Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Home Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff and planning commission split over mobile‑home park closure and conversion ordinance
Summary
Planning staff presented a draft closure/conversion ordinance that would require a conditional-use permit for park closure or conversion; planning commissioners, park residents and owners raised disagreements over a 25% vacancy trigger, a right of first refusal for residents, valuation of unpermitted upgrades, and a hardship waiver. Supervisors directed staff to redraft and return to the planning commission.
Alameda County planning staff updated the Unincorporated Services Committee on a draft mobile‑home park closure and conversion ordinance on Wednesday, and a split among stakeholders—residents, owners and planning commissioners—emerged over several key provisions.
Planning Director Albert Lopez told the committee the draft would treat a change of a mobile‑home park to any other use (including closure) as a conversion that triggers a local review and conditional‑use permit process. "The current county draft requires a local permit for the conversion or a closure," Lopez said, adding staff had removed a zoning overlay and the right‑of‑first‑refusal from the current draft.
Residents and tenant advocates urged stronger protections. A resident speaker warned that the county should not rely on minimal clarifications alone and asked the board to retain protections developed after previous closures: "We think the county draft is headed in the right direction... but we ask that nothing be completely eliminated," the resident said. Other resident speakers pushed to include a right of first refusal so residents could organize to buy parks and to make valuation rules consistent with state practice.
Planning‑commission Chair Mark Crawford said his board favored a public hearing process if vacancy rose above the proposed trigger level rather than automatic closure. "Why not have a public hearing?" Crawford asked, recommending an investigative hearing into whether attrition reflects an unlawful conversion.
Park owners and their representatives criticized the 25% vacancy trigger as an unlawful and unprecedented basis for treating vacancy as closure and warned of likely litigation if the county adopted automatic closure rules. An owner representative cited recent court rulings challenging similar vacancy‑penalty approaches.
Supervisors Miley and Tam said staff should rework the disputed provisions, including specifying how a right of first refusal would operate if retained, clarifying valuation of permitted versus unpermitted improvements, and replacing any automatic closure language with an exploratory hearing and a hardship waiver. Staff said it would revise the draft, meet with stakeholders as appropriate, return the draft to the planning commission for a formal recommendation, and then proceed through the county's normal review path to the full board—likely in spring 2026.
No final ordinance was adopted at the committee meeting; supervisors provided direction on the three primary issues and asked staff to return with a revised draft and Planning Commission recommendation.
