Mobile home park conversions still an issue

Deirdre Newman

The Planning Commission continues to wrestle with how to increase the

city’s authority over mobile home park conversions in a way that’s

acceptable to park owners.

City leaders initiated in July the creation of more specific

requirements for converting mobile home parks to other uses. Drafting

a new law to expand those procedures has proved a daunting task.

Today, after three continuances, the commission is scheduled to

consider the proposed law. Planning staff members are recommending

continuing the item again if the commission needs more time to

analyze its nuances.

Commission Chairman Bruce Garlich said designing the new law is

challenging because of the vague state code it’s based on.

“I think it’s because we’re trying to create an ordinance to deal

with some rather loosely defined state code that can be taken in a

lot of different directions,” Garlich said. “We’ve looked at a lot of

other cities, and we’re trying to do what’s right for Costa Mesa. And

that’s not an easy task.”

The City Council supported revamping its procedures on mobile home

park conversions after residents of the El Nido and Snug Harbor

trailer parks complained that they weren’t being offered fair

compensation since the parks are being closed.

The city cannot deny an application for a mobile home park

conversion permit or prevent a property owner from closing a mobile

home park. All it is required to do is to review a report required by

the state analyzing the effects of the conversion or closure on the

residents. It may then impose measures the park owner must take to

lessen negative effects without exceeding the reasonable costs of

relocation.

In preparing the proposed law, planners reviewed the ordinances of

cities such as Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach, as well as the

Golden State Manufactured Home Owners League.

The proposed changes would expand the city’s authority to cover

mobile home park closures in addition to mobile home park

conversions.

The proposed law defines terms such as “closure of a park” and

“conversion of a park.” It requires that a park owner file a

relocation impact report, and it specifies what must be in the

report.

One of the requirements is compensation for the negative effects

of conversion on the mobile home owners. The main compensation

requirements for park owners are providing a replacement lot in a

comparable park within a 30-mile radius, with certain exceptions,

paying for the cost of physically moving the home to a new lot and

paying moving costs associated with moving all personal property.

El Nido resident Irene Shannon, who was one of the first to push

the city to adopt a more comprehensive law, said she likes the

proposal because it doesn’t set a minimum or maximum dollar amount on

park owners’ financial obligations.

“I’m very glad they did it that way, because then it’s flexible

enough to apply to whatever situation there is,” Shannon said. “Some

of the parks have very fancy double mobiles that cost $150,000. And

some have little old trailers that cost $10,000 to $15,000, so

putting specifics in there would be a real problem.”

Planning staff members have made some changes in the proposal to

appease park owners, such as simplifying the definition of a park

closure. Under the new definition, the commission can say a park must

close if it finds that the owner has done something to cause someone

to conclude that the owner intends to eliminate or reduce lots

available for rent or lease to the public.

The previous trigger -- that a park would be considered closed

when its owner occupancy dropped to 75% -- did not sit well with park

owners.

Park owner Chris Welsh, who owns the Palms Mobile Home Park, is

still not satisfied with the proposed law, saying it puts too much of

the burden on park owners.

“The state has a fairness level of what should happen when a park

closes -- a person should be given money to move to a new location,”

Welsh said. “That’s an entirely different thing than having their

home moved for them and having a location reserved for them by the

landlord.

“Overall, no park owner I know of would contemplate closing their

park if this ordinance is enacted because it’s so cumbersome both in

time and paperwork required, and [it’s] costly,” he said.

Some El Nido and Snug Harbor residents have been involved in the

process to shape the new law even though they will not be effected by

it. Shannon hopes other mobile home park residents will get involved

in the city’s effort since they could be effected in the future.

“It’s like life insurance,” Shannon said. “You might not think you

need it, but when you have a problem, it’s too late to get it.”

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa. She may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.