*1 S187243. Nov. 2012.] [No. ESTATES, LLC, Plaintiff MOBILE PALISADES BOWL
PACIFIC Appellant, ANGELES, Defendant Appellant.
CITY OF LOS *8 Counsel Summers, Bien,
&Bien L. Blum Elliot E. Collins and M. Amy Margolin; Craig Collins for Plaintiff and Appellant. Summers,
Bien & L. Elliot Bien and E. for Western Amy Margolin Manufactured Communities as Amicus behalf Housing Association Curiae on Plaintiff and Appellant. Hart, Coldren, Coldren, &King Robert S. L. C. William Dahlin and Hill Boyd Park, LLC, Laguna Terrace as Amicus Curiae on behalf of and Plaintiff Appellant.
R. S. Radford Legal for Pacific Foundation Amicus Curiae as on behalf Plaintiff and Appellant. Rutter, Close, &
Gilchrist H. Richard Thomas W. and Yen Casparian N. Hope Ltd., for Carson Harbor as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Village, Appellant. Trutanich, A.
Carmen Jeri City Attorney, Burge, L. Assistant City Attorney, Brothers, T. Amy Kenneth Fong Attorneys, Defendant Deputy City Appellant. Ellis, & E.
Kirkland Bladow and Robyn Vidhya Ragunathan for Western on Law on Poverty Center as Amicus Curiae behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Law Office of William J. Constantine and William J. Constantine for Golden on behalf League State Manufactured-Home Owners Amicus Curiae Defendant and Appellant. *9 Harris, General, Medeiros,
Kamala D. Manuel M. State Solicitor Attorney Saurenman, General, General, A. and Jamee Jordan John Assistant Attorney General, Patterson, for California Coastal Commission as Attorney Deputy Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Gershon,
Richards, & Browne Ginetta L. Giovinco for Watson Rochelle Curiae behalf Defendant and of California Cities as Amicus on League Appellant. W. K. and Jeff M.
Aleshire & William Soltará Wynder, Wynder, Sunny Association, Inc., and of Carson Malawy City for Palisades Bowl Residents’ Curiae on behalf of Defendant Amici Appellant. Opinion California
WERDEGAR, We holdhere that the requirements J. Code, et hereafter Coastal (Pub. seq.; Coastal Act of Resources 65590.1) to a Act) (Gov. Mello apply proposed and the Act §§ zone, conversion, a from coastal of mobilehome park within California’s In so we holding, reject argument tenant to resident ownership. occupancy of the Coastal that a is not a for “development” purposes such conversion 66427.5, Act, a that Government Code section argument and further reject 66410-66499.37), (Gov. of the Subdivision Act §§ provision Map laws, with other state from the need to such conversions exempts comply au state-delegated from agencies exercising local governmental precludes Act or the laws such as Coastal with state thority to require compliance Mello Act. grant overturning the Court of Appeal’s judgment
We therefore affirm Estates, (Palisades LLC Palisades Bowl Mobile mandamus relief Pacific Bowl).
BACKGROUND (the of Los Angeles City) arose after City controversy present mobile- to convert 170-unit Palisades Bowl’s application refused to accept Palisades resident because occupancy home from tenant for a coastal development permit applications Bowl had failed include declined to provide applications, Palisades Bowl for Mello approval. for instead in the court a writ of mandate and filing superior petition for Palisades that relief. Bowl complaint injunctive declaratory argued Act, was not a subject conversion Coastal proposed development and that the action was in barred Code City’s event Government section states substantive and provision procedural require- ments for of mobilehome from obtaining conversions map approval parks tenant court agreed The trial with Palisades occupancy ownership. It Bowl. therefore issued mandamus commanding writ of peremptory to vacate City its decision Bowl’s finding Palisades application incomplete, deem the and to evaluate the application complete, application approval without whether it either the considering Coastal Act or complied Act. Mello *10 reversed,
The Court of that considerations Appeal reasoning policy behind the and the Coastal Act Mello Act more those are extensive than 66427.5, behind Government Code section and section 66427.5 therefore could not from preclude City conditions and imposing requirements mandated on a by those acts subdivider to seeking convert to resident a mobilehome located in the coastal zone. It therefore entered judgment the trial court to vacate directing its writ of mandamus peremptory and enter of the judgment in favor We review. City. granted
DISCUSSION I. We are concerned with three among statutory interplay separate schemes, each state and each in .furthering important interests some manner within regulating development California’s coastal areas. Code,
A. Coastal (Pub. Resources et seq.) § The Coastal Act “was enacted Legislature as comprehensive scheme to govern land use for the coastal zone planning entire of California. that Legislature found ‘the California zone and coastal is a distinct valuable natural resource of vital and to all that interest enduring people’; ‘the of the and permanent state’s natural scenic is a protection resources concern’; ‘it is of to balance paramount necessary ecological protect uses, the coastal zone’ and that and future ‘existing developed developments that are and with the this carefully planned consistent developed policies division, are the economic essential to and social well-being people 30001, Code,] state . . (d).)” (Yost ([Pub. (a) this . .’ Resources subds. and § 561, Thomas 801, (1984) 1152].) 36 Cal.3d 685 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [205 The Coastal Act is to be “liberally construed its accomplish purposes it, (Pub. 30009.) and Under with objectives.” exceptions Resources § here, any or undertake any wishing perform develop- applicable person must “in ment the coastal zone obtain coastal development permit any addition other law from local obtaining any required by permit state, (Id., 30600, . . .” regional, agency or from local . government any (a).) subd. heavily” the need to on recognizes “rely
The Coastal Act expressly conditions, to local local achieve maximum government responsiveness “[t]o Code, 30004, (Pub. . . . .” Resources accountability, public accessibility here, it (a).) subd. As relevant local governments develop requires a set land use plan implementing coastal programs, comprised the act’s coast designed objectives protecting ordinances to promote 30001.5, (Id., line and resources and of access. maximizing public its §§ 30500-30526; 17 Cal.4th Inc. v. Coastal Com. Landgate, California 1188].) 953 P.2d Once California Coastal certifies a local all government’s program, implementing Commission effective, over actions the commission coastal delegates authority become (Pub. the local Resources development permits government. Moreover, (b), (a), (a), (c).) “[p]rior subd. subds. §§ may, government to certification of local coastal a local program, , its area of . . . establish jurisdiction within respect development modification, review, denial *11 filing, processing, approval, procedures 30600, subd. An action (Id., (b)(1).) of a coastal development permit.” § (Id., to the commission. locally taken under a issued is permit appealable Thus, scheme, ... 30603.) legislative the Coastal Act’s [local § “[u]nder agencies and the issued permits by coastal program] development law, a of local but solely embody the Coastal Act are not matter pursuant Co., Pratt Inc. Coastal (Charles A. Construction policy.” state California 1068, fact, 466].) “In a (2008) Cal.Rptr.3d Com. 162 Cal.App.4th [76 that state prevail the Coastal Act is ensure policies fundamental of purpose areas, Moreover, certain (Ibid.) in of local government.” over concerns a an must obtain dual permit jurisdictions, applicant sometimes referred as a second the local the local after entity obtaining permit, from permit 30600, 30601; Cal. (Pub. Resources from the commission. §§ permit 14, 13301, is Bowl’s mobilehome (a).) park tit. subd. Palisades Regs., Code § in located a dual permit jurisdiction. a that it permit does not recite requires
The Coastal Act specifically conversions, it not. Bowl contends does and Palisades for mobilehome park “any for develop The act coastal disagree. development permit We requires here, Code, 30600.) As relevant (Pub. in Resources ment” the coastal zone. § land, of of use or “change density intensity means a a “development” to, Map Subdivision subdivision pursuant but limited including, land, , lot where except of including splits, . . and other division any Act. land division is about in connection brought with of such land purchase a (Id., 30106.) for recreational public agency use.” The Subdivi- public § division, subdivider, sion Act defines “subdivision” as “the Map of by any land, unit or of any units or or . . . .” improved thereof unimproved portion (Gov. 66424.) It refers to the conversion of a rental specifically mobilehome to resident park (id., form of “subdivision” 66427.5), and refers to the applicant seeking to subdivide the on property 66423, 66427.4, which the (id., is located as the “subdivider” §§ 66427.5). A mobilehome conversion thus “subdivision” under the Subdivision Act and for that reason is also a Map “development” subject the Coastal Act’s permit requirements. however,
Palisades Bowl argues, conversion of a mobilehome park is not a “development” of the Coastal Act purposes because it does not alter the of use density intensity of the land. But by a list of introducing “subdivision,” projects, including with the but not limited phrase “including, to,” the Legislature in Public Resources Code section 30106 has explained that each listed is a in the project change of use intensity purposes act, and by means of the fist illustrates various of in land species changes use which against other be unspecified projects may measured so it be may too, determined whether they, require (See coastal permits. v. Arias People 45 Cal.4th P.3d [recognizing 103] “the proviso ‘including, but not limited to’ ‘connotes an illustrative listing, one purposefully ”].) capable enlargement’ subdivision Any under the is, Subdivision Act thus Map by definition, a in the species change density intensity use of land and is a Palisades Bowl “development.” also seems to assume the Coastal Act is concerned an only increase in preventing use, density intensity but Public Resources Code section the word using “change,” signals that a that would project decrease intensity use, such as by limiting access to the public coastline or reducing number of lots available for residential is also a We purposes, development. observe, further, that other *12 of Public portions Resources Code section 30106 define to include that “development” uses not or will have may not any effect the addition, on or density of use.1 intensity In the reference to statutory 1 “ means, land, Public Resources Code section 30106 ‘Development’ recites in full: on in or water, structure; under the placement any or erection of solid material or discharge disposal or any dredged solid, any gaseous, waste; of material liquid, or of grading, or thermal removing, dredging, mining, materials; any or extraction change density of the intensity in or of use of land, to, including, but not limited pursuant (com subdivision to the Map Subdivision mencing Code), land, with Section any 66410 of the Government and other division of including splits, except lot where the brought land division is about in connection with the use; purchase by of such public agency land public change recreational intensity in the of water, thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, use of or of access or alteration of the structure, size of including any facility any private, of public, municipal utility; or and the harvesting major vegetation removal or of other agricultural purposes, than for kelp harvesting, 796 land, (Pub.
“other of lot including Resources splits” division[s] use, 30106), in intensity which need not result in a change density to include suggests further the intended all listed Legislature “development” uses and all of use whether or not the changes density intensity specific use was those listed. among
An consistent the is interpretation “development” expansive that Act is its “liberally mandate the Coastal to be construed accomplish (Pub. thus 30009.) Resources It has been purposes objectives.” that is not alteration of the land. held restricted physical “development” (DeCicco Coastal Com. (2011) v. Cal.App.4th [131 California a land claim that a is not use and [Rejecting subdivision Cal.Rptr.3d 908] land, be it a subdivision not a use of is “[although may quite explaining, of the Act. meaning within the Coastal Section 30106 clearly ‘development’ ”].) it has Similarly, defines to include ‘subdivision.’ ‘development’ expressly recognized goes been that the Coastal Act’s definition of “development” of real “what is beyond commonly regarded property” development (Gualala Committee Coastal Com. Festivals California 908]) and is not restricted activities Cal.App.4th (id. 68). that the land or alter water physically p. the is demonstrated Public
That act extends conversions further 30610, which including Resources Code section exempts specified projects, a time-share conversion of a residential structure to multiple-unit project, (h) of section 30610 from coastal Subdivision requirement. permit that conversion of a residential structure into condominiums explains not this If exemption. not a time-share thus does qualify project was not a conversion of a residential structure into condominiums “develop- use, not density intensity ment” because it does increase be would explanation unnecessary. from laid to rest conversions
Finally, any argument are not subject provisions tenant occupancy that a to a trial court’s stock ruling the Coastal Act response it not a to the act because was conversion was not subject cooperative time trial court’s Government Code ruling, At the “development.” defined as “subdivisions” which lists generally projects section Act, refer to stock expressly cooperative under the Subdivision did Map harvesting plan with a submitted operations timber which are in accordance timber (commencing Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 pursuant to the provisions *13 4511). with Section road, includes, to, section, building, any pipe, but is not limited “As used in ‘structure’ this conduit, line, flume, power transmission aqueduct, telephone electrical siphon, distribution line.” court, conversions. The trial a conversion was reasoning stock cooperative land, neither a defined “subdivision” nor a division of concluded it could not be a for of the Coastal Act. Coastal “development” purposes (California Quanta Com. Investment Corp. Cal.App.3d 263].) The Government Code Cal.Rptr. responded by amending “ ‘Subdivision’, section 66424 to recite includes ... the conver specifically sion of five or more (Gov. units to a stock . . .” existing dwelling cooperative, Code, 66424, 1192, 1, 4691-692; as amended Stats. ch. pp. § Quanta, at statute]), 600-605 thus that stock pp. [discussing ensuring coop erative conversions would be defined subdivisions therefore would also be to the Act. subject Coastal “developments” short, subdivisions, conversions,
In all including mobilehome park are of the Coastal Act. “developments” purposes
We also reject notion that an owner convert mobilehome seeking to resident can avoid the reach of the Coastal Act by asserting that its conversion will have no particular on the or impact density intensity of land In use. the first that a conversion alter place, might immediately use of land does not it will lead to an increase in the preclude possibility or density of use. intensity Additionally, conversion lead to might problem- atic design features as owners their express individuality by decorating to their adding mobilehomes. Nor is it that owners would block impossible access to coastal public areas increase the number of residents in their event, units. In the act accounts for the possibility proposed project not affect may coastal resources by on the executive conferring authority commission, director of the coastal after a hearing, issue “waivers public from coastal that is de development permit requirements any development (Pub. minimus.” 30624.7.) Resources As in Gualala explained Com., Festivals Committee v. Coastal supra, Cal.App.4th California 69-70: the Act to pages “Construing Commission with both provide to control even . expansive jurisdiction limited . . and the development from the authority that does not have exempt permit process development ‘any significant adverse coastal resources’ the Commis- impact upon provides sion the environment necessary the coastal zone flexibility manage so as to That a accomplish statutory purposes.” recognized project specifically the act is “development” by unlikely to affect of land density intensity use warrant a may from the act’s but grant exemption permit requirements, it does not from the act’s except project jurisdiction.
We conclude the Coastal Act to all mobilehome conver applies sions to resident ownership. *14 Code, 65590, 65590.1) (Gov.
B. The Mello Act §§ Code, (Gov. as law housing The of elements Legislature, part 65580-65589.8), is of vital housing has declared that the of “availability §§ and and a statewide “decent suitable environment housing living importance,” 65580, (Id., Californian ... is a of the highest order.” every priority § Further, low- and (a).) housing subd. of affordable to provision “[t]he moderate-income households all levels of govern of requires cooperation (Id., (c).) Each to adopt ment.” subd. local therefore is government required 65581, (Id., general of its “housing component plan. § element[]” and (b).) The “shall consist of an identification housing subd. element and needs of analysis goals, of and a statement existing projected housing resources, financial and policies, objectives, programs scheduled quantified housing for the and improvement, housing. preservation, development housing, housing, element shall sites for rental identify adequate including mobilehomes, shelters, and shall make and factory-built housing, emergency for the and of all economic needs adequate existing projected provision 65583.) segments community.” (Id., § law, housing establishing
The Mello Act elements supplements and minimum within coastal zone for housing persons requirements Code, 65590, (Gov. (b), (k); families of low or moderate income. subds. § 1547, Council, Inc. v. Angeles VeniceTown Los City Cal.App.4th 465].) It does not local require governments 1552-1553 Cal.Rptr.2d ordinances to ensure individual adopt programs compliance Code, 65590, (h)(3)), but it (Gov. govern subd. provisions prohibits or demolition of residential authorizing existing ments from conversion “[t]he moderate in and families of low or units dwelling occupied persons come, for the of those . . . unless has been made replacement provision low or moderate units with units for families of dwelling persons Council, Inc., 1553.) (b); (Id., subd. see Venice Town p. income.” units most conversions of residential The Mello Act expressly applies ¿Iso zone, of a to the conversion within the coastal expressly applies condominium, or similar mobilehome or mobilehome lot to cooperative, (b), (Gov. subds. (g)(1).) form of ownership. 66410-66499.37) (Gov.
C. The Map Subdivision §§ control’ Act is ‘the primary regulatory “The Subdivision Map County (Gardner in California.” the subdivision real governing property 103].) It 62 P.3d (2003) Cal.4th Sonoma 996 [129 “to orderly community development, has goals: encourage three principal estate individual real on the protect undue burdens prevent public, *15 549, (van’t County Rood v. Santa Clara (2003) 113 buyers.” Cal.App.4th 746].) 563-564 It “seeks ‘to and facilitate encourage orderly [6 coordinate with the community community development, planning pattern authorities, made, and established local assure are so improvements proper ” (Gardner, that area does not become an undue burden on the taxpayer.’ 997-998.) at pp.
To its Act goals, Subdivision sets accomplish Map suitability, design, Code, and Gov. 66473 et improvement, procedural requirements (e.g., seq., §§ 66478.1 et It also allows local re- seq.). governments impose supplemental id., (The of the same kind et et quirements (e.g., 66475 66479 seq., seq.). §§ City Pines v. Santa Monica 656, 336, (1981) Cal.3d 29 659 Cal.Rptr. [175 Further, 521].) P.2d 630 Act the ‘[Regulation vests and control of the “[t]he design of subdivisions’ in the improvement legislative bodies of local (Gardner which agencies, must ordinances on the promulgate subject.” Sonoma, County 997, supra, 29 Cal.4th at omitted.) fn. The local p. enforcement entity’s tied to power directly grant or withhold power Thus, of a subdivision approval subdivision under the Act map. “[o]rdinarily, be may lawfully only by and recorda- accomplished obtaining approval 66426, tion of a tentative and final to section when five or more map pursuant involved, are or a parcels to section 66428 when four or parcel map pursuant (Ibid.) fewer are involved.” parcels
The subdivision begins with submission to the or process city county of an application, including lots. The map depicting proposed applica tion and are first reviewed for are next map They reviewed for completeness. technical feasibility, which consultation may with other require agencies. Quest: The (Dittman, Map may Subdivision be the most Map heavily statute in land litigated use law 23, (Jan. 2007) 24—25.) L.A. Law. The Thus, process involves one or more typically hearings. “[generally, public is scheduled and conducted hearing after staff have only city county deemed the technical map complete, approved feasibility map, an environmental prepared appropriate analysis. hearing may be public before an that is authorized to advisory agency approve, conditionally tentative .... After the approve, disapprove hearing maps required public omitted, (Id. the tentative hearings, can be fn. map approved.” p. 66452.1, see Horn v. (a), (b), Gov. citing (b); subds. subd. §§ County Ventura 24 Cal.3d P.2d Cal.Rptr. 1134].) The Subdivision Act cites a number of circumstances Map require denial of a relate most to whether the and its map; design proposed project site, on the to the the project’s impact are to the community appropriate environment, of health and safety.2 or issues to mobilehome park
The Subdivision Act expressly applies Map 66427.4, 66427.5, 66428.1.) (Gov. conversions. §§
II. that, rule, as a general develop Bowl does not dispute Palisades *16 of the not to the only provisions within the coastal zone are subject ments Code, 66410-66499.37), also to all other (Gov. but Subdivision Act Map §§ Code, laws, (Pub. Act Resources the Coastal including state applicable 65590, 65590.1). Nor does (Gov. et and the Mello §§ seq.) § that, rule, an a or must agency may reject a local general it dispute Act, the Mello even with the Coastal Act or that does not comply application Act. In the of the Subdivision Map the satisfies requirements if application case, tentative vesting Bowl a sought map. Palisades this example, the to with right confers a vested proceed of a tentative vesting map approval ordinances, and with the policies, in substantial compliance development 66498.1, (Gov. Act. described the Subdivision by Map standards if or deny a local condition (b).) agency may permit “[t]he subd. But with state or federal law.” in order to comply condition or denial is required Further, (Id., on tentative vesting maps in the (c)(2).) nothing chapter subd. diminishes, “removes, subdivider to any comply the of obligation or affects laws, regulations, state or federal any and of with the conditions requirements county body city or shall legislative “A of recites that Government Code section 66474 map required, was not map for which a tentative deny map, parcel a tentative or a approval of findings: any following the if it makes general plans and .... specific “(a) map applicable is not consistent with proposed That the with is not consistent “(b) proposed of the subdivision design improvement the or That plans. general specific and applicable “(c) type development. for the physically suitable That the site is density development. proposed for the “(d) physically the is not suitable That site likely to cause are “(e) proposed improvements or the design the of the subdivision That or their avoidably injure fish or wildlife damage substantially and or substantial environmental habitat. likely to cause serious improvements is “(f) type or design the of the subdivision That problems. health public will conflict with improvements type or the “(g) design the of the subdivision That of, within the easements, through property or use large, access by public the at acquired connection, it finds body may approve map if governing subdivision. In this proposed use, will be easements, and that these provided, will be for access or for that alternate apply subsection shall public. This acquired substantially equivalent previously to ones competent a court of by judgment of established of record or to easements only to easements body public determine that the legislative hereby granted to a authority is jurisdiction and no proposed property within through or use of for access large acquired has easements subdivision.” agencies option does not grant chapter] policies [the (Id., laws, federal regulations, policies.” state or
disregard any (b).)3 subd. 66427.5, a provi- Government Code section
But Palisades Bowl contends Act, mobilehome conversions exempts sion of Subdivision Map laws, regulations, policies, prohib- from other state law state entities from enforcing compliance its local governmental itself. for those the section requirements except imposed mandatory Code section 66427.5 creates procedure Government it, residents.” Under “avoid the economic of all nonpurchasing displacement (1) must offer each tenant existing option purchase subdivider (id., (a)), (2) file a tenant’s unit or to continue as a tenant subd. residency (b)), (id., residents subd. on the of the conversion project upon report impact at least 15 (3) days make a of the available to residents prior copy report (id., (c)), obtain a on subd. advisory agency’s hearing map (id., for the conversion subd. survey residents’ support proposed *17 of the (d)(1)). (d)(5) Subdivision of section 66427.5 recites that the results the the of the tentative filing “shall be submitted to local survey agency upon or to be considered as of the subdivision hearing parcel map, part map (e).” (e) subdivision Subdivision recites: “The subdivider shall by prescribed which is be to a a or subject hearing by legislative body advisory agency, or authorized local ordinance to by approve, conditionally approve, disap limited to the issue the The the shall be scope hearing prove map. of of a formula (Italics added.) (f) with this section.” Subdivision states compliance market and timeline for the rent of residents to the increasing nonpurchasing rate and limits the increases that be lower income may charged nonpurchas residents.4 ing by argues suggests City improperly, procedurally, the acted Palisades Bowl times Act clearance in connection with
requiring applications permit it to file for a coastal and Mello by application map. application appears its for a tentative But a combined to be authorized (b)(1), governments subdivision which authorizes local Public Resources Code section review, modification, a filing, approval, the or denial of procedures processing, to “establish for may incorporated be development permit,” specifies procedures coastal that “[t]hose relating appropriate development permit made a the to other land use part procedures of 66498.1, addition, subdivi by government.” issued the local In Government Code section Act, (c)(2), governmental Map by conferring authority the on local part sion of Subdivision law, necessarily agencies deny permit compliance to condition a to ensure with state showing part map application the contemplates compliance a of with state law before of process. filing “At the time of a tentative or Government Code section 66427.5 recites in full: map park for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a rental mobilehome to parcel nonpurchasing of all ownership, displacement resident the subdivider shall avoid the economic following residents in the manner: view, In Palisades Bowl’s the the by limiting scope hearing prescribed 66427.5, (e) Government Code by section subdivision issue of com- section,” the with “this defined the full extent of a local pliance to review an to convert governmental entity’s obligation power application Thus, Bowl, a mobilehome to resident to Palisades park ownership. according lacked for the failure authority its City deny application comply Act and that Coastal or Mello reason also lacked authority include for a reject coastal application failing applications develop- asserts, ment and for Mello Act clearance. The to the City contrary, permit Government Code section even if read to limit local regulation conversions, mobilehome need not and should not be construed to park prevent from with state laws such as the Coastal agencies enforcing compliance Act or the Mello Act. (cid:127) “(a) existing option purchase The subdivider shall offer each tenant an to either his or her unit, park condominium or which is to be created the conversion of the subdivided ownership, residency or to continue as a tenant. “(b) report impact upon The subdivider shall file a on the of the conversion residents of park mobilehome to be converted to resident owned subdivided interest. “(c) each copy report The subdivider shall make available to resident of or, advisory agency days prior hearing map mobilehome at least 15 to the on the if advisory agency, by legislative body. there is no “(d)(1) survey of the mobilehome support The subdivider shall obtain of residents proposed for the conversion. “(2) survey agreement in accordance with an between the support The shall be conducted association, any, independent if that is subdivider and- resident homeowners’ park owner. subdivider or mobilehome “(3) survey ballot. pursuant The shall be obtained to written “(4) survey occupied space shall be conducted so that each mobilehome has one vote. *18 “(5) survey agency upon filing of the be submitted to the local the of the The results shall hearing by parcel part map prescribed tentative or to be considered as of the subdivision map, (e). subdivision “(e) hearing by legislative body advisory agency, or subject The subdivider shall be to a the by approve, conditionally approve, disapprove local ordinance to or which is authorized hearing compliance the with this section.
map. scope of the shall be limited to issue of “(f) displacement nonpurchas- the of all required The subdivider shall be to avoid economic ing following: with the residents in accordance households, “(1) income as defined in nonpurchasing residents who are not lower As Code, rent, Safety monthly including any applicable fees the Health and the Section 50079.5 of amenities, may rent to charges any preconversion increase from the preconversion for use of levels, nationally recognized conducted in accordance with appraisal market as defined in an standards, four-year period. equal in annual increases over professional appraisal households, “(2) defined in Section who are lower income as nonpurchasing As to residents Code, rent, any monthly including applicable fees or Safety the Health and 50079.5 of amenities, by rent any may preconversion increase from the charges preconversion for use of years immediately average monthly increase in rent in the four equal an amount to the conversion, monthly rent be increased an that in no event shall the preceding except Price Index for average monthly percentage increase in the Consumer greater amount than the recently reported period.” the most Coastal Act here with only application As we are concerned Government determine whether need not also and Mello Act we requirements, conver mobilehome local regulation section 66427.5 limits Code has on effect section 66427.5 find that any sions. We irrespective number or subject or on the conversions of mobilehome regulation Act, it the Subdivision Map matter of any hearings required permitted to ensure agencies of local governmental does not affect the responsibility and does not deprive Act and the Mello Act with the Coastal compliance as are such conditions of the to hold hearings impose local agencies power those acts. to ensure necessary compliance
III. “ our fundamental case involving statutory interpretation, ‘As the law’s intent so as to effectuate task here is to determine the Legislature’s ” (In 573, 94, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d re C.H. 53 Cal.4th purpose.’ [133 “ meaning, an unmistakable 357].) P.3d ‘If the statute’s text evinces plain ” here, where, are a statute’s terms (Ibid.) we need no further.’ But as go aids, including unclear or “we ‘look to a of extrinsic ambiguous, may variety remedied, achieved, the legislative to be the evils to be ostensible objects construction, administrative history, public policy, contemporaneous ” (2012) 54 (In is a re M.M. scheme of which statute statutory part.’ 869, 1221].) 278 P.3d Cal.4th of Government Code state favor an Significant interpretation policies and the Mello Act of that does not the Coastal Act section 66427.5 deprive earlier, As we observed over land use within the coastal zone. jurisdiction uses, and future Act that “existing developed Coastal recites specifically with the that are consistent carefully developed developments planned well-being are to the economic and social essential policies [the act] (d).) subd. (Pub. . . . .” Resources of this state § people Moreover, the Coastal recognized, explains Court Appeal is a of the state’s natural and scenic resources the “permanent protection and nation.” and future residents of state concern paramount present added.) The (Pub. (b), housing subd. italics Resources law, to a similarly which the Mello Act responds elements supplements, Code, 65580, (a).) (Gov. subd. concern “of vital statewide importance.” *19 Bowl, however, a different state mandates Palisades claims policy That section was enacted Code section 66427.5. Government interpretation 1991, 745, 2, 3324), Legislature several after (Stats. years in ch. p. 1991 § Saf. (Health & Program Park Resident Ownership enacted the Mobilehome 2, 1984, 1692, 50781, Code, Stats. ch. by et subd. added (j), § 50780 seq., §§ 6114-6119; MPROP), in which it articulated its concern hereafter pp. manufactured and housing mobilehome source of afford- parks, significant residents, able for California housing were threatened increases in being by costs, deterioration, and to convert to other physical pressures uses. parks (Health & Saf. (a).) subd. The MPROP was enacted “to and facilitate encourage conversion of mobilehome to resident parks or or local ownership ownership by qualified nonprofit housing by sponsors entities, to low-income mobilehome residents from both public protect park and economic to obtain a physical level of and displacement, high private conversions, other for financing mobilehome and to establish public park help resident-owned, for and acceptance mo- nonprofit-owned, government-owned bilehome (Health in the market.” & Saf. parks private (b).)5 subd. view,
In Palisades Bowl’s it follows that when the enacted Legislature Government Code section it did so to uniform only provide statewide for procedure residents economic protecting nonpurchasing against but also to conversions of mobilehome to displacement, promote parks resident or for what it nonprofit ownership by simplifying procedures Park Associates Sequoia (See asserts is little more than a in title. change County Sonoma Cal.App.4th 669] the view that because mobilehome are [taking tenant-occupied parks subject “(a) Safety Health and Code provides section 50780 in full: finds and declares as follows: “(1) housing provide significant That manufactured and parks mobilehome source of residents, homeownership increasing for California but costs of mobilehome park development construction, housing, financing and with the combined costs of manufactured the costs of rates, operating parks, vacancy these the low and the to pressures parks to convert mobilehome unaffordable, increasingly living park other uses render mobilehome to those particularly housing. residents most in need of affordable “(2) government play important addressing problems That state can an role in confronted by financing park providing supplemental possible mobilehome residents that makes it park acquire parks they mobilehome the mobilehome in reside and convert residents which them to ownership. California, “(3) significant parks That a number of older mobilehome exist in the residents may collectively qualifications necessary successfully of which lack or experience other operate parks; parks provide housing own and their that these low-cost for their residents that uses; replace parks parks would be difficult to if the were converted to other that these are likely parks by physical more than other to be threatened deterioration or conversion to other uses; is, therefore, appropriate pursuant and that it to use the resources the fund to this ownership by qualified nonprofit housing sponsors by local chapter parks to transfer these housing. public purpose preserving entities for the them as affordable Therefore, “(b) encourage Legislature, enacting chapter, it is the intent of the this by qualified parks ownership facilitate the conversion of mobilehome to resident entities, housing nonprofit sponsors public protect low-income mobilehome high private obtain a level of physical displacement, residents from both and economic conversions, financing acceptance and to public help other for mobilehome establish resident-owned, government-owned parks private in the nonprofit-owned, and mobilehome market.”
805 of mobilehome review and regulations, a of laws myriad is unnecessary].) conversions favoring a state reflects policy the MPROP Although do not agree.
We it, in nothing resident ownership, conversions of mobilehome parks belief suggests in Code section Government nothing than and overrides is of more importance that this policy Act. In Act and the Mello of the Coastal and “vital” concerns “paramount” laws, federal to other state or addition, Act’s deference the Subdivision Map stake; absence of any and the the other interests regulations, policies; conver- mobilehome park excepting in section 66427.5 expressly language section, laws, strongly suggest from those regulations, policies sions Act, in is intended operate the Subdivision Map the other like provisions with other state laws. conjunction a construc also favor of statutory interpretation
General principles it not cause to displace 66427.5 that does of Government Code section tion must, reasonably where possible, the Mello Act. “A court the Coastal Act or them, statutes, in and construe inconsistencies reconcile seeming harmonize This rule effect to all of their them to force and give provisions. [Citations.] with a subject deals generally of the statutes involved one although applies (Hough of the subject.” aspects and another relates specifically particular Thus, 668, McCarthy (1960) 273, 276].) 353 P.2d 54 Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. 279 [5 “ construed, as blending “must be they regarded codes are to be when ‘two Accordingly, they single each other and statute.” forming into [Citation.] effect, when as to give possible, be read and so construed together “must ” 657, v. Reed (Mejia (2003) 31 Cal.4th all the thereof.” provisions [Citation.]’ “ ‘ Further, 390, are 166].) presumptions 74 R3d Cal.Rptr.3d “[a]ll [3 Absent an express by implication. against repeal [Citations.]” [Citation.] intent, when “only an repeal we will find implied declaration of legislative conflicting the two harmonizing potentially basis for there is no rational ‘irreconcilable, [citation], clearly repugnant, are and the statutes statutes ” ” two cannot have concurrent operation.’ [Citation.]’ so inconsistent that the 465, 487 Inc. (Merrill v. Navegar, (2001) Cal.Rptr.2d 26 Cal.4th [110 LLP Mallory & Leek Gamble v. Allen Matkins accord, 116]; Schatz 28 P.3d 1109].) P.3d 45 Cal.4th can be constmed require Code section 66427.5 Government tenants to the of economic displacement issue exclusively devoted hearing addition to the laws. Such other state and hearings required procedures the Subdivision with the general application a construction is consistent Act within the Mello Act to developments the Coastal Act and Map zone, acts. This construction of all three harmonizing provisions coastal that its mandate provisions the Mello Act’s express as well with consistent *21 to mobilehome conversions within the apply park (Gov. coastal zone. (b), 66427.5, subds. A (g)(1).) construction of contrary § section one that denies enforcement of the Coastal Act and the Act Mello in connection zone, with mobilehome conversions within the coastal park fails to only but, harmonize the section with those acts by their also overriding provisions, effects an (See of them. Allen implied partial repeal Matkins Leek Schatz LLP, Gamble & Mallory 573.) 45 Cal.4th at We would supra, it p. adopt only if no other construction were feasible. 66427.5, Act,
That Government Code section like the Mello seeks to affordable preserve within the coastal zone does not render housing statutes fatally Section 66427.5 incompatible. establishes measures to specific avoid the economic of all mobilehome displacement nonpurchasing notice, residents an through and measured rent opportunity purchase, increases. either the subdivider or the Nothing residents requires purchasing to maintain or low- or moderate-income provide any stock. In housing contrast, the Mello Act low- and requires developer provide replacement moderate-income in order to maintain a housing stock variety housing (Gov. 65590.) within the coastal zone. The statutes thus address residents, different one current subjects: other maintains protects adequate low- and moderate-income stock in the coastal zone future housing residents. There is no conflict between them.
We recognize with the Mello Act and the requiring Coastal compliance result, Act slow down the conversion But that may even if not process. fully desire, MPROP, consistent with the Legislature’s in the to encour- expressed conversions, age or facilitate does not create so serious between repugnancy statutory schemes as to a construction of Government Code section justify 66427.5 that effects an of the Coastal Act and the Mello Act. implied repeal
Nor is it means certain the would have assumed by any Legislature with the Coastal Act or the Mello Act would compliance significant pose obstacles to mobilehome conversions. The of those acts are not goals with Government Code section 66427.5 with a desire to incompatible mobilehome source of affordable and Palisades protect parks housing, Bowl has not shown that a coastal or Mello Act requiring compliance permit will burden conversions to resident To the unreasonably contrary, ownership. if, insists, as Palisades Bowl its conversion will have no effect on the interests Act, the Coastal it be able to obtain an from the protected may exemption Code, 30624.7.) (Pub. a coastal Resources In necessity obtaining permit. addition, with the Mello Act although may delay requiring compliance (e), conversion Government Code subdivision section process, a uniform statewide residents creating procedure protecting nonpurchasing against by addressing economic streamlines displacement, process block to conversion. The stumbling to create a likely issue most an such a procedure provides adequate have concluded may reasonably and facilitate conversions. encourage to the desire response also against argues a related of the Subdivision Finally, Map provision 66427.5 generally Government Code section Palisades Bowl’s interpretation. *22 ownership. to mobilehome to resident refers the conversion of a rental park two- when at least section conversions governs Government Code 66428.1 a their intent to indicating purchase thirds of the tenants sign petition park’s it to Section 66428.1 the of resident converting ownership. for purposes a or a the for map rule waiver of general parcel states requiring requirement conversions, that but from tentative and final for tenant-initiated excepts map necessitated rule where or are design improvement requirements conversions (id., (a)(1)), agency health or concerns subd. the local by significant safety that recordation there is an exterior boundary requires determines discrepancy (id., a new the (a)(2)), existing of or tentative and final subd. map parcel (id., (a)(3)), created recorded final were not subd. parcels parcel map or the would in the more condominium units or conversion result creation of interests than the tenant lots that number of existed spaces prior (id., (a)(4)). Legislature’s conversion subd. the Accordingly, expressed despite interest, MPROP, in of mobilehome conversions promoting resident form scrutiny section 66428.1 some of local ownership, contemplates warranted, for the of whether or and determining not waiver purpose waiver, that conditions it that the specifying implies agency further preclude has charged authority with the to review obligation map applications address conditionally those conditions when whether to determining approve, did That not intend approve, Legislature disapprove map. even all review of tenant-initiated conversions address prevent concerns of Code 66427.5 against construction Government section argues that review of owner-initiated conversions for with state prevents compliance law. stated, of Code
For the reasons we have we find construction Government section that does the Coastal 66427.5 residential conversions from exempt and the Mello Act to be consistent with the of the section language context, significant and finds the rules of construction support statutory code harmony of laws between disfavoring repeal favoring implied however, Palisades Bowl that the provisions. argues, legislative history from the section reveals that intended to conversions Legislature exempt in other of other state laws. That has been chronicled history requirements Colony City Cove LLC v. Carson (see, 187 Properties, (2010) cases e.g., Park 822]; Sequoia 1497-1504 Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.3d [114 Sonoma, El 1282-1287; County Associates v. supra, Cal.App.4th atpp. Dorado Palm Ltd. Palm Springs, City Springs Cal.App.4th (El Dorado)), little in the 1166-1174 because Cal.Rptr.2d [118 15] history to the 2002 prior amendment of section 66427.5 sheds light on the of section meaning (e), subdivision it need not be described in great detail here. Palisades Bowl cites it chiefly Legislature’s response find, the decision in El Dorado. We to the did contrary, no more than signal its intent to bar local governmental entities from imposing their own conditions for the protection tenants on conversions to resident ownership.
An case, understanding El Dorado begins an earlier Donohue v. Santa Paula West Mobile Home Park (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th There, 282], Second District an rejected argument of Government Code provisions section 66427.5 allowing increases in (id., rent after conversion former (d)(1), (f)(1)) subd. now subd. take effect when a subdivider files a tentative first toward map conversion to step The court held that the ownership. do not take effect until provisions (Donohue, conversion occurs 1173), that a p. observing conclu- contrary *23 sion would mean owner could “every park a lifetime purchase exemption from local rent control for the cost of a tentative filing even if map, park residents have no to if ability purchase even local government disap- the proves tentative Park map. residents could then be economically displaced rent by unregulated increases. This is the circumstance section very 66427.5 was enacted to (Id. 1175.) at prevent.” p.
The decision in Donohue did not render it to use impossible Government Code section 66427.5 to avoid local rent control. For an owner example, conversion, could obtain for a take the approval to “convert” steps necessary control, the so as to it from park local rent but make exempt no further effort residents, to transfer created newly lots to ownership thereby enabling the owner to continue to rent the units to tenants without the burden of local Dorado, 1153, rent control. In El Palm supra, 96 the Cal.App.4th City had Springs to that responded of a possibility by making approval conversion to proposed subject conditions to ensure the conversion designed conversion, bona was fide. One condition would the force of delay thus section 66427.5’s rent increase until escrow had closed on provisions, one-third of the The approximately units. Fourth District held the conditions violated section 66427.5. It found a is converted to resident ownership (El Dorado, when the unit 1166), first is sold at thus it would p. confirming be for a owner to avoid local rent possible control means of a “sham” by conversion. court concern that section 66427.5 therefore could expressed transactions,” be used to avoid local rent control means of “sham by the suggesting wish to broaden the Legislature might of local authority (El Dorado, entities to 1165.) conversions. at But it held that regulate p. 66427.5, section in (d), what was then subdivision that ‘The “provides scope the shall be limited to the hearing issue of with this section.’ compliance Thus, the lacks to additional conditions City authority investigate impose the tentative at time it fraudulent transactions the approves sham or prevent Dorado, 1165.) map.” p.
or parcel {El 2002, in Dorado by to the decision El In the Legislature responded hearing Government the section’s moving Code section amending (d), subdivision (e) adding a new a new subdivision requirements to obtain a of tenants survey the the obligation which on subdivider imposes the results of conversion and submit to determine tenant support map “to be subdivision survey part to the local considered agency Code, 66427.5, (Gov. (d)(5), subd. (e).” by subdivision hearing prescribed § 2002, 1143, 1, 7398, also 7399.) ch. The Legislature added Stats. pp. § amendments, enacted, “It is reciting: did include in the language but code to address the conversion of mobilehome park intent of Legislature conversion, as described that not bona fide resident therefore, is, El Dorado .... It intent of Court in Appeal to Section act to that conversions enacting pursuant this ensure (Stats. Code bona fide resident conversions.” 66427.5 of Government are 1143, 2, 7399-7400.)6 But the Legislature rejected proposal ch. pp. that have local additional granted agencies authority impose “any would legislative advisory agency conditions of body approval determines are necessary affordability nonpurchasing preserve protect Amend, (Sen. No. from to Assem. Bill residents economic displacement.” 26, 2002, Sess.) omitted.) (2001-2002 June italics Reg. p. *24 to confer- Legislature’s Palisades Bowl asserts the failure adopt provisions El local the Fourth District in additional on ring authority agencies proves Dorado, 1153, Government Code interpreted supra, correctly 96 Cal.App.4th investigating section local from agencies 66427.5 as precluding governmental to on mobilehome conversions park prevent additional conditions imposing further, reasons, the Legislature’s It that sham or fraudulent transactions. limited to that decision and its interest in promoting response expressed to to the inexorably mobilehome conversions resident lead park the intended to local from agencies denying conclusion prevent with section any reason besides applications noncompliance conversion with only District in El Dorado was concerned 66427.5. But the Fourth a local to by entity protect that had been on a conversion conditions imposed it tenants, to can response nor the holding Legislature’s neither an neither addresses: whether section be read to reasonably argument support ” “ 6 is ‘plus provision a bill: “that language of what is known as a section’ of part This enacts, that but general of the section or law the bill part not intended to be a substantive code the bill.” aspect operation on or effect of [expresses] Legislature’s view some of 279, 846, 858-859, 486].) (People P.2d v. Allen fn. 13 984 Cal.4th conversions, even if it local precludes regulation sham prevent also bars state-mandated local review of conversions for with compliance other state laws. reason,
For the same we find little if for Palisades Bowl’s support that, case, in two position court like appellate cases were decided present after amendments to Government Code section In 66427.5. Sequoia Sonoma, Park Associates v. County supra, the First Cal.App.4th District invalidated a local ordinance that actions subdivider specified “ was to take to conversion ‘bona required prove proposed was fide ” (id. 1274). resident at that the court reasoned p. Legisla- conversion^’ ture has expressly all local impliedly preempted regulation mobile- home (Id. 1297-1300.) conversions resident at ownership. pp. case, The following year, the Second issued its District in opinion present and on the same also day Colony decided LLC v. Properties, City Cove Carson, that, supra, 187 It there 1487. found it over- Cal.App.4th “[w]hen hauled sections 66427.4 and 66427.5 the Legislature local deprived entities and agencies more authority stringent measures’ ‘enact[] conversions regulating mobilehome to resident parks ownership, thereby its intent to localities from conveying prevent unduly impeding (Id. 1506.) conversions.” The court further observed that the p. Legisla- ture’s later rejection of authorize local proposal agencies impose additional that conditions “demonstrates it continues to approval oppose local (Ibid.) deviation from or addition criteria.” statutory
Although broadly stating Government Code section 66427.5 precludes local of mobilehome regulation conversions to resident ownership, neither nor Cove Sequoia Colony Park considered the issues specific pre- sented this case: whether the from section conversions other state exempts laws, Act, such as the Coastal and the Mello or bars from agencies to them and the exercising delegated the Coastal Act Mello authority Act to deny those acts and to require compliance reject applications not, that do establish do They authority compliance. accordingly, provide either supporting argument.
CONCLUSION hold Code which a We that Government section states uniform, statewide for against residents procedure protecting nonpurchasing economic does not of mobilehome to displacement, exempt conversions parks (Pub. resident from the of the Coastal Act Resources ownership requirements Code, Code, 65590, 65590.1), (Gov. et or the Act Mello seq.) § §§ conversions, which also to such and has no effect on the those apply authority to acts local entities to enforce with their delegate provisions. compliance establishing from such procedures therefore are not agencies precluded Local to to their such as are fulfill holding hearings appropriate responsibilities the Act. the Coastal Act and Mello ensure with compliance J., J.,* Liu, Kline, J., Chin, J., J., C. Cantil-Sakauye, Corrigan, concurred. (section Government Code
KENNARD, J., section 66427.5 Dissenting. for the 66427.5) for a mobilehome subdividing park sets forth requirements is, a mobilehome park it to resident converting ownership—that purpose own, rent, their the on which which residents rather than parcels are The that when mobilehome majority park mobilehomes situated. holds zone, a to convert entity seeking is located within the coastal person but only to must not with section 66427.5 ownership comply resident park (Pub. with Coastal Act of Resources also the California Act) (Gov. 65590). et hereafter Coastal and Mello seq.; to it to I Because a mobilehome convert resident disagree. subdividing park intensity does not involve a in the change density use, it is within the Coastal meaning “development” property’s Act, and to under that act. Nor does the therefore it is not subject regulation (e) subdivision Mello Act of section 66427.5’s plain language apply. other state shows that the intended section 66427.5 displace laws such as the Mello Act.
I Estates, Bowl), (Palisades Pacific LLC Plaintiff Palisades Bowl Mobile in the owns a with more than 170 units. The coastal mobilehome park State Beach in the Rogers City zone across Pacific Coast from Will Highway with (the Los In November after various discussions City). Angeles officials, file an City’s attempted application Palisades Bowl planning officials refused City convert its mobilehome ownership. include, did not it was because it insisting incomplete accept application, Act affordable other a coastal and Mello among things, development permit determination. housing writ Bowl filed in court a
In Palisades January superior petition relief. together declaratory injunctive of mandate complaint had things, City improperly Palisades Bowl other alleged, among and that lacks discretion City refused subdivision accept application Justice, District, Two, assigned *Presiding Appeal, Appellate Coúrt of First Division *26 VI, 6 of California Constitution. pursuant Chief Justice to article section the 812 other impose any than those set forth in requirements section 66427.5.
Palisades Bowl a writ or the requested injunction commanding City accept its deem it a application, complete, make decision either approving it. denying
The court a issued writ of superior mandate the peremptory commanding to vacate its City decision finding Palisades Bowl’s incomplete, application deem it it evaluate without it complete, regard whether complied either the Coastal Act or On the Mello Act. the the of City’s Court appeal, reversed with directions to the Appeal vacate writ and enter peremptory for the court judgment City. granted This review.
II statutes, This case of issues construction. In a presents statutory construing court aims “to ascertain the intent of the that we enacting legislative body so the may construction best effectuates the of law.” adopt purpose (Hassan Mercy American River Hospital 709, (2003) v. Cal.4th 715 31 [3 623, Klein v. United 726]; accord, States America 74 P.3d Cal.Rptr.3d of 68, 722, City (2010) 42]; 50 Cal.4th 77 235 P.3d Cal.Rptr.3d Chavez v. [112 of Los Angeles 970, 710, (2010) 47 41].) Cal.4th 224 P.3d Cal.Rptr.3d [104 statute, To achieve this a goal, court to the words of the begins by looking “because the statutory is most reliable indicator of language generally (Hassan Mercy American River Hospital, supra, intent.” v. legislative at America, Klein 715; accord, v. United States 77; v. supra, p. at Chavez p. City Los Angeles, supra, 986.) If the statutory p. language (In re Ethan C. 610, ambiguous, meaning governs. (2012) 54 Cal.4th plain Toney People 1052]; 279 P.3d Cal.4th Cal.Rptr.3d [143 778].) 82 P.3d The Act Coastal does not a for mobilehome expressly permit require park it conversions to resident but does ownership, any require permit issue, then, (Pub. 30600.) Resources “development.” is whether a mobilehome conversion to is a resident ownership “development” as, within the term things, Coastal Act’s definition of that other among land, in “change of use but not limited density intensity including, to, subdivision . . . and other pursuant Subdivision Map land, lot division of where land division is including splits, except about with the land brought public connection such purchase (Pub. 30106). use” Under agency recreational Resources public definition, meaning this a mobilehome conversion plain change is not a because it does not “development” land, of its of use but the form density intensity merely changes conversion, will After the same number of mobilehomes ownership. locations, remain in same each household. single occupied
813 a of introducing It that list “by The concludes otherwise. reasons majority ‘subdivision,’ not limited ‘including, with the but including phrase projects, to,’ section 30106 has explained the in Public Resources Code for the a in use of intensity that each is the of change purposes listed project ante, 795.) “Any .” states: subdivi- majority act . . . at The (Maj. p. opn., is, a definition, change Act thus by sion under the Subdivision Map species ” (Ibid., a first or of use of land and is intensity ‘development.’ in density subdivisions, added; short, including mobile- at 797 all italics see id. p. [“In conversions, of the Coastal are ‘developments’ purposes home park Act.”].) that Legisla-
The
leads
constructions
statutory
majority’s approach
if
defined
ture is
intended. For
a statute
unlikely
“antique
have
example,
American
before
car” as
car manufactured in
United States
“any
to,
Chevrolet,
Ford,
limited
the majority’s
but not
a
or
including,
Chrysler,”
Ford, Chevrolet,
Chrysler by
would mean that
every
approach
definition
car,”
it
an
where or when was made. Such
is
American
“antique
regardless
nullifies
a construction
be
it
elements in
important
would
nonsensical because
I would construe this
definition
statutory
definition.
statutory
hypothetical
if,
Ford, Chevrolet,
American
mean that a
is an
car”
Chrysler
“antique
if,
but
it was
in the
States before
only
manufactured
United
1940.
definition,
statutory
by
Another
an actual
example, involving
provided
v. Arias
The here cites Cal.4th majority supra, introduced statutory whenever definition contains list proposition to,” but not limited then item on the list phrase “including, every must, instance, fall definition. statutory (Maj. within necessarily every ante, 795.) at in that becomes if it is reasoning flaw opn., p. apparent definition issue in Arias. Under the statutory majority’s applied reasoning, to Health Code section applied Safety modification of vehicle’s original factory equipment produces definition a false whether the modification meets regardless compartment, statute’s requirement being intended for use to conceal a designed controlled be Surely substance. this cannot what the Legislature contem- *28 I would construe the statute in as plated. Arias that modified meaning original if, if, a factory is “false but it is for equipment compartment” only “intended conceal, hide, use or for or designed use to otherwise of discovery prevent substance (Health controlled within or attached to a vehicle” & Saf. 11366.8, token, (d)). subd. the same a subdivision or other of By § division if, land a if, as under but qualifies the Coastal Act it will “development” only result in a in “change (Pub. the or of use of land” density intensity Resources Arias, 30106). As this court in in a explained construing statutory definition, a court must be careful not to “render the that nugatory qualifiers the {Arias, included . . .” Legislature . 45 Cal.4th at purposefully supra, 181.) p.
To summarize: a Because mobilehome under section subdividing park 66427.5 the for of it to resident no purpose converting involves ownership use, the in change density intensity or of the land’s it is not a development Act, under the Coastal coastal is no and no conflict exists permit required, between the section 66427.5 and Coastal Act. Act,
This leaves the Mello which establishes within housing requirements the zone coastal with low In families or moderate incomes. persons it particular, authorizing the conversion or demolition of prohibits existing residential units by and families of or moderate occupied persons low income unless made has been with other similar The provision units. replacement Mello the conversion of a or expressly applies mobilehome mobile- condominium, home a lot in mobilehome lot a “to cooperative, Code, 65590, (Gov. similar form (g)(1).) subd. ownership.” Section 66427.5 contains its own economic avoid safeguards displace- ment of tenants with low or moderate incomes. The nonpurchasing subdivider owner) the tenant (usually mobilehome must offer each the park’s option 66427.5, (§ continue the rather than it. the renting (a).) subd. If space buying tenant chooses to continue rent renting, section 66427.5 limits increases. 66427.5, households, (§ (f).) subd. For lower income increases cannot exceed 66427.5, the the rise in Price (§ (f)(2).) Consumer Index. subd. The subdi- vider must the out also all tenants to find if favor the survey they conversion of the give results to the local copies survey (§ (d).) subdivision subd. agency part application.
For the mobilehome conversions to resident application ownership, (e), Mello Act is section 66427.5’s subdivision which reads: precluded by “The subdivider shall be to a subject hearing by legislative body which authorized local ordinance to condi- advisory agency, approve, be tionally shall approve, disapprove map. scope hearing added.) with this section.” (Italics By limited to the issue compliance compliance at the on subdivision hearing application issues limiting itself, of this bars applica- language provision with section 66427.5 plain the Mello Act. tion of other state laws such as conclusion, states that language different Reaching majority hearing (e) “can be construed to require section 66427.5’s subdivision of tenants to the of economic displacement devoted issue exclusively (Maj. state laws.” addition other hearings procedures required ante, suggests But in the 805.) statutory language p. nothing opn., mandating inefficient system, intended such cumbersome and *29 and redundant consideration of hearings overlapping for piecemeal multiple To be before a subdivision map may approved. statutory requirements section for conversion park ownership, subdivide mobilehome limited to single hearing 66427.5 requires single application be with followed approval section question compliance Thus, alone governs section 66427.5 subdivision map approval. disapproval. above, I conclude that of whether For reasons stated irrespective zone, entity located within the coastal person mobilehome to convert to resident must seeking comply only Act or the section 66427.5 and need not also with either the Coastal comply Therefore, I Mello Act. would reverse the Court of judgment Appeal direct court to affirm the court’s superior judgment.