Correspondence - #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From: Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:09 PM To: Ridge, Kristine; Mendoza, Steven; Carvalho, Sonia R. Cc: RSO; eComment Subject: Rent Registry- SFR City Manager Ridge, Asst CM Mendoza, and City Atty Carvalho (cc RSO and also city council public comments) ... I hope that all is well and the festival was great this last weekend! I am also including ecomments in the recipient list because I know that there is an agenda item (21 1 believe) with regards to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and I figure that this may be a good way to inform the mayor and city council members of a potential issue that many residents in the city may be dealing with. As far as whether 2/3 majority is needed, I will leave that to the council/mayor to figure out but this is quasi -related IMO. As you may know, the city sent out letters this last week regarding the rental registry. I also spoke to someone at the RSO office and they are giving some conflicting info and I asked for a call back after explaining my questions but I figured you all should be aware also. I am including Sonia on here because I believe that there may be some legal issues with potential violations of rights on this also. I received one of the rental registry letters and know that many of my neighbors around town did too. I live in a single family residence (SFR) and my home is also on the Mills Act. I am hearing from many that are receiving the same letters... although not precise, the common denominator seems to be either Mills Act or no homeowners exemption on file with the county, although there are others who are not Mills and think they have the exemption. I believe that when you are on the Mills Act, the county takes away the homeowners exemption, so that is likely the real criteria here. I also have a permitted ADU which may also be of consequence here. I am not an expert on the new Ordinance (is anyone an expert yet on it??), but it is my understanding that the all SFRs are exempt... even those that are non -owner occupied or even rented. I believe that this is with the state's Costa Hawkins limitations also. The city's infographic here (https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/santaanaca/uploads/2023/01/Rent-Stabilization-infographic Combined.pdf) clearly indicates that a single family home is not subject to the ordinance (upper right hand box) ... or at least the rent ca p. The letter indicates that information from the County "shows that you own at least one rental unit at the above property address that must be registered in the City's Rental Registry." This is simply not a true statement. There is no information with the county that would show I own a rental unit. There may be information with the county that I have a Mills Act home and maybe for some others that they are not claiming the homeowner's exemptions but there is not information that I own a rental unit at my address. The county simply does not have information that says I own a rental unit. The letter further goes onto indicate that because the county does not show a homeowner's exemption that the city is assuming it is a rental. This is not what the above quoted langue indicates... is the county saying they have info that my home is a rental or are they saying that there is not a homeowner's exemption (again, likely due to the Mills Act)? Then, the city is making the leap that it is assuming that all homes that do not have a homeowner's exemption on file are rentals. This is not an acceptable conclusion. If the city wanted to send out an informational letter, so be it. But this is not informational because it gives me only two options: 1) Register your rental unit(s) or 2) Claim an exemption- which also btw, requires registration. Further to claim the exemption, there is required documentation to be submitted which may include gov't ID, utility bills, banking