Corona council directs staff to pursue single-track mobile-home rent-stabilization ordinance after extensive public comment

The Corona City Council on Tuesday directed staff to develop a citywide rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) for mobile-home parks and to return the draft to the council after further work by the ad hoc committee and staff. Council members said they would not adopt a parallel "in-lieu" agreement track that park owners could choose instead of the ordinance.

The council action followed a 45-minute staff presentation by Karen Roper, the city’s housing and homeless solutions manager, and Dominique Clark of consultant RSG, and more than two hours of public comment by mobile-home residents, park-owner representatives and outside experts. Councilmember Jackie Casillas, who co-chaired the city’s ad hoc committee, summarized the outcome: after reviewing public feedback and consultant analysis, she said the council had a four-member majority “to drop the in lieu agreement and move forward on an RSO only” and asked staff to return with a draft ordinance through the ad hoc committee.

Why it matters: Corona has roughly 3,268 manufactured homes in parks that residents and advocates say provide a significant portion of the city’s affordable housing stock. Residents told council members that unregulated annual lot‑rent increases threaten homeowners—many of them seniors on fixed incomes—with displacement, erosion of home values and homelessness. Park owners and industry representatives said a city-run ordinance could create expensive, time-consuming processes and argued a negotiated in-lieu contract (sometimes called an MOU) could protect residents while limiting administrative costs.

What staff presented and what council asked for Dominique Clark summarized RSG’s multi-phase work: a 2023 “phase 1” study that concluded the city has a legitimate government interest to regulate lot rents, followed by a phase-2 review of program design options. Clark told council staff had held four workshops in March 2025 (two for park owners, two for homeowners). Those workshops produced open feedback on five core issues: whether to offer an in-lieu agreement; the annual CPI (inflationary) adjustment and caps/floors; vacancy control (rent increases at turnover); the constitutionally required “fair return” petition process; and what capital-improvement or pass-through increases would be allowed.

Clark recapped the policy options discussed at the workshops and the feedback received: most resident respondents opposed an in-lieu option; homeowners preferred low caps (many asked for a 2% cap or 75% of CPI with no floor); some park owners pushed for vacancy decontrol and higher limits under any in-lieu agreement in exchange for foregoing fair-return petitions. Clark also provided preliminary cost illustrations: an annual registration fee might be roughly $100 per space under a proactive city-run RSO versus about $70 per space under an in-lieu model; a single fair-return petition review can be costly (RSG estimated about $36,000 per petition under the RSO approach), whereas an in-lieu agreement would remove regular fair-return petitions but raise negotiation and enforcement questions.

Public comments Mobile-home residents, many of them seniors, told the council the lots are their homes and asked for strong, enforceable limits on annual increases, vacancy-control protections, and homeowner approval for new capital improvements. Lydia (a resident of Corona La Linda Mobile Home Park) told the council, “Manufactured homes are essential to Corona’s economy” and said residents have fought for protections for more than a decade. Dozens of residents described rent rises they said have strained budgets or forced moves; several said they feared homelessness.

Park-owner representatives and industry groups urged council members to consider an in-lieu agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) instead of a broad ordinance. Julie Polley, representing park owners, described MOU models used in other Southern California cities and said the MOU approach can avoid “an entire regime” of new bureaucracy and high administrative costs. Attorneys and other consultants representing residents and some cities urged caution with MOUs, noting MOUs are contracts and can be harder to enforce across future owners.

Council direction and next steps Vice Mayor Jackie Casillas said the ad hoc committee had shifted toward a single-track ordinance after additional engagement and recommended returning to the ad hoc committee to draft a citywide RSO. Council discussion emphasized three design elements Casillas said should be in the ordinance: a narrowly defined annual inflation adjustment, clear rules for vacancy turnover, and a fair-return process available to park owners that protects constitutional rights while balancing resident protections. Councilmembers also asked staff to refine petition types and appeal procedures and to plan funding and staffing for a program the council directed should be largely reactive (case-driven) rather than highly proactive, to control costs.

The council did not take a formal roll-call vote on a final ordinance; instead members recorded direction to staff. Councilmembers asked staff to return to the ad hoc committee to prepare a draft ordinance for later council review and public hearings.

Key quotes “The legitimate government interest piece is important because ... any regulation that affects property rights, such as rent stabilization, must be related to a legitimate government interest,” Dominique Clark said during the presentation. “Manufactured homes represent 44.2% of Corona’s affordable housing,” resident Lydia said during public comment.

What remains undecided Council members left the council unanswered several crucial technical choices that the ad hoc committee and staff will draft: the exact inflation measure and cap (examples discussed included 75% of CPI with a cap, or fixed-percentage caps such as 2% or 3%), the precise vacancy-control allowance (if any), whether pass-throughs for capital replacements and taxes will require homeowner votes and at what threshold, and a final fee model to fund program administration. Staff and consultant RSG were also asked to complete a comprehensive fee study to estimate registration and petition costs before council adoption.

What to expect next Staff will return to the ad hoc committee to draft an RSO that reflects the council’s direction and the input heard during workshops and public comment. The ad hoc committee will refine petition procedures, fees and specific caps/limits and then bring a draft ordinance back to the full council for formal introduction and subsequent public hearings.