Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
15 - Marina Park Mobile Home Park
COY THE C1TY COUNCIL MY OF NEWPORT BEACH P,(A 0r 1-(A TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 15 March 14, 2006 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manger's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager (949) 644-3020 - dkiff(aD-city. newport-beach. ca. us Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644-3210 cam pbell(aD_city.newport-beach.ca. us SUBJECT: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach ISSUES 1. Should the City Council approve the closure of the Marina Park Mobile Home Park ("Marina Park" or the "Park") and change of use from a rental of mobile home space use to an interim open space use? 2. Is the Relocation Impact Report ("Report") sufficient and in conformance with Government Code Section 65863.7? 3. What mitigation measures, if any, should be imposed on the City to mitigate the impact of the change of use, from a rental use to an interim open space use, on the ability of displaced mobile home park residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park? RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution approving: the Mitigated Negative Declaration; the sufficiency of the Report; the mitigation measures proposed in the Report; the conversion of the mobile homes occupied by persons and families of low and moderate income to a non-residential use without requiring those dwelling units be replaced; and the closure of Marina Park. BACKGROUND The Marina Park Mobile Home Park is located on a 4.34 acre parcel at 1770 West Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula between 15th and 18th Streets. The City acquired the property from Pacific Electric Land Company in 1919. The initial use of the property after purchase was for a City campground. Campers paid $.75/day for waterfront camp areas and $.50/day for interior spaces. The Park was later renovated in 1955 to a trailer court for 120 C Agenda Item: Marina Bark Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 2 trailers. Accommodation of larger mobile homes put the Park at today's capacity of 58 mobile homes. An aerial map depicting Marina Park and the surrounding area is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. In a series of leases dating back to 1973, the City has consistently informed the mobile home tenants at Marina Park ("Lessees" or "Tenants") that the Park would be closed and put to another use. Further, in the leases, the Lessees agreed to waive any right they may have to relocation benefits in exchange for the payment of below market rents. Specifically, the leases since 1973 have provided as follows: 1973 Lease: The 1973 Lease provided in pertinent part that "[o]n October 10, 1972, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach voted to accept the recommendation of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Committee to convert Newport Marina Park into a public recreation area at the termination of the [existing] leases." All parties entering into the 1973 Lease agreed that the intent of the parties was to extend the term of the lease until September 30, 1977 to provide a transitional period so the Lessees could find alternative locations for their mobile homes at the end of the 1973 lease. The 1973 Lease expressly provided that at the end of the lease, Lessees would "unconditionally agree to vacate the premises without contest, legal and otherwise" and to "waive any relocation assistance or other assistance from Lessor resulting from vacating the premises." 1976 Lease: On December 22, 1975, the City Council, upon the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Marina Park Leases, voted to extend the leases until September 30, 1985 rather than to close the Park. The 1976 Lease offered an extension of five years "should the City Council find and determine ... that Marina Park is not required for any public trust purpose or other public purpose..." The Lessees agreed that at the expiration or termination of the lease the Lessees would "unconditionally agree to vacate the premises without contest, legal and otherwise" and to "waive any relocation assistance or other assistance from Lessor resulting from vacating the leased premises." 1985 Lease: In 1985, the City Council did in fact determine that Marina Park should be converted to a public recreation area but that Lessees should be allowed to continue leasing space at Marina Park until March 15, 2000. The 1985 Lease was a long term lease and provided for the payment by all Lessees of below market rent during the term of the lease. Specifically, in the lease, the City expressly agreed to initially charge rent that was slightly less than the fair market value and to limit future rental increases to the cost -of living index for the term of the lease. In exchange for these benefits, the Lessees agreed that at the end of the lease term, the City could change the use of the Park "without obligation to pay relocation benefits, or provide other forms of relocation assistance." The Lessees agreed that the long term lease constituted "full and adequate mitigation of any adverse impact of the proposed conversion on Lessees and [that] the extended term of the Lease gives Lessees sufficient time to secure adequate replacement space in another mobile home park or alternative housing." The Lessees also agreed that the long term lease: was a "far greater value to Lessees than any relocation benefits or other form of assistance that could be granted to Lessees by City" and increased the "market value of Lessees' interest in the premises and substantially Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 3 improved the ability of Lessees to locate potential purchasers or transferees of Lessees' interests." 2000 Extension: On February 8, 2000, the City Council authorized the City to offer an amendment and extension (Lease Extension) to the 1985 Lease. The Lease Extension, which extended the 1985 Lease through March 15, 2002, expressly incorporated the terms of the 1985 Lease and reaffirmed that the below market rents and limits on the increase of rents that were provided for in the 1985 Lease would be extended through the extended term of the lease. The lease also provided that the "Lease Extensions supplements the benefits of the 1985 Lease relative to the value and transferability of Lessees' interests," in that the extended term increased the value of Lessees' interest in the premises and substantially improved the ability of Lessees to locate potential purchasers or transferees of Lessees' interests. In exchange therefore, Lessees waived and released the City from its obligation to pay relocation benefits or any other form of relocation assistance or other payment or consideration that arise out of or relate in any way to the conversion of the Park to any use other than a mobile home use. Current Agreement: Beginning in 2002 and continuing to the present, the City entered into new leases with Lessees that offered a month to month or twelve (12) month term, at the Tenant's option. The leases each provided in pertinent part that based on proposals solicited by the City Council, "the City Council, as of February 2002, has deemed a non-residential use of Marina Park the most appropriate land use for the property." The current leases also provided that the City reserves the right to take the position that the past rents have been below market rent and constitute consideration against relocation costs upon closure of the Park. The Park presently accommodates 57 mobile homes, 25 used as second -homes, 31 used as permanent residences, and 1 is vacant. The mobile homes are 10 to 59 years in age and range in space from 800 to 1,500 square feet. Most of the units have been upgraded with interior and exterior improvements. There is a permanent population in the Park of approximately 67 individuals. Among the permanent resident households, at least 6 are sub -leasing from family members who do not reside in the Park. The average tenure of the full-time residents surveyed is approximately 16 years. The tenure of respondent second -home tenants averages approximately 12 years. RELOCATION IMPACT REPORT On June 14, 2005, the City Council directed City staff to begin legally required steps to change the use of the property from a rental use to an interim open space condition, including the preparation and submittal of a relocation impact report to the Marina Park residents and the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. The City retained Overland Pacific and Cutler ("Overland") to prepare the legally required Report. Pursuant to California law, the City has the right to terminate mobile home park space tenancies as part of a park closure so long as the owner (the City in this case) provides affected mobile home owners with: (1) 12 months advance notice of the proposed park closure; and (2) a relocation impact report that adequately assesses the impact of the park's closure on park Agonda Item: -Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 4 tenants by addressing the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and relocation costs. Prior to changing the use of a mobile home park, the City Council is required to review the relocation impact report at a public hearing. At the election of the City Council, the City Council may require, as a condition of the change, the person or entity proposing the change of use to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the closure on the ability of displaced mobile home park residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park. The required steps to mitigate the impact, however, may not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation. While the term "relocation costs" is undefined, this term has been interpreted to mean the physical and related costs to move the mobile home. This interpretation is consistent with the overall intent of the Mobile Home Residency Law to provide protection and adequate procedures for the termination of tenancies because of: (1) the high cost of moving mobile homes; (2) the potential for damage resulting from the movement of mobile homes; (3) the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes; and (4) the cost of landscaping and lot preparation. After thorough review of the applicable statutes and case law, the City Attorney's Office has determined that the foregoing interpretation of the term "relocation costs" is correct. The Report prepared by Overland, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, complies with all legal requirements because the Report adequately addresses the impact of Marina Park's proposed closure on Marina Park Tenants by: (1) identifying alternative sites to which the Tenants might relocate their mobile homes, should they choose to do so; (2) other alternative housing options available to the Tenants; and (3) the relocation benefits and assistance to which the Tenants may be entitled pursuant to applicable law. In regards to the possible relocation benefits and assistance, the Report provides the following options: Tenants with Movable Homes: Tenants with movable mobile homes, as determined by a professional mobile home mover, who elect to have homes moved, would be entitled to the following: Disassemble and reassemble the mobile home and all legally constructed additions (including but not limited to rooms, porches, skirting, carports, patios and other movable amenities legally installed) to a similar park within 60 miles, at no cost to the Tenant. If any legal improvement is not permitted at the new lot or is immovable, as determined by a professional mobile home mover, the City will pay the Tenant fair compensation for these improvements, up to the maximum of $3,000, upon the owner's removal of improvements; 2. Payment of new utility connections, when replacing the Tenant's current service (excluding any possible utility deposits charged by the new providers or additional services); 3. Reimbursement of previously paid security deposit; Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park - Change of Use - Relocation Impact Report - Mello Act - Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 5 4. Payment of temporary lodging expenses, if the mobile home relocation results in the Tenant being displaced over one or more nights, up to the maximum of $100/night, and up to 5 nights; 5. Payment of moving costs associated with moving all personal property, allowance of $1,500, plus an additional benefit of not more than $1,000 for senior (62 years and older) and/or disabled households; and Provision of a relocation consultant's services. Tenants with Unmovable Mobile Homes: Tenants with mobile homes that cannot be moved as determined by a professional mobile home mover, or cannot move their mobile home within sixty (60) miles of the Park would be entitled to the following: Cash payment allowance of $20,000 for a single -wide, $21,500 for a double -wide and $23,000 for a triple -wide mobile home, which was determined based on the cost of moving the mobile homes, plus an additional benefit of not more than $1,000 for senior (62 years or older) and/or disabled households; Payment of new utility connections, when replacing the Tenant's current service not including deposits or additional services; 3. Reimbursement of previously paid security deposit; 4. Payment of moving costs associated with moving all personal property, allowance of $1,500; and 5. Provision of a relocation consultant's services. (Benefits are contingent upon the Tenants removing their coach and improvements. The benefits will be offset in the event the City is required to remove the coach or improvements.) Tenants Who Reiect Relocation Mitigation: If a homeowner rejects the relocation measures stated above, the City's remaining obligation would be limited to the following: $20,000 cash payment for a single -wide mobile home, $21,500 for a double -wide or $23,000 for a triple -wide mobile home, which was determined based on the cost of moving the mobile homes; An additional cash payment of not more than $1,000 to senior Tenants (62 years or older) and/or disabled households; Reimbursement of previously paid security deposit; and 4. Payment of moving costs associated with moving all personal property, allowance of $1,500. Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 6 (Benefits are contingent upon the Tenants removing their coach and improvements. The benefits will be offset in the event the City is required to remove the coach or improvements.) While the proposed relocation mitigation measures provide significant benefits to Tenants, it is important to note that in determining these benefits, Overland did not consider the potential impact of the lease provisions which waived the Tenants right to receive relocation benefits in exchange for being charged below market rents. To determine the benefit received by the Tenants as a result of their paying below market rents, City Staff retained Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. ("KMA") to prepare a report analyzing the economic benefits received by the Tenants. The KMA report, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4, provides that the benefit the Lessees have received from paying below market rents from 1985 to the present range from $192,292 (for water view home sites) to $392,621 (for a water front home sites). While the lease provisions and KMA report establish an independent basis for not imposing the proposed relocation mitigation measures provided for in the Report, it is staff's recommendation that the City Council find that the relocation mitigation measures contained in the Report are sufficient and that the closure be conditioned on the payment of the benefits set forth in the Report. Staff recommends that if the Tenants contend that they are entitled to additional benefits, the lease provisions waiving the Lessees' right to relocation benefits and the significant benefits received by the Lessees related to the payment of below market rents should be considered to bar and/or offset the claim for additional benefits. MELLO ACT The Mello Act provides that the conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units in the Coastal Zone occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low or moderate income. To determine whether mobile homes at the Park are occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, the City retained Overland to conduct a survey of the Park residents. Based on Overland's survey of the Park residents, Overland determined that thirteen (13) of the Park's residents qualify as persons or families of low or moderate income. A copy of the report is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. While the Park is .occupied by residents that qualify as persons of low or moderate income, the Mello Act specifically provides that the City is not obligated to provide replacement dwelling units, unless the City Council determines that replacement of all or any portion of the converted or demolished dwelling units is feasible, if the conversion or demolition of a residential structure is: (1) for the purpose of nonresidential use which is either coastal dependent," which means any development or use which requires a site on or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all, or "coastal related," which means any use that is dependent on a coastal -dependent development or use (the coastakdependent or coastal -related use must be also consistent with the provisions of the land use plan portion of the local government's local coastal program); and/or (2) located within the jurisdiction of a local government which has within the area encompassing the Coastal Zone, and three miles inland therefrom, less than 50 acres, in aggregate, of land which is vacant, privately owned and available for residential use. Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 7 Here, the purpose of the change of use to an interim open space use is both coastal related and coastal dependent because the use provides open space next to the beach. The proposed use of the Marina Park property is also consistent with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan portion of its local coastal program and the Recreation and Environmental Open Space designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In addition, the City has within the area encompassing the Coastal Zone, and three miles inland therefrom, less than 50 acres, in aggregate, of land which is vacant, privately owned and theoretically available for residential use. The Mello Act also provides that the conversion or demolition of any residential structure for purposes of a nonresidential use which is not coastal dependent shall not be authorized unless the local government has first determined that a residential use is no longer feasible in that location. While a dispute exists between the City and State Tidelands Trust regarding the portion of the Marina Park property that is tidelands, the State Tidelands Trust has taken the position that a significant portion of the Marina Park property is tidelands and that permanent residential use of tidelands is not consistent with the State Tidelands Trust. Conversion of the Marina Park to an interim open space use will eliminate the alleged nonconformity. Based on the foregoing, the City is not required to replace the dwelling units occupied by persons of low or moderate income unless the City determines that replacing all or portion of these units is feasible. As used in the Mello Act, the word "feasible" means `capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technical factors." Here, the replacement of all or any portion of the converted dwelling units is not feasible because the replacement of these dwelling units cannot be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technical factors. For example, land acquisition costs in the area and the fact that the proposed use of the Marina Park property as an interim open space use will not generate any revenue or profit, makes the replacement of all or a portion of the units economically unfeasible. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") has been prepared by Vista Community Planners for the proposed change of use in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The MND is attached as Exhibit 6 for consideration. The MND identifies three (3) issue areas where 2 mitigation measures are identified. Those issues are: Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Quality. With the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures; however, the project's environmental impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. PUBLIC NOTICE The City Attorney's office has provided proofs of service confirming that all Marina Park Tenants have been provided with a copy of the Report and with the requisite 15 days' advance notice of the hearing on the Report. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable law and on the City website. Further, notice Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home .Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 8 regarding the consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration was given in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Prepared by: r—JajasCampbell, Selhior Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1: Resolution No. Submitted by: Da4pyiff, Assistant Ci Manager Exhibit 2: Aerial Photograph of Marina Park Exhibit 3: Overland Relocation Impact Report Exhibit 4: KMA Report Exhibit 5: Overland Income Survey Exhibit 6: Mitigated Negative Declaration RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE RELOCATION IMPACT REPORT; THE MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED IN THE RELOCATION IMPACT REPORT; THE CONVERSION OF DWELLING UNITS OCCUPIED BY PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME TO A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE WITHOUT REQUIRING THOSE DWELLING UNITS BE REPLACED; AND THE CHANGE OF USE OF MARINA PARK FROM A RENTAL USE TO AN INTERIM OPEN SPACE CONDITION WHEREAS, the City of Newport beach ("City") is the owner of the Marina Park Mobile Home Park located on a 4.34 acre site located at 1770 West Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula between 15th and 18th Streets ("Park" or "Marina Park"); and WHEREAS, in a series of leases dating back to 1973, the City has consistently informed the homeowners at Marina Park that the Park would be closed and put to another use; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005, the City Council directed City staff to begin legally required steps to change the use of the Marina Park property from a rental use to an interim open space condition, including the preparation and submittal of the legally required report and submittal of the report to the Marina Park residents and the City Council for consideration at a public hearing; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requirements, an Initial Study was prepared and a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted at the County Clerk Recorder's office on February 10, 2006, distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 21-day public review period commencing on February 10, 2006 and ending on March 3, 2006; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was also mailed to property owners and residents within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property excluding adjacent public rights of way and Newport Harbor; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study identifies three (3) issue areas, which are Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Quality, and two (2) mitigation measures which are incorporated as conditions of approval and are prerequisite to the issuance of any ministerial permits to relocate or demolish any of the existing mobile homes; and WHEREAS, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, the project's potential environmental impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by Vista Community Planners for the proposed change of use; and WHEREAS, California law requires the City to file a report on the impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation of use upon the displaced residents of the mobile home park to be converted or closed; and WHEREAS, in determining the impact of the change of use on displaced mobile home park residents, the report must address the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and relocation costs; and WHEREAS, the City retained Overland Pacific and Cutler ("Overland") to prepare the legally required report; and WHEREAS, Overland has prepared the legally required report ("Relocation Impact Report") in conformance with California law; and WHEREAS, the a copy of the Relocation Impact Report has been filed with the City; and WHEREAS, after filing of the Relocation Impact Report, the Planning Department provided the City with notice in accordance with Government Code Section 65863.8; and WHEREAS, the City has scheduled a hearing before the City Council on the Relocation Impact Report and a copy of the Relocation Impact Report has been served on the residents of each mobile home in Marina Park in accordance with California law and proofs of service are on file with the City; and WHEREAS, prior to changing the use of Marina Park from a mobile home park to an interim open space condition, the City Council is required to review the Relocation Impact Report at a public hearing and determine whether the Relocation Impact Report is sufficient; and WHEREAS, at the election of the City Council, the City Council may require, as a condition of the change of use, that the City take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the cessation of use on the ability of displaced mobile home park residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park, provided that the mitigation measures imposed do not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the leases from 1973 to the present which contain provisions providing for the waiver of relocation benefits and/or the payment of below market rents; and 2 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the report prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. ("KMA"), which provides that the benefit Lessees have received from paying below market rents from 1985 to the present well exceeds any potential relocation benefit; and WHEREAS, the Mello Act (Government Code Section 65590) provides that the conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units in the Coastal Zone occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low or moderate income; and WHEREAS, to determine whether mobile homes at the Park are occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, the City retained Overland to conduct a survey of the Park residents; and WHEREAS, based on Overland's survey of the Park residents, Overland determined that thirteen (13) of the Park's residents qualify as persons or families of low or moderate income; and WHEREAS, the Mello Act specifically provides that the City is not obligated to provide replacement dwelling units, unless the City Council determines that replacement of all or any portion of the converted or demolished dwelling units is feasible, if the conversion or demolition of a residential structure is (1) for the purpose of nonresidential use which is either coastal dependent and/or coastal related (provided that the coastal - dependent and/or coastal -related use is consistent with the provisions of the land use plan portion of the local government's local coastal program), and/or (2) located within the jurisdiction of a local government which has within the area encompassing the Coastal Zone, and three (3) miles inland therefrom, less than fifty (50) acres, in aggregate, of land which is vacant, privately owned and available for residential use; and WHEREAS, the Mello Act provides that the conversion or demolition of any residential structure for purposes of a nonresidential use which is not coastal dependent shall not be authorized unless the local government has first determined that a residential use is no longer feasible in that location; and WHEREAS, the word "feasible," as used in the Mello Act, means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technical factors; and WHEREAS, the following documents, without limitation, are deemed incorporated into the Administrative Record relating hereto: (1) Relocation Impact Report prepared by Overland; (2) Appraisal of Marina Park prepared by John P. Neet, MAI, dated November 9, 2003; 3 (3) Benefit Analysis Report prepared by KMA dated July 29, 2005; (4) Marina Park Income Report prepared by Overland; (5) Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared by Vista Community Planners dated February 2006; (6) Correspondence of Dave Kiff to Marina Park residents dated February 10, 2006; (7) Notice of Hearing on Intended Change of Use of Marina Park and Relocation Impact Report dated February 10, 2006 and accompanying proofs of service; (8) Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by James Campbell dated February 10, 2006 and proof of filing; (9) Notice of Hearing on Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by James Campbell dated February 10, 2006 and accompanying proofs of service; (10) All leases between the City and Lessees from 1973 to the present; (11) Notice of public hearing, Marina Park Mobile Home Park; and WHEREAS, all of the information provided to the City and retained in the files of the City and/or its consultants, is hereby incorporated by reference into the Administrative Record and is available upon request; and WHEREAS, notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California law and testimony was presented to and considered by the City Council at the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council has considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and any public comments received. Based upon the Initial Study and the public comments received, there is not substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. The City Council therefore approves and adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Custodian of the documents and other materials that form the records of proceedings is the City Planning Department, and those documents and materials that for the record of proceedings are located at the City Planning Department. SECTION 2: Notice of this hearing and a copy of the Relocation Impact Report were served in conformance with California law. E SECTION 3: The City Council has reviewed the Relocation Impact Report prepared by Overland and filed with the City, and finds that it is sufficient and complies with all legal requirements, and approves the same. SECTION 4: The City Council finds that the relocation benefits described in the Report mitigate the adverse impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation of use on the ability of displaced mobile home park residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park and do not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation, which means the physical and related costs to move the mobile home. SECTION 5: The City shall provide the relocation benefits set forth in the Relocation Impact Report as condition of changing the use from a mobile home park to an interim open space condition. SECTION 6: That the City Council finds and resolves that it would not have required as a condition of the change of use of Marina Park from a mobile home park to an interim open space condition any other mitigation measures other than those set forth in the Relocation Impact Report. SECTION 7: That the lease provisions waiving relocation benefits and/or the payment of below market rents and the financial benefit resulting to the lessees from the long term provision of below market rents as discussed in the report prepared by KMA, are to be used to bar/offset any claims for relocation benefits in excess of those proposed in the Relocation Impact Report. SECTION 8: A residential use of the property on which Marina Park is located is no longer feasible. SECTION 9: The conversion and/or demolition of residential structures occupied by persons or families of low or moderate income for the purpose of changing the use of the Marina Park property to an interim bay front open space use, is a nonresidential use that is coastal dependent and costal related and a use that is consistent with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan portion of its local coastal program and the Recreation and Environmental Open Space designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. SECTION 10: The City of Newport Beach has within the area encompassing the coastal zone, and three (3) miles inland therefrom, less than fifty (50) acres, in aggregate, of land which is vacant, privately owned and available for residential use. SECTION 11: The City Council finds that the replacement of all or any portion of the dwelling units occupied by low or moderate income persons or families which will be removed from Marina Park, is not feasible because the replacement of the dwelling units occupied by persons of low and/or moderate income cannot be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technical factors including, but not limited to, land acquisition 5 f t costs in the area and the fact that the proposed use of the Marina Park property as an interim open space use will not generate any revenue or profit. SECTION 12: The City Council hereby approves the change of use of Marina Park from a mobile home park to an interim open space condition and the City Manager is directed to take action in accordance with California law to change the use of Marina Park consistent with this resolution. SECTION 13: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this day of 2006. ATTEST: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk Don Webb, Mayor 0 The Marinapark Mobile Home Park Relocation Impact Report Prepared by: Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. 24422 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 275 Laguna Hills, California 92653 www.opcservices.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 I. HISTORY ....................................... 3 II. TENANT SURVEY ................................. 6 A. METHODOLOGY ............................... 6 B. SURVEY DATA ................................ 6 1) Full -Time Population ....................... 6 2) Occupancy .............................. 7 3) Senior/Handicapped Households ............... 7 4) Income ................................ 8 5) Coach Data (Permanent and Non -Permanent Occupants) ................................ 8 III. RELOCATION RESOURCES ......................... 10 A. METHODOLOGY .............................. 10 B. SURVEY RESULTS ............................ 10 1) Mobile Home Parks ....................... 10 2) Mobile Home Park Space Availability ........... 14 3) Rental Housing .......................... 15 IV. RELOCATION IMPACTS AND ISSUES .................. 16 A. TENANT IMPACTS ............................ 16 B. PHYSICAL RELOCATION COSTS AND ISSUES ......... 17 C. RELOCATION MITIGATION MEASURES .............. 17 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 21 INTRODUCTION The Marinapark mobile home park (""the Park") is located on a 4.34 acre parcel at 1770 West Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula between 151h and 18th Streets. The Park, owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach ("the City") since 1919, has 58 mobile home spaces and 924 feet of beach frontage facing Newport Bay (see Exhibit A). The Park presently accommodates 57 mobile homes, 25 used as second -homes, 31 used as permanent residences, and 1 is vacant. The mobile homes are 10 to 59 years in age and range in space from 800 to 1,500 square feet. Most of the units have been upgraded with interior and exterior improvements. There is a permanent population in the Park of approximately 67 individuals. Among the permanent resident households, at least 6 are sub -leasing from family members who do not reside in the Park. The average tenure of the full-time residents surveyed is approximately 16 years. The tenure of respondent second -home tenants averages approximately 12 years. After many years of weighing development possibilities for the site and informing residents of this in a series of leases dating back to 1973, the City has consistently informed the Park residents and owners of mobile homes located within the Park that the Park would be closed and put to another use. Beginning in 1985, the City agreed to enter into long term leases that provided for reduced rents that were below fair market value. In exchange, the Lessees agreed to deliver possession of the premises without challenge and to waive any other assistance, including relocation expenses, at the time the Park was closed and converted to a new use. After many years of weighing development possibilities for the Park site, the City has now elected to consider closing the Park and changing the use to an interim open space condition. In anticipation of its consideration of changing the use to an interim open space condition and the consequent need to prepare for closure of the Park, the City has contracted with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (OPC) to prepare a Relocation Impact Report (Report) as required by the Mobile Home Residency Law (Civil Code Page 1 Section 798 et seq.) and Government Code Section 65863.7. Among the mandates of Code Section 65863.7 are the requirements to "...report on the impact of the conversion, closure or cessation of use upon the displaced residents of the mobile home park to be converted or closed" and ..."address the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and relocation costs. " In order to prepare this Report, OPC conducted a survey of residents, performed a comprehensive study of mobile home park and other housing resources in Orange County, and obtained a third -party estimate of potential physical relocation costs. Consistent with Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code Section 65863.7, the Report presents recommendations concerning the mitigation of relocation impacts associated with the potential closure of the Park. Page 2 I. HISTORY The City of Newport Beach acquired Marinapark from Pacific Electric Land Company in 1919. The initial use of the property after purchase was for a City campground. Campers paid $.75/day for waterfront camp areas and $.50/day for interior spaces. The Park was later renovated in 1955 to a deluxe trailer court for 120 trailers. Accommodation of larger trailers put the Park at today's capacity of 58 mobile homes. The City and the residents at Marinapark (Lessees) entered into a series of leases relating to the Lessees' occupancy at Marinapark. As identified below, these leases explained that, in exchange for the right to occupy this real estate at below market rent, the tenants waived the right to relocation benefits. • 1973 Lease The 1973 lease extended an existing lease to September 30, 1977 at which time all Lessees would 'unconditionally agree to vacate the premises without contest, legal and otherwise." Lessees further agreed to "waive any relocation assistance or other assistance from Lessor resulting from vacating the premises." The 1973 lease also dictated a new rental schedule through 1977. • 1976 Lease A new 1976 Lease extended the Marinapark Lessees' tenancy through September 30, 1985. The 1976 Lease offered an extension of five years "should the City Council find and determine ... that Marinapark is not required for any public trust purpose or other public purpose..." The Lessees agreed that at the expiration or termination of the Lease the Lessees would "unconditionally agree to vacate the premises without contest, legal and otherwise." Lessees further agreed to ""waive any relocation assistance or other assistance from Lessor resulting from vacating the leased premises." • 1985 Lease In 1985, the City Council did, indeed, state its intent that Marinapark should be converted "to a public recreation area" upon expiration of the new 1985 Lease. The 1985 Lease was a long term lease and provided Page 3 for the payment by all Lessees of below market rent during the term of the Lease. Specifically, in the Lease, the City expressly agreed to initially charge rent that was less than the fair market value and to limit future rental increases to the cost -of living index for the term of the Lease. In exchange for these benefits, the Lessees agreed that at the end of the Lease term, the City could change the use of the Park "without obligation to pay relocation benefits, or provide other forms of relocation assistance." The Lessees agreed that the long term lease constituted "full and adequate mitigation of any adverse impact of the proposed conversion on Lessees and [that] the extended term of the Lease gives Lessees sufficient time to secure adequate replacement space in another mobile home park or alternative housing."The Lessees also agreed that the long term lease: was a "far greater value to Lessees than any relocation benefits or other form of assistance that could be granted to Lessees by City" and increased the "market value of Lessees' interest in the premises and substantially improved the ability of Lessees to locate potential purchasers or transferees of Lessees' interests." • 2000 Amendment and Extension of Lease On February 8, 2000, the City Council authorized the City to offer an amendment and extension (Lease Extension) to the 1985 Lease. The Lease Extension, which extended the 1985 Lease through March 15, 2002 expressly incorporated the terms and conditions of the 1985 Lease and reaffirmed that the below market rents and limits on the increase of rents that were provided for in the 1985 Lease would be extended through the extended term of the Lease. The Lease also provided that the "Lease Extensions supplements the benefits of the 1985 Lease relative to the value and transferability of Lessees' interest." In exchange therefore, Lessees waived and released the City from its obligation to pay relocation benefits or any other form of relocation assistance or other payment or consideration that arise out of or relate in any way to the conversion of the Park to any use other than a mobile home use. • Current Leases Beginning in 2002 and continuing to the present, the City entered into new leases with Lessees. The Leases provided that the City reserves the right to take the position that the past rents have been below Page 4 market rent and constitute consideration against relocation costs upon closure of the Park. Page 5 A. METHODOLOGY Tenant information was obtained through door-to-door interviews conducted in mid to late August 2005 and the replies to questionnaires mailed during the first week of September. Ultimately, survey responses were received from 50 of the 56 Park tenants (89.3%). The survey form and correspondence to tenants is included in the Report as Exhibit B. Survey questions of Park residents concerned contact information, household size and composition, income, employment, coach size and age, length and type of occupancy, and disabilities/health problems. B. SURVEY DATA The Park contains 58 spaces, 54 of which are currently occupied with tenant - owned coaches. Of the 4 remaining spaces, 1 is vacant, 1 is a City owned coach and 2 are occupied by the Park manager and assistant manager. Among the 50 respondents, 28 identified themselves as full-time Park residents and 22 reported using their coaches as a vacation or weekend home. The residency status of the 6 households which did not respond to the survey was assumed based on mailing addresses provided by the on -site Park manager. Based on that information, 3 households were placed in the category of permanent Park residents. The tenant survey data described below in sub -sections 1-4 concern only full-time Park residents. A table summarizing survey information for all Park tenants is included as Exhibit C to this Report. 1) Full -Time Population Among the 28 permanent Park resident households surveyed, there are 51 adults and 13 children. There are 6 households with minor children ranging Page 6 in age from 2 to 15 years. In the absence of survey information for the 3 presumed permanent resident households, it is assumed there are no fewer than 3 additional permanent occupants. Counting these additions, there would be a total Park population of 67 permanent residents. The 28 permanent households have an average tenure at the Park of 16 years. Seven (7) have been at the Park for 29 years or more. Among the group of permanent residents, 10 are currently paying space rents of $1,400 to $1,649 for the ocean view lots. The remaining 18 pay between $1,050 and $1,150 depending on lot location within the Park. 2) Occupancy Household size ranges from 1 to 5 individuals. The household size mix is shown below. Table 1: Household Size Mix Household Size (#of occupants) # of Households 1 10 2 11 3 2 4 4 5 1 3) Senior/Handicapped Households There are 15 households with an individual 62 years or older. Four (4) households have individuals with mobility problems and each expressed a preference for ground level accommodations. Several other residents have moderate to serious health issues that, at this time, would not appear to restrict potential housing choices. Page 7 4) Income In response to the question of current employment, 17 households indicated that at least 1 household member is employed. Eleven (11) others consider themselves retired. A total of 22 households provided income information. Among the 17 households with employment income, 16 provided information. Six (6) of the 11 retirees provided income information. Two (2) retirees reported income of less than $25,000, 1 in the $25,000-$39,000 range, 2 in the range of $39,000-$55,000 and the other claimed to be in the $55,000-$75,000 range. With respect to proximity to places of employment, 11 respondents reported travel distances of 10 or more miles while 6 others indicated ranges of 5 miles or less. Table 2 summarizes income levels for the 22 respondent households. Table 2: Household Income Levels Among Permanent Residents Annual Income # of Households $25,000 or less 2 $25,001 - 39,000 $39,001 - 55,000 5 6 $55,001 - 75,000 8 - $75,001 or more 1 5) Coach Data (Permanent and Non -Permanent Occupants) The 54 mobile homes in the Park range in size from twenty by forty feet (20' x 40': 800 square feet) to thirty by fifty feet (30' x 50': 1,500 square feet). According to a survey of the Park performed in 2000, there were 9 single - wide coaches with cabana additions, 1 triple -wide coach, and 44 double -wide coaches. Page 8 Coach ages range from 10 years to 59 years corresponding with dates of manufacture from 1946 to 1995. Table 3 identifies the age of Park coaches as reported most recently by 50 permanent and non -permanent tenants. Table 3: Mobile Home Ages within Marinapark Year built Total # Vacation 1 # Coaches Used as Coaches Perm Residence prior - 1960 6 2 4 1961 - 1970 7 4 3 1971 - 1980 15 7 8 1981 - 1990 11 5 6 1991 - current 2 0 2 Unknown 15 7 8 Although the age range of coaches in the Park is significant, it is often difficult, by exterior physical inspection, to make age distinctions because of the general level of upgrades and modifications observable throughout the Park. These modifications range from simple family room cabanas added to older single -wide mobile homes to major interior design work in some of the double -wide mobile homes. The exteriors of most coaches reflect a mix of various improvements including porches, painting, brick work, roofs, walkways and landscaping. Representative photographs of Park coaches are presented as Exhibit D. Page 9 III. RELOCATION RESOURCES A requirement of California Government Code Section 65863.7 is to "...address the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks... " This Section addresses this issue by detailing the results of a survey of 24 senior and 9 family mobile home parks in 15 cities located throughout Orange County. These 33 parks were selected from a list of 92 Orange County parks on the basis of their overall quality based on amenities, location, appearance and upkeep. In addition to the survey of mobile home parks, and in keeping with the spirit of the lease amendments where alternative housing options were discussed, a separate analysis of rental housing in 4 nearby Orange County cities was conducted in order to examine the broadest possible range of housing options for Park residents. A. METHODOLOGY Survey work was conducted in August 2005 using the following means and resources: Telephone survey of individual parks and apartment complexes — Use of existing, proprietary mobile home park and rental apartment data from an OPC database Telephone contact with real estate companies specializing in mobile home properties B. SURVEY RESULTS 1) Mobile Home Parks The 33 parks on the survey list are located in the cities of Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Page 10 Irvine, Orange, Placentia, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Stanton, Westminster, and Yorba Linda. Within these parks, there were 9 available spaces mostly reserved for new coaches and at least 104 coaches available for sale. Listing prices ranged from $21,500 to $769,000. The lower end of the range across all the parks varies from $21,500 to $100,000. The majority of the upper end prices are in a range between $109,000 and $178,000. Four (4) parks have coaches listed for $250,000 or above. Twenty-two (22) parks advertise space rents in the range of $400-$750. Eleven (11) parks have rents in the $750-$1,100 range. Capistrano Shores in San Juan Capistrano has the most expensive space rent at $2,100-$2,600 per month. The least expensive rent found was $350 Palm Beach Park in San Clemente. In 2 of the parks surveyed, spaces are owned by the park residents. It should be noted that in most instances, the market value of mobile homes and the amount paid for space rent are generally inversely proportional. In other words, parks with lower space rent tend to have mobile homes that are at the upper of the for sale range. The reverse is true for parks with above average space rent. Of course, location and proximity to, say, views and ocean access will have higher space rents and mobile home values. Detailed data from the mobile home park resource survey are presented below in Table 4. Table 4: Orange County Mobile Home Park Resources Mobile Address Sr # Avail Pad # Avail Price Home Park Phone Number - Park Spaces Rent Coaches Range Contact Anaheim Shores 1919 Coronet Ave., No 0 $668+ 3 $115,000- Estates Anaheim $149,900 714-774-1360 - Cindy Del Prado 1616 S. Euclid Ave, No 0 $1080 11 $21,500- Mobilehome Park Anaheim $79,000 714-635-2322 - Lourdes Sunkist Gardens 1400 Sunkist St., Anaheim Yes 0 $655- 3 drive 714-772-3970 - Thelma $709 through* Page 11 Table 4: Orange County Mobile Home Park Resources Mobile Address Sr # Avail Pad # Avail Price Home Park Phone Number - Park Spaces Rent Coaches Range Contact Crestmont 1051 Site Dr., Brea No 0 $725- 10 $75,000- Mobilehome 714-529-4131 - Deana $825 $109,000 Estates Hollydale 5700 Carbon Canyon Rd., No 0 $925- some drive Mobilehome Brea $1025+ through* Estates 714-528-7779 - Norma Lake Park Brea 625 North Puente St., Brea Yes Never $550- Never 0 714-524-6960 - Nancy $880 Buena Villa Mobile 6741 Lincoln Ave., Buena Yes 1 $830 0 drive Estates Park through* 714-995-3801 - Denise Fountain Valley 9320 Talbert Av., Fountain No 0 $925 several drive Estates Valley through* 714-962-2112 Rancho La Siesta 18194 Bushard St., Yes 4 $550+ 1 $150,000 Mobile Fountain Valley for new Home Park 714-962-3841 -Jim models Cedarhill 2851 Rolling Hills Dr., No 0 Land 3 $271,000- Fullerton sold $285,900 714-993-5000 - Miriam w/home + assoc fee Rancho Fullerton 1201 W Valencia Dr., Yes 0 $565 1 $115,000 Mobilehome Fullerton Estates 714-871-8701 - Elaine Magic Lamp 7700 Lampson Av.,Garden Yes 1 for $700 1 $125,000 Grove new 714-894-3381 - Jackie models Del Mar aka 19251 Brookhurst St., Yes 3 $675 8 $178,000+ Brookfield Huntington Beach 714-968-0484 -John Huntington 16400 Saybrook Ln., Yes 0 $925+ some drive Harbour Huntington Beach through* Mobile Estates 714-846-1010 - Louise Page 12 Table 4: Orange County Mobile Home Park Resources Mobile Address Sr # Avail Pad # Avail Price Home Park Phone Number - Park Spaces Rent Coaches Range Contact Huntington 20701 Beach Blvd., Yes 0 $900 2 $120,000- Shorecliffs Huntington Beach $159,000 714-536-4417 - Martin Los Amigos 18601 Newland St., Yes 0 $630 2-3 $279,000+ Mobilehome Park Huntington Beach 714-962-7422- Dave Rancho Del Rey 16222 Monterey Ln. Yes 0 $725 N/A drive Mobile Huntington Beach through* Home Estates 714-846-1429 - Lolie Rancho Huntington 19361 Brookhurst St., Yes 0 $650 1 $235,000 Huntington Beach 714-962-7311 - Bill The Meadows 14851 Jeffrey Rd., Irvine Yes 0 $635 0 2 new homes 949-551-3050 - Linda coming next month Laguna Hills 23301 Ridge Route Dr., No 0 $1000 7 $109,000- Estates Laguna Hills $229,000 949-830-3900 Carriage Mobile 201 W Collins, Orange No 0 $825 3 $69,900- Estates 714-639-1934 - Karen $180,000 Santiago Creek 692 N Adele, Orange Yes 0 $695 3 $89 000+ Estates 714-639-4240 - Ms. Bagette Lake Park 255 E. Orangethorpe Yes 0 $650- 3-4 drive Placentia Placentia $850 through* 714-996-6200 - Juanita Capistrano Shores 1880 El Camino Real No 0 $2,100- 2 $699,000- San Clemente $2,600 $769,000 949-492-6616 - Tony Palm Beach Park 101 Palm Dr., San Yes 0 $350 0 N/A Clemente 949-492-3344 - Colin/Lynda El Nido Mobile 27703 Ortega Hwy. Yes 0 $400- 12 $137,000- Estates San Juan Capistrano $600 $275,000 949-493-2666 - Hank Page 13 Table 4: Orange County Mobile Home Park Resources Mobile Address Sr # Avail Pad # Avail Price Home Park Phone Number - Park Spaces Rent Coaches Range Contact La Lampara 7271 Katella Ave., Stanton Yes 0 $700 8 $37,000- Mobilehome Club 714-527-1205 - Betty $83,000 Parque Pacifico 12101 Dale St., Stanton Yes 0 $600 0 N/A Mobile 714-539-5018 Home Park Jerry/Marlyse Plaza Pines Estates 11250 Beach Blvd., Stanton Yes 0 $575 0 N/A 714-897-4900 - Gary Driftwood Park 15621 Beach Blvd., Yes 0 $495 6-7 $79,900+ Westminster 714-893-1166- Guy Regency Villa 15111 Bushard St., Yes 0 $650 2 $93,000- Westminster $100,000 714-531-5444 -Susan Summerset Mobile 9200 Westminster Av., Yes 0 $600 1 to go on the Estates Westminster market soon 714-894-7766 - Art Lake Park Yorba 2700 Rose Dr., Yes 0 $600- 8 $150,000- Linda Yorba Linda $790 $175 000 714-524-3033-Sue *Drive through: price range of coaches for sale is not available by calling the park office; instead interested parties are to drive the park and obtain pricing from individual realtors While Table 4 is a detailed listing of mobile home parks located in coastal and adjacent communities in Newport Beach, there is nothing to prevent homeowners from pursuing other options in Orange County or other communities in Southern California. 2) Mobile Home Park Space Availability There were 9 available spaces in the 33 parks surveyed. Of these, only 4 were possibly available for a used move -on coach. The 5 other spaces, according to park management representatives, were restricted to individuals purchasing new coaches from specific mobile home brokers. Page 14 3) Rental Housing While the focus of this Plan is on the reasonable cost to mitigate the physical move of mobile homes, other options were pursued in an effort to highlight the options discussed in the lease amendments; which provided for other alternative housing option. In that regard, a replacement housing survey was conducted to determine the availability and cost of rental housing units in Newport Beach, Irvine, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. Among the 94 apartment complexes surveyed in the 4 cities, there were a total of 595 available one, two and three bedroom apartments. A survey summary is presented below in Table S. Exhibit E provides a complete listing of surveyed properties along with detailed information including contact phone numbers, total number of units, deposit information, the rent range for one, two and three bedroom apartments and the number of vacancies by bedroom size. The median price of a 2 bedroom unit in all 4 cities combined is approximately $1,425; between the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach, the median price is approximately $1,500; in Newport Beach itself, the median price is approximately $1,900. Table 5: Summary of Available Rental Housing in Newport Beach, Irvine, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach Newport Beach Irvine Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Summary # of Complexes 15 48 18 13 94 Units in Complex 54-1306 58-1442 24-770 55-448 24-1442 1 Bed Avail Units 45 122 27 17 211 2 Bed Avail Units 82 213 38 29 362 3 Bed Avail Units 2 15 5 0 22 1 Bed Rent Range $995-$2200 $1210-$1915 $1023-$1635 $1115-$1400 $995-$2200 2 Bed Rent Range $1350-$4300 $1450-$2435 $1090-$2009 $1195-$1800 $1090-$4300 3 Bed Rent Range 1 $2150-$3600 1 $1900-$2700 1 $1850-$2700 $1675-$1950 $1675-$3600 Page 15 IV. RELOCATION IMPACTS AND ISSUES California Government Code Section 65863.7(e) provides that the City Council is required to review the Relocation Impact Report, "prior to any change of use, and may require, as a condition of the change, the person or entity [in this case the City] to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion, closure, or cessation of use on the ability of displaced mobile home park residents to find adequate housing in a mobile home park. The steps required to be taken to mitigate shall not exceed the reasonable costs of relocation." Given the linkage between mitigation and reasonable relocation costs, the City is obligated to determine what elements should be considered in determining "reasonable costs of relocation." The scarcity of available park space and the difficulty anticipated in the actual move and set-up of some Park coaches provides for a financial allowance to mitigate the physical moves. Another variable is the present below market rent paid by individual Park tenants, who, if they find comparable space lots in another mobile home park may be paying higher space rents. Without taking into account the lease provisions providing for the payment of below market rent in exchange for a waiver of relocation assistance and other assistance, for purposes of this Report, the authors of this Report believe that ""reasonable costs of relocation" refers to the physical costs of disassembly, moving and reassembly of mobile homes and the related out-of-pocket expenses, such as utility reconnecting fees, physical move of personal property and temporary housing costs while the mobile home is being moved and reassembled. A. TENANT IMPACTS The most immediate impact of a possible Park closure is the effect on the 28 permanent tenants, most of whom have been at the Park for significant periods of time, in one case, 47 years. The remainder of the tenant population will lose Page 16 access to a weekend or vacation retreat difficult to replace in contemporary Newport Beach. All tenants face the issue of the disposition of their coach. Physical relocation to another mobile home park is possible for a great number of units, but not all. Finding available space, particularly for older coaches, will be a challenge. B. PHYSICAL RELOCATION COSTS AND ISSUES For the purpose of establishing likely physical relocation costs of Park coaches, a professional mobile home moving company, Cal -Set of Hawaiian Gardens, CA, was asked to perform an exterior physical survey throughout the Park and provide an update to moving cost estimates made in 2000 and later in 2004. The original written estimates submitted by Cal -Set established a range of between $14,500 and $17,500 to tear down, move and re -install coaches to a replacement site within 60 miles of the Park. It was cautioned that these prices could not always be guaranteed sufficient, however, to replace certain existing improvements and match materials and colors. Replacing roof structures and maintaining structural integrity upon reassembly were expressed as serious concerns. Cal -Set has now set the range for a basic move at between $19,550 and $23,000, with the smaller single -wide units falling in the bottom of this range and the larger triple -wide units at the top of the range. Concerns expressed in 2000 relative to the difficulty anticipated in replacing improvements and the possibility that, in some cases, physical relocation might not be possible were all reiterated. In 11 cases, Cal -Set considers coaches to be, fundamentally, unmoveable because of the addition of conventional construction improvements. C. RELOCATION MITIGATION MEASURES The City will offer the following physical move costs and relocation assistance to the Park's residents: Page 17 a) Homeowners with movable mobile homes, as determined by a professional mobile home mover, who elect to have homes moved 1. Disassemble and reassemble the mobile home and all legally constructed additions (including but not limited to rooms, porches, skirting, carports, patios and other movable amenities legally installed) to a similar park within 60 miles, at no cost to the homeowner. If any legal improvement is not permitted at the new lot or is immovable, as determined by a professional mobile home mover, the City shall pay the homeowner fair compensation forthese improvements, upto the maximum of $3,000, upon the owner's removal of improvements; 2. Payment of new utility connections, when replacing the homeowner's current service (excluding any possible utility deposits charged by the new providers or additional services); 3. Reimbursement of previously paid security deposit; 4. Payment of temporary lodging expenses, if the mobile home relocation results in the homeowner being displaced over one or more nights, up to the maximum of $100/night, and up to 5 nights; 5. Payment of moving costs associated with moving all personal property, allowance of $1,500, plus an additional benefit of not more than $1,000 for senior (62 years and older) and/or disabled' households; and 1 A person shall be considered to have a disability if such person is determined to have a physical, mental, or emotional impairment which (A) is expected to be of long -continued and indefinite duration, (B) substantially impedes his or her ability to live independently, and (C) is of such a nature that such ability could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. A person shall also be considered to have a disability if such person has a developmental disability. Page 18 6. Provision of a relocation consultant's services. b) Homeowners with mobile homes that cannot be moved as determined by a professional mobile home mover, or cannot move their mobile home within the legal noticing requirements 1. Cash payment allowance of $20,000 for a single -wide, $21,500 for a double -wide and $23,000 for a triple -wide mobile home, plus an additional benefit of not more than $1,000 for senior (62 years or older) and/or disabled households; 2. Payment of new utility connections, when replacing the homeowner's current service not including deposits or additional services; 3. Reimbursement of previously paid security deposit; 4. Payment of moving costs associated with moving all personal property, allowance of $1,500; and 5. Provision of a relocation consultant's services. Benefits are contingent upon the homeowners removing their coach and improvements. The benefits will be offset in the event the City is required to remove the coach or improvements. c) Homeowners who reject relocation mitigation If a homeowner rejects the relocation measures stated above, the City's remaining obligation is limited to: Page 19 1. $20,000 cash payment for a single -wide mobile home, $21,500 for a double -wide or $23,000 for a triple -wide mobile home; 2. An additional cash payment of not more than $1,000 to senior homeowners (62 years or older) and/or disabled households; 3. Reimbursement of previously paid security deposit; and 4. Payment of moving costs associated with moving all personal property, allowance of $1,500. Benefits are contingent upon the homeowners removing their coach and improvements. The benefits will be offset in the event the City is required to remove the coach or improvements. Page 20 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Though there is ample available housing in Newport Beach and other nearby communities, Marinapark residents are sure to find it difficult, to replicate their existing circumstances. Marinapark has offered the attraction of below market rents, a quiet, stable community of well maintained grounds, detached mobile home units and a bay front setting in Newport Beach. The Park's allure is amply borne out by the average tenure of Park tenants and the number of individuals who have maintained a residence here for 10 years or more. In the case of the private closure of a mobile home park, the terms of Civil Code Section 65863.7 limit any financial mitigation to the "reasonable cost of relocation", which are those physical and related costs and assistance necessary for the move of the mobile home. The cost to move the majority of Park coaches has been estimated by a professional mobile home mover to be in the range of $19,550 to $23,000. Eleven (11) of the 54 tenant owned coaches, however, including 6 occupied by permanent residents cannot be moved, according to the mover, because of the extent of existing permanent improvements. If the objective of Park residents were simply to continue owning a mobile home for residential purposes, tenants could be assisted to move their coach or purchase a replacement. Though it seems pretty clear, the draw to Marinapark is not, per se, mobile home living, there are mobile home replacement housing options available to residents. To move coaches, it will be necessary to expand the search area for available pad sites beyond Orange County. If purchasing a replacement coach is considered an option, buyers will find an adequate inventory of for -sale units in good parks throughout Orange County. The rental housing market in Newport Beach, Irvine, Huntington Beach and Costa Mesa offer another option to Park residents both permanent and not. Except for within the City of Newport Beach, median rent for a two bedroom Page 21 unit is actually slightly less than the ocean -view space rent paid by almost half the Park tenants. The recommendation of this Report is to offer each Park tenant the greater value of a lump sum allowance of $20,000 for a single -wide, $21,500 for a double -wide or $23,000 for a triple -wide mobile home when they dispose of the coach and improvements, or the actual cost to move and set-up the tenant - owned coach within 60 miles from Marinapark. Either payment would be accompanied by a moving stipend of $1,500 per tenant or compensation for the services of a professional mover as well as the additional allowance not -to - exceed $1,000 for senior (62 years or older) and/or disabled households. Any relocation assistance payments would be contingent on the completion of actual arrangements to move a coach and improvements, or rent replacement housing. The suggested payment would enable Park tenants to continue to afford quality housing available both in nearby communities and Newport Beach. All Park residents, including those whose wish it is to own and reside in a mobile home, should be offered the assistance of a relocation counselor to help identify replacement units and to coordinate moving arrangements and the payment of relocation benefits. Given the anticipated one year time frame for the Park's closure, there should be ample time to find and purchase a replacement coach. It is not within the scope of this Report to address the issues of controversy that have been raised in the process of exploring the Park's closure. The recommendations which have been made, however do provide an equitable basis for determining relocation benefits and the level of proposed assistance should make it financially possible for all Park residents to maintain a residence within or in close proximity to Newport Beach. Page 22 EXHIBIT -'/A" MARINAPARK MAP MARINAPARK MAP 1770 W. BALBOA BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MANAGER JOE ALBANO 949-723-0206 1 t � l Section( Section 6ectio4 Section Sectio4 Section section Section BectionlSection Sec ionlSectian 1 2 3 4 5 5 i 7 8 9 10 it 12 i B A I B A H A B A H [VIH UBM H A H A H A B A 1 H C D D G D G D C D G D C D I D I IC ID I ED OFF I MGR I SiioP EXHIBIT "B"vi RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE AND SURVEY FORM ,.._,x.x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Marinapark Neighbor FROM: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager DATE: July 28, 2005 RE: Relocation Impact Study As you are probably well aware, on June 14, 2005, the City Council directed City Staff to begin legally required steps to change the use of the property to an interim open space condition, including the preparation and submittal of a relocation report to the Marina Park residents and the City Council for consideration at a public hearing. As you may recall from previous communications regarding this matter, State law requires the preparation of a report which evaluates the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobilehome parks and relocation costs as part of consideration of the change the use of the property. This report is commonly referred to as a "Relocation Impact Report." The City has hired Overland, Pacific and Cutler, Inc. (www.pacrelo.com) to begin the process of finalizing the Relocation Impact Report that Overland began preparing during July 2004. As part of this process, Overland will be knocking on doors and talking with you about you and your home. Please be assured the final document (the Relocation Impact Report) will not contain individual information (financial or otherwise) obtained through these personal contacts. The data will be used solely to prepare the Report. I recognize that Overland's work will be viewed by some as an unpopular step towards park closure - but I would respectfully request that, regardless of your opinion on that issue - you be as courteous and helpful to the folks from Overland as possible. They need to develop an accurate picture of the impacts of relocation, relocation options and related costs - so your participation actually helps develop the most accurate Report. The final Report will become a public document to be considered by the City Council at an open and public forum. The report must be provided to each Tenant in advance of the hearing. At that time, you'll be welcome to comment upon its contents. If you have any questions about this effort or about any Marinapark issue, please don't hesitate to contact me at 949-644-3002. cc: Natasa Lenic, Overland, Pacific and Cutler, Inc City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard 9 Post Office Box 1 768 9 Newport Beach, California 92659-1 768 RESIDENTIAL SURVEY FOR MARINA PARK RESIDENTS Please check ✓the circle, or respond ,b where it applies to you or your family Permanent address: Do you consider your Newport Beach Name: home as your: Street: Local address: I770 West Balboa Blvd O Permanent residence Space #: O Second home City: Newport Beach City: Estimated annual household income State: Zip'*- (before taxes): State: CA Zip: 92663 O less than $25,000 Telephone: O $25,001 - $39,000 Telephone: O $39,001 - $55,000 O $55,001 - $75,000 O $75,001 and up The distance from your mobile home to Number of adults in your home: Age of children your place of employment is: List schools: O One mile O Five miles Number of adults over 62 yrs.- O Ten miles O Over ten miles Number of children in home.-- 0 Retired Besides here, where would you like to live?. - Number of bedrooms in your Dimensions of your Monthly space What is the condition and mobile home: mobile home: rent: age of your mobile home: $ O Excellent O Fair 01 02 Width: Existing O Good O Poor O 3 O 4 or more mortgage? Length: O Yes O No years old Please list any additional improvements/amenities that have How long have you lived in the park? been installed at your space (i.e. deck or gazebo ): How long have you lived in the Newport Beach area? Please list any special needs or disabilities: When would you be available for a personal interview? Additional comments: Please sign, date, and return this survey in the enclosed return envelope X Date: We appreciate your time and cooperation in answering this survey. All information will be kept confidential and used to develop a Community Profile only. Feel free to write any additional comments on the back of this letter. Thank You! EXHIBIT "C" MARINAPARK RESIDENT SURVEY MARINA PARK RESIDENT SURVEY (Identity Protected) 09.15.05 Name Unit # # People # 62+ Residency Type Annual Income Coach Size Coach Age # Bdrms Tenure (Years) Space Rent 1 1 second home $75,001+ 20 x 40 30 2 30 1,147.00 2 2 second home $75,001+ 22 x 48 46 2 16 1,572.00 2 2 second home unk 24 x 50 20 2 10 1,572.00 2 2 second home $39-55,000 24 x 50 30 2 3 1,572.00 2 2 second home unk 24 x 48 40 3 34 1,125.00 2 2 second home $75,001+ 24 x 50 20 2 2 1,572.00 2 0 second home $75,001+ 24 x 54 19 2 2 1,572.00 2 2 second home $55-75,000 24 x 48 35 2 31 1,572.00 2 0 second home $75,001+ 24 x 52 27 2 4 1,072.00 2 2 second home unk 24 x 48 25 2 15 1,147.00 3 0 second home unk 24 x 50 unk 3 6 1,572.00 5 0 second home unk 24 x 48 26 2 2 1,072.00 4 2 second home $75,001+ 24 x 48 50 3 4 1,572.00 5 0 second home unk 24 x 54 29 2 6 1,147.00 2 0 second home unk 24 x 48 25 2 2 1,147.00 2 2 second home unk 24 x 48 unk 2 10 1,147.00 1 1 second home $75,001+ 24 x 48 20 2 15 1,572.00 2 2 second home unk 24 x 50 40 2 30 1,572.00 2 2 second home $75,001+ 24 x 50 unk 2 28 1,147.00 2 0 second home unk 24 x 48 unk 2 1 1,147.00 2 2 second home unk 24 x 48 21 2 31 1,147.00 2 2 second home $75,001+ 12 x 50 27 3 17 1,572.00 second home 1,147.00 second home 1,572.00 second home 1,147.00 1 1 owner-occp $25-39,000 24x48 18 3 29 1,147.00 3 2 owner-occp > $25,000 20 x 56 28 2 15 1,072.00 1 1 owner-occp unk 24 x 54 29 2 30 1,572.00 1 1 owner-occp $39-55,000 24 x 55 20 2 2 1,072.00 1 1 owner-occp $39-55,000 24 x 48 1 11 2 2 1,147.00 MARINA PARK RESIDENT SURVEY (Identity Protected) 09-15.05 Name Unit # # People # 62+ Residency Type Annual Income Coach Size Coach Age # Bdrms Tenure (Years) Space Rent 2 1 owner-occp $55-75,000 24 x 48 40 2 9 1,072.00 2 2 owner-occp $55-75,000 unk 25 3 15 1,572.00 2 0 owner-occp $75,001+ 24 x 48 19 3 2 1,572.00 2 2 owner-occp $55-75,000 24x48 28 2 15 1,147.00 2 2 owner-occp unk 24 x 52 25 2 47 1,572.00 2 0 owner-occp unk 24 x 54 25 2 32 1,147.00 2 2 owner-occp unk 25 x 60 unk unk 6 1,147.00 1 1 owner-occp > $25,000 unk unk 2 1 1,572.00 3 0 owner-occp $39-55,000 24 x 48 45 3 1 1,072.00 1 1 owner-occp unk 24 x 52 17 2 33 1,572.00 2 2 owner-occp $25-39,000 24 x 48 unk 3 36 1,572.00 4 0 owner-occp $25-39,000 25 x 60 unk 3 21 1,072.00 2 2 owner-occp $55-75,000 12 x 90 15 2 20 1,572.00 1 1 owner-occp $39-55,000 22 x 52 36 2 18 1,572.00 2 0 owner-occp $55-75,000 unk 59 2 5 1,147.00 4 0 owner-occp $39-55,000 24 x 40 30 3 2 1,572.00 4 0 tenant-occp $39-55,000 20 x 40 10 3 6 1,072.00 4 0 tenant-occp $55-75,000 unk unk 2 4 1,147.00 5 0 tenant-occp $25-39,000 unk 28 2 29 1,147.00 1 0 tenant-occp $55-75,000 unk 20 2 21 1,147.00 1 0 tenant-occp $25-39,000 30 x 50 49 2 49 1,072.00 1 0 tenant-occp unk 24 x 52 55 2 50 1,072.00 permanent 1,572.00 permanent 1,147.00 Manager 2-F Asst Manager 3-B Vacant 2-E Vacant Lot 10-B EXHIBIT "D" PHOTOGRAPHS 0 -=a � �/ . � ©� w « tt\. \ ,� § y « � y *� «2y | : . z =� « > . a¢ . * w z� , a �:��� : \y(�: .\ \ \\� »���m \���� ƒ / � »ƒ% E m 9 ■ �P W AL �' .. +'!� � '.:mm i - •v£ A" �� - * .. •. ire i iH'I� '. ..... � � .. n n�� �.. �� .. .� J �M P C Jm rwilfrOST go %I %ILI% NrAkk HJ m I HO MID I v',�! I, I; Ok I kl I :�i I A' 4 Ok 1% 11 %�N I r 4 No 4 i t 1 i--,t 'No' V.L rt '114 lie J;- 4wifto� "a 4mij, P�e M C --t-- - "T, �7 L*4 ir4j.., JWIk.; El Yf rkn 'v-4 _Wm J 4 la x"O 'gum W* 0, 1 *4 s� , 1-1*4 PA T W4 iko %.1 J& tE11 ?I j•q, k m -,N fA w4 o K-4-o-F 4 Jig, 4, eq**t" wo EXHIBIT "E" RENTAL HOUSING SURVEY NEWPORT BEACH AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets Units 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Las Brisas Apts (949) 54 $1,200 $1,350- $1,700- none 0 0 N/A no 5515 River Ave 642-2566 $1,600 $2,200 2 Bayview (949) 64 $500-600 none $1,820- $2,300 none 1 0 dog & 1 Baywood Dr 644-5555 $300 cat 1,865 cat $600 dog 3 Newport Seacrest (949) 65 $1,000 $995+ $1,350+ none 0 2 none no Apts 722-0189 843 W.15`1 4 Bayport (949) 104 $400-$500 $1,500+ $1825+ none 0 2 none dog & 1 Baywood 644-5555 $300 cat cat $600 dog 5 Mariner Square (949) 114 $400-$600 $1,450- $1,935- $2,150- 0 1 4 0 dog & 1244 Irvine Ave 645-0252 $300 cat $1,575 $2,055 $2,200 cat $600 dog 6 The Beach House (949) 226 $300 $1,185- none none 0 none none no 1433 Superior 646-8453 $1,235 7 Baypointe (949) 300 $400-$500 $1,659- $1,909- none 2 4 none dog & 2500 Baypointe Dr 640-7171 $300 cat $1,964 $2,204 cat $600 dog 8 Baywood (949) 388 $400-$600 $1,500+ $1,765+ $2,250+ 1 10 3 cat 1 Baywood Dr 644-5555 $300 cat 9 Newport Ridge (949) 512 $500-$600 $1,565- $1,850- none 5 10 none dog & 1 White Cap Lane 640-2800 $300 cat $1,815 $2,000 cat $600 dog 10 Promontory Point (949) 520 $600 $1,900- $2,400- none 1 10 none dog & 200 Promontory Dr 675-8000 $300 cat $2,200 $4,300 cat $600 dog 11 Newport North (949) 570 $400-$500 $1,470- $1,670- $2,300+ 11 19 3 dog & 2Milano 720-8765 $300 cat $1,680 $2,070 cat $600 dog 12 Coronado at (949) 715 $500 $1,199- $1,599- none 15 6 none cat Newport South 722-2746 $500 cat $1,279 $1,649 1700 E 161' St 13 Coronado at (949) 732 $400-$500 $1,199- $1,599- none N/A N/A none cat Newport North 722-3898 $500 pet $1,279 $1,629 880 Irvine Ave 14 Newport Bluffs (949) 1,052 $600- $1,800- $2,100- $2,800- 3+ 2+ 4+ dog & 100 Villagio Ave 706-5500 $1,000 $2,000 $2,400 $3,600 cat $300 cat $600 dog NEWPORT BEACH AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets Units 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 15 Park Newport Apts (949) 1,306 $500 $1,395+ $1,745- $2,515 7 12 0 cat 1 Park Newport 644-1900 $750 cat $1,915 TOTALS 6,722 $995 $1,350 $2,150 45 82 2 $2,200 $4,300 $3,600 IRVINE AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets Units 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 San Paulo (949)- 383 $450-$650 $1,375- $1,740- $2,300- 1 1 1 dog & 100 Duranzo 756-0123 $300 cat $1,415 $1,950 $2,400 cat $600 dog 2 Cross Creek (949) 136 $500-600 none $1,595- $1,935- none 7 0 dog & 22 Creek Rd 733-0414 $300 cat $1,655 $2,010 cat $600 dog 3 Ambrose (949) 162 $650 $1,370- $1,895- none 7 0 none cat 100 Amherst Aisle 854-5300 $300 cat $1,585 $1,945 4 Northwood Park (949) 168 $400-$600 $1,330- $1,450- $1,925- 1 1 0 dog & 145 Roosevelt 552-0177 $300 cat $1,350 $1,650 $1,970 cat $600 dog 5 Cedar Creek (949) 176 $400-$500 $1,330- $1,515- none 1 4 none dog & 5051 Alton Pkwy 733-0404 $300 cat $1,340 $1,635 cat $600 dog 6 Windwood Glen (949) 196 $400-$600 $1,390- $1,625- $2,045- 2 3 0 dog & 97 Hearth Stone 551-1577 $300 cat $1,410 $1,645 $2,060 cat $600 dog 7 Sonoma at Oak (949) 196 $500-$600 none $1,790- $2,230- none 4 0 dog & Creek 387-7000 $300 cat $2,200 $2,490 cat 700 Sonoma Aisle $600 dog 8 Woodbridge (949) 200 $400-$600 $1,365- $1,535- $2,100- 6 10 0 dog & Willows 857-0383 $300 cat $1,425 $1,735 $2,200 cat 344 Knollglen $600 dog 9 San Marino Villa (949) 200 $400-$600 $1,365- $1,570- $2,070 3 5 0 dog & 403 San Marino 553-1662 $300 cat $1,375 $1,640 cat $600 dog 10 Villa Siena (949) 1442 $300-500 $1,600- $1,930- $2,200- 17 4 0 no 25 Palatine 3874500 $1,850 $2,435 $2,500 IRVINE AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets Units 217 $450-$650 1 Bed 12 Bed 3 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 11 Turtle Rock , (949) $1,520- $1,850- $2,470- 0 15 1 dog & Canyon 854-8989 $300 cat $1,560 $2,315 $2,515 cat 100 Stonecliffe $600 dog Aisle 12 Woodridge Pines (949) 220 $400-$600 $1,355- $1,595- $2,120- N/A N/A 0 dog & 115 Pinestone 552-0400 $300 cat $1,425 $1,705 $2,170 cat $600 dog 13 Harvard/Cornell (949) 221 $600 $1,300- $1,775- $2,150- 0 2 0 cat 146 Berkeley Ave 854-4942 $300 cat $1,400 $1,805 $2,200 14 Windwood Knoll (949) 288 $400-$600 $1,390 $1,615+ $1,985+ 1 3 0 dog & 2 Flagstone #121 551-3258 I $700 pet + cat 15 San Leon Villas (949) 248 $400-$600 $1,360- $1,580- $1,910- 5 8 1 dog & 1 San Leon 863-7050 $300 cat $1,465 $1,815 $1,920 cat $600 dog (949) 248 $400-$500 $1,370- $1,610- none 2 9 16 San Remo Villa none dog & 1011 San Remo 474-5056 $300 cat $1,525 $2,200 cat $600 dog 17 Turtle Rock Vista (949) 252 $400-$600 $1,470- $1,680- $2,255- 3 2 0 dog & 3 Rockview 854-1818 $300 cat $1,530 $2,305 $2,305 cat $600 dog 18 Woodbridge Villas (949) 258 $400-$600 $1,325- $1,470- $2,035- 6 2 0 dog & 10 Thunder Run 786-5110 $300 cat $1,410 $1,690 $2,070 cat $600 dog 19 San Mateo (949) 283 $400-$500 $1,445- $1,625- none 0 0 none dog & 100 Centata 250-3331 $300 cat $1,495 $1,690 cat $600 dog 20 Deer Field (949) 288 $400-$600 $1,215- $1,515- $1,925 4 3 0 dog & 3 Bear Paw 559-5000 $300 cat $1,385 $1,725 cat $600 dog 21 Parkwood (949) 296 $400-$600 $1,300- $1,525- $2,120- 0 5 2 cat 17560 Rosa Drew 786-0900 $300 cat $1,340 $1,640 $2,160 Lane $600 dog 22 Stanford Court (949) 320 $600 $1,330- $1,660- none 0 0 none dog & 400 Stanford 854-3288 $300 cat $1,415 $1,835 cat $600 dog 23 Heritage Point (949) 342 $550-$750 $1,210- $1,465- $1,960- 1 8 3 cat 4 Austin 559-7000 $300 cat $1,410 $1,780 $2,030 IRVINE AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets I _ Units 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 24 San Carlo Villa (949) 354 $500-$600 _ none $1,785- $2,295+ none 0 0 dog & 15 Murica Aisle 833-7540 $300 cat $1,965 cat $600 dog 25 Rancho San (949) 368 $400-$500 $1,320- $1,550- none 4 4 none cat & Joaquin 786-1100 $300 cat $1,465 $2,000 dog 20 Pergola $600 dog 26 Woodbridge (949) 375 $300-$400 $1,220- $1,450- $1,965- 1 4 2 cat Meadows 551-6800 $350 cat $1,450 $1,615 $1,990 500 Eastshore 27 Santa Clara (949) 378 $400-$500 $1,590 $1,880+ none 2 0 none cat & 100 Santa Louisa 552-6300 $400 cat + dog $600 dog 28 Brittany (949) 529 $500-$600 $1,405- $1,790- $2,050- 5 6 0 dog & 100 St. Vincent 387-7500 $400 cat $1,760 $2,050 $2,600 cat $600 dog 29 The Charter (949) 403 $425-$450 $1,240- $1,730- none 1 0 none cat 2750 Kelvin Ave 724-0505 $250 cat $1,915 $1,800 30 San Marco Villa (949) 426 $400-$600 $1,355- $1,570- $2,055- 0 8 0 dog & 101 Vento 975-1888 $300 cat $1,400 $1,675 $2,105 cat $600 dog 1 31 Villa Coronado (949) 513 $400-$500 $1,505- $1785- none 10 10 none cat & 100 Ambazar 251-1515 $300 cat $1,700 $1,990 dog $600 dog 32 Toscana (949) 563 $500-$600 $1,429 $1,700+ none 3 1 none no 35 Via Lucca 757-1111 + 33 Santa Rosa (949) 575 $400-$600 $1,515- $1,815- $2,575- 0 6 0 dog & 500 Cardiff 387-4800 $300 cat $1,580 $2,200 $2,700 cat $600 dog 34 Northwood Place (949) 604 $400-$600 $1,285- $1,545- $1,900- 2 5 2 dog & 1300 Hayes St 8574100 (949) 880 $600 pet $400-$600 $1,390 $1,300- $1,600 $1,520- $2,010 $2,100 cat dog & 35 Park West 3 7 1 3883 Parkview 786-9204 $300 cat $1,330 $1,715 cat Lane $600 dog 36 Berkeley Court (949) 152 $600 $1,395- $1,717- none 0 0 none cat 307 Berkeley 854-3656 $300 pet $1,410 $1,895 37 Columbia Court (949) 58 $600 $1,360- $1,775- none 2 0 none cat & 307 Berkeley 854-3656 $300 pet $1,375 $1,795 dog IRVINE AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets Units 1 Bed ! 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 38 Dartmouth Court (949) 500 $600 $1,310- $1,890- none 5 0 none cat 1100 Stanford 854-2417 1 $200 pet $1,435 $2,000 39 Estancia (714) 388 $400-$500 $1,480- $1,720- : none 2 4 none cat & 500 Estancia 389.4000 $300 cat $1,655 $1,895 dog $600 dog 40 Las Palmas (949) 736 $400-$500 $1,425- $1,650- none 2 8 none cat & 100 Las Palmas Dr 387-4141 $300 cat $1,510 $1,750 dog $600 dog 41 Oak Glen (949) 588 $400-$500 $1,440- $1,600- none 1 13 none cat & 100 Oak Glen 3874040 $600 pet $1,480 $1,750 6 4 none dog cat & 42 Quail Meadow (949) 550 $400-$800 $1,335- $1,750- none 105 Quail Ridge 679-3300 $300 cat $1,660 $2,275 dog $600 dog 43 Santa Maria (949) 227 $5004600 none $1,760- $2,265- none 3 1 cat & 800 Santa Maria 552-7075 $300 cat $1,820 $2,340 dog $600 dog 44 Serrano (714) 756 $400-$500 $1,335 $1,650- none 4 5 none cat & 100 Wycliffe 389-4290 $300 cat $1,495 $1,775 dog $600 dog 45 Shadow Oaks (949) 210 $500-600 none $1,940- $2,550- none 3 1 cat & 100 Shadow Oaks 3874450 $300 cat $2,275 $2,680 dog $600 dog 356 $400-$600 $1,630- $1,820- $2,170- 5 6 46 Solana (714) 0 cat & 100 Monte Vista 3894444 $300 cat $1,640 $1,950 $2,365 dog $600 dog 47 Somerset (714) 400 $400-$500 $1,405- $1,795- none 1 11 none cat & 10 Marketview 389-4600 $300 cat $1,690 $2,185 dog $600 dog 48 Turtle Ridge (949) 436 $400-$500 $1,370- $1,750- none 3 9 none cat & 100 Turtle Crest Dr 679-6200 $300 cat $1,750 $2,400 dog $600 dog TOTALS 18,065 $1,210 $1,450 $1,900 122 213 15 $1,915 $2,435 $2,700 COSTA MESA AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets Units 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Seawind A is p (949) 24 $350-$550 $1,025+ $1,090+ none 0 0 i none I no 2250 Vanguard Way 631-0960 2 Foxhollow Village (949) 31 $500 none $1,500- none none 2 none no 621 Wilson St 631-4095 $1,550 3 Casa Granada (714) 65 $800- $1,000+ $1,275+ none 0 0 none cat 400 Merrimac Way 754-6703 $1,000 $100 pet 4 Sea Pointe Villas (714) 72 $440 $1,330+ $1,675- $1,935+ 0 0 0 cat & 1380 Village Way 662-7368 $300 cat $1,740 dog $500 dog 5 Sunset Cove (714) 123 $500 $1,050- $1,525+ none 1 1 none cat 425 Merrimac 545-6300 $250 pet $1,225 Woods 6 Camden Sea Palms (949) 138 $550 $1,023+ $1,515- none 0 1 none cat & 1850 Whittier Ave 946-6787 $300 pet $1,550 dog 7 Pine Brook Village (714) 200 $400-$500 $1,325+ $1,660+ none 1 1 none cat 1555 Mesa Verde 979-5290 $500 cat East 8 Park Plaza (714) 242 $400-500 none $1,495- $1,895+ none 5 2 no 805 W Steven 545-1121 $1,650 9 Wimbledon Glen (714) 244 $650-$750 $1,475- $1,670- none 1 1 none cat 1142 Buckingham 241-0500 $300 cat $1,550 $1,950 10 Villa Siena (714) 272 $500- $1,260+ $1,530+ $1,850+ 1 0 0 cat & 1250 Adams Ave 557-4785 $1,000 dog $300 pet 11 The Cape (714) 296 $550-$750 $1,255- $1,650- $1,915 - 2 3 0 cat 1000 S Coast Dr 556-9044 $300 pet $1,315 $1,770 $2,070 12 Pinecreek Village (714) 380 $500-$600 $1,230- $1,520- none 4 10 none cat 1300 Adams Ave 540-1300 $500 pet $1,280 $1,575 13 Harbor Greens (714) 384 $400-$600 $1,195- $1,589- $2,049+ 5 I 8 1 cat& 2700 Peterson PI 546-0370 li $500 cat $1,249 $1,670 dog $700 dog South Pointe 440 $550-$750 $1,190- $1,700- $2,025- 5 3 1 cat 14 (714) 655 Baker 662-3222 $300 cat $1,635 $1,790 $2,140 15 Villa Venetia (714) 468 $400-$500 $1,390- $1,500- $2,500- 1 1 1 cat & 2775 Mesa Verde Dr 540-1800 $500 cat $1,440 $1,800 $2,700 dog East $700 dog COSTA MESA AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range Units 1 Red 2 Bed 3 Bed 16 Mediterranean (714) 508 $450-$850 $1,195- N/A none Village Costa Mesa 557-8020 $300 pet $1,260 2400 Harbor Blvd 17 Camden Martinique (714) 714 $500-$550 $1,345- $1,595- none 2855 Pine Creek Dr 540-5500 $400 pet $1,355 $1,785 18 The Lakes at South (714) 770 $550 $1,479- $1,899- none Coast 432-8101 $200 pet $1,589 $2,009 3400 Ave of the Arts # Vacancies Pets 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 3 0 none —cat -- 1 0 none cat 2 2 none cat TOTALS 5,371 $1,023 $1,090 $1,850 27 38 5 $1,635 $2,009 $2,700 HUNTINGTON BEACH AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets Units 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed $500 $1,195+ $1,350+ none 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 0 none cat 1 Playa Mediterranean (714) 55 401 Atlantic Ave 960-6611 $400 pet 2 Harborscape (714) 88 $500 none $1,195- none none 1 none dog & 5152 Heil Ave 840-1951 $500 pet $1,495 cat 3 Huntington Creek (714) 194 $200-$250 $1,190+ $1,510+ none 0 1 none cat 8211 San Angelo Dr 848-1613 $250 pet 4 Casa Monterrey (714) 208 $400-500 $1,140- $1,420- none 1 1 none cat 6551 Warner Ave 847-8526 $250 pet $1,170 $1,450 5 Huntington Vista (714) 220 $400-$900 $1,200+ $1,500+ $1,950+ 0 0 0 cat 21551 Brookhurst 964-2343 $500 pet 6 The Windjammer (714) 263 $400-$500 $1,210- $1,500- none 1 9 none cat & 7701 Warner Ave 847-1269 $500 pet $1,240 $1,605 dog 7 The Huntington (714) 276 $400-$500 $1,105+ $1,395+ none 3 1 none cat 8400 Edinger Ave 847-9605 $300 pet 8 Seawind Village (714) 277 $450-$550 $1,250- $1,500- none 0 3 none no 15555 Huntington 750-0514 $1,400 $1,800 Village Ln 9 Ocean Breeze Villas (714) 290 $550-$888 $1,150- $1,250- $1,675- 3 3 0 cat 6401 Warner Ave 842-0629 $300 pet $1,175 $1,300 $1,775 10 Avalon at Pacific Bay (714) 304 $400-$500 $1,275- $1,540- none N/A N/A none no 6700 Warner Ave 847-6047 1 $1,375 $1,680 HUNTINGTON BEACH AREA AVAILABLE HOUSING SURVEY No Name & Address Phone # Deposit Rent Range # Vacancies Pets Units 1 Bed T- 2 Bed 3 Bed 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 11 Huntington Breakers (714) 342 $400-$500 $1,315- $1,615- none 5 2 none cat 21270 Beach Blvd 969-2463 $500 pet $1,365 $1,670 12 Casa Del Sol (714) 448 $400-$500 $1,115- $1,485- none 2 0 none cat 21661 Brookhurst 962-6653 $300 pet $1,140 $1,515 13 Regency Palms (714) 310 $400-$500 $1,160- $1,285- none 1 8 none dog & 6762 Warner Ave 847-6064 $400 pet $1,185 $1,395 cat TOTALS 3,220 $1,115- $1,195- $1,675- 17 29 0 $1,400 $1,800 $1,950 EXHIBIT "F" CAL -SET ESTIMATE Aug 30 05 01:16p Cal Set Inc 714 7612226 JOB PSI Cal Set Me. P.r,� Bea 79�4 1Zl�1F7 ti. C�elon S'4. Gsn�s.(as. 90'TI6 Ybm 714 761 POK71AW1 t Inh ,A&Irmm WxrhmPmk 1770 W. RR1bos A t bagclx CX snis a Dwmgtvm Takc dwal yew= ad ma O%b DLM TO THE SOWN OF JOB AND WME V ANCE OF V. PIABr E6 ANDXR UNFORESEEN VAOWM INV VW THIS JOB PSTM&AM 13 CIAIL.Y A SAL PRXM SCOM AN ffM= MM q1 j TE to be ci an skL- d= fulbeft avr iO Vdih owmatimM Couamdm LT. bm on � , she ► }$ copok OEMLTM to rmawdelws wd t l orwam ew . dt� cxt5as�tx tam. �8,l�.4� T1w cat gad work involved in rcq;69g SW gttajkHug ibo abwm bwm4g illy skm awlMmbuldmWORM be ' tw Mm *11 be in Imo ss0,ti00jI)0.7-%wDm tmp All' Yllq,F►& Vp"gd,'iLLVd6HLD YbMs VYrm'No r'Y,✓NdF.Ams Bd.fAcm-v r Ta*abwm ad all aVw-mm!=.maW hQM ray Bw Uamspox% um g lame to rn w imti am* aw, , pmoxf, skkft(wry sl a bid ad cm imboa 043 dS MOW wd QMW"'to wba was on btu. Dow nut hatlu&d anp palnemg cc touch up alfevw= 49 . .. r7.1 � i •.H H.:J- 'i� 1 h< .�} r -. 1 ;.►F1.�c ... w .:,1� ;.f;. t 1_ rl,� 1� v �.�. darn r.-.��..:•..1 u, �:Y �-.. i �� f�., �: u: u. _ ..H 'Y u... f ,f i�N.: t r 'i . .1-Vi-1 Y •.1:�'J . ,ks.i.. , � ��;� R...t. lil !�,Y 11ff •! _ :'1 .1 .s-.. v �:i'� f�i n W t n;�i . •.� 1 t r• a ►t + .: 4r r r. et; a u•� •. t:. �r ; r p.2 ADVISORS IN: REAL ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SAN FRANCISCO A JERKY KEYSER TIMOTHY C. KELLY KATE EARLE FUNK DEBBIE M. KERN ROBERT J. WETMORE >Ull > LL-L K YSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES ADVISORS IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Office of the City Attorney City of Newport Beach From: Los ANGELES CALVIN E. HOLLIS. it KATHLEEN H. HEAD JAMES A. RABE Date: PAUL C. ANDERSON GREGORY D. Soo -Hoe Subject: SAN DIEGO GERALD M. TRIMBLE PAUL C. MARRA Cal Hollis Desiree Estrada July 29, 2005 Marina Park Mobile Home Park Updated Benefit Analysis Pursuant to your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) performed an analysis of the benefits that have accrued to the leaseholder of a home site in the Marina Park Mobile Home Park (Marina Park), located in Newport Beach, California. The results of this analysis provide that a lessee with a 21-year lease on a waterfront home site would have received a $329,621 benefit. The same tenant leasing a water view home site would have received a benefit of $192,292. KMA's discussion below describes the methodology utilized to derive these benefits. BACKGROUND The City of Newport Beach (the City) is considering an alternate use of Marina Park located on Balboa Island in the City. Marina Park is comprised of 58 home sites, the majority of which are sited directly on the waterfront or enjoy water views. Many of the lessees have been long-term residents of Marina Park, and due to below -market lease terms, have benefited (financially and otherwise) from their residency. The City has requested that KMA provide an analysis of the residents' economic benefits, if any, derived from the Marina Park rents compared to the prevailing market rents. 500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1480 > LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 D PHONE: 213 622 8095 D FAX: 213 622 5204 0507035.N PB:CEH: DE:gbd WWW.KEYSEKMARSTON.COM 16101.001.004 To: Aaroi i C. Harp, City of Newport Beach duly 29, 2005 Subject: Marina Park Mobile Home Park Page 2 Updated Benefit Analysis ANALYSIS KMA began its analysis by examining various data provided by the City. This data included: The appraisal of Marina Park by John P. Neet, MAI, dated November 9, 2003. This appraisal set the 2003 market rent of the home sites at $2,400 and $2,000 per month for waterfront and water view sites, respectively; 2. The Marina Park rents for the period of 1993 through 2000 provided by the management of Marina Park; (KMA subsequently collected the Marina Park rents for 2001 through 2004); and 3. The average collected and average market rents for the period of 1998 through 2004, provided by the management of DeAnza Bayside Village (a comparable development). Comparable Developments Lido Peninsula and DeAnza Bayside Village are mobile home parks that are comparable to Marina Park in terms of location and water views. Lido Peninsula, however, was renovated in the mid -to -late 1990s, and therefore offers a higher level of amenities (a swimming pool, spa, parking on each home site, private beach and a recreation center). DeAnza Bayside, while not located on Balboa Island, does enjoy a waterfront location in Newport Beach. It, too, has a higher level of amenities (swimming pool, spa, recreation center), but many of its home sites are not waterfront or water view properties. The more expansive views at Marina Park, its larger home sites, lower density and direct beach access tend to offset many of the amenities of the above locations, equalizing the market rents Marina Park is able to generate. KMA conducted site visits and met with the management of Marina Park and Lido Peninsula. We were provided with independent, third -party data comprised of two surveys from the Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (1991 and 1994), and a market study from The Meyers Group dated September 17, 1997. KMA also conducted a telephone interview with Michael Gelfand of DeAnza Corporation, owner of DeAnza Bayside. Mr. Gelfand informed us that the market rents in his data reflect the actual lease rates for DeAnza Bayside home sites that have been brought up to market. 0507035. N P B: C E H: D E: g b d 16101.001.004 To: Aaron C. Harp, City of Newport Beach July 29, 2005 Subject: Marina Park Mobile Home Park Page 3 Updated Benefit Analysis Both Lido Peninsula and DeAnza Bayside have experienced depressed rents due to long-term lease agreements. As leases expired and area real estate prices escalated, those parks (unlike Marina Park), have re -leased their home sites at market rates. These rates provide a logical starting point for comparisons between the market and Marina Park. For the purpose of this analysis, KMA utilized data from the waterfront and water view home sites only. Methodology Calculation of Market Rents DeAnza Bayside Market Rents: As indicated above, KMA was provided market rents for waterfront and water view home sites for DeAnza Bayside for the period of 1998 through 2004 (base years). From these rents, we calculated a four-year moving average that could be utilized to approximate each year's market rental growth rate (see attached Table 1, Section 1). Lido Peninsula Market Rents: KMA also received market rents for Lido Peninsula for Years 1991, 1998, 2000 and 2004. We analyzed these rents (excluding one outlier at the upper and lower ends of the spectrum) computing an average of the waterfront home sites and a separate average of the water view home sites for each of those years. The derivative rental rates were then used as the market rent for Lido for Years 1991, 1998, 2000 and 2004 (base rent/base year). Applying the four-year moving average (from DeAnza) to the Lido rents, we were able to calculate the Lido rents for the intervening years, as well as the years preceding 1991. Each year prior to or subsequent to a base year, used the base rent in its increase or decrease calculation so that estimates were kept within the parameters of the base rent for the years in which we had data. (Note: For 1998 through 2000, there was a significant increase in the market rents Lido was able to generate; this was largely due to renovations.) Independent Market Rents: KMA was also provided copies of surveys of Orange County Mobile Home Parks completed by the Manufactured Housing Educational Trust for Years 1991 and 1994.' We applied the market growth rates to derive the intervening years between 1991 and 1994, and applied them for Years 1985 through 1990 and 1995 1 KMA did contact the Trust directly, but they no longer conduct this survey. 0507035. N PB:CEH:DE:gbd 16101.001.004 f To: Aaron C. Harp, City of Newport Beach July 29, 2005 Subject: Marina Park Mobile Home Park Page 4 Updated Benefit Analysis through 2004. Thus, we were able to extrapolate market rental rates from this data source as well. In addition to the 2003 appraisal provided by the City, we also obtained a copy of a market study prepared for Lido Peninsula by The Meyers Group dated September 17, 1997. This study recommended that the water view rents be set at $3,000 per month. Projecting market rents for 2005, KMA applied a four-year moving average based on prior Years 2001 through 2004. We then employed an average of all data sources where there was information available for that year or where information could be extrapolated. The results are reflected in Section II of the attached table for Years 1985 through 2005. These rates represent the market rate, which we define as the rental rate a home site would generate when unconstrained by existing lease terms. Calculation of Annual Rent Savings Per Home Site Type Section II also sets forth the annual difference (rent savings) between the market rental rate and the rental rates paid by Marina Park residences for waterfront and water view home sites. This rent savings is calculated by subtracting the Marina Park monthly rent from the market rent for both home site types. The result is then multiplied by 12 months to calculate the annual rent savings by type of home site. Total Benefit Per Home Site The benefit that a leaseholder would derive depends on (1) the type of home site they have leased; (2) the amount of time that they held the lease (the lease period); and (3) the time value of money with respect to any assumed investment of the rental savings. KMA believes it is appropriate to consider all three of these variables, and has therefore provided an analysis that reflects the value of the rent savings had it been invested over the lease period. Section III of the attached table presents the results of investing the rent savings at the prevailing ten-year U.S. Treasury Bond rate in effect for that year. 0507035. N PB:C EH: D E:gbd 16101.001.004 To: .Aaroi. -;. Harp, City of Newport Beach July 29, 2005 Subject: Marina Park Mobile Home Park Page 5 Updated Benefit Analysis For example: Annual Rent Period Investment Future Value Savings Earned Investment Period Rate of Investment $3,369 1/1/1985 — 1/1/1986 — 12/31/2005 7.67% $14,771 12/31/1985 (20 Years) $3,667 1/1/1986- 1/1/1987— 12/31/2005 8.39% $16,945 12/31/1986 (19 Years) Total $31,716 Benefit Thus, Section III represents the benefit a leaseholder would have derived from the rent savings, assuming the funds had been placed in an investment paying interest at a rate similar to that of a U.S. Treasury Bond during that year -- the Annual Benefit Per Home Site. Totaling each year's Annual Benefit Per Home Site results in the Total Benefit that a leaseholder would have enjoyed over the entire lease period. In the above example, $31,716 (Total Benefit) represents the rent savings from Years 1985 and 1986 invested for the corresponding number of years. (Refer to attached Table 1). CONCLUSION It is KMA's professional opinion that the above methodology is an impartial, reasonable approach to approximating the benefit each leaseholder would have received given the available data. Each benefit is influenced by the type of home site, the lease holding period and the investment returns on rent savings. To reiterate the opening paragraph, if a resident had received 21 years of rent savings and such savings were invested over the remaining term at Treasury bond rates, the total benefit would be $329,621 and $192,292 for waterfront and water view home sites, respectively. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this service. 0507035.NPB:CEH: DE:gbd 16101.001.004 i MARINA PARK MOBILE HOME PARK: HOMESITE BENEFIT ANALYSIS 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 526% c o G 392 $1,466 $1,544 $1,625 $1,712 $1,804 $1,898 $1 995 $2,100 $2,200 $2,300 $1,750 $2,500 $1,950 $2,500 $1,950 $2,575 $2,000 $2,680 $2,081 $1,047 $1,103 $1,161 $1,223 $1,288 $1,356 $1,425 $1,550 $1,650 $1,279 $1,344 $1,458 $1,536 $1,616 $1,699 $1,798 $1,892 $2,691 $2,728 $2,966 $2,966 $3,055 $3,179 $797 $864 $911 $958 $1,007 $1,066 $1,188 $1,250 $1,404 $1,571 $1,708 $1,708 $1,759 $1,831 $1,620 $1,705 $1,850 $1,949 $2,051 $2,156 $2,281 $2,401 $2,515 $2,630 $2,858 $2,858 $2,944 $3,064 $1,182 $1,244 $1,349 $1,422 $1,496 $1,572 $1,664 $1,751 $1,835 $1,918 $2,085 $2,085 $2,148 $2,235 $3,000 $2,400 $2,000 1992 1993 1994 1995 - 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Totals $1,455 $1,531 $1,544 $1,732 $1,824 $2,188 $2,025 $2,131 $2,369 $2,553 $2,775 $2,681 $2,853 $2,974 $39,164 $1,009 $1,070 $1,140 $1,201 $1,264 $1,331 $1,425 $1,517 $1,630 $1,747 $1,914 $1,936 $1,969 $2,049 S26,972 $963 $1,002 $1,020 $1,034 $1,052 $1,072 $1,090 $1,103 $1,129 $1,225 $1,550 $1,550 $1,550 $1,550 $22,671 $724 $753 $770 $780 $795 $810 $823 $833 $853 $1,125 $1,125 $1,125 $1,125 $1,125 $17,110 $492 $529 $624 $598 $772 $1,116 $935 $1,028 $1,340 $1,328 $1,225 $1,131 $1,308 $1,424 $16,493 $285 $317 $370 $421 $469 $521 $602 $664 $777 $622 $789 $311 $344. $924 $9,862 $5,904 $6,343 $7,491 $8,381 $9,261 $13,394 $11,214 $12,337 $16,078 $15,932 $14,696 $13,572 $15,695 $17,087 $197,916 $3,414 $3,808 $4,443 $5,052 $5,627 $6,256 $7,229 $8,210 $9,320 $7,459 $9,473 $9,729 $10,123 $11,087 $118,345 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 199E 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005. Totals 1� 13 12 11 10 9 8 i 6 5 4 3 2 1, $5,468 $5,904 $6,348 $7,491 $8,381 $9,261 $13,394 $11,214 $12,337 $16,078 $15,932 $14,696 $13,572 $15,695 $3,140 $3,414 $3,808 $4,443 $5,052 $5,627 $6,256 $7,229 $8,210 $9,320 $7,459 $9,473 $9,729 $10,128 $14,117 $12,395 $14,443 $15,085 $15,644 $16,118 $20,184 $16,476 $17,530 $20,539 $19,080 $16,536 $14,756 $16,365 $329,621 $8,107 $7,167 $8,662 $8,946 $9,430 $9,792 $9,427 $10,622 $11,665 $11,906 $8,932 $10,658 $10,576 $10,560 $192,292 14 Years 13 Years 12 Years 11 Years 10 Years 9 Years 8 Years 7 Years 6 Years 5 Years 4 Years 3 Years 2 Years 1 Year $229,267 $215,150 $202,755 $188,313 $173,228 $157,584 $141,467 $121,282 $104,806 $87,276 $66,737 $47,657 $31,121 $16,355 $136,453 $123,346 $121,179 $112,517 $103,571 $94,141 $34,349 $74,922 $64,300 $52,635 $40,729 $31,797 $21,138 $10,560 r view lots only. ving average. 2003. Ma ring pa rk Income Information Report Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. 24422 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 275 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 951-5263 January 2006 Marinapark Income Information Income information was provided by 17 of 30 permanent Marinapark resident households. Four households refused to provide income information and 9 remained unreachable despite several attempts to contact them in person, via phone and mail. According to income standards for the County of Orange (Table 2 below) adjusted for family size as published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 1 household qualifies as extremely low income (30% or less of median), 3 as very -low income (31 %-50% of median), 6 as low income (51 %-80% of median), 3 as moderate income (81 %- 120% of median), and 4 as above moderate or high income (over 120% of median). TABLE 1: Income Levels of Marinapark Households (17 respondents) Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate High 1 3 6 3 4 The following figures are approved by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) for use in the County of Orange to define and determine housing eligibility by income level. TABLE 2: HUD Income Levels for Orange County Family Size Extremely Low Very Low Lower Median Moderate 1 Person 16,150 26,900 43,000 53,000 63,600 2 Person 18,450 30,700 49,150 60,550 72,700 3 Person 20,750 34,550 55,300 68,150 81,750 4 Person 23,050 38,400 61,450 75,700 90,850 5 Person 24,900 41,450 66,350 81,750 98,100 6 Person 26,750 44,550 71,250 87,800 105,400 7 Person 28,550 47,600 76,200 93,850 112,650 8 Person 30,400 50,700 81,100 99,900 119,900 Figures are per the Department of Housing and Community Development (California), Division of Housing Policy Development, February 11, 2005. ;ITY OF NEWPORT B-- XH k SEW �RT cr+ 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 r Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 C,q'P (949) 644-3200 0VktA NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: F-1 Office of Planning and Research P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk, County of Orange FX-1Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: IPublic review period: February 10, 2006 to March 3, 2006 Name of Project: Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Project Location: 1770 Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, County of Orange Project Description: The change of use of the Marinapark Mobile Home Park from a mobilehome space rental use to an interim open space use. Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. On the basis of the Initial Study, it has been determined that Mitigation Measures are necessary to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis and mitigation measures supporting this finding is on file at the Newport Beach Planning Department located in the Newport Beach City Hall. The City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the proposed project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 14, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, California 92658-8915, at which time an place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. You are hereby further advised that if you challenge the City Council actions taken at the hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644- 3200. Date �/�'✓' —7 W04; Jar/es' Camp ell, Senior Planner of INITIAL STUDY for MARINAPARK MOBILE HOME PARE CHARGE OF USE City of Newport Beach Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Contact: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644-3200 Prepared by: Vista Community Planners (VISTA) 1278 Glenneyre Street, Suite 110 Laguna Beach, California 92561 Contact: Fred Talarico, Project Director (949) 494-6562 February 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST............................................................................ 2-1 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENAL IMPACTS .................................................... 3-1 4.0 SOURCES/REFERENCES CITED.............................................................................4-1 APPENDIX APPENDIX A — AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Page i City of Newport Beach r- i Section 1.0 Project Description Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use City of Newport Beach L_ SECTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The project site consists of approximately 4.34 acres located at 1770 West Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach (City) in central western Orange County. Figure 1-1 provides the location of the project site in its regional setting. Regional access to the project site is provided via State Route 55 (SR-55) located approximately three miles to the northeast. The project site consists of the Marinapark Mobile Home Park (mobile home park) and a public walkway along beach frontage with the Lower Newport Bay. The project site is specifically bounded by: public beach and the Newport Bay to the north; the American Legion Yachting Club/Marina to the east; Los Arenas Park, four public tennis courts, one-half basketball court, a children's play area, Balboa Community Center, the Nevas B. Thomas Girl Scout House, West Balboa Boulevard, and residential uses to the south; and 18th Street, a hotel, and residential uses to the west. Figure 1-2 provides the location of the project site on an aerial photograph. Figure 1- 3 provides the local of the project site in its local setting. As shown in Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3 existl local access to the project site is via West Balboa Boulevard immediately to the south and 18t Street immediately to the west. The majority of the project site is developed with the mobile home park which consists of 58 mobile home spaces, 57 mobile homes, a common building with restroom and laundry, roadways, walkways, landscaping, and parking areas. The remainder of the project site is developed with an ten -foot public walkway, which runs adjacent to approximately 924 feet of beach frontage for the Lower Newport Bay. There is limited vegetation on the project site consisting of non-native ornamental landscaping around the mobile homes and shrubs and palm trees along the walkway adjacent to the beach. 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND The property upon which the mobile home park is located has been owned and operated by the City since 1919. The mobile home park itself was developed over time beginning as a camping site which evolved into a travel trailer park and then to a mobile home site with manufactured units. In a series of leases dating back to 1973, the City has informed the residents and owners of the mobile homes that the mobile home park would be closed and converted to another land use. Starting in 1985, the City agreed to enter into long term leases that provided for reduced rents that were below fair market value. In exchange, the Lessees agreed to deliver possession of the premises without challenge and to waive any other assistance, including relocation expenses, at the time the mobile home park was closed and converted to a new use. After many years of planning for the project site, the City has now elected to consider closing the mobile home park and changing the use to a passive public open space. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Project Description, Page 1-1 City of Newport Beach Chino hills PLa Riverside 5 Beller 15 GardensLa Ilabra Heights DowneNorco La Habra Brea Mirada .1 Sorbat Linda Bellflower Boma Placentia \rtesia Park Fullerton Lakewood Cerritos La Palma Anaheim 605 Nvess ViIL•t Parl< Stanton orange Signal FGII Los Mauttitos Garden Groee \Vest inster Santa Ana i Seal Vadley Irvine Huntington beach Costa Newport Bea [�-r�oje� ct Site Lake Forest Laguna Hills Mission Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel 1 SanJuan Capistrano Dana Poin ` a f c Occan N A 3 6 0 Scale in Miles MARINAPARK MOBILE HOME PARK CHANGE OF USE Ciiy of Newporl Beach San 12 Figure 1-1 Regional Location VISTA Newport Bay y 9 Iva IF low =tip_ •i -i w dlI r -3 • 'fit.: �'� .7 �,� � �c L -1. 'J AMOT TT. 77 r. c 4ierxtsxp �r,� �c�- iy \,t t 'fj F ✓� ¢ ��?�!= r c� ;sly' 1 h 1 AA Lunt^Wt7 till Light ParicinAtt4i� 1 E Las Arf rr��> t.#alit r. Collins P rF r ram, +tr j '4 :EWPORT BEACH . Sch Ate par Projecteach Site U, Source: USGS 7.5 Quadrangle, Newport Beach, California 1978 (current as of 1981). N A Figure 1-3 MARINAPARK Vicinity Ma o � o0o a000 y p MOBILE HOME PARK CHANGE OF USE Scale in Feet City of Newport Beach VISTA el Nigh 4 0h ♦ [ - tY .� to r�kil{ 55f�� ,�3." As a part of the planning process for the proposed project, the City prepared a Relocation Impact Report as required by the Mobile Home Residency Law (Civil Code Section 798 et. seq.) and Government Code Section 65863.7. A mandate of Government Code Section 65863.7 requires a "...report on the impact of the conversion, closure or cessation of use upon the displaced residents of the mobile home park to be converted or closed" and "address the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and relocation costs." Consistent with this, the Relocation Impact Report provides recommendations for relocation assistance for existing residents. According to the Relocation Impact Report, of the 57 mobile homes, 25 of the mobile homes are used as second homes, 31 mobile homes are used as full-time residences, and one mobile home is vacant. The mobile home park has a permanent population of approximately 67 people. The average tenure is approximately 16 years for the full-time residents and approximately 12 years for the second home residents. The mobile homes range from 10 to 59 years old and are approximately 800 to 1,500 square feet in size. The majority of 'the mobile homes have been upgraded with interior and exterior improvements. 1.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project would change the use of the exiting mobile home park and result in interim public open space. This would include the removal of 58 mobile home spaces, 57 mobile homes, a common building with restroom and laundry, and all other appurtenances related to the mobile home park, which cover approximately 3.1 acres of the project site. The remaining approximately 1.24 acres, which consists of a paved parking area on the southern portion of the project site, a roadway that runs east -west through the project site, a row of palm trees in the northern portion of the project site, and a ten -foot wide public walkway adjacent to the beach along the northern boundary of the project site, would remain in its current condition. Figure 1-4 provides the locations of the areas to be removed and the areas to remain in its current condition. Although the Relocation Report concluded that most of the mobile home units can be moved from the project site to another mobile home park, the ultimate decision to relocate a unit would be made by the owner of the mobile home unit. It is likely that some of the mobile home units would be moved to another location and some mobile home units would be demolished on the project site. In order to provide a worst -case analysis of the potential impacts that could occur with the implementation of the proposed project consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the analysis provided in this Initial Study assumed the demolition of all of the mobile homes on the project site would occur within a one month timeframe. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Project Description, Page 1-5 City of Newport Beach a.-, 24 ■ M i, MARINAPARK MOBILE HOME PARK CHANGE OF USE City of Newport Beach A i J. lr OCEAN - FRONT Source: VISTA; Airphoto USA January 2005. N r J Project Site A® Area of Demolition lop T' Figure 1-4 Areas of Demolition VISTA 1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City, as the Project Proponent, has identified to following objectives related to the implementation of the proposed project: • Eliminate permanent residential use of State Tidelands as it is not consistent with the State Tidelands Trust. • Implement the City's General Plan Land Use Element policy for the West Bay Area Statistical Area (Area DI) to change the property to a public use. • Provide and maintain public access to the beach and bay consistent with General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. • Protect the quality of the waters of the Newport Bay during the change of use. 1.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS To implement the proposed project, the City Council would be required to approve the decision to change the use of the project site from a mobile home park to an interim public open space. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Project Description, Page 1-7 City of Newport Beach r� r A Section 2.0 Environmental Checklist Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use L� City of Newport Beach SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project title: Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 3. Contact person and phone number: City of Newport Beach — James Campbell, Senior Planner (946) 644-3200 4. Project location: 1770 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 6. Existing General Plan designation: Recreational and Environmental Open Space 7. Existing Zoning: Planned Community (No Planned Community Regulations Adopted) 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Refer to Section 1.0 Project Description. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings): The immediately adjacent land uses in the vicinity of the project site consist of: public beach and the Newport Bay to the north; the American Legion Yachting Club/Marina to the east; Los Arenas Park, four public tennis courts, one-half basketball court, a children's play area, Balboa Community Center, the Nevas B. Thomas Girl Scout House, West Balboa Boulevard, and residential uses to the south; and 181h Street, a hotel, and residential uses to the west. Refer to Figure 1.1 in Section 3.0, Project Description. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-1 City of Newport Beach ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent, and mitigation measures are being required. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ . 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. James Campbell, Senior Planner Printed name Date City of Newport Beach For Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-2 City of Newport Beach Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ p b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ p c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ❑ p d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 I1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ Rl b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ p c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ p Ill. AIR QUALITY -- (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ p b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ p ❑ Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-3 City of Newport Beach Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-4 City of Newport Beach i Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Fact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special publication 42. ❑ ❑ ❑ Rl ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ ❑ El e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-5 City of Newport Beach Less Than / Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VI1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ Rl r b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 r c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ El f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where i wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i 0 Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-6 City of Newport Beach L_. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incomoration Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-7 City of Newport Beach Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-8 City of Newport Beach Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Fact Incorporation fact Impact XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the i project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist, Page 2-9 r� r, Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact X11I. PUBLIC SERVICES t a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 t Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ C�J b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in i relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion I management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including i, either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 i._. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-10 City of Newport Beach Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact lncorooration Impact Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-I I City of Newport Beach r' Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Environmental Checklist, Page 2-12 City of Newport Beach Section 3.0 Discussion of Environmental Impacts Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use City of Newport Beach SECTION 3.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The majority of the project site is currently developed with the Marinapark Mobile Home Park (mobile home park) and its associated mobile homes, a common building with restroom and laundry, roadways, walkways, landscaping, and parking. Along approximately 924 feet of beach frontage, between the mobile homes and the beach, there is a public walkway and ornamental landscaping. Although there are no designated scenic vistas on or looking across the project site, the project site is visible from West Balboa Boulevard, the main arterial for the Balboa Peninsula located to the south, and from various public locations in and across the Newport Bay located to the north. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. This would result in an increase in the view corridors to Newport Bay from on -site public uses and West Balboa Boulevard located to the south of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would increase public view opportunities looking across the project site and would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No impact. Refer to Response I. (a) above for a description of the project site. The project site does not contain significant trees or rock outcroppings. In addition, the project site is not located within the viewshed of a state scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in damage to scenic resources, including those within a scenic highway. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No impact. Refer to Response I. (a) above for a description of the project site. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. This would result in an increase in the view corridors to Newport Bay from the public uses and West Balboa Boulevard located to the south of the project site. Although the removal of the mobile home park would alter the existing visual character of the project site from an urban use to an interim open space use, this change would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No impact. Refer to Response I. (a) above for a description of the project site. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. This would result in a reduction in the nighttime light and glare from the project site due to the removal of the on -site structures and residents' vehicles. As the intended proposed use of the project site is as interim open space, no additional nighttime lighting would be provided. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-1 City of Newport Beach f� Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which K would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No impact would occur with r implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? r No impact. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The project site is zoned Planned Community and, therefore, is not zoned for an agricultural use. Additionally, the project site is not designated under a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. III. AIR QUALITY — Would the Project: The information in this section is based on the Marinapark Mobile Home Park Air Quality Impact Analysis, dated February 2006. A copy of this document is provided in Technical Appendix A to this Initial Study. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over an approximately 12,000 square -mile area consisting of the four -county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. State and Federal air quality -standards are exceeded in most parts of the Basin. The SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. The most recent version of the AQMP was adopted in 1997 and recently updated in 2003. The SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted from a project, rather than on actual ambient air quality, because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. To allow for an assessment of this, the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD) identifies regional pollutant emission thresholds of significance for the criteria pollutants identified in the AQMP. The CEQA Handbook states that ' any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. These SCAQMD significance thresholds are identified in Table A in the Air Quality Impact Analysis provided in Technical Appendix A. N Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-2 City of Newport Beach The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would generate short-term pollutant emissions from demolition activities consisting of. building demolition; roadway and walkway demolition; foundation and utility excavation; travel by construction workers to and from the project site; hauling of demolition materials from the project site; and fuel combustion by on -site construction equipment. As discussed in more detail in the Air Quality Impact Analysis in Technical Appendix A, the analysis of the worst -case demolition activities was based on the simultaneous operation of one -rubber -tired dozer, one rubber -tired loader, one water tuck, and one backhoe on - site with haul trucks making a total of 11 daily road trips to remove material from the project site. As indicated in Table B in the Air Quality Impact Analysis in Technical Appendix A, the short- term emissions associated with the demolition activities for the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. In addition, due to the relatively small scale of the activities and the required compliance with the SQACMD Rules and Regulations (including Rule 403 to reduce dust emissions), it is not anticipated that the short-term demolition emissions would increase the frequency or severity of the existing air quality violations in the Basin. The change of use of the project site to an interim public open space would not generate additional measurable pollutant emissions as no long-term emissions such as vehicle emissions would occur. The relocation of the residents from the mobile home park would not result in a significant change in the vehicle miles traveled for their work commutes even though where the people relocate to is unknown. In addition, the City's General Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. As the project site is designated as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space," the change of the land use for the project site to interim public open space would be consistent with the SCAQMD AQMP assumptions. Therefore, the proposed project would not be inconsistent with the SCAQMD AQMP and would not result in a conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant impact. Refer to Response III. (a) above for a discussion of the air quality setting for the project site, the SCAQMD thresholds of significance related to air quality standards for the Basin, and the assumptions used to determine the air emissions for the proposed project. As indicated in Table B in the Air Quality Impact Analysis in Technical Appendix A, the short- term emissions associated with the demolition activities for the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. In addition, due to the relatively small scale of the activities and the required compliance with the SQACMD Rules and Regulations (including Rule 403 to reduce dust emissions), it is not anticipated that the short-term demolition emissions would increase the frequency or severity of the existing air quality violations in the Basin. The change of use of the project site to an interim public open space would not be anticipated to generate additional measurable pollutant emissions as no long-term emissions such as vehicle emissions would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact to long- term air quality due to change in the land use. In addition, no significant impact would occur from long-term emissions as a result in the change in vehicle miles traveled to work for the residents relocated from the mobile home park. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-3 City of Newport Beach i The proposed project would not result in the violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. No significant impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and, upon compliance with the SQACMD Rules and Regulations (including Rule 403 to reduce dust emissions during demolition activities), no mitigation measures would be required. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant impact. Refer to Response III. (a) above for a discussion of the air quality setting for the project site, the SCAQMD thresholds of significance related to air quality standards for the Basin, and the assumptions used to determine the air emissions for the proposed project. The CEQA Handbook states that any project in the Basin with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. These SCAQMD significance thresholds are identified in Table A in the Air Quality Impact Analysis provided in Technical Appendix A. As discussed in Response III. (a), the proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would generate short-term pollutant emissions from demolition activities. As indicated in Table B in the Air Quality Impact Analysis in Technical Appendix A, the short-term emissions associated with the demolition activities for the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to short-term air quality due to demolition activities. The change of use of the project site to an interim public open space would not be anticipated to generate additional measurable pollutant emissions as no long-term emissions such as vehicle emissions would occur. The long-term emissions for the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant cumulative impact to long-term air quality due to the change in the land use. In addition, no significant impact would occur from long-term emissions as a result in the change in vehicle miles traveled to work for the residents relocated from the mobile home park. The emission as a result of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerate net increase of the criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment. Therefore, no significant impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and, upon compliance with the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations (including Rule 403 to reduce dust emissions during demolition activities), no mitigation measures would be required. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. Refer to Response III. (a) above for a discussion of the air quality setting for the project site, the SCAQMD thresholds of significance related to air quality standards for the Basin, and the assumptions used to determine the air emissions for the proposed project. The short-term emissions associated with the demolition activities for the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to short-term air quality due to demolition activities. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-4 City of Newport Beach The change of use of the project site to an interim public open space would not be anticipated to generate additional measurable pollutant emissions as no long-term emissions such as vehicle emissions would occur. The long-term emissions for the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact to long-term air quality due to the change in the land use. In addition, no significant impact would occur from long-term emissions as a result in the change in vehicle miles traveled to work for the residents relocated from the mobile home park. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No significant impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and, upon compliance with the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations (including Rule 403 to reduce dust emissions during demolition activities), no mitigation measures would be required. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant impact. Objectionable odors are not currently present on the project site. The demolition activities for the proposed project would involve the use of diesel -operated construction eauinment. Although the use of this eauinment may produce odors that would have a localized effect on a short-term basis, the emission of objectionable odors that would effect a substantial number of people would not be anticipated. The change of use of the project site to an interim public open space would not result in objectionable odors. Therefore, no significant impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and, upon compliance with the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations (including Rule 403 to reduce dust emissions during demolition activities), no mitigation measures would be required. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation measures. The majority of the project site is developed with the Marinapark Mobile Home Park and its associated mobile homes, a common building with restroom and laundry, roadways, walkways, landscaping, and parking. The remainder of the project site consists of public walkway and ornamental landscaping, along approximately 924 feet of beach frontage, between the mobile homes and beach. There is limited vegetation on the project site consisting of non-native ornamental landscaping around the mobile homes and shrubs and palm trees along the walkway adjacent to the beach. The project site is. located adjacent to Newport Bay which supports ellgrass (zostera marina), a marine plant that provides shelter for many species of juvenile fish and invertebrates, and serves as a foraging area for federally and State -listed endangered and threatened bird species. In the project vicinity, the Newport Bay also supports fish nursery habitat and marine resources (plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, and federally and State -listed marine -associated species and sensitive habitats). The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The demolition activities for the removal of the mobile home park would have the potential to result in a short-term significant impact due to pollutants, soil, or debris that could Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-5 City of Newport Beach F, r, be carried in surface runoff during a significant storm event, resulting in short-term effects to water quality and potential direct and indirect effects on the marine resources in the Newport Bay. f The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-1 provided below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The resulting interim open space would be vacant land and there would be the potential for a long-term significant impact to occur due to pollutant, soil, or debris that could be carried in the surface runoff during a significant storm event, resulting in long-term effects to water quality and potential direct and indirect effects on the marine resources in the Newport Bay. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-2 provided below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures provided below, the significant impacts of the proposed project due to a potential substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be reduced to a less than significant level. MM-1 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the City shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the demolition activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but be limited to, the following BMPs: • Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of demolition material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the project site and maintained throughout the duration of the demolition activities. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Trackinsz: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical waste includes concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products, and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events in insure proper operation throughout the demolition activities. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles used for demolition will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Grease: Demolition activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-6 City of Newport Beach • Hauling Trucks: The contractors will ensure that trucks hauling demolition material to and from the project site will be covered and will be a minimum of 2- inches below the maximum height of the top of the haul trailer. MM-2 Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, the City shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the interim open space. The WQMP shall control urban constituents entering the existing storm drain system or entering surface water flows to the bay. The WQMP shall describe best management practices (BMPs) and how they will be implemented. The WQMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Erosion Control: Control soil erosion by planting ground cover and stabilizing erosion -prone area. • Signage: Affix signs educating user of the property about BMPs. • Street Sweeping: Street sweeping of the grounds and trash collection. • Inspection: Schedule regular inspections. • Long -Term Maintenance: The long-term and continuous maintenance of all on - site BMP's requiring ongoing maintenance must be developed. • WOMP Distribution: Distribution of the Water Quality Management Plan report to any contractor working on the project site and assignment of specific responsibilities by the City for compliance review. • Irri ation: Design irrigation systems that: 1) include rain -triggered shut-off devices; 2) match irrigation requirements of specific plant species; 3) and include flow reducers or shut-off valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken lines or sprinkler heads. • Catch Basin Filter Inserts: The City of Newport Beach has been implementing the installation of catch basin inserts in W. Balboa Boulevard. The Ultra -Urban® Filter with Smart Sponge°, developed and manufactured by AbTech Industries, has been used for effective filtration, efficient application, and moderate maintenance. The Ultra -Urban® Filter captures oil, grease, trash, and sediment form stormwater runoff before it enters the storm drain system. Trash and sediment accumulate in the internal basket while oil and grease are captured in the filtration media. Filter inserts are or will be installed in 181h Street and 15" Street existing inlets. The City of Newport Beach will provide maintenance of the filters within the street right-of-way. • Storm Drain Signage. Provide stenciling or labeling of all storm drain inlets and catch basins, constructed or modified, within the project area with prohibitive language such as: "NO DUMPING — DRAINS TO OCEAN". Marmapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-7 City of Newport Beach r r b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California , Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. Refer to Response IV. (a) above for a description of the existing biological conditions on the project site. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. Refer to Response IV. (a) above for a description of the existing biological condition ! on the project site. There are no wetlands on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No impact. Refer to Response IV. (a) above for a description of the existing biological conditions on the project site. The project site does not provide habitat for the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and is not within an established wildlife corridor. In addition, the project site or adjacent area does not contain a native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with: the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species; or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. In addition, the proposed project would not impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact. Refer to Response IV. (a) above for a description of the existing biological conditions on the project site. The existing trees on the project site are not "Special City Trees" as defined by City Council Policy G-1. There are no other local policies or ordinances that protects biological resources. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. Refer to Response IV. (a) above for a discussion of existing biological conditions on the project site. The project site is within the boundaries of the Coastal Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) approved by the County of Orange in 1996. The project site is not classified as a part of the Reserve System or as Marinapark Mobile Horne Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-8 City of Newport Beach i a Special Linkage Area, Existing Use Area, or Non -Reserve Open Space Area. In addition, no biological resources related to the NCCP/HCP are located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or NCCP. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: The information in this section is based on a cultural resources record search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center and the 1992 Ad Hoc Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) for the City. The findings of the records search and the HRI are on file at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at City Hall. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No impact. There are no historic resources on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? No impact. There are no known archeological resources on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No impact. There are no known paleontological resources on the project site. In addition, there are no unique geologic features on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact. Refer to Response V. (a) for a discussion of existing conditions on the project site. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. It is not anticipated that the demolition activities for the proposed project would result in the potential for the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Although the likelihood of encountering any human remains related to cultural resources during the demolition activities for the proposed project is not anticipated, any discovery will be treated in compliance with State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, as required and stated below: If human remains are encountered, the state Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. The county coroner must be notified immediately of the find. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner is required to Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-9 City of Newport Beach l notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the owner of the land or his/her authorized representative, the descendant may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification of the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal t and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Upon compliance with this existing regulatory requirement, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the Project: ► The information in this section is based on a Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Abstract Consulting Group, September 5, 2001 and revised December 16, 2003 and the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element prepared in 1975. These documents are on file at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at City Hall. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No impact. The project site is located in southern California which is a seismically active area. There are five major fault zones within the region that are considered to be active: the San Andreas Fault; the San Jacinto Fault; the Sierra Madre/Cucamonga/San Fernando fault system; the Whitter/Elsinore fault system; and the Newport -Inglewood fault. These faults are capable of generating earthquakes with a magnitude of 7.0. The project site is not located within a designated Aliquist-Prislo Earthquake Fault zone. Although the project site is located within a seismically active region, as no structures would remain on the project site, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death due to fault rupture on or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No impact. Refer to Response VI. (a) for a discussion of the seismic conditions for the project site. Although the project site may be subject to strong seismic ground shaking during a seismic event on a fault in the region, as no structures would remain on the project site, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. L' Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-10 City of Newport Beach l ., iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? No impact. Refer to Response VI. (a) for a discussion of the seismic conditions for the project site. Although the project site may be subject to seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction during a seismic event on a fault in the region due to on -site soil conditions, as no structures would remain on the project site, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structure to potential substantial adverse effects. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. iv) Landslides? No impact. Refer to Response VI. (a) for a discussion of the seismic conditions for the project site. The project site is flat with no topographic features. The project site is not located in an area subject to landslides. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The demolition activities for the removal of the mobile home park would have the potential to result in a short-term significant impact to occur due to soil erosion on the project site. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-1 provided in Response IV. (a) above would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The interim public open space would be vacant land and there would be the potential for a long- term significant impact to occur due to soil erosion on the project site. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-2 provided in Response IV. (a) above would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No impact. Refer to Response VI. (a) for a discussion of the seismic conditions for the project site. The project site is located in an area considered to be susceptible to liquifaction and potential lateral spreading. However, the proposed project does not provide for development of the project site with structures and no effect as a result of a geologic unit or soil that may be unstable would occur. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No impact. Refer to Response VI. (a) for a discussion of the seismic conditions for the project site. The project site is not located within an area that has expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). In addition, the proposed project does not provide for development on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial risks to life or property due to expansive soils. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-11 City of Newport Beach r, i' e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste r water? No impact. The proposed project would not require connection to the local sewer system and no septic tanks or an alternative waste disposal system would be required. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No impact. The majority of the project site is developed with the Marinapark Mobile Home Park and its associated mobile homes, a common building with restroom and laundry, roadways, walkways, landscaping, and parking. The remainder of the project site consists of a walkway between the mobile homes and the beach. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. Although the demolition activities for the proposed project would require the use and transport of potentially toxic construction materials related to the demolition debris, potential hazards related to this would be addressed through the compliance with existing Federal and State Occupation Safety and Health (OSHA) regulatory requirements. Due to the age of the mobile home park and some of the mobile units, there may be hazardous substances, such as asbestos containing materials and lead, within the on -site units. The demolition activities associated with the proposed project would be conducted consistent with existing local, State, and federal requirements related to the removal and disposal of building materials that contain hazardous substances such as asbestos or lead - based products. In addition, although the on -going maintenance of the open space would include the use of hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, herbicides, and solvents, the use of these materials would be typical of open space maintenance and would pose a low risk of hazard. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably ` foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measure would be required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? , No impact. The project site is located within one -quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. However, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste. Therefore, no impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-12 City of Newport Beach 1. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact. According to the City, the project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport (JWA) which is approximately 5.5 miles to the northwest of the project site. The project site is not located within the JWA airport land use plan. The proposed project would not introduce people into an area where there is a safety hazard as a result of a public airport or public use airport. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airport. The proposed project would not introduce people into an area where there is a safety hazard as a result of a private airstrip. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The proposed project would not alter emergency access to and from the project site, surrounding uses, and Balboa Boulevard, including access to the public beach, since the circulation and access to the project site would not change with the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not impair the ability of the City to implement its emergency response plan or utilize emergency evacuation routes. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No impact. The project site is not located within or adjacent to an area subject to wildland fires as the project area is urbanized and developed. The development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Marinapark Mohile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-13 City of Newport Beach ra VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? m) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation measures. The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula between Balboa Boulevard and the Lower Newport Bay. The peninsula is crossed by a system of streets with flat grades that do not exceed a few tenths of one percent. No substantial longitudinal slopes occur along Balboa Boulevard other than minor slopes created at the storm drain inlets. The majority of the stormwater in the vicinity of the project site is collected from three stormwater collection areas and conveyed and discharged into the Lower Newport Bay through three discharge outlets located at the ends of 15t", 18t", and 19t" Streets. (MetroPointe Engineers, Inc., February 2004) The Newport Bay is included on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2002 303(d) Listed Water Bodies and Associated Pollutants of Concern. The Lower Newport Bay, which is the receiving waters for the project site and vicinity, is specifically listed as impaired as a result of significant concentrations of metals and pesticides in the sediment. The concentrations of pollutants vary depending on the composition of the sediment, depth of the sediment, and the location in the Lower Newport Bay. (MetroPointe Engineers, Inc., February 2004) The majority of the project site is developed with the Marinapark Mobile Home Park and its associated mobile homes, a common building with restroom and laundry, roadways, walkways, landscaping, and parking. The remainder of the project site consists of public walkway and ornamental landscaping, along approximately 924 feet of beach frontage, between the mobile homes and beach. There is limited vegetation on the project site consisting of non-native ornamental landscaping around the mobile homes and shrubs and palm trees along the walkway adjacent to the beach. The existing water quality that currently drains from the project site and vicinity carries pollutants typically associated with irrigation overspray, over watering, roof drains, wash down of hardscape areas, pesticides and fertilizers, and pollutants from vehicles. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in an interim public open space. The demolition activities for the removal of the mobile home park would have the potential to result in a short-term significant impact due to pollutants, soil, or debris that could be carried in the surface runoff during a significant storm event, resulting in short-term effects to water quality in the Newport Bay. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-1 provided in Response IV. (a) above would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The interim public open space would be vacant land and there would be the potential for a long- term significant impact to occur due to pollutant, soil, or debris that could be carried in the surface runoff during a significant storm event, resulting in long-term effects to water quality in the Newport Bay. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-2 provided in Response IV. (a) above would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-14 City of Newport Beach L1 With the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures MM-1 and MM-2, the significant impacts of the proposed project related to any potential violation in water quality standards or the potential to otherwise substantially degrade water quality would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures, the impacts of the proposed project due to the potential to result in a significant alteration of receiving water quality during and following construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Further, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures, the impacts of the proposed project due to the potential to result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses (i.e. recreation, plant and animal habitat) of the receiving waters (Newport Bay) would be reduced to a less than significant level. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table? No impact. The project site is currently developed with urban uses and there are limited permeable surfaces on -site. With the removal of the urban uses from the project site, the amount of pervious surfaces would be increased, allowing for increased amounts of rainfall to infiltrate into the ground. In addition, the proposed project would not require the pumping of groundwater or the use of groundwater pumped at another location. Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? No impact. Refer to Response VIII. (a) above for a discussion of the drainage pattern and the use of existing storm drainage facilities to accommodate surface runoff. With the removal of the urban uses from the project site, the amount of pervious surfaces would be increased. This would allow for increased amounts of rainfall to infiltrate into the ground rather than flow across the project site toward the existing storm drainage inlets. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site, or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, resulting in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? No impact. Refer to Response VIII. (a) above for a discussion of the alteration in the drainage pattern and the use of existing storm drainage facilities to accommodate surface runoff. With the removal of the urban uses from the project site, the amount of pervious surfaces would be increased. This would allow for increased amounts of rainfall to infiltrate into the ground rather than flow across the project site toward the existing storm drainage inlets. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or area, including through the alteration of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in an increase in flooding on -site or off -site. No impact Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-15 City of Newport Beach would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than significant impact. Refer to Response VIII. (a) above for a discussion of the drainage pattern and the use of existing storm drainage facilities to accommodate surface runoff from the project site. With the removal of the urban uses from the project site, the amount of pervious surfaces would be increased. This would allow for increased amounts of rainfall to infiltrate into the ground rather than flow across the project site toward the existing storm drainage inlets. In addition, potential source of urban pollutants at the mobile home park (i.e. pesticides and fertilizers, pollutant from vehicles) would be reduced on the project site. The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff that would substantially degrade water quality. No significant impact with implementation of the proposed project would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No impact. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has not designated the project site and surrounding area as located within a 100-year flood hazard area. In addition, the proposed project would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect the flood flow. Due to the distance from any levees or dam, no flooding would occur from the failure of that type of flood control facility. Therefore, flooding related to the 100-year flood or failure of a levee or dam would not be anticipated. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No impact. Due to the distance of the project site from any lakes or water bodies of significant size, the development of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards due to a seiche. In addition, with the removal of the mobile home park from the project site, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with a tsunami. Further, the project site is not located within an area subject to mudflow hazards. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. l _, Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-16 City of Newport Beach 1_ 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste hauling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? No impact. The use of the proposed project would be interim public open space. The proposed project would not have areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste hauling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? No impact. With the removal of the mobile home park, the proposed project would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on the project site and, therefore, would not result in the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The demolition activities for the removal of the mobile home park would have the potential to result in a short-term significant impact to occur due to soil erosion on the project site. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-1 provided in Response IV. (a) above would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The interim public open space would be vacant land and there would be the potential for a long- term significant impact to occur due to soil erosion on the project site. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM-2 provided in Response IV. (a) above would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. Although the proposed project would alter the conditions on the project site, no changes to the physical layout of the existing land uses and circulation system or the planned land uses or circulation network in the project vicinity would occur. As such, the proposed project would not physically divide the existing community. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No impact. Refer to 1.1, Project Location and Setting, above for a discussion of the existing land uses on the project site. Several local and regional plans, programs and ordinances apply or relate to the project site. They consist of the City's General Plan and Municipal Code, the Local Coastal Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-17 City of Newport Beach r _ Program (LCP) Land Use Plan, the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). These documents are on file at the City of Newport Beach f Planning Department located at City Hall. General Plan r Due to the location of the project site, the following General Plan Elements are applicable to the project site and the proposed project: Land Use Element, Housing Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Harbor and Bay Element, Conservation Element, and Noise Element. The following provides a discussion of these General Plan Elements and the proposed project's consistency with these elements. The General Plan Land Use Element, adopted in 1988, currently indicates that the project site has a land use designation of "Recreational and Environmental Open Space". This land use designation has been applied to land proposed for use and development as open space of both a public and private nature. These areas provide for active or passive open space use, depending on the land form. The project site is located in the West Bay Statistical Area (Area D1), which is further divided into five areas, of which the project site is referred to as "Marinapark". Marinapark is characterized in the Land Use Element as follows: Marinapark: This site is located on the bay front between 18th Street and 15th Street. It is designated for Recreational and Environmental Open Space land use designation. The site could be ultimately used for aquatic facilities, expanded beach and community facilities such as the existing American Legion. The existing mobile home park will be allowed to continue until the end of the existing lease. At that time the City will make the decision as to whether the lease should be further extended, or the property converted to public use. This characterization of the Marinapark area indicates that the existing mobile home park is not consistent with the long-term land use goals and the existing land use designation for the project site. The change of use on the project site to interim public open space would be consistent with the existing land use designation of the project site provided in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and would not preclude future expanded uses as listed in the existing description of Marinapark above. The General Plan Land Use Element contains several general policies, of which one policy is applicable to the project site and proposed project. Policy D states "The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs." The project site has limited views across the project site towards the Newport Harbor from the public right-of-way for Balboa Boulevard and adjacent public land uses. The proposed project would remove the structures that block the majority of the views from the public -right-of-way and adjacent public uses (i.e. Los Arenas Park, tennis courts, basketball court, Balboa Community Center). The implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the Policy D directive to ensure preservation of public views. Based on the above, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use designations and applicable policy of the General Plan Land Use Element. L, Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-18 City of Newport Beach The General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element, adopted in 1998, is intended to maintain a recreation and open space system which meets the recreational needs of the residents of the City and enhances the unique recreation and environmental resources of the City. The Recreation and Open Space Element divides the City into service areas for the purposes of park planning and for equitable distribution of parkland dedications and fees from new development. The project site is located in Service Area No. 2 — Balboa Peninsula, which is not deficient in park acreage. The Recreation and Open Space Element identifies an objective and policy applicable to the project site and proposed project. Objective 5 states "Provide and maintain public access to the City's coastal resources in accordance with the City's Local Coastal Program. Ensure that provision of access is consistent with the protection of natural resources, public safety and private property rights." Related Policy 5.1, states "This policy identifies the need to maintain existing public access to the beach and bay." There is an existing public walkway that runs adjacent to the beach along the northern boundary of the project site. The proposed project will not affect the walkway or the existing access from Balboa Boulevard to the walkway via 18'" Street. The implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the Objective 5 and related Policy 5.1 to provide and maintain public access. Based on the above, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable objective and policy of the General Plan Recreation and Open Space Element. The Harbor and Bay Element, adopted in 2001, is primarily intended to establish policies and programs in order to preserve the diversity of natural and man-made resources that occur in and adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay, Lower Newport Bay, and Newport Harbor. This Element supplements the Land Use Element and Recreation and Open Space Element and provides general policy guidance for the portion of the City located in the coastal zone. The Harbor and Bay Element identifies one policy that is applicable to the project site and the proposed project. Policy HB-2.1.1 states "Encourage the expansion and improvement of existing public waterfront access and water -uses access which provide important links to waterfront uses such as beaches, small vessel launching facilities, public docks, and other similar public water area uses." There is an existing public walkway that runs adjacent to the beach along the northern boundary of the project site. The proposed project will not affect the walkway or the existing access from Balboa Boulevard to the walkway. The implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with Policy HB-2.1.1 to provide increased public access. Based on the above, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policy of the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element. The General Plan Conservation Element, adopted in 1974, is intended to discuss the existing natural resources in the City, the programs for the conservation of these resources, and the actions that will be taken by the City to conserve these resources. This element addresses bay and water quality, air quality, beach erosion control, mineral resources, archeological resources, and energy conservation. The Conservation Element identifies one non -numbered policy that is applicable to the project site and the proposed project. This policy is "The City Council unalterably opposed to the discharge of any raw sewage, sewage effluent, litter, debris or other wastes into Newport Bay that in any way possible could cause pollution and contamination of the waters of Newport Bay." The Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-19 City of Newport Beach i demolition activities for the proposed project would occur consistent with a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and the use of the interim public open space would occur consistent with a water quality management plan (WQMP) prepared for the proposed project. Refer to Mitigation Measures MM-1 and MM-2 provided in Response IV. (a) above for a discussion of these plans and the associated best management practices (BMPs). The implementation of the , proposed project would be consistent with this policy related to the protection of the water quality in the Newport Bay. The Noise Element, adopted in 1994, is intended to include noise control in the planning process. There are no policies in the Noise Element that are applicable to the project site or the proposed project. Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan The project site is located in the Coastal Zone as established by the California Coastal Act of 1976. In conformance with this act, the City prepared a LCP which consists of a Land Use Plan and an Implementation Plan. The LCP was adopted by the City in 1981 and approved by the Coastal Commission in 1982 with a revised Land Use plan adopted by the City and approved by the Coastal Commission in 1990. In 2005, the City approved and the Coastal Commission Certified a comprehensive update to the Land Use Plan. However, the City has not completed the Implementation Plan and, therefore, does not have a certified LCP. Therefore, the permit authority on individual development proposals and changes in the LCP Land Use Plan are under the authority of the Coastal Commission for properties within the coastal zone. The project site is designated "Open Space" in the current LCP Land Use Plan. The existing mobile home park is not consistent with this land use designation. The change in use of the project site to interim public open space would be consistent with this designation. The LCP Land Use Plan identifies policies that address open space designated areas in the coastal zone such as the project site. These policies address public access, the enjoyment of coastal resources, and the use of tidelands in a manner consistent with the Tidelands Trust. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park to an interim open space use. In addition, the existing walkway that runs adjacent to the beach along the northern boundary of the project site and the access from Balboa Boulevard to the walkway would not be changed with the implementation of the proposed project. Based on the above, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation and applicable policies of the LCP Land Use Plan. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code The project site is designated as Planned Community District (PC) and no Planned Community development regulations have been adopted. No change to this zoning designation would be required for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Refer to Response IX. (c) for a discussion of the proposed project's consistency with the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). L. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-20 City of Newport Beach L. South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan Refer to Response II. (a) above for a discussion of the proposed project's consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Based on the discussion provided above, the implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance). Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures would be provided. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact. The project site is within the boundaries of the Coastal Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) approved by the County of Orange in 1996. The project site is not classified as a part of the Reserve System or as a Special Linkage Area, Existing Use Area, or Non -Reserve Open Space Area. In addition, no biological resources related to the NCCP/HCP are located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan or NCCP. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. The project site is not located within an area with known mineral resources of significance, as designated by local, regional, and State agencies. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. The project site is not designated as a locally -important mineral recovery site in the City General Plan, any specific plans, or other land use plans. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measure would be required. XI. NOISE — Would the Project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would generate short- term increases in the existing noise levels from demolition activities consisting of. building demolition; roadway and walkway demolition; foundation and utility excavation; travel by construction workers to and from the project site; hauling of demolition materials from the project site; and fuel combustion by on -site construction equipment. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-21 City of Newport Beach To define construction -related noise, including demolition activities, the U.S. Environmental f Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. The EPA found that, when measured at 50 feet from the center of an activity, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to noise levels in excess of 100 dBA. These noise levels would diminish r rapidly with distance from the activity at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Field measurements show that construction noise levels generated by commonly used demolition and grading equipment (i.e. loaders, graders, and trucks) generate noise levels that typically produce an overall grading noise level of around 89 dBA at 50 feet. The nearest noise sensitive land uses to the project site are the Nevas B. Thomas Girl Scout House adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site, the single-family and multi -family residential units located across Balboa Boulevard approximately 175 feet to the south, and a hotel located across 18th Street approximately 50 feet to the west. Based on the noise data assumptions from the EPA, these land uses have the potential to experience short-term noise levels that range from 78dBA to 100 dBA, with the greatest noise levels affecting the Nevas B. Thomas Girl Scout House. The temporary or short-term increase in noise levels from the demolition activities associated with the proposed project would be addressed through compliance with Section 10.28.04 of the City's Municipal Code, which limits noise generating demolition activities between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. on Saturdays, with all activities prohibited on Sundays and holidays. Following are mandatory obligations contained in Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code: • Equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust. • Construction equipment shall be maintained properly and tuned -up to minimize noise emission. • Stationary source equipment (e.g., compressors) shall be located so as to maintain the greatest distance from proximate residential dwellings. • All equipment servicing shall be performed so as to maintain the greatest distance form the dwellings. • The name and telephone number of a contact person shall be posted on -site. The proposed project would have a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. No temporary increase in ambient noise levels would occur with the change of the use of the project site to interim public r open space. Upon compliance with the existing regulatory requirements of the City as defined in Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code, no significant impact related to the short-term demolition activities and the change of use to interim open space would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-22 City of Newport Beach b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. The demolition activities as a result of the proposed project would require construction equipment and activities that could generate ground borne vibration and noise on a short-term basis. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), excessive groundborne vibration is typically associated with activities such as driving or blasting. As none of these activities would occur with the proposed project, only minimal groundborne vibration would be created. No long-term vibration or noise would occur due to the use of the proposed project as interim public open space. No significant impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No impact. The proposed project would not have a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project. The proposed project would result in a decrease in the existing ambient noise levels due to the removal of the mobile homes and the associated reduction in on -site activities and vehicle trips on the adjacent roadways. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No residential or work -related land uses would occur on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working on the project site to excessive noise levels associated with a public airport. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The development of the proposed project would not expose people residing or working on the project site to excessive noise levels associated with a private airport. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No impact. The majority of the project site is developed with the Marinapark Mobile Home Park and its associated mobile homes, a common building with restroom and laundry, roadways, walkways, landscaping, and parking. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park through its closure and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would not result in population growth either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-23 City of Newport Beach r, b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than significant impact. Refer to Response XII. (a) above for a discussion of the existing land uses on the project site. The implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of 57 mobile homes and the displacement of the residents from the project site, of which approximately 67 people are permanent residents of the mobile home park. According to the City, mobile homes currently comprise approximately two percent of the City's housing stock. In addition, according to California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, as of January 2005, the City has a current housing supply of approximately 42,000 units of which approximately eleven percent are vacant. Based on this, the displacement of the existing housing and residents on the project site can be adequately served by the existing housing supply in the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace a substantial number of housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No significant impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? No impact. Fire and emergency medical services to the project vicinity is provided by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department. The Fire Department provides fire protection, non -emergency service calls, paramedic services, and inspection services. The Fire Department operates eight fire stations throughout the City. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim open space. No demand for fire protection services would be generated by the proposed project. The proposed project would not generate additional demands on fire protection and emergency medical services. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Police protection? No impact. Police protection services to the project vicinity are provided by the City of Newport beach Police Department. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would not generate an additional demand on police protection services. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Schools? No impact. The project site is within the boundaries of the Newport -Mesa Unified School District. There are no school facilities on or immediately adjacent to the project site. The Marmapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-24 City of Newport Beach proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the demand for school services. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Parks? No impact. The project site will be within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Newport Beach which provides park services to its residents. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would not result in the demand for parks and recreation facilities. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Other public facilities? No impact. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. As the proposed project would not result in the generation of any increases in the City's population, no increase in demand for other public services would be anticipated. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact. The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. As the proposed project would not result in the generation of residents, no increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities would occur. Therefore, no physical deterioration of parks or recreational facilities or the construction or expansion of a facility that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment would occur. No significant impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the Project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersection.) No impact. The proposed project would change the use of the mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would not result in the generation of additional vehicle trips. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-25 City of Newport Beach b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No impact. The proposed project would not result in the generation of additional vehicle trips. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate vehicle trips that would exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard as established by the County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP). No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including any change in traffic levels or location. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No impact. The proposed project would not change the existing access to the project site from Balboa Boulevard and would not result in an incompatible use. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula which is primarily accessed via Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard. The access to the project site is from Balboa Boulevard located along the southern boundary. In addition, the proposed project would not alter emergency access to and from the project site, surrounding uses, and Balboa Boulevard, including access to the public beach. The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No impact. The proposed project would not require parking spaces. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. g) Conflict with adopted policies, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No impact. The proposed project would not change the project frontage along Balboa Boulevard and no conflict with adopted polices or programs supporting alternative transportation, such as transit or bicycles, would occur. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-26 City of Newport Beach 1: XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact. The development of the proposed project would not result in the generation of wastewater. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No impact. The project site is within an area with existing water and wastewater infrastructure and treatment facilities. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the demand for water and wastewater treatment and result in the need for the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No impact. The project site is located in an area with existing stormwater drainage facilities. The proposed project would have an increased amount of pervious surfaces, allowing for an increased amount of rainfall to infiltrate into the ground. This would result in a reduction in the runoff from the project site. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the demand for local water supplies. No impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures would be required. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid wastes? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would generate demolition debris, which would be recycled to the extent possible through the enforcement of the franchise agreements that the City has with waste haulers authorized to work within the City. The remainder of the material would be landfilled as appropriate. The proposed project would not result in a significant Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-27 City of Newport Beach Fa - r* XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OR SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact with incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a r fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. With the incorporation of mitigation measures provided in Response III. (a) above, these potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The proposed project would not result in the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Refer to the analysis provided above for a discussion of the analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to air quality and biological resources. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Refer to the analysis provided above for a discussion of the potential impacts of the.proposed project with respect to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Discussion of Environmental Impacts, Page 3-28 City of Newport Beach a^� Section 4.0 Sources/References Consulted Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use City of Newport Beach SECTION 4.0 SOURCES/REFERENCES CONSULTED City of Newport Beach. General Plan. (various dates by element) City of Newport Beach. Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan. Approved by California Coastal Commission on October 13, 2005, adopted December 13, 2005, Resolution No. 2005-63. City of Newport Beach. Municipal Code. (various dates by element) Coastal Resources Management. Marine Biological Resources Impact Assessment. April 14, 2003. County of Orange. A tatural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HU), Central and Coastal Subregion. Published July 1996. County of Orange. Airport Land Use Commission, Airport Environs Land Use Plan. Published November 16, 1995. FEMA. Flood Hazard Areas Map. December 10, 2003. Giroux and Associates. Air Quality Impact Analysis Report. March 2004. Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. April 23, 2004. Michael Brandman Associates. Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Marinapark Resort & Community Plan. July 2, 2004. MetroPointe Engineers, Inc. Drainage Technical Study: Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations Water Quality Management Plan. January 2004. Overland, Pacific &Cutler, Inc.. The Marinapark Mobile Home Park Relocation Impact Report. 2006. South Coast Air Quality Management District. "CEQA Air Quality Handbook. " Published November 1993. Marinaprk Mobile Home Park Change of Use SourceslReferences Consulted, Page 4-1 City of Newport Beach I Appendix Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use City of Newport Beach Air Quality Impact Analysis MARINAPARK MOBILE HOME PARK CHANGE OF USE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PREPARED BY: VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL 1021 DIDRIKSON WAY LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651 GREG TONKOVICH, AICP TELEPHONE (949) 510-5355 FACSIMILE (949) 715-3629 PROJECT No. 060102-2 FEBRUARY 8, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................I 1.1 Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives....................................................................1 1.2 Site Location and Study Area........................................................................................1 1.3 Project Description.........................................................................................................1 2.0 Air Quality Standards.......................................................................................................5 2.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance.................................................................................5 2.2 Regional Air Quality......................................................................................................5 2.3 Local Air Quality...........................................................................................................6 3.0 Short -Term Air Quality Demolition Impacts..................................................................7 3.1 Methodology..................................................................................................................7 3.2 Demolition.....................................................................................................................8 4.0 Long -Term Air Quality Operational Impacts.................................................................9 5.0 Air Quality Compliance..................................................................................................10 5.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan ........... 10 6.0 Findings and Recommendations.....................................................................................12 6.1 Potential Short -Term Construction Impacts................................................................12 6.2 Potential Long -Term Operations Impacts....................................................................12 6.3 Consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP.....................................................................12 7.0 References.........................................................................................................................13 APPENDIX Appendix A — URBEMIS2002 PRINTOUTS _ _f _: i. &.3�YaYufid&R$�"f� •1'�.�3Xkia"hka «ym _,'=" E _ �,.,���>a�.�.eYz, r��._...w_a-�_a.. £,e..�:YSk..._.«.idie`3S:`.�e...a .1 _..T �.,,,u 3zuti. .__'�`k�h �,d�",ss4AA.$dv-..-»..., ._ __"3K e- , .; �-.4 .-�: tn,.X.£.�-;. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page i City of Newport Beach r1 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 — Site Location and Study Area.......................................................................................3 Exhibit2 — Site Plan........................................................................................................................4 r� LIST OF TABLES Table A - SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance .............................6 r Table B - Air Pollutant Emissions During Worst -Case Demolition Operations .............................8 Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page ii City of Newport Beach k 1.0 INTRODUCTION LI Purpose of Analysis and Study Objectives This Air Quality Impact Analysis has been completed by Vista Environmental to determine the air quality impacts associated with Marinapark Mobile Home Park change of use project (proposed project). The following is provided in this report: • A description of the site location and study area; • A description of the proposed project; • A description of the air quality standards including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds; • An analysis of the short-term construction related air quality impacts; • An analysis of the long-term operational air quality impacts, and; • An analysis of the proposed project to consistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). 1.2 Site Location and Study Area The project site is located at 1770 West Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula in the City of Newport Beach. The majority of the project site is developed with the Marinapark Mobile Home Park and its associated 57 mobile homes, a common building with restroom and laundry, roadways, walkways, landscaping, and parking. The remainder of the project site consists of public walkway and ornamental landscaping, along approximately 924 feet of beach frontage, between the mobile homes and beach. The project site location and study area are shown on Exhibit 1. The project site is bounded by: public beach and Newport Bay to the north, the American Legion Yachting Club/Marina to the east, Los Arenas Park, four public tennis courts, one-half basketball court, a children's play center, the Nevas B. Thomas Girl Scout house, West Balboa Boulevard and residential uses to the south, and 181h Street, a hotel, and residential uses to the west. The property upon which the mobile home park is located has been owned and operated by the City since 1919. The Marina Mobile Home Park (Park) itself was developed over time beginning as a camping site which evolved into a travel trailer park and then to a mobile home site with manufactured units. The existing land uses on the project site associated with the Park consist of 58 mobile home spaces, 57 mobile homes, roadways and walkways, landscape areas, a parking lot and on -street parking, a common restroom and laundry room building, and underground gas, water and electrical utilities. Other land uses on the project site consist of an approximately 10-foot wide public walkway along 924 feet of beach frontage facing Newport Bay. 1.3 Project Description The proposed project would change the use of the existing mobile home park and result in interim public open space. This would include the removal of the 57 mobile homes, the common Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 1 City of Newport Beach rI >a%.Fft.."-:'.�'.W".a.. .>::fiS'�Y.. +Ysw.eL:.A�4Ye4Yve.: 5'+t�WssaV'e...:l: W'cGfr. '.. - A*uK:X+'. .'. AtS ti:RA. `sYitlE>z �C .. + ..... •�Y+� ,: '. building with restroom and laundry, and all other appurtenances related to the mobile home park, { which covers approximately 3.1 acres of the 4.34-acre site. The remaining approximately 1.24 . acres, which consists of a paved parking area on the southern portion of the project site, a roadway that runs east -west through the project site, the row of palm trees in the northern portion of the project site, and the 10-foot wide public walkway adjacent to the beach along the northern boundary of the project site, would remain in its current condition. Exhibit 2 presents the site plan for the proposed project. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 2 City of Newport Beach 770 VP , or� M ly 1-6-a PU I ANN. Wil 17 AB� .,OAF 4 �f _. . �' � al�;s. fill i �r AIL A .71 a �+s r i 2.0 AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 2.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance Consistent with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality would occur if the proposed project is determined to result in: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 2.2 Regional Air Quality The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over an approximately 12,000 square -mile area consisting of Orange County and portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. State and Federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. The SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the State and Federal ambient air quality standards. The most recent version of the AQMP was adopted in 2003. Many air quality impacts which derive from dispersed mobile sources, which are the dominate pollution generators in the SCAB, often occurs hours later and miles away after photochemical processes have converted primary exhaust pollutants into secondary contaminants such as ozone. The incremental regional air quality impact of an individual project is generally very small and difficult to measure. Therefore, the SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted rather than on actual ambient air quality because the direct air quality impact of a project is not quantifiable on a regional scale. The 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD Handbook) states that any project in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the identified significance thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. In order to quantify the emission levels that identify thresholds of significance, the SCAQMD has set an emission threshold for short-term construction emissions, which include demolition activities, and an emission threshold for long-term operational emissions. The SCAQMD Handbook states that all on -site and off -site project emissions created in the SCAB shall be analyzed for the thresholds of significance, with off -site emissions include a range of emissions sources such things as an increase in emissions from electrical generation plants to an increase in emissions from vehicles due to a project's impact on the total vehicle miles driven within the SCAB. These regional air quality SCAQMD significance thresholds are identified in Table A. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 5 City of Newport Beach Table A - SCAQMD Regional Pollutant Emission Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Emissions (lbslday) r ROG NOx CO sox PM10 Construction 75 100 550 150 150 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook 2.3 Local Air Quality f, The proposed project would consist of the conversion of the project site to interim public open space. Interim open space is not anticipated to create any vehicular trips. Therefore, no local air quality impacts are anticipated. r Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 6 City of Newport Beach I 1, 3.0 SHORT-TERM AIR QUALITY DEMOLITION IMPACTS The proposed project would change the use of the exiting mobile home park and result in interim public open space. The proposed project would generate short-term pollution emissions from demolition activities consisting of. building demolition; roadway and walkway demolition; foundation and utility excavation; travel by construction workers to and from the project site; hauling of demolition materials from project site; and fuel combustion by on -site construction equipment. 3.1 Methodology Particulate Matter of ten microns or less (PM10) emissions from construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S. EPA. The emission factor for disturbed soil is 26.4 pounds of PM10 per day per acre or 0.40 tons of PM10 per month per acre (SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. The PM10 calculations presented below include the 50 percent reduction from watering according to SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements. Typical emission rates from construction activities were obtained from URBEMIS2002. URBEMIS2002 is a computer model published by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for estimating air pollutant emissions. The URBEMIS2002 program uses the EMFAC2002 computer program to calculate the emission rates for construction -related employee vehicle trips and heavy truck operations. EMFAC2002 is a computer program generated by CARB that calculates composite emission rates for vehicles. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile. The emissions printouts from URBEMIS2002 are provided in Appendix A. Assumptions for the duration of the demolition and required equipment for the demolition of the project were obtained from the Air Quality Impact Analysis Marina Park Resort (Newport Beach Hotel), prepared by Giroux Associates, April 15, 2004. Assumptions for the sizes of the trailers and permanent structures were obtained from The Marinapark Mobile Home Park Relocation Impact Report, prepared by Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., January of 2006. For the purposes of this analysis provided in this report, a worst -case analysis was assumed with demolition of all trailers on the project site. Using URBEMIS2002, the peak daily air pollutant emissions during the demolition operations were calculated and are presented below. These emissions represent the highest level of emissions during the demolition operations in terms of air pollutant emissions. The following provides a discussion of the assumptions used to calculate the emissions and the conclusions of the emissions calculations. Note that the calculations do not include S02 emissions. The only source of sulfer dioxide S02 emissions would be from the equipment exhaust. However, the heavy construction equipment emission factors from the URBEMIS2002 model do not include S02 emissions. According to the SCAQMD Handbook's Table A9-3-A, which states the emission factors for each criteria pollutant, the diesel engine emission rate for S02 emissions is the same as the emission rate for ROG emissions at 0.0006 pounds per Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 7 City of Newport Beach r, r horsepower -hour. For gasoline powered engines, the emission rate for S02 is identical to the PM10 emissions at 0.0001 pounds per horsepower -hour. Therefore, since S02 emissions are only from equipment exhaust, Tables D and E below assume the S02 emissions for off -road and r on -road equipment will be identical to the ROG emissions and the S02 emissions for employee travel will be identical to the PM 10 emissions. 3.2 Demolition Although the removal or demolition of all of the coaches is not anticipated to occur at the same time, the worst -case scenario of the concurrent demolition of all coaches has been analyzed. The worst -case demolition activities for the proposed project is anticipated to be performed over an approximately one (1) month period. During the demolition operations, it is anticipated that the maximum number of vehicles operating simultaneously will consist of. one rubber -tired dozer, one rubber -tired loader, one water truck, and one backhoe. The analysis assumed that approximately 3.1 acres which contains the structures would be disturbed each week day during demolition, while the remaining 1.24 acres of the 4.34 acre project site, which consists of a paved parking area on the southern portion of the project site, a roadway that runs east -west through the project site, the row of palm trees in the northern portion of the project site, and the ten -foot wide public walkway adjacent to the beach along the northern boundary of the project site, would remain intact. In addition, it was also assumed that the haul trucks removing the demolition material would make an average of 11 round trips per day traveling 35 miles per round trip. Reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), S02, and PM10 Emissions from the worst -case demolition operations are presented below in Table B. Table B - Air Pollutant Emissions During Worst -Case Demolition Operations Pollutant Emissions (lbslday) Activity ROG NO2 CO S02 PM10 Air Pollutant Emissions Fugitive Dust -- -- -- -- 10.14 Off --Road Equipment 7.73 59.28 56.94 7.73 2.66 On -Road Equipment 2.00 36.27 7.45 2.00 1.03 Employee Travel 0.06 0.10 1.84 0.01 0.01 Total Unmitigated Emissions 9.79 95.65 66.23 9.74 13.84 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No Source: Vista Environmental Note: Calculated from URBEMIS 2002 rev. 8.7.0 The data provided in Table B shows that for the worst -case demolition operations for the proposed project, the emissions from ROG, NO2, CO, S02, and PM10, would be below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated from the short-term demolition operations of the proposed project. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 8 City of Newport Beach Im 4.0 LONG-TERM AIR QUALITY OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The proposed project would result in removal of the existing mobile home park and provide for the use of the project site as interim public open space. The conversion of the project site to an interim open space would not be anticipated to generate pollutant emissions as no long-term emissions such as vehicle emissions would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an impact to long-term air quality due to change in the land use. Although, the proposed land use for the project site would not produce any measurable amounts of air emissions, there is a potential for increased air emissions due to the removal of housing from the project site, which may increase air emissions through an increase in the total miles driven by the existing mobile home residents to work. In anticipation of the change of use of the mobile home park, the City has produced The Marinapark Mobile Home Park Relocation Impact Report, (Relocation Report) prepared by Overland, Pacific & Cutler, January of 2005. The Relocation Report has addressed the effects of relocating the residents due to the change of use of the mobile home park. According to the Relocation Report, of the 58 mobile home spaces, 54 are currently occupied and of those 31 are used as permanent residences, while 25 are used as second homes. Of the 31 permanent residences 17 of the residences have at least one member that is currently employed, with 11 of the 17 residence's occupants having to travel more than 10 miles to work, while the other 6 travel 5 miles or less to work. Long-term air emissions may be created through a project that would significantly increase the total vehicle miles driven to work by its residents. Upon relocation of the residents from the project site, it is assumed that the 11 residents who commute more than 10 miles to work, will find housing closer to their places of work, while the 6 residents who commute 5 miles or less to work will have a longer commute from their new housing. Due to this, it is anticipated that upon relocation of these residents from the project site, the total vehicles miles traveled to work will be about the same as the current condition. Therefore, no significant impact would occur from the long-term emissions as a result in the change in vehicle miles traveled to work from the project's existing residents of the mobile home park. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 9 City of Newport Beach 5.0 AIR QUALITY COMPLIANCE The following section discusses the proposed project's consistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). 5.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15125). Regional plans that apply to the proposed project include the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, this section will discuss any inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP. The purpose of the consistency discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision -makers determine that the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. The SCAQMD's CEQA Handbook states that "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP." Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: (1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP (except as provided for CO in Section 9.4 for relocating CO hot spots). (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. Both of these criteria are evaluated in the following sections. Criterion 1 - Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations? Based on the air quality modeling analysis contained in this report, short-term demolition impacts and the long-term operation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. It is unlikely that short-term demolition activities will increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations due to the relatively small size of the proposed project and the required compliance with SCAQMD Rules and Regulations. In addition, the ongoing operation of the proposed project will generate air pollutant emissions that are inconsequential on a regional basis. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 10 City of Newport Beach L. Therefore, the proposed project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Criterion 2 - Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP? Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to insure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCP&G) consists of three sections: Core Chapters, Ancillary Chapters, and Bridge Chapters. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management chapters constitute the Core Chapters of the document. These chapters currently respond directly to federal and state requirements placed on SCAG. Local governments are required to use these as the basis of their plans for purposes of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA. For this project, the City's General Plan Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. The conversion of the project site to an interim public open space would not generate any measurable pollutant emissions as no long-term emissions such as vehicle emissions would occur. In addition, the City's General Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in the AQMP. As the project site is designated as "Recreational and Environmental Open Space" land use designation, the conversion of the land use for the project site to interim public open space would be consistent with the SCAQMD AQMP assumptions. Therefore, the proposed project is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Therefore, no impact will occur. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 1 I City of Newport Beach M 6.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Potential Short -Term Construction Impacts ! , The short-term air quality impacts associated with the demolition activities of the proposed project were analyzed and found that for the worst -case demolition operations for the proposed , project, the emissions from ROG, NOx, CO, SOx, and PM10, would be below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, no significant impact is anticipated from the short-term demolition operations of the proposed project. r 6.2 Potential Long -Term Operations Impacts Regional Operational Emissions The long-term operational emissions associated with impacts of the proposed project found that the proposed land use of interim public open space for the project site would not produce any measurable amounts of air emissions. In addition, it was found that the removal of residences from the project site would not significantly increase the current mobile home resident's total vehicle miles traveled for their work commutes even though where the people relocate is unknown. Therefore, no significant impact would occur from the long-term emissions as a result in the change in vehicle miles traveled to work from the project's existing residents of the mobile home park. 6.3 Consistency with the SCAQMD AQMP The proposed project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards. In addition, the proposed project does not propose any trip generating land uses that are inconsistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Plan or a land use that generates considerable air pollutant emissions. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in an inconsistency with the SCAQMD AQMP. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 12 i City of Newport Beach l_. 7.0 REFERENCES City of Newport Beach, Draft General Plan, 2005. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment Major New Source Review Implementation Under 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Reconsideration, June 30, 2005. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7t' Edition, 2003. Giroux Associates, Air Quality Impact Analysis Marina Park Resort (Newport Beach Hotel), April 15, 2004. Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., The Marinapark Mobile Home Park Relocation Impact Report, January 2006. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, August 1, 2003. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Page 13 City of Newport Beach APPENDIX A URBEMIS2002 PRINTOUTS Marinapark Mobile Home Park Change of Use Air Quality Analysis Appendix A City of Newport Beach Page: 2 02/05/2006 2:39 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Greg\My Documents\Vista Environmental\060102 - Newport\Air Project Name: Marinapark Mobile Home Park Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: September, 2006 Construction Duration: 1 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 0 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0 acres Single Family Units: 0 Multi -Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) Source ROG *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 7.73 On -Road Diesel 2.00 Worker Trips 0.06 Maximum lbs/day 9.79 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 Max lbs/day all phases 9.79 PM10 PM10 PM10 NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST - - - 10.14 - 10.14 59.28 56.94 - 2.66 2.66 0.00 36.27 7.45 0.65 1.03 0.86 0.17 0.10 1.84 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 95.65 66.23 0.65 13.84 3.52 10.32 - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.65 66.23 0.65 13.84 3.52 10.32 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Sep '06 Phase 1 Duration: 1 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 531360 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 24150 On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 1564.5 Off -Road Equipment No. Type 1 Other Equipment 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes Phase Turned OFF Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 190 0.620 8.0 352 0.590 8.0 165 0.465 8.0 79 0.465 8.0 fI Page: 1 02/05/2006 2:35 PM i -.• URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 ale Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Greg\My Documents\Vista Environmental\060102 - Newport\Air Qua Project Name: Marinapark Mobile Home Park Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ' PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2006 *** ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) i 9.79 95.65 66.23 0.65 13.84 3.52 10.32 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES i ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.12 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES P ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 i TOTALS (lbs/day,unmi.tigated) 0.09 0.05 0.54 0.00 0.04 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.22 0.06 1.32 0.00 0.05 Page: 3 02/05/2006 2:39 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 35 Changes made to the default values for Area Changes made to the default values for Operations MARINA PARK RELOCATION REPORT RESPONSE (HEARING DATE: MARCH 14, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M.) PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF: THE MARINA PARK RESIDENTS AND HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION I INTRODUCTION The residents of Marina Park Mobile Home Park and the Marina Park Homeowners Association ( "Residents ") respectfully submit the following in response to the Relocation Impact Report prepared by Overland Pacific & Cutler, Inc Park Mobile Home Park's closure ( "the Report ") regarding Marina It is requested that this document and attachments be included in the official record of the public hearing on the sufficiency of the Report to be heard on March 14, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of Newport Beach. The Residents object to the Report and specifically request that the City Council not approve the sufficiency of the Report because of the following reasons: 1. The Report violates California law; 2. The Report's authors in an almost identical report for the City of Vista, California used an entirely different methodology (consistent with California Law) to provide adequate benefits; 3. The Report is inconsistent with (indeed ignores) the City of Newport Beach Ordinance on Mobile Home Park closure reports; 4. The Report does not adequately address the reasonable cost of relocation faced by the Residents; -1- 0 5. The Report concedes that no relocation sites are available for Residents yet ignores that fact in merely providing for transportation costs to non - existent sites for each Residents home; 6. The Report authors were instructed by the City of Newport Beach to use an improper methodology to prepare the Report against the authors of the Report's past practices and preference; 7. The Report ignores the application of the California Uniform Relocation Assistance Act; 8. The Report ignores the actual financial impact on the Residents from this closure; and 9. The Report assumes (contrary to fact) that the City of Newport Beach is a private entity proposing the closure. Each of these items is discussed in full below. In addition, the Residents have included a brief description of what the impact will be on each of them from this closure. (Attached as Exhibit "1" is a Summary of Residents' Statements) A review of this material can lead to only one conclusion: the Report is inadequate and inconsistent with state law, local law, and the author of the Report's prior methodology in preparing an identical report for another public agency. -2- 0 II SUMMARY OF OVERLAND PACIFIC REPORT INFIRMITIES A mere summary of the Report illustrates its infirmities. The Report at page 21 states: "in case of a private closure of a mobile home park, the terms of Civil Code Section 65863.7 limit any financial mitigation to the `reasonable cost of relocation' which are those physical and related costs and assistance necessary for the move of the mobile home." There are four problems with that sentence: 1) there is no such thing as a Civil Code Section 65863.7; 2) the definition adopted by the Report ignores Newport Beach's own ordinance on the subject (Attached as Exhibit 112" is the Newport Beach Ordinance covering required elements of a Resident Impact Report) to determine a contrary interpretation; 3) The City of Newport Beach is not a "private party- - it is a public entity;; and 4) the neighboring Ordinance of Huntington Beach and many other cities are at odds with the Report's interpretation of California Law, even assuming that Newport Beach was a private entity. (Attached as Exhibit "3" is Huntington Beach Ordinance defining "reasonable cost of relocation" under state law to include compensation for the in place value if a home cannot be physically relocated.) The Report also states on page 16 that: "without taking into account the lease provisions providing for the payment of below market rent in exchange for relocation assistance and other -3- 0 0 assistance, for purposes of this report, the authors believe that "reasonable costs of relocation" refers to the physical costs of disassembly, moving and reassembly of mobile homes and related out of pocket expenses....." The problems with this are twofold: 1) the City acknowledged that the waiver requirement was against public policy and void by removing it in later leases; and 2) these very same authors in a mobile home park closure impact report for the city of Vista, California in November of 2003 applied a completely different interpretation to "reasonable costs of relocation." (Attached as Exhibit "4" is the Overland Pacific Report prepared for the City of Vista in November of 2003 when Vista (who also owned and operated a mobilehome park) sought to close the park and change its use to an interim open space use pending redevelopment. That report and its complete divergence from the purported "authors belief" here is explained in detail below. In a nutshell, Residents will be able to show that this Report for the City of Newport Beach is NOT based upon the "authors belief" but rather a direction from the City of Newport Beach staff. The Report acknowledges the following facts: 1) "finding available space, particularly for the older coaches, will be a challenge;" (Report at page 17); 2) Of the 33 mobilehome parks surveyed in Orange County, virtually none have space available to accept the Residents homes; (Report at pages 11 -14); 3) eleven of -4- • • the homes are "fundamentally unmovable because of the addition of conventional construction improvements;" (Report at page 17); and 4) cost estimates were obtained between 2000 and 2004 which were: "cautioned that the price estimates [to physically relocate] could not be guaranteed to be sufficient...." (Report at page 17) . Remarkably, this Report opines that the "reasonable cost of relocation" which fully "mitigates any adverse impact of the conversion" consists of the following: 1) a payment based upon a non - guaranteed 2- to 6 -year old estimate to move each home; and 2) an assumption that homes that are not movable and have no where to go can somehow be miraculously relocated. What sense does it make to pay someone an amount based upon an old, non- guaranteed estimate, to move something that is admittedly not moveable? Indeed, the $20,000 to $23,000 cost estimates to move these homes are not guaranteed for a good reason: the estimates are totally inadequate. Resident Herb Williams sought an estimate to move his home (assuming there is somewhere for it to go) from a company named Advantage Homes in Huntington Beach. He is awaiting a formal guaranteed estimate, but was told that it would be between $50,000 and $150,000 to move the home. His home is typical of the homes in the Park. -5- III THE REPORT IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE LAW This closure is being processed by the City of Newport Beach. The Report ignores that fact and ignores the Newport Beach Ordinance on mobile home park closures. As a result, the Report violates basic state relocation laws applicable to public entities and the local ordinance. It should therefore be rejected. A. The Report Fails to Follow the Uniform Relocation Act The California Relocation Assistance Act (Gov. Code Section 7260 et. seq.) states that any time a "public entity" conducts "any displacing activity" which causes a person "to move from real property or move his or her personal property from real property" that agency must comply with the Relocation Assistance Act guidelines. Gov. Code §7260. Public Entity is defined to include a city. ibid. In the case of Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of Oakland (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 987, the Court held that serving of eviction notices was a "displacing activity" entitling the tenant to benefits under the Relocation Act. Indeed, the City of Newport Beach adopted a resolution on August 12, 1996 to implement the relocation benefits and guidelines of Government Code Section 7260 et. seq. Yet, the Report does not even mention these guidelines. In P 0 The Report purports to attribute its failure to use the Section 7260 guidelines on the "authors" view of relocation benefits in this situation. That is provably false. In late 2003, Overland Pacific prepared a relocation report for the City of Vista in an identical situation. The City of Vista owned and operated a park for years at purportedly below market rents. The City sought to close the park to accommodate an interim vacant use while looking at redevelopment possibilities. These same authors (Overland Pacific) in the Relocation Report for the City of Vista took a completely different approach: Their Report for Vista states: "Approval of the change of use would result in the permanent relocation of the 36 households in occupancy of the Park. This possibility triggers statutory planning, reporting and advisory requirements pursuant to the Vista Municipal Code, California Government Code Section 65863.7, the Mobile Home Residency Law, the California Relocation Assistance Law and the Relocation Guidelines..." See Exhibit "4" at page 1. Here, these same authors, ignored this methodology. Not only did they not mention or apply the California Relocation Assistance Act, they also failed to consider Newport Beach's own Ordinance on closure report requirements for Mobile Home Park Closures in Newport Beach. -7- Ll 0 The report prepared by these vary same authors for the City of Vista included an estimate of approximately $1,119,793 in relocation benefits for 14 residents who owned their homes and 22 residents who rented both their home and space. See Exhibit 114" at page 26. This was comprised of approximately $60,000 to $70,000 for residents who owned their home and approximately $12,000.00 for non - owners for pure rental assistance. These same authors found in Vista, as they do in this Report, that the homes are not moveable to comparable locations due to age and difficulties in moving the homes. As a result, the "last resort housing payment" under Government Code Section 7264.5 and Title 25 Section 6120 et. seq. was triggered. If Overland Pacific were to apply the same standard here as it did in Vista, the relocation amounts it is proposing here would pail in comparison. Residents are informed and believe that Overland Pacific did prepare such a report in an earlier draft and it was rejected by City of Newport Beach staff. Residents request that the earlier draft of the Report be made part of the administrative record for this hearing. B. The Report Fails to Apply the City's Own Ordinance on Closure The authors of the Report fail to even mention the City of Newport Beach Ordinance on required elements for a mobilehome park closure report. It is beyond belief that the authors of the Report apply merely "their view" of what reasonable costs of 0 0 relocation consist of when the City of Newport Beach has an Ordinance on the subject. It is more unbelievable given that the same authors looked to the City of Vista Ordinance for guidance and application when it prepared a report for the City of Vista under identical circumstances. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.51.060 lists the requirements for a mobilehome park "phase out plan" to close a mobilehome park as follows: A phase -out plan shall not be found to be acceptable unless it includes: 1) a time schedule and method by which existing mobilehomes, cabanas, ramadas and other substantial improvements and tenants, are to be relocated or appropriately compensated; 2) methods of mitigating the housing impacts on tenants having low and moderate incomes, elderly tenants and tenants who are handicapped; 3) the programs or other means that are to be implemented such that the housing impacts on those described in 2), above, are mitigated. For purposes of this provision, "low and moderate incomes" shall be defined in accordance with the provisions of the "Housing Element of the City of Newport Beach." (Adopted by Ord. 1894; . February 11, 1982). (Ord. 97 -09 Exh. A. (part), 1977) Marina Park has fulfilled a basic low cost housing component for the City of Newport Beach for decades. Attached as exhibit "1" is a summary of the Residents age, disabilities, value of improvements and financial impact of this closure. The Report by failing to acknowledge the City's own Ordinance, fails to address the City's own requirements for such 0 0 0 a report. As a result, the Report fails to do the following: 1) it does not provide a method by which the homes, cabanas, ramadas and other substantial improvements and tenants are to be relocated; 2) if not relocatable, the Report does not address otherwise "appropriate" compensation for the above items (indeed the Report does not even address the tenant improvements to the homes and sites); 3) it does not address methods for addressing the housing needs and impact on elderly, low or moderate income tenants, or tenants with disabilities. This park is full of residents who are on low and moderate incomes, are elderly, and /or have disabilities. It is also full of residents who have expended great sums in improvements that are not relocatable. The Report must address these issues to be in compliance with the City's own law and the Report author's prior methodology. A sample of the people who will be impacted from the City's failure to follow its own law are as follows: 1. Irwin Albert is 77 and will not be able to afford a place to live when the park closes. 2. John and Barbara Chase have special relocation needs due to their handicapped daughter. 3. Ruth Ann Cowan is 71 years old and will not be able to afford comparable housing when the park closes. 4. Carole and Ed Crawford are 71 and 65 years old. They will not be able to afford to purchase replacement housing should -10- 0 the park close. 0 5. Ed and Joy Dillon are 69 with a disabled adult son living with them. They cannot afford replacement housing to move themselves and their son to in the event the park closes. 6. Ruth and Marshall Goldberg are 81 years old and face the total loss of their investment in their home. 7. Ben Harris is 72 years old and will lose in excess of $50,000 from this park closure. 8. Velda Kunnel and ValJean Wood are 84 and 86. They estimate their financial loss to be in excess of $100,000 from this closure. 9. Jim and Joanne McPherson are 69 and 65 years old. This closure will wipe out their equity in their home. 10. John and Dede Nicholson are 73 and 63. They are retired and cannot afford to purchase a replacement home when the park closes. 11. Marilyn Pettett is 68 years old. She has acute medical needs and needs to be relocated near her doctor and specialists. She recently put in exterior improvements including a new porch and rose garden. Moving will have a significant impact on her. 12. Pat Seymour is 71 years old. She put $71,000 in improvements into her home. She will lose that investment totally when the park closes. 13. Beverly Shonholtz is 84 years old. She lives alone and -11- is on a fixed low /moderate income. She will not be able to relocate without substantial assistance. 14. Carl Spaulding is 85 years old. He will be wiped out of his equity in his home from a closure. He will lose approximately $100,000. 15. Fran Spira is 83 years old and handicapped. She just finished having her home retrofitted so that she can live with her disabilities in the home. She cannot relocate without substantial assistance. 16. Virginia and Sellers Stough are 78 and 83. They have no place to go if the park closes. They lack resources to find replacement housing. 17. Howell and Dorothy Tyson are 78 and 79. 18. John and Alcinda Westergart are 86 and 88. 19. Herbert and Ethel Williams are 82 and 79 years old. They need to be relocated near hospitals and doctors for health reasons. 20. Shirley Williams is 80 years old. The impact of closure on her will be devastating. She does not have resources to find comparable housing. 21. Val Jean Wood is 84 years old. She is on a fixed low /moderate income and emotionally distressed by the closure. She has a broken hip, collar bone and pelvis. She is handicapped /disabled and needs to live near a hospital and in a -12- 0 0 location that accommodates her walker. 22. Shirley Arons is 76 years old. She is on a fixed limited income and cannot afford to buy replacement housing is disabled and cannot walk. She needs to be near a dialysis center. (Attached as Exhibit "1" is a full list of the resident impact summaries) IV THE REPORT GROSSLY COSTS OF RELOCATION The Report's monetary calculation for relocation costs is She based solely upon one company's purported estimate. Again, the company who provided the estimate apparently did a simple drive- by or drive through the park between 2000 and 2004 and did not give actual guaranteed estimates. To the contrary, the Report expressly states that the numbers estimated cannot be guaranteed and should therefore not be relied upon. Nevertheless, the Report does blindly rely upon these fictional numbers. The Residents consulted a company called Advantage Homes in Huntington Beach to get guaranteed estimates to relocate their homes. The numbers quoted are at complete odds with the numbers (non - guaranteed) obtained in the past from Overland. Attached as exhibit "5" is the outline of costs needed to relocate the Residents' homes). In a nutshell, to properly relocate the Residents' homes, -13- the following items and costs are confronted: 1. One must find a space to move the home. The Report admits that there are no vacant spaces. Therefore, the first cost is to go out and buy access to a space to move the home. This ranges between $35,000 and $150,000 in Orange County. 2. The space to which the home is going to be moved needs to be prepared to accept the home. That costs about $10,000- $15,000. 3. The Residents' homes need to be prepared for transport which includes making the home road worthy. That costs about $10,000 depending upon age and condition of the homes. 4. The Residents' homes need to be moved to the new location. That costs $1200 per section. 5. The Residents' homes need to be installed at the new location. That costs about $9500. 6. The landscaping, hard scape, porches, awnings, skirting etc... needs to be reestablished. The cost for this alone exceeds $20,000. Based upon exhibit "5" costs, the actual costs to relocate these homes (assuming they are relocatable) will be between $50,000 and $150,000. The "estimate" used by Overland Pacific is simply not accurate. Moreover, it does not reflect a "reasonable" estimate of relocation costs. An estimate that is not guaranteed and expressly conditioned upon the warning of not -14- 0 being adequate is certainly not reasonable. A final problem with the Report is that it mandates that the elderly and infirm people described above be responsible for disposing of their homes to qualify for payment. That is truly adding insult to injury. The City is kicking these Residents out and causing them to lose all the equity in their homes. These Residents will be dealing with the trauma of losing their homes. At the same time, they are going to have to negotiate individually with hauling companies to dispose of their homes. It is routinely the practice in these cases that the park owner deal with disposition. A park owner can usually obtain a volume discount and deal with the hauling companies more easily. Does the City really want hauling companies dealing with each of these elderly folks who just dealt with the loss of their homes? The potential for extortion is there. Most residents will have to pay the hauling companies to take their homes away. Most will expend a good portion of their "relocation benefits" to do so. This would be a disaster. V CONCLUSION The Report is inadequate for the reasons stated. It is requested that the Council continue this hearing to allow staff and overland Pacific to address the issues raised. The Residents simply want to be treated fairly and for the City to comply with 15 • • the law. Thank you for your consideration. Dated: 3 / 5! °S Respectfully Submitted, ;beh al, ge Kaelin, III, Esq. of the Residents -16- 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Shirley Arons is 76 years old, lives at space 1D, and has owned her mobilehome for 19 years. She values her mobilehome at $50,000, and has made improvements to her home as follows: New subfloor $5,000. New carpets 2,500. Upgraded cabinets 11000. New shower 2,000. New kitchen /bath floors 500. New front door 500. New porch and steps 2,500. Ms. Arons is retired, on a fixed income, and cannot afford to buy a new home. Her special needs regarding relocation are that she is disabled., cannot walk, and needs to be near a dialysis center. Ms. Arons does not believe her mobilehome is movable. She estimates her invested loss in her mobilehome to be $75,000 from this closure. EXHIBIT 1` MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Irwin Albert is 77 years old, lives at space 1C, and has owned his mobilehome since 1976. He values his mobilehome at $165,000, and has made improvements to his home as follows: Front and rear porches, new carpet Mr. Albert does not list an estimate of the financial impact the relocation will have on him, but states it will be a hardship on him since he does not know where to go where he will be able to afford a home. Mr. Albert does not believe his mobilehome is movable. He estimates his invested loss in his mobilehome to be $165,000 from this closure. 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY John and Barbara Chase are 82 and 80 years old respectively, live at space 11B, and have owned their mobilehome for 2 years, 8 months. They value their mobilehome $150,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Landscaping $500. New dishwasher 400. Plumbing 300. Doors 300. Painting 200. Electrical 100. The Chases estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be about $140,000, and state their special relocation needs are to move to.a similar, water - oriented location within a 10- mile radius of Central Costa Mesa to be near their institutionalized, handicapped daughter. The Chases do not believe their mobilehome is movable: They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $140,000 from this closure. • • MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Ruth Ann Cowan is 71 years old, lives at space 5C, and has owned her mobilehome for 30 years. She values her mobilehome at $100,000, and have made improvements to her home.as follows: Tiled bathrooms and kitchen Granite top in dining room Textured coating on walls Re -sided exterior of home Total cost $30,000. Ms. Cowan does not list an estimate of the financial impact. the relocation will have on her, but states she will not be able to purchase anything like Marinapark and she will have a different way of life if she has to move. Ms. Cowan does not believe her mobilehome is movable. She estimates her invested loss in her mobilehome to be $100,000 from this closure. • . • MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Carole and Ed Crawford are 71 and 65 years old respectively, live at space 8D, and have owned their mobilehome for 15 years. They value their mobilehome to be $100,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: New gutters New front awning New roof and painting $500. 2,450. 3,200. The Crawfords do not list an estimate of the financial impact the relocation will have on them, but state they do not have anywhere to move their home and do not have the money to purchase a condo. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $175,000 from this closure. MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Ed, Joy and Ken Dillon are 69, 69, and 42 years old respectively, live at space 4E, and have owned their mobilehome for 15 years. They value their mobilehome to be $75,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Roof, carpet, drapes, shed, appliances Total Cost $5,700. The Dillons estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be the loss of their home. Their special needs regarding location involve a disabled son. The Dillons do not believe their mobilehome is movable. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $80,000 from this closure. MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Ruth and Marshall Goldberg are 61 years old, live at space 6A, and have owned their mobilehome for 25 years. They value their mobilehome at $75,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Added dinning -room, space in bathroom and bedroom, new bathroom The Goldbergs do not believe their mobilehome is movable. Closure will destroy the value of their home. MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Ben Harris is 72 years old, lives at space 6B, and has owned his mobilehome for 3 years. He values His mobilehome at $50,000, and has made no improvements to his home. He estimates his invested loss in his mobilehome to be $50,000 from this closure. 0 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Velda Kunnel and ValJean Wood are 84 and 86 years old respectively, live at space 7A, and have owned their mobilehome for 2 years. The value their mobilehome at $580,000 Their special needs regarding relocation are to be as close to Marinapark as possible. They do not believe their mobilehome is movable. E 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY John and DeDe Nickelson are 73 and 63 years old respectively, live at space 4C, and have owned their mobilehome for 16 years. They value their mobilehome at $175,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Replaced /rebuilt front porch Window awnings Replaced plumbing New flooring New water heater Replaced skirts Painted exterior of home Painted cupboards Replaced roof Total Cost $35,000. The Nickelsons would have to purchase a new mobilehome because they could not move theirs to a park comparable to Marinapark, and since he's retired and his wife is about to retire it would be difficult to purchase a new home. Their special needs regarding relocation are assistance in paying moving expenses, tear -down and removal of their present home. The Nickelsons do not believe their mobilehome is movable. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $200,000 from this closure. MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Marilyn_Pettett is 68 years old, lives at space 12C, and has owned her mobilehome for'3 years. She values her mobilehome at $250,000, and has made improvements to her home as follows: New sewer line Painted exterior and interior Carpeted porch New fan light in master bedroom New bathroom plumbing and accessories New laundry room valve Ms. Pettett states she does not drive on the freeways and needs to be close to her doctor, specialists, children and her bank. She would need her home moved, hooked up, front porch built., new rose garden planted, her belongings (including heirloom art) moved and stored. She cannot move anything heavy and would need a place to stay while the move takes place. • • MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Pat Seymour is 71 years old, lives at space 9A, and has owned her mobilehome for 16 years. She has made improvements to her home as follows: Kitchen remodel, including appliances, flooring, cabinetry Bathroom and laundry room remodel Replace shelving, windows, mirrors, miniblinds, carpets Exterior siding, railing, roof coating Paint interior Replace back door and weatherstripping Replace smoke detectors, doorbell, electrical outlets Remodel back shed, fountain, malibu, electrical timer Miscellaneous Total costs $71,000. Ms. Seymour states she would not be able to afford another place as safe and beautiful as Marinapark. She would need help packing and moving everything in her home. Ms. Seymour does not believe her mobilehome is movable. MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Beverley Shonholtz is 84 years old, lives at space 5A, and has owned her mobilehome since 1975. She values her mobilehome at $100,000, and has made improvements to her home as follows: Remodeling $11,255.00 Installed closets 3,605.00 Plumbing 345.50 900.00 Kitchen /floor /sink /dishwasher 372.36 239.00 291.50 477.00 268.30 933.05 Paint /gutters /outdoor carpet 1,200.00 915.25 misc. repairs 429.50 Roof repairs /gate 1,550.00 475.00 3,100.00 331.00 60.00 Level home 378.00 Mini blinds 436.39 Screens 107.17 Bathroom /kitchen cabinets 1,382.00 1,975.50 Tile /caulking /paint 305.00 dry rot /termite 2,216.50 Fans 450.00 Ms. Shonholtz estimates the relocation financial impact on her to be a loss of principal and on her fixed income she cannot replace her current living standard. Her special needs regarding relocation are her age, living alone, and not knowing where to .. 9 • Ms. Shonholtz does not believe her mobilehome is movable. She estimates her invested loss in her mobilehome to be $200,000 from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Carl Spaulding is 85 years old, lives at space 9E, and has owned his mobilehome for 45 years. He values his mobilehome at $100,000. Mr. Spaulding describes the relocation financial impact on him to be the loss of the home that is the residence of his son Timothy Spaulding. He does not list any special needs regarding relocation. Mr. Spaulding does not believe his mobilehome is movable. He estimates his invested loss.in his mobilehome to be $100,000 from this closure. i • MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Fran Spira is 83 years old, lives at space 11A, and has owned her mobilehome for 2+ years. She values her mobilehome at $250,000 +, and has made the following improvements to her home: Painted interior and exterior New dishwasher, washing machine, dryer, water heater Replaced molding and water system New roof New windows and some new doors Stair handles, foot lights, stair mats Ms. Spira estimates the relocation financial impact on her to be a hardship, since she has several handicaps issues and rebuilt her home for her convenience. Her special needs regarding relocation are her age, health, care and maintenance; she has several handicap issues. Ms. Spira does not believe her mobilehome is movable. She estimates her invested loss in her mobilehome to be 100% from this closure. • • MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Virginia and Sellers. Stough are 78 and 83 years old respectively, live at space 3C, and have owned their mobilehome for 4 years. They value their mobilehome at $80,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: New front and side entrances New washer, dryer and several other appliances Total cost $5,000. The Stoughs state that they purchased their home because of the location and beautiful views, that they do not have the resources to search for a new home and would not know where to look for a comparable replacement. They estimate their invested loss in his mobilehome to be $60,000 from this closure. • i MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Howell and Dorothy Tyson are 78 and 79 years old respectively, live at space 6C. The Tysons estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be about $500,000, in order to find a home with comparable location and views and amenities. Their special relocation needs are to move to a park the equivalent of Marinapark, have the city pay for any move and installation costs, or, if no park can be found to move their home to, assistance must be provided to purchase a home in a park. i • MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY John and Alcinda Westergart are 86 and 88 years old respectively, live at space 10C, and have owned their mobilehome since 1971. They value their mobilehome at $40,000, and has made improvements to their home as follows: painted in 2005.. The Westergarts do not believe their mobilehome is movable. They do not know their invested loss in their mobilehome. • MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Herbert and Ethel Williams are 82 and 79 years old respectively, live at space 7B, and have owned their mobilehome for 47 years. They value their mobilehome at $125,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Brick steps, porch, fireplace and plant runners Canvas awnings Outside storage closets Workbench Malibu lights Total spent years ago $15,000. Estimate cost today to be: $25,000. The Williams estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be difficult because they will have to purchase another mobilehome close to Newport because they cannot find a park that will accept older homes. Their special needs regarding location are to be in close proximity to hospitals, their doctors and their friends. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $125,000 without a lease, and $250,000 with a lease from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Shirley Wolman is 80 years old, lives at space 5B, and has owned her mobilehome since the 1970s. She values hers mobilehome at $150,000, and has made improvements to her home as follows: Bathroom toilet $ 348.00 Dishwasher 400.00 Converted laundry room with cabinets 2,500.00 New roof 3,205.00 Ms. Wolman estimates the relocation financial impact on her to be "devasting," since she does not have the resources. to secure comparable housing. Ms. Wolman does not believe her mobilehome is movable. She estimates her invested loss in his mobilehome to be $75,000 from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Val -Jean Wood is 84 years old, lives at space 8B, and has owned her mobilehome for 30 years. Ms. Wood does not list an estimate of the financial impact the relocation will have on her, but states she is on a fixed income and is emotionally distressed. Ms. Wood's special needs regarding relocation are that she has a broken hip, collar bone and pelvis, and has her nephew and sister living with her to give her care. She will require to live near hospitals and medical centers, markets that deliver food, a place with no stairs, areas to walk with her walker, and a 3- bedroom, 2 bath residence with parking for 3 vehicles. Ms. Wood believe her mobilehome is movable, but there is no place to move it to. She estimates her invested loss in her mobilehome to be $580,000 from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Peter Balov is 46 years old, lives at space 10A, and has owned his mobilehome for 6 years. He values his mobilehome at $200,000, and has made improvements to his home as follows: Gutter and completed remodel of interior of home $50,000. Mr. Balov estimates the financial impact of the.relocation on him will be $400,000, plus $1,500 per month for land lease. Mr. Balov does not believe his mobilehome is movable. He estimates his invested loss in his mobilehome to be $95,000 from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Frank and Kathy Bonelli are 48 and 46 years old respectively, live at space 1B, and have owned their mobilehome for 2 months. They value their mobilehome to be $169,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Drywall pretexturing, replace windows; new baseboards, casings, cabinets, counters, electrical fixtures, appliances Complete re -paint Flooring Total Cost $34,000 The Bonellis estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be significant. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $90,000 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Finn, Holly, Paige,.Carly and Molly Comer are 44, 41, 12, 10, and 2 years old respectively, live at space 10E, and have owned their mobilehome for 2 years. They value their mobilehome to be $100,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Repaint exterior and interior New flooring, new carpet Re- carpet decks New appliances New toilets Total cost $20,000.+ The Comers estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be $400,000 to $500,000. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $80,000 from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Patti and Doug Kunnel are 50 and 48 years old respectively, live at space 7F, and have owned their mobilehome for 3 years. They value their mobilehome $175,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Deck $24,00.0. Shed 4,000. Exterior and interior paint 6,000. Concrete &'landscaping 3,500. Extermination /termite, dry rot repair 2,500. Carpet 2,800. Screens 1,200. Plumbing and electrical 1,800. Window coverings 1,200. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $40,000+ from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Jim and JoAnn McPherson are 69 and 65 years old respectively, live at space 8A, and have owned their mobilehome for 5 years. They value.their mobilehome at $150,000. The McPhersons estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be difficult to replace like- for -like, both their home and the location. The McPhersons do not believe their mobilehome is movable. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $150,000 from this closure. r1 U MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY John and Jackie Rettberg are 68 years old, live at space 2B, and have owned their mobilehome for 10 years. They value their mobilehome at $125,000 with current lease structure, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Complete refurbishment upon move -in $35,000. New roof 2,000. New furnace and water heater 3,500. Miscellaneous 2,000. The Rettbergs estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be approximately $100,000 to purchase a new mobilehome, and that rents will be higher due to longer lease period. They want a location similar to Marinapark. The Rettbergs do not believe their.mobilehome is movable. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $215,000 from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Tom and Debbie Telliard are 51 and 50 years old respectively, live at space 11C, and have owned their mobilehome for 3 years. They value their mobilehome at $175,000, and have made the following improvements to their home: New subfloor, tile and carpet $8,600 New bathroom tile showers and 4,300 toilets New fau unit 4,800 Brick. deck and porch 2,700 Total $20,400 The Telliards estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be devasting, and their special needs regarding relocation are to relocate to a similar climate for health reasons. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $175,000 - $185,000 from this closure. 0 0 MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Don and Karen Whitaker are 60 years old, live at space 4A, and have owned their mobilehome for 3 years. They value their mobilehome at $90,000 - $100,000, and have made improvements to their home as follows: Pergo floors 4 Fans New carpet, paint, and ceilings New roof New water heater Total improvements $25,000. The Whitakers estimate the relocation financial impact on them to be difficult since they will have to leave the area in order to purchase home. They would have to remove and dispose of their home. The Whitakers do not believe their mobilehome is movable. They estimate their invested loss in their mobilehome to be $90,000 from this closure. • • MARINAPARK RESIDENT IMPACT SUMMARY Dick Wilmot is 53 years old, lives at space 4B, and has owned his mobilehome for 6 months. He values his mobilehome at $90,000, and has made interior improvements to his home in the range of $1,500. Mr. Wilmot estimates the relocation financial impact on him to be $65,000. Mr. Wilmot does not believe his mobilehome is movable. 'He estimates his invested loss in his mobilehome to be $65,000 from this closure. 20.51.060 Removal of the Mobile Home Park Overlay District. 0 Title 20 PLANNING AND ZONING' Chapter 20.51 MHP MOBILE HOME PARK OVERLAY DISTRICT 20.51.060 Removal of the Mobile Home Park Overlay District. Cl Page 1 of 1 The City Council shall not approve a zoning amendment for any parcel, which amendment would have the effect of removing the MHP designation from that property, unless the following findings have been made: A. That the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan of the City and all elements thereof, and in the event that the proposed zoning is PC, that the planned community development plan has been submitted and is consistent with the General Plan and all elements thereof; B. That the property which is the subject of the zoning amendment would be more appropriately developed in accordance with uses permitted by the underlying zoning, or proposed zoning, and if the underlying zoning or proposed zoning is PC, that a planned community development plan has been submitted and the property would be more appropriately developed with the uses specified in that plan; C. That a mobile home park phaseout Plan has been prepar red-md-- nd to be acceptable phaseout plan shall not be found to be acceptable unless it includes: (1) -ari-m-e-s-c-5-e-d-ure-aritrmethod by which existing mobile homes, cabanas, ramadas and other substantial improvements and tenants, are to be relocated or appropriately compensated; (2) methods of mitigating the housing impacts on tenants having low and moderate incomes, elderly tenants and tenants who are handicapped; (3) the programs or other means that are to be implemented such that the housing impacts on those described in (2), above, are mitigated. For purposes of this provision, "low and moderate incomes" shall be defined in accordance with the provisions of the "Housing Element of the City of Newport Beach." (Adopted by Ord. 1894; February 11, 1982). (Ord. 97 -09 Exh. A (part), 1997) EXHIBIT 2 http: / /ordlink.com/ codes/ newportb /_DATA/TITLE20 /Chapter_20_51 _MHP_MOBILE_HO... 3/8/2006 2bbb 12:b4 bi J- 113-19121 MHKK15 LULLINS OR*ANCE NO. �b99� • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTTNOTON BEACH AMENDMG CHMrM 234 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDMSION ORDINANCE PERT&INT O TO MOSILSHOME PARK CONVERSIONS. The City Council of the City of Huntington $each hereby ardains follows. SECTION 1. Sectioti 234 -04 of the Huntington Beach Subdivision and Ordinance Codc is hereby amended to read as follows; 234A4 Definitions Words and phrasd whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined herein unless from the context a different meaning is intended and mote particularly directed to the use of such words and phrases, A. A unit that Is sold to and occupied by a low or moderate income household. Affordable tacit shall also meats a rental unit for which the monthly paytttent does not exceed 25 percent of the household's gross income for low income households or 30 perccrtt of the household's gloss income for moderate iacotne households. R- Atmii cant The person, firm, corporation, partnership; or other entity Mvingleaschold interest or fee ownersMp in tlxe operation of a inobildhorue park.' C. Change of use. Use of the park for a purpose other than the mrtfoi ar the iwb this out l:or rent of two or more mobilehome sites to aecoramodate mobilcbomes used for human habitation, and shall not mean the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a park rule or regulation. "Change t1.f use" may aftlrct an Satire park or any portion thereof, and such "changg of use" shall include, but is not limited to, .a change of a park or any portion thereof m a coadornini um, stock cooperative, planned unit development, commercial use, industrial use, or vacant land - D. r5ligible owner. Any mobilahome owner owning atnobilehome in a park at the time i)f issu:utce of the notice of intent to Change use. but shall not include any mobilehome owner who is ranting his unit to Another party at such time. E- Manufactured home. Shall meanthe same as Mobilehorme as used in this Chapter. F. �k to unit. A residential unit that is sold on the open market without constraints imposcd on the sales price, rental rate, or buyer qualifications. d- el one. A structure designed for human habitation and for being moved on asirect or highway under petit pursuant to the Califonua Vehicle Code Section 35790. MobLehome does not include a recreational vehicle, as defined itt the Caufa nla Civil Code Section 799 24, or a commercial coach, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 18216. o(dYY1vAM W¢J�xr 27+ QrW10rWQ4 EXHIBIT 3 ATTACHN= 4 �Y ol7 -!13 -G HHKKIS & GOLLINS• PAGE 21;31 pYQindtlC @. No. }bay H. Mobile ome bg C, An arcit of land where/ two or mors mobildwme sites are rented, or held out for rent, to accommodate rnobilehomes used for hurtm habitation. Mobilehome park shall not htclt)dc a rnobilehome subdivision of stock cooperative. t NMbilehome, M. Any area, woof land, site, lot, pad or portion of a trwbilehome pink designated or used for the occupancy of one mobilehome. J tUtice of intent . to ehaag. 2m. Notification as required by California Cjyil Code Section 796.56(g)(2). tsas -,voai [C. Jmior citizen t>rnit A residential unit which tneets the standards for an affordable unit which is situated In a project that is designed to accommodate senior citizens through special financing programer and/or modified developin art standardt. SECTION 2. Section, 234.06 of the Huntingron 6eaeh Subdivisions and Ordinance Code is ;rcby amended to read as follows: 234.06 Mitigation of Adverse Impacts and Reasonable Costs of Relocatioa- Relocation Aasistancc Tian: A. Consistent with Califorrre Govrstttttont Cote Section 65ao,7(e), the applicant shall tz&e Ste ppss to mitiglue the adverse impact of the conversion, clown or cessation of use on the abil(iy of displaced ttmobilehome park residents to find edequate housing in a mobilehome �atic. These required steps shall not exceed the reasoltabld cost of relocation as detailed ii1 1) below.. 1. $4 All eligible mobilehome owners shall be entitled to receive the Cost of re oeao0; . As in this saddoa, the tsesonable costs of relooationshall include the cost of tetoaating displaced homeowners' mobilehnttnufarbied home, acctmmries and Possession$ to. comparable mobile /manufactured hoists park within twwit7 (20) miles of its. existing location, including costs of disassembly, removal, trtrtspoitadon, and iostallatton of the mohile/manulUctured home and accessories at the new site, and r1tplacen=9 or reconsttttotioft of blocks, skirting, siding, porches, decks, avmi 43 or earthqutlke bracing if necessitated by the xelo=don; reasonable living expenses of displaced park residents froro,the date of actual displacccuent until the dateof occupancy at the new site; payment of any security deposit required at the new sire:; and dic dzfferance betweeA the rent paid is the exist wag ark and any higher front at the new site for the fast twelve (12) mouths of the reloca tenancy. 2. Icho= Ptmhase. if the mobilehoMq cannot be relocated to a comparable moisiWmanttfactured home park within twenty (20) miles of its existing location, and the homeowner has elected to sell his or her Mobilalmauufactured home, the reasonable costs of relocation shall include the cost of purchasing the mobile /manufaetltred /same of a displaced 1lointowtser, laWUding any Optional egWPMCt%t and/or tag- mloags and expando toortu at its In -place vn[ue. Such value shalt be determined after consideration of relevant factors, including the value of the mobilclrnanufactured home is its current location, assuming the continuation ofthn mobilahnanufketured borne park in a side, sanitary and well main taitud condition and not considering the effect of the chai4;e of use on the value of the mobile/manufactured home, but at no ti[>.te shall the value of the mobileimanuf tatured home be less than the replacement cost of new home of scnllat size and square footage. AAA/ trig" r'4 CWRY30161 2 b211l V2UUb 12: b4 b1`J- /1J -b/21 F'1HKK1D 4 � "- Urainance riC. 3b35 B. Extensions of tune, In park relocation I. The applicant may grant one (1) six -month extension to the lengthof time given J to the mohilehome owners in the notice of intent to change use by notifying the mobilehome owners of such extension at least four (4) months prior to the ditto / specifled in such notice. The extenslon shalt be granted for no morn and no k$5 than six (6) months. 2, An applicant may, with the consent of the mobiiahome owner, nansfer a mobilehome unit to another apace in the park. Such transfer shall not constitute permanent relocation, and the cost of all such moves shall be borne by the applicant Including reasonable living expenses of the residents from the date of actual displacement until the date of occupancy et the new site, All damages to the home Incurred during the relocation sha1T be immediately repaired or replaced by ru applicant. C. In or icr to facilitate the intentions of the mobilchome owners and an applicant for a change of t:se with regard to a change of use, the parties say agree to mutually satisPutory relocation assistance_ To be valid, such an agreement shall be in writing, shall include a provision stating that the trttibilohome owner is await: of the provisions of this chapter, steal I include a copy of this chapter as an atitschment. shall include a provision in at•lewt ten -point type which clearly states the Hgbt to seek and the importance of obtaining att adormy's advict,prior to signing the agreemept, seed shall be dmftcftd in form and content otherw se required by applicable state law. No mobitehotrea owner signing a relocation assistance agreement provided for In this subsection may contest the adequacy of the conversion impact report at the hearing on 'such report Any mobilebonte owper signing such an - agrcrment may rescind h in wtidng wtibUt ten days: o fsigsuing it. Any sgch agrcement which is procured by fYaua, rnjsreprosentation, Coercion or duress, of any kind, shall be void and unenforceable. D. No betrei'its shall be provided to any person who is renting, a mobilehome Rota the park otvnur (who owns the mobilcitcae) where such tenant shall have executed a written agreement vAth such park owner waivitng his or her rights to any such bcnefits. No sumh waiver shall be valid; unless it aonmins the text of this section, and unless such tenant shall have executed a wrimen aeinowledgmeat that he or she has read and understands his or her rights pursuant to this cttepter and knowingly aSrcos to waive them E. No waiver by an alig:ble mobilehome owner of erty of hislher rights pursuant to this ssxtion shall be valid or cffeotive far any purpose except with regard to arelocation assistance agreetnont as provided in subsection C of this section, F. Alternative Housing, If the mabilehome owner cannot be relocated in accordance with the procedures contained herein, the applicant has the option of making available suitable., and acceptable, alternative housing, together with compensation, to such tmobilehonm owncr. Where alternative housing is proposed, tt shall be available i n the following categories: OtM4run1nr/dWP A14 o,d/10=104 .- ��u� ic. .�-r oi�- ll� -urc• HAKKIS & UULLIM, FACE 1, Sanior citizen housing; Z. Affordable hot>.airC and 3. Market rate housing. G. Coq]vetlaation &pMts. Aplxeis from the amount of compensation to be given a mobilehome owner shall be filed with the applicant within thirty (30) days after the mobilehome owner has notice of the amount he/she is to receive. Tice applicant shall acknowledge any appeal within (30) days, and if an agreement cannot be reached, the matter strati be referred to a pro 'octal arbitrator. H. c b. The mobilehgme owners shalt receive writtca Guarantee of fim -riAt• of-refusal to purchase units if the developruent which replaces the mobileborne park is• to be tesidetitial in whole or in part. Wisceilarneons That the applicant has complied with all applicable city ordinances and state regulations In effect at the time the relocation assistance plan was approved_ That the applicant has complied with the conditions of approval, including the following items: Mobiiehom owners will not be forced to relocate prior to the and of their leaxte. 2. Wbilehome owners have been given the right to terminam their leases upon approval of the relocation assistance plan. 3. Demolition or construction will not occur until the relocation tissism&c plan is approved and the bighteen (16) month notification period has expired. SUCTION 3. section 234.09 is hereby added to Chapter 234 of the Huntingion Beach Subdivision and- Ordinance Code, slid section to read as follows- 234.09 Application for Exemption froth Relocation Assistance Obligetloss, A. Any persop who files an application far change of use of esobilehome park may, simultaneous with smh application, file an application for total or partial exemption from the obligation to provide relocation assistance_ 3. if such application is filed. notice of such application, with the information contained therein, and distribution thereof to the owners and residents of the mob{lehorne park shill be provided with the application for chaags of use. C. Any such application shall state that it is made on either of both of the following bases: That provision ivr relocation wniawco would eliminate substantially all reasonable use or economic value of the property; Such basis may only be established If it is demonstrated that the Imposition of such obligations would eliminate the remmitabie use at economic value of ilia pmperty for alternate uses, and that continued use of . the property as it mobllebome pant would eliminate substantially all reasonable use aaN+Yrxttn�ma�• SSa urirlo2[✓04 HARRIS & COLLIN• PAGE 24,121 • Q�d1naACB tio. 36aq or ecotaomic value of the property for reasons not caused or contributed by the park owner cr applicant. 'that a cowl of competent Jurisdiction has determined in connection with a proceeding in bankruptcy that the close m or cessation of use of said property as a amobilehoma panic is necessary, and that such court has taken blather action which would prohibit or preclude pays mt. of rel?! "U n assistance benefits, in whole or in Pazt D. Any such application made pursuant to subsection (cXI) shall contain, at a minimum, dre following information: Statements of profit acid loss from the operations of the moblichorne for the most 'recent five -yes period of the -date of the application or request, certified by a certified public accowovL All such statements shall be maintained in confidence as purnitted by the California Public Records Act, 2. If the applicant contends that continued use of the property as a toobiiehomt park necessitates repairs or improvements or both, that are not the result of the park owner or appi(eaot's negligent failure to properly maintain said property, and that the tong thereof makes continuYtion of the park emcnoinically infeasible, a statement rmdc under penalty of perjury by a general contractor licensed as such pursuant to the laws of the State of California certifying that such contractor has thoroughly inspected the entire mobilabotrre pars[ that such contractor has desemnated that certain repairs and. im#roverncats must be mach to the park to maintain,thc park in a decent, safe and sanitary 000dition, and that those Certain repairs am not the resultoftha'park timer or applicant's, hegligennt fttiluie to properly maintain said property; the tttinitnum peribd•of U'Me in which such'im'piovements or repairs trust be made; an itamizcd statement of such iinproveraeats and repairs; and the estimated cost thereof of repairs and improvements, if arty; due to deferred i Wutaimce separately identified. The applicant shall. also submit a statement verified by a certified public accountant as to the u =c=ant increase is rental gates of mobileho" spaces within the park within' the ncxt five years ntcessary to pay for such np Jm or izaprovQnmab 4W are rot the result of the park owner or applicant's .negligent failure to properly maintain said property. t£ the director requires an analysis of the information submitted by the general contractor, the director may procure services of another such licensed general eo irtactor, to provide such written attalytis, and the cost thereof shell be billed to and paymeru therefor shall be required front the applicant. 3. The estimated total cost of relocation assistance which would otherwise be tegtlircd to the provided pursuant to this chapter, which shall be based upon d0emneAT6:L surveys, included wltb the application, of the available thoWelwtva spaces within twenty miles of the mobilehome park, residents of the park who are willing to relocate and those who would elect to sell, thdrmobilehomes, and the value of the mobilehomes in the park. 4. An estimate of the value of the mobllehome prick by a qualified real catate appraiser if the park were permitted to be developed for the change of use proposed in the OrWkm,),WdwV 1N o,0jl0r2M4 .1i Ii)LVUO 14. JV 01 ]'!1J -UlL1 flHRR1 -> �. vuLL11VJ rHum LJ�Ol • ordinances N�36e9 application for redevelopment of the park and aA c3dmate of the value of such park by such appraiser If use of the property as a mobilehome park is continued 3. Such other information whkh the applicant believes to be pertinent, or which may be Fequired by the director. E. Any such application filed pursuant to subsection (c)(2) shaU be accompanied by adequate documentation as to the title, case a=ber, and court in Which the baukmptcy proceeding was held, and copies of all pertinent judgtnettls, orders, and decrees of such court. SECTION a, This ordinance shall bmcome effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at r -gutar meeting thereof held oA the Nhh day of Nnyamber , 2004. aye ATTEST: City Clerk - md'04mmioVmv 174 of V10Q0104 4 PRAPARED.BY: Ci ¢ ttotney �aZa u zllel Luuo 1L:04 bl'y- /14 -✓JILl STATE OF CALTF'ORKIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH ) MHKK15 & UULLINb *rd. No. 3689 L JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly appointed, qualified City Clark of the City of Huntiagwn Bach, and cx- officio Clark of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of tnalbers of the City Council of the City of iiandnpm Beach is seven; that the foropiog ordinance was resod to said City Council at a rgular machine thwcofheld on lice 18Nr day AOetobert 2t)g and waa again read to said CI ty Council at a adimumd meding dwW rhekl on the 12 stew of NovX Mer, 2003, and was passed and adopted by the zMmadve vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City CouD;ril• AYES: • I sullivan. Har4y, Boardman, Cook, Winchell IJORS: Comper, Omen ABSENT: None . ABs'CA]N: None L Am 1. Vlynn, Crr Ct&a9r. of the Cky ofrimtioetms Such wdu-at&eio Clak or the Cky Co,44. do hereby [c+tify th »t a r^0Wc or Iris easomm h" Mee publldiod in ft thymk-qton ate& Rem1o6 V»etry Wdependast on R"U'vom ta, 100+. w I � r L' a » �+ MW / be- Cle& and ex- officio 9tEk ofthe City Council of the City ofHuatinptott Beach. California HAUL 'Lb; 'l a= • • RELOCATION PLAN AND PARK CONVERSION IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SYCAMORE CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK PROJECT PREPARED FOR CITY OF VISTA NOVEMBER, 2003 BY OVERLAND, PACIFIC S CUTLER, INC. 3170 4th Avenue, 2ntl Floor San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 688 -7980 W W W.OPCSERVICES.COM EXHIBIT 4 / �/ /y(� d DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 INTRODUCTION............................. ..............................1 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................... ............................... 3 A. THE REGIONAL LOCATION ........... ............................... 3 B. PROJECT SITE LOCATION ........... ............................... 4 C. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ....... ............................... 5 1. Population ..................... ..............................5 2. Ethnicity ...................... ..............................5 II. ASSESSMENT OF RELOCATION NEEDS ...... ............................... 6 A. PROJECT IMPACTS .................. ..............................6 11 B. SURVEY SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY . ............................... 6 C. SURVEY RESULTS ................... ..............................6 11 1. General ....................... ..............................6 2. Rental Rates for Owner - Occupants and Tenants ..................... 7 3. Occupancy /Overcrowding ........ ............................... 8 4. Replacement Housing Needs ...... ..............................8 13 5. Income ....................... ..............................9 13 6. Ethnicity/Language .............. .............................10 7. Disabled Households ............ .............................10 8. Preferred Relocation Areas ...... ............................... 10 III. RELOCATION RESOURCES ............... ............................... 11 A. RESOURCE SURVEY METHODS ...... ............................... 11 B. REPLACEMENT HOUSING AVAILABILITY .............................. 11 1. Mobile homes - For Sale ........ ............................... 11 2. Rental Housing ................. .............................12 3. Summary ..................... .............................12 C. RELATED ISSUES ................... .............................13 1. Concurrent Residential Displacement ............................. 13 2. Temporary Housing ...:....... ............................... 13 IV. THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM . ............................... 14 A. INTRODUCTION ..................... .............................14 B. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ADVISORY PROGRAM ..................... 14 C. RELOCATION BENEFITS ........... ............................... 17 1. Residential Moving Expense Payments ........................... 17 2. Rental Assistance To 90-Day Residential Tenants Who Re -Rent ........ 18 3. Down Payment Assistance To 90 -Day Tenants Who Choose to Purchase .......................... .............................19 4. Replacement Housing Payments to Owner - Occupants ................ 19 5. Payments To Non - Tenured Residential Tenants ..................... 21 D. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PAYMENT OF RELOCATION BENEFITS ...... 22 E. LAST RESORT HOUSING ............. .............................23 F. RELOCATION TAX CONSEQUENCES .. ............................... 23 7i dn/ t rj DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 V. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, PROJECT TIMING AND BUDGET ................. 24 A. APPEAL PROCEDURE .............. ............................... 24 B. EVICTION/TERMINATION POLICY ..... ............................... 24 C. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION .............. .............................25 D. PROJECTED DATE OF DISPLACEMENT .............................. 26 E. ESTIMATED PARK CLOSURE RELOCATION COSTS ..................... 26 VI. MOBILEHOME PARK CLOSURE REPORT ELEMENTS ......................... 27 A. THE VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE ........ ............................... 27 `�`� DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 Table 1: Year 2000 Decennial Census Data - Ethnicity . ............................... 5 Table 2: Distribution of Owners and Tenants ......... ............................... 7 Table 3: Monthly Rental Data ..................... ............................... 8 Table 4: Replacement Housing Needs .............. ............................... 9 Table 5: Park Resident Income Levels by HUD standards for San Diego County ............ 9 Table 6: Available For -Sale Mobile Home Units ..... ............................... 11 Table 7: Rental Housing Resources ............... ............................... 12 Table 8: Schedule of Fixed Moving Payments ....... ............................... 18 Table 9: Computation of Rental Assistance Payments (Example) ....................... 19 Table 10: Calculation of a Purchase Price Differential Amount ........................ 20 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A: Residential Interview Form EXHIBIT B: HUD Annual Median Income Limitations - County of San Diego EXHIBIT C: Residential Information Statement DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 Section 5. An explanation of how the project is consistent with the requirements of the Vista Municipal Code and the Government Code. This Plan is not a notice to vacate nor does it establish eligibility for relocation assistance. Occupants who move before being advised of their eligibility to receive relocation assistance benefits or fail to maintain their tenancy in good standing could jeopardize their right to claim relocation assistance benefits. 2 F �i G r DEC - 9 2093 ITEM 2 8 0 0 A. THE REGIONAL LOCATION The city of Vista is located in the County of San Diego, approximately 40 miles north of downtown San Diego, adjacent to State Route 78 and four miles west of U.S. Interstate 15 (See Figure 1: Regional Project Location) Figure 1: Regional Project Location DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 B. PROJECT SITE LOCATION The proposed Project site, located at 751 E. Vista Way, is bordered by Vale Terrace Drive to the north, Escondido Avenue to the southwest, and East Vista Way to the west. (See Figure 2: Project Site Location). Figure 2: Project Site Location m /0 il-� b OV DEC - 9 ton ITEM 2 8 0 C. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Population 0 The Year 2000 Decennial U.S. Census (the Census) indicated a total population of 5,922 within Census Tract No. 196.01 where the Park is located. The population for the City overall was 89,857. 2. Ethnicity According to the Census, the ethnic mix in the subject Census Tract was approximately 75.1 % 'White'; 11.9% 'Some Other Race'; 5.3% 'Two or More Races'; 3.5% 'Black or African American'; 2.1 %'Asian'; 1.3% 'American Indian and Alaska Native'; and 062 %'Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander'. A total of 1,403, or 23.7% of the Census Tract population, further identified themselves as 'Hispanic or Latino (of any race)'. Source: U. S. Census Bureau, April 2, 2001. (See Table 1., below.) Table yr 206 sus Da1tk Y. `5 meek INoi Project, CAT gomCoiunty Tract�9T>i01) POPULATION -2000 5,922 100% White 4,454 75.20% Some Other Race 702 11.90% Two or More Races 315 5.30% Black or African American 209 3.500/6 Asian 126 2.10% American Indian and Alaska Native 78 1.30% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 38 0.60% Hispanic or Latino of Any Race 1,403 23.70% 5 (( DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 B II. ASSESSMENT OF RELOCATION NEEDS A. PROJECT IMPACTS Closure of the Park will result in the permanent displacement of 36 households currently in occupancy at the Park. Among these 36 households, 14 own the mobile home in which they reside and pay space rent and 22 are tenants who pay a monthly rental fee but have no ownership interest in their residence. The Park contains a mix of seniors and families with an average occupancy of slightly more than 10 years per household. B. SURVEY SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY To obtain information necessary for the preparation of this Plan, personal interviews were conducted with all available Park residents. In those circumstances where personal interviews could not be obtained, information was obtained from residents by phone. Additional information concerning residents was obtained from the mobile home park management and City staff. The survey process lasted generally from September through the end of October, 2002. Periodic updates have been made to the tenant profile to reflect changes since the original round of interviews. Inquiries made of residents included, but were not limited to, household size and composition, age, income, rental information, mobile home particulars, length and type of occupancy, disabilities/health problems, if any, and, preferences related to replacement housing. Interviews were conducted in Spanish when necessary. A sample of the Residential Interview Form is provided in Exhibit A to this Plan. Survey information supplied by Park residents has not been subject to verification. Confirmation of all information having a bearing on relocation eligibility will be obtained at such time as the relocation process commences. C. SURVEY RESULTS 1. General 35 of the 36 resident households at the Park (97 %) provided personal responses to interviewers. Partial information concerning the one non - respondent was obtained from neighbors and Park management. Among 3 .a // % � DEC - 9 ao3 ITEM 2 8 0 0 the 35 respondent households, there are a total of 72 individuals, 52 adults and 20 children. There are 11 households with children and 35 occupied solely by adults. Senior households, or those with at least one individual 62 years or older, constitute a significant portion of the population (16 of 35 or 45.7 %) The age range of senior occupants is 64 to 96. Seven of the 16 seniors are 80 years or older. Owner - occupants reside in their own coaches and pay a monthly space rent while tenants rent a mobile home from either the Park or an off -site owner. There are 14 owner - occupants and 22 tenants. The 14 owner- occupants include 8 senior households, 3 non - senior adult households and 3 households with adults and children. The 21 respondent tenant households include 7 seniors, 1 senior with a child, 6 non - senior adults and 7 non - senior adults with children. ��- ��`- � O'#3wrrn r�at�rdT�►,�a�ts � ";'�� Owner- Occupant Tenant Seniors 8 7 Senior with child n/a 1 Non - Senior Adults 3 6 Non - Senior Adults with Child(ren) 3 7 Totals 14 21 2. Rental Rates for Owner- Occupants and Tenants Monthly space rents for owner - occupants range from $195 to $400. The range for tenants whose monthly rent includes a value for the mobile home in which they reside is $127 to $600. Table 3 below details monthly rental data for both groups. 7 � � °�- 6 s' DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 3. 0 ccu p a n cyl Overcrowding Among the 35 respondent households 15 occupy one - bedroom units and twenty (20) occupy two-bedroom units. The average number of persons per household among one and two bedroom units is 1.6 and 2.4, respectively. The largest one bedroom household is 3 persons and the largest two bedroom household is 5 persons. Altogether, fifteen (15) of the 35 mobile home units are occupied by a single individual. Based on typical housing standards, there is no overcrowding among any of the Park resident households. 4. Replacement Housing Needs In general, replacement housing needs are expressed in terms of numbers of units needed by bedroom size and type of construction.' Bedroom size requirements are a function of current housing circumstances and the necessity, if any, to increase housing size due to overcrowding. The statutory presumption is that displacees are expected, at a minimum, to be offered housing similar in size to their current accommodations and within their financial means. Coach age and condition along with availability of space in another reasonably comparable mobile home park will determine whether any of the owner - occupied units can be relocated. Those owner -occupant households which occupy units that cannot be relocated will be eligible for payments to See P. 18 for complete definition of Comparable Replacement Dwelling 0 l y d-i� L�/ DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 B eF- Occupants Cdr 2bdr Rent Range $195 -$400 $127 -$450 $350 -$600 Median $280 $425 $425 /Average J. :.; ,... $281 $382 ' ;.. $435 . . 3. 0 ccu p a n cyl Overcrowding Among the 35 respondent households 15 occupy one - bedroom units and twenty (20) occupy two-bedroom units. The average number of persons per household among one and two bedroom units is 1.6 and 2.4, respectively. The largest one bedroom household is 3 persons and the largest two bedroom household is 5 persons. Altogether, fifteen (15) of the 35 mobile home units are occupied by a single individual. Based on typical housing standards, there is no overcrowding among any of the Park resident households. 4. Replacement Housing Needs In general, replacement housing needs are expressed in terms of numbers of units needed by bedroom size and type of construction.' Bedroom size requirements are a function of current housing circumstances and the necessity, if any, to increase housing size due to overcrowding. The statutory presumption is that displacees are expected, at a minimum, to be offered housing similar in size to their current accommodations and within their financial means. Coach age and condition along with availability of space in another reasonably comparable mobile home park will determine whether any of the owner - occupied units can be relocated. Those owner -occupant households which occupy units that cannot be relocated will be eligible for payments to See P. 18 for complete definition of Comparable Replacement Dwelling 0 l y d-i� L�/ DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 B 0 0 replace their residence and assist with any increase in space rent at the new facility. For the purpose of computing overall replacement housing needs and preparing the relocation assistance budget, it is assumed in this Plan that owner and tenant replacement housing needs will be met by reliance on available open market units and not through the relocation of currently occupied coaches. Table 4 below summarizes the replacement housing needs for owner - occupants and tenants. q�'ttr Replacemanftfi s (�4;o�nera;2z T:naia — Extremely Low Bedrooms Low Moderate Owners 6 8 Tenants .. 9 12 5. Income Income levels are standardized by jurisdiction on a yearly basis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The 2003 standards for San Diego County are shown in Exhibit B to this Plan. Among the 35 respondent households, 25 qualify as Extremely Low income (less than 30% of the median); 7 qualify as Very Low income (between 31 % and 50% of median); 1 qualifies as Low income (between 51 % and 80% of median); and 2 qualify as Moderate income (over 80% of median). Table �� fk tesiden tao a exels by HUOL dards for — S�n -0ie — Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate 25 7 1 2 9 16- 6Yb � DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 6. Ethnicity /Language Ethnicity among Park residents is 83% White (29), 8.5% Hispanic (3) and 8.5% Other (3). English was the primary household language for all but 2 of the resident households. 7. Disabled Households Six (6) households reported disabilities that might affect their choice of replacement housing. The disabilities included mobility impairment, vision problems and various neurological disorders. 8. Preferred Relocation Areas With the exception of 4 households, Paris residents all expressed the hope that they would be able to relocate within the City of Vista. 10 1� G811' DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 III. RELOCATION RESOURCES Replacement housing options for Park residents will include: 1) Available rental space in North County mobile home parks; 2) Mobile homes for sale; 3) Rental housing including mobile homes and multi- family units. A. RESOURCE SURVEY METHODS Replacement housing survey results reflect a one week market analysis conducted the first week of November, 2003. The following sources were used in the survey: -Survey of classified listings in local and regional newspapers - Drive - through surveys of mobile home parks in Vista and adjacent communities - Discussions with real estate and property management companies specializing in rental housing and /or mobile home properties in North San Diego County B. REPLACEMENT HOUSING AVAILABILITY 1. Mobile homes - For Sale A total of 64 mobile homes for sale were identified in parks located in Escondido, San Marcos, Vista, Oceanside and Fallbrook. Table 6 below provides a synopsis of the resource survey data. of the 52 are located in the cities of Vista, Escondido and San Marcos. The were 27 available coaches in these 37 parks with prices ranging from $25,000 to $57,000. Space rents ranged from $450 to $600. _ . ;,: Tafifea6- �aita6le For- 5;;��olit� tome Units ' .: Bdr Size # Found Price Range Median Price 1 5 $15,000 - $34,500 $26,900 2 59 $19,999 - $57,000 $44,900 ,r 6 6 p DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 2. Rental Housing The search for available rental housing focused on the cities of Vista, Escondido and San Marcos. The resource data include multi- family and condominium units. Table 7 below shows the number of units needed by bedroom size, the corresponding number of available units and rent range. Median rents for 1 and 2 bedroom units, were $775 and $950, respectively. Eleven (11) of the 1 bedroom units were found in Escondido, 3 in Vista and 1 in San Marcos. Thirteen (13) of the 2 bedroom units were found in Vista, 11 in Escondido and 2 in San Marcos. Rents were relatively similar in the three cities based on unit size. 3. Summary Given a 12 month displacement period, survey data indicate there will be more than adequate rental and for -sale housing units available as relocation resources for Park residents, both tenants and owner- occupants. Forowner- occupants, particularly the more elderly and physically challenged, relocation to a senior facility may well be considered as an option. The lack of one - bedroom units on the market may result in the necessity to upgrade coach size in order to meet comparability standards. Some tenants, as suggested by their survey responses, may consider purchasing rather than re- renting new accommodations. Individual preferences will be accounted for once the relocation process has begun and a relocation agent has had the opportunity to speak personally with each resident. 12 DEC -9 2003 ITEM 2 8 H +as Units Needed Units Available Rent Range 1 Bedroom 9 16 $675 -$330 2 Bedroom 12 26 1 $775 -$1350 Median rents for 1 and 2 bedroom units, were $775 and $950, respectively. Eleven (11) of the 1 bedroom units were found in Escondido, 3 in Vista and 1 in San Marcos. Thirteen (13) of the 2 bedroom units were found in Vista, 11 in Escondido and 2 in San Marcos. Rents were relatively similar in the three cities based on unit size. 3. Summary Given a 12 month displacement period, survey data indicate there will be more than adequate rental and for -sale housing units available as relocation resources for Park residents, both tenants and owner- occupants. Forowner- occupants, particularly the more elderly and physically challenged, relocation to a senior facility may well be considered as an option. The lack of one - bedroom units on the market may result in the necessity to upgrade coach size in order to meet comparability standards. Some tenants, as suggested by their survey responses, may consider purchasing rather than re- renting new accommodations. Individual preferences will be accounted for once the relocation process has begun and a relocation agent has had the opportunity to speak personally with each resident. 12 DEC -9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 01 C. RELATEDISSUES 1. Concurrent Residential Displacement Based on the needs of this development, no extraordinary, competing demands for similar residential units within the City of Vista is anticipated. The adjacent community of Escondido will be relocating mobile home residents early in 2003. There should be no adverse impact on meeting the replacement housing needs of the occupants to be displaced. 2. Temporary Housing No need for temporary housing is anticipated. 13 l� 11-e-- I r DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 IV. THE RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM A. INTRODUCTION Relocation assistance program services will be provided by the City to those residents displaced bythe Project. These services are to be implemented pursuant to the Califomia Relocation Assistance Law, Section 7260, et. seq. of the California Govemment Code and the guidelines of Title 25, Division 1, Chapter 6, Subchapter lof the California Code of Regulations (the Regulations). The relocation assistance program provides for both advisory and financial assistance. Determinations as to eligibility for assistance and benefits will be made on a case -by -case basis according to individual circumstances and applicable statutory and regulatory criteria. B. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ADVISORY PROGRAM The requirements of the relocation assistance advisory program will be: 1. To fully inform eligible persons as to the nature of and the procedures for obtaining relocation assistance and benefits; 2. To determine the needs of each displacee eligible for assistance; 3. To provide eligible displacee with an appropriate number of referrals to comparable, decent, safe and sanitary housing units within a reasonable time prior to displacement and ensure that no eligible occupant is required to move without a minimum of 90 days advance written notice; 4. To provide current and continuous information conceming comparable replacement housing opportunities; 5. To provide assistance that does not result in different, or separate treatment due to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status or other arbitrary circumstances; 6. To supply information concerning federal and state housing programs and other governmental programs providing assistance to displaced 14 0 ql s/ i, OEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 • persons; 7. To assist each eligible person complete applications for benefits; 8. To assist each eligible residential displacee obtain and move to a comparable replacement dwelling; 9. To make relocation benefit payments in accordance with all applicable state standards; 10. To inform all displaced persons of the City's policies with regard to eviction and property management; 11. To maintain an appeal procedure for use by displaced persons seeking administrative review of the City's decisions with respect to relocation assistance. All potential relocatees will be personally contacted for an initial interview by the City's relocation agent no later than 30 days following delivery of the City's first written offer to purchase the mobile home in which they reside. The purpose of this initial Interview will be to gather information concerning the individual circumstances of each potential relocatee and to dispense and review a written informational brochure (see Exhibit C) that explains the City's residential relocation assistance program. Spanish language brochures will be fumished upon need. When the initial interview is completed and the required support data (income information, confirmation of occupancy, etc.) is submitted, each potential relocates (tenants and owner - occupants) will be provided with a written Notice -of- Eligibility. The Notice -of- Eligibility will provide, at least one replacement housing referral and establish a maximum relocation assistance eligibility amount for the household addressed. The factors used to determine the maximum assistance amount will be described in the Notice -of- Eligibility and explained personally by the assigned relocation agent. Prior to relocation of residential occupants, every reasonable effort will be made to provide three comparable replacement housing referrals to displacees, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Chapter 6, Section 6042(c). Referrals will be provided on a continual basis and transportation will be provided, if necessary, to 15 DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 inspect replacement sites within the local area. Generally, a comparable replacement dwelling must satisfy the following criteria: a. The unit Is decent, safe and sanitary- electrical, plumbing and heating systems in good repair - no major, observable hazards or defects. The unit is comparable to the acquired dwelling with respect to number of rooms, habitable living space and type and quality of construction, but not lesser in rooms or living space as necessary to accommodate the displaced person; b. The unit is located in an area not subjected to unreasonable adverse environmental conditions from either natural, or man -made sources, and not generally less desirable with respect to public utilities, transportation, public and commercial facilities, including schools and municipal services and reasonably accessible to the displaced person's place of employment; c The unit is available both on the private market and to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, marital status, religion or, national origin; d. The monthly rental rate is within the financial means of the displaced residential tenant. Special assistance in the form of referrals to governmental, and non - governmental social service agencies will be made, if needed. Agencies to which referrals may be made include, but are not necessarily limited to the: • Federal Social Security Administration • The Fair Housing Council of San Diego County • San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency • City of Vista Senior Services Every reasonable effort will be made to ensure that the relocation process occurs with a minimum of delay and hardship. 16 �, ; Z d� �L� DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 C. RELOCATION BENEFITS Benefits will be paid to eligible displaced persons upon submission of required claim forms and documentation in accordance with City procedures. Specific eligibility requirements and benefit plans will be detailed on an individual basis with all displacees. In the course of personal interviews and follow -up visits, each household will be counseled as to available options and the consequences of any choice with respect to financial assistance. The City will consider advance partial payment requests meant to alleviate hardships for households without access to sufficient funds to pay rental move -in costs or open escrow accounts for the purchase of replacement dwellings. Responses to advance payment requests will be made expeditiously to help avoid the loss of desirable, appropriate replacement housing. 1. Residential Moving Expense Payments All residential occupants to be relocated will be eligible to receive payments for moving expenses, except as noted. Moving expense payments will be made based upon the actual cost of professional moves or fixed payments based on room counts. a. Actual Cost (Professional Move) Displacees may elect to receive moving expense payments for professional moving services based upon the lower of, at least, two acceptable bids from qualified movers. The actual cost of the moves will be paid directly by the City to the moving companies, at the request of the displacees. Transportation costs are limited to a distance of 50 miles, except where relocation beyond such distance is considered justified and is approved by the City. In addition to the actual move, costs associated with utility re- connections (i.e., gas, water, electricity, telephone, and cable, if any), are eligible for reimbursement. b. Fixed Payment (Based on Room Count Schedule) Displacees may electto receive fixed payments for moving expenses based on room counts in the displacement dwellings. Displacees who elect to receive. fixed moving payments take full financial responsibility for the moves 17 2 a/V 6'�' DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 and all utility connection expenses. The current schedule, as established by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the California Department of Transportation, for fixed moving payments is set forth in Table 8 following: table S --Sef Fr - [lnfumishad Dwoiling One room $575 Two rooms $750 Three rooms $925 Four rooms $1,100 Five rooms $1,325 Six rooms $1,550 Seven rooms $1,775 Eight rooms $2,000 each additional room $200 Furnlehed.Dwetling. First Room $375 Each additional room $60 2. Rental Assistance To 90 -Day Residential Tenants Who Re -Rent Residential tenants who have established their residency for a minimum of 90 days prior to the City's purchase offer on the property where they reside, and who choose to re -rent, may be eligible to receive rental assistance payments in addition to moving expense payments. Pursuant to California Relocation Law, Rental Assistance Payments are limited to a maximum of $5,250, based upon the monthly housing need over a 42 -month period. Table 9, following, shows how monthly need is determined: W1 02 Y 4 b X DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 E 0 ,•s_, ... -`r' =- ., tG3�" q -... .r. ..: A'.`ti` "4 "rte � "'= "',..� max. -�c.: .� r---• ..�:s- '^G•.!.ar .'.'.. ??"y., myn ..C•L r 5P "T "�-- -''�.. x.: +._ °""a—'^ 1. Old Rent $544 Old Rent, plus Utility Allowance or, 2. Ability to Pay $445 30% of the Gross Household Income' 3. Lesser of lines 1 or 2 $445 Subtracted From: 4. Actual New Rent $550 Actual New Rent including Utility Allowance or, 5. Comparable Rent $575 Includes Utility Allowance 6. Lesser of fines 4 or 5 $550 Islds:lAw 3 $105 Subtract line 3 from line 6 ANN nIVIM -- — Rental "'Asslatapi5te. - $4,410 Multiply line 7 by 42 months Gross income means the total annual income of an individual less the following: (1) a deduction of $500.00 for each dependent in excess of three; (2) a deduction of 10% of total income for the elderly or disabled head of household; (3) a deduction for recurring extraordinary medical expenses defined for this purpose to mean medical expenses in excess of 3% of total income, where not compensated for, or covered by insurance or other sources; (4) a deduction of reasonable amounts paid for the care of children or sick or incapacitated family members when determined to be necessary to employment of the head of household or spouse, except that the amount deducted shall not exceed the amount of income received by the person who would not otherwise be able to seek employment in the absence of such care. 3. Down Payment Assistance To 90 -Day Tenants Who Choose to Purchase Residential tenants who are otherwise eligible to receive a rental assistance payment as described above, may choose to utilize up to the full amount of this payment to purchase a home. The City will arrange to deposit in an escrow account, the total rental assistance payment for which a tenant qualifies, provided that the entire amount is used for the down payment and eligible, incidental costs associated with the purchase of a replacement home. Provision shall be made in the accompanying escrow instructions for the return of City funds in the event escrow should fail to close within a reasonable period of time. 4. Replacement Housing Payments to Owner - Occupants Residential owner - occupants who have occupied the dwelling from which they are to be displaced (the displacement dwelling) for at least 180 days prior to the 19 DEC - 9 nu ITEM 2 8 0 0 purchase offer will be eligible for a replacement housing payment of up to $22,500. The replacement housing payment available to owner - occupants is the sum of three possible compensation elements: a) purchase price differential; b) mortgage interest differential; and, c) Incidental expenses. a. Purchase Price Differential The purchase price differential is the dollar difference between the final acquisition price paid by the City for the displacement dwelling and the lesser of: 1) the cost of the actual replacement dwelling; or 2) the cost of a comparable replacement dwelling. The maximum purchase price differential amount is the difference between the final acquisition price of the displacement dwelling and the cost of a comparable replacement dwelling. Table 10, below, illustrates four possible purchase price differential calculations. Table 10: Calculatli of a.Purchase Price Differential Amount Variables Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Final $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Acquisition Price Cost of Actual $25,000 $50,000 $20,000 $10.000 Replacement Dwelling Cost of $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Comparable Replacement Dwelling Purchase $15,000 $10,000 $10A00 $0 Price Differential Amount Example 1 - The cost of the actual replacement dwelling and the cost of the comparable replacement dwelling exceed the final acquisition price of the displacement dwelling by the same amount. Example 2 - The cost of the actual replacement dwelling exceeds the final acquisition price of the displacement dwelling and the cost of the comparable replacement dwelling. 20 4, �'/ 4 8 DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 Example 3 - The cost of the actual replacement dwelling exceeds the final acquisition price of the displacement dwelling, but is less than the cost of the comparable replacement dwelling. Example 4 - The cost of the actual replacement dwelling does not exceed the final acquisition price of the displacement dwelling. b. Mortgage Interest Differential The mortgage interest differential payment provides compensation to owner - occupants for a loss of favorable financing. Calculation of the payment reflects the "present value" of the additional costs required to finance the purchase of a replacement dwelling when the interest rate for a new loan exceeds the present rate of the existing loan on the displacement dwelling. The payment calculation is based on the lesser of: 1) the loan balance and/or term of the loan on the displacement dwelling; or, 2) the new loan amount and /or term of the loan on the replacement dwelling. To be eligible, the loan on the displacement dwelling must have been a valid. lien on title for at least 180 days prior to the City's purchase offer. c, Incidental Expenses Compensable incidental expenses Include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: legal, closing, and related costs including title search, preparing conveyance contracts, notary fees, surveys, preparing drawings or plats, and charges paid incident to recordation; lender, FHA, VA or similar appraisal costs; FHA or VA or similar application fee; cost for certification of structural soundness; credit report charges; charge for owner's and mortgagee's evidence or assurance of title; escrow agent's fee; and sales or transfer taxes. Payment for any such expenses shall not exceed the amount attributable to the purchase of a comparable replacement dwelling. Such expensesshall be reasonable and legally required or customary in the community. 5. Payments To Non - Tenured Residential Tenants Residential tenants who have lawfully and continuously occupied a displacement dwelling for less than 90 days prior to the Citys purchase offer will be eligible to receive paymentfor their moving expenses only, in accordance with Section IV. C.1. 21 7 alt t DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 0 D. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PAYMENT OF RELOCATION BENEFITS To qualify for relocation assistance benefits, a residential displacee must occupy an appropriate replacement dwelling within one year from the later of the following dates: 1) the date the claimant moves from the acquired property; 2) the date final payment for the property is received or, in the case of condemnation, the date the estimated just compensation is deposited in court, or; 3) the date of the first referral to a comparable, replacement dwelling. The procedure for the preparation and filing of claims and the processing and delivery of payments will be as follows: 1. Claimants shall provide all necessary documentation to substantiate eligibility for assistance to the City's relocation consultant. 2. Recommended assistance amounts will be determined by the City's relocation consultant in accordance with relocation law. 3. Required claim forms will be prepared by the City's relocation consultant for claimants' signature. 4. Claims will be submitted by the City's relocation consultant for review, approval, and payment by the City. 5. Benefit checks will be delivered to the City's relocation consultant for distribution to claimants. 6. Final payments to residential claimants will be issued within a reasonable time only after confirmation that the acquired premises have been completely vacated and residency at the replacement unit is verged. 7. Receipt of payments will be obtained and archived by the City's relocation consultant in individual relocation case files. Relocation assistance claimants have up to 18 months from the later of the following dates to file claims for benefits: a) the date final payment for the property is received, or b) the date the claimant moves from the property. 22 ,y DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 E. LAST RESORT HOUSING Residential displacees are considered for supplementary benefits in the form of last resort housing assistance when the computed total of their replacement housing assistance eligibility exceeds $5,250 in the case of tenant - occupants, $22,500 for owner - occupants, or when a tenant or owner- occupant does not meet applicable occupancy requirements. Household income will be the only basis for determining last resort housing rental assistance benefits for non - tenured residential tenants (those who have occupied the property for less than 90 days prior to the City's purchase offer). Recipients must meet the basic eligibility requirements applied to other displacees. All standard claim processing procedures will be applied to last resort housing payments, including lump sum disbursement of approved benefits. The City mayapprove, at its discretion, alternative methods forproviding last resort housing assistance on a case -by -case basis, including, but not limited to, minor repairs to, rehabilitation of, and /or additionsto an existing replacement dwelling, including the removal of barriers to the handicapped, as may be necessary. F. RELOCATION TAX CONSEQUENCES In general, relocation payments are not considered income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 196B, or the Personal income Tax Law, Part 10 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Notwithstanding these provisions, recipients of relocation assistance benefits will be advised to consult with the appropriate tax authorities or personal tax advisors concerning the tax consequences of any relocation payment. 23 q '/ P DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 V. ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES, PROJECT TIMING AND BUDGET A. APPEAL PROCEDURE The City's Relocation Assistance Program Appeal Procedure follows the standards described in Article 5, Section 6150 et seq., Title 25, Chapter 6, of the California Department of Housing and Community Development Program guidelines. Briefly stated, all residential and business displacees have the right to ask for administrative review when they believe themselves aggrieved by a determination as to eligibility; the amount of a relocation payment; the failure, by the City, to provide comparable replacement housing referrals; or, the City's property management practices. B. EVICTION/TERMINATION POLICY The following eviction policy shall apply to all residential and non - residential occupants who will be displaced by the Project and who remain on the property as tenants of the City after the property is acquired: 1. Eviction by the City will be undertaken only for one, or more of the following infractions: a. Failure by tenant to pay rent, except in those cases where the failure to pay is due to the City's failure to keep the premises in habitable condition or is the result of harassment or retaliatory action; b. Performance by tenant of a dangerous, and /or illegal act at the premises; C. A material breach of the rental agreement bytenant and failure upon notification, to correct said breach within 30 days of such notice; d. Maintenance of nuisance bytenant, and failure to abate such nuisance upon notification within a reasonable time following notice; 24 ,/ DEC - 9 =3 ITEM 2 8 C� e. Refusal by tenant to accept one of a reasonable number of offers of replacement dwellings; and /or, f. A requirement under State or local law, or emergency circumstances that cannot be prevented by reasonable efforts on the part of the City. 2. With the exception of a person considered to be in "unlawful occupancy' (See CCR 6008 (v]), a displaced person's eviction will not affect eligibilityfor relocation assistance and benefits. This eviction policy does not prevent the City from lawfully terminating tenancies on City- owned property. C. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION City staff has been actively communicating with Park residents concerning the possibility of a change of use for more than 2 years. There is a history of written communication and public meetings overthis period devoted to potential closure of the Park and the relocation process that would ensue should the closure be approved. During the public review period of this Plan, City staff will ensure that the requirements of Section 6012 (Citizen Participation) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 6, are met fully. The Section 6012 requirements are as follows: 1. Full and timely access to documents relevant to the relocation program; 2. The provision of technical assistance necessary to interpret elements of the relocation plan and other pertinent materials; 3. Copies of this Plan shall be made available for public review by Park residents and other interested parties no less than thirty (30) days prior to the date the Plan is scheduled to be considered for approval by the City. 25 3 / oy r!Y DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 • w INTRODUCTION The City of Vista (the City) has owned and managed the Sycamore Creek Mobile Home Park (the Park) at 751 E. Vista Way since 1990. The Park, which comprises 13.3 acres, currently contains 36 mobile home units,14 of which are owner - occupied and 22 of which are tenant - occupied. Concerns over the expected costs necessary to rehabilitate the Park to meet current code requirements and fund future general maintenance and operation expenses have led to the City's proposed intention to change the use of the Park to an interim vacant use for future development ( "project ") consistent with the residential General Plan classification applicable to the site. Approval of the proposed change of use would result in the permanent relocation of the 36 households in occupancy at the Park. This possibility triggers statutory planning, reporting and advisory requirements pursuant to the Vista Municipal Code (Chapter 18.70, Section 18.70.050 et seq.), California Government Code sections 65863.7, 66427.4, the Mobilehome Residency Law (Civil Code Chapter 2.5, Sections 798 - 799.8, Article 6), the California Relocation Assistance Law (the Law - Government Code Section 7260 et seq.) and the California Relocation Guidelines (the Guidelines - California Code of Regulations Title 25, Chapter 6 et seq.) This document (the Plan) is intended to serve as both a Relocation Plan in conformance with the specific requirements set out in Section 6038 of the Guidelines and a Park Conversion Impact Report in conformance with Government Code Section 65863.7 and Vista Municipal Code Section 18.70. The plan consists of 5 elements: Section 1: General and specific descriptions of the project area and area demographics Section 2: Survey data concerning the demographic characteristics and present circumstances of Park residents and their relocation needs Section 3: An assessment of the availability of comparable replacement housing within the City of Vista and surrounding northem San Diego County communities Section 4: The steps and procedures that the City will follow to ensure a fair and equitable relocation program. I / DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 • • 4. The right to submit written or oral comments and objections, including the right to submit written comments on the Relocation Plan and, to have these comments included as part of the Plan when it is forwarded to the City for final approval; 5. The right to a prompt, written response to any written objections or criticisms D. PROJECTED DATE OF DISPLACEMENT The projected date for closure of the Park and conclusion of the relocation process is December, 2004. E. ESTIMATED PARK CLOSURE RELOCATION COSTS Estimated relocation assistance and moving expenses associated with the Park Closure are: One Million One Hundred Nineteen Seven Hundred Ninety Three Dollars ($1,119,793.00) F. 3 2 4- 6 b DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 VI. MOBILEHOME PARK CLOSURE REPORT ELEMENTS A. THE VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE Section 18.70.060 of the Vista Municipal Code sets out the required contents of a conversion impact report The following responses address the 6 required elements. Where informational or process related requirements from the Code overlap with similar statutory requirements which are addressed in the larger Plan, the reader is directed to those sections within the Plan where the required information has been entered. 1. Availability of Adequate Replacement Space In Mobile Home Parks Please refer to Section III, pages 11 •12 of this document 2. Consistency with General Plan The project site is currently designated Medium High Density Residential (MHD) in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which permits single - family or multi - family residential development at a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The MHD designation encourages multi - family residential development ranging from small, multiple unit structures to larger multiple unit developments. The site is currently developed with a mobile home park consisting of 115 mobile home spaces (77 unoccupied units) and two single - family units (for a total of 117 units) on an approximate 13.3 -acre site. The resulting density of 8.8 dwelling units per acre is less than the 15 units per acre density allowance; therefore, the Current residential use does not exceed the General Plan density designation and is consistent with the MHD Land Use Designation. In the interim period (i.e., after closure and before future redevelopment), the site will be vacant. An interim vacant use is permitted under the MHD land use designation and, therefore, is consistent with the existing MHD General Plan designation. 3. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses 27 5 DEC - 9 2ov ITEM 2 8 0 0 The project site is surrounded by a mature of commercial and residential development, as well as open space associated with Buena Vista Creek. The area north of the site is developed with commercial uses fronting E. Vista Way, which is located west of an open space corridor surrounding Buena Vista Creek. The creek corridor extends south along the western property boundary and separates commercial development along E. Vista Way (west of the site) from the subject property. The area south of the site is developed with a public park (Wildwood Park), a commercial center, and the Rancho Buena Vista Adobe. The area east of the site is developed with single - family and multi- family residential uses. The existing mobile home park use is a residential use that does not create substantial noise, dust, odors, or other nuisance impacts and, therefore, is compatible with the existing recreational, open space, and residential uses located north, south, and east of the site. The property is separated from commercial uses west and north of the site by an open space corridor associated with Buena Vista Creek, which provides approximately 50 to 100 feet of separation with landscape screening from the existing commercial uses. Based on the distance to existing commercial development and the screening provided by landscaping within the creek corridor, the existing mobile home park use is compatible with existing commercial uses west and north of the creek. An interim vacant use of the site would not result in any potential land use compatibility impacts and, therefore, would be compatible with existing development surrounding the site. 4. Consistency with the Housing Element Although the site would remain vacant after implementation of the project, it would comprise a 13.3 acre site designated for residential development at a maximum density of 15 units per acre. Therefore, the site could accommodate development of up to 199 residential units under the current MHD General Plan designation. The project would make the site available for future residential use, which would be consistent with Goal 2.0 of the Housing Element to "encourage adequate provision of a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price to meet the existing and future M DEC -9 2003 I?EM a 8 needs of Vista residents ". Therefore, although the project would eliminate existing affordable housing opportunities, it would open the propertyto future development, thereby providing housing opportunities with future use of the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the Housing Element. 5. Provisions for Relocation Please refer to Section IV, pages 13 -22 of this document 29 a .5 —V�, b s DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 E 6. Impact on Housing Available to Lower Income Residents Please refer to number 4 above (Consistency with Housing Element) B. Government Code Section 65863.7ICalifomia Civil Code Section 798.56 The contents of this Plan meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65863.7 et seq. as well as those portions of California Civil Code Section 798.56 governing the mobile home park closure process. The Government Code requires a report that describes the impact of the proposed park closure in terms of available, adequate replacement housing and relocation costs. It also provides that park residents be provided with a copy of the required report no less than fifteen days prior to the hearing conducted by the local legislative body of delegated advisory agency to assess the sufficiency of the report. This Plan meets and exceeds all of the reporting requirements of the Government Code by providing a detailed profile of park residents, a comprehensive analysis of available replacement housing resources, a complete relocation program involving advisory and financial assistance and a commitment by the City to mitigate project impacts by providing the funds necessary to meet all statutory relocation assistance requirements 30 DEC - 9 2o03 ITEM 2 8 s • 3 7 lf b t DEC - 9 2603 ITEM 2 8 r� RESIDENTIAL INTERVIEW FORM CASE ID: PROJECT: AGENCY: CONSULTANT: OCCUPANT INFORMATION: DWELLING: MAJOR EVENTS: Clalmant(s): I Monthly Payment: $ Site Move -In: I I First Offer. I I Number of Bedrooms: Address: Initial Interview: I I Total Number of Rooms: UTILITIES PAID BY: Home Phone: ( I Gas: ❑Tenant ❑ Owner Bedrooms Needed: Work Phone: (_� Electric: ❑ Tenant ❑ Owner Social Sec. C: - I Water: ❑ Tenant ❑ Owner ❑ Furnished Dwelling OCCUPANCY STATUS: Q Rent ❑ Lease ❑ Mortgage ❑ Own (Clear) ❑ Vacant ❑ No Contact DWELLING TYPE: ❑ Single Family Residence ❑ Duplex ❑ Apartment ❑ Condolrownhouse ❑ Hotel /Motel Q Mobile Home i ETHNICITY: Q White ❑ Hispanic ❑ Black ❑ Asian ❑ Other: PRIMARY LANGUAGE: ❑ English ❑ Spanish Q Other: OCCUPANT INFORMATION: ❑ Elderly Household ❑ Handicapped Household i Q Housing Assistance: 5 ❑ Willing to Relocate from Community Special Features /Improvements: I ArealUnit Preference: NAME (FIRST, LAST) SEX AGE MONTHLY INCOME No too (nlatlon, am ployment. school, trap zoo nation, handicap, etc. I 1 M F S TJ IV «P Cs .��- y�- a �� f _ A �i^ .'� 'WtY -*M1. - ~� i; 3 M F S lki — .".eE�vm "µ3?i �3� 5 M !$ 2 S, d� X DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 0 EXHIBIT B: HUD INCOME LIMITS 39/;O�-4K, DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 s 0 0 HU.D..ANNUAL INCOME, -.,I: wd BY CATWORY:-UN; DIEGO P-P 2403) Area Four ..PexsoEt- Wdiaty 360,,100. Family Size Exfremdly Low Income Very, Low Annilel Income Lower ... Annual Income 'MaduW Annual .Irrtom►a. Moderate Annual. Income One Person $13,400. $22,350. $35,750. $42,050. $50,450. Two Person $15,300. $25,500. $40,850. $48,100. $57,700. Three Person $17,250. $28,700. $45,950. $54 „100. $64,900. Four Person $19,150., $31,900. $51,05,0. $60,100. $72,100, Five Person $20,650. $34,450. $55,100. $84,900. $77,850. Six Person $22,200. $37,000. $59,200. $69,700. $83,650. Seven Person $23,750. $39,550. $63,300. $74,500. $89,400. Eight Person $25,250. $42,100. $67,350. $79,350. $95,150. �{o 6 DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 Ll EXHIBIT C: RESIDENTIAL INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT 4-1- 6,e Ll DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 LIM INFORMATIONAL STATEMENT FOR FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS I. GENERAL INFORMATION IL ASSISTANCE IN LOCATING A REPLACEMENT DWELLING Ill. MOVING BENEFITS IV. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT - TENANTS AND CERTAIN OTHERS V. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT - HOMEOWNERS Vi. QUALIFICATION FOR AND FILING OF RELOCATION CLAIMS VII. LAST RESORT HOUSING ASSISTANCE VIII. RENTALAGREEMENT IX. APPEAL PROCEDURES - GRIEVANCE X. TAX STATUS OF RELOCATION BENEFITS Xl. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE GENERAL INFORMATION The dwelling In which you now live is in an area to be Improved by the City of Vista (the "Agency"). As the project schedule proceeds, It will be necessary for you to move from your dwelling. This Is not a notice to vacate and, does not establish eligibility for relocation payments, or other relocation assistance. You will be notiFed In a timelymanner as tothe date bywhich you must move. Please read this information as it will be helpful to you In determining your eligibility and the amount of your relocation benefits under the federal and /or state law. We suggest you save this Informational statement for reference. Spanish speaking representatives are available. SI necesita esta lnformaci6n an Espanol, por favor llama a su representante. PLEASE 00 NOT MOVE PREMATURELY. THIS IS NOT A NOTICE TO VACATE YOUR DWELLING. However, if you desire to move soone rthan required, you must contact the City's relocation consultant so you will not jeopardize any benefits. This Is a general informations brochure only, and is not intended to give a detailed description of either the law or regulations pertaining to the City's relocation assistance program. II. ASSISTANCE IN LOCATING A REPLACEMENT OWELLING The City, through its relocation consultants, will assistyou In locating a comparable replacement dwelling by providing referrals to appropriate and available housing units. You are encouraged to actively seek such housing yourself. When a suitable replacement dwelling unit has been found, the City's relocation consultant will carry out an Inspection and advise you as to whether the dwelling unit meets decent, safe and sanitary housing requirements. A decent, safe and sanitary housing unit provides adequate space for Its occupants, proper weatherproofing and sound heating, electrical and plumbing systems. Your new dwelling must pass inspection before relocation assistance payments can be authorized. Ill. MOVING BENEFITS If you must move as a result of displacement bythe City, you will receive a payment to assist in moving your personal property. There are two types of moving payments. )Lou have the option of selecting either one of the following types of moving payments: A. Fixed Moving Payment Afixed moving payment Is based upon the numberof roomsyou occupyand whether or not you own your own furniture. The payment is based upon a schedule approved bythe City, and ranges, for example, from $375 for onefurnished room to $2,000 for eight rooms in an unfurnished dwelling. (For details see the table below). The City's relocation consultant will inform you of the amount you are eligible to receive if you choose this type of payment. " 7 „ 1-- I Occupant owns furniture Occupant does NOT own furniture 1 room $575.00 1 room $375.00 2 rooms $750.00 each additional room $60.00 " 7 „ 1-- 3 rooms $925.00 4 rooms $1,100.00 5 rooms $1,325.00 6 rooms $1,550.00 7 rooms $1,775.00 8 rooms $2,000.00 each additional room $200.00 If you select a fixed payment, youwillberesponsibleforartangingf oryourownmoveandtheCltywlllassumenoliability fo r a ny loss o r damage of your personal property. B. Actual Moving Expense (Professional Move) If you wish to engage the services of a licensed commercial mover and have the City pay the bill, you may claim the ACTUAL cost of moving your personal property up to 50 miles. The City's relocation consultant will Inform you of the number of competitive moving bids (if any) which maybe required, and assist you In developing a scope of services for City approval. IV. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT - TENANTS AND CERTAIN OTHERS You may be eligible for a payment of up to $5,250 to assist you In renting, or purchasing a comparable replacement dwelling. In order to qualify, you must either be a tenant who has occupied your present dwelling for a least 90 days prior to the City's written offer to purchase the property or, an owner who has occuped your dwelling for between 90 and 180 d ays prior to the City's purchase offer. A. Rental Assistance. If you qualify, and wish to rent a replacement dwelling, your rental assistance benefits will be based upon the difference over a 42 -month period between the rent you must pay for a comparable replacement dwelling and the lesser of your current rent or thirty percent (30* of your gross monthly household Income. You will be required to provide the City's relocation consultant with monthly rent and household Income verification prior to the determination of your eligibility for this payment. -OR- B. Down - payment Assistance. If you auallf)G and wish to purchase a home as a replacement dwelling, you can apply up to the total amount of your rental assistance payment towards the down - payment and non4acurring Incidental expenses. The City's relocation consultant will clarify procedures necessary to apply for this payment. V. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT- HOMEOWNERS A. If you owned and occupied a dwelling, purchased by the City, for at least 180 days prior to the City's purchase offer for the property, you maybe eligible to recelve a payment of up to $22,500 to assist you In Purchasing a comparable replacement unit If you owned and occupied the displacement dwelling forat least 90 days but rot more than 180 days Immediately prior to the date of the City's purchase offer, you maybe eligible for a payment of up to $5,250. The housing replacement payment is Intended to cover the following Items: 1. Purchase Price Differential -An amount which, when added to the amount for which the City purchased your property, equals the lesser of the actual cost of your replacement dwelling; or the amount determined by the City as necessary to purchase a comparable replacement dwelling. The City's relocation consultant will explain both methods to you. 2. Mortgage Interest Differential -The amount which covers the Increased interest costs, If any, required to finance a replacement dwelling. The City's relocation consultant will explain limiting conditions. 3. Incidental Expenses -Those one time costs incidental to purchasing a replacementunit, such asescrow fees, recording fees, and credit report fees. Recurring expenses such as prepaid taxes and insurance premiums are not compensable. B. Rental Assistance Option - If you are an owner-occupant and choose to rent rather than purchase a replacement dwelling, you may be eligible for a rental assistance payment of up to $5,250. The payment will be based on the difference between the fair market rent of the dwelling you occupy and the rent you must pay for a comparable replacement dwelling. If you receive a rental assistance payment, as described above, and later decide to purchase a replacement dwelling, you / 12 _'I'4 DEC - 9 2003 ITFM 2 R may apply for a payment equal to the amount you would have received If you had Initially purchased a comparable replacement dwelling, less the amount you have already received as a rental assistance payment. VI. QUALIFICATION FOR AND FILING OF RELOCATION CLAIMS To qualifyfora replacement housing payment, you must rentor purchaseand occupya comparable replacement unit within one year from the later of the following: A. For a tenant the date you move from the displacement dwelling B. For an owner - occupant the date you receive final payment for the displacement dwelling, or, In the case of condemnation, the date the full amount of estimated Just compensation Is deposited In court, or C. The date the City fulfills its obligation to make available comparable replacement dwellings. All claims for relocation benefits must be flied with the Cltywithln 18 months from the date on which you receive final payment for your property, or the date on which you move, whichever Is later.- VII. LAST RESORT HOUSING ASSISTANCE Ifcomparable replacement dwellings are not available when you are required to move, or if raplacomerd housing is not available within the monetary limits described above, the City may provide last resort housing assistance to enable you to rent or purchase a replacement dwelling on a timely basis. Last resort housing assistance Is based on the individual circumstances of the displaced person. The City's relocation consultant will explain the process for determining whether or not you qualify for last resort housing assistance. If you are a tenant and you choose to purchase rather than rent a comparable replacement dwelling, the entire amount of your rental assistance and last resort housing eiigibaitymust be applied toward the down - payment of the tame you Intend to purchase. VIII. RENTAL AGREEMENT As a result of the Citya action to purchase the property where you live, you may become a tenant of the City for some period of time. If this occurs, you will be asked to sign a rental agreement which will specify the monthly rent to be paid, when rent payments are due, where they are to be paid and other pertinent information. Except for the causes of eviction set forth below, no person lawfully occupying property to be purchased by the City will be required to move without having been provided at least 90 days written notice from the City. Eviction will be undertaken only in the event of one, or more of the following Infractions: A. Failure by tenant to pay rent except in those cases where the failure to pay Is due to the Chys failure to keep i the premises In habitable condition or Is the result of harassment or retaliatory action; B. Performance by tenant of dangerous and/or Illegal act at the premises; C. Material breach of the rental agreement by tenant, and failure to correct breach within 30 days of notice; D. Maintenance of a nuisance by tenant and failure to abate within a reasonable time following notice; E. Refusal of tenant to accept one of a reasonable number of offers of replacement dwellings; and/or F. A requirement under State or local law, or emergency circumstances that cannot be prevented by reasonable efforts on the part of the City. IX. APPEAL PROCEDURES- GRIEVANCE Any person aggrieved by a determination as to eligibilltyfor a relocation payment, or the amount of a payment may have his/her i claim reviewed or reconsidered in accordance with the Citys Relocation Assistance Program Appeal Procedure. Complete details on the Appeal Procedure are available upon request from the City. X. TAX STATUS OF RELOCATION BENEFITS Relocation benefit payments are not considered as income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Personal Income Tax Law, Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxa0on Code, or the Bank and Corporation Tax law, Part 11(commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Nevertheless, ` you should consult with a personal tax adviser for the most recent interpretation of tax law. -* --- - - -- - - -- - -- -- 0- XI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE The City hopes to assist you In every way possible to minimize the hardships Involved In relocating to anew home by providing you with relocation assistance. Your cooperation will be helpful and greatly appreciated. If you have any questions at anytime i during the process, please do not hesitate to contact the City's relocation consultant. 4/ s"%Y/ X DEC - 9 2003 ITEM 2 8 • ! RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA APPROVING THE RELOCATION PLAN AND PARK CONVERSION IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CLOSURE OF THE SYCAMORE CREEK MOBILE HOME PARK WHEREAS, the City of Vista and the Vista Community Development Commission ( "CDC ") wish to close the Sycamore Creek Mobile Home Park ( "Park "); and WHEREAS, prior to approving the Park closure it is necessary to approve: (1) a relocation plan satisfying section 7260 et seq. of the California Government Code; and (2) a park closure report that satisfies both section 65863.7 of the California Government Code and section 18.70.50 of the Vista Municipal Code (collectively, "Report Requirements "); and WHEREAS, to satisfy these obligations a Relocation Plan and Park Conversion Impact Report ( "Relocation and Impact Report"), dated November 7, 2003, was prepared; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Relocation and Impact Report, in accordance with applicable law, was distributed to each resident of the Park; and WHEREAS, timely notice was provided to each resident of the time; date, and place at which the Vista Planning Commission, the Vista City Council, and the CDC would consider the Relocation and Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 2003, the Planning Commission considered the Relocation and Impact Report and adopted Resolution _ recommending that the City Council approve the report; and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2003, the City Council and the CDC held a public hearing regarding the Relocation and Impact Report at which all interested persons were permitted to speak; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct. 2. The Relocation and Impact Report for Sycamore Creek, a true and correct copy of which is on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, and which is incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved. The City Council determines that Relocation and Impact Report satisfies the Report Requirements. 4. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall review any requests to modify an initial determination of relocation benefits in accordance with Section 6158 of Title .25 of the California Code of Regulations. (Continued on next page.) `�6 DEC - 9 zoo3 ITEM 2 8 0 RESOLUTION NO 2003 — CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE 2 0 5. The City Manager is authorized and directed to implement the Relocation and Impact Report, inclusive of the Park closure, and to execute any and all documents and take any and all other actions necessary or convenient to effectuate its purposes. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council held on the ninth day of December, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Wayne Dernetz, City Attorney MORRIS B. VANCE, Mayor ATTEST: Jo Seibert, City Clerk ��5-�_ By: � By: �/ J a� 6k DEC - 9 2953 ITEM 2 8 FROM FAX NO. : 9496448653 Mar. 09 2006 03:40PM P1 Relocating an older mobile home: 1. Find a space in a park that will accept older homes. (most unlikely) a. Will the state allow the relocation of 30 year old homes? b. Contrary to the general model which is to enhance parks to generate higher rent revenues. 2. Acquire the target space; encourage the current occupant to vacate. a. In Orange County the cost is $35,000 to $150,000 or more. 3. Make the target space ready to receive the relocated mobile home. a. Remove the old unit. b. Unit demolition and landfill fees. $5,000 c. Lot cleaning, remove all remaining debris, concrete, vegetation, etc.$1;800 d. Lot preparation, i.e. grading, compaction and applying road bed.$2,000 e. Moving utilities to facilitate the incoming home. $3,500 f. Miscellaneous fees, permits, damage repair, etc. $1,750 4. Make the mobile home ready for transport. a_ Permits. $500 b. Remove the outside park package. $2,500 to $5,000 c. Separate multi - sectional units for transport. $5,000 d. Support and sheathe exposed sections. e. Install axle and wheel assembly as necessary. $1,500 f. Re -affix hitch assembly. $1,200 5. Transport units, per section $1,200. Double -wide =2 sections. 2 , Ltco 6. Install transported units at target site. $9,500 a. Jack sections together. b. install peer system. c. Level units. d. Join and heal marriage line (seem between units) i. Roof, floors, walls, etc. e. Connect utilities, gas, water, sewer, electric, etc. 7. Build outside park package. a. Permits. $600 b. Form and pour new driveway and other flatwork. $9,000 - $12,000 c. Steps, porches, awnings railings, skirting and carport. $12,000 to $15,000 d. Storage shed. $1,800 8. Other costs. a. Planters, sprinklers, plantings, moving and storage expenses. b. Temporary lodging costs. c. Miscellaneous expenses. EXHIBIT 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No.15 (March 14, 2006) TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney ext. 3131, @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Delcaration APPLICANT NAME: City of Newport Beach On March 10, 2006, at approximately 2:35 p.m., our office received Mr. Kaelin's (attorney for Marina Park Mobile Home Park Residents) response to Overland's Relocation Impact Report. Our office will draft a supplemental staff report which addresses each of Mr. Kaelin's contentions prior to the City Council meeting on March 14, 2006. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 15 March 14, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager (949) 644 -3020 d iff ci�.newport- beach.ca.us City Attorney's Office Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney (949) 644 -3131 aharp(cD.city.newi)ort- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report — Marina Park Mobile Home Park APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach INTRODUCTION On March 9, 2006, the City of Newport Beach ( "City') received a response ( "Response ") by the tenants ( "Tenants ") to the Relocation Impact Report ( "Report'). This supplemental staff report is intended to address each of the contentions set forth in the Response. Please do not hesitate to contact Dave Kiff, Robin Clauson or Aaron Harp if you have any questions after you have reviewed this supplemental staff report. RESPONSE TO RELOCATION IMPACT REPORT The California Relocation Assistance Act In the Response, the Tenants contend that the Report is inadequate because it violates the law in that the Report fails to follow the provisions of the California Relocation Assistance Law ( "CRAL "). Specifically, the Tenants contend that any time a "public entity" conducts "any displacing activity" which causes a person "to move from real property or move his or her personal property from real property' that agency must comply with the CRAL. In support of the Tenants' contention, the Tenants cite the case of Superior Strut & Hanger Co. v. Port of Oakland (1977) 72 Cai.App.3d 987, for the proposition that serving eviction notices was a "displacing activity" entitling the tenants to benefits under the CRAL. Here, the Tenants are attempting to mix apples and oranges by arguing that the Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code section 65863.7, which provide the procedures and requirements related to changing the use of a mobile home park, somehow incorporate the provisions of the CRAL. The CRAL, however, is a distinct body of law which is not incorporated into the analysis to be performed under the Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code section 65863.7. Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 2 Specifically, under Government Code section 65863.7, prior to changing the use of a mobile home park, the City is only required to prepare a relocation impact park that addresses "the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and relocation costs." The Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code section 65863.7 do not make any reference to the CRAL or require that the provisions of the CRAL be followed prior to changing of the use of the mobile home park. The decision by legislature to not reference the CRAL was deliberate and the provisions of the CRAL should not be inferred to be a requirement for changing the use of a mobile home park. Specifically, the intent of Mobile Home Residency Law is to provide protection and adequate procedures for the termination of tenancies because of: (1) the high cost of moving mobile homes; (2) the potential for damage resulting from the movement of mobile homes; (3) the requirements relating to the installation of mobile homes; and (4) the cost of landscaping and lot preparation. The express intent of the legislature in enacting the Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code section 65863.7 was to level the playing field between homeowners and mobile home park owners given the costs associated with moving a mobile home after it has been placed in a mobile home park. The intent of the legislature to not impose the requirements of the CRAL as a condition of changing the use of a mobile home park is also supported by the fact that a legislative body charged with reviewing the relocation impact report has discretion to not impose the mitigation measures. Specifically, the Government Code provides that the legislative body "may require, as a condition of the change, the person or entity to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the" change of use, provided that the mitigation requirements do not exceed the "reasonable costs of relocation." Because the requirements of the CRAL are mandatory in situations where the CRAL applies, the legislature would have required an analysis under the CRAL and the mandatory payment of benefits if the legislature had intended that the provisions of the CRAL be implemented, instead of making the imposition of mitigation measures discretionary. In sum, the CRAL is a distinct body of law that must be analyzed separately. If the legislature had intended that a change of use be processed under the CRAL, the legislature would have provided express requirements that these provisions be followed and implemented. Because the CRAL is a distinct body of law, the question then becomes whether the requirements of the CRAL are applicable to the City's proposed change the use of Marina Park. In support of the Tenants' contention that the CRAL applies, the Tenants carefully select snippets of definitions contained in the CRAL in an attempt to make it appear that the CRAL applies. The Tenants' selective quotation of portions of the CRAL, however, ignores the fact that the CRAL specifically provides, among other things, that a "displaced person" does not include "any person whose right to possession at the time of moving arose after the date of the public entity's acquisition of the real property." Here, all of the Tenants limited right to possession through short term leases arose after the City acquired Marina Park. Hence, the provisions of the CRAL are inapplicable because none of the Tenants are "displaced persons" as defined in the CRAL. Additionally, case law interpreting the CRAL has held that a public entity which is a long time owner of property on which a mobile home park is located need not pay tenants of the mobile Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative fledaTaUon March 14, 2006 Page 3 home park relocation assistance under the CRAL because of a park closure or a "displacement" which is the result of the expiration of the lease between the City and mobile home park operator. The rational for this holding is that under the CRAL and implementing guidelines, the Tenants are not displaced persons unless their displacement occurred as a result of the acquisition of the real property. The CRAL is only applicable when there is a causal connection between the acquisition and the displacement which brings into play the provisions of the CRAL. The mere reversion of the right to possession is not an acquisition entitling a tenant to benefits under the CRAL. Furthermore, the case of Superior Strut, cited by Tenants, is not on point. In Superior Strut, the port authority acquired the property for a public purpose and continued a landlord /tenant relationship with Superior Strut until it was time to begin the project for which the property was acquired. The port authority then served a thirty (30) day notice terminating the tenancy. The Court in Superior Strut reasoned that the landlord /tenant relationship continued to exist and that the termination was the result of the port authority's desire to begin the public project which supported the acquisition in the first instance. In sum, the express provisions of the CRAL and the statutory case law interpreting the CRAL provide that the City is not obligated to follow the provisions of the CRAL. The City's only obligation is to follow the provisions of the Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code section 65863.7 which do not include the provisions of the CRAL. In regards to the Tenants' contention that the Report assumes that the City is a private entity proposing closure, this contention misstates the City's position. As set forth above, the City's position is that the Mobile Home Residency Law does not incorporate the requirements of the CRAL and that the CRAL, by its own terms, does not apply to the proposed change of use of Marina Park. The term "private closure" as used in the Report merely reflects that the City is operating as a landowner in regards to the change of use, and as shorthand for the foregoing propositions. Similarly, the Tenants' argument that the adoption of Resolution No. 96 -62, referenced in the Response, imposes an obligation on the City to comply with the provisions of the CRAL is without merit. Specifically, Resolution No. 96 -62 merely updated the City's Relocation Plan for Real Property Acquisitions and did not impose any obligation on the City in this instance. The Mobile Home Park Overlay District In the Response, the Tenants contend that the Report is inadequate because it violates the law in that the Report fails to follow the requirements set forth in Chapter 20.51 of the Municipal Code. The provisions of Chapter 20.51, however, are only applicable to mobile home parks to which the Mobile Home Park Overlay District has been applied. Here, the provisions of Chapter 20.51 have not been applied to Marina Park which has a Planned Community District designation. In fact, Chapter 20.51 does not apply to the majority of the mobile home parks located in the City because these parks do not have an MHP designation. Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 4 Furthermore, even if Chapter 20.51 applied, the provisions of Section 20.51.060 of the Municipal Code, which is cited by the Tenants, would only apply if the a zoning amendment was being sought by the City to remove the MHP designation. Here, the City is not seeking a zoning amendment because the Marina Park property does not have an MHP designation. The City of Vista Relocation Impact Report In the Response, the Tenants contend that the Report is inadequate because the authors of the Report, Overland, Pacific & Cutler ( "Overland "), prepared a report for the closure of the Sycamore Creek Park which contemplated the payment of benefits under the CRAL in addition to other benefits. The Tenants further contend that the City directed Overland to prepare a report which excluded relevant benefits payable under the law and that the Sycamore Creek Park Closure was identical to the situation before the City Council. Before discussing the Tenants' contentions, it is important to note that the legal counsel advising the City of Vista in regards to the Sycamore Creek Park closure, was none other than the firm of Endeman, Lincoln Turek & Heater, LLP, which is the same counsel representing the Tenants. On March 13, 2005, staff contacted Robin Putnam, the Director of the Community Development Department, to discuss the Sycamore Creek Park closure. During their conversation, Ms. Putnam informed staff that legal counsel and the former director of the Community Development Department made substantial revisions to the Overland relocation impact report for the Sycamore Creek Park closure and directed Overland regarding the applicable benefits to be paid. In this case, Overland was asked to prepare a relocation impact report that complied with the Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code section 65863.7. While Overland consulted with the Office of the City Attorney regarding the Report, the Report reflects Overland's independent judgment regarding the type and level of benefits to be paid to the Tenants. Further, the Tenants' contention that the Sycamore Creek Park closure is identical to the situation at Marina Park is without merit. Specifically, in the Response the Tenants contend that the situation is identical because the City of Vista owned and operated a park for years at purportedly below- market rents and decided to close the park to accommodate an interim vacant use while looking at redevelopment possibilities. This statement from the Response, however, is at odds with the City of Vista City Council Agenda Report which notes that the Community Development Commission, which is the local redevelopment agency, acquired the Sycamore Creek Park for the preservation of low and moderate income housing in 1989. In 2002, the Community Development Commission began the process to redevelop the park for housing development, inclusive of affordable units, in a manner consistent with the City of Vista's General Plan. As a result, it is clear from the Vista situation that the closure of the park and the displacement of the residents was for the exact same public purpose which caused the City to acquire the Sycamore Creek Park in the first place. While the Tenants raise the City of Vista closure, and cite ordinances related to mobile home park closures in other jurisdictions, the simple fact of the matter is that the City of Newport Beach is not bound by the decision of other jurisdictions to pay or require the payment of Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 5 benefits. The City is only required to follow the provisions of the Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code and the City has fully complied with these provisions. The Reasonable Cost of Relocation In the Response, the Tenants contend that the Report is inadequate because it fails to adequately address the reasonable cost of relocation faced by the tenants. Before discussing the contention, it is important to note that the Government Code only requires that the Report discuss relocation costs and that the decision on whether to impose the mitigation measures, which cannot exceed the reasonable relocation costs, is a discretionary decision. The most recent cost information referenced in the Report was obtained by Overland as of August 2005 and is reflected in Exhibit F of the Report. The Report adequately assesses the reasonable cost of relocation because it provides an estimate of the cost of relocating the mobile homes and appurtenances, while acknowledging that special conditions related to particular mobile homes may increase costs. The reasonableness of the Report is confirmed by the Mobile Home Park Closure Impact Report prepared for the closure for Seacliffe Homes located at 890 West 15'" Street, Newport Beach, California, which is also being considered by the City Council at the March 14, 2006 City Council Meeting. In the Seacliffe Report, the consultants received estimates from three mobile home movers who provided estimates for moving the mobile homes. The three mobile home movers provided an estimate which ranged from: (1) $11,250.00 to $12,375.00 for single wide mobile homes; and (2) $14,600.00 to $17,250.00 for double wide mobile homes. Based on these cost estimates obtained from three independent movers, the Report's analysis of the relocation costs is reasonable and the Tenants' estimate of the cost of physically moving the mobile homes is grossly overstated. In addition, the Tenants' interpretation of what are "relocation costs" is inconsistent with the requirements of the Mobile Home Residency Law and the Government Code. Specifically, the Tenants' contend, among other things, that the cost of relocation includes the cost of acquiring the property to which the mobile homes will be relocated. The Tenants are in essence contending that the City has to pay the owner of a mobile home whatever costs are necessary to ensure that the mobile home owner is actually relocated to another mobile home park, rather than paying the cost necessary to physically relocate the mobile home to another park within a reasonable distance of the park being closed. As set forth in the staff report and this supplemental report, the Tenants have misconstrued what the term "relocation costs" means (i.e. the physical cost of relocating the mobile home and costs associated therewith) and given this term a meaning that greatly surpasses the intent of the legislature. Furthermore, it is important to note that the City Council has discretion to determine what mitigation measures should be imposed and the level thereof. The only restriction is that the City Council cannot impose mitigation measures that exceed the reasonable cost of relocation. Here, the Report provides in the first mitigation measure that the City would pay a mover hired by the City or approved by the City prior to the move, the cost to physically move the mobile home. If the actual cost of moving the mobile home exceeds the projected costs, the City would pay the actual cost of moving the home. For purposes of the second and third mitigation measures, staff believes that any payments made under these options is reasonable based on Agenda Item: Marina Park Mobile Home Park — Change of Use — Relocation Impact Report — Mello Act — Mitigated Negative Declaration March 14, 2006 Page 6 the projected cost of moving the mobile homes. While the Tenants' contend that the amounts set forth in mitigation measures two and three should be increased, staff believes that based on the analysis set forth in the Report and considering the estimates set forth in the Seacliffe report, the amounts to be paid under the second and third mitigation measures are appropriate. Given the discretion vested in the City Council to determine what mitigation measures should be imposed and the level thereof, staff recommends that the mitigation measures be imposed as a condition of the change of use. Site Availability In the response, the Tenants' contend that the Report ignores the fact that there are limited relocation sites available and that the City is therefore required to provide additional benefits to Tenants. This is not the case. According to the express provisions and intent of the Mobile Home Residency Law, the City is only required to assess the cost of physically relocating the mobile homes and costs related thereto. The City is not required to analyze or provide mitigation measures which will ensure that the mobile homes will actually be moved and no analysis or additional mitigation measures are required by the Mobile Home Residency Law or Government Code. Lease Provisions In the response, the Tenants contend that the City acknowledged that the waiver of relocation benefits provision in the leases with the Tenants was against public policy and void. This is not the case. The current lease expressly provides that the City reserves the right to make the contention that the past rents have been below market rent and constitute consideration against relocation costs upon the closure of Marina Park. The City contends that the waiver provisions in exchange for the payment of below market rents is valid and not against public policy Financial Impact on Tenants In the Response, the Tenants contend that the Report ignores the actual financial impact on the Tenants from this closure. In sum, this is a policy argument and is not a legal argument. The City Council may, if it chooses, provide additional relocation assistance. Prepared by: Aaron C. Harp, Assistant City Attorney Submitted by: Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager D Newport Beach City Council Tuesday, March 14th, 2006 z Quick background about Marina Park Park History Lease History The Relocation Impact Report Notice that went out to tenants, others. Keyser- Marston Data about Tenant Benefits over time The Mello Act 3 vironmentol ' e w = The "Interim Public Open Space Use" Summary of Resolution 2006- , including: CEQA & Hearing Information Relocation Impact Report Mello Act findings Change of Use to Interim Open Space Condition N Aaron H'arp, Assistant Cif777f7wney- Terry Dowdall ( Dowdall Law Offices - Relocation) Barry McDaniel (Overland Pacific Cutler - Relocation Impact Report) Fred Talarico (Vista Consulting - CEQA) Cal Hollis (Keyser- Marston - benefits of reduced rent) 5 arena Park -is a mobile home park c 4.34 acres at 1770 West Balboa Blv Initial use of the MP property was fc a campground in 1919. Park renovated in 1955 for a trailer court for 120 trailers. Later renovations brought it where i is today, homes. accommodating 58 mobile 2 7 transition MP to a visitor - serving use: eni 1973 Lease: MP will be converted into "a public recreation area at the termination o existing leases... "; 1976 Lease: 1976 Lease: Extended the 1985 Lease (and offered a 5 year extensior the City Council found that MP was not required for a public purpose); 1985 Lease: In 1985 the City found that MP was indeed needed for a public use bu agreed to enter into a long -term lease that provided for the payment of below mark rents in exchange for the waiver of the tenant's right to receive relocation benefits; 2000 Lease Extension: 2000 Lease Extension: Extended the 1985 Lease through M 2002 and reaffirmed the provisions contained in the 1985 lease; and 2002 onward: Tenants have been on month -to -month or 12 -month term leases, however, State law requires a minimum of a 12 -month notice to tenants in the ever park closure. 0 Of thT 58bileie sees at MP Tresently... 1 space is vacant; 1 coach is City -owned and is vacant; 30 of remaining 56 coaches are used as permanent residences (includes MP Manager and Assistant Manager - effectively, that's 28 tenant coaches used as permanent residences); Most homes are 10 -59 years in age; Homes range from 800 -1,500 square feet. Permanent MP population is approximately 66 persons: But 6 of these are family members of lessees; Average tenure of full -time residents is 16 years; Average tenure of secondary -home residents is 12 years. * info from OPC's Relocation Impact Report R1 City Council ad Committee (to Members are: hoc Marina look at park Ridgeway (Chair), Rosansky, and Webb ..ouncil formed the Park Advisory closure issues). In June 2005, City Council approved an action that directed staff to move towards park closure with an "interim public open space use" as the designated use of the park following closure. 10 Stat7F law requires the preparation of a Relocation Impact Report (RIR) prior to the closure of a mobile home park. The RIR must address the availability of adequate replacement housing in mobile home parks and relocation costs. Staff hired Overland, Pacific, and Cutler ( ) to prepare the RIR. State law directs that the local governing body - in this case the City Council - hold a public hearing on the RIR to determine whether the RIR is sufficient and to consider the imposition of mitigation measures based on the change of use. In MP's case, the City Council will hold the public hearing on the report that the City itself directed be done, because MP is a City -owned mobile home park. 11 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 10.2We RE: NOTICE OF HEARING ON INTENDED CHANGE OF USE OF MARINAPARK MOBILE HOME PARK AND RELOCATION IMPACT REPORT Dear Vann .Fark Resident. As you ran m0 by to Induced materials, Me City of Newport Beach ('Clh /1 be moan9 forward .IM cYSngirg tins use uI Merinaperk Mobile Home Park ('Parks from a nmidemiat rental use to tln tried. odes a a. use Tip m,tam Of the Tamil. Of Use :Mardis by Me City IS to vera6, Mvlsra,a ae a motile home pant and to um IN props, for an !Mnrtm. aper ea cis, use A Oavic meting on the char, of use b an interim open spa. use, the Malimpem Mobile e Fart Ra!o..dn impact Report (Report"), end the Mg5aled Negative Declaration is Me af._, in N process V changing Els use of Marna.rk. Mouse N solarised that B Me City ':I aWmess me cNt,o rf ox and 0:e Report, Me Gry wB pmviN you w M an offdal n Iir- of Me dor.ge of use w ch will be gNen at land ry eNa (12) npMN prior to this dmn ,In the chimps Of See MI Od:UI. Erciossd he , ffh anodic find a copy of the Report This Report is intonded w f0hE the City's, ablgation undef Ma bw ad In r.mvlra yea with imnrtnativn and MlamatNas alatlrg to Mo mraboation of yo, home, arcluder9 Me.. harshly o1 o-ri rebcabun door, ihs a aselesllty of new or usec mobile homes, as wdI ea additional rebra0on asNSmnce . A copy of tie Report ass previously bad by IN Cry WN, Me Usy Lai At Mat tlmO, top city recuesbd o heart, on Nre Report Pei N achiestl that the Nine heath, on tivas u, eei6c matter (to chN,n of iaa M iN park frwn a readennsi rental use 1n no imerm open apace are, Me Ro0drt Mob and the Mitigated Nxyrtive Declararun) vnll bo!a,.d on Torsos,, March 14, 2006 In 7:00 PM, Council CNmben of IN City of Newport Beach. Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Bdulionr d, Newport Beach, Callfoara. - .d cp, of t]rr ryi heart, r. ,s1 cr is Iw:ccac a Drell rpaau. , if yc, ha':a any cueabOna regarding Me trader a, ;Ni)" EW -30.2 _m rely avYV S ,slam:; +: vta,a0ar Glv Hall • 13pn Newport lI • Pat(Nfirn l3oc O56 \:.., .r lrt'�r. F.( il: r., m' aH2la9s'- 8015 •uV1V.tlY'.neuo;%mMrraclt.[S.tU CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PLBL C HEARING MARINAPARK MOBILE HOME PARK NOTICE IS HEREBY Gif that Me Cry Counc9 of to City of Newport Brach will hold a pudic harry on: 0) the chaotic of use of Me Mam ,aa,k Mobile Home Pork tmm a rendl use a an interim open apace use; and (2) and MaalapaM Mobie Home Pont Ralora6un InIld Report CReport"). TN ib r la be taken St Me coolie haddr, byte City Combil rnneieis ol: )1) appmvai of the c:rargs of use of Me I,Wrinapark Mpbiie hbmn Park from a boost use N an interim open Specs, use; (2) rr d of Me Report (3) a Cehmgnalfon of whether the Fepdr, h sufficient and o am fmuerce Mir Caw,mei Once Becton 65863.7. and (4) d detennkm:hn of whet mifgaflan mansuros. 9 arty, skull be deposed on Us City Of Newpcf Easier or mkyare any adverse Impact or the :hang¢ of use from a mnMi use In an Interim open space use on the ability m displaced mush hnma park re,iders W find adaeuate hormkv_ h a mode W. gem. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN Not road public hearing MII be halt on March 14, 2000, at IN Neer of 7:00 p.m., fn the COe,,I ChamLcm a IN Chy of Nnepa,, Beach City HMI, 3300 Newport BITE., Newport Beach, Ca0fomla 926584915, of which tlme and bidder any and all persons Iseartled may appear and N head III your era Nreby hauler advised that M yn,, nhellenuc no City Cnundfs actpn(a) taken al Md Nara, In sun, you may N tinned to moire only Ma. Issues yea or aommne else raised at the ;ubllc h abnM dea ribo d In fhb notice or In wrllan corres.nden. delivered d, the Gry N, or War to Ihd public, hearing. For Iarform ion roll (gag) 644- 3200 LaVonno Hardee, Secretary, CIy Coundl, City of Novporf Beach City Hall • IYYI \enpwt Doul —nd • hanv ,N Arorh, Cvlifumio 9:.613 -.i H con w,Etyruwpodbm[hm.ue 12 Personal interviews - onducteTin Augu =005 with 50 residents. 28 permanent households: 51 adults, 13 children. Average tenure in park is 16 years. Space rents: $1,050 to $1,550. Household size ranges from 1 to 5 individuals. 15 households have senior members (62 +). 4 households with mobility problems. Income levels: 4 Very Low, 6 Low, 3 Moderate and 4 Above Moderate among 17 respondents. Coach ages range from 10 to 59 years. 13 Oonta ed individual mobile d e parR�s, apar men complexes, & real estate companies specializing in mobile home properties. Surveyed 33 parks in 17 Orange County cities adjacent to or within proximity to Newport Beach. 9 vacant spaces were identified; 4 of which were available for used mobile homes and 5 for new mobile homes. Space rents for 22 parks were in the $400 -750 range with 11 parks in the $750 - $1,100 range. 104 for -sale coaches were available with prices ranging from $21,500- 769,000 and the lower end of the range across all parks at $21,500 to $100,000. Optional housing resources researched included rental housing for two and three bedroom dwelling units. 14 Tenants with Moveable Homes are entitled to the cost of... Disassembling, moving, and reassembling the home at a similar park within 60 miles. If tenant decides to have home moved more than 60 miles, he /she must pay the additional moving costs; Payment of new utility connections & reimbursement of previous security deposit; Temporary lodging expenses of $500; Moving costs of $1,500 (plus $1,000 for senior and /or disabled households); and A relocation consultant's services. 15 TenantsTvith Unmovable Homes (homes that can not be moved as determined by a professional mover or can not be relocated within 60 miles of MP) are entitled to: $20K for a single -wide, $21,500 for a double -wide, and $23,000 for a triple -wide an amount determined based on the cost of moving the homes plus $1,000 for seniors /disabled; Payment of new utility connections & reimbursement of previous security deposit; Moving costs of $1,500; and A relocation consultant's services. (benefits contingent upon tenant removing coach and improvements at tenant's expense.) 16 Tenants who reject relocation mitigation are entitled to: $20K for a single -wide, $21,500 for a double - wide, and $23,000 for a triple -wide (an amount determined based on the cost of moving the homes) plus $1,000 for seniors /disabled; Reimbursement of previous security deposit; and Moving costs of $1,500 (benefits contingent upon tenant removing coach and improvements at tenant's expense) 17 2005 Keyser- Marston Study Bayfront tenant (As & Bs)with MP would receive a $329,621 time from reduced rent. said: 21 -year history at benefit over that Bayview tenant (Cs, Ds, & Es) with 21 -year history at MP would receive a $192,292 benefit over that time from reduced rent. * Comparable rents were from: DeAnza Bayside Village Lido Peninsula Resort * over 21 years, this is roughly $14 million for all spaces in At staff's direc ion, the Overland RIR did not consider the Keyser- Marston data nor the early leases' relocation benefit waivers. Staff believes that the RIR's recommended benefit levels are appropriate and that the Keyser- Marston data should not be used to lower the benefit levels to $0. The Keyser- Marston data shows that no additional benefits over those suggested b) the RIR should be awarded. 19 RIR said that 13 of the MP tenants are persons of low- or moderate - income. The Mello Act (CA Gov Code § 65590) generally provides that: The conversion /demolition of residential units occupied by person of log or moderate - income, in the Coastal Zone can't occur unless provisions have been made for the replacement of these dwelling units UNLESS The conversion /demolition is: For the purpose of a nonresidential use which is coastal dependent or coastal related (the coastal- dependent or coastal related use must also consistent with the provisions of the land use plan portion of the local government's local coastal program); and /or Located within the jurisdiction of a local government which has within th area encompassing the Coastal Zone, and 3 miles inland therefrom, les! that 50 acres, in aggregate, of land which is vacant, privately owned, ai available for residential use. If either the above exceptions apply, the City is not required to replace the dwelling units occupied by low and moderate - income households unless City Council determines that the replacement of all or a portion the dwelling units occupied by low and moderate income households is "feasible." 20 The City believes that it is not required to replace the dwelling units that are occupied by low and moderate income households because a residential use is no longe feasible and that: The proposed reuse (interim public open space) is consistent with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan portion of its local coastz program and the Recreation and Environmental Open Space designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The resultant land use is coastal- dependent or coastal - related, Replacement of all or a portion of the dwelling units occupied I persons of low and moderate income is not feasible because it cannot be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time taking into account economic, environmental, social and technical facts. 21 mental review performed unde the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed land use change: Was completed by Vista Community Planners; Had its public review period (from 2 -10 -06 to 3 3 -06); Is a Mitigated Negative Declaration, with two mitigation measures identified: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan or SWPPI for the demolition activity; and Water Quality Management Plan or WQMP for the Interim Open Space Use. 22 e intertm Pumic Open Space Use proposed and studied in the CEQA Initial Study includes: Removal of all 57 coaches, mobile home common buildings (laundry), and appurtenances (3.1 acres) Retention of parking area, roadway, palm trees, and beach walkway (1.24 acres) Keeping all 4+ acres open to the public. 23 e propose eso u ion be ore ounci tonight would: Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration; Approve the sufficiency of the Relocation Impact Report and impose the mitigation measures* as a condition of the change of use; Make the Mello Act findings (not required to replace low /mod housing in Coastal Zone); Direct the change of use from Mobile Home Park to Interim Public Open Space Use. * Council has the right tonight to change the mitigation measures based on all of the facts at hand. 24 RIR is dequate�becauit doesn't follow CA Relocation Assistance Law (CRAL). City believes that CRAL does not apply to this closure of this mobile home park. City's obligations are to follow Mobile Home Residency Law and Government Code section 65863.7 which do not include the provisions of the CRAL. City's adoption of Resolution 96 -62 imposes an obligation for City to comply with CRAL. Resolution 96 -62 did not do that - it merely updated the City's relocation plan for private - property acquisitions. 25 RIR fa=is o comply with NBMC 20.-`I (Mobile Ho Park Overlay District) MP is not in a MHP Overlay District - it is Planned Community District. In fact, NBMC 20.51 does not apply to most mobile home parks in the city, since these do not have the MHP designation. Overland, Pacific, Cutler Vista that did use CRAL. prepared an RIR for City of Dissimilar situations - Vista's RDA acquired the park and City relocated coaches for affordable housing purposes. Regardless, City of NB is not bound to mirror what other cities do - only what MHRL and Gov Code require. 26 RIR fails to address reasonable costs of relocation Note that the Government Code only directs the discussion of relocation impacts - the decision to award mitigation is discretionary. Council can decid not to award anything. RIR report data is from August 2005. Seacliffe report - also on tonight's agenda - comes to similar conclusions. Tenants' counsel's argument about what constitutes relocation costs is inconsistent with the Gov Code. RIR does not take into consideration that limited relocation sites are available. City is not required to do so - MHRL says that the RIR must address physical costs of relocating the coaches. 27 City previously agreed that the waiver of relocation benefits wasn't valid. Not so - current lease includes language saying that City reserves the right to say that reduced rents constitute consideration against relocation benefits. State Parks reports that judge that waiver was appropriate - receive any relocation benefits not have to pay to remove the in El Morro case found tenants there did not except that they did coaches. RIR ignores financial impact on tenants. This is a policy argument, not a legal one. Relocation impacts are awarded at City's discretion. W Council adopts Resolution 2006- tonight, then: Tenants get notice of pending park closure. 12 -month clock starts ticking. City prepares for Interim Public Open Space Use. Relocation benefits awarded and coaches removed on or about mid -May 2007. 29 ity's website : "Projects" then "Marina Park" Call us: 949 - 644 -3002 E -mail us: or 30