(Editor’s note: Long-time resident Chase Holiday posted this note and video on Instagram and it is reprinted with permission.)
This was the site of Tahitian Terrace, a mobile home park along Pacific Coast Highway that provided affordable living in Pacific Palisades.
By CHASE HOLIDAY
When people find out I lived in the Tahitian Terrace mobile home park, they always ask what’s going on. I was a resident there for 27 years and even worked in the office on and off for a few years.
We’ve only heard from the park’s owners twice since the fire, with the last update coming in March. As you can imagine, residents are growing very concerned. We don’t know their intentions, but we hope they’ll let us know soon. Many are paying high rent, carrying mortgages, and have SBA loans set to expire later this year.
We’re incredibly fortunate to have a dedicated HOA and steering committees who have put in countless hours on our behalf. They’re working hard to offer resources, assist the owners, and explore every possible path forward.
Rebuilding the park is obviously complicated. We’d love to help the owners in any way we can—but we also have to be realistic and prepare in case they decide not to rebuild and instead sell the property.
Our HOA has been proactive in gathering the details we’d need if residents had the opportunity to purchase the park. Committees have been in contact with mobile home manufacturers—looking into bulk purchase discounts, fire-resistant home options, and even whether laws could be changed to allow modular homes.
There are also many grants available to help rebuild, and our financing committee has been researching every possible option.
As a long-time resident, I love Tahitian Terrace deeply. While this is a challenging time, I’m grateful we’ve become such a close-knit community with the shared goal of returning home.
Here’s a quick update and a brief history of Tahitian Terrace click here.
Same situation at The Palisades Bowl, except the owners have REFUSED to allow anyone to remove debris that has been untouched FOR SEVEN MONTHS… We are the only park abandoned like this. Incidentally, when the onshore wind blows, it blows the debris into the lungs of adults and children in the Palisades…
The morning of the fire, Chrissy, a new resident came across the street as the hummingbirds were crowding the feeders, to ask me how I liked living there. It was a few minutes after 10am and I mirrored the exact same thing that Chase said, “I cherished each and every day I had lived there.” But, I added, “If it should all go away today, I would still be grateful for every moment I was lucky enough to be here.” As she turned to go, we looked up in the sky and commented on the small, dark cloud quietly sliding from direction of Sunset Blvd or Topanga. Who knew that dingy wisp of an intruder would change our lives so drastically. I, too am homesick and want to help the McDonalds rebuild the family’s legacy. It may take a village.
Who are the owners of the palisades bowl?
I thought the County of LA said that if the lots were not cleared by June 30, they would do it and bill the owner. Are they as full of hot air as LA City?
Karen,
I’m working on a story now–it’s a complicated situation.
Sue
Imagine losing your home in a wildfire — and instead of being helped back on your feet, you are blocked from ever coming back. Imagine your entire community standing in ashes for months, waiting for help, while the city celebrates the “clearing” of the very place you once called home.
That is exactly what has happened to me and my neighbors.
On January 7, 2025, the wildfire in Pacific Palisades destroyed my home and dozens of others. I owned my home outright. I had lived there nearly ten years. It was my security, my stability, my future.
But instead of being able to rebuild, we have been kicked to the street. We are being told we can never return. The park owner is using a disaster loophole in California’s Mobilehome Residency Law (Civil Code § 798.62) to deny us the right to rebuild — taking away our homes, our equity, and our community without compensation.
It has been eight months, and many of our homes still sit uncleared, a constant reminder of our loss. And yet, our city publicly congratulated itself for “clearing” one of the last homes — as if erasing us was an accomplishment.
This is not just a personal tragedy — it is a constitutional one. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments promise that no person shall be deprived of property without due process or just compensation. In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that pre-existing regulations cannot wipe away vested property rights.
Now, rather than fix this injustice, the Legislature is considering SB 610, which would permanently remove our right to return after a disaster — ensuring that what happened to us can happen to anyone in California. Senator Ben Allen has introduced SB 749 to try to protect residents and give us a chance to purchase the park, but the clock is running out and lawmakers are ignoring the fact that we are still displaced.
I am almost 64 years old. I am living in temporary housing, exhausted and afraid of what comes next. I should be rebuilding my life — instead I am fighting every day just to be heard.
I am asking for help. This is bigger than me — it is about protecting property rights, affordable housing, and the constitutional guarantees that should protect every citizen from being erased after disaster.
Bonnie L. Kanner
What the Mello Act Is
• Passed in 1982, the Mello Act is a state law that applies to all housing in the Coastal Zone (about 1.5 miles inland from the California coast).
• Its purpose: protect affordable housing near the coast.
• The Act requires:
1. No net loss of affordable housing in the Coastal Zone.
2. If affordable units are demolished, replacement units must be provided (on-site or nearby).
3. New residential projects in the Coastal Zone must include a portion of affordable units.
⸻
2. How it Applies to Palisades Bowl
• Palisades Bowl is inside the Coastal Zone.
• The mobilehomes were considered a form of naturally occurring affordable housing — even if not deed-restricted.
• When the fire destroyed the homes, and now with the owner potentially trying to prevent rebuilding or redevelop the land, the Mello Act is triggered.
⸻
3. The Supreme Court Case: Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates v. City of Los Angeles (2012)
• Background: The park owner tried to convert the mobilehome park into condominiums.
• They argued that the Coastal Act and Mello Act shouldn’t apply.
• The Court ruled against the owner:
• The Coastal Act does apply — because redevelopment in the Coastal Zone affects public access and land use.
• The Mello Act does apply — meaning the park owner must replace affordable units or provide them elsewhere if redevelopment reduces affordable housing.
• Key takeaway:
• Even if the park is privately owned, the affordable housing protections travel with the land.
• The City of L.A. cannot approve redevelopment (like condos or luxury housing) unless the Mello Act replacement requirements are satisfied.
⸻
4. Why This Matters for You Now
• If the owner tries to block rebuilding or change the use of the park:
• They must comply with the Mello Act.
• That means replacing every affordable mobilehome unit lost, either on-site or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone.
• This is powerful leverage: it means they cannot legally redevelop into higher-end housing without addressing the loss of affordable units.
• The City of L.A. has a Mello Act Implementation Ordinance that lays out how these rules are enforced locally.