SB 749 imposes new procedural requirements on owners who intend to close, cease operations, or change the use of a mobilehome park in California. Management must give advance written notice to tenants and local public entities at least 12 months before the anticipated change and again at six months, provide a posted and mailed opportunity for qualified entities to submit purchase offers, and work with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on certification and enforcement.
The bill matters because it creates a formal window for resident organizations, nonprofits, and public agencies to acquire parks and preserves data and appraisal standards intended to make valuation disputes resolvable. For park owners, HCD, local housing authorities, and tenant advocates, SB 749 rearranges the transactional timeline, adds documentation and notice burdens, and places a state‑managed certification and monitoring layer over sales that would end a park’s use as housing.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires owners to provide a 12‑month and a six‑month notice to tenants and local public entities before closing or changing a park’s use, and to offer qualified entities an exclusive opportunity to submit a purchase offer during a defined window. Establishes HCD certification of qualified purchasers, a 270‑day offer deadline, and an appraisal fallback process if parties cannot agree on market value.
Who It Affects
Mobilehome park owners and management, resident organizations and other nonprofits or public agencies that might buy parks, local housing authorities and city/county officials, HCD, and mobilehome homeowners (tenants) who risk displacement.
Why It Matters
Creates a structured, state‑facilitated right‑of‑first‑offer intended to preserve parks as housing and gives tenants predictable notice and access to buyers focused on preservation, while setting procedural rules for valuation and enforcement that change how park dispositions are executed in California.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 749 adds a two‑stage notice regime before a mobilehome park can be closed, cease operations, or be repurposed. Owners (through their management) must send an initial notice at least 12 months before the anticipated date outlining the intent to close or change use, and a second, fuller notice at least six months before the date with contact information for local agencies, HCD, and legal services, plus park‑specific data such as rent‑controlled spaces and resident ages and incomes — drawn from existing tenant and park records.
The bill creates a pre‑sale window that gives HCD‑certified “qualified entities” — resident organizations, local/regional/nonprofit and public agencies — the right to submit a bona fide offer to buy the park. Management must notify those certified entities by registered or certified mail and post the notice in the park; qualified entities then have 270 days to submit a purchase offer.
If one or more bona fide offers arrive within that period, management must notify HCD within 90 days and accept a qualified entity’s offer and execute a purchase agreement.When parties cannot agree on market value, the law requires an independent appraisal process: the requesting party selects a qualified mobilehome-park appraiser who meets Appraisal Institute‑equivalent qualifications and HCD certification; if two appraisals differ by less than 5 percent, the price is set at the higher appraisal; larger disagreements trigger appraiser negotiation or a binding third appraisal. If no qualified offers arrive or all offers are withdrawn, the owner may sell to any buyer, retain operation, or pursue closure consistent with law.HCD’s role is substantial: it must create and annually update a certified‑entity list, approve notice forms, monitor owner compliance, publish a summary of rights and obligations, and refer violations to the Attorney General.
The bill also preserves local authority to adopt equal or stronger tenant protections, and allows tenants and public entities to seek injunctive relief and attorney’s fees for violations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Owners must deliver an initial notice at least 12 months before an anticipated park closure or change of use, and a second, detailed notice at least six months prior.
HCD certifies 'qualified entities' (resident groups, nonprofits, public agencies) and must maintain an annually updated list that owners use to notify potential buyers.
Qualified entities have 270 days from the owner’s opportunity notice to submit a bona fide purchase offer; management must notify HCD of all such offers within 90 days.
If buyer and seller cannot agree on market value, appraisal(s) by HCD‑certified appraisers determine price; if two appraisals differ by less than 5%, the sale price is set at the higher value.
Tenants and affected public entities can seek injunctive relief and attorney’s fees for violations, and HCD may refer enforcement matters to the Attorney General.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
12‑month and six‑month tenant and public‑entity notice requirements
This section prescribes the content and timing of tenant and public‑entity notices. The first notice (≥12 months) must state the owner’s intent and announce that a formal opportunity to offer to purchase has been provided to qualified entities and posted in the park; the second notice (≥6 months) must include contacts for local government, the housing authority, HCD, and legal services, and park‑level data (rent control status, resident ages/incomes) drawn from existing records. Owners must send updated notices within seven business days if there are significant changes, such as altered closure dates.
How notices must be served, forms, and private enforcement
Service to tenants must be by first‑class mail; service to public entities can be by mail or electronic submission if an email is provided. HCD must approve standardized forms for the 12‑month and six‑month notices and a form for prospective tenant disclosures. The subdivision creates a private enforcement path: affected tenants or public entities can obtain injunctive relief and recover attorney’s fees for violations, raising the practical stakes for noncompliance.
Who counts as a qualified entity and how notice of purchase opportunity works
Qualified entities are limited to the resident organization, local/regional nonprofits, and public agencies; HCD certifies candidates based on California experience and capacity and keeps the list updated annually. Management must send the opportunity‑to‑purchase notice by registered or certified mail and post it in a conspicuous common area for at least 12 months before pursuing closure. The notice triggers qualified entities’ access to property records and operating data upon request within 15 business days.
Offer windows, timelines, and outcomes if no qualified offer materializes
A qualified entity must submit a bona fide, certified offer within 270 days of the opportunity notice; offers must state the buyer type and include a perjury certification of qualification. If management receives one or more bona fide offers in that period, it must notify HCD within 90 days and accept a qualified entity’s offer and execute a purchase agreement. If no offers materialize or all offers are withdrawn, the owner may proceed to sell to any buyer, retain the park, or pursue closure under other applicable law.
Appraisal procedure and price‑setting rules
When buyer and seller cannot negotiate market value, the statute invokes an appraisal protocol: a qualified appraiser (with Appraisal Institute‑equivalent credentials and HCD certification) performs an appraisal; if two appraisals are within 5% of each other, the sales price becomes the higher value. Larger gaps allow negotiated resolution between appraisers or selection of a third, jointly selected appraiser whose valuation is binding. The provision allocates appraisal selection and payment to the requesting party unless otherwise agreed.
HCD duties, enforcement path, and local preemption carve‑out
HCD must publish a summary of rights and obligations, provide qualified‑entity lists to owners who file notices, monitor compliance, and refer violations to the Attorney General. The department also approves forms and may adopt standards, forms, and definitions (not subject to the usual state rulemaking chapter). Finally, the statute explicitly preserves local governments’ authority to enact ordinances offering equal or greater tenant protections, so municipalities can layer on stronger safeguards.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Mobilehome homeowners (affected tenants): Receive a mandatory long‑lead notification window, access to information about the park and contacts for legal assistance, and a structured path that increases the chance a park will be preserved as housing.
- Resident organizations: Gain an explicit statutory right and a 270‑day window to marshal financing and submit a bona fide offer to purchase the park, backed by HCD’s certification process.
- Nonprofit and public agencies focused on preservation: Obtain prioritized notice and access to park financials and inspection reports, enabling informed bids and potential acquisition with fewer informational barriers.
- Local governments and housing authorities: Receive earlier and standardized information about potential park closures (including demographics and rent stabilization status) that supports planning and coordination for displacement prevention.
Who Bears the Cost
- Park owners and management: Face new compliance costs (multiple detailed notices, certified‑mail logistics, data preparation), potential delays in sale or redevelopment timelines, and possible acceptance of lower offers driven by appraisal mechanics designed to support preservation buyers.
- Department of Housing and Community Development: Takes on certification, form approval, list maintenance, monitoring, and referral duties, creating administrative workload and potential need for resources or staffing.
- Prospective private developers or investors: May encounter delayed access to marketable parks and additional transactional friction if a qualified entity exercises its offer window; owners may be constrained from immediately marketing to general buyers.
- Appraisal and legal service providers: Will bear increased demand and procedural burdens (HCD certification for appraisers, preparation of appraisal packages, potential litigation over compliance) that can raise costs for sales processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma in SB 749 is balancing preservation of mobilehome parks as affordable housing — by giving residents and preservation‑minded entities a meaningful, state‑facilitated chance to buy — against property owners’ rights to sell, capture market value, and proceed with redevelopment; the bill resolves that tension procedurally (not substantively), creating windows, appraisal rules, and certifications that make preservation feasible but also add cost, delay, and valuation friction that owners and market buyers will resist.
SB 749 threads several implementation tensions into a single statutory framework. First, the valuation mechanism attempts to be neutral by mandating qualified appraisers and a tie‑breaking rule, but setting the price at the higher appraisal when two appraisals differ by less than 5% effectively privileges sellers in close cases and could disadvantage preservation buyers with tighter budgets.
Conversely, appointing a binding third appraiser if disagreements remain shifts final pricing power away from market negotiation and can generate additional costs and delay.
Second, HCD’s central role — certifying qualified entities, approving forms, maintaining lists, and monitoring compliance — is practical but operationally intensive. The statute exempts HCD’s implementing standards and forms from the state’s Chapter 3.5 rulemaking procedures, which speeds implementation but reduces procedural transparency and public participation.
That exemption could raise legal or political questions about how certification criteria are set and applied, and whether HCD will have adequate funding and staff to perform timely certifications and monitoring.
Third, the law relies heavily on owners’ existing records for demographic and rent‑control information and shields management from liability for inaccuracies in those records. That reduces owners’ obligation to verify data but creates risk for tenants and local agencies that depend on the information for relocation planning; inaccuracies could affect eligibility for subsidies or preservation funding.
Finally, enforcement mixes public referrals (AG) and private injunctive relief; while private enforcement empowers tenants, it may favor better‑resourced groups and lead to uneven compliance outcomes across jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.