Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Home Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County supervisors decline immediate moratorium, direct staff to draft mobile‑home park overlay and closure ordinance
Summary
After hours of resident testimony about corporate buyouts and rent hikes, Alameda County supervisors decided by consensus not to adopt a temporary moratorium and instead directed staff to run a stakeholder 'roadshow' and return with a draft closure/overlay ordinance in about 3–6 months.
Alameda County supervisors on June 26 heard several hours of public testimony pressing for an emergency moratorium on mobile‑home park closures and conversions and instead voted by consensus to forgo an immediate moratorium while directing staff to draft and seek input on a local closure ordinance and zoning overlay.
Residents and tenant advocates told the committee that corporate buyers have purchased parks and pushed fees and conversions that threaten long‑term, deeply affordable homeownership. "Corporate landlords are snatching up mobile home parks and jacking up rent," said Eileen Cancino, a resident who cited litigation in nearby counties. Several speakers from Del Rio and Littlewoods mobile home parks described fee hikes, new rules and threats to close; Jordan Weinberg, a housing researcher, urged a temporary moratorium to buy time to craft local protections.
County staff and planners told the committee the state Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) already requires a closure impact report and offers procedural protections: when no local permit is required, park owners must give residents 12 months' written termination notice; when permits are required, owners must notify residents of a change‑of‑use petition and residents receive 6 months' written termination notice after permit approval. Housing & Community Development staff emphasized that the closure impact report must include relocation and replacement plans and an independent appraisal of in‑place coach (mobile home) value.
Given those state protections and the county's existing rent‑stabilization ordinance, several supervisors said the immediate emergency moratorium might be redundant. "We have tools on the books," said Supervisor Miley. Planning staff argued the most impactful local change would be to require a conditional‑use permit (CUP) to change a park's use, supported by findings and conditions tailored to protect vulnerable residents.
Planning's proposed overlay framework includes special CUP findings that staff said could require developers to guarantee temporary housing during construction, provide 1‑for‑1 replacement housing at comparable rents and lease terms, purchase mobile homes at appraised value or pay relocation benefits, and cover relocation and moving costs. Staff estimated a draft ordinance and stakeholder outreach could take about three to six months and proposed returning to the committee in October with a framework for further direction.
Committee members emphasized enforcement and outreach. Staff said enforcement is currently largely complaint‑driven and that the county is starting a procurement for a centralized portal and has a recently signed contract with Centro to help residents access counseling and legal help. Supervisors asked staff to compile a full stakeholder list — including park owners, operators, residents and advocacy groups — and to ensure materials and meetings are available in multiple languages.
By consensus the committee declined to impose an urgency moratorium at the meeting and instead directed staff to proceed with the overlay/closure ordinance roadshow, return with draft findings and language (targeted to October–November), and continue monitoring parks where residents report immediate harms. The committee emphasized that the absence of a moratorium did not lessen staff's obligation to enforce state law and to respond to credible reports of coercive or unlawful practices.
What happens next: staff will develop a framework of proposed CUP findings and overlay language, conduct outreach meetings with the Eden Area and Castro Valley municipal advisory councils and other stakeholders, and return to the committee with a draft ordinance for further direction. The committee said it remains prepared to revisit an urgency ordinance if evidence of imminent conversions appears.
Sources: Presentations and Q&A from Planning and Housing & Community Development staff, testimony from residents, GSMOL and advocacy organizations, and comments from County Counsel and supervisors during the June 26 Unincorporated Services Committee meeting.
