Home / Mobile Home Parks

Standing with displaced residents.

Rebecca’s commitment to Tahitian Terrace and Palisades Bowl—and a practical plan for sustained advocacy.

Rebecca’s position

Rebecca Supports Tahitian Terrace and Palisades Bowl

Tahitian Terrace and Palisades Bowl are important sources of more affordable, rent-protected homeownership in Pacific Palisades.

I support preserving these communities and protecting the opportunity for pre-fire residents to return and rebuild. I would oppose efforts to eliminate the parks or convert the properties to other uses that would permanently displace those residents.

If elected, I would be available to meet remotely each month with residents of both mobile home parks to discuss ongoing concerns. I would report back to PPCC and include relevant updates in my Team Palisades newsletter to the community.

A practical path forward

Rebecca’s Six-Month Engagement Plan

Month One

Meet with residents from both mobile home parks to learn about their specific needs and concerns. Meet with the PPCC Board to understand positions it has taken regarding mobile home park residents. With Board approval, contact Council District 11 to learn what actions it has taken to support residents. Research whether state or local right-of-return laws elsewhere in the country could provide a model for protecting residents after a natural disaster.

Month Two

Work with the PPCC Board to develop and circulate a position paper addressing meaningful rebuilding timelines, infrastructure coordination and park-owner accountability to displaced residents.

Month Three

With Board permission, approach the Palisadian-Post about interviews with mobile home park residents and, if available, PPCC’s position paper to generate broader public support.

Months Four–Six

With PPCC Board approval, work with Council District 11 to maintain attention and pressure on park owners to address residents’ needs.

Current understanding

What Is the Status of Palisades Bowl and Tahitian Terrace?

Tahitian Terrace

Tahitian Terrace is owned by Azul Pacifico, and debris was cleared by FEMA. It is my understanding that Los Angeles and Council District 11 were instrumental in securing FEMA’s involvement, with the expectation that debris clearance would accelerate rebuilding for displaced residents. It is also my understanding that Tahitian Terrace has not announced its plans for the property and has declined to work with residents to rebuild.

Palisades Bowl

Palisades Bowl is owned by Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates LLC and is essentially divided among family members. Debris was cleared privately. It is my understanding that the owners want to sell to the highest bidder for a mixed-use complex, for which the property is not currently zoned. Councilmember Traci Park has said she is not interested in changing the zoning.

Legal framework

What Laws Govern Tahitian Terrace and Palisades Bowl?

California Government Code § 65863.7

Regulates the conversion, closure or cessation of use of a mobile home park. It requires an impact report addressing displacement. Local government reviews that report and may require measures to mitigate the impact on displaced residents.

SB 610

Extends Section 65863.7 to mobile homes destroyed by a disaster. For a disaster-related closure, cessation or change of use, the owner must file the statutory impact report and include an HCD technical inspection report. Local government may also require measures to mitigate effects on displaced residents.

SB 1093

This proposal is not yet law. It is my understanding that it would add requirements including regular status updates, post-disaster access rights, restrictions on liability waivers, and evaluations, testing and documentation before management could pursue a disaster-related closure, cessation or change of use. I also understand that it would go further regarding compensation if an owner chooses not to restore a park.

Los Angeles Municipal Code § 47.09

Requires owners proposing to convert, close or cease operating a park to address the impact on displaced residents and mitigate adverse impacts. It is my understanding that a legal question here is whether the fire constitutes a “closure.”

California Supreme Court

In Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (2012), the California Supreme Court held that the California Coastal Act and Mello Act applied to the proposed conversion of Palisades Bowl. These laws impose requirements affecting a proposed conversion of the property.

This page describes Rebecca’s current understanding and campaign position and is not legal advice.

Questions or concerns?

Rebecca wants to hear from residents.

Email Rebecca at rebeccalobl@gmail.com

CONTACT REBECCA