Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Mobile home park tenants threatened with eviction again

The Daily Journal/Bill Silverfarb, 8/11/15. "Mobile home park tenants evicted:  owners replacing old pre-fab homes with newer models."

It was affordable housing.

"At least 22 notices of termination were sent to residents of Pacific Skies Estates, a mobile home park on the coast in Pacifica, and the rest of the residents fear they too face eviction.
Priced out, no place to go.
....  The owners previously applied to raise the rents for the park’s 15 homeowners by up to 170 percent to pay for needed repairs such as reinforcing the seawall. The park is right on the coast with steep cliffs leading to the ocean below. They were denied the increase, however.

The rent control ordinance for the mobile home park limits any increases to 75 percent of the Consumer Price Index. The Legal Aid Society represented the tenants and will likely represent some of the current tenants if the owners seek a court order to have them removed. From the coast to Redwood City, San Mateo and San Carlos, rents have been climbing through the roof.

 “Our housing crisis has reached historic proportions where we are losing the basic building blocks of our community. A determined effort is needed by all of our cities to ensure we preserve the housing that’s affordable to average people today and create more for those who join our communities in the future,” Josh Hugg, program manager at the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County, wrote in an email."  Read article.
Related articles.  CSN Bay Area, 11/11/13, ...."There are 93 homes at the park -- 15 of which are owned by individuals, and not rented by the park. It's those homes that could see a rent increase of $1,119.58 per month -- on top of the nearly $1,300 some homes pay, according to the Pacifica Tribune. The mobile home tenants own their trailers but rent the space from the park -- and say they can't afford such a steep rent increase. Pacific Skies needs to raise rents in order to pay for $1.5 million in improvements, such as new gas and sewer lines. “Rent increases are necessary in the marketplace to allow for the improvements that we have made to protect the park and its residents,” said Pacific Skies Estates representative Carol McDermott.The rent increase isn't set in stone: The mobile homes have rent control, thanks to a 1991 law. The park's owners need to convince officers at a hearing that the rent increase is justified. A hearing on this proposal won't take place until early next year.  Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, 3/4/14, "Judge rules no rent increase for Pacific Skies Estates homeowners." "The hearing officer denied the owner of Pacific Skies Estates his request for a 170 percent rent increase for the 15 homeowners in the mobile home park, but left the door open for him to try again."

Manufactured Housing News (MHN), 11/1/12, "Today's Deals:  HFF arranges $11.5M refinancing for manufactured home community."  "HFF worked exclusively on behalf of InSite Realty Advisors to secure the five-year, fixed-rate loan through Opus Bank.  The recapitalization allows for the repatriation of equity invested in the property, as well as continued execution of the greater vision for the community. Pacific Skies Estates is located at 1300 Palmetto Avenue along the beach in Pacifica, about 10 miles southwest of San Francisco. The unique coastal property is currently 96 percent occupied, and is being repositioned as a lifestyle rental community. The community was developed in the early 1960s, however the sponsor has recently made significant investments into the property including an upgraded sea-wall and approximately 16 percent new installed manufactured homes for rent."

Note photographs, ocean side the related MHN article, row of units from the related CSN Bay Area article.

Posted by Kathy Meeh



No new housing in Pacifica.
no new affordable housing in Pacifica.
Endless traffic congestion is the tool.
Endless obstruction by NIMBIES is to blame.
Like it or not, the SF bay area is a job mecca and a beautiful place to live.
New residents are coming here in droves driving rents and real estate prices into the stratosphere. Well planned dense, affordable housing with smart connections to public transit is the way to go.
The faux-enviros have no resources or expertise in this area and will only deliver more schlock if left unsupervised on the play yard.
Edminster and her sycophants are academics full of their own self importance, NOT experts at city planning.

Anonymous said...

Most of these people have little chance of finding other housing they can afford in Pacifica. Evicted from their homes and then priced out of their community! Gee, do you think we need some affordable and low-income housing? Put any ideas in your frivolous heads, Council? You have failed these residents, not because of the evictions, but because none of you have done anything to make affordable housing happen.

Anonymous said...

There is no affordable housing in Pacifica because mean-spirited, "I've got mine's" have been choking the life out of our economy for decades.
All development has been thwarted except for a dozen $5,000,000.00 houses on a hillside.
Proof that these faux-enviros don't know what the fuck they are doing but they sure are having fun doing it. Did I mention how smart they think they are?
If the poor souls at the trailer park were frogs and snakes they would be better off.

Anonymous said...

9:27 bemoans the disappearance of affordable housing and blames it on the lack of development. Yet it is this very development he/she calls for that is reason for the 60 evictions. Perhaps 9:27 is suggesting that more development projects like Harmony are the answer to affordable housing?

Or perhaps 9:27 just doesn't have a clue and finds things like tying his/her shoes a daily challenge.

Kathy Meeh said...

Or perhaps 1009 is just doing the NIMBY "confuse the issue" dance.

Does this City need more affordable, senior, low-income housing? Yes.
Does this City need more, land intensive luxury estates? No.
Any connection between the two (2) above? No.

But, the NIMBY guided Harmony@1 development is land intensive luxury estates, if built.
And, the obstruction against smart, balanced building in this City is NIMBY driven.
And do NIMBIES even care if Pacifica is a City? Probably not, (follow the direction of NIMBY comments over the past few years).

Steve Sinai said...

Due to threats of bureaucratic delay by Pacifica's "Gang of No", Harmony was forced to lower the number of units built. In order to make the project work financially, the developers were forced to build bigger and fancier homes than they'd originally planned. Scarce and lavish housing = expensive housing.

The same thing happens every time someone wants to build anything bigger than a doghouse in Pacifica, which is why hardly anything gets built here.

Don't blame developers for the high cost of housing in town. Blame Pacifica's NIMBYS. They're the same ones who think traffic jams are great for business.

Anonymous said...

I just saw on the news that the Livermore Outlet Mall expanded and 30 more stores opened today.

The Outlet Mall brings in an additional $2,500,000 into the city of Livermore.

The new 30 stores should bring in an extra $300,000.


Wake up City Hall.

Anonymous said...

10:09 The trailer park is in terrible shape and should be remodeled/cleaned up/ improved. Your stranglehold on Pacifica has killed all alternatives for these folks. I have no idea if the subsequent raise in rent is justified or not but one thing for sure, there is no competing alternative to keep it in check.
So just keep doing your NIMBY dance and celebrate that these folks can either live in squalor or live on the street as long as everyone keeps buying your line of crap and nothing new get's built in Pacifica.
Frogs and snakes get better treatment from you selfish sickos.

Kathy Meeh said...

255, that article is in draft, and as a separate focus will probably be posted Saturday.

Anonymous said...

4:02-- the residents are being kicked out because of the precious development you want so badly. The mobile home park is being redeveloped and is pricing the residents out. Get it? You can't have it both ways.

Do you think developers will magically swoop into town and build houses while simultaneously lowering the cost of housing for everyone? That's not how the market works, you rube!

Steve Sinai said...

Do you think developers will magically swoop into town and build houses while simultaneously lowering the cost of housing for everyone? That's not how the market works, you rube!

I don't know if this person is trolling, or genuinely believes that fewer houses means lower prices.

Anonymous said...


I was talking about how much $ the Livermore Outlet Mall brings into the city.

Sharon said...

The loss of affordable housing vis a vis mobile home parks is happening all over the Bay Area. Several are at risk right now in San Jose near Santana Row and they are not rentals so owners. there can't even sell their units at the Bay Area. fantasy housing prices. From the Trib's article at. least the park's owners are trying to work with the.tenants.

Anonymous said...

Look at it this way. The people who lived up in the trailer park, took advantage of cheap rent for years. With an awesome ocean view.

Maybe the karma will come back to the owners this winter when el nino comes back.

Anonymous said...

A rube doesn't understand supply and demand. That would be you.
Every other city is trying to grapple with this challenge utilizing the good faith leverage they've earned with investors over the years.
In Pacifica, if you are poor you are out of luck. Investors learned a long time ago that this city is ruled by a bunch of whackos and they steer clear knowing that this is a good place to throw good many down a rat hole.
Enjoy your NIMBY dance. Stay real high so you don't have to face your immorality.

todd bray said...

I'm sure this is a shake down by the LA company that owns the land to have current tenants reapply after eviction at higher rental rates than they currently pay. The rent has been at issue since the LA company purchased the property a few years ago. There is pretty much no way an project could be approved on that parcel that would be within the 100 year errosion zone, 2.5 feet a year, so to get rid of the tenants would be follie.

This excersize is a shake down. Just a plain old mean spirited shake down by an absentee land lord.

Kathy Meeh said...

Sharon 1112, mentioned the mobile home owners being forced-out and their resale problems in San Jose.
Yet, in a recent positive outcome so far, Palo Alto/Santa Clara stepped-up to save Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.
Pacifica has some senior and section 8 housing, but in this County (20 Cities + County) much more public housing is needed.
With any luck, the County will require all our cities, including Pacifica, to build more low cost public housing.

One of the speakers at City Council, Monday (my recall), said she is 76 years old, lives on social security $1,686, her rent would be raised to $1,600, and "she has no place else to go". Clearly she was also disabled, (and likely requires consistent medical observation).
Being homeless will not work-out well for her, and usually not for others as well.

Anonymous said...


You forgot to mention the battle cry of the Nimbys, noobees,hippies, and gang of no:

Out of town developers.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I'm sure the developers with interest in Pacifica are dying to build homes in Pacifica for that 76 year old woman with an annual income of 20K. On the scraps of land left for development. Maybe if council could get off their collective ass they'd have the city pursue some of the affordable housing projects other cities come up with for seniors, low income, disabled. We need more of this type of housing. Plenty of smaller parcels for that. Won't change the city's fortunes but would change the lives of our most vulnerable residents. Whether we support growth or no-growth, if we don't make it a priority for our most vulnerable residents to live with dignity and security, we have no claim to moral superiority over any group in Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

LOL @ 8:49

Developers are the reason the Pacific Skies residents are getting kicked out. Development of Harmony@1 will raise home values in the area.

Pacifica is comprised mainly of shitty and decaying housing stock from the '50s which keeps home values in the area depressed. Take a look around you next time you shuffle off to Safeway in your pajamas and slippers.

Any new development will be non-shitty and will raise the value of the area, NOT make it more affordable for anyone.

If you think a developer is going to try to build anything that doesn't provide the maximum return for them (ie, NOT affordable housing), you're dumber than your posts indicate.

Anonymous said...


How many Below Market Income housing units has the city created in the last 10 years?

In the last 15 years?

20 years?

todd bray said...

Didn't a NIMBY council purchase the senior housing on Crespi to save that for seniors? No reason the city couldn't do the same for the mobile park tenents. NIMBY's do that... help those less fortunate than themselves you YESSIE Ba#$%RDS!!!

Anonymous said...


At this time, do you think anyone takes you seriously?

You lost all credibility.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me like we had senior housing built in the 70s, 80s and 90s and since then nothing. I'm including the projects on Terra Nova, Crespi, Oddstad, Oceana behind Good Shepard. A few units of affordable housing on Francisco by the golf course from the late 90s. Other than that what have we done? Clearly, it is not a priority in this town. I don't expect standard developers to have much interest in these projects because they're low profile and probably not the most profitable, but the city certainly should be interested. This issue should be a council priority and I don't mean on paper. Is it ignorance, indifference or the usual incompetence coming out of city hall? Missing money, no new revenue sources, seniors and disabled being evicted not just from their homes, but, barring a miracle, from their community. Pretty shitty job you're doing, City Council.

Kathy Meeh said...

It seems the City should do a study, and move forward to build affordable, low-income, disabled, and senior housing units according to current and projected needs through whatever grants or other funding is available.
And will the Gang of No support such development, including possible density, and certain elevated infill height limits?

From CA low income housing,: "HUD listing are oftentimes income based rentals. .. We searched for low income apartments in Pacifica, CA and currently do not have any listings." Also, there is some somewhat confusing information on the City-Data link.

512, "pretty shitty job you're doing, City Council" (your comment). That would include City Council majorities, and NIMBY City Council friends influence from the late 1990s-- 20 years of compounded anti-progress affects leading to the present inadequate and deficient City financial, economic, and social infrastructure.
NIMBY Motto: "if you don't build it, they won't come". So, how's that experiment been working for the benefit and success of the City, including the entire community?

Anonymous said...


Bridge Housing is doing a great job building below market rent units and below market income units in other cities.

Pacifica, is ok being a dusty dirty drive through city on Highway 1.

The mentality of city hall is, as long as our paychecks clear, who cares.

Anonymous said...

Kathy, it includes all of them for the last 20 years or so. It's an issue that should have non-partisan support on council and instead it has had their non-partisan indifference. And no shortage of self-promoting posturing and endless paper. I believe Barbara Carr was the last champion seniors, the working poor, and the disabled had in this town. She'd shame her colleagues "on both sides of the aisle" into doing the right thing. I rarely agreed with her but those values and that kind of character have all but disappeared among Pacifica's elected officials.

Sharon said...

@ 3:09 where would the city to buy the housing you speak? Tax the homeowners who are already paying more in taxes than they can afford, especially us seniors who have worked a lifetime and thought we might someday be able to retire.

Steve Sinai said...

Pacifica city government has neither the money or competence to build public housing. When it comes to any kind of housing in the city, all it seems to know how to do is get in he way.

If the property owners want to put some boulders on the beach to prevent cliff erosion, and they have to get the city's permission to do so, it seems to me like that's a point of leverage for the city. They could do a deal where the owners have to let people stay in their trailers to the end of the year, compensate the tenants for moving costs. or something like that.

Tom Clifford said...

The City could have and should have had $2.8 million in it's inclusionary housing fund but with hard work staff was able to get that down to a stunning $385,000. With $2.8 million we would be able to do more the flap our gums about the City's low cost housing needs.

Grumpy old man with Big Solutions said...

My first thought on this issue is that the City could/should relocate these folks and their vintage mobile units to the Beach Blvd Site and keep them there temporarily until everyone figures a longer term solution out. They could charge rent to these folks, lets say 50% of what Pacific Skies was charging, and gain some funds for Pacifica. This could give these unfortunate dwellers a few years.

Every election season the incumbant candidates say, "The RFP for beach blvd. is coming". Will 2016 be any different?. If you are not going to put the site up for sale, give it to the less fortunate. Trust, then verify.

little town of many horrors said...

I drove past the mobile home park yesterday. I know there is,a law which states old mobile homes can not be moved or relocated. They are basically unsafe and not rigid enough to be relocated. One was being torn down for scrap metal.

The city needs to make sure the park owners are complying with the city's trailer park rent control ordinance. The city has always hid being there code ordinances, so it's time for them to get the city attorney on this.

The north section of Palmetto has always been a zoning wasteland. Trailer court, wrecking yard, auto repair shops, recycling yard. If the city had any clue they would have bought up this blighted area years ago.

Not even Karen Ervin, has done anything on creating a downtown palmetto.

Anonymous said...

Most (not all) of this section of Palmetto between Manor and Paloma has been a joke for decades. I can't think of any other coastal city that would let fragile bluffs like these with million dollar views turn into ghetto (I did say not the whole section).
Pacifica has no class or common sense because the NOBY bullies who think they are the smartest people in the room and are somehow entitled to call the shots, have no class or common sense.

Anonymous said...

Human tragedy or development opportunity? Leave it to notorious Pacifica to make it both, and messy. If the property owner wants to improve his property, great, but let's not ignore the vulnerable people who in the process are losing homes, community and support systems. That's not the owner's problem, it's the city's. No affordable housing in Pacifica and rents are sky-high all over SMC and SF, not just here. Not so easy to start over when you're elderly, disabled or poor. Sinai has a good idea, but who at City Hall has the skill to negotiate a humane transition? For that matter, who has the heart? City Council, these are your people and your failure. Would seeing the story on Channel 7 convince you of how shameful this is? Too late to meet your responsibility re building affordable housing, but I sure hope the contract city attorney is working on more humane terms for these residents. Further to what Tom Clifford mentioned, a functioning city should be able to anticipate housing needs and provide for them. It's what real cities do. Plenty of affordable housing partners out there and I bet this city has pursued none. Council talks and plans but plans are not houses no matter how many times you mention them from the dais, on the campaign trail, or, in endless reports. I believe the real problem is priorities. Council, your priorities suck and this crisis reveals your plans are just empty words.

Anonymous said...

On Friday the park rescinded the eviction notices. Who knows what is next for these people. Do you know which council member has lived in the park for years? Hint: it won't be listed on the city's website.

todd bray said...

I learned the other day that the State, not our local government, oversee's mobile home parks.

Anonymous said...


The city has a rent control ordinance in place when Peter Loeb was either Mayor or on City Council.

But the state does oversee mobile home parks.

Anonymous said...

11:15 You know how to get tenants to leave that you don't want in or on your property. Do everything you can legally to make it suck living there.

Anonymous said...

Legal error? Better yet, maybe they'll pursue the Sinai Option and give the residents and any involved agencies til EOY to find other housing. With a little luck the property may survive a real El Nino this winter and still be there for improvement come Spring.