from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act_ (Bus_ & Prof. Code § 11000 et seq.) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal_App.4th at 1177) After the subdivision is approved by local government, the Department of Real Estate regulates the marketing and sale of the individual units in the park- (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 11010 et seq_) It is illegal to sell subdivided property before obtaining a public report from the Real Estate Commissioner. (Bus_ & Prof. Code, § 11018) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal-App-4th at 1160) Following the City subdivision approval, the tenants are adequately protected by provisions of Government Code Section 66427-5 under the Subdivision Map Act that protects residents against economic displacement. Section 66426.5 (a) requires that the Park owner offer the residents the option of either purchasing their lots or continuing to lease their that lot from the Park owner_ Therefore, 36014.112/4851-1971-7124 v.1 -1321- A TT A .p A. 8. - Page 6393 HK&C HART. KING & CDLDREfs Rami Talleh =City of Hungtington Beach-Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 8 residents will not be forced to terminate their.leases and will not be forced to purchase, but will be provided a valuable option to purchase.if they so choose. .Also, Section 66427.5 (f) limits rent.increases for residents who choose to continue leasing. For non low income.residents, their rents, if below market value at the time of conversion, can only be raised to market value over a four year period. For low income residents, their rents can only be-raised.by an annual percentage--that.is equal to the average rent increases during the four years prior to.conversfort. The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park-Associates recognized the-bfoad reach of those exclusive statutory provisions contained in Section 66427.5 in protecting residents against economic displacement: The.County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensurkW.that. conversion: must comport with the General Plan, especUly -its housing_.element,.because.that^is-.where_the.economic dislocation --will be manifest, by reducing the inventory of low cost housing- (See Health& Saf_ Code, § 50780, subds. (a)(1) & (a)(3)_) In this sense however, section 66427-5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates as it does. make provision in subdivision 01 for: helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain. (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma 2009 Cal.App LEXIS-1397, at pp-61-62) The Court of Appeal in the earlier case of El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, in comparing Government Code Section 66427.5 with Government Code Section 66427-4, clearly recognized that conversion under the limitations of Section 66427.5 will not result in economic displacement of residents: We first examine section 66427.4. It applies to "conversion of a mobilehome park to another use_" Conversely, it would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The section would only apply if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping center or another different use of the property. in that situation, there would be `displaced mobilehome park residents" who would need to find "adequate space in.a mobilehome park" for their mobilehomes and themselves. Thus, an impact report is required. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v. City or Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal_App_4th 1153, 1161) 36014-11214851-1971-7124v-1 Item 8. - Page 640 -1322- -- HK&C HART. ::SSG & CDLDREN Rami Talieh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntirigton Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 9 The City's action on-the subdivision application occurs at a stage in the process where significant information pertaining to conversion such as lot purchase price and homeowner association obligations have not yet been studied or developed: Although a tenant cannot make" a rational decision to buy, continue.to rent;or move his or her mobilehome unless the tenant is given ah.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) (E/ Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v_ City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Ca1.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 Ca1.App_4th at 1180) Thus, all that is required at the stage.of City approval of the Application is for the Park owner to give notice.to the residents of their option to purchase or continue leasing and of the statutory protections for those residents pertaining to post-conversion rent increases. At the tatter time [the subdivision approval by the City], the subdivider must only notify residents that they will have an option to purchase their sites or to continue to rent them. (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal-App.4th at 1180) The City cannot.impose any conditions of its own on approval of the Application_ The City has an almost ministerial duty to approve the Application if it complies with the simple checklist of requirements set forth in Government Code Section 66427.5- 36014.112/4851-1971-7124v.1 -1323- Item 8. - Page 641' ATTA r%r I er... HKCKU HART. KING & CGLJREN Rami Talteh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of.Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 10 THE RESIDENT LETTERS..RAISE-1NAPP.RQPRIATE ISSUES VVhile the particulae issues raised in each letter. will be addressed separately as needed, generagy, the issues raised in the letters cannot be considered by the City with respect to the Application. - Sequoia Park Associates makes clear that the C6 :cannot .-consider -issues of Park infrastructure design, maintenari6e-and`repair or Park- cofiv a ace yvith the -HCD* regulations under the Moblehome Parks Act_ Park infrastructure design, maintenance and repair issues are the primary focus of the.tenant-letters ' - Water drainage, sewer, and electrical'issues(Apri1'20, 2009 Roberts/Saparoff letter); • Water drainage isues (May 8,.200g.CdswgR.te" • Water drainage, sewer, electrical, gas issues (May 17'&18, 2009 Seymour letters); i. • Water drainage, electrical, cable, streets and lighting issues (May 18, 2009 Vaughn letter); • Water drainage, water,- electrical,-cable, streets and,Lighting issues (June 15, 2009 Emerson letter) • Water drainage issues (June 11, 2009 Gardner fetter) Sequoia Park Associates expressly holds that local agencies are precluded from review of park infrastructure design, maintenance or repair issues because, those .issues are under the exclusive jurisdiction-of-the-California Department of Housing and`:Corrlmunity Development One of the County of Sonoma ordinance conditions struck down in that case required to the park owner to demonstrate: that "appropriate" financial provision has been made to underwrite and "ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure" (Sequoia Park Associates v- County of Sonoma 2009 Cal- App- LEXIS 1397, at P. 59) The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates rejected that and other local agency conditions of approval, stating: 36014.1 12/4851-1971-7124v_1 Item 8e - Page 642 -1324- HK&C HART. KING & CGLOREN Rami Talleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 2009 Page 11 However commendable or well-intentioned these- additions-may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements-of Section 66427:5_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma 2009 Cal_App: LEXIS 1897,'at p. 60) The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates concluded that it was -the California Department of Housing and Community Development, .not the City, than had jurisdiction to consider and review Park infrastructure design, repair and maintenance issues: Under the Mobiiehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a.state agency, not localities;:.,that was entrusted with the authority to formulate "specific requirements relating to construction, use, maintenance, occupancy, use, and designs of mobilehome parks (Health & Saf_ Code, § 1 8253) (Sequoia. Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at p_ 16-17) The only other issue that the letters raise is a request for-the City to interpret and impose conditions upon the Park's compliance with the tenant survey results it submitted pursuant to Subsection 66427.5 (d). (See June 18, 2009 and .July 9,2009 Steeper letters) The Park owner complied with the requirements of Government Code Section•66427.5 (d) by obtaining and submitting tenant survey results to the City_ The survey was conducted by written ballot pursuant to an agreement between the Park owner and an independent resident homeowners' association. Government Code Sections 66427.5 does not require the Park owner to conduct the survey through Mr_ Steeper's particular homeowners' association or to provide any particular explanation to the residents regarding the survey or any particular form of written ballot. As explained in Sequoia Park Associates, the City cannot impose conditions that attempt to tell the Paris owner how to comply with Government Code Section 66427.5_ However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of Section 66427.5_ (Sequoia Park Associates v- County of Sonoma 2009 Cal- App. LEXIS 1397, at p. 60) Any City review of the manner in which the survey was conducted would invite a purely subject inquiry on the matter: 36014.11248 S 1-1971-7124v.1 -1325- Item 6. a Page 643) HK61CU HART. KING & r-OLDREN T� Rami Tatteh City of tiungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25,2009 Page 12 The matter-of just ..wbat constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite--a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not truly reduced -by reference to the Ordinance's.presumptions. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma 2009 Cal. App..LEXIS 1397, at p- 60) COMMEiVTS=ON.PARTiCUt AR-RESIDENT-LETTERS 1. April 20. 2009. Roberts/Saparoff'i titter. .This3-letter raises- unsupported infrastructure issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application. The letter makes a false statement about the Park sewer system. Roberts had a sewer blockage within their home and the plumber cut the pipe under their home, causing a sewage spill under their home- The sewage spilt was not caused by and did-not involve.the.Park sewer system- 2- May 8, 2009 Criswell Letter The Caswell are not residents of the Park and their self- serving reference to litigation they support is outside the scope of City review- 3. - May 17 &18, 2009 Seymour Letters These letters raise unsupported infrastructure design; maintenance and repair issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application- The Seymours are. unhappy because they haven't been able to sell their homes which they have had on the market for over a.year. 4_ May 18. 2009 Vaughn Letter This letter raises-design and infrastructure issues that are outside the scope of City review of the Application_ The roads are not slippery and their slope is ,Within HC® design standards. There is no substantiation of the libelous accusation of elder abuse. Vaughn is unhappy because she hasn't been able to sell her home which she has had on the market for over a year so that she can move out of state to be dose to her children and grandchitdren- 5.- June 18. 2009 and July 9, 2009 Steeper Letters This letter raises issues about the manner in which the tenant survey was conducted. There are three independent tenant associations within the Park- Government Code Section 66427-5 (d).does not require the Park owner to agree with every tenant association regarding the survey. it only requires that the Park owner agree with a tenant association which is independent. The Park owner in this instance agreed with a separate independent tenant.association regarding the conduct of the survey. Therefore, Mr. Steeper's claim that there was no agreement with the association he represents is without merit- 36014.112/4851-1971-7124 v.1 Item 8. a Page 644 -1326- HK&C HART. KING & COLOREN Rami Talleh: City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 25, 20W Page 13 - 6. June 15 2009 Emerson Letter .This letter raises-issues about infrastructure, design, maintenance and repair issues that are outside the scope of'City review of the Application. The roads are not slippery and their slope is within HCD design standards. There is no substantiation of the libelous accusation of harassment. In conclusion, the enclosed letters by a very small minority of Park residents fail to raise or substantiate any issues that should be considered by the City in its review of the Application. -The City's consideration of the Application should simply be a checidist review-of whether the Park owner has:complied with Govemmerit-Code Section 66427.5. We would be glad to further answer any questions. regarding:the-particulars of'the correspondence that would be relevant and helpful to the Gity's decision-on the Application_ Best Regards, HART, ICING ; - -- Robe I .en BLH/dr Enclosure.- Resident Letters Sequoia Park Associates decision cc_ Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Leonie Mulvihill,Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) Herb Fauland, Planning Manager (by e-mail only) Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) 36014-11214851-1971-7124v.1 -1327- a.Item I$a = Page 645. SUB DIVISION OF HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS April 20 2009 SENIOR MOBIL[TOME PARK ` ATTN:PLANNING.COMMISSION PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION ANY OTHER AGENCY INVOLVED IN'SUB DIVISION We are writing to ask that you deny the request of the new owners,Saunders Properties et al,to subdivide the current parlc sites,thus allowing the present residents to purchase their rental land sites.While it sounds cnagnanamous,it°does not explain the following.. following.. When_the} purchased:lbere were major litigations pending . The destructive water drainage needs to be corrected and the roads . The aging sewer system has caused raw sewerage back-up needs correction Electrical problems corrected -Mold problems . atlule it sounds like a good move,all the.major repairs wilt be passed onto the site owners,and we would lose the protection of Rent Control,_which-would force the aged seniors on fixed income to be priced out of their homes_In addition,while this maybe a creative legal-maneuver,it ubt.only is destructive to the aged residents,but their application may fail to disclose latent defects,which would enable each contract to purchase to then be disaffirmed.Instead of turning their acquired financial white elephant into financial disaster for the elderly,thenew owners had the option to di&dGrm their purchase from the former owners because latent defects were not revealed_There were nnafy health and safety violations that were not fixed_ For the health and safety of the residents,the sewer lies must be brought to code_ We currently have had their sewer back up into our home with major damage.They claim it is not their responsibility_ A sub division of this park should only be approved if the city requires the owners to bring everything up to code and correct all the defaults to each site independently and the common area uses. The common areas should not be owned by the seller,but by the park homeowners as community areas to be shared by a formed organization of Home Owners_ We pray that you consider the above,and send out inspectors to make corrections_ Sincerely, William Roberts, Estelle Roberts, &Albeit Saparolf (age 83) (age 78) (age 95) k, lfZ1L�� iMVED 20701 BEACH BLVD SP 06 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 JUN 1 Z009 Huntington Beach PLANNING DEPT pf LP JUN 18 2009 Huntington Beach gd-EI-061 A/,el//ll 6:r LIAt WING DEPT_ G< ,01tq/SS /0 jq6S5 F,4 v Lrr � Item 13e e Page 646 -1328- I: 2 May 8, 2009 VC 17 Rani�Talleh Steven- J. Bogart, P.E �h 'Senior Planner Senior Civil Engineer (� y 2G09 Fax 714-374-1540 Fax 7-14-374-1'573 Email:rtalle�surfcity:hb_or4 r;G;; gfon PLOv RE: Huntington Shorediffs Mobilehome Park Dear Mr. Talleh and Mr_ Bogart This is to let you know that vm do not support conversion of Huntnngton Shorecliffs to a subdivision for the purpose of individual lots for sale. First of all the so call"Ballot Form"is in violation of code 676427.5. Most important is that these were and are several tayc.sei.s.a a:cist.former and present park owners_ Most are for failure to maintain the park due to improper drainage of water. We were permanent residents at Huntington Shorediffs,_however, We were forced to abandon our rnanufactured home due to health problems resulting from the park owners failure to maintain the park, 30.2008.00104752-Failure to maintain LaChappelle case 07CCO961 Hamel- Failure to maintain Hamel case 06CCO0216-Access denied to residents case 06CCO0262-Leases,unlawful by owners to cancel/mange leases 07CC01257-Declaratory Relief Case 07CCOl 416-Failure.to maintain-See attachment, map indicates units with water problems and letter kom'Nuritington Shorediffs We would Iike to request that any decision regarding Huntinton Shorediffs be delayed until all the above cases have been resolved_ Respectfully yours, Arminda and Roger Criswell 883 Oro Grande St_ Oceanside, CA 92057 acriswell46@yahoo.com -1329- Item 8. - Page 6473 TaUeh,Rami; From: Madeline Seymour[ausvan@eadWink.net] Sent: Monday May 14,2009 629 AM To. .Talleh.Rami Subject Huntington Shorecfiffs Sub-Division application Madeline J. Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd_ #8 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 May 17, 2009 Mr_ Rami Talleh, Senior Planner .City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street P. O_ Box -190 Huntington Beach, Ca_ 92648 RE: Sub-Division applications for Huntington -Shorecliffs,Mobile•Home Park Dear Mr. Rami: Z am writing to. you today to request your assistance in not approving the above application for sub-division—,, There are major litigations pending in the Orange County Superior Court, Case #07CCO141.6, failure to maintain having to.,do. with. the-water-problems in this park-- A city storm drain drains into this park at the North center of the property, winding thru the park to the Southeast corner ta`anather storm"tia3n -then out of the park. This drain is a Health and Safety problem. as there is a good possibility of the riin' off containing insecticides, fertilizer, animal fescues and engine oil. This park has an elderly population and these hazards could,ceriprotalse tHe;;-imniune •system-of every person in this park_ The Sewer system, Electrical and Gas`iines'`are all`in-excess_af..35-years_ The Electrical system, currently in the park, has a hard time carrying the load of the new homes that are being brought in. There have been sewer problems inside of people's homes_ Please consider not approving this application, or at least put some demands on these owners to fix and/or bring all.utilities.. and.drainage to. current=standards/codes. Inspections with reports should be required by the City before going .forward with any approvals of this application. Thanking you in advance for considering the above issues. Very truly yours, Madeline J_ Seymour 1 Item 8. - Page 648 -1330- Page 1 of 1 Tatleh, Rami From: Bill Seymour[Bi9BoyBarri@socal.rr.comj Sera: Sunday,May 17,2009 5.06 PM To: Talleh.Rami Subject:Sub Division application Huntington Shoreclilfs Mobile Home Park William J_Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd.#8 Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 May 17;2009- Mr.Rami Talleh,Senior Planner_ City offluntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street ; P_O.Box 190 . Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 RE: Sub-Division application for Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Paris Dear Mr_Rami: I am writing to you today to request your assistance in not approving the above application for sub-division There are major litigations pending in the Orange County Superior Court,Case#07CC01416,farlure to maintain having to do with the water problems in this park A city storm drain drains into this park at the North center of the property,winding thru the park to theSoutheast corner to another storm drain then out of the park_ This.draiit.is.a.HealdLand.Safety problem for this park as•there-is a good possibility of the run off containing.insecticides,fertilizer,animal fescues and engine o1L This park has an.elderly population and these hazards could compromise the immune system of every person in this park. The Sewer system,Electrical and Gas lines are all-in excess of 30 years_ The Electrical system currently in the park has a hard time carrying the load of the new homes that are being brought,in There have been sewerproblems inside ofpeople's homes recently. Please consider not approving the application,or at least put some demands on these owners to°lix and/orbnng all utilities and-drainage to current siandards/codes. Inspections with reports should be required by the City before going forward with any approvals of this application- Thanking you in advance for considering the above issues_ Very truly yours, William J_Seymour 5/18/2009 -1331- A /1, Item 8. - Page 649') 1.�a'�.. ,. .c+n cam.. } 2009 - . • - a'��'�''- . • .. .. - _. ���� -�rz�. �i°a.�-mom. a . . Item 5. - rage 650 -1332- July 9,2009. 7� Liter_ Mr.Rami Talleh . Senior-Planner,-Dept_of Planning JUL 137009 b City of Huntington Beach ; lr 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 �: s .Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re:Application to Subdivide Property at 20701 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach,CA(the "Park)and filing of a Tentative Sub-Division Map. Dear Mr.Talleh: Further to my Ietter of June 18,2009,it is the position of die residents of the Park that the "survey"conducted by the owners pursuant to Govt.Code section 66427,5(d)(2)-(5) was wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of this Section- Sub-Section(d)(2)requires that a survey of all residents of the Park be carved out by the subdivider which."_..shall be conducted in accordance with as agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners'association,if any,that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner_" � s The owner failed to reach any agreement with the Home Owners' Association with respect to this survey_ In fact,the Home Owners' Association was completely unaware that a survey was to be conducted anti I it was presented to all the residents on approximately April 8,2009 via individual letters. The owner invited the residents to.an"informal".meeting on October 27,2008 to discuss three issues,one of which was the filing for a sub-division map(Attachment No.1.) The residents had no way of knowing the import of this presentation and the consequences of the tentative subdivision map filing_ Many simply did not attend the meeting. Had the Association been appraised of the importance of this meeting it would Have strenuously urged all residents to attend. When the"survey"arrived in April,most residents had already forgotten the October meeting. As a result they were totally unprepared to consider in a thoughtful manner the financial and other implications of answers they might give to the questions posed by the survey. Many residents simply did not respond or responded by noting their inability to make an informed decision without further information (in effect refusing to vote one way or the other). -1333- Item 8. - Page 6517 3 , In conclusion,we insist that the owner adhere fully to the statutory requirements of GovL Code Section.66427.5_ We also request that the City suspeM'its consideration of the tentative subdivision map application until an appropriate survey of the residents has been conducted. In the alternative,we request that the application be denied on the basis of the owner's failure to comply with the requirements of GovL Code Section 664427.3_ Best Regards, Scott C.Steeper President,Home Owners Association Huntington Shomliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd.,#204. Huntington Beach,CA 92W (714)274-9975 Item 6e - Page 652 -1334- XW" 1 g t f 20701 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 October 24,2008 All Residents Huntington Shorecliffs. RE: Informal Meeting Monday,October 27,2008;6:30 p.in.large clubhouse Dear Residents: The management of Huntington Shorecliffs cordiallyiuvites you-to an informal meeting to be held at the large clubhouse on Monday,October 27,2008 at 6:30 p.m._ We will be present to discuss a number of issues impacting the park- Those issues include the following: L The County's reassessment of the park as.a result of the sale and the impact upon property taxes, 2. Some pending..changes to the parWs•Rules&Regulations, 't 3- The park's filing for a subdivision map,which would enable the residents to purchase their lots. Of course,we will be available to answer questions as welL We look forwardto.seeing you on Monday evening- Sincerely, STAR MOBILEHOME PARK MANAGEMENT By- Michael A. Cirillo For: Huntington Shorecliffs -1335- ®TTef'unn Item. �e - Pale 653) _ __- CAD JUN 19 2009 June 1$,2009 _cn Seac Mr_Rapti Talleh _ __ `: ' `.DE Senior Planner,Dept.of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re:Application to Subdivide Property at.20701 Beach Blvd.,Huntington Beach,CA Dear Mr.'Talleh: 'his is,to advise you that the members of the.Huntington Shorecliffs Dome Owners Aswgei;_ation,tocated"at 2070f Beach Blvd,.,- fluntingtoir Beack oppose the granting ofthe subjoctApplication_ (fur objection is based on the survey of the homeowners carried out by the Owner in April.of this year_ 'Me residents-were:never advised of the fact that the survey.was being requested as part of the subdivision application process and therefore had legal and financial implications_ We will be submitting.further..mn-espoiide�}ce.prov ding more detailed_grounds.for.our objection in the near future_ However,we wanted to assure that the City was on notice of our concern and opposition to the granting,of-*e Application._ . Best Regards, 'Scott C_ Steeper President,Home Owners Association Huntington Shoreeliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd.,#204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)274-9975 Stem 6. - Page 654 -1336- June.15,2009 1 Mr.iii i Talleh,Sen orplanner City-of-Huntington Beach Dept of Planning 2000-Main.St,,P.O.-Box.1-9- 0 Hun4ngt9n$each;CA 92648 Re:(Huntington Shorecliffs.Mobile Home Paris Application(herein after referred to"the Park') for SubdiYision/Condoization. - Dear Nor:Tatleh, dam writing,on behalf of myself and myhusband and.the many other residents of this senior. community,to.register my strong opposition to the application for subdivision orr the part of Huntington:Shorecliffs Mobile Home:Park's,owner Mr.John R Saunders_ As�seniors on.fixed iincoriies,myhusdadusdoueban ntire life,savings to buy aBrand new m6bile'home in this patYc in 2405;with tote thought that we could enjoy tow m[untenanee and-- on a beat/iful home,as well as.the peace,calrri.and.nuld.climate of-2his"settling for the remainder of our years WeJik,e most of the:other residents.here,::have our own story,our own_face:of Iiunianrty We are'pcobably representative of those who=have worked hard;served their country and the larger global cormunty,raised pmductive children,and essentially Been a creditto society_ - W6 found out very soon after moving.in,;that we,as human:beings,were of no concern to the -owners or management of the Park. We also.discovered ghat the Park had many problems with the maintenance of this 40-some year-old Park and very poor relationship with residents_ The - major.problems we have experienced here are"failure to maintain"and"economic duress"in € tenns ofage-and.the health of residents_ In terms offailure to maintain,our complaint,centers around standing water under our structure -and the possibility of mold with implications for health.issues.we are experiencing Our borne, which was`inewly-constructed,was moved onto a dry,.raised lot in December 2005. Following the first.rains of 2006,I°began chronic sneezing{never before experienced)and s�mce have sought medical attention for this as well as severe fatigue and headaches(mold-related symptoms)_ In July,20Q8 I re-engaged the saute mobile home inspector who had originally inspected the "crawl space under our home,to determine if there was water under our unit This time,his inspection revealed pooled water under the unit and evidence of white powdery growth on ground and supports. Other water-related or land-sinking problems include toilet flushing,cracks gin the cement,doors not closing properly,and standing water on the property adjacent to our carport. In addition to personal experience with water issues,the park seems to-impose an unreasonable number of"water shut-offs"and on at least one occasion(8114/08)notice of water shut-off was put in our mail.slots literally minutes before the water was shut off,leaving us no notice to set aside buckets or pans of water for temporary use. When one is in the midst of taking a shower and washing hair prior to leaving home for an important appointment,this can be unsettling and anxiety producing! The Park's water,sewer and electrical systems are all almost 40 years old_ With newer homes being brought in and upgrades made to older homes,both requiring greater energy expenditure, there is real strain on the Park's capacity to provide continuous and safe utility services. A 337- _ Item B. - Page 655L t t f t In terms ofmaintenance and alterations,the street lightlocated on our space regularly goes out �^ about twice a year. Some repairs have taken up to two months from outage repoft..We.depend on that street light for-night safety.. Additionailyour cable connection was unavailable due to what T-une Warnerdetermined resulted from resurfacing of the streets which clogged the cable line-to.our space;requiring time Warner to use the neighboring space's-hook=up'for our space's cable connection. And,there are real issues.of physical safety on streets which slope.into the center,making it difficult for those using walkers or wheelchairs.to safely navigate the road_ Also streets with no flat surfaces are dangerous for people,lice my husband,who have balance or neuropa*y problems: By having no alternative but to walk in the center of the road(designed to carry..water�" residents face the safety issues of moving vehicles and walking in water. lastly,and-more importantly-is the issge of economic duress'and sties: About Yto%of die Park's.population can:be:considered.eldedy:Many are in�`Some do not have any:famil'r or outside support or.,assistanee: With aging,deeisog cepa-btlities tend to docline Ata:time when eldeilypeople need strong support°lie uni3erstandiug filie-compiexities of legal.issues, e management,ofTh s Palk:has:not-taken any special effcirt to explain the 1110.6 ins:of diaoges to their:policies_ They senttheir lawyer and a management company.representative to represent them atone meetiq:(wliieli did n6t have l OU'�o of Park resident atteadanee)_ This Si ply appeared to me as"going through the motions of communicating.with residents"_ It seemed clear that the.owner/management of the Park had goals that would shatter the dreams of the many who camehere to live simple,affordable,.quiet lives with others in a welcoming and.fiiendiy community. About the time or just prior to this"meet the owners"gathering,Padcmanagement sent out a notice of options for new.lease agreements,offering the choice of one year or month-to-month ' leases_ This notice contained language which could be construed as thr!eaieni",-_"_..residents who choose not to sign: will be deemed to:be month-to-month tmants,if their 2006lease is termbzwed': ['his caused undue stress on the_part of many residents because.there was no explanation for how an existing lease could be terminated_ The�lack-of certainty as to what will happen if the park is indeed"condo-mV constitutes what I believe is mental:and emotional . harassment on the part of the Park's owners_- Additionally,the survey sent by management to residents asking how,many thought they would want to purchase or continue to rent their space, did not come through the Homeowner's Association which should be theproper hannel for such inquiries_ I bring all'these issues to your attention-,so you might have a clearer picture of the concerns and uncertainties faced by me and other residents like me. I request that the application for subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park be denied. "auk you for your attention to this request- Since , L te ,.ynEmerson 20701 Beach Blvd_,4158 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Cc. Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowners Association Item 8. - Page 656 -1338- Juno a-mail for rmgardner(Ja juno_com printed on Thursday,June 11,2009, 10:19-AM L Date:Thu 11Jun 2009 To: Rknii Tellah City Senior Planner i t t 200 Again St Huntington Beach CA 92648 From: Robert M Gardner JUiV. ) 2009 20701 Beach Blvd 0253 92648 t� CA- Huntington Beach _ =�'�r`7• cn Subject: 1_Storm Drain Water sourcing from Huntington Beach City regarding Huntington Shorediffs Mobile Home Park 2.Resolution of the'above and possible implications of a.proposal by present owners to change the Parks status- I am writing to express nay concerns about storm drain water which comes from Frankfurt St_above the Park, draining into this Park- The water runs in the P4Ws open streets for s0i me' distance before exiting afanother end- Storm water can contain bacterial and chemical.contaminates- It is highly probable that pet feces from lawns and streets above the Park are among these contaminates at certain tunes_ Y would like to know if a public health issue exists because of above- "ere is.another problem relating to water here—certain Park residents'have experienced ground water and mold problems in and under their homes-These problems have existed for some time. Black mold especially has been and is a health concern for c:ertaiu of the home owners a ieasc consider the issues mentioned above especially in any actions or advisement provided by your office to the City or State related to the application for change iia status now being made by the present Pwk owners_ th IZ Gardn Iuntington Shorecliffs cc City Council Huntington Beach ! of I -1339- Item lea - Page 65T -Filed 8121/09 CER`ICMUD FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO SEQUOIA PARK AS90CIlATES, Plaintiff and Appellant; AI20049' V. COUNTY OF SONOMA, (Sonoma County duper r Nb. SCV240003) Defendant and Respondent. One of the.subjects;caue=qd bar:the Subd �rision-Map.Act (Gov_ Code, §-66410 et seq.) is the conversion of a mobilehome park from a rental to a resident ownership basis_ Onie-of the provisions on that subject is Government Code section 66427-5 (section 66427.5),which spells out certain-steps that must be completed,before the conversion application:can be approved:-by..the,appropriate local body_ Although it is not codified in the-language of section 66427.5, the Legislature recorded its intent that by enacting section 66427.5 it was acting"to ensure that conversions . _ . are bona fide resident conversions. (Stats.2002, ch. 1143, § 2.) The County of Sonoma(County) enacted an ordinance with the professed aim of `implementing" the state conversion statutes. It imposed additional obligations upon a subdivider submitting a conversion application to those required by section 66427.5. The ordinance also imposed criteria that had to be satisfied by the subdivider before the application would be presumed bona fide and thus could be approved_ A mobilehome park operator brought suit to halt enforcement of the ordinance on the ground that it was preempted by section 66427.5. The trial court declined to issue a writ of mandate, concluding that the ordinance was not preempted_ As will be shown, we conclude that the ordinance is expressly preempted because section 66427.5 states that 1 Item 60 - Page 658 -1340- 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, whichtas established a dominant role for "the state in regulating mobilehomes;has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into.the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions,declining.to expand section _66427.5 in ways that would authorize local government to.impose additional conditions :or requirements for conversion approval. Moreover,the County's ordinance duplicates several features of state law, a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption. We therefore reverse the trial court's order and direct entry of a new order declaring the ordinance invalid. BACKGROUND On May 15, 2007,the County's Board of Supervisors unanimously enacted Ordinance No_ 5725 (the Ordinance)_ Sequoia Park Associates(Sequoia)is a limited partnership that owns and operates a mobilehome park it desires to subdivide and convert r t from a rental to a resident-owmr basis. Within a month of the enactmenc,6f the Ordinance, Sequoia sought to have it overturned as preempted by section 66427.5. Specifically, Sequoia combined a petition for a writ of mandate with causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages for inverse condemnation.of its property_ The matter of the Ordinance's validity was submitted on the basis of voluminous papers addressing Sequoia's motion for issuance of a writ of mandate- The court heard argument and filed a brief order denying Sequoia relief. The court concluded that section 66427.5 "largely,does appear. _ .by its own language" to impose limits on local authority to legislate on the subject of mobilehome conversions. "However,Ordinance 5725 seems merely to comply with, and give effect to,the requirements set forth in section 66427.5 rather than imposing additional requirements. This is certainly true for the language on bona fide conversions,tenant impact reports, and even general plan requirements. It is possibly less clear regarding health and safety, but even on this issue, the Ordinance does not appear to exceed [the County's] authority since, contrary to [Sequoia's] contention, it does not intrude on the [state Department of Housing and 2 -1341- Item 8e - Page 6593 Community Development's (HCD)] power in the area." This order is the subject of Sequoia's appeal.' DJ[SCUSSION The parties.agree that our review of the trial court"s order is de novo because it involves a pure issue-of law, namely,whether the Ordinance is preempted by Section .66427.5. (Apartment Assn_ of Los Angeles County, Inc. v_ City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 CalAppAth 119, 132;Ruble-Vista Associates v Bacon-(2002)97 CaL-AppAth 335, 339.) But the parties do not agree on how far our analysis may, or-should,extend.. Sequoia argues we should restrict our-inquiry to the current version of section 66427.5, in particular paying-no attention to an uncodified expression of the Legislature's intent passed at the same time that version was enacted_ At the same time Sequoia also argues that we should look to a provision in.a version of an amendment to the statute that the Legislature rejected in 2002- The County's approach is similarly compressed_ noting that because Sequoia challenged the legality of the Ordinance on its face, the County argues that-our analysis must be confined to the four corners of that enactment, and nothing else_ Yet the County ranges far afield in marshalling the statutes which it incorporates in its arguments,and ' .It is typical of the generally high quality of the briefing that the experienced appellate counsel for Sequoia does not treat the requirement of California Rules of Court rule 8.204(a)(2}- which directs that the appellant"explain why the order appealed-from is appealable"—as satisfied with a ministerial recital of boilerplate language. He devotes more than two full pages of his opening brief to a discussion establishing that,,according to Bettencourt v_ City and County of San Francisco (2007) 146 Cal.AppAth 1090, 1097-1098, "Although the [trial courts] order was couched as a denial of mandate petition alone, its effect was a dismissal of Sequoia's entire action," and thus appealable as a final judgment- He also puts forward a fall-back position, based on an-obvious knowledge of this court, that, if necessary, we "could also amend the order below as this division did in similar circumstances in Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App_4th 744, 766, fn. 13, to specify the trial court's intent to dispose of the remaining causes of action." We conclude there is no need to amend the order because counsel's initial explanation is sound, and concurred in by the County. We mention this to note that this is the sort of attention to jurisdictional issues we would like to see, but seldom do- 3 Item 8. a Page 660 -1342- tells us that section 66427.5 must.be considered-in the context of"entire continuum-of . -state regulation-of mobilehome park subdivisions." .And the County has no.hesitationin arguing that the substance of the uncodif ed provision-actually works to the County.s benefit. Our view.of our inquiry is that it is hardly as narrow as the parties believe. The authorities cited by the County involve situations where local ordinances were challenged on federal constitutional grounds(e_g., Tobe v City of Santa Ana (.1995.)9 Ca1.4th 1069, 1084 [vagueness];Sanchez v City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 679-680 [equal protection)), not that they were preempted by state.law_ As-for Sequoia's approach,it would'appear feasible only if the state statute has language stating the unambiguous intent by the Legislature expressly forbidding cities and counties from acting_ But for the great number of preemption issues--particularly if the emphasis%is on implied preemption—the state and the local legislation must be considered together. } Only by looking at both can a court know if the local law conflicts-with;contradicts,or is i inimical to the state-law. As.will now be shown,this is an established rule of preemption analysis. Principles Of Preemption In California,preemption of local-legislation by state law is a constitutional principle. "A county or city may make and enforce-within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws_" (Cal. Const., art_ XI, § 7.) The standards governing our inquiry are well established. According to our Supreme Court: "The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption_ [Citation_] We have been particularly `reluctant to infer legislative intent to preempt a field covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that may differ from one locality to another.' [Citations.] `The common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one locality to another, then 4 -1343- 1#ern B. - Page 6617 the presumption favors the.validity of the local ordinance against an attack of state preemption.' [Citations.] "Thus,when local government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control,such as . , . particular land-uses;.California courts will presume,absent- a clear indication of preemptive intent from the Legislature,that-such regulation is not preempted by state statute_ [Citation_] The presumption.against preemption accords-with our more general understanding that`it.is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes.intends to overthrow long established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.' [Citations.] "Moreover,the `general prmcipies.governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled_ _ _ _" `Local legislation in conflict with general Iaw 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 4150, fa- omitted (Big Creek):) There are three "recognized indicia of intent": " `(1)the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to clearly indicate that is has become exclusively a matter of state concern; (2)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or(3)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to 5 Item 8e - Page 662 -1344- the' locality[citations]." (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles(1993)4 Cal.4th 893, 898.) "With respect to the.implied occupation of an area of law by the Legislature's full and complete coverage of it,this court recently had this to.say::` ``Where:the Legislature has adopted statutes governing a particular subject matter, its intent with regard to occupying the field to the exclusion of all:local regulation is not to be measured alone by the language used but by the whole purpose-and scope of the legislative scheme_" ' .[Citation.] We went on to say: ` "State regulation of a subject niay be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude local regulation_" ' :[Citation.] We thereafter observed: ` "Whenever the Legislature has-seen f t to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a.particular subject,the entire control over whatev"-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 a City of Stockton (2007)41 CA4th. 06.1 1068_) To discern whether the local law has entered an area that has been"fully occupied" by state law according to the"recognized indicia of intent" requires an analysis that is based on an overview of the topic addressed by the two laws_ " `In determining whether the Legislature has preempted by implication to the exclusion of local regulation we must look to the whole . . _ scope of the legislative scheme.' " (Big Creek,supra, 38 Cal_4th 1139, 1157, quoting People ex rel. Deukmejian v_ County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal_3d 476,485; accord,American Financial Services Assn_ v City of Oakland(2005) 34 Ca1.4th 1239, 1252, 1261;Morehart v_ County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 CalAth 725, 751_) Such an examination is made with the goal of" `detect[ing] a patterned approach to the subject"' (Fisher v_ City of Berkeley (1984)37 Cal_3d 644, 707-708, quoting Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal_2d 851, 862), and whether the local law mandates what state law forbids, or forbids what state law mandates. (Big Creek, supra, 38 CalAth 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles(2002) 27 Cal_4th 853, 866.) 6 -1345- Item 8.- Page 663) Sequoia.-sees this as a case of express preemption, although it argues in the alternative thaf the Ordinance also falls to the concept of implied preemption_ These contentions can only be evaluated with an appreciation of the sizable body of state legislation-concerning mobilehome parks. The Extent Of State Law In The Area Of Mobilehome Regulation Section 66427.5 does not stand alone. If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control,that day is long past Since 1979,the statehas had the Mobilehome Residency Law,which comprises � almost a hundred statutes governing numerous aspects of the business of operating a mobilehome park, (Civ. Code, §§ 798-799.10.) There are several provisions expressly ordering localities not to legislate in designated areas, such.as the content of rental agreements(Civ_ Code, § 798.17, subd. (a)(1)),and establishing specified-exemptions from local rent control measures. (Civ. Code, §§ 798.21,subd.(a),798.45.)2 By this statutory scheme,the state has undertaken to"extensively regulate[] the landlord-tenant ' relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents" (Greening v Johnson (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1226; accord,SCManufactured Homes, Inc. v Canyon , View Estates,Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 663,673;People ex rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment, Ltd_ (2003) 111 Cal.A.ppAth 102, 109.) Even earlier, in 1967,the state enacted the Mobilehome Parks Act(Health&Saf. Code, §§ 18200-18700), which regulates the construction and-installation of mobilehome parks in the state_ (See County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Cal.AppAth 1483, 1489-1490.) In this act, the Legislature expressly stated that it"supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county; whether general law or 2 The Mobilehome Residency Law has been construed as not otherwise preempting or precluding adoption of residential rent control_ (See Civ_ Code, § 1954.25; Cacho v_ Boudreau (2007) 40 Cal_4th 341, 350 and decisions cited_) 7 Item 8. - Page 664 -1346- chartered, applicable to this part" (Health&Saf_ Code, § 18300,subd. (a).) The few exemptions from this.prohibition are carefully'delineated_3 Then there is the Mobilehomes Manufactured Housing Act of 1980(Health& -Saf_ §§ 18000-18153), which re-gulates sate, licensing,registration, and titling of 3"This art shall not prevent local authorities of as city, count or city or p P Y y� Y� tY county,within the reasonable exercise of their police powers;-from doing any of the following: "(1)From establishing,subject to the requirements of Sections 658523 and 65852.7 of the Government Code,certain zones.for manufactured homes,-mobilehomes, and mobilehome.parks within the city, county,or city and county,or establishing types of uses and:locations,including family mobilehome parks,senior-mobilehome parks, mobilehome condominiums,mobilehome.subdivisions,or mobilehome planned unit developments within the city, county,or city and county, as defined.in the zoning ordinance,or from adopting rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution prescribing park perimeter walls or enclosures on public street frontage,signs,access,and vehicle parking or from prescribing the prohibition of certain uses for mobilehome parks_ "(2)From regulating the construction and use of equipment and facilities located outside of_a manufactured-home or mobilehome used to supply gas,water, or electricity 3 -thereto,except facilities owned,operated,and maintained by a public utility,or to dispose of sewage or other waste therefrom when the facilities are located outside a park for which a permit is required by this part or the regulations adopted thereto_ ."(3)From requiring a permit to use a manufactured home or mobilehome outside a park for which a permit is required by this part or by regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and require a fee therefor by local ordinance commensurate with the cost of enforcing this part and local ordinance with reference to the use of manufactured homes and mobilehomes,which permit may be refused or revoked if the use violates this part or Part 2 (commencing with Section 18000),any regulations adopted pursuant thereto,or any local ordinance applicable to that use. "(4)From requiring a local building permit to construct an accessory structure for a manufactured home or mobilehome when the manufactured home or mobilehome is located outside a mobilehome park, under circumstances when this part or Part 2 (commencing with Section 18000) and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto do not require the issuance of a permit therefor by the department [i.e., the state Department of Housing and Community Development]. "(5)From prescribing and enforcing setback and separation requirements governing the installation of a manufactured home, mobilehome, or mobilehome accessory structure or building installed outside of a mobilehome park." (Health& Saf. Code, § 18300, subd_ (g).) 8 -1347- Item B. - Page 665L mobilehomes. The Legislature declared that the provisions of this measure`.`apply in all. '-' parts of the state and supersede" any conflicting local ordinance: (Health Saf_ Code, §.18015) The HCD is in charge of-enforcement. (Health.&Saf. Code, §§ 18020, T8022, 18058..) These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this. stage. Under the Mobilehome:Parks Act,it is the HCD,a state agency;not localities,that was entrusted-With the authority.to formulate"-specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy;-use, and design" of mobilehomeparks (Health& Saf. Code, § 18253; see also Health&Sa1 *C6de§§ 18552 [HCD to adopt"building standards"and"other regulations for_ . .tnobilehome-accessory buildings or structures',], 18610[HCD to "adopt regulations to govern the construction,use, occupancy, and maintenance of parks and lots within" mobilehome.parks"], 19620 [HCD to adapt "regulations regarding the construction of buildings in parks that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"], 18630 [plumbing], 18640 ["toilet, shower, and laundry facilities in parks'.']; 18670 ["electrical wiring,�fixtures, and equipment _ . . that it determines are reasonably necessary for the:protection.of life and property']-) At present, the HCD has promulgated hundreds of regulations that are collected in chapter 2 of title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. (Gal_Code Regs,tit. 25, §§ 1000-1758.) The regulations exhaustively deal with a myriad of issues,such as "Electrical Requirements" (id.,-25, §§ 1130-1190),"Plumbing Requirements" (id.; §§ 1240-1284), "Fire Protection Standards" (id., §§ 1300-1319), "Permanent Buildings" (id., §§ 1380-1400), and"Accessory Buildings and Structures"(id., §§ 1420-1520). The regulations even deal with pet waste (id., § 1114)and the prohibition of cooking facilities in cabanas(id., § 1462). Once adopted, HCD regulations "shall apply to all parts of the state." (Health& Saf. Code, § 18300, subd_ (a).) Mobilehomes can only be occupied or maintained when they conform to the regulations_ (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 18550, 18871.) Enforcement is shared between the HCD and local governments (Health & Saf Code, § 18300, subd. (f), 9 Item 8. - Page 666 -1348- 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 actuallyperfoamed,its enforcement power may be taken away by the HCD. (Health& Saf Code; § 18300, subds. (b)-(e).) Local initiative is restricted fo traditional police powers,of zoning, setback,permit requirements,and regulating construction°of utilities_ (Gov_ Code, § 65852.7;Health& Saf. Code, § 18300,subd:(g),quoted at fn. 3,ante.) It is the state that determines which events and;actions-in-the construction and operation of a mobilehome.park require permits. {Health&Saf. Code, §§ 18500, 18500.5; 18500.6, 1.85.05,,Cal_Code Regs,tit.25, §§ 1-0066, 101.0;.1014, 1018; 1038; 1306, 1324,-1374.5.) Even if the locality'issues the annual.permit for a park to.operate,a copy must be sent to the HCD_ (Id_, §§ 1006.5, 1012.) It is:tlie.state that fixes the fees to be chargedfor these permits and certifications (Health&Saf_Code, §§ 18502, 18503; Cal_ Code Regs,tit.25, §§ 10082 1020.4, 1020.7, 1025),and-sets the penalties to be ^' imposed for noncompliance. (Health&Saf,Code§§ 18504 18700; Cal. Code tit_25,§§ 1009, 1050, 1370.4.) Sometimes,the state assumes exclusive responsibility for certain subjects, such as for earthquake-resistant bracing systems. (Cal. Code Regs,tit. 25, § 1370.4(a).) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks are in the Government Code. Cities and counties cannot decide that a mobilehome park is not a permitted use"on.all land planned and zoned for residential-land use as designated by the applicable general plan,"though the locality"may require a use permit_" (Gov. Code, § 65852.7.) "[lit is clear that the Legislature intended to limit local authority for zoning regulation to the specifically enumerated exceptions [in Health and Safety Code section 18300, subdivision (g), quoted at fn. 3,ante] of where a mobilehome.park may be located, vehicle parking, and lot lines, not the structures within the parks." (County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse,supra, 127 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1493.) A city or county must accept installation of mobilehomes manufactured in conformity with federal standards. (Gov. Code, § 65852.3, subd. (a).) Their power to impose rent control on mobilehome-parks is 10 -1349- Item 8. - Page 667; restricted if the parks qualifies as"new construction_" (Gov. Code,.§ 65852.11,subd. (a); cf text accompanying fn:2, ante:) This survey demonstrates.that the state has a.iong-standing:involvement with mobilehome regulation,the extent of which involvement is,b.y 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 6642'T S Section 66427 5 is a fairlystraight-forward statute Addressing the subject of how a subdivider shall demonstrate that a proposed mobilehome park conversion will avoid -economic displacement of current'tenants who.do not choose to become a purchasing resident_ In.its entirety it provides as follows:. "At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map fora subdivision to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership, the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all:nonpurchasing residents in the following manner. "(a)The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit,which is to be created-by the conversion of the park to resident ownership,or to continue residency as a tenant "(b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the-conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted-to resident owned subdivided interest. "(c) The subdivider shall make a copy of.the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least.15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. "(d)(1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. "(2) The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner_ "(3) The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. 11 Item 8. - Page 668 -1350- "(4)The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehame 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 snap 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 snap. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance With this section_ "(f)The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following:_ "(1)As to.nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code,the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels,as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards,in equal annual increases over a four-year period_ `.`(2).As to nonpurchasing residents who are lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,may increase from the preconversion rent by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion, except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period. This is how section 66427.5 currently reads_ But its antecedents are instructive_ The first version of section 66427.5,enacted in 1991, was no more than the first paragraph and subdivision (0 of the current version. (Stats_ 1991, ch. 745, § 2.) The statute was substantially amended four years later with most of what is in the current version_ The only significant variance is that the I995 version did not contain what is 12 -1351 a Item ao e Page 6693 now subdivision(d),specifying that the subdivider is to provide a survey of support. - (Stats. '1995,ch. 256, § 5.) The second version of section 66427-5 was.the one . considered by the Court of Appeal M.E1 Dorado.Palm Springs, Ltd., v City of.Palm Springs(2002)96 Cal.AppAth 1153 (El Dorado). At issue in El Dorado was a mobilehome park owner's application to convert-i(s 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." (EI Dorado,supra,96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1159.) The Palm Springs City Couneil approved the application,but made its approval subject to three conditions;requiring: "1)the use of a `Map Act-Rent Date,' defixned as the-date.of the.closebf 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 Wall residents in the park to facilitate their purchase of the lots underlying their xnobilehomes." (Id_ at pp. 1156-1157.) The trial court denied the park owner's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus__ The owner appealed, contending "that its application is governed by section 66427.5. It relies on subdivision(d) [now subdivision(e)] of that section;which states, in part,that the scope of the CityCouncil's hearing is i'nnited to:.the issue of compliance with the requirements-of that section" (EI Dorado,supra,.96.Cal.App_4th 1153, 1157-1158.) Palm Springs took the position that the conditions were-authorized by Government Code section 66427.4, subdivision (e),4 which authorized the city council to " `require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park-' " (Id. at p. 1158.) 4 Subsequent statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated- l3 Item B. v Page 670 -1352- The Court of Appeal agreed with the owner and reversed_ It rejected Palm Springs argument about section 66427.4,- concluding that it applied only when the mobilehome park is being converted to another use: "[1]t would not apply to conversion of a mobilehome park when the property's use as a mobilehome park is unchanged. The section would only apply-if the mobilehome park was being converted to a shopping center or another different use of the property. In that situation,there would be `displaced mobilehome park residents' who would need to find `adequate space in a mobilehome park' for their mobilehome and themselves" (El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1161.) The court also held the language of subdivision (e) of section 66427.4 dispositive:on this point. (Id_ at pp. 1161-1163) But,and as particularly apt here,the court sustained the park owner's argument about section 66427.5, subdivision(d),.concluding that under it the city council"only had the power to determine-if[the subdivider] had complied with the requirements of the section." (El Dorado,supra,96 Cal_AppAth 1153, 1163-1164_) Although the court did 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 IS days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body_ "(c)The legislative body, or an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map, may require the: subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park- "(d)This section establishes a minimum standard for local legislation of conversions of mobilehome-parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures_ "(e) This section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership-" 14 -1353- Item 8. - Page 6717 appear concerned that the_conversion process might be used for improper purposes—such as the bogus purchase of a single unit by the subdivider/owner to avoid-local rent control—it believed the language of section 66427.5,subdivision(d),_did not.allow-such ci ns deratioris to be taken into account: "[T]he City lacks--authority io.investigate or impose additional conditions to'prevent sham_or fraudulent transactions-at the tine it approves tentative or parcel inap. Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight, an&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.i6 (Id at p. 1165.) And,the court later noted,"there is no evidence that.[the owner's] filing.of an application for appro vat of a tentative parcel map is not the beginning of a bona fide conversion to resident ownership-" (Id- at p..1174, fn. 17_) One other point of El Dorado is significant. The court specifically rejected arguments that would require a numerical threshold before a conversion could:proceed, there being no statutory support for the claim that conversion only occurred if more than 50 percent of the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is filed_ (El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal.App_4th 1153, 1172-1173) The court refused to require a subdivider to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has the support of a majority of existing residents—fixed at either one-half or two-thirds—thus satisfying the local 6 Nevertheless, the El Dorado court did seem to indicate that there was an available remedy for Palm Springs' fears concerning evasion of its rent control ordinance. Although local authorities could not themselves use section 66427.5 to halt "sham or failed transactions in which a single unit is sold, but no others," (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal_App.4th at p. 1166, fa. 10) there was no such restriction on the judiciary. "[Tlhe courts will not apply section 66427.5 to sham or failed transactions," (id. at p. 1165) which the El Dorado court apparently equated with situations where "conversion fails" or"if the conversion is unsuccessful." (Id. at p. 1166.) The court also agreed with an earlier decision that held section 66427.5 does not apply unless there is an actual sale of at least one unit. (Id. at pp. 1166, 1177-1179, citing Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park(1996) 47 Ca1.App.4th 1168.) 15 Item 8. - Page 672 -1354- authority that this was not a"forced conversion_"7 (Id. at pp. 1181-1182_) The court concluded:" "The legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks-to resident ownership w6uld not be-served liy a requirement that a conversion could only be made with resident consent-" (Id. at.p. 1182.) Following El Dorado, the continuing problem of mobilehome park conversion, and the.phrase"b6na fide," again engaged the Legislature's attention_ That same year the Legislature amended section 66427.5 by adding what is now.subdivision(d) and the requirement of a"survey of support of residents"whose results.were to be filed with the tentative or parcel map. As it did so,the Legislature enacted the following language,but did not include it as part of section 66427.5: "It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion-of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona-fide resident conversion, as described by.the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs,Ltd- V.City of Palm Springs(2002) 96 Cal_App.4th 1153. The court in this case concluded that the subdivision map approval process specified in Section 66427.5 of the — Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent non-bona ' fide resident conversions. The court explained how a conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership could occur without the support of the residents and result in economic displacement_ It is, therefore;the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act The 50 percent argument was based on Health and Safety Code section 50781, subdivision(in), which specifies that one of the definitions of"residential ownership" is "ownership by a resident organization of an interest in a mobilehome park that entitles the resident organization to control the operations of the mobilehome park." The argument was that"resident ownership of the park, and control of operations of the park, can occur only when the purchasing residents Have the ability to control, manage and own the common facilities in the park, i.e., when 50 percent plus 1 of the lots have been purchased by the residents_" (El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1172, 1181_) The two-thirds.figure was taken from Government Code section 66428.1, which provides that "When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobilehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of_converting it to resident ownership, and a field survey is performed, the requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and final map shall be waived," subject to specified exceptions. 16 -1355- Item 8. - Page 673) to ensure that conversions pursuant to Section 66427,5 of the Government Code are bona fide resident conversions." (Stats. 2002,ch. 1143, § 2.)8 The Ordinance The Ordinance has eight sections,but only three--sections I, M and 111 are pertinent to this appeal 9 Section I declares the purposes of the Ordinance: It opens with the supervisors' funding that"the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to implement certain policies and programs set forth within the adopted General Plan.Housing Element, and to comply with state laws related to_the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership. Specific purposes included: (I)""To implement state laws with regard to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership;'..(2)"To ensure that conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership are bona fide resident conversions in accordance with state law;"(3)To implement the goals and policies of the General Plan (lousing Element; (4)"To balance the need for increased-homeownership opportunities with the need to protect existing rental housing opportunities;: (5)"To provide adequate , j 8 This is what is known as "plus section," which our Supreme Court termed"a provision of a bill that is not intended to be a substantive part of the code section or general law that the bill enacts, but to express the Legislature's view on some aspect of the operation or effect'of the bill. Common examples of`plus sections' include severability clauses, savings clauses, statements of the fiscal consequences of the legislation,provisions giving the legislation immediate effect or a delayed operative date or a limited duration, and provisions declaring an intent to overrule a specific judicial decision or an intent not to change-existing law_" (People v.Allen (1999) 21 Cal_4th 846, 858-859, In. 13_) The court subsequently explained that"statements of the intent of the enacting body . . . , while not conclusive,are entitled to consideration. [Citations.] Although such statements in an uncodified section do not confer power;.determine rights, or enlarge the scope of a measure, they properly may be utilized as an aid in construing a statute." (People v. Canty (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1266, 1280_) 9 Section IV of the Ordinance declares that the measure is "categorically exempt from environmental review" under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section V is a severability provision. Section VI establishes the effective date of the Ordinance as "30 days after the date of its passage." Section VII repeals an existing ordinance. Section VIII (mislabeled as "Section VI") provides for publication of the Ordinance in a specified newspaper of general circulation in the county. 17 Item B. m Page 674 -1356- disclosure to decision-makers and to prospective'buyers prior to conversion of mobile h6me parks to resident ownership;" (6)`76 ensure the pudic health and safety in converted parks; and"(7)"To conserve the County's affordable housing stock." Section Il-deals with the"Applicability"of the Ordinance by declaring that"These provisions apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership,except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government Code[Section]-66428.1 These provisions do not apply to the conversion of a mobile home park to an alternate use,which conversions are regulated by Government Code Sections 65863.7 and 66427.4,and by Section 26-92-090 of Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code" _Section_111 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_V " `Mobile Home Park Closure, Conversion or Change of Use means changing the use of a mobile home park such that it no longer contains occupied mobile or manufactured homes, as described in and regulated by Government Code Section 66427.4_' " " `Subdivision' means the division of any improved or unimproved land, shown on the latest equalized county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous units, for the purpose of sale, lease, financing,conveyance,transfer, or any other purpose, whether immediate or future_ Property shall be considered as contiguous units, even if it is separated by roads, streets, utility easement or railroad nights-of-way- Subdivision includes a condominium project or common interest development, as defined in Section 1351 of the Civil Code or a community interest project, as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code_ Any conveyance of land to a 18 -1357- Item 6. - Page 675L governmental agency,public entity or public utility shall not be considered a division-of _-land for purposes of computing the number of parcels_' " The heart of the Ordinance is.subdivision(d) of Section W.-which adds"a-new Article IIIB" to Chapter 25-of the Sonoma County Code. Because of its importance,we quote it in frill: "Article II111. Mobile Home Park Conversions to Resident Ownership. "25-39.7 (a). Applicability. The provisions of this Article XIIIB shall apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government-Code§ 66428.1. "25-39:7(b)_ Application Materials Required. "(1)In addition to any other information required,by this Code.and/or_other. applicable law, the following information is required at the time of filing of an application for conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership: "a)A survey of resident support conducted=:in compliance with subdivision(d)of Government Code Section 66427-5 -The-subdivider shall demonstrate that-te'survey was ' conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and.an.independent resident homeowners association, if any, was obtained pursuant to a written ballot, and was conducted so that each occupied mobile home space had one vote. The completed survey of resident support ballots shall be submitted with the application- In the event that more than one resident homeowners association purports to represent residents in the park, the agreement shall be with the resident homeowners association which represented the greatest number of resident homeowners in the park. "b) A report on the impact of the proposed conversion on residents of the mobile home park. The tenant impact report shall, at a minimum include all of the following: "i) Identification of the number of mobile home spaces in the park and the rental rate history for each such space over the four years prior to the filing of the application-, "ii) Identification of the anticipated method and timetable for compliance with Government Code Section 66427-5 (a), and, to the extent available, identification of 19 Item 6. - Page 676 -1358- /6� . the number of existing tenant households expected to purchase theirunits within the first . four(4)years after conversion; "iii),Identification of the method and anticipated time table for determining the rents for non-purchasing-residents-pursuant to-Government Code Section 66427-5 (1)(1),and,to the extent available, identification of.tenant households likely to be subject to these provisions; "iv)Identification of the method for determining and enforcing the controlled rents for non purchasing households pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5 (f)(2),and,to the extent available, identification of the number of tenant households likely to be subject to these provisions; "v)Identification of the potential for non-purchasing residents to relocate their homes to other mobile home parks within Sonoma County, including the availability of sites and the estimated cost of home relocation; "vi)An engineer's report on the type, size,current condition,adequacy and remaining useful life of common facilities located within the park,including.but not limited to water systems,sanitary sewer,fire protection, storm water,streets, lighting, pools,playgrounds, community buildings and the like_ A pest report shall be included for all common buildings and structures_ `Engineer' means a registered civil or structural engineer, or a licensed general engineering contractor, "vii)If the useful life of any of the common facilities or iiifiastructure is less than thirty(30) years, a study estimating the cost of replacing such facilities over their useful life, and.the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same; "viii)An estimate of the annual overhead and operating costs of maintaining the park, its common areas and.landscaping, including replacement costs as necessary, over the next thirty(30)years, and the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same_ "ix) Name and address of each resident, and household size_ "x) An estimate of the number of residents in the park who are seniors or disabled. An explanation of how the estimate was derived must be included. 20 -1359- . o . .. _Item B.- Page 6773 "I-)A maintenance ins ection.report conducted on site b a ualified inspector O P Pa Y q P within the previous twelve.(12)cale'ad ar months.demonstrating compliance:with Title 25 Of the California Code of Regulations(`Title 25 Report'). Proof of remediation of any Title 25 violations shall be confirmed in writing by-the California Department ofHousing and Community Development(HCD). "25-39.7(c) Criteria for Approval of Conversion Application_ "(1)An application for the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership shall be approved only if the decision.maker finds that: "a)A.survey of resident support has been conducted:and the results filed with the Department in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and.this Ch pter; "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 -s Plan,any applicable Specific or Area:Plan,_and the provisions of the Sonoma County Code; "d)The conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion; "e)Appropriate provision-has been maderfor the establishment.and funding of an association or.corporation adequate.to:ensure proper,long-team management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure; and "f)There are no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to public health or safety,provided, however,that if any such conditions exist, the application for conversion may be approved if (1) all of the findings required under subsections (a) through (e)are.made and (2)the subdivider has instituted corrective measures adequate to ensure prompt and continuing protection of the health and safety of park residents and the general public_ "(2)For purposes of determining whether a proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion, the following criteria shall be used: 21 Item 8e - Page 678 -1360- "a)Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 6.6427.5 and this Chapter shows that more than 50.percent-of resident households support the conversion to resident ownership,the conversion shall be.- presumed to be a bona-fide resident conversion. "b) Where.the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and with this Chapter shows that at least 20 percent but not more than 50 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership, the subdivider shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed conversion is a bona--fide resident conversion_ In such cases, the-subdivider shall demonstrate,at a minimum,that a viable plan,with a reasonable likelihood of success as determined by the decision-maker,ds.m place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within a reasonable period of time. "c)Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section.66427.5 and this Chapter,shows that less than 20 percent of ..'; residents support the conversion to resident ownership..the conversion�shall be presumed not to be a bona-fide resident conversion_ "25-39.7 (0)Tenant Notification_ The following tenant notifications are required: "(1)Teriant Impact Report. The subdivider shall give each resident household a copy of the impact report required by.Government Code Section 66427.5 (b)within fifteen(15) days after completion of such report,but in no case less than fifteen(15)days prior to the public hearing on the application for conversion. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the report to any new or prospective residents following the original distribution of the report_ "(2)Exclusive Right to Purchase. If the application for conversion is approved, the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its.exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public. The right shall run for a period of not less than ninety (90) days from the issuance of the subdivision.public report (`white paper')pursuant to 22 -1361- stern 6. - Page 6793 California Business and.Professions Code § 11018.2,unless the subdivider received prior written notice of the resident's iritention not-to exercise-such right_ "(3)Right to Continue Residency.as Tenant. If the-application for conversion is approved, the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its right to continue residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code Section 66427.5 (a)." The Ordinance i&-Expressly]Preempted by Section 66427.5 It is a given that regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional,powers of local-government. (E_g_,Big Creek,supra,38 CaUth 1139, 1151;IT Corp.v County ofSolano (1991) 1 Ca1.4th 81, 85, 95, 99; City of Burbank v.Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority(1999) 72 Cal_AppAth 366, 376.) We are also mindful that our Supreme Court has twice held,prior to enactment of section 66427-5, that the Subdivision Map-Act did not preempt local authority to regulate residential condominium conversions_. (GriffrnDevelopment Co-'v City of Oxnard R- (1985)39 Cal_3d 256,262-266;Santa Monica_Pines,Ltd v:Rent Control-Board(1984) 35 Cal 3d 85.8, 86878;69.) Given the presumption against preemption (Big Creek,supra, 38 Cal_4th 1139, 1d49),we start by assuming that the Ordinance is valid_ However, this attitude does not long survive_ The survey.of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation. Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script. The state's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map Act in 1991. (See Stats. 1991, ch. 745, §§ 1-2,4, adding §§ 66427.5, 66428.1, & amending § 66427A 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.) 23 item 6. - Page 680 -1362- Although the Court of Appeal in El Dorado did not explicitly hold that section-66427.5 was an instance of express preemption, that'is clearly how it read the statute. And-although there is nothing in the text of section 66427.5 that at.first glance looks unambiguously like_a-stay-awayorder-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]snap. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue.of compliance with this section_" {§ 66427.5,subd_ (e), italics added.) The italicized language is,in its own way, comprehensive_ But the contrasting constructions the parties give-it could not be more starkly divergent. According to Sequoia,section 66427.5 has an almost ministerial operation. The -words of the statute"communicate unambiguously that local agencies must approve a mobileliome park subdivision map if the applicant complies with-`this section' alone," t The County and supporting amici argue that section 66427.5 and El Dorado are not dispositive here_ Indeed,they almost argue that the statute and the decision are not relevant. As they see it,section 66427.5 both before and after El Dorado—is a statute of very modest scope, addressing itself only to the issue.of avoiding and mitigating the economic displacement of residents who will not be purchasing units when the mobilehome park is converted_ All the Ordinance does,they maintain, is"implement" and flesh out the details of the Legislature's directive in a wholly appropriate fashion, leaving unimpaired the traditional local authority over land uses. As the amici state it: "Ordinance No_ 5725 does not purport to impose any additional economic restrictions to preserve affordability or to avoid displacement." 10 Such as the provision of the Mobilehome Parks Act directing that "This part applies to all parts of the state and supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, applicable to this part_" (Health & Saf Code, § 18300, subd. (a)_) 24 -1363- Item 6e - Page 661� We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's.approach. Beginning with the.presumptionagainst 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 subdividees"efforts-at avoiding economic displacement of nonpurchasing residents. Section 66427.5 does employ language that seems to accept;if not invite,supplementary local action:(r 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 am-ici: "Surely,the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content. . . . ft] . . . LID If there-cm be no assurance alto the contents of the[report),,it may become a meaningless exercise." However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach_ There are three such statutes—sections 66247A, 66247.5, and 66428.1. And if they are considered as a unit--=which they are, as the three -mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act12—a coherent logic begins to emerge_ It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation. As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out,plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations.." Moreover, the park has 1 The County and supporting amici note our Supreme Court stating that the Subdivision Map Act"sets suitability, design, improvement and procedural requirements [citations] and allows local governments to impose supplemental requirements of the same kind." (The Pines v. City of Santa Monica (1981) 29 Cal3d 656, 659, italics added.) It must be emphasized, however, that the court's comments were made in the context of a local tax—and a decade before the subject of mobilehome park conversion began appearing in the Subdivision Map Act_ 12 Because sections 66427.4, 66427.5, and 66428.1 all deal with the subject of mobilehome park conversions, it is appropriate to consider them together. (E.g., Walker v. Superior Court (1988) 47 Cal3d 112, 124, fn. 4; County of Los Angeles v_ Frisbie (1942) 19 Cal2d 634, 639; In re Washer (1927) 200 Cal. 599, 606.) 25 Item 8. - Page 682 -1364- been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis. But the owner has decided to change_ If the change is to close the park and devote the land-to a different use,section 66427.4 - governs. If the change is a more modest switch to residential conversion,sections 66427.5 and66428.1 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 fa 5,ante) directs the owner to prepare a report on the impact of the change to tenants or residents_ (Subd. (a).) The relevant local authority"may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome-park-residents-to-find adequate space in a mobilehome park"as a condition of approving or conditionally approving the change_ (Subd_ (c).) But in this situation— where the land use question is essentially reopened de novo--section 66427.4 explicitly authorizes local input. "This section establishes-a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobilehome parks--into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures_" (Subd_(d), italics added.) I -At the other end of the continuum is the situation covered.by.section.66428.1, subdivision(a) of which provides_ "When at least two-thirds of the owners of mobilehomes who are tenants in the mobilehome park sign a petition indicating their intent to purchase the mobilehome park for purposes of converting it to resident ownership, and a'field survey is performed,the requirement for a parcel map or a tentative and-final map shall be waived unless any of the following conditions exist: [�](1)There are design or improvement requirements necessitated by significant health or safety concerns_ [J[} (2)The local agency determines that there is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new parcel or tentative and final map- [In(3)The existing parcels which exist prior to the proposed conversion were not created by a recorded parcel or final map_ [JU (4) The conversion would result in the creation of more condominium units or interests than the number of tenant lots or spaces that exist. prior to conversion_" 26 -1365- Item 60 - Page 663) So,if the conversion essentially maintains an acceptable status_quo,the conversion is approved by operation of law. And the locality has no opportunity or power to stop it, or impose conditions for its continued operation: Section 664275 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 66427A but more than conversions governed by 66428.1. It is not surprising-that iu.this-middle ` situation that the Legislature would see fit to grant local authorities some power,but .circumscribe the extent of that power. That it what section.66427.5 does_ It says in effect: Local authority,you have this power,but no more. As previously mentioned, the-Legislature amended section 664275 in the wake of -El Dorado. Two features of that amendment are.notable.. First,the Legislature added what is now the requirement in subdivision(d)of a survey of tenant support for the conversion, when the level of that support does not reach the two-thirds mark at which point section 66428-1 kicks in_. But the Legislature did not address the point noted in El Dorado that there is no minimum amount of tenant support required for a conversion to be approved. (See El Dorado,supra, 96 Cal_AppAth 1153, 1172-1173.) As this was the only addition to the statute, if follows that it was deemed sufficient to address the: problem of"bona fide" conversions mentioned in the unmodified portion of the enactment that accompanied the amendment. Second, and even more significant for our purposes, the El Dorado court expressly read section 66427-5 as not permitting a local authority to inject any other consideration into its decision whether to approve a subdivision conversion." (El Dorado,supra, " El Dorado is also authority for rejecting the County's attempt to narrow the scope of the section 66427.5 hearing to just the issue of tenant displacement, thereby presumably leaving other issues or concerns of the conversion application to be addressed at a different hearing. The El Dorado court treated the section 66427.5 hearing as the 27 Item 6. a Page 684 -1366- 96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1163-1164, 1-166, 1182_) And when it amended section 66427.5, the Legislature did nothing to overturn the El Dorado courts,reading of the extent of local power to step beyond.the four comers:of that statute. This is particularly telling: " `[W]laen the Legislature-amends a statutevithout 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.' " (Hams v, Capital Growth InvestorsMV(1991).52 Cal_3d 1142, 1156, quoting Marina Point, Ltd_ v Wolfson(1982)30 Cal_3d 721, 734; accord,People,v Meloney(2003)30 Cal.4th 1145, 1161;People v Ledesma(1997) 16 Cal_4th 90, 100-101_) The foregoing analysis convinces us that the El Dorado construction of section 66427-5 has stood the test of time and received the tacit approval of the Legislature- We therefore conclude that what is currently subdivision(e)of ,i section 66.427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the-power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis_ equivalent of"El Dorado's application for approval of the tentative subdivision map_" (El Dorado,supra, 96 Cai_AppAth 1153, 11634164;see,also id_, at pp_ 1174 ["section 66427.5 applies to EI Dorado's application for tentative map approval"]. 1182 [absence of majority tenant support for conversion not diapositive because "The owner can still subdivide his property by following _ _ _ section 66427.5";judgment reversed "with directions to require the City Council to promptly determine the sole issue of whether El Dorado's application for approval of a tentative parcel map complies with section 66427.5"].) Even more germane is that,to judge from the language used in the uncodified provision enacted with the amendment of section 66427.5, the Legislature clearly appeared to equate compliance with section 66427.5 with the conversion approval process_ 28 -1367- Item S. Page 685t The Ordinance is Impliedly Preeip ted " .. f As previously shown, local law is invalid if it enters a field fully occupied by state law,or if it-duplicates;contradicts,or is inimical,to state law. (O'Connell v_ City of Stockton,supra,41 Ca1.4th 1061, 1068;Big Creek,supra,38 Cal_4th 1139, 1150.) The three tests for implied preemption are: (1)has the issue been so completely covered by state law as to indicate that the issue is now exclusively a state concern; (2)the issue has been only partially covered by state law,but the language of the.state law indicates that the state interest will not tolerate additional local input;and (3) the issue has been only partially covered by state law,but the negative impact of local legislation on the state interest is greater than whatever local benefits derive from the local legislation. (O'Connell v City of Stockton;supra, at p. 1150;Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, supra,7 Cal.4th 725, 751;People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendoczno,supra; 36 CAM 476,485.) We conclude that the County's Ordinance is also vulnerable to two .of the tests for implied preemption_ The'overview of the regulatory schemes touching-mobilehomes undertaken earlier r in this opinion demonstrates that the state'-s involvement is extensive and-comprehensive- Grants of power to cities and counties are few in number, guarded in.language, and invariably qualified in scope_ Nevertheless, those grants do exist_ Section 66427.5 shows that the state is willing to allow some local participation in some aspects of mobilehome conversion; and section 66427.4 shows that in one setting—when a mobilehome park is converted to a different use—it is virtually expected that the state role will be secondary_ The first test for implied preemption cannot be established_ But the three-statute continuum discussed earlier in connection with express preemption also shows that the second and third tests for implied preemption are_ For 25 years, the state has had the policy "to encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership." (Health & Saf. Code, § 50780, subd_ (b).) The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy_ (Health & Saf_ Code,§ 50782 [establishing the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund].) The 29 item 8. - Page 686 -1366- stag 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 suppoft'of two-thirds or more of the park tenants, section 66428.1 prevents the city or county from interfering except in four very specific situations_ If the tenant support is less than two-thirds, section 66427.5 directs that the role of local government"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_"- (§66427.5, subd:(e)_) In sum,the fact that the situationswhere localities could involve themselves in . conversions have been so carefully delineated shows that the Legislature viewed the subject as one where the state concern would not be advanced.if parochial interests were - allowed to intrude_ Accordingly,we conclude that the second and third tests for implied preemption-are present_ `There is more_ "Local legislation in conflict with general law is void_ Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates . _ . general law_ _ _ " (Lancaster v_Municipal Court (1972)6 Cal_3d 805, 807-808; accord,Big Creek,supra;38 Cal_4th 1139, 1150; Morehart v_ County of Santa Barbara,supra; 7 Cal_4th 725,747_) The Ordinance is plainly duplicative of section 66427.5 in several respects, as the County candidly admits: the Ordinance"sets forth minimum . _ _requirements" for the conversion application, "including: (a) submission of a survey of resident support in compliance with section 66427 5; (b)submission of a report on the impact of the proposed conversion on park residents as required by section 66427.5; and (c) submission of a copy of the annual maintenance inspection report already required by Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations_" (Italics added_) The Ordinance also purports to require the subdivider to provide residents of the park "written notice of[the] right to continue"residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code § 66427.5(a)" and"a copy of the impact report required by Government Code § 66427.5(b)." (Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(d), subs- 1, 3_) 30 -1369- stern 8. - Page 6873 And still more. A local ordinance is impliedly preempted if it mandates what state r r law'forbids. (Rig-Creek,-supra,38 CalAth 1139, 1161; Great. Western Shows, Inc. v CourVy of Los Angeles,supra,27 CalAth:853, 866.) As already established, section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from.deviating from.the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park-conversion application. Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved"only if the decision maker finds-that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66247-5,the application(1)"is consistent with the General Plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2)demonstrates that"appropriate" fmancial provision has been made to underwrite and"ensure proper long-erm 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 proposedconversion"is a bona fide resident conversion"as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance-14 -(Sonoma County Code, §.25.39-7(c),subs. I(c)-1(f),2.) The-Ordinance also requires that, following approval"of the conversion application,the subdivider"shall give.each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such-unit or space shall be initially offered,to the general public," for a period of 90 days "from the issuance of the subdivision public report _ .pursuant to California Business and Professions Code § 11018.2" (Id., § 25-39.7(d), subd_ 2.) However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5--._T3ne matter of just what constitutes a "bona fide conversion" according to the Ordinance appears to authorize—if not actually invite—a purely subjective inquiry, one which is not 14 Although it is not discussed in the briefs, a recent decision by Division Three of this district suggests these provisions might also be vulnerable to the claim that they amount.to a burden of proof presumption that would be preempted by Evidence Code section 500_ (See Rental Housing Assn. of Northern Alameda County v. City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal_App_4th 741, 751, fn_ 5, 754-758_) 31 Item 8. a Page 688 -1370- — _ • _ truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions-is -And although th.e Ordinance employs the mandatory-"shall it does not establish whether the presumptions 17' P P are conclusive or merely rebuttable. This uncertainty is only compounded when other criteria.are scrutinized_ What is tlie-finaneial provision that will be deemed"appropriate" to"ensure proper long-term management and maintenance"? Such imprecision stands in stark contrast with the.clear directives in section 66427.5_ The County,ably supported by an impressive array of amici,stoutly defends its corner with a number of.arguments as to why the Ordinance should be allowed to operate_. The County lays particular emphasis.on the need for ensuring that the conversion must comport with the General Plan,especially its housing element,because that is where the economic dislocation will be manifest,by reducing the inventory of low-cost housing. (See Health&Saf. Code, § 50780,subds. (a)(1)&(a)(3).) In this sense, however, section 66427-5 has a broader reach than the County perhaps appreciates, as it does make provision in subdivision(f)for helping non purchasing lower income households-to remain_ In any event, we cam otread section 66427.5 as granting localities { the same powers expressly enumerated in section 66427.4 that are so conspicuously absent from the plain language of section 66427.5. We assume the County was motivated by the laudable purposes stated in the first section of the Ordinance_ And we have acknowledged that the County's construction of the section 66427.5 can find some plausibility from the statutory language. Nevertheless,, and after a most careful consideration of the arguments presented, we have concluded -that the Ordinance.crosses the line established by the Legislature as marking territory reserved for the state_ As we recently stated in a different statutory context: "There are `5 That uncertainty may be illustrated by how Sequoia perceives one part of the Ordinance. With respect to instances where tenant support for conversion is between 20 percent and 50 percent, the Ordinance provides: "In such cases, the subdivider shall demonstrate, at a minimum, that a viable plan, with a reasonable likelihood of success - - - is in place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within a reasonable period of time_" (Sonoma County Code, § 25-39.7(c)(2)(b).) Sequoia treats this as a requirement that the subdivider come forth with "financial assistance" to assist tenants to purchase their units. 32 -1371 a Item 8. - Page 689i 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 funetio of the.Legislature,not a court." .(State Building&'Construction Trades Council of Califor-nia v.Duncan(2008) 162 Cal:App.4th�289,324.) Of-course, ifthe Legislature disagrees with our conclusion,or if itmishes to:grant cities and counties a greater measure of power, it can,amend,the language of section 66427.5. DI.SPDSMON The order is reversed,.and the cause is.remanded:to4he trial court with directions to enter a new order or judgment consistent with this opinion_ Sequoia shall recover its costs. 33 Item 8. - Page 690 -1372- _ v_ .e ._. „_ , �e> e -we concur Haerie, Acting Pj. Lambden,J. 34 -1373- _Items 8. - Page 6917 -Al20049,Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma Trial Court: Superior Court of Sonoma County. Trial Judge: Temporary Judge Raymond L Giordano (Pursuant to.Cal_Const., art. VI, § 21.) Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellant: Bien& Summers, Elliot L_Bien and Catherine Meulemans Attorney for Amici Curiae Rancho Sonoma The Loftin Firm,L_Sue Loftin and Partners, Eden Gardens, Sundance Estates Michael Stump and Capistrano Shores on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent: Steven M. Woodside,County Counsel, Sue•A-Gallagher and Dehbie F. Latham, Deputy County Counsel Attorney for Amici Curiae The California Aleshire&Wyndner,William W. Wynder. State Association of C©uatifts—T1&Vague and"Sunny 1c Soltani Of California Cities,The City of Carson and The City of Los Angeles:ombehalf of Defendant and Respondent: 35 Item 8. - Page 692 -1374- Hr� HART, KING & COLDREN Robed s:Cokken rcoklren@tikctaw.cmn September 2, 2009 Our File Number 36014.1 J2J4849-5928-8Mv_1 ViA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL Punning Commission Subdivision Committee City of.Huntington-Beach ( City) 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Rami Talleh, Senior Planner RE_ Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Horne Park("Park") Application for Tentative Tract-Map No_17296("Application") Oboection to Staff Suggested Finclings for Denial Dear Planning Commissioners and Subdivision Committee Members_ Planners plan! It is thus difficult for planning.staff to deal with the concept-that their ability to require-design .and improvement conditions, onsite and offsite improvements,,etc_, has been severely Jim severe[ by state law_ Similarly, City.Attorneys like to:provide for expanded municipal jurisdiction. Thus, it is not .surprising,that for months, staff.found various excuses to.delay answering questions, obfuscate respecting submissions, reject applications, accept applications, fane ignorance that the filing constituted a request for a "vesting" tentative map, manufacture a tortured interpretation of state taw to-attempt to reject an application tot, a "vesting"tentative map, etc_ I recognize that i am-unlikely to make many points.with City staff by airing these concerns for the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission_ - It is critical, however, that the City understands that my client is intent upon subdividing the mobitehome park, and it is consistent with state law. The Government Code specifies very clearly that the- actions of focal government in connection.with the processing of a map for the subdivision of a mobilehome park are essentially "ministerial" in nature, and the fees exacted by the City, the demands for information, and the delaying tactics..employed, as well as the currently recommended conditions, all have caused, and will continue to cause substantial damage to my atenrs economic interests The extraordinary delays and magnified costs will not be tolerated any longer by my client- We have a meeting today before the Subdivision Committee, a "study session" next week before the Planning Commission, and finally, a Planning Commission hearing later this month. We have already had a number of"informal meetings" with City staff_ While such intensive activity over a subdivision application might be warranted-in the case of any ordinary subdivision, or even conversion, in the case of a mobitehome park subdivision, this is totally unwarranted and completely excessive. Further delays in these actions and requirements'will not be tolerated. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe.Fourlh Floor,Santa Ana.California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714,546.7457 ATTACHM T n10 AA -13 75- Item 6® - Page 693�J i i A�xE�'vm.3 Rami Tatteh: City of 1-frtng6ngton Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 2 The'last straw" was the last`informal meeting' we had at-the City_ While it was quite coedial.. the.City Attorney's office continued to take.the position that the Assistant I City Attorney I had broad authority to regulate the subdivision of this mobilehome'park_ And this is on spite of the fact that the California Appellate courts have,.only the previous few days, spoken loudly and` clearly in a well reasoned 33 page published appellate court decision (Sequoia.Park Associates v County of Sonoma) removing all doubt (had there ever been any} that the suixlivisj6n process of a moblehome park is, in fact, a virtually ministerial act, limited to a deterrriination that the very rote and the mechanical requirements The.Govemment Code section have been cornplied with_ We have reserved our rights respecting.the processing of.this appTiication as a`vesting tentative map", and reiterate that reservation here_ We -further request that the Subdivision Committee dearly articulate what it believes its jurisdiction to be, and that if.acknowledge that any and'all oonditio»s that it imposes-must be consistent with the requirements of the 'Sequoia' case and the relevant G.overrimerit_Codde sections_ Further effods to needlessly frustrate my dienrs subdivision process; ass7u ing they were ever justified by a .claimed uncertainty-in the taw, now totzstitute -nothing Tnore than-a blatant interference with client's lawful rights_ The limits of the City's opportunity to interfere with the subdivision are clearly defined in section 66427-5 subdivision(e)of the Government Code which states: "The subdivider shalt be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized- by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative •or parcel map_ The scopg.of the heatinct shall be hinitedJo the issue of compliance rivith this section_' The Words of the statute communicate unambiguously that local agencies must approve a mobilehome park subdivision map if the applicant complies with this section atone. The `Sequoia" court approvingly cites the park owner's position- "As Sequoia points out-- 'Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out, approved under zoning and general plans, and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations_' Moreover, the park has been inspected and 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 3bDi4.7121a849-5978-2J&Sv,t ATTACHMENT �I�.��l•Z Item 8e " Page 694 -1376- Pam} }arteh - City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2,2009 Page 3 change is a more modest switch to i:esidential conversion, sections 66427.5 and 66428-1 are applicable' Thus, it is crystal clear under case law and the statute itself:that City staff,,is quite simply."out of bounds'when it tries to impose additional requirements for this subdivision process. As the Sequoia court-went on-to say on page 27 of the decision: -So, if the conversion essentially maintains.an acceptable status quo, the conversion is approved by operation of law_ -And the locality has not opportunity -or power to stop it, or impose conditions for its,continued'operation_" And the court on page 27.goes on to say_ "Section 66427.5 occupi6s.0he.midway point on the continuum_ It deals with the situation where the mobilehome park-MAI:continue to. operate m as such, .merely transitio" from a .remtal #o an "- ownership basis;and there is not two-thirds-tenant suppoit4or°the t :I change—in other words, conversions that enjoy a level of tenant occurrence that does not_ activate the free ride authorized by section 66428.1_ In those situations, the local authority enjoys less power than granted by section 66427-4, but more than conversions governed by 66428,1_ It is not surprising_that in this middle situation that the legislature would see fit to.grant: local authorities some power,but circumscribe the extent of.that power_ That is what section 66427.5 does_ it says in effect Local authority, you have this power, but no more.- And the authority that that Government Code section confers upon'tocal government is the authority to conduct a-public hearing,to determine that the requisite survey had been done, and two or three other ministerial acts; the Government Code section does not empower the City to attempt to impose design and improvement requirements, or dictate an application that would anticipate such conditions- The City must understand that there are consequences for blindly ignoring this Government Code, section, and continuing the processing of this map as if it were not constrained by the Government Code section or the Sequoia decision. 1 am taking such a direct and pointed approach here in the hopes that someone at the City will realize that this subdivision process 36014.1 1 214 84 9-5928-8068� I ATTF'�-a -1377- Item 8. - Page 695- "AR7, KIN & CGl:7RE1: Rami Tatteh City"of Hungtington Beach Subdivision.Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2,2609 Page 4 must be significantly changed, and changed immediately,in order to avoid,exposing the City to damages. Two other points before addressing the specifics of the proposed Suggested Findings: First, the applicant park owner has bent over backward to attempt to accommodate the City and staff's legitimate and reasonable concerns at every stage_ For exarnpte,we have'invited the fire '-department to work with us to enhance first responder and fire suppression in the mobilehome park and continue to be committed to do. Secondly, we have not.even met with-our-tenants yet to discuss the subdrvision process; and- yet, the City has indicated that-there are substantial opposition arnong our,residents to the subdivision process. While the residents do not have any"veto' over our right to subdivide, we waif to be absolutely certain that the City understands That we are committed to meeting with our residents (the first such meeting wilt be next week) and ensuring that they can make an unformed decision regarding the benefits of subdivisiion to them. 'Note that theletters of concern received thus far are form fetters sent to tine City at the request of some mltss nformed and apparently disgruntled residents; and; as discussed at the last meeting with staff,-reflect a Gear misunderstanding of the entire subdivision process_ it is no wonder that they W66l i accept the suggestion solicited in these letter, given the nature of the misinformation that they havereceived- This fetter objects to Lthe enclosed Suggested Findings for Denial of the Apptication'that were sent to the Park by the Planning Department on August 28.2009_ The Suggested Findings are based on City General Plan policies and provisions of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordnance relating to common open space_ The Park, as it currently exists,is approved by the California Department of !lousing for 309 spaces, the design and configuration of which under the HCD permit is set forth on the proposed.Mapte As explained in the recent Court of Appeal decision in Sequoia Bark Associates v_ County of Sonoma, the City is barred from applying its General Plan policies or Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance provisions to the Application_ State law provisions pertaining to mobilehome park design, construction, maintenance, use. operation, and subdivision; including those contained in the Subdivision Map Act and the Mobilehome Parks Act expressly and irrlpliedly preempt the City's General Plan policies and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with respect to the Application. Therefore, the Park owner applicants respectfully request that the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission reject the Planning Department's Suggested Findings and approve the Application. 36014 1 t 2c4849 5928-3068v t ATTACHMENT NO. Iran, se - Page 696 -1378- H KSk C HART, KING & CQLDRErq . 12ami Talleh City of Hungfington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2,2009 Page 5 Express State Preemption of Local-Agency General Plan Policies and Zoning Codes In Sequoia Paris Associates v County of Sonoma 2009 Cal_App_ LEXIS 1397 (Cat_ App_ 1st Dist_ Aug_ 21, 2009), the California Court of Appeal held that State. law .pertaining to mobitehome parks, particularly-the Subdivision Map Act(Govt_ Code§66427.5(e)), preempts application of local agency planning,zoning; subdivision and other municipal code requirements or condions with respect to subdivision of existing rental mobitehome parks for conversion to resident ownership. The sole requirements for.approval of the Application are those contained in Government Code Section 6"2.7.5,which simpty 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 advssory 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_ l In Sequoia Patio Associates, the California Court of Appeal held that County of Sonoma planning, zoning and subdivision code requirements were expressly and impliedly:preempied by- Government Code Section 66427-5 (e), given the comprehensive State scheme of mobitehome 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 mobitehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal- App. LEXIS 1397, at p- 54) The County of Sonoma ordinance included requirements for existing mobitehome park subdivision applications that went beyond the express requirements of Government Code Section 66427. -, As already established, section 66427-5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobitehome 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 36014.11214849-5928-8068v I ATTA-INMENT NO, 1 {� 6973 -1379- Item 8. Page K X = 0 r f-i�f i ;•.eta:G& CCL£'.r F?EN �' Ram; i atleh City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee _City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2,2009 Page 6 impact report requirements imposed the section 66427.5, the application (1) `is consistent with the General Plan' and other local land and zoning use regulations, (2) demonstrates that "appropriate' financial provision has been made to tindermr to and 'ensure proper tong-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure; (3)the applicant shows that 'there are `no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to publish health or safety'; and (4) the proposed conversion `is a bona fide resident conversion as measured against the percentage-Based presumptions established by the Qrclinance_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra,.2009 Cat_App_ LEXIS 1397; at pp. 58--59) The County of Sonoma ordinance required that the subdivision be consistent with County's General Plan and'provisions of the County Code_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma.-supra, 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 38-41) The Planning Department in this situation similarly seeks.to unlawfully impose requirements.on the Application for comp�ance.with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code_ ^ l State Mobilehome Law is,Comprehensive and Preemptive. As the Court of Appeal concluded in Sequoia Park Associates, local agencies cannot add W uirements based on their general plan policies or zoning code in considering applications to subdivide existing mobilehome parks for conversion to resident ownership: However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra 2009 Cal_App_ LEXIS 1397, at p"60) As will be shown. we conclude that the ordinance is expressly preempted because section 66427.5 states that the 'scope of the hearing" for approval of the conversion-application' shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section-" We further conclude that the ordinance is impliedly preempted because the Legislature, which has established a dominant role for the state in regulating mobilehomes, has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions, declining to expand section 66427.5 in ways that would authorize local government to impose additional conditions or requirements 36014.11214849-5928-8068v t Item 8. - Page 698 -1380- ATTACHMENT NO. Rai,$ 'alleh City tom:r Ungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City ,t 4-iuntington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 7 for conversion approval_ Moreover, the County's ordinance duplicates several features of state law. a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption_ -(Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LOUS 1397, at pp. 2-3) The decision in Sequoia Park Associates was based on a thorough review by the Court of Appeal of the comprehensive State statutory scheme regarding mobH4ehome parks_ Section 66427.5 does not stand alone_ lf-the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control,that day is.tong_past_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_App_ LEXIS 1397,at p_ 12) These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage_ Under the Mobilehome Parks Act,it is the tiCt7, a'state agency, not localities, that was entrusted.with the authority to formulate `specific requirements relating to construction, maintenance, occupancy, use and design: of mobilehome parks (Health & Saf_ Code 18253 ____ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 16=17) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks -are in the Government Code_ Cities and counties cannot decide that. a mobilehome park is not a permitted use `on all land planned.and zoned-for residential land use as designated by the applicable local plan,' though the locality `may require a use permit-' (Govt_ Code, § 65852.7) "1[1]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 fry_ 3, ante]of where a mobilehome park may be Eocated,vehicle parking, and tot lines, not the stru s cture within the parks_" (County of Santa Cruz v_ Waterhouse, supra, 127 CalApp.4lh 1483, 1493) (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 19-20) The Court of Appeal, while recognizing that local agencies traditionally have broad powers to regulate land uses in their jurisdiction, concluded in Sequoia Park Associates that the State has taken away those powers with respect to subdivision of existing rental mobilehome parks for the purpose of conversion to resident ownership: 36014.112J4B49-5928 8068v 1 -13s1- ATTACCHMENT i}ems $` Page 699) ZFE Ram;Tal" City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 8 It is a.given that regulation of the uses.of.land within its territorial jurisdiction is.one of the traditional powers of local government. However, this.attitude does not long survive_ The survey of state legislation already.undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation_ Localities are aDowed little.scope to improvise:-or.deviate from.the Legislature's script- The state's.dominance was in ptace before the subject of mobtlefaome park conversion was introduced into the Subdiivision M.ap'Act in:1991. .(See Stats_ 199.1,ch. 74.5;§§ 1- 2,4, adding§§66427 5;66428-1. &amending§-6"27,4 to cover mobilehome-park.conversions.) This Was seven years-after the State had declared itself,in:.favoc of coavertin9-.'obiletiorme parks to resident ownership, and at the same- time established. the Mobile-home Park Purchase Fund from which the HCD could make loans to low-income residents and resident organizations to facilitate.conversions_ (Scats. 1984, ch_ 1692 § Z adding Health & SatCode, % 50780-50786_) (Segtroia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_App_ LEXFS 1397,at pp. 43- 44) it must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with exisfing tenants'With at1 nscessar permits and inspections needed for current operation_ As Sequoia points out "Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427-5 have -already been mapped out,. plotted .out, approved under zoning and general plans,., and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations-- Moreover,the park has been inspected and relicensed on an annual basis_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County. of Sonoma, supra, 2009.Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 48-49) For 25 years, the state has had the policy "to encourage and. facilitate the conversion . of mobilehome parks to resident ownership_' (Health & Sat Code, § 50780: subd_ (b)-) The state is even-willing to use public dollars to promote this policy (Health 8. 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 35014 112/4849-5928-80E8v ; Item 8. - Page 700 -1382- ATTACHMENT N®9 ._._-\,�. - 0 g -ac Rarni i ailed City of f-:ungtington Beach Subdivision Committee CifY<,t Runtington Beach Planning Commission September 2, 2009 Page 9 narrowed to conversions that.merely affect the change from rental to residential ownership, focal involvement is strictly limited_ if the proposed conversion has the support o€two-ifurds or more=of the. park tenants, section 66428.1 prevents the .city or county from interfering except in four very speci#ic situations_ 'if ttie tenant support'is less than two-thirds, section 66427-5 directs that the role of local government shall. tie limited to the- issue:of compliance With-this section_" (§ 66427.5, suW; (e).). (Sequoia Park Assbdafes v. County of Sonoma, supla. .2M.Cal_ :App_ LEXIS 1397,at pp-56-57) Conclusion In conclusion, the Park owners object-to the Planning Departments Suggested Findings and . request that the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission pra ptWfn-ove €onward to approve the Application_ Very truly yours, HART,KING COLD Rorer;' of n -RSCJBLFIlr:b Enclosure- August 28, 2009 Planning Department Suggested Findings cc. Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney (by e-mail only) '36014.112M8495928-8068v I -1383- ATTAC�i item 8. - Page 701' fat. City o#Huntington Beach Department of PlanningSubdivision Committee(September 2,2009) Huntington Shoreciiffs Mobilehome Park Conversion SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL=.TENTATIVE MAP NO.17296: 1. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of developmenL The five additional tots-created-in c o juncfion.with the mobilehome park conversion.cannot be provided with the minimum required conrom open space.of 200 sq,fL per nnobMehome(total 1,000 sq.fL)_ The five additional lots are proposed u mn.an area currently used for"mobilehome park office-acid re runt Iandscaped.area located at the southeast comer of the moUetiome par[c_ Further,.the&Asfing,304 urnfts are 'provided wlth less thari the minimum'regtiired 60,800 sq_€L common open space_ The site is provided with two recreation areas totaling 23,850 sq.IL.In addition,the subdivision will create several lots with less than the minimum required side yard setbacks between manufactured:homes_ 2 Tentative Tract Map No_ 17296.for the subdivision of approximatety 39.2 acres into 309 nurribered lots and 31'i`etfbred'Uii f&r purposes of converssog an existing 304 space for-rent rnobilehome 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.(Residen".MedrurnHiigh Density—Max_25 units s per acre)on the subject property and applicable provisions of this the Huntington Beach Zormigand Stebdrvision-Ondinance_- lbee proposed tentative map is not consistent with the following potreies of-the General Plan_ LU 9.3.2(ar Integrate public squares,mini-parks,or other landscaped elements. LU 9.3.2(d)_ Establish-a comm8n: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;acilities,small-conven_ience commerciaimses,or similar facilities_ LU 9.3.2(e): Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of.community activity_ While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas total 23,850 sq. fl.;the proposed five lot expansion is not provided with the required 1.000 sq- ft_ of common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots- I ATTACHMENT NO. Item 8. - Page 702 -1384- CITY OF H*UNTINGTON BEACH INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICA)ION _ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME1�� TO: Rami Talleh, Seni.or Planner CC: Kellee Fritzal, Economic Development Deputy Direct ~' 2, FROM: Luis Gomez, Economic Development Project Manger DATE:- September 15, 2009 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17'296 The Economic Development Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 and has the following concerns: City-owned abutting property (APN-024-25D-01)located:vvithn the Mobile Home Park is.land locked and lacks access easements through the.40bile Home Park. The parcel is.b%ounded by Frankfort Avenue.to the nodh and Beach;Boulevard ta.the east-and is currently being leased by the applicant for RV storage_The parcel is landlocked due to a sever slopes on both street frontages. While,the parcel is currently being.used by,the mobile home park and is accessed via a common parking area, no reciprocal access.easements are currently in place or provided as part of the proposed subdivision. ATTACHMENT NO. 4� -1385- Item 8. - Page 703) INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -1387- Item 8. - Page 705L INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ® MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION off' TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 o HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 5:00 P.M. —COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P A P P P P P ROLL CALL: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize Commissioner Mantini arrived at 5:05 PM. AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY DELGLEIZE, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2009, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: Mantini ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. PROJECT REVIEW(FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS) A-1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 08-008/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 (BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN) — Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager and Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposed project. Ms. Broeren noted that the focus of tonight's study session would be on public comments and questions received on Books I and II of the proposed specific plan. Commissioner Livengood asked about the cemetery located at the northeast corner of Beach Blvd. and Talbert Avenue. Ms. Broeren said that the cemetery is not within the Beach and Edinger Corridors area and would not be affected by the proposed specific plan. 09pcm0922 -1389- (item S. - Page 7073 PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 2 Ms. Broeren said that the proposed town center/core of the Beach and Edinger Corridors would be located at Beach Blvd. and Ellis Avenue, not at Beach Blvd. and Warner Avenue. Ms. Broeren also said that Books 11 and III of the specific plan may be presented to the Planning Commission for approval without the inclusion of Book 1. Vice Chair Farley asked about website posting of the project documentation. Ms. Broeren said that the Beach and Edinger Corridors consultant will be providing documentation in portrait format (instead of landscape) to make the documentation easier to read on the website. Ms. Broeren reported that the next study session on this project will commence with the public comments received on Attachment 4.8 of the staff report. She also noted the upcoming schedule for meetings on the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan: a public meeting to be held on September 30, 2009, a study session on October 13, 2009, a study session on October 27, 2009, a study session on November 10, 2009 and a tentative public hearing date of December 8, 2009. A-2. ENTITLEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 07-001 (PIERSIDE PAVILION — REVISED MIX OF USES)— Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Rami Talleh, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposed project. He noted that the proposed project includes the removal of the existing theater and the addition of office space. Commissioner Speaker noted that in the past, the California Coastal Commission has indicated that they would like this site to be visitor-serving and that the California Coastal Commission had originally endorsed the theater. Mr. Talleh noted that this proposal includes the mixed use ratios for visitor-serving commercial uses as required by the California Coastal Commission. Commissioner Delgleize said that she is concerned that the project would cause a conflict with the neighboring Pier Colony residential complex. Mr. Talleh noted that no exterior modifications are proposed, that the applicant is proposing internal changes and fitting those uses within the existing building space. Commissioner Scandura asked staff if any new uses are proposed. Mr. Talleh said that any new uses would have to conform to the new Downtown Specific Plan Update, when and if it is approved. Commissioner Livengood noted that the cap on total square footage for the site is 99,000 square feet and is noted on Attachment No. 4.2 of the staff report. A-3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-003/ANNEXATION NO. 06- 002/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-017 (GOODELL PROPERTY PRE-ZONING/ANNEXATION)—Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner Jennifer Villasenor, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposed project. She noted that Late Communications have been received for this 09P=0922 Item 8e - Page 708 -1390- PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 3 project. She also noted that the public hearing for this project is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission on October 13, 2009 and that staff will be responding to comments regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration at that time. Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren noted that the Goodell site was included in the Environmental Impact Report for the Brightwater project. Vice Chair Farley asked about mitigation measures as listed in Attachment Nos. 3.36-3.39 of the staff report. Ms. Villasenor noted that pre-zoning mitigation measure issues will be addressed in the future. She also noted that there is no foreseeable development proposed for this site, but that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is needed now as part of the annexation process. A-4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-006 (RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY— COMMERCIAL VISITOR—SERVING ZONE)—Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the proposed project and noted that the public hearing for this project is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission on October 27, 2009. Commissioner Scandura noted that the California Coastal Commission is not 'recommending this use, which conflicts with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act(RLUIPA). Vice Chair Farley asked if there are any applications for Religious Assembly uses. Ms. Medel said yes, and that staff is currently processing the request and researching the zoning issues. Chair Shier Burnett noted that this is a proactive project which will keep the city in compliance with federal law. B. STUDY SESSION ITEMS - NONE C. PUBLIC COMMENTS Roy Reynolds of PRT Strategies spoke regarding Item No. A-1 (Beach and Edinger Corridors) and mass transit strategies. Mr. Reynolds provided the Planning Commission with a handout. Chair Shier Burnett asked if PRT Strategies had been in communication with Caltrans and Mr. Reynolds said no. Gerald Chapman, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke regarding Item No. A-3 (Goodell Property) and Item No. A-1 (Beach and Edinger Corridors). He noted that he is in favor of preserving the current zoning that permits medical uses within the areas under consideration for the Beach and Edinger Corridors. He also noted that he is in favor of preserving "The Ridge" site due to its archeological resources. Scott Seaton, Peter's Landing Marina Manager, spoke regarding Item No. A-4 (Religious Assembly). He said that he has concerns with noise and asked if a school was proposed in addition to a church_ Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren noted that no school is proposed and that the project proposes religious assembly uses only. 09pcm0922 -1391- Item S. - Page 709) PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 4 Howard Burns, resident, spoke regarding Item No. A-1 (Beach and Edinger Corridors). He said that he has concerns with property owners within the Corridors being able to keep their existing uses. D. AGENDA REVIEW(UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA ITEMS)—Herb Fauland Herb Fauland, Planning Manager, reviewed the items for tonight's meeting. He advised that there is one Late Communication for Item No. B-1 and five Late Communications for Item No. B-2. Senior Planner Rami Talleh gave a brief overview of the Late Communications for Item No. B-2. Chair Shier Burnett asked if Item No. B-2 could be continued if needed and Mr. Talleh said yes. E. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Mantini noted that there will be an Orange County Transit Authority meeting regarding the expansion of the 405 freeway, to be held at the city's Central Library on September 23, 2009 from 6:00-8:00 PM. F. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Vice Chair Farley noted that on September 11, 2009, he appealed the Environmental Assessment Committee's environmental review determination of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for"The Ridge". 6:37 PM —RECESS FOR DINNER 7:05 P.M.—COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE— Led by Vice Chair Farley P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, ®elgleize A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2009, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE 09pcm0922 Item 80 - Page 710 -1392- PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 5 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -NONE B-1. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-001 (FLOOD ORDINANCE REVISIONS) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Chapter 222 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) to bring it into compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements. The proposed amendment would, among others, clarify and supplement definitions and standards of construction. Location: Citywide Project Planner: Ricky Ramos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 with findings (Attachment No.1) and forward the draft ordinance (Attachment No. 2)to the City Council for adoption." The Commission made the following disclosures: ® Commissioner Speaker attended the study session. ® Commissioner Mantini had no disclosures. ® Vice Chair Farley attended the study session. ® Chair Shier Burnett attended the study session. i Commissioner Scandura attended the study session. • Commissioner Livengood attended the study session. ® Commissioner Delgleize has visited the site. Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner, gave the staff presentation and an overview of the proposed project. Commissioner Livengood asked if the proposed revisions allow for depreciation in property values and Mr. Ramos said yes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. WITH NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A MOTION WAS MADE BY DELGLEIZE, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-001 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED 09pcm0922 -1393- Items 8m - Page 7117 PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 6 FINDINGS OF APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-001 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEQA: The Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20,which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act because the request is a minor amendment to a zoning ordinance that does not change the development standards density or intensity. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 09-001: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 amends Chapter 222 (Floodplain Overlay District) by, among others, clarifying and supplementing definitions and standards of construction. It is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs specified in the General Plan including: a. Goal EH 4— Eliminate, to the greatest degree possible, the risk from flood hazards to life, property, public investment and social order in the City of Huntington Beach. b. Objective EH 4.1 —Ensure that the City's flood prevention standards and practices provide satisfactory safeguards for public and private development. c. Policy EH 4.1.2— Establish and enforce standards which minimize financial loss and maximize protection of residents and business owners' property. The proposed amendment will bring the City's flood ordinance into compliance with FEMA requirements with the ultimate goal of increasing flood protection and minimizing loss. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 will revise the citywide flood ordinance. It will not affect the zoning of any property or the allowed uses and development standards of any zoning district. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed because Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 is necessary to comply with FEMA requirements which will enable the city to continue to be a part of the National Flood Insurance Program. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because Zoning Text Amendment No. 09-001 will ultimately increase flood protection and minimize loss. 09p=0922 Item Se - Page 712 -1394- PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 7 B-2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON,SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION) Applicant: Boyd Hill, Hart, King & Coldren Request: To a) subdivide approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes and b) create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. The project also includes an appeal filed by the applicant of the applicable code requirements. Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south. of Indianapolis Ave.) Project Planner: Rami Talleh STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)." The Commission made the following disclosures: • Commissioner Speaker has visited the site and attended the Subdivision Committee meeting. • Commissioner Mantini has visited the site and attended the study session. • Vice Chair Farley has visited the site and attended the study session. • Chair Shier Burnett has attended the Subdivision Committee Meeting, visited the site and spoken to staff. • Commissioner Scandura has taken a site tour, spoken to staff and the City Attorney's office, attended the Subdivision Committee meeting and attended the study session. • Commissioner Livengood has taken a site tour, spoken to staff and the City Attorney's office, and attended the study session. • Commissioner Delgleize has visited the site and attended the study session. Rami Talleh, Senior Planner, gave the staff presentation and an overview of the proposed project. Mr. Talleh noted that Late Communications have been received on this project, including five letters from the applicant (one with a response from staff) and a letter from a resident regarding a possible oil well drilling location. Mr. Talleh also noted a correction to his staff report and the suggested findings, which should read "Suggested Findings for Denial"instead of "Suggested Findings For Approval." Commissioner Livengood asked about the Late Communication from a resident, which concerns an oil well at the project site. Fire Division Chief Bill Reardon said that the oil well is capped completely, is dormant and poses no threat to the residents of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Commissioner Scandura asked if a Homeowners Association was in place when the residents were surveyed by Star Mobilehome Park Management. Mr. Talleh noted that many residents were present at the meeting and would be able to answer Mr. Scandura's question. Chair Shier Burnett asked about the state's Housing and Community Development Department documentation and asked how many units were 09pcm0922 -1395- Item Sa - Page 713) PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 8 approved. Mr. Talleh said that Housing and Community Development approved a total of 304 on-site units. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Robert Colden of Hart, King and Coldren (the applicant) spoke in support of Item No. B-2. He said that the applicant is willing to eliminate five of the proposed lots. He also said that he has a map from the State Department of Housing and Community Development dated September 2008 which shows that 309 on-site lots were approved, but is willing to comply with the reduction to 304 lots. He also said that there was no Homeowners Association in place when the residents were surveyed by Star Mobilehome Park Management. Micheal Cirillo of Star Mobilehome Park Management spoke in support of Item No. B-2. He said that he was not aware of a Homeowners Association being in place when the residents were surveyed, and said that the survey is valid. Boyd Hill of Hart, King and Coldren spoke in support of Item No. B-2. He said that Government Code Section 66427 provides a guideline for local governments to follow when processing a mobile home park subdivision. He said that the Planning Commission should follow the Housing and Community Development regulations when making their decision. Mary Landin, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. She said that the residents don't have enough information to make an informed decision and lack legal representation. Robert Schaaf spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2, although he is not a resident of the Mobile Home Park. He thanked Rami Talleh for all his efforts on this project. Majel Miller, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. She stated that there are unresolved maintenance issues at the Mobile Home Park and would like to see these fixed prior to considering subdivision. Scott Steeper, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2, with four minutes of time donated by Richard Whissen. Mr. Steeper said that he is the president of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association (HOA) and that the HOA was in place when the residents were surveyed. He said that the residents don't have enough information to make informed decisions. He also said that Hart, King and Coldren did not provide the market rent or purchase price for the lots in question. Vice Chair Farley asked Mr. Steeper about HOA fees. Mr. Steeper said that the HOA is volunteer only, as none of the residents own the land. Mr. Farley also asked if Mr. Steeper had been involved in talks with the firm of Hart, King and Coldren and Mr. Steeper said no. Commissioner Scandura asked Mr. Steeper if an HOA had been in place prior to April 2009, and Mr. Steeper said yes, but the previous HOA had been disbanded. Sharon Dana, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2, with eight minutes of time donated by William Seymour and Frank Krafka. She noted that the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile 09pcm0922 Item 6e - Page 714 -1396- PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 9 - Home Park is badly in need of repair and that the residents need more information before they can make an informed decision regarding subdivision. She also noted that the leases of 183 residents were terminated under the previous owners. Harold Lyons, resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to Item No. B-2. He has concerns with needed repairs to the Mobile Home Park and said that the residents need more information before they can make an informed decision regarding subdivision. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Scandura asked the applicant about the existence of a Homeowners Association (HOA)when the residents were surveyed. Robert Colden of Hart, King and Coldren said that the residents were surveyed in March of 2009 and that the Homeowners Association (HOA) was not in place until April of 2009. He said that the HOA was assembled after.the survey and recommended that the HOA conduct their own survey now. He also requested- that the Planning Commission continue the project with 304 spaces. Regarding maintenance issues, he said that no violations have been received from the State of California's Housing and Community Development Department. Commissioner Scandura asked Mr. Colden how it was determined that there was no HOA in place in March of 2009. Mr. Cirillo of Star Mobilehome Park Management said that he asked two on-site managers who both said that there was no HOA in place. Planning Director Scott Hess noted that the staff report reads "Suggested Findings For Approval" instead of"Suggested Findings For Denial", but that the findings shown in the staff report are for denial. A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED Due to the typographical error in the staff report, which listed "Suggested Findings For Approval" instead of"Suggested Findings For Denial", the Planning Commission voted again. 09pcm0922 -1397- Item B. - Page 715L PC Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 10 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SPEAKER, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO SUBSTITUTE THE PHRASE "SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL" FOR THE PHRASE "SUGGESTED FINDINGS.OF APPROVAL" IN THE STAFF REPORT AND TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Speaker, Mantini, Farley, Shier Burnett, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE 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. 09pcm0922 Item B. - Page 716 -1398- PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 11 While the existing mobile home park is currently provided with nonconforming common areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft., the proposed five lot expansion does not provide the required 1,000 sq. ft. of additional common area intended to serve as a gathering or activity center for the existing and/or additional lots. Furthermore the subdivision would reduce the existing common open space by 11,193 sq. ft. in that the four of the five additional lots are proposed to be located in an area used for offices meeting rooms and a pool. 3. The Impact Report dated and received March 6, 2009 is not consistent with Government Code Section 66427.5 because it does not analyze the impact of the conversion on residents. Economic impacts associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure; estimated sales price of the lots; and other costs such property taxes and homeowners association dues are not discussed and analyzed in the report. Nor does the report identify the method upon which the non-purchasing residents will have some exceptions of the rents as prescribed by Government Code Section 66427.5. 4. Adequate evidence has not been provided that the Tenant Survey dated and received May 4, 2009 was prepared pursuant to an agreement with a homeowners association independent of the subdivider in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C-1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED AUGUST 11, 2009 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the August 11, 2009, Planning Commission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MADE BY FARLEY, SECONDED BY MANTON[, TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS SUBMITTED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mantini, Farley, Scandura, Livengood, Delgleize NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Speaker, Shier Burnett (MOTION APPROVED D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - NONE E. PLANNING ITEMS E-1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Scott Hess, Director of Planning - reported on the items from the previous City Council Meeting. E-2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Director of Planning —reported on the items for the next City Council Meeting. E-3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING - NONE 09pcm0922 -1399- liters S® - Page 7173 PC Minutes September 22,2009 Page 12 F. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS F-'I. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST ITEMS—NONE F-2. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS The Planning Commission congratulated Chair Shier Burnett on the recent birth of her daughter. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 8:46 PM to the special meeting of Tuesday, October 6, 2009. APPROVED BY: Scott Hess, Secretary Elizabeth Shier Burnett, Chairperson 09pcm0922 Item 8. - Page 718 -1400- -1401- Item B. - Page 719i INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK AUG G 7 Z009 HART, KING & COLDREN August 27, 2009 Our File Number_ 36014.11214814-134"996v_i VIA HAND DELIVERY AND E-MAIL Planning'Commission Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Scott Hess,.Director of Planning RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park("Park") Application for Tentative Tract�Aag No. 17296 ("Application") Appeal of Project ImiAernentation Code Requirements, Conditions and Staff ft on rnendation Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter constitutes and sets forth the basis for the appeal by the Park owners' of the August 25, 2009 purported "Planning Director decision" applying project implementation code requirements for the Park subdivision.2 A copy of the purported "Planning,Director decision" is enclosed herewith. 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 August 25, 2009 letter contending that an appeal is required. By filing this appeal, the Park owners do not waive their rights to contend that an appeal regarding imposition of unlawful code conditions is unnecessary. This letter also constitutes the Park owners' objections to the Planning and Public Works .Department proposed conditions of approval contained in an August 20, 2009 letter from the Planning Department. ' Shorecliff LP,JS Stadium,LLC, Huntington BSC Park, LP,Shorecliff Main,LP 2 Attached to this letter is a$494 check,which City Municipal Code Section 248.24A expressly states is not required, but which the Planning Director decision wrongfully states is required_ The Park owners request that the check be voided and returned to them_ A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.87001 www.hkclaw_com l Fx 714.546.7457 -1403- ATTACHMLIte �'� 8. - Page_7217 Ia MART. K`NZ3 a COLDR'EN Scott -less City of Hungtington-Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 2 Rnatly,•this letter objects to the Planning Department's yet unpublished decision to recommend denial of the Application based on the Planning Department's unlawful imposition of its own conditions for the substantive content of the Park Owner conversion impact report. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider this appeal and these objections iri connection with and at the same meeting in which the Commission considers approval of the Application so that the unlawful City Staffdecisions 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 S494uoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXiS 1397 (Cat. App. 1st Dist ;,AU 21, 2009), 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)), preempts application of local.agency.planning,zoning, subdivision and other municipal code requirements or conditions with respect to subdivision of existing rental mobilehome parks for conversion to resident ownership_ The sole requirements for approval of the Application are those contained in Government Code Section 66427.5.which simply require submission of the map, a tenant survey and a.conversion impact report- Government Code Section 66427.5 (e) provides: The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by.local ordinance'to approve; conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. In Sequoia Park Associates, the California Court of Appeal held that County of Sonoma planning, zoning and subdivision code requirements were expressly and impliedly preempted by Government Code Section 66427.5 (e), given the comprehensive State scheme of 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_ 36014.112/4814-1346-0996v.1 Item 8. - Page 722 -1404- HK&C HART. KING & COLt7REt,: Scott Hess , - City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 3 (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at'p. 54) The County of Sonoma ordinance included requirements for existing mobilehome park subdivision applications that went beyond.the express requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5: As.already established, section 66427-5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application_ Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall be approved "only if the decision maker finds that," in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed the section 66427-5, the application (1)"is consistent with the General'Plan" and other local land and zoning use regulations, (2)demonstrates that "appropriate"financial provision has been made to underwrite and censure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure';(3)the applicant shows that there are "no conditions existing in the mobile home park that are detrimental to publish health or safety"; and (4) the proposed conversion "is a bona fide resident conversion" as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance- (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 58-59) The County of Sonoma code requirements included requirements for engineering reports on park common facilities and infrastructure, estimates of the useful life of such common facilities and infrastructure, an estimate of the annual overhead and operating costs of maintaining the park, its common areas and landscaping, an estimate of necessary replacement costs, and a verification of compliance with HCD requirements under Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations- (Sequoia Paris Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_App. LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 38-41) 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 tong-term maintenance of common facilities and infrastructure, and health and safety and HCD compliance requirements in connection with approval of the Application. 36014.112t4814-1346-0996v,I -1405- ATT AOWhAI~Item,8o - Page-723) HK& C "ART. KiNu*B; Scott Hess .City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27; 2009 Page 4 State Mobilehome Law is`Comprehensive and Preclusive As the Court of Appeal concluded in Sequoia Park Associates, local agencies cannot by their ordinances or conditions add to or even duplicate.the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 in considering applications to subdivide existing mobitehorpe parks for conversion to resident ownership: However commendable or welt-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper;additions to the excliisive.statutory requirements of section 66427.5- (Sequoia Park Associates V. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1397,.at p. 60) As will be shown,we conclude that the ordinance is expressly preempted because section 66427:5 states that the"-,scope of the hearing" for approval of,the conversion application"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section' We further conclude that the ordinance is impliedly preempted because the Legislature,which has established a dominant-role for the state in regulating mobilehomes, has indicated its intent to forestall local intrusion into the particular terrain of mobilehome conversions, declining to expand section 66427-5 in ways that would authorize local government to impose additional conditions or requirements for conversion approval. .Moreover, the County's ordinance duplicates several features of state law, a redundancy that is an established litmus test for preemption. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 2-3) The decision in Sequoia Park Associates was based on a thorough review by the Court of Appeal of the comprehensive State statutory scheme regarding mobilehome parks_ Section 66427.5 does not stand alone. If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control, that day is long past_ (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_ App_ LEXIS 1397, at p_ 12) These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage. Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities, that was entrusted with the authority to formulate"specific requirements 36014-112J4814-1346-0996v.1 Item 8. - Page 724 -1406- - H-K&C "AR-T. KING & COLOP N Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 5 relating to.construction,'maintenance, occupancy;use and design" of mobilehome parks (Health &Saf_ Code-18253 ---- (Sequoia Park.Associates v. County-of Sonora, supra, 2009 Cal- App. LEXIS.1397, at pp_ 16-17) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks are in the Government Code_ Cities.and counties cannot decide-that a mobilehome park is not a permitted use"on:ali jand plaianed and zoned for residential land use.as designated by the applicable. . local-plan," though the locality"may require,a.use perrtuL". (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 Fin Heath and Safety-Code section 1$300, subdivision(g), quoted at fin. 3, ante] of where a mobilehome park may be located, vehicle parking, and lot fines;;not the.structures _ within the parks_" (County of Santa Cruz v_ Waterhouse, supra, 127 Cal_App_4th 1483, 1493) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County - of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp_ 19-2Q) The Court of Appeal, while recognizing that local agencies traditionally have broad powers to regulate land uses in their jurisdiction, concluded in Sequoia Park As.0ciates-1hat 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, §§ 1-21 4, adding §5 66421-5, 66428.1, & amending § 66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.) This was seven years after the State had declared itself in favor of converting mobilehome parks to resident ownership, and at the same time established the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund from 36014.1 1 214 8 1 4-1 34 6-0996v.1 -1407- Item 8. - Page 725- HK&C "ART. KING d LDRI%r Scott Hess h City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 6 which the HCD•could make loans to low-income residents and resident organizations to facilitate conversions. (Stats. 1984, ch. 1692; §2, Adirfg-Health &Saf_ Code, §§ 50780-50786.) .(Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal. App_ LEXIS 1397, at pp. 43-44) It must be recalled.that.the predicate-of the statutory examination is afunctioning park with existing tenants-with all necessary::permits and inspections needed for current nperatior�_ As Sequoia points out: "Mobilehome packs 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-reiicensed on an-annual'basis. (Sequoia Park Associates v- County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal-App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 48A9) For 25 years,-the state has had the policy,"to.encourage and facilitate the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership_" (Health& Saf_ Code,§50780, subd_ (b).) The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy (Health &Saf_ Code, §50782 [establishing the Mobilehome Park - Purchase Fund].) The state crearly has an Uhrierest in mobilehome park conversions, but is willing to have local governments occupy some role in tfie`process" The-extent of local involvement is calibrated to the situation. However, when the subiect is narrowed to conversions that merely affect the change from rental to residential ownership local involvement is strictly limited_ If the proposed conversion has the support of two-thirds or more of the park tenants, section 66428.1 prevents the city or county from interfering except in four very specific situations_ If the tenant support is less than two-thirds, section 66427.5 directs that the role of local government "shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section (§ 66427-5, subd" (e).) (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_App. LEXIS 1397, at pp. 56-57) 36014.112/4814-134"996v.1 Item 6. - Page 726 -1408- . HK&.0 HAR_e 1, NG & CO'DRCN' Scott Hess City of.Hungtnngton.Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 7 Local Ordinances Cannot Duplicate or Condition State Requirements In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates made clear that local agencies cannot even condition tentative tract map approval on the local agencies' own interpretation of how the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 should be satisfied. -Part of the County of Sonoma ordinance that was struck down involved the County's conditions for accepting the tenant survey required by'Govemment 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 j appears to authorize--if not actually invite--a purely subjective inquiry,_one which is not truly reduced by reference to the Ordinance's presumptions_ (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal_App_ LEXIS 1397, at p_60) The Court of Appeal in Sequoia Park Associates also considered, and rejected, an argument that local agencies should be able to impose conditions for acceptance of the conversion impact report required by Government Code Section 66427.5(b): We admit that there is no little attraction-to the County's approach_ Beginning with the presumption against preemption in the area of land use, it is more than a little difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only on the issues of resident support and the 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 [1j] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." 36014.11214814-1346-0996v.1 -1409- Item 8. - Page 727; riK&C HART. KING & COLOREN` t, � 'Scott Hess . City of.Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009' Page 8 However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach_ It is not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see .ftt.,..to_-.grant. -locel. authorities some. power, "but circumscribe 4he extent of that power. ' That is what section .:66427.5 does- It.says: in`.effeieL Local authority, you have this :power, but no more. (Sequoia Park Associates v_ County of Sonoma, supra, 2009 Cal- App. LEXIS 1397, at pp.46-48, 51) Conversion Impact Reports are Necessarily Limited in Scope . The content of conversion impact reports is necessarily limited given the preliminary City subdivision approval stage of the conversion-when the-reports must be submitted_ The City's action on the subdivision application occurs at a stage in the conversion process where significant information pertairung -to-conversion- such as lot purchase price and a study of common.area facilities and infrastructure and future homeowner association obligations has not yet occurred under the Subdivided .Lands Act, Business and Professions Code Sections 11000 et seq. Although a tenant cannot make a rational decision to buy; continue to rent, or move his or her mobilehome unless the tenant is given an option price and a proposed rental-price, the tenant is not required to make such a decision until after,the Department of Real Estate has approved the project and issued its public report_ (Bus. & Prof Code § 11010.9) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd v_ City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal_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. if City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal_App-4th at 1180) In fact, the Subdivided Lands Act prevents premature disclosure of lot price information: 36014.112/4814-1346-0996v.1 item Ro - Page 728 -1410- -HK&-"- C "ART, riNs_, " OOs DRi_7] Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 9 indeed,_the giving of the disclosure notice does not authorize:the subdivider to offer to sell the units before obtaining Department of Real Estate approval- (Bus. & Prof. Code § 11010.9. subd. (c).) (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd- v. City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal.AppAth at 1180) Thus,.all that is required to be discussed in the conversion impact report,at the stage of City approval of the Application is notice to the residents of their statutory option to purchase.or continue leasing -and of the statutory protections for those residents pertaining to post= conversion rent increases- At the latter time [the subdivision approval by the City], the subdivider-must only notify residents that they will have an option to purchase their sites or to continue to rent thern_ (El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd_ v_ City of Palm Springs, supra, 96 Cal-AppAth at 1180) ..._ Y Conclusion In conclusion, the Park owners by way of this appeal reject and object to all of the proposed conditions set forth in the August 20, 2009 letter from the Planning Department and object to and appeal (as may be necessary)the Planning Director decision to impose all of the municipal code requirements set forth in the August 25, 2009 letter. The Park owners will.only agree to accept the non preempted Planning Department code requirements 1 (b), 2 (a), 4, 5, and 8 and Public Works Department pre-final map recordation code requirements 1-6, as set forth in the August 25, 2009 letter. The Park owners appeal the imposition of all other municipal code requirements, as set forth in the August 25, 2009 letter- The Park owners also reject and object to the Planning Department intended recommendation to deny the Application, which recommendation is based on the Planning Department's unlawful attempt to apply its own conditions for the substantive contents of the conversion impact report. The City cannot impose any conditions of its own on approval of the Application_ The City has an almost ministerial duty to approve the Application if the Application complies with the simple checklist of requirements set forth in Government Code Section 66427.5- 36014.112/4814-1346-0996v.I �1411- Item 8. m Page 729> HK&,,,C HART. KING & COLfJRFN Scott Hess City of Hungtington Beach Subdivision Committee City.of-Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 10 -the Park owners look forward to moving ahead expeditiously with conversion of the Park. Best Regards, HART, KING &COLDREN BVl � dHf1i BLHIdr Enclosure: Check-Fla.-8010 foc-$#4 ,�-- August.20, 2009-Conditions Letter August 25, 2009.Code Requirements Letter Sequoia Park Associates v County of Sonoma case cc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (by e-mail only) Leonie Mulvihill.,Assistant City Attorney (by email only) Herb Fauland; f'.Ia: i j;U nager (by e-malt"onFy)' Steve Bogart, Public Works (by e-mail only) ff2ami Talleh, SertiorP'lanner (bye-mail only).. 36014.112/4814-1346-0996v.1 Item B. a Page 730 -1412- HART. KING & COLDREN Scott Hess City 9 9 of Hun tin ton Beach Subdivision Committee City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission August 27, 2009 Page 11 bcc John Saunders (by e-mail only) Michael Cirillo (by e-mail only) Burt Mazelow (by e-mail only) 36014.112/4 814-1346-0996v.1 -1413- Item 8e ® Page 7311 .�a City of I�unfin ton each • 2000 MAIN STREET CAUFORNIA 92648 t . . . - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING e August 25, 2009 Boyd Hill Hart, Ming &Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT_ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17269(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS SUBDIVISION) PROJECT IMPL.EMENTATIOI4 CODE REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Hill, In order to assist you with your development proposal, staff has reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies, standard plans, and development and use requiremerlis, 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 fist 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 We to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-374-1682 or at rtalleh@suffcity-hb_org and/or the respective source department(contact person below). Sincerely, RPTaI177 , Senior Planner Enclosure cc_ Leonie Mulvihill,Senior Deputy City Attorney Gerald Caraig,Building and Safety Department—714-374-1575 Darin Maresh,Fire Departrnent—714-536-5531 Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorecliff,LP,200 Sandpoints,fourth floor,Santa Ana,CA 92707 Project Fite M G:�Taltelr 0081PIann n Commi sion�2 701 S ach H ntin o Shorecliffs)1207 1 4111111 ode L ter. oc \ Item 8. - Page 732 Fax 71414-1 man ATTA . ?. � 40 -x CiTY O .1-fUNTiNGTON BEACi-I PLANNING DEPARTMENT HurrrlNcfoN erAcii PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: August 24, 2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHHOME SUBDIVISION. ENTiTLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-0190; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD_, 92648(WEST SIDE OF BEACH BLVD-, SOUTH OF INDIANAPOLiS AVE-..) PROJECT PLANNER: RAMi TALLEH, SENIOR PLANNER TEL.EPHONEIE-MAIL: .(714.)374-1682/rtatleho_surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDiVIDUAL OWNERSHIP- -The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated August 4, 2009. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which_must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementatiorn. 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 finalproject 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 shalt 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'Attomey. 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. -1415- item 8. - Page 733) AT-TA t%1 1A Ar • 2 of 2 3. The"Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance wi641 conditions 4of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director ai�b6 ic' Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes.to parcel map are proposed during the:pl�il check process. Permits sfiaii not-be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works D reet- have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for con€omlance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein_ If the proposed changes are of a substantial natures an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO_ 4. .Tentative Tract Map No. 172-96 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.extensiori of time`may be granted by the Director of Planning pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planding'Depaitment 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 alf 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 tnade out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two(2)days of the Planning Commission's action. t 9. Ali-landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. .Prior to removing,ar replacing,any landscap d.,ac-as,_.check..with.the-Departments of Planning and Public Works for Cade requirements_ Substantial changes may require approval by tune Planning Commission- Item B. - Page 734 -1416- HUNTINGTON BEACH PuBLIC WORKS-� P �T ENT NUNTlNG'[oFrBElIfH PROJECT.IMPLEMENTATION-CODE-REQUIREMENTS DATE: AUGUST 20, 2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO. 2008-0190 DATE OF PLANS: AUGUST 4, 2009 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD PROJECT PLANNER RAMI TALLEH, SENIOR PLANNER .TELF-PHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-16821 RTALLEH@SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER -TELEPHONEW-EMAIL: 714-374-16921 SBOGART(aSURFCITV HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS'1tilOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP_ :r The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above_ The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code (HBMC), Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO),_Department of Public Works Standard.Plans (Civil, Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and.Specifications_ The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. if you have any-questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner_ THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW: 1. A Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis.for existing site drainage and tributary upstream drainage shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms and back-to-back storms shall be analyzed). In addition, this study shalt include 24-hour peak back-to-back 100-year storms for onsite detention analysis_ Any drainage improvements required by the aforementioned analysis shall be designed and constructed as required by the .Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development or deficient downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. (ZSO 255.12) 2_ Based on the Fire Department's requirement for a separate dedicated private on-site fire hydrant system, a hydraulic water analysis is required to identify any off-site water improvements necessary -1417- Item lie - Page 735t to adequately protect the property.per the Fire.Department requirements_ The subdivider shalt . be` required to-upgraderimprove the City's water_system, per Water Standards. to meet the,;wa demands to the site and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the property at no cost to the City. _Vlh subdivider shall,provide the City with a.site:plan showing the e5tisti g and proposed on-site and off=:, site water improvements (including pipeline sizes, fire- hydrants, meters, and baddlow device locations)_ Tie subdivider;shall be responsible to pay`the City for performing the analysis using the City's hydraulic water model_ ($MA 66428.1(d).and ZSO 255.04(E)) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: 1_ The Tentative Tract Map received and dated August 4, 2009 shall be the approved layout. 2_ The Final Tract Map shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department -For review and approval and shall include a title report to indicate the fee title owner(s) as shown oar 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 file: _____DWG c Drawing interchange file_ .DXF Item,8r.,', � ,�.736m: - -141 8- Shalt be in compliance with the following media type_ CD Recordable(CD=R) 650 Megabytes 7. The improvement plans shalt be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval_-The engineer shall submit cast estimates for determining bond amounts_ (ZSO 255.16C & MC 17.05) 8. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor&Material and Monument Bonds)and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 255:16) 9.. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSO 253.12K) 10. If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement may 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 CCU s to manage the following for the total project area e_ Onsite landscaping and irrigation improvements f_ On-site sewer and drainage systems g. -Best Management Practices (BMP's)as per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) The aforementioned items shall be addressed in the development's CC&R's. 13. Improvement Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.051ZS0 230.84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan_ h_ Existing AC curb along the Beach Boulevard frontage shalt be removed and replaced with curb and gutter per Public Works Standard Plan No_ 202 and per Caltrans requirements_ (ZSO 265.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) i_ Six (6) foot wide sidewalk and a nine (9) foot wide curb adjacent landscaped parkway along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be constructed per Public Works Standard Plan No_ 207- (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) j- The existing earthen storm drain channel along the Beach Boulevard frontage shall be replaced with a 54-inch storm drain pipeline (unless otherwise designed and sized by .Hydraulics Report which is submitted to Public Works for review and approval) to convey the 100-year storm flow as quantified in the City's 2005 Master Plan of Drainage_ (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) k. Street lights shall be installed along the Beach Boulevard project frontage_ Lighting standards shall be per City of Huntington Beach guidelines. (ZSO 255.04) i_ ADA compliant access ramps shalt be instalted.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)) 1419- Item 8. - Page 7373 G:\Ta11ehV20081Planning Commission\207p1 Reach{Huntington Shorecliff<_- tics Depa�trnent code Comments 482Q09.doc 40; 'a m_ 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)) n_ An ADA compliant.access ramp shalt be installed on the southeast comer of Delaware Street and Frankfort Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A (ZSO 255-04, ADA and SMA 66428-1(d)) �. ADA compliant-a ccess ramps shall be'instaNed on the south curb returns of Frankfort Avenue at-Shorecliff Drive (at the subject site's-northerly entrance)per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) p. -An-ADA compliant access ramp shall be installed on Frankfort Avenue where it intersects Hill Street per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A_ (ZSO 255.04, ADA and SMA 66428.1(d)) q- Damaged curb and gutter along the Frankfort Avenue frontage (at Hill Street) shalt be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No- 202. (ZSO 255.04 and SMA 66428.1(d)) r. Based on-'the Fire Department's requirement for a separate dedicated private on-site fire hydrant system,-the subdivider shall comply with the following requirements: i_ The existing two (2) 4-inch compound.manifold metering system serving the fire, domestic and irrigation water systems shalt be replaced with a single meter for domestic and irrigation purposes only_ The new meter must be sized to meet the minimum requirements of the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and constructed per Water Standards. (SMA 66411:5(a) and ZSO 255.04(E)) it. Backflow protection devices shall be constructed per Water Standards at each fire service connection to the to the City's water system- (SMA 66411.5(a) and ZSO 255-04(E)) s_- The existing 8-inch .backflow device configuration is non-conforming-placing the City's water supply at risk of potential contamination. As a result of health and safety concems, the subdivider shall reconstruct or replace the existing backflow device to comply with current Water Standards. (Resolution 5921, Title 17 State Regulation, SMA 66411-5(a), and SMA 66428.1(d)) t_ An onsite storm drain shall be designed per the final approved hydrology and hydraulics study, City Standards and per the City adopted 2005 Master Plan of Drainage_ The storm drain system .located within private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association_ A soils report, prepared by a Licensed Engineer shall be submitted for reference only- (ZSO 255.04A) 14. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department foe review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments- (ZSO 232.04) u- Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). v_ "Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shalt be installed_ (ZSO 232-04D) w_ Standard landscape code requirements apply_ (ZSO 232) Item 8. a Page 73&rnission\20701 Beach(Huntington Shorech -1 42®-/orks Depaetment code Comments OR700'9 d( Pa . i`5_ All landscape planting,.irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications: (ZSO-.282.fl4B) 16_ Landscaping plans should.utilize. native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate arid: feasible_ (DAMP) 17_ A Consulting Arf>orist (approved'by the City landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree-planting plan.and approve in wrifing 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 sfiall:include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet.signature on the.final plan_. (Resolution 4545) 18_ A Drainage Fee fqr the subject development shalt be paid at the rate.appl'icable at the time of Building Permit issuance_ The current rate of$13,270 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments_ This project consists of 41.223 gross acres(including its tributary area.portions along the half street frontages)for a total required drainage fee of$547,029_ City records,indicAte the current use on the subject property has never paid this required fee. Per provisions of the City Municipal Code, this one time fee shall be.paid for all subdivisions or development of-land_ (MC 14.48) in lieu of the payment of the aforementioned Drainage Fee$547,029, Public Works will accept the construction.:of the:on-site master.plartned facili6as per the City of Huritington"Beach, Municipal Code Section 14.38.030. . 19_ The current tree code requirements shalt 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) All landscape irrigation and planting instattation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City i approved landscape plans by,the' Landscape Architect of record in written farm to the City Landscape. Architect. (ZSO 232.04D) 21_ Applicant shall prome•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 Regerirements"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 plans- _ 1421- Item 8. - Page 7395) G:1Talleh\20081Planning Commission'20701 Beach(Huntington Shorecli__,.-___._ ./orks Department code Comments 082009-dk— _ EACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON. t �.. FIRE DEPARTMENT NUPlr1A1CfON BEACH - - PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COM.REQUIREMENTS DATE: August 24, 2009 -PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS.- PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-190:TENTATIVE TRACT'MAP NO. 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER: RAMI TALLEH,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPH6.NE1E=MAIL: (714)-374-1682/rtalleh@sWcity-hb.org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: DARIN MARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: (714)536--55311 dmaresh@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNTiNGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP_ The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable.to the proposed project based on plans received and dated August 4, 2009. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying .requirements which m_ ust 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 horse park for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park for ownership purposes shall comply with the following requirements: a. Fire Hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24, 2002. Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements- b. Fire flow based on fire area and construction type (HBFC Appendix B, Table 13- 105.1, Appendix C, Table C-105.1), shalt be provided at 1500 gpm from each hydrant spaced every 500 feet. c_ Private water systems shall be installed to service on-site fire hydrants. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be complied with: item 8. - Page 740 -1422- 4D;. a_ A site plan depicting all locations of fire lanes shall be submitted for review•and approval by the Fire Department. b. Plans rtra in the fire h drams shat! reference ccirn fiance with NFPA 13 and t� Y 9 Y P. 24, 2002 Edition, Huntington Beach Fire Code AppendixB.an_d`C, and City Specification#407 Fire:Hydrant installation Standards-in-the plan notes and shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for.rerriew and approval-by the Public Works and Fire Departments_ c. Plans depicting the private water system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department_ d. Fire lanes shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415, Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properties_ The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs, both in location and length of•run.'The location of fire lane.signs shall.be depicted_ No parking shall be allowed in the designated-24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification#415. For.Fire Department 'approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. e_ A current fire flow test in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code shall be performed by a licensed fire protection contractor with the supervision of the Fire Department_ All test results shall be submitted to the Fire Department for Review and Approval_ 3. Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the following conditions shall be complied with. a_ Fire Hydrants pursuant to Code Requirement No. 1 referenced-above, shalt be installed- b. A fire service main pursuant to Code Requirement No. 1, referenced above, shall be installed in compliance with NFPA 13 and 24, 2002 Editions_ c_ Private water system pursuant to Code Requirement No. 1 shall be installed. d_ Residential (SFD) Address Numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification #428, Premise Identification. Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the_background and shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high with one and one half inch Cl/") brush stroke. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #428, Premise _Identification in the plan notes and portray the address location on the building_ e_ individual units shall be identified and numbered per City Specification # 409 Street Naming and Address Assignment.Process through the Planning Department. Unit address numbers shall be a minimum of four inches (4") affixed to the units front door in a contrasting color. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification#409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process, in the plan notes and portray the address and unit number of the individual occupancy area_ -1423- Item 8. - Page 7417 of 4. The following conditions shall-be maantained dude construction: a. Fire/Emergency Access and.Site Safety shall be r-paintairied during project construction phases incompliance with HBFC.Chapter 14, Fire Safety During �. .. Construction And'pemolition, b.- Fire/Emergency Access and Site Safety shall be mairitained:during project construction phases in tornpliance 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:mmediatefy and the approved.work plafiaociified -accordingly in complian6d:With City Speditcafion#431-92 Soil Cleaiz-t1p 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�pa th " (FD) Fire-Department CWSpec ifications'may be obtained at . Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City.Hall 2000,,Main Street, 50'floor Hu Bea"cti 'C1A 92648 or through the City's website at www.surfcity-hb.org If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at(714) 5W5411_ Item 8. - Page 742 -1424- City ®f Hnntint®n Beach (7) 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9264.8 . D ME OP PLANNING _ EPART. NT O August 20,' 2009 Boyd Hill Hart, King&Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0:'17269(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF SUBDIVISION) SUGGESTED CONDITIONS-OF APPROVAL Dear Mr_-Hill;- Please find enclosed suggested conditions of approval for the_aforementionedproject received from the. Public Works and Planning Departments for consideration by the' ttanning �i Commission. If you_would like a claritiica ton of any of-these comments or you.would Mike'.to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714.374-1682-and/or-the Pubric 1lVo Department representative—Steve Bo4ar({714-374-1694 -It should be noted that these suggested-conditions o€.approval; which may be adopted by the Planning Commission if the project is approved,-ace in addition to applicable`code.requirements provided to you under a separate-letter. Sincerely, Rami Talleh, Senior Planner Enclosure cc: Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Steve Bogart,Public Works Shorecliff, LP,200 Sandpoints,fourth floor, Santa Ana,CA 92707 Project File G'\Ta ItI11121018d Ilan in Co mi si 12 70 0 ad ( of n or fi s o e is t Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfclty-hh.orq -1425- Item 8. - Page 743) ' CITY OF HUNTiNGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT i+WINGrowsEAca+ PROJECT SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE: June 25,2009 PROJECT NAME: HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLICATION NO:08=0190;TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 PROJECT LOCATION: 20701 BEACH BLVD_,92648(WEST SIDE OF BEACH BLVD.,SOUTH OF INDIANAPOLiS AVE.) PROJECT PLANNER: RAmi,T-ALLEH,SENIOR PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714),374-16821.rtaUieh@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 September 18' 2008. The list is intended to assist the-applicant by idenblyi"g "uirements,which iiiust be satisfied during the various stages of project permittirig and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with-the requested enfitlement(s),if any,wilt-also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions '. regarding these requirements,please contact the Plan Reviewer. 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 for Subdivision of an existing'mobI6home park received and dated September 18, 2008 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications_ a. The maximum number of lots created by the subdivision shall not exceed the total number mobile home units (304)approved for the site by the California Department of Housing and Community Development_ b: A landscaped planter between the perimeter fencing and public sidewalk improvements along Beach Boulevard shall be provided. 2_ incorporation of sustainable or"green" building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged. Sustainable building practices may include(but are not limited to)those recommended by the U_S_ Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http://www.usgbc.oM/DisplayPage.aspk?Category]D=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http//www.builditgreen.org/index.cfrn?fuseaction=guidelines)_ 3_ Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: Item 8. - Page 744 -1426- a_ The subdivider shall obtain necessary permits from the California Department. Housing and Community Development(HCD)to re-identify the lots-if deterrnii ed necessary_ b_ The Subdivider shall demonstrate to HCD compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25 peitaining to setbacks_ If the mobile home park is•:deficient'in compliance-with the applicable setbacks, the.subdivider shall obtain all necessary applicable alternate approvals from HCD_ 4_ The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase his or her subdivided unit,which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant. (Subdivision-Map Act Section 66427.5) 5. The subdivider shall be required to avoid-the economic displacement of alt 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 ih rent[h the four yeaErs inunediately.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) -1427- A"4"7-01 k- . ar Items B. a Page 7451 HUNTINGTON BEACH: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUGGESTED CONDIT�OI�S OF APPROVAL ®\lAL DATE: AUGUST.6,26.09 ' PROJECT NAME: HUEI NGTON SHORMWEFS MOBILE-ROME PARK ENTITLEMENTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17296 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 200"190 DATE OF PLANS:. -SEPTEMBER 18,200& PROJECT LOCATION. 20701:BEACH_BLVD r --PROJECT PLANNER . RAMI TALIEWSE IOR-PLAMEK TELEPI=64EIE-MAIL: 714 3.74-1682 f RTALLEH(o�SURFCITY4' fB ORG 1 PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE"BOGART;SMOR CML ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 71{t-374-16921 SBO_(GART'O-)SURFC-rfy-4i"RG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CQNVEtT1:TtIE 11ldNTINGTON SHORICFs.MOBILE E HOM -PARK FROM RENTAL UNITS TO.-INDIVI00AL F OWNERSHIP_. - T41E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE.COMPLETEDPR30R'TO I SUBMITTAL OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW: 1. A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conform cur conforming to the rent Waste Z 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- quarty issues. 2. The subdivider shall refer to the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD)for domestic and irrigation water metering requirements- THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP: s 1. Encroachment permits for work within the Caltrans' right-of way (for construction of t sidewalks, driveways, water connections, etc_) shalt be obtained by the applicant or F 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_ 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_ j 1 3. Prior to the recordation of the Map, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall be c installed,inspected and approved by the City Landscape Architectllnspector. i 5 CADocummts and Sctongslmilanib\Dcsktop\Bcach 20701 T1M 17296(PA T13D)Conditions 9-"9AM i I i Item 8e - Page 746 -1428- Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page l of 18 - - � t eaoch esearch Tasksl aGet a DocumenC `She ard's® 'Alerts% 'Total Liti at.15 'Transactionat Adviso ''Counsel Setecto' Dossierc ass=�r i P 9 . FOCUS—Termst, Search Within oast Resuks(r-r) Advanced_. _.. . .. Source: LeQat>I.../>CA State Cases,Combined Q Tema;•name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search Isis gest Terms for w Searchl 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 2009 Cal.App.LEXIS 1397 August 21,2009,Fled PRIOR.tiISTORY: [*A] Superior Court of Sonoma County, No_SCV240003,Raymond J_Giordano,Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.Const.. art VI,§ 21.). CASE SUMMARY PROCEtD13.RAI�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 1 purposes of approval_The court held that the ordinance was preempted by§66427.5 in-accordance with the constitutionat principle of preemption set forth in Cal_Const_,art XI.Ft 7.The oiedmance was expiessty preempted. because§ 66427.5.subd_(ee) 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 mobtlehonies'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. OWCOME:The court reversed the order and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a new order declaring the ordinance invalid_ CORE TERMS:conversion, resident, mobilehome park,ordinance,subdivider, mobilehome, preemption,ownership, tenant,state law, mobile home parks,general law,map,preempted,local ordinance,rental,tentative,locality, rent, space,local authority,parcel map, household, manufactured,approve,housing,local legislation, local government, fully occupied,bona fide resident LEXZSNEXIS® HEADNOTES 9 bide Civil Procedure>Appeals>Standards of Review>De Novo Review F Hm-'—+An appellate courCs review of a trial court's order is de novo when it involves a pure issue of law. More Like This Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations _ Governments>State&Territorial Governmgntr>Relations With Governments tis x,vz$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 *` -1429- ATTACH Item B. - Page 7473 Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 2 of 18 HN3;See Cal. Const.. art.XI. S 7. Governments>total Governments>Ordinances&Regulaiions Governments>State.&Territorial Governments>Relations WithGovemments 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 dear indication of preemptive intent from the legislature,that such regulation is not preempted bystate 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 rzovemments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments Real Prope_rty Law>Zoning&Land Use'>finances umss+_fihe 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 taw 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 impliedty done so in light of recognized indicia of intent There are three recognized indida of intent: (1)the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law as to dearly indicate that is has become exclusively a matter of state concern;(2).the subject matter Etas been partially coverecl by general law coucheii in such terms as to in clearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action;or(3)the subject matter has been partially covered by generat 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 treadnote GovemmenCs>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations € _ Govemments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With.Governments "M±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 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 Govemmentr>State&Territonal Govemcsgntr>Relations With Governments H^rz+'To discern whether a local law has entered an area that has been fully occupied by state taw according to the recognized indiaa 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 taw forbids,or forbids what state law mandates_ More Like This Headnote Real Property taw>Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions "Ns ISee Gov.Code, F, 66427.5. Real Property Law>Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions H^19±Under Gov_ Code, §66427.5,subd. (A,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 subdividerlowner to avoid local rent control—the language of 4 66427.5 subd. Eel,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 Item 8. - Page 748 -743®- 1-11 NT ®.moo ? Get a Doctunent-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 3 of 18 Real Property Caw>Mobilehomes&Mobifehome Parks>Subdivisions t Hiv:o;•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 Bairn that conversion only occurs if more than 50 percent of the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is filed.Atisubdivrder need: not demonstrate Ltiat'the proposed subdivisiori'has'the support of a majority of existing residents—fined at either oiie-half or two-thirds -thus satisfying the local authority that this was not a forced r-onversion.•The legislative-intent to`encourageconversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership would not be served by a.fequirement:that a conversion could only be made with resident consent. More Like This 1-eadoote Govemments>Local GbveEj+n eM_s>Duties&Powers Rear'Properiv Law>Zoninu&Land Use>Ordinances } HNss+Regulation of ihe,uses 4 land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government_ More Like This lieadaote Govemments>Legislation>Effect&Operation>Amendments ae' Govemments>Legislation>Interoretation-ICJ HN12j-lNfieq,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 reoeive.d.before the amendment_ More Uke This Headnate Govemments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Govern eats heal Pr p"Law>.Mobiteh6mes&Mdbilehome Parkf>Sub`divisions ~s Real Property Law>-Zoning i;<Lana use.>ordinances HNC+Gov.Code, §66427&sub! (� has the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors wberi considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. More Like This Headnote HEADNOTES / SYLLABUStI'rc➢e 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 mob ilehome 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,Raymond J_Giordano,Temporary Judge.*) The Court of Appeal reversed the order and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a new 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.1,and Lambden,J_,concurring_) HEADNOTES CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL.REPORTS HEADNOTES cA(-')i(I) Municipalities§ 55—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Considering State and Local -143'�- � ltem 8. - Pa a 7493 Al 6i-�U ---- - - � - G et a Doctgment -by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 4 of 18 Legislation Together.—For the great number of preemption issues--particularly if the.emphasis is on implied preemption--the state and the local legislation must be considered together.Only by;looking at both can a court know if the local law conflicts with;contradicts,or is inimical to the state law.This is an established-rule.of preemptor analysis. t^(21 a(2)-HunicBpalities§SS—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Presumption Against Preemption.—A party claiming that general sta-Jaw preempts.a local ordinance has the;bunden of demonstrating preemption.Couits have,been'particul dy reluctant to infer legislative intentto.preempt•'a fielii:covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be served that.may differ frorn.one locality to another.The.common thread of the cases is that if there is a significant local interest to fie 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.tocal. government regulates in an area over which it traditionally has exercised control,such as..part cular land uses,Cali la courts will presume,absent a dear indication of preemptive intent from the Leg e;that:sucfi regulation is not preempted by state statute.The.presumption against preemption accords with file m_-ore general understanding that it is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow tong established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication. Gaf3l11(3)Municipalities§56—Ordinances—Validity—Conflict with Statutes—Test°for Pi-eernpbon—Indicia of gntent:The general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled.Local legislation in conflict-with general law is word.Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates,contradicts,or enters awarea fully occupied by general law,either.expressly or by legislative implication.Local legislation is dupCrcatWe of general law when it Is coextensive therewith and contradictory to general law when it is inimicat 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:(2)the subject matter has been so fully and-completely covered by general law as to dearly indicate that is has become exclusively a matter of state concern;(2)the subject matter has been partially covered by general law couched in such terms as to indicate dearly that a paramount state concern will not tolerate further,or additional local action;oe(3)the subject matter has been partially covered by general laud and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient'atiiea's of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. CA(4)1(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 futt 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 dear that the field sought to be covered by the ordinance has already been occupied by state law. C'4MI(S) 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 focal law mandates.what state law forbids,or forbids what state law mandates- CA(6)1(6) Mobile Homes,Trailers,and Parks§3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned— Local Regulation Preempted.-Under Gov. Code,§66427.5, subd.(e),a city council only has the power to determine if a subdivider has complied with the.requirements of the section.Although the conversion process might be used for improper purposes--such as the bogus purchase of a single unit by the.subdivider/owner to avoid local rent control—the. language of§ 66427-5,subd. (e),does not allow such considerations to be taken into account A city lacks authority to investigate or impose additional conditions to prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time it approves.a tentative or parcel map.Although the lack of such authority may be a legislative oversight,and although it might be.desirable for the Legislature to broaden a city's authority, it has not done so.The argument that the Legislature should have done more to prevent partial conversions or sham transactions is a legislative issue,not a legal one. "(--)a(7) Mobile Homes,Trailers, and Parks§ 3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned-- Case law has specifically rejected arguments that would require a numerical threshold before a mobilehome park conversion could proceed,there being no statutory support for the claim that conversion only occurs if more than 50 percent of the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is filed.A subdivider need not demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has the support of a majority of existing residents--fixed at either one-half or two-thirds--thus satisfying the local authority that this was not a forced conversion. The legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership would not be served by a requirement that a conversion could only be made with resident consent. CA(s)y(g) 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 Item B. a Page 750 -1432- A.%--f—A ^1 0R 1T &11_, Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 5 of 1:8 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 consuvction they received before the amendment "(10)4(.16D.),F6obile Homes;Trailers,and Barks§3—Regulation--Conversion from 4tetata9 to Resident-owned— Local Regulation Preempted.—Gov,.Code,§66427.5,subd.(e),has the effed of-an express preemption of ttie power of local authorities to inject°other factors when considering an application to convert an'ekisting mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis. C'�(111 (SL) Mobile Homes,Trailers,and Parks§3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned— 'LocaliRegutation-Preempted.-It could:be.ass-umed that county was-motivated by.laudable-purposes when"it enacted an ordinance that imposed.obligations upon a subdivider submitting a mobilehome park-conversion application that went beyond.the obligations required by Gov.Code,§66427.5.The co6nty's construction of 9.6-6427.5 also'could find some plausibility from-the statutory language.Nevertheless,the ordinance crossed the line-established by the Legislaturxe as marking territory reserved for.the state and thus was expressly preempted by§66427.5_ [Cal.Real Estate Law&Practice(2009),ch_472,§472.35;Cal.Forms of Pleading and Practice(2009),ch_126A, Constitutional Law,§ 126A.24.1 COUNSEL-Bien&Summers,Elliot L Bien_0 and Catherine Meulemans for Plaintiff and Appellant- The Loftin Fain,L Sue Loftin-and Michael Stump for Amid Curiae Rancho Sonoma Partners,Eden Gardens,Sundance' Estates and Capistrano Shores on behalf of Plaintiff and AppellanL Steven M_Woodside_,County Counsel,Sue A.Gallagher.and Debbie F. Latham-,Deputy County Counsel for Defendant and Respondent. Aleshire&Wyndner,William W.Wynder-and Sunny K.Soltani for Amid Curiae The California State Association of Counties,The League of California Cities,The City of Carson and The City of Los Angeles on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. JUDGES:Opinion by Richman�,I.,with Haerle Acting P_I.,and Lambden J.,concurring_ OPZNION BY:Richman_ OPINION RICHMAN_J.—One of the subjects covered by the Subdivision Map Act(Gov.Code,N�66410 et sea.)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 1*21 can be approved by the appropriate local body.Although it is not codified in the tanguage 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 haft 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 664275 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 [*3] the ordinance is impiiedly 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 requireinents 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 courts order and direct entry of a new order declaring the ordinance invalid. BACKGROUND On May 15, 2007, the County's Board of Supervisors unanimously enacted Ordinance No. 5725 (the Ordinance)_Sequoia Park Associates(Sequoia) is a limited partnership that owns and operates a mobilehome park it desires to subdivide and convert from a rental to a resident-owner basis_ Within a month of the enactment of the Ordinance,Sequoia sought to have ii 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 [*41 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 -1433- ATTACH'. 8. -,Pape 7517 Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 6 of 18 concluded that section 66427-5'largely does appear.-by its own language"to.impose limits on local authority to legislate on the subject of mobIilebome conversions.'However,Ordinance 5725 seems merely to comply with,and-give effect to,the requirements set forth in section 66427.5 rattier than imposing additional requirements.This is certainly true for the language on bona fide conversions,tenant impact reports,and even general plan requirements.It is possibly ` fens dear regarding health.and safety, but even on this issue,the Ordinance does not appear.to exceed[the County s] J autlwrity since,contrary to[Seg+ioia's]contention,it does notintrude on the[state Department of Mousing and Cominurilty fleveloprhent's(HCD)]power in the area."This orcier-is the.subject of Sequoia's.appeal. FOOTNOTES IL It is typ%al;of the generally.hf'h quality of.the briefing that the experienced appellate counsel for Sequoia does not ['51 treat the.cequirement 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 Uvo:full.pages of his opening brief to a discussion establishing that,according to-Bettencourt v:G-y and County of San Francisco(2007) 146'Cal Apt 4th 1090, 1097-1098 f 53 Cal Ratr 3d 4021 "Afthough the[trial courts]order was couched as a denial of the mandate petition alone,its effect was a dismissal of Sequoia's entire action;and thus appealable as a final judgment.He also puts forward a fall-back position,based oil 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(20021 98 CaLApp.4th 744,766.fn_ 13 f120 Cal. Rptr.2d.5501,to specify the trial courts 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 sorb of attention to jurisdictional issues we would like to see,but seldom do. DISCUSSION The [*6] parties agree that HNZ y^.our review of the trial cour.Vs 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 Arigeles Counter Inc v City of Ios An`getes`(2006) 136 Cal Aop 4th 2-19 132[38 Cal Rptr 3d 5751;Ruble Vista Associates v_Bacon(2002)97 Cal.App.4th 33S. 339 f 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 took 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 Oust be considered in the.context [*-71 of'entire continuum of state regulation of mobiletrome park subdivisions,`And the County.has no hesitation in arguing that the substance of the uncodifred provision actually works to the,Coviity's benefit_ Our view of our inquiry is that it is hardly as narrow as the parties believe.The authorities cited by the County involve situations where local ordinances were challenged on federal constitutional grounds (e_g., Tobe v.city of Santa Ana (19951 9 Cal.4th 1069, 1084 j40 Cal-Rptr.2d 402,892 P 2d 11451[vagueness]; Sanchez v.GtvofModesto(2006) 145 Caf.App.4th 660,675-680[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 statestatute has language stating the unambiguous intent by the Legislature expressly forbidding cities and counties from acting. CAf1)4(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)-+(2) In California, [*8] preemption of local legislation by state law is a constitutional principle_H1v3T'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."(Cat.Const. art. XI § 7.)The standards governing our inquiry are well established.According to our Supreme Court: NN + 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 Item 8. - Page 752 4434- �:8 I M%,J T N®> 2 Get a Document=by.Party Name -sequoia park associates Page 7 of-18 such regulation is not preempted by state statute.[Citation.)The presumption against preemption accords with our more general understanding that'it is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made dearly to appear.either by express declaration or by necessary implication_[Citations.) �(3);'MOreOVer,NN the'geQE'raI Principles governing state statutory preemption of locai land use regulation are •well settled "`Local legislation in conflict with general law is void.Conflicts exist if the ordinance:duplicates(citations]; contradicts[citation]l or enters an area hilly 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 Cegistature has expressly rani€ested 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 1`45 Ca! Rotr.3d 21, 136 P.3d 8211, 1*101 fn.omitted (Sig Greek).) 'There are three'recognized indicia of intent":"(1)the subject matter has been so fully and completely covered by general law'as to dearly indicate that is has become exdusively a matter of state*concern; (2)the subject matter has been partially covered,by general law couched in such terms as to indicate dearly that a Paramount state concem,.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 ordnance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit:to the'locality[citations]_'(Sherwin-"I lams Co. v_City of LosAng_eles(1993)4 Cal.4th 893,898 f 16 Ca!_Rptr..2d 215,844 P.2d:j .) irN6-+-W4JT(4)."with respect to the implied occupation of an area of law by the Legislature s.fult and complete coverage of it,this court recently lied this to.say:'-Where the Legislature'has adopted statutes governing 4 particular subject matter,ifs 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 onto say: "State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as_to indicate an intent to.predude local regulation."`[Citation.)We thereafter observed:-Whenever the Legislature has seen fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of.:a-particular subject,the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned.-[Citation_]When a local ordinance is identical to a state statute,it is dear that`"the field sought to be covered by the ordinance:has already been-occupied"'by state law_ [Citation.]-.(OConnell v. City oFStodktoit(2007141 Cal.4th lO61. 1068 f63 Cal.Rotr_3d 67,162 P.3d s831.) HN7Vc�(Sy+_(5)'To discern whethernthe local law has"entered an area.that has been"fully occupied"by state law according to the"r nized indicia of intent ng ecog , requires an.analysis tfiat is based on an overview of the topic addressed by the two laws_-In determining whether the Legislature.has preempted by implication to the exclusion of,local regulation we must look to the whole.__scope of the legislative scheme_'"(Afg Creek supra.38 Cal_4th.1139, 1157,quoting Peo to ex rel.Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino(1984)36 Cat 3d 476 485 f204'Cal.Rptr_897`683 P.2d 11501; [*121 accord,American Financial Services Assn v City of Oakland(2005)34 Cal 4th 1239,1252 1261 f23 Cal Rgtr. 3d 453.104 P.3d 8131;Morehart v County of Santa Barbara(1994) 7 Cal 4th 725 751 [29 Cat R tr 2d 804 .872 P.2d 143].)Such ail examination is made w-"the goaI" "'detect(ing)a patterned approach to the subject'"(Esher v_City of Berkefey(1984)37 Cal.3d 644 707-708 f209 Cat Rptr.682.693 P 2d 2611,quoting Galvan v Superior Court(069) 70 Cat 2d 851 862 [76 Cal RDtr.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 Angjte s(2002)-27 Cal.4th 853 866-f 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 fails to the concept of implied preemption.These contentions can only be evaluated with an appreciation of the sizable body of state legislation concerning mobilehome parks_ The Extent Of State Law In The Area Of Mobilehome Regulation Section 66427.5 does not.stand alone. If the Legislature ever did leave the field of mobilehome park legislation to local control,that day is long past. Since 1979, the state has had the Mobilehome Residency Law, which comprises almost a hundred statutes governing [*131 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 tg 798.17,subd_ (a)(1)),and establishing specified.exemptions from local rent control measures_ (Civ.Code,§§ 798.21.subd. (a), 798.45.) Z By this statutory scheme,the state has undertaken to"extensively regulate [)the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents."(Greening v.Johnson (1997) 53 Cal.App.41:h 1223. 1226 162 Cal. Rptr_2d 2141; accord, SC Manufactured Homes, Inc v. Canyon View Estates.Inc. (2007) 148 Cal_App_4th 663,673 f56 Cal. Rotr•. 3d 791; Peoule ex rel_ Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment Ltd. (2003) 111 CaLADn_4th 102 109[3 Cal-Rptr_ 3d 4291.) FOOTNOTES 2 The-Mobilehome Residency Law has been construed as not otherwise preempting or precluding adoption of residential rent control. (See Civ. Code. § 1954.25; Cacho v. Boudreau (2007)40 Cal.4th 341, 350[53 Cal_ Rntr. 3d -1435- ATTACHM!tem 8. - Page 753) Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates -Page-8 of 18 :43, 149 P.3d 4731 and decisions cited.) Even earlier,in 1967, the state.enacted the Mobilehome Parks Act(Health&Saf_Code §§ 18200-18700),which regulates the construction and installation of mobilehome parks in the state.(See County of Santa.Cruz y. Watenhouse (200 127 Cal App 4th 14`83� 1489=1490 j26 Cal Rptr 3d 5431_) .{*14j in this act,the Legislature expre'ss(y stated. that iC%gpersedes any ':by$y any c ty ity,county,or ci 'and county,whether general law or c_hartered . applicable to this part"(Health&Saf.Code.§18300.subd. (a).)The few exemptions from this prohibition are carefully delineated_ 'FOOTNOTES =s"This part shall not prevent local.authorities of any city,county, or city or county,within the reasonable exercise of their police powers,from doing any of the following:- "(1}From establishing,subject to the requirements of Sections 65852.3 and 65852.7 of the Govemment-Code, certain zones for man4ac6wed.hoi�ies,mobilehomes,and mobilehome parks within the,city,county,or city and county,or establishing types_of uses and locations,including family m ne pa. obilehoirks,senior.mobilehome parks; rnobilehdme condominiums,r iobileh6me.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 parr perimeter walls or erldosures on public street frontage,signs,access,and vehicle.-parking or from'prescribing the prohibition of certain uses [*15] for mobilehome parks. f "(2)From regulating the construction and use of equipment and fau"lities.located outside of a manufactured home•or mobi(ehoine 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 facitities are logted outside a park for.whidh a permit is required by this-part or the regulations adopted thereto. "(3)From requiring a perrriit to rise a manufactured home or mobilehome outside.a.park:for which a permitis re4uir!ed- 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 horries and mobitehomes,which permit may Y. refused or revoked if the use violates this part or Part 2(commencing with Section 18009),any regulations adopted pursuant thereto,or any local ordinance applicable to that use_ "(4)From requiring a focal building permit to construct an accessory structure fora manufactured home or - -, mobilehome when the rnanufacl:66A home or mobilehome is located outside a mobiletome park,under [*161 circumstances when tW'part or Part 2(commencing with Section 18000)and the.regulations adopted pursuant thereto do not require ttre issuance of a permit therefor by the department[i.e., the state Department of Housing-and Community Development]. "(5)From prescribing and erifoccing-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, F1 18300,subd. (g).) Then there is the Mobilehomes—Manufactured Housing Act of 1980(Health&Saf_4§18000-18153),which regulates-the 'sale, licensing, registration,and titling of mobilehomes.The Legislature declared that the provisions of this measure "apply in all parts of the state and supersede"any conflicting local ordinance.(Health &Saf.Code,§ 18015.)The HCD is in charge of enforcement_ (Health&Saf. Code 4§ 18020, 18022, 18058:) These statutory schemes indicate that the state is clearly the dominant actor on this stage_Under the Mobilehome Parks Act, it is the HCD, a state agency, not localities,that was entrusted with the authority to formulate"specific requirements relating to [*17] construction, maintenance, occupancy; use, and design"of mobilehome parks(Health &Saf_Code. 18253;see also Health&Saf. Code§§_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.[pl6nibing], 18640 ["toilet,shower, and laundry facilities in parks"], 18670["electrical wiring,fixtures,and equipment___that it determines are reasonably necessary for the protection of life and property"].) At present,the HCD has promulgated hundreds of regulations that are collected in chapter 2 of tide 25 of the California Code-of Regulations.(Cal. Code Regs, tit. 25. §Vi 1000-1758_)The regulations exhaustively deal with a myriad of issues, such as"Electrical Requirements"(id., 25• §§ 1130-1190),"Plumbing Requirements"(id.,§h 1240-1284),"Fire Protection Standards"(id., §S 1300-1319), "Permanent Buildings" [*18] (id., §4 1380-1400), and"Accessory Buildings and Structures"(id., §� 1420-1520)_The regulations even deal with pet waste (id., § 1114)and the prohibition of cooking facilities in cabanas (id., 1462)- Once adopted, HCD regulations"shall apply to all parts of the state-"(Health &Saf. Code. § 18300,subd. (a).) Mobilehomes can only be occupied or maintained when they conform to the regulations_(Health&Saf.Code, §§ 18550 18871.) Enforcement is shared between the HCD and local governments(Health&Saf_ Code h 18300,subd. (f) 18400, subd. a ), with HCD given the power to"evaluate the enforcement"by units of local government. (Health&Saf.Code item 8. - Page 754 -1436- ATTA r*un®ICA e-r D i^ . Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 9•of 1•B 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&:af.Code.§18300 subd. (g),quoted at fn.3,ante.) It is the state that determines which events and actions in the construction and operation [?w-19]of a mobilehome park require permits.(Health&.Saf.Code§§ 18500:18500.5. 18500.6; 18S05;Cal.Code Regs:tit 25, -1006.5,1010. 1014. 1018.!Q38 1306,.1324.1374.5.)Even if the locality issues'the annual permit for a park to opemte,•a copy must be sent to the HGDr•(Irl,.§§•1006.5.,101- .).It is the state that fixes.the fees to be charged for these permits'and certifications(Health&Sal.-Codej-41j;A8502- 1t35.03;Cal.Code Reps.tit:25:§g 2008,:1020.4,1620.7. 1 025,and.sets time penalties to be imposed-fqr-noncoiinplbrice.(Health&Saf.'Code 418504, 18700 Cal.Code Regs,tit:25,fi§-1009, 1050; 10.4.)Sometimes,the state assumes exclusive responsibility for certain subjects,•such as for earthquake- resistant bradng systems.(Cal.Code kegs,tit:2%>i 1370.4(a,.) Additional provisions respecting mobilehome parks are in the Government Code.Cities and counties cannot decide that a mobilghome 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, §6S852.7.)"[I)t is clear that the Legislature intended to iimit.local.authority for zoning '[*20] regulation to the specifically enumerated exceptions-[in "ealth and Safety Code section 18300,suhdivisiL - g),quoted-at fin. m.3,ante]of where a-mobilehome park may be• located,vehide parking,and lot lines,not the structures within.the parks.`(County of Santa Cruz v. Wate ouse,supra, 127 Ca1:AppAili 1483. 1493:)A city or county;must accept installation of mobilehomes manufactured in conformity with federal standards.(Gov.Code,§65852 3 subd-(a Their power to impose rent control on mobilehome parks is restricted if the parks qualifies as"new construction."(Gov_Code, 65852.11,subd. (a);cf.text accompanying*(n.2, ante_) This survey demonstrates that the state has a long-standing involvement with mobilehome regulation,the extent of which involvement is,by any standard,considerable. Having.outlined the size of the state's regulatory footprint,it is now time to.examine the details of section 66427.5 and the Ordinance. Section 66427.5 Section 66427.5 is a fairly straight-forward statute addressing the subject of how a subdivider shall demonstrate that a proposed mobilehome park conversion will avoid economic displacement of current tenants who do not choose to become [*21]a purchasing resident. In its entirety,it provides as follows: N^r '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. 1b)The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be .converted to resident owned subdivided interest. "(c)The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency,by the legislative body. "(d)(1)The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. '(2)The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' [*22] association, if any,that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. "(3)The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot. "(4)The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehome space has one vote. "(5)The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map,to be considered as part of the subdivision map hearing prescribed by subdivision(e)_ "(e)The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency,which is authorized by local ordinance to approve,conditionally approve,or disapprove the map.The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. "(f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following_. "(1)As to nonpurchasing residents who are not lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,may increase from the preconversion rent to market levels,as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally [*231 recognized professional appraisal standards, in equal annual increases over a four-year period_ ltem -1437- &T-TLIC34Kflt ,8; Pale 755L Get a Doctllnent- by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 10 of h 8 "(2)As-to nonpurchasing.residents who are lower income,households,as defined by Section 50079.5 of the.Nealth and Safety Code;the monthly tent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any preconversion amenities,maiy 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 in 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•arid subdivision (fl of the current-version.(Stats. 1991,ch.745,§2:)The statute Was substantially amended four'years IStec wit' Friost of what is in the current version.The only significant variance is t#iat the 1995 version did not o6htaid what is no isubdivision(dl. specifying that the subdividec is to provide a suivey.of;suppoit.(Stats-.1995,.ch. [*241256,§.5.)Ttie secoitd.version of section 66427.5 was the one considered by the Court of Appeal in Et Dorado Palm Springs,Ud., v.City!Of Springs (2002)96 Cal.Apn.4th 1153 1`118 Cal. Rptr_2d 1S1 (El Dorado)_ At issue-in El Dorado�was,a,mobilehome park owner's application to convert its units from rental'to resddent-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 mefely a-sham to avoid-[Palm Springs']rent control ordinance.`(Ef Dorado.supra. 96 Cal.AwAth 11S3,1159.)The Palm Springs firty•Council approved the application, but made its approval stitiject to three conditions,requiring:.'1)the use ofa`Map-Act Rent Date;defined asthe date of the dose iDf escrow of not less than 120 Ws;(2)the use of a sale price.esWblished.by a specified appraisal%firm,the appraisal oosts-to be paid by[the owner-subdivider},and f3)financial assistance to all residents In the park to facilitate their purchase of the lots underlying their rriobilehomes.'(Id:atpp:.i156-1157:) The trial court denied the park owner's petition for a writ of.administrative mandamus.The owner appealed,contending [*25)"that its application is governed by section 66427-5.It relies'on subdivision (d) [now subdivision(ell of that' section,which states,in.part;that the scope of the City,Councdrs hearing is limited to the issue of.compliance with the requirements of that section_"(EI Dorado,sunray 96 Cal.AM.4th 1153 1157-1158.) Palm Springs took the position that the conditions were authorized by Government Code section 66427.4.subdivision(cl .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 mobrlehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park.'"(Id.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'argument about.section 66427.4,s concluding that it applied only when.the mobilehome park is being converted.to another use:"[I1t 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-1*.26],different.use.of the property. In that situation,there would be`displaced mobilehome park residents'who would need to find`adequate space in a mobilehome park'for their mobilehome and themselves_'(El Dorado,supra,:96.Cal_Aop.4th 1153, 1161.)The court also held the language of subdivision(e)of section 66427.4 dispositive on this point.(Id.at pp.1161-1163.) FOOTNOTES s At all relevant times,section 66427.4 has provided: "(a)At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, the subdivider shall also file a report on the,impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion on displaced . mobilehome park residents, the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks. "(b)The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. "(c)The legislative body,or an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance [*27)to approve, conditionally approve,or disapprove the map, may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park. "(d)This section establishes a minimum standard for local legislation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures- "(e)This section shall not be applicable to a subdivision which is created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership." Item 8. - Page 756 -1438- L1TT4tNWhAr_K1T K1n ►r, ar Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 11 of 1.8 out-an d as.paifiiculariy-apt'here,:the:court sustained the park owner's argun'entabout section 66427:5.. subdivision fd);concluding that yN�under it the:eity council"only-had the power toldetermine if[[he subdivider]had 0 complied with the requiretr ents of the section:".(E7 Doradb supra 96 Cal Apn W 1153 1163=1264.}Although the court did appear.concemed thi f-the conversion p'ri.ces's might tie used for improper purposes-such as the Bogus purchase of a single unit by the subdivJderfowner:to avoid local rent control=it believed the language of section Ei6427 5,subdivision �jd did not allow such:considerations [*38]to be into account:"[T]he Gty lacks airtfiorityy to.investigate or impose.ac9 .itionaB.coniiitions to:prevent sham or fraudulent transactions at the time itapproves tentative orparcel map. Although the lark of such authority may be a legislative oversight,.and although it might be desirable for the Legislature to broaden the Citys 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(d'd_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, FOOTNOTES s Nevertheless,the El Dorado court did.seem to indicate that;there was an available remedy for Palm Springs.'fears s concerning evasion'of its rent cbntrol.ordinance_Although local authorities could nut.themselves use section 66427.5 to haft"sham or failed transactions in which a single unit is sold,but no others,"( 7 Dorados sum-96 Cal.App_4th at p. 1166.f -JQ)'there was no such restriction [*19]on the judiciary_'Mhe 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 leastone.uniL,(Id.at pp_ 1166. 1177-1179,citing Donohue v.Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park(1996)47-Cal.App.%h 1168 F55 CaL.Rptr_2d 2-82 .) CW)-+-(7)One other point of Ei Domdo.is significant_"I'"O`The court specifically rejected arguments that would require a numerical threshold before a conversion..could:proceed,there.being no statutory support for the daim that conversion only occurred if more'than.SO percent of,..the lots have been sold before a tentative or parcel map is-fixed.(El—Dorado supra'96 Cal.Aop 4th 1153 1172-1173)The court refused to require a subdivider to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision has the.support of a majority_of existing residents—fixed at;either one-half or two-thirds=thus satisfying the local authority that this was not a`forced conversion.'7(Id_at pp_ 1181-1.182.)The court concluded:`The I*301 legislative intent to encourage conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership would not be served by a requirement that a conversion could only be made with resident consent--(Id.at p. 1182:) FOOTNOTES 7 The 50 percent argument was based on Health and Safety Code section 50781,subdivision(m) which specifies that one of the definitions of?residential ownership"is"ownership by a resident organization of an interest in a mobilehome park that entitles the resident organization to control the operations of the mob ehome park"The argument was that"resident ownership of the park,and control of operations of the park,can occur only when the purchasing residents have the ability to control,manage and own the common facilities,in the park,Le.,when 50 percent,plus 1 of.the lots have been purchased by the residents."(El Dorado supra.96 Cal_App.4th 1153,_1174 1181.)The two-thirds figure-was taken from Government Code section 65428.1: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 (41 and the requirement of.a"survey of support of residents"whose results were to,be filed with the tentative or parcel map.As it did so,the Legislature enacted the following language,but did not include it as part of section 66427.5:"It is the intent of the Legislature to address the conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership that is not a bona fide resident conversion,as described by the Court of Appeal in El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd V.Cry of Palm Springs(2002) 96 Cai.App_4th The court in this case concluded that the subdivision map approval process specified.in Section 66427.5 of the Government Code may not provide local agencies with the authority to prevent non- bona fide resident conversions_The court explained how a conversion of a mobilehome park to resident ownership could occur without [*32) the support of the residents and result in economic displacement It is, therefore,the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ensure that conversions pursuant to Section 66427-5 of the Government Code are bona fide resident conversions."(Stats. 2002,ch. 1143, § 2.) e FOOTNOTES 8 This is what is known as "plus section,"which our Supreme Court termed"a provision of a bill that is not intended to be a substantive part of the code section or general law that the bill enacts, but to express the Legislature's view on TACC Item Be - Page 757T Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 12 of 18 some aspect of the operation or effect of the bits.Common examples of`plus sections,include severability clauses, savings clauses,statements of the fiscal consequences,of the:legislation,provisions giving the legislation immediate effect or a delayed'operative date or a limited duration, and provisions declaring an intent to overrule a specific jpdicial dedsion or an intent not to change existing law."(People v Allem(3999) 21 Cal.4th 846,858-859,fn. 13 f89 Cal. Rptr. 2d.279.984 P-2d 486].)The court subsequently explained that"statements of the intent,of the enacting 'body..-,while not conclusive,-are entitled toconsideration..[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 f14 Cal. RYitr.3d 1.90 P. The Ordinance 'The Ordinance has eight sections,but.only three—sect-ions I,II,and III—are pertinent to this appeal.' FOOTNOTES 9 Section IV ofthe Ordinance declares that the measure is"categorically exempt from environmental review"under the California Environmental Quarity Act-Section V is a severability provision.Section VI establishes the effective date of the Ordinance as'30.days after the date of its passage."Section VII;repeals an existing ordinance_Section VIII (mislabeled as"Section VI".)provides for publication of the Ordinance in a specified newspaper of general circulation in the county. Section I declares the purposes of the Ordinance.It opens with the supervisors'finding that"the adoption of this .. Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to implement certain policies and programs set forth within the adopted General Plan Housing Element,and to comply with state laws related to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership.Specific purposes included. (1)"To implement state [*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 provisions apply to ail conversions of d mobile home parks to resident ownership,except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Government Code[Section)66428.1 These provisions do not apply to the conversion of a mobile home park to an alternate use,which conversions are regulated by Government Code Sections 65863.7 and 66427.4 and by-Section 26-92-090 of Chapter 26 of the [*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 easement or railroad-rights-of-way.Subdivision includes a condominium project or common interest development, as defined in Section 13SI of the Civil Code or a community interest 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-- 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 XI1I8 shall apply to all conversions of mobile home parks to resident ownership except those conversions for which mapping requirements have been waived pursuant to Govemment Code 6 66428-1- '25-39.7(b). Application Materials Required. item 8. - Page 758 -1440- ATTArI-IKAPKIT NO Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 13 of 18 "(1)In addition to any other information required,by.this Code and/or other applicable law,the following information is required at the time of filing of an appiicafion 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 represented the greatest number of resident homeowners in the park. -b)A report on the impact of the proposed conversion on residents of the mobile home park.The tenant impact report shall,at a minimum include aif of the following: "i) Identification of the number of mobile home spaces in the park and the rental rate history for each such space over the four years prior to the filing of the application; ^ii) Identification of the anticipated method and timetable for compliance with-Government Code Section 66427.!(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; NO)Identification [*38]of the method and anticipated time table for determining the rents for non-purchasing residents pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66427 S(fi(i),and,to the extent available;identification of tenant.households likely io 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-purchasingresidents 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 engineers 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,stone 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 N1, contractor; "vii)If the useful life of any of the common facilities or infrastructure is less than.thirty(30)years,a study estimating the cost of replacing such facilities over their useful life,and the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same; "viii)An estimate of the annual overhead and operating costs of maintaining the park,its common areas and landscaping, including replacement costs as necessary,over the next thirty(30)years,and the subdivider's plan to provide funding for the same. "ix) Name and address of each resident,and household size. max)An estimate of the number of residents in the park who are seniors or disabled.An explanation°of-how the estimate was derived must be included. (c)A maintenance inspection report conducted on site by a qualified inspector within the previous twelve(12)calendar months demonstrating compliance with Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations(Ttle 25 Report)_Proof of remediation of any Title 2S violations shall be confirmed in writing by the California Department of Housing and Community Development(HCD). '25-39.7 (c)Criteria for Approval of Conversion Application- "(1)An application [*40] for the conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership shall be approved only if the decision maker finds that: ,,a)A survey of resident support has been conducted and the results filed with the Department in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter; 'b) A tenant impact report has been completed and filed with the Departmeni in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter; "c)The conversion to resident ownership is consistent with the General Plan, any applicable Specific or Area Plan,and the provisions of the Sonoma County Code; "d)The conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion; "e) Appropriate provision has been made for the establishment and funding of an association or corporation adequate to Get a Document- by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 14 of 18 ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure; and tlf)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 i€; (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 genera!public. ' "(2)For purposes of determining whether a proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion,the following criteria shall be used: "a)Where the survey of resident.support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter shows that more than 50 percent of resident households support the conversion to resident ownership,the conversion shall be.presumed-to be a bona-Fide resident conversion." "b)Where the survey of.resident support.conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and with this Chapter shows that at least 20 percent but not more than 50 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership,the-subdivider shall have the burden ofdemonstrating that the proposed conversion is a bona-fide resident conversion_In such"cases,the subdivider shall demonstrate,at.a minimum,that a viable plan,with a"reasonable likelihood of success as determined by the decision-maker,is in place to convey the majority of the lots to current residents of the park within [*42]a reasonable period of time. "c)Where the survey of resident support conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and this Chapter shows that less than 20 percent of residents support the conversion to resident ownership,.the conversion shall be presumed not to be a bona-fide resident conversion_ "25-39.7 (d)Tenant Notification.The following tenant notifications are required:. -(1)Tenant Impact Report.The subdivider shall give each resident household a copy of the impact report required by Govemment Code Section 66427.5(b)within fifteen(15)days after completion of such report, but in no case less than fifteen.(15)days prior to,the-public hearing on the application for conversion-'The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the report to any new or prospective residents following the original distribution of the report. "(2)Exclusive Right to Purchase- If the:application for,conversion is approved,the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive-right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling"unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and-conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially [*431 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 pubric report('white paper") pursuant to California Business and Professions Code> 11018.2,unless the subdivider received prior written notice of the residents intention not to exercise such right -(3)Right to Continue Residency as Tenant. If the application for conversion is approved,the subdivider shall give each resident household written notice of its right to continue residency as a tenant in the park as required by Government Code Section 66427.5(a)_` The Ordinance is Expressly Preempted by Section 66427.5 CAf8J4(8)It is a given that t1l"' regulation of the uses of land within its territorial jurisdiction is one of the traditional powers of local government. (E.g-,Big Creek,supra 38 Cal 4th 1139 1151;rT Corp_ v.County of Solano(1991) 1 Ca14th Al,85,95,_99 [2 Cal Rptr 2d 513,820 P 2d 10231; City of Burbank v Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airoort Authority(19991 72 Cal A_pp.4th 366,376 M 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 Develoament Co. v_ City of Oxnard(1985) 39 Cal_3d 256 262-266" [217 Cat Rntr. 1, 703 P 2d 3391;Santa Monica Pines Ltd v Rent Control Board(1984�35 Cal_3d 858 868-869[2Q2 Cat. Rptr. 593,679 P 2d 271.)Given the presumption against preemption (Bic Creek,supra 38 Cal_4th 1139. 1149),we start by assuming that the Ordinance is valid. However,this attitude does not long survive. The survey of state legislation already undertaken demonstrates that the state has taken for itself the commanding voice in mobilehome regulation.Localities are allowed little scope to improvise or deviate from the Legislature's script.The state's dominance was in place before the subject of mobilehome park conversion was introduced into the Subdivision Map Act in 1991. (See Stats_ 1991, ch_745,§§ 1-2,4,adding-q 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,4fi 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, iO there is no doubt that the El Dorado court construed the operative language as precluding addition by cities or counties.That operative language reads_ '"The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve,or disapprove the[tentative or parcel]map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section_"( b6427.5. subd (e), italics added.)The italicized language is, in its own way, comprehensive. But the contrasting constructions the parties give it could not be Item 8. a Page 760 --1442- �TTVIGHMENT NO. - c),_1A0 Get a Document-by Party Name-sequoia park associates Page 15 Of 18 more starkly divergent_ FOOTNOTES i io Such as the provision of the Mbbilehome Parks.Act directing that"This part applies to a1G parts of the state and supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city,county,or city and county,whether genera{law or chartered, applicable [*46]to this part.'(Health &Saf.'Code;'A 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 amid argue that section 66427.5 and V Dorado are not dispositive here_ Indeed,they almost argue that.the.statute and the decision are not relevant_As they see it,section.66427.S=both before and after El Dorado—is a statute.of very modest scope,addressfng,itself only to the issue of.avotding and mitigating the econoitiic displacement of residents who will not,be purchasing units when the mobilehome park.is converted.Ali the Ordinance does,they maintain,is"implement"and flesh out.the details of the Legislature's directive in a whollyappropriate fashion,leaving unimpaired the traditional local authority over land uses.As the.amici state it: 'Ordinance No..5725 does not purport to impose any additional economic restrictions to preserve affordability or to avoid displacement_' We admit that there is no little attraction to the County's apfxoach..Beginning [*47] with the presumption against preemption'in the area of land use,it is more than a tittle difficult to see the Legislature as accepting that approval of a conversion plan is dependent only'on the issues of resident support and the subdividees efforts at avoiding economic displacement of noripurchasing residents_Section.66427.5 does,employ language that seems to accept,if not invite, supplementary local action_l -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€dree to the rhetorical inquiry posed by amici:'Surely,the Legislature intended that the report have substantive content If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the[report],it may become a meaningless exerdse:- FOOTNOTES 11 The County and supporting arnici 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 Cal3d 656 659 f 175 Cal R ttr 336s 630 0.2d 521),italics added.) [*48]'It must be emphasized;however,that the rnurt's comments were made in the context of a local tax—and a decade before the subject of mobilehome park conversion began appearing in the Subdivision Map Act_ However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach.There are three such statutes—sections 66247.4.66247.5,and 66428.1_And if they are considered as a unit—which they are,as the three mobilehome conversion statutes in the Subdivision Map Act u—a coherent logic begins to emerge_ FaoTNOTEs a2 Because sections 66427,66427.5,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 in.4[253 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.951].) It must be recalled that the predicate of the statutory examination is a functioning park with existing tenants with all necessary permits and inspections needed for current operation.As Sequoia points out:'Mobilehome parks being converted under section 66427.5 have already been mapped out, plotted out,approved under zoning and general [*49] plans,and subjected to applicable health and safety regulations."Moreover, the park has been inspected and reticensed on an annual basis. But the owner has decided to change. If the change is to close the park and devote the land to a different use,section 66427.4 governs_ If the change is a more modest switch to residential conversion, sections 66427.5 and 66428.1 are applicable. These statutes form a rough continuum. If the owner is planning a new use, that is, leaving the business of operating a mobilehome park,section 66427.4 (quoted in full at fn.5,ante)directs the owner to prepare a report on the impact of the change to tenants or residents_ (Subd. a,.)The relevant focal authority"may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park"as a condition of approving or conditionally approving the change. (Subd_ c).) But in this situation—where the land use question is essentially reopened de novo—section 66427.4 explicitly authorizes local input: "This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobilehome [*50] parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures."(Subd. (d),italics added_) At the other end of the continuum is the situation covered by section 66428.1,subdivision (a)of which provides_ "When -1443- ATTACHME_Item 8. - Page.7677 Get a Document- by Party Name -sequoia park associates Page 16 of g$ 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:.[1)(2)The local agency determines that there,is an exterior boundary discrepancy that requires recordation of a new rcel-or tentative and final map. 3 The existing parcels which exist prior to the Pa P [11I( ) 9 P P proposed conversion 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 forthia 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 powerthan granted by section 66427A,,but more than conversions govemed byfiO28.1. It is not surprising that in this middle situation that the Legislature would see fit to grant local authorities some power, but circumscribe the extent of that power.That it what section 66427.5 does.It says in effect: Local authority,you have this power,but no more. As previously mentioned,the Legislature amended section 66427.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.tdl[*SZ] of a survey of.tenant support for the conversion,when the level ofthat support does not reach the two-thirds mark at which point section 6644-i8 :kicks in.:But the Legislature did not address the point noted in E!Dorado-that there is no minimum amount of tenant support required for a.conversion to-be approved.(See El Dorado; sue,96 Ca1.App 4th 1f53 1172- 117 )As lids 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 enactrnent that accompanied the amendment. cn{9)7(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. "10 Dorado supra 96 Cal App 4th 1153 1163-1164 1166. 1182_)And when it amended section 66427.S. 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:112'`[W]hen the Legislature amends a.statute without altering portions of-the provision that [*53].have.previously been judicially construed,the Legislature;rs presumed to have been aware and to have acquiesced in.the previous judicial construction.Accordingly,reenacted portions bU the statute are given the same construction they received before the amendment' (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV(1991)_S2 Cal.3d 1142 -1156 f278 Cal-Rotr 614 805 P 2d 8731,quoting Marina Point,Ltd V Walfson(1982)30 CaL3d 721,734 i f180 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 CalAth 90 100-101 f65 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 time section 66427.S hearing as the equivalent of"El Dorado's application for approval of the tentative subdivision map_"(El Dorado,supra,96 Ca1.A,p_4th 1153. 1163-1164; see also id.,at pp_ 1174 ['section 66427.5 applies to El Dorado's application for tentative reap approval"], 1182 [absence of majority tenant support for conversion not dispositive because"The owner can still subdivide [*54] his property by following ... section 664275';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 6(j427.5"].) Even more germane is that,to judge from the language used i 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. C6f1014(10)The foregoing analysis convinces us that the EI Dorado construction of section 66427.S has stood the test of time and received the tacit approval of the Legislature. We therefore conclude that what is currently xnr:rsubdivision fe) of section 66427.5 continues to have the effect of an express preemption of the power of local authorities to inject other factors when considering an application to convert an existing mobilehome park from a rental to a resident-owner basis- The Ordinance is Impliedly Preempted As previously shown,local law is invalid if it enters a field fully occupied by state law,or if it duplicates,contradicts,or is inimical,to state law. (O'Connell v. City of Stockton supra 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1068; [*55] Big Creek,supra,38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150_)The three tests for implied preemption are: (1) has the issue been so completely covered by state law as to indicate that the issue is now exclusively a state concern; (2) the issue has been only partially covered by state law,but the language of the state law indicates that the state interest will not tolerate additional local input;and(3)the issue has been only partially covered by state law, but the negative impact of local legislation on the state interest is greater than whatever local benefits derive from the local legislation_ (O'Connell v City of Stockton supra at p 1150; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, supra, 7 CaL4th 725 751; People ex reL Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino supra 36 Cal 3d Item B. - Page 762 -1444- A1TA('14AMGKIT KIn i., ►1-7 Get a Document-by Party Flame-sequoia park associates Page 17 of 18 476,485.)We conclude that the County's Ordinance is also vulnerable to two of the tests for implied preemption. The overview of the regulatory schemes touching mobilehomes undertaken earlier in this opinion demonstrates that the states 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. [*S.] Section 66427.5.shows that the state is willing to allow some local participation in.some aspects of mobilehome conversion;and sectiom66427.4 shows that in one setting—when a mobile'home 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 23 years,the state has had the,policy"to encourage and facilitate the conversion of inobilehome parks to resident ownership."(Health&Saf Code §50780,subd (b)_)The state is-even willing to use public dollars to promote.this policy. [establishing the Mobitehome Park urchase-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 su 6ct is narrowed to.coriversions.that merely.affect the change from.rental to residential ownership,local involvementis strictly limited.If [*57]the proposed conversion has the support of two-thirds or more of the park tenants,.sectron 664428.1 pievents the city or county from interfering except in four very specific situations.If the tenant support is less dian two-thirds,section 66427.5 directs that the role of local government"shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section."(§66427.5,subd. (e-).) In sum,the.fact that the situations where.kicalities•could involve themselves`in conversions have been so carefully delineated shows that the Legislature viewed the subject as one where-the state concern would riot be advanbed.if parochial interests were allowed to intrude.Accordingly,we conclude that the second and third tests for'implied preemption are present. There is more. Local legislation in conflict with general law-is void.Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates._._general law "(Lancaster v MunWa-1 Court(1 -972)6 Cal 3d 805 807-808 f 106,C-al gptr•�609-494 P 2ii 6811• accord,dig Creek,supra,38 Cal.4th 1139. 1150;Morehart v County of Santa Barbara,supra_7,C• al.4th 725,747:)The Ordinance is plainly duplicative of section 66427.5 in several respects,as the County candidly admits:the Ordinance"sets forth minimum [*58] -__requirements"for the conversion application,"including:(a)submission of a survey of resident support in compliance with section 66427.5; (b)submission of a report on the impact of the proposed conversion on park residents as required by section 66427 S;and(c)submission of a-copy of the annual maintenance inspection report already required by Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations_"(Italics added_)The Ordinance also purports to require the subdivider to provide residents of the park"written notice of[the)right to continue-residency as a tenant in the park -as required by Government Code�66427 5{a)"and"a copy of the impact report required by Govemment Code ri 66427.5(b)"(Sonoma County Code, §25-39.7(d),subs. 1,3_) And still more_A local ordinance is irnpliedly preempted if it mandates what state law forbids.(Big.Creek supra.38 Cal.4th 1139, 1161; Great Western Shows Inc. v_County of Cos Angeles supra.27 Cal.4th 853.-866.)As.already established,section 66427.5 strictly prohibits localities from deviating from the state-mandated criteria for approving a mobilehome park conversion application_Yet the Ordinance directs that the application shall [*59]be approved"only if the decision maker finds that,"in addition to satisfying the survey and tenant impact report requirements imposed by section 66247.5.the application (1)"is consistent with the.General Plan"and other local land and zoning use regulations; (2)demonstrates that appropriate"financial provision has been made to underwrite and"ensure proper long-term management and maintenance of all common facilities and infrastructure"-;(3)the applicant shows that there are"no conditions existing in the mobile home.park that are detrimental to public health or safety";and(4)the proposed conversion"is a bona fide resident conversion"as measured against the percentage-based presumptions established by the Ordinance. li(Sonoma County Code, § 25.39-7(c),subs_ 1(c)-1(f),2.)The Ordinance also requires that,following approval of the conversion application,the subdivider"shall give each resident household written notice of its exclusive right to contract for the purchase of the dwelling unit or space it occupies at the same or more favorable terms and conditions than those on which such unit or space shall be initially offered to the general public,"for a period of 90 [*60]days"from the issuance of the subdivision public report_._pursuant to California Business and Professions Code§ 11018.2."(Id., § 25-39.7(d),subd_ 2.) FOOTNOTES 1.4 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 A/arneda County v_ City of Oakland (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 741, 751 fn. 5 754-758 [90 Cat.Rptr. 3d 181 _) 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 Ordinances 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_ -1445- ATTMA item �m ® �� � 7631 Get a Document-by Party Name - sequoia park associates Page 18 of 18 FODTHOTES as That uncertainty may be illustrated by how Sequoia perceives one part of the Ordinance..With respect to Instances where tenant sup"poit for conversion is between 20 percent and 50 percent,the Ordinance provides:'In such cases, t` the subdivider shall demonstrate,at a minimum,that a viable plan,with a reasonable likelihood of success is in. place.to convey the majority,of the lots to current residents of the park within a reasonable period of time."(Sonoma County Code,§ 25-39.7(c)(2)(b).)Sequoia treats this as a requirement that the subdivider come forth with"financial assistance to assist tenants to purchase their units. The County,ably supported by an impressive array of amici,stoutly defends its corner with.a number of arguments as to why the ordnance should be allowed to operate.The County lays particular emphasis on the need for ensuiing thatr the conversion must corriporL with the General:Plan,especially its housing element,because that is where the:ecoirorruc dislocation will be manifest,6y reducing [*62]the inventory of low-cost housing.(See Health 8L Saf_Code-§50780, subds_(a)(il& a 3 .)In this sense,however,section 66427.5 has a broader reach than-the County perhaps appreciates,As.it does make provision in subdivision ffl for helping non-purchasing lower income households to remain. In any event,We cannot read section 66427.5 as granting localities the same powers expressly enumerated in section 66427.4 that are so conspicuously absent from the plain language,of section 66427.5. CA(ssr+_($I)We assume the County was motivated by the laudable purposesstated in the first section of the ordinance_ .And we have acknowledged that the CounWs construction of the section-66427.5 can find some plaid io forth tf e statutoryaaiiguage.Nevertheless,and after a-most careful consideration of tfre argimients.:presented,we have concluded that:the Ordinance.ixosses the Gne established by the Legislature as marking territory reserved for thestate:-As we recently stated in a different statutory context:"There are weighty arguments and worthy goats arrayed on each side._. land)—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&GonsL coon Trades count ofcarfarrmia tr Duncan (2008)167 CaLApp.41i 289,324 r76 CaL Rptr 3d S071.)Uf course,if the Legislature.disagrees ev tfi our.Conefusion,or if it wishes to grant cities and counties a greater measure of power,it-can amend the language of section 6i 427_5_ DISP.OSMO.tt 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 shalt recover its costs. tlae e..,Acting P.J_,and Lambden J.,concurred_ r T} Source: Le aa1>!___/>CA State Cases,Combined Terms. namelsequo'ra park associates) (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Searchh) Vew__ FuR Daterram: Wednesday.August 26,2009-5.30 PM EDT Search(Research Tasks f Get a Document(Shepa 1 Alerts(Total 11tigatorflransactional'AdAi or Counsel Selector HistoN 1 Derwery Manager I Dossier I Switch CrientI Preferences I Swn Out I Help 9 About LexisNexis Terms&Conditions s Contact us Ltr'XISN@XlS CopyA9ht_e 2009 LexisNexis,a division of Reed Elsevier Inc AH rights reserved. ATTACHMENT NO. Otero 8. -,Page 764 -1446- 1 -1447- Item 8. m Page 765L California Government Code Section 66427.5 At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created .from the conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership, .the subdivider shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner: .(a) The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to either purchase_his' or her condominium or subdivided unit,, which is `to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant- (b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to resident. owned subdivided interest. -(c) The subdivider,shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is.no advisory agency, by the legislative body_ (d) (1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey .of. support.of residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion. (2) The survey of support-.shall be conducted in accordance with an agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners' association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or mobilehome park owner. M 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 i agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be f 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. A1"TCHNIENT ®. � Item 6. - Page 766 -1448- -1449- Item 60 - Page 7673 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HART, KING & COLDR.EN Boyd L IfdE bh4l a@hkciaw.com March 4,2009 our File Number 36014_112M826-5517-4147v_1 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL VIA a=AcsimILE AND OVERNIGHT MAIL (714)374-1540 Rami Tafleh -Planning Department HAR 0 S City'&Hunt ngton Beach("City") vor ,t,s 2000 Main Street ityOfH�n�y.�o Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home.Park("Park") Application for Tentative..TractUafr..Uo-_'E7246._("Application") Submission of Revised Resident Impact Report Dear-Rami_ This letter will follow up on our telephone conversation this afternoon_ We discussed That the l t March 3, 2009 draft revised Report of.Impact of Conversion Upon Residents (`Report) addresses the issues raised in the City's January 27,2009 letter_ Therefore,enre.ane—ubmitting the revised Report in final form dated March.4.2009 for formal consideration and acceptance by the City Planning Department_ As we discussed, we anticipate the tenant survey results to be submitted within two weeks, at+luWh point the Application should.be-:zompdete_ .Please immediately confirm acceptance of the Report as.part of the Application_ Thank you .. Best Regards, HART, KING &COLD N l yd Hill BLH cc_ Jennifer McGrath,City Attorney Leonie Mulvihill,Assistant City Attorney u John Saunders Michael Cirillo Robert S_ Goldren A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,California 927.07 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 i -1451- fl'p'TA R Ho'Item 8e - Page 7695 /'10 i a e—•-- m.a*+' �,. .. HIK&C HART, KtWG & COLDREN REPORT ON IMPACT OF CONVERSION UPON RESIDENTS Huntington Shoreeliffs Mohilehome Park March 4,2009 SECTION I. SCOPE OF REPORT This "Report on Impact of Conversion upon Residents"("Report') is submitted by the"Applicant"fora Tentative Tract Map subdividing the Huntington ShorecMTs Mobile Home Park ("Park"). The subdivision will be created by the conversion of the Park from rental spaces to resident owned lots--The Park is'located-at 20701 Beach Boulevard,City of Huntington Beach{"City"),State of California,92648. The Report is tieing filed with the City as part of the Tentative Tract Map Application and will be made available to the Park residents prior to the City'-s hearing on the Application pursuant to California Government Code Section 66427-5, a copy of which is attached Hereto as Exbiibit"A." The Report contains the Applicant's assessment of the impact upon the Park residents of conversion to resident ownership. The Park currently has 308 spaces,243 of which are rented under long term lease agreements, and only 50 of which rented:out under-month:10 month tenancies_ The --, remaining spaces are either vacant (6), Park owned (6) or occupied by homes under storage agreements with mobilehome dealers(3)_ SECTION H DEFINITIONS 2.1 Conversion Date: The "Conversion Date" is the date after the subdivision final map has been approved,,by the City and after the Department of Real Estate has approved the subdivision.for sale and is the date on which the first Lot in the Park is sold- 2-2 hearing Date: The"Hearing Date" is the date on urhielr,thhesubdivision Application is first heard by the City Planrung.Commission. 2.3 Home: The "Home" is the manufactured home that occupies the Space where the Resident is living as of the Hearing Date 2.4 Lot: A "Lot" is the land and fixed improvements within the Space on which the Resident's Home is located as of the Hearing Date, plus a 1/308th share of the common area and facilities and one membership in the Homeowners' Association to be formed as part of the subdivision process- A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor.Santa Ana.California 92707 Ph 714.432-6700!www.hkCtaw_com I Fx 714.546.7457 Item 8. a Page 770 -1452- — .HART_ KING & COLOREN " Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents March 4,2009 Page 2 2.5 Resident: A "Resident" is a person living in a Home in the Park who meets the requirements for receiving protections afforded by applicable law. 2.6. Space: The"Space'is the leased premises on which the Resident's Home is located as of the Hearing Date. SECTION III NO ECONOMIC DISPLACENIENlt`OF RESIIDENTS IFROM CONVERSION -BECAUSE OIL STATUTORY RIGHT TO PURCHASE OR CONTINM LEASING Upon conversion, all Residents will have the opportunity to either purchase the Lot on which their Home is situated or to continue leasing their Space with statutory protections on.rental rates_after the Conversion Date- (Govt_ Code § 66427-5 (a), (f)) Therefore,upon conversion of the Park to resident ownership,the Residents are statutorily protected against economic displacement. 3.1 No Economic Displacement from Sale of the Lots The Residents are protected from economic displacement pertaining to sale of the Lots upon conversion by having both the option-purchase their Lots'at the'eventual sales price and the option to continue leasing their Space_ Government Code Section 66427.5 (a)requires the subdivider to".offer each Resident an option-to either purchase his or her - subdivided unit, which is to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a tenant." Thus, if the Resident.cannot purchase his or her Lot upon conversion,the Resident is not required to move-and may continue to lease his or her Space following the Conversion Date. Thais Report cannot make determinations about impacts to the Residents resulting from the eventual sale price of the Lots under the purchase option. That is because the sale price of the Lots will not be established until some time after the tentative map subdivision approval- The Residents cannot make a rational decision to buy,continue to rent,or move his or her mobilehome until the tenant is given an option purchase price and a proposed rental price. (See EI Dorado Palm Springs Ltd v. City of Palm Springs(2002) 96 Cal-AppAth 1153, 1179-1180) After tentative map approval, the subdivider must next follow procedures and obtain approval of the subdivision from the Department of Real Estate under the. Subdivided Lands Act. Only after approval by the Department of Real Estate will all of the factors that affect the Lot purchase price be established- The Resident will learn the option price for his or her Lot only after the Department of Real Estate approves the 3 601 4-1 1 2/4 824-8902-5 027 v-1 2 -1453- ATTA(', Item B. - Page 7717 HART. KING S<CQLOREN Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents . March 4,2009 Page 3 subdivision and issues its public report on the.subdivision,whenthe subdivider offers the lots for sale- The subdivider is not required to"disclose an offer price at the time of filing of the Application and of this Report,and indeed is forbidden by.the Subdivided Lands.Act from making such a disclosure at that time. The first time that the Resident may become aware of even a tentative I offer price for the Lot will be several weeks or months later,just prior to filing a notice of intention to._fl:with-the-,Dep_artment.of.RcM-= state -under the Subdivided-Lands Act (See Bus_ & Prof- Code § 110I09.(c); See El Dorado Palm Springs Ltd v City ofPalm Springs(2002)96 Cal.App.4th 1 151 1 179-1 180) Nevertheless, as previously explained, liecause the Resident has the option to either purchase his or her Lot or to continue leasing his nor her Space,under whatever lease arrangement may be existing on the Conversion Date with the statutory rental rate protections discussed below, the -Residents: -:.MyiU__be_protectcd against economic displacement from sale of the Lots upon conversion. 3-2 No Economic Displacement from Continued Lease of the Spaces The Residents who do not exercise the option'to purchase their-Lots and instead exercise the option. to continue- renting their Spaces are protected from economic displacement by statutory restrictions on rental--rates ,after the "Conversion`Date_" Government Code Section 66427.5 (f) limits the amount of rent increases for Residents- that can take place-upon conversion, thereby avoiding economic displacement, if any, from any rental increases after the Conversion Date. For non-purchasing Residents who are not lower income households, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any. pre-conversion amenities, may only increase to market levels as determined by appraisal, and then only over a period of four years. For non-purchasing-Residents who are lower income households, the monthly rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities, ,may only increase by an amount equal to the average monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion,except that in no event shall the monthly rent be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period.To qualify as a Low Income Household in Orange County, the following income limits were established for calendar year 2008. 36014.112I4924-8902-5027v-1 3 Item a. - Page 772 -1454- g HART. KING & COLOREN Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents March 4,2009 Wage 4 - Household Size(#of Persons) 1 2 3 4 . Income Must be at or Below: $52,100 $59,500 $66,950 $74,400 Thus,under the current statutory scheme,the Legislature has defined the exclusive and preempted scope of "mitigations" respecting any "economic displacement," assuming, without admitting, that increases in rent can be considered an economic displacement- 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. 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 Iandlord might impose_ The Residents will have the opportunity to control the Park amenities that they will enjoy and pay for through the Homeowner's Association_ SECTION IV NO CLOSURE OR CHANGE IN ZONING 4.1 No Change in Zoning or Closure The Park is currently zoned WV_ The Application:does not request a zoning change_ The Application does not request closure of the Park_ The Application.seeks merely to convert the existing Spaces to Lots available for purchase. Therefore,the conversion to Resident ownership will not result in economic displacement that might- occur with a zoning change or closure of the Park- This Report is not required to discuss or provide mitigation against any unlikely future closure or change of use-application- It will be unlikely for the Park to close or change use following the conversion because of the subdivision of the individual lots and the common area interests.-A subsequent closure or change in use would have to take into account rights that Lot owners and the Homeowners'Association will have in their lots and in the common areas following conversion. A different report containing express mitigation pertaining to relocation would be-required for any future closure or change of use application,as discussed in Section 4.3 below. 36014-11214824-8902-5027vA 4 item lie - Page 773) V HART. KING &COLO-REN - ,Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents _ March 4,200 Page 5 4.2 Technical"Conversion"or"Chance in lUse"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 havule the light 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 CaliforniaMobUchome,Residency-laver 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 ,Relocatio-aAssistanceNot.Apylicable When a subdivision is created from conversion of a rentil'inobilehome-parkin _ resident ownership,a different type of impact report is regtiked t$an when a subdivision created from a change of use to a non-mobilehome park use or when the mobilehome park is closed- Government Code Sectionb6427-5 governs the type of report thatmusrbe 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 theTatk-is simply required to explain the options of the Residents regarding their choice to purchase their Lot or to.rent their Spare- '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.mobiiehome park or from closure of a mobilehome park In fact Government Code Sections 66427.4 and 658,63.7,which apply to subdivisions created from change of use to a non-mobilehome park use or to closure of a mobilehome park,expressly exempt from,their requirements subdivisions that are created from conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership. (See Govt- Code §§66427-4(e),65863-7(a)) SECTION V_ CONCLUSION This Report discusses the impacts upon the Residents of conversion to Resident ownership pursuant to subdivision of the Park- Upon conversion,.the Residents are 36014-11214824-8902-5027vA 5 Item 8e - Page 774 -1456- --- —- - --- _ . HART. KING Sr'COLOR£N - - Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents March 4;2009 Page n statutorily protected from economic displacement by the option to either purchase their Lots or.continue leasing their Spaces with statutory restrictions on rent increases. Residents on long-term leases will continue to have their rights under the leases after the Conversion Date. All of the Resident protections discussed in this Report are based upon the .Applicant's assessment of the currently existing statutory scheme,and are not a promise, representation, or warranty on the part of the Applicant or its agents_ The operative date for the time frame and protections described above is the Conversion Date as described in Section 2.1 above. Of course,should the law change,the Applicant reserves the right to - implement the conversiott iit accordance with the applicable valid and enforceable laws- Dated: �f f.. s _: Haft,King&Coldren By: Robert S_Colder-''-� 6 Attorneys for Applicant Shoreciiff L.P. XS Stadium,LLC Huntington BSC Park,LP Shorecliff Main,LP 360I4. t214324-8902-5027v.1 6 -1457- ATTACHfte-M Page 775L Exhibit A California Government Code Section 66427. 346014,112/4224-8902-5027v.T Item B. - Page 776 -1458- Section 66427.5 of the Government Code: 664275.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 shah 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 int=st (c)The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobtlehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the reap 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 mobilehortie 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- (S)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 prescribcd by subdivision(e): (e)The subdivider shalt be subject to a hearing by a Iegislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by Iocal ordinance to approve,conditionally approve,or disapprove the Wrap.The scope of the bearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. (t)Thesubdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following: (1)As to nonpdrehasing 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'-fmr Vie preconversion rem to marketievels,as defined in an appraisal conducted in accordance with nationally recognized professional appraisal standards,in equal annual Rtmr ses over a four-year period. (2)As to nonpurchasing residents who are tower-income households,as.defnned1nSec_ 50079-5 of the Health and Safety.Code,the monthly rcK 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- -1459- ATTA(�tem B. - Page 7773 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -1461- Item 8. a Page 7795 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK May 4,2009 The .. - - star Boyd Hill C®�tpaeales Hart,King&Coldren Mobil tK m Comnunidies 200 E.Sandpointe-Ave.4th Floor Santa Ana,CA 92707-5747 .1400 Fast 4th Street Santa Ana,CA 92701 RE: Runtington S`horecti,f s-Redderd:Survey 714-480-6828 714-480-6M fax Dear Mr.Hill: The results of the resident survey have..ben.compiled. The pertinent.information is listed below: There were 296 surveys sent out and 188 were returned. 40 Persons-responded that they were in support of the conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs to resident.ownership. 23 persons indicated that they will likely finance the purchase- 8 persons indicated that they will likely pay cash for their lot. 21 persons indicated thatthey-were'low+erincor ie-and woutd ikely needgovernment assistance to purchase their Iot_ ' 6"persons indicated that they supported the conversion but could not buy their lot_ 45 persons indicated thattheydv rrotsupport-the conversion of the park to resident ownership. -97 persons declined to state.their.opinion_ A blank copy of the survey is attached for-your reference. Sincerely,: STAR MOBILEHOME PARK fVLANAGEMEW By: Michael A.Cirillo For: Huntington Shorecliffs enc: survey form- Matter Ref: 2008-6022-HS Subdivision Z-\TI%MSBDATA\filcs\2008-6022\MIKE\090504162932"W PD f -1463- Item 8. - Page 7817 HU.NTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME.PARK • SURVEY OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS BALLOT FORM This ballot is provided -to you pursuant to the requirements of Government Code § 66427.5. The•purpose of the ballot is.to show Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park resident support for the proposed conversion' of the Park from a rental mobilehome community to a.resident owned mobilehome community subdivision_ Each occupied ;space shall have one vote. Please indicate below whether or not you support conversion to a resident owned mobilehome community subdivision and please sign and -date-where indicated below- By law, we cannot provide you with an estimated purchase price at this time. ® I support conversion-of Huntington Shorediffs Mobilehome Park from a rental rnobilehorne community to a resident-owned manufactured home community subdivision, and intend-to purchase my space as follows. ❑ a I think I will be able to obtain, and intend to apply for financing ❑ B_. -1 intend to purchase my space with cash ❑ C. 1 think.1 am a lower-income resident, and may need government assistance in order to purchase my space ® I support conversion of Huntington Shorediffs Mobilehome Park from a rental rnobilehorne community to a resident-owned mobilehome community subdivision, but cannot buy. (For example: I am sub-leasing, I am unable to obtain credit at this-time or my.resident status prevents me from buying a space:) ® I do•not support conversion of Huntington Shoreclifs from a rental mobilehome community to a resident-owned mobilehome community subdivision- ❑ I decline to state my opinion at this time. ❑ This hcime.represents my primary residence(check if this applies to you) I understand that this form does not constitute an offer to sell at a specific price, -nog is it a commitment to purchase an interest in the mobilehome community. It is merely an ondication of support/non-support for the community's conversation in accordance with California Government Code §66427.5. Signed-- Space#: . .Flame: Date: The information on the following page is optional and will be kept confidential T`- -_formation maybe used to c' - ' ie the availabilityof-financial assistance Item Sa - Page 7S2 �1464- - -1465- Item 60 - Page 7834 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ® e e Huntington Beach Planning Commission • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION September 23, 2009 Boyd Hill Hart, King& Coldren 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 17296(HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION) APPLICANT: Boyd Hill, Hart, King & Coldren REQUEST: To a) subdivide approximately 39.2 acres into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for purposes of converting an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes and b) create five additional lots for mobile home coaches, increasing the total number of units from 304 to 309. The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. The project also includes an appeal filed by the applicant of the applicable code requirements. PROPERTY OWNER: Shorecliff, LP, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave.) DATE OF ACTION: September 22, 2009 On Tuesday, September 22, 2009, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and your application was denied with findings. Attached to this letter are the findings for denial. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant,the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Five Hundred Forty-One Dollars ($1,541.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Two Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Nine Dollars ($2,379.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is October 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM. Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org -1467- Item 60 - Page 785- Notice of Action:TTM No. 17296 September 22,2009 Page 2 "Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby noted 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 rtalleha-surfcity- hb.org or(714) 536-5561 or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at(714)536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission By: ML Herb Fauland, Planning Man ger SH:HF:RT:Iw 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 Been 8. - Page 786 -1 466- ATTACHMENT NO. 9 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 comer of the mobilehome park. Further, the existing 304 units are provided with less than the minimum required 60,800 sq. ft. common open space 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; G MNOA\09\9-22-09 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.1 -1469- Item 8. - Page 7873 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:\PCWOA\09\9-22-09 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorectiffs Attachment 1.2 Item 80 - Page 788 -1470- -1471- Item 8e - Page 7895 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 HIJNTI (VGTOI� MOBILE HOIWIE PARK SUBDIVISION Applicant: Boyd FIil1, Hart, King, & 'Coldren Appellant: Robert Col-dren,, Hart,, King,, & Culdren Location : 20701 each Blvd, November 12,, 2009 9 f9 N REQIJEST o TTM • Subdivide an existing 304 space mobile home park into 309 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots . • Convert an existing 304 space for- rent mobile home park into 309 lots for ownership purposes . • Create five additional lots for mobile home coaches . . The reqnest includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements recommended by staff. (nil �nonll,"7s"P , x I• IF vg.4 Il.k C7flVA>;'.{R �y'F�^�•(�%iC f'41 % `l4 1 f{a yl i'7 x 1 a 1 / A r/FY 4 i' ! 4 ♦ gzy ' :, I I zt -I- z t �l r r♦ "�•.�•� ri � �' � � � I I' Pk t ' i� / � � r � r r } > ,�g�� `��J � j�'-?,�',t�+ ,1...`�:�����``{{I ',�� �\ \�`�`\\\• �,� t:_.'`�,� '7 ry.�'wgt '� ,tpl II •�#' Y�� /r � � � 'rd�Tikp 9 I II Y A H . 1 1 1, 1 s ��,�.�"�f��_.e..l ,.� :` r•�, 1. !i ,l z s:r.: r kt �I �� I '', 1 � � � !r f 1" �`f ha � I♦' U(7"e'VII i•' {� I . L rb _ � n�ayCw� f lvh- aswA f� l t f �e a ♦ � f !_ f ; IV !I�.; ..¢',qy4-y r a�.( gTlAt3'CYI�'FY }, ){ �„I i x !t ' ' •.l e� -1 PSI IYRI ' , �;d7 ",I2 2�I', , ! E ) ` I � �7 rIPl�ea�z,.l gr t ,ar-lq)a1a � t ' ieI � 7lxt �I! ¢ toI ,. nlIi ) � 3 m A A AN ALYS IS o The proposed subdivision creates five additional lots that do not provide the minimum required 1 , 000 sq . ft. common open area . o The proposed subdivision and five additional lots will remove 11 , 193 sq . ft. of common open space . o Ongoing maintenance issues cited by residents include : . Inadequate drainage from Individual spaces, . Surface drains carrying trash, debris, animal feces, etc. .., and . Faulty utility connections. ANALYSIS (CONT . ) o The Impact Report fails to discuss the impacts of conversion on the residents including : • Economic impacts associated with the maintenance and repairs of infrastructure, . Estimated sales price of the lots, • Other costs such as property taxes and homeowners association dues, and • Operating expenses aver subdivision such as the cost of maintenance and repair to existing infrastructure . 9 d A V N' CO ANALYSIS (CONT. ) o Tenant survey • No agreement was made between the homeowners association and the subdivider prior to the survey being sent out. AF' PEegL OF CODE REQUIREMENTS o City Departments provided a gist of applicable code requirements should the project be approved . o Applicant has appealed a majority of the code requirements contending that the requirements are unlawful . o Government Code section 66427 . 5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act to protect the 3 public health, safety .and welfare . d J 3 a m m � U B � ' V � � I � N UUIVIIVIITTLE o The Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and tentative map on September 2, 2009 . j o Voted unanimously (6-0 vote) to o recommend denial of the request to the Planning Commission based on : • Non -compliance with the open space requirements for the additional five lots, and • Loss of existing common open space . PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision and tentative map on September 22, 2009 . o Voted unanimously (7-0 vote) to recommend j denial of the request based on : . The subdivision will result in an increase in the number of mobile home sites from 304 to 309 . . Additional lots created reduces the amount of existing common open space and do not comply with the additional minimum common open space requirement 3 of 1 ,000 sq . ft. 9 Ct 19 J 3 d PLANNING COMMISSION (CONT. ) . Impacts to residents associated with the maintenance and repair of infrastructure, estimated sales price of the lots, and other costs are not discussed or analyzed in the impact report. . Evidence that the tenant survey was prepared in agreement with the homeowners association was not provided . APPEAL of PC's DENIAL • Appeal was submitted October 1 , 2009 . • Appeal letter cites state law, court decisions and opinions of why the denial is "" unlawful ". w , • Appeal Mates that Findings 1 & 2 are not lawful because local requirements are not applicable . o Staff does not support the appellant's contention because the project is an expansion and is considered a new subdivision . ; o 9 d A W O' s 00 •o APF"hE " L of PC's DENIA ® Appeal states that Finding 3 is not lawful because City cannot impose criteria for impact report. o Staff does not agree because the Cit is not imposing criteria ; rather the City cannot cons ude that State law has been satisfied . ® A eal states that Finding 4� is not lawful because the Appeal g PC had a mandatory duty to find compliance with the submitted survey. o Survey must be in agreement between the homeowner's association and the subdivider. No evidence supports this requirement and State law has not been satisfied . RECOMMENDATION o Staff recornrnends denial of Tentative Tract Map No . 17296 based on the Suggested Findings for Denial found i in Attachment No . 1 d 0 W INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 11/09/2009 ION 20:39 FAX 949 833 0738 Holly Hutchins �001/001 NOTICE OF PUBLIC'HEARING- BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINgiTOIl 13EAEH- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday., November.16,-2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning-andzoning.;t#ems: [] 1. P F !'LANN1N4x C®JAMISSIOId -®ENIAL F TENTATIVE TRACT,it AP NO. 17296 (HUNTINGTON SHORECOOM MOSILV 11101919- PARIC SN'FiDIV:ISION) Appetladts:-Robed;S_ Coldren,af.Hact,-.I<ing'& Coldren;. Shoiecliff, LP; JS'Stadium'LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; and Shorecliff Mph, LP Applicant •Boyd Hill, of Hart, King . =__ =_- ------_--- --- ------------- . .. . _. - - .;e:r, coaches. inereasina the total ntimher of units fen 304 to 309. In addition, this - ----------- ; , Dui i�o�i�ii�ir uwviSiCii�S of_J ON FILE: A coov of thF _ n_____- - -'- ------ C_2 : }ifYrnr-nTrl1.e�r -..•.tea sia - _-_ _ ,n , _ f ! 1 c l J / t(17 it : @-:Vnn i•air+ '3�r:! _?�-. a =- _ ,.(714) 536-5227 6/7 Settings\esp rzap\local SettingslTemporary Internet FileS\OLK158\091116 nor_ -1467- item S. - Page 805 E 07 E I V 11 - 9 - 09 2009 NOV 10 RM 11: 12 V V s t �� c/ Joan L. Flynn, City Cleric �' C1 �`�f ��tY:f� City of Huntington Beach HUNTiNIG O'N BEACH 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re® Appeal of the planning commission's denial of tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ( Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Hone Park Subdivision ) We, Lori & Don Luckham, Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, Space 257 are strongly opposed to the Subdivision and request the application be denied. A more two months ago Huntington Shorecliff, LP was denied Subdivision Conversion by the Huntington Beach Department of Planning Committee. This Appeal is the enact same wording as the previous Huntington Shorecliff LP filing. The Huntington Beach Department of Planning Subdivision Committee listed the five categories which the Subdivision Conversion slid=not qualify under the City of Huntington Beach findings for the denial. Appreciate your consideration Item 8. e Page 806 - 1488- -1489- Item B. - Page 807 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17 .` A . APPEAL OF PCs APPROVAL Applicant/Appellant: Robert Coldren, Hart, Icing, & Coldren Location: 20701 Beach Blvd. City Councils May 3, 2010 REQUEST o TTM Subdivide an existing 304 space mobile home park into 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots. Convert an existing 304 space for-rent mobile home park into 304 lots for ownership purposes. The request includes an appeal of the applicable code requirements identified by staff. 2 Item 8. - Page 808 -1490- 1 REQUEST c t.) o Appeal of March 9, 2010 Planning Commission Decisions: A, Approval of the Subdivision Denial of the Appeal of Identified Code Requirements. 3 LOCATION D SURROUNDINGS Description of project E - .. £. site: Approximately 37 net acre i' mobile home park 304 mobile homes Subject-Site e� 3 common areas totaling 38,043 sq. ft. c Description of surrounding area: Residential uses and public park 4 -1491- Item 8. m Page 809 ANALYSIS - Infrastructure o Inadequate drainage resulting in flooding has been identified. o Lack of Beach Boulevard frontage sidewalk does not allow for safe pedestrian movement. o Suggested Conditions of Approval have been prepared to address public health and safety issues pursuant to SMA 66428.1(d). 6 ANALYSIS — Appeal of Code Requirements o City Departments identified a list of applicable code requirements should the project be approved. o Applicant has appealed a majority of the code requirements contending that the requirements are unlawful. a Government Code section 66427.5 does not preclude other relevant provisions of the Subdivision Map Act such as 66428.1(d) to protect public health and safety. o HBZSO and Municipal Code identifies that applicable Code Requirements cannot be modified, deleted, or appealed. Only by amending the HBZSO and Municipal Code can Code Requirements be modified, or deleted. 6 Item 8m a Page 810 -1492- 3 ANALYSIS - Summary o The proposed subdivision is consistent ` with the General Plan and Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance. =- o Impacts to residents associated with the conversion are adequately analyzed in the Impact of Conversion Upon Residents report satisfying Government Code section 66427.5. o Evidence that the tenant survey was prepared in agreement with the homeowners association was provided satisfying Government Code section 66427.5. RECOMMENDATION o Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 with findings and suggested conditions for approval (Attachment No. 1). o Staff & PC recommends denial of the appeal of identified Code Requirements. 8 -1493- Item 8. - Page 811 COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Subdivision Item 8. - Page 812 -1494- HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.cDm April 23, 2010 Our File(Number: 36014.11214833-8370-5093v.1 VIA REGULAR MAIL AND E-MAIL Scott Hess, Director of Planning Tony Olmos, Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") May 3, 2010 City Council Hearing on Appeal Responses re Planning Commissioner Comments Dear Mssrs. Hess and Olmos: This letter responds on behalf of the Park Owner to certain comments made by Planning Commissioners during the March 9, 2010 Planning Commission hearing. We request that this letter be made part of the administrative record on this matter. Commissioner Livengood: I really questioned the nexus for Beach Boulevard. I think it's outrageous to ask a property owner for $1.7 million to do a job that the Cal Trans and State of California and the City should be taking care of that." Our Response: We agree that the conversion of the Park to resident ownership does not provide any nexus to require offsite funding for Beach Boulevard improvements, especially given the approximate million dollar price tag that would be passed on to the residents. We agree that those improvements are a matter of City and Cal Trans responsibility, as set forth in our separate letter regarding this matter. We hope that the City will immediately cooperate with Cal Trans to use Federal Highway funds to correct the situation. Commissioner Livengood: "And in theory there's a fee if this is approved of $500,000. That $500,000 is waived if they do these improvements. So that would be my goal that there would be enough money and not cost a lot and it's going to be individual homeowners that's going to put the bill on this eventually probably but, that's just my random thinking on it." Our Response: We agree that there should be a cap on the amount of fees and expenditures for improvements that the Park Owner will be committed to pay as set forth in our separate letter on this subject. We believe that the combined amount of fens and expenditures as part of 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 -1495- Item 8. - Page 813 l IK HART. KING & COLDREi*I Scott Hess Tony Olmos City of Huntington Beach April 23, 2010 Page 2 a fair settlement should not exceed the $500,000 amount mentioned. Unfortunately, Condition of Approval Nos. 2 and 5 require construction of the facilities without an opt-out for payment of fees up to that cost limit. In addition, Condition of Approval Nos. 2 and 5 contain open ended provisions that would potentially increase costs for design and construction based on findings contained in a hydrology and hydraulics study and a sewer study. Again, we believe that such fees and/or design and improvements legally cannot be imposed Commissioner Livengood: "And the other problem, of course, is Franklin. I don't—I think all of us have gone and looked at it. I just drove out there again today because it really bothered me. Water's coming out of the thing again. There's no other water in the park that you just — you can -- I drove down and you can follow that flow of water and it's coming right off of Franklin. And that's really not fair, but I think this compromise is possibly one you might want to consider." Our Response: We agree that the Franklin drain is a major source of the Park water issues because the City has significantly overburdened any alleged easement on this matter, as set forth in our separate letter on this issue. We also agree that the City needs to make a compromise that will limit the Park Owner's commitment to remedy that situation and will require the City to bear the burden of any estimated cost overruns (even though under the law the Park Owner is entitled to subdivide without any such conditions at all). Commissioner Scandura: "Okay. Just a couple of questions for staff. One of the very early speakers mentioned that there may be a problem with how some of the lots were labeled on the map. Is that a —would something like that be a cause for us to have to continue this hearing so they can go back and correct those lots or is that something that just can be corrected administratively, after we approve the subdivision?" Our Response: The lots are all correctly numbered. The Map also shows for each lot the existing Park space numbers for reference purposes only. The space labeling has no relevance to the correctness of the Map or to the City's approval thereof. Commissioner Scandura: "1 don't know how we deal with the rent issue. If we don't approve the subdivision tonight, we all know that the rents are going to go up regardless and the applicant, their attorneys have already said that with the subdivision going in, the rents will go up although that for a time being for about four or five years it'll be at a controlled rate, but they're still going to go up no matter what. There really is nothing we can do about this type of thing." Our Response: The prevailing market rate is what controls rents. The voters of the City recognized this when they voted to prevent rent control within the City. The current rents for the Park are below market, and therefore it is reasonable for the Park Owner to gradually increase 36014.11214833-8370-5093v.1 Item 9e - (Page 814 -1496- HARP, KING &vCOL-DREN Scott Hess Tony Olmos City of Huntington Beach April 23, 2010 Page 3 Park rents to the market level. Conversion of the Park will forever stop rent increases for those residents who purchase their lots, will put a CPI cap on rent increases for non-purchasing residents who are lower income and will require gradual increase of rents to market levels for non-purchasing residents who are not lower income. Commissioner Scandura: "The last thing and this is where the applicant has proposed paying a certain amount of money towards the improvements. I'm not comfortable with us, the Planning Commission doing that. I think any kind of agreement on payment of money that's outside of a fee is really something for City Council to take up, especially because if there's not — if they don't pay the city enough money, then eventually the City is going to have to commit money to finish that job, and that kind of a decision, any kind of decision to commit City money has to come from City Council and not from here." Our Response: The Park Owner proposal to pay a capped amount for improvements or like amount in fees is similar to the City's code requirement allowing either construction of drainage improvements or payment of drainage fees in a specified amount. While the Park is not subject to drainage fees because it was constructed prior to the City's drainage fee ordinance, it established the paradigm for capping the costs of on-site owner constructed storm drain improvements. Assistant City Attorney Vigliotta: The courts are clear, past court decisions have shown that you can't just not approve the subdivision based on 49% of the residents. A majority — it's not like a majority protest kind of situation. So what weight is given to those surveys, we really don't know. There are some Lower Court decisions that I think you all have had a chance to look at that say you can look at these and consider them. To my view that you can consider them, but they should be looked at kind of in a -- as a whole and considering whether or not to improve the — to approve the subdivision. So without other evidence, just the surveys themselves should not be the basis of your decision to deny the application." Our Response: The Assistant City Attorney is correct that a survey result majority protest cannot be the basis for denial of the subdivision. In fact, in one of the lower court cases referred to by Mr. Vigliotta, the Court of Appeal just this month confirmed that in non rent control jurisdictions, the tenant survey results have no relevance. We provided a copy of that opinion to Mr. Vigliotta and underlined the relevant text. There is no question that this is a bona fide subdivision. The Park Owner is prepared to commit$500,000 to make it happen. The City Attorney should be asked b its is client, the City, to clearly state one way or another whether it is more likely than not that the conditions imposed on the Map violate Government Code Section 66427.5 (e) and/or Health and Safety Code Section 18300 (a). To not do so is to intentionally bury the City's head in the sand and expose the taxpayers. 36014.11214833-8370-5093v.1 -1497- Item 8e a Page 815 H K C&C HART, KING f CGLDREN Scott Hess Tony Olmos City of Huntington Beach April 23, 2010 Page 4 In summary, we believe that the concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners are either legitimate concerns shared by the Park Owner or have been or will be resolved by the Park Owner through City Council action, including approval of the Park Owner Appeal. Thank you. Very truly yours, HART, KING COLDREN Rom- S. - Cc: Mayor Cath een Mayor Pro Tem Jill Hardy Council Member Keith Bohr Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Devin Dwyer Council Member Don Hansen City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Assistant City Attorney Mike Vigliotta Planning Supervisor Herb Fauland Associate Planner Ethan Edwards 36014.11 2/4833-8370-5093v.1 Item 8. - Page 816 -1498- 3 C f- HART, KING & C©LDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkctaw.com April 23, 2010 Our File Number. 36014.112I4829-5025-2038v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714)374-1557 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Park Owner Position on Appeal Dear City Council Members: This letter constitutes the Park Owner's position regarding the Appeal. The Appeal does not constitute objection to the approval, only to certain conditions and code requirements thereof. For example, the conditions and code requirements for mobilehome park design, construction, and conversion to resident ownership are expressly contrary to State law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5 (e); Health & Safety Code, § 18300 (a)) The Park Owner has made a good faith offer to accept most of those objectionable conditions and requirements in exchange for a limitation on Park Owner costs to fulfill those conditions and code requirements. The Park Owner position is a reasonable compromise that fairly allocates costs and benefits between the City and the Park Owner and that limits the burden on Park residents (the ultimate purchasers of the lots). One principal issue on Appeal is the cost of construction of storm drain improvements for the Park. There is a storm drain pipe apparently constructed by the City that opens onto the Park below Frankfort Avenue and that empties storm drain flows from upstream development onto the Park streets and residences. The pipe flows are far in excess of any natural sheet flows and contain increased flows as a result of uphill streets, sidewalks and houses. The Park Owner is willing to participate in funding or construction of on site storm drain improvements (and other improvements listed in the conditions) only to the extent that the Park Owner's costs are capped at a fixed amount. We understood that such a limitation was the intention of the Planning Commission, but apparently there is a conflict between what was intended and what the conditions state. The Park Owner's proposed modification of the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements is set forth for your convenience in the attached interlineated versions of the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements. For each condition or code requirement, we have indicated: A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 i www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 -1499- Item 8. - Page 817 HK=� -_ HAP.T. KING S COLDREN City Council City of Hungtington Beach April 23, 2010 Page 2 (1) whether or not is was appealed from; (2) whether it is deemed satisfied upon payment of $500,000 in costs or money pursuant to proposed new Special Condition 6; (3) whether it is modified or new; and/or(4) a short hand explanation or comment where appropriate. We appreciate the efforts thus far of the City staff and Planning Commission with respect to the approval of the Application, and we look forward to the cooperation of the staff and City Council in making these minor adjustments to the approval conditions and code requirements. Respectfully submitted, HART, KING & COLDRE Rabe, ren for Applicants/Appellants RSC/BLH/dr Enclosures: Interlineated Conditions of Approval Interlineated Code Requirements cc: 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) 36014.112/4829-5025-2038v.1 Item 8. - Page 818 -1500- Foi l Huntington Beach Planning omission 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: ShorecI ff LP; JS Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliff Main, LP, cIo 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: Shorecfiff LP; Stadium, LLC; Huntington BSC Park, LP; Shorecliiff Main, LP, c/o Mike Cirilio, 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 714-374-1540 www.surfcfty-hb.org . -1501- Item S. a Page 819 Notice of Action:TfM 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 rreggem�nts. NOTE-This isnot a conceptaaa9 plan 8t is a ) mays o an existing development. Ad R Rona req uirements are preempted by t State law Cont. below 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 aC7surfcity-hb.oro or(714) 536-5561 or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at(714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess,AICP, Secretary Planning Commission By: kQ2� Herb Fauland, Planning Manager SH:HF:EE:kdc Attachment: Findings and Conditions of Approval—TTM No. 17296 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission (coat.from above) Fred A.Wilson, City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Govt. code, §66427.5(e); Health Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal & Safety code§ 18380(a). Mike Vigliotta, Senior Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer Gerald Caraig, Permit-Plan Check Manager Property Owner Project File Item 8. - Page 820 -1502- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 FINDINGS FOR PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM CEC1A: 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). Appealed. General Plan compliance review is prempted by State Law. (Gout. Code, 66427.5(e)) 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). Appealed. General Plan compliance review is preempted by State law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e)) G:XPCW0A12010k3-8 2010 TTM#97296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.1 -1503- Item S. - Page 821 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. Appealed. General plan compliance review is prempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e)) 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-conformin develo me t stars ands 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 (mobiiehome park). No new development or change of land use is proposed as part of the subdivision, NOTE -the underlined statement contradicts the City°s application of Code Requirements to 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. Not appealed. 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 66426.1(d). Not appealed. Section 66428.1 does not apply. 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 altemative easements,for access or for use, will be provided. Not appealed. 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 GVMNOAL20IM-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.2 item B. - Page 822 -1504- 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. Not appealed. 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. Not appealed. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the 4ubli� V t1cs D@ ��} ;3 f rg and approval, the following shall be required (PW): pea reempt�rtlb�yla e o e $ ate �,gg�� p { s� §66d27.5(e);;Health&Safety Codeq§18300PAII Deemed sataisfiedp gnSIEeYSi01 OW dralR�Stlll Awls ana ConsIrintcet peraii thB®Ti�3a1 aptprOVBq a16. 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. (P1N) 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 t0 continue reSidenC a5 a teClant. �SL�bC�j1 i§St�91„�l�d�Act $ � ) i� J Appealed. Condition preempted by St to law. (Gout. o e, 9 4 1 a(e)r®eem sat s ae b nversion Report 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following(PL): Appealed.Condition preempted by State law. (Govt.Code 66427.5(e)) Not a condition that can be satisfied pre-conversion. a. 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 GAMNOX201013-9 2010 TFM#17296 Huntington Shoreclitfs Attachment 1.3 _1505- Item S. - (Page 823 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) Appealed. Preempted by 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required:State Law. (Govt.Code ta Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise a. gutmittal of an improvement> [an for the subject project shall comply with Public pursuant to Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the special plan(PM: Condition of Approval 6. i) ADA compliant access amps 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 66428.9(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 Hip Street per Caltrans Standard Plant 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) INSERT Special Condition 6-see coast.attachment 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, Panning 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. Not appealed. NOTE-subdivider intentionally did not appeal this condition. Subdivider will take on the responsibility to defend any action against the approval. GAMN©A1201013-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shwecliffs Attachment 1.4 Item 8. - Page 824 -1 v06- Continuation pane: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 17296: Special Condition 6: notwithstanding anything contained in these conditions of Approval or the city Code Requirements to the contrary, Conditions of Approval 2 and 5 and Department of Public Works Pre-flap Submittal Code Requirements I and 2 and Department of Public forks Pre-flap Recordation Code Requirements 7 - 10 shall be deemed satisfied upon proof to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the subdivider has expended $500,000 in costs towards fulfillment of those conditions/requirements or paid the city $500,000 in lieu of fulfillment of those conditions. [Condition added by subdivider] 36014.112/4850-8738-3558v.1 -1507- Item 8m - Page 825 'JA City ®f Huntington Beach ,9 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) Deal-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 Kanning 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 MI: Mike Vgliotla,Deputy City Attorney Gerald Caralg,Building and Barely Department—714-374-1575 Darin Maresh,Fire Department—714-530-5531 Steve Bogart,Public Works—714-536-1692 Herb Fauland.Planning Manager Jason Kelley,Planning Department Shorectifr,LP,do Mike Grillo,Star Management,1400 E Fourth Street,Santa Ana,CA 92701 Project File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfclty-hb.org Itelt,re 6. - Page 826 -1508- JV CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Oil 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 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) Appealed. Subdivider will agree if the City Attorney approval requirement is eliminated as modified. 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) Not appealed. 2. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange prior to conversion of the mobilehome park. (HBZSO Section 253.22) idot appealed. 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 _1509- item zee - Pale 827 Page 2 of? original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (HBZSO Section 251.18) Nat appealed. 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) Requirement not appealed. Map not effective until appeal determined. Appeal filed within 10 day period. 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) Not apealed. May be subject to automatic extension. 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. Not appealed. Check already submitted. 7. All other code requirements are either; (a) inapplicable; (b)satisfied; (c)unenforceable;and/or (d)waived. [requirement added by subdivider] Item 8. e Page 828 -1510- ea -�1 HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS BATE: 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 )SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-1692/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 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) ,Appealed. See response to#2 below. 2. 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 WQMP shall address all current surface water quality issues. (NPDES) Appealed. Not required per WOMP. Requirement prempted by State law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e); Health &Safety Code§ 18300(a)) Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. -1511- Item 8. - Page 829 Page 2 or3 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. Not appealed. 2. The Final Tract Map shalt 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. Not appealed. 3. The Final Tract Map shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Tract Map. (ZSO 253.14) Not appealed. 4. A reproducible Myiar copy and a print of the recorded final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. Not appealed 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. Not appealed. b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. Not appealed. 6. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: c. Design Specification: Not appealed. 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. li. 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: Not appealed. i. Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats(AutoCAD DWG format preferred): • AutoCAD (version 2000, release 4)drawing file: .DWG 4 Drawing Interchange file: DXF li. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: m 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) Appealed. Regirement preempted by State Law. (Govt.Code,§ 66427.5(e); Health & Safety Code § 18300(a)). Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval S. C:\DC1Can1e114;and Sruings\cdtvatzlsciLucul 5eltingslTcmptim y lnternel File4:DLK601\13ricil 20701 Tf M 17296 iPA 2010-023)Dev Rcy 3-3-10.dnc Item 8e - Page 830 -1512- Pagc:3 oF3 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, (ZSQ 255.16) b. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (ZSC 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.(SIvIA) S. 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) Appealed. (cunt,below) 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 plakned facilitJes per the CIA Hunt€nplonBeact Mun€gi al Cod Se t'o 1448.t)30. Appealed. Par construc ed pprsor to e c ment o ramage ee or ante. con �e ow) 10. Any work within the Caltrans right-of-way (in accord with Suggested Conditions of Approval 5.a.€ 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. Appealed. Requirement preempted by State Law. (Govt.Code, §66427.5(e); Health &Safety Code§ 18300(a)) Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. 11. All other code requirements are either, (a)inappicable; (b)satisfied;(c)unenforceable;and/or (d)waived. [requirement added by subdivider[ coat.#8 above: Requirement preempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, §66427.5(e); Health& Safety Code§ 18300(a)). Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. coat. #9 above: Requirement preempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e); Health&Safety Code§18300(a)) Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. CADacuniculsand 5c11ing5lcdcvardsciLnca1 Se16ugsl7'cmpnrnp 1niernel Files\OLK601`13L icli 20701 7 mi 17296(PA2010-023)Dev Rcy 3.3-10.dnw -1513- item 8. - Page 831 A 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 I 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@surfelty-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 pians 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 implemenlation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlements), 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 503.1 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.hed.ca.gov/codes/mp/mpReas,htmi). in accordance with current HCD standards. a. Documentation of a current flow tesl4n compliance with HBFC Section 508.1 Required water supply shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department on the current HCD MP532 form. Appealed. Subdivider will agree with the modified language. b. Docu ntatior�of the tIt hydra t�� v ter su�sply system's compliance with HBFC Section o 'a o ance,wrt c ren s andar 508.1/s al�rbe subm... to t ie untington Beach Fire Department by a licensed C-16 contractor or licensed Fire Protection Engineer. Appealed. Sudd'rvider will agree with the modified language. 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.huntlnotonbeachca.aov If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at 714.536.541 S;\Prevention\1-❑evelopmenLil-Planning Department-Planning Applications,CUP's\2010 CUP's\Shoreclltt Mobile Home CUP letter 02- 25-10 DW-tr ATTACHMENT NO. Item 8. - Page 832 -1514- State of California California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region ORDER NO. R8-2009-0030 NPDES No. CAS618030 Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and The Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County FINDINGS The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (hereinafter Regional Board)finds that: A. REGULATORY BASIS 1. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) added Section 402(p) (USC §1342(p)) establishing a framework for regulating municipal and industrial (including construction) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Section 402(p) of the CWA requires NPDES permits for storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems' (storm drains or MS4s) as well as other designated storm water discharges that are considered significant contributors of pollutants to waters of the United States (waters of the US). On November 16, 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter EPA) amended its NPDES permit regulations to include permit application requirements for storm water discharges. These regulations are codified in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Parts 122, 123 and 124(40 CFR Parts 122, 123 & 124). 2. This order is based on Section 402(p) of the CWA; 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124; Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code or CWC, commencing with Section 13000); all applicable provisions of statewide Water Quality Control Plans and Policies adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board); the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan); the California Toxics Rule (CTR); and the California Toxics Rule Implementation Plan. A revised Basin Plan was adopted by the Regional Board and became effective on January 24, 1995. The Basin Plan contains water quality objectives and beneficial uses for water bodies in the Santa Ana Region. Under the CWA, the beneficial uses and the water quality objectives to protect those beneficial uses are collectively referred to as water quality standards. The Basin Plan also incorporates by reference all State Board water quality control ' A municipal separate storm sewer system(MS4)is any conveyance or a system of conveyances designed to collect and/or transport storm water, such as, storm drains, manmade channels, ditches, roads w/drainage systems, catch basins,curbs, gutters, etc.,which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (i.e., not a combined sewer). -01515- Item 8. - Page 833 Order No.R8-2009-0030(NPDES No.CAS 618030) 2 of 93 The County of Orange,Orange County Flood Control District,and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County Arenivide Urban Storm Water Runoff plans and policies, including the 1990 Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). 3. The requirements contained in this order are necessary to protect water quality standards of the receiving waters and to implement the plans and policies described in the above finding. These plans and policies contain numeric and narrative water quality standards for the water bodies in this Region. In accordance with Section 402(p)(2)(B)(iii) of CWA and its implementing regulations, this order requires the permittees to develop and implement programs and policies necessary to reduce the discharge of pollutants in urban storm water runoff to waters of the US to the maximum extent practicable (MEP)2. The legislative history and the preamble to the federal storm water regulations (40 CER Parts 122, 123 and 124) indicate that the Congress and the EPA were aware of the difficulties in regulating urban storm water runoff solely through traditional end-of-pipe treatment. Consistent with the CWA, it is the Regional Board's intent that this order require the implementation of best management practices (BMPs)3 to reduce to the maximum extent practicable, the discharge of pollutants in urban storm water from the MS4s in order to support attainment of water quality standards. This order, therefore, includes Receiving Water Limitations based upon water quality objectives, and requires implementation of control measures to protect the beneficial uses. It also prohibits the creation of nuisance and requires the reduction of water quality impairment in receiving waters with an ultimate goal of achieving water quality objectives of the receiving waters. 4. This order is consistent with recent court decisions and precedential orders adopted by the State Board related to municipal storm water NPDES permits. These precedential State Board orders include: Orders No. 99-05, WQ 2001-15 and WQO 2002-0014. 5. This order does not constitute an unfunded mandate subject to subvention under Article XIII.B, Section (6) of the California Constitution for several reasons, including the following: a) This order implements federally mandated requirements under Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(3)(B). (33 USC § 1342(p)(3)(13)). 2 MEP is not defined in the CWA; it refers to management practices, control techniques, and system, design and engineering methods for the control of pollutants taking into account considerations of synergistic,additive, and competing factors, including, but not limited to, gravity of the problem,technical feasibility,fiscal feasibility, public health risks, societal concerns,and social benefits. 3 Best Management Practices(BMPs)are programs and policies, including structural controls where appropriate,that are implemented to control the discharge of pollutants. 4 Receiving Water Limitations are requirements included in the orders issued by the Regional Board to assure that the regulated discharge does not violate water quality standards established in the Basin Plan at the point of discharge to waters of the US or the State. Item 8. - Page 834 -151 C- Order No.118-2009-0030(NPDES No.CAS 618030) 3 of 93 The Count}of Orange,Orange County Flood Control District,and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County Areawide Urban Storm'Water Runoff b) The permittees' obligation under this order are similar to, and in many respects less stringent than, the obligations of non-governmental dischargers who are issued NPDES permits for storm water discharges. c) The permittees have the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments to pay for compliance with this order, where voter approval is needed, the permittees should strive to gain voter approval. d) The permittees requested permit coverage in lieu of compliance with the complete prohibition against the discharge of pollutants contained in federal Clean Water Act Section 301, subdivision (a). (33 USC § 1311(a)). B. REGULATED ENTITIES(PERNIITTEES OR DISCHARGERS) 6. On July 22, 2006, the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and the incorporated cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, La Habra, La Palma, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Orange, Placentia, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, and Yorba Linda (hereinafter collectively referred to as permittees or dischargers), submitted NPDES Application No. CASS18030 and a Report of Waste Discharge for reissuance of their areawide urban storm water permit. In order to more effectively carry out the requirements of this order, the permittees have agreed that the County of Orange will continue as principal permittee and the OCFCD and the incorporated cities will continue as co- permittees. Certain portions of the cities of Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods and Lake Forest are within the San Diego Regional Board's jurisdiction. As such, these cities are also regulated under urban storm water permit issued by the San Diego Regional Board., 7. The permittees fall into one of the following categories_ (1) a medium or large municipality that services a population of greater than 100,000 or 250,000 respectively; or, (2) a small municipality that is interrelated to a medium or large municipality. Under Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, these dischargers (permittees) are required to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit for storm water runoff from their jurisdictions. C. REGULATED DISCHARGES 8. This order is intended to regulate the discharge of pollutants in urban storm water runoff from anthropogenic (generated from human activities) sources and/or activities within the jurisdiction and control of the permittees and is not intended to address background or naturally occurring pollutants or flows. 9. The permittees own and operate storm drains, including flood control facilities. Some of the natural channels, streambeds and other drainage facilities that are generally considered as waters of the US have been converted to flood control For example, the City of Santa Cruz voted to raise property taxes to fund the storm water program at the November4,2008 election (see: hftp:ilwww.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci-1 0904561). -1517- Item Sm - Page 835 Order No.R8-2009-0030(NPDES No.CAS 6I8030) 4 of 93 The County or Orange,Orange County Flood Control District,and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County Arearvide Urban Storm Water Runoff facilities. The permittees have established legal authority to control discharges into these systems that they own, operate and/or regulate. As owners and/or operators of the MS4 systems, the permittees are responsible for discharges into their systems that they do not prohibit or control (except where they lack jurisdiction; see A.10 below). The discharge of pollutants into the MS4s may cause or contribute to, or threaten to cause or contribute to, a condition of pollution in receiving waters. Federal regulations, 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i), require the permittees to control the discharge of pollutants into the MS4s to the maximum extent practicable. 10. The permittees may lack legal jurisdiction over urban runoff into their systems from some state and federal facilities, utilities and special districts, Native American tribal lands, waste water management agencies and other point and non-point source discharges otherwise permitted by the Regional Board. The Regional Board recognizes that the permittees should not be held responsible for such facilities and/or discharges. Similarly, certain activities that generate pollutants present in urban runoff may be beyond the ability of the permittees to eliminate. Examples of these include operation of internal combustion engines, atmospheric deposition, brake pad wear, fire wear and leaching of naturally occurring minerals from local geography. 11. This order regulates storm water runoff and certain types of de-minimus discharges specifically authorized under Section iII of this order (collectively referred to as urban runoff) from areas under the jurisdiction of the permittees. For purposes of this order, urban runoff includes storm water and authorized non-storm water (see Section 111) discharges from residential, commercial, industrial and construction areas within the permitted area and excludes discharges from feedlots, dairies, and farms. Urban runoff consists of surface runoff generated from various land uses in all the hydrologic drainage areas that discharge into waters of the US. The quality of these discharges varies considerably and is affected by land use activities, basin hydrology and geology, season, the frequency and duration of storm events, and the presence of illicit discharges practices and illicit?connections. 12. The permittees have the authority to approve plans for residential, commercial, and industrial developments. If not properly controlled and managed, urbanization could result in the discharge of pollutants in urban runoffs. "America's Clean Water-The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment, 1985" and the Biennial National Water Quality Inventory Reports to Congress cite urban runoff as a major source of B Illicit discharge means any disposal, either intentionally or unintentionally, of material or waste that can pollute urban runoff or create a nuisance. Illicit connections are those which are not properly authorized or permitted by the municipality or the owner/operator of the conveyance system. e U.S. EPA. 1983_ Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program,Vol. 1, Final report. NTIS P1384- 185552. Item 8. - Page 836 -151�- Order No.RS-2009-0030(NPDIIS No.CAS 618030) s or93 The County of Orange,Orange County Flood Control District,and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County Areowide Urban Storm Water Runoff beneficial use impairment. Urban area runoff may contains elevated levels of pathogens (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, viruses), sediment, trash, fertilizers (nutrients, compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus), pesticides (e.g., DDT, Chlordane, Diazinon, Chlorpydfos), heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc), and petroleum products (e.g., oil, grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Urban runoff can carry these pollutants to rivers, streams, lakes, bays and the ocean (receiving waters"). In addition, increased flows due to urbanization may increase erosion of stream banks and channels and cause stream channel alterations and impact aquatic resources. This order regulates the discharge of pollutants to waters of the US, to protect beneficial uses of the receiving waters. 13. Urban activities also generate non-storm water discharges such as air conditioning condensate, irrigation runoff, individual residential car washing, etc., generally referred to as de minimus type of discharges. If properly managed, these types of discharges may not contain significant amount of pollutants. Some of these de minimus types of discharges are currently being regulated under separate orders issued by the Regional Board, and some of the specific types of de minimus discharges are authorized under this order (see Section III of this order). Orders No. RB-2003-0061 (NPDES No CAG998001), RB-2004-0021 (NPDES No. CAG998002) and R8-2007-0041 (NPDES No. CAG918002) issued by the Regional Board regulate de-minimus types of discharges. D, HISTORY OF ORANGE COUNTY MUNICIPAL STORM WATER PERMIT 14. Prior to EPNs promulgation of the storm water permit regulations, the three counties (Orange, Riverside, and San Bemardino) and the incorporated cities within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Board requested areawide NPDES permits for urban runoff. On July 13, 1990, the Regional Board adopted Order No. 90-71 for urban storm water runoff from urban areas in Orange County within the Santa Ana Region (first term Permit). Orders No. 96-31 (second term Permit) and R8-2002- 0010 (third term Permit), issued by the Regional Board on March 8, 1996 and January 18, 2002, respectively, renewed the Orange County MS4 permit. 15. Order No. R8-2002-0010 expired on January 19, 2007. On July 22, 2006, the permittees submitted a Report of Waste Discharge for renewal of the Permit. On February 20, 2007, Order No. 2002-0010, NPDES No. CAS618030, was administratively extended in accordance with Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 9, §2235.4 of the California Code of Regulations. $Makepeace, D.K., D.W.Smith, and S.,l. Stanley. 1995. Urban stormwater quality:summary of contaminant data. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 25(2):93-139. 'D Receiving waters are waters of the U.S. (and their tributaries)which are identified in the Basin Plan as having certain beneficial uses(see Finding 19, below, for a list of these waters). -1519- Item So - Page 837 Order No.RS-2009-0030(NPDES No.CAS 618030) 49 of 93 The County of Orange,Orange County Flood Control District,and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County Arenwide Urban Storm Water Runoff or preliminary WQMP, to ensure that proper conditions of approval, design specifications and tracking mechanisms are included. 8. The permittees shall train their employees involved with the preparation and/or review of CEQA documents as specified in Section XVI. B. WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (WQMP) FOR URBAN RUNOFF (FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT/SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT): 1. The permittees shall annually review the existing structural treatment control and other BMPs for New Developments and submit any changes for review and approval by the Executive Officer. Within 12 months of adoption of this order, the principal permittee shall revise the appropriate tables in the Water Quality Management Plan with the latest information on BMPs and provide additional clarification regarding their effectiveness and applicability. 2. Each permittee shall ensure that an appropriate WQMP is prepared for the following categories of new development(significant redevelopment projects (priority development projects). The WQMP shall be developed in accordance with the approved Model WQMP and shall incorporate LID principles in the WQMP. a. All significant redevelopment projects, where significant redevelopment is defined as projects that include the addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface on a developed site. Redevelopment does not include routine maintenance activities that are conducted to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, original purpose of the facility, or emergency redevelopment activity required to protect public health and safety. Where redevelopment results in the addition or replacement of less than fifty percent of the impervious surfaces of a previously existing developed site, and the existing development was not subject to WQMP requirements, the numeric sizing criteria discussed below applies only to the addition or replacement, and not to the entire developed site. Where redevelopment results in the addition or replacement of more than fifty percent of the impervious surfaces of a previously existing developed site, the numeric sizing criteria applies to the entire development. b. New development projects that create 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface (collectively over the entire project site) including commercial, industrial, residential housing subdivisions (i.e., detached single family home subdivisions, multi-family attached subdivisions (town homes), condominiums, apartments, etc.), mixed-use, and public projects. This category includes development projects on public or private land, which fall under the planning and building authority of the permittees. c. Automotive repair shops (with SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, 7536-7539). d. Restaurants where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more. Item B® - Page 838 -1520- HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkelaw.com April 26, 2010 Our File Number. 38014.112/4814-3623-6805v.1 VIA REGULAR MAIL AND E-MAIL Scott Hess, Director of Planning Tony Olmos, Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: May 3, 2010 City Council Hearing on Appeal Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Frankfort Drain Dear Mssrs, Hess and Olmos; This letter is a follow-up to our meeting on March 29, 2010 regarding our discussion of the Frankfort Ave. drainage pipe ("Frankfort drain") which opens into and spills out onto the Park streets and pads. We subsequently met with staff from the Public Works Department and reviewed all of the City's documentation pertaining the drainage system in the surrounding area. Based on our review of the documents the City provided us, we cannot identify any plans or City approval for the Frankfort drain or any easement from the Park Owner allowing the drain or its flows Into the Park. Our review of the files provided to us by the City indicates that a culvert was initially constructed beneath Frankfort Ave., which culvert was not connected to any other portion of the City's drainage system. Our review of the files provided to us also indicates that the City subsequently connected that culvert to areas within the City not a part of the natural drainage flows into the Park. There are no plans in the City files for the Frankfort drain or for connection of the culvert into the drain. However, the Public Works Department reports that the City Yard has at times constructed works without plans or Public Works approval. We believe this might have been the case with respect to the Frankfort drain. Our search of the Park title documents indicates that none of the City easements on Park property are for the Frankfort drain shown on the Map. I am attaching those easement documents for your reference. As shown by the Map, those easements are located on A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714.432.870C I wwwAliclaw.00m I Fx 714.546,7457 -1521- Item ae m Page 839 HK3, HART. KING & COLOREN Tony Olmos Scott Hess City of Huntington Beach April 25, 2010 Page 2 Delaware Avenue. Thus, the City has no express easement for that Frankfort drain or its flows emptying onto Park streets. In conclusion, the City's position that the drainage pipe and its flows only include natural drainage flows and/or were permitted by the Park Owner's predecessor-in-interest appears to be without support. Any implied easement the City might establish based on natural flows has been substantially overburdened. The Park Owner has presented a proposal for a reasonable compromise on this issue that would require the City to participate in the manner of covering any costs above a reasonable amount for improvements to the Park and surrounding areas, including on-site storm drain pipes. We hope that the City will seriously consider and accept that proposal. Please include this correspondence with the City's Administrative Record for the May 3, 2010 City Council hearing on the Park Owner appeal of the Planning Commission imposition of Conditions and Code Requirements. Very truly yours, HART, KING & CO E Robert , Co ren Enclosures Cc: Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Pro Tern Jill Hardy Council Member Keith bohr Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Devin Dwyer Council Member Don Hansen City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Assistant City Attorney Mike Vigliotta Planning Supervisor Herb Pauland Associate Planner, Ethan Edwards 36014.112/4 814-3623-6805v.1 Item B. - Page 840 -1522- ,'3' :.a �.}.:g fir. ,. 'r1j'.'.t::.`i, ;�' .y '��• - . bb **�� /(((�n{ tvity .w i . 14 r�l _ '•I�WP' 'i. ,•I ,•ilJJ,i:-: ••t Rt R,QiO.'�1� �'i,IY��':OF! . I FFICIAt. i80R S.CQF tfnitbp ci :43 " -t_ F1:• .,? O,':',., !! :°'•"�•• _ .xis o'roioii ., "•i•c°>-� �• :;f'!.r_.: sang-p:"soi'urk - RAC t t' o' Y' t ��i�iar''`i'r �i1 _ sir:''`.' .Ir:.•. -�yti� r': -I: •'.i'- •.�� tart. '�'�1.•.r:{j :,f,�1,; .?(;'� .l Vic. •L �.L .:• '• , .. .. 0.'4; iot'y'?g!9u+ nrrziiii:ii�w.Huyccawn'nili 4- iU :•y. f^Q�{. .:Q�• •.�Q .�! M tY' tiif:'a� �:upt]Tl�itf•ittC .L. �?.;.i•�`Fi:•':- _ •]4r' ��,,,,,�•(.,A: ...... • •t}ie-�'.�3' ,�o ;'puat Coii�Beacti�;-a rrbadidip' `egt�osatia'•;� 'Erfoi;'.=atzeet`�a4�'i�b c:•�iY�ati ,d'o -?aver':;'. .s, .,,. , _ Y _ ••A':SCB ) ' "fibs.:'v thd.-uartti i ••o#.: soii east axsBr_of sed. ida,` ,.' t F fi. _ ? t ': ..i1>b''soutif`; :1`:sweat :a§.sb5v i. W.A.,Ma ;.reeorded?!tl'� ,4 .Mdi ' ecaicdo£?sad"Coi �hetng4lesctibed pia}:full' e'a I : .' ` ",=fie llinitY ,et..kAe.rsoretnres. lsiy`cii ,cf:$W.it";A a r's�forrii: aiR: 'g.Of Vilita 'Dal Sri'1`ria eco dorl;,ia book`�i:PSe 5;of Said " . ;. >ye:•,.. t+2a3°! bzS O t'.r121is l . a �e d , o ?7: �;safd 8lbck'A indr t>!:aa;:YRans gecartp t ordifNa B iy., :. su Vic: ::J:.boffra`=p yd,}d:gi:p.ri1oatinty7tvge'r•:;sg•,aaC;lfaas g=l ,:�ic1b iaalgoa"Y:asodi#�ti dc'ic��;frve32;'t3ts1rQo.afee to ski 1 .`curve i ,s,aoo ls f : nei �.01 ::;q£' h a3ti tleuce: aa $t, ceatra Smile .' t f aE;50 '7�:f6er'ka ?pa r;;o#;'langeric �?i baid` rsile7 ems. . :''.. .. . -Baia eiijn''Aj; ri11d a'!1�''+iitaet,Sifi1 0 4i'35!':Lst,3�! :OU,fpeC:.Gq.:the':' begl ;isig,�oya.?'1�tP$enC euYve;', Y4 atitttidli8 a Yam- d{riati*1 `;tpolits'•oE 960:QU' e`#o"kDekskillo y�$i euTvhl'tctu s'!. giirtra� ie^of i6°L8'*35"' :R 'sih•;ti#;: 6 , f4iie:a `: thei 1i�i t3ori,pc'.redixY`iiae'of R s . .1� Li`.: oa8% P_ 6 ,; f`go' tti'.7�:®24r5Q'",Vdi ieD,00'.f t;;w'_:p:,popit'ia:r iioa;'}atz eat.;cutve, •' .. Od tali a7W' i tali s% ib¢0. igat9 'siid`' a.. ca`axasf- ' ?• 'Ssj['aetraed:id ptie;';`k6iWc ,ooTi;eF�sea aYYp=along set cyrx� tliiou9. y�• •,'r£ ., :'.-�t.;�'.. ;..' _p•:;�,.,. :( .. - r'. .ote:;: sag. ' a�t'r.ot>taix�enoy :`ii$ �s' p'; bgeeXM' o}eeWi tiler and:haviri e:cif'52:Oo fist., �ai�ld'du s'af' ene•' ahe.. "'.: '. tisaderly(pfolgpgstl o$:the doutfier lice_.; VW ' '9 .Zf�raa[, tits3C:StFge r GQ.Od:f a �i �' l4eP.of Yiata•% Dt� '_7Yectl:t] acm.:pvrttiw�i¢. R iy.aloii�t!Jaial4 cu''` "tbt . g7i�;¢ ;cea ill anYLe of z:Eeidt:... �s�Pout pf:LaD& Y.vi'tts-sa3ei. 21sf= msatd d;gsadta ii iftooi&.. i i;.;ltriace`aioetg,5ai @stst Y•prolos�otibn,.gortk "'$asV 2%;14k eet-it s.;eientlil� 2 pdoibtigati0n:;o :Maid.iaedlarly:line of. titOc3t A tiiGe:°a1.blig';:aa d�o's�# Ably ptci" g`aEio�i.epd:sa3 vaeterly'.lina:,.Nordl ;��1i!�.3s a'�•}�r.;6►tQ:Ati�:fielt:`ttl�: e:��►giitt'iol�;ba �aci ' ;;��`'"' . . _ r - - :yam, '.\•.'. 1 ! r•- ,i - R.r- (F :t v, 17, Y 1� - 1�, r E a - +- ;,' •,Y• ire_ ;�.''• 1E, 1: •:l •r - ! item 8. Page 841 -1523- L :` : ... ....r.y:L: w� b sue• - I o, -t. i' v;( :I — r - - SL ti�1-t -••1-. - _ vt: V��.-.ram•+ •tl •�J i •.r^. tr 1 .1 2t'• - b' _ r .• - � 1 a T .x. S p _ b '1 r: 4� 13. : o ppqq ter. g gyp, . - � q ' - ry _ '•^Sa 1 to - r f - - r '•t 5,. '•i y a •� �lar e•1 Yam•"•'••• •"��'!' _ `."•tit ,!� ~••t. :y-', .r!O Yi oif - ti14 - A: - P A. - •a. 1," f R - k r�- ta. - y k 0 H.• �D - rt lr t-� O - ai'• r' '• - rylr' _ 1 ..�* �.•=" +.f" • -r , p 7 4t _ l �i. i - •7 - ;�.;:; - 177.. W ... .« .. .. a .. • r• • .• .. _ - i .._r. <, -' :L•'�- '_ B ■ -7, -940 9 PIOR 1._. Be '6 -TM F d r tit 4M q L::xy or.. p - -�u - ,- - 'City -fro o •t th c AVACh .,.,.agjft t 1is a or 9 --an w..• ranteo.:.-consent to thi t -00 'BEACfi .1: � -..- .�4 __v 1CA&x t' x, "Ci '-AdinirA s'tira:tor- 4r!. r. li Al r- 4� le. -7 A. lN f yf j. Z v7 -17 ;fA.� L 43. -1525- Item 8. - Page 843 a , �i ! r- "•'Sc}r lS�}'.4i`::nti.PP��. {" u'1��'1 t`3�• �t:"• 1 P 1 { x :.t7?#t":.ira r.^�.a.:!-mot �.•---..� _ -� �• g '-•�'�^•�I� i�l}7.;•?'SfilflTV'+Gl'Ri'6f.R'�}.�,••:: .;jr:,•�,•.��,�. ��1xi1.KCtACiI.�;EMreRAktliRr''il �� '� °" LKi�{�nc�;t7:!v[`:zn, ;t't•.�z.`-'•���i• � ' t- ..... ..s>acaJieavcr�,rs+.,rMtr+in�nccdttR�;�'!!,��Ec�. i t lu7Y 64 Nlj7C[IS.II`iON UE0.Gri' .:l: .. '•u1Fi pY;tt{.Wfgty;3?�i$L a"�4:=3/ 1. 6 '`*'tr.:.�iupArVrk'r['Bctt11.'C.rht.•,use.-iJ•3.." •. .'''. `uk=•�.r•.^�k4 � '�;`u ��€�.�x'�titii�i<�i�r:t',rurit: �,3�'��il. t � �•;�_�`.`•� ��i1j'o:so•.a �.x. � s.v r ••+�:w.r::i!n.�r-•.,:r:.u••~..+=.ia.wr.ciu..,.:�.' ..:,ct;�yy - .Yi2�YAfl1,}AdL}[u�iis-f.!!;.i�c,+'•,�ihiefl�:!`.?,�yr�`.cr.tnt dratil.�f�"1_�' �3!,! .< '.,-: `W sn S ^`�:�;•.�s'y.1'..nil[v,::z,:�p crfi,vx,!agi,r llm S,i.i nf.)fa r._ 'rr^:i'ilf4�aua?L'- _-_' � K.P?1::�t aefif:fP.ATifS ta. iha sl,Y.r.Y'itu:,:i!,&cc"t:l,(u.,[n,' m,:s<.;t�f•li,•c:il�f1''t�{ .• ;iY � \-4.•,� i6� 'f._''-:>.:!,i�\_!;'."LDS Slrcfl Baa gu6L1s ustSi r�F.r::pv.[•r-. .. ';Is( snq i� ��=•}_tE+r 1eiL,.tiuF Sn,v1L+,!era!Fluleery hr lr+;:i ef_�o:i!+,>:iit 11>yrdn,9snL!i, /;: r. f t�{j �'�:•t itii3�'^'"t'ni F r tiTlp u£L.q.:A.IF3•.LSCt.'-n �•idctl;[}•:tra•SU.t;7-Ferl F",sytt:i.•�dR. .: y �n_i CI ;'x,;i i;;c:': iidan ii'.•4'tF[ 1Lc't,lll:;viag.f:.z�:i"t;il fr ih'� �'!•��t:$LPIr$:45:_::W.:rPLe�}.SPF !Gael"icf[�Cl,i?j'�[14IdCbCC'9LCr:L•.�Ltlti'�FitifGlirl{.l',L,SCtECkj'}�Ij•M'�.�ti 5 : :_-:�'Y?fr4r?±�;I•=,e.R !a etie.nz.aP a yr rrei.m,y�ns•re.u{•dv.1-.j:s Acni•.:1. ?ilu,:2.{k 4C, � •�':�_; ';' ''P.a:E�1 ie nrxta• i�'ac -C—nt-v; ZA1-ar.Jct 5 rvr.;;�'.,:9rl:�pd£ra,t'-t3:-rrc•Ye,31anS!:X az o r,,nXe:l[..U:sc„Lcn:rce+.Nilalgy6ta3t�'f�•."4YS .x ;.�_v",[' t,; ` n' anl•d cu:v0:4htui•A�;ali?ti�ttit+Y;??ty'•;'�17�'�• a+»oiitna'b-?uzir:'Wd lgi rA 7]!::obri'. �:•eor.C3tll�=G:akva�•3&;<St3trvei•_>;j�4iha'h.e.erRii'AI�k.'tF2et s:-<l•..'.1"1.y:,i39+L' r TiI'.A�,.��s.� j${ ,,,•- :712ri.'itnt.Ia•ehe.�i"uFYi � �M.•rvti:a uR-<nnuec•s„u>;71c•.eaien�y�:�"{t,�a� R���'_ 6 .y�.F,` '.z.Jiaa�he ZifUQi�A I22,cr:a'�e.T:�fi43.:7244!?.{A�.i�TAalti}�,tirrrup.11 .iL:pif` gYH':.P'_�,�1,i,�,�` y�3'TT-7.s.'_-4�l;:RL:.�l�.t1"_:flcac4�¢7r�++i;-si2'L:iya:thzcui�.a.«saksnY L�-€,r LaN� .a:, t.'-aP'Ei'F;[en6S;i!-:Cf 1^7w.39•£oa�i:'•Yficttl�.�iw.:ti'0','k=• f"'.EAF!'\.iltpolL���I13�li.CgS>r{!w�Y. t h: .:i-`.GL•.I'�.`'ls�t•tN.1L`Eti 5?,aiFeCiy eBi=J n,c. cF.ie�:eh�rfpltcn., - t•r•.5-:•,�:_.LL:'1•�1� ;f Itl•51:ilbg �t'Ii�n:+t'�;.��t.,vl..vv j�y;lilu-,iircm,1<crrly�u:, mr ur,e!.-5 i� =ih �`�irtu.�S`,wi G'.'tllyf¢ p ri.lraW fo�:i .'-.t,,�'' .�-::,-..Thniilrup"m.i.,...: ..:.---�, v'''� pa'•G 1 ..Ti7 F .j �c '^i!i,%raeilip�t7��q�ia�ifl('u,�itJ;�-•--.•,� ..:, - .,- - ��.^ '�i;�.t`tla ii• k ;^.ti`j,�A1Y,,,;:I.,q�i�t��'ppUr�•�1��7311,'ltd-1i':. .." _��* lli,-. _ ,•-' :Tt:L' E a{ i-^.Z?It:1 .[..xx Pl&ii-_• ..:.}:�cT•'_::�"`, �• 7.`. Ir s .�r .t•>' �i-, ;:a;a ",yi�I�y���� :.,_:.,.::iRtti�n.•.:4,'."ek=�`t-`+7Dab �4�.�1Ssi' •� : v _--••. ';S.•. ry�S:: :gl�Yt�}'z`'h`+,,` �Lv:4'y.!:..;ia�%ei�t(c�ve-!iidi:' fll �:. �i! -. �'C � LNG PMin. - _ `�':�"ca��•s�t"'�,.`�C1. . S«wrztfe!4-r,` �k'*�S� d �• p�;: _ +L1•k n' �,yart•.lh+J� SN.a 6 .,,y. • )'^��`.,.. w:s ak,!•SJ,d Pd ;ry�\4:,i. J.,•� 2- c ��iiJ;E� .:G. �r ;.F,le•1 tt•�-::7�:.v 4�'" h.:51. ir � 5 ;' •ti„�i�l �Yt}uT'f'r .Z ll , "1 v i,a - ilvi��al�..ti•1:'v=�>]-�;vtii:�;:' G:`�' ,.�,..5.•,,.i;-.^'';-�i;: Item 8. - Page 844 -1526- 3 � 4 - , 1 _ $ f' •�`' ^d'*•.Ita' +`'�."t'^'�y._ •.t;'e"i P "°y'.,;ptyr•.H�s2�,7"4��:i''�.t:i_-.._.*',diµ-3���'-"��i1iP° x• 'si'�"-�,•••'e--•�-. i 3 \' Y. :t•y ��,p `� •-t f;il:.jtij Y..2tiO tl.4tddMnM 23k4R.: ..l,d .. � h'�lr.',ic�t�'6f-::43{,'��•Yut'..:ia i`., .:: •:�.:.~i `� •' •��'' �,:.'�.�•i•' �i`. L • = y:.. 't~1^ [.�.rr,�C'��ttt•r,'S'L.'t:sz• x-SC. aasive u• '' •t x, 222 .':` d4 ��.s�e�'.�ugy'r•�2U'•ZJ •�.. :' •'� Y.. y '��'•,�••,.,yli.�±�-�-'., t. p.,,. #: l,: •.iznr.: r,:&I:'PiI1G J tirn*"• -•��t ;,. t4::.'-•.n 61cy,xS:.iftst@t:�.. :�.r— ' t=1`r^ti;.4?7 •� - +:•.... rca;b5."tl;R'sut 4ro4*9i:T,1:E.14k t:r^_''3Fi`•,., �1 c(dnt'7ttk#:t'tt:'fth'kc.a.stadu°•.k.'4i'?tF2ii:(}j•'-iictt.;u-31y53�..;t-__:.cU.�F c-':-,rc ls.�rL`�•:up;:t taLx''"nt.'C;ai't8ardi a+;.n sa1i•fF,a j c`tF i.uu.:FuhCihoi a- :•.�'v 'rYiN- :W BEnCC, jiU 4 404t. to tilt: sa_itlrced- Y :i7 Cco: Tlria FrAntOa-a, R9jo. •- ^,'.,�.'� t:• - "� t - _C'n,Ctcf:-•:i1:,j}1.0:t'y,l?>i ,�lj•g.i:c cuZ;X c $tUi n i37 PI.CSs7N GL_ Eli T. '�1`.•• .. �' � .. ,. .Y�u 7�,i`,�.$once •' •+, .., - tit.•. _ .. ...�.�+"�Si,••v��:=,..,�;' W t ram. ti�h• _ - - i.�y"�•, ` .t.. ,Yili_'id':�;4`..L::ti.;. ,�:.3�• .fix' t; ''rts�j.�'t-awe-�'.a';;S;ir;"• _ _ : _ � vnI �1.M.�,a:�`- _ :is? Yii+;: �i.-i�5 • "•s'`` :ii't-ti'^ =L".'t '.�'t_ �FT,.}eGy53�,p Vie, __ '� `u�.i_....:�t-.: �x•� _ _ ';7 ';a,r.� St j'�s^Y�<. > t: _:f.,��'��}=vui ;.F.al''�".n�.tc'��::3•:•'.;,..yy..•':;=:i,i;:c.':z=i�A 4 �.� L`a�i?[� Y �.2•a3y.aiti ti:i•'at,`•L> .�•`i y»T'. ._v....____..._'.i".'"-_.v�_._C":_:: iyli} 'r::.•,`.:5�^i'aE`a[:7i!:•�ii:i']?l':.>:':i:�ai^?�>\;tii�::i:G(iLi:[i�i:ii;�1i: JC._.,;•�7` -1527- Item 8e - Page 845 !ME"A." 7M • 0_1A MEN t*WN=11=ROW Wd,N!A - .- •.1' '. s;Gtt•iiW'. �Utj:�tl;:.I9)?' .:. V. V. Oft1ce of tht,tatty Gier'k' 6.13ox LM SPACES Alit) X THts'LaNe halt ilikicillarwal ust--------- r�'(!�'�WTtNGMN BEACH. P�ITY. F.'jHUWI1Yr3i0'i4 atkii: sear F .C''I 'ec. clerk 666 of the wirk Bmth,Call.- Uldpifty.Pfly CIFk., OTT 'nib o.t'Aiio' h .Grant Oil To: %l e-.7 —1..—. . 7 Pill;rpr."tUw.ftwwlD .AN FOR.'A VALUABLE"CONSIDEHATION.receipt of i-&rh is heitby,ockAowledged.. ';NTn. pibo:. a cos the.W-is Af thfmaie of hereby GRANTS id;i_-hp lgtbff beach,a. Mx1pa-:.enin for ,,Inpe purpUse:s over;, Do, Ci iss(gt6perff Jri5 of .f{u2i f In ton-Veaih-*.,-.,: u%I 19 Orange" il't 61 W` p y OV. th, *114- ;4 F"rth'ilsf 6ti s rice t: ter c,,,* a. nge,_L Coulp Ey t vi4.y.:he :$6n�heilj.`a lbifg 14'1d' cbr'-�# Aridiigh-W.zent'lia"I"...10pu- qftj .,a . n,are lengtb. -Q. r tfie`UeK1;r161j Curve.,Eqncafke 'S61Ahwiii-tat aW L4s 41. fat lt,%'a dridj61 .bp L 'tit" 61'11iftph,cf-29304 2 4T' 64 tp-1he!:,5puthez y e PUZI .1 tirf Y... tsc= piton:'': 7 lftgt p euvill du v aqtby ­B COUNt Y*.',Q*F-' u 4r Aua%ibt�10 127 W 4., V It -Ilk•oast pa"-b"W:th Jim"i a M- 9 IN%»q M_�!,.I 7. snt3w.I MCI,= -4.-- T7p,,d. -4 V IL Item 8. - Page 646 -1 528- •`'" .•t.."••,��r�-'ct'�:'..':'i�rt•.r "",ni.ravd•'I++.at• .Lp•�..�..�t.•:+'?7 :1:�•..., tl,"'•1,i'�• ,;:`',r'. r. .iiFa ',r• ;_,. ..; .,`' ::" ai,,�:�.�, ...-ra::'it J.�„t, 'k�'._ -��•.•'•.-•+'�r,,::�. ,�ti��a• :Cty.' af: 'H. xingm.: c 'c . �. ' •' — -�isx'too.:,....:. .:._� ::.��_-_,�tT �"- :.. e DEED 'CERT-IFL,CATTO_N ' This is'•to -6esctifX"th•$t the-intexe8t fn'`:rtal:'pti�'pperty=cbs3veyatl'by the ••deeil. dated qugti%t..20', 1972 from 'INTREPID.O.-D£vI°LOPMSI+ COHR?�2TY' - ''to the City o Huntington.8itach•' Vvitmlcts&L'`Corpptgt otX :;!`et,he eby aOcepted'.by the Vhderalgni d afflcer. or.4ge0t Council of thu-'CTT1F 8F }[tlf�TINCrTON $EhLH,.;.piirsuasit:tq:.t14 •. utt+ority• :...cgnfes-red by. Sesaltrttan N4:3537 of',the'City' C�iriictl,'o;F•Cij :Ci.ty ciE.• Hun-titigton, ach adopted on''.August 7,- 1972-.";and.�the'tggirsdtee,cona4nsts ta:the recoetian' tiheredf•by.its du}y- aisthorizeQ•';o'fffcei. Dated: qugusc• 14, .1972'. :CITY Oj+• 4umhirw er _ By 'Dcputy� •t 5� ''' ,ijr'• ... - ,'' •S.!-, �1'Via•%., -.r. •Jf• ••i.'•� '�f• :_.- ti..�.��� �..��:-�i{.�.^�'�'^'{� ric••ta•'•_-'-r.::.•.w�':�.;•:.•:..Y;:;'2.':.},. •'ri::^ l'^y.�r�•lilt•i:.�Yw'�• » _=�a_..�o t�'.'�NSt.T+•"{.fi�+i•..:/' -- (��,.-i- :'jyl', .-.zyl`.•{J•t'.�. -1529- Item 8. - Page 847 Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, State of California, under date of Aus, 24, 1994.case A50479. PROOF OF I"UB"LICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. - COUNTY OF ORANGE ) NOTICE OFPOBII tHEARING BEFORE THE CITY(OUNCi OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH am the Citizen of the United States and a NOTICE IS HEREBY CIVEN'that on Monday,Way resident of the County aforesaid; I am over 3,Chambers, 2 0 M p.m.St in the city Council Chambers,Council Main Street, Huntington Beach, j the age of eighteen years, and not a art the city couni a will hold a public hearing on I the following planning and zoning items: party f 296 ((AAPPEAL 1. TENTATIVE PLANNING TCOMMISSION'S MAP NO. �AP.- to or interested in the below entitled matter. ; PROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DENIAL OF i IDENTIFIED CODE REQUIREMENTS - HUNTING- am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON TON SHORECLIFF'S MOBILEHOME ,PARK) BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper Of Applicant/Appellant: Robert S. Coldren, Hart, general circulation printed and published in King & Coldren, 20 RequesSandpot: T Fourth Floor, Santa Ana,,Sh 92707 Request: To subdivide the .' p � Huntington Shorecliff's Mobilehome Park, ap- the City of Huntington Beach, County Of I proximately 39.2.acret, into 304 numbered lots Orange, State of California, and the and xi lettered lots for purposes it converting fan,or existing ip space for-rent applicant pro park attached Notice is a true and complete copy for ownership purposes._The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park to enable the as was printed and published on the as park 'residents purchase'their own in lots. The;request also includes an appeal of following date(s): identified code requir ntton Buant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning & ' Subdivision Ordinance. The subdivision was ap- proved 'and the appeal of. identified code requirements was denied by the Planning Com- mission on March 9,2010.Location:20701 Beach Blvd:, 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. '- Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park) Project, Planner: Ethan Ed- wards ' NOTICE IS HEREBY 'GIVEN that Item' #1 is ` categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Exist- ing Facilities; Section,15301(k) of the,California t Environmental Quality Act, which provides that i division of existing multiple-family or single- family residences into common-interest_owner- ship are exempt where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be,available to interested parties at 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the 1 the 2010City Clerk's Office on Thursday, April 29, fCregOPrlg IS true and CCrreCt. ALL INTERESTED'PERSONS are-invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as Joutlined above.If you challenge the City CouncWs action in court, you may be limited to raising Executed on April 22, 2010 only those issues you or someone else raised at the public in _hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered t t the City at Costa Mesa, California or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Depart- ment at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above i items.Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Joan U.Flynn,City Clerk', City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Signature Huntington 536-5227 nia 92648 Published Huntington Beach Independent April 22,2010 - 044-598 Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,State of California, under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case A50479. r ROOF OF PUBMICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. NOTICE OF PUBU(HEARING COUNTY OF ORANGE ) BEFORE THE CITY(OUNCILOFTHE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, May am the Citizen of the United States and a 3, 2010,tubers,.2.2 6:00' St in the city,council Chambers, Main Street, Huntington Beach, ' resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the'City Council will holda ,public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 the age of eighteen years, and not a party (APPEAL;OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S AP- =AL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DENIAL OF to Or Interested In the below entitled matter. IDENTIFIED CODE REQUIREMENTS - HUNTING- I am a principal clerk of the HUNTING T ON TON'Applicant/ApFF'Spellant: Mert S. OME PARK) Applicant/Appellant: Robert S. Coldren, Hart, BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of King'& Coldren, 200 inte, Fourth floor, " Santa Ana, CA 92707 Reques Request: To subdivide theHunt general circulation, printed and published in proximately Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park, of proximately 39.2 acres,-into 304 numbered lots and 33 lettered lots for purposes of• converting the City of Huntington Beach, County Of an existing 304 space for-rent mobilehome park for ownership purposes; The applicant proposes Orange, State of California, and the I to .convert the for-rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own attached Notice is a true and complete copy I lots. The request also includes an appeal of as Was printed and published on the identified code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(ASubdivision of the"Ordinance. Th ton Beach Zoning & following date(s): Subdivision Orthe appeal of ofbaidentifiedon ascode proved and the a requirements was denied by the Planning Comm mission on March 9,2010.Location:20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach ,Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. - Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park) Project Planner: Ethan Ed- wards NOTICE IS' HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt pursuant to Class 1, Exist- fing Facilities;Section 15301(k) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which provides that April 22 2010 division of existing multiple-family, or single- family residences into common-interest owner- ship are exempt where no physical changes_occur which are not otherwise exempt. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed,request,is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, April 29, 2010. declare under penalty of perjury, that the ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit foregoing is true and correct. evidence for-or against the application as outlined above.If you challenge the City-Council's action in court, you,may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in Executed On April 22, 2010 written correspondence delivered to the City at, fHuntington r to, the public hearing. If there are any at Costa Mesa, Californiaf .questions please call the Planning Depart - tot (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above Direct your written communications to the erk. Joan'L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Beach,California 92648 '(714)536-5227 Signatur 0 ed Huntington Beach Indl pende044A598 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, May 3, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND DENIAL OF IDENTIFIED CODE REQUIREMENTS — HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF'S MOBILEHOME PARK) Applicant/Appellant: Robert S. Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Request: To subdivide the Huntington Shorecliff's 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. The applicant proposes to convert the for-rent park to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. The request also includes an appeal of identified code requirements pursuant to Section 248.24(A) of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance. The subdivision was approved and the appeal of identified code requirements was denied by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2010. Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. — Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park) Project Planner: Ethan Edwards NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is 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. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, April 29, 2010. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 CADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\EVZ1 1 ETS\05031 0 (Shorecliffs).DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, May 3, 2010, at 6.00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296 (APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL — HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFF'S MOSILEHOME PARK SUBDIVISION) Applicant/Appellant: Robert S. Coldren, Hart, King & Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Request: To subdivide the Huntington Shorecliff s Mobilehome 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. This request was approved by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2010. Location: 20701 Beach Blvd., 92648 (west side of Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis Ave. — Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park) Project Planner: Ethan Edwards NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt 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. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, April 29, 2010. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 GALEGALS\CITY COUNCIL\201 0\05031 0 (Shorediffs).DOC Easy Peel®Labels 09L8/,• VWAJnaA_e OWWW0 W'j�nc b'e� �'4�0;" f i13 N �1 60T"" Use Avery®Template 51600 'dFll9d l Ab'+# q!jIg `P *°q 1 President Huntington Harbor POA 10 Sue Johnson 16 H.B. Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 791 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 19891 Beach Blvd.,Ste. 140 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dave Stefanides Orange County Assoc.of Realtors / y 25552 La Paz Road Laguna[-fills,CA 92653 <1,C_,J —//7—/7) President 3 Jeffrey M. Oderman 12 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18 Amigos De Bolsa Chica RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP Society,Inc. P.O. Box 1563 611 Anton Blvd.,14',Floor P.O. Box 10926 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Costa Mesa CA 92626-1950 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Attn:Jane Gothold Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres., H.B. Hist. Society 13 Director QD Pat Thies,President C/O Newland House Museum O.C. Ping.&Dev.Services Dept. PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd_ P.O.Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 President Diane Ryan 14 Bryan Speegle 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow FI B Chair O.C. Resources&Develop. Mgt. Dept. PO Box 865 7701 Etna Circle P.O. Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 927024048 Julie Vandermost 6 Council on Aging ' 5 Planning Director 20 BIA-OC 1706 Orange Ave. City of Costa Mesa 17744 Sky Park Circle,#170 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 P.O. Box 1200 Irvine CA 92614-4441 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200 Richard Spicer Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Director 21 SCAG Seacliff HOA City of Fountain Valley 818 West 7th,12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbor Circle 10200 Slater Ave. Los Angeles,CA 90017 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Jean Kimbrell ($, John Roe 16 Planning Director 22 c/o E_T.I.Corral 100 v Seacliff HOA City of Newport Beach 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 Surfdale Lane P.O_ Box 1768 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92663-8915 Robert Smith Lou Mannone 16 Planning Director 23 Environmental Board Chair Seacliff HOA City of Westminster 21352 Yarmouth Lane 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle 8200 Westminster Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Westminster,CA 92683 Planning Director 24 Ocean View School District 38 HB Hampton HOA 38 City of Seal Beach Attn:Cindy Pulfer,Admin.Services Progressive Community Mgmt. 211 Eighth St. 17200 Pmehurst Lane 27405 Puerta Real,#300 Seal Beach,CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Mission Viejo,CA 92691 label Sze 1"x 2 5/8" allhle wi Aver ®5 6( 0 Eti s a peter R �i�z ala hac a.gin a www.avery.com cyan@ E ;tte dr Rlet 25 mm� I��Qg1P ' ',�vK e, 60/8160 �_Qnn_�n_e�icav Easy Peel®Labels �3918f QfaaAj,ane fl3 u�u��x wg �getts�;;a�i' 31:4 TM e Use Avery®Template 51600 ��a 1�1 �11 gj%,,''a j y California Coastal Commission 25 Clark Hampton 32 Sally Graham 39 Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Gelding Circle 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 California Coastal Commission 25 Stephen Ritter (13) Cheryle Browning 39 South Coast Area Office HB Union High School Disrict Meadowlark Area 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor 5832 Bolsa Avenue 16771 Roosevelt Lane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Ryan P.Chamberlain 26 Hearthside Homes 40 Caitrans District 12 S/3 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92612-1699 /7 Z9� Director 27 Goldenwest College 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Local Solid Waste Enf Agy. Attn: Fred Owens 5200 Warner Avenue,Ste_ 108 O.C. Health Care Agency 15744 Goldenwest St. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 P.O. Box 355 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 28 OC County Harbors,Beach 36 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 41 Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks Dept_ Evan Henry,President 6771 Warner Ave. P.O_ Box 4048 1812 Port Tiffin Place Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Newport Beach,CA 92660 Marc Ecker 29 Bella Terra Mall 37 Fountain Valley Elem_School Dist_ Attn: Pat Rogers-Laude 10055 Slater Avenue 7777 Edinger Ave. #300 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Dr.Gary Rutherford,Super. Country View Estates HOA 38 OC Sanitation District 42 HB City Elementary School Dist. Carrie Thomas 10844 Ellis Avenue 20451 Craimer Lane 6642 Trotter Drive Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 David Perry 30 Country View Estates HOA 38 Eric Pendegraft,Plant Manager 42 LIB City Elementary School Dist Gerald Chapman AES Huntington Beach,LLC 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire Circle 21730 Newland Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Richard Loy 42 Huntington Beach Gids Softball* 47 AYSO Region 56 47 9062 Kahului Drive Mike Erickson Commissioner John Gray Huntington Beach CA 92646 P_O_ Box 3943 9522 Smokey Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3943 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 John Ely 42 AYSO Region 117 47 AYSO Region 55 47 22102 Rockport Lane John Almanza Commissioner Russ Marlow Huntington Beach CA 92646 19961 Bushard St. 18111 Brentwell Circle Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 label j[ze 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Ave ®516! 0 i Eti s a peter www.avery.com , t. Ate t$6€tgWt 25 mm �l�i �dC� r ��� 160/8160 it+:1 «:+ A\/CDV®C1 CA® . /.,. «e14-A D---[I-TM '1 4AA_f:A_A\ltOV - •mot Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to /3/ Q AVERV®-5960Tm i Use Avery®Template 51600 J Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM 024-212-04 024-212-10 024-212-11 James C Rodriguez Veronica M Raczkowski Veronica M Raczkowski 19141 Summerwood Cir 708 California St 704 California St Huntington Be, CA 92648-6608 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4716 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4716 024-212-14 024-212-15 024-212-16 Steven J Holtz Timothy S Manzo Mark & Lucille Shuck 707 Delaware St 705 Delaware St 703 Delaware St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4721 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4721 Huntington Be, CA 92645-4721 024-212-17 024-213-01 024-213-02 Ryan Marshall Linda A Duchein Michael Santillanes 10239 Holburn Dr 619 Delaware St 2134 Main St 185 Huntington Be, CA 92646-4332 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4719 Huntington Be, CA 92648-6448 024-213-06 024-213-08 024-213-10 Pamela K Mc Ginnis Ruby M Davis Earl J & Christina Ziema *B* 1582 Baker St 1653 James Dr 606 California St Costa Mesa, CA 92626-3747 Carlsbad, CA 92008-1955 Huntington Be, CA 92648 -4714 024-213-11 024-213-12 024-213-13 Debra K Goode Joanne Colley *M* Evelyn Blain 602 California St 21112 Cocobana Ln 618 California St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4714 Huntington Be, CA 92646-6433 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4714 024-213-14 024-213-15 024-213-16 Keith E & Dana Stockton Richard D Werblin Thomas P Mcgrath 620 California St 612 California St 610 California St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4714 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4714 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4714 024-213-17 024-213-18 024-216-01 R A Kunze Thomas L & Mary Lloyd Richard J Van Der Pol *B* 611 Delaware St 613 Delaware St 617 California St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4719 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4719 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4713 024-216-02 024-216-03 024-216-04 Paul Valenzuela John L & Nan Kappeler Harry Bovie 615 California St 613 California St 1148 Prevost Pass Huntington Be, CA 92648-4713 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4713 Henderson, NV 89002-8948 024-216-05 024-216-15 024-216-16 Carlos & Matilde Jaffe Charles Ondrejcka Armen L Bagdasarian *M* 607 California St 4031 Verdugo Rd 603 California St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4713 Los Angeles, CA 90065-3726 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4713 024-216-17 024-221-02 024-221-03 Ronald S & Deborah Gonsalves Lindsey P Dias Ernest E Adrasik *B* 605 California St 416 Frankfort Ave 515 Delaware St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4713 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4937 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4919 Etiquettes faciles a peter A Repliez i la hachure afin de wwwavery.Corn ' . 1—;+Avcnv®c-icn@ Sens de 1e.oti...a c...,_i I..nN Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to 13 o AVERY® 5960T"" i Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTm 024-221-05 024-221-08 024-221-09 Tak L Lau Darlene S Owens Sft South PO Box 15404 905 England St 17220 Newhope St 224 Long Beach, CA 90815-0404 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4309 Fountain Vall, CA 9270E3-4288 024-221-11 024-221-14 024-221-15 Lee Carrothers Kimberly Nguyen Marc R & Virginia Mumford 512 California St 1217 E Chapman Ave 503 Delaware St B Huntington Be, CA 92648-4917 Fullerton, CA 92831-3908 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4949 024-221-16 024-221-17 024-221-19 Melvin L & Annemarie Crenshaw Ross James T Stallings 7336 Svl Box 513 Delaware St 510 California St Victorville, CA 92395-5155 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4919 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4917 024-221-20 024-221-21 024-221-22 Eric H & Martha Alden John R Milliken Bret C Schaffer 508 California St 506 California St 516 California St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4917 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4917 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4917 024-221-23 024-221-26 024-222-01 Jeanne Chocek Patrick T & Tamara Gillespie Christopher J Taylor PO Box 8063 517 Delaware St 1840 Pine St Huntington Be, CA 92615-8063 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4919 Huntington Be, CA 92648-2742 024-222-02 024-222-03 024-222-04 Christopher J & Terri Taylor Jeffrey & Rene Carnival Michael M Santillanes 1840 Pine St 6691 Harbor Key Cir 96 Brentwood Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-2742 Huntington Be, CA 92648-2117 Tehachapi, CA 93561-2328 024-222-08 024-222-09 024-222-10 Dewey D Davide Chong Fong Mary Sheridan PO Box 911 445 Jade Tree Dr 416 California St Huntington Be, CA 92648-0499 Monterey Park, CA 91754-2538 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4915 024- - 1 024-222-13 024-222-14 Mary Sherida Richard R White Lori Kouchi 416 Ca rnia St 404 California St 413 Detroit Ave Hun ington Be, CA 92648-4 15 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4915 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5222 024-222-15 024-222-16 024-222-17 Rory A & Kimberly Trotman Ayad & Fatina Jaber Shelby S Braverman 406 California St 2197 Saratoga Ln 409 Delaware St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4915 Glendora, CA 91741-4613 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4918 024-222-18 024-222-19 024-222-20 Paul Huynh Francis J & Therese Shearman Darrell Baker 411 Delaware St 405 Delaware St 407 Delaware St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4918 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4918 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4918 Etiquettes faciles a peter ® Repliez a la hachure afin de; r''I ��9�www.averycom .. kti + AVCDv®C1Gn® Sens de .5-Al-,In. k--4 D-11nTM I 1_AfllLrfl_AVC0V 1. r Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to i ❑ Use Avery®Template 51600 Peed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTTM /�'� /o AMERV® 5960TM 024-223-01 024-223-02 024-223-03 James M & Sharon Kelly Robert Geraci Sproul John 519 California St 17821 Wrightwood Ln 755 Beverly Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-4916 Huntington Be, CA 92649-4957 Vista, CA 92084-5328 024 23-04 024-223-05 024-224-01 Sproule Steve Nguyen David Kazan 755 Bever r 1217 E Chapman Ave PO Box 529 Vis CA 92084-5328 Fullerton, CA 92831-3908 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-0529 024-224-02 024-224-03 024-224-04 Wiilson Weisenburg Keith Dawson Tom & Shirly Turner 5881 Lancefield Dr PO Box 6537 17722 Falkirk Ln Huntington Be, CA 92649-4904 Huntington Be, CA 92615-6537 Huntington Be, CA 9264 5-4813 024-224-05 024-225-02 024-225-03 Christopher Button *B* Harold Bowles Robert J & Susan Delme r- 9242 Christine Dr 315 California St 305 California St Huntington Be, CA 92646-8318 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5215 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5215 024-225-13 024-225-14 024-231-12 Guy Offill John P Murray Sharlene Van Brunt 317 California St 319 California St 817 Geneva Ave A Huntington Be, CA 92648-5215 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5215 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-8703 024-231-25 024-231-26 024-231-28 Milton A Jelinowicz Tung Dinh Jerry B Kirby 3911 Sunflower St 10051 Fowler Cir 635 Hartford Ave Seal Beach, CA 90740-2951 Westminster, CA 92683-6780 Huntington Be, CA 92648--4748 024-231-29 024-231-34 024-231-35 Beach Girls Llc Philip K Isenhouer Bruce S Beaton *B* 900 Granger Farm Way 5415 Walnut Ln 909 1OTh St Las Vegas, NV 89145-8618 Yorba Linda, CA 92886-4934 Huntington Be, CA 92648-3405 024-231-38 024-231-40 024-231-41 John Topolewski Diana J Volkoff Randy M Negrette 815 Geneva Ave PO Box 129 800 Florida St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4737 Huntington Be, CA 92648-0129 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4702 024-232-03 024-232-04 024-232-06 Joseph T Vogel Donald 0 Wichner David Unger 810 Geneva Ave 217 12Th St A 822 Geneva Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4738 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4876 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4738 024-232-07 024-232-08 024-232-11 Charles M & Corrine Jack *B* David M & Michelle Pate Harold La Chappell 6901 Lawn Haven Dr 828 Geneva Ave 807 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-2121 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4738 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Etiquettes faciles a peter ARepliez a la hachure afin de; -TI M 1 4Lp6 www.avery.com ; Itilica7 Ia nnhnrit AVFRV®9;19; 4& Sens de rdiuMbr la rohnrrl Pnn_IInTm 1_S2nn_!:!1_A\/FRV 1, Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to1 :`1/3/�0 ❑ A ��® T i Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTN1 . ® � 5960 "" j 024-232-12 024-232-16 024-232-18 Kevin & Rachelle Vidal Joanna J Bruce Bradley & Sandra Peter---en 811 Frankfort Ave 1837 Pine St 802 Indianapolis Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Huntington Be, CA 92648-2741 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-4389 024-232-19 024-232-20 024-232-21 James Reha Anderson *B* Muriel Kaufman 830 Geneva Ave 841 Frankfort Ave 837 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4738 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-4904 024-232-25 024-232-26 024-232-27 Leo J Vander Horst Thomas M Woodard Merle Cade 823 Frankfort Ave 825 Frankfort Ave 827 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-4904 024-232-28 024-232-29 024-232-31 Rolland L Taylor Pamla Taylor Galen Schumacher 19912 Potomac Ln 18117 Palmetto Cir 801 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92646-3522 Fountain Vall, CA 92708-5752 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-4904 024-232-32 024-232.-33 024-232-34 Christopher J & Judith Faris Michael Nguyen *M* Dennis L Dilley 803 Frankfort Ave 805 Frankfort Ave 819 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 024-232-36 024-232-37 024-232-38 Peter Ryan Steven D Millette Bui Kim Loan 707 Hill St 713 Hill St 6831 Turf Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-4750 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4750 Huntington Be, CA 92648-1557 024-232-39 024-232-40 024-232-41 Jetta International Ltd Christopher A Lahage Jessie Whiteley 815 Frankfort Ave 829 Frankfort Ave 831 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4904 024-232-42 024-232-43 024-241-03 Glen E Irving Reagoso Scott D Van Derripe 808 Geneva Ave 806 Geneva Ave 21202 White Horse Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-4738 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4738 Huntington Be, CA 92646-7008 024-241-04 024-241-06 024-241-07 Stuart R Dingwall Galasso Kimberly A Virgona 8042 Goleta Point Dr 512 Hartford Ave 616 Hartford Ave Huntington Be, CA 92646-5552 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4747 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4749 024-241-08 024-241-09 024-241-10 Debra L Putnam Fernando M Rangel Brady Smith 618 Hartford Ave 9044 Bitteroot Cir 622 Hartford Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4749 Fountain Vall, CA 92708-1402 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4749 Etiquettes faciles a peter ; s Repliez a la hachure afin de; -fM j-12 q6 www.avery.com 1 stmc­10. h� ;+Avcov®cun® Sens de -&-Al—1e—5—A 0n 11-TM i �_Qnn_�n_n,icov 1 r Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Send along line to / (� AVERV®5960TM e Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTm ajl�p V j 024-241-11 024-241-12 024-241-13 Joan M Mc Kee Robin Kass William M Bruce 624 Hartford Ave 1270 N Lucerne Ln 193SO Ward St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4749 Fresno, CA 93728-1713 Huntington Be, CA 92645-3006 024-241-15 024-241-16 024-241-17 Wallace & Suzann Gialenes Gary Bigley Brian T Anderson 617 Geneva Ave 619 Geneva Ave 7 Riviera Huntington Be, CA 92648-4733 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4733 Trabuco Canyo, CA 92679-4810 024-241-19 024-241-20 024-241-21 Judith M Amoroso Gerald H Ramsey Dea M Stanuszek 20882 Shell Harbor Cir PO Box 6537 21491 Via Sombreada Huntington Be, CA 92646-6312 Huntington Be, CA 92615-6537 Lake Forest, CA 92630-2023 024-241-22 024-242-01 024-242-02 Jeffrey P & Beth Clifford Ng Del-O-Glen Llc Frances Bastien 611 Geneva Ave 17032 Palmdale St C 1016 Lake St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4733 Huntington Be, CA 92647-8450 Huntington Be, CA 92648-3562 024-242-04 024-242-05 024-242-07 Ken Ingram Lance E Norris *M* Nasser Mahgerefteh 501 Frankfort Ave 711 April Dr 1605 Huntington St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4901 Huntington Be, CA 92648-3775 Huntington Beach, CA 92 648 024-242-13 024-242-17 024-242-20 Robert Josenhans James L Oliver James A Lane PO Box 80582 627 Frankfort Ave 637 Frankfort Ave San Marino, CA 91118-8582 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 024-242-22 024-242-23 024-242-24 Claude C Wright Robert L & Shari Chapman Benchmark Property Management 4973 W Olympic Ave 3790 Sunday Ct 626 Geneva Ave Banning, CA 92220-5171 Redding, CA 96001-0174 Huntington Be, CA 92648-8210 024-242-25 024-242-27 024-242-29 Raymond E Menard *M* James L Oliver Holly Hutchins PO Box 1098 627 Frankfort Ave 33 Whitecloud Westminster, CA 92684-1098 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Irvine, CA 92614-5448 024-242-31Q(QZ(OI SY6or)e-1 024-242-34 024-242-35 606 Geneva Ave Victor & Melanie Schlag *M* Ray & Yolanda Hickman Hu'li-AfJlto� {3CaLh,C(1 g26`f'9 5038 Vista Montana 622 Geneva Ave Yorba Linda, CA 92886-4508 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4790 024-242-36 024-242-37 024-242-38 Gary L Weaver Ownerloccppanl Billy J Scogin 19711 Bowman Ln 22051 Rockport Ln 516 Geneva Ave Huntington Be, CA 92646-3101 Huntington Be, CA q ZW9 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4732 Etiquettes faciles i peter ARepGez a la hachure afin de; Tim 17L� www.avery com r�ra��o�ie.,�►.�r;+ evicev®�cun® Sens de �o„ono.1.„ak--4 D^-1I-TM i a_Qnn r_n_nvcvv It Easy Peel®Labels A ® Bend along fine to I JJ Al ®5960Tm It ® Use Avery®Template 51600 ) Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTO l3//0 j 024-242-39 024-242-40 024-242-41 William Lewis Jack D Olson Susan I St Clair 514 Geneva Ave 512 Geneva Ave 8157 Denver St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4732 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4732 Ventura, CA 93004-2054 024-242-42 024-242-43 024-242-44 Dorsey A Brown Gregory S & Danielle Winchell Haril E Whetsell 643 Frankfort Ave 647 Frankfort Ave 629 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-4902 024-242-45 024-242-46 024-242-47 Ronald D & Karen Davis James E & Margaret Heyward Michael & Kristina Herinzanns 631 Frankfort Ave 632 Geneva Ave 4646 Wailapa Rd Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4734 Kilauea, HI 96754-5550 024-242-48 024-242-49 024-242-50 Sean & Sandra Mahoney Charles M Finch Kenneth Spiker *B* 633 Frankfort Ave 635 Frankfort Ave 605 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-4902 024-242-51 024-242-52 024-242-53 Robert Schaaf Mark A Foster Debra Kirchner 607 Frankfort Ave 609 Frankfort Ave 611 Frankfort Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-4902 024-242-54 024-242-55 024-242-56 David R Howarth Louis Jaquin Cwmbs Inc 2007-Hy3 615 Frankfort Ave 613 Frankfort Ave 604 Geneva Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 92648-4902 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-4734 024-242-57 -250-01 024-261-01 / Shaughnessy City Of n Beach Le Race( Na+I v i LL�I��Q K 602 Geneva Ave PO B 190 30$ Sf. Huntington Be, CA 92648-4734 Huntington Be, CA 92648-0190 Nurfi.njton Ieacti1CA g2blf-g 024-261-02 024-261-26 02 -261-27 Harlo V Le Bard Life City Of on Beach_ 308 California St 2309 Pacific Coast Hwy 203 PO Box Huntington Be, CA 92648-5216 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-2753 Hunt ngton Be, CA 9264 - 0 024-261-28 024-301-01 024-301-02 Las Brisas At Huntington David T & Christine Marcin Mark D Alpert 29 B Technology Dr 100 20981 Coastview Ln 9681 Melinda Cir Irvine, CA 92618 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Be, CA 92646-8427 024-301-03 024-301-04 024-301-05 Ann Stefanucci John Obrien Marcia M Bruno 20971 Coastview Ln 20965 Coastview Ln 21362 Andalucia Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5744 Etiquettes faciles a peter - Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.averycom 11*ilicn7 In n�h�ri+A%/FRV®S1An® Sens de rn..nln�In—hnnl Dnn_I InTM 1-nnn-lzA-A1,/G0V 1 ----- --- -------- --- r Easy Peel®Labels A ® Bend along line to i WAVERVO 5960TM Use Avery®Template 51600 lFeed Paper ® expose Pop-Up Edge— j 024-301-06 024-301-07 024-301-08 David A Butler Lota N Relato Sung Smith 20945 Coastview Ln 20941 Coastview Ln 16331 Rhone Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Be, CA 9264",-4126 024-301-09 024-301-10 024-301-11 Hiro Kiyan Paul Reynolds James J Walach 20931 Coastview Ln 20905 Coastview Ln 20a01 Coastview Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5250 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5250 024-301-12 024-301-13 024-301-14 Roy M Henderson Michael D Grillette Robert Weber PO Box 7254 20891 Coastview Ln 20892 Coastview Ln Huntington Be, CA 92615-7254 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5267 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5266 024-301-15 024-301-17 024-301-18 Kristi Delange Bruce B & Freda Schade Irving Newman 20896 Coastview Ln 20912 Coastview Ln 16312 Mandalay Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5266 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5270 Huntington Be, CA 92649-2107 024-301-19 024-301-20 024-301-21 William R & Yvonne Scannell Donna J Oktavec Michel & Mary Dansereau 20926 Coastview Ln 20932 Coastview Ln 20942 Coastview Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5270 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5270 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5270 024-301-22 024-301-23 024-301-24 Dennis L & Maria Spoolstra Andrew B Casale Linda Endo 3615 Golden Hill Rd 3339 Cold Plains Dr 20951 Sailmaker Cir Paso Robles, CA 93446-6393 Hacienda Heig, CA 91745-6314 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5272 024-301-25 024-301-26 024-301-27 Nancy Ramos Raymond J Bambery Paul F & Kathy Petruna 20945 Sailmaker Cir 20941 Sailmaker Cir 20935 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 024-301-28 024-301-29 024-301-30 Barry Bellovich Nicola D Costantini John R & Karen Hawker 20931 Sailmaker Cir 5222 Dahlia Dr 20911 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Los Angeles, CA 90041-1407 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 024-301-31 024-301-32 024-301-33 Paul Pfaff Jesse J Cass Shivendra Thakkar 20905 Sailmaker Cir 20901 Sailmaker Cir PO Box 6655 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 92615-6655 024-301-34 024-301-35 024-301-36 Newman Paul J & Alicia Drozd Edward & Patrici Greaney 20891 Sailmaker Cir 20892 Sailmaker Cir 290 Dans Hwy Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 New Canaan, CT 06840-2505 Eti uettes faciles a eier l�Y\'1 q p Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de! www.averycom 1 I I4ilicm to nnF�=ri4 A\/FRV®S'IAA® - rnvnln�in rnl.nr�l Dnn_I lnrm 1_RAf\_!'�\_AVCDV 1 - 1 Easy Peel®Labels A ® Bend along line to i AVERNI® 5960— i Use Avery®Template 51600 J Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTM 1 024-301-37 024-301-38 024-301-39 Dashan V & Jennifer Hayh *M* G Marianne Miseon A & Nam Choi 20902 Sailmaker Cir 20916 Sailmaker Cir 20922 Sailmaker Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5272 024-301-40 024-301-41 024-301-42 Matthew B Mc Grath James M Bergman Robert Fernandez 20926 Sailmaker Cir 20932 Sailmaker Cir 7846 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5251 024-301-43 024-301-44 024-301-45 Jodi Jacobson Irina P Suvorov Ann Cox 14556 Addison St 7836 Beachcomber Dr 7832 Beachcomber Dr Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-1707 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5251 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5251 024-301-46 024-301-47 024-301-48 Taza Properties Anne E Mueller David A Tortorice 7826 Beachcomber Dr 4825 E Moonlight Way 15980 Grand Ave M46 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5251 Paradise Vall, AZ 85253-2959 Lake Elsinore, CA 92530-5604 024-301-49 024-301-50 024-301-51 Gary A Stein Matthew C & Amy Goodshaw John G Yamazaki 21838 Castlewood Dr 7796 Beachcomber Dr 930 Crest Ave Malibu, CA 90265-3407 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5249 Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2211 024-301-52 024-301-53 024-302-01 Kito La Cuesta Community Assn Gary D Hansen 7786 Beachcomber Dr PO Box A 1931 Pine St Huntington Be, CA 92648-5249 Huntington Be, CA 92648-0770 Huntington Be, CA 92648-2762 024-302-02 024-302-03 024-302-04 Mary Cortez Chewang Ngokhang Janis K Wallace 20921 Shellfish Ln 9740 Weare Ave 20911 Shellfish Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5261 Fountain Vall, CA 92708-1052 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5261 024-302-05 024-302-06 024-302-07 Robert & Christine Maier Earl S & Amparo Ames Barbara M Mc Cormack 7886 Shell Cir 7882 Shell Cir 7876 Shell Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5259 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5259 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5259 024-302-08 024-302-09 024-302-10 Bradford D & Lisa Calvin Steven & Denise Zantos Lynn Unger 7872 Shell Cir 7866 Shell Cir 7871 Shell Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5259 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5259 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5259 024-302-11 024-302-12 024-302-13 James E Thomas Abdel Ali *M* Janice Beadleston-Young 7875 Shell Cir 12269 Alta Panorama 16722 Edgewater Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5259 Santa Ana, CA 92705-1302 Huntington Be, CA 92649-3005 JIM tti uettes faciles a ler ' /�ZS� ' q � Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de i www.averycom � I Itilicn�In n=hZrit AVCRV®S1 C.n� _ rLwAi—Ic—1—M Onn_II-TM Easy Peel®Labels ♦ ® Bend along line to n � Q��® 5960T'" i Use Avery4D Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTM o V j 024-302-14 024-302-15 024-302-16 Roy Hansen Edward J & Jennifer Paige Robert Mc Cullough 7891 Shell Cir 7922 Beachcomber Dr 20904 Shellfish Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5259 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5268 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5260 024-302-17 024-302-18 024-302-19 Charlotte R Roberts Ammer S & Michele Naber Linda Frappia 20912 Shellfish Ln 20916 Shellfish Ln 21788 Tahoe Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5260 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5260 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1 931 024-302-20 024-302-21 024-302-22 Michael T Williams Willis & Darcia Lester Richard J Perrier 20932 Shellfish Ln 20936 Shellfish Ln 7925 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-5260 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5260 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5269 024-302-23 024-302-24 024-302-25 David A Adams *B* Natalie Nichols Robert Saldana 7931 Beachcomber Dr 7935 Beachcomber Dr 20951 Seacoast Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5269 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5269 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5248 024-302-26 024-302-27 024-302-28 Kim R Walker Pamela Prete Ellen F Crew 1200 First St 1028 PO Box 7082 20931 Seacoast Cir Alexandria, VA 22314-1684 Huntington Be, CA 92615-7082 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5248 024-302-29 024-302-30 024-302-31 W & Diane Joye Keith W Dahl John R Aronson 20925 Seacoast Cir 19601 Ditmar Ln 20905 Seacoast Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Huntington Be, CA 92646-311.1 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 024-302-32 024-302-33 024-302-34 Kurt Henry Carl W & Connie Owen Luis Vasquez 20901 Seacoast Cir 20895 Seacoast Cir 20891 Seacoast Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 024-302-35 024-302-36 024-302-37 Lawrence B Sauers Michael C Geers Doris B Murphy 20892 Seacoast Cir PO Box 5206 20902 Seacoast Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Huntington Be, CA 92615-5206 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 024-302-38 024-302-39 024-302-40 Gregory J Harth Alan Wickstrand Liliane Aouizerat 20906 Seacoast Cir 20912 Seacoast Cir 20926 Seacoast Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 024-302-41 024-302-42 024-302-43 David C & Janet Stellfox Lawrence F Tenn Alex J Alvarez 20932 Seacoast Cir 18665 Horace St 18272 Pammy Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Northridge, CA 91326-2713 Huntington Be, CA 92648-1432 Etiquettes faciles a peter Tf wl l 9-Z9 im IRepliez a la hachure afin de www.averycom IltiliC a7 IP nahnrit AVFRVO 1.tAn® Sens de ravolcr to r hnrrl Pnn_IInTM 1_RAn_r..n-AVFRV I r Easy Peel®Labels A ® Bend along line to A®/��YO 5960T"' i Use Avery®Template 5160® l Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTm J 024-302-44 024-302-45 024-302-46 Robert F Low Marilyn Palomino Douglas L Blankenship 20946 Seacoast Cir 20962 Seacoast Cir 20966 Seacoast Cir Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 024-302-47 024-302-48 024-302-49 Tania Harutunian Michie Burrell Imre Cziraki 20972 Seacoast Cir 11 Goose Pond Rd 10621 Midway Ave Huntington Be, CA 92648-5248 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694-1333 Cerritos, CA 90703-1522 024-302-50 024-302-51 024-302-52 Jay & Sylvia Stafford Charlotte Autrey Craig & Yuko Athey 7952 Beachcomber Dr PO Box 3526 7942 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-5268 San Angelo, TX 76902-3526 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5268 024-302-53 024-302-54 024-302-55 Guy & Karen Chanin Carol A Branham Edward Paige 7936 Beachcomber Dr PO Box 2427 7922 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-5268 Cypress, CA 90630-1927 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5268 024-302-56 024-302-57 024-302-58 Stephanie Getzewich Cheri S Barrett Richard & Diane Young 7916 Beachcomber Dr 7912 Beachcomber Dr 7906 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-5268 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5268 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5268 024-302-59 024-302-60 024-302-61 Charles & Mari Ambrose Us Bank Na Armt 2005-8 Rodney M Brue 7892 Beachcomber Dr 7886 Beachcomber Dr 16731 Bolero Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5252 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5252 Huntington Be, CA 9264 9-3025 024-302-62 024-302-63 025-172-06 Michael S Callihan La Cuesta Community Assn Nabil & Agarid Jarjour 7876 Beachcomber Dr 24422 Avenida De La Carlota 46, 22181 Wood Island Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-5252 Laguna Hills, CA 92653-3636 Huntington Be, CA 92646-8439 025-174-07 025-174-11 025-174-12 Robert A Dahl Darman Llc Randolph W Jones 701 Indianapolis Ave PO Box 92 208 18Th St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4331 Syosset, NY 11791-0092 Huntington Be, CA 92648-3904 025-174-14 025-174-15 h 025-174-16 Keith A Wichner Falcon Equities Llc� ���t�k ��Rw�O Marvin L Johnson *M* 19021 Beach Blvd A 502 Avenida Lucia 19671 Quiet Bay Ln Huntington Be, CA 92648-2305 Newport Beach, CA 92660-4020 Huntington Be, CA 92648-2613 151-293-03 � Co j "rrtt �a 151-293-04 hyCtC�c �Q.�(t ��a 151-293-05 o r Qlc- K Pacific Sands Llc Jensen n.n Pacific Sands Llc 20471 Seven Seas Ln 20451 Seven Seas Ln 20441 Seven Seas Ln Huntington Be, CA 92646-5030 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5030 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5030 Trrl 1--2-9( I Etiquettes faciles i peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com Wli—Ie--t—.+ nvcov®C,en® Sens de ��., L.h. t,--4 0-1I—TM i +_Qnn_r_n..nvcov t r Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to I � ��'® 5960TM i Use Avery®Template 51600 J Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTM J S/3 I!o j 151-293-06 151-293-17 151-293-18 Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc Dale W & Linda Temple 20431 Seven Seas Ln 20452 Seven Seas Ln 20472 Seven Seas Ln Huntington Be, CA 92646-5030 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5027 Huntington Be, CA 9264E;-5027 151-293-42 151-341-01 151-341-02 Seaview Plaza Management Inc Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 1949 Auto Centre Dr 8031 Driftwood Dr 8011 Driftwood Dr Glendora, CA 91740-6714 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5001 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5001 151-341-03 151-342-01 151-342-02 David & Daisy Dumesnil Maria Cinocco Hernandez 8001 Driftwood Dr 8051 Driftwood Dr 8071 Driftwood Dr Huntington Be, CA 92646-5001 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5037 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5037 151-342-03 151-342-04 151-342-05 Orange County Flood Control Di. James R Byrom Pacific Sands Llc 300 N Flower St 6Th 8072 Driftwood Dr 12231 Woodlawn Ave Santa Ana, CA 92703-5000 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5002 Santa Ana, CA 92705-301-0 151-342-06 151-342-07 151-342-08 Titi D Dang Mary E Hammond Pacific Sands Llc *M* 8042 Driftwood Dr 8032 Driftwood Dr 8022 Driftwood Dr Huntington Be, CA 92646-5002 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5002 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5002 151-342-09 151-342-10 151-342-11 N Dourron Anh H Au Philip G Weida 8012 Driftwood Dr 8011 Ebbtide Cir 1900 Santiago Dr Huntington Be, CA 92646-5002 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5005 Newport Beach, CA 92660 151-342-12 151-342-13 151-342-14 Hung P Ngo Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 8031 Ebbtide Cir 8032 Ebbtide Cir 8061 Ebbtide Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-5005 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5005 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5005 151-342-15 151-342-16 151-342-17 David & Maria Mc Connell Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 8045 Zuma Dr 8062 Ebbtide Cir 8042 Ebbtide Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-5560 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5005 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5005 151-342-18 151-342-19 151-342-20 Pacific Sands Llc Catherine Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 8032 Ebbtide Cir 8022 Ebbtide Cir 8012 Ebbtide Cir 'Huntington Be, CA 92646-5005 Huntington Be, CA 92646-500S Huntington Be, CA 92646-5005 lSl-342-21 151-342-23 151-342-24 Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 8011 Sail Cir 8031 Sail Cir 3416 Cabrillo Blvd Huntington Be, CA 92646-5032 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5032 Los Angeles, CA 90066-1504 TM I�2-9 6 1 Etiquettes faciles a peter ♦ Repliez a la hachure afin de www.avery.com ; Itilico7 Ic nahari*A\/FRY®S ul 1�A� .Seas de r6var to rnhnrrl Pnn_1InTM 1_RA(1_rA_A\/FRV r Easy Peep Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to 1 AY ER E ®5960TM 1 Use Avery®Template 5160® Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTm j 3 l 6 1 151-342-25 151-342-26 151-342-27 Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc Lincoln Farnaworth 8061 Sail Cir 8071 Sail Cir 8062 Sail Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-5032 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5032 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5032 151-342-28 151-342-29 151-342-30 David B & Sharon Davis Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 330 Allerman Ln 8032 Sail Cir 8022 Sail Cir Gardnerville, NV 89460-6200 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5032 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5032 151-342-31 151-342-32 151-342-33 Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 6012 Sail Cir 8011 Mermaid Cir 3807 Via Manzana Huntington Be, CA 92646-5032 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5023 San Clemente, CA 92673-2630 151-342-34 151-342-35 151-342-36 Pacific Sands Llc Nicholas V & Christopher Catal( Pacific Sands Llc 8031 Mermaid Cir 8041 Mermaid Cir 8061 Mermaid Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-5023 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5023 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5023 151-342-37 151-342-38 151-342-39 Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 8071 Mermaid Cir 8062 Mermaid Cir 8042 Mermaid Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-5023 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5023 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5023 151-342-40 151-342-41 151-342-42 Pacific Sands Llc Claujean Tan Paulo R Salgado 9822 Lapworth Cir 2970 Country Club Dr 8012 Mermaid Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-6541 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-3607 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5023 151-342-43 151-342-44 151-342-45 Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 8011 Sunset Cir 8021 Sunset Cir 8031 Sunset Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-5036 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5036 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5036 151-342-46 151-342-47 151-342-48 Samuel & Mary Cortes Pacific Sands Llc Michael Goldstein 8041 Sunset Cir 2012 Santiago Dr 8071 Sunset Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-5036 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3835 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5036 151-342-49 151-342-50 151-342-51 Thomas H & Diane Moran Michael E & Jody Swenson Ante Mlinarevich 8062 Sunset Cir 8042 Sunset Cir 8032 Sunset Cir Huntington Be, CA 92646-5036 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5036 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5036 151-342-52 151-342-53 15 - -54 Pacific Sands Llc *M* Stephanie Alexander Orange Count Control Di. 1837 Pine St 8012 Sunset Cir 300 N F er St 6Th Huntington Be, CA 92648-2741 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5036 Sa Ana, CA 92703-5000 Etiquettes faciles a peler ® Repliez i la hachure afin de www.avery.com ; I I+ilicav in�=hxif eVFRvO S1Gn@ Sens de "o&j ,.1.—j% rA Pn 1I.TM 1_RAn-r-n-Awcov { Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to n AVERS'® 596OTm i Use Avery®Template 51600 feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeT"' J S 131�o V 15 -351-01 151-351-14 151-351-36 Orange:Flowe io ontrol Di. West Orange County United Teacl Beachside Commununity 300 N 6Th 20800 Beach Blvd 200 4952 Warner Ave 223 Sa , CA 92703-5000 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5288 Huntington Be, CA 9264 S3-5505 15 -351-37 151 51-38 151-351-39 Be ac Comm �Asscitiol Beachsi mmun y Atlanta & Beach 4952 War Av 4952 Warner e 2 4490 Von Karman Ave H ington Be, CA 92649-5505 Hunt' on Be, CA 92649-5 5 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2008 151- 41 351-42 1 1-43 Beachside Co y Beachs3dR� ommun y Beachsid nity 4952 Warn ve 223 4952 Warne ve 4 arner Ave 223 Hu gton Be, CA 92649-5505 Hun gton Be, CA 92649-5505 Huntington Be, CA 92649-5505 151-351-45 934-47-143 934-47-144 Michael D Makoi Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 20854 Cabrillo Ln 79 20812 Beach Blvd 20814 Beach Blvd Huntington Be, CA 92646-5558 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5293 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5293 934-47-145 934-47-146 934-47-147 Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc Pacific Sands Llc 20816 Beach Blvd 20818 Beach Blvd 26615 La Sierra Dr Huntington Be, CA 92648-5293 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5293 Mission Viejo, CA 92691-6128 934-47-148 934-47-161 934-47-162 Pacific Sands Llc Antonio S Ching Michael W & Angeli Leggitt 18241 Santa Joanana 20893 Cabrillo Ln 1 20887 Cabrillo Ln 2 Fountain Vall, CA 92708-5641 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5559 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5559 934-47-163 934-47-164 934-47-165 Stephen M Pavlick Sam S Lam Donald W & Vicki Holcomb 20881 Cabrillo Ln 3 20875 Cabrillo Ln 4 20869 Cabrillo Ln 5 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5559 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5559 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5559 934-47-166 934-47-167 934-47-168 Holly A Francisco Hyun Conger Jefferson Y & Doris Chan 20863 Cabrillo Ln 6 20857 Cabrillo Ln 7 20851 Cabrillo Ln 8 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5559 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5559 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5559 934-47-169 934-47-170 934-47-171 Jean-Pierre & Alana Khreich Alan K & Anita Newman Frederic & Aileen Lim *B* 8015 Zuma Dr 9 8021 Zuma Dr 10 8027 Zuma Dr 11 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5560 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5560 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5560 934-47-172 934-47-173 934-47-174 Lucille Lasnier Amy Tran David R & Maria Mcconnell 9114 Adams Ave 188 8039 Zuma Dr 13 8045 Zuma Dr 14 Huntington Be, CA 92646-3405 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5560 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5560 Etiquettes faciles i peler ♦ Repliez a la hachure afin de; TFM I}2- b www.avery.com I ltilica7 lanahwrit AVF ®r,1 f RVn® .Sens de nsuAlar la rahnrtl Pnn_IInTM Easy Peel®Labels ♦ ® Bend along line to o AVERY0 5960— 1 Use Avery®Template 51604D 1 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeT'14 j 1 934-47-175 934-47-176 934-47-177 Home Savings Of America Craig & Laurie Miller Tim J & Jolie Wegner 35 E Broadway 8057 Zuma Dr 16 20844 Monarch Ln 17 Little Falls, MN 56345-3046 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5560 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5555 934-47-178 934-47-179 934-47-180 Carlos & Laura Rocha Lucille Lasnier Thomas W Pugh 20850 Monarch Ln 18 9114 Adams Ave 188 20862 Monarch Ln 20 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5555 Huntington Be, CA 92646-3405 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5555 934-47-181 934-47-182 934-47-183 Ali D Mako Luc S Nguyen Seth D Cohn 20865 Monarch Ln 76 20859 Monarch Ln 77 20853 Monarch Ln 78 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5556 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5556 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5556 934-47-184 934-47-185 934-47-186 Michael Makoi Michael Makoi S Mc Mullen 20854 Cabrillo Ln 79 20854 Cabrillo Ln 20866 Cabrillo Ln 81 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5558 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5558 Huntington Be, CA 9264 5-5558 934-47-187 934-47-188 934-47-189 Jon Alban Bruce J & Jennifer Roeland Philip Rask 20872 Cabrillo Ln 82 20878 Cabrillo Ln 83 20884 Cabrillo Ln 84 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5558 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5558 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5558 934-47-190 934-47-191 934-47-192 Nghiem & Van Dang C D & Chang Holt Terrence J Branley 20890 Cabrillo Ln 85 20896 Cabrillo Ln 86 20868 Monarch Ln 21 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5558 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5558 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5555 934-47-193 934-47-194 934-47-195 Daniel C Hill Thomas & L Burdett Joel H Samuels 20874 Monarch Ln 22 20880 Monarch Ln 23 23411 Rockrose Huntington Be, CA 92646-5555 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5555 Mission Viejo, CA 92692-1678 934-47-196 934-47-197 934-47-198 Paul T & Mary Gomes White Pine Ltd Liability Co Jordan 20892 Monarch Ln 25 20898 Monarch Ln 26 20904 Monarch Ln 27 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5555 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5555 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5554 934-47-199 934-47-200 934-47-201 Gary Rodriguez Michael Nestor Kortney L Hastin 22 Via Armilla 20916 Monarch Ln 29 20922 Monarch Ln 30 San Clemente, CA 92673-7204 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5554 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5554 934-47-202 934-47-203 934-47-204 Adrian & Melissa loja Busyapongpakdee Joseph Y Kim 20928 Monarch Ln 31 20933 Monarch Ln 66 20927 Monarch Ln 67 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5554 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5557 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5557 Etiquettes faciles a peter Repliez A la hachure afin de; vuww.averycom I+:Gcn�In�ol+nra A\ICON®C1rn® Sens de .o„elef Ia roti�.rl D^—II-TM i �_Qnn_�n_nv�ov t r Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ ® Bend along line to l o AVER 'O 5960"M Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM /31/O 934-47-205 934-47-206 934-47-207 Sung & Heung Park Rosemarie Dam Costandi & Angelina Awadalla 20921 Monarch Ln 68 8416 Terranova Cir 21440 Casino Ridge Rd Huntington Be, CA 92646-5557 Huntington Be, CA 92646-7646 Yorba Linda, CA 92887-a203 934-47-208 934-47-209 934-47-210 Chinh & Tina Cao Frederick Vu Michael J & Young Higg 3 ns 20895 Monarch Ln 71 20889 Monarch Ln 72 20883 Monarch Ln 73 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5556 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5556 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5556 934-47-211 934-47-212 934-47-213 Chau M & Bich-Nhu Duong Jeffrey S & Jeannine Eile Sylvia S Mohundro 20877 Monarch Ln 74 20871 Monarch Ln 75 6435 Beachview Dr Huntington Be, CA 92646-5556 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5556 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-2663 934-47-214 934-47-215 934-47-216 i John Clingan Vicken A Bezjian *M* Kim Walsh 20940 Monarch Ln 33 20946 Monarch Ln 34 20952 Monarch Ln 35 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5554 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5554 Huntington Be, CA 9264 5-5554 934-47-217 934-47-218 934-47-219 Michael C Dalton Todd Beard Kevin F Lum 2937 E Marlene Dr 8042 Goleta Point Dr 37 8036 Goleta Point Dr 38 Gilbert, AZ 85296-9460 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5552 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5552 934-47-220 934-47-221 934-47-222 Bong Doan RoberTR FTActfu Suong T Huynh 8030 Goleta Point Dr 39 8024 Goleta Point Dr 40 20977 Cabrillo Ln 41 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5552 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5552 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5536 934-47-223 934-47-224 934-47-225 Preeprem & Betty Empremsilapa Madhan Selvanathan Jenny Huynh 20971 Cabrillo Ln 42 20965 Cabrillo Ln 43 20959 Cabrillo Ln 44 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 Huntington Be, CA 9264 6-5536 934-47-226 934-47-227 934-47-228 Lisa A Hinshaw Thai Tran Gene Chan 20953 Cabrillo Ln 45 2321 Bentley Ridge Dr 20941 Cabrillo Ln 47 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 San Jose, CA 95138-2424 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 934-47-229 934-47-230 934-47-231 Michael Hill Amira Quartoumi Jireel Wei 20935 Cabrillo Ln 48 20929 Cabrillo Ln 49 20923 Cabrillo Ln 50 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 934-47-232 934-47-233 934-47-234 Michael R & Eloise Darnell Jaime A & Rachel Ramirez Daniel Liao 20917 Cabrillo Ln 51 20911 Cabrillo Ln 52 6371 Morningside Dr Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5536 Huntington Be, CA 92648-6107 Etiquettes faciles a peter ♦ Rep liez a la hachure afin de; www.avery com ; ltilica7 In r+ahnrit e\/CRv®c9an® Sens de ravAlar In r hnrrl Pnn_I InTM �_slnn_rn_e�icov 1 Easy Peel®Labels A ® Bend along line to o AVERV® 5960w i Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTM 10 j 934-47-235 934-47-236 934-47-237 Hai T Luu Vinh Buu Jose & J Finete 20920 Cabrillo Ln 54 20926 Cabrillo Ln 55 1101 Fleetridge Dr Huntington Be, CA 92646-5538 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5538 San Diego, CA 92106-2001 934-47-238 934-47-239 934-47-240 Khoi D Nguyen John & Gail Yundt James T & Linda Do 1351 Chesapeake Dr 20944 Cabrillo Ln 58 20950 Cabrillo Ln 59 Oxnard, CA 93035-2155 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5538 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5538 934-47-241 934-47-242 934-47-243 Thomas Turner Rory Hart Mamoun Hussein 20956 Cabrillo Ln 60 20962 Cabrillo Ln 61 PO Box 6557 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5538 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5538 Buena Park, CA 90622-65 57 934-47-244 934-47-245 934-47-246 Hai Hoang Kevin & Patty Anastasi Stephen D & Janet Roberts 20951 Monarch Ln 63 20945 Monarch Ln 64 20939 Monarch Ln 65 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5557 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5557 Huntington Be, CA 92646-5557 939-50-001 939-50-002 939-50-003 Las Brisas Hb Llc Rosanna Locke Jonathan S Haritatos 22865 Lake Forest Dr 11 7668 Baypoint Dr 105 7668 Baypoint Dr 104 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92 648 939-50-004 939-50-005 939-50-006 Gilbert N Khreich Carol Boyle Leslie A Harris 7668 Baypoint Dr 103 7668 Baypoint Dr 102 7668 Baypoint Dr 101 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92 648 93 - -007 93 -008 93 - -009 Las Brisas c Las Brisas Las Brisas 22865 ce Forest Dr �+ ZO 3 22865 La ®rest Dr 2 22865 e Forest Dr e Forest, CA 92630-1605 La orest, CA 92630-1605 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 939- 939-5- - 939-5 - Las Brisas Las Brisa Llc Las Brisas Hb L 22865 e Forest Dr 'f Zo� 228 ake Forest Dr (�h;f 22865 Lak ®rest Dr (�n� e Forest, CA 92630-16 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 Lake rest, CA 92630-1605 -50-013 939- 4 9 -015 Las Bri c Las Brisas H s,f� Las Brisas 22865 L ®rest it Z.drJ 22865 La Forest Dr 3 22865 La Forest Dr 1� Lak Forest, CA 92630-160 Lake orest, CA 92630-1605 La ®rest, CA 92630-1605 a. 939-50-016 939-50-017 939-5 - Jennifer E Tsakoumakis Ian & Aspen Dunn Las Brisas Hb 7668 Baypoint Dr 301 20962 Sandbar 101 22865 L Forest Dr �� Z Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5854 La Forest, CA 92630-1605 Etiquettes fades a peter ARepliez a la hachure afin de; � Z�b www.averycom I wlian7 Ic naharit ws:Rv®Sinn@ .Sens de rAwAlor In r hnrd Dnn-1InTM !_Rf1/1_GA_A\/FQV 1 - t Easy Peeler Labels A ® Bend along line to f S AVERVO5960TMUse Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-Up Edge'rm : J1z A 939-50-019 939-50-020 939->Laorest Jon J Levin Donald P Gagnon Las 20962 Sandbar 103 20962 Sandbar 104 2286 DrHuntington Be, CA 92648-5856 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5856 Lake CA 92630- 1605 93 -50-022 -50-023 93 -024 Las Bris c Las Bris Las Brisas 22865 e Fore r 11 22865 L Forest 11 22865 e Forest D Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 Lak Forest, CA 92630-16 ake Forest, CA 92630-1 605 -50-025 939- -026 939-50-027 Las Brisa lc Las Brisa c Las Brisas Hb Llc 22865 L e Forest Dr 22865 e Fores 11 22865 Lake Forest Dr 13 La crest, CA 92630-1605 Lak Forest, CA 92630-1605 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1 605 939-50-028 939-50-029 939-50-030 Tamaki & Takako Okamoto Elmer Marroquin Alan A Collier 20936 Sandbar 101 20936 Sandbar 102 20936 Sandbar 103 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5852 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5852 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5852 939 0-031 939-50-032 939-50-033 Las Bris b L Maria Fameron Lita Lafrades 22865 Lake ores 11 20936 Sandbar 202 20936 Sandbar 203 Lake est, CA 92630-1 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5852 Huntington Be, CA 9264 8-5854 939-50-034 939-50-035 939-50-036 Robert R Clements Sarah Belitz Jeffrey R Whiteman 7648 Bay Dr 102 7648 Bay Dr 101 7648 Bay Dr 202 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5876 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5875 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5888 939-50-037 939- >st 93 -039 Jonathan & Richard Ejercito Las Brlc Las Brisas 7648 Bay Dr 201 22865 11 22865 Lake rest D Huntington Be, CA 92648-5877 Lake 92630-1 5 Lak crest, CA 92630-1605 93 040 9-50-041 -50-042 Las Brisas c La s Hb L1 Las Bri Llc 22865 Lake est 22865 Lake r r 11 22865 Lake Fo Lake est, CA 92630-1605 Lake rest, CA 92630- Lake Fo t, CA 92630-1605 939- -50-044 939-50-045 Las Brisas Hb Las Bris Llc La�� ' Hb Llc 22865 La crest Dr 11 228 Lake Forest 22865 Lak es 1 Lake orest, CA 92630-16,05 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 L orest, CA 92630-160 939-50-046 939�5 47 9 0-048 L Brisas Hb Las Brisas Hb Las Brisa c 22865 orest Dr 11 22865 Lak orest Dr 1 228 e Fores 11 Lake crest, C 0-1605 Lak crest, CA 92630-1605 Lake Forest, CA 92630- 5 VAI I T)- Etiquettes faciles a peler A Repliez a la hachure afin de www.averycom , +;r.—'1e—1—;+ nvcov0 cyan® Sens de Ye„ever ie mla.rri D--I I-TM a_Qnnr_n_nvcov r Easy Peel®Labels ® ® Bend along line to Q �����'® 5960T"" i Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper - expose Pop-Up Edge"' J 939-50-049 939-50-050 9 9-50-051 Christopher Lakkees Las sas Hb Las B Hb 7624 Bay Dr 104 22865 L Dr 11 22865 L 0re 1 S Huntington Be, CA 92648-5885 Forest, CA 92630- La Forest, CA 92630-1 605 939-5 9 -50-053 939-50-054 Las Br:,ke as L :2:2865 Bri L Las Hb 2286 Forest Dr 11 L� orest 22865 Forer11Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 Forest, CA 92630-1605 e Forest, CA 92630-1 -50-055 93 -056 939-50-057 Las Brisa lc Las Brisa L Las sas Hb Ll 22865 e Forest Dr 22865 La} orest 22865 La Dr 1 1 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 Lak orest, CA 92630-1605 Lak Forest, CA 92630-1 93 -50-058 -50-059 9 9-SO-060 �228G s Br lc Las Bri b L Las s Hb Llc e Forest Dr 22865 La} ores 1 22865 Lak r 1 1 e Forest, CA 92630-1605 La orest, CA 92630-16 Lak crest, CA 92630- 5 9-50-061 939-50-062 939-50-063 Las Br' lc James Westerdahl Steven A Bray 22865 e Forest 7645 Bay Dr 103 22865 Lake Forest Dr 11 La Forest, CA 92630-1605 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5865 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 93 - 0-064 39-50-065 939 -066 Las Brisas Las Hb Las Brisas c 22865 L Forest Dr 11 22865 L ores 11 22865�� Forest Dr L Forest, CA 92630-1605 Laest, CA 92630-160 Lakes Forest, CA 92630-1605 9-50-067 93 0-068 939-50-069 Las Br1 Llc Las Br is Lance Henricksen 228 ake Fore r 11 22 Lake Forest Dr 1 7402 Yellowtail Dr 102 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 Huntington Be, CA 92648-2439 939-50-070 939-50-071 939-50-072 Leigh Nguyen Duane Tanaka M M Holguin 7671 Bay Dr 102 7671 Bay Dr 103 7671 Bay Dr 104 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5870 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5871 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5871 939-50-073 939- -50-075 Peter M Tsai Las Brisas H c Las Bris 7671 Bay Dr 201 22865 Forest Dr 11 22865 L Forest Huntington Be, CA 92648-5872 Lake orest, CA 92630-1605 L Forest, CA 92630-1605 939-50-076 *** 538 Printed *** Maria Gherman 7671 Bay Dr 204 Huntington Be, CA 92648-5871 Etiquettes faciles a peler ® Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.averycom ; Utilisez ie aa6arit AVFRVO 51600 Sens de rbvalar la rahnrd Pnn-UnTM 1_RAn_G(1_AVFRV COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Subdivision Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Request# 5175 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mary Jo Baretich Description: Ms. Baretich asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/05/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:06 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5180 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to .Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Estelle & William ROBERTS Description: M/M Roberts ask the Council for their consideration in their opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/05/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:13 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5181 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Therese S. Young Description: Ms. Young asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivsion of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/05/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 8:26 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5187 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Chris Hames Description: Dear City Council Members January 2009 my parents dream of home ownership and retirement finally came true. They found their dream home in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobil Home Community!! This is the city they have rented, lived in and raised their children in for the last 37 years. They never thought that they would be able to stay in Huntington Beach after retirement. Imagine their excitement when this dream became a reality and almost as quickly became a nightmare when they found out that the park was to be sold and they would be expected to purchase the land their beautiful Mobil Home sits on. They have made this their home, where they have enjoyed spending time with their grandchildren and family and now they are at risk of losing everything. I am sure that my parents are not the only residents that have every penny already invested in their home and are living paycheck to paycheck. There is no way that they will be able to keep their home if they are forced to purchase the land or pay any more then they are already paying. In these economic times please I beg of you to take into consideration the displacement of many people. People who live off retirement funds and social security. People who can't get hired in the job force due to either physical limitations, lack of skills, or just the reality of nothing available out there for people in their 60 and 70's. I implore you to to consider all options when making a decision on the sale of Huntington Shorecliffs, but mostly I ask you to take all these men and women's livelihood's into consideration. The harsh reality of it is that by completing this sale you WILL be adding to the already displaced, out of work homeless Californians. Please help me save my parents Dream Home by the Beach!!!!!! Also I don't think the proper information was communicated to new potential buyers as my parents bought in Jan 2009. Why would someone dump there retirement moneys into a pace that would be sold in 1 1/2-2 years. Doesn't make much sense to me. PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY MY PARENTS DREAM OF LIVING IN THE CITY THE RAISED THEIR FAMILY FOR 38 YEARS!!! HOW IS A RETIRED 63 YEAR OLD COUPLE GOING TO GET A LOAN TO COVER THE COSTS ON A 300,000 dollar space. What bank in these days is going to welcome them with open arms PLEASE THINK ABOUT IT Regards, Chris Haines Expected Close Date: 05/06/2010 HK ,1`­,­­ , C HART, (KING & C® LDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com April 29, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112/4813-7274-2662v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714) 374-1557 Joan Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: May 3, 2010 Hearing on Appeal Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Request for Limited Continuance to May 17, 2010 City Council Mtg. Dear Ms. Flynn: This letter constitutes the.Park Owner's request for a two-week continuance of the City Council hearing on its Appeal from the Planning Commission Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements. The Park Owner requests continuance of the hearing from the May 3, 2010 City Council meeting to the May 17, 2010 City Council meeting." The purpose of the request is to conduct further discussions with City staff regarding the issues. The Park Owner waives the deadline with respect to hearing on the Appeal under the Subdivision Map Act only with respect to that two week period. Respectfully submitted, HART, KING & COLD Ra' rt S-,� oI n for Park Owner plicant/Appellant RSC/BLH/dr cc: Mayor and City Council Fred Wilson, City Administrator Bob Hall, Assistant City Administrator Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney , Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney £F' Scott Hess, Director of Planning Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works Ethan Edwards, Associate Planner f A Professional Law Corporation �m 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.870--0.-1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 04/2912010 15:24 Hart, King &Coldren O'AX)7145467457 P.0011002 10*0, Colo HART, KING &, CC]LDREN Facsimile Transmission Cover Sheet DATE: April 29, 2010 PAGES (Incl. cover sheet): 2 TO: Joan Flynn, City Clerk COMPANY: City of Huntington Beach FAX NO.: (714)374-1557 PHONE NO.: FROM: Boyd L. Hill FILE NO.: 36014.112/4837-5086-2085v.1 RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park MESSAGE: Please see attached April 29, 2010 letter regarding this matter, Thank you, ® ORIGINAL WILL NOT FOLLOW ❑ ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW BY: [U.S. Mail] If there are any questions regarding this FAX transmittal, please call Dora at (714) 432-8700. CAUTION: PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This message is intended only for the use of the Individual to which it was addressed and may contain information that Is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original to us at the address below via United States Postal Service. 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 Lugar, Robin From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5082 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Joyce Zeller Description: Ms. Zeller asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/03/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:42 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5121 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Joyce Zeller Description: Council Members: I am writing to let you know my opinion regarding the proposed subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, which is an item on your meeting agenda next week. I have lived in Huntington Shorecliffs with my mother since 1995. In 2006 she developed Alzheimer's and dementia and is currently diagnosed in the advanced stage of this disease. I recently had to retire from my career earlier than anticipated to provide full time care for her. We understand that the current owners of the park are in business to make money and they cannot survive by considering each of us as a'charity case'. However, there are several reasons why we are opposed to the subdivision of our park. First, the only people who would seem to be able to afford the prices of the lots are those that are still working full time, probably at a high paying job, and those with two income earners, possibly a family with children. Although the park is currently a 55+park, most people in this age group do not have the kind of money to afford the lot, mortgage, property taxes and insurance, and homeowners association fees, which could amount to over$4,000 per month in many cases. The owner states he does not want to displace any current homeowners, but even though my mother and I both receive retirment benefits, there is absolutely no way we would be able to afford to purchase our lot. One of the reasons we purchased a mobile home here is becau se we believed we would always be able to afford the 'market' rent and by having a long-term lease, we felt protected from the 'usurous' market rent increases facing many people. Secondly,what mortage company is avaialble, at affordable rates, to provide a 30 year mortgage to people in their 60's and 70's, let alone those of us under those ages?None of us can afford to walk away from our homes, but that seems a likely option for many if the subdivision is finalized. Can the city of Huntington Beach afford to have 200+people displaced as a result of owner greed? There are many homes for sale here, many of which have been on the market for some time. They are reasonably priced but most people who would be eligible to live here already cannot afford a mortgage payment and the $1675+rent being charged each month, so the homes sit vacant. It's not like the owners are not making a substantial income each month. We understand the need to raise rents to keep up with inflation, but subdivision is not the answer for us or most of our neighbors. Thank you in advance for your review and consideration. Joyce Zeller Lugar, Robin From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:17 PM ; To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5083 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Martha Danell Description: Ms. Danell asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/03/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:41 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5120 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Martha Danell Description: Ladies and Gentlemen, This is to urge you, as you contemplate 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 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 twelve years. The terms and conditions represented to us when we considered moving here were financially acceptable for long-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 we believed we would be able to remain here. Here are just some of the important points we urge you to consider: 1. Compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 and the economic displacement of the residents. 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? What other costs will be added? 2. What about the failure to disclose that those who purchase the lots will be named as Co-Defendants in the Failure to Maintain Lawsuit currently in Court? 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? Who will be responsible to remedy the "standing water"problems that are causing mold issues here which are serious health concerns? 3. We learned recently that street water runoff from Delaware Street, draining onto 1 Frankfort, is emptying into our mobilehome 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? 4. 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? 5. 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. What about Section 8 housing for low income residents—will it be continued? Among the residents, there is 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? Will we be forced to leave with nothing? Again,we ask that you thoughtfully and carefully consider the future of this mobilehome park, and remember that you are deciding the fate of the senior citizens who live here, and who have invested their financial resources, as well as their hearts, in their homes. Richard and Martha Danell Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park 20701 Beach Blvd., Space 220 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 )Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Lugar, Robin From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5084 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Merideth Lothrop Description: Ms. Lothrop asks the Council for their consideration in her and her parent's opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/03/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i EsEarza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.coml Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 7:51 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5109 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Merideth Lothrop Description: Dear City Council Members January 2009 my parents dream of home ownership and retirement finally came true. They found their dream home in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobil Home Community!! This is the city they have rented, lived in and raised their children in for the last 37 years. They never thought that they would be able to stay in Huntington Beach after retirement. Imagine their excitement when this dream became a reality and almost as quickly became a nightmare when they found out that the park was to be sold and they would be expected to purchase the land their beautiful Mobil Home sits on. They have made this their home, where they have enjoyed spending time with their grandchildren and family and now they are at risk of losing everything. I am sure that my parents are not the only residents that have every penny already invested in their home and are living paycheck to paycheck. There is no way that they will be able to keep their home if they are forced to purchase the land or pay any more then they are already paying. In these economic times please I beg of you to take into consideration the displacement of many people. People who live off retirement funds and social security. People who can't get hired in the job force due to either physical limitations, lack of skills, or just the reality of nothing available out there for people in their 60 and 70's. I implore you to to consider all options when making a decision on the sale of Huntington Shorecliffs,but mostly I ask you to take all these men and women's livelihood's into consideration. The harsh reality of it is that by completing this sale you WILL be adding to the already displaced, out of work homeless Californians. Please help me save my parents Dream Home by the Beach!!!!!! Merideth Lothrop [merideth.lothrop@yahoo.com] Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 1 Lugar, Robin From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:30 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5085 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Madeline Seymour Description: Ms. Seymour asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/03/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:40 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5119 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Madeline Seymour Description: Madeline J. Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd. #290 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 April 30, 2010 City.council2surfcity-lib.org 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 no way correct. IF you can afford to stay, you will 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. i 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 longer 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. 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? The codes changed in the early 80's. 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 underneath. 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. HCD has issued a violation to the owners of this park for the water problems. I'm sure Mr. Saunder's legal counsel is trying to get out of fixing the problems to pass HCD inspection as they are trying very hard to get this sub-division passed before they have to spend the money. 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. Seymour Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Lugar, Robin From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 1:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5086 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Kenneth& Lana Bennett Description: M/M Bennett ask the Council for their consideration in their opposition to the subkvision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/03/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:39 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5118 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Kenneth & Lana Bennett Description: Personally, we are both on Social Security, with no raise this year, all other costs have risen. We are finding our medications are several hundred dollars a month and rising. We thought when we moved here years ago that our home was secure for this time in our life. We are against the subdivision of our mobile home park. Mr. Coleman said no low income residents would be forced out and then cancelled section 8 housing to low income residents. Most of these residents cannot afford to stay without their rent subsidy. Most of the residents in the park retired here on fixed incomes and won't be able to afford the price of the lots or the exorbitant rents that will be asked. These changes amount to economic eviction of the current residents. (Section 66427.5 Government Code.) We now learn that if we purchase the lots we will be named as co-defendants in a Failure To Maintain Lawsuit currently in the court against the previous owner, Allan and the new park owner, Saunders. This was a failure to disclose information. Kenneth & Lana Bennett 20701 Beach Blvd. #51 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not.reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Lugar, Robin From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5091 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Beverly Carlson Description: Ms. Carlson ask the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/03/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:30 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5117 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Beverly Carlson Description: April 29, 2010 To: Mayor Cathy Green MayorTem Jill Hardy Keith Bohr Joe Carchio Gil Coerper Devin Dwyer Don Hansen I am writing to express my opposition to the subdivision of the property at Huntington Shorecliffs Senior Mobile Home Park. A recent survey of the residents found that, overwhelmingly, the residents want to have the park remain a land lease rental park, as it has been (if I understand the terms correctly). Those residents to whom I have spoken have the same concerns that I have. First, we cannot afford to purchase our lots and pay all the fees and assessments that will be added. Secondly, rents will rise beyond what we can pay in an attempt to displace the us.Next,when we need to sell our homes, because $275,000 to $385,000 will be added to the price of a mobile home, we will not be able to sell. For many of us,this money would pay for our future healthcare and we cannot afford to lose it. I ask the council to consider the future of the seniors here and deny the subdivision proposal. We realize that the new owner wants his investment back, but it will be at our expense. This is not what we imagined when we moved here in our retirement. We need you to use whatever laws are for our protection to help us. Thank you. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Huntington Beach. Respectfully, Beverly A. Carlson #147 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request EsEarza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:08 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5110 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Larry and Pat Haines Description: -----Original Message----- From: lhhbbear51 @aol.com To: city.council@surfcity-hb.org Sent: Sat, May 1, 2010 4:43 pm Subject: Agenda for May 3, 2010 City Council Meeting Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision My wife and I are against the subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile home Park. We are 37 year residents of Huntington Beach. We have supported the city and schools over the 37 years. The purchasing of our mobile home was to enable us to afford to live in our city for a long time to come. You can imagine the dismay we felt 10 days after moving in to receive a letter that stated that plans were under way to subdivide the land to be purchased by individuals. The surveys handed out in our park showed that only 6-7% were interested in purchasing the property. This available Senior Citizen and low income residence in Huntington Beach is important and vital to the city. There are three reasons I am aware of regarding the refusal of subdivision for this property: 1. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge, Paul Burdick ruled that Assembly Bill AB 930, now a law and Government Code Section 66427.5 Subsections (d) and (e), clearly states that it is the legislative intent that resident surveys are to be used to prevent non- bona fide resident conversation, which it defined as conversions that did not have resident support. Our survey taken at Huntington Shorecliffs clearly showed that 90- 93% of the residence were against this subdivision. The most recent court decision in the Second Appellant Division, the Carson Harbor Village on March 30, 2010, also supports the City's way to establish the right for cities to consider the outcome of the resident support survey in determining whether to approve or deny a subdivision. This was reported in the Daily Breeze article dated March 30, 2010. 2. The owner(s) are not in Compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 in that this subdivision "will cause Economic Displacement of many Senior i Citizen Homeowners" and is a form of elder abuse.. This has already started to happen. Residents are walking away from homes losing the money they have put into the their home. There are some homes that have been for sale for over a year and and some for 8- 10 months.No one wants to purchase the mobile home with the overwhelming cost of the land after the proposed subdivision. I wonder in this economic restlessness who will finance a mortgage for a Senior Citizen on a fixed income. Subdivision will cause a substantial number of homeowners to attempt to pay two to almost three times what they currently pay to live here now. 3. This was just brought to my attention. The owner(s) failed to disclose the fact that those who purchase the lots will be named as co-defendants in a Failure to Maintain lawsuit currently in court against the previous Park Owner Allan, and the new Park Owner, Suanders. Failure to Disclose this information should not have been hidden from the homeowners nor the City. In closing my wife and I are your fourth reason for deny the subdivision. We love our city that we have grown old in along with our family. Please allow us to continue to live in our home. Thank you for your patience. Larry and Pam Hames Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:09 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5111 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mary Landin Description: O 1 May2010 Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Tern.Jill Hardy Council Member Keith Boht Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Devin Dwyer Council Member Don Hansen 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I'm writing in reference to Huntington Shorecliffs subdivision of the park lots for sale. Property address: 20701 Beach Blvd. HB 923648. This is my 3rd request to the City Council to reject the subdivision for Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The majority of residents voted NOin a survey for the subdivision! What more do you want from us to let you the City Council know we are against the subdivision that would cause a CHANGE IN USE of the park to condominium. Under Government Code section 66427.5 is considered(i.e., take into account deliberate on, weigh.etc)the results of the resident survey in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The Planning Commission has ignored the information brought forth by the Public regarding the true Economic Displacement impact this will have on the Huntington Shorecliffs homeowners. Recent Court Ruling: i 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 Upon doing some research I found that M. Cirillo and Star Management and park owners have judgments 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. This is the same pattern that we are experiencing here at Huntington Shorecliffs and other parks in Calif. It is apparent the Park Owner dose not care that their actions will displace those on a fix income with cost that are being demanded. HK&C are not in compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5. This subdivision will cause Economic Displacement. I'm one of the residents that will be displaced. The Park Owner knows each homeowners income and with their calculation for rent increases and pass though are beyond the means of the majority of the residents. HK&C have failed to disclose that those who purchase the lots will be named co- defendants in the FAILURE to MAINTAIN lawsuit currently in the courts for the previous Park Owners this is very serious and should not have been hidden from the homeowners nor the City of Huntington Beach. To continue with approval of this Subdivision help to continue the spread to other parks here in HB and State wide. Mary Landin SPC 157 Huntington Shorecliffs Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:18 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5112 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to .Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mary Landin Description: O 1 May2010 City of Huntington Beach Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Tem Jill Hardy Council Member Keith Boht Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Devin Dwyer Council Member Don Hansen 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. This is my 3rd request to the City Council to reject the subdivision for Huntington Shorecliff Mobilehome Park. The majority of residents voted NO in a survey for the subdivision! What more do you want from us to let you the City Council know we are against the subdivision that would cause a CHANGE IN USE of the park to condominium. Under Government Code section 66427.5 is considered(i.e., take into account deliberate on, weigh.etc)the results of the resident survey in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The Planning Commission has ignored the information brought fort by the Public regarding the true Economic Displacement impact this will have on the Huntington Shorecliffs homeowners. 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 i 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 Upon doing some research I found that M. Cirillo and Star Management and park owners have judgments 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. This is the same pattern that we are experiencing here at Huntington Shorecliff and other parks in Calif. It is apparent the Park Owner dose not care that their actions will displace those on a fix income with cost that are being demanded. HK&C are not in compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5. This subdivision will cause Economic Displacement. I'm one of the residents that will be displaced. The Park Owner knows each homeowners income and with their calculation for rent increases and pass though are beyond the means of the majority of the residents. HK&C have failed to disclose that those who purchase the lots will be named co- defendants in the FAILURE to MAINTAIN lawsuit currently in the courts for the previous Park Owners this is very serious and should not have been hidden from the homeowners nor the City of Huntington Beach. To continue with approval of this Subdivision help to continue the spread to other parks here in HB and State wide. Diane Lomond SPC 205 Huntington Shorecliffs Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparta, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:20 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5113 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Patti McCabe Description: Dear City Council members, I am a resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park,and as many of the residents here, live on a fixed income.If you do not deny the passing of the conversion of this park to condominiums would be one of those that would be economically evicted. And that is elder abuse. My home would become worthless if I had to sell. Everyone should be aware that the Park did not disclose the fact they have a Failure To Maintain lawsuit pending against them that would revert to the people that buy into this conversion. Coldern said "no low income residents would be forced out" and then cancelled section 8 housing for low income residents.The majority of the park residents DO NOT want the conversion. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION !!!!!!!!!!! Patti McCabe 20701 Beach Blvd Space 132 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)960-2942 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:22 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5114 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mary Jo Casino Description: I am addressing the subject of the subdivision at Huntington Shorecliffs which is where I live. SInce this whole thing began I have not spoken to one person in here that was for the subdivision. The owners took two surveys. The majority who filled out the surveys said no to the subdivison. Our opinions were ignored. I would guess that more than 90% of the people who live here cannot afford to purchase the land will not be able to afford the rent increases the owners have planned. Residents that can afford to purchase the land will be taking on many problems in this park that will be very costly down the road if they can be fixed at all. My retired neighbor just received a $300 dollar a month increase. He is ok for now but next year he will not be able to live here. My lease is up next year and I know I will have to move also. The problem is we cannot sell our properties. There are 35 for sale signs up at this time and none of them are selling. Although the management can rent their properties we are not supposed to. So we have a choice to walk away or struggle to stay here. For some it means going back to work full time at an age that make that difficult. There are about 5 empty houses now that have been left. For the amount they want for the property plus the mortgages on the homes we could go elsewhere in Hutington Beach and upgrade and not be subject to their whims. We were told that no one would be displaced, yet they discontinued section 8 housing for low income seniors. Sounds like displacement to me. The owners are having meetings with selected residents. I don't know all that takes place in the meetings but I know they are asking those specific residents to side with them on the repairs to the city water line that dumps into HS. If the owners are made to fix the drain the million dollar plus fee wil be passed on to us. Why are just a few of the residents meeting with the owners. Why do the owners have meetings during the day when many of the residents work during the day and cannot attend. When we do have meetings the attorney that represents the owners is very rude to the residents when they ask questions. The bottom line here seems to be that the owners want this land for development at some point and want us out of here. Please take care in your considerations concerning the subdivision of this property. Many lives will be affected by this. Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:25 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5115 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to .Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Paula and Ron Rennegarbe Description: April 30, 2010 Dear Mayor Cathy Green, Mayor Tern Jill Hardy, Council Members Keith Bohr, Joe Carchio, Gil Coeper, Devin Dwyer, and Don Hansen: I am writing to give my voice to those who reject the plan for Huntington Shorecliffs to be subdivided. My personal story is that my husband and I retired November 15, 2009 and moved in November 20, 2009. We did a lot of homework before deciding on this location. When we bought our house in October 2009, we knew there was the possibility that it would be subdivided, but we were given the price of$95,000 from our realtor. I know that this was not in writing of any kind,but we felt at that time that it could be a possibility for us. Now we know differently. We are living on our pension and social security. The community is a wonderful place and we like it as it is. We were given information and attended a number of meetings and the information changes every time. These three reasons are disturbing to my husband and I: 1. The majority of people in the Huntington Shorecliffs community do not want the property to be subdivided. I read in the newspaper that a judge has ruled that the survey IS relevant in considering the proposal. 2. Those people who a receiving social security and pension will be forced to move as the rent for those not buying will continue to be increased. We paid $79,000 for our 1440 sq. feet and $1475 per month in addition to utilities which presently is over $150 per month. We will not be able to handle more for any length of time. We were hoping this would be our last move before going into assisted living. There are others who are in similar situations. 3. If we would for some reason be able to buy the property, I would not want to be a co- defendant with the owners on any legal suits that are not resolved. We know that some of the homes have extreme problems with water. We sold a house before moving here. Before we could sell, the prospective buyer had a number of things they wanted us to do before they would buy. So we invested the money to correct those things that were necessary to do before we would buy. Would it not be the case here? Before we would buy, would the owner not to have certain things done before we would buy? I thank you for taking the time to read this letter of concern. Sincerely, Paula and Ron Rennegarbe 20701 Beach Blvd. Spc. 246 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:29 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5116 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to .Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Dolores Smith Description: Dolores Smith @ Huntington Shorecliffs 20701 Beach Blvd Space 173 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Attn: City Council Members Since February of this year my life has been turned upside down. I have lived at the above address for 11 1/2 years in my very comfortable,paid for mobile home. Part of this time I have received through section 8 a subsidy to help with my rent.Now per the new owners of the park this will abruptly stop at the end of August 2010. At the end of the year I will not be able to pay the rent and my home has no value. This is a common denominator among many of us in the park and it is definitely ELDER ABUSE. Thank you for letting me vent and if anything can be done for us it would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Dolores Smith Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:44 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5122 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mike and Lee Lytle Description: Hello Council My name is Mike Lytle I have lived in Huntington Beach since 1971 and at Huntington Shorecliffs over Ten years , Please allow me and other Seniors to be able to live in our city ,and to pay a reasonable amount of rent and continue to live here for the remaining years of our lives just as you would want for your Parents I ask you to Vote Against Subdivision and allow us to be able to afford our remaining years in Huntington Shorecliffs. Thank You for Help Mike&Lee Lytle ]Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:45 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5123 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Chris Turner Description: To Mayor Green Mayor Tern Hardy Council Members Bohr, Carchio, Coerper, Dwyer and Hansen I am writing this letter to protest the application for a subdivision of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Please do not punish the current residents, many of whom are elderly and on low, fixed incomes, because the owner made an unwise business choice to purchase the property at the height of the real estate bubble. His bad business decision should not be taken out on the residents in the form of outlandish space rent increases or unrealistic asking prices for the purchase of their space. The City Council has the chance to help the seniors in their community - I ask that you take it. The Planning Commission ignored the information on economic displacement to the homeowners, won't you please make that wrong a right and vote to deny this application. Huntington Shorecliffs is a nice place to live but it has it's drawbacks.... We have too much water in the'ground - plants die after a short life span, mold grows in walls and under the coaches, standing water breeds insects and slime. We get excess traffic noise from Beach Blvd. We are under the landing pattern of both Long Beach and John Wayne Airports. These are just some of the conditions that do not support the pricing of either greatly increased space rent and very greatly inflated space purchase prices. The proposed conversion does not have a majority of residents support. It should,to make this change. The owner has stated in public meetings with current mobile home owners that he 'is only in this for the money'. How are the residents supposed to feel safe? Please consider the residents - we are all over 55 and many of us are low income and have chosen to live in mobile homes (no jokes of being trailer trash please) as a way to get by on less. The "spectacular location" listed, as being close to the beach and downtown, is of no use to folks who do not use either. Our older citizens are not safe downtown with it's overabundance of young,partying and drinking crowds. i Please make the logical, community-concerned decision to deny this application and support the residents of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. Please deny the application for subdivision. Thank you for accepting my opinion. Chris Turner Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:47 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5124 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Peter Hamel Description: Huntington Beach City Council Members Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Tem Jill Hardy Council Members Keith Bohr Joe Carchio Gil Coerper Devin Dwyer Don Hansen I have been a resident of Huntington Shorecliffs for 18 years. I am 85 years old and my wife is 82. We are against the Conversion for many reasons that coincide with the feelings of the majority of all the residents. The most important reason is that it financially destroys all of us. I, as most of us, am retired and will find it impossible to get the necessary financing to purchase or maintain the expenses required to bring the Park to the legal status that has been verified by the State Inspector recently.All the problems have been named in a current Lawsuit and the Allens and Mr.Coleron are and have been aware of them. Legally it should have been Disclosed that purchasing our lots will make us co-defendants in a current Lawsuit for Failure to Maintain. This failure to Disclose is a very serious violation not only for us but it was not brought to your attention either. We have been taking a financial beating with our rent raised every few months and currently at $1441 almost double what it had been. I would hope that you find the courage to use a Survey of the Homeowners and legally deny the request for subdivision. We do not want it. We cannot afford it. Respectfully, Peter Hamel Huntington Shorecliffs Space 476 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:50 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5125 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Frank and Joann Kraftka Description: Huntington Beach City Council My wife and I have been residents of Huntington Shorecliffs since 2007. 1 came to Huntington Beach in 1970.Since our lease expired we are on month to month rent. My rent has increased from $835.93 to $1250.00. 50% increase! Senior citizens with limited incomes cannot afford these increases.The residents of Huntington Shorecliffs were doing fine until the Star Co. came to town. Several senior citizens have been forced to abandon their homes of 30 years and more.Some are veterans of World War 11,Korea and Viet Nam. These abandoned homes are being rented by Huntington Shorecliffs owners. They profit from people being forced out of their home. Currently, there are 35 homes for sale.Many will be abandoned, including furnishings.These homes will become property of Huntington Shorecliffs and will be rented. Does this sound like the home mortgage and foreclosure racket Wall Street has done to America? This is another example of BIG MONEY running roughshod over American People. I, and the people ask you to deny this subdivision appeal! Frank& JoAnn Krafka Huntington Shorecliffs space 294 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:59 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5126 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Paul G. Cannon Description: I am against the subdivision. My house is 5&1/2 years old. With no rent control in HB in am now paying $1250 in rent, $179 in pass thru property taxes, $48 for the owners insurance per month making my rent really $1477 per month with an expected increase in rent in October when my lease is up. The estimate given to us on the price the property upon subdivision will be about $100 per square foot, making my lot $360M. My house at the time was about $240M and is 1400 square feet. Who would ever pay $600M for such a deal. I also have water coming up thru my driveway bringing rust to the surface. I was told to clean up the rust, but when I told them the problem was coming from beneath the surface, I was told they would make a note of it. Never heard another word. I am 79 years old and living off savings, social security, and no pension. My wife is in a home and dieing but that is not the owners problem but mine. Paul G, Cannon sp 258 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:01 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5127 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Sharon Dana Description: From: Sharon Dana Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd. #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 May 2, 2010 To all Huntington Beach City Council Members Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Pro Tem. Jill Hardy Council Members Keith Bohr Joe Carchio Gil Coerper Devin Dwyer Don Hansen Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Sub-Division Application Appeal City Council Meeting--May 3, 2010 I am against the subdivision of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. My husband and I have lived in Huntington Shorecliffs for more than 12 years. We both receive Social Security, and thought this was our dream retirement home, the home we would live in until we died. Our dream has turned into a nightmare. Although we own the home itself, the rent for the piece of dirt under our home has tripled. The streets have been "fixed", and the angle is so steep that my husband cannot walk on our street without losing his balance and falling over. the streets are now so much higher than the homes, the water cannot drain off the home lots. My home is one of many homes that are sitting atop miniature lakes. The majority of the residents that responded to the Huntington Shorecliffs Resident Survey voted "NO" to the subdivision that would cause a "change of use" of the Park to a condominium. In a Superior Court decision on December 30, 2009, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick ruled that Government Code Section 66427.5 requires local jurisdiction consider the results of resident surveys in determining whether to approve or deny subdivision conversion appplications. AB 930's subsection 66427.5 1 (d) and(e), clearly stated the it is the legislative intent that the resident surveys are to be use to prevent non-bona fide resident conversions, which it defined as conversions that did not have resident support. In another decision dated March 30, 2010, the Second Appellant Division also supported the right for cities to consider the outcome of the resident survey in determining whether to approve or deny a subdivision. The "Report on Impact of Conversion upon Residents" submitted by the Applicant is not telling the truth. The Applicant's assessment is that non-purchasing resident will not be economically displaced because they can continue to rent. Rent are escalating at frightening rates. As leases are expiring, rents are increasing in amounts of$250 to $350 a month. This is in addition to a property tax increase of$164.87 a month. On page 2, in Section 11I, HK&C states "The Application does not encompass rent increases for non- purchasing residents." That is because the rent increases are taking place now in preparation for the subdivision. Residents are being forced to walk away from their homes because they cannot sell them and they cannot pay the rent. Also, the present owners have canceled accepting the Section 8 subsidies that many low income residents have used to pay their space rent. Without this subsidy,these resident will be forced to walk away f rom their homes. Mr. Saunders has stated at the Planning Commission Meeting that there are only 9, or maybe 12, residents affected by the Section 8 cancellation. The number is not important. It is important to know that Mr. Colderon has stated repeatedly that low income residents will not be displaced--in fact, low income residents will be better off because "they will have rent control for the rest of their lives." Huntington Shorecliffs has large red signs out in front of the entrance advertising "HOMES FOR RENT". Residents that own their homes are not allowed to rent them out. These rentals are homes in which the former owners had to walk away. The previous owners were economically evicted. Homeowners could no longer afford to pay the house payment and the escalating rents--and this is before the HOA Condo Fee has been added to the rental costs. Many more homeowners will lose their homes. The homes have no resale value. Many homeowners own their homes outright, and they still can no longer afford to stay in homes purchased with their life savings. They, too, will be forced to walk away. Also, there is a Failure to Maintain Lawsuit currently in court against the previous Park owner, Allan, and the new Park owner, Saunders. Those people that purchase their lots will be named as co-defendants in these lawsuits. This fact is not being disclosed. There is an abandoned oil well at the north side of the Park, somewhere between spaces 185 and 188. This item is not being addressed. The infrastructure is about 40 years old. This will become the responsibility of the HOA. What is the condition of the sewers and the electrical grids? These items, and the costs, are not being addressed. Please vote to deny all application by this owner to convert this Park to a subdivision. Do not abandon the Senior citizens living under the threat of Economic Eviction--the loss of their homes and the loss of their life savings. Very truly yours, Sharon L. Dana Huntington Shorecliffs--Space 4200 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:51 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5131 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Sharon Dana Description: From: Sharon Dana Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd. #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 May 2, 2010 To all Huntington Beach City Council Members Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Pro Tem Jill Hardy Council Members Keith Bohr Joe Carchio Gil Coerper Devin Dwyer Don Hansen Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Sub-Division Application Appeal City Council Meeting--May 3, 2010 1 have written to you previously concerning my opposition to the subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs, but there is one more point that I consider relevant. HCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development, has conducted an inspection of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park, and,found the owners to be in violation of Codes and Standards. It is the responsibility of the landowner per the MPA, the Mobilehome Parks Act, to operate and maintain the Park in the manner required by MPA. HCD finds that the accumulation of moisture and water under homes, potentially causing a mold or deterioration threat is a violation. There are numerous violations that involve the health and safety of Park residents. The standing water under and around homes present hazards of slipping and falling, not to mention the mold and bacteria problems. There is pond scum under and around homes. Sump pumps have been installed with extension cords running all around people's homes,presenting electrical dangers. HCD has issued violations to the Park owners. The Allens, the previous Park owners sold the Park rather than addressing the many i problems. Mr. Saunders and Mr. Coldren are choosing to subdivide the Park, rather than address and correct the many problems. In fact, Mr. Coldren, representing the Park owners, has stated "when the tenants own the Park,they can maintain and repair at whatever level they wish." The Park owners are abdicating all owner responsibility. This Park was purchased at the top of the Real Estate Market. Then the bottom fell out. Mr. Saunders and Mr. Coldren are looking to recoup their investment on the backs of the fixed income seniors living in this Mobilehome Park. How can lots that are virtual swamps with homes sinking into the muck be sold as prime real estate? Where are the disclosure laws? Who will help and protect the seniors living in this Park, and the other Parks around Huntington Beach? If not the City Council of Huntington Beach, then who? Our fate is in your hands. I am against the subdivision of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. My husband and I have lived in Huntington Shorecliffs for more than 12 years. We both receive Social Security, and thought this was our dream retirement home, the home we would live in until we died. Our dream has turned into a nightmare. Please help us and all the residents of Huntington Shorecliffs, and the residents residing in the othe Mobile home Parks in your city that will face this issue in the future. I am sending a hard copy of this letter to the City Council as well. A copy of the HCD report will be attached. Very truly yours, Sharon L. Dana Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:04 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5128 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Deanna Bell Description: To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in regards to the possibility of our Huntington Shorecliffs Park subdivision. I know many many letters , personal appearances at the meeting have been done, but I feel I must do my part at least one more time. I moved in here approx 5 1/2 years ago, not because I wanted to live in a mobile home park but because I knew it has always been labeled as a'Low Income'place to live. I paid $195K for it and put in upgrades. At that time my rent was $725.00. Today, my rent is already at $1250.00 PLUS paying his property tax monthly of$179.00 plus $40.00 a month for his insurance. I've been told that my lot would'approximately ' sell for $325K. With the amount I put in it,that would mean in order for me to turn around and sell it I would have to list it for$544K!! Who in their right mind would pay this , especially when the economy is so bad! Most of us in here are 65 and over,though there are a few younger couples at 55 years of age. We are on fixed income, not 'earned' income, so we can't even figure out how Mr. Saunders expects us to get a loan in the lst place. It is said he claims he would never make us move, but the rumor is, he said, he would take alien on our house an d when we pass away, he would collect the difference in rent at that time. That is heresay, but thats the rumor. Also said we can sell our house before everything is finalized and then leave the decision to the new owners if they want to buy. I can't tell you how many homes are for sale in this park, close to 20-25% of total homes here. Many people have just walked away and left there homes OR sold them to the Park for a couple thousand dollars and the park in turn is renting them out! I put my home up for sale for 3 months, it is a newer home and not one person came through. The one home that sold in the past month, orignally listed for $128K and sold for between $15- 20K!!!! People are that desperate to get out of here. The streets are full of water, some of the homes are dumpy looking, and No one wants to live here. Mr. Saunders will be asking a riduculous price for these lots in this time of our economy. It is a terrible feeling to know that you are 'stuck' in a place to live and can't afford the rent that he will be raising this property to IF we do not buy....we are senior citizens, is there no consideration of what we've gone through our whole lives, trying to save so we can 'retire' and enjoy a little life rather than spend the whole social security check on our rent, or if we do want to move, we can't, as nothing is selling in here. There are so many numerous problems in this park, but I just plea to you that you would re-consider your decision and let this remain a mobile home park and not have it sub- s divided. Sincerely, Deanna Bell 20701 Beach B1vd,Space 15 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com) Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:54 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5133 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Problem Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Evelyn Speiser Description: Dear City Council Members, I am a current resident of the Huntington Shorecliffs mobile home park. I am writing to ask you to disapprove the request of the current park owners - Mr. Coldren, Mr Saunders and company to convert the park to resident-owned status. They have continually misinformed the residents, the Planning commission, and you. In particular: 1. Mr Coldren repeatedly assured the residents, and the city council that there would be no 'economic eviction' of current residents. But last month, we were informed that the current park owners have cancelled their contract for HUD section 8 assistance. Those residents who depend on Section 8 to continue to live in their homes will certainly be economically evicted within a year. These are not people who came into the park needing assistance, but as they became older, and sicker, and lost spouses, their income did not increase but their space rent certainly did. I think it is cruel and devastating for Mr. Coldren's company to pick on the oldest, poorest and sickest of the residents as an easy target. 2. The current mess of lawsuits, infrastructure and water problems, drastic space rent increases (my neighbors rent has doubled in less than two years, and no end in sight) has resulted in almost complete devaluation of the existing homes. People are walking away from their houses, and there have been almost no sales in the past year. In desperation, the park is now allowing rentals so that the abandoned houses do not deteriorate further. 3. Mr. Coldren speaks of charging "market rate" for existing lots. The figures he has quoted are in the 1500 - 1800 per month range. But that is rent for a plot of dirt -there are 2 bedroom apartments for rent across the street from the park in that range - and that is a complete apartment, with no maintenance responsibility. Again, high rental rates are another form of economic eviction. 4. In retrospect, Mr. Coldren and company made a really bad business decision when they overpaid for Huntington Shorecliffs at the peak of the real estate boom. They also apparently neglected to investigate the numerous lawsuits against the previous owners, which they have inherited. But trying to recoup their losses by overcharging the current residents is not a reasonable solution. 5. The current residents, when surveyed, were not at all in favor of conversion of the park, mainly because the prices estimated by the owners are completely unreasonable, and the infrastructure and lawsuit problems remain unsolved. Thanks for your attention, i Evelyn Speiser 20701 Beach Blvd, spc 63 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 PS: Remember, there are between 300 and 500 VOTING residents of huntington beach living in the park. They are your constituents, not an outside investment firm whose only goal appears to be to get the money and run. I think you received a copy of a memo from Mary Jo Baretich, a member of the city's mobile home advisory board, summarizing more reasons for denial of HK&C corps request for conversion of Huntington shorecliffs. I wont repeat her arguments, all of which i completely agree with, but I am attaching a copy of her memo in case you dont have one available Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:12 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5134 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Evelyn Speiser Description: Dear City Council Members, I am a current resident of the Huntington Shorecliffs mobile home park. I am writing to ask you to disapprove the request of the current park owners - Mr. Coldren, Mr Saunders and company to convert the park to resident-owned status. They have continually misinformed the residents, the Planning commission, and you. In particular: 1. Mr Coldren repeatedly assured the residents, and the city council that there would be no 'economic eviction' of current residents. But last month, we were informed that the current park owners have cancelled their contract for HUD section 8 assistance. Those residents who depend on Section 8 to continue to live in their homes will certainly be economically evicted within a year. These are not people who came into the park needing assistance, but as they became older, and sicker, and lost spouses, their income did not increase but their space rent certainly did. I think it is cruel and devastating for Mr. Coldren's company to pick on the oldest, poorest and sickest of the residents as an easy target. 2. The current mess of lawsuits, infrastructure and water problems, drastic space rent increases (my neighbors rent has doubled in less than two years, and no end in sight) has resulted in almost complete devaluation of the existing homes. People are walking away from their houses, and there have been almost no sales in the past year. In desperation, the park is now allowing rentals so that the abandoned houses do not deteriorate further. 3. Mr. Coldren speaks of charging "market rate" for existing lots. The figures he has quoted are in the 1500 - 1800 per month range. But that is rent for a plot of dirt- there are 2 bedroom apartments for rent across the street from the park in that range - and that is a complete apartment,with no maintenance responsibility. Again,high rental rates are another form of economic eviction. 4. In retrospect, Mr. Coldren and company made a really bad business decision when they overpaid for Huntington Shorecliffs at the peak of the real estate boom. They also apparently neglected to investigate the numerous lawsuits against the previous owners, which they have inherited. But trying to recoup their losses by overcharging the current residents is not a reasonable solution. 5. The current residents, when surveyed, were not at all in favor of conversion of the park, mainly because the prices estimated by the owners are completely unreasonable, and the infrastructure and lawsuit problems remain unsolved. Thanks for your attention, i Evelyn Speiser 20701 Beach Blvd, spc 63 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 PS: Remember, there are between 300 and 500 VOTING residents of huntington beach living in the park. They are your constituents, not an outside investment firm whose only goal appears to be to get the money and run. I think you received a copy of a memo from Mary Jo Baretich, a member of the city's mobile home advisory board, summarizing more reasons for denial of HK&C corps request for conversion of Huntington shorecliffs. I wont repeat her arguments, all of which i completely agree with, but I am attaching a copy of her memo in case you dont have one available Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Sun`City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:35 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5135 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Linda Ford Description: I wish to voice my disapproval for subdividing the Park. Being a Senior community, people had bought their homes with the intent of spending their final years here. It had been impressed upon me that this was a Senior Park, and that this was much more desirable than an all age Park. (You had to be 55 years old to buy with the possibility of someone no younger than 45 as a secondary resident. The new owners have now changed the 45 to 30; it's hard to think of someone at 30, being a Senior) The home owners don't want an all age park and it's problems. The first 7 yrs. (approx.) were most enjoyable; but since then it has been an ongoing battle between Park Management/Owners (both previous and current) and the Homeowners. I have lived here since 1993; at that time the cost for my space was: ® 1993 $410 plus utilities/mo. 2003 $607 plus utilities • 2010 $1048 plus utilities We are hearing from the new owners that they want to get $1700-1800/mo. rent for the same space. I am not sure which world they are living in, but I don't know of many Seniors, whose income has increased to meet their goals. I would have tried to sell my home years ago but I, as a number of others, had a mold problem in my house (which the Park did have someone come in and supposedly clean on the inside only) I thought this would make it difficult to sell plus we had ongoing law suits in the Park against the Owners for not maintaing the property, which I thought would have to be disclosed. We have ongoing water problems. I was told that I can't relevel my home because of water under my house. My home is showing cracks and separations because of this. Who would want to buy? I thought that the rent we pay was for a Park maintained space. We have many homes sitting vacant or up for sale for a year and more; I've heard possibly 30 or more. I am a 70 year old woman, living alone. I had a decent job which I was laid off from, after being there for over 20 years. I ended up having to take my Social Security early and thus lost approx. a third of my monthly benefit. I was able to go on Section 8, which has been a Godsend but now, the Park has decided to stop accepting this money; they say they will be letting us know of some alternatives but 2 months have passed, and even with calls and email they have not responded. We are not just Renters, we are Home Owners, but there seems to be little consideration for us and the time slipping by. We have a limited time to retain our Section 8 subsidies, once they stop accepting them. Are 1 they hoping that we will walk away from our homes? We have invested our monies in these homes, how do you just walk away? We need the City and the City Council's help in protecting the home owners in the Park. There seems to be little thought for we Seniors, I guess it all comes down to dollars and cents. The new Owners knew they were buying a Senior Park, they must have known their limitations. We have already had our payments increaed by approx. $170,just to handle their property tax. What is included as a business expense today?Also,the Park has just begun renting homes, which we were never allowed to do in the past; maybe they think they can force us to leave and then rent our homes. This has been a most upsetting, frustrating and depressing time. The market for selling our homes is not there, now and it seems we have no way to control our destiny. It's a fine way to end your years. Thank you for reading my wanderings; we need your help. Linda Ford 20701 Beach Blvd. Spc 91 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Ph: 714-960-7488 email: lford7gsocal.rr.com Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:38 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5136 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Constance Liberatore Description: Ms. Liberatore asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Esparta, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:45 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5137 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Judith Harbison Description: Ms. Harbison asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Pafty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:48 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5138 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to.Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Gail Jordan Description: Gail Jordan asks the Council for their consideration to her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. )Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:51 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5139 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Ronald Bastien Description: Ronald Bastien asks the Council for their consideration in his opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:53 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5140 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Marie Burns Description: Marie Burns asks the Council for their consderation in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:56 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5141 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Dreama Baur Description: Dreama Baur asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Pafty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 11:58 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5143 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Sharon Ewald Description: Sharon Ewald asks the Council for their consideration inher opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:01 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5144 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Kay Elstad Description: Kay Elstad ask the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.coml Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:04 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5146 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Charlaine Argirakis Description: Charlaine Argirakis asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:07 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5147 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Robert E. Truitt Description: Robert Truitt asks the Council for their consideration in his opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5148 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to .Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Cushing Mary Description: Mary Cushing asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [no reply @user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:12 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5149 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Jim Jordan Description: Jim Jordan asks the Council for their consideration in his opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5150 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Victoria& Harry Cargill Description: M/M Cargill ask the Council for their consideration in their opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:43 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5152 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Ron& Vicki Peach Description: M/M Peach ask the Council for their consideration in their opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:46 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5153 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Darlene Rittman Description: Darlene Rittman asks the Council for their consideration in their opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:31 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5156 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mai el Miller Description: I am a concerned resident of Huntington Shoreclifs mobile home park. I have lived here over 23 years. I am 82 years young and love my home and my neighbors. However, I will not be able to stay here if they keep raising the rents and are intent in gettong us out of here. I live on my SS - which is less than my monthly rent. And we even have to pay their property taxes. My daughters have been helping me with my bills, but my middle daughter who worked for Boeing was let go after i5 yrs .Now she can't help. Another daughter is afraid her hours will be cut--she is an ass. DA with LA Co. All of this going on in our country and these owners think they can rob us of our lives. This is elder abuse. I have tried to get rental assesstance but was told it was closed for 5 years. I still have a mortgage on my home. What are we to do? Thank you for your understanding. Ma.el Miller#283 Expected Close Date: 05/04/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/3/2010 DONALD PRINCE Huntington Shorecliffs Space 176 March 9 , 2010 OPPOSE SUBDIVISION TRACT MAP HCD NOTICE OF VIOLATION 3-23-10 1 . MISTAKES ON TRACT MAP 2 . P q RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Oil Well Space 1 9 �� t;i r Pacific Electric Railway Right-Of-Way., T6&b 3. HEALTH AND SAFETY Surface Storm Drain Ground Water Elevated Roads Sanitary Sewers 4. ECONOMIC IMPACT Section 8 HUD Low Income Cancelled Storm Drain Passthrough Beach Blvd Sidewalk Passthrough 6 ADA Ramp Passthrough Lot Costs and Rents Lawsuits 5 . RISKS Seismic Fault Zone Liquefaction Methane Zone Tsunami Run Up Flood Plain . Unstable Bluffs Subsisdence Rex—, -5 � LQ�1 vi1 u.�/� �-�7U•J � d S3iATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT USE ONLY DEPARTMENT OF FILE IDENTIFICATION: OUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF CODES AND STANDARDS CPT/ASSIGNMENT* AD09-0734 FACADg 30-045INT 4480 Date v-W-ade-DisWcUZepmentativz4-----AREA-GMC-E-S- -DRA Applicant__Sharon Dana#200 - E]Northern Area PCA/ACTCODE MP-CPT AREA .-SO, 9M2 Tech Center or. co— 30 Loc--TR MILES 20 Address 20701 beach Blvd- Huntington Beach 92648 suite 4550 TIME:INSP/ACT---LO—TR- 10 Sacramento,CA 95826-2558 INSPECTION DATA: Activity Site(if other than.above) Hunt(tlgtOn Shortleaf Mobile Home Park Tel.(916)255-2601 ®TIME REPORT ONLY —IREINSPECTION gSou" 20701 Beach BBlvd:,., SP.#149,8 157,85, 167, 186,76, 158,290 200 — Area-Area OINITIAL INSPECTION E L—#FLOORS 2 Owner pf o#w than ebm) 3737 Main Street #HOMEJUNIT---- Suite 400 VIOLATION DATA. Address Riverside,CA 92501 Tel.(951)782-4420 TOTAL— MP TENANT---!-- PURPOSE OF REPORT. (Checked(v)as appropriate) s F=X I—= X M—I- X G/0—Ni' INSPECTION RECORD ONLY MH ALTERATION TYPE: INFORMATION ONLY ACE] ACC[3 ROOFE] FP ❑ 0[3 GUM. THIRD-PARTY MONITORING: ----- NOTICE-OF AnOLATIONAM RELATED INF-ORMATiON:-This4eporti)ro%ddes-n of violations of the California Health and Safety Code,Division 13 or the California Code of Regulations, QAA(M i-IQ 0 lip 0- DLO IS E] Title 25,Division 1 Chapter 2/3 ,Sections indicated.Copies of the regulations may be obtained from DAA #PLANS—#COMPLY Barclays Law Puilishem P.0.Box 3066,South San Francisco,CA 94083-3066. MP INSPECTION DATA: Violations indicated shall be corrected and a written request for further inspection filed with the Area Office BLGMX MH LOT XS RV LOT—AS_ indicatedabove on- or before 4/30/2010' The request for inspection shall be accompanied by a minimum fee of$ EH INSPECTION DATA: ❑ACTIVE El INACTIVE A permit shall be obtained from the Area Office identified above for work to coned item(s)# MAX CAP—P CAP—OCC If"ou believe this report has beer,issued in error or is factually incorre4 please contact the Area SFD—DORM—MH/RV—Q_ Supervisor at the Area Office indicated above. FEE ACCOUNTING: INSPECTED UNIT IDENTIFICATION: COL# Type of Unit BoxSize_Overall Smk_RT Decal No. USED JNWPECTION Manufacturer,YearandModel VMGMA HUD LABEL or MCD Insignia No. Se"No.or V.I N, ATTACHED FEE I-D INSPECTION RESULTS OR INFORMATION: Conducted site inspection at above listed activity site for complaint filed by applicant's listed above. Complaint states the Mobile Home lots and under the manufactured home during rain days accumulate water ponds on the mobile home sites,adjacent mobile Mine lots and under the manufactured homes on lots.Pictures provided where water nonds on lots and under homes.Also noted during site inspections.Also noted at inspection that the streets within the park are higher in elevation than thelots they serve. Causing the-'Water-to-run from 16M9-P rk streets1fid adjacent lots,on lots noted and pond under the homes. Also noted at site inspection moss(Pond Scum)was accumulating on the lot surfaces and under manufactured homes.Causing a slipping hazard and possible bacterial problems for residents. Also noted during site inspection sump pump wells and drams have been install by park operator without permits.alternate approvals by jurisdiction authority were required violating regulations-Retention wells and pump were installed electrical violations exist.Pumps wiring are connected with electrical extension cords where,listed electrical wiring is required and shall be installed in exterior listed and approved conduit. RECEIVED BY TITLE DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY.Action: ❑ Close File ❑ Reinspection Required El Progress Inspection Required ❑ Enforcement Action Needed ❑ Other SAA ❑OL Other SEND COPIES TO: [I Recipient El Owner [❑J ❑ SUPERVISOR REVIEW DATE COPIES SENT BY DATE HCD-61(Rev,01305) PAGE 1 of 2 OSP 02 66302 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY - DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ID 30-0451 Y DMSION OF CODES AND STANDARDS s°` `Q"'A"m Date- 3/23/10 Inspected by Damy Wade Page -2 of 2 Name Sharon Rana#200 Correction required from the site inspection of Huntington Shorechff MfJP.Violations of grading of streets and lots and non permit sump pump will require the following: I.Pursuant to SEC: 1116 Lot and park area.grading. Streets and Mobile Home Lots are in violation and SEC: 1045 2. Sump pumps installed by park operator is in violation of SEC: 1016 Alternate approvals, 10 18 permits rewired and SEC: 1134,1185, 1151-and 1152 Electrical Regulations. - -- �3:Palk-b—p for alI pravicZe o tam a services an reeiimmendations co Live measures for removal of -- - - water from mobile home lots under manufactured home and stop water entering lots from park roads.From CA Registered Civil Engineering firm and.or Geologist. Park operator shall correct noted violations-listed above. Corrections listed must be completed by 4/30/2010 a reinspecting-will be conducted there aft Park Operators Violations: SEC: 1610 Abatement of violations.Park grading for lots and park roads and sump pumps under manufactured homes. Responsibility:Park operator shall not permit a unit,accessory building,structure or building component to be constructed,installed,used or maintained-in the park unless constructed,installed,used and maintained in accordance with the requirements of T 25CCR Chapter 2 Park Operators Violations: Article 1 Chapter 5 Regulations General provisions SEC:1610 Abatement of violations required_ Pursuant to Title 25 CCR SEC: 1688 and SEC: 1690 noted violations is declared in violation and a nuisance. Pursuant to SEC:1696 Park operator is in violation of non-compliance with mobile home parks act. SEC: 1426 Responsi'bihity-Park operator violations issued. Park operator is in violation of Title 25 CCR Health and Safety Code SEC: 18420 Notice of Violation. SEC 18550 (c)(d)Unlawful Use SEC: 18605 Regulations-governing ME parks and lots within MH parrs.Park operator shall ensure corrections indicated-in correction order issued to park operator are corrected. Failure to comply with correction order and violation under SEC: 18700 wilful failure to comply by park operator, may be guilty of a misdemeanor. So.Area Admiaistrator(s)auction may be required to correct violation issued if not corrected in a timely manner indicated Pursuant to Title 25 CCR Division 1 Chapter 2 Article 1 Administrative and Enforcement SEC: 1004.5(a-c)Park operator shall pay a Fee of$196 for each site visit if corrections are not completed or approval of an extension of the by a So.Area Administrator before 4/30f2010 HW 63 REV.Caney s t State of California y t,3 i. Business,Transportation and Housing Agency ya;f'r'� d Department of Housing and Community Development d Division 61-Codes and Standards 0"N M-_NlelromeParks ProgramLA ' C�'C _ - APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT (SEE REVERSE SIDE OF FORM FOR INSTRUCTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) CONTRACTOR/OWNER BUILDER DECLARATIONS SECTION 1"4071� -OWNER/APPLICANT INFORMATION DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Nof required for Special Purpose Commercial Coaches or - �/ ' 3Recreational Vehicles Park Name 'iS h,0,ee / ID.No. 1.LICENSED CU Y S DECLARATION t�J ,.,/I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed Park Addres �+*G v' ❑ P ❑ACC/S ❑MHI - under provisions of Chapter 9(commencing with Section 7000) _ of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code,and my CIS s B license is full force and effect. City �� County : y OF License Class,F—Lic.NeIZj65yo 1Exp.Date�Jl$407 Zip ll 40, Unincorporated Incorporated Date Closed Contractor C6G S li 6d!te ?'Tgs Park Owner COLLECTION INFORMATION 2.OW,_t-affirm u DECLARATION ' / hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that t am exempt from Applicant �� G the Cont-av,rs License Law for the following reason(Sec. _ - - 7031 S),&mass and Professions Code: Any city or county �j Collection# ,V icv,re��es a permit to construct,alter,improve,demolish,or /f-M CCoonnttraccttoor ❑Owner D❑/Other Q-�r/� '� =_pa-ang s s:,=h p prior to its issuance,also requires the AddressJl`v r�l44 A-14 0M /+1 r� -o�sa--f:-s;:oh penr+it to file a signed statement that he or she s n:s,-ze==:=uan;to the provisions of the Contractors License /� 9(commencing with Section 7000)of Division 3 of ,Qwjph�►�w/ /� �fL ���10 +�� Fee Rec'd ___ Professions Code)or that he or she is exempt I�� �7 (� rtrJ"V I�f IIVV��FF// --=F— anz he basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation z'S—::,,-.7031.5 by any applicant for permit subjects the architectlEngineei Lic.No. tv a cry°.penalty of not more than five hundred d-Trasf5500).): - Collection Da t Address Tel.No. _.as o:c�,er of,the property,or my employees with wages as ',.a--s cor.:pensaDcn,will do the work,and the structure is _ - - Assigned To �._:erded c':offered for sale(Sec.7044,Business and ` 1 u is Code: The Contractors License Law does not apply SECTION 2.DESCRIPTION OF WORK AND VALUATION a-vwne•of property who builds or improves thereon,and - - Routg{(By, wtcc does such work himself or herself or through his or her own e-sfees,provided that such improvements are not intended or- Upon Department approval to e-ed for sale. If,however,the building or improvement is sold /� P P pP one year of completion,the owner-builder will have the -�� � Fj�� SE"/Q 11,A), release,and payment of fees,this burden of proving that he or she did not build or improve for the permit is issued only for items ; -pose of sale.). - / �� miWAff �Q./Vl&.5 validated below ©W� i 1,as owner of the property,am exclusively contracting with ,- -� s - 3 7 t licensed contractors to construct the project(Sec.7044; _ Z,� ��"' � PERMIT.# Business and Professions Code: The Contractors License Law a does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves / _ �arl� �s�A '-`_ f i thereon.and who contracts for such projects with a contractor(s) JAQ 1�rr♦' 3 +�..' 6�s '�,I1 MH ACC/S icensed pursuant to the Contractors License Law.). - [,� c �,�,f� /�./ i I I am exempt under Sec. ,B.&P.C.for this reason:- a /�'Y'�e ,S /jR J C�J.� /TI��_ MP !� k+-1 I`9h BLDG Owner - Date / ����L y/ 6f'r MH1 3-WORKERS'COMPENSATION DECLARATION f L /� Ste` (jF�L-i-i A }Z MISC: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of_the following declarations: - - Valuation- S'- - '- ( TECH SER. 11 have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure - -- - - - for workers'compensation,as provided for by Section 3700 of SECTION 3-MANUFACTURED HOME/MOBILEHOME ACCESSORY the Labor Code,for the performance of the work for which this PlC'K - permit is issued. - BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES XI have and will maintain workers'compensation insurance;as - - S.M.I. _ uired by Section 3700 of the Labor Code,for the performance ❑New ❑Reinstall Standard Plan Approval No. of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' - ISSUE compensation in urance Carr r eaann�d policy number are: ❑Awning ❑Carport ❑Porch ❑Cabana 2� Carrier: ��! ��tV��9 TOTAL Policy Number d 1/�p�l-j..�p ,, ❑Other(specify) (This section need not a compete i the permit is or o� ne Owner Tel.No. DIVISION PROCESS RECORD hundred dollars($100)or less). - - - _ I I I certify that in the performance of the work for which this Address Application permit is issued,I shall not employ any person in,any manner so - - as to become subject to workers'compensation laws of Local Planning California,and agree that if I should become subject to workers' Resident Lot No. compensation provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code,I Local Fire shall forthwith comply with those provisions. - SECTION 4-MANUFACTURED HOME/MOBILEHOME INSTALLATION Applicant Date Local Health WARNING:FAILURE TO SECURE WORKERS'COMPENSATION Owner - Tel.No. COVERAGE IS UNLAWFUL,AND SHALL SUBJECT AN - Public Works EMPLOYER TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CIVIL FINES UP TO Address ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS($100,000),IN ADDITION'- _ Environmental TO THE COST OF COMPENSATION,DAMAGES AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3706 OF THE LABOR CODE,INTEREST,AND Resident Lot No, Impact ATTORNEY'S FEES. 4.CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY - Serial Number(s) Negative I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that thft is a Declaration construction lending agency for the performance of the work for Manufacturer Namei - which this permit is issued(Sec.3097,Civ.C.). Date Of MFG. Model Name School Impact Lender's Name Fees Lender's Address Insignia/HUD Label No. 5.CERTIFICATION Date I certify that I have read this application andstate that the SECTION 5-PARK OWNER,OPERATOR OR MANAGER SIGNATURE above information is correct. I agree to comply with all city and - Iss ed By county ordinances and state laws relating to building '''111 construction,and hereby authorize representatives of this county Approved: . ^ to enter on the above-mentioned property fot inspection - p poses 'a ,,,/ _ „'t�:./v'�v�' ,?_1 .70`� (Signature Required) Expires " __0 rrnz^_�c`A.='_,cant or Agent mate - il,la, ^fi70r,;;�7hs4v; ;l��m„'Sr 1, aISTRIBUTION: WHITE-APPLICANT, BLUE-DEPARTMENT, YELLOW-DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE, PINK-ASSESSOR ktitl'+til�'.�-,^ ��"��;6"�'C�,Y�S >�'•'i"a'�t+ �s✓�`ryi¢R v C d C �c4F t APPPOVED 1 Apprnvnl of these plans does not Outhor;z}or approve rry omission of .1t,,+iciioni from requirements of state laws or, app7k6,Ubie L---:'I ordira ices. Care set of opprovea pJars shall be avci:abl-= on tb,; l:roject site at all times. Plans shall be replaced when they b cori, Negibie or detriorated. ® FEB 4 2005 State of California I ! Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Codes and Standards 141 JA C 2 f � f 44 24! 746 '47 4 + I STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT USE ONLY f` DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FILE IDENTIFICATION $ DIVISION OF CODES AND STANDARDS CPT/ASSIGNMENT#_ / �� � �r ACTIVITY REPORT FAC. ID# LABOR DA A: ' !�G Date eport by AREA OFFICES DR ID 1� DATE Applicant L]Nnrrham Aran PCA/ACT CODE AREA✓ 8911 Folsom Blvd. CO-31:�' LOC TR MILES Address P.O. Box 1407 y�� ^� Sacramento, CA TIME: INSP/ACT TR Activity Site(If other than above) !�f ��4 C(6 , 95812 1407 INSPECTION DATA: Tel. (916) 255-2501 o TIME REPORT ONLY �� �olrthrrn ArPA XNITIAL INSPECTION 0 REINSPECTION Owner(If other than above) 3737 Main Street #HOME/UNIT � #FLOORS Suite 400 VIOLATIO,pLC1eTA: Address Riverside, CA 92501 _ Tel. (909)782-4420 TOTAL MP TENANT (Checked as appropriate) Ma-ALIT-RATION TYPE: INSPECTION RECORD ONLY ❑ INFORMATION ONLY AC o ACC❑ ROOF n o ❑ NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND RELATED INFORMATION: This report provides notice D-PARTY MONITORING: of violations of the California Health and Safety Code,Division 13 or the California Code of Regulations, QAA @ HO o I D Is c Title 25,Division 1,Chapter ,Sections indicated. Copies of the regulations may be obtained from DAA #PLANS #COMPLY Barclays Law Publishers, P.O. Box 3066,South San Francisco,CA 94083-3066. MP INSPECTION DATA: Violations indi shall be corrected and a written request for further inspection filed with the Area Office BLG/FIX—_MH LOT �iV LOT—AS indicated above on o fore The request for inspection shall be accompanied by a minim fee of$ EH INSPECTION DATA: o A 0 INACTIVE A permit shall be obtained from t Area Office identified above for work to correct item(s)# MAX CAP P CA OCc If you believe this report has been issu error or is factually incorrect,please contac SFD DORM MH/RV o Supervisor at the Area Office indicated abov . FEE ACCOUNTI <g Type or Unit ¢e Overall Sze RT Decal No. usm DUE ATTACHED nufacturer,Year and Model INSPECTION INSIGNIA HUD LABEL or HCD Insignia No. OTHER Serial No or V.I.N. ATrACHFn FFF I D INSPECTION RESULTS OR INFQRMATION: zzk s.r ii----tI TITLE W A T- Ac6o€1: L_J Close F7e ❑ Reu�Re( —ja—Progress Inspection Required '...'( famed ❑ Other ��k; - ❑ Re Rent ❑ Owner El SAA 13 OL Other DATE COPIES SENT BY DATE aw „i�mliF 1• ;'_ `. �IL. � � �M PAGE 1 of W N *Ta « �� "-"mid/ OSP 02 6£3�2 - �0 X� I Errcr5 Nu IOCrXY I � , (85) - { n� I y I J i ` tn 25 (83) m v 74 0' I t 200 (87� 26 W - - (82) I 210 i (88) f , 7 4.0' : 27 (81) _ - I L 1 a 28 2 �Wzsl ($o) i,°° (g I r, _ 74.0. ' ---... . _-42 213 29 - -=,41 (79) I h ra jt1 �5� — - F - -- .__- -- tIL �h' 41 r- tI K r ui NN $3' n `Ws �. !! ► I fb .}��- ``�G �)`3" _ 1 i ! I v YAS J' ,a J>� t 9 '<�7 . \ °; � '5z j CAI a 3i Y �/ c- g - , I t , J•• um �S T l` - -�r �� �t -� F -"�,.(-'�.`��l-l�F "s� t�lAs-��-.•t.,,'3'`s _ -_ [yjf�� lj � r �� -tf -� 'Q- 30. it , -A j `'� -.- ,W- FL4-4 t __ a � _ of ;� ref _ t � r2 vu .;_ _�� �9. lr:s,--��-rr •Lr^1 �•'- .I '�`_tl= _ +. �' i �a: -:-y d Y` 4t F A f � F...-;: _- -��'S I�Y�'tt 71• `f�"'''�":,-�-' -;-mkt"^'�,,.�,^_—^.'- -t _ '-;✓ � pJ� ;�u, -.Mb�. _ },, -_�.. v_. �,s�ra�z-��.,�.��;'�-.ter =�, 's ,� •.: :�^- .�-ter i- �'' ' tl RUT "= 'k _ -7 _ t. 3 -� � Huutin2t®u Bead --- --. Map produced by information contained in the City of Huntington Beach Information Services Department -- -- _--------- Geographic Information System.Information warranted for — City use only.Huntington Beach does not guarantee its completeness or accuracy. = Map Produced on 3/26/2010 s 0 s 300 4 600 � irr �� r t,, 2- One inch equals 300 feet M '^ cc, Pr --- 4' ^O sec//fl/Z "} I //v'DlANAPDLIS b ' . i ;r - Sep �'• S,uke it MAR 0 4 2010 (j Y V ? Huntington©each PLANNING DEPT. 't ; Vz7 w � d w� �6ry�Rae 1cv , ZWj Cr cl �tcl U W Q, z LIJ > d'Qol.�a. � �� J\�i G uj k; —1 0 / / �4 G ­PROFOSEO WELL LOCAT/ON f. E]W o sd No;l a n­ z, a . U 0 _;��,va:�,�r fr�o W pr F U�o 0 r w I PROPOSED Al TfRNATE ^1 LOCH N T/O Co CC ) S2 NciJ&Tin,3C y, EL M/R.4 L 5 T on Q S T. L w m O F, _j o d a u O ? 0 h o z DETRO/T n o<. 1-vosre.- I c� fITLANTA 1? /! s B tir, __ --— f 1 4 4 6,rha GEN EVA AVE' 0 A-T- 0 4-1 5 3-GZOO F R o��—NK F RT z fl�ly/d, IZ4--4875 ELMIRA /4N V E Z",NF—LMIFRA 52-56Cn DETROIT T6 S - R 11 W CHICA AVE Producing C Ger f 3-4415 a, 77 -4.'54-4GOO a Ger�54-44, rr co SALTI MORE—1 _�.22-3360 U) Z.A 2 + 23-4740 1 is A.TL.ANTA AVE Sorcnord /0 I n"ro/k 3O-G724 +2 \SAC'lL 2d462 � 2� 21-21. IA I :i Adc"f,c supply('-0/- Il 2-2318 Do o 041 Ca. A "II; N laZd-81,ch a,d':�. 35-4527 C17 e P o 7 9-2174 Lease No.2 Fox 0'? rdlb4,? 'f 1-4493 #H �r -Y 1+ Am, VS 4,1,?,,Opr. lz 3-4500 5,,(L Is,NO a i _ �aP Driftwood Dr. - Ebbtide-Cir. - s- _ {�SN J J _ Sail Cir. PJlermaid Cir. 7Co -� - - - - - -i _ _ -;Co _ - --S' - - - - - - - -- - Sunset Cir. - -ca - — — - -- - -- U m Kingfisher - Zuma-`Dr:-- Mary Seabird' Samdstonetir. c L^ - - St son Dr. _ U _ : r .0 C� - _ - - = Evelyne Cir - P —p ,_N -o - -- a `� s� _ i Snowbird Ba Beac omber r pe pr Goeta o r� — , L__�klahta Ave, c Starshell Drc3 - - -o ►ta Ildwao�i j. r W aterfaJ! W Ildwo od' it Dr - = h i Neptune Dr � , ,! J �o� nee. - c Penn, Pe�viingto@ Dr ! I t r� Seawall Bayport Cj °o ; U r L Artista' ate: glen.�rE WooJl�urh 13d. 4- NtairimasDfr _Southwind o '� �1 Y Easport _,f Gape -Moon , 2 ¢ Huntington Beach FIRE STATIONS Map produced by information contained in the City of OIL'dv'ELLS �- Huntington Beach Information Services Department = -- - Geographic Information System.Information warranted for City use only.Huntington Beach does not guarantee its STREET NAMES ` - completeness or accuracy. Map Produced on 9/22/2009 CITY BOUNDARY �- f` r fry .i STREET CENTERLINES(CL4SS) r �j eT/ --- ,V 's�rfCl-`E Smartctreet) Jy I ._ el Major s r- " Collector —- 0 484 968 jV Primary Secondary Re,idential One inch equals 484 feet Travelwa, I ' Alley < 7-777777777�7" U-1 DD RUN No �1:11,11 SURNEYING CORPORATION First Readinq Lost Read LIAR R 0 4 2 _5 Fee Measu red Csg. Scblum. L� HLjntjngton El6ch > Csg. Driller PI t Tj PLAN.NING bEPT. Depth Reached Cn Bnliom Driller P Depth Datum Ll""T 0 tl Location of Well i Mud Not LLJ 0 Density DIVISION OF OIL Ai'll) GAS it WELL Re FI. F, 61 F. 6, F Res. BHT F. -F F F 6' F! F F MAR 22 1954 F P-� -.P�— - C C 30 < Wir,'Loss 1 CC 30 CC:30 (�c 30 CC 30 v—, FIELD �1L'FIT 1. 1 1 tj H EP,C H LOS CALIFORI'llb Max. rerrip F i B.i 1 Size. LOCATION 5pcg5.—AM (T' > A Elevation: D,F--- AO Z > 0 Opr R�g Time K.B. 0'Y� Truck No. 'n COUNTY or G.L.: Recorded By 2 ll U STATE L 1 0 R`4 1 A. [LL I�N G No.. Witness By RUN No, 6 LLJ 0 C3 CQ— I./6/c 3� .��w No f7a 77- n3 LE Dole First Reading r v A __A_EL43__ . -[.)g Lost Reading sl'Recidinq_ -l--Z1CL0..---4.-34sa aq-s 5- -4 1-6 is- Feel Measured el Measured 1 537 15 5 IS sur.d -3 3.0 2 S I 5Q2 A I-S I ... Csg. Schlum. -9 Sc h lum 39.8 .--.328 ! 11 .. . j -S- --- - � —.3 Csg, Driller 3 395 3.5 �98 - 39-6- 3)8 Depth 1 6200 �plh iReciched t 7 0 2 4'1,4 3957 1 Q.7 1-4 6 4 4- 4 6�L4 Bottom Driller 6200 ad roamDriller I PN4— -34!i B -L06 t)eplh Datum K B it Dal )�B PE Mud N a 1. C I a Y ud N-1, a-Y -_r� J - 9 1 y-G Y Density Density_ -- "E; 78 79. 8D, C"; Den, I — Viscosity r" rl 01 45 -A-0 ..... c F .83 F 61 F' 6, F F_C5. BHT 1. 1 2-S-F12 J F'i 2- 2-1 FT2 -5-Hh..Cl_(�J3-8-j Res BHT F. F. F. F F 6 ris F; �F! -LE'�IL_6_0- 72•F E.C'(" 83 —0 -T� �a Q& wir Loss CC 30 CC 30 C C 30 cc 3 ID— CC 30 7 7 F PHI CC 30 v�aC C 30—n.l. CC.30 C-q 3c > ox. Temp. F 12 1 121 1 U 13, Max. Temp. F 47 -T7 ry CD 7,7 Bit Size z I r'l ,cga.—AM Spcg 5.—AM I jx� A t A I- L!, - - -""-7-- 7If.S nL.D Ab- 1 A 11 t--!:I F t—. — 131 f.t t rv* or, Rig Time Opr Rig Time L uck N T Truck No I?- corded_ By J 1 7 1 7 77 I G Ii I! DA�$1*1-j. t-, R,,.,de'd By P .1)t\ 04 H'J N T ER 7 fitness By 1 1 1 L-LER I Witness By ff 5 fl, 10 Z' t A'q 7, :J! STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1;A R' 0 4 200 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF OIL AP-JID GAS ur-if-19tor-i peach ,7LAJNI,NIIRG DEPT ......... Special Report, c_,i Operations Witrtessed No. T158-691 Mr. Cl t =n—---------------------------------—----------------- e�W Q 3 d ------------------------------------------------ ----------- ------------------.......... ........Cal-f. ------------------------------------- -------------October---21 ---1953---------------- Agent ------------------------------------ DEAR SIR: Operations at your well No.--'f__Sand-rallu!'-A -----------------------------------Sec-J R.-1 -1 ------------ it _n7,tQ_a__ReaaE-------------------Field, in----------.------------- ------------0 range--------------------_-County, were witnessed on________ Mr.-M_-Ru--ite eeY_____________1_1� - - -ee-------------- of the supervisor was present Lr- - representative from__'_' :_(M, .to._L -------- There were also ----------------- ------------ —------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Present condition of well: ­13��-Va?1-0--M-398------- --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The operations were performed for the purpose of__ tnae.54D. tJ a e-_plu, Jn& Q ---tq pro of abandoriment Mr_----�`'Teg:s---------------------------------------------------------reported: The hole was cleaned out to 418' . 2. On Gctuber 17, 1958, 23 sacks of cement -was dmt-ped into the hole atu '418' . R ENG ER IiOTED: . "Tne bailer i�,as spudded on a scii-id PlU­9 at 366' and broug-lit up a, sample of set cement. 2e The hole was bridZed at 15' with cement sacks. Seven sacks of cement was poured into the hole from the surface. 4. The cemeent was e:t the top of the 13-33/8" casing: at 5' belov, the ground Surface. THE PLUGGING UPERAMONS ILS WIFUM9SED AIM FMIPGRTED PY-1-5 APFRMETD, WHEI i OH cc Manco Production 311754 Long, Beach Boule-v-ard 1�olng Beach 7 California, Tiir M Dudley HH-ughes 1004 Oncean Center Building .L 4 Long Beach California E. H. MUSSER State Oil ar-d GasSL_ ervisor --- --------Deputy —'--'---- --------__ repeat of a train sunk in the pent hed of Sotjtljx�IeSt Otange CoUnty. This �JCCident OCCUrred on sift This SP 1000MOtiVe fOLInd the roadbed to J�e a little too Soft. HopefLI11)' there would not be a 94 ! talk _1 -1 E7;j 17 i ESP ' ' L M� I i Nit ERR •tea. ARA Sm s 1 I March, 1925 �. .: ► k _ Scale 1" = 2000ft., UITY OF 111INTINC ON BEACH -ry c\LreOWN1i •., —— —i E. M. Billings - City Engineer 26 ,. .._ he .. tl2c�¢',f — Ir. aDo1s RPlnS�l�ib�iC��trmg r^"� lif2�®a �Ft r<�r �(~,tj,£ �r�_):. Jr ✓1�.� ,�a`a �s v,`•PsT•a �ra�- E -' } F., F� ,y �cyA'�I 1 J' ,.i i j_1 ;I-�%� S';i.,`�y r, _. -t,� I' ,,P� ", •. I � -- ��- -- .__...,_�_-.- �tG I J r , c ',rl _ ii'-"1, °i',i' "�j'[l'si{'a -a,^''f°'^-7,•� - • ��m 'n� I'`� F Ila I �I� i_ 1,Li ,i f i� r ,�-°r, lily ti 1 nJ:.,-,' I F �IO, nt `-ti y.r�4L-7'ij�lr� 1 �j'' yjig •• _ '� 'S-�, I"' i, . _ RI ,I� p _-, —_ �-�\� fir, l CL - --_�.__ - - l`','1 \-.—_�--_- ❑ ' "-__ �'�", 1qy yet 'I , � ��, � i uti��iil L�'ji jyi I' .'1'1 � � 6,1 I�� .� I,I I{I� I �I,I '- �-I.,t'i�:';rl,�" v—.•'°-_✓a..r�l„��°,ir.. ��C' ��� r � � y7 ,, �,11�, }rrxzio�y, a,mi3rez?� sln T i wY�e n;, s f�fhr i,r:r //Fr-, ��• 1�,�� . ,a hr�.,,, '�H'., ..'_�' B ', �i � �,I�,"✓. II I � I j f, s I'�'-r--- �i t .}I�1�I,� +'y .r� �'\ . S. I I,; F r l•� ,,; -trf•'.�, �.I."f,3,,, ,�Sa 'ir, 1 f i � y I I I I 1 1 � I ��__ (( sC�� J,f ',M 'err v -'�,, .11 L4 N 'o #', iO�;y i.,i i_i• !y- .. p I ,�' �..,,..Ilr„y rl°� i�,vr­I: ti - 'k.vJ'tih }s'"�'- F' !- ,,.. {''fin a'4.t�'-'Sv'" �'% I .r�:Y. �� I •,I °� ...........Ir f ,.I.� `,ire y:y� ✓a� ` p�7: 1,",� 1' t mMj?y t0 t` CT" ✓o h'vp ''v (5'�Y �;;,\ .j•«,r,.,�, .�,��' '�`i�- S JC. .,;'9 .� .yl..1, I n t I y I„ i I -.r I (' ��+. ,, � I - ' i ,'\j*1 .��:,., .'c -��: l � ��,<'.`+ ••'}�' �;a?v''�:,_,Y?'.,_ .11 �1'.� F�. .Ir.t 4r _ _ \-:, I ram,/`� '! ,�I d �f� 1 n� :;�Y;•:, - +`^' _ � _ � '� F,: +di,`� `;� t 'R .,i� �� ��Y,�,�� ., :_ifts`'�� �._.�- T� � i i III � � f'6 �. •i: ,� .{�')�'r�fA4 �� ;.; - ✓ .'Y � I I•.rt R - I u p'I i 1 -i''_I' F.:.._�:.� �� �� ,, Ld J' ,r :I" 'q �� ��j� �'�'.�:�� »;'"�j"�.rc�3r�'r�>,�f3;:°�s A�, s�- A�{•' �II ( --�I � i�E :I+'_.• 4 i, ..�_�w�' w_ 1, -- t� rrl ,'t,� ,�p / //`�. �. >, f,,," ,.�,, Iii Iff'•' -I,I t -�I ,,_ :+I, ..L. ..c' Q �{ y __ ;p�.� P` —f Z J+✓a,�'F,� �` ��..r�Ct 7?; r ' „—~ "t�, ,'�,r _,I r--•»- I, _ - _ _ �;'` � Ii rAl�� y'f•-r`�'+�IY�- 'rf��._I ,I -1 (�� � I �Aa fl'°. !_'( =� aa•-', 'r<'�/,� ^i ':>t•'// /'',;,.,P® `r'\ ',�-r (�r _ ��p_ xl:l I _1t Jt`' Y �„ ! f�ii ��li- ;:, LU _ vim T <•� w �,_.� ,_ i pd� i i I� t Gy �,/ 1 '..`.1` c t[ I x y r 2�!1•�-' i-�. Fr ,.r�A`` ,�t �-- �, p,�r -r.J I s P a Fpf�l,y I,1-_ 'I\,s•-.--rl.. +.9 •, _-' ,,- LF F I�j »� j O :I t �>a�-.., ,i)---:.... A 1 •I ,p �:c •:_ � �J "r ''� V ��,. t A F14 P Y�i'�,', ',:•I _ �'`�•"",a.Yy',• ""_E.._.:aa::l,•, ,.b�l '� _ _I'" „_„ QJ fir• `_� -v __"ri �*i�?'y� i -���` ' ,I I s4,.1 ,l41 II I ( I 1 .tY � •,q_�µ� 't '('R,�.�If—� ,I-_r� - � �-s.�._,.._�` '�-1�-•�I� �� ���'_;�r;�!:.,1 ,r' �,r �I ��("'� 1��:,� I, �ry I,,�el��lf°`r�;��l ',i,Y ..� �.�. I��: � ��1� � �'!I;._..�Ili �.�y � .-� - �_ �- p � �i �� .;Irul, 'l; Iv:.!p - Ji I �i,-._.._._. �•�...� 4 r �II'I res , ,, I J,� 11 I„F' I,II _d'.,.�r�t,,: r� c � `� II d I ;�;II T' #� �� - l,l' }}J. r .! 'I f n (ACC J M II i, { i.II i .' I,✓ �a ,' 1 II I�t,,, I J � 7 II l; I � k I ��� { '�""it �.._ lr r ;S a r° _ 'y''-- f.' _�f, I 1 i�^rflJ�a l �I"5u aE ,4 1.'���y�. � '' 't�'^> •'�.'<4l yyi�d'+a III' 1 h[C I��r,..rl ,z+pk".i, 31 '`aIv4A'_ '-_4 rJa-- -�„}„n. J ' .,:I v o _ '':'.�'c11,- �` a \ 1'1•ti�>x" Y �E_ a. i;d� r l ,v Z E _.,. _jzj =# a:.; _ c p,p �- � � { �••' ...yu: I'� _ - - �,r'�� r"� - + I�::I o c _ i i�l Q.. ,1 '1r'.�:1 mil' � i _• I�..; f .e � 'Y,,' `3�;f,.�•�) Lol z':�? _ "I�Ir,:p,` L.,",� .,,::.;�a.i n, � �� .q-L'7" I��:s I� i+ m Q° i,. ,II 1 I ._�..� "�''8I"` '4I __ ( 'F- >9, .�.= ,A "7,i;:> li,�° •,.'il q' �s� o � E m o o n ay All o a u m II J` G' 1 ^.•• her• - ' N ` -c d P ;ems:„_., .�_ yu's ,�`', 't u, L p �a ,} �' i>,L. .:'iY,., i•1 ',:1 r^�'"�'L:al-,I . I - ,� I,.�'•�_II N^ `Lv ti �'I ^' _ _ 1 f';,k 3 a II pl ": Is i-1 o O "lipnr�`;V ie _•rx. o o - z cl .p L ,;hxTa ,r _ .. T _ - m -I .':.'__'. ' �, 'I i[ ! -�,�.. ':, ¢^mac-i cLz o P � •� Cl5 I - _4� rPJbl ';�� ^1 RG I (( -_ _}_U.i��; I,li•� f` t,1j-� ;�`_ " _�` - •,i,f - - - - h-'�*! �:r' 01• (0 , l WORTH :4z:� BPS7A.N�HUp.� j z u A 5E SHOE BEMI""- -z C=,-,0 L k ED A FULLEPT- er-- �)LF Ut" -WE R ut-, 7- BAZ E Lo F,uS sT B R L LL 5 L A D=s motHEs y5ABF, bLINE"- FULL-5 RTON j� > t.Ap L,oR c AN M c F R C,I AL.MoND BPOOKHURST A IN A H, 1,Mi BUE.-i. 'TowER -1 MODENA 0— NLGE, A-, MIRAFL Tt c',I LJA To)qFR ��F 5 7 Ilmi T, BRU.NING NEF�,—; TUSTIN, -A cypRts VIGH.L A �11 6 P E:,",'I I t SAINTA -b,-JNAI`-," 'q E N 7A GARDEN GROVE. IITIT-. D"Ell IVESTI SkINTA A 6—C-Jif—rita LOS ALtM 1705 Sugar plant DYER NEW E F L-P,I WE5TMIN37ER BRIS70L u PAULARINC) -NVILLE 5UGAR SMEL71 ZER APIQ E.TAL�ER REPOLLO 'ArmyAt" W il"ITERSBURG SEALSEA(�H 7A� T M.Ilysusa, e-,4� I - THURIN WIEBLING', Lp F, SUNSET SEAc-H LA LA BoLSA --"z- RFMOLACHA HARPER FATO 5 FE-51F jolm (COSTA MF5A, FOLS;cmicA TRAC� WE5TFALL BuSHARD _7 < p NEWLAND xA PI-NNAYE BRANAGAN -rHomP5.14VILLE HUN 'INGTON BEACH CORONA DS.L MAR —cp -EiALECA NE-W- P ORT - 5T NEWPOFRT 3AN TA FZ- P-A Z I F I C E L F:C-T R I T- 5 OUTHERN PACIFIC UMONTRAC-IFIC _ I a M 5 k."ys i.�• `€ . - _ w yy---- 1 7 73 " r r, I ' r `1 Scale:1 inch to 800 feet UTM North is straight up Longitude: -117'59'18" Latitude: 33,39,51.51, UTM Easting 408368 meters UTM Northing: 3725182 meters UTM Zone: NAD 11 County: ;ea 1 01 - l DIe-.3vi Project: Newport Beach Quadrangle: Date: 1935 Film Type: Black&White Source: U.S.Dept of Interior,Geological AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT SITE LOCATED AT 20701 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH i; i I' I� I: i i .I II III , ' LI � ih`9�ir' ,>r> `n#�•4'i�'"" ,!v'vi}y`A^vS -} - 'W.+ ?'" x L a .`5- wfia,`•..•rt'.^'�ts'- �'2",�.,Ps.� ��- .`�"'S"c"'»r�",-,%•:`0"t ,�- i" 4 �`�'��.>iw�" A �" :M,�S"°' "? },' .c -�x:;. _•Ar?notrJ}'=WF� qk,.. �yd„' .".�� L H �.' `' ;�i'r+'..:1:,�•'.�,�»' fiY, tin"�.., *oaf:."- '+E`:'+t• 4- 214 .�Ci�Y:+,. .7 ��s - �,. si«c< ,:xz.. z3 - `r ~•,�, t °'�',_-"j; .,..r.�t"r°'...'`s +q �,n _ a+!^�•:y�Tm',`4i"' g,� W'!.•,`y x �. .'F:''• n..vw!,.x•,•J ''rt^,.'�^"'' ?., '�. x, ..,M: i" .r�>y� .+�"'va�Le. . :•L< a �.w +. x-4','.'Y' '<::,• >._ `:'�T' '�*r.,}> -.w�::= '..a'- - "^r :3... a��".�-- •1..r., ,�:" �:i.=":''i3,w'"s.:m.., r, r:d' - T �� 'e -�•^`�.;:� - ,..� "+S-'.�•?"�.,,,. c'"'\4,Mr4,;>t,,�,�` ni.4 `C�m'iw3r -u •i• y:}a,;#'`�:"'}„<t'"'. aaaaaa������,,,,,, "'�� -'�.e.' e .'�. y t'u',yw,�p,�r�R„' ,.t�„y, ryp � - � �' w� 'Se4 �'•d � 'S,..r� -�. 5 '� ;iP 'w',lM:�I' _ � 'v �i �• ,';fit;";:-,_< w" na "-•.:;_ r ,�,�'as, ^4- � �..__:.�, `�'' fit= e,;,'; `t- "'.a^ .M;' '.• ;::w s «.t, "' •'"` .»nw° .lMw a >M, i`��M ,�M1`li` ,t ,,' F•;,. � � ,� ,,., .M-'" � ;t,,�",`!"y�',� �. a,u'.` !I Irma F aul t "I";as t o if Hun ingtou. Bea '�' � - '�� � �.fin .' N �K'�" - A��A x y '.�'y `tt°�;,,,�,*,�` -•-� ,r*-� '" - � t`x s y 8 I. aloes ocean , for th, of State r. —i -- o i :;<�i ���' 1 �� ,: , ..�,.� �: C,li '. .u.r..��, t �. .. ...�._-h...,__.., .'I' `�;.1„`, ���,�, `.f; �r]Ayr �, I' ' y>..� ! r °�! 1 � :., � i,l����'t ,,, � .1 il� w,;�� r� �� � ,, ; , � �a I ►,� ��,1 F ''�6�n•+h�rvr w � ;�� ��Jil� I i� if ( `t'V'' M��'a t t �� . „s '�—� i i ��r � � -1, ���'j 1i ,� � r ��� !� n`� �, tit ; �' , , i � � A �1 t �N i ��� r �n'F � v !'�,�, �Id �jYI , , � �, � � .1 �I ..s._„ � S 1 v 'I _����,�.as y�; ,�� yl' .��� j ' .'ai,� 1, ( i"y.,l '. �. � 1.� P�'i i. 'gip� .�i�, ,�jl� i "�, �! ' �'F , �';��, r . I I -'^s �d .! :?' 'SYCYi!'e ) ��::.Y,�,�y.'.�;4ix" •.,_ ''�ft - • y w 'e"' M'r S'"" `J ,,1 r, s '•r##.'' "i I - _ ,• 9 __�'A'c am ;y' y,.r' 1If X; ����� •r�i"y - 'I : -��� i_r , I i _ r Vim mop 01. soon it+Aa°on rt ,n t ! � ! ^� .,, -\, w ''"�`" ^WwU •iMe ¢"iAdt4i'-'t„"'r 1' .j, l"_, i , .—•�*--- Va! ' " hl .. scout $'k'r 'a+. - ,si..nm c :: -..-., . ,. tr :�1a(�,:`a•,•.j'>,�y,��� :: .fv'��,�.+'l�,T, t rc �L';,�r''`h', 1. rr��,�'h"P F"�'q' l' `w 7y,.,,�.�, ;k�,.�"R ti st'd9ry'rl Sv+�a' � :� � . -. ,. ,I,- r- ,� �'� b .' ':'a.•.�.'.:,.,,:;.+.1:.r,e�.u.,s'.a"�,"1�."W��n'`2+ .rl,✓}h� 'r ij„,. i , a+,r+Pp,. ,'d� .,^a, ..,. "r, ..., s��',vJ�)'t <+it:'aaj�•"�'�'`i u,'k +,j t , � �..r rlN dry4 I t 'd ,{+� rL J '� :, s� � r -u:.✓ ,.�f,+'�. Y r r 1� N'� -+ � .,.:",,..,•+' ,'S'�.?`,1�1��^s+r'_'�rS° ��"I`t' �.»y T �t� t,�t•..-S+;� �C`wSk', �# "� � `�'a. .Jr}r�gL�'F,gr I .. ,..m ^Yn F•��^'Y ._ ,%te�"un� „yn�� y5v � I 1[��.� U ':: '.•Sr''uf,FNl{f.77�m „•M" MAPS" k �' ' -� 4.4.w *1 �,a� '�,cts�, :� „„ t�s,�'i' '�„ `� yyN � r � r, �I rr•S _.,. G' '4 rYywiq:rr;M� � ,fir'rK�^ Ah,`,'.,.". ,y�Au '✓r , d rfr n �•+SSR� •• r>!tk � r"`�J r i ry •,�. �'•;, 'i, ,q ,y,.. �tl9�Pu,� - •. � �w w J-' p •i as;JY'lrr�' IJh ,I T} tru!f. "i ,7u �. acv'1SNzyiar t iy',, r _.''�" ^. , .•,.,''a4 ,;- t :-',Ir,.at�,yl 1,.--,yr ,nIti 's,' yk "'ff� fg �, rSm"J:�Y , , 4,y a r _ ; . I .e V iw �P°du+.. 1}J,�y�fl; ,y u "IR4 low 7ww , 4 IJ',,4rhp rcrarYS t w, r i - r , . .' ...,. ,_ .- _ ...:. .. ...........•4s5a..�..se,�:.,:.um�3ii l �a4Cs�yi.4 rsrc.,„p k rr Yk,� :. ufi -1 � rs 9�5 3C365. LU ail pa T. 5 5, r ,,_,, CIAAFi T.8 5. r �w f t f A3 2 K ' fi� Ii V •, Z ,a V W c 10 io 21 U ou HI 441 v 1.a;:k ° j. ,I "Y•'r� pry) .. _ °^ n c a / tea' w ff 6 I I II cl -�O�i.:I•�NE�-,. o ^ 1 �a Q9 fP I A gj MWE UL• a.l Q;; a�3 r-_ 40' i 5F, 1 1 ,1 s if Tbn,'.. 4% 00 � �4"�9 O V NGTON EACH 0 I s AT fv• _ 14 ^ ° .,r - - T x ' , �' III— l��l ,, y° - ��•• ww eo w w ` '\� �l Zs. 13 HAMrLTO r 1Q A��' p _ C�7 !� ��_S `•� asp°,., � _�--- ° "-_: _- ,� __ - _, - �. .: � ))`�y'�f -� \.n�.�2 -� tivt✓T�rvG10h�8E►.cN � ' �-mot= 24 ! Ia✓ 0 _ -_ -_ �}} ./J < oejd'_ - apQ .__ _- f t< _ - - , errh3BcLCir. TIM - 'S.uns-et-Gir_rj ' - '-= r -— '`= U. - = AJ -- - -- _ ----- J.. cr l to a i t� Ci3 'S IR80[1 a= _ .lie11�:C.p Lr•' ,L , d'. co rr cg U) cU '- Dr. HuntinLiton Beach N ❑tt BOUNOdRY A, Map produced by information contained in the City of STFEET CNTERUNES[acrAa-1 i. L17 N snms+� Huntington Beach Information Services Department r No. r C� it I Geographic Information System.Information warranted for ✓F—Y City use only.Huntington Beach does not guarantee its -`-- Tia.'dway completeness or accuracy. Map Produced on 3/4/2010 MNIOUF.S - v IbA30F S _ - 0 - -- - 392-... -- - -784 - - One inch equals 392 feel \ zas PE, On a-AWak�'. __X7 S."i, 51 'IT I ,qy�,­, 'fe W ............ LOT 1 oil, MCI co _ -- r -'�- £ - , itn''"` i�"9, U f"— QAs n r _ r d, ir w v A ui W n Y s F 'i} p.' 'fie. _ • ..5 + L01- - it s ��?t I- -�m'TIfir' Pr f,�:�r, �" �_- .G ,�iv �ryy}�E�c s jf f rF`.r f rI'a1'� '� .. �. M �—" r u'4, -` f qj{ .jam¢ 1 7 ; '-a �&x4 • .{ J ,'. �Y r "Rn'WA it r;4 to �Mills � ��PIT Ely i cvq Emot a QGi try r{; ti C „� § }, t _-i r" } & _ x ,f - �*,,,e �' .. .: M - 6y I` .� co)"•'` f 'pr ,�r k ,#.4 xn '7 C'7 f4- Q T r Y O a w a # °�4vu �w6Et n *� „$ w t•# n! o A T U v �� 6 � � L� I 03-04-2010 HVNE3680 ,,:li.,�� -�r'�`-,.,•��",% •- "a `�+ra�;p� F-41 i r r' io ;�;�i°;;� ��: .'�. "�,fir,�:.f ✓%^ �Lf'�fif-�„^s .a--,`F,,r„ ? J 1 1 Y 1 vv f. k `a d ',a°6v,.. "emu 'fir rya j`�-_.%a�S:,.s -/" �5%as-5� ,Y� '�`;.,;�•,. _ � a ,9r�-',?��..v. x�„<.�;=�.,,.*f�'.-'">,, � .:=r.; :"�,,; '.,f?'�"✓ „x-",,, ,f4:,�,:;'< .tC;=�>>ir%r�.,;i" �,�a .w ✓x/ t M t x '2 £����b fL'� _ / '.f -a Y. ;" "..yle- -MM, -1"ry"� _ f� „'� q. k `'F'�„'� ,'NA✓`i �,�,a^ -ri ,�.,,_y„�, 4Y ,4� g �/cs,J� �-�p - e� r ''/a"'',fa z r� `,1'��'�`%c r ,+,• �'v'L" '48>.;.wr%yp'� >',. .t _ � yS �?�',t +�'.�' ,. �Y%'yr /$�4 f,.�ii h �,.�Yi''a�.�.z•� Y l � ,.. s , y 5 a3 r;.S,f�F�&"�9✓��, �WID"�� Fri 4.:t .:p;:.:,4°,% H� w m 2� _ ram'�36'�,` '':a'p %R, `•.t''� :�`*` i� _ ' ' Scale: 1 inch to 500 feet Longitude: -117°59'26.2" Latitude: 33°39'40.4" UTM Easting: 408152 meters UTM Northing: 3724843 meters UTM Zone: NAD 11 County: Project: MPTF0161C-805 Quadrangle: Date: 06/27/56 Film Type: Black&White Source: U.S. Dept of Interior,Geological Survey AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICINITY-OF THE SUBJECT SITE LOCATED AT 20701 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH F A « , > r r '.c.,gr 'a •,. 4 >`T's '.� , ate `R�' ea r 3..'P � re s:, aFa' . * $ fi �v: as�r� h"��'>?�r. �� •°`' �+i s � �J: h 'z�, .'r. t � °T 4. .�' w„' ,4.'•F,>,ai3R2Y'> `," .�, ,.,@• wati; ,,5.-: -..- -. i - o-M• , ''� r z- `r. W a.,, x •«a, S.�x,*,�. .,: .,., `"R•<. ,R„' k d",cs'tT .�,:+^,. , x4a'.` d Y ..•.0 .+,,,�1, fv", �.. 'ark.--...?,t<'•',';F .,n ',,`,. x,s.�,'�,`,.r:• >.. ,. a2. !. a.,v',?•:-a;';;,' ':`" ,- .,,., W"., >'=ke.. �.�`:%rw.: .�'.s. "�•,„- >}, *al,va+u #- : :Y, .;,L`t4 '.xr✓^ro"�:m+''%,-"a, ,"-.,,„�v '�`'� -;�.>.. „✓ �,�`.'d u 1,.t,»... r . . ...... . -,.- .-..:,: +,:,,«:s,Y'i...,,- .t .,.t �`�.'"7..•-.-, .;>,d;`i, �`,�`e,v....,, E �.„�-' „•,7...,.,ac a"r'�si,,,.+. .,> >,.,. .,w... �3 v~c" .,..;» �-, �at•:,,< .�i x..`<.,>.:'... ig'a„p;A, as*'., anr:x - n,et'12° t..'h... �:�. •95+'�'� � qa s o v-A't --/- <» 'a.�yd�a� �w' ..•.;<:e..'<`;.,.<. ..., :r+,vi... ..r.,,s....kt,., .. ,e,+,,:'`:dro$<L;�+<.:i�„�,,, Y,,.,k' .t]ow,v,,s=,."<,. "�.i:,. oS, �?;a•,e:" Z ..1 1' ..R-. 4Cn.,c ..._ ......`•. r:r' -..-. ,,.R, ,.,-re.<?a;,.->:. .'t�,::`, ..^........ .........., _ w ,.. ..» > .. a ,�. >.a,.., .._ .+�,.;.�.. '.' :.-.:',``^' ,-;,'. .*•,'>'<�, q.:: .,'w .�@s<, �eaixr<. „ ,.,> i.�.3. +`.,,_i%.,< .;":�,.,:.�a�•�..'�,,•`�'- ''3u,. .,.' ,.,x. :s..�,v ',a. ;�,.. ,r :,T '�v- �i ;t ,.. .,.:;...a.. �>,i�R,uv `-.w.. •€.- T »a,<r&� ��;.,;i '.�Y'v sk.•:,. .a^ ."a. "y .,$:' .� Y s u.., ..>x°`x,..+ d ,team" A„ s .is., ) .;,r�'" 4• ,">w,'=`"v ,, ..Y! d. <.tt d. ,1 , Ar. �< �>� �•, w:,..�.<.k .. +, +-.5 x'� uR'oA :i'uy ,o i."a' °"'p^'s�:'2.. :i'b'+-... �T^'Sro".,�ev,...s_..:�;..::�:,: �v x's: �?<y %.�r..e, .`sa'b�.�:.„, ,•�d..Lr�:°tS�+,:L^.,. �5 '�'.3;1� Y :.�<,> "z fi.:,��T..,. „r,.;.:,. ,.3"�i.„i em`" •,es x, "�! a 4L�„Foy„a,::'`°t,'S>k" :c S'o t �.z, a -.c... ,.>^r.p ..r.,. 'qr' .a '�z' a..' c�. �'� :,v ...�. <�;:: � = .'•a. �,>: ...'�;�,.< k ,.::<. -,4„.. ''`°'s. aka« ;2c.- _,.-:,,.-,.'a.a:.«_."z�"=r'saz,:, wAa."t ,..a,. Yu..�., �,� �, s -`>,.�. ,..�;�^,,,1•;c•;,. 'ems:' .'� >;r'a.«^ adz:�': ..r:. .'..a.aa F a,�ap,...+"�"< �� .>�R ,'�:'. �Y �'4' ,..,>w�t S��,>,.,�tr3"r:a i;,�"�;:'xx�:"�,;^ ::.}`."3 `u. ,.� z^i L.� 4^ s+<.r. ..;.°�,"> '3` .». �S. ,'x 4_ r, -;..�$.,< :,- , s: x , •k4a :.y a(;' ,, ?t+wr ,v _ 4's,,,, a„:rz, , m �"'�''"5. 1. 'uut,c tiu '`v°d^'.. a 1 r, ;t, ., „ „•�:+q t',w '•'•vaxx uT+ ..'a.>' :rt i- .. m :.»e„�k".., ,.<a,:. "a ,<.$s 3'$4 s,*,v ;.. S:3.a' a., f. 6�E x ,a• wk:, ;` _"`"" ::"a. 'v. »;r a x., ` + �t,.`'i�t vs `zl'�`y„`:� r , 1 r S E _'w 'ra' 'i• � . .. ,,.",.:i- ��, m. ,�+' a'>z,'.�.��:. t t t <l:;.,: '� .-.:�r�:, 4 ' v.ti r # ., ,<..,' :;,.,<. i.�a,`E °"P' „� .;'z., .�~ nr ,' • aeY+", r �",•'s �,rm �`�,44r. Y Fcan ' `? ' a�.'.�' Y`c'sx 'kt .�<�+.t.,,r <x;37 ,r;-?•;t.4-� „ �'Z a+ r` '.tea>:-,+t.<m�it.�; 4 o- ''a ' . ":z-o'� k s r 5 �J -,;,c;• ^,',r... z.., +.w.v"k a" �„ `:ezE z. "x :' ',:�''.a q,a€x?t`a .,:5 "a H 4€ .y<:: ",>` x- .w.$'^' .,w.. ... T WON r a '< F k'>:�;•+,,s E:. ."`r,:x'S.,-.>, <y, :''� ..3„ .,� ✓aaix.. .t rF:>'=` f< a -, '�"Cs•,a `fix„-' N�v -'•,r4`>rEk'RMAW'^:v" key.. .��Y_-<. y.:� a...r^Y `':?s-,t;+;' •' 0 -�r.,X'x 5 ;,,�'*�`. YES $'Lh.' 3 Films.. q y, a( ''� 3 �t 's F t�'ap�,Sold #Y'h, � "'�.�' ° < 'Fs m ,M1+,x ak. � .:S2'a.`ka. a,�-�us>s�•" •tw a�',€$'�s''1- +� ' �� � �, , cu; INN s '�,'r 5 �!.n a �' x. »k +, zt ?,.�� ,a���, s �6� y "k':'T•.�"�; .z '�35 .a a v � '`=.`a:;z'��" ,"` et �.<{ ', vz f , ' .1.":� .. +.;;#,-„: ,• a :. ,,:,;t;,.;..:F,• T a 'w,'�,_'. ASS. n.\,€;.¢.,x. T'. ,. H a - da ::rp.'i ,'; �� t7` `' •4F:rA3 ',, k' �' > C+t, r - x "'"3 ?3•�: r�..F :r.,. ^e ,'. h " a. �Y.. ."Wan,\ l' 'Yr4",+�1�' '"`v... • as r"-,..U,°-Si^- <° WOO, a .�1=* , �... .,`Aa.>,<, v+,".i: _'"•�:`i �a^.:t�i'.e,``'�; s'xi N 4<r� �. _,trw, M, ..,,>:::-: e,,,,k�: .�•-. .. .t,��»�'-�,�:g ��',.°'��'" :a.���. kxm �i �.�°L s , g ss :,,,, ,., nn,, ,. '`"'.:<x-'<'i:` .tii �w ,€,»�r'+','hYW„ti°' !, d sz ON "?;aY, »,r,.:;°'���` w" „<ix - Yr4 h .e� >.a{; +`R. ;,x:... .ys, ,ktfi,., ,$:r.",�e. .,P2<',,` 3 4 � ,.;r ,a,,,,,.��. ...1.., � �2,r E ."t. .,� x`*�`br�'i'<5,� '' e .� " >r n :--s ," , �,a .�.`s ..... �•,`, N' .;, `�,.'<:y �.?`.> .a x ..ate >.,.z. ` `. x ,a .&,.,h r'. < #. <,> v.<..>,, l^n>„ , it "..>: .ca,:c;r,>c, >$.4•'k i.;Y"dy;`r:=�'�-,^„ •.=`Any`.. .� .„ ,. } „<e h;,,. ..:. .�a,...,..wa..t , +s"...<. ,'3 4Y+a , t,.;>,r, .. NOW ""sT>a �.e, � :,�R;:?n<\�*,.^��. .� [:� x\n T`,. ,;:�,..: ,. .,:.,.-:.,.,w.m•: .,•,rt ..,> ,.,n,-•Z=.,.„tg..;.¢ ..« '��::w.. ;?`�,r�:z,,, ^.f ,.`�' "4.�a: �;x,. ;n'mt't"" a 'CP" '"'``�"s"•'E�.,--'k�) ..'ri ?e'� � r�s , Al _:er,',:e" .',„ •,ir, ."uli.,�„v' .+x <.,", . �:s ro•,d'*b�a, ,°;�.�.d„Y -i: '>1'","`ate":, s ,. ,r;.,'+a c'-'� .- m "o, yy '^�'�.i�`�: ?< -'a��'� •.u�`i:�•' -;o. c�8,...<, c .;➢.. "�,"a ,,i r• `a .ti, s` � AM' ari � k'^ -,' $F i;';;,<aa� ..,.. ;;. > ,,.' ?!" ;S"- „_ .+>a.,..�.--'.r.„_�. ,...r_ - .,,"_-<,,.-a,,. -..,.._ ,,, .,-,�.. '„�T'+',s,,,r:,�xrg,»,<<a �„6,� .,.. ,x.L��E...,„x�+A. �.<. �,�...h�.6 � �_ .><g•,a. '� ,.�u4"t",.-e,� ..raa� ,._, ,r�_ Highway 30 (Beach Boulevard) cuts through the middle of this '1957 aerial photo taken by the Chamber of Commerce. The pier cuts out foom the coastline in the middle of the picture, and to the left,the cpnstruct.Jon of the Edison power plant is evident from the facilities protruding from the beach. This photo shows the city as it looked prior to the hoi.isinq constra.iction boom which started in the early 1960°s and continued in the 1970"s. 'I i 03-25-2010 HVNE3680 A 4 �- S° Aa.t2M s'a d3r 1f ;k'x'i� s ? kh. .#.. -.fir ... 0 9 r `�.h. i �-�t- r S � r"i�1'� �-- r�g'< A - � L Y'� - � S y .ks �'�a�•.^C'A,iR � V � x ���` - § - , ✓ L A' � P'1 F.e & J _ .3.�C '-Y 8✓ .� � SAY Y L, � NSA "�"k 4 k �- Sl'd d r ar- <s e 7 ,11, fir ' t g .- '�'� � 0-5 �� _ t „» Scale:1 inch to 800 feet Longitude: -117'59'18" Latitude: 33°39'51.5" UTM Easting: 408368 meters UTM Northing: 3725182 meters UTM Zone: NAD 11 County: Project: 186004206880 Quadrangle: Date: 10/04/71 Film Type: Color InfraRed(CIR) Source: U.S.Dept of Interior,Geological Survey AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT SITE LOCATED AT 20701 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH IV ��� tZy ypp d i.,,,, F �I ���r,":f�� K 5 f'Y�exn�`�w�C^ *�#''�""��, '�� i r a '"'r4„" r � ",•'(J�fy��iiil� ' a�S � ��u �1� �;g r °A.'? � a s`'�.�k�'y „w v ♦ ",5" lip fill ffin � n � \3 M iw'5 r J� ffi � 0 72 2 -3 40 1- 140 1 T 14 ---Dan- :24L :49-0/1 24 1 Ci Fi4rv"U!C Am, rr, J/ LLO-k:L 1 34 121 240262a Li 242 —Gei a Avt 0125 lop.- :90284 2 , -7 ............. 124 74 IF Al U A NONE 240 127 A 240-267 low. 24Z 17a Etc 24012-1 -4 7� 24 2 51 24227Q 240'50 - 2'7 -3 2 010 oil 24 Z 15, 240:71 240 41 C5 co 240 '513 24,31 n.4n*7,7, 24 0 J 24018q 22-4 0 414 1 240!54 -240253 24ffl Of 24012f oLXD,5- M��-A �Aaeevl rFSSllll.+ IN blmmlaaFalmA YNYAm9rAgpblilmiQagM 7' l real 4 'llfrbllVQmYYNN7AMq �-e•a:�ap.bmmaotrmr-..;. \_• _` r '"1 ,..gym u � ( lo`*..,T° -:`-�J ��,_7'y M,6.a M \`IYIN9 �i\i \_ ^�°1°°'vv,n.. i•.� \\ s`��!2r':..mo 1 ow .MTS 'i tmoz a n ai A r\;N B E 'R N A R D I N 0 , 19uz � las: I. "--- Ibtn------- --- J � \ � `�'o ;F.,,:, 9 A N T 0 A R D -A felt l roe neb it •1 \\ +\` ` ♦ ' fN�\.. ` eNY�� If]a i Vy, ^ V 1 IkU2 M 7+ t�r,yrr ih� ,• .,,. T-E N T Vi�Ilc A ,b 19rJAIL9 ,� lean �J,, \: \"a�r +in �(( •` Cl ... Vitt- L o `1 A N G E E I a .a.r1TVnA "'^`\r ' r.w rannewno nuu ar.+>a M6T`� M":r''-_ \�, •�N� IS94)�1R5 —,5 ITT4► '• fd&7, 1 A I b?.a ' Noy r `�t'� • MyjK+ 9roH•"A� mf/1.+I".r�olrr� r, e_ f'�� p '.I S.,s•.� r,_�_ - ' vIt w w�V.. �� _i F�If �. Nf.f--=---� I �.��-, r_.. r.s...., P^. .' ♦ >ly.�a4l ..., , .,i; , i nrw.vu rr r.•.-I ... ,SITE ^ NNi.M ,cv1 •.. .. LOS bI0 •;":4 11-� � �. �y � ore i•,'4,. t.ou� o:A N1.bil% r+ a� h`4o N.om � o ♦R A .K.G E lr r.onc "`r R Y+ b+ao fr 1468 I I I) E I MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS IN THE — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION EXPLANATION :;f` 1. Imo —`� a 'bo I Sn14 --- ACTIVE FAULTS 1099 EARTHQUAKE LOCATIONS �—• 1071 Approximate epicentral area of earthquakes that �♦ �\+ 'r i T occurred 1769-1933. magnitudes not recorded by Total length of Vault zone that breaks ♦ � instruments prior to 1906 were estimated from Imbs ` 1 M. P '''E''•.,R 1 A L I-lalocene deposits or that has had damage reports assigned on Intensity VII (Modified m` S A R D I 6 0 aw. seismic activity. Mercali scale)or grantor;this Is roughly equivalent to0 n Yrr"-""'^•, Richter M 6.0. 31 modmate""earthquakes, 7 major and one great earthquake(1057)were reported lit the 1956 tb.a 164-year period 1769-1933. •`•:�' +MAU Mu Fault segment with surface rupture Ion r,�dtiiro. ` '. I during an historic earthquake,or with 1952 I /°r,y Mae all ascismic fault creep. M7.7��/\/"'��/ Earthquake opicenlors since 1933, plotted from ware _I �/ instruments. 33 moderate"" and five major orEoo Y l�A ((sit IAIJA_ 4 Haly, Pis volcanic activity earthquakes worn in Ilia 66-year period 1933 to 1999. 6A�A ASV'_ NIA T"yr T`fn (Amboy, Pisgah,Cerro Prieto and Salton F(n o Buttes �ryrrdry (�' '•Code rac onunendaumts by the Sbre,Loorl Eugmners Assoclallon of C.Ilfornla define/r great earlhqua o as one Thal has a Richlur Magniludo of J� 9 'I( 7'/,or yroatar,a Inolor eadhquahe 7 to 7%r,a moderate earthquake G 1.7. MA3•, I ��N, Cieepdod by Richard J.Proctef manly from pebhshed and unpublished dot.of the Callrmmia Dlvlsloo or Mh.e,god Geology;C.M.,ola Dnparloleet of Water Resources Bultolln 116-2(7GG41;sole clip ns from h.k.Uns of It,.Gaalogleal and Solslnojojr1 a1 Soelelies or —i Ao -;floral i c.P Rlchlnr,Clen-ltary Seismology('1958);and in.Narloua!Atlas,Ve.66,nod from Working Group on Callfanlla Fe,lhqu.ke Plahabdlllos-SSA Du l la no V 115. i I 16050, 16110 through 16134 Whittier BOutevard GLOBAL GED-ENOINEERINCp INC.� Whittier, California GEOLOGIC AND SOILS E'MINEERCNG Date: September 2006 Figure No: TUSTIN, CALYFOICl IA Project No: 2204-04 2 1872 '. 1983,M 6.3 SIERRA M� 7.5 ® A S IN \ j ® • NEVA DA ` Owens A D wkflNd CENTRAL r Vo11�r ' RANGE 193 VALLEY 1946, •6.00 0 q orrizo „ \ r San Luls %• Plain Obispo �o� t832 � �, A9•T.5 M 7.8 \� ���G� \ �t947,M■6.5 Fort �a MOJAV E -�, - NS Potmdale R tt71 Pt.Conception M• T Santo pf A NGES 199 ,M•7.3 Barbara 1994 �� f a)on Pow T Ft T M•s. r o �' 198T.M•99 1986, •5. 1992, •8 M .1 Santa Cruz aoF �48,M•8.0 Island 1838 inp A • 9�8.4 �� ls�yciyT 1937 Salton Sea Catollno - �X,p o9F o "`T 8A Broaley O island es F<1 41 salsmtc v ��llilil �o Off® A �: O�� *40 194 �A "Son�i6yu 45 mm/yr \ �� �, U3A____ 197 ��� - �,'E XICO Id 6.4 � SOURCE:Scientists of the USGS and Southern California Earthquake Center,1994; Science,October 21,1994 Figure 1 REGIONAL __ / o(0 (SO Km 1100 Km FAULT MAP---- � I IUI E H "•^^�� City of Huntington Beach General Plan g WESTMINSTER BEACH I BOLSAIMc o = o. cc o FADDEN :Depth <•9` _ ,— �•�. —•T. EDINGER HEIL Minimal " .:' ���,; •;��De th;13�`�. ,NAM \SLATER HEIL FloodinFOUNTAINVALLEY<1 000UNTY OF TALBERT '�Rlyy •� ORANGEk. (BOLSA CHICA} ✓ ' ELLIS s .. � Minimal _® '� Floodin ` 4 GARFIELD $ '� �` •..__ =ram,-'�S='�.:';`�. •�^'.< 'i .. .:. � .' ra::_; . YORKTOWN PACIFIC =° F. Depth 1 OCEAN A�41 aDAMs INDIANAPOLIS LA '• I ATLANTA `�:, 4 LEGEND AMILTON 1® H City Boundary / BANNING Minimal Flooding / COSTA / Depth<1' MESA I� Depth 1-3' _ (-` Flooding with Wave Action `ter � SOURCE:FEMA,1996 100 &500 YEAR RAIN FLOOD LEVELwEH-1 1 lo CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN Z V-EH-20 AN H C Kct --, HART, KING; & GOL.DREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com April 23, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112/4829-5025-2038v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714) 374-1557 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 ("Application") Park Owner Position on Appeal Dear City Council Members: This letter constitutes the Park Owner's position regarding the Appeal. The Appeal does not constitute objection to the approval, only to certain conditions and code requirements thereof. For example, the conditions and code requirements for mobilehome park design, construction, and conversion to resident ownership are expressly contrary to State law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5 (e); Health & Safety Code, § 18300 (a)) The Park Owner has made a good faith offer to accept most of those objectionable conditions and requirements in exchange for a limitation on Park Owner costs to fulfill those conditions and code requirements. The Park Owner position is a reasonable compromise that fairly allocates costs and benefits between the City and the Park Owner and that limits the burden on Park residents (the ultimate purchasers of the lots). One principal issue on Appeal is the cost of construction of storm drain improvements for the Park. There is a storm drain pipe apparently constructed by the City that opens onto the Park below Frankfort Avenue and that empties storm drain flows from upstream development onto the Park streets and residences. The pipe flows are far in excess of any natural sheet flows and contain increased flows as a result of uphill streets, sidewalks and houses. The Park Owner is willing to participate in funding or construction of on site storm drain improvements (and other improvements listed in the conditions) only to the extent that the Park Owner's costs are capped at a fixed amount. We understood that such a limitation was the intention of the Planning Commission, but apparently there is a conflict between what was intended and what the conditions state. The Park Owner's proposed modification of the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements is set forth for your convenience in the attached interlineated versions of the Conditions of Approval and Code Requirements. For each condition or code requirement, we have indicated: 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 s City Council City of Hungtington Beach April 23, 2010 Page 2 (1) whether or not is was appealed from; (2) whether it is deemed satisfied upon payment of $500,000 in costs or money pursuant to proposed new Special Condition 6; (3) whether it is modified or new; and/or (4) a short hand explanation or comment where appropriate. We appreciate the efforts thus far of the City staff and Planning Commission with respect to the approval of the Application, and we look forward to the cooperation of the staff and City Council in making these minor adjustments to the approval conditions and code requirements. Respectfully submitted, HART, KING & COLDRE Robe,- ren for Applicants/Appellants RSC/BLH/dr Enclosures: Interlineated Conditions of Approval Interlineated Code Requirements cc: 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) 36014.112/4829-5025-2038v.1 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 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 Cidllo, 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 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org 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 req(�#fem Its. NOTE -This is not a conceptual plan. Ot is a map of an existing development. l�alc@�toonaG requireo�e�oents are preempted by State law(cunt. below) 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 _surfcity-hb.orq or(714) 536-5561 or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, A1CP, Secretary Planning Commission By: Herb Fauland, Planning Manager SH:HF:EE:kdc Attachment: Findings and Conditions of Approval—TTM No. 17296 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission (coat. from above) Fred A. Wilson, City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Govt. code, § 66427.5(e)g Health Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal & Safety Code § 18300(a). Mike Vigliotta, Senior Deputy City Attorney Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer Gerald Caraig, Permit-Plan Check Manager Property Owner Project File 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). Appealed. General Plan compliance review is prempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e)) 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). Appealed. General Plan compliance review is preempted by State law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e)) G:\PCINOA1201013-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.1 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. Appealed. General Plan compliance review is prempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e)) 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 hart of the subdivision. NOTE -the underlined statement contradicts the City's application of Code Requirements to 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. Not appealed. 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). Not appealed. Section 66428.1 does not apply. 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. Not appealed. 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:IPCIN0A1201013-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.2 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. Not appeared. 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. Not appeared. 2. Prior to submittal of the final tract map to the kubli?�gVprks D��tm ntt f�r�r�e�sL#tc�and approval, the following shall be required (PM: ppea reemp y Sia e a ov e §66427.5(e); Health &Safety Code§18300{a)) Deemed satisfi u on ay ent of 500,0 0 ' cos s or oth rwis ursu nt o pecsa Cor�dition of wppro al 6. a. Adn Ares a storm of s�ial�"be As anc�ions me e8 per the Tlnal 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 residenc as a tenant. (Sl�bl j'vis'�� I Acf 6642�7.§) �r J Appealed. Condition preempted by St to law. (Govt.Co e, 6 e eem sags ie b reversion Report 4. The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents in accordance with the following (PL): Appealed. Condition preempted by State law. (Govt.Code 66427.5(e)) Not a condition that can be satisfied pre-conversion. a. s 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 GAPCIN0A12010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.3 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) Appealed. Preempted by 5. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, the following shall be required:State Law. (Govt. Code §66427.5(e)- Health &Safety Code§ 18300M Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise a. Submittal of an Improvement Plan for the subject project shall comply with Public pursuant to Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the special plan (PW): Condition o1 Approval 6. 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) INSERT Special Condition 6-see cont. attachment 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. Not appealed. NOTE-subdivider intentionally did not appeal this condition. Subdivider will take on the responsibility to defend any action against the approval. GAMNOA12010t3-9-2010 TfM##17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.4 Continuation page: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296: Special Condition 6: Notwithstanding anything contained in these conditions of Approval or the city Code Requirements to the contrary, Conditions of Approval 2 and 5 and Department of Public Works Pre-Map Submittal Code Requirements 1 and 2 and Department of Public Works Pre-Map Recordation Code Requirements 7 - 10 shall be deemed satisfied upon proof to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the subdivider has expended $500,000 in costs towards fulfillment of those conditions/requirements or paid the city $500,000 in lieu of fulfillment of those conditions. [Condition added by subdivider] 36014.112/4850-8738-3558v.1 y City o Huntington each � 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 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, JJ__ 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.surfclty-hb.org • 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 TELEPHONEIE-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 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) Appealed. Subdivider will agree if the City Attorney approval requirement is eliminated as modified. 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) Not appealed. 2. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange prior to conversion of the mobilehome park. (HBZSO Section 253.22) Not appealed. 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 Page 2 of 2 original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (HBZSO Section 251.18) Not appealed. 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) Requirement not appealed. Map not effective until appeal determined. Appeal filed within 10 day period. 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) Not apealed. May be subject to automatic extension. 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. Not appealed. Check already submitted. 7. All other code requirements are either; (a) inapplicable; (b)satisfied; (c)unenforceable; and/or (d)waived. [requirement added by subdivider] Wahl # J ' HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON©EACH 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/ SBOGARTPSURFCITY-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) Appealed. See response to#2 below. 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) Appealed. Not required per WOMp. Requirement prompted by State law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e); Health & Safety Code§ 18300(a)) Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. 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. Not appealed. 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. Not appealed. 3. The Final Tract Map shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Tract Map. (ZSO 253.14) Not appealed. 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. Not appealed 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. Not appealed. b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. Not appealed. 6. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: c. Design Specification: Not appealed. 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: Not appealed. 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) Appealed. Regirement preempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, §66427.5(e); Health & Safety Code§ 18300(a)). Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. CADocumcnts and Set ings\edwardse\Locu1 Settings\Temporary hitemet Files\OLK60I\[leach 20701 TrNI 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 3-3-10.dnc Page 3 of 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. (SiVtA) S. 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) Appealed. (cont. below) 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 planed facilities pr the City of Huntin��on.Beacf� Muni�i�al Cod SeftLor� 14)48.030. Appealed. Par constructed roor to en c ment o raenage ee ore ante. con . e ow 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. Appealed. Requirement preempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e); Health & Safety Code § 18300(a)) Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. 11. All other code requirements are either; (a) inappicable; (b) satisfied; (c) unenforceable; and/or (d)waived. [requirement added by subdivider' Cont. #8 above: Requirement preempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e); Health & Safety Code§ 18300(a)). Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. Cont. #9 above: Requirement preempted by State Law. (Govt. Code, § 66427.5(e); Health & Safety Code§ 18300(a)) Deemed satisfied upon payment of$500,000 in costs or otherwise pursuant to Special Condition of Approval 6. C .Documents and Scttingsla:dwards(Aocal SettinesVrempoetry lntemet Fi1es10LK60V%Bcach 20701 Trivl 17296(PA 2010-023)NN,Rey 3-3-10.doc . . . . , ` , Mir ZMENERNM ow IN —90 CITY OFANNT|NGTONBEACH����� [�� K8��T us�u . . ..— DEPARTMENT ...—. . . DATE: February 2Q. 2O1U PROJECT NAME: HUNT7N8TON3HDRECL|FFMO8|LEHOKAESUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: PLANNING APPLC/T|ON NO. 08-1AO:TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17286 PROJECT LOCATION: 2O7O1 BEACH BLVD.. HUNT|NGTDN BEACH, CA PLANNER: ETHANEOVVARO8.ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-yWA|L: (714)53O-55O1/E\hmn.Edvvardo@ourfcKy-hb.org PLANREVEVVEF-F|RE: DAR|NK8ARESH, FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714.636.5531 /dmaroah@aurhcity-hb-org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO CONVERT THE HUNT|NGTON SHORECL)FF 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 22.2O1O. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying existing requirements which must be verified to bein compliance and satisfied durinAdhnvadousntageoofpnojoutponni0ngondimp|ompnieUun. A|iotn[oondihunoof approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested onUt|emeni(u). if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these n:quirnmnnta, please unn(od the Plan Reviewer'Fire: DAR|NMAREGH.FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST. ` Tract Map No. 172QG for the subdivision nf the Huntington Ghoreo|iffs 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 ). in accordance with currentHoD standards. a. Documentation of current flow testrin compliance with HBFC Section 508.1 Required water supply shall be submitted to the Huntington Beach Fire Department on the current HCD MP532 form- Appealed. Subdivider will agree with the modified language. b. Docu C@h d |yeyetem'ocompUonco with HBFCSection 5OQ.1/��a������������a hec�������= �=�"�= Fire Department bya licensed C-1600ntnactor ur licensed Fire Protection Engineer. Appealed. Suddi"idmr will agree with the modified language. Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall —2UOO Main Street, 5mFloor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the Cih/ommbniLoet If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at 714.536.541 S:\Prevention\14Develcpment\1-Planning Department-Planning Applications,CUP's\2010 CUP's\Shorecliff Mobile Home CUP letteroo' uo'1oow.rtr TD 7 May 15,2010 Huntington Beach City Council 2010 MAY 17 P 14 3: 2 6 2000 Main St. 4th Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear City Council Members, I am opposed to the subdivision proposed for the"Huntington Shorecliffs"located at 20701 Beach Blvd, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. We are senior citizens(65 to 90 years of age) living on a fixed income. The proposal brought to you by the owner of the park will displace me. The purchase price for the ground under my mobile home will be way out of range for me to purchase. I do not have the means to purchase the land. Besides the fact that no one in this economy is willing to lend you money. Age being put aside. At this time homes are not selling in the park because of the subdivision hanging over our heads. Friends and neighbors are walking away from their homes. The owner then is purchasing the mobile homes for pennies on the dollar, from the mortgage companies or banks or heirs. He is then refurbishing them and attempting to rent them. The Assembly Bill AB 930 and Government Code 66427.5 subsections(d)and(e). The fact that a subdivision will cause ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT OF THE Huntington Shorecliff s homeowners. A failure to disclose a lawsuit to the residents of the Park and the City Council should be reason enough to vote against the subdivision. Sincerely, Marion Fieweger 20701 Beach Blvd. Space#113 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t�r,�VAI) Z H BLIP, LXa HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren May 12, 2010 rcoldren@hkclaw.com Our Re Number. 36014.11214848-3003-3670v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714) 374-1573 Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works City of Huntington Beach ("City") a 2000 Main Street17 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1F - - T-71 RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") e� 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,Callfomia 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 //7bo �s9�' Co�1•�ue�lic�72Yt� - �� 1-44RT. KING & ro4..oREN 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 ts/ H LanAppts /dr cc: Mayor and City Council via City Clerk (by e-mail only) 36014.112/4848-3003-3670v.1 Esparza, Pam From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Request# 5175 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mary Jo Baretich Description: Ms. Baretich asks the Council for their consideration in her opposition to the subdivision of Shorecliffs. Expected Close Date: 05/05/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. ��� /0 April 21, �2010 E City Council MAY 0 � 2014 City of Huntington Beach NUntington Beach 2000 Main Street CVY COUNCIL OFFICE Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Council Members, On the agenda, Item 8, for Monday, May 3, is the subdivision (creation of a condominium community) of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. If you read the attachments to the Council Agenda, they show a bias and an ignoring of the homeowner's survey's importance, wherein the majority of the respondents to the survey were against the Subdivision. I feel there are three maior reasons for DENIAL of this proposed Subdivision. First Reason for Denial: Staff did not analyze the significance of the Resident Survey adequately, and did not interpret it correctly in view of the latest court rulings. In a most recent Superior Court decision, on December 30, 2009, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick, ruled that Assembly Bill AB 930, now a law, and Government Code Section 66427.5 Subsections (d) and (e), clearly states that it is the legislative intent that the resident surveys are to be used to rp event non-bona fide resident conversions, which it defined as conversions that did not have resident support. As you know, the majority of the residents who responded in the Huntington Shorecliffs Resident Survey were against this Subdivision that would cause a "change in use" of the park to condominium. See Attachment 1. Another most recent court decision in the Second Appellant Division, concerning the Carson Harbor Village on March 30, 2010, also supports the City's way to establish the right for cities to consider the outcome of the resident support survey in determining whether to approve or deny a subdivision. I have attached a copy of the Daily Breeze article, dated March 30, 2010, describing this win for the city against the park owner. See Attachment 2, Second Reason for Denial: Staff did not adequately analyze the scope of Economic Displacement impacts on the homeowners. Rather than pay attention to the hardship details and facts presented to them by the Public and Huntington Shorecliff homeowners, they ignored these and stated in Section F that this Subdivision met Government Code Section 66427.5, without adding any rational to their stand. ILK&C is not in Compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5 in that this Subdivision will cause ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT of many of the Senior Citizen Homeowners, and is a form of Elder Abuse. The Planning Commission and Staff ignored the information brought forth by the Public regarding true Economic Displacement impacts on the Huntington Shorecliffs homeowners. Obviously, 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 maioritv of the residents. The Park Owner knows exactly what the incomes are of the homeowners, and is raising these costs accordingly...beyond their incomes. 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)! The current rents are between $750 and $950 per month for residents, not counting the most recent residents who bought homes here and pay higher rents. This currently has been adequate to pay for the management, maintenance, park taxes, and a tidy sum left over as profit for the Park Owner. The proposed Subdivision will cause a substantial number of homeowners to pay two to almost three times what they currently pay to live in this Park. If the homeowners qualify for Purchase of their lots (for the asking amount of$275,000 to $385,000), at a loan cost of$2000 to $2825, an estimated potential total cost outlay per month would be between $3760 and $4700. This would include an Assessment of$335 per month, utilities, mobilehome mortgage (which is an average of$1000 per month), mobilehome taxes, additional land taxes and insurance. in addition, these owners will then be partially responsible for the upkeep of the infrastructure and roads. Those homeowners who are not in the low income brackets, and who choose to rent at Market Rent, between $1600 and $1850, an estimated potential total cost outlay would be between $3135 and $3400. This would include the Assessment, utilities, mobilehome mortgage, mobilehome taxes, and insurance. If the homeowners make only$4500 per month, obviously then there is not much left over for personal expenses, such as auto payments, auto insurance, gas and food, etc. In 6 months or a year, many homeowners will lose their homes. The mobile homes will have no resale value and the Lender loses too. Already, several homeowners have walked away from the homes that they bought with their life savings. Third Reason for Denial: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE: HK&C Failed to Disclose the fact that those who purchase the lots will be named as co-defendants in a Failure to Maintain lawsuit currently in court against the previous Park Owner, Allan, and the new Park Owner, Saunders. Failure to Disclose this information is very serious and should not have been hidden from the homeowners nor the City. 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. See more on other actions in California in Attachment 3. Please, we beg of you to stop this attack on affordable housing for Seniors and low income citizens. Could you be so cruel as to force your own elder relatives into poverty and the loss of their homes that they spent their life saving on? I truly hope not. Please deny this Subdivision. It is not good for these elder citizens, nor for the rest of the mobilehome homeowners in Huntington Beach and the State of California. Respectfully, Ma JOB re h 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy#23A Huntington Beach, CA 92646 mjbaretich@hotmail.com � '��%%�'%%s?'` '•;�6��JTpt6`�rrk, 9'?�:{'�;.�'�-t%�.wr 'v4r' ".�--�-�.�,.""'-'-^- _ .. Q phi � t MAY 414 2010 C!TY o� - }�c t,fT'�xj Cho j �urskfngkon ��ACh rrr,-ct7UNCIL 0�-Fres G'C /'VOAIN CA 90G4Zz lli7et�si�7s'J�ysi�iY^"�.ixs{iif 'A7istis/�sslrtfs7t�st'��JHlli�►Y i ATTACHMENT 1 11021 MAGNOLIA STREET GARDEN GROVE,CA 92841 (800)888-1727 The article below is reprinted from this month'month's Californian. COURT RULES THAT THE RESULTS OF A RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY MUST BE CONSIDERED IN DECIDING WHETHER TO APPROVE OR. REJECT A MORYLEIiOME PARK SUBDIVISION CONVERSION APPLICATION. By mobilehome owners' rights attorney, Will Constantine After the veto of AB 566, and the disappointing appellate decision in Sequoia v. Sonoma County, there is finally some great news in our fight to stop the forced conversions of mobilehome parks to subdivisions that are pursued against the wishes of the residents of the parks. That news is that, on December 30, 2009, 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 subsections 66427.5(e), in determining whether to approve or deny mobilehome park subdivision conversion applications. Judge Burdick's decision was issued in the case of Paul Goldstone Trust U.T.D. v County of Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz Superior Court Case Number CV 164458 - 2009). In that case, the Park owner's attorney, Thomas Casparian of Richard Close's law firm, filed a Writ of Mandate asking the court to overturn the decision of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, which had rejected the conversion application of Alimur Mobilehome Park based on its resident support survey's vote of 97 to 2 in opposition to the conversion, thereby, demonstrating that it was a non-bona fide conversion, lacking resident support. Mr. Casparian argued that the recent Sequoia decision had "acknowledged" that "requiring a conversion to be bona fide or supported by residents is forbidden under state law." He then argued that section 66427.5(e) simply required the County to determine that the Survey was "conducted and submitted" so it could be preserved for court review in possible future litigation. Assistant Santa Cruz County Counsel, Jason Heath countered Mr. Casparian's argument by pointing out that the Sequoia decision only ruled that local regulations were preempted by section 66427.5 and that it did not address the issue of whether or not the County could "consider" the results of the resident support survey in deciding to approve or reject the conversion application. Mr. Heath then relied on the clear directive contained in subsection 664275(d) that the County was to "consider' the survey results when acting on a conversion application. He also pointed out that AB 930's (section 66427.5(d) and (e)s' enacting legislation) uncodifled legislative intent section clearly states that it is the legislative intent of AB 930 that the surveys are to be used to prevent non-bona fide resident conversions, which it defined as conversions that did not have resident support. Judge Burdick agreed with Santa Cruz County that section 66427.5 required a local jurisdiction to consider the results of a resident support survey in determining to approve or reject a conversion application. At the hearing, Judge Burdick responded to Mr. Casparian's arguments by verbally stating that it was not logically possible to interpret section 66427.5(d)'s directive that the survey results "are to be considered" by the local jurisdiction in making their decision to, instead, mean that they are merely to determine whether or not the surveys were conducted and submitted. Judge Burdick's subsequent written decision then stated: "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 shall be considered by the local agency reviewing the application as part of the subdivision map hearing required by Government Code section 66427.5(e). (italics provided by the Court) Based on this plain and clear language, the Court finds that a local agency considering a subdivision application under Government Code section 66427.5 is required to consider (i.e., take into account, deliberate on, weigh, etc.) the results of the resident survey in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application." Several weeks after Santa Cruz County's hearing, Mr. Casparian again made his same argument to a three-judge panel of the Second Appellate Division in the case of Carson Harbor Village v City of Carson. At that hearing, like Judge Burdick, the presiding justice responded to Mr. Casparian that it was not possible to interpret section 66427.5(d)'s directive that the results of a resident support survey are "to be considered" by a local jurisdiction by simply determining that the survey was "conducted and submitted" so it would be available to a future court. The Appellate Court's decision in Carson Harbor Village is scheduled to be the issued by March 1, 2010 and we are hopeful that it will be similar to Judge Burdick's Alimur decision given the similarity in the arguments that were made in both cases and how the judges responded to them. While we wait, we can celebrate Judge's Burdick's decision that affirms that GSMOL's efforts in sponsoring AB 930, and successfully lobbying it through to enactment, have finally provided us with the tools that are needed to stop the flood of forced conversions that would have inundated California without those protections. For more information you are welcome to contact me by telephoning me at my office: 831-420-1238 AliO :r ; ,:- ATTACHMENT The Daily Breeze By Sandy Mazza Staff Writer Posted: 03/30/2010 07:54:15 PM PDT Appellate court overturns ruling favoring Carson mobile home park owner A state appellate court has delivered a win to Carson city officials,overturning a trial court decision that permitted the owner of Carson Harbor Village mobile home park to convert the property into individually owned plots. The 2nd District Court of Appeal issued a split opinion Tuesday that said the trial court should have given more weight to whether residents approved the conversion plan,and to why the owner wants the change. "Whether the conversion is or is not bona fide turns on the state of mind of the park owners,"the opinion states. "A bona fide conversion is one that the park owner expects to in fact produce a change in the estate interest of a significant percentage of the mobilehome lots from tenancy to ownership." The opinion agrees with arguments the city has made since 2002,when park owner James Goldstein first sought conversion.the city claims he only wants the change because he will profit by eliminating city rent controls and from the proceeds from sales of the individual lots.the appellate court agreed that Goldstein's motivation should not be to remove rent controls. Goldstein's attorney,Richard Close,did not return calls seeking comment. Goldstein also owns Colony Cove Mobile Estates,which is across the street from Carson Harbor Village on Avalon Boulevard. the parks each have 400 spaces and the city has been negotiating with Goldstein to purchase the parks and allow nonprofit Millenium Housing to manage them. That plan remains unlikely,however,because the two sides cannot agree on a sale price. Tuesday's ruling by the three judge panel opens the door for the city to find a way to prevent the condo-conversion of Carson Harbor Village. The 22 page opinion orders the City Council to review the case again,with guidance from the appellate court. Specifically,the council will be allowed to put more weight on how existing residents will be affected by the conversion. "This case is important for every city in California because this is the first time the Court of Appeals has given cities any latitude at all in considering these applications,"City Attorney bill Wynder said. "The opinion--for the first time--grants the city discretion,within limits,to grant or deny conversion applications.the city's review of these applications is no longer a rubber-stamp approval." Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow dissented with the two judge majority,saying the trial court's decision was correct and should not have been overturned. Bigelow said it should not matter why Goldstein wants to convert the parks to individually owned lots. "The majority creates from whole cloth a rule that whether a conversion is bona fide turns on the state of mind of the park owners,and then decides that the city is at liberty to make the determination,"Bigelow wrote. "I part company with that analysis." Paul Randall,president of the Carson Harbor Village homeowners association, said the court's decision is a long-awaited victory for residents. "I think we finally have some judges that have read the law,understand the law, and are making it be for the benefit of the resident of the park,"Randall said. "(Conversions)must be bona fide, resident-supported.Not a sham for the property owner to make an exorbitant amount of money." sandy.mazza@dailybreeze.com ATTACHMENT 3 GOOD NEWS FOR MOBILEHOME OWNERS FACING FORCED CONVERSIONS A Letter from Mobilehome Attorney WHI Constantine About the Carson Harbor Wi lage Case As I predicted,in my last GSMOL Californian article on"forced conversions," that the court would so do,the Second District Court of Appeal has now ruled that the City of Carson can turn down the Carson Harbor Village conversion based on the results of the resident support survey if the survey results help the City to conclude that the park owner is pursuing the conversion to escape rent control rather than offering a plan that will result in"a change in the estate interest of a significant percentage of the mobilehome lots from tenancy to ownership." Although this standard is somewhat "messy"because it focuses on the intent of the park owner, the City of Carson believes it can be successfully utilized. In that regard, I believe that if a pares residents present evidence to a city that shows that they voted against a proposed conversion because their park owner failed to provide them with any guarantees that the subdivided lots will be affordable to"a significant percentage"of them, this new standard can be met Although this is an unpublished decision that does not provide statewide precedent,it does provide a needed victory to the City of Carson and hope to mobilehome owners throughout California. More good news is that the City of Palm Springs will be filing a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court today to overturn the,now conflicting,decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal (also an unpublished decision)that stated that the City of Palm Springs could not reject the conversion of Palm Springs View Estates Mobilehome Park based on the results of the its resident support survey. Part of Palm.Springs'argument to the Supreme Court will be that they should take up the case because that decision is now contradicted by the new Second District Court Of Appeal's Carson Harbor Village decision and because there are no published decisions to guide cities that must decide upon conversions that are opposed by a mobilehome pares residents. William J. Constantine,Attorney On January 26th 2010, Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Unanimously Denies Alimur Park Conversion Application .Appeals to Follow. Letter from Will Constantine About The Santa Cruz and Capitola Decisions I never expected,just hoped,that the Supreme Court would agree to hear the Sequoia case since they only select too out of 5,000 cases to hear each year and the current Supreme Court hardly ever agrees to de-publish a case. On behalf of GSMOL and SCMHOA I,put a substantial effort into the Sequoia petition to the Supreme Court because the issue is so important that we had to have many irons in the fire since we knew that several of them would probably not work(i.e.,AB 566 being vetoed and the Supreme Court not taking many cases). However, all is not lost because the only issue that Sequoia establishes binding precedent on is that Government Code section 66427.5 preempts local ordinances including provisions of local ordinances that set out guidelines for applying the results of the required resident support survey to a local jurisdiction's duty to approve or disapprove of a conversion application [see subsection 66427.5(d) and(e)]. However, Sequoia is not binding on the issue of whether or not a local jurisdiction can turn a conversion down based on the results of a resident support survey since they were not asked to decide that issue. In that regard,the discussion of the purpose of the resident support survey that is contained in Sequoi is inconclusive and it is also not binding as it is considered"dicta"since the court was not asked to decide that issue. On December 3oth Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick applied Sequoia to the conversion of Alimur Mobilehome Park and ruled that as long as a local jurisdiction applies subsection 66427.5(d) and (e) directly,rather than applying their own ordinance that attempts to implement subsection 66427.5(d),that Santa Cruz County was permitted to use the results of the resident support survey in making their decision to approve or disapprove of the conversion application. The problem with Sonoma Counts Ordinance is that it went too far in setting up their own standards for determining what is a"bona fide resident conversion." Also,both Sonoma County and the City of Carson have been focusing on their ordinances and local control too much.What Santa Cruz County did was to comply with Sequoia by repealing their ordinance and setting a new hearing on the conversion to apply the statute directly. On December 3oth, the judge ruled that they could do this. I have always advocated this position since that was our intent when we drafted AB 930. Now, even applying Sequoia, the Superior Court in Santa Cruz County agrees. Additionally,two days after the Santa Cruz County Superior Court decision,the same issue went before the Capitola Planning Commission deciding on the conversion application of Surf and Sand Mobilehome Park and the Commission, after hearing both sides arguments on this issue and receiving advice of the city attorney, came to the same conclusion and rejected Surf and Sands conversion application based on the results of its resident support survey by applying subsection 66427.5(d)rather than their"preempted"ordinance. I agree with Sonoma County and the City of Carson that section 66427.5 does not preempt their ordinances. I also agree with them that the Sequoia appellate decision is a poorly written decision that contradicts Supreme Court precedent on preemption and that it should be overturned. However, since the Court of Appeal disagreed with them, and the Supreme Court is not willing not to take the case, what they, and all other localities, should now do is give up on their"local control"arguments and follow Santa Crux County's winning strategy by repealing their ordinances, repealing any decisions that are based on their ordinances and then re-setting those conversions for new hearings applying the provisions of subsection 66427.5(d)directly. Also, the fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the Sonoma County's petition does not mean that they agree with the Sequoia decision. Under California court rules,the Supreme Court refusing to take a case is not the same as them upholding it and the park owner attorneys are not allowed to cite it that way. William J. Constantine,Attorney Billy and Margaret Bergeron 20701 Beach Blvd., Space # 89 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 May 13, 2010 City Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Opposing the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Senior Mobile home Park 20701 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Council Members: If there was a stronger word to use besides"opposing"we would use it.We have lived in Huntington Shorecliffs for nine years.We are retired and had great hopes of living out our remaining years in this Park. Our children&grandchildren live in this area. The financial implications of the proposed subdivision are overwhelming. We, as most of our neighbors, are on a limited income.We do not have the ability to find employment&earn the extra money it would take to either buy our lot or try to keep up with the continuing rent increases and all of the new costs that will be involved should this subdivision become a reality. It is time for our elected officials to put themselves in our predicament.We've worked our lifetime,we saved a portion of every dollar we made,we did without so our children&their children could have all the opportunities this great country provides and now we are being discarded.We contributed our share& now our government wants more.Taxes go up, automobile registration goes up& the cost of living skyrockets. Our rent will be increased&any new expenses with be passed on to us— again&again&again. Please give this proposal some thought.This Subdivision will cause ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT of many seniors.We have an abundance of water problems in this park.We have played by the management's rules but to no avail.We get no help &if this Subdivision is approved it will become our problem,either by purchasing the land or the owners passing on the costs through our rent payments. We are damned if we do&damned of we don't. Please show us that you hear our voices&allow us to live our"golden years"with dignity&respect. Billy and Margaret Bergeron . Ao Z47--r,:. cimn, 4l/ p - - 1-1h- AD Page 1 of 2 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:37 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5308 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: M Jack Brooks Description: 5-17-10 Dear Huntington Beach City Council Members: We are in a recession and raising taxes at any level of Government will help push the economy into a depression. Although you state that only $.33 is to be paid by residents, you are mistaken. The other costs placed on businesses will also be passed to residents as businesses are only tax collectors. They do no pay taxes. If they don't make a large enough profit, they close and fire all employees pushing unemployment higher. The residents, who lose their jobs will then lose their homes and Huntington Beach will be in worse shape. Look at your cable bill. You can see that the franchise tax is passed to cable customers. The real solution is to find a way to reduce spending. The research on the Great Depression shows that it was caused by Hoover& FDR trying to keep salaries up, increasing spending programs and preventing trade. The Great Depression didn't end with the war, it ended with the passing of FDR and the stopping of his private sector job destroying taxes and spending programs. The stock market didn't return to the high level on the day before the 1929 Crash until the mid-1950s over 20 years. Vote against adding taxes or spending programs in a recession or it will cause a depression destroying more jobs and hurting more people. Sincerely, M Jack Brooks (No relation to the former Congressman from Texas.) 8851 Seaspray Drive f 1 t ! 6 Sn 7i2o 10 a &,vux&1 f�C -� s J r l r l G Esparza, Paa From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:08 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5287 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Karen Caballero Description: From: KCaballero@Geosyntec.com [mailto:KCaballero@Geosyntec.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:52 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Homeowner at Huntington Shorecliffs I am a resident at Shorecliffs and I cannot afford to buy the lot, nor can I afford a high rent increase. I love living there and want to continue. There is a water problem on our lot and a worse water problem next door. Both lots have sump pumps to help the problem but it won't solve it. I fear damage to the coach structure if it continues or worsens. I am definitely against the subdivision and whole hearted ask that the city council aid the residents on this issue. Space 127 Expected Close Date: 05/17/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. Cof9'7 DA) i To whom it may concern, We understand that we have to write another letter concerning the sub- division of the Shorecliffs complex which we are totally against. We have invested our life savings in this mobile home, and the way we understand it we will basically be getting "kicked out" if this is allowed to go through. Sincerely yours Harry Cargill 4. w " Victoria Cargill (J , 20701 Beach Blvd, Space #172 Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 X ,/01 �cz-/� 4L 0 i RECOWE MAY 17 2010 Huntington Beach CITY COUNCIL OFFICE Ge&somiane Curatola -.._. Spc.26 - 20701 Beach Blvd, Huntington Bch,CA 92648 'PINTA A414.- ,zFi. 'fib>17 wca:D .w .::ztl 14 i �� "`vw�wep4.J✓;.L?atvF.�mo' •� Wld��° . C U �LI v r o � � � � liQG�✓ GpL��� N � O 0) O rn I p { I �fi iffi i�ipfifi i?�rff !.till fi;� ?iiti tt�#ifif i3?� ff?I 1 Pagel of 3 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:03 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5311 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Sharon Dana Description: Sharon Dana Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park 20701 Beach Blvd. #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 May 17, 2010 To all Huntington Beach City Council Members Mayor Cathy Green, Mayor Pro Tem Jill Hardy Council Members: Keith Bohr, Joe Carchio, Gil Coerper, Devin Dwyer, Don Hansen Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Sub-Division Application Appeal Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 City Council Meeting--May 17, 2010 I am against the subdivision of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. My husband, aged 81, and I have lived in Huntington Shorecliffs for more than 12 years. We both receive Social Security, and thought we had taken steps to secure a safe, comfortable place to live in our old age. The majority of the residents that responded to the Huntington Shorecliffs Resident Survey voted "NO !" to the subdivision that would cause a "change of use" of the Park to a condominium. In a Superior Court decision on December 30, 2009, Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Burdick ruled that Government Code Section 66427.5 requires local jurisdiction consider the results of resident surveys in determining whether to approve or deny subdivision conversion applications. AB 930's subsection 66427.5 (d) and (e), clearly stated the it is the legislative intent that the resident surveys are to be used to prevent non-bona fide resident conversions, which it defined as conversions that did not have resident support. In another decision dated March 30, 2010,the Second Appellant Division also supported the right for cities to consider the outcome of the resident survey in determining whether to approve or deny a subdivision. Huntington Shorecliffs has 304 homesites. In the resident survey only 25 5/17/2010 �� ������ r117 b0 �/ Page 2 of 3 residents responded that they would support the subdivision. That is only 8% of the homeowners. Most of the residents are TRUE Senior Citizens. I was asked at the May 3, 2010, City Council Meeting, "How many of the residents of Huntington Shorecliffs are TRUE Senior Citizens?" i.e. residents over the age of 65. It is over 80% of the Park. The proposed sale price for lots in Huntington Shoreclifs is $275,000 to $385,00. This cost is beyond the means of the TRUE Senior Citizens living in the Park. And will they receive financing for such a venture?Not Likely! Sharon Dana Page 2 Residents living in Huntington Shorecliffs have planned and provided for their later years by investing in their homes, and relying on the word of Park owners regarding future space rent costs. For many years rents were reasonable and increases were based on the CPI. State Mobilehome Subdivision Code 66427.5 speaks to the fact that the sub- divider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all non- purchasing residents. It gives guidelines for rent increases to take place after a professional appraisal, and in equal annual increases over a 4 year period. Huntington Shorecliffs is circumventing this State code by increasing the rents $250.00 to $350.00 per month now, before the subdivision map is approved. The Section 8 Housing to low income Seniors has been eliminated. These actions are forcing TRUE Seniors to walk away from their homes because under the present circumstances, the homes are unsellable. The retirements and the Social Security incomes for Seniors will not support the rents of$1300.00 to $1600.00 that are now being charged. This space rent does not include any mortgage payment on their home that may be owed. And what about food? Car payments? Car Insurance? Gas and maintenance costs for cars?Medici ne? Medical Bills? Dentist? Glasses? Clothing? The Huntington Shorecliff owners now own so many homes that they are putting up huge "HOMES FOR RENT" red banners along Beach Blvd. They own these homes because people living here could not afford to keep their homes. Talk about ECONOMIC EVICTION. I ASK YOU TO PLEASE HONOR THE SURVEY RESULTS AND DENY THE APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17296. Thank you, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 714-968-4454 5/17/2010 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 3:51 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5273 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Thelma Evans Description: I live in Huntington Shorecliff Mobile Home Park. I am against the Sub-division. I am 87 years old and would not be able to purchase my lot. Please vote against the Sub-division. Thelma Evans, space#3. Expected Close Date: 05/14/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 3:47 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5272 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Ralph& Betty Haney Description: Huntington Beach City Council My husband and I are residents of Huntington Shore cliffs Mobile Home park-for almost 5 years. Our rent began at $900 per month and has progress to $1,135.47 with a letter I just received on March 31, 2010($225.00) that our rent will be increased to a new level of$1,360.47. We are on a fixed income...where is rent control for us? Asked and did not receive a return call for an answer...how do you base this increase? What are we to do? Just stand by... Our water problems are not our problems-what happen to the owners five years ago...passing the buck...passing the buck on repairs to the park-passing the buck on storm drains, the street in front sidewalks should be passed to the owner of the property and not the renters. Hopefully the HB city council will help the people who live here, veterans who made it possible for you to live a quiet, peace life and now need some help. Ralph R. Haney Ralph R. Haney Expected Close Date: 05/14/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. Message Page 1 of 1 Betty Haney Subject: HB City Council Huntington Beach City Council My husband and I are residents of Huntington Shore cliffs Mobile Home park-for almost 5 years. Our rent began at$900 per month and has progress to $1,135.47 with a letter I just received on March 31, 2010($225.00)that our rent will be increased to a new level of$1,360.47. We are on a fixed income...where is rent control for us?Asked and did not receive a return call for an answer...how do you base this increase?What are we to do? Just stand by... Our water problems are not our problems-what happen to the owners five years ago...passing the buck...passing the buck on repairs to the park-passing the buck on storm drains, the street in front sidewalks should be passed to the owner of the property and not the renters. Hopefully the HB city council will help the people who live here, veterans who made it possible for you to live a quiet, peace life and now need some help. Ralph R. Haney Betty K. Haney 5/13/2010 L, j� — do e U J Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:22 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5307 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Chris & Gary Hill Description: We are definitely against the sub-division of Huntington Shorecliffs mobile home park. We are on a fixed income, (Social Security) as I'm sure many others in this park are, and just make it from one paycheck to another. We cannot afford to move and do not want to be put out on the street. The cost of the lots here, and therefore the monthly payments, would be impossible for us to make as we do not even receive that much(in total) each month. We are just making the space rent, as it is. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Chris and Gary Hill 20701 Beach blvd. Space 197 Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Phone: (714) 374-4446 Expected Close Date: 05/18/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/17/2010 Page 1 of 3 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:08 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5303 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mary Landin Description: 16May2010 Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Tern Jill Hardy Council Member Keith Boht Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Devin Dwyer Council Member Don Hansen 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I'm writing in reference to Huntington Shorecliffs subdivision of the park lots for sale. Property address: 20701 Beach Blvd. HB 923648. This is my 3rd request to the City Council to reject the subdivision for Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The majority of residents voted NOin a survey for the subdivision! What more do you want from us to let you the City Council know we are against the subdivision that would cause a CHANGE IN USE of the park to condominium. Under Government Code section 66427.5 is considered (i.e., take into account deliberate on, weigh.etc)the results of the resident survey in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The Planning Commission has ignored the information brought forth by the Public regarding the true Economic Displacement impact this will have on the Huntington Shorecliffs homeowners. �/ r �z�/�•�8' 5/17/2010 � �� C� 1 Page 2 of 3 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 Upon doing some research I found that M. Cirillo and Star Management and park owners have judgments 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. This is the same pattern that we are experiencing here at Huntington Shorecliffs and other parks in Calif. It is apparent the Park Owner dose not care that their actions will displace those on a fix income with cost that are being demanded. HK&C are not in compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5. This subdivision will cause Economic Displacement. I'm one of the residents that will be displaced. The Park Owner knows each homeowners income and with their calculation for rent increases and pass though are beyond the means of the majority of the residents. HK&C have failed to disclose that those who purchase the lots will be named co-defendants in the FAILURE to MAINTAIN lawsuit currently in the courts for the previous Park Owners this is very serious and should not have been hidden from the homeowners nor the City of Huntington Beach. To continue with approval of this Subdivision help to continue the spread to other parks here in HB and State wide. Mary Landin SPC 157 Huntington Shorecliffs Expected Close Date: 05/18/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are 5/17/2010 Page 1 of 2 Again Thank You for your reply 5/14/2010 May I now ask again please do not vote for the Subdivison. I would think that by now you know the hardship it would bring on older residents who live in the park and it would only help the Greed of a few people who don't really care about the well being of some old folks who have lived in Huntington Be4ejh most of their lives . k Lee Lytle 20701 Beach Blvd #282 Huntington Beach Ca. r m:surf OW Pipeline<surfcity@user.gavoutreach.com> Ta mlyge69@yahoo.com Sent.Thu,May 13,2010 5:19:39 PM Subject.Surf City Pipeline:posed Request#5241[3834316130616339] ---If replying by email, enter your reply above this line--- (Please allow up to 15 minutes to update your request record when replying by email) Dear Mike and Lee, Your request#5241 has been resolved with the resolution: A field inspection was conducted and the source of the odor is from standing water that eventually dries to a fibrous algae within the parkway along Beach Boulevard. No pollutants were observed at the time of inspection. Thank you for reporting your concerns. We are glad to be of service to the community. Terri Elliott This is in reference to the Problem on Public Works-All Reassigned inquiries to PW you submitted on 05/10/2010 9:41 PM Location: 20701 Beach Blvd Description: Standing contamadated water We are committed to providing you the best service we can. We would appreciate you filling out an online survey on how this request was handled. You can fill out the online survey by going to: <http://user.GovOutreach.com/surfcity/survey.php?cid=389493&access=3834316130616339> http://us.mg3.mail.yahoo.com/dc/blank.html?bn=374.4&.intl=us&.lang=en-US 5/14/2010 Dear City Council Members, I sent to you an e-mail before the May 3`d,2010 Council meeting, stating my position on the conversion issue, and the reasons for deniaL I am a senior citizen(71 years of age)and live on a fixed income. As the resident surveys show the MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS VOTED FOR DENIAL OF THE CONVERISION.THE SUBDIVISION WOULD CAUSE ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT of many of the senior citizen homeowners. Thanks to Mr. Calderon for asking for the postponement regarding the subdivision of Huntington Shorcliffs Mobile Home Park, I will take the opportunity to add to my list. The following speaks volumes to their characters. Mr. Calderon said"no low income residents would be forced out of the Park"Then he cancelled section 8 to low income residents. These seniors will have to sell in a six month period or lose their section 8. And once that is gone it is gone forever. I have my home for sale and after my experience with management I really do not hold any hope for the low income seniors getting their homes sold either. If they can't sell I assume they will have to walk away from their homes and, let the Park Owners have it for a big fat zero. GOOD FOR THE PARK OWNERS---BAD FOR THE RESIDENTS Mr. and Mrs Bradshaw came into town to buy a home here in Hunting ton Beach..They were buyers and really liked my home, we discussed the down payment and the terms. They went to the Park office to fill out the forms for approval. I didn't hear from them again. I had their phone number in Arizona and I phoned them. The attached letter was ther reply. Again I thank you for your time. Patti McCabe `"P� �-e May 11,2010 Huntington Shorecliffs Space 132 Hunting ton Beach,CA 92648 (714)960-2942 WED MAY 17 2010 Huntington Beach CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 61/7 40 � Page 1 of 2 PATTI McCAEE From: "Carol Bradshaw"<carolbradshaw.realtor@yahoo.com> To: <dmvpatti@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:10 PM Subject: Fw: --- On Wed,4/21/1,0,Carol Bradshaw<carolbradshaw.realto(a�yahoo.com>wrote: From: Carol Bradshaw<carolbradshaw.realtor@yahoo.com> Subject: To: dmvpatti@verizon.net ton Beach Date: Wednesday,April 21,2010, 8:00 PM Hu c%09 ct'-OFFICE Dear Mr. John Saunders; This email/letter is in regards to Ms. Patti MCCabe and the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Community.In the month of February,my husband and I came to Huntington Beach to find a home and visited the Huntington Shorecliff Community. We drove the community and noticed McCabe's home for sale by owner. My husband and I viewed her home and received the terms and sales price of her home and asked her what we would need to do in order to live in the community. She advised us to talk with the manager there in the community. So,we went to the office and spoke with the manager Vicki and her assistant manager Shelly. We were told we would need to fill out an application and we did. We also found out they had a few rentals and other homes for sale in the same community, so we viewed them also to compare prices and what was available. Shelly tried to get us to rent a home and told us that Ms. McCabes home was an older home and needed alot of repairs.I did not notice that Ms. McCabe's home was in need of alot of repairs. Shelly steared us away from the purchase of Ms. McCabe's homee, so we decided to rent one the community's rentals for the first year. Previously we had met a woman who sales mobile homes and we contacted her regarding the Huntington Shorecliff Community and she told us that the community was having alot of problems and not to rent or purchase there. She said they raised the rent so high that he owners are leaving thier homes or trying to sale or rent them. She also said that the community owners were taking over the homes or purchasing them at bottom price from the owners. We did sign an application and we went back several times in the 4 days we were in Huntington Beach to see if our application had been accepted. We never heard back from them at all. Everytime we did go back to check the status of our application,Vicki was very rude and arragant with us. We did not understand her change of attitude with us. Shelly was very nice the day that we signed the application,but after that day,her attitude also changed. They were very rude to us and just brushed us off. I have been in real estate for over 35 years, and I have never seen such salesmanship as they showed us. I do remeember one home that Shelly showed us, and a few months prior I had called the owner regarding her home and I almost made an offer on it through emails and phone calls with the owner. I am so glad I didn't. Turns ou that the community now owns that certain home. Shelly did say they bought it at a real good price. She would not tell me what the price was,but after this treatment that we received, I am certain they must have ran this owner out also. I feel very sorry for Ms. McCabe because she needs to sale her home and the community management is causing her not to be able to sale to anyone. My husband and I were very interested in Ms. McCade's home and would have purchased it if there had not been problems with the management and how they treat the newcomers. I feel that the managers are going to make it very difficult her Ms. McCabe to sale her home to 5/11/2010 Page 2 of 2 anyone. I felt like they were waiting for her to give up and just hand it over to them. If she can't get the new buyers qualified to own in the community, she will be either forced to just leave and forfiet her home to them, or just remain there permantely. I hope this letter helps Ms. McCabe,but I feel she has a long list of problems in trying to sale her home. Being a Realtor, Real Estate Paralegal and also a Small Claims Court Judge Pro- tern I feel that Mc. McCabe is being treated unfairly and taking advantage of her situation,both age and financially. That in the event Mc. MCCabe is unable to sale her home due to this situation and management that she should have some kind of legal recourse against the management and ownership of Huntington Shorcliff Community. I have spoken with Ms. McCabe and she is very upset and having,I would say "anxiety and stress" that is not healthy. I am willling to testify in court to the Huntington Shorecliff Community management and treatment received and what was said against Ms. McCabe in preventing sale of her home to be sold. Thank you, Carol and Frank Bradshaw 6730 E. Preston St. Unit 41 Mesa,Arizona 85215 602-518-1150 5/11/2010 Michael & Lois Merritt 20701 Beach Blvd., Space #88 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/374-6838 —Home May 13, 2010 City Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Opposing the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Senior Mobile Park 20701 Beach Blvd., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Council Members: If there was-a stronger word to use beside"opposing"we would use it. We have lived in Huntington Shorecliffs for almost twelve years. We retired here and had great hopes of living out our remaining years in this Park. Our children& grandchildren live in this area. The financial implications of the proposed subdivision are overwhelming. We, as most of our neighbors, are on a limited income. We do not have the ability to find employment& earn the extra money it would take to either buy our lot or try to keep up with the continuing rent increases and all of the new costs that will be involved should this subdivision become a realty. It is time for our elected officials to put themselves in our predicament. We've worked our lifetime, we saved a portion of every dollar we made, we did without so our children&their children could have all the opportunities this great country provides and now we are being discarded. We contributed our share & now our government wants more. Taxes go up, automobile registration goes up&the cost of living skyrockets. Our rent will be increased& any new expenses with be passed on to us—again& again&again. Please give this proposal some thought. This Subdivision will cause ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT of many Seniors. We have an abundance of water problems in this park. We have played by the managements rules but to no avail. We get no help & if this Subdivision is approved it will become our problem, either by purchasing the land or the owners passing on the costs through our rent payments. We are damned if we do& damned of we don't. Please show us that you hear our voices&allow us to live our"golden years"with dignity &respect. Page 1 of 2 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:01 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5301 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Joseph Moore Description: Hi: My name if Joseph Moore and I live at space#231 in Huntington Shorecliff. I grew up in Huntington and I have always wanted to live here. I graduated from HB high school and went to work for the high school district. I retired 3yrs.. ago after 42yrs. with the district. I bought a new home in Huntington Shorecliffs 6yrs. ago. I loved livings here until our park was sold and now the new owner wants to subdivide the park. I have a big problem with this because There is no way I can afford the price of$385,000. he is asking for the land under my home. Now the owners are incressing my rent. Just this year my rent went up $275.00 more a month. I have had my rent go up over $500.00 in the past 2yrs. and they say it is going up even more next year. My space rent is $1,281.53 but with the ADA reimbursement,trash, Insurance Pass through, Property tax Pass through of$179.74 and My g as, water, and electric. My Total a month is $1,643.38. I also have the morgage,insurance and taxes on my home. As you can see this is a big chunk of change out of my retirement. The owner said that he is incressing our rents to market value. but if I was going to rent a home in the city I would be getting the home and the garage and yard that came with it. Here we are only renting the dirt that our home set on. It just doesn't seem fare to do that to the seniors who live here. We are all having a tough time trying to deal with the high prices of everyday living. I understand that the planning commission wants the owner to fix a storm drain that was put in up on Frankford St.by the city in the early 80's. That dumps right into our park. They want him to put it underground and run it to the other end of our park. They also want him to pay for ADA ramps to be installed on Frankford St. coming into the park. This is a city sidewalk. I am sure that all threw the city you didn't make the home owners that live on the corners of the city pay for the ramps of the city sidewalk in front of their homes. I think it is totally unfair of the city to ask the owner of Huntington Shorecliffs to pay for this. If he dose have to pay for this guess where the money is coming from? It will be added to our rents as a pass through. You might say well if you can't afford to pay these high prices why don't we sale our homes and move to another place. There our over 30 homes for sale in here and some folks have just walked away from their homes because we can't sale them no seniors are going to buy in here with such high rents and pass threw's. I am asking you the city council to please help us and take a good look at what is happening to the great senior of your city and the problems that we 5/17/2010 Page 2 of 2 are facing. I am just sick of the way my retirement life is turning out. I am sorry for such a long letter I just had to say something. Thanks for your attention on this matter. Joseph Moore. Expected Close Date: 05/18/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/17/2010 DONALD PRINCE , "' Huntington Shorecliffs Space 176 2010I A'Y 17 i 1 ; 44 March 9 , 2010 OPPOSE SUBDIVISION TRACT MAP HCD NOTICE OF VIOLATION 3-23-10 1 . MISTAKES ON TRACT MAP rt 2 . RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Oil Well Space 194 c ! q£ Pacific Electric Railway Might-Of-Ways 3 . HEALTH AND SAFETY Surface Storm Drain Ground Water Elevated Roads Sanitary Sewers 4 . ECONOMIC IMPACT Section 8 HUD Low Income Cancelled Storm Drain Passthrough Beach Blvd Sidewalk Passthrough 6 ADA Ramp Passthrough Lot Costs and Rents Lawsuits 5 . RISKS Seismic Fault Zone Liquefaction Methane Zone Tsunami Run Up Flood Plain Unstable Bluffs Srubsisdence 111t 1, 6-11 40 STATE HCD VIOLATIONS HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK 3-23-2010 1. ASPHALT ROADS REPLACED 2005 AND ARE HIGHER THAN MOBILE HOME LOTS 2. SUMP PUMPS INSTALLED BY PARK OPERATOR IS IN VIOLATION - PERMITS REQUIRED ; ELECTRICAL PERMITS REQUIRED 3. PARK OPERATOR SHALL PROVIDE CORRECTIVE MEASURES FOR REMOVAL OF WATER FROM UNDER MOBILE HOMES AND STOP WATER ENTERING LOTS FROM PARK ROADS-FROM CA REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM AND OR GEOLOGIST FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CORRECTION ORDER BY PARK OPERATOR-- MAY BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. SO. AREA ADMINSTRATOR AUCTION MAY BE REQUIRED TO CORRECT VIOLATION IF NOT CORRECTED IN TIMELY MANNER INDICATED VPG CO CjAJ co 0. b L UdS i n t f I (08) 8Z E I " vt _ v t c d I _ i? k. _ cn 9Z �--�� X 60Z 17 _ _ � . ,0•�L CO Ir w ► (88) �' CTL r I i -- O-JJj NO PASS THROUGHS 304 RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT PAY PARK OWNERS BILLS 1 . PROPERTY TAX ON LAND(NOT OWNED BY RESIDENTS) WENT FROM 48.00 TO 179.00 PER MONTH PER RESIDENT AFTER NEW OWNER PURCHASED PARK. 2. ADA TOILET 3. STORM DRAIN PIPELINE THROUGH PARK 750,000 4. ADA RAMPS 30,000. 5. DEWATER MOBILE HOMES /ROADS APPROX 2 MILLION NO DISCLOSURES TO RESIDENTS PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -NOT PROVIDED PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILROAD 1904-1933 TRACKS IN MHP-- RIGHT-OF-WAY TO 1969-- NO MENTION OF RR IN TITLE DOC. THERE ARE 33 MOBILE HOMES ON THIS RIGHT-OF WAY. RR IMPACTS GROUND WATER. OIL WELL 1953 - 6200 FT DEEP P&A IN 1958. LOCATION IN MIDDLE OF PARK ROAD AT SPACE 194 SURFACE LOCATION DESTROYED 1969 AND 2005 REQUIRING NEW P&A PER 1980 STANDARDS. THERE IS ONLY 62 FT OF CEMENT IN CASING PREVENTING BLOWOUT -- NEEDS 400 FT OF CEMENT. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFESTS - HWIS- 1999,2000 STORM DRAIN FROM FRANKFORT FLOWS THRU MHP ON SURFACE ROADS ROADS IN PARK HIGHER THAN LOTS- DRAINAGE GROUNDWATER VERY SHALLOW- 0 TO 10 FEET BGS NO PASS THROUGHS 304 RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT PAY PARK OWNERS BILLS 1 . PROPERTY TAX ON LAND(NOT OWNED BY RESIDENTS) WENT FROM 48.00 TO 179.00 PER MONTH PER RESIDENT AFTER NEW OWNER PURCHASED PARK. 2. ADA TOI LET 3. STORM DRAIN PIPELINE THROUGH PARK 750,000 4. ADA RAMPS 30,000. 5. DEWATER MOBILE HOMES /ROADS APPROX 2 MILLION NO DISCLOSURES TO RESIDENTS PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -NOT PROVIDED PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILROAD 1904-1933 TRACKS IN MHP-- RIGHT-OF-WAY TO 1969-- NO MENTION OF RR IN TITLE DOC. THERE ARE 33 MOBILE HOMES ON THIS RIGHT-OF WAY. RR IMPACTS GROUND WATER. OIL WELL 1953 - 6200 FT DEEP P&A IN 1958. LOCATION IN MIDDLE OF PARK ROAD AT SPACE 194 SURFACE LOCATION DESTROYED 1969 AND 2005 REQUIRING NEW P&A PER 1980 STANDARDS. THERE IS ONLY 62 FT OF CEMENT IN CASING PREVENTING BLOWOUT -- NEEDS 400 FT OF CEMENT. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFESTS -- HWIS- 1999,2000 STORM DRAIN FROM FRANKFORT FLOWS THRU MHP ON SURFACE ROADS ROADS IN PARK HIGHER THAN LOTS- DRAINAGE GROUNDWATER VERY SHALLOW- 0 TO 10 FEET BGS �1-1-14 ce DISCLOSURES NOT ADEQUATE FROM SELLER WATER UNDER MOBILE HOMES ROADS TOO HIGH SEWERS MARGINAL POWER GRID MARGINAL OIL WELL IN PARK NOT LEGALLY PLUGGED PER 1980 RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY BAD LEASES LAW SUITS STORM DRAIN THRU PARK FROM FRANKFORT ON PARK SURFACE ROADS BEACH BLVD PROBLEMS GROUND WATER VERY SHALLOW BUYER OVERPAID FOR PARK ,U f P-4 � STORM DRAIN ALTERNATIVE CITY TO COLLECT 575,000 FROM PARK OWNER - WATER FEE FOR STORM DRAIN THEREFORE CITY BUILDS PIPELINE WITH --NO PASS THROUGH-- TO RESIDENTS 2000 FT OF PIPELINE 750,000. OR CITY SEALS PIPE INTO PARK, INSTALLS PUMP IN FRANKFORT DRAIN AND PUMPS STORM WATER IN PIPELINE UP FRANKFORT AND DOWN DELAWARE(1000 ft) ONLY DURING STORM EVENTS2 FAR LESS THAN 750,000. AT DETROIT GRAVITY FLOW RESUMES. i g a t b r ! a ' �•ki�e' '�£' a;,r���� _ Sir ^ ,��, �a � -. fix,7 � �� ��•z.,P �` Yq,� A3 5 �As "'��Z i $���a'"'t 3 tT+� 'r��r¢ 2f'q �iias'�,.y.�J ' Ss��y 3 • d� 4�9 �p .�y... +. � gj '�7i,P (�E �Via•'/ 5 � C ay "��sr..rs 'wnu���'� � � •g 4� �� x �'�,�~r,.- ^��°``9a�� tf}Y n� nro J � t a '"q 5 xt 1 e ru r F.,X f tY4" f 'a MR'v' { ^^ So fik`^t�A� t ��, '�•Yp+r 1s� �,f �� ��•^•�e ! �3�s�4,r����(«,� +a � •����� r��" .�^"� � =CM k�e�, r "t �.��t„'��r y � t "t` "M�� .µ refit � f-t�'^x"` l 3f4 T = � �'•� �- �� "•s� 4 � rx r F�3"qti t� �;. �`a.,. k "T r 4 3a Wt h�r+..f s °~I �$'�t�.I'4� F ��..�k..�����•� ��Y u 4 "p ° rr ,u���'� s����ro ''��r � r .,�;�""r� 'rXc..'� -a °'. `"� ��-�` 3�1. t - '+c���"�� - - * �ate-" �Y k! a �`•� •+''.y� �/`' fi,,t�. � ^'``"s•.� � 'G't� + w v �f ,s 7 4 N w , - n �." - .4 ,i' � r� :.:5:�_:Y-�',�`�.ta=,•.<(h,.l` _-_tom-.. _ ?� s .. . �;�!��/��^'''. -' - nvrvt-avou • Y, p k �e gjr IME vs � ; �� �� ts�".� ��"� k �, � ram* ��a`,.`�h�' -, •r g � Al "4 *ae „ ,> ''. '• ,n d•e,,Y�S,,.-sue_ y r 3_ IM ke �• • . m ga t IL g .,ate EM oAIMi et �'(a. 1 •may` '`3U sn '" ,' a x a e.. A , Scale: 1 inch to 800 feet Longitude: -117'59'18" Latitude: 330 39'51.5" UTM Easting: 408368 meters UTM Northing: 3725182 meters UTM Zone: NAD 11 County: Project: VASK00020080 Quadrangle: Date: 02/01/63 Film Type: Black&White Source: U.S. Dept of Interior,Geological Survey AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT SITE LOCATED AT 20701 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH Y ! 4 �j � ! • 4 4 §{ ate i t � � i4 - t�:s p( - _`f .:j 1:{ - +, _i" # yc `x7 + C �; . /fir _ cd' YYf ■1 � _ t ! h _ .. gljrl , - fY/jj�RJ�p�1•'p� ( ���f a Y .�' �� �� �x t..��r � �t �S�i � f +j��t1 iF t �.', � . .iJ //:(;,,.� ,�; si- S d��11= ;its' '••.�,' ��Y ;. �f`� t�.; �ap� 'i ''Y .�T - j r { . J ` ,�,zf k' cil i+4t } f 9' + t Q .s::. " i:r-fiFY 711+,.' ,�, •w.,`i' „„}' 3 + ' wit Aj ,<` •/� ..� r, e �" ;4 !r tea,=�4�'r5nrd`v�rr�rat r 1+ it YA e' 7 .kA r r rl �lkrE N J "am /•r t � ,�',jA' 9J.�1 , ����. �t S :r.� �Kv�4�` � t � i Al #r + y �ry F y t r y. t lix3 rS �� 'i' i q�f c .�. ,5� r t •, ,.. t b' �rfrf f SJr ° y. Af �v..-• -� ;•s� a,g ,• - t J Illy.r "k �''�+ r } s. �.. � �`.•� �4+�+ Yr J s .�z �,, ��{ l'� t' j rf � s� �•f; �� i � { t � ``t i.� ga.' i-;x tt ..� � y �' � -- � j r�d� ��`'e� !� !• �of r .'<• ;.� .�. .{' .' i 1 .ri* t °g a .fir 7 y '++ � .{ �' 'i' 1 ���... rt � :� £ .. �s� y� _ 1 + : � �s�� :art I _..� ,� J���y� � ,�,� J ��Fh 1 ({ f• y m���r, IQ ,� + ' IR tR5% !• tpi' 2( .�t ,t�y- 6:,}jprt�'e :dt ;k 1 � � y ,� T r k � �. co ...... `o , '^ fR 2~ ,�. ", r(ftWflOd. �3 V: Ebbttds Cir. to; �p�� ' Sail Cir.- s.- Ave_=._ -tlllermaid Cir.'" � ... cn 17 �i ...__. - - - o LCD W Suns-et. .Cjr. . , . _ n _ , i t , t n i 4 �vll.l AL� LlF'.• ° 1 i' I WIN, 10 - k^. ' _... S inson"•D�. c� `0 ! cif CU • o Beachc Ombei_Qfn Golet Huntington beach STREEOUNDATNAXES RY aTYB Map produced by information contained in the City of STREET CENTERUNES(OCTACan) Huntington Beach information Services Department //✓ Geographic Information System.Information warranted for City use only.Huntington Beach does not guarantee its ' R completeness or accuracy. BoeATA r . Map Produced on 314/2010 '-=- CONTOURS °`, tj.,"_!r',•` �pl. _ a' - 1 N I HARBOR E Hv PARKS A r NER W* :� j� 0 s 392 784 One inch equals 392 feet a � / 1 Q U � o a � w SEAL �1 WESTMINSTER BEACH BOLSAI -- o �� 6 � 5 _Q •I Mc g zG I FADDEN o � z EDINGFJ2 =t I e HEIL , WARNER FOUNTAIN VALLEY SLATER <`.` •\ I �qyO/NCO COUNTY OF 4v TALBERf FR�1 • ORANGE �• (BOLSACHICA) ELus o � GARFIELD • % YORKTOWN ADAMS PACIFIC OCEAN I IND"Ous I ATLANTA } pqC is I PIER Col'ryY I HAMILTON I BANNING Legend COSTA City Boundary MESA High Potential for all Coastal Bluffs Low Potential Very low Potential No Potential Source: County of Orange,1987,Orange County Hazardous Waste Mannement Plan POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPE AREAS °.S g gEH"2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN V-EH-4 Page: 44 HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS MOBILE HOME PARK Date: 04-07--2010 20701 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH Job: HVNE3680 Status Codes: EPA Facility Permit Number CAL-State permanent number CAC-State provisional or emergency number CAH-State prov or perm number for household hazardous waste collections CAI-State permanent number for exotic pest detection CAS-State permanent number issued by county for emergency response CAE-State prov number for hazardous waste removal caused by natural disasters CAX-State permanent or provisional number issued prior to 1987. No longer used. CLU-State permanent number issued by county for clandestine lab cleanup CAR-Federal permanent number CA -Federal permanent number CAD-Federal permanent or provisional number.State provisional before 1988. CAT-Federal permanent number CAP-Federal provisional or emergency number This list has beeit researched withiti half-of a mile radius of the subject site. Site: HUNTINGTON SHORE CLIFF MOBILE Address: 20701 BEACH BLVD City: HUNTINGTON BEACH Map Loc: 1 -the subject site Status: EPA ID#: CAC002373831 88/89 90/91 92/93 94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05 Unspecified solvent mixture ton .05 Site: HUNTINGTON SHORE CLIFFS MOBILE Address: 20701 BEACH BLVD City: HUNTINGTON BEACH Map Loc: 1 -the subject site Status: EPA ID#: CAC001419168 88/89 90/91 92/93 94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 (2/03 04/05 Inorganic solid waste ton .02 Pesticides waste ton .02 Off-spec,aged or surplus org ton .17 Other organic solids ton .02 Empty containers<30 gal ton .25 Site: ELIZABETH HOGUE INTERIORS Address: 20800 BEACH BLVD,STE 100 City: HUNTINGTON BEACH Map Loc: 2 -about 0 mile S of the subject Status: EPA ID#: CAC002575059 88/89 90/91 92/93 94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05 Unspec organic liquid mixture ton .22 Site: STEVE MILLETE Address: 713 HILL ST City: HUNTINGTON BEACH Map Loc: 3 -about 0 mile W of the subject Status: EPA ID#: CAC001479952 88/89 90/91 92/93 94/95 96/97 98/99 00/01 02/03 04/05 Off-spec,aged/surplus inorg ton Inorganic solid waste ton .1 Off-spec,aged or surplus org ton .04 Other organic solids ton .3 Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:09 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5304 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Don and Lea Ann Rasmussen Description: To the HB city council members: We,the undersigned, are residents of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. We urge you to vote against the planned subdivision of the park. Purchasing the lot would inflict undo financial hardship upon the residents who are on a fixed income. In addition, there are many pending issues at the park, not limited to but including the water drainage problems and the open ditch along Beach Blvd in front of the park. The cost to correct these issues would most likely be passed on to the residents by way of increased lot prices and/or increased rents. Thank you for giving this issue a serious review. Please vote no. Sincerely, Don and Lea Ann Rasmussen Space 81 Expected Close Date: 05/18/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. u�ue 6117110 5/17/2010 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:13 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5278 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Rosemary Robinson Description: Hi - I have been a resident of Shorecliff MHP for almost 7 years -having lived in Huntington Beach all my life yes -true Native, I think Shorecliff is a great place to retire to, although I do miss my beautiful property on Pine Street, but to much to take care of. I just want to let you know that those people that speak at the Council Meeting's that are against the Conversion of this property DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. I am in favor of the Conversion. I do not speak at the Meetings because 3 minutes does not give me a chance to express my thoughts. I have attended several of the meetings only to hear these people get up and complain about the same things over and over. Please vote for the Conversion. Thank you, Rosemary Robinson Expected Close Date: 05/14/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i Madeline J. Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd. 4290 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 May 14, 2010 Honorable Mayor and City Council members City of Huntington Beach RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park- Tentative Tract Map#17296 Honorable Mayor and City Council members, Please deny the above tract map because of the following: HCD violation, attached 2 lawsuits pending in Orange County Superior Court, one pertaining to the failure to maintain the above property. The laws in the State of California afford every person living in a mobile home park a dry and safe lot to place their mobile home/manufactured home. As you know by several photo presentations and the HCD report these owners are in violation of this law. Economic displacement of residences due to extraordinary rents. Some rents are being raised in excess of $300 a month right now. State rent control for this park is plainly a joke and the owners know it. The rents will be at market rent or above by the time the DRE approves the sub-division and the 4 year period starts. Failure to disclose the 2 lawsuits to all persons wanting to purchase their lots is a violation of the DRE laws. Every person who purchases will be named as a co-defendant in the lawsuits until they are settled. I CAN'T AFFORD to improve Beach Blvd. nor the City storm drain. Please DO NOT mandate these improvements as conditions. The owners will definitely pass these costs onto everyone living in the park. I can't imagine the thousands of dollars this will cost all of us. The infrastructure in this park is approaching 40 years of age. Has it been inspected? Does the City care? Is this sub-division a change of use? The City has said this park will remain a mobile home park. A mobile home park has spaces for rent and the person owns their home. Sub-division will definitely change the use of this land when approved. What about the oil well on the property? Is the City concerned about this? You should be. It isn't indicated on the above tract map. WHY? Huntington Shorecliffs is a sub-standard mobile home park. We live in sub-standard conditions. We are all seniors. The water problems were created by the original owner,passed on to the current owner, and now the current owner/applicant is trying to pass on these water/sub-standard conditions to all of the seniors living here. Nice way to get your money back and not have to provide a healthy environment for the tenants. What a tra t . Mad ne ey �`� Madeline Seymour Space 290 R EC IE V E D Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park MAY 17 2010 Huntington Beach May 17, 2010 CITY COUNCIL OFFICE Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach RE: Tentative Tract Map 17296 application for sub-division Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Please deny the above application for sub-division. Second Appellant Division, the Carson Harbor Village on March 30, 2010 also supports the City's way to establish the right for cities to consider the outcome of the resident survey. Our survey clearly shows the majority of the park opposing the sub- division. State AB 930 Section 66427.5 Sub F "sub divider to avoid economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents." This is being violated now, even before the sub- division is approved. Section 8 housing has been canceled; persons are being required to move from this park by August 3 1' or loose their Section 8 Housing status, having to re-apply at a later date. The Section 8 applications are closed and projected re-opening is 8-10 years in the future. The State Rent Control, the applicant so boasts about, is a joke. The rents will be at market rate BEFORE the sub-division is approved by the DRE. Rents are between $1000 and $1400 at this time. Madeline Seymour Page 1 of 2 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 11:36 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5310 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: William Seymour Description: Madeline Seymour Space 290 Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park May 17, 2010 RE: Tentative Tract Map 17296 application for sub-division Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Please deny the above application for sub-division. City Ordinance 3689 Chapter 234.04 Definitions H. Mobilehome Park—An area of land where two or more mobile home sites are rented, or held out for rent,to accommodate mobilhomes used for human. habitation. Mobilhome Park shall not include a mobilhome subdivision of stock cooperative. Is the owner going to be required to offer all lots in this park for sale? If so this changes the above definition and change of use. If he is not required to offer all 304 spaces for sale this is not a true sub-division and can/should be considered a sham conversion. Second Appellant Division, the Carson Harbor Village on March 30, 2010 also supports the City's way to establish the right for cities to consider the outcome of the resident survey. Our survey clearly shows the majority of the park opposing the sub-division. State AB 930 Section 66427.5 Sub F "sub divider to avoid economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents." This is being violated now, even before the sub-division is approved. Section 8 housing has been canceled; persons are being required to move from this park by August 31 st or loose their Section 8 Housing status, having to re- 5/171.10 Page 2 of 2 apply at a later date. The Section 8 applications are closed and projected re- opening is 8-10 years in the future. The State Rent Control, the applicant so boasts about, is a joke. The rents will be at market rate BEFORE the sub-division is approved by the DRE. Rents are between $1000 and $1400 at this time. Madeline Seymour Expected Close Date: 05/18/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/17/2010 William J. Seymour 20701 Beach Blvd. #8 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 May 14,2010 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Tentative Tract Map#17296 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I am 90 years of age and have lived in the above park for over 5 years. I am asking you to deny the above Tract Map#17296 I, like many others, am on a fixed income from Social Security and a small Pension. The owner's representative has continued to say no one will be economically evicted from the park. I just received a letter from the park raising my rent$295 a month starting July I"- Along with the high rents everything is being passed on to us to pay. The storm drain improvement and Beach Blvd. improvement will be paid for by everyone who lives in this park. Please DO NOT mandate these improvements. I can't afford them. The State rent control the owner's representative continues to boast about to the City is a joke. The rents will be at market rate by the time the DRE approves this sub-division. So how will the State rent control work? The lot prices will be so high;no lender will lend to purchase these lots to senior citizens. What happen to caring about the senior citizens of this City? Why are we throw away people? The infrastructure in this park is aging yearly and approaching 40 years. Has this infrastructure been inspected? When? By what company? The City Council could and should ask these questions of the applicant and be presented with the inspection reports for public record. There are 2 lawsuits pending in Orange County Superior Court. One of these suits is for failure to maintain the park. I can't believe the City is hearing this application before these lawsuits are settled, especially when one has to due with the sub-standard conditions we are forced to live in. Attached you will find a copy of the HCD violation. As you can see,we have not been exaggerating the water problems in this park for years. HCD agrees with us. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request to deny the application. L � �� C. 4i l:;;: P :ar. r• iy:c_,..r� '�..c. i;.�,t:/ � +:u :. -a3t:.i7.+- •._ 'hi. .- ;1 r.� ,�'♦r` ''0 u's+t_n. «i Jam,:. r ti •:l __1 I=t/;i r'.�tili't.4;f it�t:. t:'�:1 i�t::x'� i t)i�f:: :iF� -•tn ! t .-.Y...:r=l.c .' i _. h a':•r- .:. _i' :. , _,.:;. t a;- !' ,:;n- u ` -...-,.. .:. t,_ Y-. .c o.•..Cr... w - � .`. w ■. ,- �. r. � ■ 1.1.♦-_I:=t .,1.t.,,.- i. t._.t<.._ ..�Zrf^-t:: t �t -. '�:i.� -�.i' -. ..;s i,. ! . - a Ii i1r1 s iit f 1; {.1 ! '•' 1 TT:," ;'P F.. a'i,f tt li:R, Ilr' #77:iIIFbt:�M'1 1 :t i��rl'i:Or" (d !Ht'' tJ F.✓.'� :.:«; Miff - :Jt:�; J f',t.t=. . ift .F:F' r! f t f #ii'•- tti i-i:.«:}#. 11,f!F:x; !.;.;}:},' #'-1: :i t 1 11':1.:} .. 17_ 11':t i i: t 1 v #.'.+ at,i• Uf l�.+ f 1'il"�:< F !'# [,•f 4:1al if ' y'.., r' idr;�`i''r Ml IrI1.F "1 t i f:'4CI&I:7.n`i I77- ;E --5 MM77C1�" ai'i•' F. tl.l'.1 i! CE.`,_. !%3),.. :'11!.''1.1.:.. E,.1: F,,!'f li!:t:"J tl, '.ii: rE,_.. :l Fi.�t:s'i;, 'fli(- :t(::±. ':(! •:! IT, t! f;l;: �;i' '.s.:) :+t• ��;s: ':i;l tl.. f /.i:# • t :.,-h:tl 1'..1; ,1'1 /.;+4; i.,t`:t..<f :!1-.,f. it tit,f. '.Ili 11=f t..f„ E i'i,l:t':� •. } '1,F':t :1 :i',':( }•h•:F.:: 't,E.,',t tF,#1ti ' F'it.�i: 11'r „ :.' 11Pit1';� ul"Jt EEi;:4�•t ! �1, ;P.Ii:Ct d%•: ° :It ''!'};1 ' 1t11'i tf ' itt: Xl' 1. t t:F. 'ii�`tii it..: IY: Ff:q, '�. #'F••:a,. i# t:''.t # I f=�! r}t':)... ,I �i,#fI,;Y i- :W'Ir f 'F IIY : !E M i,iTI :t Ill U# k *.i :d. !1 :f:' f }A.Plt ' _ :t# f3:'1'. +•:i.G�!IJ t'F.:f : i f !ir'O1111r i:#:�''t: f .�1. :7 :� I!- #-: L.:%I1:4�.ii' +.F.# '. 19f1y'+ ti-1' SI•.. f':f't9 Et:Ml:1''�. i] oMis,:4: :>'f'a:yE ; #'ll:. «U'.f�.i; i :.}r vG.it :.t•e'L.✓. !II:: } ;,t 11 Pf ;1f,il _y CO- STATE OF CALIFORNMaUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY � DEPARtME@i'�of HOUSING AND UNITY DES 1D# 30 IVIP DIVISION OF CODES AND STANDARDSSquftMAM AC Fff COMUMMMMUMBAM Dd. 3t23r10, bp3cbd by D=M Waste pap.2 of 2 srNMRS911200 Correction refired from the site inspection of Huntington Shorecliff MHP.Violations of grading of streets and lots and non '-sum pump wf requira the fDROWMV x 1.Pursuad to SEC.- 1116 L-ot and park area gradm&Sireeb and Mobile Horne Lots are a violation and.SEC: 1045 2-Sump pumps installed by park operator is in violation of SEC: 1016 Alternate approvaK 1018 puts required and SEC: 1134, 1185, 1151-and 1152 LRectrical RegWafions. --'3.`P"u�ipef�sr pa�v�e� servnrec�i—' oas�cve�fir re�novai iif' - water from mobile home lots i MMAMMluredhome and shop water eMering lots from pads roads.From CA Registered Civil Engiiiecring firm and or Geologist. Park operator shall coned noted violations listed above. Corrections listed must be cmVhftd by 48M010 a rebqvctixig will be Park Operators Violations: SEC: 1610 Abatement of violations.lark grading for lots and park toads and sump pumps undermanufactured homes. Respousability:Park operator shall not pemait a unit,accessory building,st nwture or building congxwent to be constructed,instA4 used or maintainedin the park unless construcm4 installed,used and maintained in accordance with the requirements of T 25CM Chapter 2 Park Operators Violations: Article 1 Cliepter S Figula6ans General pwvmons SECA610 Abatement of violations require L Pursuant to Title 25 CCR SEC: 16M and SEQ 1690 noted violations is declared in violation and a nubmM. Pursuant to SEC:1696 Panic operator is in violation of with mobile home parks act* SEC: 1426 Responsibility Park operator violations issue& Park oPerator is in violation of.Tine-25 CCR Health and Safety Code SPEC: 18420 Notice of Violation. SEC 18550 (c)(d)Unlawfal Use SEC: 18605 Regulations-goveming MH parks and lots within ME parks.Park operator shalt ensure corrections indicated in correction order issued to park opegator are Failure to coMply With correction order and violation under SEC: 18700 wilful failure to comply by park operator, - may be guilty of a or.So.Area A s)auction may be required to cover violation if not. in a timely indicated Pursuant to Title 25 CCR Division 1 Chapter 2 Article 1 Ad_Administrative and EnforcementSEC: 1t�.5(arc)Park operator shall pay a Fee of$196 for each site viskif corrections are not completed or approval of an.adension of the by a So.Area Administrator before 4/3012010 Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:49 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5290 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Question Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Hila Sweet Description: The proposed burden of older senior citizens on fixed incomes to purchase property we neither the funds or time left tobuy .The amount of spiraling costs to do this for over 3/4ths of the seniors living presently at the Mobile Home Park would leave them no choice but to move out getting nothing for the homes most have lovingly incorporated into their whole life. We are at the mercy of the City Councils decision whether a lot of us lose a way of life we can handle or,drop even lower into economc hardship. Expected Close Date: 05/17/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/17/2010 Page 1 of 1 Ferrera, Caren From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:54 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5298 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Larry Trautman Description: To The Huntington Beach City Council: I am a current resident of Huntington Beach Shorecliffs. I am very concerned about the new owners desire for the parks conversion subdivision plans. I am 69 years old and am living on a fixed income that qualifies me as low income. The current owners plans would create a substantial for me. There is a water run off on my property that is so severe that the parks maintenance department had to dig a hole and put in a sump pump to handle all of the abundance of excess water. I believe the new park owners subdivision plan would be categorized as Elder Abuse. I am totally against this plan under any situations. Larry Trautman SPC 127 LT Expected Close Date: 05/18/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 5/17/2010 Esparza, Pay From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 2:15 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5288 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Larry Trautman Description: From: Larry Trautman [mailto:ltrautmanl @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 1:54 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Larry Trautman Subject: HB Subdivision To The Huntington Beach City Council: I am a current resident of Huntington Beach Shorecliffs. I am very councerned about the new owners desire for the parks conversion subdivision plans. I am 69 years old and am living on a fixed income that qualifies me as low income. The current owners plans would creat a substantial hardship for me. There is a water run off problem under my LT Expected Close Date: 05/17/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. d� 4e, a wt n c ck rl-,rL f(j p a� 57/ y?ass all o An V, yl /0 LA/ co ew= 0 � A WO r-L e- e&-6- Uel- -7z e- Sever a- cva e lc rei t A q/lp AIL -S /yt 0 o op o e-/-y 5j 1,4 Ll 01�9 o r ;�z 4s- 14 I ' �© Lz ) Ae To: City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 From: Larry and Maureen Schrock Space 183 Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Date: May 13, 2010 Subject: 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 304 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. Which defined by Goverment Code 66427.5 will cause ECONOMIC DISPLACEMENT of many of the Seniors Citizens' living in this park including ourselves. Rent control by the State for four years does little good when we are already experiencing$200 to$400 dollar rent increases as soon as our five year leases expire. This means we cannot sell to recoup any of our investment in our homes because of the high rent which will be $1600 to $1800 per month by the time the conversion is completed. That is not rent control. 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. The Park also has many issues such as poor drainage and water 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 two ,S'/« //D May 12, 2010 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Attn: Mayor Cathy Green and Council Members This letter is to let you know that we oppose the subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park. There are too many issues that have not been taken into consideration. Those are: • The majority of residents oppose it. • Economic displacement of Section 8 residents • Change of use from mobile home park with rented spaces to condo°owning spaces. Is this a change of use? • Many unresolved water issues(Health hazards to the elderly residents). • Many violations(Noted by Department of Housing and Community Development) in their report dated March 23, 2010. This above all should be a red flag to you to really look more closely at this issue. • The responsibility of fixing all the issues in this park should not fall on the homeowners. The owners should be made to take care of all of these issues before any final decisions are made. • So many elderly homeowners have lost their homes already by just walking away because they could not afford the high rent increases. • There is a capped oil well that is not on the map. This is a very big concern. Why it is not required that the location of this oil well be disclosed? • The City of Huntington Beach needs to step up and help the homeowners. What is happening here is a form of ELDER ABUSE! Please do something to help us. Sincerely, i Dorothy Ellsworth Judie Smith Pamela Smith '0 `e6 �i9 C 01 u"� 0"7dyJ "/J fans, at a cost of approximately$1,000, at each end under our coach to try to eliminate some of the dampness. If we buy the lot we buy the problems as they now stand. Buying a lot also means as a member of the new forming Home Owners Association I am now a partner in the existing lawsuits against the park. The water problem was created by the Allen's and Rohr's raising the level of the streets higher than the lots on which our homes set. This should be between the previous owners and the new owners. 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 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 an 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 rent of$1,600 per month just for the land their coach sits on with no ceiling in sight. This is what residents who are under old contracts) have to look forward to when their contracts expire and new contracts are implemented within the next year or two. The existing owners have already taken over approximately 20 homes in the park because the owners of the coach have had to walked away due to the fact that they and/or their heirs cannot sell or rent their coach's. The new owners are renting those coaches for less than they are charging those of us who own our coaches and are responsible for its maintenance. 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. At this time with the existing information available we are opposed to the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs. f t4e �.J�.di c.�/u� Gam;°�ieh-aJc� �� �+�4�✓ 7a � z��-��-�(�V � �i is � C . JOAN WALKER 20701 Beach Blvd.#264 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 May 14,2010 Honorable Mayor, Cathy Green Honorable Mayor Pro Tem,Jill Hardy Council Members: Joe Carchio. Devin Dwyer, Keith Bohr, Gil Coerper, Don Hansen I am writing to you as a very concerned resident of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park regarding the application by Park owners for Subdivision conversion into individual lots for sale submitted to you, the city council, for approval. I oppose this subdivision and strongly urge you to do the same. I am concerned that this conversion will cause economic displacement of the majority of us senior citizens currently residing in the park,most of whom are on limited fixed incomes. The management has already eliminated Section 8 which they promised they would never do. This is truly a form of Elder Abuse. In addition, if this conversion is approved the residents will ultimately absorb the costs because the infrastructure is so old and needs much improvement to bring it up to par. The costs would be passed on to the residents in one form or another,either through the homeowners association or if repaired prior,to an increase in the form of a pass-through on the rent. This has already happened. We are still paying for improvements made 5 years ago which could be considered minor when compared to the cost of repairing the storm drain or improvements to Beach Blvd.. As you are aware,the majority of the residents who responded in the Huntington Shorecliffs Resident Survey were against this subdivision that would cause a"change in use' to condominium. After talking to many of those who voted for it and those that were undecided many did not realize the economic responsibility they were agreeing to, example old sewer system, water damage,pending law suits just to name a few. Once again, I strongly urge you, actually I plead to your conscience do not let money hungry owners and their attorneys displace over 300 law abiding,voting senior citizens. Where will we go? We have already invested everything that we have in this place we thought we could comfortable retire in. Many have already been forced to walk away from their homes which the management has taken over and are renting. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT US. I hope you do. Sincerely, / .�'// /� -- �--- -- --- ell 73 L-VL , y JC a ale t2, .......... ._ fit%% J�✓J !J./� , ���y�C.� s ' AI I Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 9:03 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 5302 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Mary Landin Description: 16May2010 City of Huntington Beach Mayor Cathy Green Mayor Tern Jill Hardy Council Member Keith Boht Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Devin Dwyer Council Member Don Hansen 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. This is my 3rd request to the City Council to reject the subdivision for Huntington Shorecliff Mobilehome Park. The majority of residents voted NO in a survey for the subdivision! What more do you want from us to let you the City Council know we are against the subdivision that would cause a CHANGE IN USE of the park to condominium. Under Government Code section 66427.5 is considered(i.e., take into account deliberate on, weigh.etc)the results of the resident survey in determining whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The Planning Commission has ignored the information brought fort by the Public regarding the true Economic Displacement impact this will have on the Huntington Shorecliffs homeowners. 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 i 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 Upon doing some research I found that M. Cirillo and Star Management and park owners have judgments 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. This is the same pattern that we are experiencing here at Huntington Shorecliff and other parks in Calif. It is apparent the Park Owner dose not care that their actions will displace those on a fix income with cost that are being demanded. HK&amp;C are not in compliance with Government Code Section 66427.5. This subdivision will cause Economic Displacement. I'm one of the residents that will be displaced. The Park Owner knows each homeowners income and with their calculation for rent increases and pass though are beyond the means of the majority of the residents. HK&amp;C have failed to disclose that those who purchase the lots will be named co- defendants in the FAILURE to MAINTAIN lawsuit currently in the courts for the previous Park Owners this is very serious and should not have been hidden from the homeowners nor the City of Huntington Beach. To continue with approval of this Subdivision help to continue the spread to other parks here in HB and State wide. Diane Lomond SPC 205 Huntington Shorecliffs Expected Close Date: 05/18/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. z Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:57 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@s'urfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#5299 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Irmin Langton Description: Irmin Langton has FAXED comments to Council Members regarding the Ward-Garfield specific plans voicing opposition to the planned structure "within the Edison yard." Expected Close Date: 05/18/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION (OR POLICE) Date: 3/19/2010 To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered N/A City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 3/19/2010 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 3/19/2010 City Council Office (1 Copy) Date Delivered 3/19/2010 @� Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 3/19/2010 -_--�® Fled By: HK&C-Hart,King,Coldren Re: Appeal of Tentative Tract Map 17296-Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Conversion Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L. Flynn, CMC City Clerk (714)536-5227 Fee Collected: $2,704.00 Form Completed by: Kelly Mandic, Deputy City Clerk y r i- _ Too 3123, low ISO;, a',. a� x —_ 5 .-_ „ Wk F .ham may.J'S.rMOM VE6i..w�raT AMR. RRIS �.t-�`�' '� w•�'�,--- ,.��"s. '�` � ���H `°� - �. -,u�. � _ fit. � �-� �a'�"'����`w+."k"�•£; � -�"�e'�a�--ant :� '� � --Yr�,�.z a. P�'•�`� .��,- - � �'-•-�.'¢;�' v. 1 HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS 3128 REFERENCE NO DESCRIPTION INVOICE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT TAKEN AMOUNT PAID 03 18 10 appeal 3/18/10 2,704.00 2,704.00 CHECK DATE CHECK NO PAYEE DISCOUNTS TAKEN CHECK AMOUNT 3/18/10 f3128 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH $2,704.00 - .farmern Merchants Bank . ` 3128 . .- ? - Omo9e Otfin•71F288-8950 .. _ .. - HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS � 1400E:4TKST. wwwr,�.�om�r�een�uilaea�zs�e SANTA ANA,CA 92701-5147 90=119 1222 (714)48076828 CHECKNO: DATE AMOUNT - Memo: 3128- Mar,18,.2010 P�Y Two Thousand Seven Hundred Four and 00/100 Dollars TO THE ORDER OF. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE - - II'00 3 1 2811' 1: L 2 2 20 L 1981: 12 O S 30 5 13 HK&, C HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com March 19, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v,1 VIA HAND DELIVERY r-.3 C= Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach ("City") 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk RE: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park ("Park") 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.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 i inn P f-, K i;w C i .'� %::1"7 i 'D R F:N 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.App.4th 1270, 1298) That State policy is part of the Legislature's comprehensive regulation of mobilehome parks to the exclusion of regulation by cities: 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 rN . 7 t r5 H K, R F , 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.AppAth at 1279) The Legislature established its preemption of city requirements for existing mobilehome park conversion in the express language of Government Code Section 66427.5 (e): The subdivider shall be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency, which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with this section. [underline added] 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 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 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 HART, KING; r,CIL.DR N 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.AppAth at 1299) The California Court of Appeal concluded that cities could not consider general plan or zoning compliance, could not consider whether there was analysis regarding long-term management and maintenance of common facilities and infrastructure, could not consider existing health and safety conditions, and could not even impose criteria for satisfaction of the Government Code Section 66427.5 requirements: However commendable or well-intentioned these additions may be, they are improper additions to the exclusive statutory requirements of section 66427.5. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth at 1299) 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.AppAth 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 i 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 ....[¶] ... [¶] If there can be no assurance as to the contents of the [report], it may become a meaningless exercise." However, a careful examination of the relevant statutes extracts much of the appeal in the County's approach. (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.AppAth 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 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 HK, tea . 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.AppAth 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 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 HK& C Akx�r'. E.or�_, .rti MILt>Re N 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. Planninq 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.AppAth 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.AppAth 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.App.4th 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 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 HKe H,5,R-t. KIN5 sx E n 1 1)RE_N 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. 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 H K .k 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) 36014.112/4821-4 532-3269v.1 1,1zf,?'f. KI;,i _' rx ltmil C"St2t N 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) 36014.112/4821-4532-3269v.1 MART, KIN[-3 & C01 €)REN 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 Huntington Beach Planning Commission • 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 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org 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). GAPC\N0A\2010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.1 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 GAMNOX2010\3-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorediffs Attachment 1.2 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 GAMNOX201013-9-2010 TTM#17296 Huntington Shorecliffs Attachment 1.3 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 concems, 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 attorneys 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 A°Y HART, KING & C©L.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 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 ("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 vwvw.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 HK&'C 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: 36014.112/4826-6788-7621v.1 HK1.!3__ ,C HART, KING & C,'m7LDREN 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 RIVIH-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 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 w Boyd L. Hill cc: John Saunders Michael Cirillo Robert S. Coldren Burt Mazelow 36014.112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 HK&C 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 36014.112/4826-6788-7621 v.1 IU COPY H K U F t HART, KING Fx C©LDREN Boyd L.Hill bhill@hkclaw.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 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-Approvar-letter-is-also-enclosed- - -- herewit. Shorecliff LP,JS Stadium, LLC, Huntington BSC Park,LP, ShorecliffMain,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 I Fx 714.546.7457 HKcS_x',,,,C HART. KINS & 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: 36014.112/4848-81 37-8053v.1 H K&"Z`e C 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.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) 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 Ko,--: HART, KING & CCIi_QREN 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.App.4th 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 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 HART. KINS & COLDREN 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.AppAth 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.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) 36014.112/4848-8137-8053v.1 HKrS HART, KINE; & C OLDREN 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.AppAth 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) 36014.11 2/4848-8137-8053v.1 HART. KINt. & COLDREN 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 .... IT] ... [¶] 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 "Kt-Sie, C HART. KING' & COL.DPEN 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 36014.112/4848-81 37-8053v.1 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 & COL.PRFAN 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 2/4848-8137-8053v.1 HK& C }-TART. KING & CCILOREN 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 REFERENCE NO DESCRIPTION INVOICE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT TAKEN AMOUNT PAID 021810 2/18/10 494.00 494.00 CHECK DATE CHECK NO PAYEE DISCOUNTS TAKEN CHECK AMOUNT 2/18/10 3085 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH S494.00 `farmers Merchao►s Bank 3085 -- Orange Mae•714 28"450 �� �1220 East Katella Avanme ISITINGTON SHORECLIFFS zo Orange,CA98fi7. - 19��' 1400 E.4TH ST:;• www.fmb.com"Teldankar 714-63fi-Tfi18 SANTA ANA;C&92701-5147 ` 90=119 1222 _ (714)480-8828'; a '.. CHECK NO DATE'" AMOUNT. 0 Memo .- 30U, Feb 18 '2010 *************$494 00 ' PAY Four Hundred Ninety Four:and,00/100 Dollars TO.THE. ORDER ,.. . -CITY OF AUNTINGTON_BEACH - .`AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 11■00 30B 511® 1® L 2 2 20 1 L 9B1: 12 0 5 30 5 Bill HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS 3085 REFERENCE NO. DESCRIPTION INVOICE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT DISCOUNT TAKEN AMOUNT PAID 021810 2/18/10 494:00 494.00 CHECK DATE CHECK NO PAYEE DISCOUNTS TAKEN CHECK AMOUNT 2/18/10 3085 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH $494.00 'RODUCT DLM206 USE WITH 91500 ENVELOPE PRINTED IN U.S.A. A '. 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,surf city-hb.org 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. 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. • HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTfNGTON 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(a)SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692 /SBOGART(cDSURFCITY-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 Arboriculturai 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 255.12) 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 Pagc 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 25114) 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) &V3dwardsTlanning Commission\Shorecliffs\Beach 20701 TCM 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 2-2-10.doc Page 3 or 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 (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) 19, 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) GAEdwardsTlaraiing CommissionMorecliffs\B=h 20701 TTM 17296(11A 2010-023)Dev Req 2-2-10.doc 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 232.040) 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:\Edwards\'lanningCommission\Shorecliffs\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA2010-023)Uev Req 2-2-t0.doc d CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -Ir - 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/ 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 I. Article 6-Fire Protection Standards for Parks(this can be found at www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/mp/mpRegs.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(3/4)-inch female swivel hose connection for fire suppression use. d. The following areas shall be in compliance-with the Huntingtorf 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. 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 parkin_g 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 lire Apparatus Access. L 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, 5In Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.huntin.tonbeachca.gov if you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at 714.536.5411 S:\Prevention\1-Development\1-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. 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) — 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 File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org 1J 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 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. 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) 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. 201.0-0023 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/SBOGARTASURFCITY-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, C,:1Edwards\Plannin-.Commission\Shorecliffs\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc 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 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 backfiow device to comply'with current Water Standards. (Resolution 5921, Title 17 State Regulation, SMA 66411.5(a), and SMA 66428.1(d)) 2 GAEdwards0anning Commission\Shoreclirrs\$each 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc 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 GALdwardsTlanning Comm ission\Shoredi11s1Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc .� 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 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 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 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. 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) F0 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 TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-536-5561 /ETHAN.EDWARDS@SURFCITY-HB4ORG PLAN REVIEWER: STEVE BOGART,SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL: 714-374-1692/SBOGART(cD-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. RB-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:\Edevards\Planning Commission\Shorecliffs\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2.2-10.doc 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 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 GAEdwardsTianning Commission\Shorecliffs\Beach 20701 TTM t7296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-10.doc 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 GAL:dwardsTlanning COmmission\Shorecliffs\Beach 20701 1TM 17296(PA 2010-023)Conditions 2-2-1 O.doc vv� u i.vvuaaavaa� vy a.ua�y a�uau�. - Jv�uvau Yua a�uJJvvaua.�.J a usv a va a i Switch Client 1 Preferences!Sign out I?i Heip "Search' Research Tasks .Get a Document Shepard's� AlertsTotal Litigator -Transactional AdvisorCounsel Selector c�r�S51er 1 I�i,toty i FOCUSTm Terms Search Within original Results(l-3) Advanced... Source: Legal>/.. />CA State Cases,Combined;1 Terms: name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search) -rSelect 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: [***1] Superior Court of Sonoma County, No. SCV240003, Raymond 3. 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, 6 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 fi 66427.5 in accordance with the constitutional principle of preemption set forth in Cal. Const., art. XI, 6 7.The ordinance was expressly preempted because 6 66427.5, subd, (e), limited the scope of a hearing for approval of a conversion application to the issue of compliance with 5 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 Hide Civil Procedure>Appeals>Standards of Review>De Novo Review~«i 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=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 uet a ijocumeni - ny rarly name - sequoia parx associates rage l or iv Governments>Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations~ui Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments 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. This is an established rule of preemption analysis. More Like This Headnote Governments> Local Governments>Duties&Powers + HN3+See Cal. Const., art. XI, q 7. Governments> Local Governments>Ordinances&Regulations ! Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments«s HNaaA 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 is Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments - Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances a! HN51The 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&Regulations Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments t" 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 tq 'kiGovernments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments <i HNz+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 HNsa See Gov. Code, 6 66427.5. Real Property Law> Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions M. HN9+Under Gov. Code, 5 66427.5, subd. (e), a city council only has the power to determine if a subdivider has https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 uet a uocumem - ny Parry Name - sequoia parx associates rage i of iv 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 Prooertv Law> Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions ps. HN10+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 Sheoardize., Restrict By Headnote Governments>Local Governments>Duties&Powers«x- Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances�tl HN11+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 ti Governments>Legislation>Interpretation t«1 HN12±When the legislature amends a statute without altering portions of the provision`that have previously been judicially construed, the legislature is presumed to have been aware and to have acquiesced in the previous judicial construction. Accordingly, reenacted portions of the statute are given the same construction they received before the amendment. More Like This Headnote Governments>State&Territorial Governments>Relations With Governments : Real Property Law> Mobilehomes&Mobilehome Parks>Subdivisions w.t Real Property Law>Zoning&Land Use>Ordinances t HN13*Goy. Code, 6 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. � 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 5 66427.5, subd. (e), limits the scope of a hearing for approval of a conversion application to the issue of compliance with fi 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.) [*1271] https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFB Set=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Val u 1lVVUall Vlll - V,' 1 ul l�' 1\Ullll, - J�I.IUVIU FU111 UJJV V1UlVJ 1 Ur,li-T V1 17 HEADNOTES CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS HEADNOTES ca(s)i(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. 11(1)x(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)1(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)v(6) Mobilehomes,Trailers,and Parks § 3—Regulation—Conversion from Rental to Resident-owned— Local Regulation Preempted.—Under Gov. Code, 5 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 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. 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&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(s)a(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)±(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. ✓z 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. "(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 66427.5 also could find some plausibility from the statutory language. Nevertheless, the ordinance crossed the line established by the Legislature as marking territory reserved for the state and thus was expressly preempted by§ 66427.5. [Cal. Real Estate Law &Practice (2009) ch. 472, S 472.35; Cal. Forms of Pleading and Practice (2009) ch. 126A, Constitutional Law, 5 126A.24.] 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 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 Amid Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. JUDGES: Opinion by Richman , I., 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 sea.) 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."(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=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Bret a liocument - Dy rarty ivame - sequoia parx associates rage e or iy 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 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 Francisco (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1097-1098 f53 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.App.4th 744 766 fn. 13 f 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 HN-'our review of the trial court's order is de novo because it involves a pure issue of law, namely, whether the Ordinance is preempted by section 66427.5. (Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles County, Inc, v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 119, 132 1`38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5751; Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 335, 339 f 118 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 F40 Cal. Rotr. 2d 402, 892 P.2d 11451 [vagueness]; Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 679-680 1­51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 8211 [equal protection]), not that they were preempted by state law. As for Sequoia's approach, it would appear feasible only if the state statute has language stating the unambiguous intent by the Legislature expressly forbidding cities and counties from acting. cA(i)V(1) But HN2�Ffor 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, [***Sl preemption of local legislation by state law is a constitutional principle. HN3W'"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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 VL.L 0.LVl+U111y11L- V)' 1 u1Ly 11CU11y - 3VlIUV1Q P(111� CL3aU%,1CLLy3 1 u�y i v1 1 to our Supreme Court: HN44"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)7(3) "Moreover, HN-57the'general principles governing state statutory preemption of local land use regulation are well settled. ... "`Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates [citations], contradicts [citation], or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication [citations]."" [Citation.] "Local legislation is'duplicative'of general law when it is coextensive therewith and contradictory'to general law when it is inimical thereto. Local legislation enters an area fully occupied'by general law when the Legislature has expressly manifested its intent to fully occupy the area or when it has impliedly done so in light of recognized indicia of intent. [Citation.]"(Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz(2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1149-1150 1`45 Cal. Rotr. 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 (16 Cal. Rotr. 2d 215, 844 P.2d 5341.) HN6: CA(4) ,,(4)"With respect to the implied occupation of an area of law by the Legislature's full and complete coverage of it, this court recently had this to say: '"Where the Legislature has adopted statutes governing a particular subject matter, its intent with regard to occupying the field to the exclusion of all local regulation is not to be measured alone by the language used but by the whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme."' [Citation.] We [***11] went on to say: "'State regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an intent to preclude local regulation."' [Citation.] We thereafter observed: "`Whenever the Legislature has seen fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject, the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned."' [Citation.] When a local ordinance is identical to a state statute, it is 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 f63 Cal. Rotr. 3d 67, 162 P.3d 5831.) HNztCA(s):(5)To discern whether the local law has entered an area that has been "fully occupied? by state law according to the"recognized indicia of intent"requires an analysis that is based on an overview of the topic addressed by [*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 f23 Cal. Rotr. 3d 453, 104 P.3d 8131; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 751 1`29 Cal. Rotr, 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 r209 Cal. Rotr. 682, 693 P.2d 2611, quoting Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 862 1`76 Cal. Rotr. 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. Co _ unty of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th_e 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, 53 798-799.10.) There are several provisions expressly ordering localities not to legislate in designated areas, such as the content of rental agreements (Civ. Code, 6 798.17, subd. (a)(1)), and establishing specified exemptions from local rent control measures (Civ. Code, 5� 798.21, subd. (a), 798.45). 2 By this statutory scheme,the state has undertaken to https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 kiet a liocumeni - oy rarty ivame - sequoia parx associates rage o ut 1 'extensively regulate[] the landlord-tenant relationship between mobilehome park owners and residents."(Greening v. Johnson (1997) 53 Cat.App.4th 1223, 1226 [62 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2141; accord, SC Manufactured Homes, Inc, v. Canyon View Estates, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 663, 673 [56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791; People ex rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Investment, Ltd. (2003) Ill Cal.App.4th 102, 109 [3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 4291.) FOOTNOTES 2 The Mobilehome Residency Law has been construed as not otherwise preempting or precluding adoption of residential rent control. (See Civ. Code,, 1954.25: Cacho v. Boudreau (2007) 40 Cal.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 &Saf. Code, �q 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 s"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, 5 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, 6 18015.)The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is in charge of enforcement. (Health &Saf. Code, qq 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, 16 8253; see also Health &Saf. Code, �4 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"].) https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 vv� a Lv�uiiiwit- uy i aiLy ixaiuc - Ncyuvia Yarn a6�vt�iaLc6 rages 7 vl 17 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., §§ 1130-1190), "Plumbing Requirements"(id., §§ 1240-1284), "Fire Protection Standards"(id., §§ 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, §§ 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. § 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. f*12821 Code Regs., 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; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, §§ 1008, 1020.4, 1020.7, 1025), and sets the penalties to be imposed for noncompliance (Health &Saf. Code, §§ 18504, 18700; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, §§ 1009, 1050, 1370.4). Sometimes, the state assumes exclusive responsibility for certain subjects, such as for earthquake-resistant bracing systems. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, § 1370.4, 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 Safetv 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, 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 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: HN9T"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?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 %JcL a 1JuL;uii1C11L- Uy rarty ivame - sequoia parx associates rage iv of iv 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.AoD.4th 1153 f 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 151 (El Dorado). At issue in El Dorado was a mobilehome park owner's application to convert its units from rental to resident owned.The renters opposed the conversion,"contending that they do not have enough information to decide whether to purchase or not, and the proposed conversion is merely a sham to avoid [Palm Springs'] rent control ordinance."(El Dorado, supra, 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1159.) The Palm Springs City Council approved the application, but made its approval subject to three conditions, requiring: "(1) the use of a`Map Act Rent Date,'defined as the date of the 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, r*12851 1157- 1158.) Palm Springs took the position that the conditions were authorized by Government Code section 66427.4, subdivision (c), "which authorized the city council to"`require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park."' (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 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 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?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 v� a Lv�,La m- uy i airy ivamv, - acLluma pain a3autiaL�a r arF, i i Ul 13, "(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�6) (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." (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 (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 e 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 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 op. 1166, 1177-1179, citing Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Nome Park(1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1168 1`55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2821.) cAM- (7) One other point of El Dorado is significant. HNIo+'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.Arm.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 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 parks 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.App.4th 1153.The court in this case concluded that the subdivision map approval process specified https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 -u _J .-V ..�...... .,...1...�,....F....... .,..,.,......,.....,.. - --a- -- -'- -' 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 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, fn. 13 [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 [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 seg.). Section V is a severability provision. Section VI establishes the effective date of the Ordinance as"30 days after the date of its passage."Section VII repeals an existing ordinance. Section VIII (mislabeled as"Section VI") provides for publication of the Ordinance in a specified newspaper of general circulation in the county. Section I declares the purposes of the Ordinance. It opens with the supervisors'finding that"the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary and appropriate to implement certain policies and programs set forth within the adopted General Plan Housing Element, and to comply with state laws related to the conversion of mobile home parks to resident ownership."Specific purposes included: (1)"To implement state [***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.- https://www.lexis.com/researchJretrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFB Set=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 v%..a a - vy i caiay I VCaall\. - 0�%JUWau Yuan � -tl- �- — .I 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 6 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 (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:Hwww.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFB Sel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 4,-)V,L a 1lUt�U1 ,11L- uy ratty iva111C- JClluuld PUIK dNNVU1dlC5 rage of oI iY "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 6 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 q 66427.5 (a)." -The Ordinance Is Expressly Preempted by Section-66427:5 "(8); (8) It is a given that HN11*regulation 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 Corp. v. Solano County Board of Supervisors (1991) 1 Cal.4th 81, 85, 95, 99 r2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513, 820 P.2d 10231; City of Burbank v. Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority(1999) 72 Cal.Ano.4th 366, 376 1­85 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 r217 Cal. Rptr. 1, 703 P.2d 3391; Santa Monica Pines, Ltd. v. Rent Control Board(1984) 35 Cal.3d 858, 868-869 1`201 Cal. Rotr. 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 &amending 5 66427.4 to cover mobilehome park conversions.)This was seven years https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 VGL a LV%,U111G11L - UY 1 a1Ly 1VA111G - JGLiUV1Zl YZLL It a5JVLJa LUb F agr- 1J Vl 17 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, q$ 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 10 Such as the provision of the Mobilehome Parks Act directing that"This part applies to all parts of the state and supersedes any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, applicable [***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" (� 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 f 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 the.Coun y'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 r253 Cal. Rotr. 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 https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFB Set=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 u1 tY lvcuu\. — J\,4L4%J1CL IJu111 CIJJV V1UlliJ 1 u�V 1 V Vl lJ 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. 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 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)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 [*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 [***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.Ano.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[B);f.(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, r*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: HNtz,r"[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 1`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 1`135 Cal. Rotr. 2d 602, 70 P.3d 10231; People v. Ledesma (1997) 16 Cal.4th 90, 100-101 f65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 610, 939 P.2d 13101.) FOOTNOTES 3.3 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.Apo.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. https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 VI L LL LvvLl111v - ".7 1 "LLY IN/ Ill, - 0L,LI{.LV1U IJLL111(AJJVL,ILLLL,J 1 1 / L/1 1l 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 HN1a+,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, 5 50780, subd. M.)The state is even willing to use public dollars to promote this policy. (Health &Saf. Code, 5 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 (100 Cal. Rptr. 609, 494 P.2d 6811, citations omitted; accord, Big Creek, supra, 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150: Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, supra, 7 Cal.4th 725, 747.)The Ordinance is plainly duplicative of section 66427.5 in several respects,as the County candidly admits: the Ordinance"sets forth minimum [***58] ... requirements"for the conversion application,"including: (a) submission of a survey of resident support in compliance with section 66427.5; (b) submission of a [*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), 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/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFB Set=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 %J%,l CA JJ Vl,U1a11,11L - vy 1 cU I.y 1Vu.allli - 3l�%JUUICL PCUrL (13aV1..,1aL%,a 1 "r,� 1 U v1 1 i [***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 (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 741, 751, fn. 5, 754-758 F90 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. as 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, 5 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. ca�si)+(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.Anp.4th 289, 324 1`76 Cal. Rotr. 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 JJ Terms: name(sequoia park associates) (Edit Search I Suggest 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 Caution:Possible negative treatment - Positive treatment is indicated - Citing Refs.With Analysis Available Citation information available https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc`=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 Uy i ui Ly i,4aiiit., - 3%.,4uvia Yatn a33vwaLw r arc t vt i 7 Click on any Shepard's signal to Shepardize®that case. Search(Research Tasks I Get a Document I Shepard's®I 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 About LexisNexis I Terms&Conditions I Contact Us LextSNexi Copyright t7 2010 LexisNexis,a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?cc=&pushme=l&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&tag... 2/18/2010 ' K& FILE COPY HART, KING & COLDREN 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 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 HART, KINE3 & COLDRF_.N 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.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 36014.11 2/4821-5016-6789v.1 SSA 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 36014.11 2/4821-5016-6789v.1 H K HART, 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 "surrey" 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 36014.112/4821-5016-6789v.1 HART, KING & COLDREN 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 813 where the Park was located,for a total amount of$112,000. 36014.112/4821-5016-6789v.1 HK&C HART, KtNO & GOLDREN 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 /ldren o e S Enclosures: Agreement re surrey 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) 36014.112/4821-5016-6789v.1 mK&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) 36014.112/4821-5016-6789v.1 HUNTINGTON SHORECLIFFS 1b ORILEHC31v E PARK RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT Govemment Code Section 66427.5 (d) requires that the owners of a mobi.lehome park that seeks to convert the park to resident ownership obtain a survey of resident support to be considered by the local agency with the subdivision application. The survey must be conducted by written ballot pursuant to an agreement between the park owner and the homeowner's association. This constitutes the Agreement between the Park Owners of the Hunting4on Shoreciiffs Mobilehome Park and the Huntington Shorecliffs Homeowners' Association pertaining to a survey of resident support. I. Survev Fonrl. The survey ballot form that shall be used for the survey of resident support for the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehonie .Park conversion to resident ownership shall be the attached "Survey re Conversion to Resident Ownership." This survey farm shall be revised before distribution to the residents only for the purpose of inserting the date or the "Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents," the date by which the survey is to be returned acid the address of the Homeowners' Association. 2, Conduct of _Survey.. The survey shall be conducted by die Homeowners' Association in the following manner. Within ten (10) days following notice from 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 be distributed by hand. delivery one survey forni. to each Park resident space. The Park Owners shall provide the tlomeovnie.rs' Association Board of.Directors with a complete list of the names and addresses of all residents who are entitled to participate in the survey. 'Me survey forins shall provide a date .for return of the survey to the Homeovvcaers' Association., which date is seven (7) days from the date of distribution of the survey: 3. Tabulation.of Results, On the eighth day.following distribution of the survey,the Homeowners' Association Board of Directors srsall meet to review the ballots to confirm. that they have been.signed by residents and to tabulate the results of the completed forms. 4. Submittal of Results, Immediately following the tabulation of the survey results, the Homeowners' Association Board of Directors shall submit the survey results in a letter format to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Director, Scott Hess, with a copy to the Park Owners. If the City makes a request, the I:lorneowners` Association shall provide the ori&nal survey forms and all other written materials pertaining to the survey to the City. On Behalf.of Park Owners: On.B- alf of omeownerss''/A�ssociation ' Print Nan=._- r' Print Name: -`- Date: ' . ,r `. :. Date 3 6014.1 12/4849-72454917v.I 5i•ORECLIFFS—HOA AGREEWNT RE RESII3EN'r SURVEY I i i 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 mobilehome park to resident ownership. Upon conversion,the existing residents will have the opportunity to purchase the Iand 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. 36014.112/4833-7842-2789v.1 1 SHORECLIFFS-RESIDENT SURVEY I support conversion of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Horne Park from a rental mobilehome park to a resident-owned mobilehome park. f 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 SHORECLIFFS-RESIDENT SURVEY Certification of Mailing of Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents (Government Code Sections 66427.5 (c)) I,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 t3SC Park, LP, JS Stadium,LLC, and Shorecliff 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 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 December 29,2009 at Santa Ana, California. Mike Cirillo 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 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 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 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 Geisomine Curatola Nancy Conti I I i-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 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 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 926484908 #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 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 Kin! 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 55 Space 53 Space 54 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 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 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 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 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. 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 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 I 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 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 107 Space 105 Space 106 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 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 92648-4908 Space 122 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Don Lyons Petronelia 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 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 92648-4908 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 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 926484908 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 926484908 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 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 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 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 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 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 926484908 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 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 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 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, HI 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 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 926484908 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 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 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 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 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Shirley Crabtree Bob Vliss 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 926484908 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 926484908 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 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 926484908 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 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 Albertina 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 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 926484908 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 Shirley Lewis John Mulloy Albert Terjenian 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 926484908 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 926484908 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 926484908 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 92648A908 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 926484908 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 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 Harries Linda Daquila Space 295 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 296 Space 297 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 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 C/O Joyce Grimm Wien 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 926484908 Judith Johnson Kathy Hanson 1908 W, Steinbeck 20701 Beach Boulevard Anthem,AZ 85086 Space 308 Huntington Beach, CA 926484908 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 Shorecliff Main, LP,the owners of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park, I certify that on February 19, 2010, I 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. 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 HART, KIND & COLDREN Boyd L Hill bhill@hkclaw corn February 19, 2010 File No.36014.1 1 214 852-26 5 5-5 397v.1 TO: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Residents Re: Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park Application for Testing 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 T00 p.m. at the following location: City Council Chambers City Hall, Lower Level City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 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& COI DREN r� ` Boyd llilr 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 09 19109 1 5®Many pane alglieawoo ww Zg x ww gZ iewaol up u4unullj 09t9109t9oAlany yi!m algltedwoo„8/9 Z x„G azis lagel ° Charles Baur Barbara Hein1 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 92648A908 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 Collette 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 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 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 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 Iovan Ralph Calderon Susan De Bord Sanders Ann Iovan 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 • i 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 92648-4908 Space 31 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 518"compatible with Avery @5160/8160 ' ° Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 0919/09 ig®fuaAV cane alglli'owoc ww Zg x unu gZ lPWJof ap alfanu113 a , 09 f810915®tlany gllM alglledwoo„g/g Z x„�ails lagal 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 9264BA908 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 92648-490B 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 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 I 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 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 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 I Space 60 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 ` Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09[2/0915®AJany cane algileuwu:J ww L9 x ww y6 tewJu}op d44d,wl13 0918/09 tg$)Ajany gtlrA alggcdwoa,,S/S 6 x,,[ 021S lagel 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 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Steve Hedden Steryn Nick Nannes Albert Wiiessmer Cheryle Hedden 20701 Beach Boulevard Billi 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 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 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 90 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 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.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 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09[Slog 19®AlaAV oane alg1leowoo ww Ly x ww gib luwiuf ep auaauit� 09 V9/09 G5e�joAy uilM algiledwoo„8/5 Z x„l azls laqel cam 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 92548-4908 Ken Datton 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 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 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 92648-4908 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 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Willi Gross Jim Chojokov Charles Asendorf 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Phyllis Asendorf Space 117 Space 118 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648A908 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 9264BA908 Space 125 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 _ label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 85160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 06160/8160 09L8/0919a A10AV cane alglieawoa ww Ly x ww S6 tewjul au auduuµ.� 09 L8/09 LS®�iaAV gjIm alq!jedwoa,.8/S Z x„I azls label NNW 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 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 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 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 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 Ibarra 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 153 Space 154 Space 155 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 11"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 85150/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160/8160 U914/uu lyg Aiaikd jdnu dlquuuwuu ww/y n ww h6+ewju}vN v}4viiu!}zj 091i3/09 i5®fi�any g1iM algltedwoo„8/9 Z x„t ails lagel ° � 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 Space161 Space162 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 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 92M-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 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 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 label size V x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 USL�/uut5v iudnV jdne dlq!lruwuj WW L9 x ww yG 4rwJu;dN u{}anvi}y 09 t•8/091So(zany glym algl}eduaoo�g/g Z x�l azls lagel Shirley Moss Craig Roalf 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 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 92648-4908 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 92MA908 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 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Shirley Crabtree Bob Vliss Dick Mancinelli 20701 Beach Boulevard Claire Vliss 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 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery e5160/8160 09l,V/09[SO IuaAb Jane alglteuuaou ww Ly x Will y6 tMutap duaniult� 0918/091ge[UaAtl ql!m alq!lEdmoJ„8/g Z x„l azis lagei ' 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 Albertina 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 92648-4908 Doris Coppola Warren Zamott 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 926484908 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 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 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery0516018160 etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 35160/8160 U91-8/01%)"JAV acne alyµeuwua WW Ly x ww yG 4CLUJU;vR o}rotw,:j . 1E.. 091.8/09t9@ Uany g11m alq!j2duroo„8/S Z x„l ozis loge) Shirley Lewis John Mulloy Albert Terjenian 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 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 Caiderone Bob Palmer 20701 Beach Boulevard Mary Caiderone 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 92648A908 Space 273 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 9264BA908 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 92648-4908 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 95160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 tam x 67 mm compatible avec Avery®5160/8160 U%VIU%l @ IIJand Jane iJIg4UuuauJ ww L9 7,ww y6 4ew,u;dN d44dI wi4J 09l.8/0919®fLJaAV g11m algliedwoa„9/9 Z x„G azls lapel ` 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 20701 Beach Boulevard Judith Lippard 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 286 2D701 Beach Boulevard Space 288 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Space 287 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-49D8 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 92648-49DB Huntington Beach,CA 92648-4908 Curtis Turrill George Riley Frank Krafka. Susan Turriil 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 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 20701 Beach Boulevard Hien Nguyen 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 304 20701 Beach Boulevard Space 306 Huntington Beach,CA 926484908 Space 305 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-4908 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-49DB 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 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery O5160/8160 :� 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 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 Panning 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 File Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfcity-hb.org H 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 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. J� HUNTINGTON BEACH 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 (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) 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: 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. 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) C:\Docuinents and Settings\edwardse\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK601\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 3-3-10.doc 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. C:ADocuments and Settings\edwardseALocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK601\Beach 20701 TTM 17296(PA 2010-023)Dev Req 3-3-IO.doc a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -Y 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 I. Article 6-Fire Protection Standards for Parks (this can be found at www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/mp/mi)Regs.html ). 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 NO. r=1 HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S,Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com March 8, 2010 Our File Number: 36014.11214830-1118-2341v.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.AppAth 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 1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 a HART, KING & C01 DRIIEN 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 �f HART, KING & Ci]LDRFN Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach March 8, 2010 Page 3 Requirement or A_pp_liaant Applicant Reasons or Suggested Condition Positron 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 36014.1 1 214830-1 1 1 8-2 341 v.1 t ; - HART, KING F. =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 Requirements Prior to Recordation of Final Map 1. Approved Final Accept Map layout 2. Final Map include Accept title report 3. Final Map Accept consistent with Tentative Ma i 4. Mylar and print Accept copy to Public Works 36014.112l4630-111 B-2341v.1 HKI_5_13"�C HAR'1, KINED & C,CJL.DI'�EN 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 36014.112/4930-111 B-2341 v.1 HART, KINI...I 7 C:t7I._DREN 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 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 Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. Tentative Map Accept shall be approved layout 2.a. Onsite 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) 36014.112/4830-1118-2341 v.1 £-iA RT K£NG <rx C0 L.r>RF 114 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 (Cal. 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. 1.1, 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 CPI 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. ADA 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 lot purchase costs 36014.112/4830-1118-2341 v.1 HART, KING S, COLDRR'N 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 Shorecliff 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 36D14.112/4830-1118-2341 v.1 ', x)jc !-CART, KIN09 & Cl. L. R F N 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 36014.112/4830-1118-2341 v.1 HART, K1Nf.'5 & rML..OREN 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 & COLDREN R 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) 36014.112/4830-1118-2341 v.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA_BUSINESS.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY Arnold S_hwarz-nega.r Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF CODES AND STANDARDS 1800 THIRD STREET,SUITE 260,P.O.BOX 1407 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-1407e n j„ (916)445-9471 FAX (916)327-4712i ; From TDD Phones 1(800)736-2929 www.hcd.ca.gov April 21 2008 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 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 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 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 mobilehome park lot (ordinance precluding two-story manufactured homes found invalid in County of Santa Cruz v. Waterhouse (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th, 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 HCD's 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 HCD's 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, HCD's 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. 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 not 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). 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 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 33 2000 Main st., 2nd floor 2010 FEB 25 ,1 Huntington beach,California 92648 Re. Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park �'1 Application for Subdivision Three quarters of the residents are strongly opposed to the Subdivision Conversion. The Huntington Shorecliff, LP objectives are to force current residents,most of us retirees living on small fixed incomes out of this park. Thereby subdividing lots for preposterous sums of money which they know we can't possibly afford, and replace older homes with more elaborate homes and demanding higher rental agreements. We then would be subjected to numerous rent increases which we can ill afford. The Planning Dept. has stipulated that there are numerous conditions to this application one such condition(eliminating the"ditch"OUTSIDE the park replacing with sidewalk, trees etc.)Who do you think would pay for all these improvements,not Huntington Shorecliff, LP?The cost of such"improvements"will be prorated and deviously added to our rental statement! All improvements should be solely the financial responsibility of Huntington Shorecliff, LP. Huntington Shorecliff, LP are making an acceptable profit from this park but they are greedy, financial preditors who have no compassion for their tenants and furthermore they refuse to address concerns and requests made by the tenants! It would be encouraging to have a victory for we the tenants of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and tax paying residents of Huntington Beach. Thank you, Don Luckham Hun tington Shorecliffs#257 714 374 4437 Notice of Public Hearing — Tentative Tract Map NO. 17296 -in, City Clerk Huntington Shorecliff's Mobilehome Park SW } — 012H1203932 ie City Clerkh 5-3-10 — Agenda Item #8 LU _ ti : 00. 14 Sox 190 00 e- 04i22t2010. each, CA 92648 _ Mailed From 92648 S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING _ 024-301-20 Donna J Oktavec 20932 Coastview Ln Huntington Be, NYXIE 927 Dc 1 00 05/01./10 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DEL.2VERA@LE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE To FORWARD DC: 9254001 9090 *jj2 1177-- jA j17321- j27--18 �w���"�-t)�C'.��4�� � � lili)f)fi}�}iyll)i)11i))ilii)ll}illiill))ii!)li)31iii))li}-li�j . 9.s^648@q99 nn, City Clerk _ tington Beach �- ' ` ' `'12s436 ie City Clerk - -' �t 3ox 190 0 - aach, CA 92648 `U �' '''` -' 1 }. iai4esi F'�rT 92048 .� S POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING � 939-50-017 Ian & Aspen Dunn 20962 Sandbar 101 9'7 CIE Huntington Be, CA 1J E 00 01.15/0 110 RETURN TO SENL?ER NOT DELIVERADLE AS ADDR .-SSEO UNABLE To FORWARD sc: 92649019090 *`. 17 J7--01727--: r}�-j -10 iiil iii li})iliiiil)}i,itlili 9.26400999E ngton Beach _ } a City Clerk ' ox 190 Q $00A - 414 0412212010 ach, CA 92648 It ° ' ' MaHed From 926"8 cL iz US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939-50-002 Rosanna Locke 7668 Baypoi me' A h^1 Ps®Jn1st I i:^t Notice of Public Hearing — Tentative Tract Map NO. 17296 nn, City Clerk Huntington Shorecliff's Mobilehome Park Su — 012HI6209932 tington Beach ^ 'ie City Clerk 5-3-10 — Agenda Item #8 E; �5 0 $00.414 Box 190 00 0 L a 04,12212010 each, CA 92648 w rnx Ir Mailed From 92648 (L US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING 024-302-62 Michael S Callihan IS 7876 Beachcomber Dr Huntington B- NIXIE 927 DE 1 -00 04/28/10 !2ACS<- RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 92649019090 *2077-01221-20-26 in, City Clerk 2HWS 201-99 3 ington Beach 01 Uj e City Clerk ;OX 190 00 $OOA 14 M 041-0 !ach, CA 92648 00 Uj We 122"20 Malted From 95 'US POSTAGE-- LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING 939-50-034 Robert R Clements V 7648 Bay Dr Huntington Be, NIXIE 9-27 DE 1 00 04129/10 !2ACS<- RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERADLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD SC: 92640019090 *2077-01211-20-26 IUBP-SM.N 19 2waQ4PGz61 90 igton Beach nm i CLO City Clerk D .414 00 N ce )x 190 00 $ • — (n]�-U) .0rti (5 0 4112 2 112 0 10 3ch, CA 92648 w d Ir Mailed From 926A8 C1. US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING 939-50-019 Jon J Levin 20962 Sandbar 103 Huntington B Notice of Public Hearing — Tentative Tract Map NO. 17296 nn, City Clerk Huntington Shorecliff's Mobilehome Park S — 0'12H16209932 tington Beach I ie City Clerk 5-3-10 — Agenda Item #8 W 414 3ox 190 c� - each, CA 92648 Uj 0 •d U4I22i"2.O1t tr t�` •r• Shcailea Fran 9-9648 FL '� US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING • jean r u=oreu c/o E_T.I.Corral 100 �J 20292 Eastwood Cir. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 NIXIE 927 DE 1 00 0412E+110 RETURN TO TO SENDER NOT DELIVERAEtLE AS ADDRESSED UNADLE TO FORWARD DC: 92648019090 *2077-09544-29-26 90 {iti,tt,{tltlitt+ittilttitiittttttilitittlitttltittlit,tttit{i i, City Clerk igton Beach r b City Clerk W _� A f )x 190 � 04,"22:20 i.; ich, CA 92648 �5V-i `: mmilE rckn ta. S POSTAG E LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 024-213-02 Michael Santillanes 2134 Main St 185 Huntington Be, CA 92648-6448 NIXIE 927 DE 1 00 04129110 2ACS t--- RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNADLE TO FORWARD BC:: 92640019090 *'{^�+077-- }03529--29-. is C..r�?�P:�ISt�1 ��'�`+t ��7' 7{t{t111{i{t��aliill�illl�{{117i1t��i l�)t{�Ildtl�la�llt)11{rl{ WE Jngton Beach =�" '�� '_ §r le City Clerk W $00.414 30x 190 f0i4/22 20 0 :ach, CA 92648 _- �_ a :ailed From 048 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939-50-029 Elmer Marroquin 20936 Sandbar 102 ' Huntington Be, CA 92648-5852 Notice of Public Hearing— Tentative Tract Map NO. 17296 in, City Clerk Huntington Shorecliff's Mobilehome Park Subdivision) — ington Beach 5-3-10 — Agenda Item #8 a .-0 t 012H16209932 e City Clerk uj ox 1902 $OOA 14 ach, CA 92648 to # 4;. g` 22f Ci10 Uj Mailed From 921648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 934-47-185 Michael Makoi 20854 Cabrillo Ln Huntington P - X 927 NFE 1 309I 00 04/24/10 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 2ACSt — MAXOI 'MICHAEL_ 2098-5 MONARCH L.N NUNTINGTN BCC CA 92646-5666 RETURN TO SENDER G�a�r'u!i t 1 92� W6igo llalaaaalrla lilt)larllarlaliaaaaralllalrallarrlalaallaraaaJill nn, City Clerk :in ton Beach ie City Clerk ; f . 14 Sox 190 :ach, CA 92648 u a -` n US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 024-221-19 James T Stallings 510 California St Huntington Be, CA 92648-4917 *X 927 NOE 1 0091 96 04/24/10 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 2ACSt— STAL_L MNGS'DAMES T`JL>ER 2310 EL.SINORE RD RIVERSIDE CA 92SOS-1530 RETURN TO SENDER �92-MM90 Ilalraaalrlallarrlasllrrlallaaaaaall�alaallaralrlrrllataarlall the City Clerk Box 190 00 1- 04';2 !2 3each, CA 92648 w d` s Z, - US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING 024-302-63 La Cuesta Community Assn 24422 Avenida Be La Carlota_ 46, Laguna Hills, CA 92653-3636 Notice of Public Hearing — Tentative Tract Map NO. 17296 in, City Clerk Huntington Shorecliff's Mobilehome ParI,�S -) — 012H16209932 ington Beach w ie City Clerk 5-3-10 — Agenda Item #8 �, lox 190 0)t- fA 04122/2010 .ach, CA 92648 w 0) a- a cc w Maded From 92648 °" US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING _ 024-301-20 Donna J Oktavec 20932 Coastview Ln Huntington Be, NIXIE 927 DC 1 00 QS/C)11;.o RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERADLE AS ADDRESSED UNAGL.E To PORWARD EEC: 9254901SO90 *2177-01721-27-10 Cc� Ac'at st ogyt 60 11111i11111i111111111111)III 111111111111111.1111 in, City Clerk ington Beach - � to City Clerk $00.414 lox 190 v , )ach, CA 92648 tu � - u4,22?'2�10 • Mahe^2 P-om 92648 Us POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939-SO-017 Ian & Asp en Dunn 20962 Sandbar 101 Huntington Be, CANIXIE 9:F.7 DC 1 L�:1 L�5/C,.>:L:� RETURN TO -SENDER NOT DEL.I'VERABL.E AS ADDRESSSE6 UNABLE TO PORWARD DC: 92648019990 *217J7--017.27--27-0 cG t��a� � n Ill#111111111111111,II11111111111111I111111111Id"11111111111 92649@9998 igton Beach no City Clerk - 0 .4 4 ix 190 V) �- in 04/2212010 3ch, CA 92648 w Q`M dr. maiied From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 939-50-002 Rosanna Locke 7668 Baypoi l .q r A.� r r-e� ♦ �� r® �R i e n