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 beers 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 of 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 uncodified 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 />