HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 07 - Ordinance Prohibiting Residential Real Property & Mobilehome Rental Rate IncreasesORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA PROHIBITING RESIDENTIAL REAL
PROPERTY AND MOBILEHOME SPACE RENTAL RATE
INCREASES THAT EXCEED THREE PERCENT (3%)
ANNUALLY, OR EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) OF THE
CHANGE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, WHICHEVER IS
LESS, WITHIN THE CITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and
declares as follows:
A. At the City Council meetings on September 21, 2021, and October 5, 2021, the
City Council discussed the City of Santa Ana's ("Santa Ana" or "City") ability to
address rent increases on residential real property and in mobilehome parks.
B. The increasing housing rent burden and poverty faced by many residents in the
City of Santa Ana threatens the health, safety, and welfare of its residents by
forcing them to choose between paying rent and providing food, clothing, and
medical care for themselves and their families.
C. According to the May 2017 report by the California Housing Partnership
Corporation, median rent in Orange County, which includes Santa Ana, has
increased twenty-eight percent (28%) since 2000, while median renter household
income has declined by 9%, when adjusted for inflation. Additionally, the May
2020 report by the California Housing Partnership Corporation demonstrated that
renters need to earn $42.23/hr, or, 3.2 times the state minimum wage to afford
an average monthly asking rent of $2,196 for a two -bedroom apartment in
Orange County.
D. Orange County's lowest income renters spend eighty-one percent (81 %) of their
income on rent, leaving very little to meet other basic human needs such as food
and health.
E. If Santa Ana renter -occupied households paid thirty percent (30%) of their
income on housing, renters would have an extra $176 million dollars of
disposable income (income minus housing costs) to spend in the community
each year, or $7,000 per household. Additionally, racial inequities would
decrease, as the yearly disposable income would increase by 14% for Latinos,
13% for Asian or Pacific Islanders, and 7% for Whites.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 1 of 12
F. The housing rent burden and poverty faced by many residents in Santa Ana
threatens the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, particularly when
resulting in eviction and displacement. Studies have shown that evictions play an
impactful role in the lives of low income renter households and can also
contribute to poverty through disruptive effects such as job loss, adverse health
effects, and negative consequences for children.
G. Moreover, an eviction can remain on a renter's credit history for at least seven
years, impacting one's ability to rent and find employment opportunities.
H. The Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing Act, California Civil Code section 1954.50, et
seq., limits the applicability of local rent stabilization policies, including prohibiting
local jurisdictions from applying rent stabilization to certain residential rental
properties. This Ordinance intends to comply with the Costa -Hawkins Rental
Housing Act, and all other applicable state and federal laws.
Mobilehome Parks comprise approximately five percent (5.1 %) of all housing in
Santa Ana. The city has 29 Mobilehome Parks containing 3,913 spaces. Six of
the Mobilehome Parks and one thousand twenty spaces in Santa Ana are
currently age -restricted to persons 55 years of age or older.
J. Many residents of mobilehome parks could become homeless if mobilehome
park owners were to impose significant rent increases.
K. Increasing the number of homeless residents in Santa Ana, particularly elderly
residents who may be in need of medical or other care, could create a public
health and safety risk.
L. The economic conditions and recognized housing shortage in Southern
California has the potential to detrimentally impact a substantial number of
residents in Santa Ana, and impose a particular hardship on senior citizens,
persons living on fixed incomes, and other vulnerable persons living in
mobilehome parks in Santa Ana.
M. The Mobilehome Residency Law ("MRL"), California Civil Code sections 798, et
seq., expressly authorizes cities to regulate the setting and/or increasing of rents
for the use and occupancy of a mobilehome space, subject to certain exceptions.
N. Santa Ana Municipal Code ("SAMC"), Chapter 41, Article X, establishes
standards for the development of mobilehome parks as a type of multiple -family
residential development, and provides for the establishment of said development
in areas throughout the City that will ensure their compatibility with other
permitted uses in the district, consistent with the Housing Element of the City's
General Plan.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 2 of 12
O. The City has not previously regulated the setting and increasing of rents for
residential real property or mobilehome spaces. However, given the concerns
discussed herein, the City Council desires to evaluate rent stabilization policies
protecting residents from unreasonable rent increases, while ensuring that the
owners of residential real property and mobilehome parks may earn a fair and
reasonable return on their property.
P. Pursuant to the City's police power, as granted broadly under Article XI, section 7
of the California Constitution, and Santa Ana Charter section 200, the Santa Ana
City Council has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations
for the public peace, health, and welfare of the City and its residents.
Q. Based on the foregoing facts, and the facts presented to the City Council at the
meetings at which this ordinance was introduced and adopted, the City Council
finds that allowing owners of residential real property and mobilehome parks to
have unfettered discretion to increase rents, would pose a threat to the public
health, safety or welfare, and that a prohibition of rent increases, except as
allowed herein, is therefore necessary.
R. The City Council hereby adopts these regulations in order to address the threats
set forth below.
1. Absent the adoption of this ordinance, as a result of the economic conditions
and recognized housing shortage in Southern California, significant rent
increases will impact a substantial number of residents in Santa Ana and
constitute a threat to public health, safety and welfare, and a particular
hardship for senior citizens, persons living on fixed incomes, and other
vulnerable persons living in Santa Ana;
2. Housing costs continue to escalate in Orange County, and mobilehome parks
serve as an important affordable housing option for Santa Ana residents;
3. Because a mobilehome is affixed to the property on which it resides, it is
generally not cost effective to move it, resulting in the owner losing the
mobilehome if they cannot pay the rent imposed by the landlord;
4. Certain aspects of public health, safety, and welfare are not adequately
protected due to the lack of rent stabilization mechanics or controls in Santa
Ana, and it is the interest of the City, the owners, residents, and the
community as a whole that the City consider regulations to protect affordable
housing within the City, including, but not limited to, rent stabilization
regulations applicable to residential real property and mobilehomes.
S. The Request for Council Action for this ordinance dated September 21, 2021,
shall be incorporated herein by this reference, and together with this ordinance,
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 3 of 12
any amendments or supplements, and oral testimony, shall constitute the
necessary findings for this ordinance.
T. The City Council finds, determines and declares that the threat to the public
health, safety and welfare of the City and its residents necessitates the
enactment of the ordinance.
Section 2. The recitals and statements of fact set forth in the preamble to this
ordinance are true and correct, constitute a substantive part of this ordinance, and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3. Section 8-1998 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is deleted in its
entirety.
Section 4. Division 5 is hereby added to Article X (Property Maintenance) of
Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Division 5. — RENT STABILIZATION
Section 8-1998.1 — Prohibited Increases.
(a) Increases in rent on residential real property or mobilehome spaces in the
City of Santa Ana in excess of three percent (3%), or eighty (80%) of the
change in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is less, and more than
one rent increase in any twelve (12) month period, are prohibited, unless
expressly exempt under the Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing Act codified in
California Civil Code section 1954.50, et seq., or the Mobilehome
Residency Law codified in California Civil Code sections 798, et seq. If
the change in the Consumer Price Index is negative, no rent increase is
permitted. The term Consumer Price Index means, at the time of the
adjustment calculation completed by the City pursuant to subsection (b),
the percentage increase in the United State Consumer Price Index for all
Urban Consumers in the Los Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim Metropolitan
Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not seasonally adjusted,
for the most recent twelve (12) month period ending prior to the City's
calculation pursuant to subsection (b). A violation of this section occurs
upon the service of notice or demand for a prohibited increase in rent.
(b) No later than June 30th each year, beginning with the year 2022, the City
shall announce the amount of allowable rent increase based on
subsection (a) herein, which shall be effective as of September 1st of that
year.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 4 of 12
Section 8-1998.2 — Reasonable Rate of Return.
This ordinance allows for an annual adjustment of residential real property or
mobilehome space rent of up to three percent (3%), or eighty (80%) of the change in the
Consumer Price Index, whichever is less. A Consumer Price Index -based increase is
found and determined to provide a just and reasonable return on an owner's property,
and has been adopted to encourage good management, reward efficiency, and
discourage the flight of capital, as well as to be commensurate with returns on
comparable investments, but not so high as to defeat the purpose of curtailing
excessive rents and rental increases. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, any
owner of residential real property or a mobilehome park who contends that the limit on
rental increases set forth in Section 8-1998.1 above will prevent the owner from
receiving a fair and reasonable return on their property may petition for relief from the
cap set forth in section 8-1998.1 pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 8-
1998.3.
Section 8-1998.3 — Fair Return Petition for Rent Increase.
(a) An owner of residential real property or a mobilehome park owner may
petition for a rent increase in excess of that provided in section 8-1998.1 in order to
obtain a fair and reasonable return on their property ("Fair Return Petition"). Such Fair
Return Petition shall be on an application form prescribed by the City Manager and shall
be decided by the City Manager, or their designee ("City Manager"). Owner shall
provide a copy of any Fair Return Petition submitted to the City to the applicable
tenant(s), and provide City with proof of completing such service to the applicable
tenant(s). The tenant(s) will then have thirty (30) days from the date of receiving the
Fair Return Petition to reply or provide additional materials to the City in response to the
Fair Return Petition. The applicant shall bear the burden of establishing that a rate
increase in excess of that provided in section 8-1998.1 is necessary to provide the
applicant with a fair and reasonable return on their property, including by providing an
independent financial report and verified financial data demonstrating that without such
an increase, they will not realize a fair and reasonable return on their property.
(b) Applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the City's
review of the Fair Return Petition. Upon receipt of a Fair Return Petition, the City
Manager shall determine the anticipated costs of review and if the employment of
expert(s) will be necessary or appropriate for a proper analysis of the applicant's
request. If the City Manager so determines, the City Manager shall also determine the
anticipated costs of employing such expert(s). The resulting figure shall be
communicated to the applicant, and the Fair Return Petition shall not be processed until
the applicant has paid to the City the estimated cost of the complete analysis. City will
provide applicant with an invoice of all costs incurred after the review of the Fair Return
Petition. Any unused portion of the advance payment for analysis shall be refunded to
the applicant. If additional funds are required, payment will be required before applicant
receives the determination on the Fair Return Petition from the City.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 5 of 12
(c) The factors the City Manager may consider in deciding a Fair Return
Petition may include, but not be limited to:
(1) Changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in
the Los Angeles -Long Beach -Anaheim Metropolitan Area published
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2) The rent lawfully charged for comparable residential real property
or mobilehome spaces in the City.
(3) The length of time since the last determination by the City Manager
on a rent increase application, or the last rent increase if no
previous rent increase application has been made.
(4) The completion of any capital improvements or rehabilitation work
related to the residential real property or mobilehome space or
spaces specified in the Fair Return Petition, and the cost thereof,
including materials, labor, construction interest, permit fees, and
other items the City Manager deems appropriate.
(5) Changes in property taxes or other taxes related to the subject
residential real property or mobilehome park.
(6) Changes in the rent paid by the applicant for the lease of the
residential real property or land on which the subject mobilehome
park is located.
(7) Changes in the utility charges for the subject residential real
property or mobilehome park paid by the applicant, and the extent,
if any, of reimbursement from the tenants.
(8) Changes in reasonable operating and maintenance expenses.
(9) The need for repairs caused by circumstances other than ordinary
wear and tear.
(10) The amount and quality of services provided by the applicant to the
affected tenant(s).
(11) Any existing written lease lawfully entered into between the
applicant and the affected tenant(s).
(d) A Fair Return Petition shall be decided by the City Manager within sixty
(60) calendar days of the date that the application has been deemed complete,
including proof of service of the Fair Return Petition on the applicable tenant(s). The
decision shall be emailed and sent by mail, with proof of mailing to the subject property
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 6 of 12
owner, the owner's designated representative(s) for the Fair Return Petition, and a
designated representative of the tenant(s). Any appeal of the City Manager decision on
a Fair Return Petition shall proceed pursuant to the administrative appeal procedures
found in Chapter 3 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code.
Section 8-1998.4 — Exemptions.
(a) Pursuant to the Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing Act, the provisions of this
ordinance regulating the amount of rent that a residential real property owner may
charge shall not apply to the following: any residential real property that has a certificate
of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995 (California Civil Code section
1954.52(a)(1)); and, any other provisions of the Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing Act
addressing exemptions, as applicable.
(b) Pursuant to the Mobilehome Residency Law, the provisions of this
ordinance regulating the amount of rent that a mobilehome park owner may charge for a
mobilehome space shall not apply to the following: any mobilehome space subject to a
long term (more than one year) rental agreement (California Civil Code section 798.17);
any newly constructed mobilehome space first offered for rent on or after January 1,
1990 (California Civil Code section 798.45); mobilehomes not being used as a person's
primary residence that are not being leased to someone else (California Civil Code
section 798.21); and, any other provisions of the Mobilehome Residency Law
addressing exemptions, as applicable.
(c) Pursuant to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, Civil Code section
1947.12(d), the provisions of this ordinance regulating the amount of rent that a
residential real property Owner may charge shall not apply to the following:
(1) Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an
agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document
as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or
moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and
Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides housing
subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very
low, low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes.
2) Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher
education or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school.
3) Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the
previous 15 years.
(4) Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to
any other dwelling unit, provided that both of the following apply:
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 7 of 12
A. The owner is not anv of the followi
i. A real estate investment trust, as defined in section 856
of the Internal Revenue Code.
ii. A corporation.
iii. A limited liability company in which at least one member
is a corporation.
i. The tenants have been provided written notice that the
residential real property is exempt from this section using
the followina statement:
"This property is not subject to the rent limits imposed
by Santa Ana Municipal Code section 8-1998.1 and
the owner is not any of the following: (1) a real estate
investment trust, as defined by section 856 of the
Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a
limited liability company in which at least one member
is a corporation."
ii. For a tenancy existing before the effective date of this
ordinance, the notice required under clause (i) may, but
is not required to, be provided in the rental agreement.
iii. For a tenancy commenced or renewed on or after the
effective date of this ordinance, the notice required under
clause (i) must be provided in the rental aareement.
(5) A property containing two separate dwelling units within a single
structure in which the owner occupied one of the units as the
owner's principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy
so Iona as the owner continues in occuoancv. and neither unit is an
accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit.
Section 8-1998.5 — Rent Increase Ineffective.
No rent increase shall be effective if the owner:
(a) Fails to substantially comply with all provisions of this Division, including
but not limited to the failure to provide notices as required; or
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 8 of 12
(b) Fails to maintain the residential real property or mobilehome space in
compliance with California Civil Code Sections 1941.1 et seq. and California Health and
Safety Code sections 17920.3 and 17920.10; or
(c) Fails to make repairs ordered by the City or court of competent
jurisdiction.
Section 8-1998.6 — Notice Requirements.
(a) An owner of any residential real property or mobilehome space subject to
this provision shall, on or before the date of commencement of a tenancy, give the
tenant a written notice in a form prescribed by the City which must include the following
information:
(1) The existence and scope of this Division 5 of Chapter 8 of the
Santa Ana Municipal Code; and
(2) The tenant's right to respond to any Fair Return Petition filed with
the City by the owner pursuant to section 8-1998.3.
(b) As part of any notice to increase rent, an owner must include:
(1) Notice of the existence of this Division 5 of Chapter 8 of the Santa
Ana Municipal Code; and
(2) The tenant's right to respond to any Fair Return Petition filed with
the City by the owner pursuant to section 8-1998.3, unless such
rent increase is pursuant to an approved Fair Return Petition.
(3) No rent increase shall take effect until the requirements of this
Division have been met.
(c) The owner must give notices to the tenant in the language that the owner
and tenant used to negotiate the terms of the tenancy (e.g., English, Spanish, Chinese,
Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Korean) as well as English.
Section 8-1998.7 — Definition of Rent.
For the purposes of this Division, "Rent" means all periodic payments and all
nonmonetary consideration, including, but not limited to, the fair market value of goods
or services rendered to or for the benefit of the owner under an agreement concerning
the use or occupancy of residential real property or mobilehome space, including all
payment and consideration demanded or paid for parking, pets, furniture, subletting and
security deposits for damages and cleaning.
Section 8-1998.8 — Violations.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 9 of 12
It shall be unlawful for any person to violate or fail to comply with any provision of
the ordinance. The violation of any provision of this ordinance shall first be punished
through the use of an administrative citation, as provided in Santa Ana Municipal Code
section 1-21, et seq., prior to prosecution as a misdemeanor or infraction, as provided in
Santa Ana Municipal Code section 1-8.
Section 5. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to sections 15060(c)(2),
15060(c)(3) and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a
direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, because
there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment, and it is not a
"project", as defined in section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 6. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, phrase or clause thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or clauses
be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7. The Clerk of the Council shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 10 of 12
ADOPTED this day of 12021.
Vicente Sarmiento
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
Ryan O. Hodge
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 11 of 12
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on 12021.
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 12 of 12
ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA REQUIRING JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines, and
declares as follows:
A. At the City Council meetings on September 21, 2021, and October 5, 2021, the
City Council discussed the City of Santa Ana's ("Santa Ana" or "City") ability to
address just cause evictions.
B. Housing instability threatens the public peace, health, and safety as eviction from
one's home can lead to prolonged homelessness; increased residential mobility;
loss of community; strain on household finances due to the necessity of paying
rental application fees and security deposits; stress and anxiety experienced by
those displaced; increased commute times and traffic impacts if displaced
workers cannot find affordable housing within the city in which they work; and
interruption of the education of children in the home.
C. Eviction creates particular hardships for individuals and households of limited
means, given the shortage of affordable housing within the City of Santa Ana and
the region generally.
D. According to the May 2017 report by the California Housing Partnership
Corporation, median rent in Orange County, which includes Santa Ana, has
increased twenty-eight percent (28%) since 2000, while median renter household
income has declined by 9%, when adjusted for inflation. Additionally, the May
2020 report by the California Housing Partnership Corporation demonstrated that
renters need to earn $42.23/hr, or, 3.2 times the state minimum wage to afford
an average monthly asking rent of $2,196 for a two -bedroom apartment in
Orange County.
E. Orange County's lowest income renters spend eighty-one percent (81 %) of their
income on rent, leaving very little to meet other basic human needs such as food
and health.
F. If Santa Ana renter -occupied households paid thirty percent (30%) of their
income on housing, renters would have an extra $176 million dollars of
disposable income (income minus housing costs) to spend in the community
each year, or $7,000 per household. Additionally, racial inequities would
decrease, as the yearly disposable income would increase by 14% for Latinos,
13% for Asian or Pacific Islanders, and 7% for Whites.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 1 of 22
G. The housing rent burden and poverty faced by many residents in Santa Ana
threatens the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, particularly when
resulting in eviction and displacement. Studies have shown that evictions play an
impactful role in the lives of low income renter households and can also
contribute to poverty through disruptive effects such as job loss, adverse health
effects, and negative consequences for children.
H. Moreover, an eviction can remain on a renter's credit history for at least seven
years, impacting one's ability to rent and find employment opportunities.
Mobilehome Parks comprise approximately five percent (5.1 %) of all housing in
Santa Ana. The city has 29 Mobilehome Parks containing 3,913 spaces. Six of
the Mobilehome Parks and one thousand twenty spaces in Santa Ana are
currently age -restricted to persons 55 years of age or older.
J. The City Council has received public testimony at multiple meetings from Santa
Ana residents who declared that they and their neighbors were unwilling to
register complaints against their landlords over unsuitable living conditions and/or
violations of their leases by landlords or management companies, based on a
fear of being evicted without just cause.
K. The California State Legislature adopted the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 ("AB
1482"), codified in part in California Civil Code section 1946.2 ("section 1946.2"),
which became effective by its own terms on January 1, 2020, and, with certain
exceptions, prohibits an owner of residential property from terminating a tenancy
without just cause.
L. AB 1482 provides that a local ordinance adopted after September 1, 2019,
requiring just cause for termination of a residential tenancy shall supersede
California Civil Code section 1946.2 only if the ordinance is "more protective"
than section 1946.2.
M. In accordance with California Civil Code section 1946.2(g)(1)(B), the City Council
finds that the provisions of this Ordinance regulating just cause terminations or
tenancies are more protective than California Civil Code section 1946.2 for the
following reasons:
1. The just cause for termination of a residential tenancy under this Ordinance is
consistent with California Civil Code section 1946.2.
2. This Ordinance provides additional tenant protections that are not prohibited
by any other provisions of applicable law.
N. The City Council finds and determines that regulating the relations between
residential landlords and tenants will increase certainty and fairness within the
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 2 of 22
residential rental market in the City and thereby serve the public peace, health,
and safety.
O. Pursuant to the City's police power, as granted broadly under Article XI, section 7
of the California Constitution, and Santa Ana Charter section 200, the Santa Ana
City Council has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations
for the public peace, health, and welfare of the City and its residents.
P. The City Council hereby adopts these regulations in order to address the threats
set forth below.
1. Housing, particularly affordable housing, is difficult to procure in this region,
including in Santa Ana. Evictions without just cause destabilize the housing
market and can result in the loss of affordable housing;
2. For the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the City Council
finds that it is necessary to adopt an ordinance regulating just cause
evictions, for all of the reasons set forth in the recitals above, which are
hereby incorporated by reference;
3. Without the imposition of this Ordinance, evictions without just cause may
result in the displacement of residential tenants who would be forced to find
new housing in an ever -more expensive housing market, and would
significantly increase the risk of residential tenants becoming homeless; and,
4. There is a threat to the public peace, health, and safety of the City and its
community, thereby necessitating the enactment of this Ordinance in order to
ensure that tenants are not turned out of their homes without just cause.
Q. The Request for Council Action for this ordinance dated September 21, 2021,
shall be incorporated herein by this reference, and together with this ordinance,
any amendments or supplements, and oral testimony, shall constitute the
necessary findings for this ordinance.
R. The City Council finds, determines, and declares that the threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents necessitates the
enactment of the ordinance.
Section 2. The recitals and statements of fact set forth in the preamble to this
ordinance are true and correct, constitute a substantive part of this ordinance, and are
incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 3. Sections 8-1993 through 8-1997 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code
are deleted in their entirety.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 3 of 22
Section 4. Division 4 is hereby added to Article X (Property Maintenance) of
Chapter 8 (Buildings and Structures) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Division 4. — JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS
Section 8-1993 — Citation.
This Division shall be known as the "Just Cause Eviction Ordinance."
Section 8-1994 — Restrictions on Termination of Tenancy Without Just Cause
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, after a tenant has continuously and
lawfully occupied a residential real property for thirty (30) days, the Owner
of the residential real property shall not terminate the Tenancy without just
cause, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate Tenancy.
1) The Owner shall post a notice on a form prescribed by the City,
providing information about the existence of this Division 4 of Article X
of Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, including protections
related to immigration or citizenship status of tenant found under Civil
Code section 1940.35 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.4, as
may be amended. Notice must be posted in a conspicuous location on
the property. The notice shall be written in the language that the Owner
and tenant used to negotiate the terms of the Tenancy (e.g., Spanish,
Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese and Korean), as well as English.
2) In addition to all other notice requirements specified elsewhere in this
Division, the Owner of any residential real property or mobilehome
space, is required to provide written notice to tenants of their rights
under this Division as follows:
A. The notice required by this Division must be on a form
prescribed by the City and include the following information:
The existence and scope of this Division 4 of Article X of
Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code; and,
ii. The right to relocation assistance in limited
circumstances pursuant to subsection (d)(2) herein.
B. The Owner must provide tenant with the notice upon serving
any notice of change in terms of Tenancy.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 4 of 22
C. The Owner must provide the notice on or before the
commencement of all Tenancies initiated after the effective date
of this Division.
(b) For purposes of this section, "just cause" includes either of the following:
1) At -fault just cause, which is any of the following:
A. Default in the payment of rent.
B. A breach of a material term of the lease, as described in
paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
including, but not limited to, violation of a provision of the lease
after being issued a written notice to correct the violation. A
"breach of a material term" shall not include:
The obligation to limit occupancy, provided that the
additional occupant who joins the tenant of the residential
real property thereby exceeding the limits on occupancy
set forth in the lease is:
A dependent under age 18, or
II. A replacement tenant who moved in after an
approved tenant vacated the residential real
property, so long as the addition does not exceed
the Uniform Housing Code.
The Owner shall have the right to approve
or deny the prospective additional or
replacement tenant, who is not a minor
dependent child, provided that the Owner
does not unreasonably withhold approval. If
the Owner fails to respond to the tenant in
writing with a description of the reasons for
the denial of the request within a
reasonable amount of time of receipt of the
tenant's written request, the tenant's
request shall be deemed approved by the
Owner if the lease is for a period of one (1)
year or less.
ii. A change in the terms of the Tenancy that is not the
result of an express written agreement signed by both of
the parties. An Owner is not required to obtain a tenant's
written consent to a change in the terms of the Tenancy if
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 5 of 22
the change in the terms of the Tenancy is authorized by
this section, or if the Owner is required to change the
terms of the Tenancy pursuant to federal, State, or local
law. Nothing in this subsection shall exempt an Owner
from providing legally required notice of a change in the
terms of the Tenancy.
C. Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or
commission of a nuisance as described in paragraph (4) of
Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
D. Committing waste as described in paragraph (4) of Section
1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
E. The tenant had a written lease that terminated on or after the
effective date of this Ordinance, and after a written request or
demand from the Owner, the tenant has refused to execute a
written extension or renewal of the lease for an additional term
of similar duration with similar provisions, provided that those
terms do not violate this section or any other provision of law.
F. Criminal activity by the tenant on the residential real property,
including any common areas, or any criminal activity or criminal
threat, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 422 of the Penal
Code, on or off the residential real property, that is directed at
any Owner or agent of the Owner of the residential real property
or members of tenant's household or other tenants of the
residential real property. This at -fault, just cause provision shall
apply if the Owner has, within a reasonable time, reported the
criminal activity to law enforcement. Further, at -fault, just cause
eviction of a tenant under this provision shall only apply to that
tenant who committed the criminal activity described herein. If a
tenant is acquitted or found not guilty of the charges giving rise
to eviction, or if charges are not filed against the tenant within
the applicable statute of limitations period, the tenant shall be
offered the right to restore the Tenancy only if the same
residential real property is available.
G. Assigning or subletting the premises in violation of the tenant's
lease, as described in paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
Notwithstanding any contrary provision in this section, an
Owner shall not take any action to terminate a Tenancy
based on a tenant's sublease of the residential real
property if all the following requirements are met:
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 6 of 22
The tenant requests permission from the Owner in
writing to sublease the residential real property;
II. The tenant continues to reside in the residential
real property as their primary residence;
III. The sublease replaces one or more departed
tenants under the lease on a one -for -one basis;
and
IV. The Owner fails to respond to the tenant in writing
within a reasonable amount of time of the receipt
of the tenant's written request. If the Owner fails to
respond to the tenant's written request, the
request shall be deemed approved by the Owner if
the lease is for a period of one (1) year or less. An
Owner's reasonable refusal of the tenant's written
request may be based on, but is not limited to, the
ground that the total number of occupants in a
residential real property exceeds the maximum
number of occupants as determined under Section
503(b) of the Uniform Housing Code or successor
provision.
H. The tenant's refusal to allow the Owner to enter the residential
real property as authorized by Sections 1101.5 and 1954 of the
Civil Code, and Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1 of the Health
and Safety Code.
I. Using the premises for an unlawful purpose as described in
paragraph (4) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
J. The employee, agent, or licensee's failure to vacate after their
termination as an employee, agent, or a licensee as described
in paragraph (1) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
K. When the tenant fails to deliver possession of the residential
real property after providing the Owner written notice as
provided in Section 1946 of the Civil Code of the tenant's
intention to terminate the hiring of the real property, or makes a
written offer to surrender that is accepted in writing by the
Owner but fails to deliver possession at the time specified in that
written notice as described in paragraph (5) of Section 1161 of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 7 of 22
2) No-fault just cause, which includes any of the following:
0
Intent to occupy the residential real property by the
Owner or their spouse, domestic partner, children,
grandchildren, parents, or grandparents.
ii. For leases entered into on or after the effective date of
this Ordinance, this subsection shall apply only if the
tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a
provision of the lease allows the Owner to terminate the
lease if the Owner, or their spouse, domestic partner,
children, grandchildren, parents, or grandparents
unilaterally decides to occupy the residential real property
for a period of at least 24 months, as affirmed by the
Owner in a written affidavit submitted to the City. Addition
of a provision allowing the Owner to terminate the lease
as described in this clause to a new or renewed rental
agreement or fixed -term lease constitutes a similar
provision for the purposes of subparagraph (E) of
paragraph (1).
B. Withdrawal of the residential real property from the rental
market for an anticipated period of at least 24 months, as
affirmed by the Owner in a written affidavit submitted to the City.
C.
Q
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 8 of 22
The Owner complying with any of the following:
An order issued by a government agency or court
relating to habitability that necessitates vacating
the residential real property.
II. An order issued by a government agency or court
to vacate the residential real property.
III. A local ordinance that necessitates vacating the
residential real property.
ii. If it is determined by any government agency or court
that the tenant is at fault for the condition or conditions
triggering the order or need to vacate under clause (i),
the tenant shall not be entitled to relocation assistance as
outlined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (d).
Intent to demolish or to substantially remodel the
residential real property.
The Owner shall provide advance notice to the
tenant of the ability to reoccupy the unit upon
completion of the repairs, or if requested by the
tenant, the right of first refusal to any comparable
vacant rental unit which has been offered at
comparable rent owned by the Owner; and
II. In the event the Owner seeks to rent the
remodeled unit within six (6) months following the
completion of the remodeling work, the evicted
tenant shall have the right of first refusal to
reoccupy and rent the unit, unless the Owner
provides a written waiver by the tenant of their
right to reoccupy the premises pursuant to this
subsection.
iii. For purposes of this subparagraph, "substantially
remodel" means the replacement or substantial
modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or
mechanical system that requires a permit from a
governmental agency, or the abatement of hazardous
materials, including lead -based paint, mold, or asbestos,
in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local
laws, that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe
manner with the tenant in place and that requires the
tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least
30 days. Cosmetic improvements alone, including
painting, decorating, and minor repairs, or other work that
can be performed safely without having the residential
real property vacated, do not qualify as a substantial
remodel.
(c) Before an Owner of residential real property issues a notice to terminate a
Tenancy for just cause that is a curable lease violation, the Owner shall
first give notice of the violation to the tenant with an opportunity to cure the
violation pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. If the violation is not cured within the time period set forth in
the notice, a three-day notice to quit without an opportunity to cure may
thereafter be served to terminate the Tenancy.
1) Any written notice to cease or correct must:
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 9 of 22
(d)
A. Be dated and served upon the tenant, pursuant to at least one
of the methods authorized under California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1162, as may be amended;
B. Inform the tenant that failure to cure may result in the initiation
of eviction proceedings;
C. Inform the tenant of the right to request a reasonable
accommodation;
D. Inform the tenant of the contact number for the Eviction Defense
Fund or the City if no such fund exists; and
E. Include a specific statement of the reasons for the written notice
to cease or correct with specific facts to help the tenant
determine the date(s), place(s), witness(es), and
circumstance(s) that support the reason(s) for the eviction.
1) For a Tenancy for which just cause is required to terminate the
Tenancy under subdivision (a), if an Owner of residential real property
issues a termination notice based on a no-fault just cause described in
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), the Owner shall, regardless of the
tenant's income, at the Owner's option, do one of the following:
A. Assist the tenant to relocate by providing a direct payment to the
tenant as described in paragraph 3; or
B. Waive in writing the payment of rent for the final three (3)
months of the Tenancy, prior to the rent becoming due.
2) If an Owner issues a notice to terminate a Tenancy for no-fault just
cause, the Owner shall notify the tenant of the tenant's right to
relocation assistance or rent waiver and all other rights pursuant to this
section. If the Owner elects to waive the rent for the final three (3)
month of the Tenancy as provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(1), the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is
due for the final three (3) months of the Tenancy.
3)
A. The amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall be
equal to three (3) months of the tenant's rent that was in effect
when the Owner issued the notice to terminate the Tenancy.
Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar
days of service of the notice.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 10 of 22
B. If a tenant fails to vacate after the expiration of the notice to
terminate the Tenancy, the actual amount of any relocation
assistance or rent waiver provided pursuant to this subdivision
shall be recoverable as damages in an action to recover
possession.
C. The relocation assistance or rent waiver required by this section
shall be credited against any other relocation assistance
required by any other law.
4) An Owner's failure to strictly comply with this section shall render the
notice of termination void.
(e) This section shall not apply to the following types of residential real
properties or residential circumstances:
1) Transient and tourist hotel occupancy as defined in subdivision (b) of
Section 1940 of the Civil Code.
2) Housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility,
extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly,
as defined in Section 1569.2 of the Health and Safety Code, or an
adult residential facility, as defined in Chapter 6 of Division 6 of Title 22
of the Manual of Policies and Procedures published by the State
Department of Social Services.
3) Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education
or a kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, school.
4) Housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or
kitchen facilities with the Owner who maintains their principal residence
at the residential real property.
5) Single-family Owner -occupied residences, including a residence in
which the Owner -occupant rents or leases no more than two units or
bedrooms, including, but not limited to, an accessory dwelling unit or a
junior accessory dwelling unit.
6) A duplex in which the Owner occupied one of the units as the Owner's
principal place of residence at the beginning of the Tenancy, so long
as the Owner continues in occupancy.
7) Housing that has been issued a certificate of occupancy within the
previous 15 years.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 11 of 22
8) Residential real property that is alienable separate from the title to any
other dwelling unit, provided that both of the following apply:
A. The Owner is not any of the following:
A real estate investment trust, as defined in Section 856
of the Internal Revenue Code.
ii. A corporation.
iii. A limited liability company in which at least one member
is a corporation.
The tenants have been provided written notice that the
residential property is exempt from this section using the
following statement: "This property is not subject to the
just cause requirements of Santa Ana Municipal Code
Chapter 8, Article X, Division 4. This property meets the
requirements of Santa Ana Municipal Code section 8-
1994(e)(8) and the Owner is not any of the following: (1)
a real estate investment trust, as defined by Section 856
of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a corporation; or (3) a
limited liability company in which at least one member is
a corporation."
ii. For a Tenancy existing before the effective date of this
Ordinance, the notice required under clause (i) may, but
is not required to, be provided in the rental agreement.
iii. For any Tenancy commenced or renewed on or after the
effective date of this Ordinance, the notice required under
clause (i) must be provided in the rental agreement.
iv. Addition of a provision containing the notice required
under clause (i) to any new or renewed rental agreement
or fixed -term lease constitutes a similar provision for the
purposes of subparagraph (E) of paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b).
9) Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an
agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as
affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or
moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and
Safety Code, or subject to an agreement that provides housing
subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low,
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 12 of 22
low, or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health
and Safety Code or comparable federal statutes.
(f) An Owner of residential real property subject to this section shall provide
notice to the tenant as follows:
1) For any Tenancy commenced or renewed on or after the effective date
of this Ordinance, as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement, or
as a written notice signed by the tenant, with a copy provided to the
tenant.
2) For a Tenancy existing prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, by
written notice to the tenant no later than thirty (30) days after the
effective date of this Ordinance, or as an addendum to the lease or
rental agreement.
3) The notification or lease provision shall be in no less than 12-point
type, and shall include the following: "The Santa Ana Municipal Code
provides that after all of the tenants have continuously and lawfully
occupied the property for at least thirty (30) days, an Owner must
provide a statement of cause in any notice to terminate a Tenancy.
See Division 4 of Article X of Chapter 8 of the Santa Ana Municipal
Code for more information."
(g) It shall be a defense to an action for possession of a rental unit under this
Division if a trier of fact determines that:
1) Both of the following provisions apply:
A. The tenant or tenant's household member is a victim of an act
or acts that constitute domestic violence, elder or dependent
adult abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking, or stalking if the
domestic violence, elder or dependent adult abuse, sexual
assault, human trafficking, or stalking has been documented by
one of the following:
A temporary restraining order, emergency protective
order, or protective order issued within the last 180 days
pursuant to law that protects the tenant or a household
member from domestic violence, elder or dependent
adult abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking, or
stalking; or
ii. The tenant or a member of their household has filed a
police report within the previous 180 days alleging that
they are a victim of domestic violence, elder or
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 13 of 22
dependent adult abuse, sexual assault, human
trafficking, or stalking.
B. The notice to vacate is substantially based upon the act or acts
constituting domestic violence, elder or dependent adult abuse,
sexual assault, human trafficking, or stalking against the tenant
or their household member, including, but not limited to, an
action for possession based on complaints of noise,
disturbances, or repeated presence of police.
2) Notwithstanding this Section, an Owner may terminate the Tenancy if:
A. The tenant or the person protected by a court order or who filed
a police report allows the person against whom the protective
order has been issued or who was named in the police report as
committing an act of domestic violence, elder or dependent
adult abuse, sexual assault, human trafficking, or stalking, to
visit the rental property; or
B. The Owner reasonably believes the presence of the person
against whom the protective order has been issued or who was
named in the police report as having committed an act of
domestic violence, elder or dependent adult abuse, sexual
assault, human trafficking, or stalking poses a physical threat to
other tenants, guests, invitees, or to a tenant's right to quiet
enjoyment and the Owner previously gave the tenant a three (3)
day written notice to cease and correct this violation.
(h) It shall be a defense to a no fault just cause action for possession of a
rental unit under this Division if a person under the age of 21 is a resident
of the subject rental unit, or has a custodial or family relationship with a
tenant in the subject rental unit, and who is registered and actively
attending any level of school during a specified school term.
(i) Any sale of a mobilehome park shall be considered a change of use
pursuant to Government Code section 65863.7. Accordingly, at least sixty
(60) days prior to the sale of a mobilehome park, the Owner shall provide
notice of such proposed sale to the mobilehome park residents and
prepare a report on the impact of the sale of the mobilehome park,
including a replacement and relocation plan that adequately mitigates the
impact upon the ability of any displaced residents of the mobilehome park
to be sold to find adequate housing in a mobilehome park, as applicable,
pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65863.7.
Q) Any waiver of the rights under this section shall be void as contrary to
public policy.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 14 of 22
(k) For the purposes of this Division, the following definitions shall apply:
1) "Owner" and "residential real property" have the same meaning as
those terms are defined in Civil Code Section 1954.51.
2) "Tenancy" means the lawful occupation of residential real property or
mobilehome space and includes a lease or sublease, as such may be
subject to local ordinance pursuant to the terms of the Costa -Hawkins
Rental Housing Act, California Civil Code section 1954.50. et seq., and
the Mobilehome Residency Law, Civil Code section 798, et seq.
Section 8-1995 — Notice of Termination of Tenancy.
(a) When terminating a Tenancy either at -fault or no-fault, an Owner must
comply with all of the following:
1) The Owner must serve a written notice in accordance with Civil Code
sections 1946 through 1946.5, to the tenant that states that, in addition
to any information required by federal or State law, the Owner will
terminate the Tenancy, and that indicates at least one at -fault or no-
fault just cause reason as provided in section 8-1994(b); and
2) The Owner has not accepted and will not accept rent or any other
consideration in return for the continued use of the residential property
beyond the term of the terminated Tenancy in compliance with Civil
Code sections 1945 through 1946.5; and
3) The Owner qualifies the termination as at -fault or no-fault just cause,
as specified in section 8-1994(b); and
4) The Owner has submitted to the City, within five (5) days after service
of the notice of termination on the tenant, a true and accurate copy of
the Owner's written notice of termination, and proof of such service,
signed under penalty of perjury, on the tenant. The Owner shall
maintain proof of service to the City as evidence that the Owner has
complied with this section.
5) The Owner must provide the notice in the language that the Owner and
tenant used to negotiate the terms of the Tenancy, in addition to
English.
Section 8-1996 — Retaliatory Eviction and Anti -Harassment.
(a) Retaliatory Eviction.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 15 of 22
1) If the main intent of the Owner in terminating a Tenancy or refusing to
renew a Tenancy is retaliatory in nature, and if the tenant is not in
default as to the payment of rent, then the Owner may not terminate
the Tenancy or refuse to renew the Tenancy or cause the tenant to quit
involuntarily.
2) A tenant may assert retaliation affirmatively or as a defense to the
Owner's action regardless of the period of time which has elapsed
between the tenant's assertion or exercise of rights under this Article
and the alleged act of retaliation.
3) Retaliation against a tenant because of the tenant's exercise of rights
under this Article is prohibited. Retaliation claims may only be brought
in court and may not be addressed administratively. A court may
consider the protections afforded by this Article in evaluating a claim of
retaliation.
(b) Anti -Harassment. No Owner, or any person, acting as a principal or agent,
offering residential real property for rent, or any contractor, subcontractor or
employee of the Owner shall, with respect to residential real property under
any rental agreement or other Tenancy or estate at will, however created, do
any of the following:
1) Interrupt, terminate, or fail to provide housing services required by
rental agreement or by federal, State, County, or local housing, health,
or safety laws, or threaten to do so, or violate or threaten to violate
Civil Code section 789.3.
A. 'Interrupt, terminate, or fail to provide housing services' in this
provision does not include interruptions, terminations, or failure
to provide housing services as a result of interruptions, outages,
or terminations caused by events or actions outside of the
Owner's control, such as utility outages caused by natural
disaster. Further, this provision does not include stoppages,
outages, terminations, and interruptions properly noticed to
tenants as required by a signed rental agreement.
2) Take any of the following actions in bad faith:
A. Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by rental
agreement or by federal, State, or local laws;
B. Fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and
maintenance once undertaken;
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 16 of 22
C. Fail to follow appropriate industry repair, containment, or
remediation protocols designed to minimize exposure to noise,
dust, lead, paint, mold, asbestos, or other building materials with
potentially harmful health impacts;
D. Conduct elective renovation or construction of unit for the
purpose of harassing a tenant;
E. Refuse to acknowledge or accept receipt of a tenant's lawful
rent payment as set forth in a rental agreement, by usual
practice of the parties, or in a notice to pay rent or quit;
F. Refuse to cash or process a rent check or other form of
acceptable rent payment for over thirty (30) days after it is
tendered;
G. Fail to maintain a current address for delivery of rent payments;
H. Violate a tenant's right to privacy without limitation, by
requesting information regarding residence or citizenship status,
protected class status, or social security number, except as
required by law or in the case of a social security number, for
the purpose of obtaining information for the qualifications for a
Tenancy;
I. Release information protected by the tenant's right to privacy
except as required or authorized by law; or
J. Request or demand an unreasonable amount of information
from tenant in response to a request for reasonable
accommodation.
3) Abuse the right of access into residential real property as established
by Civil Code section 1954 or other applicable law. This includes
entries for inspections that are not related to necessary repairs or
services; entries excessive in number; entries that improperly target
certain tenants or are used to collect evidence against the occupant or
otherwise beyond the scope of an otherwise lawful entry; entries or
demands for entry at times outside of normal business hours, unless
for health and safety reasons or if the tenant agrees otherwise; entries
contrary to a tenant's reasonable request to change the date or time of
entry; photographing or otherwise recording portions of a rental unit
that are beyond the scope of lawful entry or inspection; and
misrepresenting the reasons for accessing residential real property.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 17 of 22
4) Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate residential real
property through fraud, misrepresentation, intimidation or coercion,
which shall include threatening to report a tenant to the United States
Department of Homeland Security.
5) Threaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm, or abuse
tenant with words, either orally or in writing, which are offensive and
inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. This includes
words used during in -person conversations, through social media
postings or messages, or other communications.
6) Violate any law which prohibits discrimination based on race, gender,
sexual preference, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality,
religion, age, parenthood, marriage, pregnancy, disability, human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/ acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS), occupancy by a minor child, or source of income.
7) Take action to terminate any Tenancy including service of any notice to
quit or other eviction notice or bring any action to recover possession
of a rental unit based upon facts which the Owner has no reasonable
cause to believe to be true or upon a legal theory which is untenable
under the facts known to the Owner. No Owner shall be liable under
this subsection for bringing an action to recover possession unless and
until the tenant has obtained a favorable termination of that action.
8) Remove from the rental unit personal property, furnishings, or any
other items without the prior written consent of the tenant, except when
done pursuant to enforcement of a legal termination of Tenancy.
9) Provide false written or verbal information regarding any federal, State,
County, or local Tenant protections, including mischaracterizing the
nature or effect of a notice to quit or other eviction notice. False
information includes, without limitation, requesting or demanding a
tenant:
A. Sign a new rental agreement not in the tenant's primary
language if:
i. rental agreement negotiations were conducted in the
tenant's primary language;
ii. The existing rental agreement is in the tenant's primary
language -,or
iii. Owner is otherwise aware that the new rental agreement
is not in tenant's primary language.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 18 of 22
B. Enter into a rent repayment plan if the Owner states,
misrepresents, suggests, or implies, that the tenant should or
must do so to take advantage of tenant protection laws that do
not in fact require such plans.
10)Offer payments to:
A. A tenant to vacate more than once in six (6) months, after the
tenant has notified the Owner in writing that the tenant does not
desire to receive further offers of payments to vacate;
B. Attempt to coerce tenant to vacate accompanied with threats or
intimidation. This shall not include settlement offers in pending
eviction actions made in good faith and not accompanied with
threats or intimidation.
11)Communicate with tenant in a language other than tenant's primary
language for the purpose of intimidating, confusing, deceiving or
annoying tenant.
12)Interfere with a tenant's right to quiet use and enjoyment of a rental unit
as that right is defined by law.
13)Commit repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to
substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace, or
quiet of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such rental unit
and that cause, are likely to cause, or are intended to cause any
person lawfully entitled to occupancy of a rental unit to vacate such
rental unit or to surrender or waive any rights in relation to such
occupancy.
14)Remove a housing service for the purpose of causing the tenant to
vacate the residential real property. For example, taking away a
parking space knowing that a tenant cannot find alternative parking
and must move.
15)Interfere with the right of tenants to organize as tenants and engage in
concerted activities with other tenants for the purpose of mutual aid
and protection; provide property access to tenant organizers,
advocates, or representatives working with or on behalf of tenants
living at a property; convene tenant or tenant organization meetings in
an appropriate space accessible to tenants under the terms of their
rental agreement; or distribute and post literature informing other
tenants of their rights and of opportunities to involve themselves in
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 19 of 22
their project in common areas, including lobby areas and bulletin
boards.
16)Threatening or intimidating a tenant based on their immigration or
citizenship status or otherwise disclosing a tenant's immigration or
citizenship status in violation of California Civil Code section
1940.35(a) and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161.4, as
may be amended.
Section 8-1997 — Violations.
It shall be unlawful for any person to violate or fail to comply with any provision of
the ordinance. The violation of any provision of this ordinance shall first be punished
through the use of an administrative citation, as provided in Santa Ana Municipal Code
section 1-21, et seq., prior to prosecution as a misdemeanor or infraction, as provided in
Santa Ana Municipal Code section 1-8.
Section 5. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to sections 15060(c)(2),
15060(c)(3) and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a
direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, because
there is no possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment, and it is not a
"project," as defined in section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 6. If any section, subsection, phrase, or clause of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, phrase or clause thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or clauses
be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7. The Clerk of the Council shall certify to the adoption of this
ordinance and cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law.
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 20 of 22
ADOPTED this day of 12021.
Vicente Sarmiento
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney
Ryan O. Hodge
Assistant City Attorney
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 21 of 22
CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY
I, Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana on
Date:
Clerk of the Council
City of Santa Ana
Ordinance No. NS -
Page 22 of 22
Orozco, Norma
From: Qui Vuong <qui.vuong.balihi@gmaii.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:08 PM
To: eComment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 7 AT TODAY'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Hello everyone:
My name is Qui Vuong, 59, a typical senior resident living on fixed income at Bali Hi, currently being
devastated by unreasonable rent increases by the new property management company since 2017.
My current monthly income is $957.
I will not receive my social security checks until I am at least 62 years old.
Including utilities for my high risk, immune system compromised disabilities, my monthly housing cost comes
to $1,096 this past month.
That mares my ratio of "housing cost to income" a whopping 116%!
My beloved spouse Mary passed away in 2019 from stomach cancer, worried sick about how to make rents
meet. My household income is now cut in half.
If I move to another space at the same park, my monthly rent goes up by at least $300 per month, and even
more if I move to another park in Santa Ana. After the COVID-19 global pandemic, given my health condition
and high -risk classification, no one would dare take me in. So I am stuck with nowhere to go, living
precariously on the brink of eventual homelessness.
Thank you in advance for rescuing me with your critical "Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protection" ordinance
by voting YES tonight.
In politics, as well as in life, DOING THE RIGHT THING is always hard; but as duly elected officials who
have sworn to "protect and serve" your own community, if you don't do it, who will? Your bold action will
make such a big difference for your suffering constituents, who are being marginalized and wrongfully
demonized, by the self-serving propaganda of bad landlords/property managers, along with their "lying
hypocrites" lobbyists. I would like to think that we at Bali Hi still have a kind-hearted benevolent owner, who
shows caring and appreciation for his best paying customers over the years, and not try to convert this senior
park into a more profitable family park.
In summary, the EMERGENCY RESCUE measure in the form of a citywide ordinance will save countless
lives in the city of Santa Ana, including my own. Hopefully, Santa Ana's leadership in this area will resonate
and inspire other municipalities across the nation to do the same for their most vulnerable residents. We are
forever in your debt.
Sincerely yours,
Qui Vuong
4) Virus -free. www.avast.com
Orozco, Norma
From:
Yv Ga <faithfu188@Iive.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:55 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Rent Control
We oppose the Rent Control. No.
All speakers came from the same Senior Mobil Home Park.
The owners who owns properties have rentals. We need to afford to pay our Taxes to the City.
Owners pays your City Employees Salaries. If we cannot afford to pay : Taxes, Insurance, Repairs to maintain
properties? Who will ? Tenants Trash their apartments. We need to afford to maintain it for the City.
Owners are free City employees to maintain the properties for the City. When you get red of us who will pay
the city ?
Thank you . We pray for Peace. Love over everyone. Amen.
Speaking on behalf of Several Owners. Not all can make it to meetings & computers.
2
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Santa Ana Councilmembers,
Mihee Moon <miheem@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:38 PM
eComment
Vote NO - Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction
I am a rental -housing provider and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community
Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act." I believe that the proposal is severely flawed and punitive against
rental -housing providers, and should be deferred until such time the city can engage in additional studies and
thoughtful discussions with rental housing providers in the city.
Respectfully,
Mihee Moon
Orozco, Norma
From: Irma Jauregui <irmapj@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:41 PM
To: eComment
Cc: irmapj@yahoo.com
Subject: 1 st page on Agenda ...City Vision and Code of Ethics... thoughts vs item 7... from a
hopeful optimist..
Dear Mayor and Council members;
Some of you know me well and others I haven't the pleasure of yet meeting, but in time hopefully we will. I'm a long
time resident of 42 years and have seen many, many changes and some successes and some failures.
I ask you to please read the 1st page of what's written in the agenda and really meditate on its meaning. I have read it
many times and this weekend it screamed at me the true meaning of what being a Mayor and Council members means!
I love it's great ideals and thoughts on these items;
Vision.."I NVESTM ENT in our youth, safe and healthy communities, neighborhood pride, THRIVING ECONOMIC climate
experiment and enriched and diverse culture, plus QUALITY government services.
MISSION.. to deliver efficient public services in PARTNERSHIP with our community which ensures public safety, a
PROSPEROUS ECONOMIC environment, OPPORTUNITIES for our youth and a HIGH quality of life.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES.. Collaboration, Efficiency, Equity, Excellence, Fiscal responsibility, Innovation, Transparency.
CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT.
As approved on Feb 5, 2008 voters approved and amendment to City Charter that establish the code of ethics and
conduct for all elected officials are members of appointed boards so it can ensure public confidence... the Core Valued
are Integrity... Honesty... Responsibility... Fairness... Accountability... Respect... Efficiency...
Think about these as you consider not only rent caps and just cause eviction and it's repercussions on the rental
industries within our city and the total effect of holding hostage property owners to harsher conditions than the present
laws already allows but the loss it will create that will really eventually damage those you want to help.
On "just cause".. what if neighbors or owner who rent rooms are caught with someone who is creating a dangerous
environment? There are already laws in the books, please enforce those, help landlords be better landlords and invest
and support the community and their tenants/clients.
I beseech you to look towards positive and higher ideas and dreams, encouraging homeownership by expanding the
programs you successfully already have..) know this since I just helped a client become homeowner in our city with that
program... income for our community —THAT is the core problem! We need our businesses to thrive and create more
opportunities for employment and help our schools and community colleges offer job training in all possible higher
paying skills of technology and trades he jobs of today and tomorrow. For young parents, help with child care if they go
to night or weekend schools -and if they care for seniors, there is also the possibilities of adult care.
I know not everyone can benefit, as no such 100% possibilities can be, but just a few at the beginning can make a huge
difference in each person's families.
We should be the truly the GOLDEN CITY of opportunities for our residents and businesses so all can thrive!
In going the opposite direction, it announces a different thought of your actions, that there can be no flexibility or
working out ideas of how to mutually help each other.
Remember, our actions will most DEFINITELY be by what we all are known for.
Respectfully
Irma P Jauregui
Wilshire Square resident
Sent from my iPad
Orozco, Norma
From: Eva Raleigh <EvaR@LakeParkHomes.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:06 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Opposition to Consent Calendar Item #7 - Rent Control
Attachments: SAN7 jpg; SAN2.JPG; SAN3 jpg; SAN6 jpg
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members;
Please vote no on item 7 Rent Control. We operate two beautiful communities in your city, Lake Park Santa Ana and
Lake Park Santa Ana North. We have had long term Leases in place since 1983. Those long term Leases have protected
our Homeowners and the viability of running a Mobile home park in your city. Out Leases are CPI with the possibility of
2%. We have not always used the 2% and have absorbed many Capital Improvements and Replacements that the Lease
would have allowed. Our Lease has created a road may for our homeowners. We also are a part of MHET and the
MHET Rental Assistance program which we participate in.
I am asking for you to reconsider and oppose #7 Rent Control. We need your help. I am attaching pictures of our
communities. They will not survive under 80% of CPI.
Thank you,
Eva Raleigh
BRE #01826907
General Manager, Vice President of Sales
Lake Park Communities
(714)632-1646 Fax (714)632-5305
I
Orozco, Norma
From:
Lorin K <lorinmanager@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 158 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Fwd: OPPOSTION TO RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES
Dear Councilmember,
I am a rental -housing provider and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community
Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants` Rights Act" that appears on the September 21st city council agenda.
The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over -reaching rent control and just cause eviction
policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing providers, and the neighborhoods
where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and
more.
As a community partner and rental -housing provider, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide
potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts.
However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was
being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental -housing providers with a proposal
that:
• Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality
housing to my tenants.
• Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact
our rental business operations.
• Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry.
I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is
severely flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I
respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional
study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city.
Sincerely,
Miguel K (Landlord)
Orozco, Norma
From:
Lorin K <lorinmanager@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 156 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Fwd: OPPOSTION TO RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES
Dear Councilmember,
I am a rental -housing provider and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community
Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants` Rights Act" that appears on the September 21st city council agenda.
The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over -reaching rent control and just cause eviction
policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing providers, and the neighborhoods
where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and
more.
As a community partner and rental -housing provider, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide
potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts.
However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was
being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental -housing providers with a proposal
that:
• Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality
housing to my tenants.
• Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact
our rental business operations.
• Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry.
I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is
severely flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I
respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional
study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city.
Sincerely,
Lorin (Lorena) K.
Property Manager
Orozco, Norma
From: Bryan Peraza <bryanjperaza@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:42 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Rent Control Item
Hello,
Please vote in favor of rent control. Thank you.
Regards,
Bryan Jesus Peraza
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Maria Ceja <ceja.maria95@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:41 PM
eComment
Agenda Item #7: Support for rent stabilization and just cause
Thank you for progressing Rent stabilization and just cause protections to their seconding reading today. I know
it has not been an easy process, but the people of Santa Ana will thank you when this law will become a reality.
Many of you are aware of the rental housing crisis in the city of Santa Ana —it has been an issue for much
longer than my very own existence (1995; 25 years). Many Santanerxs have been displaced by out of reach,
rising rents and illegal evictions. Santa Ana is a majority renter city —it is time to pursue policies that reflect the
true needs of the community that allow them to remain and prosper in their community.
I ask that you approve the proposed rent stabilization and just cause ordinances.
Thank you,
Maria
Dale Helvig
2536 N. Valencia St. Santa Ana CA 92706
October 19, 2021
Mayor Sarmiento and Santa Ana City Councilmembers
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza, 811 Floor
Santa Ana CA 92702
Subject: Item 7, on City Council Agenda for October 19, 2021 Meeting
Adopt Ordinance on Rent Stabilization
It was mentioned at the last City Council meeting that the "landlords" and City Council have known about the
housing crisis for years. Members of the council went on to say the landlords failed by not doing their research,
performing due diligence, and discussing options to address this issue with the City.
If the City Council votes to implement a Rent Stabilization Ordinance without knowing what a type of program would
be implemented, and accompanying costs in terms of resources, program management, etc ... the City will be guilty of
the same thing. It is one thing to allocate money for a study, and from there vote on an implementation
understanding the full costs and requirements. It is completely another to vote on implementing an undefined
program with an undefined cost and an undefined impact. I ask you to follow the same process as you do for other
programs you vote on implementing ... due your due diligence first and then decide.
Santa Monica, a city that has population of roughly 90,000 people, has 25 permanent employees and a budget of
over $5.2 to address rent control. It took me all of 10 minutes to obtain this data for the Santa Monica website
[https://www.smgov.net/Departments/Rent Control /Re ports/Re p orts.a s p x ]. While this is only one data point, it is
more than what is provided by the City of Santa Ana. The only information I have seen on cost and staffing for the
City of Santa Ana is that Fair Return Petitions will be decided by the City Manager. Zero mention is included as to the
cost of staffing of administering this program.
So shame on the City Council if this ordinance is approved prior to understanding the fiscal impact to the City.
Respectfully,
Dale A Helvig
Resident, Santa Ana
cc: Kristine Ridge
City Manager, Santa Ana
Sonia Carvalho
City Attorney, Santa Ana
Page 1 of 1
2021-10-19 Letter to City Council
Steven Mendoza
Executive Director, Community Development
Minh Thai
Executive Director, Planning
'.90a Santa Monica
•-�- Rent Control Board
1685 Main Street, Room 202, Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 458-8751 • www.smgov.net/rentcontroi
6 x
de. VA
0. ,-M,...irr*
lip
FY 2020-21
ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
Adopted June 11, 2020
AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND GOALS
Agency Organization Chart..................................................................................i
LaborSummary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i i
AgencyGoals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i i i
2020/2021 AGENCY BUDGET
Budget--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Line Item Descriptions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
REVENUE PROJECTION
RevenueAnalysis ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
Sources of Revenue ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19
FUND BALANCE
FundBalance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
PIERSLoan ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Restricted Fund Balance ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 3
DEPARTMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS
Descriptions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 5
Budget 2020/2021
Adopted 6/11/2020
A
cn
cn
E cE t.mo c
a) E aCa
>1< m c U a)
a a�
cn as~.z
a)
U)
cu
C �
CCcu
•c C
2 CL
W
u
WA
N
�
_
L N
V
Q
w
c
m ca
� N
El
w�
cLD
c M
M U
O U
2 � CO
O
N
_ O
N N
or
o co
N -u
(D 2
6) Q
M -u
m Q
FY 2020/2021
AUTHORIZED
AUTHORIZED
AUTHORIZED
AUTHORIZED
AMOUNT OF
POSITIONS
POSITIONS*
POSITIONS
POSITIONS
CHANGE
CLASSIFICATION
201712018
2018119
2019120
202012021
19120 -20121
Administration
8.00
8.00
7.00
8.00
+1.00
Public Information
7.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
Hearings
6.90
9.90
7.00
7.00
-0.00
Legal
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
Total
25.90
27.90
24.00
25.00
+1.00
*The Board revised the labor summary to add three limited term positions in the Hearings Department to provide a
period of overlap for training new staff members who replaced retiring staff members.
PERMANENT STAFF BY CLASSIFICATION
FY 2020/2021
CLASSIFICATION
Administrator (Exec. Director)
Administrative Staff Assistant
Billing Coordinator
Budget/Office Coordinator
Database Coordinator
General Counsel
Hearings Department Mgr.
Hearings Specialist
Hearings Investigator
Hearing Officer
Information Analyst
Information Coordinator
Legal Secretary II
Office Coordinator
Public Information Mgr.
Sr. Administrative Analyst
Sr. Litigation Staff Attorney
Staff Assistant III
Staff Attorney
Sys. Admin. 1 Prog. Analyst**
Technical Services Analyst**
TOTAL
AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED
POSITIONS POSITIONS*
201712018 201812019
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.90
4.90
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
25.90
27.90
AUTHORIZED AUTHORIZED
POSITIONS POSITIONS
201912020 202012021
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
24.00
25.00
AMOUNT OF
CHANGE
19120 -20121
0.00
+1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
+1.00
+1.00
** The Board's Systems Admin/Programmer Analyst plans to retire in September 2020. This position will be
replaced by a Technical Services Analyst from the City's Information Systems Department. The budget provides
for a 3-month period of overlap for the new position.
Budget 2020/2021
Adopted 6/11/2020
Increase efficiencies through use of technology.
Continue to strengthen the Agency's commitment to excellent public service by
modernizing communication strategies including increased use of electronic
communications, social media campaigns and expanded email lists.
Implement the newly -developed Rent 20/20 property and rent tracking system to increase
efficiencies and improve the user experience through electronic workflows, improved
reporting capabilities, contact management and tracking, electronic payments and case
management for petitions and applications. Implementation will include outreach to
constituents to register for Rent 20/20 accounts to facilitate online filings of forms and
petitions through the web -based portal and user -appropriate training for constituents and
staff.
•:• Expand the web -based document portal to provide public access to property -related
documents earlier than 2005. The portal currently provides access to documents from
2005 to the present.
Ensure compliance with the rent control law and
take affirmative legal action where indicated.
Plan for possible changes in state law that impact Santa Monica's rent control law (i.e.
amendments to the Ellis Act, changes to the Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing Act, changes
to eviction procedures, etc.).
Continue to initiate civil actions as necessary to enforce compliance with the rent control
law.
Continue implementation of the Agency's document retention schedule to facilitate
responses to public records requests, eliminate outdated documents and reduce storage
costs.
Ensure that the Board can continue to carry out its essential functions during, and in
the aftermath of, the coronavirus pandemic.
Ensure that all staff and members of the public comply with all public health guidelines
when conducting business with or for the Board.
Thoughtfully use Board resources, including but not limited to funds, to ensure continuity of
operations.
•:• Adapt processes through the use of technology or other means, as necessary, to continue
to provide the full range of the Board's services.
•:• Continue to use the Board's website to provide information from other government entities
that bears on the Board's work or affects the Board's constituents.
Budget 2020/2021
Adopted 6/11/2020
Collaborate with city departments on common goals
•:• Continue to collaborate with other city departments, including Code Enforcement, Building
and Safety, the City Attorney's Office and the Office of Communications to ensure property
owners and tenants understand their rights, responsibilities and obligations.
Collaborate with the Information Services Department on the redesign of City websites to
ensure rent control information, forms, petitions and videos remain prominent and easy to
access.
Prepare for staff changes.
•:• Proactively embark on development of effective succession plans in anticipation of the
retirement of long-term employees. Identify new skills required to implement, maintain and
develop new systems and technologies.
Create effective orientation and comprehensive training plans for new staff members.
Budget 2020/2021 iv
Adopted 6/11/2020
AGENCY BUDGET
OBJ DESCRIPTION
FY 15-16
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
FY 16-17
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20
ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED
EXPENSES EXPENSES EXPENSES
FY 20-21
ADOPTED
BUDGET
511000
PERMANENT EMPLOYEES
2,938,581
2,998,958
4,425
2,758,659
2,964,734 2,935,875
3,900 4,6501
12,944 37,594
130,430 106,833
41,990 42,424
103,524. 103,650
3,085,017
6,000
7,100
47,000
43,593
109,413
511010
BOARD ALLOWANCE
4,125
5,700
511400
OVERTIME
1,865
3,715
5,903
511400
AS -NEEDED EMPLOYEES
76,274
81,987
89,070
511500
MEDICARE EMP CONT
41,015
42,124
38,791
512003
INS -WORKERS' COMP
13,793
14,483
94,113
INS-EMPL HEALTH/DENT
432,143
452,031
445,358
433,1641 426,469
404,427 396,628
18,282 26,210
10,455 3,631
45,838 46,746
624,403 691,526
1106,544
7,533 7,780
442 998
512203
Health
358,653
420,327
414,538
413 689
25,744
3,565
512208
Dental
26,995
28,306
27,586
512209
Vision
3,486
3,399
3,234
512106
MEDICAL TRUST
44,709
46,072
44,682
49,874
513000
RETIREMENT CONTRIB
574,889
618,450
533,161
749,640
513006
ADD'L PERS PAYDOWN
0
515005-9
OTHER FRINGE BENEFITS
8,277
7,956
7,424
8,014
TOTAL SALARIES & WAGES
4,135,670
4,270,202
4,022,861 4,368,460
4,510,091
4,548,648
521000
ADVERTISING
1,312
656
3,098 541
828
3,500
523370
POSTAGE
38,589
49,470
29,441 38,540.
46,500
47,820
523420
INDIRECT COSTS
274,720
283,377
289,564 300,567
306,659
306,659
524000
MEMBERSHIPS & DUES
3,030
3,140
3,466 3,513
4,302
4,739
524510
BOOKS & PERIODICALS
18,267
17,275
17,676 18,321 18,549
12,494 14,736 12,052
24 24 37
56 1011 0
19,712
525000
OFFICE SUPPLIES
13,307
11,585
17,100
525020
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
22
24
108
525040
MILEAGE
493
314
100
525170
PRINTING
12,919
15,680
17,915 16,1071 19,775
0 4,174 1,961
7,3101 82,660 7,125
2 858 3,001 2,500
3,169 4,126 540
20,364. 20,907 23,981
3,726 3,875 4,353
6,754 6,117 5,472
20,215
525190
RIDESHARE AND PARK
0
0
4,500
525260
OTHER COSTS
6,600
34,720
32,475
528040
UTIL-TELEPHONE
2,795
5,963
2.90
531030
ITRAINING
1,684
3,459
7,500
25,779
4,788
4,818
20,000
21,970
534560
INS -GENERAL LIABILITY
19,739
20,308
534570
INS -PROPERTY
5,007
5,497
535000
LOAN INTEREST
0
0
536510
LEGAL EXPENSE
1,489
16,089
80,332 97,424:
13,615
550010
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
19,261
18,513
18,655 15,844 14,161
46,1881 50,084 80,000
60,973 68,832 59,199
12,182 6,797 3,447
550160
SERVICE AGREEMENTS
41,400
41,871
80,000
59,000
7,500
552010
PROF SERVICES
60,581
51,635
531010-1
CONF-MTGS-TRAVEL
6,920
9,377
TOTAL SUPPLIES
& EXPENSES
528,134
588,951
636,244 756,291 625,056
691,183
529510
BLDG. RENOVATION
0
0
1,660 2,500 1,000
0 19,426 38,600
5,226 9,017 37,927
18,801 10,031 8,612
5,000
553130
RESVE-SYST. UPGRADE
0
40,120
10,000
575030
COMPUTER SYSTEMS
29,724
2,243
23,000
575060
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
9,166
10,135
9,500
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY
38,891
52,497
25,687 40,974 86,1391
47,500
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 4,702,695
4,911,651
4,684,792 5,165,726 5,221,287
5,287,331
NON -OPERATING EXPENSES
BALANCE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT- DATABASE REPLACEMENT 186,993
PERS ANNUAL LOAN PAYMENT PRINCIPAL ONLY 50,921
TOTAL NON -OPERATING EXPENSES $ 237,914
Budget 2020/2021
Adopted 6/11/2020
Orozco, Norma
From: Jesus Santana <santana jesus18@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:18 PM
To: eComment
Subject: SUPPORT the Adoption of: Rent Control and Just Cause Evictions
Dear Honorable Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers,
My name is Jesus Santana, a resident of Ward 4 for over Ib years, and I am emailing you all to express my
SUPPORT for RENT CONTROL JUST CAUSE PROTECTIONS, along with a TEMPORARY RENT
FREEZE until the local protections go into effect. I strongly encourage my Councilmember, Phil Bacerra, to
vote in favor. Thank you in advance!
Best regards,
SANTA ANA ACTIVE STREETS
10/19/2021
Kristopher Fortin, Project Director, Ward 5 resident
Santa Ana Active Streets
450 W Fourth St.
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Item 7: Adopt Ordinance No. NS-XXXX — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA PROHIBITING RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY AND MOBILE HOME SPACE RENTAL
RATE INCREASES THAT EXCEED THREE PERCENT (3%) ANNUALLY, OR EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) OF
THE CHANGE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, WHICHEVER IS LESS, WITHIN THE CITY and Adopt
Ordinance No. NS-XXXX —AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA
REQUIRING JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS
AND NON -AGENDA ITEM: IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RENT FREEZE
Dear Members of the Santa Ana City Council and Mayor Vicente Sarmiento,
On behalf of the Santa Ana Active Streets coalition and its members, we urge you to vote in
favor of item 33, the enactment of rent stabilization and just cause protections, as well as take
the necessary steps to create the rent board. Additionally, we are urging you to place a
temporary freeze on rent increases during the 30-day period before the rent control law goes
into effect.
On September 30th 2021 COVID-19 emergency housing protections expired, leaving many
residents at risk of eviction and displacement, and threatening the culture of our city. Likewise,
beginning in October 2021 all renters who have been financially impacted by the pandemic
have begun to be required to pay a significant percentage of the rent debt they've accrued in
addition to covering present and future rent payments in full. This is especially preposterous
when residents making minimum wage of $14 an hour are expected to work 104 hours per
week to afford a 1-bedroom apartment in the City. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we
enact REAL permanent renter protections in our city. The "Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just
Cause Eviction Ordinance" would provide a cap on rent increases so that rent cannot be
increased more than 3% per year and extend just -cause eviction protections for the majority of
renters in the city.
At SAAS, the population we serve are the pedestrians and cyclists of the community, many of
whom are low-income and rely on these forms of mobility out of need, not choice. The City for
years has regularly been in the top 5 Cities with the highest collision rate involving a
pedestrian/cyclist in the state. Before the City started receiving the more than $78 million
dollars from 2014 to present for active transportation infrastructure improvements, City
Santa Ana Active Streets 1450 West Fourth Street I Santa Ana, CA 92701
Tel. (657) 205-7306 I www.saascoalition.ora I aeneralna saascoalition.ora
Page 2 of 2
residents still walked and biked to jobs, schools and the market because it was regularly the
most affordable way to move around. Roughly half the population do not have ownership to a
personal vehicle, and so the City has rightfully and aggressively tried to make streets safer for
current residents who walk, skate or bike their City.
Yet, the lapsed state housing protections threatens the local residents' ability to remain in the
city and benefit from all the City's active transportation investments. The Santa Ana pedestrian
and bicyclists are barely reaping the reward of active transportation investments, and so we
urge the council to protect them by passing the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause
Eviction Ordinance.
Lastly, we urge City Councilmembers and the Mayor to place a temporary freeze on rent
increases during the 30-day period before the rent control law goes into effect. Tenants should
not face rent hikes in retaliation for organizing to demand much needed renter protections.
Santa Ana is a majority renter city, and many renter households are extremely rent burdened.
Single parents, especially single mothers, are particularly vulnerable to ongoing rent increases
given that a minimum wage worker in Santa Ana must endure 104 hours a week to afford a
1-bedroom apartment.
Sincerely,
;12 QJL�
Kristopher Fortin
Project Director
Santa Ana Active Streets is a community -based coalition with the mission of cultivating diverse
community participation in creating a safe and accessible environment for active transportation
in Santa Ana. Formed in 2013, our vision is to empower residents to become engaged
participants in the emerging active transportation movement in Santa Ana by hosting
community events, partnering with local organizations, and working directly with city officials.
Santa Ana Active Streets 1 128 E Katella Ave. I Orange, CA 92867
Tel. (657) 205-7306 1 www.saascoalition.ora I infonasaascoalition.ora
(S$iffluuAns'
fn p���un
October 19, 2021
Santa Ana Mayor Sarm iento and City Council Members
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: SUPPORT the Adoption of: Rent Control and Just Cause Evictions
Dear Honorable Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers,
The Sullivan En Accion (SEA) team would like to inform you that we, a resident -led group, who all reside within
the "Sullivan Community", are expressing our support for Rent Control and Just Cause Evictions. In addition,
we would like for you all to strongly consider a Rent Freeze until the local protections go into effect, 30 days.
Most recently, we heard from mobilehome residents that attended the Sullivan Community March on July 10, 2021,
that they started receiving 60-Day Notices and Eviction Notices. This is a crucial concern for our community
because it appears that landlords and property owners/management have begun to take retaliatory actions towards
our community members.
To remind you all, the "Sullivan Community" is mostly composed of privatized property, either owned by
corporations and/or individual landlords/property owners. We recognize that our beloved city of Santa Ana has very
little jurisdiction (to none) on how to help us, your Santa Ana residents and constituents, resolve the housing
issues we encounter day by day with our landlords and management. If the city is not able to do much about the
housing crisis we are currently experiencing in our community (while we recover from the infamous health crisis
known as COVID-19) then it's time that we, Sullivan Community residents, organize ourselves to support and
defend each other, our families, and our community as a whole.
This is why we are asking you all, Mayor arm lento and City Councilmembers, to please SUPPORT the Adoption
of Rent Control and Just Cause Evictions, along with a Rent Freeze until the local protections go into effect.
Thank you and we look forward to seeing you all tonight!
Best regards,
Sullivan En Acci6n
Orozco, Norma
From: Indigo Vu <indigo@vietrise.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:58 PM
To: eComment; Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra,
Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida
Subject: In Support of Agenda Item 47: Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction
Ordinance
Attachments: 2021.10.19 RSO Comments from Bali Hi & Kona Kai.pdf
Good afternoon Mayor Sarmiento and Santa Ana City Council Members,
My name is Indigo Vu, and I am a resident of Ward 1. I am also a staff member of VietRISE, a community non-
profit organization that organizes Vietnamese residents in Orange County. We have been working with senior
residents from Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge, as well as Kona Kai Mobile Home Park, and are writing
collectively in support of agenda item #7, the ordinance to prohibit residential property and mobile home space
rental rate increases that exceed 3% annually, or 80% of the change in consumer price index, whichever is less,
within the city.
These comments below are in support of agenda item #7. These comments are from senior residents from Bali
Hi Mobile Home Lodge and Kona Kai Mobile Home Park and include translations to English.
Cuong Pham, 85 years old and Gina Nguyen, 74 years old
(Kona Kai Mobile Park
Chung toi la Ch&ng Pham va Gina Nguyen. Toi da 85 tuoi va toi 74 tuoi, hien cu ngu tai Kona Kai Mobile
Home.
Chung toi da song a day tren 20 nam qua. Vq chong toi An cam an Nghi Vien da nghT den va giup dd cac
ngu&i gia ye-u nhu chong toi.
Sau thai gian di lam tU nam khi qua My, tix nam 1991 den nay gan 30 nam. Nay ve- Huu, tie-n Huu ca 2 ngu &i
co duac khoang $1,800. Neu tie-n thue dat cU tang 6% cho moi nam thi sam muon gi, gia dinh chong toi cung
se khong co tien de tra cho Chu dat n&a.
Kinh An Hoi Hong Thanh pho gibp chong toi trong luc nay
We are Cu &ng Pham and Gina Nguyen. We are 85 years old and 74 years old, currently residing at Kona Kai
Mobile Home.
We have lived here for more than 20 years. We would like to thank the council members for helping senior
residents like us.
We've been working for 30 years, since the year we arrived in America, in 1991. Now that we've retired, the
two of us receive around $1,800. If rent keeps increasing by 6% each year then soon our family will not have
money to pay the landlord anymore.
Please help us in this time of need, council members.
Loc Nguyen, 69 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park)
I
Chung toi la: Chi Ngo va Loc Nguyen hien cu° ngu tai Kona Kai Mobile Home tix nam 1997 den nay, da han 20
nam sinh song tai khu Mobile Home nay.
Chung toi la nhixng nguai da ve- huu hien sinh hoat vdi so tie-n SSA va SSI tra cap cap them cua chinh phu.
Vai so tie-n thud dat qua cao, chu dat tang moi nam tCr 5% den 6%, thong toi song rat kho khan.
Kinh mong Hoi (long Thanh pho Santa Ana xem xet va giop do cho thud dat du°ac giam.
We are Chi Ngo and Loc Nguyen residing at Kona Kai Mobile Home since 1997. It has been over 20 years
living in this Mobile Home.
We are people who have already retired and are living with an income from SSA and SSI provided by the
government.
With the rent so high, the landlord increases rent by 5-6% each year, our lives are very difficult.
We ask the council members to examine and help reduce the rent cost.
Hanh Vu, 73 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park)
Toi ten Hanh VG, 73 tuoi ngu tai khu Kona Kai Mobile Home Park, thai gian 20 nam. Vdi so tie-n SSA va tr(Y
cap thdm cua Chinh phu, cuoc song cua toi vo tong kho khan.
Ngu'di chu dat cu da qua do-i, giao lai cho ngu'di mai, ho da tang tie-n thud dat qua cao vdi thong toi la nhDng
nguai cao nidn ve huu. Trong khi do vat gia leo thang, thong toi da co gang het sOc de- khong phai tr& thanh
mot ke vo gia cu° trong mot ngay nao do.
Vay kinh xin Hoi f]ong Thanh Pho Santa An cOu giop thong toi, thong qua chuang trinh "on dinh tie-n thud nha
va dat."
My name is Hanh VG, 73 years old living in Kona Kai Mobile Home Park for 20 years. With the money from
SSA and other assistance money from the government, my life is very difficult.
The old landlord who died passed the Mobile Home to a new person who has raised the rent prices too high for
us seniors and retirees. In the meantime the general cost of living has risen. We have tried our hardest to not
become homeless in the future.
So please help us council members of Santa Ana by passing "rent control"
Xuan Mai Nguyen, 63 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park)
Toi tdn Mai Nguyen 63 tuoi cu ngu Kona Kai Mobile Home Park! Hidn gia cuoc song toi gap rat nhie-u kho
khan vi tong viec lam ban thai gian khong du de trang trai chi phi tien thud dat moi nam lai tang cao. Toi song
rat chat vat ai thud toi lam gi thi toi de-u lam de- kie-m tie-n tra tie-n thud dat. Mong thanh pho Santa Ana thu'ang
tinh den cup dan nghdo trong mobile home, An dixng tang tien thud dat cao qua lam thong toi khong tra not ma
tra thanh HOMELESS. Chong toi cam an thanh pho.
My name is Mai Nguyen, 63 years old, living at Kona Kai Mobile Home Park! Currently my life has many
hardships because I cannot make enough money by working as a vendor to pay my rent, which increases
each year. I am struggling. Whoever hires me to do work, I take the job to try to pay my rent. I hope that the
city of Santa Ana has compassion for the poor residents living in mobile homes. Please do not raise our land
leases and make us become HOMELESS. We thank the city.
Leyna Nguyen, 59 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park)
Chung toi tdn la flao Ld va Leyna Nguyen, cu^ ngu tai Kona Kai Mobile Home.
Chung toi tuy chu'a ve hu^u nhu'ng do Ian tuoi va dau om nen chi lam viec ban thai gian vi tie-n dong lu'ang
kie-m dy'ac cung eo hep.
That ra truac day, ngu&i chu cu tot bung chu truang giup da nguai cao nidn va ngheo kho. Nhung tip khi
ngu°ai ay mat di, sang tay cho cac nha thu°ang mai nen ho mai manh tay boc lot chung toi. Do do tie-n thud dat
tang tip 2% Idn 6%. That kho tin va sd tie-p tuc tang nOa. Nhu the nay thi nguai ngheo chung toi lam sao song
du'ac.
Vay kinh xin Hoi Hong Thanh Pho Santa Ana giup chung toi bang cach:
1. Thong qua chuang trinh "On dinh hoa" tie-n thud nha va dat
2. flipng de- chung toi thanh ngu'ai vo gia cu.
3. Cho chung toi du (yc quyen song dung vai gia tri con nguai trdn dat nuac Hoa Ky.
Our names are 06o Le and Leyna Nguyen, living at Kona Kai Mobile Home.
We are not yet retired, but due to our old age and illnesses, we can only work part time, so our income is
limited.
The truth is before this, the former owner of the park helped the elderly and poor people. But when they
passed and the mobile home park was sold to a business owner who exploited us. The land lease amount
increased from 2% to 6%. It is unbelievable, and they will continue to increase it. If it continues like this, how
can poor people like us live.
So we ask the city council of Santa Ana to help us by:
1. Pass Rent Control
2. Don't let us become homeless people
3. Let us have the right to live with dignity in the United States.
Nam Huu Hoan (Kona Kai Mobile Park)
Trong 2 nam vipa qua, chu sa hipu khu Mobile Home Kona Kai da tang tien thud dat tip 5% den 6% moi nam.
flay la mot mUc tang gia qua cao, dac biet doi vai nhGng cu dan trong Mobile Home Park la nhGng ngu'ai gia
da nghi huu vai thu nhap thap va han che.
Toi de- nghi Hoi (long Thanh Pho Santa Ana cCru xet va co bien phap de- giai han su° tang gia dat hang nam
hong giup cho nhipng cup dan cua thanh pho co the try du'ac tai thanh pho nay.
In the past 2 years the landlord of Kona Kai Mobile Home has raised the rent by 5-6% every year.
This is an amount too high, especially for Mobile Home Park residents who are senior residents who have
retired with low and limited income.
I suggest the council members of Santa Ana examine and take measures in order to limit the yearly increase of
rent in order to help the residents remain residents of this city.
Hang & Anthony Kennedy (Kona Kai Mobile Park)
Chung toi la Hang va Anthony Kennedy cup ngu tai Kona Kai Mobile Home Park. Kinh mong cac giai chu'c co
lion quan can thigp va giup W cho cup din cung nhu chung toi, nhGng nguai dang bi don vao ngo cut bai sy'
gia tang tie-n thud dat qua cao (6%) trong khi hau het chung toi la nhGng ngua' i gia va co thu nhap thap va on
dinh. Hien nay gia ca sinh hoat va moi thu' de-u tang, cong vai sup tang qua cao cua tie-n thud dat moi nam sd
dan chung toi tai khong IN thoat.
Chung toi hi vong va chan thanh cam an sup quan tam va giup da cua moi giai ch0c lidn quan cua Hoi flung
Thanh Pho Santa Ana trong van de nay de giup cup dan cua Kona Kai song con cho hien tai va twang lai.
We are Hang and Anthony Kennedy, living at Kona Kai Mobile Home Park. We ask the elected officials to
intervene and help residents like us, people who are being cornered in a dead end by the increased rent that's
too high at 6%. All of us are seniors with low and fixed incomes. Currently the general living cost and
everything else keeps rising, in addition the rising cost of rent each year will bring us to a place of no escape.
We hope and are sincerely grateful for the concern and support of each council member of Santa Ana in this
issue to help the residents of Kona Kai have a present and a future.
Alan Nguyen (Kona Kai Mobile Park)
T6i ten Alan Nguyen, Loc 69 tuoi.
Tru'dc tien t6i xin du'oyc cam an nhGng Nghi Vien Thanh Pho fly Nghi flen va giup do nhixng ngu&i gia ngheo
nhu chung t6i.
Sau thai gian lam viec tix nam 1989 den 2012 tien ve huu cua 2 va chung t6i la moi ngu&i khong han $1,200.
Neu co mot ngu&i chef thi lai tUc khong du dong tra tien mu°an dat cu' gia tang 6% mot nam. Xin giup dd
chung t6i tranh khoi tinh trang Homeless trong twang tai gay anh huang xau cho thanh pho Santa Ana
My name is Alan Nguyen, 69 years old
First, let me thank the city council members who thought about and helped elderly and poor people like us.
After working from 1989 to 2012, the retirement money that my wife and I make total less than $1,200. If one of
us dies then we will not have enough money to pay the rent which increases by 6% each year. Please help us
avoid becoming homeless in the future and negatively impacting the city of Santa Ana.
Tai Dang & Net Nguyen (Kona Kai Mobile Park)
Chung t6i Larry T Dang and Net Nguyen living at Kona Kai Mobile Home. Chung t6i da ve huu vdi so tien SSA
it of ma phai tra tien space qua cao, nen luon thieu thon va kho khan.
Nay kinh xin hoi dong thanh pho Santa Ana cUu chung t6i bang cach:
• Th6n qua chuang trinh on dinh hoa tien nha va dat
• flixng bien chung t6i thanh ngu&i vo gia cu°
• Ngan chan chu dat dung lam quyen tang tien dat hang nam
• Giup do cho ngu&i gia ve huu sau thud gian dai lam viec va dong gop cho xa hoi.
We are Larry T Dang and Net Nguyen living at Kona Kai Mobile Home. We are retired and do not receive
much through SSA, but we have to pay a high amount for our space. So we are always in need and struggle.
I ask that the city of Santa Ana save us by:
• Passing Rent Control
• Not making us become homeless
• Stopping the owner of the park from abusing the power to raise our rent each year
• Helping elderly and retired people after they can no longer work and contribute to society.
Qui Vuong, 58 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Hello everyone: My name is Qui Vuong, 59, a typical senior resident living on fixed income at Bali Hi, currently
being devastated by unreasonable rent increases by the new property management company since 2017. My
current monthly income is $957.
1 will not receive my social security checks until I am at least 62 years old. Including utilities for my high risk,
immune system compromised disabilities, my monthly housing cost comes to $1,096 this past month. That
makes my ratio of "housing cost to income" a whopping 116%!
My beloved spouse passed away in 2019 from stomach cancer, worried sick about how to make rents meet. If
I move to another space at the same park, my monthly rent goes up by at least $300 per month, and even
more if I move to another park in Santa Ana. After the COVID-19 global pandemic, given my health condition
and high -risk classification, no one would dare take me in. So I am stuck with nowhere to go, living
precariously on the brink of eventual homelessness.
Thank you in advance for rescuing me with your critical "Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protection" ordinance
by voting YES tonight.
In politics, as well as in life, DOING THE RIGHT THING is always hard; but as duly elected officials who have
sworn to "protect and serve" your own community, if you don't do it, who will? Your bold action will make such
a big difference for your suffering constituents, who are being marginalized and wrongfully demonized, by the
self-serving propaganda of bad landlords/property managers, along with their "lying hypocrites" lobbyists. I
would like to think that we at Bali Hi still have a kind-hearted benevolent owner, who shows caring and
appreciation for his best paying customers over the years, and not try to convert this senior park into a more
profitable family park.
In summary, the EMERGENCY RESCUE measure in the form of a citywide ordinance will save countless lives
in the city of Santa Ana, including my own. Hopefully, Santa Ana's leadership in this area will resonate and
inspire other municipalities across the nation to do the same for their most vulnerable residents. We are forever
in your debt.
Sincerely yours,
Qui Vuong
Lan Hoang, 81 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Chung t6i la Le Tri 83 tuoi va Hoang Thai Lan 81 tuoi hien cu, ngu tai Bali Hi Mobile Home trong 9 nam qua.
Chung t6i song nh& tien SSA va SSI v&i mu'c luang co Binh $1,600 moi thang trong khi do chi ra $1,300. Vi
the cuoc song chung t6i rat kho khan.
flay la Ian this 3 chung t6i g61 thin thinh nguygn nay den Hoi Hong Thanh pho An giup do bang cach thong qua
chu'dng trinh 'On dinh gia tien' cho thue nha va dat.
Horn nay Ian thU 3 Qui vi hop Ian chot de- hop thUc hoa chu°ang trinh Rent Control. Chung t6i mot Ian nCra thie-t
tha mong Qui Hoi Hong tiep tuc cho thong qua mot Ian cuoi chudng trinh nay. Chung t6i v6 cung biet an Qui
vi.
We are Le Tri (83 years old) and Hoang Thai Lan (81 years old), currently living in Bali Hi Mobile Home for the
past 9 years. We live with the support of SSA & SSI with a monthly fixed income of $1,600 with $1,300 in
expenses. Thus, our lives are very difficult.
This is the 3rd time we have sent this letter to the City Council to ask for help by passing "rent control."
This is the 3rd and final time you will meet to pass rent control. Again we plead the council to finally pass this
ordinance. We sincerely thank you all.
Dao Tran, 71 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Dear Mayor Sarmiento, and City Council Members,
My name is Dao Tran. i am 71 years old, and I live with my husband Tuat Mai, who is 74, in Bali Hi Mobile
Homes Lodge. We are both refugees from Vietnam. We have lived in America for over 40 years.
I would like to respond to the comments made by Vickie Talley from the Manufactured Housing Education
Trust.
Vickie was not truthful with you.
We, the residents of Bali Hi, have NOT been misled.
Vicky spoke about us as if we were children.
Children who have no agency.
Children who are not smart.
Children who cannot understand how policies affect their lives.
Children who do not understand why they are angry and upset.
This is insulting.
We are not children, Vickie.
We are senior citizens, and we have spent most of our lives working hard to support our families.
We have come here to tell you the TRUE stories about how rent increases have made it difficult for us to
survive and to live our our retirement in peace.
We are low-income residents.
Vickie said that we are not only asking for rent control.
She said that we are now asking for a RENT FREEZE and RENT REDUCTION.
This is a lie. We are not asking for this.
We are only asking that the rent be raised by 3% maximum every year.
So thank you again, Mayor Sarmiento and City Council Members, for your continued support.
Tuat Mai, 74 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Dear City Council representatives of Santa Ana,
Today I would like to thank Mayor Vicente Sarmiento, Council members Thai Viet Phan, Jonathan Hernandez
and Jessie Lopes for your courage to stand up for Santa ana people, who needed your helps the most, by
voting for rent stabilization. You are our heroes. I also once again would like personally asking Mr. Phil
Bacerra, Mr. David Penaloza, and Mrs. Nelida Mendoza to reconsider your votes on this issue to help the
people who are currently suffering with these cost increases.
I want to mention that, last time, Mrs. Vickie Tally told you that our rents are cheap compared to other places,
but she did not telling you that our mobile homes are under 1,000 square feet while other mobile homes have
1,200 square feet to 2,000 square feet.
Mrs. Talley did not tell you, or she didn't know that gouging rent money truly happened, example:
Space #16, rent 2016 was $590, today $887, increased $297
Space #18, rent 2016 was $565, today $887, increased $332
Space #43, rent 2016 was $515, today $887, increased $372
Space #55, rent 2016 was $545, today $887, increased $342
Space #56, rent 2016 was $505, today $887, increased $382
Space #149, rent 2016 was $590, today $485, increased $402, which is almost double!
Do you need more examples? I can provide them for you upon your requests.
Vickie Tally lied to you and lied to all people of California. She disrespected our seniors, who worked hard for
many years, some of us are older than her parents.
Please stop rent gouging now. Please don't let special interests stopping you.
Kindly yours and God Bless America,
Tuat Mai
Thu Dang, 81 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
I am Thu Dang: 81 years old. I live at (Bali Hi) Mobile Home. I receive the benefit of SSI. If the landlord raises
the rent, I will not have enough money to pay it and in the future I will be homeless. So I rely on "Rent control"
to help me in a difficult situation.
Thanks so much.
Thu Dang
10-16-21
Thu Anh, 59 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Toi ten Thu Anh 59 tu0i cu ngu tai Bali Hi Mobile Homes thoi gian 1 nam, trong trong nam nay ho tang tie-n
thue dat $50.00 USD va tie-p tuc t5ng tiep khien toi to tang cho cuoc song vi tu&ng rang toi duac a trong khu
nguai gia, nhung khong phai vay.
Vay kinh xin Hoi Hong Thanh pho Santa Ana giup toi bat to lang trong tuoi gia bang cach thong qua chuang
trinh Rent Control de- toi du°ac song vai gia tri con ngu'ai tren dat nu°ac van minh hang dau la Hoa Ky.
Tran trong kinh chao,
Thu Anh
My name is Thu Anh 59 years old, living at Bali Hi Mobile Homes for 1 year. In this year, they have increased
my land lease by $50 and are continuing to increase it. I worry for my livelihood because I thought that I was
living in a neighborhood (that supports) seniors, but that is not the case.
I ask the City Council of Santa Ana to help me worry less in my old age by passing Rent Control so that I can
live with human dignity in this great land that is the United States.
Sincerely,
Thu Anh
Huong Luong, 74 years old, and Hang Nguyen, 64 years old
(Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Good evening Mayor and members of City Council of Santa Ana,
Good evening everybody,
My name is Hang Nguyen, 64 and my husband Huong Luong, 74.
Today, both of us again join our group of seniors from Balihi Mobilehome Park, coming here, in order to
continue contributing our voice in support of Rent Control.
So far, you have heard a lot from people everywhere — all the personal stories of hardship, due to the ever-
increasing rent, at will by the landlords.
We have been struggling to pay the rent, to buy food, to make both ends meet. We have been crying out
everywhere for help, we have been struggling to survive. We are living on the brink of homelessness, not
knowing when we will lose our shelters.
This issue of Rent Increase was brought up several times to the City Council for support but nothing has been
done for years. We believe that now is the time for you to do something about this in order to protect the most
vulnerable, low fixed income households.
We are not asking for Rent DECREASE. We are not asking for FREE Rent. We are just asking for Rent
CONTROL, for FAIR Rent!
Housing is a human right. Low income families deserve to live with a dignity.
You definitely understand that the homeless situation in our community, particularly in Santa Ana, has become
very serious. We ask you to help keep this crisis not to be increased, not to get worse.
We also implore you, we beg you for your understanding and compassion to relieve us from this ever-growing
fear of uncertain housing situation.
Up till now, you have had all the necessary information, all the data... Please conclude your support with the
final approving vote this time!
We thank you very much for listening!
Tran Cal, 74 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Hi City Council of Santa Ana.
I'm Cal Tran and my wife, we are living in Bali Hi Mobile Park since June 1994, 27 years ago.
As you know the cost of living in the market right now increase 6 to 7% and inflation happened right now.
That is the reason some of city council vote yes for the low rent control to support many residents of Santa Ana
low income and poor can pay the rent every month.
We thank a lot for your support. We never forget your help.
We hope the law rent control will be approved by city council on 10/19/2021 for 3% or lower for rent.
Sincerely yours, Cal Tran
Dai Nguyen, 69 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Toi ten: Nguyen Dai 69 tuoi
Va va la: Nguyen Mary 68 tuoi
O Mobile Homes Bali Hi du'ac 2 nam nay (2019).
Rat than thanh cam to van phong VietRise va 4 vi dan cix da ung ho va giup dd cho chung toi nhixng ngu'ai
gia va ve- huu trong chuang Minh Rent Control.
Chung toi da nghi hu'u sau han 20 nam lam viec tai Hoa Ky khong muon tra thanh ngu&i Homeless.
Thanh that cam an.
My name is Nguyen Dai 69 years old, and my wife's name is Nguyen Mary 68 years old. We have lived at Bali
Hi Mobile Homes for the past 2 years, since 2019.
I want to express sincere thanks to VietRISE and the 4 city council members who supported and helped us
elderly and retired people through Rent Control.
We are retired after more than 20 years of working in the United States and don't want to become homeless.
Thank you.
Hong Le, 73 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Toi ten la Le Kim Hong 73 tuoi, hien cu, ngu tai Bali Hi Home Mobile Homes Lodge.
Toi xin kinh lai cam an ong Thi Tru &ng va quy ong Nghi vien, da ho tra va giup da chung toi trong nhixng nam
qua. Nay An quy vi tie-p tuc giup dEY chung toi ve- viec tang tien nha moi nam, de chung toi nhat la rieng toi vai
so tang hang nam vai gia thap nhat la 3% de toi co the dong tien cho cuoc song chung toi du(yc binh an.
Xin quy ong ho tra va tiep tuc giup da cho moi ngu&i chung toi co du(yc sup song trong tuoi gia cua chung toi.
Toi tran trong het long cam an quy ong.
My name is Le Kim Hong, 73 years old, currently living at Bali Hi Mobile Homes Lodge.
I want to express my thanks to the Mayor and Council members for supporting and helping us over the past
few years. Please continue to help us with the issue of increased housing cost, in order for us and myself to
only receive a yearly 3% increase in rent so that I can pay for my living expenses and live peacefully.
Please continue to support and help us have a decent life as seniors.
I sincerely thank you all.
Reverend Duc Minh, 93 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
To: Santa Ana City Council
My name is Joseph N. Duc Minh, a retired priest from Los Angeles Archdiocese. Residing at Bali Hi Mobile
Home Lodge since the Fall of 2010. I'm now 93-year old, having been in USA 65 years. At first I would like to
thank the original owner and local managers for a quiet residence with a peaceful atmosphere. I have been
enjoying it with deep gratitude.
However, these recent years, the space rent has been increased several times (besides tehr regular annual
increase of 3%), causing so much anxiety and worry for us, senior citizens with low income.
Before the threatening increase the City Council has listened to our desperate cry of help and took action to
save us.
We, therefore, thank you sincerely, especially those members and the Mayor for your positive vote.
God bless you for your goodness.
With sincere gratitude,
Joseph N. Duc Minh
Mike Nguyen,
Mobile Home
Chung toi hien cu tru tai
69 years
Lodge)
Bali Hi Mobile
old, and Hoa Tran, 72 years old (Bali Hi
Home.
Chung toi co I&i than thanh cam an den ong Thi Tru'ang thanh pho Santa Ana da cung dong hanh vai chung
toi trong viec tranh dau cho quye-n lai cua chung toi doi vai nhixng chu dat tang gia thue dat xuong 3% phan
tram.
Chung toi la nhixng cup din ngheo song bang dong luang gi&i han va nhat dinh, qua tang nay thi to cho thang
tai... thu nhap gia dinh chung toi chi co $1,300 thang ma phai chi tra $1370 --* $14001thang. China not tie-n sinh
hoat va mua lu°ang thu°c an uong. Chung toi Io sa khong chi tra not ne-u tie-p tuc gia tang tie-n thue dat moi nam
va cuoc song cho nhOng nguai cao tuoi moi ngay mot yeu kem.
Mot Ian nOa chung toi An than thanh cam an, ong thi tru&ng da thau hie-u hoan canh cua chung toi va co
nhixng hanh dong dang qui tren.
We are currently living at Bali Hi Mobile Home.
We want to express our gratitude for the Mayor of Santa Ana who joined us in our fight for our rights against
landlords raising the land leases by 3%.
We are poor residents who live on limited and fixed salaries. After this month, we worry about the next month.
Together, my family only has $1,300 each month, but we have to pay between $1370 to $1400 each month.
This does not include our living expenses or food and water. We are anxious that we cannot afford to live here
if the lease continues to increase each year and continue to encounter daily hardships in our lives as elderly
people.
Once again, we thank the mayor for understanding our situation and taking the appropriate actions.
Nguyen Thi Nhu Ninh (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge)
Toi ten Nguyen thi Nhu Ninh hien cup ngu tai Bali Hi. Sinh ngay 1/10/1948.
Vai dan nay toi thidt tha mong quy vi trong uy Ban nha flat Mobile Home xet lai de chung toi du(yc hung tang
tidn dat moi nam khong qua 3%. Co nhu° vay vai tuoi dai gia ca nhu° chung toi chf co dong tidn gia co dinh moi
du sOc dong tien dat moi thing cho den cuoi dai bat to ling tien thud dat.
Tidt tha cau mong Oy ban cUu xet la sup giup da to Idn gop sUc trong cuoc song tuoi gia cua chung toi.
Rat thanh kinh bidt an va ghi an vo cung.
My name is Nguyen thi Nhu Ninh living at Bali Hi. I was born on January 1, 1948.
With this comment, I earnestly ask that you review so that we can enjoy yearly increases to our land leases of
no more than 3%. That way, in our old age and with our fixed income from retirement, we can pay our land
lease each month until the end of our lives and don't have to worry as much about the money.
I hope you will consider what a great help it will be to us in our old ages.
Thank you very much. We are very grateful.
Indigo V u
Pronouns. they/them
Operations Coordinator
indigo kvietri se. or I www.vietrise.org
10
Orozco, Norma
From:
Eddie Luna <eddie@alfalending.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:50 PM
To:
eComment
Cc:
Eddie Luna
Subject:
FW: PLEASE VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROLS
Rent control is bad for everyone, including tenants, ecomment@santa-ana.org
No for landlords
Hard to keep up with expenses as everything is going up
Hard to evict not paying tenants
It reduces the money available for landlords to improve property making the city look ugly with run down properties
Reduces the incentive for new landlords to invest in Santa Ana
It reduces the incentive for developers to build in san tang, city of Santa Ana will lose revenues on permits and taxes
No for tenants
Landlords will not improve property
It deteriorates the quality of the neighborhood
It reduces the quality of rental units available as tenants will never move out
It reduces housing availability, landlords will rather sell to owner occupied properties
Bad for the city of Santa Ana
City will loss revenue as developers will have no appetite to invest in the city
Quality of tenants will go down,
City will attract low income people that will no sped money in the city
Most low income tenants are trashy people that don't care how clean they keep properties
Now more than ever EXPERIENCE COUNTS...... Call me for your Commercial &
Residential Real Estate & Mortgage needs!!!!!!!!!
Eddie Luna
Broker/ Banker
Alfa Investments & Loans
Alfalendzng.com
NMLS License No. 292225
BRE License 01333356
1.888.790.0090 Toll Free
714.660.7760 Direct
714.845.0414 Fax
Never Problems... ONLY Solutions!!!
Click on this link for a safe link to fill out a loan application
https://www.blink.mortgage/app/signup/p/Ibeinc/eduardoluna
***CERTIFIED COMMERCIAL/REAI, ESTATE INVESTMENT CONSULTANT***
***ASK ME ABOUT DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE***
Fallow us on Yelp & Facebook
https://www.yelp.com/biz/alfa-investments-and-loans-santa-ana
https://www.facebook.com/Alfa-I nvestm ents-Loa ns-240723199286245
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in and transmitted with this communication is strictly confidential, is
intended only for the use of the intended recipient, and is the property of LBE Inc. / Eddie Luna or His affiliates and subsidiaries. If
you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of the information contained in or transmitted with the
communication or dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately return this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of
it in your possession.***********
PRIVACY STATEMENT Your email address and those of your friends family, associates, and customers are kept strictly confidential and will not
be shared with anyone for any reason. We do not sell, rent or make available our list of subscribers. We honor your privacy. If you no longer
wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.
APlease consider the environment before printing this e-mail!
From: Eddie Luna [mailto:Eddieluna@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 6:55 PM
Cc: Eddie Luna
Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROLS
Rent control is bad for everyone including tenants, ecomment@santa-ana.org
No for landlords
Hard to keep up with expenses as everything is going up
Hard to evict not paying tenants
It reduces the money available for landlords to improve property making the city look ugly with run down properties
Reduces the incentive for new landlords to invest in Santa Ana
No for tenants
Landlords will not improve property
It deteriorates the quality of the neighborhood
It reduces the quality of rental units available as tenants will never move out
It reduces housing availability, landlords will rather sell to owner occupied properties
Orozco, Norma
From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:39 PM
To: dmccarthy@amcliving.com; eComment
Subject: Agenda Item 7
I am a resident of Santa Ana living in Ward 5. I am in support of the item.
I wish here to respond to some of Danielle McCarthy's comments submitted to the public record. I hope this can
help offer a better understanding of what the ordinances actually aim to do and clarify that good landlords can
still continue to remain so under the two ordinances.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
"no one is disputing the struggles and challenges faced by many of the families in Santa Ana" Thank you for
making this known.
"most apartment operators value low turnover and only impose reasonable rent increases" The two ordinances
will allow for apartment operators to continue to enjoy low turnover and impose reasonable rent increases. The
reasons for such are based in carefully considered facts and the experiences of tenants.
"not allowing... screen[ing] prospective residents and eviction of problem residents endangers [our
communities]" Absolutely. However nothing in the proposed ordinances render illegal the ability to screen
prospective tenants. Nor does anything in the ordinance prevent eviction of problem residents.
"rent control does not solve homelessness" The intent of Rent Stabilization and Just Cause protections is NOT
to solve homelessness. It is to prevent an increase of homelessness by stabilizing rents for long term residents
who will cease their perpetual search for a dignified place to call home once their current Landlord is unable to
gouge or infringe upon basic human respect and rights of tenants.
"The top 6 US cities with the highest rate of homelessness have rent control" That means 4 out of the top ten
don't. The top 6 US cities with highest rates of homelessness are also highly desirable areas where vibrant
multifaceted communities exist - which means to say that even if folks are unhoused, they are a part of the
community. So if and when these individuals are able to become housed again, they deserve a chance at being
able to remain via rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections. The other 4 of the top 10 cities with
highest rates of homelessness I guess only care about individual humanity if they pay rent?
"Rent control promotes a run-down community, riddled with crime and lack of regulation, safety or
maintenance" Without rent control, I can easily refer opponents of rent control to areas of the city where
egregious rent increases have never ceased and still those areas are "run down". Rent stabilization and just cause
aims to hold everyone to the same standards and accountable. It will actually promote the opposite: actually
utilizing rent increases towards improvements and maintenance. With stabilized rents, tenants will stress less
about being gouged and in better positions to seek better economic opportunities while establishing their roots
in the community instead of constantly being uprooted by greedy landlords.
"It promotes overcrowding and overuse of space - where will people park? where will they do their laundry?"
Without rent control, people are packed into units in Santa Ana, and then when faced with eviction, pack
themselves up and into even smaller units elsewhere. Parking is an issue without rent control in Santa Ana. I
conjecture that parking issues will remain unaffected by rent control's implementation. If our culture didn't
equate access to economic opportunity with individual access to a car, maybe parking wouldn't be an issue.
Also, people will do their laundry at the laundromats as they always have...
Rent stabilization will ensure the ability of already cramped households to put more money towards eventually
being able to move elsewhere thus reducing the density within a cramped unit. This however assumes that there
are units to move to and in highly desirable California and OC, an increase in the supply of housing units -
rental and owned - is desperately needed. Rent control alone has never been a mechanism to increase the supply
of units; it does not conflict or inhibit efforts to increase the local supply. An increase of supply is dependent
upon capital. Tenants being able to save up more capital may result in tenants becoming landowners and
developers on their own. Currently, it seems that such a privilege is reserved for those who have had it for a
long time and don't want to share with tenants.
"rent control does not allow owners to recoup their costs" The rent stabilization ordinance makes explicitly clear
that if an increase above the max is necessary for capital expenses, landlords can petition for such. Any
profitability outside of that is still left to the individual landlord or investor - vacant units can be rented out at
market rates to new tenants and equity gains from the sale of any property still go to the landlord.
"older buildings require more maintenance" not necessarily true. But even if/when true, where any unit needs to
increase rents above the max, the individual landlord just needs to provide proof that the increase above the max
will actually go toward improvements or maintenance.
"Rent control impedes the natural progression of apartment living... families will hold on to rent controlled
apartments that don't meet their needs anymore because of affordability, making [those units] inaccessible to
people who really need them" This can also be entirely true without rent control - contracts between tenants and
landlords keeping a tenant in a unit that might be better served for a different type of tenant exists without rent
control. That unit is now unavailable to people who really need them even without rent control. But I see the
argument here and will entertain it: so what? If a family wants to hold onto renting a unit that no longer fits their
needs, they deserve to be able to remain in the place where they raised their families. As long as they continue
to pay the agreed upon rent, why the desire to displace community members? Once the unit becomes vacant, it
can be brought up to market rate for new tenants, but I don't foresee landlords trying to rent out the newly
vacated unit at the previous rate to new tenants on their own...
"It will exacerbate the housing shortage" The housing shortage in California, especially in highly desirable
Orange County and Santa Ana specifically will remain forever a part of our lives until there is a sufficient
increase in the supply of housing units here. The housing shortage won't become any more or less worse
because of the ordinances to become effective in Santa Ana.
z
Orozco, Norma
From: DORIS ALYEA <doridelmar@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:20 PM
To: eComment
Subject: "No" on rent control
Please stop slum landlords, deadbeat tenants who trash housing, homeless people, and demise of your lovely city. Vote
" NO " on additional rent control !
Thank you for keeping California great
Your contributions are appreciated.
Doris Alyea
Landlord who cares
Sent from my iPad
Orozco, Norma
From: ALONDRA YESENIA SALAZAR <salazar16@ucla.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:35 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item # 7
Good afternoon,
My name is Alondra my pronouns are she/her, I am a community member that lives in Ward 4. 1 am
emailing you all to express my support of rent control and just cause evictions in Santa Ana. Please
vote yes on the second reading of our rent control and just cause evictions ordinance.
I also want to urge city council to instill a rent increase freeze during the 30 day period while we wait
for our rent control ordinance to officially go into effect.
Tenants United Santa Ana recently had a virtual community forum where community members
shared their rent just went up $100 this past month.
I have spoken to many other community members who have had the same experience, which
emphasizes the need for both rent control and a rent freeze in the meantime. Your community's
livelihoods are at stake.
Please vote yes on the second reading of our rent control ordinance and please enact a rent freeze
during the 30 day period while we wait for our ordinance to take effect.
Thank you for your time,
Alondra Salazar
Zipcode: 92707
Orozco, Norma
From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmaiI.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:17 PM
To: rjulian@advancedrealestate.com; Hernandez, Johnathan; eComment
Subject: Agenda Item 7
Attachments: 60day notice_Redacted_reducedSize. pdf; complaint served 6.26.21_Redacted.pdf;
IMG_0732_Redacted_reducedSize.pdf; 545-F_RentlncreaseNotice.pdf
I am a resident of Santa Ana living in Ward 5. I am in support of the item.
I wish here solely to respond to some of Richard Julian's comments on an individual basis, not as a
representative of TUSA. I hope this can help offer a better understanding of what tenants and residents in Santa
Ana face as well as help to build some empathy.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
"Were they giving you accurate data? Were you able to verify this information with written documents?" Please
see attached samples of documents with redacted information for privacy purposes. While none of the attached
documents outline rent increases (save for the document of my recent rent increase), rent increases aren't the
only issue the ordinances aim to resolve for residents. I will spare you photos of a single mother who was
physically assaulted in her home by the property manager of 1327 N Bust St, who had been paying rent on time
even during the pandemic, and who was self-help evicted and illegally locked out by the property manager.
Some of the attached documents led ultimately to eviction cases in the courts. All cases of the attached
documents led to long term residents being forced out of their homes. Additionally, one other recent case I
worked with held that their rents are being increased at the max amount - albeit the property manager failed to
serve proper notice of the rent increase - but the max legal amounts are still too high for residents. Even for
those who can afford the increases, being unexpectedly gouged after years of reasonable increases would fail to
do justice to tenant residents who make the city so desirable to live in the first place.
One of the documents (not redacted) is from the place I just moved out of on Aug 31st. Only today am I finally
getting back my rental deposit after a bunch of back and forth communication where the property manager
asserted without any substance whatsoever that it's impossible to leave a unit in cleaner condition upon move
out versus move in (I've never vacated a unit and left it in worse state upon move out than move in yet I've
never gotten my full deposit back without having to fight for it after move out). The rent increase notice they
sent to me which I received on July 28th gave me all of three days to decide if I was to renew the lease at the
max allowable legal increase, serve notice and find some other place, or change to a month to month at an
illegal amount. The unit was a 550 sq foot "Junior One Bedroom" at $1375 which I only snagged in the middle
of the 2020 pandemic (Sep 2020). I have not seen similar units for rent at that price since. I was able to find a
better unit and moved (definitely not at the price I was paying previously), but I know that many tenants who
still live there (my former neighbors), paid much more in their deposits and rents and don't have the
wherewithal to argue or assert their rights like I have. The returned deposit will go towards hospital bills I
incurred recently. The management of the old place I lived will likely rent the unit at their proposed increased
rent of $1645 (if they haven't already) with more people looking to move as we quickly approach the second
anniversary of when the SARS-CoV-2 virus first flagged to the international community of doctors and health
professionals (and eviction moratorium for covid related non payment of rent has expired).
"Were they all talking about the same tenant?" Absolutely not. However, two of the attached sixty day notices
below come from the same landlord who evicted an entire building of long term residents (mostly lower
income, spanish speaking) just to paint the walls and rent out the units at double the rents - hardly "substantial
repairs" at all. So while individuals affiliated with TUSA were absolutely NOT talking about the same tenant
during public comments (which is completely separate from all the individual tenants who offered their own
experiences and are now being targeted by their landlords), there are multiple landlords and entities who
repeatedly destabilize our City with their intimidation, and outright ease of ability to simply displace long term
residents in their pursuit of higher rents for the sake of short term profit above all else.
"How were people able to be evicted when there has been a long standing moratorium on evictions? A landlord
is not even allowed to go to court to get an eviction. How could they be evicting tenants?" The moratorium on
evictions is and has only ever been applicable when the eviction is for non-payment of rent during the pandemic
provided that the Tenant was experiencing COVID-19 related income loss. So that means all other evictions not
related to non-payment of rent because of COVID were proceeding and have been proceeding in the city during
the pandemic as well as in the courts during the pandemic. Additionally, evictions in courts where the landlord
claimed that the tenant never provided a declaration of inability to pay rent because of COVID were still able to
proceed. Where tenants had been earning income during the pandemic and didn't get sick, landlords still
increased rents and then evicted those who couldn't pay the increased rent. The remainder of your comments
were focused solely on rent payments but rent payments aren't the sole issue tenants face in Santa Ana.
"smaller property owners tend to ... deal more with rental abuse and begin evictions at a higher rate than larger
professional management companies. Perhaps these are the troubled tenants referred to by TUSA?" It's all
across the board unfortunately. The ordinances aim to hold everyone to the same standards city wide.
"Implementing rent control laws would make it impossible to justify investing in such problem properties in
Santa Ana. With no financial incentive there is little hope that older apartment communities will be improved
and blight will occur" If investments are based in models which depend upon lending agreements instead of
cash for acquisitions, yes, it may become impossible. But even in the scenario of a cash acquisition, any
projections and models should properly analyze risk and ultimately, any return is better than no return or a
negative return. Investors thus have to continue to invest wisely. Additionally, even without rent control in
Santa Ana for countless decades now, I can readily list various neighborhoods where blight is taking place
while rents increased at unaffordable amounts year over year. I don't think any blight that arises will be due to
rent stabilization or just cause. Blight may continue to occur because of the direct choice of the individual
landlords improperly accounting for necessary maintenance during the course of their ownership of properties -
but at least tenants will have the ability to hold such landlords accountable.
"TUSA indicated that people could not pay their rent and therefore will lose their homes" Yes, and those
testimonies also included recounting traumatic experiences where Landlords and building management
company employees were harassing and bullying tenants - not just the ever increasing unaffordable rents. Many
of the tenant residents who spoke (not necessarily affiliated with TUSA) are at their wits end. The most vocal
were actually not affiliated with TUSA at all. They are residents whose landlords are increasing rents to the max
ahead of these ordinances coming into effect. Those who are affiliated with TUSA spoke not just about rent
payments, but the abuse and intimidations that tenants face from LLs and property managers apart from paying
rent.
To remedy any claims of unfair taking: Units subject to the rent stabilization ordinance will be able to request
increases above the max increase amounts provided there's substance for such an increase and they will still
enjoy at most returns of 3% upon rent increases coupled with any equity gains in the process. Not all units will
be subject. Rents can be offered at market rate upon vacancy per Costa Hawkins. "Bad tenants" can still be
evicted. Landlords will continue to earn a fair return on their investments in Santa Ana. Residents and
communities will be stabilized creating a strong local economy for all in the City.
z
60-DAY NOTICE TO
MOVE OUT
Plaintirf(s):
Owner(s)
vs.
Defeudant(s):
Resident
Resident
Resident
60-Day Notice
To Quit
t o: Residents)
AND ALL OTHERS M POSSESSION. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that your tenaney and rental agreement under which
ou occupy the premises Focated at 425�gton Ave
apartment number , in the City of Santa Ana
ixty (60) days after service upon you of this notice or as of
later.
California are hereby terminated
31 2021 ,whichever
OU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to vacate and move your belongings by the above stated time period.
HIS NOTICE, under the provisions of Section 1946 of the California Civil Code, requires no specified reason.
OWEVER, grounds for this notice and circumstances IF required by a local ordinance are as follows:
ie Landlord is going to substantially remodel the unit which will require the premises to be vacant as it will be
iinhabitable during construction. The obligation for
$1,575.00 will be waived.
TNESS(ES):
TE AND PLACE: April 1, 2021 Santa Ana, CA
monies due for the month of April 2021 in the amount
UR FAILURE TO VACATE within the said time period will result in local proceedings against you to recover
ession of the subject premises, attorney fees, court costs and penalty damages of $600.00 under Section 1174 as provided
alifornia Code of Civil Procedure.
law permits former tenants to reclaim abandoned personal property left at the farmer address of the tenant, subject to
fin conditions. You may or may not be able to reclaim properly without incurring additional costs, depending on rile
of storing the property and the length of time before it is reclaimed. In general, these costs will be lower the sooner you
act your former landlord after being notified that property belonging to you was left behind after you moved out.
3 this 1 St day of April
:r(s) By
2021
Agent
< an, % 115
AOA Form No. 105B (Rev 01113) - Copyrigh12406 -Apartment Owners Association of California, Inc • www,aaausa.com
ndo Valley (818)988-9200 -Los Angeles (323)937-8811 -Long Beach (562)597-2422.• Garden Grove (714)53M00 • San Diego (619)280-7007 • Northern CM11omia (5%01769.7521
THREE-DAY NOTICE TO QUIT
To:
Property Address:
Wrrt tN 'THREE (3) DAYS after service oil you of this notice, you are hereby required to quit
the subject prenlisr1s.
This Notice is made pursuant to California Coda of'0v l Priocedure, section 1161(4) baked on your
use of the property "contrary to the con.ditloils or covenants of his or leer lease".
l?ursuart to Section 11 of the Lease Agreement you were required to "maintain the grounds and
gardens of the Premises in good condition at iiis own expense. This includes but is not limited to
keeping the existing gardens of the Premises weed free and well watered."
You have not maintained the lawn by failing to keep it well -watered, causing the lawn to die. The
Ilolneoumlers association has additionally fined the Owner for your failure to maintain the lawn. in
addition, you have failed to maintain the backyard pool.
If you fail to €suit move out and suiTender possession of the Proporty, legal proce0ings will be
instituted against you to obtain possession, whicit could result in a judgirient against you for
possession, holdover damages, attorneys' toes and court costs as allowed by law, plus the
Lessor/Agent fray Lessor may recover an additional punitive award of six hundred dollars ($600.00)
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1174(b) for such unlawful detention.
State law permits former tel]ards to reclaim aband-oned personal property left at the former address
of the tenant, subject to certain conditions_ You may or may not be a -,le to reclaim property without
incurring additional costs, depending Qn the cost of storiag the property and the length of time
before it is reclaimed, In general, these costs will be lower the sooner you contact your former
landlord after being notified that property belonging, to you was left behind after you nloved Gaut.
DATE: MAY 19, 2021 BY':
NIARWN B. ADVIENTO, FSQ.
ATTORNEY FOR
LANDLORD)
C/O 11 BAILECAL, P.C.
7545 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 200
IRWNE, CA 92618
PRONE, (949) 677--7009
2
3
6
1
2
�0-DAY NOTICE TO
MOVE OUT
Plaintiff(s): , Owner(s)
VS.
60-Day Notice
Defendants): Resident To Quit
Resident
Resident
To: , Resident(s)
AND ALL OTHERS IN POSSESSION. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your tenancy and rental agreement under which -
you occupy the premises located at 1104 N
St.
Apartment number in the City of Santa Ana
sixty (60) days after service upon you of this notice or as of May 31
is later.
California are hereby terminated
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to vacate and move your belongings by the above stated time period.
2021, whichever
THIS NOTICE, under the provisions of Section 1946 of the California Civil Code, requires no specified reason.
HOWEVER, grounds for this notice and circumstances IF required by a local ordinance are as follows:
The Landlord is going to substantially remodel the unit which will require the premises to be vacant as it will be
uninhabitable during construction. The obligation for any monies due for the month of April 2021 in the amount 1.
of $1,200.00 will be waived.
WITNESS(ES):
DATE AND PLACE: April 1, 2021 Santa Ana, CA
YOUR FAILURE TO VACATE within the said time period will result in local proceedings against you to recover
possession of the subject premises, attorney fees, court costs and penalty damages of $600.00 under Section 1174 as provided
by California Code of Civil Procedure.
State law permits former tenants to reclaim abandoned personal property left at the former address of the tenant, subject to
certain conditions. You may or may not be able to reclaim property without incurring additional costs, depending on the4l
cost ofstoring the property and the length of time before it is reclaimed. In general, these costs will be lower the sooner you
contact your former landlord after being notified that property belonging to you was left behind after you moved out.
Dated this 1 St day of April
2021
Owner(s): By Agent
CA7Af A
AOA Farm No 1 e5B (Rev. 0t113) - Copyright 2006 - Apartment Owners Association of California. Inc. • www.aoausa corn
= San Femando Valley (818)988-9200 .• Los Angeles (323)937-B811 1 Long Beach (562)597-2422.• Garden Grove (714)539-6000 • San Diego (619)280-7007 • Northern California (510)759-7521
THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS
521 N. Tustin Ave, CA 92705
714-541-5259
LEASE EXTENTION ADDENDUM —PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
Date: 07-25-2021
RE: LEASE RENEWAL 545-F
BETWEEN: ANDY CHENG AND CHRISTINE CHENG: LESSOR
NATHANIEL FRANCIS GREENSIDES: LESSEE
Dear MR. N. GREENSIDES,
545 N. Tustin Ave #F Santa Ana, CA 92705
It is our sincere desire to provide you with the finest home and service possible at THE VILLAGE
APARTMENT HOMES. We will continue to put our best effort in maintaining our fine community. We
hope you are enjoying your apartment home since we appreciate your continued residency. Therefore, we
are extending your lease for a 6- or 12-month period, beginning on 6 months 9/01/2021 and ending
2/28/2022 (initial) or 12 months beginning on 9/01/2021 and ending 8/31/2022 {initial). We
are offering the following option for you to consider.
$1485.00 Lease Renewal
If we do not receive this signed Lease Extension Addendum by the above -mentioned date, your rent
will automatically be adjusted at the higher rate of $1645.00
Effective 09/01/2021 you will be on a Month -to -Montle Tenancy.
All other condition of Lease shall remain in effect, and no condition of the lease shall be deemed
waived by this Renewal Agreement.
If you decide to leave our community a 30-day written notice is still required.
If there is anything we can do to make you more comfortable in your home,
please contact our office at 714.541.5259
Resident Date Resident
Resident Date Resident
Date
Date
Resident Date
Eieonora Kelemenl Community Manager" i a-
Ormco, Norma
From: Shirley Laroff <laroffsure@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:16 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent
Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act"
Dear Councilmember,
I am a rental -housing provider in Orange County and I wish to
express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana
Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act"
that appears on the October 5th city council agenda.
The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such
over -reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do
the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing
providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in
addition to harming property values, compromising public safety
and quality of life, and more.
As a community partner and rental -housing provider in the county,
my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide
potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable
asset to the city in its efforts.
However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or
MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being actively
developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental -
housing providers with a proposal that:
Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that
affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants.
Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords,
to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business
operations.
Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to
i
the rental industry.
I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community
Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely
flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these
reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city
take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can
engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental
housing providers in the city.
Sincerely,
Shirley Laroff
laroffsure@gmail.com
5hirley Laroff
1-714-871-1490
z
Orozco, Norma
From: timrush@bhhscaprops.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:14 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Proposed Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction Ordinances, Council Agenda 10/19/21
Dear Mayor & Members of the City Council;
I am writing to seek your NO vote on the proposed Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction ordinances proposed for a
second reading at tonight's council meeting. There will no doubt be lots of testimony both for and against this measure
as there have been at the two previous council meetings. But each of you has been elected to LEAD this city and often
times that means making choices that may not be popular with a vocal crowd chanting for their position at a City Council
meeting. But because you have been elected to LEAD and make good choices for the future of the City you must weigh
the pros and cons of each proposal.
These proposed ordinances will not give you and the advocates what they seek.......... and the dismal record of rent
control in each and every city where it has been enacted tell the sorry tale of what a lie its proponents are pushing. It is
interesting that in spite of the FACTS in Santa Ana........... there are those who refuse to allow their opinions to be
interrupted by the facts and realize these measures while well intended are deeply flawed. The "study group" that has
been spoken about appears to be operating outside of the accepted boundaries of a study group and may have engaged
in activity that violates the Brown Act.
Please consider carefully the long term consequences for Santa Ana and vote NO on these measures.
Sincerely,
Tim Rush, 1225 South Broadway St., Historic Wilshire Square,
On behalf of THE SANTA ANA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
(714) 299-4455
California Properties
Orozco, Norma
From:
ALAN WAGNER <arw949@aol.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:50 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
No on outrageous 3% rent controls
Council members,
It's all over the news, inflation is 3.6%. The rent increase cap of 3% is insufficient to maintain property maintenance and
expenses.
I would hope the Santa Ana Business development would also be opposed to a Rent control cap. They wouldn't want
business providers to think Santa Ana compares with anti business, socialist Santa Monica.
Discrimination against property owners could cause litigation.
Property owners shouldn't be the only ones held responsible for housing cost of immigrants from Gautama or Mexico
who have no job skills and expect our city to care and provide for them.
Alan Wagner
Orozco, Norma
From:
John Townswick <jtowns2@att.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:03 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Let us review
Our governor signed an ADU bill a year ago and passed legislation to add additional homes on California properties. We
are in a real estate home value increase which unfortunately increases rents. The good thing is rents go down when
home prices go down. It is called reverting to the mean. Lastly if rents are capped, landlords can sell and new owners
become disenchanted with rentals. Money goes where it is treated well.
Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mayor and City Council,
Ed Evans <EdE@LakeParkHomes.com>
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:40 AM
eComment
Rent Control a Sad Day!
We watch in horror as you blindly put Santa Ana in the dark hole of Rent Control!! You are giving a Private
Subsidy (property owners pay?) to the many for the needs of a few!
Are mobile home owners with homes ranging in the Thousands up to over $400,000 needy? Most all of the
people demanding a handout have been prequalified to financially afford their chosen housing form in Santa
Ana. Why do they need help?
Can you run the City of Santa on 80 percent of the CPI of course not?? We share the same financial burden.
You are advancing the City to become a Controlled Slum!!! Look at what happened to New York and Detroit
after years of Rent Control! Further how are you going to explain why we can't get rid of BAD tenants to our
GOOD tenants. They deserve better!! Yes your action to appease those that do not have NEED will come to
bite you. There are other ways to help the need. HELP those that truly have need. A SAD day for Santa Ana.
Ed Evans
Lake Park
Get Outlook for iOS
Ormco, Norma
From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmaii.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:53 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Agenda Item 7
Dear City Council and the general public,
I am a resident of ward 5 and I am in favor of this item.
Below, I address some of the points made by some in opposition.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
"In every locale with rent control, the mobilehome resale prices are higher than before rent control, and those prices
accelerate each year, often many times above the true value of the mobilehomes"
The park owners/operators are suggesting here that owners of mobile homes shouldn't be able to sell their
mobilehomes for above market prices which is a weird assertion to put forth in my opinion. Their concern that
"eventually, home prices will reach levels that put them out of buyers needing affordable housing" is moot. For current
residents (i.e. not future residents), the need to purchase affordable home is superceded by the ability to remain a
renter with stabilized rents (which can still increase, but with a ceiling —just like with the 2 percent property tax increase
ceiling that landowners in California enjoy, or fixed rate mortgages).
Additionally, without rent control, the reality for Santa Ana residents (at least those who are younger than 40 years old)
has always held that "home prices [have always been at] levels that [are unaffordable]". Because of exactly that reason,
it is time to stabilize housing costs for low income renters of Santa Ana who have been here and want to remain. While
it may be true that in the short term, lack of supply might (not "will") price out young families or seniors looking for a
new place to buy in Santa Ana, rent control does not inhibit increasing the supply of housing in the city. Any "young
families or seniors" currently living in Santa Ana and living in a unit subject to rent stabilization will actually be in a better
position to save at an even faster rate towards purchasing a place of their own than without rent stabilization. The only
reason that Rent Control WILL price out future home buyers (not current renters) is if the supply of housing remains the
same or decreases.
"With rent control, there is no incentive for park owners and operators to improve communities"
I'd argue the incentive is the same if not more with rent stabilization and Just Cause protections (i.e. rent control). The
incentive even without rent control is actually pretty big: failing to maintain properties at a basic level will result in those
properties falling apart and people losing their homes as well as the housing provider facing not only lost profits, but
criminal penalties for willfully failing to adhere to basic health and safety regulations. The difference with Rent
Stabilization, Just Cause, and any local agency in charge of enforcement (i.e. rent control) is accountability. Landlords
who can prove that an increase above the maximum allowed yearly increase will actually go towards maintenance or
improvements will be able to petition for adjustments above the maximum allowed increases. The levels of any
incentives for park owners to improve communities remains unchanged.
"As demonstrated by the hostilities expressed in your hearings, rent control pulls communities apart. It destroys any
incentive that landlords and mobilehome [park] owners have to cooperate, dialogue, or work together to maintain and
improve mobilehome parks as `communities' and 'neighborhoods'... you wouldn't pass a law that so constricts other
business owners (restaurants, retail stores, repair services, etc.) that they have [sic] incentive to care about their
customers"
I chuckled a little at "that they have incentive" I think it was supposed to say "that they have no incentive to care about
their customers" The way it's written suggests that any government regulation is the sole reason for any business to
care about its patrons. The way this is written suggests that without government regulation, there is no incentive for a
business to care about its customers whatsoever. But then again, I can't say I am surprised seeing that at the recent city
council meetings where they appeared in person in opposition, they had stickers containing a double negative "No on
No Rent Control", but are the same people who suggested that if tenants want more income, they should get more
education...
Anyway, working backwards from that, governments at every level — local, county, regional, state, and federal — all have
laws that regulate certain business activities in the interest of the general health and welfare of the people. All
businesses operating in a city must pay for a business license to operate in the city. Restaurants are held to not only
health and safety codes in the preparation of the food for its patrons, but also to the building codes and local regulations
of the types of food and beverages they can sell, and business hours — all in the interest of public health and safety.
Retail stores are held to the same building and fire codes as any other business in the city and are taxed accordingly —
some retail businesses are taxed even higher for example, dispensaries operating in Santa Ana. Repair services are
required to be not only properly licensed, but also BONDED so as to ensure individual consumer protections and general
public health and safety. It also ensures an additional layer of liability protection for the business required by law to be
bonded and insured.
Rent control hasn't "destroy[ed] any incentive that landlords and" park owners have to work with community. To the
contrary. Since at least 2017 when tenants began voicing their issues as tenants to the City Council, the landlords in
opposition and the mobile home park owners in opposition have done nothing to better the conditions that landlords
are inflicting upon tenants in Santa Ana. The park owners now in opposition of the proposed rent controls did nothing
since then to ensure that a few bad actors in their own industry aren't able to remain unfettered and unabated in their
abuse and intimidation of tenants who always paid their rents on time.
"If you want to ruin any sense of community, Rent Control is the tool."
I conjecture that any sense of community is actually ruined by people who gaslight the community into thinking that the
residents who pay rent and make our city so desirable are lying about their experiences. I conjecture that any sense of
community is actually ruined by bad landlords who actively belittle and reduce tenant complaints and issues into issues
relating solely to whether or not one pays rent on time. In jurisdictions where rent control was enacted —even in the
case of the statewide AB1482 — landlords are invited to the table in terms of making sure they follow any new laws. But
since they failed to propose any fruitful solutions to the issues tenants face every day (and what incentive did Landlords
have anyway?), tenants had to take matters into their own hands by drafting up an ordinance of our own - a version of
which will now be codified into law.
Orozco, Norma
From: Andrea Fairbrother <andrea@fairbrotherdesign.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:53 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Re: Rent control
Andrea Fairbrother
938 West Riviera Drive
Santa Ana, 92706
I forgot to include address on my previous comment.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 9:48 AM Andrea Fairbrother <andreagfairbrotherdesign.com> wrote:
As a long time Santa Ana resident, I am against rent control.
Our properties need to be maintained.
Work on the homeless issue instead. Tired of them stealing, breaking into yards, cars and homes.
Your values are confused.
Andrea Fairbrother
West Floral Park
Orozco, Norma
From:
Clarke <clarkef@newportpacific.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:35 AM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Rent control
I am opposed to rent control in Santa Ana.
Clarke Fairbrother
938 Riviera Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Office 949-852-5575
Cell 714-321-5644
Orozco, Norma
From: Joseph McDonough <joemcd963@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:00 AM
To: eComment; Macedonio, Margarita; Micallef, Michelle
Subject: Fw: Rent Control & Rosewood Baker Neighborhood Assn.
In the early 1980's, a Santa Ana Police Lieutenant named Mike Foote helped to organize a small group
of 4-plex apartment owners in the South Rosewood Baker area, in an effort to "clean-up" the gang
infested neighborhood.
By working with Lt Foote, and Community Development (Scott Kutner & Margarita Macedonia) we
were successful.
The path to success was constant teamwork and regular meetings between owners, the City, and
SAPD.
South Rosewood Baker is primarily composed of "mom and pop" property owners (approx.74 individual
buildings - 4-plex's and 3-plex's) who have kept the rents below market over the years, as it provides
both neighborhood stability and compassion for the residents. The nearby larger property owners,
primarily corporate and big partnerships, have been more aggressive with rent increases because in
my opinion, they are not involved with the community or its residents.
l believe that City Council's angst is with these large uninvolved property owners who are "in and out"
of Santa Ana every five years, which is the typical holding period for large syndications. The ordinance,
as it is currently written, punishes all landlords equally --large and small, good and bad, involved or
uninvolved.
I would urge the Council to re -think what they want to accomplish. An ordinance which does not allow
small landlords to even keep up with CPI is not, in my opinion, in the best interest of the future of the
City.
Respectfully
Joe McDonough
Neighborhood Leader
Rosewood Baker NA
949-861-0767
joemcd963@msn.com
Ormco, Norma
From: Ed Masterson <ed.masterson@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 9:26 PM
To: eComment
Subject: VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES
Dear Councilmembers,
I am a rental -housing provider and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community
Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council agenda.
The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over -reaching rent control and just cause eviction
policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing providers, and the neighborhoods
where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and
more.
As a rental -housing provider, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to
tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts.
However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was
being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental -housing providers with a proposal
that:
• Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality
housing to my tenants.
• Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact
our rental business operations.
• Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry.
I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is
severely flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I
respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional
study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city.
Sincerely,
Ed Masterson
Rental Housing Provider
0 Virus -free. www.avast.com
Ormco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern:
olaf kreutz <ogcproperties1 @gmail.com>
Monday, October 18, 2021 6:49 PM
eComment
Rent control - VOTE NO
I am a small landlord in orange county, for a total of 11 units. Most of my tenants have been with me for 1020 some 25
years. I actually have one unit rented to a baby that was born to one of my tenants 22 years ago. I think that speaks to
my fair treatment of my tenants and the satisfaction level that my tenants have with me, staying for all these years.
That said, I am convinced that this is a bad step for the City Of Santa Ana. California already has some very stringent rent
control measures in place.
I am convinced that restricting grants further will lead to landlords being forced to look for any excuse to cycle 10 and so
they can rent the units at market rent. It's not a matter of being a bad landlord or money greedy or wanted to maximize
your investment. With the current rents Rhonda Rhodes is back to evict tenants were even the smallest mis-step.
Even worse is the part of the city ordinance and that's tenants and renters without the approval of the landlord. I could
rent to a single person, and find that six months later a whole gang of criminals is living in my unit without my
knowledge. That will endanger my property and my tenants to an unreasonable degree.
I know that many of you campaign with rent control as part of your plan, but there has to be a more reasonable way to
implement it. As it is, I urge you to vote NO on the existing proposal
Best Regards,
Olaf
Orozco, Norma
From: MJ Baretich <mjbaretich@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 6:31 PM
To: eComment
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 7
Mayor and Council Members
My name is Mary Jo Baretich. I am the Zone C Vice President and former State President for the
Golden State Manufactured -home Owners League.
I am submitting this appeal for your YES vote on Item 7 Adoption of Rent Stabilization
Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
Your extensive work on these items is commendable. Thank you for having your Staff create the
documents necessary to start the process. These homeowners need your support.
They are pleading and fighting for their lives
It is shocking that through no fault of their own, seniors, veterans, disabled and other low-income mobilehome
homeowners in the City of Santa Ana are being threatened with economical eviction, causing the loss of their
homes and everything they have saved and paid for all their lives. They need your protection. These are
people who have either spent their life -savings on a home or have mortgages on their home and are now
facing extreme threats of rent increases for the piece of dirt that their mobilehome sits upon in the
mobilehome parks.
Many seniors have no family and are facing the horrible prospect of being homeless and living among the
habitual druggies and others who prey upon these elderly citizens who are in their 70's, 80's and
90's. Something had to be done! And you are addressing it tonight.
As stated in the proposal, the City has 29 Mobilehome Parks containing 3,913 spaces. Six of the Mobilehome
Parks and one thousand twenty spaces in Santa Ana are currently age -restricted to persons 55 years of age or
older.
Please search your hearts and get these Ordinances in place.
Santa Ana's mobilehome rent structure has risen beyond affordability in many parks. Mobilehomes
are the only unsubsidized form of affordable housing in the state. Please protect these people and
their only assets.
We are asking for your compassion and fairness in this matter. Please vote YES to approve the Rent
Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
Thank you,
Mary Jo Baretich
Zone C Vice President for the Golden State Manufactured -home Owners League (GSMOL)
(714) 465-0932
mjbaretich@hotmail.com
Ormco, Norma
From: Gina Laroff <glaroff@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:10 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent
Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act"
Dear Councilmember,
I am a rental -housing provider in Orange County and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa
Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council
agenda.
The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over -reaching rent control and just cause eviction
policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing providers, and the neighborhoods
where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and
more.
As a community partner and rental -housing provider in the county, my experience and ability to provide insight could
help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts.
However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was
being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental -housing providers with a proposal
that:
• Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality
housing to my tenants.
• Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact
our rental business operations.
• Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry.
I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is
severely flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I
respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional
study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city.
Sincerely,
Gina Laroff
Gina Laroff
glaroffkmac.com
Orozco, Norma
From: Jim Joffe <jim@jandhmgt.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:38 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Vickie Talley; Julie Paule; Marlen Cortes; Tracy Cederoth; Thomas Pacelli
Subject: Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance Reading.
Categories: Correspondence
Rent control is a windfall benefit to mobilehome owners in land lease parks. As sought by rent control
proponents, initial and ongoing space rents below fair market is the obvious and immediate benefit. Just as
impactful is the proven fact that in every locale with rent control the mobilehomes resale prices are higher than
before rent control, and those prices accelerate each year, often many times above the true value of the
mobilehomes. Eventually. home prices will reach levels that out them out of reach of buvers needina
affordable housing. More succinctly stated, there is an inverse relationship between the prices of mobilehomes
and the space rent charged. Because home prices greatly increase under Rent control, eventually prices young
families and seniors on a budget out of the mobilehome market. Under Rent Control the resale process of 40
and 50 year old homes will often be several times more expensive than new homes form the factory. So Rent
Control only acts as a "windfall" benefit to existing homeowner only. Future homebuyers suffer.
o Not surprisingly, the current sales prices of mobilehomes in Santa Ana mobilehome parks is currently
higher than their true value as mobilehomes indicating the fact that space rents are already under
market.
o One unfortunate result of rent control causing artificially inflated home prices on older homes is the fact
that the oldest of homes which have 50 year old wiring and plumbing and may be unsafe for habitation
remain in the park because the artificially buoyed prices of these homes prohibits their replacement by
newer, safer, more energy efficient new homes. New homes would be available at affordable prices as
the most obsolete of homes are otherwise replaced.
o There is no incentive for park owners and operators to improve the communities. At best, rent control
attempts to support the status quo in a rapidly changing world. There is no incentive for park ownership
to improve or increase utility services or amenities
Many current electrical systems won't support expanding appliance and computing needs of
seniors, stay at home workers, and growing families.
Stagnant facilities and systems prohibit the replacement of obsolete unsafe homes with energy
efficient newer home.
But I buried the lead. As demonstrated by the hostilities expressed in your hearings, rent control pulls
communities apart. It destroys any incentive landlords and mobilehome owners have to cooperate, dialogue, or
work together to maintain and improve mobilehome parks as "communities" and
"neighborhoods". Homeowners have no incentive to dialogue with park ownership. The city will become the
"middleman" creating an ever-increasing chasm between landlord and tenant, park owner and
homeowner. You wouldn't pass a law that so constricts other business owners (restaurants, retail stores, repair
services, etc.) that they have incentive to care about their customers. If you want to ruin any sense of
community, Rent Control is the tool.
M�lA
Ca1DRE #00710270 J President
J&H Asset Property Mgt Inc.
22880 Savi Ranch Parkway
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
Phone: (714) 974-0397
Fax: (714) 283-3225
Website: www.1andhm zt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain
information that is privileged or confidential and/or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized disclosure, distribution
or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete the message from your system. Your assistance in
maintaining the integrity of e-mail communications is appreciated.
z
Orozco, Norma
From: Aurora R Chavez <jfchavez75@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 4:52 PM
To: eComment
Subject: No rent Control
Categories: Correspondence
Dear Councilmember,
I am a rental -housing provider in Orange County and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa
Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council
agenda.
The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over -reaching rent control and just cause eviction
policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing providers, and the neighborhoods
where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and
more.
As a community partner and rental -housing provider in the Orange County, my experience and ability to provide
insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its
efforts.
However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE anyone in the Rental Business AWARE
that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided us and my fellow rental -housing
providers with a proposal that:
• Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality
housing to my tenants.
• Eliminates our ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact
our rental business operations.
• Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry.
I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is
severely flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I
respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional
study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city.
No Rent Control its bad Business
Sincerely,
Juan & Aurora Chavez
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Categories:
AMEN
terry dowdall <terrydowdallesq@gmail.com>
Monday, October 18, 2021 4:52 PM
Jim Joffe
eComment; Vickie Talley; Julie Paule; Marlen Cortes; Tracy Cederoth; Thomas Pacelli
Re: Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance Reading.
Correspondence
Terry R. Dowdall, Esq.
Dowdall Law Offices, A.P.C.
284 N. Glassell St., 1st Fl.
Orange, CA 92866-1409
terrydowdallesq@gmail.com
trd@dowdalllaw.com
Office 714.532.2222
(This office does not receive service of
process nor any notice via email absent
advance written assent; no adoptive nor
tacit admission is intended nor shall be
inferred or construed from an unchal-
lenged or unaddressed claim of any
purported representation, fact, event,
conduct or condition, or, based on delay).
Ex Parte Notice: This Office does not accept ex parte notice or any type of service via voice mail, e-mail or
telefax, without a prior written agreement from Dowdall Law Offices, A.P.C.
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
U.S. federal tax -related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax related
matter addressed herein.
Confidential Email: This email message and any files attached are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s),
are confidential and may contain privileged information from Dowdall Law Offices, A.P.C. The information is
intended solely for use by the individual(s) or entity(ies) named as the recipient hereof, and is also covered by
the electronic communications privacy act (18 U.S.C.A. §2510-2512). Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
by reply email immediately and destroy copies of the original message.
On Mon, Oct 18, 202I at 438 PM Jim Joffe <jimgjandhmgt.com> wrote:
Rent control is a windfall benefit to mobilehome owners in land lease parks. As sought by rent control
proponents, initial and ongoing space rents below fair market is the obvious and immediate
benefit. Just as impactful is the proven fact that in every locale with rent control the mobilehomes
resale prices are higher than before rent control, and those prices accelerate each year, often many times
above the true value of the mobilehomes. Eventually, home prices will reach levels that put them out
of reach of buyers needing affordable housing. More succinctly stated, there is an inverse
relationship between the prices of mobilehomes and the space rent charged. Because home prices
-neatly increase under Rent control, eventually prices young families and seniors on a budget out of
the mobilehome market. Under Rent Control the resale process of 40 and 50 year old homes will
often be several times more expensive than new homes -form the factory So Rent Control only acts
as a "windfall" benefit to existing homeowner only. Future homebuyers suffer.
o Not surprisingly, the current sales prices of mobilehomes in Santa Ana mobilehome parks is
currently higher than their true value as mobilehomes indicating the fact that space rents are
already under market.
o One unfortunate result of rent control causing artificially inflated home prices on older homes is
the fact that the oldest of homes which have 50 year old wiring and plumbing and may be
unsafe for habitation remain in the park because the artificially buoyed prices of these homes
prohibits their replacement by newer, safer, more energy efficient new homes. New homes
would be available at affordable prices as the most obsolete of homes are otherwise replaced.
o There is no incentive for park owners and operators to improve the communities. At best, rent
control attempts to support the status quo in a rapidly changing world. There is no incentive for
park ownership to improve or increase utility services or amenities
• Many current electrical systems won't support expanding appliance and computing needs
of seniors, stay at home workers, and growing families.
• Stagnant facilities and systems prohibit the replacement of obsolete unsafe homes with
energy efficient newer home.
But I buried the lead. As demonstrated by the hostilities expressed in your hearings, rent control pulls
communities apart. It destroys any incentive landlords and mobilehome owners have to cooperate,
dialogue, or work together to maintain and improve mobilehome parks as "communities" and
"neighborhoods". Homeowners have no incentive to dialogue with park ownership. The city will
become the "middleman" creating an ever-increasing chasm between landlord and tenant, park owner
and homeowner. You wouldn't pass a law that so constricts other business owners (restaurants, retail
stores, repair services, etc.) that they have incentive to care about their customers. if -you want to ruin
any sense of community, Rent Control is the tool.
CaIDRE #00710270 1 President
J&H Asset Property Mgt Inc.
22880 Savi Ranch Parkway
Yorba Linda, CA 92887
Phone: (714) 974-0397
Fax: (7I4) 283-3225
Website: www.jandhmgi.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may
contain information that is privileged or confidential and/or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized
disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete the
message from your system. Your assistance in maintaining the integrity of e-mail communications is
appreciated.
Orozco, Norma
From:
James "Ski" Skawinski <ski@ski4homes.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 18, 2021 4:56 PM
To:
ecomment
Subject:
Rent control
Categories: Correspondence
Dear Councilmember,
I am a rental -housing provider in Santa Ana and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City
of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the
October 5th city council agenda.
The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over -reaching rent control and just
cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing
providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values,
compromising public safety and quality of life, and more.
As a community partner and rental -housing provider in the city, my experience and ability to provide
insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to
the city in its efforts.
However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a
proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental -housing
providers with a proposal that:
Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide
safe, quality housing to my tenants.
Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs
that impact our rental business operations.
Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry.
I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants'
Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these reasons and
those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such
time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing
providers in the city.
Sincerely,
James Skawinski
Orozco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Categories:
Dear Santa Ana City Council;
Christopher Bridge <chrisjbridge@yahoo.com>
Monday, October 18, 2021 5:00 PM
eComment
Rent control & just cause eviction ordinances
Correspondence
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the the proposed rent control and just cause eviction
notices which is coming up for consideration.
I am an active real estate broker specializing in multifamily property sales and acquisitions throughout
Orange County and Santa Ana in particular. I am also an apartment property owner within the city of
Santa Ana.
Through my professional discussions with multi family building owners in Orange County I can
confirm that the city of Santa Ana is becoming an area in which it is not considered safe to invest,
pending the outcome of this rent control vote. Existing owners have made it clear that if rents are not
able to keep up with market inflation the impact will be in a lack of reinvestment in the maintenance of
their buildings. I am sure this is not what the City of Santa Ana is anticipating or desiring.
In consideration of unreasonable rent hikes the State of California has recently enacted Assembly Bill
1482 also known as the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. This cap on rent raises is "Designed to guard
tenants against the most egregious rent hikes." This by itself is sufficient to protect the tenants from
unscrupulous landlords. NO FURTHER ACTION IS NECESSARY.
Thank you for your no vote.
Yours sincerely
Christopher J Bridge
Orozco, Norma
From: Aaron Peluso <cchcorp@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 5:05 PM
To: eComment; Aaron Peluso
Subject: Bali Hi Opposition To Consent Calendar Item #7 - Rent Control
Categories: Correspondence
Dear City Council Members,
I am again voicing my opposition to the rent control measure on tomorrow night's agenda. I will include my
prior comments below for reference.
It has recently come to my attention that 7 of the 13 people 'from Bali Hi' who spoke at the last meeting could
not be matched with the names of our actual Tenants appearing on our rent roll and with whom we have
Leases. This appears to be emblematic of a process that seems disconnected from facts and logic. It is my
understanding that calls from ownership groups have gone unanswered by certain members of the city
council. How can one make an informed decision if they are unwilling to hear all sides? It is also my
understanding that letters in opposition outnumbered letters in support during the last meeting.
Do the members who plan to vote for this measure care about the facts and the actual best interest of the people
of Santa Ana? Rent control proposals have recently failed twice in recent elections. Written correspondence at
the current time indicates support for the proposal does not exceed opposition. Speakers at meetings provide
mis-information and in some cases may mis-represent themselves as Tenants. Certain members of the city
council refuse to even hear the other side. Additionally, I understand one member has publicly changed their
stance on the issue, post election.
These are not conditions under which a proposal of such significance should be decided. I again ask that you
table the measure and take the time to meet with ownership groups (and Tenant groups!) to fully understand all
sides of the story before making any final decisions.
Sincerely,
Aaron Peluso
* * *Prior Correspondence to City Council* * *
Dear City Council,
I represent one of the owners of Bali Hi Mobile Home park in Santa Ana. For more than half a century our
family owned business has provided affordable housing to our residents. In addition, we work with outside
organizations to subsidize any Tenants who cannot afford the rent and have not evicted anyone from a mobile
home space, ever, that we can recall. We currently subsidize about a dozen Tenants who genuinely cannot
afford the rent.
We are not in the business of evicting seniors on fixed income who cannot afford increases.
Currently our unsubsidized long term Tenants pay $887 per month. This is the rent paid by 119 of our 154
Tenants. This is far below market and near the bottom, if not the bottom, of all rental rates in Santa Ana mobile
home parks. This can be confirmed in the city's own report on mobile home parks prepared only a few years
ago. It is also rather close to your own Section 8 affordable housing standards, if I am not mistaken.
It has come to my attention that a small number of Bali Hi residents spoke at the last meeting, largely presenting
inaccurate information. I am available to present the correct information at any time.
I fear that your hasty motion to enact rent control in the city is going to have significant near term adverse
effects to affordability in our park and possibly others as well. Put shortly, I fear that it may have the opposite
of your intended effect. To my knowledge those that are voting yes have not discussed these issues with any
ownership nor ownership groups in order to fully understand all of the issues at play.
I implore you to vote no on the motion this evening in order to take time to discuss these issues
with all stakeholders so that you can make a fully informed decision about legislation that could have far
reaching effects on the Santa Ana economy for decades to come.
A hasty decision based on emotion and mis-information will surely lead to an unfavorable result.
Sincerely,
Aaron Peluso
CCH Management LLC � Manager
949-295-3247 (mobile)
949-831-1040 (office) 949-495-3321 (fax)
cchcorpk,,gmail.com
10
October 18, 2021
RE: Public Comment Regarding Santa Ana Rent Control Hearing- Continental
Mobilehome Park
As I mentioned at the first hearing, I have been managing mobilehome parks and manufactured
home communities for almost 4 decades. The apartment association representative and
apartment owners have and will again supply the facts and statistics which demonstrate rent
control is not needed nor is it fair. Vickie Talley with MHET and Julie Paulie have and will
continue to offer factual information as to why rent control is unwarranted.
With almost 40 years of experience operating and managing both types of communities, I have
found that rent control of mobilehome parks and manufactured home communities is
counterproductive and actually hurts those senior citizens and families it proposes to
help. Please consider the following:
Rent control is a windfall benefit to mobilehome owners in land lease parks. As sought
by rent control proponents, initial and ongoing space rents below fair market is the
obvious and immediate benefit. Just as impactful is the proven fact that in every locale
with rent control the mobilehomes resale prices are higher than before rent control, and
those prices accelerate each year, often many times above the true value of the
mobilehomes. Eventually, home prices will reach levels that put them out of reach of
buyers needing affordable housing. More succinctly stated, there is an inverse
relationship between the prices of mobilehomes and the space rent charged. Rent
control eventually prices young families and seniors on a budget out of the
mobilehome market.
o Not surprisingly, the current sales prices of mobilehomes in Santa Ana
mobilehome parks is currently higher than their true value as mobilehomes
indicating the fact that space rents are already under market.
o One unfortunate result of rent control causing artificially inflated home prices on
older homes is the fact that the oldest of homes which have 50 year old wiring and
plumbing and may be unsafe for habitation remain in the park because the
artificially buoyed prices of these homes prohibits their replacement by newer,
safer, more energy efficient new homes. New homes would be available at
affordable prices as the most obsolete of homes are otherwise replaced.
o There is no incentive for park owners and operators to improve the
communities. At best, rent control attempts to support the status quo in a rapidly
changing world. There is no incentive for park ownership to improve or increase
utility services or amenities
22880 Savi Ranch Parkway • Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4610 • (714) 974-0397
Public Comment Regarding Santa Ana Rent Control Hearing- Continental Mobilehome Park
October 5, 2021
Pg. 2
Many current electrical systems won't support expanding appliance and
computing needs of seniors, stay at home workers, and growing families.
Stagnant facilities and systems prohibit the replacement of obsolete unsafe
homes with energy efficient newer home.
But I buried the lead. As demonstrated by the hostilities expressed in your hearings, rent
control pulls communities apart. It destroys any incentive landlords and mobilehome
owners have to cooperate, dialogue, or work together to maintain and improve
mobilehome parks as "communities" and "neighborhoods". You wouldn't pass a law
that so constricts other business owners (restaurants, retail stores, repair services, etc.)
that they have incentive to care about their customers.
To summarize, rent control ruins communities and eventually prices seniors and families needing
affordable housing out of the market.
James Joffe
President
DRE9 00710270
J&H Asset Property Mgt. Inc.
22880 Savi Ranch Parkway • Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4610 • (714) 974-0397
Orozco, Norma
From: Opittek <eopittek@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 5:24 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Re: SA Rent Control
Categories: Correspondence
I hope you have taken this into consideration
On Oct 1, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Opittek <eopittekkcox.net> wrote:
My opinion for consideration. Our family has owned a small apartment building in Santa Ana
for over 70 years, kept our rents low and have had no evictions to my knowledge. We worked
with one tenant and received some Covid rent relief funds. We are totally against rent control
since it has been shown in studies to result in property degradation, slums and stops future
development investment. And this at a time when there is a housing shortage in CA. If you are
hell bent on passing this, consider a 1-2 year sunset and collect data such as # units , bldg. age,
rents, sales, values, code violations, building permits, etc., then reconsider at the end of that
period. Also your rent increase cap is too low, consider CPI or 3% whichever is greater. I have
read that 70% of residential bldgs are over 50 yrs old (probably older in SA) and you know all
costs, but especially maintenance costs, have significantly increased.
Also it is noteworthy that besides the ever encroaching government cancer on our property rights, Mother
Nature is taking her toll on our buildings. Years ago I read that over 70% of OC residential buildings are over
50 yrs old requiring ever increasing maintenance and repairs expense; new roofs, repipe, rewire etc. I even had
to repair a sinking settling slab. These are 10's of thousands of dollars in expense. And you all think it is
reasonable to disinsentivize new building investment with this crazy move. The State rent control is bad
enough but it seems more targeted at owners that really over charge. I don't think we have ever increased our
rents over 8%. We try to get closer to market
at turnover. Maybe that's how to avoid evictions. Consider these thoughts and the sunset and data collection
ideas.
Orozco, Norma
From: Richard Julian<rjulian@advancedrealestate.com>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 1:01 PM
To: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil;
Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida
Cc: eComment
Subject: RE: INFORMATION THAT SHOULD HELP IN YOUR UPCOMING MEETING.
Categories: Correspondence
Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento & Members of the Santa Ana City Council:
Below is the email I sent to you prior to the last Council meeting. I do hope that you rethink
the proposal to instigate rent control. As I wrote below, there are important points should be
considered. After attending two meetings that lasted until after 2:00 am I wish to respect your
time and not stand up at the upcoming meeting to talk again. You had enough people already
saying basically the same thing and keeping you all up beyond reasonableness. I do hope that
you will read below and consider meeting with us to see if there is a better plan.
and fellow Advanced Management Company, "AMC" members attended the meeting last
week regarding rent control. We manage over 1,600 units in Santa Ana as well as approx.
10,000 apartment units within 50 miles of your city. We are a source for accurate and factual
data which we are happy to share in order to help you make an intelligent and informed
decision.
We fear that the Ad Hoc Committee was influenced by only anecdotal input for their
recommendations. In the excitement and emotion of championing a cause, sometimes
memories may wane. For instance, Councilman Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, said, "... I was
barely► 18 and this is in 2010. 333 S. Flower Street #18. 1 was oavine S975.00. l3v 20111 was
oavine S1075.00. Bv the time my dauehter was 5 years old. I was oaring S1780.00 at AMC
Artist Village Apartments"
In reviewing his tenant file we see that the correct facts are that he moved into his two -
bedroom two bath apartment at The Artist Village Apartments on December 2, 2014 with an
initial lease term through 12/31/2015, and his lease called for Rent of $1710.00. He renewed
his lease effective January 1, 2016, for $1790.00 which was an $80 or 4.67% increase. His
testimony at the meeting gave the impression that his rent was drastically increased even
though he was simply and voluntarily stepping up in apartment quality to Artist Village and
only experienced one annual and reasonable rent increase.
z
With similar emotion, several members of the Tenants United Santa Ana ("TUSA") group gave
accounts of residents who received rent increases of $400 to $800. Were they giving you
accurate data? Were you able to verify this information with written documents? Were they
all talking about the same tenant? Was there any attempt by the Ad Hoc Committee to review
the leases, rent increase notices or tenant history?
Members of TUSA spoke about people losing their homes due to evictions. How were people
being evicted when there has been a long-standing moratorium on evictions? A landlord is not
allowed to even go to court to get an eviction. How could they be evicting tenants? Since there
were no actual tenant names or data provided, there is no way of verifying if these statements
are accurate.
Statements made by those proposing rent control MUST be researched and verified before
emotions take charge and implement well-intentioned but damaging law. Before this matter
turns into letters to the editor or a legal battle, I wanted to share with you some accurate,
dependable data which is well documented and available for you all to review.
HOW MANY RESIDENTS ARE ACTUALLY FACING EVICTION ONCE THE MORATORIUM ENDS?
Today, of the 1,600+ residents that AMC manages, there are a total of 182 residents who are
delinquent by more than 30 days. Of these 182 residents our staff has personally met and
helped 179 (98.4%) to apply for assistance. Only three residents were not approved for a
number of reasons including, (1) did not qualify, (2) the resident refused to give information
and participate in the rental assistance program, and (3) the resident had made arrangements
with their manager to pay off their balances. Of the 1,600 units only two would be considered
in default and subject to eviction. This is .125% and does not warrant you jeopardizing the
housing in Santa Ana.
IS RENTAL ASSISTANCE OCCURING IN SANTA ANA?
YES. AMC has worked closely with members of the Housing Division of the City of Santa Ana,
the Salvation Army and the United Way in this endeavor. This has been difficult due to the
complexity of the application process. Resident applications must be submitted to receive this
assistance and our team has been working diligently to help our residents qualify and obtain
the assistance needed. This means that much handholding has been necessary as many of the
applicants are not familiar with filling in such forms. Perhaps this might be a very productive
area in which the members of TUSA could focus their attention and really help the needy
tenants in the city obtain the necessary funds that are available to them? It is important that
the system be fair and accurate.
HAS AMC IMPLIMENTED MASSIVE RENT INCREASES?
3
NO. The true and accurate history of our rent increases have averaged 3.48% in recent years
which has steadily declined to 3.16% in 2020 and just 0.32% in 2021.
IS AMC ALONE WITH THIS RENT INCREASE HISTORY
NO. In talking with other large professional management companies who operate properties
in the city of Santa Ana we have found that they also implement similar fair and reasonable
policies for rent increases.
WHAT ABOUT SMALL APARTMENT OWNERS, CONDO AND SINGLE-FAMILY OWNERS?
Your proposed ordinance excludes these types of properties, but, historically, smaller property
owners tend to be more reactionary to slight "hiccups" in their operating expense than more
experienced professional management companies. If they have an unexpected expense, they
might pass through a much larger increase than normal in order to catch up and pay for the
unplanned costs. These owners also tend to pay less attention to rent applications and
qualifications. As a result, they might have to deal more with rental abuse and begin evections
at a higher rate than larger professional management companies. Perhaps these might be the
troubled tenants referred to by TUSA? The larger, professionally managed apartment
communities such as AMC's, should be the least concern of yours and excluded from any rent
control ordinance. This is the exact opposite of what is called for in the proposed ordinance .
WHO IS VOLUNTARILY IMPROVING THE AGING APARTMENT COMMUNITIES IN SANTA ANA?
AMC has a long and proven record of improving old run-down apartments. These buildings
typically were built prior to 1995. For example, we recently purchased River House
Apartments where city code enforcement had issued 50+ code violations. We immediately
corrected all these as well as completed a major renovation and improvement as well as
implemented strong management thus dramatically improving the property and the overall
community. Implementing rent control laws would make it impossible to justify investing in
such problem properties in Santa Ana. With no financial incentive there is little hope that older
apartment communities will be improved, and blight will occur.
WILL RENT CONTROL RISK THE IMPROVED LONG-TERM HIGH STANDARD OF HOUSING IN
YOUR CITY?
YES. The business of running apartments is a complicated one. There are always surprises such
as the current pandemic for which an owner needs reserves. This is in addition to the reserves
for security, replacements and improvements needed to maintain quality housing. We project
reserves out 30 years, not just for today. The proposed rent control will put apartment
ownership on the brink and force owners to reduce their standards.
WILL RENT CONTROL REALLY SAVE PEOPLE FROM LOSING THEIR HOMES?
NO. Much emotional testimony took place in your meeting where TUSA indicated that people
could not pay their rent and therefore will lose their homes. As you can see above, AMC and
4
others have only been implementing rent increases in the 3%-5% for years. These rents are
based on fair and reasonable formulas that fall close to your magical 3%. In times of inflation,
your formula will not work. There is a better way to help those who can't pay.
WHAT CAN THE CITY DO THAT WORKS?
There are already several programs in place to help tenants who can't pay their rent. Many
more are being formed. The problem is that many residents don't apply for the assistance. If
the efforts of the Ad Hoc Committee and TUSA were redirected to helping needy tenants to
apply and receive such assistance to pay their reasonable market rents, many of the problems
presented by these groups would be greatly improved.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER ACTIONS THAT THE CITY CAN TAKE TO HELP WITH HOUSING IN
SANTA ANA?
In your meeting, you stated that "...More than 50% of our residents are tenants... many of
those families live in overcrowded conditions..." We understand that this is a situation that
exists, mostly in the smaller properties that are exempt from your proposed ordinance. The
professionally managed properties live by the law of the City. Your law restricts the number of
residents in apartments. If the City wishes to review their occupancy laws and decide to
change the occupancy restrictions, we hope that you will include our industry in that decision.
Remember that overcrowding contributes to excessive wear and tear to the apartments and
common areas, but it increases repair and maintenance expenses, parking shortages, and
higher utility usage. Furthermore, this exacerbates the neighbor -to -neighbor experience
resulting in higher temperaments amidst tenants resulting in a higher potential for criminal
activity. Increasing your allowed occupancy limits is a recipe for disaster and ultimately will
lower the standard of living leading to blight in the city.
AMC's MANAGEMENT IS WELL RECEIVED BY ITS RESIDENTS:
Since our inception in 1978, Advanced continues to be a family owned and operated business
which has invested millions of dollars into cities across southern California- particularly Santa
Ana. We operate on strong core values of honesty and integrity and have developed this into
our trademark Live Nappy philosophy across all we do. We truly care about our residents and
the buildings they occupy. Please take this data into consideration before rushing to an ill-
informed decision on this matter. Hastily taken "emergency action" can lead to very bad
future results.
We feel that the majority of the City tenants are happy with the law the way it is. You did not
hear a single tenant from our 1,600 units complain the other night. You only heard second
hand anecdotal testimony from a group on a mission. We are happy to work with you and
research true data to determine if there really is a problem and, if so, fix it.
5
attached the presentation book that we handed out at the meeting and respectfully request
the opportunity to discuss this with you either in person or by phone. My cell phone will be
readily available for a call from you. 949 933 6006. 1 would appreciate an acknowledgement
that you received this email. We look forward to helping in whatever way we can.
Respectfully,
Richard Julian
Richard Julian I CEO
Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc
15320 Barranca Pkwy I Suite 100 1 Irvine I CA 192618
0: 949.595.5900 1 F: 949.595.5901
riulian@advancedonline.com I www.advancedonline.com
CA Broker Lic #00881503
This communication is confidential and may contain information or material that is proprietary, legally privileged and/or
otherwise protected by law (all such rights and protections being expressly reserved hereby). If you have received it in
error or if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by return message and permanently
delete the message, including any attachments, and destroy any printed copies. Any unauthorized use, copying or
dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you. ARES, Inc. operating under
California License # 00881503
Orozco, Norma
From: Kathy Miller <kds2ly@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 9:26 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Fw:
Categories: Correspondence
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin fon-�arded message:
On Monday, October 11, 2021, 3:59 PM, Kathy Miller <kds2ly@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Santa Ana City Council:
I have watched the first two council meetings regarding rent control where residents gave
testimony but no facts. There was nothing to back up their story no data to make a decision
nothing proven or demonstrated.
I have not raised rent on my property in Santa Ana for three years. My current rent raise
averaged to 2.3% per year.
The council is misleading its constituents. Rent will go up EVERY year with this ordinance. This
ordinance is not going to fix their problems. There are many issues which lead to the high cost of
rent in Orange County. and Santa Ana. Targeting one group, the landlords, is discrimination.
With this city ordinance, the buildings will not be kept in repair causing neighborhoods to turn
to blight. Landlords will not be able to save money for repairs or replacements such as
roofs, driveways, painting or major plumbing such as repipes. The state policies already in
place, should stay in place. City ordinances on top of those from the state do not help the
situation. In fact„they would make conditions for renters worse.
Just Cause Evictions do not serve the residents. For 100 years there has been the 1 year lease
which allows for the landlord to get to know their tenants. After the first year they then go to a
month to month agreement. Why is there a need to change this? Is it fair to the other residents in
the building to have loud or illegal or dangerous activity on the property where they are living
and raising their children? Taking all judgment from the landlord on this issue only makes life
for the other residents potentially dangerous.
Establish city Council appointed board with broad authority.
Why city Council appointed?
Who is funding this board?
Who will serve on this board, who can be influenced?
Are they educated, what experience do they have?
Who decides their authority?
What decisions do they make?
Enabled squatting
Again this is discrimination against rental property owners. This is targeting only one group of
business owners in the city.
This is not fair to tenants who are paying their rent.
Does the council seriously
believe that allowing people to set up camp and giving landlords no recourse is best for the city
and for the residents in the building?
Impose additional administrative operational obligation on rental property owners/
What other businesses are you imposing this on?
Where are the facts data and research on how this ordinance is going to help the city of Santa
Ana? Emotional outpouring to the wee hours of the morning does not prove that this is the
answer for Santa Ana.
Perhaps the city may want to think about progression rather than retaliation against landlords.
Again this is discrimination against multi- family providers. There are no regulations of any kind
on other properties. Not on hotels, not on Airbnb's, not on houses.
The city may want to consider eliminating some commercial buildings and put some rentals into
the market. If they had less restrictions, so that they could add units, and shrink the commercial
market. Newer units would put pressure on property owners to keep their properties up. The city
Council could be the leader not a follower. If the city would step back and look at the big picture
and cut back some red tape and caveats, The City could build, for example, an eight story
building. The units could be brand new and rent for S2, 000.00 a month. This would change the
market and the residence would get nicer apartments for better rent.
In order to resolve this issue, the City of Santa Ana needs to do something differently. Targeting
one group of business owners is not the answer, and , furthermore, does not better serve your
constituents. Innovative, forward thinking problem solving is the answer.
We are 20 year investors in Santa Ana and proud of it.
David and Kathy Miller
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Orozco, Norma
From: Clay Hage <clayh@parkmgt.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 9:29 AM
To: eComment
Subject: : Opposition to Consent Calendar Item 47 - Rent Control
Categories: Correspondence
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Ana City Council:
My company operates two mobilehome parks in Santa Ana — Bit O' Home MHP and Liberty MHP which provide housing
for 178 families. We oppose rent control for mobilehome parks because it is unnecessary. We have had three tenants
receive rental assistance in 2021 (1.7%), and only one was delinquent while the other two were current. The tenants in
our parks have consistently paid 100% of billing for many years, and we have not filed an Unlawful Detainer action in the
13 years I have been supervising these mobilehome parks. That level of tenant commitment and loyalty to their
communities lead us to believe they are happy where they live.
They maintain their loyalty despite the increased utility rates for electric, water, and gas and fees for trash and sewer
services imposed by government agencies. From what we know, there has been NO Bit O' Home or Liberty tenant
support for rent controls. Our customer tenants have seen improved streets in both parks, street lights in both parks,
swimming pool upgrade in BOH, trash area sanitization improvements, graffiti removal, immediate attention to remedy
utility interruptions -- and the list goes on. They know that if rent control comes, that public policy would interfere with
timely repairs to the park that maintain quality -of -life standards in their neighborhoods.
We are very proud of our landlord -tenant relationships in both parks. From experience covering over 35 years of
mobilehome industry issues, I know firsthand that rent control will cause harmful divisive rifts between tenant and
landlord as it has throughout California.
Regarding Just Cause Evictions: Your research should have taught you that the California Mobilehome Residency Law
(CA Civil Code Chapter 798) governs mobilehome unlawful detainers. You should know that State Law occupies the field
of mobilehome unlawful detainers preempting local UD ordinances.
Clearly, your findings and research are woefully inadequate in formulating this flawed public policy attempt.
Please amend or reject this second reading of the ordinance.
Respectfully yours,
Clay Hage
Director of Operations
Park Management Inc
2141 E. Broadway Road, #105
Tempe AZ 85282
760-668-1760
Orozco, Norma
From: Paola Sanchez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 10:54 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21
City Council Meeting
Categories: Correspondence
Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council,
Estimado alcalde Vicente Sarmiento y miembros del concilio municipal de Santa Ana,
Les pido que voten a favor del Punto # 33 de la agenda, y de ese modo ayuden a establecer
una ley de estabilizacion de las rentas y las protecciones de causa justa contra el desalojo en
Santa Ana. Ademas de establecer el control de rents les pido tomen las medidas necesarias
para crear una mesa directiva encargada de hacer cumplir estas protecciones. Esta
ordenanza fue redactada por y para los residentes de Santa Ana con el objetivo de proteger
a los inquilinos de clase trabajadora mas vulnerables de nuestra comunidad.
Las moratorias de desalojo relacionadas con el COVID-19 y las protecciones adicionales
federales y estatales han terminado o expiraran a fines de septiembre de 2021. Asimismo,
los programas federales de prestaciones de desempleo en virtud de la Ley CARES
terminaron septiembre 4, 2021. La pandernia de COVID-19 esta lejos de haber terminado; la
ciudad de Santa Ana ha sido la mas afectada en todo el Condado de Orange, con casi 900
muertes confirmadas de COVID-19 y mas de 48.000 casos confirmados de COVID-19 hasta
la fecha. Sin embargo, los inquilinos estan siendo desalojados injustamente y se enfrentan a
aumentos predatorios de las rentas, todo mientras que acumulan la deuda de renta de la
cual todavia son responsables. Cifras muestran que el 89% de los fondos de asistencia para
la renta no se han distribuido a nivel federal. En Santa Ana, los trabajadores con salario
minimo que ganan $14 por hora tendrian que trabajar 104 horas a la semana para permitirse
un modesto apartamento de 1 recamara. Los inquilinos con deuda de renta a inquilinos que
han agotado sus ahorros para evitar la deuda de renta no pueden seguir enfrentando
aumentos de renta excesivos a impredecibles de okra manera seran desplazados
10
permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita
protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad.
La ordenanza:
Limitary los aumentos de renta a un maximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflacion),
cualquiera que sea menor Para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995.
Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un maximo de Una vez al ano.
Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa pars la mayoria de los residentes.
Extenders la estabilizacion de renta a los 28 parques de casas moviles de Santa Ana.
Extender! las protecciones de desalojo por causa justa a todos los inquilinos (temporalmente
disponibles a traves de AB-832 y se caducan el 09/30/2021).
Como miembros elegidos por los constituyentes de Santa Ana, esperamos que ustedes
prioricen la salud publica y las necesidades inmediatas de vivienda de los residentes de
Santa Ana y con su voto establezcan protecciones permanentes de los inquilinos locales. El
Control de Renta es posible; mas de 20 jurisdicciones en California han establecido leyes de
Control de Renta y nosotros tambien podemos hacerlo. Sin un control de rentas y sin las
protecciones de causa justa habr6 desplazamientos masivos y desestabilizacion de nuestra
comunidad. Un voto en contra de las protecciones para inquilinos durante Una pandemia
global es un voto en contra de nuestras vidas. Le instamos a que establezcan un Control de
Renta to mas antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para
inquilinos a nivel estatal.
Paola Sanchez
paola17316@gmail.com
333 W Halesworth St
Santa Ana, Wyoming 82701
11
Orozco, Norma
From:
Cameron Irons <cirons@svn.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 18, 2021 3:14 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Rent Control
Categories: Correspondence
I ask you to reconsider the implementation of this draconian ordinance. While many jurisdictions are passing
rent control ordinances none has been as severe as the one you are proposing to approve. The amount of
increases allowed will not keep up with the rising costs of maintaining properties and will have the effect of a
government taking of the properties.
If an owner can not raise rents sufficiently to support the building's ongoing expenses they will not be able to
refinance the property and likely lose it to the lender or need to sell it at a loss. There will also be incentive to
spend less on maintenance causing more blighted properties.
If the government wants to make apartments more affordable it should provide rental assistance to the residents
who qualify. This blunt instrument keeps rent low on everyone, including those who can afford more. In turn
these people will not move, reducing housing stock.
Please vote NO on rent control.
�ilv,SVN�
VANGUARD
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ADVISORS
SALES i LEASING i MANAGEMENT
Cameron Irons I Executive Director
Orange County
120 W 5th Street # 210
Santa Ana, CA 92701
San Diego
4455 Murphy Canyon Road
San Diego, CA 92123
License #: 01176224
office: 714.446.0600
desk: 949.558.0301
mobile: 714.404.5256
email. cirons _ svn.com
web: www.svnvanquard.com
FRAUD DISCLOSURE
Communicating through email is not secure or confidential; therefore, SVN will never send instructions to you regarding wire transferring of funds or
requests for confidential financial information such as credit card numbers or bank account or routing numbers by email. If you receive an email
12
concerning any transaction involving SVN that requests financial or confidential information, do not respond to the email and immediately contact
denise.hance@svn.com
*Please cote that all Sperry Van Ness (SVN)® businesses are itndependently owned and operated.
13
Ormco, Norma
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Categories:
Dear Mayor and Council,
Brad Caldwell <bcaldwell@imsay.com>
Monday, October 18, 2021 3:15 PM
eComment
Opposition to the Proposed City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent
Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act
High
Correspondence
I am a rental -housing provider in Santa Ana and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana
Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council agenda.
The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over -reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies
will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they
are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more.
As a community partner and rental -housing provider in the city, my experience and ability to provide insight could help
provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts.
However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being
actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental -housing providers with a proposal that:
• Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe,
quality housing to my tenants.
Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that
impact our rental business operations.
• Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry.
I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is
severely flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I
respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional
study and discussions with rental housing providers in the city.
Sincerely,
Brad Caldwell
Caldwell Real Estate Holdings LLC
14
Ormco, Norma
From: Danielle Holloway McCarthy <dmccarthy@amcliving.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:18 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Vote NO on Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction
Importance: High
Categories: Correspondence
Dear Members of the Santa Ana City Council,
Thank you for your service and time reading my email. I am writing to ask you, as a rental housing professional for more
than 10 years, to VOTE NO on rent control and just cause eviction.
I have attended the last two meetings and heard all of the stories from both sides of this argument. What I would like to
briefly state to you is that no one is disputing the struggles and challenges faced by many of the families in Santa Ana,
but rent control and just cause eviction is not the answer. It will not solve the problem in Santa Ana and it will not give
the residents a better life.
I will keep it concise, but here are a few reasons why:
• Most apartment operators value low turnover and only impose reasonable rent increases based on growing
expenses and needs of the community. You are attempting to solve a "city-wide problem" that is not based in
fact or reality.
• Not allowing a professional property management company to screen prospective residents and to evict
problem residents endangers people living in our communities, degrades the community, the city and
everyone's quality of life.
• Rent control does not solve homelessness — the top 6 US cities with the highest rate of homeless people have
rent control
• Rent control promotes a run-down community, riddled with crime and lack of regulation, safety or maintenance
• It promotes overcrowding and overuse of the space —Where will people park? Where will they do laundry?
• Rent control does not allow owners to recoup their costs, therefore disincentivizing investment in upgrades and
even daily upkeep such as courtesy patrol and maintenance. Those will be cut.
• Property management creates competitive wage paying jobs for citizens of Santa Ana. Allow us to keep
increasing wages and providing fully -paid health benefits amongst many other things to our employees!
• Older buildings require more maintenance (buildings built before 1995 as specified in the ordinance)
• Rent control impedes the natural progressions of apartment living —When life circumstances change or families
grow, who will move to the nice new buildings? With rent control, families will hold on to apartments which do
not meet their needs anymore because of their affordability, making them inaccessible to people who really
need them
• It will exacerbate the housing shortage
Our company does not put people over profits. We value our residents (VIPs as we call them), our employees and all of
our partners. Do you think if we were greedy and evil landlords, we would employ more than 400 individuals, many of
who are residents in Santa Ana? Do you think those same employees would have consistently votes us a Top Workplace
in Orange County for 7 years? Do you think if we put people over profits your city's rental housing task force would have
certified our properties as Gold Seal recipients dozens of times? Do you think if we put people over profits our
15
apartment turnover rate would average 34% in the last 5 years, which is far below the industry average of approximately
47%
I respectfully ask you to VOTE NO and collaborate with us, other industry professionals and renters in Santa Ana to find
the right solution. We can do this together. Acting quickly, without all of the facts and perspectives from all sides will be
detrimental to your city and its wonderful residents. Would you make medical decisions on behalf of the citizens of
Santa Ana without consulting doctors or scientists? No. So why are you making a decision regarding housing without
consulting the professionals who have helped revive this city, made it safer and give people a quality home?
Thank you,
Danielle Holloway McCarthy
Vice President
ARES I AMC I R3
15320 Barranca Pkwy. I Suite 100 1 Irvine I CA 192618
T: 949.595.5966
Invest I Rent I Renovate
DRE Lic #01976049
This communication is confidential and may contain information or material that is proprietary, legally
privileged and/or otherwise protected by law (all such rights and protections being expressly reserved hereby).
If you have received it in error or if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by
return message and permanently delete the message, including any attachments, and destroy any printed copies.
Any unauthorized use, copying or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. Thank you. ARES, Inc. operating under California License # 00881503
16
Orozco, Norma
From: Marcia Narog <mgnarog@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:28 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Rent control vote
Categories: Correspondence
How can you even be considering doing such a horrible thing?
Please vote NO if you have any concept of fairness and want Santa Ana to be a place people want to live. As a
landlord of only a couple of properties, I am amazed that you would even consider bringing economic ruin to
the rental market/community with these restrictions. The Covid moratorium has brought unmitigated corruption
for many landlords because unethical renters have chosen to spend their money on fancy cars and vacations.
Meanwhile, the courts are not addressing our eviction needs. :Landlords are stuck not able to pay for mortgages,
upkeep or taxes so are left without recourse. Now this change will bring absolute ruin to many of us. Do what
is right and vote NO!
Sincerely,
Marcia Narog
17
Orozco, Norma
From: Romi Ray<rray@premierpropertysolutions.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:29 PM
To: eComment
Subject: VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES
Categories: Correspondence
am a property manager with 16+ years experience and Santa Ana is amongst the hardest city to manage.
Tenants (most of which are not documented and do not have proper ID and proof of income) frequently bring
in multiple families to live as unauthorized occupants, and don't pay on time if at all, causing higher utility bills
and more wear and tear on the property. They do not respect the properties and often leave trash outside all
over the floor, children unattended, vandalism, bedbugs, illegal dumping, park their cars on the grass even
though they have assigned garages and parking (because they have too many unauthorized occupants staying
with them) which causes City Code Violations from Code Enf to be given to the owners, they don't report
maintenance because they don't want us to see how many beds are there, etc. The State already mandated
rent control with AB1482... this is enough .... stop trying to mandate more rules over private property. VOTE NO
QPremier Property Solutions
Romi Ray
Property Manager/Realtor
285 Imperial Hwy, Suite #204
Fullerton, CA 92835
0: 714-213-8197
M: 714-412-1989
Agent Lic: 01475519
www.premierpropertysolutions.com
18
Orozco, Norma
From:
Julia Araiza <j4art1@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 18, 2021 3:43 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Rent and eviction control ordinance.
Categories: Correspondence
Please do not pass this ordinance. It will destroy safety and decent rental housing in Santa Ana.
The Council is not considering the needs of its residents who rely on landlords to keep neighborhoods clean of crime.
They do this by evicting tenants who are involved in crimes that harm their neighbors. Ability to evict is essential.
Removing this tool only helps the criminals stay in residences where they are harming their neighbors.
Rent control will remove funds for maintaining apartments. Santa Ana cannot afford to let apartments deteriorate. It is
a vulnerable city.
Landlords need funds to maintain their rentals. Spending money without income is not sustainable.
Many Santa Ana rental are owned by small apartment owners who often survive on the rental profit, and cannot afford
to maintain the rentals without income.
19
Orozco, Norma
From: lorrainebader@aim.com
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:46 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Please vote No!
Categories: Correspondence
This is extremely harsh in light of all that has fallen upon landlords in this COVM 19 cycle.
I still have people who haven't paid rent in a year!!!
Please stop trampling on us!!!
We have mortgages, roofs to replace, water to pay, trash to pay, insurance to pay, taxes and property taxes.
What are you thinking???
This is crazy... build your own housing and then don't raise rent ... yourselves!!!!
This housing shortage should not be falling on the backs of housing providers.
Such an injustice... if this goes further, I hope the city gets sued and pays for this!!!
I am angry,
Sincerely
Lorraine Tapia
Sent from the all new AOL atDv for 10S
20
Orozco, Norma
From:
Frank Holloway <fholloway@advancedonline.com>
Sent:
Monday, October 18, 2021 4:01 PM
To:
eComment
Subject:
Vote NO on Forced Rent Control!
Categories: Correspondence
Honorable mayor and city council members,
Please accept this email my opposition to rent control in the City of Santa Ana! This
ordinance will force owners and managers ofrental properties in the city to slash expenses,
including services and security and only hurt our residents. This is absolutely the wrong
approach to this problem, and 1 strongly urge you all to vote NO.
Frank 0. Holloway
AMC I ARES I R3 1 VPS 1
15320 BARRANCA PARKWAY, SUITE #100 1 IRVINE I CA 1 92618
P: 949.595.5900 1 F: 949.595.5901 1 W: AMCLIVING.COM
DRE# 00646144
This communication is confidential and may contain information or material that is proprietary, legally
privileged and/or otherwise protected by law (all such rights and protections being expressly reserved hereby).
If you have received it in error or if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by
return message and permanently delete the message, including any attachments, and destroy any printed copies.
Any unauthorized use, copying or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. Thank you. ARES, Inc. operating under California License # 00881503
21