WATSONVILLE >> The Watsonville Planning Commission voted in favor of a trio of modifications to the city’s Municipal Code regulating the closure or conversion of mobile home parks and mitigating the impacts of displaced mobile home park owners. The resolution will now go before the City Council for final adoption.

The background was presented by attorney Will Constantine, the city’s special counsel on mobile home issues who wrote many statutes related to mobile home closures and conversions and also worked with the California Legislature on Assembly Bill 2782 — authored by former Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley — which allowed for rent control regulations on mobile home parks and was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020.

Constantine said revisions to the code were needed because the current mobile home conversion ordinance is outdated.

“It was primarily designed for a different type of conversion: a conversion of mobile home parks to resident-owned subdivisions, which was handled by a different statutory section,” he said. “They really have nothing to do with this type of conversion, so it needed to be replaced with this ordinance.”

The first proposed code modification is an additional chapter requiring mobile home park owners to apply for a conditional special use permit for conversion or closure, go before the City Council for consideration and provide notice to and meet with residents. Park owners would also be required to file a report on the potential impacts of a closure or conversion and provide the opportunity for mitigation benefits in the event of relocation.

The second item is a repeal of Chapter 14-42 of the Municipal Code, which was adopted in 1990 and provides guidelines on the conversions of mobile home parks.

The third and final item is an amendment to Section 14.-16.705, which details property development standards regarding mobile home parks. The proposed new language clarifies that mobile homes proposed for conversion or closure will be subject to the standards set forth in Chapter 11.4.

With the amendments, mobile home park owners would be required to issue an impact report if planning to close or convert a park, pay displaced mobile home owners in-place market value of their lost home if they cannot be relocated to another park, make findings as to whether the approval will result in or materially contribute to a shortage of low or moderate-income affordable housing and condition park owners to allow displaced homeowners to find adequate housing on other mobile home parks.

Constantine said mobile home parks differ from apartments or condos in that, while park owners own the sites, mobile home owners own the homes and invest about $2 in them of every $1 their park owner has invested in the space.

“The homeowners are substantially co-investors in the park, besides it being a place to live,” he said.

With 73% of Watsonville households falling into the low-income category, and the median local home price being approximately $820,090 in 2023, Constantine said mobile homes remained a viable option. The city currently has 919 mobile home spaces, approximately 6% of the city’s housing stock.

Constantine said a goal is for residents displaced by park closures or conversions receive adequate payment. The procedural protections that are part of the regulations include the requirement for applications for special use permits for closure or conversion to be considered concurrently with the required development permits or approvals for new intended use, mobile home owners receiving fair noticing through documentation and informational meetings, park owners giving written notices 30 days before filing applications and copies of the impact report being distributed to mobile home owners at least 45 days before proposed hearings.

If a mobile home can be physically relocated, homeowners will receive the payment of the cost to move, first and last month’s rent, a security deposit, replacement of any damaged materials and reasonable living expenses from the date of displacement to the date of occupancy of the new site or home. If homes cannot be relocated, mobile home owners can pay the appraised in-place market value of their homes. If the appraised value is insufficient to allow for the purchase of a home in a comparable park, they may pay the reasonable cost of purchasing an available home in a comparable park.

A “comparable park” would have similar floorplans to those the homeowners are being displaced from, be commensurable in rent and amenities and located within Santa Cruz or Santa Clara counties or within 20 miles of the park proposed to be converted or closed.

Vice Chair Peter Radin asked why this did not include Monterey or San Benito counties. Constantine said one of the most important factors of relocation is where a person works.

“A lot of people in Watsonville work over the hill,” he said. “Getting relocated to a mobile home park in Santa Clara County isn’t gonna be as hard of a burden on them if they got relocated to, let’s say, a mobile home park in San Benito County or, for example, in King City, which takes about an hour and a half or two hours to drive to if the traffic is wrong.”

Radin suggested the horizon be broadened to include Salinas, Monterey and Hollister, as a lot of families are farmworkers.

“It’s not gonna do them a whole lot of good to move to Mountain View,” he said.

The public speakers included several residents and owners of homes in Watsonville’s mobile home parks who felt the ordinance would give them peace of mind should their parks be closed or converted.

“This is an important protection for those of us that live on fixed incomes and for the agricultural community,” said Michelle Leonard, a resident of Monterey Vista Mobile Estates.

The commission voted 4-0-1 to approve the recommendation, with Radin abstaining, Commissioner Jenni Veitch-Olson absent and the District 4 seat vacant following Martha Vega’s resignation.