Split council approves trailer park conversion

Hamstrung once again by state laws, the City Council voted 3 to 2 at its Jan. 5 meeting to conditionally approve mandated steps that would give ownership to the residents of Laguna Terrace Mobile Home Park with little say by local officials.

The California Subdivision Map Act trumps most of the city’s municipal code and general plan provisions, including the requirement of a relocation impact report for the proposed conversion of a park to a resident-owned park.

“The scope of the hearing shall be limited to the issue of compliance with [the state code]” was underlined in the staff report. That meant the council’s actions were limited, but that didn’t stop some of its members from talking about their concerns during the almost hourlong hearing.

“I don’t think we have done all we can for the residents,” Councilwoman Verna Rollinger said.

Rollinger and Mayor Pro Tem Toni Iseman voted against the approval of the map and coastal development permit, as recommended by the Planning Commission, which was advised of the state restrictions by City Atty. Philip Kohn, as was the council.

Iseman likened the conversion to buying a “pig in a poke,” a colloquialism referring to the purchase of an unknown object without a thorough investigation.

“The 3-2 vote was more entertaining than a boring 5-0 vote,” park manager Jim Lawson said. “But I am very happy to have the tentative tract map.”

Iseman was concerned about reports she had gotten that many of the park residents would not be able to keep up with increases in rents. She is hoping a fund will be set up for any displaced residents.

Residents will have the option of buying or continuing to rent, according to specific requirements of the government code dealing with sub-divisions.

“Those that don’t buy, can’t be evicted,” said Boyce Belt, speaking on behalf of residents.

“A homeowner’s association will be formed when the conversion takes place — and that is when the first lot is sold.”

Iseman challenged Belt’s residency, asking if he lived in Newport Beach or Laguna. The answer was both.

“I might be known as trailer trash,” Belt said.

Rollinger also objected to the city’s position that the park is not included in the areas of the property subject to review by the California Coastal Commission of projects on the site.

“The [commission] staff has for some time claimed that if any area is appealable, all the areas are appealable,” City Manager Ken Frank said.

Part of the 46.6-acre property mapped as appealable does not include the 13.2-acre area of the subdivision, based on commission-approved maps, Frank said. Another 25.6 acres are open space.

“Really, it is a nonissue because [the project] must go to the commission for a coastal development permit.” Frank said.

The council and the commission must independently approve the coastal development permits for the areas in their jurisdiction. No final tract map can be reviewed until the commission approves its coastal development permit.

As for the conversion: State law limits city involvement to a public 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 council hearing was limited by state law to the issue of compliance with the state code, which also contains no provision for the council’s consideration of consistency with city’s general plan or municipal code.

Local approval is required for increases in density, which was not an issue in the conversion.

Compliance with the state code included a report on the impact on the park residents, a survey of support for the conversion by the residents and prevention of economic displacement of non-purchasing residents.

The majority of the residents who replied to the survey, 89%, supported the conversion.

A peer review of the report concluded that the report is consistent with the state code and the proposed sub-division would not result in the economic displacement of the non-purchasing residents. Staff also has received individual correspondence from park residents in support of the conversion.

However, park neighbor William Kleppinger is not a happy camper.

“I am not pleased,” said Kleppinger, whose property abuts the park on two sides. “The owners are not subject to Laguna Beach rules. It was bad enough with the Esslingers [landowners], but I can’t imagine what it will be like with some 150 individual owners.”