Federal Court Case Continues over Goleta Mobile Home Park’s Senior-Only Status

---

This article was underwritten in part by the Mickey Flacks Journalism Fund for Social Justice, a proud, innovative supporter of local news. To make a contribution go to sbcan.org/journalism_fund.

---

The court case that will decide if Goleta’s senior housing overlay law is legal is scheduled to continue after a federal judge denied the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on November 2. The overlay affects one mobile home community, University Mobile Home Park in Old Town Goleta, which for years has served as affordable housing for a predominately senior population. The park’s de facto senior status came into question late last year, after a company going by the name University Manufactured Housing Community LLC bought the park and made changes to open it to all ages. 

What’s University Mobile Home Park? 

Between Rutherford Avenue and Pine Street in Old Town Goleta sit neat rows of mobile homes. University Mobile Home Park opened in 1959, and since at least 1985, has served as housing for folks 55+ and older. Until last year, the park’s rulebook included a 55+ requirement and a sign designated the park as a 55+ community, according to court documents. 

At the time of sale, about 80 percent of the park’s residents owned their mobile home and rented the space below it. Before the sale, space rents went for an average of $333 according to park management, making it an affordable option, given the South Coast’s high rents. 

Who Is University Manufactured Housing Community LLC? 

The limited liability company is, on its face, a shell formed in Delaware in 2025. The company’s listed principal address on state documents is the same as the park’s management company, Harmony Communities, and its listed manager is a former Harmony Communities employee. 

Harmony Communities is a mobile home park management company that also owns some parks. The company “operates 120 neighborhoods across the Western US,” according to its website. Harmony had told the Independent it is not the owner of the park. 

Harmony is no stranger to lawsuits; it sued the cities of Santa Paula and Thousand Oaks over mobile home rent control laws, according to reporting from the Ventura County Star. Owners of a park south of Santa Maria managed by Harmony, Del Cielo Manufactured Housing Community LLC, sued Santa Barbara County over its senior housing overlay in Santa Barbara’s Superior Court in 2024; that case is under submission, meaning both parties are waiting for the judge to make a decision. 

Harmony has faced lawsuits, too. In 2024, the company settled with San Luis Obispo’s District Attorney over a case where the DA alleged Harmony failed to reimburse background fees. The investigation, said a press release from the DA’s Office, also included San Joaquin County and Fresno County and Marin County’s DAs. 

What’s a Senior Housing Overlay? 

Cities and counties designate different areas for different purposes through zoning. An “overlay” supplements an area’s base zoning with an additional requirement. Goleta’s senior housing overlay district, which covers University Mobile Home Park, specifies that this residential area is marked as senior housing. 

Goleta passed an emergency ordinance creating the senior housing overlay in February to try to preserve affordable senior housing, after residents of University Mobile Home Park told the city of the new owner’s steps to open the park to all ages. 

“We can do what we can to make sure that at least in one part of our city, there’s one place you could go as a senior and have a reasonable opportunity to be able to live affordably,” Councilmember James Kyriaco, whose district includes the mobile home park, said at the February 17 city council meeting. 

Then, on March 4, the park’s owners filed a lawsuit against Goleta over the ordinance in federal court.

What’s This Lawsuit About? 

The park’s on-paper owner, University Manufactured Housing Community LLC, alleges that the overlay violates the Fair Housing Act, a federal law that prohibits discrimination in housing, including discrimination based on family status. 

“The Ordinance purports to compel University [Manufactured Housing Community] to engage in age discrimination in the provision of housing on pain of administrative, civil, and criminal penalties and prosecution,” the complaint says. 

Part of University Manufactured Housing Community’s complaint alleges that the park does not satisfy the requirements for a senior exemption from the Fair Housing Act, the Housing for Older Persons Act. 

What’s the Housing for Older Persons Act? 

The Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) allows communities to create designated senior housing without violating the Fair Housing Act. 

To qualify for HOPA, University Mobile Home Park needs to satisfy certain requirements: at least 80 percent of the park’s units need to be occupied by someone 55 or older, there needs to written rules or policies stating that park is for older adults, and there needs to be a biannual age verification and documentation to ensure the park is complying with that age requirement. 

Why Did the Judge Deny the Dismissal? 

In April, the City of Goleta filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that its ordinance complies with the Fair Housing Act’s senior exemption and that park ownership had failed to verify its residents’ ages after being notified of the new senior housing zoning and its requirements. 

But on November 2 California Central District Judge A. Joel Richlin denied the city’s motion to dismiss. Richlin wrote that the city should have taken steps to comply with the age verification requirement for HOPA before passing the ordinance. 

The court document denying the city’s efforts to dismiss the case said the court is “not insensitive” to Goleta’s challenge in trying to protect its senior housing from owners and operators trying to maximize profit. 

“But the answer to this dilemma is not to allow cities to unilaterally impose age requirements on private housing operators without evidence that such zoning actions are lawful under the FHA [Fair Housing Act],” the court’s response says. 

What Now? 

Hon. Richlin’s dismissal does not mean the case is over, but rather that it will continue. 

The City of Goleta declined to comment on the court’s decision, citing ongoing litigation. Nick Ubaldi, a representative for University Manufactured Housing Community LLC, said the following: 

“The ruling was a complete vindication for University Park’s position and foreshadows the untenable position the city has put itself in. The city seems intent on continuing to defend a defective ordinance and expend precious and limited funds to force the park to discriminate against families with children, most of whom are predominantly minority families. We are confident that after this case goes to trial, the ordinance will be invalidated.”

The next court date is scheduled for November 30.