Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Mobilehome Parks 1981-1988
CITY OF HUNTINGTON 13 CWR Z 31984 INTER-DEPARTMENYDateU ATION HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE To Charles W. Thompson James W. Palin, Director City Administrator Development Services Subject MOBILE HOME SHELTER March 23 , 1984 PARK CONCEPTS Pursuant to past City Council discussion, staff has been working to identify sites within the City which may be suitable for mobile home park relocation projects. The following possible locations are being studied by staff at this time : 1. Northwest corner of Adams Avenue and the Santa Ana River Acreage : 4. 3 Owner: City of Huntington Beach Problems : Power lines , access , flood hazard 2 . Southeast corner of Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest Street Acreage: 40. 0 Owner: Huntington Beach Company Problems: Require change from Estate to Medium Density 3 . Meadowlark Airport Acreage: 48. 0 Owner: Nerio, Masao Problems : Requires negotiation between owner and City 4. Talbert Avenue-Redondo Circle Acreage: 5. 0 Owner: City of Huntington .Beach Problems : Adjacent to industrial, access through industrial 5. Irby Park Acreage : 6. 0 Owner: City of Huntington Beach Problems : Suitable only for pre-fab housing 6. Terry Park Acreage: 5. 5 Owner: City of Huntington Beach Problems : Senior rentals only This is a preliminary review of possible relocation sites, to enable the City Council to provide input and direction at the March 26 , 1984 PLANNING ZONING QM 24 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 21-5-II EDD ADOPTED APRII 4,1960 NOTE Ar CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 'ENDED 1.s .T IN FEET CITY COUNCIL- ORDINANCE N0.758 +zONE ADTDOwING ANY RIGHT DF w IS INTENDED E+TEND 10 THE CENTER AMENDED ORD.N0. AMENDED ORD,NO, of such__OF MAY 8-20-80 777 12-19-66 1274 LEGEND: 9-6-60 790 II-20-67 1364 RA RESIDEN'ML AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 7-3-61 849 1-15-68 1386 RI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 6-18_61 907 8-5 431 RS MOBIE-PROFEISIONLL DISTRICT 3-19-62 894-895 9-3-68 1438 6-4-62 907 8-!8-69 1517 (]�MoeILEHomE DIsrRlcr AMENDED ORD N0. 1-21-63 9a6 12-20-71 1694 L2 CDMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA °-21-6D 2426 4-1-63 958 2-20-71 695 FRONT YARD SETBACKEFA LINE 4-IS-80 2426 6-3-63 958 12-20-71 1696 5.19-64 IDS 12-20-7I 1697 ®LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DI$TRIOT 6-I- 64 1060 12-20-71 1690 CO HI4NWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AMENDED' BY ZONE CASE: o-s-s4 logo 6-7-72 seo � MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 105,106'112,113 185,195.223,226,241.296,301,324,325,435.438, II-2-64 1097 12-4-72 1791 ® rwo.FAM:Lr RESIDENCE DISTRICT 472,476,505,512,66-30,66-56.67-25,67-34,68-21.68-9,G9-I6,71-20(E).71-20(F),71-20(G), 4-5-65 1132 10-1-73 1871_ MALIPIED CLASSIFICATION 71-20(H),71-20(1),71-25,72-30,73-15,73-19,PP74-1,74-8,PPA 77-7A,PPA77-78,80-1,80-7, 6-4-65 1145 8-5-74 1931 COMMUNITY FACILIT (EUUCATIDN)DIST-T 6-1-66 1234 11-18-74 1946 ® RECREATICNAL OPEN SPACE 6 - 2-24-75 1965 - COMBNED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 6' 20 21 4 --7 a:2, a2272 6v PRECISE PLAN ALIGNMENT 21 22 -7 2305 EDINGER AVE. L—rcc—c. _—.--- 11� } —1 C2 R1 R1 RI RI r RI So3 ro 0 1�n RI RI RI RI M, RI e o DR d FIR NENRICNSEN DR. CASTLE � DR. � z = : RI 3 RI = RI R C2 N J •' MANGRUM tR 1 560.3e 229 64 OPaRI RI RI CF-E RI RI JLI LER p_ BNEAD� DR. - DO ¢ .. zR Z - RIi o RI RI R5 CLARK DR- sIs30N DR "°°° RI R I ¢RI RI w e O.. C. F. C. D. C F—E A 760 TO RI RI RI DR MEADOWLARK DR - o*'L R1 J J 1110 DD RI PAR CR MH VENT RI DR RI RI RI RI RI RI RI oRl R1 RI RI : RI Lt z Z M1 0 R a ¢ 0 3 O 2 a f = J W < MARSXALL DR. c ________TODA>QD2SVAAr a O z J 2-6t < J a i a m R I R1 a a m w 1 IE 0't C'Z W 20 CALIENTE DR W MIDDLECOFF DR.R I 25Q9 a RI RI R I R I ..w C HEIL -- �AV — elST � R2 6 R2 & L CR 71 0 a RI RI m N NHI CR <I °� R I IC2 RI RI R3 MEADaeeRooH DR R2 R2 s MH a ezToo EE CR 6e9- _ R I RI RI 33133 D ROS cR. ff STALLKN y CR. R C F— R R I RI RI RI R1 e° RI DONLYN DR. z If F£LDNB a x R I21 3 3. a EFRANMAR R1 RI 6, 33333 a RI ROS-01 EDM5CR. (Q)MH RI R2 „S Ne3•D lEE W Sss n R1 �R M i GILDRED -CR. R 1 /� W CR. a. C4 _ RI 661.39 V 80396.00i A RI 0' J U C2if______ 4 i ROS TROPHY DR. C" Q . g —�HCNbNiF=�!:- W 3 RI I J I RA O 1 '1ID d 1 •� ;'WSMQNQdR 2 $ VIEW CR. m o R g Q AI.TE 1 M WARNER AVE so zl zl zz z9 ze ze zi r 1 , y _ REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL CTION Date May 8, 1981 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council - Submitted by: . Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat< v' Prepared by: Development Services Department I" Subject: MOBILE HOMES IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES i 1 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: / STATEMENT OF ISSUE: During the 1980 session of the State Legislature, Senate Bill 1960 was enacted. which mandates that cities and counties permit the established of mobile homes on individual lots in single family residential areas. The effective date for the bill is July 1, 1981. Because the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code presently prohibits mobile homes in most residential zoning districts, substantial revision of City ordinances will be necessary to comply with the new law. RECOMMENDATION• Unless Council directs otherwise,. staff will work with the City . Attorney' s office to revise the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to allow mobile-homes on permanent foundations in all single family residential areas. ANALYSIS The attached Special Report - "Mobilehomes in Single-Family Zones" provides an analysis of the bill '-s;content and its projected impact. on Huntington Beach.. Alternative means for complying with the bill are examined along with a staff recommendation and suggested changes to the Ordinance Code. ' ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Retain existing residential ordinance language (this may result in litigation from property owners) . . 2.' Create overlay zones in which mobile homes would be permitted uses on single lots. FUNDING SOURCE: No funds required. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Special Report - Senate Bill 1960_. Mobilehomes in Single- 1 Family Zones. �1 CWT:JWP S:gc PIO 4/81 Special Report . . .SENKTE BILL 1960 MOBILEHOMES IN .SINGLE- FAMILY ZONES 1.0 Background 2.0 Analysis 2.1 Designation of Lots 2.2 Public Hearings 2.3 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions :3.0 Impact::on Huntington Beach 4.0 City Implementation Options 5.0 Recommendation 6.0 Appendix May, 1981 HUNTINGTON BEACH COILIFORNIA PLANNING DIVISION INTRODUCTION During-the 1980 session of the State Legislature, Senate Bill 1960.was enacted which mandates that cities and counties permit the establishment of mobile homes on Individual lots in single family residential areas. The effective date of the bill Is July 1, 1981. Because the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code presently prohibits mobile. homes in most residential zoning districts, substantial revision of City ordinances will be necessary to comply with the new law. This report provides an analysis of the bill's content and its projected impact on Huntington Beach. Alternative means for complying with the bill are examined along with a staff recommendation and suggested changes to the Ordinance Code. 1.0 BACKGROUND State law currently allows cities and counties to prohibit the installation of mobile homes in single-family zoning districts, and in fact, many jurisdictions in the State do enforce such a policy. Senate Bill 1960, however, when it takes effect on July 1, 1981, will prevent local agencies from prohibiting installation of newer mobile homes on permanent foundations on individual lots zoned for single family residences. As a means of granting flexibility, the law will allow cities or counties the alternative of designating, based on a determined need, specific lots within single-family zones which are deemed compatible for mobile home use. The intent of the legislation is to require the integration of mobile homes on permanent foundations- with conventional single family dwellings and to prevent local land use policies from precluding what is perceived to be an affordable housing alternative. It will be necessary that all local jurisdictions including charter cities, bring their regulations into compliance with the new law. In regard to development standards, the new law specifies that the mobile home and lot may be subjected to the same devlopment standards as a conventional single family residential dwelling. These standards may include, but are not limited to, building setbacks, side and rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, access and vehicle parking requirements. However, no development standards may be applied to a mobile home which are not also applied to conventional single family dwellings in the zoning district. Any architectural requirements imposed on the mobile home structure itself, apart from additional required enclosures, must be limited to roof overhang and roofing and siding materials. Cities are allowed by this - provision to require some compatibility in appearance with adjacent units. Apart from development standards, the law also specifies that its provisions apply only to mobile homes certified under the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974. These include only mobile homes which were constructed after July 1, 1976 and issued an insignia of approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2.0 ANALYSIS While the bill is undeniaby simple in nature, it raises a number of questions which may make projection of the bill's impact and selection of an implementation strategy difficult. The issues involve: 1) the alternative for cities and counties to identify specific lots which are deemed compatible for mobile homes, 2) the extent to which additional City review procedures are allowable, and 3) the effect of established deed restrictions or covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & R's) prohibiting mobile homes. 2.1 Designation of Lots As an alternative to allowing mobile homes in all single family districts, the bill authorizes local agencies to designate specific lots within single family zones which are found to be compatible for mobile homes on permanent foundations. Exactly how this may be done, however, is not detailed in the bill. It also is not clear whether this provision actually allows a jurisdiction to prohibit mobile homes in other areas if it chooses this alternative. Additionally, if designation of compatible lots is a legitimate alternative, the bill does not address the question of how many lots must be designated for mobile homes to satisfy the intent of the bill, and how compatibility may be determined. )3/17/84 .. . HL�GTON SANDS ORGANIZATION. MOB I L@�F OME REPLACEMENT HODS I N13 P1RfJECT ' HUNTINGTON BEACH# CALIFORNIA FINANCING ALTERNATIVES r ------ ---" - ALTERN. I.PRIVATE FINANCING .9 MARKET RATE;. I*% DOWN/12% INTEREST/30 •YEARS ESTIMATED COST/UNIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._.. . . . . .i 48200.00 DOWN PAYMENT-- (1=.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . : . . . : . 4820.00 TO BE FINANCED BY MOBILE HOME OWNER. . ... . . . . . : . # .43380:00 4 ` :ESTIMATED MONTHLY PAYMENT. . . . .:: .. ._: . . . . . . . . ... . . ..: ." .... .# - 44Q..26 ALTERN.2.RELOCATION .BENEFITmp$20#000/UNIT FROM HUNTINGTON BEACH 'CO. _ APPLIED AS DOWN PAYMENT/BALANCE FINANCED BY MOBILE HOMEOWNER AT MARKET.J' " RATEi '12%/30 YEARB ESTIMATED COST/UNIT. . . . . . . : of Mae . .'. . . . . . . . : . . . . : . . . : . . . - 48200.00 DOWN PAYMENT. . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . :i . 20000.00 -" �.. TO BE FINANCED BY MOBILE HOME OWNER... . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . .$ 26200.00 : E. . . ESTIMATED MONTHLY PAYMENT. , . . . . . .'. . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .* 291.40 ALTERN.3.LAND LEASE FROM CITY AT NO COST / RELOCATION BENEFIT-$20#000/UNIT :;- ' ... BAL. FINANCED- BY MOBILE HOME OWNER AT MARKET RATES 12%/30 YEARB" s ESTIMATED COST/UNIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.. . . . . :9c 28000.00'.. DOWN PAYMENT. . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....,* 20000.00. TO BE FINANCED BY MOBILE HOME OWMER. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1► — 8000.00 ESTIMATED MONTHLY PAYMENT. . .".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .':.# 82.67 ALTERN:4.CITY H/CD SUBSIDY. . . (# 350000.00) / RELOCATION BENEFIT-$20#000/UN . BALANCE FINANCED BY MOBILE HOME OWNER AT 7%/40 YEARS � !.. ESTIMATED COST/UNIT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :$ ':. 43000.00 DOWNPA.YMENT: . . . . : . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mae- 20000.00 ----------- TO BE FINANCED BY MOBILE HOME OWNER. . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . : . .$ 23000.00` :_ ESTIMATED MONTHLY PAYMENT.'. . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . ... . . . .. . . .. .# 137.52: -' k_.M1 - - 03/17/84' ` . . H. . .•.a a, m.r..- cy.. —......-V-, . .... •x, . .... ... ........ .. ,..... .. . K„ ... F HUNTINGTON SANDS ORGANI ON# INC. 411BILE HOME REPLACEMENT HOU G PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA j OPERATING COST. (MONTHLY SHELTER COST) i --------------------- -----_ ----- fi ALTER. 1 ALTER.2 — . .ALTER.3 ALTERN._4 j --------------------------------- MONTHLY PYMT. ON DEBT 448.26 - 291.40 82.67 :,137.32 UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . .* " 70.00 70.00 . . ..70.00 70.00 INSURANCE. . . . . . . *. . .$ .10.00 - 10.00 .10.00_. 10.00 . TAXES. . . . . . . . . . . .*. . . 70.00 70.00 70.00 '-:- 70.00 i PARK OPER/MAINT. .*. . .* 50.00 50.00 50.00 g0.00 MA I NT. SET .ASIDE.*. . . -. - 10.00. 10.00 10.00 -- ------ --------s— -- -- -------- --- TOTAL FOR RRLOCATE 65S.26 - 501.40 292.67 347,.52 -EXISTINO .MOBILE HOME EST. MO.PYMT.NEW M.H.$ 180.00 180.00 180.00 180.00 . n TOTAL FOR NEW. MOB.HOME 838.26. 681.40. 472.67 527.52 9 * PARK ASSN. FEE = { -"TAF A V� �4 21 i W U 4, 7 w go, �.� a-, �ei .s �voc:e�s r� a� t �� Yiii �'•k �, �.,� � 2r , , �,��� ,� ` J. 41=06 t. sa 11,MR, P V,e. t ,r { �nil O,Klil 4 By. "AY WALE BROWN+'� WAime sqgq,;Kbteg tt ,, Ma y.Wale Bro�m" OUM �,,:reasons hi, with ti- -Eli Soilth geongernfor WWI I" in vP 10 H I.Y. hiffi�,Affioreed any-,,-people,,49�1.yqu�,� .4'6t;pnj�!qg�,a A A'!,M� �k L-,,,f.',i� , M,• �;,�,," live exactly, "'a _.ant,Ao, ly�q b%,Very few, 6tioh�Pf,,,266,,,ho pe;qi,�.�uproot`,' 4), �p- `�4tire.�'comrntinity',��Map id alias 9.1�, .�,�PJQYW ? 1�1 I lw _Sqangeq��poug "MaY1119,11P. I - of,inofie -1 d %At A6� g(life:-and iiving,..tiiej4wa.V�yoU,�'.w-a 4ivc-6, _`�66,pl -no 'x �6tkailers; . p �riiqbiW a he picqp�e§, :homier r 4 y. CgiX-en-,,uA has,a-jot 'h mcp .; es,4 puriAhWo a �Q 4 jo, o .-C C" d' 9'p?,�,'not id All p e;haVe.�eeg..bibl6,td.live v.s 'kjj�t;'Tgf.too'�I'Al C;j~4 ;others-�.- A nT.-owh',.`-the1and .1t1way', ey "Y g �5�,_P_, _ - , .. - 4 6 i d d j h i i y 6gliC 6 fi d 4 ijt i, ld-�park,',m.,5out1i,--L'aguna-,called-11reas,64�' �o A 'pro",.'erq 5.0laWY .Island I .!!- d ighey 16jiih tion� have -butlaWve;41P, W.i i D44. f ;1, an s., as�Rcia i,'th6�.,share'a"7'deep;,;i- t'7,16g6 koq e S _4 Not:$ g j� f i -...k �q, LAW -r,perioa,•6f�time,�,,anci,�v�,.,,sp�p..,�.. gs '0 Id 1'\ IlUe-o er,-aA;Tjmost,,q UmonjeS"c"I r"-, 0' eg-,,wi "I ve t6wAk6n.the4bekh4iid swim in the is6i;ifi, oceari.`,'.W "I �'A eb q O.,qui( we .3 pecausi'h L&iiigAh6:Waves-roll ffi-,and'w He wal r. yj-�- e ti fully"i;7 c avid! :wait':for:'•the beautiful suhs6 �arnecl love to sh 1� KH" �,in'g"7'efidless',;hqui d ks.i'drifik' c ,'andr�, ays;,,.wee dfl So,*like to{ihiiiO .7; m!ea ".:a . . �tr. Jil,�Qlvwl.,� 'rid&k.to h6l�:'each other out, ths';soeiidihg�'our'-week'.e'n'&':'at meet-.'�;..t,., N.Q v , si-An'' 6ue�', St. ess )rn- -ing9t7 M 'n • a an e,. p ionslwt ay§. -irise":�:tiifi4�.�share`hotef'�linded,grd` 'hR4ibiiiies`j;offkes- -.s orV!V-_-a -lost nd 'ei,p ..W gapjzfgl,� I,., _ �� � , "I _4 iA sinthe1iews. dde d iAh6:-26&"tr," h n,`-197TAh62ie'z'm6n.*4t6ok,, • �,'jm'dc ' - B4V.'we;,?' o I , 4 a*A�:-,', �"Afid th6�-`.A�'i a:qvor:,ft.W�r":V,;wiitifieto:se6.offic I....... --kofta!,�'dhanc ee e ;,:;,ocean,.instead ers,*.t .0 ut real!' .too . uite.a:_wl d' b'. it r 6 ight,for::sur'vival"b(IM, _,YO,�.peis hiid:planne to send i4� i,,:management,.oUTreasu. q _Were:,det0mihed't f ,sentatiVes;etelt? "few e.b6l' ' d- 41,was not lojig thei�ifte'Fth't ld""' hitw ieve in."." munities an -p�op e4lib1i'ved ple:'arej, t 4" eir ile'r'i_�"0�6'wrai`6i�bif.i4q;L all the,tra qpp JX,� oug t a zqnd c r. d I I , - ' And-wheb the. eve opers,�,claim::that,',,`,`,? that Lin.i�year h al -1s:;With '� ; qq eir', -around us.on,all si esjoine&form �ii heighb6th6bd- e� ',,bn a ' n&d 'eetirij 10' hip4l��,"q`uf' �i . 'ifid must..."., 6.'s '(Q6d, b (Mob le homes)jv66ld'66'-t ii publi��'hds loi .'.i . ifbui1&,*-,,,:, us,::.'itt6n&d s,wit us�spoke onP4,.,..1, re,. -room, b ;'s, �4CM ' p. • .4thigh-kise,jime-s "a """ "'hotel , ,.4h6nJ1'1,1 '���`.s6d4 �1: ",tealizigthq -even,�i4museinefi thaf.!'gre6d,"dp'o4ei,.,Joi,,,2 �N h th e Alf�'ajnd,,, ecamp�,.4upix. oice,.of the a i"I n ey peo,,.r mobi e: ann n it b p. i g.;t e...sland was'no:oastir n. We who'. Ahcu surroun&Ahem�w4q! '!,, -, omi7 on D;,had lRQ4a"' iii&6ilil hi If `h kiq,'iemai 'the-ptoper-fty' .4 :'tTrd gi,1.1- ---�,,, 1;p e�.-.:and-the willof ihe,pe6ple-- I g, PAP54-,Comlm,- 4 9P ierah.'Jsland.�"- unde "t t is,an a we fiht rs F h U ed O.prey� for in y'," _i)'oll'Ufi' P1 c ionvandf,,- th �Ni anhing comthission'heard f '12 k t fixiie;io:66fiev'e'' fi��Ai f-lost.a'" "th, would take iti`pii6�11'.'K 4, d'T h 'co 't ann!ngfM -The.hor l� ` c rear without even sa 'in "excuse m i.' iCommi sio`n;.=and;ahe's Oran e ;,Count ar .pl g t q no �j st to in 9" .90 tfiei-e is veihm6t'by:.. 'e," pp '(�,`thinglr'o h e_ e op e.,'A -d to 1�0r. n a 4ego dir gly'a.t't e'nextelectionli., .!:;W Ti I�V'o 4 -J; Bel All fi b., 2. �yeo �n�,�{sa:;.M! 17 voices x 'MO N �01 PN, -11"', and :sa: "i6M." �qve,: 'P. P !.,UM bbt�ll:me V W" a R 0 W eu an posed fir, -maycorning;:� J. NO . J. MUM N t W lel3roum resicWiJ6i:4hi,'). • r7 Sout Laguna., Rv�X Vq.h _Q69'eftifor reasons in e',-!do.:YoJu*�knowA.!w gi H acu.on ,Y,:,p t U wi _,o.*a'n*.f"q1*1' •�ges ,ghw"iy"�iis`e'il N! -'�Very few,�Strangely:eiioukh,hhving-'I, Pfglestrp• .,266,*'.:hbiiiii.-,niii4���r. t ots d _f hag,little-A6;i r.;,,co ,.,money eptirq'ic_q' m mui n i t ahjj�,el d erl o-vi �enioy 'j lifii,knd living,;the` U,Wantjo,'IN�,� .;way,, I knd-,w�.haf.'Juiol,`4 uhi q po,jpAape,,to put ti eir' -466bile` 1" fP,,L6ving,nature, nd 6 % I AraildtWbf W "I e ix6ept:ihAhe b&iq' �v,lt� ,.,,good earth'haVe.kiy6if, i wa ot.to:d&'P'�,hbm wari�'debi�d iwith"it o'..s.;-:,,�,some goo And,.t t d-'I7","'s!omz�'e7n'�o't,-s-o'.goKidr; roup.co peo;ol0;4.-" able to lb�g the?'ONN" t it 9 'O:be, in-a,.mq e. oine:'�"Sq;ther's'. own Y:way they want`,,t6,4iv6,"' bil' 'h -.--.the l' h' liVreph p a r k;"in South I I ed-`,V6 a's 4 r 0.ral-a i ti UP, �vwpouq Nj tisland; T .5' The'peo'plg.wh'6;IiV'e,AtYTieasure*-Isla'zi A., ey,Aoffig ands FF but�-Obo F t .have Xnu�h..',ji W.A9 "vR 'Otq etb. V,deep-pnil."permanentl6i 44,the`y,,,iihare a, I., , V or -OC fo'r'the* eiii.,66 I in't s'a gg and&eeg,;,tfik!ji d ow.90 ab" antjy, IS -,near'theocean'itiT;,-,,I,,.�,,7, ',Zh` '0;` F'I J,` Jiro �,�,,§eyeFa 4wyersifpi %Vi OIL ve>atTreaisureA4 --'spenim"O"st"of Ahe., , t. `%'little olcler;,as:in imost, RI.,money4e had collecte collected' love to walk-on tho'b6ach a 'sw hd swim in 1 eg,,i,��oTkj-fre�ei u r,; u;,quie e C, .;uceap.;�ty�e;71 it I U d" ig';',.:and,�Letter-.-�,writiqg;, t- 7 A.!L ':.-while watching the-4Aves-roll.in�anii e. u'b6aJutifA`su- nse't avidly�wait.foe,thii v-,%,opamzui1y,-devot reiza�arink!�ana, k :We'also.likeA0,,sha ysi:.�'Wee s 'and: , . I!, . t'. !�,4, meal, r�4nd W( " oq hs;,s' k i "lls" it meet- A V_1�4u 19 �Fll!u • _.pe en .a pilot llotradmby Inm en din fings, 9 3 nd;in-:stfe�i�.Y,�SiCKness a co �,;, 'Z& _,ih4ibrihes';-office' t"' "aq lost ain6i�e lost a�d •w'e�'-wo'n: -JAm�-share,!*.h telAande' An t V lmunit�.of'cirin s,,.,. s or g people. ganizAtions; _4fdAyV' �rise. ,It 6 d- • "I 'too '�.'ii�wsariedii;,, t-iMu6,ofil h sth 4pce.tbL�be,'bedrd:iBdt I I ft 1977'!thr'ee,-.,men'"'- .�,.,,oceaa,;ins ea( ai ers.t e, of a,sud en iveq,;:q S,drvivad.�:" — 1&. `. .. .111. 'lop�rs had Olanned to sphdih mans gem6fit,of'Veisure 4§land,'iiii&At p""rip,"s,ept etOfmi-hed"to ight, or, a�..while thii.!,".�',,:ve ir,�was not long thereafter that we.w�re to"11 als6foithil,"out. ed m.,.,, qi; communities.and1he-ir peop e-who-lived ,,,.awar,e'.o w at,-is; appen1p pers, c aim,:t a s:4, g.mt eirarea,qt,*!-�. F. sides forces with '�l..,�"�"ir6u d,us:dn','all change that would. 'And;'wh( Aha I t' 6'yeai'cor two',all thii'trailei"' f fi' Wi" h"I" W zone�ch, n I the',,iiiii6ratpOlie'lias-lost`;'t`;we'-. build�,�,.,e,.:�:�ug',!,,�ttend�d ffiekiQ's'4kh ps, spoke,on--., :lowT:the,:,..deye operw,m'ot! tic MO "" . "" "41" ".1;0, �Tic homes) Ithiowil out dnO land fh&ii 6ikhb6rho6d,�FAn�i,�i&i�sh�ek6d,�ic.,��." ' "" 1'.- ... .. r F, Jw ey',t.su en emen f :realize-that d6-"4.,,,"hotelg,',:.:highrise�i'���'.,-even _amus be at high-rise time-share'?6007room�,:hi s4Y-Aco t]h�ni tbaf.�"gme an dd I.. t-. . . . ",&P.. c4mp�.suppo_ive,in.. rs' ah Pro"'m"-o:lters�,are-panningt 6`6-1 ., _ 11 d asur�Island�was no;:�� t e __. . : , . . . . �` "'onicii,-"ha",,Iost�aiia,,"'�'thi voice �-'-`!'would take ve I ope I k Anythi ple.:,,,-4hd-the, i I f.th6 eco I .who had Aived,,.at-',Tr�iAsuie�Ish 1" "surround theiii::;�rith'hiW kises me n-'o'xi:th all . 'We ind:'� "`home��A io reniiii 0 pi,-operty.,-��,,,,�,t-!,Aofiger�az�P Island;", w .9. to e La or:, mapy an A�1111' e.,wQnt annin The'O anning,commis-gion,'heaid.us'. e ve time'to believe co 'W th PI f .,,sh6ve::th po utidn, ',o to.pre bole��&.;'4 corner.., A ere lout ew,in ,t,..,WhaVcould we vent,this horr wit) ng�,� gifili C 6 f, "... C ' t' h '. -.is-' efiVP ifi I unty co sueprvisom'heard goverpm 3 B'diUbf-Superv�sors:and uthlag- u .'anid"the"i""and 'for: n we'.a firig,�,no -just t •thingfrbrii�happift t o.us,but' may.1V d So' .people: d f 1 "A d 'in�hi r, vote a&n ido rdinoly. e e R CITY C REQUES O UNCIL40CTION O Date July 27 , 1981 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council 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,Afternative Actions,Attachment:: 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 4181 MOBILE HOME PARK, Cont. Page Two SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Special Report - Mobile Home Park Conversion C :HS: jlm o X S ecal o't pp i obile ome ar• onversion 1.0 INTRODUCTION { 2.0 HISTORY i 3.0 DEMOGRAPHICS 4.0 AVAILABILITY 5.0 -AFFORDABILITY 6.0 REASONS FOR CONVERSIONS 7.0 IMPACT ON TENANTS i l. 8.0 PURPOSE OF ORDINANCE l 4 9.0 ORDINANCE COMPONENTS 110.0 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 11.0 ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES 12.0 OTHER ACTIONS ! 13.0 APPENDIX A. San Diego County Mobile Home Park Zone Change Procedures B. San Marcos Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance C. Government Code, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.7 July, 1981 Aftli HUNTINGTON BEACH G4LFORNIA 3 PLANNING DIVISION i f • 1.0 INTRODUCTION Mobile home parks have been an established residential use in the City of Huntington Beach for over 20 years. These parks have traditionally constituted a more affordable housing alternative to the tract homes which have dominated development in the City. In recent years, however, the character of the City's housing supply has been changing. New residential projects are being developed at higher densities and condominiums are being constructed in place of single-family tract homes. This trend is largely a result of an increasing scarcity of vacant developable land and the rapidly escalating value of all. land throughout Orange County. It has become apparent that mobile home parks are particularly likely to be impacted by the prevailing land value and development trends. The low-income 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 an mobile home park conversions on June 29, 1981. The four-month moratorium was intended to give staff time to study the mobile home park conversion issue and report to Council on the issues involved in the development of a mobile home park conversion ordinance. This report provides information on the nature of mobile home parks and park residents in the City, an analysis of the issues involved in mobile home park conversion and discussion of possibilities for regulating conversions through a permanent ordinance. I Man mobile home k tenants are on fixed incomes which fall within the • Y Par 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 MH zoning district and set new development standards for mobile home parks. Only five parks have developed under this ordinance, however. Upon establishment of the MH district, the City then applied the MH zoning to most of the existing mobile home parks in the City. All mobile home parks in districts other than MH (including the 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 1, indicates mobile home park zoning throughout the City. Zoning District Acreage Spaces MH 280 2,472 R2 12 84 R5 59 643 RA-0 6 93 C3 2 11 MI 6 81 3.0 DEMOGRAPHICS Because mobile home parks differ markedly from other forms of housing, it follows that the residents of mobile home perks would also differ, particularly in terms of age and income. In fact, the C'ity+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 same. 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. M W� r � I I 7 / err low- ti Ir.w O 7 -« 4COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY ! Figure 1 • Conforming Park O Partially Conforming Park i O Non-Conforming Park huntington beach planning division Other information from the 1979 census indicated that the average median age of tenants for the same 13 mobile home parks was 62 as compared to the City-wide median age of 28. Additionally, 46 percent of the park residents were retired and only 27 percent were employed full time. Overall, the census indicates that the majority of mobile home park residents in the City are elderly low-income persons who are either retired or rapidly approaching retirement age. 4.0 AVAILABILITY Each year, all jurisdictions in the State are required to submit information to the State Department of Finance regarding the number of mobile home parks in the jurisdiction, the number of mobile home spaces in each park and the number of occupied spaces. Compilation of the 1980 figures for all of Orange County indicates that Huntington Beach has eight percent of the County's total of 191 mobile home parks and ten_ percent of the County's total of 32,145 mobile home spaces. These figures are in line with Huntington Beach's 8.7 percent share of the total County population in January, 1981. The jurisdictions reporting also indicated an extremely low vacancy rate for mobile home parks throughout the County. Huntington Beach had a 1..4 percent vacancy rate with a total of 48 unoccupied spaces, while the incorporated portion of the County reported a 1.7 percent vacancy rate with a total of 447 unoccupied spaces. In actuality, it is felt that the true vacancy rate is closer to zero and that reporting errors were responsible for rates above one percent. The extremely low vacancy rates indicate that displaced mobile home park tenants will have a limited opportunity to find available spaces in other parks in the County. Additionally, many newer mobile home parks will not accept older units, thus reducing the availability of spaces even more for many mobile home owners. 5.0 AFFORDABILITY As the.census information indicated, the average mobile home park resident is retired and living on a very tow income and may be unable to afford the high cost of traditional housing. Mobile home parks, however, have historically provided much lower cost housing than other forms. Mobile home park living is generally a form of mixed ownership and rentership. The tenant owns the mobile home and rents space for the unit. Depending on the age of the unit, the resale price of a typical mobile home may range from $7,000 to $25,000. Moving and location costs may ran from $29000 to $8,000 depending on the distance to be traveled. Once placed in a park, the. monthly rental fee may average $I50 to $250. Thus, it has historically been possible to own a mobile home in a park for as little as $9,000 to $30,000 plus a monthly rental payment. Low buy-in, low monthly rent and limited maintenance requirements have made mobile home park living extremely attractive for many retired and low-income people. • ,l The low vacancy rates and lack of new park construction, however, have caused the expenses and procedures of mobile home park living to change in recent . years. Except in the case of new parks, mobile homes are now rarely purchased off-site and then moved to a mobile home park. Rather, the unit is purchased in the park for the market value of the unit plus the market value of the rental agreement. Depending on the location and desirability.of the park, the mobile home purchaser may pay from $10,000 to 530,000 simply for the ability to rent the space the unit is on. The mobile home itself must also be purchased. This practice has effectively doubled or tripled the "buy-in" requirements for a mobile 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 $60,000. High interest rates combined with high rental rates have made mobile home parks essentially equal to condominiums in terms of affordability. 6.0 REASONS FOR CONVERSION This study was initiated because of the realization that there will be an increasing tendency for the City's mobile home parks to convert to other uses, thereby impacting the residents of the parks and the nature of the City's housing supply. Before any steps can be taken to regulate conversion, however, it must be .understood why mobile home parks are converting. It is a complex issue involving a number of important factors. The single most important factor involved in the conversion of mobile home . parks is the value of the land. Most of the City's mobile home parks were constructed at a time when vacant land was plentiful and land values were low. As vacant land has become scarce, however, the value of the remaining vacant land has risen dramatically. Similarly, the potential value of underdeveloped land has also risen proportionally. By recycling land initially developed at a lower density to a higher intensity development, the owner/developer can potentially realize a much greater profit. Because mobile home parks have a maximum development potential of nine units per acre, those with a medium or high density general plan designation may be considered underdeveloped uses of the land. A sizeable profit may potentially be realized through higher intensity redevelopment such as condominiums or office/commercial uses where such uses are consistent with the general plan. This is particularly true for those parks located in or near the coastal zone where property values are highest. Even if the existing mobile home park owner has no desire to convert his park to another use for the profit which could be gained, there may be other factors which could force conversion or sale of the park to a new owner looking to convert. Among the factors involved may be the owner's original intent In purchasing the park and the number of years he has owned it. Some park owners may have purchased parks not so much for profits which could be realized through operation of the park, but for use as a tax shelter through A 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 runs out, the park no longer serves the purpose for which it was purchased and the owner must sell it. It is possible that a number of parks- in the City fall within this investment category and are, in fact, nearing the end of their depreciation potential. I ' Another factor may involve a lack of ability by the park owner to make a margin of profit adequate for continued operation of the park. Because of the low-income nature of many mobile home park tenants, there has been great pressure an park owners to maintain low monthly rental fees. While many apartment rents have increased 100 percent in the past ten years, many mobile home park rents have remained vitually unchanged. Recent attempts to increase rents to catch up with inflation have resulted in rent controls being enacted in some cities. The difficulty involved in charging adequate rents may influence some park owners to sell or change uses. A fourth factor involves the age and deterioration of the parks and the expense involved in upkeep and upgrading of facilities. As previously noted, the majority of mobile home parks in the City were constructed in the years between 1959 and 1965. Standards for construction and utilities were less at that time than they are now. Also, mobile home parks were often viewed as temporary uses and park developers were sometimes ebbe to hove the development standards of the time reduced for mobile home parks. As a result, many parks are substandard according to currant development regulations and, in fact, may never have been in full compliance with any development standards. It is likely that a number of parks have deteriorated utilities which • will soon have to be upgraded if the parks are to continue to function. For many park owners, upgrading will be prohibitively expensive. These owners will be forced to either raise rents substantially, sell the park outright or close the park and convert to another use. 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 lees expensive housing alternative for those looking for housing. 7.0 IMPACT ON TENANTS Examination of the economics Involved has indicated that many mobile home parks may request conversion to other uses in the near .future. The virtually non-existent mobile home park vacancy rate in Huntington Beach as well as the rest of the County means that displaced residents will have a very limited ability to relocate within the County. Rather, it will probably be necessary for most of those tenants wishing to keep their mobile homes to relocate to parks in Riverside County or beyond. The costs of such relocation may be considered excessive for many low-income tenants. The tenants who stand to lase 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 lost and only the value of the unit itself may be regained through sale to another 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 homes which .are too old or deteriorated to be relocated in any mobile home park. As such, their mobile home would be essentially unsaleable in any market place. These tenants lose the ability to live in a mobile home park anywhere as well as the ability to sell the unit and reinvest money from the sale into another form of housing. 8.0 PLRPOSE OF ORDINANCE The City should acknowledge the fact that mobile home parks within the City will be converting to other uses in the future and that such conversions will displace significant numbers of mobile home park tenants. If the City allows the conversions to.occur, it should somehow mitigate the undesirable impacts of displacement of the tenants. One passible solution would be development of a mobile. home park conversion ordinance whereby conversions would be permitted subject to compliance with prescribed mitigating measures. The purpose would be to assure an adequate notification process and to provide the tenants with some. degree of relocation assistance or compensation in a manner that is equitable for the park owner as well as the tenants. General provision for such action may be found in the State Government Code, Sections 658617 and 66427.4. These two sections of the code, respectively, state that prior to conversion of a mobile home park to another use, or at the time of filing a tentative or parcel map for a new use, the proponent must file a report on the impact of the conversion upon the displaced tenants and make it available prior to any public hearing on the change of use. The legislative body, upon review of the report may require mitigating measures from the proponent before permitting the change. The sections establish a minimum standard for local regulation of conversions of mobi I e home parks to other uses and do not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. The problem with use of only the Government Code to regulate conversions is that it is minimal in scope and overly general. To be effective, an ordinance must spell out precisely what the acceptable mitigating measures would be and exactly what action 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 octivates the requirements, though it seems to imply that a public hearing for a zone change would be.the activator. Section 66427.4 of the Code clearly designates the filing of a tentative or parcel map for a subdivision as being the activator, but by that time, all tenants may already have been evicted. - In essence, the Government Code simply assures that local governments have the authority to develop conversion regulations. �7 f� i t 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 which may vary widely 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 avollobie mobile home park spaces and rents within a given rod us. I Listing of available apartments and rents within a given radius. 4. If the land occupied by the park is to be sold, the tenants be given the first right of refusal accepting the offer of the seller far the purchase of the park and all the improvements. S. The tenants be given the option of a long term lease of the land and purchase of the improvements. 6. Partial payment for relocation of mobile homes to another park. . 7. If the mobile homes cannot be relocated to parks within a given radius, the proponent may be required to purchase the mobile homes at fair market values, determined by an independent appraiser with mobile home e)pertise. 8. If the park is to be converted to another residential use, a certain number of units may be required to be set aside for displaced tenants. It is important to note that most of these items are only general concepts which would require much more specific detail if drafted into an ordinance. San Diego County, for example, determines the amount of financial relocation assistance which must be provided by the amount of prior notification given. A longer notification period would allow the developer to pay a smaller portion of the relocation costs. Limits could also be set for all other forma of financial assistance required, or assistance could be limited to low-income tenants. Information on available spaces could restricted to tFe range County area or could include all of Southern California. In any case, the above items are only intended to serve as a partial list of general ideas for inclusion in a conversion ordinance. 10.0 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 are to be activated. 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. • % � 1 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 hone park conversion ordinance. The ordinance would provide guidelines for mitigating measures which must he 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 hone 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 hone k conversions area particular problem only because mobile P®' pa Pr Y 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 law-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. ,� 3 i . 13.0 APPENDIX Appendix A San Diego County Mobile Home Park Zone Change Procedures 7sos APKICATION Of ITT W*W. The application of a property owner or the agent of such owner requesting . an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as applied to his property shall be made as follows: a. Application Form Filing, and Fee. An application requesting an • amendment of the Zoning Ordinance shall be made on the prescribed for, shall be filed with the Planning Commission, and shall be accompanied by the fee referenced in Section 7602. b. Re uired Documents. An application requesting an amendment to the Zoning OrdUance shall be accompanied by the following documents; 1. A list of the names of all persons having an interest in the application as well as the names of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. If any person identified pursuant to this provision is a corporation or a partnership, the names of all. persons owning more than 10 percent of the shares .in the corporation or owning any partner- ship interest in the partnership shall be listed. If any person identified pursuant to this provision is a non-profit organi- zation or trust, the names of all persons serving as directors of the non-profit organization or-as beneficiaries, trustees and trustors of the trust shall be listed. 2. Complete description of the requested amendment. 3. The appropriate environmental impact review document, as provided by Sectioa 7610. c. Additional Documents Required for Mbbilehome Parks. 1. An application requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on property containing an existing mobilehome park and zoned for exclusive mobilehome park usage by either the R-MH Use Regulation or the "A" Building Type Designator shall request provisional reclassification pursuant to Section 7SO9 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 le%tb ej hasty by each tenant. vi. The estimated income, age and w mber 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 com•encing upon provisional reclassification. Such evidence may include, but, is not limited to the following: Cl) Written agreements to relocate mobilehomes; and (2) Assistance for low and moderate intone tenants in the form of payment by the park owner. of 80%, up to a maximum of $2,000, of the cost of relocating the • mobilebeme to mother mobilehome park within 100 miles. i� :i. If such evidence specified in „:„ 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 eomdltion et the psvrisioneI reclassification of the �P�tl'• 2. NotWriWtanding the provisions of Section 7SOS(c)(1), a park moor wbo 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 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 111. Assisted each tenant in relocating the tenant's mobilehome to any new spaef within 100 miles in accordance with the following sehedules IF TENANT VACATES PORTION OF EXPENSES UP TO A BEFORE END OF PAID 3Y M.MI R :tAXIMR-1 OF 1st year 80% $2,000 2nd year 60% 1,S00 3rd year 40% 1,000. 4th year 20s Soo Sth year -b- -0- (Added by Ord. No. S90S (N.S.) adopted 10-8-80) l ` � Appendix 8 San Marcos Mobile Home Park Conversion Ordinance I R is MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS ARTICLE I E3TASLI3HMENT AND OPERATION OF MOBILEHOME PARKS SECTION Its That the San Marcos Municipal Code be amended by adding Article II, Mobilehone Park Conversions, of Chapter 15, Mobilehomes and Mobile Home Parks. CHAPTER 1S 'MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS ARTICLE II MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSIONS Sec. 1S-7 - 'SCOPE 'OF ARTICLE. Unrestricted conversion of mobile home parks to other uses diminishes the mobile hone stock and space availability: The protection of tenants and potential purchasers of mobile homes, warrants* the'iMplementation'of certain regulatory safe- guards. The City recognizes the need to insure that the private sector exercises its responsibilities to'provide .varisA housing ' choices and opportunities, and that City participation in this ' responsibility is necessary. Sec. 1S-$ - 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 horse park conversions provide for the health, safety awe Squoral welfare of the eosmaunity. 1Q Se 9- -c t S RgQUI REMUTS. a) Use of property as a mobile hoine park shall not be terminated for .the purpose of conversion :to another land use until application for mobile home park conversion has been made to the Planning Department and approval by the Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal, gas been received. b) NC 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. 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 4300.00 filing fee, the following information is requiredw 1. Plans indicating what use the conversion is, in- tended to be. ?: 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 cbarged. S. Zavironammtal Assessment form. Sea. 15-10 - PMWRE S FOR REVIEW. a) Within 10 days following the submittal of an application for mobiIs home j4rk conversion and all required information, the matter shall be set for public hearing before the Planning Cosmission. b) The Planning Commission •within 30 days after the close of s the public hearing shall render a decision on whether or not the eoaveraten *ball be approved, based upon the findings set. forth in Section 11. F) The deci '`m of the Planning Commission 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 deoision of the Planning Commission with regard to the required findings. d) Within 60 days following the filing of said appeal, the City Council .shall. hold a public hearing on the matter and within 30 days following the close of that hearing, the City Council shall render a decision on the conversion. The City Council shall not grant a conversion denied by the Planning Commission, except upon order of the City Council passed by not .less than a four-fifths (4/5) vote of all members thereof. Sec. 15-11 FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION. In reviewing request for a mobile home park conversion, the Planning Commision 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 1*0 to asoesmwdate the "splae" mobile hooves. b) The conversioa will not. result in the displacement of low income individuals or households -who cannot afford rents charged in other parks. c) -That. the ages type and style of mobile home within the park proposed for conversion would be accepted into other parks within the geographic area. d) If the conversion is to another residential use, the mobile home park residnits have first opportunity to occupy these units and the construction schedule will not result in long torn.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 convex-«ion will not result in a shortage of housing opportunities and choices within the City of San Marcos. � . Sec. 15-12 - CONDITIONS. In the approval of a mobile home park conversion, the City may attach conditions deemed reasonable in order to mitigate the impacts associated with the conversion. Such conditions shall not be limited to, but may include4the 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-. Bents. 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 hones to ther parks. Said time limit eball at a minimmi be one year. -V a) If the mobile hors 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 *hall .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 follows. IIng roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NOES: COUNCILMEN: ASSENT: COUNCILMEN: ATTEST: ANDREW G. , mAya or CITY OF SAN MARCOS • , y Appendix C Goverment Code, Sections 65863.7 and 66427.7 &M3.7. Pdor to the conversion of a mobilehome-park to another. use, except pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (eom- mencit wft NO MIN - "410) of Tide A the person or entity. propoft =Ch dwW to use shad file a report an the .impact of the eeftiiirs(x %*M ft dhgd6ced residents of the mobilehome park to he eonrprtedr lh de the. impact of the conversion on dbplaced mobileh�enre parfch�ts, the report shall address the availability of adequate replacement space in mobilehome parks. The person proposing such change in use shall make a copy of the report available to each resident of the mobilehome park at least 15 days prior to the hearing :on the impact report by the. advisory agency, or if there is no advisory agency, by the legislative body. The legislative body, or its delegated advisory agency, shall . review such report, prior to any change of use, and may require, as a condition of such.change, the person or entity to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a cobilehome 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 from enacting more stringent measures. (Added by Stab. 11d0, Ch. 979.) $6427.4. 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 find adequate space in a mobilehome park. This section establishes a minimum standard for local regu- lation of conversions of mobilehome parks into other uses and shall not prevent a local agency from enacting more stringent measures. (Added by Sots. 19SO, Ch. 1065.) • Y Shelter Parks March 23 , 1984 Page 2 Council meeting. Staff will then present a more detailed discussion of these and other alternatives at the April 16 , 1984 City Council meeting. JWP:HS:df Attachments : Area Maps a. NWC Adams and Santa Ana River b. SEC Ellis & Goldenwest/Talbert Redondo/Terry Park C. Meadowlark Airport d. Irby Park v PLANNING ` W C N SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 5-6-10 M.E 1. FEET w CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP TEAL LN \�I�' ORIOLE AVE OWL C0. a GARFIELD I E 3 Z HUNTINGTON BEACH ICITY TT f KAIMU DR. $AMOR J DR. m W tV W S:tiT. I:nli _ MAIKAI DR H Q N A A 0� PUA DR. _ 2 I �O g N00 Y LN. m U J2 S KAMUELA DR. Z J HALAWA SUNDAY DR 3 •COOK CR CF-E QQ QQ I_AI BP400 PA00 OR �Z Z JO I ICHRI TMA CR 3 YORKTOWN JAVE. J Z U FORRESTAL DR.z MONITOR DR. p - P7:: 1 W O U Q F 3 Yam { VALLEY FORGE DR. SHANGRI LA DR. R 3 MERRIMAC DR. CF-E CONSTITUTION DR.I. ¢ z i z S a 8 BISMARK DR. C LUR IN DR.J w SHALOM DR a Z f GUTTY SARK DR. z MA aNIA . J L: RONSAY C Oo Q m a a _ __ Gp z y J U —IT �a\ ADAMS — AVENUE a Attachment A :N.,WC Adams and Santa Ana River PLANNING ZONING DM 4 low SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 4-6-II ,C.LE -NOTE- ALL CITY OF ADOPTED MARCH ,I68O DIMENSIONS 1R[IN R[T ANY ZONE ADJOININf ANY RIGHT OF MAY f MENDED TO E[T[MD TO THE CENTER Is .SUCH R.GM Or M.Y. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. T04 LEGEND Zp� ORD. ZONE ORD. ®INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AMENDED CASE N0. AMENDED CASE- N0. MUUTIPLE rArILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT RQ LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 2.3-62 281.262 6s6 TWD FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-22-66 S4S 1186 © KIGHfORHDOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10-19-70 70-10 I6D6 7-2-73 72-39 1855 ® SINOLE FAY ILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 5-4-81 80.6 2482 ® DOMMUNITY FApIJTIES(RECREATONLL)D57WT 1-18-82 81-I4 2536 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2-22-03 82.20 2609 SUFFIX LEGEND Q COYBINMG OIL PRODUCTION DISTRICT rQI-COMOMIMG OIL PRODUCTION[.STRICT Ir 'COMBINING OIL PRODUCTION DISTRICT ]. o•.[]i•F ]F.'w A ' D'oYE J7- p� R 3-0 T .fSi�] If fF•iT'oo'F NUHTIH OTOM f �• I Q 3325' pia R4-29-0 44 q�'w•« G\ N xEaMwY - t xF[211Y[D]Y pT�f BT]10'f. I.x Y R2-PD-0 oo ]r� R3-17-0 C a.. A R2-PD-0 "C" \ M2-01 n� iy Y, { 00 F9 a f Io; u r .-. • Wm H p Q— �N SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE .OF PROPERTY MAP 21 26 28 25 ]! 56 TALBERT AVE. � S T. .�j RROWV R. .. .� 3 m ONTARIO DR _CW J F-C MNTON CR QUEBEC DR r w 4LBERTA DR z = i z RANKLIN DR F YUKON DR' YB 5 u D OR z Appl1111777711. AVE9F COMMODORE CR. :. a. w _ 3 z 0 c� z a z w SRn FER lA ._�....... z F Z o C) W f z < 2 Y 2 J O IC GARFIELD AVE. 34 33. !! 3 2 2 I Attachment B SEC Ellis & Goldenwest/Talbert-Redondo/Terry Park PLANNING • ZONING DM 38 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-II NOTE: ADOPTED AUGUST 18, 1960. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET CITY OF ANY ZONE ADJOINING ANY NIGHT OF WAY 19 INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. 763 of sua RIGHT of WAY AMENDED ORD.NO. AMENDED ORD,NO, LEGEND: RA REBI_`G.AORN:ULTURAL DISTRICT TIN T N BEACH 1-3-1966 .870 1-18-82 253G COMNNEO W n qL PRGQUcnw HUN G 0 E CH 4-5 I985 .113T 62 2531 COMWNFD WITH DL RESIDENCE LIST 12-5-1988 1271 I-18-82 2536 [� SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-3IS 1467 5-3-82' 2553 ® L1GMT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 6-26-70 1578 4-19-82 2551 ® NIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 10-19-70 160fi jS COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 7-17-71 1659 COMMUNITY FACILITIES(RECREATIONAL)DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 10-18-71 1681 ® PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 1-17-72 1709 ® TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 315,505,68-4% 68-46,70-8,70-10,71-9,71-26,71-17,71-44,73.20,74-22,74-5,74-22,77-19,81-3,81-11,81-14, - 2-22-72 1722 ® LIMITE°USE 82-2,82-3, 10-15-73 1876 QUALIFIED MASSIFIGATION 4-7-74 1977 051 S RECREATN)N OPEN SPACE 9-15-75 2010 © COIAMIIMTY BIISMEa5 D6TRICT 7-6-76 2077 2B.Y1•. II-21-77 2229 (1T flto 1NE OR. CENTRAL RIRN i 1a°' DR.eS�H RI RI-CD� °RI-CD p N J s°xwDDD R i.. ` NEWBtAY a+ g 3 5 RI RI '< RI RI RI-CD RI o RI- RI RI RI N RI �RI RI i ? CF-R „ JUOWI V O_ Yy � ' (-i-NMiiT`.�P: CF.NTRA; FIA. NK) R RIOf 8 �paN HEMW,CN I 4 & RI- RI Tj CR. CD TALL RI- CD W `�° R I `° A " RI- fL •b° CD R I RA-0-CD RI RI 5' (PREZONED) RA-0-CD ' RI CD Not 1320 S-O•CD S-O-CD (PRE20NED) RI OS-O•CD -O-CD ROS-O-CD •o-CD -O-CD °� �F• W (PREZONED) SO-CD OSOCD S-0CD —C D LU-O-CD'' RA-6-CD zD. c RCD 00D RA—CD RA-O-CD V A!a N B9•12'5I-W 9l9.60 LU-O-CD cYY _ RA-0 x LU-o-CD U-O-CD' .... E AED a 9 D RA-O RA-01-CD RA-O-CD 0 RA-Cl) Q Q-RI-(2.7)-0 8,000; 13. R ¢ p 2 J J J 3E0 O Z 0 -. RA-0 NBO'41'a1'W 726.; RA-0 LU-O-CD RA-0-CD - OF ' MI-01 659,93, y 1 MI-CD U, RA-01 RA-01 RA-0-CD 9 o 3 m E G9 4 W r RA'-O-CD ` I - I � 69•41'07'E - 2181.3tl MU w's GARFIELD AVE. ar s• a•as • a. a t .a S: low lo oR SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 21-5-II 11 1 FrE.wW CITY OF " HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP 201 xi 21 2e EDINGER AVE Lu i I j L � _ r I N \ AUDREY DR HENRICKSEN DR ur CASTLE o R. F _J MANGRUM LINDA CR II = z CF-E I LITTLER p SN 0 CHERYL DR Z ¢ ..:.-............, It s a I I I M CLARK DR SI550N DR I w PROPOSED 1 . o. C. F. c. D. CF—E = 1 1I. ,. MEADOWLARK _ DR (MEAii G• `rl"-S::=:•:^:>:.1 aK DR LP I z z zU� l I MEADOK \ I F i PARCR VENTURI 'DR i a o F MARSXALL DR. I ZA, IzzAmCALIENTE MIDOLECOFF OR. HEIL 3 AVE 6 CR V N IL CR s ADOW 1 I CR z TA CF- R J I DONLYN / RANMAR CR. EDMONDS CR. �J 1 W i GILDRED CR. MEADOW CR. ¢ Q (MEAPY11,1v LARK iR'CR. G7 _ U °Ger 1`� TROPHY DR. Q t 0 o 10 .`+� :�': __ VIEW CR. .... _._ n WARNER. _ AVE �zoizi\ - � xi•es �zsjze,� xe-eT Attachment C Meadowlark Airport ( • ZONI G : • M 23 o CTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 20 -5 II ;CAL INFEET° NOTE. ALL DIMENSION!ARE IN FEET CITY OF - ADOPTED pECEMER 5,1960 Axr C Ht RIGHT Ofxc Axr RILHr or wAr IS INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER 01 SUCH RICHT OF WAY CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.-B 04 LEGEND AMENDED ORD.NO. AMENDED ORD.N0. RI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT H�JNTINGTON BEACH 6.4_62 9D7 5-I6-66 1210 R! °PEKE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT 6-24-63 978 7-18-66 1228 C2 COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 13 7-63 1007 12-5-66 I269 - FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE 3-2-64 I O41 3-8-67 1304 LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT AMENDED ORDNO 4-5-64 1045 S-18-67 1349 ORANGE COUNTY, C A L I F O R N I A 15:26-76 2118 S-4 64 jog4 -iB ;451 Tw°FAMILY RESIDENCE DI6fRIC AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 1-7-eo z4oz qES ryp5-18-64 1056 2-17-69 1471 © NIG— COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 247,292,367,398,403,410,413,425,439,408,459,460,478,66-10,66-26 5-4-BI 49966-I-64 1059 4-7-69 1488 CANMUNITV FACILITIES(EDUCATION)DISTRICT 461,498530,66-53.66-72.67-22,67-29,67-30,68.33,66-28,69-4,70-19,71-20(B).71-20(C),PPA77-2, 920-82 2575 8-12 1079 7-19-71 1620 COMMUNITY F4CILITIE9(RECREATIDNALI DISTRICT 78-I,78-I9,,PPA76-7,79-3,79-7,PPASO-I,B2-7, II-2-64 1098 12-20-71 1692 T MOBILEHOME DISTRICT 12-7-64 11D6 7-3-72 1693 ® PRECISE PLAN ALIGNMENT IJ.18-6, II6E 7-18-77 2207 --- DESIGNATES PRIMttE STREETS II.1 65 1164 7-3-78 22.91 ® QUALIFIED CLASSIFICATION EDINGER AVE L le'IT � 20 Ie zo t — R I I -�JR1 u u = z 2 RS _SS RI RI RI R3I(0) N a R3 C2 CF R2 - R2 3 20) u- PRELUDE DR CF-E ` RI CF-E RI RI I Va*.r VIE ct%' g R3 R5 (SCHOOL SITE) SUITE DR< -KONA DR- <yqq TExpR DR m RI R5 R1 9 L OryO RI MINUET pR c HILO CR, N4ygq CFER - RI ZKAUI DR.= RI W f9 = ,�/ MAUI :OCR • U r RHAPSODY DR Z15 \ n RI RI RI RI RI gPi -------------- 11 CF-R R a I N OPERETTA 7DR OAHU DR. 7RI z I,!' R I � a RI gCFR RI i s 3 RI �0e RI ;ir--___----- I SCENARIO DR. r' MH R1 RI C4-I O. C. F C. D IIO �N 14 R Imo_ R 2 R 2 c4 Q� 'R3 R3 -HEIL—— AVE — ap� CF-R = N30'39'3YW R3 9;y)1�9Lz7. �Ck�� . .Do JR2 LXRISTIANA BM q '•�.,G , N 09'?6'.7-3762 8' Is. R2 X `- R2 A C4 R CF-E I.P. �, R2 R R2 R3, wr�ro_u: CF-R V RI -STAR ESa R2 . RUDDER DR. R IH .. RI 2 DR. J D PICKWICK CR F CF-R YIBTp DR w BRANFOR R I z NEE CR. i RI oa' �` CF-R R2 G RI J D N SP�\y R 3 R 2 „ R 2 R 2 a R 2 RSRY -E1}�o>;,��� _ - _ RZ - R2 CF-R R I R I .e-.; -_:_ 9. .�.. J ; 3 107I!!Vl c m R2 R2 FI R I 0 dm l Q. RC sr. I R I R DALE DR. - 1' ;elntial;N J CF R MAN R I p i R3 a RI s1 BOARDWALK R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 . ...R3 RI � RI � TRUM�LL _. :.•s1 •I I Q cF-R a RI R I m R1 R I -C4 MI .ST MILO ST SODS U R3, _ u FR f I DAV NPORT 2 1 I z - - II" -R' 110 RI -I g = 3 3 R3 a W — R1 =I — o R3 R3 R3 = R3 J R1 ��� DR. - N.I La C2 m CF-R R I 3 INDSOR DR. R I R I R I R I Y 'R I _ ---- — 1 aP ae !o aP w AVE r m ^ WARNER I g ,l PLANNING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 22-5-II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP 16 ie le 1 2. 2t /—.-. tt,2, EDINGER AVE. A 111 I I t J BELLINGER DR WALTON DR. 1 J V IA Z 2 y p d J f - FLINT � �,DRTillill I _ A CR- i SOFTWIND DR. REUBENS DR Z i 2 a U H J i i t I Iraq, LENNDX IDR. NYANZA DR.tw.- MONTECITO DR. SILVERWOOD - DR. [' URELHURST ALISAOE DR. I ( I I I C rC-c 3 � lir�Lz z z MYRTLE DR. "FAYETTE DR j ! CF-R W DAGNY CR. z z i Q W CR. o —1 J AUBN i-- II I I I I I I ORLANDO DR- I CR ! __ j- N EDGEMONT DR. j LDYDI,A DR 2 3 J w q ! JERSEY REDGROVE EY CR. 2 O JU 5 IIEN CR DEFIANCE DR x w j O 2 ` I . Z SHAY O----� - CR YCHRSTY DR. . Q CHELE BRIDGE—ERIF oR AVE. Ll � MOR I IMM DR. I 4B80TT BONNIE R./ 2�__ __C F-R BISHOP DR e _JEAIN DR. ; FMASON IS CCAR :•:.K) ii z WEBER CR. RUTH DRRRINE CR. VE NE CF-E-W.':::^,..i.I ¢CRANDALL DR.ANNETTE CR, - PEGGY CR. CF-R o A CR KENDRICK CR., DR- BRAD DR.D.w J VIA N R.Y CARLA CR I—J ZLIJ-Jo IFFM DOYLE DR-J _F FARINELLA DR. FARINELLA DR. �j j 1 LYDIA DR. IIIL- a 2 ¢ 2 a SHII/ ELUS OR N p MA I 3 s I w DR UI W W j 3 J O C.F. C. D. CHANNEL CS-3 I I Q I I I 0 I U Z CIO O 0 I SUNo R. Ti 7,C I 1 Y _ WARNER AVE. \ \v\, Attachment D Irby Park VF While the bill does not address these questions, the State Department of Housing and Community Development has indicated that whatever need for mobile home space is identified in the jurisdiction's Housing Element should be the basis for lot designation. Presumably, if this course were taken, the State would review the Housing Element and number of designated lots to determine if the local agency acted reasonably in implementing the legislature's intent. Regarding compatibility, HCD has indicated that the local agency may exercise its own judgment in making determinations. Generally, sites will be compatible for mobile home use if mobile homes will meet the existing zoning and subdivison requirements. According to HCD, concern that the placement of a mobile home on a lot might have a negative economic effect on surrounding lots does not mean it is an incompatible land use. Additional criteria that the agency could consider in making the determination are probably limited to architectural and historical factors. Another related problem concerns what happens to those lots after they are designated to allow mobile home use. The owners cannot be required to place mobile homes on those lots. If the lots are developed for conventional single family homes instead, will the local agency be required to designate additional lots for mobile homes? Neither the bill nor HCD provide an answer to this question. Finally, the issues .of spot zoning and discrimination are raised. It is conceivable that designation of specific lots for mobile homes could be considered spot zoning which is against State law. Nearby lot owners who did not receive the mobile home designation could conceivably initiate legal action against the jurisdiction. In view of these considerations, it appears that the alternative of designating lots for mobile home use in place of allowing mobile homes on all single family lots in the jurisdiction may not be an attractive alternative. Very careful analysis of mobile home needs and neighborhood characteristics would be required if the agency were to avoid litigation. 2.2 Public Hearings It has been stated that the purpose of SB 1960 is to facilitate the integration of mobile homes into single family zones without the application of additional development standards. It is unclear, however, whether public hearings may be required for mobile homes if not also required for other permitted uses in the zoning district. State Health and Safety Code Section 18300.1 authorizes any person to file an application for a conditional use permit for a mobile home and provides for a public hearing procedure for its consideration. Additionally, Section 18300(g) (3) of the same code states that the Mobilehome Parks Act shall not prevent a city from requiring a permit to use a mobile home outside a mobile home park. The counties of San Diego and Sacramento have both assumed that these sections of the Health and Safety Code are not pre-empted by the new law and have thus established public hearing requirements for mobile homes in single family zones as a means of implementing the bill. HCD, however, has indicated that SB 1960 does, in fact, pre-empt the Health and Safety Code regarding public hearings and use permits. The first sentence of the new law precludes a locality from prohibiting mobile homes on lots in single family zones. HCD argues that since there is a possibility that a use permit could be denied, such a requirement would be illegal under the new law. The League of California Cities, on the other hand, feels that SB 1960 pre-empts the Health and Safety Code only in the event that public hearing is not similarly required for other permitted uses in the zoning district. It therefore appears that in most, if not all cases, local agencies will not legally be able to require public hearings for mobile homes in single family zones. 2.3 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions A final question concerns whether the new law nullifies covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC & R's) on property prohibiting mobile homes. Again, the . bill does not address this issue, but HCD has supplied an opinion that the bill does not nullify such CC & R's, but that restrictive covenants prohibiting mobile homes may be unenforcable. Courts have refused to enforce restrictive covenants where, due to "changed conditions" it would be oppressive and inequitable to the property owner to do so. HCD argues that rezoning to allow mobile homes could constitute a changed condition or that restrictive covenants could be narrowly interpreted by the courts, to apply only to older mobile homes rather than newer ones which may be .indistinguishable from conventional homes. Similar situations to those described above exist in R2 zones throughout the City. Most notable are two areas along Beach Boulevard near Slater and Heil Avenues. Both of these areas are experiencing recycling of older single and multi-family units and it is conceivable that mobile homes could provide an opportunity for new affordable housing and structure replacement that would not otherwise be available. The R1 district consists primarily of single family tract homes with a minimum required lot size of 6,000 square feet. The great majority of R1 zoning in the City is built-out and-very little recycling .of uses will be occurring in the near future. SB 1960 will therefore have little immediate effect on R1 areas in the City. The RA district does encompass a substantial amount of vacant land in the City. Development Standards for the RA district, however, require a minimum lot size of one acre. Because of the lot size requirements, it is unlikely that much development will, occur in areas covered by this district until zone changes are enacted to allow higher density development. Current development trends in the City indicate that such zone changes would be requested to allow planned developments of attached units which would necessarily exclude single lot availability for mobile homes. It appears that while SB 1960 will provide scattered opportunities for affordable housing, its overall impact on the nature of the City's housing supply will likely be minimal. Until the City's dominant R1 districts begin to recycle significantly, the primary opportunity for mobile home siting will occur in the Townlot area. The small lots, wide mix.of uses, existence of deteriorated units and lack of a dominant architectural style in the area would seem to make it well suited for mobile home siting. In actuality, because new mobile homes on permanent foundations may be virtually indistinguishable from conventional homes, the other single family zones in the City could also be considered suitable for mobile homes when recycling or infill occurs. 3.0 IMPACT ON HUNTINGTON BEACH The City of Huntington Beach has several zoning districts which allow single family homes as a primary or secondary use. These districts include RA, R.1, R2, and the Townlot and Oldtown Specific Plans. Mobile homes are expressly prohibited by the existing ordinance code in all of these zones but the RA and R1. The new law, however, will require that mobile homes be a permitted use in most or all of these zones depending on the implementation strategy selected. Some modification of the ordinance code for these districts will therefore be required in order to allow mobile homes as required. The major impact of the bill will be in older areas of the City that are currently experiencing recycling of uses and infill of previously vacant lots. The Townlot area and to a lesser extent the Oldtown area both fall within this category. Single family units as well as multi-family units are allowable in both areas depending on the lot area available. Typical single unit lot sizes in the two areas are twenty-five feet wide by 117 to 127 feet long. Many of these lots have not been developed or redeveloped because of the high cost associated with such an action. The pending right to place a comparatively affordable mobile home on such a site may be seen by many of the owners as their only real opportunity for housing on the site. Because of the high value of land in the area, mobile homes may also provide the only reasonably affordable housing for many new property owners in the area as well. Revision of the Specific Plans for the two areas to allow mobile homes could eventually lead .to significant replacement of deteriorated structures and increase the amount of affordable housing near the coast. It should be noted that the area in the Townlot fronting on Pacific Coast Highway is currently zoned R4 and C3 which is not a single family zone; therefore, mobile homes will not be required to be allowed in this area. This will also be true when the specific plan for higher density is prepared for implementation of the Coastal Plan. 4.0 CITY IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS As detailed in the analysis section of this report, the City does have some options for implementing the bill. The initial range of options considered by staff included designation of individual lots throughout the City for mobile home use, designation of broad mobile home overlay districts, limited ordinance code revision to allow mobile homes in all primarily single family zoning districts and major ordinance code revision to allow mobile homes in all residential zoning districts in the City. The problems associated with individual lot designation as described in the analysis section caused staff to discard this alternative. The alternative to allow mobile homes in all residential districts was also discarded because staff did not feel that it was the legislature's intent for the bill to be so encompassing. The advantages and disadvantages of the remaining two options are detailed below. 1. Overlay Zone This is a modification of the. rejected alternative to designate specific lots for mobile home use. Under this plan, broad areas such as the Townlot would be established as overlay zones with mobile homes being a permitted use on all lots in the area regardless of whether the lots are presently developed or undeveloped. Advantages The permitted areas would be established through the public hearing process and affected owners would have a role in determining where mobile homes would and would not be established. The problem of spot zoning and discrimination would be largely avoided because all lots in the overlay zone would be considered equal. This would also allow deteriorated units to recycle to mobile homes. If overlay areas were established over a broad enough area, the City could meet its obligation. to provide sites for mobile homes without having to redesignate new areas later: The City could also avoid unwanted mixes of housing unit types in more homogeneous areas of the City. Disadvantages It may be difficult for the City to prove that adequate sites had been provided for mobile home use and the process of applying the overlay zones could be lengthy and involve substantial administrative cost to-the City. 2. Limited Ordinance Revision Under this option certain zoning districts in the ordinance code would be revised to include mobile homes as a permitted use. The districts that could be revised would be those that are primarily intended to allow single-family uses: RA, R1, R2 and the Townlot and Oldtbwn Specific Plans. The R3, R4 and other miscellaneous districts would not be revised. Advantages The most literal interpretation of SB 1960 would be satisfied by allowing mobile homes in all single family zones. The City would be providing a substantial opportunity .for affordable housing in the future with a regulatory process that could be easily administered. Disadvantages It is conceivable that mobile homes could be established in some neighborhoods where the prevailing size, architectural style and value of. housing is substantially different. 5.0 RECOMMENDATION In review of the two recommended options, it appears that the second alternative, Limited Ordinance Revision, not only meets the intent of SB 1960 more completely, but would also be simpler and less expensive to implement. It would eliminate the possibility of challenge by both the State and individual property owners as well as the potential need to redesignate additional areas for mobile home use in the future. This option is made further defensible by the fact that the technology involved with current mobile . home and manufactured housing production has resulted in the availability of units that are very similar to many conventional homes in both function and appearance. The cost savings combined with the improved design characteristics have revealed mobile homes to be a viable form of affordable housing. Additionally, Senate Bill 1004 which was passed in 1979, amended the Revenue and Taxation Code to provide for local property taxation of all new mobile homes built on permanent foundations. Under the recommended alternative, mobile homes on permanent foundations would be a permitted use in the RA, R1 and R2 districts as well as the Townlot and Oldtown Specific Plan areas pursuant to compliance with all development standards of the zoning district. and the siding and roofing compatibility requirements allowed by the bill. In order to implement the recommended action staff suggests the following revisions to the ordinance code: 1. Wording to establish approved mobile homes on permanent foundations as a permitted use should be added to Articles 960, 910, 916, 935 and 915 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. These are the respective sections addressing the RA, R1, R2, Townlot and Oldtown sections of the code. Wording prohibiting mobile homes in general should be removed. 2. A new article in the Special Developments chapter of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code entitled "Approved Mobile Homes on Single Family Lots" should be established to include the following components: A. Eligibility A mobile home shall not be located on a permanent foundation on a private lot unless it: 1. Was constructed after July 1, 1976 and was issued an insignia of approval by the U. S. Department of Housing and .Urban Development; and 2. Has not been altered in violation of applicable codes. B. Criteria Mobile homes located on a foundation system on a private lot shall: 1. Be occupied only as a residential use type. 2. Be subject to all provisions of the zoning ordinance applicable to residential structures. 3. Meet all requirements for the zone in which it is located. 4. Be attached to a permanent foundation system in compliance with all applicable building regulations. 5. Have a minimum width of 20 feet. 6. Be covered with an exterior material customarily .used on conventional dwellings and approved by the Department of Development Services. The exterior covering material shall extend to the ground, except when a solid concrete or masonry perimeter foundation is used, the exterior covering material need not extend below the top of the foundation or other material customarily used for conventional dwellings and approved by the Department of Development Services. 7. The mobile home may be required to have porches and eaves, or roofs and eaves when, in the opinion of the Department of Development Services it is necessary to make it compatible with the dwellings in the area. C. Modification of Criteria No modification may be granted from paragraphs 1-7 above. D. Plot Plan and Information The applicant must submit a plot plan and manufacturer's brochure describing the exterior of the mobile home or photographs showing all four sides of the mobile home. 6.0 APPENDIX APPENDIX A Eligible Areas Mobile home review procedures Designated Single- which are not required for Jurisdiction Lots Family Zones other single-family homes in the same zoning district City of Oakland X None City of Riverside X None City of San Marcos X Plan review by Site Review Committee City of Vista X None County of Sacramento X Public hearing for issuance of Certificate of Compatibility County of San Diego X Public hearing for issuance of Minor Use Permit IMPLEMENTATION METHODS SELECTED BY JURISDICTIONS WHICH HAVE REVISED ORDINANCES TO ALLOW MOBILE HOMES IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES Ch. 1142 —2— single-family residential dwelling on the same lot would be subject, including, but not limited to,.building setback standards, side and rear yard requirements,standards for enclosures,access,and vehicle parking and architectural, aesthetic requirements, and minimum square footage requirements. However, any architectural requirements imposed on the mobilehome structure itself,exclusive of any requirement for any -and all additional enclosures, shall be limited to its roof overhang,roofing material,and siding material. In no case may a city,including a charter city,county,or city and county apply any development standards which will have the_effect of totally precluding mobilehomes from being installed as permanent residences. SEC. 2. Section 18300 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 18300. (a) The provisions of this part apply to all parts of the state and supersede any ordinance enacted by any city, county, or city and county,whether general law or chartered,applicable to the provisions of this part. Except as provided in Section 18930, the commission may adopt regulations to interpret and make specific the provisions of this part and when adopted such regulations shall apply to all parts of the state. (b) Upon 30 days'written notice from the governing body to the department,.any city, county, or city and county may assume the responsibility for the enforcement of this part,the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code relating to mobilehome parks, travel trailer parks, recreational trailer parks, temporary trailer parks, incidental camping areas,.and.tent camps, and the regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part following approval by the department for such assumption. (c) The commission shall adopt regulations which set forth the conditions for assumption and may include required qualifications of local enforcement agencies. The conditions set forth and the qualifications required in the regulations which set forth the conditions for assumption shall relate solely to the ability of local agencies to enforce properly the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code relating to mobilehome parks, travel trailer parks, recreational trailer parks, temporary trailer parks, incidental camping areas;and tent camps, and the other regulations relating to mobilehome parks promulgated pursuant to this part.The regulations which set forth the conditions for assumption shall not set requirements for local agencies different than those which the state maintains for its own enforcement program. When assumption is approved, the department shall transfer the responsibility for enforcement to the city,county,or city and county,together with all records of mobilehome parks within the jurisdiction of the city, county, or city and county. (d) (1) In the event of nonenforcement of the provisions of this part, the building standards published in the State Building APPENDIX B Senate Bill No. 1960 CHAPTER 1142 An act to add Section 65852.3 to the Government Code, and to amend Section 18300 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to zoning. [Approved by Governor September 26, 1980. Filed with Secretary of State September 26, 1980.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 1960, Rains. Zoning: mobilehomes. Existing law does not preclude a city, including a charter city, county,or city and county from prohibiting the installation of certain mobilehomes on foundation systems on lots zoned for single4amily dwellings. This bill would make such a prohibition, but would specify that such installation may be subject to certain other requirements applicable to conventionally constructed single-family residential dwellings. However,any architectural requirements imposed on the mobilehome structure itself would be limited to roof overhang, roofing material, and siding material. It would permit the designation of lots for such use within single-family zones in a prescribed manner. It would make a specified finding and declaration. This bill would become operative July 1, 1981. The people of the State of California do enact as follows.- SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that manufactured housing, which includes mobilehomes, offers Californians an additional opportunity to own and live in decent, safe, and affordable housing on a permanent basis. SEC. 1.5. Section 65852.3 is added to the Government Code, to read: 65852.3. A city, including a charter city, county, or city and county shall not prohibit the installation of mobilehomes certified tinder the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401, et seq.) on a foundation system, pursuant to Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code, on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. However, a city, including a charter city,county,or city and county may designate lots zoned for single-family dwellings for mobilehomes as described in this section, which lots are determined to be compatible for such mobilehome use. A city, including a charter city, county, or city and county may subject any such.mobilehome and the lot on which it is placed to any or all of the same development standards to which a conventional -3— Ch.. 1142 Standards Code relating to mobilehome parks, travel trailer parks, recreational trailer parks, temporary trailer parks, incidental . camping areas, and tent camps, or the other regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part by a city, county, or city and county, the department shall enforce the provisions of this part,the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code relating to mobilehome parks, travel trailer parks, recreational trailer parks, temporary trailer parks,incidental camping areas,and tent camps, and the other regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part in any such city, county, or city and county after the department has given written notice to the governing body of such city,county,or city and county setting forth in what respects the city, county, or city and county has failed to discharge its responsibility, and the city, county, or city and county has failed to . initiate corrective measures to carry out its responsibility within 30 days of such notice. (2) Where the department determines that the local enforcement agency is not properly enforcing this part, the local enforcement agency shall have the right to appeal such a decision to the commission. (e) Any city,city and county,or county,upon written notice from the governing body to the department,may cancel its assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of this part.. The department, upon receipt of such notice, shall assume such responsibility within 30 days. (f) Every city, county, or city and county, within its jurisdiction, shall enforce all of the provisions of this part, the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code relating to mobilehome parks, travel trailer parks, recreational trailer parks, temporary trailer parks, incidental camping areas, and tent camps, and the other regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of this part, as they relate to mobilehomes and to mobilehome accessory buildings or structures located outside of mobilehome parks. (g) The provisions of this part shall not prevent local authorities of any city,county,or city and county,within the reasonable exercise of their police powers: (1) From establishing, subject to the requirements of Section 65852.3 of the Government Code, certain zones for mobilehomes or mobilehome parks, travel trailers, travel trailer parks, recreational trailer parks,temporary trailer parks,or tent camps within such city, county,or city and county,or establishing types of uses and locations, including family mobilehome parks, adult mobilehome parks, mobilehome condominiums, mobilehome subdivisions, or mobilehome planned unit developments within such city,county,or. city and county,as defined in the zoning ordinance,or from adopting rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution prescribing standards of lot,yards,or park area,landscaping, walls or enclosures, signs,access,and vehicle parking_or from prescribing the prohibition Ch. 1142 —4— of certain uses for mobilehome parks, travel trailer parks, recreational trailer parks, temporary trailer parks, or tent camps. (2) From regulating the construction and use of equipment and facilities located outside of a mobilehome or camp car used to supply gas, water, or electricity thereto, except facilities owned, operated, and maintained by a public utility, or to dispose of sewage or other waste therefrom when such facilities are located outside a mobilehome park, travel trailer park, recreational trailer park, or temporary trailer park for which a permit is required by this part,or the regulations adopted pursuant thereto. (3) From requiring a permit to use a mobilehome or camp car outside a mobilehome park, travel trailer park;recreational trailer park,or temporary trailer park for which a permit is required by this part or by regulations adopted pursuant thereto, and require a fee therefor by local ordinance commensurate with the cost of enforcing this part and local ordinance with reference to the use of mobilehomes and camp cars, which permit may be refused or revoked if such use violates any provisions of this part or Part 2 (commencing with Section 18000) of this division, any regulations adopted pursuant thereto, or any local ordinance applicable to such use. (4) From requiring a local building permit to construct an accessory structure for a mobilehome when such mobilehome is located outside a mobilehome park, travel trailer park, recreational trailer park or temporary trailer park, under circumstances which the provisions of this part or Part 2 (commencing with Section 18000) of this division and the regulation adopted pursuant thereto do not require the issuance of a permit therefor by the department. SEC. 3. This act shall become operative July 1, 1981. 0 r.: Phan t . . o C®nver� t r , ' .��•' , 1111YYt//![p1� {1NMY■1 �IM b1ole Mme D , Tafrk e`eeted By GARY JARLSON L Tithes Staff Writer A long-range:plan by.Union Oil t } ' { } Co. to convert-a. 91-unit mobile { • ' j - home park.-in Dana Point into a i ` - IL "commercial :center was ,reb uffed ' b FI s.. `, ,i' 1 rTuesday by the Orange" County t i•; Board of,Supervisors• '•.. �, .. I} { .{ On' recommendation of.Supervi= sor Thomas Riley, whose district { I includes Dana ' Point; .the board voted._unanimously to deny the oil , : -, ; company's application for hearing µ a'general plan amendment for the nine -acre.'site atCoast Highway !• .i_s and Del Obispo Street. Nod ng that"this project isstrenu- ously opposed throughout the com- munity,".Riley said he could see no ; reason to entertain the proposal at { any time in the near future,"partic- ' Continued from First Page �r "ularly since there are still seven affordable housing opportunity, said Peter Herman,a r is-years to go on the mobil home Riley aide: •park's lease: The Union Oil Co. proposal called for-converting the ji t A major'reason for opposition to mobile home park to a commercial..center that would :. ► the project,.according .to a Riley include retail stores,offices,a motel.an&a restaurant. fF ' The review board, which,monitors:develo ment in. L, aide. was that'closure of Marina i p t{ Mobile Home Estates Parka would Dana Point in accordance with the specific plan adopted i i� remove a-sizable supply-of afford for the community, termed.the `development proposal ,• ,. ,► l able housing from the coastal area. "inappropriate" and cited "several significant environ-• `1 'A lot of effort was-putout by the mental constraints which render the site unsuitable for t I Dana '`Point _Review Board and permanent commercial development." S ; others in meetings with not only.the { Chief among these problems would be traffic and the a t county but the Coastal-Commission potential for flood damage,according to Susan Hinman; and the landowner`on saving this review board chairwoman. • "Please see CONVERSION,Page T The Coast High way.intersection already"experiences r severe traffic problems,.Hinman said.Intensive com- I `--` meFcial development "without.redesign and recon= it n struction of the highway intersection : ' will further.;t •. k �y y i > i ' worsen existing traffic congestion,"she said. :` i t r nt Pointing out that the site.is located within the San 3 Juan Creek flood plain,Hinman said development Ehere % l= . could ultimately' .endanger. surrounding .properties; {: y ' ; lz especially a nearby sewage treatment plant it o yi +•I ` o' ,� + _. - I �` , ('J ' I, } I' I`Jtj' `t L '�,' � o �. a ,__ . - . `� $$• li - :�. ' k }1 isr ii MOBILE HOME PARKS Y Acres Spaces Zoning Beachview Mobile Home Park 5. 64 81 M1-MHP 17261 Gothard Brookfield Manor 16. 39 137 MH 9850 Garfield Cabrillo 6. 00 45 . MH 21752 Garfield Del Mar Mobile Estates 15. 43 142 MH 19251 Brookhurst Driftwood 25. 60 239 MH 21462 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington-By-The-Sea 31. 88 447 MH 21851 Newland Huntington Mobile Estates 9. 20 105 MH 7652 Garfield Huntington Shorecliffs 40.'71 304 MH 20701 Beach Boulevard Huntington Shores 7. 10 44 MH 21002 Pacific Coast Highway Huntington Valley 12 . 14 98 MH 19350 Ward Street Los Amigos Mobile Parr 21.22 145 MH 18601 Newland Pacific Trailer Park 18. 65 266 MH 80 Huntington Rancho Del Rey 53. 59 379 MH 16222 Monterey Rancho Huntington 22. 91 193 MH 19361 Brookhurst Sea Aira Mobile Estates 25.60 224 MH 6301 Warner Sea Breeze Mobile Estates 5.03 65 MH 5200 Heil Skandia Mobile Country 17.43 167 MH 16444 Bolsa Chiba Villa de la Playa 14. 70 130 MH 16400 Saybrook MoAile Home Parks Page 2 Acres Spaces Zoning Villa Huntington 14. 84 125 MH 7850 Slater :CITY OF. 1HUNTINGV6N BEACH • INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION = ; HUNTINGTON BEACH - - - - To Rich 'Barnard_ From Connie., Brockway . Assistant to City Administrator Civ Clerk Subject . _'REQUEST TO ADDRESS COUNCIL FROM. Date December 9, 1988 F.. GLENN AGEE HUNTINGTON HARBOUR MOBILE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOC. Attached for your information is.Mr. Agee'.s letter re: request for mediation of space rentals which he has. requested: to appear under the Public Comments Section of the Council Agenda. Mr. t. Agee will be. present to speak for 3 minutes. CB:bt - CC: Paul - Cook, City Administrator f FRuri: Huntington Harbour Mobile Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. F. Glenn Agee, President 16400 Saybrook Lane, Space 61 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Phone: 846-3262 TO: The Mayor and City Council Members My.name is Gler..n Agee. I live in the Huntington Harbour Mobile Estates located at 164u0 Saybrook Lane, Huntington. Beach. The park contains 130 rental spaces. The land is owned by William and Douglas Phelps. Les Frame Enterprises, Inc. , holds a lease on the property which terminates in the.year 2034. I am presenting comments prepared by the Executive Officers and Park Committee members of the Huntington Harbour Mobile Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., in behalf of our park residents who are all members of this .organization. Our mobile home park is row a senior citizens park so the majority of the residents are over 55 years of age, have a sizable investment in their mobile homes and appurtenances, and are retired and living on a fixed income. As a result, rapidly escalating rents have resulted in. serious concern, financial hardship, anguish and stress among a significant number of residents. The attached graph, marked Exhibit A, shows the rate of rent increases as they relate to the consumer price index prepared for this area by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Gas and electric are supplied by Master Meter and residents are metered and billed for what they use. Base rent for 1989 will be $30.00 more than' it was during 1988. Rent increases have included pass-through expenses to the residents. One example is the rent increase dated September 30, 19879 notifying residents that the increase included "remodeling, $83,000,00-@ l'0%- 10 years". Copy of notice is attached, marked Exhibit B. The residents feel the pass-through was unjustified since the remodel- ing was rot mandated by any government agency and the clubhouse was in good condition and adequate for' our reeds. The remodeling resulted in extensive structural changes. These changes were mainly to the meeting/activity room, kitchen, restrooms and exterior. The remodeling resulted in the clubhouse being attrac- tive in appearance but not as functional or practical as it was before the remodeling. During the remodeling the residents were without the use of the clubhouse and its facilities for approximately 1 year. The residents were not consulted in any way regarding the remodeling and therefore had no voice in the expenditure. The residents recognize the reed for park owners to receive a fair return on their investments and to accumulate sufficient reserves to cover increased costs, but feel there is a need to be protected from unreasonable space rental increases. Residents in other mobil home parks in the city of Huntington Beach share in our concern fort'"' z excessive_ rent increases. Therefore, we urge the City Council to -, consider adopting a mediation procedure whereby the city of Hunting- ' Fen Cl ton Beach could receive petitions to investigate, mediate and rea6h '"n �r < a mutually agreeable settlement between residents and landlords on w Y o space rentals alleged to be unreasonable. Y b Thank you for your attention to this matter. T Yee 437 4 5JO00 ' 9 13 37l 76 /' r r • croo r Lvcr�,4,52- zx'vxeI7 September' 30, 1987 Huntington Harbor - Y Resident: Address. Dear Resident, This is a 60 day notice that your rent will be increased. Your present rent is 379 .00 and will be increased to S407 . 00 . This reflects a $28.00 increase. The new rent schedule will be effective December 1, 1987. The increase is broken down: - Daily expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.00 Cost of living. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $15.00 Remodeling. . . . . . .. . $10-00 ( $83,000@10% - 10 years ) Total $2STIQ"' (Less ground lease) Lease payment - 207 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 5.60 Net to operate the park = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .$22.40 K.� Les Frame Property Manager - REQUE0 FOR -` OUNC C ION 44, D to March 12, 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and Ci Counci ers Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator �-- Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Service . _ clTy GU Prepared by: Subject: Extension of Time - Huntington Shores Mobile Home ParkZ Consistent with Council Policy? N Yes [ ] New Policy or Exce ion LF sic CITY Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternati ohs,Attachments: Statement of Issue: As indicated in the attached letter from the Huntington Beach Company, April 1, 1986 is the deadline for all coaches in the Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park and their residents to vacate the park. Recent rain delays in the construction of the relocation mobile home park at Goldenwest and Ellis have necessitated the need for a one month extension of the April 1, 1986 deadline. ?V 6�& _ Recommendation: Approve a 13ft�month extension of the April 1, 1986 deadline for moving coaches and their residents from the Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park and request the City Attorney to prepare an Urgency Ordinance for consideration by the Council)if necessary) to effectuate this extension. Analysis: Until very recently (one week ago), it was anticipated that the City's contractor for the Mobile Home Relocation Park would complete the project by mid to late March. The rainstorms of the past week, however, have caused a delay that will mean completion of the park after April 1, 1986. As indicated in the attached letter from the Huntington Beach Company, under City Ordinances, they cannot unilaterally extend the closing date of April 1, 1986 for the Huntington Shore Mobile Home Park. If the coach owners request an extension, and the City concurs with such an extension of the April 1, 1986 deadline, then the Huntington Beach Company feels their legal position is protected. Approval of the recommended action will allow the City staff to indicate to the Huntington Beach Company the concurrence of the City of the extension of the April 1, 1986 closing date to May 1, 1986. If the City Attorney determines that a modification of the ordinance regarding mobile home relocations is necessary, then an Urgency Ordinance will be prepared for Council Action. Funding Source: Not applicable. Alternatives: Do not authorize an extension of the April 1, 1986 deadline. L, Attachments: Letter from the Huntington Beach Company. 2078j PIO 4/84 -Huntington Beach ` Company RLC �� 12 2110 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648-2499 (714) 960-4351 9 'aT�.VE 1 R. J. Work Vice President—General Manager February 4j 1986 D FEB 6 1985 C.W. Thompson, City Administrator C17Y Of HU CitINO y f Huntington Street Beach A�MlN/ST TOIV 8WH OFFICE Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 RE: HUNTINGTON SHORES MOBILE HOME PARK Dear Mr. Thompson: This is to confirm our understanding of our.JanVary 23, 1986 meeting on the above subject. As discussed, the Huntington Shores Mobile Home Park (the "Park") will close April 1, 1986. All. coaches in the Park and their residents must vacate the Park on or before that date. This date may not be extended unilaterally by Huntington Beach Company. Any extension would have to be based on the written request (in satisfactory form) of the coach owner affected, together with the concurrence of the City. The contractor we have selected to move coaches to the Relocation Park has informed us that, depending on the number of coaches to be moved, the move may take as long as twenty (20) days. Under these circumstances, to ensure that the Park is vacated on April. 1, 1986 the Relocation Park needs to be ready to accept coaches from the Park on March 10, 1986. As previously advised, if any tenant of the Park remains there after April 1, 1986, we will be forced to commence eviction proceedings which we shall pursue in the normal course of business. It is also our understanding that: a) If a tenant requests Huntington Beach Company to purchase their coach per the City ordinance, the City will not allow the. tenant to relocate another coach in the Relocation Park; b) the City will waive any local permits for those who are moving to the Relocation Park; and c) Huntington Beach Company is responsible only for moving the coaches in their current condition - any municipal code requirements will be between the City and the tenant. Very tru yours, r J. Work RJW:tk THE HUN TING TON SANDS ORGANIZA TION, INC. 21002 PACIFIC COAS l- HIGH WA V.,SPACE #53 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-0505 IVO V D9 Mayor Jack Kelly and City Council Members 5198 2000 Main Street C�TY`OF 4 Huntington Beach, California 92648 C/Ty����GTO,ti:g� y � OFFICE CH Dear Mayor Kelly and City Council. Members: We were under the impression that the City. Council would take a formal action .on the Mushroom Farm Mobile home Relocation Project. at your November S', 1984 , meet- ing. This is the last meeting before the election and we were hopeful that the existing City Council could take . the necessary action to finally establish the' Mushroom Farm Site as the location upon which a cooperative re- location program could be. implemented. We have worked with you over the past several. years toward finding an acceptable solution to our plight. We are fearful that .a new City Council might require additional time to study . .the issue and all of the options once again and as a result delay the process many more months . Of all. the options which we have considered, the Mushroom Farm Site has the greatest promise of . providing an acceptable. living environment while -meeting several Citv needs and goals. We .have met with SBE Development representatives and feel confident that they are willing to cooperate with us and the City in making the program work. We are concerned; however, over the Community Services Cc.mmiss .cn' s apparent- lack of understanding of the program and the recommendations which they recently .made. First , there will be no odor or flies to be concerned about as the Mushroom Farm will be removed before the mobilehome park will be occupied. Second, we understand from- your '. previous discussions that an effort will be made to mitigate the noise from the pistol range. In addition, it .is our opinion that. the occasional takeoff and landings at the heliport will be less distractive than the continuous roar of the sawmill and other industrial noises at the Talbert-Beach location.- Third, most residents of our mobilehome park have their own transportation as do those which could possibly be displaced at Driftwood. The Mush- room Farm Site would not only provide a very attractive residential setting, .but would be within minutes of Five Points and other shopping locations. Fourth , .the. proposed recreation building and the adjacent expanded Central Park would provide improved recreational opportunities over those- available at the senior housing site. THE HUNTINGTON SANDS ORGANIZATION, INC. 21002 PACIFICCOAST HIGHWAY, SPACE #53 HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-0505 It .appears to us .that the Community Services Commiss.ioris review of the proposed project was very superficial and not even consistent with the City Council ' s direction and request. We feel their conclusions were without. substance and 'as . mentioned before, showed little -understanding of the program being propeeed and all of the hard work which has brought us to this critical step. Because of the joint effort which we have made and all of the study and cooperative work which has preceded this point .. in time; we respectfully request that you not let another day go by without directing staff to proceed with the next steps : in implementing the Mushroom Farm Project. We request that at your November 5 , 1984 meeting that you. direct staff to immediately commence negotiations with SBE Development Company for the acquisition of the Mushroom Farm to provide for a . mobilehome relocation park, an expanded Central Park and a . recreational vehicle facility. We further request that a formal agreement outlining the terms of such an acquisition and .development program be brought back to the City Council at your next special meeting or no later than your next regularly scheduled meeting for formal consideration. We appreciate the support this City Council has shown for finding .a solution to this very complicated problem. We think that the Mus.hroom Farm Project .will not only address our needs but will make it easier for you to respond to other needs which are likely to occur as you implement your .Down- town Redevelopment PIan. You should be .praised by the total community for .your foresicht and vision and- your commitment to the leadership position which you now hold. Thank you for your neverending support. Sincerely, Huntington Shores Residents fir,... 1 November 5 , 1984 � Mayor Jack Kelly and City Council Members (� O 2000 Main Street OjTr 5 Huntington Beach, California 92684 T r CO OFh�CF,gCh, 41 Dear Mayor Kelly and City Council Members: It has come to our attention that the City Council might consider using the 5-acre Talbert-Beach Industrial Site for a mobilehome relocation park. While we recognize the challenge you must have in finding a solution to the relocation problem , we do not feel that the Talbert-Beach Site is appropriate for such a use. Only two short years ago we were before you raising concern over your proposal to rezone a portion of the 10-acre industrial site to -accommodate your senior citizens housing project. After considerable discussion and debate we decided not to oppose the senior housing project as a result of your expressed commitment to retain the balance of the site for industrial use. A mobilehome park within the 5-acre site would be incom- patible with the active industrial neighbors to the north and to the west. Residents of the mobilehome park would have to drive through the industrial developments to reach their homes and compete with the delivery trucks and ether industrial vehicles which serve the area . The mobilehome use would eliminate the possibility of completing the adopted street plan and developing out the overall industrial complex. The mobilehome park would remove a very viable site for industrial development from the industrial base which would be contrary to the efforts being made by you and your industrial Committee to identify and promote industrial growth in the City. 'Therefore, we the owners and operators of industrial facilities in the vicinity of the Talbert-Beach Industrial Site would vigorously oppose any plan to convert the 5-acre site to a mobilehome relocation park. We respectfully request that you adhere to your earlier promise and promote industrial development on the site. Sincerely: Name Address Man - - — 1 i� Name' Address 6 c , { n _4 A.u.VI Tt ;Y►1{,. `��.,��,� � ` ----:r�� r Cat-�.�J'I�"� ,.r-�----_._._ 4 ec ra , tot ce J� ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �� Y96.4 1i Lep" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH CONFIDENTIAL To HONORABLE MAYOR AND From CHARLES W. THOMPSON L I CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS City Administrator 1 _ Subject MOBILE HOME/RECREATIONAL Date NOVEMBER 2, 1984 VEHICLE PARK & CENTRAL PARK EXPANSION PROJECT While this subject is not scheduled for your November 5, 1984 Council Meeting, this report will provide you with an update on the project. The Community Services Commission has met and their report on their review of the project is attached. While they do not recommend the project, they recognize the need for the Council to address the relocation problem. Staff is still of the opinion that the Mushroom Farm location is the most viable location for addressing the relocation problem. If Council concurs, we would proceed with the detailed discussions with property owners to determine the most appropriate method of acquisition and development and most advantageous financing method. The attached report . of October 19, 1984 includes a description of the potential funding sources for the project. One scenario for financing the project is described below. After discussions, negotiations, etc. with property owners, a specific financing plan would be developed but we felt it would be valuable to show how the project could be financed. PROJECT COSTS - 1984/85 See Attached Map DESCRIPTION COST FUNDING SOURCE Acquire Area 1 & 2 for RV Park $1,200,000 Park Acquisition/State Grant Acquire Area 3 for Mobile Home $1,750,000 Redevelopment by Advance Relocation from City. Develope 60 Mobile Home Spaces . $900,000 Current Mobile Home Park Owners. PROJECT COSTS 1985/86 AND/OR LATER DESCRIPTION COST FUNDING SOURCE Acquire Area 4 for Central Park $2,600,000 Park Acquisition and/or and Additional Mobile Home Redevelopment (Tax Relocations as required. Increment-Bonding). Develop Area 4 Dependent Park Acquisition and/or on use Redevelopment (Tax Increment-Bonding). Acquire Area 5 $860,000 Park Acquisition Fund 4 0864j • vcuc.ctn�i J. a CITY OF HUPJ- TINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 . COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Melvin M. Bowman, Director (714) 536.5486 i October 30, 1984 i i i I Mayor.Jack Kelly and Members of City Council P. O. Box 190 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Kelly and Council Members: i RE: SPECIAL MEETING COMMUNITY SERVICES COr1ZMISSION - OCTOBEIZ 29, 1984 On October 29, 1984, the Community Services Commission conducted a Special ;✓leeting for the purpose of discussing the Nlobile Horne Relocation, Recreational Vehicle (RV) Facility and the Mushroom Farm Property. Attending the meeting were: COrMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Blankinship; Dysinger; Frost; Kennedy; Moll; Osness; Rivera; Vander Molen. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Giese; Jensen; O'bric. STAFF PRESENT: Palin; Franz; Bowman; Adams; Engle; Strook. The following actions were taken: MOTION #1 AS AMENDED: MOVED BY VANDER MOLEN, SECONDED BY KENNEDY, AMENDED MOTION MOVED BY VANDER MOLEN, AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY DYSINGER, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO TIIE CITY COUNCIL, AFTER MUCH CONSIDERATION, THAT A MOBILE HOME PARK IN HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK (HCP) IS INCOMPATIBLE DUE TO THE LOCALE OF THE PISTOL RANGE, HELIPORT, ODORS AND FLIES FROM THE MUSHROOM FARM, AND THE LACK OF AVAILABLE SHOPPING AND SENIOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS THOSE AT THE SENIORS HOUSING SITE. AFTER REVIEW OF THE NEEDS OF THE TWO GROUPS (RELOCATED MOBILE HOME PARK RESIDENTS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE FACILITY PATRONS), IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE MOBILE HOME PARK AND THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE FACILITY ARE NOT COMPATIBLE. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BLANKINSHIP; DYSINGER; KENNEDY; MOLL; OSNESS; VANDER MOLEN. NOES: FROST; RIVERA. r SPECIAL mLLTING COMMUNITY October 30, 1984 SEI-tVICES COMMISSION -'OCTOBER 29, 1984 Page 2 MOTION #2 AS AMENDED: MOVED BY DYSINGER, SECONDED BY MOLL, AMENDED MOTION MOVED BY MOLL, AMENDED MOTION SECONDED BY VANDER MOLEN, THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL, IF THEY SO DESIRE, THEY ARE MOST WILLING TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR THE PROPOSED MOBILE HOME PARK, SUCH AS EXISTING PARKS AND/OR PARKLANDS. IF THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT WISH TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE SITES, THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO WORK JOINTLY IN THE FINAL MASTER PLANNING OF HUNTINGTON CENTRAL PARK. MOTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: BLANKINSHIP; DYSINGER; FROST; KENNEDY; MOLL; OSNESS; RIVERA; VANDER MOLEN. NOES: NONE. Sincerely, MELVIN M. BOWMAN Director .Community Services M M B:cgs 0505E/16-17 cc: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Jim Palin, Development Services Robert Franz, Administrative Services Community Services Commission O 9 .36 Ac O 7 .36 Ac E-4 w w a H U) Ei U w W o 0 Q a 2. 06 Ac 3. 74 Ac Q 0 N Ol 1" = 200 ' 1. 03 Ac ELLIS AVENUE REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date October 19, 1984 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council WI Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Chief of Administrative Servic Subject: Mobile Home Relocation/Recreation Vehicle Park & , Central Park Expansion Project. kT" /o-Z 2 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 park. 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/recreational 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. Alternative Action: Do not utilize the Mushroom Farm properties for mobile home relocation and direct staff to find some other alternative to the relocation problem. Funding Source: See attached. - 0819j /09 PIO 4/81 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. 4OTENTIAL 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- a're 900^1 .- Jbibr, bock Aom' -pelvrts � /'°, f8corhwA�4tWn..S� Aldo 1ookA,tF}+,;.' woke, �e CA 84-48 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION Saab bconS - HUNTINGTON BEACH 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 be a interim use of the property which will eventually revert to Central Park . The RV Park developed in conjunction 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 'Co 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, 1.984 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 �l POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES a State Pi ejl jvelopment Loan Fund $ 75 , 0001 HCD Block Grant Funds For Relocation! $ 600 , 0002 Redevelopment Agency Affordable Housing $ 270, 0003 Redevelopment Agency Relocation Funds $ 345 , 0004 Huntington Beach Company Relocation Funds $ 228 , 0005 � -�`rw► Orange kounty Housing Authority Funds $ 100 , 0006 Total ,Available $1 , 618 , 0007 Park Development Finds - 00, 0008 General Revenue Sharing $ 300 , 0008 'State Matching Funds $ 609 , 0008 $.1 , 809 , 0008 + $1, 61810007 Total Available for Mushroom Farm Site $3 ,427 , 000 1. Approximately $50, t ,10 to $100 , 000 available. 2. $600 ,000 total allocated City-wide. City would have to bur.-ow 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 . Thy Huntington.. Beac1. Company owns 7 . 8 of the redevelopment are,i and the City owns 13 . 6 :percent. indicated is thr_ amount that would bt generated over 5 yuars . 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. 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: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Subject: MOBILEHOME RELOCATION- PARK STUDY �,rec1� S�'A-� 40 4fw . �•fv �rrf �s.c r o f'/LIvrkooem LA-rvlj Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments. 6 , ' STATEMENT OF 1SSUE: 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:'ito provide similar information for four additional sites. At a subs.equent .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/flemphis, 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. kA P10 4/81 Mobilehome Park , September 14, 1984 Page 2 i The site is located on the top of the bluff line and there are no known develop- • j 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 j $ 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. Althou§h 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 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 mil4ion,,cyr $ 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 town Park site and because of City purchase of park site area from CALTRANS. Mobilehome Park • • : September 14, 1984 Page 4 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. Funding Source Availability Review Sheet 2. Relocation Site Data 3. Letter from property owner of the Mushroom Farm CWT:JWP:HS:df • POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES State Predevelopment Loan Fund $ 75, 0001 HCD Block Grant Funds For Relocation $ 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. • r t ELLIS AND EDWARDS Total Acreage: 15. 00 PARCEL NUMBER ACREAGE ZONING LAND USE OWNERSHIP 110-151-1 thru 11 .91 ROS-O-CD Vacant City H. B. , Various 110-151-15 2.50 ROS-O-CD Vacant, Oil Huntington Pacific Co. 110-151-16 2. 50 ROS-O-CD Vacant Huntington Pacific Co. 110-151-17 .45 ROS-O-CD Vacant Pacific Amer. Oil Co. 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,Oil City H. B. , Various 110-163-13 thru 23 1.00 ROS-O-CD Vacant,Oil City H.B. , Various 110-164-1 thru 22 2.00 ROS-O-CD Vacant,Oil City H.B. , Various 110-16571 thru 24 2. 00 ROS-O-CD Vacant,Oil City H.B. , Various 15. 00 Estimated Value: $ 7 per square foot Advantages of Site: 1. Larger than 10 acres 2. Substantial City ownerships in area 3. Primarily vacant Disadvantages of site: 1. Zoned and General Planned for Central Park 2. Numerous private ownerships 3. Some oil production on site 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-O-CD Mushroom Farm Pariseau 111-071=27 1. 26 M1-CD . Mushroom Farm Hudson 111-071-28 1.25 M1-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers . 111-071-29 . 30 RA-O-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers 111-071-32 7 . 33 RA-O-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers 111-101-1-44 2. 98 -RA-O-CD Mushroom Farm Ocean View Mushroom Growers 111-102-1-25 . 2001 RA-O-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 PLANNING ZONING • DM 39 SECTIONAL DISTRICT - MAP 35-5-1 1 ).E NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FE ONE ADOPTED MARC. 7, 1960 ADJDINIMG ANY RIOMT OF WAY.9 EM TEN[ Ti/T CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 10 THE CENTER OF SUCH AID- 1* CITY OF ��v �"a A �NO t� �N ® �IFIED CLASSIFICATION 9-6- 790 6-18.13 85A .A.60 711 6-IB-]! 18!] ® PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT II-7-SO 19A 10-IS-71 181• ® RESIDENTIAL.AGAKIATURAL 016iRICi 2-1Y 60 BOB 11-M-73 1A 7B 15.15-61 839 5-7:73 1112 I� NDUSTAIAL DISTAICT HUNTINGTON BEACH 6- .s e8 ,z -71 �� LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 5-7-62 899.900 0-1l->3 M16 IID COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 6-18-62 908 8-5-70 19J8 iRONT YARD SETBACK LINE 8-6.62 916 '2-9-T4 M4B I� 31NOLE FA RESIDENCE DISTRICT 1-9-62 937 -8-T4 1951 t-T-63 946 1-0-78 EO& ® —KE-PROFES90NAL DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA q-IB-66 1056 2-2-17 21°° R TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT -l-65 1132 I-)-„ 2157 2-n-66 1 73 5-2-1] 2184 -IB-6, ..2J W 7, LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE°ISTbCT AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: z-n-ss 075 z6-'87 z [�. "IG"wpI COMMERCIAL 111,126.127.130.135,134,138.141,149.196.212,237,239 6-E-69 nOG Iz-n-73 RES*381O RESTRICTED MANUFACTUR DISTRICT 9-2-69 522 2-2118 RESY 4590 ® COMMUNITY FACILITIES IRECREATIONAL)DISTRICT 250,238,274,293,429,505,542.67-27,68-I5,68-54,69-11,69-21,70-10,70-27,71-14,71-17,72-8,PP72-6 - .0-i9-10 .63aBHOIS 3-n-ea z41e [jm CouxuNlrr FACLL1r1E91C1VIG1°ISIAICT 72-IB,)2.19.72-6,72-34,12-44,73.5.73-8,73-K,73-IB,PPA7YI,73-21,73-23,73-20,74-6,74-IS.PP74.3,76-17,76-26 B.76-26 C.77-7,77-17, °-K,-71 1662 T-21-60 2444 ® MULTI LE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 77-27,SP73-I.79-10,80-9,80-A,PPSA62-1,81-13,82-13,82-I4,83.3.83-5,PPSA82-1, z-n-e1 z4iz �!-'7/2 I140 S-IS-82RESe5104 ® SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT !7 16 3-15-82 2511 °-1-)2 R60 -1-B2 2584 COMBINED WITN 0P PRODUCTION TtON 9-5-72 .173 - COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUGTKIM N J! - 9-5-T2 1771 11-I-82 2582 I� CIVIC DISTRICT 6-5-72 174T 6-6-83 2621 TA LBERT n2 119s- 75�s-9JAESR6�° mmz PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT 4-2-T3 426 _ AVE. :...-' NiINLTE STREET ) L 8 26 25 V1!V Ab3. • `T 35 3fi MI-CD (0) C4 r MI-A & OR I o N 8 MFA R4 SR IlOII I m Nu 51 y� R4nR (Q)R2-PD .��j((rr ftlf� 5>6]52 C 4 CF-R MI-CD MI—A RIB.:L,�r:.R - R R4-SR "OIL MI-CD r. RI CF-RRI " C2 n IK �OFT11E TAYLOR OR ¢ 73m� RI RI57720 MI I MI ONTARIO DR C2 SO RA-0"CD RI660r Is /� " RI CF-C - ADD. MI W aV+ CR iE�_ _ RI RI o u.l se•.11 Iz RI R I a gl 1,• D .k w 3orA. ALBERTA OR ro " R 3 In �� 7 E MI—C.D RI RIURI RI Y ON DR NKLIN A DRC4 M( R3 R's RI i RS RI R2 R3 R3 R� MI E -'== --- MI-0-CD g = " %n101 R2 - <<- - C 2 C2 . RA-0-CD �'�; 6w- R2 --- Rs 60 fi60 n0 ° `COMMODORE CR 2R73 M2-0 R3 660 rL I•'0 2 52913 TO - � 00 � i1 % -(as MI-0 R2 Two) '°° -0AR N.LN LOT T iRA-O-CQ MI-O Q� `s 320 c"� NI IR2.•,'p , (DISTRICT ONE) ERN E9T AVE wl u R5 C4, r --350 r MI-O-CD F F W I A-c0: ] ACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN 3 MI-01 (DIS1 8 ICT ONE) s R3 MI-A-CD-01- w M2-0I M I-O 9 --00----MI-A-CD R_299.90 - MI-0 C) s 'j R5R� R2 m I-A-CD4 3 E2�FR o R5 - 301.7o z -a a R3 - I ]30 4 m 3 a R2 R2 LL M1-CO-a 5 R5 R2R2 R2-RA-Om „ GARFIELD AVE 15i36 ] 2 2 PLANNING • ZONING DM 38 - SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 34-5-11 _ - Lp� - NOTE' - ADOPTED AUBU6T 16, 1960 ALL WMEM31OW ARE IN FEET CITY OF ANY ACH IOJDIMIMO ANY RIGHT OF W.Y IS INTENDED TO EXTEND TO THE CENTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE M02.(7N�765 OF EUu1 RNWr of rar AM N D CASE ORD.ND AMENDED WORD NO. LEGEND: RESIDENTIAL AORKULTUPAL DISTRICT 6-3-63 315 970 I-IP-82 81.3 2530 ® COMBINED WITH DA PROALCT.. - HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 566 6-4 1132 1-18-8281-1I 2531 SINGLE WITH OIL PRDG DTd 12-5-86 66-49 1271 I-I8-82 8I-14 2536 -[� SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-3-69 68-46 1467 5-3-82 82-2 2553 ® LWHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 6-26-70 70-8 1578 4-9-82 82-3 2551 © HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 7,-19-70 70-10 1606 12-5-8383-482666 is COMWMEo WITH OIL PRooucTlDN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 7.17-71 71.9 1659 COMMUNITY FACILITIES 1RECPEAT°N4LIDISTRICT to-8-7 71-26 1681 ® CIVIC olsrRlcT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT I-17-72 71-17 1709 ® TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT 2-22-72.71-44 1722 DM UNITED USE 10-15-73 75-M 1876 - - CM 'FIED CLASSIFICATION 4-7-74 74-22 1977 ® RECREATION OPEN SPACE 9-15-75 74-5 2010 ® COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 7-8-76 14-22 2077 xs tT• II-21-77 77-19 2229 E7 Ee l 1 J I, J OR' CENTRAL "1 OR WaLRY _OR R_I � RI-CD�»u.,�DII.WWR C r 13 . JA NW R N R1 M O RI RI RI-CD RI GLEM`0X OR ,o R0 RI RI RI W RI N W RI RI I p � JUOWI R I J � =I i T C F—R Fr RI ' R I ` o N D[T..,I..oF[ CEFi7RA, RI xENI9IDN �.. CD RI- L R/- CD •, w RI - F<° R I V°9 L TTL O CD RI RI °, f R1 e4 Pb et ' RA-0-CD RI RI RI '� (PREZONED) RA-O-CD ' RI-CD . �'A:Jy. + RI of ,s •eoc a BOir ° ••'� - •OCD -CD y• � � (PREZONED) R I e, O-CD OCD o•CD t„•ISDe W C2-0-(0) hA•�� +.b W (PREZONED) OS4CD OCD Re -CD U-O-CD RA-0-CD C D o0o RA-CD 0-RI-M-0-CD-6 b0 R N e9.4t 51 W 959.so �� I LU-0-CD� RA-0 R LU-O-CD a RA-0 RA-01-CD RA-O-CD 550 i � p• p = a Q-R1-(2.7)-M,000 RA co R Q Q RA-10 Nee•U'S1•W 7Ee.S0' - RA-0 LU-O-CD RA-O-CD e OF . �\ M1-01 ;MI-CD i RA-01 '- RA 01 RA-0-CD o ° me o r s 4 a RA-0-CD kae•a'm•E wal.w' woo' terMr GARFIELD AVE. S•S• - • IEWBJR. 7i CA Cy A 1 LOW DENSITY r . ri � t :NYC I OPEN SPACE I RIM - COMMERCIAL I MIS 7 xw i ESTATE 0-2 UNITS/ACRE 1 I - ! I ESTATE ! __ 2-4 UNITS/ACRE - - i ! Hill J HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA NEC ELLIS/EDWARDS PLANNING DIVISION GENERAL PLAN IVE.114 SEC.34 T S S. RIl 1! i�o _ I OO i . a4 e I N H R -'----- - . . � C E RY c - - _ £ET TR . .... S 60 /P r t l`, '4 a.• S I % it Jr 23) �y� io I iia' u.•. �� I 2 "2 I :21 .�". _g __.4 x ' *mac) 7 As 2 —__I._-- f _ �9 3_— _ O7 !6� 16 • h 7 4J 6. 9 I5: ¢cI 11 S `3 a r t3 y c Nhk It _ 3 r � ..,y ... 'u-'J n'2. S` z.. ..r�'a. .vr�E' �5• ,.:� •.;�.�.•r .y'.'`.� '• 1' [ i� r ' 'acific American' y M 44 U1 �y heat At r-. 'S� '� Oil company vi "'x' sy.•zn .rgt •i;T`'+. _ _ .Y3,, fi •_ "T'�;1� - 'rh � rrz �.. � •uuv +s ;,ti. _ O .+- G HJ,�{. y� ;, v J.. �y ] '�'7v-r � i 2 '�, WS• .i Vy Jf:t :.Fyy. '�•i. $,�', A ''�"'J YLrorµ F� ;.�`,• �fjY.r{s r • a:Y�...; r' ra:: i: 4.-fi'•,. f. ,�y'r•I x: '�`:. ..i'Ll._ :Si .;y:..1 .. .: •. .;; s^.,.. 1,x5...6. :[• fr,� }.I .-a:�r :'1' .< -n'r•r'Y:Y'�iw _ .w i ,EL;�idyF`. JA 'TiV � •` a A 4-I t it i a• i.t 0 4- Ua , O ;F :'r' ni O c O xa u M. a u , ,.>• i HUNTINGTON BEACH �---- DEVEIOPMENT SERVICES O e — GEC 2 Z I^ 3 NOTE -.ASSESSOR'S Loc ' f B � h � N 'ASSESSOR'S M.AP N. ^RCH 195 TP. NO. 32 M. N,, 9 -3/ PARCEL N/MEG.i' BOOK I IC RAGE)5 O PO.Box ,90 SHOWN /A' C/RCC E�Huntingtun beach,CA 92648 GOUNTY OF OR,�A'GE o...�s.r+'u2M uolluliunH :o i x0g'O•d CD -7-9NVYO 30 AiNnO0 S37OYI9 N/ NMOHS 91 39W OII NOO9 S839NON 73.7Hdd 'Z lafJ dVN S,6/OS536Sd 9.W0079 S,,YOSS3SSV - 31ON St,-6 'N N 00 ON 8J /S6/ H08VA S30IA83S 1N3WdOTAA3O City of Huntington Beach 51 HOV38 NOt9NLLMH Various i 133b11S AYY3N0 zu ii ,H y ru •rq ..� 4,1 a ri. :.al q '� w AEI •rii .rn 'alp �''+ � £I •ru ;zii 'ZI •r sa 11 ilr; n 9d1/ S. 4F S 41 I! ._ 41 II ul < ri a B! QI p 0 Z Sol 01 < 91 01 9 a CO 8! JS 91 6 O. 9f 91► 6 Ns- Q _ R` ; 9t 8 h dl` 8 11 r►i a a c! 91 r use' w, 4..r � - � �•,. t � �;: � , <�, _ f �> q w•' l � 3,� la � - AMm- 1�1311 ' rf .:�i ! - rk ,,... •!F'-.. s :i+.nr.•..z - ..+v�'<.�2'.s fig-'t :n „*.F,. y T.c'.. _.r 4{ir'r- '�";�`. -.p�,'7 "r.S'e .,gr•� +t..,y¢ �y 5. 't - .,�'-',• t ' y ..� ... ,:'. 2��f � � ♦y .•rrn. �--i H.,i l ,yh {.- y'J� _ "'i1� �•,�• �k"' ,�:� d i!'.A,. ya ..fig��' �• �... 4 �5+�5+!1. -V'I.:c_. � "S S'_ G'3C-.T' ��iy..-.._f`'� 1RTf.� ,`.:.Y.�'�-1 .l:e AF"r 'w,L'.x._ .r�� :` S' :�'_ .as.3.�>i'i' y+t"�-.' ...ti - - "S 19' _.} I Y _.d •i �,.L� A,x;y,:;�." t. _ %•e .x '�. ..,� 4 n a4?" xc !"•7' _k yi ! f er, - '•�:: �.;•^ � ' r 3 ... _ tip. ,.,,�-'�•-4�ty r 'ar r •a A 'OV OZ Z F. 81 LI 1.+gym-."-':�t.wM ..-' • - .- • 37ACH AND MEMPHIS TOLal Acreage : 10 . 16 Gross Acres Parcel Number Acres Zone Land Use Ownership 025-170-03 8 . 04 R3 ,R4 Vacant , Oil Faci-lities 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 . `]nder private ownership 2 . High _value of residential and commercial land 3 , ()il facilities on north half of C4 portion of property which service the Seabridge oil wells 4 . Noise impacts from Beach Boulevard PLANNING ZONING . �� 12 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP I I-6-I I LEGEND. ADOPTED MARCH 7,19G0 L_] C17Y COUNCIL ORIGIN 4NDE N0.704 L I CITY OF ._ A 104E ��� OUeLE1E0 CLASSIICeiION AMENDED 5 ORDNO 4EN0(n L.A'.E 050rN1 !2L tO 1N T56 B-l-)A /4 T 19]O —CL CNN SPECIFIC PLAN 6.19.61 171 44] 63-75 7S-7 1948 (may] MCBILFNOM'DISTRICT f.-fiI t01 )6 BS TS !)C TUOI (PIS p N14ED DEVELOPMENT DSTRICT l-7-fiT 257 "0 97�)5 rnWNlp/201] -e 10 I-CT E. 929 }qT6 in.•A.tD 2�124 �� SINGLE" RE51BEICE 015 TR ICr 12.3-62 252 7.676 26-) 20M (A Z) 7 7A41Ly RE51DEICE DISTRICT l fi] ]42 992 III' n PI 211I I ILTNTINC�TON BEACHA a,9 -77 1 1 2152 �„ UUVEO YVETVLC g4ILrRES10ENCE DISTRICT S 64 1 4 M7]CLDTDN`12D1 [�,I III_ 'PEE 1AM1Lr R[910 ENCE 015TRI1T I.1>'-66 !]6 I BO 2 bi0 ":20 2T69 ( '� LE NF P.L OMSINE 45 016]R 1 2 21-66 5.5 1 B6 B 7�2]22af 10 1-fib 66.4� 1]B 12 1111 7T�5}T2sq leT 1. L.- INDUSTRIAL D15TKILT ]-6fi7 6fifiR104 118 T216 _ 1R COM4W1Tv iAC1LIf1E4(REDR[ATIDNAL)OISTPICT 1]-6 1T 44 78 18 2333 - COYYUx1TY 7AC1L111E9!EDUGTIDxAL1D16TRILT Oil A N G L. COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 's:E, 463 q 1-.o P19 e)2409 lajl NEIGHBORHOOD PROFESSIONAL COMM DISTRICT DISTRICT 1 (],T] NEIGNBORN000 COMMERCIAL DIS]R1CT 1-2169 fi4.10 1 1-q-BO Pp7g.224;4 CC;j GOIIWNITT BUS1HE55 DISTRIGT 8-G-69 69-I] 1519 1-21-NO ep/9-q 2q 12 C"I HIGNWAv COAIYCRCIAL D19T RICT 9.20-]0 69 35 1 72 1-2_R1 BI cS "lo - DESIGNATES PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT }-6-TO PP70.2 15.4 1-21-Bp nL0 LNi2410 ]21-}9p-1-16.71 PPN i 1=2�XII1B) 99]IA ifi46A �� S)-71 )1-] Is45 Xp1i)9J 8]2C 96<6C ('01') BWED WITH OIL pPODUC i10N )�6-N 7I-I .." --- SET8ACx-LINE .� ' - -1 7I 11-N 168_ 2 12:.12 2-]] 1]9. I.i':.'3 COMBINED VATM OIL PRODUCTION 2 2043 7T•4! 1B1) .RI AREA BOUNDED Br PALM AVE. ON MC SEVENTEENTH ST 1 l ADAMS AVE. ON NW.OCEAN AVE. SRI,%- V U L_ it I L IL_l UL�tI LJ_L I 1 —J I� IB 5 sE ( L L {l I EVENTN 4T ON R I R•I R-1 R2 a1 I gIC4....- F f tI•`° r RI.0 RI �N�� �'� - '(0)OLDTO Cii '°I T b. /r4�;?•,q_ •`,y:, ,Q�O`i,� I 1 ERI RI RI RI RI R2`, JC4� AVE0 a SPECIFIC LAN CI_N0 - .OL• '� PORE vE y a 7 -T _-- p, - `� LOMA. AVE j41[LLL �0•-1 O (::•,111::;..L:��.I f :-)'44y 2 RI •0 � PORTL4ND LR I (DISTRICT 22) < 70 RI RI RI H RI R2`aDAa 0 0 _0 ! y { m i.:b. 0 r R A' THIHTEENTH 5T. OSwEGO AVE. AVE. I R2-PD-10 ,:fE •0 CF—E RI RI Em MJ M SSDN it RI RI a RI Ilse Cgfsr�. Z �F, NASHVfLLE a S' SPECIFIC I R2•PD-10 t RI RI rWELFtHCF—R PPLLTAN(DI RICT TWO) ' •�:•.:L..r1a 1 R I R I R I •zs R2-PIG-10 1 ) 5 a :'-) MEMPHI$II(--III - -��AV E. �C' I �F_R� ELEVENTH N l_=L�J I'M 00.11.01R2R IST HE R3 C4 RIOR I R I "1 RI R2 TENr2I sK, �• / I. R2 RI ¢a•}`._ ESIJOXVILLE AVE. • RI •+ 0 S CI IC 1 I C�L.J �� U� N t R3 R3 oW R C S r R2 �='' rxior sPEc:�1t //\ '1�Y.N� PLAN AREA ONE '� � N / O AVE. ISICTION-B'1 \ 1 fjT R2 RA c c( 161 �C)� � R3 R3 u R3 C INI'ANAPO_." E— -_—AVE, 1 R3R3 � HI�� L J� uo'I•C PALM W / A.•E JRD AVE. j("��/ LA EEL J� nlJl_/ r I f M API AVE. �p ILI u J}•E3 / ��\J:• �12 `('[,�� F1FtH � .1 � 1� �� �� III E''LMI��RA - q AVE- I SO'I \ `` •t �'t PECAN CL U) n03r-D� MH �f cj p 9'1. :OO of\ ,�aa C• Z DES AVE. •C' CHICAGO l� _�� 'b,, - /,'(Q\) •Q9i �O fO�: Q cwcC GO��O��AVE i R2-P Q � (IIi IFIC A a J m �� O O R�\ DI a c� l li�E/" g I,81 :'-n]_•:rp;, ]�; i 9r 'Y1O �•,1 ' c>� I �\` BALTIMORE AVE AAoR2•PD;� R2-PD��R2-Pp;aa R2 N: .w� O,STFCA �rpy l- q l\ as pq R2-0 R2-PD L�J *10 ATL ANTA AVE 7� SCALE NOTE I II 'oA. ... ARE •M FEET G Q nN7 lDNI nn]D1M1Nc ANT a1Dxr or WAT •41N T[Nn[n TO EATEND ro THE CE.'ER `rT� \ n 9MCH Rlna n .A.' - ._. SEE SPEC/AL ?AGE 25- 179 FOR FEE T T_ Sl.%Q�ACE j 25-1 , dEACh _-'0—L•":E �HAS'Pjr.'.S'�E V=.i t30✓L£VA/Z`� W j ZS FA r0 0 CID Q r I 1208 B //Q4 I • / (�Y008 B / 9088 f .ACES/DE' Y O /208A //08 ( U �� --------i,�J;�Ol1B.d--- 908A /1 7`z, i 1 LANE i GQ /.soli[. '•,�� 4J Ncq _" I ,x z7o• zao• � y Sv' sSo $ G£ORG/A �— STREET t N � - 1 1y ,5 IS 16 15 14 �l I �! U 1 2 5 Is p f Soo' 1 r FLORIDA Q MARV'H 1948 VISTA OEL MAR TR M.4f 4-36 ip �E ASSESSORS- BL'JGK � 45SESSOR•S, MAP PARCEL ti'/JMSERS SOCK 25 PAG£ 17 ��\ PLANNED • • Rim, annuli m E : x3i 'meta 1'� �e� sa. • � fp�y Hsi re M � SOME ,'- RISE ®_ _ ��s�� 11 1� ■oioimmilie googol � ! , 1111111� 11111� oil 0� ii ■ire V.9 POR W Y2, SEC. 35, Y 5 S, R. l l W HUNPNCTON BEACH 1 11-0.7 OEVELOPMENt SERVICES DtC2a; � P.O.Box 190 159-19 /•= 400' 159-J 1 Huntirgw Beach CA 926" S.//4 CG+4 SEC 35-5-/I — ---f$71-eo-/is • sec 8?. -aa-/t co N ` IW -. _ 4�r • - t-= C11�t1At4Z-.T,�--- - { -._.... --.� 5 4. I AVE �) I 49 :.I !�. '4.66 AC. ,( 35 I i 5� I I 12 1 2224. L��. g AC. 4.57A,. 1P.9rAC!/94: 4./2AC.7/ J.64 Ac. AC E JA, G P M. 27- 1 (e a CRYSTAL AVE O_INUE R 1 37 of J •{-+� Z.Z6AC � It 0 i O ! 4.8EAC. �O) U V 1 11 A i 4.68AC P.aoac. W 36.61.AC. .. 44 /9.SIAC. O i a) N , °n I2-, N.S.B6-29 �IIy ro 4.as AC. • 21 STEW4sr 0 '1 x s.24 AC. (sMEcrEA vE� J :yam 1 u Q O I9' 102'm P.I7 AL ( W 09 10I. i32) I �19 I —�' --� 18 I 14 I5 1 —�,i 12 E.9�AL i j 4.70 AL. .25 4 JSAJ 1•76 A. 4.78 AC i N � �- k -- - -E,V vOL M ES N' T - --iic- 17 —. tlu- 18 11„ 21 155/ _tut-r ==��SE55c?�:'S ,-;�OCK & 4SS:SS::R'S VA �4 / P.-^R,FL f✓U4$8FR5 BOOK 111 FdGE 07 (d SNO»'A' IN CiFv-E: COU,%'.'Y GF C)RA.A'C-- a PAN ia S !��Inllllll ti t� -r . �n!n!mininlln -Ilifillll I �---- —� � ■-,e�;A■ i .REDONDO LANE �tal Acreage: 5 . 0 Gross Acres, Parcel Number Acres Zone Land Use Ownership 159-291-14 5 . .0 MI Vacant Redevelopment Agency Estimated Value : $7 per square foot Advantages of site : 1 . City owned Disadvantages of site: 1 . Less than 10 acres ' 2 . Adjacent to lumber yard. PLANNING • ZONING • DM 3,9 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-11 NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FE NE ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1960 ApJ01M1NG ANY RIGHT OF WAY-IS IN EKTE.D L1iY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 754 TO THE CENTER OF SUCH RIGHT OF �-- CITY OF � �� ohm mNo � � ® �L'FIEDCLASSIFICATION 9-3-W 90 6-IB-]3 IISA q-]•60 19! 6-IB-1! b5J Cffi7 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 11-)•80 98 10-IS-71 1814 ® RE80E/1Tt41.AGRICULTURAL p15TR:Ci 12-19-60 BOB -19-1] Ig 16 - 5-15-61 659 15.7-75 1112 ® INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH -.-6 a,6 2:,_,� IB °_LOCH. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 5-7-62 890900 IO-IS-)S i8)8 I��'7 COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT 6-18.62 908 6-5-]4 K30 FROMT YARD SETBACK LIRE 6-6-6z 918 12-9-74 1948 ® SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT I-19.62 93, 11-IB-)4 1951 -)-63 BAB 7-6-76 2061 ® OFFICE-PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT S_18.64 .1056 2-1-71 2168 2 TWO iAMILr RESIDENCE DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA '11-66 12 1-'-7i 2'54 o LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-18 7 A73 5-y2-7]' 22128p4 p 6-17-69 M21 182,-.19i 7' 225j ���-�-'- AMENDED BY ZONE CASE: 2-IT-69 M75 2-6.78 2216 nl wl HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL III,126,127,130,133,134,138,141,I99,198,212.237,238 6-z_69 ' R-n-7J RESM Je10 iLeLBJ RESTRICTED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT 10-19.70 1606 22I-18 RESN4l90 ® COMMUNITY FACILn1E8(RECREATIONAL)DI9TRIR 250,258,274,293,429,505,542,67-27,68-15,68-54,69-11,69-21,70-10,70-27,71-14,71-17,72-B,PP72-6 5-1-11 M38 3-n-eo 2418 COMMUNITY FACILITIES(CIVIC)DISTRICT 72.18,72.19.72-6,72-34,72-44,73-5,73-8,73-16,73-18,PPA7}I,73-21,73-23,73-20,74.6,74-15,PP74-3,76-17,76-26B,76-26C,77-x77--17, 6-6•7. Ni62 2-2I-80 2444 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT -n-72 _709- 2-n-el z4]2 77-27,SP73-I,79-10,80-9,80-17,PPSA82-1,81-13,82-13,82-14,83-3,83-5,PPSA82.1, <-7-72 140 J-1S•B2REAe5104 ® SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 21 76 B-5:12 n6B 3-IS-62 2l44 COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION 9-5.72 n]3 II-I-e2 25B2 COMBINED WITH OIL PRODUCTION ). J] 9-S•72 n14 CIVIC DISTRICT 6-!•72 n41 8-6-83 2621 --- - e TALBERT ;'-12 1185 'eis-eiREs.sz6i + PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT -2-1! 1826 AVE- ':::)P`TE STREET L ____] 6 1 26 25 nI!v Ale! MI-CD C4 MI-A (Q$t2-PD � c �' Ae MIA R4 SR . II011Oy 5o m T.W. a, R4-SR (0)R2-PD ' C4B1S� RI . CF-R MI-CD aa;::T!N::mN .:NTRAI.P;,tas1 Q M I-A g R4-SR Ili; 66 4 M(-CD - r.'' RI - i R C2C.F-R :mrdac:::: '..-�^: RI .-OFT1E TAYL.OR OR. - - H N. RI � z snzo • C2 50 RA-0-CD I M I MI RI ONTARIO - .= DR - I. - I W RI - 600.e 16 MI CA. +✓iOUEBEC DR RI RI R II ze9.1I j; RI ! R3 Y�i I= w aor ALBERTA DR m¢ RI ]- - �I ° � O 2 MI-CD RI RI RI RI i i so i-E Y OUI(N FR4NKLIN DR M I OR C4g I RI R3 R3 eD- MI-CD 8 i 66H� oR E a M pPPI RI R3 RI R2 RS m RS L, RI fT "---T--- g—'F— a Ml�d' MI-0-CD R2 7 ,. '° ;MI-ol . R2 '' . 650 . MI", C2 c2- -- RA-0-CD R2 i. e 50 660 R 3 R COMMODORE CR --IOAIRDR= M2-0 R3 �. 660 150 0: JM75 TO - 1eo M I-O - R R3 • TIN R2 (DIST oii' aD9 I RA-0 N.LN LOT 00 ;H2 N° - TN 140 LaR 2j jRA-0 C 'pI� 299.90 -320- 21'E3L':R (DISTRICT$ ONE) ERNEST AVE MI n R5 g,•�'l / _ C4 F 330. MI-O-CDF ,F 3 I-A-CD "D a ACIFICA UNITY PLAN R R3 ° MI-01 - :atN (DI ICT ONE) MI-A-CO-01] F MI-0 M2-R 0I.9 UAe IDSR�2"DO I . W iw RS s g J FE 0p R2 <� m *it W R9 w 5 1 =e o p R3 1. _ 3]n E N R2 R2 g MI-CD-01 R'O° g R 5 R 5?a R2 R2 R2 $ wAO_ ,t— r � r� �� r—� r / GARFIELD 1 - AVE ]4 s 2 —� 7— i.._r00' 27 1 -- --- -- — Jl7w, TRACT TRACT �;. HUNLINGTON BEACH DEVEL"ENi � 1 SERVICES O. -- Aus 7 yea i P.0.BOX 190 . I•, �,. ji Huntington Beach.CA 97fiJ>- _ BLIK n BROOKSHIRE q. _ m a • 5.43 AC, L;_ 1 — -- _ 0379 AC O TRACT . ,4 0.!7 A7 tn ELK D 4-► ., . . ..L07 / V 2.057AC(Cl 04 or A r4 1C a9?AC O �d NO 570 NO C-, A10 570 r 7,, %J "' Il-Y. N:)?F AS`CSSGF.S ElO K d pjcccc. k AtAG i, L'.: . i'AGCEi I:iN.5C'F.c EOOK,59 FAGF. 29 S'?'OWN IN CIFCLES COiKi1 OF ORANGE i • 11111wuu n' NINE@01EN �= _ • 1;T 11 slow WNW oil mm I....------� r Ali■■■■■� ®� . ��■.- m WIN .� i ■ ilk ��� ■•m WEI mills JIM \-- �•�rall ----------- -� '� ■ Illlll � 11111E 1® ����,■■■■■■■■■■ • Illlll Illllll iiiiil� i11 iiiii Sittig ■ lulu uunr � 11� . ��llr.■+rs■r■■raw w i1t,Yj � � uun_ _nuu . living 1111111 -•�' P' Pl�l�����glullllll l ■ "��''��. ® 1 N�Illlt SBE Development,Inc. • 196 N F, ,:ch Blvd. • oll Floor Hurnnu;lon Beach,CA 92648 (714)960-6551 September 14 , 1984 0 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 Iof the City Council 's _des.ire 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 We are very willing to meet with you at your convenience to dis- cuss this important program. Sincerely, Eugen'eIR. Ehmann SBE Financial Corporation ERE/j al • 4 OPEN S R �eoM C F" INDUSTRIIAL 1 RM onno I � � ' OPEN S t .�•� � MHOry1E e a+T4R10 PAW C F C LAKE . 4 AL A �, LUS I C/ y ro Qcy� N 9FAr -._4w*y S74 /QF/ 4 wfj;ftp&1T MEDIUM F6/VvS -. _... _ 4 ;- j ESTATE = — 2-4 UNITS %ACRE i HUNTINGTON BEACH CILIFORNIA MUSHROOM FARM PLANNING DIVISION GENERAL PLAN Oh'��ntJQ/tdioer �iv^ • '�., i ctme 4?olw r b4Gk. t�wrn -��?urt3 ♦ / ! o P?cows 4'}wfts J wlso look 0ot+ ,;,� Ya:w+�e re " Z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ~°"' '"'{'�'""" '��"�""e CA 84-48 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION swa_,�� ,/ac�=� � K HUNTINGTON BEACH - v�.vu �'11V%at Tom/��s�•�N,rI}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 ark be established for residency Y on a life estate basis and be a interim use of the property which will eventually revert to Central Park. The RV Park developed in conjunction. 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 'co 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 ? . c.a`velopment Loan Fund $ 75, 00.01 HCD Block Grant Funds For Relocation $ 600 , 000.2 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 G :-el�pment 'unds� ? 0, 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.,j0 to $.1.00 ,000 available. 2. . $600 , 000 total allocated Ci_.r_y-wide. City would have. to bor. ow .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 . Th(, Huntingtui -.Bear,.;.. Compan owns 7 . R pt.rcent of the redevelopment are,i and the City owns 1.3 . 6 percent. Rc,*".:en-,je i_ndic:nted is thf_ amount that would bu 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. • v \1 CITY OF HUNTINOTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - 1.0 Honorable Mayor, and From . Tom Tincher, City Council- Members Redevelopment Coordinator Subject MOBILE HOME RELOCATION PROGRAM FOR Date June 29, 1984 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPI= AREA (STUDY SESSION 7/2/84) As you are aware, residents of the Huntington Shores. Mobile Home Park .are' raced 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 Pelocation Law and HUD Relocation Law. In reviewing the .established regulations and laws, and in assessing relocation opportunities in the area, two basic conclusions have been reached: 1) there are, very few spaces available in the area for any convenient relocation to occur, -and ' 2) there are Agency relocation, affordable housing -and replacement housing . considerations which must be responded to as part of the respective uevelopment programs which are currently being planned. Attachment 1 provides . an overview of Agency relocation obligations and how they might apply in :::;srtain given .circumstances. Attachment 2 reflects a proposal for the Redevelopment Agency to acquire the Mushroom . Farm and other adjoining properties and. in cooperation with the City,. the Huntington Beach Company, and tie Robert Mayer Corporation, develop the site as a mobile home relocation park and as an expansion of Central Park. Tt is recommended that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency approve that the identified relocation assistance program be applied . to all prospective projects in the Downtown Area involving .the displacement of mobile homes and commence immediately to implement the program 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. r ATTACHMENT 1 MOB• 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 f_or.assistance, a .mobile home awner.-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 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 home 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,OOO .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 $41000 which when added to the acquisition price equals the reasonable cost of obtaining alternative housing. P L U S DISPLACEE 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. MOBILE HOME OWNER CHOOSES NOT TO RELOCATE UNIT AND SELLS TO DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE SPACES AVAILABLE AT REASONABLE RENTS NEGOTIATED PURCHASE PRICE The buyout'is negotiated between mobile. home owner and property owner. P L U S REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT 90 Day Owner or Tenant An anx.)unt 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. MOBILE HOME OWNER CHOOSES TO RELOCATE 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 comparable housing acconmodations or facilities P L U S Actual Relocation Costs The actual costs of relocating the mobile hcme. from the existing site to an alternative location within a 50. mile radius. . • • Attachment 2 MOBILE HOME RF�TION PRQ7D('T '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 appropziate, 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 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 approximately $260 per unit, per month, plus maintenance and .management costs. 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 project 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 1, L,(�`I'. 1D';NT1.FICI*)N ACREA E • C. R Mu.shrooni Farm 19 .7 h Bradley . l. . 8c, Farisea.0 . l.'� F Hi<dson 1 .02 N Sma11 Lots .W ce 1/UN7/N�'T0N 't'V7R— z 17ALBEX 7 Aj'E"NUE i Crl �lRn 6-ZZ/S PA,S'CE'L 'E PARCEL OZ? PARCEL ';r' `ThA.s represents only II of the total 69 small lots . The .balance , less two owned . by the city, belong to Ocean View Mushroom and their value is inc,ludeA in the total value of, the mushroom farm . Library • .:fit,. •�j.,_?; . rya: Parking INTERS >wv- REPLACEMENT SITE MUSHROOM FARM OPERATIONS t'+ �r 8.7 ACRES ">s4 ,�;sera`•, ' ;••.t1f,�y'>w;.it • 'c=`h' - - Ytlt 7 _ - ' `�s' J EXISTING .. "'t?r s•t; MUSHROOM FARM OPERATIONS 9.2 ACRES - - - - t Fes_ Ar +sh 7 a spy °, �I{—,o FUTURE PARK Y LAKE , /j2,375� D ;�1rt } tills Ave. . Library Parking T frt b IMrERIm ' REPLACEMENT'SITE MUSHROOM FARM OPERATIONS I `A r ;r 8.7 ACRES E '11. I , 5.-'i� f� ;l;s 4 c rx' Ito - t. I FUTURE PARK , 5 ' LAKE qi dtla. 6V I CV I(G) si;, rt`ir tills Ave. REQ UER FOR CITY' COUNCI -ACTION APPROVED BY CITY C647N®$ Date June 2, 1982 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Y CLERK Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson,. City Administr , Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director of Development Services a Subject: Extension of Mobile Home Park Conversion Morator um UIF6�eNc- y O RD Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On October 5, 1981, an eight-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses was adopted. In order to provide additional time for the processing of the Ci.ty' s draft mobile home park conversion ordinance, a one-year extension of the moratorium has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Government Code -Section 65.856, adopt- Urgency Ordinance No 45(o�,.a one-year extension of the moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. ANALYSIS: On June 29, 1981, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2496 which established a four-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. The intent of- the original moratorium was to allow staff time to study the issue and report on the feasibility of developing a permanent ordinance regulating conversions. On October 5, 1981, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2509, imposing an eight-month moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. This was done to allow time for preparation and processing of a permanent conversion ordinance. Due to an extended public hearing process before the Planning Commission, a permanent mobile home park conversion ordinance has not yet been .adopted. In order to allowtime for completion of processing of the draft conversion ordinance, an extension of the moratorium on con- versions is desirable. The attached ordinance, if adopted by four- fifths vote, will extend the moratorium ,on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses for a maximum of one -year. ALTERNATIVE ACTION:. Do not adopt the Urgency Ordinance No.1 569 extending for a maximum PIO 4/81 �t of one year the moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. Failure to extend the moratorium will allow notice of mobile home park conversions to be given before a permanent ordinance regulating such conversions has been adopted. FUNDING SOURCE: No .funds required. SUPPORTING INFORMATION: 1. Urgency Ordinance No.;5-6A - A one-year extension of the moratorium on the conversion of mobile home parks to other uses. CWT:JWP:HS: js H CITY OF HUNTINGTO1 REACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - Honorable Mayor. and City Grace Win chell; airman To Council From planning Commission Subject MOBILE HOME. CONVERSION Date May 14 , 1982 ORDINANCE On May 4, 1982, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and dis- cussed the salient issues of .the Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance. At that meeting the Commission reviewed several methods for determining purchase price of displaced'units as part of the ordinance' s tenant . assistance plan. . These included a percentage of full market value, orig- inal purchase price plus capital improvements, and a sliding scale. The hearing was continued to May 18 so that staff could research the original purchase price concept further. As an alternative to an ordinance containing a detailed. tenant assistance plan; staff was directed to pre- pare several versions of the Newport Beach ordinance, which treats conversions on a case-by.-case basis. One scenario of this alternative would place a mobile home .zon.ing overlay over all parks subject to con- sideration. for removal at the time the owner applies for a conversion. At the April 19, 1982 City Council meeting, staff, was directed to proceed with rezoning of all nonconforming mobile home parks .to the MH 'District. Staff has indicated that three parks would require a rezone only, .while . four others would require a rezone and General Plan amendment. Because of staff time and costs .associated with rezones and General Plan amend- ments as opposed to an MH overlay, the Planning Commission asked staff to -compare the costs and impacts (in terms of tenant protection and the permanence of mobile home parks) of the • two approaches . To undertake the necessary rezones and amendments would require three months to complete at an estimated cost of $6, 200 . The preparation of an 'MH overlay ordin- ance for the seven parks would take six to eight weeks to complete at an estimated cost of $2, 800.. The overlay approach would not necessitate General Plan amendments,. thereby saving four to . six weeks and $3,400. It is possible that the City Council and the Planning.. Commission would benefit from a joint study session to discuss conversion and rezoning issues in more detail after the- May 18 Commission meeting. GW:CC:df REQUE r FOR CITY COW ACTION RCA 84-3 Date April 138, 1984 Submitted to The Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: . Charles W. Thompson, City Administra r Prepared by: Melvin M. Bowman,. Acting Director, .Community Services ACQUISITION OF MUSHROOM FARM PROPERTY - L Subject; 400, Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE There is a need to .identify the method for fi_ nancing 'the acquisition of the property known as the mushroom farm. RECOMMENDATION City Council, has previously authorized the City Administrator to negoti- ate with the owners within the mushroom farm complex for the acquisition of that property. At this time staff is recommending that City Council • @� (1) Determine.:which funding sources. and/or mix of funding source-s should be used for the acquisition of the property. (2) Give direction whether City Council would like staff to �j Rapitalize on the $609, 0.00 Land and Water Conservation rant (50/50 match grant) approved by the state for the purchase of land adjacent._ to Central_ Park for a Recrea- C tiponal Vehicle Park. -- ANALYSIS At the Council meeting of February 7, 1983, staff was authorized to meet with property owners in the planning mode area to discuss possible acqui- 3 sition and phasing in of recreation uses permitted within the ROS zone as the existing land use phases out. Approximately one year ago, the mush- :1L room farm property was appraised at $5.3 million. To enable the City to purchase this property, a comprehensive funding program should be insti- tuted. The Chief of Administrative Services has provided Exhibit A de- tailing an alternative funding method for: the acquisition of subject property. If the mushroom farm properties are acquired, as shown in Exhibit A (Five Year Land Acquisition Program - HCP) , we would still have a conservative estimate of $600,000 per year for the next five years for additional park acquisition and development projects. as identified in the Capital Improvement Program. It should be pointed out that any funds used from the state grant or. City matching funds must be used for park purposes only. City. Council may also want to consider placing the mushroom farm property into a redevelopment project area. Such designation could provide to the City an .opportunity to study the use of that property as an interim � PIO 4/81 Mobile Home Shelter Park site. This site would be considered in con- junction with the relocation of those mobile home park sites. currently within the Main-Pier- Redevelopment Project Area that are faced with the threat of closure by the property owners. FUNDING SOURCE Park Acquisition and Development Fund, Revenue Sharing, Redevelopment ' Fund, and General Fund. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1.. Purchase parcels adjacent to HCP for future fishing lake development; 2. Leave property as presently zoned and wait until present owners either _propose development or approach City to purchase; 3. Leave property as presently zoned and develop with private enter- prise. }_ ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Exhibit B MMB:paj 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTiNGTON BEACH To Max Bowman, Acting Director From Robert J. Fra Community Services Chief of Adminis ati Subject Potential Funding Sources/ Date April 13, 1984 Financing Alternatives for Acquisition of Land for Huntington Central Park (Ocean View-Mushroom Farm, -etc.) Based on recent Appraisals, it is estimated that the total acquisition cost for land for the expansion of the Huntington Central Park would be $5,259,500. The City has received approval from the State for a grant (50 - 50 match) of. :approximately $600,000 for such land acquisition if the City makes a commitment towards the acquisitiori.project prior to June 30, 1984. This memo will provide information on potential funding sources and financing alternatives for the balance of the cost. We have previously discussed the need to finance such an acquisition over a period of years (minimum four to five years). We have identified the following potential funding sources for this type of land acquisition: 1. Park Acquisition and Development Fund 2. Revenue Sharing Fund 3. Redevelopment Agency 4. General Fund - These potential funding sources are discussed in brief detail as follows: Park Ac uisition and Develo ment Fund: There is a fund balance (estimated June 30, 1984) of toughly $9UU,, 000 that could be used for any park project including the HCP. land acquisition. In addition, the estimated revenue for the Park Acquisition and Development Fund over the next five years has been conservatively estimated at $4,750,000. An additional $2,750,000 is to be paid to the fund by the Redevelopment Agency for the purchase of the Terry Park site. As you know, r there are many potential uses for these funds as indicated in the requested �. projects in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. The first priority in your department's requested projects was Huntington Central Park land acquisition. I believe we could plan on using $3 million of Park Acquisition and Development funds for the HCP land acquisition over the next five years and still be able to complete the other high priority. development- projects in the park system. To do so, however, means using other funding sources as described below for HCP land acquisition. Revenue Sharing: Revenue sharing funds can be used for acquisition of land fore parks. Congress has authorized the Revenue Sharing Program for at least the next two years and the estimated City revenue from this source from that authorization is about $3.5 million. This report assumes that we could allocate $1,00.0,000 of revenue sharing funds for HCP land acquisition. Redevelopment�Agencr,Y: If this area were included in the City's redevelopment program, then tax increment funds and financing mechanisms could. be utilized for land acquisition. General Fund: This is the City's most flexible revenue source and also, of course, the revenue source which finances the primary City operations. With the economic recovery apparently well established at this point in time, the City's General Fund revenue picture can be expected to be more favorable in the next five years compared to our recent past going back to Proposition 13- in 1978. Therefore, this report assumes that $700,000 of General Fund revenue could be used for HCP land acquisition. Summary The following chart summarizes one- approach to the acquisition of the land identified in the attachments. Keep in mind that this is simply one alternative. The need for using Revenue Sharing or General Fund monies in the future years could be eliminated if other State or Federal grant funds become available, or if there are other sales of City owned park sites. It is, however, necessary to use some funding source other than PA&D Fund for the first year estimated cost of $1,200,000. This is because the PA&D fund is not anticipated to have the full amount available in the first year. The State grant of roughly $600,000 is a matching grant and it would be in the City's best interest to proceed- with the full $1.2 million (or more) in the first year so that our reimbursement from the State can be processed as quickly as possible. You will note that the analysis below indicates that the City will spend this $1,200,000 in the first year out of City funding sources and that .the State grant of $600,000 would then be reimbursed during the second year of the acquisition program. The actual reimbursement should occur within four .months of the City's expenditure of the full amount, but I have indicated the reimbursement would be made in the 85/86 fiscal year in case there are delays and in order to illustrate the point that the City must finance the full $1 .2 'million up front. FIVE YEAR LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM - HCP .... .. ... .. . ... ... .Fiscal Year.. . ...... . .... .. .... Funding Source 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 Total State Grant $ -0- 600,000 -0- -0- -0- $ 600,000 Park Acquisition & Develop. Fund 900,000 500,000 600,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 Revenue Sharing 300,000 -0- 200,000 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 General Fund . -0- -0- 200,000 ' 250,000 250,000 700,000 Total $1,200,000 11100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 $5,3OOj000 a o er ranz Chief of Administrative Svcs. RJF/c 9 cc: Charles W. Thompson Dan Brennan HUNTINGTON SANDS Handel, r rr . M, Ewett Brake,mgmt. • a A i HUNTINGTON SANDS INCORPORATED 1 . WANTS TO DEVELOP A MOBILE HOME PARK FOR ITS NEIGHBORHOOD AND MOBILEHOME OWNERS WHO WILL BE DISPLACED DUE TO PROPERTY CONVERSION 2. THE ASSOCIATION HAS IDENTIFIED A. GOLDENWEST AND ELLIS -10 ACRES ; COST POSSIBLY $250,000/acre HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. , OWNERS -CONSTRAINTS INCLUDE: ACTIVE OIL RIGS, POSSIBLE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE. CITY'S CHOICE SINCE IT IS ADJACENT TO THE MUSHROOM FARM AND THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE SUITABLE FOR RECREATION PARK OR MOBILEHOMES SINCE THE ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL/ESTATE RESIDENTIAL B. GOTHARD AND MAIN - 5 TO 8 ACRES; COST ESTIMATED ATE $300,000/acre - OWNED BY HUNTINGTON BEACH CO. - CONSTRAINTS INCLUDE: CHANGE OF ZONING FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, THE REALIGNMENT OF GOTHARD THROUGH THE SITE, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE. - CITY RESISTANT TO USE FOR MOBILEHOME SITE DUE TO ZONING AND ROAD REALIGNMENT C. IRBY PARK - 8 ACRES COST DEPENDENT ON CITY - OWNED BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - CONSTRAINTS INCLUDE: REMOVAL OF TOPSOIL COSTING APPROX. $500,000, COMMUNITY RESISTENDE TO DENSITY AND PARK PROPERTY CONDITIONS - CITY WANTS TO PLACE 26 PREFAB UNITS ON THE SITE AND IS CURRENTLY CONTRACTING WITH A CONSULTANT TO INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SITE ( WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE MOBILEHOME) . D• TALBERT ( INDUSTRIAL RFP) - 5 ACRES: COST DEPENDENT ON CITY j OWNED BY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ CONSTRAINTS INCLUDE: CHANGE OF ZONING FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, EXISTING 77RFP SSFOIRNNpIINSSDUUrSSRTgqRLLIALLpUAANTTDppINDUSTRIAL SUPPORTEI CONSESSIONSLMADETTTOKTHE INODSTRI LACOMMUNITYITO NNE HOUSING ON THE PAI 3. THE ASSOCIATION HAS IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES : A. STATE PREDEVELOPMENT FUNDS- THE APPLICATION WILL BE .SUBMITTED MARCH 30 ` WITH EVERY INDICATION THAT THE ASSOCIATION WILL RECEIVE $50,000 FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING PRELIMINARY WORK 'r B. GLENDALE FEDERAL GRANT THE APPLICATION WILL BE SUBMITTED ON MARCH 30 . '. FOR $25,000 FOR PRELIM"INARY ENGINEERING WORK OR OPTION FOR THE LAND C. ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY - OCHA WILL RELEASE AN RFP FOR FUNDS FOR HOUSING AMOUNTING TO $100,000 WITHIN THE NEXT TWO. MONTHS; WE WILL. REQUEST FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISTION AND/OR OPTION FOR A SITE D. HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-- IN FY'83/84 $380,000 FUNDS WERE SET ASIDE FOR RELOCATION AND WE INTEND TO REQUEST THESE FUNDS ONCE THE PROJECT FUNDING. AND SITE HAVE BEEN FINALIZED.. THE ASSOCIATION HAS REQUESTED FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION FUNDS ' IN THE FY 84/85 APPLICATION.E. PRIVATE BANKS ARE ANALYZING OUR PROPOSAL TO UNDERWRITE THE ACQUISITION .AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MOBILEHOME PARK F. STATE FUNDING IS AVAILABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MOBILEHOME PARK AND WITH-THE" CITY'S LOBBYING EFFORTS, THIS PROJECT HAS A GOOD CHANCE OF BEING FUNDED. G. THE CITY STAFF HAS SUGGESTED THAT REDEVELOPMENT. FUNDS MAY BE SET ASIDE FOR RELOCATION AND THAT A BOND @, 9% COULD BE USED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARK :. 91 - 03/1T/84 F H*NGTON SANDS ORGANIZATIOC. MOBIL OME REPLACEMENT HOUSING JECT . HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA SITE REQUIREMENTS ----------------- 1. M08ILE .HOME SITES. . . . . . . . . . QUANT. UNIT AREA 20 2600 — 162000. SO. FEET._. 2. OPEN SPACE AREAS. . . . . . 75 500 37500 SQ. ,:FEET 3. RECREATION BUILDING. . . . . . . as * . .-. * agaves sees! 1500 SQ. FEET dr 4. INTERNAL STREETS. . . . . . . . . . .`. . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . 59000 60. FEET �_-260000 SO. FEET.:. MINIMUM GROSS AREA OF SITE REQUIRED. . . . . . . . . 5.96 ACRES sow.oiwwwwa�wwwww. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE - - _ -- ------------------------- ._ i. LAND COST. . . . . . . .-... . .$ 250000.00/ACRE. . . . .$. 1490000900 ! , 2. RELOCATION . . . a a 9 a a a$ 3500.00/UNIT: . . . g$. 262500..00 3. GEN.SITE IMPR. . . . . . . . 80000.00/ACRE. . . . .4 ,_476800.00 4. UNIT SITE IMPR. . . . . ..# 8000.0.0/UNIT. . . . . . 600000000 ` 5. COMMONS IMPR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . a $ 135000.00 - 6. FEES/PERMITS.. . . . . . . . .$ 2650.00/UNIT. . . . . 198750.00 ' 7. ARCH/ENGR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g . . . . . . . . .9► 141.000.00 t. . 8. LEGAL .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 1000.00/UNIT. . . . .0 75000.00 9. CONSULTANT. . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . g . . g . . %$ 67380.00 10. CONTINGENCIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 169400.00 ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT.*. ... . . . sea ( _. - 75 UNITS). . . . . . . ( 5.96 ACRES) . . . ... . . . . . . . . .$ 3616030.00 TOTAL rmwisresswomewawwwwwwwwwwmw 4`` • . . . . . . . . . . . .4 48200.00 PER .UNIT P ' ao®wrmw�eswwaa�wm�ssaaammmwmmlw !' . * DOES NOT INCLUDE FINANCING COSTS