HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision - Conversion from Resid HART, KING & CClLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malpert@hkclaw.com
August 3, 2011
Our File Number: 36608.006/4848-3489-4858v.1
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision
80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17392
Dear Ms Villasenor:
I am writing to request that the administrative record be prepared in conjunction with the denial
of the above referenced subdivision application and all related permit application, including the
coastal permit. I would appreciate you providing me a copy of the draft index to the record prior
to its completion for review and comment. I also request a copy of the video and/or audio
recordings of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings relating to this matter so we
can make arrangements for transcriptions to be included in the record. If the City provides this
service, please provide an estimate of the cost.
I am copying the City Clerk with this letter. Please advise if the request should be directed to
someone else within the City. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
G C D
rk D. AI
M DA/s m
cc: Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach
Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, Caiifomia 92707
Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com i Fx 714.546.7457
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
Currently, the park consists of 252 dwelling units on an 18-acre parcel with a density of
approximately 14 units per acre. The park is also developed with an office, recreation hall, a
pool, laundry and storage buildings, and an RV storage area. Permitting, development and
operational standards as well as enforcement regarding the mobile home park lies with the
State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The City of Huntington
Beach does regulate fire related codes and standards within the park.
Subdivisions in general are regulated by various provisions of the Subdivision Map Act
(SMA) and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), Title 25,
Subdivisions. In this case, the applicant argues that a specific provision of the SMA i.e.
Government Code Section 66427.5 requires the applicant to provide a report on the impact
of the conversion upon residents of the mobile home park to be converted as well as survey
of resident support. The applicant argues that this, along with some other perfunctory
requirements, are the only limitations the City may impose on the proposed project. In that
vein, the applicant submitted the required impact of conversion report stating that no
residents would be displaced since non-purchasing residents may continue to rent their
space within the mobile home park upon conversion (the report also states that State law
affords non-purchasing residents protection from economic displacement by limiting rent
increases following conversion of the Park). The applicant submitted a report stating that
surveys were sent to all resident households of the Park, which staff assumes means all 252
households received a survey. Of the 252 surveys, the report states that a total of 65 (26%)
were returned. Of the 65 returned surveys, 58 respondent households stated support for the
conversion, three respondents declined to state their opinion, and four respondents stated
that they do not support conversion of the park. 187 surveys (approximately 74%) were not
returned.
B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 12, 2011, to consider the proposed
tentative tract map and coastal development permit applications. Staff provided an overview
of the project request and an analysis of the proposed subdivision as it relates to applicable
Huntington Beach codes and State law with a recommendation to deny the proposed project.
During the public hearing, a total of four members of the public spoke including the project
applicant's representative. The first three speakers spoke in opposition to the project and
raised issues regarding the feasibility of obtaining permits from the State to move existing
coaches, the potential for individual lot owners to encounter violations due to inadequate
setbacks and distance to adjacent structures as a result of the subdivision, noncompliance
with the California Coastal Act, and failure to comply with replacement housing provisions
required by the Mello Act. One member of the public stated that she lives in Huntington
Shorecliffs, which was recently subdivided, and stated that residents had been forced to
leave due to lease and rent increases and elimination of Section 8 voucher acceptance. The
project applicant stated that California Government Code section 66427.5 provides the sole
substantive and procedural requirements that may be considered when converting a mobile
home park form resident rental to resident ownership. The applicant also stated that the
proposed subdivision map does not show property lines within the City's right-of-way and that
the staff report and staff presentation was misleading. Upon closing the public hearing, the
Planning Commission voted to deny the map and CDP with revised findings.
HB -187- Item 10. - 3
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
C. APPEAL:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project was received on April 20, 2011.
The reasons for appeal are cited in the appeal letter (Attachment No. 2) and previous letters
submitted by the Appellant on January 18, 2011, ;;arid April 8, 2011, that were provided as
attachments to the appeal letter. With respect to the previous January 18 and April 8 letters,
issues raised were addressed in the April 12, 2011, Planning Commission staff report
(Attachment No. 3) and staff presentation. A summary of the appeal issues is cited and
addressed in the next section (Section D.) of this report.
D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Summary of Planning Commission and Staff Analysis
In recommending denial of the proposed project to the Planning Commission, staff
determined that existing encroachment of portions of the lots containing dwellings and
structures within the Huntington Street right-of-way is illegal and violates existing City codes
requiring applicants to have a freehold interest in the land which is the subject of the
application and prohibiting encroachment of private dwellings onto public right-of-way. The
unauthorized and illegal encroachment onto the Huntington Street right-of-way would result
in changes to existing lot lines/configuration of the existing park or a change in the exterior
boundary of the existing mobile home park. The proposed lot line and exterior boundary
changes would extend the scope of the application beyond a change in the form of
ownership, thereby defining the project as a subdivision rather than merely a conversion to a
common interest development or, more specifically, a conversion of a rental mobile home
park to resident ownership. Therefore, Section 66427.5, which limits review of a subdivision
created from the conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership to that
section, would not apply to the proposed project. However, it was also determined that
residents could not be offered the opportunity to purchase the lot on which their home is
currently situated or continue to rent the space on which their home is currently situated
(pursuant to Section 66427.5a.) without further subdividing the property by moving the
exterior property line or requiring physical movement of the existing homes and changes in
existing lot lines. Therefore, the project would not comply with Section 66427.5.
Chapter 251 of the HBZSO requires denial of a tentative subdivision map if it is determined
that approval would result in any of the conditions described in Section 66474 of the
California Government Code, which stipulates that a tentative map shall be consistent with
the General Plan. Staff determined that the map would conflict with cited goals and policies
of the General Plan as well other sections of the Subdivision Map Act, specifically Sections
66427 and 66427.5. For the reasons articulated, the Planning Commission denied the
proposed map based on findings that the project is not consistent with the provisions of
Government Code Section 66427.5 as well as Section 66427, 66474, the Huntington
General Plan, HBZSO and Municipal Code.
Appeal
As introduction, the appellant in part asserts that the staff report and findings adopted by the
Planning Commission make it "very unclear" that the property currently consists of a single
legal parcel. However, a description of the property on page 4 of the Planning Commission
Item 10. - 4 xB -188-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING ®ATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
Staff Report (Attachment No. 3) states that the "subject site consists of one approximately
18-acre parcel." The appeal letter also states that the findings adopted by the Planning
Commission "contain significant factual misstatements and intentionally confuse the
existence of boundaries which are governed by California Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") regulations with the creation and recording of legal lots governed by
the Subdivision Map Act." The appeal letter further indicates that the Appellant does not
proposed to create legal lot lines in the City's right of way and that the Appellant is not
proposing or requesting permission from the City to move any existing mobile homes. It
should be noted that the applicants comments are addressed in the analysis section of this
report, however, as a preface, staffs would like to make clear that there was no intent
present to adopt confusing or misleading findings. It should be further noted that review and
analysis of the appellant's request was on the tentative application presented, and not on
hypothetical configurations or statements made by the Appellant. As will be discussed, it
appears that the Appellant creates new facts in an attempt to remedy the legal issues
created by the current map configuration. However, the Planning Commission addressed the
map that was submitted and made findings that the map does not comply with the provisions
of California Government Code Section 66427.5. A tentative and final subdivision map is
required pursuant to the subdivision map act.
The issues raised in the appeal letter and findings adopted by the Planning Commission are
summarized and addressed in the following sections.
Finding 1
Summary of finding: Request is inconsistent with Section 66427.5 of California
Government Code
In refuting Finding 1 the appellant raises the following points:
- Finding "erroneously claims that Pacific proposes a tentative map that includes
areas outside the boundary of the park",-
Section 18210 of the California Health and Safety Code (otherwise referred to as the
Mobilehome Parks Act) defines a "lot" as "any area or tract of land or portion of a
mobilehome park designated or used for the occupancy of one manufactured home,
mobilehome, recreational vehicle." The HBZSO defines a mobilehome space as
"any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad or portion of a mobilehome park designated or
used for the occupancy of one mobilehome."
The proposed tentative tract map depicts portions. of existing mobile` home lots
outside of the legal boundary of the Park within the Huntington Street right-of-way.
The existing encroachment of lots onto the Huntington Street right-of-way is illegal
and violates existing City codes prohibiting encroachment of private dwellings onto
public right-of-way. The Appellant asserts in the December 7, 2010 project narrative
and January 18, 2011 response letter that the proposed tentative tract map is
submitted pursuant to Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code
(Subdivision Map Act) and represents an "application to create numbered residential
lots corresponding to the existing 252 rental spaces...that are currently permitted by
HCD." The Appellant also states in the narrative and response letter that no
physical changes are proposed and stated that authorization to occupy the
HB -189- Item 10. - 5
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
Huntington Street right-of-way with portions of mobile home lots was granted by the
City. The unauthorized and illegal encroachment of portions of the lots onto the
Huntington Street right-of-way (outside of the legal boundary of the Park) are shown
on the proposed tentative tract map and included as part of the project application
request.
- Encroachment onto City right-of-way is irrelevant to conversion: City has the right to
take action on encroaching residents and residents would still have an opportunity to
buy the lot on which their home is located,
The Appellant asserts that the project seeks to create legally recordable property
boundaries based on the existing configuration of rental spaces and common areas.
However, the proposed tentative tract map shows that either 1.) existing lots (as
defined by the Health and Safety Code and HBZSO) would be modified,
necessitating physical changes to the existing dwellings or 2) the existing lots would
remain in their current configuration, necessitating a physical change in the existing
exterior boundary/property line and an increase in the current size of the mobile
home park. In either case, the scope of the proposed subdivision map extends
beyond a change in the form of ownership interests. As discussed, State law as well
as the HBZSO provides in part that mobile homes define the boundaries of a "lot."
Therefore, in their current configuration, the lots are encroaching onto the City's
right-of-way which would either affect the City's right-of-way or residents' opportunity
to buy the lot on which their home is currently situated.
- Encroachment does not impact whether the appellant can ensure compliance with
Government Code Section 66427.5, which requires rent protections to ensure that
non purchasing residents would not be economically displaced,
Section 66427.5(a) of the Government Code provides that at the time of filing a
tentative map for a subdivision created from the conversion of a rental mobile home
park to resident ownership, "the subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option
to either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit...or to continue
residency as a tenant." The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the subdivider
"avoids economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents." The "offer" to each
existing tenant to either purchase his or her condominium/subdivided unit or
continue residency as a tenant was conveyed to the Park residents via a report on
the impact of conversion upon residents. The impact of conversion report is
required to be provided to residents prior to the local agency hearing in accordance
with Section 66427.5(c). The report states that "all residents will have the
opportunity to either purchase the Lot on which their Home is situated or to continue
renting their Space." It should be noted that the report collectively defines a "lot",
"space", and "home" as the location of land, fixed improvements, dwelling, and
leased premises as of the hearing date. It should be noted that the report
collectively defines a "lot", "space", and "home" as the location of land, fixed
improvements, dwelling, and leased premises as of the Hearing date. Given that the
proposed tentative tract map includes lots, spaces, leased premises and homes
outside of the boundary of the mobile home park property within the City's right-of-
way, the Appellant cannot offer all residents the opportunity to purchase their lot or
Item 10. - 6 xB -1 90-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
continue renting their space. Therefore, the Appellant cannot ensure that all
residents will have the opportunity to purchase their lot or continue renting their
space making Section 66427.5 not applicable. The Planning Commission found the
proposed subdivision map is not a change in the form of ownership, and therefore,
the map does not comply with Section 66427.5.
The subdivision cannot propose changes to the lot boundaries because the City has
no legal authority to modify or approve changes to lot boundaries (that are not legal
lot lines) governed by HCD; and
Because of the circular nature of the above argument, it is difficult to comment. The
Appellant states that the subdivision cannot propose to change the lot boundaries
because the City has no jurisdiction to approve them. As evidenced by the
proposed map and application materials, this is exactly what has been proposed.
The Appellant has stated that no physical changes would occur and that the mobile
homes would remain in their current configuration or "lots". However, the Appellant
now asserts that the map is proposing to create lots consistent with the existing legal
exterior property line. The proposed map and application is not consistent with
either of these statements. The City cannot approve a map that depicts property
lines that encroach onto the right of way (or any other private property for that
matter) without consent and additional subdivision nor can the City approve a map
pursuant to Section 66427.5 that would result in physical changes to the existing
lots. Furthermore, the California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), in an informational bulletin published in 2008, stated that local
government "has the authority to approve final lot lines as part of a subdivision
approval." The bulletin also states that "a local government may require that the
final approved lot lines be those consistent with the requirements of Title 25." Title
25 refers to Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, which established
development and operational standards for mobile home parks. HCD acknowledged
that the City would have jurisdiction over lot lines as part of a subdivision request
provided that any requirements are consistent with Title 25 requirements. To that
end, it should also be noted that the interior lots proposed and depicted on the
tentative tract map would not be consistent with Title 25 requirements.
The Planning Commission assumed, without evidence, the lot boundary lines
approved by HCD are consistent with where the existing homes are currently
located.
The Appellant states that there is no evidence that the existing mobile home
locations are consistent within the approved HCD lots. However, the application
materials submitted by the Appellant state that the proposed project seeks to create
252 ownership spaces from 252 rental spaces currently permitted by HCD. The
Appellant also states that no physical changes are proposed and that residents
would have the opportunity to purchase their lot or continue renting the space where
their home is located. The Appellant did not provide a HCD-approved plan of the
mobile home park lots nor did the Appellant provide information that the current
location of the mobile homes was not consistent with HCD-approved lots. In fact,
when the City notified the Appellant of the map discrepancies, the Appellant took the
HB -191- Item 10. - 7
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
position that the existing mobile homes within the right-of-way were approved to be
there and suggested that the City may approve the map with a condition that the
Appellant provide evidence of the City's relinquishment of the right-of-way. This is
simply not tenable or legally justified.
Finding 2
Summary of finding: Request does not comply with Section 66474 of the Subdivision
Map Act
The Appellant states that the finding is legally irrelevant since the City cannot review the map
for compliance with the General Plan as it is preempted by Section 66427.5 of the
Government Code. The Appellant also asserts that no violations of City codes are identified
in the findings. Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act provides the basis for approval of
a tentative map. Likewise, Chapter 251 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance (HBZSO) provides similar findings for approval of a tentative map consistent with
the language of Section 66474. Both Section 66474 and Chapter 251 require consistency
with a local jurisdiction's applicable General Plan in order to approve a tentative map. In the
finding, the City references General Plan goals and policies for which the proposed tentative
tract map is not consistent. The identified General Plan goals and policies refer to
compliance with the HBZSO and Municipal Code. The Planning Commission Staff Report
and findings discuss and cite the specific sections of the HBZSO (Section 202.04) and
Municipal Code (Section 12.38.030) for which the proposed project does not comply.
The Appellant also states that they do not propose to move the existing lot lines. However,
the Appellant is proposing to move existing lot lines as demonstrated by the facts presented
in the application. The Applicant's appeal letter (under Finding 3) provides that the tentative
tract map creates lot lines which are consistent with the existing single legal lot. Since
portions of the existing lots are located outside of the existing legal property boundaries, the
tentative tract map moves lot lines in order to create lots. If approved, the tentative tract map
would effectively require a resident to move their home in order to purchase their
reconfigured lot.
The Appellant states that the City has the right to require a resident that places personal
property on City right-of-way to move their home and contends that this is not a basis to deny
a conversion. The appeal letter also states that the conversion application does not dispute
the City's claim of title.
To begin, staff noted the existing encroachment of structures onto the Huntington Street
right-of-way and advised the Appellant of the encroachment and potential legal issues
created thereto. The Appellant, in response, asserted that authorization to encroach onto
the City's right-of-way was granted by the City. The Appellant has not provided any evidence
of permission to use the City property. Since that time, The Appellant has now taken the
position that existing mobile homes may be encroaching onto the City's right-of-way without
authorization, but that it is irrelevant to the proposed subdivision request. As stated, the
encroaching homes define the existing lots, which the Appellant initially clarified would
remain unchanged. The basis for denial of the map is because the proposed tentative tract
map, as submitted, does not comply with, Section 66427.5 of the Government Code in part
Item 10. - 8 HB -192-
Villasenor, Jennifer
From: MJ Baretich[mjbaretich@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31,2011 2:15 PM
fo: Villasenor,Jennifer
Cc: jrooney; Maria; Nancy Meeks; Elmer Smith;TIM GEDDES; Jim Burr, Tim Sheahan
Subject: FW: MELLO ACT AND COASTAL ACT HELP
RECEIVED
Hi Jennifer, APR 3 1 Z011
I know this is a last minute thing before your meeting today, but I am forwarding this to you to let ycsWp W Rtime► tithe
research that is being done by others on behalf of the Pacific MHP Home Owners Association. The entleeffidIldiM State
Manufactured-home Owners League(GSMOL) is watching this new proposed Subdivision carefully. Even though the last
City Council had shown to not be in support of the mobilehome homeowners, I do hope that Planning Commission and
the new City Council realizes that dealing with mobilehome parks in the Coastal Zone is different than the actions taken
on the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park.
If the City worries about fighting the Park Owners or HK&C over the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, GSMOL has
suggested the retention of either Will Constantine or Bruce Stanton. Their WIN track records are outstanding.
The disastrous after-effects of the Huntington Shorecliffs Subdivision should be an embarrassment to the City, as far as
supporting their very low and low income homeowners. We don't need a repeat of that horror story.
The Pacific MHP HOA states that they are putting together their own Survey. Give them a chance. They must first calm
the fears of retaliation and the combat apathy of their community. It is not an easy task.
We other Huntington Beach mobilehome park homeowners support the Pack Mobile Home Park HOA in purchasing the
Park"in total," and not through this Subdivision Condo Conversion proposal. They wish to have a "resident owned park"
ree of Park Owner intereference with a Management company of their choosing.
One of the Park Owners has expressed an interested in selling the Park to the people "in total." I pray that the City gives
them a chance.
Mary Jo Baretich
GSMOL Region 5 Manager for Orange County
President, Cabrillo Wetland Village HOA, Inc. (Cabrillo Mobile Home Park)
21752 Pacific Coast Hwy #23A
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
From: mjbaretich@hotmail.com
To: lwan22350@aol.com
Subject: MELLO ACT AND COASTAL ACT HELP
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:42:54-0700
Hi Sara,
I am writing to ask if you could direct me to a Coastal Commission Staff person who is knowledgeable in the Coastal Act
and Mello Act as related to protection of affordable living for mobilehome homeowners in the Coastal Zone. I do know
that recently the County of Los Angeles was able to stop the Subdivision Condo Conversion of Pacific Palisades Bowl
Mobile Home.
The following is a summary of the Second District Court of Appeal regarding this requirement.
Palisades Bowl Requires the Subdivider to Comply with the Coastal Act and Mello Act
1ATTAGMIENIf NO.
HB -277- Item 10. - 93
In Palisades Bowl,the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a subdivider proposing to convert a rental
park to resident ownership under Section 66427.5 must also comply with the requirements of the Mello Act and
Coastal Act when the park is located in the coastal zone. In that case, a park owner sued the City of Los Angeles
-wafter the City rejected as incomplete its application submitted under Section 66427.5,because the park was in
,pie coastal zone. The park owner refused to submit an application for a coastal permit or obtain clearance under
the Mello Act for the preservation of low and moderate income housing.
The issue before the court was whether Section 66427.5 barred the City from requiring compliance with the
Mello Act and Coastal Act.No prior published court decisions have addressed these issues. The court ruled that
notwithstanding Section 66427.5,the park owner was also required to comply with the Mello Act and the
Coastal Act based on the paramount legislative intent behind those statutes. The Mello Act forbids approval of a
conversion application for existing residential dwelling units in the coastal zone occupied by persons of low or
moderate income,unless the applicant provides for replacement of those dwelling units to persons or families of
low or moderate income housing. The court ruled that Section 66427.5 does not provide the protection
mandated by the Mello Act. The court also found that the Coastal Act was enacted to ensure a balance between
protection of coastal resources and development by providing a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating land
use planning in the coastal zone, including preservation of housing opportunities for all persons.
The same situation of Subdivision Condo Conversion is being presented here in Huntington Beach by Park
Owners who wish to turn the existing Pacific Mobile Hoene Park(located in the Coastal Zone) into a
Subdivision Condo Conversion (252 spaces). In September 2010, the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park(not
located the Coastal Zone) which is only two blocks North of the Pacific Mobile Home Park, was approved by the
Huntington Beach City Council for Subdivision Condo Conversion (304 spaces). The same Attorney, Robert Coldren of
Hart, King &Coldren (HK&C),who handled the Huntington Shorecliffs MHP Subdivision is proposing the Subdivision for
the Pacific MHP. The first Subdivision Committee meeting on the Pacific MHP is being held today, March 31, 2011. It will
then go to the Planning Commission meeting on April 12, 2011.
"after the City Council approved the Huntington Shorecliffs, the Park Owners canceled all leases, canceled all Section 8
..busing, and raised the rents up to "market rent" of$1300 to$1600. The lot prices have been tentatively set at
$275,000 to$385,000 for those who may qualify. This was a Senior Park. No 'lots" have been sold as yet since the
Park Owner must correct serious infrastructure and flooding problems first. As of March 1, more than 70 homeowners
have abandoned their homes at Huntington Shorecliffs, many with mortgages and city improvement loans still
outstanding. Some left almost everything behind, since they could not afford storage on their incomes.The majority of
the homeowners were in their 70's, 80's and 90's.
This is the potential future for the Pacific MHP homeowners unless the Park Owners' Subdivision Condo Conversion plans
are stopped, hopefully by the enforcement of the Coastal Act and Mello Act to protect the very low, low and moderate
income homeowners.
The REPORT ON IMPACT OF CONVERSION UPON RESIDENTS, dated submitted by HK&C to the City does not mention
the Coastal Act nor the Mello Act.
We appreciate your efforts and expertise and great accomplishments in the protection of the Coastal Zone.
Thank you for all you do,
Mary Jo Baretich
President, Cabrillo Wetland Village HOA, Inc.
President, Cabrillo Wetlands Conservancy, Inc.
21752 Pacific Coast Hwy#23A
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
(714) 960-9507
2 NO.
Item 10. - 94 xB -278-
HK&,- , C
HART, KING & COLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malpert@hkclaw.com
April 1, 2011
Our File Number. 36608.006/4834-5325-2873v.1 ri t
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Jennifer Villasenor PIr:CEIVE D
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.
2000 Main Street APR 0 12011
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dept.of Planning
&Building
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park
80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17392
Dear Ms Villasenor:
We were obviously disappointed with the recommendations of the subdivision committee.
Setting aside the merits of staffs recommendation, your presentation raised some factual issues
that we would like to have addressed prior to the Planning Commission hearing. In addition,
you apparently have access to relevant documents which we have not been provided. We
would appreciate receiving a copy of the records, described below, by the beginning of next
week. 4,
Thank you for yesterday finally providing me a copy of the "conditional exception" permit
granted by the City in 1953 for the construction of the original park along Huntington. I have to
observe i asked for this document first in our meeting in January, 2011. 1 made a second
request for the document in a follow up email of January 25, 2011, which stated:
"4. You agreed to provide me a copy of the permit under which Pacific
operates and the deeds which purportedly established the dedication on
Huntington."
As I said, you finally gave me a permit yesterday. You represented that there were no plot
plans or maps associated with the project. However, if the city has any other documents related
to the initial construction and approval of the Park, please provide me a copy of them
immediately.
We still have not received a copy of the documents which establish the dedication referenced in
the email. Please provide a copy of all documents relating to the offer or acceptance of the
dedication on Huntington.
During the presentation, you mentioned that the City had a survey from 1975 which you claimed
showed that over part of Huntington, that homes were not encroaching. Please provide me a
copy of that survey as soon as possible.
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707
Ph 714.432.87001 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 �TACf�firH ENT L /
!�
HB -279- Item 10. - 95
HART, KIiJG G COLDR.EN
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 1, 2011
Page 2
1 did not hear any statement by you to the effect that the existing fence line along Huntington
has ever been changed since the original construction of the project. If you have any
photographs, surveys or other evidence reflecting that this fence line was ever moved, please
provide me that information immediately.
Finally, you mentioned that at one time the City resisted efforts to construct a new wall based on
the City's claimed dedication. Please confirm the date this occurred in writing and advise me
and provide all relevant documentation of any other action by the City since the 1953 approval
of the construction of the park in which the City has asserted its rights to the purported
dedication on Huntington.
Please consider this letter a public records request. I am copying the city clerk who I presume
is responsible for responding to such requests.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
HART, K & OLD,
V
/Z
M k D. pert
MDA/sm
cc: Joan Flynn, City Cleric
Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
36608.065/4834-5325-2873v.1 ATTACHMENT N .2
Item 10. - 96 HB -280-
RECEIVED
Villasenor, Jennifer APR 012011
From: MJ Baretich[mjbaretich@hotmail.com] Dept.of Planning
Sent: Friday,April 01, 2011 11:17 AM &Building
To: Villasenor, Jennifer
Cc: Nancy Meeks; TIM GEDDES; Steve Gullage;jrooney; Maria;james-bun;tpsheahan;Will
Constantine; Bruce Stanton; Blair Farley; Connie Boardman; Joe Shaw; Elmer Smith;Andrea
Hiser
Subject: RE: MELLO ACT AND COASTAL ACT HELP
Attachments: 03-31-2011 SUBDIVISION MTG-DENIAL- 1.jpg; 03-31-2011 SUBDIVISION MTG-DENIAL
-2.jpg; PACIFIC MHP IMAGE-2010.jpg
Hi Jennifer,
That was a great meeting yesterday, in spite of Robert Coldem's outbursts and threats of a lawsuit. I am so glad that
Scott Hess admonished him.
In light of what I heard yesterday. it appears that is might be in the HOA's best interest to go ahead and contact the
Resident Owned Parks(ROP) President, Maury Priest, regarding purchase of the Park in-total for a Common Interest
Development, as they have planned to do. With this new information regarding the Huntington Street right-of-way
encroachment, and of course the Atlanta Street Widening Project, and the Mello Act and Coastal Act, I believe the HOA
now has more bargaining advantage to purchase the Park.
At the Huntington Beach Tomorrow meeting last night we were told about the Financial problems that the City is in now
and for several years to come. I don't think the City could afford to purchase the mobilehomes along Huntington Street
at this time plus pay the Park Owners for their land portion. They are already trying to get Federal funding for the
Atlanta Street Widening Project.
'sere are the email addresses of Will Constantine (wconstantinesantacruz@gmail.com ) and Bruce Stanton
,brucestantonlaw@yahoo.com). In addition, GSMOL has 7 more top-notch attorneys to help.
The GSMOL President is Jim Burr(fames-burr@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to contact him.
SB444 is still in Committee Review, but once that goes through the Legislature and is hopefully signed by the Governor,
then the Survey will have more merit.
Thank you again for your presentation at the Subdivision Committee meeting, and drafting of the Denial.
Mary Jo Baretich
GSMOL Region 5 Manager for Orange County
President, Cabrillo Wetland Village HOA, Inc. (Cabrillo Mobile Home Park)
21752 Pacific Coast Hwy#23A
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
(714) 960-9507
From: mjbaretich@hotmail.com
To:jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org
CC:jrooney@socal.rr.com; angels4m@aol.com; nancyracer@verizon.net; efuddsmith@dslextreme.com;
timgeddes3@gmaii.com;james-burr@sbcglobal.net; tpsheahan@cox.net
Subject: FW: MELLO ACT AND COASTAL ACT HELP
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:15:22 -0700
4i Jennifer,
I know this is a last minute thing before your meeting today, but I am forwarding this to you to let you know some of the
research that is being done by others on behalf of the Pacific MHP Home Owners Association. The entire Golden State
xB -281- [-%I Item 10. - 97
Manufactured-home Owners League(GSMOL) is watching this new proposed Subdivision carefully. Even though the last
City Council had shown to not be in support of the mobilehome homeowners, I do hope that Planning Commission and
the new City Council realizes that dealing with mobilehome parks in the Coastal Zone is different than the actions taken
..on the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park.
If the City worries about fighting the Park Owners or HK&C over the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, GSMOL has
suggested the retention of either Will Constantine or Bruce Stanton. Their WIN track records are outstanding.
The disastrous after-effects of the Huntington Shorecliffs Subdivision should be an embarrassment to the City, as far as
supporting their very low and low income homeowners. We don't need a repeat of that horror story.
The Pacific MHP HOA states that they are putting together their own Survey. Give them a chance. They must first calm
the fears of retaliation and the combat apathy of their community. It is not an easy task.
We other Huntington Beach mobilehome park homeowners support the Pacific Mobile Home Park HOA in purchasing the
Park"in total," and not through this Subdivision Condo Conversion proposal. They wish to have a "resident owned park"
free of Park Owner interference with a Management company of their choosing.
One of the Park Owners has expressed an interested in selling the Park to the people"in total." I pray that the City gives
them a chance.
Mary Jo Baretich
GSMOL Region 5 Manager for Orange County
President, Cabrillo Wetland Village HOA, Inc. (Cabrillo Mobile Home Park)
21752 Pacific Coast Hwy #23A
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
?rom: mjbaretich@hotmail.com
r"o: Iwan22350@aol.com
Subject: MELLO ACT AND COASTAL ACT HELP
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:42:54 -0700
Hi Sara,
I am writing to ask if you could direct me to a Coastal Commission Staff person who is knowledgeable in the Coastal Act
and Mello Act as related to protection of affordable living for mobilehome homeowners in the Coastal Zone. I do know
that recently the County of Los Angeles was able to stop the Subdivision Condo Conversion of Pacific Palisades Bowl
Mobile Home.
The following is a summary of the Second District Court of Appeal regarding this requirement.
Palisades Bowl Requires the Subdivider to Comply with the Coastal Act and Mello Act
In Palisades Bowl,the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a subdivider proposing to convert a rental
park to resident ownership under Section 66427.5 must also comply with the requirements of the Mello Act and
Coastal Act when the park is located in the coastal zone. In that case, a park owner sued the City of Los Angeles
after the City rejected as incomplete its application submitted under Section 66427.5,because the park was in
the coastal zone. The park owner refused to submit an application for a coastal permit or obtain clearance under
the Mello Act for the preservation of low and moderate income housing.
The issue before the court was whether Section 66427.5 barred the City from requiring compliance with the
Mello Act and Coastal Act.No prior published court decisions have addressed these issues. The court ruled that
otwithstanding Section 66427.5, the park owner was also required to comply with the Mello Act and the
Coastal Act based on the paramount legislative intent behind those statutes. The Mello Act forbids approval of a
conversion application for existing residential dwelling units in the coastal zone occupied by persons of low or
Item 10. - 98 HB z-282- ATTACHMENT O° . 1
moderate income,unless the applicant provides for replacement of those dwelling units to persons or families of
low or moderate income housing. The court ruled that Section 66427.5 does not provide the protection
mandated by the Mello Act. The court also found that the Coastal Act was enacted to ensure a balance between
protection of coastal resources and development by providing a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating land,,-,
ase planning in the coastal zone, including preservation of housing opportunities for all persons.
The same situation of Subdivision Condo Conversion is being presented here in Huntington Beach by Park
Owners who wish to turn the existing Pacific Mobile Home Park(located in the Coastal Zone)into a
Subdivision Condo Conversion (2S2 spaces). In September 2010, the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park(not
located the Coastal Zone) which is only two blocks North of the Pacific Mobile Home Park, was approved by the
Huntington Beach City Council for Subdivision Condo Conversion (304 spaces). The same Attorney, Robert Coldren of
Hart, King &Coldren(HK&C),who handled the Huntington Shorecliffs MHP Subdivision is proposing the Subdivision for
the Pacific MHP. The first Subdivision Committee meeting on the Pacific MHP is being held today, March 31, 2011. It will
then go to the Planning Commission meeting on April 12, 2011.
After the City Council approved the Huntington Shorecliffs, the Park Owners canceled all leases, canceled all Section 8
housing, and raised the rents up to"market rent"of$1300 to$1600. The lot prices have been tentatively set at
$275,000 to $385,000 for those who may qualify. This was a Senior Park. No "lots" have been sold as yet since the
Park Owner must correct serious infrastructure and flooding problems first. As of March 1, more than 70 homeowners
have abandoned their homes at Huntington Shorecliffs, many with mortgages and city improvement loans still
outstanding. Some left almost everything behind, since they could not afford storage on their incomes.The majority of
the homeowners were in their 70's, 80's and 90's.
This is the potential future for the Pacific MHP homeowners unless the Park Owners' Subdivision Condo Conversion plans
are stopped, hopefully by the enforcement of the Coastal Act and Mello Act to protect the very low, low and moderate
income homeowners.
The REPORT ON IMPACT OF CONVERSION UPON RESIDENTS, dated submitted by HK&C to the City does not mention
the Coastal Act nor the Mello Act.
We appreciate your efforts and expertise and great accomplishments in the protection of the Coastal Zone.
Thank you for all you do,
Mary Jo Baretich
President, Cabrillo Wetland Village HOA, Inc.
President, Cabrillo Wetlands Conservancy, Inc.
21752 Pacific Coast Hwy #23A
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
(714) 960-9507
3 IjTACHIMENIT NO--�_a_-L
HB -283- Item 10. - 99
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66427.5
i
66427.5. At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a
subdivision to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome
park to resident ownership, the subdivider shall avoid the economic
displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the following manner:
(a) The subdivider shall offer each existing tenant an option to
either purchase his or her condominium or subdivided unit, which is
to be created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or
to continue residency as a tenant.
(b) The subdivider shall file a report on the impact of the
conversion upon residents of the mobilehome park to be converted to
resident owned subdivided interest.
(c) The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to
each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the
hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory
agency, by the legislative body.
(d) (1) The subdivider shall obtain a survey of support of
residents of the mobilehome park for the proposed conversion.
(2) The survey of support shall be conducted in accordance with an
agreement between the subdivider and a resident homeowners'
association, if any, that is independent of the subdivider or
mobilehome park owner.
(3) The survey shall be obtained pursuant to a written ballot.
(4) The survey shall be conducted so that each occupied mobilehome
space has one vote.
(5) The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local
agency upon the filing of the tentative or parcel map, to be
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.
A 1U.
Item 10. - 100 HB -284-
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66427
66427. (a) A map of a condominium project, a community apartment
project, or of the conversion of five or more existing dwelling units
to a stock cooperative project need not show the buildings or the
manner in which the buildings or the airspace above the property
shown on the map are to be divided, nor shall the governing bbdy have
the right to refuse approval of a parcel, tentative, or final map of
the project on account of the design or the location of buildings on
the property shown on the map that are not violative of local
ordinances or on account of the manner in which airspace is to be
divided in conveying the condominium.
(b) A map need not include a condominium plan or plans, as defined
in subdivision (e) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code, and the
governing body may not refuse approval of a parcel, tentative, or
final map of the project on account of the absence of a condominium
plan.
(c) Fees and lot design requirements shall be computed and imposed
with respect to those maps on the basis of parcels or lots of the
surface of the land shown thereon as included in the project.
(d) Nothing herein shall be deemed to limit the power of the
legislative body to regulate the design or location of buildings in a
project by or pursuant to local ordinances.
(e) If the governing body has approved a parcel map or final map
for the establishment of condominiums on property pursuant to the
requirements of this division, the separation of a three-dimensional
portion or portions of the property from the remainder of the
property or the division of that three-dimensional portion or
portions into condominiums shall not constitute a further subdivision
as defined in Section 66424, provided each of the following
conditions has been satisfied:
(1) The total number of condominiums established is not increased
above the number authorized by the local agency in approving the
parcel map or final map.
(2) A perpetual estate or an estate for years in the remainder of
the property is held by the condominium owners in undivided interests
in common, or by an association as defined in subdivision (a) of
Section 1351 of the Civil Code, and the duration of the estate in the
remainder of the property is the same as the duration of the estate
in the condominiums.
(3) The three-dimensional portion or portions of property are
described on a condominium plan or plans, as defined in subdivision
(e) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code.
KI
_�...
xB -285- TY Item 10. - 101
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66474
66474. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval
of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not
required, if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of
development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed
density of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is
likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for
access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds
that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided,
and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements
of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a
legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision.
�` T
Item 10. - 102 HB -286-
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Chapter 245 245-15 10/94
C. An appellant was denied the right of City appeal because City notice and
hearing procedures for the development did not comply with the provisions
of the Chapter.
The City charges an appeal fee for the filing or processing of appeals.
2. Wh a project is appealed by any two(2)members of the Coastal Commission,
there 1 be no requirement of exhaustion of City appeals. Provided,however,
that a government may provide,by ordinance,that notice of commissioner
that
be transmitted to the City's appellate body(which considers appeals
from the Ci body that rendered the final decision), and the appeal to the
Commission y be suspended pending a decision on the merits by that City
appellate body. f the decision of the City appellate body modifies or reverses
the previous dec 'on,the commissioners shall be required to file a new appeal
from that decision. (3334-7/96)
245.26 Precedence of Local Coasta rogram
Where the plans,policies,requirements or star rds of the Local Coastal Program, as applied to any
project in the CZ Overlay District,conflict with ose of the underlying zoning district or other
provisions of this chapter,the plans, policies,re qu ments or standards of the Local Coastal
Program shall take precedence.
245.28 Conditions
Approval of a Coastal Development Permit shall be subject conditions as necessary to ensure
conformance with,and implementation of,the Local Coastal Program. Modification and
resubmittal of project plans, drawings, and specifications may be required to ensure conformance
with the Local Coastal Program.
245.30 Findings
A. Required FindiM.A CDP application may be approved or conditionally approved
only after the approving authority has made the following specific factual findings
supporting the legal conclusion:
1. Local Coastal Plan. That the development project, as proposed or as modified by
conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local
Coastal Program;
2. Zoning Provisions. That the project is consistent with the requirements of the
CZ Overlay District,the base zoning district, as well as other applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code;
3. Adequate Services. That at the time of occupancy the proposed development can
be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local
Coastal Program;and
ATE("'NM E N T N 0o
HB -287- Item 10. - 103
Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
Chapter 245 245-16 7/96
4. California Coastal Act. That the development conforms with the public access
and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.
2
245.32 Appeals
Development pursuant to an approved Coastal Development Permit shall not commence until all
applicable administrative appeal periods expire or, if appealed,until all administrative appeals,
including those to the Coastal Commission,have been exhausted.(3517-12/01)
A. Action by the Zonin dministrator or Planning Commission to approve,conditionally
approve,or deny any oastal Development Permit may be appealed on or before the
tenth working day foll ing such action.Action by the Zoning Administrator may be
appealed to the Plannin ommission.Action by the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Coun ' . Appeals may be made directly to the Coastal
Commission pursuant to Se 'ons 13111 and 13573 of the California Code of
Regulations for appealable d elopment. (3517-12/01)
B. Action by the City Council on a oastal Development Permit for appealable
development may be appealed d' fly to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Sections
13111 and 13573 of the California ode of Regulations.(3517-12/01)
C. An appeal pursuant to this chapter in be filed only by the applicant for the Coastal
Development Permit in question, an a eved person, or any 2 members of the
Coastal Commission.
D. An appeal to the Planning Commission sha a filed with the Planning Department.
An appeal to the City Council shall be filed the City Clerk. The appeal shall be
accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the Council and a statement of the
grounds for the appeal.(3517-12/01)
E. Notice of the local appeal shall be given as set fo Section 245.20 or 245.22 and
shall be processed in accordance with the provisions Section 248.20. (3517-12/01)
F. An appeal to the Coastal Commission shall be processe accordance with the
provisions of Sections 13110 through 13120 of the Calif is Code of Regulations.
(3334-7/96,3517-12/01)
245.34 Application After Denial
Whenever a CDP request under the provisions of this section has been denied and such denial has
become final,no new CDP application for the same or similar request may be accepted within 1 year
of the denial date,unless the Director finds that a sufficient change in circumstances has occurred to
warrant a new CDP application.
AT
GHM"i-411T NO.-
Item 10. - 104 xB -288-
251.08 Hearings and Action
A. Subdivision Comm ee. Whenever a property is to be subdivided into 5 or
more parcels,the Su ivision Committee may hold a public hearing prior to
reporting on the tentat map for said subdivision. Notice of the time and
place thereof, including eneral description of the subject matter shall be
given at least 10 days be the hearing. Copies of said notice shall be mailed
to the subdivider,engineer, operty owner of the property proposed for
subdivision. Notice shall als a given to each local agency expected to
provide water, sewage,streets, hools,or other essential facilities or services
to the subdivision.
B. Notice of Public Hearings. Upon re ipt of an application that is accepted as
complete,the Department shall set a to for a public hearing,provide notice as
required by Chapter 248 and prepare a rt with recommendations. A copy
of the Department report shall be forwar d to the subdivider at least three
working days prior to the public hearing.
C. Planning Commission Action. The Planning mmission or Zoning
Administrator as the case may be, shall approv conditionally approve,or deny
a tentative map within 50 days after the tentative ap has been accepted. This
time period shall commence after certification of environmental impact
report, adoption of the negative declaration,or dete ' ation that the project is
exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (comme ing with Section
21000)of the Public Resources Code.
D. Factors to be Considered. In reaching a decision upon the tentative map, the
Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator shall consider the effect of that
decision on the housing needs of the region and balance these needs against the
public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental
*vow resources.
E. Approval. The tentative map may be approved or conditionally approved if the
following findings are made:
1. That the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan or any
applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code;
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of
development;
3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not
cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Notwithstanding the foregoing,the Planning Commission or Zoning
Administrator may approve such a tentative map if an environmental
impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was
made that specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report;
Chapter 251 251-3 10/3/94
HB -289- =. Item 10. - 105
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements,acquire?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.
F. Denial. The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator shall deny
approval of a tentative subdivision map if it determines that approval will result
in any of the conditions as described in Government Code Section 66474.
251.10 Waiver of Time Limits for Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission
Action
Any applicable time limits for acting on the tentative map may be extended by mutual
consent of the subdivider and the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. A waiver
of applicable time limits may equired to permit concurrent processing of related project
approvals or environmental nevi on the same development project.
251.12 Appeals of Planning mmission or Zoning Administrator Action
The subdivider or any interested perso adversely affected by action under Section 251.08
may,within 10 days after the decision, an appeal under the provision of Chapter 248.
251.14 Expiration
A. The approval or conditional appr al of a tentative map shall expire 24 months
from its approval. The period of t' e may be lengthened if the project is
subject to Section 66452.6(a), (b) (c)of the Subdivision Map Act.
251.16 Extensions
A. Request by Subdivider. The subdivider m request an extension of the
expiration date of the approved or condition ly approved tentative map by
written application to the Department. The lication and any required fee
shall be filed not less than 30 days before the p is to expire and shall state
the reasons for requesting the extension.
B. Action. The Department shall review the request, termine whether a public
hearing is required based on changing conditions m a area, and submit the
application for the extension, together with a report, the Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator for approval,conditional approval, or
denial at the next scheduled meeting. A copy of the Department's report shall
be forwarded to the subdivider prior to the Planning Commission meeting on
the extension. After conducting a public hearing or reviewing the request,the
Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator may approve or deny the
requested extension.
C. Time Limit of Extensions. The time at which the tentative map expires may be
extended for a period of time of up to one year,with a maximum of three one-
Chapter 251 251-4 f _ �_ 10/3/94 __ p
Item 10. - 106 HB -290-
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
MWUES
March 31,2011
Room B-7, City Hall—Lower Level, Huntington Beach Civic Center
3:30 P.M.
Subdivision Committee Planning Commissioners Present: Commissioner Blair Farley,
Commissioner Timothy J.Ryan, Commissioner Elizabeth Shier Burnett
Subdivision Committee Staff Members Present: Scott Hess, Bill Reardon,Debbie DeBow
Staff Present: Jennifer Villasenor, Darin Maresh, Tony Olmos
Applicant Present: Jim Hodgson,Mark Alpert, Robert Coldren
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397 (PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK
CONVERSION—RENTAL TO OWNERSHIP)
APPLICANT: Mark Hodgson, Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 12838 Old Foothill
Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92705
SUBDIVIDER: Mark Hodgson, Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 12838 Old Foothill
Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92705 H
ENGINEER: Burt Mazelow, R.T. Quinn & Associates, 1907 Border Avenue, Torrance, CA
90501
REQUEST: To subdivide an existing for-rent, mobile home park for ownership purposes
within the non-appealable area of the coastal zone. The applicant proposes to
subdivide the 252 existing mobile home spaces into 252 numbered lots with
31 lettered lots (interior drive aisles, landscape areas and common areas) to
enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots.
The meeting began and Committee Member Hess discussed the order of the meeting and that the
role of the Committee would be to review the proposed subdivision in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act, the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and applicable
codes and requirements.
Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Planning&Building Department Comments:
Project Planner, Jennifer Villasenor, gave an overview of the project and the proposed
subdivision map, the history of the Pacific Mobile Home Park property and Huntington Street
right-of-way, and provided an account of the subdivision map inadequacies and inconsistencies
with applicable codes and statutes. Staff concluded the presentation with a recommendation for
denial and provided the Subdivision Committee with suggested findings for the denial of the
tentative tract map. No other staff members spoke on the item.
ATTAk.HMENT NO.
HB -291- Item 10. - 107
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397:
1. Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code does not apply and is in conflict with the
proposed map because Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 (received and dated December 7,
2010) to convert 252 for-rent mobile home lots into condominium (ownership) lots, will
result in changes to existing lot lines and exterior boundary lines and therefore, does not
solely constitute a subdivision map created from the conversion of a rental mobile home park
to resident ownership.
2. The proposed tentative tract map would result in conditions specified in Section 66474 of the
California Government Code (and referenced in Chapter 251 of the HBZSO as the required
basis for denial of a tentative map), which stipulates that a tentative map shall be denied if the
proposed tentative map would result in any of the conditions listed in that section.
Specifically, Section 66474 requires denial of a tentative map that is not consistent with
applicable general plans. The proposed subdivision would violate the following City of
Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element goal and policies:
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and
reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the
current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new,
adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings.
Policy LU 4.2.6: Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent
building,municipal, and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality.
Although the subdivision map does not propose construction of new buildings, Policy LU
4.2.1 is applicable Citywide to ensure the quality of the City's built environment. Similar to
Policy LU 4.2.6, the General Plan requires that all proposed projects comply with applicable
City codes and that the City shall enforce compliance with these codes. To that end, the City
cannot approve a subdivision map that would result in violations of the Zoning Code and
Municipal Code, which would be the case if the subdivider elected to maintain the current
lots/configuration of the mobile homes and accessory structures.
Conversely, if the subdivider intends to move the existing lot lines such that no encroachment
occurs, the resulting lots may result in an inability to meet the standards and regulations of
the Mobile Home Parks Act/Health and Safety Code with respect to setbacks, access, and
other applicable development standards that would be required. These violations would be
detrimental to the current quality of life of the park residents affected by the physical changes
proposed by the tentative tract map. Although the City does not have enforcement authority
to require compliance with applicable standards, the City cannot approve a tentative map for
which it is unknown if violations of the Health and Safety Code would result or what the
consequences of moving the existing lot lines would be on the quality of life of affected
residents. Goal LU 1 aims to achieve improvement, and at a minimum, maintenance of the
quality of life for City residents. The proposed tentative map would not conflict with
achievement of this goal.
G:\Subdivisions\MINUTES\2010\SD 110331 MIN.doc 2 ATTACHMENT
Item 10. - 108 HB -292-
3. Pursuant to Section 66427 of the California Government Code, the City cannot approve
Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 because the location of the buildings on the property are
violative of local ordinances.
4. The City cannot make the necessary findings for approval specified in Chapter 251 of the
HBZSO, which require that "a proposed map is consistent with the General Plan or any
applicable specific plan, or other provisions of this Code." The proposed tentative tract map
conflicts with Section 202.04 of the HBZSO, Section 12.38.030 of the Municipal Code,
General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU 1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6 and Sections
66427, 66427.5 and 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Subdivision Committee Member Comments:
Committee Member Ryan asked staff for clarification as to how the scope of review was not
limited to 66427.5 if it was resulting from a change of ownership. Staff replied that the map
would result in lot/boundary changes and physical changes of the existing lots and dwelling units
which was inconsistent with the statements made in the applicant's narrative.
Committee Member Shier Burnett inquired as to why staff accepted the application for review if
Section 66427.5 does not limit the scope of review. Staff replied that the applicant insisted on
review of the map pursuant to 66427.5 and believes that the proposed subdivision map is limited
to the provisions of 66427.5. Staff also informed Committee Member Shier Burnett that staff
informed the applicant of the issues upon receiving the map and offered to refund the application
fees to allow the applicant to resolve the issues prior to submitting the.
Robert Coldren, representing the subdivider, thanked the Committee for reviewing the proposed
subdivision map and stated that the client is not looking to file a lawsuit but it will be necessary
if the map is denied. Mr. Coldren stated that the City is limited to considering the proposed
tentative map only on the basis of compliance with Section 66427.5 and that the subdivider was
not proposing to change legal lot lines. Mark Alpert, also representing the subdivider, stated that
the vast majority of Park residents support the proposed subdivision. Committee Member Shier
Burnett asked for clarification from staff, to which staff replied that only 25 percent of the
residents responded to the survey so the accuracy of the statement by Mr. Alpert could not be
verified and remained unknown. Jim Hodgson, subdivider, thanked the Committee for reviewing
that proposed subdivision map and stated that the owners are not proposing to convert or sell lots
in the immediate future.
Committee Member Ryan clarified that the action by the Subdivision Committee represents a
recommendation to the Planning Commission and would not constitute final action on the
proposed subdivision map. Staff confirmed.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMITTEE MEMBER FARLEY, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER SHIER BURNETT, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
(APPROVED 5-0-1,Ryan-Abstained).
A y�g�ntiSa""
GASubdivisionsuvIINUTES\2011GSD 110331 MIN.doc 3 TACWAIE .
HB -293- Item 10. - 109
ATTAC H M E N T #4E]
Item ,o . , ,o Ha -294-
xs -295- Item 10. - 111
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Inter Office Communication
Planning and Building Department
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building
DATE: April 12, 2011
SUBJECT: LATE COMMUNICATION ITEM B-1 —TTM 173971 CDP NO. 10-017 —
REVISED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
Staff is recommending that the following changes be incorporated into the suggested findings
for denial of the Pacific Mobile Home Park subdivision and subject entitlement requests.
Specifically, Finding No. 1 provides additional documentation that the City could not find that
the proposed subdivision map complies with Section 66427.5, notwithstanding the larger issue
that the City has determined that Section 66427.5 is not applicable to the proposed subdivision
map since it is not simply a change in the form of ownership of the Park. The changes are
depicted in bold and underlined font. No changes to any other findings are suggested.
A motion to deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017
should be followed by reference to the following findings in lieu of the findings provided in
Attachment No. 1 to the April 12, 2011 Staff Report.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397:
1. The City cannot make findings that Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 (received and
dated December 7, 2010) complies with Section 66427.5 of the California
Government Code because the "offer" to each existing tenant to either purchase his
or her condominium/subdivided unit or continue residency as a tenant, required
pursuant to Section 66427.5(a) at the time of filing a tentative map to ensure that
economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents is avoided, was conveyed
to the Park residents via a report on the impact of conversion upon residents. The
impact of conversion report, which is required to be provided to residents prior to
the local agency hearing in accordance with Section 66427.5(c), states that "all
residents will have the opportunity to either purchase the Lot on which their Home
is situated or to continue rent;ng their Space." It should be noted that the report
collectively defines a "lot", "space", and "home" as the location of land, fixed
improvements, dwelling, and leased premises as of the Bearing date. Given that the
proposed tentative tract map includes lots, spaces, leased premises and homes
outside of the boundary of the mobile home park property within the City's right-of-
way, the applicant cannot ensure that all residents will have the opportunity to
purchase their lot or continue renting their space despite making that statement, via
the impact of conversion report, to the residents. Furthermore, because the
applicant cannot ensure that all residents will have the opportunity to purchase
their lot or continue renting their space, the applicant cannot ensure that economic
displacement of all non-purchasing residents would be avoided.
Item 10. - 1121cific Mobile Home Park Conversion\PC-4-12 HB _296 TI° C1 1iYIMI lltl INTIf lNS R-1 P(: MTV 4-I/—/l li
Moreover, the City finds that Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code does
not apply and is in conflict with the proposed map because Tentative Tract Map No. 17397
to convert 252 for-rent mobile home lots into condominium (ownership) lots will result in
changes to existing lot lines and exterior boundary lines and therefore, does not solely
constitute a subdivision map created from the conversion of a rental mobile home park to
resident ownership.
2. The proposed tentative tract map would result in conditions specified in Section 66474 of
the California Government Code (and referenced in Chapter 251 of the HBZSO as the
required basis for denial of a tentative map), which stipulates that a tentative map shall be
denied if the proposed tentative map would result in any of the conditions listed in that
section. Specifically, Section 66474 requires denial of a tentative map that is not
consistent with applicable general plans. The proposed subdivision would violate the
following City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element goal and policies:
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and
reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the
current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including
new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings.
Policy LU 4.2.6: Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent
building, municipal, and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality.
Although the subdivision map does not propose construction of new buildings, Policy LU
4.2.1 is applicable Citywide to ensure the quality of the City's built environment. Similar to
Policy LU 4.2.6, the General Plan requires that all proposed projects comply with
applicable City codes and that the City shall enforce compliance with these codes. To that
end, the City cannot approve a subdivision map that would result in violations of the
Zoning Code and Municipal Code, which would be the case if the applicant maintains the
current lots/configuration of the mobile homes and accessory structures shown on the
map.
If the applicant intends to move the existing lot lines such that no encroachment occurs,
the resulting lots may result in an inability to meet the standards and regulations of the
Mobile Home Parks Act/Health and Safety Code with respect to setbacks, access, and
other applicable development standards that would be required. However, this report is
only analyzes the map that was submitted, not hypothetical configurations that the
applicant may create.
Mobile home owners with homes currently encroaching into the City right-of-way would
necessarily be required to move their homes in order to purchase their own lot prior to
obtaining title. This would require physical changes and a potential, and unanticipated,
obstacle for the purchase of the lot, especially considering the application was submitted
with the understanding that no physical changes are proposed. These violations would be
detrimental to the current quality of life of the park residents affected by the physical
changes proposed by the tentative tract map. Goal LU 1 aims to achieve improvement,
and at a minimum, maintenance of the quality of life for City residents. The proposed
tentative map would conflict with achievement of this goal.
GAVillasenorEPacific Mobile Home Park Conversion\PC-4-12 HB -297 nunication-TTM 17397-CDP10017-revised f Item 10. - 113
3. Pursuant to Section 66427 of the California Government Code, the City cannot approve
Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 because the location of the buildings on the property are
violative of local ordinances.
4. The City cannot make the necessary findings for approval specified in Chapter 251 of the
HBZSO, which require that "a proposed map is consistent with the General Plan or any
applicable specific plan, or other provisions of this Code." The proposed tentative tract
map conflicts with Section 202.04 of the HBZSO, Section 12.38.030 of the Municipal
Code, General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU 1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6 and
Sections 66427, 66427.5 and 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017:
1. The proposed coastal development permit, necessitated because it meets the definition of
development in the coastal zone, conflicts with Sections 202.04 of the HBZSO, Section
12.38.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and General Plan Goal LU1 and
Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6.
Item 10. - 114acific Mobile Home Park Conversion\PC-4-12 HB -298-munication-TTM 17397-CDP10017-revised findings.doc
n�
xB -299- Item 10. - 115
S
rl
HART, KING & COLDREN
Mark D.Aped
malpert@hkelaw,com
April 8, 2011
Our Fife Number. 38608.00614811-9888-3849v.1
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Barbara Delgleize, Chairperson
Janis Mantini, Vice-Chair
Erik Peterson, Commissioner
Mark Bixby, Commissioner
Timothy J. Ryan, Commissioner
Elizabeth Shier Burnett, Commissioner
Blair Farley, Commissioner
City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park
Tentative Tract Map 1393711-learing April 12, 2011
Dear Planning Commission Members:
My office represents the owners of Pacific Mobile Home Park ("Park"), who has applied for a
tentative tract map for the purposes of converting the Park to resident ownership. The
application does not involve any proposed physical changes to the property. It provides simply
for the change of the foram of ownership of the property. These "conversions" are governed by
California Government Code § 66427.5. Subdivision "e" of the statute limits the role of local
government bodies to determining compliance with that section:
(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. (emphasis added)
The lengthy staff report provided to you does not identify any failure of the park owner to comply
with the requirements of Section 66427.5. For that reason, the City is obligated to approve the
tentative subdivision application.
While the staff report states multiple reasons for denying the application, each reason is based
on the conclusion of staff that the subdivision application is not subject to Section 66427.5.
Staff claims Section 66427.5 does not apply because a group of tenants have located their
personal property (i.e. their mobile homes) in an area adjacent to Huntington which the City
claims to own pursuant to a street dedication.
It is important to emphasize that the subdivision map proposed by the applicant does not
propose property lines that encroach on the City's claimed right of way. The staff report
unfortunately misrepresents these facts more than once. For example, in the "Statement of
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana, California 92707
Ph 714.432.87001 www.hkciav
Item 10. - 116 HB -300KE COMMUNICATION #13-1 PC MTG 4-12-2011
v.
HART, KING G COLOPEh
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page 2
Issue"the staff report falsely claims the proposed map will require the elimination of existing lots
and/or lots that encroach on the public right of way. There are currently 252 mobile home
spaces in the park. The subdivision map proposes 252 mobile home lots with no encroachment
on the City's claimed right of way. On page 9 of the staff report, it states °The City cannot
approve a map that depicts property lines that encroach onto the right of way . . . ." The
Applicant has not submitted and does not propose a map that encroaches on the City's claimed
right of way.
Staff does accurately state that the proposed tentative tract map shows certain homes located
in the claimed right-of-way on Huntington. The fact that there may be personal property
encroaching on the City's claimed right of way is irrelevant to the subdivision application. It is
true that any encroachment would most likely have to be addressed before the lots were sold,
but the Applicant does not seek a permit for moving any encroaching homes. This situation is
legally no different than if a resident had left: an old non-running Chevy on blocks in the City's
right of way.
As City staff is aware, the subdivision map that was submitted by the Applicant does not
propose to create any legal lots in the area the City currently claims to be subject to a
dedication. These lots are large enough to fit appropriately sized mobile homes. Assuming the
City is correct that there is an encroachment on the City right-of-way, that encroachment is an
issue that the City has elected not to address over several decades. Regardless, it is irrelevant
to the subdivision application. The City's rights to address that encroachment are not negatively
impacted by the recording of the subdivision map, and the occasion of map approval is not the
time or enforcement mechanism to address the issue.
Staff is correct that,for practical purposes, no lots will be sold which are encroaching unless and
until the encroachments are removed. In fact, although the City cannot legally require it, the
applicant is willing to accept the condition that no lots will be sold with personal property
encroaching on City property. But the removal of any encroachments is legally irrelevant to the
subdivision application.
The sole basis for the staff recommendation is a legal conclusion that this subdivision does not
fall within the ambit of Government Code Section 66427.5. We think this legal conclusion is in
error and are struck by the fact that the conclusion is not supported by any legal analysis. Of
course, planning staff is not qualified to provide a legal opinion. Given the importance of this
issue to the application, the Planning Commission should have the benefit of a thoughtful legal
analysis before it makes its decision.
In our view, staffs "legal" conclusion that the existence of this purported encroachment takes
the subdivision application out of the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 is
baseless. There is nothing in the language of the statute either explicitly or implicitly includes
any such limitation. The introductory language of the ordinance specifies:
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
36608.00614811-9888-3849v.1
HB -301- Item 10. - 117
t
HART. KING & COLDRCN
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page 3
shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the
following manner.
The key language in subdivision "a" specifies:
(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. (emphasis added)
The basis for staffs conclusion is difficult to ascertain. There are essentially two kinds of mobile
home park conversions. There is a conversion that retains the existing use, which is governed
by Section 66427.5 and this is a conversion for another use, governed by Section 66427.4.
This section is intended to address a change from a mobile home park use to some kind of
other use that will displace residents. See El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs,
96 Cal.AppAth 1153, 1161 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2002) The Court in Et Dorado affirmed that
Section 66427.4 had no application where the subdivider intended to continue operating as a
mobile home park:
The problem with the Association's contention that section 66427.4 applies is that
a change in form of ownership is not a change in use. After the change of
ownership, the mobilehome park will remain a mobilehome park. Since section
66427.4 applies to changes in use, it is inapplicable here. As noted above, this
conclusion is'specifically confirmed by subdivision (e)."
El Dorado is a reported decision arising out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Huntington
Beach is in the same appellate district), which has been repeatedly affirmed by other appellate
courts.
Thus, to the extent there are encroachments, they do not impact whether Section 66427.5
applies. The staff recommendations adopted by the subdivision committee made no claim of
non-compliance with that section other than the claimed encroachments.
Given how clear the law is on this issue, I am surprised that staff has taken this position. We
respectfully submit that as Planning Commissioners, if you are going to base your decision
strictly on the analysis of a legal issue, that you obtain thoughtful and researched legal opinions
from your City Attorney. Staffs unsupported legal conclusion does not constitute "substantial
evidence" supporting your decision.
Given the absence of any serious legal analysis underlying the staff report, we are concerned
that staffs opposition is motivated by opposition to the project itself. City staff and indeed the
Planning Commissioners may not like this use of the property. They may not like the fact that
Government Code Section 66427.5 prevents them from imposing conditions and fees on the
subdivision. However, the City is obligated to follow state law. State law requires that this
36608.006/4811-988&3849v.1
Item 10. - 118 xs -302-
HART, KltJG &- COLDREN
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page 4
subdivision application be approved. We hope the Planning Commission will meet its
obligations under state law and approve the application.
Sincerely,
?RT, G &C . Lpe
MDA/sm
cc: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC (via email)
Jennifer McGrath, Esq.
Jennifer Villasenor
Scott Hess
36608.00614811-9888-3849v.1
HB -303- Item 10. - 119
Huntington Beach Planning Commission RECEIVED
2000 Main Street APR 12 2011
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dept.of Planning
April 12, 2011 &Biding
Dear Commision Members;
It is with a great level of concern that we write this letter regarding the Pacific Mobile
Home Conversion proposal.
We are writing to state that we are not in support of the proposal for a number of reasons.
To summarize and keep it to the point we bring you the following items for your
consideration;
1. The proposed tract map you have been given does not match the physical
structures present on many of the individual home sites.
We have had a compromised living situation for the last four years involving this
exact issue and are currently involved in a legal action with the park over lot lines,
(case#07CC08467, OC Sup. Court). We have been told there are no historical
records of lot lines and newly purposed tract maps do not match the physical
structures or conform to HB current mobile home standards.
2. From our personal observation and experience there are violations of Title 25-
Mobilehome Residency Code, which if park converts to subdivision who is
responsible for correction and/or change of these conditions?
3. If the park has current violations with HCD-Housing and Community
Development, would correction be a condition of proceeding with conversion?
4. Were the conversion approved to proceed does further jurisdiction and code
enforcement become transferred to the city of Huntington Beach? And are the
standards for code enforcement adopted from HCD or HB's current mobile home
regulation?
5. Clearly, to evaluate any prospectus for sale/conversion there needs to be a price
tag set per lot to evaluate the feasibility of residential purchase.
These issues need careful consideration and we would welcome the opportunity to
discuss or contribute in any way.
Thank You, -- �--s
Christine and David ShawC� ~�
80 Huntington St #601 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714-374-5640
docmcclure@yahoo.com
Item 10. - 120 HB -304�TE COMMUNICATIONS #13-1 PC MTG 4-12-2011
4/12/2011
Tentative Tract Flap No. 17397
Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017
Pacific (Mobile Home Park
80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach CA
Applicant/Property Owner: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC— Mark Hodgson
Planning Commission Meeting
April 12, 2011
Request:
• TTM No. 17397 to subdivide the existing for-rent,
mobile home park with a total of 252 units for
ownership purposes into 252 numbered lots
representing the mobile home lots and 31 lettered
lots representing interior drive aisles, landscape areas
and common areas.
• CDP No. 10-017 to permit the proposed subdivision
request in the non-appealable area of the coastal
zone.
HB -305- Item 10. - 121
4/12/2011
Site Zoning and History
Pacific Mobile Home Park
O Approved in 1953
V 1989 portion of site sold to City _
for Walnut Avenue extension
o Currently 252 for-rent mobile
home lots
• Zoning: RMP—CZ {
9 General Plan: RM-15
5
Size: approx. 18 acres
� r
Project Request Overview
• Proposed tentative tract map submitted pursuant to
Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code
(Subdivision Map Act)
• Represents an application to create numbered residential
lots corresponding to the existing 252 rental spaces that
are currently permitted by HCD
• Project narrative states that no physical changes are
proposed
• Applicant is seeking to "create legally recordable property
boundaries based on the existing configuration of HCD
approved rental spaces and common areas."
Item 10. - 122 xB -306- 2
4/12/2011
Huntington St® Encroachments
tj
Is E S
LU
7 24
0,
61)
> 7
UI nn existl mdbl I A d'- .1 15
*ig C ingfph Sli
ZI
(163)
f® Right of Way
0
Line
6". -H
,fie A npe 245
(165)
:z11 legal 5 o
(115) :Z UY WIRE
Analysis
• Applicant contends that TTM does not propose to create new lot
lines within the City's right-of-way
• Applicant contends that encroachment of existing homes is
"irrelevant to subdivision application"
• Except, the applicant submitted the map believing that
authorization to encroach onto the Huntington Street right-of-
way had been granted by the City and
• The encroaching mobile homes and structures.are defined as
part of the existing "Lot" or "Space" in the California Health and
Safety Code and HBZSO and
• TTM application indicates that "residents have the option to
purchase the lot created from their existing space or to continue
leasing that space"
• Therefore, the proposed TTM shows the creation of lot lines
within the City's right-of-way I
HB -307- Item 10. - 123
e 4/12/2011
Analysis (continued)
• Applicant states that encroachment "situation is legally no
different than if a resident had left an old non-running
Cheery on blocks in the City's right of way"
• Except,the encroaching mobile homes and structures , as
shown on the proposed TTM and described in the project
narrative, are considered part of the "Lot" or "Space" as
defined in the California Health and Safety Code and
HRZS® and
• The applicant's own Impact of Conversion Report (which
was distributed to all of the Park residents as required by
State law) defines a "Lot" as the land and fixed
improvements within the Space on which the Resident's
Horne is located as of the Hearing ®ate
HKF-,,.c
Analysis - continued 'ti 6.2010 � to Residents
22 Henes rill The"Hearing Date"is the dote on which the subdivision
Application is first heard by the City Planning Commission.
23 &=The"Home"is the mmufactured home that occupies the Spam
Excerpt from Impact of what the Resident is living as ofthe Hearing Doe
2.4 del. find
A"Lot'is the lead and wl improvements within the Sp=on
Conversion Report which the ResidemN Hone la)seated as of tba Hearing Date.
submitted by the meter L oA�eiving t"a i persun living in applicable Home o dx Park who
virg prateaioss atfmded by 4w,
applicant with the 2A �- is the leased pswises on which the Resident's Home
is located as of d.Hearing Date.
proposed TTM SECTION III NON-PURCHASWG RESIDENTS WILL NOT BE
ECONOhRCALLY DISPLACED RY CONVERSION
application No purchasing Reaidenta will rot be can comically displaced as a result of
conversion. Following the Conversion Date.all Residents will have the opportunity to
enter purchase the Lot on which them Home is dmatcd or to continue mmiag their Span
(GovL Code¢66e27.5(a))The Application does not earnnpase rem increases for non-
wrehasing Residents.
Nah-purchasing residents enjoy srarmory potectimis agaimt post conversion rem
increases that Vold not otherwise be avelhnWc wkhnal Conversion. (Gout.Cole
66427.5 rip Therefore,upon conversion of the Park to resident ownership,rmn-
purchming Residents are protected against economic displaceme4 assuming that rent
iocrosis could result in ecaaomic displacement
3.1 Non-Parchuiao option m eoadaRaee amisa aA.t enPSMvro04gl eat
woo, by the
PMandea to
Rent teereaw
Following the Conversion Dune,Residents who do not exercise the option to
purchase their Lots and insaead eaen,,the oplroa to eommuc rcmiug their Spear me
Protected from ecommk f lacerrretn by Mfuto y reM Kbms on rcot increases. The
xmtutory provisions limit the amount and timing of sent increases following conversion.
(Goys.Code.§664275(f))
Item 10. - 124 HB —308— 4
4/12/2011
Conclusions
— The proposed TTM is not a "simple" subdivision created from a
change in the form of ownership and directly conflicts with
Section 66427.5 of the Govt. Code
— The HB Municipal Code prohibits encroachment of private
dwellings on public right-of-way
— The applicant does not have authorization to submit an
application to subdivide the mobile home park and create new
lot lines within the City's right-of-way as required by the HBZSO
— The proposed TTM and application materials conflict with
applicant's stated intent that the project is a "simple"
subdivision
— The City cannot approve a tentative map that depicts property
lines that encroach onto the public right-of-way without
consent and additional subdivision
Recommendation
Recommend that the Planning Commission deny Tentative
Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No.
10-017 with suggested findings based on the following:
— The location of the buildings on the property are violative of
local ordinances (Subdivision Map Act Section 66427).
— Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 will result in changes to existing
lot lines and exterior boundary lines and therefore, does not
solely constitute a subdivision map created from the
conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership
and conflicts with application of Section 66427.5 of the
California Government Code.
— The proposed TTM and CDP violate the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, General
Plan and Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act.
xB -309- Item 10. - 125
ATTACHMENT #5
ug�-Item 10. - 126 xa -310-
®� Huntington Beach Planning Commission
• 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
P
NOTICE OF ACTION
April 13,2011
Mark Hodgson
Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
12838 Old Foothill Boulevard
Santa Ana, CA 92705
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 10-017(PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION—
CONVERSION FROM RESIDENT RENTAL TO OWNERSHIP)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: Mark Hodgson, Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
REQUEST: TTM:A request by the Pacific Mobile Home Park(Park) property owner to
subdivide an existing for-rent, mobile home park with a total of 252 units for
ownership purposes. The Park owner proposes to subdivide the 252 existing
mobile home spaces into 252 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots representing
interior drive aisles, landscape areas and common areas to enable the
existing park residents to purchase their own lots. CDP: To permit the
proposed subdivision in the non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone.
LOCATION: 80 Huntington Street(southeast comer of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington
Street)
DATE OF
ACTION: April 12, 2011
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 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 or ten (10)working days for a coastal development permit 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 Eighty-Seven Dollars
($1,587.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the
decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Forty Five Dollars ($3,045.00)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 Tuesday. April 26, 2011, at 5:00 PM.
Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 www.surfclty-hb.org
HB -311- Item 10. - 127
Notice of Action:TTM No. 17397/CDP 10-017
April 12,2011
Page 2
Excepting those actions commenced pursuant to 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 Govemment
Code§66020.
If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Villasenor, the project planner, at
JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org or(714)374-1661 or the Planning and Building Department Zoning
Counter at (714)536-5271.
Sincerely,
Scott Hess, Secretary
Planning Commission
By:
-A -
Herb Fauland, Planning Mlinager
SH:H F:JV:kdc
Attachment: Findings For Denial—TTM No. 17397/CDP 10-017
C. Honorable Mayor and City Council
Chair and Planning Commission
Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building
Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal
Mike Vigliotta, Deputy City Attorney I I I
Debbie DeBow, Senior Civil Engineer
Marts Carnahan, Inspection Manager
Jennifer Villasenor, Senior Planner
Project File
Item 10. - 128 HB -312-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 173971
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397:
1. The City cannot make findings that Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 (received and dated
December 7, 2010) complies with Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code
because the "offer" to each existing tenant to either purchase his or her
condominium/subdivided unit or continue residency as a tenant, required pursuant to
Section 66427.5(a) at the time of filing a tentative map to ensure that economic
displacement of all non-purchasing residents is avoided, was conveyed to the Park
residents via a report on the impact of conversion upon residents. The impact of
conversion report, which is required to be provided to residents prior to the local agency
hearing in accordance with Section 66427.5(c), states that "all residents will have the
opportunity to either purchase the Lot on which their Home is situated or to continue renting
their Space." It should be noted that the report collectively defines a "lot", "space", and
"home"as the location of land,fixed improvements, dwelling, and leased premises as of the
Hearing date. Given that the proposed tentative tract map includes lots, spaces, leased
premises and homes outside of the boundary of the mobile home park property within the
City's right-of-way, the applicant cannot ensure that all residents will have the opportunity to
purchase their lot or continue renting their space despite making that statement, via the
impact of conversion report, to the residents. Furthermore, because the applicant cannot
ensure that all residents will have the opportunity to purchase their lot or continue renting
their space, the applicant cannot ensure that economic displacement of all non-purchasing
residents would be avoided.
Moreover, the City finds that Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code does not
apply and is in conflict with the proposed map because Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 to
convert 252 for-rent mobile home lots into condominium (ownership) lots will result in
changes to existing lot lines and exterior boundary lines and therefore, does not solely
constitute a subdivision map created from the conversion of a rental mobile home park to
resident ownership.
2. The proposed tentative tract map would result in conditions specified in Section 66474 of
the Califomia Government Code (and referenced in Chapter 251 of the HBZSO as the
required basis for denial of a tentative map), which stipulates that a tentative map shall be
denied if the proposed tentative map would result in any of the conditions listed in that
section. Specifically, Section 66474 requires denial of a tentative map that is not consistent
with applicable general plans. The proposed subdivision would violate the following City of
Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element goal and policies:
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and
reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the
current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
G:IPCWOA111\04-12-11 TTM No. 17397 CDP 10-017(Pacific Mobile Home) Attachment 1.1
HB -313- Item 10. - 129
Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including
new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings.
Policy LU 4.2.6: Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent
building, municipal, and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality.
Although the subdivision map does not propose construction of new buildings, Policy LU
4.2.1 is applicable Citywide to ensure the quality of the City's built environment Similar to
Policy LU 4.2.6, the General Plan requires that all proposed projects comply with applicable
City codes and that the City shall enforce compliance with these codes. To that end, the
City cannot approve a subdivision map that would result in violations of the Zoning Code
and Municipal Code, which would be the case if the applicant maintains the current
tots/configuration of the mobile homes and accessory structures shown on the map.
If the applicant intends to move the existing lot lines such that no encroachment occurs, the
resulting lots may result in an inability to meet the standards and regulations of the Mobile
Home Parks Act/Health and Safety Code with respect to setbacks, access, and other
applicable development standards that would be required. However, this report only
analyzes the map that was submitted, not hypothetical configurations that the applicant
may create.
Mobile home owners with homes currently encroaching into the City right-of-way would
necessarily be required to move their homes in order to purchase their own lot prior to
obtaining title. This would require physical changes and a potential, and unanticipated,
obstacle for the purchase of the lot, especially considering the application was submitted
with the understanding that no physical changes are proposed. These violations would be
detrimental to the current quality of life of the park residents affected by the physical
changes proposed by the tentative tract map. Goal LU 1 aims to achieve improvement,
and at a minimum, maintenance of the quality of life for City residents. The proposed
tentative map would conflict with achievement of this goal.
3. Pursuant to Section 66427 of the California Government Code, the City cannot approve
Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 because the location of the buildings on the property are
violative of local ordinances.
4. The City cannot make the necessary findings for approval specified in Chapter 251 of the
HBZSO, which require that "a proposed map is consistent with the General Plan or any
applicable specific plan, or other provisions of this Code." The proposed tentative tract
map conflicts with Section 202.04 of the HBZSO, Section 12.38.030 of the Municipal Code,
General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU 1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6 and Sections
66427, 66427.5 and 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017:
1. The proposed coastal development permit, necessitated because it meets the definition of
development in the coastal zone, conflicts with Sections 202.04 of the HBZSO, Section
12.38.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and General Plan Goal LU1 and Policies
LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6.
G:\PC\NCA\1110412-11 TTM No. 17397 CDP 10-017(Pacific Mobile Home) Attachment 1.2
Item 10. - 130 HB -314-
5/31/2011
Appe:a of`
Tentatiwe Tract. Map No. 17397
Coastal Development Permit No 1.0:=0.17
Pacific'Mobile Home Park
80 Huntington Street,Huntington B_each CA
Appellant: Hart King and'Co dren for:Property Owner: '
City Council `Meeting
� Request.
mobile home park with a total of 252 units for �
lots representing interior drive a`is yes,,. Ia,ndscape areas '
and common areas. i
request inn the no.n-appea��ab.l:earea oaf the coasts°P
on April 12, 2011 subject to pq
HB -315- Item 10. - 131
1
Site Zoningand History
v
Pacific Mobile Home Park
• Approved in 1953 �u MR
1989 portion of site sold to City z j�` i
for Minut,Avenue,extension r U
Currently. 252 for-rent mobileVj
' "
Home lots
• Zoning: RMP'_.CZ
General Plan RM-15
Size:`approx. 18 acre pzircel
" RttsrN
M-
Project .Request Overview
Proposed tentative tract ma'p submitted pursuant to
.Secti'on 66427.5 of the California Government C'od'e
('Subdivision Ma'p Act)
• Represents an application to create numbered`;residential
lots corresponding to the.existing 252 rental spaces that
are currently permitted by H;CD
Project narrative states that no. physical.changes: are;
proposed
• ,Applicant is seeking to. "create leeally.recordabl.e property
boundaries based.on the existing_confi6ratio.n_of H;CD'
approved.rental spacesand comnmon areas."
1 :
5/31/2011
� Huntington St. Encroachments
xx
44
IL
11
co
00
i
I
in
I � Right of Way
inexx
•
np
`U WIR
E -
i
Analysis - Appeal.
• Appellant contends that TTM does not propose to create new lot lines within the +
Gity's right-of-way and the.City cannot consider factors other than provisions of `
Section.66427.5.
f• .However,the Appellant submitted the map believing that authorization to encroach
I onto the Huntington Street right=of-way had been granted by the City: ti
�• Appellant now states that the lots would be reconfigured consistent with existing �
right=of-way line and that City has no jurisdiction to regulate interior lot boundaries.
• However,the encroaching mobile homes and structures are,defined as part of the i
existing"Lot" or"Space"in the California Health and Safety Code and,HBZSO.
• In addition,the City can require lots to be consistent with State law requirements
fregulating Mobile Home Parks.
• The proposed TTM would create:new fot lines in the City's right=of-way and
reconfigure the existing Park lots resulting in physical.changes.
I• In either case, chanees are not consistent with scope of"chanee in form of 'I
I ownership" j
5/31/2011
; Analysis--- Appeal (continued)
• Appeilant�°�s stated that encroachment is irrelevant to conversi.o;n
and "situation is legally no different than if a resident had left an old
non-running Chevy on blocks i'n the City's right of way" or "an old
refrigerator"
• However., Section 66427.5 requires avoidance of economic
displacement of non-purchasing residents by providing that,non-
purchasing residents can continue renting their existing lot/space.
• TTM application indicates that "residents have the option to
purchase the lot created from their existing space or to continue
leasinng that space"
• :However,..Appellant.cannot.ensure that residents would be able to
purchase or continue renting their'lot/space. Further subdivision
and/or h sical chain es to existin lots would be re uired.
p y g g q i
• Therefore, the proposed TTM does not comply with Section 66427.5.
• Furthermore, Section 66427.5 would not apply to the proposed TTM
since it proposes changes beyond form of ownership.
1
Recommendation ,
• Recommend that the City Council deny Tentative Tract Map
No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017
1
with suggested findings based on the following:
— Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 will result in changes to existing
lot lines and exterior boundary lines and therefore, does not
solely constitute a subdivision map created from the
conversion of a rental.mobile home park to resident ownership ;
and conflicts with application of Section 66427:.5 of the,
j California Government Code..
— The proposed TTM and CDP violate the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, General
` Plan and Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act.
= i
COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING June 6, 2011
AGENDA ITEM:
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative
Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit
No. 10-017 (Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision -
Conversion from Resident Dental to Ownership)
HB -319- Item 10. - 135
May 9, 2011
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
2000 Main street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
RE:Paci*Mobile(dome Park Subdivision MAY 1. 1 2011
Huntington Beach
Dear Huntington Beach City Council: CL-TY COUNCIL OFFICE
On June 6,2011,a vote will be taken by the City Council in reference to the Subdivision of Pacific Mobile Home
Park.It is my hope and recommendation that the City Council will up-hold both the Subdivision Committees and
Planning Commissions decision of not approving this subdivision.
In spite of the misinformation being circulated that the majority of the park residents actually approve of this
subdivision,that information is purposely misleading. While it is true that the majority of those actually returning
the survey from Newport Pacific Capital did approve of this action,the returned surveys only accounted for about
25%of all the residents.In other words,some 75%of the residents didn't even bother to fill-out or return the
survey at all;thus and in essence casting a"NO"vote.
Yet,misleading information such as this is not the main reason this subdivision was not approved.The reason for
this decision was,by law,the property needs to be free and clear of any encumbrances,and is actually owned by
the park owners themselves.As it turns out,the park has built on and allowed to encroach with so-called park
property over the years,but is actually built on the City right-of-way,all along Huntington Street. Likewise,this
now seems to be not only a conflict of interest,but actually ludicrous that the Park Owners(and their attorneys)
would continue to seek a Subdivision approval for park land that doesn't even belong to them.This is currently
evidenced,that at present,the park is in violation of a number of laws,including City Zoning,The General Plan
and the Coastal Common.In fact,because of these violations,it is my understanding that the City itself will now
be suing the park owners.
Yet,the Subdivision of this park continues to want to move forward anyway, in spite of some of this land within
their proposed Subdivision not being in the parks jurisdiction and authority to do it.Apparently,they want
approval anyway,and worry about the detail later. Obviously,the Subdivision Committee and Planning
Commission did not feel this way.The bottom line is,the law is the law.Either the park owners own the land in
question,or they don't.Therefore,land that the park owners have used for years,does not automatically make it
their,just because they haven't been caught all this time.
It would certainly not to fair to all those residents along Huntington Street,to tell them that the subdivision was
approved,but if they only in particular wanted to purchase their own lot as all the others in the park could,they
would have to move and relocate their home,actually reconfiguring it smaller to now fit in a downsized space.In
addition,the vast majority of all those mobile home are of an age,that by law,they cannot be moved,thus
requiring the home owner to purchase a new home.To my way of thinking,why should a double standard be
perpetrated upon a select group of residents,when it was the park owners themselves who were violating the laws
by allowing these homes and/or accessories to be placed upon the City's right-of-way to begin with-not that of the
resident themselves,who were not even aware that there was a problem.
Item 10. - 136 HB -320-
Page 2
Now, if the park owners themselves want to buy out each and every mobile home they allowed to encroach on the
City's right-of-way,and purchase all concerned a new home themselves that can actually fit on a reconfigured lot,
that should be the park owners responsibility and expense,not that of any of the residents.Obviously,and
currently,the park owners(and their attorneys)want it both way,with any extra costs or burden being placed right
back on the residents.Because,this is clearly a double standard,the Subdivision should not be allowed just for that
reason alone.
In addition,the legal counsel for the park owners now claim that the park owners had no idea these homes and/or
accessories were actually being placed upon the City's right-of way to begin with;that it was the responsibility of
HCD(Housing&Community Development),who is responsible for passing the final inspection on each and every
home. Since HCD did not check with the City,the park owners now claims...how can this be their responsibility?
First-of-all,I would like to point out,that it is still supposedly their land HCD is dealing with,thus their(the park
owners)responsibility by law.
Yet,with all due respect,I personally cannot see or even fathom how the park owners could not know.Each and
every resident I talked with through the years knew of some type of easement,owned by the City,into the so-
called park property, all along Huntington Street. It was obviously no mystery or secret. But,from a more legal
point of view,and as evidenced pointing contrary to the park owners claims,even I as a Licensed Salesperson with
HCD,for any new home in any park(Pacific Mobile Home Park included),I need to get a sighed and approved
plot plan from the actual park owner/manager themselves,showing the actual lot(with lot line),plus the size and
configuration of just how and where the home will be placed on any given lot.In other words,the parks owners not
only had to know what was being placed on each and every lot,even all along Huntington Street,but had to sign
off on the plot plan before any dealer could proceed. In addition,while HCD may perform the actual inspection of
the home on the lot in order to be issued an occupancy permit,they also need to obtain the necessary permits from
the City itself.The bottom line is,and in other words,all concerned knew exactly what they were doing and what
was actually taking place in reference to the homes all'along Huntington Street and the City's right-of way.
Admittedly,some of those homes could have been placed on these lots in question,before the present owners took
possession of the property. However,purchasing the land from another park owner does not relieve them of any
legal and/or other related obligations.That is still their responsibility. On the other hand,it would be interesting to
see just when the City itself placed this easement on so-called park property,and how many homes and/or
accessories where allowed to be placed over this right-of-way since that time.
Therefore,as I said before,I encourage the City Council to also deny this Subdivision by the present park owners,
and for all the above mentioned reasons,the biggest being,they cannot try to include land that is actually not
legally theirs.Now,if they want to re-configure this Subdivision boundary to exclude all those living on the so-
called City's right-of way,and have the remaining park property approved without these encumbrances,which
would present a different point of view. Of course,then that may also bring about a lawsuit against the park
owners,from all those residents all along Huntington Street thinking they have been short changed through no
fault of their own.
HB -321- Item 10. - 137
Page 3
I hope and trust the City Council will make the right decision in this case,and will also take the residents own tack
of this support for the Subdivision into mind,and not totally ignore this fact as in the case of Huntington
Shorecliffs.
Sincerely,
ohn Sisker
Founding Director,
Manufactured Home Owners Network
http:/iwww.pAhomeowners.net
80 Huntington Street.#266
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5343
'sit sker2Wrynet.com
(714)536-3850
Item 10. - 13 8 HB -322-
-._.." ..-_.�...ar.T«...•.....-..... .� --• .. m'#rrsimil�.S�vvrmrrovM»w.w........n.n=ua_7.Yr,....�—......._�......-r,-..,- ......,-.....,...... ....
John Sicker
80-Huntington Street#266 °'.�:;�� ..,,� s •.fir ....�:..�:•� r� :�_y-:�, �"- :.,R, .h
Huntington Beacb � -y„ � w M
CA 9264$ ,,�d�:st`�` T�,
.: ': : ".:' ...�.,.. ai j'miyV a+waM� o
#_ tti o• a,
W
N
W
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
c/o the City Clerk's Office
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
� • �«�•�'�.+� ��'=�4 •'"• :����siei�a�r��i�a'�i..r.�.�i>�azc����x�x7i�y�ra��t��iia��fst������ .• .
O
i
W
Esparza, Patty
From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.con.]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 7:39 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification)
Request#8262 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: Nancy Meeks
Description: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of
Pacific Mobile Home Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of
Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision, as stated in the Planning
Commission's Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines
encroaches upon the Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street
cannot be legally subdivided and sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park
Owners, and the mobilehome homeowners should not have to purchase smaller homes to
accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed Subdivision does not conform
to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in accordance
with the Coastal Act and Mello Act, which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents.
The Law Firm for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King &Coldren
(HK&C), is the same the Law Firm that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington
Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted Subdivision in mobilehome parks
throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the Huntington Shorecliffs
Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&C the Park Owners
canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing, then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to
Subdivision,thereby avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code
66427.5 for low income residents. More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs
Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon their homes, or sell them for
ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion, for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots, there is no
guarantee than investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents
to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home
Park.
i
Item 10. - 140 HB -324-
Sincerely,
Nancy Meeks
21752 Pacific Coast Hwy. #2A
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646
(949) 945-5320
Expected Close➢date: 05/31/2011
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
HB -325- Item 10. - 141
COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING June 6, 2011
AGENDA ITEM:
Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative
Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit
No. 10-017 (Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision -
Conversion from Resident Rental to Ownership)
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
JOAN L. FLYNN
CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF ACTION
Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017
(Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision — Conversion from Residential Rental to
Ownership)
NON-APPEALABLE DEVELOPMENT
June 9, 2011
Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
Attn: Mark Hodgson
80 Huntington Street
Huntington Beach CA 92648
APPLICANT/
APPELLANT: Pacific Mobile Home Park LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach,
CA 92648/ Hart, King and Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, 4h Floor, Santa
Ana, CA 92707
REQUEST: TTM: A request by the Pacific Mobile Home Park (Park) property owner to
subdivide an existing for-rent, mobile home park with a total of 252 units
for ownership purposes. The Park owner proposes to subdivide the 252
existing mobile home spaces into 252 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots
representing interior drive aisles, landscape areas and common areas to
enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. CDP: To
permit the proposed subdivision in the non-appealable area of the Coastal
Zone.
LOCATION: 80 Huntington Street (southeast corner of Atlanta Avenue and
Huntington Street)
On Monday, June 6, 2011 a public hearing was held to consider an appeal filed by Hart,
King and Coldren on behalf of Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, of the Huntington Beach
Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development
Permit No. 10-017 (Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision — Conversion from Resident
Rental to Ownership). The following action was taken by the Huntington Beach City
Council:
Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan • Waitakere, New Zealand
(Telephone:714-536-5227)
NOA TTM 17397 and CDP 10-017
June 9, 2011
Page Two
Denied Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017
with findings for denial.
This project lies within the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone. If you have any
questions, please contact Jennifer Villasenor, Senior Planner at (714) 374-1661.
Sincerely,
an L. Flynn, CIVIC
City Clerk
Enclosure: Findings for Denial - Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal
Development Permit No. 10-017
Page 5 - June 6, 2011 Action Agenda
c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building
Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager
Herb Fauland, Planning Manager
Mark Alpert, Hart, King and Coldren
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017
FINDINGS.FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397:
1. The.City cannot make findings that Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 (received and
dated December 7, 2010) complies with Section 66427.5 of the California
Government Code because the "offer"to each existing tenant to either purchase his
or her condominium/subdivided unit or continue residency as a tenant, required
pursuant to Section 66427.5(a) at the time of filing a tentative map to ensure that
economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents is avoided, was conveyed
to the Park residents via a report on the impact of conversion upon residents. The
impact of conversion report, which is required to be provided to residents prior to
the local agency hearing in accordance with Section 66427.5(c), states that "all
residents will have the opportunity to either purchase the Lot on which their Home is
situated or to continue renting their Space." It should be noted that the report
collectively defines a "lot", "space", and "home" as the location of land, fixed
improvements, dwelling, and leased premises as of the Hearing date. Given that
the proposed tentative tract map includes lots, spaces, leased premises and homes
outside of the boundary of the mobile home park property within the City's right-of-
way, the applicant cannot ensure that all residents will have the opportunity to
purchase their lot or continue renting their space despite making that statement, via
the impact of conversion report, to the residents. Furthermore, because the
applicant cannot ensure that all residents will have the opportunity to purchase their
lot or continue renting their space, the applicant cannot ensure that economic
displacement of all non-purchasing residents would be avoided.
Moreover, the City finds that Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code
does not apply and is in conflict with the proposed map because Tentative Tract
Map No. 17397 to convert 252 for-rent mobile home lots into condominium
(ownership) lots will result in changes to existing lot lines and exterior boundary
lines and therefore, does not solely constitute a subdivision map created from the
conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership.
2. The proposed tentative tract map would result in conditions specified in Section
66474 of the California Government Code (and referenced in Chapter 251 of the
HBZSO as the required basis for denial of a tentative map), which stipulates that a
tentative map shall be denied if the proposed tentative map would result in any of
the conditions listed in that section. Specifically, Section 66474 requires denial of a
tentative map that is not consistent with applicable general plans. The proposed
subdivision would violate the following City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land
Use Element goal and policies:
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal
viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality
of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations;
including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings.
Policy LU 4.2.6: Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent
building, municipal, and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality.
Although the subdivision map does not propose construction of new buildings,
Policy LU 4.2.1 is applicable Citywide to ensure the quality of the City's built
environment. Similar to Policy LU 4.2.6, the General Plan requires that all
proposed projects comply with applicable City codes and that the City shall enforce
compliance with these codes. To that end, the City cannot approve a subdivision
map that would result in violations of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code, which
would be the case if the applicant maintains the current lots/configuration of the
mobile homes and accessory structures shown on the map.
If the applicant intends to move the existing lot lines such that no encroachment
occurs, the resulting lots may result in an inability to meet the standards and
regulations of the Mobile Home Parks Act/Health and Safety Code with respect to
setbacks, access, and other applicable development standards that would be
required. However, this report only analyzes the map that was submitted, not
hypothetical configurations that the applicant may create.
Mobile home owners with homes currently encroaching into the City right-of-way
would necessarily be required to move their homes in order to purchase their own
lot prior to obtaining title. This would require physical changes and a potential, and
unanticipated, obstacle for the purchase of the lot, especially considering the
application was submitted with the understanding that no physical changes are
proposed. These violations would be detrimental to the current quality of life of the
park residents affected by the physical changes proposed by the tentative tract
map. Goal LU 1 aims to achieve improvement, and at a minimum, maintenance of
the quality of life for City residents. The proposed tentative map would conflict with
achievement of this goal.
3. Pursuant to Section 66427 of the California Government Code, the City cannot
approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 because the location of the buildings on
the property are violative of local ordinances.
4. The City cannot make the necessary findings for approval specified in Chapter 251
of the HBZSO, which require that "a proposed map is consistent with the General
Plan or any applicable specific plan, or other provisions of this Code." The
proposed tentative tract map conflicts with Section 202.04 of the HBZSO,
Section 12.38.030 of the Municipal Code, General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU
1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6 and Sections 66427, 66427.5 and 66474 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL —COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017:
1. The proposed coastal development permit, necessitated because it meets the
definition of development in the coastal zone, conflicts with Sections 202.04 of the
HBZSO, Section 12.38.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and General
Plan Goal LU1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6.
Action Agenda
6-06-2011
Page 5
Services" not to exceed$300,000.
Approved 7-0
7. Adopt Resolution No. 2011-36 authorizing the submittal of an application
for the Environmental Cleanup, Tier 1 Grant Program under Orange
County Local Transportation Ordinance No. 3 for the McFadden/Edwards
and Heil/Algonquin Catch Basin Retrofit Project
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 2011-36, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach Authorizing an Application for Funds from the Environmental
Cleanup, Tier 1 Grant Program Under Orange County Local Transportation
Ordinance No. 3 for the McFadden/Edwards and Heil/Algonquin Catch Basin
Retrofit Project."
Approved 7-0
8. Approve and authorize execution of an agreement between the City of
Huntington Beach and the United States Department of Navy regarding the
use of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station (SBNWS) Small Arms Range
Recommended Action:
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute with the U.S.
Department of the Navy the "Letter of Agreement Between Huntington Beach
Police Department and Naval Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach for
Use of Small Arms Range."
Approved 7-0
9. Approve the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2011/2012
Recommended Action:
Approve the Fiscal Year 2011/12 proposed WOCWB budget in the amount of
$166,500, and look at other forms of governance to reduce costs paid on
per diem for the Counci/members'participation - requested staff'to assess
and report back.
Approved 7-0
PUBLIC HEARING
10. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 17397
and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-0.17 (Pacific Mobile Home Park
Subdivision - Conversion from Resident Rental to Ownership)
Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action:
Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No.
10-017 with findings for denial.
9 Speakers
Approved 6-1 (Dwyer no)
-5-
Council/Agency Meeting Held:"Z2)Q&
Deferred/Continued to:
j6Ap roved ❑ C ditionally proved ❑ Denied Ci CI rk' Signatu66
GLU 7� i
Council Meeting Date: June 6, 2011 Department ID Number: PL11-007
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No.
17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 (Pacific Mobile
Home Park Subdivision - Conversion from Resident Rental to
Ownership)
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal, filed by Hart, King, and Coldren on behalf of
Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map
No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No.
17397 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 10-017 represent a request to convert an
existing mobile home park, located at 80 Huntington Street, from rental to resident ownership
in the non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The Planning Commission denied the
request with findings on April 12, 2011 in part because the request does not comply with
applicable local codes and State law.
Financial Impact: Not Applicable.
Recommended Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
"Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 with
findings for denial (Attachment No. 1)."
HB -185- Item 10. - 1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
Planning Commission Action on April 12, 2011:
THE MOTION MADE BY FARLEY, SECONDED BY SHIER BURNETT, TO DENY TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 17397 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017, WITH REVISED
FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: BIXBY, DELGLEIZE, FARLEY, MANTINI, PETERSEN, SHIER BURNETT, RYAN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
MOTION PASSED
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s):
1. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017
with findings and conditions of approval."
2. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-
017 and direct staff accordingly."
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Mark Hodgson, Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 12838 Old Foothill
Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Location: 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (southeast corner of
Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street
Tentative Tract Map No. 17297 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 represent a
request for the following:
A. To subdivide approximately 18 gross acres into 252 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for
purposes of subdividing an existing 252 space for-rent mobile home park into 252 lots for
ownership purposes.
B. The applicant has also filed a coastal development permit application to allow the
proposed subdivision within the non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. It should be
noted that the applicant has submitted an application for a coastal development permit,
but does not believe that a coastal development is required pursuant to Government
Code Section 66427.5.
Item 10. - 2 HB -1 86-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
due to the above-described lot changes (not because there are homes encroaching on the
City's right-of-way).
Finding 3
Summary of finding: Request violates local ordinances and cannot be approved
pursuant to Section 66427 of the Government Code
The appeal letter contends that the tentative tract map does not propose the approval of
building locations rather it proposes the creation of lot lines consistent with the existing single
legal lot. Section 66427 of the Government Code provides that a map for a common interest
development does not need to show the buildings on the map and that a governing body
cannot deny approval of a map based on the location of buildings on the property unless
they violate local ordinances. Therefore, the Planning Commission was correct in
determining that the map could be denied and, in fact, could not be approved as submitted,
because the existing buildings on the property violate local ordinances.
The Appellant states that local regulations of conversions are preempted by Government
Code Section 66427.5. However, the proposed project clearly is doing more than changing
the form of ownership of the existing mobile home park, the map as presented will require
physical changes to the current configuration of the park. As discussed, there are
discrepancies with the application and the Appellant's claim that no physical changes would
be caused by the proposed subdivision.
Finding 4 & Findings For Denial of the Coastal Permit
Summary of findings: Request is inconsistent with General Plan and applicable codes
Chapter 245 of the HBZSO requires a finding of conformance with the General Plan and
applicable zoning and Municipal Code provisions in order to approve a coastal development
permit. In addition, Chapter 251 of the HBZSO requires that "a proposed map is consistent
with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, or other provisions of this Code." The
Appellant states that compliance with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code are
irrelevant. The appeal letter also states that various provisions of the City codes and the
Subdivision Map Act are listed in the finding, but that the nature of the violations are not
explained. Furthermore, the Appellant contends that a coastal development permit is not
required and that the subdivision is not a project for purposes of the Coastal Act. Since the
proposed project, based on the submitted tentative tract map and application materials,
would not be considered a conversion resulting solely from a change in the form of
ownership, there is no assumption that review of the request for compliance with applicable
codes and statutes is preempted by Section 66427.5. In addition, each of the listed
Huntington Beach code sections, General Plan policies and goals, and statute references in
the findings are discussed and factually supported within the text of the Planning
Commission Staff Report as well as referenced in the other adopted findings. Finally, it
should be noted that subdivisions are defined as development in the Coastal Act as well as
the City's certified Local Coastal Program and, as such, require approval of a coastal
development permit.
HB -193- Item 10. - 9
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
Planning Commission Denial was Pretextual in Nature
The final contention in the appeal letter is that the Appellant believes that the Planning
Commission denied the proposed tentative tract map and coastal development permit
application because the City is opposed to the project. The letter lists several reasons why
the Appellant believes the City opposes the project including:
- preference for the long term use of the property for "tourist oriented, income
generating uses"
- goal to "drive down the value of the property in an effort to reduce the cost of current
and future plans to condemn portions of the park for other uses"
- to retaliate for Pacific's opposition to the City's street widening project along Atlanta
- to force Pacific to cause the removal of homes along Pacific "to avoid what it views
as the politically unpalatable process of maintaining action to force their removal"
There is no evidence in the record to date that supports any of the Appellant's accusation in
this regard. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the basis for the Planning
Commission's denial was based on a review and analysis of the tentative tract map
application for compliance with applicable requirements. This includes all evidence
presented during the public hearing. The Appellant does not provide any documentation to
show that the Planning Commission denied the application based on an opposition of the
project for the reasons stated in the letter and listed above. It should be noted that the City
does not have plans in place to condemn the park or portions thereof, nor would denial of the
map "drive down" the value of the land, which would remain a 252-space rental mobile home
park.
E. SUMMARY
Based on a review of the proposed tentative tract map and application materials, staff and
the Planning Commission determined:
O That the Appellant cannot offer residents the opportunity to purchase the lot on which
their home is currently situated or continue to rent the space on which their home is
currently situated (pursuant to Section 66427.5a.) without further subdividing the
property by moving the exterior property line or requiring physical movement of the
existing homes and changes in existing lot lines;
• That the Appellant cannot ensure that economic displacement of all non-purchasing
residents would be avoided and therefore, cannot comply with Section 66427.5
• That existing encroachment of dwellings and structures onto the Huntington Street
right-of-way is illegal and violates existing City codes requiring applicants to have a
freehold interest in the land which is the subject of the application and submit written
evidence of such interest (HBZSO Section 202.04) and prohibiting encroachment of
private dwellings onto public right-of-way (Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section
12.38.030);
• That the unauthorized and illegal encroachment onto the Huntington Street right-of-
way would result in changes to existing lot lines/configuration of the existing Park or a
change in the exterior boundary of the existing mobile home park;
® That the proposed lot line and exterior boundary changes would extend the scope of
the application beyond a change in the form of ownership, thereby defining the
Item 10. - 10 HB -194-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 6/6/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-007
project as a subdivision rather than merely a conversion to a common interest
development or, more specifically, a conversion of a rental mobile home park to
resident ownership;
• That the scope of review for approval is not limited by the provisions specified in
Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code; and
• That the City is authorized to deny the tentative tract map because the location of
buildings on the property as shown on the map are violative of local ordinances
pursuant to Section 66427 of the California Government Code.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project, as submitted by the applicant, is Categorically Exempt pursuant to
Section 15301(k), Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states
that division of existing multiple family or single-family residences into common-interest
ownership are exempt from further environmental review.
Based on the recommended action, it should be mentioned that CEQA is not applicable to
projects that are denied. Most importantly, should the proposed tentative map be
appropriately submitted for approval, it appears the City would be required to conduct a full
environmental review of the potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of
the subdivision.
Strategic Plan Goal: Maintain and Enhance Public Safety
Attachment(s):
Nol. Dotcriptid,
1. Suggested Findings For Denial — Tentative Tract Map. No. 17397 and
Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017
2. Appeal Letter, dated and received April 20, 2011, from Hart, King and
Coldren
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated April 12, 2011
4. Planning Commission Late Communication Items for April 12, 2011
5. Planning Commission Notice of Action, dated April 13, 2011
6. Power point Presentation
HB -195- Item 10. - I I
ATTACHMENT # 1Ll
,tem ,o . ,z H6 -196-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397:
1. The City cannot make findings that Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 (received and
dated December 7, 2010) complies with Section 66427.5 of the California
Government Code because the "offer" to each existing tenant to either purchase his
or her condominium/subdivided unit or continue residency as a tenant, required
pursuant to Section 66427.5(a) at the time of filing a tentative map to ensure that
economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents is avoided, was conveyed
to the Park residents via a report on the impact of conversion upon residents. The
impact of conversion report, which is required to be provided to residents prior to
the local agency hearing in accordance with Section 66427.5(c), states that "all
residents will have the opportunity to either purchase the Lot on which their Home is
situated or to continue renting their Space." It should be noted that the report
collectively defines a "lot", "space", and "home" as the location of land, fixed
improvements, dwelling, and [eased premises as of the Hearing date. Given that
the proposed tentative tract map includes lots, spaces, leased premises and homes
outside of the boundary of the mobile home park property within the City's right-of-
way, the applicant cannot ensure that all residents will have the opportunity to
purchase their lot or continue renting their space despite making that statement, via
the impact of conversion report, to the residents. Furthermore, because the
applicant cannot ensure that all residents will have the opportunity to purchase their
lot or continue renting their space, the applicant cannot ensure that economic
displacement of all non-purchasing residents would be avoided.
Moreover, the City finds that Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code
does not apply and is in conflict with the proposed map because Tentative Tract
Map No. 17397 to convert 252 for-rent mobile home lots into condominium
(ownership) lots will result in changes to existing lot lines and exterior boundary
lines and therefore, does not solely constitute a subdivision map created from the
conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership.
2. The proposed tentative tract map would result in conditions specified in Section
66474 of the California Government Code (and referenced in Chapter 251 of the
HBZSO as the required basis for denial of a tentative map), which stipulates that a
tentative map shall be denied if the proposed tentative map would result in any of
the conditions listed in that section. Specifically, Section 66474 requires denial of a
tentative map that is not consistent with applicable general plans. The proposed
subdivision would violate the following City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land
Use Element goal and policies:
xB -197- Item 10. - 13
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal
viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality
of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach.
Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the
requirements of the City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations;
including new, adaptively re-used, and renovated buildings.
Policy LU 4.2.6: Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent
building, municipal, and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality.
Although the subdivision map does not propose construction of new buildings,
Policy LU 4.2.1 is applicable Citywide to ensure the quality of the City's built
environment. Similar to Policy LU 4.2.6, the General Plan requires that all
proposed projects comply with applicable City codes and that the City shall enforce
compliance with these codes. To that end, the City cannot approve a subdivision
map that would result in violations of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code, which
would be the case if the applicant maintains the current lots/configuration of the
mobile homes and accessory structures shown on the map.
If the applicant intends to move the existing lot lines such that no encroachment
occurs, the resulting lots may result in an inability to meet the standards and
regulations of the Mobile Home Parks Act/Health and Safety Code with respect to
setbacks, access, and other applicable development standards that would be
required. However, this report only analyzes the map that was submitted, not
hypothetical configurations that the applicant may create.
Mobile home owners with homes currently encroaching into the City right-of-way
would necessarily be required to move their homes in order to purchase their own
lot prior to obtaining title. This would require physical changes and a potential, and
unanticipated, obstacle for the purchase of the lot, especially considering the
application was submitted with the understanding that no physical changes are
proposed. These violations would be detrimental to the current quality of life of the
park residents affected by the physical changes proposed by the tentative tract
map. Goal LU 1 aims to achieve improvement, and at a minimum, maintenance of
the quality of life for City residents. The proposed tentative map would conflict with
achievement of this goal.
3. Pursuant to Section 66427 of the California Government Code, the City cannot
approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 because the location of the buildings on
the property are violative of local ordinances.
4. The City cannot make the necessary findings for approval specified in Chapter 251
of the HBZSO, which require that "a proposed map is consistent with the General
Plan or any applicable specific plan, or other provisions of this Code." The
proposed tentative tract map conflicts with Section 202.04 of the HBZSO,
Item 10. - 14 HB -198-
Section 12.38.030 of the Municipal Code, General Plan Land Use Element Goal LU
1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6 and Sections 66427, 66427.5 and 66474 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL — COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.
10-017:
1. The proposed coastal development permit, necessitated because it meets the
definition of development in the coastal zone, conflicts with Sections 202.04 of the
HBZSO, Section 12.38.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and General
Plan Goal LU1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6.
HB -199- Item 10. - 15
ATTACHMENT #2
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
OF A PLANNING COMMISSION, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OR POLICE ACTION
Date: 4/20/2011
To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered n/a
City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 4/21/2011
Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 4/21/2011
City Council Office(1 Copy) Date Delivered 4/21/2011
Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 4/21/2011
Public Works(1 Copy) 4/21/2011
Filed By: Hart, King, Coldren-Pacific Mobile Home Park
Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map No. 17397 and CDP 10-1017 For Conversion of Pacific
Re: Mobile Home Park to Resident Ownership
Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD
Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes
LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P.MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15
DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC
City Clerk
(714)536-5227 Fee Collected: $3,045.00
Form Completed by: Rebecca Ross, Senior Deputy City Clerk ,
A
HB -201- Item 10. - 17
r
HK& C
HART, KING & CDLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malperi@hkclaw.com
April 19, 2011
Our File Number.36608.00614837-2268-5193v.1
N
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mayor and City Council - - ' h
7-1
c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk _ ry
o .y
City of Huntington Beach -`
2000 Main Street '
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
;D
t> cn
Re: Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map No. 17397 and CDP 10-10
For Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home Park to Resident Ownership
Dear Mayor and City Council:
We represent the owner of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, who submitted the above-referenced
Tentative Map Application. This letter constitutes the Park Owner's notice of appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of the above-referenced subdivision tract map application and
Coastal Development Permit application. The applicant/appellant's name and address are
Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC ("Pacific" or "Applicant"), 80 Huntington Street, Huntington
Beach, CA 92648. The appeal fee in the amount of$3,045.00 is enclosed.
Pacific proposes a tentative subdivision map for the purposes of allowing it to convert ownership
the ownership of the Park to the residents. Although the City's staff report and the findings
adopted by the Planning Commission make this very unclear, the property currently consists of
a single legal lot. The proposed subdivision map would allow the park to covert to 252
individual lots and one common area lot.
The grounds for appeal are set forth, in part, in the attached letter of January 18, 2011 to the
City of Huntington Beach (Exhibit "A") and the attached letter of April 8, 2011 to the Huntington
Beach Planning Commission (Exhibit"B"). The remaining grounds are set forth in this letter.
The findings adopted by the Planning Commission unfortunately contain significant factual
misstatements and intentionally confuse the existence of boundaries which are governed by
California Housing and Community Development ("HCD") regulations with the creation and
recording of legal lots governed by the Subdivision Map Act. The City has no jurisdiction over
the location, movement and marking of boundaries within the existing rental mobile home park.
These are regulated by HCD, governed by Title 25. The misleading staff report and findings fail
to make clear that the existing property consists of a single legal lot and Pacific does not
propose to create lot lines that are located in any right of way the City claims to own. Pacific
does not propose to move the exterior legal boundary of the property along Huntington or
anywhere else. There should be no ambiguity on this point because Pacific has submitted a
tentative map which depicts the exterior boundary of the proposed subdivision. Likewise.
Pacific does not propose or request permission from the City to move any existing mobile
homes.
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana, Califomia 92707
Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457
Item 10. - 18 HB -202-
9
HK&C
HART, KING & COLDREN
City of Huntington Beach
Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001
April 19, 2011
Page 2
The proposed tentative map shows that certain mobile homes are located in an area which the
City claims as its right of way. The fact that the map shows this personal property encroaching
on the City's claimed right of way does in no way propose that the exterior legal lot line be
moved. The application to subdivide does not seek permission to either remove this personal
property or to allow it to remain in place. It is legally irrelevant to the tentative map application
and CDP application.
The Planning Commission has made the finding that the existence of encroaching personal
property takes the proposed subdivision application outside the provisions of Government Code
§ 66427.5. The Applicant repeatedly pointed out that there is no language in § 66427.5 which
supports its position and cited contrary authority which established that Government Code §
66427.5 applied to all "conversions' in which the applicant seeks to continue the use of the
property as a mobile home park. (See El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96
Cal.App.4th 1153, 1161 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2002) Despite repeated requests to staff and the
Planning Commission, the City has failed to identify any legal authority supporting its position.
The Planning Commission made four "Findings For Denial" each of which Pacific contends are
not supported by evidence or law.
Finding 1
The Planning Commission makes the finding that the application fails to comply with the
requirement in Government Code § 66427.5(c) that all residents will have the opportunity to
purchase the lot on which their home is located. This conclusion is based on the factual
contention that "the proposed tentative tract map includes lots, spaces, leased premises and
homes outside of the boundary of the mobile home park . . , the applicant cannot ensure that all
residents will have the opportunity to purchase their lot or continue renting their space, the
applicant cannot ensure that economic displacement of ail non-purchasing residents would be
avoided."
This finding erroneously claims that Pacific proposes a tentative map that includes areas
outside the boundary of the park. The fact that some homes are shown to be located in the
City's claimed right of way not change that fact. In addition, it does not change the fact that the
residents will have an opportunity to buy the lot on which their home is located. If those homes
are located on City property, the City has the right to have the homes moved or removed. (In
fact, the City has apparently authorized a lawsuit to protect its claim of title). The existence of
encroaching personal property, whether it is a mobile home or an old refrigerator, is irrelevant to
the conversion.
The conclusion that these encroachments somehow impact whether the applicant can ensure
economic displacement of non-purchasing residence is ridiculous. The mitigation measures
against economic displacement are specified in Government Code §66427.5(f)
(f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all
HB -203- Item 10. - 19
4 HK&C
HART. KING & COLDREN
City of Huntington Beach
Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MIVD 2009-001
April 19, 2011
Page 3
nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following . . . (emphasis
added)
Subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) specify the rent protections given to non-purchasing homeowners.
These are the only mitigation measures that can.be imposed and which are relevant under
Government Code § 66427.5. The existence of encroaching coaches has nothing to do with
"economic displacement." The question of whether these homeowners can be required to move
their homes has nothing to do with the subdivision application. If the City chooses to force
these residents to move their homes out of the encroaching area, they will not be displaced for
economic reasons. In addition, these residents will continue to have the right to rent the space
they own or purchase the space they own, regardless of whether the City chooses to take such
action.
The PC resolution also includes a finding that 66427.5 does not apply because the proposed
map will result in changes to existing lot lines and exterior boundary lines and thus does not
"solely constitute" a conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership. In fact, the
proposed map proposes no changes to legal lot lines and does not propose any changes to the
exterior legal boundary. The PC is apparently referring to the lot boundaries governed by HCD.
The subdivision does not and cannot propose changes to those boundaries, as the City has no
legal authority to modify or approve changes to those boundaries, which are not legal lot lines.
Even assuming the location of HCD approved boundaries were relevant, the PC assumes that
the boundary lines approved by HCD coincide with where the existing homes are located.
There is no evidence before the PC that the homes are located within the HCD approved
boundary lines and City staff has represented in response to a public records request that it has
no evidence of permits issues showing the approved lot lines for the placement of the homes.
Finding 2
The PC makes the finding that the proposed map is not consistent with the City's general plan.
This finding is legally irrelevant as the City has no authority to review the subdivision for
compliance with its general plan elements under Gov't Code §66427.5. In addition, the findings
fail to identify any building, municipal or zoning codes that would purportedly be violated.
Pacific proposes no construction, but simply a change of ownership, continuing the same
permitted use of the property.
City suggests other possible violations if the "applicant intends to move the existing lot lines
such that no encroachment occurs . . ." The applicant does not propose to move the existing lot
lines.
The PC resolution points out that if those residents whose homes encroach wished to buy their
lots, they would be required to move their homes prior to obtaining title. If they are forced to
move, it would not be because of the subdivision, it would be because they placed their homes
on City property. The City has no jurisdiction over the processing of the movement or
Item 10. - 20 HB -204-
Y
"r% (S�C
HART, KING & COLDREN
City of Huntington Beach
Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001
April 19, 2011
Page 4
replacement of homes. If a resident places a home on the City's property, it has a right to take
action. For decades, it has chosen not to do so. That is not a basis to deny a conversion which
does not dispute the City's claim of title.
Finding 3
The PC concludes that pursuant to Government Code § 66427.5 that the City cannot approve
the tract map because the location of the buildings "are violative of local ordinances:" This
finding is in error for two very basic reasons. First, the tract map does not propose the approval
of the location of buildings anywhere. It proposes the creation of lot lines which are consistent
with the existing single legal lot. Second, local ordinances are preempted by Government Code
Section 66427.5. Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1270,
(Cal.AppAst Dist. 2009)
Sequoia affirmed:
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. (ld at 1297,
emphasis added)
Sequoia concludes that local regulation of conversions, beyond what is specifically authorized
under Section 66427.5 is both expressly and impliedly preempted. Id at 1297-1300. Thus,
even if the proposed subdivision violated local ordinances, it is legally irrelevant.
Finding 4
PC findings state that it cannot make the "necessary" finding of consistency with the general
plan and City code sections. For the reasons set forth above, compliance with the general plan
and municipal code are irrelevant. The PC resolution lists various provision of City codes and
the subdivision map act, but does not explain even the general nature of the alleged violations
or the facts supporting the finding. Such findings are legally inadequate.
Findings for Denial of the Coastal Permit
Initially, Pacific wants to make clear its position that it is not required to seek a coastal permit as
part of this application. The subdivision is not a project for the purposes of the Coastal Act or
the City's Local Coastal Plan. The requirement of a coastal permit is inconsistent with the
limitations of Government Code § 66427.5. The findings purportedly justifying the denial of the
coastal permit are substantively identical to the findings purportedly justifying the denial of the
tract map and are without merit for the same reasons.
Finally, Pacific appeals on the grounds that the stated basis of the decision of the Planning
HB -205- Item 10. - 21
HK&C
HART, KING & COLDREN
City of Huntington Beach
Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001
April 19, 2011
Page 5
Commission was pretextual in nature. Pacific believes that the City opposes this project for
reasons unrelated to the Findings. Pacific is informed and believes that the City opposes this
project because it either. (1) opposes the long term use of the property as a mobile home park
and would prefer other more tourist oriented, income generating uses in the area; (2) wishes to
drive down the value of the property in an effort to reduce the cost of current and future plans to
condemn portions of the park for other uses; (3) in retaliation for Pacific's opposition to the City's
street widening project along Atlanta; and (4) the City wishes to force Pacific to cause the
removal of homes along Pacific to order to avoid what it views as the politically unpalatable
process of maintaining an action to force their removal.
Please advise me of the time and date of the City Council hearing on this appeal at your earliest
convenience. We are required to give all residents notice of the hearing.
Sincerely,
ING
L N
,ark
DA/sm Enclosure: $3,045 appeal fee
cc: Pacific Mobilehome Park, LLC
Robert S. Coldren
Travis Hopkins
Mike Vigliotta
Scott Hess
Jennifer Villasenor
Item 10. - 22 HB -206-
Exhibit A
HB -207- Item 10. - 23
HART. KING & COLDREN
Mark D.Alperl
malpert@hkciaw.com
January 18, 2011
Our File Number: 36608.006/4832-6151-1432v.1
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAiL
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.
2000 Main Street
.P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park
80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17392
Dear Ms Villasenor:
I am writing in response to the City's "Notice of Filing Status" for the above-referenced tentative
tract map deeming the application incomplete and requesting additional "information or
clarification" to act on the Application, which I interpret as items which the City of Huntington
Beach will not require to deem the application complete, but which it seeks prior to acting on the
application. After reviewing your notice, we respectfully disagree with the determination of staff
and ask that the City reconsider its position on this matter. I will address the items utilizing the
same numbering utilized in your Notice.
Purported "Incomplete" items
1. _Map purportedly depicting units and structures straddling property lines and outside
the proposed boundary. For many years, the Park has operated under the current
configuration with some homes placed, in part, on property which is technically on
the City's right-of-way. However, the Applicant is informed and believes that the City
has approved this configuration, including a conditional use permit based on the
current location of these homes. The Applicant believes it has a legal right to
continue this use. While we recognize the City may disagree with this position, that
does not render the application incomplete. The City may consider approving the
tract map subject to the conditions that the Applicant demonstration that the City has
relinquished its interest either formally or by operation of law, but this is not a
properly a basis to deem the application incomplete.
2. The Application is intended to be a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Please feel free to
mark the submitted maps accordingly or our engineering firm can make the required
change at your convenience. While we understand that the City's municipal code
may purport to require an application for conditional use permit, any such municipal
requirements are barred by Government Code 66427.5. This has been the repeated
holding of numerous California courts, including notably Sequoia Park Associates v_
County of Sonoma, 176 Cal.App.4th 1270 (Cal.App.1st Dist. 2009). In Sequoia, the
Court recognized that state law both expressly and impliedly preempted local
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707
Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457
Item 10. - 24 xB -208-
. ... ..__.._...
` s K G� m
HART. KIN11Z E. C LOPLN
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2011
Page 2
government regulation, except as expressly authorized by Section 66427.5. Thus,
the City cannot impose the requirement of seeking a new CUP. In addition, the park
owner does not propose any new use. The subdivision application proposes a
change in the form of ownership, while maintaining the same use. There is no
reason the existing CUP cannot remain operative.
Finally, you request an updated narrative to correct the designation under the general plan to
"Residential Medium Density — 15 units/acre" or "RM-15". Inasmuch as these facts are
irrelevant to the application I do not believe any correction is necessary to "complete" the
application. Certainly, this letter should suffice to clarify the issue.
On this basis, the application should be deemed complete immediately.
Requests for"information" and "clarification"
1. Two reduced sets of the tentative tract map will be provided to the City, but these are
provided as additional information not required to"complete"the application.
2. Flood information-1 am advised by my engineer that the flood information utilized
was the most recent available at the date of submission. He can meet with you to
clarify the issue but we do not believe any revisions are needed as of this time. In
any event, because the City cannot impose flood mitigation requirements, this
information is not necessary to complete the application.
3. Current zoning correction. Please treat this letter as correcting the Conversion
Report. It is my understanding that the current zoning of the property is "Residential
Manufactured Home Park—Coastal Zone overlay" or"RMP-CZ".
4. The subdivision application seeks a tentative tract map for 252 spaces approved by
the existing CUP. The Applicant does not seek to subdivide the lots occupied by the
four model units approved by HCD.
5. As you acknowledge, there was no active homeowners' association in place at the
time the survey was conducted. The Applicant has no information regarding any
effort to "reorganize" an association that was not operating. I find it notable that
during repeated communications with all of the park residents, which are described
in the declaration of Clarke Fairbrother which was submitted with the Application,
that no resident came forward making this request and we received no objections to
the conduct of the survey. My information is that there has not been a homeowner's
association active within the Park for many years and that when such association
existed, it was strictly social in nature and did not have a significant level of
participation by the residents.
You have provided an unsigned letter from someone purporting to be on behalf of
"Pacific MHOA." The letter is dated November 22, 2010. This person had ample
36608.006/4832-6151-1432v.1
HB -209- Item 10. - 25
_.- _... _ _.. . .- _ . .. ...
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2011
Page 3
opportunity to participate in the process under which the survey was conducted
which was initiated in September, 2010. Neither the park owner nor his
representative were advised that the residents wished to form an HOA to conduct the
survey and I note that the letter from the resident in space 80 does not indicate she
copied the park owner or representative with the letter. It appears that a single or
small group of residents have intentionally chosen to wait until the survey was
completed to delay or interfere with the application process. There is no basis to
believe the resident speaks for anyone but him or herself. Indeed, the resident may
be one of the few residents who oppose a subdivision.
6. The Park is effectively fully occupied. It would require speculation to determine why a
substantial percentage of residents chose not to participate in the survey. They
certainly had every opportunity to participate. There were two mass mailings and
one community wide meeting held before the surveys were sent. It is not unusual for
a large percentage of residents to choose not to participate. It is my understanding
from speaking to the managers that prior efforts to revive an HOA for the Park in
2004 failed because of a lack of interest. Thus, there is a prior pattern of lack of
community participation at the Park. Since all residents had ample opportunity to
participate and were repeatedly advised of the planned survey, the only logical
inference to make from the lack of participation these residents chose not to
participate. There is no reason to expect a second survey would yield more
responses. Of those residents who were interested, the vast majority supported the
application.
In any event, the City may not consider the level of participation in the surrey or even
the lack of support in processing the subdivision application. While California courts
have split on whether or not local governments could consider the absence of
resident support under any circumstances, the one reported decision which
concludes it is valid to consider level of resident support (not level of participants)
recognizes the purpose of such consideration is to determine whether the
subdivision is a "bona fide" conversion in which a single or a few lots are sold to
avoid rent control. See, e.g. Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 187
Cal.AppAth 1487, 1501 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 2010) This issue arises where there is the
possibility of using conversion to get out of local rent control. Id. Even assuming
Colony Cove is correctly decided, it simply has no application where, as here, there
is no rent control ordinance. Because of a voter initiative, there is not even the
prospect of future rent control. There is no reason to believe there is any potential
for a sham conversion for that reason. Indeed, if the park owner were to subdivide
and sell only a lot or two it would have the effect of imposing a form of rent control
under state law where none existed. Since there is no potential for a "sham
conversion" there simply is no reason to even consider the results of the survey. In
any event, it is impossible to infer from the lack of resident responses that the
conversion is not "bona fide."
36508.006/4832-6151-1432v.1
Item 10. - 26 HB -210-
r .. xxzen
HART, KING &- COLDRE
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2011
Page 4
7. Regarding your concerns regarding dwelling units being "cut off" by proposed interior
lot lines, we believe you are simply mistaken. Unfortunately, you have not identified
specific areas or lots in question. Likewise, there are no units which abut property
lines in a way that impacts access. Again, you have not identified the relevant lots in
question or provided any examples. Our engineer observed to me that your
comments indicate you have not actually visited the site.
We would be happy to meet with you this week to clarify these questions if you are prepared to
identify specific areas in question. I want to emphasize, however, it is our position that the
application is complete and any such meeting would only serve the purpose of providing
additional clarifying information to assist the City in consider the application. We can also
discuss an appropriate partial refund of funds given the limited scope of the City's review. It
might be helpful to have your city attorney present to discuss legal issues that uniquely apply to
the processing of a mobilehome subdivision under Government Code § 66427.5. Please advise
me what days and times you are available this week.
Sincerely,
A , KING COLDREN
Mark D Alp rt
MDA/sm
cc: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
36608.DD614832-6151-1432v.1
xB -211- Item 10. - 27
Page 1 of 1
Sandy Moore
From: Sandy Moore
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:23 PM
To: 'jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org'
Subject: Pacific Mobile Home Park
;This message's attachments have been archived to NetDocuments. Retrieve the full message with 71
',attachments.
Ms.Villasenor,
Attached please find a letter from Mark Aloert dated January 17, 2011 with regard to the above-matter.
Original will follow via mail.
Thank you.
Sandy Moore
Assistant to
C.William Dahlin, Mark D.Alpert
and Kathy W. Nichols
Hart, King &Coldren, a PLC
200 Sandpointe, 4th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92707
smoore .hkciaw.com
www.hkciaw.com
Bus: (714)432-8700 Ext. 337
Fax: (714) 546-7457
1/18/2011
Item 10. - 28 HB -212-
Exhibit B
HB -213- Item 10. - 29
HART, KING & COLDREN
Mark D.Alperl
malpert@hkclaw.com
April 8, 2011
Our File Number: 36608,006/4811-9888-3849v,1
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Barbara Delgleize, Chairperson
Janis Mantini, Vice-Chair
Erik Peterson, Commissioner
Mark Bixby, Commissioner
Timothy J. Ryan, Commissioner
Elizabeth Shier Burnett, Commissioner
Blair Farley, Commissioner
City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Pacific Mobile-Home Park
Tentative Tract Map 13937/Hearing April 12, 2011
Dear Planning Commission Members:
My office represents the owners of Pacific Mobile Home Park ("Park"), who has applied for a
tentative tract map for the purposes of converting the Park to.-resident ownership. The
'application does not involve any proposed physical changes to the property. It provides simply
for the change of the form of ownership of the property. These "conversions' are governed by
California Government Code § 66427.5. Subdivision "e" of the statute limits the role of local
government bodies to determining compliance with that section:
(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. (emphasis added)
The lengthy staff report provided to you does not identify any failure of the park owner to comply
with the requirements of Section 66427.5. For that reason, the City is obligated to approve the
tentative subdivision application.
While the staff report states multiple reasons for denying the application, each reason is based
on the conclusion of staff that the subdivision application is not subject to Section 66427.5.
Staff claims Section 66427.5 does not apply because a group of tenants have located their
personal property (i.e, their mobile homes) in an area adjacent to Huntington which the City
claims to own pursuant to a street dedication.
It is important to emphasize that the subdivision map proposed by the applicant does not
Propose property lines that encroach on the City's claimed right of way. The staff report
unfortunately misrepresents these facts more than once. For example, in the "Statement of
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707
Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com I Fz 714.546.7457
Item 10. - 30 HB -214-
__ ....
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page 2
Issue"the staff report falsely claims the proposed map will require the elimination of existing lots
and/or lots that encroach on the public right of way. There are currently 252 mobile home
spaces in the park. The subdivision map proposes 252 mobile home lots with no encroachment
on the City's claimed right of way. On page 9 of the staff report, it states "The City cannot
approve a map that depicts property lines that encroach onto the right of way . . . ." The
Applicant has not submitted and does not propose a map that encroaches on the City's claimed
right of way.
Staff does accurately state that the proposed tentative tract map shows certain homes located
in the claimed right-of-way on Huntington. The fact that there may be personal property
encroaching on the City's claimed right of way is irrelevant to the subdivision application. It is
true that any encroachment would most likely have to be addressed before the lots were sold,
but the Applicant does not seek a permit for moving any encroaching homes. This situation is
legally no different than if a resident had left an old non-running Chevy on blocks in the City's
right of way.
As City staff is aware,'the subdivision map that was submitted by the Applicant does not
propose to create .any legal .lots in the area the City -currently claims to' be subject to a
dedication. These lots are large enough to fit appropriately sized mobile homes. Assuming the
City is correct that there'.is an ericroachrrient on the City right-of-way, that encroach-rhent is an
issue that the City has elected not to address over several decades. Regardless, it is irrelevant
to the subdivision application. The City's rights to address that encroachment are not negatively
impacted by the.recording of the subdivision map, and the occasion of map approval is nbt the
time or enforcement mechanism to address the issue.
Staff is correct that, for practical purposes, no lots will be sold which are encroaching unless and
until the encroachments are removed. In fact, although the City cannot legally require it, the
applicant is willing to accept the condition that no lots will be sold with personal property
encroaching on City property. But the removal of any encroachments is legally irrelevant to the
subdivision application.
The sole basis for the staff recommendation is a legal conclusion that this subdivision does not
fall within the ambit of Government Code Section 66427.5. We think this legal conclusion is in
error and are struck by the fact that the conclusion is not supported by any legal analysis. Of
course, planning staff is not qualified to provide a legal opinion. Given the importance of this
issue to the application, the Planning Commission should have the benefit of a thoughtful legal
analysis before it makes its decision.
In our view, staffs "legal" conclusion that the existence of this purported encroachment takes
the subdivision application out of the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 is
baseless. There is nothing in the language of the statute either explicitly or implicitly includes
any such limitation. The introductory language of the ordinance specifies:
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
36608.00614 811-9888-384 9v.1
xB -215- Item 10. - 31
............... . ...._....
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page 3
shall avoid the :conomic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the
following manner:
The key language in subdivision "e"specifies:
(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. (emphasis added)
The basis for staffs conclusion is difficult to ascertain. There are essentially two kinds of mobile
home park conversions. There is a conversion that retains the existing use, which is governed
by Section 6.6427.5 and this is a conversion for another use, governed by Section 66427.4.
This section,is intended to address a change from a mobile home park use to some kind of
other use that will displace residents. -See El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs,
96 Cal.AppAth �1153; 1161 (Cal.App.4th Dist.. 2002) The Court in El Dorado affirmed that
Section 66427.4 had no.application-where the subdivider intended to continue operating as a
mobile home park: .__ -
The problem with the Association's contention that section 66427.4 applies is that '=
a cheDge in form of ownership is not.a'-change in use. After the change-6f
ownership, the mobilehome park will remain a mobilehome park. Since section
6642i7.4 applies to changes in use, it is inapplicable here. As noted above, this
conclusion is specifically confirmed by subdivision (e)."
El Dorado is a reported decision arising out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Huntington
Beach is in the same appellate district), which has been repeatedly affirmed by other appellate
courts.
Thus, to the extent there are encroachments, they do not impact whether Section 66427.5
applies. The staff recommendations adopted by the subdivision committee made no claim of
non-compliance with that section other than the claimed encroachments.
Given how clear the law is on this issue, I am surprised that staff has taken this position. We
respectfully submit that as Planning Commissioners, if you are going to base your decision
strictly on the analysis of a legal issue, that you obtain thoughtful and researched legal opinions
from your City Attorney. Staff's unsupported legal conclusion does not constitute "substantial
evidence" supporting your decision.
Given the absence of any serious legal analysis underlying the staff report, we are concerned
that staff's opposition is motivated by opposition to the project itself. City staff and.indeed the
Planning Commissioners may not like this use of the property. They may not like the fact that
Government Code Section 66427.5 prevents them from imposing conditions and fees on the
subdivision. However, the City is obligated to follow state law. State law requires that this
36608.006/4811-9888-3849v.1
Item 10. - 32 HB -216-
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page 4
subdivision application be approved. We hope the Planning Commission will meet its
obligations under state law and approve the application.
Sincerely,
RT, G & C . L -�
!Mark D. 1pe
MDA/sm
cc: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC (via email)
Jennifer McGrath, Esq.
Jennifer Viliasenor
Scott Hess
36608.006/4811-9888-3849v.1
xB -2 1 7- Item 10. - 33
ATTACHMENT #3
Item ,0 _ 31 HA -218-
HB -219- Item 10. - 35
*0111
1. i��fnan ea a �i a � c � re ea€
Y
•G. du by - ' S .>} Y i S ,. 7-77
PIPF
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott Hess,AICP,Director of Planning and Building
BY: Jennifer Villasenor, Senior Planner 0 11 /
DATE: April 12, 2011
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 10-017 (PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION — CONVERSION
FROM RESIDENT RENTAL TO OWNERSHIP)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: Mark Hodgson, Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 12838 Old Foothill Boulevard, Santa
Ana, CA 92705
LOCATION: 80 Huntington Street(southeast corner of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue)
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
e Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 request:
To subdivide the existing for-rent, mobile home park with a total of 252 units for ownership
purposes into 252 numbered lots representing the mobile home lots and 31 lettered lots
representing interior drive aisles, landscape areas and common areas.
• Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 request:
To permit the proposed subdivision request in the non-appealable area of the coastal zone.
• Staffs Recommendation:
Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 based upon the
following:
- The subdivision map is not simply a conversion from a rental mobile-home park to resident ownership
pursuant to Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code The proposed map will require the
elimination of certain existing lots and/or create lots that encroach onto the public right of way/public
property. As such the proposed map and conversion does not meet the requirements of Huntington
Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 251 and 253 as well as California Government
Code section 66474.
- The coastal development permit will result in violations of the General Plan, Huntington Beach
Municipal Code and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
f:
Item 10. - 36 HB -220- �_1
_ MEN
ME MEN
ME�
�IMEME
FEE
s � fk ki � '— 4 ■.
ti
�UIpill
.a
x
t
^4
7,Na�Btin ti a
- M
lw
�a ya a &I fgi s at ie it
AI Rn
r.
RECOMAI ENDATION:
Motion to:
Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Den, ,opment Permit No. 10-017 with findings for
denial(Attachment No. 1)."
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as:
A. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 and direct
staff accordingly."
B. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 with findings
and conditions for approval."
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Tentative Tract Map No. 17296 represents a request for the following:
A. To subdivide approximately 18 gross acres into 252 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots for
purposes of subdividing an existing 252 space for-rent mobile home park into 252 lots for
ownership purposes.
B. The applicant has also filed a coastal development permit to allow the proposed subdivision within
the non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. It should be noted that the applicant has submitted an
application for a coastal development permit, but does not believe that a coastal development is
required pursuant to Government Code Section 66427.5.
Currently, the park consists of 252 units on 18 acres with a density of approximately 14 units per acre.
The park is also developed with an office, recreation hall, a pool, laundry and storage buildings, and an
RV storage area. 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.
Fire authority,however, lies with the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department.
Subdivision of the park for purposes 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
applicant to provide a report on the impact of the conversion upon residents of the mobile home park to be
converted. The applicant submitted the required impact of conversion report stating that no residents
would be displaced since non-purchasing residents may continue to rent their space within the mobile
home park upon conversion (Attachment No. 4). In addition, the report states that State law affords non-
purchasing residents protection from economic displacement by limiting rent increases following
conversion of the Park. The SMA also requires the applicant to obtain a survey of support of the mobile
home park residents, for which results of the survey shall be considered by the decision making body
Item 10. - 3 8'rt—04/12/11 HB -222- 11 sr22 TTM 17397,CDP 10-017
during the public hearing for the subdivision map. The applicant submitted a report stating that surveys
were sent to all resident households of the Park, which staff assumes means all 252 spaces received a
survey. Of the 252 surveys, the report states that a total of 65 (26%) were returned (Attachment No. 5).
Of the 65 returned surveys, 58 respondent households stated support for the conversion,three respondents
declined to state their opinion, and four respondents stated that they do not support conversion of the
park. 187 surveys (approximately 74%)were not returned.
ISSUES:
Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Use,Zoning and General Plan Designations:
ME wid ME
Subject Property: RM-15 (Residential RMP-CZ(Residential Mobile Home Park
Medium Density— 15 Manufactured Home
du/ac) Park—Coastal Zone
Overlay)
North of Subject RM— 15 RM-CZ(Residential Multi-Family Residential
Property: Medium Density—
(across Atlanta) Coastal Zone Overlay)
East of Subject RM-15 RM-CZ Multi-Family Residential
Property:
(across Delaware)
South of Subject RH-30-sp (Residential SP5-CZ(Downtown Waterfront development
Property: High Density—30 du/ac Specific Plan—Coastal
—Specific Plan Overlay); Zone Overlay) District 8
West of Subject RH-30-sp SP5-CZ District 8 Pacific City development
Property: (across site
Huntington)
The subject site consists of one approximately 18-acre parcel. Primary resident access is located on
Huntington Street with gated emergency vehicle access provided on Atlanta Avenue. In 1953, the mobile
home park was approved with a conditional exception to allow the use of the property as a "trailer park"
(filed under UV-59) and in 1954 a business license for the operation of the mobile home park was issued
by the City. In 1989, a portion of the site, at the southwest corner, was purchased by the City in
conjunction with the construction of Pacific View Avenue (referenced at the time as the extension of
Walnut Avenue).
General Plan Conformance:
The proposed project is inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan as
follows:
PC Staff Report—04/12/11 HB -223- 11 sr22 TTM 17397,'Item 10. - 39
A. Land Use Element
Goal LU l: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects
economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents
of Huntington Beach.
Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the
City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and
renovated buildings.
Policy LU 4.2.6: Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent building,
municipal, and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality.
Although the subdivision map does not propose construction of new buildings, Policy LU 4.2.1 is
applicable Citywide to ensure the quality of the City's built environment. Similar to Policy LU 4.2.6, the
General Plan requires that all proposed projects comply with applicable City codes and that the City shall
enforce compliance with these codes. To that end, the City cannot approve a subdivision map that would
result in violations of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code, which would be the case if the applicant
maintains the current lots/configuration of the mobile homes and accessory structures shown on the map.
If the applicant intends to move the existing lot lines such that no encroachment occurs, the resulting lots
may result in an inability to meet the standards and regulations of the Mobile Home Parks Act/Health and
Safety Code with respect to setbacks, access, and other applicable development standards that would be
required. However, this report only analyzes the map that was submitted, not hypothetical configurations
that the applicant may create.
Mobile home owners with homes currently encroaching into the City right-of-way would necessarily be
required to move their homes in order to purchase their own lot prior to obtaining title. This would
require physical changes and a potential, and unanticipated, obstacle for the purchase of the lot, especially
considering the application was submitted with the understanding that no physical changes are proposed.
These violations would be detrimental to the current quality of life of the park residents affected by the
physical changes proposed by the tentative tract map. Goal LU 1 aims to achieve improvement, and at a
minimum, maintenance of the quality of life for City residents. The proposed tentative map would
conflict with achievement of this goal.
Zoning Compliance:
The project site is located in the Residential Manufactured Home Park—Coastal Zone (RMP-CZ) zoning
district. In addition, standards for development and construction in mobile home parks are provided in
Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. Changes to lot lines require a permit from Housing and
Community Development (HCD) and consent from the affected residents of the lot line changes.
Therefore, and notwithstanding the City's zoning, the proposed subdivision would necessitate permits
from HCD prior to moving existing mobile homes that encroach onto City owned property.
Item 10. - 40rt—04/12/11 HB -224- i I sr22 TTM 17397,CDP 10-017
Urban Design Guidelines Conformance:
}
The proposed subdivision map and coastal development permit is not subject to review under the Urban
Design Guidelines.
Environmental Status:
The proposed project, as submitted by the applicant, is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section
15301(k), Class 1, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which states that division of
existing multiple family or single-family residences into common-interest ownership are exempt from
further environmental review.
Based on the recommended action, it should be mentioned that CEQA is not applicable to projects that are
denied. Most importantly, should the proposed tentative map be appropriately submitted for approval, it
appears the City would be required to conduct a full environmental review of the potential environmental
impacts that could occur as a result of the subdivision.
Coastal Status:
The project site is located in the non-appealable area of the coastal zone. The proposed subdivision map
is considered development as defined in Chapter 245 of the Huntington Beach zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance (HBZSO). As such, the proposed project request includes a coastal development permit,
which is further analyzed herein.
Redevelopment Status: Not Applicable.
Design Review Board: Not applicable.
Subdivision Committee:
On March 31, 2011, the Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision for compliance with
applicable City and State codes and statutes. During the meeting, staff stated that the residents and
surrounding property owners had been notified of the meeting and stated that one communication had
been received, which would be included as an attachment to the Planning Commission staff report for the
April 12th, 2011 meeting (Attachment No. 6). Staff then presented an overview of the proposed
subdivision map, highlighted the encroachment issues and map/application inconsistencies and provided a
summary of the Park history. Staff provided the Committee with suggested findings for denial of the
tentative tract map. The Committee members asked questions related to the application submittal and
requested that staff clarify the ways in which the proposed tentative tract map conflicted with the
California Government Code and applicable Huntington Beach codes. The property owner, Jim Hodgson,
attended the meeting and his representatives (Mark Alpert and Robert Coldren) spoke regarding the City's
scope of review under Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code and stated that the proposed
tentative tract map does not propose to change any legal lot lines and thus disagreed with Staffs findings
and recommendation. Ultimately, the Subdivision Committee recommended denial of the proposed
subdivision to the Planning Commission with a vote of five votes in favor of recommending denial of the
PC Staff Report—04/12/11 11 sr22 TTM 17397 i
HB -22s- ' Item 10. - 41
subdivision map, no votes in favor of not recommending denial of the subdivision map, and one
abstention. A copy of the draft minutes is provided as Attachment No. 9 to this staff report.
Other Departments Concerns and Requirements:
The Departments of Fire, Public Works, Community Services, Economic Development, Police, and
Planning and Building have reviewed the application. Since the application was submitted pursuant to
Section 66427.5 of the Government Code, no off-site design or improvement requirements, dedications,
or in-lieu fees may be imposed unless necessary to mitigate a health and safety condition. Since the
recommendation is to deny the proposed entitlement requests, staff has not identified any code
requirements or conditions.
Public Notification:
Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on March 31, 2011,
and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 500-foot radius of the subject
property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning and Building Department's
Notification Matrix), residents of the mobile home park, applicant, and interested parties. As of April 5,
2011, four letters have been received regarding the request.
Application Processing Dates:
MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S):
DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:
February 25,2011 April 16,2011 (Within 50 days of complete application)
An application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit
(CDP)No. 10-017 was filed on December 7, 2010. Subsequent submittals were received on January 18,
2011 and February 4, 2011. The subsequent submittals provided supplemental information requested by
staff, and stated the applicant's intent to process the subdivision map as a non-vesting map, which would
have required additional application materials. The application was deemed complete on February 25,
2011. The Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed tentative tract map and coastal
development permit is scheduled for April 12, 2011.
ANALYSIS:
The following analysis focuses on the tentative map as submitted and not on hypothetical configurations
that may exist to remedy the factual impossibility created by the current map. It is staff s position that the
map cannot be approved pursuant to California Government Code section 66427.5 but requires a tentative
and final subdivision map as would any other project of this scope. This argument is based upon the
undeniable factual information submitted by the applicant as to the current lot configuration.
The applicant has argued at the subdivision committee that the proposed project is consistent with the
legislative intent of Government Code Section 66427.5, and the City is not approving the map only to
wait for Senate Bill (SB 444)to be enacted,however,these arguments do not warrant further discussion at
this time.
Item 10. - 42 rt-14/12/11 HB -226- 11 sr22 TTM 17397,CDP 10-017
Encroachment on Huntington Street Right-of Way
The proposed subdivision map delineates existing structures within the mobile home park currently
encroaching onto the Huntington Street right-of-way, which was deeded to the City in 1950. As part of
the initial application review, staff advised the applicant to provide evidence that the mobile home park
was granted authorization to occupy the City's right-of-way. The applicant, in his response, believes that
authorization to encroach onto the City's right-of-way was granted to the mobile home park and that a
conditional use permit was obtained for the mobile home park based on the current location of the homes
but did not provide evidence of approved plans or a copy of the conditional use permit cited in the
response. The City does not have records of an approved conditional use permit or plans authorizing
encroachment onto Huntington Street for the mobile home park. In addition, a 1975 City survey of a
portion of the mobile home park shows that the mobile homes closest to Huntington Street did not
encroach onto the Huntington Street right-of-way at that time, suggesting that the applicant's contention
that the mobile homes were authorized to be located in their current location with the original entitlement
permit may not be a valid assumption. Staff believes that the encroachment has occurred over time due to
the modernization and increase in size of mobile/manufactured homes. In fact, a conditional use permit to
construct a wall along the park perimeter adjacent to Huntington Street was submitted in 1996, for which
the application narrative and subsequent Ietter withdrawing the conditional use permit application
acknowledges that the Park owners and management were aware of the encroachment at that time.
Additionally, the applicant of the proposed project has acknowledged (in the project narrative) the
encroachment, which is also delineated on the proposed tentative tract map. Below is a historic timeline
of the Huntington Street Right of way which provides the basis for the City's determination that the
encroachment is unauthorized.
1950— 60-foot wide Huntington Street right-of-way deeded to the City
1953 — Conditional Exception entitlement approved by the City Council for the construction of a trailer
park adjacent to and east of Huntington Street (a 60-foot right-of-way accepted by the City in
1950)
1954 — Business license approved by the City Council for operation of the subject mobile home park
(Pacific Trailer Park)
1975 — City survey of a portion of the Pacific Mobile Home Park shows that existing mobile homes
closest to the Huntington Street right-of-way did not encroach at that time
1996—Park owners/management apply for (and subsequently withdraw) a CUP to construct a block wall
along the Huntington Street perimeter requesting to construct the wall within the City's right-of-
way and acknowledging the encroachment of Park structures within the right-of-way
2010 — The applicant submits an application for a tentative tract map showing existing dwellings and
accessory structures encroaching beyond the boundary of the mobile home park property and
onto the City's Huntington Street right-of-way
PC Staff Report—04/12/11 HB -227- 11sr22 TTM 17397,'Item 10. - 43
2011 — Response letter to City's incomplete submittal determination acknowledges encroachment onto
€" the City's R-O-W,but fails to provide evidence that the applicant has obtained authorization for
the encroachment
Tentative Tract MW/Lot Line Inconsistencies
Section 18210 of the California Health and Safety Code (otherwise referred to as the Mobilehome Parks
Act) defines a "lot" as "any area or tract of land or portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for
the occupancy of one manufactured home, mobilehome, recreational vehicle." The HBZSO defines a
mobilehome space as "any area,tract of land, site, lot, pad or portion of a mobilehome park designated or
used for the occupancy of one mobilehome."
The applicant asserts in the December 7, 2010 project narrative that the proposed tentative tract map is
submitted pursuant to Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map Act) and
represents an "application to create numbered residential lots corresponding to the existing 252 rental
spaces...that are currently permitted by HCD" and further states that no physical changes are proposed.
The applicant asserts that they simply seeks to create legally recordable property boundaries based on the
existing configuration of rental spaces and common areas. However, the proposed tentative tract map
shows that either 1.) existing lots (as defined by the Health and Safety Code and HBZSO) would be
modified, necessitating physical changes or 2) the existing lots would remain in their current
configuration, necessitating a physical change in the existing exterior boundary/property line and an
increase in the current size of the mobile home park. In either case, the scope of the proposed subdivision
map extends beyond a change in the form of ownership interests.
The applicant has stated that no physical change would occur and that the mobile homes would remain in
their current configuration or"lots". However, the current map is not consistent with that statement. The
City cannot approve a map that depicts property lines that encroach onto the right of way (or any other
private property for that matter)without consent and additional subdivision.
Alteration of Lot Lines/Physical Changes
The title page of the proposed tentative tract map shows lots corresponding to the correct exterior property
line adjacent to Huntington Street. However,pages two and three of the tentative tract map show existing
dwellings and structures, and by definition, mobile home lots, beyond the exterior property line and
within the City's Right of way. If the applicant intends to create lots as shown on the title page, the
existing lot lines are proposed to change and consequently, existing dwellings and accessory structures
would require a physical change from their current location. On the other hand, if the applicant intends to
create lots based on the current configuration of the mobile home lots, then the exterior boundary shown
on the tentative tract map is incorrect and a change to the existing exterior boundary is actually proposed.
Since the new exterior boundary line would be within the City's right-of-way, authorization from the City
would be required for the change to occur and the map to be approved. No such authorization has been
granted.
The applicant, at the Subdivision Committee Meeting, clarified that the intent is to create legal lots based
on the configuration shown on the title page of the proposed tentative tract map. This statement conflicts
Item 10. - 44-'-0'/"/" HB -228- 11 sr22 TTM 17397,CDP 10-017
with the submitted application narrative and the configuration of the Park as shown on pages two and
three of the proposed tentative tract map. t
Findings for Denial of Tentative Tract Map
Section 66427.5 of the Government Code specifies provisions for the filing of a tentative map for the
conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership. The applicant has submitted the proposed
project pursuant to this section of the Government Code. However, given that the map clearly shows the
creation of new lot lines (as discussed in the earlier subsections of the Analysis Section of this staff
report), provisions of Section 66427.5 do not apply to the proposed subdivision map, which limit the
scope of review (from that of a traditional tentative/final or parcel map) for a common interest
development. For the reasons articulated, the City finds that the proposed map is not consistent with the
provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5.
It should be noted that the City advised the applicant in writing of the issues regarding encroachment
onto Huntington Street and offered to refund the application fees so that the matter of encroachment could
be resolved. In addition,the City also met with the applicant's representative and engineer and explained
the City's position that the encroachment posed lot line issues that would affect applicability of the
Subdivision Map from the City's perspective. The applicant, continues to argue that authorization was
granted for the encroachment and that the subdivision map is merely a change in ownership pursuant to
California Government Code 66427.5.
Chapter 251 of the HBZSO requires four findings for approval of a tentative map:
1. That the proposed map is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan, or
other provisions of this Code;
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development;
3. That the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements will not cause serious health
problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
4. That 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.
The HBZSO also requires denial of a tentative subdivision map if it is determined that approval would
result in any of the conditions described in Section 66474 of the California Government Code. Section
66474 of the Government Code stipulates the same findings specified in Chapter 251 of the HBZSO and
listed above, with the exception of the reference to "other provisions of this Code," in finding number
one. As such, the findings for denial include, but are not limited to, references of inconsistencies to both
applicable City and state codes and laws including Chapter 251 of the HBZSO and Sections 66427.5 and
66474 on the California Government Code.
Coastal Development Permit
Because the findings for a coastal development permit, as specified in Chapter 245 of the HBZSO, require
issuance of a coastal development permit to be consistent with the City's General Plan, certified Local
PC Staff Report—04/12/11 11 sr22 TTM 17397 +
HB -229- ' Item 10. - 45
Coastal Program,which includes the Coastal Element of the General Plan,the HBZSO, and the Coastal
Act,the City cannot approve the associated coastal development permit for the same reasons it cannot
approve the proposed tentative tract map.
SUMMARY:
Based on a review of the proposed tentative tract map and application materials,the City determines:
• That existing encroachment of dwellings and structures onto the Huntington Street right-of-way
is illegal and violates existing City codes requiring applicants to have a freehold interest in the
land which is the subject of the application and submit written evidence of such interest
(HBZSO Section 202.04) and prohibiting encroachment of private dwellings onto public right-
of-way(Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 12.38.030);
• That the unauthorized and illegal encroachment onto the Huntington Street right-of-way would
result in changes to existing lot lines/configuration of the existing Park or a change in the
exterior boundary of the existing mobile home park;
• That the proposed lot line and exterior boundary changes would extend the scope of the
application beyond a change in the form of ownership, thereby defining the project as a
subdivision rather than merely a conversion to a common interest development or, more
specifically, a conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership;
• That the scope of review for approval is not limited by the provisions specified in Section
66427.5 of the California Government Code; and
• That the City is authorized, to deny the tentative because the location of buildings on the
property shown are the map that are violative of local ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Suggested Findings for Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development
Permit No. 10-017
2. Project Narratives received and dated December 7, 2010, January 18,2011 and February 4,2011
3. Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 dated December 7, 2010
4. Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents, dated December 7, 2010
5. Summary of the Survey of Resident Support, dated December 7, 2010
6. Public Comments,received as of April 5,2011
7. Government Code Sections 66427, 66427.5 and 66474
8. Sections 245.30 and 251.08 of the HBZSO pertaining to findings for coastal development permits
and subdivisions
9. Draft March 31, 2011 Subdivision Committee Minutes
SH:MBB:HF:JV:kdc
Item 10. - 46``-04/12/11 HB -230- 11sr22 TTM 17397,CDP 10-017
ATTACBMENT NO. 1
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397/
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397:
1. Section 66427.5 of the California Government Code does not apply and is in conflict with the
proposed map because Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 (received and dated December 7, 2010) to
convert 252 for-rent mobile home lots into condominium (ownership) lots, will result in changes to
existing lot lines and exterior boundary lines and therefore, does not solely constitute a subdivision
map created from the conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership.
2. The proposed tentative tract map would result in conditions specified in Section 66474 of the
California Government Code (and referenced in Chapter 251 of the HBZSO as the required basis for
denial of a tentative map), which stipulates that a tentative map shall be denied if the proposed
tentative map would result in any of the conditions listed in that section. Specifically, Section 66474
requires denial of a tentative map that is not consistent with applicable general plans. The proposed
subdivision would violate the following City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element
goal and policies:
Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects
economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future
residents of Huntington Beach.
Policy LU 4.2.1: Require that all structures be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the
City's building and other pertinent codes and regulations; including new, adaptively re-used, and
renovated buildings.
Policy LU 4.2.6: Monitor the conditions of buildings in the City and enforce pertinent building,
municipal, and zoning codes to ensure their maintenance and quality.
Although the subdivision map does not propose construction of new buildings, Policy LU 4.2.1 is
applicable Citywide to ensure the quality of the City's built environment. Similar to Policy LU 4.2.6,
the General Plan requires that all proposed projects comply with applicable City codes and that the
City shall enforce compliance with these codes. To that end, the City cannot approve a subdivision
map that would result in violations of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code,which would be the case
if the applicant maintains the current lots/configuration of the mobile homes and accessory structures
shown on the map.
If the applicant intends to move the existing lot lines such that no encroachment occurs, the resulting
lots may result in an inability to meet the standards and regulations of the Mobile Home Parks
Act/Health and Safety Code with respect to setbacks, access, and other applicable development
standards that would be required. However, this report is only analyzes the map that was submitted,
not hypothetical configurations that the applicant may create.
(11sr22 TTM 17397;CDP 10-017) HB -231- Attachi Item 10. - 47
u Mobile home owners with homes currently encroaching into the City right-of-way would necessarily
be required to move their homes in order to purchase their own lot prior to obtaining title. This
would require physical changes and a potential, and unanticipated, obstacle for the purchase of the
lot, especially considering the application was submitted with the understanding that no physical
changes are proposed. These violations would be detrimental to the current quality of life of the park
residents affected by the physical changes proposed by the tentative tract map. Goal LU 1 aims to
achieve improvement, and at a minimum, maintenance of the quality of life for City residents. The
proposed tentative map would conflict with achievement of this goal.
3. Pursuant to Section 66427 of the California Government Code, the City cannot approve Tentative
Tract Map No. 17397 because the location of the buildings on the property are violative of local
ordinances.
4. The City cannot make the necessary findings for approval specified in Chapter 251 of the HBZSO,
which require that "a proposed map is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific
plan, or other provisions of this Code." The proposed tentative tract map conflicts with Section
202.04 of the HBZSO, Section 12.38.030 of the Municipal Code, General Plan Land Use Element
Goal LU 1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6 and Sections 66427, 66427.5 and 66474 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL—COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017:
1. The proposed coastal development permit, necessitated because it meets the definition of
development in the coastal zone, conflicts with Sections 202.04 of the HBZSO, Section 12.38.030 of
the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and General Plan Goal LU1 and Policies LU 4.2.1 and 4.2.6.
INDEMNIFICATION AND MOLD 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.
Item 10. - 4817397;CDP 10-017) HB -232- Attachment No. 1.2
HK&
HART, KING & CQLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malpert@hkclaw.com
December 7, 2010
Our File Number: 36608.006/4815-7905-3576v.1
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Scott Hess L_l _ LJ
L!
Director of Planning I
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept. t r ; 0
2000 Main Street P.Q. Box 190 Huntington
tJEPTn Beach
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -E
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park
80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No.
Dear Mr. Hess:
Please find enclosed the Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map l 3�
("Application") for the Pacific Mobile Home Park located at 80 Huntington Street, Huntington
Beach, CA. 92648 ("Pack"). The Application is the first step in the conversion of Pacific from a
rental to a resident-owned mobilehome park. The Application is to create numbered residential
lots corresponding to the existing 252 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
Pacific. 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 report,
which. conversion impact report must provide notice to residents of their option to purchase or
continue leasing (the option is loosely labeled in Section 66427.5 (a) as an "offer"). (See El
Dorado Palm Springs Associates v. City of Palm Springs(2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1180)
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 r ,
Ph 714.432.8700 I www-hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 �[g -
HB -233- " ' `"�`p" Item 10. - 49-
6 OK " C
" CK
HART, KING & COLOREN
Scott Hess
December 7, 2010
Page 2
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 the vesting Tentative Tract Map are submitted with the
Application.
2. Fees_ We are submitting filing fees based on the City's fee for a vesting tentative
tract map and its per lot fees. We do not believe the fees for a standard residential subdivision
application should apply to a subdivision under Section 66427.5 which is substantially more
limited in scope. We are therefore submitting these fees "under protest" and request that the
City adjust the fee to reflect the reduced scope of review under Government Code section
66427.5. In addition, the Applicant does not believe the City can require a coastal permit, but if
City staff insists upon such an application, the Applicant will submit the fee as requested under
protest. In addition, as discussed below, the Applicant contends the proposed subdivision is
exempt from environmental review under CEQA. To the extent the City insists upon fees being
collected for environmental review, such fees are submitted under protest.
3. Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents. A copy of the Report on
Impact of Conversion Upon Residents is enclosed.
4. Resident Survey Results. The Report on Impact Upon Residents discusses the
survey results.
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:
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 issued September 27, 2010.
5(c) Preliminary Soils and Engineering Geology Report.
There is no"physical change" or"change in use" of Pacific. Therefore, no
soils or geology reports is necessary or required under Government Code
Section 66427.5.
36608.00614815-7905-3576v.1 r �:
Item 10. - 50 HB -234-
K&CO
HART, KING & C:DLDREN
Scott Hess 't
December 7, 2010
Page 3
5(d) Public Notification Requirements.
Public notification materials are enclosed.
5(e) Photographs of the Subiect Property.
Photographs of Pacific are enclosed.
5(f) Written Narrative:
(1) Existing Use of the Property and Present Zoning.
Pacific is situated on a single parcel (APN) consisting of
approximately 18 acres and operated as a mobile home park
permitted for 252 mobile home spaces. Pack is currently zoned
RMP. The General Plan Designation is RMH-25.
Pacific was initially constructed in the late 1950s, on Huntington
Street, North of Pacific View.
The improvements included a clubhouse with kitchen, a workout
room, a heated year-round swimming pool and Jacuzzi, a
Laundromat with vending machine, a drive in hand car wash bay
and an area for RVBoat[Trailer storage
(2) Proposed Use of the Property.
There is no proposed "physical change" or"change in the use" of
Pacific. The proposed use of Pacific is to maintain the existing
use as a mobile home park.
(3) Statement of the Proposed Improvements and Public Utilities.
There are no proposed improvements or utilities.
(4) Public Areas Proposed.
There are no public areas proposed.
(5) Tree Planting Proposed.
There are no tree plantings proposed.
(6) Restrictive Covenants Proposed.
Upon approval of the Application, a Pacific Homeowners
Association will be formed, and 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.
Pacific is believed to be within a coastal zone, but the Applicant does not believe
a coastal permit is required as Government Code § 66427.5 prevents the imposition of a
TT
36608.00614815-7905-3576v_1 l� a hid '.--
xB -235- Item 10. - 51
HK&C
HART, KING & EOLDREN
Scott Hess
December 7, 2010
Page 4
requirement for a coastal perms. However, while reserving its rights to proceed without
a coastal permit, encloses a fee of$2971.00 for a coastal permit application.
The enclosed materials should provide the City with a complete application. Please feel
free to contact me with any questions or comments you may have.
Sincerely,
HART, KING & COLDREN
a .Alpert
MDA/sm
Enclosures:
Subdivision Application
Tentative Tract Map
Application Fee
Report on Impact of Conversion Upon Residents
Preliminary Title Report
Public Notification Materials
Photographs
cc: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
36608.006/4815-7905-3576v.1 AT
Item 10. - 52 HB -236-
Ko,-S C
HART, KING & COLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malpert@hkclaw.com
January 18, 2010
Our Re Number. 36608.00614832-6151-1432v.1
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Jennifer Villasenor IRE,1 0 W
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.
2000 Main Street JAN 18 201P
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Htntington Begoh
PLANNING
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park
80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17392
Dear Ms Villasenor.
am writing in response to the City's "Notice of Filing Status" for the above-referenced tentative
tract map deeming the application incomplete and requesting additional "information or
clarification" to act on the Application, which I interpret as items which the City of Huntington
Beach will not require to deem the application complete, but which it seeks prior to acting on the
application. After reviewing your notice, we respectfully disagree with the determination of staff
and ask that the City reconsider its position on this matter. I will address the items utilizing the
same numbering utilized in your Notice.
Purported "Incomplete" items
1. Map purportedly depicting units and structures straddling property lines and outside
the proposed boundary. For many years, the Park has operated under the current
configuration with some homes placed, in part, on property which is technically on
the City's right-of-way. However, the Applicant is informed and believes that the City
has approved this configuration, including a conditional use permit based on the
current location of these homes. The Applicant believes it has a legal right to
continue this use. While we recognize the City may disagree with this position, that
does not render the application incomplete. The City may consider approving the
tract map subject to the conditions that the Applicant demonstration that the City has
relinquished its interest either formally or by operation of law, but this is not a
properly a basis to deem the application incomplete.
2. The Application is intended to be a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Please feel free to
mark the submitted maps accordingly or our engineering firm can make the required
change at your convenience. While we understand that the City's municipal code
may purport to require an application for conditional use permit, any such municipal
requirements are barred by Government Code 66427.5. This has been the repeated
holding of numerous California courts, including notably Sequoia Park Associates v.
County of Sonoma, 176 Cal.AppAth 1270 (Cal.App.Ist Dist. 2009). In Sequoia, the
Court recognized that state law both expressly and impliedly preempted local
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor,Santa Ana, Califomia 92707 /.
Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457TV
` w ,
HB -237- Item 10. - 53
HART, KING & COLDP.EN
`r Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2011
Page 2
government regulation, except as expressly authorized by Section 66427.5. Thus,
the City cannot impose the requirement of seeking a new CUP. In addition, the park
owner does not propose any new use. The subdivision application proposes a
change in the form of ownership, while maintaining the same use. There is no
reason the existing CUP cannot remain operative.
Finally, you request an updated narrative to correct the designation under the general plan to
"Residential Medium Density — 15 units/acre" or "RM-15". Inasmuch as these facts are
irrelevant to the application I do not believe any correction is necessary to "complete' the
application. Certainly, this letter should suffice to clarify the issue.
On this basis, the application should be deemed complete immediately.
Requests for"information"and "clarification".
1. Two reduced sets of the tentative tract map will be provided to the City, but these are
provided as additional information not required to"complete"the application.
2. Flood information--I am advised by my engineer that the flood information utilized
was the most recent available at the date of submission. He can meet with you to
clarify the issue but we do not believe any revisions are needed as of this time. In
any event, because the City cannot impose flood mitigation requirements, this
information is not necessary to complete the application.
3. Current zoning correction. Please treat this letter as correcting the Conversion
Report. It is my understanding that the current zoning of the property is "Residential
Manufactured Home Park—Coastal Zone overlay"or"RMP-CZ".
4. The subdivision application seeks a tentative tract map for 252 spaces approved by
the existing CUP. The Applicant does not seek to subdivide the lots occupied by the
four model units approved by HCD.
5. As you acknowledge, there was no active homeowners' association in place at the
time the survey was conducted. The Applicant has no information regarding any
effort to "reorganize" an association that was not operating. 1 find it notable that
during repeated communications with all of the park residents, which are described
in the declaration of Clarke Fairbrother which was submitted with the Application,
that no resident came forward making this request and we received no objections to
the conduct of the survey. My information is that there has not been a homeowner's
association active within the Park for many years and that when such association
existed, it was strictly social in nature and did not have a significant level of
participation by the residents.
You have provided an unsigned letter from someone purporting to be on behalf of
"Pack MHOA." The letter is dated November 22, 2010. This person had ample
36608.006/4832-6151-1432v.7 [
Item 10. - 54 xB -238-
t-APT, KIfdG & COLOPEPa
Jennifer Villasenor g
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2011
Page 3
opportunity to participate in the process under which the survey was conducted
which was initiated in September, 2010. Neither the park owner nor his
representative were advised that the residents wished to form an HOA to conduct the
survey and I note that the letter from the resident in space 80 does not indicate she
copied the park owner or representative with the letter. It appears that a single or
small group of residents have intentionally chosen to wait until the survey was
completed to delay or interfere with the application process. There is no basis to
believe the resident speaks for anyone but him or herself. Indeed, the resident may
be one of the few residents who oppose a subdivision.
S. The Park is effectively fully occupied. It would require speculation to determine why a
substantial percentage of residents chose not to participate in the survey. They
certainly had every opportunity to participate. There were two mass mailings and
one community wide meeting held before the surveys were sent. It is not unusual for
a large percentage of residents to choose not to participate. It is my understanding
from speaking to the managers that prior efforts to revive an HOA for the Park in
2004 failed because of a lack of interest. Thus, there is a prior pattern of lack of
community participation at the Park. Since all residents had ample opportunity to
participate and were repeatedly advised of the planned survey, the only logical
inference to make from the lack of participation these residents chose not to
participate. There is no reason to expect a second survey would yield more
responses. Of those residents who were interested, the vast majority supported the
application.
In any event, the City may not consider the level of participation in the survey or even
the lack of support in processing the subdivision application. While California courts
have split on whether or not local governments could consider the absence of
resident support under any circumstances, the one reported decision which
concludes it is valid to consider level of resident support (not level of participants)
recognizes the purpose of such consideration is to determine whether the
subdivision is a "bona fide" conversion in which a single or a few lots are sold to
avoid rent control. See, e.g. Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 187
Cal.AppAth 1487, 1501 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 2010) This issue arises where there is the
possibility of using conversion to get out of local rent control. Id. Even assuming
Colony Cove is correctly decided, it simply has no application where, as here, there
is no rent control ordinance. Because of a voter initiative, there is not even the
prospect of future rent control. There is no reason to believe there is any potential
for a sham conversion for that reason. Indeed, if the park owner were to subdivide
and sell only a lot or two it would have the effect of imposing a form of rent control
under state law where none existed. Since there is no potential for a "sham
conversion" there simply is no reason to even consider the results of the survey. In
any event, it is impossible to infer from the lack of resident responses that the
conversion is not"bona fide."
36608A06/4832-6151-1432V.1 P+� `� 9 �.
AT
xs -239- Item 10. - 55
HART KING Sc COLDREN
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2611
Page 4
7. Regarding your concerns regarding dwelling units being "cut oft" by proposed interior
lot lines, we believe you are simply mistaken. Unfortunately, you have not identified
specific areas or lots in question. Likewise, then: are no units which abut property
lines in a way that impacts access. Again, you have not identified the relevant lots in
question or provided any examples. Our engineer observed to me that your
comments indicate you have not actually visited the site.
We would be happy to meet with you this week to clarify these questions if you are prepared to
identify specific areas in question. I want to emphasize, however, it is our position that the
application is complete and any such meeting would only serve the purpose of providing
additional clarifying information to assist the City in consider the application. We can also
discuss an appropriate partial refund of funds given the limited scope of the City's review. It
might be helpful to have your city attorney present to discuss legal issues that uniquely apply to
the processing of a mobilehome subdivision under Government Code §66427.5. Please advise
me what days and times you are available this week.
Sincerely,
A , KING & COLDREN
Mark D Alp rt
M DA/sm
cc: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
36608.0a6/4832-6151-1432v.1
Item 10. - 56 HB -240-
1l
K.
HART, KING & COLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malpert@hkclaw.com
February 4, 2011
Our File Number: 36608.006/4843-7949-9016v.1
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept,
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 190 o ((?
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 v
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park
Fa 9 4 2p1i
80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 ton t3e�ch
Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17392 PLANING 0
Dear Ms Villasenor:
You indicated that the City was prepared to deem the above referenced subdivision application
complete provided it was processed as a non-vesting application. I am writing to confirm that
my client will agree to have the application processed as a non-vesting map, provided that the
City will deem the application complete based on the information already submitted. I would
appreciate your confirmation in writing, no later than Monday February 7, 2011, that staff will
deem the application complete.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
HAEU, KIN
Mark
M DA/sm
cc: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
Rob Coldren
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,Califomia 92707
Ph 714.432,8700 I www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714,546.7457 Y.« r n � T NC
A.
HB -241- Item 10. - 57
evw aAuviN3l
i Q � ��� � � �� �� 8€ � p�e§� i Edi � � e � e ! Q e s � ° �9�d�Q! i•EQ °d! $ r,I°
iygp�999999
Q°`E=to E q � i S E E Qec�
lit
�FFE
�5[i! Q ��t� E Ei �� ���p{��� �� � QItQeEF Q(�t� a g�g �°� � # ��g�g �•� � 9�� �tgQ���fQp 3°g�R� °g
SQ
i g i e F d f = Q p d Ep4 lit°EEFd e� @Qa°S° l �•c PI
£i $.t +���� ¢g�d v+ e•1i�e•� tYEde: E�F 9 ! E E 3 g g !
7 oft Q e 6 t ;et!IN Aiis�i °6 d€y
doRspgi•t �d t �
Q!!;!c E{{ 1ii dd pggE E¢ g ° etQ t 6t 9 d•d s gd ed ed t Fed ed d ! °
!leg g Q � tlai 8
3
S
ye
f
i
n
o l Ell
0 6 U
w Q rA • S
E E d
-
pp .59555559555955959775 891779597979 ga 8 e €
o w 9l75l9!l997955997995957i999557l9795799979577737395377 F t
M e- 33� t- Sa9'+9gggg49gggl:69ggq 11gli :§!93£ jd t�
i � 3 8531ggg€g§iggagggggg§;:§99g3g§glgg;igggg3g3gggegggggd 4 'f3E� g �
= o ¢ segd@ggEsgs..;gge!@e£aalgaalba@a!laenxglAg�ggexa�! .. eEeattSF.a+ d l €
® � � i iT' W w ycg§ss§§'s§'s§§§§§§5§5§•`s§§§§§45§§§55§5`ss 6g9§s§6§s5§5 4§§535§3§3454§§55§�5 §5$
ti .o � 4a 5777!l725735555777l559595g977liisaa7753gi7gg9g7ggg5aa5gggg57595575!95975755l55°67iII175757555797999955 d~- �$a
- � 2 y � y y o 9!g§:,gggse?gEggggggggggtgg;&ggl93Sggd9ggggggSg39694g19gg4g3g!dd&dgg85dBE48g9dd999g9Sg549g4d9§x::3sgg# �,,,
= w ¢ O q Egtataceeecaat aaceG------££££i5------x£titEEE!!E!lEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE£S££?££EE------EEEEEEe-EEEEE EEO ,4Y_r z-.
§t65�t q§§§66§§§§§§§§§§§�§656b 666 6 6'666 e6 ---- --66 6 �� 666 us
§§ gsssgggss§§4S§
lu
LLI
gyp. w � m 4 �73:i31759?759777939777318777995997799779997779799777774179597°.597715779559555559:97359i6555ga°eas5aa
z j � v � 6g9`sgg§g,gggggggggg8g�g9s��?;liiggggggggtgg3cgg�gl�;ggaggggg3s;gg;sdseggegdg9gQ8d:9ddggg8ggdlgB5g5gg§
w
V 0 y .......a.aIIaaa CO•Ritl¢tGGCGGIt¢:iat¢ttt i9tiiiCiCtiC¢iit¢itf:tO3iit+to[CG GGGC GGt:ttiitttt¢st¢ititifE
§§§§§§§4§4§§§§§§§445444§§§§§5§§§44§44§§4§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§4§§§§§§§§§§§§§§44§§§§§§§§§5§
e
1 .
,o �
IN
d
r t r
p pQ
t d!QQQ3
dSS
—ti r r r tPE i¢E
LU
o� ESE
N
t¢mrt NMO¢B I e .g
t aura = r
h�
..... .......... — — —�-= — ...Mail
.-ISwill
tem . 58 Trt epprOa PlQiaaftaP Pt Etat ftr
HB —242— �. �
7-
STREgT Lqr*A*, D
if
(406)
(3. SYMBOLS LEGEND
0
01
(,o om
C-12)
tup
fW)
Il 0 1"14)
(4
wo
(Im
2
p.)
ji SYR
[TI
-4--A
a Nan 1. —
fW.-) W..)
W ICI L -I i� 1 I "f1 '� A
IV.
1-77-�:-
MATO"UNO
1 -.1
!.I Ir . �tOrro ...
SIERE ET im`e \ \ GAS GKMIff 0 GRMqw Be-,
Y—F,
CD
PA04FIC WBU HOME PARK 17397
PACMMOMW�P�
�FUIA
O %�®r xo, �.• ,i,am.m ,aanaeeaw,ea muarm
3
H r " & C
k%t,
HART, (SING & CQLDREN
DEPORT ON IMPACT OF CONVERSION UPON RESIDENTS
1 i
Pacific Mobile Home Parr
December 6, 2010
SECTION I. SCOPE OF REPORT . 19untington t3each
PLAiti: ING CREPT.
This "Report on Impact of Conversion upon Residents" ("Deport") is submitted
by the "Applicant" for a Tentative Tract Map subdividing the Pacific Mobile Home Park
("Park") located at 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. The subdivision
will be created by the conversion of the Park from rental spaces to resident owned lots.
This Report is being filed with the City of Huntington Beach ("City") as part of the
"Application" and is being made available to the Park residents prior to the City's
hearing on the Application, pursuant to California Government Code Section 66427.5, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"I."
This Report contains the Applicant's assessment of the economic impact upon
non-purchasing Park residents of conversion to resident ownership as required by
Government Code Section 66427.5 (b). The Applicant's assessment is that non-
purchasing residents will not be economically displaced because they can continue renting
the home site. Rents will not be increased due to the conversion. There are statutory
limits on post-conversion rent increases for those non-purchasing residents.
Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) does not require that this Report discuss
economic impacts of conversion upon Park residents who choose to purchase their rental
spaces. Those residents are not being forced to purchase their spaces. The Applicant
need not and indeed is arguably prohibited under the Subdivided Lands Act from
disclosing potential lot purchase prices or homeowner association assessments. (El
Dorado Palm Springs Associates v. City of Palm Springs (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1153,
1177)
SECTION II DEFINITIONS
2.1 Conversion Date: The "Conversion Date" is the date after the
subdivision final map has been approved by the City and after the Department of Real
Estate has approved the subdivision for sale and is the date on which the first Lot in the
Park is sold. The Applicant is not by this Report committing to make such applications or
to any certain Conversion Date.
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 p �i
Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546 1,
HB -245- Item 10. - 61
4
HK&C
}-CART. KING & GFaLDREN
Deport on Impact of Subdivision to Residents
December 6,2010
Page 2
2.2 Hearing Date: The "Bearing Date" is the date on which the subdivision
Application is first heard by the City Planning Commission.
2.3 Home: The "home" is the manufactured home that occupies the Space
where the Resident is living as of the Hearing Date
2.4 Lot: A "Lot" is the land and fixed improvements within the Space on
which the Resident's Home is located as of the Hearing Date.
2.5 Resident: A "Resident" is a person living in a Home in the Park who
meets the requirements for receiving protections afforded by applicable law.
2.6 Space: The "Space" is the leased premises on which the Resident's Home
is located as of the Hearing Date.
SECTION III NON-PURCHASING RESIDENTS WILL NOT DE
ECONOMICALLY DISPLACED BY CONVERSION
Non-purchasing Residents will not be economically displaced as a result of
conversion. Following the Conversion Date, all Residents will have the opportunity to
either purchase the Lot on which their Home is situated or to continue renting their Space.
(Govt. Code § 66427.5 (a)) The Application does not encompass rent increases for non-
purchasing Residents.
Non-purchasing residents enjoy statutory protections against post conversion rent
increases that would not otherwise be available without conversion. (Govt. Code §
66427.5 (f)) Therefore, upon conversion of the Park to resident ownership, non-
purchasing Residents are protected against economic displacement, assuming that rent
increases could result in economic displacement
3.1 Non-Purchasing Residents Are Protected From Displacement by the
Option to Continue Leasing with Statutory Protections Pertaining to
Rent Increases
Following the Conversion Date, Residents who do not exercise the option to
purchase their Lots and instead exercise the option to continue renting their Spaces are
protected from economic displacement by statutory restrictions on rent increases. The
statutory provisions limit the amount and timing of rent increases following conversion.
(Govt. Code, § 66427.5 (f))
1 �
36608.006/4822-7752-2951 v_1 t
2
Item 10. - 62 HB -246- EE
HK&C
HART. KING & COLDREN
Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents
December 6,2010
Page 3
For non-purchasing Residents who are not lower income households, the monthly
rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities,
initially following the Conversion Date may only increase to market levels as determined
by appraisal, and then only over a period of four years.
For non-purchasing Residents who are lower income households, the monthly
rent, including any applicable fees or charges for use of any pre-conversion amenities,
may only increase following the Conversion Date by an amount equal to the average
monthly increase in rent in the four years immediately preceding the conversion. Post
Conversion Date rent increases for lower income households are further limited in that the
monthly rent cannot be increased by an amount greater than the average monthly
percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the most recently reported period.
To qualify as a Low Income Household in Orange County, the following income
limits are estimated for calendar year 20101.
Household Size(#of Persons) 1 2 3 4
Income Must be at or Below: $52,050 $59,450 $66,900 $74,300
Thus, under the current statutory scheme, the Legislature has defined the exclusive
and preempted scope of "mitigations" respecting any "economic displacement" to
Residents, assuming, without admitting, that increases in rent can be considered an
economic displacement.
3.2 Residents Cannot Be Economically Displaced by Purchase of Their
Spaces Because They Are Not Forced to Purchase
Government Code Section 66427.5 (b) does not require that this Report address
potential economic displacement upon residents who intend to purchase the Lots on which
their Home is situated. The language of Government Code Section 66427.5 is expressly
limited to steps intended to avoid economic displacement from conversion upon non-
purchasing residents.
The Residents are protected from economic displacement pertaining to potential
sale of the Lots upon conversion by having both the option to purchase their Lots at the
eventual sales price and the option to continue renting their Space following the
Conversion Date. Government Code Section 66427.5 (a)requires the subdivider to "offer
I These figures are estimates based on the Applicants' research. In any event,the relevant
date for determination of lower income levels is the date of conversion of the property,
which is the date the first lot is sold.
36608.006/4822-7752-2951 v.1 AT
a F , "l
HB -247- Item 10. - 63
HK&C
HART. ICING & C13LDREN
Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents
December 6,2010
Page 4
each Resident an option to either purchase his or her ... subdivided unit, which is to be
created by the conversion of the park to resident ownership, or to continue residency as a
tenant." Thus, if the Resident cannot purchase his or her Lot, the Resident is not required
to move and may continue to rent his or her Space following the Conversion Date.
This Report cannot make determinations about economic impacts to the
purchasing Residents. That is because any sale price for the Lots and HOA assessments
will not be established until some time after the tentative map subdivision approval. After
tentative map approval, the subdivider must next follow procedures and obtain approval
for the subdivision from the Department of Real Estate under the Subdivided Lands Act.
Only after approval by the Department of Real Estate will all of the factors that affect the
purchasing Residents be established. The purchasing Residents will then learn the price
for their Lot only after the Department of Real Estate approves the subdivision and issues
its public report on the subdivision. Of course, all of this will also require appropriate
financing accommodations.
3.3 Benefits of Conversion
Subdivision provides Residents with a choice to own the Lot on which their Home
is located. Lot ownership gives the Residents greater flexibility with regard to financing
for their Homes and other credit opportunities. The Applicant will try to arrange for
preferred lenders who will provide favorable financing terms for the Residents.
Lot ownership allows the Residents to control their economic future. Residents do
not have to be tied to monthly rental payments if they choose. Lot ownership also gives
the Residents the freedom to use their Lot without all of the restrictions or costs that a
landlord might impose. The Residents will have the opportunity to control the Park
amenities that they will enjoy and pay for through the HOA.
SECTION IV NO CLOSURE OR CHANGE IN ZONING
4.1 No Change in Zoning or Closure
The Park is currently zoned MHP. The Application does not request a zoning
change. The Application does not request closure of the Park. The Application seeks
merely to convert the existing Spaces to Lots available for purchase. Therefore, the
conversion to Resident ownership will not result in economic displacement that might
occur with a zoning change or closure of the Park.
This Report is not required to discuss or provide mitigation against any unlikely
future closure or change of use application. It will be unlikely for the Park to close or
36608.006/4822-7752-2951 v-I
F- N
Item 10. 64 HB -248-
l
HK&C
HART, KING & COLDREN
Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents
December 6,2010
Page 5
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.
4.2 Technical "Conversion" or"Change in Use" Only
The term "conversion" relating to a mobilehome park sometimes is used to
describe the closure of the park to enable an alternative use. This is NOT what is
occurring as a result of subdivision of the Park. The Park will remain a manufactured
housing community, with the existing Residents having the right to either buy their Lot or
to remain and rent their Space.
While conversion of a rental mobilehome park to a Resident-owned mobilehome
park is identified as a "change of use" under California Mobilehome Residency law and
under the Chapter 234 of the City's Ordinance, it is more accurately described under the
Subdivision Map Act as a change in the form of ownership. The Park is not being closed
and the Residents are not being required to vacate the property.
4.3 Relocation Assistance Not Applicable
When a subdivision is created from conversion of a rental mobilehome park to
resident ownership, a different type of impact report is required than when a subdivision
created from a change of use to a non-mobilehome park use or when the mobilehome park
is closed.
Government Code Section 66427.5 governs the type of report that must be
prepared for a subdivision which is created from conversion of a rental mobilehome park
to resident ownership. This Government Code Section 66427.5 Report, which does not
deal with a change in use of the property or closure of the Park, is simply required to
explain the options of the Residents regarding their choice to purchase their Lot or to rent
their Space.
This Report need not discuss displacement of Residents,replacement housing or
mitigation of the reasonable costs of relocation,which issues would be involved in any
subdivision resulting from a change of use of a mobilehome park or from closure of a
mobilehome park. In fact Government Code Sections 66427.4 and 65863.7, which apply
to subdivisions created from change of use to a non-mobilehome park use or to closure of
a mobilehome park,expressly exempt from their requirements subdivisions that are
36608.00614822-7752-2951v.1 r 7, "y
HB -249- Item 10. - 65
F
HK&C
HART, KING & COLDREN
Report on Impact of Subdivision to Residents
December 6,2010
Page 6
created from conversion of a rental mobilehome park to resident ownership. (See Govt.
Code §§ 66427.4 (e), 65863.7 (a))
SECTION V RESIDENT SURVEY
The Park does not have an active homeowner's association so it was not possible to
conduct a survey with the agreement of an existing Homeowner's Association. In lieu of
that, the park owner, acting through its management company, Newport Pacific, invited
all park residents to attend a resident meeting on September 30, 2010 to initiate the survey
process through a cooperative process which is described in the attached Declaration of
Clarke Fairbrother. As he notes, a second notice went to all residents in the Park, again
providing information regarding the subdivision and inviting their participation in the
process of developing and conducting the survey.
A copy of the agreed upon survey form is attached to the Fairbrother declaration which
also attaches materials which describe the agreed upon survey process. The results of the
survey were as follows:
R
Supporting Subdivision: 58
Decline to State: 3
Do Not Support 4
Thus, of those residents who responded to the survey, the vast majority supported
the conversion.
SECTION VI. CONCLUSION
This Report discusses the impacts upon the Residents of conversion to Resident
ownership pursuant to subdivision of the Park. Upon conversion, the Residents are
statutorily protected from economic displacement by the option to either purchase their
Lots or continue renting their Spaces with statutory restrictions on rent increases.
Residents with long-term leases will continue to have their rights under the leases after the
Conversion Date.
All of the Resident protections discussed in this Report are based upon the
Applicant's assessment of the currently existing statutory scheme and facts believed to be
true, and are not a promise, representation, or warranty on the part of the Applicant or its
agents. The operative date for the time frame and protections described above is the
Conversion Date as described in Section 2.1 above. Of course, should the law change, the
36608.006/4826-0193-9464v.1 ;` 7-k NO,
Item 10. - 66 HB -250-
HK&
HART, KING & C13LDREN
.Report on Impact of Subdivision to residents
s
December 6,2010
Page 7
Applicant reserves the right to implement the conversion in accordance with the
applicable valid and enforceable laws.
Dated: December, 2010 Hart,King&Coldren
By: .
ark . Alpert
Attonkys for Applicant
„sf
r
36608.006/4822-7752-295 Iv.1 4 wF = ��
��� �yf.i.`.5_ i?6. 9I•...+�'�' §'
7
HB -251- Item 10. - 67
1 I, Clarke Fairbrother, declare:
2 1. I am an individual over the age of 18. I have personal knowledge of the
3 facts set forth in this declaration and could and would testify competently to those
4 facts if called upon at time of trial. I am a principal of Newport Pacific Capital
5. Company, Inc ("Newport Pacific"). The Park is owned by Pacific Mobile Hoare
6 Park, LLC ("Owner").
7 2. Newport Pacific provides the on and offsite management for Pacific
g Mobile Home Park, a mobile home park in Huntington Beach, California(the "Park').
9 Neither Newport Pacific nor myself have any ownership interest in the Park.
10 3. The Park does not have an official or unofficial homeowner's association
11 to assist in the conduct of a resident survey of conversion. Rather than simply
12 conducting the survey, Owner chose to provide an opportunity for all of the residents
z a w, 13 to participate in developing the survey and the conduct of the survey. The Owner
8-
at s 14 called a park wide meeting on September 30, 2010. 1 conducted the meeting. We
15 provided a basic explanation of the Owner's planned application to subdivide the Park
a g Z 16 and answered numerous questions. Near the end of the meeting, we invited all those
F y a<
a$ 17 residents who were interested in participating to form a resident committee to work
18 with the Owner in developing the form and process of the survey. The resident
19 committee was made up of each and every resident who wished to participate.
20 4. After the September 30, 2010 meeting for all residents, we followed up
21 with a letter, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A, in which we reiterated the
22 invitation that all interested residents join the resident committee. As a result, there
23 were a total of 12 residents who joined the committee. The committee members
24 consisted of JulieAnn Rooney; Brad Rhoads; John Reger, Debbie Moore; Antonio
25 Lopez; Connie Brockway; Kris Dgezits; Mary Bieschke; Maria Laurienzo; Christine
26 1 McClure; John Sisker, and Deborah Lawson- Sisker.
27 5. In the next few weeks, we invited comments and worked with the
28 Committee members to reach an agreement on the final form of the survey submission
37158.001 A 619
1
DECLARATION OF CLARKE FAIRBROT�� cr ,t =` "
Item 10. - 68 HB -252-
I and the manner of conducting the survey. After receiving comments which were
2 incorporated into a draft survey, on October 29, 2010, I . circulated by email the ,
3 proposed revised draft survey, a proposed "frequently asked questions" letter and
4 proposed plan for conducting the survey and invited the committee members to offer
5 any additional comments or, if they had no proposed changes, that they sign and
6 return an enclosed agreement for conduct of the survey. (See Exhibits B, C &D)
7 5. In response to my email, I received no negative comments or proposed
g changes to the documents. Four residents on the committee affirmatively expressed
9 their agreement. (See Exhibit E) We received no other comments from any other
10 committee members.
11 6. We initiated the survey on Monday November 8, 2010, conducting the
12 survey in accordance with the procedures set forth in Exhibit D, submitting the survey
w S$N 13 in the form of Exhibit B and the FAQ in the form of Exhibit D. The survey was to be
14 completed by November 20, 2010. However, we have included in our tabulation
1,022 15 several surveys received after that date, as well as 16 unsigned surveys. The results of
U JVl
g < 16 the tally were as follows:
1=
o y 7-
171 Supporting subdivision: 58
18 Decline to state 3
19 Do Not Support: 4
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
22 the foregoing is true and correct.
23 Executed this Li" ay of November at . California. .
24
25
26 Clarke Fairbrother, Declarant
27
28
37158.001\619
DECLARATION OF CLARKE FAIRBROTHE 1 A k" " '"-
xB -253- Item 10. - 69
. ' Newport Pacific Capital Company, Ineo
October 6, 2010
Residents
Pacific Mobilehome Park
80 Huntington Street E,M ��
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Homeowner/Resident:
On September 30, 2010, an informational meeting was held concerning the planned subdivision
mapping of Pacific Mobilehome Park. While no sales of lots are planned for the immediate
future, we wanted to advise residents about the subdivision process,and provide them with
information as to the choices that may be available in the future.When and if sometime in the
future the owners decide to sell the property to the individual residents,each current homeowner
will have the opportunity to purchase their lot and become a landowner. If they chose not to
purchase,they still may continue to rent as a tenant.
In the near future, a resident survey about subdivision will be conducted. At the meeting,we
asked for volunteers who would like to sit on a resident committee. The purpose of the
committee is to provide us with feedback as to the form and content of the resident survey.
We'd like to thank the following people who volunteered: Connie Brockway, Maria Lawrenzo,
Antonio Lopez, Debbie Moore, John Reger, Brad Rhoads, Julie Ann Rooney, Deborah Sisker,
and John Sisker.
If you would like to serve on this committee with the residents listed,please contact Janece
Herrington, at Janece@newportpacific. A committee meeting will be scheduled in the near future
to review the survey wording and content.After the committee has approved the survey wording,
we will mail the survey to each household for your responses.
It is our plan to have a subdivision map filed with the City of Huntington within the next few
months. If you have any questions,please call me or email clarkef@,newQortpacific.com.
Very truly yours,
NEWPORT PACIFIC CAPITAL COMPANY, INC.
Clarke Fairbrother
President
17300 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 280,Irvine, CA 92614 ♦ 949 852-5575
Item 10. - 70 HB -254-
NEWPORT
X}������ (
17300 Red Hell.Avenue,Suite 280 Irvine,California 92Gi�€
FAMILY O 1; COMPANIES jj"" `�49) 852-5575 Fax(949)852-5582
wwtiv.n ewpo rtpacific.corn
Frequently Asked Questions About Mobilehome Park Subdivision
After the residents are notified of the owner's intent to subdivide, engineers and surveyors
prepare a preliminary map to submit to the City. After the subdivision process is completed and
if and when the owners decide to sell the property to the residents,each current homeowner will
have the opportunity to purchase his or her lot and become a landowner,or continue to rent as a
tenant. No residents will be displaced by subdivision. The following are some of the common
questions asked by residents:
What happens if I do not purchase my lot? Current tenants that do not purchase their lots
may elect to continue as tenants indefinitely. This commitment applies to the current and
future owners of Pacific Park.No current resident will be displaced by the subdivision. Once
the park is subdivided, future rent increases for qualified lower income households may
increase annually, limited to the lesser of. the average of the increases over the four preceding
years, or the current period CPI increase,whichever is the least. For households that do not
qualify as lower income,monthly rents will continue to be at market.
.How will the common areas be managed after subdivision?The residents that purchase
their lots will become members of a Lot Owners Association(LOA). The LOA will own the
common area. The LOA will elect a board of directors to set the policies for the operation of
the community and hire management.The LOA will require monthly dues for maintenance,
operation of common area facilities,and reserves for future capital improvements and
replacements.
How can a new Lot Owners Association afford to pay for major replacements? A reserve
study will be prepared for approval by the Department of Real Estate before lots are sold. The
current owner will fund the replacement reserve for the depreciated portion of common area
facilities that will require replacement in the future. The LOA will start with reserves, not
from zero.
What other costs will each purchaser pay? Each lot owner will be obligated to pay the
property taxes, insurance, association dues and debt service on his or her own lot.
Can I finance the purchase of my lot? Yes.Newport Pacific will help residents locate and
work with lenders to finance the purchase of the lot. Residents who purchase a lot will be able
to finance both their lot and home together at single-family home rates, as opposed to the
much higher personal property interest rates currently available on mobile homes. The home
and lot package may provide enough value to fully finance the purchase of the lot.
If I am low income, how can I finance the purchase of lot? Low-income families may be
able to obtain below market rate financing with very favorable payment terms from the State
of California MPROP Fund and other government sources. Low income financing in other
communities has been provided at 3%interest with payments based upon the ability to pay,
with unpaid interest deferred until the property is sold.
Newport Pacific Capital Company,Inc. Cirus Development Company,Inc. Modular Lifestyles,Inc. C�
HB -255- \T Item 10. - 71-
NEWPOk P,�C Z F�C 17300 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 280 Irvine,California 92614
(949)852-5575 Fax(949) 852-5582
FAMILY OF COMPANIES ww% newportpacific com
How will I know the exact boundaries of my lot? The boundaries of the lot will be the same
as current boundaries in most cases;some minor adjustments may be required.A preliminary
tract map will be prepared in the next few months. ."t-tter the county approves the preliminary
map,the lots will be surveyed and marked. Resident input on the final map will be sought
before the map is finalized. Each purchaser will get a grant deed for their individual lot and a
proportionate share in the LOA,which will own the common area.
What is the difference between the proposed lot subdivision and a resident association
purchasing the park?
With the lot subdivision each homeowner will be able to purchase and finance their lot as they
individually choose. When the ownership of the home is merged with the lot, lenders will use
single-family real estate rates and criteria for the loans. Interest rates will be lower and the
amortization period will be longer. Individuals will only be responsible for the purchase of
their own lot. Those homeowners that do not purchase will be able to remain as tenants and
continue to pay rent. The current owner will retain the unsold lots and pay the association
dues for those lots. We believe that lot ownership is the best form of resident ownership.
With resident association purchase,the association would need to obtain capital and finance
the purchase of the entire park. All residents would continue to pay rent to the resident
association as the new owner. Homes would continue to be financed as personal property, not
as real estate.
How much will my lot cost and what will the monthly association dues be? The lot cost
and association dues will not be known until much later in the process. After the final map is
approved by the County and recorded, the owner will engage an appraiser to determine the
value of the lots. Before the owner is allowed to quote prices for the lots or enter into
contracts,a subdivision disclosure report(including prospective pricing, an association budget
and an association reserve analysis)will be approved by the California Department of Real
Estate. After the DRE report is approved, lot prices and association dues information will be
available and the lots can be offered for sale. The total processing for all steps is expected to
take about two years. Appropriate financing must be available in the marketplace before the
owners will start offering the lots for sale.
Will the subdivision ensure that the property will always be a mobilehome park? The
property has been under the same ownership for many years and the owners do not have plans
to sell the property in the immediate future. By applying for a subdivision map the owners are
indicating that they believe that selling individual lots to the residents is a viable method for
selling, if and when they decide to sell the property.
How will having a subdivision map in place tie into the City's current relocation
ordinance? We do not see the subdivision having any effect on relocation requirements.
Newport Pacific Capital Company, Inc. Cznu Development Company,Inc. Modular Lifesr les,,Inc.
k
f :• n =a
Item 10. - 72 HB -256- x.w._.
' 17300 Red Hill Avenue,Suite 280 Irvine,California 92614
NEWPOR. P CI I� . (949)852-5575 Fax(949) $52-5582
FAMILY OF COMPANIES www.newportpacific.com
Flow does the subdivision affect affordable housing? Affordable housing is a term used by
Cities in goals set by State and Federal government for housing programs. Mobilehome parks
are arbitrarily counted as affordable housing even though there are no income limitations on
living in a mobilehome park as there are-in"affordable"apartments. We do not think that the
subdivision map will have any impact.
Until the residents own 51% of the lots,how will their input and concerns be handled?
Lot owners will elect the Lot Owners' Association board. The current owner will have a
majority of the board positions as long as they have a majority of the lots,however individual
lot owners will be included on the board from the beginning. The Lot Owners' Association
board will set policies and hire professional management to oversee the maintenance of the
common area and handle the financial affairs of the Association.The operations will continue
to be regulated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD).
What happens if the current owners sell their interest in the unsold lots to a third party
owner?The current owner,and any subsequent owners, must comply with State law
concerning subdivided lots. Residents will be allowed to continue to rent for as long as they
want. Low and moderate-income residents rent increases will be limited to CPI during their
continued rental. When the current resident sells his home, the buyer may be required to
purchase the lot or remove the home. The ability to provide the lot with the house upon sale
may increase the value of the house.
Flow will the lots be valued? Just before lot sales begin, an appraiser will be hired to value
the lots. He will likely use data from the sale of other lots in the area to determine value of the
lots. The size and location of the lot within the park will be considered in determining the
value of each lot.
What assurance is available that the lot pricing will be fair? If and when the owners want
to sell lots,they will want to sell as many lots as possible in as short a time as possible. To
sell the lots quickly the owners may offer discounts from market value to sell the lots as
quickly as possible.
If I do not buy my lot when first offered,will I have a chance to purchase later? Yes. If
and when the owners decide to sell,they will want to sell all of the lots. The expectation is
that the lots will be sold over several years.
Why are some resident associations opposed to subdivision? Some residents in rent -
controlled areas believe that subdivision will take away some of the benefits accorded by the
existing local rent control ordinance. Since there is no rent control in Huntington Beach, this
logic does not apply. Web sites where this issue is discussed do not make this distinction.
How does this subdivision vary from other mobilehome park subdivision in Huntington
Beach? Without knowing anything about the other subdivisions, it is likely similar except that
Newport pacific Capital Company, Inc. Cirus Development Company,Inc. _ Modular LiFestyles,Inc.
t f., .HB -257-
Item 10. - 73
NEWPO ITT PACIFIC T7300 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 280 Irvine,California 92614
(949)852-5575 Fax(949) 852-5582
FAMILY OF COMPANIES ww«newportpacific.com
this owner does not plan to make any lot sales in the immediate future. This map is being put
in place to provide for a method of sale in the future.
What relationship does Newport Pacific have with Pacific Park?Newport Pacific is the
property management company hired by the owners to operate the property.Newport Pacific
does not have an equity interest in the property.
Subdivision provides a tremendous opportunity for the residents of the community to obtain
true real estate equity.
October 31, 2010
Newport Pacific Capital Company, Inc. Gras Development Company,Inc Modular Lifer es,Inc.
Item 10. - 74 HB -258-
PACIFIC MOBILEHOME PARK EW
RESIIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT re......
Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) requires that the owners of a mobilehome 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 purpose of this
Agreement is to document the terms under which the resident survey is to be conducted
and the form of the survey to be used.
1. Survey Form. The survey ballot form that shall be used for the survey of resident
support for the conversion will be in substantially the form of Attachment 1. The
enclosed Frequently Asked Questions will also be mailed at that time.
2. Conduct of Survey. The Newport Pacific shall be responsible for distributing the
ballots to all resident households, with a single ballot per space, with an envelope to be
used to return the survey. Residents have the option of signing their survey or returning it
without signature. The homeowners will be instructed to return the survey in the envelope
sealed to the office of Newport Pacific by mail. The survey will be distributed on
November 5, 2010. The homeowners shall have 15 days to return the survey.
3. Tabulation of Results. On the 20th day following distribution of the survey,
members of the Newport Pacific accounting staff will open the envelopes and tabulate the
results of the completed forms.
On Behalf of Park Owner:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
On Behalf of Homeowners' Committee, (signatures may be obtained on separate copies
of the agreement).
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
36014.112/4849-72454917v.i 1
PACIFIC MOBILEHOME PARK RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT
HB -259- Item 10. - 75
t
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
36014.112/4849-7245-4917v.1 2
PACIFIC MOBILEHOME PARK RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT
Item 10. - 76 HB -260-
PACIFIC MOBILEHOME PARK
Draft October 31, 2010
C4 Government Code 66427 5(d)(1) SURVEY OF RESIDENTS
This Survey requests information in two categories: (1)support for the proposed
subdivision to allow residents purchase their individual lots and(2)demographics of your
household. Each household should complete one(1) Survey and mail the completed Survey to
Newport Pacific Capital Company, Inc. 17300 Red Hill Ave., Suite#280, Irvine,CA 92614 in
the enclosed self—addressed envelope by November 15,2010. If there are sections of the
Survey for which you do not have information or dd not wish to answer,simply skip those
questions. No one in the Park will see the individual Surveys;however,it is possible that local
government agencies will receive copies of the Surveys and your survey may become public
record. The only information that will be provided to resident households or the management is
a summary of the data gathered. The income level information is requested so that we can
estimate the volume of low and moderate income financing that we might need when arranging
for purchaser financing.
SECTION I.
Survey
The goal of the proposed subdivision is to provide individual titled lots in the
Mobilehome Park, which in the future will allow the owners to offer residents the choice owning
or renting their lots. If and when the owners decide to sell lots, residents will be able purchase
their lots or may continue to rent the lot(space)on which their mobile home is located. You can
support the subdivision map without a personal desire to purchase your lot. Pursuant to
California Gov't Code section 66427.5(d)(1),please check one box below:
°=f
1. [ ] I support the subdivision map of the mobilehome park which, if and when the
owners decide to sell lots,will give me the option to buy my lot, if the purchase price of my lot
[lot+ percentage ownership of common areas & facilities] is affordable to me.
2. [ ] I support the subdivision map which, if and when the owners decide to sell lots,
will give me the option to buy my lot, but I am low income/moderate income household and will
need financial assistance to be able to purchase my lot. [See"Household Size &Income Level"
chart on page 21.
3. [ ] I support the subdivision map which, if and when the owners decide to sell lots,
will give me the option to buy my lot,however I believe that I would continue to rent.
4. j ] I decline to respond at this time.
5. 11 1 do not support the subdivision of the park.
This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a real estate interest in Pacific Mobilehome Park. An offer to
sell can only be made after the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report along with all statutorily
required documents,including,without limitation,the HOA Budget,the Purchase/Sale Agreement,the HOA
Articles& Bylaws,and the Declaration of Conditions,Covenants&Restrictions(CC&R's).
BY PROVIDING THE INFORMTION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY,YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING
YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBDIVION MAP,INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION,WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE.
Page 1 of 3 —
H13 -261- Item 10. - 77
SECTION II.
Demographic Information
1. Is your home in Pacific Mobilehome Park your primary residence?
[ ]YES [ ]NO
2. How many people [of all ages] Iive in your home?
a. Number of Older Person [55 & older]:
b. Number of Adults [18 & older]:
C. Number of Children [under 181:
3. Which category does your household's total gross income,before taxes, fall into?
[Check only one box below]
HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME LEVELS
Check only Income 1 Person 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons
one Box Levels Household Household Household Household
Very Low $19,500 or $22,300 or $25,100 or $27,850 or
less less less less
Lower More than More than More than More than
$19,500but $22,300 but $25,100 but $27,850 but
less than less than less than less than
$32,550 $37,200 $41,850 $46,450
Median More than More than More than More than
$32,550 but $37,200 but $41,850 but $46,450 but
less than less than less than less than
$39,060 $44,640 $50,220 $55,740
Moderate More than More than More than More than
$39,060 but $44,640 but $50,220 but $55,740 but
less than less than less than less than
$52,050 $59,450 $66,900 $74,300
Greater than More than More than More than More than
Moderate $52,050 $59,450 $66,900 $74,300
The State of California currently has a loan fund (MPROP)that provides assistance to low and
moderate-income households at 3% interest with no payments until the lot is resold. The above
financial information will be helpful when applying for a funding commitment. You are not
obligated to provide this information.
This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a real estate interest in Pacific Mobilehome Park. An offer to
sell can only be made after the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report along with all statutorily
required documents,including,without limitation,the HOA Budget,the Purchase/Sale Agreement,the HOA
Articles&Bylaws,and the Declaration of Conditions,Covenants&Restrictions(CC&R's).
BY PROVIDING THE INFORMTION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY, YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING
YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBDIVION MAP,INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION,WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE.
Page 2 of 3
Item 10. - 78 HB -262-
4
4. Information on your Mobile home:
a. Make/Model of Mobile home:
b. Year of Manufacture:
C. Size of Mobile home: Ge.:24 x 52)
d. Number of Bedrooms:
e. Do you have a mortgage on your home? [ ]YES [ ]NO
If yes,
i. What is the balance owed?
ii. What is the monthly payment?
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE YOUR TIME TO RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY!
Providing your name and address is optional. The survey results will be presented in a summary
form to the City. The City may request copies of the individual responses and therefore your
survey would become a part of the public record.
Date: Date:
Signature: Signature:
Print Name: Print Name:
Address: Address:
Day Tele: Day Tele:
This Survey does not constitute an offer to sell a real estate interest in Pacific Mobilehome Park. An offer to
sell can only be made after the issuance and delivery of the Final Public Report along with all statutorily
required documents,including,without limitation,the HOA Budget,the Purchase/Sale Agreement,the HOA
Articles&Bylaws,and the Declaration of Conditions,Covenants&Restrictions(CC&R's).
BY PROVIDING THE INFORMTION REQUESTED IN THIS SURVEY,YOU ARE NOT COMMITTING
YOURSELF TO ANY DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBDIVION MAP,INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION,WHETHER YOU WANT TO RENT OR TO PURCHASE.
Page 3 of 3
d F R
HB -263- r. Item 10. - 79-
- - ------ - -._.. .... -- ..............,__ _ .._... .... _... .. . ... ..... .... ..._... .._....
` From: Clarke Fairbrother[clarkef@newportpacific.com] EXWll IT E
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:43 AM
-.JO: Mark Alpert
<� Subject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes:Survey& FAQ's
Attachments: Resident Supprot Survey Agreement.pdf
-----Original Message---
From: Debbie Moore [mailto:Debbie.Moore@sgoe.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:39 PM
To: Clarke Fairbrother
Subject: RE: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey& FAQ's
Hello Clark,
I have read through all the documents and agree that everything looks fine. I have also attached a copy
of the Resident Support Survey Agreement with my signature for your files.
Thank you,
Debbie
From: Clarke Fairbrother [mailto:clarkef@newportpacific.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:21 PM
To: mbiesi5989@aol.com; cbrockway@socal.rr.com; kris4933@hotmail.com; gdlzap123@yahoo.com;
debbie.moore@st oe.org; nolimepublishing@aol.com; brad@bradfordrhoads.com;jrooney@socal.rr.com;
dsisker@sprynet.com; jsisker@sprynet.com; docmcclure@yahoo.com; angels4M@aol.com
Cc:Janece Herrington
Subject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey & FAQ's
4have received emails from John Reger and John Sisker indicating that the enclosed revised
survey and other information looks fine.I have not received any other comments.
I understand that there is not a formal homeowner's association, but your review of the form of
the survey and frequently asked questions helped create the final form of the documents. Please
sign a copy of the Agreement with Homeowners,which only indicates that you had an
opportunity to make comments, and send it back to me for my files (scan and email, fax or mail).
Fax number is 949-852-5582. The address is 17300 Redhill Suite 280, Irvine, Ca 92614.
We plan to mail revised survey and frequently asked questions to all of the residents next week.
I will be out of the office for two weeks starting next Monday. If you have any questions during
that period of time, please contact Janece Herrington.
Clarke Fairbrother
Office 949-852-5575
-----Original Message----
From: Clarke Fairbrother
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:09 AM
-o: 'mbies15989@aol.com'; 'cbrockway@socal.rr.com'; 'kris4933@hotmail.com'; 'gdlzap123@yahoo.com';
zbbie.rnoore@stjoe.org'; 'nolimepublishing@aol.com'; 'brad@bradfordrhoads.com';
'jrooney@socal.rr.com'; 'dsisker@sprynet.com'; 'jsisker@sprynet.com'; 'docmcclure@yahoo.com';
'angels4M@aol.com'
Item 10. - 80 HB -264- f "a `
Cc: ],anece Herrington -
Subject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home ParK Notes: Survey&FAQ's
Enclosed are the notes that I recieved from John.
The attached survey and frequently asked questions have been revised to incorporate all of his points.
is ,N
Also attached is document that outlines how the survey is to be conducted.
Please give me your comments if any in the next few days.
We would like to get this survey and frequently asked questions in the mail next week.
If you can not.open the documents, I can send PDF versions or get then to you another way.
If you have questions, send me an email with a good time and number to call. I am available this Saturday if you
would like to discuss anything.
Clarke Fairbrother
Office 949-852-5575
The Survey:
Note: This 'Survey' is just to show a tentative interest among us residents, and does not commit anyone to
anything. It is just for informational purposes only.
One of the most important factors and questions on this'Survey' is actually Question No. 1 of Section I, that
one would indeed be interested if it is affordable to them.That is a key factor for this park and should
always be emphasized.
This 'Survey' is okay as is,with the exception of Question Number 3. It is felt that some people may be a bit
eluctant to divulge their income level, possibly feeling it is an invasion of privacy. Therefore,while we stiK
feel this information is important and should be included, we would like to see some type of wording as to
just why this information is needed at this time, and as to what will be done with it.
Also,we like to see a place for residents to leave their name and contact information if they so wish,but to
also emphasize that this information is entirely optional.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Frequently Asked Questions About Mobile Home Park Subdivision
(and how it relates to Pacific Mobile Home Park)
We would like to see the original FAQ's information included again with the revised 'Survey" but also
expanded to include the following questions, along with Newport Pacific Capital's response...
• Will this subdivision secure our park as a mobile home park well into the future, and how will this tie-
in with the current City's Relocation Ordinance, along with the effects on affordable housing?
• Unless the residents have 51% interest in the park, how will their input and concerns be of any value"
And what happens to those that do purchase their lot, if the current park owners sell to outside
interests anyway?
• Once a survey on lot lines is confirmed, how will this be enforced,and is the value of each lot based on
_ l ila
12i1i2010 HB -265-
Item 10. - 81
'4
• its square footage? Likew ` 'what is Newport Pacific Capitals ra-"'-ind interest is this subdivision?
® Why are some residents ana their political groups in other mobile;.I'ome parks so negative about this
very concept when they imply outright purchase of the park is a better way to go?How is this
subdivision the same and/or different than Huntington Shorecliffs and what may be happening in
other Huntington Beach parks?
�k
4
o JulieAnn Rooney,9463 (714) 960-4756 iroonev@,socal.rr.com
o John Sisker,#266 (714) 536-3850 isiskerQsprynet.com - cell: (714) 815-7625
o Deborah Lawson-Sisker,#266 (714)536-3850 dsisker ,sprynet.com - cell (714) 914-7452
Notice from St. Joseph Health System:
Please note that the information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure.
Item 10. - 82 HB -266-
PACIFIC MOBILEHOVIE PARK
RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT
Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) requires that the owners of a mobilehome park
that seeks to convert the park to resident ownership obtain a survey of resident support.to
be considered by the Iocal agency witb the subdivision application. The purpose of this
Agreement is to document the terms under which the resident survey is to be conducted
and the form of the survey to be used.
I. Survey Form. The survey ballot form that shall be used for the survey of resident
support for the conversion will be in substantially the form of Attachment 1. The
enclosed Frequently Asked Questions will also be mailed at that time.
2. Conduct of Survey. The Newport Pacific shall be responsible for distributing the
ballots to all resident households, with a single ballot per space, with an envelope to be
used to return the survey. Residents have the option of signing their survey or returning it
without signature.The homeowners will be instructed to return the survey in the envelope
sealed to the office of Newport Pacific by mail. The survey will be distributed on
November 5, 2010. The homeowners shall have 15 days to return the survey.
3. Tabulation of Results. On die 20th day following distribution of the survey,
members of the Newport Pacific accounting staff will open the envelopes and tabulate the
results of the completed forms.
On Behalf of Park Owner:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
On Behalf of Homeowners' Committee, (signatures may be obtained on separate copies
of the agreement).
Signature: Date:,_
Print Name: j�;._y��;r E� /� r- i�'l e
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
36014.11 J4849-7245-4917v.1 1
PACIFIC MOBiLEHOME PARK RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT
1 yJ `l
ti 1 mf�S _ :1 �P4 t AF•,;K � 44 Zvi�:x,¢T s.rF.rnc.:rr+mrairs�
HB -267- Item 10. - 83
From: Clarke Fairbrother[clarkef@newportpacific.comj
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:43 AM
Mark Alpert
4
Wubject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey& FAQ's
Attachments: Agreement with HOA re Resident Survey Form No. 2.doc
----Original Message-----
From: Brad Rhoads [mailto:brad@bradfordrhoads.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 4:07 PM
To: Clarke Fairbrother
Subject: Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey&FAQ's
I have attached the signed survey as you requested Clarke. Good luck and
God Speed!
Brad Rhoads
Spc. # 352
--Original Message-----
From: Clarke Fairbrother
To: mbies15989(cilaol.com; cbrockwav@socal.rr.com ; kris4933(d_)hotmai1.com ;
gdlzap123(aD_yahoo.com ; debbie.mooreic)stioe.org ; nolimepublishing(d).aol.com;
brad(d-)bradfordrhoads.com ; iroonev d-Dsocal.rr.com ; dsiskerCO-s pry net.com ; isisker(asprynet.com;
docmcclure(a)-yahoo.com ; angels4M(daol.com
Cc: Janece Herrington
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey & FAQ's
I have received emails from John Reger and John Sisker indicating that the enclosed revised
survey and other information looks fine. I have not received any other comments.
I understand that there is not a formal homeowner's association, but your review of the form of
the survey and frequently asked questions helped create the final form of the documents.
Please sign a copy of the Agreement with Homeowners,which only indicates that you had
an opportunity to make comments, and send it back to me for my files (scan and email, fax
or mail). Fax number is 949-852-5582. The address is 17300 Redhill Suite 280, Irvine, Ca
92614.
We plan to mail revised survey and frequently asked questions to all of the residents next week.
I will be out of the office for two weeks starting next Monday. If you have any questions
during that period of time, please contact Janece Herrington.
Clarke Fairbrother
Office 949-852-5575
-----Original Message-----
rom: Clarke Fairbrother
ent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:09 AM
To: 'mbiesl5989(a)aol.com'; 'cbrockwy@socalxr.com% 'kris4933@hotmail.com';
'gdlzap123(cwahoo.com'; 'debbie.moore@stioe.org'; 'nolimepublishing(cbaol.com'; 1-7
Item 10. - 84 HB -268- y�:�;� .. , �� . . ,R ii . ti•__ .��..���
r r; t. "' r, r r r• r'
braC9 bradfordrhoads.com r n,E socal.rr.com, dsisker@sprynet.com; IsAf`.r@sprynet.com
'docmcclure@vahoo.com': 'angels4t 1 iaol.com'
Cc: Janece Herrington
Subject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey&FAQ's
Enclosed are the notes that I recieved from John. f
The attached survey and frequently asked questions have been revised to incorporate all of his points.
Also attached is document that outlines how the survey is to be conducted.
Please give me your comments if any in the next few days.
We would like to get this survey and frequently asked questions in the mail next week.
If you can not open the documents, I can send PDF versions or get then to you another way.
If you have questions, send me an email with a good time and number to call. I am available this Saturday if you
would like to discuss anything.
Clarke Fairbrother
Office 949-852-5575
The Survey:
Note: This 'Survey' is just to show a tentative interest among us residents, and does not commit anyone to
anything. It is just for informational purposes only.
One of the most important factors and questions on this 'Survey' is actually Question No. 1 of Section I,
that one would indeed be interested if it is affordable to them.That is a key factor for this park and should
always be emphasized.
This 'Survey' is okay as is,with the exception of Question Number 3.It is felt that some people may be a°` f
bit reluctant to divulge their income level, possibly feeling it is an invasion of privacy. Therefore,while we
still feel this information is important and should be included,we would like to see some type of wording as
to just why this information is needed at this time, and as to what will be done with it.
Also,we like to see a place for residents to leave their name and contact information if they so wish, but to
also emphasize that this information is entirely optional.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Frequently Asked Questions About Mobile Home Park Subdivision
(and how it relates to Pacific Mobile Home Park)
We would like to see the original FAQ's information included again with the revised 'Survey" but also
expanded to include the following questions, along with Newport Pacific Capital's response...
Will this subdivision secure our park as a mobile home park well into the future,and how will
this tie-in with the current City's Relocation Ordinance, along with the effects on affordable
housing? -
Unless the residents have 51% interest in the park, how will their input and concerns be of any
i:x��
12/l/2010
HB -269- 'Item 10. - 85
value? And what happet- 'o those that do purchase their lot, if "tee current park owners sell to
outside interests anyway:
Once a survey on lot lines is confirmed, how will this be enforced,and is the value of each lot based
on its square footage? Likewise,what is Newport Pacific Capitals role and interest is this
subdivision?
Why are some residents and their political groups in other mobile home parks so negative about th'
very concept when they imply outright purchase of the park is a better way to go? How is this
subdivision the same and/or different than Huntington Shorecliffs and what may be happening in
other Huntington Beach parks?
o JulieAnn Rooney, #463 (714)960-4756 irooney socalxrxom
o John Sisker,#266 (714) 536-3850 isisker@a,snrynet.com -cell: (714) 815-7625
o Deborah Lawson-Sisker,#266 (714)536-3850 dsisker@sprynet.com - cell (714) 914-7452
Item 10. - 86 HB -270-
PACIFIC MOBILEHOMVIE PARK
RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT
Government Code Section 66427.5 (d) requires that the owners of a mobilehome 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 purpose of this
Agreement is to document the terms under which the resident survey is to be conducted
and the form of the survey to be used.
l. Survey Form. The survey ballot form that shall be used for the survey of resident
support for the conversion will be in substantially the form of Attachment 1. The
enclosed Frequently Asked Questions will also be mailed at that time.
2. Conduct of Survey. The Newport Pacific shall be responsible for distributing the
ballots to all resident households, with a single ballot per space, with an envelope to be
used to return the survey. Residents have the option of signing their survey or returning it
without signature. The homeowners will be instructed to return the survey in the envelope
sealed to the office of Newport Pacific by mail. The survey will be distributed on
November 5, 2010. The homeowners shall have 15 days to return the survey.
3. Tabulation of Results. On the 20th day following distribution of the survey,
members of the Newport Pacific accounting staff will open the envelopes and tabulate the
results of the completed forms.
On Behalf of Park Owner: 4
a
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
On Behalf of Homeowners' Committee, (signatures may be obtained on separate copies
of the agreement).
Signature: ara (Rhoa IS' Date: 11-04-2010
Print Name: Brad Rhoads
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
Signature: Date:
Print Name: r
36014.1 12/4849-7245-4917v.I 1
PACIFIC MOBILEHOME PARK RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT
HB -271- fM
... f yz..,..,.. Item 10. - 87
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
Signature: Date:
Print Name:
36014.112/4849-72454917v.1 2
PACIFIC MOBILEHOME PARK RESIDENT SUPPORT SURVEY AGREEMENT
C
Item 10. - 88 HB -272-
From: Clarke Fairbrother[clarkef@newportpacific.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:43 AM
To: Mark Alpert
Subject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey& FAQ's f
-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Lawson-Sisker [mailto:dsisker@sprynet.com)
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 6:46 AM
To: Clarke Fairbrother
Cc:JulieAnn Rooney; Brad Rhoads;John Reger; Debbie Moore; Antonio Lopez; Connie Brockway; Kris
Dgezits; Mary Bieschke; Janece Herrington; Maria Laurienzo; Christine McClure; John Sisker; Deborah
Lawson-sisker
Subject: Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey&FAQ's
Dear Mr.Fairbrother,
Deborah and I appreciate your feedback in regard to the possible subdivision of Pacific
Mobile Home Park, and for the opportunity to incorporated some of our individual
concerns and thoughts in your Survey and Frequently Asked Questions segment. Keep in
mind, that such input and/or suggestions from us are just some of our thoughts only,and in
no way represents and/or speaks for anyone else in the park. Likewise, it appears that all
the other residents have now had amply opportunity to weigh in on this themselves,
either from the initial meeting you held on September 30,2010, and/or through your
other mailing as a follow-up.
In addition,I don't think you will get many,if any at all, to sign a copy of the Agreement
ith Homeowners, for in our case, and as we said, our input and suggestions are just based
in our own limited knowledge and awareness of this subject,for we represent and speak
for no one else in this park. As pointed out, currently there is no homeowners association,
and years ago when there was,we were not even part of that. Signing such an agreement,
as least to us, would indicate that we represent and speak for other residents,which is
definitely not the case. As we said before,we only speak for ourselves and no one else.
In addition, even our own concerns and input at this time, comes from a very
limited knowledge of this subject, for we feel few residents will actually have more than a
passing awareness of the inner working in reference to a subdivision. Likewise, it is also
understandable that we, like many other residents,will also have to reply on you and other
experts in this field, to actually guide and help the residents understand the actual benefits
to all concerned, and to also compare and show the real differences and positive aspects
that will happen in Pacific Mobile Home Park from the residents point of view, as
compared to all the negative input around the country as to why a subdivision, or condo
conversion, is not encouraged.
Sincerely,
John Sisker& Deborah Lawson-Sisker
jsisker@sprynet.com /dsisker@sprynet.com
(714) 536-3850
c`= '•.s Fyn��, ��
12/1/2010 HB -273- Item 10. - 89
Original Message From: Clarke Fairbrother
To: mbies15989(cDaol.com; cbrockway()socal.rr.com ; kris4933()hotmail.com ; gdlzap123@yahoo_com ;
debbie.mooreCa stjoe.org ; nolimepublishingCcDaol.com ; brad@bradfordrhoads.com ; irooney(aD,socal.rr.com ;
dsiskerPsprynet.com;jsisker0)sorynet.com ; docmcclure aCDvahoo.com ; angels4M aol.com
Cc: Janece Herrington
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:21 PM
Subject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes:Survey & FAQ's
I have received emails from John Reger and John Sisker indicating that the enclosed revised survey and other
information looks fine.I have not received any other comments.
I understand that there is not a fonnal homeowner's association, but your review of the form of the survey and.
frequently asked questions helped create the final form of the documents. Please sign a copy of the Agreement
with Homeowners,which only indicates that you had an opportunity to make comments, and send it back to me
for my files (scan and email, fax or mail). Fax number is 949-852-5582. The address is 17300 Redhill Suite 280,
Irvine, Ca 92614.
We plan to mail revised survey and frequently asked questions to all of the residents next week.
I will be out of the office for two weeks starting next Monday. If you have any questions during that period of
time, please contact Janece Herrington.
Clarke Fairbrother
Office 949-852-5575
----Original Message-----
-From: Clarke Fairbrother
`Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:09 AM
To: 'mbies15989@aol.com'; 'cbrockway(?bsocal.rr.com; 'kris4933@hotmail.com'; 'gdlzap123@yahoo.com';
'debbie.moore@stioe.org'; 'nolimepublishing0gol.com; 'brad@bradfordrhoads.com'; 'jrooney@socal.rr.com';
'dsisker@sprynet.com'; 'isisker@sprynet.com'; 'docmcclure@yahoo.com'; 'angels4M6aol.com'
Cc: lance Herrington
Subject: FW: Pacific Mobile Home Park Notes: Survey& FAQ's
Enclosed are the notes that I recieved from John.
The attached survey and frequently asked questions have been revised to incorporate all of his points.
Also attached is document that outlines how the survey is to be conducted.
Please give me your comments if any in the next few days.
We would like to get this survey and frequently asked questions in the mail next week.
If you can not open the documents, I can send PDF versions or get then to you another way.
If you have questions, send me an email with a good time and number to call. I am available this Saturday if you
would like to discuss anything.
Clarke Fairbrother
Office 949-852-5575
The Survey:
Note: This 'Survey' is just to show a tentative interest among us residents, and does not commit anyone o
1- . y O
Item 10. - 90 1413 -274-
anything. It is just for inform `' "mal purposes only.
One of the most important factors and questions on this 'Survey' is actually Question No. 1 of Section I,
that one would indeed be interested if it is affordable to them.That is a key factor for this park and should
always be emphasized.
This 'Survey'is okay as is,with the exception of Question Number 3. It is felt that some people may be a
bit reluctant to divulge their income level, possibly feeling it is an invasion of privacy. 'Therefore,while we
still feel this information is important and should be included,we would like to see some type of wording as
to just why this information is needed at this time, and as to what will be done with it.
Also, we like to see a place for residents to leave their name and contact information if they so wish, but to
also emphasize that this information is entirely optional.
Frequently Asked ()uestions:
Frequently Asked Questions About Mobile Home Park Subdivision
(and how it relates to Pacific Mobile Home Park)
We would like to see the original FAQ's information included again with the revised 'Survey" but also
expanded to include the following questions, along with Newport Pacific Capital's response...
Will this subdivision secure our park as a mobile home park well into the future, and how will
this tie-in with the current City's Relocation Ordinance, along with the effects on affordable
housing?
Unless the residents have 51% interest in the park, how will their input and concerns be of any
value?And what happens to those that do purchase their lot,if the current park owners sell to
outside interests anyway?
• Once a survey on lot lines is confirmed, how will this be enforced, and is the value of each lot based
on its square footage? Likewise,what is Newport Pacific Capitals role and interest is this
subdivision?
Why are some residents and their political groups in other mobile home parks so negative about this
very concept when they imply outright purchase of the park is a better way to go? How is this
subdivision the same and/or different than Huntington Shorecliffs and what may be happening in
other Huntington Beach parks?
o JulieAnn Rooney,#463 (714) 960-4756 irooney(a),socal.rr.com
o John Sisker,#266 (714) 536-3850 isisker(a) rynet.com -cell: (714) 815-7625
o Deborah Lawson-Sisker, 4266 (714) 536-3850 dsiskerksprynet.com - cell (714)914-7452
12/I/2Q10-
HB -275- Item 10. - 91
Pa c zfic JV1 80 Huntington St# 618
Human Beach, Ca. 92648
City of Huntington Beach
-Scott Hess 1.Building and Planning.
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, Ca.
94648 November 22, 2010
Dear Mr. Hess,
We would like it to be known that Pacific Mobile Home Park has a Home Owners
Association with a history and is presently in the process of re-organizing. We
understand that the owners of our park are considering sub-division and the owners
are currently distributing a survey within the park to detemnine the feasibility of sub-
division. Rather than utilizing the park owners' survey, we would prefer to draft our
own. Our HOA is in the process of developing our own survey for distribution. We
understand this survey is required for the sub-division process to move forwrard. All
inquiries can be sent to Pacific MHOA, 80 Huntington St. Spc. # 618, H.B. CA.
92648.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Pacific MHOA
[y
'g�pp r� I
T 1 7.CHM'F---'N ! N 02 �
Item 10. - 92 HB -276-
May 9, 2011
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
E:Pacific Mobile Dome Park Subdivision MAy 11 2011
Huntington Beach
Dear Huntington Beach City Council: Gt�Y COi9NCIL OFFICE_
On June 6,2011,a vote will be taken by the City Council in reference to the Subdivision of Pacific Mobile Home
Park.It is my hope and recommendation that the City Council will up-hold both the Subdivision Committees and
Planning Commissions decision of not approving this subdivision.
In spite of the misinformation being circulated that the majority of the park residents actually approve of this
subdivision,that information is purposely misleading. While it is true that the majority of those actually returning
the survey from Newport Pacific Capital did approve of this action,the returned surveys only accounted for about
25%of all the residents. In other words, some 75%of the residents didn't even bother to fill-out or return the
survey at all;thus and in essence casting a "NO"vote.
Yet,misleading information such as this is not the main reason this subdivision was not approved.The reason for
this decision was,by law,the property needs to be free and clear of any encumbrances,and is actually owned by
the park owners themselves. As it turns out,the park has built on and allowed to encroach with so-called park
property over the years,but is actually built on the City right-of-way,all along Huntington Street. Likewise,this
now seems to be not only a conflict of interest,but actually ludicrous that the Park Owners (and their attorneys)
would continue to seek a Subdivision approval for park land that doesn't even belong to them.This is currently
evidenced,that at present,the park is in violation of a number of laws, including City Zoning,The General Plan
and the Coastal Common.In fact,because of these violations,it is my understanding that the City itself will now
be suing the park owners.
Yet,the Subdivision of this park continues to want to move forward anyway, in spite of some of this land within
their proposed Subdivision not being in the parks jurisdiction and authority to do it.Apparently,they want
approval anyway,and worry about the detail later. Obviously,the Subdivision Committee and Planning
Commission did not feel this way.The bottom line is,the law is the law. Either the park owners own the land in
question,or they don't. Therefore,land that the park owners have used for years,does not automatically make it
their,just because they haven't been caught all this time.
It would certainly not to fair to all those residents along Huntington Street,to tell them that the subdivision was
approved,but if they only in particular wanted to purchase their own lot as all the others in the park could,they
would have to move and relocate their home,actually reconfiguring it smaller to now fit in a downsized space. In
addition,the vast majority of all those mobile home are of an age,that by law,they cannot be moved,thus
requiring the home owner to purchase a new home.To my way of thinking,why should a double standard be
perpetrated upon a select group of residents,when it was the park owners themselves who were violating the laws
by allowing these homes and/or accessories to be placed upon the City's right-of-way to begin with-not that of the
resident themselves,who were not even aware that there was a problem.
Page 2
Now, if the park owners themselves want to buy out each and every mobile home they allowed to encroach on the
City's right-of-way,and purchase all concerned a new home themselves that can actually fit on a reconfigured lot,
that should be the park owners responsibility and expense, not that of any of the residents. Obviously,and
currently,the park owners(and their attorneys)want it both way,with any extra costs or burden being placed right
back on the residents.Because,this is clearly a double standard,the Subdivision should not be allowed just for that
reason alone.
In addition,the legal counsel for the park owners now claim that the park owners had no idea these homes and/or
accessories were actually being placed upon the City's right-of way to begin with;that it was the responsibility of
HCD (Housing&Community Development),who is responsible for passing the final inspection on each and every
home. Since HCD did not check with the City,the park owners now claims...how can this be their responsibility?
First-of-all,I would like to point out,that it is still supposedly their land HCD is dealing with,thus their(the park
owners)responsibility by law.
Yet,with all due respect, I personally cannot see or even fathom how the park owners could not know. Each and
every resident I talked with through the years knew of some type of easement,owned by the City,into the so-
called park property, all along Huntington Street. It was obviously no mystery or secret. But,from a more legal
point of view,and as evidenced pointing contrary to the park owners claims,even I as a Licensed Salesperson with
HCD,for any new home in any park(Pacific Mobile Home Park included), I need to get a signed and approved
plot plan from the actual park owner/manager themselves, showing the actual lot(with lot line),plus the size and
configuration of just how and where the home will be placed on any given lot. In other words,the parks owners not
only had to know what was being placed on each and every lot, even all along Huntington Street,but had to sign
off on the plot plan before any dealer could proceed. In addition,while HCD may perform the actual inspection of
the home on the lot in order to be issued an occupancy permit,they also need to obtain the necessary permits from
the City itself. The bottom line is,and in other words,all concerned knew exactly what they were doing and what
was actually taking place in reference to the homes all along Huntington Street and the City's right-of way.
Admittedly, some of those homes could have been placed on these lots in question,before the present owners took
possession of the property. However,purchasing the land from another park owner does not relieve them of any
legal and/or other related obligations.That is still their responsibility. On the other hand,it would be interesting to
see just when the City itself placed this easement on so-called park property,and how many homes and/or
accessories where allowed to be placed over this right-of-way since that time.
Therefore,as I said before,I encourage the City Council to also deny this Subdivision by the present park owners,
and for all the above mentioned reasons,the biggest being;they cannot try to include land that is actually not
legally theirs.Now,if they want to re-configure this Subdivision boundary to exclude all those living on the so-
called City's right-of way,and have the remaining park property approved without these encumbrances,which
would present a different point of view. Of course,then that may also bring about a lawsuit against the park
owners,from all those residents all along Huntington Street thinking they have been short changed through no
fault of their own.
Page 3
I hope and trust the City Council will make the right decision in this case,and will also take the residents own lack
of this support for the Subdivision into mind,and not totally ignore this fact as in the case of Huntington
Shorecliffs.
Sincerely,
ohn Sisker
Pounding Director,
Manufactured Home Owners Network
http://www.mfghomeowners.net
80 Huntington Street#266
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5343
jsisker chi sprynet.com
(714) 536-3850
John Sisker
80 Huntington Street#266
Huntington Beach ' -
N._ �
CA 92648 ;s,r. '. , .�A
ttil. �= ,,: S
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
c/o the City Clerk's Office
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
��������%.�~�L. �Jf!-llfP'�l�f��l111Rt/JtP�4PlJJ IJiIt���37 P3JJi��J1P)fJ!l1.J�7.�i'F .
Esparza, Patty
From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 7:39 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org
Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification)
Request# 8262 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: Nancy Meeks
Description: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of
Pacific Mobile Home Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of
Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision, as stated in the Planning
Commission's Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines
encroaches upon the Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street
cannot be legally subdivided and sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park
Owners, and the mobilehome homeowners should not have to purchase smaller homes to
accommodate the Park Owners. In addition, this proposed Subdivision does not conform
to several City Codes and LUP's. Also, the proposed Subdivision is not in accordance
with the Coastal Act and Mello Act, which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents.
The Law Firm for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King & Coldren
(HK&C), is the same the Law Firm that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington
Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted Subdivision in mobilehome parks
throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the Huntington Shorecliffs
Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&C the Park Owners
canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing, then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to
Subdivision, thereby avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code
66427.5 for low income residents. More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs
Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon their homes, or sell them for
ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion, for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots, there is no
guarantee than investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents
to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home
Park.
i
Sincerely,
Nancy Meeks
21752 Pacific Coast Hwy. #2A
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646
(949) 945-5320
Expected Close Date: 05/31/2011
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
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 6, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following
planning and zoning items:
® 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
17397 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 10-017 (PACIFIC MOBILE HOME
PARK SUBDIVISION — CONVERSION FROM RESIDENT RENTAL TO OWNERSHIP)
Applicant/Appellant: Hart, King and Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, 4t Floor, Santa Ana, CA
92707; Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Property Owner: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA
92648 Request: TTM: A request by the Pacific Mobile Home Park (Park) property owner to
subdivide an existing for-rent, mobile home park with a total of 252 units for ownership
purposes. The Park owner proposes to subdivide the 252 existing mobile home spaces into
252 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots representing interior drive aisles, landscape areas and
common areas to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. CDP: To
permit the proposed subdivision in the non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. Location: 80
Huntington Street (southeast corner of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street) Project
Planner: Jennifer Villasenor
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item # 1 is located in the non appealable jurisdiction of the
Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017, filed on December 7, 2010, in
conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff
report, public hearing, City Council Discussion and Action. The City Council's action is not
appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building 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, June 2, 2011.
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 and Building Department at 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
CityClerkAgenda@surfcity-hb.org
http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/
C:\Documents and Settings\esparzapTocal Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\Content.0ut1ook\EVZI IETS\060611 (Appeal
of Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision).docx
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
OF A PLANNING COMMISSION, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OR POLICE ACTION
Date: 4/20/2011
To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered n/a
City Attorney (1 Copy) Date Delivered 4/21/2011
Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 4/21/2011
City Council Office (1 Copy) Date Delivered 4/21/2011
Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 4/21/2011
Public Works (1 Copy) 4/21/2011
Filed By: Hart, King, Coldren - Pacific Mobile Home Park
Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map No. 17397 and CDP 10-1017 For Conversion of Pacific
Re: Mobile Home Park to Resident Ownership
Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD
Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes
LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15
DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE
Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC
City Clerk
(714) 536-5227 Fee Collected: $3,045.00
Form Completed by: Rebecca Ross, Senior Deputy City Clerk
O\
ti
HART, KING, & COLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malpert@hkclaw.com
April 19, 2011
Our File Number:36608.006/4837-2268-5193v.1
ra
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS `-
Mayor and City Council
c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk ',
r
City of Huntington Beach -
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C-
Re: Proposed Tentative Subdivision Map No. 17397 and CDP 10-1017 ,For Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home Park to Resident Ownership
Dear Mayor and City Council:
We represent the owner of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, who submitted the above-referenced
Tentative Map Application. This letter constitutes the Park Owner's notice of appeal of the
Planning Commission's denial of the above-referenced subdivision tract map application and
Coastal Development Permit application. The applicant/appellant's name and address are
Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC ("Pacific" or "Applicant"), 80 Huntington Street, Huntington
Beach, CA 92648. The appeal fee in the amount of$3,045.00 is enclosed.
Pacific proposes a tentative subdivision map for the purposes of allowing it to convert ownership
the ownership of the Park to the residents. Although the City's staff report and the findings
adopted by the Planning Commission make this very unclear, the property currently consists of
a single legal lot. The proposed subdivision map would allow the park to covert to 252
individual lots and one common area lot.
The grounds for appeal are set forth, in part, in the attached letter of January 18, 2011 to the
City of Huntington Beach (Exhibit "A") and the attached letter of April 8, 2011 to the Huntington
Beach Planning Commission (Exhibit "B"). The remaining grounds are set forth in this letter.
The findings adopted by the Planning Commission unfortunately contain significant factual
misstatements and intentionally confuse the existence of boundaries which are governed by
California Housing and Community Development ("HCD") regulations with the creation and
recording of legal lots governed by the Subdivision Map Act. The City has no jurisdiction over
the location, movement and marking of boundaries within the existing rental mobile home park.
These are regulated by HCD, governed by Title 25. The misleading staff report and findings fail
to make clear that the existing property consists of a single legal lot and Pacific does not
propose to create lot lines that are located in any right of way the City claims to own. Pacific
does not propose to move the exterior legal boundary of the property along Huntington or
anywhere else. There should be no ambiguity on this point because Pacific has submitted a
tentative map which depicts the exterior boundary of the proposed subdivision. Likewise,
Pacific does not propose or request permission_from the City to move any existing mobile
homes.
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
9
C
HI K.`", C
City of Huntington Beach
Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001
April 19, 2011
Page 2
The proposed tentative map shows that certain mobile homes are located in an area which the
City claims as its right of way. The fact that the map shows this personal property encroaching
on the City's claimed right of way does in no way propose that the exterior legal lot line be
moved. The application to subdivide does not seek permission to either remove this personal
property or to allow it to remain in place. It is legally irrelevant to the tentative map application
and CDP application.
The Planning Commission has made the finding that the existence of encroaching personal
property takes the proposed subdivision application outside the provisions of Government Code
§ 66427.5. The Applicant repeatedly pointed out that there is no language in § 66427.5 which
supports its position and cited contrary authority which established that Government Code §
66427.5 applied to all "conversions' in which the applicant seeks to continue the use of the
property as a mobile home park. (See El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs, 96
Cal.AppAth 1153, 1161 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2002) Despite repeated requests to staff and the
Planning Commission, the City has failed to identify any legal authority supporting its position.
The Planning Commission made four "Findings For Denial" each of which Pacific contends are
not supported by evidence or law.
Finding 1
The Planning Commission makes the finding that the application fails to comply with the
requirement in Government Code § 66427.5(c) that all residents will have the opportunity to
purchase the lot on which their home is located. This conclusion is based on the factual
contention that "the proposed tentative tract map includes lots, spaces, leased premises and
homes outside of the boundary of the mobile home park . . . the applicant cannot ensure that all
residents will have the opportunity to purchase their lot or continue renting their space, the
applicant cannot ensure that economic displacement of all non-purchasing residents would be
avoided."
This finding erroneously claims that Pacific proposes a tentative map that includes areas
outside the boundary of the park. The fact that some homes are shown to be located in the
City's claimed right of way not change that fact. In addition, it does not change the fact that the
residents will have an opportunity to buy the lot on which their home is located. If those homes
are located on City property, the City has the right to have the homes moved or removed. (In
fact, the City has apparently authorized a lawsuit to protect its claim of title). The existence of
encroaching personal property, whether it is a mobile home or an old refrigerator, is irrelevant to
the conversion.
The conclusion that these encroachments somehow impact whether the applicant can ensure
economic displacement of non-purchasing residence is ridiculous. The mitigation measures
against economic displacement are specified in Government Code § 66427.5(f)
(f) The subdivider shall be required to avoid the economic displacement of all
HART, K NIG & COLDREN
City of Huntington Beach
Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001
April 19, 2011
Page 3
nonpurchasing residents in accordance with the following . . . (emphasis
added)
Subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2) specify the rent protections given to non-purchasing homeowners.
These are the only mitigation measures that can.be imposed and which are relevant under
Government Code § 66427.5. The existence of encroaching coaches has nothing to do with
"economic displacement." The question of whether these homeowners can be required to move
their homes has nothing to do with the subdivision application. If the City chooses to force
these residents to move their homes out of the encroaching area, they will not be displaced for
economic reasons. In addition, these residents will continue to have the right to rent the space
they own or purchase the space they own, regardless of whether the City chooses to take such
action.
The PC resolution also includes a finding that 66427.5 does not apply because the proposed
map will result in changes to existing lot lines and exterior boundary lines and thus does not
"solely constitute" a conversion of a rental mobile home park to resident ownership. In fact, the
proposed map proposes no changes to legal lot lines and does not propose any changes to the
exterior legal boundary. The PC is apparently referring to the lot boundaries governed by HCD.
The subdivision does not and cannot propose changes to those boundaries, as the City has no
legal authority to modify or approve changes to those boundaries, which are not legal lot lines.
Even assuming the location of HCD approved boundaries were relevant, the PC assumes that
the boundary lines approved by HCD coincide with where the existing homes are located.
There is no evidence before the PC that the homes are located within the HCD approved
boundary lines and City staff has represented in response to a public records request that it has
no evidence of permits issues showing the approved lot lines for the placement of the homes.
Finding 2
The PC makes the finding that the proposed map is not consistent with the City's general plan.
This finding is legally irrelevant as the City has no authority to review the subdivision for
compliance with its general plan elements under Gov't Code § 66427.5. In addition, the findings
fail to identify any building, municipal or zoning codes that would purportedly be violated.
Pacific proposes no construction, but simply a change of ownership, continuing the same
permitted use of the property.
City suggests other possible violations if the "applicant intends to move the existing lot lines
such that no encroachment occurs . . ." The applicant does not propose to move the existing lot
lines.
The PC resolution points out that if those residents whose homes encroach wished to buy their
lots, they would be required to move their homes prior to obtaining title. If they are forced to
move, it would not be because of the subdivision, it would be because they placed their homes
on City property. The City has no jurisdiction over the processing of the movement or
C
HK C
HI;,11111T, KltiE'l I'll", [11(_'JL11_)RE_N
City of Huntington Beach
Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001
April 19, 2011
Page 4
replacement of homes. If a resident places a home on the City's property, it has a right to take
action. For decades, it has chosen not to do so. That is not a basis to deny a conversion which
does not dispute the City's claim of title.
Finding 3
The PC concludes that pursuant to Government Code § 66427.5 that the City cannot approve
the tract map because the location of the buildings "are violative of local ordinances." This
finding is in error for two very basic reasons. First, the tract map does not propose the approval
of the location of buildings anywhere. It proposes the creation of lot lines which are consistent
with the existing single legal lot. Second, local ordinances are preempted by Government Code
Section 66427.5. Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma, 176 Cal. App. 4th 1270,
(Cal.App.1 st Dist. 2009)
Sequoia affirmed:
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. (Id at 1297,
emphasis added)
Sequoia concludes that local regulation of conversions, beyond what is specifically authorized
under Section 66427.5 is both expressly and impliedly preempted. Id at 1297-1300. Thus,
even if the proposed subdivision violated local ordinances, it is legally irrelevant.
Finding 4
PC findings state that it cannot make the "necessary" finding of consistency with the general
plan and City code sections. For the reasons set forth above, compliance with the general plan
and municipal code are irrelevant. The PC resolution lists various provision of City codes and
the subdivision map act, but does not explain even the general nature of the alleged violations
or the facts supporting the finding. Such findings are legally inadequate.
Findings for Denial of the Coastal Permit
Initially, Pacific wants to make clear its position that it is not required to seek a coastal permit as
part of this application. The subdivision is not a project for the purposes of the Coastal Act or
the City's Local Coastal Plan. The requirement of a coastal permit is inconsistent with the
limitations of Government Code § 66427.5. The findings purportedly justifying the denial of the
coastal permit are substantively identical to the findings purportedly justifying the denial of the
tract map and are without merit for the same reasons.
Finally, Pacific appeals on the grounds that the stated basis of the decision of the Planning
HK&C
F-iAPT. K'Nf= F, CDLDREN
City of Huntington Beach
Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001
April 19, 2011
Page 5
Commission was pretextual in nature. Pacific believes that the City opposes this project for
reasons unrelated to the Findings. Pacific is informed and believes that the City opposes this
project because it either: (1) opposes the long term use of the property as a mobile home park
and would prefer other more tourist oriented, income generating uses in the area; (2) wishes to
drive down the value of the property in an effort to reduce the cost of current and future plans to
condemn portions of the park for other uses; (3) in retaliation for Pacific's opposition to the City's
street widening project along Atlanta; and (4) the City wishes to force Pacific to cause the
removal of homes along Pacific to order to avoid what it views as the politically unpalatable
process of maintaining an action to force their removal.
Please advise me of the time and date of the City Council hearing on this appeal at your earliest
convenience. We are required to give all residents notice of the hearing.
Sincerely,
T, ING LID N
ark AI ert
M DA/sm
Enclosure: $3,045 appeal fee
cc: Pacific Mobilehome Park, LLC
Robert S. Coldren
Travis Hopkins
Mike Vigliotta
Scott Hess
Jennifer Villasenor
Exhibit A
HK
HART. KING & COLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malpert@hkclaw.com
January 18, 2011
Our File Number: 36608.006/4832-6151-1432v.1
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept.
2000 Main Street
.P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park
80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Subdivision Application for Tentative Tract Map No. 17392
Dear Ms Villasenor:
I am writing in response to the City's "Notice of Filing Status" for the above-referenced tentative
tract map deeming the application incomplete and requesting additional "information or
clarification" to act on the Application, which I interpret as items which the City of Huntington
Beach will not require to deem the application complete, but which it seeks prior to acting on the
application. After reviewing your notice, we respectfully disagree with the determination of staff
and ask that the City reconsider its position on this matter. I will address the items utilizing the
same numbering utilized in your Notice.
Purported "Incomplete" items
1. Map purportedly depicting units and structures straddling property lines and outside
the proposed boundary. For many years, the Park has operated under the current
configuration with some homes placed, in part, on property which is technically on
the City's right-of-way. However, the Applicant is informed and believes that the City
has approved this configuration, including a conditional use permit based on the
current location of these homes. The Applicant believes it has a legal right to
continue this use. While we recognize the City may disagree with this position, that
does not render the application incomplete. The City may consider approving the
tract map subject to the conditions that the Applicant demonstration that the City has
relinquished its interest either formally or by operation of law, but this is not a
properly a basis to deem the application incomplete.
2. The Application is intended to be a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Please feel free to
mark the submitted maps accordingly or our engineering firm can make the required
change at your convenience. While we understand that the City's municipal code
may purport to require an application for conditional use permit, any such municipal
requirements are barred by Government Code 66427.5. This has been the repeated
holding of numerous California courts, including notably Sequoia Park Associates v.
County of Sonoma, 176 Cal.AppAth 1270 (Cal.App.1st Dist. 2009). In Sequoia, the
Court recognized that state law both expressly and impliedly preempted local
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707
Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.corn I Fx 714.546.7457
`
Jennifer ViUaaenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2011
Page
government regulation, except as expressly authorized by Section 66427.5. Thus.
the City cannot impose the requirement of seeking 8 new CUP. In 8ddihon, the park
owner does not propose any new use. The Subdivision application proposes a
change in the form of ovvnenShip, while maintaining the same use. There is no
reason the existing CUP cannot remain operative.
FinaUy, you request an updated narrative to correct the designation under the general plan to
"Residential Medium Density — 15 units/acre" or ^RK4-15^ Inasmuch an these facts are
irrelevant to the application | do not believe any correction is necessary to ^oonnp|e1e^ the
application. Certainly, this letter should suffice to clarify the issue.
On this baSi3, the application should be deemed COnnp|e8e immediately.
Requests for"information" and "clarification"
1 Two reduced seta of the tentative tract map will be provided to the City. but these are
provided an additinnal information not required to "complete" the application.
2 Flood information--| am advised by my engineer that the flood information utilized
was the most recent available at the date of submission. He can meet with you to
clarify the issue but we do not believe any revisions are needed as of this time. In
any event, because the City cannot impose flood mitigation requirennents, this
information is not necessary to complete the application.
3. Current zoning correction. Please treat this letter as correcting the Conversion
Report. It is my understanding that the current zoning of the properly is "Residential
Manufactured Home Park —Coastal Zone overlay" or ''RK8P'CZ"
4 The subdivision application seeks a tentative tract nlop for 252 Spooea approved by
the existing CUP. The Applicant does not seek to subdivide the lots occupied by the
four model units approved by HCD
5 As you aCknow|edQe, there was no active homeowners' 8asnCiahOn in place at the
time the survey was conducted. The Applicant has no information regarding any
effort to "reorganize" an association that was not operating. | find it notable that
during repeated communications with all of the park nasidents, which are described
in the declaration of Clarke Fairbrothar which was submitted with the App|icati0n,
that no resident came forward making this request and we received no objections to
the conduct of the survey. My information is that there has not been a homeowner's
association active within the Park for many years and that when such association
existed, it was strictly social in nature and did not have a significant level of
participation by the residents.
You have provided an unsigned letter from someone purporting to be on behalf of
"Pacific MH(}A.^ The letter is dated November 22, 2010. This person had ample
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2011
Page 3
opportunity to participate in the process under which the survey was conducted
which was initiated in September, 2010. Neither the park owner nor his
representative were advised that the residents wished to form an HOA to conduct the
survey and I note that the letter from the resident in space 80 does not indicate she
copied the park owner or representative with the letter. It appears that a single or
small group of residents have intentionally chosen to wait until the survey was
completed to delay or interfere with the application process. There is no basis to
believe the resident speaks for anyone but him or herself. Indeed, the resident may
be one of the few residents who oppose a subdivision.
6. The Park is effectively fully occupied. It would require speculation to determine why a
substantial percentage of residents chose not to participate in the survey. They
certainly had every opportunity to participate. There were two mass mailings and
one community wide meeting held before the surveys were sent. It is not unusual for
a large percentage of residents to choose not to participate. It is my understanding
from speaking to the managers that prior efforts to revive an HOA for the Park in
2004 failed because of a lack of interest. Thus, there is a prior pattern of lack of
community participation at the Park. Since all residents had ample opportunity to
participate and were repeatedly advised of the planned survey, the only logical
inference to make from the lack of participation these residents chose not to
participate. There is no reason to expect a second survey would yield more
responses. Of those residents who were interested, the vast majority supported the
application.
In any event, the City may not consider the level of participation in the survey or even
the lack of support in processing the subdivision application. While California courts
have split on whether or not local governments could consider the absence of
resident support under any circumstances, the one reported decision which
concludes it is valid to consider level of resident support (not level of participants)
recognizes the purpose of such consideration is to determine whether the
subdivision is a "bona fide" conversion in which a single or a few lots are sold to
avoid rent control. See, e.g. Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, 187
Cal.AppAth 1487, 1501 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 2010) This issue arises where there is the
possibility of using conversion to get out of local rent control. Id. Even assuming
Colony Cove is correctly decided, it simply has no application where, as here, there
is no rent control ordinance. Because of a voter initiative, there is not even the
prospect of future rent control. There is no reason to believe there is any potential
for a sham conversion for that reason. Indeed, if the park owner were to subdivide
and sell only a lot or two it would have the effect of imposing a form of rent control
under state law where none existed. Since there is no potential for a "sham
conversion" there simply is no reason to even consider the results of the survey. In
any event, it is impossible to infer from the lack of resident responses that the
conversion is not "bona fide."
36608.006/4832-6151-1432v.1
Jennifer Villasenor
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
January 18, 2011
Page 4
7. Regarding your concerns regarding dwelling units being "cut off' by proposed interior
lot lines, we believe you are simply mistaken. Unfortunately, you have not identified
specific areas or lots in question. Likewise, there are no units which abut property
lines in a way that impacts access. Again, you have not identified the relevant lots in
question or provided any examples. Our engineer observed to me that your
comments indicate you have not actually visited the site.
We would be happy to meet with you this week to clarify these questions if you are prepared to
identify specific areas in question. I want to emphasize, however, it is our position that the
application is complete and any such meeting would only serve the purpose of providing
additional clarifying information to assist the City in consider the application. We can also
discuss an appropriate partial refund of funds given the limited scope of the City's review. It
might be helpful to have your city attorney present to discuss legal issues that uniquely apply to
the processing of a mobilehome subdivision under Government Code § 66427.5. Please advise
me what days and times you are available this week.
Sincerely,
A KING & COLDREN
Mark D Alp rt
�1 MDA/sm
cc: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC
36608.006/4832-6151-1432v.1
Fage 1 of I
Sandy Moore
From: Sandy Moore
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:23 PM
To: 'jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org'
Subject: Pacific Mobile Home Park
This message's attachments have been archived to NetDo full
m
currents Retrieve the full message with
attachments.
Ms. Villa..
senor,
Attached please find a letter from Mark Aloert dated January 17, 2011 with regard to the above-matter.
Original will follow via mail.
Thank you.
Sandy Moore
Assistant to
C. William Dahlin, Mark D. Alpert
and Kathy I^I. Nichols
Hart, King & Coldren, a PLC
200 Sandpointe, 4th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92707
smoore(r)hkclaw.com
www.hkciaw.com
Bus: (714)432-8700 Ext. 337
Fax: (714) 546-7457
1/18/2011
Exhibit B
HART, KING & COLDREN
Mark D.Alpert
malpert@hkclaw.com
April 8, 2011
Our File Number: 36608.006/4811-9888-3849v.1
VIA EMAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Barbara Delgleize, Chairperson
Janis Mantini, Vice-Chair
Erik Peterson, Commissioner
Mark Bixby, Commissioner
Timothy J. Ryan, Commissioner
Elizabeth Shier Burnett, Commissioner
Blair Farley, Commissioner
City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission
2000 Main Street
P.O. Box 190
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Pacific Mobile Home Park
Tentative Tract Map 13937/Hearing April 12, 2011
Dear Planning Commission Members:
My office represents the owners of Pacific Mobile Home Park ("Park"), who has applied for a
tentative tract map for the purposes of converting the Park to resident ownership. The
application does not involve any proposed physical changes to the property. It provides simply
for the change of the form of ownership of the property. These "conversions" are governed by
California Government Code § 66427.5. Subdivision "e" of the statute limits the role of local
government bodies to determining compliance with that section:
(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. (emphasis added)
The lengthy staff report provided to you does not identify any failure of the park owner to comply
with the requirements of Section 66427.5. For that reason, the City is obligated to approve the
tentative subdivision application.
While the staff report states multiple reasons for denying the application, each reason is based
on the conclusion of staff that the subdivision application is not subject to Section 66427.5.
Staff claims Section 66427.5 does not apply because a group of tenants have located their
personal property (i.e. their mobile homes) in an area adjacent to Huntington which the City
claims to own pursuant to a street dedication.
It is important to emphasize that the subdivision map proposed by the applicant does not
propose property lines that encroach on the City's claimed right of way. The staff report
unfortunately misrepresents these facts more than once. For example, in the "Statement of
A Professional Law Corporation
200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707
Ph 714A32.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com i Fx 714.546.7457
ji
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page 2
Issue" the staff report falsely claims the proposed map will require the elimination of existing lots
and/or lots that encroach on the public right of way. There are currently 252 mobile home
spaces in the park. The subdivision map proposes 252 mobile home lots with no encroachment
on the City's claimed right of way. On page 9 of the staff report, it states "The City cannot
approve a map that depicts property lines that encroach onto the right of way . . . ." The
Applicant has not submitted and does not propose a map that encroaches on the City's claimed
right of way.
Staff does accurately state that the proposed tentative tract map shows certain homes located
in the claimed right-of-way on Huntington. The fact that there may be personal property
encroaching on the City's claimed right of way is irrelevant to the subdivision application. It is
true that any encroachment would most likely have to be addressed before the lots were sold,
but the Applicant does not seek a permit for moving any encroaching homes. This situation is
legally no different than if a resident had left an old non-running Chevy on blocks in the City's
right of way.
As City staff is aware, the subdivision map that was submitted by the Applicant does not
propose to create any legal lots in the area the City currently claims to be subject to a
dedication. These lots are large enough to fit appropriately sized mobile homes. Assuming the
City is correct that there is an encroachment on the City right-of-way, that encroachment is an
issue that the City has elected not to address over several decades. Regardless, it is irrelevant
to the subdivision application. The City's rights to address that encroachment are not negatively
impacted by the recording of the subdivision map, and the occasion of map approval is not the
time or enforcement mechanism to address the issue.
Staff is correct that, for practical purposes, no lots will be sold which are encroaching unless and
until the encroachments are removed. In fact, although the City cannot legally require it, the
applicant is willing to accept the condition that no lots will be sold with personal property
encroaching on City property. But the removal of any encroachments is legally irrelevant to the
subdivision application.
The sole basis for the staff recommendation is a legal conclusion that this subdivision does not
fall within the ambit of Government Code Section 66427.5. We think this legal conclusion is in
error and are struck by the fact that the conclusion is not supported by any legal analysis. Of
course, planning staff is not qualified to provide a legal opinion. Given the importance of this
issue to the application, the Planning Commission should have the benefit of a thoughtful legal
analysis before it makes its decision.
In our view, staffs "legal" conclusion that the existence of this purported encroachment takes
the subdivision application out of the provisions of Government Code Section 66427.5 is
baseless. There is nothing in the language of the statute either explicitly or implicitly includes
any such limitation. The introductory language of the ordinance specifies:
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
36608.006l4811-9888-3849v.1
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page 3
shall avoid the economic displacement of all nonpurchasing residents in the
following manner:
The key language in subdivision "e" specifies:
(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. (emphasis added)
The basis for staffs conclusion is difficult to ascertain. There are essentially two kinds of mobile
home park conversions. There is a conversion that retains the existing use, which is governed
by Section 66427.5 and this is a conversion for another use, governed by Section 66427.4.
This section is intended to address a change from a mobile home park use to some kind of
other use that will displace residents. See El Dorado Palm Springs, Ltd. v. City of Palm Springs,
96 Cal.AppAth 1153; 1161 (Cal-App.4th Dist. 2002) The Court in El Dorado affirmed that
Section 66427.4 had -no application .where the subdivider intended to continue operating as-a -
mobile home park: .
The problem with the Association's contention that section 66427.4 applies is that
a change in form of ownership is not.a'•change in use. After the change of
ownership, the mobilehome park will remain a mobilehome park. Since section
6642�1.4 applies to changes in use, it is inapplicable here. As noted above, this
conclusion is specifically confirmed by subdivision (e)."
El Dorado is a reported decision arising out of the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Huntington
Beach is in the same appellate district), which has been repeatedly affirmed by other appellate
courts.
Thus, to the extent there are encroachments, they do not impact whether Section 66427.5
applies. The staff recommendations adopted by the subdivision committee made no claim of
non-compliance with that section other than the claimed encroachments.
Given how clear the law is on this issue, I am surprised that staff has taken this position. We
respectfully submit that as Planning Commissioners, if you are going to base your decision
strictly on the analysis of a legal issue, that you obtain thoughtful and researched legal opinions
from your City Attorney. Staff's unsupported legal conclusion does not constitute "substantial
evidence" supporting your decision.
Given the absence of any serious legal analysis underlying the staff report, we are concerned
that staff's opposition is motivated by opposition to the project itself. City staff and indeed the
Planning Commissioners may not like this use of the property. They may not like the fact that
Government Code Section 66427.5 prevents them from imposing conditions and fees on the
subdivision. However, the City is obligated to follow state law. State law requires that this
36608.006/4811-9888-3849v.1
,
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept
April 8, 2011
Page
subdivision application be approved. We hope the Planning COrnrniSSion will meet its
obligations under state law and approve the application.
Sincerely,
/1MarkO
MDA/sm
oc� Pacific Mobile Home Park. LLC (via 8rnai|)
Jennifer McGrath, Esq. '
JenniferViUasenor
Scott Hess `
`
-
-
Page 1 of 1
Sandy Moore
From: Sandy Moore
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:58 PM
To: 'bdelgleize@surfcity-hb.org', 'jmantini@surfcity-hb.org'; 'epeterson@surfcity-hb.org'; 'mbixby@surfcity-hb.org';
'tryan@surfcity-hb.org'; 'eburnett@surfcity-hb.org'; 'bfarley@surfcity-hb.org'
Cc: 'jmcgrath@surfcity-hb.org'; Jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org'; 'shess@surfcity-hb.org'
Subject: Pacific Mobile Home Park
This message's attachments have been archived to NetDocuments. Retrieve the full message with
attachments.
Dear Planning Commission:
Attached please find a letter from Mark Alpert dated April 8, 2011 with regard to the above-matter. Hard
copy will follow via mail.
Thank you.
Sandy Moore
Assistant to
C. William Dahlin, Mark D. Alpert
and Kathy W. Nichols
Hart, King & Coldren, a PLC
200 Sandpointe, 4th Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92707
smoore(o)hkclaw.com
www.hkciaw.com
Bus: (714) 432-8700 Ext. 337
Fax: (714) 546-7457
4/8/2011
.,_L L „Floor; 1 L ierK I rreu
-Ste: 1A 2011—
1 04-20
Sender HART KING COLDREN
II I OIIII II IIIIIIIII I I I I II I III II III
PTRP117429
FEDEX: 797008445650
For FedEx ExpressP Shipments Only
'�rY rl$CYV1��' 4+iro P'+¢ele'� �v ea m�Peaw�.c..Fo���,�..�a�.sP.._..__ For
1 _ 4 Z' rely.
oa• applicable
From: (714)432-6700 Origin ID:APVA Ship Date:19APR11
Mark D.Alpert,Esq. 0 ActWgt:0.5 LB
Hart,King&Coldren CAD:10225803311NET3130 Q` �I'— ing
200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor
Delivery Address Bar Code
InSE Santa Ana,CA 92707
aha J1115110225022s III�l0lllllll9llllllllll11l l 1111llll101 II III II
j SHIP TO: (714)536.5227 BILL SENDER Ref# 36608,006
{—� Joan Flynn, City Clerk Invoice
} City of Huntington Beach o°##
2000 MAIN ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
WED - 20 APR Al
PRIORITY OVERNIGHT
TRK# 7970 0844 5650
0201
92648
WZ APV SNA
50DG30A8AEF8
.---_After_nrintinsLthis-label-___.. ,_
Pacific Mobile Home Park 04/18/2011
CHECK NO: 0000001001 City of Huntington Beach (CITY20) m
Invoice Date Invoice Number Description Property Expense Code Amount Paid
04/18/2011 4/18/2011 Conversion costs 10PAC 5845 $3,045-00
$3,045.00
D
z
O
z
m
z
m
4
ro
M
a
p
NWPORT PACIFIC CAPITAL COMPANY, INC Wells Fargo Bank N A -16 2a/1220
Pacific M6bile Home California
17300 Red Hltl Ave Suite 28Q (94�)852 55Z5 welisfargo corns
Irvine,CA' 92614' t�O �000001001
w vs' a
THREE THOUSAND FORTY FIDE AND XX%100 DOLLARS .
P ,
r
TO THE G►ty of Huntington Beach thori
oRDEx 2000'Main St: < , Y
OF Huntington Bch., CA 0264$' ^'
Authorized Signature - .
o
CASH RECEIPT
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
City Treasurer — Shari L. Freidenrich, CPA
P.O. BOX 711
HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648-0711
www.surffity-Worg/payments
DATE '! V '(I Issuing Dept.
Dept. Phone# t f�t 5/✓�p 5 ��
FUNDS RECEIVED FROM VkWoi
1( L ( q �(nC
ADDRESS � ( OO Y >I�I 1� LO V
f t Phone#:
0
FOR r
v�_ bcl� 0 YK_(
AMOUNT RE CE ED O Cash heck# O Creditcard
Prepared Received Finance
BY I B Approval
IF OBJECT= 50 00 THRU 90000,FINANCE APPROVAL REQUIRED Approval Date
Business Uhif Ob"ect , , .Su, s„ Sub-Led erTy ,
�,� -- - - - ---- -
-- - - - - -- -- - -- - --- - --- -
TOTAL $
Stamped Validation Only
Please do not write in the box below
I
I
i
I
I
No. 1222406
CLISTC AFR COPY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
.BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 6, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following
planning and zoning items:
❑ 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
17397 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.. 10-017 (PACIFIC MOBILE HOME
PART( SUBDIVISION — CONVERSION FROM RESIDENT RENTAL TO OWNERSHIP)
Applicant/Appellant: Hart, King and Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, 4t Floor, Santa Ana, CA
92707; Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Property Owner: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA
92648 Request: TTM: A request by the Pacific Mobile Home Park (Park) property owner to
subdivide an existing for-rent, mobile home park with a total of 252 units for ownership
purposes. The Park owner proposes to subdivide the 252 existing mobile home spaces into
252 numbered lots and 31 lettered lots representing interior drive aisles, landscape areas and
common areas to enable the existing park residents to purchase their own lots. CDP: To
permit the proposed subdivision in the non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. Location: 80
Huntington Street (southeast corner of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street) Project
Planner: Jennifer Villasenor
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
2. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item # 1 is located in the non appealable jurisdiction of the
Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017, filed on December 7, 2010, in
conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff
report, public hearing, City Council Discussion and Action. The City Council's action is- not
appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building 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, June 2, 2011.
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 and Building Department at 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
CityClerkAgenda@surfcity-hb.org
hftp://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/
CADocuments and Settings\esparzapTocal Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\Content.0ut1ook\EVZ 11 ETS\06061 I (Appeal
of Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision).docx
i
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
SUBJECT: C A \
DEPARTMENT. A:-\ C ���'��n� MEETING DATE: (.o4
v i
CONTACT: la�' PHONE:
N/A YES NO
( } C ) { .) Is the notice attached?
Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or
Redevelopment Agency)hearing?
( ) (v) ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public.hearing correct?
( ) ( ( ) If an appeal, is the appelcant's name included in the notice?
{ ) ( v� ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language?
Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council?
{ } ( ) (V) Is a map attached for publication?
{ ) ( ) ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size
( ) {✓) ( } Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the
mailing list?
( ) {V) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels?
If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing
labels?
If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels"attached?
Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only)
Please complete the following:
� 0
1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date
2. Number of times to be published
3. Number of days between publications
1C)
Dependable Business Services
CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS/ OCCUPANTS
THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS TTA>VLES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL
PROPERTY OWNERS and OCCUPANTS LOCATED WITHIN 660 FEET OF
THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM METROSCAN, A DATA SOURCE,
UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES.
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS GENER riLLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS
NOT GUARANTEED.
DATE: l ` ( o
E TOUT
DEPENDABLE BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.
504 E Palmyra Ave Orange, Ca 92866 (7141 744-2845 Fax(71 41 744-51 23
Email: dstout2@socal.rr.com Web Site: dbsinc.org
1 2 3
024 203 03 024 203 04 024 203 12
BRIAN L GOLLEDGE MONA HANSEN SHIRLEY ANN STRACHA.N
209 HUNTINGTON ST 205 HUNTINGTON ST 17232 LYNN LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
4 5 6
024 203 24 024 203 25 024 203 26
TOBY HOWELL DOUGLAS MOURADIAN CHRISTIE WHITNEY-HALLIWELL
201 HUNTINGTON ST 203 HUNTINGTON ST 217 BALTIMORE AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
;7 8 9
024 203 27 024 203 28 024 203 29
KRYSTY A MALCHOW DUNG Q VUONG RICHARD PYLES
215 BALTIMORE AVE 221 BALTIMORE AVE 219 BALTIMORE AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
10 11 12
024 203 30 024 203 31 024 204 01
ROBERT S ESPOSITO SOON OK OH JAIMES N SANTOS
213 BALTIMORE AVE 211 BALTIMORE AVE 119 HUNTINGTON ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
13, 22 14 15, 27
024 204 03, 18 024 204 04 024 204 08, 25
JULIE A KERLIN GALKIN JEFFREY A FISSER
218 BALTIMORE AVE 221 - 12TH ST 212 BALTIMORE AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
16 17 18
024 204 12 024 204 13 024 204 14
JANINE WALKUP KEN BREEDING JANICE L NELSON
209 ATLANTA AVE PO BOX 6509 106 ALABAMA ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
19 20 21
024 204 15 024 204 16 024 204 17
CONNIE S KOCH MARY DOLAN THOMAS D CONLON
270 BRISTOL ST#101 112 ALABAMA ST PO BOX 944
COSTA MESA CA 92626 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ARCATA CA 95518
23 24 25. 26
024 204 19 024 204 21 024 204 23, 24
GEORGE LEE O'CONNOR RANDALL ALAN SMITH AILANJIAN
220 BALTIMORE AVE 218 BALTIMORE AVE 21846 TUMBLEWEED CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LAKE FOREST CA 92630
28 29 30
024 204 26 024 204 27 024 204 28
RAYMOND A BUTTERFAS RAYMOND WEBBER PAUL V KONOVALOV
111 HUNTINGTON ST 115 HUNTINGTON ST 113 HUNTINGTON ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
31 32, 33��32
57 58 34
024 204 29 024 202 24 291 19,20 024 252PAUL S CROSS CITYGTON ACH CITY OPME GENCY
109 HUNTINGTON ST P OX 2 N ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 UNT GT EACH CA 92648 AU - INGTO BEACH CA 92648
�/ - 7 7 1;7,3
35 36 37
'024 26105 . 02426108 024 26109
RUTH LARSON HUNTINGTON ST APARTMENT HUNTINGTON STREET LLC
271 E 42ND ST 1055 EL CAMINO DR#E 262 BRENTWOOD ST
SAN BERNARDINO CA 92404 COSTA MESA CA 92626 COSTA MESA CA 92627
38 39 40
024 261 10 024 261 11 024 261 12
ROBERT J JOSENHANS JR. FRANKIE HANKINS BARRICK GARY WAYNE SIMON
PO BOX 80582 120 HUNTINGTON ST 331 N COLORADO PL#1
SAN MARINO CA 91118 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LONG BEACH CA 90814
41 42 43
024 261 13 024 261 14 024 261 15
FORREST D LEWIS DAVID ALTMAN MATTHEW W INGENTHRON
112 HUNTINGTON ST 110 HUNTINGTON ST 106 HUNTINGTON ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
44 45 46-48
024 261 16 024 261 17 024 261 18-20
CRAIG L WOOD STEVEN EMIL MARION JAMES BROWN
616-20TH ST 105 ALABAMA ST 311 ATLANTA AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
49 50, 51 52
024 261 21 024 261 22, 23 024 261 24
BERNADETTE C BODINE STEPHEN P SCHULZ GERALDINE C YUHL
116-1/2 HUNTINGTON ST 313 BALTIMORE AVE PO BOX 19528
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 IRVINE CA 92623
53 54 55
024 261 28 024 271 06 024 291 12
BRISAS AT HUNTINGTON LAS HUNTINGTON BEACH ATLANTA SURFSIDE VILLAS
29 B TECHNOLOGY DR#100 4100 MACARTHUR BLVD#200 5150 OVERLAND AVE
IRVINE CA 92618 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 CULVER CITY CA 90230
56 59 60
024 291 16 024 301 01 024 30102
PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK DAVID MARCIN SUNDARAM S KRISHNAMURTHY
80 HUNTINGTON ST 20981 COASTVIEW LN 10104 ADAMS AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
61 62 63,477
024 301 03 024 301 04 024 301 05, 937194 42
ANN STEFANUCCI JOHN N O'BRIEN III MARCI M BRUNO
20971 COASTVIEW LN 20965 COASTVIEW LN 21362 ANDALUCIA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
64 65 66
024 301 06 024 301 07 024 301 08
DAVID A BUTLER RELATO SUNG SUK SMITH
20945 COASTVIEW LN 20941 COASTVIEW LN 16331 RHONE LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647
67 68 69
024 301 09 024 301 10 024 301 11
HIRO KIYAN PAUL MICHAEL REYNOLDS JAMES J WALACH
20931 COASTVIEW LN 20905 COASTVIEW LN 20901 COASTVIEW LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
70 71 . ' 72
:'024 301 17 024 301 18 024 301 19
BRUCE B SCHADE IRVING NEWMAN SCANNELL
'20912 COASTVIEW LN 16312 MANDALAY CIR 20926 COASTVIEW LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
73 74 75
024 30120 024 30121 024 30122
DONNA J OKTAVEC MICHEL&MARY DANSEREAU DENNIS L SPOOLSTRA
20932 COASTVIEW LN 20942 COASTVIEW LN 3615 GOLDEN HILL RD
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 PASO ROBLES CA 93446
76 77 78
102430123 : ' 024 30124 024 301 25
ANDREW B CASALE LINDA ENDO ! NANCY RAMOS
3339 COLD PLAINS DR 20951 SAILMAKER CIR 20945 SAILMAKER CIR
HACIENDA HEIGHTS CA 91745 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
79 . 80 81
024 30126 : 024 30127 024 30128
RAYMOND J BAMBERY PAUL F PETRUNA BARRY STEPHEN BELLOVICH
20941 SAILMAKER CIR 20935 SAILMAKER CIR 20931 SAILMAKER CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
82 83 84
024 30143 024 301 44 024 301 45
JODI LYNN JACOBSON IRINA P SUVOROV ANN COX
14556 ADDISON ST 7836 BEACHCOMBER DR 7832 BEACHCOMBER DR
SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
85 86 87
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 BEACH CA 92648 PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253 LAKE ELSINORE CA 92530
88 89 90
024 301 49 024 301 50 024 301 51
GARY A STEIN MATTHEW C GOODSHAW JOHN G YAMAZAKI
21838 CASTLEWOOD DR 7796 BEACHCOMBER DR 930 CREST AVE
MALIBU CA 90265 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950
91 92 93-96,99- 102,480
024 301 52 024 30153 024 31214,26-28,31,32,43,44,937194 45
KITO LACUESTA COMMUNITY ASSN WATERFRONT COMMUNITY ASSN
7786 BEACHCOMBER DR PO BOX A 26 CORPORATE PLAZA DR#100
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
97 98 103
024 312 29 024 312 30 937150 01
WATERFRONT COMMUNITY ASSN EDWARD&MARGARET OSEPIAN SCOTT ALAN BEAUMONT
16845 VON KARMAN AVE#200 21331 BALERMA LN 4480 PARK BRISTOL PL
IRVINE CA 92606 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SAN JOSE CA 95136
104 105 106
937 150 02 937 150 03 937 150 04
CLARETTE M TREBELCOCK R CINDY MCKUSKER
5492 MARYPORT DR 517 N TAORMINA DR 7811 SAILBOAT CIR#4
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 ANAHEIM CA 92806 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
61, /// - �� //-�z �V
107 108 109
937 150 05 937 150 06 937150 07
LOUTS ABBONDANTE JOSE SUAREZ SOPP ELAlNE P ROD!
7805 SAILBOAT CIR#5 857 W PALM TER 7752 SAILBOAT CIR#7
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HOMESTEAD FL 33034 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
110 111 112
937 150 08 937 150 09 937150 10
ABDALLAH AISH GERARD W GARTLAND THOMAS J NASSER
7756 SAILBOAT CIR#8 7762 SAILBOAT CIR#9 7766 SAILBOAT CIR#10
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
113 114 115
937 150 11 937 150 12 93715013
BARBARA G HEHIR MARY D BRADBURY JOHN C ROBERTS
7772 SAILBOAT CIR#11 7776 SAILBOAT CIR#12 ! 29 AUGUSTA
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 COTO DE CAZA CA 92679
,A 16 117 118
937 150 14 937 150 15 937 150 16
DARKEN SAMAHA ' MICHAEL M KELLY JANET L ZNIDER
7792 SAILBOAT.CIR#14 7796 SAILBOAT CIR#15 7802 SAILBOAT CIR#16
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
119 120 121
937 150 17 937 15018 937 150 19
DAVID KOENIGSHOFER AHMED M NAMOURY SHARON ANN O'CONNOR
19341 MANOR POINT CIR 19 GREENBRIER RD 7822 SAILBOAT CIR#19
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 WESTPORT CT 06880 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
122 123 124
, 93715020 937 150 21 937 150 22
JOSEPH S PANEBIANCO JOHN M&ANGELA DELATORE KELLY H RYAN LUND
1515 STATE ROUTE 31 7832 SAILBOAT CIR#21 7836 SAILBOAT CIR#22
BRIDGEPORT NY 13030 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
125 126 127
937 150 23 937 150 24 937 150 25
LARRY W SMITH CARLOS E RECHARTE FRANK R MASTROLY JR.
.7841 SEABREEZE DR#23 7835 SEABREEZE DR#24 7831 SEABREEZE DR#25
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
128 129 130
193715026 937 150 27 937 150 28
TIMOTHY FRANCO RALPH E MATILLO FRANK A PICKETT
65 ARCATA 24726 MERIDIAN DR 7815 SEABREEZE DR#28
IRVINE CA 92602 DANA POINT CA 92629 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
131 132 133
937 150 29 937 150 30 937 150 31
ANDY SCHIMMEL EDWARD E DALKE MARTIN BAUER
7805 SEABREEZE DR#29 7801 SEABREEZE DR#30 8811 CLIFFSIDE DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
134 135 136
937 150 32 937 150 33 937 150 34
TED T KUNIYUKI ISADORE A SMITH TRUST SANTA MARION KINDEL
7791 SEABREEZE DR#32 7785 SEABREEZE DR#33 7781 SEABREEZE DR#34
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
4/6/ri- T1 / 173 �?7Z-
137 1' 138 139
937 150 35 937 150 36 937150 37
RICHARD& MARIE CHICHESTER HELEN L NEWTON HERBERT MORRIS
7771 SEABREEZE DR#35 7765 SEABREEZE DR#36 7761 SEABREEZE DR#37
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
:140 (141 142
'937 150 38 937 150 39 937 150 40
KEVIN J &PATTY KENNEDY ANA REGINA FAITLOWICZ NANCY COHSE
!,7751 SEABREEZE DR#38 7745 SEABREEZE DR#39 7741 SEABREEZE DR#40
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
143 144 145
937 150 41 937 150 42 937150 43
j RICHARD T&ANN F KLtEM ALAN BEARDEN BARBARA VAUGHAN CONKLIN
7742 SEABREEZE DR#41 7746 SEABREEZE DR#42 7752 SEABREEZE DR#43
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
146, 164 147 148
937 150 44, 62 937 150 45 937 150 46
MICHAEL L RAY JAMIE DIMITRA BERDELIS CAROL Y VALCARCEL
7756 SEABREEZE DR#44 7762 SEABREEZE DR#45 7766 SEABREEZE DR#46
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
149, 319 150 151
937 150 47, 937152 17 937 150 48 937150 49
LEATRICE NASH LAURA PAUL MARTIN WEXLER
: 16202 CULPEPPER CIR 7782 SEABREEZE DR#48 7786 SEABREEZE DR#49
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
152 153 154
937 150 50 937 150 51 937 150 52
RYAN M SEARS LEESE COHSN CLARK F CHRISTENSEN
7792 SEABREEZE DR#50 : 7802 SEABREEZE DR#51 7806 SEABREEZE DR#52
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
155 156 157
937 150 53 937 150 54 937 150 55
KAREN FRANZ OMAR M AMR DANIEL SULLIVAN
'7816 SEABREEZE DR#53 7822 SEABREEZE DR#54 7826 SEABREEZE DR#55
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
158 159 160
937 150 56 937 150 57 937150 58
ROY CHARLES FJASTAD CHARLES J SMITH K SID.
7832 SEABREEZE DR#56 1900 SHORE DR 7842 SEABREEZE DR#58
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ANCHORAGE AK 99515 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
161 162 163
.93715059 937 150 60 937 150 61
MICHAEL P CHURCHIN PAULINE CUCINOTTA WARD LEE A PICKETT
7856 SEABREEZE DR#59 7862 SEABREEZE DR#60 112 GOLDENWEST ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
165 166 167
.93715063 937 150 64 937 150 65
PEGGY E SOMMER JEANNE A F GROSSMAN THOMAS M NOONAN
7876 SEABREEZE DR#63 8502 KEEL DR 5570 LAUSANNE DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 RENO NV 89511
168 169 170
937 150 66 937 150 67 193715068
LAWRENCE C DURAN BARBARA J GORDON ARTHUR CHAN
17943 PASEO VALLE ! 7906 SEABREEZE DR#67 7912 SEABREEZE DR#68
CHINO HILLS CA 91709 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
171 172 173
937 150 69 ! . 937 150 70 937 150 71
KARLENE K LARSON RAY EMMONS PATRICIA K SEYMOUR
3130 OLD STAGE RD 7922 SEABREEZE DR#70 7981 OCEANGROVE CIR #71
CENTRAL POINT OR 97502 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
174 175 176
937 150 72 937 150 73 937 150 74
DAWN MATHENY GERALD W PIXLEY LOUIS C FRYER
6441 MUKAI CT 7971 OCEANGROVE CIR#73 7961 OCEANGROVE CIR #74
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
177 178 179
.93715075 937 150 76 937 150 77
SCOTT STEPHENS RONALD L BOYER WILLIAM W WALDEN
7955 OCEANGROVE CIR#75 . 7951 OCEANGROVE CIR#76 7941 SEABREEZE DR#77
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
180 181 182
937 150 78 937 150 79 937 150 80
KEVIN JUE CATHY JUNE MARTIN CHARLES KAVANAUGH MOORES
1440 E MAYFAIR AVE 7931 SEABREEZE DR#79 7925 SEABREEZE DR#80
ORANGE CA 92867 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
183 184 185
937 150 81 937 150 82 937 150 83
STEPHEN DOBBS MARTIN J KASKO DIANA LEE REEVES
7921 SEABREEZE DR#81 7915 SEABREEZE DR#82 39651 FREEMARK ABBEY
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MURRIETA CA 92563
186 187 188
937 150 84 937 150 85 937 150 86
MARCINE ELVIN CRANE JR. KERRY BOWERS MAHONEY KATHLEEN A SULER
7901 SEABREEZE DR#84 518- 11TH ST#A 7885 SEABREEZE DR#86
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648,
189 190 191
937 150 87 937 150 88 937 150 89
CHRISTOPHER MIOVAC E JIM PAOLINETTI DEBRA JO KEEFER
7881 SEABREEZE DR#87 7875 SEABREEZE DR#88 7871 SEABREEZE DR#89
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
192 193 194
937 150 90 937 150 91 937 150 92
MARJORIE A STEMPEL CHRIS NUNEZ RICHARD HAUVER
7865 SEABREEZE DR#90 7852 MOONMIST CIR#91 7856 MOONMIST CIR#92
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
195 196 197
937 150 93 937 150 94 937 150 95
KIRSTEN SOGOLAN BANK FIRST AMER BROSS
7862 MOONMIST CIR#93 PO BOX 6615 11940 PRESWICK LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 MUKILTEO WA 98275
�1/// 712)� /-�t39--;'-'-
198 199 200
193715096 937 150 97 937150 98
JOSEPH L SHARP ALAN THOMAS GEER CYNTHIA PERZ
3105 CEDRONA DR NW 7886 MOONMIST CIR#97 7892 MOONMIST CIR#98
OLYMPIA WA 98502 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
201 202 203
937 150 99 937 151 00 937 151 01
GEORGE SUTTY MARK WIEDDER ! MARY JO HODGES
PO BOX 6247 17912 MOONMIST CIR#100 7916 MOONMIST CIR#101
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'204 205 , 206
937 151 02 i93715103 937 151 04
STEVEN B REGUR ANN M DEBUSSCHERE BURKE
7922 MOONMIST G!R#102 4790 CAUGHLIN PKWY#424 7932 MOONMIST CIR#104
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 RENO NV 89519 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
207 208 ' 209
937 15105 937151 06 937 151 07
R A& E V SHIELDS ERICKSEN ! JOHN T WOLFENDEN III
7942 MOONMIST CIR#105 7946 MOONMIST CIR#106 7952 MOONMIST CIR#107
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
210 211 212
937 151 08 93715109 937 151 10
ANDREA J PIXLEY KAREN LOUISE CORNELL WALTER STEWART
7956 MOONMIST CIR#108 7962 MOONMIST CIR#109 7966 MOONMIST CIR#110
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
213 '214 215
937 151 11 937 151 12 937 151 13
SHANNON E NEACH SANDY W GOLGART MICHAEL A MARRA
.7985 MOONMIST CIR#111 5460 LONGVUE DR 7975 MOONMIST CIR#113
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 FRISCO TX 75034 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
216 217 218
937 151 14 937 151 15 937 151 16
DANIEL E SCHAEFER JAMES G PASSANANTI JAY LEONARD STEINBERG
7971 MOONMIST.CIR#114 7965 MOONMIST CIR#115 268 N REXFORD DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210
:219 220 221
937 151 17 937 151 18 937 151 19
SANDRA A GONZALES JOHN C MILLER MICHAEL MOSHIRI
9360 FLETCHER DR 7941 MOONMIST CIR#118 8802 DORSETT DR
LA MESA CA 91941 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
.222 223 224
937 15120 93715121 937 151 22
GARY E SKOUSEN DONALD F ORTMANN CHARLES W STONER
7925 MOONMIST CIR#120 17330 BROOKHURST ST#195 7911 MOONMIST CIR#122
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
225 226 227
937 15123 937 151 24 937 151 25
JACK A NAPOLI HEATHER CROSS AUDREY J ARNOLD
7901 MOONMIST CIR#123 7895 MOONMIST CIR#124 7891 MOONMIST CIR#125
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
611/- - � /7� �'-�
228 229 230
1193715126 937 15127 937 151 28
BRIAN J ARMSTRONG MARY K HERMANCE i KAREN ROBERTSON
7885 MOONMIST CIR#126 7871 MOONMIST CIR#127 7865 MOONMIST CIR#128
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
231 232 233
937 15129 937 151 30 937151 31
S PAMELA HIGGINS DOUGLAS K EWING KIRBY MAILS G KERR
7861 MOONMIST CIR#129 371 S GILBUCK DR 628-3RD ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ANAHEIM CA 92802 IMPERIAL BEACH CA 91932
(234 '235236
937 15132 937 151 33 937151 34
JUDITH ANN MENDENHALL KATHRYN L PETERSEN VERONICA J ALLENBAUGH
7845 MOONMIST CIR#132 900 GRANGER FARM WAY 7872 SOUTHWIND CIR#134
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LAS VEGAS NV 89145 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
(237 238 239
937 151 35 93715136 937151 37
GREGORY S MOORE BRIAN MCMAHON MATTHEW H CARTER
7876 SOUTHWIND CIR#135 7882 SOUTHWIND CIR#136 19622 PHOENIX LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
240 241 242
937 15138 93715139 937151 40
BRUCE I FAGEN ISABELLA L CASTRO JOHN E CARROLL
7892 SOUTHWIND CIR#138 7906 SOUTHWIND CIR#139 7912 SOUTHWIND CIR#140
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
243 244 245
937 15141 . 937 151 42 937151 43
LINN G DANKS PEGGY A OKEEFE JOAN DREVLOW
7916 SOUTHWIND CIR#141 7922 SOUTHWIND CIR#142 7926 SOUTHWIND CIR#143
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
246 247 248
.93715144 937 151 45 937 15146
JOSEPH J KACIN J STILWELL LUIS F LUNA
6012 KENWICK CIR 7942 SOUTHWIND CIR#145 7946 SOUTHWIND CIR#146
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
;249 250 251
.93715147 937 151 48 937 151 49
GARY W COX MARY BUTTS MICHELLE M GROMACKI
7952 SOUTHWIND CIR#147 7956 SOUTHWIND CIR#148 7962 SOUTHWIND CIR#149
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
252 253 254
937 151 50 93715151 93715152
SHARON M AVERS JAMES J KAISER STEPHEN &KATHERYN CRUISE
7966 SOUTHWIND CIR#150 7985 SOUTHWIND CIR#151 7955 WATERFALL CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'255 256 257
937 15153 93715154 93715155
WILLIAM H CURRAN SR. CHARLES E HENDSCH LORRAINE B MOSELEY
8257 ABBOTT LN 7971 SOUTHWIND CIR#154 19782 BOWMAN LN
CINCINNATI OH 45249 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
6 16///- �� / ��9/-
258 259 260
937 15156 937 15157 937 15158
DEBBIE J DECARLO CHERRIE P DANKS DEWAN&MARIA CHOU DHURY
7961 SOUTHWIND CIR#156 7916 SOUTHWIND CIR#157 7941 SOUTHWIND CIR#158
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
(261 262 263
937 15159 937 15160 937 151 61
MEIER PROPERTIES CURTIS YOSHIOKA JIMZBBY LLC
9705 DOWNEY SANFORD BRIDGE RD 7925 SOUTHWIND CIR#160 10755 HOBBITON AVE
DOWNEY CA 90240 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LAS VEGAS NV 89135
264 265 266
937 151 62 937 151 63 937 15164
JOHN HAIIAPTON DUSTIN D SICHON PETER ALAN JUE
7911 SOUTHWIND CIR#162 7901 SOUTHWIND CIR#163 219-6TH ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
267 268 ' 269
937 151 65 937 151 66 937 151 67
MARSHALL E MYERS HANY A SAID ALAN D ULRICH
45 CAMPANILLA 1327 OAK MEADOW RD 7881 SOUTHWIND CIR#167
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92673 ARCADIA CA 91006 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
270 271 272
937 151 68 93715169 937 151 70
ALEXANDER M KOLOSQW JEFF KURIEL MARLENE J WATSON
7871 SOUTHWIND CIR#168 7862 SEAWALL CIR#169 7866 SEAWALL CIR#170
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
273 274, 291 275
937 151 71 937 151 72, 89 937 151 73
JUDITH A WRIGHT LAWRENCE J WRIGHT HELENE ELLIOTT
7872 SEAWALL CIR#171 7971 SEAWALL CIR#172 7882 SEAWALL CIR#173
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
276 277 278
937 151 74 93715175 937 151 76
KING GET LUE SUSAN M COLACCHIO LAURIE KAY SMITH
7886 SEAWALL CIR#174 7902 SEAWALL CIR#175 7906 SEAWALL CIR#176
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
,279 280 281
937 151 77 93715178 937 151 79
RICHARD MICHAEL ESTER MARY WADE CARSON DEPT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
1209 PARK ST 7916 SEAWALL CIR#178 79"SEAWALL CIR#179
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
282 283 284
93715180 93715181 93715182
EMMA JEAN DAVIS LAIRD MICHAEL SWHARTZ SHARRIE LYNN BOUMAN
7926 SEAWALL CIR#180 7936 SEAWALL CIR#181 7942 SEAWALL CIR#182
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
!285 286 287
937 151 83 937 151 84 937 151 85
LINDA L MCCROSKEY CHRISTOPHER J TIBBETS ANNE GALLUCCI
7946 SEAWALL CIR#183 7952 SEAWALL CIR#184 7956 SEAWALL CIR#185
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
288 289 290
937 151 86 937 151 87 937 151 88
BUTLER PEER GERBER BONITA L CURRIER
139 SKLAR ST 7981 SEAWALL CIR#187 1608 BURRUKIA ST
LADERA RANCH CA 92694 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MINDEN NV 89423
(292 '293 294
193715190 i 937 151 91 937151 92
SYLVIA SSC CALHOUN KAREN PETERSEN TYNDALL SHERRY L DESMOND
7965 SEAWALL CIR#190 1012 GREYSTOKE ACRES ST 19 PEMBERLY
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LAS VEGAS NV 89145 IRVINE CA 92603
295 :296 297
:937 151 93 937 15194 937 151 95
GERALD MUSZYNSKI DAVID BRUNS LORRAINE S ENNICO
7941 SEAWALL CIR#193 7931 SEAWALL CIR#194 509 AVENIDA DEL VERDOR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SAN CLEMENTEE CA 9267.2
298 (299 300
937 151 96 937 151 97 937 151 98
DANIEL DEKLERK i ANTHONY PETER LAMORTE JACK&MARILYN J LAZARRE
4747 E ELLIOT RD#29-595 PO BOX 2911 7905 SEAWALL CIR#198
PHOENIX AZ 85044 ANAHEIM CA 92814 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
301 302 303
937 15199 937 152 00 937 152 01
MARINUS E DEZWART DENNIS B BRANDT ALAN B KEHLET
7895 SEAWALL CIR#199 7891 SEAWALL CIR#200 18781 PINTO LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SANTA ANA CA 92705
'304 305 306
937 152 02 937 152 03 937 152 04
MANFRED SCHULTZ DONALD L MARSEY BONNIE AHRENS
7881 SEAWALL CIR#202 20452 CASTLE ROCK CIR 7865 SEAWALL CIR#204
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
307 308 309
.93715205 937 1.52 Q6 937 152 07
MICHAEL K KWAN URQUIZA SUSAN KASEROFF
19892 EDGEWOOD LN 7872 WATERFALL CIR#206 7876 WATERFALL CIR#207
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
310 '311 312
937 152 08 937 152 09 937 152 10
KIMBERLEY MAHONEY US BANK NA 2007-3 LARRY THOMAS REYNOLDS
7882 WATERFALL CIR#208 7886 WATERFALL CIR#209 7892 WATERFALL CIR#210
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
313 314, 395 315
:937 152 11 937 152 12, 937 193 60 937 152 13
MARGARET J SCHUMACHER ROBIN J BRAITHWAITE MARY ALICE MADDEN
7906 WATERFALL CIR#211 73042 BEL AIR RD 7916 WATERFALL CIR#213
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 PALM DESERT CA 92260 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
316 317 318
937 152 14 937 152 15 937 152 16
MICHAEL FARRELL HARUO MIYANO DANIEL P BUTLER
7922 WATERFALL CIR#214 19302 SAILWIND LN 7932 WATERFALL CIR#216
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
320 321 322
937 152 18 937 152 19 937152 20
LILLIAN B MEZEI ' JANICE M WILLIAMS ROBERT B JASON
7946 WATERFALL CIR#218 ! 8951 CANARY AVE 7956 WATERFALL CIR#220
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ' FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
323 324 325
937 152 21 937152 22 937 152 23
ALAN K NORMAN I ROBERT L ZAVODNIK DONNA C ANDERSON
7962 WATERFALL CIR#221 7966 WATERFALL CIR#222 7975 WATERFALL CIR#223
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
326 i327 328
937 152 24 937 152 25 937 152 26
DAMES A JAAP MARY A LARSSON THOMAS&EMALYN ANTHONY
7971 WATERFALL CIR#224 7965 WATERFALL CIR#225 7961 WATERFALL CIR#226
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
329 330 331.
937 152 27 : 937 152 28 . 93715229
STEPHEN C CRUISE ` ' SAMUEL ABRAMSON RICHARD POWELL
7955 WATERFALL CIR#227 7951 WATERFALL CIR#228 7935 WATERFALL CIR#229
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
332, 334 333 335
937 152 30, 32 . 93715231 937 152 33
'M SUSAN REED SAM S HERNANDEZ CHANGES IN LATTITUDE LLC
PO BOX 8176 , 4309 FARADAY DR PO BOX 251798
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615 SAN JOSE CA 95124 LOS ANGELES CA 90025
'336 337 338
937 152 34 937 152 35 937 152 36
DEBRA MADALONE YUN JOUNG KIM RALPH E CURATOLA JR.
7905 WATERFALL CIR#234 7895 WATERFALL CIR#235 7891 WATERFALL CIR#236
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
339 340 341
937 152 37 937 152 38 937 152 39
GARY W STEELE AMERICAN PROPERTIES INC JAMES MICHAEL HUGHES
235 E 87TH ST#913 7881 WATERFALL CIR#238 7875 WATERFALL CIR#239
NEW YORK NY 10128 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
342 343 344
937 152 40 937 152 41 937 152 42
ALISON ZAAN TERUKO D HAMADA JAYAN SINGH
7871 WATERFALL CIR#240 21022 POOLSIDE LN#1 21026 POOLSIDE LN#2
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
345 346 347, 348
937 152 43 937 152 44 937 152 45, 46
STEVE MCCIEAN PHILLIP STEWART NATIONS TIGER GROUP LLC
21032 POOLSIDE LN#3 21036 POOLSIDE LN#4 3748 E COAST HWY
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625
349 350 351
937 152 47 937 152 48 937 152 49
MARTHA FUCHS DAVE VERNON GINA M AMICO
21052 POOLSIDE LN#7 21056 POOLSIDE LN#8 48 W NEAPOLITAN LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LONG BEACH CA 90803
352 353 354
937 152 50 193715251 937 152 52
BRUCE M &TERRI K BURNS MICHAEL J CASILLAS ROY D GRIER JR.
21066 POOLSIDE LN#10 21072 POOLSIDE LN#11 21082 POOLSIDE LN#12
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
355 356 357
937 152 53 , 937152 54 937152 55
MARK ELLETT BJ FELL CLEMENT&BRIDGET GIANNUZZI
21086 POOLSIDE LN#13 121092 POOLSIDE LN#14 21096 POOLSIDE LN#15
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
358 j 359 360
937 152 56 937152 57 937 152 58
JANE G BURKE `i ANGELA D SUTHERLAND MARC&KATHLEEN POTTER
21102 POOLSIDE LN#16 21106 POOLSIDE LN#17 21118 POOLSIDE LN#18
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ! HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
361 362 363
937 152 59 937 152 60 937 152 61
ALEXANDER J DALLAL DEVIN KNITTER ROEL A MODINA
2712 OAKHURST AVE 21126 POOLSIDE LN#20 11529 JAMES ST
LOS ANGELES CA 90034 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CERRITOS CA 90703
364 365 366
937 152 62 937152 63 937 152 64
YUJI YAMASAKI JOHN MICHELS VICKY L DAGES
21136 POOLSIDE LN#22 7826 BAYPORT DR#23 7822 BAYPORT DR#24
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
367 368 369
937 152 65 937 152 66 937 15267
HELAINE C CUNANAN KEVIN DEAN DAHMAN PUP
7816 BAYPORT DR#25 : 7812 BAYPORT DR#26 201 LINCOLN AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
370 371 372
937 152 68 937 152 69 937 152 70
BRIAN M FORTMAN DALE HATA SHANNON RENE ECK
7802 BAYPORT DR#28 ! 1404 TODD PL 7805 SEAGLEN DR#30
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MONTEBELLO CA 90640 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
373 374 375
937 152 71 937 152 72 937 152 73
ALLEN RAY CARTER MARTIN B DOME DIANE E CHRISTY
1240 W TEE LOOP 7815 SEAGLEN DR#32 7821 SEAGLEN DR#33
WASHINGTON UT 84780 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
376 377 378
.93715274 937 152 75 937 152 76
JERI LYNN WHITE GARY HYATT JANIS D GERONDALE
7825 SEAGLEN DR#34 : 7832 SEAGLEN DR#35 7826 SEAGLEN DR#36
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
379 380 381
937 152 77 937 152 78 937 152 79
DAVID J LASKY EDWARD C BERGELT JR. BETTY SEADE
7822 SEAGLEN DR#37 7816 SEAGLEN DR#38 7812 SEAGLEN DR#39
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
/1//- 7T� / ;7-39-7--
382 3$3 384
937 152 80 937 152 81 937 152 82
CASSANDRA BEVERS VINCENT M RUSSELL EDWARD MATILLO
7806 SEAGLEN DR#40 7796 SEAGLEN DR#41 7792 SEAGLEN DR#42
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
385 386 387
937 152 83 . 937 152 84 937 152 85
WILLIAM WOOD DONALD W DEY MARK A LEUENBERGER
7786 SEAGLEN DR#43 203 LA VIA AZUL CT 7776 SEAGLEN OR#45
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MORGAN HILL CA 95037 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
388 389 390
937 152 86 937 193 54 1937193 55
THOMAS C LINDQUIST BLCLC DAVID B MITRE
7772 SEAGLEN DR#46 1920 GLENVIEW DR 29152 SANDLEWOOD PL.
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LAS VEGAS NV 89134 HIGHLAND CA 92346
391 392 393,410
937 193 56 937 193 57 937 193 58.75
VIJAY K B& MINAXI PATEL GRANGE& CORIE SEAN TRAVIS BRASHER
11521 COVENT GARDENS DR 225-20TH ST 21247 RONDA CIR
BAKERSFIELD CA 93311 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
394 396 397
.93719359 937 193 61 937193 62
MATTHEW S DINGWALL CURT B RADETICH EDWARD WILLIAM WYCHE
21246 ALANIS CIR 21254 ALANIS CIR 21262 ALANIS CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'398 399 400
, 93719363 937 193 64 i93719365
ROGER J CHILDS WILLIAM&PAULETTE MCCULLEY HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSE L
21266 ALANIS CIR 21270 ALANIS CIR 7500 GREER LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SANDY UT 84093
401 402 403
937 193 66 937 193 67 937 193 68
PAUL H NGUYEN TAYLOR JENSON KEVIN LEE BAUGHMAN
21262 RONDA CIR 21253 BAEZA CIR 21261 BAEZA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
404, 448 405 406
937 193 69, 937 194 13 937 193 70 ' 937 193 71
TONY TRANG PHILIP J KOHI ROGER GRANT SMITH
16787 BEACH BLVD#770 21269 BAEZA CIR 21246 BAEZA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
407 408 409
937 193 72 937 193 73 937 193 74
PAUL THEDE HONG CHEOL KIM KEVIN MINH NGUYEN
32 TWILIGHT BLF 21262 BAEZA CIR 21270 BAEZA CIR
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92657 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
411 412 413
937 193 76 937 193 77 937 193 78
M&L NASHED KYU SOOK KIM JUMA INVESTMENTS INC
6672 SILENT HARBOR DR 21263 RONDA CIR PO BOX 408
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
414 415 416
937 193 79 937 193 80 937193 81
DHARINI M PATEL PATRICK AUDENIS PAUL HOA NGUYEN
21246 RONDA CIR 121254 RONDA CIR 21262 RONDA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
417 418 ( 419
937 193 82 937 193 83 937193 84
f PIUS REIGER LINGRONG CHEN LAURENCE A KUTINSKY
16085 TARRANT RANCH RD 20812 LANCELOT LN 21255 ELDA CIR
LAS VEGAS NV 89131 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH GA 92648
(420 �'421 422
937 193 85 937 193 86 937 193 87
ALAN BOSARI JON J LEVIN DONG HO SHIM
21263 ELDA CIR 21271 ELDA CIR 8386 TERRANOVA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
423 '424 "425
937 193 88 937 193 89 937 193 90
THAN LONG HUA TOM B LEEM GERALD A CAPIZZI
PO BOX 188 21262 ELDA CIR PO BOX 1015
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 PARK RIDGE IL 60068
426 427 428
937 193 91 937 193 92 937 193 93
BARRETT JENNIFER H TRAN MICHAEL HAVIKEN
21247 PRADO CIR 21255 PRADO CIR 21263 PRADO CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH GA 92648
!429 430 431
937 193 94 937 193 95 937 193 96
DENNIS G&C L BOGGELN MARILYN A GUTWILL SANG HYONG KIM
215-1/2 MAIN ST 7838 LORENZO DR 7844 LORENZO DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
432 433 434
937 193 97 937 193 98 937 193 99
LAWRENCE F ERICKSON RAMI SALIM NABER BAAKO LLG
21299 BALERMA LN 21307 BALERMA LN 21315 BALERMA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH GA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
435 436 437
937 194 00 937 194 01 937 194 02
JOHN C BARRY GEORGE A PEARSON PATRICK TIMOTHY SULLIVAN
21323 BALERMA LN 16868"A" LN 21246 PRADO CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
`438 439 440
937 194 03 93719404 937 194 05
SOREST TAI VAN TRANG KENNETH TRAN
21254 PRADO CIR 6556 SILENT HARBOR DR 21270 PRADO CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
441 442 443
93719406 93719407 937 194 08
LEANTHONY JAMES BELISLE LOG TAN PHAM
21247 LORCA CIR PO BOX 170 21263 LORCA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 TRONA CA 93592 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
444 445 446
937 194 09 937 194 10 937 194 11
ARI SUSS HUNG DOAN TRAM JACK L GRIMES
21271 LORCA CIR 21246 LORCA CIR 21254 LORCA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
447 449 450
937 194 12 937194 14 937194 15
PIYUSH&SHARMI PATEL ! GORDON CHU-CHI KEN JOHN CHUONG NGUYEN]
21262 LORCA CIR 21290 BALERMA LN 21298 BALERMA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH GA 92648
+'451 452 453
937 194 16 1937194 17 937 194 18
ARYA A AMIRIE PERRY NGUYEN DENNIS JAMES GALLAGHER
21306 BALERMA LN 6621 SILENT HARBOR DR 21322 BALERMA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
(454 !455 456
937 19419 ! 937 194 20 937194 21.
YONG WHIE CHO KBT ENTERPRISES LLC TEAM PROPERTY MGMT INC
21330 BALERMA LN 7106 GONCHO MTN 19051 GOLDENWEST ST#106
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HOUSTON TX 77069 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'457 458 459
.93719422 937 194 23 937194 24
LEGAL TITLE INS CO LLC NGUYEN MOSTAFA ELAGIZY
21305 ALCAZAR LN 8266 WEBER AVE 19481 WOODLANDS LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 WESTMINSTER CA 92683 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
460 461 462
937 194 25 937 194 26 937 194 27
PRESTON&JUSTINA PHENES GALAL G M ELGOHARY THANH LEGIAU
21329 ALCAZAR LN 6387 ROYAL GROVE DR 21345 ALCAZAR LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
463 464 465
937 194 28 937 194 29 937 194 30
GENO&J L FLAMMA ELEANOR G STEPHAN ROBERT GWEON 11
PO BOX 913 PO BOX 3517 21299 ANDALUCIA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 PARKER AZ 85344 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
466 467 468
937 194 31 937 194 32 937 194 33
MALIK M HASAN DIANE C BISSONNETTE ROY YONGSUN KEI
21307 ANDALUCIA LN 17543 S HENRICI RD 21323 ANDALUCIA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 OREGON CITY OR 97045 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
469 470 471
937 194 34 937 194 35 937 194 36
JOHN C BOLAN SCOTT LEE WINETSKY BANK OF NY MELLON 2006-HYB2
21331 ANDALUCIA LN 1042 N MOUNTAIN AVE#13449 5730 KATELLA AVENUE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 UPLAND CA 91786 CYPRESS CA 90630
472 473 474
937 194 37 937 194 38 937 194 39
KY VINH BUU MARTIN N RYAN RIFAT I AHMED
21355.ANDALUCIA LN 21363 ANDALUCIA LN 21338 ANDALUCIA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
1/,61i- 717)2/��9-7-
'475 476 478
'937 194 40 937 194 41 937194 43
SANG SOO LEE CARSTEN BRYDUM EZ LOCK UP LLC
21346 ANDALUCIA LN 21354 ANDALUCIA LN PO BOX 5340
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92615
479 !481 482
937 194 44 937194 46 937 194 47
KHANH PHAM DAi QUANG TRAM TERESA PENDER
21378 ANDALUCIA LN 17786 LORENZO DR 7792 LORENZO DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA,92648
483 ; 484,493 485
937 194 48 ! 937 194 49, 58 937 194 50
WESTERN PURELAND CORP LLC ALAN C&JANET L SONNE ANH T&KIM DUONG
7798 LORENZO DR 21378 ESTEPA CIR 36248 DALi DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234
486 487 488
937 194 51 937194 52 937 194 53
E S & D S HSIEH EDDIE WONG HAO-LIANG J DENG
21379 ARMILLA CIR 21387 ARMILLA CIR 21391 ARMILLA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
489 490 491
93719454 937 194 55 937 194 56
SAMUEL CHO ATLAS LINDA ROSE FISHER
21330 BALERMA LN 259- 19TH ST 21366 ESTEPA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SANTA MONICA CA 90402 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
492 494 495
. 93719457 . 93719459 937 194 60
DOUGLAS J HANSEN IMARVIN J DIXON BLOOMINGTON LTD
21370 ESTEPA CIR 21382 ESTEPA CIR 2857 WILLOW CREEK DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SANDY UT 84093
496 497 498
937 194 61 937 194 62. 937194 63
RODNEY W STOUT BRANDO&ERIN MASSEi HUNG K& MINH NGUYEN
21355 ESTEPA CIR 21359 ESTEPA CIR#120 21363 ESTEPA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
499 500 501
93719464 : 937 194 65 937 194 66
DAVID A PARKER THANITRA PICHEDVANICHOK DONNA MARIE GOULD
21371 ESTEPA CIR 6 GILLY FLOWER ST 21379 ESTEPA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 tADERA RANCH CA 92694 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
502 503 504
937 194 67 937 194 68 937194 69
HYATT&ROBIN SELIGMAN- PHUONG THU TRAN HUTCHISON LIMITED
.21338 CIEZA CIR 1517 AUGUSTA CT 2300 SILVER BLUFF CT
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MILPITAS CA 95035 IAS VEGAS NV 89134
505 506 507
:937 194 70 937 194 71 937 194 72
ARARAD&NAIRA BABAIAN JASON JOSEPH MCAFEE ALBERT GASPARIAN
6224 BERMUDA DUNE DR 21358 CIEZA CIR 21362 CIEZA CIR
PIANO TX 75093 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
508 509 510
937 194 73 937 194 74 937 194 75
CHRISTOPHER H VAIL CHRISTINE VU : CHRISTIAN GILE
7967 ALDER CIR 7973 ALDER CIR PO BOX 7907
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ' , ' HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 COLORADO SPRINGS CO 80933
511 :'512 . ' 513
937 194 76 937194 77 937 194 78
HANS K MIZE JILAYNE GOUVION BRUCE C BROWN
2082 BURNT MILL RD ! 7989 ALDEA CIR 4605 SILVERTIDE DR
TUSTIN CA 92782 ! HUNTINGTON BEACH GA 92648 UNION CITY GA 94587
(514 515 516
937 194 79 937194 80 937 194 81
BRUCE BALDWIN CHRIS SWIETON MARY JOSEPH
7968 ALDEA CIR 21 RIVERSIDE 23272 LAUREL WOOD ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 IRVINE CA 92602 LAKE FOREST CA 92630
'517 518 519
937 194 82 937 194 83 937 194 84
'ALEXANDER LEE PAULINA CHAU SHARYN LYNN GAITHER
7984 ALDER CIR 7988 ALDEA GIR 7992 ALDER CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
520 521 522
.93719485 937 194 86 937 194 87
AGRAWAL HB HOLDINGS LLC CIRCLE UBEDA MATTHEW SULLIVAN
1980 CHERRY CREEK CIR 7973 UBEDA CIR 7977 UBEDA CIR
LAS VEGAS NV 89135 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
523 524 525
937 194 88 93719489 937 194 90
CARL M RYAN-WILLIAMS GORDON S CAMERON OSCAR MANGAHAS
2305 N 1 STAVE 7989 UBEDA CIR 17748 LA PASAITA CT
UPLAND CA 91784 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ROWLAND HEIGHTS GA 91748
526 527 528
937 194 91 937 194 92 937 194 93
KIMBERLY P VU KEVIN NGUYEN THAO PHUONG THI VU
:7968 UBEDA CIR 7972 UBEDA CIR 9388 WARBLER AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708
529 530 531
937 194 94 93719495 937 194 96
CHRISTOPHER THIBODEAU RICHARD J KAHN CHEN JING
7984 UBEDA CIR 7988 UBEDA CIR 1651 W NICKLAUS AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 LA HABRA CA 90631
532 533 534
937 194 97 93719498 937 194 99
FLORA E TOMA JAMES B ROSS PATRICIA EWING
7967 OSUNA CIR 7973 OSUNA CIR PO BOX 409
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 BONNERDALE AR 71933
535 536 537
937 195 00 937 195 01 937 195 02
EDWARD H YIAN SCOTT D EWING HUYEN TRAN
7985 OSUNA CIR 7989 OSUNA CIR 8269 WEBER AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 WESTMINSTER CA 92683
538 539 540
937 195 03 937 195 04 937195 05
PATRICIA SIMONIAN ERNEST HSIEH AUNDREY NGOC NGUYE:N
21398 VERA CIR 9112 SANTIAGO DR 21406 VERA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
841 542 543
937 195 06 937195 07 937 195 08
JOANNE GIMBEL THOMAS K GARCIA : ' JAMES V THOMAS
21414 VERA CIR 21418 VERA CIR 21422 VERA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
544 545 ! 546
937 195 09 937 19510 937 195 11
DONALD.&JEANETTE MCPHERSON LESTER SHERWIN GOLDSTEIN RICHARD C BARRETT
2425 GREEN MOUNTAIN CT 21399 VERA CIR 21403 VERA CIR
LAS VEGAS NV 89135 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'547 548 549
937 195 12 937 195 13 937 195 14
IVA LLC VIRGINIA C GORDON HUFF
PO BOX 408 21411 VERA CIR 21415 VERA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
550 551 552
937 195 15 937 195 16 937 195 17
THONG H NGUYEN JILL J HALLETT CHURCH WAYNE
21382 ARMILLA CIR 21386 ARMILLA CIR 21394 ARMILLA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
553 554 555
,93719518 937 195 19 937 195 20
CORP BIDAMAR ALAN B KAUFMAN JAMES M SINASEK
21398 ARMILLA CIR 21402 ARMILLA CIR 2106 CANYON CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 COSTA MESA CA 92627
556 557 558
937 195 21 937 195 22 93.719523
LEWIS HA JOHN P STEINDLBERGER CHRISTOPHER V DICICCO
21339 CIEZA CIR 21343 CIEZA CIR 21351 CIEZA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
559 560 561
937 195 24 937 195 25 937 195 26
KEVIN C DELANEY EDWARD HUTCHISON HON-HSIEH&PI-HSUAN SU
21355 CIEZA CIR 21359 CIEZA CIR 133 TIMSON DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 FOLSOM CA 95630
'562 563 564
937 195 27 937 195 28 937 195 29
ARI H SUSS KAREN LAWSON HAL GROTHJAN
21320 VELETA CIR 21324 VELETA CIR 7346 SIENA DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
565 566 567
.93719530 937 195 31 937 195 32
CORNEL PRUNEAN SALLY G DICKSON WILLIAM L NIERDIECK
21336 VELETA CIR 21340 VELETA CIR 21315 VELETA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
Z/6/// --;� /��q-7-
568 569 570
937 195 33 937 195 34 937 195 35
CARLOS BLANCHE OLA M MEDHAT JQHN L VARGA
21319 VELETA CIR 21323 VELETA CIR 21331 VELETA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
571 572 573, 583-587,595, 632, 6533,636
937 195 36 937 195 37 939 500 01, 11 - 15, 23, 60, 61, 64
ERWYN JAY IGNACIO ROBERT GENNAWEY CITY NATL BANK
21335 VELETA CIR 6276 SEABOURNE DR 611 ANTON BLVD#110
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 COSTA MESA CA 92626
574 575 ' 576
939 500 02 939 500 03 939 500 04
ROSANNA LOCKE JONATHAN S HARITATOS GILBERT N KHREICH
7668 BAYPOINT DR#105 7668 BAYPOINT DR#104 7668 BAYPOINT DR#103
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
577 578 579-582,590.593,594,596=599,60,610-
620,622-631,637-640,W,647
193950005 939 500 06 939 500 07-10,18,21,22.24-27, 31,38-48,
CAROL ANN BOYLE LESLIE A HARRIS 50-59,65-68,74,75
7668 BAYPOINT DR#102 . 7668 BAYPOINT DR#101 LAS BRISAS HB LLC
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 22865 LAKE FOREST DR#11
LAKE FOREST CA 92630
"588 589 591
939 500 16 939 500 17 939 500 19
JENNIFER E TSAKOUMAKIS IAN MARC DUNN JON J LEVIN
7668 BAYPOINT DR#301 20962 SANDBAR#101 20962 SANDBAR#103
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
i592 600 601
193950020 939 500 28 939 500 29
DONALD P GAGNON TAKAKO OKAMOTO LEIST&KNOESTER-LEIST
20962 SANDBAR#104 1-10-3 WAKAMIYA 13849 ORANGEVALE AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 JAPAN CORONA CA 92880
602 604 605
939 500 30 939 500 32 939 500 33
ALAN A COLLIER MARIA THERESA G FAMERON LITA RANADA LAFRADES
20936 SANDBAR#103 20936 SANDBAR#202 20936 SANDBAR#203
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
606 607 608
939 500 34 939 500 35 939 500 36
ROBERT R CLEMENTS SARAH BELITZ JEFFREY WHITEMAN
7648 BAY DR#102 7648 BAY DR#101 7648 BAY DR#202
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
609 621 634
939 500 37 939 500 49 939 500 62
JONATHAN EJERCITO CHRISTOPHER LAKKEES JAMES WESTERDAHL
7648 BAY DR#201 7624 SANDSTONE CIR#104 7645 BAY DR#103
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
635 641 642
939 500 63 939 500 69 939 500 70
STEVEN A BRAY LANCE B HENRICHSEN LEIGH ANH NGUYEN
22865 LAKE FOREST DR#11 7402 YELLOWTAIL DR#102 7671 BAY DR#102
LAKE FOREST CA 92630 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
6/&///- �� /13 9�--.
643 644 645
939 500 71 939 500 72 939 500 73
DUANE TAKESHI TANAKA M M HOLGUIN PETER M TSAI
7671 BAY DR#103 7671 BAY DR#104 7671 BAY DR#201
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
�648
939 500 76 HART, KING&COLDREN
MARiA GHERMAN : ATTN: MARK ALPERT
7671 BAY DR#204 200 SANDPOINT 4TH FLOOR
j SANTA ANA CA 92707
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
i
f
2 3 3
024 203 04 024 203 12 ! 024 203 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
207 HUNTINGTON ST 207 BALTIMORE AVE#101 207 BALTIMORE AVE#102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
i3 3 3
024 203 12 024 203 12 024 203 12
OCCUPANT iOCCUPANT IOCCUPANT
209 BALTIMORE AVE#101 209 BALTIMORE AVE#102 209 BALTIMORE AVE#103
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
3 3 10
024 203 12 ! 024 203 12 024 203 30
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
209 BALTIMORE AVE#201 209 BALTIMORE AVE#202 211 BALTIMORE AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
13 13 14
024 204 03 024 204 03 024 204 04
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
105 HUNTINGTON ST#B 105 HUNTINGTON ST#C 223 ATLANTA AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
14 14 14
024 204 04 024 204 04 024 204 04
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
225 ATLANTA AVE 227 ATLANTA AVE 229 ATLANTA AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
13 15 17
024 204 08 024 204 08 024 204 13
OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
206 BALTIMORE AVE#A 206 BALTIMORE AVE#B 110 ALABAMA ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
19 21 21
:024 204 15 024 204 17 024 204 17
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
201 ATLANTA AVE 202 BALTIMORE AVE . 204 BALTIMORE AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
24 25 25
024 204 21 . 024 204 23 024 204 23
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
216 BALTIMORE AVE 221 ATLANTA AVE#1 221 ATLANTA AVE#2
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
25 25 25
024 204 23 024 204 23 024 204 23
:OCCUPANT :, OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
221 ATLANTA AVE#3 221 ATLANTA AVE#4 221 ATLANTA AVE#5
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
25 :25 25
024 204 23 024 204 23 024 204 23
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
221 ATLANTA AVE#6 221 ATLANTA AVE#7 221 ATLANTA AVE#8
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
6////- 7 /7-,-3 9-7-
;26 26 26
024 204 24 024 204 24 024 204 24
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
':.211 ATLANTA AVE#A 211 ATLANTA AVE#13 211 ATLANTA AVE#C
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
26 26 26
024 204 24 024 204 24 024 204 24
.00CUPANT ; OCCUPANT , OCCUPANT
213 ATLANTA AVE#A 213 ATLANTA AVE#B 213 ATLANTA AVE#C
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
i33 34 35
024 252 01 024 252 02 024 26105
'OCCUPANT JOCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21100 PACIFIC COAST HWY 21100 PACIFIC COAST HWY 314 CHICAGO AVE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
36 : : 36 36
.02426108 024 26108 024 261 08
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
212 HUNTINGTON ST#1 212 HUNTINGTON ST#2 ' 212 HUNTINGTON ST#3
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
36 36 36
024 261 08 024 26108 024 261 08
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
212 HUNTINGTON ST#4 212 HUNTINGTON ST#5 . 212 HUNTINGTON ST#6
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
.36 36 37
.02426108 024 261 08 . 02426109
OCCUPANT :OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
212 HUNTINGTON ST#7 212 HUNTINGTON ST#8 208 HUNTINGTON ST#1
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
37 :'37 37
024 261 09 . :024 261 09 024 261 09
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
208 HUNTINGTON ST#2 208 HUNTINGTON ST#3 1208 HUNTINGTON ST#4
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
37 37 37
024 26109 024 26109 024 261 09
.00CUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
208 HUNTINGTON ST#5 208 HUNTINGTON ST#6 208 HUNTINGTON ST#7
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
37 38 38
024 261 09 024 261 10 024 261 10
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
.208 HUNTINGTON ST#8 301 BALTIMORE AVE#A 301 BALTIMORE AVE#B
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
38 38 40
024 261 10 024 261 10 024 2fi1 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
301 BALTIMORE AVE#C 301 BALTIMORE AVE#D 114 HUNTINGTON ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
45 49
024 261 16 024 261 17 024 261 21
OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
104 HUNTINGTON ST 102 HUNTINGTON ST 116 HUNTINGTON ST
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
j152 52 52
024 26124 024 26124 ! 024 261 24
OCCUPANT " OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#1 401 ATLANTA AVE#2 401 ATLANTA AVE#3
I,HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
152 52 52
102426124 024 26124 024 261 24
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#4 401 ATLANTA AVE#5 401 ATLANTA AVE#6
i,HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 '52 52
1024 261 24 024 26124 024 261 24
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#7 401 ATLANTA AVE#8 401 ATLANTA AVE#9
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 . 52
024 26124 024 261 24 024 261 24
';OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#10 401 ATLANTA AVE#11 401 ATLANTA AVE#12
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
152 52 52
102426124 024 261 24 024 261 24
:OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#13 401 ATLANTA AVE#14 401 ATLANTA AVE#15
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24
;!OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#16 401 ATLANTA AVE#17 401 ATLANTA AVE#18
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 26124 024 261 24 024 261 24
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#19 401 ATLANTA AVE#20 401 ATLANTA AVE#21
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 26124 024 261 24 024 261 24
:OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#22 401 ATLANTA AVE#23 401 ATLANTA AVE#24
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 261 24 024 261 24 024 261 24
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#25 401 ATLANTA AVE#26 401 ATLANTA AVE#27
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 26124 024 261 24 024 26124
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#28 401 ATLANTA AVE#29 401 ATLANTA AVE#30
li HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
152 52 52
024 26124 ' 024 26124 024 26124
OCCUPANTI OCCUPANT IiOCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#31 401 ATLANTA AVE#32 401 ATLANTA AVE#33
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA,92648 ( HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 261 24 024 26124 024 261 24
'OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ( OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#34 1401 ATLANTA AVE#35 401 ATLANTA AVE#36
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 . ! 52 52
024 261 24 024 26124 024 26124
'OCCUPANT OCCUPANT - OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#37 401 ATLANTA AVE#38 401 ATLANTA AVE#39
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 261 24 024,261 24 024 26124
,OCCUPANT OCCUPANT , OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#40 401 ATLANTA AVE#41 401 ATLANTA AVE#42
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 '52 52
024 26124 024 261 24 024 261 24
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#43 1401 ATLANTA AVE#44 401 ATLANTA AVE#45
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 ' HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 261 24 024 261 24 024 26124
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE 946 401 ATLANTA AVE#47 401 ATLANTA AVE#48
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52 52
024 261 24 024 261 24 024 26124
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#49 401 ATLANTA AVE#50 401 ATLANTA AVE#51
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
52 52
024 26124 024 261 24 024 26124
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
401 ATLANTA AVE#52 401 ATLANTA AVE#53 401 ATLANTA AVE#54
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7795 NEPTUNE DR 7805 NEPTUNE DR 7806 NEPTUNE DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
d,-/// - T' /�t39�, -
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 102429112
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7811 NEPTUNE DR 17812 NEPTUNE DR 7815 NEPTUNE DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
i55 55 55
024 291 12 ' 024 291 12 ! 024 291 12
,OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7816 NEPTUNE DR ' 7821 NEPTUNE DR 7822 NEPTUNE DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 i55 � 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT ! OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7825 NEPTUNE DR 7826 NEPTUNE DR 21021 SUNDOWN LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 . 102429112 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ; OCCUPANT
21025 SUNDOWN LN 21027 SUNDOWN LN 21031 SUNDOWN LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 '55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 . 02429112
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21035 SUNDOWN LN : 21045 SUNDOWN LN 21051 SUNDOWN LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
.024291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT rOCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21055 SUNDOWN LN 21061 SUNDOWN LN 21065 SUNDOWN LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21071 SUNDOWN LN 21085 SUNDOWN LN 21091 SUNDOWN LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
.024291 12 024 291 12 02429112
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21095 SUNDOWN LN 21101 SUNDOWN LN 21105 SUNDOWN LN
.HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024,291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21117 SUNDOWN LN 21121 SUNDOWN LN 21125 SUNDOWN LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21131 SUNDOWN LN 21135 SUNDOWN LN 7771 SEAGLEN DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
616�i/- -��/7Lj�7�7-
55 55 55
102429112 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7775 SEAGLEN DR 7781 SEAGLEN DR 17785 SEAGLEN DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
.00CUPANT ; OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7791 SEAGLEN DR 17771 BAYPORT DR 7772 BAYPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
j55 155 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
;OCCUPANT : ' OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7775 BAYPORT DR 7776 BAYPORT DR 7781 BAYPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA.92648 ll,HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
:OCCUPANT ' OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7782 BAYPORT DR 7785 BAYPORT DR 7786 BAYPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7791 BAYPORT DR 7792 BAYPORT DR 7795 BAYPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7811 BAYPORT DR 7815 BAYPORT DR 7821 BAYPORT DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7825 BAYPORT DR 7771 STARSHELL DR 7772 STARSHELL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7775 STARSHELL DR 7776 STARSHELL DR 7781 STARSHELL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'55 55 55
.02429112 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7782 STARSHELL DR 7785 STARSHELL DR 7786 STARSHELL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
'OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7791 STARSHELL DR 7792 STARSHELL DR 7795 STARSHELL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
Z 61i - 77)-)/7,j 9�L-
i55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7796 STARSHELL DR 7805 STARSHELL DR 7806 STARSHELL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
i55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7811 STARSHELL DR 7812 STARSHELL DR 7815 STARSHELL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7816 STARSHELL DR 7821 STARSHELL DR 7822 STARSHELL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 55 55
024 291 12 024 291 12 024 291 12
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7825 STARSHELL DR 7826 STARSHELL DR 7831 STARSHELL DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
55 56 56
024 291 12 024 291.1160 -024 291 16
OCCUPANT OCCUP OCC T
7832 STARSHELL DR 101 ST�ONBEA
IR T
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NTIN �CA48 UNTINGT BEACH CA 92648
56 56 56
.02429116 . 024291 16 024 291 16
O ANT OCCUPA T OCCUR T
103 FIRS 105 ST S
HUNTINGTON CH CA 92648 HUNTINGT N BEA TINGTO BEACH CA 92648
56 56 56
024 291 16 291 16
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
T ST 107 FIRST S 108 FIRST S
HUNTINGTO BEACH CA 92648 TINGTO BEA CA 92648 HUNTINGTO BEACH CA 92648
56 .56 56
024 291 16 024 291 16 1 16
OCCUPANT OCCUPAN
109 FIRST S 110 F ST T 111 FIRST sr
HUNTI O BEACH CA 92648 H TINGT N BEAC A 92648 HUNTINGTC N BEACH CA 92648
56 56 56
.024291 16
OCCUPANT OCCUPAN OCCUPANT
112 FI S 113 FIRST T 14 FIRST S
HUNTINGTO BE CA 92648 HUNTING ON BEACH CA 92648 TINGTO BEACH CA 92648
56 56 56 1
024 291 1 024 291 16 1 i
OCCUR T OCCUPAN OCCUPAN -
115 IRS 117 FIRST ST'
H TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGT N BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEAC A 92648
56 56 56
024 2 16 024 291 16 024 291 16
OCC NT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
641
HUNT NGT BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTO BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTO
56 56 56
024 2 1 16 024 291 16 024 291
OCC UPANT
ST 645"F" ST 646" ST
HUNTI GTON BEACH C 2648 HUNTING T N BEACH CA 92648 HU INGTON BEAC CA 92648
56 56
024 29 16 024 291 16 24 291 16
OCC
647"F" T 648"F" ST 649"F" ST
HUNTIN TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEA H CA 92648
56 5 56
024 291 16 02 9116 024 291 16
OCCLJpJ OCCUPANT
650"F" T 700 "E T
HUNTIN TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTIN T N BEACH A 92648 HUNTINGTON B CH CA 92648
56 56 56
024 291 16 024 291 16 024 291 16
OCCU ANT — OCCUPAN OCCUPANT
702"E' ST " " QT 4 "EE"
HUNTI GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTING BEA CA 92648 HUNTINGTON EACH CA 92648
56 56 56
0242 1 16 0242 1 024 291 16
OCC PANT OC PA T
705 Is " S 707"F" ST
HUN INGTON BEACH CA 92648 NTIN ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON EACH CA 92648
56 56 6
024 9116 024 291 13 0 29116
OCC PANT PANT
"70 ' 709"F" S 710 ' ST
HUN INGTON BEACH CA 648 HUNTIN TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTI TON BEACH CA 92648
56 56 56
024 91 16
OCC PA OCCUP NT OCCUPANT
711 " " ST 712"F" T 714"F" ST
HUN INGTON EACH CA 92648 HUNTIN TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGT N BEACH CA 92648
56 56 . 60
.024 1 024 291 16 024 301 02
OC OCCUPANT
716" " ST 718"F" T 20975 COASTVIEW LN
H INGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTIN TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
63 66 71
024 301 05 024 301 08 024 301 18
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
20961 COASTVIEW LN 20935 COASTVIEW LN 20916 COASTVIEW LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
4///- -1-7•)9/ 7-:���;Z-'-
'75 76 82
024 301 22 . 02430123 024 301 43
;OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
20946 COASTVIEW LN 20952 COASTVIEW LN 7842 BEACHCOMBER DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
86 87 88
024 30147 024 301 48 024 301 49
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7816 BEACHCOMBER DR 7806 BEACHCOMBER DR 7802 BEACHCOMBER DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
90 103 104
024 301 51 937 150 01 937150 fl2
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7792 BEACHCOMBER DR 7825 SAILBOAT CIR#1 7821 SAILBOAT CIR#2
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
105 108 115
.93715003 937 150 06 937 150 13
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7815 SAILBOAT CIR#3 7801 SAILBOAT CIR#6 7786 SAILBOAT CIR#13
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
119 120 122
937 150 17 937 150 18 937 150 20
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7812 SAILBOAT CIR#17 7816 SAILBOAT CIR#18 7826 SAILBOAT CIR#20
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
128 129 133
937 150 26 937 150 27 937 150 31
'OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7825 SEABREEZE DR#26 7821 SEABREEZE DR#27 7795 SEABREEZE DR#31
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
149 159 163
937 150 47 937 150 57 937 150 61
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7776 SEABREEZE DR#47 7836 SEABREEZE DR#57 7866 SEABREEZE DR#61
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
166 167 168
937 150 64 937 150 65 937 150 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7882 SEABREEZE DR#64 7896 SEABREEZE DR#65 7902 SEABREEZE DR#66
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
171 174 180
937 150 69 937 150 72 937 150 78
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7916 SEABREEZE DR#69 7975 OCEANGROVE CIR#72 7935 SEABREEZE DR#78
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
185 187 196
937 150 83 937 150 85 937 150 94
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7905 SEABREEZE DR#83 7891 SEABREEZE DR#85 7866 MOONMIST CIR#94
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
197 198 201
937 150 95 937 150 96 937 150 99
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7872 MOONMIST CIR#95 7876 MOONMIST CIR#96 7906 MOONMIST CIR#99
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
205 214 218
937151 03 937 151 12 . 937 151 16
'OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7926 MOONMIST CIR#103 7981 MOONMIST CIR#112 7961 MOONMIST CIR#1 16
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 1HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
219 221 223
937 151 17 937 151 19 937 151 21
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7951 MOONMIST CIR#117 7931 MOONMIST CIR#119 7915 MOONMIST CIR#121
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
232 233 235
937 151 30 937 151 31 937 151 33
'OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7855 MOONMIST CIR#130 7851 MOONMIST CIR#131 7866 SOUTHWIND CIR#133
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
239 246 254
93715137 93715144 937 151 52
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7886 SOUTHWIND CIR#137 7932 SOUTHWIND CIR#144 7981 SOUTHWIND CIR#152
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
255 257 261
93715153 93715155 93715159
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7975 SOUTHWIND CIR#153 7965 SOUTHWIND CIR#155 7931 SOUTHWIND CIR#159
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
.263 266 267
93715161 93715164 937 151 65
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7915 SOUTHWIND CIR#161 7895 SOUTHWIND CIR#164 7891 SOUTHWIND CIR#165
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'268 279 288
:937 15166 93715177 93715186
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7885 SOUTHWIND CIR#166 7912 SEAWALL CIR#177 7962 SEAWALL CIR#186
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
290 293 294
937 151 88 93715191 93715192
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7975 SEAWALL CIR#188 7961 SEAWALL CIR#191 7955 SEAWALL CIR#192
.HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
297 298 299
93715195 93715196 93715197
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7925 SEAWALL CIR#195 7921 SEAWALL CIR#196 7911 SEAWALL CIR#197
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
�61 11 - W7 " / �9�-
303 305 307
937 152 01 937 152 03 937152 05
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7885 SEAWALL CIR#201 7871 SEAWALL CIR#203 7866 WATERFALL CIR#205
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
314 317 319
937 152 12 937 152 15 193715217
;OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7912 WATERFALL CIR#212 7926 WATERFALL CIR#215 7942 WATERFALL CIR#217
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
321 332 333
937 152 19 937 152 30 937 152 31
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7952 WATERFALL CIR#219 7931 WATERFALL CIR#230 7925 WATERFALL CIR#231
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
334 335 339
937 152 32 937 152 33 937 152 37
.00CUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7921 WATERFALL CIR#232 7911 WATERFALL CIR#233 7885 WATERFALL CIR#237
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
346 347 348
937 152 44 937 152 45 937 152 46
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21036 POOLSIDE LN#4 21038 POOLSIDE LN#5 21046 POOLSIDE LN#6
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
351 361 363
937 152 49 937 152 59 937 152 61
'OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21062 POOLSIDE LN#9 21122 POOLSIDE LN#19 21132 POOLSIDE LN#21
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
369 371 373
937 152 67 937 152 69 937 152 71
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7806 BAYPORT DR#27 7801 SEAGLEN DR#29 7811 SEAGLEN DR#31
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
386 389 390
937 152 84 937 193 54 937193 55
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7782 SEAGLEN DR#44 21245 ALANIS CIR 21249 ALANIS CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
'391 392 393
937 193 56 937 193 57 937 193 58
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21253 ALANIS CIR 21261 ALANIS CIR 21265 ALANIS CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
395 400 401
.93719360 937 193 65 937 193 66
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21250 ALANIS CIR 21245 BAEZA CIR 21249 BAEZA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
404 407 411
937 193 69 937 193 72 937 193 76
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT ; OCCUPANT
21265 BAEZA CIR 21254 BAEZA CIR 21255 RONDA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
s413 417 418
937 193 78 937 193 82 937 193 83
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21271 RONDA CIR 21270 RONDA CIR 21247 ELDA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
422 423 425
937 193 87 937 193 88 93719390
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21246 ELDA CIR 21254 ELDA CIR 21270 ELDA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
429 436 439
.93719394 937 194 01 93719404
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21271 PRADO CIR 21331 BALERMA LN 21262 PRADO CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
442 448 452
.93719407 937 194 13 937 194 17
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21255 LORCA CIR 21270 LORCA CIR 21314 BALERMA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
455 456 458
937 194 20 93719421 937 194 23
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21338 BALERMA LN 21297 ALCAZAR LN 21313 ALCAZAR LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
459 461 463
93719424 93719426 93719428
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21321 ALCAZAR LN 21337 ALCAZAR LN 21353 ALCAZAR LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
464 467 470
937 194 29 937 194 32 937 194 35
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21291 ANDALUCIA LN 21315 ANDALUCIA LN 21339 ANDALUCIA LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
471 478 480
937 194 36 93719443 93719445
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21347 ANDALUCIA LN 21370 ANDALUCIA LN 7780 LORENZO DR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
484 485 489
937 194 49 937 194 50 93719454
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21371 ARMILLA CIR 21375 ARMILLA CIR 21395 ARMILLA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
6//1 - ��) /-31
,490 495 500
937 194 55 937 194 60 937194 65
:OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21362 ESTEPA CIR 21386 ESTEPA CIR 21375 ESTEPA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
503 504 505
937 194 68 937 194 69 937 194 70
!OCCUPANT OCCUPANT - OCCUPANT
21342 CIEZA CIR 21346 CIEZA CIR 21354 CIEZA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
510 511 513
937 194 75 937 194 76 937194 78
;OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7977 ALDEA CIR 7985 ALDEA CIR 7993 ALDER CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
515 516 520
937 194 80 93719481 937 194 85
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7972 ALDER CIR 7976 ALDER CIR 7967 UBEDA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
523 525 528
937 194 88 937194 90 93719493
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7985 UBEDA CIR 7993 UBEDA CIR 7976 UBEDA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
531 534 537
937 194 96 937 194 99 937 195 02
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7992 UBEDA CIR 7977 OSUNA CIR 7993 OSUNA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
539 544 547
937 195 04 93719509 93719512
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21402 VERA CIR 21395 VERA CIR 21407 VERA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
555 561 564
937 195 20 937 195 26 937 195 29
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21335 CIEZA CIR 21316 VELETA CIR 21332 VELETA CIR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
572 573 579
937 195 37 939 500 01 939 500 07
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
21339 VELETA CIR 7668 BAYPOINT DR#106 7668 BAYPOINT DR#206
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
580 581 582
939 500 08 939 500 09 939 500 10
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7668 BAYPOINT DR#205 7668 BAYPOINT DR#204 7668 BAYPOINT DR#203
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
6111/- -,17-M / '-7-3 �'7
583 584 585
939 500 11 939 500 12 939 500 13
;OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7668 BAYPOINT DR#202 7668 BAYPOINT DR#201 7668 BAYPOINT DR#304
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
586 587 590
939 500 14 939 500 15 939 500 18
,OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7668 BAYPOINT DR#303 7668 BAYPOINT DR#302 20962 SANDBAR#102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
�593 594 595
939 500 21 939 500 22 939 500 23
(OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
20962 SANDBAR#201 20962 SANDBAR#202 20962 SANDBAR#203
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
596 597 598
939 500 24 939 500 25 939 500 26
;OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
20962 SANDBAR#204 20962 SANDBAR#301 20962 SANDBAR#302
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
"599 600 601
939 500 27 939 500 28 939 500 29
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
20962 SANDBAR#303 20936 SANDBAR#101 20936 SANDBAR#102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
603 610 611
939 500 31 939 500 38 939 500 39
.00CUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
20936 SANDBAR#201 7623 BAY DR#101 7623 BAY DR#102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
612 613 614
939 500 40 939 500 41 939 500 42
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7623 BAY DR#103 7623 BAY DR#104 7623 BAY DR#201
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
615 616. - 617
939 500 43 939 500 44 939 500 45
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7623 BAY DR#202 7623 BAY DR#203 7623 BAY DR#204
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
618 619 620
939 500 46 939 500 47 939 500 48
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7623 BAY DR#301 7623 BAY DR#302 7623 BAY DR#303
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
622 623 624
939 500 50 939 500 51 939 500 52
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7624 BAY DR#103 7624 BAY DR#102 7624 BAY DR#101
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
�01/// - //>-) / 7,3
625 626 627
939 500 53 939 500 54 939 500 55
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7624 BAY DR#204 7624 BAY DR#203 7624 BAY DR#202
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
628 629 630
939 500 56 939 500 57 939 500 58
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7624 BAY DR#201 7624 BAY DR#303 7624 BAY DR#302
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
631 632 ' 633
939 500 59 939 500 60 939 500 61
,OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7624 BAY DR#301 7645 BAY DR#101 7645 BAY DR#102
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
''635 636 637
939 500 63 939 500 64 939 500 65
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7645 BAY DR#104 7645 BAY DR#105 7645 BAY DR#201
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
638 639 640
939 500 66 939 500 67 939 500 68
,OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7645 BAY DR#202 7645 BAY DR#203 7645 BAY DR#204
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
641 646 647
.93950069 939 500 74 939 500 75
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT
7671 BAY DR#101 7671 BAY DR#202 7671 BAY DR#203
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648
� � /72�9
0%q/09G5®tiany aana algltedwoo WW L9 x WW 9Z 1euuo1 ap a4enb113
09[9/09 L5®tiany qpm olglledmoa„g/5 Z x„L ozls lagel
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 101 80 Huntington St Unit 102 80 Huntington St Unit 103
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 104 80 Huntington St Unit 105 80 Huntington St Unit 106
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 107 80 Huntington St Unit 108 80 Huntington St Unit 109
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
I
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 110 80 Huntington St Unit 111 80 Huntington St Unit 112
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 113 80 Huntington St Unit 114 80 Huntington St Unit 115
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 116 80 Huntington St Unit 117 80 Huntington St Unit 118
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 119 80 Huntington St Unit 120 80 Huntington St Unit 121
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 122 80 Huntington St-Unit 123 80 Huntington St Unit 151
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 152 80 Huntington St Unit 153 80 Huntington St Unit 154
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 155 80 Huntington St Unit 156 80 Huntington St Unit 157
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
label size 1"x 2 518"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 61611 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 1
09 L8/09 L9®tiany oane alglfadwoa ww Lg x ww 9Z tewiof ep age613 m
09L8/09L9®tiany ullm alglledwoo«8/9 Z x,.I.azls logel
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 158 80 Huntington St Unit 159 80 Huntington St Unit 160
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
i
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 161 80 Huntington St Unit 162 80 Huntington St Unit 163
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 164 80 Huntington St Unit 165 80 Huntington St Unit 166
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
j
Occupant is Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 167 80 Huntington St Unit 168 80 Huntington St Unit 169
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
I
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 170 80 Huntington St Unit 171 80 Huntington St Unit 201
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 202 80 Huntington St Unit 203 80 Huntington St Unit 204
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 205 80 Huntington St Unit 206 80 Huntington St Unit 207
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 208 80 Huntington St Unit 209 80 Huntington St Unit 210
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 211 80 Huntington St Unit 212 80 Huntington St Unit 213
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant . Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 214 80 Huntington St Unit 215 80 Huntington St Unit 216
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160
am 4 �/ Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 � �
0918/09U5®ti9ny aaAL,alquedwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z tewaof ap ag80113
09 L8/09 L9®IGaAV gllm algqudwoo.8/5 Z x,.t azls lagEl • •
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 217 80 Huntington St Unit 218 80 Huntington St Unit 219
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 221 80 Huntington St Unit 251 j 80 Huntington St Unit 252
j Huntington Beach,CA 92648 " ' Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ! Huntington Beach,CA 92648
i
�I
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 253 80 Huntington St Unit 254 80 Huntington St Unit 255
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 256 80 Huntington St Unit 257 ! 80 Huntington St Unit 258
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 259 80 Huntington St Unit 260 80 Huntington St Unit 261
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 262 80 Huntington St Unit 263 80 Huntington St Unit 264
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 265 80 Huntington St Unit 266 80 Huntington St Unit 267
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 268 80 Huntington St Unit 269 80 Huntington St Unit 301
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 302 80 Huntington St Unit 303 80 Huntington St Unit 304
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 305 80 Huntington St Unit 306 80 Huntington St Unit 307
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
a label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery°5160/8160
�/��/ Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 7—
09 L8/09 L5®tiany oanz 9lg1ledwo3 ww L9 x ww 93 1ewjol ep age6113
09L8/09L5®ftq ql!m 9lg1ledwo3 a8/5 Z x u L azls label
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 308 80 Huntington St Unit 309 80 Huntington St Unit 310
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 311 80 Huntington St Unit 312 80 Huntington St Unit 313
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ! Huntington Beach,CA 92648
l
i
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 314 80 Huntington St Unit 315 80 Huntington St Unit 317
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
I
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 351 80 Huntington St Unit 352 80 Huntington St Unit 353
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 354 80 Huntington St Unit 355 80 Huntington St Unit 356
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 357 80 Huntington St Unit 358 80 Huntington St Unit 359
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 360 80 Huntington St Unit 361 80 Huntington St Unit 362
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 363 80 Huntington St Unit 364 80 Huntington St Unit 365
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 366 80 Huntington St Unit 367 80 Huntington St Unit 368
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 370 80 Huntington St Unit 372 80 Huntington St Unit 401
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 � /�g 7
/� �/ Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 7`
09LS/09; Neny sane a1911edwoa ww Lg x ww gZ lewaof ep ellenbll3
09L8/09L5®ti9ny qVm elglledwos„8/9 Z x„L azls lapel
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 402 80 Huntington St Unit 403 80 Huntington St Unit 404
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant ! Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 405 80 Huntington St Unit 406 80 Huntington St Unit 407
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 i Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ! Huntington Beach,.CA 92648
i
Occupant ! : Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 408 I 80 Huntington St Unit 409 80 Huntington St Unit 410
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
I
I i
II'
Occupant i : l Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 411 80 Huntington St Unit 412 80 Huntington St Unit 413
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ! Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 414 80 Huntington St Unit 415 80 Huntington St Unit 416
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 417 80 Huntington St Unit 418 80 Huntington St Unit 419
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 420 80 Huntington St Unit 421 80 Huntington St Unit 422
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 423 80 Huntington St Unit 424 80 Huntington St Unit 425
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 426 80 Huntington St Unit 427 80 Huntington St Unit 428
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 429 80 Huntington St Unit 430 80 Huntington St Unit 431
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160
[� biq uette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 �f 1�7—3 9 7-
0918/0q 0@ fu9Ay aane alggedwoa ww L9 x ww gZ leuuol ap 949*13
09 L9/09L5s tieAV gl!m elglledwoa„8/5 Z X„L ezls lagel
r
Occupant ! Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 432 80 Huntington St Unit 434 ! 80 Huntington St Unit 436
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant j Occupant Occupant
j 80 Huntington St Unit 438 80 Huntington St Unit 440 80 Huntington St Unit 441
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 j Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 451 80 Huntington St Unit 453 80 Huntington St Unit 455
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
l
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 457 80 Huntington St Unit 459 80 Huntington St Unit 461
g g g
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 463 80 Huntington St Unit 465 80 Huntington St Unit 467
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 469 80 Huntington St Unit 471 80 Huntington St Unit 501
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 502 80 Huntington St Unit 503 80 Huntington St Unit 504
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 505 80 Huntington St Unit 506 80 Huntington St Unit 507
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 508 80 Huntington St Unit 509 80 Huntington St Unit 510
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 511 80 Huntington St Unit 512 80 Huntington St Unit 513
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160
am 61611,111 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 ��g 9 7
0%8I0919®fdow aaAe alpltedwoo ww L9 x ww gZ fewaof ap auanbi13 ® Q
0918/0919®tiany ql!m aigitedwoa„8/9 Z x«L azis iagai
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 514 80 Huntington St Unit 515 80 Huntington St Unit 516
Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648
g ,g
i
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 517 80 Huntington St Unit 518 80 Huntington St Unit 519
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
i
j Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 520 80 Huntington St Unit 521 80 Huntington St Unit 522
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 600 80 Huntington St Unit 601 80 Huntington St Unit 602
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 603 80 Huntington St Unit 604 80 Huntington St Unit 605
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 606 80 Huntington St Unit 607 80 Huntington St Unit 608
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 609 80 Huntington St Unit 610 80 Huntington St Unit 611
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 612 80 Huntington St Unit 613 80 Huntington St Unit 614
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 615 80 Huntington St Unit 616 80 Huntington St Unit 617
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 618 80 Huntington St Unit 619 80 Huntington St Unit 620
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
q label size t x 2 m compatible with Avery®Avery®160
J� Eti uette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Ave 5160/8160
09 G8/09 U5®tiany aaAa elggedwoo ww L9 x ww 93 lewtol ap age b113 tl
09 1.8/0919®AJaAV gllm alglladwoo„8/5 z x,,l azls lapel
i
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 621 80 Huntington St Unit 622 80 Huntington St Unit 623
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I Huntington Beach,CA 92648
:
j Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 624 80 Huntington St Unit 625 80 Huntington St Unit 626
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
ii i
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 627 80 Huntington St Unit 628 80 Huntington St Unit 629
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
I I
: I
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 630 80 Huntington St Unit 631 80 Huntington St Unit 632
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 633 80 Huntington St Unit 634 80 Huntington St Unit 635
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 636 80 Huntington St Unit 637 80 Huntington St Unit 638
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 639 80 Huntington St Unit 640 80 Huntington St Unit 641
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 642 80 Huntington St Unit 643 80 Huntington St Unit 644
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 645 80 Huntington St Unit 646 80 Huntington St Unit 647
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 648 80 Huntington St Unit 649 80 Huntington St Unit 650
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery®5160/8160 --77
/�, �/ Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 //� 17 9
0918/09 G9®tiany aaAe elgltedwos WW L9 x ww 9Z tewaol ep attanbp3
091g/09L9®tiany q;IM algl}edwos.g/5 Z x„l ozls lagel
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 700 80 Huntington St Unit 701 80 Huntington St Unit 702
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
i
Occupant i Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 703 80 Huntington St Unit 704 80 Huntington St Unit 705
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 j !i Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
I, I
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 706 80 Huntington St Unit 707 80 Huntington St Unit 708
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach;CA 92648
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 709 80 Huntington St Unit 710 80 Huntington St Unit 711
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
i
Occupant Occupant Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 712 80 Huntington St Unit 714 80 Huntington St Unit 716
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Occupant
80 Huntington St Unit 718
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
/7397-1-
label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery(95160/8160
Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160
0918/09l_5®tiany sane algiledwoa ww L9 x ww rZ fewjo}op attanbi13
091.8/091.5e/GanV gl!m algitedwoa„8/g Z x,j azis loge
� 1 2 3
HB Chamber of Commerce l J Orange County Assoc.of Realtors Amigos De Boisa Ch
President Dave Stefanides Preside
19891 Beach Blvd.Ste. 140 25552 La Paz Road P.O x 1563
II
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Hun tin n Beach,CA 92647
4 4
Sunset Beach Communi Sunset Beach Local Co 1 Program Huntington Beach Tomorrow
Pat Thies, P ent Advisory Board— my of Orange President
ox 215 P Box 746 PO Box 865
S each,CA 90742-0215 Suns each,CA 90742-0746 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
I
AN 7 $
Building Industry Assoc.of South Calif v SCAG ETI:Corral 100
Attn:Elyse Sminada,Govt.Affairs Asst. Richard S ' er Jean Kim
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170 818 Wes#7 , 12th Floor 20292 Ea ood Circle
Irvine,CA 92614 Los A es,CA 90017 Huntingt each,CA 92646
10 71
Environmental Board Chair Huntington Harb OA Matrix Environmen
Robert Smith P.O. 91 Attn:Shawn Gauer, or Planner
21352 Yarmouth Lane Sunse ach,CA 90742 6701 Center a West 00
Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Los geles,CA 90045
12 13 14
Rutan&Tucker, P Newland House Mu m Historic Resources Board air
Jeffrey M.O rman Pres.,H.B.W 1 Society Barbara Hayn
611 Anton d., 14th Floor 1982 ach Blvd. 19341 Worch er Lane
Costa sa,CA 92626-1950 Hun' on Beach, CA 92648 Huntington ach,CA 92646
16 16
Council on Aging v Seacliff A Seacliff HOA
1706 Orange Ave. Je etzel John Ro
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1939 ady Harbor Circle 19382 S ale Lane
H mgton Beach,CA 92648 Huntingt each,CA 92648
16 16 17
Seacliff HO_A Sue Johns Kirsten B
Lou Mann 19671 Quie ay Lane 18870 ' ra Circle
19821 Oce lull Circle Huntingto each, CA 92648 Hunting Beach,CA 92648
Huntingto each,CA 92648
18 19
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society, nc. O.C. Ping.&Dev.Services Dept. O.C. Resources&Develop. Mgt.De
Attn:Jane Gothold Director Bryan Speegle
P.O. Box 10926 P.O. Box 4048 P.O.Box 4048
Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
z 21 02
City of Costa Mesa v City of FountainVaW6y City of Newport Beach
Planning Director Planning rector Planning Director
P.O. Box 1200 6Slater Ave. P.O.Box 1768
Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 ntain Valley, CA 92708 Newport Beach,CA 92663-8915
i
23 1
City of Westminster City of Seal Beach L/ California Coastal Commission
Planning Director Planning Director Theresa Henry
8200 Westminster Blvd. 211 Eighth St. South Coast Area Office
Westminster,CA 92683 Seal Beach,CA 90740 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor
Long Beach,CA 92802-4302
/ 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 j ���
09 L8/09L5®Many ow 9lglledwo3 ww L9 x ww 5Z 1ewjol.ap 949nbl33
09L8/09L5®tiany gjInn elglledwoa„8/5 Z x ul azls lage
25 6 27
California Coastal Commission , Department of Transportation,Dist. 12 Local Solid Waste f.Agy.
South Coast Area Office Christopher.Herre, Branch Chief O.C. Health C e Agency
200 Oceangate, 10th Floor 3337 Michelson Dr., Suite 380 ector
Long Beach, CA 92802A302 Irvine,CA 92612-1699 O. Box 355
nta Ana, CA 92702
i
28 29 ,3
Huntington Beach Post O Fountain Valley Ele .School Dist. HB City Elementary School Dist. (�
New Growth Coor ' for �ainValley,
cker % Kathy Kessler,Superintendent
6771 Wa Ave: 1ter Avenue 20451 Craimer Lane
Huntingto each, CA 92647 Fog CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
i � I
31 32
HB City Elementary Sch ! Ocean View Ele hoot Dist. Westminster Schoo strict
David Attn: Cindy Pul ,Admin.Services Clark Ha on
raimer Lane 1720 inehurst Lane 14121 Ce ood Avenue
ntington Beach, CA 92648 Hunt' on Beach, CA 92647 j Wes nster,CA 92683
34 35
j HB Union High School District Cannery Hamilton Prop s,LLC Goldenwest Col e
Stephen Ritter Ascon Landfill Site amara Zeier Attn: Fred ens
5832 Bolsa Avenue One Poi rive,Suite 320 15744 denwest St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ea,CA 92821 Huntin n Beach,CA 92647
36
37
38
OC County Harbors,Beach&P s Dept. ;jngton
ella Terr all Country View E es HOA
P.O. Box 4 APa ers-Laude Cam omas
Santa Ana,C 02AO48 7dinger Ave.#300 664 rotter Drive
H Beach,CA 92647 Hunti on Beach,CA 92648
38 39; '39
Country View Esta HOA Meadowla rea Meadowlark a
Gerald C man Sally ham Cheryle Wing
6742 re Circle 516 elding Circle 16771 osevelt Lane
Huntingt each, CA 92648 Hunti on Beach, CA 92649 Huntin n Beach, CA 92649
:
40 41 ' 41
Hearthside Ho s Bolsa Chica Lan oust Bolsa Chica Lan st
6 Executive Cir , Suite 250 5200 Warner uerf e,Ste. 108 Evan Hen resident
Irvine A 92614 Huntin each, CA 92649 1812 P Tiffin Place
New Beach,CA 92660
42 ! 42
OC Sanitation District AES Huntington Be ,LLC Richard y
10844 Ellis Avenue Eric Pendegraft nt Manager 9062 lui Drive
Fountain Valley,CA 92708 2173 ewland Street Huntingt Beach, CA 92646
Hu"on gton Beach,CA 92646
42 44
John HB Coastal Communities Assoc. Downtown Business sociation
22102 ort Lane David Guido Mr.Stev aniels
Huntingt Beach, CA 92646 143 E.Meats Avenue 200 M ' Street#106
Orange,CA 92865 Huntin n Beach,CA 92648
46
Downtown Residents sociation 45 Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council O Juaneno Band of Mission Indian
Ms.Marie S ermain Chairperson Acjachemen Nation
505 abama PO Box 693 31411 La Matanza Street
Hun tin each,CA 92648 San Gabriel,CA 91778 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675-2625
o / 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 � 173
9
0919/0915®tiany aane alglledwoa ww L9 x wtu 5Z 1=101 ap aga61b a
0g L8/0915o tiaAV ul!m atgtledwoa,,9/5 z x„l azis label
47 . : 47 i 47
XRegio AYSO Region /AYS0on 117
Comow David Fik Chn Almanza
18 20091 Tra rl Lane d Ave.
Huntin647 ! Huntington ach,CA 92646 j F CA 92708
47 47 , 47
AYSO Regi 143 Huntington Beach Jr. II American Huntington Beach Pop arner Football
David iper j Foot I David yder
16XBChica#104 Bar udladc 5341 ranvill
#163 1843 oodwin Lane Huntingto each,CA 92649
Hunt1ch, CA 92649 ! Hunti ton Beach,CA 9,
47 i 47 47
Gold Coast me North Huntington Beach tbol Club South Coast Ba rn Futbol Club
Rick Baue, resident President Sh n Walter Mar" sa Pena
20501 burbia Lane 1511 eside Lane j 2222 ucalyptus Lane
Huntin n Beach,CA 92646 Hu on Beach,CA 92648 L Forest,CA 92630
Ii
47 47 ! 47
Huntington Beach You aCrosse Oakview Renewal rtn hip Fountain Valley P y Baseball
Michael M e Jose nguez Al L ua
17761 lane 7850 er Ave,Space 59 14591 cca Circle
Huntington each, CA 92649 Hu " gton Beach,CA 92647 Huntin Beach,CA 92647
47 47 47
Huntington Beach s Softball Huntington Valley Litt eague Ocea/Vieittle League
Gerry Steel resident Michael er StephaPresident
617 helly Dr. 9767 nwall Drive 18t Lane
Huntin Beach,CA 92647 Hunti on Beach,CA 92646 Hu ngton Beach,CA 92649
47 4747
District 62 Challe er Division Robinwood Little Lea Seaview Lti ,111r:
eague
Gai arder Kathryn Beutel- r Micahman
17 Scotia Circle 6551 Ren Circe P Box 5305
Hun ' on Beach,CA 92647 Huntingt each,CA 92647 Hunti on Beach,CA 92615
47 47 48
South Huntington Beach Is Fast Pitch West County Fami A Westminster V11 e HOA
So Taina Hyuven/ n Hoisington 5200 Black of Road
B.
Colburn 1989 each Blvd.#17 I stmin r,CA 92683
O. Box 7332 Hu gton Beach, CA 92648
Hu ngton Beach, CA 92615
D49 50 51
Coastkeepers Briggs Law Cor ration Regional Environmental icer for Calif
Gary Brown Attn:Valerie .Mosqueda Western Regio nviron Office
3151 Airway Ave. Suite F-110 99 East: Street,Suite 11 U it Force
Costa Mesa,CA 92663 Upland,CA 91786 333 et Street Suite 625
San ancisco,CA 94105-2196
51 51 51
US Na Fort Irwin Western Region Enviro Mal Office
Sheila D ovan Lt.Col.Paul D ramer Patrick Chris n,Director
Community Plan Liaison Coordinator Director of Public orks Nat'l Training US Marine ps Building 1164
1220 acific Highway Cntr ox 555246
San ego,CA 92132-5190 Box 105097 Camp P dleton,CA 92055-5246
ort Irwin,CA 92310
51
Fort Hunter-Liggett
Mr. Peter Rub"
Director of Pu Works
Combat Suppo raining Center �/ — , 7-3
B 0 5th St
Partks A Dublin,CA 94568
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
Jun 02 11 10:59a P 1
From: bury Jo Baretich
Address: 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy#23A
aX City: Huntington Beach State: CA Zip: 92646
Phone (714)960-9507 Fax: (714)960-9507
E-mail:mjbareticWhotmail.com
To: City Clerk Date: 06/02/2011
Address: 2000 (Wain Street
City: Huntington Beach State: CA Zip: 92648
Phone: Subject: AGENDA ITEM 10
Fax: (714) 374-1557 Pages. 2... . .... _... .. urgent [X] Reply Q. _]_....._. _ .. .
Coamnw is`@>t'S:
Hi,
Please attach my letter to the June 6, 2001 City Council Public Hearing Agenda
Item No. 10, "Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Pap No.
17397 and Coastal Developmerd Permit No. 10-017.
Thank you,
Mary Jo Baretich
'-COMMUNICATION
LO
Agenda It ern No. L2
Jun 02 11 10:59a p 2
May 30, 2011
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. On June 6, 2011, a vote will be taken by the City Council in reference to the Subdivision of
Pacific Mobile Home Park. It is my hope and recommendation that the City Council will uphold both
the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission Recommendations for Denial of this
Subdivision.
The Park Owners cannot subdivide and sell the lots with the existing configuration. No one can
legally sell something that they do nat fully own.
If the Park Owners decide to reduce the size of the lots in order to Subdivide, I believe they must
either replace or purchase all the mobilehomes located along Huntington Street (providing the
Homeowners agree). They may be opening themselves up for litigation if they force the homeowners
to replace their homes at their own expense.
I feel that other issues cited in the Staff Report, upon which the Planning Commission based its
Recommendation for denial, are also warranted. Specifically, CA Government Code Section 66474,
requires denial of a Subdivision that is not consistent with applicable general plans. The proposed
subdivision would violate several Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element goal and
policies, and reconfiguring the lot lines to eliminate encroachment problems, may result in an inability
to meet the standards and regulations of the Mobile Horne Parks Act/Health and Safety Code with
respect to setbacks, access, and other applicable development standards that would be required.
One issue that was not noted in the Hart, Icing and Coldren Reports, is that the Pacific MHP is located
in the Coastal Zone, and therefore this proposed Subdivision must be in compliance Wth both the
Coastal Act and the Mello Act
Recently the City of Los Angeles was able to stop the Subdivision Condo Conversion of Pacific
Palisades Bowl Mobile Home based on the Coastal Act and Mello Act requirements. The following is
a summary of the Second District Court of Appeal regarding this decision:
On August 31, 2010, in Palisades Bowl, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that a subdivider
proposing to convert a rental park to resident ownership under Section 66427.5 must also comply with
the requirements ofthe Mello Act and Coastal Act when the park is located in the coastal zone. In that
case, a park owner sued the City of Los Angeles after the City rejected as incomplete its application
submitted under Section 66427.5, because the park was in the coastal zone. The park owner refused
to submit an application for a coastal permit or obtain clearance under the Mello Act for the
preservation of low and moderate income housing.
The issue before the court was whether Section 66427.5 barred the City from requiring compliance
with the Mello Act and Coastal Act. No prior published court decisions have addressed these issues.
The court ruled that notwithstanding Section 66427.5, the park owner was also required to comply
with the Mello Act and the Coastal Act based on the paramount legislative intent behind those
statutes. The Mello Act forbids approval of a conversion application for existing residential dwelling
units in the coastal zone occupied by persons of lode or moderate income, unless the applicant
Jun 02 11 10:59a P 3
provides for replacement of those dwelling units to persons or families of love or moderate income
housing. The court ruled that Section 66427.5 does not provide the protection mandated by the Mello
Act. The court also found that the Coastal Act was enacted to ensure a balance between protection of
coastal resources and development by providing a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating land
use planning in the coastal zone, including preservation of housing opportunities for all persons.
Please Deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pack Mobile Home Park.
Respectfully,
Mauro Baret' h
21752 Pacific Coast Highway, Space 23A
Huntington Beach, CA 92W
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECEIVED
City of Huntington Beach JUN 0 2 :2011
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92638 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADMINISTRATION
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile
Home Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision, as stated in the Planning
Commission's Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines
encroaches upon the Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot
be legally subdivided and sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners, and the
mobilehome homeowners should not have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the
Park Owners. In addition,this proposed Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes
and LUP's. Also, the proposed Subdivision is not in accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello
Act, which add measures of protection for low income residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The
Law Firm for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King &Coldren (HK&C), is the
same the Law Firm that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park
and has promoted Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the
disastrous example of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the
direction of HK&C the Park Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing, then purposely
raised the rents up beyond the incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these
residents prior to Subdivision, thereby avoiding the rent control restraints of California
Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents. More than 80 people in the Huntington
Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon their homes, or sell them for
ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion, for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots, there is no guarantee
than investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme
amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
167
commUNICATION
MeetIng Date
Agenda Item No. /�
114 2185] Newland St.
Huntington Bch,CA 92646 :�
.. .'n.5'e.afCbpl.aeW� .v.,,1e uas4':
f
,. ':�'�:.�.•��_' . �_� �la�rs,s�s�t��sss�sr��ssl,,�ls�fs,����ssrs��,f�i,,sllsss��ss��
Jun 02 11 09:34a P.1
From: Mary)o Baretich
f Address: 21712 Pacific Coast H"1121A
a City: Huntington Beach State: CA Zip: 92646
Phone (714)960-9507 Fax: (714)960-9507
E-mail:mjbaretichPhotmaii.com
Web: www.faxcoversheets.net
To: City Clerk Date: 06/02/2011
Address: 2000 Main Street
City: Huntington Beach State: CA Zip: 92648
Phone: Pages:
e s: Subject: Wedding Picx
Fax: (714) 374-1557 21 Urgent [X] Reply [
. . ........
Comments:
Hi,
Please attach these letters to the June 6, 2001 City Council Public Hearing Agenda
Item No. 10, "Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No.
17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017.
Thank you,
Mary Jo Baretich
-COMMUNICATION
Meeting Dift .
Agenda Item No.
Jun 02 11 09:34a p•2
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 42638
Re; PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
1 am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LLIP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart,King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California_ By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,atthe direction of HK&Cthe Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee that
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
-"� - .
- ;2-4017
Jun 02 11 09:35a p•3
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
i am writingthis letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision,Hart,King&Coldren(HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&Cthe Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Fallowing conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots, there is no guarantee that
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Horne Park.
Sincerely, `
Jun 02 11 09:35a p•4
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
0 ne of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section S Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in orrJerto displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee that
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park_
Sincerely,
9 �{ (Dal l—�t2..,,,.Q C -
Jun 02 11 09:35a P.5
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision,Bart,King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehorne parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section B Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee that
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
Jun 02 11 09:36a P•6
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re; PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writingthis letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Horne Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Fallowing conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
Svcoc��sar�
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No. j
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:36a p.7
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK:SUBDIVISION
DearCity Council Members,
1 am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners, and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shoreclif-fs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&Cthe Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
Incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision, thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:37a p•8
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of--way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold, since they are not fully owned by the Parts Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King& Coldren(HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee that
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
Roar Malvitz
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.23A
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09;38a p.11
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision, as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners, and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart,King& Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
c
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No. 10
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:38a p.12
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
200D Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled ail leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots, there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely, `
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:39a p.13
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific(Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and[Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs (Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Fallowing conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No. C�
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:39a p.14
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision,hart,King&Coldren(HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
21752 Pacific Coast H way,Space No.
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:39a p.15
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Clty of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of--way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Horne Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), Is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Horne Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
Incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these"residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 56427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Fallowing conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rentsto an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
P,W,,P7,
211752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:40a p.16
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re_ PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners, and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for love income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision,Hart, King&Coidren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Horne Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 65427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Horne Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion, for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
t
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:40a p.17
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision, as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Finn
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&.C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorediffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Horne Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.$--"%-'
Huntington Beach, CA
Jun 02 11 09:41a p.18
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated.in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners, and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coidren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision, thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously tow figures.
Following conversion, for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.'ZA�--A
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:42a p.21
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Pardo Owners, and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart,King&Coldren(HK&C', is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots, there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely, }
• 1 �
G•t A��� G�'17'D�Rl
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:42a p.22
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Horne
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition, this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low Income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision, thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Horne Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion, for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No.
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:37a P•9
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK SUBDIVISION
Deaf City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also,the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Finn
for the Pacific Mobile Home Paris Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California_ By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of Hlt&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section S Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Horne Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincere y,
21752 Pacific Coast Highway, Space No.
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:37a p.10
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial,
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision, as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned bythe Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also, the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Finn
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision,Hart,King&Coldren tHK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Fallowing conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots, there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
r� r
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No. 1l
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:41a p,19
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition, this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also, the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart,King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.S for low income residents.
More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No. t 5 AF
Huntington Beach,CA
Jun 02 11 09:41a p.20
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those Pots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should not
have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition,this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also, the proposed Subdivision is not in
accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act,which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm
for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm
that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted
Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the
Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval,at the direction of HK&C the Park
Owners canceled all ceases and Section 8 Housing,then purposely raised the rents up beyond the
incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,thereby
avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income residents.
More than 90 people in the Huntington Shoreciiffs Mobile Home Park have been forced to abandon
their homes,or sell them for ridiculously lowfigures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee than
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,jj
r
21752 Pacific Coast Highway,Space No. �(}
Huntington Beach,CA
Villasenor, Jennifer
From: Nancy Meeks[nancyracer@verizon.net)
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 7:30 PM
To: Villasenor, Jennifer
Subject: I am opposed to the June 6th Appeal.
May 30,2011
Dear Jennifer Villasenor(Willasenor0surfcity-hb.org)and Huntington Beach City Council:
I strongly oppose the June 6th Appeal by the Park Owners,of the Planning Commission's Denial of the Pacific
Mobile Home Park Subdivision. My letter is below:
Honorable Mavor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home Park. I
agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision, as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the Huntington
Street fight-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and sold,since they are not
fully owned by the Park Owners, and the mobilehome homeowners should not have to purchase smaller homes
to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition, this proposed Subdivision does not conform to several City
Codes and LUP's. Also, the proposed Subdivision is not in accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act, which
add measures of protection for low income residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law Firm for the
Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren(HK&C), is the same the Law Firm that promoted the
Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has promoted Subdivision in mobilehome parks
throughout California. By using the disastrous example of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park
Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&C the Park Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing, then
purposely raised the rents up beyond the incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these
residents prior to Subdivision, thereby avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code
66427.5 for low income residents. More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have
been forced to abandon their homes, or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion, for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots, there is no guarantee than investors
will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
Nancy Meeks
21752 Pacific Coast Hwy. #2A COMMUNICATION
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92646
(949)945-5320
Date
Agencia Item No. Z(�
i
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile
Home Park. I agree with the Planning Commission's Recommendation of Denial.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision,as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial,is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold,since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners,and the mobilehome homeowners should
not have to purchase smaller homes to accommodate the Park Owners. In addition, this proposed
Subdivision does not conform to several City Codes and LUP's. Also, the proposed Subdivision is not
in accordance with the Coastal Act and Mello Act, which add measures of protection for low income
residents.
I feel that this Subdivision could cause economic displacement of low income residents. The Law
Firm for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King&Coldren(HK&C), is the same the
Law Firm that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park and has
promoted Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. By using the disastrous example
of the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park Subdivision approval, at the direction of HK&C
the Park Owners canceled all leases and Section 8 Housing, then purposely raised the rents up beyond
the incomes of the low income residents in order to displace these residents prior to Subdivision,
thereby avoiding the rent control restraints of California Government Code 66427.5 for low income
residents. More than 80 people in the Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park have been forced
to abandon their homes,or sell them for ridiculously low figures.
Following conversion,for those who cannot qualify to purchase their lots,there is no guarantee that
investors will not purchase the pads beneath the homes and raise the rents to an extreme amount.
Please deny this Subdivision Appeal by the Park Owners of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
9 Z-
COMMUNICATION
lbs.Jane$.J6ne
24331 Gardenia Dr.
Auraingtan Bch,CA 92640...,. ' '�*V
DaW
AgerWaltemNo. ��
COMMUNICATION
Sharon Dana
Mee" Date Huntington Shorecliffs Mobile Home Park
20701 Beach Blvd. #200
Agendaltem No. Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92638
Re: PACIFIC MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Subdivision Conversion of Pacific Mobile Home
Park. I am in agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendation that TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 17397-4he proposed subdivision of Pacific Mobile Home Park be denied.
One of the reasons for my opposition to this Subdivision, as stated in the Planning Commission's
Recommendation of Denial, is that one of the mobilehome park's lot lines encroaches upon the,
Huntington Street right-of-way. Those lots along Huntington Street cannot be legally subdivided and
sold, since they are not fully owned by the Park Owners. Also, the proposed widening of Atlanta
Street puts the proposed subdivision and potential sale of other lots in question.
Another reason for my opposition is the past history and behavior of some of the people involved in
promoting the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision. Last year the City Council approved --with
conditions--TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17296—the proposed subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs
Mobile Home Park. The Law Firm for the Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision, Hart, King &
Coldren (HK&C), is the same the Law Firm that promoted the Subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs
Mobile Home Park and has promoted Subdivision in mobilehome parks throughout California. It is
my opinion that this Subdivision will cause the economic displacement of the low income residents.
In the introductory language of Government Code Section 66427.5 it specifically
states:-
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
By the time subdivision comes to Huntington Shorecliffs--there will be no low income residents left in
the Park. I feel the same fate awaits Pacific Mobile Home Park. At the time of consideration of the
application for subdivision of Huntington Shorecliffs, Mr. Coldren made certain statements to both the
Planning Commission and the City Council.
Sharon Dana--page 2
Mr. Coldren publicly stated on several occasions that low income residents of Huntington Shorecliffs
would not be economically forced out of their homes. He further made statements that all leases
would be honored in their entirety.
Almost immediately upon the conditional approval being granted, at the direction of HK&C, the Park
Owners terminated all Section 8 housing. . Section 8 housing gives very low income residents,
residents who owned the homes, a subsidy to help them pay the space rent, rent for the land on
which their homes sat. These residents were forced to leave the Park, and walk away from their
homes, in order to keep the housing subsidy. Those homes are now belong to Huntington Shorecliffs
Park owners.
Shorecliffs Park owners next canceled leases, which had an expiration date of 2016. Rent increases
of between $300 and $500 a month were implemented. This amount was beyond the incomes of the
low income residents. Those residents also were forced to leave the Park. Those homes are now
owned by Huntington Shorecliffs. Huntington Shorecliffs Park owners now possess almost 25% of
the homes in the Park because residents have been forced to abandon their homes, or sell them for
ridiculously low figures. Residents are being forced out--economically evicted with their life savings
depleted and their homes gone.
Section III of the Impact of Conversion Report submitted by the applicant
says:--
Non-purchasing resident will not be economically displaced by conversion
So much for the promises made to the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the
residents of Huntington Shorecliffs. This is the future Pacific Park is facing.
Please deny this appeal for Subdivision, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17397-- by the Park Owners
of the Pacific Mobile Home Park.
Sincerely,
_D
Sharon L. Dana