Laguna Terrace files suit
Laguna Terrace Park went to court rather than deal the California Coastal Commission on a proposal to subdivide the parcel and let residents buy the land on which their mobile homes sit.
The park owner has petitioned the court to block the commission from assuming jurisdiction over the proposed conversion to a resident-owned park and prohibit it from challenging a coastal development permit, which the city approved and declared unappealable.
The proposed park map would subdivide 19 ½ acres of a 46½ acre parcel to create 157 individual parcels and a common area, which the owner claims does not qualify as development since it already exists and therefore limits the commission’s jurisdiction, according to a petition filed Aug. 3 in Orange County Superior Court.
“We are asking the judge to order the Coastal Commission to do what we think it should do,” park manager James Lawson said. “It says something when people prefer the legal route to dealing with the commission.
“Going to the commission is a non-starter.”
City planners have opined that the landowner’s proposal is not subject to the Coastal Commission jurisdiction because it is solely for the purpose of giving the residents ownership of the park. The petition to the court also states that the Planning Commission determined that the park is outside the commission’s area of deferred jurisdiction and is more than 100 feet from any stream identified on its official map.
Judge Ronald. L. Bauer has been appointed to hear the petition. He is the same judge that ruled that the St. Catherine of Siena Catholic School project, which is adjacent to Laguna Terrace Park, did not come under commission jurisdiction.
“The city did not think St. Catherine’s was appealable either,” Lawson said. “But the commission said it was and the diocese of Orange went to court.”
That case is cited in an attachment to the petition filed by attorney Boyd L. Hill on behalf of Laguna Terrace, noting similar issues are involved in both cases.
*
COASTAL COMMISSION POSITION
The commission also claims jurisdiction over the subdivision based on a 1995 lot line adjustment, which created the 46½-acre parcel, on part of which the park sits. The adjustment never received a coastal development permit, according to the commission, and therefore the subdivision application should include the entire 270-acre parcel — on which there is a stream.
Streams are identified on a commission-approved map and the proposed conversion is not within the proscribed 100 feet of a mapped stream, according to the petition. The claim was documented by an environmental consultant and backed up by an independent legal firm, both submitted with the petition.
In any case, the adjustment was not disputed within the 90 days after approval by the city, which makes the split legal, according to the petition. Furthermore, the petition states that the commission issued permits for the 46½ acre Parcel 1, indicating its legality.
“We did not get a notice of a violation until 2007,” Lawson said.
The petition also questions the propriety of a commission hearing held June 9 on the appealability of a coastal development permit, for the subdivision for the purposes of conversion to resident-owned park, which had not been applied for by the park owner, but was tacked onto the park application by the city, and was not approved by the city until June 20.
A 4-1 council vote gave conditional approval to a tentative tract map and the permit, with the proviso that no final park map would be approved until the coastal permit issue was resolved, Lawson said.
*
COLLUSION ALLEGED
The petition accuses the commission and its staff of “colluding” with South Laguna resident Penny Elia to precipitate the June 9 hearing and of not reporting the extent of private communications with her, as well as an allegation that one commissioner did not report a telephone call and e-mail from Lawson.
In a response dated Aug. 4 to a request by the Coastline Pilot for a comment, Elia e-mailed: “I was simply exercising my rights as allowed under the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and is guaranteed to all Americans.”
Elia is said to have sent an e-mail on May 18 in opposition to an alleged city determination, actually an unapproved draft, that a coastal development permit was not appealable to the coastal commission. She based her opposition on a previous commission decision pertaining to a different application by the park owner, later abandoned.
E-mail exchanges between Elia and a city planner, which informed her that the proposed park map was different and did not suggest a city position on appealability or an official request for a coastal commission review of appealability, was included in the documents submitted with the park’s petition.
Nonetheless, Karl Schwing, the commission’s Orange County Supervisor of Regulations and Planning, notified the city on May 25 that the planner’s response to Elia’s opposition constituted a request for determination.
Schwing did not respond to a request for comments on the petition.
Laguna Terrace Park Attorney Hill also did not respond to a request for comments.
The commission voted 7-2 on June 9 to uphold the determination of appealability for a coastal development permit that the city had not yet approved. The staff report for the hearing stated that the Laguna Terrace application included a pending application for the permit.
Not so, the petition claims.
The commission staff report also stated that the park was seeking approval of a Park Map for the approximately 270 acres, also not true according to the application submitted to the city and approved.
The park petition to the court includes a request for every scrap of paper relating to the June 9 coastal commission hearing.
*
DENSITY, USES UNCHANGED BY CONVERSION
Lawson contends, and city staff agrees, there is no development involved in the proposed conversion, which should obviate the need for a permit.
The city Planning Commission found in its June review of the Laguna Terrace Park application for the conversion that no change in density or intensity of use was involved.
“There is no change on the ground,” Lawson said.
That disqualifies it as development under the California Coastal Act, eliminating it from coastal commission’s jurisdiction, the park’s petition maintains.
State policy encourages conversions to resident-ownership, according to the health and safety code. In any case, state law pertaining to mobile home parks prohibits the city from considering any conflicts with the city’s general plan, Local Coastal Program or municipal code in reviewing the application for sub-division and conversion to a resident-owned park.
City staff opined that the legal findings for approval of the coastal development permit were satisfied.
Community Development Director John Montgomery said the city-approved permit, if upheld, could reduce delays in the process, an issue with park residents, who want to take advantage of depressed property values and all-time low interest rates to purchase sites.
The city had approved in January a tentative map for the entire 46½ acre-parcel, but the park owner amended the application to just the 19½ acres on which the park is located, which was approved in June.
Omitted acreage was not part of the application and was not considered in June. .
The Laguna Terrace petition requests a writ of mandate and damages, and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief.
In lay terms: a writ of mandate is a court order to a government agency to follow the law by correction of prior actions or ceasing illegal acts; damages are an award of money to compensate for loss or injury; declarative relief is a court judgment that determines the rights of parties without ordering action or awarding damages; and injunctive relief is a court-ordered act or prohibition against an act or condition that has been granted.
No date has been scheduled for the hearing of the petition.