BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2007-2008 Regular Session
AB 1111 A
Assembly Member DeSaulnier B
As Amended January 18, 2008
Hearing Date: May 13, 2008 1
Civil Code 1
BCP:rm 1
1
SUBJECT
Mobilehome parks: rules and regulations
DESCRIPTION
This bill would allow a local public agency to prohibit
mobilehome park management from amending an existing park
rule or regulation that limits residency or tenancy to
individuals 55 years of age and older.
BACKGROUND
Enacted in 1978, the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) governs
the relationship between park owners or managers and the
residents of the 4,800+ mobilehome parks and manufactured
housing communities in California. In most of those parks,
residents own their home but lease the land on which their
home is installed. Those residents are subject to the
rules and regulations of the park, which may be modified by
management without the consent of the residents after a
specified amount of time (generally 6 months) after meeting
and consulting with those residents. (Civ. Code 798.25.)
In order to attract seniors, many of these parks limit
occupancy to residents that are 55 years of age or older.
Although the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
(FHAA) prohibits discrimination based on familial status,
the FHAA expressly exempts "housing for older persons," as
specified, from that prohibition based on the recognition
that "many senior citizens wish to live in senior-oriented
(more)
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 2 of ?
communities [,thus,] the prohibition against familial
status discrimination might reduce the availability of
affordable senior housing." (Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome
Estates (1997) 125 F.3d 1281.)
In recent years, mobilehome park owners have attempted to
remove park age restrictions over the objection of
residents (who arguably relied on the seniors-only status
when purchasing their home and signing a long term lease)
and local city councils. Several cities have responded to
the proposed changes by passing temporary bans or
moratoriums designed to preserve housing by preventing
management of seniors-only mobilehome parks from opening up
the park to residents of all ages. For example, the
Vallejo Times Herald's October 21, 2006 article entitled
Mobile home housing still senior, for now, reported:
For the time being, seniors-only mobile home parks will
stay that way. The City Council approved a 45-day
moratorium Thursday, that replaces an earlier ban that
was allowed to expire last month. It is designed to
give city officials time to decide if a permanent
ordinance is needed to preserve available senior
housing. "The city needs to study this further so it
can address both the interest of families of all ages
and seniors within the city," City Attorney William
Ross said.
The council enacted the first temporary ban on July 25,
after Napa Olympia Mobilodge owner Ken Waterhouse of
Roseville announced plans to convert the facility to a
family mobile home park. Napa Olympia Mobilodge is one
of two mobile home parks for seniors in American
Canyon. Las Casitas Mobile Home Park also only allows
residents age 55 and older. The council approved the
interim emergency ordinance a week after senior
residents voiced opposition to the plan. They argued
that they bought their homes because the parks were
guaranteed to be age-restricted. The moratorium was
allowed to expire, however, leaving anxious mobile home
park residents hanging until the council approved the
newest ban.
The city attorney noted, however, that legal firms
representing mobile home park owners had warned against
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 3 of ?
the city trying to pass a permanent ban on conversions
to family parks. Dowdall Law Office in Sacramento,
representing the Western Manufactured Housing Community
Association, wrote [the] city that such an ordinance
would leave the city vulnerable to "substantial
liability."
In order to authorize public agencies to pass similar
ordinances, this bill would expressly allow a local public
agency to prohibit the management of a mobilehome park from
amending an existing park rule or regulation that limits
residency or tenancy to individuals 55 years of age and
older.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing federal law , the Fair Housing Act, as amended by
the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, prohibits housing
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin. (42 U.S.C.
3604, 3605.) The Act's provisions regarding familial
status do not apply to properties that are intended and
operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older
if: (1) at least 80 percent are occupied by at least one
person who is 55 years of age or older; (2) the housing
facility adheres to published policies and procedures that
demonstrate intent to provide housing to those persons; and
(3) the housing facility or community complies with rules
issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, as
specified. (42 U.S.C. 3607(b).)
Existing state law , the Mobilehome Residency Law, states
that when management proposes an amendment to the park's
rules and regulations, the management must first meet and
consult with the homeowners, their representatives, or
both, after a 10-day written notice. After that meeting,
existing state law allows management to implement the
noticed amendment either with the consent of the
homeowners, or without their consent upon written notice of
not less than 6 months, except as specified. (Civ. Code
798.25.)
Existing state law allows management to require that a
prospective purchaser comply with any rule or regulation
limiting residency based on age requirements for housing
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 4 of ?
for older persons, provided that the rule or regulation
complies with the FHAA. (Civ. Code 798.76.)
This bill would allow a local public agency with authority
over the jurisdiction where the park is located to, by
ordinance, prohibit the management from amending an
existing park rule or regulation that limits residency or
tenancy to individuals 55 years of age and older.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the sponsor,
When persons of retirement age seek housing, they
often visit mobilehome parks to determine what homes
are on the market, and to also obtain and review a
copy of the park rules and regulations. When given
a copy of the park owner's written rules which state
that the community is for persons 55 years of age
and older, many seniors have reasonably relied upon
that written representation and chosen to invest in
a mobilehome in those parks so that they can enjoy
their retirement years in quiet and have neighbors
who are also retirees. The problem has developed
when a growing number of park owners in California
have chosen to unilaterally change the age rule to
"all ages" contradicting their previous written
policy on which the retirees reasonably relied. In
response to this problem, many local governments,
including American Canyon, want to clarify state law
that they have the authority to adopt local
ordinances to protect senior mobilehome owners who
have relied upon the written rules and regulations
adopted by park owners in deciding to purchase
mobilehomes in 55-plus parks.
2. Opposition contends that this bill would violate the
Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act
As noted above, the FHAA prohibits discrimination against
familial status but exempts "housing for older persons"
from that prohibition. That exemption includes housing
that is: (1) provided under any State or Federal program,
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 5 of ?
as specified; (2) intended for, and solely occupied by,
persons 62 years of age or older; or (3) intended and
operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or
older, provided that certain requirements are met. This
bill focuses on the third category - mobilehome parks and
manufactured housing communities that limit residency or
tenancy to individuals 55 years of age and older.
The Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
(WMA), in opposition, generally contends that this bill
would violate the FHAA by giving local public agencies
the authority to mandate that a manufactured housing
community only serve individuals 55 years of age and
older. Golden State Manufactured Home-Owners League
(GSMOL), the sponsor, disputes that claim and notes that
"[m]any park owners have adopted the 55 plus age rule
which states that at least 80% of the spaces within the
mobilehome park must be occupied by at least one person
who is age 55 years of age or older." Provided that all
of the other requirements are met, those rules are a
valid exemption to the FHAA's prohibition on
discrimination based on familial status.
a) Argument that the State of California does not have
the authority to restrict the intent of park
management
WMA maintains that "the State of California does not
have the legal authority to restrict our intent to
open our communities to families with children."
Under the FHAA, the 55 and older exemption applies to
housing that is intended and operated for occupancy by
persons 55 years of age or older. That intent must
be reflected in policies and procedures that are
published by the housing facility or community.
Although a park owner who attempts to remove an age
restriction would technically not have the intent to
operate the park for occupancy by persons 55 years of
age or older, from a practical standpoint, the
published policies containing the age restriction
would continue to reflect the prior intent of park
management (in compliance with the FHAA) unless an
amendment to the age restriction actually occurs.
While park management has the current legal authority
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 6 of ?
to change park rules and regulations under Civil Code
Section 798.25, the exercise of that legal authority
may conflict with prior contractual promises or
reliance that the park would retain its age
restriction. Thus, the sponsor contends that park
owners should be barred from unilaterally changing
their written rules and regulations when homeowners
have relied upon those rules in purchasing a
mobilehome and signing a long-term lease agreement.
Although this bill uses a public agency to reinforce
the contractual expectations of senior homeowners, the
sponsor might consider whether homeowners themselves
should have the power to prevent the conversion of a
park based upon their reliance on conditions in
existence at the time of signing their lease or
purchasing their home. For example, the bill could be
amended to, instead, require that when a park tenant
age 55 or older has signed a long term lease in
reliance on a park rule or regulation limiting
residency or tenancy in the park to persons age 55 or
older, the park owner may not change that rule or
regulation without the express consent of the park
tenant. It should be noted that long term rental
agreements (over 12 months) are not subject to rent
control. (See Civ. Code 798.17.)
b) Argument that the bill may cause a park to be out
of compliance with federal law
WMA also questions whether a park should be forced to
retain its age restriction if it is unable to find new
senior residents or if the number of senior residents
falls below the required 80 percent. That loss of
residents could occur for various reasons, including
the death of an older resident with a spouse under age
55, or the departure of an older tenant who leaves
their younger family behind. If the loss of residents
results in non-compliance with federal law, and the
local public agency prohibits park management from
amending the age restriction, the park would be in
violation of federal law until sufficient residents
age 55 and older are recruited to meet the 80 percent
requirement. While the FHAA does provide that
unoccupied units alone shall not cause a housing
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 7 of ?
provider to be non-compliant as long as those units
are reserved for occupancy by persons who meet the
requisite age requirements, not every departure of an
older tenant results in an unoccupied unit. (42
U.S.C. 3607(b)(3)(B).)
To address the issue of inadvertent non-compliance
with federal law, the sponsor should work with the
opposition to determine the frequency of this
occurrence and whether any amendments are necessary to
ensure that park owners/managers are not required to
remain non-compliant with federal law. Moreover, the
sponsor should consider whether the existing bill
risks being found to be preempted by the FHAA as a
result of frustrating its purposes.
3. Opposition's concern that market forces may dictate a
change and concerns about the implementation of the bill
WMA further contends that "[t]here exist very legitimate
reasons as to why a housing provider may desire to open a
community up to families and this legislation would
prevent us from doing so." WMA further notes that the
senior housing market has significantly expanded over the
years, that numerous housing options other than
mobilehome parks are available to seniors, and expresses
concern about potential bankruptcy of park owners if they
are unable to attract new 55 and older tenants.
In support of the restriction, the City of American
Canyon argues that this is only a permissive authority
that would allow a city "to best determine what type of
residency fits the character and needs of their local
community," and that "[o]nce a tenant makes their initial
purchase decision, there is an expectation that the park
will continue in whatever form of tenancy was in effect
when they made their purchase decision."
Although existing law allows a park owner to unilaterally
change a park rule without consent of other homeowners, a
senior purchaser of a mobilehome in a 55 and older park
that signs a long-term lease may reasonably rely upon
management's representations that the park will retain
its age restriction. Those seniors are often on a
fixed-income and may be financially or physically unable
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 8 of ?
to move out of the park to another senior facility should
the age restriction be removed (although that move would
be one of personal preference and not be required by the
change in park rules). Supporters further assert that
the design of family parks may differ significantly from
those that cater to seniors, for example, the City of
American Canyon notes that with respect to their two
parks:
The family tenancy park has a playground for
children, wider streets, and considerable space
between the individual home units. In contrast, the
senior's only tenancy park directly adjacent has no
playground for children, more narrow streets, and
limited space between the individual mobile units.
Although seniors may have a variety of housing options
other than a seniors-only mobilehome park, this bill
would serve to protect the expectations of existing
residents that relied upon the representations of
management at the time of their purchase. Despite that
argument, mobilehomes do represent one of the few forms
of home ownership that struggling families may afford,
and the committee should consider whether this bill would
have the unintended consequence of restricting affordable
housing stock that may otherwise be available for
individuals displaced by foreclosure or economic
misfortune.
4. Impact of United States v. City of Hayward and ability
to enact a conditional use permit limiting a specified
parcel of land for use as a mobilehome park for senior
citizens
a) United States v. City of Hayward
Although not noted in WMA's opposition letter to this
committee, GSMOL contends the opposition has
erroneously stated that this bill violates the Ninth
Circuit's holding in United States v. City of Hayward
(1994) 36 F.3d 832. In that case, the owner of a
mobilehome park terminated the park's adults-only
status in response to amendments to the Fair Housing
Act which prohibited discrimination based upon
familial status. In response to that change, 190 park
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 9 of ?
tenants filed a petition seeking a rent reduction
under the rent control ordinance on the basis that the
change constituted a reduction in housing services.
In finding that the City of Hayward violated the FHAA
by penalizing the decision to provide housing to
families with children, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a
grant of summary judgment in favor of the United
States, and reversed the district court's denial of
compensatory damages for the United States. GSMOL
notes that "[t]he entire case was a criticism not of
55 and older age rules in a mobilehome park, but of
the local government's decision to mandate a reduction
in rent if a park owner changed from 55-plus to all
ages. AB 1111 therefore does not, in any way , run
counter to the decision of the Federal Court in United
States v. City of Hayward." (Emphasis in original.)
Despite the focus on rent control, the court
additionally held that "[a]t the time the 1988
Amendments became effective, [the mobilehome park]
simply did not qualify for the senior housing
exemption. [The park owner] had a choice to terminate
the adults-only policy or to convert to senior
housing. We refuse to adopt a rule that would deprive
landowners of this choice." (Id. at 838) (Citations
omitted.) While public entities could use their
authority under this bill to require park-owners to
adjust their park rules in compliance with future
amendments to the Fair Housing Act, the alternative
would be to allow park owners to open up their parks
to all-ages despite the reliance by senior homeowners.
Although the Ninth Circuit was hesitant to make that
policy decision, it is well within the purview of the
Legislature to require park owners to comply with any
changes in federal law as opposed to allowing them to
terminate the park's seniors-only housing status.
b) Attorney General's Opinion 04-704
With respect to a city's ability to pass zoning
regulations that limit the use of parcels of land
under its police power, a 2004 Attorney General
Opinion, requested by Senator Morrow, concluded:
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 10 of ?
Notwithstanding the prohibition against
discrimination based upon age contained in the
Planning and Zoning Law, a city may adopt a zoning
ordinance or issue a conditional use permit that
limits a specified parcel of land to use as a
mobilehome park for senior citizens.
That opinion responded to the question presented and
did not note any conflict with the FHAA. Following
that opinion, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on
December 7, 2006 that the "[Oceanside] City Council
voted unanimously . . . to give [mobilehome] parks a
new zoning designation that requires they maintain
their seniors-only status in perpetuity." Although
park owners had argued that such regulation would be
discriminatory, those representatives did not speak in
opposition at the time of the City Council meeting.
5. Clarifying amendment to avoid unnecessarily
restricting the amendment of park rules not related to an
age requirement
As currently written, the bill allows a local public
agency to prohibit park management from "amending an
existing park rule or regulation that limits residency or
tenancy to individuals 55 years of age or older." If a
rule containing an age requirement also contains other
provisions, this bill would allow a public agency to
prohibit any change in the rule (including provisions not
relating to the age of residents). The bill would also
prohibit the amendment, but not the striking, of a rule
limiting residency or tenancy to individuals 55 years of
age and older. To clarify that the prohibition only
refers to the age limitation, and clarify that park
management cannot get around the prohibition by deleting
a rule or regulation, the following clarifying amendment
is suggested:
Suggested clarifying amendment:
On page 3, line 19 after "amending" insert:
or striking the provision in
AB 1111 (DeSaulnier)
Page 11 of ?
Support: City of American Canyon; California Alliance for
Retired Americans; League of California Cities;
Valley Mobilehome Residents Association (VMRA); City
of Hemet; Yucaipa City Council
Opposition: Western Manufactured Housing Communities
Association (WMA)
HISTORY
Source: Golden State Manufactured Home-Owners League
(GSMOL)
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: None Known
Prior Vote: Asm. Housing & Cmnty. Dev. Cmte. (Ayes 6, Noes
1)
Asm. Floor (Ayes 44, Noes 28)
**************