The Mobilehome Residency Reform Act: How SB 2095 Gave California Mobilehome Residents New Protections

In the late 1990s, the mobilehome resident in California who was being asked to sign a new lease was, in most cases, a resident who was being asked to sign a lease that the park management had written without consultation. The lease was, in most cases, a lease that contained terms the resident did not understand. The lease was, in most cases, a lease that contained terms the resident could not negotiate. The lease was, in most cases, a lease that the resident had, in plain language, no choice but to sign. The terms were, in the late 1990s, a documented problem. The problem was, in the words of the mobilehome resident advocates, the predictable outcome of a residency law system that did not have the statutory tools to require the park management to consult the residents. The problem was, in plain language, an imbalance problem. The park management had the statutory tools. The residents did not. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his second term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the residents the tools. The law was Senate Bill 2095, the Mobilehome Residency Reform Act, and it was, by any measure, the foundation of the California framework for mobilehome resident protection that, by 2026, had become the model for the broader manufactured housing movement.

The Law

Senate Bill 2095, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco and signed by Governor Pete Wilson in 1998, reformed the California Mobilehome Residency Act. The law is codified in the Civil Code, in the chapter governing mobilehome residency. The operative provisions required every mobilehome park management to provide the residents with a written lease that complied with the residency law, and required the management to provide the residents with a formal grievance procedure. The law also required the management to provide the residents with at least 60 days notice before any change in the lease terms, and required the management to provide the residents with the right to sell the mobilehome in place.

The mobilehome resident in California being asked to sign a new lease was, in 1998, in most cases, a resident who was being asked to sign a lease that the park management had written without consultation. The resident was, in the words of the mobilehome advocates, the predictable outcome of a residency law system that did not have the statutory tools to require the consultation. SB 2095 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the foundation of the California framework for mobilehome resident protection that, by 2026, had protected more than 1 million Californians.

The Problem

By 1998, the imbalance between the mobilehome park management and the mobilehome residents in California was, by any measure, a problem. The Department of Housing and Community Development, in its 1997 report, had documented that more than 1 million Californians lived in mobilehomes, and that the residents were, in the aggregate, paying more than $2 billion per year in lot rents, and that the residents were, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of a residency law system that did not have the statutory tools to require the park management to consult the residents. The 1 million figure was, in the words of the report, a significant number of residents. The report recommended that the state reform the Mobilehome Residency Act, and that the reform include a formal grievance procedure. The reform had not, in 1998, been implemented.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 2095, a mobilehome residency reform. The reform was, by statute, the responsibility of every mobilehome park management to provide the residents with a written lease that complied with the residency law. The reform was, by statute, the responsibility of the Department of Housing and Community Development to enforce the requirement. The reform was, by statute, the responsibility of the residents to use the formal grievance procedure. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the residents required a statutory protection. The statutory protection was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the residents to be protected in the residency law. The second idea was that the protection required a formal grievance procedure. The formal grievance procedure was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the protection to be enforceable. The third idea was that the procedure required a 60 day notice. The 60 day notice was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the residents to be informed of the lease changes.

The Fight

The fight over SB 2095 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 1998, intense. The bill had two principal layers of opposition. The first layer was the mobilehome park management industry. The industry argued that the bill would impose new requirements on the park management. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the new requirements were, in fact, the kind of requirements that the industry should have been implementing all along. The compromise was that the bill provided for a one-year phase-in period, with the requirements taking effect on January 1, 2000. The second layer was the mobilehome park owners association. The association argued that the bill would impose new lease requirements on the park owners. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the new lease requirements were, in fact, the kind of requirements that the park owners should have been providing all along. The compromise was that the bill provided for the lease requirements to be standardized in a model lease developed by the Department of Housing and Community Development. The Senate passed the bill in May 1998. The Assembly passed the bill in August 1998. Governor Wilson signed the bill in September 1998.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 1998, in his second term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the mobilehome park management industry. He did the negotiations with the mobilehome park owners association. He did the floor work. He did the work, in the 2021 oral history, because the work was, in his view, the mobilehome resident protection framework that the state owed to the more than 1 million Californians who lived in mobilehomes.

What Changed

SB 2095 changed California in three measurable ways. The first was the written lease requirement. Before the law, the mobilehome park management could, in the aggregate, change the lease terms without notice. After the law, the management had to provide the residents with a written lease and at least 60 days notice of any changes. The second was the formal grievance procedure. The law required the management to provide the residents with a formal grievance procedure. The procedure has, since 1999, been the empirical record of the resident grievances. The third was the right to sell in place. The law gave the residents the right to sell the mobilehome in place, recognizing that the residents owned the mobilehome but did not own the land under it.

The Legacy

SB 2095 is still on the books in 2026. The Civil Code provisions governing the Mobilehome Residency Act remain the operative state-level framework. The framework continues, in 2026, to require the park management to provide the residents with the written lease and the formal grievance procedure. The framework has, since 1998, been the model for similar frameworks in other states, and the framework has, since 2010, been adapted and expanded through the California Mobilehome Residency Law Amendment Act.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Chaptered bill text, SB 2095, Statutes of 1998, Chapter 542.
2. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 2095, 1997 to 1998 Regular Session.
3. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 2095, May 1998.
4. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 2095, August 1998.
5. Governors Office, Signing Message, SB 2095, September 1998.
6. California Department of Housing and Community Development, Mobilehome Residency Annual Reports, 1998 to 2023.
7. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
8. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.
9. Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, 1998 Position Paper on SB 2095.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.