13 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Fox clarified the location of the pond on the plan. She brought up the nursing home at 300 Neal Street as an example and stated that if it came to the Commission with a request to do something different than what is in effect today, it was her understanding that this would trigger the need for retrofit work in order to meet Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standards. She inquired who would be responsible for retrofitting all public facilities in the park to be ADA compliant if it is converted to ownership. Mr. Roush replied that it is possible that certain retrofitting undertaken by the applicant might trigger the ADA requirements of the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), but he did not believe that the mere conversion would cause HCD to mandate an ADA retrofit. He noted that assuming HCD did require it or if the DRE indicated this would need to occur, the owner would be responsible for making those necessary retrofits. Commissioner Fox stated that since the park was built in the early 1970's, there may be some deferred maintenance issues on the infrastructure underneath the park, such as sewer system improvements. She noted that if the current park owner is aware of various repair issues and one of the issues is that there may need to be significant monetary investments to fix a number of problems, it would be difficult to say that this was a bona fide survey as basic things which could affect the future were left out of the survey. She added that it would seem it would be difficult to say whether or not there is support for the project and that different results might have been received if more information were provided. She voiced concern that 40 of 208 is 20 percent versus a 50- percent majority. She indicated that based on this and that fact that residents would lose certain incentives such as the 15- percent discount if they voiced opposition, she had significant issues in making a determination that there was a bona fide survey that indicated resident support. Chair Pearce stated that she was trying to understand the legislative history and ran across a League of California Cities Amicus Brief for the City of Goleta case dated August 2008. She noted that they talk about a section of the Subdivision Map Act and how the interpretation being given by the applicant is not supported through statutory context, through legislative history, and also how the Palm Springs' decision is not necessarily relevant to these types of issues. She continued that that decision addressed three sections of the Map Act with respect to mobile homes: Section 66427.4, which is the least restrictive and provides free rein in determining conversions of a mobile home park to a new use; Section 66427.5 which was discussed tonight; and Section 66428.1. She noted that under Section 66428.1, if 2/3 of the residents sign a petition that they support the purchase, the agency does not have an ability to regulate unless certain exceptions are met. She indicated that she was trying to understand how a Section of the Map Act that states if 2/3 of the residents support the petition, then the reins are tightened as to what the local agency can do, but under Section 66427.5, even if no one supports the petition, there is little ability for the City to regulate it. She asked Mr. Roush to provide clarification. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 15 of 19