PC 022509 - Laserfiche WebLink

ministerial. She noted that Section 66427.5(e) states that “the subdivider will be subject to a hearing before the legislative body of the local agency to consider the subdivider’s compliance with this section.” She noted that if one looks at the legislative history of the matter, the intent was specifically to consider economic displacement that might result from one of these conversions. She added that the uncodified version of legislative intent with regard to the 2002 amendment to the section states that “the survey of support requirement was added because without it, a conversion of a mobile home park to resident ownership could occur without support of the residents and result in economic displacement.” She noted that it appeared that everything they talked about deals with the economics and regulates the means by which a subdivider must avoid the economic displacement of park residents who choose not to purchase a share of the park. She stated that she did not feel it strips the local agency of the authority to exercise discretion under the applicable State laws or the local regulations; nor did she think there was any intent or expectation of the section to remove local agency authority to address other issues or concerns to ensure the subdivision is appropriate under local conditions. She expressed concern about the lack of affordable, senior rental housing and thinks it is an important area and section of the City’s community. She noted that taking that away and making it an ownership situation is potentially a real disservice to these residents and also the town as a whole. She recognized the issue of litigation and certainly, if appealed to the City Council, this is something the Council will take into consideration. She noted, however, that the Commission has been told on numerous occasions that it ought not take economic things under consideration and only consider planning issues, and, therefore, this is what she is attempting to do by looking at the statutory context, legislative history, legislative intent, and other things of this nature. Commissioner Fox stated that the Subdivision Map Act states that 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; it does not limit it to approval only. She stated that she might think otherwise if the conversion were to proceed this year, but given an open-ended ten-year period, she cannot believe this is an actual bona fide survey of support. Commissioner O’Connor referred to Section 66427.5(d)5, which states: “The results of the survey shall be submitted to the local agency on filing of the Tentative Map, to be considered as part of the Subdivision Map.” He stated that given this, he would need to see more than 20-percent support before he would support the conversion. Commissioner Fox moved to deny PMCC-2. Commissioner O’Connor seconded the motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2009 Page 27 of 29