HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIA 94-03; Mobilehome Park Rent Control Ordinance; _N/A.-
ANDERSEN. KELEHER 8 SPATA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
G. STEVEN ANDERSEN 1334 PARK VIEW AVENUE, SUITE 100
JAMES F. KELEHER
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER SPATA MANHATTAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90266
TELEPHONE
(310) 546-6662
FACSIMILE
13101 546-5707
May 23, 1994
RANDDELZWRED
Mayor Bud Lewis and
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
City Council Members
Re: Objections to Proposed Negative Declaration, Mobilehome
Park Rent Control Ordinance and Resolution Settins Base Rents
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members:
On behalf of David F. Dawes, the Dawes Marital Trust and
South Shores Development Corporation, this is to object to the
City's proposed Negative Declaration, Rent Control Ordinance and
Resolution Setting Base Rents for such ordinance.
Essentially, the City must refrain from taking any action
to approve the foregoing matters affecting Rancho Carlsbad
Mobilehome Park and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park because the
approval thereof will constitute violations of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Planning Law, the State
Preemption Doctrine, the United States Constitution, and the California Constitution.
Further detail as to these objections is set forth in attached Exhibit A and the Declaration of Jim A. Marquez.
Very truly yours,
ANDERSEN, KELEHER & SPATA
Michael Christopher Spata
MCS/lc
cc: Mr. David F. Dawes
Dawes Marital Trust
South Shores Development Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1.
2.
CEQA OBJECTIONS
Procedural Objection
a. The City Council did not hold a duly advertised public
hearing on May 17, 1994 to consider the proposed Negative
Declaration.
b. Consequently, since counsel inquired on May 17, 1994 concerning whether a public hearing would be scheduled, and since counsel was informed that a public hearing would
not be held, an objection is hereby made on the ground of fundamental unfairness if the affected park owners or their counsel are not given the opportunity to comment
upon the Negative Declaration before the City Council
considers adopting the proposed Negative Declaration, the
Rent Control Ordinance, and the Resolution Setting Base
Rents for such ordinance.
Substantive Objections
a. A fair argument can be made (based upon substantial
evidence) that the proposed project (Rent Control Ordinance/Setting of Base Rents) may cause potentially significant direct and indirect effects/impacts upon the physical and economic environment.
b. Potentially Significant Environmental Effects/Impacts.
The proposed Negative Declaration admits that rent control
ordinances reduce the supply of rental housing stock.
Further, the Negative Declaration assumes a "worst case'#
scenario of the affected mobilehome parks and the
displacement of residents inhabiting over 1,000 mobilehome
park spaces. Importantly, proposed Ordinance No. NS-282 admits that "the cost for moving a mobilehome is substantial with a significant risk of damage. 'I Equally important, there are no existing land use designations
that would accommodate the relocation of these residents
to other mobilehome parks or to other forms of affordable
housing, including manufactured housing.
Against this background, the Negative Declaration did not evaluate the direct and cumulative impacts that are
potentially significant resulting from the closure of
these parks, the displacement of almost 2,000 residents,
and the inconsistency between the land use and housing
elements of the General Plan to accommodate the relocation of these residents within the City. The Negative
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1E
19
2c
21
22
23
24
2f
2€
27
2€
1.
2.
C.
d.
i h - I
Declaration also did not consider the effects of the displacement and relocation of these residents on the housing needs of and the impacts upon the regional welfare.
The proposed project will cause potentially significant
direct or cumulative impacts upon (i) the alteration of
present and planned land uses in the City, (ii) the
substantial alteration of the density of the human population of the area, and (iii) the potential for increasing the demand for additional affordable housing.
Therefore, the City must prepare, circulate for public
review, and adopt an Environmental Impact Report before
considering the passage of the proposed Rental Control
Ordinance.
GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIONS
Ordinance Inconsistency with Housinq Element
a.
b.
C.
The ordinance as proposed contains many provisions that
are fatally flawed based upon the State Preemption
Doctrine, the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. These objections are
incorporated herein by reference.
Assumingthese objections are sustained, then the proposed ordinance, if adopted, would not guarantee a fair rate of return to the affected mobilehome park owners. Consequently, the ordinance would be inconsistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan because the goals, policies and programs regarding the maintenance and enhancement of affordable housing opportunities will be
thwarted by the potential closure of these parks and
displacement of the residents.
Accordingly, the City must not adopt the proposed
ordinance.
Internal Inconsistencv Between Land Use and Housinq Elements
a. The Land Use Element does not provide for sufficient affordable housing for the potential displacement of these residents, while the Housing Element requires that the City maintain and enhance its stock of affordable housing. Rent control will not promote affordable housing. In this
instance, the goal of affordable housing will be thwarted.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
io
11
12
13
14
15
1E
17
1E
18
2c
21
22
23
24
2e
2€
27
2€
1.
2.
1.
STATE PREEMPTION DOCTRINE
Duty to Maintain (Section 5.26.110)
The Mobilehome Residency Law already imposes upon the park owners the duty to maintain the premises. This section
directly conflicts with state law.
Automatic Amlication of Ordinance (Section 5.26.150)
This section prevents the park owners and the residents from entering into a good faith renewal or extension of any existing long-term leases, which are exempt according to state law from the application of local rent control ordinances.
CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS
United States and California Constitutional Violations of the
Takincrs and Substantive Due Process Clauses (Prevention of Fair
Rate of Return on Investment: No Substantial Advancement of
Lecritimate Governmental Purpose: and Arbitrarv, Capricious and
Unreasonable Deprivation of Propertv Riqhts)
a.
b.
Vacancy Control (Section 5.26.130).
This provision neither advances, nor substantially advances, any purportedly legitimate goals of the proposed ordinance; that is, vacancy control will not preserve
affordable housing, but it will increase the cost of such
housing to the mobilehome residents, except for those
residents in place at the the of the enactment of the
proposed ordinance. Hence, there is no constitutional
nexus between the vacancy control provision of this
ordinance and the goals thereof, thereby resulting in an
unconstitutional taking of private property and
deprivation of substantive due process.
Annual Adjustments to Base Rent (Section 5.26.080).
(i) Cap on CPI (75%); inflationary trends not met.
(ii) Limit on maximum increase to 8%; inflationary
(iii) Chapter 5 limitations are illegal.
trends not met.
(iv) Park owners must be given reasonable opportunity to challenge and set aside enforcing government agency's decision in
court.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1E
19
2c
21
22
23
24
2f
2E
27
2E
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
i c
All reasonable and justifiable pass-throughs must be
allowed, irrespective of the Mobilehome Residency Law,
including, but not limited to, such pass-throughs for
capital expenditures and any taxes, assessments, fees and
charges imposed by any government entity. Further, a
reasonable return must be allowed on all capital
expenditures.
Base Rents (Section 5.26.070)
Base Rents are not set at fair market (rental) value based
upon City's own admission (low range value selected) and based upon fatal flaws in KMA Study.
Registration Fee (Section 5.26.060)
Registration fee not reasonably related to the cost of the
service provided.
Findings
(ii)
(iii
of Proposed Ordinance No. NS-282
Shortage of mobilehome park spaces resulted
from exclusionary land use policies and
practices of City. Any inequitable market condition has been caused by City's land use constraints on mobilehome park housing and alternative manufactured housing services.
Mobilehome park owners have placed a substantial investment in their parks; the proposed ordinance will confer an unjust windfall upon residents and impose an unjust
wipe out upon park owners.
Market space base rents, coupled with a fair
rate of return on investment, is permissible
and mandated. Thus, protection of residents'
investment to the detriment of these
requirements guaranteed to the park owners is
confiscatory and arbitrary.
State law requires park owners to maintain park
to protect health, safety and welfare. Corresponding benefit already guaranteed to residents by state law.
Mandated rent control does not provide
affordable housing.
No evidence of unreasonable space rent
increases imposed by park owners.
Findings/Conclusions of Resolution No. 94-143
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
12
14
1E
1E
15
1E
11
2(
21
2:
22
24
2:
2(
2'
21
2.
3.
(vii)
(viii)
Mobilehome Park Rental Study contains fatal
flaws, and hence, City Council arbitrarily
approves of study.
Study concludes illegally that rents should be adjusted.
Adjustment of rents to "low range" is an unconstitutional taking and deprivation of substantive due process.
Adjustment to 75% of San Diego CPI for 1994 is an unconstitutional taking and deprivation of
substantive due process.
Further revision of space rents until July 1,
1995 is an unconstitutional taking and
deprivation of substantive due process.
Recitals are not true and correct.
Rents must not be adjusted pursuant to Exhibit
"A" because such rent levels are confiscatory and arbitrary.
Mandated rent control does not provide affordable housing.
United States and California Constitutional Violations of Eaual
Protection Clause (Discriminatory Exercise of Power to Resulate in Area of Rent Control)
a. The purpose, goal and intent of the proposed ordinance, contrary to Section 5.26.020, is to give the mobilehome
park residents a "hammer," and thus, a discriminatory and unreasonably disproportionate advantage in their negotiations with the mobilehome park owners relating to the consummation of long-term leases.
California Constitutional Violation of Substantive Due Process
a. The proposed Rent Control Ordinance will not promote the
reasonable affordable housing needs of the City nor the San Diego region. To be sure, vacancy control prevents
meeting the goal of providing affordable housing.
b. In addition, the City has neither considered nor
accommodated reasonably the affordable housing needs of
the City nor the regional welfare if the affected mobilehome park residents are displaced resulting fromthe
operation of the ordinance.
5
G. STEVEN ANDERSEN
JAMES F. KELEHER
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER SPATA
ANDERSEN, KELEHER 8 SPATA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1334 PARK VIEW AVENUE, SUITE 100
MANHATTAN BEACH. CALIFORNIA 90288
May 23, 1994
HAND DEIJKERBD
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director Jeffrey Gibson, Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
TELEPHONE
(3101 546-6662
FACSIMILE
(310) 546-5707
Re: Negative Declaration (EIA 94-03) Project Description: Publication Date: May 3, 1994
Mobilehome Park Rent Control Ordinance
Gentlemen:
Consistent with the Negative Declaration for the above-
referenced project, written comments were invited to be submitted within 21 days of the date of issuance.
Consequently, attached is a declaration from Jim A.
Marquez which serves as comments to the Negative Declaration on behalf of David F. Dawes, the Dawes Marital Trust and South Shores
Development Corporation relating to Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park and Lanikai Lane Mobilehome Park.
Accordingly, based upon the attached comments, including
any additional comments submitted this evening before the City
Council, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) , circulate the EIR for public review, and approve the EIR
before considering the adoption of the pending Rent Control
Ordinance and Resolution Setting Base Rents.
Very truly yours,
ANDERSEN, KELEHER & SPATA
Michael Christopher Spata
MCS/lc
cc: Mr. David F. Dawes
The Dawes Marital Trust
South Shores Development Corporation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dawes,
DECLARATION OF JIM A. MARQUEZ
I, JIM A. MARQUEZ, declare as follows:
1. This declaration is submitted in support of David F.
the Dawes Marital Trust and South Shores Development
Corporation. Furthermore, this declaration serves as comments to
the proposed Negative Declaration for the pending Rent Control
Ordinance and Resolution Setting Base Rents for such ordinance.
Finally, this declaration is submitted in opposition to the proposed
Negative Declaration because a fair argument can be made that the
proposed project may cause potentially significant environmental
effects. The following is within my personal knowledge; and if
called as a witness herein, I could testify competently thereto.
2. I am the owner of Jim A. Marquez Planning and Design,
a sole proprietorship specializing in land use and environmental
planning. I have over twenty years of municipal urban planning and
private sector land use planning experience. I received a B.S. in
Urban and Regional Planning from California State Polytechnic
University in 1973 and an M.P.A. from the University of Southern
California in 1979.
3. As part of my professional experience, I served as
the Director of Municipal Planning for the City of Hawthorne from
1980-1986. I also served in a variety of planning positions with
the City of Torrance, City of Monrovia and the City of Pic0 Rivera.
///
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2e
2E
27
2E
4. I h ve been a member of the American Planning
Association, Urban Land Institute and the Southern California
Planning Congress. I served on the Board of Directors of the
Planning Congress from 1976 to 1985, and I was elected President
thereof in 1983 and 1984. I was also contributing editor to the
League of California Cities Planning Commissioner's Handbook,
Conducting a Planning Commission Hearing (1984).
5. During my years of experience, I have been involved
in the preparation, evaluation and amendment of general plan
elements, zoning and subdivision regulations, redevelopment plans,
environmental assessments, studies and reports, and the procedures
relating thereto. I have also written, reviewed, evaluated and
processed land use, development and redevelopment projects in a
number of cities in Southern California. In my experience, I have
either written or updated various elements of the general plan in
the cites for which I have worked. Specifically, I have written or
updated the Noise Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Land Use
Element and Housing Element.
6. In connection with my review of this matter, I have
reviewed, among other things, the proposed Negative Declaration, the
City's Land Use and Housing Elements, various City Agenda Bills and
the Keyser Marston Fair Rental Value Study.
7. Based upon my review of the foregoing documents and
based upon my familiarity with the subject mobilehome parks (Rancho
Carlsbad and Lanikai Lane), it is my opinion that the City must
2
..
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and not adopt the proposed
Negative Declaration, because a fair argument may be made that the
project may cause potentially significant environmental effects.
8. The reasons in support of my opinion are stated as
follows :
a. The proposed Negative Declaration admits that rent control
ordinances reduce the supply of rental housing stock.
Further, the Negative Declaration assumes a "worst case"
scenario of the affected mobilehome parks and the
displacement of residents inhabiting over 1,000 mobilehome
park spaces. Importantly, proposed Ordinance No. NS-282
admits that "the cost for moving a mobilehome is
substantial with a significant risk of damage." Equally
important, there are no existing land use designations
that would accommodate the relocation of these residents
to other mobilehome parks or to other forms of affordable
housing, including manufactured housing.
b. Against this background, the Negative Declaration did not
evaluate the direct and cumulative impacts that are
potentially significant resulting from the closure of
these parks, the displacement of almost 2,000 residents,
and the inconsistency between the land use and housing
elements of the General Plan to accommodate the relocation
of these residents within the City. The Negative
Declaration also did not consider the effects of the
3
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IC
17
1E
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
2:
2t
2;
22
displacement and relocation of these residents on the
housing needs of and the impacts upon the regional
welfare .
c. The proposed project will cause potentially significant
direct or cumulative impacts upon (i) the substantial
alteration of present and planned land uses in the City,
(ii) the substantial alteration of the density of the
human population of the area, and (iii) the potential for
increasing the demand for additional affordable housing.
9. Therefore, the City must prepare, circulate for
public review, and adopt an Environmental Impact Report before
considering the passage of the proposed Rental Control Ordinance.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that
this declaration was executed on this 23rd day of May 1994 at
Manhattan Beach, California.
4
EMlIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART JI
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. EIA 94-03
DATE: April 27.1994
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Mobilehome Park Rent Control Ordinance
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92009
(619) 438-1161
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: N/A
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A municiDal ordinance to regulate mobilehome park space rental
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and
provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmentd
Impact Report or Negative Declaration.
* A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked
to indicate this determination.
* An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the
project may cause a simificant effect on the environment. The project may qualifv for a Negative
Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed
insinnificant. - These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and YES-insig"
respectively.
-
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
A --
PHYSICAL m0"T
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES NO
(insig)
1. Result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards? X -
X
X -
Appreciably change the topography or any
unique physical features?
2.
3.
4.
Result in or be affected by erosion of soils
either on or off the site?
Result in changes in the deposition of beach
sands, or modification of the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake?
5.
6.
Result in substantial adverse effects on
ambient air quality?
Result in substantial changes in air
movement, odor, moisture, or temperature?
7. Substantially change the course or flow of
water (marine, fresh or flood waters)?
8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface
water, ground water or public water supply? X
9. Substantially increase usage or cause
depletion of any natural resources? X
X
-
Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 10.
11. Alter a significant archeological,
paleontological or historical site,
structure or object? X -
-2-
I -.
BIOLOGICAL
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES
(sig)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
Introduce new species of plants into an area,
or a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Reduce the amount of acreage of any
agricultural crop or affect prime, unique
or other farmland of state or local
importance?
Affect the diversity of species, habitat
or numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals, all water dwelling organisms
and insects?
Introduce new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
17. Alter the present or planned land use
of an area?
18. Substantially affect public utilities,
schools, police, fire, emergency or other
public services?
YES
big)
YES NO
(insig)
X
X -
X -
X -
X -
YES NO
(insig)
X -
X
-3-
h
"E"MENT
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY YES YES NO
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Result in the need for new or modified sewer
systems, solid waste or hazardous waste
X control systems? - -
X Increase existing noise levels? - -
X Produce new light or glare? - - -
Involve a significant risk of an explosion
or the release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
Substantially alter the density of the
human population of an area?
Affect existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Generate substantial additional traffic?
Affect existing parking facilities, or
create a large demand for new parking?
Impact existing transportation systems or
alter present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods?
Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans?
Obstruct any scenic vista or create an
aesthetically offensive public view?
Affect the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
X -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X -
X
X
X
4-
MANDATORY FINDIJSIGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY:
33. Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wild-
life 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 en-
dangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory.
34. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
35. Does the project have the possible
environmental effects which are in-
dividually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively con-
siderable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual 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.)
36. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
YES YES NO
(si@ (insig)
X -
X -
-5-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, EVALUATION
The proposed project applies to the municipal jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad which is located along the
Pacific Ocean in northern San Diego County. San Diego County is the most southwestern county of the
continental United States and it is located north of the Mexican Border. Carlsbad is bounded by the City of
Oceanside to the north; the City of Encinitas to the south; the Cities of San Marcos, Vista and unincorporated
County areas to the east; and the Pacific Ocean to the west.
The proposed project is a municipal ordinance that regulates the rent charged on mobilehome park spaces
in the City of Carlsbad. The ordinance has the potential to affect three (3) mobilehome home parks in the
City: Rancho Carlsbad; Lake Shore Gardens; and, Lanikai Lane. The ordinance would protect the rights of
tenants in mobilehome parks by regulating the amount of rent which can be charged by mobilehome park
owners in a manner which is fair and equitable to both tenants and owners.
The ordinance mandates that mobilehome park rents be established as follows: (1) Rents must be based on
a fair market rate study which establishes a fair market value of the right to occupy the space and use of the
amenities and services of the park; and, (2) Rents must represent a fair and reasonable return on the park
owner's investment. Based on this criteria, the base rent charged mobilehome park tenants may be adjusted
annually to reflect yearly increases in the San Diego County Housing Component of the Consumer Price
Index, except that, the annual increase, if granted, shall be a minimum of 3% and a maximum of 8%.
Any park owner or tenant may appeal the base rent established by the ordinance at any time, in which case
the appeal is submitted to a neutral third party arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the park owner and
tenant. The role of the arbitrator is to receive relevant evidence and allow the parties a reasonable
opportunity to be heard. It is also the arbitrator's responsibility to determine whether the base rent complies
with the intent and purpose of the ordinance and represents a fair and reasonable return on the park owner's
investment.
SOIL EROSION AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS:
The proposed ordinance is structured such that the mobilehome park owners would be guaranteed a fair and
reasonable return on the park investment. With a fair and reasonable return on investment the park owner
would be less likely to disinvest from the mobilehome park venture by deferring physical maintenance or
abandoning the property. A reasonable return on the investment would ensure that the value of the property
is protected by providing sufficient funds to adequately maintain park facilities and landscaping. A minimal
amount of landscape maintenance, including watering, fertilizing, and trimrmn g of shrubs and ground cover
is all that is necessary to ensure that there are no significant erosional impacts to natural or man made slopes
within the mobilehome parks. With a minimal amount of landscaping to cover bare exposed scil and slopes,
additional geologic hazards such as landslides and ground failures would be reduced to below a level of
significance. In addition, when the parks were original graded and constructed the developments were
subject to standard grading and building practices as part of approved grading and building permits, thus further reducing the potential for geologic hazards.
-6-
ALTJZRATION OF TOPOGRAPHY, WATER BODIES, WATER QUW, AND CULTURAL REsouRcEs:
Under a "worst case" analysis in which there is the deferral of mobilehome park maintenance, closure of a
mobilehome park, and displacement of park residents there would not be a significant physical adverse impact
on any of the following environmental items:
1) The topography of the mobilehome park sites would not change. In the event that a park was closed,
any new or future development project on the site would be subject to separate environmental review
under CEQA;
2) No changes to the deposition of beach sands or flows of water (marine, fresh or flood) would occur and
there would be no modification to rivers, streams, ocean beds, bays, inlets, or lakes. Any changes in
the physical characteristics of a site created by grading to accommodate a new type of land use or
development project would require separate environmental review under CEQA;
3) Impacts to cultural resources (archeological, paleontological) would not occur given the fact that the
physical environmental impacts associated with the grading and construction of the existing mobilehome
parks have already occurred.
AIR QUM, AND CONSUMPTION OF FUEIS AND NATURAL REsouRcEs:
A fair and reasonable return on investment for the park owner will ensure that mobilehome parks are not
prematurely closed or abandoned due to the proposed regulations in the ordinance. Under the "worst case"
analysis, park residents may be displaced by either closure of a park due to the new ordinance or by the "no
project'' alternative in which tenants on fixed incomes must move because they can not afford excessively high
rental rates. Tenants forced to relocate for whatever reasons would most likely have to move to parks that
are more affordable and possibly farther inland from the coast. This relocation may potentially increase
commuter distances and traveling distances to friends, relatives, and professional services, thus increasing the
consumption of fuels, contributing to regional traffic congestion, and contributing to regional air pollution.
This increase would be considered insignificant given the small number of residents involved. The three (3)
mobile homes parks potentially affected have approximately 1,028 total rental spaces/units and a potential
for approximately 1,542 residents (1.5 residents per space/unit) which constitutes a very small percentage
of the total dwelling units and population of Carlsbad (i.e. 3.7% of the total dwelling units and 2.7% of total
City population based on 1990 census data) . Over time, and once residents are relocated into new areas
they tend to adjust their travel and trip patterns to the characteristics of the new park locale, therefore, any
additional impacts would be short term in nature.
BIOLOGICAL ENvlR0"T
The proposed ordinance would not have any significant adverse environmental impact on the biological
resources of the City of Carlsbad. Negative environmental impacts associated with native flora, fauna and
sensitive biological habitats typically occur when the land is cleared and graded to accommodated a specific
development project. In this case, the mabilehome parks in question are already in existence, therefore, any
physical biological impacts have already occurred when the parks were originally graded and constructed.
Under the "worst case analysis", if the proposed ordinance prematurely forced the closure and demolition of
a mobilehome park and the vacant land were allowed to return to a natural biological state, there could be
-7-
a positive environmental benefit to the biological resources of the City. However, any future changes in land
use resulting from the closure of a park would be subject to a subsequent environmental review under CEQA.
LAND USE AND DENSW
The proposed ordinance would not alter the planned land use or density of an area. The proposed ordinance
does Et change the General Plan designation and Zoning of the mobilehome park properties. The
mobilehome park properties within the City are designated for residential land use at densities that the range
from 0 to 11.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed ordinance would not change these land use
designations. If a mobilehome park was forced to close because of the new ordinance, then any
redevelopment of the site would have to conform to the appropriate residential designation and density of
the General Plan. If the park owner desired to change any of these land use designations then the
amendments would be subject to City Council approval and separate environmental review under CEQA.
PUBLIC FAClLlTES AND mum:
The proposed ordinance would not result in the need for new sewer systems, solid waste systems or
hazardous waste control systems, nor impact existing public services. The existing mobilehome parks are
currently connected to the City's urban support infrastructure such as roads, sewers, waterlines, trash pick-up,
etc.. Under a "worst case" analysis, if an existing mobilehome park were to close as a result of the new
regulations there would be less residential demand on public services and infrastructure, thus reducing
impacts to the system. Redevelopment of the site would have to be considered with those same intensities
allowed by the General Plan and comply with the City's Growth Management Program.
NOISE, LIGHT AND GLARE:
The regulation of mobilehome park rent would not effect noise levels in or around the parks nor produce
physical impacts such as new light and glare. These impacts are typically associated with the grading and
construction of new residential development projects, not existing ones.
HOUSING:
The availability and construction of new mobilehome parks in the City would not be adversely affected by
the regulations in the proposed ordinance because new mobilehome parks are not subject to the requirements
of rent control type ordinances, therefore, there is no disincentive to build and maintain new rental
mobilehome parks. Because a new park would not be subject to the ordinance the growth of this type of
housing would not be impacted.
Historically it has been demonstrated that rent control reduces the supply of rental housing stock. The
proposed ordinance has the potential to impact three (3) existing mobilehome parks in the City. Given the
small number of potentially affected rental units (1,028 rental space/units) and the provisions in the
proposed ordinance to minimize disinvestment and closure of parks, the potential impacts to the City's rental
housing supply are considered insignificant.
-8-
The three potentially affected mobilehome parks within the City are not considered or classified as low
income residential housing units, therefore, the ''worst case" potential closure of the parks due to the
proposed rent control ordinance would not adversely impact the City's stock of existing affordable housing.
CIRCULATION AND THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND GOODS:
The proposed ordinance would not generate additional traffic, impact the present transportation systems, or
alter the present patterns of circulation and movement of people and goods. A fair and reasonable return
on investment for the park owner will ensure that mobilehome parks are not prematurely closed or
abandoned due to the proposed regulations in the ordinance.
Under the "worst case" analysis, park residents may be displaced by either closure of a park due to the new
ordinance or by the "no project'' alternative in which tenants on fixed incomes must move because they can
not afford excessively high rental rates. Tenants forced to relocate for whatever reasons would most likely
have to move to parks that are more affordable and possibly farther inland fiom the coast. This relocation
may potentially increase commuter distances and traveling distances to friends, relatives, and professional
services, thus contributing to regional traffic congestion and a change in travel patterns. This increase in trip
length and change in travel movement would be considered insignificant given the small number of residents
involved. The three (3) mobile homes parks potentially affected have approximately 1,028 total spaces/units
and a potential for 1,542 residents (1.5 residents per space/unit) which constitutes a very small percentage
of the total dwelling units and population of Carlsbad (i.e. 3.7% of the total dwelling units and 2.7% of total
City population). Over time, and once residents have relocated into new areas they tend to adjust their travel
and trip patterns to the characteristics of the new park locale, therefore, any additional impacts would be
short term in nature.
RISK OF EXPLOSION:
The proposed ordinance would not result in the significant risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances. California State law requires that mobilehome park facilities and sites be maintained according
to adopted State standards. The State of California inspects mobilehome parks to ensure that the facilities
meet health and safety standards, therefore, any type of deferred maintenance of facilities or coaches by park
owners and tenants would be regulated by the State to minimize hazardous situations.
VISUAL AE!ixHETIcs:
A reasonable return on the owners investment would ensure that the value of the property is protected by
providing sufficient funds to adequately maintain park facilities and landscaping. In addition, California State
law requires that mobilehome park facilities and sites be maintained according to adopted State standards,
therefore, the potential for visual impacts would not constitute a significant impact. In addition, a fair value
rent for tenants would potentially provide them with income for home repairs and maintenance to reduce
visual impacts.
PARKING, RECREATIONAL. OPPORTUNITIES, EMERGENCYRESPONSE PLANS, AND WATER/RAILANDAIR
TRAFFIC:
The proposed ordinance would not affect the City's emergency response plans, alter waterborne, rail, or air
traffic, affect parking facilities, create traffic hazards, and it would not affect the quality or quantity of
-9-
existing recreational opportunities within the City. No new land use development or construction is proposed
with this mobilehome park rent control ordinance, therefore, there are no physical development type impacts
such as: (1) the creation of new roads; (2) the blockage of vehicle "line of sight" along an existing driveway,
or; (3) new residential demand on the existing public infrastructure or facilities such as waste treatment systems, potable water delivery systems, and public parks.
-10-
ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS:
a) Phased development of the project,
b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development,
d) alternate uses for the site,
e) development at some future time rather than now,
f) alternate sites for the proposed project, and
g) no project alternative.
Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a significant adverse
impact on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impacts. Public
resources Code Section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A "significant effect"
is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. Based on the findings of this Initial Study, this
project has "NO" significant physical environmental impacts, therefore, there is no substantial adverse
impact and no justification for requiring a discussion of alternatives, (An alternative would not lessen an
impact if there is no substantial adverse impact).
-11-
X -
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
h
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the
environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with
previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required.
Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared.
h
DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The P1anning Department)
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
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 the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
9-28- 99
Date
- Y- 2%- 9Y
Date
Al'TACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
-12-
h
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
JG:vd
-13-
Notice of Detel-mination 940254
To: - Office of Planning and Research From: City of Carlsbad
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Planning Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 T,ewv ki,ceer!~nty u!? 2075 Las Palmas Dr.
- X County Clerk By a,-*' (619) 438-1161 County of San Diego
PO Box 1750
San Diego, CA 92112-4147
. ..- Attn: Mita 1- .
Project No.: EIA 94-03/NS 282
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21103 or 21 152 of the Public Resources Code.
Mobilehome Park Rent Control Ordinance
Project Tide
N/A Citv of Carlsbad. Jeff Gibson (619) 438-1161, 4455
State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Extenion
(If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person
Citv of Carlsbad. San Dieno Countv. California
Project Location (include county)
Project Description: A municipal ordinance to regulate mobilehome park space rental rates in the
City of Carlsbad.
This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on June 7, 1994 and
has made the following determinations regarding the above described project.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project
Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the final Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project
approval are available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
6/8/ 44 PLANNING DIRECTOR
MICHAEL J. HOXMILLIM date' TITLE
JG:vd Date received for filing at OP
NEGA'IWE DECLARATION
PROJECTADDRESS/LOCATION: City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, S&e of
California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A municipal ordinance to regulate mobilehome park space
rental rates in the City of Carlsbad.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said
review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration With supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the
Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455.
DATED: MAY 3, 1994
CUE NO: EIA 94-03
CASE NAME: MOBILEHOME PARK RENT CONTROL ORDINANCE
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 3,1994
JG:vd
@ 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-1 161
,- -,
CALIk ,AJIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH ANlj ,&ME
PO BOX 944209 SA- CA 94244-2090
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Mhkn.is Impact Finding
Project TitleLocation (include county):
EIA 94-03/NS 282
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California
Name and Address of Applicant: City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Project Description:
A municipal ordinance to regulate mobilehome park space rental rates in the City
of Carlsbad.
Findings of hemption (attach as necessary):
1. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department has completed an Environmental Initial
Study for the above referenced property, including evaluation of the proposed
project's potential for adverse environmental impacts on fish and wildlife resources.
2. Based on the completed Environmental Initial Study, the City of Carkbad Planning
Department finds there is no evidence More the City of Carlsbad that the proposal
will have potential for an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon
which the wildlife depends.
3. The City of Carlsbad has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect contained in AB 3158 Chapter 1706 Section 753.5(d).
Certification:
I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fxt ar,d that
based on the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or
cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 71 1.2 of
the Fish and Game Code.
Title: Planning Director
Lead Agency: Citv of Carlsbad
JG:vd Date: June 8. 1994
Section 71 1.4, Fish and Game Code
DFG:12/90