MOBILEHOME PARK INSPECTIONS

Background: The Mobilehome Parks Act was adopted by the Legislature in 1967, giving the Commission (now Department) of Housing and Community Development (HCD) authority to regulate construction, use and maintenance of mobilehome parks and mobilehomes in those parks by regulations, commonly known as "Title 25." The regulations are initially enforced by inspection at the time of the park’s construction and thereafter usually on a complaint basis. Citing increasing complaints about park health and safety code violations, mobilehome owners’ efforts in pushing for "regular" or periodic park inspections resulted in AB 925 (O’Connell, 1990). The bill mandated that HCD and local agencies, during a five-year period, inspect every mobilehome park and the spaces in those parks at least once until January 1, 1997, but due to delays in enforcement, including an emergency brought about by the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, the program deadline was extended by the Legislature until January 1, 1999. Between 1997 and 1999, the Senate Select Committee on Mobile and Manufactured Homes held 3 hearings to determine whether the program should be extended for another multi-year cycle or continued indefinitely. SB-485 (Craven, 1997) was introduced as a result of the first hearing to extend the program another 7 years, but homeowners, park owners and HCD could not agree on various "reforms" and fees for a new program, and after a 1½ years of wrangling, SB-485 was finally amended to simply extend the sunset date one more year to allow the parties more time to come up with a compromise. As a result of the third hearing of the Select Committee on the park inspection issue in January, 1999, a working group of interested parties met until an agreement could be reached on a newly constituted Phase II inspection program. On March 25, 1999, all parties finally agreed to a revised 7-year program that was incorporated in SB 700.

SB 700 (O’Connell)

Creates a new state park inspection program until 2007 with the following major features:

• Focus: the focus will be on those parks with the most serious violations or substantial number of complaints about serious violations, not all parks as in the past;
• Violations: will be reorganized into two categories, higher & lesser priority;
• Task force: industry, homeowner, local government and legislative representatives will advise HCD on categorizing the violations and administering the new program;
• Orientation: through a video tape, or live presentation where possible, orientation to be provided by the enforcement agency to parks and homeowners prior to inspection;
• Time to fix: 90, rather than 60, days will be allowed for correction of violations;
• Notice: the first notice of homeowner violations will not be provided to park owners by the enforcement agency prior to the time the homeowner has the chance to correct the violation. Park owner violations uncorrected after 90 days shall be posted in the park;
• Fees: maintains but doesn’t increase the $4 fee per space per year supporting the program.

STATUS: Passed Senate (32-3), passed Assembly (55-15), signed by the Governor, Chapter 520.

Mobilehome owners support. There has been no opposition to the bill.

MOBILEHOME RESALE DISCLOSURE

Background: Since 1985, owners of real property have been required to use a Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS) to disclose to buyers whether the seller knows of specified conditions or defects that affect the value or desirability of the property. This disclosure requirement did not apply to ‘personal property,’ such as mobilehomes located in rental mobilehome parks. Because of complaints from buyers of used mobilehomes, mobilehome owners’ groups, mobilehome dealers and Realtors supported SB 1704 (Craven, 1996), requiring mobilehome resale transactions to also be subject to disclosure. But these parties, as well as mobilehome park owners, could not agree on the actual TDS form to be used for mobilehomes, and the effective date for mobilehome disclosure was postponed until 1999, pending recommendations of a task force consisting of their representatives. After several meetings, the task force also became split, however, and recommendations of the majority of task force members included in SB 1988(Craven, 1998) could not overcome objections from the Realtors in the Assembly. In the last hours of the 1998 session, the Craven bill was amended to simply postpone mobilehome disclosure one more year, until January 1, 2000. In 1999, at the behest of the Senate Select Committee on Mobile and Manufactured Homes, a series of additional meetings with the principal players were held, and after 5½ months a compromise, agreed to by most of the parties except the California Mobilehome Park Owners Alliance (CMPA), was finally reached and incorporated in Senate Bill 534.

SB 534 (Dunn)

Creates two separate transfer disclosure forms (TDS), one required of the mobilehome owner and one of the park owner, on the resale of a mobilehome. The homeowner form is similar to the existing real estate disclosure form but is tailored to fit mobilehomes in parks, including provisions for the homeowner to disclose issues about the home and the space on which the home is installed. The park owner form is tied to the rental agreement or lease, which the buyer usually must sign before he/she can move into a park. It discloses park common area conditions that are important to the new buyer-lessee. The form will be filled out by the park owner once a year and updated for any relevant changes in the common area conditions during the year. Copies of that form will then be provided to buyers when they come to the park manager to apply for residency, at least 3 days prior to his or her signature of the park lease.

STATUS: passed Senate (21-13), passed Assembly (48-28), signed by Governor, Chapter 517.

Mobilehome owners, dealers and Realtors support the bill, some park owners have opposed.

MOBILEHOME PARK PROPANE COSTS

Background: In mobilehome parks, utility service is normally provided by the park owner to individual mobilehome spaces through a master meter system, with the public utility providing gas or electricity to the master meter but not to individual park spaces. Master meter customers (mobilehome parks) receive a discount on their rates in recognition of their costs of operating and maintaining the sub-meter system but must provide service to the park residents at a rate which is not greater than if the public utility served the residents directly. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) may act upon certain complaints where fees for park utility serviced exceed those which would be charged the homeowner if they were served by a regulated public utility. In less urbanized areas, propane gas (LPG), rather than natural gas, is often used for cooking and heat in mobilehome parks. Park owners normally purchase propane from a distributor, who delivers it to, and fills the propane tank(s) in, the park. LPG is unregulated and rates are not subject to PUC jurisdiction. There have been long-standing complaints from mobilehome owners in rural and mountain areas, who claim they are being overcharged by some park owners for LPG. Legislation placing a 110% over cost cap on the price which park owners can charge homeowners for LPG was passed by the Legislature in 1990, 1991, and 1998, only to be vetoed each time by the Governor.

SB 476 (Chesbro)

Requires posting of the price that mobilehome parks pay for LPG and prohibits park owners who don't permit mobilehome owners to purchase LPG other than through the park owner to sell it to residents at a cost exceeding more than 10% above the price the park owner pays for it.

STATUS: passed Senate (27-9), passed Assembly (51-24), signed by Governor, Chapter 326.

Mobilehome owners support the bill, some park owners have opposed.

MOBILEHOME PARK RESIDENT OWNERSHIP PROGRAM (MPROP)

Background: Since mid-1980’s, the idea of converting rental parks to resident ownership has grown in popularity among mobilehome owners seeking alternatives to avoid continued rent increases or possible displacement if their park is closed or converted to another use. In 1984 the Legislature enacted the MPROP program SB 2240 (Seymour, 1984) to establish a pilot program within the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) using surplus funds to make loans to lower income mobilehome residents to help them buy and convert their parks to resident ownership. Due to the early success of the program, the Legislature enacted a series of bills upgrading the program, including SB 484 (Craven, 1985), which imposed a $5 annual surcharge on mobilehome license fees to provide a permanent source of funding, and SB 2192 (Craven, 1988), which deleted the sunset and made MPROP a permanent program. Since 1984, there have been more than 100 mobilehome parks converted to some form of resident ownership, 51 with assistance from MPROP funds. Many of these parks are "condo" parks, where MPROP helped by providing loans to a small number of lower income residents (in addition to moderate-income residents who obtained private loans), to reach the 2/3rds participation level needed to convert the park to resident ownership. With some exceptions, older, smaller parks which house primarily lower income people have not benefited as much from the program because generally they don’t have the resources or experience necessary to support a stable resident organization capable of operating a resident-owned park. In the last few years, MPROP applications have slowed, allowing the program to build a $9 million surplus in uncommitted funds.

SB 574 (Dunn)

Expands the MPROP program by permitting non-profit housing organizations and local governments, in addition to resident organizations of mobilehome owners, to be eligible to receive MPROP funding to buy mobilehome parks or set up relocation parks for low-income residents. The bill originates from an HCD staff proposal that MPROP funds could be more effectively utilized to preserve affordable housing in mobilehome parks if funding eligibility included non-profit housing organizations and local government housing agencies, which are are often in a better position to assemble multi-lender-financing packages to buy the parks and organize the management teams to run the parks. To satisfy opponents, the bill imposes a number of limitations, including a provision that still gives resident organizations priority for MPROP funding applications, a provision requiring non-profits and local agencies to buy parks with MPROP funds only where at least 30% of the households in the park are low-income, and, to prevent local governments from going into the park business on a permanent basis, a provision requiring a local agency that buys a park to turn over the park to a non-profit entity or resident organization within 3 years (with a 3 year extension on appeal).

STATUS: Passed Senate (28-10), passed Assembly (69-10), signed by Governor, Chapter 473.

HCD and mobilehome owners support the bill. There is no opposition.

MOBILEHOME PARK "PASS THROUGH" FEES

Background: In most mobilehome parks, residents own their own homes but rent the spaces on which those homes are installed from the park owner/management. The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), which governs the park owner-homeowner relationship in a park, provides that a homeowner shall not be charged a fee for other than rent, utilities and incidental reasonable charges for services actually rendered. The MRL specifies that any fee not listed in the rental agreement cannot be imposed without a 60 day notice and must be separately stated on the homeowner’s monthly billing. The MRL also specifies that no fees shall be charged to residents for members of the immediate family, guests who stay no longer than 30 days, enforcement of park rules, and for pets unless the park furnishes pet facilities. In recent years, many parks, in addition to rents, have added so-called "pass through" fees to the homeowner’s monthly billing for specified costs of park operation and maintenance, such as insurance or road repair, and for capital improvements, such as the addition of handicapped facilities or a new roof on the park clubhouse. Some parks have imposed fees on homeowners not listed in their rental agreement after the rental agreement is signed through park rules and regulations. Rent increases and the imposition of fees on homeowners are the most common complaints heard from park residents.

Homeowners contend that by imposing both rent increases and fees, park owners are "double dipping" for the costs of operating the park. Park owners argue that "pass throughs" encourage park owners to make improvements in the park for everyone’s benefit, and that homeowners should share in the amortized cost of the park improvements.

SB 351 (Figueroa)

Provides that any amendment to a park rule or regulation that creates a new fee payable by the homeowner, not agreed upon in the written rental agreement or lease, is void and unenforceable. The bill’s intent language also provides that the measure is not intended to limit a park operator from imposing a fee in accordance with the existing provisions of the MRL (see background). Proponents argue that the bill will help prevent park owners from levying charges on homeowners that were not disclosed or agreed to when the rental agreement was signed.

STATUS: Passed Senate (37-0), passed Assembly (73-2), signed by Governor, Chapter 323.

Mobilehome owners support the bill. There is no opposition.

AB 479 (Wiggins)

Prohibits mobilehome parks from charging mobilehome owners an extra fee or surcharge, other than through the rent, for the costs of physical improvements and maintenance of park common area facilities.

STATUS: Passed Assembly (41-29), passed Senate (21-13), sent to Governor. Because of a possible veto, the bill was returned to the Assembly inactive file and made a 2-year bill.

Mobilehome owners support. Park owners and Realtors oppose the bill.

TREES & DRIVEWAYS

Background: The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) provides that a homeowner in a mobilehome park shall not be charged a fee for other than rent, utilities and incidental reasonable charges for services actually rendered. The MRL also specifies that the park management may include reasonable landscaping requirements in the park rules and regulations and charge a homeowner a reasonable fee for the maintenance of the space on which the mobilehome is located if the homeowner fails to maintain the space as required by park rules. In a 1992 legal opinion, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) took the position that the park owner/management is responsible for the maintenance (including removal) of trees on a mobilehome space which constitute a fixture to the land, unless responsibility is shifted to the homeowner through a lease or rental agreement. In recent years, many parks have changed their rental agreements or leases to include a clause requiring the homeowner to assume this often expensive responsibility. Who is responsible for paying for the costs to prune or remove large trees and the damage which root systems cause to driveways and mobilehome foundations is a common problem in mobilehome parks and a frequent complaint from mobilehome owners.

AB 862 (Correa)

Requires mobilehome park operators, not mobilehome owners, to be solely responsible for the maintenance of trees, including, but not limited to, removal of the trees and repair of root damage to driveways and foundation systems, and the maintenance and replacement or repair of all driveways, including paving and sealing, within the park, under leases entered into or renewed on or after January 1, 2000. The bill would allow a homeowner to enter into an agreement, separate and apart from the rental agreement, to plant a tree on a mobilehome space and be responsible for the tree’s maintenance costs.

STATUS: Passed Assembly (46-24), Senate Housing Committee (4-1), pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, 2-year bill.

Mobilehome owners support. Mobilehome park owners oppose the bill.

AB 546 (Wayne)

Provides that mobilehome owners residing in a park shall not be responsible for tree trimming and disposal unless the management adopts park rules requiring homeowners to pay such costs. This is the park owners’ alternative to AB 862 (above).

STATUS: Pending Assembly Housing Committee, 2-year bill.

Mobilehome park owners support. Opposition unknown.  

PETS IN PARKS

Background: Current law provides that a senior who resides in publicly subsidized housing may keep no more than two pets, as defined, in residence. Under the Mobilehome Residency Law, the park management may not impose a fee on a homeowner for keeping a pet in the park and if a rule prohibiting pets in the park is implemented, the new rule shall not prohibit residents from continuing to keep pets now residing in the park. However, when the pet dies, the resident cannot replace the pet. The management also may not prohibit residents from keeping guide, signal or service dogs in the park. Some studies have shown that senior citizens and the disabled, particularly single persons, benefit from the companionship of a pet.

AB 860 (Thomson)

Prohibits mobilehome parks or common interest developments (CID’s) from denying a resident the right to have a pet, subject to reasonable rules and regulations, and applicable to park leases or CID governing documents entered into, renewed, or amended, after July 1, 2000.

STATUS: Passed Assembly (59-18), failed passage in Senate Judiciary (3-4) but granted reconsideration, 2-year bill.

AARP, Realtors, and mobilehome owners support. Park owners & CID management oppose.

‘DOUBLE RENTING’ OF MOBILEHOMES IN THE PARK

Background: Mobilehome owners living in mobilehome parks normally own their own home but rent the space on which the home is located. Because of the homeowner’s investment and the difficulty of moving the mobilehome, the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) provides that a homeowner can only be evicted for specified cause, including, among other things, change of the park to another use. In recent years, some park owners have begun buying out homeowners and renting their homes and spaces as one unit, like a conventional apartment. Mobilehome owners argue that this practice, nicknamed "double-renting," has disenfranchised mobilehome owners by changing the nature of these parks to that of a more transient population, has depressed home values for homeowners still remaining in the park, and has allowed park operators, in some cases, to circumvent rent control ordinances and park conversion and relocation ordinances designed to protect mobilehome owners from economic eviction or dislocation.

AB 1644 (Floyd)

States legislative intent that owners of mobilehomes located in parks are entitled to protection from actual or constructive eviction when a park owner’s purported change of use is actually a conversion to a "tenant" park, where the park owner, not homeowners, own the mobilehomes. Provides that a change of use of the park cannot be used to terminate homeowners tenancies in the park or to compel them to sell the mobilehomes to the park management, where the sole purpose of the change is for the park operator to buy-out mobilehomes and continue operation by renting out the homes to tenants rather than individual homeowners.

STATUS: Held in Assembly Housing Committee, 2-year bill.

Mobilehome owners support. Mobilehome park owners oppose the bill.

MOBILEHOME RELOCATION COSTS ON CHANGE OF PARK USE

Background: Since the early 1980’s state law has mandated that cities and counties require park owners to render reports on the impact which a mobilehome park closure, or conversion of the park to another use, has on the park residents. State law also requires local agencies to hold noticed hearings to consider what "reasonable costs of relocation," if any, the local agency will require park owners to pay displaced residents as a condition of approving permits required for the change of use. Mobilehome owners, who believe the state statute requiring payment of "reasonable costs of relocation" is vague and that many local agencies require park owners to pay very little of the homeowners’ true displacement costs, when a park is closed and converted to another use, want more specific relocation standards written into state law.

AB 690 (Washington)

Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to study the relocation issue and render a report to the Legislature by July 1, 2000, using the following criteria: the number of parks in the state, the annual number of park closures and conversions, implementation by local government of the state mobilehome relocation law, past and present local policy regarding mobilehome park closures and conversions, ability to relocate mobilehomes in parks subject to closure or conversion, parks as an affordable housing resource, and a review of alternatives and options that would assist park owners in relocating displaced mobilehome owners.

STATUS: Passed Assembly Housing (10-0), held in Assembly Appropriations, 2-year bill.

Mobilehome owners support the bill. Opposition unknown; park owners previously opposed.

MOBILEHOME OMBUDSMAN

Background: Prior to 1986 there was no state office or agency that coordinated or acted as a clearinghouse for mobilehome complaints. SB 2127 (Craven, 1986) established the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD’s) Mobilehome Ombudsman to deal specifically with the resolution of mobilehome complaints relating to mobilehome registration and titling, mobilehome sales, financing, warranties, mobilehome accessories, mobilehome and mobilehome park inspections and the Mobilehome Residency Law. However, due to opposition to the bill, the Ombudsman was specifically prohibited from negotiating, mediating or providing legal advice on matters relating to mobilehome park rents, rental agreements or leases or disputes arising therefrom. A pilot program that was inaugurated with the use of surplus funds from the Mobilehome Revolving Account, the Ombudsman was later made a permanent program by SB 81(Craven, 1989). After fiscal year 1989-90, specific funding for the program was no longer provided but was absorbed within HCD’s existing budget. In recent years, mobilehome owners have criticized the Mobilehome Ombudsman as ineffective and unresponsive.

SB 619 (Dunn)

Appropriates $150,000 for three years to bolster the Ombudsman program from a surplus in the Mobilehome Park Purchase Fund. Specifically requires the Ombudsman to designate at least 2 people to take complaints and calls, review correspondence and follow-through on the resolution of those complaints. Expands the types of complaints the Ombudsman shall take to include those dealing with mobilehome foundation and Earthquake Resistant Bracing Systems (ERBS) and the conversion of mobilehome parks to resident ownership. Requires an annual report to the Legislature by the Ombudsman of its activities.

STATUS: Passed Senate Housing Committee (6-0), held in Senate Appropriations, 2-year bill.

Mobilehome owners support the bill. Opposition unknown.

MOBILEHOME NAME CHANGE

Background: For at least 20 years, there have been attempts to upgrade the image of mobilehomes with the more up-to-date title of "manufactured home." Basically, for the past 25 years, a ‘manufactured home’ has been another name for a ‘mobilehome.’ A manufactured home is defined by Health & Safety Code Section 18007 as a structure transportable in one or more sections, 8 or more feet wide and 40 or more feet in length in the traveling mode, or 320 or more square feet when installed on site, which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling unit with or without a permanent foundation. A mobilehome is defined by Health and Safety Code Section 18008 as a structure transportable in one or more sections containing not more than 2 dwelling units to be used with or without a foundation system. Section 18007 also provides that a manufactured home includes a mobilehome home subject to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Act of 1974. Many sections of the California Health and Safety Code, Civil Code and other codes refer to both manufactured homes and mobilehomes. Some believe the term ‘mobilehome’ is outdated because the connotation is that mobilehomes are vehicles, not homes, and are easily moved. Most mobilehomes, whether installed in a park or not, are seldom moved.

AB 984 (Correa)

Changes the word ‘mobilehome’ to ‘manufactured home’ and the term ‘mobilehome park’ to ‘manufactured home community’ in the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), which governs the park owner – mobilehome owner/resident relationship in mobilehome parks.

STATUS: Pending in Assembly Housing Committee, 2-year bill.

MOBILEHOME RESIDENCY LAW: ATTORNEY FEES

Background: The Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) is basically the landlord-tenant law for mobilehome parks (Civil Code Sections 798 – 799.9). The MRL details the various obligations and rights of the park operator/management and the mobilehome owners/residents. The courts enforce violations of the MRL, like most Civil Code provisions. The disputing parties must seek legal counsel to enforce the MRL against one another in a court of law. One MRL section provides that the prevailing party in any action arising out of the MRL shall be entitled to ask the court for reasonable attorney fees. Mobilehome owners have often complained that the MRL is a "paper tiger" because the park management can ignore notice requirements or other provisions of the MRL, forcing a homeowner to hire an attorney and take the park to court in order to enforce it. But mobilehome owners, usually senior citizens or families of less than modest means, usually cannot afford an attorney will take their case. Mobilehome owners would like MRL provisions enacted with more "teeth."

SB 758 (Morrow)

Requires, rather than permits upon request, a court to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in Mobilehome Residency Law cases.

STATUS: Pending in Senate Judiciary Committee, 2-year bill.

Mobilehome owners support the bill. Opposition unknown.

DRUG-FREE MOBILEHOME PARK ACT

Background: Current law provides for enhanced criminal penalties for adults convicted of specified drug offenses involving minors on the grounds of, or within, a church, synagogue, playground, youth center, child day care center, public swimming pool, or public or private school. With the enactment of the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, prohibiting discrimination against families with children in multiple residential housing unless such housing meets requirements for seniors, there is now an increasing number of mobilehome parks that accept families with children as residents. There have reportedly also been an increasing number of incidents of drug offenses in some of these parks.

AB 1085 (Pacheco)

Provides that any adult convicted of a drug offense involving a minor within a family mobilehome park shall also be subject to a one-year sentence enhancement.

STATUS: Passed Assembly (79-0), pending in Senate Public Safety Committee, 2-year bill.

Mobilehome Park Owners and some homeowners support the bill. Opposition unknown.

MOVING MOBILEHOMES: PILOT CARS

Background: California law permits the movement of manufactured homes between 14 and 16 feet wide on public highways, allows Cal Trans or local governments to issue special or annual permits for the movement of manufactured homes or mobilehomes on highways under their jurisdictions, and requires pilot cars or escort services for the movement of such homes. Cal Trans typically requires a mobilehome or manufactured home that is being moved to be accompanied by two or more California Highway Patrol (CHP) escorts.

AB 602 (Torlakson)

As passed by the Assembly, the bill required Cal Trans to establish a voluntary training program for pilot car operators and escort services for mobile or manufactured homes by July 1, 2000 and called for only one CHP escort. The bill was stripped of this language and made into a new bill in the Senate dealing with farm labor vehicles authored by Asssemblyman Florez.

STATUS: Passed Assembly (74-1), new bill in Senate Transportation Committee, 2-year bill.

Original bill supported by California Manufactured Housing Institute (manufacturers/dealers) Opposition unknown.

PROPERTY TAXES: RESIDENT OWNED PARKS

Background: Proposition 13 enacted by the voters in 1978 freezes property assessments at 1975 lien date values plus 2% a year but permits county assessors to revalue the property for tax purposes upon a sale or transfer. Among other exemptions or exclusions enacted by the Legislature, current law excludes the transfer of a rental mobilehome park converted to resident ownership from property tax reassessment at the time of resale. Where an interim buyer, such as a nonprofit corporation or governmental entity purchases the park on or after January 1, 1993, that entity has 36 months to resell the park to the residents in order to qualify the park for the reassessment freeze.

SB 42 (Johnson)

Permits the interim transfer of a mobilehome park to be facilitated by a tenant-in-common ownership group and expands the 36 month exclusion period to qualify for the assessment freeze to the opening of escrow before the end of the 36 months and close of escrow within 42 months of the transfer to residents. The bill tries to resolve a difference in interpretation of the existing law between the San Diego County Assessor and an investment group which owns the Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park in Carlsbad (San Diego County).

STATUS: Passed Senate (40-0), passed Assembly (76-0), signed by the Governor, Chapter 603.

San Diego County Assessor supports the bill. Opposition unknown.