Laserfiche WebLink
present and applying those last five years to the new structure. He stated that he felt <br /> this might reduce some fear on the part of the residents; however, he did not see the <br /> Commission conditioning the approval on that basis. He agreed with Commissioner <br /> Narum regarding having a condition to restrict the park to seniors. <br /> Mr. Close stated that he had sent a letter to Mr. Roush a few days ago with information <br /> on what the rents would be if the State law provisions applied in 2009; however, due to <br /> timing constraints, that information had not been provided to the Planning Commission <br /> prior to tonight's meeting. <br /> Chair Pearce stated that she cannot support the proposal because she thinks <br /> Section 66427.5 is much more limited in scope than has been discussed. She stated <br /> that she does not think the intent is to make the Commission's task ministerial. She <br /> noted that Section 66427.5(e) states that "the subdivider will be subject to a hearing <br /> before the legislative body of the local agency to consider the subdivider's compliance <br /> with this section." She noted that if one looks at the legislative history of the matter, the <br /> intent was specifically to consider economic displacement that might result from one of <br /> these conversions. She added that the uncodifiecl version of legislative intent with <br /> regard to the 2002 amendment to the section states that "the survey of support <br /> requirement was added because without it, a conversion of a mobile home park to <br /> resident ownership could occur without support of the residents and result in economic <br /> displacement." She noted that it appeared that everything they talked about deals with <br /> the economics and regulates the means by which a subdivider must avoid the economic <br /> displacement of park residents who choose not to purchase a share of the park. She <br /> stated that she did not feel it strips the local agency of the authority to exercise <br /> discretion under the applicable State laws or the local regulations; nor did she think <br /> there was any intent or expectation of the section to remove local agency authority to <br /> address other issues or concerns to ensure the subdivision is appropriate under local <br /> conditions. She expressed concern about the lack of affordable, senior rental housing <br /> and thinks it is an important area and section of the City's community. She noted that <br /> taking that away and making it an ownership situation is potentially a real disservice to <br /> these residents and also the town as a whole. She recognized the issue of litigation <br /> and certainly, if appealed to the City Council, this is something the Council will take into <br /> consideration. She noted, however, that the Commission has been told on numerous <br /> occasions that it ought not take economic things under consideration and only consider <br /> planning issues, and, therefore, this is what she is attempting to do by looking at the <br /> statutory context, legislative history, legislative intent, and other things of this nature. <br /> Commissioner Fox stated that the Subdivision Map Act states that the subdivider shall <br /> be subject to a hearing by a legislative body or advisory agency which is authorized by <br /> local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map; it does not <br /> limit it to approval only. She stated that she might think otherwise if the conversion <br /> were to proceed this year, but given an open -ended ten -year period, she cannot believe <br /> this is an actual bona fide survey of support. <br /> EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 18 of 19 <br />