Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-26 - ORDINANCES - MOBILEHOME PARK (2)ORDINANCE NO. 16-01 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE CONVERSION/CHANGE OF ANY MOBILEHOME PARK CURRENTLY EXISTING IN THE CITY FROM A PARK OCCUPIED PRIMARILY OR EXCLUSIVELY BY RESIDENTS OVER THE AGE OF 55 YEARS (SENIOR RESIDENTS) TO A MOBILEHOME PARK ALLOWING RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES WHEREAS, as set forth in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, an important goal for the City of Santa Clarita (City) is to preserve the existing senior housing stock, which is represented in part by affordable mobilehome housing; and WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare arising from the lack of senior housing options for citizens aged 55 and older in and around the City; and WHEREAS, mobilehome parks represent one of a few affordable housing options left to senior citizens that permit exclusive residence in a detached dwelling by those individuals over the age of 55 years; and WHEREAS, mobilehome parks represent less than 3% of the City's housing stock. "Converting" mobilehome parks from "senior -only" to "all -age" parks would reduce the number of senior housing units available to those persons 55 years of age and older. Change from a senior - only to an all -age mobilehome park will unduly burden and irreparably harm senior citizens within the community. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings of Fact. A. There are 16 mobilehome parks in the City, four of which are operating as senior mobilehome parks. The four senior mobilehome parks represent approximately 524 spaces out of 1,981 spaces, or 26% of all of the mobilehome spaces in the City. B. The October 2013 Housing Element further identifies how the City is already losing some of its affordable senior housing stock, and how current trends show that lower- income seniors are having increasing difficulty in paying rent. Furthermore, residents of senior mobilehome parks requested the City study this issue and develop a zoning ordinance restricting the change of senior -only mobilehome parks to all -age mobilehome parks prior to the loss of any additional affordable senior housing stock. C. Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution authorizes cities to adopt local police, sanitary, and other ordinances not in conflict with general laws. D. The California Legislature has authorized cities to provide zoning for senior -only mobilehome parks pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 18300. E. In 2009, the City of Yucaipa adopted an ordinance which amended its land -use plan by creating a Senior Mobilehome Park Overlay District. The ordinance prohibited any of the 22 mobilehome parks in Yucaipa that operated as senior housing (defined as a park in which either 80% of the spaces are occupied by or intended for occupancy by at least one person who is age 55 or older, or 100% of the spaces are occupied by or intended for occupancy by people who are age 62 or older), from converting to all -age housing. Mobilehome park owners sued, alleging that the ordinance violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) by forcing them to discriminate on the basis of familial status, and by interfering with their ability to "aid" or "encourage" families with children in the enjoyment of fair housing rights. Plaintiffs also argued that the ordinance was preempted by the FHAA because it required plaintiff to take action that the FHAA prohibited. F. In 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Putnam Family Partnership v. City of Yucaipa, (Putnam) (2012) 673 F.3d 920, in which it determined that the ordinance was not preempted and that the overlay district did not discriminate in housing on the basis of familial status in violation of FHAA under the federal senior housing exemption, since the FHAA's ban on familial status discrimination does not apply to "housing for older persons." The Putnam case has confirmed previous California Attorney General opinion that such senior -only zoning does not conflict with the general prohibition against discrimination based upon age contained in California Government Code §65008. (87 Cal. Ops. Atty. Gen. 148 [Oct. 20, 2004]). G. In light of this judicial decision, the City will consider developing new zoning regulations relating to the preservation of senior mobilehome parks, which zoning regulations include provisions relating to the location and age restrictions of such parks. H. The City currently does not have a senior -only mobilehome park zoning ordinance in place, but such a zoning ordinance may be needed in the immediate future to preserve affordable housing options left to the City's senior citizens. I. Based upon the current state of the law, if a temporary moratorium is not established, existing senior mobilehome parks in the City could be eliminated. J. Moreover, the City requires time to study and decide: a. If an ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and provide adequate local senior housing for the community's aging population; b. If such an ordinance would have any adverse effects upon the general housing market and particularly the senior and low-income housing market in the City. Further, whether any potential effects from the removal of a senior housing resource in the City constitutes a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare; c. The extent the City may regulate internal operations of mobilehome parks; and d. Given the harm to the community by the removal of senior -only mobilehome parks, this moratorium is being established to preserve the status quo to provide time to seek clarification of the law, and permit City staff to develop appropriate regulations consistent with the requirements of the law. K. Government Code sections 36937 and 65858 authorize the adoption of an urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prohibit certain land uses that may conflict with land -use regulations that the City's legislative bodies are considering or intend to study within a reasonable time. L. Accordingly, the City Council has determined that an urgency ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City, and upon that basis has determined that an urgency ordinance is necessary to prohibit such mobilehome park conversions within the City. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment); section 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in section 15378); and section 15061(b)(3) (the activity will not have a significant effect on the environment) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. These findings are premised on the fact that the adoption of this ordinance will maintain existing environmental conditions arising from the City's current land use regulations without significant change or alteration. SECTION 3. Applicability. This ordinance shall not apply to any undeveloped parcels of land or to any mobilehome parks currently operating within the City where the number of full-time residents younger than 55 years of age comprises 21% or more of the total number of residents in the mobilehome park. SECTION 4. Moratorium. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 65858, the City adopts a moratorium prohibiting the "conversion" of any mobilehome park currently in existence in the City, from a park where at least 80% of the full-time residents are individuals aged 55 years of age and older (a senior -only mobilehome park) to a mobilehome park accepting all ages of residents. SECTION 5. Report. Staff is directed to provide a written report to the City Council at least 10 days prior to the expiration of this ordinance, describing the study conducted of the local housing conditions that led to the adoption of this ordinance in accordance with State law. SECTION 6. Effective Date and Duration. This ordinance is an urgency ordinance enacted under California Government Code section 65858(a). This urgency ordinance is effective upon adoption by a four-fifths vote of the City Council and will extend for a period of 45 days from the date of adoption, at which time it will automatically expire unless extended by the City Council in accordance with California Government Code section 65858. SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and adopted this ordinance and each section, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Further, the City Council hereby declares that this ordinance neither is intended to nor shall it impair the obligation of existing contracts. SECTION 8. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January 2016. AYOR ATTEST: � ,.-- CITY LERK DATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Kevin Tonoian, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance 16-01 was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of January 2016. That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of January 2016, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: McLean, Boydston, Weste, Acosta, Kellar NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance 16-01 and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40896).Z