Correspondence- #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers City of Santa Ana October 13, 2022 Page 4 of 5 to clarify that termination notices sent subject to the Mobilehome Residency Law shall comply with such requirements and not the provisions of this Section. (1) Recommend adding a new subparagraph (a)6) as follows: "6) The Owner terminating a Tenancy of a Mobilchome Space shall comply with the Mobilehome Residency Law and is exempt from compliance with subparagraphs 1 and 3) above." The owner of a mobilehome park should be exempt from being required to include contents within a termination notice relating to the at -fault or no-fault just cause evictions as such tenancies are exempt from Section 8-3120. This internal inconsistency can be easily resolved and without such resolution places a mobilehome park owner in a technical default under the RS/JCE Ordinance if its notices comply with the Mobilehome Residency Law but do not include the at -fault or no-fault grounds for the termination, thereby potentially subjecting the mobilehome park owner to potential administrative citation, civil action or inability to complete, an otherwise lawful and valid eviction action. (2) Submittal of the termination notice within five days of service upon the resident to the City (i) makes the notice now subject to disclosure through the public records act process, and (ii) does not take into consideration that tenants may comply with a notice to pay or cure prior to a termination being triggered. Such provisions create a disclosure risk of confidential information about tenancies which are otherwise protected under California law. Although we recommend the deletion of this Section, as an alternative, we recommend updating subsection 4) to read as follows: "4) The Owner has submitted to the City, within (5) days after service of the notice of termination on the Tenants and Tenant's failure to cure the notice of termination or otherwise vacate the Residential Rental Unit or Mobilehome Space, a true and correct copy..." C. Section 8-3122 Retaliatory Eviction and Anti -Harassment. Section (b)(9)(A)(iii), and (b)(12). This proposed language appears to conflict with California law that provides state regulation of the formation of contracts and notices in foreign languages. In particular, Cal. Civ. Code § 1632 was intended to only regulate "[a]ny person engaged in a trade or business who negotiates primarily [in one of the named foreign languages]." Cal. Civ. Code § 1632(h)(1). It also specifically exempted contracts negotiated "through the party's own interpreter." Id. The proposed subparagraph have the effect of making requiring a landlord to prepare leases in a tenant's primary language or else having such failure be deemed harassment of the tenant — this conflicts with state law and imposes substantial additional costs and burdens on landlords beyond the state intended laws. As noted above, although the amendment proposes and attempts to satisfy the issues, claims and causes of actions raised in the pending litigation, and demonstrates the City's acknowledgement of the accuracy of claims raised, the proposed amended ordinance continues to require corrective work to avoid preemption by the various laws specifically impacting mobilehome parks; being vague and ambiguous and constituting an unlawful taking in violation of the constitution.