Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tiny Homes Community Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents near Rancho Las Banos mobile home park urge strict conditions, surveillance and fencing for tiny-home site
Summary
Residents of Rancho Las Banos Mobile Home Park and nearby neighborhoods told the council they oppose a proposed tiny-home project adjacent to their park and asked for security cameras, high perimeter walls, parking restrictions and stricter management and reporting.
Get email alerts on the Tiny Homes Community Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents of the Rancho Las Banos Mobile Home Park and nearby neighborhoods told the Los Banos City Council during public comment on Feb. 9 that they oppose a proposed tiny-homes project sited adjacent to their park and asked the council to require strict conditions if the project goes forward.
Chandra Lewis, who identified herself as manager of the Rancho Las Banos Mobile Home Park, delivered a written list of requested conditions and asked the council to ensure measures that would “make us feel safe as a community.” Lewis asked that the city require surveillance cameras covering all public areas of the facility and surrounding exterior streets, with at least six months of recorded retention accessible to police dispatch; designate the roadway outside the facility private and allow management enforcement of parking rules; ban RV and overnight parking; build an eight- to ten-foot masonry/sound wall around the facility and an additional chain-link fence along a back property line to prevent trespass; and require tenants to agree in advance to an expedited eviction process (no more than 30 days) with a voluntary rent discount for those who consent.
Lewis also asked that the city assign a staff member to oversee the managing organization and provide quarterly reports to the council that include CAD incidents reported to police and fire, documented resident complaints, and financial reporting of facility income and expenditures. She requested that any mitigating conditions be removable only by a 4/5 supermajority of the council and that the management company enforce curfews and visitor sign-in policies.
Other residents echoed concerns about safety, property values and the proximity of the project to schools. Claudia Nunez, a resident of the mobile home park, said residents feel ignored by the city in prior incidents and pleaded for help. Lidovina Moreno and Mark Siqueiros described prior incidents during the pandemic when homeless encampments nearby created safety concerns and urged stepped-up police presence and careful mitigation. Several residents said the park has many elderly residents and children who use nearby bus stops and walk to schools.
The council read two written letters into the record: Casey Miller, park operator of Rancho Las Banos Mobile Home Park, asked what the city will do to protect residents and asked the city to respond to her repeated outreach to staff. Alyssa Homan, a nearby resident, asked whether background checks would be required and whether people on the sex-offender registry or with violent criminal histories would be excluded from the tiny-home placements. City staff and the developer later explained that eligibility and tenant screening are constrained by state funding rules (IRF and other grants) and by housing-first/harm-reduction requirements; some criminal categories may be ineligible for Section 8 voucher use under HUD rules, but the city cannot impose policies that violate state or federal grant conditions.
Mayor and staff response: The mayor told residents that staff will make sure developers and managers reach out to the park and that the council would hear a presentation about the tiny-homes later in the agenda. Developer and staff representatives said they plan to meet with park management, create a good-neighbor committee and include security, surveillance and property-management plans in the project agreements. Councilmembers reiterated that they expect to see mitigation proposals and asked staff to make sure neighborhood concerns are addressed as part of project conditions and planning approvals.
Ending: Residents asked the city to require surveillance, walls/fencing and enforceable conditions; city staff said they will continue outreach and will include mitigation measures in project conditions where legally permissible and consistent with grant requirements.

