Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance - Background Informati 7�1 COPY i 1z6182- TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION 1 LETTER - HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF CORPORATION - 4/28/81 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF USE 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - 5/18/81 - 6/15/81 - 8/19/81 3 INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 5/27/81 • SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSIONS 4 INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 6/17/81 SUBJECT: INTERIM ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR A MORATORIUM ON MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSIONS 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - 6/23/81 SUBJECT: URGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING A FOUR-MONTH MORATORIUM 6 LETTER FROM CHARLES W. THOMPSON TO CITY COUNCIL - 1 6/25/81 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE . STUDY 7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - 7/27/81 1 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE STUDY 8 INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 7/28/8.1 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME CONVERSION: WITHHOLDING BUILDING PERMITS 1 9 INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 7/30/81 SUBJECT: BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 10 LETTER FROM JAMES W. PALIN TO CITY COUNCIL - 1 8/17/81 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - 9/14/81 SUBJECT: URGENCY ORDINANCE - MOBILE HOME CON- VERSION MORATORIUM EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION 12 REQUEST FOR 'COUNCIL ACTION - 12/21/81 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 -- MOBILE . HOME TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE GUIDELINES 13 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION - 1/21/82 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME CONVERSION REGULATIONS 14 INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 2/23/82 SUBJECT: PROPOSED MOBILE HOME CONVERSION ORDI- NANCE - EFFECT ON HUNTINGTON SHORES - MOBILE HOME PARK 15 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - 2/17/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 16 LETTER FROM LAWLER, FELIX & HALL - 2/9/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 -- MOBILE HOME CONVERSION REGULATIONS . 17 INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 3/4/82 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK PRESERVATION & DE- VELOPMENT PROGRAM 18 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - 3/1.6/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3, MOBILE HOME CONVERSION ORDINANCE 19 LETTER FROM LAWLER, FELIX & HALL - 3/16/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18, MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE 20 COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY: A. MELLO-GREEN HOUSING BILL - 1/7/82 B. REZONING - 1/20/82 C. ORDINANCE EFFECT ON HUNTINGTON SHORES - 2/23/82 s r EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION ' 21 MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE A. CITY OF ANAHEIM B. CITY OF SAN MARCOS C. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1 D. COUNTY OF ORANGE E. CITY OF PISMO BEACH F. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 22 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - 3/16/82 I SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 23 INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION - 3/17/82 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE UPDATE / 24 LETTER FROM MICHAEL E . DEITCH - 3/24/82 SUBJECT: HUNTINGTON SHORES MOBILE HOME PARK CHANGE OF USE 25 LETTERS FROM BRIAN MEDINA AND THE HUNTINGTON / BEACH MOBILE HOME OWNERS COUNCIL - 3/25/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 - MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - 3/30/82 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION FOR MOBILE HOME PARK / CONVERSION ORDINANCE 27 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - 4/20/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 1 28 LETTER FROM LAWLER, FELIX AND HALL - 4/20/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO 81-18 - MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE 29 LETTERS FROM MR. AND MRS, BENNO AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILE HOME OWNERS COUNCIL - 4/26/82 / SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 - MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE 30 LETTER FROM NATALIE KOTSCH - 4/30/82 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME CONVERSION ,ORDINANCE, REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE 1 1 'l EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION 31 LETTER FROM CHARLES W. THOMPSON TO CITY COUNCIL 1 5/3/82 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK ZONING 32 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - 5/4/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 1 33 LETTER FROM GRACE W. WINCHELL TO CITY COUNCIL 5/14/82 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE, USE OF OVERLAY ZONE 34 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - 5/18/82 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 82-3 35 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - 6/1/82 r SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 r r 0 1 r 1 r { EXHIBIT 1 HUNTINGTON � /� SEACLIFF CORPORATION 4-,ril 28, 1981 Re: Notice of Zoning Notice of Change of Use This letter is to advise of certain matters that California Civil Code section 798.27 requires us to disclose. The letter is also to notify you of the change of use and fulture closing of Huntington Snores Mobile Park ("the Park") . The Park currently exists as a nonconforming use of property on land the City of Huntington Beach has zoned C-3 (General Business) and R-5 (Office Professional/Visitor Services) . Huntington Seacliff Cor_-poration leases the property on which the Park is situated under a lease that expires December 31, 1987. Although a continuation of the existing nonconforming use is authorized by City Ordinance, Huntington Seacliff decided on April 27, 1981, to change the use of the land occupied by the Park to a non-imbilehaTe park use. The above mentioned change of use will occur on November 1, 1982, at which time the Park will be closed. The new use has not yet been determined, but studies will be initiated soon to ascertain the highest and best use of the property. Development of the property according to uses permitted in the C-3 and R-5 zones is desired and the following alternatives are currently under consideration: (1) Enlargement of the Huntington mores Motel or construction of a, new and larger motel. (2) Construction of a small shopping and professional mall. A determination of the new use cannot be .made until various studies as to the best use of the land are completed. Therefore, the property will be vacant for a period of time after November 1, 1982. 3000 PALM AVENUE, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 { We have given you eighteen months' notice of the closing of the Park to facilitate your efforts to relocate. Please be advised that we are willing to enter into an agreement terminating your lease if you wish to vacate at an earlier date. Until actual termination of your lease, all lease terms, including the respon- sibility to pay for each day of tenancy, will of course stay in effect. We have appreciated having you as a tenant in the Park and look forward to your cooperation in the months ahead. Very truly yours, Manager Huntington Shores Mobile Park, Huntington Seacliff Corporation ! -2- EXHIBIT 2 Page #12 - Council Minutes - 5/18/81 BOUCHER LANDFILL Discussion was held regarding the Boucher .landfill , The Public Information Office was directed to send out a news release regarding the matter. ' MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSIONS Mayor Finley stated her concern regarding mobilehome park conversions and requested a moratorium on such conversions . A motion was made by Finley, seconded by Bailey, to issue a four month moratorium on mobilehome park conversions to allow time for an ordinance regarding such conversions to be drafted. Discussion was held regarding . the matter. ' .The motion failed for lack of a fifth vote as follows: AYES: Thomas, Finley; Bailey, .Mandic NOES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Kelly ABSENT: None FAMILY CRISIS CENTER Councilman MacAllister distributed brochures from the Family Crisis Center to Council and stated that twelve percent of the children and parents assisted at the center were from Huntington Beach. He spoke regarding funding for the center and invited anyone interested in the center to contact him. CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF .CITIES CONFERENCE Councilman MacAllister stated that he had attended a. California League of Cities Conference in Sacramento and reported that there was a lack of confidence at the State level regarding city government. MOBILEHOME ISSUE - INFORMATION REQUESTED Councilman Mandic requested that the City-Administrator supply him with as much information as possible regarding the mobilehome park conversion issue. Councilman Thomas stated his concern regarding mobilehome parks in tthe City and stated his desire that they remain in the City. CITY FESTIVAL Councilman Mandic stated that he had been impressed by the City Festival and requested . that the Public Information Office become more involved. in adver- tising the project next year. PARKING Councilman Thomas requested clarification regarding parking of motor homes in front of a residence for Toading and unloading. The Chief of Police clarified the matter. Councilman Thomas stated that he would give the Chief of Police a ticket a citizen had received on his motor home. Page #15 - Council Minutes - 6/15/81 i:-- On motion by MacAllister,•.second Kelly, Council authorized the attendance of Councilman Pattii,son at the Public Safety meeting to be held in Burlingame, 1 California with reasonable expenses. The motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. CLOSURE OF SANTA BARBARA LANE Councilman Pattinson. stated that today he had asked the City Administrator for 1 a report on the feasibility of a three-way stop sign on Saybrook Lane and Edinger Avenue until such time as that location is signalized. The Director of Public Works reported that the sto.p sign would be put in when the area is under construction as it is not feasible to do it when the road is wide open and with the. speeds as they are currently. He stated that it will 1 take quite an adjustment in traffic to realize the stop is there, so when the speed is slowed down with the construction, the stop signs will be put on Edin- ger and left there until it is signalized. He stated that the signs would go in within 30 days. MORATORIUM ORDINANCE TO BE PREPARED - MOBILEHOME CONVERSION Councilwoman Bailey inquired as to the status of the preparation of the.mobile- home conversion ordinance. The Development Services Director stated that information was being gathered and concepts studied, with the information to be submitted to the City Attorney's .office with a request that an ordinance be prepared to implement, supplement and to go beyond the government code provisions. Discussion was held between the Council and the Development Services' Director regarding the process which would need to be followed prior to submitting the proposed ordinance to Council . ' A motion was made by Bailey; 'seconded by Finley, directing that an urgency ordinance providing for a moratorium on mobilehome conversions be prepared. The Government Code on the subject was discussed. The City Attorney spoke re- garding the matter. Mayor Finley asked if according to the government code, is the City in a position to find. that a conversion of a mobilehome use to another use would take away 'a certain. type of housing from the City and on that basis not be allowed. The City Attorney spoke regarding the matter and stated that perhaps the State Legislature should be asked to look at the problem as one of state-wide concern. Discussion was held regarding many aspects of the matter, including establishing a moratorium, retroactivity, relocation process , etc. Councilman Pattinson stated he would only vote for a moratorium if it were stipulated that such a moratorium would not be extended past the initial four month period. 1 Councilwoman Bailey and Mayor Finley agreed that the motion would include the stipulation that there beno extension of said moratorium past the original four month period. The motion carried by unanimous vote. 1 Page #10 - Council Minutes - 8/17/81 WILLIAM LYON CO - SENIOR CENTER DISCUSSION Councilman Pattinson stated. his concern regarding the letter Mr. Peckenpaugh had distributed to Council regarding the William Lyon Company participation agreement. A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister, to relocate the new Senior.. Citizens Center at a location more advantageous to the seniors and at a location they want. The motion was withdrawn. SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY N/PCH Councilman Pattinson stated that staff had been directed to contact CALTRANS re- garding putting signs on private property on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway. He requested that the matter be expedited. MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION MORATORIUM - PUBLIC HEARING SET d Councilman Pattinson stated his concern regarding a moratorium on mobilehome conver- lion and requested that. the moratorium be extended. The City Attorney stated that .a public hearing must be set to extend an urgency ordinance ordering a moratorium. On motion by Pattinson, second Bailey, Council set a public hearing for the first meeting in October to consider extending Urgency Ordinance No. 2496 pertaining to the moratorium on mobilehome park conversion. The motion carried unanimously. PERMISSION TO BE ABSENT 9/8/81 - BAIL'EY - GRANTED On motion by Bailey, second. Finley, Council granted permission for Councilwoman Bailey to be absent from the meeting of September 8, 1981 . The motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD - GARLAND - LAMBERT APPROVED Councilwoman Bailey recommended the appointment of Frances Garland and Kathy Lambert < to the Environmental Board. On motion by Bailey, second Pattinson, Council approved the appointment of Frances Garland ,and Kathy Lambert to the Environmental Board. The motion carried unanimously. CAMPAIGN ORDINANCE DISCUSSION Councilwoman Bailey inquired as to the status of the proposed campaign ordinance. Discussion was held between Council and the City Attorney regarding the proposed ordinance. LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS - DISCUSSION Councilman Kelly stated that he would like additional back up material at the time the matter of the City's legal advertising is brought back to Council . He requested input from the Department Heads that use the newspapers for such adver- tisements . CITY OF HU..FATINGT®N ktEAcM E C E fl 2 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION D 1981 CITY OF HUNTINGTON Q To llooral.)le Mayon and Members Frm o Ga:i.l tlut.t,� EACH u or t;he C_i.t,y ('uurle.i.l_ City Att;orrbc-'�NISTRE1TIl�E OFFICE Sut�jecl Mok�i.lehornc I'rir1� Conversions Date Ma.,y 27 , 1.981- Recent stage law coverir, r mobilehome park conversions may be found in Government Code §§65863. 7 and 66427. 4 . - Section 65863. 7 provides that prior to the conversion of a mobile home park to another use, a report shall be filed on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. The report shall address the availability of ade- quate replacement spaces in other mobilehome parks . Residents of the proposed mobilehome park . conversion shall have available to them a copy of such report . A public hearing on the impact report shall be held by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may require , as a condition of such change, that steps be taken to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobile- home park residents to find adequate space in other mobilehome parks . . This section establishes a minimum standard for local .regulation o.f conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses , and shall not prevent a city from enacting more stringent measures . Section 66)12'7. 4 . This section. provides that at the time of filing tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the cnn- version of a mobilehome park to another use , the subdivider shall also file a report on the impact of the conversion upon, the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. The impact report P shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in other mobilehome parks . A ;copy of the impact report shall be made available to each resident of the mobilehome park proposed to be converted. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing on the map . The . Planning Com- missiongmay .require the subdivider to take -steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space 'in other mobilehome parks . This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conver- sions on mobilehome parks} into other uses' and shall not prevent the . .city from enact-ing more stringent measures . if the City CouncJL1 wishes to enact more. stringent measures , it mn,; enact an -1.1,1te.rim zoning ordinance pl��cing a moratorium on mobilehome park. conv(,t :s i.ons . I- f the C_i..t;.y Council declares the matter to be .;11 ur,l;cn,:y r;:i-tuat lon , a moratorium on mobi.lclhome park conversion} would r.�e,tu:ire a tour-f,i_ rtrrs vot;c . 'Plhe procedure ro:r., a moratorium -is ser forth in Government Code §6'5858 . A four-fifths vote equals six votes . ,/ a,,, G(11I, HU`1" ON, City Attorney Gll: ( : �c drn:i cc : ty A .n:1 .;tr'ator J_i.m Pal:in, Development. Services Director EXHIBIT 4 2. CITY OF HUIFITINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION lit NIIN(11()N III X(11 From Gail 1-lutton Dr.,pt.tt-,y ("i.ty Att,()t,ney City Attorney -)n( Subject I'd 1t.r 1, e to Provide for Date June 17 , 1981 for Mor,atovjuni. on Mobile. Home P,),.r,IK Co n v e r s i o i is the Jutie 1 At 1-I ) , 1.981 iTieeil- Ing of the City Council direct,ion was Frlven to prepare , pursuant to Government Code §65858 , an erner- f-,ency card inr-.)nce for th(� City of I-luntington Ruch . declaring; a inni,,,iA.()r1imi) can the r.onversion of mobile hc,)riie park.,; to othel, its,(­s . such an ordinnn(!e for the next adjourned city council iric(,ting, on June 29 , 1981 . The iiinti( n also included the requirement that the ordiri-ince sl-'a.t e plainly on its face that this ordi-nance will. be for four ( 4 ) months only and shall not be extended . Pr erg the ordinancr, will havo to he qouietirrie prior iri r do r i.cl j,o oW. with Lh(, ('11-y can wiih lldru:i rr i strat.loll (,or that der)(11 isle . (3ATI, Il(JTT()N C-1 ty Attorney Gli bb cc W-1.111.airi S . Aiiisbary , Asst . City Attorney Development;, ,.S.e.t,.v-i.c.(,.s...- -7 P C: I P1 A( '' .::i DEPT. D JUN 17 1981 P. 0. Sox 190 Huntington Beach, C, . ' 2_648 EXHIBIT 5 REQUES-4' FOR CITY COUNCI,- ACTION Date June 23, 1981 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: Development Services Department Subject: URGENCY ORDINANCE IMPOSING A FOUR-MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF MOBILE HOME PARKS TO OTHER USES Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the June 15, 1981 meeting of the City Council, direction was given to prepare an emergency ordinance for the City of Huntington Beach declaring a moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. The attached urgency ordinance imposing a four-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses was drafted by the City Attorney' s office in response to Council' s direction. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached urgency ordinance imposing a four-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. . ANALYSIS : It has- recently become apparent that the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses is rapidly becoming an important issue in Huntington Beach as well as Orange County. Random displacement of low-income and elderly tenants is a common result in unreg- ulated mobile home park conversions. Adoption of the proposed four-month conversion moratorium will temporarily prohibit such conversions in the City and allow staff time to investigate the issues involved with regulation of mobile home park conversions to other uses. Staff will report to Council within four months on the feasibility of setting guidelines for the orderly conversion of mobile home parks in the City to other uses. The attached urgency ordinance is an interim measure which cannot be extended beyond. four months without additional Council direction. P10 4/81 M1 n.L RCA - MOBILE HOME Lid.✓S June 23 , 1981 Page 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not Adopt the proposed urgency ordinance. FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Urgency ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach imposing a four-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks ,to, other uses. HS/dc ! i / �.. ftwo' ORDINANCE NO. 2496 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IMPOSING A FOUR-MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF MOBILEHONE PARKS TO OTHER USES WHEREAS, the City Council of .the City of Huntington Beach desires to establish a four-month moratorium upon the conver- sion to - other uses of mobilehome parks to allow a reasonable period of time for the Department of Development- Services and the ,Planning Commission to study and recommend viable proposals for implementing mobilehome park conversions; and Pursuant (to California Government Code -section 65858, a public hearing is not required; and The Department of Development Services and Planning Commission are hereby 'instructed to study and recommend rea- sonable ,means by which the conversion to other uses of mobile- home parks may be effected, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. A four-month moratorium upon the conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses is hereby established, and such moratorium shall not be extended beyond the four-month period stipulated herein. SECTION 2. Any provision of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code or Huntington Beach Ordinance Code inconsistent herewith, to the extent of such inconsistency and no further, is hereby suspended during the period of this moratorium. 3ECTION 3. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an urgency measure 'for the immediate preservation of the general public peace, health, safety and welfare so that the Department of Development Services and . the Planning Commission may develop viable proposals and recommendations for the orderly conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses in order to avoid unnecessary /ahb 6/19/81 `4/5 votes ( 6 votes) 1 e.. � ;,oti 1 rig problems and the randoin displacement of persons now dwelling in mobilehome parks in this city. For the reasons set rorth herein, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of � t h 1.s. ordinance and shall cause same to be published within ll f'teen days of its adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, .. newspaper of general circulation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of itluntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 29th day of June , 1981. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk t tto M-1,11(� TNITIA` ED AND APPROVED: C ty A min stra r i; 2. i 1 Page #3 - Council Minutes - 6/29/81 On motion by Mandic, second Kelly, Council approved the purchase of 150 desk chairs for the Police Department by the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomas, Pattinson,.Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly r NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister URGENCY ORDINANCE NO 2496 - ADOPTED - FOUR MONTH MORATORIUM - CONVERSION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS 1 The City Clerk presented Urgency Ordinance No. 2496 for Council consideration "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IMPOSING A FOUR MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS TO OTHER USES. " On motion by Bailey, second Thomas , Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2496 , after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey; Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF ORANGE COUNTY - CONTRACT FOR SERVICES - APPROVED r The City Clerk presented a transmittal from the Development Services Department, HCD Division, of an agreement between the City and the Fair Housing Council of Orange County as part of the Seventh Year Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program. r On motion by Mandic, second Kelly, Council approved and authorized execution of an agreement between the City and the Fair Housing Council of Orange County and authorized immediate disbursement of the $15,000 payment. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: 1 AYES: Thomas , Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister VENDOR CONTRACT FOR AUTOMATED RECORDS SYSTEM - APPROVED - ALTA ASSOCIATES. 1 The City Clerk presented a transmittal ' from the Chief of Police of a contract between the City and Alta Associates .for the provision of software and hardware for the Automated Reporting System. On motion by Pattinson, second Kelly, Council approved a contract between the City and Alta Associates for the provision of software and hardware for the / Automated Reporting System for the Police Department. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Thomas , Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: MacAllister 1 EXHIBIT 6 V..� �✓ City of .Huntington Beach P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92649 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR Submitted To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted By: Charles W. Thompson,. City Administrator Prepared By: J.W. Palin, Director, Development Services Date: June 25, 1981 SUBJECT MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE STUDY On June 15, 1981, Council directed staff to prepare an emergency ordinance imposing a four month moratorium on mobile home park conversions in the City. Staff was also directed to utilize that time to study the issue and report back on the feasibility of developing a permanent ordinance requlating con- versions. This comnnunication is intended to inform Council of the nature and. time-frame of the report staff is now preparing on the conversion issue. The analysis will be an in-depth discussion of the mobile home park conversion issue and will include the following items: 1: Demographics of existing mobile home parks in the City including age, vacancy rates, tenant income levels and zoning. 2. Mobile home park availability county-wide. 3. Reasons for mobile home park conversions. 4. Negative aspects of mobile home park conversions. 5. Problems associated with mobile home park conversions which may be reduced through implementation of a conversion ordinance. 1b 6. Possible components of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. 7. Issues involved with development and implementation of a conversion ordinance. 8..` Additional possibilities for action apart from development of a conversion ordinance. Telephone (714).536-5201 Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance Study June 25, 1981 Page 2 Staff anticipates that this report will be complete and ready for presentation . to Council within eight weeks. In the ensuing time, staff will continue to monitor other aspects of the mobile home situation and inform Council of any new developments. CWT:JWP:pj i i EXHIBIT 7 REQUES"oe FOR CITY COUNCIL-ACTION Date July 27 , 1981 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Developtpent Services Subject: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE STUDY Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE : On June 15, 1981, Council directed staff to prepare an emergency ordinance. imposing a four-month moratorium on mobile home park conversions in the City. Staff was also directed to utilize that time to study the issue and report back on the feasibility of developing a permanent ordinance regulating conversions. The attached report, "Mobile Home Park Conversion" was prepared by staff as a .result of that direction. RECOMMENDATION: Review and discuss the attached report at the August 3 , 1981 City _ Council meeting and provide staff with direction regarding the preparation of a permanent mobile home park conversion ordinance. ANALYSIS:- The attached report is intended to provide Council with informa- tion necessary for determining direction to be taken regarding .the development of a permanent mobile home park conversion or- dinance,. 'The report provides information on the nature of mobile home parks and park residents .in the City and an analy- sis of . the issues involved in mobile home park conversions . Possible items for inclusion in an ordinance are discussed along with alternative implementation strategies. Conversion 'ordi- nances adopted by San Diego County and the City of San Marcos are included in the appendix for review. ALTERNATIVE. ACTION: Any follow-up actions discretionary with Council. FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required. PIO 4/81 1 MOBILE HOME PARK, Cont. Page Two i SUPPORTING INFORMATION: l: Special Report .- Mobile Home Park Corpersion CWr o :HS: jlm Special Report Mobile Home Park Conversion 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 HISTORY 3.0 DEMOGRAPHICS 4.0 AVAILABILITY 5.0 AFFORDABILITY 6.0 REASONS FOR CONVERSIONS 7.0 IMPACT ON TENANTS 8.0 PURPOSE OF ORDINANCE_ 9.0 ORDINANCE COMPONENTS 10.0 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 11.0 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES 12.0 OTHER ACTIONS 13.0 APPENDIX A. San Diego County Mobile Home Park Zone Change Procedures R. San Marcos Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance C. Government Code, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.7 July, 1981 ® HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION L.0 INTRODUCTION Mobile home parks have been an established residential use in the City of Huntington Beach for over 20 years. These parks have traditionally constituted a more affordable housing alternative to the tract homes which have dominated development in the City. In recent years, however, the character of the City's housing supply has been changing. .New residential projects are being developed at higher densities and condominiums are being constructed in place of single-family tract homes. This trend is largely a result of an increasing scarcity of vacant developable land and the rapidly escalating value of all land throughout Orange County. - it has become apparent that mobile home parks are particularly likely to be impacted by the prevailing land value and development trends. The low-income I nature of many mobile home park tenants increases the impact when parks are. closed for conversion to other uses. The City Council recognized this situation when it adopted a four-month moratorium on mobile home park conversions on June 29, 1981. The four-month moratorium was intended to give staff time to study the mobile home park conversion issue and report to Council on the issues involved in the development of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. This report provides information on the nature of mobile home parks and park residents in the City, an analysis of the issues involved in mobile home park conversion and discussion of possibilities for regulating conversions through a permanent ordinance. I Many mobile home park tenants are on fixed incomes which fall within the Department of Housing and Urban Development's definition of low-income. �V fir✓' 2.0 HISTORY There are presently 19 mobile home parks existing in the City of Huntington Reach. These parks contain a total of approximately 3,385 spaces and cover approximately 365 acres of land. Five mobile home parks with 1,090 spaces covering 90 acres of land are located within the City's coastal zone. A number of the remaining parks are located in close proximity to the coastal zone. (Figure 1). The majority of the City's mobile home parks were constructed in the years between 1959 and 1965. Only five parks were constructed after 1970 with the last park completed in 1976. Because development of the City's mobile home parks occurred over a 20 year period, the zoning on the parks has tended to vary. Mobile home parks were originally allowable uses in the R5 zoning district. � However, some parks were developed under the County's zoning districts and, when they were incorporated into the City, received zoning other than RS. In 1970, a special mobile home park ordinance established the MH zoning district and set new development standards for mobile home parks. Only five parks have developed under this ordinance, however. Upon establishment of the MH district, the City then applied the MH zoning to most of the existing mobile home parks in the City. All mobile home parks in districts other than MH (including the R.5 district) are now non-conforming uses. Seven parks in the City, four of which are in the coastal zone, are partially or wholey non-conforming uses. Of the non-conforming parks, the City and the State each own one. The following table, along with Figure I, indicates mobile home park zoning throughout the City. Zoning District Acreage Spaces MH 280 2,472 R2 12 84 R.5 59 643 RA-0 6 93 C3 2 11 MI 6 81 3.0 DFMOGRAPHICS Because mobile horne parks differ markedly from other forms of housing, it follows that the residents of mobile home parks would also differ, particularly in terns of age and income. In fact, the City's 1979 Special Census Yielded some significant information concerning mobile home park residents. The 0(111sus' cornpider printout was capable of separating out 13 of the City's 19 mobile home parks from other housing types. Those parks, with a total of 2,491 units, had o 1978 median household income of $10,991 . This figure is only 50 percent of the City-wide 1978 median income of $22,187. While incomes have risen since 1978. the ratio between park resident incomes and city-wide incomes has probably remained close to the some. The Department of Housing and Urban Development assumes that those who make less than 80 percent of � the median income fall within the "low income" category. 14r1 YA O ® YAO 4 err / •nuns w,4ar LI F:k� f �»—COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY Figure I 0 Conforming Park O Partially Conforininq Park 0 Non-('onforming Park huntington beach planning division Other information from the 1979 census indicated that the average median age of tenants for the same 13 mobile home parks was 62 as compared to the City-wide median age of 28. Additionally, 46 percent of the park residents . were retired and only 27 percent were employed full time. Overall, the census indicates that the majority of mobile home park residents in the City are elderly low-income persons who are either retired or rapidly approaching retirement age. 4.0. AVAILABILITY 0 Each year, all jurisdictions in the State are required to submit information to the State Department of Finance regarding the number of mobile home parks in the jurisdiction, the number of mobile home spaces in each park and the number of occupied spaces. Compilation of the 1980 figures for all of Orange County indicates that Huntington Beach has eight percent of the County's total of 191 mobile home parks and ten percent of the County's total of 32,145 mobile home spaces. These figures are in line with Huntington Beach's 8.7 percent share of the total County population in January, 1981. The jurisdictions reporting also indicated an extremely low vacancy rate for mobile home parks throughout the County. Huntington Beach had a 1.4 percent vacancy rate with a total of 48 unoccupied spaces, while the incorporated portion of the County reported a 1.7 percent vacancy rate with a total of 447 unoccupied spaces. In actuality, it is felt that the true vacancy rate is closer to zero and that reporting errors were responsible for rates above one percent. The extremely low vacancy rates indicate that displaced mobile home park tenants will have a limited opportunity to find available spaces in other parks in the County. Additionally, many newer mobile home parks will not accept older units, thus reducing the availability of spaces even more for many mobile home owners. 5.0 AFFORDABILITY As the census information indicated, the average mobile home park resident is retired and living on a very low income and may be unable to afford the high cost of traditional housing. Mobile home parks, however, have historically provided much lower cost housing than other forms. Mobile home park living is generally a form of mixed ownership and rentership. The tenant owns the mobile home and rents space for the unit. Depending on the age of the. unit, the resale price of a typical mobile home may range from $7,000 to. $25,000, Moving and location costs may run from $2,000 to $8,000 depending on the distance to be traveled. Once placed in a park, the monthly rental fee may average $150 to $250. Thus, it has historically been possible to 1 own.a inobile.horne in a park for as little as $9,000 to $30,000 plus a monthly rental payment. Low buy-in, low monthly rent and limited maintenance requirements have made mobile home park living extremely attractive for many retired and low-income people. The low vacancy rates and lack of new park construction, however, have caused the expenses and procedures of mobile home park living to change in recent years. Except in the case of new parks, mobile homes are now rarely purchased off-site and then moved to a mobile home park. Rather, the unit is purchased in the park for the market value of the unit plus the market value of the rental agreement. Depending on the location and desirability of the park, the mobile home purchaser may pay from $10,000 to 530,000 simply for the ability to rent the space the unit is on. The mobile home itself must also be purchased. This practice has effectively doubled or tripled the "buy-in" requirements for a mobile horne. Rents have also risen dramatically enough for some cities in the County to enact mobile home park rent control measures. The end result is that mobile home park living is no longer particularly inexpensive for new buyers. The buy-in for an existing unit in an existing park may be as high as $60,000. High interest rates combined with high rental rates have made mobile home parks essentially equal to condominiums in terms of affordability. 6.0 REASONS FOR CONVERSION This study was initiated because of the realization that there will be an increasing tendency for the City's mobile home parks to convert to other uses, thereby impacting the residents of the parks and the nature of the City's housing supply. Before any steps can be taken to regulate conversion, however, it must be understood why mobile home parks are converting. It is a complex issue involving a number of important factors. The single most important factor involved in the conversion of mobile home / parks is the value of the land. Most of the City's mobile home parks were constructed at a time when vacant land was plentiful and land values were low. As vacant land has become scarce, however, the value of the remaining vacant land has risen dramatically. Similarly, the potential value of underdeveloped land has also risen proportionally. By recycling land initially developed at a lower density to a higher intensity development, the. owner/developer can potentially realize a much greater profit. Because mobile home parks have a maximum development potential of nine units per acre, those with a medium or high density general plan designation may be considered underdeveloped uses of the land. A sizeable profit may potentially be realized through higher intensity redevelopment such as condominiums or office/commercial uses where such uses are consistent with the general plan. This is particularly true for those parks located in or near the coastal zone where property values are highest. even if the existing mobile home park owner has no desire to convert his park to another use for the profit which could be gained, there may be other factors which could force conversion or sale of the park to a new owner looking to convert. Among the factors involved may be the owner's original intent in purchasing the park and the number of years he has owned it. Some park owners may have purchased parks not so much for profits which could be realized through operation of the park, but for use as a tax shelter through 4 annual depreciation. Parks which were purchased years ago for this reason may now be neari nq the end of their depreciation potential. When the depreciation potential runs out, the park no-longer serves the purpose for which it was purchased and the owner must sell it. It is possible that a number of parks in the City fall within this investment category and are, in fact, nearing the end of their depreciation potential. Another factor may involve a lack of ability by the park owner to make a margin of profit adequate for continued operation of the park. Because of the low-income nature of many mobile home park tenants, there has been great pressure on park owners to maintain low monthly rental fees. While many apartment rents have increased 100 percent in the past ten years, many mobile home park rents have remained vitually unchanged. Recent attempts to increase rents to catch up with inflation have resulted in rent controls being enacted in some cities. The difficulty involved in charging adequate rents may influence some park owners to sell or change uses. A fourth factor involves the age and deterioration of the parks and the expense involved in upkeep and upgrading of facilities. As previously noted, the majority of mobile home parks in the City were constructed in the years between 1959 and 1965. Standards for construction and utilities were less at 0 that time than they are now. Also, mobile home parks were often viewed as temporary uses and park developers were sometimes able to have the development standards of the time reduced for mobile home parks. As a result, .many parks are substandard according to current development regulations and, in fact, may never have been in full compliance with any development standards. It is likely that a number of parks have deteriorated utilities which will soon have to be upgraded if the parks are to continue to function. For many park owners, upgrading will be prohibitively expensive. These owners will be forced to either raise rents substantially, sell the park outright or close the park and convert to another use. 0 In general, it appears that mobile home parks no longer comprise as good an economic investment for owners as in previous years and are no longer a significantly less expensive housing alternative for those looking for housing. 7.0 IMPACT ON TENANTS Examination of the economics involved has indicated that many mobile home parks may request conversion to other uses in the near future. The virtually non-existent mobile home park vacancy rate in Huntington Beach as well as the rest of the County means that displaced residents will have a very limited ability to relocate within the County. Rather, it will probably be necessary.for most of those tenants wishing to keep their mobile homes to relocate to parks in Riverside (-ounty or beyond. The costs of such relocation may be. considered excessive for inmy low-income tenants. The tenants who stand to lose the most, however, are those who have recently purchased units in local parks and who paid Large amounts of money for the right to rent the space. Upon eviction from the park, the investment in the I. space will be last and only the value of the unit itself may be regained through sale to another party. These tenants may lose as much as two-thirds of their investment when a park converts to another use. Finally, some tenants may own mobile homes which are too old or deteriorated to be relocated in any mobile home park. As such, their mobile home would be essentially unsaleable in any market place. These tenants lose the ability to live in a mobile home park anywhere as well as the ability to sell the unit and reinvest money from the sale into another form of housing. 8.0 PURPOSE OF ORDINANCE The City should acknowledge the fact that mobile home parks within the City will be converting to other uses in the future and that such conversions will displace significant numbers of mobile home park tenants. If the City allows the conversions to occur, it should somehow mitigate the undesirable impacts of displacement of the tenants. One possible solution would be development of a mobile home park conversion ordinance whereby conversions would be permitted subject to compliance with prescribed mitigating measures. The purpose would be to assure an adequate notification process and to provide the tenants with some degree of relocation assistance or compensation in a manner that is equitable for the park owner as well as the tenants. General provision for such action may be found in the State Government Code, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.4. These two sections of the code, respectively, state that prior to conversion of a mobile home park to another use, or at the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a new use, the proponent must file a report on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced tenants and make it available prior to any public hearing on the change of use. The legislative body, upon review of the report may require mitigating measures from the proponent before permitting the change. The sections establish a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobile home parks to other uses and do not 4 prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. The problem with use of only the Government Code to regulate conversions is that it is minimal in scope and overly general. To be effective, an ordinance must spell out precisely what the acceptable mitigating measures would he and exactly what action activates the ordinance. The Government Code merely 4 requires an impact report and allows undefined mitigating measures as deemed necessary by the legislative body. More importantly, the Code does not define exactly what action activates the requirements, though it seems to imply that a public hearing for a zone change would be the activator. Section 66427.4 of the Code clearly designates the filing of a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision as being the activator, but by that time, all tenants may already have been evicted. In essence, the Government Code simply assures that local governments have the authority to develop conversion regulations. 9.0 ORDINAIJCF COMPONENTS Any conversion ordinance developed would be geared toward requi ri nq mitigation measures to be provided by the conversion proponent before the- conversion would be permitted. There are a I ar ge number of possible components for inclusion in a conversion ordinance which may vary widely in severity and level of effectiveness. In general, a mobile home conversion ordinance may involve the following principle items: I: A minimum required notification period such as that required by the Subdivision Map Act for condominium conversions. 2. Listing of available mobile home park spaces and rents within a given radius. 3. Listing of available apartments and rents within a given radius. 4. If the land occupied by the park is to be sold, the tenants be given the first right of refusal accepting the offer of the seller for the purchase of the park and all the improvements. S. The tenants be given the option of a long tern lease of the land and purchase of the improvements. 6. Partial payment for relocation of mobile homes to another park. 7. If the mobile homes cannot be relocated to parks within a given radius, the proponent may be required to purchase the mobile homes at fair market values, determined by an independent appraiser with mobile home expertise. 8. If the park is to be converted to another residential use, a certain number of units may be required to be set aside for displaced tenants. It is important to note that most of these items are only general concepts which would require much more specific detail if drafted into an ordinance. San Diego County, for example, determines the amount of financial relocation assistance which must be provided by the amount of prior notification given. A longer notification period would allow the developer to pay a smaller portion of the relocation costs. Limits could also be set for all other forms of financial assistance required, or assistance could be limited to low-income tenants. Information on available spaces could be restricted tote range ounty area or could include all of Southern California. In any case, the above items are only intended to serve as a partial list of general ideas for inclusion in a conversion ordinance. 10.0 IMPLEMFNTAriON ISSUES There are a number of problems associated with implementation of a conversion ordinance which must be understood before a decision on what to include in the ordiixance can 1-w made. The first problem involves how the requirements of the ordinance are to be activated. Before the City can require compliance with the ordinance, the City must have some entitlement it can withhold from the developer until compliance is found. That entitlement which could most effectively be withheld would be approval of a zone change to allow the new use. However, as described previously, not all mobile home parks in the City are zoned exclusively for mobile homes. Some parks are non-conforming uses which are actually zoned to ollo\N other commercial or residential uses. In these cases, the park owners could evict the tenants first and then apply to the City later for permits to build other uses allowed under the zoning. The City would hove no opportunity to activate the conversion ordinance for these parks before the tenants were evicted. If the City wishes to provide equal protection for all mobile home park tenants in the City through a conversion ordinance, it will probably be necessary to place mobile home zoning on all non-conforming parks. If this were clone, all park owners in the City would need to apply for a zone change to allow another , use. The City would then require compliance with the conversion ordinance before granting the zone change. Another more important problem involves the actual effect of the requirements on the park owners. If the requirements are too expensive or too inflexible, it is likely that the park owners will temporarily abandon plans for conversion and raise rents dramatically instead. It is also possible that a very restrictive conversion ordinance could potentially lead to lawsuits involving inverse condemnation, particularly' from park owners whose parks were rezoned for mobile home use only. On the other hand, if the conversion ordinance is too weak, it will do little to , assist the dislocated tenants in finding new housing. An ineffective ordinance is probably worse than an overly restrictive one because it would still be subject to challenge by park owners while at the some time offering little protection for dislocated tenants. It appears that the most important factor in development of a mobile home , park conversion ordinance is the balancing of interests. The ordinance must . provide meaningful assistance to tenants who are being displaced while at the some time not being so restrictive as to significantly inhibit the park owner's ability to change the use of his land. Because there are different reasons for conversion, it would be desirable for the ordinance to allow as much flexibility as possible in determining which type of assistance and how much assistance the , park owner must provide. In any case, it should be understood that a conversion ordinance would not prohibit conversions, but rather, would regulate the manner in which conversions occur and mitigate their impacts. I I .0 ALTI_RNATIVF IMPLFMFNTATION APPROACHES There are a number of approaches the City may take in dealing with the mobile home pork conversion issue as it has been described in this report. The most comprehensive approach to the problem would be to direct staff to rezone non-conforming mobile home parks to MH zoning where it would he consistent with the general plan, and to work with the City Attorney's office and other interested parties to develop a mobile home park conversion ordinance. The ordinance would provide guidelines for mitigating measures which must be satisfactorily complied with by the proponent before a zone change or other entitlement to allow another use would be granted by the City. Another approach would be to direct staff to develop a conversion ordinance as described above but to maintain the current zoning on non-conforming parks. This approach would reduce the potential for problems associated with rezoning but would probably not provide protection for the existing tenants of non-conforming mobile home parks since the ordinance would only become effective when a landowner applied for a discretionary entitlement such as a zone change or filing of a map. A third approach would be neither to rezone the non-conforming parks nor develop a conversion ordinance. Instead, when zone changes for conforming parks are requested, Council may devise its own mitigating measures on a case-by-case basis. The extent and effectiveness of such measures will depend upon the policy of the Council in office at the time of each zone change request. 12.0 OTHER ACTIONS Mobile home park conversions are a particular problem only because mobile home parks comprise such a substantial portion of the City's affordable housing supply. The problern then really involves the lack of adequate amounts of affordable housing for the City's low-income residents. A conversion ordinance would not provide additional low-cost housing, but would instead work to assimilate displaced tenants into the existing housing that is available. In the long term, what is needed is more low-cost housing. The City should continue to explore possible methods of providing affordable housing through the use of State and Federal programs as well as City policies such as density bonuses and inclusionary zoning. If adequate affordable housing could be made available, the need for conversion ordinances for mobile home parks as well as apartments would he greatly reduced. 13.0 APPENDIX Appendix A San Diego County Mobile Home Park Zone Change Procedures 7505 APPLICATION OF PROPERTY OWNER. The application of a property owner or the. agent of such owner requesting an amendment .to the Zoning Ordinance as applied to his property shall be made as follows: I . Application Form Filing, and Fee. An application requesting an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance shall be made on the prescribed form, shall be filed with the Planning Commission, and shall be accompanied by the fee referenced in Section 7602. b. Required Documents. An application requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance shall be accompanied by the following documents: 1. A list of the names of all persons having an interest in the application as well as the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. If any person identified pursuant to this provision is a corporation or a partnership, the names of all persons owning more than 10 percent of the shares in the corporation or owning any partner- ship interest in the partnership shall be listed. If any person identified pursuant to this provision is a non-profit organi- zation or trust, the names of all persons serving as directors of the non-profit organization or-as beneficiaries, trustees and- trustors of the trust shall be listed. . 2. Complete description of the requested amendment. 3. The appropriate environmental impact review document, as provided by Section 7610. c. Additional Documents Required for Mobilehome Parks. i 1. An application requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on property containing an existing mobilehome park and zoned for exclusive mobilehome park usage by either the R-MH Use Regulation or the "A" Building Type Designator shall request provisional reclassification pursuant to Section 7509 and contain the following information and/or documents specified herein: i. The number of spaces within the existing park. ii. A list of names and addresses of all tenants within the , park for use by the Department in giving notice. iii. The date of manufacture and size of each mobilehome and the current replacement value affected by the relocation. The replacement value-shall be determined in the same manner as used by standard insurance replacement criteria. iv. The estimated cost of relocation of each mobilehome affected by the. proposed change of use. v. The length of tenancy by each tenant. A. The estimated income, age and number of tenants affected by the proposed change of use. vii. The number of alternative sites available to the tenants including written commitments from the owners of those parks to accept the relocated units and tenants.. viii. -A time table for vacating the existing park. ix. A statement and concept plan indicating what use the park site is intended to accommodate. x. Evidence satisfactory. to the Director that mutually accept- able agreements have been reached on the part of the park owner and all tenants to vacate the park commencing upon ' provisional reclassification. Such evidence may include, but, is not limited to the following: Cl) Written agreements to relocate mobilehomes; and (2) Assistance for low and moderate income tenants in the form of payment by the park owner of 80%, up to a maximum of $2,000, of the cost of relocating the mobilehome to another mobilehome park within 100 miles. _ v 1 xi. If such evidence specified in "x" above is not.included b in the application, then the Director of Planning and Land Use shall recommend reasonable conditions to mitigate any adverse impacts on tenants of the mobilehome park to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to be included as a condition of the provisional reclassification of the property. 2. Nothwithstanding the provisions of Section 7SOS(c) (1), a park owner who elected to give a S-year notice to vacate may file an application for reclassification or provisional reclassifi- cation if. evidence is provided that the following provisions were met or the following provisions must be completed before the provisional reclassification is removed: i. The mobilehome park owner shall provide evidence that a notice to vacate pursuant to Section 798.56(f) of the Civil Code has been issued and ii. Informed each tenant of the rent and location of a number of available spaces equal to the number of occupied units to be displaced, and iii. Assisted each tenant in relocating the tenants mobilehome to any new space within 100 miles in accordance with the D following schedule: IF TENANT VACATES PORTION OF EXPENSES UP TO A BEFORE END OF PAID 3Y OWNER MAXIMI OF l st year , 80% $2,000 2nd year 600 12500 3rd year 400 12000 4th year 20% S00 Sth year -b- -0- (Added by Ord. No. S90S (N.S.) adopted 10-8-80) Sec. is-9 - REQUIREMENTS. a) Use of property as a mobile home park shall not be terminated for the purpose of conversion to another land use until application for mobile , home park conversion has been made to the Planning Department and approval by the Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal, has been received. b) Nd building permits shall be issued on property occupied by a mobile home park at the effective date of this ordinance or hereinafter for uses other than those associated with the mobile home park use and allowed under the Special Use Permit, until approval under.Section 9(.a) has been received. c) Applications for a mobile home park conversion shall be made to the Planning Department and in addition to the complete application, along with a $300.00 filing fee, the following information is required; 1. Plans indicating what use the conversion is in- tended to be. 2. Time table for conversion of the park. 3. If proposed .conversion is to a use not consistent with the underlying zone, the applicant shall file concurrently, & Specific Plan Zone Reclassi- fication. 4. Total spaces within the..park; number of spaces occupied; length of time each space has been occupied by present tenant; monthly rate currently charged. S. Environmental Assessment form. b) The conversion• will• not,result in the displacement of low income individuals or- households who cannot afford rents: charged in other parks. c) That. the age, type and style of mobile home within- the park proposed for conversion would be accepted into other parks , within the geographic area. d) If the conversion is to another residential use, the mobile home park residnets have* first opportunity to occupy these units and the construction schedule will not result in long term displacement. e) The proposed conversion is consistent with the San Marcos General Plan. f) The, proposed converion is pursuant to the public health, safety and welfare. g) The convex•*ion will not result in a shortagr of housing opportunities and choices within the City of San Marcos. Sec. 15-12 = CONDITIONS. In the approval of a mobile home park conversion, the City. may attach conditions deemed reasonable in order to mitigate the impacts associated with the conversion. Such conditions shall not be limited to, but may includeethe following:- a) Partial payment for. relocation of mobile homes to another' park. �. b) If the land occupied by the park is to be sold, the tenants be given the first right of refusal accepting the .offer of the seller for the purchase of the park and all the improve— ments ' c) The tenants. be given the option of a long term lease of the land and purchase of the improvements. d) The,City.may .attach an effective date upon their approval of the conversion. Said date will provide sufficient time for the relocation of the mobile homes to then parrs. Said time limit shall at a minimum, be one year. e) If the' mobile homes cannot be relocated to parks in the area, the applicant may required to purchase said mobile homes at fair market value, determined by an independent appraiser with mobile home expertise. SECTION III: This Ordinance shall .take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause same .to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City , of San. Marcos this day of , 1979 , by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN- ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: ATTEST: �- ANDREW G. F AMF.NG , MA R 0 CITY OF SAN MARCOS SHEILA L , Appendix C Government Code, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.7 65863.7. Prior to the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, except pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (com- mencing with Section 66410) of Title 7), the person or entity proposing such change in use shall file a report on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion on displaced mobilehome park residents, the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks. The person proposing such change in use shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the impact report by the advisory agency, or if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. The legislative body, or its delegated advisory agency, shall review such report, prior to any change of use, and may require, as a condition of such change, the person or entity to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park. This section establishes a minimum standard for local regula- tion of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 879.) 66427.4. At the time of filing a tenative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, the subdivider shall also file a report on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion on displaced mobilehome park residents, the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks. The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. The legislative body, or an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map, may require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobile- home park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park. This section establishes a minimum standard for local regu- lation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. (Added by Stats. 1980, Ch. 1065.) Page #10 - Council . Minutes = 8/3/81 MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE STUDY r.., The City Clerk presented a transmittal from the Development Services Director of the .Special Report - Mobilehome Park Conversion dated July, 1981 . The Development Services Director stated that June Catalano, Deputy Director, would present a review of the report, following which staff would like Council direction relative to the components so that staff may begin preparing a conversion ordinance. June Catalano, Deputy Director, presented a review of the report stating that Section No. 9 - Ordinance Components contains a listing of items which have appeared in ordinances in other cities which could be used as a starting point for discussion-; however, staff would advise that the City Attorney's Office review any measures proposed for the conversion ordinance prior to bringing back a draft ordinance to Council . Discussion was held by. Council . Councilwoman Bailey stated that she believed special consideration should be given to those with older homes that cannot be resold. Councilman Thomas stated that he believed all mobilehomes should be inventoried and rezoning provided. The City Attorney responded to questions by Councilman MacAllister relative to rezoning. Councilman MacAllister stated his concern relative to rezoning and stated that he believed there should be two separate motions ; one on rezoning and one on the components. Councilman Mandic stated that he would like pictures of the mobilehome areas in question. �. Councilwoman Bailey .stated that she believed there was a time constraint and in. order to move forward before the moratorium goes off that she did not see that a .study session was necessary. She stated that when the ordinance comes back to Council , the Council can have public input if they wish and report from the committee, as they have already met enough to give Council information, but philosophically, Council can certainly make a decision tonight whether or not to rezone the other mobilehome parks as mobilehome parks . She stated that she would .like to make a motion to that effect. A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by Thomas , to rezone the mobilehome parks that are not presently zoned for mobilehome parks. Following discussion, Councilwoman Bailey clarified that her motion was to give direction to staff to bring back the proper method of rezoning the existing mobilehome parks in the City. Councilman Thomas stated that he would only second the motion as originally stated. Considerable discussion was held by Council and the City Administrator commented on procedure. A tie vote taken on the motion failed as follows : , AYES: Thomas Finley, Bailey NOES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Mandic ABSENT: Kelly J ' Page. #11 - Council Minutes - 8/3/81 Following further discussion, a motion was made by Mandic, seconded by MacAllister, to direct staff to take into consideration the Components l through 8 and also come back with all the information required relative to rezoning. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Thomas ABSENT: Kelly A motion was made by Thomas , seconded by Bailey, to direct staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment on those mobilehome parks that are currently not designated for residential purposes to a residential purpose with subsequent rezoning held concurrently. The motion failed by the following tie vote: AYES: Thomas , Finley, Bailey NOES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Mandic ABSENT: Kelly ELIMINATION OF "Q" ZONING TO BE REVIEWED Mayor Finley stated that she believed the "Q" (Qualified) Zoning provision should be eliminated from the ordinance code. The Council concurred with the Mayor's request that staff and perhaps the Planning Commission review "Q" zoning to determine whether such zoning is workable or any longer necessary. NE CORNER OF INDIANAPOLIS/DELAWARE - REFERRED TO PC .Councilman Pattinson requested that staff be directed to review the matter raised under the "Oral Communications" portion of the agenda relative to the northeast corner of Indianapolis Avenue and Delaware Street and that it be taken to the new Traffic Commission and then on to the Planning Commission for their recom- mendation. Councilwoman Bailey suggested that it be considered in Circulation Element of the General Plan which is coming up rather than referred to the Traffic Commis- sion which may delay it as they are not yet organized. Councilwoman Finley questioned whether circulation decisions were the role of the Traffic Commis- sion. Councilman Pattinson stated that he would not want this matter to go . on a General Plan Amendment until studied by the Planning Commission. On motion by Pattinson, second Bailey, Council directed staff to provide the Planning Commission with the information regarding the requests made by property owners relative to dedication requirements on Indianapolis Avenue. The motion carried unanimously. DANUBE DRIVE PROTESTS - DEFERRED Mayor Finley spoke regarding the problem on Danube Drive brought up during .the "Oral Communications" portion of the agenda. She asked that the request for a nuisance hearing be referred to the City Attorney. The City Attorney suggested that the City Clerk be directed to place the matter on the agenda .for a public hearing to determine whether there is a public nuisance. r;lirilt�l'1' tS .1, ►` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN.TER-DEPARTMENT COMMUN ATION IIUNTING[ON AIA(H _ - 'O To Charles W. Thompson F James W. Palin, Director_ City Administrator Development Services Subject MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION : - Da e July 28 , 1981 WITHHOLDING BUILDING PERMITS Pursuant to your suggestion that the City consider withholding building permits from developers until evidence of compliance with the require- ments of a mobile home conversion ordinance could be found, our staff met with Art Folger of the City Attorney-Is office . It is the opinion of the Attorney ' s office that the Government Code spells out exactly which dedications may be required subject to issuance of a ministerial permit such as a building permit. Relocation assistance is not an expressly permitted dedication requirement in the Government Code and therefore could not legally be used to condition the issuance of ministerial permits . Discretionary permits, however, may be, conditioned upon compliance with virtually any action the City feels is reasonable. The legality of this action would primarily be dependent on whether or not the conditions prevented the property owner from making a reasonable profit on his prop- erty. If. you would like us to request that the Attorney ' s office investigate this matter further, please 'let 'me know. JWP:JWC:df v EXHIBIT 9 CITY OF HUNTING ON BEACH •�,' INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HI INIINGTON III A(11 To Charles W. Thompson o James W. Palin, Director '., City Administrator 0 Development Services Sul)ject BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE Da July 30, 1981 For your information on the subject of withholding building permits, we have researched the Uniform Administrative Code as well as the Uniform Building Code ( ' 79 editions, adopted by the. City Council by Ordinance 2431 on 16 July, 1980) and offer . the following: Section 303 (a) , Issuance, states in part " . if the building official finds that the, work described in an application for a permit and. the. plans, specifications, and work data filed therewith conform to the requirements of this code and the technical codes and other per- tinent laws and ordinances , and that the fees specified by Section 304 have been paid, he shall issue a permit therefor to the applicant. " It is our interpretation of this provision that any requirement or provision that. the Council may .instruct the staff to incorporate into a mobilehome conversion ordinance would necessitate compliance with all of said provisions as a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit and, if such actions had not been complied with, the Local building. official" would be authorized to withhold the issuance of such _permit. JWP: uf • • • EXHIBIT 10 . TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: Charles Thompson, City Administrator FROM: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services DATE: August 7, 1981 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE On August 3, 1981, the City Council reviewed a Development Services staff report concerning issues related to mobile home park conver- sions. The Council at this time directed staff to incorporate a number of suggested components into a mobile home park conversion ordinance, including the rezoning of existing nonconforming parks to a Mobile Home (MH) zone. This memo is intended to provide zoning, general plan, and statis- tical information on existing mobile home parks in ,the City. Where nonconforming parks exist, appropriate procedures and significant planning and legal issues related to rezoning are identified. The second part of this memo briefly reviews the possible components of a mobile home park conversion ordinance recommended for inclusion by Council . . MOBILE HOME PARK INFORMATION Table 1 indicates the location, size, zoning -and general plan sta- tus of each mobile home park in the City. All parks fall into one of four categories .related to zoning and general plan status, de- scribed below: 1 . Parks currently zoned MH and consistent with the Land Use Element Eight parks fall into this category, seven of which are de- signated medium density residential.. One park, Los Amigos, is designated low density residential; however, it is developed at a density of 6.8 units per gross acre and is therefore con- sistent with the Land Use. Element. , 2. Parks currently zoned MH but not consistent with the Land Use Element Four parks are in this category. Three parks, Del Mar Mobile Estates, Rancho Huntington, and Villa de la Playa, are desig- nated low density residential but are developed at 8.4 - 9. 2 units per gross acre. The travel -trailer portion of. Huntington- By-The-Sea was . redesignated for visitor-serving commercial use in the Coastal Element; the existing MH zoning might be con- sidered inconsistent with this designation. The issue of zoning consistency for these parks and coastal areas is discussed later. TABLE 1 MOBILE HOME PARK SUMMARY : TOTAL GENERAL PLAN ZONING GENERAL PLAN NAME SPACES ACRES ZONING DESIGNATION STATUS STATUS 1.. Beachview Mobile Home Park 81 5 .64 M1 Industrial Non- Inconsistent . 17261 Gothard Street conforming 2. Brookfield Manor 137 16 . 39 MH Medium Density Conforming Consistent 9850 Garfield Avenue Residential 3. Cabrillo 45 6.00 RA-O . Visitor-Serving Non" Inconsistent 21752 Pacific Coast Hwy. Commercial conforming 4. Del Mar' Mobile Estates 142 15.43 MH Low/Medium Den- Conforming Partially 19251 Brookhurst Street sity Residential Inconsistent 5. Driftwood 239 25.60 R5, R5-0, Commercial Su/ p- Non- Inconsistent 21462 Pacific Coast Hwy. C3 port Recreation conforming 6. Huntington-By-The-Sea 4471 31 .88 MH Medium Density Conforming Inconsistent 21851 Newland Street Residential, Visitor-serving Commercial 7 . Huntington Mobile Estates 105 9.20 R5 Medium Density Non- Consistent 7652 Garfield Avenue Residential conforming 3. Huntington Shorecliffs 304 40.71 MH Medium Density Conforming Consistent 20701 Beach Blvd. Residential � . Huntington Shores 44 7. 10 R5, R5-0, High Density Non- Inconsistent 21002 Pacific Coast Hwy. C3 Residential conforming ) . Huntington Valley 98 12. 14 MH Medium Density Conforming Consistent 19350 Ward Street Residential Los Amigos Mobile Park 145 21 . 22 MH Low Density Conforming Consistent 18601 Newland Street Residential ,� • • • • • • • • • • TOTAL GENERAL PLAN ZONING GENERAL PLAN NAME SPACES ACRES ZONING DESIGNATION STATUS STATUS 12. Pacific Trailer Park 266 18 .65 R5 Medium Density Non- Consistent 80 Huntington Street Residential conforming 13 . Rancho Del Rey 379 53 .59 MH, R2 .. Low/Medium Den- Partially Partially 16222 Monterey Lane sity Residen Non-con- Inconsistent tial forming 14 . Rancho Huntington 193 22.91 MH Low Density Conforming Inconsistent 19361 Brookhurst Street Residential 15. Sea Aira Mobile Estates 224 25.60 MH Medium Density Conforming Consistent 6241 & 6301 Warner Avenue Residential 16 . Sea Breeze Mobile Estates 65 5.03 MH Medium Density Conforming Consistent 5200 Heil Avenue Residential 17.. Skandia Mobile Country 167 17.43 MH Medium Density Conforming Consistent 16444 Bolsa Chica Street Residential 18. Villa de la Playa 130 14 .79 MH Low Density Conforming Inconsistent 16400 Saybrook Lane Residential 19 . Villa Huntington 125 14 .84 MH Medium Density _ Conforming Consistent 7850 Slater Avenue. Residential Source: Huntington Beach Department of .Development Services 1 Huntington-By-The-Sea consists of two separate areas.. The Mobile Home Village contains 306 permanent spaces; the Travel Trailer Area occupies approximately four acres and contains 141 total spaces, of which only about 25 percent (35 spaces) are reserved for short term occupancy by travelers. The total number of permanent spaces in the entire park is 412 . 3. Nonconforming parks for which MH zoning would clearly be con- sistent- with the Land Use Element Two parks are included in this category. Huntington Mobile Estates and Pacific Trailer Park are zoned R5, but are developed at densities consistent with 'the medium density residential designation. These parks may not have been rezoned previously . due to the fact that existing densities exceed the maximum allowed under the MH district; however, four of the 13 parks currently .zoned MH also exceed the maximum density of nine units per gross acre. 4. Nonconforming parks for which MH zoning may be inconsistent with the Land Use Element Five parks fall into this category - Beachview, Cabrillo, . Drift wood, Huntington Shores, and Rancho del Rey. These parks are of particular concern in considering a conversion ordinance since they are neither zoned nor designated for mobile home park use in the Land Use Element. These parks are addressed . in detail below following a discussion of general plan and zoning consistency. REZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Because mobile homes constitute a significant portion of the City' s affordable housing supply, the closure or conversion of existing parks is of particular concern. ' For this reason; the Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance to regulate the conversion of mobile home parks as authorized by State law. The ordinance would not prohibit conversions per se, but rather would give the City Council discretion to apply conditions to mitigate adverse impacts on residents and the City' s affordable housing supply. An ordinance regulating the conversion of mobile home parks may, however, be ineffective unless the City has some discretionary authority; such as zone change or other entitlement approval, re- lated to a change of use. The ability to regulate conversions is . further impaired where mobile home parks are not in conformance with existing zoning and potentially inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. For this reason, rezoning exis- ting nonconforming parks has been suggested as a possible means of giving residents added protection against unmitigated eviction. As mentioned earlier, seven of the City' s mobile home parks exist as nonconforming uses under existing zoning, and rezoning to MH would be clearly consistent with the General Plan in only two lo- cations. With the other five parks, a determination of whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan requires further analysis of General Plan policies and individual park characteristics. 1.. Beachview Mobile Home Park This park contains 81 spaces and is located on 5.64 acres of land on the west side of Gothard Street. midway between Warner and Slater Avenues. The park is currently zoned Mi (Light Manufacturing) and is designated industrial in the Land Use Element. Surrounding uses include the City maintenance yard to the south, industrial uses to 'the east across Gothard Street, Ocean View High School to the north, and single family homes to the west. An amendment to the Land Use Element to designate the property medium density residential would be necessary in order to apply the MH zoning district; this designation is compatible with surrounding uses. It should be noted, however, that the exis- ting density of the park is 14.3 units per gross acre, which exceeds the maximum density allowed in the MH zone. As men- tioned previously, four parks currently zoned MH exceed nine units per acre.. . 2. Cabrillo Trailer Park This park contains 45 spaces located on six acres of State- owned land along the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway west of Newland Street. The recently-adopted Coastal Element land use plan designates this area for visitor-serving. commercial use. Existing zoning is RA-0 (Residential Agriculture combined with oil production) , however, this zoning eventually is to be replaced by a new zoning district or specific plan de- veloped to implement the new land use designation. Rezoning of this area to MH would necessitate an amendment to the Coastal Element to designate the property medium density residential . 3. Driftwood Mobile Home Park This .park contains 239 spaces developed around a golf course on 25.6 acres of City-owned land located north of Pacific Coast Highway and west of Beach Boulevard. Current zoning on the site is R5 (Office Professional) , R5-0 (Office Professional com- bined with oil production) , and C3 (General Business) . This area is designated Commercial/Support Recreation on the Coastal Element land u.se plan, a new designation for which implemen- ting zoning or specific. plans have not yet been developed. The Driftwood park is also depicted on an overlay in the Coastal Element that shows existing mobile home park areas and calls attention to the Housing Element policy to encour= age the retention of existing numbers of mobile homes and investigate areas for potential new mobile home zoning. The Coastal Element does not necessarily require that existing ino- bile home parks, shown on the overlay, be retained in their cur- rent locations and configurations, nor does it specifically recommend applying MH zoning to all existing parks -in the coastal zone. However, these areas should obviously be considered when in- vestigating areas for potential new mobile home zoning. The following Coastal Element policy also pertains to mobile home parks: "Unrestricted conversion of mobile home parks to other uses diminishes mobile home stock and space ' availability. The City will develop ordinances which will include, but not be limited to, en- surance that any displaced mobile homes within the coastal zone will be accommodated within the City of Huntington Beach; that the conversion will not result in the displacement of low income . individuals or households; that such conversion will not result in a shortage of housing oppor- tunities and choices; and that there be a mechan- ism for reimbursement of relocation costs . " Because the MH zone is not generally consistent with the land . use designation, the development of zoning- or specific plan ordinances to implement the Coastal Element for this area must reconcile the potential conflicts between the Commercial/ Support Recreation designation and the policies designed to protect affordable housing opportunities. The mobile home zone might be considered for use on an interim basis until specific planning efforts are completed. However, because the property is owned by the City and no immediate change of use is being contemplated, mobile home zoning may not be necessary at this time to protect residents from unmitigated eviction. 4. Huntington Shores This park contains 44 spaces on 7 .1 acres of land located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway west of Huntington Street. Existing zoning on the property is R5, R5-0, and C3, and the site is designated high density residential. on the Coastal Element land use plan. The Huntington 'Shores park is at the focus of efforts to develop a conversion ordinance since the property owner has notified residents of an in- tended change of use on the property that would displace existing mobile homes. Like other coastal areas, zoning or specific plan ordinances have not yet been adopted to implement the Coastal Element. Neither the existing zoning on the site nor mobile home zoning would generally be considered consistent with the high density designation according to the consistency matrix contained in Section 4 ,of the General Plan, which shows MH zoning to be consistent only with the low and medium density residential designations. This matrix, however, is merely a guide, and consistency must be assessed in relationship to all General Plan elements and policies. The park in question is depicted on the mobile home park over- lay in the Coastal Element and any conversion to other use is affected by the policy quoted in the previous section. However, until a conversion ordinance is adopted, this policy is virtually ineffective. Because the existing zoning on the property is not consistent with the Coastal Element, any request for new develop ment or use of the site would probably be held in abeyance until implementing ordinances have been adopted. Any proposal by the property owner to close the existing mobile home park in an- ticipation of future development would be required to follow the procedures outlined in Sections 798 through 799.6 of the California Civil Code; specifically Sections 798.55 and 798 .56 pertaining to termination of tenancy which require a minimum 12-months' written notice (see Appendix) . Additional considera- tions related to a change of use on existing mobile home parks may be addressed by the City Council in developing the conversion ordinance. 5. Rancho Del Rey This park contains 379 spaces located on 53.59 acres of land located east of Saybrook Lane and south of Edinger Avenue. The majority of the park is zoned MH and designated low density residential in the Land Use Element; however, the northerly 12 acres. are zoned R2 and designated medium density residential . Rezoning the 12-acre R2 area to MH would be consistent with the medium density designation, however, the portion of the park already zoned MH might be considered inconsistent with the low density designation, as the overall density of development is 7.07 units per gross acre. In this particular case, the dif- ference in density is so small as to be insignificant, and a general plan amendment is not considered necessary. In summary, staff feels that action to rezone nonconforming parks to the MH district could now be initialed on two parks - Huntington Mobile Estates, and Rancho del Rey - and that this action would be consistent with the General Plan. The Beachview Mobile Home Park on Gothard Street would require a general plan amendment to re- designate the area from industrial to medium density residential prior to rezoning the park to MH. The four nonconforming parks located in the coastal zone may re- quire additional consideration due to the fact that the Coastal Element has established new land use designations and specific housing policies. intended to implement the State Coastal Act. Only one of the parks in this area, Pacific Trailer Park, is designated for medium density residential use, in which the MH zone is clearly consistent. The specific plans developed to im- plement the Coastal Element will supercede existing zoning; there— , fore; any proposed rezoning may only be an interim measure until permanent ordinances and development standards for the coastal area are approved. The emphasis at this time should be on developing the mobile home park conversion ordinance, during which time the necessity or feasibility of rezoning existing parks maybe explored in greater detail . !� REQUES- FOR CITY COUNCIL NCTION EXHIBIT 11 Date September 14, 1981 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles 'W. Thompson, City Administrator James.-W. Palin, .Director of Development Services Prepared by: � Subject: URGENCY ORDINANCE. - MOBILE HOME .PARK CONVERSION ORATORIUM Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUES: Pursuant to Council direction given at the August 17, 19.81 .City Council meeting, an urgency ordinance imposing an eight-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses has been prepared. The purpose of the ordinance is to provide additional time for the Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission to consider effective means for the order- ly conversion. of mobile home parks .to other uses. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance No. 2509 to impose an eight-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. ANALYSIS• On June 29, 1981, the City Council adopted Urgency .Ordinance ' No. 2496 which established a four-month- moratorium on the conver- sion of mobile home parks to other uses. The intent of the origi- nal moratorium" was to allow staff time to study the. i.ssue and report. back .on the . feasibility of developing a permanent ordinance regulating conversions. Upon review of staff ' s report, which was presented at the. August 3, 1981 City Council meeting, it was de- termined that mobile home park conversions constitute a complex issue which will require further study and direction by Council before a decision on a permanent ordinance can be reached. A follow-up memo on mobile home park zoning was forwarded to Council in September. Because the .original moratorium will expire on October '29, 1981, Council determined that an extension of the moratorium. will be necessary to ensure the public welfare while further -consideration is given to :the issue of mobile home park conversions... As directed , by Council at the August 17, 1981 City Council meeting, the attached urgency ordinance extending the moratorium for an. additional eight PIO 4/81 . ORD. MOBILE HOME PARKS,,,., Sept. 14, 1981 Page 2 months has been prepared. If this ordinance is adopted on October 5, 1981, it will expire on June 5, 1982. In the ensuing time, staff will keep abreast of the mobile home park conversion issue and await further Council direction. If additional time is needed beyond June 5, 1982, Government Code Section 65858 will permit one additional extension of the moratorium not to exceed twelve months. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 2509 to establish an eight- . month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. This will allow the current four-month moratorium to expire on October 29, 1981 with no new moratorium taking effect. FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Urgency Ordinance No. 2509 -. An Additional Eight-Month Moratorium on the Conversion of Mobile Home Parks to . Other Uses. ORDINANCE NO. AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IMPOSING AN EIGHT-MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS TO OTHER USES WHEREAS, a four-month moratorium on conversion of mobile- home parks to other uses was established by Urgency Ordinance No . 2496, adopted June 29 , 1981 ; and The City Council desires to provide additional time for the Department of Development. Services and the Planning Commission to study and recommend proposals to implement mobilehome park conversions; and Notice pursuant to Government Code section 65856. and pub- lic hearing having been held, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach finds it necessary that this ordinance be adopted as an urgency measure to protect the public health , safety and welfare so that the Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission may have sufficient time to study proposals and make proper recommendation to implement mobilehome .park con versions ., NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. An eight-month moratorium upon the conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses is hereby established pursuant to Government Code section 65858. SECTION 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an .ur- gency measure for the immediate preservation of the general pub- lic : peace., health, safety and welfare to provide .additional time for the Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission of this city to consider effective means for the orderly conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses so that .unnecessary ahb 8/18/81 - 1 . D6 votes zoning problems and random displacement of persons now dwelling. in mobilehome parks may be avoided. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with Government Code section 65858 , is of no further force and effect eight months from the date. of its adop- tion, except as it may be extended as provided by section 65858. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause same to be published within fifteen days of its adoption in the Huntington Beach Independent, . a news- paper of general circulation. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of October , 1981 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: �J City Clerk City Attorney , C� REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ,City Administrator 2. . "0, MINUTES AO Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, October. 5, 1981 _ A tape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office Mayor Finley called the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7:30 P.M. The Flag Ceremony was conducted by Girl Scout Troop 1741 . The Pledge of Allegi- ance was led by Tiffany Miller. . The Invocation was given by Janet Heckman. ROLL CALL Present: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly Absent: None PRESENTATION - WELCOME TO HUNTINGTON SAVINGS & LOAN Mayor Finley presented the Keys to the City to Bob Terry and Mark Wright, Presi- dent of. the Huntington Savings and Loan to welcome the organization to the City. URGENCY ORDINANCE NO 2509 - ADOPTED - MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION MORATORIUM The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a -public hearing to consider the adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 2509 extending a moratorium on the conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses . The moratorium is an urgency measure to provide additional time for the Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission to consider effective means for the orderly conver- sion of mobilehome parks to other uses so that random displacement of persons now dwelling in mobilhomes may be avoided. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open. James Knowles stated that four months was enough time to develop an ordinance regarding mobilehome park conversion. Ellen Trent stated her appreciation of Council 's efforts on behalf of mobilehome owners and requested that a mobilehome park conversion ordinance be adopted by January 1 , 1982, before the next city election. Page #2 - Council Minutes - 10/5/81 Chalmer Wire stated that he believed a mobilehome conversion ordinance should t'1 be completed before the next city election. He also requested that all mobile- home parks in the city be zoned mobilehome parks . Al Caraccia stated that he believed that the city had a good basis in their draft of a mobilehome park conversion ordinance, he requested that the ordi- nance be adopted before the next city election. Gordon O'Rourke requested that Council change all the zoning of the non-con- forming mobilehome parks to mobilehome park zoning as soon as possible. Brian Medina spoke regarding relative profits of property developed for mobile- home parks or as residential developments and stated that he believed a property owner making such a conversion should pay mitigating costs to .mobilehome owners if they had to move. Ralph Meyer urged Council to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 2509 and to rezone mobilehome parks that are. not so zoned. Everett. Brake urged Council to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 2509 and to rezone the non-conforming mobilehome parks to mobilehome park zoning. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Discussion was held regarding zoning of non-conforming mobilehome parks to a mobilehome zoning. The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2509 for Council consideration - "AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IMPOSING AN EIGHT-MONTH MORA- TORIUM ON THE CONVERSION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS TO OTHER USES. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Bailey, to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 2509, after reading by title. Following further discussion, the motion carried .by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None r RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 8:30 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - ZC 81-8 - APPROVED AS AMENDED - ORDINANCE NO 2513 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED - BEACH BLVD/S WARNER -' The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Zone Case No. 81-8, a request to change the zoning on . 27 acres of property located west of "A" Street, approximately eighty feet south of the centerline of Warner Avenue from R2 (Medium Density Residential ) to C2 (Community f' Business District) . . The Mayor stated that Council would also consider a change ! EXHIBIT 12 REQUES ;FOR CITY COUNCIL,.NCTION Date December 21 , 19 81 ! Submitted to: Honorable -Mayor and City Council .Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat I•, James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Prepared by: o ! Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 - MOBILE HOME TENANT RELOCATION ASSIfTANCE GUIDELINES Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: ' STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Pursuant to Council direction given at its December 7 , 1981 meeting, a draft code amendment for the relocation of mobile home park tenants in the event of a mobile home park change of use has been prepared. . The purpose of the code amendment is. to ensure an adequate notifica- tion period and to provide meaningful relocation assistance to displaced mobile home park residents. RECOMMENDATION: ! Staff recommends that the City Council limit consideration of Code Amendment No. 81-18 to review and comment, with the intent that the code amendment be further refined as additional information is obtained. Staff is currently preparing a survey of mobile home parks which it is anticipated will .provide information. significant to the further refine- ment of the relocation assistance requirements. The conversion. mora- ! � . torium which is now in effect will provide protection to mobile home tenants until June 5, 1982. ANALYSIS: . The attached code amendment has been drafted to establish procedures ! . and reauirements for submittal , approval , and implementation of 'a tenant relocation assistance plan to be . carried out by the applicant prior to the change of use of a mobile home park. The ;code amendment establishes a .three hundred and sixty-five (365) day notification .period pursuant to Section 798 of the State Civil Code ! as well as .a requirement for .an impact of conversion report pursuant to Section 65863. 7 of the State Government Code. Additionally, the code amendme nt requires .submittal of a tenant relocation assistance plan which is subject to review and approval .by the Planning Commission or .the City Council by .a.ppeal. ! The following items and time frames for submittal,, approval, and imt plemen.tation of. a relocation assistance plan have been establishedi P10 4/81 MOBILE HOME, Cont: December 21 , 1981 �, , WWI Page 2 1 . A notice of intent to change the use of the park as well as ! an impact of conversion report may be filed with the City concurrently and will signify the beginning of a three hundred and - sixty-five (365) day notification period during which time no tenant may be evicted. 2 . A public hearing before the Planning Commission for review of ! the impact of conversion report will be scheduled by .the Di- rector- of Development Services as soon .as possible. 3 . Submittal of a tenant relocation assistance plan may occur any time during the 365 day notification period. 4 . Approval of the tenant relocation assistance plan by the Planning Commission may occur concurrent with or after the hearing on the adequacy of the impact of conversion report: 5. . A relocation period of 180 days, during which tenants may elect to relocate but cannot be required to relocate, will begin upon approval of the tenant relocation assistance plan. If the 180 day relocation period expires before the end of the 365 day notification period, .the tenants will -still not be required to move until the end of the 365 day notification period. 6 . At the end of the 180 relocation period, the applicant may ! relocate the tenants in accordance with the relocation plan. The relocation assistance plan established by the code amendment requires payment of $500 to all eligible residents as defined and $750, to, all special tenants as defined. Additionally, all eligible mobile ,home residents..with incomes below the Orange. County, median income will receive .either total relocation compensation for reloca- tion _to another park within 100 miles or purchase of the unit by the applicant at fair market value along with total compensation for moving to another form of housing within 100 miles. Alternatively, a monetary settlement in lieu of the above may be permitted. , FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: If the Council feels the proposed Code Amendment 81-18 is of suffi- cient urgency to override further consideration, Council should refer the code. amendment to the Planning Commission. for review and, immediate action. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Code Amendment No. 81-18, Mobile Home Tenant Relocation Assistance -Guidelines. JWP:HS:df U CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18, OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR MOBILE HOME TENANT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE. 1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. The provisions of this article will apply to all mobile home parks in. the City, regardless of zoning or General Plan designation, before any..change of use as defined in this code will be allowed. ! 2. DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly .directed to the use of such words and phrases: (a) Change of Use. Use of the park for a purpose other than the rental, or the holding out for rent, of two or more mobilehome sites to accommo- date mobilehomes used for human habitation, and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes, but is not limited to a change of the park .or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative, planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, vacant land, or any form of ownership v-herein any or all of the park is to be sold. (b) Notification Period. A 365 day notification period shall follow the date of the Notice of Intent during which time no tenant may be evicted. without due cause according to State law. (c) Relocation Period. A relocation period of 180 days will follow the PlanningCommission approval of a tenant assistance plan. During .this period tenants may elect to relocate, however,_ they are . not required to do so. l. _(d) Relocation Assistance Eligibility.. All. mobile �. home owners who use the park as their primary residence (not less than 180 days a year) shall be provided relocation assistance as described by the Code. Part-time, vacation or seasonal tenants and rental tenants shall not be entitled to any form of relocation benefits . r ire (e) Special Tenants. Special tenants shall be ! difficult to relocate tenants and shall include elderly, handicaped and households with school age children. I. APPROVAL REQUIRED. No person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity• shall change the use of a mobile home park without proper tenant notification and the submission of an "impact of conversion report" deemed adequate by.' the Planning Commission and a tenant assistant plan .,re.viewed by the Department of Development Services and approved by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal . •4 .. NOTICE OF INTENT. A notice of intent to change the use of a mobile home park and relocate tenants shall be delivered to each tenant, and. to the .Department of Development Services at least three. hundred and sixty-five (365) days. prior to the proposed date for the change or use. Each tenant and each person applying for the rental of a. space in such park has., or will have, received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter required. . Written notice required by the article to tenants shall be deemed' satisfied if such notices comply with the legal requirements ! and are delivered by certified _mail . Evidence of Notice of Intent shall .be, subm'itted with the tenant assistance plan, and in such ,form as approved by the Director of Development Services. Such notice shall not contain less than the following: ! (a) Name, "address, and phone number of applicant or authorized agent; (b) Statement of intent; (c) Location of property; (d) Total number. of units; '(e) Earliest possible date of change of use; (f), A list and explanation of all State and City regulations in effect at the time notice of intent of change of use was mailed; and ! (g) _ Other information deemed necessary by the Director of Development Services . In the event of failure by the applicant to give notice to prospec- tive tenants. who become tenants after notice has been mailed to _the existing tenants and filed with the City, the full purchase price of the unit or all. other relocation assistance benefits as required by this Code shall be required. 5. IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT REQUIRED. Prior to the conversion of an existing mobile home park to another b use, the applicant shall submit a report on the impact of. the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobile home park to be converted. The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of the mobile home park at least 15 days prior to public hearing on the impact report before the Planning Commission. This report shall contain the following information: (a) The availability of replacement space in mobile home parks within 100 miles. (b) Brief description of existing mobile home park, including number of spaces. (c) . The date of manufacture and size of. each mobile home. (d) A list of .names and addresses of all tenants. (e) Makeup of existing tenant households, including family size:, household income, length of residence, age of tenants, owner or renter and primary or seasonal resident. (f) Rental rate history of previous five (5) years. Failure to provide the report. required by this section shall be explained in a declaration under penalty of perjury, setting forth all reasonable efforts undertaken to discover such information and reasons why said information cannot be obtained. 6. TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. A tenant assistance plan shall be submitted during the notification period. After review by the Department of Development Services and upon approval of the Planning Commission or City Council . on .appeal a .180 day tenant relocation period will begin. The tenant assistance plan shall include. a statement of all relocation and moving assistance to be provided to each eligible tenant .and all steps the applicant will take to ensure the successful relocation of each tenant. (a) All eligible mobile home park residents shall receive $500 for relocation benefits. Special tenants shall receive $750. (b) Any eligible tenant with an. income below the County median -shall receive one hundred. (100) percent of the total cost of relocation. These costs would include transportation of the mobile home to another mobile home park site and the cost of hook-ups. The park shall be acceptable to the tenant and within one hundred (100) miles of the City. -3- ��, `10br mobile homes which are ?T6t of acceptable aqe or quality to be relocated to another park within one hundred (100) miles, the applicant must purchase the mobile home from the tenant at a fair market value, determined by an independent appraiser , with mobile home expertise. Additionally, the ap- plicant must provide for one hundred (100) percent of moving expenses to another form of .housing with- in one hundred (100) miles . The applicant may decide to provide the tenant , with a monetary settlement of at least equal to the cost of the mobile home and the cost of reloca- tion. 7. ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the impact report and tenant assistance plan will be as approved by the Planning. Commission. The reports if acceptable shall remain on file with the Department of Development Services for review by any interested persons. (a) Each of the tenants of the mobile home park shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan. (b) The final one hundred and eighty (180) day relocation period shall begin ten (10) days after approval of the tenant assistance plan. B. PREREQUISITES TO APPROVAL OF TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. The Planning Commission shall not approve a tenant assistance plan for a mobile home park change of use unless: (a). The applicant has complied with all applicable City ordinances and State regulations. in effect at the time the tenant -assistance plan was approved. . (b) The applicant has complied with the conditions of approval, including the following items : 1. Tenants will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases. 2. Tenants have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan. 3. Coercion has not been applied in any way to , increase the number of vacancies. 4 . . Demolition or construction will not occur until the tenant assistance plan is approved and the twelve (12) month notification period has expired. . 5. All deposits and association fees will be returned to the tenants. 6. There will .be no rent increase from the date of notification of . change of .use until relocations take place. 9. FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and tenant ! assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee, established by resolution of the City Council. 10. ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. At the conclusion of its hearing, noticed as otherwise provided in this code, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny said tenant assistance plan pursuant to the provisions of this article, and such decision shall be supported by a resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth its findings. ! ! ! r -5- ;�%`� 1 Page #9 - Council Minutes - 12/21/81 roll, On motion by Pattinson, second Kelly, Council approved introduction of Ordinance No. 2532, after reading by"title, by the following roll call vote: 1 AYES: MacAllister, Pattinson., Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSTAIN: Thomas ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO HBMC - "NOISE CONTROL" - APPROVED - ORDINANCE NO 2533 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code adding a provision. to Chapter 8.40, "Noise Control ", requiring a violator of the code to pay for the . costs of testing or measurement of the noise necessary to ascertain code vio- lation. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for publication and posting had. been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. Discussion was held regarding the purchasing of the monitering equipment. The Mayor declared the nearing open. There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed; either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2533 for Council consideration - "AN ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 8.40.120 RELATING TO NOISE CONTROL." 1 On motion by Mandic, second Pattinson, Council approved introduction of Ordinance No. 2533, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None 1 DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT 81-18 - TO BE FINALIZED AND BEGIN PROCESS - MOBILEHOME TENANT RELOCATION The City Clerk presented a transmittal from the Development Services Director of j Draft Code Amendment No. 81-18 - Mobile Home Tenant Relocation Assistance Guide- lines. Chalmer Wire stated .that he believed that the term mobilehome should be defined. Discussion was held regarding the matter. Lilian Myketuk spoke regarding definitions of a mobilehoiiie. 1 1 Page #10 - Council Minutes - 12/21/81 Rosalind Humphrey stated that she recently bought a new doublewide mobilehome, installed a sprinkler system and landscaping. She stated that the moving costs as outlined in the draft ordinance would not cover the expenses of moving her 1 home. Herbert Sauke requested information regarding the status of the Huntington Shores Mobilehome Park. 1 Ed Chodowski addressed various sections of the proposed code amendment and sug- gested alternate wording. Helen Trent suggested alternate wording. for .various sections of the code amend- ment. 1 Everett Brake spoke regarding the cost of relocating a mobilehome. He suggested r alternate wording for various sections of the proposed code amendment and requested that Council vote that evening regarding zoning of all non-conforming mobilehome parks to MH. Al Caraccia suggested alternate wording for various sections of the proposed code 1 amendment.. He spoke regarding affordable housing and rent increases in the City. John MacInnis stated that he bought a mobilehome as a home and although it has wheels they have never turned in 17 years. He requested Council to protect the mobilehome owners in the City. Extensive discussion was held regarding the proposed code amendment. ! '- A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to direct staff to formalize Draft Code Amendment 81-18, taking into consideration the public input, as well as Council comments, and process same so that Council can enact an ordinance in February. The motion carried by. the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Mandic requested that staff look into the requirements regarding the age of coaches as it relates to moving into mobilehome parks within a twenty-five mile radius of the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS Lilian. Myketuk stated her concerns regarding the Bolsa Chica. r or., Joe Whaling spoke regarding the Environmental Impact Report .for Huntington Cen- tral Park. Ken Lyon requested that Council adopt a resolution that would allow the tenants who .live in the apartments along Ellis Avenue to park in the alleyway. r Richard Plaisted requested that people be allowed to park in the alley behind the eN\ apartments on Ellis Avenue. r REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL-...,.ACTION 13 January 21, 1982 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Subject: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION REGULATIONS D Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At the December 21, 1981 City Council meeting, staff presented draft Code Amendment No. 81-18 to establish mobile home tenant relocation guidelines. After hearing comments from mobile home park residents and engaging in considerable discussion, Council directed staff to revise certain elements of the code amendment and bring it back to the City Council in February, 1982 . Attached is the revised code amendment for the . City Council ' s review. 1ZI:.'C OMMENDATION: Staff recommends. that the City Council review the attached code amend- ment, suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate, and direct the City Attorney' s office to rewrite the code amendment into ordinance form for, public , hearing before the Planning .Cammission on February 16 , 1982 . ANALYSIS: The general format of the attached code amendment is identical to that which was reviewed by Council on December 21, 1981 . However, the content has been modified to reflect the comments of the City Council . The following is a step-by-step explanation of the. changes which were. made to .each section: Definitions 1 . It was suggested at the December 21 Council meeting that a defini- tion of Mobile Home should be provided .in the definition section.. The revised code amendment contains new definitions for Mobile Home, Mobile Home_ Park, and Mobile .Home Space. These definitions are intended to eliminate any confusion regarding which .typ.e of units are covered- by.- the code amendment. PIO 4/81 Mobile Home Conversion January 21, 1982 . Page 2 2 . Another suggestion involved the definition of Relocation Assist- ance Eligibility. The original draft code amendment excluded part-time residents from relocation assistance eligibility. Because of opposition to the exclusion of part-time tenants, and because the 1979 census indicates that only 2 . 5 percent of mobile home tenants are . seasonal or part-time occupants, 'the definition of relocation assistance eligibility has been modified. Under the new definition, all mobile home owners would be eligible for . full relocation assistance, with renters being the only group excluded from eligibility. 3. In the interest of simplicity, the definition of Special Tenant has been removed from the code amendment and replaced with a def- inition for Special Circumstances . This new definition is intended to apply only to those residents with serious medical requirements for whom relocation to another mobile home park may pose a signi- ficant health risk. Those who qualify under special circumstances would be eligible for special considerations detailed in the Tenant Assistance Plan section. Approval Required 1 . Another item which was discussed at the December 21 meeting was the possibility of requiring that if the entire park is to be sold, that the tenants be given the right of first refusal to pur- chase the park. There is presently legislation pending (AB 2073) which would add such a requirement to the California Civil Code. Staff has taken the wording of AB 2073 and added it as a second paragraph under the Approval Required section of the code amend- ment. It is essentially a requirement for additional notification of tenants regarding the right to purchase the. park in the event of intended sale by the owner. Tenant Assistance Plan 1. There was confusion at the December 21, 1981 meeting regarding the requirement for payment of $500 to eligible tenants and $750 to special tenants in addition to relocation assistance. Since the proposed code amendment would provide mobile home owners with full relocation benefits, the payment of $500 and $750. has been deleted. 2. Another item which was eliminated was the exclusion of tenants with incomes above the County median ($30, 000) from full relocation benefits. Those full-time residents with incomes above the median would have been eligible for only the $500 or $750 payment, but nothing else. The revised code amendment would make all mobile home owners eligible for full relocation benefits, regardless of income. 3 . The original draft of the code amendment required .relocation .within 100 miles. o.f the City, in order to provide any significant number of available replacement spaces. Some persons at the meeting felt that relocation should be within 25 miles of the City, while Mobile Home Conversion `► January 21, 1982 Page 3 others felt relocation should be extended to 500 miles. The re- vised draft of the code amendment retains the requirement that tenants be provided with information on space . availability within 100 miles of' the City. The code amendment has been expanded, however, to require full relocation assistance for distances of up to 500 miles if the tenant so chooses .' Staff has contacted mobile home brokers who have indicated that . the principal cost in transporting mobile homes involves breaking the units down for transportation and hooking them back up at L the new site. Distance traveled constitutes a relatively small portion of the total moving expense. Moving expenses may range from $2, 000/$3, 000. 4 . The original draft of the code amendment required that if the mobile" home tenant did not wish to or could not relocate his unit, then the park owner would -be required to purchase it from him. Because of the great expense required to purchase units at market value (detailed under Item 5 below) , the option to refuse relocation has been removed. The revised code amendment requires that if the unit is of accep- table" age. and quality to be moved and a replacement space in a . park" of similar "quality has been located within 100 miles, then the tenant must accept relocation of his unit. Only those who qualify under special circumstances would be exempted. If a mobile home owner does not wish to live in the replacement park, then he has the choice of selling the mobile home once it is placed in the new park. Such relocation would . protect" the mobile home owner. He can either continue to live in his unit or to .sell it at market rate within a park. The mobile home would have sig- nificantly more value if it were located within a park as opposed to the owner attempting to sell it without a space. 5. If" a" unit cannot be relocated due to age or quality, or if a tenant qualifies under special circumstances, then the park owner must "purchase the unit from the. tenant for the appraised value of the unit. In the December 21 draft of this code amendment, the wording of this section was left vague in order to gain input on whether the purchase price should be for the value of the unit" in the park or outside the park. Speakers at the December 21 . meeting expressed desire that the purchase price should be for the appraised " value in the park. Discussion with county mobile home brokers and appraisers has "indicated that the value of a unit outside " a park is generally only one-fifth to one-tenth. the value of- the same unit in a park. For example, a1976 double-wide that would sell for $,65, 000 in a coastally located park may sell for only $5, 000/$7, 000 outside . the park. Most .older" units are worth no more than $2, 000 outside a park,- while inside a park they may bring $20, 000/$40, 000 . The Mobile Home Conversion i January 21 , 19 8 2 Page 4 extremely low vacancy rates in the County are responsible for the difference in appraised values inside or outside of a park. i The purchase value .problem is complicated by the fact that lending institutions actually loan money for the full value of mobile homes in parks, not just for that portion attributable to the unit . itself. Such loans are made on the basis of a verbal agreement by the park manager that there are ' no plans for closure of the park. i If the park does close before the loan is paid off, .the unit owner may continue to owe a significant sum ,of money for a unit that is suddenly no longer worth more than $2, 000 or $3 , 000. On the 'other hand, mobile home owners who purchased their units years_ ago have seen values increase dramatically. Full appraised value on their units may be $20, 000/$30 , 000 more than they origin- ally paid simply because the value of their leased land has in- creased. In consideration of the above facts, selection of an equitable purchase price for units which cannot be relocated becomes more i difficult. Some mobile home owners may need to receive payment,of nearly full appraised value in the park in order to avoid a. sub-. stantial loss, while others may receive a windfall should they recieve full appraised in-park value. The intent of speakers at the December 21 meeting seemed to be. for requiring purchase price to be 100 percent of the appraised value of the unit in the park. This requirement would provide the most protection to tenants but may be prohi.bitively expensive for the park owner wishing .to change the use of a park. Staff has left a blank in the code amendment for Council to give further. consid- eration to an appropriate percentage. One alternative to requiring purchase at 100 percent of the appraised value would be to require purchase of the units for the appraised, value of the unit itself, plus a given .percentage (25-50 percent) of what the additional value .would be if it were 1 appraised in the park Additional wording could also be added to require that in cases of units with outstanding mortgages the. percentage could be increased enough to cover and exceed the mort- gage by a given percentage. Another alternative would be to require that purchase price. be 1 determined on a case-by-case basis depending on individual cir- cumstances : Lack of, specific relocation guidelines in ordinance form would require a great deal of staff time to analyze each individual case and it would lead to lengthy .and complicated public hearings prior to approval of a Tenant Assistance Plan. 1 Suaaested Chanaes Not Inc ornoratea 1: .. Sugges.ted for inclusion 1h the code amendment but not incorpor- ated was the idea for requirement of .a performance or insurance bond to. be put up by the change of use applicant. The intent ..of 1 Mobile Home Conversion January 21, 11982 Page 5 such a. bond would be to ensure that the units were actually pur- chased. and the relocation expenses actually paid by the applicant. It is felt, however, that such a provision would probably not be necessary for a mobile home park change of use. Since mobile home owners would prefer not to move from the park in the first place, if the park owner fell short of funds for relocation it would most likely mean that the park could not close and that the remaining tenants would be able to remain in the park. If an insurance or performance bond were required to ensure . that ten- ants were not held responsible for moving costs after the move was made, the bonds would probably have to be set aside for each unit individually. Such a procedure would probably be prohibitively difficult to administer. The attached code amendment requires in stead that all relocation expenses be identified and paid by the park owner before the move takes place. , This should protect ten- ants from being held responsible for unpaid moving expenses. � . Summary of Pronosed Code Amendment The following is a brief summary of the processes and time frames which would .be required by. the proposed code amendment if 'a mobile home change of use were proposed: 1. A notice of intent to change' the use of the park as well .as an impact of conversion report must be filed with the City. Receipt of both items will signify the beginning of a 365 day noti- fication period during which time no tenant may be evicted without due cause. 2 . A' public hearing before the Planning Commission for review of the impact of conversion report will be scheduled by the Director of Development Services. 3. Submittal of a tenant assistance plan will be required and may occur any during the 365 day notification period. The tenant assistance plan must explain how each eligible tenant will receive either (a) 100 percent of relocation costs for moving the . unit to another park within 500 miles or (b) a yet to be determined per- centage of the appraised value of the unit in the park plus 100 percent of moving expenses to another form of housing within 500 miles. 4 . Review and -approval of. the tenant assistance plan may occur any . time during the 365 day notification period. 5. A relocation period of a minimum of 180 days, during which time tenants may elect to relocate but cannot be required to relocate Will begin upon approval of the tenant assistance plan. If the . 180 day relocation period expires before the end of the 365 day notification period, . the tenants will still not be required to move until the end of the 365 day notification period. Mobile .Home Conversion January 21, 1982 Page 6 6 . At the end of the 180 day relocation period, the applicant may . relocate the tenants in accordance with the tenant assistance plan. FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Council may direct staff to conduct additional research or to make extensive revisions to the format and content .of the draft code amend- ment. Such direction may .require additional time to implement and may • delay rewriting of the code amendment into ordinance form by the City Attorney, as well as delaying public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1 . Code Amendment No. 81-18, Mobile Home Park Conversion .Ordinance • JWP:HS:df • • • • . CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ESTABLISHING MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION REGULATIONS. 1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. The provisions of this article will apply to all mobile home parks in the City, regardless of zoning or General Plan designation, before any change of use as defined in this code will be allowed. 2 . DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases: (a) Change of Use. Use of the park for a purpose other than the rental, or the holding out for rent, of two or more mobile home sites to ac- commodate mobile homes used for human habita- tion, and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes, but is not limited to, a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock coopera- tive, planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, vacant land, or any change of ownership wherein any or all of the park is to be sold. 1 (b) Mobile .Home. "Mobile home" is a structure transportable on a street or highway by auth- orization or a permit in one or more .sections designed and equipped for human habitation to be used with or without a foundation system: Mobile home includes manufactured homes but does not include recreation vehicles, commer- cial coaches, or- factory-built housing. (c) Mobile Home Park. "Mobile home park" is any area of land used primarily for the placing, parking or storage of two or more mobile homes for housekeeping, sleeping or living quarters. (d) Mobile Home Space. "Mobile home space" is any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad or portion of a mobile home park designated or used for the .occupancy of one mobile home. (e) Notification Period. A 365 day notification period .shall follow the date of the Notice .of rage z Intent during which time no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to State law. . (f) Relocation Period. A relocation period of 180 days will follow the Planning Commission approval of a tenant assistance plan. During this period tenants may elect to relocate with full benefits; however, they are not re- quired to do so. (g) Relocation Assistance Eligibility. All mobile home owners shall be provided relocation assistance as described by the Code. Rental tenants shall not be entitled to any form of relocation benefits . (h) Special Circumstances . A mobile home park resident shall qualify under special circum- stances if he or she can provide written notice from a licensed physician that necessary medical services would not be available within a reason- able distance of identified replacement mobile home spaces. 3. APPROVAL REQUIRED. No person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity shall change the use of a mobile home park without proper tenant notification and the submission of an "impact of conversion report" deemed adequate by the Planning Commission and a tenant assistance plan reviewed by the Department of Development Services and approved by the Planning Commission or City- Council on appeal . In the event of sale of the park by the owner, the tenants of , a mobile home park -shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the park. The owner of the mobile home park shall give each tenant of the park written notice of his or her inten- tion to sell his interest in the park, at least sixty (60) days prior to the sale. The notice shall specify the sales price and terms of the sale which would be acceptable to the owner of the , mobile home park. If, after sixty (60) days following delivery of this notice, the tenants fail to exercise their option to purchase the mobile home park, the owner may sell his interest in the park to other parties. .4 . NOTICE OF INTENT. . A notice of intent to change the use. of a mobile home park and relocate tenants shall be delivered to each tenant and to the Department of Development Services- at least three hundred and sixty-five (365) days. prior to the proposed date for the change of use. . .Each .tenant and each person applying for the rental of a space in such park has,, or will have, received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter required. Written notice required by the article to tenants shall be deemed satisfied if such notices comply with the legal requirements and are del ivered .by certified mail . W, Evidence of Notice of Intent shall be submitted with the tenant assistance plan, and in such form as approved by the Director . of Development. Services . Such notice shall not contain less than the following: (a) Name, address,, and phone, number of applicant or authorized agent; (b) Statement of intent; (c) Location of. property; (d) Total number of units; (e) Earliest possible date of change of use; (f) A list and explanation of all. State and City regulations in effect at the time notice of intent of change of use was mailed; and (g) Other information deemed necessary by the Director of Development Services . In the event of failure by the applicant to give notice to pros- pective tenants who become tenants after notice has been mailed to the existing tenants and filed with the City, the full- purchase price of the unit and/or all other relocation assistance benefits . as required by this Code shall be required. 5 . IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT REQUIRED. Prior to the conversion- of an existing mobile home park to another use, the applicant shall submit a report on the impact of the conversion upon .the displaced residents of the mobile home park to be converted. The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of ,the mobile home park at least 15 days prior to public hearing on the impact report before the Planning Commission. This report shall contain the following information: (a) The availability of replacement space in mobile home parks within 100 miles . (b) Brief description of existing mobile- home park, including number of spaces. (c) The date .of manufacture and size of each mobile home. (d) A list of names and addresses of all tenants . (e) Makeup of existing tenant households , includ- ing family size, household income,, length of residence, age of tenants, owner or renter, and primary or seasonal resident. (f) . Rental rate history of previous five (5) years . `err'" Failure to provide the report required by this section shall be explained in a declaration under penalty of perjury, setting forth all reasonable efforts undertaken to discover such informa- tion and reasons why said information cannot be obtained. 6 . TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. A tenant assistance plan shall be submitted during the notification period. "After review by the Department of Development Services and upon approval of the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal , a 180 day tenant relocation period will begin. The tenant assist- . ance plan shall include a statement o"f all relocation and .moving assistance to be provided to each eligible tenant and all steps the applicant will take to ensure the successful relocation of each tenant. (a) Any eligible tenant shall receive one hundred (100) percent of the total cost of relocation. Those costs shall include disconnection and breakdown of the mobile home, transportation of the mobile home and contents to another mobile home park of similar quality, the cost of all hook-ups and deposits at the new site , and any incidental temporary lodging expenses 1 incurred during the move. All such expenses shall be identified and paid by the applicant at the time of the move. The park to which , the unit is relocated shall be within one hundred (100) miles of the City, or within five hundred (500) miles if the tenant so de- sires .and can locate an available . replacement space within that distance . If the tenant desires relocation beyond five Hundred (500) miles, the tenant shall be responsible for all costs associated with relocation beyond the five hundred (500) mile limit established by this code. (b) In .the case of mobile homes which are not of . Acceptable age or quality to be relocated. to another park as required by this code, or if the tenant qualifies under special circumstances as ,defined by this code, the applicant must purchase the mobile home from the tenant at percent of the fair market value of the unit in the park, as determined by an independ- ent appraiser with mobile home expertise. Additionally, the applicant must provide for one hundred (100) percent of moving expenses, including incidental temporary lodging, to another form of housing selected by the tenant within five hundred (500). miles of the City. Tenants who qualify under special circumstances shall receive assistance as needed -in finding an form of housing within reasonable .dis tance of necessary medical services . Page 5 �.r �..� 7 . ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the im pact report and tenant assistance plan will be as approved . by the Planning Commission. The. reports if acceptable shall remain on file with the Department . of Development Services for. review by any interested persons .. (a) Each of the tenants of the mobile home park shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the tenant assist- ance plan. (b) The final one hundred and eighty (1.80) day relocation period shall begin ten (10) days after approval of the tenant assistance plan. 8 . PREREQUISITES TO APPROVAL OF TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. The Planning Commission shall not approve a tenant assistance plan for a mobile home park change of use unless: (a) The applicant has complied with all applicable City ordinances and State regulations in effect at the time the tenant assistance plan was approved. (b) The applicant- has complied with the conditions of approval, including .the following items : (1) Tenants will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases., (2) Tenants have been given the. right to term- inate their leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan. (3) Coercion has not been applied in any way to increase the number of vacancies. (4) Demolition or construction will not occur until the .tenant assistance plan is approved and the twelve (12) month notifi- cation period has expired. . (5) All deposits and association fees will be returned to the tenants . (6) There will be no rent increase from the date of notification of change of. use un- til relocations take place. 9 . FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and tenant assist- ance .plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the City Council . Page 6 10 . ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. At the conclu- sion of its hearing, noticed as otherwise provided in this code, the Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny said tenant assistance plan pursuant to the pro-. visions of this article, and such decision shall be supported by a resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth its findings. Page #7 - Council Minutes. - 2/l/82 11 . In order to minimize traffic conflicts on Goldenwest and Warner, the developer shall be required to construct center and medians as shown on the` plot plan. The medians shall be landscaped and have architectural amenities .in accordance with current City stan- dards. 12. All future structures on the site shall be architecturally compati ble with the first phase of development. . 13. A detailed energy-efficient lighting plan .shall be submitted to staff for review and approval . 14. Parking lot at the rear of Buildings E, F, and G shall be used for employee parking since it is not a convenient location for customers' use. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Pattinson; Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Kelly (Thomas out of the room) ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency was adjourned. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENE Mayor Finley reconvened the City Council . Councilman Thomas returned to the room. MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION REGULATIONS - REFERRED TO STAFF - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/17/82 The City Clerk presented a transmittal from the Development Services Director , of Code Amendment 81-18 - Mobilehome Park Conversion Regulations. Following discussion, a motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister, to direct the City Attorney's Office to 'rewrite the code amendment into ordinance form for public hearing before the Planning Commission on February 17, 1982. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Kelly RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess .of the Council at 9:45 P.M. The meeting was recon- vened at 9:57 P.M. STORY HOUR FEE DELETED - RESOLUTIOfJ NO 5084 Councilman Thomas .stated his concern regarding charging a $1 .00 fee for Story Hour. 1 1 EXHIBIT 14 - 1 �� 1rt ' CITE OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION IIUNIINGION BIACII - To 110NORAI. LE, MAYOR V 1 N1?FY ;n)d From (IA I ], 111111"rol'i MLi,MI31'R i OF 11'11l? Cl-Ty ("OUNC I.L, i l.y A I I.I i nvy Subject i'roponed Mobilp Home Conversion Date February 23 , 1982 Ordina.nw - ErreW on Huntington D Shores Mobile Home Park The .attorneys for the subject park have expressed the opinion that the proposed ordinance will not affect conversion of their park- because management; had been able to rive notice of its intent to close the park prior to adoption -of the ordinance . Further, t.hah they have complied w .t.th the State I nw in such Opg;ard and , therefore , are exempt: from the c,_i ty ' s ordinance . They have , however , cited no authority .that such is the, law. Unless by state law or city ordinance there is a specific; exemption , parks in the conversion process prior to the effective date of the ordinance would be subject to any conditions placed upon relocation at the date the ordinance is effective . The critical date would appear to be the date of the relocation o:f the tenant rather than the date of the notice of intent to terminate the use . Notice for termination of mobile home tenancies is governed by Civil Code §798 . 55 , et seq . Assuming; that; such matters are of statewide concern , then state law would preempt local regulation in this area . That is . a local .agency would have difficulty establ.ishi.nq a larger or shorter notice period . Also, the manner of giving notice and the like is regulated by the st.a.te 'law. However, .the regulation being; attempted by the proposed city ordinance deals with change of use not notice or the giving; o.f notice . Tf the Mice heretofore given by Huntington Shores was adequate under the state law it could then terminate the tenancies in the park. This . would not mean they , upon ex-11 r4tion of the .notice period ) woulri not be liable for any relocation costs imposed by the city ' s ordinance in the period post: i1c�i;i�c, that prior:-. to move . A1: papently , the state stat uQ was intended to encompass two kinds of si t;u.ntions, . Tt requires n twelve month notice when the property is zoned gnr li ob i l n home usp and N six month` ' notiop when a "zone chnnre" is needed t..o chancre the use . Thus , in both cases , approxi - rnate l y n yrN r or mare notion would he given . However , the propst:d ordinance would not: suhsLant; i ;c l.l,y affect those h i me. frames . If the Memo to Mayor and Council. Menhere T'agc', Two Febrruar,y 23 , 1.982 i Subject : Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance proposed ordina.nc,e Is a valid exercise of the polirc power, then � it will not change the noLicc, requirements or the J,,iw but. it would place conditions upon which a new use would be allowed . I.t issteasy to place restrictions on development; and use . It is clear that, nearly any restriction , reasonnhl;v related to the .. tra.nsaction and which is will. he upheld by the court;;, . However, it 1:7, difficult; I;o * Place rr:;trict;.ion, on nota- use or vacancy . For this; rca.don, i.f no pet,mtt;s ,ire needed to make a. park va'c_anf, t;he city worzld be ] :imiLnd to provi.dirarr that: no trna.nt; .shall he evicted without p.rovidirrt- ror :relocation with a cr9m.inal sanction for vi.o.l.a"tion . This would �rppea.r to take from the lnndlord the right. to not enF,nge in a. p;i.rt.icular business i or occupation . The Constitution 'of the United Sties and California forbid this kind of state intrusion into private matters in the long run non-emergency situation . Since we Jvave not seen an adopted version of the mobile home con- i version ordinanc:.e we cannot, coinment; farther in det,911 . However. , we do not: nec.essar:ily afree ghat a tenant; of Hrant;ing .'hores r1ould he excluded from the protection of a properly drawn ordinance merely because he has been t;i.ven a notice under the st-ate law ._ We believe that if the next; use of the Huntington Shore,, Is a non-use or vacancy , then , there would be no feasible way t.o require . ,a relocation benefit a to displaced tenants . 'If the next use is an allowed use in the ,one and no development permits are required , t;he 1)170p)Osed ordinance could require a conversion permit; and could forbid an,y future dovel.opment; by permit denial, Injunction or, other legal means in cases -of non-compliance. Ultimately . all. properties should be -.oned for the use actually m<andrited for thc- probert.y . What; the city proposes 4 to do is to place sanctions on the ahat"ement" of a declared nuisance . T-hi :, is inherently in icons .and some thought; should be given to this problem. i (1,/IT1. iniT'tON City Att;orncy Gll: WSA :bb 4 EXHIBIT 15 huntington beach developmeoit .services department S-Af f EpOR 'I'O: Planning Commission . FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: February 17, 1982 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Open the public hearing, review and discuss Code Amendment No. 81=18 as presented, suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate, 2. 0 _ ANALYSIS.- On December 7, 1981, tle City Council directed staff to expedite pre- paration of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. Staff presented the draft ordinance, Code Amendment No. 81-18, to . the City Council on December 21, 1981 . Council listened to public testimony, engaged in discussion and directed staff to incorporate the items from the discus- sion into the ordinance. Staff made a number of modifications to the ordinance and provided a revised copy as an informational item to the Council on January 21, 1982. Upon review, the Council directed staff to send the ordinance to the Planning Commission for public hearing on February 17, 1982. Because of the complexity of the issue, staff sent copies of the January 21, 1982 RCA and draft ordinance to the Planning Commission in a packet on February 5, 1982. Staff felt that the Planning Commis- sion should have the additional time to review the RCA and ordinance before the public hearing.. The attached ordinance differs from the code amendment which was sent in the February 5, 1982 packet only in format. It has been rewritten by the City Attorney into formal ordinance form. For analysis of the. ordinance, staff refers the Planning Commission to the January 21, 1982 RCA. The City Council also directed staff to transmit to the Planning Com- mission, a copy of a letter which was received from the attornov .f_or the [hintington Beach Mobi.lehome Park Owner ' s Association regarding the proposed ordinance. The attached letter is accompanied by staff- ' s comments on the major i.sst.ies raised by the attorney in the letter. A y' CA 81-18/ND 82-3 February 17, 1982 Page 2 ' F - 1 3..0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 82-3 for 10 days and no comments either verbal or written were re- ceived. The staff in its initial study of the project has. r.ecommended that a negative declaration be 'issued. Prior to action on the code amendment, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 82-3. 4. 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, review and discuss Code Amendment No. 81-18 as presented, suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Code Amendment No. 81-18 ` 2. Negative Declaration No. 82-3 3. Staff Comments Regarding Letter from Lazof and Swanson 4. Letter from Lazof and Swanson 5. City Council minutes regarding mobile home ordinance; meeting dates of December 7, 1981, December 21, 1981, and February 1, .1982. HS:jlm i CODE AMENDMENT NO. r ORDINANCE NO . AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING TIME HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE' CODE BY ADDING THERKITO NEW ARTICLE 927 (ENTITLED, "MOBILEHOME CONVERSION"' The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as folJows :. SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding thereto new Article 927 .entitled, "Mobil.ehome Conversion" to read as fol.l..ows: 9270. APPLICATION OF •ARTICLE. The provisions of this article will. apply to all. mobil.ehome parks in the city regardless of zoning or general. plan designation,. before any change of use , as defined in this code, will. be allowed. 927.0. 1 . DEFINITIONS . Words and phrases whenever used in 'this article shall. be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases: (a) ChaiMi of Use. Use of the park for a purpose other than the rental_, or the holding out for rent, of two or more . rnobil.ehome sites to accommodate mobilehornes used for human habi- tation, and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal. of a park rul-e or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes ; but is not l.imited . to, a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative, planned unit. development , com- inertial. use , industrial. use, vacant land, or any change of owner- ship wherein any or al-l. of the park is to be sold. ( b) Mobil:ehome. "Mobil.ehome" is a structure transportable on a street or highway by authori_ zati.on. or a permit in one or snore sections designed and equipped for human habitation to be used with or, without. a foundation system. Mobil.ehome includes manufactured homes but does not incl ude recreation vehicles , . coinmercial.. coaches , or Cactory-built housing. ( c) Mobil.eh_ome Park. "Mobil.ehorne park" is any - area of land used primarily for- the placing, parking or storage of two or more mobilehornes for housekeeping, sleeping or living quarters . AJF: ahb. 2/11/82 1. F I l (d) Mobil.ehome Space . "Plobil.ehome space" is any area., tract of land, site, l.ot, pad or portion of a mobil.ehorne park designated or used for the occupancy of one m6bil.ehome. ( e) notification Period. A 365-day notification period shall follow the date of the notice of intent during which time no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to state law . ( f) Relocation Period. A rel.ocat:i.on period of 180 days will. follow the Planning Comm,ission' s approval. of a tenant assis- tance plan. During this period tenants may elect to relocate with full benefits ; however, they are not required to do so. (g) Relocation Assistance EliGibil.i All mobil.ehorne � owners shall. be provided relocation* assistance as described by. the code. Rental_ tenants shall not be entitled to any form of re- location benefits . (h) Special. Circumstances . A mobil.ehomo park resident shall qualify under special. circumststances tf he or she can pro- vide written notice from a licensed physician that necessary medical services would not be available within a reasonable dis- tance of identified replacement mobil.ehorne spaces . n 9270. 3 . APPROVAL REQUIRED. No person, firm, corporation, � partnership or other entity shall. change the use or a mobil.ehorne park without proper tenant notification and the submission of an " impact of conversion report," deemed adequate by the Planning Commission, and a tenant assistance plan, reviewed by the Department of Development Services and approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council. on appeal.. In the event of sale of the park by the owner, the tenants. of a mobil.ehome park shall_ have the right of f Lrst refusal. to purchase the park. The owner of the mobil.ehorne park shall give each tenant of the park written notice of his or her intention to sell. his interest in the park at Least sixty (60 ). days prior to the sale . The notice shall. specify the sales price .and terms of the sale which would be acceptable to the owner of the mobile- home park . . If, after sixty (60 ) day.s following delivery of this notice, the tenants fail to exercise their option to purchase the rnobilehome park , . .the owner may sell. his interest in the park to other parties 92'10.6 . tm,rici;,' op INTF,M.C. A notice of. Lntent to change the use of a mobil ehome park and relocate tenants shall be de- livered to each tenant and to the Department of Development Services at ].east 365 .days prior to the proposed date for the change of use . 2. 1 Each tenant and each person applying for the rental. of a space in such .park has , or will. have, received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter required . Written notice required by this article to tenants shall. be deemed satisfied if such notices -comply with the legal require- ments and are - del.ivered by certified mail. . Evidence of notice of intent shall. be submitted with the tenant assistance plan, and in such form as approved . by the Director of Development Services. Such notice shal.l. not contain less. than the following: (a) Name, address, and phone number of applicant or au- thorized agent; ( b) Statement of intent ; ( c) Location of property; (d) Total. number of units ; (e) Earliest possible date of change of use; (f) A list and explanation of al.l. state and city regul.a- .. tions in effect at the time notice of intent of change of rise w-13 inail.ed; and (g) Other information deemed necessary by the Director of Development Services. In the event of failure by the applicant to give notice to t prospective tenants 'who become tenants after notice has been mailed to the existing tenants and filed with the city, the full purchase price of the unit, and/or all. other relocation assis- tance benefits as required by this code shall. be required. 9270.9 . * IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT REQUIRED. Prior to i the conversion of an existing mobil.ehome park to another use, the applicant shall. submit a report on the impact of the con- version upon the displaced residents of the mobil.ehome park to be converted. The applicant shall. make copies of the report available to each rest(Jent of the mobil.ehome park at least flrteen (15) days prior to puhl is hearing; on the impact report before the Planning. Commission. Thts report shall contain the following. information: (a) The availability of replacement space in mobil.ehome parks within one hundred (100) nitl.es . . 3. ( b) Brief description of existing mobil.ehome park, in- cluding number of spaces . ( c) The date of manufacture and size of each mobilehome. (d) A list oC names and addresses of all. tenants . ( e) Makeup oC existing tenant households , including family size , household income, length of residence , aje of tenants , � owner or renter, and primary .or seaGonal. resident. ( f) Rental. rate history of previous five ( 5) years , Failure to provide the report required by this :section shall. be explained in a .declaration under pe.nal.ty of perjury, setting; A forth al.l reasonable efforts unJertaken to discover such infor- mation arld reasons why said information cannot be obtained . 9270 . 11 . TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. A tenant assistance plan shall_ be submitted during the notification period. After re- view by the Department of. Development Services and upon approval. of the Planning Commission, or City Council. on appeal. , a 180-day tenant relocation period will. begin. The tenant assitance plan shall. include a statement of al.l. relocation and moving assistance to be provided to each eligible tenant and al.l. steps the applicant will. take to ensure the successful relocation of each tenant. , (a) Any eligible tenant shal.l. receive 100 percent of the total cost of relocation. Those costs shall, include disconnec- tion and breakdown of the mobilehome, 'trans portation of the mobilehome and contents to another mobilehome park of similar quality, the cost of all hookups and deposits at the new site, and any. incidental. temporary Lodging expenses incurred during the move. All such expenses shall be identified and paid by the appli- cant at the time of the move. The park to which the unit .is re- located sha.l.l. be within one hundred ( 100) miles of the city, or within five hundred (500) miles if the tenant so.. desires and can locate. an avail.abl.e replacement space within that distance.. If the tenant desires relocation beyond five hundred ( 500.) miles , the tenant shal_1. be responsihl.e for al.l. costs associated .with re- Location beyond the five hundred (500) mile limit established by this code. ( b) In the case of mobil.ehomes which are riot of acceptable age or quality to be relocated to another park as required by this code, or if the tenant qual.iCtes under special circumstances, as defined by this code , the applicant must purchase the mobile- home from the tenant at _^ percent of the fair market value of the unit itself, appraised in the park, as determined by an Independent appraiser with mobilehome expertise. Additional.l.y, in al.l., cases the applicant must provide for 100 percent of moving r 4. expenses , incl.uditig incidental temporary lodging, to another form of housing; selected by the tenant .within five hundred (500 ) miles of the city. Tenants who qualify under special ci.rcum- �'' stances shal.l. receive assistance as needed in finding another form of housing within reasonable distance of necessary medi- cal. services . 9270. 13• ACCEPTANCE 010 REPORTS . The ftnal. form of the im- pact report and tenant assistance plan will. be as . approved 'by the Planning Commission. The reports; if acceptable, shall. re- main on file with the Department of Development .Services for re-* view by any interested persons . (a) Each of the tenants of the mobil.ehome park shall. be given. written notification within ten (10 ) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan. ( b) The final. 180-day relocation period shall_ begin ten ( 10) days after approval of the tenant assistance plan. ID 9270. 15. PREREQUISITES TO APPROVAL OP mNANT ASSISTANCE . PLAN. The Planning Commission shall. not: approve a tenant assis- tance plan for a mobil.ehome park change of use unless : (a) " The applicant has complied with al-l. applicable city ordinances and state regulations in effect at the time the tenant assistance plan was approved. ( b) The . applicant has complied with the coriditions of ap- proval. , including the following items: ( 1 ), Tenants will. not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases . ( 2) . Tenants have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval_ of the tenant assistance plan. ( 3) Coercion has not been applied in any way to in- crease the number of vacancies . ( 4) Demolition. or construction will. not occur until. the tenant assistance plan is approved and the twelve (12) month notification period has expired. ( 5) 'All. deposits and association fees will. be re- turned to the tenants ( 6) There will. be no rent increase from the date of notification of change of use until.. rel.ocation.s take place. 5. 9270 . 17. I-EE;:-' Each impact report and tenant assistance plan submitted shall. be accompanied by a fee estab- lished by resolution of the City Council.. - i 92-10. 19. ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. At the conclusion of its hearing, noticed as otherwise provided in this code , the Planning Commission shall. approve, conditionally approve , or deny said tenant assistance . pl.an pursuant to the provisions of this article; and such decision shall. be supported by a resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth its findings . SECTION 2. This ordinance shall. take effect thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council. of the City of ! Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof hel.d on the day of`------------- - 1982. Mayor -------- ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk----- --- -------City Attorney.G REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of DeveJ.opment Services r ,6 � CITY OF HUNTINGTON1ACH /i DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT W P. O. Box 190 ' Huntington Beach, CA.92648 HI%"%I,i/1.oil V H Tel: (714) 536-5271 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $105.00 / FOR CITY USE ONLY .Development Services - City of Huntington Beach Date Aonlicant/Authorized Agent Received: Project ND 82-3 Number: P.O. 190, Huntington Beach," Calif 92648*- Department of Origin : Mailing. Address 536-5271 Other Applications or Telephone Permit Numbers : Property (honer Mailing Address/Telephone 1. 0 Project Information (please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) 1 :.1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. Mobile home park conversion ordinance involving tenant no- tification requirements and approval of .a tenant relocation assistance plan. i 1 :2 1,ocation of Project: (Address, nearest street intersections) City-wide. 1 . 3 Assessor ' s Parcel Number: N/A -1- 0 1 . 4 What is the present zoning on the property? N/A 1 . 5 What is the surrounding land use to the: N/A North South East West a 1 . 6 If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to estimated employment per shift and any potential hazardous materials which may be used, etc . N/A ' 1 . 7 If the project is residential, indicate number, types. and a size of units and associated facilities. N/A a 1 . 8 If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and maximum occupancy. N/A ' a .1 . 9 Project land area (acres) N/A Number of parking spaces 1. 10 Square feet of building area N/A Number of floors 1. 11 Heiaht of tallest structure involved in the project N/A 2. 0 Environmental. Setting a 2 . 1 Drainage and Flood Control a) 1'lo,i,e describe how on-site drainage will be acconunodated . N/A a a 2 . 2 ' Land Form . a) Is the site presently graded? . N/A b) Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed _N/A _ the acres of land to be graded , the amount of earth to be transported on the site and the _ amount of earth �o be transported off the site c) What -will be the maximum height and. grade of cut or fill after grading is completed? N/A 2. 3 Soils a) Type of soils on the subject site? (Submit soils report if available) . N/A 2. 4 Vegetation a) Attach a map indicating the location, type and size of trees located on the site. Indicate below the number, type and size of trees to-be removed as a result of the project. N/A 2 . 5 tlater Quality a) Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on .beaches , estuaries, bays , tidelands , or . inland water areas? N/A b) Describe how the project will effect any body of water. N/A 2. 6 Air nuality a) If the project is industrial, describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and- types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project.. N/A 2. 7 Noise .�) Dosr.ribo any adjacent off-site noise sources ( i .e . , air- port-s , industry , freeways) . �. N/A b) . MI-It nOiSO wi l l tie produced by, the project:' If available , ploase hive noise levels in decible measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be- produced. N/A -3- � u C. flow will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? N/A a 2 . 8 Traffic Approximately )pow much traffic will be generated by the. project: (check one) 0-50 vehicular trips per day N/A 50 - 250 vehicular trips per day 250 - 500 vehicular trips per day over 500 vehicular trips per day 3. 0 Public Services and Facilities. 3. 1 Water a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new water lines? N/A b) Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. N/A a 3. 2 Sewer a)_ Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer lines? . N/A . b) Please indicate the approximate amount of sewage generated. a from the project. N/A 3. 3 Solid Waste a) If the project is industrial , describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. N/A 4 . 0 Social 4 . 1 Population Displacement a) Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? This is a requirement to mitigate the impacts of displacement. , h) Describe - hrief. l.y the type of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. N/A 5. 0 Mitigating Measures 5. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve nonrenewable resources (e.g. electricity, gas, water) ? Please describe. N/A 5-. 2 Are there measures included in the project which would protect or enhance flora and fauna? Please describe. N/A 5 . 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution? Please describe. N/A b 5. 4 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project (e. g. architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing community to minimize visual effect? Please describe. N/A 5_ 5 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce water pollution? Please describe. N/A 5. 6 Are there measures proposed which would reduce air pollution? List any Air. Pollution Control District equipment required. N/A 5. 7. Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resource recovery and/or energy conservation (e.g. solar heating, special insulation, etc. ) ? Please describe . N/A K . O . Alternatives 6. 1 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives on an attached 'sheet. N/A 1 hereby r.crtify that the information herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge . 2/3/eZ Signature 'Date Filed -5- v-.. i, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648 BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: February 17, 1982 , SUBJECT: STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING LETTER FROM LAZOF AND SWANSON The attached letter from Lazof. and Swanson, attorneys for the Hunting .ton Beach Mobile Home Park Owners Association, identifies a number of concerns regarding the proposed code amendment. The following is .a listing of those .concerns accompanied -by staff responses: CONCERN The proposed ordinance involves rent control and relocation fea- tures which constitute a project requiring preparation of an environmental impact report under CEQA (Page 3, Paragraph 1) . RESPONSE: Lazof and Swanson enclosed with their letter a State Attorney' s opinion which states that a relocation ordinance may constitute a project which would require the preparation .of either an envi- ronmental impact report or a negative declaration. A negative declaration has been prepared for the proposed ordinance. Also, the rent moratorium portion of the proposed ordinance is actually a very minor part of the ordinance. It is intended to prevent a .park owner from dramatically increasing rents in order to force the residents out before being required to pay relocation costs. If it is deemed inadvisable to explicitly prohibit rent increases, this section of the proposed ordinance could be elimi- nated. CONCERN: The proposed ordinance is unlawful because it purports to legis- late in areas preempted by State Law (Page 7, Paragraph 2) . RESPONSE: The proposed ordinance is not preempted by State law. Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code establishes a require- ment for filing of an impact of conversion report prior to a mobile home park change of use and says that upon review, the advisory agency may require mitigation of impacts as a condition Lazof & Swanson Feb. 17, 1982 Page 2 f of change of use. The last sentence of the section also reads . as follows: "This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions. of mobile home parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. " The proposed ordinance uses Section 65863.7 as a base and requires additional measures as permitted by the State law. CONCERN "Change bf Use" as defined in the proposed ordinance includes a change to vacant land (going out of business) and, therefore, is overly restrictive and constitutes a "taking" under the California and U.S. Constitutions (Page 9, Paragraph l) . RESPONSE: Staff ' s definition of "Change of Use" follows very closely the State' s definition of the same term. "Change of Use" is defined in part in Section 798. 10 of the California Civil Code as the following: " 'Change of Use' means a use of the park for a purpose other than the rental, or the holding out for rent, of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habi- tation, Staff contacted the State Office of Housing and Community Development and received the unofficial determination that closure of a park (reverting to vacant land) does constitute . a change of use as defined. Further, an impact of conversion re- port -as required by the Government Code would therefore be re- quired by State law in the event of a park closure. Inclusion of such a' requirement in the City'.s proposed ordinance is merely a reflection of existing State law. CONCERN: If an ordinance is to be prepared it should be devoid of reloca- tion guidelines, such as the ordinance prepared by the City of Newport Beach (Page 6, Paragraph 3) . $ESPONSE: Staff feels that for the proposed ordinance to be effective, it should provide guidelines to what would .constitute an acceptable relocation plan. Without such guidelines, the developer could not estimate relocation costs (and, therefore, could riot deter- mine project feasibility) and the City would have difficulty de- ' termining .the adequacy of a relocation plan. Public hearings for approval of a plan ,wpuld likely become extended affairs and a great deal of staff time would be required to analyze plan ade- Lazof & Swanson Feb. 17, 1982 Page 3 quacy. A reasonable concession to flexibility may be to retain existing relocation plan guidelines, but allow other mitigation measures where acceptable to the Planning Commission. CONCERN: Adoption of the proposed ordinance will cause rents to rise rapidly (Page 5, Paragraph 4) . RESPONSE: Staff has informed the City Council in the past that it is very likely true that adoption of a mobile home park conversion ordi- nance will induce .mobile home park owners to raise rents in an- ticipation of changing park use in the future. There is no reason, however, to expect that park owners who don' t intend to change, use will also raise rents just because of the existence of an ordinance which may never affect them. Rather, rents are expected to increase anyway due to the increasing value of land as well as the predicted need to finance upgrading of infrastruc- ture in some parks. With or without a conversion ordinance, it is likely that other parks in the City will propose changes of use in the future. HS:j lm NV/ �..d LAZOF AND SWANSON RONALD C. LAZOF 95 SOUTH MARKET STREET , C. BREN* SWANSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 300 GERALD G. VOLSON A PARTNERSHIP OF POOrESS-ONAL CORPOPATIONS SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95113 THOMAS A. GRECO I0B1 280-6565 GREGOR♦ M. BECK 203 NORTH GOLDEN CIRCLE DRIVE a . ROBERT S. COLDREN SECOND FLOOR 1496 AVOCADO ROAD GARY B. ROS$ RICHARD M. BLUMENTHAL SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA S 92054 171a1 a36-2055 ^ RICHARD J. REYNOLDS TELEPHONE 47141 973-1700 TERRY R. DOWDALL ' FREDE RICK E. TURNER 'CABLE ADDRESS: ORANGLAw PLEASE REPLY TO SANTA ANA PAULA C. MATOS JAMES H. CASE LLO OUR FILE NO. . C. ROBERT JAMESON JOHN F. NOLAN � Lre Ll January 26 , 1982 Jilld lid? CITY OF Fl ird �'�i;7i) , CITY CUUfdCIL p N:C1`i1C,EI City- of Huntington Beach Honorable Mayor Members of City Council 2000 Main .Street Hun.tingt.on Beach, California 92648 Re: Proposed Code Amendment No. 81-18 Ot City o un in`g ion eac , Esta lishing Guidelines for Mobilehome Tenant Relocation Assistance Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council : I am the attorney for the Huntington .Beach Mobilehome Park Owner's Association , and I am writing to you .on my client' s behalf. i The purpose of this letter is to provide on behalf of my client certain basic factual and legal information which is pertinent to the subject of relocation ordinances, particularly the one presently under consideration by the City Council of Huntington Beach. This information is very important to the deliberations of the proposed ordinance , and I would respectfully request and invite your attention to these matters. It should , at the outset, be pointed out that the proposed ordin- ance is not an exercise of the City's zoning power. In other words , tRe . ordinance does not purport to establish a criterion for utilization of property consistent .with the City' s general plan . Rather , the proposed ordinance constitutes a purported . exercise of the City' s general police power , in that it applies to all mobilehome parks within the City, regardless of location , and .without the necessity of further hearings subsequent to passage of the proposed ordinance to apply the restrictions contained in the ordinance to any particular mobilehome park. Members of the City Council January 26., 1982 Page Two The proposed ordinance is similar in many respects to an ordinance which GSMOL ( the Golden State Mobilehome Owner's League) has .been attempting to impose upon local jurisdictions throughout the state of California . GSMOL is the mobilehome tenants' statewide lobbying organization. As the following will demonstrate , the proposed ordinance is inappro- priate for enactment in this jurisdiction , and is fatally deficient in constitutional and other legal requirements . .The proposed ordinance provides for a 365 day notice period by the park owner to the ..City and to affected residents , measured from the date the change of use is proposed . This notice must include detailed information concerning the number of spaces in the park, the proposed change of use , etc. If the .notice is not given to a resident who moves into the park subsequent to the date the notice is initially served upon exist- ing residents , then, under the terms of . the ordinance , that resident would be entitled to recovery from the• park of the full purchase- price for the mobilehome and for relocation assistance . The ordinance requires the preparation by the park of a detailed impact report on the impact of the proposed conversion . The ordinance requires the approval by the City of the tenant relocation . assistance plan. The ordinance purports to set forth a definitive criterion as to the amount and nature of relocation in each instance , which , in most instances , pursuant to the ordinance , will result in the park owner paying to each affected resident the fair market value of the mob`ilehome located on the site within the mobilehome park , or , actual physical relocation of the resident and that resident' s mobilehome to..a site within a predetermined distance from the existing site , including all actual relocation expenses. The ordinance requires a 180 day relocation period , commencing upon approval of the relocation '-plan by the city. There is no criterion set forth within the ordinance for dates by .which the . City must approve the relocation plan. The ordinance provides , at section 8( 6) for a rent moratorium , commencing on the date the notice of proposed change of use pursuant to the ordinance is given . The proposed ordinance provides that prior to sale of the mobile- home park to a third party, the residents must be given a 60 day right of first refusal to purchase the park. Members of the City Council ' January 26, 1982 Page Three CEQA AND ZONING CONSIDERATIONS: When one examines the Public Resources Code and the sections thereof relating to environmental impact reports , it becomes evident that no relocation assistance ordinance can be .passed w tTout—first comp inly g with the statutory requirements relative to preparation of an environmental impact report. THIS FACT IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ENCLOSED LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL' S OPINION. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PURPORTS TO IMPOSE A RENT MORA- TOR.IUM, WHICH WILL BE IN EFFECT FOR AT LEAST A_ONE YEAR PERIOD, AND POTENTIALLY ONE AND ONE HALF YEARS, SUBSEQUENT TO THE GIVING OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONVERT. _SEE PROPOSED ORDINANCE SECTION 8( 6) ) . THUS, AT THE VERY LEAST, THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CONSTITUTES A RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE, (A RENT CONTROL MORATORIUM) WHICH IS RENT CONTROL IN ITS MOST INSIDIOUS AND DESTRUCTIVE FORM. RENT CONTROL ORDINANCES IN AND OF THEMSELVES, CONSTITUTE "PROJECTS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF CEQA, AND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, WHICH _MO_BINE RENT CONTROL FEATURES WITH CONVERSION AND RELOCATION FEATURES , IS CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY A PROJECT WHICH MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THUS PASSAGE OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE MUST BE PRECEDED BY THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. The City of Newport Beach has recently passed an "overlay zone" , a zoning ordinance to be applied in the future to certain .mobile- home parks within the City' s jurisdiction , which would provide for the possibility of relocation assistance under certain circumstances for mobilehome tenants residing within that particular zone . In this particular ordinance , the City Council decided t0 create an overlay zone , rather than a- blanket relocation ordinance , and to -delete any reference within that "overlay zone" to a minimum relocation criteria , due to the fact that the city recognized that an ordinance such as the one presently under consideration in Huntington Beach would require extensive environmental impact studies and reports prior to its adoption . In fact , the staff report for the City of Newport Beach stated : "This project , ( the Newport Beach overlay zoning ordinance) , has been reviewed and it has been determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environ- ment. Therefore , the adoption of the ordinance is an activity not covered by the requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Members of the City Council January 26 , 1982 Page Four Act ( CEQA) , the "State EIR guidelines" , or City Policy K3 .. At such time as the City may desire to apply the" proposed zone to a specific property within the City, appropriate environmental docu- mentation will need to be prepared . ". In other words , the City of Newport Beach recognized that , adoption of an ordinance which set forth minimum relocation criterion, and which applied automatically to mobilehome parks, would constitute a "project" , and would require a full "EIR" . The. proposed ordin- ance fails to consider the unique and varied character of mobile- home parks and mobilehome residents. within the City of Huntington Beach. There is absolutely no question that the reduced property values necessarily attendant to imposition of restrictions on conversion such as those con*templated by the ordinance under consideration will affect not only the quality of life enjoyed by residents , but will also affect the general environment of the City. Accordingly , any tenant relocation assistance ordinance must of necessity be deemed to be a "project" within the meaning of the Public Resources Code §21065. This is pointed out in the enclosed Attorney General ' s opinion which states : "Ordinances and resolutions adopted by a local agency are ' projects ' within the meaning of CEQA. If the ordinance or resolution is dis- criminatory in nature , it is not categorically exempt and may have a significant effect on the environment , and an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared for approval . " ( 60 Attorney General Opinion SO 777 September 30 , 1977, . 335 at 336 ) . It is equally clear that the efforts of stifling the utilization of property for its highest and best use , ( the obvious effect of an ordinance such as the one under consideration ) have " . . .a potential for physical impact on the environment directly or ultimately. . . " (Cal . Administrative Code Title *' 14 Chapter 3 , Section 15037 , subdivision ( B) ( 3) , as cited in Shawn v. Golden Gate Bridge , etc. . District 60 CA 3d 699 , 702. See also No Oil Inc . v . Los Angeles ( 1974 ) 13 Ca . 3d 68 , 79 , and Rosenthal-v.Board-ot Supervisors 1975 ) 44 Ca . 3d 815, 823. The net effect of adoption of an ordinance such as the one under consideration will be to cause the quality of services and r , .Members of. the City Council January 26 , 1982 Page Five facilities provided in mobilehome parks to deteriorate over time . The reason for this is that mobilehome park owners, faced with maintaining property clearly no longer suited to mobilehome park r use as a mobilehome park, will inevitably be forced to attempt to. recoup the lost revenues that would be attendant to an orderly conversion of the mobilehome park through cutting back on services and facilities . Thus , an EIR will need to be prepared and other CEQA requirements satisfied .prior to adoption of the proposed ordinance . Adoption of the proposed ordinance will cause rents to rise rapidly. In effect , the proposed ordinance is tantamount to an exercise of the City' s zorrin.g power in that the proposed ordinance will have the effect of preventing a park owner from converting the property to another use . Thus , the proposed ordinance "downzones" all mobilehome . park property to "mobilehome park use only" . Obviously, the disguised zoning ordinance therefore requires compliance with all state. legislation governing the adoption and application of zoning ordinances , including notification to affected property owners and the general public , findings of consistency with gen- eral and specific plan , as well as C. E.Q.A. requirements . There will inevitably be much greater pressure for rapid increase in . rents within existing mobilehome parks , and rents will undoubt- edly rise more quickly in the event the instant ordinance is passed. This is due to the fact that, as in all investments , a mobilehome r park as an investment is comprised of two components : appreciation . ( the 'increase in the fair market value of the property itself) , and current. income ( determined by rents) . Presently; mobilehome park owners enjoy, at . l.east to a certain extent , the benefits of both components of value. However , should the instant ordinance pass, . the mobilehome park will lose any and all potential for appreci- ation , since the use of the property will be unreasonably restrict- ed due to the exorbitant relocation exactions mandated by the presently proposed ordinance . In eliminating this appreciation" component from the determination of value , the park owner will Have to turn to present income as the only means of realizing value from his investment . The pressure to raise rents more r rapidly will only be increased by the provisions in the ordinance imposing rent moratoriums upon individuals wishing to convert their property to another use . The net effect of this "moratorium (provision" will be to encourage park owners to increase rents as rapidly as possible , in contemplation of an ultimate moratorium upon .a decision to convert the property to another. use , or. to r sell the property to a development concern. to i Members of the City Council January 26, 1982 page Six There will be great pressure to increase rents more rapidly due to the fact that the ordinance 's relocation assistance criteria, as presently drafted , provides , in most instances , for payment to the resident of an amount equal to the fair market value of the mobilehome "located on the mobilehome space" . Obviously , the intrinsic value of the mobilehome itself in Orange County is insignificant when compared to the value of the mobilehome loca t - ed on a space within an existing mobilehome park. This is due to the fact that the tenant has a certain monthly payment due on the mobilehome unit itself , and a certain "monthly payment" for the use of the land in the form of a monthly rental payment . Thus , obviously , if a new mobilehome is worth $35 ,000 on a mobile- home dealer ' s lot, and is worth $60 , 000 on a site within a mobile- home park , that incremental increase in value of $25,000 is due , not to the intrinsic value of the mobilehome , but rather to the desirability of the location of the mobilehome and the rental rate presently being charged by the mobilehome park. Thus , a park owner' s incentive ; if the criterion presently set forth -in the ordinance is in fact adopted , will be to increase rents as rapidly. as .possible in order to bring a return sufficient to offset the "premium" which belongs to the park owner by virtue of the fact that the park owner owns the land . This in turn . will have the effect of reducing the resale value of mobilehomes within the City of Huntington Beach , thereby also reducing the relocation compensation awardable to any particular resident . Thus , the criterion presently set forth in the. ordinance is unfair, unlawful , unreasonable , and wholly unnecessary given the , wide diversity of mobilehome parks and mobilehome tenants within the City of Huntington Beach. It should. also be noted that the City of Newport Beach ordinance , adopted at the urging of mobilehome park tenants within that city, specifically left open the question of what relocation compensa- tion , if any , should be paid to any particular resident in any particular instance . City staff and the city council recognized that mobilehome parks and mobilehome residents are each unique , and require independent evaluation and determination. For example , an older , sinal ler. " trailer park" , nestled in an otherwise commercial zonin<3 area , clearly is a different type of mobilehome park than is a large , five star , recently constructed luxury park located in a largely residential district . Obviously, the City and the general public would have a greater interest in encouraging one park to "convert" to a more desirable and public- ally efficient use. Similarly, with respect to a mobilehome park located adjacent to a highly industrialized area, city Wi W Members of ,the City Council January 26 , 1982 Page Seven health and safety concerns may weigh in favor of encouraging a change of use of that mobilehome park. The financial , personal , and other circumstances of residents similarly vary. A resident who has resided in a mobilehome park for 15 years, who is on fixed income , handicapped , and elderly, clearly ought be treated differently than an occasional , affluent , recreational user of a mobilehome .located within the mobilehome park: In other words , the location and composition of each individual mobilehome park dictates the propriety and extent of consideration for relocation assistance . This must be considered on a "case by case" basis, and cannot be quantified as a blanket rule memoralized by city ordinance . Thus , the ordinance presently under consideration by the City of Huntington Beach is defective in that it purports to set forth rigid relocation standards purportedly appropriate to all mobilehome parks . The ordinance :under consideration fails to address itself to those situations in which no relocation assistance whatsoever would be appropriate . The proposed ordinance is unlawful since it purports to legislate in areas preempted by State Law. The ordinance presently under consideration by the Huntington Beach City Council is unlawful in that it is preempted by existing state legislation. There is already in place a complex and extensive "change of . use" statutory scheme in effect at the State level . Civil Code §798 . 56, as recently amended in AB 2095 , provides : ( 1) The management gives the tenant at least 15 days . written notice that .the management will be appearing before local government board , commission , or body to request permits for a change of use of the mobilehome park.. . ( 2) After all required permits requesting a change of use have been approved by the local govern- mental body, commission , or board , the manage- ment shall give the tenants six months or more written notice of termination of tenancy. If the change of use requires no local govern . mental permits , then notice shall be given 12 months or more prior to the management ' s' determination that a change of use will occur. The management in the notice shall disclose and describe in detail the nature of the change of use. Members of the City Council January 26 , 1982 Page Eight ( 3) The management gives each proposed tenant written notice thereof prior to the inception of his tenancy that the management is requesting a change of use before local governmental bodies or that a change of use has been granted . ( 4 ) The notice requirements for termination of tenancy set forth in Section 798 . 56 and 798 . 57 shall be followed if the proposed change of use actually occurs . ( 5) A notice of proposed change of use given prior to January 1, 1980, which conforms to the requirements in effect at that time shall be valid . The requirements for a notice of a proposed change of use opposed by this sub- division shall be governed by the law in effect at the time the notice was given . " Civil Code §798. 56. Thus , there is an elaborate statutory scheme already in place governing notice requirements and notification periods for effect- ing a change of use and for terminating tenancies within mobile- home parks . Moreover , sections of the Mobilehome Residency Act (Civil Code §798 et seq. ) specifically govern the duration of leases and the manner in which rent increases may be effected . Thus , that feature of the proposed ordinance which purports to - adopt a rent moratorium which may remain in effect in excess of a year and a half , and those features of the ordinance which purport to effect the notification requirements to tenants upon . a change of use have clearly been preempted by State law. I.t is evident from Civil Code §798 through Civil Code §799 . 6 that the state legislature has intended to fully occupy and pre- empt these areas of legislation. In other words, any local action in the area of mobilehome park rental assistance relocation is of dubious validity under the basic principles of preemption . This principle of preemption has been upheld in the courts' recent ruling against the San Juan Capistrano rent control ordinance . Members of the City Council January 26 , 1982 Page. Nine The Proposed Ordinance Constitutes an Unlawful " taking" Under California and U. S Constitutions. The proposed ordinance amounts to an unconstitutional " taking" under the Fifth Amendment' of the United States Constitution. Under the terms of the proposed ordinance , "change of use" is defined so as to include a change of use from the use of the property as a mobilehome park to, for example , the change of .use . of the property to no use whatsoever ( i.e. , vacant land ) . Thus, the ordinance , by its terms , precludes a park owner from simply "going out of business" , without paying the relocation . expenses provided for in the ordinance . The relocation expenses presently provided for in the proposed ordinance are clearly exoribitant, unreasonable , and wholly unjustified . Under the proposed ordinance , a mobilehome park owner in any particular mobilehome park may be subjected , upon a decision "to close down the mobilehome park and go out of business" , to paying each resident the fair market value of the mobilehome located on the space within the mobilehome park. Assuming a fair market value of a mobilehome located on a space in the City of Huntington Beach at $50 ,000 (a conservative assumption in many instances) , and assuming a density of 10 mobilehome spaces to the acre (again, a modest assumption) ,. a mobilehome park owner would be faced with the prospect of paying $500 ,000 per acre simply to exercise his right to "go out of business" . Therefore , the City. has , in reality, "taken" this property, and converted it into essentially a "public utility" , dedicated to the "public use" of "maintaining a mobilehome housing stock" . This is in violation of the fifth amendment. of the Constitution of the United States , in that such an action cannot be taken without compensating the affected property owner. The . Fifth Amendment states in part: . . nor . shall private property be taken for public use , without just compensation. " There. need be no actual physical invasion of real property for. there to occur a "taking " in. the Fifth Amendment sense of the . word . (See Birken fe_1_d_v_. City of Berkeley 17 Cal . 2d 129 ( 1976 ) . In Penn Central Transportation v. -City of New York 438 U.S. 104 ( 1978j,the-court stated : "As is implicit in our opinion , we do not embrace the proposition that a ' taking ' can never occur unless government has transferred physical control over a portion of a parcel . " r Members of the City Council January 26 , 1982 Page Ten Clearly, in the instant situation, under the proposed ordinance , where a mobilehome park owner could be forced to pay at least twice the value of his property simply to exercise his right to "go out of business" , the proposed ordinance constitutes an un- lawful infringement of the park owner ' s constitutional rights under the California Constitution, Article 1 , Section 14 which provides that " . . .private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. .. " and under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. RENT CONTROL MORATORIUMS HAVE BEEN MET_ WITH SUBSTANTIAL DISFAVOR BY_TH_URTS , AND HAVE SELDOM SURVIVED D CONCERTE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES. FOR EXAMPLE, LAST WEEK MOBILEHOME PARK OWNERS IN OCEA_NSIDE PREVAILED IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF_A RENT MORATORIUM PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY THE %CITY OF OCEANSIDE, THE COURT DECLARING A THREE MONTH MORATORIUM IN THAT CITY TO BE UNCONSTI- TUTIONAL. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ORDINANCE WOULD PROVIDE FOR A MORATORIUM OF AT LEAST ONE YEAR, AND IN ALL PROBABILITY, ONE AND .ONE HALF YEARS. While a detailed discussion of the constitutionally mandated pre- requisites to the adoption of rent controls are beyond the scope of this letter , it is clear that under the case of Birkenfeld v . City of Berkeley , the moratorium features of the proposed ordinance would fail to pass these constitutional tests . In conclusion , the ordinance presently under consideration is clearly unconstitutional in that its confiscatory results amount to .an unlawful taking . The proposed ordinance is unlawful in that the entire field of tenant relocation assistance as set forth in the proposed ordinance has been preempted by the Mobile- home Residency Act , Civil Code §798 et seq. Additionally, any proposed ordinance purporting to adopt relocation assistance programs would. in any event be subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act , and would require a full environmental impact report prior to adoption. Moreover , the "rent moratorium" aspects of the proposed ordinance are clearly unconstitutional as violative of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Finally, and most importantly, the proposed ordinance would , as a practical matter , not solve the concerns of mobilehome residents within the City of Huntington Beach . y Members of the City ,,uncil January 26, 1982 Page Eleven Rather , the practical effects of the adoption of such an ordinance would be to encourage blight and stifle utilization of property in the highest and best public use , to create a disincentive on the part of mobilehome park owners to maintain and improve exist- ing mobilehome parks , lead to a decline in the level of services and facilities provided within mobilehome parks , and result in ' rapidly escalating rents within the City. I therefore , on behalf of my clients, urge the City Council not to adopt the proposed ordinance . D It is my sincere hope that the foregoing information will prove useful to the City Council in its deliberations on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time should you have any questions or comments , or if I can supply the City Council with any additional information which would be useful in its deliberations. Very truly yours , ROBERT S. COLDREN RSC: lss cc ; City Attorney City Clerk Huntington Beach Park Owner' s Association {r...LO K ►vDcT.► C I,'/) AN[uK I SY00 Jew"T.suet[Y.c• OLICA,.•Alrron. ..i Law A GanT+C 1 Je+t Cow:•.t w a J.Conrt waft LVf .. w R�.t•r O G � •[ aIdarnia C1.+•rro"1 oewrrf Y.; w c w.LKt"t•L J• G O.vOK Da tw go- b Au.N N• , To.C.p ►O••t �w gstt.L.L S►•�"� BION M. G REGOr,�Y rt; JJOO•-rowbrn[ r.. Q`wt IYt.LLI. At w.D often* . lQ2r S�.•r G..ro� `` 1 1961 Joss C MetL.c....t.-o 93814 J .i.o L$40arc..0 toial saS)O! =ai.D R.1fu0 r.I t aptr S•••t 8�16,•:� BIDDLE, WALTERS•& BUKO M•Covo" X,ftm". Lot A• rt.ts DWI Raw HCro•KODta.►+• / [712 SJ�2DS0 JAw9v Al l.o-ct . Pry LA r.►4u...,cw Sacramento, California Moats r.►OR.L , August 21, '1981 ""A. cu,ot.t L►Ao4t ' Jew"J.RvG Mwat♦LnaK• Wkw&,w 1C 9TwAK , M{w.ti K U•sc. A.0-.LAD l w t�[wa"G ca.` 56 y. Honorable John T E. Thurman -Cwowitt G wrw... C•-'XTo.+.t1t Lwry[ Assembly Chamber Environmental Quality : Local Rent Control Ordinances — #1478 Dear Nr. Thurman: QUESTION You have asked whether enactment of a local rent control ordinance which would, in some manner, restrict the a-mornt of rents which could be charged for residential housing would be subject to the provisions• of the California Environmental Quality Act. OPINION While it is possible in a particular case that the enactment. of a local rent control ordinance would not be subject to the California Environ-mental Quality Act, generally such an enactment would be subject to the provisions of that. . act and would require the preparation of either an environmental impact report or a negative declaration. Honorable John E. V 'irman - p., 2 - #1478 ANALYSIS Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Div. 13 (commencing with Sec. 21000) , P.R.C. ; hereafter referred to as CEQA) , all public "lead" agencies, state and local, are generally required to prepare' or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on any discretionary project they propose to carry out or approve which may result in a substantial, or potentially substantial , adverse ` change in the environment1 (Secs. 21062, 21063, 21068, 21080, ,21080. 11 21080. 21. 21080. 4, 21100, • and 21151, Y.R.C. ; 14 Cal. Adm. Code 15000, 15024, 150310 15038, 15040 , and 15061) . The "lead agency" is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment (Sec. 21061, P.R.C. ) . "Project, " for purposes of the CEQA, is defined by Section 21065 as follows: "21065. 'Project' means the following; " (a) Activities directly undertaken by any public agency. " (b) Activities undertaken by a person which are supported in whole or in part through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. " (c) Activities involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license; certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. " 1 The tern "environment" is defined in CEQA to mean the physical conditions which. exist within the area which will be affected by a .proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (Sec. 21060. 5, P.R.C.) . 1 Honorable John E. Thurman - p. 3 -- #1478 , Section 15037 of the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"2 further defines "project" for purposes of CEQA in .terms of a.n activity or action which has a potential for direct or ultimate physical impact on the environment. Section 15037 of the state guidelines reads, in pertinent part: "15037. Project. (a) Project means . the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the ` environment, . directly or ultimately, that is any of the following: " (1) An activity directly undertaken , by a—Y public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local' General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700. " (c) The term 'project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term 'project' does not mean each separate governmental approval. " (Emphasis added. ) As may be seen, the state guidelines provide that a "project" includes, but is not limited to, the enactment or amendment of zoning ordinances. 2 14 California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq. ; hereafter referred to as the state guidelines . Honorable John E. T' rman - F. 4 .. #1478 Under the state guidelines, the public agency, in determining whether an activity constitutes a "project, " is required to make two basic findings: first, whether there is at least the potentiality or possibility that thu activity may have a direct or ultimate substantial adverse impact on the environment; and, second, whether the activity involves the necessary governmental action (14 Cal. Adm. C. 15037, 15060, 15083) . At a subsequent step in the decisional process, the agency is required to undertake an .*initial study" to determine if the project is one which EL*X, in fact, have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, in which case, an EIR must be prepared, or is one which will not, in fact, have a substantial adverse. impact on the environment, in which case, a negative declaration must be prepared (14 Cal. Adm. . C. 15029. 5, 15080, 15083, 15064 ; Appendix A, Flow Chart, state guidelines) . The original finding of possible. 'impact, which is a part of the "project" determination, is similar to the subsequent finding, based on the "initial study, " that the -project may have a substantial adverse impact requiring preparation of an environmental impact report, rather than a negative declaration. At 'both steps , the agency is involved with determining a possibility (14 Cal. Adm. C. 15037, 15060 , 15080, 150811 15083; Bixon v. County of Los Angeles, 38 Cal . App. 3d 370, 382) . -However, since the threshold determination of impact possibility_ or potentiality is not based on -any factual analysis, we think 'that it is intended to screen out only .those activities which could not by their very nature conceivably have 'any potential for direct or 'ultimate substantial adverse impact on the environment. (see 14 Cal . Aden. C. 15060) . By contrast, the later determination as to whether the project may, in fact, have that impact, thereby necessitating the preparation of an EIR, is to be based upon. substantial evidence (Count of}}``VI'nyo v. Yorty, 32 Cal. App. 3d . 795, 809; •No oil , Inc. v. C of Los Angeles, 13 Cal . 3d 68 , 85) , elicited by a study involving an analysis of scientific and factual data (14 Cal. Adm. C. 15081) . Honorable John Thurman. - P. 5 - #1478 The provisions of CEQA are to be interpreted broadly to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language (San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and Count of San Francisco, 48 Cal. App. 3d 584, 590; Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. , 13 Cal. 3d 263, 274) . This principle has been specifically applied by the courts with regard to the issue of what constitutes a "project" under the act (County of Ingo v. Yorty, supra, pp. 802-804 ; Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal. 3d 247, 259-260) Court decisions have reflected the breadth of public activities denominated "projects" by the act. In Shawn v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. •Dist. , 60 Cal. App. 3d d 699, a transportation istrict's decision to increase fares for travel upon its bus lines was held to be a project. . Also , ' the implementation of timber harvesting plans and the approval by a local agency formation commission of the annexation or deannexation of territory by a. city• have been , held to constitute "projects` (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v., Arcata Nat. Corp. ,, 59 Cal. App. 3d 959; Bozun v. Local Agenc Formation, supra; Peo le ex rel . Younger v. Local Agency .Formation Com. , 81 Cal. App. 3d 464 ; see , also, 14 Cal. Adm. Code 15024) . While the Bozuna case involved an annexation which was in contemplation of a development project, as long as the project may "culminate" in physical changes to the environment, it need not itself directly effect a physical change (City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove, 100 .Cal. App. 3d 521, 531) . The courts have specifically concluded that, as a • general matter, the adoption of ordinances by local agencies are $$activities directly undertaken" under subdivision (a) of Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code and thus "projects" within CEQA (see Rosenthal v. Board of. Supervisors , 44 Cal. App. 3d 815, 823) . The only case to have discussed the application of CEQA to urban rent control held that the adoption of a rent control charter a.mendr.►ent by initiative was not subject to CEQA since no discretionary activity by the city was involved (Stein v. City, of Santa Monica, 110 Cal. App. 3d 458) . It is clear from the state guidelines' and cases that all doubts are to be resolved by the public agency in favor of preparation of an EIR. Thus, an EIR is to be prepared if it is arguable that the project may have a • pVIIVLPV/iG 4/VIVI �i. ♦1♦u�NYU t.. v ��-. ♦ v . substantial adverse impact (No Oil, Inc. v. City of 'Los • Angeles, supra, p. 85) , and should be prepared where there r is; or anticipated to be, a substantial body of opinion that considers' or will consider the effect to be adverse .(14 Cal. Adm. C. 15081; No Oil , Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, pp. .85-86) . We think that the courts will scrutinize especially closely a public agency's determination that an activity does not constitute a "project, ". since such a determination removes the activity from the *requirements of CEQA and the necessity under that law for any environmental • analysis whatever, even that brief analysis required for- preparation of a negative declaration. As we see .it, if, arguably, any particular proposed rent control ordinance could conceivably have a potential for direct or ultimate substantial adverse impact on the environment , adoption of the ordinance would constitute a project under CEQA. It is settled that the activity, in order to constitute a "project, "need not directly affect the ! environment. It is sufficient that it ultimately affects the enviroment (14 Cal. Adm. Code 15037) or that it: culminates n in physical changes to the environment, such as the granting of a conditional use permit or an annexation .approval (Bozung v. Local Agenc. Formation Com. , supra, p. 279) . With respect to the determination of the significant effect of a project, the state guidelines discuss effect- in terms of primary and secondary consequences. Section 15081 of the state guidelines reads, in pertinent part: "150B1 . Determining Significant Effect. " (b) . In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a .project, the. Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences. Primary consequences are immediately related to the project (the construction of a new treatment plant may facilitate population growth in a particular area) , while secondary consequences are related. more to primary consequences than to the 'project .itself (an impact upon the resource base, including land, air, water and energy use of the area in question may result from the population growth) . Honorable John E. Tturman - p. . 7 41478 Among the consequences which may be deemed to be a significant effect on the environment (thereby necessi- tating preparation of an EIR) are that the project will induce substantial growth or concentration of population, cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in re- lation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, or displace a large number of people (Ap- pendix G, state guidelines) . Furthermore, the EIR requirements of the. act apply even if the overall effect of the activity is. environment- ally beneficial, if any of its effects may have a substan- tial adverse impact (see 14 Cal. Adm. C. 15080) , .and the adverse impact may be short-term, rather than of -a permanent or long enduring nature (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, p. We think that, generally., the enactment of a local - rent control ordinance could conceivably have a potential. for substantial adverse impact on the environment, thereby necessitating an initial study to determine -whether an EIR or a negative declaration is to. be prepared. For .example, the regulation of residential rents in an urban center could • conceivably discourage the development of high-density rental development in that city -and Pncourage that type of development in surrounding jurisdictions, with the resultant � effect of more distant commutes and increased air pollution, traffic congestion, and energy consumption. On the other hand, it. is possible that the lead agency may determine, with respect to the enactment of a . particular rent control -ordinance in a particular setting, that there is no potentiality or possibility Qf that en- actment having any substantial adverse impact on the en- vironment (see Simi Valley Recreation and Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com. , 51 Cal . App. 3d 648 ; Prentiss v. Board of Education, ill Cal. App. 3d 847) . In that case, - the enactment would not be subject to CEQA, and the lead agency may file a notice of exemption, which has the effect of starting a 35-day statute of limitations on court challenges to that determination (subd. (b) , • Sec . 21152, and subd. (d) , Sec. 21167, P.R.C. ; 14 Cal. Adm. Code 15074) . If a notice of exemption is not filed, a 180-day statute of limitations applies (subd. (d) , Sec. 21167 , P.R.C. ) . •_ Additionally, there are specific exemptions from the provisions of 'CEQA in Sections 21080, 21080. 7, 21080. 9 , and 21080.10 of the Public Resources Code and in Section 15100 and following of the state guidelines; however, in our opinion the enactment of a . local rent control ordinance would not be categorically exempt under any of those provisions. Nonorable John E. tiurman - P. 8 -- #1478 Therefore, in conclusion, it is our opinion that P . while it is possible in a particular case that the enactment of a local rent control ordinance would not be subject . _ to CEQA, generally such an enactment would be subject to the provisions of that act and would require the preparation of either an environmental impact report or a negative decla- ration. Very truly yours, Bio 11. Gregory Leg slative Counsel Lawrence H. Fein Deputy Legislative Counsel LHF:jm ' i Page #13 - Council Minutes - 12/7/81 MOBILEHOME PARK ZONING - FAILED Councilwoman Bailey stated her concerns regarding a mobilehome park ordinance. A motion was made by Bailey, seconded by Mandic, to direct staff to rezone to MH all mobilehome parks that are not presently zoned MH. and that are presently designated residential in the general plan; to study the resesignation to residential of all mobilehome parks that are not presently designated residential 4 in the general plan; the study to be incorporated into Land Use Element Amendment No. 82-1 ; the changes that are reflected in Land Use Element 82-1 to have a concurrent zone change to MH, Extensive discussion was held regarding the matter. The motion failed by the following tie vote: AYES: Finley,. Bailey, Mandic NOES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Kelly ABSENT: Thomas . Discussion was held regarding a state law and the relocation of mobilehome owners displaced when a mobilehome park has been put to another use. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he would put the law in writing for Councilmembers. A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to direct staff to draft a legally binding ordinance, to be brought back to the December 21st Council meet- ing, pertaining to existing mobilehome parks in non-conforming zoning areas as to relocation expenses and costs before mobilehome parks in that area can be eliminated. The motion carried unanimously. APPOINTMENT - COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION - FROST Councilman Kelly made recommendations for appointments to the Community Services Commission. On motion by Kelly, second Bailey, Jeffery W. Frost was appointed to the Community Services Commission unanimously. BOLSA CHICA Councilman Kelly stated his concerns regarding the Bolsa Chica, CENTER DRIVE Councilman MacAllister reported on the Street Naming Committee regarding Center Avenue -and recommended that Center Avenue remain Center Avenue. It was suggested that CALTRANS be'contacted regarding a freeway sign saying "Old World". PCTV Councilman MacAllister reported to Council regarding- the Public Cable Television Authority. Mayor Finley stated that she had been informed that she would be receiving minutes from PCTV. Councilman MacAllister stated that the next PCTV meeting would be held at Brewsters Restaurant at 7:30 A.M,. on December 17th. 4 Page #9 - Council Minutes - 12/21/81 On motion by Pattinson, second Kelly, Council approved Fntroductlon of Ordinance No. 2532, after reading by title, by the following roll call .vote: ! AYES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSTAIN: Thomas ABSENT: None ! PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO HBMC - "NOISE CONTROL" - APPROVED - ORDINANCE NO 2533 - INTRODUCTION APPROVED The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code adding a provision to Chapter 8.40, "Noise Control ", requiring a violator of the code to pay for the ! costs of testing or measurement of the noise necessary to ascertain code vio- lation. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no. communications or written protests to the matter. Discussion was held regarding the purchasing of the monitering equipment. The Mayor declared the nearing open. There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 2533 for Council consideration - "AN ORDI-. NANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 8.40.120 RELATING TO NOISE CONTROL." On motion by Mandic, second Pattinson, Council approved introduction of Ordinance No. 2533, after reading by title, by the following roll '. call vote AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT 81-18 - TO BE FINALIZED. AND BEGIN PROCESS - MOBILEHOME TENANT RELOCATION The City Clerk presented a transmittal from the Development Services Director of Draft Code Amendment No. 81-18 - Mobile Home Tenant Relocation Assistance Guide- lines. Chalmer Wire stated that he believed that the term mobilehome should be defined. Discussion was held regarding the matter. Lilian Myketuk spoke regarding definitions of a mobilehoiiie. Page #10 = Council Minutes - 12/21/81 Rosalind. Humphrey stated that she recently bought a new doublewide mobilehome, . installed a sprinkler system and landscaping. She stated that the moving costs as outlined in the draft ordinance would not cover the expenses of moving her home. Herbert Sauke requested information regarding the status of the Huntington Shores Mobilehome Park. Ed Chodowski addressed various sections of the proposed code amendment and sug- gested alternate wording. 4 Helen Trent suggested alternate wording- for .various sections of the code amend- ment. Everett Brake spoke regarding the cost of relocating a mobilehome. He suggested alternate wording for various sections of the proposed code amendment and requested that Council vote that evening regarding zoning of. all non-conforming mobilehome parks to MH. Al Caraccia suggested alternate wording fdr various sections of the proposed code amendment. He spoke .regarding affordable housing and rent increases in the City. John MacInnis stated that he bought a mobilehome as a home and although it has wheels they have never turned in 17 years. He requested Council to protect the mobilehome owners in the City. Extensive discussion was held regarding the proposed code amendment. ION A motion was made by MacAllister, seconded by Kelly, to direct staff to formalize Draft Code Amendment 81-18, taking into consideration the public input, as well as Council comments, and process same so that Council can enact an ordinance in February. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Mandic requested that staff look into the requirements regarding the age of coaches .as it relates to moving into mobilehome parks within a twenty-five mile radius of the City. PUBLIC COMMENTS Lil.ian 'Myketuk stated her concerns regarding the Bolsa Chica. Joe Whaling spoke regarding the Environmental Impact Report for Huntington Cen- tral Park. Ken Lyon requested that Council adopt a resolution that would allow the tenants who live in the apartments along Ellis Avenue to park in the alleyway. Richard Plaisted requested that people be allowed to park in the alley behind the apartments on Ellis Avenue. -Page #3 - Council Mini s - 2/l/82 The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification and posting had been met, and that she had received no communications or written protests to the matter. Councilman Mandic stated that he would abstain from voting on the matter and vacated his seat. . . The Mayor declared the hearing open. William Sage, Police Legal Advisor presented evidence relative to a suspen- lion of the appellant's driver's license. He spoke regarding the appellant's police record and recommended that the appeal be denied. The appellant stated that he believed the driver's license had been reinstated and requested that Council grant him the tow truck driver permit with a six months to one year probation. i There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister, to deny the appeal D filed by Thomas Dixon"to the denial by the Police Chief of a tow truck driver permit. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Thomas, Finley, Bailey NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mandic ABSENT: Kelly Police Legal Advisor Sage stated that Findings relative to the matter would be presented at the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mildred Hayes stated that she believed that it would be fair to mobilehome residents that were forced to move because of a conversion, to be compensated for the full amount of the fair market value of their mobilehome as it was situated in a mobilehome park. Natalie Katsch, Chairperson of the Mobilehome Advisory Committee, stated that the committee would be meeting within the next two weeks to review the pro- posed ordinance and they would report back to Council . Rusty Watson, Manager of the Huntington Mobilehome Estates, stated that he believed that the Mobilehome Advisory Committee should be heard as a committee. Steve Novarro stated that he was one of the owners of the Huntington by the Sea Mobilehome Park and that he believed the proposed ordinance was severe and unfair. He requested that Council give more thought to alternatives. Allen Van Schaick stated that lie was one of the owners of Huntington by the Sea Mobilehome Park and that the proposed ordinance was not the answer to the problem. He stated that he believed that more mobilehome zoning was needed Page 44 - Council Mii-,..es - 1/2/82 i and that he believed that the proposed ordinance would be the end of anyone coming into Huntington Beach to build a mobilehome park. Eric Hexberg stated that he owned two mobilehome parks and had no plans i for conversion now or in the future. He requested that the Mobilehome Advisory Committee be allowed to look at the proposed ordinance. Richard Darling stated that he was one of the owners of the Skandia Mobile- home Park and at this time there were no plans to convert the park to another use. He stated that the proposed Ordinance seemed very ,unfair. He stated that he hoped more parks could be developed in the City. Chalmer Wire spoke regarding the definition of mobilehome in the proposed ordinance and suggested the wording "a vehicle capable of self propulsion" be used. i Robert Coldren stated that he was an attorney for the Mobilehome Park Associa- tion in the City. He referred to a 26 page letter that he sent to Council and offered his assistance in the matter. He spoke regarding state law as it relates to mobilehome parks. Jim Kosik stated that he represented mobilehome park owners and requested that Council pursue alternatives to the proposed ordinance. He requested that Council assign the project to the Mobilehome Advisory Committee. Gordon Scott stated that the questionaire from the staff was an excellent one. He suggested that rather than "tenant assistance plan" the wording "mobilehome owner compensation plan" be used in the ordinance. He stated i that they would rather be referred to as owner-tenants. " Ralph Meyer stated that he represented people living in 19 mobilehome parks in the City and that he had reviewed the proposed ordinance. He stated that he believed the ordinance was fair and equitable, and that the wording should be "co-owners" rather than "tenants" as they own their homes. Ellen Trent stated that she was pleased to hear that mobilehomehome park owners wanted to preserve the mobilehome base in the City. She urged Council to preserve affordable housing in the City. , Ed Chowdowski stated that he represented the Huntington Mobilehome Council . He complimented staff on their excellent work in drafting the code amendment. He spoke regarding Item 6b relative to "special circumstance" stating that he believed that the words "special circumstances" should be deleted. He suggested that the figure "100 V be inserted in 6b and that all mobilehome owners be included in the option. Al Caraccia stated that he represented Huntington Beach Mobilehome Council . e stated that he wanted the mobilehome park owners to get their "just desserts as long as the mobilehome owners got theirs. Everett Brake stated that he represented Huntington Beach Mobilehome Owners Council , that he was one of the original members of the Mobilehome Advisory. t Committee and that he stopped going to the meetings because he believed it was lopsided in favor of the owners. He presented copies of Senate Bill . 626 to Councilmembers. Page #7 - Council Minus - 2/l/82 11 . In order to minimize traffic conflicts on Goldenwest and Warner, the developer shall be required to construct center and medians as shown on the plot plan. The medians shall be landscaped and have architectural amenities in accordance with current City stan- dards. 12. All future structures on the site shall be architecturally compati- ble with the first phase of development. 13. A detailed energy-efficient lighting plan shall. be submitted to staff for review and approval . 14. Parking lot at the rear of Buildings E, F, and G shall be used for employee parking since it is not a convenient location for customers' use. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Kelly (Thomas out of the room) ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency was adjourned. CITY COUNCIL RECONVENE Mayor Finley reconvened the City Council . Councilman Thomas returned to the room. MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION REGULATIONS - REFERRED TO STAFF - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARI14G BY PLANNING COMMISSION - 2/17/82 The City Clerk presented a transmittal from the Development Services Director of Code Amendment 81-18 - Mobilehome Park Conversion Regulations. Following discussion , a motion was made by Pattinson, seconded by MacAllister, to direct the City Attorney's Office to rewrite the code amendment into ordinance form for public hearing before the Planning Commission on February 17, 1982. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: MacAllister, Thomas, Pattinson, Finley, Bailey, Mandic NOES: None ABSENT: Kelly RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of the Council at 9:45 P.M. The meeting was recon- vened at 9: 57 P.M. STORY HOUR FEE DELETED - RESOLUTION NO 5084 Councilman Thomas stated his concern regarding charging a $1 .00 fee for Story Hour. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 6 C4 zoning is consistent with the General Plan. . 2 . The proposed hotel and retail uses. on the property will be compat- ible with surrounding land uses because these properties are developed as commercial uses. AYES : Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 r Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach A proposed amendment to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code establish- ing a new article for Mobile Home Park Conversion Regulations . The ordinance will establish requirements for notification - of mobile home park residents and will set guidelines for approval of a Tenant Assist- ance Plan prior to the change of use of a mobile home park. Secretary James Palin briefly discussed the conflicting philosophies involved in .this matter and suggested a concept to try to provide some common ground between these philosophies; this concept would provide a sliding scale allowing a higher buy-off for mobile home units for a shorter period of time, with decreasing payments as time increased. He asked that persons who intended to speak to the Commission on the code amendment respond to that concept in their remarks . Florence Webb and Hal Simmons reviewed the history of the ordinance preparation and the :mobile home survey which was taken by City staff. An overview of the salient features of the proposed ordinance was presented by Mr. Simmons, including the following: tenants ' first right of refusal to purchase a park, filing of a notice of intent to convert, provisions for public hearing, a tenant assistance plan, and a 180-day relocation period. Owners ' responsibilities in the above areas are delineated in the proposed document. Commissioner Porter questioned what State provisions are in place in this regard, and Art Folger responded that the State does not pre- empt the field, but just sets forth minimum standards and. requirements which may be strengthened by more stringent City regulations. r The public .hearing was opened. The following persons spoke to the Commission in favor of passage of the subject code amendment: Gordon Scott, resident. of Pacific Park Natalie Kotsch, Chairman of Mobile Home Advisory Committee Bob Yansit, '20701 Beach Boulevard Dean Albright Ed Chadowski, representing Mobile Home Owners Council -6- 2-17-82 - P .C . Minutes,. H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 7 Ellen Trent, -representing Mobile Home Owners Council Chalner Wise.. Roy Soules Guy Kingsbury, Huntington by the Sea resident Everett Brake, Huntington Shores resident Anthony Zabeck, mobile home park resident Ed Zschoche r The speakers addressed the following areas: Human costs Discussed were effects of forcing elderly citizens or long-time Huntington Beach residents to relocate and the diffi- culty which will be encountered in attempting to try to find similar facilities elsewhere. It was the opinion of the majority of the speakers that there is really nowhere else to move.. Compensation: Discussion centered on the method of evaluating the amount an owner would receive from his unit and who would decide this value. One person noted that the value of all .im provements such as patios and carports should be included in appraisal of a coach, and it was unanimous that the value should be the fair market value of a mobile home unit within the park as opposed to its intrinsic value outside a park. It was the contention that the tenants should have a right to share in the appreciation of a park to which their improvements have con- tributed a `portion. Speakers who responded to the "sliding scale" concept put forward earlier in the meeting expressed the opinion that it. would result in automatic deflation of the value of a mobile home unit and wouuld be an unfair method of handling the problem. Decrease in amount of affordable housing: It was suggested that the change in use of the mobile home parks would result in a further decrease in the amount of affordable housing available in the community. One speaker pointed out the need to broaden the industrial and economic base in the City and stated that passage of the proposed ordinance would be a step in accomplish- ing that aim. Reference was made in this regard to the diffi- culty in attracting new business and industry to the area in part because of the lack of dwelling units for potential new workers . Other points touched on by speakers were the need to make the MH zoning on the existing parks permanent instead of temporary and the need to rezone any parks not at present zoned MH, the need to search out new land in the City for new mobile home parks, and various suggested changes in wording and definitions in the draft ordinance . The following persons addressed the Commission in opposition to the passage of the proposed amendment: Jim Cosick, 1225 8th Street, Sacramento Al Van Syok, 712 North Garfield, Alhambra Steve Navarro, owner of Huntington by. the Sea r -7- 2-17-82 - P.C. Minutes, H..B. Planning Commission February 17., 1982 Page 8 Rusty Watson, 19136 Brookhurst Robert Coulter, representing Association of Mobile Home Park owners Robert W. Williams , Vice President of Huntington Seacliff Ken Waggoner, .Attorney representing Huntington Seacliff and Huntington Beach Company � . Mr. Watson, a park resident, opposed the ordinance because .he felt there was no need. for it when there is a government code already in place which addresses park conversion, and he also indicated that passage .of the ordinance would place owners . and tenants in an adver- , sary position. i The other speakers analyzed the practical and constitutional aspects of the proposed ordinance. They challenged the "co-ownership" theory which permits tenants to participate in land values in which . . they have no interest or equity. The proposed ordinance was des- cribed as extremely severe and unfair, making it prohibitively expensive for any owner to change the use of his park. This in the opinion of the speakers would result in radically higher space rents and/or decreased maintenance of the existing parks . Other comments made in regard to the proposed ordinance were that it is not a zoning ordinance but an exercise in the. police powers of the community, that it would clearly necessitate an environmental impact report instead of , simply a . negative declaration, that it would in- fringe on the very comprehensive State legislation already in place, that it will effectively preclude the construction of any more mobile home spaces in the City and result- in capital which might have gone into such development leaving the State, that the length of time is far too long to be realistic, and that the answer to providing affordable housing in the City would be rezoning and less restriction on the construction of low-cost housing units . Mr. Waggoner added that the ordinance has serious problems in the areas of preemption by the State, the issue of interference in the contractual rights of property onwers, and the deprivation of property without due process . All unanimously urged that the Commission not pass the subject code amendment. There were no other persons present to address the matter, and the public hearing was closed. Extensive Commission discussion followed regarding the points which had been raised during the public hearing. It was the consensus of the Commission that the staff should be asked to revise the ordinance to include: 1) an analysis of MHH zoning, both on the existing parks and the possibility of new MLI areas; 2) a reconsideration of the compensation question, with emphasis on reasonableness and fairness in the amount of payment; 3) a simplification of the procedures con- tained in the ordinance; 4) an analysis of what already exists under State law so that a decision can be made on whether or not the City needs to add provisions and, if so, what provisions should be added; 5) a definition of. the people to whom help should go (e .g. , elderly, handicapped, low-income) , and the type of help which .should be r -8- 2-17-81 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission February 17, 1982 Page 9 offered; 6) a definition of what is the "acceptable age or quality" of a mobile home to be relocated; 7) an analysis of whether or not the sale. of a park in itself constitutes a , change of use which would trigger imposition of . the require- ments of the ordinance; and 8) investigation of the possibility that the basic thrust of any action on mobile homes might. be to, provide more mobile homes in commercial and other areas which currently are not too viable. The Commission also asked staff to provide information on the possibility of using. block grant funds. to assist in reloca- tion or other programs which might be used, such as non-profit cooperative groups . Copies of ordinances which address this issue in .San Diego and Newport Beach will also be submitted. Commissioner Schumacher asked that the information be sent out as soon as it is prepared, to give all Commissioners a better opportunity to become familiar with it prior to the next hearing. ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY PAONE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-.18 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 WERE CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 16 , 1982 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister ABSTAIN: None SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO. 81-8 Applicant: Martin Communications, Inc . To permit continued use of a subdivisional directional sign located on the west side of Beach Boulevard approximately 75 feet south of Damask Drive. Commissioner Kenefick left the ,meeting at this point (11 : 15) . The public hearing was opened. . Jeff Farr, representing the applicant and Curtiss Development Company, the present advertiser on the sign, addressed the Commission to urge approval of the request. He cited .Curtiss ' s need for identification and stated that the sign does not block out any advertising for any adjacent uses, since it is adjacent to a blank wall of the nearby restaurant. The owner of the restaurant adjacent to the sign spoke to ask that the sign be removed, noting that it does block the view of his place of business from south-bound automobiles . He added that until recently it had not been used for the intended purpose (identification of a subdivision) but had contained other types of commercial advertising. -9- 2-17-82 - P.C . LAW C'Fr.-ICEs :)r EXHIBIT 16 M S MATTSON v LAWLER , FELIX & HALL OSCAR LAW(ER I .F.C.UTCAULT,JR. PANDOLP14 C.VISSER 1896.1966 " ROBE.RT -FNICSON MARK V.BERRY 700 SOUTH FLOWER STREET R,CHARD D.OFLUCE WAYNE S.GRA jEWSK1 MAX FELIX THOMAS C WORKMAN,JR: ROBERT M TANNER 1922-1954 LEO J.PIPCHER STEVEN J.MILLER LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 JOHN G.W-GMORE ANTHONY R DELLING JOHN M.HALL CH AR ES L POGERS PATRICK K.d7OOLE TELEPHONE: (213) 629-9300 1916.1973 M.NEAL WELLS III ST EV ENS A.CAREY CABLE OSLAW ALEXIS A.FAFEN ROOT MADISON GROSE OF COUNSEL a ICMARD L.FRUIN.JR. FRANK V.CALABA A NTMONIE M.VOOGO JEFFREY S.BENICE TELEX- 67-4360 BRENTON L.METZLER ORVILLE O.ORR,JR. ROSERT B.REAGAN REED A.STOUT W1141AM K.DIAL PETER J.MC NULTY - TELECOPIER: (213) 680-2805 JAMES W. BOOTH C O%VIN W.DUNCAN :LAMES B.EKINS STCPII EN T.SWANSON MARY J.BUSH J.RIC HARD MORRISSEY KATHRYN J.NELSON ROBERT P.MALLORY MARK L.NELSON February 9, 19 2 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE, r.JOHN NYHAN LARRY'M.MEEKS ! SEACLIFF OFFICE PARK C RWIN E.ADLER CRAIG A SMITH JANC /4.BARRETT EDSEII M EAOY,JR. 2120 MAIN STREET,SUITE 120 TIMOTHY F.KENNEDY ROBERT M.SILVERMAN - HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92644B KENNETHC 1.WAGGONER WESLEY O.WORNOM (714)960-6596 R- HARD C.NEAL RICHARD P.ADCOCK JAMCS C.DURBIN JOHN E.CARLSON PHILLIP G.NICHOLS SCOTT H.14ANKINS JOHN.0.JOHN A.ST.CLAIR VICTORIA.W001RTS (TEN 11( •• N GTr \ BEACH WILLIAM S.DAVIS MONICA E.LERENZON II ROGER W.POSENDAML PIERRE VOGELENZANG PLANNING DEPT. / e.ALAN DI CKSON PETER S.WATSON J.EDWARD PENICK.JR. - ,WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO. i. (213) 629-9428 FER .1.,.1982 P, U. L30X 190 The Planning .Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Code Amendment No. 81-18 of the City of Huntington Beach, Establishing Mobile Home Park Conversion Regulations Dear Members of the Planning Commission: We represent Huntington Beach Company ("HBCo") and Huntington Seacliff. We are writing to set forth their views and concerns about the above-referenced proposed code amend- ment ("the Amendment" ) in hopes that our comments will assist you. in your evaluation. We do not believe the Amendment, if enacted, would apply to our clients. They are, however, concerned about the impact such a measure might have on the" Huntington Beach community and believe it would be ill-advised to pass the Amendment for several reasons: first., the Amendment, as presently drafted, is subject to serious constitutional ' challenge; second, and apart •from constitutional considera- tions,'. the Amendment is beset with drafting and conceptual problems that will make it difficult, if not impossible, to implement; and third, the Amendment will have adverse prac- tical consequences that may outweigh any benefits the City hopes to achieve. The following is a discussion of all three areas of concern. The Planning Commission February 9 , 1982 Page 2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS 1 1. The Restrictions On The Freedom Of A Park Owner To Go Out Of Business Violate Substantive Due Process Rights. The most serious constitutional problem raised by / the Amendment is that it in effect requires a park owner to remain in the mobile home park business indefinitely by making a change of use, even a conversion to vacant land, prohibitively expensive. The Amendment, were it to be . applied to our clients, could require an :expenditure in excess of $1, 000, 000 to sell or close the Huntington Shores Mobile Park, even though the park has only 44 tenants. While we recognize the City may require park owners to take reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of park closures, the City may not impose conditions so drastic as to virtually compel a park owner to stay in business. Consequently, the Amendment as it now reads is beyond the regulatory powers of the City of Huntington Beach and violates the due process clauses of both the California and United States Constitutions. The Los Angeles Superior Court has recently ruled on the constitutional validity of an ordinance similar to that proposed .in Huntington Beach. In the case of Nash v. City of Santa Monica, et al. , the Court was asked to consider whether Santa Monica could place conditions on an apartment owner' s right to remove his units from the market when.the effect of such conditions would require the owner either to continue in- definitely in the rental business or to sell .his property. The Los Angeles Superior Court held that such an ordinance was. unconstitutional, stating .that a legislative body could not prohibit 'a landlord from removing his property from the rental market without violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of .the United States and Article 1, Section 7 (a) of the California Constitution. We believe that the position taken by the Court in ' the Nash case applies equally to the Amendment. State and Federal constitutional safeguards preclude the City of Huntington Beach from forcing a mobile home park owner to remain in business in order to meet the demand for trailer park space just as such safeguards prevent the City from requiring a hardware store owner to keep his doors open because there is a perceived need for hardware in the community. The right to go out of business cannot be unreasonably curtailed. The Planning Commission February 9 , 1982 Page 3 1 2. The Change Of Use Procedures Contained In The Amendment Are Preempted By State Law. A municipal ordinance is preempted by state l-aw, and 1 • , is thus unconstitutional, if the subject matter of the ordi- nance has been so fully covered by state law as to indicate , that it has become exclusively a matter of state concern. California' s law with respect to mobile home parks is detailed and extensive. Except for the formulation of reasonable tenant remedies for changes of use, the state clearly in- tended to take the regulation of- mobile home parks out of the hands of local governments. Consequently, the Amendment, to the extent' it purports to establish procedures for undertaking changes of use, is preempted by, state law. If one assumes, for the sake of argument, that the Legislature did not intend to totally exclude local govern- ments from regulating change of use procedures, California' s extensive mobile home law at least establishes that such regu- lation is not a purely local •matter. Accordingly, while the City can adopt local ordinances supplementing state law, such measures cannot conflict with state law or be unreasonable. The Amendment, unfortunately, is neither consistent with state law or reasonable. It contains provisions that could require owners to wait up to two years after serving a notice of intent before they could actually undertake a change of use. This, obviously, is in clear .conflict with state law which allows a..park owner to undertake a change of use by - giving tenants six months' notice after all necessary permits have been obtained. The lengthy notice perjods in the Amend- ment, coupled with a rent moratorium that takes effect the instant a park owner serves notice of the owner' s intent to change use, make the Amendment unreasonable in the extreme. 3. The Amendment Impairs Existing Contract Rights of Park Owners. ' Both the United States and California Constitutions forbid local governments from passing any law that impairs existing contract rights. The effect of such constitutional provisions is to invalidate certain retrospective legislation. Local governments typically avoid im��airing exl Sting con- tr,act rights by pr_ovi.ding that legislation regulating con- tractual relationships shall only apply to contracts entered The. Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 4 into or renewed on or after the effective date of the legis- latio`n" . The Amendment, however, contains no such language. Mobile home leases are contracts for purposes of the constitutional provisions mentioned above. In California all mobile home leases are required to incorporate as part of the lease or rental agreement the provisions of the State' s Mobilehome Residency Law. Since the Amendment con- tains change of use provisions that differ from state law, it follows that they also differ from the terms of leases currently in effect. We believe these provisions are un- reasonable and constitute invalid impairments of existing contract rights. 4 . Several Of The Provisions Of The Amendment Constitute Either Takings Requiring Just Compensation Or Deprivations Of Property Without Due Process Of Law. The courts have long recognized that governmentally- imposed land. use restrictions depriving landowners of valuable property rights constitute "takings" where the restrictions are arbitrary and capricious and bear no reasonable relation to the public welfare or are otherwise unduly onerous. Under state and federal constitutional law, these takings require that just compensation be paid to the affected landowners. Furthermore, in those instances where the land use restric- tions fall short of a taking in the strictly legal sense, such restrictions may nonetheless constitute deprivations of pro- perty without due process of law in violation of the federal and state constitutions. We feel there are numerous pro- visions in the Amendment which, because they bear no reason- able relation to the public welfare and are unduly onerous, are takings requiring just compensation, or, in the alter- native, unconstitutional deprivations of property without due process of law. The three most conspicuous provisions falling in this. category are identified and discussed below. (a) Sale of Park as "Change of Use" . Included among the Amendment' s definitions of "Change of Use" is "any change in ownership wherein any or all of the park is to be sold. " Consequently, the prospective sale of a park automatically triggers the myriad restrictions and affirmative obligations regarding notices of intent, conversion impact reports, tenant assistance plans .and Planning 4 The Planning Commission February 9 , 1982 a , Page 5 Commission approval hearings, none of which bear any con- ceivable relationship to change in ownership where the pro- perty continues to be used as' a mobile home park. Further, the minimum 365 day notification period and approvals process unreasonably delays, and no doubt virtually destroys, a park owner' s opportunity to sell the park even to a purchaser who desires to continue the operation of the park. Such a re- striction is not only an unwarranted restraint upon the free alienation of property, but is obviously unconstitutional on the grounds set forth above. .(b) Tenants' Right of •.First Refusal. The Amendment provides that in the event of a pro- posed sale of the park by the park owner, the tenants shall have a right of first refusal to purchase the park. We under- stand in talking with our clients and other land developers that when a piece of real. property is encumbered by a right of first refusal, the property becomes much more difficult to market than if it were unencumbered, and is likely to bring a much lower price on the market in the event of a sale. The right of first refusal set forth in the Amendment constitutes a substantial economic burden on park owners and, of course, a corresponding windfall to tenants. Perhaps there would be some justification for taking a valuable right from park owners and conferring it upon mobile home residents if, by so doing, the impact of a con- - version could be .mitigated. The fact that a park is sold, however., does not mean the park will be converted to another use. Unless all applicable conversion requirements are later satisfied, any mobile home park sold will continue to be operated. as such by the new owner. The granting of a right of first refusal, therefore, bears no relationship to the problem the city is attempting to address by enacting a mobile home - conversion law. There is no reason to give tenants a right of first refusal. . " (c) Owners ' Purchase of Mobile Homes at In-Park Value. The Amendment is similarly defective in its treat- ment of tenants with mobile homes that cannot be relocated. The Amendment requires park owners to purchase such mobile homes at their value in the park, or a percentage thereof, even though, by the Planning Commission Staff' s own admission, 4 The Planning Commission - February 9 , 1982 Page 6 such value is largely attributable to the value of the park owner' s land and not the value of •the mobile home. While the purpose of the purchase formula is to mitigate damage "to tenants who are evicted pursuant to a conversion, the formula bears no relationship to the damage tenants will suffer. A tenant, for instance, who came into a park twenty years ago may have spent less than $5, 000 for a trailer; yet the in-park value of his mobile home might now be over $30, 000, not because his trailer has increased in value, but because the land on which it sits is more valuable. Under the purchase formula contained in the Amendment, such a tenant will reap an enormous windfall at the expense- of the park owner. CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS As indicated above, the Amendment is unconstitu- tional in sevetal respects , and for that reason should not be enacted. The Amendment is also unworkable in many significant ways. These conceptual problems, the most serious of which is discussed below, provide additional reasons for adopting an entirely different approach. 1. Section 2 (h) states that "special circumstances" shall exist if a tenant can provide written notice from a li- censed physician that "necessary medical services" would not be available within a "reasonable distance" of identified replacement mobil home spaces. It is not clear what criteria will be used in determining what constitutes necessary medical services or what is a reasonable distance. The provision in- , vites controversy and dispute. 2. Section 3 give tenants a right of first refusal to purchase the mobile home park in the event the park owner attempts to sell to a third party. The section, as now written, would be virtually impossible to administer. It fails to address the mechanics of how the tenants are to exer- cise their option and leaves other important matters to con- jecture. Who, for instance, can exercise the right? Must all tenants give the park owner notice of their intention to purchase for there to be a valid exercise, or can a single tenant or group of tenants purchase the park whether or not � the other tenants are interested? 3. Section 4 provides that a park owner may not change the park to another use without first serving a notice of intent to change use containing a "list and explanation of The Pf nning Commission February 9 , 1982 Page 7 all state and city regulations in effect at the 'time notice of intent of change'. pf use was mailed. " This section, no matter .how construed, requires park owners to perform an unrealistic, ! and perhaps impossible, task. While the intent of the section almost certainly is 'that the park owner explain state ,a.hd city regulations pertaining to mobile home park closures, .the lang- uage literally requires an explanation of all city and state regulations. Setting aside this obvious drafting error, the At obligation the section seeks to impose on park owners is un- fair. ' Park owners should not be saddled with the impossible <,', •burden, of having to provide what- amounts to a legal opinion to the Planning Commission of the identity and meaning of all ap- plicable , regulations or ordinances. 4.0v The last paragraph of Section 4 requires park owners..to purchase the trailers of tenants who move into a * a? park after a notice of intent has been filed with the City and who never receive a copy of the notice. The paragraph is very , ambiguous, both as to the extent of the remedy and when it :; will apply. It does not say, for instance, whether a park : . owner will" be liable if the tenant moved in without the park - >4r,;'-; Owner' s knowledge: The paragraph, in describing the benefits rt~: ; - to be paid concludes with the statement the full purchase r5 -3,)�,: price bf the unit and/or all other relocation assistance ?2:,, benefits as required by this Code shall be required. " Does mean that the landlord has to pay the full purchase price Wand provide relocation assistance, or does it mean the land ;`:. ;lord must pay the full purchase price or provide relocation :.; assistance? Inasmuch as the Amendment provides that reloca- tion assistance shall take the form of the purchase price of =:'1 ' the mobile home in some circumstances, does this paragraph ~.,require the landlord to pay the purchase price of the trailer :,``and then pay the purchase price again as relocation assis- tance? While such a result would obviously be unfair, .it is not foreclosed by the language of the paragraph. 5. Section 5 requires park owners to prepare +'. impact of conversion reports: as a precondition to changing the use of their parks. Some of -the items of information to be included 'in such reports, such as the household income of Lenant. fa mil..ies .and other personal information, will be almost impossible to obtain unless one makes the unrealistic assump- tion that tenants will be cooperative in a park closure. The Planning Commission February 9, 1982 Page 8 6 . Section. 6 (a) provides that to convert a park to some other use the park owner must pay 100% of the cost of re- locating tenants .to other mobile home parks of similar quality. What is meant by "similar quality" and who makes the . deter- mination? Is a mobile home park of similar quality if the facilities are of the same nature and age, or must a replace- ment park be located in as favorable a location as the pre- vious park to be. of similar quality? The section requires park '-owners to .pay for incidental temporary lodging expenses . incurted during the move and to pay such expenses at the time of the move. Because what is meant by incidental temporary lodging expenses is. undefined and there is no upper limit placed on 'the amount of reimbursement to be provided, the potential for tenant abuse of this provision is enormous. Furthermore, such expenses cannpt be paid at the time of the move unless they are known in advance, and it is unlikely that any park owner will have such knowledge. 7 . Section 6 (b) requires that in the event of a change. of use park owners must purchase mobile homes which are not of "acceptable age or quality" to be relocated. What does acceptable age or quality mean? The section provides that the purchase, price is to be determined by an appraiser, but does not state who is to select the appraiser, how the appraiser i.s, to go about making an appraisal, or whether the .park owner or tenant can contest the appraisal if they disagree. Finally, the section provides. that tenants who can establish special ,' •: circumstances shall receive "assistance as needed" in finding housing. What kind of assistance does the section contemplate and who determines what is needed? 8. Section 8 sets forth a number of prerequisites to approval of a tenant assistance plan, many of which are either unreasonable or unworkable. Section 8 (b) (3) , for in- stance, provides that a tenant assistance plan shall not be approved if coercion has been applied in any way to increase the number of vacancies in the mobile home park. The section does •not state what constitutes coercion (does it include ne- gotiations with tenants to enter into mutual termination agreements?) and does not state when the coercion must have occurred in order to preclude a change of use. • C • The' Planning Commission .February 9, 1982 ° Page 9 PRACTICAL PROIILEMS We believe the Amendment will create several practical problems that could be avoided by adopting a dif- ferent approach. First, it will almost certainly result in a dramatic increase in the rent being charged, in mobile home parks throughout the City. Second, it will practically eliminate the City' s flexibility to tailor its handling of park conversions according to the differing interests and circumstances that each conversion will present. Park owners have an obvious interest and need to obtain an acceptable return on their mobile home park in- vestments. In determining what rent to charge tenants, park owners consider a number of factors, including the appre- ciation, or . increase in fair market value, of their park property. If 'the property does not appreciate according to expectations, the only way the owner has to ensure an ade- quate return is to raise the rent. The Amendment, because of its severe restrictions against changing mobile home parks to other uses, will restrict or eliminate the potential for appreciation. The inevitable result will be a sharp increase in the rent mobile home residents will have to pay. The problem, of course, will be further exacerbated by the rent moratorium contained in .the Amendment. The Amendment will have other unintended but in- evitable results if enacted. The measure fails to recog- nize or take into account the wide differences between mobile home parks and the need to treat them individually._ It may, for instance, be in the public interest for some parks to be closed because of their location or condition, or simply be cause the. land they occupy is not being put to its highest and best use. The Amendment, however, will .have the prac- tical effect of discouraging any closure or change of use,. regardless of the public interest. The above comments'. are not all-inclusive, but we be.- lieve they highlight some of the more serious problems raised � . by the Amendment. We respectfully request that the City con- sider the issues, evaluate the merits of the points made by this letter, and seriously consider adopting another approach. We understand that other municipalities have .resolved the problem now facing the City by simply requiring park owners to obtain a permit before changing use, and conditioning the issuance ,of permits on the formulation of acceptable tenant l� G The Planning_ Comrffission February 9, 1982 Page 10 assistance plans, the adequancy of which are judged on a case ! by- case basis. Such an approach would satisfy constitutional requirements and lead to a much more balanced and fair treat- ment of park owners and residents than is possible under the Amendment. Very truly yours, N Kenneth L. Waggoner cc: The Honorable Ruth Finley, ,Mayor Members .of the. City Council; C. W. Thompson, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney ! i EXHIBIT 17 CITY OF H`JNTINGTON BEACH . INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH S To Florence Webb From Senio nity Senior Planner Devel pecialist Subject MOBILEHOME PARK PRESERVATION AND Date March 4, 19 2 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM In response to your request on the subject matter, I would like to provide you with the following information for transmittal to the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 16, 1982. This report is divided into three major headings: (1) Use of HCD Funds for "Shelter" Parks, (2) State Programs for Park Preserva- tion, and (3) Alternative Housing Types. 1. Use of HCD Funds for "Shelter" Parks A. Eligibility of the Use of HCD Funds One of the major statutory intents of the Housing and Community Development Block Grant legislation is to improve housing opportunities for low and moderate income households. Communities receiving Block Grant funds have considerable discretion in the use of these funds, and actions to encourage the provision of affordable housing opportunities are an eligible use of Block Grant funds. Therefore, the use of Block Grant funds to acquire real property and provide on-site and off-site improvements to create a mobile- home park would be an eligible expenditure of Block Grant funds. However, as can be seen in the discussion of development costs that follows, it is doubtful that sufficient Block Grant resources are available to .produce a mobilehome park. B. Development Costs The issue here is. to assess the feasibility of using Community Development Block Grant funds for the provision of a new mobilehome park that could pro- vide alternative spaces for occupants displaced by the conversion of a mobile- home park. Obviously the costs of real property, public facility and infra-. structure improvements, and site development for any new housing development are high. There follows a cursory examination of such costs for a hypotheti- cal mobilehome park. One of the key elements for the provision of a new mobilehome 'park would be the location and acquisition of an appropriate site. A potentially feasible site within Huntington Beach was used to prepare the cost figures for this hypothetical mobilehome park and a value of $375,000 - $450,000 per acre is used. 'In addition, once a site is located, costs will be incurred for the improve- ment of the site including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, utility extensions, streets, private open space and recreation facilities. Based � 1 Florence.Webb March 4, 1982 Page Two upon the most recent proposal for a privately-owned mobilehome park with- 4 in Huntington Beach, these costs would total approximately $13,000 per mobilehome space; therefore, the costs for a hypothetical mobilehome park would total as. follows: Land Acquisition (hypothetical 10 , acre site): $3.75 million - $4.5 million The Improvement Costs (assuming 10 units per acre @ $13,000 per space) : $1.3 million Total : $5,05 million $5.8 million The average cost per space is $50,050 to $58,000. It is believed that 4 these figures are conservative because they do not include other inherent costs of development such as environmental review documentation, architect/ consultant fees, or public utility extensions which might be required off site. Obviously the development of a new mobilehome park will require sub- stantial capital investment beyond the currently available Community Develop- ment Block Grant funds. While it is true that other sources of funds could be tapped. to meet the development costs outlined above, at this point in time the nature of these sources, their availability, and the strategy for garnering these sources has not been devised. C. Benefit of Providing a New Mobilehome Park , As can- be seen from the discussion of development costs above, provision of' a new mobilehome park would be a substantial drain of Block Grant re- sources. Of additional concern is that, if the City were to provide a new mobilehome park either as a City-owned "shelter" park or as a park to be leased to a private entity, for management, a. relatively few number of house- 4 holds would. benefit. In exchange for the City's efforts to locate and develop a site as a mobilehome park and to select tenants to occupy this park, only approximately 100 households would benefit. Using the estimated development costs of $6 million for a 100 space- mobilehome- park, it can be seen that the development costs alone would total $60,000 per household assisted. Clearly this is a substantial contribution of Block Grant funds , to assist relatively few of the 3,236 households currently residing in mobilehomes in the City of Huntington Beach. D. Availability of HCD Funds and the Impact of the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program Implementation As you know, the City is currently pursuing the implementation of the recently published Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program. This document contains comprehensive recommendations for physical development and improvements in several selected portions of the City. While a variety of financial resources would be brought to bear to accomplish the tasks outlined in the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program, it is anti- ' cipated that, at least initially, the commencement of these- activities will draw heavily upon Community Development Block Grant funds. o Florence Webb r March 4, 1982 Page Three In. the meantime, it can be seen that the development costs of the new mobilehome park would require the commitment. of the entire Block Grant entitlement (estimated in Fiscal Year 1982-83 to be $1,231,000) for a period of six years. Despite the importance of the mobilehome issue, it is unlikely that it could successfully outweigh all other physical development needs in the City for such a long: period of time. 2. State Programs for Park Preservation L� The State of California Department of HCD does provide (through AB 333/ SB 229) a California Homeownership Assistance Program; basically, this pro- gram provides: (1) State equity participation loans for apartment tenants whose units have been converted to condominiums, or (2) eligible mobilehome park tenants whose parks are being converted to condominiums or stock coopera- tives, or converted to some other type of land use. This program, and the basic criteria for eligible participants, are outlined in the attached letter from I. Donald Terner, Director of the_ State. Department of. Housing and Community Development. While this program might have been of some assistance to mobilehome park tenants in the City of Huntington Beach, all funds have already been committed. It should be additionally pointed out that, even if a mobilehome subdivision was created and State funds were available for mortgage loans, unless the City was will'ing. to make spaces available at a price below the cost of development, participants would be faced with the amortization of a loan that would include the $60,000 in development costs plus the price of the unit suitable for attach- ment to a permanent foundation (the only type of unit financible with State funds). 3. Alternative Housing Types The strategy with perhaps the greatest potential for assistance to displaced tenants is relocation to housing of another type. If mobilehome-tenants dis- placed by whatever means are relocated to site built housing (e.g. , apartments/ condominiums) a far. greater density can be achieved and land and development costs can be amortized over a far greater number of units. It is. significant to note that, at its meeting of June 17, 1981, ;the City's Mobilehome Park Committee, after discussing a variety of issues regarding mobilehomes, agreed that costs of a new park are far beyond the Housing and Community Development Block Grant resources available and further, agreed that the. City should investigate relocation of displaced mobilehome tenants to other types of replacement housing. This strategy is again evidenced in the relocation plan submitted by the proponents of the conversion of the Treasure Island Mobilehome Park in South Laguna (see summary attached). In this in- stance, the project sponsors suggested that housing units of an alternative 1 type could be provided on-site. Besides the obvious cost savings in providing higher density housing for displacees, the provision of units on-site may be less disruptive and may be the only circumstance under which tenants may be relocated to alternative housing still within the coastal zone. Obviously to achieve this will require the cooperation and financial support of any private sponsor proposing to convert the use of an existing mobilehome park. Florence Webb March 4, 1982 J Page Four In addition to alternative type housing-provided on-site, the potential for replacement housing also exists through the implementation of the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program; specifically, the Talbert-Beach and Meadowlark Airport areas are identified in the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program as potential replacement housing sites. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Since the cost to develop a mobilehome park under City sponsorship far outstrip anticipated Block Grant revenues, it is recommended at this time that providing alternative housing types of mobilehome park tenants most likely to be displaced be pursued. In addition, since State funds are not available, staff could pro- , vide technical assistance to tenants where conversion to a cooperative mobilehome park may be feasible. SVK:jb l 0 1 L'%n.LD11 1O huntington beach developme`n° . sWrvlces de -�:rtMont STAf F EPOR TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: March 16, 1982 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 - MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Continue the public hearing; review and discuss Code Amendment No. 81-18 as presented and suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate. 2.0 ANALYSIS: On February 17, 1982, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing"to consider lb Code Amendment No. 81-18. Upon review of the code amendment, the Commission directed.staff to provide an analysis of the following items: 1. Rezoning non-conforming parks to MH 2. Zoning vacant land for MH 3. Mobile home park preservation and development programs 4. Analysis of State Law as it pertains to the ordinance �- S. Simplification of the ordinance 6. Ordinance Equitability As per Commission directive, the following is an analysis of each item listed above. 2.1 Rezoning of Non-Conforming Parks In an August 1981 report'to the City Council, staff provided an analysis of non-conforming mobile home.parks and the issues related to rezoning those parks to MH. That report was sent to the Planning.Commission in the March 2, 1982 packet for informational purposes. Briefly, the report makes the following conclusions: 1. Of the City's seven non-conforming parks, action to rezone to MH could be initiated on two parks outside the Coastal Zone (Huntington Mobile Estates and Rancho Del Rey)and such action would be consistent with the general plan. 2. One park outside the Coastal Zone (Beachview) would clearly require a general plan amendment if it were to be rezoned to MH. 3. Rezoning of the four non-conforming parks in the Coastal Zone would only be an interim measure until the specific plan was completed. A-FM 23A The proposed Coastal Specific Plan, however, only encompasses two of the four non-conforming Coastal Zone parks. Of those two, only one (Driftwood) has been designated in the plan for a mobile home overlay zone. The other park (Huntington Shores) is not presently slated for a mobile home overlay. Of the other two non-conforming Coastal Zone parks, one (Pacific Trailer Park) could be rezoned to MH . without a general. plan amendment. Rezoning of the other.park (Cabrillo) would require an amendment to the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. It appears that rezoning the non-conforming parks to MH may be a complicated and time-consuming task. It would be necessary for the Planning Commission and City ' Council to decide which parks should be designated permanent and temporary uses. It could also bring lawsuits involving inverse condemnation because such action could constitute downzoning. Rather than rezone, it would be more desirable to place a mobile home overlay zone on the non-conforming parks. Such an overlay would essentially acknowledge that the parks are temporary uses. The overlay could not be removed, however, unless the provisions of the mobile home park conversion ordinance were complied with. On the other hand, if the ordinance is drafted to apply to all parks, regardless of zoning (as it presently is), there ! may be no need to apply overlay zoning. 2.2 Zoning Vacant Land For MH Staff was also directed to study the possibility of zoning vacant land in the City MH in order to attract new development of mobile home parks. There is available land, primarily along the Gothard Corridor and in the Ellis-Goldenwest Area which may be suited for mobile home park development. MH zoning was placed on Meadowlark.Airport approximately one year ago. While such development may provide additional opportunities for, affordable new housing in the City, it probably would not provide significant opportunities for displaced mobile home park residents with used coaches. It is likely that a new mobile home park developer/operator would not permit used coaches in a new park. When demand is high and vacancy rates are low, it is common for park owners to successfully allow only new double-wide coaches in their parks. Higher rents can be charged for space in a park occupied exclusively by newer units. The high cost of developing a mobile home park, as detailed in the next section of this report, indicates that a new park owner would certainly have to require new and large unit policies to promote a high quality environment which would make the necessary high space rents marketable. While such a policy may be attractive to new mobile home buyers, it would likely exclude the vast majority.of future displaced mobile home park residents in the City. If the City were to require that used units be accepted, it is unlikely that new mobile 4 home park development could be attracted to the City. Adoption of a mobile home park conversion ordinance as proposed would also likely discourage new park development. . i u _. Another aspect of mobile home zoning which merits brief mention is the possibility of 9 modifying the ordinance code to allow mobile homes in single-family zones. Senate Bill 1960 was enacted in 1981 which required cities to allow 1976 and newer mobile homes on permanent foundations in single family zones. The high local land values andrestrictions on coach age, however, prevent this option from providing a viable solution for displaced mobile home park residents in the City. A third zoning related issue concerns the City's existing mobile home ordinance. As it exists now, mobile home parks are limited to a maximum density of nine units per acre. The City may wish to consider increasing that density to 15 units per acre. When a park initiates action for change of use, other parks could then conceivably add spaces to accommodate and profit from the displaced tenants. Parks located on land general planned for low density, however, would require general plan amendments, to medium density before such action could be taken. 2.3 Mobile Home Park Preservation and Development Programs If new mobile home parks are developed in the City to provide replacement space for dislocated park residents, they will likely have to be developed by the City. The City's HCD Office provided the following analysis of funding programs and feasibility for park development and preservation, as well as alternative housing types for displaced residents. 2.3.1 Use of HCD Funds for "Shelter" Parks The use of Block Grant funds to acquire real property and provide on-site and off-site r improvements to create a mobile home park would be an eligible expenditure of Block Grant funds. Suggestions have been made that abandoned school sites and marginally productive commercial centers could be purchased by the City and developed as "shelter" parks. However, it is doubtful that sufficient Block Grant resources are availabe to produce a mobile home park. r It is first necessary to assess the feasibility of using HCD funds for the provision of a new mobile home park that could provide alternative spaces for occupants displaced by the conversion of a mobile home park. Obviously, the costs of real property, public facility and infrastructure improvements, and site development for any new housing development are high. r One of the key elements for the provision of a new mobile home park would be the location and acquisition.of an appropriate site. A potentially feasible site within Huntington Beach was used to prepare the cost figures for this hypothetical mobile home park and a value of $375,000 - $450,000 per acre is used. In addition, once a site is located, costs will be incurred for the improvement of the site r including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, utility extensions, streets, private open space and recreation facilities. Based upon the most recent proposal for a privately-owned mobile home park within Huntington Beach, these costs would total approximately $13,000 per mobile home space; therefore, the costs for a hypothetical mobile home park would total as follows: r r Land Acquisition (Hypothetical 10acre site). $3.75 million - $4.5 million -- ! The Improvement Costs (Assuming 10 units per acre @ $13,000 per space) $1.3 million Total: $5.05 million - $5.8 million The average cost per space is $50,050 to $58,000. It is believed that these figures are conservative because they do not include other inherent costs of development such as environmental review documentation, architect/consultant fees, or public utility extensions which might be required off site. Obviously the development of a new mobile home park will require substantial capital investment beyond the currently available HCD funds As can be seen from the discussion of development costs above, provision of a new mobile home park would be a substantial drain of HCD resources. Of additional concern is that, if the City were to provide a new mobile home park either as a City-owned "shelter" park or as a park to be leased to a private entity for managment, a relatively few number of households would benefit. In exchange for the City's efforts to locate and develop a site as a mobile home park and to select tenants to occupy this park, only approximately 100 households would benefit. Using the estimated development costs of $6 million for a 100 space mobile home park, it can be seen that the development costs alone would total $60,000 per household assisted. This would be a substantial contribution of Block Grant funds to assist relatively few of the 3,236 households currently residing in mobile homes in the City of Huntington Beach. It should also be noted that the City is currently pursuing the implementation of the recently published Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program. This document contains comprehensive recommendations for physical development and improvements in several selected portions of the City. While a variety of financial resources would be brought to bear to accomplish the tasks outlined in the Community and Neighborhood ! Enhancement Program, it is anticipated that, at least initially, the commencement of these activities will draw heavily upon Community Development Block Grant funds. In the meantime, it can be seen that the development costs of the new mobile home park would require the commitment of the entire Block Grant entitlement (estimated in Fiscal Year 1982-83 to be $1,231,000) for a period of six years. Despite the importance of the ! mobile home issue, it is unlikely that it could successfully outweigh all other physical development needs in the City for such a long period of time. 2.3.2 State Programs For Park Preservation The State of California Department of HCD does provide (through AB 333/SB 229) a ! California Homeownership Assistance Program; basically, this program provides: (1) State equity participation loans for apartment tenants whose units have been converted to condominiums, or (2) eligible mobile home park tenants whose parks are being converted to condominiums or stock cooperatives, or converted to some other type of land use. While this program might have been of some assistance.to mobile home park tenants in the City of Huntington Beach, all funds.have already been committed. ! ` � o It should also be pointed out that,even if d mobile home subdivision was created and State funds were available for mortgage loans, unless the City was willing to make spaces available at a price below the cost of development, participants would be faced with.the amortization of a loan that would inlcude the $60,000 in development costs plus the price of the unit suitable for attachment to a permanent foundation (the only type oTunit financible with State funds). 2.3.3 Alternative Housing Types The strategy with perhaps the greatest potential for assistance to displaced tenants is relocation to housing of another type. If mobile home tenants displaced by whatever means are relocated to site built housing (e.g., apartments/condominiums)a far greater density can be achieved and land and development costs can be amortized over a far greater number of units. It is significant to note that, at its meeting of June 17, 1981, the City's Mobile Home Park Committee, after discussing a variety of issues regarding mobile homes, agreed that costs of a new park are far beyond the Housing and Community Development Block Grant resources available and further agreed that the City should investigate relocation of displaced mobile home tenants to other types of replacement housing. This strategy is again evidenced in the relocation plan submitted by the proponents of the conversion of the Treasure Island Mobile Home Park in South Laguna (see attachment OV In this instance, the project sponsors suggested that housing units of an alternative type could be provided on-site. Besides the obvious cost savings in providing higher density housing for displacees, the provision of units on-site may be less disruptive and may be the only circumstance under which tenants may be relocated to alternative housing still within the coastal zone. Obviously to achieve this will require the cooperation and financial support of any private sponsor proposing to convert the use of on existing mobile home park. In addition to alternative type housing provided on-site, the potential for replacement housing also exists through the implementation of the Community.and Neighborhood Enhancement Program; specifically, the Talbert-Beach and Meadowlark Airport areas are identified in the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program as potential replacement housing sites. 2.4 Analysis of State Law as it Pertains to the Ordinance The Planning Commission directed staff to provide on analysis of existing State Law and what its relationship with the draft ordinance would be, particularly in terms of pre-emption. The following is a review of the applicable State Laws governing mobile home park conversions and a rationale for including those laws in the City's ordinance. The first step in regulating mobile home park conversions is to determine what exactly constitutes a change of use. Section 798.10 of the Civil Code (Mobile Home Residency 11 Law) defines "change of use" as follows: "Change of use" means a use of the park for a purpose other,than the rental, or the holding out for rent, of two or more mobile home sites to accommodate mobile homes used for.human habitation, and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes, but is not limited to, a change of the pGrik or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative, panned unit development, or any form of ownership wherein spaces within the park are to be sold. As stated in a previous communication, staff has discussed the above definition with the State Office of Housing and Community Development and received the unofficial determination that. the definition includes closure of a park (reversion to vacant land)as a change of use. In order to avoid confusion, staff has used virtually the same definition of "change of use" in the proposed ordinance, but has also added specific reference to vacant land. Staff is.of.the opinion that leaving out reference to reversion to vacant land would open a large loop-hole in the ordinance. Any park owner could avoid relocation requirements by simply arguing that he was going out of business and planning to leave the land vacant. Two or three years later he could conceivably begin construction of the new 4 use without ever having.been required to provide relocation assistance. A second State Law involving mobile home park change of use involves notification of termination of tenancy as established in Section 798.56 of the Civil Code. This section of the code establishes a "12 month or more" notification period prior to the change of use of a park. Again, the proposed ordinance establishes a similar minimum 12 month 4 notification period. The proposed ordinance also requires a 180 day voluntary relocation period which may run concurrently with the 12 month notification period. A third State Law requires that an impact of conversion report be filed with the legislative body prior to the conversion of a mobile home park to another use. This , requirement is established in Section 65863.7 of the Government Code. Discussion with the State Department of Housing and Community Development has indicated that notification of termination of tenancy due to a planned change of use as defined by the Civil Code,would activate the Government Code requirement for filing of an impact of conversion report. The proposed ordinance incorporates this requirement and further defines the issues which should be addressed in the impact of conversion report. . Also included in Section 65863.7 is the statement that upon review of the impact of conversion report, the legislative body may require mitigation of impacts prior to the change of use. The proposed ordinance requires mitigation of impacts through preparation and approval of a tenant assistance plan. It is staffs opinion that such a requirement is allowable under State Law. In fact, the last sentence of Section 65863.7 states, "This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobile home parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures.", . As stated above, the proposed ordinance is based very closely on existing State Law and also provides additional detail pertaining to procedures and contents of required reports and plans as permitted by State Law. If the City has no desire to expand on State Law, there would be no need to extensively repeat the law in ordinance form. If the City does .intend to provide greater detail than State Law provides, then it is important to include the existing State Law in the ordinance and incorporate into that the additional City requirements. For this reason, it is staff's opinion that the proposed ordinance is not pre-empted by State Law because it incorporates existing State Law and provides more extensive and detailed regulations as is provided for under the law. .� 2.5 Simplification of the Proposed Ordinance Upon initial review of the proposed ordinance, the Planning Commission commented that it appeared to be very complicated and should be simplified. The ordinance has been prepared in response to a very complex problem and incorporates State Law. Because of these factors, there is probably no way the proposed ordinance can be extensively simplified without reducing the effectiveness of the ordinance. Actually, the ordinance is not as complicated as it first appears. The ordinance essentially requires four things: 1. Filing of a notice of intent to change use 2. Approval of an impact of conversion report 3. Approval of a tenant assistance plan 4. A 180 day voluntary relocation period The image of complexity occurs because of the detail that is given to the components of the first three items. The ordinance explicitly spells out what will comprise an adequate notice of intent, an adequate impact of conversion report and an adequate tenant assistance plan. By providing this detail in ordinance form, the prospective applicant has the means to understand up front what the City expects from him, and the legislative body has a.set of guidelines for approving or rejecting the various required components. Providing detailed instructions in the ordinance should result in a simpler and shorter . public hearing and assitance plan approval process. .2.6 Ordinance Equitability Among the Planning Commission's primary concerns at the February 16th public hearing was that the proposed ordinance did not deal with the conversion issue equitably. It was the Commission's feeling that the ordinance was biased towards the park residents at the expense of the park owners. Specific concern was voiced regarding the eligibility standards which were deemed under-restrictive and.the assistance requirements which were deemed over-restrictive. Substantial modifications have been made to those portions. of.the ordinance. r 2.6.1 Limiting of Assistance r� The original draft of the proposed ordinance which was submitted to the Planning Commission provided for relocation assistance to all mobile home park residents except renters. Earlier versions of the ordinance which were submitted to the City Council, however, limited assistance to lower income households who were year round park r residents. After Council listened to public comment on the ordinance, staff was directed to incorporate those comments into the ordinance. Primary among those comments was that all park residents should be eligible for assistance under the ordinance. Consequently, staff deleted the eligibility limitations. As per Planning Commission directive, however, those limitations have been placed back r into the ordinance. The current draft limits assistance to low income park residents with proven household incomes of less than 80 percent of the County median. Eligible residents must also live in the park at least 180 days a year and not be renting the unit f rpm a second party. r Even with the new eligibility limitations, most mobile home park residents will qualify for assistance. Eighty percent of the current median County income is approximately $24,000. The City's recent mobile home park survey indicated that nearly 84 percent of mobile home park residents have incomes below that figure. If income eligibility was dropped to 50 percent of the median County income (poverty level), 62 percent of park residents would be eligible. Five percent of mobile home park residents would be ineligible for assistance because they rent their units from a second party. Only 1.2 percent of park residents would be ineligible because they don't live in the park I80 days a year. 2.6.2 Determination of Reasonable Compensation Drafting the proposed ordinance to reflect existing State Law has been a relatively academic and straight-forward exercise. The principle difficulty has involved the compensation, or tenant assistance, portion of the ordinance. How can meaningful assistance be provided to displaced park residents without significantly impairing the park owner's ability to change the use of his park? And what constitutes meaningful assistance to displaced residents? It has generally been agreed upon in the past that the park owner should at least partially pay for relocation of units in the event of a change of use. This has been a principle part of the.proposed ordinance. Additional study by staff, however, has indicated that most parks within 100 miles which do have vacancies will not accept used coaches. As such, it is unlikely that many coaches in the City could be relocated to other parks, regardless of who was prepared to pay for the move. This means that when a park changes use, most of the units will become unusable unless a City or County operated "shelter" park were available. -- Recognition of this fact has resulted in the ordinance also requiring purchase by the park owner of units which cannot be relocated to another park. Such a requirement would be intended to provide displaced tenants with the means to assimilate into another form of housing. It is this portion of the ordinance, however, which raises the most serious problems involving reasonable compensation. 'in the past, park residents have lobbied strongly for purchase price to be 100 percent of the market value of the unit in the park (as much as $60,000). Staff has realized that this is an extremely unreasonable and unworkable formula, however, and has heretofore left a 4 blank in the ordinance where percent of market value is mentioned. The intent has been to stimulate discussion by the Council and Planning Commission as to what a fair buy-out would be. Unfortunately, apart from criticism of the perceived requirement for 100 percent of market value buy-out, staff has received very little input from non-park residents on what would constitute reasonable buy-out. Staff therefore makes the following proposals for the Planning Commission's consideration: The proposed ordinance has been revised to require that purchase price be for only the unit itself, and that the price should be determined using a guide such as the Kelley Blue Book for mobile homes. The Kelley Blue Book generally establishes values higher than what a.unit sitting outside a park would bring but which are also lower than what a unit located in a park would bring. �. Using the Blue Book as a guide, buy-outs for existing units in the City may range from $39000 to $13,000. This is significantly lower than the $60,000 the units would actually bring on the market if located in a park, and more than the $1,000 to $3,000 they would bring outside a park. Such an amount would provide reasonable assistance for moving into another form of housing and may therefore constitute a reasonable compromise for buy-out value. Another alternative which has not yet been incorporated into the ordinance would be to develop a sliding scale for buy-out, with price dependent upon the amount of notice given and how soon the tenants elected to move out. For example, if the park owner gave a five year notice, all those who moved out after the first year would receive a given buy-out amount. Those who moved out after two years would receive less, and those who moved out in subsequent years would be entitled to even less. Such an amortization process may be desirable to park residents because of the extra time allowed for moving out, and desirable to park owners because of reduced assistance requirements for those who hesitate to move out. Problems associated with such a plan, however, would involve determining buy-out for each year and administering the program over time. 2.7 Changes to the Proposed Ordinance Since the Planning Commission first reviewed the proposed ordinance on February 17, 1982, staff.has made a number of modifications to the content. Some of those modifications have already been described in this staff report. The following is a step-by-step explanation of all the changes which have been made. Crossed out section numbers indicate numbering changes. 9270.1. (a) Change of Use - The definition of change of use has been modified by deleting the following wording: "or any change of ownership wherein any or all of the park is to be sold". 9270.1. (g) Relocation Assistance Eligibility- Eligibility has been limited to mobile home owners with incomes less than 80 percent of the Orange County median. Unit owners residing in the park less than 180 days a year, and rental tenants shall not be eligbile for rel ocati on benef i ts. 9270.I. (h) Special Circumstances - This definition has.been deleted. 9270.3 Approval Required - The requirement that tenants of a mobile home park be given first right of refusal to purchase the park in the event of intended sale has been deleted from the ordinance. 9270.6 5. Notice of Intent - The last sentence regarding failure by the applicant to give r notice to prospective tenants who become tenants has been clarified. If the tenant is not given notice before buying in, he shall be entitled to full purchase price of the unit. 9270.11 9. Tenant Assistance Plan - A number of significant changes have been made to this section of the ordinance: I. The first paragraph has had wording added to indicate that (a) and (b) are guidelines which constitute minimum standards for an acceptable tenant ........ ! assistance plan; and that other forms of assistance as proposed by the applicant may be considered by the Planning Commission. 2. Under item (a), clarification has been added to the second sentence regarding what will be moved at the applicant's expense: "the mobile home and all readilr movable a urtenences and contents ". The fol I owi ng wor ii ng—Teas ! been deleted from the secon sentence: "of similar quality"; "and deposits" and; "any incidental". In the fourth sentence, 100 miles has been changed to 500 miles and the following wording has been deleted: "or within five hundred (500) miles if the tenant so desires and can locate an available replacement space within that distance. 3. Item (b) has been modified as follows: In the first sentence, eligible tenants are given the option of having their unit purchased rather than moved, and purchase price is to be determined using a guide such as the Kelley Blue Book for the value of the unit itself rather than a blank percentage of the value of the unit appraised in the park. In the second sentence, the following wording has been deleted: "in all cases"; and "incidental". Also, the applicant's responsibility for the cost of relocation to another form of housing within 500 miles has been reduced to 100 miles. The following sentence has been added: "if the tenant desires to move beyond 100 miles, the tenant shall assume all charges for any additional distance." The last sentence dealing with tenants who qualify under special circumstances has been deleted. ! 9270.15 3 Acceptance of Reports - Items 5 and 6 referring to return of deposits and prohibition of rent increases have been deleted. `y 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of ! Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 82-.3 for 10 days and no comments either verbal or written were received. The staff in its initial study of the project has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to action on.the code amendment, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 82-3. 1 .4.0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing, review and discuss Code Amendment No. 8 1-18 as presented and suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate. 1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. . Code Amendment No. 81-18 2. Negative Declaration No. 82-3 3. Treasure Island Relocation Plan Summary . 1 HBS:ps i j CODE A1--NDV-NT NO. 81-18 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED, "MOBILEHOME CONVERSION" The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION. 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding thereto new Article 927 entitled, "Mobilehome Conversion" to read as follows : i 9270. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. The provisions of this article will apply to all mobilehome parks in the city regardless of zoning or general plan designation, before any change of use , as defined in this code, will be allowed. 9270.1 . DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the . use of- such words and phrases : (a) Change of Use. Use of the park for a purpose other than the rental, or the holding out for rent, of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habi- tation, and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes, but is not limited to, a change of the park or any .portion thereof to a condominium , stock cooperative, planned unit development , com- mercial use , industrial use, or vacant land. (b) Mobilehome. "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street or highway by authorization or a permit in one or more sections designed and equipped for human habitation to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore, "mobile- home does not include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches, or factory-built housing resting upon permanent foundations. (c) Mobilehome Park. "Mobilehome park" is any area of land used primarily for the placing, parking or .storage of two or more mobilehomes for housekeeping, sleeping or living quarters. AJF:ahb Z) 3771`1/82 1. (d) Mobilehome Space. "Mobilehome space" is any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad or portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome. (e) Notification-Period. A 365-day notification period shall follow the date of the notice of intent during which time no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to state law. (f) Relocation Assistance Eligibility. All mobilehome owners with proven incomes less than-� percent of the Orange County median income, as determined by the Orange County Housing Information Development Office, shall be provided relocation assistance as described by California codes. Unit owners residing in the park less than 180 days a year and rental tenants shall not be entitled to any form of relocation benefits . (g) Tenant Voluntary Relocation Period. A relocation period will follow the Planning Commission' s approval of a tenant assis- tance plan. During this period tenants may elect to relocate with full benefits ; however, they are not required to do so. i 9270.3. APPROVAL REQUIRED. No person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity shall change the use of a mobilehome park without proper tenant notification and the submission of an "impact of conversion report,." deemed adequate by the Planning .Commission, and a tenant assistance plan, reviewed by the Department of Development Services and approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. 9270.5. NOTICE OF INTENT. A notice of intent to change .the use of a mobilehome park and relocate tenants shall be de livered to each tenant and to the Department of Development Services at least 365 days prior to the proposed date for the 4 change of use. Each. tenant and each person applying for the rental of a space in such. park has , or will have, received all applicable notices and rights .now or hereafter required. Written notice required by this article to tenants shall be deemed satisfied if such notices comply with the legal require- ments and are delivered by certified mail. Evidence of notice of intent shall be submitted with the tenant assistance plan, and in such form as approved by the Director of Development Services. Such notice shall not contain less than the following : (a) Name, address, and phone number of applicant or au- thorized agent; J 2. 6 M w ( b) Statement of intent; ( c) Location of property; (d) Total number of units ; ( e) Earliest possible date of change of use; ( f) A list and explanation of all state and city regula- tions in effect at the time notice of intent of change of use was mailed; and (g) Other information deemed necessary by .the Director of Development Services. In the event of failure by the applicant to give notice to prospective tenants who become tenants after notice has been mailed to existing tenants and filed with the city, such prospec- tive tenants shall be entitled to the full purchase price of the unit. 9270:7. IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT REQUIRED. Prior to the conversion of an existing mobilehome park to another use, the applicant shall submit a report on the impact of the con- version upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. 1 - - �.. The applicant shall make copies of the report available to. each resident of the mobilehome park at least fifteen (15) days prior to public hearing on the impact report before the Planning Commission. This report shall contain the following information:. (a) The availability of replacement space in mobilehome parks within one hundred (100) miles. (b) Brief description of existing mobilehome ' park, in- cluding number of spaces. 0 (c) The date of manufacture and size of each mobilehome. (d) A list of names and addresses of all tenants. (e) Makeup of existing tenant households , including family size, household income, length of residence , age of tenants, owner or renter, and primary or seasonal resident. ( f) Rental rate history of previous five (5) years . Failure to provide the report required by this section shall be explained in a declaration under penalty of perjury, setting 0 forth all reasonable efforts undertaken to discover such infor- 3. mation and reasons why said information cannot be. obtained. 9270. 9 . TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. A tenant assistance plan shall be submitted during the 365-day notification period. ,. After review by the Department of Development Services and upon approval oC the Planning Commission,- or City Council on appeal, a 180-day voluntary relocation period will begin. The tenant assistance plan shall include a statement of all relocation and moving assis- tance to be provided to each eligible tenant and all steps the applicant will take to ensure the successful relocation of each tenant. The following guidelines constitute minimum standards for an acceptable tenant assistance plan. Other forms of tenant assis- tnce, as prepared by the applicant, may be considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. (a) Any eligible' tenant shall receive 100 percent of the total cost of relocation. Those costs shall include disconnec�`i tion and breakdown of the mobilehome, transportation of the mobilehome, all readily movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehome park, the cost of all hookups at the new site, and temporary lodging expenses incurred during the move. All such expenses shall be identified and paid by the applicant at the time of the move. The park to which the unit is relocated shall be within five hundred (500) miles of the city. If the tenant desires relocation beyond five hundred (500) miles, the tenant shall be responsible for all costs associated with rel-oca- tion beyond the five hundred (500) mile limit established by this code. ✓ (b) If the eligible tenant does not elect to be relocated to another park in accordance with the provisions of this section, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any attached op- 1 tional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the ) ) tenant .at a value determined using the most recent Kelley Blue Book, . or the equivalent thereof; excluding, however , additional value for in-park location. Additionally , the applicant shall p ,o- vide 100 percent moving expenses to another form of housing se- lected by the tenant within one hundred (100) miles of the city,.;,; If the tenant desires to move beyond one hundred (100) miles, the; , tenant shall assume all charges for any additional distance. v ; 9270. 11 . ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the im- pact report and tenant assistance plan will be as approved by the Planning Commission. The reports, if acceptable, shall re- main on file with the Department of Development Services for re- view by any interested persons. ( a) Each of the tenants of the mobilehome park shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan. 4. 4 (b) The 180-day voluntary relocation period shall begin teri (10) days after approval of the tenant assistance plan. 9270. 13. PREREQUISITES TO APPROVAL OF TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. The Planning Commission shall not approve a tenant assis- tance plan for a mobilehome park change of use unless : ( a) The applicant has complied with all applicable city ordinances and state regulations in effect at the time the tenant assistance plan was approved. (b) The applicant has complied with the conditions of ap- proval , including the following items : 0' ( 1) Tenants will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases . ( 2) Tenants have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan. ( 3) Coercion has not been applied in any way to in- crease the number of vacancies. ( 4) Demolition or construction will not occur until the tenant assistance plan is approved and the twelve (12) month notification period has expired. t ' �.. 9270. 15. FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and tenant assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee estab- lished by resolution of the City Council. 9270. 17. . ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. . At the conclusion of its hearing, noticed as otherwise provided in this code , the Planning; Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny said tenant. assistance plan pursuant to the provisions of this artLcle, and such decision shall be supported by a resolution of the Plannfgg Commission setting forth its findings. SECTIg11 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the _ day of— --- _ -- -- 1982. ATTEST : --= — - -- iMayor -- -- City Clerk 5. REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM: "'City Administrator _ City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Development Services 4 6. / CITY OF HUNTINGTON 4Ch,, /i DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA.92648 Iu.f1.,•u,.oil.r n Tel: (714)536.5271 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $105.00 FOR CITY USE ONLY Development Services - City of Huntington Beanh Date Aonlicant/Authorized Agent Received: Project ND 82-3 Number: 0 P.O. 190, Huntington Beach,' Calif 92648• Department of Origin : Mailinq Address 536-5271 Other Applications, or ermit Numbers : Te- ep one P � -onerty owner . Vailin4 Address/Telephone 1. 0 Project Information (please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) 1 . 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. Mobile home park conversion ordinance involving tenant no- tification requirements and. approval of a tenant relocation assistance plan. 1.:�. Location of Project: (Address, nearest street intersections) City-wide. 1 . 3 Assessor' s Parcel Number: N/A -1- 1 . 4 ghat is the present zoning on the property? N/A 1 . 5 What is the surrounding land use to the: N/A North South East West 1 . 6 If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and other pertinent information including but not limited to estimated employment. per shift and any potential hazardous materials which may be used, etc . N/A 1 . 7 If the project is residential, indicate number, types and . size of units and associated facilities. N/A 1. 8 If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and maximum occupancy. -- N/A 1 . 9 Project land area (acres) N/A Number of -parking spaces 1. 10 Square feet of building area N/A Number of floors _ 1. 11 Height of tallest structure involved in the project N/A 2 . 0 Environmental. Setting 2 . 1 Drainage and Flood Control a) I'leas;e doscribe how on-site drainage will be accommodated . N/A -2- 2.. 2. Land Form a) Is the site presently graded? . N/A b) Indicate the gross cubic yards of grading proposed N/A the acres of land to be graded the amount of earth to be transported on the site , and the amount of earth �o be transported off the site c) What. will be the; maximum height and grade of cut or. fill after grading is completed? N/A 2. 3 Soils a) Type of soils on the .subject site? (Submit soils report if available) . N/A 2. 4 Vegetation a) Attach a map indicating the location, type and size of trees located on the site. Indicate below the number, type and size of trees to-be removed as a result of the project. N/A . 2 . 5 [dater Quality a) - Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries, bays , tidelands , or inland water areas? N/A b) Describe how the project will effect any body of .water. N/A 2. 6 Air nuality a) If the project is industrial , describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and- types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N/A 2. 7 Noise .�) l -r. ibe any adjacent off-site noise sources ( i .e. , air- Ex-irt . , industry , freeways) . N/A l�) wlr.at nciit:i• wi 11 be produced by the project:' If available , 1)1(lase dive noise levels in decible measurement and typical time distribution when noise will be produced.. N/A v -3- i C. flow will noise produced by the project compare with existing noise levels? N/A 2 . 8 Traffic Approximately how much traffic will be generated by the project : (check one) 0-50 vehicular trips per day N/A 50 - 250 vehicular trips per day 250 - 500 vehicular trips per day over 500 vehicular trips per day 3 .0 Public Services and Facilities* 3. 1 Water a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new water lines? N/A b) Please estimate the daily volume in gallons required to serve the project. N/A 3. 2 Sewer a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer lines? N/A b) Please indicate the approximate amount of sewage generated from the project. N/A 3. 3 Solid Waste a) If the project is industrial , describe the type and , amount (pounds/day). of solid waste generated by the project. N/A • 4 . 0 Social 4 . 1 Population Displacement a) I-Jill any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? This, is a requirement to mitigate the impacts of displacement. , i h) Describe briefly the type `of buildings or improvements to be demolished by the project. N/A _A- 0 5 . 0 . Mitigating ,Measures 5. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve nonrenewable resources (e.g: electricity, gas, water) ? . Please describe. N/A 5-.-2 Are there measures included in the project which- would protect or enhance flora and fauna? Please describe. N/A 5 . 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce noise pollution? Please describe. N/A � 5. 4 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project ) (e. g. architectural treatment and landscaping) which have been coordinated with design of the existing. community to t minimize visual effect? Please describe . N/A b 5..5 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce water pollution? Please describe. ' N/A 5, 6 Are there measures proposed which would reduce air pollution? List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. N/A 5. 7 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to facilitate resource recovery and/or energy conservation (e.g. s.olar' heating, special insulation, etc. ) ? Please ,describe. N/A b 6 . 0 Alternatives R 6. 1V Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives on an attached sheet. N/A 1 hervhy certify that the information herein is true and accurate to the test of my knowledge . g 2. Signature Date Filed -5- a i o CITY OF HL�NTINGTON 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 9.2648 �-- P. 0. Box 190 �� HOUSING' C AND OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Advisory Board Members FROM: Stephen V. .Kohler, Senior Community Development Specialist DATE: August .25, 1981 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF ORANGE. 000NTY'S REPORT ON RELOCATION OF TREASURE ISLAND MOBILEHOME PARK TENANTS Pursuant to a request from the HCD Citizens Advisory Board, staff requested informa- tion on the subject matter from Orange County's Environmental Management Agency. . Unfortunately, this information was. not received in sufficient time to permit dis- tribution `to CAB members in the packet for the Board's meeting of August 25, 1981. However, information was received on Monday, August 24, 1981. The County staff has requested that the contents of the report not be reproduced in full ; therefore, the. following summary is provided for the CAB's information. 1.0 Background The Treasure Island Mobilehome Park in South Laguna contains 266 spaces. Rents for the spaces within this oceanfront mobilehome park range. from $220 to $1,000 per month. Approximately 109 of. the park residents declare. Treasure Island as their permanent residence and approximately 157 residents claim that this is a part-time or second home. Residents and mobilehome owners within Treausre Island were noti- fied on May 22, 1977 of the park owner's intention to seek a change in land use (this. change in land use. has become known as Orange County's Zone Change Case 80-28). It should be noted that a significant number of the units within Treasure Island were soldsubsequent .to this notice and some, but not all , new buyers were notified of the owner's stated intention to request a change. in land use. The bulk of these resales..were by those .who had. previously declared Treausre Island as their permanent residence and purchasers of these resale units by in large declared this as a part- time residence. This resale activity resulted in the ratio of primary and .secondary occupants as stated above. . 2.0 Relocation Plan ;The proposed relocation plan for the residents of Treasure Island is attached for the CAB's review. It offers a variety of types of assistance depending upon whether or not the household to be relocated is a permanent or second-home residence and whether or not the unit was purchased before or after May 1977. The basic types of assistance are: (a). lifetime tenancy in a rental building on site, (b) cash relocation payment, or (c) 6 .10 percent discount on the purchase of a time share unit on site. At the time this relocation plan was submitted to the County staff for review, the County staff stated its belief that additional information regarding the demographic characteeis.tics of the mobilehome occupants would be required to adequately assess any Telephone(714) 536-5542 Page Two ? relocation plan. In response to this, the attached survey was distributed by the County to the residents of the mobilehome park. 3.0 Occupant.survey 4 As can be seen by the survey format attached,-the survey was designed to garner information about mobilehome park occupants regarding the age, income, length of tenancy, owners of property outside Treasure Island, age and size of unit, improve ments to unit, and any additional comments. A similar but shorter survey was also distributed to subrenters within Treasure Island. 4 The Orange County staff's concern regarding the outcome of this survey was that while a large share of the occupants responded, a 100 percent return was not garnered. In addition, since the respondents were random and not selected by any scientific procedure, the County staff questioned the viability of any conclusions drawn upon the resultant data regarding the characteristics of non-respondent households. Of the 203 responses to the survey, 119 households included narrative comments. The .issues addressed were health benefits of the park's location to its occupants, financial loss and/or hardship of relocation, difficulty of relocating- their mobile- home, emotional trauma of relocation, inability to sell unit, feeling of safety/ wellbeing, and affordable housing. 4.0 Identified Problems, in Relocation While the sponsor of the change of land use at Treasure Island does not anticipate any dislocation of occupants for approximately two years, it has been identified , .that the .conditions constraining the current occupants may worsen in the following ways: (a) other parks may be converted to other uses, (b) space rentals-may in- crease more rapidly than tenant income, (c) the market price of resale units may increase more .rapidly than tenant income. The above referenced survey gave owners . of units within Treasure Island the opportunity to comment on the anticipated loss in equity due to the planned-conversion and"removal of their unit. Of those comment , i"ng on this subject, the following comments were made: (a) the loss of value of the tenant's improvements" would be a .total loss since they cannot be moved, (b) older units which may now provide valuable shelter would be of little or no value if re- moved because no mobilehome park within the region would accept them, (c) the loss of equity and the need to provide replacement housing would be a particular strain on low income occupants and may force these occupants to seek public housing or income assistance, (d) even those units within Treasure Island that could be relocated, to another park would be worth substantially less if not located in an..oceanfront mobilehome. park. The loss of, equity under condition number 4 above may be particularly great "because, despite notice of the intention to seek conversion of the mobilehome park, many units have been resold in the recent past and much of the garnered asking price was pre- dicated upon the current location of the unit regardless of the fact that no long- term space lease existed. In addition,, the proponent of the conversion of the mobilehome park has stated that if the proposed conversion is not permitted, their plan for the continued operation of Treasure Island would pose additional problems for its current occupants. For example, (a) 'space "rentals would increase significantly, the proponent states that a •Page• Three marke-VA nalysis indicates that space rents could be at least doubled before reach- ing market value. Under this situation, no "affordable spaces" would remain in the park; .(b) the park would be maintained as::an exclusive, private, close-gate commu- 0 nity; '(c) resale of 189 units would be prohibited. State law permits owners/managers of mobilehome parks to require the removal of(certain specified mobilehome categories in an effort to upgrade a mobilehome park. Infthe case of Treasure Island this would. result in a .prohibition of the resale of these units; (4) subrentals would be forbidden. The management has the right to prohibit subrentals in any mobile- home park and in the case of .Treasure Island has stated its intention .to do so. 5.0 . Summary F As can be seen from the information provided above, the conversion of the Treasure Island Mobilehome Park represents a unique situation owing to its beach location. . However, the obstacles to relocation that have been encountered in this situation . may also apply to the conversion of any mobilehome park. It appears that the most significant problems are encountered when: (a) travel trailers or other older, smaller units exist within a mobilehome park which. cannot be accepted in any other mobilehome park within .the region, (b) the general shortage of.mobilehome spaces. available within the region even to owners of newer, larger mobilehomes. One significant point of the proposed relocation plan may be that the project's _proponents hake proposed to relocate existing low income households into a different housing type (apartments) on the same site. I hope that this information will be of assistance to the CAB in its review of the mobilehome park situation in Huntington Beach. SVK:jb attachme s NOTE: The Treasure Island Mobilehome Park conversion was considered by the Orange County Planning Commission on June 3, 1981 and July 10, 1981, 'and the County will forward this information when it is available. o. PROPOSED RELOCATION PLAN 1. Permanent Residents - Pri.or to May,. 1977 4 A. Lifetime tenancy in rental building aft rents commensurate with their space rent at time of relocation. Rent increases limited to cost of'. living. B. If option in l .A above not elected, relocation payment of $5,000 for a single. wide trailer and $8,000 for a double-wide trailer and a 10% dis- 4 count on time-share units. C. Those residents who initially occupy a rental unit and subsequently elect v to move, relocation payment of $5,000. 2. Second Home Residents - Prior to May, 1977 4 A. Relocation payment of $4,000 for a single wide trailer and $6,000 for a double wide trailer.. B. .1.0% discount on. purchase of-time-share units. 3. Permanent Residents - May 1977 to January 1, 1980 A. Relocation payment of $5,000 for a singlewide trailer and $8,000. for a double wide trailer, and 10% discount on purchase of time-share units. B. Any resident who does not elect to take the relocation payment in 3.A . above and who is determined by the County to be "in need" will have the option to occupy a unit in the rental building at an affordable rate. 4. Second Home Residents - May 1977 to March 2, 1981 10% discount on time-share units. 5. Permanent Residents - January 11 1980 to March 2, 1981 A. Lifetime tenancy in. rental building at affordable rates if resident is determined by the County to be "in need". B. 10% discount on time-sharetunits. 6. Relocation Payments Payable to tenants who own units in the park at time of issuance of the twelve months' notice to terminate required by California Civil Code, Section 798.56(f)(2). Tenants .can vacate and receive applicable relocation payments at any time after issuance of the twelve months' notice. 7. Rental Unit Eligibility ° Rental units will be made available only to those qualified residents who are residing in the park on a permanent basis at the time the rental building is ready for occupancy. 8. All Residents After March.2, 1981 No benefits. 4 EXHIBIT 19 LAW OFFICES OF OSCAR LAWLER LAWLER, FELIX & HALL 1896.1966 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE MAX FELIx 700 SOUTH FLOWER STREET SEACLIFF OFFICE PARK 1822-1954 LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90017 2120 MAIN STREET,SUITE 120 . JOHN M.MALL TELEPHONE: 12131 629�9300 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 1916.1973 17141 960.6596 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO. CABLE: OSLAW TELEX: 67-4360 (714) 850-1336 TELECOPIER: (2131 680-280S March 16 , 1982 ,NGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPT. MAR 16 1982 P. 0. Box 190 110tington Bead: -.a ., 648 The Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Code Amendment No. 81-18 Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance Dear Members of the Planning Commission: / As you know, we represent Huntington Beach Company ("HBCo" ) and Huntington Seacliff. We wrote to you on February 9, 1982 regarding our clients' views and concerns about proposed Code Amendement No. 81-18 ("the Amendment" ) . On February 17, the Amendment was considered at a hearing before the Planning Commission at which time we also offered testimony in support of our comments. Our letter of February 9 addressed certain prob- lems with the Amendment. Since the hearing; the Amendment has been redrafted in response to comments made at the. hearing. While we have not had the time to fully consider the most recent draft, we believe the new draft suffers from many of the same deficiencies we outlined in our previous correspondence and at the hearing. The purpose of this letter .is to set .forth some of the more serious problems we feel you should consider in your evaluation. of the new . draft. The Planning Comission March 16 , 1982 , Page 2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS 1. The Restrictions On The Freedom Of A Park Owner To Go Out Of Business May Violate Substantive Due Process Rights. As indicated in our previous correspondence, we believe that an ordinance which has the practical effect of making. a park owner' s closure of a mobilehome park prohibi- tively expensive is beyond the regulatory powers of the City and violates the California and United States Constitutions. We are not. in a position to assess the financial impact that the Amendment may have on park owners , and whether those burdens will have the practical effect of requiring mobilehome park owners to remain in business . To the extent that the Amendment imposes unreasonable financial burdens, we believe that it violates the park owner' s constitutionally protected rights. 2. The Change Of Use Procedures Contained In The Amendment Are Preempted By State Law. We have previously indicated that state law does not permit a city to regulate change of use procedures for . mobilehome parks because those procedures have been preempted by state law. The Amendment attempts to establish such procedures; therefore, it is preempted by state law. Even if it is assumed for sake of argument that the City can create procedures for park closures, those procedures cannot conflict with the existing format estab- lished by the California Legislature. The new version of the Amendment still contains provisions that could require a mobilehome park owner to wait up to two years. after serving a notice of intent to change use before undertaking such a change.. Those provisions clearly conflict with state law which presently allows a park owner to undertake a change of use by giving tenants six months' notice after all necessary permits have been obtained. The Planning Commission March 16 , 1982 Page 3 3. The Amendment Impairs Existing Contractual Rights of Park Owners. Under California law, all mobilehome park leases are required to incorporate the provisions of the Mobilehome Residency Law. The Amendment still contains provisions which conflict with state law and thus alter existing contractual rights between mobilehome park owners and tenants. Accordingly, those provisions constitute invalid impairments of existing contractual rights and violate both the United States and California Constitutions. As we pointed out in our earlier letter, the problem can be avoided simply by providing that the provisions of the Amendment apply prospectively, i. e. to leases entered into on or. after the effective date of the Amendment. The Amendment as presently drafted contains no such language. DRAFTING AND CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS We identified in our previous correspondence and at the hearing a number of provisions which we felt rendered . the Amendment unworkable. Many of the provisions i,n ques- tion have been deleted, while others have been retained. The following paragraphs highlight the more serious drafting and conceptual problems in the present form of the Amendment: 1. Section 9270. 1 (f) states that relocation assistance will be provided to "eligible tenants" who have "proven incomes" of less than 800 of the Orange County median income. In what way is the income to be "proven" and who is to make that determination? The section also requires mobilehome park owners to provide "relocation assistance as described by California codes. " It is not. clear what relocation assistance the section refers to and whether such assistance is in addition to the relocation assistance pro- vided in the Amendment. 2. Section 9270. 1 (g) provides that tenants may elect to relocate with full benefits during the voluntary relocation period. This section should be limited to "eligible tenants" as that term is defined in Section 9270. 1 (f) . In The Planning Commission March 16 , 1982 Page 4 addition, we do not believe that the last clause beginning with the word "however" adds anything to the section and tends to be confusing. 3 . Section . 9270. 3 refers to "proper tenant noti- fication. " If what is meant by proper tenant notification is notice of intent pursuant to Section 9270 . 5, then the section should be amended to reflect that meaning. If some other meaning is intended, the section should be redrafted accordingly. 4 . The second paragraph of Section 9270 . 5 makes little or no sense as presently drafted. We assume the purpose of the paragraph is to protect tenants who move into a mobilehome park after the park owner has served the other tenants with notices of intent to change use. Other than that, we do not understand the paragraph. 5. The third paragraph of Section 9270. 5 requires the notice of intent to comply with "the legal require- a ments. " It is unclear what legal requirements are contem- plated by this section. 6 . . The fourth paragraph of Section 9270. 5 requires the park owner to submit "evidence of notice of intent. " We believe what this paragraph is intended to cover is the evidence of service of notice of intent. If that is the case., the words "service of" should be inserted after the words "evidence of" in the first sentence. 7 . Section 9270. 5 (f) still provides that a park owner may not change the park to another use without first serving a notice of intent to change use containing "a list and explanation of all state and city regulations in effect at the time notice of intent of change of use was mailed. " By this section, park owners are required to perform the impossible task of explaining all state and city regulations, whether or not related to mobilehome parks . - Aside from this obvious drafting error, even if what is meant by the language is to require mobilehome park owners to explain all regulations .pertaining to mobilehome park closures, it is still an un- reasonable burden. Mobilehome park owners should not be re- quired to provide such a legal analysis. The Planning Commission March 16, 1982 Page 5 8. The last paragraph in Section 9270. 5" requires park owners to purchase the trailers of tenants who move into the park after a notice of intent to change use has been filed with the City and who never received a copy of that notice. The benefits granted by this paragraph should be limited to prospective tenants who notify mobilehome park owners of their prospective tenancy. It is not uncommon for a tenant to move into a mobilehome park without the park . owner' s knowledge. If that occurs, a mobilehome park owner should not be penalized by having to pay the full purchase price of the mobile home of the tenant who moved in without notice. The duty to notify the owner should be imposed on both the existing and prospective tenant and proof that both have complied with such notification should be required. 9. Section 9270. 7 requires park owners to submit a report on the impact upon displaced tenants due to a mobilehome park conversion. As was the case with the earlier draft, many of the items of information to be included are unnecessary and may be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. 10. Section 9270. 9 (a) requires mobilehome park owners to pay all costs of relocation. The Amendment should require that the total amount of such costs be approved as part of the Tenant Assistance Plan. Prior approval will avoid later disputes about the amounts to be paid. Those costs should also be limited to reasonable amounts. In addition, the section requires owners to pay lodging ex- penses incurred by tenants during relocation and specifies that those expenses are to be paid at the time of relocation. The term "temporary lodging expenses" is not defined in the Amendment and there is no limit on the amount of expenses a tenant could presumably incur in connection with relocation. Moreover , there is no way the expenses can be .paid at the time of the move because they will not be known until after they have been -incurred. 11. Section 9270. 9 (b) . uses a number of terms which are undefined. The terms "attached optional equip- ment, " "tag-a-longs" and "expando rooms" .are terms which may have different meanings to different people. To the extent they are subject to different interpretation, they are ambiguous. Finally, under this paragraph moving expenses are to be paid by the mobilehome park owner in the same The Planning Commission March ,16 , 1982 Page 6 manner as they are to be paid under Section 9270. 9 (a) . The concerns we expressed -with respect to "temporary lodging expenses" in our discussion of Section 9270. 9 (a) apply equally to the provisions of Section 9270. 9 (b) dealing with "moving expenses. " 12. Section 9270. 13 indicates that the Planning Commission shall not approve a Tenant Assistance Plan if the ' , mobilehome park owner has applied coercion to increase the number of vacancies in the park. The section does not state what constitutes coercion or when the coercion must have occurred. Such a provision lends itself to needless accusa- tions which may delay approval of the Tenant Assistance Plan . for all of the other tenants. In addition; there should be , a limit on the amount of time that can elapse between the alleged coercion and the time a tenant raises coercion as an objection to a park closure. A purported coercive act should not be relevant to the owner' s change of use if it occurred several years before the notice of intent to change use is given. , PRACTICAL PROBLEMS To the extent that the Amendment requires unreason- able amounts to be paid to tenants in connection with their relocation, two results will necessarily follow. First, it will undoutedly result in an increased rent to mobilehome park tenants. - Second, it will discourage any further mobile- home park development within the City. Both results are based on a mobilehome park owner' s need to obtain a reason- able rate of return on invested capital. We would like to reiterate that these comments are not intended to be all inclusive. Furthermore, we have not had an opportunity to make an in-depth analysis of the Amendment since we only received a copy late in the after- , noon on March 15. Nevertheless, we felt it would be helpful for you to have our preliminary thoughts for consideration at the hearing this evening. The type of comments we have made could and should be made and developed more fully at a V ' The Planning Commission March 16 , 1982 Page 7 study session with all interested parties invited to partici- pate. Of course, we would be pleased to participate in such a session. Very truly yours, Kenneth L. Waggoner KLW:vlw ' cc :' The Honorable Ruth Finley, Mayor Members of the City Council C. W. Thompson, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney • EXHIBIT 20 A JA f ' CITY OF 1-IdiNTINGTON BEACH BEAC1-1 �a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION PLANNING DEPT. HUNTING ION BfA Ai JAN 14 To J/1MFS P11L,IPI From rr/l f i., IIl1'I"I'OId P. U. 130x 190 Director , Development Services City Attorney 1-1-rVirti,-;i ftac; Subject I'1ELLO-GREEN HOUSING BILL Date January 7 , 1982 We have been asked whether SB 626 (Mello-Green) Affects mobilehome resident . . We assume you are referring to the impact oC the bill on changing; existing mobilehome parks' to other land uses. To analyze, the problem , we address two questions : ( 1) Are mobilehomes " residential dwelling units" under the Mello bill? ( 2) If so , under what circumstances does Mello require replacement housing? The Mello hill essept:i.ally requires that , where feasible , new housing developmehto provide housing for low and moderate income persons , and that replacement housing be provided , where fea s_i_ble , when residential dwelling units occupied by persons of low and moderate income are demolished or converted . Nowhere in the Mello hill is there any mention of mohilehomes. The conversion and demolition of "existing residential dwelling units" triggers the replacement cequirement of the bill . however , that phrase is nowhere defined in the bill . We have spoken with Russ Felix , the attorney for the League of California Cities who monitored the bill . His opinion is that mobilehomes are included within the phrase "residential dwelling unit. " He said the requirements of the Mello hill are analgous to redevelopment and coastal commission treatment . Note that Health & _ Safety Goode_ §33410 , et seq . , dealing with relocation of persons displaced by redevelopment projects , contains similar provisions for replacement housing. Section 3301.3 require „ replacement; units whenever "dwelling units" housing low and moderate income persons are destroyed or removed . however , "dwelling Unit" is not defined , and there are no cases yonst ru- ing the applicability of that article to mobilehomes. Tt is significant; that the code deCin:i_tion of "mohil.ehome" now call; it a " st;ruct ur& with not more than two "dwn L .I. _nE units" to he ur.eci with nr without a. CoundKion system ( Hna th & NFety Code §18008) . Prior to 1979 , a mobilehome was a defined as a " structure . " ( Health & Safety Code 518008 ; Vehicle Code §396 ; Health A Safety Code §0 11 . ) The-germ "dwelling unit " JAHES, 'PALIN Ja3nunxy 7 , 1982 Mello-Green Housing Bill Page T w o J.3 also used in thernanul'act-,urf:d housingOriohilpholll(? ) 1".1w tomean11 one or Inc)Ile , hab 1-1-1'ah le rooms vihic li are d esij,ned to he o ccup ied hy one family with facilitit s for living , cookinj-,, , eating, , and sanitation. ( fe,11th F( Safety Code §18005 - 5 ) . Mobilehoines, do not include recreational vehicles , commercial coaches , or factory- built housing ( health & Safety Code §18008) . It appears that the legislature considers mohilehoirins f-.o * be s7truc- tUres containing; dwelling tin]-ts , which parallels the lang,uage of the * Mello bill-. In view of the foregoing , it. i%,nuld appea,r that the langijai,e, in the Mello hill includes, mohil-ehomes within the ambit of the term " residential dwelling, units . The protection aCCorded by the Mello bill to mobil-ehoines i,,:; , }nor,,- ever , rather limited . As noted above , the replacement requirements are triggered by "conversion or demolition" of existing units. "Conversion" is -I chanfre ,, to a. condominium , cooperative , or similar form of owner ship , none of which are pertinent to mohilehomes. "Conversion" is also a change "of a residential dwelling to a non- residential. use . ". Thus , "conversion" will not occur if mobil-ehomes i for other residential uses. -Nor would "conversion" ar e displaced occur if a mobilehorne dwelling is removed. trhia.e -it might. he con- tended that evicting a niohilehorrie dwelling and t1lien changing, the land use to nonresidential i_q a "conversion ," the larigl,ia.mP does not strongly support this interpretation , since it spei.ks specifically of changing 11ra residential. dwelling" to a nonresidential use . it does, not cover removal of a dwelling, and then ch,-Irigin'- I-lie 1,--ind use , or changing a residential land use designation Signation to nonr,esidenti--il. There is a conversion under Me'llo only if a particular mobilehome dwelling is changed to a nonresidential use . ."Demolition" is "the demolition of a residential dwelling which has been found feasible for retention" under the Coastal Act ( Public Resources Code §30612) . But generally mohil-ehoines i-iould riot be demolished ;' they viould be evicted pursuant to applicable landlord- tenant laws and subject to the protections of Civil- Code �, 798- 55 et seq . " Demolition" is, not precisely defined , but 7—the coninion meaning oC "demolish" is to "pull' or tear down , destroy. " An argument aright be made that "demolition" means the elimination or removal of the dwelling, from the site , even if I he striicture is riot (I e s t r o ye d ; b u t, that, contention appears to g,o 1)(,-y o n d th(, 'p I(.i.j.n langllag'e of the Mello I)III . The Coastal Coinmis.­, lon has also applied the common meaning of "demolition" and has not extended the word to encompass removal . dnv(�Io p in(,n I-, S" occur , H(n 11 o I'I lal; , :1, ( Ceasil)le , housing); he, nrovided for low and liloder;it,n il-tcol;le persons and families . The phr,9sr, 1'nel-i housinf;" is not de.Nnc-'rl in the hill , but presumably it would include any new residenLi,-,il construction. JAMES PAKIN Unuary 7 , 19R2 Mello-Green Housing Bill Page Three The definition or "housing development" in the sLmhe housinj-, policy does not appear to aDply since it only deals with housing publicly Financed to provide housing primarily For personsand families oP low and moderate Income . THATERA Saretj,Code 550073 ) . To apply this definition would eviserate the NOW bill , since only new developments of housing primarily for low and moderate income persons and Families would F,_-1v­e`F0_ provide housing units for low and moderate income persons and families. Curiously , the exceptions the act provides from replacement re- quirem,V3 ( i . e . , conversion or demolition of a structure with less than three dwelling units , or if more than one residential structure , then TO or fewer dwelling unitp) do not appear to apply to new developments . Hopefully , local regulations can address these amOtguitie3 , since it scarcely appears " feasible'' to provide low cost housing where a landowner in building only one or two single family homes . Conversely , some low cost hous- Ing units would probably be required in any large , new residential development , such as might occur if a mobilehome park were elimi- nated and residential units constructed . In this situation , some mobilehome dwellepsimight benefit from the availability of units. for low and moderate income persons and jamilies. Therefore , the replacement requirements of the Mello hill appear to apply , if at all , only when mobilehome dwellings are changed to a nonresidential use , an unusual occurrence in mohilehome parks . Also , some low cost housing could be required in new housing developments. Thus , the protections the bill would appear at first blush to afford mohilehomas are largely illusory. It seems apparent that the bill was not written with mohilehomos . in mind , since it would have been a simple drafting chore to write it to apply to conversions of mobilehome sites to other uses. In the last analysis , this question may be resolved in the course of the "considerable litigation" we predicted in our October 28 memo , in this situation between the landowners and mobilehome owners. GAIT, j_jUTT0fJ City Attorney GH: RCS :p s z� EXHIBIT 20 B C.TFV OF FlUMIFIGTO" BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION P ANNING DEPT. PJ - I it IN[IN(,..I6N BiA(Ii !AN 2 -,!. 1982 D To COUNCILPffi,50ti D-AILUY From GAIL I P. 0. Box 190 City Attoriiey Subject Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance and Date January 20, 1982 Proposal to Rezone Existing- Legal Hon- corifoi-Tiing, Mobile Home Pat,ks to the Appropriate Zone. rl'his memorandum is to confirm the advice ,you have previously received. It Is assumed that any ordinance the city would adopt* would restrict all park conversions wheLhei, oi, not a park was properly zoned. The argument logically could b(--- oracle that by restricting use to what is essentially a prohibited use would amour it to deprivation of property without due process of law. 0 Thus , in time it would be necessary to bring, the zoning of the property in conformance with actual use, but this is the goal of all zoning and land use . If a park owner were to allow his park to go vacant it �,�,, Ild be difficult to see how the ordinance could prevent it . How 0 could the city require the owner to continue in operation? An abandonment and a coincident application for conforming use would trigger a need for action by the governing body as it would be considered intolerable by the o.�jjrts to maintain a zone classification upon land to which the owner is denied a legal use . In summary, a landowner could probably avoid the sanctions of a mobile home conversion ordinance by vacatin-g hs property . i However, the governn-ing body could rezone the property to make the park rase conforming d(nfeating, his abandonment scheme . If the rezone were not forthcoming with-In a rea^onable period of time , the landowner could mandate the city to allovi develop- ment in conformance with the existing land use regulati.on. G!1:t,Jsj1:I-fic b cc : Honorable Mayor, Rul-lh Finley and 11jember-; of the City Council- C,1-ia_r1.e,-) W. 'Fhoii-ipson , City !Administrator,0 Arthur J . Folge.i_­, Deputy City At-.tor�lley Jim Palin., Director of De.velopment Servic.es CITY OF HUNTINGTO" BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 11k)N11N(_,T()N REACH EXHIBIT 20 C To 1.10110RAHLE, f1AYOR From (;A I I., 1111111,0113 MEMBERS OF THE' CT111Y (110UNCLI., i I ", /A 1,1 1,11(,.v SL)GjE!Ct Date .(I Mobjjr? lJoTip- 2 � Oud i 11au) rc,(,1; on Hu n 1-, 1 rig I.-on Shores Moh.ile Hotne llai,k for 11he ,,�Ilhjcct have I-11e npinion the pvonosrd oi,dinance will not qffect-. (,onvri,,, ion or theAi, nark because rnanrlfrc nteni. h'id hren ah1c, to F'Ivr,. Ilrd i r n of, ii-.s inLent . close Fil I,t-1 1)e I- th"ll-, they 11,vle (."nfilp,] 1c'd vil'I'll the Stl=) f,e Jrl ;Iwh 1—frnt"I 'Ind , th"r,cfni,c , ,wp excnlpf. f'i,oin 1,11(, (, 11,y1 ,,; rq,(1111"mce . Th(, h I v e how(' !(?)' cited no '11-II.-hovil'y ,:')ch is t;hq 1tlw . Unlrss I)y ,,t-.ate lacy or, c -ILY or,dinitir.c, i1ic i,c, 'I p ex r fit 1)t A o pn.t,ks in t1w cotivr-i—)-lon py°occss prior' to the f'rf"(-('t,iV(' date nr 1,11c, nr,dirinnne would be uhject io nny cnlldlf-ion�', J)Pwed upon vel or.-I'l-J.0n at the date the oi,(litirmce ir; effer.I'A.ve . 'I'll Sri t-. 1,c;11' cl a I,-e w 0 1),1 d �q)pe;ir I-lo he the d,,)A.-.e of tho r,eJocat,i.o n of I cnrinr i,a i-her, than t fic, &O-.e or the no J c e of j.n L ei I t, f- I-e 1,111.1 nn.1 r t I f__1 I I IS 0 N 0 t- r for, t pill i.t 1;.i.fI-i(-)I I or Inol)-i le h�.)rnr, is flovei,iied by c',J v 1 1. C C)d p �7 9 5.) A tj n)JI rl I I'l I, s I'l c I I III(I I,s s1 I-(, 'I I, wide c c)n c c, .1) 1 r ,t :could( s -3 1oc- I if,enry w0i_l' h ir i r cuI L 1 1 I rl�ro r, s hn r,I ( 1 Anti c e her i n cl AI s n thrl imi fill ei­ or pi vi nf.r, no 1-21 u c, ;Ind the I j-k e, .1 f i,egli itc_,d 1).v the ;)t.nte 1 .iW . I flow(,v e r by t-.he pr-c)pnFed cil,,v nr,dina.nce dea.ls with (-,h;-anfre of use noL notice or the giving of noiice . 1' r the. fjoti I I- p-i Vet I by 1-11.jr I I-,j I If rton S I I o I,f)r; k. as -Idequ 0 .indr-r— thr sl-�ite 1'�­fw it cnilld i-h('n 1.11c in I pa I* 1 1pon i-ho llot,ioe 11 e-,r, i o(.1 Wolf I rl 1.1 o t-1 he 11 IA)I e I'()I- an,y 1,o I o c') I,i 1.) c,o f I-,s 1.tit 1) d by t-1 h e c,i t, Y or d i I I'a 1-1 c c, i ri t 11 c 1)e 1,i o d 1)o I, I I o c, 1)1-1 p.I'J_ I o I I I()v c . A ,i.r.,e I I v the s c s I I-I I i tins -1 11 t-1 e n cl r d I c) el)- ni 1),I two kinds or i I-, 1;J_c)n T 1-1 I'e(jtl i.l,c,r; I t Wc,1V frioll I'll It(.)I.J c when the p j-,c)1)c I-I-,y 0 11 c d r()I- In()1) i I r, I I nf n(, Ij t; :In,I I .I x Ill o I 111 1) 11 1-, 1 c f, Whin -,1 "-,oil(, is tireded I.P tllw II c Thu:_, j 1) 1,(11,1) s ;i p rn',: I - ,I (,;1 1, o 1, ill 1,n I I r, wo 10.d h fr i v(7:t I \1 c I 1,cl j.I ,,If I c. Ww i i (I not.o h,-, 1, Y ;I f'(, 1)o:; J in fit r,,,; . if the Memo to Mayor and CounKI Mcmheri.; Page Two February 23 , 1982 Subject : Mobile Home Conversion OrdLnnner prdpoked ordinance is a valid rxercisr A the pnlira power than it will not change the i-intirr requivemenUs of the shate Ow but-, it would place condillions upon which a now use would he allowed . Tt iSjenSy to place reSli- jokionS on dev�(zJolyllejjf-, anct tire . Tt is clear that nearly any restriction , Prasnnahly PrInOd Q the transaction and which is not cnnfiscahory , will hn upheld by the co.url;s . However, it is dIfFicult WpTace rushpiclions on non- use or vacancy . For this rendnn , if no permAs Ore HCAcd to make a park vacant the rKy would be limited to providing thrit*. no tenant shill—h? ovirtnd Vkhout qrovIdOr For rclocaLion wiKI a criminal snnctlon For violation . This would Npprar to take from the landlord UK riaht to not, enwgp in N pnrticular business or dcounation . TO the UnApd States and California forbid this kind of stntp intrusion into private matters in the lonF- run non-emergency situation . .;ii ,e we have not seen an adopted version of the mnbLIe home con version ordinance ye cannot comment 1­11A)ACI in dAY1 . However , wn. do not necessarily agree that a tenant or HunhinK Shapes would be excluded from the protection of a Properly drnWH ordinance merely berause he has Neon given a notice under the stAr law . We believe that if the next use of then HuntinVan Shores is N nQn-use or varancV , then , there would he no feasible way to require a relocation benefit. to displaced tenants . Tf thp next use is an allowed usp in thr Fone and no development permits are required , thp prApnsrd ordinance could require a conversion permit and vnuld Forbid nny future develhpmenh by permit dcul;ih injunction or of-hpi- lcgal means in cases of non-compliancn . Ultimately , Al proncrLies should Q MHP(l for the usn Nctually mrinvINted Cor thp prrhQphy . WOO, the city pronosps to do is to miner sanrhlonn on the ahahemPHt -f P declared nuisance This is inhrrently Ancnnsishent and some thought shouAd be given Q this pr6hinm . r"A r [I I it IT'llol'i City Athormy GH : WSA : bl) C/f f Q Z u � D CITY OF ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA CIVIC CENTER,200 South Anaheim Boulevard,Third Floor 0 e 0 a Anaheim,California 92805_ Office of Telephone: CITY ATTORNEY 714/999.5169 BEACH �NNIN6 DEPT. 'November 25, 1981 P. 0. Box 19C) Attached for your information is a copy of a proposed Ordinance that was introduced at the Anaheim City Council Meeting on November 24 , 1981. This Ordinance will incorporate into the Anaheim Municipal Code the provisions of Government Code, Section 65863 . 7 relating to conversions of mobilehome parks to other uses . The City Council will consider the Ordinance for final adoption on Tuesday, December 1, 1981 . i You may wish to attend the December 1, 1981 meeting to comment on the proposed Ordinance. Very truly yours, t WILLIAM P. HOPK T City Attorney IATPH: in Attach. i i i N 13.? T7t f l '�C L" 0 C IT `-J. 1iic�)_!(V r• 'i7:` :)�•�.•r�1CiJ �:.} .�� .��1 M.i � ?��[x7•L'I�. �il .i�G dip �1T 18 OF ` HF A IA:TEIM `1L7Z1ICIPA; CODE RELA`?'I`IO TO 2.7ti I'TI- THE CITY COUkiCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAH IM TOES ORJAI21 AS FOLLCW S SECTION? 1 . That new section 18.02 .051 be, and the same is hereby, added to Chapter 19.02 of Title 18 of the Anahein Municipal Code, to read as followsi "18.02 .051 M62ILE:110'AE. PARK CO?JVERSIONS Prior to the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, except pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, the person or entity proposing such change in use shall files a report with the City on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion an displaced mobilehome park residents, the report shall address the availability of adequate- replacement space in mobilehome perks . The person proposing such change in use shall eke a copy of the recnrt available to each resi- dent of the mobilehome, park at least fifteen ( 15 ) days prior to the hearing on the impact report by the City hearing body. The City hearing body shall review such ranort , prior to any change or: use, and may require , as a condition o.f such change, the person or entity to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the con- version on the ability of displaced mobilehome Dark . residents to find . adequate space in a mobilehome park. For purposes of this Section, the Planning Commission shall be deemed the City hearing body for any changes of use for which a Zone Reclassification,; Conditional Use Permit, or Zone Variance is required. 'fhe decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal to the City Council in the manner otherwise set forth in this Title . The City Council shall- be deemed the City hearing body with regard to any other proposed change or use . -I- li ' o permit or othir entitierient s}-.a_._ is issile.[d by t};P, C:ity ant'hor iZ?nq }hP corveraion. of a mobiie''rome Darr: to ^nothyr use, .and no ^erscn rr T1a11. convert a _nCji4.l 1, +-1 � � ^t 3 n n g jar{ o � hAr us , r'_ following compliance with the provisions of this Section. " 5-'Z+Ti0:i 2 . T' he City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this or- dinance and shall cause the same to be printed once within fl teen ( 15 ) days after its adoption i.n the Anaheim Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation, -printed, published and circul'sted in said City,. and thirty (30) days fro-m and after its final passage, it shall: take ef:ect and. b® in full force . TH%1 FOREGOING ORDIN "CE is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this day of MAYOR OF "11-1E CITY OF A17AITEIM ATTEST CITY CF,_,ERX 07 TTUE .CITY OF ANA.11 E I JLW rfm 1 1 _a_ 1 t-ke.D 0}-f- l-I-1 1►'1 f-e ; ORDINANCE NO. 79-498 AN ORDIIIA14CE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS AMENDING THE .SAN MARCOS MUNICI- PAL CODE BY.ADDING ARTICLE I AND II, CHAPTER 15, PERTAINING TO MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSIONS. The City Council of the City of San Marcos DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the San Marcos Municipal Code be Amended by adding- Article I, Establishment and Operation of Mobilehome Parks , of Chapter 15 , Mobilehomes 'and Mobilehome Parks. Wording in Sections 15-1 through 15-6 'hereby remain the same. .CHAPTER 15 MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS 'ARTICLE I ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS SECTION II: That the San .Marcos Municipal Code be amended by adding Article II, Mobilehome Park Conversions, of Chapter 15, Mobilehomes and Mobile Home Parks. CHAPTER 15 'MOBILE HOMES :AND MOBILE HOME PARKS ARTICLE 'II MOBILE HOME .PARK CONVERSIONS Sec. 15-7 - SCOPE QF ARTICLE. Unrestricted conversion of mobile home parks to other uses diminishes the mobile home stock and space availability; The protection of tenants and. potential purchasers of mobile homes, warrants-. the"implementation 'of certain regulatory safe- guards. The City recognizes the need to insure that the private sector exercises its responsibilities to provide varieid 'housing choices and opportunities , and that City participation in this ' } responsibility is necessary. Sec. 15-8 = INTENT. The intent of this article is to insure that mobile home park opportunities are available to residents of San Marcos, and to -insure that mobile home park conversions provide for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. AGEDA ITEM ` Sec. ' 5-9 - REQUIR£:1ENTS. a) Use of property as a mobile home ,park shall not be terminated .for the purpose of conversion to another land use until application for mobile home park conversion has been made to the Planning Department and approval by the Planning Conmission a or City Council, on appeal, has been received. b) No building permits shall be issued on property I occupied by a mobile home park at the effective date of this ordinance or hereinafter for uses other than those associated with-the mobile home ` park use and allowed under the Special Use Permit, until approval under.Section 9(.a) has been received. c) Applications for a mobile home park conversion shall be made to, the Planning Department and in addition to the complete application, along with a $300.00 filing fee, the following information is required: 1. Plans indicating what use the conversion. is in- tended to be. 2. Time table for conversion of the park. 3. If proposed conversion is to a use not consistent. with the underlying zone, the applicant shall file concurrently, a Specific Plan Zone Reclassi- fication. 4. Total spaces within the park; number of spaces occupied; length of time each space has been - occupied by present tenant; monthly rate currently . charged. S. Environmental Assessment form. r Seca 15-10 -' PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW. _ a) Within 90 days following the submittal of an application for . f mobile home park conversion and all .required information, the matter shall be set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. b) The Planning Commissi©n •within 30 days after the close of the public hearing shall render a decision on whether or not. the conversion shall be approved, based upon the findings set forth in Section 11. c) The of the Planning Commission m,'~',be appealed to , r the City Council by the filing of a letter, requesting appeal of the Planning Commission decision within 11 days after the decision of- the Planning Commission has been .filed in the office of the Planning Commission. Such an appeal shall be r in writing and shall specify where there was error in the i . decision of the Planning Commission with regard to the required findings. d) Within 60 days following the filing of said ;appeal, the City Council .shall hold a public hearing on the matter and within 30 days following the" close of that hearing, the City Council shall render a decision on the conversion. The City Council shall not grant a conversion denied by the Planning Commission, except upon order of the City Council passed by not less than a four-fifths (4/5) vote of all members thereof. Sec. 15-11 = FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION. In reviewing request for a mobile home park conversion, the Planning Commssion and City Council shall, at a minimum, take the following factors into consideration when rendering a decision: a) There exists sufficient mobile home space availability within. the North County Branch of the Superior Court geographic area to accommodate- the-displaced mobile homes. b) The conversion will not. result in the displacement of low income individuals or households who cannot afford rents charged in other parks. . c) That the age, type and .style of mobile home within the park proposed for conversion would be accepted into other parks within the geographic area. d) If the conversion is to another residential use, ,the mobile home park .residnets have first opportunity to occupy these a units and the construction schedule will not result in long term displacement. e) The proposed conversion is consistent with the San Marcos r General Plana f) The proposed converion is pursuant to the public health, safety and welfare. r �g) The conversion will not result in a shortage of housing opportunities and choices within the City of San Marcos. Sec. 15-12 _ .CONDITIONS. In the* approval of a mobile home park conversion, the City may attach conditions. deemed reasonable in order to mitigate the impacts associated with the conversion. Such conditions shall not be limited to, but may include .the following: a) Partial payment for relocation of mobile homes to another* park. b) If the land occupied by the park is to be sold, the tenants be given the first right of refusal accepting the offer of 1 the seller for the purchase of the park and all the improve-, ments. c) The. tenants be given the option of a long term lease of, the land and purchase of the improvements. d) The City may attach an effective date upon their approval of the conversion. Said date will provide sufficient time for the relocation of the mobile homes to ther parks. Said time ' limit .shall at a minimum, be one year. e) If the mobile homes cannot be relocated to parks in the area, the applicant may be required to purchase said mobile homes at fair market value, determined by an independent appraiser with mobile home expertise. SECTION III: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of.its passage, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of. this Ordinance and cause same .to be published and posted in the manner required by law. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos .this day of , 1979 , by the follow- ing roll call vote s AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: ATTEST: TNDREW G. FIAMENGO , MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS SHEILAc I I'F�llY' CITY .0 EL�Ra - 141 R-1.1}I-# MOBILEIIONIF RESIDENTIAL USE. REGULATIONS i (fin (#=Number which denotes approximate dwelling units per acre.) P, O. .(Added by Ord. No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted 10-10-79) I J. .�.i^"'.��� �,;;Ch, •r= �1' SAN DIE60 COUNTY 2160 INTENT. The provisions of Sections 2160 through 2163, inclusive, shall be known as the R4U Mobilehome Residential Use Regulations. These regulations are intended to create and preserve areas for Mobilehome Residential uses; and to avoid the economic and social dislocations, and reduction of housing stock resulting from conversion of mobilehome parks to other uses. Typi- cally, these Use Regulations would be applied to rural, suburban, and urban areas where adequate levels of public services are available and where it is appropriate to create a permanent mobilehome residential area and,maintain such area once developed. Various applications of the R-NIN Use Regulations with appropriate development or special area designators can create a low density, rural mobilehome environment, a traditional urban mobilehome park,, or mobilehome subdivisions. 1 (Added by Ord. -No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted 10-10-79) 2162 PERMITTED USES. The following use types are permitted by the R-MH Use Regulations: . i a. . Civic Use Types. Essential Services Fire Protection Services (See Section 6905) r b. Agricultural Use Types. Horticulture: Cultivation Tree Crops Row and Field Crops (Added by Ord. No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted 10-10-79) 2163 PERMITTED USES SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS. The following use types are permitted by the R-MlI Use Regulations subject to the applicable provisions of Section 2980. The number in quotes following the use type refers to the subsection of Section 2980 which applies. a. Residential Use Types. Mobilehome Residential "18" 1. (Added by Ord. No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted. 10-10-79) 1 2164 .2164 USES SUBJECT TO MINOR USE PEIWIT. The following use types are permitted by the R-H.1 Use Regulations upon issuance of a Minor Use Permit. a. Civic Use Types. Day Care/Small Schools Minor Impact Utilities (Added by Ord(. No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted 10-10-79) i 2165 USES SUBJECT TO ,dAJOR USE. PERMIT. The following use types are permitted by the R-1-1I1 Ilse Regulations, upon issuance of a Major Use Permit. a. Civic Ilse Types. Administrative Services .Clinic Services Community Recreation Cultural Exhibits and Library Services Group Care Lodge, Fraternal and. Civic Assembly Major Impact Services and Utilities Parking Services Postal Services Religious Assembly b. Extractive Use Types. Site Preparation. D (Added by Ord. No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted 10-10-79) 2166 USES SUBJECT TO MAJOR USE. PERMIT IN CERTAIN PLANNED DFVIiLOPMFNTS. The following use types are permitted by the R4III Use Regulations if approved by a major use permit as part of a Planned Development which has the minimum site area required by Section 6610 and which is developed pursuant to the Planned Development Standards commencing at Section 6600. (Added by Ord. No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted 1)-10-79) p (.Amended by Ord. No. S787 (N.S.) adopted 6-4-80) a. Commercial Use Types. Administrative and Professional Services Agricultural Sales Automotive and Equipment: Parking p .-Business Support Services Convenience Sales and Personal Services Fating and Drinking Establishments 2166 a. Commercial Use ,Types (continued) Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services Food and Beverage Retail Sales Medical Services Participant Sports and Recreation (all types) Personal Services, General Retail Sales: General Spectator Sports and Entertainment: Limited (Added by Ord. No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted 10-10-79) 2168 SPECIAL PROVISIONS: R-MH USE REGULATIONS. The following are permitted by the R-MH Ilse Regulations prior to establish- ment of mobilehome residential uses. a. A major use permit may be granted to authorize any use not involving a significant, investment in structures for a period of time not exceeding five years. b. An administrative permit may be granted by the Director to authorize alteration or. expansion of existing structures, or erection of accessory structures, if such construction does not Binder the eventual development of the property for Mobilehome Residential uses. (Added by Ord. No. 5612 (N.S.) adopted 10-10-79) 7500 t. ZONING ORDINANCE MENDMENT PROCEDURE 3 7500 TITLE AND PURPOSE. The provision of Section 7500 through 7549, inclusive, shall be known as the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Procedure. The purpose of these provisions is to ! prescribe the the procedure by which changes may be made in the text of the Zoning Ordinance and the application thereof to land within San Diego County. This procedure shall apply to all requests to change any property from one zone to another or to impose any regulation not theretofore imposed or to remove or modify any such regulation theretofore imposed. ! 7501 MIEN ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL BE APPENDED. The Zoning Ordinance shall be amended as necessary to implement the San Diego County..General Plan and to ensure consistency of the Zoning Ordinance with ! the General Plan, as provided by Sections 1001 and 1002, respectively. 7502 JURISDICTION. The Board of Supervisors shall have jurisdiction with respect to granting, ! denying, or modifying requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the. Board of Supervisors on all requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance. 7503 REQUESTS TO A14END THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Requests to amend the Zoning Ordinance may be initiated by; a. The application of a property owner or the agent of such owner seeking an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as applied to his property. b. A person authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain. C. The order of the Board of Supervisors. ! d. The order of the Planning Commission. 12-80 7--05 7505 APPLICATION OF PROPERTY OWNER. The application of a property owner or the agent of such owner requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, as applied to his property shall be made as follows: a. Application Form, Filing, and Fee. An application requesting an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance shall be made on the prescribed form, shall be filed with the Planning Commission, and shall be accompanied by the fee referenced in Section 7602. / b. Required Documents. An application requesting an amendment: to the Zoning Ordinance shall be accompanied by the following documents: 1. A list of the names of all persons having an interest in the application as well as the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. If any person / identified pursuant to this provision is a corporation or _a partnership, the names of all persons owning more than 10 percent of the shares in the corporation or owning any partner- ship interest in the partnership shall be listed. If any person identified pursuant to this provision is a non-profit organi- zation or trust, the names of all persons serving as directors of the non-profit organization or as beneficiaries, trustees and trustors of the trust shall be listed. 2, Complete description of the requested amendment. / 3 3. The appropriate environmental impact review document, as provided . by Section 7610. C. Additional Documents Required for Mobilehome Parks. 1. An application .requesting an amendment to the. Zoning Ordinance on property containing an existing mobilehome park and zoned for exclusive mobilehome park usage by either the R-MH Use Regulation or the "A" Building Type Designator shall request provisional reclassification pursuant to Section 7509 and contain the following information and/or documents specified herein: 1 i. The number of spaces within the existing park. ii. A list of names and addresses of all tenants within the park for use by the Department in giving notice. iii. The date of manufacture and size of each mobilehome and 1 the current replacement value affected by the relocation. The replacement value shall be determined in the same manner as used by standard insurance replacement criteria. iv. The estimated cost of relocation of each mobilehome affected by the proposed change of use. 1 V. The length of tenancy by each tenant. l 1 12-80 7505 1` vi. The estimated income, age and number of tenants affected by the proposed change of use. f vii. The number of alternative sites available to the tenants / including written commitments from the owners of those parks to accept the relocated units and tenants. viii. A time table for vacating the existing park. ix. A statement and concept plan indicating what use the park / site is intended to accommodate. x. Evidence satisfactory to the Director that mutually accept- able agreements have been reached on the part of the park owner and all tenants to vacate the park commencing upon provisional reclassification. Such evidence may include, / but, is not limited to the following: (1) Written agreements to relocate mobilehomes; and (2) Assistance for low and, moderate income tenants in the form of payment by the park owner of 80%, up to / a maximum of $2,000, of the cost of relocating the mobilehome to. another' mobilehome park within 100 miles. xi. If such evidence specified in "x" above is not included in the application, then the Director of Planning and Land Use shall recommend reasonable conditions to mitigate any �. adverse impacts on tenants of the mobilehome park .to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to be included as a condition of the provisional reclassification of the property. 2. Nothwithstanding the provisions of Section 7505(c) (1), a park owner who elected to give a 5-year notice to vacate may file an application for reclassification or provisional reclassifi- cation if evidence is provided that the following provisions were met or the following provisions must be completed before the provisional reclassification is removed: / i. ' The mobilehome park owner shall provide evidence that a notice to vacate pursuant to Section 798.56(f) of the Civil Code has been issued and ii. Informed each tenant of the rent and location of a number 1 of available spaces equal to the number of occupied units to be displaced,-and iii. Assisted each tenant in relocating the tenant's mobilehome to any new space within 100 miles in accordance with the following schedule: 1 i2-80 1` /505 IF TENA;T VACATES PORTION OF EXPENSES UP TO A BEFORE END OF PAID 3Y OWTNEP. ;1AXII iUi i OF 1 1st year 80% $20000 2nd year . 600, 12500 3rd year 40010- '12000 4th year 200j 500 Sth year -0- -0- 1 (Added by Ord. No. 5905 (TI.S.) adopted 10-8-30) 7506 PLANNING COHIISSION ACTION. 1 a. Public IIearing. Upon the initiation of a request to amend the Toning Ordinance pursuant to Section 7503, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing in all cases where they are required to do so by the California Government Code. In other cases, the Planning Commission may, hold such public hearings as it deems appropriate. 1 Public hearing shall be scheduled and noticed as required by Sections 7603 and 7605, respectively. b. Commission ;;ecommcndation. Following the public hearings on a requested amendment, or if no hearing is held, within 40 days from the date of the request, the Planning Commission shall render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendation and .the relationship of the requested amendment to the San Diego County General Plan. c. Notice of Recommendation. The recommendation of the Planning Com- mission shall be transmitted to the party requesting the amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. d. Appeal of Unfavorable Recommendation. A recommendation by the Planning Commission on an amendment request, which proposes to change property .from one zone to another and which recommends that the / request be denied and makes no alternative recommendation, may be appealed .by written application to the Board of Supervisors within 40 days after the Planning Commission transmits its recommendation to the Board. 1 1 ` 1 12-80 § i tr 1 ►;1.3 PLAI IMNG § 7.9-1,19.4 a. Alobilchomes shall not be located regulations, subject to the approval of a use t further than one hundred (100) permit application and the additional pro feet from. a trash storage area. visions of this section. Application for ap- proval of a use perrnit for a mobilehome b. Each trash and refuse storage area park conversion shall include, but not be shall he within a totally enclosed limited to: stnrcture with a minimum height of sLY (6) feet. (1) A staterent of intent as to a proposed concept plan for use of property and (3) Recreation facilities. A minimum of time schedule for conversion. one hundred (100) square feet of area, available to all residents, shall he pro- (2) A site. plan indicating the existing vided for each mobilehome dwelling spaces, identified by number and unit. The recreation area may include whether presently occupied, and a clubhouse, swimming pool, outdoor schedule of rents for occupied spaces. recreation facilities, and any other usable open space areas, and shall not (3) The estimated costs for relocation of be less than twenty-five (25) feet in any each mobilehome, a statement of avail- one dimension. ability of comparahle mobilehome rental spaces, and a list of those mobile- (e) Exceptions. When the approving authority homes that cannot qualify for reloca- finds that any of tyre regulations of subset- tion in another mobilehome park. tions (c) and (d) of this section are exces- sive when applied to a specific mobilehome (4) An engineering report prepared and park, or that there are special circum- signed by a licensed civil engineer in- stances applicable to the subject property dicating general condition of all struc- that cause any of these regulations to be tural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical ;. unnecessary or inappropriate, an exception elements and other improvements on to or deviation from such regulations may the property, and the estimated cost of he approved as a part of the use permit for repair or improvement of any existing the mobilehome park. (Ord. No. 3209, § conditions which require rehabilitatio 1, 8-13-80) Said report shall be verified• dated and signed by the Director, EMA and be Sec. 7-9-149.4. Mobilehome park conversion made available to prospective buyers. regulations. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure (b) Tenant notification and rights.- that conversion of mobilehome parks to mobile- home subdivisions will continue to }:provide resi- (1) Each use permit application for conver- dential mobilehome opportunities to residents sion shall be acTompanied by a corn- of Orange County that desire to maintain such plete list containing the narnes and ad- lifestyle. These rcg,ulations are also intended to dresses of all tenants of the mobile-ensure the appropriateness of any such conver-. home park and two (2) corresponding sion in terms of consistency with the Orange sets of stamped addressed envelopes. County General flan. The Director shall forward a copy of the report of general condition speci- In addition to the standards set forth in sec- . fied in (a) above, alon,, with notifica- tions 7-9-1.19.1. 7-9-1,19.2 or 7-9-110, as appli- tion to each tenant of the proposrl and cable, each mobih,howe park conversion shall the applicable procedures, including the comply with , the following requirements: notice of public hearini�, no less than fifteen (15) days after the filing of the (a) Use pe nrit required. \Iohilehonre park con application. The Director :hall mail. a versions are pernritt(•d in compliance with notice of JAINiC hearin:: at ICast frlteen the applicable mobilehone subdivision (15) days hrfore the hcarin- to each . Supp. No, 25 2736.5 1 (5) If the mohilehome cannot be relocated implementing the General flan and applicable to other rnobilehome parks in .)range zoning regulations. j County, the applicant shall be required to purchase the rnohilehomes within Each feature plan shall show a proposed the park at a fair market value as'deter- development coricept for an identified area of mined by an independent appraiser real property. All valuable features and 1 with mobilehome expertise. resources shall be identified and listed as to >(e) Conditions of approval. The approving whether they will be preserved, removed or do authority may, in its approval, attach such stroyed. The method or procedures by which conditions as it deems necessary and such valuable resources and features are to be reasonable to mitigate any negative im- preserved and protected or removed, or the pacts associated with the proposed con- justification for their destruction, shall be in- version. (Ord: No. 3209, § 1, 8-13-80) eluded, as a part of the application. Each appli- cation shall also include an arterial hi;hways Sec. 7-9-150. Permits and procedures, plan showing the approximate location and All references to section 7-9-150 include sec- method and timing of improvement of such tions 7-9-150.1 through 7-9.150.7. highways, a concept grading plan showing the 1 approximate amount and depth of all cut and All permits included within this section are fill areas, and a draina;e plan indicating how discretionary permits. runoff waters %ill be collected and transported to a satisfactory disposal point. A feature plan (a) DiscretionarN, actions.' All permits may also include infrastructure and support included within this section are discretionary facilities such as local streets, schools, parks and 1 permits. A discretionary permit is a permit is- utilities. sued or approved by the County of Orange as the result of an application wherein the County Feature plans are processed initially in com- retains the right to either approve or disapprove. pliance with the provisions of section 7-9-1 55, .ti This section provides the procedures and amendments and. Reclassifications, except that ! requirements for processing discretionary permit Board of Supervisors' action shall he by resoiu- 1 applications and the criteria and conditions con- tion. Feature plans may be amended any sidered to be necessary so that an appropriate number of times in compliance with the pro% - decision regarding each such application may be. sions of section, 7-9-150.2(b), Public Hearings. made by the appropriate approving authority. A The Planning Commission is the approving discretionary permit application may he pro. authority for feature plan amendments, except cessed in compliance with the provisions of this when the Commission finds that an amendment 1 code, a zoning ordinance, an adopted specific application.proposes a change in policy from the plan, by condition of approval on a tentative originally. approved feature plan, such amend- map, by a requirement of another discretionary ment application shall be processed in the store permit or where specifically permitted by the manner as the original f,Ztture plan. «`henever provisions of this section. A discretionary permit an amendment has been approved, such amend- application shall only be processed when specifi- meets shall supersede the feature plan previously 1 cally authorized or required by one of the above• in effect. 1n the case of a question of con- sistency between the General Plan-or applicable (b) Who nra'- file: A discretionary permit ap- zoning regulations and the feature flan; such plication may be submitted only by a property feature plan shall be considered to be the owner of the subject property, by his authorized method by which such general plan or zoning acent, or by a public agency. (Code 1961, § regulations are explained and implemented, 78.0270: Ord. No. 2656, § 2 2-28-73; Ord. No, and the feature plan shall prevail. 1 2809, § 1, 2-5-75; Ord. No. 2919, § 1, 6-16-76; Orel. No. 3219, 21, 10-1-80) After the date of final determination, the policies and concepts of an approved feature Sec. 7-9-150.1. Types or permits. plan shall be applicable to the pronertY included (a) Featarr plans. The purl�ow of a feature _ within the hound:iries of the f(-rrture plan until plan is to provide a conceptual method for such time as the fcatuw plan is aniended or the Su.pp. No. 26 2737 1 i 11!'�l�!�`, J A N AN ORDINANCE OF !HE, CiT , OF PISNO BEACH Ar1Ei10Li'.1G THE SU311VI'SIGN AND ZCNIIiNG 0 0 NANCES TO ADD MGM TENANT PROTECTION PROVI.S;OiIS 'J'HiEN ':E.NTAL PAPKS ARE SUBDIVIDED OR CH,A,'1GED TO OTHER USES . '.,iHEREAS , TaKlehome parks have traditionally been developed and operated under the basic concept of one owner of all real property and improvements , with spaces rented, to individuals who in-est large sums to purchase and install their o,,,in mobilehomes on said spaces as their personal and permanent residence -, and WHEREAS , there appears to be a growing state and national trend by moblle- home park owners to sjbd,.*,/ide and s,,! ! individual spaces in mobilehom-e parks , with common areas under the ownership of a h on, e d,.,i n e r-s association; and WHE,"-EAS , there also appears to ce a reasonable prcbability --hat some mobilehome park owners may seek to terminate existing mcbilehcme park operati::ns by converting to a new and- different land use on the mobile.hcmie park property ; and WHEREAS , there is nota an acute shortage of rental mobiehome park spaces in the City of Pismo Beach , and any such subdivision or change of land use 'Hill further diminish the availability of ,such rental spaces ; and WHEREAS , this Council finds that additional regulation and control o,- any such su3d,, vision o', chan,,,e of land use is necessary and appropriate in the City of Pismo Eeack A q revent potantia Adverse impans on the residents of the mobile-' home park being subdivided , including , without 110M cn , ( *1',, sc:-ver'e adverse financial cons-2querc2s on .01 tenants , (2) disrupEion c' the of the elderly and of established 1004 patterns for the handicapped, and (3) inability of displaced tenants to find comparable and suitable mobillehoi-ne park o . rental spaces . in the City, or even in nearby conununities . g 17 C P i S,.-r.C a C BE 1T OROAMED 5y t Ly Of as f o I W.-is SECTFON I The Subdivision Ordinance is hersby amended by adding therezo the Section l6 a2 tIddi tional =rov;; ions For Subdi its ;on or =xis ~ inc. ,cbi l ho;;• s ! A. 0efini ions 1 . Existing mob ilei,cme parks as used herein shall mean any real property .ghich in the preceding t,;ro years has been used in ! part or in whole for mobilehome parks as defined. in the Cali for nia Health and Safety Code , and which has not subse- quently received any approval or entitlement from the City ! for a new or di ;ferent use. B. The City shall not approve the subdivision of any existing mobilehcme park for the continuing usage of mobile or modular homes as residen- ! zial units unless the owner of the park gives adequate guarantees and assurances satisfactory to the City vihic,h provide the folle,.-ring minimum tenant protections.: 1. Except for those lots purchased by ,current residents under paragraph B(2) hereof, or vacated voluntarily by existing tenants under paragraph 8(3) hereof, no lots shall be sold or transferred ;iithin U.•ro years after the recordation of -he Tinai subdivision map. - The owner shall continue to oper--7e ! the mobilehome park as before , with renal increases limited to cost-of-living adjustments approved by the Planning Commission, or by the City Council on aoperl . 2. Residents of the mobilehome park at the tlme t` e subdivision application is filed shall be given a first right of refusal , ! exercisable for one year after the recordation of the fi ^al map , to purchase the lot upon which t;-,eir mobilehome is situated. Reasonable financing arrangements shall be offered to said resident purchasers , which shall be no. more than ten per cent down payment, and no less than fifteen years to pay the balance . The purchase .price for said residents shall either be: (a) ten percent less thin the price i"or ;ihich ccmparable lots are or will be offered to the public ; or (b) tine full prices of any/ off?i inn to the cerer-a l ,jubl ;c , less the real estate cGr llssion pa id C,i "ne Sale or ,- r -2- ioCS , anC wi th tie pure aser en :i t led to a reba i f ^e i ty determines within `' o ye3t'S Char. owner ccm.2ara,� ie lots actually sold for less than the porported of`?ring price . The o,rtner and thi subdivider shall make their books availabl.P to the City when required to make any such determination. 3. The owner shall , during the first taro years , offer to all tenants �riho move voluntarily , a minimum lump sum payment of S1000. 00, plus the actual cost of relocating the terant' s mooile- home and appertinent structures to any other mobilehome park or reasonably accessible site of the tenant ' s choice within 250 miles of Pismo Beach . The owner may offer additional amounts to ten.3nts to leave voluntarily provided th,:t such additional amounts are offered generally to all tenants , and reimbursement made to those who moved previously ,without receiving such additional amount . 4. Special pretecticns must be provided for the elderly and t;,e physically handicapped. The owner shall be required to Provide annua.i non-assignable leases , .with automatic rene,.-rals for a term of no less than 15 years , for all tenants of a mobil= home where at least one tenant was over 55 years of age , or ,gas physically handicapped as determined by the State of California , at the time of riling the final subdivision ,Tap . Throughout said lease tern, the lump sum and moving paymen S of paragraph B(.1) hereof shall be offered to said tenants . In addition , and without any requirement that the owner reim- bur se tenanils who have moved previously , the U'rhlc'r -iiay Ofi cr the tenants additional amounts to mode during said lease term. Nothing herein shall prevent the original owner after the first two years from selling or transferring any lot subject to such a lease , Provided that the subsequent o,.,.ner be given notice or , and .agree to abide by , t1,e provisions -;--reef. Rental increase ; during the lease shall be limited to annual cost of living increasEs . 5. In lieu of the provisions of paragraphs ( d) above , the tenant may at an;/ Circe sell his mobllenor;e to the G',iner upon Suer, t r- s as t,�,� rn tug i l agree to . C. Before approving any such subdivision , the Planning Cornmission , or the City Council upon appea 1, shall also make the findings based upon substantial evidence presented at a public hearing that there exists sufficien-: mobilehome space availability ;/i,thin seven miles of the City of Pismo Beach to accommodate the mobile homes to be displaced by reason of the conversion , and that the age , type , and style of mobilehomes within the park proposed for conversion will be accepted into other parks within said distance . D. Applications shall contain the follo,;ring items : t 1 . Copies of the pl,)t plan of the park including all existing and proposed structures , landscaping, walls , parking areas , walkways ..and other facilities as prescribed by the Community Development Director. 2. Copies of building plans and elevations of existing and prcpesed structures . 3. Time table for conversion of the park. 4. The total number of spaces ;iithin the park, the number of spaces occupied , length of time each space has been occupied by the present tenant , names and addresses of -- 11 existing tenants , .monthly rents for each space over previous t,;io years and any other information deemed necessary by either the Community Development Director or the' Planning COmmission. Section 11 : The Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by adding thereto the follo,ding section: Section 16 . 42 . 10 Restrictions on Change of Land Use , The City shall not authorize , permit or approve a change of land use for an existing mobilehome park , or any porticn thereof , unless the City is satisfied, either by use permit or other enforceable requirements or -4- restrictions , that the minimum . .enant Protections set forth in Section 16 . 42 (3) and (C ) of the subdivision ordinance have been adequately satisfied and r.rocecte-d . The anal decision by the City on any such use permit or requirem,,ent sha11 be ciade by the City Council after a noticed public hearing . SECTION III : Notification Provisions : A . The provisions for Tenant. Notification as contained in Sections I .E . 1 and 2 of the CondoRiinium. Conversion Ordinance shall also apply to mobilehome park conversions insofar as applicable. SECTION I'l : Penalties for Evasion of Ordinance. A . It. shall be unlawful for any owner of an existing mobilehome park , or for any person acting for him or on his behalf, with the intent to evade any requirement of this ordinance , to evict any tenant, or to take any other coercive action against any tenent. The City shall be deemed to have notice of any such act , and the statute of limitations for prosecution of any such violation shall begin to run, upon the date that an. application is filed to subdivide or change the land use for said real property. B . In addition to and completely separate from , the foregoing criminal penalties , the Cit;a shall not approve any application for subdivision of change of land use for an existing mobilehome park if the Council finds upon substantial evidence presented at a public hearing , that any such eviction or act of coercion was done with- the intent to evade ' the provisions hereof. SECTION V : THis ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage and within fifteen (15) days thereof shall be posted , together with the names of the Councilpersons voting thereon , in three public places in the City of Pis,-no zacr: , to wit: 1 . U .S . Post Office in Shell 3eacn 2. Corner of Pomeroy and Cypress Streets 3 . Entrance to the Pismo Beach Pier . INTROOUCEJ at a regularmeeting of the City Council held this loth day of 9301 by the follow,-ling roll tail vote : BEACH PLANNING DEPT. ORDINANCE NO . 1894 J A N I 8 R(0 P. 0. ©ox 19.0 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH13'-'fir AMENDING TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A MOBILE HOME a_ PARK DISTRICT The City Council -of the City of Newport. Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows : D SECTION 1 . Chapter 20 . 20 .of the. Newport Beach Munici - pal Code is hereby . adopted to read as follows: Chapter 20 . 20 . MOBILE HOME PARKS Sect.i ons : 20 . 20 . 010 Intent 20 . 20 . 020 Definitions 20 . 20 . 030 Criteria for Application of Zone 20 . 20 .040 Uses Permitted 20 .20 .050 Removal of the Mobile Home . Park Overlay Zone . 20 . 20 . 010 INTENT . The Mobile Home Park Residential Zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to permit the application of a mobile h_omd zone to parcels of land devel J oped with .mobile •home parks and zoned with a primary under- lying zoning designation . The purpose of the mobile home park zone is to designate 'ex.isting mobile home parks in J appropriate locations for mobile home park uses in .order that these uses may be encouraged , maintained , and protected . The regulations of this district are designed to achieve an D environment of stable , desirable residential character and preserve areas or communities developed with mobile home residential uses . Whenever reference is made in this 3 section or on any districting maps to MHP , this. shall mean Mobile 'Home Park Overlay Zone . 20 . 20 . 020 DEFINITIONS . As used in this Chapter , the following terms shall have the meanings indicated : J ( a ) Mobile home - "Mobile home " is a structure transportable on a street or highway by D authorization or a permit in one or more sections designed and equipped for human a habitation to be used with- or without a foundation system. Mobile home includes manufactured homes but does not include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches , J or factory-built housing.. ( b ) Mobile home park - "Mobile home park " is any area of land used primarily for the J placing , parking or storage of two or more mobile homes for housekeeping , sleeping or 1 i vi ng quarters . J ( c ) Mobile home space - "Mobile home space " is any area , tract of land , site , lot, pad or J portion of a .mobile home park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobile home . J 20 . 20 . 030 CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF. ZONE . The City Council , in making its determination whether to apply the MPH ,zone to any particular property , shall. consider D the following factors in making its determination as to whether the MHP . zone is appropriate for the property : (a ) Existing zoning and General Plan designations . J (b ) The age and condition of the mobile home park . ( c ) The relationship of the mobile home park to J surrounding land uses . ( d ) Vehicle access. to the a.rea under consideration . (e ) Site area . ( f) Site configuration . 2 - 20 . 20 . 040 USES PERMITTED . (a.) Mobile, home parks as regulated by the State of J California . Q (b ) Accessory uses and structures incidental to D the operation of mobile home parks such as recreation facilities and/or .community centers . .of a non-commercial nature , either public or private , storage facilities for the use of the mobile hone park residents and any other uses or structures that are incidental to the opera- tion of a mobile home park . (c ) Whenever property is zoned MHP , .any use permit- ted by the underlying zoning of such property J shall not be permitted . 20 . 20 . 050 REMOVAL OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE . The City Council shall not approve a zoning amendment for any parcel , which amendment would have the effect of removing the h1HP designation from that property , unle.ss the following. findings have been made : (a ) That the proposed zoning is consistent with. the General Plan of. :the City .of Newport Beach and all elements thereof, and in the event .that D the proposed zoning is P-C, that the Planned Community Development Plan has been submitted and is consistent with the General Plan and all elements thereof; ( b:) That the property which is the subject of the D zoning amendment would be more appropriately developed in accordance with uses .permitted by the underlying zoning , or proposed zoning , and if the. underlying zoning or proposed zoning is 3 - P-C , that a Planned Community Development Plan has been submitted and the property would be more appropriately developed with the .uses specified in. that plan ;. . a (c ) That a mobile home park phaseout plan has a been prepared , reviewed and considered and found to be acceptable . A -phaseout plan shall not be found to be acceptable unless At includes ( 1 ) a time schedule and method by which existing mobile homes , cabanas , ramadas and other substantial improvements and tenants , •are to b_e relocated or appro- priately compensated ; ( 2 ) methods o.f miti - gating the housing impacts on tenants having J low and mod2rat•e incomes , elderly tenants and tenants who are handi.capped ; . ( 3 ) the programs or other means that are to be J implemented such that the housing impacts on those _described in ( 2 ) , above , are mitigated . For purposes of this provision , J " low and moderate incomes " shall be defined in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Element of the City of Newport Beach . SECTION 2 . This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City and the same shall be. effective J thirty ( 30 ) days after the date of its adoption . This Ordinance w.as introduced at a regular meeting of the City , Council o:f the City of Newport Beach held .on the 9th day of D November , 1981 and was adopted on the llth day of January , 1982 by the following vote , to wit : 4 - ExNlalT Lz, huntington teach aeveiopment service;; ueY �Aibn STAf f r- TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: March 16, 1982 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 - MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE_ 1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Continue the public hearing; review and discuss Code Amendment No. 81-I8 as presented and suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate. 2.0 ANALYSIS: On February 17, 1982, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to consider Code Amendment No. 81-18. Upon review of the code amendment, the Commission directed staff to provide an analysis of the following items: I. Rezoning non-conforming parks to MH 2. Zoning vacant land for MH 3. Mobile home park preservation and development programs ` 4. Analysis of State Law as it pertains to the ordinance 5. Simplification of the ordinance 6. Ordinance Equitability As per Commission directive, the following is an analysis of each item listed above. 2.1 Rezoning of Non-Conforming Parks In an August 1981 report to the City Council, staff provided an analysis of non-conforming mobile home parks and the issues related to rezoning those parks to MH. That report was sent to the Planning Commission in the March 2, 1982 packet for informational purposes. Briefly, the report makes the following conclusions: I. Of the City's seven non-conforming parks, action to rezone to MH could be initiated on two parks outside the Coastal Zone (Huntington Mobile Estates and Rancho Del Rey) and such action would be consistent with the general plan. 2. One park outside the Coastal Zone (Beachview) would clearly require a general plan amendment if it were to be rezoned to MH. 3.. Rezoning of the four non-conforming parks in the Coastal Zone would only he an interim measure until the specific plan was completed. A•F M-23A 1 • The proposed Coastal Specific Plan, however, only encompasses two of the four non-conforming Coastal Zone parks. Of those two, only one (Driftwood) has been designated in the plan for a mobile home overlay zone. -The other park (Huntington Shores) is not presently slated for a mobile home overlay. Of the other two non-conforming Coastal Zone parks, one (Pacific Trailer Park) could be rezoned to MH without a general plan amendment. Rezoning of the other park (Cabrillo) would require an amendment to the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. It appears that rezoning the non-conforming parks to MH may be a complicated and time-consuming task. It would be necessary for the Planning Commission and City Council to decide which parks should be designated permanent and temporary uses. It could also bring lawsuits involving inverse condemnation because such action could constitute downzoning. Rather than rezone, it would be more desirable to place a mobile home overlay zone on the non-conforming parks. Such an overlay would essentially acknowledge that the parks are temporary uses. The overlay could not be removed, however, unless the provisions of the mobile home park conversion ordinance were complied with. On the other hand, if the ordinance is drafted to apply to all parks, regardless of zoning (as it presently is), there may be no need to apply overlay zoning. 2.2 Zoning Vacant Land For MH Staff was also directed to study -the possibility of zoning vacant land in the City MH in order to attract new development of mobile home parks. There is available land, primarily along the Gothard Corridor and in the Ellis-Goldenwest Area which may be suited for mobile home park development, MH zoning was placed on Meadowlark Airport • approximately one year ago. While such development may provide additional opportunities for affordable new housing in the City, it probably would not provide significant opportunities for displaced mobile home park residents with used coaches. It is likely that a new mobile home park developer/operator would not permit used coaches in a new park. When demand is high and vacancy rates are low, it is common for park owners to successfully allow only new double-wide coaches in their parks. Higher rents can be charged for space in a park occupied exclusively by newer units. The high cost of developing a mobile home park, as detailed in the next section of this report, indicates that anew park owner would certainly have to require new and large unit policies to promote a high quality environment which would make the necessary high space rents marketable. While such a policy may be attractive to new mobile home buyers, it would likely exclude the vast majority of future displaced mobile home park residents in the City. If the City were to require that used units be accepted, it is unlikely that new mobile home park development could be attracted to the City. Adoption of a mobile home park conversion ordinance as proposed would also likely discourage new park development. S Another aspect of mobile home zoning which merits brief mention is the possibility of modifying the ordinance code to allow mobile homes in single-family zones. Senate Bill 1960 was enacted in 1981 which required cities to allow 1976 and newer mobile homes on r permanent foundations in single family zones. The high local land values and restrictions on coach age, however, prevent this option from providing a viaije solution for displaced mobile home park residents in the City. A third zoning related issue concerns the City's existing mobile home ordinance. As it exists now, mobile home parks are.limited to a maximum density of nine units per acre. 16 The City may wish to consider increasing that density to 15 units per acre. When a park initiates action for change of use, other parks could then conceivably add spaces to accommodate and profit from the displaced tenants. Parks located on land general planned for low density, however, would require general plan amendments, to medium density before such action could be taken. 2.3 Mobile Home Park Preservation and Development Programs If new mobile home parks are developed in the City to provide replacement space for dislocated park residents, they will likely have to be developed by the City. The City's HCD Office provided the following analysis of funding programs and feasibility for park development and preservation, as well as alternative housing types for displaced residents..,: 2.3.1 Use of HCD Funds for "Shelter" Parks The use of Block Grant funds to acquire real property and provide on-site and off-site improvements to create a mobile home park would be an eligible expenditure of Block Grant funds. Suggestions have been made that abandoned school sites and marginally productive commercial.centers could be purchased by.the City and developed as "shelter' parks. However, it is doubtful that sufficient Block Grant resources are availabe.to produce a mobile home park. It is first necessary to assess the feasibility of using HCD funds for the provision of a new mobile home park that could provide alternative spaces for occupants displaced by the conversion of a mobile home park. Obviously, the costs of real property, public facility . and infrastructure improvements, and site development for any new housing,development . are high. One of the key elements for the provision of a new mobile home park would be the location and acquisition of an appropriate site. A potentially feasible site within Huntington Beach was used to prepare the cost figures for this hypothetical mobile home park and a value of $375,000 - $450,000 per acre is used. In addition, once a site is located, costs will be incurred for the improvement of the site including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, utility extensions, streets, private open space and recreation facilities. Based upon the most recent proposal for a privately-owned mobile horne park within Huntington Beach, these costs would total approximately $13,000 per mobile home space; therefore, the costs for a hypothetical . mobile home park would total as follows: Land Acquisition (Hypothetical 10acre site): $3.75 million - $4.5 million The Improvement Costs (Assuming 10 units per acre Qa $13,000 per space) $1.3 million 41 Total:. $5.05 million - $.5.8 mil-lion The average cost per space is $50,050 to $58,000. It is believed that these figures are conservative because they do not include other inherent costs of development such as environmental review documentation, architect/consultant fees, or public utility extensions which might be required off site. Obviously the development of a new mobile home park wil I require substantial capital investment beyond the currently available HCD funds . As can be seen from the discussion of development costs above, provision of a new mobile , home park would be 'a substantial drain of HCD resources. Of additional concern is that, if the City were to provide a new mobile home park either as a City-owned "shelter" park or as a park to be leased to a private entity for managment, a.relatively few number of households would benefit. In exchange for the City's efforts to locate and develop a site as a mobile home park and to select tenants to occupy this park, only approximately 100 households would benefit. Using the estimated development costs of $6 million for a 100 ' space mobile home park, it can be seen that the development costs alone would total $60,000 per household assisted. This would be a substantial contribution of Block Grant funds to assist relatively few of the 3,236 households currently residing in mobile homes in the City of Huntington Beach. It should also be noted that the City is currently pursuing the implementation of the recently published Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program. This document contains.comprehensive recommendations for physical development and improvements in several selected portions of the City. While a variety of financial resources would be brought to bear to accomplish the tasks outlined in the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program, it is anticipated that, at least initially, the commencement of these activities will draw heavily upon Community Development Block Grant funds. 41 In the meantime, it can be seen that the development costs of the new mobile home park would require the commitment of the entire Block Grant entitlement (estimated in Fiscal Year 1982-83 to be $ 1,231,000) for a period of six years. Despite the importance of the mobile home issue, it is unlikely that it could successfully outweigh all other physical development needs in the City for such a long period of time. 2.3.2 State Programs For Park Preservation The State of California Department of HCD does provide (through AB 333/SB 229) a California Homeownership Assistance Program; basically, this program provides: (1) .State equity participation loans for apartment tenants whose units have been converted to condominiums, or (2) eligible mobile home park tenants whose parks are being converted to condominiums or stock cooperatives, or converted to some other type of land use. While this program might have been of some assistance to mobile home park tenants in the City of Huntington Beach, all funds have already been committed. �--•• It should also be pointed out that, even if a mobile home subdivision was created and State funds were available for mortgage loans, unless the City was willing to make spaces available at a price below the cost of development, participants would be faced with the amortization of a loan that would inlcude the $60,000 in development costs plus the price of the unit suitable for attachment to a permanent foundation (the only type of_unit financible with State funds). 2.3.3 Alternative Housing Types The strategy with perhaps the greatest potential for assistance to displaced tenants is relocation to housing of another type. If mobile home tenants displaced by whatever means are relocated to site built housing (e.g., apartments/condominiums) a far greater density can be achieved and land and development costs can be amortized over a for greater number of units. It is significant to note that, at its meeting of June 17, 1981, the City's Mobile Home Park Committee, after discussing a variety of issues regarding mobile homes, agreed that costs of a new park are far beyond the Housing and Community Development Block Grant resources available and further agreed that the City should investigate relocation of displaced mobile home tenants to other types of replacement housing. This strategy is again evidenced in the relocation plan submitted-by the proponents of the conversion of the Treasure Island Mobile Home Park in South Laguna (see attachment #3). In this :.` instance, the project sponsors suggested that housing units of an alternative type could be provided on-site. Besides the obvious cost savings in providing higher density housing for displacees, the provision of units on-site may be less disruptive and may be the only circumstance under which tenants may be relocated to alternative housing still within the coastal zone. Obviously to achieve this will require the cooperation and financial support of any private sponsor proposing to convert the use of an existing mobile home park. In addition to alternative type housing provided on-site, the potential for replacement housing also exists through the implementation of the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program; specifically, the Talbert-Beach and Meadowlark Airport areas are identified in the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program as potential replacement housing sites. 2.4 Analysis of State Law as it Pertains to the Ordinance The Planning Commission directed staff to provide'•an analysis of existing State Law and what its relationship with the draft ordinance would be, particularly in terms of pre-emption. The following is a review of the applicable State Laws governing mobile home park conversions and a rationale for including those laws in the City's ordinance. The first step in regulating mobile home park conversions is to determine what exactly constitutes a change of use. Section 798.10 of the Civil Code (Mobile Home:Residency Law) defines "change of use" as follows: 0 "Change of use" means a use of the park for a_purpose other than the rental, or the holding out for rent, of two or more mobile home sites to accommodate mobile homes used for human habitation, and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes, but is not limited to, a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative, planned unit development, or any 111 form of ownership wherein spaces within the park are to be sold. • As stated in a previous communication, staff has discussed the above definition with the State Office of Housing and Community Development and received the unofficial determination that the definition includes closure of a park (reversion to vacant land) as a change of use. In order to avoid confusion, staff has used virtually the some definition of "change.of use". in the proposed ordinance, but has also added specific reference to vacant land. Staff is of the opinion that leaving out reference to reversion to vacant land would open a large loop-hole in the ordinance. Any park owner could avoid relocation requirements by, simply arguing that he was going out of business and planning to leave the land vacant. Two or three years later he could conceivably begin construction of the new use without ever having been required to provide relocation assistance. A second State Law involving mobile home park change of use involves notification of termination of tenancy as established in Section 798.56 of the Civil Code. This section of the code establishes a "12 month or more" notification period prior to the change of use of a park. Again, the proposed ordinance establishes a similar minimum 12 month notification period. The proposed ordinance also.requires a 180 day voluntary relocation period which may run concurrently with the 12 month notification period. A third State Law requires that an impact of conversion report be filed with the legislative body prior to the conversion of a mobile home park to another use. This requirement is established in Section 65863.7 of the Government Code. Discussion with the State Department of Housing and Community Development has indicated that notification of termination of tenancy due to a planned change of use as defined by the Civil Code would activate the Government Code requirement for filing of an impact of conversion report. The proposed ordinance incorporates this requirement and further defines the issues which should be addressed in the impact of conversion report. Also included in Section 65863.7 is the statement that upon review of the impact of conversion report, the legislative body may require mitigation of impacts prior to the 4 change of use. The proposed ordinance requires mitigation of impacts through preparation and approval of a tenant assistance plan. It is staff's opinion that such a requirement is . allowable under State Law. In fact, the last sentence of Section 65863.7 states, "This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobile home parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures." As stated above, the proposed ordinance is based very closely on existing State Law and also provides additional detail pertaining to procedures and contents of required reports and plans as permitted by State Law. If the City has no desire to expand on State Law, there would be no need to extensively repeat the law in ordinance form. If the City does ! intend to provide greater detail than State Law provides, then it is important 'to include the existing State Law in the ordinance and incorporate into that the additional City requirements. For this reason, it is staff's opinion that the proposed ordinance is not pre-empted by State Law because it incorporates existing State Law and provides more extensive and detailed regulations as is provided for under the law. t .. •. r 2.5- Simplification of the Proposed Ordinance r Upon initial review of the propose&ordinance, the Planning Commission commented that it appeared to be very complicated and should be simplified. The ordinance has been prepared in response to a very complex problem and incorporates State Law. Because of these factors, there is probably no way the proposed ordinance can be extensively simplified without reducing the effectiveness of the ordinance. 0 Actually, the ordinance is not as complicated as it first appears. .The ordinance essentially requires four things: I. Filing of a notice of intent to change use 2. Approval of an impact of conversion report 3. Approval of a tenant assistance plan 4. A 180 day voluntary relocation period The image of complexity occurs because of the detail that is given to the components of the first three items. The ordinance explicitly spells out what will comprise an adequate notice of intent, an adequate impact of conversion report and an adequate tenant assistance plan. By providing this detail in ordinance form, the prospective applicant has...: the means to understand up front what the City expects from him, and the legislative body has a set of guidelines for approving or rejecting the various required components. Providing detailed instructions in the ordinance should result in a simpler and shorter /"w., public hearing and assitance plan approval process. 2.6 Ordinance Equitability Among the Planning Commission's primary concerns at the February 16th public hearing was that the proposed ordinance did not deal with the conversion issue equitably. It was the Commission's feeling that the ordinance was biased towards the park residents at the expense of the park owners. Specific concern was voiced regarding the eligibility standards which were deemed under-restrictive and the assistance requirements which were deemed over-restrictive. Substantial modifications have been made to those portions of the ordinance. 2.6.1 Limiting of Assistance The original draft of the proposed ordinance which was submitted to the Planning Commission provided for relocation assistance to all mobile home park residents except renters. Earlier versions of the ordinance which were submitted to the City Council, however, limited assistance to lower income households who were year round park residents. After Council listened to public comment on the ordinance, staff was directed to incorporate those comments into the ordinance. Primary among those comments was that all park residents should be eligible for assistance under the ordinance. Consequently, staff deleted the eligibility limitations. As per Planning Commission directive, however, those limitations have been placed back into the ordinance. The current draft limits assistance to low income park residents with proven household incomes of less than 80 percent of the County median. Eligible residents must also live in the park at least 180 days a year and not be renting the unit from a second party. • Even with the new eligibility limitations, most mobile home park residents will qualify for assistance. Eighty percent of the current median County income is approximately $24,000. The City's recent mobile home park survey indicated that nearly 84 percent of mobile home park residents have incomes below that figure. If income eligibility was dropped to 50 percent of the median County income (poverty level), 62 percent of park residents would be eligible. Five percent of mobile home park residents would be ineligible for assistance because they rent their units from a second party. Only 1.2 percent of park residents would be ineligible because they don't live in the park 180 days a year. 2.6.2 Determination of Reasonable Compensation Drafting the proposed ordinance to reflect existing State Law has been a relatively academic and straight-forward exercise. The principle difficulty has involved the compensation, or tenant assistance, portion of the ordinance. How can meaningful assistance be provided to displaced park residents without significantly impairing the park41 owner's ability to change the use of'his park? And what constitutes meaningful assistance to displaced residents? i It has generally been agreed upon in the past that the park owner should at least partially pay for relocation of units in the event of a change of use. This has been a principle part of the proposed ordinance. Additional study by staff, however, has indicated that most parks within 100 miles which do have vacancies will not accept used coaches. As such, it is unlikely that many coaches in the City could be relocated to other parks, regardless of who was prepared to pay for the move. This means that when a park changes use, most of the units will become unusable unless a City or County operated "shelter" park were available. Recognition of this fact has resulted in the ordinance also requiring purchase by the park owner of units which cannot be relocated to another park. Such a requirement would be intended to provide displaced tenants with the means to assimilate into another form of housing. It is this portion of the ordinance, however, which raises the most, serious problems involving reasonable compensation. • In the past,.park residents have lobbied strongly for purchase price to be 100 percent of the market value of the unit in the park (as much as $60,000). Staff has realized that this is an extremely unreasonable and unworkable formula, however, and has heretofore left a blank in the ordinance where percent of market value is mentioned. The intent has been to stimulate discussion by the Council and Planning Commission as to what a fair buy-out would be. Unfortunately, apart from criticism of the perceived requirement for 100 percent of market value buy-out, staff has received very little input from non-park residents on what would constitute reasonable buy-out. Staff therefore makes the following proposals for the Planning Commission's consideration: The proposed ordinance has been revised to require that purchase price be for only the unit itself, and that the price should be determined using a guide such as the Kelley Blue Book for mobile homes. The Kelley Blue.Book generally establishes values higher than what a unit sitting outside a park would bring but which are also lower than what a unit located in a park would bring. �+ • Using the Blue Book as a guide, buy-outs for existing units in the City may range from $3,000 to $ 13,000. This is significantly lower than the $60,000 the units would actually bring on the market if located in a park, and more than the $1,000 to $3,000 they would bring outside a park. Such an amount would provide reasonable assistance for moving into another form of housing and may therefore constitute a reasonable compromise for buy-out value. Another alternative which has not yet been incorporated into the ordinance would be to develop a sliding scale for buy-out, with price dependent upon the amount of notice given and how soon the tenants elected to move out. For example, if the park owner gave a five year notice, all those who moved out after the first year would receive a given buy-out amount. Those who moved out after two years would receive less, and those who moved out in subsequent years would be entitled to even less. Such an amortization process may be desirable to park residents because of the extra time allowed for moving out, and desirable to park owners because of reduced assistance requirements for those who hesitate to move out. Problems associated with such a plan; however, would involve determining buy-out for each year and administering the program over time. 2.7 Changes to the Proposed Ordinance Since the Planning Commission first reviewed the proposed ordinance on February 17, 1982, staff has made a number of modifications to the content. Some of those modifications have already been described in this staff report. The following is a step-by-step explanation of all the changes which have been made. Crossed out section numbers indicate numbering changes. . 9270.1. (a) Change of Use - The definition of change of use has been modified by deleting the following wording: "or any change of ownership wherein any or all of the park is to be sold". 9270.1. (g) Relocation Assistance Eligibility - Eligibility has been limited to mobile home owners with incomes less than 80 percent of the Orange County median. Unit owners residing in the park less than 180 days a year, and rental tenants shall not be eligbile for relocation benefits. - 9270.1 (h) Special Circumstances - This definition has been deleted. 9270.3 Approval Required - The requirement that tenants of a mobile home park be given first right of refusal to purchase the park in the event of intended sale has been deleted from the ordinance. 9270.6 5. Notice of Intent - The last sentence regarding failure by the applicant to give notice to prospective tenants who become tenants has been clarified. If the tenant is not given notice before buying in, he shall be entitled to full purchase price of the unit. • 9270.11 9. Tenant Assistance Plan - A number of significant chonges'have been made to this section of the ordinance: t I. The first paragraph has had wording added to indicate that (a) and (b) are guidelines which constitute minimum standards for an acceptable tenant assistance plan; and that other forms of assistance as proposed by the applicant may be considered by the Planning Commission. 2. Under item (a), clarification has been added to the second sentence regarding what will be moved at the applicant's expense: "the mobile home and all readil movable_a_ppu_r_tenences and contents ". The following worn iM—ngTas been deleted from second sentence: "of similar quality"; "and deposits", and; "any incidental". In the fourth sentence, 100 miles has been changed to 500 miles and the following wording has been deleted: "or within five hundred (500) miles if the tenant so desires and can locate an available replacement space within that distance. 3. Item (b) has been modified as follows: In the first sentence, eligible tenants are given the option of having their unit purchased rather than moved, and purchase price is to be determined using a guide such as the Kelley Blue Book for the value of the unit itself rather than a blank percentage of the value of the unit appraised in the park. In the second sentence, the following wording has been deleted: "in all cases'; and "incidental". Also, the applicant's responsibility for the cost of relocation to another form of housing within 500 miles has been reduced to 100 miles. The following sentence has been added:- "If the tenant desires to move beyond 100 miles, the tenant shall assume all charges for any additional distance." The last sentence dealing with tenants who qualify under special circumstances has been deleted. 9270.15 3 Acceptance of Reports - Items 5 and 6 referring to return of deposits and prohibition of rent increases have been deleted. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 82-3 for 10 days and no comments either verbal or written were received. The staff in its initial study of the project has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to action on the code amendment, it is.necessary for the Planning Commission to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 82-3. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing, review and discuss Code Amendment No. 8 1-18 as presented and suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: I. Code Amendment No. 81- 18 2. Negative Declaration No. 82-3 3. Treasure Island Relocation Plan Summary HBS:ps HBS • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE .HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED, "MOBILEHOME CONVERSION" • The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby • amended by adding thereto new Article 927 entitled, "Mobilehome Conversion" to read as follows : 9270. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. The . provisions of this article will apply to all mobilehome parks in the city regardless Of zoning or .general plan designation, before any change of use , ,: • as defined in this code , will be allowed. 9270. 1 . DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein .unless from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases : ( a) Change of Use.. Use of the park for a purpose other than the rental, or the holding out for rent , of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habi- tation, and does not mean the adoption , amendment , or repeal of . a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes, but is not limited to, a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium , stock cooperative, planned unit development , com- mercial use , industrial use, or vacant land . (b) Mobilehome. "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street or highway by authorization or a permit in one or more sections designed and equipped for human habitation to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore, "mobile home does not include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches, or factory-built housing resting upon permanent foundations. ( c) Mobilehome_Park. "Mobilehome park" is any area of land used primarily for the placing, parking or storage of two or more mobilehomes for housekeeping, sleeping or living quarters. AJ :ahb 03/11/82 1 . (d) Mobilehome Space . "Mobilehome space" is any area, tract of land , site , lot , pad or portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome. ( e) Notification Period. A 365-day notification period shall follow the date of the notice of intent during which time no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to state law. ( f) Relocation Assistance_Elig.ibility. All mobilehome owners with proven incomes less than 8 percent of the Orange County median income, as determined by the Orange County Housing Information Development Office, shall be provided relocation assistance as described by California codes . Unit owners residing in the park less than 180 days a year and rental tenants shall not be entitled to any form of relocation benefits . (g) Tenant Voluntary Relocation Period. A relocation period will follow the Planning Commission' s approval of a tenant assis tance plan. During this period tenants .may elect to relocate with full benefits ; however , they are not required to do so. 9270.3 . APPROVAL REQUIRED. No person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity shall change the use of .a mobilehome . park without proper .tenant notification and the submission of an " impact of conversion report , " deemed adequate by the Planning Commission, and a tenant assistance plan, reviewed by the Department of Development Services and approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. 927.0. 5 . NOTICE OF INTENT. A notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome park and relocate tenants shall be de- livered to each tenant and to the Department of Development Services at least 365 days prior to the proposed date for the change of use. Each tenant and each person applying for the rental of a space in such park has , or will have, received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter required. Written notice required by this article to tenants shall be , deemed satisfied if such notices comply with the legal require- ments and are delivered by certified mail. Evidence of notice of intent shall be submitted with the tenant assistance plan, and in such form as approved by the Director of Development Services. Such notice shall not contain less than the following : (a) Name, address , and phone number of applicant or au- thorized agent; 2. ( b) Statement or Intent; ( c) . Location of property; (.d) Total number of units ; ( e) Earliest possible date of change of use; ( f) A list and explanation of all state and city regula tions in effect' at the time notice of intent of change of use was mailed; and ( g) Other information deemed necessary by the Director of Development Services . In the event of failure by the applicant to give .notic.e to prospective tenants who become tenants after notice has .been mailed to existing tenants and filed with the city, such prospec tLve tenants shall be entitled to the full purchase. ,price of. the. unit. 9270. 7 . IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT REQUIRED. .Prior to �:. the conversion of an existing mobilehome park to another use, the applicant shall submit a report on the impact of . the con- version upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park. to be converted. The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at .least fifteen ( 15 ) days prior to public hearing on the impact report before the . Planning Commission. This report shall contain the following information: ( a) The availability of replacement space in mobilehome parks within one hundred ( 100) miles ., s ( b) Brief description of existing mobilehome park, in- cludint.; number of spaces . ( c) The date of manufacture and size of each mobilehome. (d) A list of names and addresses of all tenants. ( e) Makeup or existing tenant households , including family size, household income, length of residence , age of tenants , owner or renter, and primary or seasonal resident. ( f.') Rental rate history of previous five (5) years . Failure to provide the report required by this section shall be explained in a declaration under penalty of perjury, setting forth all reasonable efforts undertaken to discover such infor- 3 • / s • mation and reasons why said information cannot be obtained . 9270. 9 . TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. A tenant assistance plan ,ihal l be submitted during the 365-day notification period. After coviow by the Department of Development Services and upon approval � .)I' the P1►•t►1r�inF; Commission , or City Council on appeal , a 180-day voluntary relocation period will begin. The tenant assistance pl.ari shall include a statement of all relocation and moving assis- tance to be provided to each eligible tenant and all steps the applicant will take to ensure the successful relocation of each tenant . The following guidelines constitute minimum standards for an acceptable tenant assistance plan . Other forms of tenant assis- tnce , as prepared by the applicant , may be considered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal . ( a) Any eligible tenant shall receive 100 percent of the total cost of relocation. Those costs shall include disconnec- tion and breakdown of the mobilehome, transportation of the mobilehome , all readily movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehome park, the cost of all hookups at the new site, and temporary lodging; expenses incurred during the move. All such expenses shall be identified and paid by the applicant at the time of the ►hove. The. park to which the unit is relocated � ;Ohall be within five hundred (500 ) miles of the city . If the tenant desires relocation beyond five hundred (500) miles, the tenant shall be responsible for all costs associated with reloca- tion beyond the five hundred (500 ) mile limit established by this code. ( b) If the eligible tenant does not elect to be relocated to another park in accordance with the provisions of this section, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any attached op- tional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the tenant at a value determined using the most recent Kelley Blue Book, or the equivalent thereof ; excluding, however. , additional value for. in-park location. Additionally , the applicant shall pro- vide 100 percent moving expenses to another form of housing se- lected by the tenant within one hundred ( 100) miles of the city . If the tenant desires to move beyond one hundred (100 ) miles , the tenant shall assume all charges for any additional distance. 9270. 11 . ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the im- pact report and tenant assistance plan will be as approved by the Planning Commission. The reports, if acceptable, shall re- main on file with the Department of Development Services for re- view by any interested persons . ( a) Each of the tenants of the mobilehome park shall be ,given written notification within ten (10 ) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan. 4. • ( h) The 180-day voluntary relocation period shall begin t. ,n . ( 10) days of ter approval of the tenant assistance plan. 92'I0. 13 . PRI REQUISITES TO APPROVAL OF '[42"NANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. The Planning Commission shall not approve a tenant assis- tance plan for a mobilehome park change of use unless : ( a) The applicant has complied with all. applicable city ordinances and state regulations in effect at the time the tenant assistance plan was approved. • ( I)) The applicant has complied with the conditions of ap- proval , incliidirig the following 'items : ( 1 ) Tenants will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases . • ( 2) Tenants have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan. ( 3) Coercion has not been applied in any way to in- crease the number of vacancies . • ( 4 ) Demolition or construction will not occur until the tenant assistance plan is approved and the twelve (12) month notification period has expired. 9270. 15. FEES HI�QUIRED. Each impact report and tenant assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee estab- lished by resolution of the City Council . 9270. 17 . ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. At the conclusion of its hearing, noticed as otherwise provided in this code , the PlanninL; Commiss Lori shall approve , conditionally approve , or deny salil tenant assistance . plan pursuant to the provisions of this art, Lcle_, and such decision shall be supported by a resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth its findings. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City .Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of__ . 1982. • ATTEST : ----. —_ 'Mayor -- City Clerk 5. • RfVI},WED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM - City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Development Services 6. P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA.92648 n :u.f,uJ%xi%($1 Tel: (714) 536.5271 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Fee - $105.00 FOR CITY .USE ONLY Development Services - _City of Huntington Beach Date 1nnl.ican_t7_Authorized Agent Received: Project ND 82-3 Number: P.O. 190, Huntington Beach, Calif 92648' — Department of Origin : Mai-Lino Address 536-5271 Other Applications -or Te en one Permit Numbers : 1P"`cor)erty Owner �Iailinct Address/Telephone 1. 0 Project Information (please attach Plot Plan and submit photographs of subject property) 1 . 1 Nature of Project: Give complete description of the proposed project. Mobile home park conversion ordinance involving tenant .no- tification requirements and. approval of a tenant relocation assistance plan. 1 .•2 Location of Project: (Address, nearest street intersections) City-wide. 1 , 3 Assessor ' s Parcel Number: N/A � -1- 1 . 4 . ghat is the present zoning on the property? N/A 1 . 5 What is the surrounding land use' to the: N/A North South East west 1 . 6 If the project is commercial or industrial give a complete description of activities and .other pertinent information including but not limited to estimated employment per .shift and any potential hazardous materials which may be" .used_, etc . N/A 1 . 7 If the project is residential, indicate number, types and size of" units and associated facilities. N/A / 1 . 8 If the project is institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift and maximum occupancy . N/A 1 . 9 Project land area (acres) N/A Number of parking spaces 1 . 10 Square feet of building area N/A Numb.er. of floors 1. 11 Height of tallest structure involved in the project N/A 2 . 0 Environmental. Setting 2 . .1 Drainage and Flood Control r�) 1'1r,i6;c doscribe how on-site drainage will be acconunodatod . N/A -2- a) 'Is. the site presently graded? N/A b) Indica.te the qross cubic yardt of grading proposed _N/A the acres of land to be graded. the amount o earth to be transported on the. site , and the amount of earth �o' :be transported off the site c) What will be the ,maximum height and grade of cut or fill after 7rading . is completed? N/A 2 . 3 Soils a) Type. of. .soils on ,the subject site? (Submit soils report if available) . N/A 2 . 4 Vegetation a) Attach a map indicating' the location, .type and size of trees located on the site . Indicate .below the number, type and siz.e of trees to-be removed as a result of the:,... project: N/A 2 . 5 Wator Quality a) Does any portion of the project abut or encroach on beaches , estuaries , bays , tidelands , or inland water areas? N/A b) Describe how the project will effect any body of .water. . N/A 2. 6 Air nuality a) If the project is industrial, describe and list air pollution sources and quantity and- types of pollutants emitted as a result of the project. N/A 2 . 7 Noise .� ) h-sc.ribo any adjacent off-site noise sources ( i . O . , air- port . , industry , freeways) . N/A l+) Mi,it no� i !;c wi I l be l)roducod by the project:' If availab10 / plr,ise hive noise levels in decible measurement and typical . time distribution when noise will be produced. N/A . � r -3- .. . lives wiii NtvuuUk:_-U uy Li1C PrU]eCL COUIPdre wltn existing noise levels? / N/A Traff.ic: Approximately iiow much traffic will be generated by the project : (check one) 0-50 vehicular trips per day N/A 50 - 250 vehicular trips per day .250 - 500 vehicular trips per day. over 500 vehicular trips per day 3 . 0 Public Services and Facilities• 3. 1 Water / a) Will the project require installation or replacement of , new water lines? N/A b) N ease estimate the daily volume in gallons required serve the project. N/A 3 . 2 Sewer a) Will the project require installation or replacement of new sewer lines? N/A b) Please indicate the approximate amount of sewage generated from the project. N/A 3 . 3 Solid Waste a) If the project is industrial, describe the type and amount (pounds/day) of solid waste generated by the project. N/A 4 . 0 Social 4 . .1 populationDisplacement a ) Will any residential occupants be displaced by the project activities? This is a requirement to mitigate the impacts of displacement. r b) Dosc-ribe briefly the type of buildings or improvements to , be demolished by the prolcct. N/A -4- 5 . 0 Mitigating mea buiCa 5. 1 Are there measures included in the project which may conserve ndbrdnewable resources (e. g. electricity, gas, water) ?,,' !� Please describe. N/A Are there measures included . in the project which would protect 1 or enhance flora and fauna? Please describe: N/A 5 . 3 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to / reduce noise pollution? Please describe. N/A 5. 4 Are .`there measures proposed in the design of the project (e:ag: architectural treatment and. landscaping) which have / been. coordinated with design of the existing commun-ity to minimize visual effect? Please describe . 'v N/A 5..5 Are there measures proposed in the design of the project to reduce water pollution? : Please describe . N/A , 6 Are there measures proposed which would reduce air pollution? List any Air Pollution Control District equipment required. . N/A 5 . 7 Are there measures or facilities designed into the project to . facilitate resource recovery and/o.r energy conservation (e .g . solar heating, special insulation, etc. ) ? Please describe. N/A 6 . 0 Alternatives 6. 1 Are there alternatives to the project which may result in a lesser adverse environmental effect? Please explain all project alternatives on an attached .sheet. N/A 1 hereby c ert.i f.y that the information herein is true and accurate to the lest of -my knowledge . 9Z Signature_ 'Date Filed -5-- CITY OF HUNTINGTONMEACH .'. ;2Q00 MAIN,STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 -P 0. ox 190 . HOUSING AND COMMUNITY;DEVELOPMENT:_ TO , Advisory Board Members F.ROM:.'. Stephen V.: Kohler, Senior Community. Develo'pment Specialist DATE: August 25, 1981 SUBJ:ECT: : _SUMMARY 'OFI.ORANGE COUNTY.'S REPORT ON 'RELOCATION 'OF ,TREASU.RE . ISLAND � :. MQBI<LEWOmt PARK TENANTS,`''. Pursuant to a request from the HCD Citizens Advisory Board, staff requested informa- tion on- the subject matter from Orange County's Environmental Management Agency. U f,P rtunately, "this information was not .received in sufficient time- to permit, dis tr `bution to CAB. members in the packet for the Boards meeting of August 25, 1981. However, informs-tion was received on Monday, August 24, 1981. The County staff;:has re:que ted that -the contents of the "report not be reproduced in fu11;.._:the'r.:.,efore;,' the fol,,l'owing summary is' pro.vided fo r,the CAB:'s information. 1..0- Background" /"'4 .The ::Trosure Island Mobilehome Park in South Laguna contains 266 spaces. Rents for 'Ahej,tpaces within this oceanfront mobilehome park range from $220 to $1,000 per ..month. Approximately 109 of the park residents declare Treasure Island as their "pe;rmanent residence and approximately 157 residents claim that this is a part-time 'or .second home.. Residents and mobilehome owners within Treausre Island were noti- fied on May 22, 1977 of the park owner's intention to seek a change in land use (this change in land use has become known as Orange County's Zone Change Case 80-28). It 'should be noted that a significant number of the units within Treasure Island were sold .subsequent to this notice and some, but not all , new buyers were notified of the owner's stated intention to request a ,change in land use. The bulk of these resales were by those who had previously declared Treausre Island as their permanent residence and purchasers of these resale units by in large declared. this as a part- time' residence. . This resale activity resulted in the ratio of primary and secondary. occupants as stated above.. i 2.0 Relocation Plan The proposed relocation plan for the residents of Treasure Island is attached for the CAB's review. It offers a variety of types of assistance depending upon whether or not the household to be relocated is a permanent or second-home residence and whether or not the Unit was purchased before or after May 1977. The basic types of assistance are: (a) lifetime tenancy in a rental building. on site, (b) cash relocation payment, or �(c) a 10 percent discount on the purchase of a time share unit on site. At the time This .relocation plan was submitted to the County staff for review, the County staff stated its ;belief that additional information regarding the demographic characteristic ,-o'f, the mobi1ehome .occupants would be-required to adequately assess any Telephone(714) 536-5542 rel ocation pl an. In::response to -thi s;,.. e;attached.,-,survey'was di.stri buted `b ` the Y- the County to' the:'re`si:dents° of the saiob:i l<ehome', Park G 3..0 Occupant' Survey As can be seen, �by .)the survey 'format attached,, 'the' s,:ur-vey was designed to garner information' about mobilehome pork, occu.pan-ts regard;ing, the age, income, length of . tenancy, owners of property outside..Treasure I.sl�h:d`. ,age and size of' unit,, improve menu, to. uni-t, and zany. additional coments. A: s�mila'r bu.t. shorter survey was ;also;,: dl'stributed to subr'6nters within `Treasure' Island. The .0'range County. staff,'.s concern rega'r,ding the outcome of this survey was that while' a' large sha.re .of. the occupants responded,. a 100 percent return was not garnered. In„addi"tion, since the respondents :were random and not selected by any scientific procedure; the `.County staff questioned: the viability:of-"any conclusions drawn upon ,the' resultan.t'data.:;regarding .the characters-stits- of non-respondent ,households.. Of.�,the 203 responses to the survey, 119 households included narrative comments. . The .issues addr'es'sed- were. health benefits of the park.',s location to its occupants, f.inancial loss an'd%or hardship of .relocation,: di.ffi;culty of relocates..Jhe.ir ;mobi:l`e-: home:, emotional trauma of r.el.ocation.:,;.i nabi 1 it ..to F s'Ol 1, unit; feel i.ng 'of 'safet'y/ wel'tl;bein:g, and'`afforda:ble housi.n'g: : {= :4 �0 . �118entified Problems in Relocation While the sponsor of the change of land use .at Treasure Island does not anticipate, a,ny d sl:ocati'on. 6'f occupants for approximately two years, it has.been iden'tifie.d that, the conditions constraining the.' current. oc.cupants.may worsen in the following ways (a) other parks may be converted: to other uses, (b) space rentals may in-. crease more rapidly than- tenant: income; (c) the. market price of resale units may, -An"crease more rapidly than tenant income. The' above .referenced survey gave owners- of":"uni'ts withib'Treas.ure Island the opportunity to comment on the .anticipated loss iIn equity due` to,t:he.planned conversion. and removal .of' thei,r unit. �Of those..comment ing on this subject, the following comments were made: (a) the loss of value of 'the ', tenant's improvements- would. be a total loss since they cannot be moved; .(b) older units which may now provide valuabl-e shelter would be of little or no value if re= moved because no 'mobilehome park within the region would accept them,. (c) the, lo,ss. of equity and the need to provide replacement housing would be a particular strain on low income occupants and may force these occupants' to seek public. housing or income .assistance, (d) even those units--mithib .Treasure Island that 'cou,ld be relocated to. -a par..k wou-ld..be worth substantially l.es5 ';if' not located in an oceanfront �. `mobilehome park-. The '.loss of equity under condition number .4 above may be particularly great because, despite notice of .the intention to seek conversion of the mobilehome park, many units have' been _resold. i.n the recent past and much of the garnered asking ..price was pre- dica-ted upon the..cur.'r"ent location_of :the ;unit regardless of the fact. that ",no Ao.ng- term `space lease: ,existed. In addition, the proponent of the conversion of .the mobilehome park has stated that if the proposed conversion is not permitted, their plan for the continued operation of 'Trea.sure I s1and. woul.d, pose additional 'problems for its current -occupants. For examptl'e, (4). `space .Onto Is'..wouid:. Increase.. stgni fi'cantly, the proponent, states that".aPoo ; market analysis indicates that space rents could be at least doubled before reach ,--, ing market value.. Under this situattion, no "affordable spaces" would remain i.n the park; (b) the park would be mai,ntathed ., s an exclusive, private, close-gate commu- nity; (c) resale ,of 189 units woul.d :be .prohibited: State law 'permits .owners%managers of mobilehome parks to require the ,removal of certain 'specified mobilehome-.categories. in. an effort to upgrade a mobilehome 'park. In, the case of Treasure Island this . would result in- a prohibition of the resale of these units; (4) sub.rent.a would be forbidden. The management has the right to .prohibit s.ubrenta1s in any, mobi'le- h"ome park and i n the. case of Treasure :Island has- stated: i is 'i ntention ":to do` so,,:,,-- 5:.0 .Summary - As can be seen from the information provided above, the conversion of the Treasure. 1 Island Mobilehome Park represents a unique situation owing to its beach location. However, the obstacles to relocation tt have been encountered in this situation . may also apply to the conversion o haf any mobilehome park. It appears that the most significant problems are encountered when: ('a) tray."el trailers or other older, smalle.r units exist within a mobilehome park which cannot be ,accepted :in, any other mobi.lehome .park within the region, (b) the general, shortage of mobi.lehome' spaces available withi-n' the region even to owners of newer, larger mobilehome"s. One_ significant point of the proposed relocation plan.may be that the ,-.project's . proponents have .proposed to relocate. existing low ihcome, households. in.to a different housing type (apartmen.ts) on the same site. I hope that this' i.n.formation will be of a.ssi stance -to .the CAB in i is rev:iew of the'. mobi'lehome park,.Si:tuation in Hunt ng,ton. -Beach. . S.V K:j b attachme s i 1 NOTE: The Treasure Island Mobilehome Park conversion was considered by the Orange County Planning Commission ,on June 3, 1981 and July 10, 1981, and the County will forward.-this- information when it is- available. 1 ' PROPOSEO RELOCATION .;PLAN. 1. . Permanent Residents - Prior. to May, 1977 ' A. Lifetime tenancy in rental building at rents commensurate with` their F space-rent at time of relocation. Rent increases limited to .cost of living. B. If option in l .A above not elected, relocation. payment of $5,000 for .a single wide trailer and $8,000 for a .double-wide trailer and a 1,0% dis- count on time-share units. C. Those residents who initially occupy a rental unit and subsequently elect . to move,. relocation payment of $5,000. , 2. Second Home :Residents - Prior to May, 1977 A. Relocation payment of $4,000 for a single wide trailer and .$6,000 fora double wide trailer. B. 10% discount on purchase of time-share units. 3. Permanent Residents - May 1977 to January 1, 1980 A. Relocation payment of $5,000 for a singlewide trailer and $8,000 for a double wide trailer, and 10% discount on purchase of time-share units: B. Any resident who does not elect to take the relocation paymen.t' in 3.A above and who is determined by the County to be "in need" will have the option to occupy a unit in the rental bui.lding. at an affordable rate. A. Second Home Residents - May 1977 to March 2., .1981 10% .discount on time-share units. 5. Permanent Residents - January 1, 1980 to March 21 1981 A. Lifetime tenancy in rental building .at affordable rates if .resident is determined by the County to be "in need". B. 10% discount on time-share units. 6. Relocation Payments Payable to tenants who own units in the park at time of issuance of the twelve months' notice to terminate required by California Civil Code, Section 798.56(f)(2) . Tenants can .vacate and receive applicable .relocation payments at any time after issuance of the twelve months' notice. 7. Rental Unit Eligibility `! Rental units will be made available only to those qualified residents who are residing in. the park on a permanent basis at the time the rental building is ready for occupancy. 8. lAll Residents After March 2, 1981 No benefits. t Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission March 16, 1982 Page 8 AB ',ENT: None ABSTAIN: None CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.. 82-3 Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance (Continued from 2-17-82) . An ordinance amending the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by es- tablishing a new article for Mobile Home Park Conversion Regula- tions. The ordinance will establish requirements for notification of mobile home park residents, and will set guidelines for approval of a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan prior to the. change of use of a mobile home_ park. Florence Webb and Hal Simmons gave brief presentations on the code amendment. The public hearing was r. eopened.. The following persons spoke against the adoption of the proposed ordinance: Robert Stettler Al Teriveo Brian Dana Millie Hayes Jim Knolls John McGuinness Cynthia Gonzales Ed Judowski Guy Kingsbury Robert Williams George Avon John Mares David Weisbart Opposition was to various concerns. Public consensus was definitely against the use of Kelley Blue Book as a guideline for compensation of the displaced tenants. Most persons stating that this was con- siderably .less than even their initial investments. Robert Williams, representing Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park suggested that a study session be conducted. He especially objected to a sentence in the proposed ordinance which states that. temporary lodging ex- pen:;os incurred by thy, move shall be identified and paid by the appl.i.cant at the time of the move. He would .like staff to define "temporary lod('-Iing expanses One citizen cited an incident where mother, who wli., a tenant. at a park, actually sold her mobile home for a very low ; mi when she was "frightened" by the rumors of park conversions. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kenefic}c was concerned about the public being notified with some sort of information sheet regarding the proposed ordinance . Mr. Palin stated that this could be done by staff . Commissioner Paone agreed with public consensus that a study session be con- -8- 3-16-82 - P.C. March 16, 1982 Pac7 e 9 ducted. lie also requested that staff compile a list of available space. 'There was some discussion about the 1-year notice which must be given to tenants by the applicant. Mr. Folger advised the Commission that the reason that was written into the ordinance is because it was a state law. The Chairman scheduled a study session for 7 : 00 PM, Tuesday, March 30, 1.982, in the Council Chambers . Commissioner Schumacher stated that she liked the ordinance put into effect in the city of Newport Beach regarding park conversions . Coinmissioncr .POrt('r asked staff to investigate the possibility bf public property that could be used for mobile home parks . ON MOTION I3Y KENEFICK AND SECOND BY PORTER CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Kenefick, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Chairman called for a recess . Commission reconvened at 10 : 05 PM. PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 82-2 Initiated by the City of Huntington Beach . A reconsideration of the possible closure of Park and Pine Streets at Utica Avenue. Ralph Leyva, Public Works Department, gave a brief_ presentation on the proposed precise plan. He stated that the City Council had re- ferred this matter to the Transportation CoiTunission, who in turn required that a public hearing be held to determine the effects of the closure. After this, the recommendation went to the City Coun- cil who approved a temporary closure of the subject streets by the use of construction barricades . The public hearing was opened. The following persons spoke in favor � of the closure of: the two streets : Bill Penio Sandra Of. i elci Georgo Avon . The basic reason., for the closure were because of noise and traffic- congestion . The f:ollowinci persons spoke against the closure: Bob Boland � -9- 3-16-82 - P.C. • n-q r-Af7 3►T' 23 i, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA 92648 BUILDING DIVISION 014)536 41 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536,5271 TO: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator FROM: , James W. Palin, Director of Development Services PATE: March 17 , 1982 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE UPDATE: On December 7, 1981, the City Council directed staff to expedite prepara- tion of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. Staff presented the draft ordinance, Code Amendment No. 81-18, to the City Council on Decem- ber 21, 1981 . Council listened to public testimony, engaged in discus- sion, and directed staff to incorporate the items from the discussion into the ordinance. Staff made a number of modifications to the. ordinance and provided a revised copy as an informational item to the Council on January 21, 1982. Upon .review, the Council directed staff . to send the ordinance to the Planning Commission .for public hearing. On February 17 , the Planning .Commission opened the public hearing to consider Code Amendment 81-18, Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance. After receiving public testimony, the Commission reviewed the. code amend- ment and directed' staff to provide an analysis of the f63low ,ng items`: 1 . Rezoning non-conforming parks to MH. 2. Zoning vacant land for. MH. 3. Mobile home park preservation and development programs . 4 . State law as it pertains to the ordinance. 5. Simplification of the ordinance. 6 . Ordinance equitability. Staff revised the ordinance to incorporate. changes resulting from this analysis and Commission direction. Prominent among the revisions was to limit relocation assistance to mobile home owners with incomes less than . 80 percent of the Orange County median and to provide that unit owners residing in the park less than 18.0 days a year and rental tenants would not be eligible for relocation benefits . In addition, eligible tenants would be given the option of having their unit purchased rather than moved, and the purchase price would be determined using a guide such as the Kelley B1ue. Book for the unit itself rather than a certain. percen.tage . of the value of the unit appraised in the park. The public hearing was resumed on March 16, and the Planning Commission directed that a study session be held to further discuss zoning and equitability issues. The study session will be. held on March 30, 1982 at 7 : 00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. The Commission wishes to invite . ny City Council members who may be interested. The public hearing has b en continued to April 20, 1982. . :CC:df 0 '0 EEX.KSIT z1f- L'AW OFFICES, fpICHA,EL f. DEITCH P"O,c IOMM CWWORAMW 194t1 SOUTH GRENSHAW SOULI;VARO SUITE 422 ' •• TpRRpfiCE, CA11fOR111A.,90btfd . 42131 93S•2a92 March 24 , 19'8,2- Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park Dear Members : This office represents the residents of Huntington Shores Mob.il,e Home Park in the matter regarding the proposed change of the ,use: for said Park. It is my opinion that the Notice of Change of Use isssued by the Park management on 28 April 1981 is an invalid Notice in that it does not comply with the requirement of Civil Code §798 . 56 (f) (2) which states that "The management in thenotice shall disclose and describe in detail the nature of 'the change of use. " The Notice provided to the residents stated that the "new use has not been determined, but studies will be initiated soon to ascertain the. highest and best use of the property. " Furthermore, the subject Notice stated that the "property would. be vacant for a period of. time after :November 1, 1982 . Even if it were held that the notice satisfied Civil Code §798 . 56 (f) (2). requirements , then the Park could not be closed until man- , agment complied with : 1. The consecutive 60 days Notice requirements of Civil. Code §798 . 55 (b) ; 2 . Civil Code §798 . 56 (f) (2) requirements as it relates to ap- proval of all permits , or if no permits are required, then disclosure of the nature of the 'change of use. -1 City of Huntington Beach Re : Huntington Shores Mobile-.HOme P rk . 3. The preparation, submitted and hearing on impact reports pursuant to Government Codes §65590, §65863'. 7 or ' §66427 . 76 Please contact this office should additional information be desired in this matter. Sincerely yours, Michael E. Deitch -2- E x4 z i z.s Brian Medina 21002 Coast Hwy. #26 Hunt-i ngton Beach, CA 92648 536-4322 March 25, 1982 H"...► i BEACH City of Hu.ntiTton Beach f'I..�NNING DEPT. honorable Mayor A9embers of City Council, r Planning ramisc ion.��rc MAR 2 9 1982 2000 Main Street Iuntington Beach, CA 92648 P. 0. Box 190 RE: Proposed Code Amendment No. 81-18 MobiZehome Park Conversion Ordinance The Huntington Beach Mobilehome Park Owners Association has expressed concern that .the proposed ordinance gat?erning mobiZehome park conversions will ad- verseZy affect the value of their property, prohibit a park owner from simply "going out of business", and is unlawful since it "purports to ZegisZate in areas preempted by state Zara". I would first like to, address the two latter concerns since they are cZearly.'. defined legal areas. A mobiZehome park owner cannot simpZy "go out of business" by changing the use of his land from ca mobilehome park to no use (i.e. VACANT LAND) . The MobiZehotne Residency Laws, CaZifornia Civil Code, Sec. 798.10 defined "Change of Use" as: . . . "a use of the park for a purpose other than the rental, or the holding out for rent two or more mobilehome sites". . . (see reference #1) Since vacant land is a use other than the rental of mobilehome sites, by do- f i rti.lri.Urt, cotwc>r-1.i)'I j to vacant Zand constit-sites a change of use, and is :;object I v a l L l�r ?ritrhrt ;c r � ,1rr/,rzl,r tt,1 :7.wlrh r'x cl;cztirlc, atrch cl;, 1. Report of Impact of conversion 2. 15 day notice to park residents of request to change use 3. The public hearing associated with each procedure California Government Code Sec. 66427.4 and Sec. 65863. 7 provide the guidelines for the filing of the report of impact of conversion upon displaced persons. These sections require the subdivider or persons proposing the change of use to address the "availability of adequate replacement space in Mobilehome Parks". . Copies of this report, are to be presented to each resident at least 15 dayt prior to the hearing on that report or the tentative parcel map. (see reference #2 and f{.3). The legislative body hearing such report(s) may require the developer to mitigate the adverse impact upon the displaced mobilehome park residents as a condition of approva.7. of the conversion. Both Government Code Sections defining this aspect of the conversion procedure end with the following: � "This :section establishes a minvmtm standard for local regulation of conver- sions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a, local agency from enacting more stringent measures. " It is clear that the, door has been left open for local government to strengthen the already existing state laws through local ordinance. To assume that passage of a local ordinance governing mobilehcme park conver- sions will devalue mobiZehome park properties is ludicrous. These properties will continue to maintain their value as a sec?.tre form of income property and tax shelter for the owners. The only restrictions on future use would be those which are part of the city's general plan. In.closing, I would like to say that, a conversion of a mobilehome park should be the results of a joint effort between the park owners, the park residents, � and the city. To ignore the concerns of any of the affected parties would be a grevious mistake. Please mandate that the owners and residents =st meet ( aui work togetluor, itz goo.i faith, to provide a solution for the problolls born oast of a mobilehomc pu.),k c>onve),.,i.on. Thank you, �'�--• `11,4 Lam_. � Brian Medina 1 798.10. "Change of use"means a use of the park for a purpose other than the rental,or the holding out for rent, of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobdehomes used for human habitation,and dues not mean the adoption,amendment,or repeal of a park rule or regulation.A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use"includes•but is not limited to.a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium,stock _cooperative,planned unit development•or any form of ownership wherein spaces within tfte park are to be sold. . 664.27.4 Conversion of mobllshom• park- tiling report of Impact of conversion upon displaced residents with maps; mitigation of adverse Impact At the time of flling a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to be created from the conversion of a mobllehome park to another ww, the subdivider stall also file a report on the Impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobllehome park to be converted. In determining the Impact of the conver- �� slon on displaced mobilehome park reaideots, the report &hall addresa the avall- nblll[y of adequate rwplacement spare in mobllehome parks. The sutxitvlder shall Inake a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, If there Is no advisory agency. by the legislative body. The leglslatve body, or nn advlanry agency which. Is nuthorized by local ordt- nonce to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map, may require the subdivider to take steps to lnitlgate any adverse,hapact of the converylon on the ability of displaced mobllehome park resWents to find adequate space In a mobile. . .._--. ........... . ...._ home park. This section estnbilshes n ndnlmtlm standard for local regulation of conversions of mobllehome parks Into other uses t 1d shall not prevent a local agency from eoacting more stringent measurer. (Added by Stats.1980, c. 8M. p. —, } 8; Stats.1980, e. 10(i5, p. } 1.) Addition of a 1 49421.4 by 1 4.4 of Slats. Library References loll, c. 1Sa6, P. 7517, felled to take effect Zoning and Land Planning ©192. under the terms of 1 10.4 of that Act. C.J.S. Zoninif.and.Land Planning 11, 66, ,. ,. . IL .... } 65863.7 Mobllahome park; Impact of conversion upon displaced persons; re- port: notice to residents; hearing; local regulation Prior to the converslon otr a mobllehome park to another use, except Pursuant to the Sutxlivislon Map act (Division 2 (commencing with Section (36470) of Title 7), the person or.entity proposing such change In rise shall file a,report on the . Impact of the conversion upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be concerted. In determining the impact of the conversion on displaced.mobile- home park residents, the report shall address the availability of adequate repiac-- `I ,went &price In mobilehome Darks. The person proposing anch change in cue shall make a copy of the report avall• able to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing . on the Impact report �)y the advisory agency, or If there Is no advisory agency, by • the legislative body. The legislative body. or Its delegated advisory agency, shall review such report. prior to any change of use, and may require, as n conditlon of such change, the person or entity to inky ntrps to mitignte any adverse Impact of the cornvcrslon on the nhlilty of dl+ptoccrl mobllehome park re-3idents to find adequate space to a mobilehntne park. . 7his Fretiun entnwishes n rnlnlrnum standard for local regulatlon of convcrnlons l of mobllehome parks Into other use- sad sha11 not prevent .1 local agency frorn ; ennr•tinK tnn're stringent me•a7,urv9. (Added by:ants.](ISO, C.879, p. 2.) Llhrsry n4lerencee . 7nnlne and 1.aml nannln,; C.J.S, Zoning and Lwno 1'Innning 1 176. F644 r °r EA P.O. BOX 10 DEPARTMENT-OFDEVEPMENTSERVICESCALIFORNIA.92648 BUILDING DIVISION(71415364841 PLANNING DIVISION(71V5 �1 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: March 25, 1982 SUBJECT: Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance r Attached is a "position paper" ' on the mobile home park conversion ordinance which was submitted to staff by the Huntington Beach Mobile Home Owners Council on March 25, 1982. The Owners Council, which consists of local park residents,• requested that it be forwarded to the Planning Commission prior to the March 30, 1982 study session. Attachment: Position Paper - Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance HS: jh Huntington Beach Mobile Hone Owners Council. P.O. BOX 2705 Jit''1Til " \r tiGTC: Huntington Beach; CA 92649 BEACH PLANNING DE'PT. MAR 25196-2• . ��,��sP.. 0. Box I go POSITION PAPER - MOBIL PARK CONVERSION ORDI�IAZEEeach' CA 9•'548 March 30, 1982 The purpose of a park conversion ordinance as originally stated was to provide guidelines and procedures broad enough to MEMBER PARKS Beachview Mobile Horne Park apply to all -conversions at various points in time and varying Brookfield Manor circumstances both social and economic. Cabrillo Del Mar Mobile Estates With 19 parks there could well be 19 circumstances. Driftwood . Huntington-by-the-Sea Procedures - by definition = suggest a step at a time. Huntington Mobile Estates Huntington Shorecliffs Let us take the first few steps first -- the last step may not Huntington Shores be necessary. Huntington Valley Los Amigos Mobile Park l� Fi 1 i ng of a notice of intent to change use -- is the first Pacific Trailer Park Rancho Del Rey step initiated by the proponent. Rancho Huntington 0Submission of an Impact of Conversion Report -- by the pro- Sea Aira Mobile Estates Sea Breeze Mobile Estates ponent is mandated by Government Code - Section 65863.7 Skandia Mobile Country Villa de ►a Playa (attached) . It states very clearly "the report shall address Villa Huntington the availability of adequate replacement space in mobil home parks; 3 Review by City Council of Impact Report - shall be done "prior to any change of use and may require as a condition of such change, that proponent take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobil home park residents to find adequate space in a mobil home park" . Code 65863.7. "This section establishes a minimum standard .for local regulation of conversions of mobil home parks into other uses and shall not prevent a .. Page Two. local agency from enacting more str� igent measures." Code 65863.7 The first action that should be in the local ordinance is an affirmation L% of governments basic responsibility - "the public health, safety, and welfare.." If the impact report shows no spaces available, no affordable housing, uprooted senior citizens, an increase in the welfare load --. the request for change in use must be denied - or a moratorium extended until more favorable conditions prevail . No further steps are necessary at this time, given the above circumstances. At a different time under different circumstances, a "change of use" could and should be considered. Now for the first time - we need a local ordinance - with guidelines and. procedures. What should they be? We recommend that the following excerps from the San Marcos ordinance be incorporated. They have had the benefit of legal review. ARTICLE II M061L .hOME PARK CONVERSIONS Sec. 15-7 - SCOPE OF ARTICLE. Unrestricted conversion of mobile home parks -'-o c,L;-ier uses diminishes the mobile home stock and space availability. The protection of tenants and lot potential purchasers of mobile homes, warrants the impelmentation of certain regulatory safeguards. The City recognizes the need to insure that the rivate secto exercises its res ns�bi slit ties to provide varied housing choices and opportunities, and that City participation in this responsibility �e is necessary. `�- Sec. 15-8 - INTENT �. The intent of this article is to insure that mobile home park opportun- 0 ities are available to residents of San Marcos, and to insure that mobile s home park conversions �rovi e for the health, safety and general welfare of the community . --------------- Page Three Sec. 15-9 - REQUIREMENTS a) Use of property as a mobile home park shall not be terminated for the purpose of conversion to another land u e- until application for mobile home park conversion has been made to the Planning Department and approval by the Planning Commission of City Council , on appeal , t has been received. b) No building permits shall be issued on property occupied by a mobile home park at the effective date of this ordinance or herein- after for uses other than those associated with the mobile home park use and allowed under the Special Use Permit, until approval under Section 9(a) has been received Sec. 15-11 - FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION 0 S In reviewing request for a mobile home park conversion, the Planning Commission and City Council shall , at a minimum, take the following factors into consideration when rendering a decision: a) There exists sufficient mobile home space availability within the North County Branch of the Superior Court geographic area to accommodate the displaced mobile homes. . S .4 s&A ItV drMV",e c°,%V kI b) The conversion will not result in the displacement of low income individ- uals or households who cannot afford rents charged in other parks. c) That the age, type and style of mobile home within the park proposed for conversion would be accepted into other parks within the geographic area. d) If the conversion is to another residential use, the mobile home park residents have first 2MELU2ity to occupy these units and the construc- tion schedule will not result in long term displacement. e) The proposed conversion is consistent with the San Marcos General Plan. f) The proposed conversion is pursuant to the public health, safety and welfe�. g) Thhey e conversion will not result in a shortage of housing opportunities and choices within the City of San Marcos. Page Four Sec. 15-12 CONDITIONS In the approval of a mobil home park conversion, the City may attach conditions deemed reasonable in order to mitigate the impacts associated with the conversion. Such conditions shall not be limited to, bu.t may include the following: Sa) Partial payment for relocation of mobile homes to another park. Q► b) If the land occupied by the park is to be sold, the tenants be given the N first r'gbt of refusal accepting the offer of the seller for the purchase of the park and all the improvements. c) The tenants be given the o,�tion of a long term lease of the land and purchase of the improvements. d) The City m_ay attach an effective date upon their approval of the conver- sion. Said date will provide sufficient time for the relocation of the �. mobile homes to their parks. Said time limit shall at a minimum, beeoone year. e) If the mobile homes cannot be relocated to parks in the area, the applicant p may be required to purchase said mobile homes at fair market value, deter- S mined by an independent appraiser with mobile home expertise. We who live in the mobile home parks are acutely aware of the problems that will lay ahead of us should the Planning Commission fail to approve a conversion ordinance that is positive in its support of mobil home values and of mobil homes as a viable term of affordable housing. . There are already in place state laws affecting mobil park conversions. These laws are minimum guidelines from which to develop a sound conversion ordinance. . One requirement on the part of the applicant is to provide an Environ- mental Impact Report. We believe the affected mobil home owners should be asked to submit their EIR on the impact of conversion on the park residents. It is vital that the impact on people be of prime consideration in the granting of any park conversion. Page Five We also believe that the mobil park owners and the mobil park residents , affected should submit jointly and/or individually their solution to the problem of relocation. If it can be ascertained that conversion is reasonable and to the best interests of the City of Huntington Beach, the mobil home park residents and the mobil home park owners, the ordinance should provide realistic and equit= able compensation for all mobil home owners affected and/or all costs of . relocation to another mobil park or privately owned. lot. We believe that "people" are our city's greatest asset. They and their property values must and should be given the utmost protection from loss. , The present mobil home park residents are honest, law abiding citizens who contribute to the economy of the community through their purchases and employ- ment. They deserve your best efforts on their behalf. , ®v�viG� Appendi x C Government Code, Sections 65863.7 and. 66427.7 65863.7. Prior to the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use, except pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (com- mencing with Section 66410) of Title 7), the person or entity:, . proposing such change in use shall file a report on the impact of, the.conversion u the displaced r0amts ,Wt mo i e park to be converted. In termuung the impact of the conversion on isp3�aca mobil home .park residents, the report shall address the availability of a to replacement c inn moWiln2 person proposing such change in use shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome.pat-k at least 15 days prior to the hearing on the impact report by ,the advisory agency, or if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. The legislative or its delegated advisory agency,hall review such report, io an -change of use and may require, as a condition of such charm ' the person or entity to take steps . to mitigate any a erne -m t or tfig cony ton on the ability of asp ac mobilehome park residents to find to s in a mobilehome parr This section establishes a minimum standard for local regula- tion o conversions o� f rfibbi e me par into o r uses event a local from enactin mote stringent measures. (Adds by Stats. 1980, Ch. 879. 66427.4. At the timeof-filinp tenative or parcel map for a subdivision to be create rom the ion o a lehome park to another use, the subdivider shall also file a report on the impact of the conversion upon tW displaced resident"resident"I the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the impact of the conversion on displaced mobilehome park residents, theme report shall m address the availabilityof ad uate r lacement space o me parks The subdivider shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at.least 15 days prior to the hearing on the map by the advisory agency or, if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. The legislative body, or an advisory agency which is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the map, may_require the subdivider to take steps to mitieate- anv� adverse impact o� tt a conversion on the ability of displaced mobile- home park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park. This section establishes a minimum standard for local regu- lation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses i1 d�shal not rever a ts. c n i more stringent measures. c m6 EXHIBIT- 26 b STAtt . TO: Planning Commission .FROM: Department of Development Services DATE : March 30 , 1982 SUBJECT: Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance 1. 0 INTRODUCTION : At the March 16 , 1982 Planning Commission meeting, staff was directed to set a study session for March 30 , 1982 to discuss in detail the conversion issue. This communication is intended . to provide information to enhance the discussion at the study session. 2 . 0 ANALYSIS : Information is presented regarding the following items : . 1. Mobile home sales comparisons 2 . Example of buy-out using Kelly Blue Book. 3. Example of buy-out using market value and sliding scale. 4 . Survey of mobile - home vacancy rates within ' 100 miles. 2. 1 MOBILE HOME SALES COMPARISONS : At the request of staff, 'the .personnel at Beach Mobile Home Sales pro- vided the following comparison of 1981 mobile home sales within Huntington Beach : F=Family A=Adult P=Pet (s) 5*=Best Parks 1*=WOrst Parks Year Sold Year Home Size Bedrooms Baths Type Park Sold For 1981 1972 24 x 64 2 2 ANP30+5* 61,000 1981 1971 12 x 48 2 1 FP2* 28 ,000 1981 1981 14 x 48 2 1 AP35+3* 36 , 000 1981 1964 20 x 58 2 2 ANP18+5* 46 , 000 1981. 1972 12 x 56 2 2 ANP30+5* 30 , 000 1981 1965 20 x 53 2 2 AP18+5* 52 ,000 1981 1980 20 x 48 2 2 AP18+5* 46 , 000 1981 1981 24 x 56 2 2 ANP18+5* 58 ,000 1981 1981 24 x 56 2 2 AN1318+5* 60 , 000 1983- 1976 20 x 36 2 2 ANP18+5* 35 , 000 1981 1964 20 x 54 IfIll2 ANP18+5* 45 , 000 �..� A-FM•23B Mobile Home Park Conversions March 30, 1982 Page 2 , Year Sold Year Home Size Bedrooms Baths Type Park Sold For 1981 1977 20 x 31 2 1 ANP30+3* 25, 000 1981 1973 24 x 64 2 2 AP18+5* 61, 000 1981 1972 24 x 60 2 2 ANP21+5* 48, 500 1981 1969 20 x 60 2 2 ANP30+4* 45, 000 1981 1970 24 x 60 2 2 AP18+5* 42, 000 1981 1969 24 x 60 2 2 ANP18+5* 51, 00.0 1981 1978 20 x 31 2 1 ANP30+3* .28;, 000 1981 1981 24 x 56 2 2 ANP18+5* 60, 000 The above figures indicate a low value of $25, 000 and a high of $61, 000 in 1981 . The majority of units sold were double-wides , with two bedrooms and two baths. The average price was $45, 132 . 2 . 2 BUY=OUT AT KELLY BLUE BOOK: The draft conversion ordinance currently requires that units be purchased. at .a value to be determined using a pricing guide such as the Kelly Blue Book. Purchase price shall include the unit itself, any tag-a-longs or expando rooms and any optional equip- ment . No additional value for in-park location shall be given. The following is an example of what purchase price would- be for a typical. unit in a park, but without any value placed on the park as determined by Kelly Blue Book: Coach Expando Room Optional Equipment Year : Pre-1975 Year: 1977 Microwave Oven: 1978 Length: 53 ft. Length: 20 ft. Value: $175 Width: 20 ft. Width: , 10 ft. Skirting : 140 ft. Quality: C Quality: B Value: $280 Value: $10, 500 Value: $2, 400 Total buy-out based on Kelly Blue Book for the above example would be $13 , 355. If additional value were added for in-park value according to Kelly Blue Book, buy-out could be increased by approximately $5, 000 for a total value of $18, 355 . * On July 1, 1980, Senate Bill 1004 became effective with the requirement that all mobile homes sold after that date be placed on the local tax rolls and no longer be subject to vehicle license fees. Examination of the City' s 1981-82 property tax roll indicates that 1% of all mobile homes in the City are currently taxed as property. Further, the assessed values for the units range from $4, 000 to $40, 000, with an average value of $15, 457 . This average is very close to the value which was derived using the Kelly Blue Book in the hypothetical example above. The County Assessor has indicated that the assessed values in the tax rolls include only the coach and attachments and do not include additional value for in-park location. *This is a hypothetical example and does not reflect an actual coach in the City. March 30, 1982 Page 3 2. 3 BUY-OUT AT MARKET VALUE WITH 5 YEAR SLIDING SCALE: An option to requiring buy-out using .Kelly Blue Book, would be to require that a percentage of market value for in-park location be paid. Additionally, the percentage of market value paid wouId drop over time if .the applicant chose to give a longer notifi- cation period and if the tenant chose to wait longer before moving out. The following example of buy-out using this method assumes a *$50, 000 mobile home including in-park value and a five year notification period: . Percentage of Tenant Moves Out Market Value Received Value Received After 1st Year 60% $30, 000 . After 2nd Year 40% $20, 000 After 3rd Year 20% $10, 000 After 4th Year 10% $ 5, 000 After 5th Year 5% $ 2, 500 2. 4 SURVEY OF PARK VACANCIES WITHIN 100 MILES : Staff conducted a telephone survey of jurisdictions located within 100 miles of the City to determine what the current mobile home park vacancy rates actually are. The following information was obtained: Jurisdiction Vacancy Rate Year of Data Oxnard 1 . 5% 1980 Ventura 2. 0% 1979 Castaic 0. 0% 1981 Lancaster 0. 6% 1980 Palmdale 1. 0% 1981 Perris 0. 0% 1981 Lake Elsinore 2. 8% 1980 Hemet 4 . 90 1977 San Marcos 0. 0% 1981 The above figures indicate that vacancy rates within 100 miles have dropped to 1. 0% or below in the last two years. Juris- dictions with the most recent vacancy information reported the lowest rates, while those with older information reported the higher rates . Staff has also determined the vacancy rate throughout Orange County to be 1 percent or less. 3. 0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: As per the Commission' s request, staff has prepared a wall map indicating existing mobile home parks by zoning district, existing City-owned property and other vacant land which may be appropriate for MH zoning. The map will be on display at the study session. *This is a hypothetical example and does not reflect an actual coach in the City. Mobile Home Park Conversions March 30, 1982 • Page. 4 Also, the attached draft conversion ordinance incorporates some of the revisions which were suggested by the law firm • of Lawler, Felix and .Hall in their. March 16, 1982, letter to the Planning Commission, HS: jms Attachment: Code Amendment No. 81-18 (Mobile Home Park Conversion Ord. ) • i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE .CITY OF HU.NTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED, "MOBILEHOME CONVERSION" The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding thereto .new Article 927 entitled, "Mobilehorne . Conversion". to read as follows : 9270. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. The provisions of this article will apply to all mobilehome parks in the city regardless of zoning or general plan designation, before any change of use , as defined in this code , will b.e allowed. 9270. 1 . DEFINITIONS.. Words and phrases whenever used in ^ this article shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a . differen.t meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases : ( a) Chance of Use . Use •of the park for a purpose other than the rental , or the holding out for rent , of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habi- tation, and does not mean the adoption , amendment , or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes , but is not limited to, a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium , stock cooperative, planned unit development , . com mercial use , industrial use, or vacant land . (b) Mobilehom_e . "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street or highway by authorization or a permit in one or more sections designed and equipped for human habita£icrn to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore, "mobile- home does not include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches, or factory-built housing resting upon permanent foundations . ( c) M_ob Lleliome L'ark. "MoblJohorne park" J. any area of land used primarily for_the jilacIng, parking or storage of two. or more mobilehomes for housekeeping, sleeping or living quarters. 4J ":ahb Wil/82 1 . (d) Mobilehome Space. "Mobilehome space" is any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad or portion of a mobilehome park designated' or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome. (e) Notification Period. A 365-day notification period shall follow the date of the notice of intent during which time no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to state law. (f) Relocation Assistance Eligibility. All mobilehome owners with proven incomes less than 80. percent of the Orange County median income, as determined by the Orange County Housing Information Development Office, shall be provided relocation assistance as required by this article.. Unit owners residing in the park less than 180 days a year . and rental tenants shall not be entitled to any form of relocation benefits. (g) Tenant Voluntary Relocation Period. A relocation period will follow the Planning Commission' s approval of a tenant assis- tance plan. During this period eligible tenants may elect to re- locate with full benefits. 9270. 3 . APPROVAL REQUIRED. No person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity shall change the use of a mobilehome park without proper tenant notification pursuant to Section 9270. 5 of this article and the submission of an "impact of conversion report" , deemed adequate by the Planning Commission, and a tenant assistance plan, reviewed by the Department of Development Services and approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. 9270. 5. NOTICE OF INTENT. A notice of intent to change ! the use- of a mobilehome park and relocate tenants shall be de- livered to each tenant and to the Department of Development Services at least 365 days prior to the proposed date for the change of use. Each tenant and each person applying for the rental of a space in such park has, or will have, received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter required. Evidence of service of notice of intent shall be submitted with the tenant assistance plan, and in such form as approved by the Director of Development Services. Such notice shall be delivered by certified mail and shall not contain les)s than the following: (a) Name, address, and phone number of applicant or au- thorized agent; 2 . • ^ ( b) Statement or Intent; f ' ( c) Locat'Lon of prope.rty; (d) Total number of units ; ( e) Earliest possible date of change of use; ( f) A list and explanation of all state and city regula, tions in effect at the time notice of intent o.f change of use was mailed ; and ( g) Other inCormation deemed necessary by the Director of Development Services .. 'In they everit of failure by the applicant to give notice to prospective tenants who become tenants after notice has been ' mailed to existing tenants and filed with the city, such prospec- tive tenants shall be entitled to the full purchase- price of the unit. 9270 • 7 • IMPAC4 OF CONVERSION REPORT REQUIRED. Prior to the conversion of an existing mobilehome park to another use, the. applicant shall submit a report on the impact of the con- version upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least fifteen ( 15 ) days prior to public hearing on the impact report before the Planning Commission. This report shall' contain the following information: ( a) The availability of replacement space in mobilehome parks within one hundred ( 100) miles . ( h) Brief description of existing mobilehome park, in- cluding number of. spaces . ( c) The date or manufacture and size of each mobilehome. (d) A list of names and addresses of all tenants . ( e) Makeup or existing tenant households , including family size, household income, length of residence , age of tenants , owner or renter, and primary or seasonal resident. ( r) Rental rate history of previous five ( 5) years . Failure to provide the report required by this section shall be explained in a declaration under penalty of perjury, setting forth all reasonable efforts undertaken to discover such infor 3 • mat.ion and reasons why said information cannot be obtained . 9270. 9.. T1";NANT ASSISTANCE: PLAN. A tenant assistance, plan shall he slibinitted during the 365-day notification period. After 110view by the: Department of Development Services and upon approval of the t'lanni.nE; Commission , or City Council on appeal , a 180-day: , vo.lunUtry relocation period will begin. The tenant assistance plan shall include a statement of all relocation and moving assis- tance to be provided to each .eligible tenant and all steps the applicant will take to ensure the successful relocation of each tenant . The following guidelines constitute minimum standards for an acceptable tenant assistance plan . Other forms of tenant assis- tnee, as prepared by the applicant , may be considered. by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal . ( a) Any eligible tenant shall receive 100 percent of the ; total cost of relocation . Those costs shall include disconnec- tion and breakdown or the mobilehorne , transportation of the mobil.ehome , all readily movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehorne nark, the cost of all hookups at the new site, and temporary lodg;ipf; expenses incurred during the move. All much expenses shall be tdentifLed and •paid by the applicant at thtt i;ime of the inove. The park to which the unit is relocated shall be within five hundred (500 ) miles of the . city. If the � tenant desires relocation beyond five hundred ( 500). miles, the tenant shall be responsible for all costs associated with reloca- tion beyond the five hundred (500 ) mile limit established by this code. ( b) If the eligible tenant does not elect to be relocated to another park in accordance with the provisions of this section, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any attached op- tional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the tenant at a value determined using the most recent Kelley Blue Book, or the equivalent thereof ; excluding, however , additional value for in-park location . Additionally , the applicant shall pro- vide 100 percent moving expenses to another form of housing se- lected by the tenant within one hundred ( 10,0) miles of the city. If the tenant desires to move beyond one hundred (100 ) miles , the tenant shall assume all charges for any additional distance. 9270. 11 . ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the irn- � pact report and tenant assistance plan will be as approved by the Planning Commission. The reports, if acceptable, shall re- main on file with the Department of Development Services for re- view by any interested persons . ( a) Each of the tenants of the mobilehorne park shall be given written notification within ten (10 ) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan. U . ( h) The 180-clay voluntary reloi ation period shall begin tt.111 (10) days arter approval of the tenant ass istanc.e plan. 9270. 13 . PRI.REQUIS:IRIS TO APPROVAL OF TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. The 1'iannint; Commission shall not approve a tenant assis- tance plan for a mobilehome park change. of use unless : ( a) The applicant has complied with all applicable city . ordinances and state regulations in effect at the time the tenant assistance plan was approved. ' ( b) The applicant has complied with the conditions of ap- proval , inc lied Trig the following items : ( 1 ) Tenants will not be forced to relocate .prior to the end of their leasea . ( 2) Tenants have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan. ( 3) Coer0on has not been applied in any way to in-. crease the number of vacancies . ( 4 ) Demolition or construction will not occur until the tenant assistance plan is approved and the twelve ( 12) ^ month notification period has expired. ` 9270. 15. FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and tenant; assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee estab- lished by resolution of the Cjty Council . 9270. .17 . ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION.. At the conclusion or its hearing, noticed as otherwise provided in this code , the Planni.ni; C,ommiss lori shall approve , conditionally approve , or deny said tenant assistance plan pursuant to the provisions of this art, lcle, and suc}1 decision shall be supported by a resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth its findings . SECTION 2. 'Phis ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED. by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at. a regular meeting thereof held. on the _ day of-- ---- -- -- 1982. ATTEST : -----M. _ - -- -Mayor CityVClerlc 5 . REVIEWED AND APPROVED : APPROVED AS TO FORM : � City Administrator City Attorney <- INITIATED AND APPROVED: Director of Development Services Planning Commission March 30, 1982 AGENDA 1. Constraints the City faces .in Dealing with the Mobile Home Park Conversion Issue. a. Lack of new private development of mobile home parks b. Difficulties involved with City development of "shelter" parks. C. Limits to effectiveness of rezoning. 2. Constraints on What the Park Owner Can Do to Mitigate Impacts of Park Closure. a.' Low vacancy rates limit relocation assistance effectiveness. 3. Different Philosophies for Ordinance Format a. Establish minimum relocation assistance standards. b. Do not establish minimum relocation assistance standards. 4. Discussion of Decisions Which Must be Made Regarding Ordinance Operation and Content. a. What constitutes "change of use"? b. What activates the ordinance? c. How is assistance eligibility determined? d. What constitutes adequate and equitable assistance? 5. Straw Vote Regarding Issues Described Under Agenda Item 4. HS:bas Planning Commission March 30, 1982 ITEMS FOR STRAW VOTE , The staff requests direction on the following issues: 1. What exactly constitutes "change of use"? , a. Application for permits for new use. b. Closure of park. 2.. What activates the ordinance? a. Application for zone change. b. Application for permits for new use. C. Notice of intent to close the park. If the above items are resolved, a decision .must -be made regarding how to deal with the tenant assistance plan section. 1. The ordinance should: a. Be modeled after the Newport Beach ordinance and not establish minimum assistance standards. b. Establish minimum assistance standards. If the ordinance is to be modeled after the Newport Beach ordinance, no fur- ther consideration will need to be given to tenant assistance plan require- ments. I£ the ordinance is to establish minimum assistance standards, then the following items will require resolution: 1. Who will be eligible for assistance? a. All full-time residents. b. Low-income residents. 2. What will constitute adequate and equitable assistance? a. Purchase of unit at full in-park market value. b. Purchase. at a percentage of in-park market value. c. Purchase at Kelley Blue Book value in-park. d. Purchase of unit itself, plus attachments at Kelley Blue Book value with no additional in-park value. e. Purchase at value of original investment:. f. A sliding scale for buy-out using one of the above as a base. HS:bas EXH-1 r3 f'- 2? • STA �- -REPORT - .TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: April 20 , 1982 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. .81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3- .MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE 1 1. 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Continue the public hearing; review and discuss Code Amendment No. 81-18 as presented and suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate. 2 . 0 ANALYSIS : At the March 16 , 1982 Study Session, the Planning Commission engaged in considerable discussion regarding formulas for buy-out of mobile homes. Staff was directed to provide detailed examples of what buy-out would actually cost for various parks in the City using various formulas .' The attached table indicates total buy-out cost, cost per acre and cost. per unit for three park ' s using six different formulas . The values given are estimates based on the general types and ages of units in the three parks . Buy-out costs are highest if full market value is used and lowest if Kelley Blue Book value for the .units and optional equipment, but no in-park value, is used. Insurance replacement value is based on $37 per square foot for the units and therefore results in a buy-out value which is very close to full market value. The sliding scale example makes the following assumptions : A five year notification period is given with 20% of the tenants moving out each year. Tenants who move out in the first year receive 75% of full market value for their units . Those who move out in the following years receive 45% , 25% ,15o ,and 5% respectively. Because there are a large number_ of variables involved in the sliding scale example , it can only be presented as one possible outcome in a very wide range of possibilities . The P1 annincl Comilliss.i.oil a1 so directed st,-lff to simplify the 0.17dil!iII1Ce El:" 1"luch i:ls pos-sible . The f-ol.lowinq chr_111Ues have been made : 1. Relocation Assistance Eligibility has been modified to remove income _limitation requirements and to now require A-FM-23B al �' ?:a 1 Code Amendment No 81-18 . April 20 , 1982 eligible tenants to reside in the park more than 270 days a year. 2 . The 180 day 'Tenant Voluntary Relocation Period has been deleted. 3 . The list of items to be included in the Notice of Intent has been deleted. 4 . "'he list of items to be included in the Impact of Conversion. Report has. been deleted. 5 . The requirement for purchse of units at Kelley Blue Book value has been deleted. This section of the ordinance has been left blank in order that the Planning Commission may select a methodology for purchase of the units . 6 . The item prohibiting coercion to increase vacancies has been deleted from the Prerequisites to Approval of Tenant Assistance Plan section. 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time , the Department .of Development Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 82-3 for 10 days and no comments either verbal or written were received. The staff in its initial study of the project has recommend- ed that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to action on the code amendment, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and adopt Negative Declaration .No.' 82-3. 4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning .Commission continue the public hearing, review and discuss Code Amendment No. 81-18 as presented and suggest any changes which are deemed appropriate . ATTACHMENTS : 1. Alternative Buy-Out Formula Examples 2 . Code Amendment No. 81-18 3. Negative Declaration No. 82-3 11S :bas �v HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON PACIFIC PARK SHORECLIFFS MOBILE ESTATES TRAILER PAR1 Units 304 105 266 Acres 40. 71 11 . 41 18 . 65 Density 7 . 46 9 . 20 14 . 26 Single Wide% 70 78% 52Q Double & Tripled 93% 22% 480 Location Coastal Non-Coastal Coastal Kelley Blue Book Units & Ecluip. Total $4 , 355, 678 $ 823, 611 $2 , 107 , 560 Per Acre 106, 992 72 , 183 113 , 006 Per Unit 14 , 328 7 , 844 7 , 923 Units In-Park Total $7 , 735, 278 $1, 170, 111 $2 , 831, 560 Per Acre 190, 009 102 , 551 151, 826 Per Unit 25, 445 11, 143 10, 644 Full Market Value In-Park $15, 430, 000 $2 , 586, 000 $8 , 570, 000 Per Acre 379, 022 226 , 643 459 , 517 Per Unit 50, 757 24 , 629 32 , 180 500 of FMV In-Park $7 , 715,_000 $1, 293 , 000 $4 , 285, 000 . Per Acre 189 , 511 113, 322 229, 759 Per Unit 25, 379 12, 315 16 , 090 Insurance Replace- ment Value $15, 797 , 520 $2 , 756 , 500 $6 , 876 , 080 Per Acre 388 , 050 299 , 620 368 , 691 Per Unit 51 , 966 26 , 252 25, 850 *Sliding Scale $5, 106 , 151 $853 , 377 $2 , 838 , 276 Per Acre 125 , 427 74 , 792 152 , 186 Per Unit 16, 797 8, 127 10, 670 * See staff report for explanation of assumptions used. 0RD1NANCI? NO. AN ORDJ IIANC OF 'flag'; C ITY OV HUN'f'TN( 'i'()tl BEACH AME,11D.13M THi', IfllIPPIN(;'L'ON BI,AC11 ORD111ANCH, CODE . BY AI)1)ING 'I'llHM,;'I'O DIEM ARTICLE, 927 "MOBILE1101.11" CONVEMSION" The City Council of the City of llunting;ton Beach does ordain. as follows : SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by addl.riK thereto new Article 927 entitled , "Mobilehome Conversion" to read as follows : 9270. APPLICATION OF ARTICLI . The prov l s ions of I';}-iis article will appl..y t.o all. mobtlehome parks in tine clay rct;ardless or zoning or g�rncral plan designation, before any change of use , as defined in this code , will be allowed . 92'(0 . 1 . 1)1';PI-NIT10N;. Words, and phrases whenever used l.n � this article shall be construed as defined herein ►znl_c:ss from the context a different meari1n�; is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases : (;harq _of IJ;;cr . Use of the park For a. purpose othell than the rental. , or the holding out. for rent , or t'ao or more mobilehome site; to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habJ.- tati.on , and doer, not; mean the adoption , amendment , or repeal of a part: rule or regulat.lon . A ch,. nge of use may arrect. an entire park or any portion thereof. " Change of use" includes , but, is not limited to, a change of, the park or, any portion tlier'eo1' to a condominium , .9tock cooperative , planned unit development , comi- mercial use , industrial. use , or vacant land . ( b) Mohilehome . "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street or }ia.g;hway by authorizat Lon or a permit. in one or more sections dcsiCiied and equipped for human habitation to be � ur;nd With or without a Foundation system. Thc� rncorc , "nlobile- home floes not incl.ndk! rncreat.lon vehicles , commerci;il_ coaches , or factory-built housings resting; upon permanent foundations . ( ' ) tic�l� I L!�I►c,ni I';► i'k . "Malt i. l c�hnntt Ir► r•ic" L:: .ut�, ��rr ,a n(' L:rnc! I'o►' laic or ,t. >r.tg; ' „I 1 ;, (W more mobl.lehomcs for housekeeping , sleeping, or livint; d�.�arte►'s . 1 . (d) MoI_ ilehomo Space. "Mobilehome space" is any area , tract of. 1_and , s.te, lot, pad or portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome . (e) Not_ici_cation Period . n 365-day notification period shall follow the of of the notice of intent during which time ' no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to state . law. ( f) Relocation Assistance Eligibility. All mobilehome owners res diii� ii the mobilehome park more than . 270 days a year shall be entitled to relocation assistance as required by this article. Rental tenants shall not be entitled to any form of relocation benefits. 9270 . 3 . APPROVAL REQUIRED. No person , firm, cor_purat.ion, partnership or other entity shall change the use oI: a mobilehomec park without proper tenant noti.ficaCion pursuant- to Section 921U . : of this article and the submission Man "impact of conversion report" , deemed adequate by the Planning Commission , and a tenant assistance plan, reviewed by the Department of Development Services and approved by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal . 9270 . 5 . NOTICE OF INTENT. A notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome {park and relocate tenants shall be de- livered to each tenant and to the Department of Development Services at least 365 days prior to the proposed date for the change of use. Evidence of service of: notice of intent shall be submitted with the tenant assistance plan, and in such form as approved by the Director of Development Services . 9270 . 7 . IMPAC`1' OF CONVERSION REPORT REQUIRED. Prior to the conversion of an existing mobilehome park to another use , the applicant shall submit a report on the impact of the con- version upon the displaced residents of the. mobilehome park to be converted . The report shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks and any other information required by the Department of Development Services. The applicant shall make copies of the .report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least fifteen (15) days prior to public hearing on the impact report before the Planning Commission. 2 . 9270 . 9 . Tll': nNT nSS1S'1'ANCL PLAN . A to.nanL Liss_isLance plan shall be submitted during the 365-day notification period. The tenant assistance plan shall include a .statement of all relocation and moving assistance to be provided to each eligible tenant and all steps the applicant will take to ensure the successful reloca / tion of each tenant. The following .guidelines constitute minimum standards for an acceptable tenant assistance plan. Other forms of tenant assistance, as proposed by the applicant, may be con- sidered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. . (a) Any eligible tenant shall receive 100 percent of the total cost of. relocation. Those costs shall include disconnec- tion and breakdown of the mobilehome, transportation of the mobilehome, all readily movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehome park and the cost of all hookups at the new site. All such expenses shall be identified and paid by the applicant at the time of the move. The park to which the unit is relocated shall be within five hundred (500) miles of: the City. If the tenant desires relocation beyond five hundred ( 500) miles, the tenant shall be responsib,le for all costs associated with relocation beyond the five hundred (500) mile limit established by this code. (b) If the eligible tenant does not elect to be relocated to another park .in accordance with the pr_ovisions .of this section , the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any attached op- tional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expan.do rooms from the tenant at a value determined ---------------------------------- -- THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION REMAIN TO BE DETERMINED 2%0 . 1. 1 OL, 1ZI;LIORTS . ` Iie U tria 1_ f'nr. m c .(.' f;ii 1_ut- 1)act report ari(l aSG1_5tance plan vri..11. he as app.ro`ied t)y I"he P.lanni_ng Couimispion . 'The reports , IT a.cceptahl.e , ,,hail r�- main on file vill;h the Department of Development Service:, for rc_: v Levi by any Lnte rerst ed persons . ( a) I,:"10i of, I:h(, i,c n�.n1, () I' the sha l.1 1)o f_rlver; [oil vrttilin ten (10 ) c1ays of appcova:'.. of the tenant ass.tstance plan. 3 • � 9 27 1) • t 3 1,-, I.TFS TO A ITROVAI., 01" TFUANT PLAN `1'hc P L a i I r 1 1,n C,o i n i 111.s F,i o r i ;;gall not. app i,o ve a tenant (-i,-,s 1:3- t.ance plan for a mobilehome pack change of use unless a) Tim. apt t Icant" h") C, n.0111plied with ;Ippltcable oroinarices and state rei.,ul.atiori3 in ef'fect; at the time the tenant; assistance plan was approved . 1)) Vhe ;I ppl Ixatit.- ha's comp I I e'd - with the (,on(]I f;i ons o I' ap- proval , Inc I ivi grit; the Coilowing. i terns 1 To na ri wig 1. n o t he forced to r,et C-)ca U 1)c 1 o r, U o the e I I d 0 f, L I e 1.r, es . TcmmL,; have bt�en }liven t,)Ic* I'ALLU, t-10 11pon appl,oval of Lhe -Lenant; plan . 3 ) 0cj:iollt-jori or con:7,tructlon not, occul, 11rAt-11 pl.arl I's, approve(] and the month not ANcat- ion period has expired : 927(). 15 . 1 RV4111RI-J). Each A.ITI pa.e t, c por• t a.rd t, 11 a r I t, assistance p1can :m1milt-Aed shall be accompanied by a fee c.st.ab- ll.shed by resolution of the City Council . 2� 7 0. .1 -1 • A(,TfON H Y P[,A NNI NG (,39MM ISS K N 4 AL the concluslon of it;:; herwIni, , noticed as •otherwise provided DI 11-1-113 Code , the Ptalml.nl., Gmwfl.r,3,,: I 'm shall. approve , conditionally approves , or, deny F,ahi t(-nanf- plan pursuarit to the jwovl�7,ions or !,his ar,IJ(71o , and r,urh de,,- LsIon shall be. supported by a resolution of the Planning Commiss Lori settl-Ing forth its findings . SJ-"CTY(.)1,J 2 . 'Phl:i or,dAnance shall take efTect thirty days after ad option . PAOol-,J) AND ADOPTED by the City Council or 1.he City OC S Huntington Beach at a regular meeting. thereof held on day oC 1982 ATT F1,S,11'. y C', 1. ty CI rlc ►tEvtr,wh,i) AND nPPF3c)vr, nPPROVLD AS TO FOIIf1 : � C'iLy ndim:irilsi rotor - —clty -/lt;torney INITIATED AND ATPROVLO: Director of Devel'opme►t Sereices MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1982 - 7 : 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY HIGGINS AND SECOND BY MAHAFFEY THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 16, 1982, WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Mahaffey NOES: Paone, Schumacher, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Livengood ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 1 COMMISSION ITEMS: Chairman Winchell informed the Commission that- although no represen- ta.tive from the Planning Commission will be attending the tour of the Bolsa Chica on Wednesday, the mayor_ will be in attendance and will report back to the City Council as to what action was taken by the Coastal Commission. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 (Continued from March 1.6, 1982.) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach An ordinance amending the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by estab- lishing a new article for Mobile Home Dark Conversion Regulations . The ordinance will establish requirements for notification of mobile home park residents, and will set guidelines for approval of a Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 20, 1982 Page 2 Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan prior to the change of use of a . mobile home park. Chuck Clark and Hal- Simmons gave presentations regarding this issue. Commissioner Porter asked if Mr. l±olger had read and concurred with the letter received from the law offices of Lawler. , Felix and Hall, which lists "several deficiencies" in the code amendment. Mr. Folger , stated that, as he reads it, the State law sets a minimum and the City is allowed to go beyond that minimum. Chairman Winchell .reopened the public hearing. Jiin Knoles, represen- ting the Mobile Home Council stated his position on the issued . He said that tenants should be relocated within the City of Huntington , Beach and in a park. He further stated that if tenants are forced to move, their jobs could be in jeopardy. Carolyn Cites suggested that a zone change be made to zone the Drift- wood Mobile Home Park for exclusive mobile home use. Brent Swanson, representing a park owner, stated that the insurance value approach is one which is not workable. The- insurance company can change -it at any time . He further stated that the park owner has certain rights which cannot be altered, and that if. he "wants to grow weeds on his property" , he has every right to do that. He reminded the Commission that any mobile home use is short-germ only and that the ordinance as proposed fails to recognize the Lact that you cannot predict the future. He suggested a continuance of this item. Com- missioner Porter asked Mr. Swanson if he was familiar with the City of Westminster ordinance. Mr. Swanson stated that this ordinance dealt with rent control in the parks and not conversion. John Mayers spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance. He ob- jected to being relocated as much as 500 miles from the place he wishes to reside. He also felt that the park owner should be more generous to the people who helped him become successful and should, therefore, pay the tenant fair market value for their coaches. The public hearing was closed. Under the section, "Notice of Intent" , Chairman Winchell wanted to know how much more time after the 365 day-notice would the tenants have to move out? Staff said this would be two months after all local permits had been issued. Commissioner_ Higgins referred to the letter from the lawyers regard- ing the property owner ' s right to go out of business. Secretary Palin stated that we have submitted a request for legal opinion on the question of should an operator choose not to renew his lease, would that trigger requirements of this ordinance. As yet the De- partment has riot received a written response. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission April 20, 1982 Page 3 r Commission consensus was to change the wording of "rental tenants" (Page 2, Second paragraph) to a name chosen by the Deputy City At- torney, such as "subtenant" that is a closer description. In this same section, it was agreed that the title should be changed from. "Relocation Assistance Eligibility" to "Eligible Tenant Assistance Plan" , for clarity and. consistency. Commissioners suggested that in Section 9270. 5, Notice of Intent, that the following phrase be added to the last sentence, "and 15 days prior to the public hearing by the Planning Commission" . Commissioner Porter made a suggestion (in Section 9270.9b) that whatever formula is used for reimbursement, that the amount paid be less the cost to relocate to an available space. He felt this would make relocation look like a viable option, rather than some sort of a penalty. Commissioners discussed the actual formula to be used for compensation to the mobile home tenants. The consensus was that both insurance rates and Kelly blue book rates were not reliable . Also suggested was a compromise of a percentage of full market value to be used; added to that was "in-park" value. A suggestion was made to use a sliding scale with the ending figure being equal to the re- location cost. A final comment was to re-insert the phrase "within 100 miles of the City" into Section 9270. 7, Impact of Conversion Re- port Required, with reference to impact reports filed by the applicant. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD *AND SECONDED BY PORTER THAT THE PLAN- NING COMMISSION CONSIDER ONLY THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS: THAT A SLIDING SCALE BE USED TO FIGURE COMPENSATION AND THAT FULL MARKET VALUE BE THE BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF THE FIGURE AMOUNTS. THIS MO- TION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None Chairman Winchell requested that the two absent members of the Planning, Commission be provided with the tape of this meeting. ON MOTION BY HIGGINS, AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 WERE CONTINUED TO THE MEET- ING OF MAY 4, 1982, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Paone, Schumacher ABSTAIN: None The Chairman called for a recess. Commission reconvened at 9 : 15 PM. EX4/81'r ZS LAW OFFICES OF MA PCU5 MATTSON L A W L E R FELIX & HALL OSCAR LAWLER R.F.OUTCAULT,JR. ANTHONY R.OELLING '696.1966 ROBE-T HENIGSON STEVENS A.CAPE' PICH APD D.DELUCE _DI SON GROSE 695 TOWN CENTER DRIVE MAX FELIX THOMAS E.WORKMAN.JR. f-ANK,V,CAL B4 L EOJ.RI RCHER JEFFR Ev S.BEN COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 1822196A JOMN G.WIGMOPE PETER J.M•NULTY JO-- M.MALL CHARLES L.POG C-S JAMCS B.EKINS M.NEAL wLLlS 1I MA-Y J-BUS'• TELEPHONE: (714) 850 1310 1016 1973 I CHARD L.rQUIN,JR. CRA1G A,SMITH Or COU'•S[L AN'MONIE M.VOOGD wESLEY D.WO-NO. TC LC CO PIE R:(71-).6A1.0107 ORVILLE O ORR,.IR, RIC HA DO P.ADCOCK BRENTON L.METZLER WICLIAM K.DIAL JOHN E,CARL50N RCCO A.STOUT CDwIN W DUNCAN SC O'1 H.HANKINS STC-HCN T,SwANSON VICTORIA POWER J.RIC..RD MO-RISSC, MONICA L.LEBCNZON ROSEPT P,MALLORY PC TER S.WATSON April 2 0 19 8 2, , F.JOHN NYHAN DAVID L.BURNS LOS ANG CLES OFFICE: JANE M,BA-RETT KATPIN KOHNCKC 7 00 SOUTH FLOWER ST-E ET K."I ET H L,WAGGONER WILLIAM M.KENT PICHAPO C.NEAL GARY.A,LAUGHON LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 DAMES E.DURBIN STEvEN O.KRAME- (213) GZS-9300 PHILLIR G.NIC-OLS RICHARO C.MENDELSON JOHN D.SHULT2 JOHN P.CAUBL C.JP. JOHN A.ST.CLA,R HE NPY D.f,NK,.L,T,,N W ILLIAM S.DAVIS CHRISTOPHER M OARGAN ,. '/�`� ROGER w'ROSENOA L VICKIE A-ENDS I • :\ C', 1V _r r BEACH VHJ.EDWAPO-ENICK,JR, WILL—K.SARGENT PANDOLPM C.v SSER RICHARD J.FOSTER ROBERT B.PEAGAN JOSE-H E.THOMASu DEPT. LA PRY M,MLEKS MICHAEL WHITEHILL RANOOL-H H.ELKINS DAVID K.PETELE- WAYNE S.GRAJEWSI•I GEURGE K.PE PLCE 00BERT M.TANNER SU5AN R.SCE A-TZ STEVEN J.MILLER WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO. (714 ) 850-1310 P. 0. The Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re : Code Amendment No. 81-18 Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance Dear Members of the Planning Commission.: We have reviewed the most recent revisions to Code Amendment No . 81-18 ("the Amendment" ) which we understand will be considered by you at this evening ' s Planning Commission meeting . While we believe the revisions significantly im- prove the Amendment, we feel the Amendment still suffers from several deficiencies . Our comments with respect to those deficiencies follow: . 1 . Section 9270. 1 (a) still includes conversion to "vacant land" within the definition of change of use . As indicated in our previous correspondence, we believe that an ordinance which has the practical effect of making the closure of a mobilehome park prohibitively expensive is beyond the regulatory powers of the City . Any regulation of a landowner ' s right to go out of business must be reason- able ; if: not, it will violate the owner ' s constitutionally protected rights . That caveat should be taken into account when deciding on which formula to adopt for purposes of the buy-out provisions of Section 9270 . 9 (b) of the Amendment. The Planning Commission April 20 , 1982 Page Two • 2 . Section 9270 . 1 (e) presents preemption prob- lems . As we have previously indicated, state law does not permit a city to regulate procedures for changing use of a mobilehome park because those procedures have been preempted by state law. The revised draft still attempts to establish • a 365-day notification period during which time no tenant may be evicted. Such a regulatory scheme has been preempted by state law. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the City can enact procedures for changing use, such procedures • cannot conflict with state law. Section 9270 . 1 (e) clearly conflicts with state law which presently allows a park owner to undertake a change of use by giving a tenant six months ' notice after all necessary permits have been obtained . A further conflict is presented by Section 9270 . 13 (b) (1) , which forbids a park owner from relocating tenants until • their leases have expired. Under state law, a mobilehome park owner is required to offer tenants a one-year lease . Reading Section 9270 . 1 (e) with Section 9270 . 13 (b) (1 ) , a mobilehome park owner could be required to wait up to two years after serving the notice of intent to change use before undertaking such a change. Therefore, the require- • ment of Section 9270 . 13 (b). (1) conflicts with state law and violates the preemption doctrine. 3 . Secti_on ' 9270 . 1 (f ) defines relocation assis- tance eligibility . While the ordinance makes several references to "eligible tenants , " the term "relocation • assistance eligibility" is never used after it is defined. We recommend that Section 9270. 1 (f ) be rewritten as a definition of "eligible tenant. " In addition, subsection (f) indicates that "rental tenants" shall not be entitled to any form of relocation benefits . It is not clear what is meant by the term "rental tenants" . We assume rental tenants refers • to subtenants ; if so, the Amendment should be changed ac- cordingly. 4 . Section 9270 . 7 requires a mobilehome park owner to submit an impact of conversion report prior to any • change of use . The section requires that the report address the availability of adequate replacement space "in mobile- home parks" without specifying what mobilehome parks are to be considered. We assume that the mobilehome parks to be The Planning Commission April 20 , 1982 Page Three included in such a report would be those within 500 miles of the park being converted. This point; however, needs to be clarified. 5 . Section 9270 . 9 establishes minimum guidelines for an acceptable tenant assistance plan. The term "tenant assistance plan" is a term which should be defined in the definitions section. Section 9270 . 9 also gives a park: owner the option of providing forms of tenant assistance other than those described as minimums . It is not clear whether the other forms of tenant assistance are in lieu of or in addition to the minimum standards set forth in Section 9270 . 9 . Finally, Section 9270 . 9 requires that all relocation costs be paid "at the time of the move. " It may be difficult to identify all of the expenses at the time of the move . The . section should be revised to provide a reasonable period of time in which to pay those expenses . 6 . Section 9270 . 11 includes a subparagraph (a) without including a subparagraph (b) . At the time we re- viewed the Amendment, we wondered whether subparagraph (b) was mistakenly deleted from the final revision or whether subparagraph (a) , should have been incorporated into the body of Section 9270 . 11. 7 . Our clients are concerned over the formula the Planning Commission eventually adopts with regard to the purchase of trailers in lieu of providing relocation assis- tance. Apart from the constitutional consequences which necessarily flow from the imposition of unreasonable financial burdens in connection with the required purchase of trailers , the practical consequences of an ordinance which imposes unreasonable financial burdens are obvious . As set forth in our previous correspondence and at the Planning Commission hearing on February 17, such an ordinance will certainly discourage any further mobilehome park development within the City and could result in immediate and substantial increases in rents in existing parks . The foregoing comments are by no means all in- .clusi.ve. As before, we have not had the opportunity to make an in-depth analysis of the ordinance. We felt, however, • The Planning Commission April 20 , 1982 Page Four that the areas we discussed would be helpful in your pre- paration for this evening ' s hearing. Very truly yours , . Kenneth L . Waggoner KLW:vlw • cc : The Honorable Ruth Finley , Mayor Members of the City Council C . W. Thompson, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney • • • • • • IL- \1 r-r LAI- 41� _'k, c. b Ja- A-) cr �— — �� _ cam;.c�� �c' C.�.Q. � G�.ti � / tE:Lt:�...c_l"�- Ok,'J 6K_ f2._rll r GTC-1 BEACH PLANNING DEPT, APR 2 G 1982 'Q P. O. 13 ox 190 0 Huntington Beach Mobile Home Owners Council P.O. Box 2705 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 R E C E I V E D APR, 29 1992 MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION vcvdopment senvicc:, We are shocked atthe nakedness of the mobile home conversion ordinance as presented on April 20th. The ordinance referred to you by the Council has been completely stripped of any concern for the public MEMBER PARKS interest . It does not seem to go one step. further Beachview Mobile Home Park than the state codes (65863 . 7) and (66427 . 4) require. Brookfield Manor Cabrillo The conversion of a mobile home park should be the Del Mar Mobile Estates riftwood result of a joint effort between the park owners , urttington-by-the-Sea the park residents , and the city. The park owner Huntington Mobile Estates Huntington Shorecliffs initiates the problem by requesting a change of use. Huntington Shores Huntington Valley He who creates a problem should contribute to its is Amigos Mobile Park Pacific Trailer Park solution. That the mobile home owner as well as the ,Rancho Del Rey park owner has a very substantial investment has been Rancho Huntington Sea Aira Mobile Estates clearly demonstrated in recent discussions of buy- ta Breeze Mobile Estates Skandia Mobile Country out formulas . He certainly qualifies as an "interested" Villa de la Playa Villa Huntington party and should be so recognized by inclusion in all procedures and discussions . The city - as a guardian of the public interest - should mandate that both parties - park owners and park residents work together, in good faith to provide a solution for the . problems born out of a mobile home park conversion. All procedures should include all three parties - a joint effort. With the above thought in mind we suggest the following additions to the ordinance. i •.... a..lu .a.,s .0 ram... .....r� . • ..s t ✓ia . — r t 9270 (a) PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to provide - where appropriate and in the public interest - extended guidelines and procedures as an extension of state codes (65863 . 7) and (66427 . 7) which are minimum standards and do not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures . 9270 (b) IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT (S) Will be filed by the applicant and the park residents but will not be accepted until after a joint meeting of the parties involved - park owner, park residents , and city. This meeting will address the following: 1 . If the property is to be sold - can it be sold or leased to the park residents? 2 . What is the status of available spaces in Orange County? 3 . What is the current status of available affordable housing in Orange County? 4 . How much lead time is anticipated if construction is involved? 5 . The City Attorney will provide all three parties with a status report of current legislation affecting conversions . 6 . Are the .development plans in harmony with the general plan or will a density bonus be requested? r 9270 (c) RELOCATION AND BUY-OUT PLAN All mobile home owners are eligible and will receive either 100% of the total and complete cost of relocation in Orange County or the In Park - Market Value as determined by an in- dependent appraiser with mobile home expertise . This is the procedure used under condemnation proceedings where lard and improvements are valued. Wait a minute! The buy-out cost is not as much as you think. After paying the In Park Value the developer can sell the coaches at Kelly Blue Book. ( I_ knew we would find a use for it . ) This could be as much as a 25% discount. If all development costs - raw, unimproved land (which this is not) , grading, legal fees are excessive for Plan A - the developer reaches for Plan B - attaches a coupon for a density Bonus - and tries again . 9270 (d) REVIEW OF IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT (S) It is not possible to evaluate and report " Impact of Conversion" until the mobile home owners have been fully advised of the buy- out plan and its details . The weeks of discussion have dramatized the complexity and diversity of problems created. The City Council is fully aware that it will be the beneficiary of all the residual problems of housing, welfare, etc . that not even Solomon could handle. A big problem is simply many little ones - if the mobile home owners are given proper compensation they will have the means to solve their own problems . - individually. Presto - _no problem - as they say on T.V. A , In Conclusion - One of the reasons for developing an ordinance, if not the main reason, is to provide the developer with a yard stick for estimating development costs . Fine! The City - as a guardian of ' the public interest - and sole beneficiary of residual problems related to mass displacement should recognize that proper compensation will permit individuals to solve their problems individually - leaving the City and taxpayers free to enjoy the fruits of controlled growth - in the public interest . Sounds like a real bargain. This "coupon'' expires June 30, 1982 . HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILE HOME OWNERS COUNCIL , � Huntington Reach® r ---I Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS . R E A LTO R. 81.01 Slater Avenue e Huntington Beach, CA 92647 e (714) 847-6093 April 30, 1982 TO: Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach FROM: Natalie Kotsch Chairman, Mobilehome Advisory Committee RE: Mobilehome Conversion Ordinance: Request for Continuance The Mobilehome Advisory Committee met on Thursday, April 29, and discussed a potential alternative to the buy-out plans being proposed in the draft mobilehome conversion ordinance. The alternative which was proposed in our meeting would provide for relocation of those mobilehomes which are relocatable. In those instances where a mobile- home cannot be relocated due to age or structural problems, the park owner would be required to pay the coach owner his original purchase price of the, coach plus the cost of any capital improvements as defined by Internal Revenue Service guidelines. We believe this alternative may be acceptable to both coach and park owners and would like the opportunity to develop fiscal data so that we can present it to appropriate representatives of both groups. - In order to provide the time necessary for this analysis, we are respectfully requesting that consideration of the Mobilehome Conver- sion. Ordinance be continued to your meeting of Tuesday, June 1 , 1982, We would appreciate your consideration of our request. For your information, members of the Mobilehome Advisory Committee and others present at our April 29 meeting included : Mayor Bob Mandic , Councilwoman Ruth Finley, Planning Commissioner Jean Schumacher, Jack Wright (Rancho Huntington) , Ellen Trent and Guy Kingsbury (Huntington By the Sea) , Ralph Meyer (Huntington Shores) , Brian Lake (Seacliff Corporation) , Richard Harlow, consultant, Jewell Chapman (Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS) , Judith Severy (Board of REALTORS staff) , Charles Clark and Hal Simmons (City of Huntington Beach Planning Department) , and myself. OFFICERS HARRY BUSSIERE, President eNANCY RHYME, First Vice President SHIRLEY MILLER,Second Vice President eELAINE STEPHENS,Secretary-Treasurer DIRECTORS . JAMES E. LOGAN e MARK-CON LEY ^FLORENCE LUBOW• BETTY WALLER eKELLEY ADAMS WI Lt..WOODS, Executive Vice President E xµl t3 r'r 31 r ®� City of Huntington Beach * �1 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY AU1191NISTRATOR SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator PREPARED BY: James W. Palin, Director Development Services �o 0 r DATE: May 3 , 1982 SUBJECT: MOBILE HOME PARK ZONING At the April 19 , 1982 City Council meeting, staff was directed to rezone all of the City ' s non-conforming- mobile home parks to MH District. This communication is intended to inform the City Council of the steps which must be taken to rezone the parks , . establish tentative time-frames for such action, and identify additional 'issues the City Council may wish .to consider at this time. Of the City' s 19 mobile home parks, seven will need to be re- zoned to MH. Because MH zoning is only considered to be con- sistent with low and medium density residential general plan designations , however, general plan amendments as well as rezoning will be necessary for four of the seven parks. The following table indicates existing zoning and general plan designations for the seven non-conforming parks : Zoning General Plan Action Required Huntington Mobile Estates R5 Med. Den. Rezone Only Rancho Del Rey R2 Med. Den. Rezone Only Pacific Trailer Park R5 Med. Den. Rezone Only Huntington Shores R5 ,C3 High Den. GPA, Rezone Driftwood R5 Comm. Rec. GPA, Rezone Cabrillo RA-0 Visitor Serv. GPA, Rezone Beachview M1 Gen. Ind. GPA, Rezone . Action to rezone the parks that only need .rezoning can begin immediately and will probably take six to eight weeks to com- plete . The parks which need general plan amendments will be placed on Land Use Element Amendment 82-1 as administrative items . Staff anticipates that the first public hearing before the Planning Commission could be scheduled for the first meet- ing in August, 1982 . Zone changes for these parks could be processed concurrently with the general plan amendment. i Trleplionr (7 1 4) 530-5'02 Another issue which Council may wish to consider is the fact that there are three other mobile home parks in the City which currently have MH zoning, but are not consistent with the Land Use Element. Del. Mar Mobile Estates, Rancho Huntington, and Villa de la Playa are designated low density residential but are developed at 8 . 4 to r 9 . 2 units per gross acre. If Council so directs, . staff could add these three parks to GPA 82-1 to change the designation to medium density residential . A third issue concerns the MH zoning ordinance itself . The ordin- ance as it is currently established requires a minimum park size of 10 acres and a maximum density of 9 units per acre. Four parks which currently have MH zoning are nonconforming according to these standards, and five of the seven parks to be rezoned will also be nonconforming according to the ordinance standards. The following table indicates parks which would not be in conformance with the MH zoning ordinance: Acres Density Huntington Mobile Estatesl 9 . 20* 11 . 41* Pacific .Trailer Parkl 18 . 65 14 . 26* Huntington Shoresl 7 .10* 6 .19 Cabrillo Trailer Parkl 6 . 00* 7 . 50 Beachview Parkl 5. 64*' 14 . 36* Del Mar Mobile Estates 15. 43 9 . 20* Huntington-By-The-Sea 31 . 88 14 . 02* Sea Breeze Mobile Estates 5. 03* 12 . 92* Skandia Mobile Country 17 . 43 9. 58* To be rezoned to MH * Not in conformance with MH ordinance standards If Council desires, the MH ordinance could be modified to allow existing mobile home parks to be grandfathered into the zoning dis- trict and allowed to function as developed, even though they would not meet the proper standards . The alternative would be to take no action and allow the parks to function as they have in the past as nonconforming uses under MH zoning. CWP:JWP:HS:bas EX1401 T 3 Z. hur*tington beach development services department A • Eir TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Development Services DATE: May 4, 1982 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Based on prior_ Planning Commission discussion and supplemental information to be supplied at the public hearing, staff recom- mends that the Planning Commission approve and recommend for adoption Code Amendment N(m . 81-18/Negative Declaration No. 82-3 . 2 .0 ANALYSIS• At the April 20, 1982 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed code amendment and suggested a number of modi- fications . The following modifications have been made: 1 . 1�elocation Assistance Eligibility has been redefined as "Eligible Tenant" . 2. The Approval Required section has had wording added to indicate the necessity .for public hearings. A paragraph has also been added explaining the purpose of the public hearing and approval process. 3 . The Notice of Intent section has had wording added to indicate that the notice must be delivered at least 15 days prior to the public hearing on the impact of conversion report. 4 . The Impact. of Conversion Report Required section has had wording added to require that. the report address availability of replace- mont spac..e within 100 miles of the City. The Plann.ind Commi.ss:ion also agreed that they would no longer con- sicier Nel ].ey Blue Book, or insurance replacement value as means for dotterm.i_ni.nct purchase price of displaced units . Rather, future disutl�-;:;ic,r� 1--n(j rrdinq purchase price would be Limited to a percentage of full market va Lue clnd use of a sliding scale. AR& MM A•FM•23A • CA 81-18/ND 82-3 • May 4 , 1982 Page 2 When using a percentage of full market value, it will be necessary to explain in the ordinance who will be responsible for selecting the ! appraiser. Staff recommends that the park owner select an independent appraiser . With use of a sliding scale, it will be particularly impor- tant to clarify exactly when the appraisals are to be made. It is staff "s recommendation that all appraisals be made prior to approval of the tenant assistance plan. Staff has determined that a reasonable sliding scale buy-out formula would be the following: Amount of Percentage of Notice Given Full Market Value Given 1 Year 80% or Relocation Cost 2 Years 60% or Relocation Cost 3 Years 40% or Relocation Cost 4 Years 20% or Relocation Cost 5 Years Relocation Cost • It is staff ' s opinion that the above methodology would constitute an equitable formula for notification of park residents and purchase of units which cannot be relocated. Staff will provide the Planning Commission with supplemental information at the public hearing which will provide exact ordinance wording for including the sliding scale in the Tenant Assistance Plan section. 3 . 0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: At the April 19, 1982 City Council meeting, staff was directed to rezone • all of the City ' s nonconforming mobile home parks to MH District. This portion of the staff report is intended to inform the Plannina Commission of the steps which must be taken to rezone the parks, establish tentative timeframes for such action, and identify additional issues the City Council and the Planning Commission may wish to consider at this time. • Of the City' s 19 mobile home parks, seven will need to be rezoned to MH. Because MH zoning is only considered to be consistent with low and medium density residential general plan designations, however, general plan amendments as well as rezoning, will be necessary for four of the seven parks. The following table indicates existing zon- ing and general plan designations for the seven nonconforming parks: Zoning General Plan Action Required Huntington Mobile Estates R5 Med. Den. Rezone Only Rancho Del Rey R2 Med. Den. Rezone Only Pacific Trailer Park R5 Med. Den. Rezone Only • Huntington Shores R5, C3 High Den. GPA, Rezone Driftwood R5 Comm. Rec. GPA, Rezone Cabrillo RA-0 Visitor-Sere. GPA, Rezone Beachview M1 Gen. Indust. GPA, Rezone. • CA 81-18/ND 82-3 May 4 , 1982 Page 3 Action to rezone the parks that only need rezoning can begin immediately and will probably take six to eight weeks to complete. The parks which need general plan amendments will be placed on Land Use Element Amend- ment 82-1 as administrative items. Staff anticipates that the first public hearing before the Planning Commission could be scheduled for the first meeting in August, 1982. Zone changes for these parks could processed ,concurrently with the general plan amendment. Another issue which the Planning Commission and City .Council may wish to .consider is the fact that there are three other mobile home parks in the City which currently have MH zoning, but are not consistent with the Land Use Element. Del Mar Mobile Estates, Rancho Huntington, and Villa de la Playa are designated low density residential but are de- veloped at 8 . 4-9 . 2 units per gross acre. If Council so directs, staff could add these three parks to GPA 82.-1 to change the designation to medium density residential . A third issue concerns the MH zoning ordinance itself . The ordinance as it is currently established, requires a minimum park size of 10 . acres and a maximum density of 9 units per acre. Four parks which currently have MH zoning are nonconforming according to these standards, and five of the seven parks to be rezoned will also be nonconforming according to the ordinance standards. The following table indicates parks which would not be in conformance with the MH zoning ordinance: Acres Density Huntington Mobile Estatesl 9 .20* 11 .41* Pacific Trailer Parkl 18.65 14 . 26* Huntington Shoresl 7 . 10* 6. 19 Cabrillo Trailer Parkl 6 .00* 7 .50 Beachview Parkl 5 . 64* 14 .36* Del Mar Mobile Estates 15. 43 9 . 20* Huntington-By-The-Sea 31 .88 14 . 02* Sea Breeze Mobile Estates 5 . 03* 12 .921, Skandia Mobile Country 17. 43 9 . 58* 1 To be rezoned to MH * Not in conformance with MH ordinance standards If the City Council desires, the MH ordinance could be modified to allow existing mobile home parks to be grandfathered into the zoning district and allowed to function as developed, even though they would not meet the proper standards. The alternative would be to take no action and allow the parks to function as they have in the past as nonconforming uses under MH zoning. .CA 81-18/ND 82-3 . . May 4 , 1982 Page 4 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: .Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Development Services po.sted draft Negative Declaration No. 82-3 for 10 days, and no comments either. verbal or written were received . The staff_ in its initial study of the project has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to action on the code amendment, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 82-3 . 5 . 0 RECOMMENDATION: Based on prior Planning Commission discussion and supplemental informa- tion to be supplied at the public hearing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve and recommend for adoption Code Amendment No. 81-18. and Negative Declaration No . 82-3 . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Code Amendment No. 81-18 2 . , Negative Declaration No. 82-3 . JWP:HS: jlm CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE, Of,"' `fill, CITY Ole -HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDINI', Till,", HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERl!"TO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED, "MOBILEHOME CONVERSION" The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding thereto new Article 927 entitled, "Mob ilehorne Conversion" to read as follows : 9270. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. The provisions of this article will apply to all mobilehome parks in the city regardless of zoning or general plan designation, before any change of use , as defined in this code , will be allowed. 9270 . 1 , DEIFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall. be construed as defined herein unless froin the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases : ( a) ChanL�_e_of' Use . Use of the park for a purpose other than the rental , or the holding out for rent , of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habi- tation , and does riot mean the adoption , amendment , or repeal of a park rule or regulation . A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. " Change of use" Includes , but is not limited to , a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium , stock cooperative , planned unit development , com- mercial use , industrial use, or vacant land . (b) Eligible Tenant. An "eligible tenant" shall be any mobilehome owner residing in the mobilehome park more than 270 days a year. Such tenants shall be entitled to relocation assistance as required by this article. Non- owner mobilehome tenants shall not be entitled to any form of relocation assistance. ( c ) Mobile home , "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street or }iighway by authorization or a permit in one or more sections designed and equipped for human habitati6ji to be used with or, without a foundation system. Therefore , "mobile- home does not Include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches, or factory-built housing resting upon permanent foundations . 1 . (d) Mob tichome }'ar)c . "Mobilehome lark" i.; any area or land used parking or st.orajre or t.t•r.o or more mobilehomes for housekeeping , sleeping or\ living quarters. (e) Mobilehome Space. "Mobilehome space" is any area , tract of land , site, lot, pad or portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome. (f) NotiE.ication Period . A 365-day notification period , shall follow the date of the notice of intent during which time no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to state law. 9270. 3 . APPROVAL REQUIRED. No person, firm, corporation, partnership or other entity shall change the use of a mobile- -., home park without proper tenant notification pursuant to Section 9270. 5 of this article and the submission of an "impact of conversion report" deemed adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, and a tenant assistance plan, reviewed by the Department of Development Services and approved at a public hearing by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal . The purpose of review and approval of the impact of con- version report and the tenant assistance plan shall be to inform the Planning Commission/City Council of the consequences asso- ciated with the conversion and to ensure that adequate assistance ,•� as required by this article is provided to all eligible tenants. 9270 . 5 . NOTICE OF INTENT. A notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome park and relocate tenants shall be de- livered to each tenant and to the Department of Development Services at least 365 days prior to the proposed date for the change of use. Evidence of service of notice of intent shall be submitted with the tenant assistance plan, and in such form as approved by the Director of Development Services . 9270. 7 . IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT REQUIRED. Prior to the conversion of an existing mobilehome park to another use, the applicant shall submit a report on the impact of the con- version upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. The report shall address the availability of replacement space in mobilehome parks within 100 miles of the City and any other information required by the Department of Development Services . The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least fifteen (15) days prior to public hearing on the impact of conversion report before the Planning Commission. 2 . 9270 . 9 . TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN. A tenant assistance plan shall be submitted during the 36.5-day notification period. The tenant iss.istance plan shall include a statement of all relocation and moving assiistancc to be provided to each eligible tenant and al1 steps the applicant will take to ensure the successful reloca- tion of each tenant . The following guidelines constitute minimum standards for an acceptable tenant assistance plan. Other forms of tenant assistance, as proposed by the applicant, may be con- sidered by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal. (a) Any eligible tenant shall receive 100 percent of the total cost of relocation. Those costs shall include disconnec- tion and breakdown of .the mobilehome, transportation of the mobilehome, all readily movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehome park and the cost of all hookups at the new site. All such expenses shall be identified and paid by the applicant at the time of the move. *The park to which the unit is relocated shall. be within five hundred (500) miles of the City. If the tenant desires relocation beyond five hundred (500) miles, the tenant shall be responsible for all costs associated with relocation beyond the five hundred (500) mile .limit established by this code. (b) If the eligible tenant does not elect to be relocated to another park in accordance with the provisions of this section, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any attached op-. tional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and .expando rooms from the tenant at a value determined ----------------------------------- THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION REMAIN TO BE DETERMINED 9270 . I I . ACCE'11TANCE Oh REPORTS . The final. form o.f the Uri- pact report and tenant assistance plan will he as approved by the Planning Cowrni:., ion . The reports, If acceptahle , shall re- rnai.n on f1te wl.t-h the Department of Development Services for re- vl.ew by any interested persons . ( ;t ) I; tc h (0, t.)Ic, the moh l.loh,')nri.� pat-k J." iVen wr• lt.Lcn nc� t,.it'.tr,att.on within ten ( 10 ) clays of approval of the tenant asststanct, plan. 3 . • 9270 . 13 . I'ftl-;1ILQIJT SF..' F'S TO APPROVAI, OF '('11NANT ASSI:STANC'r; PLAN . The I' Lannini,, Commt:i slon shall not approve a. tenant assis- � tance plan for a inobilehome park change of use unless : ( ,a) The appl team hrr complied with all. applicahle city ord Lnanccr; ,In(1 Late ret;ulatLoris in effect at the time the tenant assistance plan was approved . • ( h) The applicant. has complied with the conditions of ap- proval , Inc lud LnL.; the following items : ( 1 ) Tenants will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of the lr lease.) . ( ?. ) T(' nants have been given the right to terminate their. .leases upon approval of the -tenant assistance plan . .. ( 3 ) DemolLtion or construction will. not occur until the t:enarnt assistance plan is approved and the . twelve ( 12 ) • month notification period has expXred . 9270. 15 . 1I;;[?;> It1?QII:IRF;D. Each impact report and tenanY, ass tstance plain :;n mritted shall be accompanied by a fee estab- l. tshed by resolution of the City Council . 9270 . 17 . Ac;TTc)N BY PLANNING r,'OKMISS ION . At the conclusion 11;:; he,arin[; , noticed as otherwise provided in this code , the Pl -Lulll rri; CorninLs:; 'i �n shall approve , conditionally approve , or deny �atd tenant as; i.,stance plan pursuant to the provisions of this ar,I tc,le , and such dec Lsion shall be supported by a resolution of the PlannLng Commission setting forth its findings . SI CrI'1:(.)IJ 2 . "'his ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adopt Lon. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council or the City of Huntington Beach at a regular, meeting thereof held on the_ day of__ _.. _ -- - --� 1982 . —__ -- - -- -- - -- ---- Mayor City Merl( tl , • I . MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1982 - 7: 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Higgins CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY SCHUMACHER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF APRIL 6 AND APRIL 20, 1982, WERE APPROVED BY_ THE FOLLOWING VOTE: r AYES: *Paone, Winchell, Livengood, Porter, *Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: (Paone, Schumacher) *Abstain from 4-20-82 minutes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. COMMISSION ITEMS: Commissioner Livengood announced that he will be attending the work- shop at U.C. Irvine regarding planning commissions. ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY WINCHELL STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SUPPLY THE COMMISSION WITH COPIES OF THE LEGAL NOTICES THAT ARE SENT TO THE PUBLISHERS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES : None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None ' ^ REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 (Continued from April 20, 1982) Initiated by City of Huntington Beach Minutes, H.B. Plan. .ng Commission May 4, 1982 Page 2 This is an ordinance amending the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by establishing a new article for Mobile Home Park Conversion regula- tions . The ordinance will establish requirements for notification of mobile home park residents, and will, set guidelines for approval of a Tenant Relocation Assistance Plan prior to the change of use of a mobile home park. Chuck Clark and Hal Simmons summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened, after a five minute recess to view the added in- formation. The following persons addressed the Commission in opposi- tion to the proposed amendment: Mr. Wire Ruth Benno Ed Judowski Natalie Coach Brent Swanson Bob Biancus Mr. Knoles . Robert Williams Wallace Grotnoise The following points were raised in the public hearing. It was felt that persons who reside in a mobile home part-time should be given the same compensation for relocation benefits.. A suggestion was made to allow the tenants to hire their own appraiser for arbitration. The statement was made that there are no more spaces available in all of Orange County and that the few available do not accept units older than 2 years. It was stated, again, that no consideration is being given to the elderly who wish to retire in this City or to the people who have jobs in this area. Mobile home tenants should be given the "first right of refusal" so that, if they wish, they may purchase the land if they do not wish to relocate. It was suggested that in a Redevelopment Area, a homeowner is paid at least 10050 of the fair market value of his home and that it should be the same in this case. Natalie Coach, member of the committee formed by the . City Council, asked for a continuance on this item to allow the committee to come back with viable alternatives. A suggestion was made that private developers buy vacant land for relocating the displaced tenants. One park owner who does not wish to convert his own park, stated as an example, that in his park there are 10 coaches for sale that are not getting sold. lie felt that this is due to the poor economy and suggested that conversions be handled on a case-by-case basis. Robert Williams stated that he would be available -to meet with any of the tenants at any time. Brent Swanson suggested that the City use an overlay zone which can be lifted after relocation is completed. He also felt that an environmental document should be employed instead,,O"�4 of a negative declaration. He said that using full market value could -2- 5-4-82 - P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 4, 1982 Page 3 be construed as "inverse condemnation". The public hearing was closed. Commissioners Schumacher and Paone stated that they had listened to the tapes and were, therefore, eligible to vote. After considerable discussion, the consensus was that the sliding scale was not a viable vehicle for arriving at compensation of the tenants. Commissioner Paone suggested using a flat fee and only using the sliding scale for older units . He felt that in. reality there was no truly fair stan- dard to use. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO , ELIMINATE THE USE OF A SLIDING SCALE. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES: Mahaffey ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACHER AND SECONDED BY MAHAFFEY TO CONTINUE CODE AMENDMENT 81-18 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 TO THE MEET- ING OF MAY 18, 1982, TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO GET FIGURES FROM THE HUNTINGTON SHORES PARK CONVERSION. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER AMENDING THE MO- TION FOI2 CONTINUANCE `1'O INCLUDE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF A CASE-BY- CASE BASIS IN A SIMPLE FASHION USING THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ORDINANCE: AS A MODEL. THIS MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: _ :aane, Por-cer, Schumacher, Mahaffey :J-_venr-ood, Wincnell ins �_'t:G i"Ci. _ G[d.i^Ct VOLE? was a.xen on Clhe previous motion to continue : ,iv: r.;.;oou, Paone, �,vi.;chell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey .:�. ..t' ..(:., ..•�l 1 .. ..:`i) .:..\~lJ�.t� i:: PA[`liNE STA-,i ...� i�.i:��._•l.,L �V ,1'.r,�i� ;\ � \:.�. i:� �•t: `.:.C,•...'i�'l.: 0 MP," 1h .98,2, AN llV i'.,\i..f',i• ,;�; ',l t'1 i: ,•Viiia�i.r.(..�1�7 `��1L: ?ziore, Winci:eil, Porter, SC ,ilituciter, Mahaffey P.C. Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission May 4, 1982 Page 4 ON MOTION BY MAHAFFEY AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO . WRITE A LETTER TO THE CITY COUNCIL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION COM- MUNICATING THAT OVERLAY ZONING IS BEING CONSIDERED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Panne, Higgins ABSTAIN: None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 81-29/TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11681./NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-51 (Continued from 4-20-82) Applicant: Robert F. Curtis Development Company A request to permit a two-lot division of land and the construction of 78 condominium units on 5. 1 gross acres of property located on the south side of Warner Avenue between Lynn and Green Streets. Savoy Bellavia informed the Commission of the change to Condition #1 for the CUP. The public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of granting the application was the developer, Robert Curtis. Seeing no other persons wished to address the Commission on this issue, the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion was minimal . ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND. BY LIVENGOOD NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 81-51 WAS ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES: None ABSENT: Higgins ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11681 WAS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS -AND CONDITIONS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . The proposed subdivision of this 4 . 152 gross acre parcel of land zoned R3, is proposed to be constructed having 20 units per gross acre. 2. The Gener<_il Plcin hcis set forth provisions .for this type of land use as well as setting forth objectives for implementation for this type of housing. The proposed project complies with the land use element and all other elements of the General Plan. 3 . The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the land use designation for medium density -4- 5-4-82 - P.C. EX141 3 IT- 3� huntington teach development services department SAff E0jj�- TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE : May 18 , 1982 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-3 - MOBILE IIOME PARK. CONVERSION ORDINANCE 1. 0 . SUGGESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planninq Commission approve and recommend for adoption Code ' Aniendment No. 81-18/Negative Declaration No. 82-3 by approving the• attached Alternative Ordinance #2 . 2. 0 ANALYSIS : At the May .4 , 1982 Planning Commission meeting, the public hearing for Code Amendment No. 81-18 was continued to May 18 , 1982, in order to allow the Mobile Home Advisory Committee to obtain infor- mation regarding buy-out of units at original tenant purchase price. At the ensuing May 10, 1-982 Advisory Committee meeting , the Committee .received the results of a survey conducted by the residents .of l,funtington Shores Mobile Home Park . The survey o:f- 44 units in the park resulted in 16 responses to the question asking what .the original tenant purchase price of each unit was. The 1.6 responses indicated an average original purcha.se price of $20 , 975 per unit. If this figure is applied to the park density 1 of 6 . 20 units per acre, the buy-out cost per acre would be $130 , 045 . It is important to note, however, that the density of Huntington Shores is less than any other park in the City, and less than half as much as some parks . if the same $20, 975 per -unit value were applied to a park with 1-4 units per acre, the buy-out cost would be $293 , 650 per acre. It appears that a formula requiring buy-out at original purchase price may generally be more expensive than buy-out at 50% of full market value. The principle advantage of such a formula would be that those with outstanding mortgages would be compensated ade- quately to pay off the mortgage. The principle disadvantage would be this likelihood of buy-out being very expensive for park owners , pa.rtiC11_l.ar1_y ill the future, j.is units are resold at lncreasint1l.\' higher values. It may also be difficult to document actual ori- ginal purchase prices in some cases. The attached Alternative Ordinance #.1 incorporates buy-out at original. purchase price into the Tenant Assistance Plan section of the ordinance. s } A-F M-23A CA 81-18/ND 82-3 May 18 , 1982 Page 2 The Planning Commission also directed staff to prepare an ordinance to .reflect the Newport Beach ordinance philosophy in the Tenant Assistance Plan section. Two versions of this approach are attached. The first, Alternative Ordinance #2 , includes a listing of. items the Planning Commission should consider when determining adequacy of the impact of conversion report. The second version, Alternative Ordi- nance #3, does not .include the listing of items to be considered. Both versions have the same Tenant Assistance Plan section which does not specify Minimum assistance standards but merely requires approval of a plan. The advantage of such an approach is that it allows for a great deal of flexibility in determining assistance to be given. The principle disadvantage is that it may result in a lengthy public hearing process before approval of a plan. As a final. item, the Planning Commission also requested that an or- dinance be prepared which reflects the Newport Beach ordinance in its entirity with the use of overlay zoning and no minimum standards for approval .of a tenant assistance ("mobile home phase-out" ) plan. Alternative Ordinance #4 utilizes this approach. It requires that the Planning Commission and City Council evaluate each nonconforming park and determine whether or not to apply the overlay zone. Pro- cedures for establishing an overlay zone are the same as a zone change. In order for a park owner_ to remove the overlay M.11. zone, or rezone from MH, a mobile home phase-out plan must be prepared and approved . No minimum standards for the plan are established . It is important to note that the City Council has already directed staff to rezone all- nonconforming parks to M11. Rezoning and preparation of General Plan amendments for the nonconforming parks is estimated to cost $6 , 200 in staff time, while the preparation and processing of the overlay zone is estimated to cost $2 , 800. One other significant point to note is that the attached Alternative Ordinances 1 , 2, and . 3 could all function without the need for rezoning parks or applying overlay zones . 3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the . Department of Development- Services posted draft Negative Declaration No. 82-3 for. 10 days , and no comments either verbal or written were received. The staff in its initial_ study of the project, has 1'ecom- mended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to action oil the code amendment, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 82-3 . . 4 . 0 RECOMME'NDATION : Staff recommends that tho Planning Commission approve and recommend for adoption, Code Amendment No. 81-18/Negative Declaration No. 82-3 by approving the attached Alternative Ordinance 42. . CA 81-18/ND 82-3 May 18 , 1982 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS : : 1. Alternative Ordinance #1 2 . Alternative Ordinance 42 3. Alternative Ordinance 43 4. Alternative Ordinance #4 5. Negative Declaration No. 82-3 IIS : 3 Im i A.1.C ' nacivu urainance #a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF TIE CITY OF IlUN` TNGTON BEACH 7\ ll NDJ N(; THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED, "MOBTLEHOME CONVERSION" The City Council of: the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SEC'.l:'ION 1 . The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding thereto new Article 927 entitled , "Mobilehome Conversion" to read as follows : 9270 . APPLTCATTON OF ARTICLE . The provisions of this article will apply to all mobilehome parks in the city regardless of zoning or generai1 plan designation, before any change of use , as defined in this code , will be allowed. 9270 . 1. DEFINITIONS . [cords and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein unlesa from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly � directed to the use of such words and phrases : (a) Applicant. "Applicant" shall mean the person , firm, Corporation , partnership , or other entity having leasehold interest or fee ownership in the. operation of a mobile home park. (b) Chan( c of Use . Use of the earl: for a purpose other than the rental , or the holding out for rent, of two or morn ` mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habi- tation , and does not mean the adoption, amendment , or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof: . "Change of use" includes , but is not limited to , a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative , planned unit development , com- mercial use , industrial use , or vacant land . (c) Eligible Tenant. An "eligible tenant" shall be any mobilehome owner residing in the mobilehome park more than 270 days a year . Such tenants shall he entitled to relocation assistance as required by this article . Non- owner: mQbilehome kenants shall not be entitled to any form of relocation assistance . (d ) Mobilchoiuc . "Mobilehome" is a structure transpoitable on tr sl.l cet -c>>--hi �hc;a - by authorization or a par mit in one or more suctions designed and equipped for ]lr.man habitation to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore , "mobile- home does not include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches , or factory-built housing resting upon permanent foundations . (e) Mcfljilcholllc Park . "Mobil.chollie park" is (lily ai.-ea of land used prijlllalTJ�' for 1--he placing , parking or Stou"I(jo of Lwo 01.- _ more mobilehomes for housekeeping , Sleeping Or livilly (Juarters . M r-lobilehoille Space t4ob i le h 011ie space" i.,; �111127 arcial tract of land, pad 0.17 portion Of a niohi.lehome park designated or used. for the occupancy of one inobilehome . (9) Notification Period. A 365-day notification period shall follow the daLo of the notice of intent dti.rinq which -Lime no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to state law. (h) oricjinal 'Fell;111L Purchase 1?.ri-cc. 'I'lle "o1-iqin,7.i1 tenClnt p 11 r C 11,7.1 s e ,-).r.i. ce" mean the: price which the tenantoriginally paidfor the mob JJ eI i(.-)me and any attached opt i.onal equiplilellL and/ or and expando -rooiiis - such purchri!:;e price shall be, vel. 1fied hy * Hlo Lolllnt- throuyli the existence of sales receil) -; ind-icatinq date of purchase , moneLary .amount o [ purchase , the identification or model numbers of all items purchased and the party from whom the items were purchased . 9270 . 3 . APPPOVA'k PEOUIREID . No person , firm, corporation, partnership or other enLit.y shall change the use of a. mobile- home par]; without_-_ proper tenant notification p u i.-s u a n L L o Section 9270 . 5 of this arLl.cle and the submission of an "impact-- of conversion repoi-L" deemed adequate by the P-lanning Contini.ss:l. oil at: a pliblic hear.in(j , and a tenant ass:1-stance p1ji11 , reviewed ))-,I; the Department of Dc-,,.ve.1,oj)mejiL Services and app.rov(,d al-- a publ.-Lic hearing by the Planniny Coiwiiission, or City Council on appeal . The purpose of review, and approval of the impact of coil- version report and the tenant assistance plan Aan shall be. to inform the Planning' Commission/City Council of the consequences asso- ciated ,,iith the conversion and to ensure that ad(,quate assistance as required by this article is provided to call eligible tenants . 9270 . 5 M0T_I ('1-: OP TNTIEW.P. A notice of in(-.cnt to change the use of mobilelioine park and relocate tenant:; slia.11 be de- livered to each Lenant and to the Dej.)a1_-tMenL of DevelopmenL Services at .least 365 days prior to the proposed date for the change of use. E'v.i.donce of .rcrvice of, notice of intent sh�).Jl be Subil"it- Lod wit-11 t-.he p.-lan , and in such form as approved by the of Pove.lopmenL 2 . 9270 . 7 IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT Prior to the conversion of an existing mobilehome park to another use , the applicant shall submit a report on the imphci: of tho con- version upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted . The reporlz . shall address replacement space availa- bility, monthly rents and coach acceptance criteria in mobilehome parks within 100 mYles of the City; and any other information required by the Department of Development Services . The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the impact report. 9270 . 9 . TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN . A tenant assistance plan shall be submitted concurrently with, or upon approval of , the Impact of conversion report . The following guidolines constitute minimum standards for an acceptable tenant assistance plan. (a) AIL eliqible tenants shall he entitled to receive 100 percent of the total cost of relocation. Those costs shall include disconnection and breakdown of the mobilehome, trans- portation of the mobilehome, all readily movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehome park and the cost of all hookups at the new site. All such expenses 'shall be i6entified and paid by the applicant at the time of the move- The park to which the unit is relocated shall be within five hundred ( 500) miles of the City. If the tenant desires relocation b0- - yond five hundred ( 500) miles, the tenant shall be responsible for all costs associated With relocation beyond the five hundred (500) mile limit established by this code . (b) if the eligible tenant cannot he relocated to an- other park in accordance with the procedures of 9270. 9 . (a) , the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any optional equip- ment and/or tag-&-longs and expando rooms 11rom the tenant at 100 percent A the original tenant purchase price . The eligihle tenant shall provide the Department of DOveicipmerilt. Services with verification of the date of purchase and the price of purchase of the mobilchome and attachments, within 30 days oC approval of the impact of conversion report. other forms OF Loriank assistance , as proposed by thn ap-- plicant, may be considered by the Planning Commissinn , or City Council on appeal . Hpon approval of the tenant assistance plan t i (-),, ()I, t.hf, 365.day notj Fi co Q on p-r i od ; and upon with ill '11,I)JA(.110r, j4haLn requINt iunn in PACCL At. tho time , the chanqu A usc uF the mobhuhinme Inrk m1Y ucuuf accordance with the terms of tho approved tenant assistance plan. 3 . 92.70 . 11 A(VEPTANCH OF REPORTS . The rinn i rorm off Lhc impact of conversion quport and tenant assisLanco plan will W.- as approved by the Planning Commission . The reports , if accept- able , shall remain on file with the Department of Devolopment. Services [or review by any interested persons . Each of the tenanks of the mobile home park shall be coven written notifica- tion within ton (10) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan . 9270 . 13 . PREREQUISITES TO APPROVAL OF TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN . The Planning Commission shall not approve a tenant assis- tance plan for a mobilphome park change of use unless : (a) The applicant has complied with Wl nppLicabln city ordinances and stale regulations in effect at the time the tenant assistance plan Wa5 approved . (b) The applicant has complied with Cc conditions K ap- proval ; including the following items : ( 1) TenaiiLs will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases . (2) Tenants have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan . (3) Demolition or construction will not occur until the 1:cnant assistance plan is approved aW We twelve ( 12) month notification period .has expired. 9270 . 15 . FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and tenant assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee estab- lished by resolution of the City Council 9270 . 174 ACTION BY PLANNIMG COMMISSION . At the conclusion of its hearing, noticed as otherwise provided K this code , the Planning Commission shall approve , conditionally approve , or deny said tenant assistance plan pursuant to the provisions oC this article , and such decision shall be ,supporLad by a rcsodution of the Planning Commission setting forth its findings . SECTT(.m 2 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption. 4 . PASSED AND ADOPTEI) by I-lie Council of HIC City Of flunti-tigton Peach at: a requ.Iar nice Ling Lhercof lw..] d on (-lie day of 1982 . ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor • REVIE'VIED AND APPP.OVED: APPROVED AS TO FORT.1; .......... City AdininisLraLor CiLy ALLurney INITIATED AND APPPOVED: Director of DevelopmenL Services • 5 . ' !11 1.1. 1t.l 1..L vl.: vLU11tu 1l 1.l:V .I'7G ORDINANCE' NO. AN ORDTNANC E OF THE CITY OF HUNTTNC:;7'ON BEACH AMENDING THH HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANUR CODE BY ADDING `l'lII:12ETO NEW ARTICLE 927 F.N't'].'1'i.ED, "MOBI. kHHOME CONVERSION" The City Council of the City of Huntington beach sloes ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach .Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding thereto new 1lrticle . 927 entitled, "Mobiilehome Conversion" to read as ' follows : 9270 . APPLTCATTON OF ARTICLE . The 'provisions of this article will apply to all mob:i.lehome parks in the city regardless of zoning or genei.al plan designation , before any change of use, as defined in this code , will Wallowed. 9270A . DPF1NITTONS , Words and phrases whynever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases : (a) Applicant. "Applicant" shall _mean the person, firm; corporation , Partnership, or other entity having leaschold interest or fee ownership in the operation of a mobile hone park . (b) Change of Use . Use .of the park for a purpose other than the rental , or the holding out for rent , of two or more mobilehome sites to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habi- tation, and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect ann entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes , but is not limited to, a change of the park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative , planned unit development, com- mercial use , industrial use , or vacant land . (c) Eligible `l'cnant . An "eligible tenant:" shall be any in the mobi.lehume park more than 270 days a year . Such tenants shall be ent.i.tl,ed .to relocation assistance as required by this article . Non- ownar mobi-lehomc tenants shall not be entitled to any form . of relocation assistance . (d) Mobi..lphame , "Mohi.lehome" is a structure transportable on a strauh or kiJti•r,:,y by authorization or a purmi. t in one or more sections designed and equipped for human hah i tati.on to be used with or without a .foundation system. Therufore , "mobile- home does not include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches , or factory-bui 1 t housing resting upon permanent founda tions . (e) Mob:ilohoii, "Mol,ilelloille parl, " ;iny area of land —1 ,0—r-6-- , -__ " - - used Prillia 1- Y . r I- le placing , parking or St:C)rI(.T(, of two or more mobilehomes. for housckeepinq , sleeping or ii-vincj .quarLers . "'pace . "MoL).11'eholile space" I MI.%), area , tract: of land , lot., pad or j..)ortion of a mohi lc.holllo park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome . (q) Notificiltion Period . A 365-day noLification perio(l shall. Of intCl-It.-. (*l"M7J.n(; Which time no tenant may be evicted without due cause according to state law. 9270 . 3 . APPPOVAT., REQUIRED. No person , fi.rrii, corporation , partnership or oth(-�r oriLit_17 shall change the of a mobile- home park .,jithouL proper tenant notification pursuant t--o Section 9270 . 5 of this article and the submis,;ioi) of an " impact, of conversion report" deemed adequate by the Plannincl Conii,.iission aL a publi-c hearin,.1 , and a tenant assistance plan , revle�-,,Cu by the Department of ])evelopnieriL Services and at a public hearing by the Planning Commission , or City Council on appeal . The purpose of review and approval. of (-.he impacL of coil- version report Eind the .Lenant assistance Ilan )Iall be to inform the Planning Coinnilssion,/CiLy Council of the consequences, asso- ciated with the conversion and to ensure LhIL adequate assistance as required by this article is provided to all eligible t-enan'L-_S-.. 9270 . 5 NOTICF, OF A notice of intcnL to change the use of i-,iol_-)il(-h0we park and relocate tenants shall . bo Cle- livei-ed to each .in(] to the Department of 1)(7-volop1,i(InL Services at lcasL 365 days prior to the proposed date for the change of use . Evidence of s(,i.vl-c(,-: of notice of intent shall be submitted with the tenant-. assistance plan , and in such form as approved by the Director of Development Services . 9270 . 7 . 01' CONV J!",PS-1014 RI PORT REOUTPIII'D . Pr.L, ol.- L-0 0 0 home park Lo ui joLho.r use , the coll.VOI r .in i-nobi Ile the appli-cant shall- suhmi.t a rcj.-)orL on the impact-. (.-) r Lhe con-. version upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park, Lo be converted. Planning Commission shall the following items into consideration when addressing the adccjuac}, of the report : 'I ) The of IllallufactAii:c, and size- of c,,-ich mobilehoilic in the park . liouscliohh; , S.I.."C' , houF)('hold l.(_,nqLh of ol: tenanL:-_-, , owner or renter , and pr imary or seasonal 1:0- sidellt . 2 . (c) ReplacemnnL Space availability, monthly rCnLs and coach acceptance criteria in mobilehomo parks within 100 miles of the City. The applicanL shall make copies of the report availahlo Q0 each resident nF Me mobilehnme park at least fifLeen ( 15) days prior to the public hearing on the impact report . 9270 . 9 . , TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN . A tenanL assistance plan ' shall be submittrd concurrently with , or upon approval of , the impact of conversion report. The plan must include a time schedule and method by which all eligible tenants will be relocated or appropriately compensated . Upon approval of the tenant assistance plan; upon expiration oE the 365-day notification period; and upon compliance wAh all applicable State regulations in effect at the timc, Lhe change of use of the mobilehomn park, may occur in accordance With the terms of the approved tenant assistance plan. 9270 . 11 ., ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS . The Mal form of . tK impact of conversion report And tenant assistance plan will be as approved by the Planning Coiwi)ission . The reports , if accept- able , shall remain on file with the Department of Development Services for review by any interested persons . Loch of the tenants of the mobile home park shall be given ven written notifica- tion within ten ( 10) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan. 9270 . 13 . PREREQUTSITES TO APPROVAL OF TENANT ASSISTANCE PLA1,1. The Plannin(.[ (_'ommission shall not approve a tenant assis- tance plan for a mobilehome park change of use unless : (a) Tha applicanf has complied with all applicable city ordinances and state regulations in effect at the Lime -the tenant .assistance plan Was approved . (b) The applicant has complied with the conditions of ap- provalv , including the following items : (1) Tenants will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their leases . (2) Tenants have been given the right to terminate their -leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan . (3) Demolition or construction will not: occur until- the tenant assistance plan is approved and the twelve ( 12) month notification period has expired . 9270 . 15 . FKFS REQUIRED. Each impact ropurL and tunant- assistance plan suhmitted shall be accompanied by a fee estab- lished by resolution of the City Council 3 . -1 W; . Al- Lhe conclu-',;'9270 . -1.7 . Al."VION BY PI.ANNIIT S",; ('01,1MI011 of i. I.-'s hc"Irill(1 , IwI i (-(,(l ;1:; 1.)rov ill approve , or Said tenant assj ;t;uicc plan pure;uant to the provisions of LIIIIS article , .-md :7,uch dcci:,ion r;hall be supporL(.d ri resolution of the Planning Comm-Ii.5-S1011 setting forth its fincliwj .; . SPIT.I.OM 2 . This ordinance shall take cff(�c[-- thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTEM by -1--he (-'.it I y Counci . of the City of 11L1It.i.ngton Beach aL a regular meeting thereof hold on the day of 1982 . ATTE'ST : Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVIED: APPROVED AS 'PO FORM; City ALWi:ney INITIATED AND APPROVED: D.i.rect-.nr of Dpvc]-opment Services 4 . AI.0 nc►uive urainance #3 ORDINANCE: NO. AN 0I1I0INANCH OF THE CITY OF HUNTI NC:TON BEACH AM N1 LNG `1'lll; HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING THERETO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED, "MOI31 LEHOME CONVERSION" The City Council of the City of ltun Ling Lan Beach does ordain as follows : SECT MN 1 . The Iluntington Beach Ordinance code is hereby amended by adding thereto new Article 927 entitled ) "Mob.ilehome Conversion" to read as. follows : 9270 . hl'hI,1CATI014 Or ARTICLE . ' The provisions of this article Will apply to all mobi_7-ehome parks in Me city regardless of zoning or. generil Olan desi.gnat.ion, before any change of use, as defined .in this code , . will be allowed. 9270 . .1 . I) FT:NIT:IONS . Words .and phrases whenever used in this article shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases : (a ) Ap1)1..icanL . "Applicant" shall mean the person, firm, coil or ) L i-r)n , }>;lrtn� rsh i.l), or ot:l►e►- entity h rvi-nq 7u aschold interest or fun ownership in Lhe operation of a mob i .l c home park . (h) C.hangc a f Use . Use .of the part: for a pur.pose other than the MALal, or th holding out. for. rent , of two or more mob.i.lehome sites to accommodate ►tlobileliomes used .for human habi- tation , and does not mean 'the adoption, amendment , or repeal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" includes , but is not limited to , a change of the park or any port +.on thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative, planned unit development , com- mercial use , industrial use , or vacant land . (c) Migible Tenant:. An "eligihie tenant" shall be any mobileTiome owner i:esidi-ng in the mobilehome park more than 270 days a year . Such tenants shall be entitled to relocation assistance as required by this article . Non- ownor nobi..lehomp Lanants shall not be entitled to any form of relocaSon assistance . (d) MobLIeho► e . "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a st'rret' C)1 h,l,cllll; li' by authorization or a pu HA in one or mor.c sections designed and equipped for human habitation to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore , "mobile- home does not i.ncludc recreation vc,hiclus , commercial coaches , or facto.r:y-bui.l. t: Musing resting upon permanent foundations . 1 . ((,) M ob-1 .1.('I I o 1, 1 ,1 1:J." part: . 1 ""Y 01U" UL XUUU used facing , parking or storaqc of two or more mobilehomus for housekeeping , sleeping or living quarters . KY Mobilchomu 5pace . "Whilchume space" is any area , tract of or portion of a mob ilchome park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome . (g) Notification Period . A 365-day notification period shall follow the date of the notice of intent during which Lime no tenant may be evicted without clue cause according to state law. 9270 . 3 . APPPOVAL REQUIRED. No person , firm, corporation , partnership or other entity shall change the use of a mobile- home park without proper tenant notification pursuant to Section 9270 . 5 of this orticle and the submission of an " impact of conversion report" deemed adequate, by the Plan"J "(1 C(Diw,--ii-S5ion at a public hearing , and a LcnanL assistance plan , nevi-eWed hY the PeparLmenL of Development Services and approved at a public hearing. by the Planning Commission , or City CoundLI on appeal . The purpose of review and approval of the impact of con- version report and the tenant assistance plan shill- be to inform the Planning Commission/City Council of the consequences asso- ciated with the conversion and to ensure that adequate assistance as required by this article is provided to all eligible tenants . 9270 . 5 NOTICK OF INTENT. A notice of QUM to change the use of mobilehome park and relocate tenants shall he de- livered to each tenant and to the Department of Development Services at least 365 days prior to the proposed date for the change of use . Evidence of service of notice of intent shall be submitted with the tenant assistance plan , and in such form as approved by the Director of Development Services . 9270 . 7 IMPACT OF CONVERSION REPORT MQUIPPD . Prior to the conversion of an existing mobilehome park to another use , the applicant shall submit a report on the impicL of the con- version upon the displaced residents of the mobilehome park to be converted. The report shall address replacomant space availa- bility, monthly rents and coach acceptance criteria in mobilehome parks within 100 miles ok the City; and any other information required by the Department of Development Services . The applicaiW shall make copies of the v0pnU available to each resicicnt W We mohilehome park At lcasL rifWan ( 15) days prior Lo Lim public hunriny an the impact rupuuL . 2 . 9170 . 9 . TENANT ASSTSTANCE PJAN , A ant:- assisLahce plan shall be submitted concurrently with,. or upon approval of , the impact of conversih)II rej.)Qn . The plan must includo a kime schcdul,,� .and method by which all eligible tenants will he rulocated or - appropriately compo"satnd. Upon approval of the tenant assistance plan; upon expiration M the 365-day notification period; and upon compliance with all applicable State regulations in effect at the time, the change of use of the mobilehome park may occur in accordance with the terms of the approved tenant assistance plan. 927VT1 . ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS- The final form* of the impact of conversion report and tenant assistance plan will he as approved by the Planning Commission. The J. [ accc.pL'able , shall remain on file with the Department K Development. Services for review by any interested persons . Fach of the tenants of the mobile home park shall be given, written notifica- tion within ten (10) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan. - 9270 . 13 . PPKREQUISITES TO APPROVAL OP TENANT ASSTSTANCE PLAN . The Planning Commission shall not approve a tenant assis- tance plan for a mobilehome park change of use unless : (a) The applicant has complied with all applicable city ordinances and state regulations in effect at the Lime the tenant assistance plan was approved. (b) The applicank has complied With the conditions of ap- proval , including the following items : (1) Tenants will not be forced to relocatc prior to the end of their leases. (2) 'Tenants have been given the right to terminate their leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan . (3) Demolition or construction will not occur until the tenant agsisLanco plan is approved anO the twQlvc ( 12) month notification period has expired. 9270 . 15 . FEKS REQUIRED. Each impact report and teh= assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by it fee estab- lished by resolution of the City Council. 3 . 9270 . .17 . A("NJM HY PLANN'HT; COP-INVESS-10H . id. Lhe colic"-1.1.1!:;i.on of its lloririllq , ln,.)L:i-ccd as Ili th-is Code , Li1t2 Pialming Shall approve , conditioncilly ,.pprove , or delly said tenant: assistJmce plan * pursuant to the provisions of this nrLicle , and such decision shall be supported by a resolution of the Planning Comini.ssion setting forth its findilicis . S E CTJ 0 N 2 . . 'Phis ordinance shall take offecL thirty days after adoption. PASSED AND N)OPTE'D by the CiLy Council of Lhc City of Hunt.ington Beach aL a regular meeting thereof held on Lho day of 1982 . MUTEST: 41 City Clerk REVIDNIF"D AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS 'TO FORV; CiLy Administrator City Attorney 1NITTATE'D AND ATIPPOVEM: 1517&E-L-6-—1- cifD e--v 6-1-0 J.D III e 1-1 L Services 4 . Al U.:i: na Live Ordinance .44 )PI).'rNANCE, NO. MI (MI) I 1:ANCE OF THE ("J'I'Y ()I' 1"FA('11 HUNTING'l.'ON I 3HIACII ()J)I*) I'N/',111(.']-: C ODF RY AI)1) 1.t1(, NEW ARTICLE 927 "MOBI I&, 110ME OVERLAY ZONI'-,S , REMOVAI, OF OVER- LAY ZONF,1.3 AND REZONING OF M11 ZONF-:,(-;" 'TIT CiLy Council of the City of HuIlLi.11(ji-c)n Beach (R)CI.S, GlEdgin as follow s : 'I'll ' JhmI:,j.jyjj_-ojj 13(rZjch 01-din'-111c'e Cod,2 is 11,1­1-01)v am(mc](N-1 by addi,ti(i tht.,rcto new Article 927 enLiLled, "Mobile Homc, Overl.;iy lone" to follows: 9270. APPI, [CATION 01. ARTICLE. Home, Park Residential lone is 'h 0.r e ir., estahlAshed as an overlay zone to permit the appli- cation of a mobile home zone to parcel.-) of land de- veloped with mobile home parks . and zoned wi.th a pr i.mary LIII(ICUIyill(j zoning designation . The j)uj.-j)osc of LAIC, mobile home park zone is to designate existing mobile home parks J_n appropriate locations for mobile home park uses in order that these uses may be encouraged, maint--ained , and protected. The re(julations of this disLi:ict zire :designod to acheive rin ClIVII-01111101-It-_ Of stable , desirable residential charac-Lor and preserve arccns or communities developed with mobile hoii'e, I.esi- dcnLial u.,_-;es. Wherever reference is made in thj.�, section or on - any aistrictinc maps Lo M1111 , this shall mean Mobile Home Park Overlay Zone. (b) All findings required for removal of the MUD overlay zone ,diall. also be applied to reque,,;ts for rezoning exist .ing MH districts to different zoning districts . 92'iO . I . As used in. Lhis, Ch�ipl_er, Lhe f-ollowing terms shall have the meanings indicated: • (a) mobi.*Ic Home. "Mobile home" is a table on a strect or highway by or El jwi.m-it in one ().r more sections des-i:,Aned lwd equipped For 1111111all hab.it-.ation to be used with of WiLholit a l . ile holm.,f c.)u i 1(1,1 t i()n ,.;\* ,-;L(-,ii i. Iob r I lome.-, I)k It. doc's not: ilic 1.11 d e recr("I t- i ())) Ve I lic-Les c()i ii- morc-i I 1. coi-.1c.hes, (-)r I,:oc tory-b uit t- 11,m.,;J.n q . 1,,ii-k . Ilt'loh1h, hollw 1),11 k " i .,; 111V j:)j-.jjjjZjj: j. jy I,-or Lhe 1),11-kill(I or of two or more mobile homes for housekeeping, sleoping or living quarters . (c) Mobile Home. ..5 lrc . "Mobile honk' Ally Zjj-C.,j, f I;,i d, !7;J_ (.e, lot, pad or. portion of a I-110bile home designated or used for Lho occupancy of One mobil(� home. W , , =A FOR APFLLUATIUN Ur. &U-". L "M VOLY cil, in makinq LLs deLerminaLion whether W appLy the MPH zone • to any particulor propprLy, shalL consider 11v Following Factors in makinq its dqLerminanion as to whether the MHP zone is op_ propriate for the property : (a) ExisLinq zoning ond General Plan desi"nyLions . (b) 111 the mobile e acle and condition of home park. • (c) The relationship of the mobile home park to surround- ing land uscs . (d) Vehicle access to the area under consideration . . (C) Site area M Site configuration. 9270 . 5 . USES PERMITTED. (a ) Mabilo home parks as regulated by the State of California . (b) Accessory uses and structures to the operWon of mbbile home parks SUCh VS MCME10011 faciliLics and/or cnmnmnity cenLers of o non-com- mcrcial nature, either public or private, storage facilities fob the use of the mobile home park • residents and any other uses or structures that Are incidental to the operation of a mobile home park. (c) When,,yer property is zoned MHP, any usn permitted by the underlying zoning of such property shall not be permitted . 9270 , 7 , REMOVAL OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE . The City Council shall not approve a zoning amendment for any parcel, which amendment would have the effect of removing the MHP desiqnation from that property, unless the Eallpwing find- ings have been made: (a) ThaL the proposed zoning is QnSiSIPHV With th(' General Plan of the City of Huntinyton Beach and all elements thereof ; (b) the propurty which is the subject of the zoning am,.!ndmenL Would be more appropriately dnvelopW in armor dance.. with uses permitted by the underlyin(j zoning , or proposed zoning; (c) Thai a mobilo home park phaseout plan has been pre- juired, ruviewpd and considered and Wund W he al) l� A pha;cout-_ plan :;her I I i,of h- i.okiid ! o. • unless it Lncludnn ( 1 ) a limo !w0skle ;,ind wt!thod by whlch, existing mobi le homqn, cahnnan, ram.'ida:� Nid other substantial improvumenIn and tenonlv, are Lo he relocated or oppr"printuly com- ponsnLod ; ( 2) methods of mitigatinq the hausin,i :; on t.pnanks having low and moderate incomes, • elderly tenants and tenants who are handicapped; 2 . U� ( l or '`Llwr mcoox dvI '. Lo bc implcm'`oicJ sorh LhaL -lie lmu�in`| inp�x�ts on Lhu//c dcn hcd in (2) ^ uhono, are miiigui'd . F,nc pnr- U� '^ ponrx of Lhis provision, "low and moJorate incomcn" '^ nhal] be defined in accordance with the pcnvisinus of tho. Dousi|x] Element of the City of |luntiogtbn Beach. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall take e[foct thirty (110) N� days after adoption . l'KSSCD AND /\UOPICD by tbe City Council of Lh'� (.7iLy of Huntington Uunch at o regular mcoLiug thereof hold on the day of , 1982. - � City Clerk Mayor. U� � BD\/IBfl% ) AND APPROVED: /\PPD0VCi) /\r� TO 1-'080: ` City /\dmioiutcaLor City /\LLorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: � Director of Development services . A� U� 3 . U� MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACII PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California TUESDAY, MAY 18 , 1982 - 7 : 00 PM COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell , Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey CODU4ISSIONERS ABSENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY MAI-IAFFEY THE CONSENT CALENDAR, CONSISTING OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 27 , 1982 STUDY SESSION AND THE MINUTES OF THEREGULAR MEETING OF MAY 4 , 1982, WERE APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYLS : *Higgins, Livengood, **Paone, Winchell , Schumacherr-, Mahaffey NOES : None ABSENT: Porter ABSTAIN: (*Higgins from 5-8-82) (**Paone from 4-27-82) COP11,1ISSION ITEMS : Commissioner Livencood stated that the UCI Workshop he would be attending was to be held on June 5 , 1982. REGULAR .AGENDA ITEMS : CODE AMENDMENT I40. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 140. 82-3 (Continued from May 4 , 1.982) Initiated byb _Cit" , of IIunti'ncjton Beach This is an ordinance amending the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by establishing a new article for Mobile Home Park Conversion requ- lations . The ordinance will establish requirements for notification of mobile home pai-:k residents, and will scat guidelines for al.-proval of a Tenant Reloc�iDion Assistance Plan prior to the cnang_ e of use of. a mobile home park. Chuck Clark, of sniff, briefly outlined the tour alternative ordi- nances pr.ej.)a..rcd usin(j the. Newport Beach ordinance as a quido . Staff recommended Alternative #2 . Commissioner Paone felt that Alterna- tive 44 did what #2 does only simplifies the process which the Minutes, H .B. Planning Commission May 18 , 1982 Page 2 City Council directed the Planning Commission to take in terms of rezoning . He also thought that this alternative would save money, and would have less of a chance of ending up in the courts with every conversion. The matter of overlay zoning was discussed. Mr . Folaer explained � the need for this zoning stating that it would be added protection for the City . Commissioner Livenyood asked if the public hearing . would be opened. Chairman Winchell said that she felt that sufficient public input had been received to date and that the public hearing would remain closed. A motion was made by Paone and seconded by Porter_ to recommend to the City Council :for approval , Alternative #4 , incorporating Sec- tion 9270 . 7 and Section 9270 . 9 from Alternative 142 . Commissioner Livengood also asked that Sections 9270 . 11 and 9270 . 13 should be incorporated. Commissioner Paone included it in his mo- tion and Commissioner. Porter agreed with the second. Commissioner. Schumacher felt that something should be incorporated reclarding the Tenant Assistance Plan. It was at this point that the Chairman took a straw vote to determine if the motion on -the floor would be supported by the Commission: . MAHAF'FEY - against all t:ze proposed alternatives. SCHUMACHER —Alternative #1. PORTER - in favor of the motion. WINCHELL - in favor of a combination of Alternatives #1 and #4 . PAONE - in favor of the motion. LIVENGOOD - in favor of the motion. HIGGINS - against all the proposed alternatives. A MOT.1:0N WAS MADE kY TJVEN(�OOD TO AMEND TiiE MOTTON TO 1)E;:,l;i'i' THE � wow);; , 112,70 A1.,T1,:1:NAT:1.VI #?_ . TilI: f9O'.1'1ON Lv,1S ::�i'CONDI;D BY PORTEIR, BUT rA [L D BY THE FOLLOWING VOTL: AYES : I'Avengoo(1, Porter. , Schumacher NOES : 11i(.1gins, Paone, Winchell , Mahaffey � ABSF,N`i': None � ABSTAIN: None -2 5-18-82 - P.C. Minutes , H.B. Planning Commission .May 18 , 1982 /~ Page 3 Commissioner Higgins stated that although he was basically against the main motion on the floor to . approve the code amendment, he would vote in favor of it to move the matter on to the City Council . A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCHUMACIIE;R TO AMEND THE MOTION BY ADDING, FROM ALTERNATIVE 01 ,. THE SECTION ENTI`1'LED "TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN" . THIS MOTION WAS SECONDED BY WINCHELL AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Livengood, Winchell , Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES : Higgins, Paone, Porter ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner. Paone withdrew his original motion. Commissioner Porter, maker of the second, took over. the orginal motion. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY HIGGINS TO APPROVE NEGA- TIVE DECLARATION_ NO. 82-3 . MOTION WAS APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES : None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None A MOTION WAS MADE•; BY PORTER AND SECONDED BY SCHUMACHER '1O APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY Y ADOPT ALTERNATIVE: ORDINANCE #4 INCORPORATING THE PREVIOUSLY-STATED SECTIONS FROM ALTERNATIVE 12 AND INCLUDING THE ."TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN" SECTION FROM ALTERNATIVE Q. A. MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE TO AMEND THIS MOTION TO INCLUDE A PROVI- SION THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TENANT ASSISTANCE PLAN RELOCATION PAYMENT EXCEED ONE-THIRD (1/3) OF THE VALUE OF THE RAW LAND. THIS MOTION WAS SECONDED BY HIGGINS AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE :. AYES : Iliggins , Livengood, Paone, Porter, Schumacher, Mahaffey NOES : winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN : None THE ORIGINAL, iMOTION TO APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT 81-18 WAS APPROVED AS AI` ENDI-;D Al'.OVli, RY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Iliggins , .Livengood, Paone, Winchell , Porter, Schumacher NOES : Mahaffey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None � 1 -3- 5-18-82 - P .C. ai • TO: l,.1 aitn I t'C)ITlmi s.s I C?n hr).OP1 : i)r.vc'1c:�1?Incnl- ;>crv.i.c��� f)1 TII : ,Ji.li)c 1., 1 ')82 (.O1)I; AM1l 1,111)M 1.-;NT N0. 81.-1.8% Nl;(:;ATI.VF: 1)1'CI,711?nT.I.(:)N 1`:O. 82- 1. I` 01 :1J'J.: 110MI-: 1'A1O( CONVI l,S1C1N ORDIN11NC.'I-: At thc, May 18 , 19F,,2 Plann.i.na Commission meeting, :staff presented. four alternative mobile home Dark conversion ordinances . Upon revie�,., and discussion , the Planning Commission approved for reconullendati_on to the City Council a combination of items from alternative ordinances . 41 , 2 , and 4 . Specifically , the Commission directed staff to use �iIternat1 je ;=4 , the overlay ordinance, as a base and acid to that the 'Tenant Assistance Ulan section from alternative #1 and t-ho Impact of Conversion Report , Acceptance of Reports and Pre,rec;Llisites to Approval sections from all-*ernati.ve 42. Additi-onally, staff- ":as directed to a.dd wording to the Tenant Assistance Plan section to limit total. cost of relocation and/or purchase of units to one-third of the appraised value of the park without improvements . Staff has .i ncorporate.la these item, into alternative 44 as dLirccted and su5l'.1its t-.he approved ordinance to the Commission for final r.eviow an(1 apTjcova.l OF I(1II(I111l(p, ,)11(1 FO1111,It".. I] I11O1- Illo(ll f1Cr.lt-J011 111,1 } ) 111,1(1C1 LLi 1110:11' 1 t1SC A Ild-1.Ili j 1)IVv-1OLI::: l'011Mi ssiOIT approval_ of the ord Ll II)C:l'_ . LI 111 ' . P.I alln l.11(. 0�)!,1111-I ssi oll i.c-a f I irllls it})prova l- of the Clt C11.11i1I1CC , 1 I: \ i 1. {iC' subnu. t:i.e d to L-11C C.it_'/ COLInC11. .for pul-Aic hearing on Juno ' 1 , i `)(2 . ATTACIINENT: 1 . Co,je imicildillent No. 81-1.8 2 . ket.ter From Mar(lar-et Casper of Huntington Shores Mobile Nome Park da tcd M,iy 20, 1.982 . . I IS: bas A M-236. ORDINANCE Q. AN ORDIUAWCE OF THE CITY OF 11UNTIKUT04 HEWN, AMUDEK TAY HUqTINGTON HGACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDIHN THERETO MEW ARTICK 927 EqTUrhMD, ,wormaimn nVUCAY ZONES , REMOVAL OF OVERLAY UNES AND HEKONINq OF MH ZONES" The City Council. or the City K- Uuntin�h)n A-qcK ?). q nclain as PaLlows : GUT ION 11 The Untintton Reach. ,Orel lnancR Cr) ie Ls 5creby amended by addinj thereto new Article 927 entUted , "Hobijehone Overlay Zones , Removal of Overlay Zones and RezoninS of Aq znNvs" to reud as Coll= : 9270. APPLICATIO" OP ARTICLE. (a) The mobilehome park resi- dential zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to permit t& - application or mabilehome zone to parcels or land developed with mobiTehome parks and zoned widi a primary underlying zoning desLj- nation. The purpose of the mobilehome park zone is to lesi;nnto existinn mohilehone parks in appropriate locathnns Por mohlinlone park usos in order that Win3e uses; may he encourage! , maintaKed, and pPoLected. The re,ulatiobs oF this district ace Jr;sLgnKQ to achieve an environment or stable , desirable residential nharacter and preserve areas or communities developed with mobilehome resi- lential uses . Wherever reCere"ce is male in this section or on any districting maps to 1UH4 it shall mean mobilehome park overlay zone. • ( h) All findings required ror removal or the U- overlay zone shAll also he applied to requests for rezontnn exhs ; K3 U districts to =Fnrent zoning districts. g270- 1 . 017PLNU1015. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall- be construed a6 defined heroin unless Pro!l thb context a d1PrerQn5 meaning is intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases : ( i) Applicant. " Applicant" shall mean Cho per3on, firm , or( o i,;i.t_i o,i', pWTX&vs h 1 p , or other Q n L V Ky h iv 1 nq 1 a as oh-1 A K- LoryOL Or ree WnnrKhip 1H thn opwratinn or a mobLio-hown pnP4 - ( h) N11gible Tenant . "Eligihle tenaU" shall mean any ahb 5/28/02 • ( 4 ) 1 . 110151.1ehome o,..Iner re;', Ldim- in a fuo5ilehome par},. than 270 days h Len -0- 1 be entitled to rt,,Tou,<ttion i_sta;lCe ;If-, re(I u i.I" 'I- a r t e N on o vin e r mob.1-1 t 1 11 not be (2ntit1.(.A zany form of r,-�I oc at ion I r,3 i.S t K'. rI-101)i lChome 11,1ot).LIP'noniell is a transportahlf-_- Q L street or hi-I h wa y by author,Lzation or a pec,nJ.' Iri on,e or MOI'f: 3C'CIAO(16 acid e u I I-)p e(I Cc) h uf,,i n I-ia 1) 1.t q t i.r)n to 1)e I - �, it (_-)hil.r�- A FI"..' 1 1 1' 0 r �,q L t i I()U t-1 1 C o u nda t 1.c)rl Sy8t­ .1. Tlie rt��rort tj1 h0Mw_-" CJ0('_,3 rl0i-, I.I.Ade rec!real. Lon v eh 1 cl eF) (.­),c ta 1 C o—I c he or Pa 1,o r y-b i i i 1.t h o i 1,.3 L n­ r e.-; t i n r r Upon n p(--r-;i 11 4_� wnt roundations) . 1) i'.Iohilehome Park. "Moblle�hor:ie par'V' is any area oC Iami ij s,e or stor prir:i.,.i cg, l-mr or trio or !Ilororil,y for the pl;acin:.,, parkin" ,ekee,pil-IF mobliehor-iie3 f-or hous " sleeping or livin(g quar'­er.", . Nol) Llehoml� Space . "Hobilehome Spae.e11 i-; jtj tract of land , ii.te , lot , pad or, portion of a (10;3L,:'n-'.11,t�d or us'-d for the occup-sinry of one 0!:1.LI�ial Tenant Purchase Price. ch;_:u3e. price 11 ShalL ziiean 11-he price which the tenant paid for the mololl-ehome and any attached optioei�.!. eqI_iipi!ient and/or to ;-a-longs and expando roofris,. Tn deter minin;r J;Jjp price , the rej;.,ulations for (:s t;ib I tshin,,, the cost basis , a.,3 found in the. United Code Title 26, Tnternal R(eV(211U,' Code, SI-1,111 he 113( d. verIC. I e :; - throi-ji ouch prithalL he, Led by the I_. existence of sales receLpfs indicating date or purcha.­,e, monetary '1111mint oC the lde-ntiPtcatiori or madel n,xldherc, or all ltel:1,5 j')!JrChd3eCI CAITJ the party Cro!ii whom the were purch;.-Lsed. 9 3 - CRI -',HIA P(M - APPLICATI( 4 OF Z( (J[.-;. lie City Co a n c i I in maI­,J.n,, its -letermimati-,on whether to apply the o r i e to ;--tny PartLcular property, h consider the follo�qjj�j'r f-ar s t,,)p S a whether such zone is appropriate : 'E,xi:�t i-11, .-",o 1-1i n.r :m I en e ical plan des Lt,,ria t io n The arvi conditinn of the ;l The relationship oC the rnobilehofiie to land I'].S J) 7eliinte acce:,.s to the area ur-ider (,o;-IsA.;ierat.*Lon . Site ar�_�a. Site. Conci"'upation. T(2 0 [7,1). TI16, rollowill mitil-ed Ui an and structure,; incidei-,Ll,a .. i ') il-he oper�.].- t inn of park.,.i ,.;uch recreation Cac .Ltitie.,3 :heel/or c o i:i i,i u(i i I-,y ceiiters oC a noncommercial n.ature , etth:'r public or 2. private , 0nraae Paell 1 hW for the use of th" mohiLehome par'( rev il"Migol any othar uses or structures that are inclle=7 to the oparaUon Y a nobilehome park. Whenwvnp property is znAd MHP, any nse peowitted by the underlying zoUnS oF such property shall not be permitted . 9270- 7 . REMOVAL OP THE MORILEROME PARK 0VQRhAY ZONE. Thf7-,, City Council shall not approve a zone khante for aay parcel w5an 3uch chaRle would hava the of Cect of removLnj the AHP or NQ !oil,- nWon from that pvopQrty, unless the rolionng findings have beell made : ( a) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the leneral Plan of the City oC Huntington Beach and all elements thereof ; ( h) That thn property which in the subject W the zone change wnqld be mora approprintely devalnpal in accordincp n0A uses per- mit ed by the underlyin" zoning, or propo2n! zoning ; A nottcq Q intent to chance the 112o W a mohile4a"e park and relocate hwnanU was delLverQd to each Want wit to the Department or Development Services at least 365 days prior to the propomed late Cop the change of use . ( 1) That an " impact or conversion report" has been sub- mitted by the applicant and found to he adcqaatn by the Planning Com"ission at a publin hearing. The Planning Commission shall take the rollowinn items into consideration w11en, addpessW6 thi-! adequacy Or the popupt: ( .i.) The date of manufacture and s!zQ oC each mohUe- home in the park. ( it) Makeup of existing tenant households , including Camily size , household income, length or veuidence , a6e o" Lena=3 , owner or center, and primary or seavonal resident . ( UL) Replacement space availability, monthly rents and coach acceptance criteria in mohilehome parks within one hundred ( 100 ) miles or the city. The ap,10,,t skull make copte, or tha report available to each rosideor oC the mobLiahnme park at inint ratenn ( 1)1 day::,, prior to the public hearing on the impact report . ( n) That a tenant asaLstineq plan has heon submitted by khf'.- applicant and roqnj to be alnq=u hy the PLPnHln coymi.211nn nt • a puhtin heNvLn . The roLLowinq guidelines voqiklhuto mlninvl!; standards for an `the tenant assistance plan: ( 1) ALL eligible tenants shall hQ eUttleJ to receive 100 percent or the total cost of relocation . Those cwt:-) uhall Include disconnectLon and breakdown of the mobilehonH, transpoptAtion of the mobilohone, all readily movable 'i.ppor- tcnancab and contents to another mobilehome park ind W 7ost oP all hookups at the now , sits . All such eKpanGes 54AII he identified and paid by the applidant at the time of the move. The park to which the unit is relcoated shall he Wthi" one hundred (100) miles of the city . jP the tenant desives relo- cation beyond one hundred ( 100) miles , the tenant shall he responsible For all costs associated with rpioauHon Keyoncl the one hundrej ( 100) mile limit estabUshnd by this article. ( u) ir tho Wriant cannot he reloantad to another park in accordanc , with the procedures of 9270 . 5 (ceM) , the apPIN nant shall purcha3e the mohilehome and any optlowwT ejuipsent and/or ta;-a-longs and expando rooms from the tenant at 100 percent of the original tenant; purcW" price. The tenant: shall provide the applicant with verification or the date of purchasQ and thn purchase price of the mohtlehome and Mach- mnnts withia thirty ( 30 ) days K approval of the impact or conversion report'. Tri no way shall the cost of relocation and/or purchaso or the. . units exceed one-third of the appraised value of the Paw land or the mobilehole park at the time of filing an impact OC conversion report . if the eWwated cost or relocation qnd pirchaso or units does excoed one-third of the appralsel value or the lan3 , each tenant shall receLve 'a reduced amount K money or assistance on a prorutod, basis according to the percentage K the total cost OU the assistance plan each tenant would have received . 9270- 9 . AUCMANCE OF WORTS. The Mal rorm K the 0- pact of conversion report and tenant assistance .plan will he is approveJ by the Planning Commission. The repwr4j, N yeeptable, shall remain on file, with the Dopartment or Development Sqrvices for review by any interested persons . Each of the tenants of the nobilehome park shall he given written notification Mkri ten ( 10 ) days of approval of the tenant assistance plan. 92YO. 11 . PRUNQUISHES 5) APPROVAL OF AUNK aGANGE. The W.y Council shall not approie a zone chanEe which woold remove Vie III or 1HP designation From property unless : ( a) The applicant has complied with all applioahle city ordinances and state regulations in effeci; at the time the t3nant assistance plan wau apppoved . ( 5) The npplicant has complied with the uonditL=5 Of ap- proval , including the ral low Lriq items : M WHA"ka will not he Porced Q rainvate prior to the end of u4nir I cases . 1 j en the t, I.Irl-I t-, I Lt�j ,-1 1-1 to t.helr upon appi.,cwal. C)t' 1,h e p1a,-I c.I; L o I I 1c) oc.("ur un I)em o o ri o r (,,o ri�3 -e I Ir -ice plari ts approved -ui,i th,� twelve ( 12) f,h e 1, 1(1 t -U,ta t month perlol has expired. ot,dtn; !ice ,h,?I'L tave 1, 1rt•y d a y r3 aPu,r, u-lor)U Lc).n Atli.) 5y the City airy C) L un t,-i n(,t o n Beach It :-t re,-ular meetinj eo'_?, ther on rlle day oC NI E!".) A,) ;.'0 AT T F', A pp ROV wit t City (,Ierk y A t, o I e .7,FI'V 4 El!-) A HT T) A P L' 10V T,,;) 'P,-JIT]-.ATPI,D VID .City Administrator Director of Deve1opment r v Lc e s IIIJIITItK)TOII SHORES MO1311_I: HOME PARK 1. 100") I c i f i c Cnast: Highway Space "I i Ilunti nclton Leach,. CA 9264i I.1ay 20, 1982 Planning Commission for Huntington beach 11. 0. B ri x 'I'M Iltrnt.in(tl.mi [;eadh, CA 9264I Dear I1embers of the Planning Commission : l am enclos7nd a letter Lhat I would approciaLe if you would have the secretary make a copy of for each nunber of the Planning Commission. . I 401,11d also like for each member of Lhe IlunLtn(jLon Leach City Council receive a copy of Lhe IetLer. �. Thank you f,o)- your' cooperation. Sincerely yours , MARGARL I L. CASPER Enclosure I It I N1 I ING I()!! S I I()10 110 1-',1 I,L II(-)[I PARK 21002 Pacific Coast Highway Space . 1 IlUntingLon GeachA CA 9264(1 May 20, 1982 Planning Cowmisqinn for Huntington Beach 2000 Fain Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Members or the Planning Connission: Aq a resido& or the HHOfinnton Shores Nnhile Hnrp Pmf I Wend your mycLing Twosday empning , May 18, along ON m= V an neilhhocn . I had been given a copy of Lhe four proposed ordinances -- we had Qudiud thei'l thoroughly. There was only one paragraph different in each of the first thruc . Other than that they were identical . 11 am one of the residents who doesn 't meet your required 270 days residcnc*v factor. I am wondering why ynu as council menbers feel this should he a factor. I have been a resident of Huntington Shares for over seven years , others like me for as long as twenty years . We have paid the sanv rent, obeyed the same rules -- why are we to he singled nut now as ineliqihN tenants? I truly did not. believe that: it was posUhle a city could that evRQy other one in a park would be reimbursed for their hown and the • other 50,�, would not.. Tuesday evening there was much Ali scuqsion on ev iT issue except this one -- just a very quick "no" vote. I think people are enLiLled to know why the Planning Commission so strongly feels that we should just simply lose our entire inveUment with no explanation whatsoever. T sirply can ' t, believe that this type of thing could happen I thought discrimination was frowned upon in our country. I am 57 years old, my husband is 59. There is nothinq we would rather do than be retired and living at Huntington Shores as others are doing. However, not having the financial means to retire we realize we have to continue U) work for a few lure years -- we had purchased our rn5iln & Lh desire that in time we would be able to retire there. One of your cnHncil I'll mhers told one of our people? Tursdav eveninq UK this samm factor applied to cnndo conversions . How can you conpare this isque to it condo conversion -- we are renters true but vlle Pu,'C!.I.- .,if.d- TR On Any- yn-d pay jaxrq like vvoryone, Ilse. We have far Are of an invostmeA than a renter I i v i nq A n an aparl,nan L that 1 s converted to is condomi Hi Net. • Hnw in R poss air ip Lhal, your rpsearch staff did noL ddvi4p you council ncvber,� Lhal; i t is true in fact. -- mms L of the mobi les in Lhe part: can he naved. The only problem iq 1-hp-e is absolutely no place to unve them too. Ir Lhay . had Lhecked they cod d have 161 d'yol-WAL-16-YAk- A 11-Ahwarnhi 1 v to be mnvpd in to rent a space ir it is over two years nid . if you Illy a rKile home lot, in Palm Sprinqs , HNmeL , Banning or elsewhere -- you can nave one alI IF it compl ies with and nreLn their park codes . Post of the horns in HuntingLon Shores would not meet their codes or requirenunts . Planninq Commission Huntington Beach, California Do you as council ummbers know that approximately 10 of the 41 mobiles in Huntington Shms were purchased by people living there in June and Jul,,, of 1980 WITH THE DPRESSED APPROVAL OF HUNTINGTON SHORL5 MANAMENT. The nonayers , who are representatives of Huntington Seacliff Corporation, were happy that we "were upgrading the park. " Among these 10 .new robiles was one couple who put their life savings into the purchase of the wohile and retired. One young man, a parapaleqic, purchased one of the older mobiles one month before we were given notice the park was aniny to close. Surely if Huntington Seacliff planned to close the park in Lhe near future the least Lhey could have done was tell all of these people who spent thousands of dollars on the hnqws they moved in there not La do 5o. LhK Lheir Line Lhere would he limiLvd. I realize you cln' L he bothered with each persons prohluu6 -- KA for you to sit up there -- lightly discuss -- toss out the rights of neople who don' t live Lhere full Line with no explanation or reason whatsoever -- talk about proving mobiles that are moveable so that the land owner shouldn' t have to buy them all . Move there where -- tell your staff if they are going to research sonaLhing for them to give you all the facts -- THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO GO. A you realize actually how serious the decision you will make at your next meeting is? This ordinance you pass will help, to determiru the actual' lives of somin a! these people. I can' t help but think how qraLeful I am that I don' L have to vote on issues such as this knowing full well the hardships that are being created for these people. I hope this letter does make you stop and think for at least a ruarnt or two. Before you bliLhely pass this new ordinance on to the City Council (in remember when you pass that final vote that you are nuking a decision on lives -- not only on the people in our park but even hundreds more people in the other parks in the years to cone. Give it an honest an'! sincere considerAinn -- you noy find you' ll chanqo yiur Me. All wo are nskiny for is considoraLion and a fair decision. A -air docision for the people as well as Huntington Seacliff Corporwtion. Very truly yours , Minutes, H.B. Planning Commission June 1, 1982 Page 5 . cumstances that apply to this property that deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed on other properties in the vi- cinity under similar zoning classifications. 2. Since the approval of Conditional Exception No. 82-04 is for a 90-day period and is for testing purposes only, the granting of this conditional exception will not constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity under similar zoning classifications. 3 . Since there are numerous producing oil wells in the general vicinity and on surrounding properties and the subject test boring shall be located over the abandoned well, the granting of this conditional exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the general area and within similar zoning classifications. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Conditional Exception No. 82-04 will become null and void ninety (90) days from the date of Planning Commission approval. ' 2. Said drilling shall take place directly over the abandoned well (Denubila #1) with no other drilling allowed on the subject site. 3 . If after the 90-day period the subject well does not comply with the provisions set forth in Chapter 15 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code for productive wells, all equipment will be re- moved and the well shall be capped in compliance with State and City standards . AYES : Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell , Porter, Schumacher NOES : None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION ITEMS : MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE At the May 18 , 1982 Planning Commission meet-ing , Code Amendment No. 81-18/Negative Declaration No. 82-1 was approved for recommendation to the City Council. Since it was a combination of several propose(' alternative ordinances, Planning Commission requested that staff come . back with the final document that will be forwarded to the City Council . Commissioner Paone suggested a word change on Page 4 , Paragraph #3 , delete the word "or" from the first sentence. He felt that "and/or" was too ambiguous. Also add, in the same sentence, the word "combined" , so the sentence now reads, "In no wax shall Minutes, H. B. Planning Commission June 1 , 1982 Page 6 s the combined cost of relocation and purchase of the units exceed one-third .of the appraised value of the raw land of the mobilehome park at the time of filing an impact of conversion report" . Chair- man Winchell asked that the title of Section 9270. 7 be revised to read, "Removal of the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone Or Pobilehome Zone" . Commissioner Paone then suggested a change on Page 3 , the last paragraph and second sentence; to delete the word "include" and replace it with the phrase "be limited to" . The phrase now reads, "Those costs shall be limited to disconnection and break- down of the mobilehome, " . A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO ADD TO THE TRANSMITTAL TO CITY COUNCIL A RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE SECTIONS 9270 . 15 AND 9270 . 17 FROM ALTERNATIVE #1 WITH REGARD TO FEE FOR IM- PACT REPORT AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. THIS PASSED BY THE FOL- LOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Paone, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES : None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None A MOTION WAS MADE BY PAONE AND SECONDED BY PORTER TO BRING THE MATT 'R`l� OF THESE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING . THIS MOTION FAILED TO OBTAIN FOUR OR-.MORE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES , AS FOLLOWS : AYES : Higgins , Paone, Porter NOES : Livengood, Winchell, Schumacher ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None Commission consensus was that at the meeting of May 18 , 1982 , the intent of the Commissioners was that the language shall include the two sections from Alternative #1 regarding Planning Commission action and fees for impact reports , for the sake of continuity. LIVENGOOD MADE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE FIRST MOTION REGARDING THE TWO ADDED SECTIONS . THIS WAS SECONDED BY PORTER AND PASSED BY TIME FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Higgins, Livengood, Winchell, Porter, Schumacher NOES : Paone ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD AND SECONDED BY PORTER WAS , , THEN VOTED ON AGAIN AND FAILED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: /"°� Minutes , H .B. Planning Commission June 1 , 1982 �. Page 7 AYES : None NOES : Higgins , Livengood, Paone, Winchell , Porter, Schumacher ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None ON MOTION BY PORTER AND SECOND BY SCHUMACH ER THE MOBILE HOME ORDI- NANCE WAS APPROVED IN ITS FINAL FORM TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES : Higgins , Livengood, Paone , Winchell , Porter, Schumacher y NOES : None ABSENT: Mahaffey ABSTAIN: None ALLEGED STORAGE LOT ON GARFIELD AVENUE Staff investigated the lot in question, at the request of Commissioner Schumacher. Mr. Bellavia reported that as a result of the investiga- tion, it was learned that the lot is a nonconforming use with equip- ment being stored, however, it was approved under a Certificate of Occupancy on file with this department. 3 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ITEMS : Secretary Palin announced two upcoming meetings : A Subdivision Com- mittee meeting at 8 : 30 A.M. on Friday, June 11 , and a Joint Study Session at 7 : 30 P .M. on the Downtown Specific Plan, on Monday, June 14 , 1982 . Florence Webb asked if any Commissioners might be available to at- tend a meeting with the property owners regarding the Downtown Specific Plan to be held this Saturday from 10 : 00 AM to 12 : 00 PM. No commissioners were available due to the workshop to be held at the same time on Saturday, at U.C. Irvine. COMMISSION ITEMS : Chairman Winchell announced a meeting regarding Beach Boulevard to ., be held on Wednesday, June 2 , at the Carden Grove Community Meeting Center. The Chairman also asked if any Commissioners were planning their summer vacations that might conflict with Planning Commission meetings. Only the Chairman announced she would not be attending the July 20 , 1982 meeting due to vacation plans . ADJOURNMENT: The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9 : 30 P .M. to the Joint Study Session on the Downtown Specific Plan to be held at 7 : 30 P .M. on Monday, June 14 , 1982 .