City Council - Regular Meeting

I will now call the March 25th, 2026 meeting of the Camrio City Council, Camal Sanitary District and Camrial Library Board to order. Will the clerk please call the role? Council member Santangelo here. Vice Mayor Martinez Bravo here. Council member Kelly here. Council member Trembley here. Mayor Tennyson here. Will the city attorney now read the items for close session?

Yes. Thank you, mayor and councel. We have three items on close session. One is existing litigation, the OPV Coalition versus Fox Canyon matter. We have one uh 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. Thank you. And we will now recess to close session.

City Council, Camaro Sanitary District, and Camrio Library Board. Let the record reflect that all council members are present. And I'm going to ask Mr. Kild to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Sir,

place your right hand over your heart. Ready to begin to flag the United States of America and to the standy forever. 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. Um, tonight we are going to recognize the American Red Cross. Um, 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 Los San Los a Bispo. 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 lifesaving 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. That's good. Um, 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 as 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 first 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.

You want us to start? You want to start? Minister, don't all go at once.

Okay, I'll start. Thank you so much. I want to appreciate your work that you do um tonight and year round for the communities that you serve. Um I too have been a witness to the great work that the American Red Cross does and I really appreciate everything you do. Thank you so much. 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 uh throughout the county of Ventura, whether it was here with a mountain fire um or with initiatives such as the one with farm workers where you're helping to install smoke alarms. Um and and my organization is part of that, too. when every community has such different needs and you're able to meet them um 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.

Yeah, just uh ditto uh 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 uh indoctrination was from the American Red Cross was my mom. And my mom's been gone for several decades. But during World War II, she grew up on a ranch in Sus California. So, she signed up for the Red Cross thinking that she'd be stationed overseas. So when the Red Cross came back and uh stationed her, she was stationed in Santa Barbara, California, not really overseas, but she had uh a lot of really great things to say even in those days about the Red Cross and your organization even expanded that. So thank you for what you do.

I think my colleagues have articulated it really well and I'm grateful to them. I'm grateful to you. Thank you, Ditto. So, I will make any comments you'd like, sir.

Just a couple comments. Uh, really want to thank the community for your support. Uh, I've worked a number of shelters. The Thomas fire was my first one and then the Mountain Fire. And I just want the public to know that when you see a shelter in operations, 90% of the people there are all volunteers, unpaid, not getting a dime. Just the goodness of their hearts. Also, when you contribute to the Red Cross, 90 cents of every dollar that you contribute goes to providing services that you already have articulated, so I won't go through them again, but uh it's it's really a pleasure. I've been on the board here uh stationed in the uh I'm a volunteer too. I don't get paid in the Camrio office uh right right here in Cam Rio that we cover the Ventura, Santa Barbara, and St. Louisville region. And I just want to thank you for everything you do for us to keep us going.

Thank you. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll give you a hand if everybody else wants to join us. Madame clerk, are there any speakers on any items not on the agenda?

Yes, mayor. U we have three speakers. Uh I'm going to give a little a speech here. I received uh 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 uh 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 will move on to the next speaker. When I call your name, please come up to the podium and state your name. The first speaker is Michael Cordell.

Welcome.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Michael Cordell. I want to talk about the uh Ventur County Sheriff's Department today. Um my family's lived in the community for 40 years. So we've had interactions with the department uh professionally and in uh in just casual conversations at things like the concert in the park and in uh even recently at Disar Disar Park reopening. U really have appreciated our relationship with the with the sheriff's department. Uh everything that we've uh uh ever uh had to to deal with with this sheriff's department has been pleasant. It's been professional. Uh I really really appreciate that they care for our community. Uh whether it's um you know thing responding to a incident in our neighborhood or if it's just uh casually running into them around town. It's always been a pleasure and um we do view them as our hometown heroes. We know that they put their line their lives on the line for us every day. Really really appreciate that. and I really thank you for uh the wisdom of having that relationship with the sheriff's department to keep to keep Camaro safe. Thanks so much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Spencer Richie. Okay. All right. Howdy, howdy. Howdy, howdy. Um, so, um, good evening. I am Spencer Richie and I have a few different things that I'm going to comment on this evening. Um, 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 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 the other one would be the English with closed captioning. Um, and cuz as it is right now, it's again the people who the like older people who are more likely to need um stuff like Spanish translation or closed captioning um 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 censoring out certain words. So again, get different software or you know have a human do the do the captions for better accessibility. And then my second thing is again improve the public transit. I should not have to like I should always be able to get a ride home after my shift ends at 4:45 on 8 on a weekday. Um, and then, oh yes, the the part that everyone keeps looking forward to. Here are the current mo current numbers for how many people ISIS 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 Camaro, 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 VCSO needs to stop protecting ICE vehicles and handing over incarcerated people to ICE if ICE requests it. So yeah, thank you. Have a nice evening.

Thank you, Spencer. Michelle Sevilla. Welcome, Michelle.

Thank you so much. Uh, good evening, city council staff and public. It was nice to see many of you at the Disar Park opening. Um, my name is Michelle Sevilla, and I am Assembly Member Steve Bennett's communications director. And, uh, the Assembly Member and the Port of Wayia are co-hosting their second annual bike rodeo and resource fair. Uh the bike rodeo and resource filler will be held Saturday, April 11th from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Oxnard College. Uh and again, for those listening online, that's April 11th from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Uh this free and familyfriendly event is held in partnership with a number of uh government agencies, uh Gold Coast Transit District, Oxnard Police, the city of Oxnard, and Bike Ventura. Um and it's where uh everyone all kids in age and heart uh can enjoy bike safety courses, helmet fittings, bike inspections, a skills competition. Organizations will be giving away free resources um and a few food distribution. And all of this ends uh with a community bike ride where riders put their new skills to the test and practice around the college. Um so I have a few copies of our flyer here for you for you all um which I will leave uh with the clerk and for everyone for your distribution but everybody is invited um and if you have any questions our number is 8054854745. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We have one more speaker Sid Hearth Medra. Good evening council and people of the city. I am here to agree with Spencer Richie 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 no politer word, mercenaries, he's roam 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.

Thank you, Madame Clerk. Is that it? That is all. Thank you. Next, we have a presentation from the Ventur Regional Sanitation District, Mr. Eric Zetsz. Did I say your name correctly, Mr. Mayor? Yes, you did perfectly.

Good evening. There we go. Okay, perfect. Um, good evening, Mr. Mayor, Madame Vice Mayor, and members of the city council. My name is Eric Zetsz. I'm the general manager for the Ventura Regional Sanitation District. Um, the Ventura Regional Sanitation District, I'm going to give you just a brief presentation. It's made up of nine of our uh representative member agencies. Those member agencies are of course the city of Camaro, the city of Filillmore, city of Ohhigh, city of Oxnard, city of Port Wanimi, the city of Santa Paula, the city of Thousand Oaks, the city of Ventura, and the Ventura County special districts. I'm going to introduce you to our board members. We have nine board members. Uh here you have the on the left you have our chair Christina Via Seenor from the city of Filillmore. Lesie Corno our vice chair out of the city of Santa Paula. Board director Kim Mang out of the city of Ohio. Board director Bert Pllo out of the city of Oxnard. Board director Martha McQueen Lejon out of the city of Port Weani. our former chair David Newman out of the city of Thousand Oaks. And then we have uh board director Kevin Kildy, also known as your esteemed uh fivetime mayor for the city of Camaro. So uh this individual, I'll let you know we have had nothing but the greatest pleasure of having Camaro. We and and really council member Kildy be a part of our board. um much of the history. There's a lot of individuals that come in and out. Uh Council Member Kennedy has been a part of this organization since 2011, has spent 15 years on our board and has been

uh 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 uh with the city of Ventura and uh picture is coming soon for Mr. James Aosta, 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 um as well as the city the legal counsel. So let's get into the services that we offer. So we offer uh 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 coding, 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 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 Camaro uh will recognize that we've got Tolen Road landfill for the Ventura County residents. Uh the district owns six landfills. Five of those are closed. So we provide maintenance and operations for them. And then a sixth landfill which is Tolen we'll 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 Tolen

road landfill which is right now the only public landfill within Ventura County. Um Sei Valley Landfill is owned by Waste Management and controlled by a private firm. Um and late in 2025 Chita Landfill closed. And so right now as we're here, our board has the big um decision before them as to what the future holds for landfill in in Ventura County. Um other landfills that that there are there are uh Republic Services Sunshine Canyon and LA County's Calabasas. Both landfills present challenges for transportation and fuel uh 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 tool and road landfill. The conditional use permit number 3141 is managed by Ventura County and the Ventura County Board of Supervisors. Um 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 CUP 3141 is the western area of Ventura County from the Tolen County road. So if you look back at that map and you see Tolen uh road landfill, we can only go west. Um but we have the ability to take our service area limitation. We can take municipal solid waste 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 tollin road landfill brings in 1300 tons of uh trash uh each day. Uh tollin 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 uh receives about 18.5 million off of that tollin road landfill. So, it is a very uh lucrative operation. Some information for the residents of the city of Camaro. Uh the Tolen Road Landfill is located at 3500 Toland Road in Santa Paula and the phone number for Tolen Road Landfill is 805658-4685. Uh we also have a website www.vrsd.com. Hours in operations for Camaro residents, uh, general public and non-commercial vehicles are Monday through Friday, 7:30 to 300 pm. Non-transferable commercial account vehicles, Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and transfer account vehicles, Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Materials that we accept are residential trash, commercial trash, non-hazardous industrial trash, tires. Um, all loads are uh must be inspected. they must be covered. Uh, 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 Camaro residents have um an alternative um, you know, item that they are throwing away, they can check with the city of Camaro 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 uh if anyone would like to contact me, that's my

information there. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Zetsz? Go ahead, Mr. Kildy. Hi. Yeah, thanks for being here. Eric, those you don't know, we hired Eric very recently. He became uh highly regarded uh in the industry that we have and uh we expect we push uh Eric a lot, but we also have high expectations and uh you've exceeded the expectations that we have. Eric, can you brush kind of briefly about the airspace that we have left at our our uh current landfill?

Absolutely. Uh thank you, Council Member Kildy. Um so we we have 216 acres at the Tollen Road landfill. In that landfill, 91 acres of that is for in place trash. And that includes you 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 by in place trash. The last update that we had given our board was that we were looking at something between 12 and 14 years. 12 is what we were using as a con as a conservative 14 uh to be aggressive. Uh so if we look at our region of trash, 1300 tons a day, our board is tasked right now with trying to determine what do we do at the end of that 12 to 14 years. Now the board through the direction uh of 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. Um, so that's a good thing and that feasibility study will tell us what is available and and the board will then make a decision on whether or not we can 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.

Can I have one followup? You sure can. Eric, is it uh feasible for my colleagues here and anyone else to perhaps do a field trip up there and see the operation live? Absolutely. Be happy to do that. Thank you. Any other questions? Vice Mayor, I don't have a question, but just a comment. I think this is uh a subject that we may not necessarily think about every single day, although we throw trash out every single day. Um, and just wanted to thank you for for the services and the good work you're all doing. Thank you. And thank you, uh, Council Member, uh, Kilty for serving on the board. Thank you.

No other questions or comments. Thank you, Mr. Zets. We appreciate that.

Thank you. Next up, we will have a library activity update with Mandy. Welcome, Mandy. Good evening, Mayor David Tennyson and library trustees. Um, Every Story Counts is a California state initiative that asks Californians across the state why and how they use our public libraries. Camaro Public Library participated in the 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 count 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 the 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 make 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 that the library is one of the most important buildings in Camaro and that we offer a variety of services for everyone. The majority of our respondents were adults, 18 plus, that's the orange pie. Um, an older adult, 65 plus, that's the teal pie, was 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 seed library and community wisdom exchange program series like our camar 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, um, 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 andor 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. Um 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 list in Libby, which is a platform we use for our ebooks and e audiobooks, more foreign films, more English as a second language books and resources, and more audio books under 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 a majority of people still prefer email with a few asking for text messages, library website, social media, and flyers on display. Um, 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 and 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.

Questions for Mandy. Comments hearing none. Good work Mandy. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you Mandy. Next we will have council comments comments. Mr. Trembley, I'll ask you to go first if you're ready.

Sure. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. On meetings attended since March 11, March 12, the airport authority. Uh on March 16, utilities committee. On March 18, we had a special meeting of the city council. On March 21, uh the Dizdar Park grand opening. Um, I really want to pay send my appreciation to staff and to our contractors uh 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 um the firehouse themed playground which is incredibly popular with the with the kids. Uh it's it's just a it's a wonderful um it's a wonderful place. Mr. Mayor, you did a good job on the 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, Mr. K.

Yeah, the um meetings attended, I was late, but I was able to go to the super quiz competition and award center. uh ceremony Thursday, March 19th. And if you've never been able to do that, um try to go there uh next year. We've got some of the best and the brightest students in the city. And if they're a reflection of a lot of the students in our city, we're in good hands. Um I want to thank uh John Light uh for moderating that for several years and all the volunteers that help him on that. Uh it's a great event and I'm uh real proud to have been a very very small part of that. I always look forward every every year uh to go there if uh my schedule uh permits. Um 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, uh please do it. It took several several years to get where we were today and are today. Um, 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 uh park. I encourage everybody to go there. Um, I usually don't do this, but I'm going to do a shout out to ex- councsil member Jan McDonald. It was her idea to do the fire truck there in the park as uh one of the equipment and playground there. And it turned out really well. I yet to see kind of a firet truck playground equipment quite like that, but I was kind of scratching my head when I first heard that, but they staff was able to pull that off

along with a lot of other um uh 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. I think it's going to be very well used and it's going to a great addition not only to that area but the city uh in general. Um, also today, March, Wednesday, March 25th, I attended a finance and investment committee uh along with uh council member Santangelo. So, that's all I have tonight, your honor. Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Thank you. March 12th, I attended the uh Senate President Prom Monnique Leone'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 Camrio, so very proud of that. uh Christine Cardona Threadgill from Friends of Field Workers and Haley Ellers from Seaf Frog Climate First Replacing Oil and Gas, Elena Brokaw, uh Museum of Ventura County, and Angela Timman's Community Advocacy Coalition. So, they represent these multiple um 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. Uh March 21st of 21st along with my fellow council members, we also celebrated uh DAR uh park the grand reopening. Um and I learned a little bit more about Mr. Dar. He was an immigrant uh entrepreneur, an immigrant from the region of Yugoslavia and a a resident here from uh Camaro. Um so his full name was Hassan uh Mike uh Distar. Um so it 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. Um, so thank you to city staff and the project manager, past and present council members, um, and all the community members who dedicated themselves to make

sure that this project came to life. Um, if you haven't been there, make sure you stop by. There are so many special features, but especially there's some art um, that is out there. It's by a local artist. her name is Alisa 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 um crafts. Uh but it really was able I think her project was really able to connect Camo's history to the present. So I appreciated that and I look forward to many more memories there. Uh 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 uh finally getting to see now and also on the continued success of the university. Um and then March 24th also I attended the general plan openhouse at the Camrio Library. uh there will be another opportunity for community members to come together and provide input as to the vision that you want to see in Camryo in the future. And so this open house will be held on Saturday, March 28th from 1 to 3 at the uh ranch house, I believe at the Cameo Ranch House and Mr. Softy will be there. There will be children activities. There will be something for everyone. So definitely a familyfriendly event and I I look forward to um so much more of this engagement. Thank you,

Council Member Santangelo.

Thank you. On March 12th with Council Member Trembley, 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 um 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. Um I know it exceeded my expectations. Um the view from the park with the church in the background. Um it's just lovely. Um I hope you all get to enjoy it and I hope it becomes an integral part of our community for a long time. Um and then on March 25th um earlier today the investment and finance committee with council member Trembley I mean Kildy as I'm looking at you. Um and that's all I have.

Thank you. Um 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. Um, 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. Cass 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 um the after or the early afternoon. Um and he did a lot of research on Dizdar Park and came up with a lot of information on Mr. Hassan Mike Dizdar. So, uh, special thanks to Peter as well as the rest of staff. And with that, we will move on to the

Can I make one quick comment? Yes, you may. I just want to thank our mayor uh, David Tennyson for his comments at DAR Park. Uh, you did a really good job uh, up there and um, state-of-the-art. Um, you were very eloquent. So, I want to comment you on that. Thank you. The credit goes to Peter. Uh, with that we will move on to consent calendar. Uh, madame clerk, any public comments on consent? No comments. And any questions from councel on items G through O? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I'm happy to move consent. We have a motion in a second. Madame clerk. Council member Santangelo.

Yes. Vice Mayor Martinez Bravo. Yes. Council member Kildy. Yes. Council member Trembley. Yeah. Mayor Tennyson. Yes. That passes unanimously. Yes. Okay. Before our next item, I've got a request to take a quick break. So, we will take a at most 10-minute break, but hopefully a five minute break. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you to my fellow council members for your timely return. We will move on to item P, the mobile home land rent stab rent stabilization ordinance and senior planner Mr. James Fowler will be the presenter.

Thank you very much. With no further ado, so a little bit of background and a reminder for everyone. So, uh, residents started most recently voicing concerns in March of 2025. Uh, shortly thereafter, the, uh, council responded by forming an ad hoc committee to explore the issue in May of 2025. Um thereafter in April of 2026, after quite a bit of uh research and discussion, um the council adopted a a year-long or I'm sorry, no, an 180day uh temporary moratorum on land rent increases above 4.2% um and that's expiring April 20th, 2026. Um, since the urgency ordinance adoption, the ad hoc committee uh has had four meetings and received feedback on a draft permanent ordinance from both residents and park owners. So, a little bit of uh analysis and we'll get into some uh charts. Uh but staff has looked at average park land rent data in the city and surrounding area. Um average move in rents um in response to park owner feedbacks at the at the temporary moratorum uh meeting just just uh uh average I'm sorry just movein rents were were discussed. So we we pulled average parkland rent data as well. Um and then we refreshed the data more recently. So jumping right into the charts, uh there we have average move in land rent data for parks across the county. In blue there you can see parks with uh rent stabilization ordinance in place. In yellow you can see other cities Filillmore and Seami Valley who have parks but they they do not have rent stabilization ordinances. And then in red you can see the Camrio parks. Um

Cassadel 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 um uh rent stabilized parks uh versus uh Camrio parks. It's a similar pattern. The the gross numbers are overall less though. And similarly um Cassadel Norte is a little bit more in the pack. So the ordinance features getting into them a little bit. So the ordinance as written would allow for annual ministerial increases between 2 and 6% and those would be automatically allowed based on CPI the consumer price index. Additional rent increases would be allowed um after documentation's provided to homeowners for things like capital improvements, capital replacements, and then additionally a sort of a separate category for maintenance of a fair rate of return based on the existing uh 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 way to maintain their their current rate of return through uh their net operating income. To continue a few more features to go through um rent increases with the exception of those ministerial increases we discussed um are subject to a a noticing process. um 50 plus 1% of the affected homeowners uh would need to sign to uh petition a request. Um petitions would be reviewed by a city selected arbitrator. Um and if a petition is filed um 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 highlevel 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. Um it that the ordinance should set an absolute rent ceiling tied to area median space rents and that um a percentage of the rent should be set aside for common area maintenance. Um those features didn't make it into the ordinance out of concern uh for the the kind of the fair rate of return for the park owners. Um, in contrast, the park owner suggested that uh a 5% interest factor be included as part of the amortization for capital improvement costs. Um, that there should be no vacancy control. The ordinance has written has a 6% vacancy control baked in. Um, and that the ministerial rent increases should be CPI plus 2% to a maximum of 6.5. Um, and that the fair net operating income calculation should be based on CPI plus 2%. So in a in a similar vein, um out of concern for the residents, those those suggestions were not implemented. Um as a as an alternative, the park owners have suggested anou as their preferred alternative to an ordinance. They they stressed uh that they they don't want an ordinance. Um the they gave us some uh terms that they they would find favor or a good starting place for terms would be a 15-year term. um annual permissible rent increases based on CPI plus 2% with a minimum 3% threshold and a maximum of 6.5 and allow passroughs of property taxes, increases to insurance, capital improvements, and capital replacements um and vacancy deontrol. Uh staff's recommendation is to

introduce an ordinance adding the uh mobile home plan rent stabilization chapter to the code or and or take other actions related to the ordinance. And that concludes staff's presentation. Questions for James? I have no questions. Mr. Kild, um, do you want me to ask you all the questions right now, just some of them, or is it uh, by all means, and, uh, Rachel's available as well for, uh, more technical questions related to the ordinance.

Okay. Um, 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. Um, maybe not all of the questions right now, but several of them. Um, so the first question is that it caps the CIP and correct me if I'm wrong on this from anywhere from two to 6% depending upon what the CPI has been. So over the years, what has the CPI for the most part landed on?

Yeah, for we looked at CPI um since 2016 and the average has been 3.7% from 2016 to 2025. So that's that's been the average. Um, 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%. So that would somewhat unusual, but if if CPI was above 6%, it would be rounded down to 6%.

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 some data that was shared?

Sure. So the 6% maximum was really landed on for one as I mentioned the average is 3.47% 47% but the 6% maximum was landed because for the ordinance to be effective in stabilizing rents if the maximum is this is a ridiculous example but you know 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% um for the ordinance to to actually do a decent job of stabilizing um rents.

Okay. And then if you could brush just a little bit about the um anniversary uh date and um the suggestion that they could raise it just one time per year. However, I would assume that there's uh different dates for different renters. That is not that will be uh 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? You you're correct that as written that the um the anniversary date would kind of um amalgamate everyone's rent increase dates to a to a singular time of the year that the park owners could could choose. Um it it is possible for the ordinance to be rewritten to kind of either give a a you know for the first year two rent increases um to allow for flexibility in that area or even to 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 that would be very cumbersome. But the the it is possible for the first year to have two rent increases to account for that. But that's not as it's written.

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

Yeah, a 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 um a feeling uh by the subcommittee that the it would to some extent or another negate the effectiveness of the ordinance and stabilizing rents.

Okay. And then also my understanding um that there was a potential it was least brought up anou was that discussed in the committee uh meeting and if so in what way?

Yes it was discussed at committee. So the concern by committee members as they we talked it through with them um and and a concern by staff. So um whereas an ordinance is um you know it's an ordinance it's it's part of the law of the city anou is an agreement. So um enforcement the city has a lot more um ability to enforce an ordinance versus enforcing anou. Um the other piece was uh and we can go to the terms of theou here. So um they expire. It's a it what what the park owners proposed was a 15-year term. So the and they have to be then renegotiated um periodically. So that was also something um the committee was not uh pleased with.

Okay. And also um my understanding is that um the Camrio um cameo state about I think it's around 70 or let's just say easy math here about 70% of the residents have long-term leases and I believe lamplighters around 90% have long-term leases. So within that realm, if this ordinance is adopted, is that going to affect that? Because my thinking is that um 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 a shorter term lease.

So I may look to the city attorney a little bit for this one, but uh you know what, I'll just if it's okay, Rachel, I'll hand it over.

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

Okay. Thank you. And um can we talk a little bit about the 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?

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

Okay. Thank you. Um I have a couple questions for Rachel if you don't mind. city attorney. Uh Rachel, you I think refer to maybe two, three uh case studies uh 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? uh 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 uh park owner, if there was a rent increase that was not uh allowed or reduced, they would look to see whether or not the ordinance permitted someone to obtain a fair uh rate of return. So there there is no ordinance that's been been blessed if you will to say this is the perfect formula. Um it's looked at basically case byase basis.

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 uh in our city. Um so this ordinance you know follows what many you know it's based off of what other cities have used. It's also compared to case law um with similar provisions where courts did look at that language. So, we tried to mirror that um in order to ensure that we are within the realm of what case law requires for a rent stabilization ordinance. So, we followed the case law to the best of our abilities. And what u is uh brought before us tonight reflects that uh from a lot of different aspects, but not the least of which with the legal aspect uh that was been discussed and what's presented tonight follows case studies to the best of our ability on this. Like I said, it's we don't we're not 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 uh adjustments. So, we have set up the ability to um you know pass on capital improvements, capital replacements in additions to just a ministerial CPI. Uh but then there is 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 um has decreased and therefore they need to have a higher um increase and that is what the case law does require that these ordinances provide that venue for park owners. And my last question, Rachel, um this is a rate stabilization ordinance and not a rent control ordinance. Is that correct?

These are considered stabilization or 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 uh required. um if there is a petition submitted. Okay, that's all I have on. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Trembley, I'll follow up with just uh one question. Um James, you gave us the annual uh 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 Camaro?

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

Thank you. Um, one other question. Does the ordinance include on um the fee upon transfer of ownership an exclusion for an owner, a mobile home owner that passes on ownership to a blood relative? Does it exclude that from being able to do any kind of increase on that change of ownership? It does not as written. Okay. Thank you. Um, with that, Madame Clerk. Oh, yes, Mr. Trembley.

I just add one question, Rachel. Let me follow up by something what Council Member Kild said. We don't have any, and you referred to 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? That's correct. This ordinance is not taken from it's just a general 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. Correct. Okay. Thank you.

Now madame clerk, do we have any um public comments? Yes, there are eight uh speakers that were signed up to speak. Uh, starting with Spencer Richie.

All right. Sure. Okay. Right. Hello once again. Um, good evening. I am Spencer Richie and um I think personally I did I did actually submit a written public comment earlier today saying that you know I I support the ordinance. I think there should be something in place to basically stop Camaro's mobile home parks from quickly becoming ungodly unaffordable places to live, especially because it it they're pretty much one of the very few remaining actually kind of affordable places both in K Mario and Inventro County in general. And if you know you know if our mobile home rent prices are you know allowed to keep you know further increasing at the rate they've clearly been that'll price out like basically the lower income Camarans that you know help make Camaro what it is you know like and honestly we can't we really can't afford to to lose that because I don't know I just don't want us to end up gentrifying to the point of turning into to but smaller population cooler and more humid weather. Um that all being said while I said that the ordinance is I think it's it's a good start. It's a good, I guess, moderate solution. In reality, it does not go fast. 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. Um and it's it's a it's very firmly a restriction on how much their their you know their mobile home parks can go up in rent and yeah like especially again like ris 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 their lower-income residents by completely restricting how much mobile home rents can increase in the city of Santa Paula. I think the city of Camrio should do the same if it knows what is good for it. Thank you. Have a nice evening. The next speaker is Laura Rivera, followed by Chris Hill.

Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, and council members. I am Lori Rivera, the vice president representing Lamp Lighter and Camaro States 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 or 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 between agreed to between the parties. The 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. Their 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 proposed the annual increase should be CPI plus 2% but with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 6.5%. Allowing parks to have the option of going a little above CPI provides the continued opportunity to maintain net operating income while 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 so as so long as the park gets the base year NOI

plus CPI each year then it's 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 in 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 3 years, far in excess of the CPI increase. Lamplighter and Camaro have current rolling rent increases. Switching to a single month rent increase will result in delay in the first allowable annual increase assuring the ordinance would result in investment property. Thank you,

Chris Hill. Followed by Jared Gonzalez. Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, and council members. I'm Chris Hill. I am the area manager for Lamplighter Camaro Camaro 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 Camaro. The vacancy deontrol 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. Camo Mobile Estates has homes currently listed between 99,000 and 315,000, not 39,500 as originally presented to the city. And in Lamp Lighter, 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 '7s. 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 movein, the new resident's 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 the park in

in the amount of $3,600. In addition, with our long-term leases, the new residents will benefit from the C 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 home being 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 costs of 35 to 42%. These increases in actual costs are in addition to the increases of costs related to just general park maintenance and upkeep. By eliminating the park's 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, Cameron Mobile Estates and Lamplet Letter Camaro, we respectfully request that the city council reject the adoption of the proposed ordinance to enact the mobile home park grant stabilization ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you,

Jared Gonzalez, followed by Ed Blumentock. 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 Camaro. I want to start with something pretty simple. Camaro's park owners are good operators. Their parks are wellmaintained. Their rent increases have been modest and there's 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 realworld math doesn't add up. Over the past few years, park 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 deontrol. 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 offer detailed feedback, proposed reasonable adjustments, and put forward the notion of anou, a memorandum of understanding as an alternative. Memous meous have worked well in other California cities. We provided some of those good examples. They create clear expectations. They're enforcable. They protect residents. They keep bureaucracy lean, virtually no cost to the city or taxpayers, and preserve the kind of collaborative relationship that Kimario has spent years building. And yet, there was no follow-up on theou 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, Ed Blumentock, followed by Susette Marin. Good evening, council members. Good evening.

Thank you for taking up this issue. Uh it it surely shows that um Los Persona Sonos UDA, the people of the city and and we appreciate that. Uh I am a homeowner in uh Camrio Mobile Home Park. I moved here uh 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 uh 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. Uh, the percentage of my income that I'm left to spend uh is smaller obviously because my in my rent is higher. So, what does that really mean in the in the uh to the city of Camaro? 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 living on limited incomes. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Jordan Blake, followed by DVO Brown.

Hi, thank you for hearing this. Oh, my name is Jordan Blank. Thank you for hearing this issue. Um, yes, I really hope that you pass this ordinance because I'm greatly affected by everything that's gone on. Um, I'm at the Camaro 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 260 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 to for the park. So, my place has been listed for almost 75 days and they love it. It's been but nobody will touch it. And other parks like Kasa 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 uh 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, then I definitely know that I would have a much better chance of selling my property. And this is really it's it's strange because I'm the homeowner. I own the home, but the 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 Cameroon, mobile estates, the pool heater doesn't work. There's no landscape irrigation. The the clubhouse is dilapitated. The the um 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. We're on fixed incomes and it's just it's really difficult. So, I really appreciate you know that you're hearing us and I really hope you make the right decision and you know for these ordinances to pass because it 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 um I don't know. I don't know what else to say, but it just it's uh I've never I've never seen that, you know, 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,

especially. Thank you. Before Divo Brown is Susette Marin.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. Um, I just wanted to I think we've touched on other things before, but I wanted to appreciate everybody's work and also um touch on the point where Mayor um Tennyson mentioned on the rent ordinance regarding a provision um about a change of ownership and passing to a blood relative. Um I think that's something that we do need to um address in case that is not in in the in the ordinance uh because um it is something that I don't think it's in the ordinance um to which I ask that this be also be integrated uh because that is something that is important to consider. consider once uh people change the ownerships. Um 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. Um, also regarding something that was mentioned uh here is that Lamplighter has just sent to all the residents that when the change of ownership uh anyone that sells starting June 1st uh of this year, Lamp Lighter will increase to whatever their price is uh for the rent. Um, and I don't think it's going to be grandfathered any of the of the new of of the contracts that we have can't be grandfathered to the new owners. So that is something that I think we can take into consideration.

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

Thank you D. Brown.

Welcome, sir. Thank you, sir, very much. And um good evening. Good evening, Mayor

Vice Mayor, council members, esteemed council members and city Mr. City Manager. Um first of all, I'd like to just say thank you so much for taking the time and for um for doing all the the work that you do. I appreciate your service. I know that many people in this of your constituency do because this we don't take very lightly um the difficulty of your job and what's been happening. I'd like to first of all commend uh Mr. Fowler and all the members of the uh the city staff for an outstanding job. Um, you may remember that I was here April 23rd last year and um, 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 the support that we've gotten from the city staff and from of course the ad hoc committee and and the city council as well. Um, it's been a fabulous ride. I've uh, I've been been so overwhelmed by the support that's uh that's available in our city for trying to get something like this done. It was it was really rather pleasant. So, thank you very much for everyone involved. Um, I sent out uh a note today. It was part of my my comments. I sent this out ahead of time, so it it's probably part of your packet. Um, so I'll let you go ahead and look at that because it 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 in my dealings with uh 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, don't use them." Okay? Because you just kind of But I can tell you what, the the percentages that I've been hearing tonight sort of bantered around, it's almost like it's creating a certain obfiscation for what's actually happening. Uh Mr. Mr. Fowler's diagram that held up the actual rates, the actual physical numbers that residents are paying right now

has you may have remembered the the two really tall red ones on the right. That's that's Cassid, I mean that's uh that's Camino, I'm sorry, um Lampand Lighter and Camaro Mobile Estates. So, we're just the highest by 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 um and I did actually hear that we were the u the taxes and the uh the other I forget what it was. I'm sorry, the um 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's already there. We need your help. We still need your help. And we'd like you to pass this ordinance. Thanks very much.

Thank you. There are no more speakers. 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.

Uh, 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 this, say my my comments in both English and in Spanish. Um, 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 uh on this issue. And I also want to acknowledge the work of our city staff and our city attorney uh who together with input and feedback from both tenants and park owners um 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 Camrio are unfortunately the highest in the county. The reality is that these rent increases in some of our mobile home parks have become unsustainable. Uh data gathered by city staff showed that monthly parcel rents in Camaro 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 Pa, Oxnard, Ventura, Thousand Oaks, and more 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 Camaro is here taking thoughtful, responsible steps to address this challenging um this challenge rather than waiting uh until the situation worsens. While this ordinance may not satisfy everyone here, um I do believe it is fair and balanced and it's an approach that refle 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. Uh and then while also establishing parameters for rent stabilization to support families right here in Camrio. Uh for this reason I am in support of the ordinance and I would be uh also in support of I think uh Mayor Tennyson you made a good point about uh upon the change of ownership. And so I would be in support of waving that cap uh completely upon a change of ownership within uh the same family. And I think that's that's where I'm at. I I'm in support of it. Um Various members. fundament. message. Santangel Rachel.

is fundamental investig. Ventura, Santa Paola, Oxnard, Ventura, Thousand, Oxy, More Park. Loss. econom. equilibrio. Medivons

local. for the sue. David Tennyson. Um, so that is what I have to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council Member Santangelo.

Thank you. Um, I too would like to thank um everybody that's been involved in this process. Um, it's been it's been a lot of work. Um, we've had a lot of meetings and um, I really appreciate um, the staff and all their work and hard work and research and I really appreciate the community members that have come forward and um, shared with us their experience so that we could help make a better informed decision. Um, tonight it seems that we have two questions. Um, and the first question is do we want a rent stabilization ordinance at all? Um, 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 that I won't go into tonight. Um, 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 Camrio'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. Thank you, Mr. Kild. Oh, I'm sorry, M. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Kildy. Sure. Okay. Um, James, I have a question if I could. So, um the cap on vacancy, what is that cap again? Uh 6%.

6%. Okay. Um 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 um some discussion on perhaps um 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 uh on this. Um I'm very sensitive to rents. I'm a renter myself. I'm extremely sensitive to that. Um, but it also would be a derelction 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 that uh have a situation where they're paying higher rents than our other brethren in our cities that are to the uh north and south of us and west. Um, 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 uh a lot of renters have their uh 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 uh very important. I did mention

that I think that we should uh consider perhaps bumping the 6% up to 6 12%. I think that would be uh reasonable. Uh I am concerned about the long-term leases that are in effect and how this is going to uh affect that. Um I've been uh relatively assured that those are still going to be in effect and it's not going to have much if any effect on that. I think that's uh very uh important here. Um, I also want to talk uh a little bit about that cap on on vacancy and whether or not it was brought up. And I think my colleagues that have not had an opportunity to speak will probably drill down on this, but I think there should be some sort uh of a opportunity for those family members if in fact they do uh allowed to come in that there's some sort of a cap on that if not a total cap uh on that too. So they're not they're not faced uh with that. Um, those are some of the things that I think to do and also would like to see a little more uh consideration on theou and uh whether or not um there's some uh opportunities there to work with the uh owners of the parks which we've had a relatively good experience with most of them. We've had some hiccups there, but we also in the long term have had a relatively good working relationship to at least allow them to understand our situation on that and what we're up against and trying to be, as would said, fair and equitable uh on that. So, those are some of the points that I have brought up. There may be some others, there may not. Um I

think the the uh community here and um my colleagues that have worked on this have done a yman's task. I know it's been a tremendous amount of effort on you on you. But I think it's very important that we get this right. We've got to get this right. And if that takes more discussion, uh so be it. Um but those are my concerns. Those are my suggestions that can get me to a point where I'm uh more comfortable uh on this ordinance. So, I'll reserve my right to speak a little later, but those are my thoughts at this point.

Mr. Trembley. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um, first of all, I just want to start off by thanking all of the speakers um for standing up and 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 Marta and Susan and city staff uh 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 of the residents and park owners and and attempt to strike a thoughtful balancing of of the interests. Start off with I I said last October that um when when our council adopted a temporary moratorum that I'm not generally in favor of of rent control. Yep. and that's particularly for multif family housing and homes. But that said, I think there should be some protections for uh owners of mobile homes, those who who own homes and and are renting space in a mobile home park. And so we adopted that we adopted that emergency ordinance at at that time. Susan, my response to you on the two questions is uh first question is do we want an RSO? And my answer to that would be yes. Um your second question is is this the right ordinance? And respectfully I would say no, it's not. Um to cut to the chase, I can't support the draft ordinance in in its current form. I don't agree with the vacancy control provisions in section 10.55.050. Um, I think that provision is respectfully a major flaw in in this

ordinance and if it stays in its current form, I I'll vote against the ordinance. And 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 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. Uh 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 and the space can go to market rate.

In the county of Los Angeles, which has almost 550 mobile home parks, while we have three, there is no vacancy control. There's no restriction on rent reset after a vacancy. Um, in Thousand Oaks, if I'm understanding it correctly, there can be up to a 10% increase on an 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 in terms of protecting its tenants does. And after that rent is set, then it becomes subject thereafter to ordinance caps and CPI increases, which is a different that's 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, um, and I could be wrong, but it looks like there's a 6% cap in either circumstance. I 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 Jame if a home sells the new resident still pays the same rent assigned to the space and the rent cannot be cannot be uh 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 uh 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 I'll just say $1,000 a month, but the market is at $2,000 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 in 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 and 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 on it's on page 10 and it asserts that vacancy control is necessary to stabilize rents over the long term in parks and and with with due respect to 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 if anything the space has become more valuable to a to a new space tenant and that's arguable but I think you can make that that that argument. Um I think what staff has said and James again I you've done Yman's work to repeat that together with my colleagues but if I understand it correctly the the 6% increase

the number six was chosen because it mirrored the it it mirrored the CPI it mirrored the CPI 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. Um, I also think that vacancy control disadvantages a future space tenant uh uh space tenant because it makes their less it makes their investment less valuable given the lack of incentive by the park owner to make capital investments in the park or or 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 it's already been brought up using a single month for annual increases throughout the park. Uh and that's been covered uh by a letter uh from council for two of the parks. Um as far as the ministerial rate increases are concerned, you know, those are based on CPI. And what I said in October is, you know, 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 weight 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, etc. Now, in my in my view, we've and here's the trouble. It's tough to reach a balance, isn't it? Because neither side's going to be happy. U but we have to be fair to both

sides. The park owners are providing capital, investment, and housing. And I will say there have been there may have been some excesses on part of landlords, but coming back And 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 in NOI. So, I I recognize that the owners of mobile home parks may not be popular, but in my view, I think uh I think a rent stabilization ordinance, to answer your question, Susan, again, apologies for being redundant. I think we do want an RSO. I don't think anou I'm not I'm not I I really don't agree with anou. I can support an ordinance. I guess the question is here is what's in it, obviously. Um, but I think the draft ordinance, as it's 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. Um, but I do think that the way the city of Los Angeles and the way of Thousand Oaks have done it is a better balancing of of the interests. So, respectfully, Martina, I do disagree with you on on that on that aspect. Um um I don't think the ordinance as it's currently presented is fair and and balanced. So what I would do if we vote on the way it is tonight, I'll 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. Uh and you know it needs three votes, right? So specify

what needs to be done in order to to put it over the the finish line. Again, I don't need anou. Um 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 what Thousand Oaks does because I think that's far better public policy even though I'm not a big fan of of even putting a cap on uh in there. But but again, we've got two different circumstances. One where the mobile home is stayed but is sold but stays in place and that's where you you you charge up to a 10% increase or alternatively if the home is removed and the new tenant brings in a new home there there is no restriction. That's what I would do. That's what I understand city of LA and Thousand Oaks does. Um I would I want to consider more the change of ownership for a blood relative. I understand that. I' I'd like to consider more the anniversary date. um uh issue that that's come up in a letter by council. Uh and I think there's been some at least I heard one council member think I I think that there's some traction on that. So um let's see Kevin to go through what you had. Um no I think that's it. Um so that's that's where I am and thank you again for working so hard and thanks staff for working so hard on this. Thank you, Mr. Trembley. Um, I want to echo both of my other council members thoughts here. Uh, Susan and Marta. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into it along with staff. Um, 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 Camrio. Um, I can

support a an RSO that addresses specifically the increases on the space rentals annually. Um, 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. Trimblely, there's a difference between purchasing a mobile home on an existing site in a mobile home park versus a new owner bringing in a new motor home or another motor home to a site. Motor home 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 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 Camaro. Uh 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 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 um public speakers earlier said that renters already pay for all of these increases, their passroughs from the rental park uh the mobile home park owners. Um, I don't know that I don't know if that was reported by staff. I also think we should be c cautious about interpreting higher movein costs in Camero Rio as a problem in and of themselves. In many cases, these costs are a reflect of demand, desiraability, and the extreme limited supply rather than a clear market failure. I would consider a more balanced approach. Again, I would support the RSO when it comes to monthly uh 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 um 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. Trembley's comments. I believe Thousand Oaks, the city of Los Angeles have policies uh rental rental uh rent 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 um change to the that portion of the resolution. And with that, everybody's had their time to comment. I will entertain a motion.

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 to be considered is to have this go back to committee for a little bit of finetuning and then bringing back what has been discussed tonight about uh potential situations uh that we may be able to mitigate. I know it's a lot of work. I don't do this lightly. I I understand all that. But I think for us and the importance of this ordinance and to have as much support as we can, I think it would be worthwhile. So my suggestion and we can certainly have a discussion on this that we bring it back to committee and they can discuss what has been uh uh spoken about here with the LA and Thousand Oaks 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 um get this where there could be unanimous as unanimous as possible. So that's a suggestion.

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

So if I can just add to that um I would be okay to break to take it back to committee and bring it back. The an important point that I think is crucial is that Camrio is not Ventura. Camo's not Thousand Oaks and Camrio'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. Um, but Los Angeles starts at the average is $800 to about 1300 is what I'm researching right now. and Camrio is over $2,000. We're truly an outlier. And that is my biggest concern that if people are paying at Lamblider over $2,000 and same thing for those two um mobile home uh I think it's IPG who owns those. Um that's my concern that we're already in such an extreme position. Um, having said that, uh, Council Member Kildy, 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 um, family. I think I would agree on on what the mayor stated as well. U, but I just want to better understand that so when we do take it to committee, we can work on that piece.

Yeah. And I think is I understand the anniversary date, they can only you 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's some modifications we could do to implement that that they're allowed to increase the rent, but there's some flexibility about the how, what, when, and why, and not just speci specifically once a year. Mhm. And then the long-term lease portion would be the long-term lease. I didn't quite understand.

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. Okay. And if I could just add to that, um, so the long-term leases, I said, those work will continue in all other terms except if we adopt this ordinance, then the rent increase process and the rent increase is permitted are subject to our ordinance. That that's how that law works. Okay, that's case law then. Thank you, Mr. Trembley.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just a note, Martina, on the on the um letter from Bedell Law, it's on page two and and that letter discusses the anniversary date issue. If I could just give some more context to what Kevin has indicated. Um um according to this letter, the proposed ordinance requires parks the 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 uh for establishing the first single annual increase date um that that first notice isn't deemed to be a a violation of the prohibition of more than one increase in a in a 12-month period. I heard something kind of differently coming back from staff as to whether or not uh that's doable. So anyway, that's the I think that's the the issue that council member Kild was

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

and thereafter a single and and I'd like to know a little bit more about staff's view on the efficacy of that and and how that might work so there isn't an opportunity for multiple increases in in in 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 I understand the the effect on that and I just don't right now um because we haven't had the example

and if I could just say you know if if we can bring back language that allows that you know initial increase until the ordinance goes into effect so we have everybody on the same schedule because um without that I think what As James was saying, it would be very difficult for us to implement because um there's a petition process. So, we envision everyone's 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 uh tenants to say, "I have an issue with this." And have it be heard. And if we're doing, 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 that might be language we could present.

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

Okay. Thank you. I think the direction from council is fairly clear. This will go back to the ad hoc committee. Uh 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 are being thoughtful and that we are concerned about the rental increases with the spaces in Camaro and that we will to the best of our ability make a decision that protects the residents of the city of Camaro. So, thank you very much for being here. And with that, I will ask the city attorney to provide the close session report.

Yes, thank you, mayor and council. We did conduct three items in close session, but there is no reportable action. And with that, this meeting is adjourned.