The Santa Paula City Council discussed whether to amend the city's mobile-home rent stabilization ordinance to allow appeals of rent-review commission decisions to the City Council, following confusion about notices in the pending 400 Mobile Estates case and calls from tenant advocates for clearer procedures.

City Attorney Castillo told the council that an incorrect document posted on the city's website "is not consistent with what's within our code" and "if it's incorrect in conflict with our code, has no force and is not binding." The discussion followed public comments by residents and tenant advocates who said families at 400 Mobile Estates had not received timely mailed notices and were told incorrectly that they could appeal to Council.

Why it matters: The city's current ordinance (Santa Paula Municipal Code Chapter 152) provides for a three-member rent-review commission as the administrative body to hear certain mobile-home park rent adjustments, including requests to maintain net operating income. Under the present code, decisions by that commission conclude the local administrative process and may be challenged only by filing a court action. Council members and tenants flagged that the process and communication failures denied residents an opportunity to participate meaningfully in a case that could produce a roughly 45% rent increase, according to tenant advocates.

Key points from the meeting:
- City Attorney Castillo explained the legal context, noting state-level regulation called the Mobile Home Residency Law and that Santa Paula's local ordinance was adopted in 1982 and has not been substantially updated since.
- Tenant advocates urged a continuance of the pending hearing and asked the city to provide interpretation services and ensure the timely mailing of notices. A tenant advocate said, "Everyone deserves clear, fair communication, especially when their homes and lives are on the line." (public comment)
- Staff presented options: (1) leave the commission as the final administrative decision-maker (with or without a hearing officer), (2) allow appeals from the commission to the City Council (Thousand Oaks was identified as a rare example that permits appeals), or (3) form a citizen review committee and/or require the commission to meet more frequently and report to Council.
- Council members expressed competing concerns: some said elected officials should be the final local appellate body so residents can appeal to their representatives; others warned that adding Council as an appellate body can raise costs, expose the city to bias claims in court and undercut the disinterested fact-finder role of an appointed commission or hearing officer.

What the council directed: Council did not adopt an ordinance amendment at the meeting. Staff was asked to schedule further study and community engagement, including a study session, and to return with refined options and recommended procedures that address notice, language access, commissioner recruitment and compensation, and the practical interaction between any new appeal rights and pending proceedings. Staff and Council emphasized that any ordinance changes would not apply retroactively to the pending 400 Mobile Estates proceeding.

Background and next steps: The item arose after confusion about a posted procedure and hearing date for 400 Mobile Estates. Staff said that half the county's jurisdictions have some form of rent stabilization for mobile-home parks but most do not grant a direct appeal to city councils. Council asked staff to consult other cities and to draft clearer, modernized code language and outreach protocols for review at a future study session.

The council asked the city manager and city attorney to provide a timeline and to coordinate community outreach so residents receive full information about notice and appeal rights before any future hearings.