Camarillo's Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance Passes Unanimously After a Month of Revisions

One month ago, residents of Camarillo's three mobile home parks left City Hall without the vote they'd come for. The draft rent stabilization ordinance got sent back to committee over a sticking point on vacancy control, and the temporary moratorium capping rent increases at 4.2% was set to expire April 20.

Wednesday night, they got a different result. The Camarillo City Council voted 5-0 to adopt the permanent Mobile Home Park Rent Stabilization Ordinance, applause filled the chamber, and Mayor David Tennessen, smiling, reminded the crowd, "We don't do that."

The ordinance takes effect 30 days after adoption. For roughly 497 residents across Lamplighter Mobile Home Park, Camarillo Mobile Estates, and Casa Del Norte, many of them seniors living on fixed incomes, it ends more than a year of uncertainty.

The ordinance that came back to Council on April 22 was not the same one sent to committee on March 26. The ad hoc subcommittee, made up of Vice Mayor Martita Martinez-Bravo and Councilmember Susan Santangelo, brought back revisions designed to meet the concerns raised last month without gutting the protections residents had asked for.

Three changes stand out.

The vacancy control cap moved from 6% to 8%. When an existing mobile home is sold in place to a new tenant, the park owner can now raise the space rent by up to 8%, not 6%. Santangelo framed it plainly from the dais. "Controlling rent increases is one way we prevent that loss of equity. The other way is through vacancy control," she said. "Dr. Martinez-Bravo and I discussed it and we really felt that we should compromise to get this across the finish line."

A family member exemption was added. No rent increase is permitted when an existing tenant transfers the home to a spouse, child, stepchild, sibling, stepsibling, parent, stepparent, or grandparent. That was one of Councilmember Kevin Kildee's direct asks on March 26.

The anniversary date language was refined. Park owners had warned last month that requiring all rent increases in a park to happen on a single annual date would disrupt existing rolling schedules and create a financial impact. Staff worked with owners on new language that addresses the concern without undoing the provision.

The core annual increase formula did not change. Space rents can go up by the Consumer Price Index each year, with a floor of 2% and a ceiling of 6%. Anything above that requires a formal arbitration process paid for by the city.

Each member of the Council spoke before the vote. The tone was noticeably different from March.

Martinez-Bravo opened with a story from her own childhood. "When I was a little girl, I was the daughter of a farmworker. We had very limited access to luxury or even to essential items. There were times where we had one pair of shoes and they were your school shoes and they were your Sunday shoes for church." She described tracing her foot on cardboard to patch the holes. "While my husband and I and our family, we are in a very different financial class now, the reality is that I will never forget where I came from."

She framed the ordinance as preventive. "Passing this RSO serves as a preventive measure to protect the well-being of our residents," she said, and pointed to the city's motto behind the dais: Las Personas son la Ciudad. The people are the city.

Kildee, who had been the most vocal skeptic on March 26, said he was ready to support it. "I think using the CPI of up to 6% is reasonable. I think following the Thousand Oaks ordinance that we attempted to do is reasonable. I think looking out for the property owners' rate of return and what that should be is reasonable. I think looking out for the renters and trying to give them something that may help them is a reasonable request here."

Councilmember Tony Trembley, who had called the original vacancy control provision a "major flaw" last month, said the revisions had addressed his concerns. "I think it's a compromise RSO approach, which I think fairly balances the interests of mobile homeowners and park owners, and I can support its adoption."

Tennessen closed with a reference to his "former favorite president," Ronald Reagan, and Reagan's line about the 80% ally. "Nobody's 100% happy, but everybody's a little bit happy, and that's what I'm hoping for."

The roll call was unanimous. Santangelo, yes. Martinez-Bravo, yes. Kildee, yes. Trembley, yes. Tennessen, yes.

The written comments submitted ahead of the meeting ran heavily in favor of the ordinance, and most asked the Council specifically to keep vacancy control in the final version.

Holly Iiams, a resident of Camarillo Mobile Estates, wrote that she and her husband are seniors on a fixed income, and that her husband has medical issues. "Vacancy Control is also necessary as the equity is vital if we need to sell our home," she wrote. José Luis Bocanegra of Lamplighter asked the Council directly, "Please help us to get fair rents and fair vacancy control. We need your support." Jeffry Paluga at Casa Del Norte wrote that the park's residents had just received notice of a 4.2% increase set for July, which he called "far above the CPI inflation rate."

One of the sharpest pieces of public comment came from a former resident. Gerry Barnett, who moved away from Camarillo Mobile Estates, wrote to the Council with a copy of the rent increase notice he received from the park in September 2024. His previous rent was $1,029. The new rent was $1,099.64. That's a 6.86% increase in a month when the Los Angeles-area CPI, which the park owners cite as their benchmark, was 2.9%. Barnett wrote that the rent increase was "more than double the relevant CPI for the month before the letter was sent." His letter was a direct response to the park owners' repeated statement that the parks "tend to follow a simple CPI increase annually for existing residents."

The two corporate owners whose parks the ordinance most directly affects both filed formal opposition ahead of the hearing, and both left Wednesday without getting the changes they'd asked for.

Bedell Law, representing Investment Property Group on behalf of Lamplighter and Camarillo Estates, asked the Council to reject the ordinance outright or delay the vote. The firm called the 8% vacancy cap "an arbitrary number selected without reason" and asked for no cap at all on rent when a home changes hands. It also asked the Council to raise the annual increase ceiling and loosen the formula used to calculate a park's fair rate of return.

Star Management, the managing agent for Casa Del Norte, took a narrower approach. Its president, Michael Cirillo, opposed the ordinance as drafted but proposed three specific amendments: raise the annual cap to at least 8%, remove the vacancy cap entirely, and add a streamlined pass-through process so park owners could recover routine increases in property taxes, insurance, and utility costs without triggering a full arbitration.

None of those requests made it into the adopted ordinance. The 8% vacancy cap, the 6% annual ceiling, and the fair-return formula all stayed as the subcommittee proposed them. The only piece of owner feedback reflected in the revised draft was a technical cleanup of the anniversary date language. The Council also did not reopen the owners' alternative proposal, a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding, which the subcommittee had already rejected.

The ordinance takes effect 30 days after adoption. Within 60 days, each park owner is required to register with the city and submit a current rent roll, including lease terms, expiration dates, current rents, and the total number of spaces.

Starting on each park's annual anniversary date, rent increases are capped at CPI, with a 2% floor and a 6% ceiling. Increases above that require a formal petition and arbitration process run by a city-appointed hearing officer. When a home is sold in place to a new non-family tenant, the space rent can rise by up to 8%. When a new home replaces an old one, or when an empty space is filled with a new home, the rent can reset to market.

Residents who believe the ordinance has been violated can file a petition with the city, and the cost of arbitration is covered by the city, not residents or park owners.

For the 497 residents who waited more than a year for the vote, the answer on Wednesday was yes.

Gabrielle Ridgeway covers local government for the Camarillo Caller.