HomeMy WebLinkAboutMobile Home Overlay Zones - Code Amendment 84-10 - Article 9 r
PLANNING MOBILEH6tL OVERLAP ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONINu, uHANGE OF USE S.9270
ARTICLE 927
A.- MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE
Ord 2563 - 12/82 , 2699-7/84)
S. 9270 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE.
(a) The mobilehome park residential zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to
permit the application of mobilehome zone to parcels of land developed with
mobilehome parks and zoned with a primary underlying zoning designation. The purpose
of the mobilehome park zone is to establish a means of providing a reasonable and
proper transition from the present mobilehome park use to the uses permitted in the
underlying zoning districts. Wherever reference is made in this section or on any
districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehome park overlay zone.
(b) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay zone shall also be applied
to requests for rezoning existir; MH districts to different zoning districts ,
and for any change of use as hereinafter defined.
(c) All findings required for removal of ;,he MHP overlay, rezoning from MH or change
in use shall be required for all property upon which a mobilehome park then exists .
or upon which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the preceding five (5) years
5. 9270. 1 DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in this article shall
be construed as defined herein unless from,the context a different
meaning 7s intended and more particularly directed to the use of such words and
phrases- ,
(a) Affordable Unit. "Affordable unit" shall mean a "for sale" unit that is sold
to and occupied by a low moderate income household. "Affordable unit" shall
also mean a rental unit for which the monthly payment does not exceed 25 percent of
the household' s income for low income households or 30 percent of the household' s
income for moderate income households.
(b) Applicant. "Applicant" shall mean the person, firm, corporation, partnership ,
or other entity having leasehold interest or fee ownership in the operation of a
mobilehome park.
(c) Change of Use. "Change of use" shall mean 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 habitation, and shall not mean the adoption ,
amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. "Change of use" may affect an
entire park or any portion thereof, and such "change of use" shall include, but is
not limited to, a change of a park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock
cooperative, planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, or vacant land
(d) Eligible Owner_. "Eligible owner" shall mean any mobilehome owner owning a
mobilehome in a park at the time of issuance of the notice of intent to change
use, but shall not include any mobilehome owner who is renting his unit to another
party at such time.
(e) Market Rate Unit. "Market rateeunit" shall mean a residential unit that is
so��d on the open market without constraints imposed on the sales price, rental
rate, or buyer qualifications.
M Mob 11ehome "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street or highway
by authorization or a permit in one or more sections , designed and equipped for
7/84
MUbiLLHu )VLKLNY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONIN( ANGE OF USE PLANNIN(.
human habitation , to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore, "mobilehome"
does not include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches , or factory-built housing rest
my upon permanent foundations.
I
j (g) Mobilehome Park "Mobilehome park" is any area of land used primarily for the
I placing , parking or storing of two or more mobilehomes for housekeeping , sleeping
! or living quarters.
i
(h) Mobilehome Space. "Mobilehome space" is any area, tract of land, site, lot, pad
I or portion of a mobilehome park designated or used for the occupancy of one mobile-
home.
( i ) Notice of Intent to Change Use. "Notice of Intent to Change Use" shall mean
I' notification as required by California Civil Code section 798.56(f) (2) .
? (J ) Original Purchase Price. "Original purchase price" shall mean the price which
the mobilehome owner, occupying the mobilehome space, originally paid for the
1 mobilehome and any attached optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms.
4 In determining the price, the regulation- for establishing the cost basis , as found
in the United States Code Title 26 , Internal Revenue Code, shall be used. Such
purchase price shall be verified by the mobilehome owner through the existence of
sales receipts indicating date of purchase, monetary amount of purchase, identification
or model numbers of all items purchased and the party from whom the items were purchased.
"Original purchase price" shall not include cost of financing.
( k) Senior Citizen Unit. "Senior citizen unit" shall mean a residential unit which
meets the standards for an affordable unit which is situated in a project that
is designed to accommodate senior citizens through special financing programs and/or
modified development standards.
i
S 9270.2 CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF ZONE. The City Council , in making its
determination whether to apply the MHP zone to any particular property,
shall consider the following factors as to whether such zone is appropriate:
I
(a) Existing zoning and general plan designations.
j (b) The age and condition fo the mobilehome park.
(c) The relationship of the mobilehome park to surrounding land uses.
q� (d) Vahicle access to the area under consideration.
4
(e) Site area.
f
i
( f) Site configuration
9270.3 USES PERMITTED The following uses shall be permitted in an MHP
_-� district.
(a) Mobilehome parks as regulated by the State of California.
i
(b) Accessory uses and structures incidental to the operation of mobilehome parks
such as recreation facilities and/or community centers of a noncommercial nature,
i either public or private storage facilities for the use of the mobilehome park resl -
dents and any other uses or structures that are incidental to the operation of a
mobilehome park
Wheneve► property is zoned MHP , any use permitted by the underlying zoning of
such property shall not be permitted
12/82
I
PLANNING MOBILEHC )VERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING ANGE OF USE S. 9270.4
S. 9270.4 REMOVAL OF THE MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE, MH ZONE OR CHANGE OF USE.
The City Council shall not approve a zone change for any parcel when
such change would have the effect of removing the MHP or MH designation from that
property, or approve a change of use unless the following findings have been made:
(a) Those findings required by California Government Code section 66427.4.
(b) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Huntington Beach and all elements thereof.
(c) That the proposed change of land use will not have an adverse effect upon the
goals and policies for provision of adequate housing for all economic segments of
the community, as set forth in the Housing Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan.
(d) That the property which is the subject of the zone change would be more
appropriately developed in accordance with uses permitted by the underlying
zoning, or proposed zoning.
(e) That a notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome park and relocate
mobilehome owners was delivered to such owners and to the Department of
Development Services at least eighteen (18) months prior to the date the mobilehome
owner is required to vacate the premises.
( f) That an "impact of conversion report" has been submitted by the applicant and
found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Failure to
submit such item within twelve (12) months from the date of the notice shall result in '
the nullification of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. The Planning Commission shall
take the following items into consideration when addressing the adequacy of the report .
W The date of the manufacture and size of each mobilehome in the park.
(ii) Makeup of existing households, including family size, household income,
length of residence, age of tenants, owner or renter, and primary or
seasonal resident.
( iii) Replacement space availability, monthly rents and coach acceptance
criteria in mobilehome parks within fifty (50) miles of the city.
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.
(g) That a relocation assistance plan has been submitted by the applicant and found to
be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
S. 9270.5 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN. STANDARDS. The following shall constitute
minimum standards for an acceptable relocation assistance plan:
(a) All eligible mobilehome owners shall be entitled to receive the cost of
relocation. Those costs shall be limited to disconnection 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 fifty (50) miles of the city.
If the mobilehome owner desires relocation beyond fifty (50) miles, the mobilehome owner
7/84
S. 9270.5(a) MOBILEHOML /ERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/,, AGE OF USE PLANNING
shall be responsible for the costs associated with relocation beyond the fifty (50) mile
limit established by this article.
(b) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated to another park in accordance with t.__
procedures herein, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any optional
equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the mobilehome owner at an amount to
be determined after establishing the mobilehome owner's original purchase price, and the
date of original purchase.
Where proof of purchase is not available or verifiable, and the manufacturer' s original
list price cannot be ascertained, the value of the mobilehome shall be determined by
averaging the sales price of the three (3) most comparable units of similar age, size,
and quality found in the applicant's mobilehome park at the time the mobilehome owner
purchased the site.
When the original price is ascertained, the amount of compensation to be paid by an
applicant to a mobilehome owner shall be determined by using the following method:
Mobilehomes shall be depreciated at a rate of 4.7 percent per year, beginning with the
date the mobilehome owner originally purchased the mobilehome and/or optional equipment
and continuing until the date of issuance by the applicant of the Notice of Intent to
Change Use. (2699-7/84)
The applicant may grant one (1) six-month extension to the length of time given to the
mobilehome owners in the Notice of Intent to Change Use by notifying the mobilehome
owners of such extension at least four (4) months prior to the date specified in such
notice. The extension shall be granted for no more and no less than six (6) months.
(2699-7/84)
An applicant may, with the consent of the mobilehome owner, transfer a mobilehome unit
to another space in the park. Such transfer shall not constitute permanent relocation,
and the cost of all such moves shall be borne by the applicant.
The mobilehome owner' s compensation for any mobilehome that cannot be relocated to any
other park shall be no less than four thousand five hundred dollars ($4, 500) plus moving
expenses up to five hundred dollars ($500) , an aggregate not to exceed five thousand
dollars ($5,000) .
In order to reduce the impact of relocation to alternative housing further, the
applicant shall pay a cost of housing differential of 50 percent of the increase in the
cost of housing for the first year, not to exceed seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) for
each mobilehome owner.
(c) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated in accordance with the procedures
contained herein, the applicant has the option of making available suitable
alternative housing, together with compensation, to such mobilehome owner.
Where alternative housing is proposed, it shall be available in the following categories
(aa) Senior citizen housing;
(bb) Affordable housing, and
(cc) Market rate housing.
(d) Any applicant and mobilehome owner may mutually agree to modify the standards an
methods contained in this section, and in no case shall an applicant be required
7/84
t t
PLANNING MOBILEHO. JVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING, ANGE OF USE S. 9270.5(d)
to relocate or purchase a mobilehome prior to the date of the Notice of /Intent to Change
Use.
(e) Appeals from the amount of compensation to be given a mobilehome owner shall be
filed with the applicant within thirty (30) days after the mobilehome owner has
notice of the amount he is to receive.
The applicant shall acknowledge any appeal within thirty (30) days, and if an agreement
cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred to a professional arbitrator.
(f) to determine whether compensation accurately reflects the original cost of the
mobilehome, the applicant and/or professional arbitrator shall rely on records
furnished by the mobilehome owner, or if such records are not available, the mobilehome
shall be subjected to the comparison test set out elsewhere in this section. All
optional equipment and appurtenances shall be valued in the same manner.
(g) that the mobilehome owners have received written guarantee of
first-right-of-refusal to purchase units if the development which replaces the
mobilehome park is to be residential in whole or in part.
(h) That the applicant has complied with all applicable city ordinances and state
regulations in effect at the time the relocation assistance plan was 'approved.
(i) That the applicant has complied with the conditions of approval, including the
following items:
(i) Mobilehome owners will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their
leases.
(ii) Mobilehome owners have been given the right to terminate their leases upon
L approval of the relocation assistance plan.
(iii) Demolition or construction will not occur until the relocation assistance
plan is approved and the eighteen (18) month notification period has
expired.
S. 9270.5 ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the impact of conversion
report and relocation 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. Each of the mobilehome
owners shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the
relocation assistance plan.
S. 9270.7 ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. At the conclusion of its hearing,
noticed as provided in this code, the Planning Commission shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny said impact of conversion report and relocation
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.
S. 9270.8 FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and relocation assistance plan
submitted shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the
City Council.
7/84
z
REQUEST FOR G'11-Y COUNCIL ACTION 70 �001e
"Iloile/,X"
Date October 19, 1984
Submateci to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
C
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Cnief of Administrative Servic
Subject: Mobile Home Relocation/Recreation Vehicle Park & Central Park Expansion
Project.
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
Statement of Issue: Pursuant to your request, staff has given further study to various
alternatives for acquiring the necessary properties and constructing a mobile home
relocation/recreational vehicle park and expanding Central Park to provide access to the lake.
Recommendation: Instruct staff to proceed with the necessary steps to acquire the properties
for the relocation/recreational vehicle pant.
Background and Analysis: On September 14, 1984 the City Council received a letter from SBE
Development indicating that they were purchasing the Mushroom Farm as a business venture
with the desire to continue its operation. However, they were aware of the city's interest in
the site and had assessed the possibility of working cooperatively with the city in relocating the
Mushroom Farm operations so that the site could be used for the Mobile home Relocation
Program as well as provide for an expansion of Central Park. The Mushroom Farm location
provides a unique resource for solving the mobile home relocation problem. Because of the
city's interest in this site for future park expansion, it provides for a more logical expenditure
of public funds by solving two problems with one program (relocation and park acquisition).
The total estimated cost of the combined reolcation/recreatiorial vehicle project is $8,000,000.
Roughly half of this cost estimate could be attributed to the relocation park portion of the
project. Attached is a listing of potential funding sources for this project. There are a variety
of funding approaches that would result in a viable and financially sound project. The initial
cost for acquisition and development of the site would require funds in excess of those
immediately available from the funding sources identified. Clearly, however, sufficient funds
for the entire project would be available within 2-5 years. The initial "gap" in funding could be
minimal if favorable financing terms are negotiated with the property owners, if the land
acquisition is accomplished in phases, and/or if current mobile home park owners finance the
construction of the relocation park. The "gap" could, however, be as large as $4 million In
which case a tax exempt bond issue similar to the Emerald Cove issue could be developed, or a
short term loan (two to five years) from other city funds could be utilized for the project. This
latter approach would seem the most viable since sufficient funds for repayment within two to
five years would be available from redevelopment tax increment revenues, rental revenues and
park acquisition funds. The first step is to discuss acquisition of the various properties. An
executive session is needed to discuss this critical issue.
Alternat:vc Actioa: Do not utilize the Mushroom Farm properties for mobile home relocation
anect staff to find some other alternative to the relocation problem.
Funding Source: See attached.
081 9j /91
PIO 4/81
i
41
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOME RELOCATION/RV PARK
1. Park Acquisition and Development Fund - Since the ultimate use of the property in
question would be for Huntington Central Park, park acquisition and development
funds are appropriate and can be used for the project. The five year capital
improvement plan that the staff has recommended to the City Council includes
roughly one million dollars per year for the next five years for land acquisition in
Huntington Central Park. The actual funds that would be available during these
five years could vary based upon development activity in the city, but the current
estimates are that these funds would be available in the Park Acquisition and
Development Fund.
2. State Grants - The city currently has received tentative approval for a matching
grant of $609,000 for acquisition of land for Central Park as part of a prior
application to develop a recreational vehicle park as part of Central Park. Other
state grants could become available in upcoming years.
3. Rental Revenues - If the project is developed as a mobile home relocation
park/recreational vehicle park then fees or rent would be charged on a per-space
basis. A 100 space mobile home relocation park occupied at a 95% occupancy rate
at an average per-space rent of $275 a month would generate about $310,000 per
year in rental income to support the project.
4. Tax Increment Housing Funds - Redevelopment agencies are required by law to
utilize 20% of the tax increment revenues for housing purposes. The 1984/85
estimated tax increment revenues from all project areas in the city is $90,000 and,
therefore, 20% or $18,000 of the current year increment must be spent for housing
purposes. Based on the current developments under construction at Charter
Financial Center, Talbert/Beach and the Breaker's Project (all in redevelopment
project areas), an additional $600,000 per year of tax increment would be projected
as a minimum of which 20% or $120,000 per year must be used for housing
purposes. These funds could be used to support the relocation project and the
annual revenues available from this source would increase as development occurs in
project areas.
5. Housing and Community Development Funds - $600,000 from this fund has
previously been set aside for utilization for mobile home relocation purposes.
Additional funds from this source could be utilized if the Council so desires.
6. Owner Participation - Owner's of the existing mobile home parks have certain
obligations under state and local law for the relocation of tenants who are
displaced in the project area. If this relocation obligation of the owner's (or a
portion of it) were directed to the mobile home relocation project for the purpose
of developing the relocation park, then the city's development costs would be
reduced accordingly. If an $18,000 per-space contribution were made by the
current mobile home park owners for the full 100 space relocation park, the total
funding to the city from this source would be $1,800,000.
7. Sale of City Property - The city currently owns property in the Terry Park Project
area and other property within the city that could be declared surplus and disposed
of to help defray the costs of the acquisition and development of a mobile home
relocation park.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF MOBILE HOME RELOCATION/RV PARK
8. Revenue Sharing - The city receives in excess of 1-1/2 million dollars per year
from the federal government through the Revenue Sharing Program. In the past,
most of this money has been earmarked for capital outlay acquisitions in the
General Fund. With the current effort to implement an Equipment Replacement
Fund, it is anticipated that revenue sharing funds will no longer be needed for
capital outlay acquisitions. Therefore, revenue sharing funds would be available
for other purposes of which acquisition and development of a mobile home
relocation recreational vehicle park would be a legal use of these funds.
0812j -2-
f® —/--�� �r P+�c'�' .�'3',� Oee•4+eo u� spa l�Be:.'�+rO H -�'
'Ree &20eesl - bpowea aye�CaC �ewe+a
/°. Pie:oa► 4•$ea�•1 w 1 a® f Der k��•�d+r 4'0o r��. ��
CA 84-48
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH ^of- 7 i
A�•�eei � �• 1
To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W: Thompson
City Council City Administrator
Subject MUSHROOM FARM RELOCATION PARK Date October 1, 1984
Pursuant to Council direction, staff has prepared a conceptual site
plan and cost estimates for construction of a mobilehome relocation
park on the Mushroom Farm property. Staff envisions the park being
developed in three phases : Phase 1 - 6 . 3 acres presently used for
compost storage, Phase 2 - 3 . 5 acres presently used for truck repair
and farm worker housing, and Phase 3 - 9 . 2 acres presently occupied
by the Mushroom Farm buildings. A 2 . 7 acre Recreational Vehicle Park
would be developed concurrently with Phase 1 of the relocation park .
Assuming SBE' s figure of $6 million to purchase the mushroom farm and
$450,000 to relocate the farm, the per acre value is approximately
$252,900 . Staff has prepared a 6 . 3 acre Phase 1 site plan indicating
65 units at 10 . 3 units per acre. Land value per space would be approxi-
mately $24 ,550 . Development costs per space are estimated at $12, 000
and relocation costs at $4 ,000 . Total per space cost is therefore
estimated at $40 ,550 .
It is intended that the relocation park be established for residency
on a life estate basis and oe a interim use of the property which
will eventually revert to Central Park . The RV Park developed in
con unction with the relocation park will be permanent . Staff would
propose that the recreation facility for the relocation park be
located for use also by RV campers. When the relocation park closes,
the recreation facility will revert to exclusive use of the RV campers
and Central Park users .
In the ensuing time since the September 17, 1984 City Council meeting ,
staff has met with Robert Mayer . He has expressed a willingness to
work with the City in developing and funding the relocation park . All
funding and design information compiled to date is preliminary and will
be refined after further discussion with Robert Mayer and the other
involved parties.
Staff will have wall displays at the City Council meeting of October
2 , 1984 which will indicate all existing uses on the Mushroom Farm
property as well as overlays indicating conceptual site plans of
phasing for the relocation park .
CWT:JWP: HS: sr
Attachment : Potential funding sources
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
State 1 , �ajvelopment Loun Fund $ 75 , 0001
HCD Block Grant Funds For Relocation $ 600 , 0002
Redevelopment Aqency Affordable Housing $ 270, 0003
Redevelopment Agency Relocation Funds $ 345 ,0004
Huntington Beach Company Relocation Funds $ 228 , 0005
Orange County Housing Authoritv Funds $ 100 , 0006
Total wailable $ 1 , 618 , 0007
Park tJ�:el�pment i'unds � �JU0 , 0008
General Revenue Sharing $ 300 , 0008
State Matching Funds $ 609 , 0008
$1 , 809 , 0008
+ $1 , 618 , 0007
Total Available for Mushroom Farm Site $3 , 427 , 000
1. Approximately $50 , t ,,0 to $100 , 000 available.
2 . $600 ,000 total allocated City-wide. City would have to
bor, ow this money and pay it back.
3 . Percentage of total Redevelopment Aqency Aff_ordabJe Housinq
Funds attributable to property owned by the Huntington Beach
Company and the City of Huntington Beach south of Lake Street .
Thn Huntinc7tc,T. Beac 1 Compan,, owns; 7 .R 1,4 1-COW- of tho redevelopment
arf-,,3 and the City awns 11 . 6 percent.. Itr indi( ated is th(
amount that would bt generated over 5 y< <zrs .
4 . $15 , 000 per space for the remaining 23 coaches in Huntington
Shores Mobilehome P,.rk.
5. The amount allocated by the Huntington Beach Company for the
buyout of the remaining coaches in Huntington Shores.
6 . Availability is questionable.
7 . Total available funds for all potential relocation sites other
than the Mushroom Farm.
8. Funds available only for the Mushroom Farm property.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date September 14, 1984
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared by: dames W. Palin, Director of Development Services
Subject: MOBILEHOME RELOCATION PARK STUDY
I fie c f- StA- 40 44 fe,0
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE: (ArAm,C
On August 20, 1984 staff submitted a transmittal to the City Council regarding 19
potential mobilehome relocation park sites. After discussion by the Council , staff
was directed to provide more detailed information on three of the sites (northwest
corner of Delaware/Utica, southwest corner Beach/Memphis, and Redondo Lane) . Staff
compiled information on these sites, including ownerships, existing land uses, approxi-
mate values, and development constraints. This information was discussed at an
informal meeting with mobilehome residents and a representative from the City Council
and staff. At that time, staff was requested to provide similar information for four
additional sites. At a subsequent meeting with mobilehome residents, Council , and
,,,,,.taff on September 12, 1984 the sites were reviewed and trimmed down to four (north-
east corner Edwards/Ellis, southwest corner Beach/ttemphis, Redondo Lane, and the
mushroom farm) . This RCA is intended to provide more detailed information on the
feasibility of acquiring and developing these sites as a relocation park as well as
providing information on potential funding sources (indicated in Attachment 1).
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the attached information and consider directing staff to pursue acquisition and
development of the mushroom farm for relocation purposes.
ANALYSIS:
The following provides information on four potential sites for development of a reloca-
tion park:
1. Northeast Corner Ellis Avenue/Edwards Street
Staff has identified a 15-acre site located at the northeast corner of Ellis
and Edwards Avenue. The property is presently zoned ROS-O-CD (Recreational Open
Space combined with Oil and Civic District). The General Plan designation is open
space. Since this site has been planned for the expansion of Central Park, the
City has been pursuing acquisition of the encyclopedia lots which cover 10 acres
and at present owns approximately 8 of those acres. The other 5 acres are on two
lots which are owned by the Huntington Pacific Company. The majority of the total
15-acre site is presently vacant, with the exception of several operating oil
wells and tanks. The value of the land has been estimated at $ 7.00 per square
foot.
Pin G/R1
Mobilehome Park
September 14, 1984
Page 2
The site is located on the top of the bluff line and there are no known develop-
ment constraints. Acquisition of the entire site would permit development of
approximately 150 mobilehome spaces at 10 units per acre. Assuming site prepara-
tion and development costs of $10,000 per space and a vacant land value of
$ 7.00 per square foot, development of the entire site would cost approximately
$ 6. 1 million, or $40,000 per space. The cost of land acquisition is not
reduced by the amount of land the City presently owns because the parcels were
acquired with Park Development funds which must be reimbursed if the site is not
developed as an expansion of Central Park.
2. Southwest Corner Beach Boulevard/Memphis Avenue
This is a 10-acre site located between Beach Boulevard, Florida Street, Memphis
Avenue, and Knoxville Avenue. The zoning is R3 (Medium High Density Residential )
on the westerly 5 acres and C4 (Highway Commercial ) on the easterly 5 acres. The
General Plan designation is medium density residential on the entire site. The
Huntington Beach Company owns 8 acres of the site and Chevron USA owns the remain-
ing 2 acres. The westerly 5 acres of the site are presently vacant. The north
half of the eastern 5 acres is occupied with oil tanks which serve the oil wells
located within the Seabridge condominium project across Beach Boulevard. The
southern half of the eastern 5 acres is occupied by a pre-school . The value of
the R3 property has been estimated at $ 18.00 per square foot and the C4 property
has been estimated at $ 22.00 per square foot.
Because it is unlikely that the oil facilities and pre-school can be economically
relocated, only the westerly 5 acres can be considered feasible for development of
a relocation park. Acquisition of the 5 acres would permit development of 50 -
mobilehome spaces at 10 units per acre. Assuming site preparation and development
costs of $10,000 per space and a land value of $ 18.00 per square foot, develop-
ment of the 5-acre site would cost approximately $ 4.4 million, or $ 88,000 per
space. There are no known development constraints on the vacant R3 property,
and the surrounding residential uses would be compatible with a mobilehome park.
3. Redondo Lane
Redondo Lane is a 5-acre site located at the westerly side of the Terry Park
Senior Citizen Housing Project. The property is presently zoned M1 (Light Manu-
facturing) and the General Plan designation is industrial . The property is owned
by the City Redevelopment Agency and is presently vacant.
Although the Redevelopment Agency owns the site, there is an outstanding debt of
$2,750,000 plus interest which must be paid off on the property. Development of
this site as a mobilehome park would have to include this cost. Assuming
$ 10,000 per unit for site preparation and development, the cost of developing
50 units on the property would be approximately $ 3.2 million, or $ 65,000 per
space. Constraints on the site include land use incompatibilities and vehicular
circulation problems. The site abuts existing industrial development on two sides :
an automobile wrecking yard to the north and an industrial park to the west. At
the southwest corner of the property is a lumber yard. These uses would not be
considered to be compatible with a mobilehome park. Access to the site has been
planned to be taken via the completion of the Redondo Lane loop. All of the
uses at either end of Redondo Lane are presently industrial . Development of
a mobilehome park on the Redondo Lane property would result in mixing of industrial
and residential traffic.
Mobilehome Park
September 14, 1984
Page 3
Development Services has always attempted to avoid the mixing of residential
I
and industrial uses. A residential use of the Redondo Lane property would be
undesirable in terms of compatibility and would constitute a break in normal
department land use policy.
4. Mushroom Farm
The mushroom farm is a 25-acre site located on the east side of Goldenwest Street
north of Ellis Avenue. Staff has included in this site a 2.25-acre parcel
directly on the corner of Ellis and Goldenwest Street which is not a part of the
mushroom farm but which is surrounded by property owned by the farm. The mush-
room farm site is primarily zoned RA-O-CD (Residential/Agricultural combined
with Oil and Civic District) . 2.25 acres are zoned M1-CD (Light Manufacturing/
Civic District) . The General Plan designation is open space on the entire site.
The majority of the site is owned by the Ocean View Mushroom Growers Association.
3.75 acres are under three different ownerships. The site is presently developed
with the Ocean View Mushroom Farm. The 2.25-acre parcel on the corner of Ellis
and Goldenwest is a truck repair service. Surrounding land uses include the
Sully Miller lake to the east, undeveloped Central Park to the north, Central
Park to the west, and vacant property to the south. The value of the mushroom
farm property has been estimated at approximately $ 5.00 per square foot.
The site is located on high ground directly over Sully Miller lake, and develop-
ment should be kept away from the edge of the bluff which may be unstable. If
9 acres along the perimeter of the site were set aside for Central Park develop-
ment, it has been estimated that 150 mobilehome spaces could be constructed on the
remainder of the site. Assuming site preparation and development costs of
$ 10,000 per unit and a land value of $ 5.00 per square foot on 16 acres, the
total cost of developing the site as a mobilehome relocation park would be
$ 4.98 mil,l,ion,,o,r $ 33,232 per space.
The mushroom farm property is unique from the other potential relocation sites
because the existing use is acknowledged as a temporary use. The mushroom farm
could be purchased in its entirety or purchase could be phased with a portion
of the farm remaining in operation until the relocation park needed to be
expanded. The mushroom farm site is also large enough to accommodate enough dis-
placed mobilehomes to satisfy existing and foreseeable future demand. Because the
unbuildable portion of the mushroom farm could be incorporated into Central Park,
Park Development Funds could be used to finance the purchase of approximately 30
percent of the property. A June 29, 1984 transmittal from staff proposed methods
for phasing a relocation park and Central Park expansion onto the mushroom farm
property. Staff feels that this site offers the most potential for development
of a relocation park.
The City Council had directed staff to further investigate the Delaware/Utica site.
At the Mobilehome Committee meeting of September 12, however, the decision was made
to drop that site from further consideration. This decision was made because of
restrictions agreed to by the City on the transfer of the Terry Park site to the
'otown Park site and because of City purchase of park site area from CALTRANS.
Mobilehom e Park
September 14, 1984
Page 4
I
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may direct staff to pursue additional relocation sites or to do
additional research into the relocation sites presented.
{, FUNDING SOURCE:
No funds required.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1 1. Funding Source Availability Review Sheet
2. Relocation Site Data
3. Letter from property owner of the Mushroom Farm
I
CWT:JWP HS:df
i
i
I
I
I
1
i
I
I
i
i
1
i
1
i
i
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
State Predevelopment [roan Fund 75, 0001
IiCD Block Grant Funds For ReloccaLlt>n $ 600 , 0002
Redevelopment Agency Affordable housing $ 270, 0003
Redevelopment Agency Relocation Funds $ 345 , 0004
Huntington Beach Company Relocation Funds $ 228 , 0005
Orange County Housing Authority Funds $ 100, 0006
Total Available $1, 618 , 0007
Park Development Funds 900, 0008
General Revenue Sharing $ 300, 0008
State Matching Funds $ 609 ,0008
$1, 809 ,0008
+ $1, 618 ,0008
Total Available for Mushroom Farm Site $3 , 427, 000
1. Approximately $50, 000 to $100 ,000 available.
2. $600,000 total allocated City-wide. City would have to
borrow this money and pay it back.
3 . Percentage of total Redevelopment Agency Affordable Housing
Funds attributable to property owned by the Huntington Beach
Company and the City of Huntington Beach south of Lake Street.
The Huntington Beach Company owns 7 . 8 percent of the redevelopment
area and the City owns 13. 6 percent. Revenue indicated is the
amount that would be generated over 5 years.
4 . $15, 000 per space for the remaining 23 coaches in Huntington
Shores Mobilehome Park.
5. The amount allocated by the Huntington Beach Company for the
buyout of the remaining coaches in Huntington Shores.
6. Availability is questionable.
7. Total available funds for all potential relocation sites other
than the Mushroom Farm.
8 . Funds available only for the Mushroom Farm property.
ELLIS AND EDWARDS
+ Total Acreage : 15 . 00
I
IIAIRCI.L NUMBER ACREAGE ZON CNG I,AND USE OWNERSII I I'
110-151-1 thru 11 . 91 ROS-O-CD Vacant City II. B. , Various
110-151-15 2. 50 ROS-0-CD Vacant, Oil Huntington Pacific Co
110-151-16 2. 50 ROS O CD Vacant Huntington Pacific Cc
I 110-151-17 .45 ROS-O-CD Vacant Pacific Amer. Oil Co.
I
110-152- 1 thru 23 1.82 ROS-O-CD Vacant,Oil City H.B. , Various
110-153-1 thru 21 1. 82 ROS-O-CD Vacant,O11 City H. B. , Various
i 110-163-13 thru 23 1 . 00 ROS-O-CD Vacant,O11 City H.B. , Various
110-164-1 thru 22 2 . 00 ROS-O-CD Vacant,Oil City H.B. , Various
110-165-1 thru 24 2 . 00 ROS-O-CD Vacant,Oil City H.B. , Various
15. 00
I
Estimated Value: $ 7 per square foot
,I
Advantages of Site:
1 . Larger than 10 acres
2 . Substantial City ownerships in area
3 . Primarily vacant
1
i
Disadvantages of site:
1. Zoned and General Planned for Central Park
2. Numerous private ownerships
3. Some oil production on site
I
�J
I
I
I
I
i
r
PLANNING ZONING DNS 38
SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 341-5-11
NOTE
ADOPTED AUGUST 15 1960 ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET
y"yI/�y'aE T T ANY ZONE ADJOINING ANY RIGHT OF MAY
CITY
1p ,Y ®�p..+1,1 (S INTENDED TO EXTEND TO -NE c"TEa
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO��ppNN��786 OF such RIGHT Or wnr
AMENDED CASE ORD NO AMENDED WORD NO LEGEND
RA RESIDENTIAL ADRICULTURAI.11—IT
6-3-63 315 970 1 IP-82 813 2530 COME—O w GIL PROpUCTIW
Y�� T ING ®N BEACH
4-b68 SOS 1132 I i3 8281 II 2531 �6�&--J� LIGHT ID wITN OIL mwI'I
1Oy— iy�./I� 1■{—JiB 12-5-66 66 49 1271 1-18-82 81 14 2536 u SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
2-3-69 6B 46 1467 5 3 82 822 2553 � LIGHT iNDusralAL Dlsralcr
6-26 70 70 a 1578 4 9-82 82 3 255' ® HIGHWAY W.W—AL DISTRICT
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA w " ,D ID I606 2 5 83 83 482666 jR
CON
DD wIT" IL PRu°ucT°N
7-i7-71 71-9 1659 CON ONIT,v—LITIES(RECRE—ONAL D��-.IC
10-18-71 71-26 1681 ® CIVIC D1sra VE
® PLANHEC DEVELOPMENT
-I7-72 71-17 1709 ('A}-' -w0 FANNY RESIDE—DIS-RICT
2-22-72 71-44 1722 �1 LIMITED USE
10 15-73 75-20 1876 QD q EIEO CLASSIF—ON
4-7-74 74 22 1977 S REc EAT OPEN SFA
9-15-75 74 5 2010 COM TY BD51NEss DSTa1CT
7-6-76 7422 2077 -ram
4 E7 11-21-77 7719 2229 (211261
DR LENTRAL aNM OR 1
°RI-C 1 1320 6.
J-Nwo D R
A NEI�A Da Nd g 5 RI
RI RI-CD = o
ff
RI aE�X u RIB RI RI a RI 9 RI
R
Y *�LAi4 a R( 4 I RI Q Q Q
_ RI �' j � CF-R
Juo it— j .acr
9 W N
RI c v
k WRI
1tk`LN 3 i1 M< RI- eel
coIT
W RI� ,f2o RI
yoy
RI RI
( P
RI
S�bt
RI RI s' (PREZONED)RI-CD RA-0-CD '
'
4N'jJ a RI OF p ssoCT.
r S 0-CD -0 CD 1
(PREZONED) .J
RI 66005 0-CD -0 CD -0 CO
h�
�`� ''•., w (PREZONED) N -0CD *CDI
�n _CD A
U-O-CDI RA-0-CD
-C
z°Ac
D oa 0 RI-(3)-0 CD-6PW
RA-CD
N e9 42 SI W S.. --
RA-0 R LU-0 CD
— T--
a 1
AD RA-0 RA-0(CDI RA-0-CD
I
o
RA�CD o Q Q
Q-RI-(27)-0-8,000 K
m Z J J
I>2Df
o RA-0
Nev um w 7Ea So
Of RA-0 ILu-o-c0, RA-0-CD
M1-01\\ 1 5't993 N
1 —
MI-CD 3
Z
w
RA-OI �I RA 01 RA-O-CD
r RA-O-CD
�^ :Y
ev.107E z1e1 w
r M" GARFIELD AVE
(1' S.
I
1��M6J1, DR
LA
GIENr Cx OA
it-
� ,
id7 rv-�w f J� -);
1 - CF' Ft
LOW DENSITY
a'
OPEN SPACE
a. sm AN
{ COMMERCIAL
Y 1-
ESTATE
0-2 UNITS/ACRE
---- I - - -
' ESTATE
2-4 UNITS/ACRE
I
h 1 14-i
t
i
+
HUNTINGTON BE4CH C4LIFORNIK NEC ELLIS/EDWARDS
PL4NNING DIVISION
GENERAL PLAN
1
Lit/l2,' °5W 114,' AVE 114, SEC 34, 1'5 5, R/4
a CHERRY — STREET
..�23-- � •��
2 23�'�-S 2: 2 4 20
4 2
U 5 ` 19 4 �I 36 17 Q
12 7--- 5— - LOT I-----6—-'3— —31— Q .��S"_"g"
A
5 AG c 6 7 /a4'30
✓� 7--- 8 - o f, - � 15 0
0 6 g Ig
41
aA
- {ypt{a`_ "' ,a T~ ^9 ...,� a�1 za4 �i �_ k� • -T t e°'#
' -��.f Fir S T yt -_ -',Xi„-' - ' >-1 'y'> Y , .•a.er L 'f� �a'p p�` +i Cn-`
aw. .r - t.=> ;R - racifis American
T �� �• _ � _ �� :� ' ` - �� ` 011 Company`_,
Q .�Z+xq i"�_.� _+w ��_ -�-'-,sn �S-•,fie � _`� j�yw �"
"a`4 --;,-y_— _ ;6' c, ..r,,,,,�r_ ...fin .. .�-• - 4J � W-., ,
¢� y' M H 44
0_ >y _ f U ✓140li.j AG di �i ptt Al .
04
Q4 V t
HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 01
DEC 2 Z PS NOTE - ASSESSOR'S 6—)CA N A55£55JR'S MAP NJMSc i
NAACH ,95 TP NO 32 /�! N 9 -3 PARCEL
( BOOK I i C PAGE'I 5
PO Box IDO SHCwN /,k G'PC_E-s CO✓ti`r OF OR.S11.SE CD
Huntington bedCh,CA 92648
- l
n-C%fn uora9 WjPujjunH
•o a xog 0 d
39 N v'XO 30 ,t 1 NnO.? S37OS10 Nl NMOHS
91 39vd 011,1009 SY_7Sn1?A1
d vw S,&0SS.3SSv S 117075 S,,YOSS3SSV - 31ON St-6 N N 00 ON 81 1961 /-1j&VoV
S30IA83S 1N3W 013Aaa
City of Huntington Beach 5 HOV38 NOt`Nu1NnH
IVarious
� L33ElLS I .f fJtJ3N0
b r// /! �p rI/ r// r//y +, e� ,V rii rn 4 .; V N/ T// •2
• S! LF a! 4 S!
til fI A g s $� it n tl (11 tl pf II c3 • bl °� a 11
�i Ot 0 OI ? 51 01 < SI BB 0! n r 4I 01
Ry 91 E 4Wa
8! !< 9I sa 6 p 91 sit 8
W EF; 19
B LI 8
— S.
s ► -�"` a
is 01
a -1
� s� f+ �Y � A.� .�� _ E .8•r � - .xe g rr8/ 9i I > rat
.1` r I �ri� r!! I O
�'t'• ,�(�. � ; - ,'�t`�7 ����.. �`�`��`=. ~��"�'� ,..�'�_:-„- - _ . _ .���Li .-.R_�;�= '•�-`� _ _ `'r`-a.V _ may `�`p, ��"�^s'
w Or s a
c ! I
a or oa/
i
� I
a,
81 LI
,00/
- Oil � �� 35 P/f 3/ #,/j MS 4''1-i
t �
,3"ACH AND MEMPHIS
To,, al Acreage : 10 . 16 Gross Acres
-Parcel Number Acres Zone Land Use Ownership
025-170-03 8 . 04 R3 ,R4 Vacant , Oil
Facialities Chevron U . S. A.
025-170-04 2 . 12 C4 Day Care
Center Huntington Beach Company
10 . 16
Estimated Value: C4 - $22 per square foot
R3 - $18 per square foot
Advantages of site:
1 . Site is approximately 10 acres
2 . Half of site is vacant
3 . No development constraints
4 . Half of site is residentially zoned
s (vantages of site:
1 . `Inder private ownership
2 . High value of residential and commercial land
3 . I)il facilities on north half of C4 portion of property which service
the Seabrldge oil wells
4 . Noise impacts from Beach Boulevard
Pt ANNING ZONING DM 12
SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP II-6-II
LEGENU
ADOPTEO MARCH 1960
CITY
TT C11Y COUNCIL ORDINANCE IN 754 E
/J '���� ®� ruf NO6ED 050N0 auENDEP_OE 050N0 CC, OU<L 91EC I'llCLASS'I'IC ITION
HaE` I 0 10 N B 5 a ra r ,9]� ^UAL-C SCE,SIC✓}AN
6 Alai III}5 n 7 1989 (lAH` RIr f XOMt
f 61 z01 976 9 M1 1 N1 .1 711 P NFD O�iY LOi M[YT C Ri T
51 ) 7 ]t q0O Ta TO m}OI1
f2 z66 z9 >F rw;m}9?4 IHi REs E F o,sTR<r
I} }B? 7E M }OM (11 E] r •au uRE SIDE NGEND T9rCi
I I t1 NTIN(�TON BEACH A� ; pl l�".pDN ,I PIE FaMII.aF9DSNRE P 5
N�IY.IH IN OL1111 111 lE rA RE61DFICE
I i 6 N^6 I�Bfi 26rR 1r 1025 (t31 MENFCGi BUSINESS Usiq
za s 55 ne6 a ev41
]5 66 CL 2] I}?I 121}71 .2244 � ,NplSTRIAI DISr Sicir
0166644r [1H }21 rH )7) ?ICR C[ COMMUNI-I FACILITIES'E-CAdi10N4UDI<iRi^i
]6 67 66 I'll i}�B ie }H H —1 �c COuuUNITY Faf ILIi IES'E DUGai ONGI)D,RTRI�T
t) R A N G E COUNTY CALIFORNIA 1 IH1.6, 6716 I],R 79 }R} }]4F e,l —Cl PSDFE S,DNe D,s.AlIET
6 69 6H 19 IAll I 1 `0 C}97H]2409 i�, NE IGNBORN00C COUMERCIdL O STRICT
7?169 G9 14 }4 90 P 79}?4I4 lli fgN—Tr BU6�NEc5 C�STRrCi
8A 10 69]5 ISIZ tiA PrBi9+4 r495 IS4 1—WAr fONUERCIaL DISr SIti
}6 O Ppq 2 ISA4 21 HO .1,3 OESIGNAT—PREC t PLAN Of 57 REci a iGXu(N
IO i9 TO A Io I6 'r 91 OBf?4}646A
l J179e War P ifl K3J}%iOqr l'R] B]1B e646B L911rMBurEo wiix oIl cR.00u�r10n
S iI JI J 9] 91 rf 646C 1 Ol if
I655 'f ieafx IIN[
1 B i4 Il tE IBB1 I 4H n.ENf O ^R N ?
xiit
V NW OfVaN Va ON wxw r l Hoorn� nv1 "r
I I A I U L___11 _I I II I I- 11 i�I I I I I _ —I I _ 1 L _I J I_ E_.r ON -j L
RI 0 RI L'�Jr l_R I_1 R I�R 2�� �`nC g�C4 r �� err
ell"
T _ e(01OLD79 'j {,wa C2
Ell,
' "FF,� RI RI RI RI R2 �I -0 ^� ,SPECIFIC LAN 0 l f ff (( l 41t I
+'�.e,i{,\/ C4( �
4' 7 LOMn ANF PO n AVE rlPllu.l 1--_x O I
IOISTRICT 2) r
�lRI EH
HH,-H0,2
0 (� �� -0 �I" i o-af6lob i�O LI
RI 0 8 oswf c oO Avl AVE R2-PO-10 y, L 02
CF—E THINTEENIH $T , �'
R I R I I
R I � , 0 i 9�PO-10
1 1, RI RI a R I I°
`( I �gRl
N SHVILLE AVE`' ST L ECIFIC Rz Po-roR I2 wE`FS"C F—R rc� -° PLAN(DI RICT TWO) I a AFt� G.
RI RI RI I I ?� R2_PD 10
M<MPHIS AvL
1r / �/ E^� VEN THIT
�T
R I t aav\ R;l R I a I OEM OH �
q� RI/ �VJ1tt 1 I A E IMI R3 C4
RI �/�// R I t
RI tEerrH arc
RI R2 sT
c,
�q lH R2 RI n j
/ 1 KrinX vl I E AVE
4 F I P _ R' 0 1 J�L
SCIIC7RllllR3
-
01 N J R CA
Av E
R3 R2 R2 R(, E� I T�0 ) ` la
(�a iR3`1R3,? R3'C✓J
�NI _JI
oR 3 �R3i
4I
P 50
AI."E
a�� �E71 i
F nPun a AVE I- Rd �J
n,Kf-ORTORT f� 4
N J AVErf LMIRA r`vt
11 El AN AVE �I 1
L�J IVI pp qq
H I I
E
Cam\ lJ 1 ?aC / ACO �`��
' T•p ',� �,, 1��0`5` 4`F , , i p �l o)I— : R2-P �I
o,
IFIC n a J e --------_---
LR2
yAETIMear evE rR2-PD:.a R2-PD_R2 R2-PC
ATL ANTA AVE
()Q O. 5 eLF N F(Er i. r
/ /~ 47ON/ 1-INf N Ff ET
�t, IONf n 4N —.1 OF W
1 Qt,`,(] a IN'I »t+Nn 0 T.1 EENa ER
i '
'A MW
�'M -
5rE 44L -'ACE 2 5- 179 FOR > VE"17 9EL�%W 'csQCICE
25 -i
i
zZ
µr
I ----- '1 �-
2 r/STA O �i 'D
Q r-i 1208E //Q8 . /0083 1 9088 + I \
208A //08 !
iX£s/cE r 0 i U <a �.� 908A ; 17 2
L ANE I
I � I
r GEOR6/A ° STREET N
In 3 I ve ee ae
V4-
1 16 15 i 4
�I 2 '4
! � v
> o ?
7
P40R'04
2 y
)948 V,ST-4 ;EL WAR TR WW 4-36
_ O ,_ '_ aSSESSCR',. 2_OCK � .:SSESSC4'S Waa
aaFCE� hUMcEti^S 5CC" 25
I
1
f l r I T 7r�
_ - _� L t
r 1J II1IIll1iIl i� �1
' rI I rI 40
p(N pl
IR TL'aa'n AVE - I } 'TiC�. I FIT
I IT
I n.)vel4 o✓_L.✓_�� /// fR l�LL. .�L_ L�
N
AVE _ -�
I ('j - —
{
L
I WE
NA>HVILLE um n
! I' MEDIUM DENSITY
! - _ owl
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CAD+
m
j _ 1 � 'III - - -- -- -- --- -- - - � may` o ,✓" _,� I'G '�*���;ri ,�
- LINCOLN -
1 -- -- (�I7-1 -- I r hic r w �^S,AG `` rfytr u ' A i
__ -- LOW DENSITY
KNOXVILLE-
LOP
r-d t b
-- -- — " , ,-_ , LOW DENSITY ."
i - JOLIET
_ _ _ _ o __ __ COMMERCIAL_ i
0 > S S y
iNpIANAPOliS _ --- _ - - A` VI CIS
F _
ORIFTVdOW
i 1 t
_LLJ REIILY
AVE
' I
1 CF_E
,.ENE,A —
` SAIL CR
111 —
I _
AVE 1
~ IFRANk,FCRT I MEFAIAID C
1 L�I
— U
MEDIUM DENSITY I
- ELMIRA AVE n KINGFISKER W
tlAnv GN �� f
f II Yin ao_cR � e�vepeCO
i
I
II
HUNTIN T G ON BEACH CALIFORNIA SWC BEACH/MEMPHIS
PL4NNING DIVISION
GENERAL PLAN
I
1
1
MUSHROOM FARM
Total Acreage: 25.11
PARCEL NUMBER ACREAGE ZONING LAND USE OWNERSHIP
111-071-05 2.47 RA-O-CD Mushroom Farm Di Stefano
111-071-19 5. 01 RA-O-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers
111-071-25 2. 27 Ml-CD Truck Repair Bradley
111-071-26 . 23 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Pariseau
111-071-27 1. 26 Ml-CD Mushroom Farm Hudson
111-071-28 1. 25 Ml-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers
111-071-29 .30 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers
111-071-32 7 . 33 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers
111-101-1-44 2. 98 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers
111-102-1-25 2 . 01 RA-0-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers
25.11
Estimated Value: $ 5 per square foot
Advantage of Site:
1. Larger than 10 acres
2 . Primarily under one ownership
3 > Existing use is temporary
Disadvantages of Site:
1. Not under City ownership
2. Not General Planned for residential
i
PLANNING ZONING DM 39
SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-11 -- - - - ,
NOTE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FE IN
GHT OF WAY I
�� CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO 754 TO rHE CENTER of sucR RID.,o�
''777''' 60 ADOPTED MARCH 7 1960 ADJOINING ANY RI
CIT
11 AMENDED �- A� C '1 oUALIF11.cLAsvFpnrroN I
9 6 �90 8 6 ]} BSa
p? PL4NYFD IEVE�Oi MFNi pIz ai r
60 190 10 15]3 IBT4 [A� pE90ENT14 AGRICULTUNPL
'!19-6p BOB 9]A} iB>8 1 ' V
� / �,1.L ' V ®1 \ BEACH 1�y 1 012 61 B EI IS )a I99 L�'I-j NCVZTRIH gSTRI/T /a N I�
6 61 6 12 I]>S .1. ti UTS BVIAI
IS 112
1 5 ) 2 B99900 1015]) W15 LC� LDYMUNIi/ zlNEzz zT
ti 6 IB 62 909 B L 74 19a5 FRONT r SETBACK Dl
BI 9 62 9] 1 IB]9 19]B O w✓E AMIMrL RE Eb'DDMIL' DE V
11f >6} 9a6 7 8 76 2081 (3�] ErrE vROFc550NAL 015 NI T
t) RANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA °�'s' �18,�� �3;; 21se N/r -IG� I
65 II32
2 B 6> 137J 5 30]T7 2181 R3� LIMITED MULTIPLE F RESIDE NLE GI Tv
AMENDED BY ZONE CASE 2 IT 69 i4 s z 6 7e' 2— HIGHwAT COMMERCIAL
III 126 12 t 130 133 134 138 141 149 196 212 237 238 B 69 I O6 12 IT>}NEST 3810 ® RESTRILTE,MANurAc-ubwc DISTRIc
9 2 69 1522 2 21 18 RESM 4590 � OMMUN TY FACILITIES RECREATIONAL)GIZTRIGT
I 250 238 274 293 429 505 542 6727 60 IS 68 54 69 II,69 21 70 10 70-27 71 14 71 17 t2 8 PP72 6 10 19]70 16]9 5 11 e0 2416 �� CDMMUNFfY FA LITIE.,InVICI 015TR IT
t!18 72 19 77-6 72 34 72-44 73 5 73 6 73 Ki 73 IB PPATyI 73 21 73 23 73-20 74 6 74 I5 PP74 3 76 17 76 26B 76 26< t7 177 17 1 6 i1 Rb2 p 17 8 2472 �� MULTI RLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT
1 I tT 27 6P73 1 79 10 80 9 60 17 PPSA82 181 13 82-13 82 14 83 3 83 5 PPSA62 I Ij 72 �'00 3 15 B2RE;r'104 (_ SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
„1 8 7 72 1768 }IS BB2 z544 CpMPINED WITH OIL GRODUCTION
fI I 9 S 72 7} 2 5B4 LOMbINED W OIL vRODUGTpN
9 5 72 I]TO 6 5 B 262? CMG OISTFVCT
TALBERT n i iz ii9� 7 5 262e minz PFfasE PLA of sraEET ALIGNMENT
A 2>5 IB26 S I6 BSRE64526A AVE PRNATE STREET
IS V file, 'V 29] • T— i5136
MI-CD -ca
MI-A x (Q)R2-PO
E MIA r'R4-SR >
IF« ,I ✓ I/l/�Illy so 1 m
R4-SR (Q)R2-PD
/1011!lJllll,�( S 615 RI C 4 I
CF-R MI-CD k tint = R
I r IIR I M�_A g ° R4 SR , 11
-- 550— MI-CD PR RI
CF-R /Ri C2
1
_ T OF-lHE F�
AVLCR DR
N L to 5]]20
M RI RI � 5
I MI 3 ONTARIO DR C 2
RI RI RI I
M1
MI W _�QUEBEC DR RI RI _5I3]6-°-`�"r-2991I
. h N DaN cR
0.
R I o
M1M1
MouNrlov DR A�LKRTAORo R 3
M1h k + Ml-CD RI RJIR RI Q -
` n o m
h FRgNKLIN DR
Y ON DR C4
M I _ 1 RI R3 R3 a
1 74
u pRPLEH RI R3 RI R2 R3 % R3 �
h —
_ E L16 RI -T--- -S—mc —
7 MI R2_- s
MI-0-CD h'A W R2
MI-o1 R2 - - C 2 s ' C2
p 650- MI -
RA-O-CD R2 R5 5D
660 1)0 ry / 1
1 In � COMMODORE CR j/ �kAPTRQN AF'ELbT � 1
660� h N�150 O M2-0 R3zv
3.15,To
MI-0 R30 R2" (DISTRICT
�.� R2 RA-0 N ° rwo)
n or 7 0 " N �,
40{{{{{{ 2
RA-0 Ci MI 0 0 ^� 2R99O
320 3 'z R2 R; DI`iRltl
�RNET9T_1Y41%u3L._L AVE M V R5 'g Nf IJC41�
F I S30„q MI 0 CD,
i-A CD E ACIFICA C UNITY PLAN s I
I- R3
ul
` M 01 - � (DIS ICT ONE) _ i I
I MI4iA OI• ¢ Si 44 �I''
z - —__J MI-0 M2'QI9 103 - 29990
60 R2 z 9L1h(LR �+ I _
9 MI-A-CD MI-0 R5 o w " E
g R5 a LU
I o 1-A-CD-0 ; 5z ro f 0 R3
MI CO 01 R5 R RS 1 30170 - R 2
Laoc o O �m ( _
'2 R2
b°IRA O R5?^ R2
NIOmF-' i GARFIELO --- --� --AVE r
1
1r
I
PO,q V✓ %2, SEC �, _ S, R i t Vl' HUNT NGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
DtL2� , _
i""- 400 K PO Box 190 159-19
Huntington Bach,CA 92648
S 114 CJ
lO�10 3, GV -----$&187r ao_ffs ile
T
--
— —� --a'—=—`----
v J' N
4 <vE
I�I cJ
J9'AC 942 AC �t br A,
i V)
3 3 �2 `4 rJ — _ I In
942AC I71 I3//A: 457,:, �291AC;194 412 AC I, 7�5 84 Ac � �--�
I �AC( I AC
PM 27 JC�
I y Ac
'f P1 Q72 S CRY UL AVENUE R
o� I 37
0� ;11 48EAC 1 I
4 2 - 2 OO AC I I I
J6 82 AC 4-4 19 54AC �+ I � 4 88 At 1aV1
Ur N ^
� '12 R'S 86-29 2th
b 486Ac
C7 C7 > , --+ 21 sTElrAgr (SAE rEy avEl sr
�-- I a
1 C Ca l o I'fL9 ', o 26 27 2 y
e7 0 Q
� '4 /1IS
I rei
alp 09 P AC 32 I' r19 IO
14 o r —tx 2
/ a
E 8-AC 4 78 AC 2S N 4 35 A.: 14 8 A ♦78 AC
I •V
17
i
,1 dOLcFv WES=
> �+ � $;F'S 'VA45
Aq
I4 / F.:RCEL r✓✓rE£' BOOK I I1 FGvE p7
ro SH.744 /h CF-C_E; COL'9T' C= CG.;'1C.:
a
1 - n
i
` --
i �
OPEN SPACE
ItR
CF- R INDUSTRIAL
{ cm .-„"1 _ )'RA PARR)
i
I
i
j OPEN SPACE OWARIO
-- _�
CF-C
•,A aTt1 Y3z,FA- _
I _ -
I $
I
COMMERCIAL
ELLIS
£STATE-- ---- - I MhDIUM
0 ` l;1\717(< ACRE;
i
2-4 UNITS/ACRE
I
I
I
HUNTINGTON B MUSHROOM FARM
EACH C4LIFORNIA
' PLANNING DIVISION
GENERAL PLAN
I(
I
REDONDO LANE
)tal Acreage: 5 . 0 Gross Acres
Parcel Number Acres Zone Land Use Ownership
159-291-14 5 . 0 Ml Vacant Redevelopment Agency
Estimated Value : $7 per square foot
Advantages of s ite -
1 . city owned
Disadvantages of site :
1 . Less than 10 acres
2 . Ad3acent to lumber yard
PLANNING ZONING DM 39
SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-11
NOTE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEE NE
' ^ ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1960 ADJOINING ANY RI6NT OF WAY IS INT F%TI
���� �� CITY
COUNCIL ORDINANCE A 754 TO THE CENTER OF suC'H Rwnr OF wN
1 �G �"D d1ENOE0 �"=�' �"�' ® oElALlnfo cLAsslFlcaTwN
I T 9 6 40 ,90 6 I6 13 854 pt
10 3 60 93 6 15 73 165J [� ➢NNEn OE VEt WMFNr U19 TUI<T
II l 80 796 IO,5]] 1874 [l11] RE90FNitAL M.RiCULTURN Ui IH(1
p 1214 N0 BOB I 9'3 F618
' T11 \�T®� BEACH
31If WC. 'Iv 7 J 112 I.MZ] F FIT ML GI6TRICr
IO 2 61 B]O l4 1891
11 6 61 076 2 17 11 ., �J LIGHT INDUSTR tat DISTRICT
3 7 62 IIEHI 0 10 15 T] IBl6 �.] ,OMMUNITy 6USINESS OI91R11T
6 S 62 80B 8 5 T4 I9J6 FRONT Y➢RU SE TRACR LINE
I
B 6 62 91B 12 9 74 1940 r11 SRO
FAMILY HESIDENCE DISTRI,
I 9 42 937 11-18 14 1"1
t) I l 11 1\ C FI COUNTY,U N T Y CALIFORNIAl 63 9A6 7_6 T6 20BI �� OFFICE PUDLf551DNat DISr RIOT
i 18 64 056
3 65 32 ?��� zlye P2 rWU F of 510E NCF GIST HI�i
2 IB 67 IJ73 5_2 77 2184 P3 LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE D19Tu1CT
17"
6-20 T
AMENDED BY ZONE CASE cs Iw;lS z 69 e7 38 =4 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
I 111 12R 127 13D 133 134�139 141 49 196 212 237 236 6 M By 506 12 I]T3 RESM-I0 ® RESTRICTED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT
1 9 2 fi9 522 2 21]B R" )ISO ® COMMUNITY FACILITIES(RECREATIONAL)DISTRICT
150 1- 274 193 429 505,541 1727 69 15 6B 54 69-11 69 21 70 10 70-27 71 14 71-17 72 9 PP72 6 10 y770 w06 3 IT eo 241e
3 w3B ® COMMUNITY FACILITIES(—IC)DISTRICT
7l 15 72 19 72 6,77 34 72-44 73 5 73 8 73 W 73 19,PPA73-1 73 21 73 23 73-20 74 6 74 15 PP74 3 76 17 76 269 76 26C 77 777-17 B G"1 w62 2 21 SO Zo�z [ yuLTIpLE FAMILr RETICENCE DISrgICF
77 27 6P 73 1 79 10 80 9 90 17 PPSA 92 19i IS 62-13 92-14 83 3 BS 5 PPSA92 1 4 3 72 1140 3 IS L.&.5104 SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELORMENT
�141r`1 6 l T2 177 ]15 B2 25a4 COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION
5 t2 13 B2 2382 ,OMflINED WITH OIL PROOUCTION
9 5 T2 1771 I6 6 B3 z621 1_M PIYIC DISI RNCT
TALBERT 4 72 IT" 1 5 B3 2828 'n4R REC SE PLA OF STREET ALgNMENI
ARL
3 6:1 2"`
2 73 iB26 AVE J`rE STREET L
I
6 t z61z5
J5 36
13v - AMs - 9 E4
MI-CD
MI-A (Q)R2 PD
MFA R4-SR IIOlrQI w m
RFE R4-SR (0)R2-PD
>]95y 1 DD C 4
CF—R 675 RI
M I—A I
n r Tn^.1 MI-CD x_ R4-SR RI
-56DE MI-CD RI
PR '
CF-R g` ` RI R C2 Il
-DF7NE _l.l
M N T➢YLOR OR
3 RI R1 �y J 57720
!� ' M I ...JJJ C 2 5D
RA-0-CD ; MI ONTARIO DR
�—C
RILR R i OR
�,_�-OUE9EC DR RI R1 + 6o04e ze9li
MI H3I137
7 15
.,. RI R $ RI a R 3I �o
3ov Al9ERTA I
MI-CD RI RILRI Da RIM I YON DR FR4NNUN OR C4
RI R3R3JoMI-CD DR IV RI R3 RI R2 fl3 r R3
1 E I RI _L R2
W f 1
MI-0-CD B MI"enrol R2 R2 -,
C2 s
r— 650 4\ MI - / C2
i
RA-O-CD R2 J R5 5D 1
660 D N
R3 I
g coMMODR3 cR / %APTRQN 'zH7T ,
660€ N I C M2—O
SO /
JRA-0
R. 32975T0M I-0 R3 R2 DISTRorTOo{{{{ CH
2
RA O C MI-0g R2 z 90
32D Ip : R2 IIDI ONE)
VV (�
! ERNEST AVE Allmi R5 ONE.. V 41
I o� $
I � 330.� M I-0 CD
3 I-A CD D �ACIFICA C MAUNITY PLAN o
ACDo1• MI-01 - acp /�� / (DI ICT ONE) R R3 d
--— ~ M I-0 M2-019 29990
Z 1
w i R5 : s rl a MI-A-CD M1-0 ue
o ; �R5 �+ R59=]a R2 ;I m
7�o
l0 i Isoo 'I R3JE R R5 R2 R2 R2 8
xl. MI-CO 01
f —
GARFIELD ,`�f
AVE
I
(LD
W
Ll
6 HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES c
4 Am 7 W4 !
i 7
P 0 Box 190
Huntington Beach CA 9,l(h�-
, I ,
i
1) O
BIPOOKSNlRf STREET n —� S<5 A-'
i , ---- --- -- - >1
I S 5 o U O _ 0 379 AI 4
TRAc r �-
y � 4 G"e AC
E
J
I t 3 r II
2057AC(C/ 04 ACT ti
O P3Ee a'
I ^�` 10 t
,>44-ac y O
f
ai
b vo 5 7c
tY ^� NO 570
S _—
`�
-- ._ .z - _ 2 FAQ^Ei h�$_FA$ cc FAG- 25 l
JV N IN CIP-LE: OF GPAI.GE '
I,1 1111111h•••• •••i K 1� �`v,< o-\�j; 5 3 sr+: x3 ' :; . .
nlnnunnnilninn
s ��.i•••111111\ _2"t •a* z:r� --r r� .wry ,�
iuii iiiiii'■' *k� w �ii .: .�■.iiiilAb' r,
{
Hot:IRWIN googol
wwrx '
I"lMfg fill,
-44
on
MINE
wr g
;n b.ln•!�11111 r A�S� :� �� ��� t �e �y ,{5�1
.�� Mom► :*� . 7r
Mo
..w
"v....>:.'y.;'°fk-_�_:;.'�.,. .. ��y�.•1���� �.a..iw c..-.� f.:'.ti't Fa'C?-�"�C"''gS� ,p
..�, .. :.,.,�� °'�.�,:x,s�•tte7•.�'S! emu• ._ .a.,..:�"�°,- - �-tk"q,
a�i
SBE Development,Inc
NOI �„ri f iu�r
Hunini,lnRCd�r, � A �?b4b
(711)130o 6551
September 14, 1984
Mayor Jack Kelly
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Kelly and City Council Members :
We have recently purchased the Mushroom Farm as a business venture and
hope to continue in the mushroom producing and sales business. However,
we are aware of the City Council 's desire to help solve the mobile
home relocation challenge and the mobile home displacee 's interest
in the Mushroom Farm site. Therefore we have spent many hours assessing
our options and evaluating alternatives which might be acceptable to
all parties concerned. We are pleased to inform you that we are convinced
that several approaches exist which would be acceptable to SBE , and we
think, to the other parties involved.
We believe that it would be feasible for us , under a cooperative pro-
gram with the City Redevelopment Agency, to relocate the Mushroom Farm
operation to a site in San Diego County which we now control . We be-
lieve that such a relocation program could be coordinated with the
phase development of this current site as an extension of Central Park
and a mobile home complex. We could establish a timetable which would
accomodate the immediate commencement of construction on a portion of
the site with a commitment to clear the balance of the site by the
time the first phase is ready for occupancy.
We are very optimistic about the prospects of SBE being able to assist
and participate with the City in this important endeavor. However, for
such to be accomplished we must move forward fairly rapidly. Our busi-
ness decision-making schedule and financial commitments make it impera-
tive that two basic items be cleared by October 30 , 1984. First we must
be in receipt of a letter of commitment within the next thirty (30)
days and the City must be in a position to acquire the proposed park
land adjacent to the lake (see Attachment 1) by the October 30 , 1984
date. The acquisition price of $1 ,200 ,000.00 is based on the same
square foot value which SBE incurred in acquiring the property. Second ,
the Mushroom Farm must be allowed to continue its operation until the
first phase of the Mobile Home Park is ready for occupancy.
In hopeful anticipation of your positive response to this letter and
the need for us to move forward rapidly, we will be submitting a some-
what detailed analysis of alternatives to the city for review at the
earliest possible time.
Mayor Jack Kelly
City Council Members
September 14 , 1984
Page Two
I
i
We are very willing to meet with you at your convenience to dis-
cuss this important program.
I
I
{ Sincerely,
Eugene! R. Ehmann
SBE Financial Corporation
I
I
ERE/j al
i
i
1
1
i
I
i
I
I
t
i
i
i
i
t
1I
i
c
OPEN SJ'AC J �li1
19y� OWCIIW --
®�,s F 4®/3@10Y -lL tl llil i
CF- RX',I INDUSTRIAL,
n J06A N ,.nl
MUM
00
OPEN S'r ONTARIO
PARK C F C OWON -_
LAKE X CR -
i-. - �
t ('OV"t ' ALIS
I
S!174 E RAY E��E M L F)I U M
_ L
i Amps
i
I
ESTATE
2—� UNITS 'ACRE { ,
. 1 V
ACIL)k
HUNTINGTON BEACH C4LIFORNIN MUSIiROOM FARM
PLANNING DIVISION
GF,NERAL PLAN
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date A„g»G t- 1 4 1�4_
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat 4
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services
0/v S-3-o-
Subject: MOBILEHOME RELOCATION PROGRAM P
I,�F_e_ eD -MPF rO LOM
sans As s OLE I.00-A-now FoR M0511.EWME PARR. — l3 C �DEd.�4WAtE
Rr3�astDo A-WA 1z.ff'UMAJ KMtOftlo "1't) LOUii1-IL. tw 30 DAYS ta. 1TH Pa��`tCAL ST1?A1 �Y Wtl diUb
wMi .D,5 PLAf TLr-W1 &'rM, MR PARS, OWWE95, PROPEM OwNegs ftD CITY 4-7- ,ucnu;e Wiji `-Ak
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On April 16, 1984 the City Council directed staff to conduct an
analysis of the possibility of acquiring the Mushroom Farm property
for use as a mobilehome relocation park. At the City Council
meeting of July 2 , 1984 , a mobilehome relocation program was
presented for the Downtown Redevelopment Area. The plan included a
proposal to purchase the Mushroom Farm property for development of a
mobilehome relocation park. The City Council subsequently requested
that staff return with information on alternative relocation park
sites. This transmittal is intended to review alternative
relocation sites and also to inform the Council of what steps should
be taken next to develop the Mushroom Farm as a relocation park.
RECOMMEDATION:
Review the attached information and consider directing staff to
pursue acquisition and development of one or more of the potential
relocation park sites.
ANALYSIS:
This transmittal is separated into three parts : 1) The Mushroom
Farm relocation site; 2) alternative relocation sites; and 3)
short-term versus long-term solutions.
1. The Mushroom Farm Relocation Site :
Attached is the July 2 , 1984 report to the City Council regarding
the possible purchase of the Mushroom Farm property. The proposal
is for a two-phase acquisition and development program which will
result in 153 relocation- spaces. Total site acquisition was
estimated at $4 ,066 ,000 , with approximately half of the cost to be
handled through Park Development funds, General Revenue sharing , and
State matching funds. A bond issue could be pursued for the other
half of the cost. Actual park development costs would be the
responsibility of the developers whose park closures resulted in the
need for relocation of units. Tenant rental payments would go to
the City to amortize the cost of land purchase.
PIO 4/81
Page 2
When the Mushroom Farm proposal was submitted to the City Council on
July 2, 1984 , staff was prepared to initiate acquisition
procedures. If the Council decides at this time to direct that
staff proceed with acquisition efforts, the first step will be for
the City to initiate meetings with the potential site purchaser, a
private developer who is presently in escrow on the property. City
officials should meet with the developer to determine if there is a
possibility for an agreement for City use of all or part of the
site. A land swap for the site is one possibility of an agreement
which could be reached. If the developer is not receptive to such
an agreement, condemnation proceedings may be necessary for the City
to acquire the property. With City Council direction staff will
initiate a high level meeting with the developer.
2 . Alternative Relocation Sites :
On April 5, 1984 staff submitted a transmittal to the City Council
which included information on alternative relocation sites. That
transmittal is included with this report as Attachment 2 - A total
of 19 sites were identified for a total of 219 acres. These site
locations, acreages, and general plan designations were indicated as
follows :
LOCATION ACREAGE GENERAL PLAN
+ SEC Bolsa Chica/Los Patos 8 .0 Low Density
+ Meadowlark Airport 15.0 Low Density
- Irby Park 6 .0 Low Density
- NWC Warner/Magnolia 8. 5 Commercial
- Humana Hospital 14.5 Public,
Institutional
- Gotha rd north of Talbert 8 .5 industrial
- Redondo Lane 5 . 5 Industrial
+ NEC Edwards/Ellis 15 .0 Open Space
+ NEC Garf field/Edwards 18. 0 Estate
- SEC Garfield/Goldenwest 18 .0 Medium Density
- Stewart Street 5. 8 Medium Density
- Crystal Street 6 .0 Medium Density
+ = Optimum Sites
- = Sites with Development Constraints- _
I
F
2
a a
llk4
i 6 Qa
fY
� o�'� � cow�a aor�o r,Ca Qfia °o
G
Qy�Q w° 4a 0ea �a °o o`r4
0 �G
ya4 h C
v; Jwy �h s
yh
yha � u _ Oe d°,� ®o }
o
I /i` ayah ��aetiahr ,�e'� 4b1 °sa,
a 3a Vo Lem ep °
� @ c
i
I
HLJWWN TON BEACH OILIFORNIA ALTERNATIVE RELOCATION SITES
PLANNING DEPARTMEM
(CONCEPTUAL)
Page 3
LOCATION ACREAGE GENERAL PLAN
- Holly Street 3.5 Medium Density
- Seacliff Center 21 .0 Commercial
- SEC Beach/Garfield 7 .0 Medium Density
+ NWC Delaware/Utica 9. 0 Medium Density
+ SWC Beach/Memphis 10 .0 Medium Density
- NWC Adams/Santa Ana River 4 .3 Low Density
- SWC B ushard/Atlanta 35 .8 Low Density
219.4
+ = Optimum Sites
- = Sites with Development Constraints
Some of the sites indicated above are encumbered with development
constraints because of location, size, land use, or other problems.
The NWC Adams/Santa Ana River site and the SWC Bushard/Atlanta site
are both located in flood hazard zones which will require
substantial amounts of fill to develop. The cost of grading and
fill may render these sites too expensive for mobilehome park
construction. Other sites, such as the Gothard/Talbert site and the
NWC Warner/Magnolia site, may be undesirable due to incompatible
surrounding land uses and access problems. Some sites may be too
far under the minimum optimum park size of 10 acres to be considered
ideal. The Irby Park, Redondo Lane, Stewart Street, Cyrstal Street,
and SEC Beach/Garfield sites are all substantially under the 10-acre
standard. Some sites, such as the SEC Garfield/Goldenwest site are
also substantially encumbered with oil operations.
The optimum relocation sites may be the northeast corner of Garfield
and Edwards, the northeast corner of Edwards and Ellis, the
northeast corner of Delaware and Utica, the southeast corner of
Beach and Memphis, the southeast corner of Bolsa Chica and Los
Patos, and Meadowlark Airport. With the exception of the northeast
corner of Edwards and Ellis, these sites are all General Planned for
residential uses. They are also all in areas which could be
considered compatible for such use. Unfortunately, they are also
almost all in private ownership (with the exception of the northeast
corner of Delaware and Utica and some of the area at the northeast
corner of Edwards and Ellis) . The acreage of these sites totals to
75 acres and will accommodate 750 units at 10 units per acre. The
addition of the Mushroom Farm site would allow for the relocation of
903 coaches. There are aproximately 1, 000 coaches currently in
coastal zone parks.
Page 4
With City Council direction regarding one or more of the above
sites, staff will pursue detailed appraisals of the property and
initiate meetings with the property owners. Funding for acquisition
could be taken from the funds identified for acquisition of the
Mushroom Farm, or the responsible developers could assume a larger
role. State monies specifically for relocaton park acquisition and
development may also become available if State Assembly Bills 3409
and 3534 are approved.
3. Short-term versus Long-Term Solutions
At the present time, Huntington Shores and Driftwood Mobilehome
parks pose the most immediate concern for relocation of units.
Development of the Mushroom Farm and/or one or two of the alt-
ernative site locations would satisfy this demand. If none of the
previously mentioned sites are deemed appropriate for development,
then the City should pursue meetings with the Huntington Beach
Company and the Mayer Corporation to determine other property
options which those companies may have . These are short-term
solutions to deal with the units which face relocaton in the near
future.
Apart from the 284 coaches in Huntington Shores and Driftwood there
are 1,570 other coaches in or near the coastal zone and 1, 530
coaches in more inland areas of the City. It will be impossible for
the City to relocate more than one-third of these coaches within the
City even if all of the optimum relocation sites identified above
were developed. If more than several hundred coaches are displaced,
the City may need to consider options such as relocaton park
acquisition and development in outlying areas of the County,
provision of alternative housing types, or buy-out of coaches as
presently required by the City' s mobilehome conversion ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION :
The City Council may direct staff to pursue additional strategies
for relocation assistance or to do additional research into the
strategies presented.
FUNDING SOURCE : No funds required
SUPPORTING INFORMATION :
1. Tom Tincher' s July 2 , 1984 transmittal regarding Mobilehome
Relocation Program for Downtown Redevelopment Area
2. Development Services April 5, 1984 transmittal regarding
Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance Buy-out Formula Revisons
and Relocation Park Development Possibilities.
3. Wall Map indicating Alternative Relocation Park Sites
CWT :JWP: HS:d f
1049d
FCITY� ' ®F HUNTINGTON BEACH
;� INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Honorable Mayor and From Tom Tineher,
City Council Members Redevelopment Coordinator
Subject MOBILE HOME RELOCATION PROGRAM FOR Date June 29, 1984
DOWNTOM REDEVELOPMENT AREA
(STUDY SESSION 7/2/84)
As you are aware, residents of the Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park are
faced with being displaced within the coming year and there will be a need to
establish a right-of-way and construct the Walnut extension in the very near
future, if the Downtown Specific Plan is to be implemented. These two facts
now present a challenge to the Huntington Beach Company, The Robert Mayer
Corporation, and the Redevelopment Agency. That challenge is to develop a
relocation program which is equitable and fair to those tenants being
displaced and consistent with the City°s Conversion Ordinance, State
Relocation Law and HUD relocation Law.
Tn reviewing the established regulations and laws, and in assessing relocation
.)pportunities in the area, two basic conclusions have been reached: 1) there
are very few spaces available in the area for any convenient ' relocation to
-;cur, and 2) there are Agency relocation, affordable housing and replacement
housing considerations which must be responded to as part of the respective
w •velopment programs wh.Lch are currently being planned. Attachment 1 provides
an overview of Agency relocation obligations and how they might apply in
artain given circumstances. Attachment 2 reflects a proposal for the
redevelopment Agency to acquire the Mushroom Farm and other adjoining
-roperties and in coopP ation with the City, the Huntington Beach Company, and
...,e Robert Mayer Corpuiatibn, develop the site as a mobile home relocation
park and as an expansion of Central Park.
It is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency approve that the
i(ientified relocation assistance program be applied to all prospective
projects in the Downtown Area involving the displacement of mobile homes and
,_rnmtmence immediately to implement the grogram to acquire and develop the
Mushroom Farm site. These two actions will move the Downtown Redevelopment
Program in a significant step forward. In addition, they will provide a
reasonable alternative to mobile home owners who face relocation in the very
near future.
ATTACHMENT 1
Hl 1H1.ri1`'1�LV j 1 ,
M-.,ILE HOBS RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
Redevelopment Law stipulates that relocation assistance must be provided
to a person who ". . . moves from real property, or who moves his personal
property from real property, as a result of the acquisition of such real
property, in whole or in part, by a public entity or by any person having
an agreement with or acting on behalf of a public entity, or as a result
of a written order from a public entity to vacate the real property, for
public use. This definition shall be construed so that persons displaced
as a result of public action,receive relocation benefits in cases where
they are displaced as a result of an owner participation agreement or an
acquisition carried out by a private person for or in connection with a
public use where the public entity is otherwise empowered to acquire the
property to carry out the public use." (Public Use means a use for which
real property could be acquired by eminent domain) .
To be eligible for assistance, a mobile home owner or tenant must have
owned or was occupying the unit at the time the Agency initiates negotiations
for the acquisition of the unit or execwtes a development agreement which
would cause the displacement of the unit. Relocation assistance may also
be required retroactively where the public action precipitated or benefited
from the relocation even though the acquisition negotiations or execution
of the development agreement occurred after the actual relocation took place.
In light of these requirements, it is recommended that the relocation assistance
identified on the following pages be applied to both existing conversion
activities in the Downtown Redevelopment Area, as well as, those which may
evolve in the future.
MOBILE HOME OWNER CHOOSES TO RELOUkTE UNIT
REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT
90 Day Owner or Tenant
An amount not to exceed $4,000 over a four year period
to offset increased costs associated with obtaining
camarable housing acccmTodations or facilities
P L U S
Actual Relocation Costs
The actual costs of relocating the mobile hare from the
existing site to an alternative location within a 50 mile
radius.
MOBILE HOME OWNER CHOOSES NOT TO RELOCATE UNIT AND
SELLS TO DEVEIAPER OR PROPERTY OWNER EVEN THOUGH
THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE SPACES AVAILABLE AT REASONABLE
RENTS
NEGOTIATED PURCHASE PRICE
The buyout is negotiated between mobile hcare owner and
property owner.
P L U S
i
REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT
90 Day Owner or Tenant
An amount not to exceed $4,000 which when added to the
"Negotiated Purchase Price" equals the reasonable cost
of obtaining alternative housing
P L U S
DISPLACEE MOVING COST
Actual cost of moving personal property up a 50-mile radius
or a fixed payment of no more than $300 moving expense and
a $200 dislocation allowance.
I
MOBILE HOME CANNOT BE MOVED BECAUSE OF
PHYSICAL CONDITION OR LACK OF AVAILABLE
SPACE
ACQUISITION PRICE
The greater of either the "salvage value" or "trade-in value"
under State guidelines or the "depreciated value" under the
City mobile haute conversion ordinance (the "depreciated value"
payment shall not be less than $4,500 plus actual displacee
moving expenses up to $500, with the aggregate amount not to
exceed $5,000) .
P L U S
REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT
180-Day Owner
An amount not to exceed $15,000 which when added to the
acquisition price equals the reasonable cost of a comparable
dwelling
or
90-Day Owner or Tenant
An amount not to exceed $4,000 which when added to the acquisition
price equals the reasonable cost•of obtaining alternative housing.
P L U S
DISPLACES MOVING COST
Actual cost of moving personal property up to a 50-mile radius
or a fixed payment of no more than $300 moving expense and a
$200 dislocation allowance, if not included in "depreciated
value" as described above.
Attactunent 2
MOBILE HOME REWCATION PFWBCT
The Mobile Home Relocation Park Project, as presented, will provide
approximately 150 spaces to help meet the Redevelopment Agency's relocation,
replacement housing and affordable housing obligations at no additional cost
to the City or Agency. The only obligation the Agency will have is to provide
the appropriate, legally required relocation ' assistance as presented in
Attachment 1 . The overall site would include an expansion of Central Park to
provide public access to the lake and the mobile home facilities. The land
for the park expansion would be purchased from previously budgeted Park
Development Funds and the Matching State Grant. The mobile home park site
would be purchased by issuing bonds or certificates similar to Emerald Cove on
an interest-only payment basis. The interest would be paid from the proceeds
from the rents generated by the project and the principal being paid from a
special fund established as part of the Redevelopment Agency's overall Housing
Fund obligation. The construction of the mobile home park would be undertaken
and financed by the participating developers as part of their relocation
obligation under the conversion ordinance.
The following is a brief summary of the financing program:
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
Park Expansion and
Public Access (Phase I) $ 1,200,000 Park Development
Funds & General
Revenue Sharing
Park Expansion and
Public Access (Phase II) 609,000 State Matching
Funds
$ 1,809,000
I
Phase I Site $ 2,375,000 Bonds
Phase II Site $ 1,691,000 Bonds
$ 4,066,000
Project Construction $ 2,000,000 + Developers
*An interest-only loan at 9.5% would require a monthly rent of approxunately
$260 per unit, per month, plus maintenance and management costs.
I
The Mushroom Farm Area has numerous ownerships which must be consolidated in
order to bring about the proposed development. The different ownerships are
depicted on the following map, except for 12 additional "encyclopedia parcels"
which exist within Parcel H. If necessary, the pro]ect could be developed in
two phases, as shown on the attached maps. This would allow the continued
operations of the Mushroom Farm until Phase I is ready for occupancy.; This
possibility could assist in negotiating for the early acquisition of the Phase
I site.
With approval from the City Council, staff would move ahead immediately with
drafting the appropriate agreement with the Huntington Beach Company and The
Robert Mayer Corporation. In addition, staff would pursue discussions with
the property owners involved in the Mushroom Farm area, concerning the
proposed acquisition prior to the time the development agreement is ready for
formal consideration.
I
I
r
I
I
I
i
0
I
i
f A16 P I, I,OT I DA`I' I P ] ON ACRW}a,
Mushroom Farm 19 . (
Prgdley 1
Par tseau 1
I Iii,I:;on 1
*Small Lots
IAJ
I w
T, 96i'T FT
' I
QS
AJ
I
� a
�Al,UE
r'I h I s rt hi cis-nt s only 11 of the total 69 small - of s . The balance ,
logs two owned by the city, belong to Ocean View Mushroom and thSir
value is included in the total value of the mushroom farm
I�
Library ^
Parking
y .
INTEpurn
REPLACEMENT SITE
MUSHROOM FARM OPERATIONS
, 8.7 ACRES
,
�• I
t I
- STING I
MUSHROOM FARM OPERATIONS ,
4 Y
4 t
9.2 ACRES
t�J T
a � I
3 +
FUTURF PAR ,
v K
LAKE_
till"
—� Ave
K= _ , , Library -1
+., Parking
s
t 1
rWEPWA
REPLACEMENT SITE
MUSHROOM FARM OPERATIONS
8.7 ACRES
" I
sP
�r
_ - FUTURE PARK
` I
L -- -
-�'� -� -- LAKE
r
tit
I�,;�,
it
3'a r
Ems Ave
Xl`
REQUE` FOR CITY C®UNC' �NCTI N
Date April 5 , 1984
Submitted to. Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
Prepared by- James W. Palin, Director Development Services
Subject: MORTLEHOMF PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE BUYOUT FORMULA
REVISIONS AND RELOCATION PARK DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments*
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At the City Council meetings of March 19 and March 26 , 1984 , staff sub-
m, rted communications regarding an alternative mobilehome buyout formula
and mobilehome shelter park (relocation park) concepts . This transmittal
I- a follow-up to those two communications .
R1 'OMMENUATI( N :
Rey i ew the a+ ' iched information and consider directing staff to prepare
a )cle amendr , i i to 7\ , icle 927 mode' tng the adopted mobile home buyout
fnt mul a c,ad aiding wording for reloc- ion park development.
AN/\LYSII
Oj. .larch 19 , 1 r)8 4 stat{ submitted int rmation regarding a n< <a mobilehor
Im )tit formal � which w-zs being studiP ' by staff . The formula differen-
t-, t,d 1 tweeti , oach value and implied space value and applied separatf°
dF't' ec i t_ roe t ates to each. The results indicated that the formula
pi zded more compensation 'th=-i the existing formula Ln some cases and
less coi,,, ,,nsation in other cases . Overall , the buyout tended to he
f ly similar to that achieved by the existing adopted formula. Council
comment( O on these facts and decided that other options should be
ex=,l ored.
In the t2me since work first began on the Mobilehome Park Conversion
Ozdinance , a number of different formulas have been considered and found
to be inadequate in some manner_ . The following formulas have been
considered : h, -out at full market value , a percentage of full market
value , fill m, , ket value with -t slidinu scale based on length of tenancy ,
Kelly Blue Bonk , insurance replacement value , original purchase price,
and oric ,nal purchase price minus an annual depreciation of 4 . 7 percent .
Thiq last furmula was eventually determined to be the most equitable
to both coach and park owners.
Si,,e adoption rf this formula , mobilehome park residents have expressed1
the opinion that it does not provide adequate compensation. The city
Coi cil has expressed interest in this assessment. The most recent
formula investigated by staff would , it was hoped , snlve the problems
of the existing formula . Unfnttunately , the new alternative did not
ATTACHMENT 2
Pi0 4,fll
o i t UI1� 7 'n L r I I t
i 5 ,, 1984 '
• 1 1e 2
p ._}vide significant benefits over the adopted formula. If the City
Council feels that more compensation is desirable , they could
consider slightly modifying the existinq formula so that it provides
additional buyout value. The 4 . 7 percent depreciation rate applied
t, the value of the original purchase price could either be reduced
' or eliminated . Staff would suggest , however, that the 4 . 7 percent
t
0, oreciation rate remain, but that depreciation stop on th- date of
issuance of the Notice of Intent to close the park. Such action
w old permit the coach owner to recoup a greater percentage of his
original investment. A code amendment to make this change could be
initiated by staff.
The second p , rt of this transmittal involves the possibility of level --
( ring relocation mobitehome parks within the City of Huntington Beach
for coaches displaced by converted parks . Staff ' s March 26 , 1984
transmittal to the City Council identified five possible sites within
tAe City for relocating displaced coaches . Council reviewed those sites
and provided input. Among Council ' s concerns were the costs of estab-
lishing a mobilehome park and the optimum minimum size of a park.
a March 16 , 1982 communication to the Planning Commission , staff
identified the appinximate costs for development of a .mobilehome park
a determined by a pi-posal to build a park in the City . It was found
Uat ,oncP a site was acquired, costs would be incurred for improvement
nF the ni-ty i "ludin% but not _limited to , grading , dralnare, utility
t , _ensi ous , s tree K , private open st ane , and recreation facilities .
In the park f» "posal -hich had been recentll considered at the time ,
} ise costs would have totaled apprcximately $13 , 000 per space. Land
was estimated to cost between $375 , 000 and $450 , 000 per acre . A 10-arre
irnhilehome park developed at 10 units per acre was estimated to cost
between $5. 05 and $5 . 8 millinn dollars , or $50 , 050 to $58 , 000 per space .
These casts were found at the time to be beyond the funding capabilities
of the HCD Block Grant proiram.
Its regard to Council ' s concern about optimum mobilehome park size, staff
has the following comments. The City ' s Ordinance Code , Article 924 ,
Mooilehome District, establishes 10 acres as the minimum park size and
9 units per acre as the maximum density. These standards permit the
establishment of adequate recreation , open space , circulation , and park-
ing facilities for a comfortable and enjoyable living environment.
Staff recommends that the 10 acre minimum park size be retained if
possible as the relocation park size standard. In recognition of the
fact that many coaches in the older parks are single-wades , however ,
staff further suggests that the density could be increased to 10 units
per acre.
As indicated in the March 16 , 1984 transmittal to Council , staff has
continued to examine other possible mobilehome park relocation sites .
Staff has prepared a wall map indicating potential relocation sites
within the City. A total of 10 sites have been identified for a total
of 192 acres . These site locations , acreages , and general plan
designations are indicated as follows :
-2-
Conyersa r�i Qrdina
Peril 5 , 1984
Page 3
LOCATION ACREAGE GENERAL PLAN
SEC Bolsa Chica/Los Pates 8 . 0 Low Density
Meadowlark Airport 15 . 0 Low Density
Irby Park 6 . 0 Low Density
NWC Warner/Magnolia 8 . 5 Commercial
Humana Hospital 14 . 5 Public, Institutional
Gothard North of Talbert 8 . 5 Industrial
Redondo Lane 5. 5 Industrial
NEC Edwards/Ellis 15 . 0 Open Space
NEC Garfield/Edwards 18. 0 Estate
SEC Garfield/Goldenw,2st 18. 0 Medium Density
Stewart Street 5 . 8 Medium Density
Crystal Street 6 . 0 Medi,,m Density
Holly Street 3 . 5 Medium Density
Seacliff Center 21 . 0 Commercial
SEC Beach/Garfield = 7 . 0 Medium Density
NWC Delaware/Utica 9 . 0 Medium Density
SWC Beach/Memphis 10. 0 Medium Density
NWC Adams/Santa Ana River 4 . 3 Low Density
SWC Bushard/Atlanta 8. 5 Low Density
192 .1
Some of these sites may be effectively eliminated from further consid-
eration because of locational and/or other considerations . The
Adams Avenue/Santa Ana River site and the Atlanta/Bushard site are both
located in flood hazard zones which will require substantial amounts of
-3-
'V; Conversion Ordina
ril 5 , 1984
Page 4
fill to develop. The cost of grading and fill may render these sites
tuo expensive for mobilehome park construction. Other sites , such as
the Gothard/Talbert site and the Warner/Magnolia site may be undesir-
able due to incompatible surrounding land uses and access problems.
Same sites may be too far under the minimum optimum park size of 10
arr_es to be considered ideal . The Trby Park, Redondo Lane, Stewart
reet , Crystal Street , Holly Street , and Beach/Garfield sites are all
substantially under the 10 acre standard.
The optimum relocation sites would le the southeast corner of Garfield
a»d Goldenwegt , the northeast corner of Garfield and Edwards , the
northeast corner of Edwards and Ellis , the northeast corner of Delaware
and Utica, the southeast corner of Peach and Memphis , the southeast
c rner of Bolsa Chica and Los Patos , and Meadowlark Airport.. With the
exception of the northeast corner of Edwards and Ellis , these sites are
all General Planned for residential uses . They are also all in areas
which could be considered compatible for such use. Unfortunately, they
aie also almost allin private ownership (with the exception of the
northeast corner of Delaware and Utica and some of the area at the
n-rtheast •orner of Edwards and Ellis). The acreage of these sites
t tals to 93 acres and will accommorlate 930 units at 10 units
p ,r acre. There are approximately 1 , 000 coaches currently in coastal
z ie parks , ')nd 3 , 000 coaches City-wide.
Ir addition to studying reloc,ii inn sines , staff was also directed to
i,,(2ntif-,• potential funding sources . The most obvious source would be
the developer responsible for closing the mobilehome park. Rather than
p,,~ chasing the coaches from the residents , it may be nearly as finan-
cially feasible for the developer to actually develop a relocation park .
`11,is will be truer if the buy-out formula is modified to provide addi-
tional -ompensation. Since vacant land is scarce and expensive in
Huntington Beach and since City funds may not need to be involved, such
a park could conceivably be developed in another city at a lower cost
and still provide a comfortable living environment for the residents .
In addition to developer ' s funds , there may also be State monies avail-
able for relocation park development. An RCA dated March 12 , 1984
recommended City Council support for two pending State Assembly bills
which would make State funds available for mobilehome park acquisition
or development. These bills (AB 3409 and 3534) are scheduled for
Housing Committee review later this month. Assuming approval , the
bills will continue to the Assembly floor and Senate in the following
mc.nths , If approved, they could make money available which could be
pooled with the developer 's funds , or used independently , for relocation
park construction. Again , such construction would not necessarily
need to be within the City limits .
A third funding option would be City Redevelopment Agency funds . As
discussed at the March 26 , 1984 City Council meeting , a maximum of 20
percent of Redevelopment funds may be available for this purpose. This
money could also be pooled with the developer' s funds and State funds .
This money would only be available, however, if the park being con-
verted were within an established redevelopment area. The ma3ority of
-4-
f" Conversion Ordinar
1 5 , 19 8 4,
-Page 5
mobilehome parks in the City would not qualify for this funding source.
After identifying relocation strategies , the City must determine how
to integrate relocation park development into the adapted Mobilehome
Park Conversion Ordinance. In fact, the existing ordinance is open-
enled in terms of type of relocation assistance required. The
ordinance does require, as a minimum, the relocation of coaches within
5 ' miles of the City or the purchase of non-relocatable coaches by
he developer. Section 9370 . 5 (c) , however, states that the applicant
_r the option of making available suitable alternative housing.
S4_ction 9270 . 5 (d) further_ states that any applican+- and mobilehome
o-ner may mutually agree to modify the standards and methods contained
i„ the Article . These sections could be interpreted to permit the
development of a relocation mark if so proposed. It may be desirable ,
h, wever , to add wording specifically identifying the development of
such a park as an acceptable option to purchase of units or relocation
t,; existing parks . Relocation parks could be required to be constructed
within a given radius of Huntington Beach. The commitment of the re-
m-gal of a given number of units from a converted park to a relocation
park would be contained in the relocation assistance plan which must be
a, < roved by the Planning Commission. Obviously, the addition of wording
t(, permit r_el,)cation park construction does not mean that developers
w, ' 1 select 1 '7 i s methnd of colrpl yang with the ordinance, but it could
s� mulate thrn� ing and discussion in that direction and create awareness
of options which may not otherwise b- considered .
9"he above inf-cmation has been suppl iied for the City Council to consid-r
i response t the di , ,atisf_act ion w1irch has been expressed with the
adopted Tlobih home Park Conversion Ordinance. If these strategies are
dcmimed to be weith further consideration, Council may provide input arid
di ,-ect staff to begin processing a code amendment through the Planning
Commission. A code amendment for both the buy-out formula and relocation
assistance standards to include relocation parks could be pursued.
Council could also uirect staff to further pursue the use of Redevelopment
funds for the near future development of a relocation park for Hunting-
ton Shores Mobilehome Park. Such direction should be given with the
understanding that such funds may not be available for other parks out-
side the coastal zone which may request conversion in the future.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may direct staff to pursue additional strategies for
relocation assistance or to do additional research into the strategies
prF,sented.
FUNDING SOURCE : No funds required.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION :
1 . Wall Map at City Council meeting.
2. Adopted Article 927
3 . September 15 , 1983 Memo regarding Jim Knowles proposed ordinance
changes and attached changes
4 . Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 16 , 1982
CWT:JWP :HS :df _5_
IN THE
Superior Court
OF THF.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In and for the County of Orange
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH+ CITY CLERK
PROOF OF PUBLICATIQN
vy �
PUBLIC HEARING 84-10
Swte of California ) 4 kNOTiGEOFFtl$L�4y
County of Orange )ss k�1,,' A DMIN 84 101
DlrPltl�t"tAT1 ON FOItMt11.A
Rita J. Richter _ * 'NOT10E,JS HEItEBY 01VFN that's
rblic hearing will be hok!O)y,the City
u6cd of'the City,of'Huntington Beach,
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of in the CodnelhChember'of,the Civic Cen-.
30
the United States,over the age of twenty-one ears,and that I ter, n soHuntington Beach,ftor,wat the ibleof 7 on
Y- Y A M,or as ao4n th�raaafter,as possible on°
am not a party to,nor mterested in the above entitled matter, Monday the 4th day of June,1984 for the,
that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the rpose,of considering Code Amendment'
Nc,84.10,-amenduig'�ithe'�depreciation,
formula contained in Article.927,.Mobile
HUNTINGTON BEACH I ND. REVIEW Home Overlay Zoneslltemoval/Roroning/
Changge of Use.,The amendment requires'
that,depreciation atop ea of`tha°deW'of,
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of issuanco,of Nouco of;Tntent to Change
^a,. �,
HUNTINGTON BEACH A legal desCtiptlodiia}t�n,'fj16 in,tho,
Department of 1)evelopmen Services
'' All tnt8rested peraons are invited�to
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the 'aitend,said bIAring end express,their,
dtsernination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- opinions for orfagainet=said CotlepAmend„
g g niant84.10 ,
ttr, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had Farther information may be obtained
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, �Ifromythe Office of the City Clerk,2000
P P Y g Main Street,Huntington Beech,Califor-,
and which newspaper has been established, printed and pub- 1nui 92648•(714)536;5227.e'+>
',,,lied at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a „DATED5/18/84 3, r``
I „ QITY OR HUNI"INOTON BP,AC#.�,
period exceeding one year, that the notice, of which the Bv,Alicie_141 Wen worth
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular '1kCltyClark
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in an supplement Fun,May24,nd' p ,
Y PP Hunt.Beach Ind'Itov.fta8096
thereof,on the following dates,to wit
May 24, 1984
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego-
ing is true and correct
4
Dated at G,anden.Grove. .
Cat f ua,this 24 h da ofMay.. . 1984..
Rita J. Richter
a Signature /
IPIQ
Form No POP 92082
REQUEb-f FOR CITY COUNCIL ACT N
Date May 23, 1984
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by:
Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat r .
Prepared by: J4+°
James W. Pa1in, Director, Development Services
Subject:
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-10 - ARTICLE 927 - "MOBILEHOME OVERLAY
ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE"
® A-- q 1
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Code Amendment No. 84-10 would modify the buy-out formula for
mobilehomes by terminating depreciation of coaches on the date of
issuance of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. This code
amendment was prepared at the direction of the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission Action and Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt
Code Amendment No. 84-10 through the approval of the attached
ordinance.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Code Amendment No.
84-10 through the approval of the attached ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON MAY 15, 1984 :
ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD AND SECOND BY HIGGINS CODE AMENDMENT NO.
84-10 WAS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Higgins, Winchell, Livengood, Porter , Erskine,
Schumacher , Mirjahangir
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN : None
The proposed code amendment is intended to modify the buy-out
formula for mobilehomes as contained in Section 9270 .5(b) ,
paragraph four . The existing formula depreciates coaches at a
PIO 4/81 Y � o
rate of 4. 7 percent per year from date of purchase to date of park
closure. The proposed code amendment would terminate depreciation
of coaches on the date of issuance of the Notice of Intent to
Change Use, rather than on the date of park closure.
The effect of the proposed code amendment will be to slightly
increase the buy-out value of mobilehomes. Since the ordinance
requires a minimum 18 month notification and allows a six-month
extension, the proposed formula modification could remove two
years of depreciation (or more) from the depreciated value of
coaches. For example, a coach which was originally purchased for
$30 ,000 and which was 10 years old on the date of issuance of the
Notice of Intent to Change Use would depreciate $1,702 during the
two year notification period, for a buy-out value of $16 ,835 . If
depreciation were terminated on the date of issuance of the Notice
of Intent (as proposed) , the buy-out value would be $18 ,537 . A
longer notification period will result in even a greater savings
in value to the coach owners. The proposed code amendment will,
therefore, achieve the ob3ective of the City Council by increasing
buy-out value if the minimum notification period is given.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS :
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Code Amendment No. 84-10 is categorically exempt and no
environmental review is necessary.
FUNDING SOURCE :
No funds required.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION :
The City Council may deny Code Amendment No. 84-10 and retain the
existing buy-out formula, or the City Council may direct staff to
propose additional buy-out formulas.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
2. May 15, 1984 Planning Commission staff report
CWT:JWP:H S :j lm
0723d
~
huntington beach develops A services department
STA F �
R.
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
i
DATE : May 15 , 1984
SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 84-10 - Article 927 - "Mobile Home
} Overlay Zones/Removal/Rezoning/Change of Use"
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION :
Approve and recommend City Council adoption of Code Amendment No.
j 84-10 .
i
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION :
1
Code Amendment No. 84-10 would modify the buy-out formula for
f mobilehomes by terminatinq depreciation of coaches on the elate of
issuance of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. This code amendment
was prepared at the direction of the City Council.
1 3.0 ENVIROWIENTAL STATUS :
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Qualit7
Act, Code Amendment No. 84-10 is categorically exempt and no
environmental review is necessary .
4 .0 ANALYSIS:
On April 16, 1984 , staff submitted a transmittal to t t,2 City Council
regarding the City' s adopted Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance
(Article 927 ) . The transmittal, prepared at Council ' s direction,
contained information regarding an alternative mobilehome buy-out
formula, and mobilehome shelter park ( relocation park) cGncepts. From
the information contained in that tramsmittal, the City Council
r directed staff to prepare a code amendment.
The proposed code amendment is intended to modify the buy-out formula
for mobilehomes as contained in Section 9270 .5 (b) , paragraph four .
The existing formula depreciates coaches at a rate of 4.7 percent per
year from date of purchase to date of park closure. The proposed code
amendment would terminate depreciation of coaches on the date of
issuance of the Notice of Intent to Change Use, rather than on the
date of park closure.
AM'X
(O
' A-FM 23B
S9 1
The effect of the proposed code amendment will be to slightly increase
the buy-out value of mobilehomes. Since the ordinance requires a
minimum 18 month notification and allows a six-month extension, the
proposed formula modification could remove two years of depreciation
(or more) from the depreciated value of coaches. For example, a coach
which was originally purchased for $30 ,000 and which was 10 years old
on the date of issuance of the Notice of Intent to Change Use would
depreciate $1,702 during the two year notification period, for a
buy-out value of $16,835 . If depreciation were terminated on the date
of issuance of the Notice of Intent (as proposed) , the buy-out value
would be $18 , 537 . A longer notification period will result in even a
greater savings in value to the coach owners. The proposed code
amendment will, therefore, achieve the ob3ective of the City Council
by increasing buy-out value if the minimum notification period is
given.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION :
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve and recommend
the City Council adopt Code Amendment No. 83-10 .
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
2. April 16, 1984 Transmittal to City Council
3. City Council Minutes dated April 16 , 1984
EIS : lm
0655d
t / - .DEL fr -,,v `,
jQf)
Publish May 24, 1984
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE AMENDMENT 84-10
AMENDS MOBILE HOME DEPRECIATION FORMULA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 4th day of June , 19 84 .
for the purpose of considering Code Amendment No. 84-10, amending the depreciation
formula contained in Article 927, Mobile Home Overlay Zones/Removal/Rezoning/Change
of Use. The amendment requires that depreciation stop as of the date of issuance
of Notice of Intent to Change Use.
A legal description is on file in the Department of Development Services Office.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Code Amendment 84-10
O
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED May 18, 1984 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth "o2�
City Clerk
064
I
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1 J �{C)
NOTICE IS HE BY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held
by the City r VLXj of the City of Huntington Beach,
California, for the purpose of considering Code Amendment No . 84-10 ,
amending the depreciation formula contained in Article 927 , Mobile
home Overlay Zones/Removal/Rezoning/Change of Use . The amendment
requires that depreciation stop as of the date of issuance of Notice
of Intent to Change Use .
A legal description is on file in the Department of Development
Services office .
3U
Said hearing will be held at the hour of 7 : 0•0- P .M. , on
�V A
' 1984 , in the Council Chambers Building of the
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and
express their opinions for or against the proposed Code Amendment
No . 84-10
Further information may be obtained from the City Planning
Department.
Telephone No . (714) 536-5271
DATED this 3rd day of May , 1984
By James W . Palin , Secretary__!
ire
E ES`r FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTIN
y,6 A4V_
X� 4-t e April 5 , 1984
t
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator `
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director Development Services
Subject: MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE BUYOUT FOR ULA
REVISIONS AND RELOCATION PARK DEVELOPMENT POSSIBILITIES
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At the City Council meetings of March 19 and March 26 , 1984 , staff sub-
mitted communications regarding an alternative mobilehome buyout formula
and mobilehome shelter park (relocation park) concepts. This transmittal
is a follow-up to those two communications.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review the attached information and consider directing staff_ to prepare
a code amendment to Article 927 modifying the adopted mobilehome buyout
formula and adding wording for relocation park development.
ANALYSIS :
On March 19 , 1984 staff submitted information regarding a new mobilehome
buyout formula which was being studied by staff. The formula differen-
tiated between coach value and implied space value and applied separate
depreciation rates to each. The results indicated that the formula
provided more compensation than the existing formula in some cases and
less compensation in other cases. Overall, the buyout tended to be
fairly similar to that achieved by the existing adopted formula. Council
commented on these facts and decided that other options should be
explored.
In the time since work first began on the Mobilehome Park Conversion
Ordinance, a number of different formulas have been considered and found
to be inadequate in some manner. The following formulas have been
considered: buy-out at full market value , a percentage of full market
value, full market value with a sliding scale based on length of tenancy,
Kelly Blue Book, insurance replacement value, original purchase price,
and original purchase price minus an annual depreciation of 4. 7 percent.
This last formula was eventually determined to be the most equitable
to both coach and park owners.
Since adoption of this formula, mobilehome park residents have expressed
the opinion that it does not provide adequate compensation. The City
Council has expressed interest in this assessment. The most recent
formula investigated by staff would, it was hoped, solve the problems
of the existing formula. Unfortunately, the new alternative did not
P10 4/81
MH Conversion Ordinanc-
April 5, 1984
Page 2
provide significant benefits over the adopted formula. If the City "
Council feels that more compensation is desirable, they could
consider slightly modifying the existing formula so that it provides
additional buyout value. The 4 . 7 percent depreciation rate applied
to the value of the original purchase price could either be reduced
or eliminated. Staff would suggest, however, that the 4 . 7 percent
depreciation rate remain, but that depreciation stop on the date of
issuance of the Notice of Intent to close the park. Such action
would permit the coach owner to recoup a greater percentage of his
original investment. A code amendment to make this change could be
initiated by staff.
The second part of this transmittal involves the possibility of devel-
oping relocation mobilehome parks within the City of Huntington Beach
for coaches displaced by converted parks. Staff' s March 26 , 1984
transmittal to the City Council identified five possible sites within
the City for relocating displaced coaches. Council reviewed those sites
and provided input. Among Council ' s concerns were the costs of estab-
lishing a mobilehome park and the optimum minimum size of a park.
In a March 16 , 1982 communication to the Planning Commission, staff
identified the approximate ' costs for development of a mobilehome park
as determined by a proposal to build a park in the City. It was found
that once a site was acquired, costs would be incurred for improvement
of the site including, but not limited to, grading, drainage` utility
extensions, streets , private open space, and recreation facilities.
In the park proposal which had been recently considered at the time,
these costs would have totaled approximately $13 ,000 per space. Land
was estimated to cost between $375, 000 and $450, 000 per acre. A 10-acre
mobilehome park developed at 10 units per acre was estimated to cost
between $5. 05 and $5. 8 million dollars, or $50, 050 to $58 , 000 per space.
These costs were found at the time to be beyond the funding capabilities
of the HCD Block Grant program.
In regard to Council' s concern about optimum mobilehome park size, staff
has the following comments. The City' s Ordinance Code, Article 924 ,
Mobilehome District, establishes 10 acres as the minimum park size and
9 units per acre as the maximum density. These standards permit the
establishment of adequate recreation, open space, circulation, and park-
ing facilities for a comfortable and enjoyable living environment.
Staff recommends that the 10 acre minimum park size be retained if
possible as the relocation park size standard. In recognition of the
fact that many coaches in the older parks are single-wades , however,
staff further suggests that the density could be increased to 10 units
per acre.
As indicated in the March 16 , 1984 transmittal to Council, staff has
continued to examine other possible mobilehome park relocation sites.
Staff has prepared a wall map indicating potential relocation sites
within the City. A total of 19 sites have been identified for a total
of 192 acres. These site locations, acreages , and general plan
designations are indicated as follows:
-2-
.IviH CQnveron Qinance
April 5, 1984
Page 3
LOCATION ACREAGE GENERAL PLAN
SEC Bolsa Chica/Los Patos 8 . 0 Low Density
Meadowlark Airport 15. 0 Low Density
Irby Park 6 . 0 Low Density
NWC Warner/Magnolia 8 . 5 Commercial
Humana Hospital 14 . 5 Public, Institutional
Gothard North of Talbert 8 . 5 Industrial
Redondo Lane 5. 5 Industrial
NEC Edwards/Ellis 15 . 0 Open Space
NEC Garfield/Edwards 18. 0 Estate
SEC Garfield/Goldenwest 18. 0 Medium Density
Stewart Street 5. 8 Medium Density
Crystal Street 6. 0 Medium Density
Holly Street 3 . 5 Medium Density
Seacliff Center 21 . 0 Commercial
SEC Beach/Garfield 7 . 0 Medium Density
NWC Delaware/Utica 9. 0 Medium Density
SWC Beach/Memphis 10. 0 Medium Density
NWC Adams/Santa Ana River 4. 3 Low Density
SWC Bushard/Atlanta 8. 5 Low Density
192.1
Some of these sites may be effectively eliminated from further consid-
eration because of locational and/or other considerations . The
Adams Avenue/Santa Ana River site and the Atlanta/Bushard site are both
located in flood hazard zones which will require substantial amounts of
-3-
f '
MH Conversion Ordinance
April 5 , 1984
Page 4
fill to develop. The cost of grading and fill may render these sites
too expensive for mobilehome park construction. Other sites, such as
the Gothard/Talbert site and the Warner/Magnolia site may be undesir-
able due to incompatible surrounding land uses and access problems.
Some sites may be too far under the minimum optimum park size of 10
acres to be considered ideal. The Irby Park, Redondo Lane, Stewart
Street, Crystal Street, Holly Street, and Beach/Garfield sites are all
substantially under the 10 acre standard.
The optimum relocation sites would be the southeast corner of Garfield
and Goldenwest, the northeast corner of Garfield and Edwards , the
northeast corner of Edwards and Ellis , the northeast corner of Delaware
and Utica, the southeast corner of Beach and Memphis, the southeast
corner of Bolsa Chica and Los Patos, and Meadowlark Airport. With the
exception of the northeast corner of Edwards and Ellis, these sites are
all General Planned for residential uses. They are also all in areas
which could be considered compatible for such use, Unfortunately, they
are also almost allin private ownership (with the exception of the
northeast corner of Delaware and Utica and some of the area at the
northeast corner of Edwards and Ellis). The acreage of these sites
totals to 93 acres and will accommodate 930 units at 10 units c _
;per acre. There are approximately 1, 000 coaches curren_tl_v_ in_coastal
;zone parks, and 3 , 000_ coaches City-wide.
In addition to studying relocation sites, staff was also directed to
identify potential funding sources. The most obvious source would be
the developer responsible for closing the mobilehome park. Rather than
purchasing the coaches from the residents, it may be nearly as finan-
cially feasible for the developer to actually develop a relocation park.
This will be truer if the buy-out formula is modified to provide addi-
tional compensation. Since vacant land is scarce and expensive in
Huntington Beach and since City funds may not need to be involved, such
a park could conceivably be developed in another city at a lower cost
and still provide a comfortable living environment for the residents.
In addition to developers funds, there may also be State monies avail-
able for relocation park development. An RCA dated March 12 , 1984
recommended City Council support for two pending State Assembly bills
which would make State funds available for mobilehome park acquisition
or development. These bills (_AB 3409 and 3534) are scheduled for
Housing Committee review later this month. Assuming approval, the
bills will continue to the Assembly floor and Senate in the following
months, If approved, they could make money available which could be
pooled with the developerl4s funds, or used independently, for relocation
park construction. Again, such construction would not necessarily
need to be within the City limits.
A third funding option would be City Redevelopment Agency funds. As
dxscussod at the March 26, 2984 City Council meeting, a maximum of 20
percent of Redevelopment funds may be available for this purpose. This
money could also be pooled with the developer' s funds and State funds.
This money would only be available, however, if the park being con-
verted were within an established redevelopment area. The majority of
-4-
MH Conversion Ordinance '
Api�il 5 f 1984
Page 4
I
f
I
I
f ,
f
I
f
1
i
MH ,Conversion Ordinan,
April 5, 1984
Page 5
mobilehome parks in the City would not qualify for this funding source.
After identifying relocation strategies, the City must determine how
to integrate relocation park development into the adopted Mobilehome
Park Conversion Ordinance. In fact, the existing ordinance is open-
ended in terms of type of relocation assistance required. The
ordinance does require, as a minimum, the relocation of coaches within
50 miles of the City or the purchase of non-relocatable coaches by
the developer. Section 9370. 5 (c) , however, states that the applicant
has the option of making available suitable alternative housing.
Section 9270. 5 (d) further states that any applicant and mobilehome
owner may mutually agree to modify the standards and methods contained
in the Article. These sections could be interpreted to permit the
development of a relocation park if so proposed. It may be desirable,
however, to add wording specifically identifying the development of
such a park as an acceptable option to purchase of units or relocation
to existing parks. Relocation parks could be required to be constructed
within a given radius of Huntington Beach. The commitment of the re-
moval of a given number of units from a converted park to a relocation
park would be contained in the relocation assistance plan which must be
approved by the Planning Commission. Obviously, the addition of wording
to permit relocation park construction does not mean that developers
will select this method of complying with the ordinance, but it could
stimulate thinking and discussion in that direction and create awareness
of options which may not otherwise be considered.
The above information has been supplied for the City Council to consider
in response to the dissatisfaction which has been expressed with the
adopted Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance. If these strategies are
deemed to be worth further consideration, Council may provide input and
direct staff to begin processing a code amendment through the Planning
Commission. A code amendment for both the buy-out formula and relocation
assistance standards to include relocation parks could be pursued.
Council could also direct staff to further pursue the use of Redevelopment
funds for the near future development of a relocation park for Hunting-
ton Shores Mobilehome Park. Such direction should be given with the
understanding that such funds may not be available for other parks out-
side the coastal zone which may request conversion in the future.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may direct staff to pursue additional strategies for
relocation assistance or to do additional research into the strategies
presented.
FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1. W411 Map at City Council meeting.
2. Adopted Article 927
3 . September 15 , 1983 Memo regarding Jim Knowles proposed ordinance
changes and attached changes
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 16 , 1982
CWT:JWP:HS :df _5_
PI t NK,ING_ _ MOBILEH( OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING,.,HANGE OF USE S.9270
ARTICLE 927
MOBILLHOME OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE
Ord 256T - 12/82
S. 9270 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE
(a) The mobilehome park residential zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to
permit the application of mobilehome zone to parcels of land developed with
mobilehome parks and zoned with a primary underlying zoning designation. The purpose
of the mobilehome park zone is to establish a means of providing a reasonable and
proper transition from the present mobilehome park use to the uses permitted in the
underlying zoning districts. Wherever reference is made in this section or on any
districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehome park overlay zone.
(b) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay zone shall also be applied
to requests for rezoning existi: ; MH districts to different zoning districts,
and for any change of use as hereinafter defined.
(c) All findings required for removal of she MHP overlay, rezoning from MH or change
in use shall be required for all property upon which a mobilehome park then exists,
or upon which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the preceding five (5) years.
S 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) Affordable_Unit. "Affordable unit" shall mean a "for sale" unit that is sold
to and occupied by a low moderate income household. "Affordable unit" shall
also mean a rental unit for which the monthly payment does not exceed 25 percent of
the household' s income for low income households or 30 percent of the household' s
income for moderate income households.
(b) Applicant "Applicant" shall mean the person, firm, corporation, partnership,
or other entity having leasehold interest or fee ownership in the operation of a
mobilehome park.
(c) Change of Use. "Change of use" shall mean 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 habitation, and shall not mean the adoption,
amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. "Change of use" may affect an
entire park or any portion thereof, and such "change of use" shall include, but is
not limited to, a change of a park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock
cooperative, planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, or vacant land
(d) Eligible Owner "Eligible owner" shall mean any mobilehome owner owning a
mobilehome in a park at the time of issuance of the notice of intent to change
use, but shall not include any mobilehome owner who is renting his unit to another
party at such time.
(e) Market Rate Unit. "Market rate unit" shall mean a residential unit that is
sold on the open market without constraints imposed on the sales price, rental
rate, or buyer qualifications
(f)- 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
12/82
Sl. c,?_;=,0. 1 f MOQILEH OVERLAY /ONES/REMOVAL/REZONINb'',-CHANGE OF USE PLANNING
human habitation, to be used with or without a foundation system. Therefore, "mobilehome"
does not include recreation vehicles , commercial coaches, or factory-built housing rest-
ing upon permanent foundations.
(g) Mobilehome Park "Mobilehome park" is any area of land used primarily for the
placing, parking or storing of two or more mobilehomes for housekeeping, sleeping
or living quarters.
(h) 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 mobile-
home.
(i ) Notice of Intent to Change Use "Notice of Intent to Change Use" shall mean
notification as required by California Civil Code section 798.56(f)(2) .
(j ) Original Purchase Price. "Original purchase price" shall mean the price which
the mobilehome owner, occupying the mobilehome space, originally paid for the
mobilehome and any attached optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms.
In determining the price, the regulation- for establishing the cost basis, as found
in the United States Code Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, shall be used. Such
purchase price shall be verified by the mobilehome owner through the existence of
sales receipts indicating date of purchase, monetary amount of purchase, identification
or model numbers of all -items purchased and the party from whom the items were purchased.
"Original purchase price" shall not include cost of financing.
(k) Senior Citizen Unit "Senior citizen unit" shall mean a residential unit which
meets the standards for an affordable unit which is situated in a project that
is designed to accommodate senior citizens through special financing programs and/or
modified development standards.
S.__9.270.2 CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF ZONE. The City Council , in making its
determination whether to apply the MHP zone to any particular property,
shall consider the following factors as to whether such zone is appropriate:
(a) Existing zoning and general plan designations.
(b) The age and condition fo the mobilehome park.
(c) The relationship of the mobilehome park to surrounding land uses.
(d) Vahicle access to the area under consideration.
(e) Site area.
(f) Site configuration.
S 9270.3 USES PERMITTED The following uses shall be permitted in an MHP
� - district-
(a) Mobilehome parks as regulated by the State of California.
(b) Accessory uses and structures incidental to the operation of mobilehome parks
such as recreation facilities and/or community centers of a noncommercial nature,
either public or private storage facilities for the use of the mobilehome park resi-
dents and any other uses or structures that are incidental to the operation of a
mobilehome park.
(c) Whenever property is zoned MHP, any use permitted by the underlying zoning of
such property shall not be permitted
12/82
PLANNJ NG MOBILEHOM )VERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING,°, �ANGE OF USE S. 9270.4
�.� S. _9270.4_ REMOVAL OF THE MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE, MIA ZONE OR CHANGE OF USE.
The City Council shall not approve a zone change for any parcel when
such change would have the effect of removing the MHP or MH designation from that
property, or approve a change of use unless the following findings have been made:
(a) Those findings required by California Government Code section 66427.4.
(b) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Huntington Beach and all elements thereof.
(c) That the proposed change of land use will not have an adverse effect upon the
goals and policies for provision of adequate housing for all economic segments
of the community, as set forth in the Housing Element of the Huntington Beach General
Plan.
(d) That the property which is the s,,bject of the zone change would be more
appropriately developed in accordance with uses permitted by the underlying
zoning, or proposed zoning.
(e) That a notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome park and relocate
mobilehome owners was delivered to such owners and to the Department of Develop-
ment Services at least eighteen (18) months prior to the date the mobilehome owner is
required to vacate the premises.
(f) That an "impact of conversion report" has been submitted by the applicant and
found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. Failure
to submit such item within twelve (12) months from the date of the notice shall result
in the nullification of the Notice of Intent to Change Use. The Planning Commission
shall take the following items into consideration when addressing the adequacy of the
report.
W The date of the manufacture and size of each mobilehome in the park.
(ii ) Makeup of existing households, including family size, household income,
length of residence, age of tenants, owner or renter, and primary or seasonal
resident.
(i >> ) Replacement space availability, monthly rents and coach acceptance criteria
in mobilehome parks within fifty (50) miles of the city.
The applicant shall make copies of the report available to each resident of the mobile-
home park at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on the impact report.
(g) That a relocation assistance plan has been submitted by the applicant and found
to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
S. 9270.5 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN. STANDARDS. The following shall constitute
minimum standards for an acceptable relocation assistance plan:
(a) All eligible mobilehome owners shall be entitled to receive the cost of relocation.
Those costs shall be limited to disconnection 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 fifty (50) miles of the city. If the
mobilehome owner desires relocation beyond fifty (50) miles , the mobilehome owner
12/82
S. 9,270. 5(a) MOBILEH( ' OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONINu, ,HANGE OF USE PLANNING
shall be responsible for the costs associated with relocation beyond the fifty (50) mile
limit established by this article.
(b) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated to another park in accordance with the
procedures herein, the applicant shall purchase the mobilehome and any optional
equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the mobilehome owner at an amount
to be determined after establishing the mobilehome owner's original purchase price, and
the date of original purchase.
Where proof of purchase is not available or verifiable, and the manufacturer' s original
list price cannot be ascertainea, the value of the mobilehome shall be determined by
averaging the sales price of the three (3) most comparable units of similar age, size,
and quality found in the applicant 's mobilehome park at the time the mobilehome owner
purchased the site.
When the original price is ascertained, the amount of compensation to be paid by an
applicant to a mobilehome owner shall he determined by using the following method:
Mobilehomes shall be depreciated at a rates of 4.7 percent per year, beginning with the
date the mobilehome owner originally purchased the mobilehome and/or optional equipment
and continuing until the date set for vacation by the applicant in the Notice of Intent
to Change Use, or, if the mobilehome owner is permitted to remain on site beyond the
date set for vacation, depreciation of the mobilehome shall continue until the actual
date of vacation.
The applicant may grant one (1) six-month extension to the length of time given to the
mobilehome owners in the Notice of Intent to Change Use by notifying the mobilehome
owners of such extension at least four (4) months prior to the date specified in such
notice. The extension shall be granted for no more and no less than six (6) months,
and ,the amount of compensation adjusted accordingly
An applicant may, with the consent of the mobilehome owner, transfer a mobilehome unit
to another space in the park. Such transfer shall not constitute permanent relocation,
and the cost of all such moves shall be borne by the applicant.
is
The mobilehome owner' s compensation for any mobilehome that cannot be relocated to any
other park shall be no less than four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500) plus moving
expenses up to five hundred dollars ($500) , an aggregate not to exceed five thousand
dollars ($5,000) .
In order to reduce the impact of relocation to alternative housing further, the appli-
cant shall pay a cost of housing differential of 50 percent of the increase in the cost
of housing for the first year, not to exceed seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) for
each mobilehome owner.
(c) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated in accordance with the procedures
contained herein, the applicant has the option of making available suitable alter-
native housing, together with compensation, to such mobilehome owner.
Where alternative housing is proposed, it shall be available in the following categories:
(aa) Senior citizen housing ,
(bb) Affordable housing, and
(cc) Market rate housing.
(d) Any applicant and mobilehome owner may mutually agree to modify the standards and
methods contained in this section, and in no case shall an applicant be required to
12/82
F'L,",.Ni'ING MOBILEHOP OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/,,-IANGE OF USE S. 9270.5(d)
relocate or purchase a mobilehome prior to the date of the Notice of Intent to Change
Use.
(e) Appeals from the amount of compensation to be given a mobilehome owner shall be
filed with the applicant within thirty (30) days after the mobilehome owner has notice
of the amount he is to receive.
The applicant shall acknowledge any appeal within thirty (30) days, and if an agreement
cannot be reached, the matter shall be referred to a professional arbitrator.
(f) To determine whether compensation accurately reflects the original cost of the
mobilehome, the applicant and/or professional arbitrator shall rely on records
furneshed by the mobilehome owner, or if such records are not available, the mobilehome
shall be subjected to the comparison test set out elsewhere in this section. All
optional equipment and appurtenances shall be valued in the same manner.
(g) That the mobilehome owners have received written guarantee of first-right-of-
refusal to purchase units if the development which replaces the mobilehome park is
to be residential in whole or in part.
(h) That the applicant has complied with all applicable city ordinances and state
regulations in effect at the time the relocation assistance plan was approved.
(i ) That the applicant has complied with the conditions of approval , including the
following items.
M Mobilehome owners will not be forced to relocate prior to the end of their
leases.
0 1 ) Mobilehome owners have been given the right to terminate their leases upon
approval of the relocation assistance plan.
( iii ) Demolition or construction will not occur until the relocation assistance
plan is approved and the eighteen (18) month notification period has expired.
S. 9270.6 ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the impact of conversion
report and relocation 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. Each of the mobilehome
owners shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the
relocation assistance plan.
S. 9270. 7 ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION At the conclusion of its hearing ,
noticed as provided in this code, the Planning Commission shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny said impact of conversion report and relocation assist-
ance plan pursuant to the provisions of this article, and such decision shall be suppor(d
by a resolution of the Planning Commission, setting forth its findings.
S._9270.8 FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and relocation assistance plan
submitted shall be accompanied by a fee established by resolution of the
City Council .
12/82
B__i�
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
H1,N]INGTON V V F1
(0
To Charles W. Thompson r�J James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator Development Services
Subject PROPOSED MOBILE HOME Date September 15 , 1983
PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE
CHANGES
At the September 6 , 1983 City Council meeting, Mr. Jim Knowles spoke
regarding suy(jested modifications to the City' s adopted Mobile Home
Park Conversion Ordinance. We met_ with Mr. Knowles on Tuesday, Sep-
tember 13, to hear his suggestions. lie proposed the following changes
to the ordinance:
1. In the Definition Section (S. 9270 . 1) , replace definition
3 . ) Original Purchase Price with a definition for On-Site
Market Value.
2. Tn the Relocation Assistance Plan Section (S. 9270. 5) , sub-
section (a) for relocation of coaches, add the requirement
that any additional costs required to upgrade the mobile
home to acceptance standards in a new park be paid by the
applicant.
3 . in the Relocation Assistance Plan Section (S. 9270 . 5) , sub-
section (b) for purchase of non-relocatable coaches , delete
all reference to Original Purchase Price and the 4 . 7 percent
annual depreciation rate and replace with the requirement
for purchase of coaches at On-Site Market Value.
4 . In the Relocation Assistance Plan Section (S . 9270. 5) , sub-
section (c) for making available suitable alternative
housing, add wording for mutual agreement by applicant and
mobile home owner.
Mr. Knowles principle suggestion is to require purchase of non-reloca-
table coaches at on-site market value rather than at a depreciated
original purchase price. Since purchase of units at market value was
considered and rejected by the Planning Commission and City Council
during public hearings for adoption of the conversion ordinance, there
would seem to be no basis for a code amendment of such nature at this
time. Processing a code amendment for his other suggestions without
inclusion of the on-site market value purchase requirement would prob-
ably not be acceptable to Mr. Knowles .
I
JWP :HS: 3s
Attach. - Jim Knowles proposed ordinance changes .
P
t '1 T`+NLJ� ISO F OVERLAY ZONES/REMOWL REZONE fClMNGS OF USE S.9270
AP-TICLE 927
MOB=OtE OVERLAY ZONES/REMOVAL/REZONING/CHANGE OF USE
(Ord 2553 - 12/2211
5 .9270 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE.
(a) The mobilehome park residential zone is hereby established as an
overlay zone to permit the application of mobilehome zone to parcels
of land developed with mobilehome parks and zoned with a primary under-
lying zoning designation. The purpose of the mobilehome park zone is
to establish a means of providing a reasonable and proper transition from
the present mobilehome park use to the uses permitted in the underlying
zoning districts . Wherever reference is made in this section or on any
districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehome park overlay zone .
(b) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay zone shall also
be applied to requests for rezoning existing MIH districts to
different zoning districts, and for any change of use as hereinafter
defined.
(c) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay, rezoning from
MH or change in use shall be required for all property upon which a
mobilehome park then exists , or upon which a mobilehome park existed at
any time within the preceding five (5) years .
S.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 : I
(a) Affordable Unit. "Affordable unit" shall mean a "for sale" unit
that is sold to and occupied by a low moderate income household.
"Affordable unit" shall also mean a rental unit for which the monthly
payment does not exceed 25 percent of the household's income for lowLL
income households or 30 percent of the household ' s income for moderate
income households .
(b) Applicant . "Applicant" shall mean the person, firm, corporation,
partnership, or other entity having leasehold interest or fee
ownership in the operation of a mobilehome park.
(c) Change of Use . "Change of use" shall mean 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 habitation,
and shall not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or
regulation. "Change of use" may affect an entire park or any portion
thereof, and such "change of use" shall include, but is not limited to , a
change of a park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock cooperative,
planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, or vacant land.
(d) Eligible Owner. "Eligible owner" shall mean any mobilehome owner
owning a mobilehome in a park at the time of issuance of the notice
of intent to change use, but shall not include any mobilehome owner who
is renting his unit to another party at such time.
1 2/B2
9.9270.1.(f) MOBIL OVERLAY ZONES/P.EYLVAL/REZO-N'iL7 1ANNG'E OF USE PLANNING
' (e) Market Rate Unit. "Market rate unit" shall mean a residential unit
that is sold on the open market without constraints imposed on the
sales price, rental rate, or buyer qualifications .
(f) Mobilehome . "Mobilehome" is a structure transportable on a street
or highway by authorization or a permit in one or more sections,
designed and equippped for human habitation, to be used with or without
a foundation system. Therefore, "mobilehome" does not include recreation
vehicles, commercial coaches, or factory-built housing resting upon
permanent foundations .
(g) Mobilehome Park. "Mobilehome park" is any area of land used
primarily for the placing, parking or storing of two or more mobile-
homes for housekeeping, sleeping or living quarters.
(h) 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 .
(i) Notice of Intent to Change Use . "Notice of Intent to Change Use"
shall mean notification as required by California Civil Code section
798 .56 (f) (2) .
(j) ' On Site Market Value. The value of a mobilehome in a mobilehome
s ice as a owed on the o en mar et wit out constraints im osed on
the sales price, rental rate, or buyer qualifications .
(k) Senior Citizen Unit. "Senior citizen unit" shall mean a residential
® unit which meets the standards for an affordable unit which is
situated in a pro3ect that is designed to accommodate senior citizens
through special financing programs and/or modified development standards.
5 .9270. 2 CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF ZONE. The City Council , in
making its determination whether to apply the MHP zone
to any particular property, shall consider the following factors as to
whether such zone is appropriate:
(a) Existing zoning and general plan designations.
(b) The age and condition of the mobilehome park.
(c) The relationship of the mobilehome park to surrounding land uses ,
(d) Vehicle access to the area under consideration.
(e) Site area.
(f) � Site configuration.
5.9270 . 3 USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be permitted
in an MHP district:
(a) Mobilehome parks as regulated by the State of California.
(b) Accessory uses and structures incidental to the operation of
mobilehome parks such as recreation facilities and/or community
12/82
0
PIA' G DIDBI3Ef OVERC,AN Z=S/RECVAL/REE UN_L:-_4W2qGE OF USE S.9270.3
lqw WV
centers of a noncommercial nature, either public or private storage
facilities for the use of the mobilehome park residents and any
other uses or structures that are incidental to the operation of a
mobilehome park.
(c) Whenever property is zoned MHP, any use permitted by the under-
lying zoning of such property shall not be permitted.
S.9 2 7 0 .4 FEMVAL OF THE AJOB7I (J.E PARK OVERLAY ZONE, MH ZONE OR =-Ta: OF USE.
The City Council shall not approve a zone change for any
parcel when such change would have the effect of removing the MHP or MH
designation from that property, or approve a change of use unless the
following findings have been made:
(a) Those findings required by California Government Code section
66427 .4 .
(b) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan of the
City of Huntington Beach and all elements thereof.
(c) That the proposed change of land use will not have an adverse
effect upon the goals and policies for provision of adequate housing
for all economic segments of the community, as set forth in the Housing
Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan.
(d) That the property which is the subject of the zone change would be
more appropriately developed in accordance with uses permitted by
the underlying zoning, or proposed zoning.
(e) That a notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome park and
relocate mobilehome owners was delivered to such owners and to
the Department of Development Services at least eighteen (18) months
prior to the date the mobilehome owners is required to vacate the
premises .
(f) That an "impact of conversion report" has been submitted by the
appiicant and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at
a public hearing. Failure to submit such item within twelve (12)
months from the date of the notice shall result in the nullification
of the Notice of Intent to Change Use . The Planning Commission shall
take the following items into consideration when addressing the adequacy
of the report:
(i) The date of the manufacture and size of each mobilehome in
the park.
(ii) Makeup of existing households , including family size , house-
hold income, length of residence , age of tenants, owner or
renter, and primary or seasonal resident.
(iii) Replacement space availability, monthly rents and coach
acceptance criteria in mobilehome parks within fifty (50)
miles of the city.
12f 82
PLRK-NING mDBI OVERLAY ZOI,mS/REMOVAL/REZONI1 ANGE OF tJ7E S.9270.4
s 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.
(g) That a relocation assistance plan has been submitted by the applicant
and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at a public
hearina.
S.9270.5 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN. STANDARDS . The following
shall constitute minimum standards for an acceptable
relocation assistance plan:
(a) All eligible mobilehome owners shall be entitled to receive the cost
of relocation. Those costs shall c ude disconnection and break-
down of the ,,mobielhome, transpor-cation of the mobilehome, all readily
movable appurtenances and contents to another mobilehome park and the
cost of all hookups at the new site; a d any additional casts re wired
to upgrade the Mobilehome to accept nce st as
'An ME expenses s all be identified and paid by the applicant at the
time of the move .
(b) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated to another park in
accordance with the procedures herein, the applicant shall purchase
the mobilehome and any optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando
4 rooms from the mobilehome owner at A2D, site market value to _be established
IhA
a. t the date the notice of intent to change use, is issued_,_ To determine
.® on site market value an independent appraiser will be consulted.
The applicant may grant one (1) six-month extension to the length of
time given to the mobilehome owners in the Notice of Intent to Chance
of Use by notifying the mobilehome owners of such extension at least four
(4) months prior to the date specified in such notice . The extension
shall be granted for no more and no less than six (6) months, and the
amount of compensation adjusted accordingly.
,An applicant may, with the consent of the mobilehome owner, transfer a
mobilehome unit to another space in the park. Such transfer shall not
constitute permanent relocation, and the cost of all such moves shall
be borne by the applicant.
The mobilehome owner ' s compensation for any mobilehome that cannot be
relocated to any other park shall be no less than four thousand five
hundred dollars ($4 ,500) plus moving expenses up to five hundred
dollars ($500) , an aggregate not to exceed five thousand dollars
($5 ,000) .
In order to reduce the impact of relocation to alternative housing
further, the applicant stall pay a cost of housing differential of 50
percent of the increase in the cost of housing for the first year,
not to exceed seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) for each mobilehome
owner.
c) if the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated in accordance with the
procedures contained herein, the applicant has the option of making
available suitable alternative housing, together with compensation, to
W such mobilehome owner, if mutually agreed upon by applicant and mobile-
ftb
&L home owner.
4
12/82
I
PLATENI*,G MOBILLftOVEPTAY ZONE /Rc�VAL,/REZONIT GE OF USE S.9270.5(c)
Where alternative housing is proposed, it shall be available in the following categories:
(aa) Senior citizen housing;
(bb) Affordable housing; and
(cc) Market rate housing.
(d) Any applicant and mobilehome owner may mutually agree to modity the
standards and methods contained in this section, and in no case shall
an applicant be required to relocate or purchase a mobilehome prior to the
date of the Notice of Intent to Change Use.
(e) Appeals from the amount of compensation to be given a mobilehome owner
shall be filed with the applicant within thirty (30) days after the
mobilehome owner has notice of the amount he is to receive.
The applicant shall acknowledge any appeal within thirty (30) days , and
if an agreement cannot be reached the matter shall be referred to a
professional arbitrator.
(f) To determine whether compensation accurately reflects the original
cost of the mobilehome, the applicant and/or professional arbitrator
shall rely on records furnished by the mobilehome owner, or if such
records are not available , the mobilehome shall be subjected to the
comparison test set out elsewhere in this section. All optional equip-
ment and appurtenances shall be valued in the same manner.
(g) That the mobilehome .owners have received written guarantee of first-
right-of-refusal to purchase units if the development which
replaces the mobilehome park is to be residential in whole or in part .
(h) That the applicant has complied with all applicable city ordinances
and state regulations in effect at the time the relocation
assistance plan was approved.
(i) That the applicant has complied with the conditions of approval ,
including the following items :
(i) Mobilehome owners will not be forced to relocate prior to the
end of their leases.
(ii) Mobilehome owners have been given the right to terminate their
leases upon approval of the relocation assistance plan.
(iii) Demolition or construction will not occur until the
relocation assistance plan is approved and the eighteen (18)
month notification period has expired.
S.9270.6 ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the impact of
conversion report and relocation 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 . Each of the mobilehome owners shall be
given written notification within ten (10) days of approval of the
relocation assistance plan.
12/82
' P �'IiCG I�BIT O% tL�AY ZONESfREMpVAL/REZO__V
OF' USE (5.9270.7
PS. 9270.7 ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. At the conclusion of its
hearing, noticed as provided in this code, the Planning
Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny said impact
of conversion report and relocation 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 .
S.9270.8 FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and relocation assis-
tance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee
established by resolution of the City Council .
12/82
huntington beach development service:,..; de- ;r 1ment
SYAf f
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Development Services
DATE: March 16, 1982
SUBJECT: ('ODE 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
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. ?on`i ng vacant I and 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:
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 he
an interim measure until the specific plan was completed.
ANNA
A-F M-23A
klip
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
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.
l
G
a�
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
permanent foundations in single family zones. The high local land values and restrictions
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
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 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:
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
f unds .
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 recommer4dations 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.
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 inicude 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
/101N 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:
"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
form of ownership wherein spaces within the park are to be sold.
1
As stated in a previous communication, staff has discussed the above definition with the r--r
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
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.
P
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:
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
t,PN 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
I
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.
I
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 I i ve in the park at least 180 days a year and not be renting the unit
from a second party.
i
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 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 dompensation.
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.
i
I
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 $1,000 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.
9270.1 (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 tenonts 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
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
readiI4 movable appurtenences and contents ". The following wor i3ngTias
been deleted from the 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 f
prohibition of rent increases have been deleted.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
i
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 they
code amendment, it is necessary for the Planning Commissions 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:
I. Code Amendment No. 81-18
2. Negative Declaration No. 82-3
3. Treasure Island Relocation Plan Summary
HBS:ps
H65
t _ 3-/&-6 D � 0 E 0 V E I
Or
VcC4 t, ��u
c' MAR 15
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1984
; ? INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-
HUNIINGTON BEACH 5119 l t f Co dv►t.I kA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE `=
4 '�A tt*
To Charles Ta. Thompson From James W. Palin, Director
City Administrator Development Services/
Subject MOBILEHOME PARK CON- Date March 13, 1984
VERSION ORDINANCE
In December, 1982, the City Council adopted Article 926, "Mobilehome
Overlay Zones/Removal/Rezoning/Change of Use" regulating mobilehome
park conversions. Since that time, mobilehome residents have met
intermittently with staff to discuss alternative relocation assis-
tance/buy-out strategies to those contained in the ordinance.
The principle item of discussion has been the concept of a different
buy-out formula for units that cannot be relocated. The existing
formula applies a 4.7 percent annual depreciation rate to the original
in-park purchase price, from the date the coach was purchased to the
date the park closes. The depreciated value of each coach on the date
of p,.rk closure is the amount the coach owner would receive as
buy-out. Minimum buy-out is set at �5 , 000 .
The recent : y discussed alternative buy-out formula would differentiate
between coach value and implied rental space value and would apply
separate depreciation rates to each. The philosophy behind the new
formula is that a coach can reasonably be expected to retain some
declining value for 17 years, and a rental space can reasonably be
expected to be rented for 10 years and also have a declining value ;
such value being the difference between the depreciated off-site coach
value and the price paid for the coach in-park by the current owner.
Specitically, coach value would be determined by the original value at
date of manufacture and would be depreciated at a rate of 5 .88 percent
per year from date of manufacture to date of park closure. In
addition to annual depreciation, coach value would also be annually _
adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index. In years when the CPI
exceeded 5 .88 percent, coach value would actually increase. In other 3
years, coach value would decline. Rental space value would be
calculated by subtracting the depreciated/CPI adjusted coach value
from the price actually paid by the current owner for the coach
in-park. That value would then be depreciated at a flat rate of 10
percent per year with no CPI ad3ustments . The sum of the depre-
ciated/CPI adjusted coach value and depreciated space value at the
date of park closure would constitute buy-out under this formula.
Minimum buy-out would be set at 33, 500 for the coach and 31, 500 for
the space.
Because of the complex nature of this formula, staff worked with Data
Processing to establish a program on the City computer. Using the
T t
t '
program, a number of different scenarios were tested with the formula
and compared to buy-out under the existing adopted formula. The
attached table indicates buy-out under the two formulas . The new
formula generally provides more buy-out than the existing formula when Wy
the in-park purchase price was less than 200 percent of the original
value of the coach and/or when the date of manufacture of the coach
was in the mid-1970' s when the CPI was high. The new formula provides
less buy-out than the existing formula when the in-park purchase price
was more than 200 percent of the original value of the coach and/or
when the date of manufacture of the coach was in a year when the CPI
was lower. In general, however, buy-out under the two formulas tends
to be fairly similar.
The complexity of the new formula, the potential difficulty in
reliably obtaining the information (coach value at date of manu-
facture) needed to operate it, and the similarity in results between
it and the existing formula suggest that the new formula may not be
cost-effective to implement. Because it seems to present a more
scientific or rational method for establishing buy-out, however, the
City Council may deem it to be worth further consideration. If so,
staff could do additional research and report back to the Council at a
later date. I
CWT:JWP:HS : lm
0424d
F rh
C�>
�r
A
tt
7
- EXAMPLES OF BUY-OUT IN 1984 -
Original Year Year Purchase Revised Existing
Off-site of Boucrht Price Formula Formula
Value Mfg. In-Park In-Park Buy-out Buy-out
30 , 000 1979 1982 50 , 000 10 , 4701 45 , 410
37 , 7582
43 , 228
30 , 000 1979 1982 40, 000 3 , 470 36 , 328
32 , 758
36 , 228
30 , 000 1979 1982 30 , 000 1 , 500 27 , 427
32 , 758
34 , 258
Z0, 000 1974 1979 40 , 000 6 , 300 31, 443
26 , 699
32 , 999
)0 , 000 1974 1979 35 , 000 4 , 300 27 , 513
26 , 699
30 , 999
'0 , 000 1974 1979 30 , 000 2 , 300 23 , 582
26 , 699
28 , 999
20 , 000 1974 1976 35 , 000 1 , 500 23 , 813
26 , 690
28 , 199
20 , 000 1974 1976 30 , 000 1 , 500 20 , 411
16 , 690
28 ,199
20 , 000 1974 1976 25 , 000 1 , 500 17 , 009
26 , 690
28 ,199
10, 000 1969 1979 30 , 000 7 , 675 23 , 582
11 , 565
19 , 240
10, 000 1969 1979 25 , 000 5 , 675 19 , 651
11 , 565
17 , 240
10 , 000 1969 1979 20 , 000 3 , 675 15 ,722
11 , 565
15 , 240
1 apace val..,e
2 Coach Value
a
Original Year ear Purchase Pei- sed Existing
off-site of Bought Price Formula Formula
Value Mfg. In-Park In-Park Buy-out Buy-out
10, 000 1969 1976 25 , 000 1 , 500 17 , 009
11 , 565
13 , 065
10 , 000 1969 1976 20 , 000 1 , 500 13 , 607
11 , 565
13 ,065
1
10 , 000 1969 1976 15 , 000 1 , 500 10 ,205
11 , 565
13 , 065
10 , 000 1969 1974 20 , 000 1 , 500 12 ,358
11 , 565
13 , 065
10, 000 1969 1974 15 , 000 1 , 500 9, 268
11 , 565
13 , 065
10 , 000 1969 ' 1974 10 , 000 1 , 500 6 , 179
11 , 565
13 , 065
10, 000 1969 1969 10 , 000 1 , 500 5 , 000
11 , 565
13 , 065
5 , 000 1964 1979 30 , 000 10 , 600 23 , 582
3 , 500
14 ,100
5 , 000 1964 1979 25, 000 8 , 600 19 , 651
3 , 500
12 , 100
5 , 000 1964 1979 20, 000 6 , 600 15 , 722
3 , 500
10 , 100
5 , 000 1964 1974 20 , 000 1 , 500 12 , 358
3 , 500
5 , 000
5 , 000 1964 1974 15 , 000 1 ,500 9 , 268
3 , 500
5, 000
5 , 000 1964 1974 10 ,000 1 , 500 6 , 179
3 , 500
5, 000
5 , 000 1964 1969 10 , 000 1 , 500 5 , 000
3 , 500
5 , 000 -
-2-
' s
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
White City Attorney
� REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES Canary City Clerk
�9 Pink City Administrator
Goldenrod Departmental
HUNTINGTON BEACH
WS 82-89
Date Request Made By Department
Wove 16, 19132
James W. 'Palin Development Services
INSTRUCTIONS File request in the City Attorney's Office as soon as possible. Print or type facts necessary for City Attorney.Out-
line briefly reasons for the request Attach all information and exhibits pertinent to the subject.
Type of Legal Service Requested
(Y] Ordinance [ ] Insurance ( ] Other
[ ] Resolution [ ] Bonds
[ ] Contract/Agreement ( 1 Opinion
All exhibits must be attached,or this request will be returned to you
[�] Exhibits Attached Ordinance Wo 0 2563
Please revise the attached ordinance as fol ovs
1. replace the fifth paragraph under 9270.5 (b) on the fifth page
with the following
The applicant may grant one (1) six (6) mcantn ex onsion to
the length of time given to the mobilehome oi;rners in the
Notice of Sntent to Change Use by notifying the mrbilshowrie
owners of such extension at least four (4 ) mor+ths, prior to
the date specified in such notice, The ext�_;nslon shall be,
granted for no more and no less than six (6) months, and
the amount of compensation adjusted ac;cox6ingl,y.
2. Tinder 9270 . 5 (c) on page 6, replace "the option of pir( I. n�
suitable alternative housing' with "the option of m—a
suitable alternative housinq. �_�_�g.wa.._Wv..ailabt.o
This ordinance had its second reading b,;�fore the Council at its
November 15, 1952 meeting and will te the finisl>ed ordinance as
r,-vis&d . Please return to the City Clerk, for ul.-licatione
JWP:HS-df
Attachinent
If for Council Action, If not for Council action,desired completion date Signature f' -
ff `
Agenda deadline November 19, 1932 1" �
Council meeting
1
i
PIO 12179
ORDINANCE NO. 2563
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY ADDING THERETO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED,
"MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES, REMOVAL OF OVERLAY
ZONES, REZONING OF MH ZONES, AND CHANGE OF USE"
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
Overlay Zones , Removal of Overlay Zones, Rezoning of MH Zones,
and Change of Use" to read as follows :
9270. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. (a) The mobilehome park resi-
dential zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to permit the
application of mobilehome zone to parcels of land developed with
mobilehome parks and zoned with a primary underlying zoning desig-
nation. The purpose of the mobilehome park zone is to establish
a means of providing a reasonable and proper transition from the
present mobilehome park use to the uses permitted in the underlying
zoning districts . Wherever reference is made in this section or
on any districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehome park
overlay zone.
(b) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay
zone shall also be applied to requests for rezoning existing MH
districts to different zoning districts , and for any change of
use as hereinafter defined.
(c) All findings required for removal of the MHP overlay,
rezoning from MH or change in use shall be required for all
property upon which a mobilehome park then exists, or upon
which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the preceding
five ( 5) years.
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) Affordable Unit. "Affordable unit" shall mean a "for
JF:ahb
-1 /10/82
( 7) 1 .
sale" unit that is sold to and occupied by a low or moderate in-
come household. "Affordable unit" shall also mean a rental unit
for which the monthly payment does not exceed 25 percent of the
household' s income for low income households or 30 percent of
the household' s income for moderate income households.
(b ) Applicant . "Applicant" shall mean the person, firm,
corporation, partnership, or other entity having leasehold in-
terest or fee ownership in the operation of a mobilehome park.
(c ) Change of Use. "Change of use" shall mean 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 habitation, and shall not mean the adoption,
amendment , or repeal of a park rule or regulation. "Change of
use" may affect an entire park or any portion thereof, and such
"change of use" shall include, but is not limited to, a change
of a park or any portion thereof to a condominium, stock coopera-
tive , planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use,
or vacant land.
(d) Eligible Owner. "Eligible owner" shall mean any mobile-
home owner owning a mobilehome in a park at the time of issuance
of the notice of intent to change use, but shall not include any
mobilehome owner who is renting his unit to another party at
such time.
(e) Market Rate Unit. "Market rate unit" shall mean a resi-
dential unit that is sold on the open market without constraints
imposed on the sales price, rental rate, or buyer qualifications .
(f) 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 .
(g) Mobilehome Park. "Mobilehome park" is any area of land
used primarily for the placing, parking or storing of two or more
mobilehomes for housekeeping, sleeping or living quarters .
(h) 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.
(i) Notice of Intent to Change Use. "Notice of Intent to
Change Use" shall mean notification as required by California
Civil Code section 798. 56(f) ( 2) .
Original Purchase Price . "Original purchase price"
2.
shall mean the price which the mobilehome owner, occupying the
mobilehome space, originally paid for the mobilehome and any
attached optional equipment and/or tag-a-longs and expando
rooms . In determining the price, the regulations for estab-
lishing the cost basis , as found in the United States Code
Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, shall be used. Such purchase
price shall be verified by the mobilehome owner through the
existence of sales receipts indicating date of purchase, monetary
amount of purchase, identification or model numbers of all items
purchased and the party from whom the items were purchased.
"Original purchase price" shall not include cost of financing.
(k) Senior Citizen Unit. "Senior citizen unit" shall mean
a residential unit which meets the standards for an affordable
unit which is situated in a project that is designed to accommo-
date senior citizens through special financing programs and/or
modified development standards.
9270. 2. CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF ZONE. The City Council,
in making its determination whether to apply the MHP zone to any
particular property, shall consider the following factors as to
whether such zone is appropriate:
(a) Existing zoning and general plan designations.
(b ) The age and condition of the mobilehome park.
(c) The relationship of the mobilehome park to surrounding
land uses .
(d) Vehicle access to the area under consideration.
(e) Site area.
(f) Site configuration.
9270. 3. USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be per-
mitted in an MHP district :
(a) Mobilehome parks as regulated by the State of California.
(b ) Accessory uses and structures incidental to the opera-
tion of mobilehome parks such as recreation facilities and/or
community centers of a noncommercial nature, either public or
private storage facilities for the use of the mobilehome park
residents and any other uses or structures that are incidental to
the operation of a mobilehome park.
(c ) Whenever property is zoned MHP, any use permitted by
the underlying zoning of such property shall not be permitted.
3.
9270. 4. REMOVAL OF THE MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY ZONE, MH
ZONE OR CHANGE OF USE. The City Council shall not approve a
zone change for any parcel when such change would have the ef-
fect of removing the MHP or MH designation from that property,
or approve a change of use unless the following findings have
been made:
(a) Those findings required by California Government Code
section 66427. 4.
(b ) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the General
Plan of the City of Huntington Beach and all elements thereof.
(c) That the proposed change of land use will not have an
adverse effect upon the goals and policies for provision of ade-
quate housing for all economic segments of the community, as set
forth in the Housing Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan.
(d) That the property which is the subject of the zone change
would be more appropriately developed in accordance with uses per-
mitted by the underlying zoning, or proposed zoning.
(e) That a notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome
park and relocate mobilehome owners was delivered to such owners
and to the Department of Development Services at least eighteen (18)
months prior to the date the mobilehome owner is required to vacate
the premises .
(f) That an "impact of conversion report" has been sub-
mitted by the applicant and found to be adequate by the Planning
Commission at a public hearing. Failure to submit such item
within twelve (12) months from the date of the notice shall re-
sult in the nullification of the Notice of Intent to Change Use.
The Planning Commission shall take the following items into con-
sideration when addressing the adequacy of the report :
(i) The date of the manufacture and size of each
mobilehome in the park.
(ii) Makeup of existing households , including family
size, household income, length of residence, age of tenants,
owner or renter, and primary or seasonal resident.
(iii) Replacement space availability, monthly rents
and coach acceptance criteria in mobilehome parks within
fifty ( 50) miles of the city.
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.
4 .
(g) That a relocation assistance plan has been submitted by
the applicant and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission
at a public hearing.
9270. 5. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PLAN. STANDARDS. The fol-
lowing shall constitute minimum standards for an acceptable relo-
cation assistance plan:
(a) All eligible mobilehome owners shall be entitled to re-
ceive the cost of relocation. Those costs shall be limited to dis-
connection 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 fifty ( 50) miles of the city. If the mobilehome
owner desires relocation beyond fifty ( 50) miles, the mobilehome
owner shall be responsible for the costs associated with reloca-
tion beyond the fifty (50) mile limit established by this article.
(b) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated to another
park in accordance with the procedures herein, the applicant
shall purchase the mobilehome and any optional equipment and/or
tag-a-longs and expando rooms from the mobilehome owner at an
amount to be determined after establishing the mobilehome owner' s
original purchase price, and the date of original purchase.
Where proof of purchase is not available or verifiable,
- and the manufacturer' s original list price cannot be ascertained,
the value of the mobilehome shall be determined by averaging the
sales price of the three ( 3) most comparable units of similar age,
size, and quality found in the applicant ' s mobilehome park at the
time the mobilehome owner purchased the site.
When the original purchase price is ascertained, the
amount of compensation to be paid by an applicant to a mobile-
home owner shall be determined by using the following method:
Mobilehomes shall be depreciated at a rate of 4. 7 per-
cent per year, beginning with the date the mobilehome owner
originally purchased the mobilehome and/or optional equipment and
continuing until the date set for vacation by the applicant in
the Notice of Intent to Change Use; or, if the mobilehome owner
is permitted to remain on site beyond the date set for vacation,
depreciation of the mobilehome shall continue until the actual
date of vacation.
The applicant may grant one (1) six-month extension to
the length of time given to the mobilehome owners in the Notice
of Intent to Change Use by notifying the mobilehome owners of
5.
such extension at least four (4) months prior to the date speci-
fied in such notice. The extension shall be granted for no more
and no less than six (6) months , and the amount of compensation
adjusted accordingly.
An applicant may, with the consent of the mobilehome
owner, transfer a mobilehome unit to another space in the park.
Such transfer shall not constitute permanent relocation, and the
cost of all such moves shall be borne by the applicant .
The mobilehome owner' s compensation for any mobilehome
that cannot be relocated to any other park shall be no less than
four thousand five hundred dollars ( $4,500) plus moving expenses
up to five hundred dollars ( $500) , an aggregate not to exceed
five thousand dollars ( $5,000) .
In order to reduce the impact of relocation to alterna-
tive housing further, the applicant shall pay a cost of housing
differential of 50 percent of the increase in the cost of housing
for the first year, not to exceed seven hundred fifty dollars ( $750 )
for each mobilehome owner.
( c) If the mobilehome owner cannot be relocated in accordance
with the procedures -contained herein, the applicant has the option
of making available suitable alternative housing, together with
compensation, to such mobilehome owner.
Where alternative housing is proposed, it shall be
available in the following categories :
(aa) Senior citizen housing;
(bb) Affordable housing; and
(cc ) Market rate housing.
( d) Any applicant and mobilehome owner may mutually agree
to modify the standards and methods contained in this section, and
in no case shall an applicant be required to relocate or purchase
a mobilehome prior to the date of the Notice of Intent to Change
Use.
(e) Appeals from the amount of compensation to be given a
mobilehome owner shall be filed with the applicant within thirty
(30) days after the mobilehome owner has notice of the amount he
is to receive .
The applicant shall acknowledge any appeal within thirty
(30) days , and if an agreement cannot be reached, the matter shall
be referred to a professional arbitrator.
(f) To determine whether compensation accurately reflects the
6.
original cost of the mobilehome, the applicant and/or professional
arbitrator shall rely on records furnished by the mobilehome owner,
or if such records are not available, the mobilehome shall be sub-
jected to the comparison test set out elsewhere in this section.
All optional equipment and appurtenances shall be valued in the
same manner.
(g) That the mobilehome owners have received written guaran-
tee of first-right-of-refusal to purchase units if the development
which replaces the mobilehome park is to be residential in whole
or in part.
(h) That the applicant has complied with all applicable city
ordinances and state regulations in effect at the time the relocation
assistance plan was approved.
(i) That the applicant has complied with the conditions of
approval, including the following items :
(i) Mobilehome owners will not be forced to relocate
prior to the end of their leases.
(ii) Mobilehome owners have been given the right to
terminate their leases upon approval of the relocation assis-
tance plan.
(iii) Demolition or construction will not occur until
the relocation assistance plan is approved and the eighteen
(18) month notification period has expired.
9270. 6. ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the im-
pact of conversion report and relocation 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 . Each of the mobilehome owners
shall be given written notification within ten (10) days of approval
of the relocation assistance plan.
9270. 7. ACTION BY PLANNING COMMISSION. At the conclusion
of its hearing, noticed as provided in this code, the Planning
Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny said
impact of conversion report and relocation assistance plan pur-
suant to the provisions of this article, and such decision shall be
supported by a resolution of the Planning Commission, setting forth
its findings .
9270 . 8 . FEES REQUIRED. Each impact report and relocation
assistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee established
by resolution of the City Council.
7.
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 15th
day of November 1982.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney
By
City Clerk Deputy C Attorneys ►�-►off
REVIEWFJ)--AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator irector of Development
Services
8.
Ord. No. 2563
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and, ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number
of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is Seven
adjourned
that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a/regular
meeting thereof held on the 25th day of October
1982 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November , 1982 and
was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of
all the members of said City Council.
AYES: Councilmen:
Thomas , MacAllister, Mandic, Finley, Bailey, Kelly
NOES: Councilmen:
None
ABSENT: Councilmen:
Pattinson
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
ADDENDUM - ORDINANCE REVISIONS
1. ORDINANCE NO. 2563
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY ADDING THERETO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED
"MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES, REMOVAL OF OVERLAY
ZONES, IdW REZONING OF MH ZONES,` AND CHANGE
OF US " �N�4r c %7n G'K� 0-N1
v % �, - 2�275MT
2. � 9270. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE. (a) The mobilehome
park residential zone is hereby established as an overlay
zone to permit the application of mobilehome zone to parcels
of land developed with mobilehome parks and zoned with a
primary underlying zoning designation. The purpose of the
mobilehome park zone is to establish a means of providing a
reasonable and proper transition from the present mobilehome
park use to the uses permitted in the underlying zoning
districts. Wherever reference is made in this section or on
any districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehome park
overlay zone. This article shall also be applicable to any
,ehange of use as hereinafter defined.
3. 9270 .1 Definitions.
(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
habitation, and does not mean the adoption, amendment, or re-
peal of a park rule or regulation. A change of use may affect
an entire park or any portion thereof. "Change of use" in-
cludes, 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, or vacant
land.
(c) Eligible Owner. "Eligible owner" shall mean any mobile-
home owneres ��er��- -a-xtebeheme-pa�3�-ntee- ha -��9
days-per-year---St�el�-pens®ems-shall-ire-er�tg��ed-�®-�eleea��e�
asslstar�ee-es-s�ee�t���e�-bp-�h�rs-a�tlele---Nes®w�e�-�rteb�le�ie�te
versants-s�iall-�®t-be-er��l�lee�-�e-aa�-€®�-®�-gel®ea��e�-assls�-
amee. owning a mobilehome in the 2ark at the time of issuance
of the notice of intent to change use, but shall not include
any mobilehome owner who was renting the unit to another party
at that time.
I
- r
Addendum - MH Overlay
October 25, 1982
Page 2
4 . 9270. 5 (b) (ii) Relocation Assistance Plan.
Percent of
Amount of Original Purchase Price
Notice Given to be Paid
1 year 100
2 years 85
3 years 70
4 years 50
5 years 30
6 years 25
7 years 20
Exception: The sliding scale shall not be applied to any
mobilehome owner who purchased the mobilehome more than
fifteen (15) years before the effective date of this article.
Such mobilehome owners shall be eligible to receive 100 per-
cent of their original purchase price, or $5, 000, whichever
is greater. Any improvements made within fifteen (15) years
shall be purchased in accordance with the sliding scale.
When the date given in the Notice of Intent to Change Use
does not coincide with the foregoing yearly table, the percent
of compensation shall be prorated on a monthly basis.
The applicant may grant extensions to the length of time
given to mobilehome owners in the Notice of Intent to Change
Use by notifying the mobilehome owners of such extensions at
least four (4) months prior to the date specified in such
notice. All extensions shall be granted for at least six (6)
months, and the amount of compensation adjusted accordingly.
The applicant may, when 65 percent of the
mobilehome owners have vacated, file an application with the
Department of Development Services to accelerate the vacation
of the remaining mobilehomes. Before approval of this applica-
tion, a new Notice of Intent to Change Use shall be given to
the remaining mobilehome owners. Such notice shall be for a
period not less than one (1) year. The percentage of original
purchase price to be paid to the remaining mobilehome coach
owners shall be recalculated to reflect the actual amount of
notice in years from the original Notice of Intent to Change
Use through the accelerated Notice of Intent to Change Use.
1
REM
REM PROPERTIES LTD.
8121 EAST FLORENCE AVENUE, DOWNEY, CAEIFORNIA 90240
TELEPHONE (213) 927-3341
October 20 , 1982
Mayor & City Council
Attn: City Administrator
Charles W. Thompson
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Mayor & Members of the City Council:
As the owners of the leasehold interest in the Driftwood
Mobile Home Park, we believe it is our responsibility to comment
on the proposed mobilehome conversion ordinance.
We have already gone on record as supporting a reasonable
conversion ordinance. We feel that mobilehome owners should be
treated fairly in the conversion of any mobilehome park. We
also believe that the park owner ' s interest cannot be overlooked
in the process. The landowner develops the park, maintains the
property, pays the property taxes , and assumes the risk associated
with ownership.
If the owner of a mobilehome park decides to convert to
another use, the mobilehome owners ' interests must be considered.
The question is , what are these interests and to what extent is
government responsible for protecting these interests . State
Law has established minimum requirements for mobilehome park
conversions, but many cities have adopted ordinances that are more
restrictive than State Law. The ordinances proposed by Staff and
the Planning Commission go far beyond any other city ordinance
that we have been able to discover.
We believe that any conversion ordinance should have
relocation to another park as the primary ob3ective. The fact
that there is limited availability of spaces at this time should
not be an overriding consideration in the requirements of a
conversion ordinance. For non-relocatable units , a unit that
cannot be physically moved because of poor condition or where
there is no available space, the owner or applicant should
provide alternative housing or compensation based on a percentage
of the original purchase price. The percentage of the original
purchase price should relate to the age of the unit and the
length of time given in the Notice to Vacate the property.
Page 2
October 20 , 1982
City of Huntington Beach
The use of original purchase price as the basis for buy-out
in the event a unit cannot be relocated, appears to be the
fairest, because it precludes unjustified profits, yet it protects
a mobilehome owner who recently purchased his unit for a price
that may have been above its true value.
The use of in-park value would create significant unjustified
profits to mobilehome owners who purchased their unit at a very
low price, and had the benefit of sub-market rent for most of the
term of their residency. This would create a tremendous burden on
on mobilehome park owners who would basically be required to
purchase their park back from the mobilehome owner.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this
matter. We will be in attendance at the October 25, 1982 meeting
if you have any questions concerning this letter, or any other
issues concerning the proposed conversion ordinance.
Respectfully ubmitted,
R PR ERTIE D.
M' chael A. Moller
Vice Presiden
cgt
i
5
�• ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 82-39
COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Honorable Mayor & City From Charles W. Thomp
Council City Administrator r
Subject Date
MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION September 21, 1982
ORDINANCE STUDY SESSION ON
SEPTrMBER 27; 1982
On June 1, 1982, after five months of work with staff, the
Planning Commission approved Code Amendment No. 81-18 , the draft
mobile home park conversion ordinance, for recommendation to the
City Council. On June 21 , 1982 the City Council opened and
closed the public hearing on the code amendment. Because of
diverse public response at the public hearing and because of the
complexity of the issue, staff was directed to set a study session
of the Citv Council for August 9, 1982. That date was later
adjusted to September 27, 1982.
Throughout the course of staff' s work on the ordinance, a number
of issues were considered by the Planning Commission. Amonq the
issues considered were: Could "shelter parks" be developed; could
vacant land be rezoned MH in order to encourage new park development-
what should activate the conversion ordinance - closure of a park
or an application for a zone change; and should the ordinance
establish uniform assistance standards for all parks or should it
be left open-ended in order to allow for the amount and type of
assistance provided for each park to be determined on a case-by-case
basis. In regard to formulas for buy-out of unrelocatable units,
the following alternatives were considered: Full market value
in-nark- a percentage of full market value in-park; Kelly Blue Book
value: original purchase price; and use of a sliding scale. Staff_
will review each of these issues with the City Council at the
study session. Staff will also review the overlay zone which the
Dlanning Commission has recommended. The City Council is requested
to bring their green Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance
Background Information booklets.
As additional background information, the following items are
attached:
1. Information on criteria for acceptance of used mobile homes
in Villa Corona mobile home park in Corona.
2. FrequencN7 summary sheet for the City' s mobile home park survey.
3. Reprint of the June 21, 1982 RCA for Code Amendment No. 81-18 :
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance.
4 . Table summarizing estimated costs for alternative buy-out formulas.
5. Most recent City of Anaheim Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance.
CWT:JWP:HS :bas \� '
4 a
-"� Attachment 1
CONTINENTAL MOBILE HOUSING, INC.
INTERIM ARCHITECTURAL GUI.MLINES FOR VILLA CORONA
The following item numbers refer and cc-~-respond to those
numbers in Villa Corona' s present "Architectural Specifi-
cation" document.
1. All coaches must be 197$ or newer.
2, Mobile Home Sizes:
be Minimum size hone shall be 241x52 '
30 'Siding: -
aa Acceptable siding shall be hardboard (such as
Masonite) in either vertical groove pattern, horizontal
lap or simulated stucco. Simulated wood aluminum horizontal
lap siding, (such as Alcan) is acceptable, as is wood
shingles. No vertical metal sidings
4. Roofing:
2. (1) Composition shingles must be earthtone
(3) Tile roofs may be in red, brawn, or slate tones.
4
5> Awnings:
am All aluminum awning tops must be earthtone to blend
with the house roof.
b. Minimum size carport awning is 10 'x4 0 ' . E-Uti:<'
co On two-section homes, an 8 'x40`minimum awning is required
on the patio side. On three sect4_on ( "tag") homes, an
awning shaiy cover the entire offset area (or areas) ® All
awning posts shall be of good a_u,}"_i.ty 4x4
6® Rain Gutters: t
ae Downspouts are not required to be extended to the street;
these extensions usually get crushed and cause more problems
than they solve. The downspouts may empty onto a concrete
slab or splashblock, or may drain =to a surface drain or a
subsurface pipe. The maryn thing is that all drainage be
conducted to the street while avoiding erosion,
7e Skirting:
N.a:,L).._._1 s ,-irting is regvir_ed, as Minimum, on the full width
of the front wall, as well as down the ratio side to the front
porch and 3 ' around the corner of the carport side.
Corner lots also require full masonry skirting on the side
facing the street and 3 ' around the corner of the back wall.
8m Facias & Flashing:
a. All awning facias shall match the }come facia isl color
and material. Facias must be of wood or hardboard iuid
continue all -1- around the home quid awnings.
10. Concrete 1,7ork:
There are no existing carport slabs; These are the responsibility
of the tenant, so should be included in the total unit sales
price® Minimum size slab is 10 'x45 ' e It is suggested that the
area on the patio side not covered by a porch, be covered by
concre�e. This is not mandatory, but can eli.ininate future
drainage and maintenance problems for the tenant.
� Y
11. Porches & Steps :
Minimum front porch size shall be 5 'x6 ' , plus steps, and cali
be of wood or masonry.
12. Storage Sheds:
Must have same siding and roofing as the home and must be -
plzkced on or ':Ghind the driveway slabs It's not necessary
to place the shed under the carport awning, but it must be
placed on concrete. i
A new, comprehensive document iicluding rules & regulations
and architectural specifications is currently being prepared.
If there are any questions in the meantime, the resident i
managers, George & Lu Kelce, will be glad to help, If they
don't have the answer, they will obtain the information from
this office and will be able to get right back to you. '
i
I
i9
J /� ®H
®`NIL�
n e
wILS
So
!
• sf
n
r u o! rof »
•e f e. uo
n n
f se �02 ro e irs
of � fo wi
to
ae e t 2
t� „ wt dG
of 1 i00 �W �N Ir! � la! C7
—12
a, a ti i
•r 9C
n u c r0
t. So It. �u "' �'•
g of
!f s• .f NT WATC AKIN
to
ff !0 )! )+ wr Ia2
le
s• ff i»
tr
UT®ALOY ACT BALOY Q
to
so EH-S
�w m Leo wf no m of na �,. O �r! ira nr no of Sao m Ott iar ie. ief
.oa
-- _ _ 1SIM.LAU AYE NVE /
K4a M1e0
VILLA CORONA ADULT MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY
1550 Rimpau,Corona,CA 91720
(714)734-1180
Note :
C-rosshatched area indicates spaces currently elegible to receive
used mobile homes .
eD
I C
Attachment 2
FREQUENCY SUMARY SHEET
HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILE HOME PARK SURVEY
I. The size of the unit in which you now reside is:
a. 20.2 Single-wide
b. 77.3* Double-wide
C. 2.5 Triple-wide
2. The age of the unit in which you now reside is:
G. 5.9 0-4 years old
b. 25.7 5-9 years old
C. -27.0 * 10-14 years old
d. 17.2 _ 15-19 years old
e. 4.4 20 years or older
3. How long has your household lived in the park in which you now reside?
a. 26.8 0-4 years
b. 34.6 * 5-9 years
C. 29.8 10-14 years
d. 7.4 15-19 years
e. 1.4 20 years or longer
4. The unit in which you now reside was:
a. 65.1 * Purchased in the park
b. 34.9 Moved to the park
5. Do you own in full the unit in which you now reside?
a. 80.2 * Yes
b. 19.8 No
6. If you do not own the unit in full, are you:
a. 94.9 * Making payments on the unit?
b. 5.1 Renting the unit?
7. If you do own the unit in full or are making payments on the unit, do you reside in it
at I east 180 days a year?
a. 98.7 * Yes
b. 1.2 No
8. The number of occupants in your household total:
G. 39.2 One
b. 55.2 * Two
C. 5.5 Three or more
5 7833E/115B/1&2 CONTINUE ON BACK PAGE
J,
9. The age of the occupants in your household are:
Occupant I Occupant 2 Occupant 3 Age Total
a. 6.8 7.6 - 54.6 * 44 years or less 8.9
b. 2.0 3.4 2.5 45-49 years 2.5
C. 5.1 6.8 3.4 50-54 years 5.7
d. 9.3 11.1 7.6 55-59 years 9.9
e. 13.4 17.8 3.4 60-64 years 14.7
f. 21.7 20.9 5.0 65-69 years 20.8
9. 41.6 * 32`4 * 23n5 70 years or more 37.5
10. Do any members of your household have a disability? If so, which is the most
serious?
Occupant I Occupant 2 Occupant 3 Disability
a• 3.2 1.2 .4 Blind or visually impaired
b. .9 .7 .1 Confined to a wheelchair
C. ._ .1 .3 Mentally disabled
d. 13.1 6.7 .5 Other
e. 82.6 * 91.3 98.7 No serious disability
11. Which category best describes your household's gross income for 1981?
a. 7.6 $ 0 - $ 4,999
b. 17.2 $ 5,000 - $ 7,999
C. 21.2 * $ 81000 - $1 1,999
d. 16-.-6 $12,000 - $14,999
e. 12.4 $15,000 - $19,999
f. 9.6 $20,000 - $24,999
9. 8.8 $25,000 - $34,000
h. -5 $35,000 - $49,000
i. 7,0 $50,000 or above
12. Which category best describes your household's current monthly rent?
a. .6 $ 0 - $ 124
b. 10.2 $125 - $149
C.d. lr * $200 - $249
e. 14.0 $250 - $299
f. 5.7 $300 or more
7833E/115B/1&2 '
9
4
Attachment 3
REQUES ® FOR CITY C®UNCL ACTION
Date June 21 , 1982
Submitted to, Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator'�1/�
Prepared b : James W. Palin, Director of Development Services �-tJ.`
P Y .o
10
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-1 :
MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: �."
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
As per City Council direction, an ordinance establishing regulations
for the change of use of mobile home parks, has been prepared and
approved by the Planning Commission. This ordinance establishes
a mobile home park overlay zone, est gTishes tenant notification
requirements, and sets guidelines for approval of a tenant assistance
plan based on original purchase price prior to the granting of a zone
change for removal of the overlay zone or MH zone.,
RECOMMENDATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt Code Amendment No. 81-18 and approve
Negative Declaration No. 82-1 .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council direct
staff to explore the use of a sliding scale concept for the buy-out
of the mobile homes by the applicant in the tenant assistance plan
section of the ordinance. Staff therefore recommends that the
public hearing be continued to July 6 , 1982 .
ANALYSIS:
On December 7 , 1981, the City Council directed staff to expedite
preparation of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. Draft versions
of the ordinance were then presented to the Council at the meetings of
December 21, 1981 and January 21, 1982 . At the January 21 meeting,
the Council directed staff to send the ordinance to the Planning Com-
mission for public hearing on February 17 , 1982. Since the original
public hearing in February, there have been four additional public
hearings and one study session to consider various draft ordinances .
In that time, much public testimony has been received from park
residents, park managers, park owners, and attorneys representing various'
parties . As a result of that testimony, as well as Commission discussion,
the ordinance has undergone substantial revision since last presented
to the City Council. The attached ordinance represents the final
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
CPI O 4/81
r
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
June 21 , 1982
Page 2
Essentially the ordinance comprises a combination of items from the
City' s original draft ordinance and an ordinance which was adopted
by the City of Newport Beach in 1981. The ordinance first establishes
a mobile home park overlay zone (MHP) . The Planning Commission felt
that the overlay zone would be appropriate because there are seven
parks in the City which do not presently have permanent mobile home
(MH) zoning. The overlay zone would be a temporary designation which
could be applied only to those parks which do not have MH zoning.
Once applied fhrough a normal zone change process, the overlay zone
would supersede whatever the underlying zoning was. In order to change
the use of the park in accordance with the underlying zoning, the
overlay would first have to be removed in order to reach the underlying
zone. The proposed ordinance then establishes findings which must be
made by the City Council before the MHP overlay zone may be removed.
The ordinance would also require that the same findings be made before
those parks which currently have MH zoning could be rezoned to allow
other uses . The overlay zone and requirement for findings were taken
from the Newport Beach ordinance.
In addition, the findings which must be made by the City Council include
two important items which were taken from earlier drafts of the City' s
ordinance. Finding (d) requires that an "impact of conversion report"
be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission.
The report must address the age and size of units being displaced,
demographic information on the park residents, and replacement space
availability within 100 miles of the City.
Finding (e) is the most significant finding which must be made. It
requires that a "tenant assistance plan" be submitted by the applicant
and approved by the Planning Commission. Minimum standards for an
acceptable assistance plan are established by the ordinance to require
that all coaches for which a replacement space within 100 miles can
be found must be relocated to that space at the expense of the appli-
cant. All units which cannot be relocated within 100 miles must be
purchased by the applicant at the tenant' s original purchase price as
verified by the tenant through the existence of sales receipts.
Because the Planning Commission realized that purchase of units could
result in an overall buy-out price which was so high that it could be
considered a taking under the U. S. Constitution, a provision limiting
total buy-out cost was added. The Commission directed staff to include
the provision that the combined cost of relocation and purchase of units
may not exceed one-third of the appraised land value of the mobile home
park minus inprovements. If the estimated cost of the assistance plan
does exceed one-third the value of the land, each eligible tenant will
receive a proportionately reduced amount of assistance.
Using the proposed assistance formula, the following example of assist-
ance for a typical park has been prepared:
i
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
June 21, 1982
Page 3
Mobile Home Park Size Land Value
} 19 Acres $ 300, 000 per acre
10 Units per acre 5, 700, 000 Total
190 Units 1, 900, 000 One-third value
Case by Case Assistance Schedule Estimate
Age _
Case of Unit # Units Assistance Proposed Total
1 0 - 4 11 11 relocate @ $ 3, 000/Unit = 33 , 000. 00
2 5 - 9 49 25 relocate @ 3 , 000/Unit = 75, 000. 00
3 24 bought out @ 25, 000/Unit = 600, 000. 00
4 10 - 14 89 89 bought out @ 10, 000/Unit = 890, 000. 00
5 15 - 19 33 33 bought out @ 8 , 000/Unit - 264 , 000. 00
6 20+ 8 8 bought out @ 6 , 000/Unit = 48 , 000 . 00
190 $1, 910, 000. 00*
* Combined estimated cost of relocation and buy-out exceeds one-third
of the land value ($1, 900, 000) by $10, 000; therefore, assistance to each
tenant is reduced proportionately as follows :
Case
1 11 receive $2 , 985 relocation expense = 32 , 835. 00
2 25 receive 2, 985 relocation expense = 74, 625 . 00
3 24 receive 24 , 869 buy-out value = 596, 856. 00
4 89 receive 9, 949 buy-out value = 885, 372. 00
5 33 receive 7 , 958 buy-out value = 262, 614 . 00
6 8 receive 5, 969 buy-out value = 47 , 752 . 00
Total: $1, 900, 054 . 00
Tn the above example, it is assumed that most of the newer units
can relocate and all of the older units must be purchased. Assuming
an appraised land value of $300, 000 per acre, the estimated cost of
the assistance plan would exceed one-third of the land value by
$10, 000. Therefore, assistance to each tenant was reduced propor-
.1
v ��
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
June 21, 1982
Page 4
tionately. It is staff' s opinion that this example constitutes
typical values which may result when a tenant assistance plan is pre-
pared for an average mobile home park in the City. This example
indicates that at this point in time, limiting the cost of assist-
ance to one-third the value of the land may not substantially reduce
the amount of assistance given. The existence of an ordinance which
provides for return of original purchase price in the event of park
conversion, however, may result in mobile home resale prices continuing
to escalate due to the perceived elimination of investment risk. As
coach values increase over time through such resales, the one-third
land value limit may significantly reduce the amount of assistance
given. It is also likely that disparity in General Plan designations
and park locations would result in some parks being appraised at much
lower values than others. Such disparity could result in inequities
in assistance to coach owners from park to park and inequities in
financial responsibilities of the individual park owners .
It should also be noted that the proposed ordinance would establish
a mobile home park overlay zone (MHP) even though the City Council
has already directed staff to rezone all nonconforming parks in
the City to MH. When the Planning Commission and the City Council
review Staff ' scanalysis of the proposed zone changes, however, they
may wish to reconsider placement of permanent zoning on some non-
conforming parks. In anticipation of that occurrence, the Planning
Commission felt that establishing overlay zoning in the ordinance
would provide an acceptable alternative.
One of staff ' s concerns with the ordinance as currently proposed is
that it does not address situations in which a mobile home park
converts to an own-your-own lot project. In such cases, no zone
change would be needed and, therefore, the ordinance could not be
activated. It is likely that any change to individual space owner-
ship would force lower income tenants out of the park without any
assistance being provided. To resolve this problem, wording could
be added to make the ordinance apply as well to any applications for
subdivision of a mobile home park which would continue to operate
under MH or MHP zoning.
Apart from the Planning Commission' s recommendation, staff has recom-
mended that a sliding scale concept be used in the tenant assistance
plan section rather than buy-out at original tenant purchase price.
A sliding scale would be based on purchase of unrelocatable coaches
at varying percentages of full market value. Percentage of market
value to be paid would depend upon the amount of notification given
to the tenant by the applicant. The longer the notice given, the
smaller would be the percentage of market value required to be paid
by the applicant. The following table provides an example of a sliding
scale buy-out schedule assuming a $50, 000 mobile home and a notifica-
tion period ranging between one year and five years :
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
June 21, 1982
Page 5
Amount of Percentage of Market Amount Received
Notice Given Value Paid By Tenant
1 Year 90% $ 45, 000 . 00
2 Years 80% 40, 000 . 00
3 Years 65% 32 , 500 . 00
4 Years 45% `� " ��� 22, 500 . 00
5 Years 25% 12, 500 . 00
Staff feels that use of the sliding scale concept would provide both
the applicant and the tenants with more definitive relocation assist-
ance criteria and would be substantially easier to administer than
buy-out at original purchase price. A sliding scale would also pro-
vide for more uniform and equitable treatment of the tenants . Addi-
tionally, because a sliding scale would encourage a longer notification
period, thQ tenants would generally be provided with more time to
arrange for a change in living accommodations. In addition to the
payment required on the sliding scale concept, certain relocation
assistance also could be required. For example, the identification of
potential relocation sites within a prescribed distance, information
regarding each location and other necessary information to assist the
mobile home owner in relocation. A flat amount for relocation costs
could also be imposed. Staff discussed these benefits of a sliding
scale with the Planning Commission at two public hearings. The Com-
mission' s consideration of the concept is documented in the minutes
contained in Exhibit 27 and 32 in the attached background information
booklet.
The background information booklet has been prepared to provide Council
with a detailed background of the mobile home ordinance. The booklet
is an indexed documentation of all staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes, interdepartment communications, and miscellaneous correspon-
dence regarding development of the conversion ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not adopt Code Amendment No . 81-18 and do not direct staff to ex-
plore the use of a sliding scale. This would prevent the City from
regulating the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses .
FUNDING SOURCE:
None required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Code Amendment No. 81-18
2 . Negative Declaration No . 82-1
3 . Background Information Booklet
CWT:JWP:HS:df
,1
V
Attachment 4
PACIFIC
HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON TRAILER
PARK SHORECLIFFS MOBILE ESTATES PARK
Units 304 105 266
Acres 40. 71 11.41 18. 65
Density 7. 46 9. 20 14. 26
Single Wide % 7% 28% 52%
Double & Triple % 93% 22% 48%
Location Coastal Non-Coastal Coastal
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
50% 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
Kelley Blue Book
Units & Equipment
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
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 $3,857,456 $ 646,485 $2,139, 970
Per Acre 94, 662 56, 648 114 ,722
Per Unit 12, 689 6,157 8,045
*Five Year Notice is given requiring purchase of units at 25% of
Full Market Value.
�1
Attachment 5
RECEIVED
' g AUG 31982
ORDINANCL NO . De�clo�s�..nt Je e,�c�
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
NEW CHAPTER 18 . 92 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18 . 01 . 140
AND 18 . 01 . 190 OF CHAPTER 18 01 AND SECTION
18. 02. 051 OF CHAPTER 18 . 02 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAI, CODE RELATING TO 'ZONING.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS
SECTION 1
That new Chapter 18 . 92 be, and the same is hereby, added
to Title 18 of the Anahi-im Municipal Code to read as follows
'TBAP7.ER 1.8 . 92
140BILEHOIAE PARK OVERLAY (MHP) ZONE
SECTION 18. 92. 010 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE.
. 010 The Mobitehome Park Overlay
(MHP) Zone is intended to provide for and promote the orderly
growth and development of sites for mobilehome parks consis-
tent with the City' s goal of accommodating alternative
housing types and to balance the interests of mobilehome
park owners and mobilehome owners . It is also intended to
mitigate the herein identified relocation problems and
adverse effects of displacement upon the displaced mobilehome
owners when a park is converted to another land use. This
Chapter and the requirements contained herein are not in-
tended to apply to a recreational vehicle or recreational
vehicle park If a mobilehome park contains recreational
vehicles , then this Chapter and the requirements contained
herein shall apply only to mobilehomes located within such
mobilehome park.
020 The Mobilehome Park Overlay
(MHP) Zone may be combined with any zone ( 'underlying zone' )
in which residential uses are permitted or within which
mobilehome parks are located The regulations contained in
this Chapter shall apply in addition to , and where inLon-
sistent therewith shall supersede, any regulations of such
zone with which the (MHP) Zone is combined When the (MHP)
Zone is applied to a parcel with an existing mobilehome
park which was established pursuant to a conditional use
permit, variance or other discretionary zoning approval or
permit, any conditions or regulations applied therein shall
AIA remain in full force and effect except as to matters
specified in this Chapter.
�IIL 1982
rED
01V�ilQl� f
c 1
SECTION 18. 92 .020 DEFINITIONS .
}i
For purposes of this C'napter,
the following words, terms and phrases shall have the maanings
ascribed herein:
. 010 ' Average comparable mobilehome
park' shall mean the median average of all other mobilehome
parks within a 125 mile radius of the mobilehome park being
converted which are reasonably similar to the mobilehome park
being converted. Such determination of similarity shall be
based upon the condition, quality, amenities and other relevant
factors of the mobilehome parks being compared. Such determina-
tion shall not, however, be based upon the age or location of
the mobilehome parks being compared.
.020 ' City hearing body' shall mean
the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim. The decision
of the Planning Corrunission shall be subject to appeal to or re-
view by the City Council within the time and manner otherwise
set forth in Chapter 18.03 of this Code. Upon any such appeal
or review, the City Council shall thereafter be deemed the city
hearing body for purposes of this Chapter . The decision of the
City Council shall be final and conclusive .
.030 ' Mobilehome owner' shall mean a
collective unit composed of the registered owner or registered
owners of an individual mobilehome regardless of the number of
such owners or the form of such ownership. Any notice to mobile-
home owners or residents required hereunder need not be given to
more than one such owner or resident o E each mobileho.me. Any r- E- -
location benefits payable to a mobilehome owner hereunder -;!,all
be deemed payable jointly and collectively to the owners on a pec
mobilehome basis regardless of the number of owners of each mobile-
home.
SECTION 18. 92 .030 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES .
Sub3ect to the provisions of this
zone, only the following primary uses and structures, either
singly or in combination, shall be permitted in this zone ;
.010 Mobilehome parks .
.020 Mobilehome park subdivisions .
SECTION 18. 92 .040 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND
STRUCTURES.
The following uses and structures
are permitted only when they are integrated with and clearly
incidental to a primary use and when the sole purpose is to pro-
vide convenience to residents of the development and their guests
rather than to the general public :
-2- \
. 010 Recroai_ion buLJdings, gave
courts, swimming pools and other_ similar facilities .
� . 020 Rr-creational vehicle parks con-
stituting an incidental section, area or number of units
within a mobilehome park.
e
. 030 Parking structures, including
garages and carports .
. 040 Storage sheds or fully enclosed
outdoor storage areas .
.050 Customary home occupations in
compliance with the provisions of Section 18.02 . 052 .040 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code.
. 060 Signs, as permitted by the provi-
sions of the underlying zone and in compliance with Chapter
18. 05 of the Anaheim Municipal Code .
SECTION 18. 92 .050 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .
Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this Chapter, development of any property within
this zone shall comply with the site development standards of
the underlying zone in which the property is located. The
density of any development , including any new mobilehome park
development, shall not exceed the maximum density otherwise
permitted by the underlying zone .
SECTION 18. 92 .060 CONVERSION OF E.ISTING 140BILEHOr•E
PARKS AND RECLASSILiICA'T'IO(T FROM THE
(MHP) ZONE .
. 010 Reclassification. Prior to conver-
sion of any property upon which a mobilehome park then exists, or
upon which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the pre-
ceding two years, to another land use not otherwise permitted in
this zone, the (MHP) Zone shall be requirad to be removed from
the property by reclassification in accorclance wi-th the proce-
dures and conditions set forth in Chapter 18.03 of this Code .
Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to authorize
the ter-mination of any tenancy within an existing mobbilehome park
except as otherwise authorized by state law. Any applI.cat Lo
for a reclassification pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter
shall be deemed an application for a ' change or use ' for purposes
of Section 798. 56 ( f) of the Civil Code of the State of California
or any successor provision thereto.
-3-
'
. 020 Conversion Impact Report. Prior
to approval of a reclassification from the (MEIP) Zone for any
property upon which a mobilehome park then exists, or upon
which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the pre-
ceding two years, the person or entity proposing such reclassi-
fication shall file fifteen (15 ) copies of a comprehensive
conversion impact report with the City on the impact of the
proposed change of use upon the mobilehome owners within said
mobilehome park which report shall contain, but need not be
limited to, the following information: The age of the mobile-
home park; the number of mobilehomes existing in the park; the
age of the mobile-homes existing in the park; a detailed descrip-
tion of the park as to landscaping and individual site develop-
ment; the length of time that each resident has lived in the
park; an Analysis of the availability of adequate replacement
space in comparable mobilehome parks within a 125 mile radius of
the mobilehome park to be converted; an estimate as to the costs
to relocate each mobilehome to an average comparable mobilehome
park (cost to relocate means disassembly and reassembly of the
mobilehome including installation of awnings, skirtings, porches,
storage structures and other amenities required by an average
comparable park to which the mobilehome could be relocated, and
transportation costs as herein provided) ; the owner' s proposal
as to relocation benefits; and a general statement as to the
condition of the existing park.
.030 Availability of Conversion Impact
Report . The person or entity proposing such reclassification
shall make available a copy of the conversion impact report to
owners of all mobilehomes within the mobilehome park at least
fifteen (15 ) days prior to the hearing on the report by the city
hearing body. Such mobilehome owners shall be notified as to
the availability of said report by the person or entity propos-
ing the reclassification and also as to the place and time of
the hearing . The person or entity proposing such change may
charge such persons a reasonable duplication fee for copies of
the report.
.040 Relocation Benefits. Prior to ap-
proval of any reclassification for property upon which a mobile-
home park then exists, or upon which a mobilehome park existed at
any time within the preceding two years, the city hearing body
shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing in accordance wit3z
the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.03 of this Code at which
public hearing the city hearing body shall review such conversion
impact report and hear testimony and evidence relating thereto.
The city hearing body shall require as a condition of approval
of any such reclassification that the person or entity proposing
said reclassification take reasonable measures to mLtigate any
identifiable adverse impacts of the change of use on the abilLty
of displaced mobilehome owners to find adequate replacement space
in another mobilehome park. Said mitigation measures shall be
limited to the payment of relocation benefits to the displaced
mobilehome owner by the person or entity proposing such reclassi-
fication consisting of the following amounts :
-4- Tom,
0401 The estimated cost of disas-
sembly and reassembly of the displaced mobilehome including
existing awnings, skirtings, porches and storage structures.
. 0402 The estimated cost of transporta-
tion of the displaced mobilehome to an average comparable
mobilehome park.
. 0403 11n amount equal to 80% of the
estimated additional cost the displaced mobilehome owner will
be required to spend to meet an average comparable mobilehome
park' s lawful requirements for improvements to the mobilehome
space and the mobilehome which is being relocated ( collectively
referred to herein as ' improvement costs ' ) ; provided, however,
that up to ten percent of the mobilehome owners shall be eligi-
ble to receive 1000 of said estimated improvement costs based
upon the mobilehome owner' s financial need or other special
circumstances as identified in the conversion impact report or
approved by the city hearing body . The person or entity pro-
posing the change of use shall establish the improvement costs
of an average comparable mobilehome park by surveying a repre-
sentative number of comparable mobilehome parks where available
replacement spaces can be identified within a 125 mile radius
from the mobilehome park to be converted. These improvement
costs shall be categorized as to their type, including require-
ments for skirting, awnings, landscaping and other applicable
categories. The estimated additional cost for each displaced
mobilehome owner to conform to each of these categories shall
also be established. These costs will be established on the
basis that the work is to be done by a professional contractor
hired by the mobilehome owner, rather than the mobilehome owner
performing the work himself. The information specified in
this subsection shall be included in the conversion impact
report and s'nall be subject to review and approval by the city
hearing body.
. 0404 Nothing contained herein shall be
deemed to preclude any mobilehome owner and mobilehome park
owner from mutually agreeing upon different benefits in lieu
of the benefits otherwise required to be paid to each mobile-
home owner by this section .
.050 Comparable Relocation Unavailable .
In the event the city hearing body at its sole discretion finds,
based upon the conversion impact report and information pre-
sented at the public hearing, that there are no reasonably
comparable mobilehome parks within a radius of 125 miles from
the mobilehome park to be converted to which a displaced mobile-
home could be relocated due to the age, size or condition of
the displaced mobilehome or for other reasons, the displaced
mobilehome owner shall be entitled to relocation benefits equal
to those payable herein to owners of mobilehomes capable of such
relocation.
� v
`I � -5-
i
.060 Relocation to a Specific Park Not
Required . In no instance shall any mobilehome owner be required
to relocatT to a specific part or location as a condition of
payment of said relocation benefits; provided, however, that the
benefits payable to any mobilehome owner shall be those specified
herein regardless of the location or park to which the mobilehome
is actually removed or the availability of any such relocation
space .
. 070 Notice of Effect of this Chapter.
All mobilehome park owners in the City of Anaheim shall notify in
writing all existing and future mobilehome owners and park
residents if different from such mobilehome owners (hereinafter
referred to collectively as 'households' ) of the mobilehome park' s
rights and obligations under this Chapter . Delivery of a copy of
this Chapter shall be deemed sufficient notification in lieu of
any other notice required pursuant hereto. Said notice may in-
clude, at the owner' s option, additional information relating to
the procedures and effects of a change of use.
Existing households shall be noti-
fied within 90 days of the effective date of this Chapter. New
households shall be notified on or before the date of commence-
ment of occupancy. If the new household commences occupancy
without first notifying the mobilehome park owner and without
signing the mobilehome park' s rental documents, then notice may
be given to such household within 90 days of the date of execution
and delivery to the mobilehome park of such rental documents .
Notice may be given by first class
mail or in the manner proscribed by Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1162 or any other lawful means reasonably designed to
insure that the household has received such notice.
SECTION 18. 92 .070 FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED FOR
RECLASSIFICATION.
Before the city hearing body may
grant any reclassification from the Mobilehome Park Overlay (Mi1P) °
Zone for property upon which a mobilehome park then exists or
upon which a mobilehome part, existed at any time within the pre-
ceding two years, it must make a finding of fact that the evi-
dence presented at the public hearing establishes the existence
of one or more of the following facts :
. 010 That the proposed change of land
use will not have an adverse effect upon the goals and policies
for preservation of housing within the City of Anaheim as set
forth in the Housing Element of the Anaheim General Plan; or
.020 That the proposed change of use is
necessitated by the underlying site conditions which pose a
threat to the life, health, safety or general welfare of the
mobilehome park residents; or
3
.030 That the proposed change of use
is necessitated by circumstances beyond t,le reasonable control
of the owner of the property; or
.040 That denial of said reclassifica-
tion would deprive the owner of all reasonable or economically
viable use of the property, or
. 050 That said reclassification is re-
quired by public necessity and convenience and the general
welfare.
Notwithstanding the requirements
of this section, the approval or denial of any reclassification
pursuant to this Chapter shall be deemed a legislative act re-
viewable exclusively pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. "
SECTION 2 .
That Section 18. 01 .140 of Chapter 18 .01 of Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended by the
amendment of the definitions of the terms "Mobilehome" and "Mobilehome
Park" as specified therein to read as follows :
" 'Mobilehome' A 'mobilehome ' is a structure designed
for human habitation and for being moved on a street or high-
way under permit pursuant to Section 35790 of the Vehicle
Code or any successor provision thereto. Mobilehome does not
include a recreational vehicle as defined in Section 18. 01 .190
of the Anaheim Municipal Code or a commercial coach as defined
in Section 18218 of the Health and Safety Code or any successor
provision thereto. "
" 'Mobilehome Park' A ' mobilehome par;c' is an area of land
where two or more mobilehome sites are rented, or held out for
rent, to accommodate mobile-homes used for human habitation . "
SECTION 3 .
That Section 18. 01 .190 of Chapter 18 .01 of Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended by the
amendment of the definition of "Recreational Vehicle" as specified
therein and the addition of the definition of "Recreational Vehicle
Park" thereto, to read as follows :
Recreational Vehicle' A ' recreational vehicle' shall
mean as defined in Section 799 . 24 of the Civil CoUe of the
State of California or any successor provision thereto. "
" ' Recreational Vehicle Park' A ' recreational vehicle park '
shalt mean as defined in Section 799 .25 of the Civil Code of the
State of California of any successor provision thereto. "
SECTION 4.
That Section 18. 02 .051 of Chapter 18. 02 of Title 18 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to
read as follows :
"SECTION 18. 02 .051 140BILEHOME PARI{ CONVERSIONS.
. 010 Definitions . For purposes of
this Section, the following words, terms and phrases sTiall
have the meanings ascribed herein:
. 0101 'Average comparable mobilehome
park' shall mean the median average of all other mobilehome
parks within a 125 mile radius of the mobilehome park being
converted which are reasonably similar to the mobilehome park
being converted. Such determination of similarity shall be
based upon the condition, quality, amenities and other rele-
vant factors of the mobilehome parks being compared. Such
determination shall not, however, be based upon the age or
location of the mobilehome parks being compared.
.0102 ' City hearing body' shall mean
the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim for any change
of use for which a zone reclassification, conditional use
permit, zone variance or subdivision map is required. The
decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal
to or review by the City Council within the time and manner
otherwise set forth in Chapter 18 . 03 of this Code. Upon any
such appeal or review, the City Council shall thereafter be
deemed the city hearing body for purposes of this Section.
The City Council shall be deemed the city hearing body for
any other proposed change of use. The decision of the City
Council shall be final and conclusive.
.0103 'Mobilehome owner' shall mean
a collective unit composed of the registered owner or regis-
tered owners of an individual mobilehome regardless of the
number of such owners or the form of such ownership. Any notice
to mobilehome owners or residents required hereunder need not
be given to more than one such owner or resident of each mobile-
home. Any relocation benefits payable to a mobilehome owner
hereunder shall be deemed payable jointly and collectively to
the owners on a per mobilehome basis regardless of the number
of owners of each mobilehome .
.020 Conversion Impact Report.
Prior to the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use,
except pursuant to Chapter_ 18.92 hereof, the person or entity
proposing such change in use shall file fifteen ( 15 ) copies of
a comprehensive conversion impact report with the City on the
impact of the proposed conversion upon the mobilehome owners
within said mobilehome park which report shall contain, but
need not be limited to, the following information: the age of
the mobilehome park; the number of mobilehomes existing in
the park; the age of the mobilehomes existing in the park; a
detailed description of the park as to landscaping and individual
site development ; the length of time that each resident has
vj -8-
lived in the park; an analisis of the availability of
adequate replacement space in comparable mobilehome parks
within a 125 mile radius or the the mobilehome park to be
converted; an estimate as to the costs to relocate each
mobilehome to an average comparable mobilehome park within
a 125 mile radius of the mobilehome park to be converted
(cost to relocate means disassembly and reassembly of the
mobilehome including installation of awnings, skirtings,
porches, storage structures and other amenities required by
the average comparable park to which the mobilehome could be
relocated, and transportation costs as herein provided) ; the
owner' s proposal as to relocation benefits, and a general state-
ment as to the condition of the existing park.
.030 Availability of Conversion
Impact Report . The person or entity proposing such change in
use shall make available a copy of the conversion impact report
to owners of all mobilehomes within the mobilehome park at
least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on the report by
the city hearing body. Such mobilehome owners shall be noti-
fied as to the availability of said report by the person or
entity proposing the change in use and also as to the place and
time of the hearing. The person or entity proposing such
change may charge such persons a reasonable duplication fee for
copies of the report.
.040 Relocation Benefits. Prior to
approval of such change of use, the city hearing body shall
conduct a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 18.03 of this Code at wni ch
public hearing the city hearing body shall review such conver-
sion impact report and hear testimony and evidence relating
thereto. The city hearing body shall require as a condition of
approval of any such change of use that the person or entity
proposing said change of use take reasonable measures to miti-
gate any identifiable adverse impacts of the change of use on
the ability or displaced mobilehome owners to find adequate
replacement space in another mobilehome park. Said mitigation
measures shall be limited to the payment of relocation benefits
to the displaced mobilehome owner by the person or entity pro-
posing such change of use consisting of the following amounts :
. 0401 The estimated cost of disassembly
and reassembly of the displaced mobilehome including existing
awnings, skirtings, porches and storage structures.
. 0402 The estimated cost of transporta-
tion of the displaced mobilehome to an average comparable
mobilehome park.
. 0403 An amount equal to 80" of the
estimated additional cost the displaced mobilehome owner will
be required to spend to meet the average comparable mobilehome
park' s lawful requirements For improvements to the mobilehome
space and the mobilehome which is being relocated ( collectively
referred to herein as ' improvement costs ' ) ; provided, however,
that up to ten percent of the mobilehome owners shall be eligi-
ble to receive 1000 of said estimated improvement coats ;used
Z�
upon the mobilehome owner' s iinancial need or other special
circunistan es as identified in the conversion impact report
or approveU by the city hearing body. The person or entity
proposing the change of use shall establish the improvement
costs of the average comparable mobilehome parit by surveying
a representative number of comparable mobilehome parks where
available replacement spaces can be identified within a 125
mile radius from the mobilehome park to be converted. These
improvement costs shall be categorized as to their_ type,
including requirements for skirting, awnings, landscaping and
other applicable categories . The estimated additional cost
for each displaced mobilehome owner to conform to each of these
categories shall also be established . These costs will be
established on the basis that the work is to be done by a pro-
fessional contractor hired by the mobilehome owner, rather than
the mobilehome owner performing the work himself. The informa-
tion specified in this subsection shall be included in the con-
version impact report and shall be subject to review and approval
by the city hearing body.
.0404 Nothing contained herein shall be
deemed to preclude any mobilehome owner and mobilehome park
owner frora mutually agreeing upon different benefits in lieu
of the benefits otherwise required to be paid to such mobile-
home owner by this section .
. 050 Comparable Relocation Unavailable.
In the event the city hearing body at its sole discretion finds
based upon the conversion impact report and information presented
at the public hearing, that t'nere are no reasonably comparable
mobilehome park within a radius of 125 miles from the mobile-
home park to be converted to which a displaced mobilehome could
be relocated due to the age, size or condition of the displaced
mobilehome or for other reasons, the displaced mobilehome owner
shall be entitled to relocation benefits equal to those payable
herein to owners of mobilehomes capable of such relocation .
. 060 Relocation to a Specific Park Not
Required. In no instance shall any mobilehome owner be required
to relocate to a specific park or location as a condition of
payment of said relocation benefits; provided, however, Cn�O_ the
benefits payable to any mobilehome owner shall be those specifie':
herein regardless of the location or park to which the mobile-
home is actually removed or the availability of any such reloca-
tion space.
. 070 No Permit Except upon Compliance
with Section. No permit or other entitlement shall be issued
by the City authorizing the conversion of a mobilehome park to
another use, and no person or entity shall convert a mobilehome
park to another use, except following compliance with the pro-
visions of this Section.
0
tit
�\ _10-
. 080 notice of Effect of this Section.
All mobilehome park owners in the City of Anaheim shall notify
in writing all existing and future mobilehome owners and park
residents if different From such mobilehome owners (hereinafter
referred to collectively as 'households ' ) of the mobilehome
park' s rights and obligations under this Section . Delivery of
a copy of this Chapter shall be deened sufficient notification
in lieu of any other notice required pursuant hereto. Said
notice may include, at the owner' s option, additional informa-
tion relating to the procedures and effects of a change of use.
Existing households shall be
notified within 90 days of the effective date of this Section.
New households shall be notified on or before the date of com-
mencement of occupancy. If the new household commences occu-
pancy without first notifying the mobilehome park owner and
without signing the mobilehome park' s rental documents, then
notice may be given to such household within 90 days of the
date of execution and delivery to the mobilehome park of such
rental documents .
Notice may be given by first
class mail or in the manner proscribed by Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1162 or any other lawful means reasonably
designed to insure that the household has received such notice. "
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that
should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance,
hereby adopted, be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the
intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions
of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such
portion as may be declared invalid.
SECTIO9 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal
hereby of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner
affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violatti_ons
were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed
as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions appli-
cable to any violation thereof_ . The provisions of this ordinance,
insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions
previously adopted by the City relating to t'ne same subject matter,
shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new
enactments .
SECTION 7 .
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ord-
nance and shall cause the same to be printed once within fifteen ( 15 )
days after its adoption int he anaheiri Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published and circulated in said City,
and thirty (30) days from and after its final passage, it shall take
effect and be in full force.
Z�
C/
ti
THE VORFGOLNG ORDINANCE' is approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Anaheim this day of
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
JLW :fm
-12-
F }
�® CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 82-39
COUNCIL-ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Honorable Mayor & City From Charles W. Thomp
Council City Administrator r
Subject Date
MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION September 21, 1982
ORDINANCE STUDY SESSION ON
SEPTEMBER 27 , 1982
On June 1, 1962, after fz-,7e months of work with staff, the
Planning Commission approved Code Amendment No. 81-18, the draft
mobile home park conversion ordinance, for recommendation to the
City Council. On June 21, 1982 the City Council opened and
closed the public hearing on the code amendment. Because of
diverse public response at the public hearing and because of the
complexity of the issue, staff was directed to set a study session
of the City Council for August 9, 1982 . "_'hat date was later
adjusted to September 27 , 1982.
Throughout the course of staff' s work on the ordinance, a number
of issues were considered by the Planning Commission. Among the
issues considered were: Could "shelter parks" be developed; could
vacant land be rezoned MH in order to encourage new park development-
what should activate the conversion ordinance - closure of a park
or an application for a zone change; and should the ordinance
estahlish uniform assistance standards for all parks or should it
be left open-ended in order to allow for the amount and type of
assistance provided for each park to be determined on a case-by-case
basis. In regard to formulas for buy-out of unrelocatable units,
the following alternatives were considered: Full market value
in-nark; a percentage of full market value in-park; Kelly Blue Book
value; original purchase price; and use of a sliding scale. Staff_
will review each of these issues with the City Council at the
study session. Staff will also review the overlay zone which the
Dlanning Commission has recommended. The City Council is requested
to bring their green Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance
Background Information booklets .
As additional background information, the following items are
attached:
1. Information on criteria for acceptance of used mobile homes
in Villa Corona mobile home park in Corona.
2. Frequency summary sheet for the City' s mobile home park survey.
3. Reprint of the June 21, 1982 RCA for Code Amendment No. 81-18 :
Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance.
4 . Table summarizing estimated costs for alternative buy-out formulas.
5. Most recent City of Anaheim Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance.
CWT:JTATP:HS :bas `
' Attachment 1
CONTINENTAL MOBILE HOUSING, INC.
INTERIM ARCHITECTURAL GUIMLINES FOR VILLA CORONA
The following item numbers refer and cr--respond to those
numbers in Villa Corona's present "Architectural Specifi-
cation" document.
1. All coaches must be 1978 or newer.
2. Mobile Home Sizes:
b. Minimum size horse shall be 24 'x52 '
3. 'Siding: -
a. Acceptable siding shall be hardboard (such as
Masonite) in either vertical groove pattern, horizontal
lap or simulated stucco. Simulated wood aluminum horizontal
lap siding, (such as Alcan) is acceptable, as is wood
shingles. No vertical metal siding.
4. Roof ing:
2. (1) Composition shingles must be earthtone
(3) Tile roofs may be in red, brown, or slate tones.
5 Awnings:
as All aluminum awning tops must be earthtone to blend
with the house roof. ► /
b. Minimum size carport awning is 10 'x4 0 ' .0 �.� r - c •_:,�
C. On two-section homes, an Wx40`minimum awning zs required
on the patio side. On three sect;-on ( "tag") homes, an
awning shall cover the entire offset area (or areas) . All
awning posts shall be of good q_ cCC _i.ty 4x4
6. Rain Gutters: t
ae Downspouts are not required to be extended to the street;
these extensions usually get crushed and cause more problems
than they solve. The downspouts may empty onto a concrete
slab or splashblock, or may dram i.nto a surface drain or a
subsurface pipe. The main thing is that all drainage be
conducted to the street while avoiding erosion.
7. Skirting:
Y1a:,u.._._1 3 .Lrti_ng is req-L,.r_ed, as Mi-nimum, on the full width
of the front wall, as well as down the patio side to the front
porch -nd 3 ' around the corner of the carport side.
Corner lots also require full masonry skirting on the side
facing the street and 3 ' around the corner of the back wall.
B. Facias & Flashing:
a. All awning facias shall match the home facia im color
and material. Facias must be of wood or hardboard and
continue al, around the }come and awnings.
10. Concrete Work:
There are no existing carport slabs; These are the responsibility
of the tenant, so should be ijicluded in the total unit sales
price. Minimum size slab is 10 'x45 ' . It is suggested that the
area on the patio side not covered by a porch, be covered by
concrete. This is not mandatory, but can eliminate future
drainage and maintenance problems for the tenant.
11. Porches & Steeps :
Msnimum front porch size shall be 51x6 e , plus steps, and can
be of wood or masonry.
12. Storage Sheds
Must have same siding and roofing as the home and must be -
placed on or 7ehind the driveway slab. It' s not necessary
to place the shed under the carport awning, but it must be
placed on concrete. i
I
A new, comprehensive document i )clud.ing rules & regulations
and architectural spec-fzcations is currently being prepared.
If there are any questions in the meantime, the resident
managers, George & Lu Kelce, will be glad to help, If they
don't have the answer, they will obtain the information from
this office and will be able to get right back to you. '
I
r
I
IP
I
I
Ii
1
I
V
t�
n re r. n u ro • r e ) ) � \
t WILS
at as rr0 rtr r»
a. Is \
u
t 1i ro! rW ra
•e s. 'ao
ry �
• 6 00 rpr r0Is rt] r) r
31
fIs •) 0 01 < ri It•
)0 0 r a
tr „ rat JL
fa r00 ro• rN rt! r!! Q'
)r a sr =
ft •e fr uo e a ra• �.
r )e a •v It
r! z
zVS, a
It
1• 1e 0) f1 —it rr) rl0 rY W `�a
f3 )• It rr ie MT WATCRYAN raa
g ea
1• e• Is
S) )0 r! ri rai r)S
f0
)• Its o0
er )S )r n re F-41 r•e r)r
et •• rr1 nt ur •�
)• )r )t r• r) 1a9 r50
HT SALD7 4T BAIDT O
fe
ra) re• ref ue rai rsv rev no m nt rn i � n1 r+e m ns ne reo rar rst Its. w re)
e•
)o
.91MPAU AVENVC_
sc•A r'W
VILLA CORONA ADULT MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY
1550 Rimpau,Corona,CA 91720
(714)734-1180
Note :
rosshatched area indicates spaces currently elegible to receive
used mobile homes .
r WS2 D
I
Attachment 2
FREQUENCY SUMMARY SHEET
HUNTINGTON BEACH MOBILE HOME PARK SURVEY
I. The size of the unit in which you now reside is:
a. 20.2 Single-wide
b. 77.3 * Double-wide
C. 2.5 Triple-wide
2. The age of the unit in which you now reside is:
a. 5.9 0-4 years old
b. 25.7 5-9 years old
C. 4700 * 10-14 years old
d. 17.2 _ 15-19 years old
e. 4.4 20 years or older
3. How long has your household lived in the park in which you now reside?
r
G. 26.8 0-4 years
b. 34.6 * 5-9 years
C. 29.8 10-14 years
d. 7.4 15-19 years
e. 1,4 20 years or longer
4. The unit in which you now reside was:
G. 65.1 * Purchased in the park
b. 34.9 Moved to the park
5. Do you own in full the unit in which you now reside?
G. 80.2 * Yes
b. 19.8 No
6. If you do not own the unit in full, are you:
a. 94.9 * Making payments on the unit?
b. 5.1 Renting the unit?
7. If you do own the unit in full or are making payments on the unit, do you reside in it
at I east 180 days a year?
a. 98.7 * Yes
b. 1.2 No
8. The number of occupants in your household total:
a• 39.2 One
b. 55,2 Two
C. 5.5 Three or more
7833E/115B/I&2 CONTINUE ON BACK PAGE
9. The age of the occupants in your household are:
Occupant I Occupant 2 Occupant 3 Age Total
a• 6.8 7.6 - 54.6 * 44 years or less 8.9
b. 2.0 3.4 2.5 45-49 years 2.5
C. 5.1 6.8 3.4 50-54 years 5.7
d. 9.3 11.1 7.6 55-59 years 9.9
e. 13.4 17.8 3.4 60-64 years 14.7
f. 21.7 20.9 5.0 65-69 years 20.8
9• 41.6 * 32.4 * 23.5 70 years or more 37.5
10. Do any members of your household have a disability? If so, which is the most
serious?
Occupant I Occupant 2 Occupant 3 Disability
a• 3.2 1.2 .4 Blind or visually impaired
b. .9 .7 .1 Confined to a wheelchair
C. .2 _ .1 .3 Mentally disabled
d. 13.1 6.7 .5 Other
e. 82.6 * 91.3 98.7 No serious disability
11. Which category best describes your household's gross income for 1981?
a. 7.6 $ 0 - $ 4,999
b. 17.2 $ 5,000 - $ 7,999
C. 21.2 * $ 8,000 - $ 1 1,999
d. 16.E $12,000 - $14,999
e. 12.4 $ 15,000 - $19,999
f. 9.6 $20,000 - $24,999
9• 8.8 $25,000 - $34,000
h. -F.7 $35,000 - $49,000
i. �-.-o $50,000 or above
12. Which category best describes your household's current monthly rent?
a. .6 $ 0 - $ 124
b. 10.2 $125 - $149
C. 15d. 17.9 * $200 - $249
e. 14.0 $250 - $299
f. 5.7 $300 or more
7833E/1 15B/1&2 f-
ACTION Attachment 3
REQUES ® FOR CIT' 0�/ COUNCL
Date June 21 , 1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator
James W. Palin, Director of Development ServicesJ
Prepared by. O
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-1 :
MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: /
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
r As per City Council direction, an ordinance establishing regulations
for the change of use of mobile home parks has been prepared and
approved by the Planning Commission. This ordinance establishes
a mobile home park overlay zone, est ishes tenant notification
requirements, and sets guidelines for approval of a tenant assistance
plan based on original purchase price prior to the granting of a zone
change for removal of the overlay zone or MH zone,. p')
RECOMMENDATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt Code Amendment No. 81-18 and approve
Negative Declaration No. 82-1.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council direct
staff to explore the use of a sliding scale concept for the buy-out
of the mobile homes by the applicant in the tenant assistance plan
section of the ordinance. Staff therefore recommends that the
public hearing be continued to July 6 , 1982 .
ANALYSIS :
On December 7 , 1981, the City Council directed staff to expedite
preparation of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. Draft versions
of the ordinance were then presented to the Council at the meetings of
December 21, 1981 and January 21, 1982 . At the January 21 meeting,
the Council directed staff to send the ordinance to the Planning Com-
mission for public hearing on February 17 , 1982 . Since the original
public hearing in February, there have been four additional public
hearings and one study session to consider various draft ordinances .
In that time, much public testimony has been received from park
residents, park managers, park owners, and attorneys representing various
parties . As a result of that testimony, as well as Commission discussion,
the ordinance has undergone substantial revision since last presented
to the City Council. The attached ordinance represents the final
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
PIO 4/81
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
June 21 , 1982
Page 2
Essentially the ordinance comprises a combination of items from the
City' s original draft ordinance and an ordinance which was adopted
by the City of Newport Beach in 1981. The ordinance first establishes
a mobile home park overlay zone (MHP) . The Planning Commission felt
that the overlay zone would be appropriate because there are seven
parks in the City which do not presently have permanent mobile home
(MH) zoning. The overlay zone would be a temporary designation which
could be applied only to those parks which do not have MH zoning.
Once applied through a normal zone change process, the overlay zone
would supersede whatever the underlying zoning was. In order to change
the use of the park in accordance with the underlying zoning, the
overlay would first have to be removed in order to reach the underlying
zone. The proposed ordinance then establishes findings which must be
made by the City Council before the MHP overlay zone may be removed.
The ordinance would also require that the same findings be made before
those parks which currently have MH zoning could be rezoned to allow
other uses . The overlay zone and requirement for findings were taken
from the Newport Beach ordinance.
In addition, the findings which must be made by the City Council include
two important items which were taken from earlier drafts of the City ' s
ordinance. Finding (d) requires that an "impact of conversion report"
be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission.
The report must address the age and size of units being displaced,
demographic information on the park residents, and replacement space
availability within 100 miles of the City.
Finding (e) is the most significant finding which must be made. It
requires that a "tenant assistance plan" be submitted by the applicant
and approved by the Planning Commission. Minimum standards for an
acceptable assistance plan are established by the ordinance to require
that all coaches for which a replacement space within 100 miles can
be found must be relocated to that space at the expense of the appli-
cant. All units which cannot be relocated within 100 miles must be
purchased by the applicant at the tenant' s original purchase price as
verified by the tenant through the existence of sales receipts .
Because the Planning Commission realized that purchase of units could
result in an overall buy-out price which was so high that it could be
considered a taking under the U.S . Constitution, a provision limiting
total buy-out cost was added. The Commission directed staff to include
the provision that the combined cost of relocation and purchase of units
may not exceed one-third of the appraised land value of the mobile home
park minus improvements. If the estimated cost of the assistance plan
does exceed one-third the value of the land, each eligible tenant will
receive a proportionately reduced amount of assistance.
Using the proposed assistance formula, the following example of assist-
ance for a typical park has been prepared:
i
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
June 21, 1982
Page 3
Mobile Home Park Size Land Value
19 Acres $ 300, 000 per acre
10 Units per acre 5 , 700, 000 Total
190 Units 1, 900, 000 One-third value
Case by Case Assistance Schedule Estimate
Age
Case of Unit # Units Assistance Proposed Total
r
1 0 - 4 11 11 relocate @ $ 3, 000/Unit = 33 , 000. 00
2 5 - 9 49 25 relocate @ 3 , 000/Unit = 75, 000. 00
3 24 bought out @ 25, 000/Unit = 600, 000 . 00
4 10 - 14 89 89 bought out @ 10, 000/Unit = 890, 000. 00
5 15 - 19 33 33 bought out @ 8, 000/Unit - 264 , 000 . 00
6 20+ 8 8 bought out @ 6, 000/Unit = 48 , 000 . 00
190 $1, 910, 000 . 00*
* Combined estimated cost of relocation and buy-ouIt exceeds one-third
of the land value ($1 , 900, 000) by $10, 000; therefore, assistance to each
tenant is reduced proportionately as follows :
Case
1 11 receive $2 , 985 relocation expense = 32 , 835. 00
2 25 receive 2, 985 relocation expense = 74 , 625. 00
3 24 receive 24 , 869 buy-out value = 596, 856. 00
4 89 receive 9, 949 buy-out value = 885, 372 . 00
5 33 receive 7 , 958 buy-out value = 262 , 614 . 00
6 8 receive 5, 969 buy-out value = 47 , 752 . 00
Total : $1, 900, 054 . 00
Zn the above example, it is assumed that most of the newer units
can relocate and all of the older units must be purchased. Assuming
an appraised land value of $300, 000 per acre, the estimated cost of
the assistance plan would exceed one-third of the land value by
$10, 000. Therefore, assistance to each tenant was reduced propor-
.1
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
Junel, 1982
Page 4
tionately. It is staff ' s opinion that this example constitutes
typical values which may result when a tenant assistance plan is pre-
pared for an average mobile home park in the City. This example
indicates that at this point in time, limiting the cost of assist-
ance to one-third the value of the land may not substantially reduce
the amount of assistance given. The existence of an ordinance which
provides for return of original purchase price in the event of park
conversion, however, may result in mobile home resale prises continuing
to escalate due to the perceived elimination of investment risk. As
coach values increase over time through such resales , the one-third
land value limit may significantly reduce the amount of assistance
given. It is also likely that disparity in General Plan designations
and park locations would result in some parks being appraised at much
lower values than others. Such disparity could result in inequities
in assistance to coach owners from park to park and inequities in
financial responsibilities of the individual park owners .
It should also be noted that the proposed ordinance would establish
a mobile home park overlay zone (MHP) even though the City Council
has already directed staff to rezone all nonconforming parks in
the City to MH. When the Planning Commission and the City Council
review Staff ' s, analysis of the proposed zone changes, however, they
may wish to reconsider placement of permanent zoning on some non-
conforming parks . In anticipation of that occurrence, the Planning
Commission felt that establishing overlay zoning in the ordinance
would provide an acceptable alternative.
One of staff ' s concerns with the ordinance as currently proposed is
that it does not address situations in which a mobile home park
converts to an own-your-own lot pro3ect. In such cases, no zone
change would be needed and, therefore, the ordinance could not be
activated. It is likely that any change to individual space owner-
ship would force lower income tenants out of the park without any
assistance being provided. To resolve this problem, wording could
be added to make the ordinance apply as well to any applications for
subdivision of a mobile home park which would continue to operate
under MH or MHP zoning.
Apart from the Planning Commission' s recommendation, staff has recom-
mended that a sliding scale concept be used in the tenant assistance
plan section rather than buy-out at original tenant purchase price.
A sliding scale would be based on purchase of unrelocatable coaches
at varying percentages of full market value. Percentage of market
value to be paid would depend upon the amount of notification given
to the tenant by the applicant. The longer the notice given, the
smaller would be the percentage of market value required to be paid
by the applicant. The following table provides an example of a sliding
scale buy-out schedule assuming a $50, 000 mobile home and a notifica-
tion period ranging between one year and five years :
j �/t�
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
June 21, 1982
Page 5
Amount of Percentage of Market Amount Received
Notice Given Value Paid By Tenant
1 Year 900 $ 45, 000 . 00
2 Years 800 40, 000 . 00
3 Years 65 0 32 , 500 . 00
4 Years 45 0 - f " �,r , ., , 22, 500 . 00
5 Years 25% 12, 500 . 00
Staff feels that use of the sliding scale concept would provide both
the applicant and the tenants with more definitive relocation assist-
ance criteria and would be substantially easier to administer than
buy-out at original purchase price. A sliding scale would also pro-
vide for more uniform and equitable treatment of the tenants . Addi-
tionally, because a sliding scale would encourage a longer notification
period, the tenants would generally be provided with more time to
arrange for a change in living accommodations . In addition to the
payment required on the sliding scale concept, certain relocation
assistance also could be required. For example, the identification of
potential relocation sites within a prescribed distance, information
regarding each location and other necessary information to assist the
mobile home owner in relocation. A flat amount for relocation costs
could also be imposed. Staff discussed these benefits of a sliding
scale with the Planning Commission at two public hearings . The Com-
mission' s consideration of the concept is documented in the minutes
contained in Exhibit 27 and 32 in the attached background information
booklet.
The background information booklet has been prepared to provide Council
with a detailed background of the mobile home ordinance. The booklet
is an indexed documentation of all staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes, interdepartment communications, and miscellaneous correspon-
dence regarding development of the conversion ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not adopt Code Amendment No. 81-18 and do not direct staff to ex-
plore the use of a sliding scale . This would prevent the City from
regulating the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses .
FUNDING SOURCE:
None required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Code Amendment No. 81-18
2 . Negative Declaration No . 82-1
3 . Background Information Booklet
CWT:JWP:HS:df
O,
V �-
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDINQ THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE
BY ADDING THERETO NEW ARTICLE 927 ENTITLED,
"MOBILEHOME OVERLAY ZONES , REMOVAL OF OVERLAY
ZONES AND REZONING OF MH ZONES"
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
Overlay Zones , Removal of Overlay Zones and Rezoning of MH Zones"
to read as follows •
9270. APPLICATIO14 OF ARTICLE. ( a) The mobilehome park resi-
dential zone is hereby established as an overlay zone to permit the
application of mobilehome zone to parcels of land developed with
mobilehome parks and zoned with a primary underlying zoning desig-
nation. The purpose of the mobilehome park zone is to designate
existing mobilehome parks in appropriate locations for mobilehome
hark uses in order that these uses may be encouraged, maintained,
and protected . The regulations of this district are designated to
achieve an environment of stable , desirable residential character
and preserve areas or communities developed with mobilehome resi-
dential uses. Wherever reference is made in this section or on
any districting maps to MHP, it shall mean mobilehome park overlay
zone.
( b) All findinrs required for removal of the M11P overlay
zone shall also be applied to requests for rezoning existing MH
districts to different zoning districts.
9270. 1 . DEFINITIONS. Words and phrases whenever used in
this article shalt be construed as defined herein runless 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 in-
terest or fee ownership in the operation of a mobilehore park.
( b) Eligible Tenant. "Eligible tenant" shall mean any
/ahb ,
6/4/82 1.
( 5 ) ./2-
mobilehome owner residing in a mobilehome park more than 270 days
a year. Such tenants shall be entitled to relocation assistance
as required by this article. Nonowner mobilehome tenants shall
not be entitled to any form of relocation assistance.
( c) fobilehome. "Pobilehome" 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 .
( d) mobilehome Park. "Mobilehome park" is any area of land
used primarily for the placing, parking or storing of two or more
mobilehoines for housekeeping, sleeping or living; quarters .
( e) P obilehome Space . "Pobilehome space" is any area,
tract of land , site , lot , pad or portion of a mobilehorne park
designated or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome.
( f) Original Tenant Purchase Price. "Original tenant pur-
chase price" shall mean the price which the tenant originally
paid for the mobilehome and any attached optional equipment and/or
tag-a-longs and expando rooms. In determining the price , the
regulations for establishing the cost basis , as found in the
United States Code Title 26 , Internal Revenue Code , shall be used.
Such purchase price shall be verified by the tenant through the
existence of sales receipts indicating date of purchase , monetary
amount of purchase , the identification or model numbers of all
items purchased and the party from whom the items were purchased.
9720. 3 . CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF ZONE. The City Council,
in making its determination whether to apply the MTHP zone to any
particular property, shall consider the following factors as to
whether such zone is appropriate :
( a) Existing zoning and general plan designations.
(b) The age and condition of the mobilehome park.
( c) The relationship of the mobilehome park to surrounding
land uses.
( d) Vehicle access to the area under consideration.
( e) Site area.
( f) Site configuration.
9720. 5 . USES PERMITTED. The following uses shall be per-
2.
V,
mitted in an MIIP district -
( a) Iobilehome parks as regulated by the State of California.
( b) Accessory uses and structures incidental to the opera-
tion of mobilehome parks such as recreation facilities and/or
community centers of a noncommercial nature , either public or
private storage facilities for the use of the mobilehome park
residents and any other uses or structures that are incidental to
the operation of a mobilehome park.
( c) Whenever property is zoned MHP, any use permitted by
the underlying zoning of such property shall not be permitted.
9270. 5• REMOVAL OF THE MOBILEHOf2E- PARK OVERLAY ZONE AND MH
ZONE. The City Council shall not approve a zone change for any
parcel when such change would have the effect of removing the MIJP
or MH designation from that property, unless the following findings
have been made:
( a) That the proposed zoning is consistent with the general
Plan of the City of Huntington Beach and all elements thereof .
( b) That the property which is the subject of the zone change
would be more appropriately developed in accordance with uses per-
mitted by the underlying zoning, or proposed zoning.
( c) That a notice of intent to change the use of a mobilehome
park and relocate tenants was delivered to each tenant and to the
Department of Development Services at least 365 days prior to the
proposed date for the change of use.
(d) That an "impact of conversion report" has been sub-
mitted by the applicant and found to be adequate by the Planning
Commission at a public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
take the following items into consideration when addressing the
adequacy of the report:
( i) The date of manufacture and size of each mobile-
home in the park.
( ii) Makeup of existing tenant households , including
family size , household income, length of residence, age of
tenants, owner or renter, and primary or seasonal resident.
( iii) Replacement space availability, monthly rents
and coach acceptance criteria in mobilehome parks within
one hundred ( 100) miles of the city.
The applicant shall make copies of the report available
to each resident of the mobilehome park at least fifteen ( 15) days
3.
V
prior to the public hearing on the impact report.
( e) That a tenant assistance plan has been submitted by the
applicant and found to be adequate by the Planning Commission at
a public hearing. The following guidelines constitute minimum
standards for an acceptable tenant assistance plan:
( i) All eligible tenants shall be entitled to receive
the cost of relocation. Those costs shall be limited to dis-
connection and breakdown of the mobilehome, transportation
of the mobilehome, all readily movable appurtenances and con-
tents 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 one hundred ( 100)
miles of tie city. If the tenant desires relocation beyond
one hundred ( 100 ) miles , the tenant shall be responsible
for all costs associated with relocation beyond the one
hundred (100) mile limit established by this article.
( ii ) If the tenant cannot be relocated to another park
in accordance with the procedures of 9270 .5 (e) ( i) , the appli-
cant shall purchase the mobilehome and any optional equipment
and/or tad;-a-longs and expando rooms from the tenant at 100
percent of the original tenant purchase price. The tenant
shall provide the applicant with verification of the date of
purchase and the purchase price of the mobilehome and attach-
ments within thirty ( 30 ) days of approval of the impact of
conversion report.
In no way shall 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 con-
version report. If the estimated cost of relocation and purchase
of units does exceed one-third of the appraised value of the land,
each tenant shall receive a reduced amount of money or assistance
on a prorated basis according to the percentage of the total cost
of the assistance plan each tenant would have received.
( f) That the applicant has complied with all applicable city
ordinances and state regulations in effect at the time the tenant
assistance plan was approved .
( g) That the applicant has complied with the conditions of
approval , including the following items -
( i) Ten<gnts will not be forced to relocate prior to
the end of their leases .
( ii ) Tenants have been given the right to terminate
i 4.
07
nn 1`
V�
their leases upon approval of the tenant assistance plan.
.� ( iii) Demolition or construction will not occur until
the tenant assistance plan is approved and the twelve (12)
month notification period has expired.
9270. 7 . ACCEPTANCE OF REPORTS. The final form of the im-
pact of conversion 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 . Each of the tenants of the
mobilehome park shall be given written notification within ten (10 )
days of approval of the tenant assistance plan.
9270. 9 . ACTION BY PLANNINQ COMMISSION. At the conclusion
of its hearing, noticed as provided in this code , the Planning
Commission shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny said
impact of conversion report and tenant assistance plan pursuant
to the provisions of this article , and such decision shall be sup-
ported by a resolution of the Planning Commission, setting forth
its findings.
9270. 11. FEES required. Each impact report and tenant as-
sistance plan submitted shall be accompanied by a fee established
by resolution of the City Council.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days
after adoption.
PASSED A14D ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the
day of 1982.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPRO ' :
City Administrator D frector of Development
Services
5 .
,f
tiil.l.d1.1111tClll,. Y
PACIFIC
HUNTINGTON HUNTINGTON TRAILER
PARK SHORECLIFFS MOBILE ESTATES PARK
Units 304 105 266
Acres 40.71 11.41 18. 65
Density 7.46 9.20 14. 26
Single Wide % 70 28% 52%
Double & Triple % 93% 22% 48%
Location Coastal Non-Coastal Coastal
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
50% 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
Kelley Blue Book
Units & Equipment
Total $4,355,678 $ 8:23, 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
Insurance Replace-
ment Value $15,797 ,520 $2, 756,500 $6,876, 080
Per Acre 388, 050 299,620 368, 691
Per Unit 51,966 215,252 25,850
*Sliding Scale $3,857,456 $ 646,485 $2,139,970
Per Acre 94,662 56, 648 114,722
Per Unit 12,689 6,157 8,045
*Five Year Notice is given requiring purchase of units at 25% of
Full Market Value.
,01
��1
Attachment 5
RECEIVED
R ul At I AUG 3 1982
ORDINANCE; NO . Develal,n;.nt be etct�
AN ORDINANCE OF THL CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
NEW CHAPTER 18 . 92 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18. 01 . 140
AND 18 . 01 . 190 OF CHAPTER 18 . 01 AND SECTION
18. 02 . 051 OF CHAPTER 18 . 02 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO 'ZONING.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
That new Chapter 38 .92 be, and the same is hereby, added
to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to read as follows -
"CHAPTER 18 . 92
MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY (MHP) ZONE
SECTION 18.92. 010 DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE.
. 010 The Mobilehome Park Overlay
(MHP) Zone is intended to provide for and promote the orderly
growth and development of sites for mobilehome parks consis-
tent with the City' s goal of accommodating alternative
housing types and to balance the interests of mobilehome
park owners and mobilehome owners . It is also intended to
mitigate the herein identified relocation problems and
adverse effects of displacement upon the displaced mobilehome
owners when a park is converted to another land use. This
Chapter and the requirements contained herein are not in-
tended to apply to a recreational vehicle or recreational
vehicle park If a mobilehome park contains recreational
vehicles , then this Chapter and the requirements contained
herein shall apply only to mobilehomes located within such
mobilehome park.
. 020 The Mobilehome Park Overlay
(MHP) Zone may be combined with any zone ( 'underlying zone' )
in which residential uses are permitted or within which
mobilehome parks are located. The regulations contained in
this Chapter shall apply in addition to , and where incon-
sistent therewith shall supersede, any regulations of such
zone with which the (111HP) Zone is combined. When the (MHP)
Zone is applied to a parcel with an existing mobilehome
park which was established pursuant to a conditional use
permit, variance or other discretionary zoning approval or
9161�,R permit, any conditions or regulations applied therein shall
A, remain in full force and effect except as to matters
specified in this Chapter.
�'UL 1982
RECEIVED
UIVISiO�V
SECTION 18. 92 .0- DEFINITIONS .
P For purposes of this Chapter,
the following words, terms and phrases shall have the meanings
ascribed herein:
. 010 ' Average comparable mobilehome
park' shall mean the median average of all other mobilehome
parks within a 125 mile radius of the mobilehome park being
converted which are reasonably similar to the mobilehome park
being converted. Such determination of similarity shall be
based upon the condition, quality, amenities and other relevant
factors of the mobilehome parks being compared. Such determina-
tion shall not, however, be based upon the age or location of
the mobilehome parks being compared.
.020 ' City hearing body' shall mean
the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim. The decision
of the Planning Corrunission shall be subject to appeal to or re-
view by the City Council within the time and manner otherwise
set forth in Chapter 18.03 of this Code. Upon any such appeal
or review, the City Council shall thereafter be deemed the city
hearing body for purposes of this Chapter . The decision of the
City Council shall be final and conclusive.
.030 ' Mobilehome owner' shall mean a
collective unit composed of the registered owner or registered
owners of an individual mobilehome regardless of the number of
such owners or the form of such ownership. Any notice to mobile-
home owners or residents required 'hereunder need not be given to
more than one such owner or resident of each mobilehome. Any re-
location benefits payable to a mobilehome owner hereunder shall
be deemed payable jointly and collectively to the owners on a per
mobilehome basis regardless of the number of owners of each .mobile-
home.
SECTION 18. 92 .030 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES.
Subject to the provisions of this
zone, only the following primary uses and structures, either
singly or in combination, shall be permitted in this zone :
.010 Mobilehome parks .
.020 Mobilehome park subdivisions .
SECTION 18. 92 .040 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND
STRUCTURES.
The following uses and structures
are permitted only when they are integrated with and clearly
incidental to a primary use and when the sole purpose is to pro-
vide convenience to residents of the development and their guests
rather than to the general public :
e0� -2-
.010 Rect ea ticin bul to ings, game
courts, swimming pools and other_ similar facilities .
. 020 kecreational vehicle parks con-
stituting an incidental section, area or nurcwer of units
within a mobilehome park.
.030 Parking structures, including
garages and carports .
. 040 Storage sheds or fully enclosed
outdoor storage areas .
.050 Customary home occupations in
compliance with the provisions of Section 18.02 . 052 .040 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code.
. 060 Signs, as permitted by the provi-
sions of the underlying zone and in compliance with Chapter
18.05 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
SECTION 18. 92 .050 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .
Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this Chapter, development of any property within
this zone shall comply with the site development standards of
the underlying zone in which the property is located. The
density of any development, including any new mobilehome park
development, shall not exceecl the maximum density otherwise
permitted by the underlying zone .
SECTION 18. 92 .060 CONVERSION OF EXISTING MOBILEHOME
PARKS AND RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE
(MHP) ZONE.
. 010 Reclassification. Prior to conver-
sion of any property upon which a mobilehome park then exists, or
upon which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the pre-
ceding two years, to another land use not otherwise permitted in
this zone, the (MfIP) Zone shall be required to be removed from
the property by reclassification in accordance with the proce-
dures and conditions set forth in Chapter 18.03 of this Code.
Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to authorize
the termination of any tenancy within an existing mobilehome park
except as otherwise authorized by state law. Any application
for a reclassification pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter
shall be deemed an application for a ' change of use'„4 for purposes
of Section `793'.'56 ( f) of the' Civil Code of the State of California
or any successor provision thereto.
-3- ,7,P
t
�l
. 020 Conversion Impact Report. Prior
to approval of a reclassification from the (MEiP) 'Lone for any
property upon which a mobilehome park then exists, or upon
which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the pre-
ceding two years, the person or entity proposing such reclassi-
fication shall file fifteen (15 ) copies of a comprehensive
conversion impact report with the City on the impact of the
proposed change of use upon the mobilehome owners within said
mobilehome park which report shall contain, but need not be
limited to, the following information: The age of the mobile-
home park; the number of mobilehomes existing in the park; the
age of the mobilehomes existing in the park; a detailed descrip-
tion of the park as to landscaping and individual site develop-
ment; the length of time that each resident has lived in the
park; an Analysis of the availability of adequate replacement
space in comparable mobilehome parks within a 125 mile radius of
the mobilehome park to be converted; an estimate as to the costs
to relocate each mobilehome to an average comparable mobilehome
park (cost to relocate means disassembly and reassembly of the
mobilehome including installation of awnings, skirtings, porches,
storage structures and other amenities required by an average
comparable park to which the mobilehome could be relocated, and
transportation costs as herein provided) ; the owner' s proposal
as to relocation benefits; and a general statement as to the
condition of the existing park.
.030 Availability of Conversion Impact
Report . The person or entity proposing such reclassification
shall make available a copy of the conversion impact report to
owners of all mobilehomes within the mobilehome park at least
fifteen (15 ) days prior to the hearing on the report by the city
hearing body. Such mobilehome owners shall be notified as to
the availability of said report by the person or entity propos-
ing the reclassification and also as to the place and time of
the hearing . The person or entity proposing such change may
charge such persons a reasonable duplication fee for copies of
the report.
.040 Relocation Benefits. Prior to ap-
proval of any reclassification for property upon which a mobile-
home park then exists, or upon which a mobilehome park existed at
any time within the preceding two years, the city hearing body
shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with
the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.03 of this Code at which
public hearing the city hearing body shall review such conversion
impact report and hear testimony and evidence relating thereto.
The city hearing body shall require as a condition of approval
of any such reclassification that the person or entity proposing
said reclassification take reasonable measures to mitigate any
identifiable adverse impacts of the change of use on the ability
of displaced mobilehome owners to find adequate replacement space-
in another mobilehome park. Said mitigation measures shall be
limited to the payment of relocation benefits to the displaced
mobilehome owner by the person or entity proposing such reclassi-
fication consisting of the following amounts :
` -4-
V
. 0401 The estimated cost of disas-
sembly and redssembly of the displaced mobilehome including
existing awnings, skirtings, porches and storage structures.
.0402 `i'he estimated cost of transporta-
tion of the displaced mobilehome to an average comparable
mobilehome park.
.0403 An amount equal to 80% of the
estimated additional cost the displaced mobilehome owner will
be required to spend to meet an average comparable mobilehome
park' s lawful requirements for improvements to the mobilehome
space and the mobilehome which is being relocated ( collectively
referred to herein as ' improvement costs ' ) ; provided, however,
that up to ten percent of the mobilehome owners shall be eligi-
ble to receive 100% of said estimated improvement costs based
upon the mobilehome owner' s financial need or other special
circumstances as identified in the conversion impact report or
approved by the city hearing body . The person or entity pro-
posing the change of use shall establish the improvement costs
of an average comparable mobilehome park by surveying a repre-
sentative number of comparable mobilehome parks where available
replacement spaces can be identified within a 125 mile radius
from the mobilehome park to be converted. These improvement
costs shall be categorized as to their type, including require-
ments for skirting, awnings, landscaping and other applicable
categories. The estimated additional cost for each displaced
mobilehome owner to conform to each of these categories shall
also be established. These costs will be established on the
basis that the work is to be done by a professional contractor
hired by the mobilehome owner, rather than the mobilehome owner
performing the work himself. The information specified in
this subsection shall be included in the conversion impact
report and s'liall be subject to review and approval by the city
hearing body.
.0404 Nothing contained herein shall be
deemed to preclude any mobilehome owner and mobilehome park
owner from mutually agreeing upon different benefits in lieu
of the benefits otherwise required to be paid to each mobile-
home owner by this section .
.050 Comparable Relocation Unavailable.
In the event the city hearing body at its sole discretion finds,
based upon the conversion impact report and information pre-
sented at the public hearing, that there are no reasonably
comparable mobilehome parks within a radius of 125 miles from
the mobilehome park to be converted to which a displaced mobile-
home could be relocated due to the age, size or condition of
the displaced mobilehome or for other reasons, the displaced
mobilehome owner shall be entitled to relocation benefits equal
to those payable herein to owners of mobilehomes capable of such
relocation.
-5- /��
.060 Relocation to a Specific Park Not
Required . In no instance shall any mobilehome owner be required
to relocat� to a specific park or _location as a condition of
payment of said relocation benefits; provided, however, that the
benefits payable to any mobilehome owner shall be those specified
herein regardless of the location or park to which the mobilehome
is actually removed or the availability of any such relocation
space .
. 070 Notice of Effect of this Chapter.
All mobilehome park owners in the City of Anaheim shall notify in
writing all existing and future mobilehome owners and park
residents if different from such mobilehome owners (hereinafter
referred to collectively as 'households' ) of the mobilehome park' s
rights and obligations under this Chapter . Delivery of a copy of
this Chapter shall be deemed sufficient notification in lieu of
any other notice required pursuant hereto. Said notice may in-
clude, at the owner' s option, additional information relating to
the procedures and effects of a change of use.
Existing households shall be noti-
fied within 90 days of the effective date of this Chapter. New
households shall be notified on or before the date of commence-
ment of occupancy. If the new household commences occupancy
without first notifying the mobilehome park owner and without
signing the mobilehome park' s rental documents, then notice may
be given to such household within 90 days of the date of execution
and delivery to the mobilehome park of such rental documents .
Notice may be given by first class
mail or in the manner proscribed by Code of Civil Procedure
Section llo?_ or any other lawful means reasonably designed to
insure that the household has received such notice.
SECTION 18. 92 .070 FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED FOR
RECLASSIFICATION.
Before the city hearing body may
grant any reclassification froin the Mobilehome Park Overlay (MHP)
Zone for property upon which a mobilehome park then exists or
upon which a mobilehome park existed at any time within the pre-
ceding two years, it must make a finding of fact that the evi-
dence presented at the public hearing establishes the existence
of one or more of the following facts:
. 010 That the proposed change of land
use will not have an adverse effect upon the goals and policies
for preservation of housing within the City of Anaheim as set
forth in the Housing Element of the Anaheim General Plan; or
.020 That the proposed change of use is
necessitated by the underlying site conditions which pose a
threat to the life, health, safety or general welfare of the
mobilehome park residents; or
ti� 3
V
.030 That the proposed change of use
is necessitated by circumstances beyond the reasonable control
of the owner of the property; or
. 040 That denial of said reclassifica-
tion would deprive the owner of all reasonable or economically
viable use of the property; or
.050 That said reclassification is re-
quired by public necessity and convenience and the general
welfare.
Notwithstanding the requirements
of this section, the approval or denial of any reclassification
pursuant to this Chapter shall be deemed a legislative act re-
viewable exclusively pursuant to Section 1.085 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. "
SECTION 2.
That Section 1-8.01 .140 of Chapter 18 .01 of Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended by the
amendment of the definitions of the terms "Mobilehome" and "Mobilehome
Park" as specified therein to read as follows :
" 'Mobilehome' A ' mobilehome ' is a structure designed
for human habitation and for being moved on a street or high-
way under permit pursuant to Section 35790 of the Vehicle
Code or any successor provision thereto. Mobilehome does not
include a recreational vehicle as defined in Section 18. 01 .190
of the Anaheim Municipal Code or a coaunercial coach as defined
in Section 18218 of the Health and Safety Code or any successor
provision thereto. "
" 'Mobilehome Park' A 'mobilehome park ' is an area of land
where two or more mobilehome sites are rented, or held out for
rent, to accommodate mobilehomes used for human habitation . "
SECTION 3 .
That Section 13. 01 .190 of Chapter 18 .01 of Title 18 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is 'Hereby, amended by the
amendment of the definition of "Recreational Vehicle" as specified
therein and the addition of the definition of "Recreational Vehicle
Park" thereto, to read as follows :
" ' Recreational Vehicle' A ' recreational vehicle ' shall
mean as defined in Section 799 . 24 of the Civil Code of the
State of California or any successor provision thereto. "
" ' Recreational Vehicle Park' �A ' recreational vehicle park '
shalt mean as defined in Section 799 .25 of the Civil Code of the
State of California of any successor provision thereto. "
-7-
V
SECTION 4.
P
That Section 18. 02 .051 of Chapter 18. 02 of Title 18 of
the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby, amended to
read as follows :
"SECTION 18. 02 .051 NOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSIONS.
. 010 Definitions . For purposes of
this Section, the following words, terms and phrases shall
have the meanings ascribed herein:
. 0101 'Average comparable mobilehome
park' shall mean the median average*of all other mobilehome
parks within a 125 mile radius of the mobilehome park being
converted which are reasonably similar to the mobilehome park
being converted. Such determination of similarity shall be
based upon the condition, quality, amenities and other rele-
vant factors of the mobilehome parks being compared. Such
determination shall not, however, be based upon the age or
location of the mobilehome parks being compared.
.0102 ' City hearing body' shall mean
the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim for any change
of use for which a zone reclassification, conditional use
permit, zone variance or subdivision map is required. The
decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to appeal
to or review by the City Council within the time and manner
otherwise set forth in Chapter 18 .03 of this Code. Upon any
such appeal or review, the City Council shall thereafter be
deemed the city hearing body for purposes of this Section.
The City Council shall be deemed the city hearing body for
any other proposed change of use. The decision of the City
Council shall be final and conclusive.
. 0103 , ' Mobilehome owner' shall mean
a collective unit composed of the registered owner or regis-
tered owners of an individual mobilehome regardless of the
number of such owners or the form of such ownership. Any notice
to mobilehome owners or residents required hereunder need not
be given to more than one such owner or resident of each mobile-
home. Any relocation benefits payable to a mobilehome owner
hereunder shall be deemed payable jointly and collectively to
the owners on a per mobilehome basis regardless of the number
of owners of each mobilehome.
.020 Conversion Impact Report.
Prior to the conversion of a mobilehome park to another use,
except pursuant to Chapter 18.92 hereof, the person or entity
proposing such change in use shall file fifteen (15 ) copies of
a comprehensive conversion impact report with the City on the
impact of the proposed conversion upon the mobilehome owners
within said mobilehome park which report shall contain, but
need not be limited to, the following information: the age of
the mobilehome park; the number of mobilehomes existing in
the park ; the age of the mobilehomes existing in the park; a
detailed description of the park as to landscaping End individual
site development ; the length of time that each resident has
7,S -8-
lived in the pat ,.; an anal]sis of the avail ability of
adequate replacement space in comparable mobilehome parks
within a 125 mile radius of the the mobilehome park to be
converted; an estimate as to the costs to relocate each
mobilehome to an average comparable mobilehome park within
a 125 mile radius of the mobilehome park to be converted
(cost to relocate means disassembly and reassembly of the
mobilehome including installation of awnings, skirtings,
porches, storage structures and other amenities required by
the average comparable park to which the mobilehome could be
relocated, and transportation costs as herein provided) ; the
owner' s proposal as to relocation benefits, and a general state-
ment as to the condition of the existing park.
.030 Availability of Conversion
Impact Report . The person or entity proposing such change in
use shall make available a copy of the conversion impact report
to owners of all mobilehomes within the mobilehome park at
least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on the report by
the city hearing body. Such mobilehome owners shall be noti-
fied as to the availability of said report by the person or
entity proposing the change in use and also as to the place and
time of the hearing. The person or entity proposing such
change may charge such persons a reasonable duplication fee for
copies of the report.
.040 Relocation Benefits. Prior to
approval of such change of use, the city hearing body shall
conduct a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 18.03 of this Code at which
public hearing the city hearing body shall review such conver-
sion impact report and hear testimony and evidence relating
thereto. The city hearing body shall require as a condition of
approval of any such change of use that the person or entity
proposing said change of use take reasonable measures to miti-
gate any identifiable adverse impacts of the change of use on
the ability of displaced mobilehome owners to find adequate
replacement space in another mobilehome park. Said mitigation
measures shall be limited to the payment of relocation benefits
to the displaced mobilehome owner by the person or entity pro-
posing such change of use consisting of the following amounts :
. 0401 The estimated cost of disassembly
and reassembly of the displaced mobilehome including existing
awnings, skirtings, porches and storage structures.
. 0402 The estimated cost of transporta-
tion of the displaced mobilehome to an average comparable
mobilehome park.
. 0403 An amount equal to 80 0 of the
estimated additional cost the displaced mobilehome owner will
be required to spend to meet the average comparable mobilehome
park' s lawful requirements for improvements to the mobilehome
space and the mobilehome which is being relocated ( collectively
referred to herein as ' improvement costs ' ) ; provided, however,
that tip to ten percent of the mooilehome owners shall be eligi-
ble to receive 1000 of said estimated improve,nent costs based
Z�
uppon the mobilehome owner' s iinancial need or other special
circunistan es as identified in the conversion impact report
or approve by the city hearing body. The person or entity
proposing the change of use shall establish the improvement
costs of the average comparable mobilehome park by surveying
a representative number of comparable mobilehome parks where
available replacement spaces can be identified within a 125
mile radius from the mobilehome park to be converted. These
improvement costs shall be categorized as to their_ type,
including requirements for skirting, awnings, landscaping and
other applicable categories. The estimated additional cost
for each displaced mobilehome owner to conform to each of these
categories shall also be established . These costs will be
established on the basis that the work is to be done by a pro-
fessional contractor hired by the mobilehome owner, rather than
the mobilehome owner performing the work himself. The informa-
tion specified in this subsection shall be included in the con-
version impact report and shall be subject to review and approval
by the city hearing body.
.0404 Nothing contained herein shall be
deemed to preclude any mobilehome owner and mobilehome park
owner from mutually agreeing upon different benefits in lieu
of the benefits otherwise required to be paid to such mobile-
home owner by this section .
.050 Comparable Relocation Unavailable .
In the event the city hearing body at its sole discretion finds
based upon the conversion impact report and information presentee:
at the public hearing, that there are no reasonably comparable
mobilehome park within a radius of 125 miles from the mobile-
home park to be converted to which a displaced mobilehome could
be relocated due to the age, size or condition of the displaced
mobilehome or for other reasons, the displaced mobilehome owner
shall be entitled to relocation benefits equal to those payable
herein to owners of mobilehomes capable of such relocation.
.060 Relocation to a Specific Park Not
Required. In no instance shall any mobilehome owner be required
to relocate to a specific park or location as a condition of
payment of said relocation benefits; provided, however, that the
benefits payable to any mobilehome owner shall be those specified
herein regardless of the location or park to which the mobile-
home is actually removed or the availability of any such reloca-
tion space.
.070 No Permit Except upon Compliance
with Section. No permit or other entitlement shall be issued
by the City authorizing the conversion of a mobilehome park to
another use, and no person or entity shall convert a mobilehome
park to another use, except following compliance with the pro-
visions of this Section .
/\ -10-
l�
.080 Notice of Effect of this Section.
All mobilehome park owners in the City of Anaheim shall notify
in writing all existing and future mobilehome owners and park
residents if different from such mobilehome owners (hereinafter
referred to collectively as 'households' ) of the mobilehome
park' s rights and obligations under this Section . Delivery of
a copy of this Chapter shall be deemed sufficient notification
in lieu of any other notice required pursuant hereto. Said
notice may include, at the owner' s option, additional informa-
tion relating to the procedures and effects of a change of use.
Existing households shall be
notified within 90 days of the effective date of this Section.
New households shall be notified on or before the date of com-
mencement of occupancy. If the new household commences occu-
pancy without first notifying the mobilehome park owner and
without signing the mobilehome park' s rental documents, then
notice may be given to such household within 90 days of the
date of execution and delivery to the mobilehome park of such
rental documents .
Notice may be given by first
class mail or in the manner proscribed by Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1162 or any other lawful means reasonably
designed to insure that the household has received such notice. "
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that
should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance,
hereby adopted, be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the
intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions
of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any such
portion as may be declared invalid.
SECTION 6. SAVINGS CLAUSE
Neither the adoption of this ordinance nor the repeal
hereby of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner
affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations
were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed
as a waiver of any license or penalty or the penal provisions appli-
cable to any violation thereof. The provisions of this ordinance,
insofar as they are substantially the same as ordinance provisions
previously adopted by the City relating to the same subject ,natter,
shall be construed as restatements and continuations, and not as new
enactments .
SECTTON 7 .
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordi-
nance and shall cause the same to be printed once within fifteen ( 15 )
days after its adoption int he anaheim Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation, printed, published and circulated in said Cizy,
and thirty (30) days from and after its final passage, it shalt take
effect and be in full. force.
Z�
_11_ "/
THC YORE.GO[NG ORDINANCE is approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Anaheim this day of
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
JLW :fm
9 -12-
Ma Vroegindewey
218:)1-110 Newland Av.
Alicia M. Wentworth
Huntington Beach, Cal.
6/17J82
City Clerk, Huntington Beach
Regarding the Mobile Home Code Proposed Conversion Reimbursement Policy
Dear Ms. Wentworth,
Consider a hypothetical situation: two mobile homes, side by side, the
present market value of each,in place, is equal. Assume the market value to
be thirty—eight thousand dollars, In case A , the mobile home was recently
purchased for thirty—eight thousand dollars, cash. In case B , the mobile
home was purchased seven years ago for eight thousand dollars, cash. In the
event of conversion, according to the proposed code, mobile home owner A
would receive thirty—eight thousand dollars and mobile home owner B would
receive eight thousand dollars, both figures based upon the purchase price
of each mobile home.
I maintain that this action would be unfair and biased in favor of the
mobile home park owners.
Item 1 : If both mobile homes were worth eight thousand dollars seven
years ago, then the owner of mobile home A has taken a profit of thirty
thousand dollars. The proposed code makes it detrimental not to have taken
a profit by eliminating any earned equity, legislating it out of existence,
to the benefit of the park owners.
Item 2 : Mobile home owner A, having just paid thirty—eight thousand
dollars for his mobile home, can receive a full refund and, most likely
find another place or make a signifigant down payment on another property
,with the reimbursement. Owner B receives a refund on depreciated equity and
probably could not make a down payment on anything.
Item 3 : Owner A has not supported the existence of the mobile home park
for any appreciable length of time . Owner B has supported the mobile home
park for a lengthy period,during which time the value of the park property
has increased to such an extent that a highly profitable conversion is
possible. According to the proposed code, in the event of conversion, the
mobile home park owners will be required to fully compensate mobile home
owner A for his equity while mobile home owner B will be denied this equity
return.
Item 4 : Mobile home owners have been compared with appartment renters—
I contend that this is not a valid comparison. Appartment renters do not own
their appartments. Appartment renters do not have to pay for repairs,
maintenance, and improvements on their appartments. Appartment renters do
not have to wait to sell their appartment to an approved buyer before they
can move nor do tuey have to stay and pay rent raises at the whim of the
park owners. The owners of the mobile home park, unlike appartment owners,
never suffer the financial loss of a vacancy as long as there is a mobile
home on the lot.
I ask you to consider that reimbursement for conversion of mobile home
parks be based on FAIR MARIMT VALUE of the mobile home , IN PLACE, IN THE
PAhK, and NOT upon a cost basis or blue book value. Certainly, if the intent
of the law is to protect the mobile home owners, then to deny them their
equity rights is the exact opposite of that intent.
Sincerely,
° Mark Vroegindewey
�j7 '+��► mobile home owner
0�4;�' o 0 r1414
C 4
a
Brian Medina
21002 Coast Hwy. #25
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-4322
July 10, 1982 , E
City of Huntington Beach
Mayor and City Council ✓
2000 Alain Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: Code Amendment No. 81-18
Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
The intent of this letter is not to argue, for or against, the position of
either the mobiZehome park residents or the mobiZehome park owners. I would
however, like to point out that up until now there has been no proposal of
any relocation assistance from the park owners. The Huntington Beach Company
wouZd rather tell the city council what can't be done in regard to the con-
version ordinance, than make a concrete relocation proposal to the residents
of Huntington Shores.
Now the purpose of this letter; an equitable solution. This proposal is
designed specifically to aid the conversion of Huntington Shores MobiZehome
Park and consists of the following:
1. The Huntington Beach Company deveZopes an equal portion of land
(acreage) for 44 mobiZehome spaces within the City of Huntington
Beach. Development would mean gas and electrical hook-ups, sew-
erage, and entry roads.
2. The Huntington Beach Company sells this land to the residents of
Huntington Shores MobiZehome Park at a price which would reflect
the initial value of the raw land.
3. An interest rate be applied to purchase price of land that would
equal the cost for developing the land to be used as a MobiZehome
Park.
4. The Huntington Beach Company assumes the cost of relocating coaches
in the new park.
Additional points to consider:
1. This method of solving the problem of the conversion of Huntington
Shores would keep relocation costs low, as the new location would
be a relatively short distance away from the current location of
the park.
t
IN THE n
Superior Curt
OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In and for the County of Orange
O i
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �.1/� �Y► ((��� OF UP1�t,0OF OF PiJBLICATION
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
State of California )ss CODEEAI OF PUBLIC
81 18
County of Orange ) MOBILE HOME PARK
ON NOTICEES ION ORDINANCE
NANOGWE that a
A P R I L L. ELLIOTT public heanng will be held by the City
Council of the City of Huntington Beach,
That I am and at all times herein mentioned was a citizen of to the Council Beach,atf the Civic Cen-
ter,Huntington Beach,at the hour of 7 30
the United States,over the age of twenty-one years,and that I P M,or as soon thereafter as possible on
am not a party to,nor interested in the above entitled matter, Monday the 21st day of June, 1982,for
I the purpose of considering Code Amend-
that I am the principal clerk of the printer of the ment No 81-18,an ordinance amending
the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code
by establishing a new article for Mobile
HUNTINGTON BEACH I N D. REV. Home Park Conversion Regulations The
ordinance will establish a mobdehome
a newspaper of general circulation,published in the City of park overlay zone,will establish require- {
ments for notification of mobilehome
HUNTINGTON BEACH park residents,and will set Assistance
for
approval of a Tenant Assistance plan
prior to the granting of a zone change for
County of Orange and which newspaper is published for the removal of the overlay zone or zone
Copies of the proposed code
amend
drsemination of local news and intelligence of a general charac- went are on file in the Development Se,
ter, and which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had ices Office
and still has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, Negative Declaration 82 i will
also be considered in connnn ection with
and which newspaper has been established, printed and puh- Code Amendment No 81 18
lashed at regular intervals in the said County of Orange for a All interested persons are invited to 1
period exceeding one year, that the notice, of which the attend said and
opinions for oragainst said CodeAmend `
annexed is a printed copy, has been published in the regular ment81-18
and entire issue of said newspaper,and not in any supplement Further information may be obtained
from the Office of the City Clerk, M t'
thereof,on the following dates,to wit Main Street,Huntington Beach,Cahfor- i
nia,92648 (714)536-5227
DATED June 4,1982
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH
J U N E 10 f 1982 By Alicia M Wentworth
City Clerk
Pub June 10,1982
_
Hunt Beach Ind Rev #10733
U Lt t
I certify(or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego-
ing is true and correct
Dated at GARDEN GROVE
California, is I It hdday of 'J�U N E19 82 f
Signature
1
S t corm No CaF-81380
e
Mayor and City Council -2- JuZy 10, 1982
2. The number of unreZocatable coaches would be minimal. This will
be our park and we can allow our neighbors coaches, regardless of
age, into the park.
3. The park residents will now own their own land. This is the uZ-
timate security for a mobiZehome owner.
The residents of Huntington Shores have been open to suggestions; we have
met with representatives of Huntington ,SeacZiff/Huntington Beach Company;
we have tried to help the city achieve a workable Conversion Ordinance;
we have been acting in good faith throughout our ordeal. The Huntington
SeacZiff/Huntington Beach Company has not offered any specific relocation
assistance or plan. They have told us they intend to &nit for the city to
develop an ordinance.
I hope my ideas can be useful to the council. The final decision will be
yours. I hope that it can be equitable for all parties involved.
Respectf'ully,
�-
Brian Medina
' REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date June 10, 1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator � � r
Y
Prepared b : James W. Palin, Director of Development Services
p �
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 82-1:
MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE
Statement of issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments, ✓
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
As per City Council direction, an ordinance establishing regulations
for the change of use of mobile home parks has been prepared and
approved by the Planning Commission. This ordinance establishes
a mobile home park overlay zone, establishes tenant notification
requirements, and sets guidelines for approval of a tenant assistance
plan based on original purchase price prior to the granting of a zone
change for removal of the overlay zone or MH zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt Code Amendment No. 81-18 and approve
Negative Declaration No. 82-1.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council direct
staff to explore the use of a sliding scale concept for the buy-out
of the mobile homes by the applicant in the tenant assistance plan
section of the ordinance. Staff therefore recommends that the
public hearing be continued to July 6, 1982.
ANALYSIS:
On December 7, 1981, the City Council directed staff to expedite
preparation of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. Draft versions
of the ordinance were then presented to the Council at the meetings of
December 21, 1981 and January 21, 1982. At the January 21 meeting,
the Council directed staff to send the ordinance to the Planning Com-
mission for public hearing on February 17, 1982. Since the original
public hearing in February, there have been four additional public
hearings and one study session to consider various draft ordinances .
In that time, much public testimony has been received from park
residents, park managers, park owners, and attorneys representing various
parties. As a result of that testimony, as well as Commission discussion,
the ordinance has undergone substantial revision since last presented
to the City Council. The attached ordinance represents the final
recommendations of the Planning Commission.
PIO 4/81 �/ !
Y -
G.A. 81-18/ND 82=1
June 10, 1982
Page 2
Essentially the ordinance comprises a combination of items from the
City' s original draft ordinance and an ordinance which was adopted
by the City of Newport Beach in 1981. The ordinance first establishes
a mobile home park overlay zone (MHP) . The Planning Commission felt
that the overlay zone would be appropriate because there are seven
parks in the City which do not presently have permanent mobile home
(MH) zoning. The overlay zone would be a temporary designation which
could be applied only to those parks which do not have MH zoning.
Once applied through a normal zone change process, the overlay zone
would supersede whatever the underlying zoning was. In order to change
the use of the park in accordance with the underlying zoning, the
overlay would first have to be removed in order to reach the underlying
zone. The proposed ordinance. then establishes findings which must be
made by the City Council before the MHP overlay zone may be removed.
The ordinance would also require that the same findings be made before
those parks which currently have MH zoning could be rezoned to allow
other uses . The overlay zone and requirement for findings were taken
from the Newport Beach ordinance.
In addition, the findings which must be made by the City Council include
two important items which were taken from earlier drafts of the City' s
ordinance. Finding (d) requires that an "impact of conversion report"
be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission.
The report must address the age and size of units being displaced,
demographic information on the park residents, and replacement space
availability within 100 miles of the City.
Finding (e) is the most significant finding which must be made. It
recuires that a "tenant assistance plan" be submitted by the applicant
and approved by the Planning Commission. Minimum standards for an
acceptable assistance plan are established by the ordinance to require
that all coaches for which a replacement space within 100 miles can
be found must be relocated to that space at the expense of the appli-
cant. All units which cannot bejrelocated within 100 miles must be
purchased by the applicant at the tenant' s original purchase price as
verified by the tenant through the existence of sales receipts.
Because the Planning Commission realized that purchase of units could
result in an overall buy-out price which was so high that it could be
considered a taking under the U.S. Constitution, a provision limiting
total buy-out cost was added. The Commission directed staff to include
the provision that the combined cost of relocation and purchase of units
may not exceed one-third of the appraised land value of the mobile home
park minus improvements. If thelestimated cost of the assistance plan
does exceed one-third the value of the land, each eligible tenant will
receive a proportionately reduced amount of assistance.
Using the proposed assistance formula, the following example of assist-
ance for a typical park has been prepared:
t
(C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
June 10, 1982
Page 3
Mobile Home Park Size Land Value
19 Acres $ 300, 000 per acre
10 Units per acre 5,700, 000 Total
190 Units 1, 900,000 One-third value
Case by Case Assistance Schedule Estimate
Age
Case of Unit # Units Assistance Proposed Total
1 0 - 4 11 11 relocate @ $ 3, 000/Unit = 33 , 000. 00
2 5 - 9 49 25 relocate @ 3, 000/Unit = 75, 000. 00
3 24 bought out @ 25, 000/Unit = 600, 000. 00
4 10 - 14 89 89 bought out @ 10, 000/Unit = 890, 000. 00
5 15 - 19 33 33 bought out @ 8, 000/Unit - 264, 000. 00
6 20+ 8 8 bought out @ 6, 000/Unit = 48, 000. 00
190 $1, 910, 000. 00*
* Combined estimated cost of relocation and buy-out exceeds one-third
of the land value ($1, 900, 000) by $10, 000; therefore, assistance to each
tenant is reduced proportionately as follows:
Case
1 11 receive $2 , 985 relocation expense = 32, 835. 00
2 25 receive 2, 985 relocation expense = 74, 625. 00
3 24 receive 24, 869 buy-out value = 596, 856. 00
4 89 receive 9, 949 buy-out value = 885, 372 . 00
5 33 receive 7 , 958 buy-out value = 262, 614 . 00
6 8 receive 5, 969 buy-out value = 47, 752. 00
Total: $1, 900, 054 . 00
Tn the above example, it is assumed that most of the newer units
can relocate and all of the older units must be purchased. Assuming
an appraised land value of $300, 000 per acre, the estimated cost of
the assistance plan would exceed one-third of the land value by
$10, 000. Therefore, assistance to each tenant was reduced propor-
C.A. `81-18/ND 82-1
Tune 10, 1982
Page 4
tionately. It is staff' s opinion that this example constitutes
typical values which may result when a tenant assistance plan is pre-
pared for an average mobile home park in the City. This example
indicates that at this point in time, limiting the cost of assist-
ance to one-third the value of the land may not substantially reduce
the amount of assistance given. The existence of an ordinance which
provides for return of original purchase price in the event of park
conversion, however, may result in mobile home resale prices continuing
to escalate due to the perceived elimination of investment risk. As
coach values increase over time through such resales, the one-third
land value limit may significantly reduce the amount of assistance
given. It is also likely that disparity in General Plan designations
and park locations would result in some parks being appraised at much
lower values than others. Such disparity could result in inequities
in assistance to coach owners from park to park and inequities in
financial responsibilities of the individual park owners.
It should also be noted that the proposed ordinance would establish
a mobile home park overlay zone (MHP) even though the City Council
has already directed staff to rezone all nonconforming parks in
the City to MH. When the Planning Commission and the City Council
review Staff ' s analysis of the proposed zone changes, however, they
may wish to reconsider placement of permanent zoning on some non-
conforming parks. In anticipation of that occurrence, the Planning
Commission felt that establishing overlay zoning in the ordinance
would provide an acceptable alternative.
One of staff ' s concerns with the ordinance as currently proposed is
that it does not address situations in which a mobile home park
converts to an own-your-own lot pro3ect. In such cases, no zone
change would be needed and, therefore, the ordinance could not be
activated. It is likely that any change to individual space owner-
ship would force lower income tenants out of the park without any
assistance being provided. To resolve this problem, wording could
be added to make the ordinance apply as well to any applications for
subdivision of a mobile home park which would continue to operate
under MH or MHP zoning.
Apart from the Planning Commission' s recommendation, staff has recom-
mended that a sliding scale concept be used in the tenant assistance
plan section rather than buy-out at original tenant purchase price.
A sliding scale would be based on purchase of unrelocatable coaches
at varying percentages of full market value. Percentage of market
value to be paid would depend upon the amount of notification given
to the tenant by the applicant. The longer the notice given, the
smaller would be the percentage of market value required to be paid
by the applicant. The following table provides an example of a sliding
scale buy-out schedule assuming a $50, 000 mobile home and a notifica-
tion period ranging between one year and five years :
C.A. 81-18/ND 82-1
\JunE 10, 1982
,Page 5
Amount of Percentage of Market Amount Received
Notice Given Value Paid By Tenant
1 Year 90% $ 45, 000. 00
2 Years 80% 40, 000. 00
3 Years 65% 32 , 500. 00
4 Years 45% 22, 500 . 00
5 Years 25% 12, 500. 00
Staff feels that use of the sliding scale concept would provide both
the applicant and the tenants with more definitive relocation assist-
ance criteria and would be substantially easier to administer than
buy-out at original purchase price. A sliding scale would also pro-
vide for more uniform and equitable treatment of the tenants . Addi-
tionally, because a sliding scale would encourage a longer notification
period, the tenants would generally be provided with more time to
arrange for a change in living accommodations. In addition to the
payment required on the sliding scale concept, certain relocation
assistance also could be required. For example, the identification of
potential relocation sites within a prescribed distance, information
regarding each location and other necessary information to assist the
mobile home owner in relocation. A flat amount for relocation costs
could also be imposed. Staff discussed these benefits of a sliding
scale with the Planning Commission at two public hearings. The Com-
mission' s consideration of the concept is documented in the minutes
contained in Exhibit 27 and 32 in the attached background information
booklet.
The background information booklet has been prepared to provide Council
with a detailed background of the mobile home ordinance. The booklet
is an indexed documentation of all staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes, interdepartment communications, and miscellaneous correspon-
dence regarding development of the conversion ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
Do not adopt Code Amendment No. 81-18 and do not direct staff to ex-
plore the use of a sliding scale. This would prevent the City from
regulating the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses.
FUNDING SOURCE:
None required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Code Amendment No. 81-18
2 . Negative Declaration No. 82-1
3 . Background Information Booklet
CWT:JWP:HS:df
Publish June 10, 1982
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18
MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach, in the Council Chamber of the Civic Center,
Huntington Beach, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. , or as soon thereafter as
possible on Monday the 21st day of June , 19 8Z
for the purpose of considering Code Amendment No. 81-18, an ordinance amending the
Huntington Beach Ordinance Code by establishing a new article for Mobile Home Park
Conversion Regulations. The ordinance will establish a mobilehome park overlay zone;
will establish requirements for notification of mobilehome park residents , and will
set guidelines for approval of a Tenant Assistance Plan prior to the granting of a
zone change for removal of the overlay zone or MH zone
Copies of the proposed code amendment are on file in the Development Services Office.
Negative Declaration No. 82-1 will also be considered in connection with Code Amendment
No. 81-18.
All interested persons are invited to attend said hearing and express their
opinions for or against said Code Amendment 81-18
Further information may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington Beach, California. 92648 - (714) 536-5227
DATED _June_ 4- 1982 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
By: Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk e
r
NOTICE TO CLERK TO SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM LL7bE AMEIYDMFIYT A/0- 81-18
TO- CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DATE 6/V 02
F ROM DE V FLO PM&N r- S�RvI el F-S
PLEASE SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING USING THE ATTACHED LEGAL NOTICE FOR THE
2 1 ST DAY OF ZU N 19$2
AP' s are attached
AP' s will follow
EAD
Initiated by
Planning Commission
Planning Department
Petition
* Appeal ,t
Other LrTY ZWO41L.
Adoption of Environmental Status (x)
YES NO
Refer to flAL. 31MMONS Planning Department - Extension # 5516"
for additional information.
* If appeal , please transmit exact wording to be required in the legal.
• Brian Medina/� "N 00o
21002 Coast Hwy. #25
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
536-4322
March 25, 1982
City of Huntington Beach
Honorable Mayor
Members of City Council
Planning Commissioners
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: Proposed Code Amendment No. 81-18
Mobilehome Park Conversion Ordinance
The Huntington Beach Mobilehome Risk Owners Association has expressed concern
that the proposed ordinance governing 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 legislate in
areas preempted by state Zaw".
I would first like to address the two latter concerns since they are clearly
defined legal areas.
A mobilehome park owner cannot simply "go out of business" by changing the
use of his land from a mobilehome park to no use (i.e. VACANT LAND). The
Mobilehome Residency Law, California 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 mobiZehome sites, by de-
finition, converting to vacant land constitutes a change of use, and is subject
to all procedures regulating such a change, such as:
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
-2-
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 days
prior to the hearing on that report or the tentative parcel map. (see reference
#2 and #3).
The legislative body hearing such report(s) may require the developer to
mitigate the adverse impact upon the displaced mobiZehome park residents as
a condition of approval of the conversion. Both Government Code Sections
defining this aspect of the conversion procedure end with the foZZowing:
"This section establishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conver-
sions of mobiZehome 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 goverment to strengthen
the already existing state laws through local ordinance.
To assume that passage of a local ordinance governing mobilehome park conver-
sions will devalue mobiZehome park properties is ludicrous. These properties
will continue to maintain their value as a secure form of intone 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 mobiZehome 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 previous mistake. Please mandate that the owners and residents must meet
and work together, in good faith, to provide a solution for the problems born
out of a mobilehome park conversion.
Thank you,
Brian Medina
79810 "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 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 form of ownership wherein spaces within the park are to be sold
; 66427.4 Conversion of mobilehome park- tlllno report of Impact of converalen
upon displaced residents with maps; mitigation of adverse Impact
At the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision to pe 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
R the mobilehome park to be converted. In determining the Impact of the conver-
elon on displaced mobilehome park resident% the report shall address the avail-
ability of adequate replacement space In mobilehome parks.
The subdivider shall male a ropy of the report aiallable to each resident of
the mobilehome park at least is days prior to the hearing on the map by the
advisory agency or, If there Is no advisory agency, by the legislative body.
The legislatve body. or an advisory agency which Is authorized by local ordt-
nance 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 mobllehome park residents to find adequate space In a mobile-
- home park.
This section establishes it nslnimtsm standard for local regulation of conversions
of mobilehome parks Into other uses s id shall not prevent a local agency from
enacting more stringent measures. ,
(Added by Stats.1080, C. 8•t<J, p. ;8; Stats.1480.a I06S. P.;;1.)
Addition of a 1 $6427.4 by 1 4 4 of State. Library References
1974. c. IMS. p. 3S13, fnlled to take efbmt Zoning and Land Planning e=192.
under the terms of 110 4 of that Act. C.J.S. Zoning and land Planning II 86.
' 1L
1 65863.7 Mobliehome park; Impact of conversion upon displaced persona; re-
port; notice to residents; hearing; local regulation
Prior to the conversion of a mobllehome park to another use, evicept pursuant
to the Subtlivsslon Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 68410) of Title
7), the person or-entity proposinx 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 mobile-
home park residents, the report shall address the availability of adequate replace-
ment space In mobilehome parks.
The person proposing anch change In use shall make a copy of the retort avail-
able to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 13 days prior to the hearing
on the Impact report py 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 comerslon on
the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space In a
mobilehome park.
This section estnblishes a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions
of mobilehome parks Into other use; and shall not prevent a local agency from
enarting more stringent measures
(Added by Stets 1080.c 871). p.—,;2)
Llbrary References
Zoning and Land Planning e=131
C J S Zoning and Land Planning 1 176
U ' CITY OF �Il�NTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
LA
HUNTINGTON BEACH ( v
To HONORABLE MAYOR FINLEY and From GAIL HUTTON
MEMBERS--OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Attorney
Subject Proposed Mobile Home Conversion Date February 23 , 1982
Ordinance - Effect on Huntington
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 give notice of its intent
to close the park prior to adoption of the ordinance . Further,
that they have complied with the State law in such regard and,
therefore, are exempt from the city ' 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 of 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 establishing a larger or shorter
notice period . Also, the manner of giving notice and the like is
regulated by the state law. However, the regulation being attempted
by the proposed city ordinance deals with change of use not notice
or the giving of notice .
If the notice 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 expiration of the notice period,
would not be liable for any relocation costs imposed by the city 's
ordinance in the period post notice , but prior to move .
Apparently, the state statute was intended to encompass two kinds of
situations . It requires a twelve month notice when the property is
zoned for mobile home use and a six months ' notice when a zone
change" is needed to change the use . Thus , in both cases , approxi-
mately a year or more notice would be given. However, the propsed
ordinance would not substantially affect those time frames . If the
r
I
Memo to Mayor and Council Members
Page Two
February 23 , 1982
Subject : Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance
proposed ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power° then
it will not change the notice requirements of the state law but
it would place conditions upon which a new use would be allowed.
It is easy to place restrictions on development and use . It is
clear that nearly any restriction, reasonably related to the
transaction and which is not confiscatory , will be upheld by the
courts .However, it is difficult to place restrictions on non-
use or vacancy. For this readon, if no permits are needed to
make a park vacant the city would be limited to providing that
no tenant shall be evicted without providing for relocation with
a criminal sanction for violation . This would appear to take
from the landlord the right to not engage in a particular business
or occupation. The Constitution of the United States and California
forbid this kind of state intrusion into private matters in the long
run non-emergency situation.
Since we have not seen an adopted version of the mobile home con-
version ordinance we cannot comment further in detail. However,
we do not necessarily agree that a tenant of Hunting Shores would
be excluded from the protection of a properly drawn ordinance merely
because he has been given a notice under the state law. We believe
that if the next use of the Huntington Shores is a non-use or vacancy ,
then, there would be no feasible way to require a relocation benefit
to displaced tenants . If the next use is an allowed use in the zone
and no development permits are required, the proposed ordinance
could require a conversion permit and could forbid any future
development by ( permit denial, injunction or other legal means in
cases of non-compliance . Ultimately , all properties should be zoned
for the use actually mandated for the property . What the city proposes
to do is to place sanctions on the abatement of a declared nuisance .
This is inherently inconsistent and some thought should be given to
this problem.
GAIL HUTTON
City Attorney
IM
GH:WSA:bb
IN rHE
`C;•' LLAC>I
,'l,IfN/Nt, DFP
Superior Court g T,
0 1liM
STA'I I;OF t'AI IF(1RN1 1
In and for the Countv of Orange Cl
Iv
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , PROOF OFPUBLICATION
PLANNING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
LECAI NOML t�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC Ilk ARING p Q�
titate of California lye _( If AMLp'uN lM�u C\
Courm of Orange ) NOTICE:14 HEREBY GR'BN thot
pubh hearing will be held by the Cdy I fJ t,
Planning Commission of the City of \ (7
Jeannie L. Thomas Hunnngtim Beach, California, for the
purpose of considering Code Amendment i
0 8l 18, an ordinance ruientivir tl e
1 hilt I nrn and at all timev herein mentioned Ali,,a(itizen of Huntu±g )n Beach Ordinance Code by
the I. nittd tiiate,, over the age of twenty one teary and that I extablwtung a rer article for Mobile
Home I'srk Con�emwn Heguhdiona
ani not a partv to, nor uitert�ted in the above entilled matter, r
that I rim the principal Ili rk of they printer of the I
il
n
Huntin8ton Beach Ind . Review WIMP
rime. �a,� �f-ro—ntte
a new,)a ner ul general i irudahori whli,hed m the pity of ba ld hearing will to bald et the hour
1 ( g 1 of 7-0 P hi,on February 17,198. in the
Council Chambers Building of the Civic
H u n t i n ton B e a e h Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach,California.
All mtereeted persons are invited to
( aunty d Orange and which newy)apt'r i, publlvhed for the attend said hearing and express their
di,e,minatuin of local ncwv and intelligence of it general uharat opinion for oragamat the propoeedCode'
ter and whu h new,ra per at all Urns herein mentioned had Amendment No m io
I ( Further information may be obtained
and Anil h,i,it bona fide vuhtii option li,t of paying vubacnbers, from the City Planning Department.
and which newspaper hay been eatnhli,hed printed and pub- Telephone No(714)5365271
DATED this 4th day of February,
h,hed at regular interval, in the said C'ouniv of Orange for it 1982
period exceeding one year, that the notice of which the CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
annexed is it printed iop� has been puhhi hed tin the regular ByJAMESW PAL[N,Secretary
Pub Feb 4,1982
and t tit ire i„ue of ,end newspaper and riot in anv suppleriient Hunt.Beach lnd Rev 410766
Iherr ,f on the following date, to wit
February 41 1982 t
71�e Or�IhCgCC iI I e.f�.bliir N a irlolil))C I`hoWrQ.
park over�c,a} ��"e� y,,� e r�cb�I rh re�vlrewtea��
Lr- rloli+iCA-oh J w,obi'e�ovae pa-IC rerideti4s
uli� dI%e�' 40-- approvc oP q
I ierfil� (or detbirel nadir pcnalt� of peryur� that the r^I"I ( t-..i'! Xf+ O lorego j 1 �J
ingi,ir it,a ndior re,t 'I y�',rrir[G�cC P1rI 11
4,s priOP io �r.e DretJ kA
Dated at Garden Grove o� r done c�,c.,j a -Por rew,ovA l of it iv-
('al,fonnu ihw 5 t h dint ,d Feb . �1}i 82 C)VerICA �17hC Or' M 4-0
i
Signntire ��� .
C
I FnrmNO CAr Al 11
REQUEST rOR CITY COUNCIL--riCTI
Date January 21, 1982
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat6 n
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services
Subject: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION REGULATIONS
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 Commission on February 16 ,
1982 .
t
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 type 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 of 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 mile§ of the City, while
�i
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
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, a 1976 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
January 21, 1982
Page 4
extremely low vacancy rates in the County are responsible for the
difference in appraised values inside or outside of a park.
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.
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
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
receeve full appraised in-park value.
The intent of speakers at the December 21 meeting seemed to be for
requiring purc price to be 100 percent of the appraised value
f the unit n the park. This requirement would provide the most
rotection to tenants but may be prohibitively expensive for the
ark 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
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
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.
Suggested Changeg Not TncnrnnratPc9
1. Suggested for inclusion in 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
Mobile Home Conversion
January 21, 1982
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_-Pronoged_ Code AmendmentThe 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 time 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. e None Park Conversion ordinance
JWP:HS:df
CODE AMENDMENT N0, 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.
(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
Page 2
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.
1
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 delivered by certified mail.
Page 3
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.
0 � R 000 00 HUNTUN0000 BlEA01H
P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271
Page 4
Failure to provide the report required by this section shall be
explained in a declaration under penalty of per3ury, 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 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) 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
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
I_____ 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
-- another form of housing within reasonable dis-
tance of necessary medical services .
,3
PO. BOX190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA92648
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION!(714)536-5271
Page 5
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 (180) 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.
Cc) , �07y OF HUH7UN(37mm = EQCH
P 0 BOX 190
' DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOP�flE)V'd'SERVBCES CALIFORNIA 92648
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271
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 I decision shall be supported by a
resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth its findings.
0a [REACH
P.0 BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA 92648
BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date December 21 , 1981
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council gl � � nil
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator n �� ic(� �J�Q'�'
P%t
Prepared by. James W. Palin, Director of Development Services � d'#A' y -
Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 81-18 - MOBILE HOME TENANT RELOC TI8N 9-r 1401
ASSISTANCE GUIDELINES erg
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 addirional 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 requirements 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
amendment requires submittal of a tenant relocation assistance plan
which is sub3ect to review and approval by the Planning Commission or
the City Council by appeal .
The following items and time frames for submittal, approval , and im-
plementation of a relocation assistance plan have been established:
PIO 4/81
MOBILE HOME, Cont.
December 21, 1981
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
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 r•7herein any or all _____
of the nark 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 Planning Commission approval
of a tenant assistance plan. During this period
tenants may elect to relocate, however, they are
not required to do so.
(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 relocationr__ benefits .
(e) Special Tenants, Special tenants shall be
difficult to relocate tenants and shall include
elderly, handicaped and households with school
age children.
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 assistant
plan reviewed 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 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 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.
-2-
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, 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-
For mobile homes which are not of acceptable
age 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.
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 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.
-4-
i
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.
-5-
REQUE 1 FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date July 27 , 1981
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council 4111
ow JV/�Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development 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
MOBILE HOME PARK, Cont.
Page Two
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1. Special Report - Mobile Home Park Conversion
CW O :HS: 31m
f
Special
� M
2'
s
Home Park
ob�
convermon
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 HISTORY
i
3.0 DEMOGRAPHICS
4.0 AVAILABILITY
5.0 AFFORDABILITY
i
6.0 REASONS FOR CONVERSIONS
7.0 IMPACT ON TENANTS
i
! 8.0 PURPOSE OF ORDINANCE
i
{ 4.0 ORDINANCE COMPONENTS
' 10.0 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
11.0 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
112.0 OTHER ACTIONS
13.0 APPENDIX
i
A. San Diego County Mobile Home Park Zone Change Procedures {
F3. San Marcos Mobile Horne Park Conversion Ordinance
C. Government Cody, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.7
July, 1981
HUNTINGTON BEACH CALFORNIN 3
PLANNING DIVISION � 1
o . l
I.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 the prevailing land value and development trends. The
low-income 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 an 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.
l Many mobile home park tenants are on fixed incomes which fall within the
•� Department of Housing and Urban Development's definition of low-income.
2.0 HISTORY
There are presently 19 mobile home parks existing in the City of Huntington
Beach. 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 R5. In
1970, a special mobile home park ordinance established the RAH 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 RAH zoning to
most of the existing mobile home parks in the City. All mobile home parks in
districts other than RAH (including the R5 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 Fiore I,
indicates mobile home park zoning throughout the City.
Zoning District Acreage Spaces
RAH 280 2,472
R2 12 84
R5 59 643
RA-0 6 93
C3 2 11
RA 1 6 81
3.0 DEMOGRAPHICS
Because mobile home parks differ markedly from other forms of housing, it
follows that the residents of mobile home parks would also differ, particularly
in terms of age and income. In fact, the City's 1979 Special Census yielded
some significant information concerning mobile home park residents. The
census' computer 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 a 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.
A
a
o C'
0
t
� o
a
-6r,I
JL
r
COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY Figure 1
0 Conforming Park
® Partially Conforming Park
r
® Non-Conforming Park
hunfingt®n Leach paannDng division
Other information from the 1979 census indicated that the average median age
of tenants for the some 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 persem who are either retired or rapidly approaching
retirement age.
4.0 AVAILABILITY
Each year, ail jurisdictions in the State are rewired to submit information to
the State Department of Finance rewarding the number of mobile home parks in
the jurisdiction, the number of mobile home spaces in each pork 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 teen percent of the County's total of 32,145 mobile home
spaces. These figures are in lire: 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 perks 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, mcny newer mobile home parks will not accept older
units, thus reducing the availability of spaces even more for marry 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 gunerally a fazm of mixed ownership and rentership.
The tenant ovens the mobile home and rents space for the unit. Depending can
the age of the unit, the resale prim of a typical mobile Name may range from
$7,000 to $25,00. 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 feu: may average $150 to $250. Thus, it has historically been possible to
own a mobile home in a pwk for as little as $9,0a0 to $30,0W plug a monthly
mental payment. Low buy-in, town monthly rent and limited maintenance
requirements hove maw mobile home park living extremely attractive for many
retired and low-income people.
,t
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 tha case of rv2w parks, mobile homes are now rarely purchased
off-site and then moved to a mobile bane 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 $10,030 to 530,000 simply for the ability to rent
the space the unit is on. The mobile Name itself must also be purchased. This
practice has effectively doubled or tripled the "buy-in" requirements for a
mobile home. Rents have also risen drarnaticaily 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
in*xpensive for naw buyers. The buy-in far an existing unit in an existing park
may be as NO as $60,0M. High interest rates combined with high rental rates
have mad-a 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,
thzreby 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 undlerstaud why mobile home parks are converting. It is a complex
issues 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 con
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 ar 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 fare conversion or sale of tha 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
y
annual depreciation. Parks which were purchased years ago for this reason may
now be nearing the end of their depreciation potential. When the depreciation
potential rums out, the park no lanais 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 far continues operation of the park. Because of the
low-income nature of many mode hame park tenants, tyre has been great
pressure on park owners to maintain low monthly rental fees. While many
apartment rants have increased ICO percent in the past ten years, many mobile
home park rents have remained vituni➢y unchanged. Recent attempts to
increase rents to catch up with inflation have resulted in rent controls being
enacted in same cities. The difficulty involved in changing adequate rents may
influence some park owners to sell w change uses
A fourth factor involves the age and deterioration of the parks and the expense
involved in upkeep and upgrading of farcilitieso As previously noted, the
majority of mobile hame parks in the City were constructed in the years
between 1959 and 1965. Standards for co tructicn and utilities were less at
that time then they are now. Also, mobile home perks were often viewed as
temporary uses and park develapars were sometimes s 'ale to have the
development standards of the time reduced for mobile hame perks. 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 b:- prohibitively e>gensive. These owners will
be forced to either raise rents substantially, sell the park outright or close the
park and convert to .mother use.
In general, it appears that mobile home parks no longer comprise -as good an
economic investment for owners as in pr'eviouz years and are no longer a
significantly less expensive housing alternative far those looking far housing.
7.0 IMPACT ON TENANTS
Examination of the economics involved has indicated that many mobile home
parks may request conversion to other axes in the near future. The virtually
non-existent mobile home park vacancy rate in Huntington Beach as well as the
rest of the County mean 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 County or beyond. The costs of such relocation may be considered
excessive far manly low-income tenants.
The tenants who stand to Ime the mast, 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
space will be last and only the value of the unit itself may be regained through
sale to anoPhw party. These tenants may lase as much as two-thirds of their
investment when a park converts to another use.
Finally, some tenants may own mobile hones which are too old or deteriorated
to be relocated in any mobile home park. As such, their mobile home would be
essentially umaleable in any marker 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 monsy 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 numbars of mobile home park tenants. If the City allows
the conversions to occur, it should somehow mitigate the undesirable impacts of
displacement of tha tGnants.
Orly passible solution would be development of a mobile home park conversion
ordinance whereby ccriverdom 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 d-gree of relocation
amistance or corvnpensWian in a manner that is equitable far the park owner as
well as the tenants.
General provision for such wtien may be found in the State Government Code,
Sectiom 65863.7 a-td 66427.4. These two sections of the code, respectively,
state that prier to conversion orn 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 an the impact of the conversion urn the displaced tenants and make it
available prior to any public hewing on the change of use. The legislative body,
upon review of the report may require mitigating measures fram the proponent
before permitting the changer. The sections establish a minimuwn standard for
local regu I apt i on of converoi ans of mabi 1 e home parks to of her uses and do not
prevent a local aqwtcy from enacting more stringent measures.
The problem with use of only tha Government Ca& to regulate conversions is
that it is minimal in scope and overly gG neral. To be effective, an ordinance
must spell out precisely what the acceptable mitigating measures world be and
exactly what action activates the ordinance. The Government Code merely
rewires an impact report and allows undaflned 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
Coda clearly designates the filing of in tentative or parcel map far a subdivision
as being the activator, but by that time, all tenants may already have been
evicted. In essence, the GovernmG nt Code simply assures that local
governments have the authority to develop conversion regulations.
4r
rt�
k,
,r
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 allow 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 have 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 done, 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.
,tom
11.0 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
There are a number of approaches the City may take in dealing with the mobile
home park 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 be 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 f I I i ng 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 problem then really involves the lock of adequate amounts of
off ordable 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 be greatly reduced.
13.0 APPENDIX
� t
Appendix A
San Diego County Mobile Home Park Zone Chonge Procedures
7S05 AMICATION ff PROFftlY ONMR.
The application of at 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 For® Filing and Fee. An application requesting an
amendment of the Zoning O Hance 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. Re aired Documents. An application requesting an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance ihall 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 nonprofit 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 owironrental impact review document, as provided
by Section 7610.
r�
c. Additional Documents Rewired 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-Mi 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 lsogth st tenancy by each tenant.
vi. The estimated inco.e, age and der 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
rovisional reclassification. Such evidence may include,
t, is not limited to the following;
(1) Written agreements to relocate mobilehomes; and
(2) Assistance for low and moderate income tenants in J
the form of payment by the park owner of 50%, up to
a maximum of $20000, of the cost of relocating the
mobilahme to amtber mobilehome park within 100 miles.
zi. If such evidence specified in "a" 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 cowition of an prwisiawareclassification of the
ty. 1
2. NotWithstaadW the pr9visions of Section 7SOS(c)(1), a Wk
OwWr who elected to give a Sryear notice to vacate may file
an application for reclassification or provisional reclassifi-
cation if evidence is provided that the following provisions
were not 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 tenantas mobilehome
to MW now space within 100 silos in accordance with the
follewins Sc6dulet
IF TEXAMr VACATES PORTION OF EXPENSES UP TO A
REP0RE END OF PAID 3Y ff.NI ER MAXIM-1 OF
1st year 80% $2,000
2nd year 60?*- 1,500
3rd year 40% 1,000
4th year 20% SOO
Sth year -6® -0-
(Added by Ord. No. S90S (N.S.) adopted 10-8-80)
,1 �
Appendix B
San Marcos Mobile Home Pork Conversion Ordinance
MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS
ARTICLE I
ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS
SBA Its That the San !Marcos Municipal Code be
amended by adding Article II, Mobilehome Park Conversions, of
Chapter 152 Mobilehomes and Mobile Hoene 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'i1plomentation of certain regulatory safe-
guards. The City recognizes the need to insure that the private
sector exercises its responsibilities to provide varid� housing
choices and opportunities, and that City participation in this
responsibility is necessary.
Sec. 15-9 - INTENT.
The intent of this article is to insure that mobile
hose park opportunities are available to ♦residents of San Marcos,
and to insure that mobile home park conversions provide for the
health, safety atwl general welfare of the community.
i�
Sec. 15-9
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 Coc isaion
or City Council, on appeal, Aas been received.
b) Add 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.
s) 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. Znvironsental Assessment form. ,
�� i
Sea. 18-10 - P RES 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 Commission within 30 days after the close of
the public hearing shall render a decision on whether or not
the conversion *bell be moved, based upon the findings set
forth in Section 11.
p) The decJ -'in of the Planning Commission m/— be appealed to
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
in writing and shall specify where there was error in the
decision of the Planning Commission with regard to the
If
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 reader 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/S) vote of all members thereof.
Sec. 1S-11 - FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.
In reviewing request for a mobile home park conversion,
the Planning Com►assion 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 aeeo=K4&te the "splased mobile hues.
r
b) The conversion will Act 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
horse park roeidnets 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) Thq proposed converion is pursuant to the public health,
safety and welfare.
g1 The aaonvezaion will not result in a shortages 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 associat*d 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
the seller for the purchase of the park and all the improve-
ments.
e) 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 home to ther parks. Said time
limit shall at a minim, be one year.
' Y
e) If the mobile hoots 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
Sams 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:
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
=ZIEX X. REMEDY, MY-MM
�'Y
Appendix C
Government Code, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.7
6X63.7. Prime to Ow conversion of a mobilehome park to another
use, except pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (com-
wAmcbg v4th 31 dan "410) of Title 4 the person or entity
propmmft Owch ceaeW In eo sihat file a report an the impact of
the ee M tree dispheed residents of the mobilehome park
to be convw" lh determining the impact of the conversion on
displaced mobtlet*mr pmrtt resWents, the report shall address the
availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parka.
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. 1"0, Ch. 979.)
6"27.4. 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 mobde-
home park residents to fund 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 nummams.
(Added by Stats. 19110, Ch. 1065.)
REQUES) FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Date July 27 , 1981
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat 4V
Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Development Services
Subject: MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSION ORDINANCE STUDY
Statement of Issue, Rewmnmdetion,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, AttaMments:
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.
P10 4/81
MOBILE HOME PARK, Cont.
Page Two
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
1. Special Report - Mobile Home Park Conversion
C :HS:]lm
a
Special Report
ConversionMobl"Ie Home Park
1.0 INTRODUCTION
( 2.0 HISTORY j
f
3.0 DEMOGRAPHICS
4.0 AVAILABILITY
5.0 AFFORDABILITY
6.0 REASONS FOR CONVERSIONS
7.0 IMPACT ON TENANTS
i
9 8.0 PURPOSE OF ORDINANCE {
l
9.0 ORDINANCE COMPONENTS
10.0 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
11.0 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
1 12.0 OTHER ACTIONS
a
13.0 APPENDIX
A. San Diego County Mobile Horne Park Zone Change Procedures "
B. San Marcos Mobile Horne Park Conversion Ordinance
C. Governrnent Code, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.7
July, 1981
HUNTINGTON BEACH CAILFORNIK
PUNNING DIVISION E
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Mobile home parks have been are 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 �y the prevailing land value and development trends. The
low-income 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 pork conversion and discussion of possibilities for
regulating conversions through a permanent ordinance.
I Many mobile home park tenants are on fixed incomes which fail within the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's definition of low-income.
2.0 HISTORY
There are presently 19 mobile home parks existing in the City of Huntington
Beach. 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 Forme
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 R5. 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 tome parks in
districts other than MH (including the R5 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 Acr e Se2ces
MH 280 2,472
R 2 12 84
R5 59 643
RA-0 6 93
C3 2 11
M 1 6 81
3.0 DEMOGRAPHICS
Because mobile home parks differ markedly from other forms of housing, it
follows that the residents of mobile home parks would also differ, particularly
in terms of age and income. In fact, the City's 1979 Special Census yielded
some significant information concerning mobile home park residents. The
census' computer 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 a 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 pork 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.
mom,
\ j
� t
I �
am�r
1
COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY Figure 1
0 Conforming Park
® Partially Conforming Park
® Non-Conforming Park
'� huntington beach planningdivision
Other information from the 1979 census indicated that the average median age
of tenants for the sane 13 mobile Name 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
Each year, all jurisdictions in the State awe 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 tha 1980 figures for all of Orange County
indicates that Huntington Beach has eight percent of the County's total of 191
mobile home perks and ten percent of the County's total of 32,145 mobile home
sp=es. 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 lava vacancy rates indicate that displaced mobile home park
tenants will have a limited opportunity to find available spaces in other parks in
the Canty. 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 lame 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 cast housing then other forms.
Mobile home park living is generally a farm 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 prim: of a typical mobile home may range from
$7,000 to $25,000. Moving and location casts 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
own a mobile home in a park for as little as $9,030 to $30,000 plus a monthly
rental payment. Lana buy-in, low monthly rent and limited maintenance
requirements have made mobile home park living extremely attractive for many
retired and low-income pcople.
k
X
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 tha 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 an the location and desirability of the park, the mobile
home purchaser may pay from $10,0W 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 home. 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 $60,003. HIO interest rates combined with high rental rates
have maw mobile home parks essentially equal to condominiums in terms of
affordability.
6.0 REASON FOR CONVERSION
This study was initiated because of the realization that there will be an
increasing tendency for the Cit)Ps mobile home parks to convert to other uses,
thereby impacting the residznts 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 tha 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 hider 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. R 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 fare 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 tha number of years he has owned it. Some park
owners may have purchased parks not so much far profits which could be
realized through operation of the park, but for use as a tax shelter through
annual depreciation. Parks which were purchased years ago for this reason may
now be nearing the end of their depreciation potential. When the depreciation
potential runs out, the park no loner serves the purpose for which it was
purchased Grid 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.
Anther 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 matey mobile home park tenants, tyre has been great
pressure an park owners to maintain low monthly rental fees. While may
apartment rents have increased 100 percent in the past ten years, many mobile
hone perk rents have remained vitually unchanged. Recent attempts to
increase rents to catch up with inflation have resulted in rent controls being
enacted in same cities. The difficulty involved in charging adequate rents may
inffIuence some park owners to sell or chance 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 pcTks in the City were constructed in the years
between 1959 and 1965. Standards fox construction and utilities were less at
that time: than they are now. Also, mobile home parks were often viewed as
temporary uses and park developers were sometimes inNe to have the
development standards of the time reduced for mobile home parks. As a result,
many parlay cre 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 sawn have to be upgraded if the perrks are to continue to function. For
many park owners, upgrading will be prohibitively expensive. These owners will
be forced to either raise rents substantially, self the park outright or close the
park and convert to another use.
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 lei a ive housing alternative for theme 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 Bach as well as the
rest of the County meow that displaced residents will have a very limited
ability to relocate within the County. Rather, it will probably be necessary for
most of theme tenants wishing to keep their mobile hones to relocate to parks
in Riverside County or beyond. The costs of such rel ocat i an may be considered
excessive for many low-income tenants.
The tenants who stand to Ime 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
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 lase the ability to
live in a mobile home park anywhere as well as the ability to sell the unit and
reinvest money fram the sale into another farm 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 scrnehow mitigate the undesirable impacts of
displacement of the tenants.
One possible solution would be development of a mobile Fame park conversion
ordinance whereby conversiom 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 658617 and 66427.4. These two section of the code, respectively,
state that pricer 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 hewing on the change of use. The legislative body,
upon review of the report may require mitigating measures from the proponent
before permitting the changa. The sections establish a minimum standard for
local regulation of conversions of mobile home parks to other uses and do not
prevent a loci agency f rorn enacting more stringent measures.
The problem with use of only the Government Cade 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 be and
exactly what actions activates the ordinance. The Government Code merely
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 tearing for a zone change would be the activator. Section 66427.4 of the
Code clearly designates the filing of a tentative or parcel mop f or 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.
B�
j
,Y
9.0 ORDINANCE COMPONENTS
Any conversion ordinance developed would be geared toward requiring
mitigation measures to be provided by the conversion proponent before the
conversion would be permitted. There are a large number of possible
components for inclusion in a conversion ordinance nanc:e which may vary wi del y in
severity and level of effectiveness. In general, a mobile home conversion
ordinance may involve the following principle items:
1. 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 give 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.
5. The tenants be given the option of a long term lease of the land and
purchase of the improvements.
6. Partial payment far 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 harm at fair
market values, determined by on 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 far displaced tenants.
It is important to rote that most of these items are only general concepts which
would require much more specific detail if crafted into an ordinance. Son
Diego County, for example, determines the amount of financial relocation
assistance which must be provided by the mount 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 ovailoSle spaces could restr ct o range County area
or could include all of Southern California. In any case, the above items (We
only intended to serve as a partial list of general ideas for inclusion in a
conversion ordinance.
10.0 IMPLEMENTATION 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
ordinance can be made. The first problem involves how the requirements of the '
ordinance ore to be activated.
t!
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 allow 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 have 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 done, 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
same 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 passible 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.
,tom
f�
1 1.0 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
There are a number of approaches the City may take in dealing with the mobile
home park 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 be 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 f i l l ng 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 problem 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 Fame parks as well as
apartments would be greatly reduced.
� P
13.0 APPENDIX
ApPencri x A
Son Diego County Mobile Hame Pork Zone Clhonge Prooedutes
7SOS APKICATION OF NWftTY fit.
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
wade as follows:
a. A lication Form Filin and Fee. An application requesting an
amendment of the Zoning Ordinance shall be made on the prescribed
for®, shall be filed with the Planning Commission, and shall be
accompanied by the fee referenced in Section 7602.
b. Re uq ired Documents. An application requesting in amendment to the
ning 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 ®f 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 thin 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 apprWriato emirmawntal impact revie+e docuiient, as provided
by Section 7610.
c. Additional Documents Req L!ed for Mobilehoue 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-MU 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 1 s"th st tenamay by each tenant.
vi. The estimated income, age and saber 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:
(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 maxims of $20000, of the cost of relocating the
Mbilebeme to another mobilehous park within 100 miles.
ly
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 cWWjtiGa of tha isi*W reclassification of the
Property.
2. MotWjthst&ndjMg the prWiSions of Section 7505(c) (1), a park
owwr 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 tenant's mobilehome
to any now space within 100 silos in accordance with the
follovins sc ulet
IF TENAMr VACATES PORTION OF EXPENSES UP TO A
BEPORE END OF PAID 3Y n°mm :{AXIM-1 OF
1st year 80% $2,000
2nd year 60% 1,500
3rd year 40% 1,000
4th year 20% S00
Sth year -b- -0-
(Added by Ord. No. S90S (N.S.) adopted 10®8-80)
,I �
Appendix B
San Marcos Mobile Hone Pcrk Conversion Ordnance
TX1 is
MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS
ARTICLE I
ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS
SECTION IIt That the San Marcos Municipal Code be
amended by adding Article II, Mobilehomie 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 OF 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 tha'impiementation of certain regulatory safe-
guards. The City recognizes the need to insure that the private
sector exercises its responsibilities to provide varis housing
choices and opportunities, and that City participation in this
responsibility is necessary.
Sec. 15-6 - 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 geaoral welfare of the community.
t�
Sec. i5-9 - 1%QUI tEWTS.
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 Comission
or City Council, on appeal, gas 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 Pewit,
until approval under Section 9(a) has been received.
e) 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 requiredt
1. Plans indicating what use the conversion is in-
tended to be.
20' 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 PAclassi-
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. tnvironmental Assessment fore. ,
. r�
Sec. 15-10 - PIMRMRES FOR REVIEW.
a) Within 90 days following the submittal of an application for
mobile home park conversion and all required information, the
matter shall be set for public hearing before the Planning
Commission.
b) The Planning Commission within 30 days after the close of
the public hearing shall render a decision on whether or not
the ecoversien shall be ar"ved, based upon the findings set
fopth in Section 11.
j:) The decl - m of the Planning Commission m/- be appealed to
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
in writing and shall specify where there was error in the
decision of the Planning Commission with regard to the
If
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 Gender 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 seeeswodate 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
hone park residnsts 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) Thq proposed converion is pursuant to the public health,
safety and welfare.
g) The conversion ►rill not result in a shortagm of housing
opportunities and choices within the City of San Marcos.
Sec. 15-12 - CONDITIONS.
In the approval of a mobile horse 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 includetthe following:
a) Partial payment for relocation of mobile honeys 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 parks. Said tiers
limit shall at a minimum, be one year.
v
e) If the mobile home cannot be relocated to parka 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.
AYES: COUNCILMEN:
NOES: COUNCILMEN:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN:
ATTEST:
-,- - AuDREw G. ramEnGo, MAYOR Or THE
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Appendix C
Government Code, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.7
63"3.7. Prkw to tie conversion of a nuMle ime park to another
use, except pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (com-
mew*g wM 3actiae "410) of Tide 7'9, die parson or entity
Propoft wxb dho4p 1n vae d aU We a report an the impact of
the emniirsion uquo fe iced residents of the mobilehome park
to be Converted. lh de the impact of the conversion an
dbplaced mobileftevie pam resiftnts, Ow repent 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 rewire,
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
nobilehome 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 icy from enacting more stringent measures.
(Added by Stats. 1"0, Ch. 979.)
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 mare stringent mom.
(Added by Stats. 1930, Ch. 1065.)
_y�