California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
June 13, 2014
218 PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. Plaintiffs and Respondents,
CITY OF CARSON et al., Defendants and Appellants.
IT IS ORDERED, the opinion filed May 14, 2014, 226
Cal.App.4th 182; ___Cal.Rptr.3d ___, in the above-entitled matter is hereby modified as follows, and the petitions for rehearing are DENIED:
1. On page 4, delete the second sentence in the first full paragraph [226 Cal.App.4th 187, advance report, 1st full par., lines 2-3] that begins with “The survey stated the 20 residents....” And replace it with “The survey stated the 20 residents were not interested in buying their plots ‘at this moment nor in the near future’.”
2. On page 16, delete the last two sentences of the second paragraph [226 Cal.App.4th 197, advance report, 1st full par., lines 10-15] that begins with “In November 2009, ...” and replace it with “In November 2009, Carson city staff deemed Imperial Avalon’s application to be complete, a finding adopted by the planning commission. The planning commission found that Imperial Avalon has “complied with [Government Code section] 66427.5 with respect to submitting a Tenant Impact Report which adequately meets the requirements to consider the impact of the proposed conversion upon the residents of the park.”
3. On page 17, first paragraph [226 Cal.App.4th 197, advance report. 3d full par., lines 1-3], delete the first sentence that begins with “Imperial Avalon’s petition...” and replace it with “Imperial Avalon’s petition to the trial court argued that Carson’s city council could not declare the TIR incomplete after Carson’s city staff and planning commission had deemed it complete.
4. On page 17, delete the second paragraph [226 Cal.App.4th 197-198, advance report, last partial par. on p. 197 to 1st partial par. on p. 198] that begins with “The trial court correctly granted....” and replace it with “The trial court correctly granted relief to Imperial Avalon on the points Imperial Avalon urged. The Carson city staff found the application was complete, a finding the planning commission adopted. Because the TIR’s purpose is to
inform residents of mobilehome parks and local decision makers, the trial court correctly noted that “completeness and compliance [with the statutory obligation to submit a TIR] are one and the same.” Carson’s review of the TIR is limited to confirming whether the report complies with section 66427.5. (See § 66427.5, subd. (e) [hearing limited to determining compliance with statute].) Thus, if Carson, through its city staff and planning commission, found the TIR was complete, Carson cannot later, through its city council, reject the TIR on the ground its purported “incompleteness” meant it did not comply with the statute requiring a TIR. (Chino MHC, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1054, 1077 [“once a public agency has accepted an application as complete, it cannot deny the application on the ground that it is incomplete”].)
[end of modifications]
There is no change in judgment.
The petition filed by Appellants is denied.
The petition filed by Respondent is denied.