BodyCity Council
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 March 25, 2026

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:03 – 0:043 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:52

I will now call the March 25th, 2026 meeting of the Camarillo City Council and the Sanitary District in Camarillo Library Board to order. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Roll call — called by City Clerk
Show transcript
Council Member Santangelo. Here. Vice Mayor Martinez-Bravo. Here. Council Member Kildee. Here Council Member Tremblay. Here Mayor Tennyson. Here

Will the city attorney now read the items for closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:25

Yes, thank you Mayor and Council. We have three items on closed session. One is existing litigation the OPV coalition versus Fox Canyon matter. We have one anticipated litigation significant exposure of litigation under government code section 54956.92 one matter and real property negotiations subject pursuant to government code section 54956.8 related to 2222 Ventura Boulevard and if there's any reportable action I'll make that report.

Pledge of Allegiance — led by Mr. Kildeeceremonial · click to expand · ≈86s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role4:59

Thank you and we will now recess to closed session.

1:05 – 1:107 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:05:02

City Council, Camarillo Sanitary District and Camarillo Library Board. Let the record reflect that all council members are present and I'm going to ask Mr. Kildee to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance sir.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:05:22

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:05:47

And with that, I will ask my fellow council members if there are any changes to the agenda. Seeing none we will move on. We have a presentation this evening or a presentation depending upon where you're from. Tonight we are going to recognize the American Red Cross This presentation will recognize March as American Red Cross Month, a time to honor the dedicated volunteers, donors and staff who provide help and hope to those in need.

I along with the entire council would like to acknowledge the American Red Cross Pacific Coast Chapter for its longstanding service to the communities throughout Ventura County, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. Responding to emergencies and ensuring that no one faces a disaster alone. Through services such as disaster relief, support for military members and their families, blood collection and life-saving training like CPR and preparedness education the Red Cross continues to make a meaningful impact every single day.

American Red Cross Month also highlights that this important work is made possible by the individuals who step forward to serve others with compassion and generosity. It is now my honor on behalf of the City Council, to present this proclamation in recognition of the American Red Cross and its ongoing commitment to our communities and the communities they serve. If you'll please join me up on the stage Do I? Yep, I learned how to do it. It's good.

I'd just like to share a couple of thoughts. I've had opportunities over the years in my previous profession with the Sheriff's Office to interact with the Red Cross most notably the first Lock and Cheetah mudslide in the early 1990s and I can tell you it was devastating to the community and without the Red Cross there is essential and committed First responders, because I'll call them first responders. We would not have made it through that. Also several fires during my 32-year career. The Red Cross is always the first one set up to help the victims and also the other first responders with their needs during these things so I appreciate it from my personal experiences and I'll ask any of our council members if they have any comments before I give them their proclamation.

Don't all go at once.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:08:49

OK, I'll start. Thank you so much. I want to appreciate your work that you do tonight and year round for the communities that you serve. I too have been a witness to the great work with the American Red Cross does and I really appreciate everything you do. Thank you so much.

CommentSpencer RitchieProposed · by introduction1:09:08

Ditto to what Council Member Santangelo said but just super, super grateful for truly doing this work with your heart and pouring so much of your time. I saw you were boots on the ground throughout the County of Ventura whether it was here with a mountain fire or with initiatives such as the one with farm workers where you're helping to install smoke alarms in my organization is part of that too when every community has such different needs, and you're able to meet them with such expertise and with such kindness and love. And I've seen your volunteers do the work so super grateful for all of that. Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:09:51

Yeah just uh ditto that the American Red Cross do a great job and thank you for all you do. It's been an organization for a long, long time and I'm not going to take a lot of time but I want to tell you my first indoctrination was from the American Red Cross who is my mom and my mom's been gone for several decades but During World War II, she grew up on a ranch in Somos, California. So she signed up for the Red Cross thinking that she'd be stationed overseas.

So when the Red Cross came back and stationed her, she was stationed in Santa Barbara, California Not really overseas, but she had a lot of really great things to say even in those days about the Red Cross and your organization has even expanded that. So thank you for what you do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:10:49

I think my colleagues have articulated it really well and I'm grateful to them. I'm grateful to you. Thank you. Ditto.

1:11 – 1:189 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:11:08

I just want the public to know that when you see a shelter in operations,

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:11:30

90% of the people there are all volunteers, unpaid, not getting a dime. Just goodness of their hearts. Also when you contribute to the Red Cross, $0.90 of every dollar that you contribute goes to providing services that you already have articulated so I won't go through them again. But it's really a pleasure. I've been on the board here, stationed in the, I'm a volunteer too, I don't get paid, in the Camarillo office right here in Camarillo that we cover the Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo region and just wanna thank you for everything you do for us to keep us going.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:12:12

Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Madam Clerk, are there any speakers on any items not on the agenda?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:12:45

Yes Mayor. We have three speakers. I'm going to give a little speech here. I received three requests to speak if you'd like to speak but haven't submitted your name please see the clerk staff in the foyer. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. The City Council will receive general public comment for an initial 20 minute This is a public comment period of 20 minutes. Speakers who sign up during the initial 20 minute public comment period but are not heard within that time will be given an opportunity to speak following the completion of action on all other agenda items. Your time will be displayed on the video, on the displays.

When your time is up, the microphone will be muted and we'll move onto the next speaker.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:13:37

Welcome.

GuestMichael CordellSheriffProposedself-stated1:13:38

Thank you. Hi, I'm Michael Cordell. I want to talk about the Ventura County Sheriff's Department today. My family has lived in the community for 40 years so we've had interactions with the department professionally and in just casual conversations at things like the concert in the park and even recently at Diznar Park reopening Really have appreciated our relationship with the Sheriff's Department.

Everything that we've ever had to deal with, with the Sheriff's Department has been pleasant. It's been professional. I really appreciate that they care for our community whether it's You know thing responding to a incident in our neighborhood or if it's just casually running into him around round town. It's always been a pleasure and we do view them as our hometown heroes, we know that they put their life their lives on the line for us every day really appreciate that and I really thank you for the wisdom of having that relationship with the sheriff's department keeps to keep camera safe thanks so much.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:14:50

Thank you

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:14:55

The next speaker is Spencer Ritchie.

CommentSpencer RitchieProposedself-stated1:15:32

Howdy, howdy, howdy, howdy. So good evening I am Spencer Ritchie and I have a few different things that i'm going to comment on this evening the first point is I am not impressed by how still inaccessible it is to access either a Spanish translation or closed captioning of the meeting. I don't think people should have to go to a website, I think There should be those options either like embedded on either, like yeah on the live stream. On the screen in person right here at least as far as closed captioning and English goes and if possible multiple simultaneous broadcasts where you know one would be like the Spanish translation and then the other one would be the English with closed captioning And because as it is right now, it's again the people who like older people who are more likely to need stuff like Spanish translation or closed captioning.

They're not going to be as able to use a website so there's that and then also AI has been known for making mistakes and also centering out certain words So again, get different software or have a human do the captions for better accessibility. And then my second thing is, again, improve the public transit. I should always be able to get a ride home after my shift ends at 445 on a weekday.

And then, oh yes the part that everyone keeps looking forward to. Here are the current numbers for how many people ICE has kidnapped from our area. In the 805 area code, ISIS kidnapped as of March 24th 1,774 people. From Ventura County, ISIS so far kidnapped 870 people and from Camarillo, us, ISIS so far kidnapped 462 people. Once again these are our neighbors, these are our workforce, these are our taxpayers These are our tourists and yeah this we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot by you know having the flock offer cameras up which we know already. You know ice and other federal agencies and police stations outside the state are seeing despite being told otherwise. And we also Thank you, Spencer.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:18 – 1:3216 turns

CommentMichelle SevillaProposedself-stated1:18:46

Thank you so much. Good evening City Council, staff and public. It was nice to see many of you at the Dizdar Park opening. My name is Michelle Sevilla and I am Assembly Member Steve Bennett's Communications Director. And the Assembly Member and the Port of Winemia are co-hosting their second annual Bike Rodeo & Resource Fair. The Bike Rodeo and Resource Fair will be held Saturday, April 11th from 10 a.m to 1 p.m at Oxnard College. And again for those listening online that's April 11th from 10 a m to 1 pm.

This free and family-friendly event is held in partnership with a number of government agencies, Gold Coast Transit District, Oxnard Police, the City of Oxnard and Bike Ventura And it's where everyone, all kids in age and heart can enjoy bike safety courses, helmet fittings, bike inspections, a skills competition. Organizations will be giving away free resources and food distribution.

And all of this ends with a community bike ride where riders put their new skills to the test and practice around the college. So I have a few copies of our flyer here for you, for you all, which I will leave with a clerk and for everyone for your distribution. But everybody is invited. And if you have any questions, our number is 805-485-4745. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have one more speaker

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:20:18

Siddharth Medhotra.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:20:32

Good evening, Council and people of the city. I am here to agree with Spencer Ritchie with all their remarks and especially with those about immigration and customs enforcement None of us in this city, in this county, in the state perhaps in the nation is safe as long as these I can think of an all politer word mercenaries are on the streets seizing whom they will and carrying them off to a fate worse than death.

None of us is safe while we are afraid of speaking our minds or even going about in our own streets The Department of Homeland Security and all such departments have outlived their usefulness by now. There is now no threat from which they can defend us, they have become the threat themselves and it is time for them at last to disarm and depart. And I am as tired of saying so as you are undoubtedly tired of hearing it but we will not tire of saying it ladies and gentlemen Until we are free of this occupation at last.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:21:50

Thank you. Madam Clerk, is that it?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:21:55

That is all.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:21:56

Thank you. Next we have a presentation from the Ventura Regional Sanitation District Mr. Eric Zetz. Did I say your name correctly?

CommentEric Zatz I'mProposedself-stated1:22:11

Mr. Mayor yes you did perfectly. Good evening. There we go, okay perfect. Good evening Mr Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor and members of the City Council my name is Eric Zatz I'm the General Manager for the Ventura Regional Sanitation District. The Ventura Regional Sanitation District i'm going to give you just a brief presentation it's made up of nine of our representative member agencies those member agencies are of course the city of Camarillo I'm going to introduce you to our board members we have 9 Leslie Cornejo, our Vice Chair out of the City of Santa Paula.

Board Director Kim Mang out of the City of Ojai. Board Director Bert Perello out of the City of Oxnard. Board Director Martha McQueen Lejeune out of the City of Port Hueneme. Our former chair David Newman out of t he City of Thousand Oaks And then we have Board Director Kevin Kildee, also known as your esteemed five-time mayor for the city of Camarillo. So this individual I'll let you know we have had nothing but the greatest pleasure of having Camarillo and really Councilmember Kildee be a part of our board.

Much of the history there's a lot of individuals that come in and out Councilmember Kelty has been a part of this organization since 2011. Has spent 15 years on our board and has been very valuable in providing insight, information as we've gone from a district that began as a sanitation concept but then has morphed into really a landfill concept and we'll get into some of that.

Continuing on, we also have Board Director Doug Halter with the City of Ventura. And a picture is coming soon for Mr. James Acosta, Board Director for the Special Districts. So our, the district's organizational chart is made up of the administration, the operations and the finance report to the general manager. The general manager is appointed by the board as well as the city, the legal council So let's get into the services that we offer. So, we offer water supply and wastewater services. This includes services for pipe cleaning and inspection, electrical instrumentation repair Mechanical maintenance and installation, manhole rehabilitation, industrial painting and coating, water system operations, wastewater collection and treatment, environmental monitoring, and technical and administrative services.

The revenues for our wastewater and water make up about $3.6 million with our largest customer being the City of Santa Paula with their wastewater treatment plant And now on to our landfill services and so residents here with the city of Camarillo. We'll recognize that we've got toll road landfill for the Ventura County residents, the district owns 6 landfills 5 of those are close we provide maintenance operations for them and then a 6 landfill which is told will talk a little bit about So here you have a map and this presents the regional issue of landfill in Ventura County.

This map shows you, highlighted with the red star, the Tolland Road Landfill which is right now the only public landfill within Ventura County. Simi Valley Landfill's owned by Waste Management and controlled by a private firm. And late in 2025, Chiquita Landfill closed. And so right now as we're here our board has the big decision before them as to what the future holds for landfill in Ventura County.

Other landfills that there are, there are Republic Services' Sunshine Canyon and LA County's Calabasas. Both landfills present challenges for transportation and fuel for Ventura County residents. And you'll see on the left of the map there a CUP number 3141. That's the conditional use permit that Ventura County holds for the Tolland Road landfill. The Conditional Use Permit number 3141 is managed by Ventura County and the Ventura County Board of Supervisors.

So if we decide to go forward with any type of permit changes to that site, we must get that approval through the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. The service area of C P 3, 1, 4, one is the Western area. Ventura County from the toll in County Road so if you look back at that map and you see tolling road landfill we can only go West. But we have the ability which must be transported by transfer trucks from solid waste transfer stations or material recycling facilities, except for waste generated in the cities of Santa Paula and Fillmore. So those are our limitations for that landfill right now.

The Tolland Road Landfill brings in 1,300 tons of trash each day. Tolland Road Landfill is open Monday through Friday so this is not a Monday through Saturday operation. This is a Monday through Friday operation With that Monday through Friday operation, the district received about $18.5 million off of that Tolland Road landfill so it is a very lucrative operation.

Some information for the residents of the city of Camarillo. The Tolland Road landfill is located at 3500 Tolland Road in Santa Paula and the phone number for Tolland Road Landfill is 805-658-4685 We also have a website www.vrsd.com. Hours and operations for Camarillo residents, general public and non-commercial vehicles are Monday through Friday 730 to 3 p.m., non-transferable commercial account vehicles Monday through Friday 6 a.m. to 330 p. m., and transfer account vehicles Monday through Friday 6 a .m. to 4 p.

Tires, all loads must be inspected. They must be covered and no illegal dumping is permitted on the site. One thing I will note is that we have stopped taking cash at the site so we only take debit cards and credit cards. We don't take checks. So something to plan ahead and in the event that any of the Camarillo residents have an alternative You know, item that they are throwing away. They can check with the City of Camarillo on their household hazardous waste programs to get information there or they can also go to Gold Coast Recycling Center or the Del Norte recycling and transfer station.

That concludes my presentation. This is my information I want to thank the city manager, Greg Ramirez and his staff for being so accommodating to me to allow me to be here today and if anyone would like to contact me that's my information there. Thank you so much.

not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:30:07

Thank you any questions for Mr. Zetz?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:30:12

Go ahead, Mr. Kildee. Thanks for being here, Eric. For those of you who don't know, we hired Eric very recently. He became highly regarded in the industry that we have and we push Eric a lot but we also have high expectations and you've exceeded the expectations that we have. Briefly about the airspace that we have left at our current landfill.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentEric Zatz I'mProposedself-stated1:30:44

Absolutely. Thank you, Councilmember Kildee. So we have 216 acres at the Tolling Road landfill in that landfill 91 acres of that is for in-place trash and that includes before the new cell was brought on that the board authorized and allowed it used to be 81 acres now it's 91 so we've got that 10 acres that we're running into right now The airspace is the amount of space that you have permitted that the state says you can put trash up to into the sky.

And where you're at today so that that difference is your airspace and by volume buy in place trash, the last update that we had given our board was that we were looking at something between 1214 years 12 is what We're going to talk a little bit about what we've been doing in the last 12 to 14 years. This board is awesome. This board is really a bunch of high-achieving individuals. They have already approved and authorized a feasibility study, and we're working on that to bring that back to the Board here by summer.

So that's a good thing. That feasibility study will tell us what is available, and the Board will then make a decision on whether or not we can go forward or not. In the event that we cannot, the Board will have to make a decision on what to do next.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:32:19

Thank you. Can I have one follow up? You sure can. Eric, is it feasible for my colleagues here and anyone else to perhaps do a field trip up there and see the operation live?

CommentEric Zatz I'mProposedself-stated1:32:31

Absolutely. Be happy to do that.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:32:34

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:32:34

you any

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:32:35

other questions vice mayor?

CommentSpencer RitchieProposed · by introduction1:32:37

I don't have a question but just a comment. I think this is a subject that we may not necessarily think about every single day although we throw trash out every single day And just wanted to thank you for the services and the good work you're all doing. Thank you, and thank you Councilmember Kildee for serving on the board.

1:32 – 1:387 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:32:59

Thank you. No other questions or comments? Thank You Mr. Zetz. We appreciate that. Next up we will have a library activity update with Mandy Welcome Mandy

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:33:22

Good evening, Mayor David Tennyson and library trustees. Every Story Counts is a California state initiative that asks Californians across the state why and how they use our public libraries. Camarillo Public Library participated in this survey and I'm excited to present a few of our highlights. So from January 25th to the 31st, the library participated in this initiative along with 98 other library jurisdictions.

And in that week the library marketed every story counts survey to patrons through our website social media channels email distribution and public desk stations. The survey was available in both English and Spanish and in total the library received 279 responses The library was required to ask four questions from the State Library, but we were able to ask three customized questions of our own.

The first survey question, tell us about your experience at the library. An overwhelming majority of responses told us that they feel welcome in our space. In addition a high number of survey respondents plan to come back and they trust the information from the library. Respondents had the option of writing their own comments and one user expressed that they take out-of-town visitors to the library because they are so proud of it.

Another mentioned that we create a warm space for learning and enjoyment of life. In the second survey question, respondents were asked how they use a library. Close to 90% of people still like to borrow items which include our physical and electronic materials. The other two high responses from the survey included 62% who use a library to attend programs and events while 48% use a library space to read study or work.

I want to highlight a few of the comments that really stood out on how people feel about the library. Multiple comments expressed that they appreciate the care of our facility, from the flowers at the fountain to how clean even our restrooms are. So I think this showcases the hard work of our administrative services staff who oversee the maintenance of our building.

In addition, people made comments that the library helps with their quality of life particularly during a hard economy. For instance one user uses the library for entertainment purposes since they don't have a TV at home. Another user expressed to the library is one of the most important buildings in Camarillo and that we offer a variety of services for everyone.

The majority of our respondents were adults, 18+, that's the orange pie. An older adult, 65+, that's the teal pie with just a very small fraction of teens so hopefully we'll change that in the future. In the fourth question, respondents were welcome to share anything else they felt about the library and here are some things that we are doing well. Community focused programs such as our Sea Library and Community Wisdom Exchange.

Program series like our Camarillo Reads event held in September, creating a happy space for young adults or young audiences and then again having a quiet and safe space to work in between home and office. In our first custom created question, we asked survey respondents to give us ideas on something they would like to see happen at the library. So responses include ideas like events for younger middle-aged demographics, a fix it clinic, how to create a podcast, adding board games to our circulation, more tech help and a job in or resources fair.

I'm evaluating each of these ideas and will work with library staff to start some of these ideas up or enhance existing programs in the future. The second question, we asked what people would like to see more of in our library collection. Responses included suggestions like more graphic novels for kids, staff recommended lists on Libby which is a platform we use for e-books and e-audiobooks, more foreign films, more English as a Second Language books and resources, and more audiobooks on our popular platforms on Libby and Hoopla.

And then in our final custom created question, we asked how people want to find out about new programs and services. And still the majority of people still prefer email with a few asking for text messages, library website, social media and flyers on display. I'm thankful to all of the survey respondents who took the time and were able to provide a big picture view of how and why Californians use their local library.

This local data and stories help us plan, prepare better for the future. So next steps are the California State Library is working on combining the statewide results into a summary report which I will share with you in the future. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to address any of your questions.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:38:22

Questions for Mandy? Comments? Hearing none, good work Mandy. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:38:31

Thank

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:38:31

you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:38:31

Thank You

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:38:32

Mandy

1:38 – 1:4813 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:38:37

Next we will have council comments. Mr. Trembley I'll ask you to go first if you're ready

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:38:46

Sure, thanks Mr. Mayor. Meetings attended since March 11th. On March 12 the Airport Authority on March 16 Utilities Committee on March 18 we had a special meeting at the City Council on March 21 the Dizdar Park grand opening I really want to pay send my appreciation to staff and to our contractors and everyone who helped make that park a reality it is if you have not yet been there please go there And particularly the public art and the firehouse-themed playground, which is incredibly popular with the kids. It's just a wonderful place. Mr. Mayor, you did a good job on the opening.

On the 24th yesterday, the Groundwater Management Agency Fiscal Committee, and then today I've had board meetings for both the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and the Fox Canyon Groundwater management agency. And that's it, thanks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:39:51

Meetings attended, I was late but I was able to go to the Super Quiz competition and award ceremony Thursday March 19th. And if you've never been able to do that try to go there next year. We've got some of the best and the brightest students in this city and if they're a reflection of a lot of the students in our city we're in good hands. I want to thank John Light for moderating that for several years and all the volunteers that help them on that.

It's a great event, and I'm real proud to have been a very, very small part of that. I always look forward every year to go there if my schedule permits. Also, honorably, I was able to attend the Dizdar Park Grand Opening celebration last Saturday March 21st. If you haven't been able to go See Dizdar Park, please do it. It took several, several years to get where we were today and are today but I always kind of equate it kind of like making sausage. It's kind of messy but I think the end result tastes pretty good and it's a state-of-the-art park. I encourage everybody to go there I usually don't do this, but I'm going to do a shout out to ex-council member Jan McDonald. It was her idea to do the fire truck there in the park as one of the equipment and playground there and it turned out really well.

I have yet to see kind of a fire truck playground equipment quite like that but I was kind of scratching my head when I first heard that, but the staff was able to pull that off along with a lot of other park equipment there. There's kind of something for everybody there at that park so it's very walkable and I encourage people to go down. Very well used and it's going to a great addition not only to that area but the city in general.

Also today, March Wednesday, March 25th I attended a finance and investment committee along with Councilmember Santancha so that's all i have tonight your honor thank you vice mayor

CommentSpencer RitchieProposed · by introduction1:42:20

Thank you. March 12th, I attended the Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon's 2026 Woman of the Year event and many congratulations to the five women who were selected. It was Melissa Miller from the Ventura County Credit Union and Melissa is a resident of Camarillo so very proud of that. Christine Cardona Threadgill from Friends of Field Workers And Haley Ehlers from Seafrog Climate First Replacing Oil and Gas, Elena Brokaw Museum of Ventura County and Angela Timmons Community Advocacy Coalition. So they represent these multiple organizations and nonprofits. And I was just so honored to be there to celebrate along with them.

March 16th, March 17th and 18th I joined Mayor Tennyson and city staff in Sacramento to advocate for support for city infrastructure projects. March 21st along with my fellow council members we also celebrated And I learned a little bit more about Mr. Distar. He was an immigrant entrepreneur, an immigrant from the region of Yugoslavia and a resident here from Camarillo.

So his full name was Hassan Mike Distar. So it really just truly brought me such great joy to see such an investment in our community and it's really a place where we can all gather and connect I can't wait to go back for a barbecue, I saw the barbecue pits out there So thank you to city staff and the project manager, past and present council members. And all the community members who dedicated themselves to make sure that this project came to life.

If you haven't been there, make sure you stop by. There are so many special features but especially there's some art that is out there it's by a local artist her name is Elisa Torres And her work not only focuses on community engagement, which I really appreciated that piece. And and that was actually you could see that in action with the children who were coloring and doing all their crafts. But it really was able I think our project was really able to connect Camarillo's history to the present. So I appreciated that and I look forward to many more memories there.

March 24th, I attended the Connections Breakfast at Cal State University Channel Islands along with Mayor Tennyson and a big congratulations to the university on the increased enrollment that we're finally getting to see now and also on the continued success of the university. And then March 24th, also I attended the general plan open house at the Camarillo library. There will be another opportunity for community members to come together and provide input as to the vision that you want to see in Camarillo in the future.

And so this open house will be held on Saturday, March 28th from one to three at the ranch house. I believe at the Camarillo Ranch House and Mr. Softy will be there. There will be children activities. There will be something for everyone. So definitely a family friendly event and I look forward to so much more of this engagement. Thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:45:58

Council Member Santangelo.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:46:01

Thank you. On March 12th with Councilmember Tremblay, I attended the Airport Authority. On March 19th I attended the CPA Executive Committee meeting. On March 21st, along with my council members I was at the Dizdar Park grand opening and I have had so many comments from residents and community members about that park. So we have a lot to be proud of. I'm so grateful for the work of the staff and the contractors.

I know it exceeded my expectations. The view from the park with the church in the background is just lovely I hope you all get to enjoy it and I hope it becomes an integral part of our community for a long time. And then on March 25th, earlier today the Investment and Finance Committee with Councilmember Tremblay. I mean Kildee as I'm looking at you. And that's all I have.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:47:02

Thank you. It's already been stated some of the things I did. The only meeting that I will add to that is, I had a VCOG meeting on March 10th. I'd also like to echo the comments on Dizdar Park. It was a great community turnout. Clearly city staff in the pre-planning planning and oversight of the construction phase did an amazing job. I want to give a special shout out to Mr. Peter Cassell.

I probably am mispronouncing his name. He's the one that organized a lot of the activities for Saturday. He kept me well informed for the month leading up to it and scripted my talking points during the early afternoon, and he did a lot of research on Dizdar Park and came up with a lot of information on Mr. Hassan Mike Dizdar. So special thanks to Peter as well as the rest of staff And with that, we will move on to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:48:07

the consent. Can I make one quick comment? Yes you may. I just want to thank our Mayor David Tennyson for his comments at Dizdar Park. You did a really good job up there and state of the art. You were very eloquent so I want to commend you on that. Thank you. The credit goes

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:48:25

to Peter. With that, we will move on to consent calendar. Madam Clerk any public comments on consent?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:48:34

No comments.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:48:36

And any questions from council on items G through O? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I'm

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:48:43

happy to move consent.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:48:45

We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk?

Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion and a second. Madam Clerk?
Show transcript
Council Member Santangelo? Yes. Vice Mayor Martinez-Bravo? Yes. Council Member Kildee? Yes Council Member Tremblay? Yeah. Mayor Tennyson? Yes

1:49 – 2:024 turns

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role1:49:01

That passes unanimously

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role1:49:06

Okay, before our next item I've got a request to take a quick break. So we will take an at most 10-minute break but hopefully a five minute break. Okay, thank you to my fellow council members for your timely return.

We will move on to item p the mobile home land rent stabilization ordinance and senior planner Mr James Fowler will be the presenter

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:56:40

Thank you very much. With no further ado, so a little bit of background and a reminder for everyone. So residents started most recently voicing concerns in March of 2025 shortly thereafter the council responded by forming an ad hoc committee to explore the issue in May of 2025 Thereafter, in April of 2026 after quite a bit of research and discussion the council adopted a year-long or I'm sorry no an 180 day temporary moratorium on land rent increases above 4.2% and that's expiring April 20th, 2026.

Since the urgency ordinance adoption the ad hoc committee has had four meetings and received feedback on a draft permanent ordinance from both residents and park owners. So, a little bit of analysis and we'll get into some charts but staff has looked at average park land rent data in the city and surrounding area, average move-in rents in response to park owner feedbacks at the temporary moratorium meeting.

Just just average I'm sorry just moving rents were. We're discussed, so we pulled average park land rent data as well. And then we refreshed the data more recently. So jumping right into the charts, there we have average move in land rent data for parks across the county. In blue there you can see parks with a rent stabilization ordinance in place. In yellow you can see other cities, Fillmore and Simi Valley who have parks but they They do not have rent stabilization ordinances. And then in red, you can see the Camarillo parks.

Casa del Norte is a little bit less than the other two. So it's it's a similar pattern with average park rents here we're just looking at rent-stabilized parks versus Camarillo Parks. It's a similar pattern, the gross numbers are overall less though and similarly Casa del Norte is a little bit more in the pack So the ordinance feature is getting into them a little bit. So the ordinance as written would allow for annual ministerial increases between two and six percent, and those would be automatically allowed based on CPI, the Consumer Price Index.

Additional rent increases would be allowed after documentation is provided to homeowners for things like capital improvements, capital replacements and then additionally a sort of separate category for maintenance of a fair rate of return based on the existing net operating income for the parks. So fair rate of return rent increases are intended to ensure the park owners would have a way to maintain their current rate of return through their net operating income.

To continue, a few more features to go through. Rent increases with the exception of those ministerial increases we discussed are subject to a noticing process. 50 plus 1% of the affected homeowners would need to sign to petition or request. Petitions would be reviewed by a city-selected arbitrator And if a petition is filed, rent increases or I'm sorry. If a petition is not filed the rent increases would just go into effect So this is some kind of high-level resident feedback to the ordinance so that base rent and fair rate of return should be set in reference to regional comparable rents and nearby parks That the ordinance should set an absolute rent ceiling tied to area median space rents and that a percentage of the rent should be set aside for common area maintenance.

Those features didn't make it into the ordinance out of concern for kind of the fair rate of return for the park owners. In contrast, the park owner suggested that a 5% interest factor be included as part of the amortization for capital improvement costs, that there should be no vacancy control. The ordinance has written, has a 6% vacancy control baked in And that the ministerial rent increases should be CPI plus 2% to a maximum of 6.5, and that the fair net operating income calculation should be based on CPI plus 2%. So in a similar vein out of concern for the residents those suggestions were not implemented.

As an alternative, the park owners have suggested an MOU as their preferred alternative to an ordinance. They stressed that they don't want an ordinance. They gave us some terms that they would find a good starting place for terms would be a 15-year term annual permissible rent increases between The plan is to establish a minimum of 6.5 based on CPI plus 2% with a minimum 3% threshold and a maximum of 6. 5 and allow pass-throughs of property taxes, increases to insurance capital improvements and capital replacements and vacancy decontrol. Staff's recommendation is That concludes staff's presentation.

not transcribed≈27s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:03 – 2:0810 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:03:06

Okay, so this is the first time we have a subcommittee that looked at all of this. So I have several questions so i just want everybody to be patient with me while I go down maybe not all the questions right now but several of them. So the first question is that It caps the CIP and correct me if I'm wrong on this, anywhere from 2 to 6 percent depending upon what the CPI has been. So over the years what has the CPI for the most part landed on?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:03:42

Yeah, we looked at CPI since 2016 and the average has been 3.7% from 2016 to 2025 so that's been the average. And you're correct, the ordinance would as written allow for a minimum of 2%. So if for some reason CPI was less than 2%, it would be rounded up and then a maximum of 6%. Somewhat unusual, but if CPI was above 6%, it would be rounded down to 6%.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:04:13

And how did they land on the 6% as a maximum? Were the years all added up and divided by the number of years, and that's kind of how they landed on that 6% maximum or was there some data that was shared.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:04:29

Sure so the six percent maximum was really landed on for one as I mentioned the average is 3.47%, but the six percent maximum was landed because For the ordinance to be effective in stabilizing rents, if the maximum is, this is a ridiculous example but 20% or whatever it would be. If the maximum is too high, the ordinance stops being effective so a kind of sweet spot we found was around 6% for the ordinance to actually do a decent job of stabilizing rents.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:05:04

Okay, and then if you could brush just a little bit about the anniversary date and the suggestion that they could raise it just one time per year. However I would assume that there's different dates for different renters, that is not... That will be several different months, not everybody's on the same month. Would it not behoove them to perhaps give them some flexibility That they could take that into consideration when they have a proposed rent increase.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:05:38

You're correct that as written, that the anniversary date would kind of amalgamate everyone's rent increase dates to it to a singular time of the year that the park owners could choose. It is possible for the ordinance to be rewritten to kind of either give a you know, for the first year to rent increases to allow for flexibility in that area or even to can it would make administration a lot more cumbersome but to allow everyone to keep the existing. You know everyone has different different dates of rent increases That would be very cumbersome, but it is possible for the first year to have two rent increases to account for that. But that's not as it's written.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:06:24

Okay and my understanding that we did get a letter from an attorney that represents two of the park board park owners and it stated if I'm reading it correctly that all of their suggestions were not implemented A, is that factual? And B, if they were thoroughly discussed where there are significant reasons as to why for the most part they were not implemented.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:06:59

Yeah a fair number were implemented related to you know things like definitions or clarity but those I'll go back to that slide so they had a number of What you saw in that letter, these are some of the kind of big ticket items from that letter. The reason the ordinance as written didn't include these items was a feeling by the subcommittee that it would to some extent or another negate the effectiveness of the ordinance and stabilizing rents.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:07:31

Okay, and then also my understanding that there was a potential, it was at least brought up an MOU. Was that discussed in the committee meeting? It was. And if so in what way?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:07:44

Yes, it was discussed at committee. So the concern by Committee members as they, we talked it through with them and a concern by staff so whereas an ordinance is you know it's an ordinance. It's part of the law of the city. An MOU is an agreement. So enforcement, the City has a lot more ability to enforce an ordinance versus enforcing an MOU. The other piece was and we can go to the terms of the MOU here They expire.

What the park owners proposed was a 15-year term, and they have to be then renegotiated periodically. So that was also something the committee was not pleased with.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:08 – 2:1617 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:08:38

I want to start by saying that the Camarillo So within that realm, if this ordinance is adopted, is that going to affect that? Because my thinking is that how it was kind of explained that if you sign a long-term lease, you may get some sort of a benefit being on a long-term lease rather than be on a short or shorter term lease.

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:09:20

So I may look to the city attorney a little bit for this one, but you know what? If it's okay Rachel hand it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09:26

over. Yes so prior to maybe it's been about two and a half or three years now long-term leases were exempt from cities rent stabilization ordinances but there was legislation that as to the terms related to rent increase procedures they are no longer exempt So all of the provisions that are in their lease would still continue, but the state determined that if you're in a jurisdiction that you would have these have rent stabilization ordinance that those increases will be subject to our ordinance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:10:03

Thank you. And can we talk a little bit about the cap on the vacancy and I'm assuming that happens when there's a changeover, how did they come up with the percentage of the cap on the vacancy rate here? How was that calculated?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:10:18

Sure so six percent is the maximum CPI increase that was settled on and so the vacancy controls kind of mirroring that In addition, you know and looking in at other jurisdictions in the county. Some of them have no vacancy adjustment meaning rents need to stay the same between changeover whereas others have rates like 10% or 15% or you know kind of 15% or a flat amount like $80 so kind of been looking at all those factors 6% was settled on as this sort of middle ground between what other jurisdictions do And then it also mirrors the maximum CPI increase.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:11:00

Okay, thank you I have a couple questions for Rachel if you don't mind our city attorney Rachel you I think refer to maybe two three case studies in this and my question is has the courts ever defined what a reasonable rate of return is on an investment in this particular situation?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:11:25

There is no particular formula that any court has determined that this ordinance guarantees a fair rate of return. Instead, what the court looks at is in fact, as applied to a particular park owner if there was a rent increase that was not allowed or reduced. They would look to see whether or not the ordinance permitted someone to obtain a fair rate of return. So there is no ordinance that's been blessed, if you will, to say this is the perfect formula.

It's looked at basically case by case basis.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:12:03

Okay, and in your professional opinion that how this ordinance is written will to a certain extent stand up to a legal challenge to the best of our abilities here. And we do have the right and it is permissible to have an ordinance of this in our city?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:12:29

So this ordinance, you know follows what men, you know it's based off of what other cities have used. It's also compared to case law with similar provisions where courts did look at that language so we tried to mirror that in order to ensure that we are within the realm of what case law requires for a rent stabilization ordinance

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:12:53

So we followed the case law to the best of our abilities. And what is brought before us tonight reflects that from a lot of different aspects, but not the least of which with the legal aspect that was been discussed and what's presented tonight follows case studies to the best of our ability on this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13:17

Like I said, we're following what the courts say which is these ordinances must ensure a park owner a fair rate of return on their investment while at the same time trying to stabilize rent adjustments. So we have set up the ability to pass on capital improvements, capital replacements in additions to just a ministerial CPI But then there's a fair rate of return provision in there to allow a park owner to ask for an increase that is above, well above what CPI is if they're able to establish that their investment has decreased and therefore they need to have a higher increase. And that is what the case law does require, that these ordinances provide that venue for park owners.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:14:13

And my last question, Rachel. This is a rate stabilization ordinance and not a rent control ordinance. Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:23

These are considered stabilization ordinances. Correct. There will still be rent increases and park owners although there is the ministerial CPI but that does not mean a park owner cannot again apply for higher than CPI. There's just additional procedures that is required if there was a petition submitted

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:14:43

That's all I have, Your Honor. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Tremblay, I'll follow up with just one question. James, you gave us the annual CPI increases going back to 2016. Do we have the information on the annual rent increases to mirror that same time of the parks in Camarillo? Yes. Give me

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:15:08

just one sec to click through here. Well, I'll caveat that. So we have it for Lamplighter from 2016 but then for the last for the other parks we have the last five years which they provided to us so it's on the screen there so Casa del Norte rent increases have aligned with CPI for the last five years Camarillo Mobile Home Estates it was you know 6% increase on month-to-month leases, 3.5% on long term leases. Lamp lighter was 5.94% increase on month to month and 4.75% on long term leases?

Thank you. One other question

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:15:54

does the ordinance include on the fee upon transfer of ownership an exclusion for an owner a mobile Does it exclude that from being able to do any kind of increase on that change of ownership?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:16:16

It is not as written.

2:16 – 2:2310 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:16:21

Okay, thank you.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:16:34

We don't have any, and you referred to it as case studies. But it's really, it's legal precedent. We don't have any case law that mirrors the circumstances existing in this draft ordinance do we?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:16:48

That's correct. This ordinance is not taken from-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:16:50

It's just a general declaration of what the courts have said in terms of a fair rate of return but that gets, that has to be applied to all the different circumstances that exist in different municipalities ordinances.

CommentChris HillProposedself-stated2:17:03

Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:17:04

Okay, thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:17:07

Now Madam Clerk do we have any public comments?

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:17:12

Yes there are eight speakers that were signed up to speak starting with Spencer Ritchie.

CommentSpencer RitchieProposedself-stated2:17:34

Hello once again. Good evening, I'm Spencer Ritchie and I think personally I did out I did actually submit a written public comment earlier today saying that you know I support the ordinance Basically stop Camarillo's mobile home parks from quickly becoming ungodly unaffordable places to live. Especially because it they're pretty much one of the very few remaining actually kind of affordable places both in Camarillo and in Ventura County You know if you look at the rent prices are you know allowed to keep you know further increasing at the rate they've clearly been. Now price out like basically And honestly we can't really can't afford to lose that because I don't know I just don't want us to end up gentrifying to the point of turning into T L but smaller population cooler and more humid weather.

That all being said Well I said that the ordinance is I think it's a good start, it's a good I guess moderate solution. In reality it does not go fast and it does not go far enough. The city of Santa Paula has actually done the you know the upstanding thing here by flat out restricting how much rent can increase in their mobile home parks And it's it's a it's very firmly a restriction on how much they're there, you know their mobile home parks can go up in rent.

like risk stabilizing the rate of increases is one thing but at the end of the day stabilized rent increases are still rent increases and we clearly you know we cannot afford that our lower income people cannot afford that so santa paula has been doing the right thing in you know as both a community care thing and also preserving the character of that city by protecting their lower income residents by completely restricting The next speaker is Laura Rivera followed by Chris Hill.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterLori VeraLamplighter and Camarillo Estates with Investment Property GroupProposedself-stated2:20:48

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members. I am Lori Vera, the vice president representing Lamplighter and Camarillo Estates with Investment Property Group. The proposed rent stable ordinance will regulate only three mobile home parks in the city, all of which tend to follow a simple CPI increase annually. The ordinance seeks to regulate a non-existent problem only to create more difficulties and ongoing compliance issues for the park owners and the city.

This ordinance is not needed. Our parks have long-term leases in place which provide consistent, stable increases, provide clarity on pass-through expenses and allow for reasonable increases upon park turnover. The ordinance would interfere with these contractual rights agreed to between the parties. The ordinance will lead to confusion for residents due to the uncertainty regarding the NOI or capital pass-through increase applications.

If this ordinance passes, the residents will lose their LTLs which are long term leases. The current proposal for annual increases allow for an annual increase of CPI with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 6%. The park's owners propose the annual increase should be CPI plus 2%, but with a minimum of 2% Allowing parks to have the option of going a little above CPI provides the continued opportunity to maintain net operating income by preserving overall, the minimum and maximum rent increases. A fair balance with the imposition of a rent control ordinance The actual increase in operating expenses far exceeds a mere CPI increase. The proposed ordinance will result in a continued decrease in NOI and arbitrarily concludes that as so long as the park gets the base year NOI plus CPI each year, then it's receiving an actual fair rate of return.

This is inaccurate as the actual expense increase far in excess of CPI each year, leading to an increase in the differential and NOI due to the arbitrarily capped rent increases. As a middle ground we propose that the fair NOI calculation be based on a change in CPI since base year plus 2% to be considered for a fair rate of return. We need to have reasonable increases in park turnover to maintain operating income.

Without being able to increase rents to market upon turnover, the park will not be able to keep up with the substantial annual increases in expenditures like staff payroll and insurance which have increased over 35% in the last three years far in excess of the CPI increase. Lamplighter and Camarillo have current rolling rent increases. Switching to a single month rent increase will result in delay in the first allowable annual increase, assuring ordinance would result in investment property.

2:23 – 2:307 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:23:52

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:23:55

Chris Hill followed by Jared Gonzalez

CommentChris HillProposedself-stated2:24:12

Good evening honorable mayor, vice mayor and council members. I'm Chris Hill. I am the area manager for Lamplighter Camarillo, Camarillo Mobile Estates and I work for Investment Property Group. I'd like to address the proposed ordinance that is literally only affecting 497 homes in the city of Camarillo. Vacancy decontrol issue in the ordinance allows an increase upon sale of the mobile home by only 6%.

Mobile homes in these parks have been selling without issue with increases upon turnover to bring the space rents to market. The information presented to the council members that mobile homes are selling at substantially low values is wholly inaccurate. Camarillo Mobile Estates has homes currently listed between $99,000 and $315,000 not $39,500 as originally presented to the city.

And in Lamplighter there are four homes listed for sale between $92,500 and $289,000. The value of the mobile homes vary greatly based on the size age and condition of the particular mobile homes with the lower valued homes typically being single wides small homes and homes that were built in the early 70s. An example of a resident that had just moved out, she had moved in in 2012. She had a 4% increase annually with her long-term lease.

The current space rent when she moved out was $1,668. At move-in the new residents' rent went to the market rent which was a 25% increase. If this ordinance passes we'll only be able to increase the rent by 6%, which would be a $300 loss on the market rent and over the course of the year a loss of income for in the amount of $3,600. In addition with our long-term leases the new residents will benefit from the CPI increase annually in this case a 4% increase so the new resident is getting the 4% because the long term leases are transferable if the ordinance passes the homes being sold in the park would actually never get to market rent Another example that we're dealing with is the parks are having increase in payroll expenses over the last 3 years of 35 to 40% an increase in utility costs of 8 to 11% and an increase in property insurance cost of 35 to 42%.

These increases in actual costs or in addition to the By eliminating the parks ability to increase rents upon turnover, the city will be unreasonably limiting the park's ability to maintain its net operating income. Thereby forcing future filings of a maintenance net operating income application on behalf of the owners and operators of investment property group camera mobile estates and lamplighter Camarillo respectfully requests that the City Council reject the adoption of the proposed ordinance to enact the mobile home park rent stabilization ordinance

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:27:03

thank

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:27:03

you

PresenterJared GonzalezWestern Manufactured Housing Communities Association WMA which represents mobileProposedself-stated2:27:17

Good evening mayor, vice mayor and council members. My name is Jared Gonzalez and I'm here on behalf of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association WMA which represents mobile home park owners throughout California and right here in Camarillo. I want to start with something pretty simple. Camarillo's park owners are good operators. Their parks are well maintained, their rent increases have been modest and there is not a single record of a resident being displaced because they couldn't afford a rent increase.

These owners have been operating this community for decades and that track record should matter. Tonight's proposed ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. This proposed ordinance regulates just three parks, communities that already operate in a predictable CPI tide increases. There's no evidence of widespread hardship, no pattern of egregious rent hikes.

Should residents fall on financial difficulty park owners here offer rental assistance program that they fund entirely out of their own pockets And that safety net, that may concern you and should concern you already exists without an ordinance. This ordinance would put all of that at risk. The real-world math doesn't add up. Over the past few years, park operators have absorbed rising payroll costs, soaring insurance premiums and skyrocketing utility costs. An ordinance that caps increases without accounting for these realities doesn't protect anyone. It just makes it harder to keep these communities well maintained over time.

And some of the finer details of the ordinance was already raised in terms of vacancy decontrol. Limiting rent adjustments at the time of a home sale ignores a pretty straightforward reality. New residents who come to buy, they know exactly what the rent is. Their eyes are wide open when they do this. Park owners came to the process in good faith. They offered detailed feedback, proposed reasonable adjustments And put forward the notion of an MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding as an alternative. MOUs have worked well in other California cities. We provided some of those good examples. They create clear expectations. They're enforceable.

They protect residents. They keep bureaucracy lean virtually no cost to city or taxpayers and preserve the kind of collaborative relationship that Camarillo has spent years building. And yet there was no follow-up on the MOU concept or the examples provided. So tonight, we're respectfully asking the mayor, vice mayor and the city council to vote no on this ordinance and instead talk to park owners all of you we invite to have a conversation not just a subcommittee and evaluate all the options on the table thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:30:20

Ed Blumenstock followed by Suzette Marroquin

2:30 – 2:356 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:30:27

Good evening council members. Thank you for taking up this issue it truly shows that las personas son la ciudad, the people of the city and we appreciate that I am a homeowner in Camarillo Mobile Home Park. I moved here in 2018 three years after I retired and I'm living on Social Security At the time, I looked at the lease that was offered and I looked at the rent and thought can I do this?

It is about 70% of my income to pay that rent then. And I made the decision to do it. And about a few years later, the park was sold from the Hughes family that developed the property to IPG. And I knew at that time, because I knew that there were many millions of dollars spent. I knew at that time that there would be increases. They had a big investment and they had to get it back and it was going to fall on me and my fellow residents.

So the increases have come and I've dealt with them as best I can. The percentage of my income that I'm left to spend is smaller, obviously because my rent is higher. So what does that really mean to the city of Camarillo? It means that I spend less going out to dinner, I spend less buying things, the more I spend on my rent, the less I have disposable income. So at that point, I can see the city ending up with some expensive Rents and less money coming into the city from taxes.

And that's my dilemma, I'm putting it in your lap and I'm hoping that you do the right thing and support the people that are living on limited incomes. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:32:25

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:32:28

Jordan Blake followed by Devo Brown

CommentJordan BlankProposedself-stated2:32:41

Hi, thank you for hearing this. My name is Jordan Blank. Thank you for hearing this issue. Yes, I really hope that you pass this ordinance because I'm greatly affected by everything that's gone on. I'm at the Camarillo Mobile Estates and I cannot sell the property and I've completely renovated it put all of my savings and it doesn't sell because everyone that comes says rent $2,060 a month how can we afford that? And to qualify, they have to make three times the money. So somebody has to make $75,000 a year to even qualify for the park.

So my place has been listed for almost 75 days and they love it, but nobody will touch it. And other parks like Casa del Norte, their rent is much lower. Their homes not even renovated sell for more than ours. So I've been greatly affected also. I don't know what they said earlier was not correct because my rent has increased. I've been there since 2018 And it has increased exponentially. And I had a lease for seven years from the Hughes family, but when IPG purchased it my rent has consequently gone up and up so I don't know what they mean that mine didn't go up at the maximum CPI because I had a lease. That's totally incorrect.

And if this ordinance goes through, then if I can sell, you know, transfer what I'm paying now in monthly rent to the new homeowners and I definitely know that I would have a much better chance of selling my property. And this is really it's strange because I'm the homeowner. I own the home, but I'm renting the land so we're not really tenants and this whole vacancy thing to me, it's nonsensical. I mean, if I can't sell that Then they take my place away, I lose everything. You realize if you don't pay the space rent every month they can foreclose, take my home and I have nothing so this desperately needs to go through because it's just not right for us and I know that they're saying expenses I mean, in the Camarillo Mobile Estates, the pool heater doesn't work.

There's no landscape air creation. The clubhouse is dilapidated. The washer and dryer overflows. I have videos of everything. They're not spending a dime. They're just extracting the money from all the residents. And it's 55 and older were on fixed incomes. And it's just it's really difficult. So I really appreciate that you're hearing us. And I really hope you make the right decision And, you know, for these ordinances to pass because it matters. I mean, you know, they, you know, to me it seems like their objective is that they want us all to just get out of there and they're definitely not for us whatsoever.

And I don't know what else to say but it just, it's a, I've never seen that where you have a house that's been renovated everything is brand new like a new house and it doesn't sell because everybody loves it but they said we can't afford the space rent

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:35:44

Thank you.

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:35:44

Before Devo Brown is Suzette Marroquin.

2:36 – 2:426 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:36:00

Welcome,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:36:02

thank you good evening Mayor and City Council members. I just wanted to, I think we've touched on other things before but I wanted to appreciate everybody's work and also touch on the point where Mayor Tennyson mentioned on the rent ordinance Regarding a provision about a change of ownership and passing to a blood relative, I think that's something that we do need to address in case that is not in the ordinance because It is something that I don't think it's in the ordinance, to which I ask that this be also be integrated because there is something that is important to consider once people change the ownerships.

I also appreciate the work that the city staff has done, how I mentioned before and everything that has been achieved to this point which we didn't have anything like this before. Also regarding something that was mentioned Here is that lamplighter has just sent to all the residents that when the change of ownership. Anyone that sells starting June 1st. Of this year, lamp lighter will increase do whatever their prices for the rent and I don't think it's going to be grandfathered any of of the contract that we have can't be grandfathered to the new owners.

So, that is something that I think if we can take into consideration it's something important because as others have mentioned when people sell yet the houses have been sitting there's been some houses that have sold but there's houses that have been sitting for months and months and haven't being able to be is too high compared to all the other cities here in Ventura County and it's just something that I wanted to bring up at this point. So, I appreciate it and I hope that you guys can vote in favor of the ordinance and help the people all the residents more than 400 residents that are here in Camarillo that we are in this Special situation of being owners, but also renters. So thank you.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:38:49

Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:38:51

Devo Brown

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:38:59

Welcome sir.

CommentChris HillProposed · by introduction2:39:00

Thank you so very much and Good evening. Good evening vice mayor council members esteemed council members and city mr. City manager First of all, I'd like to just say thank you so much for taking the time and for doing all the work that you do. I appreciate your service. I know that many people in this of your constituency do because we don't take very lightly the difficulty of your job and what's been happening. I'd like to first of all commend Mr. Fowler and all the members of the city staff for an outstanding job.

You may remember that I was here April 23rd last year I guess you could say I leaned down and gave a good push on this. And, um, I'm so pleased at all of the support that we've gotten from the city staff and from of course the ad hoc committee and then the City Council as well. Um, it's been a fabulous ride. I've uh, I've been so overwhelmed by the support that's available in our city for trying to get something like this done. It was really rather pleasant. So thank you very much for everyone involved.

I know it was part of my comments. I sent this out ahead of time, so it's probably part of your packet. So I'll let you go ahead and look at that because it disputes pretty much everything that you heard from the IPG representatives as far as numbers are concerned. I'm not going to lay a lot of numbers on you because in my dealings with negotiations one of the first things that my mentor told me he said what are the first four letters of the, of the word number.

And I said, well, it's numb and he said, yeah, so don't use them. Okay? Because you're just going to move. But I can tell you what the percentages that I've been hearing tonight sort of bantered around. It's almost like it's creating a certain obfuscation for what's actually happening. Uh, Mr Fowler's diagram that held up the actual rates, the actual physical numbers that residents are paying right now You may have remembered the two really tall red ones on the right. That's Camarillo, Mobile Estates. So we're just the highest by $800 for the rest of the county.

You could talk about percentages all you want and you can also talk about operating but operating percentages And I did actually hear that we were, the taxes and the other, I forget what it was. I'm sorry, the insurance. You know those costs are already being passed through to us. My rent isn't $1,800 as it states. It's $2,300 most months. Sometimes it's down around 22. They add that on top of it already. It is already there.

We need your help. We still need your help and we'd like you to pass this ordinance. Thanks very much.

2:42 – 2:513 turns

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:42:03

There are no more speakers.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:42:05

Last chance, run to the outside and fill out a speaker card. Seeing none we will move on to council discussion who would like to go first? Vice Mayor.

CommentSpencer RitchieProposed · by introduction2:42:22

Sure, thank you Mayor and thank you to everyone who is here and to everyone who provided your input. And I'm going to go ahead and say my comments in both English and in Spanish. When multiple community members brought this issue at our council meeting, I moved this item forward to gather more data because I value and support the quality of life of our residents. Stable housing is foundational to a healthy community especially for seniors and families living on fixed incomes So over the past several months, we formed an ad hoc committee that Council Member Santangelo and I served on. And we worked diligently on this issue. And I also want to acknowledge the work of our city staff and our city attorney who together with input and feedback from both tenants and park owners have crafted an ordinance that is fair and balanced for residents and park owners alike Utilizing and gathering data is critical to inform decision making.

And through staff research, we found that mobile home rents in Camarillo are unfortunately the highest in the county. The reality is that these rent increases in some of our mobile home parks have become unsustainable. Data gathered by city staff showed that monthly parcel rents in Camarillo often exceed $2,000 compared to an average of $829 in rent stabilized communities elsewhere in the county of Ventura.

This disparity puts immense pressure on our most vulnerable residents. And we know also from that data that in cities across Ventura County, including Santa Paula, Oxnard, Ventura, Thousand Oaks and Moore Park who have already adopted similar ordinances with great success. These protections ensure stability and predictability while still enabling park owners to maintain a fair rate of return on their investment.

For many residents, these mobile home parks are their lifelong homes and rent spikes can lead to displacement, loss of equity and even homelessness. So this isn't just an economic issue, it's a community and dignity issue. The proposed ordinance is not necessarily about taking sides. It's about fairness and balance providing reasonable protections for residents while respecting the rights of property owners.

I'm proud that through our work and our discussion, the city of Camarillo is here taking thoughtful responsible steps to address this challenge rather than waiting until the situation worsens. While this ordinance may not satisfy everyone here, I do believe it is fair and balanced. And it's an approach that reflects local government at its best as we have listened to both sides, we have collaborated, and we are trying to find solutions that work for the community as a whole.

I strongly believe that these protections ensure stability and predictability while enabling park owners to maintain a fair rate of return on their investment. And then, while also establishing parameters for rent stabilization to support I am in support of the ordinance and I would be also in support of, I think Mayor Tennyson you made a good point about upon the change of ownership.

I think that's where i'm at. I am in support of it. En espanol, lo voy a repetir este mensaje en español. Muchas gracias a todos los que están aquí por su opinión. Cuando varios miembros de la comunidad nos vinieron y nos empezaron a decir de este problema en una reunión del consejo municipal de aquí de la ciudad de Camarillo Impulse este tema para recopilar más datos porque valoro y apoyo la calidad de la vida de nuestros residentes.

La vivienda estable es fundamental para una comunidad saludable, especialmente para las personas mayores y las familias que viven con ingresos fijos. Durante los últimos meses, ya casi creo un año, formamos un comité ad hoc en el que participamos el concejal o la concejal Sant'Angelo y yo y trabajamos diligitamente en este asunto. Quiero reconocer también el arduo trabajo de nuestro personal municipal, de aquí de la ciudad de Camarillo y de la abogada de la ciudad Rachel que está aquí.

Quienes junto con nuestras aportaciones y los comentarios tanto como los inquilinos y los propietarios del parque han elaborado una ordenanza que es justa e equilibrada para residentes y propietarias por igual. Utilizar y recopilar datos es fundamental para la toma de decisiones informadas, y a través de las investigaciones del personal encontramos que las rentas de las casas móviles en Camarillo son las más altas del Condado de Ventura.

A esta disparidad ejerce una enorme presión sobre nuestros residentes más vulnerables. Ciudades de todo el Condado de Ventura, incluida Santa Paula, Oxnard, Ventura, Thousand Oaks and Moore Park ya han adoptado ordenanzas similares con éxito Estas protecciones garantizan estabilidad y previsibilidad al mismo tiempo que permiten a los propietarios de parques mantener un rendimiento justo de su inversión.

Para muchos residentes, estos parques de casas móviles son hogares de toda la vida Los aumentos bruscos de renta pueden provocar desplazamiento, pérdida de patrimonio e incluso falta de vivienda. Por lo tanto este no es solo un problema económico, es un tema de comunidad y de dignidad. La ordenanza propuesta no se trata de tomar lados o partido se trata de equidad y equilibrio, de proporcionar protecciones razonables para los residentes mientras se respetan los derechos de los propietarios.

Me enorgullece que a través de nuestro trabajo y diálogo, la Ciudad de Camarillo esté tomando medidas reflexivas y responsables para abordar este desafío en lugar de esperar de que la situación empeore. Si bien esta ordenanza puede no satisfacer a todos. Es un enfoque justo y equilibrado que refleja al gobierno local en su mejor expresión, ya que escuchamos a personas de los dos lados y colaboramos y también estamos encontrando soluciones para que esto funcione para toda la comunidad Yo creo firmamente que estas protecciones garantizan estabilidad y privilegiedad al tiempo que permiten a los propietarios también mantener un rendimiento justo de su inversión, y establecen parámetros para la estabilización de rentas que apoyen a las familias de nuestra ciudad de Camarillo.

So that is what I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Santangelo

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:52 – 3:126 turns

UnidentifiedCity ClerkProposed · by role2:52:00

Thank you. I too would like to thank everybody that's been involved in this process, it's been a lot of work and we've had a lot of meetings and I really appreciate the staff and all their work and hard work and research and I really appreciate the community members that have come forward and shared with us their experience so that we could help make a better informed decision Tonight it seems that we have two questions.

The first question is do we want to rent stabilization ordinance at all? And then second if we do, is this the right ordinance? To be perfectly honest with all of you I'm not sure how I feel about rent control in general There are a lot of reasons for this but I won't go into tonight In general I have concerns about whether rent control really solves the core problem of affordable housing however When we are talking about mobile homes, the situation is unique.

These homeowners have to pay rent for their space that their home occupies. Large rent increases can cause the equity in their homes to sink. Many of these mobile home residents are seniors or on fixed incomes and these rent increases coupled with the equity loss in their homes can be devastating. We've seen data, lots of data showing that Camarillo's rent is significantly higher than neighboring communities And for these reasons, I believe a rent stabilization ordinance is a good idea for the city and will help retain affordable housing.

The ad hoc committee that Dr. Martinez Bravo and I sat on met numerous times since May of 2025 And these meetings involved us, staff and as I mentioned before both the mobile home park owners and the residents of the parks. We spent hours looking at data looking at other cities ordinances or lack thereof and listening to both sides of the issues. The ordinance we are considering tonight is a result of this work and I believe represents a fair compromise.

I believe it is the right ordinance for our city. I look forward to further discussion tonight and to hearing from my other colleagues, and that's all I have.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role2:54:15

Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Oh I'm sorry. Okay go ahead Mr. Kildee.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:54:26

James I have a question if I could so the cap on vacancy what is that cap again?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:54:33

Six percent.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:54:34

Six percent okay. I want to support this ordinance but i'm not quite there yet And let me try to explain some of the reasons why I'm not there. I think there's got to be some discussion on perhaps, I don't want to say changes but perhaps modification of this. First of all, I want to talk about the 6% and whether or not we want to have a discussion and perhaps bump that up to the 6.5% on that.

And I say that because I'm very, very concerned about potential litigation on this. I'm very sensitive to rents. I am a renter myself. I am extremely sensitive to that. But it also would be a dereliction of my duty as a council member not to look at the potential litigation aspects for the city within the realm of protecting our residents have a situation where they're paying higher rents than our other brethren in our cities that are to the north and south of us and west.

So how do we get there? So one of the suggestions I have is the anniversary date. I think that needs to be discussed a little further because I think a lot of people, a lot of renters have their rental agreement on different months and this says that they can only do it once a year so i would hope that we might be able to find some flexibility on that so let's say that those that have already been out in the mail here that they've got some flexibility to deal With that anniversary date, I think that's going to be very important. I did mention that I think we should consider perhaps bumping the 6% up to six and a half percent. I think that would be reasonable.

I am concerned about the long-term leases that are in effect and how this is going to I also want to talk a little bit about that cap on vacancy I think there should be some sort of an opportunity for those family members if in fact they do allow to come in that there is some sort of a cap on that. If not, a total cap on that too. They are not faced with that.

Those are some of the things that I think to do, and also would like to see a little more consideration on the MOU. And whether or not there's some opportunities there to work with the owners of the parks which we've had We have had a relatively good experience with most of them. So those are some of the points that I brought up. There may be some others, there may not. I think the community here and my colleagues that have worked on this have done a yeoman's task. I know it has been a tremendous amount of effort on you but I think it is very important that we get this right.

We've got to get this right. And if that takes more discussion, so be it. But those are my concerns. Those are my suggestions that can get me to a point where I'm more comfortable on this ordinance. So I'll reserve my right to speak a little later. But those are my thoughts at this point. Mr. Tremblay.

not transcribed≈27s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:59:08

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I just want to start off by thanking all of the speakers for standing up and articulating your concerns to us in the first place. And all the folks who spoke tonight and participated in the process. I especially want to thank my colleagues Martita and Susan and city staff for all of your hard work on the draft ordinance. This is a complicated subject And it's a complicated ordinance, and I'm certain it took a great deal of time to receive input from all the residents and park owners in an attempt to strike a thoughtful balancing act of the interests.

Start off with, I said last October that when our council adopted a temporary moratorium that I'm not generally in favor of rent control. And it's particularly for multifamily housing and homes but that said, I think there should be some protections for owners of mobile homes those who own homes and are renting space in the mobile home park. We adopted that emergency ordinance at that time.

Susan, my response to you on the two questions is first question is do we want an RSO? And my answer to that would be yes. Your second question is this the right ordinance and respectfully I would say no it's not. To cut to the chase, I can't support the draft ordinance in its current form. Don't agree with the vacancy control provisions in section 10.55.050.

I think that provision is respectfully a major flaw in this ordinance and if it stays in its current form, I'll vote against the ordinance. Number one, I don't think it's needed in order to protect current park residents because they will have already vacated the park when the provisions are exercised Secondly, it hurts park owners economically by making the park less valuable and decreasing the opportunity for a fair and reasonable return.

And thirdly I think you can make a strong case that it actually hurts future residents of the park and will lead to deterioration of a park due to lack of investment so let's start with the basics. Typically a resident will own the home and rent the space in the park When the resident departs, they either sell the existing home to a buyer and the mobile home stays where it is. In other words, it's not removed or the home is removed and the space is vacant.

If it's the former example, an inspection occurs is my understanding. If it's the latter, no inspection occurs because the home is being removed. So I think the ordinances in Los Angeles and Thousand Oaks actually are quite instructive here in this circumstance. The city of Los Angeles which has if I did my math correct, I think it has about 57 mobile home parks and I will say the city of Los Angeles has a real reputation for protecting residents The city uses the following vacancy control measure as I understand it and staff can correct me if you think I've gone wrong.

A, if the mobile home is sold but stays in the space, the park owner can charge up to a 10% increase or the lowest rent for a comparable space in the park. Alternatively, if the home is removed and the new tenant brings in a new home then there's no cap. There are no restrictions on the space can go to market rate In the county of Los Angeles which has almost 550 mobile home parks.

While we have 3 there is no vacancy control, there's no restriction on rent reset after a vacancy. In 1000 oaks if I'm understanding it correctly There can be an up to a 10% increase on existing rental home if it's staying there but no cap on a new mobile home on site and so that in my in my opinion, my understanding is that mirrors what the city of Los Angeles which is no shrinking violet that rent is set, then it becomes subject thereafter to ordinance caps and CPI increases which is different from the vacancy control that I'm talking about. But by contrast in the draft ordinance that's in front of us this evening and I could be wrong but it looks like there's a 6% cap in either circumstance.

I think this draft ordinance respectfully is far more restrictive than those ordinances in Los Angeles and Thousand Oaks And this ordinance, the draft that's in front of us seeks to emulate at least in part Ventura's strict vacancy controls. So in Ventura if a home sells my understanding James, if a home sells the new resident still pays the same rent assigned to the space and the rent cannot be adjusted to reflect market. So let's take a city of Ventura example and these are admittedly very hypothetical numbers And, but Ventura is among I think the most restrictive in the state in terms of its vacancy controls. So someone lives in a mobile home park for decades and then vacates and the base rent based on decades of rent control is at a cap level of $1,000 a month.

But the market is at $2,000 dollars a month and these are just strictly hypothetical numbers Their ordinance doesn't even allow for a market adjustment, which means to me that the owner of the park is permanently behind in their return on investment. In their ROI. They're not able to catch up. My concern is that in turn leads to deteriorating parks because why should a park owner spend money to rehabilitate a deteriorating asset?

I would much rather go the way of Thousand Oaks and Los Angeles Vacancy control is really troubling as a public policy. You know, for apartments I think we all know under the Costa-Hawkins Act now I'm talking now about apartments and multifamily housing and that's been adopted by the legislature It specifies statewide that once the tenant leaves the landlord can reset the rent to market rates So if we adopt this ordinance what do we know? That's more than the state of California in Los Angeles City which face these issues all the time when we have only a few mobile home parks.

There's one provision in the staff report, it's on page 10 and it asserts that vacancy control is necessary to stabilize rents over the long term in parks and with due respect of staff I don't think there's any data actual data to support the assertion. One could ask if the space becomes vacant why should the existing tenant care? because vacancy control is not affecting them, their sale price. If anything the space has become more valuable to a new space tenant and that's arguable but I think you can make that argument.

I think what staff has said and James again you've done yeoman's work to repeat that together with my colleagues but if I understand it correctly then the 6% increase The number six was chosen because it mirrored the 6% max CPI on the other end. And respectfully, I don't think that's a rational economically based decision. That's got no relationship at all to market.

I also think that vacancy control disadvantages a future space tenant because it makes their investment less valuable given the lack of incentive by the park owner to make capital investments in the park or the upgrades. In other words, it depresses the value of the homes so I don't think that makes economic sense. There's a second issue, it's already been brought up using a single month for annual increases throughout the park.

And that's been covered by a letter from council for two of the parks. As far as the ministerial rate increases are concerned those are based on CPI and what I said in October is using A CPI doesn't reflect what economically, what a landlord's operating expenses are because they're often far higher. The consumer price index itself as a formula is way toward consumers.

It's not reflective of actual operating expense increases for landlords and businesses. The CPI tracks the prices for costs at the consumer level. It doesn't directly measure raw materials, labor costs, utilities, equipment et cetera In my view, and here's the trouble. It's tough to reach a balance isn't it? Because neither side is going to be happy but we have to be fair to both sides. The park owners are providing capital investment in housing and I will say there may have been some excesses on part of landlords but coming back as I reflected in October with a cap-on increase which might not cover expenses doesn't strike me as fair and when you add that to When you add that to the vacancy control measures, that causes me great concern for a continued decrease in NOI.

So I recognize that the owners of mobile home parks may not be popular but in my view, I think a rent stabilization ordinance To answer your question, Susan again and apologies for being redundant. I think we do want an RSO. I don't think an MOU...I really don't agree with an MOU. I can support an ordinance. I guess the question is here is what's in it obviously?

But I think the draft ordinances as its currently presented goes overboard in its intended protection of current residents and I think it's unfair to park owners Again, I don't think we're going to make anybody happy. But I do think that the way the City of Los Angeles and the way Thousand Oaks have done it is a better balancing of the interests. So respectfully Martita, I do disagree with you on that aspect.

I don' think the ordinance as its currently presented is fair and balanced so what I would If we vote on the way it is tonight, I'll vote against it. But what I would do is—and I hesitate to say this—is return this for some further work by the committee and specify what needs to be done. And you know, it needs three votes right? So specify what needs to be done in order to put it over the finish line. Again, I don't need an MOU.

I'm okay with a rent stabilization ordinance, and I do think there has to be some protections. I would remove the vacancy control provisions in the draft ordinance. That's the most important thing to me. I would emulate what the City of Los Angeles and 1,000 Oaks does. Because I think that's far better public policy, even though I'm not a big fan of even putting a cap on in there. But again we've got two different circumstances.

One where the mobile home is sold but stays in place and that's where you charge up to a 10% increase or alternatively if the home is removed and the new tenant brings in a new home there is no restriction. That's what I would do. That's what I understand City of LA and Thousand Oaks does. I would, I want to consider more the change of ownership for a blood relative. I understand that. I'd like to consider more the anniversary date issue that's come up in letter by council and I think there's been some at least I heard one council member think, I think that there is some traction on that. So let's see Kevin to go through what you had.

No, I think that's it. So that's where I am and thank you again for working so hard and thanks staff for working so hard on this.

3:12 – 3:2519 turns

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:12:12

Thank you, Mr. Tremblay. I want to echo both of my other council members' thoughts here. Susan and Martita, you obviously put a lot of time and effort into it along with staff. My fellow council members and I share a goal of protecting residents and preserving affordability. Mobile home parks are a critical part of that housing mix in Camarillo I can support an RSO that addresses specifically the increases on the space rentals annually.

At the same time, I think it's important that we take a careful look at one specific provision. The proposed cap on charges at the point of sale when a new tenant purchases a mobile home and I agree with Mr. Tremblay there is a difference between purchasing a mobile home on an existing site in a mobile home park versus a new owner bringing in a new motorhome or another motorhome to a site.

Motorhome parks operate differently than other housing types. Residents generally own their home, but lease the land. Therein lies the difficulty in arriving at a decision on this RSO. As a result, park owners are almost entirely reliant on rent space related to maintain operations, reinvest in infrastructure and to keep the communities in good condition. And I'm not saying they all do keep it in good condition. I've only been in two of these mobile home parks so I won't make a judgment on that.

To me, it seems like turnover is relatively limited in the mobile home parks in Camarillo The point of sale is one of the few opportunities to adjust to changing economic conditions. If we place restrictive items on both ongoing rent increases and transfer related charges, we are layering constraints in a way that may unintentionally create long-term challenges to not only the park owners but also the current residents of the Mobile Home Park.

My concern is that over time this approach could make it more difficult for park owners to keep pace with rising costs on things like insurance, utilities and maintenance which ultimately affects the quality and sustainability of these parks. I understand one of our public speakers earlier said that renters already pay for all of these increases, their pass-throughs from the mobile home park owners. I don't know if that was reported by staff.

I also think we should be cautious about interpreting higher move-in costs in Camarillo as a problem in and of themselves. In many cases, these costs are reflective demand, desirability and the extreme limited supply rather than clear market failure. I would consider a more balanced approach. Again, I would support the RSO when it comes to monthly rental on the spaces but the more balanced approach I believe preserves the financial sustainability needed to maintain and reinvest in these communities even modest flexibility on this point on the cap on new owners coming in Would help us achieve that balance and I'm committed to working with my colleagues to get there. I'll echo Mr. Tremblay's comments, I believe Thousand Oaks the City of Los Angeles have policies rent stabilization ordinances that I could support this evening If the motion reflected that, I also would like to see my suggestion that if a mobile home park owner passes on his or her ownership to a blood relative that there be no change to that portion of the resolution.

And with that everybody's had their time to comment. I will entertain a motion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:16:28

make a suggestion. You may. I think what i've heard up here is that there's a lot of consensus that we do want on RSO, I think there's a lot of consensus again what I said I think it's really important that we get this right and I also think it's important to get as much unanimous support as possible and one way for us to get there The first thing I would like to do is have this go back to committee for a little bit of fine-tuning and bringing back what has been discussed tonight about potential situations that we may be able to mitigate.

I think it would be worthwhile for us and the importance of this ordinance. and the anniversary date, and the cap on vacancy. And perhaps we could come back with some somewhat minor maybe some significant modifications on this to get this where there could be unanimous as unanimous as possible. So that's a suggestion.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:18:02

So we have a suggestion I'll ask once again if there is a motion

CommentSpencer RitchieProposed · by introduction3:18:07

So if I can just add to that, I would be okay to take it back to committee and bring it back. An important point that I think is crucial is that Camarillo is not Ventura, Camarillo's not Thousand Oaks and Camarillo's not Los Angeles. And I say that not as a context, as a community, as a whole but even in comparing the current rates rental rates. I mean I did a quick research and maybe in the you know when we move that back to the ad hoc we could do more but Los Angeles starts at the average is $800 to about 1300 is what I'm researching right now And Camarillo is over $2,000. We're truly an outlier and that is my biggest concern that if people are paying at Lamb Lighter over two thousand dollars and same thing for those two mobile home I think it's IPG who owns those.

That's my concern that we're already in such an extreme position. Having said that, Council Member Kildee, I wanted to better understand the note about the anniversary date. I'm not sure I quite understand your concerns on that and the same thing for the long-term leases. For the family, I think I would agree on what the mayor stated as well. But I just want to better understand that so when we do take it to committee, we can work on that piece.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:19:47

Yeah, and I think as I understand the anniversary date they can only do it one time a year. And I'd like for some more flexibility because I think the leases come up at different times of the year not everybody's on the same lease so if there are some modifications we could do to implement that that they're allowed to increase the rent but through some flexibility about how what when and why and not just specifically once a year

CommentSpencer RitchieProposed · by introduction3:20:17

And then the long-term lease portion would be the long term lease I didn't quite understand.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:20:23

Yeah, I think that we want to make sure that whatever we do does not affect the long-term leases that are in effect now. I don't believe it does but I think it needs a little bit more discussion on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:20:35

Okay and if I could just add to that so the long term lease as I said those work will continue in all other terms except If we adopt this ordinance, then the rent increase process and the rent increases permitted are subject to our ordinance. That's how that law works.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:20:59

Thank you Mr. Tremblay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:21:01

Thanks Mr. Mayor. Just a note, Martina on the letter from Bedell Law it's on page two and That letter discusses the anniversary date issue. If I could just give some more context to what Kevin has indicated, according to this letter the proposed ordinance requires parks have a single month for annual increases throughout the park and I think that is accurate And what they suggested is some language from City of San Marcos for establishing the first single annual increase date. That that first notice isn't deemed to be a violation of the prohibition on more than one increase in a 12-month period.

I heard something kind of differently coming back from staff as to whether or not I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:21:59

sorry, I may have muddled my response to that question. So to be clear yes that is doable what the park owners suggested while it didn't make it into the ordinance it's infinitely doable. That would be uh what they proposed was in the first year do that and then thereafter a singular anniversary. And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:22:19

thereafter a single and I'd like to know a little bit more about staff's view on the efficacy of that and how that might work so there isn't an opportunity for multiple increases in year two, three, four etc. I just want to know I'd like to know hypothetically how that would work? particularly in the first because it'll be the first year where that is the most impact on tenants. And I want to make sure I understand the effect on that and I just don't right now, because we haven't had the example.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:22:50

And if I could just say you know if we can bring back language that allows that initial increase until the ordinance goes into effect so we have everybody on the same schedule because without that, I think what James was saying would be very difficult for us to implement because there's a petition process. So we envision everyone is getting a rent increase at the same time and if they had a concern with it then they need to get the 50% plus one of the affected tenants to say I have an issue with this and have it be heard You know, one, you know, 10 here and two here and one there. So one way to address that, you know, to not penalize them to their point was they would have to wait maybe 18 months to get their first increase then that might be language we could present.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:23:41

Right. But but Mr. Mayor, just Rachel question for clarification. That petition process does not apply to the ministerial rate increase mechanism

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:23:51

provided that the CPI is correct They do have the ability that if it says they did not give us the correct CPI notice. That's the only reason you can appeal that. Okay, all right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:24:05

Thanks.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:24:06

Okay, thank you. I think the direction from Council is fairly clear this will go back to the Ad Hoc Committee. I apologize to everyone that's here this evening. You probably hoped for and expected a quick resolution. One of the issues that we face is we have an ad hoc committee that has dealt with this for eight or nine months and we have three members of the council that are having the opportunity to ask questions for the first time because we have a Brown Act that prevented them from sharing with us individually, the direction they were going with this. I hope tonight's discussions and dialogue between council shows you that we're being thoughtful and that we are concerned about the rental increases with the spaces in Camarillo and that will, to the best of our ability make a decision that protects the residents of the City of Camarillo, so thank you very much for being here.

And with that I will ask the city attorney to provide the closed session report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:25:10

Yes thank you Mayor and Council we did conduct three items in closed session but there's no reportable action.

UnidentifiedMayorProposed · by role3:25:16

And with that this meeting is adjourned