Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #33Orozco, Norma From: Roberto Cabrera <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:47 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 Io mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Roberto Cabrera sand raolguinberna14571 @gmail.com 337 Beverly Place Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Ricardo Morales <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:56 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Ricardo Morales psrka1714@gmail.com 305 s flower Sant Ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Alicia Liquidano <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:00 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Alicia Liquidano liquidanoalicia@gmail.com 1013 minnie st apt 1 Santa Ana , California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Jeffrey <jeffrey.farrier@gmaiLcom> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:10 PM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: Rent Control I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. <BR> <BR>Living nearby to apartments in the city, (am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. <BR> <BR>Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33 Sent from my Whore Orozco, Norma From: Luis Martinez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 6:49 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Luis Martinez luimart3@gmail.com 411 E Washington Ave, Apt B Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Alan Cottle <alan.cottle@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 7:42 AM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: Please Vote NO on Item 33. I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33 10 Orozco, Norma From: Mary c Osorio <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:39 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 11 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Mary c Osorio maryosorio758@gmaii.com 13072 Benton Garden Grove, California 92843 12 Orozco, Norma From: Lewis Real Estate <a.lewisrealestate@gmaiLcom> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 3:16 PM To: eComment Cc: LEWIS REAL ESTATE, Est.1975 Subject: Rent Controol Rent control will destroy housing. 13 525 Cabrillo Park Drive, Suite 125, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: (714) 245-9500 Fax: (714) 245-9505 www.AAOC.com September 21, 2021 Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and Member of the Santa Ana City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: City Council Agenda Item No. 33 (September 21, 2021) Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Council Members, The Apartment Association of Orange County (AAOC) wishes to register its strong opposition to the proposed "Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance" that appears on the September 21, 2021 city council agenda. AAOC has represented Orange County rental - housing providers for the past 60 years and has a long history of working with cities and advocating for safe, affordable, and quality rental housing in our communities. While there are many elements of the city's proposal that provide grounds for concern and opposition, there are three that I'd like to address in this letter: 1. Rent control efforts have been repeatedly rejected by Santa Ana voters. 2. The city did not engage or otherwise seek input from housing industry stakeholders. 3. The proposal brought forth by the city is fraught with flaws. AAOC remains committed to being a positive community partner, and advocating for safe, affordable and quality housing in Santa Ana, but this proposal is the wrong path forward. Santa Ana voters have repeatedly rejected rent control efforts Repeated attempts to implement citywide rent control in Santa Ana have failed due to Santa Ana voters not supporting the policy for their city. They have not only rejected recent efforts to place the issue on the ballot, but they have done so with strong and consistent opposition. Simply put, rent control in Santa Ana is undesired and has continued to be unpopular with voters. Each attempt to implement rent control has been brought forth by special interest groups that represent neither the vast majority of Santa Ana residents and voters, nor their interests and needs. This current proposal was similarly brought forth with no interest in involving stakeholders on both sides of the issue, which brings us to our next objection to the proposed ordinance. Process excluded housing industry stakeholders If what the city wanted to accomplish was to create a policy that incorporates the perspectives, experience, and expertise of all potentially impacted parties, then stakeholders from the housing Apartment Association of Orange County Opposition to Agenda Item #33 (September 21, 2021) Page 2 industry should have been asked by the city to be involved in the process. The city failed to include these long-standing community partners when crafting this proposal. In so doing, the city sent a strong message to those who provide housing for Santa Ana residents that they are not valued when it comes to addressing housing challenges in the city. Rental -housing providers, property owners, real estate professionals, and the professional trade associations that represent those who work on housing issues every day were not offered seats at what should have been a large and inclusive table befitting of a diverse and otherwise inclusive city like Santa Ana. Without the input of the very industries that would be regulated by this proposal, the city has created a one-sided policy that is riddled with flaws. The process undertaken by the city has produced a predictable result — problematic policies that will result in undesired and unintended consequences. Flawed policy is bad policy Housing policy is tricky in the state of California. Anyone who has dealt with the complexities of housing laws knows that any solution presents challenges. These challenges can be solved, but it requires cooperation and communication among the impacted parties. When a challenge only has one side factored into the solution, bad public policy is the result. Santa Ana's residents deserve policies that are not fraught with fundamental flaws. Those who oppose this policy proposal will highlight many of its problems, which will have been identified with less than one week and time for only a cursory review before the city council meeting. These problems could have been avoided had all impacted stakeholders simply been consulted and included in the process. Now, the city is attempting to pass, on an "emergency" basis, a policy that conflicts with state law, compromises residents' public safety and quality of life, and fails to account for existing solutions that can better address the needs of Santa Ana residents. In the interest of cooperation and government transparency — and in furtherance of finding a more appropriate and balanced solution to address the needs of Santa Ana residents — the Apartment Association of Orange County formally registers its opposition to this proposal and requests the opportunity, along with its coalition partners, to work with the city in exploring less draconian options for addressing this public policy matter. Sincerely, F Cor ero Executive Director Apartment Association of Orange County Orozco, Norma From: Mr. & Mrs. Phil Schaefer <Philschaeferl @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 6:17 PM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, I strongly oppose this proposal for rent control. Countless studies show this has the opposite effect by reducing available rental stock. You will completely disincentivize landloards and rental stock will shrink making it more expensive and scarce. As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Phil Schaefer 1141 W Riviera Dr Santa Ana, CA 92706 Philschaeferl@gmail.com Orozco, Norma From: Elizabeth Cabello <cabelloelizabeth76@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 6:16 PM To: eComment Subject: Extender La Moratoria Y Derechos de Inquilinos Hola, Mi nombre es Elizabeth yo vivo en Santa Ana. Me gustaria saber si ustedes como concejales de la comunidad ban pensado en extender una morartoria en nuestra comunidad. A mi me gustaria que se extendiera una ley de proteccion temporal para nuestros inquilinos ya que hay mucha desigualdad en esta comunidad Tambi6n me gustaria que Ins residentes de Santa Ana sepan mas sobre so derechos como inquilinos. Como sabran Santa Ana tiene un alto nfimero de personas sin educacion, la falta de educacion hace que las personas no conozcan sus derechos. Tambi6n me gustaria que Ins residentes de Santa Ana sean informados sobre sus derechos. Pienso que hay formas de hacer outreach para que mas gente sepa sus derechos y haya un control de renta. Gracias Elizabeth, Saludos Orozco, Norma From: Javier Rodriguez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 6:09 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Javier Rodriguez rod rig uezjavier197@yahoo.com 409 E. Washington Ave. Apt. A Santa Ana , California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Jackie Laura <jackielaura40@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:32 PM To: eComment Subject: No mas Ala renta alta! No mas Ala renta alta porfavor queremos vivir como gente y nuestro sueldo no alcanza para mas. Jackie Laura Orozco, Norma From: Maria Pina <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:16 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Maria Pina mari.pina.256@gmaii.com 2801 N Bristol St Santa Ana, California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Yadira Lopez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:08 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Yadira Lopez yadiralopez.024@gmaii.com 411 east Washington apt b Santa Ana, California 92701 Kinh g& Hoi Hong Thanh pho Santa Ana Chung toi ten Le Tri va Hoang Thai Lan ca hai ngcrai tren 80 tuoi hien cu' ngu tai so 17.Mobile home Bali Hi tren 8 nam nay Chung toi song nha tien gia vai tien la $ 1,640.00 Chung toi phai hang thang tong cong tren $1,300.00 cho tien thue dat+tien tra them cho chu' nha va tien dien ncrac, co"ng ranh vv Vay toi xin len tieng de Ong ho Chuang trinh Rent Control vi Rent Control rat can thiet cho nhDng ngu°ai song trong Mobilehome, vi Gia Tien Thue len qua cao. Chung toi la nhDng ngLvai gia da ve hu°u, khong co du' tien de tra tien thue, ma Gia Tien Thue ct� tang cao hang nam, nen khong the song an tam du°ac Chung toi An keu goi Hoi flung Thanh Pho giup chung toi Ong ho chu°ang trinh Rent Control Chan thanh cam an. Le Tri & Hoang Thai Lan Orozco, Norma From: Willard Harris <wph270@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:28 PM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, Most apartment owners are small business people trying to make a living. These owners and operators rely on rental income to pay employee payroll, mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and, importantly, use the funds to maintain continuity of essential services for apartment communities as many renters must shelter in place. If lawmakers do not act to support landlords as well as renters, this ongoing crisis, paired with the economic downfall brought on by COVID-19, will only worsen. Apartment operators, employees and residents need additional economic relief to avoid a total collapse of the rental housing sector, which contributes $3.4 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. These small businesses often function on low margins that cannot sustain substantial losses of rental income for any period of time. This could result in a reduction of housing quality and services as owners make tough decisions about reserves and reducing expenses. The arbitrary reduction of future rental income will only stifle the addition of new housing and apartments and will create decay and neglect. As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Our businesses have operated in the City of Santa Ana for over 30 years. We support many charitable organizations such as Bowers Museum, Wiseplace, Kidsworks, The Boys and Girls Clubs, etc. Our ability to participate is directly related to our financial well-being. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Willard Harris 315 S Newhope St Santa Ana, CA 92704 wph270@gmail.com Orozco, Norma From: HANG NGUYEN <huonghang888@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:44 PM To: eComment Subject: Please Support RENT CONTROL Dear Santa Ana City Council, My name is Huong Luong (74 years old) and my wife Hang Nguyen (64 years old), living at 432 S. Harbor Blvd, Space 66, Santa Ana, CA 92704, since 2005. We have been living here more than 15 years now. And during the past few years, we were more and more worried about the Land Rental, which is getting higher and higher every year. Myself being retired and my wife with the fixed low income, we cannot bear the great rental increase every year. Today, we would like to take this opportunity to call for the support from the City Council to help us with the Rent Control. Thank you very much for your consideration. z Orozco, Norma From: Rosa Vasquez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:00 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Rosa Vasquez rodriguez.rowena498@gmaii.com 426 S Sycamore St Apt 1 Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Rowena Rodriguez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:01 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Rowena Rodriguez rowena.rodriguez423@gmaii.com 1311 N Ross St Apt 6 Santa Ana , California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Camille Krahe Hardy <chardy@amcliving.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:25 PM To: Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Phan, Thai; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida; eComment Cc: Frank Holloway, Danielle Holloway McCarthy, Richard Julian; Paul Julian; Michael Brown; Amy Fylling Subject: City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act Attachments: AMC Santa Ana Communities.09.21.2021.pdf Good afternoon, Advanced Real Estate, Advanced Management Company, and R3 Construction wish to express opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the September 21st City Council agenda. On behalf of Advanced Real Estate, Advanced Management Company, and R3 Construction, I would like to share the attached information with you all. We are hoping to get this to you with more advanced notice, but we would like to be able to speak to the City with regard to this information at the meeting this evening. See you this evening. Thank you! Camille Krahe I Brand & Marketing Manager AMC 115320 Barranca Pkwy. I Suite 100 1 Irvine I CA 192618 T: 949.595.5969 1 F: 949.595.59011 www.amcliving.com 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 _ O *+ O N CM O .� y O = E Q CL CD .a �..r o > N W O = 4000 =v � � M O > CL a Q p Q w W Ua z� Qw 3 W Cl) L > E O cu O O O _ CD 0 _ 0-) O M D 0) �,D E cu . � C6 > _0 c6 co , O E E cu N Q) E Q a CU +O E E E I Cn O m O C1 N D C6 i Q N E O 0-0— O O CU co Cl) N O �. E co O N > N cu co C6 co N ' CO c6 E � >0 CID c6 Q �_ O O Cn � � N Q Q C6 Cn N U C� CD = O U U cu O O o O cu N .� 0 0� Q Q- Q C� C� N cn O 0 Al x= : & a : col0§^�\ / a r •6 � � . !. [ Cl) E \ e $ ƒ ƒ E o o o j ¥ \ 2 I e d g f E e i i% ƒ q Q� E q 14— ® 6 ._ 2 < e % 2 % / Q � / - C- < Q C\q CD 0 q Eq . ,E c'm ' -_ \ a Co Cl) ' 2 \ > o \ 0 N 2\ .g g 0 o E e/ o oƒ e E :_ -% c c e E 2.2 > co _ � E k U >> z 0- 2 0 O ' . . . . . . C 0 0 . > U O O� E Q) (n E i — co O O 5 O U --- U Q) Cll >4-1 U E O O U Q) E O �c co_ UCU� o E O c D Q)4-1 — U Q) >, Q) Q) >, > co co O.� Q) -0 [] Q) U T Q U �O CO N X >' Cll Q) ) 0 O C6 U } � O U Q) U _ .— E E co � Coco � Co o Co Co co Q� o U � O O U OU co Cll Co Cll U Co U�— — �'� Q>) Q) co i 0 - > CTU) t Q) 4--j U L �--' cn �O .O Co � j O O L L 4--j L 4--j 0 U � E i Q) D O �_ O Q) 0-0 Q) co -0 Q coL _� Q) cn 0-0 D U) O = ---j D L Co Q) Q) co D CoO Q U � U) Q) O co . — co Co } co Co O U i O Q) — E Q) i Q } (n Q) cn 4-j Co E co 07 Q) i C �, Q) 6 +-j 0) O} , Co D � � �T j i Ci6 U (n O ❑- Q) i i--' i Q) } C6 i i6 co E U Q) O co Q E n Q) U) Q) co i Q) E Q) Q) O 0 3: c) MM m co Cn U � 6 > Cll Co � U CB �-- U cB -0 0 k O O O� � CD� UFO CO co Oco Q m UO j > Q Co O O = C/) Co O— = O CO Q -C: U O co > } +� cu O U C6 I ' j O O = co � O LO {/} O � Cll Co U) > Co U = Co co 4, -Z co co Cn U Co .� U Q U co co W Cn -0 E O CL E W C) Q O �^ W � � 0 N Co 4' 0 � — >U O�OQ Cl) 0) -0 co 0ICU-co co —0co 0 N 0 0 E UCoO�Nco �Q�OET U O 0 CO Co �>>Ncoco NQ L O 0 0 c _ E U,co N� U co U O 0 +�_�E �� Co U � co a-- U'0 C/) Co N a-- co N �O� �O co _^ co L Co ^` CD W V' �� O U co N N LCl) �> �Cl) cBO D7D U < Co Cl) �•� 0-0 E� N 0 CD) co Co -= Dco Co 0.Cl) Q-=4 � �\ caE C-) ® ® \ / ® c o_ m c /\\ \ E2 c ._ g.- 0. %0 ea o\ / E / \ /® / 2/ \ o a � 2 6 /a x%o c •- 0 C) � 2 E o o E @ m.2 > 4 a o m z/ S S E �:J� 2y0 »J0 E.o 0 LL $®�/ Q c c •- c �.-z� m= Ems= y/w o �c}/ Ecc3 ��E CT co w 3 4 O J/ k . U @ . 0 � - - - ,°- a C. y 6 = E / 2 c 0 q.z 2 zz 6/6 — 0'0w LE QWy c m w -0 / / � 02�0 E/ ? � | 0- k co/ \ co � m � m �� CD 0 � L / / \ / m 0-k \ 20 ® /\EQ)� ° 2 Eq/\ o " \ :/ \yam0 odo �q/.2/ _ / = � j \ C $ �k�® q Co m �/ ƒ 4 m - b $ o \/� Co2c C:)co m yz=± /§ %4£ o . . . - - V 4) LM LM LM O�? O�? O�? O�? O�?W b O N Lc) � N = o� cy) r� N cy) 4--' o� N co Co Co Co O > C6 ON=NNE (B --- U) o N oO 4-J i Q LO cococococo (A J O O U c6 c0 c6 c0 c0 i--+ ' — N C/) (1) N (B Q)� cB C6 C>6 c>0 c>0 c>0 c>0 ® Q (n U N Q) U) O (B > CU cDF=cn(n cu N (D N N N N N N N } N N -_ N O� -0 i ®� c N C� Q•� ON i U)�'� C6 • O O O O O O O oc lR N O � VI VI VI VI VI O O O O U N Ul Q 4) cp �CD ON - CD N - Ln Ln 00 E > N Qo -_ U� o .y oQ i Q a �� � N N E — ON N aOON O .� CD CD Q O i E_ o U� o E 0Q �o � IZI- 0 0 N ON N N CD (1) Qo (1)� L o� oQ Q N am C) N CD N II ON L O CD O ON CD N � y Q y ON N O O O O Q E O Q E O o Q f O O O O 0 Q _� 0 Q Q •� OQ CD ICU N OQ N C) N C) � C 4) V a ow • O N N Co O Q L O N C O O cB C) O N O S C N m Q Q O > C w m m L m L y C U L m T T m m � _ T V w m {o d� 0 s E m w d o c 3 E o cm m >m PD w `m a e co3 E L Q o � "- tm N N s m� Q �, a c E 3 � p 3 m Cu o y a O J .Mi ✓r a E m 33 ; d N S m Ol C L m p} W n m o E m Ma d c-Z y m m m s 3 r u o u 0 O m ~ © O _ t m m 0 y w wo y O m Z m m y o d © L? d� v m Qw E y C m L 0 T' c m T E N E ® © L m m L o d G 8 E C L r a!°'- m owm m 0 2 14 O mi O rn a F9 i. Y t �• O m O N cc3 ECLv> m os;;c it G �g a 3` E t q w E 5 c o m i m c 3 p .0-2 m Grn Z _ mc o .mc _ m S3 E S E c m � 3 U m Q 0 E C 0 3 > O m m 3 b d m m y 9 C w YE5> N Y V m C Q _ Z m y n L J 3 m E - m o, m 3 n C J m m y m 8 © m To © o m m a m QE T ` COS T 'F+ © m Q m S m mr IC N S © o 3 m E N y T m V N b a C m a V N C C 3 a m m e o L � o m m m m m E m e t lLm- C N N O d T d� o o t r r E cc E I . c n O a m m$ © -c E o E m m m m 2 3 © © © s m 0 E @ 3 /./ ./ - c � k �0��Q) Q)� @/Ems /�E E— ® aEa) > Q)Q) co �� �./o� \ »Q)= 0 �@-�Co@ �n \0 /./ �/ 0 E 0-0� � Co �� � /> o- �+ O/ƒƒm�� �/Q) E LnQ)�= � coQ)2 _� _ /���' \�(uq�5/ 0-00 O /E�/ e�� EE �E Q) e� om �O3�Q) @ 4��0 �.cn %�O�E�GO� �¥qq0 /20O0coQ)-- 0 � 3S� C)=//0-��® /� \0� o�p@ �E�/ :3 / �E� 3./ / >0 2 E w=-o E '/ co �./ C-o ID' /./�/E/�//�/�� /\��//��\0 D�/ /��� �Q) w / E O / / � - - - - - 3 / /� � o E � CL — / @ 0-0 . 2 �: e m 0 3 E 2 \ / Ln Co/ / \ E / / / Z O $ '/ ¥ C e O : o � CM cn Co 3 � E E ± CO E / / E / E @ @ » / cm @ O ¥ ./ O / E ZQ �3 / <// �� / @ 0. = 2 Co o � O Q)E / COƒ/ @ / / 2 N cn � 3 � CD \ � o S / > $ 2 2 2 C 5 E > @ E / E \ 0 0 � < CL ¥/� E O 3 > / / Co¥ 6 / � � / / / ± cn\ 2 coE cn �_ Co> \ cn 0 > > m � @ » 2 O ƒ / p / - � Q � O >, _ E > Q g 3 2 m 2 U '2 3 @ Co \ / / � / / / E / CT — G cn O @ G C 3 <± Co 0 / O ± E_ Q 3 5Q C) / % u Q O � � � / � � o O � / � � / � - - - - - - Orozco, Norma From: Richard Wehrt <dwehrt@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:10 PM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, I have owned 4-plex apartments since 1972 and have only had to evict a tenant only once due to a fire. I keep my rents reasonable. My average tenant stays with me for at least 5 years. I definitely do not need some set of rules on how to manage my properties. As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Richard Wehrt 1572 La Loma Dr Santa Ana, CA 92705 dwehrt@gmail.com Orozco, Norma From: THRIVE Santa Ana <thrivesantaana@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:22 PM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Mendoza, Nelida; Penaloza, David; Hernandez, Johnathan; Bacerra, Phil; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai Subject: City Council Agenda Item 33: In support of Renter Protections Hello, THRIVE Santa Ana wishes to express our support for Item 33 on tonight's City Council agenda. Renter Protections, as proposed in this Ordinance, are urgently needed to keep Santa Ana residents safe and at home during this time of housing and health crises. With the expiration of eviction protections, we look to our local representatives to take a stand in the interest of our local community. Please support this historic, resident -driven initiative to protect our Right to Remain and Thrive in Santa Ana. Thank you, Luis Sarmiento THRIVE Santa Ana (714)987-2009 Advancingsocial justice and buddingpower with working-class Vietnamese and �J immigrant communities in Orange County. • Garden Grove, CA 92843 I www.vietrise.ore I general@vietrise.org I @vietriseoc September 21, 2021 Mayor Sarmiento and City Council Members City of Santa Ana 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: In Support of Agenda Item #33: Adoption of Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Protections Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Santa Ana City Council Members, On behalf of VietRISE, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33 to enact rent stabilization andjust cause eviction protections for renters and mobile home residents in Santa Ana. As it stands, current emergency eviction moratoria and housing protections under COVID-19 will expire on September 31, 2021, and —unless action is taken to protect renters in Santa Ana —many residents will face eviction and displacement from their homes. As the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, this looming eviction crisis is a public health hazard as well as a serious threat to the working class, immigrant, and refugee communities who define Santa Ana. The proposed rent stabilization and just cause eviction ordinances are desperately needed by the residents of Santa Ana, where over 56% of all residents are renters. These ordinances, which would be even stronger than the state legislation for rent stabilization, would help ensure that renters —many of whom are working class, immigrants and refugees, elderly, or living on fixed incomes —have stable and affordable housing, thereby allowing them to continue to build their lives, families, and communities here without the threat ofgouging rent increases and displacement. In 2019, senior -aged mobile home residents brought forth efforts to establish a rent stabilization ordinance in the city of Westminster. These seniors shared story after story about how they are living on fixed incomes and face threats of rent hikes and displacement from the land they live on. Ultimately, the entire city council abstained, so the ordinance failed. This ordinance would have provided not just the physical safeguards to protect these seniors from facing increasingly unaffordable rent hikes and ultimately, displacement or homelessness, it would have been a statement from the city council of what they are willing to do to protect our senior generation. Santa Ana has the opportunity to make that commitment and do even better. The efforts by Santa Ana residents to enact rent stabilization multiple times in the last decade is proof alone that there is a strong need for these ordinances. It is time for the city to be proactive and address the root causes of displacement and homelessness and take measures to ensure that families in the city can thrive. These ordinances are a great step to ensuring the future stability and success of the city and all its residents, from our elders to young people, who make Santa Ana the beautiful city that it is. As an organization, VietRISE urges you to vote yes on Agenda Item #33. Best regards, �rzti Tracy La Executive Director VietRISE Orozco, Norma From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmaii.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:06 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item 33 I am Nathaniel Greensides, Ward 5 resident. I am in favor of the item Below are some counter points to the opposition: -"At NO Point did the city reach out to SEEK OUR INPUT or MAKE US AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed" The city has properly notified the public of the housing ad hoc's existence. At a recent city council meeting where the housing ad hoc presented their recommendations regarding the housing opportunity ordinance, the staff report indicated that the housing ad -hoc committee would be pursuing tenant protections and rent stabilization. Additionally, the agendized item arose from the input of community based organizations and residents who drafted and presented their desired ordinance to the city council. The agendized item is not the drafted ordinance in its entirety as presented by Tenants United Santa Ana —the coalition of local organizations and residents. The coalition has held many a workshop and outreach to residents since 2017. The opposition has regularly failed to participate or propose their own solution to the issue of increased unaffordability of rent in our city. - "[The proposal] Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect the ability to provide safe, quality housing to our tenants" Existing state law empowers local jurisdictions to enact local measures which are stronger than protections at the state level so as to respond to the needs of the residents of any local jurisdiction. I applaud that this exists personally, because the housing challenges of Santa Ana residents are very different than the needs of residents in other cities throughout the state. Additionally, the proposed restrictions do not inhibit a landlord from using their own accumulated profit to make any necessary repairs or changes to their properties to increase the quality and safety of their properties. Yet, I think the opposition is of the mindset that any profit gained in their rental enterprise shouldn't be utilized to better their products or services opting instead to keep the quality of housing the same while simultaneously increasing the costs to their consumers (i.e. renters). -"Eliminates our ability and the ability of other responsible landlords to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations" This argument asserts that any regulation of any type of business activity should not be pursued, yet I'd conjecture that many of us do in fact appreciate that there exists regulatory agencies that will shut down restaurants for failing to maintain basic health and safety codes. With the enactment of any local renter protections, fees paid to local enforcement agencies should be considered as a cost of doing business when entering the business of owning and operating rental units. Furthermore, the cap of 3 percent still allows landlords to control and adjust for costs that impact their rental businesses. Where there is a need for an increase above the three percent, landlords will have the right to petition for such to the local regulatory agency. As it exists currently, many residents have been evicted for "substantial repairs" and the landlord is not held accountable for such repairs if they even take place at all. Then once all tenants have left a building, the landlord paints the walls, and rents to new tenants at above market rates with no recourse for former tenants. The community is destabilized, and the rental market becomes even more unaffordable. -"undermines the very nature of the existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry" This is a very strong statement with zero substance: what exactly is the very nature to which the opposition refers? What existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry is even being referenced here? If I were to give this argument the benefit of the doubt, it would seem to refer to AB1482, which as has been argued by many others, does not address the needs of Santa Ana residents and is NOT permanent. -"We 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" To start, The proposed ordinance seeks to ensure strong local tenant protections. It would seem to me that the input of residential tenants in the city have been taken into consideration. The additional studies will yield the same results. The ask which is being made here by the opposition fails to offer any real time lines for such additional studies and they've had since 2017 to offer their input — and actively did not. -"[the proposal] has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home" Again, a strong statement lacking substance —where's the proof that rent stabilization and just cause has resulted in such? Rent stabilization and lust Cause ordinances actually help to reduce crime because tenants, with the ability of remain in their homes at an affordable increase every year, community ties result in lessened crime. In addition, the proposal actually does the opposite of the claim that it will "make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors". The proposal explicitly outlines processes that must be followed in order to remove bad actors. The processes outlined in the proposal hold both landlord and tenant accountable so as to ensure stable communities. Lastly, in cities where rent control has existed, property values have increased in that time period and I fully suspect that the same will occur here in Santa Ana, in beautiful Orange County California —a place where the demand to live has never ceased to exist. -"There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit" The proposal outlines the processes that will continue to allow for eviction due to non-payment of rent. So I am not really sure what the argument is here. A point to make in reference to the use of the word "homeowner" which seemingly alludes to mom-and-pop small landlords. The Rent Cap cannot extend to single family homes, condos, or multiunits built after Feb 1994 due to Costa Hawkins. If this is where the concern of the opposition is coming from, they can take solace in this fact I suppose... -"as a landlord limiting rent increases beyond the states current restrictions would be devastating. Our costs go up every year for services and maintenance and it would cause me to be unable to continue to maintain safe living conditions for my tenants" I understand this legitimate concern. Again, the proposal still allows for individual petition to increase rents above the max 3%for any cap subject units. However, not all units in the city will be subject to the rent cap due to Costa Hawkins state law. If a rent cap subject unit somehow can't provide basic health and safety living conditions for the tenants, that landlord likely made a bad business and financial decision neither the tenants nor the local economy should be responsible for this type of irresponsibility. -"[the proposal] 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" There's no proof that this will happen. Furthermore, the opposition does not make it clear how exactly the proposal will do these things. In cities where similar ordinances exists, none of this is true —quite the opposite actually. Property values in those cities overall has increased, public safety remains unaffected if not made better with stabilized communities able to form strong community ties, and quality of life for tenants who live in rent -cap subject units are able to afford to remain. -"imposing rent control will will [sic] reduce the interest of investors in building new rental units or investing in existing buildings" This argument regularly made by the opposition fails to understand exactly what rent stabilization means while simultaneously conflating it with lust Cause protections. It also fails to outline how this might be true. The interest of investors to invest in something is dependent upon possible return. Thus, in areas where the possible returns are lessened, then absolutely, there may be lessened interest to invest. But any return is better than no return or negative returns which is what absolutely takes place in regions where housing markets tank (remember 2008?). In rent cap -subject subject cities in 2008, rent cap subject units remained afloat and those tenants remained housed and investors still got their returns. The tenants and residents deserve stabilized economies and housing costs so that the local economy can more easily recover during periods of economic downturn. -"Every community where rent control has been imposed has overall had a negative effect i.e. poor upkeep, deferred maintenance, slum conditions, etc." Again, where's the proof? Additionally, in Santa Ana, poor upkeep and deferred maintenance is the norm without any "rent control" in place. The proposal will thus allow residents to be able to hold their landlords accountable to their business and legal obligations to provide safe and decent housing. -"I'm a good landlord and don't raise rents above three percent nor harass, bully, or evict without reason" Well then great! The proposed ordinance will continue to allow you to do so. In years where you may need to raise the rents past three percent, you can petition for such because the issue isn't good landlords, it's bad ones. This way all landlords are held to the same legal and moral standards in our City. -"The proposal allows people to move in without owner approval" Actually, it doesn't. It would serve the opposition best to read through the ordinance. -"the proposal will enable squatting without recourse" This is false. -"Let the free market do its job. Our Country developed very nicely under free enterprise" The issue is that the free market has failed time and time again to address the health and welfare of all individuals who are a part of our Country. The free enterprise that developed in the USA since its inception was based largely in part upon the exploitation of non -white individuals. Even in more contemporary history, we still see large patterns wherein the most success "free" enterprises don't represent people who have the same lived experience as the people who have made Santa Ana the great place that it is today. It's time to make the system work for us too. -"rent control in Brooklyn NY led to derelict unmaintained building that were eventually condemned and all tenants displaced" Landlords make a conscious choice to not maintain buildings and not petition for rent increases above the legally allowed cap. It was the landlord of this particular building which resulted in disrepair, not the tenants nor any local law. A restaurant owner who constantly cuts corners and fails to find ways to keep food and patrons happy will eventually go out of business. It is devastating when this occurs. This comment from the opposition also fails to show understanding or a definition of what "rent control" is. The proposal here in Santa Ana will allow for tenants to hold landlords accountable to a local regulatory agency. -"I won't be able to make my mortgage if there's a cap on rent" Not all units will be subject to the rent cap. For those that are, Landlords can petition for increases above and beyond the max. -"all landlords will stop renting if this is enacted" This is like arguing that because of any other regulation that all business owners in a given industry will leave overnight. However, especially in California, real estate is in high demand. Any equity gains will outpace increased rents above the cap (for any cap subject units). Three percent is a reasonable amount to increase the rent every year. If a landlord exits the rental business, they'd have a no percent increase year over year (on top of any equity gained). -"what do you think will happen to the housing/rental shortage when landlords can no longer afford to rent out their property due to non-payment of rent, squatting, lawsuits, etc.?" If a business owner can't afford to stay in business, they have some tough decisions to make. That has nothing to do with tenants. The issue that this question poses is the belief that tenants should bear all the costs of doing business and that the owner should not have to innovate or reinvest profits back into their business/investments. What will happen if a tenant doesn't pay rent under the proposed ordinance is that landlords can evict them — as it always has been. So this fear mongering statement lacks substance. If a landlord goes out of business because they keep having to evict bad tenants, the local market shouldn't bear the responsibility of weathering the instability that arises from the bad business decisions taken by an individual landlord. Lastly on this point, I question that Landlords will be unable to afford to keep their rentals afloat at a three percent increase. Other cities with rent control have a lower cap and yet landlords and investors still come in to those cities. And just maybe, the tenants living in the unit that a landlord offloads might be able to have accumulated enough savings to buy the building from the landlord who is underwater resulting in a win win for both sides... -"[the proposal] doesn't include considerations of inflation" It does. For any units subject to the rent cap, the max allowable increase per year is 80% of CPI or 3% whichever is less. -"limiting our ability to operate our mobilehome parks safely and reinvest in necessary infrastructure through this unjust rent control and just cause ordinance will only result in a less safe environment for our residents... rent control is not the answer and it will only result in further degradation of the city" The proposal does not limit any landlords ability to continue to operate their rental properties. This particular individual noted in other words that they are a good landlord. The proposal will allow them to continue to be good landlords. The comments offers no substance as to how the proposed ordinance will result in a less safe environment. They would still be able to raise rents, so I don't completely understand the argument. Additionally, the language of "further degradation" means to suggest that this individual thinks our city is of poor quality which is offensive in my humble opinion. To summarize the above points: Not all units will be subject the rent increase cap. When and where increases above the max may be necessary, a petition process will exist. "Rent Control" is not what the opponents think it is nor is it what is being proposed Orozco, Norma From: Dave Elliott <delIiott@santaanachamber.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:05 PM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente Subject: Agenda item #33 Rent control Mayor Sarmiento, Members of the Council and City Manager Ridge On behalf of the Santa Ana Chamber I would request an extension on this issue for further discussion. It seems there has been little outreach to discuss this crucial issue. The Chamber just recently heard of it on the agenda and have had no opportunity to discuss the pros and cons. We would suggest postponement on any decisions until there has been ample discussion from residents, property owners and the business community with you our city leaders. On the surface I think the Chamber would oppose this ordinance but no discussion. Appreciate the consideration. Respectfully submitted Dave Elliott President/CEO SACC Orozco, Norma From: Joann Jones <joannjones884@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:03 PM To: eComment Subject: Rent Stabilization Vote I vote Yes Orozco, Norma From: A Cabello -Valencia <cabelloariana2@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 4:01 PM To: eComment Subject: Rent Comment As a Santa Ana resident, student, and worker, we have the right to give opinions on rent in our city, and they must be considered. Santa Ana has a rent crisis, if you live in this city, then you can understand this statement. Santa Ana has more Hispanic/latinx residents than other cities, we are classified as low income, and about 50% of federal money goes to the police department. It is the job of the City, the Mayor, councils, and more to provide shelter to us as residents of Santa Ana. Homelessness is a big issue I'm this city and you as workers must do something to overcome this issue. Rent must NOT increase just because the landlords have the power to do so. We as tenants, we have the rights to have shelter without being worried if we will be able to pay next month. An increment in rent should not be considered when there are so many barriers for us as immigrants, low income individuals, and Santa Ana residents. No queremos terminar en la calle o quedarnos sin comer porque no tenemos para pagar las dos cocas. Como graduada de la universidad es inaudito que no pueda tener un trabajo estable a pesar de mis aiios de educacion. Educacion que no me puede dar dinero suficiente para pagar una renta que es excesiva incluso con una educacion. ZImaginate que dificil es pagar renta para alguien que no puede tener un mejor trabajo? Exijo como residente de Santa Ana and demand as a US citizen who represents my community, to provide a rent control in my city. People placed in power cannot take advantage of other just because they can. Protect us and give more money to cover our necessities, the police department in this city is not a necessity; Food , shelter, and health care is what we need. Respectfully, Ariana Cabello, BS California Apartment Association • 3349 Michelson Dr, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612 September 21, 2021 Mayor and City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: CAA Opposition to Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances (Item 33) Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Members of the City Coimcil: The California Apartment Association (CAA) is opposed to the proposed rent control and just cause ordinances as proposed in Item 33. CAA represents more than 60,000 owners and rental housing professionals in the State of California. Nearly sixty percent of our membership are small "mom and pop" housing providers, including many who have offered housing services responsibly in the City of Santa Ana for generations. The rent control and just cause proposals have significant deficiencies that will harm property owners, renters, and community -at -large. CAA enumerates the following issues: 1. THE SECRET HOUSING AD HOC COMMITTEE IS SEVERELY LACKING IN PROCESS AND TRANSPARENCY The City of Santa Ana (City) has not conducted any thorough stakeholder outreach in comparison to other initiatives such as the inclusionary housing ordinance or General Plan update. The City has been a regular convener of all community and business stakeholders on major housing issues that are subjects of the Housing Ad Hoc committee. The City led workshops on the inclusionary housing ordinance as far back as July 1, 2019, which CAA was invited to participate in. Likewise, the City led six weeks of community and stakeholder workshops on the General Plan update. In a drastic departure from these best practices, the City made only a brief mention of the ordinance in a September 7 meeting and gave as little as five days' notice of the actual language for the rent control and just cause ordinances. The City has been meeting in a secret "ad hoc" committee to develop the proposal for six months. CAA inquired on February 25, 2021 about participating in the Housing Ad Hoc to provide its views on all major housing issues including rent control, but was denied. The Housing Ad Hoc is inconsistent with its own public policymaking process and unprofessionally selective in its approach to public outreach. Any progress to solve both city and regional housing shortage is predicated on good faith. CAA and its members have been regular contributors to the City of Santa Ana and have been eager to help on housing affordability needs of the community. The Housing Ad Hoc Committee members have failed to act in good faith, and the flawed proposal reflects that It is a one-sided, ill-considered measure that will only make the housing shortage worse. 2. CITY COUNCIL MUST VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROL BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN COMMUNITY OR VOTER SUPPORT FOR RENT CONTROL IN SANTA ANA Santa Ana voters have definitively rejected rent control on four different occasions in the past two election cycles. Tenant groups have sought — and failed — to garner enough support to meet the 10% signature requirement to qualify rent control and just cause ballot measures in both 2018 and 2020. Similarly, Santa Ana voters rejected two statewide rent control initiatives that proposed to expand the use of rent control locally in 2018 and 2020. Both elections had record turnouts. In the latter election, voters were not convinced that a once -in -a -generation pandemic was reason enough to support rent control. Any City Council decision rendering passage of the rent control and just cause ordinances would contradict the clear message sent by Santa Ana voters. 3. THE CITY HAS FAILED TO SPEND MILLIONS OF RENTAL ASSISTANCE DOLLARS The Housing Ad Hod Committee has justified this proposal as "an emergency measure to protect and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Santa Ana in response to the pending expiration of the State's COVID-19 emergency residential eviction moratorium on September 30, 2021." In addition to falsely implying that the proposal will, in any way, provide relief to tenants who have been unable to pay rent due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, this justification also ignores the fact that the City has at its disposal tens of millions of dollars that can provide real relief to Santa Ana renters, and yet it has failed to ensure proper distribution of those funds. To restate the facts for the current record, the City reported a budget of over $42 million for rental assistance funds on August 31, 2021. Another recent city report shows improved distribution at $16 million, but it will still take nearly 56 weeks to distribute funds to Santa Ana residents at the current rate. Only 3.6% of all Santa Ana households have applied for funds. A previous report shows that over 82% of applicants were rejected or did not complete their applications. The City has had six months to distribute rental assistance funds with the full knowledge that the statewide eviction moratorium would be coming to an end. It is unfathomable why the Housing Ad Hoc, if it is truly concerned about the expiration of the state eviction moratorium, is ignoring the primary tool the City has to address those concerns and is instead focusing its efforts on policies that do nothing to provide relief to renters and landlords suffering as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than distribute the millions of rental assistance funds that can help households in need right now, the Housing Ad Hoc committee is prioritizing a political agenda to push failed and extreme versions of rent control. 4. EXTREME USE OF RENT CONTROL WITH HALF-BAKED COMPLIANCE MEASURES The Housing Ad Hoc committee has not fully comprehended the impacts of the egregious price control mandated by the proposed rent control ordinance. The proposed ordinance prohibits any rent increase of more than 80% of the change in the consumer price index (CPI), with a ceiling of three percent, thereby ensuring that rents cannot keep up with inflation. The committee gives little consideration to the significant expenses landlords must pay out of their rental income, including mortgages, repair costs, insurance, and property taxes. The price controls would harm teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public employees who have invested in rental properties to fund their retirement Extreme rent control policies also provide a strong disincentive for landlords to invest in anything more than the bare minimum required to maintain their properties, resulting in the degradation and ultimate loss of older housing stock. The proposed ordinance is lacking in substance. For example, there is no base definition of "rent," a term that is key to compliance with the measure; as a result, it's unclear whether "rent" is simply that amount paid for the use of the rented premises, or also includes other amounts such as charges for utilities, internet, amenities, and other services. The City expects property owners to follow draconian decrees without defining the basic parameters needed for compliance. Under the proposed ordinance, an owner whose rents are too low to keep up with costs would be forced to go through a new bureaucratic appeal process that typically costs other jurisdictions millions in dollars per year to administer. By the staff reports own admission, the Housing Ad Hoc committee seeks to implement a policy before fully weighing the fiscal impacts. The Housing Ad Hoc committee has made a half-baked recommendation for price controls that is harmful to a diverse constituency of stakeholders. 5. CITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOT RUSH TO APPROVE DANGEROUS LOOPHOLES IN THE JUST CAUSE ORDINANCE By conducting diverse community and stakeholder outreach, the Housing Ad Hoc would have learned about the dangerous loopholes in the proposed just cause ordinance that would increase criminal activity in Santa Ana neighborhoods. The criminal activity provisions are if not onerous, then impossible to follow. The ordinance provides a right of return to criminal offenders if the district attorney fails to file charges within the applicable statute of limitations, even if a court of law has found the tenant to have engaged in criminal activity at the eviction hearing. Victims, surrounding tenants, employees, and owners may be left for years anxiously waiting to know whether they will be forced to live alongside the offending tenant. Likewise, the anti -harassment provisions include glaring problems that inhibit even the most basic operations of a rental housing provider. For example, property owners are in a Catch-22 for basic repairs that require a temporary interruption of services, such as a temporary water or electrical shut- off, as the ordinance stipulates that aLi3: interruption in housing services is considered harassment with no exception, even if that interruption is necessary to conduct repairs, maintenance, or upgrades. This restriction is not only patently unreasonable, it also contradicts other provisions of both the just cause ordinance and rent control ordinance that penalize the owner for not conducting necessary repairs. The ordinance also prohibits landlords from entering a dwelling unit "inspections that are not related to necessary repairs or services," despite the fact that state law permits entry for other purposes such as inspecting a smoke detector (Health & Safety Code Sec. 13113.7(d)(2)(A)) or exhibiting the dwelling to a potential tenant or purchaser (Civil Code Sec. 1954(a)(2)). In addition to unreasonably interfering with owners' ability to conduct basic operations, the anti - harassment provisions of the just cause ordinance appear to be a solution in search of a problem, given that various state laws already prohibit the exact type of conduct the provisions are intended to address. For example, Civil Code Sec. 1942.5 prohibits landlords from retaliating against tenants who complain about habitability issues or exercise other legal rights. Civil Code Sec. 789.3 prohibits landlords from interrupting housing services for nefarious purposes. Fair housing laws, such as Government Code Sec. 12955, prohibit landlords from harassing tenants because of a wide variety of personal characteristics including, but not limited to, race, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, and disability. California has even adopted a law (Civil Code Sec. 1940.35) specifically prohibiting landlords from harassing tenants by reporting the tenant's immigration or citizenship status to immigration or other law enforcement authorities. Exacerbating these issues is the fact that violation of any provision of the ordinance is a misdemeanor. This puts rental housing providers in the impossible position of risking jail time for engaging in otherwise perfectly legal activities, such as performing maintenance or exhibiting a dwelling to a potential buyer. CONCLUSION: CAA ENCOURAGES CITY COUNCIL TO FOCUS ON MORE EFFECTIVE MEANS OF PROVIDING IMMEDIATE RELIEF AND CREDIBLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS The rent control and just cause ordinances are deficient in their ability to provide any substantial net benefit to the community and address challenges associated with the city s housing shortage. The Housing Ad Hoc has gravitated to failed policy proposals that voters have clearly rejected four times. CAA encourages the City to demonstrate its leadership and focus on distributing emergency rental assistance, a resource that it has now to help Santa Ana residents who are in need. For these reasons, the California Apartment Association is opposed to the Housing Ad Hoc's rent control and just cause ordinances. Respectfully, la Victor Cao Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs MH�T Manufactured flarsing Educabomd PACIFIC FWEST Western M Manufactured Housing Communities Association September 21, 2021 Mayor and City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: September 21, 2021 City Council Agenda Item No. 33 Honorable Mayor Sarmiento and Members of the City Council: '� �v ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL Tne Leading Voice of Business OCTa..org om 0 range CwntyTaxpayers Ammatw On behalf of a coalition comprised of the region's businesses, property owners, investors, developers, managers and suppliers of rental homes, REALTORS@, and manufactured housing communities, we respectfully request that you reconsider moving forward with the adoption of rent control and just cause eviction ordinances. Lack of Transparency Due to Mayor -Led Efforts to Sidestep Accountability Per the associated staff report, "The Housing Ad Hoc Committee members consist of Mayor Sarmiento and Councilmembers Lopez and Phan. The Committee convened its first meeting on March 22, 2021 and has since conducted four additional meetings to discuss various housing issues." Yet, nowhere in the staff report is reference made to the Housing Ad Hoc Committee meeting minutes or how such meetings were publicized to the community in order to gain stakeholder input. It would appear that Councilmembers Lopez and Phan believe they also represent Wards 2, 4, 5 and 6 in "direct[ing] staff' as part of closed -door meetings rather than allowing discussion to take place in public during regularly agendized Council meetings. Santa Ana Voters Have Repeatedly Spoken on this Issue, Rejecting Such Measures Perhaps these ad hoc meetings were simply designed to thwart the will of Santa Ana residents who have consistently rejected rent control measures, such as statewide Proposition 10 in 2018 and Proposition 21 in 2020, along with refusing to sign petitions in 2018 and 2020 that fell drastically short of obtaining the requisite signatures to qualify a local rent control initiative. City Sitting on Roughly $25 Million in Rental Assistance for No Good Reason The City is apparently seeking to establish a "regulatory framework and infrastructure necessary to implement residential rent stabilization, just cause eviction, and other protections for tenants" that would rival the California Employment Development Department in its inability to serve those who need help the most. Take for example the more than $42 million of Emergency Rental Assistance program funding from federal and state agencies that has been allocated to the City of Santa Ana's COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP). Only 3.6% of Santa Ana households have been helped to date and even with the new reported funds disbursement rate itwould take well over another year to ensure all the funds are allocated. If the City can't even manage to get free money to the tune of $25 million through ERAP in the hands of tenants, one must wonder how it proposes to manage a program that will be reliant on "the collection of fees from owners and the hiring of at least 25 staff... based on the future fiscal impact of the ordinances [which] is unknown... due to the nature of this due diligence process, which could take staff from 9 to 12 months to complete." Ignorance of Existing State Protections Does Not Justify Bad Local Policy Since the start of the pandemic, the California State Legislature has passed various eviction moratoria to keep residents housed and the Judicial Council of California approved on April 6, 2020 rules, including effectively suspending all unlawful detainer actions until ninety days after California's COVID-19 state of emergency ends. This suspends the issuance of a summons and entry of defaults in unlawful detainer actions, meaning new unlawful detainer cases cannot be filed in most circumstances, unless there is a health and safety reason. Through spring 2022, in accordance with AB 832, property owners are required to take steps in compliance with state law to demonstrate that they have made a good faith effort to seek rental assistance for a tenant or that they worked with a tenant who is seeking relief before seeking the termination of residential tenancy. Moreover, existing statewide rent control and just cause law (AB 1482 - Tenant Protection Aci of 2019) provides a consistent standard to all tenants, the courts, and landlords. The proposed local ordinances only seek to cause confusion when robust tenant protections already exist. Rent Control Leads to Unintended Consequences, Hurting the Community In a 2016 report on "Perspectives on Helping Low -Income Californians Afford Housing" by the California Legislative Analyst's Office, researchers found that "many housing programs - vouchers, rent control, and inclusionary housing - attempt to make housing more affordable without increasing the overall supply of housing [and] this approach does very little to address the underlying problem." I; The proposed just cause eviction provisions are especially problematic as it relates to community safety. By going beyond state law and making it more difficult to evict tenants who engage in criminal activity, the proposed ordinance prioritizes perpetrators at a juncture when "Santa Ana has experienced a 62% increase in homicides... and is home to 33% of the documented gang members in all of Orange County" (reference: 2019 Santa Ana Community Safety Assessment). We strongly urge the City Council to reconsider moving forward with these proposed policy measures that will only undermine the goal of improving housing conditions. If the Council were really interested in good governance and serving those they were elected to represent, such proposals would have been fully vetted with community input via a transparent and open process. Santa Ana residents, businesses, and housing providers deserve and expect more from our leaders who should weigh the long-term consequences of their actions on the community and the economy, instead of opting for political expediency at the expense of residents' livelihoods and well-being. Respectfully, David Cordero, Executive Director Apartment Association of Orange County (AAOC) Adam Wood, Vice President Building Industry Association of Southern California (BIASC) Victor Cao, Senior Vice President, Local Public Affairs California Apartment Association - Orange County (CAA) Vickie Talley, Executive Director Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) Jennifer Ward, Senior Vice President of Advocacy & Government Affairs Orange County Business Council (OCBC) Carolyn Cavecche, President & CEO Orange County Taxpayers Association (OCTax) Phil Hawkins, Chief Executive Officer Pacific West Association of REALTORS@ (PWR) Julie Paule, Regional Representative for Orange, Riverside & San Diego Counties Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) 3 Orozco, Norma From: Leonel Flores <Ieonel.flores40@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 3:32 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item 33 Good Afternoon, My name is Leonel Flores. I am a life long resident of Santa Ana. I am emailing today in support of agenda item 33. 1 am in support of rent control. Housing is an environmental justice issue, and high rent burdens are a criteria that harms the 23 disadvantaged communities in Santa Ana. Under SB 1000 this issue needs to be addressed. Rent control is a perfect start to address this issue, and a straightforward way to protect and unite with the residents of Santa Ana. Best, Orozco, Norma From: Sean Drexler <drexler.sean@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 3:44 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item #33 Comment Hello Mayor Sarmiento and City Council, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33 helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana, and to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. The proposed ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in the community. Do what is right to ensure residents are protected. Vote in favor of Agenda Item #33. Sean Drexler Orozco, Norma From: Araceli Castaneda <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 3:01 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Araceli Castaneda ara.rob70l@gmaii.com 826 N. Garfield st. Apt. C Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Emanuel Leon <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 3:17 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Emanuel Leon polloboy6@gmail.com 529 S Townsend St Santa Ana , California 92703 Orozco, Norma From: Jeffrey Pedersen <jpederse@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 3:20 PM To: eComment Subject: Support for Rent Control - Item 33 I'm writing to voice my support for rent control. If left to the markets, rent will continue to act as a commodity, and that means rising as the price of housing is driven up by venture capitalists and property developers. We need to use all the levers we can to counteract this anti -human force that displaces people. Thank you, Jeff Pedersen Orozco, Norma From: Jennifer Ward <jward@ocbc.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:58 PM To: eComment Cc: Connor Medina Subject: Comments on Item 33 - September 21, 2021 City Council Agenda Good Afternoon, Jennifer Ward, Sr. Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs for the Orange County Business Council (OCBC) provides the following public comments on Item 33 of the September 21, 2021 Santa Ana City Council Agenda: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members. OCBC must oppose the City's efforts to enact rent control and excessive eviction restriction policies which will negatively impact housing opportunity in the city, rather than help it. Orange County is experiencing a housing crisis with a severe shortage of units only projected to get worse if measures are not taken to allow for more housing to be created, which would not be the result of the City's proposed policies tonight. Lack of housing options not only impacts affordability, but also limits our businesses ability to attract and retain a future workforce. There are other approaches that involve working with the private sector to increase housing availability and affordability that will offer solutions for the community and residents, without adding unnecessary and unfair additional barriers onto development. We encourage the City to focus on ways to improve its programs and processes for the benefit of residents, businesses, and builders, rather than placing the burden solely on the private sector. We oppose the use of rent control, especially as there are other opportunities for the City to address affordability issues among renters, and ask that you work with the business community, not against it, to accomplish this goal. Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer Ward Sr. Vice President of Advocacy and Government Affairs Orange County Business Council 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 1 Irvine, CA 92614 C:530.219.1845 1 0:949.794.7215 1 iward@ocbc.org R�SILIENi/OC a EXR UNirY Resil SS COUNCIL THE LEAVING VOICE OF BUSfNESS www.ocbc.ora and www.LocationOC.com Orozco, Norma From: Juan Gonzalez <juan_gonzalez@berkeley.edu> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:58 PM To: eComment Subject: [Item 33] In Support of Housing Security Measures Esteemed Santa Ana City Councilmembers, Within the past ten years or so, the idea (and reality) of moving out of Santa Ana has continuously circulated among friends and family, largely due to rising housing costs. Renter family members have moved to places like Riverside County and Arizona, where they can worry less about rent increases and the impossible life choices incurred by housing insecurity. Without full -stop protections for our city's renters, Santa Ana will continue to lose its innovators young and old, cultural contributors, and powerful civic thinkers. Housing is an instrumental component to overall success in life, and must be protected at all costs. As someone whose parents reside in Memorial Park neighborhood, and as someone who grew up on Santa Ana streets, I am in full support of a rent stabilization ordinance, just cause evictions ordinance, and eviction defense fund. Santaneros deserve to stay in Santa Ana. The city is our home, and it's high time that policies are put in place to uphold that. Sincerely, Juan J. Gonzalez UC Berkeley School of Public Health I MPH Candidate UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design I MCP Candidate 0 1 Pronouns in Use: He Him His Orozco, Norma From: Dao Tran <dao50tran@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:43 PM To: eComment Subject: Rent Control Attachments: Rent Control - Santa Ana September 21.docx Santa Ana September 21, 2021 Vcy chong Chung toi: chong, Tuat Mai 74 tuoi vcy, Da' o Tran 71 tuoi Chung toi song & senior Mobilehome Bali Hi du'cgc 14 nam nay. Chung toi xin len tieng ung ho Chu'o'ng Trinh Rent Control. Rent Control rat can thiet cho nhu'ng nguc' i song trong senior Mobilehome vi gia tien thue hien nay moi nam len qua cao. Chung toi la u' nhng ngu'o'i gia da ve hu'u khong co du tien de tra tien thue ma tien thue car tang qua cao hang nam nen khong the song an tam ducyc. Chung toi xin keu goi Hoi Hong Thanh Pho giup chong toi ung ho chu'oyng Trinh Rent Control. Chan thanh cam un Hoi Hong Thanh Pho! TuAt Mai va flao Tran 1 Orozco, Norma From: Lillian Howard <rb.howard@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:42 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 Yes on rent stabilization ordinance. Item 33 From Bernice Howard 432 S Harbor Blvd., Sp 107 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:38 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Reminder: SANTA ANA TO CONSIDER RENT CONTROL THIS TUESDAY From: Aeisha Drayton <adrayton@amcliving.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:27 PM To: Mendoza, Nelida <nmendoza@santa-ana.org>; Hernandez, Johnathan <JRyanHernandez@santa-ana.org>; Bacerra, Phil <pbacerra@santa-ana.org>; Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa- ana.org>; Phan, Thai <TPhan@santa-ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org> Subject: FW: Reminder: SANTA ANA TO CONSIDER RENT CONTROL THIS TUESDAY From: Apartment Association of Orange County <advocacy@aaoc.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 20218:03 AM To: Camille Krahe Hardy <chardy@amclivinR.com> Subject: Reminder: SANTA ANA TO CONSIDER RENT CONTROL THIS TUESDAY RED ALERT SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES Voice your opposition! Send emails today and speak at the city council meeting this Tuesday. September 21. THIS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, the SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL will consider the adoption of over -reaching and punitive RENT CONTROL and JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES that would, among other things: • Cap annual rent increases at 3%, or 80% of CPI (whichever is less). • Extend 'just cause" eviction protections after 30 days, instead of 1 year. • Establish a city council -appointed rent control board with broad authority. • Require rental -property owners to provide tenant relocation assistance equal to three (3) months rent, if the owner intends to move back into their rental. • Allow tenants to add occupants without owner approval. • Enable squatting without recourse for rental -housing providers. • Impose additional administrative and operational obligations on rental - housing providers. The proposed ordinance only gets worse! For an overview of the proposal and to review the support documents for the Santa Ana City Council meeting, CLICK HERE. The city of Santa Ana placed this proposal on the city council agenda without any prior outreach to or engagement with rental -housing providers or industry representatives, HOWEVER... YOU CAN VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL! 1. CALL the Santa Ana City Council — (714) 647-6900 2. EXPLAIN that you OPPOSE any local expansion of existing state rent control laws. The city must study the issue further and engage in discussions with rental -housing providers. 3. EMAIL the Santa Ana City Council • Mayor Vincente Sarmiento - vsarmiento(cDsanta-ana.org • Mayor Pro Tern David Penaloza - dpenaloza(a)santa-ana.org • Councilmember Thai Viet Phan - tphan(a,)santa-ana.org • Councilmember Jessie Lopez - iessielopez(u�santa-ana.org • Councilmember Phil Bacerra - pbacerra(cDsanta-ana.org • Councilmember Johnathan Ryan Hernandez - iryanhernandez(a�santa- ana.org • Councilmember Nelida Mendoza - nmendoza(cDsanta-ana.org 4. COMMUNICATE your thoughts about this proposal (Sample Message Below) 5. PARTICIPATE in the city council meeting (in -person or online) and make your opposition known: Agenda Item #33 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 Meeting begins at 5:45 P.M. Arrive at 4:45 P.M. Santa Ana City Hall — City Council Chambers 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 For additional meeting information, CLICK HERE 6. SHARE this with ALL Rental Property Owners and Property Managers you know! Please contact Chip Ahlswede at advocacyCDaaoc.com or (714) 245-9500 if you have any questions. Also, please let us know if you will attend the city council meeting this Tuesday, September 21 st. SAMPLE EMAIL FOR RENTAL -HOUSING PROVIDERS 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 September 21 st 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. Apartment Association of Orange County 1 525 Cabrillo Park Drive, Suite 125, Santa Ana, CA 92701 Unsubscribe ckrahe@amcliving.com Update Profile I Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by advocacy@aaoc.com powered by rr�1 Constant L.% Contact Try email marketing for free today! 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 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: Fatima Paque <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:32 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Fatima Paque psrka1714@gmail.com 411 E Washington Ave Apt C Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Kathleen Rogers <krogers@apiprop.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:25 PM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, The current controls have made it more difficult to protect our tenants from other disturbing tenants. Rent control is not an answer. Only good public programs that REALLY help people in need would help all areas including homelessness. As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Kathleen Rogers 600 S Fernwood St West Covina, CA 91791 krogers@apiprop.com Orozco, Norma From: Jose Castrejon <jece714@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:29 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 Enact rent control In Santa Ana! This would help tremendously for any low-income families who remain distressed by the pandemic. -JC MHeT Manufactured Housing Educational 7140 September 21, 2021 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Sent Via Email to City Clerk Daisy dgomez@santa-ana.org Executive Board 1resideat Eileen Grillo vie e.,idena Mayor Vincent Sarmiento Renters Relief. Mayor Pro Tern David Penaloza T..er Keith CaseNtiser Council Member Phil Bacerra s ry Council Member Johnathan Ryan Hernandez Lauren Fischer Council Member Jessie Lopez Pan NWded Within. L.MIDer Council Member Nelida Mendoza R°dneFAnderson Council Member Thai Viet Phan Natalie Costaglio Ed Evans l°'"'trolm.gus il" d Stanleyr. RE: Council Agenda Item 33 - OPPOSE John bpiszia Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Board Members tl Bob BrodlInt Honorable Mayor and Members of the CityCouncil, Y Tonii Brand Jay Greening R`alHRI Craig Houser The Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) represents the owners of mmffr Lau mobile home park communities in the City of Santa Ana. We are completely united ast eaa� with our allied housing providers in the opposition to rent control and urge your no Addsory Committee vote on rent control and agenda item 33. Erik Boardman oCasparian Betsy Gibson Over the past 39 years MHET has worked with the city council and city staff to Daniel Rudderow Dave'fhomas facilitate communication and to be responsive when mobile home park issues arise, Past Presidents including the issue of rents. We have always been invited to participate in stakeholder Ed Evans meetings that include mobile home owners as well as mobile home park owners. It is J.R. Phillips WhoRobert L. L.MilleSr. in part due to such meetings that our organization implemented a rent subsidy program Robert rde,S Gerry oa�k, Sr. to assist residents having difficulty paying their rent. Janet Gilbert Ciad<e Fair[nether Borce Jones The MHET sponsored rental assistance program works and has been atremendous Chehr ouEarhut Lanz McAdoo success over the years. The MHET Rental Assistance Program (MHET RAP) follows eAd Keith °n. Keith Casenhiser i the same income guidelines as Section 8 and the requirement that the housing costs Rob oaanerIt (rent, mortgage and utilities) exceed 40% of the household income. Like the City's Stanley Magill, Jr. Eileen emergency rent assistance programs, there is a means test. If qualification uidelines g Y 11 g q g oribu wat"'HOmnmg are met, a monthly rent subsidy is to the tenant. This is a funded Natalie given privately nde,so Rodney AAnderson William L. Miller program that is paid for completely by the owners of the cty's mobile home parks. ment Li/e"dRecPh �s Following are some additional facts you should know about this program and what we decry Golden oan have learned over 39 years of providing rent subsidies to mobile home owners. JoM Crean .ICo. Harry E. Karsten R.I. s Jess Maxcy Retort rt N. West CMPA Eint s wMA Mobile Home Park Rents Are Affordable Loqguan A Boggs Similar to the City's experience with Emergency Rental Assistance we Above and Beyond your program, AmardReeplenta have found that the actual number of people who qualify are very few. However, the n orb program is in place to truly help those in need and unlike rent control it is means Stanley Bostt;�k focused rather than providing benefits to people who can well afford the rent. C. Brent Swanson Date Dope Jones Jim Martin James Jones Chelu'havies,Earhart Keith CaseNdser .lames B. Bostick Executive Director VhKie'l'atley lntamtEmpire Representative 25241 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 120. 1.ngum Hilk Califoraia. 92653 • Phone.. (949) 380-3303 • Eat (949) 380-3310 Robert Evans Enuuikinfo@mheteom • We6stte:uothendket.com Southern California MHET Serving Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties since 1982 Page Two MHET Rental Assistance is Available to ALL Qualified Santa Ana Mobile Home Owners This program has been available for over 35 years to all Santa Ana mobile home owners who meet the qualification guidelines. MHET RAP is Only Offered in Non -Rent Controlled Jurisdictions If Rent Control is Adopted the Program Will no Longer Exist If rent control is imposed on Santa Ana mobile home parks the private subsidies being provided to park tenants will no longer be available. Mobile home park owners want to help those truly in need through this program. However, if forced to subsidize all residents, the majority of who can well afford the rents being charged, the MHET RAP will not continue to be offered to those truly in need. And, Finally, Not Everyone Qualifies or Needs Subsidized Rents or Assistance In an effort to distribute millions of dollars in COVID rent relief to Santa Ana renters who are means tested to confirm true need, the City has discovered that perhaps the need that is being portrayed by rent control activists does not exist. Why impose unreasonable rent restrictions on housing providers that will only result in subsidizing those who do not need below market rental housing and prevent rental property owners from being able to afford maintenance and improvements to their properties that will dramatically impact their tenants' quality of life? It does not make sense. Please protect existing mobile home owner rent subsidy programs by voting NO on agenda item 33 and voting NO on rent control in the city of Santa Ana. Thank you, ((UJJ Vickie Talley Executive Director Orozco, Norma From: Shane Phillips <shanedphillips@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:11 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda item #33 -- city council meeting, 9/21/2021 Hello, I am writing as a housing policy researcher in support of agenda item #33, the City of Santa Ana's rent stabilization proposal. Rent stabilization is not a panacea, and must be paired with housing supply policies to promote the production of sufficient homes to meet growing demand, but it should be viewed as a complement to housing production rather than a competitor. Rent stabilization helps residents stay in their homes and provides much -needed certainty about where they will live and the prices they will pay in the future. Adequate housing production (in addition to subsidies for rental assistance and income -restricted development) is necessary to ensure long-term affordability, but tenant protections like rent stabilization offer short-term relief while longer -term strategies are pursued. Just as addressing homelessness requires both permanent supportive housing (long-term) and shelters (short-term), a well-rounded housing policy requires building more homes and tenant protections. In the past, rent control has been designed in ways that lead to negative outcomes for many households. The policy features most likely to produce poor outcomes are vacancy control and applying rent control to new housing. Both of these options are forbidden by the Costa -Hawkins Rental Housing Act, dramatically lowering the chances that rent stabilization will reduce housing production or otherwise harm the City of Santa Ana. The most likely unintended consequence is that some landlords will choose to convert their buildings to owner - occupied uses like condos or tenancies -in -common, and the city should at a minimum provide some mitigations against uncompensated eviction of tenants for such conversions. Most importantly however, as noted above, the best policy to discourage conversions of rental housing is to encourage abundant production of new housing, not to leave tenants vulnerable to rent increases of 5-10% per year (subject to AB 1482 limitations). I would offer one policy recommendation, and that is to strike the 3% cap on annual rent increases. Limiting rent increases to 80% of CPI should be sufficient. By setting a 3% cap you run the risk of having years in which inflation is very high, possibly 6% or above, with costs to landlords increasing much faster than revenues. This in turn could put you afoul of legal restrictions relating to a "reasonable rate of return." The City of Los Angeles approved its rent stabilization program in the 1980s, when inflation was very high, and as such set a floor of 3% on annual rent increases (rather than a cap of 3%, as the Santa Ana council proposes). Santa Ana should avoid making a similar mistake, though in reverse, by not assuming that inflation rates will be at low levels indefinitely. Thank you, Shane Phillips Housing Initiative Project Manager UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies 324 A Voice for Working California 21 September 2021 To the Mayor and City Council of Santa Ana Andrea Zinder President International Vice President Matt Bell Secretary - Treasurer On behalf of the 21,000 members of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 324, including over 1,250 residents of the City of Santa Ana, I would like to express our strong support for the consideration of the adoption of a rent stabilization ordinance, as well as the adoption of an ordinance that requires evictions for "just cause". Our members have a long tradition of fighting employers for better wages and benefits. We are proud of the contracts we have won for workers at companies such as Kroger, CVS and Disney, to name a few. But it is abundantly clear that any gains made at the bargaining table are more than made up by the increasing costs of rent. There is no way that our members will truly thrive unless cities like Santa Ana take the important step of curbing excessive rent increases. That step, along with the equally important decision to require "just cause" evictions, will give our members more financial security. By alleviating the stress that comes with coping with ever - skyrocketing rent increases and omnipresent threat of eviction, the City will have made a dramatic improvement on the lives of our members. Hard workingmen and women will not be compelled to work additional jobs to keep up with the price of rent and can use that time to spend with their children or to be more fully invested in their community. I sincerely hope that the Council takes this important step. Sincerely, Andrea Zinder President United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 324 8530 Stanton Ave., P.O. Box 5004, Buena Park, CA 90622-5004 • (714) 995-4601 • (800) 244-UFCW - Fax (714) 995-8214 • www.utcw324.or1 ® - 25 September 21, 2021 Mayor Sarmiento and Council Members City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza P.O. Bo 1988, M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 www.kennedycommission.org 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949 250 0909 Re: Support: Item 33: City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Council members, The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad -based coalition of residents and community organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land -use policies that has led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower - income working families. Our letter is supporting the proposed ordinance, City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act presented by Tenants United Santa Ana. Many working families in Santa Ana continue to be impacted by the rising cost of housing and the scarce housing available at rents they can afford. In addition, many continue to face economic uncertainty because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and loss of jobs. It is crucial that the City pass the Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act to ensure that residents in Santa Ana are protected during the ongoing pandemic. The City of Santa Ana is a renter majority city. There continues to be a great need for housing that is affordable and accessible to all Santa Ana residents. The current pandemic has increased the economic and housing pressures on low-income families in Santa Ana. As incomes are decreasing and jobs are being lost, many low-income families are struggling to remain housed. This is especially true for the majority of Santa Ana's low-income households that are suffering with the impacts of housing cost and economic uncertainty. 80% of renters in Santa Ana fall into the moderate, low, and very low-income category and 84 percent of residents hold low-income occupations that pay less than $53,500 per year. Santa Ana's households are predominantly families comprising 81% of households. These households are also rent -burdened and live-in overcrowded conditions. Due to financial hardship caused by the covid-19 pandemic, tenants have accumulated rental arrears, debts elsewhere to avoid arrears, or housing situations that could be cause for evictions. The City of Santa Ana will see a wave of evictions at the end of eviction protections for the tenants on September 30, 2021. This impact will not only leave Santa Ana families in a vulnerable housing crisis and at risk of becoming unhoused but will also lead many families to acquire more financial hardships beyond the financial challenges they experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic and vulnerable to the spread of the virus. As the COVID-19 infection continues to rise once again in Santa Ana, we urge you to protect tenants from being unjustly evicted and from predatory rent increase during an ongoing pandemic. The need is much greater as the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated needs that were already existing in our communities. Housing costs in Santa Ana have been out of reach and will continue to be out of reach in this current economic climate. Households in Santa Ana must earn $44.83 an hour to afford two -bedroom housing. The proposed ordinance protects tenants from rising rents that are already not affordable to the majority of the City's residents. We urge you to support the proposed Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act and enact it before the state moratorium ends on September 31, 2021. The city council must prioritize the City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, and Tenant Rights Act over any other ordinance to ensure a more equitable and affordable Santa Ana. Santa Ana tenants deserve to be protected from further harm and suffering due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the housing affordability crisis. Sincerely, Cesar Covarrubias Executive Director Page 2 of 2 HALL and ASSOCIATES, INC. September 21. 2021 Santa Ana City Council 22 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 re: City Council Agenda Item 33 To All Members of the Santa Ana City Council, Our brokerage has been providing housing for about 40 years. During that time we have learned how important a symbiotic relationship is between the housing provider and housing receiver. The relationship must be based in mutual respect and equal power. When this balance is disrupted you are left with unhappy residents, run down buildings, and a drain on a city's public services. We applaud the city of Santa Ana for prioritizing housing instability. However, the recommended actions outlined in Item 33 1-4 are simply not the answer. The state of California has already passed statewide rent control. Rental increases have been capped. Most landlord's are extremely reasonable with rent increases as it costs more to find a new tenant than keep an old one. Therefore, landlord's will always have an incentive to keep a respectful resident who pays on time. As for the topic of evictions, our residents have been extremely unhappy to learn they and the landlord have very little recourse to remove a resident who is disrespectful with noise, smoking, parking, trash etc. Good residents are forced to suffer or move when a "bad egg" moves in. We implore you to thoroughly and completely examine the consequences of handcuffing a housing provider from protecting their rule abiding residents. Finally, we implore you NOT to provide the City Manager with a blank $300,000 dollar check to be spent on nameless service providers, contractors and sub -recipients. The City of Santa Ana is the steward of these funds and as such should be more responsible. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ✓TInimi,.�,oll .fLvorza; iriiivy Amber Hall and Ariana Rohrig P.O. Box 7414, Capistrano Beach, CA 92624-7414 949-496-5200 Fax 949-496-8481 www.hallandassociatesinc.com DRE tic #00986477 Orozco, Norma From: Teri Saydak <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:33 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Estimado alcalde Vicente Sarmiento y miembros del concilio municipal de Santa Ana, Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. Les pido que voten a favor del Punto # 33 de la agenda, y de ese modo ayuden a establecer una ley de estabilizaci6n de las rentas y las protecciones de causa justa contra el desalojo en Santa Ana. Ademas de establecer el control de renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Teri Saydak bubbasaydak@hotmail.com 2112 S Woodland place Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Connie Major <conniemajor@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:33 PM To: eComment Subject: Sept. 21 agenda item 33, rent stabilization Regarding Sept 21,2021 agenda item 33 on rent stabilization Dear Santa Ana Counsel, I am a responsible and fair landlord. My husband and I work with our tenants to help them with hard times. This rent stabilization, which is rent control, is not necessary and I ask you to vote it down. There are other ways to stop the uncaring and unreasonable landlords from taking advantage of their tenants. My husband Pete Major has several ideas, someone that is interested in alternative solutions to bad landlords and poor housing conditions, etc. should listen to him. petemajor tgatt.net Respectfully, Connie Major, Santa Ana resident and landlord Orozco, Norma From: Lorin K <Iorinmanager@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:50 PM To: eComment Subject: 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 21 st 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. Orozco, Norma From: Jay Skenderian <js@morganskenderian.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:55 PM To: eComment Subject: RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES in SANTA ANA 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 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 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, JAY SKENDERIAN Jay Skenderian Partner MORGAN ■ ►7KENDERUN I N V E S T M E N T REAL ESTATE GROUP 4590 MacArthur Blvd. #260 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 T: 949-251-8800 1 F: 949-251-8899 1 C: 949-300-8180 skmorganskenderian.com I www.morganskenderian.com CADRE Lic. # 01220368 Orozco, Norma From: Gilbert Sanchez <karlanelias@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:56 PM To: eComment Subject: Housing Greetings Mayor Sarmiento and City Council, As a resident of Santa Ana I urge you to address the problem of housing in Santa Ana. We need low Income housing and Rent control enacted now. With Covid-19 and unlivable wages being paid, our poor are being forced to live on the streets. Thank you Gil Sanchez Orozco, Norma From: Vanessa Gonzales <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:01 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Vanessa Gonzales preftywithvanessa@gmaii.com 16405 Derian Avenue, Irvine, California 92614 Orozco, Norma From: Patricia Flores <patricia@ocej.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:06 PM To: eComment Subject: Re: Public Comment for Santa Ana City Council Meeting 9/21/2021 Dear Santa Ana City Councilmembers: I am writing to express my support for Item 33 on tonight's city council agenda, the rent stabilization and just cause eviction protection ordinance. As a lifelong resident of Santa Ana, I have seen so many of my friends and family priced out of the city we love and work tirelessly to sustain. The skyrocketing rents have forced our neighbors who wish to stay in the city to share their homes and apartments with multiple other families, living in substandard conditions that aren't affordable even for full-time working families. These protections would help ensure that residents no longer have to choose between paying rent and buying healthy food, or between paying rent and funding the education of their children. When families are able to build stable lives in our city, they are more willing to use their disposable income to stimulate the local economy, and engage in long-term careers that contribute to our collective future. This is a matter of survival for our residents, especially given the continuing pandemic and the fast -approaching end to emergency state tenant protections; I implore that you vote in favor of Item 33 today, and play your part in forging a city that our families can continue to thrive in for generations to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Patricia J. Flores Yrarrazaval She/her/hers, they/them/theirs Project Director Orange County Environmental Justice (OCEJ) www.ocei.org FB/IG: @ocenvironmentaljustice 13 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Rosa-Ibarra <mrilopez@ufcw324.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:06 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 My name is Maria Rosa Lopez and 1 am a union representative and organizer with UFCW 324, a union that represents grocery stores workers, retail pharmacy, healthcare, Disney workers, and cannabis workers here in the City of Santa Ana I'm also a resident of the City of Santa Ana since 1990, who has worked with the community through Hemandad Mexicana and UFCW 324. I'm writing today in support Item #33 on today's agenda, including the adoption of an emergency ordinance for Rent Stabilization, Just Cause Eviction and Eviction Defense Fund. As a union representative and organizer, we help workers navigate the challenges in their workplaces. However, often times those challenges are interconnected with the challenges they are facing at home. The majority of our members are renters, and many of them live in Santa Ana. Too often, when I meet with workers I hear about their experiences facing rising rents. Too often, our members are being forced to move to the Inland Empire and face commutes of more than an hour to be able to afford housing. These challenges have only been exacerbated by COVID 19. Although our grocery store members have been busier at work than ever, many of their spouses and loved ones faced layoffs during the last year. The unfortunate reality is that for working families, most need two incomes to afford rent in Orange County. Additionally, thousands of our members in Disneyland were out of work for more than a year and are just beginning to return to work in the last few months. As rental protections at the Federal and State level expire, it is essential that the City take these immediate steps to protect tenants from an incoming wave of evictions. These common sense reforms to Santa Ana housing law will help make sure that our members and my neighbors in Santa Ana will be able to afford to stay and raise their families here in the City as I have. On behalf of my union and on behalf of our members and on behalf of Hermandad Mexicana I want to urge all of you to take the bold step necessary to protect working families in Santa Ana and pass the urgency ordinances for Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction today. Get Outlook for iOS 14 Orozco, Norma From: Anabel Parra <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:07 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 15 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Anabel Parra anabelx76@icloud.com 406 s center st. Santa ana, California 92703 16 TERRY R. DOWDALL trd pd owdolllow. com JAN D. BRESLAUER idb9dowtlalllow.com ROBIN G. FILTER rgegdowdolllow.com MAUREEN A. HATCHELL LEVINE mohl9dowtlalllow.com LANDON J. DIAL gd9dowdalllow.com September 16, 2021 Via First Class Mail DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESS I O N A L CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 284 NORTH GLASSELL STREET FIRST FLOOR ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866-1409 W W W. DO WDALLLAW.COM City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana Mayor, Vicente Sarmiento Thai Viet Phan David Penaloza Jessie Lopez Phil Bacerra Johnathan Ryan Hernandez Nelida Mendoza Area Code 714 TELEPHONE 532.2222 FACSIMILE 532.3238 IN REPLY REFER To: Re: OPPOSITION POSITION RE PROPOSED: "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" (86 PAGES); NOTICE OF INTENT AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. FOR RECORD RE: NOTICE OF LACK OF CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS ($42 Million Dollars of Immediately Available Direct Rent Relief and State -Mandated 100% Rent reimbursement Renders Rent Controls -Closures Ordinances Superfluous and A Huge Burden on Taxpayers. Rent Control is a Taxpayer Monstrosity and a Misdirected Assault on Property Rights) Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: This office is privileged to proudly represent the owners of J&H Asset Property Management., Inc., a professional property management firm for several mobilehome parks located in the City of Santa Ana. This office has represented J&H Asset Property Management, Inc., for more than thirty years in the courts, administrative hearings and in transactional matters. J&H is a valued member of the community and represents the views of many mobilehome park owners providing valuable housing opportunities in the City of Santa Ana. 1. INTRODUCTION; OVERARCHING CONCERNS I write to oppose passage of the Needlessly Prolix "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" (86 PAGES), and to reserve all rights of my clients and the mobilehome parks represented. DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 2 A response to an 86 page proposal, addressing the particular issues and concerns of the property owners I represent, is itself a lengthy endeavor for which I beg your patience and understanding. But my clients cannot stand silent on this proposal unread, just to find out what's in it. ' We cannot simply agree to the long-lasting ramifications of an unrelenting shackling of revenue adjustments necessary to fund, maintain, and build new enterprises within the city and our properties. The long-lasting and underlying message of outdated rent control (and this particular old-fashioned system of rent control, now fifty years old is clearly passe and hopelessly obsolete), is that the city is willingly entering an economic retrograde. This move, will doom the reputation of the city in perpetuity. It's not a decision that can be "walked back." The proposed ordinance, among ordinances, is a model T in a Tesla world —not the forward thinking and progressive approach for which the city of Santa Ana is reputed. This office has experienced rent control as negotiated, contested, and in some instances, even promoted where fair to all parties. This office has been engaged in representation concerning rent control for more than forty years. We can tell you, based on experience, that residents are happiest when there is long- term security, stability, and peace. This ordinance cuts the other direction and ensures divisiveness. After forty years of working in the rent control area, I can tell you that there are better ways, among the legal options, to accomplish identified objectives: to protect the city, grow its affordable housing, and offer affordable housing opportunity. Fifty -year -old rent control philosophy is truly a step backward. Forward thinking and progressive ideas for providing secure and stable residential housing are before you now. What a shame to ignore them. DISBURSE S42,000,000,00. NOW. The City should pass out the money --immediately disburse S42 Million Dollars now on hand to provide immediate relief to mobilehome tenants (in lieu of unnecessary rent control laws). The City has in its power, now, the ability to stop virtually every non-payment eviction in the City. The City cannot do its job, and now blames park owners? If the City did not distribute overflowing supplies from a food bank would landlords be blamed for ongoing hunger?? WHY THIS PROPOSAL MAKES NO SENSE, HERE: This is an egregious overreach and especially, unjustly, punishes innocent "mom and pops" that have only treated everyone with respect, kept tenants in their homes, help residents with rent reimbursements. Owners operating valuable housing at modest rates —despite claims which make no sense. Mobilehome owners can sell their homes at huge profits today. Rents are not exceeding market rates. If so, where? None of the "mom and pops" are getting rich in Santa Ana, and they are not responsible for the surging economy which cannot be measured by CPI it is widely accepted that CPI is a false reflection of inflation, tainted with political influence from both sides of the aisle. Given the influx of millions of dollars of unspent immediate and direct rent relief today, the vague and nebulous future rental regulations cannot measure up. Rent controls are wrong for "We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it." Nancy Pelosi, 20 June 2017, at https:/Iwww.snopes.com/fact-cheek/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/. DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 3 the City, and would mark the toppling of a progressive policy of new and free enterprise favoring housing opportunity, new housing and jobs and affordable housing in the City. Rent control is a not so subtle message that the dream is over. Supporters will flee and housing purveyors will shun newly rent -controlled Santa Ana, especially in the heart of a previously reputedly pro - housing Orange County. Rather, the professional and articulate rent control advocates in this instance seek the harshest most intrusive remedy possible, without first having explored (much less exhausted) any potential for voluntary options, commitments and understandings to bridge the gap and bring people together. Rent control strives for divisiveness, anxiety and frustrated expectations for everyone. The path to the courthouse is not the way to bring people together. Really, the devastating impact of rent controls is the same as setting the city afire. This ham-fisted overreaction, again, ignores $42,000,000 of rent money sitting in your hands today. It ignores the promise of the state of California to reimburse 100% of rents that are currently due. Taking advantage of these existing programs saves taxpayers from the huge expense of a rent control bureaucracy that will never end. You do not need legislation, you need more administrators to hand out cash to your renters directly. You have the "steak," and rent control proponents are trying to sell you "hamburger." A superior remedy lies in your hands today with "zero" impact on taxpayers. Due to the length of this letter, and as a convenience to the reader, a summary of the arguments made, the facts upon which these arguments are made, and a discussion of the problems and legal infirmities with regard to the proposed ordinance are set forth here. 101111 1.10 OI_V I II.MIIu 11101111 141943 O[KINK I NCO I 1. EXPLORATION OF LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES — COMMENTS RE RECITALS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............. 5 2. CPI FAILS TO ACCURATELY MEASURE INFLATION. THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX IS A WOEFULLY DEFICIENT MEASURE OF ACTUAL INFLATION. RELIANCE ON CPI WILL BRING FORTH A FLOOD OF PETITIONS FOR RENTAL ADJUSTMENTS .................................... 7 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES STUDIED? NO . ........................ 13 4. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES THE SANTA ANA RENT BOARD, WHICH HAS AN IMBALANCED COMPOSITION THAT FAILS THE TEST OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ............... 24 5. BEGINNING RENT LEVELS MUST EQUAL PREVAILING GENERAL MARKET CONDITIONS (Vega), AND CANNOT BE LIMITED TO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ......................................... 29 What isa Veea adinstment?................................................. 30 6. THERE ARE NO CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS WHICH CAN PROVE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AND IMPOSE MANDATORY RENT CONTROL. SANTA ANA IS AN ECONOMICALLY FUNCTIONING DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 4 COMMUNITY THAT HAS NOT SHOWN EVIDENCE OF FAILURE IN THE HOUSING MARKET --THE LEVEL OF MANIFEST DYSFUNCTION NECESSARY BASED UPON THE EXPLOITATION OF A HOUSING SHORTAGE TOGETHER WITH THE IMPOSITION OF EXCESSIVE RENTS UNRELATED TO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............................... 33 Contrary to the Assumed and Oft -Repeated Dogmatic Belief, Tenants Have Had Superior Bargaining Power . ....................................... 34 SAMPLING OF AMBIGUOUS ASSUMPTION NOT PROVEN: JUDGING FROM INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT STATISTICS, MOBILEHOME INSTALLATION AND TRANSIT MISHAPS ARE SO LOW AS TO BE WITHOUT STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; "APPRECIATION," HOW IS THAT QUANTIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE FOR REDUCTION OF RENT ADJUSTMENTS?........................................................ 35 8. THE ADAMSON TEST: RENT CONTROLS MUST CONSTITUTE THE LEAST INTRUSIVE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO REMEDY THE EXTENT OF ANY IDENTIFIABLE ILL REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION ..... 38 9. THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR VACANCY DECONTROL IS A REGULATORY TAKING IN THE CASE OF PARK OWNERS THAT OWN THE PROPERTY AT THE TU%IE OF INCEPTION OF RENT CONTROL. VACANCY CONTROLS RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN THE COST OF HOUSING FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS, AS WELL AS GENERATES A SIGNIFICANT PREMIUM (TAKING)— ESSENTIALLY "KEY MONEY" WHICH IS NOT JUST AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY BUT ILLEGAL IN RENT CONTROL JURISDICTIONS SUCH AS NEW YORK. .......................... 39 10. THE CLOSURE OF A MOBILEHOME PARK IS A GUARANTEED RIGHT UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. RELOCATION RATES ESTABLISHED UNDER AB 2782 AND AS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ON SITE RELOCATION VALUE IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY REPUGNANT MEASURE OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE............................................................. 44 CONCLUSION................................................................... 54 ENCLOSURE.................................................................... 57 An Examination of the Impact of Rent Control on Mobile Home Prices in California By David Dale -Johnson Yongheng Deng Peter Gordon Diehang Zheng Lusk Center for Real Estate University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0626 DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 5 1. EXPLORATION OF LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITIES — COMMENTS RE RECITALS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The proposed ordinance is rife with legal infirmities. Despite prolix and elaborate attention to its terms and provisions, legal challenges may well be expected based on completely unnecessary, easily rectifiable provisions which cannot withstand even rudimentary judicial scrutiny. Length does not indicate reliability. The proposed ordinance purports to aim to resolve socially undesirable circumstances, including "exploitation" of a shortage of vacant mobilehome park spaces "should it occur"; excessive and unreasonable Mobilehome park space rent increases while still assuring mobilehome park owners' right to a fair return; a process for ensuring mobilehome park owners a fair, just and reasonable rate of return on their parks in cases where the guaranteed annual space rent increase provided by this chapter proves insufficient; protecting affordable housing to help provide a variety of housing types within a range of costs affordable to the low- and very low-income households; and [rectifying] the disparity of so-called (but illusory) "bargaining power" that exists between tenants and park owners. The first recital frankly confesses that it is disingenume: "should it occur" admits that it has "not occurred yet." Worse yet, there is no indication of why anyone should believe it "exploitation" will occur. Without substantial evidence to back and support the insinuation that mobilehome park owners are of a character to insidiously exploit its customers, impugning their business acumen constitutes an aimless and grossly unfair, untrue, and scandalous assertion against those individuals who have invested in the city of Santa Ana to provide affordable housing opportunity. Not a way to treat your most valued citizens. The ordinance proclaims that a process will exist for ensuring owners can petition for rent increases where the "guaranteed" rent increase provided by this chapter (80% of CPI up to 3%) proves insufficient. It will always be insufficient. Even 100% of CPI fails to accurately measure the effect of inflation in California. A closer approximation to real inflation will be the empirical measure reflected by the index published by the Federal Reserve, the M2 formula, reflecting the actual devaluation of the dollar caused by printing new money for social programs (which reduces the actual value of the dollar in the pocket of the consumer). Even 100% of inflation, were measured by the CPI, falls short. Moreover, the ordinance does not accurately reflect current inflation. Empby Spaces in a MHP. Tenants can dictate leasing terms, conditions, protection. DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 6 Currently, the CPI is running at a rate of approximately 5.4%. Actual inflation is approximately 8 to 10%. Empirical evidence is not necessary to backup this commonly understood fact. Just look at your grocery bill. Rent control results in an increase in mobilehome housing costs. Reliable studies from the Lusk Center at the University of Southern California (discussed below) show there is a nearly 20% increase in housing cost in rigorously rent controlled areas. What this ordinance will do, as they always do, is to result in more expensive housing in rent controlled areas for first- time homeowners. Rent control is antithetical to the notion of protecting affordable housing. The ordinance proclaims a disparity in "bargaining power." This is pure myth. In the beginning, it is the consumer that had 100% of the bargaining power. In the beginning of the industry at infancy, tenants had all the bargaining power. Parks were empty. Mobilehome parks were vast expanses of open land. Lonely pedestals stood aside the lots. No homes, just vacant space, driveway and utility connections. Mobilehome buyers could demand leases, security, tenancy protection, rights, privileges and entitlements when they decided to buy, install a home, and live in a park. Customer Was King: Before homes are sited, customer is king. In the 1970's tenants had superior economic clout. Owners were desperate for new tenants. Leasing for long term protection, or, no deal? Yes. Tenants had immense power to control the transaction. Or the park stayed empty. The economic conditions secured by the residence today are protected by the ever increasingly complex Mobilehome Residency Law. Essentially, a tenancy is a life estate, which is survived by the heirs who may continue to control the mobile home space, put in new housing, and sell at will, in perpetuity. To make any claim that tenants have inferior bargaining power is pure farce. In the same vein, the claim that evictions pose health risks for residents is of no moment. The city currently sits with $42 million of unspent money. The state has guaranteed 100% reimbursement of past due rent. There is no imminent threat of any eviction; there is no threat of any increase in homelessness. The city has within its powers, this moment, the ability to ameliorate any of the difficulties posed by nonpayment of rent. Therefore, whether or not there are health risks is to ask the question whether or not the city is doing all it can to utilize the tools given to it to take care of the needy. This is not a function of the private enterprise. Housing opportunity is for those who can pay a prevailing and fair rent. Park owners are not subsidized to take care of the public sector. The city claims that the consumer pricing represents an accepted measure of general change. The CPI is nowhere close to an accurate reflection of the inflation suffered by mobilehome park owners today. DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 7 2. CPI FAILS TO ACCURATELY MEASURE INFLATION. THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX IS A WOEFULLY DEFICIENT MEASURE OF ACTUAL INFLATION. RELIANCE ON CPI WILL BRING FORTH A FLOOD OF PETITIONS FOR RENTAL ADJUSTMENTS The proposed ordinance provides for 80% of CPI. For a host of reasons, utilizing an unrealistic measure for annual rent adjustments will simply spike the number of rent increase applications and cause taxpayer cost to skyrocket. Throughout recent history, every administration has caused changes to be made to the definition of the consumer price and in order to advance political goals, a practice common to both major parties. It is the consumer who suffers. A basic summary of these changes is based upon the following facts. Over the past several decades, technical changes have been made in the way the consumer price index is calculated: CPAs Little Better than An Ouija Board to Determine Proper Rent Increases. The measurement of inflation is a technical business. But CPI is a political tool that is historically attenuated to reduce the impact of rising prices. On the other hand, the M2 index published by the Federal Reserve is perhaps the only index produced by government that measures, to the dollar, the loss in value measured against the money in circulation at any given time. The printing of money reduces the value of the dollar. The more dollars printed into circulation the less the dollar is worth. The M2 index measures that difference. The CPI is a political measurement which is redefined, over the course of time, by both parties, to yield more politically popular results based on changing prices having nothing to do with housing. CPI is no indicator for determining pricing for a prevailing market in housing. Long ago, the index dispensed with any real measurement of housing, because inflation and housing was outpacing other sectors of the economy. Now, it measures a market basket of goods and services having nothing to do with construction materials, market housing rates, and land. Will CPI determine the appropriate rent increase for a property tax reassessment at the time of sale of an apartment house? The CPI is a political tool that is historically attenuated to reduce the impact of rising prices. It serves the interests of politicians of all stripes. Low inflation measures make politicians look good.2 CPI is a tenuous fact on which to set rates of return. Consider that: z http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp. A lower CPI provides at least two major benefits to the government: "Many government payments, such as Social Security ... are linked to the level of the CPI; therefore, a lower CPI translates into lower payments - and lower government expenditures. ¶The CPI deflates some components used to calculate the real GDP -7- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 8 1. John Williams, a U.S. economist, described his view of this manipulation when interviewed. Williams prefers a CPI, or inflation measure, calculated using the original methodology based on a basket of goods having quantities and qualities fixed.; 2. David Ranson, another U.S. economist, questions the official CPI's viability as an indicator of inflation. Unlike Williams, Ranson doesn't espouse the viewpoint that the CPI is being manipulated. Instead, his view is that the CPI is a lagging indicator of inflation and is not a good indicator of current inflation. According to Ranson, increases in the price of commodities are a better indicator of current inflation because inflation initially affects commodity prices, and it may take several years for this commodity inflation to work its way through an economy and be reflected in the CPI. Ranson's preferred inflation measure is based on a commodity basket of precious metals. (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp) What is immediately apparent is that three different definitions of the CPI are being used. Since these definitions are not operationally equivalent, each method of measuring inflation would lead to different results. Why CPI is not enough to approximate the changes in rent to maintain a fair return and the avoidance of a confiscatory effect: The CPI excludes from consideration, "real estate."' ... it excludes investment items, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and business expenses... The CPI therefore excludes the most relevant items of concern to the operation of investment real estate. If that number is parsed to some fraction, then, the allowance is not for inflation, it is an arbitrary number having no basis to the facts as between one decision is better than another. It is inherently arbitrary if the entire CPI, as denuded as it is, is not awarded. - a lower inflation rate makes the economy look better than it really is. In other words, if the true rate of inflation is higher than the CPI as the government calculates it, then an investor's real rate of return will be less than originally expected, as the unplanned amount of inflation eats away at gains." a Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Methods, 6/2015 at page 2: "Excluded goods and services. The CPI covers the consumption sector of the U.S. economy. Consequently, it excludes investment items, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, and business expenses. Life insurance also is excluded for this reason, although health, household, and vehicle insurance are in scope. Employer provided in -kind benefits are viewed as part of income. Purchases of houses, antiques, and collectibles are viewed as investment expenditures and therefore excluded. Gambling losses, fines, cash gifts to individuals or charities, and child support and alimony payments also are out of scope. Changes in interest costs or interest rates are now excluded from the CPI scope, although some were in the CPI for many years. And, for practical reasons, the CPI excludes illegal goods and services and the value of home -produced items other than owners' equivalent rent." DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 9 The Courts state that an inflation adjustment to the revenue stream is necessary because eventually the award of less than inflation will confiscate property. If partial CPI eventually confiscate property, the only question is when. From whom can the park owner seek and realize justice and the right to a fair return? Ultimately, it is the rent administrator and then the courts. The courts emphasize how essential such inflation -based adjustments are: 'It should be recognized in inflationary periods that the landlord's investment was made with dollars that were worth more at the time of the investment and therefore may deserve a greater present return. If the net operating profit of a landlord continues to be the identical number of dollars, there is in time a real diminution to the landlord which eventually becomes confiscatory.' 148 Cal. App. 3d at 293. A rent control ordinance is unconstitutionally confiscatory if its effect is to lower rents more than could reasonably be considered to be required for the measure's stated purpose. Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 129, 130 Cal. Rptr. 465. Any attempt to discount the actual effect of inflation with a'partial indexing formula' will inevitably lead to a deterioration of profits in real terms. The legitimate purpose of a rent control ordinance has been identified by the California and United States Supreme Courts as being 'the prevention of excessive and unreasonable rent increases caused by the growing shortage of and increasing demand for housing in the City.' Inflation is caused not by any shortages or demand fluctuations in any particular industry, but rather by changes in the money supply. Partial indexing creates nominal increases that are, year after year, systematically kept below the inflation rate, and are thus actually decreases in real terms. Such decreases cannot be justified within the context of rent control's legitimate purpose of "preventing excessive and unreasonable rent increases" due to special shortage conditions. They are in effect lowering rents "more than could reasonably be considered to be required for the measure's stated purpose' and are thus 'unconstitutionally confiscatory" under seminal California Supreme Court cases. Even 99%-indexing for inflation would be, in theory, indefensible as a systematic means of forcing deterioration in the landlord's profits with no reasonable connection to any legitimate purpose of a rent control ordinance. In this case, the ordinance makes a mockery of the requirement that is clear in the case law that inflation be considered to avoid the confiscatory effect of ongoing rent reductions when considered in real terms. The uncontradicted evidence will be that the Santa Ana Rent Board will administer the ordinance that assures that the management's profits will decline in real terms with every passing year to the point of confiscation. The City of Santa Ana Rent Board becomes the taxpayer -funded "czar" of housing quality in the city. The linkage between adequate revenue to fund operations of a mobilehome park and housing quality is absolute. It is not price so much, but lifestyle, quality, ambience, DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 10 upkeep and future enjoyment of residential lifestyle that the Rent Board will unwittingly but absolutely control. The agency determines whether the future of housing quality rises or falls. 11 ... rent regulators must generally permit profits to be adjusted over time for inflation so that the real value of that profit does not shrink toward the vanishing point." The Courts? As for the courts, at the present, they will not disturb the finding of substantial evidence, which places the final decision of the administrator within a zone of reasonableness. The courts have sustained the diminution of property rights as a necessary incident of the operation of the police powers The inevitable conclusion to long-term regulation is eventual obsolescence of the property and then closure in the absence of monies to renovate and rebuild infrastructure which under rent controls will be forestalled and delayed to the point of closure and cessation of use. This is a guaranteed state right, and more and more park owners are taking advantage in order to avoid the confiscatory effects of rent control. The City acknowledges just one mobile home park (Green Lantern in the city of Westminster) which is no longer at risk of closure. For those price -regulated investments that fall above the constitutional minimum, but are nonetheless disappointing to investor expectations, the solution is not constitutional litigation but, as with non -regulated investments, the liquidation of the investments and the transfer of capital to more lucrative enterprises. The fact is, that everyone acknowledges that ignoring and disallowing all inflation will produce eventual confiscation. ("shrink toward the vanishing point" — Galland v. City of Clovis, 24 Cal. 4th 1003, 1026, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 711, 728, 16 P.3d 130, 146 (2001)). 11 ... as the Board determined, a purpose of the City rent control system is to maintain, not destroy, the NOI of landlords in real terms. It would surely be strange if this system purportedly designed to maintain the real value of NOI were used instead concededly to erode it. City of Berkeley v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd., 27 Cal. App. 4th 951, 975, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 317, 332 (1994). (emphasis supplied). Any procedure that fails to reward a full adjustment for inflationary changes in operating costs and only partial indexing of landlord NOI will result in erosion of the real value of NOI to the point of confiscation. "... rent regulators must generally permit profits to be adjusted over time for inflation so that the real value of that profit does not shrink toward the vanishing point." Galland v. City of Clovis, 24 Cal. 4th 1003, 1026, 103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 711, 729, 16 P.3d 130,146 (2001) -i0- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 11 Instead of preserving housing, city will put landlords in a position to decide if being cut off from revenue needed to operate property in the usual professional manner will mean that economic survival calls for closure. "Because it is a mathematical certainty that the formula results in a continuous erosion of purchasing power, the results must be tested to determine whether confiscation has in fact occurred." (Fn. omitted.) Ocean Ave. Assocs. v. City of Indio, No. E055509, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7552, at *36 (Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2014) Eventually, the entity operators without individual responsibility will come to own the properties — the owners who thrive on distressed low income and low maintenance product. Historically, that development signals a deflation of the investment market, and the nature of housing falls to considerations for conversion of use, blight clearance and governmental urging for re -development. Because the net effect of MNOI which diminishes maintenance of NOI is to be forced out of business. Most likely, property will be sold, shuttered and demolished before an insolvency filing would be sought. The buyers of distressed property are forced to contend with and atone for the sins of their predecessors. And this approach to the treatment of property owners sends a clear message that their efforts will not be welcomed, much less allowed to be made with new revenue for property operations. Somehow, there is an implicit and false sense somehow that income properties will be maintained despite a cash deficit-- with the personal resources of the owners. It may believed that they will invest personal wealth into operations and diminish their portfolio position. But this is a false reality: no successful investor "throws good money after bad." The message of hostility creates a dampening of enthusiasm, and even greater reactive belt -tightening to operations. Less rent, and less housing product over the course of time. Less interest or care about the availability of housing becomes a city policy by default where insufficient cash is provided to run properties. Just look at any city with stringent mobilehome park rent controls. Unless: the intermediary the agency— creates within its powers of discretion, a fair result that allows the property to thrive. Of course, losing money is subject to financing, but still, assuming conventional financing: The history of the CPI shows why it is a "political animal" and not an accurate financial tool by which to judge the real effects of inflation on property management operations. — In the 1980s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics switched from using house prices to equivalent rental prices in calculating homeowner inflation. — The Bureau of Labor Statistics also shifted to a model in which consumers are assumed to switch some of their purchases within narrowly defined categories from items that -11- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 12 have gone up in price to other items that have risen less, such as buying round steak instead of porterhouse. — The Bureau has long adjusted prices for quality improvements. If a product gets better or if useful features are added, its price is adjusted down. Thus, with automobiles, additions such as anti -lock brakes have sometimes resulted in price decreases in calculating the CPI, even though the actual cost of cars went up. — In the late 1980s and 1990s, new quality -adjustment techniques were introduced for a range of products, including washers, dryers and televisions. Each of these changes has had the effect of reducing the reported inflation rate (economist Walter Williams). — The Frequency of Applications, Petitions and Other Filings Will Spike because the proposed annual minimum adjustment ("permissive adjustment") would be a fraction of inflation measured by CPI. And then, CPI is a poor indicator of the "real -life" operating experience of the mobilehome park owner. Because CPI is politically driven to understate inflation, mobilehome park owners operating in the "real world" must apply for just return administrative relief to avoid confiscatory effects. The resulting staff expense, hearing time, administrative record keeping, enforcement, and litigation will result in significant increases in taxpayer burden. Even assuming the consumer present accurately measured the true effect of inflation upon the operation of a mobilehome park, anything less than 100% is merely to deprive the owners of the ability to maintain status quo of its operations. The quality of the housing will decline, and, or, it will be a frequency of petitions to seek the adjustments that should be allowed automatically. — 100% of reimbursements will be sought. The city will be required to face an avalanche of section 13 rent increase petitions for a fair return because the automatic allowance does not provide it. This may not occur immediately, but shall continue to increase over the course of time as the confiscatory effect of insufficient indexing begins to accumulate. — Higher Increases Sought: Park owners may stagger applications from year to year resulting in net operating income increases for exceeding the partial CPI indexing. By forcing an unrealistic change in operation with partial indexing, the city will be accelerating demands for even greater increases. — Legal Costs: Tenants will be required to obtain representatives to fight rent increase applications, year to year. Since the ordinance does not allow park owners to forbear from adjustments in any given year, the park owners are constrained to leave "nothing on the table." While forbearance in deference of increases is a very common practice among many landlords, this ordinance actually forces owners to impose rental adjustments, or else sacrifice the value of their property rights. -12- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 13 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES STUDIED? NO. Decline in building maintenance is unavoidable. While it appears the city has declined to review the environmental consequences of stringent rent controls in any form of robust analysis, other cities have undertaken the responsibility to understand and evaluate what rent control does on existing populations and on property maintenance. This is one reason why, indeed, the city of Los Angeles which neighbors Santa Ana (as recognized by the Ordinance) did undertake an environmental impact report to check on the significant effects upon the environment caused by rent control. Since the environment is of foremost concern to many, that direct and immediate impact caused by the ordinance cannot be simply disregarded. Increasing the frequency of rent increase hearings while at the same time encouraging the diminution in quality of life and housing services by reducing maintenance as a natural consequence of reducing cash flow, will affect the environment. It has been shown that rent controls also increase commute time because tenants will not move closer to their work if the rent is maintained at artificially low levels. The increase commute time for those in the working population is significant. The city has recognize that a significant portion of the residents that live in mobilehome parks in the city of Santa Ana are in food service. Restarting employment with restaurants that have not been shut down and going out of business will require travel. It is natural to live near one's work. Rent control will stop that from happening. The effect on the types of automobiles driven, the mileage, the length of time on crowded freeways, and the impact on air quality have not been studied by the city. This proposal is clearly a project which requires an environmental impact report. Again, the City of Los Angeles ordered preparation of an environmental impact report for the original RSO in the 1970s. City attorney Claudia McGee stated that the city had a legitimate concern regarding the environmental impact created by the rent control law (at a well -attended seminar for attorneys regarding rent controls in the early 1980s). This threat to the environment is even greater when the city is precipitating an onslaught of rent increase applications. This was not formally the case, when the environmental impact report was commissioned. The case for an EIR is more compelling now. An EIR Is Required in Order to Address the Significant Effects of the Proposal Proximately Resulting in Reduction of Housing Maintenance and Services. The proposal for this form of old-fashioned rent control immediately hits maintenance of housing services, buildings, cleaning, and labor. History is clear that the forced reduction of revenue takes away revenue needed to maintain property. Coupled with increased travel to the city for administrative hearings by thousands of landlords and their experts, attorneys, accountants, managers, and tenants, even the travel patterns are within the city will be detrimentally affected in a significant way by reason of the spiking frequency of administrative hearings trying to obtain rent adjustments to maintain the status quo of economic returns. -13- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 14 Even cursory examination of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing at Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") reveals that the project consisting of the passage of a municipal ordinance mandates the public comment, deliberation, analysis, and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Considering the incontrovertible devastation rent control has brought to many communities throughout the country, it is clear that there is a fair argument, supported by substantial evidence, that rent controls can have a significantly detrimental and adverse impact on the environment. Legally, the City must prepare an Environmental Impact Report, if there is "substantial evidence" which supports a "fair argument" that the project (i.e., the passage of the ordinance) may have a "significant environmental impact." Several cases stand for this proposition. One of the latest is Chamberlin v. City of Palo Alto (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 181, 189. "Substantial evidence" is the least difficult review standard to be satisfied. Merely, satisfaction of the "substantial evidence test" involves no more than a showing of any fact sustaining the argument that rent control could affect the environment. If any substantial evidence supports such an argument, any other contradictory fact or facts which predominate, are convincing, persuasive, or believed or not, are of no moment. If there is any substantial evidence of a potential for an environmental effect, the finding must be sustained, and an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared. Thus, if there is any substantial evidence provided to show that there is a possibility of a significantly adverse environmental impact, it does not matter if the City Fathers find that such evidence is outweighed by contradictory evidence, whether such evidence is more or less credible than any other evidence, or whether such evidence fails to preponderate in the totality of considerations. Rather, the mere finding that there is any substantial evidence in support of the argument that the ordinance could have a significant adverse environmental impact requires, without more, that the Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Indeed, the rules of law respecting "substantial evidence" require, further, that the City Fathers construe and interpret the totality of the evidence most in favor of the opponent of the legislation. The substantial evidence offered by the opponent is to be construed in the light most favorable to a finding of adverse environmental impact. In Chamberlin, the court specifically held as follows: "...An agency's adoption of a negative declaration is not to be upheld merely because substantial evidence was presented that the project would not have such impact. Ile ... court's function is to determine whether substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion as to whether the prescribed 'fair argument' could be made. If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an FIR...." 186 Cal.App.3d at 189 [Citing Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, at 1002]. -14- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 15 In order to consider all substantial evidence, public notification is required so that the public can intelligently weigh the environmental consequences of any contemplated action and have an appropriate voice in the formulation of any decision. Karlson v. City of Camarillo (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 789, 804, as cited at Concerned Citizens, etc. v. 32nd District, etc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 938. The public participation should assist the agency in weighing the mitigation measures and alternatives to a proposed project. Public Resources Code §§ 21100, 21151. Approval of a project involving mobilehome parks, particularly for all mobilehome parks within a city as would be impacted by a mobilehome rent control ordinance, raises the possibility (if not the certainty) of numerous negative and adverse environmental effects. In People v. Dept. of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 185, the court held, for example, that a single mobilehome park construction permit was a clearly discretionary act and therefore subject to CEQA. As discussed in Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259 at 271, the construction and the maintenance of a mobilehome park involves all aspects of a living environment for a large number of residents. In this case, of course, the impact on the residents would be of a City-wide scale, which is a far greater undertaking than a project on just one parcel. In HCD, the court held that impact on the environment must be considered based on the mobilehome park's facilities such as water supply, ground drainage, sewage disposal, artificial lighting, and grading. Of course, environmental impact is no less significant during the existence and on -going operation and maintenance of a mobilehome park than it is at the inception of the project. When modifying that course of continuing operation, the legislative scrutiny should be, a fortiori, even more greatly magnified. This is especially imperative when every mobilehome park would be affected by the proposed ordinance. Altering or modifying the course of existing operations or maintenance of all on -going projects gives rise to precisely the concerns, issues, and public debate which are relevant at the inception or initial consideration of one project. A rent control law impacts all mobilehome parks in a far more dramatic fashion than planning determinations about the initial construction of the facilities and improvements of just one parcel. That rent control holds the potential for explosive environmental impact is no mere speculation. Historically, rent controls have had devastating impacts on whole neighborhoods. Rent controls have caused calamitous environmental consequences, including deterioration of buildings, structures, facilities, together with the social fabric of entire communities. In Housing and Development Administration v. Community Housing Improvement Program (1975) 374 N.Y.S.2d 520,the court extensively noted the severe deterioration and destruction of neighborhoods proximately resulting from the effect of rent controls on landlords. "There was testimony that rental property is being abandoned at a rate exceeding 30,000 units a year, but the generally agreed -upon number by housing and planning agencies is 30,000. While cities without rent control may be suffering abandonments, it is clear however that in cities with rent control, housing units are being pushed over the brink and abandoned because of rent control. Housing units are now regressing from 'stable,' to 'deteriorating,' to 'dilapidated,' to 'vacant,' -15- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 16 to 'unsafe,' to 'abandoned,' as a result of many factors, the most significant of which is rent control." Id., 374 N.Y.S.2d 520 at 525. The effect of rent control upon property owners included the deprivation of sufficient monies to enable the payment of real estate taxes. "Nonpayment of real estate taxes has created several problems. One of these is the loss of badly -needed revenue to the city, with total arrears now estimated at almost $600 million, and that does not include arrears in water rents and sewer rents. In almost all such cases, revenue from a building is simply not enough to encompass the required payments, and property owners cannot pay taxes." Id. Consequently, the "rent gap" (i.e., the difference between what landlords actually collect in rents and what is needed to even minimally subsist and to maintain housing units) made it impossible for the landlords under the rent control law to "...comply with building codes or to pay for the labor for proper maintenance among other things." Id. Would the proposed rent control regulation have an impact upon the quality of life, the environment, and the facilities and services offered in mobilehome parks in the City? Clearly, the ordinance portends such impacts and relationships, and concern for residents' physical welfare. If there are plausible environmental consequences which are arguably possible, the consequences must be evaluated by the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Does the ordinance potentially pose adverse environmental impacts? Yes. The nexus between the effects of the Ordinance and the impact on the environment is clear. Regulation of the reduction in services and facilities in mobilehome parks is necessary only if negative impact is expected by rent restrictions. The rent restrictions force mobilehome park owners to consider alteration or modification of the physical environment enjoyed by the residents. Such proposed or potential modifications as historically and scientifically documented, will obviously affect the living environment of the residents, and, consequently, constitute an adverse environmental impact as well. Certainly, it is not in the interest of any property owner to change or modify the appearance of a property so as to, potentially, reduce value. No property owner rationally and intentionally seeks to diminish the value of his property. But economic realities posed by government over -regulation causing potential adverse impacts necessitate such analysis. Again, this scenario is no mere speculation. The effects of stringent rent controls are too well documented to be controverted or debated. Historically, the well -established reality of environmental impact caused by rent control on real property has been clearly demonstrated: -16- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 17 "After rent control is enacted, landlords tend to disinvest from their real estate ventures. This disinvestment either takes the form of conversion to cooperative or condominium forms of ownership, deferred maintenance, or in extreme cases, abandonment." The Economic Effects of Rent Control, supra, p.14. In a study conducted by David Mengle, entitled "Rent Control and Housing Quality," two hypotheses were proven: "Landlords in controlled markets will cut back maintenance expenditures in order to maximize profits (or minimize losses), thereby causing quality to deteriorate to lower levels than would have been the case in a free market." "Quality deterioration, if observed, will tend to increase over time because disinvestment through depreciation only manifests itself slowly." Id This study is based upon 8,000 dwellings from eight American cities, four rent controlled and four not. The quality indicators included, for example: "...broken toilets, leaking roofs, blown fuses, rats and peeling paint or plaster...." The evidence establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a rent control law can impact the physical environment. Rent controls can impact surrounding properties; rent controls can destroy entire neighborhoods. Certainly, there is "substantial evidence" that a rent control law will negatively or adversely affect the environment. The substantial evidence of the potential for a significantly adverse effect is predicated upon numerous and incontrovertible studies conducted by experts, together with, among other things, historical fact and the content of the proposed Ordinance itself. Each of these matters are hereby proffered as an offer of proof of such evidence which now, therefore, must trigger a decision to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Generally, as well, the passage of a rent control law is a "project" subject to CEQA. The City Council must therefore comply with the requirements of CEQA and of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, Sections 15000, et seq., (the "Guidelines") prior to adopting any rent control ordinance. CEQA applies to "discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies...." Public Resources Code Section 21080. "Discretionary project" is defined in the Guidelines (14 Cal.Admin.Code Section 15357) to mean "a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely [must] determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations." -17- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 18 "Project," in turn, is defined by the Guidelines as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately, and that is ... (1) an activity directly undertaken by any public agency...." (14 Cal.Admin.Code Section 15378). It is apparent solely from the terms of CEQA and the Guidelines that the proposed rent control law in Los Angeles is a "discretionary project" subject to the requirements of CEQA. Passage of the rent control law would clearly be an activity directly undertaken by a public agency and would, equally clearly, involve the exercise of judgment or deliberation (See, 60 Ops. Ally. Gen. 335, 336 (1977) "Ordinances and resolutions adopted by a local agency are 'projects' within the meaning of CEQA"). It is also apparent that the proposed modification of the RSO, if enacted, would have "a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately," in the form of deterioration of the physical condition of a mobilehome park, abandonment, or termination of the business of operating a mobilehome park. If a landlord cannot pass through all increased costs (and not some fractional portion), including increased debt service costs involving refinancing of previously incurred costs of capital improvements and additional capital improvements and necessary capital for maintenance and repair, the physical environment will de -stabilize and change. This is a situation, in other words, in which the direct economic impact of the ordinance translates to an ultimate physical impact. An analogy may be drawn between the ultimate physical impact that may result from the proposed amendment and the ultimate physical impact which might result from a public transportation fare increase. In Opinion No. SO74-42, 60 Ops. Atty. Gen. 708 (1975), the former Attorney General, Evelle Younger, wrote: "It is clear that the proposed... fare increase, in all likelihood, would cause some of the current passenger trips to be diverted either to the automobile or to the Greyhound Bus service, thereby adversely impacting the San Francisco Bay area's ambient air quality and the overall traffic flow in the Westbay-Peninsula Corridor." Id., at 720. See also, Shawn v. Golden Gate Bridge (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 699 (Transportation District's fare increase for travel upon bus line was a "project" under CEQA). The potential for adverse environmental consequences is sufficient, per se, to trigger a decision requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The possibility for future environmental impact from a rent control ordinance necessitates a study to determine whether the impacts of the ordinance can be alleviated by less restrictive terms, provisions, and conditions. Indeed, it is the purpose of CEQA to allow the public to comment on mitigation measures which would reduce the environmental impact. Such mitigation measures should also be addressed by the Environmental hnpact Report, to insure that the impact upon the environment caused by restriction in rental income is eliminated. Indeed, in the City of Los Angeles which adopted rent controls, an FIR was prepared, in the face of a rent law allowing an DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 19 permissive / automatic 7% per year increase in rents with an additional hearing allowed to consider a just return based on all relevant economic factors. The Legislative Counsel Opinion of August 21, 1981 highlights the need for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. "We think that, generally, the enactment of a local rent control ordinance could conceivably have a potential for substantial adverse impact on the environment, thereby necessitating an initial study to determine whether an FIR or a negative declaration is to be prepared. For example, the regulation of residential rents in an urban area could conceivably discourage the development of high density rental development in that city and encourage that type of development in surrounding jurisdictions, with the resultant effect of more distant commutes and increased air pollution, traffic congestion, and energy consumption." Id., p.7. Obviously, the policy and spirit behind CEQA is to provide the fullest possible protection of the environment, and the maximum consideration and deliberation thereof to assure fullest implementation of mitigation measures. As the Legislative Counsel has stated: "The provisions of CEQA are to be interpreted broadly to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language (citation omitted). Ibis principle has been specifically applied by the courts with regard to the issue of what constitutes a 'project' under the Act (citation omitted)." Legislative Counsel Opinion, supra, p.5. In view of the probability for adverse environmental consequences, it is therefore imperative that an Environmental hnpact Report be prepared in order to implement all available mitigation measures and for the fullest possible deliberation and consideration of the impact upon the environment of the City. The fact that the action may not have a direct, physical effect is not relevant to whether the action constitutes a project, or whether an Environmental Impact Report is required. As stated in Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Ca1.3d 263, at 279: "[T]he notion that the project itself must directly have such an effect was effectively scotched in Friends of Mammoth [v. Bd. of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247]. The granting of a conditional use permit - a piece of paper - does not directly affect the environment any more than an annexation approval - another piece of paper. Friends of Mammoth, of course, said that the word'project' appears to emphasize activities culminating in the physical changes to the environment,...." (Emphasis original.) -19- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 20 See also, Guidelines, 14 Cal.Admin.Code Section 15064(i) ("Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change"). Moreover, an Environmental hnpact Report is required if there is a serious public controversy over the effects of a project -- the effect or the effects subject to the controversy shall be considered to be significant. No Oil v. Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68. There may be a difference of opinion on whether a particular effect should be considered significant or not, but again, this determination is of no moment. The issue is whether or not there is "substantial evidence" of the potential or possibility of a significant effect, whatever the contradictory or controverting evidence. For these foregoing reasons, the City of Los Angeles must prepare an Environmental Impact Report prior to the passage of any proposed rent control law. The potential environmental effects of rent control are as follows: 1. Services, amenities, facilities, and improvements to the residents will be significantly reduced by rent ceilings which deprive park owners of the ability to maintain the existing business operation. 2. No improvements to the mobilehome park can be planned or made in the future, except as necessary to comply with law, for many mobilehome park owners because of the impossibility of obtaining increased rents necessary to fund or secure construction and development. 3. Existing budgets for maintenance and personnel will be decreased 4. Existing budgets for repairs and replacements will be decreased. 5. The operating budget for recreational halls, clubhouses, and common facilities will be decreased. 6. The residents in the parks will reduce maintenance and serviceability of their trailers and coaches, and management may lack the resources to cover the business expense of requiring uniform compliance. The physical quality of life for the residents will therefore deteriorate. 7. The conversion rate of mobilehome parks in the city will increase. Under State law, new construction in mobilehome parks is entitled to a statewide exemption effective as of January 1, 1990. More mobilehome park owners will find an incentive to strive for such a new construction exemption and convert their properties accordingly. 8. Property adjacent and proximate to such mobilehome parks may also suffer the consequences of loss of value and deterioration due to the disincentive for maintenance by reason of the diminution in the services, facilities, and amenities in mobilehome parks impacted by the proposal. -20- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 21 9. Availability of housing will be affected by reason of the disincentive to build and maintain rental property in Los Angeles. Rent control regulations effect the flow of investment capital into the City due to the perceived adverse business climate. Other forms of business and commerce will fear additional regulation and seek location and relocation outside of the City, thus diminishing the tax base and the available revenues in which to address environmental problems in the City, such as a deteriorating sewer system. 10. The influx of participants to administrative hearings for apartment houses and mobile home parks throughout the city will result in far greater travel than before. Due to the reduction of the facilities and services provided to mobilehome parks and the deterioration of such services and facilities, mobilehome park residents will resort to other privately -provided or public -provided services and facilities, requiring additional travel, based on the under -market housing bargain received in their rentals. Likewise, disproportionately low housing costs will be a disincentive to relocation nearer to jobs, schools, and families. The use of the automobile will significantly increase traffic congestion due to the perceived need to avoid relocation due to the housing bargain received. 11. There will be significant changes in solid waste, litter, and refuse created by the disincentive to maintain services and facilities within mobilehome parks and within the individual trailers and mobilehomes in these communities and areas proximate thereto. 12. Based on increased commuter distances and traveling generally, there will be significant amounts of, and changes in, the levels of dust, ash, smoke, fumes, and odors in the environment. Additionally, changes will also occur in the degree of noise and vibration levels in the area caused by increased street traffic due to the avoidance of relocation. 13. Municipal services and the demand therefore will increase as the disincentive to maintain services in the mobilehome parks grow. 14. Based on increased commuter distances and traveling, there will be a substantial increase in the consumption of fossil fuels, electricity, oil, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, and related consumption of resources. 15. The increase in disincentives for maintenance of the mobilehome parks may result in lack of maintenance of the real property, including a greater propensity for water erosion and other deterioration. 16. Due to the wind and water erosion, residents may therefore be subjected to additional hazards from geologic conditions such as slides, loss of watershed, and potential ground failure. 17. Based on the disproportionate housing bargain created by the rent law, increased commuter distances and traveling will occur which will alter the location, distribution, density, and growth rate of the human population in the area. -21- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 22 18. The rent law will affect housing and will create additional demand for affordable rental housing which cannot be met by Los Angeles. If the city chooses to recommend passage of this proposal, an FIR is required in order to assess the environmental impact of massive decline in property maintenance standards and customs, together with the impacts of pursuit of administrative relief seeking avoidance of confiscatory effects and preservation of a fair return. An EIR must be prepared if a project (here a proposed rent control ordinance) has a significant, adverse growth -inducing impact. If the effect on management operations and commuter distances for large numbers of semi -change in occupational workers in older automobiles that pollute more than newer or electric automobiles are considered, the totality of the effect may in turn cause adverse environmental consequences. If these effects could be significant, an FIR rather than a Negative Declaration must be prepared. Even if the precise form, location, and amount of induced development is unknown, an FIR must still be prepared if it can assume a reasonable form, location, and amount of development. (1 California Environmental Law & Land Use Practice § 21.09 (2020)) For example, an economic or social change related to a physical change may be considered in determining the significance of the physical change. ' The Guidelines identify two ways in which economic and social changes may be used to determine whether a physical change is a significant environmental effect. 6 -First, when a physical change is caused by the intervening economic or social effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant environmental effect. For example, physical deterioration of a downtown area caused by economic decline may be a significant environmental effect of approval of an outlying shopping center.' s 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15064(f)(6), 15382; see Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1020, 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 413 (identity of bookstore tenant not considered significant environmental effect); Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 758, 272 Cal. Rptr. 83; Cathay Mortuary, Inc. v. San Francisco Planning Com. (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 275, 254 Cal. Rptr. 778 (cultural impacts must be tied to physical impacts to fall within CEQA). ' 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 15064(e). For a review of the treatment of economic and social effects in EHZs, see § 22.04[6][c]. ' Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 169-171, 217 Cal. Rptr. 893; see Placerville Historic Preservation League v. Judicial Council of California (2017) 16 Cal. App. 5th 187, 197, 223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 637 (urban decay not reasonably foreseeable indirect effect of project to move courthouse from historic downtown); Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 1173, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 738 -22- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 23 .Second, economic and social effects caused by a physical change may be used to determine that the physical change is a significant environmental effect. For example, evidence that siting of solid waste facilities near a religious retreat would disturb religious practices may be used to determine whether construction and use of the solid waste facilities would be significant environmental effects.' Examples of socioeconomic effects that do not constitute physical environmental effects under CEQA include: -School overcrowding, unless causally tied to physical changes such as the need for construction of additional classrooms. v -Disagreements among different users of recreational facilities. 10 -Safety issues associated with private playground recreational equipment. Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 357, 377, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 485. " -Fear of lowered property values caused by a proposed project. Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 885, 903-904, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105; see also Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1205,22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 203. -Fear of vandalism associated with a parole office. City of Pasadena v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 810, 830, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 766. (EIR urban decay analysis adequate); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1204, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 203 (EIR urban decay analysis inadequate). e See Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 180, 197, 228 Cal. Rptr. 868. 9 Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of University of California (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 1025, 1032, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 110. " Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170, 1206, 31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 901 (dog park opponents failed to produce any substantial evidence of physical effects). " Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 357, 377, 54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 485. -23- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 24 .Psychological and social impacts from the closure of a horse boarding facility in a community priding itself on its "horse friendly" character. Rent control ordinances result in less spending on maintenance and capital investment in existing housing stock in the empirical evidence reflects that housing stock suffers to the point of abandonment. This is no mere argument but actual historical fact. Over the course of time, rent control causes housing developments and residential neighborhoods to become blighted , much like public housing projects. Environmental impact reports are required to study this effect under old-fashioned forms of rent control like the proposed ordinance in this case. The FIR must also include mitigation measures to prevent blight from occurring. Such as use of 42 million dollars of federal funds in 100% reimbursement of past due and owing rents from the state of California. The commentators 12 say that the professional rent control provocateurs may answer by demanding that the city sidestep compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act by adopting ordinances through local ballot initiatives, which do not require CEQA approval. 4. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES THE SANTA ANA RENT BOARD, WHICH HAS AN IMBALANCED COMPOSITION THAT FAILS THE TEST OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL The proposed ordinance, at Section 12 (Santa Ana Rent Board) provides for an imbalanced but interested composition which is a violation of due process of law. The ordinance states as follows: SECTION 12 Santa Ana Rent Board (a) Composition. There shall be an appointed Santa Ana Rent Board comprised of City residents as set forth in this Section. The Rent Board shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the City Council. Membership of the Rent Board shall consist of at least four (4) members who are Tenants/Mobilehome Owners/Residents as those terms are defined under this Chapter; at least two (2) members of the community who neither own nor manage a Rental Unit or Property as that term is defined under this Chapter; (1) member who is either a Landlord or manages a Rental Unit or Property as that term is defined under this Chapter, but no more than two (2) Landlords or persons who manage a Rental Unit, Dwelling or Property, shall sit on the Rent Board at any given time. The City Council shall take steps to ensure that the makeup of the Rent reflects the population of the City of Santa Ana regarding racial, gender, and socioeconomic diversity. (Emphasis supplied). is 1 California Environmental Law & Land Use Practice § 21.09 (2020) —24— DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 25 There is a judicially -recognized "institutional bias" established by requiring the seating of competing industry interests (more tenants than landlords) on the rent board. Opposing interests are imbalanced when one side is invariably over -represented. This requirement establishes the appearance of bias and impropriety, upon the board. Why? The answer is quite simple. Would the tenants agree to a Board on which there were four mobilehome park owners and two tenants? The courts utilize this test to determine whether or not the promoters of the legislation have been fair and reasonable. In this instance, the confidences regarding underlying motive is betrayed and revealed: the true intent of this law is to bully landlords and violate palpably clear rules required by due process of law. This simple question puts into a sharp perspective the need for careful preparation and review of the most basic laws somehow overlooked here. This question also illustrates the quite obvious and fundamental deficiency in the establishment of a due process administrative board. Absent preservation of impartiality, government is but a behemoth -like bully trampling the rights of unpopular minorities— here, mobilehome park owners. Rather, it is well understood that the objective of the Santa Ana Rent Board is to adjudicate rent levels for specific mobilehome parks and for particular tenants. The role is quasi-adjudicatooy. The hearing process must be impartial. It is well settled that a fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. (In re Murchison (1955) 349 U.S. 133, 136 [99 L.Ed. 942, 946, 75 S.Ct. 623].) Due process requires a competent and impartial tribunal in the administrative hearings. (Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254, 271 [25 L.Ed.2d 287, 300-301, 90 S.Ct. 1011].) Even if there is no showing of actual bias in the tribunal, due process is deemed to be denied by circumstances that create the likelihood or appearance of bias. (Peters v. Kiff (1972) 407 U.S. 493, 502 [33 L.Ed.2d 83, 93-94, 92 S.Ct. 2163].) As the Supreme Court stated in In re Murchison, supra, 349 U.S. at 136: "Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." This important case has been followed as is required, in California. Nissan Motor Corp. v. NMVB (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 109, 113. When an administrative agency includes persons who have a financial interest, or relationships with other commission members, without special or unique expertise to decide the matters within the agency jurisdiction, and where there is no counterbalance to the appearance of the impropriety thereby created, it is clear the tribunal cannot appear to dispense impartial justice, nor appear to. In the case at bar, all the foregoing factors combine to demonstrate the utter collapse of fairness in spirit or fact toward Appellant. The line of cases beginning with the American Motor Sales Corp. v. NMVB ("NMVB") (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 986. It reveals the judicial concern for the appearance ofpropriey and absence of favoritism in adjudication in administrative commissions and boards of multiple members. -25- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 26 The New Motor Vehicle Board ("NMVB") violated due process based on this most basic of fundamental pillars of a fair and impartial judge. In summary, the NMVB was composed of competing interests with an imbalanced number of members of each side. The court held that the institutional imbalance constituted a violation of due process. Likewise, the institutional imbalance between mobilehome park owners or other landlords and tenants constitutes an institutional imbalance which most clearly, indeed blatantly, violates due process of law. The court held that the car dealers are biased not solely because they are members of the dealer -class of litigants and are thus per se constitutionally ineligible to sit on the Board. What the court held is that the combination of (1) the mandated dealer -Board members, (2) the lack of any counterbalance in mandated manufacturer members, (3) the nature of the adversaries in all cases (dealers v. manufacturers), and (4) the nature of the controversy in all cases (dispute between dealer and manufacturer) deprives a manufacturer -litigant of procedural due process, because the state does not furnish an impartial tribunal (American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 993). The same failure to comport with due process lies in the instant case. The tenant members of the commission are mandated; there must be an equal number of competing landlords to push the size of the rent board to nine members. Historically, the NMVB was established in 1973 and given jurisdiction to resolve controversies between new car dealers and manufacturers, pursuant to Vehicle Code § 3060, which provides that a new car franchisor shall not "terminate or refuse to continue any existing franchise" without reasons constituting, "good cause." Of critical import was that the Legislature required that four of its nine members shall be new car dealers. Vehicle Code § 3001. See generally, Chevrolet Motor Division v. NMVB (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 533, 536 [194 Cal.Rptr. 270], cert. den., 465 U.S. 1102 [80 L.Ed.2d 129, 104 S.Ct. 1597, 15981.] The purpose of the legislation was, inter alia, to protect dealers. The reasons why dealers were included on the board was to keep a check on the manufacturers. Thus, the dealers were present to watchdog or check the practices of the manufacturers, not just those manufacturers with whom there were actual disputes. Togas v. American Honda Motor Co. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 506, n.7. [Vehicle Code] §3000 provides that' [there is in the Department of Motor Vehicles a New Motor Vehicle Board, which consists of nine members.' 31 "Section 1, 39, of Stats. 1973, c. 996, p. 1964, provided: ¶ 'Section 1. The Legislature finds and declares that the distribution and sale of new motor vehicles in the State of California vitally affects the general economy of the state and the public welfare and that in order to promote the public welfare and in the exercise of its police power, it is necessary to regulate and to license vehicle dealers, manufacturers, manufacturer branches, distributors, distributor branches, and representatives of vehicle manufacturers and distributors doing business in California in order to avoid undue control of the independent new motor vehicle dealer by the vehicle manufacturer or distributor and to insure that dealers fulfill their obligations under their franchises and provide adequate and sufficient -26- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 27 service to consumers generally.' (Historical Note, 65B West's Ann. Cal. Veh. Code (1987 ed.) § 3000, p. 263.)" Togas v. American Honda Motor Co. (1997) 57 Ca1.App.4th 506. In American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB, the court held that the mandatory requirement that dealer members sit on the Board in dealer -manufacturer controversies and lack of any counterbalancing requirement that manufacturer members sit on the Board, deprived the manufacturer -litigants of due process in the adjudication of "good cause" disputes. Id., at 992. The court held that because dealer members inevitably have an economic stake in the outcome, such a "dealer -stacked" Board failed to comport with the constitutional requirement of a fair and impartial tribunal. Id., at pp. 987-99L) The American Motors court expressed the background issue this way: The result is that although under the 1973 legislation the adversaries before the Board invariably derive from two distinct groups, dealers and manufacturers, the Board which resolves their disputes must include four members from the dealer group but need not include any members from the manufacturer group. Does an administrative tribunal so constituted meet the requirements of due process? Is it such "a competent and impartial tribunal in administrative hearings" (Peters v. Kiff (1972) 407 U.S. 493 [33 L.Ed.2d 83, 92 S. Ct. 2163]) as to comport with due process? "We agree with the trial judge's negative answer to these questions." American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 987 [138 Cal.Rptr. 594]. In the same manner, the landlords and tenants in Santa Ana, subject to adjudicating rent increases within their mobilehome parks, are invariably hostile, acrimonious and adversarial. The financial interest of the dealers (of which there were 4 rather of 9 total members) was not always consistent, a point very important to the Court. [The board] was given the added power to intrude upon the contractual rights and obligations of dealers and their product suppliers, entities whose respective economic interests are in no way identical, or coextensive, frequently not even harmonious. No longer did members of a trade or occupation (dealer -Board -members) regulate only their own kind; they began to regulate the economic and contractual relations of others with their own kind. American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 991. As in American Motor Sales, the tenant commissioners contemplated by the Santa Ana rent control law are not regulating their own kind, they are regulating "... the economic and contractual relations of others with their own kind" (id.), i.e., the park owners with whom their co -commissioner Smith was in an adversarial position. The legislature, quite incredibly in a democratic republic, called for requirement that the nine -man Board consist of at least four car dealers. In effect it took sides in all Board -adjudicated controversies between dealers and manufacturers, making certain that the dealer interests would at all times be substantially represented and favored. Of course, the court -27- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 28 held that this legislative partisanship damned the Board. Government, including the city of Santa Ana, may not establish an adjudicatory tribunal like the rent board, so as to slant decision - making in favor of the tenants-- in favor of one class of litigants over another. In American Motors, the Legislature violated its obligation to assure evenhandedness in the adjudicatory process. In all, the Court sharply defined its concern in the institutional requirement that 4 of the 9 NMVB members be dealers. Said the Court: For any who might yet have difficulty comprehending the reason why the guaranteed minimum of four car dealers on the Board is both unfair and unconstitutional, the American Motors' brief offers one final telling argument. If the Legislature in 1973 had deleted the requirement that car dealers sit on the Board and had made it mandatory that four officers of car manufacturer corporations sit thereon, would the car dealers have found this acceptable? Of course not. American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 992. .. minority of the full Board is so infected ... That evil is not eliminated by stacking the deck four -ninths of the way rather than all the way. American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 991, 993. The seminal case dealing with fair hearing requirements is Tumey v. Ohio (1927) 273 U.S. 510 [71 L.Ed. 749, 47 S.Ct. 437, 50 A.L.R. 1243]. The American Motor Sales Court discusses it and Ward v. Village of Monroeville (1972) 409 U.S. 57 [34 L.Ed.2d 267, 93 S.Ct. 801, finding Gibson v. Berryhill (1973) 411 U.S. 564 [36 L.Ed.2d 488, 93 S.Ct. 1689], was more directly in point. The issue was whether the Alabama Board of Optometry was a fair tribunal to determine that it did or did not constitute "unprofessional conduct" for an optometrist to practice as a salaried employee of a corporation. The board was composed of optometrists and none salaried or employed by corporations. Only privately practicing optometrists were eligible to become members of the association. By Alabama law, only such members could sit on the board. "'Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the state and the accused denies the latter due process of law. "...(273 U.S. at pp. 531-532 [71 L.Ed. at p. 758].)" American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 988. The financial stake need not be as direct or positive as it appeared to be in Tumey. It has also come to be the prevailing view that'[m] ost of the law concerning disqualification because of interest applies with equal force to ... administrative adjudicators.' K. Davis, Administrative Law Text § 12.04, p. 250 (1972), and cases cited. (411 U.S. at pp. 578-579 [36 L.Ed.2d at pp. 499-500].) (American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 989). DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 29 The concern for bias is also heightened in this case, because the commission members have no special or unique expertise which would qualify them for the role of adjudicating the rate of return on a mobilehome park investment, they need only be sixteen years of age. Why they may be no older than seventy years of age is an affront to every senior citizen. Likewise, ... car dealers had no unique or peculiar expertise appropriate to the regulation of business affairs of car manufacturers. American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 991. There is no provision for the commission to be balanced by seating an equal number of park owner commissioners. The ordinance limits a park owner member to one, while at least one commissioner shall be a mobilehome tenant. During the relevant times, three of the commissioners were mobilehome tenants, and there was not a single park owner member at the hearing. One reason of concern why, harkens back to the proffered reason the Legislature stopped short of requiring manufacturers to sit in equal counterpoise to the dealer commissioners. So, if there were four park owners and two tenants, would the tenants contend the procedure to be fair? Clearly, the appearance of impropriety is not merely hypothetical. The ordinance is unconstitutional as drafted. It is as plain as the nose on your face. 5. BEGINNING RENT LEVELS MUST EQUAL PREVAILING GENERAL MARKET CONDITIONS (Vega), AND CANNOT BE LIMITED TO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES Section 13 (b) (4), (A) (B) specifies initial base rent adjustments based upon impermissible criteria as clearly established and defined by appellate authority in the state of California. Specifically: (4) Adjustment of Base Year Net Operating Income. The Rent Board will grant an adjustment of the Base Year, if the Landlord can demonstrate no fair return in the Base Year as set forth in this section based on at least one of the following findings: (A) Exceptional Expenses in the Base Year. The Landlord's operating expenses in the base year were unusually high or low in comparison to other years. In such instances, adjustments may be made in calculating operating expenses so the base year operating expenses reflect average expenses for the Covered Rental Unit/Mobilehome Park over a reasonable period. The following factors shall be considered in making such a finding: (I) Extraordinary amounts were expended for necessary maintenance and repairs. -29- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 30 (ii) Maintenance and repair was below accepted standards to cause significant deterioration in the quality of services provided. (iii) Other expenses were unreasonably high or low notwithstanding the application of prudent business practices. (B) Exceptional Circumstances in the Base Year. The gross income during the base year was disproportionately low due to exceptional circumstances. In such instances, adjustments may be made in calculating base year gross rental income consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. The following factors shall be considered in making such a finding: (I) If the gross income during the base year was lower than it might have been because some residents were charged reduced Rent. (ii) If the gross income during the base year was significantly lower than normal because of the destruction of the premises and/or temporary eviction for construction or repairs. (iii) The pattern of Rent increases in the years prior to the base year and whether those increases reflected increases in the CPI. (iv) Base period Rents were disproportionately low in comparison to the base period Rents of other Rental Units in the City. (v) Other exceptional circumstances. Utilization and requirements for "exceptional' circumstances fails to comply with the California Constitution requirements for fairness to property owners to allow for a fair return based on prevailing rents at the inception of a rent control law. The Constitution pays lip service to property owner rights by assuring that upon the inception of rent control, park owners have the right to establish and adjudicate a base rent to account for prevailing and general market conditions. Requiring exceptional circumstances is not recognized. The cases clearly show this. The city of Santa Ana is bound by this authority and should be anxious to comply with its legal responsibilities under the California Constitution. What is a Veza adiustment? Rent controls must allow Park owners and all landlords to establish beginning rental rates at general market conditions and to adjudicate those rates to be fair and unassailable. This constitutional entitlement exists to assure that all Park owners start at the same point under the same conditions. It assures that most of the park owners and landlords who have voluntarily moderated their rent levels to points at less than prevailing rates will have the opportunity to reestablish prevailing rents under mandatory rent regulations. This was the holding of the court in Vega v. City of West Hollywood. Park owners are allowed to prove market value as of base year date. All of the owners may do so. All have the constitutional right to start under rent controls at prevailing market rent. Typically, the flood of "Vega" applications constitutes what appears to be a widespread response to rent controls by maximizing rents, while in fact Park owners are merely acting under -30- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 31 a new environment when banking of increases is not permissible, to protect their investors, their families, and their investments. The ordinance encourages Park owners to seek a fair return on their investment. The ordinance guarantees that opportunity. Thus, initials rents whenever sought, must be based upon a "Vega" finding of the prevailing rents it applied at the inception of rent control. To obtain initial fair base rent to protect their investments, park owners and all landlords may (and many will) promptly seek such an adjustment or possibly waive the right to do so. It consists of the adjustment of rent to reflect prevailing general market conditions. Vega v. City of West Hollywood. Vega holds that the critical question is whether the base rents can reasonably be deemed to reflect general market conditions. The question is not whether or not there were exceptional circumstances. The question is not whether or not there were exceptional cost or unexpected operating expense. The Vega issue has nothing to do with rate of return. The question is how high must the rents be to show and reflect prevailing market conditions. Particularly where rent control is not necessary, the initial Vega adjustments will show a substantial spike in rental rates as park owners rush to protect the assault on their properties with constitutional exercises of powers and actions to attain general market conditions at the inception of rent control. Accordingly, the question is not whether the base date rents establish a fair and reasonable return and whether the base date rents are within a range of rents which can be charged. This according to the California appellate courts: "The critical questions are not whether the base date rents establish a fair and reasonable return and whether the base date rents are within a range of rents which can be charged. Rather the question is whether the base date rents can reasonably be deemed to reflect general market conditions. ( Vega v. City of West Hollywood (1990) 223 Cal. App. 3d 1342, 1351 [273 Cal. Rptr. 243].) [1415] After base date rents are established which reflect general market conditions, the rents which are then established must provide the landlord with the requisite just and reasonable return. (Ibid.) "[A] property owner must be permitted, pursuant to the principles discussed in Birkenfeld .... to start rent calculations with a base date rent similar to other comparable properties." ( Id. at p. 1352.)" Concord Communities v. City of Concord, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1407, 1414-1415, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 511, 517, 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 698, 13, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 7748, 2001 Daily Journal DAR 9533 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2001) In Santa Ana, this adjustment will result in markedly higher and market rents, across the board for all park owners and landlords, as opposed to the continuing under -market rents charged before this proposed law by the predominant number of the park owners and landlords which you are forcing to be assertive for the protection of their property rights by this unnecessary proposition. -31- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 32 Property rights is changing in this general area of law. The originator of the maintenance of net operating income rent control ("MNOI") procedure for the adjustment of rent, Mr. Ken Baar, saw his testimony rejected as legally unsound in Stardust Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of San Buenaventura, where Baar (and attorney and self-proclaimed historian) participated as an expert witness. His testimony was rejected on the issue of base rent market rights. Rather than come to grips with the right to market rent adjustments, Baar seems to have simply ignored the issue altogether in the discredited report. Baar now supports indexing based on 100% of CPI, not the 80% set forth in the Santa Ana proposal. Santa Ana has proposed such an extreme form of old-fashioned rent control that even Ken Baar would not recommend it. The park owner in the Stardust case contended that it was entitled to a Vega adjustment under Vega v. City of West Hollywood. The Rent Board retained experts including Kenneth Baar. Baar rejected the argument that the park owner was entitled to a Vega adjustment (to seek abase year adjustment reflecting general market conditions (as described in Birkefeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 129). Baar concluded that the requested "Vega adjustments" were not warranted legally because they were not supported by the required "special circumstances." The Rent Board administrator, prepared a staff report recommending the denial of the discretionary rent increase application, relying upon the reports of Baar and an appraiser. The staff report acknowledged that rents were below market during the base year, but recommended against any Vega adjustment, relying on Baar's report. Baar further testified that even with Stardust's claimed base rental adjustment, the growth in the Park's NOI exceeded that required under the Rent Board's MNOI standard. The Rent Board refused Stardust's request to cross-examine Baar. Baar also testified that Stardust should not receive a base rental adjustment because the right to such an increase is based on a "judicial doctrine" and the courts "seem to be indicating that special circumstances [are] required" to obtain such an increase. The park owner called Park Manager Jim MacKay as its only witness. MacKay testified that his mother, while she was owner, intentionally prevented rent increases prior to the adoption of rent control because she was "very emotionally attached" to the tenants, like an "interim relief society." MacKay also described a meeting during which a representative of the tax assessor's board had explained that the Park's property taxes would be increased based upon the level of market rents that could be charged, although Stardust's rents were lower than market rates. There was no objection to MacKay's testimony during the hearing and it was not rebutted by any other evidence. The Rent Board adopted a resolution denying Stardust's discretionary rent increase application. (The resolution had been prepared before the hearing.) In the court of appeal, the position of the City and Baar was rejected. Baar took the position that Vega adjustments can only be granted where the "unique circumstances" of Vega exist. Said the court: -32- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 33 "We disagree with their interpretation."The court noted that the resolution also refers to a statement from Baar's report that "there is no evidence of any extraordinary circumstances existing at the time the Ordinance was enacted and no such evidence was presented by the applicant prior to the hearing on May 15." (Italics added.) Taken together, these statements indicate that the Rent Board based its rejection of the base year rent on Baar's opinion regarding the requirement for extraordinary (or special or unique) circumstances to justify a base year rental adjustment. The Rent Board did not refer to the requirements of its own Ordinance or Guidelines for a base year rental adjustment --"where the rent increases ... could have been made, but have not been made because of the landlord's rental policies or purposes not in accord with the intent or purpose of the Ordinance or guidelines as amended." (Guidelines, § 2.04.) The court therefore rebuffed the City and Baar with the following comment: "If the court determines that Stardust can present admissible evidence concerning this issue, the court shall remand the case to the Rent Board to reconsider Stardust's application for a Vega adjustment in base year rents." Santa Ana may face many Vega adjustment petitions from landlords and park owners, and despite the ability to set rents without any rollback provision, many may continue choosing not to do so until the confiscatory rent restriction formula compels them to litigate with the city for fair adjustments. It may be expected that this will become a widespread practice as the confiscatory downward spiral property owners will fall victim to while intentionally paltry annual adjustments continue to take their toll. 6. THERE ARE NO CONSTITUTIONAL FACTS WHICH CAN PROVE THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AND IMPOSE MANDATORY RENT CONTROL. SANTA ANA IS AN ECONOMICALLY FUNCTIONING COMMUNITY THAT HAS NOT SHOWN EVIDENCE OF FAILURE IN THE HOUSING MARKET --THE LEVEL OF MANIFEST DYSFUNCTION NECESSARY BASED UPON THE EXPLOITATION OF A HOUSING SHORTAGE TOGETHER WITH THE IMPOSITION OF EXCESSIVE RENTS UNRELATED TO ECONOMIC CONDITIONS It is clear that the housing market in the city of Santa Ana, like the rest of Orange County, is functioning quite regularly and without disruption, failure, or adverse consequence. Park owners cannot be blamed for the pandemic, the economic conditions in California, the shut down of businesses caused by the prevailing administration, or any factors which have contributed to the increase in rental values, housing values, or the extraordinarily low interest rates spurring on unprecedented activity in the housing market. Park owners did not do this. They cannot be blamed for it. Nor can they be blamed for responsibilities that are those of the city, county, and state government to provide more affordable housing. Rent control is an unfair delegation of municipal responsibility for a failure not of the park owner's making. -33- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 34 A "shortage of housing" is the single most critical "constitutional fact" to justify rent controls. The seminal case in California striking down local rent controls is Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley. The Supreme Court set forth essential factual requirements ("constitutional facts") which must exist to establish a legitimate rational connection for rent control under the police powers' clause of the California Constitution (Article XI, Section 7). Due to the extraordinary interference with property owners' rights, rent controls must pass muster with several constitutional requisites established by California precedent. Mobilehome parks are intended to operate at full capacity. They are intended to operate without vacancies. However, the bargaining power allocations in mobile home parks has led to the unsubstantiated, indeed delusional belief that the tenants have had no bargaining power with regard to the establishment of their tenancy relationships with park owners. To the contrary, it is farcical to proffer the notion that park owners have superior bargaining power. ---Contrary to the Assumed and Oft -Repeated Dogmatic Belief, Tenants Have Had Superior Bargaining Power. Mobilehome tenants could have demanded any rental agreement they wanted before installing a home in an orange County mobile home park. The parks are empty. No one was living there. The tenants did not have to move in; they could easily refuse and they did. No one moved into a mobile home park until they were totally happy with the terms. The tenant said more than equal bargaining power. There bargaining power was absolute and unconditional. It still is. Tenants today can require the park owners to agree to a long secure lease or they can pick up and take their home elsewhere. It is also a false assertion that it is costly to move to a new and different mobile home park. Tenants have had complete and absolute bargaining power at the time mobilehome parks were opening and accepting new tenants. There is no compulsion, no coercion, no possible pressure that could be applied upon any tenant to bring in a expense of mobilehome inside it on someone else's land. The tenants are in a position to demand, and they did, all of the protections that the market would allow in which were personally acceptable to them. The tenants had all of the bargaining power. Based upon the changes in the Mobilehome Residency Law, the tenants also maintain majority control and power. The life tenancy of a mobilehome residency exceeds the tenants life and continues on with heirs, assignees, and new buyers for so long as the park remains in existence. It is virtually a tenancy in perpetuity. And the bargaining rights stay with the tenant. Buyers could have just walked away. Many did. What happened? Many bargained until they reached the terms and conditions that they desired and found acceptable. Only then did they venture into a transaction to put a mobilehome in a mobile home park in Orange County. The buyers were under no obligation to do so. Only then did the Tenants chose to assume risks of the market by standing firm for the terms they desired. Many tenants chose leases that have served them well. Some leases or a mere 1% for twenty years. A secure and stable lifestyle. This does not occur with the annual year-to-year conflagration called rent control. -34- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 35 Even tenant lawyers have said to attorneys in this firm: "My client must be crazy!!" said one. Why? "Buy a home on a month to month." Really? Anyone would choose lease to protect from sudden, unexpected, rent increases. So, it is puzzling that many chose the uncertainties of an unpredictable economy over stability. But some prefer adjustable mortgages over long term fixed. Promoting the interests of all your citizens is your task, some may say. SAMPLING OF AMBIGUOUS ASSUMPTION NOT PROVEN: JUDGING FROM INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT STATISTICS, MOBILEHOME INSTALLATION AND TRANSIT MISHAPS ARE SO LOW AS TO BE WITHOUT STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; "APPRECIATION," HOW IS THAT QUANTIFIED IN THE ORDINANCE FOR REDUCTION OF RENT ADJUSTMENTS? It is also an unsubstantiated notion that homes cannot be removed or that they are damaged in transit. Facts: over the last ten years (2010 - 2020), if one reviews accident statistics involving mobilehomes in transit and in situ, Federal OSHA reveals just 14 incidents, nationwide, and a much smaller number yet, dealing with transit of mobilehomes.13 13 OSHA reported accidents involving mobdehomes (installations and other). 2010-2020: # Summary Nr Event Date Report ID Fat SIC Event Description 1 131639.01 12/09/2020 0953210 X Employee Is Killed When Crushed During Mobile Home Installat 2 132213.01 12/09/2020 0454716 X Employee Is Killed In Fall From Ladder 3 128153.01 07/27/2020 0454713 X Employee Is Killed When Crushed Under Mobile Home During Ins 4 123158.01 01/14/2020 0419700 X Employee Is Killed When Crushed Under Mobile Home 5 107200.01 06/29/2018 0420600 Two Employees Are Injured When Caught Beneath Mobile Home 6 102951.01 02/08/2018 0953220 X Employee Is Crushed Killed When Caught Under Mobile Home Tra 7 103671.01 11/26/2017 0950631 Employee Troubleshooting Power Outage Incurs Flash Burns 8 86271.015 06/21/2016 0524700 X Employee Is Pinned And Killed Beneath Mobile Home That Shift 9 202675542 11/25/2013 0950621 1761 Foreman Fractures Spine In Fall From Mobile Home Roof 10 202675625 08/20/2013 0950621 1611 Worker'S Foot Is Crushed During Mobile Home Installation 11 202692380 08/01/2013 0950624 241 Trailer Fire Causes Burns To Upper Body Of Worker 12 200981298 04/10/2013 0855610 X 2451 Employee Falls From Mobile Home Wall And Is Killed 13 200041853 07/26/2011 0653510 X 1521 Employee Is Killed During Mobile Home Renovation 14 202612503 11/24/2010 0950612 7041 Employee Is Burned When Fixing Propane Leak On Gas Heater —35— DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 36 It is also an unsubstantiated and undocumented notion to seek to diminish the rate of return on property based upon the assumption of "appreciation" without the quantification thereof and its contribution to, specifically, the amount by which a rent request is not allowed in full. The constitutionality of mandatory rent controls depends upon the existence and continuing existence of these "constitutional facts." These requirements are well understood. Actual facts must at all times be present which demonstrate a specific intent by landlords to charge exorbitant and excessively high rents to exploit tenants amid a housing shortage. The effects on the tenants must be sufficiently serious to make rent controls a rational measure. Moreover, there is frequently the claim made that mobile homes may be damaged in transit. There does not appear to be any supporting statistics for this assertion, nor is there any difficulty in obtaining more than adequate insurance which would cover any and all damage or any other casualty that occurs in the process of moving a mobilehome.14 "...[The constitutionality of residential rent controls under the police power depends upon the actual existence of a housing shortage and its concomitant ill effects of sufficient seriousness to make rent control a rational curative measure." Birkenfeld, 17 Cal.3d 129 at 160. The actual facts must continue to exist at all times for such controls to remain permissible. Further, any proposed rent controls must also be studied to determine whether the same would operate as a "curative measure," rather than aimed at solving nation-wide inflation, preserving housing stock, providing a subsidy to tenants, insulating the tenants from normal market conditions, or changing the trends in general market conditions. In this instance, https://www.oshagov/pls/imis/accidentseuch-s uch?si�&siogroup=&naics &ace description=&acc abstract=&ace keyword =%22Mobile"/o20Home°/u22&inspm &fatal=&officetype=&office=&stutmonth=&startday=&startyear=&endmonth=&endday =&endyear=&keyword list=on&p start=&p_finish=0&p_sort=&p_desc=DESC&p_directiorr=Nead&p_show=20 ra From one of many sources: "Mobile Insurance works with fair and ethical insurance comppanies offering comprehensive insurance coverage at the best value. These companies include the followin : American Modern Insurance Company Carolina Casualty Insurance Company Essex Insurance Company Nautilus Insurance Company Northland Insurance Company Southern County Mutual and others Your clients' new home will be protected no matter what happens during transit with insurance coverage from Mobile Insurance. -36- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 37 Brookside is leased in largest part. The effect of the ordinance is to purport to cover a handful of residents, in a park with manifest vacancies and housing opportunity. Later precedents reflect that the ordinance cannot be more intrusive on the property owner than required by the findings and purpose. Here, the only legitimate purpose is to maintain housing supply and avoid excessive rents amid a housing shortage. But there is no shortage. For further restrictions in the rent law to be even contemplated, there must be some evidence, need, or purpose demonstrated, with findings, to show such action is rational as a curative measure addressing actual consequences of mobilehome park operations at this time. Any consideration of rent control ordinance is, on this basis alone, improper to promulgate because there are none of the essential constitutional facts for additional restrictions needed to make a competent finding or constitute a rational basis. The law allows the park owner may prove that one or more of the conditions stated to exist to justify rent controls ["constitutional facts"] do not in fact exist. Birkenfeld held that "findings" of the local governmental entity must be examined in order to determine whether a sufficient and accurate statement is present that rent controls are a: "...reasonable means of counter -acting harms and dangers to the public health and welfare emanating from a housing shortage." Birkenfeld, 17 Cal.3d 129 at 161. Upon a challenge to a rent control law, a trial court's interpretation of municipal findings is scrutinized on appeal. Id. at 161. The Court extensively discussed those findings (as contained within the Berkeley Charter Amendment then at -issue) to ascertain whether the declaration of constitutional facts was sufficient and true. Id. at 161-163. These are the very same requirements that the City must meet prior to enacting arry form of additional mandatory rent regulations, and must prove in any later court challenge. The complexity of performing these required studies is compounded by questions of housing availability (apt supply), actual cause of vacancies (bad economy in general), encouragement of new construction, housing alternatives, selection of leasing as a viable alternative to rent restrictions (adopted in the park in large part), as well as available ameliorative remedies under a voluntarily -provided subsidy program which has existed for decades. These factors reflect the absence of any basis for the passage of rent controls. -37- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 38 8. TIFF ADAMSON TEST: RENT CONTROLS MUST CONSTITUTE THE LEAST INTRUSIVE ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO REMEDY THE EXTENT OF ANY IDENTIFIABLE ILL REQUIRING LEGISLATIVE INTERVENTION A City may go no farther than necessary in enforcing rent controls. The City may not perpetuate a rent control regime because it pleases or pacifies the recipients of the unjustified legislation. The least intrusive alternatives are absolutely required to be exercised. In this instance, the facts needed for rent control do not exist at all. Adamson Companies v. City of Malibu, 854 F.Supp. 1476 (C.D. Cal. 1994). "Accordingly, if the park owners show that the alleged shortage -driven monopoly does not exist in Malibu, this rationale cannot justify the rent control ordinance." Adamson Companies v. City of Malibu, 854 F.Supp. 1476 (C.D. Cal. 1994). In Adamson, the Court carefully considered the extent to which the City may go in imposing involuntary rent control. This a requirement of substantive due process. The plaintiffs challenged the Malibu rent control ordinance as a substantive violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. test: A substantive due process challenge to an economic regulation must satisfy a two-part (1) does the ordinance serve a legitimate purpose, and (2) are the means employed rationally related to the legitimate purpose? [Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 498 n. 6, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1935 n. 6, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977)]. The Ninth Circuit has articulated the test as one which requires that the plaintiff: "... prove that the government's action was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Sierra Lake Reserve v. City of Rocklin, 938 F.2d 951, 957 (9th Cir.1991), vacated and remanded, 113 S.Ct. 31, 121 L.Ed.2d 4 (1992), adhered to in relevantpart, 987 F.2d 662 (9th Cir.1993); see also Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365,47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). In this matter, there is no rational basis for a rent control ordinance because there is no housing shortage. Additionally, there are no rent increases or rent levels threatened calling for DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 39 additional mandatory rent control. In other words, there is not a single constitutional fact upon which the City might rely in consideration of further restrictions imposed in a rent control law. 9. THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR VACANCY DECONTROL IS A REGULATORY TAKING IN THE CASE OF PARK OWNERS THAT OWN THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF INCEPTION OF RENT CONTROL. VACANCY CONTROLS RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN THE COST OF HOUSING FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS, AS WELL AS GENERATES A SIGNIFICANT PREMIUM (TAKING)— ESSENTIALLY "KEY MONEY" WHICH IS NOT JUST AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY BUT ILLEGAL IN RENT CONTROL JURISDICTIONS SUCH AS NEW YORK. Section 9 of the ordinance provides that rents may not be increased upon in -place sale of a mobile home. (b) Restrictions on Initial Rent for New Tenancies. To the maximum extent permitted by state law, the initial Rent for new tenancies shall be subject to the restrictions of this Chapter. The Rent Board shall issue rules and regulations to govern the restrictions on the initial Rent for new tenancies where such restrictions are permitted by state law. However, in the case of Mobilehomes, a Park Owner is prohibited from raising Rent upon re -rental or re -lease of a Mobilehome on -site to a Prospective Mobilehome Owner/or current Mobilehome Owner. This includes Mobilehome spaces that are New Construction as defined in Civil Code section 798.7, or as exempted in accordance with Civil Code section 798.45. This section of the law is unconstitutional. The park owners in Santa Ana owned their parks before the onset of vacancy control premiums set forth in the proposed ordinance. Unlike the Guggenheim case, the owners in Gardena are long term park operators. The reasons Guggenheim was decided against the park owner do not apply in Santa Ana. Vacancy controls transform what may be an old-fashioned rent control law, into simply, a wealth transfer ordinance. If the price of housing is not regulated, rent control rent becomes a premium sold at profit together with the home. It is so simple, so evident, and so clear. Empirically tested in recent studies, it shows that the effective rent control is to exacerbate the cost of housing for new home buyers. It does not preserve affordable housing, it destroys affordable housing. Please see attached report .15 The summary of which is as follows: " An Examination of the Impact of Rent Control on Mobile Home Prices in California By David Dale -Johnson, Yonghengg Deng, Peter Gordon, Diehang Zheng: Lusk Center for Real Estate, University of Southern California, 2004. -39- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 40 Our results support the hypothesis based on a more extensive and timely data set than had been employed in similar prior studies in California. Using pooled data from seven counties in California, before 1993, a flexible rent control regime results in real growth rates in prices 1.69 percentage points less than overall growth rates, while a rigid regime yields real growth rates in prices 0.19 percentage points less; after 1993, a flexible regime results in real growth rates in prices 0.57 percentage points less than overall growth rates, while a rigid regime yields real growth rates in prices 1.11 percentage points greater. After 1993, for communities with rigid rent control regimes, the rates of real price increases for coaches was positive and significant in six of the seven counties included in our data set. In general, rates of price increase were higher after 1993 and in communities with rigid rent control regimes (no vacancy decontrol). Hybrid weighted repeat sale price indexes tracking rent controlled and non -rent controlled units in the seven counties from 1983 to 2003 show that prices of rent controlled units have increased 153 percent while units not subject to rent control have increased in price 136 percent, a difference of 17 percentage points. The three -prong test to determine if a vacancy control provision is lawful is as follows: (1) the economic impact of regulation, (2) its interference with reasonable investment -backed expectations, and (3) the character of the governmental actions. See Lingle v. Chevron, 125 S.Ct. at 2081. Santa Ana owners can easily show that the proposed ordinance imposes a de facto housing subsidy on all park owners, causes transfer premiums of the underlying value of the property to the selling tenant based on the value of reduced rents. This result fails to serve the express purpose of the proposed ordinance of protecting affordable housing. It virtually guarantees its disappearance. Allowing profits generated by monetizing undermarket rents is anathema to the expressed interest of advancing affordable housing, while disproportionately imposing its burden on Park owners. The Ninth Circuit has held that regulations which improperly impose the burden of affordable housing on individual property owners constitutes an unconstitutional taking. Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1338 (9th Cir. 2003). Cienega Gardens involved a facial takings challenge to affordable housing regulations. The plaintiffs were property owners who had financed property developments with special federal funding which included an agreement to maintain the property as affordable housing while the laws were in place. Id. at 1324-1325. The federal government found that large numbers of these developers were prepaying the mortgages after 20 years, as allowed by the agreements. Id. at 1326. In order to preserve affordable housing, the federal government adopted legislation that prevented DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 41 prepayment subject to HUD approval, which would be granted "`only if prepayment would not materially increase economic hardship for current tenants."' Id. Cienega Gardens explicitly addresses the question of whether adopting this legislation `went too far,' resulting in a "Penn Central" regulatory taking, by "show[ing] that the government has improperly shifted a public burden to a small class of private parties. Id. at 1328, quoting Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40,49 (1960). The Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the trial court "because the conclusion that the housing program participants did not suffer a compensable taking was incorrect." Id. The Court applied the three factor Penn Central analysis to assess the taking claim. Id at 1337. In finding a taking, the Ninth Circuit focused on the character of the government action. Id. The Cienega Gardens court noted that the regulation curtailed the right of the property owners to exclude low rent tenants from their property, "by requiring Owners to continue to rent their properties at below market rents to government -approved low-income tenants." The result "eviscerated the Owners' right to exclude" which is "`one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property."' (Quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 177 (1979)). The Court found a taking because: ... the statutes authorize the continuing physical occupation of particular developers' properties to address a societal shortage of low-income housing and that this is intrusive beyond the level of traditional governmental limits on land titles. Under Penn Central, "[a] `taking may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by the government ... than when interference arises from some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good." 438 U.S. at 124. The city of Santa Ana may well wish to serve a public purpose of helping provide affordable housing by not requiring old-fashioned and passe rent control. But the question to be addressed is whether that burden can be imposed on Park owners without causing a compensable taking by disallowing re -indexing to market at the end of the incumbent tenant's residency. Such a practice is a slap to affordable housing, and a nod to profiteering by a seller for whom the city has no further housing interest to protect. The sale of mobilehomes which include the underlying leasehold property value is no different than the illegal key money from improved premises in other states, where the practice is illegal. Selling rent control entitlements at value is no different from "key money,i16 or "side " Carl Mason and John M. Quigley (2006), The Curious Institution of Mobile Home Rent Control: An Analysis of Mobile Home Parks in California. UC Berkeley: Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/44d7h9hs. -41- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 42 money."" The practice is universally regarded as immoral and socially reprehensible. New York criminalizes extractions of "key money" as a third degree misdemeanor." The law, `designed to prevent the exploitation of those in desperate need of rental accommodations', People v. Greenwald, 299 N.Y. 271, 86 N.E.2d 745, 746, is aimed at the recipient of the bonus, not against the person who under stress yields to the exaction. The one who pays is a victim, not a participant in the crime. Gardner v. Miller, 2 Misc.2d 788, 788, 153 N.Y.S.2d 170, 171 (1956) (emphasis supplied). The "victim" is the next generation tenant, the newcomer who needs affordable housing but is locked out by high selling prices. `Monetizing' the rent -controlled lease at sale means that the home is sold for much more than real value because a premium lease is included it is naked key money. Yet "key money" is immoral, predatory and illegal.19 Even the Supreme Court has acknowledged the widespread condemnation of "key money."20 "Key money" capitalizes rent control benefits from the desperately needy.21 It exists to exploit a market which is already " Stephen Malpezzi, Welfare Analysis of Rent Control with Side Payments: a Natural Experiment in Cairo, Egypt, Regional Science and Urban Economics 28 (1998) 773-795. " Mckinney's Consolidated Laws o fNew YorkAnnotated Currentness Penal Law § 180.55 ("A person is guilty of rent gouging in the third degree when, in connection with the leasing, rental or use of real property, he solicits, accepts or agrees to acce t from a person some consideration of value, less than two hundred fifty dollars, in addition to lawful rental and other lawful charges, a on an agreement or understanding that the furnishing of such consideration will increase the possibility that any person may obtain or renew the lease, rental or use of such property, or that a failure to furnish it will decrease the possibility that any person may obtain or renew the same. ¶Rent gouging in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor"). " People v. Greenwald, 299 N.Y. 271, 281, 86 N.E.2d 745 747 (1949) ("While the fact issue raised may in the abstract seem difficult, it is of a type with which the criminal courts are entirely familiar, of a sort with which they are constantly called upon to deal. A similar issue is met in the prosecution of a labor racketeer for extortion, when the defendant concedes receipt of the alleged extortionate payment but claims that it was accepted in return for some legitimate service to labor or management. Cf., e. People v. Parkinson, 297 N.Y. 749,77 N.E.2d 516; People v. Fay, 296 N.Y. 510, 68 N.E.2d 453'., 20 "Most apartment tenants do not sell anything to their successors (and are often prohibited from charging "key money"), so a typical rent control statute will transfer wealth from the landlord to the incumbent tenant and all future tenants." Yee v. City of Escondido, 112 S.Ct. 1522, 1530 (1992). 21 "hi apartment rent control, `key money' is typically paid to the landlord or her agent, while in mobile home rent control the value of the regulated site rent is paid to the vacating tenant. Analytically this makes no difference." Mason, Carl, & Quigley, John M., supra at 191, n.4. And see, id. at 192 ("The tied sale of the coach together with the right to occupy a site is analytically equivalent to the transfer of rental rights together with a payment of "key money' ` in apartment rent control"). -42- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 43 dysfunctional, upon the shoulders of the victim seeking housing. And the amount of the transfer of value is significant.22 No one calls "key money" an "equity" interest of a residential tenant. The New York "Loft Law" ("Loft Law") prohibits the sale of the leasehold above market value of the tenant improvements. Local governments claim that mobilehome housing is unique, due to the tie-in between trailer and space. Trailers are allegedly trouble to move; site improvements have been made; relocation is difficult. What of a residential tenant's substantial improvements? The Loft Law is 23 a directly apposite situation. The loft tenant spends tens of thousands of dollars adding improvements to a mere leasehold. Then, the tenant may seek to assign the tenancy. The Loft Law allows for the recovery of the improvements, but not the value of the leasehold - that would be illegal. A `mobilehome' is no different from the `loft,' except that the loft improvements may never be removed (trailer tenants can move away with their investment). The purpose of the Loft Law is, inter alia, to protect against profiteering on under -market leaseholds. 24 Note that the only difference between "loft improvements" and "a mobilehome" is that the latter can be removed intacttheinvestment is preserved; the loft tenant has no choice. In Gavish v. Rapp, 127 Misc.2d 255, 259, 485 N.Y.S.2d 407,411 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1984) ("Gavish"), the incumbent sought to assign her loft for $64,000.00 and procured a willing assignee. Gavish, 127 Misc.2d at 259, 485 N.Y.S.2d at 411. Landlord disputed the value, contending that it constituted "key money." 25 The court noted that the purpose of the law is defeated by providing the departing tenant with a profit, which is the property of the landlord. To say that an incoming tenant is prepared to pay the price does not establish the fair market value -there are tenants desperate for accommodation in a particular location who would pay virtually any demanded price regardless of value. 22 "The markups over the appraisal guide values of the coaches in these transactions average between 250% and 900%." Mason, Carl, & Quigley, John M. 23 Multiple Dwelling Law, article 7-C, §§ 280-287 (L 1982, ch 349, § 1, entitled "Legalization or Interim Multiple Dwellings." 24 Gavish v. Rapp 127 Mise.2d 255, 259, 485 N.Y.S.2d 407, 411 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1984) ("The law, however, was not designed to permit an outdoing tenant to make a killing by demanding whatever the traffic would bear for "improvements' when what is really being sold is the key... "). 25 Id. ("that sum includes not only such items as may properly be categorized as `improvements, but the assignment of the leasehold as well (the equivalent of `key money') and the sale of movable personalty. The law permits the outgoing tenant to sell only the `improvements' for an amount equal to their fair market value"). -43- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 44 Unfortunately, it is all too well known that a tenant may be presented with the necessity of buying a few rickety pieces of furniture and creaking appliances to get access to a dwelling. The law, however, was not designed to permit an outgoing tenant to make a killing by demanding whatever the traffic would bear for "improvements" when what is really being sold is the key to the premises. The right to confer occupancy upon another is the right of the landlord, and not the tenant. Id. (Emphasis added). These arguments have not been advanced in any prior litigation, and remain "on the shelf' to show there is no rational basis behind the allowance of profiteering at the cost of the affordable home buyer and at the expense and taking of interest of the park owner. 10. THE CLOSURE OF A MOBILEHOME PARK IS A GUARANTEED RIGHT UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. RELOCATION RATES ESTABLISHED UNDER AB 2782 AND AS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ON SITE RELOCATION VALUE IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY REPUGNANT MEASURE OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE. The change of use of a mobilehome park is authorized under Civil Code §798.56 The proposed ordinance provides: J. Application and Relocation hnpact Report. Before the Change of Use of a Mobilehome Park, the Park Owner shall file with the Rent Board an application to convert the Mobilehome Park. After the application has been submitted, the Park Owner shall submit within 15 calendar days of filing the application for Change of Use, the Mobilehome Owner/Resident questionnaires from the affected Mobilehome Park, and a relocation impact report (RIR). The application for the Change of Use must be made simultaneously with any applications necessary to facilitate the intended future use (e.g., subdivision, demolition, and zoning change.) The Park Owner's application for Change of Use shall also comply with California Government Code sections 66427.4 and 65863.7, as may be amended. The Park Owner shall file this application on a form provided by the Rent Board. The Park Owner may not post any notice or any other indicators of any proposed Change of Use of the Mobilehome Park until and unless (1) the Planning Commission has approved the Park Owner's application for Change of Use and (2) the Park Owner has signed and filed the certificate accepting the conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission. The ordinance goes on to state as follows: Relocation Notice. DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 45 No Mobilehome Owner/Legal Owner shall be required to remove his or her Mobilehome and no Resident shall be required to vacate a Mobilehome until all of the following has occurred: (A) The Park Owner has given at least two (2) years notice of termination of tenancy, which may be reduced to no less than 180 days' notice of closure required by California Civil Code section 798.56 upon agreement of Park Owner and two-thirds (%) of Park Residents over the age of 18; (B) That the applicable termination of tenancy notice of either two years or six (6) month period has elapsed; (C) The Planning Commission has issued a decision approving the closure is final; and (D) The Park Owner has provided the relocation assistance required by the authorized City of Santa Ana official as a condition of Change of Use. O. Expiration and Extension of Approval of Change of Use. Change of Use approvals shall expire one (1) year after the date they are issued. The City Council, or its designee, may upon request, grant extensions of time based on a showing that good faith progress has been made toward fulfilling the conditions of approval or some intervening event not the fault of the Park Owner has prevented timely compliance with the conditions of approval. There are numerous other provisions which deal with the conversion of a mobilehome park. Interestingly, this particular proposal for mobile home park rent control law is actually two subjects in one, a practice forbidden with regard to state-wide legislation. That is because to substantive areas of law into measures to be accomplished then intertwined the validity of each in each other. The likelihood of severability in the event that any of the objectives is deemed unenforceable is a significant gamble by the legislature, as the courts are more likely to believe, where to matters of significant substance are addressed in a single piece of legislation, that they are to be interrelated in shall not exist or coexist separate from one another. In other words, if any one of the provisions is held unenforceable, the likelihood of strong that all will be held unenforceable. This is why in most jurisdictions that still enforce mandatory (old-fashioned) rent control laws in the "lockstep" Stalinesque tradition, provide separate measures. One set of standards for protecting against excessive rent adjustments, and the other to deal with the constitutional right of closure and cessation of use. When both are intertwined, the volume and confusion level becomes excessively exacerbated. Some 80+ pages of text will be difficult for the ordinary citizen to digest without the employment of attorneys or skilled personnel. A city may do well to contour the scope of its objectives to an understandable proportion. On the substantive side, value -based relocation assistance is unconstitutional. Despite the passage of recent law to take the value of the property in the nature of leasehold premiums and award that value to departing tenants, the constitutional responsibility of the legislator is to protect all citizens, and to avoid the practice of majoritarian faction which pits one group of citizens against a relatively helpless minority. In this instance, the property owner is a minority interest subject to a majoritarian faction that has more voting strength. -45- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 46 The reason that relocation allowances of a significant nature violate the constitutional rights of the property owner is because the value of the property is misdirected into the hands of departing landless tenants who had no other interest than mere tenancy. Awarding the tantamount of equity value through the labeling of dislocation assistance constitutes no different than the forced purchase of in -place mobile homes at market value based upon the fantasy that the park would continue, when in fact it will not. These fanciful legislative schemes devised in order to transfer wealth to residents does not take account of whether the park owner obligated to pay in -place value is also entitled to own and utilize the mobile home; and the law does not clarify how the state law is to be interpreted. The city stands in the an envious position then, of perhaps being one of the first to defend the state of California based upon its unusually and uniquely generous foray into the enrichment of the public with in -place values (AB 2782). It will not withstand constitutional muster. While the poor may constitute worthy legislative objectives to promote health safety and welfare, however, that enrichment cannot be extracted nor impressed upon private property owners seeking to simply recover their land and use it for some other purpose which, if not suitable to the local government, will never be approved in any case. In other words, by definition, a closure means that there will be a use approved and perhaps encouraged by local government that will promote a better and higher utility for the common good than the mobile home park left behind. Of course, the city could avoid this potential implied indemnification of the state of California by bifurcating this ordinance into two separate objectives to independently consider and judge. Assistance to the tenant in the form of payment for relocation of the residents may not be construed to require that the park owner pay for the sited value of the mobilehome (which is the same as paying twice for the park, because sited value often exists largely due to placement value caused by rent levels less than general market conditions). The proposed ordinance, as is, would have the effect of placing this economic plight exclusively on the shoulder of the park owner - to guarantee the investment by making good on residents' bad loans. Under this scenario, the park owner faces a "Hobson's Choice": pay the tenant for the inflated value of the mobilehome (if the economy were strong); pay the tenant for the loan value of the mobilehome (if the mobilehome cannot be sold for even loan value). In either case, the park owner's rights to be accountable exclusively for relocation costs is vitiated. Clearly, the requirement of relocation assistance in the form of payment for the mobilehome, which then allows the tenant to move the home elsewhere and sell it again, allows the tenant to obtain a double return on the mobilehome if this is the manner in which the city intends to construe this provision. This windfall is at the cost of the park owner and is constitutionally indefensible. Several cases have addressed these requirements. In California, one of the earliest cases to reach the courts based upon relocation requirements was Donald Rooke, et al., v. City of DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 47 Scotts Valley, C.A.6th, July 13, 1990 (unpublished), in which the Court struck down a re- purchase requirement imposed on the park owner. This important case is a precursor of the authorities we may reasonably expect to follow. Donald and Marjorie Rooke challenged Scotts Valley conversion ordinance. It provided that a mobilehome park could not be converted to any other use, including a reversion to bare land, without approval by the City planning commission. The ordinance further provided that if a conversion were approved, certain conditions must attach. If the mobilehome could not be moved, or if the resident refused to accept relocation, the park owner was required to purchase the mobilehome at its in -place fair market value. On November 19, 1986, the Rookes filed their complaint against the City. Their lust cause of action stated a claim for damages for inverse condemnation. They alleged that the City's rent control and conversion ordinances together effected a transfer of a possessory interest in the property to the residents and amounted to a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the United States and California Constitutions. In their second cause of action the Rookes sought damages for violations of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And lastly, they sought a judicial declaration that the City's ordinances were unconstitutional, both facially and as -applied. The Rookes sought compensation representing the full value of their property or in the alternative for "interim takings as shown according to proof." In addition they sought damages for lost business opportunities, mental anguish, carrying costs of the property, litigation expenses, and punitive damages. The case went to trial on the declaratory relief cause of action and the parties stipulated that the only issue to be determined by the court was whether the conversion ordinance was unconstitutional on its face. In holding that the Ordinance violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights, The Fifth Amendment was cited: The protection of private property rights is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "No person shall be ... deprived of due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Article I, section 19 of the California Constitution similarly provides that compensation is required when property is "taken or damaged." The Court also held that "... a taking occurs when the government physically intrudes upon private property, either directly or by authorizing others to do so (Citing several cases). In addition to economic impact, the character of the governmental interference and the nature of the particular property right affected must be considered in the takings analysis. A regulation which "extinguish[es] a fundamental attribute of ownership" may also constitute a taking of property. A ins v. Tiburon supra, 447 U.S. at p. 262.) While the rights "to possess, use and dispose" of property are considered to be the -47- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 48 three essential strands in the bundle of rights which is commonly characterized as property (U_S. v. General Motors Corp. (1945) 323 U.S. 373, 377-378), other rights, such as the right to devise, are also fundamental to property ownership. Thus a unanimous Supreme Court in Hodel v. lrvm9 (1987) 107 S.Ct. 2076 recently found a compensable taking even though only that one component of the bundle of rights was affected and even though the economic impact of the regulation was slight. Additionally, the Court held that the regulation must substantially advance the legitimate government interest. A buy-out could not be found to do so. The significance of the fifth amendment should be noted. In essence, the Takings Clause provides a check on the government's exercise of the police power for the public interest. The ultimate question in considering whether a regulation has gone too far is whether it "fore [es] some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." (Armstrong v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 40, 49.) It is well known that there is generally a considerable discrepancy between the bluebook value of a mobilehome and its in -place value when installed in a park. The difference is attributable to the location of the mobilehome in the park and the effects of rent control. The impact of section 17.49.060(c) is that the landowner who changes the use of his property becomes obligated to pay his tenants, solely at their option, an amount equal to the value of their personal property plus the lease value of the underlying land. In conclusion, the Court held: Together these provisions effect an enforced dedication of the land to perpetual use as a mobilehome park and clearly abrogate the landowner's basic rights to use and possess the property. We see little difference between the effect here and in those cases where property owners are required to subject their property to public use. (Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., supra, 458 U.S. 419 [installation of a television cable]; Kaiser Aetna v. United States supra, 444 U.S. 174 [imposition of a navigational servitude]; Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, supra, 107 S.Ct. 3141 [dedication of a public right of way].) The Court also found the conversion ordinance unconstitutional because it failed to substantially advance a governmentally legitimate purpose. Forcing a park owner to pay values for property placed on rented land is not a right within the American way of government; forcing payment is a transfer of wealth from one to another based on the end of a consensual relationship which was never expected, negotiated nor anticipated. That constitutes a raw taking from one party to another and is not a characteristic of a constitutional government. DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 49 Even apart from the economic impact of a regulation, a taking may be found if a restriction on land use does not "substantially advance legitimate state interests." (Agins v. Tiburon, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 262.) "Where the conditions imposed are not related to the use being made of the property but are imposed because the entity conceives a means of shifting the burden of providing the cost of a public benefit to another not responsible for or only remotely or speculatively benefitting from it, there is an unreasonable exercise of the police power." (Liberty v. California Coastal Com. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 491, 502.) The Nollan case follows from this authority. The Supreme Court recently refined this aspect of the takings analysis, suggesting that closer scrutiny of the relationship between the condition imposed and the public benefit is required.(Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n supra107 S.Ct. at p. 3148.) In Nollan, the California Coastal Commission granted the Nollans a permit to rebuild their beach house, but on the condition that they dedicate a public right-of-way along the beach in front of their property. The Nollans claimed that the imposition of this condition violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The California Court of Appeal upheld the condition on grounds that it bore a sufficient relationship to the burdens created by the project and, while the value of the Nollans' property concededly would be diminished by the right-of-way, they were not deprived of all reasonable use of their property. However notes the Court, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the regulation was impermissible. When examined in the light of the Nollan decision, section 17.49.060(c) of the conversion ordinance does not pass constitutional muster. A provision requiring park owners to cash out their tenants at a price based in part on the value of the underlying land, does not "substantially advance" the City's stated goals of preserving its stock of mobilehome spaces and ensuring the residents' quiet enjoyment of their homes. To be sure, it provides a financial boon to the residents who occupy the park which is closing. But it does not directly mitigate the detrimental effects of conversion, namely loss of mobilehome park spaces and displacement of tenants. Indirectly the ordinance may well accomplish the intended result, since the confiscatory restrictions it places on any conversion of mobilehome parks will doubtless ensure that the parks continue to operate as such throughout the City. But if the City wishes to acquire land for that purpose, it must use its eminent domain power and compensate the property owners. (Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, supra, 107 S.Ct. at p. 3150.) The ordinance is therefore barred by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It requires the tenants be made whole, based on value of mobilehomes attributable to being located on the property owner's land, in order for the park owner to use his property in DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 50 the future - the proposed ordinance would essentially require the park owner to pay for the mobilehome park twice, since he would therefore be purchasing value which is his. The park owner cannot be made to pay for the value which is already his. Moreover, the ability of the tenant to then remove the mobilehome and sell it again makes clear that the ordinance is irrational and overbroad to its intended function and to state law restrictions on reasonable relocation costs. One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." Armstrong v. United States. 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 1569, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960) 26 The Supreme Court recently decided Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 114 S.Ct. 2309. In that case, the City Planning Commission conditioned approval of Dolan's application to expand her store and pave her parking lot upon her compliance with dedication of land for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway intended to relieve traffic congestion in the City's Central Business District. She appealed the Commission's denial of her request for variances from these standards to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), alleging that the land dedication requirements were not related to the proposed development and therefore constituted an uncompensated taking of her property under the Fifth Amendment. LUBA found a reasonable relationship between (1) the development and the requirement to dedicate land for a greenway, since the larger building and paved lot would increase the impervious surfaces and thus the runoff into the creek, and (2) alleviating the impact of increased traffic from the development and facilitating the provision of a pathway as an alternative means of transportation. The Supreme Court held that the demand on the property owner exceeded any rational connection (a nexus or "rough proportionality") between the proposed use and the demands (exactions) made on the property owner. This case is dispositive of the conversion ordinance issue. The uncompensated taking occurs in the demand of relocation assistance which equals the value of the mobilehome as a possibility decided in the discretion of the tenant. The park owner must pay the cited value or the loan value in order to use his own property. Any use of the property is held ransom for payment to the tenants. This is the form of "extortion" to which the Supreme Court made reference in the Nollan case?' 26 When there is a taking, the fifth amendment mandates payment of the value of the property taken. United States v. 15.65 Acres of Land, 689 F.2d 1329, 1331 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1041, 103 S.Ct. 1435, 75 L.Ed.2d 793 (1983); United States v. 729.773 Acres of Land, 531 F.Supp. 967, 974 (D.Haw.1982). "Just compensation" means the full monetary equivalent of the property taken. United States v. Reynolds, 397 U.S. 14, 16,90 S.Ct. 803, 805, 25 L.Ed.2d 12 (1970). Compensation must equal the fair market value of the owner's leased fee interest. Z' The Dolan Court in referring to Nollan states: "We resolved, however, that the Coastal Commission's regulatory authority was set completely adrift from its constitutional moorings when it claimed that a nexus existed between visual access to the ocean and a permit condition requiring lateral public access along the Nollan's beachfront lot. Id., at 837, 107 S.Ct., at 3148. How -50- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 51 The Court specifically held that the demand for a bike pathway was unconstitutional for several reasons. The city's dedication requirements constitute an uncompensated taking of property, because under the well -settled doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions," the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit. In evaluating Dolan's claim, the constitutional test first requires that it be determined whether an "essential nexus" exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition. If one does, then it must be decided whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. 107 S.Ct. at 3147. The findings upon which the city relied did not show the required nexus between the floodplain easement and Dolan's proposed building?$ The Court held that the demanded exaction was not related to the intended use of the property. In our case, there is no use of the future property which would bear any connection (nexus) to the displacement of the former tenants. To put the tenants in a better position than if they voluntarily vacated is to impose a burden which cannot be countenanced under the Fifth Amendment, because the cost to the park owner results in a windfall to the tenant, and exceeds the cost for relocation of the mobilehome to another space.21 enhancing the public's ability to "traverse to and along the shorefront" served the same governmental purpose of "visual access to the ocean" from the roadway was beyond our ability to countenance. The absence of a nexus left the Coastal Commission in the position of simply trying to obtain an easement through gimmickry, which converted a valid regulation of land use into "an out-and-out plan of extortion." Ibid., quoting J.E.D. Associates, Inc. v. Atkinson, 121 N.H. 581, 584,432 A.2d 12, 14-15 (1981). " "The Community Development Code already required that Dolan leave 15% of her property as open space, and the undeveloped floodplain would have nearly satisfied that requirement. However, the city has never said why a public, as opposed to a private, greenway is required in the interest of flood control. The difference to Dolan is the loss of her ability to exclude others from her property, yet the city has not attempted to make any individualized determination to support this part of its request. The city has also not met its burden of demonstrating that the additional number of vehicle and bicycle trips generated by Dolan's development reasonably relates to the city's requirement for a dedication of the pathway easement. The city must quantify its finding beyond a conclusory statement that the dedication could offset some of the traffic demand generated by the development." 29 The Court stated in this regard: "Under the well -settled doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions," the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right --here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use --in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit. See Perry v. Sindermarm 408 U.S. 593,92 S.Ct. 2694,33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., 391 U.S. 563, 568, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968)." -51- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 52 The Court held: "Without question, had the city simply required petitioner to dedicate a strip of land along Fanno Creek for public use, rather than conditioning the grant of her permit to redevelop her property on such a dedication, a taking would have occurred. Nollan, supra, 483 U.S., at 831, 107 S.Ct., at 3145. Such public access would deprive petitioner of the right to exclude others, "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176, 100 S.Ct. 383, 391, 62 L.Ed.2d 332 (1979)." In the Rooke case, the Scotts Valley conversion ordinance went beyond the mere regulation of mobilehome park conversions. By essentially preventing any change of land use whatsoever, said the Court, "...it 'denie[d] an owner economically viable use of his land.' (Agins v. Tiburon, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 260.): Its provisions interfered with each of the three fundamental rights to "possess, use and dispose" of property. (U.S. v. General Motors Corp., supra, 323 U.S. at pp. 377-378.) And the restrictions imposed did not "substantially advance legitimate state interests." (AQins v. Tiburon, supra 447 U.S. at p. 262; Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, supra, 107 S.Ct. 3141.) In closing, the Court held that the burden of the conversion could not be placed on the shoulders of the Plaintiffs. The ordinance was intended to benefit a favored class of citizens, namely those persons of low or moderate income whose principal asset is the mobilehome which is their residence. No one would dispute that the protection of people whose circumstances make them deserving of "unique protection" (Civ. Code 798.55, subd. (a)) is a worthy objective. But that does not establish that the Rookes and other park owners may be compelled to absorb the costs of such a "'comprehensive program."' The Florida Appellate Court has ruled in Aspen -tarpon Springs Limited Partnership v. Stuart, No. 92-2814, District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, Jan. 18, 1994, that relocation assistance is unconstitutional. The conversion ordinance also required reimbursement for tenant equity and value. "...we find that section 723.061(2) constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation. We agree with the trial court that the statute goes far beyond the legitimate goal of reasonably accommodating conflicting interests, in effect coercing mobile home park owners to surrender indefinitely their rights to possess and occupy their land and to exclude others. Once the park owners have them moved. A statute that requires any form of remuneration to recover the right to possess and occupy one's own property would seem to be -52- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 53 confiscatory, but the evidence presented to the trial court demonstrated that neither the "buy out" option nor the "relocation" option is even economically feasible. Therefore, as a practical matter, the challenged statute authorizes a permanent physical occupation of the park owner's property and effectively extinguishes a fundamental attribute of ownership, the right to physically occupy one's land." The Court again relied on the failure of the regulation to advance a governmentally legitimate interest "Unlike section 723.033, the regulatory scheme contained in section 723.061(2) does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest, but instead singles out mobile home park owners to bear an unfair burden, and therefore constitutes an unconstitutional regulatory taking of their property. See Aeins v. City of Tiburon 447 U.S. 255, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980), and cases cited therein." In Guimont v. Clarke (1993) 121 Wash.2d 586 [854 P.2d 1], cert. denied 114 S.Ct. 1216, 127 L.Ed.2d 563 (1994), the same issue was presented. Again, the requirement of value or equity buy-outs was rejected. "The amount of money a park owner must pay under the Act is substantial. In fact, under a worst case scenario, the size of the park owner's obligation is assistance even to those tenants who are not financially burdened ... [T]he imposition of costs on closing a business cannot be avoided in this manner. We conclude the Act is unduly oppressive and violates substantive due process." Obviously, requiring the park owner to fund mobilehome buyouts is unconstitutional whenever challenged. The future right of occupation of a mobilehome space, after the departure of a tenant who voluntarily terminates his tenancy by sale or vacation from the property, is a property right which belongs to the park owner. If a tenant voluntarily terminates tenancy, he has no further right to live in the park. He may sell the used mobilehome but certainly has no right to sell the rent -controlled tenancy at current fair market value. Such a practice is no better than "scalping" park entry fees. If park owners did it, a violation of state law would occur. The departing tenant offers no service at all for the added cost of the mobilehome located in the park --the purchaser is simply victimized with a "premium" for entry onto that pad. The regulatory taking can occur by the mere passage of the ordinance. There is no need to exhaust remedies or to await the development of an administrative record. In Richardson v. -53- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 54 City and County of Honolulu (9th Cir. 1991) 759 F.Supp. 1477, the Court found that passage of the ordinance, per se, effected a regulatory taking because of the unavoidable consequences of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance suffers the same defect, because its application is unavoidable. Assessing the economic impact of Ordinance 90-95 and the extent to which it interferes with the reasonable investment -backed expectations of the plaintiffs, this court finds that the mere enactment of Ordinance 90-95 effects a regulatory taking of plaintiffs' property. As explained below, by indiscriminately and uniformly basing the maximum renegotiated rent on the initial rent paid under the lease and by neglecting to provide any mechanism for adjustment or review, the Ordinance operates to deprive lessors of a just and reasonable rate of return. Id., 759 F.Supp. 1477 at 1439. Thus, the future right of occupation, after a tenant leaves the park, belongs to the park owner. CONCLUSION For the record, please be advised the city cannot require the park owner to seek, collect, retain nor distribute or disseminate any information within the protections of a tenant or tenant's families privacy rights pursuant to California law, "Red Flag" record retention requirements and HIPAA. Nor will any park owners be seeking information from their tenants about which they themselves are not entitled to inquire, under applicable law and regulation. Further, for the record, please be further advised that all rights are reserved to invalidate any claim for the award of attorney's fees on behalf of any party, governmental entity, and or intervener which cannot constitutionally be levied against a plaintiff seeking to petition for redress of grievances against allegedly unconstitutional legislation, as such an award would impinge upon pursuit of legal relief for vindication of constitutional rights. Further, for the record, please be further advised any and all costs, deposits, or other demands for money at the inception of, or upon the filing any application for rent increase processing other than a small ministerial filing fee, shall be deemed to be in a violation of the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances in accordance with California law. Accordingly, any such demand made upon any my clients will be met with a petition for ordinary mandamus in order to seek an order precluding the levy of monies for the purported purpose of funding the administrative processing or judging of a rent increase application constituting a municipal responsibility. The proposed ordinance is unconstitutional in several respects as discussed. And it remains an open and genuine quandary why it is necessary at this time. The city enjoys the -54- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 55 largesse of $42 million of funds to be distributed for the direct and immediate relief of residents in need. And the state of California is reimbursing 100% of unpaid rent to all tenants. There is no conceivable basis for rent controls when all rents are covered, and the city has not distributed $42,000,000.00 in relief directly into the hands of the tenants. No rational basis that is, no conceivable rational basis to quote the Carolene Products test, for rent controls exists in these circumstances. There is no need to provide additional legislative intervention on behalf of any tenant currently in any nonpayment situation or default, anywhere, in any amount, in any housing in the city of Santa Ana. Simply, the city proposes to pour oil on the roof to stop the spread of the fire. The city has within its powers the ability to essentially's virtually stop all evictions for nonpayment of rent. Rent control is entirely unnecessary, sends the wrong message to the community as a whole, and in its current form, would be completely out of step with modern government policy to embolden residents with long-term secure agreements with their owners, mutually acceptable, voluntarily entered into, enjoyed for decades. Why rent control to divide, separate, and inflame everyone, in perpetuity, is beyond the sense of any reasonable man. Rent control would permanently and indelibly change the character, indeed the face of governmental policy in the city of Santa Ana in a negative direction, in perpetuity. I request you to defer further consideration of any rent control proposal until full and collaborative dialogue with the stakeholders could be undertaken. I know of no such effort to this date. My clients urge you to consider mediation so landlord and tenant can sit down, together, before impartial advisors. Implementing a mandatory rent control mechanism only eliminates important voluntary options available to the park owners and limits their courses of action. For these reasons, it is requested you forestall consideration of this measure for further study and analysis. Finally, please let this letter serve as notice of reservation of rights and intended action against the city of Santa Ana for all available relief on behalf of all interested mobilehome park owners, management, and affiliate entities. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide the position of my clients regarding the proposed ordinance. In the event that you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact the undersigned at any time. -55- DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 56 Very truly yours, /S/ Terry R. Dowdall For DOWDALL LAW OFFICES, A.P.C. C`,IMv IX,.vt9A-RENT CONTROL`.ta—eve—.t c.t llNta-0EQA ANALYSIS -V_4wpd THE CITY CANNOT REQUIRE THE PARK OWNER TO SEEK ANY INFORMATION WITHIN THE PROTECTIONS OF A RESIDENTS PRIVACY PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA AND FEDERAL LAW INCLUDING HIPAA ENCL: An Examination of the Impact of Rent Control on Mobile Home Prices in California By David Dale -Johnson Yongheng Deng Peter Gordon Diehang Zheng Lusk Center for Real Estate University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0626 -56- An Examination of the Impact of Rent Control on Mobile Home Prices in California David Dale -Johnson Yongheng Deng Peter Gordon Diehang Zheng Lusk Center for Real Estate University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089-0626 November 1, 2004 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study examines the impact of rent control of mobile home parks in seven counties of California between 1983 and 2003. Sales of mobile homes on rent - controlled pads are hypothesized to sell at prices higher than identical models sold in mobile home parks without rent control. Our statistical tests corroborated this expectation. The number of rent -controlled jurisdictions of California has increased over the last twenty years as has the share of the number, value and square footage of coaches subject to rent control. We find that the nature of the rent control regime differentially impacts mobile home prices: a rigid regime, rent control without vacancy decontrol, where rents cannot be raised to market when a tenant vacates, leads to higher growth rates in resale prices, while a flexible regime, or rent control with vacancy decontrol, results in lower growth rates in resale prices; growth rates are also higher after 1993 a date coincident with the beginnings of the economic recovery in the California real estate market and a significant change in the California legal -regulatory environment.' We assembled an extensive and timely data set and thus, were able to employ more carefully specified econometric models than had been employed in prior studies of California mobile -home rent control. Using pooled data from seven counties in California, before 1993, a flexible rent control regime results in real growth rates in prices 1.69 percentage points less than overall growth rates, while a rigid regime yields real growth rates in prices 0.19 percentage points less; after 1993, a flexible regime results in real growth rates in prices 0.57 percentage points less than overall growth rates, while a rigid regime yields average real growth rates in prices 1.11 percentage points greater (for example, amounting to almost $4,000 for the average coach in this sample, after ten years). After 1993, for communities with rigid regimes, the rates of real price increases for coaches was positive and significant in six of the seven counties included in our data set. In general, rates of price increase were lower before 1993 and in communities with flexible rent control regimes. 'U.S. Supreme Court, Yee v. City of Escondido, April, 1992 3 One seminal study of rent control in New York City estimated that the costs to property owners are two times the benefits to renters (Olsen, 1972). INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Mobile Home Industry In 1999, almost 8.5 million of the nation's 115 million housing units were mobile homes. This was 7.3 percent of the housing stock, up from 6.5 percent of the housing stock in 1987. Of the more than 338 thousand mobile homes added to the U.S. housing stock in 1999, more than 10 percent were added in the western states. As the number of Americans living in mobile homes increases, more attention is being paid to mobile home parks, their management and associated public policies. Among the issues of great interest are the effects of various types of mobile home rent control. The imposition of rent controls in many California jurisdictions has been shown to explain declining shipments of mobile homes to California (Hirsch and Rufolo, 1999). More up-to-date time series data for California also show that from 1983- 2003 (through the month of May), the number of mobile homes subject to rent controls increased. While we do not have data on the growth in the actual portion of the stock of mobile homes under rent control, Figures la through lc show this by various mobile home descriptors, Total Traded Square Feet, Total Traded Value (constant dollars), and the Number of Transactions. Economic Theory and Background Price controls, especially rent controls, have long interested economists. Most of the available literature addresses rent control for apartments — some of which may be relevant to the case of mobile homes. There appears to be widespread agreement on a number of points. While some renters benefit from lower rents, there are costs3. Economic theory underscores how rent controls create various problems. Below -market prices, if enforced, create opportunities for non -price rationing. In this case, many people are obliged to waste time and effort chasing down access to the limited supply. These resource expenditures do not accrue to any sellers and cannot be converted to product. This has been called a "deadweight" efficiency loss. Also, maintenance of the existing housing stock and investment in new stock are expected to decline. In fact, abandonment of housing stock by owners has also been observed. Housing conversions and demolitions have also been attributed to rent controls, an outcome further reducing the housing stock. Additional efficiency losses come from renters failing to adjust their housing consumption as their circumstances change because they want to hold on to their rent controlled units.4 In addition, to the extent that higher -income households have an advantage in tracking valuable information on available units, the expectation of equity gains from rent controls have seldom been realized by those who might most need the benefit, suggesting that rent control has not been a policy useful for lower income households to attain affordable housing. For many reasons, then, rent controls preclude land and housing markets from doing what they are supposed to do, namely allocate scarce resources to their highest and best uses in light of ever changing wants, opportunities and constraints. Rent control policies and by-laws vary in scope and severity. Flexible rent control regimes allow vacancy decontrol while more rigid regimes may permit rent increases tied to one of a variety of cost -of -living indices. Rent control regulations in many cities have gone through cycles of control and decontrol, in some cases resulting in various vintages of the stock being grandfathered. A visible result is that some cities have neighborhoods with well -kept free-market rental housing adjacent to poorly maintained rent controlled housing. Rent control systems are most well known for having been imposed on traditional multi -family rental housing units where the landlord owns the land and the building and rents individual units to tenants using formal or informal leasing arrangements. Legal systems have evolved to define the property rights of landlords and tenants. Rent controlled systems often `piggy -back' on these systems as security of tenure is critical if landlords are permitted to increase rents when a unit is vacated.5 In contrast, in mobile home parks, the site ("pad") is rented to the tenant who either acquires the mobile home from the prior tenant or buys a new mobile home which is then assembled on -site. The curious distinction from the more common rent control of multi -family apartment units is that in a mobile home park the landlord owns the land (the pad) and the tenant owns the improvements (the coach). If there is no vacancy decontrol (ability on the part of the landlord to adjust the pad rent to the market when the coach is sold), the net present value of the anticipated future rent savings will be capitalized into the sale price of the coach if it stays in place_ This unique aspect of rent control for mobile home parks has been the subject of some empirical analysis. Rent control systems for mobile home parks provide an opportunity to investigate the economic impact of the rent control policy on the tenants of mobile parks (i.e., the mobile coach owners)- 4 This type of effect has been documented in Glaeser and Luttmer (2003) for the case of the City of New York. ' In more draconian (rigid) rent control systems, changes are tied to the unit rather than the tenant. While the focus of this paper is an empirical study of the impact of mobile home rent control policies on coach prices, there are two potential global influences on the market environment during the twenty-year period under study. The first is the U.S. Supreme Court's key decision in the case of Yee v. City of Escondido, upholding the constitutionality of mobile home rent control in April of 1992. This decision is significant for this study as it has had the effect of legitimizing rent control policies which hitherto had been undergoing attack from opponents including mobile home park operators and market -oriented policy makers. The second is the economic recession and subsequent recovery in California between 1990 and 1996. The California recession began in 1990:4 and ended in 1994:1. California housing prices halted several years of positive annual increases in 1991:2 but, beginning in 1992:1, posted fifteen consecutive quarters of nominal decreases. Rapidly rising housing and land prices in California explain rising pad rents in many of the state's mobile home parks. As a consequence, renters in many jurisdictions responded by launching efforts to have rent controls enacted into law. Currently, 97 California cities and eight counties have some sort of mobile home rent control. Empirical Studies In a series of papers published since the late 1980s, Professor Werner Hirsch and his colleagues examined the impacts of rent controls on mobile homes in California. Their analysis rests on the insight that ownership of mobile home living space is divided between the owner of the coach and the owner of the land, which is then leased to coach owners. Labels notwithstanding, mobile homes are typically not mobile. Therefore, a coach atop a rent -controlled pad can be expected to sell at a premium. Hirsch et al's studies contain estimates of these values. Basing their analysis on a relatively small sample of observed transactions from the mid-1980s, they estimated that sales prices were boosted by 32 percent because of rent controls, other things equal. A more recent analysis by Hirsch and Rufolo (1999) focused on a single mobile home park in Oceanside, California. A hedonic regression based on a sample of 90 mobile home sales over the period 1986-1992 found that, other things equal, rent controls explain a price premium of eight percent. DATA In this research, transactions data for mobile homes in seven counties of California (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara and Ventura) were made available. After geo-coding and matching with census tracts, there were 201,228 records from the period beginning in January 1983 and ending in May 2003. As we wished to create hybrid repeat -sale indexes, our focus for much of the analysis is on sales of coaches for which there are multiple transactions, thus records for single sales were removed from the data set. Other records were eliminated because of incomplete city or mobile home park (Park ID) information. Outliers were also removed. These modifications left the 20-year population of sales included in the data set analyzed equal to 137,983. Each record in the original data set is a mobile home transaction and includes the county, city, address, mobile home park name and ID, the original sale price and resale price, the dates of sale (year, month, and day), and measures of other attributes of the unit such as model year, manufacturer, width, length, and type (single, double, or triple) and so on. These data were combined with census data by census tract, including median household income, changes in median household income, vacancy rate, proportion of the elderly (> 65 years old), unemployment rate, and proportion of households with public assistance income, etc. Finally, city - specific mobile home park rent control information was incorporated in the merged data set, including an indicator of the nature of the rent control regime 8 Table 1 defines each of the variables included in the data set. There are 201 municipalities in the seven counties included in this study, among which, 49 cities have a rent control ordinance, and 48,043 transactions in the data set (34.8 percent) were actually under rent control. From Figures la through c, we can see that the share of transactions as measured by square footage, value and Records with incomplete geographic information and the top and bottom 1 percent of records bases on the variables Original Sales Price (Constant $), Resale Price (Constant $), Size and Average Annual Growth Rate were removed from the data set. We also explored the impact of focusing on properties where 0.5 < (Constant Resale Price/Constant Original Sales Price) < 3.0. We found that the results were robust to the imposition of this constraint. See Table 1 for descriptions of the variables. s For cities with rent control, dummy variables were including starting in the quarter in which rent control was implemented. We also included a dummy variable that indicates whether or not there is vacancy decontrol. No vacancy decontrol reflects a more rigid rent control regime. number has increased significantly over the twenty-year period under study. Table 2 reports in the right-hand column that the share of rent controlled units among the total mobile home transactions in the seven counties grew from almost thirteen percent in the early 1980's to more than forty percent in 2003. The change in the share of the square footage traded and the value traded attributable to rent - controlled units is of the same order. Table 3 presents the annual growth rates in rent -controlled units in the transactions data base as measured by square footage, value and number. The growth rates were 12.8, 12.4 and 13 percent, respectively. Clearly, rent control policies in the mobile home market place in California are taking on increasing importance. Table 4 provides descriptive statistics for the continuous covariates for the complete data set as well as for each county. The original sale price (constant $) varies from an average of $36,637 (San Bernardino) to $44,093 (Orange); while the average resale price (constant $) varies from $21,833 (San Bernardino) to $51,525 (Santa Clara). The average original sale price and resale price of the seven counties are $39,758 and $33,220 (constant $) respectively. The average nominal growth rate in prices for all counties is 2.6 percent while the average real growth rate after accounting for inflation is — 1.9 percent. Note that Table 4 reports 1+ the growth rate. Santa Clara county experienced the highest nominal average annual appreciation at 5.4 percent while San Bernardino county at 0.4 percent per year experiences the lowest. The nominal appreciation rates translate into real appreciation rates of 0.7 percent and -3.8 percent, respectively. Mobile homes are less likely to keep up with rapid residential land market appreciationDeclines in values of mobile homes are more common than for `stick -built' houses because the land component is often not part of the selling price.9 Census tract variables including Median Household Income (Constant $, 1996), Proportion of Households with Public Assistance Income and Proportion of Persons > 65 Years Old were collected and are their descriptive statistics are also reported in Table 4. Other census tract -level variables including Changes in Median Household Income, Vacancy Rate, and Unemployment Rate were collected but did not add further value to the analysis so their summary statistics are not reported here. Riverside county has the lowest median household income ($32,762) accompanied by the highest elderly population (24 percent). Santa Clara county is at the other extreme with the highest median household income ($52,502) and is tied with two ' A more suitable comparable for mobile home sales would be sales of stick -built houses on leased land. other counties for the second lowest proportion of elderly population (11 percent). Perhaps surprisingly, Los Angeles county has the lowest proportion elderly at 10 percent. Riverside and San Bernardino counties have the highest proportion of households benefiting from public assistance (8.6 and 8.9 percent, respectively) while Orange and Ventura counties have the lowest (5.1 and 4.8 percent, respectively). We ultimately used the census data to segment the data set to assist on our analysis. Specifically, high- (or low-) income is defined by whether the census tract median household income is above (or below) the median census tract household income in the corresponding county. High- (or low-) older population proportion is defined by whether the census tract older population proportion is above (or below) the median census tract older population proportion in the corresponding county. The smallest mobile homes are in Los Angeles county as measured by Unit's Size (1,069 square feet) while the largest are in Orange county (1,172 square feet). Ventura and San Diego counties have the oldest units (21.34 and 21.12 years, respectively) while Riverside county has the youngest (16.14 years). Table 5 provides the descriptive statistics for the sample's categorical covariates. Doublewide mobile homes are the most common as indicated by a market share of almost 70 percent for the type `Double'. The second biggest share is for singlewides or the `Single' category at a market share of 27 percent; triple-wides or the `Triple' category represent the luxury high -end mobile homes and have a 5 percent share of the market. The market share of Doublewides in Orange county is about 15 percentage points higher than in Los Angeles, while the market share of Singlewides is about 15 percentage points lower perhaps reflecting the role of mobile homes as a housing choice during the evolution of these adjacent markets. As noted earlier, a number of qualitative ("dummy") variables were created which are critical to the analysis. First, communities are identified in which rent control of mobile home parks is or has been present. Second, the policy is classified as rigid (by-laws which do not permit vacancy decontrol) or flexible (by-laws which permit vacancy decontrol) depending on whether or not vacancy decontrol is permitted. Then transactions within those jurisdictions were identified accordingly. The results of this classification for the aggregate data set also appear in Table 5. The prevalence of rent control ordinances varies dramatically among the seven counties. While in the aggregate, less than five percent of the transactions in Orange county were in rent- controlled parks, 83 percent of the transactions in Ventura county were in rent -controlled parks. As noted earlier, there is significant variation in these percentages between 1983 and 2003 with an increasing number and share of mobile home units being regulated by rent control policies over time. Of the 34.8 percent of mobile home transactions in our data set that are within rent controlled jurisdictions, 16.5 percent are in jurisdictions with flexible rent control regimes and 18.3 percent are in jurisdictions with rigid rent control regimes.lo An additional dummy variable was created to capture the change in the legal environment arising from the April 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding mobile home park rent control ordinances. We assumed that some time would be required for the court decision to influence prices so, in the analysis, we used January 1993 as the `event' date." ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 10 Rent control regimes may become less rigid or more rigid through time as policies evolve due to the economic and political environment. We were able to identify regimes which are currently rigid (no vacancy decontrol permitted) or flexible (vacancy decontrol permitted). In order to ascertain whether today's regime accurately reflected the nature of the regime since 1983, we surveyed every city in our data set (201). We received 55 responses in total with 20 of them from cities with rent control in place. The results of the survey supported the approach taken. " We employed alternative `event' dates in our analysis but found the 1993 date to corroborate our hypothesized result and allow for a reasonable period of time for dissemination of information to market participants. Further tests of the importance of event dates involved the use of multiple regression analysis to predict the annual mobile home sales volumes in our sample. As the regression results show, sales volume peaked in the year immediately following a city's adoption of rent control. Plausibly, sellers saw that the imposition of rent control gave them a windfall and they moved to cash in by putting their mobile home on the market. Here are the OLS regression results: Annual number of transactions — 1994.78 - 0.78*BeforelYr + 2.05*AfterlYr + 1.24*After2Yr (t-values) (-9.03) (5.64) (3.68) + 0.96*After3To7Yr + 0.93 *After8YrUp — 83.71 *CAUnemp (11.32) (20.25) (4.08) R-square — 0.985 Whereas, BeforelYr: indicator variable for 1 year before the adoption of rent control ordinance; AfterlYr: indicator variable for 1 year after the adoption of rent control ordinance; After2Yr: indicator variable for 2 years after the adoption of rent control ordinance; After3To7Yr: indicator variable for 3 to 7 years after the adoption of rent control ordinance; After8YrUp: indicator variable for 8 and above years after the adoption of rent control ordinance; CAUnemp: California state unemployment rate (percentage; economic conditions control variable); data source: www.dofca.gov. We had a much larger and more comprehensive sample available to us than was employed in Hirsch (1988) or Hirsch et al (1988) or Hirsch et al (1999). For our primary analysis, we focused on 137,983 observations collected from over twenty years of mobile home transactions between 1983 and the early part of 2003. The ultimate transaction data base included only repeat- or multiple -sales along with descriptive information about the coach. Each sale was geo-coded permitting the census tract variables including Median Household Income (constant $, 1996), Proportion of Households with Public Assistance Income and Proportion of Persons > 65 Years Old to be appended to each record. The first two are proxies for local amenity values as well as demand, while the third is a proxy for one of the components of demand for mobile home units as many older households choose mobile homes as a cost effective housing choice in retirement. Again, the definitions of the descriptors of the various transactions are shown in Table 1 and the descriptive statistics of the covariates are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Because we have repeat- or multiple -sales in our data base, it is straight forward to compute the Average Annual Growth Rate (AAG) in nominal and real terms for each coach or mobile home between the date of initial purchase and the date of the subsequent sale. We then regressed the AAG in constant dollars on coach and neighborhood characteristics along with an indicator variable for the rigidity of the rent control regime. Our working hypothesis was that because rigid rent control policies allow coach owners to pass on future pad rent savings to subsequent owners of the coach, prices of coaches in those communities will increase more rapidly or decrease less rapidly than the prices of coaches in communities without rent control or flexible rent control. Thus, if rent control or the rigidity of the rent control regime influences the rate of change of coach prices, the relevant estimated coefficient will be positive and significant. The key results of cross -sectional hedonic regressions of the data for the 20 years are shown in Table 6a, 6b and 6c. We report results after having explored numerous alternative specifications and alternative approaches to segmenting the data. As will become clear, the rigidity of the rent control regime, the legal status of rent control policies (influenced by the cited U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1992), neighborhood household income and neighborhood age of household seem to impact the price effect associated with rent control policies. We report results of the analysis segmented by: a) Time (before 1993 and after 1993); see Table 6a; b) Household income (high or low); see Table 6b; and c) Proportion of elderly residents (high or low); see Table 6c. Perhaps the most important result is shown in the lower panel of Table 6a. In every case, the coefficient on the categorical variable for a rigid rent control regime after 1993 is positive. In only one case, (San Bernardino county) is it not significant. The coefficient is the incremental annual rate of growth in percentage points in real prices attributable to rigid rent control. It ranges from a high of 1.94 percent (Riverside county) to a low of 0.21 percent (San Diego county)12. For the aggregate data set, the annual real growth rate in prices of mobile homes is 1.11 percentage points higher in communities with rigid rent control regimes after 1993. This amounts to a gain of as much as $4,000 after ten years. In the same years, the annual growth rate for the prices of coaches in flexible regimes is -0.19 percentage points lower than for coaches in the overall market. Or, aggregating the two effects, the rate of price increase of coaches in communities with rigid regimes is 1.3 percentage points higher than for coaches in flexible regimes after 1993. Before 1993, the results are mixed. For the aggregate data set, the annual real growth rate in prices of mobile homes is 0.57 percentage points lower in communities with rigid rent control regimes than in the market overall. But, in communities where there is a flexible rent control regime, the rate of price increase overall is 1.69 percentage points lower. That is, the rate of price increase in rigid regimes is 1.12 percentage points higher than in flexible regimes before 1993. In Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties the impact is positive and significant rather than negative. In Ventura county, it is positive and insignificant. In Santa Clara and San Bernardino counties, it is negative and significant and, in Riverside county, it is negative and insignificant. We believe that flexible rent control schemes (with vacancy decontrol) may cause landlords to mark to market more consistently than in markets where there is no rent control. This may lead to coach owners/buyers in these communities actually expecting to pay higher pad rents over time than would their counterparts in markets without rent control. The coaches in these communities would sell for less than their equivalent in uncontrolled markets. The results support this hypothesis. This is the first evidence of this somewhat counter -intuitive but reasonable result. In Table 6b, we present results where we segment the analysis according to household income. Our presumption is that the benefits of rent control may be 12 We do not include San Bernardino county where the coefficient is not statistically significant. more valuable to lower income households. With less discretionary income, low income households should be more willing than higher income households to pay for the future reduction in pad rental costs arising from mobile home park rent control. We find this to be the case. Again, if we look at the post 1993 results for communities with rigid rent control regimes, we find that for the aggregate market the growth rate in prices of rent controlled coaches in high income census tracts was 0.92 percentage points higher than the overall market. We also find that for low income census tracts, the growth rate in the prices of rent -controlled coaches was 1.32 percentage points higher than the overall market (0.40 percentage points higher than for high income census tracts). Before 1993, for low-income households the rate of price increase for coaches in rigid rent controlled regimes experiences a positive and significant increment in four of the seven counties while for the overall data set, the result is negative and significant. This result perhaps reinforces the heterogeneity among the counties included in our sample as reflected by median household incomes reported in Table 4. The results for high- and low-income households before and after 1993 in flexible rent control regimes are mixed but dominated by negative impacts on the rate of increase in coach prices. This further supports the notion that coach owners/buyers seem to expect landlords to mark -to -market at the time a vacancy occurs. While we don't have evidence of this, it may be that rent control regimes that allow for vacancy decontrol also permit periodic increases that are greater than in more rigid regimes. We use vacancy decontrol as a general indicator of the rigidity of a local ordinance and local enforcement practices. Any rent control ordinance will have a number of components, among them a mechanism to determine the new pad rent when a unit is vacated and sold and a mechanism to determine the annual allowable adjustment for resident tenants. The latter is usually specified or tied to a price index such as the Consumer Price Index. In Table 6c, we show results where we segment the analysis according to the proportion of elderly in the census tract. Our presumption is that the benefits of rent control may be more valuable to younger households. With a longer expected tenancy as a consequence of their age we would expect younger households to attach a higher value to the expected annual savings arising from rent control. Younger households should discount this saving over a much longer time period while older households might reasonably expect the duration of their occupancy to be relatively short as they enter and move through retirement years_ We find this to be the case. Again, if we look at the post-1993 results for communities with rigid rent control regimes, we find that for the aggregate market, the growth rate in prices of rent controlled coaches in census tracts comprised of younger households was 1.81 percentage points higher than the overall market. We also find that for census tracts comprised of older households, the growth rate in the prices of rent controlled coaches was 0.62 percentage points higher than the overall market (1.19 percentage points lower than for census tracts with younger households). Before 1993, for the pooled data, for census tracts with younger households, the rate of price increase for coaches in rigid rent controlled regimes experiences a negative and significant decrease (-0.48 percentage points) while for census tracts with older households the impact is greater (-0.62 percentage points) and significant. The results for census tracts with younger and older households before and after 1993 in flexible rent control regimes are mixed and as in the other cases likely reflect the heterogeneity of the counties in our sample. Time Series Analysis of Mobile Home Resale Values with and without Rent Control As noted above, the complete data set included 137, 983 repeat -sales from the period beginning in January 1983 and ending in May 2003. These are transactions for coaches sold at least twice during the study period. These data allowed us to conduct a time -series analysis of mobile home resale values and price trends by computing a hybrid weighted repeat -sale index for the full population of sales, for the subset of sales in rent controlled communities and for the subset of sales in communities without rent control. These indexes are quality -adjusted because they measure price differences through time for individual (mainly unchanged) mobile homes. The indexes are reported in Table 7. These indexes show that prices of rent controlled units have increased 153 percent while units not subject to rent control have increased in price 136 percent, a difference of 17 percentage points. The results are much clearer in Figure 2 where it is obvious that after the second quarter of 1993, the index for the rent controlled transactions rises above the index for transactions in markets without controls and remains so for the duration of the study period. We have wrestled with the 1993:2 date. The index results suggest that market -wide, the benefits of rent control appear to be significant after 1993. We attribute the change that is evidenced in 1993:2 to (a) the increasing absolute numbers and the increasing share of rent controlled units (note the big jump in 1993 by any measure in the share of rent controlled units in Table 1 and in the growth rates of the amount of rent controlled units in Table 2); and (b) the change in the legal environment as a consequence of the Yee v. City of Escondido decision-13 The decision can be seen as a "green light" for cities to step up mobile home rent control adoption and/or enforcement. Simulated Economic Impact of Rent Control Policy The economic impact of the rent control presented by the regression results reported in Tables 6a through c may be more intuitive if re -crafted in the form of controlled experiments or simulations where the impact of rent control on various types of mobile homes is examined. Figures 3a through 3c present the results of a series of such simulations. In each case, the bar charts show the impact of rent control relative to `no' rent control under ceteris paribus conditions. For example, Figure 3a shows that for the average mobile home after 1993, flexible rent control would decrease the value of a coach by about $148, or about 1.0 percent ($17623=$17771=0.99), while rigid rent control would increase the value of a coach by about $1142, or about 6 percent ($18913 ' $17771=1.06). Figure 3b shows that for the average mobile home after 1993, a rigid rent control regime increases the value of a coach for both low-income and high -income households: the former by about $1,098, or seven percent and the latter by about $1,141, or five percent. Flexible rent control regimes result in marginally lower prices. Figure 3c shows that for the average mobile home after 1993, a rigid rent control regime increases the value of a coach in census tracts with younger households as well as in census tracts with older households. The former by about $1,333, or eight percent and the latter by about $851, or four percent. Flexible rent control regimes result in marginally higher prices in census tracts comprised of older households and marginally lower prices in census tracts comprised of younger households. 13 We initially attributed some of the post 1993 change to improved economic expectations in California associated with the jobs and housing recovery. We thought that the expected rent savings might take on more value with the economic recovery as alternative housing increased in price. However, according to OFHEO's California Housing Price Index, positive nominal increases in statewide housing prices were not seen until 1995:4 and 1996:1. Those two positive quarters were followed by four quarters of declines in nominal prices followed in 1997:2 with a quarterly increase in nominal housing prices which began the recovery which has been sustained through the present. See www.ofheo.gov /HPIState.asp7FormMode=Process. Tables Appendix 1-A through 1-7 are the source material for Tables 6a, b and c. While there is no need to review these Tables in detail, it is valuable to interpret the coefficients on other right-hand side variables. Since every Table represents the same regression model applied to a different subset of the aggregate data set, it is only necessary to review a representative table, for example, the first Table, Appendix 1-A. The intercept term is usually close to 1.0 and significant reflecting the fact that the dependant variable is 1 + the growth rate and the right hand side variables are covariates which should cause deviation from the baseline growth rate for the pooled data or for individual counties. Log value of original price (constant $, 1996) in all cases has a negative and negative and significant impact on the average growth rate; prices that started lower grew more. The coach's size in square feet (Log value of units size (sq. It.)) increases the growth rate of value of the unit and the width of the coach, whether a `double' or a `triple' unit (standard descriptors of mobile home size), also increases the growth rate of the value of a unit. In general, the coefficients on these variables have the expected sign and are significant. Sample sizes vary significantly among the counties. Because multiple sales are necessary to compute the growth rates there may be some sample selection bias. Communities or neighborhoods in which there are relatively more repeat sales are likely to be overrepresented in the population of repeat sale transactions. In communities in which coach prices have increased at a greater rate, there is probably a greater likelihood of resale relative to communities in which coach prices have declined. This phenomenon is likely to be exacerbated by rent control policies which reduce the mobility of tenants who are benefiting from reduced rents. Reduced mobility is a well documented negative by-product of rent control policies which may impact the results. Almost all of the estimations yield adjusted R-squared measures in the range of 0.10 to 0.25. A small number of cases yield R-squared measures between 0.05 and 0.10. CONCLUSIONS Mobile homes are usually owned by households that pay a periodic rent for the land in a mobile home park (a pad) on which the coach is located. Economic theory suggests that because mobile homes tend not to be mobile but rather fixed to the pad on which they are initially located, and since the pads are rented, the imposition of rent control will lead to the capitalization of future rent savings when a coach is sold. That is, the buyer will not only pay for the coach but also for the net present value of the expected savings associated with the future pad rent obligation to the landlord. Our results support the hypothesis based on a more extensive and timely data set than had been employed in similar prior studies in California. Using pooled data from seven counties in California, before 1993, a flexible rent control regime results in real growth rates in prices 1.69 percentage points less than overall growth rates, while a rigid regime yields real growth rates in prices 0.19 percentage points less; after 1993, a flexible regime results in real growth rates in prices 0.57 percentage points less than overall growth rates, while a rigid regime yields real growth rates in prices 1.11 percentage points greater. After 1993, for communities with rigid rent control regimes, the rates of real price increases for coaches was positive and significant in six of the seven counties included in our data set. In general, rates of price increase were higher after 1993 and in communities with rigid rent control regimes (no vacancy decontrol). Hybrid weighted repeat sale price indexes tracking rent controlled and non -rent controlled units in the seven counties from 1983 to 2003 show that prices of rent controlled units have increased 153 percent while units not subject to rent control have increased in price 136 percent, a difference of 17 percentage points. The current spread between the two indexes began in the second quarter of 1993. We attribute this, first, to the increasing share of transactions falling within rent controlled jurisdictions due to both higher raw numbers and the onset of rent control in more jurisdictions and second, to the change in the legal environment resulting from the Yee v. City of Escondido decision. REFERENCES Glaeser, Edward L. and Erzo F.P. Luttmer (2003) "The Misallocation of Housing Under Rent Control." American Economic Review 93, 1027-1046. Hirsch, Werner Z. (1988) "An Inquiry into the Effects of Mobile Home Park Rent Control." Journal of Urban Economics 24, 212-226. Hirsch, Werner Z. and Joel G. Hirsch (1988) "Legal -Economic Analysis of rent Controls in a Mobile Home Context: Placement Values and Vacancy Decontrol." UCLA Law Review 35, 399-466. Hirsch, Werner Z. and Anthony M. Rufolo (1999) "The Regulation of Immobile Housing Assets Under Divided Ownership." International Review of Law and Economics 19, 383-397. Olsen, Edgar O. (1972) "An Econometric Analysis of Rent Control." Journal of Political Economy 80, 1081-1100. Yee v. City of Escondido, Cal (90-1947), 503 U.S. 519 (1992). Orozco, Norma From: Selena Pineda <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:12 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Selena Pineda selenapinedal04@gmaii.com 800 S Sullivan St Apt V2 Santa Ana . California 92703 Orozco, Norma From: Lou Kridle <Lou@kridle.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:23 PM To: eComment Subject: OPPOSE rent control I'm a struggling apartment owner, trying to live off my hard work over the years. I OPPOSE any local expansion of the existing state rent control laws. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH..... Louis Kridle Sent from Mail for Windows Western M Manufactured Housing Communities i Association September 20, 2021 The Honorable Jessie Lopez Council Member, City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Item 33. Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. Dear Council Member Lopez: Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) is a statewide trade association representing mobilehome community owners throughout California and many here in the City of Santa Ana. We are opposed to the proposed rent control ordinance. Rent Control and Just Cause aren't needed in Santa Ana Santa Ana already has rent control. The Tenants Protection Act of 2019 provides robust protections for tenants of rental units throughout California. In Santa Ana's mobilehome parks, many spaces are governed by long term leases. The leases are voluntarily entered into and fully enforceable in court. Long term leases cap rent at low, cost of living standards. They are viable alternatives to rent control that have been in place in Santa Ana for decades. The City of Santa Ana reviewed all of Santa Ana's 29 mobilehome parks in 2019. The 288-page report revealed that these private communities are well maintained, professionally managed, and no evidence of widespread rent spiking throughout the entire city. At that time, the entire council unanimously rejected rent control specifically because of the lack of any citywide issues. Safety nets are already in place for mobilehome residents facing financial hardships with a mobilehome parkowners' rental assistance program. Parkowners have been administering and paying for their own rental assistance for decades through MHET's Orange County Mobile Home Assistance Program. Low-income residents can apply for assistance assuring no one is losing their home due to financial hardships. These funds do not need to be repaid and no lien is placed on their property and they are not available in jurisdictions with rent control. Further, local "just cause" protections are not needed locally. California's mobilehome residents already have "just cause" protections in state law. These additional Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association Sacramento Office: 455 Capitol Mall Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814 1 (916) 448-7002 Regional Off cc : 40335 Winchester Rd. #E 165, Temecula, CA 92596 1 (951) 704-2427 1 julie@ pa ul eco nsul ti ng.com requirements make it very difficult for landlords to get dangerous, bad actors out of their properties and require neighbors to testify in court against their neighbor. More stringent, local "just cause" protections are unnecessary. Rent Control is harmful to tenants and property owners. Living in a manufactured housing community is unique. There are two payments or purchases made when a resident buys a mobilehome in a mobilehome park. They buy their home and they agree to pay a monthly lot rent to the parkowner. When you add a rent control scheme to this system, it erodes the affordability of mobilehome community living. When lot rents are artificially capped with rent control, the price of the home skyrockets —removing the affordability of the home. The adoption of a rent control ordinance is the cause for this phenomenon. It actually becomes more expensive to live in our communities with rent control. This will diminish Santa Ana's affordable housing stock. The staff report suggests that landlords will bear the costs of the rent control ordinance. This isn't accurate. On this point, case law provides landlords with protections of due process. Landlords can not be required to pay the costs associated with bringing a successful petition for a fair rate of return or an MNOI increase to the city for consideration. Suggesting otherwise may discourage a landlord from applying and place the city in legal jeopardy. Staff is mute on an important aspect of mobilehome rent control —Vega adjustments. Vega adjustments are permitted in the early stages of the onset of a rent control ordinance to determine if rents are at market before a rent control regulation is put in place. Many mobilehome park owners intentionally leave below market rents as is to benefit their renter. However, with passage of this proposal, they will have no choice but to require hearings to bring those spaces to market immediately. This alone could mean shocking increases to residents. Process is broken, lacks transparency with no outreach to rental housing providers. It is stunning to learn in three days, a city council is going to consider a harmful, wide - sweeping ordinance that will negatively impact their entire housing stock with no study session, no outreach to learn of impacts or to receive input from all stakeholders. It seems other housing policy decisions, such as the HOO, are receiving more study and consideration from stakeholders. Why would rental housing providers not be provided the same access for input? With the existence of Exhibit 5, staff acknowledges the lack of research, fiscal analysis, and due diligence still needed will take a year to collect. Why is the city council considering passage of legislation with so many unanswered questions? Past city councils took the time to study the issue and to hear from experts on both sides. After deliberation and input, they rejected a rent control. Rental Assistance Funds have gone unused with no discussion about existing statewide tenant protections. Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association Z Sacramento Office: 455 Capitol Mall Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814 1 (916) 448-7002 Regional Office: 40335 Winchester Rd. #E165, Temecula, CA 92596 1 (951) 704-2427 1 julie@pauleconsulting.com In an astonishing recent discovery, it appears the City of Santa Ana has failed to distribute $35 million in rental assistance. Why are these funds not in the hands of renters? Why have so few renters applied for assistance? And why were so many of these renters rejected? These funds keep tenants housed. The expectation is that the City in their role as administrator gets these funds out. There has been little discussion about the statewide eviction moratorium and what happens after October 1. Contrary to popular belief, tenant protections do not "vanish". The state will begin to transition into judicial hearings on evictions whish have largely been shut down during the statewide eviction moratorium. If tenants have shown that they have a timely (or late notice, if approved by the court), self -declared COVID impact (which may include having school age children home from in -person learning), they have applied for rental assistance and have paid only 25% of back due rent, they cannot be evicted. Also landlord have duties (notices and steps which should be taken to aver the need to go to court) that must be addressed, with their attorneys, before an eviction can be considered. Rent Control is bad politics for Santa Ana. Tenant groups have been attempting to get their unpopular rent control scheme adopted for years —well before the pandemic. Four times it has been rejected by Santa Ana voters. Twice signature gathers failed to garner enough signatures to place their proposal on the ballot. Twice voters in Santa Ana, a majority renter city, have rejected statewide rent control expansions (Prop 10, 2018 and Prop. 21, 2020). There is no evidence that voters are supportive of this bad public policy. This ordinance will have ramifications for decades to come. It should be thoughtfully, deliberated upon, considering all stakeholders' concerns. Mobilehome community owners are more than willing to provide input and feedback on ways that all three parties --tenants, property owners and taxpayers —can work together to create more secure, abundant and affordable housing for Santa Ana. However this proposal meets none of these goals. We respectfully and humbly ask for you to take no -action on Agenda Item 33. Sincerely, Julie Paule, Regional Representative Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association 3 Sacramento Office: 455 Capitol Mall Suite 800, Sacramento, CA 95814 1 (916) 448-7002 Regional Office: 40335 Winchester Rd. #E165, Temecula, CA 92596 1 (951) 704-2427 1 julie@pauleconsulting.com Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:02 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: [Urgent Request to City Council] from community organizations, unions, and faith based groups Attachments: 092121 _RentControlSig nOn Letter_TUSA.pdf From: Tenants United Santa Ana TUSA <tenantsunitedsantaana@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:33 PM To: Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Phan, Thai <TPhan@santa-ana.org>; Bacerra, Phil <pbacerra@santa- ana.org>; Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza, Nelida <nmendoza@santa-ana.org>; Hernandez, Johnathan <JRyanHernandez@santa-ana.org>; Ridge, Kristine <kridge@santa-ana.org>; Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com Subject: [Urgent Request to City Council] from community organizations, unions, and faith based groups Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and City Councilmembers of Santa Ana, On behalf of Santa Ana residents, Tenants United Santa Ana, and organizations signed below, we make a formal request of all of you to vote in favor of the enactment of rent stabilization and just cause protections in Santa Ana, as well as take the necessary steps to create the rent board thereafter. Santa Ana Faith Leaders, Congregations, and Labor Unions who endorse the City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, and Tenants' Rights Act: 1. The Mix Academy, Santa Ana 2. Santa Ana United Methodist Church 3. Committee of Interns and Residents, SEIU Healthcare 4. El Getsemani United Methodist Church, Santa Ana 5. Episcopal Church of the Messiah, Santa Ana 6. OC Interfaith Committee to Aid Farm Workers 7. Peace, Benevolence, & Justice. (P.B.&J.) Ministry, Santa Ana 8. Suvan Geer, Church of the Foothills, Santa Ana 9. Jackie Cordova, Saint Anne Catholic Church, Santa Ana 10. Rev. Ken Wyant, Irvine United Congregational Church 11. Suzanne Darweesh, OC Interfaith Committee to Aid Farm Workers 12. United Steelworkers LOCAL 675 13. St. Mark Presbyterian Church 14. Rev. Rayna Hamre, Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation 15. Rev. Jennifer Garcia, St. Paul Lutheran Church 16. Rev. Jacquie Bethel, Community of Christ 17. Rev. Adiel DePano, Santa Ana United Methodist Church 18. Pastor David Jaimes, El Getsemani United Methodist Church, Santa Ana 19. Pastor Maribel Toan, The Mix Academy 20. Rev. Abel Lopez, Episcopal Church of the Messiah, Santa Ana 21. Harold Baker, Episcopal Church of the Messiah, Santa Ana 22. Leia Smith, Orange County Catholic Worker 23. Bob Blair, St Andrew's Episcopal Church Santa Ana Community Organizations who endorse the City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, and Tenants' Rights Act: 24. Tenants United Santa Ana 25. Public Law Center 26. VietRise 27. CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice) 28. Santa Ana Active Streets (SAAS) 29. Santa Ana Early Learning Initiative (SAELI) 30. The Kennedy Commission 31. Thrive Santa Ana CLT 32. Unidos Homeschool Cooperative 33. Resilience Orange County 34. Calle Sullivan En Accion 35. Cooperacion Santa Ana 36. Orange County Environmental Justice 37. Vecindario Lacy En Accion 38. Chicanxs Unidxs 39. Alianza Translatinx 40. The People's Coalition 41. CRECE, Urban Farms Sincerely, Tenants United Santa Ana SontaAna 2 Interns Committee of Sem.MResidents eace - . _ rcw nun move nnsErs — 0a, evOiONCC SA A ANA P & " Alianzaw 4W �� ♦ • J ustice Miniws tr 4.jo Trdnslatinp • UNITEST cnuscn 1 InI 1 •:r Ve.L.A.- `<Oy S�ehuork c,P� L. %a �1�! CR EC E PUBLIC LAwCENTER URBANFARMS ;OOPERACION SANTA ANAL U W LOCAL 675 r--.�� "ROM ;":u%.. TENANTS TOGETHER Church a ttMessiab�' ` Dear Members of the Santa Ana City Council and Mayor Vicente Sarmiento, On behalf of the Tenants United Coalition, we urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item 933, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, we urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. The proposed ordinance before you was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. On September 30', 2021, COVID-19 emergency housing protections will expire, 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 will 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. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. hi addition, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4', 2021. Yet, many renters continue to face unjust evictions and predatory rent hikes, all while accumulating rent debt. It is unconscionable that as renters recover from this devastating pandemic, they are simultaneously subject to predatory rent hikes. Especially preposterous when residents making minimum wage of $14 an hour are expected to work 104 hours per week to afford a I -bedroom apartment. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we enact REAL permanent renter protections in our city. Our 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 most renters in the city. The city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit by the pandemic in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases. The global pandemic has also had catastrophic economic consequences for residents in Santa Ana. The majority of residents are working-class, low-income, renters (56%), extremely rent - burdened (64%) and live in mixed -status households. When such a great number of the population is already rent burdened, meaning they are spending over 40% of their income on rent, unregulated rent increases particularly put our community members at risk of becoming houseless. Therefore, Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protection policies equal houselessness prevention. Indeed, passing our ordinance is necessary. Although California businesses have moved forward with opening, we must consider that many community members continue to suffer from the consequences of the pandemic due to the tragic loss of their loved ones, overwhelming medical bills, as well as the significant reduction in work hours and job layoffs. Implementing tenant protections would provide immediate relief to our city's most economically vulnerable populations including: single mothers, essential workers earning minimum wage, elders living on a fixed income, and thousands of K-12 students in our district. hi the last year, the Santa Ana Unified School District had over 5,717 students participate in the McKinney-Vento program, which provides assistance to children and youth experiencing houselessness. At the same time, rent stabilization would benefit not only tenants who live in covered units, but all who live in Santa Ana. This is because with predatory rent hikes, the cost of living throughout the city increases faster than residents can keep up with. Furthermore, any resident displacement allows for displacement of families who have called Santa Ana home for many years, fragmenting the culture of the city. Our ordinance also protects residents of Santa Ana where AB 1482 falls short. For example, our ordinance would extend rent stabilization to the 23 mobile home parks in Santa Ana, currently exempt from AB 1482 protections. Santa Ana residents who live in mobile homes are largely Vietnamese and Latinx immigrants as well as lower -income, senior citizens, who are on a fixed - income. Mobile home residents also comprise multi -generational families and long-term residents of Santa Ana who will be able to remain in Santa Ana as a result of passing our ordinance. The Mobile home Parks in the City of Santa Ana are currently experiencing drastic increases in rent. For example, there are 34 spaces at Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge (Bali Hi), an age restricted 55+ park, where Mobile homeowners and Residents experienced a 15.5%-34.5% increase in the monthly rent effective June 1, 2019. This spike in rent is an increase more than $200 per month for some Mobile homeowners and Residents. Another 105 spaces received a rent increase of up to 12%, posing a significant impact for low-income residents on a fixed income. A representative of the Bali Hi Park owner stated the owners were very unlikely to halt any further rent increases and if the residents couldn't afford the rent increases, they could leave. Our ordinance provides rent stabilization for mobile homeowners renting space in the park, as well as just cause eviction protections for tenants living in rented mobile homes. More than 100 local jurisdictions have enacted mobile home rent control ordinances in California in an effort to preserve an important source of affordable housing. Also, our ordinance would add protections for all mobile home residents if the park were to be redeveloped. AB 1482 likewise fails to incorporate language accessibility. Santa Ana is a city of immigrants -- our ordinance requires landlords to provide important communication such as contracts and official notices in the language of the tenant. AB 1482 lacks an accessible process for enforcement. Our ordinance would create a rent board which would help enforce the ordinance. Residents would be able to voice their concerns, which is good for both tenants and landlords. The rent board can rely on the city attorney to provide legal support to address landlord and tenant disputes whereas the process of taking someone to court for an AB 1482 violation is costly and inaccessible. Our ordinance would also create a rental registry which would be a database of all the rental properties in the city. We currently do not have a full registry of all the landlords in the city. This data would help the city communicate about programs specific to landlords and tenants. With a rental registry, the city could have reached out to all the landlords when the CARES funds were created, which would've helped them disperse funds. Additionally, having a rental registry would help improve tenant and landlord communications because currently tenants struggle to send important documents to their landlords via mail because of not having the landlords' address. Often in a tenant court case, it is recommended tenants send documents by certified mail to help prove that communication occurred. Not having the address of a landlord can be a defining aspect of an eviction case. If we don't act boldly now to protect renters, thousands will be displaced from our city or pushed into even denser living arrangements. Because renters can't keep up with debt repayment alongside unregulated rent hikes, they will be forced to leave the city or move in with family members to weather difficult times together. Seniors who have used their life savings to pay off the mortgages on their mobile homes, will be subject to losing everything when their fixed incomes can no longer accommodate mounting rent increases on the land below their homes. At this moment of compounding crises, you as our Councilmembers have a unique opportunity to put policies in place that will aid COVID-19 recovery and protect us from future threats to our health and livelihood. As residents of Santa Ana, and as messengers of the tenants with whom we have worked, it is our sincere desire that Santanerxs who have called Santa Ana their home for generations can continue to remain for many generations to come. To ensure our collective future --we urge you to enact rent control now! Sincerely, Tenants United Santa Ana Public Law Center CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice) Santa Ana Active Streets (SAAS) Santa Ana Early Learning Initiative (SAELI) VietRise Thrive Santa Ana CLT Unidos Homeschool Cooperative Sullivan En Accion Cooperacion Santa Ana Vecindario Lacy En Accion Chicanxs Unidxs Alianza Translatinx The People's Coalition CRECE, Urban Farms Orange County Environmental Justice The Kennedy Commission Resilience Orange County The Mix Academy, Santa Ana Santa Ana United Methodist Church Committee of Interns and Residents, SEIU Healthcare El Getsemani United Methodist Church, Santa Ana Episcopal Church of the Messiah, Santa Ana OC Interfaith Committee to Aid Farm Workers Peace, Benevolence, & Justice. (P.B.&J.) Ministry, Santa Ana Suvan Geer, Church of the Foothills, Santa Ana Santa Ana United Methodist Church Rev. Ken Wyant, Irvine United Congregational Church Jackie Cordova, Saint Anne Catholic Church, Santa Ana Suzanne Darweesh, OC Interfaith Committee to Aid Farm Workers United Steelworkers LOCAL 675 Mark Presbyterian Church Rev. Rayna Harare, Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation Rev. Jennifer Garcia, St. Paul Lutheran Church Rev. Jacquie Bethel, Community of Christ Rev. Adiel DePano, Santa Ana United Methodist Church Pastor David Jaimes, El Getsemani United Methodist Church, Santa Ana Pastor Maribel Toan, The Mix Academy Rev. Abel Lopez, Episcopal Church of the Messiah, Santa Ana Harold Baker, Episcopal Church of the Messiah, Santa Ana Leia Smith, Orange County Catholic Worker Bob Blair, St Andrew's Episcopal Church Orozco, Norma From: Omar Dominguez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:52 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Omar Dominguez omardomek@icloud.com 1120 S Mantle Ln unit D Santa Ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:51 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Rent Control From: Lauren Marty <Imarty@amcliving.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:24 AM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Subject: Rent Control 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 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 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 M E 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, Lauren Marty Lauren Marty I Artists Village Apartments I Community Director Advanced Management Company 300 West 2nd Street I Santa Ana I CA 192701 P: (714)541-0818 1 F: (714)541-0897 1 W: www.artistsvillageapartments.com 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: Emanuel Mendoza <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:50 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Emanuel Mendoza emmendoza@csumb.edu 2437 W. Flora St Santa Ana . California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Aileen De La O <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:49 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Aileen De La O aileendelao@gmail.com 1120 S Mantle Ln unit D Santa ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:49 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances -----Original Message ----- From: Kyle Gardner <kyleg500@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:28 AM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear Councilmember Lopez, I am concerned that item 33 does not have language regarding inflation of the dollar. In uncertain times such as we are currently in, it is possible that inflation could easily outpace the proposed maximum rent increases. In my opinion, it is very important to consider inflation when drafting rent control ordinances. As someone who has rented housing in an area without rent control, I understand it's importance, but this ordinance is not a viable long term solution to obtain affordable housing. As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Kyle Gardner 2424 W 1st St Santa Ana, CA 92703 kyleg500@gmaii.com Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:48 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: No on Rent Control Please -----Original Message ----- From: Steve Gerschultz <gerschultz@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:33 AM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Subject: No on Rent Control Please Dear Council -member Lopez, > As a resident and property owner, I urge you to vote no on rent control. > A potential world class, up and coming city like Santa Ana does not need to become the rental embarrassment that cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York have become. In these cities there's little rental property upkeep, much higher rents for incoming residents, less residential development, people living in apartments that are much more than they need, and a general sense of combativeness from some renters. Santa Ana does not need this. It's also not fair to landlords who are often scapegoated, but basically trying to run a business. They're the ones who ultimately pay for rent control. > There will probably be a lot of emotions regarding rent control, but I urge you to stay strong and vote no. > Thank you, > Steve Gerschultz 10 Orozco, Norma From: Joanna Cazares <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:31 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Joanna Cazares joanna.cazares.jc@gmaii.com 212 E Berkeley St Santa Ana . California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Karla Juarez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:35 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Karla Juarez alert.athena@gmail.com 825 S Ross St Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Irene Cabanas <irenecabanas101 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:46 PM To: eComment Cc: Hernandez, Johnathan Subject: Item 33- Rent control and just cause protections for Santa Ana residents Greetings Council members, As a 20+year renter in Santa Ana, I urge you to approve item #33. This critical topic is urgently needed at a time when our community is just getting on its feet from the pandemic. Rent control is an essential policy to prevent the displacement of working-class tenants, families, seniors, immigrants, and people of color from our communities. The affordability assurance provides stability when we need it most. This, coupled with the rental assistance programs that the city Santa Ana has offered will make strides into creating a lively and thriving community. At the end of the day, home is where you reside and we take great pride residing in Santa Ana. While families like ours may not be in a position to purchase a home, we are dedicated to making our rental a home. So much so that we recently invested our own resources to renovate and rebuild portions of our abode and care for our rental like the home that it is. Together, with our neighbors, we even started a neighborhood association for the Willard community (where over half of residents are renters). Our goal is to create community goodwill, keep our neighborhood clean and support a safe environment. Thank you in advance for providing this platform of community feedback. Irene Cabanas Raised and came back to live in Santa Ana 20+ year renter Willard Neighborhood Association, president s Orozco, Norma From: David Carbajal <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:15 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. David Carbajal davidcarbajaitorres@gmaii.com 1430 S. Broadway Santa Ana . California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Evelia Mendoza <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 12:21 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Evelia Mendoza eveliamendoza88@gmail.com 806 s Raitt st #10 Santa Ana Ca., California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Tere Bailey <tere.bailey@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:59 AM To: eComment Subject: Tenant Rights Act - 9/21/2021 Santa Ana City Council Agenda Dear Councilmember, Riverview Community Partners is a rental -housing provider in Santa Ana and they wish to express their opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act' that appears on the September 21 st 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, quality of life, and more, At NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK OUR INPUT or MAKE US AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided all of the rental -housing providers with a proposal that: • Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect the ability to provide safe, quality housing to our 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, We 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 Harris Taylor Management, Inc. Orozco, Norma From: Maria teresa Cortes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:59 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Maria teresa Cortes mayte74668@gmaii.com 1425 s Orange Santa Ana ca , California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Bryan Peraza <bryanjperaza@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:59 AM To: eComment Subject: Item #33 / Punto #33 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. Ademys de establecer el control de renta les pido tomen las medidas necesarias para crear una mesa directiva encargada de hacer cumplir estas protecciones. Esta ordenanza fue redactada por y para Ins residentes de Santa Ana con el objetivo de proteger a Ins 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 ban terminado o expiraryn a fines de septiembre de 2021. Asimismo, Ins programas federales de prestaciones de desempleo en virtud de la Ley CARES terminaron septiembre 4, 2021. La pandemia 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, Ins inquilinos estan siendo desalojados injustamente y se enfrentan a aumentos predatorios de las rentas, todo mientras que acumulan la deuda de renta de la coal todavia son responsables. Cifras muestran que el 89% de Ins fondos de asistencia para la renta no se ban distribuido a nivel federal. En Santa Ana, Ins trabajadores con salario minimo que ganan $14 por hora tendrian que trabajar 104 horas a la semana para permitirse on modesto apartamento de 1 recamara. Los inquilinos con deuda de renta a inquilinos que ban agotado sus ahorros para evitar la deuda de renta no pueden seguir enfrentando aumentos de renta excesivos e impredecibles de otra manera seryn desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Abora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. La ordenanza: Limitary Ins 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. Presentara protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de Ins residentes. Extenders la estabilizacion de renta a Ins 28 parques de casas moviles de Santa Ana. Extendery las protecciones de desalojo por causa justa a todos Ins inquilinos (temporalmente disponibles a traves de AB-832 y se caducan el 09/30/2021). Como miembros elegidos por Ins constituyentes de Santa Ana, esperamos que ustedes prioricen la salud pfiblica y las necesidades inmediatas de vivienda de los residentes de Santa Ana y con su voto establezcan protecciones permanentes de Ins inquilinos locales. El Control de Renta es posible; mas de 20 jurisdicciones en California ban establecido leyes de Control de Renta y nosotros tambien podemos hacerlo. Sin un control de rentas y sin las protecciones de causa justa habra 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. Atentamente Bryan Jesus Peraza Orozco, Norma From: Rosa Lopez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:59 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Rosa Lopez rosalopez289@gmaii.com 512 E Adams St Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Miguel Aceves <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:56 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Miguel Aceves sengis23@yahoo.com 809 East Occidental Street Santa Ana , California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Nancy Garcia <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:55 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Nancy Garcia nancygarciam1983@gmail.com 337 Halesworth st Apt 401 Santa Ana , California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Wendy Gomez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:53 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Wendy Gomez wggomez18@gmail.com 438 s rosewood Ave Santa Ana , California 92703 Orozco, Norma From: Wendy Gomez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:52 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Wendy Gomez sengis23@yahoo.com 713 east Occidental Street Santa ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Bukovsgirl Bukovskis <bukovsgirl@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:50 AM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: NO on 33 I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33. Mary A. Bukovskis Orozco, Norma From: Alison Rosenbaum <alirosel@cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:42 AM To: eComment Subject: opposition to proposed rent control and just cause eviction ordinances Dear Councilmember, I am a rental housing owner in Santa Ana and am writing to oppose the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservations, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the September 21st city council agenda. As a landlord limiting rent increases beyond the states current restrictions would be devastating. Our costs go up every year for services and maintenance and it would cause me to be unable to continue to maintain safe living conditions for my tenants. 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, Alison Rosenbaum Orozco, Norma From: wayne carr <wcarr777@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:46 AM To: eComment Subject: Rent Controll Attention City Council: A few comments on rent control. First I should tell you that I'm involved In 5 four unit buildings in Orange County with 30+ years experience in the rental business. Imposing rent control will will reduce the interest of investors in building new rental units or investing in existing buildings. This in time will reduce availability for the renter community, Every community where rent control has been imposed has overall had a negative effect. i.c., poor upkeep, deferred maintenance, slum conditions, etc. Regarding proposal items: 1. Capping annual rent increases: I have never raised a current tenants rent above 3%. However this should be subject to the market- 2- Just cause eviction protection: A landlords desire is the keep tenants, not get rid of them. I've evicted 3 times in 30+ years. One time for raising rabbits in the living room, another because the tenant was so obnoxious other tenants were moving and neighbor renters were complaining, and one for causing a fire- 3- Allowing tenants to add occupants without owner approval..... NOT GOOD because as a landlord one of my responsibilities is to provide a safe environment. We need to know who and what a new occupant is. Don't want to impose on other occupants a trouble maker. In addition do not want a tenant who later permits 3/4 more people to occupy the apartment. My rental agreements specify who the renter and occupants are. Any long term addition of another occupant must be approved- 4- Enable squatting without recourse .... do you want someone squatting on your front law???? And if the did damage of cost you money aren't you entitled to just compensation- 5- Establishing a rent control board, just another layer of Government and favoritism as to appointments in the long run. Let the free market do its job. Our Country developed very nicely under free enterprise. Not perfect but better than any other place I can think of. Sincerely Wayne Carr 18867 San Felipe St. Fountain Valley, Ca., 92708 1-714-746-0332 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Pina <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:27 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Maria Pina mari.pina.256@gmaii.com 2801 N Bristol St Santa Ana, California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: George Garcia <garciageorge98@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:27 AM To: eComment Cc: Hernandez, Johnathan; Lopez, Jessie; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Mendoza, Nelida; Bacerra, Phil; Sarmiento, Vicente Subject: No on Item 33 I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33 Orozco, Norma From: Robert Pone <bpone@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:21 AM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: Please Vote NO on Item 33 - Don't blow me off, please read my message! Hello, from a concerned Santa Ana resident. I urge you to please vote NO on Item 33, 1 have seen personally what rent control did to Brooklyn, NY, where my aunt lived. It created slums and derelict landlords. The slums are ultimately created by the renter who doesn't pay his fair share of rent due to rent controlled by the city or state, and free money for the renter or occupier to fight the landlord in court. This unfair rent paid by the renter caused the landlord not to have enough money to repair or do maintenance on the building. The landlord is forced to be derelict because of lack of funds to do repair and maintenance. Some renters move out due to poor living conditions and squatters move in along with their drugs and crime. After awhile the building becomes totally inhabitable and everyone is forced to move out by the city due to the bad people and bad building conditions. The building becomes condemned and is torn down to make room for a parking lot. It's a no win situation for everyone involved and a big waste of tax dollars. I know you think you are being virtuous to help the poor, but this proposal doesn't take into consideration the long term effects and the cost to the city and taxpayers. Canned Message: I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33. Orozco, Norma From: Juvelia. Charco Juvelia Charco <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:21 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Juvelia. Charco Juvelia Charco Charcojuvelia@gmail.com 600 w. 3rd. St. A-219 Santa Ana,CA., California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Keith Jorgensen <mrjorgey@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:20 AM To: eComment Subject: Proposed rent control Council -members, I am opposed to any further rent control that the City Of Santa Ana would like to impose upon my properties. I currently on several multiunit properties in Santa Ana and I'm struggling to keep up with the state requirements as they are. It is extremely difficult to operate these properties in good condition after mortgages, property taxes and insurance. In addition, with the current moratorium and lack of rent that I have personally not been able to collect, It makes it nearly impossible to keep the properties I have in the city. I believe that after speaking with other Property owners in the city, there would be a mass exodus of property owners if this were to be approved. Again I am asking you to consider leaving the current state controls in effect and to reject this proposal. Thank you for your consideration, Keith J Orozco, Norma From: Keith Gardner <Cakeith9@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:15 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Keith Gardner 30791 Concord Ln Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Cakeith9@gmail.com Orozco, Norma From: Alicia Pirtle <apirtle@premierpropertysolutions.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:17 AM To: eComment Subject: I VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL! 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 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 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, QPremier Property Solutions Alicia Pirtle Property Manager/Real Estate agent 285 E Imperial Hwy Suite 204 Fullerton Ca. 92835 0:714-213-8197 M: 714-329-5386 License# 02111385 www.premierpropertysol utions.com 10 Orozco, Norma From: Tristan Miller <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:09 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Tristan Miller tristan@mansey.com Santa Ana . California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Bryan Peraza <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:07 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Bryan Peraza bryanjperaza@gmaii.com 801 S LYON ST APT A221 SANTA ANA, California 92705-4218 Orozco, Norma From: Karla Navarro <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:05 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Karla Navarro karma_karla@icloud.com 1345 s broadway Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Nathan Veshecco <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:00 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Nathan Veshecco nvprivateagain@gmail.com Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Marlha Sanchez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:54 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Marlha Sanchez mamadragonrising@gmail.com 613 N Gunther st Santa Ana, California 92703 10 Orozco, Norma From: Andrew Martinez <atmartinez_4@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:54 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 33: Rent Control Housing is a human need and a human right. That is why I want the Santa Ana city council to vote in favor of Rent Control and lust Cause protections. I want those who live in our city to be safe and protected. 11 Orozco, Norma From: kevin.degrood@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:50 AM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; nmendoza@anta-ana.org Subject: NO on Item 33 I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33. What do you think will happen to the housing/rental shortage when landlords can no longer afford to rent out their property, due to nonpayment of rent, squatting, lawsuits, etc.? Do you actually think MORE landlords will step up to operate at a financial loss? Get real... Kevin Degrood degrood.kevin@yahoo.com 12 Orozco, Norma From: I bruce <labruce1936@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:38 AM To: eComment Subject: Rent control Government has no business instituting rent control I I I This only causing owners to take their property off the market. This move leads to socialism and then communism. It's all about control. Stop it before it's to late. Lloyd Sent from my Whore Orozco, Norma From: Lindsay Manning <asulinz@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:37 AM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: No vote on 33!!!!!!!! I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33 Orozco, Norma From: Ibrahim S <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:34 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Ibrahim S ibrahimshakhtour@gmail.com 15 Gainesmill Irvine, California 92620 Orozco, Norma From: Roxzel Soto <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:32 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Roxzel Soto roxzelsoto@gmaii.com 2114 peachwood lane Santa Ana . California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Kyle Gardner <kyleg500@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:28 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, I am concerned that item 33 does not have language regarding inflation of the dollar. In uncertain times such as we are currently in, it is possible that inflation could easily outpace the proposed maximum rent increases. In my opinion, it is very important to consider inflation when drafting rent control ordinances. As someone who has rented housing in an area without rent control, I understand it's importance, but this ordinance is not a viable long term solution to obtain affordable housing. As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Kyle Gardner 2424 W 1st St Santa Ana, CA 92703 kyleg500@gmail.com Orozco, Norma From: William Prescott <will@japrescott.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:20 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, My family has operated two Mobilehome parks in the city of Santa Ana since 1966 and since then we have prided ourselves in providing safe and affordable housing to residents of Santa Ana. Out of the total of 207 housing units we provide, only 1 single resident has fallen behind on their rent payments over the last 2 years despite the effects of COVID on the economy. We are working with that resident and are confident that they will be able to stay in their home. We already provide affordable housing, including through the Section 8 program. Limiting our ability to operate our parks safely and reinvest in necessary infrastructure through this unjust rent control and just cause ordinance will only result in a less safe environment for our residents. There is over 30 million dollars in unused housing aid available to any deserving residents in Santa Ana who need rent relief. Rent control is not the answer and it will only result in the further degradation of the city. As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, William Prescott 2934 W 1st St Santa Ana, CA 92703 will@japrescott.com Orozco, Norma From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Santa Ana elected officials, Bop.and.Locks Delia Falls <deliafalls@gmail.com> Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:28 AM eComment Item 33: Rent Control My name is Delia Falls and I am writing you to express my support of item 33 to ensure housing security for my fellow Santanerxs. Rent stabilization is more crucial now than ever before specially because our community has perhaps been more deeply impacted by the Covid Pandemic than our neighboring cities. Many of our residents are facing financial uncertainty and the ever increasing housing prices are threatening their displacement. As a life-long resident of Santa Ana I've seen too many of my family members, friends, and neighbors pushed out of our beautiful, diverse, culturally rich community by the increasing costs of living here. I urge you all to approve Item 33 for a prompt solution that is profoundly impacting upstanding members of our community. Thank you, Delia Falls Orozco, Norma From: Monica Hernandez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:19 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Monica Hernandez monicatorresapple@gmaii.com 720 S Lyon St, APT # 314 Santa Ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: BarryMycorn <rlmequitiesl@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:15 AM To: eComment Subject: Barry mycorn I own 2 apt building in Santa Ana for past 30 years 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 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 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, Barry mycorn Sent from my Wad Orozco, Norma From: Nabemir Ceja <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:14 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Nabemir Ceja navec714@gmail.com 1213 N Ralston St, Anaheim, California 92801 Orozco, Norma From: Laura Herrera <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:12 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 10 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Laura Herrera deniseherremaga2009@gmail.com 510 wood st Santa ana , California 92703 11 Orozco, Norma From: Vanessa Ceja <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:12 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 12 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Vanessa Ceja vaneceja86@gmaii.com 1602 N. King St P2 Santa Ana . California 92706 13 Orozco, Norma From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Councilmember, Noah <noah.garrett@gmail.com> Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:10 AM eComment Opposition to Rent Control Ordinances 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 21 st 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, Noah Garrett What is ISO 8601? 14 Orozco, Norma From: Byanka Mercado <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:06 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 15 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Byanka Mercado anky169@hotmail.com 801 S Lyon st Apt 233 Santa ana, California 92705 16 Orozco, Norma From: Tom Lutz <Iuteri utz@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:04 AM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: NO on Rent Stabilization. NO on Rent Stabilization. I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33 Tom Lutz 1118 Freeman St. Santa Ana, CA. 92703 17 Orozco, Norma From: Lori Ring <Lori@tcgrentals.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:00 AM To: Sarmiento, Vicente; eComment Cc: Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Mendoza, Nelida; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; Hernandez, Johnathan Subject: OPPOSING LOCAL EXPANSION OF RENT CONTROL LAWS Dear Mayor Sarmiento and Council Members 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 in 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 input from property owners or rental providers and make us aware that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided rental -housing providers with a proposal that: • Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect the ability to provide safe, quality housing to tenants. • Eliminates ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations. o 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, Tim Carr Group Lori Ring s TIiM CARR 1 G, R o lJ P P 949.631.7777 1 F 949.631.6968 136 Rochester Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 www.TCGRentals.com BRE #01968681 Orozco, Norma From: Cristina Alvarez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:00 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Cristina Alvarez cristy.al22@gmaii.com 3101 S FAIRVIEW ST SANTA ANA, California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Meghan Shaw <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:59 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Meghan Shaw meghanaliza@yahoo.com 2871 S Fairview St Unit F Santa Ana . California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Tana Macke <Tana@tcgrentals.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:49 AM To: eComment Subject: OPOSING LOCAL EXPANSION OF RENT CONTROL LAWS 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 21 st 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 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 from property owners or rental providers and MAKE US 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. o 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, Tana Ledgerwood + I IM t AKR IIG R 0 U P P 949.631.7777 1 F 949.631.6968 136 Rochester Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 BRE# 01968681 Orozco, Norma From: Danielle Holloway McCarthy <dmccarthy@amcliving.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:54 AM Subject: Oppose Any Local Expansion of Existing State Rent Control Laws Importance: High 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 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 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, 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 ( 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). i 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: Laurie Zebarth <Izebarth@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:38 AM To: eComment Subject: City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act 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 September 21 st 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, Mark Zebarth Sent from my iPhone Orozco, Norma From: Ruth Camillia <ruthielinnert@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:38 AM To: eComment, Sarmiento, Vicente Cc: Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: Public Comment- Item 33 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, I am a life-long resident of Santa Ana and currently reside in Ward 3. I am addressing you today with urgency regarding the approval of item 33 for rent control and just cause protections in our city. This is a crucial time for rent stabilization in Santa Ana as many residents are still facing financial challenges and uncertainty due to the global pandemic. Over the past decade we have seen an insurmountable rise in gentrification throughout the city forcing long established businesses and families to be displaced. I urge all council members to vote in favor of the residents and to help us maintain a sense of sanctuary, allowing us to preserve and honor Santa Ana's rich culture and history by ensuring individuals and families can continue to raise their families and conduct business in our community. It is important that we keep community land in community hands and a unanimous vote in favor of rent control and just cause protection would be a step in the right direction for the people of Santa Ana. Thank you, Ruth Linnert Orozco, Norma From: Mark Brodell <mpbrodell@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:39 AM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: Item 33 I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33 Mark Brodell 1923 N Ross St, Santa Ana, CA 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Kristopher Fortin <kfortin08@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:53 AM To: eComment Subject: Public Comment, Item 33: Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Hello, My name is Kristopher Fortin, I'm a resident at 223 W Washington Ave, Santa Ana, CA 92701 in Ward 5 and I'm writing to voice my support for Item 33: Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. I'm a renter currently in Santa Ana and have seen throughout the years the constant increase in rents and the general unaffordability in the area. I'm also in support of Just Cause eviction protections as I have in the past been a victim of our current renter protections. Eviction can have a long standing stain on people's ability to secure stable and safe housing and can limit employment opportunities. Yet current protections make the margins of making a mistake extremely slim for vulnerable populations. In 2014-2015, the residence I was living in was served notice of eviction for unpaid rent. The residence had multiple individuals on the lease of a single-family home and one of the residents missed a couple months of rent. While this instance would be an at -fault situation, we were able to resolve the situation with the landlord. But the point I want to highlight was how the protections in the ordinance could have assisted in this process. After I responded to the termination notice in civil court, I was harrassed by the property manager for responding to the notice. As is my right to respond to an eviction notice, I should not have been intimidated or harassed for carrying out such action. I also support the eviction defense fund. In my research to learn about my rights as a renter, I was lucky to find the time to connect with Fair Housing OC and the Public Law Center. The Public Law Center assisted in filing my response to the eviction notice and Fair Housing OC assisted in educating me on potential avenues I could take in responding to the eviction notice. I was able to find these resources by looking on the internet and working only part time. My initiative to research organizations that support renters is not afforded to everyone, whether it's through knowledge of looking online for these resources or having the time due to obligations of work and family. They were not made available when the notice was served and the burden falls on the renter to figure it out. Ultimately I represented myself and the other tenants of the residence. Again, I had never been to court before, and I had to miss work to defend our case. These are spaces that can be intimidating, and a support from an eviction defense fund, and being made aware of such a resource, could have helped throughout this process. I urge you to adopt Item 33, Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. Thank you for your time. Kristopher Fortin @lapaperboy cell: 626-710-7680 Orozco, Norma From: Mike Tardif <mike@tardifsheetmetal.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:33 AM To: eComment Cc: Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject: I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33 Santa Ana City Council & Mayor, I strongly urge you to vote NO on Item 33, which has dangerous loopholes that could increase crime, make it difficult for property owners to remove bad actors, and reduce the value of my home. There is already enough crime in our neighborhood. Living nearby to apartments in the city, I am concerned that the "just cause" ordinance makes it more difficult for property owners to remove dangerous elements from our community. There have been several stories of homeowners who have rented out a room and are victims of a tenant abusing the law for their own benefit. Homeowners across the state have been hurt and Santa Ana City Council should vote NO on Item 33. Respectfully, Mike Tardif— Santa Ana resident & homeowner Orozco, Norma From: SeanJohn McCarthy <management@cmcprops.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:26 AM To: eComment Subject: Rent control 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 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 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, AM Property Management Sent by C.McCarthy Properties LLC American Property Management 1-855-627-7677 Certified Housing Provider BRE #01956215 P.O. BOX 131 Seal Beach, CA 90740 #04 Orozco, Norma From: Kris Weber <KWeber@hunsaker.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:25 AM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item #33 Dear Council Members, As a member of the Board of Directors for BIAOC I strongly urge you to not proceed with this item. If approved these measures will only complicate the builders ability to obtain funding to build these must needed housing units. Please do not exacerbate the already dire need for more housing in our County. Sincerely, Kris Weber Kris Weber Principal Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc- 3 Hughes, Irvine, CA 92618 Cell. 949 283-2292 kweber(c)hunsaker.com Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Orozco, Norma From: DENNIS DIMARZIO <ddimarz@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:25 AM To: eComment Subject: RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES I wanted to express my opposition to any expansion of existing state rent control Iaws.The city must study the issue further and engage in discussions with rental -housing providers. In the long run you are hurting the tenants, housing owners will not make their property available to rent if continued restrictions are placed on them. Denise DiMarzio. Sent from my Whone Orozco, Norma From: Llanira Solis <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:18 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Llanira Solis Llanirasolis@live.com 703 w Washington ave #105 Santa ana, California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Natalie Ceja <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:17 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Natalie Ceja natalie.ceja@yahoo.com P.O. Box 6245 Santa Ana . California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Narce Cuevas <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:15 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Narce Cuevas c.jcuevas@gmail.con 2229 w Camden pl Santa ana, California 92704 10 Orozco, Norma From: Odilia Ruiz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:11 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 11 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Odilia Ruiz odrrez@gmail.com 1202 .E.Borchard ave. Santa Ana, California 92707 12 Orozco, Norma From: Tracy La <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:05 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 13 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Tracy La tracyla858@gmaii.com Santa Ana, California 92703 14 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Rebollar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:05 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 15 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Maria Rebollar maria.rebollar1960@gmail.com 1311 n Ross st Santa Ana, California 92706 16 Orozco, Norma From: Yoselinda Mendoza <yoselinda.mendoza@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:59 AM To: eComment Subject: Public Comment for Agenda Item #33 in Support of Immediate Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections Dear Mayor Sarmiento and council members of the City of Santa Ana, My name is Yosi and I am a volunteer tenant rights counselor and I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, enacting immediate Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections in the City of Santa Ana. As you are all aware, COVID-19 emergency housing protections will expire by the end of September 2021. These temporary protections have highlighted that we need more permanent protections in place to protect residents. By the end of this month, many residents will be at high risk of losing their homes and displacement, deeply hurting the heart and very culture of the beautiful City of Santa Ana and violently disrupting the lives of communities. Indeed, many residents have accumulated massive rent debt and have exhausted their savings to meet their basic needs, yet, they continue to experience predatory rent hikes and unjust evictions. We cannot expect residents to catch up with rent while also experiencing rents that are too high. Enacting Agenda Item #33 would provide immediate and permanent relief for residents by providing stabilization of rents and just -cause eviction protections. Best, Yosi 17 Orozco, Norma From: Lucia Gonzalez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:56 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. is Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Lucia Gonzalez lucia777gonzalez@gmail.com Santa Ana, California 92706 19 Orozco, Norma From: Mabel Garcia <MGarcia@hunsaker.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:31 AM To: eComment Subject: Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction -VOTE NO Honorable City Council: RENT CONTROL and EVICTION RESTRICTIONS will severely harm housing opportunity in the City of Santa Ana. VOTE NO. These are additional barriers on housing providers that will further complicate home builder's ability to secure financing for projects and will contribute to on -going under production for housing of those units most in need. We cannot allow new and insurmountable housing barriers! Protect Housing! I am a civil engineer that has been working towards providing housing for over 36 years in Southern California. I see more and more barriers being put up that hurt the ability to provide housing- just the opposite of what is needed. Thank you for listening. Respectfully, Mabel Hill Garcia Mabel Hill Garcia P.E. (949)458-5472 ph (949) 289-0005 cell mgarcia@hunsaker.com www.hunsaker.com HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. PLANNING - ENGINEERING - SURVEYING - GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 3 Hughes - Irvine, CA 92618-2021- (949) 583-1010 PH - (949) 583-0759 EX Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Orozco, Norma From: Harry Crowell <harryc@wholeinone.us> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:30 AM To: eComment Subject: Rent control and Just Cause Eviction These two issues have always caused disruption to renters and owners alike. When renters do not pay their fair and previously agreed amount,normally this presents a problem for the building owner. The rents are used to pay the mortgage, Property taxes, maintenance owners workers to operate the building, utilities and other things. Generally speaking few owners have enough money to carry these costs for more than a few months or less. The property goes into foreclosure and the tenants have a free place to live until the property is in trouble. We must not ignore the long time problems that occur when the buildings are not maintained. Please consider the long term effect of no income for the building owner. Rent control is more of the same, the long term effect will be more rundown apartments in the local neighborhood, Apartments must have ongoing maintenance to keep the neighborhood and the buildings in quality condition. Harry Crowell Sent from Mail for Windows Orozco, Norma From: Nawal Zahzah <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:07 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Nawal Zahzah Nzahzah@gmail.com Long Beach, California 90804 SANTA ANA ACTIVE STREETS 09/20/2021 Kristopher Fortin, Project Director, Ward 5 resident Santa Ana Active Streets 450 W Fourth St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Item 33: Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance 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. On September 30th 2021 COVID-19 emergency housing protections will expire, 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 will 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 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 lapsing of 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, Santa Ana Active Streets 1450 West Fourth Street I Santa Ana, CA 92701 Tel. (657) 205-7306 1 www.saascoalition.org I general(alsaascoalition.org Page 2 of 2 and so we urge the council to protect them by passing the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. Sincerely, ;�� 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 1128 E Katella Ave. I Orange, CA 92867 I Tel. (657) 205-7306 1 www.saascoalition.ora I infonasaascoalition.ora Orozco, Norma From: Manuel Escamilla <manueljescamilla@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:00 AM To: eComment Subject: Vote in favor of Item 33 - Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance Attachments: Apartment Ownership in Three Santa Ana Neighborhoods.pdf; Ownership Frequency in Santa Ana by City.pdf Dear Mayor and Council I strongly urge you to vote in favor of Item 33 - Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance • A 2019 Stanford study found that rent control: "has an especially large impact on preventing the displacement of racial minorities from San Francisco, suggesting that rent control helps to foster the racial diversity of San Francisco, at least among the initial cohort of renters covered by the law" • Due to the State of CA Costa Hawkins Act, your ordinance will not apply to developments built after 1995. This will avoid any potential disincentives to new housing construction. • The Vacancy Decontrol language also allows for a unit to be reset to the market rate after a tenant moves out. • Concerns over the potential for condo conversions are actually an opportunity to add additional homeownership opportunities to working and middle class families that can not afford a detached single family home. • A local rent control ordinance will extend to tenants a similar protection that Proposition 13 currently provides landlords in CA. A review of Orange County Assessor Data shows that the average Santa Ana apartment owner has a base value year of 1999, with the most common base value being 1975. This means that the base property tax rate for the average apartment complex was set 21 over years ago. I also submit to you some sampling of the ownership patterns in three Santa Ana neighborhoods. [Attachment 1] APN Address Townsend 103b12-01 702 5 Townsend 5t 109-612m 7105 Townsend 5t 103E12-03 2195 Townsend Sl 109-612-04 7225 Townsend 5t TOO 612-05 7305 Townsend 5t 109-612-06 W25 Townsend St 109-612m Wee Townsend 5t 1U9-612-08 8105 Townsend St 109-612-09 9185 Townsend 5t 103-612-IG 8225 Townsend 5t TEN 612-11 826 5 Townsend 51 103L12-12 9305 Townsend 5t 109612-13 9025 Townsend 5t 109b12-14 91G5 Townsend St 109-612-15 9185 Townsend St 109-612-16 9225 Townsend 5t 103b12-17 9225 Townsend 5t 109611-29 7015 Townsend 5t 103b11-28 7095 Townsend St 109- fill -27 2175 Townsend St 103L11-M 7215 Towmend 5t 109-611-25 7295 Townsend 5t 1o9b11-M W15 Townsend St 1W 611-23 W55 Townsend St 109-611-22 W95 Townsend St 103b11-21 812 5 Townsend St 109611-20 8215 Townsend 5t 109b11a0 9295 Townsend 5t 109611-17 90]5 Townsend St 103b11-16 9155 Townsend 5t 109-611-15 9195 Townsend 51 109311-14 9295 Townsend 51 Casa Bonita WI-342-01 2209 W MYRTLE ST 007-342-02 2205 W MYRTLE ST 007-342-03 2201 W MYRTLE ST 001-342-04 2129 W MYRTLE ST 007 341-05 2125 W MYRTLE ST 007 342-06 2121 W MYRTLE ST 007-342m 2115 W MYRTLE ST 001-342-08 2109 W MYRTLE ST 007-342-09 2105 W MYRTLE ST 003342-10 2101 W MYRT@ ST O 342-11 2021 W MYRTLE ST 002-342-12 2015 W MYRTLE ST W7342-13 2009 W MYRTLE ST 00]-342-14 2005 W MYRTLE 5T 007-342-15 2001 W MYRTLE ST 00]-342-16 1917 W MYRTLE ST DGEr 342-12 1913 W MYRTLE ST C01-342-10 1909 W MYRTLE ST 0EI7-342-19 1905 W MYRTLE ST 003342-20 1901 W MYRTLE ST Evergreen 014-242411 16025 EVERGREEN 01424241Z 16W5 EVERGREEN 014242L3 16105 EVERGREEN 014242-04 16145 EVERGREEN 014 242-05 15195 EVERGREEN 014-2424)6 16225 EVERGREEN 014-2424r2 12025 EVERGREEN 014-242-08 17MS EVERGREEN 0142424)9 17105 EVERGREEN 014242-10 12145 EVERGREEN 014-242-11 12185 EVERGREEN 014-242-12 17225 EVERGREEN 014-242-13 18025 EVERGREEN 014242-14 18W 5 EVERGREEN 014-242-15 18105 EVERGREEN 014242-16 18145 EVERGREEN 014-242-17 18185 EVER0REEN 014-242-19 18225 EVERGREEN 014241-3 18215 EVERGREEN 014-2414 28125 EVERGREEN Parcel Number To. Rate Area Assessee Name Mailing Address A GRCVE,CA MAR, CA A Z A further analysis of the city-wide multi -family parcels shows that 72.9% of all parcels have ownership mailing addresses outside of Santa Ana. The full list is available in [Attachment 2] Table 1 - Santa Ana Multifamily Parcel Ownership From Other Cities City Number of Parcels Percentage IRVINE, CA 142 5.858 % FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 126 5.198 % HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 101 4.167 % NEWPORT BEACH, CA 90 3.713 % ORANGE, CA 87 3.589 % (North Tustin), CA 79 3.259 % ANAHEIM, CA 76 3.135 % TUSTIN, CA 67 2.764 % COSTA MESA, CA 66 2.723 % GARDEN GROVE, CA 62 2.558 % WESTMINSTER, CA 54 2.228 % CORONA DEL MAR, CA 52 2.145 % LAGUNA BEACH, CA 45 1.856 % Table 2 - Summary of Land Base Year Descriptive Mean (average) 1999 Mode (most common) 1975 Maximum 2019 25th percentile 1987 50th percentile 2003 2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w a ti W a ti W a ti W an n n n n w w w w w w w m m m m m n n n n n w W W W W W.................................. - - - a y m q '¢ r ................ .. .. .. .. .. ..-----------------.. u�i aoaaoaaoaaoaaoaaoaao a a CD 0 a a w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w - w w w w n n n n n n m w w m w w ti ti ti ti -- ti ti ti ti -- ti ti ti a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a G GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a a o��� ti a o a� ti a a o ti ti o a a ti ti ti ti ti ti ti a o a a o�� m m 0 m a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m uaaoaaoaaoaaoaaoaaoaa [Attachment 2] Ownership Frequency for Non -Exempt Multifamily Parcels in Santa Ana by City. city SANTA ANA, CA Frequency 657 Percent 27.104 IRVINE, CA 142 5.858 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 126 5.198 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 101 4.167 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 90 3.713 ORANGE, CA 87 3.589 (North Tustin) SANTA ANA, CA 79 3.259 ANAHEIM, CA 76 3.135 TUSTIN, CA 67 2.764 COSTA MESA, CA 66 2.723 GARDEN GROVE, CA 62 2.558 WESTMINSTER, CA 54 2.228 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 52 2.145 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 45 1.856 FULLERTON, CA 27 1.114 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 25 1.031 MISSION VIEJO, CA 24 0.99 YORBA LINDA, CA 24 0.99 LOS ANGELES, CA 21 0.866 WHITTIER, CA 21 0.866 PLACENTIA, CA 20 0.825 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 19 0.784 LONG BEACH, CA 18 0.743 LAKE FOREST, CA 16 0.66 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 15 0.619 VILLA PARK, CA 14 0.578 ANAHEIM HILLS, CA 12 0.495 CORONA, CA 12 0.495 WALNUT, CA 12 0.495 DANA POINT, CA 11 0.454 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 10 0.413 BREA, CA 10 0.413 FLAGSTAFF, AZ 10 0.413 RIVERSIDE, CA 10 0.413 CERRITOS, CA 9 0.371 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 9 0.371 DOWNEY, CA 8 0.33 SAN MARINO, CA 8 0.33 ARCADIA, CA 6 0.248 CARLSBAD,CA 6 0.248 MIDWAY CITY, CA 6 0.248 NORCO,, CA 6 0.248 PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 6 0.248 PERRIS, CA 6 0.248 SAN GABRIEL, CA 6 0.248 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 6 0.248 ALHAMBRA, CA 5 0.206 BUENA PARK, CA 5 0.206 CHINO HILLS, CA 5 0.206 COTO DE CAZA, CA 5 0.206 MIRA LOMA, CA 5 0.206 NEWPORT BEACI I, CA 5 0.206 NEWPORT COAST, CA 5 0.206 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 5 0.206 SCHAUMBURG, IL 5 0.206 TRABUCO CANYON, CA 5 0.206 ALISO VIEJO, CA 4 0.165 COVINA, CA 4 0.165 DIAMOND BAR, CA 4 0.165 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 4 0.165 KAILUA, HI 4 0.165 LA HABRA, CA 4 0.165 LAS VEGAS, NV 4 0.165 MONTCLAIR, CA 4 0.165 PALM DESERT, CA 4 0.165 ROWLAND HEIGHTS, CA 4 0.165 SAN DIEGO, CA 4 0.165 SAUSALITO, CA 4 0.165 TORRANCE,CA 4 0.165 CYPRESS, CA 3 0.124 EL TORO„ CA 3 0.124 HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 3 0.124 LAGUNAWOODS, CA 3 0.124 LOS ALAMITOS, CA 3 0.124 OCEANSIDE, CA 3 0.124 OLIVENHAIN, CA 3 0.124 PASADENA,CA 3 0.124 POTOMAC, MD 3 0.124 ROSEMEAD, CA 3 0.124 SAN JOSE, CA 3 0.124 SEDONA, AZ 3 0.124 WILDOMAR, CA 3 0.124 ARTESIA, CA 2 0.083 ATLANTA, GA 2 0.083 BEND, OR 2 0.083 CASTLE ROCK, CO 2 0.083 CLOVIS, CA 2 0.083 DAVIS, CA 2 0.083 FALLBROOK, CA 2 0.083 FORT WORTH, TX 2 0.083 HAWAIIAN GARDENS, CA 2 0.083 LA HABRA HEIGHTS, CA 2 0.083 LA MIRADA, CA 2 0.083 LA PALMA, CA 2 0.083 MARINA DEL REY, CA 2 0.083 MENIFEE, CA 2 0.083 MONARCH BEACH, CA 2 0.083 MONCLAIR, CA 2 0.083 MONTEREY, CA 2 0.083 MURRIETA, CA 2 0.083 MUSKEGO,, WI 2 0.083 NEW YORK, NY 2 0.083 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA, 2 0.083 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 2 0.083 RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 2 0.083 REDONDO BEACH, CA 2 0.083 SACRAMENTO, CA 2 0.083 SANTA MONICA, CA 2 0.083 SHERMAN OAKS, CA 2 0.083 SIERRA MADRE, CA 2 0.083 SOUTH PASADENA, CA 2 0.083 STANTON,CA 2 0.083 UPLAND, CA 2 0.083 VERONA, WI 2 0.083 AGOURA HILLS, CA 1 0.041 AHAHEIM HILLS, CA 1 0.041 ALEXANDRIA, VA 1 0.041 BELLFLOWER, CA 1 0.041 BROOKINGS, OR 1 0.041 BUENA PARK 1 0.041 BURBANK, CA 1 0.041 BURLINGAME, CA 1 0.041 CALABASAS, CA 1 0.041 CAMARILLO, CA 1 0.041 CANOGA PARK, CA 1 0.041 CHATSWORTH, CA 1 0.041 CHULA VISTA, CA 1 0.041 CLAREMONT, CA 1 0.041 COACHELLA, CA 1 0.041 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 1 0.041 CORP CHRISTI, TX 1 0.041 CULVER CITY, CA 1 0.041 CUPERTINO, CA 1 0.041 DACULA, GA 1 0.041 EASTSOUN D, WA 1 0.041 EL CAJON, CA 1 0.041 ELSEGUNDO,,CA 1 0.041 ENCINITAS, CA 1 0.041 ENCINO, CA 1 0.041 FOLSOM, CA 1 0.041 FONTANA,CA 1 0.041 FORT STOCKTON, TX 1 0.041 FRISCO, TX 1 0.041 GLENDORA, CA 1 0.041 GORDONSVILLE, VA 1 0.041 HAYWARD, CA 1 0.041 HIGHLAND, CA 1 0.041 HOLLYWOOD, CA 1 0.041 INCLINE VILLAGE, NV 1 0.041 INDIO, CA 1 0.041 IRIVNE, CA 1 0.041 IRVING, TX 1 0.041 JACKSON, WY 1 0.041 LA CANADA, CA 1 0.041 LADERA RANCH, CA 1 0.041 LAHAINA, HI 1 0.041 LAKE HAVASU CITY, AZ 1 0.041 LAKEWOOD, CA 1 0.041 LOS GATOS, CA 1 0.041 MADERA, CA 1 0.041 MCLEAN, VA 1 0.041 MENLO PARK, CA 1 0.041 MERCER ISLAND, WA 1 0.041 MONTROSE, CA 1 0.041 MONTROSE, CO 1 0.041 MORENO VALLEY, CA 1 0.041 MORGAN HILL, CA 1 0.041 MORRISTOWN, TN 1 0.041 NIPOMO, CA 1 0.041 NORTH HILLS, CA 1 0.041 NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 1 0.041 NORTH TUSTIN, CA 1 0.041 NORWALK, CA 1 0.041 OAKLAND, CA 1 0.041 OJAI, CA 1 0.041 ONTARIO, CA 1 0.041 OWENSBORO, KY 1 0.041 OXNARD,CA 1 0.041 PALMETTO, FL 1 0.041 PARKER, CO 1 0.041 PEORIA, AZ 1 0.041 PHOENIX, AZ 1 0.041 PICO RIVERA, CA 1 0.041 PLANO, TX 1 0.041 POMONA, CA 1 0.041 QUEENSBURY, NY 1 0.041 REDWOOD CITY, CA 1 0.041 ROLLING HILLS, CA 1 0.041 ROSEVILLE, CA 1 0.041 SAINT PAUL, MN 1 0.041 SALEM, OR 1 0.041 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 1 0.041 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANTO,, CA 1 0.041 SAN MARCOS, CA 1 0.041 SAN RAFAEL, CA 1 0.041 SAN RAMON, CA 1 0.041 SAN TAN VALLEY, AZ 1 0.041 SANTA MARGARITA, C 1 0.041 A SARATOGA, CA 1 0.041 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 1 0.041 SEAL BEACH, CA 1 0.041 SEAL BEACH, CA 1 0.041 SEBASTOPOL, CA 1 0.041 SIGNAL HILL, CA 1 0.041 SOUTHPORT, CT 1 0.041 TEMECULA, CA 1 0.041 THOUSAND OAKS, CA 1 0.041 TOPEKA, KS 1 0.041 TWIN FALLS, ID 1 0.041 VALENCIA, CA 1 0.041 WACO,, TX 1 0.041 WEST HILLS, CA 1 0.041 WILLOWICK, OH 1 0.041 WINNETKA, CA 1 0.041 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 1 0.041 Missing 1 0.041 Orozco, Norma From: Kiara Padilla <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:22 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Kiara Padilla 432959@sousd learns. ner 1040 west MacArthur blv apartment 92 707 Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Michael Padilla <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:19 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Michael Padilla mpl2005516@gmaii.com 1040 W Mcarthur Blvd Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Alfonso Pascual <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 6:47 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Alfonso Pascual alfocinomacielmlv@gmail.com 417 Harwood Santa Ana , California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Ayala <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 7:55 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Maria Ayala mariaelsaayala 1982@gmaii.com 2239 W Fifth st apt 407 Santa Ana , California 92703 Orozco, Norma From: Vanessa Gonzales <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 1:19 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Vanessa Gonzales preftywithvanessa@gmaii.com 16405 Derian Avenue Irvine, California 92614 Orozco, Norma From: Jose reyes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:54 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Jose reyes jrmr.black@yahoo.com 2010 west Glenwood place Santa Ana, California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Crys ianu <crys.ianu@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:29 PM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 Yes on Item 33 Debra Ianu Kona Kai Mobile Home Park Orozco, Norma From: Rosalia Vargas <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:51 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Rosalia Vargas varvila.6@gmail.com 2417 Marty Ln Santa Ana, California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:45 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances -----Original Message ----- From: Suzanne Matherly <zannem.matherly@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 17, 20215:00 PM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear Councilmember Lopez, We have renters not paying rent, not responding to managers about monthly payment plan, they have told management that they do not quality for assistance so why aren't they paying rent. It think they are using the eviction moratorium as an excuse not to pay. Meanwhile, we still have to maintain the property and the units as we always have. Prices have increased for supplies, we still have to pay the mortgage, insurance premiums have increased due to fires which are not in our specific area but we do feel the repercussions. Since I own several properties that is what carries me through. Inflation is real and so rent increases must be in line with inflation if not more so, how can we ever get ahead if we don't have increases in our rents. This is my sole income. As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Suzanne Matherly 330 S Newhope St # 332 Santa Ana, CA 92704 zannem.matherly@gmail.com Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:45 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances -----Original Message ----- From: Susan Brydon <user@votervoice.net> Sent: Friday, September 17, 20215:41 PM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear Councilmember Lopez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Susan Brydon 1003 Richland Ave Santa Ana, CA 92703 susanbrydon@aim.com Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:43 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances -----Original Message ----- From: Simon Johnson <sj641@nyu.edu> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 2:58 PM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear Councilmember Lopez, There is plenty of competition and supply in Santa Ana's rental market, the proposed ordinances will destroy that healthy market and allow bad landlords to neglect residents and avoid making needed investments in property maintenance as no more new apartments will be constructed. Moreover, as a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Simon Johnson 2726 W Aurora St Santa Ana, CA 92704 sj641@nyu.edu 10 Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:41 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Rental housing legislation -----Original Message ----- From: Olaf Kreutz <okreutz@sbcgloba1.net> Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2021 11:22 PM To: Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org> Subject: Rental housing legislation My name is Olaf Kreutz and I own two small buildings in the city of Santa Ana, so I am not a major housing provider, but I AM like so many other owners struggling to do business in Santa Ana under increasing regulation. When the state of California passed rent control legislation, I had to explain to my tenants that I would now have to increase their rent annually, because the rent control provision would not give me the opportunity to defer rent increases. In a similar vein, the proposed legislation in Santa Ana would make it virtually impossible to do business as a rental housing owner in the city. The result will be the withdrawal of units from the market, pushing rents even higher. The solution is obviously increasing the availability of rental units and encouraging the construction of additional units that can be rented at reasonable prices, not restrictions on existing units. Please vote NO on additional rental legislation. Best Regards, Olaf Kreutz 569-287-6797 11 Orozco, Norma From: Lorena Cornejo <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:29 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 12 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Lorena Cornejo mlcr17@msn.com 914 E Pomona St Santa Ana , California 92707 13 Orozco, Norma From: Socorro Juarez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:27 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 14 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Socorro Juarez sjuarez@latinohealthaccess.org 450 w 4thst Santa Ana , California 92701 15 Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:21 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Rent Control Proposal From: West Covina Healthcare Center <westcovina@reliant-rehab.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:07 PM To: Sarmiento, Vicente <VSarmiento@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>; Phan, Thai <TPhan@santa-ana.org>; Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Bacerra, Phil <pbacerra@santa-ana.org>; Hernandez, Johnathan <JRyanHernandez@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza, Nelida <nmendoza@santa-ana.org> Subject: Rent Control Proposal oppose any local expansion of existing rent control laws. Renters have too much leniency as it is. Please consider the owners with the increased costs of all labor, utilities and taxes in this matter. Hany Ghobrial, PT, MBA Director of Rehabilitation West Covina Healthcare Center 850 S. Sunkist Ave West Covina, Ca. 91719 (626) 962-3368 westcovina@reliant-rehab.com The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential information, including Protected Health Information (PHI) protected by federal and state privacy laws. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at privacy!2reliant-rehab. com or call (469) 833-9303 16 Orozco, Norma From: Lopez, Jessie Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:14 PM To: eComment Subject: FW: Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction Ordinances From: ancona@ferromgmt.com <ancona@ferromgmt.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 20213:06 PM To: Phan, Thai <TPhan@santa-ana.org>; Lopez, Jessie <JessieLopez@santa-ana.org>; Bacerra, Phil <pbacerra@santa- ana.org>; Hernandez, Johnathan <JRyanHernandez@santa-ana.org>; Mendoza, Nelida <nmendoza@santa-ana.org> Subject: Rent Control and lust Cause Eviction Ordinances 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 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 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, Ancona Apartments 1001 N. Flower St. Santa Ana CA 92703 17 18 Orozco, Norma From: Omr Arafa <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:49 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Omr Arafa mcbsaeed@gmail.com Irvine, California 92618 Orozco, Norma From: jiji padilla <mipari@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:05 PM To: eComment Subject: Estabilizacion de RENTA Buenas tardes se"pores consejales soy Lizbeth R . Residente de la ciudad de Santa Ana les escribo para pedirles que voten a favor de la estabilizacion de renta y los desalojos injustos a las familias de la ciudad de Santa Ana ya que los duenos estan subiendo las rentas mas de un 3% les pido que ustedes que nos representan en la ciudad sean conciertes que la mayoria de los residentes tienen que trabajar 2 trabajos para poder pagar un apartamento y no queda tiempo para pasar con la familia gracias Enviado desde mi Whone Orozco, Norma From: haninalsharif@gmail.com <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:06 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. haninalsharif@gmail.com 13910 taft st Garden grove, California 92843 Orozco, Norma From: Pablo Mendoza <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:08 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Pablo Mendoza javvrhern247@gmaii.com 638 emmet Ca , California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Laura Ramos <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:41 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Laura Ramos lacecil985@gmaii.com 1409 s towner st Santa Ana . California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Veronica Garcia <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:44 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 10 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Veronica Garcia veroneri0511 @gmail.com 780 S Lyon St Apt 910 Santa Ana, California 92705 11 Orozco, Norma From: Hermelinda Garcia <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:50 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 12 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Hermelinda Garcia ramirezlinda683@gmail.com 1709 evergreen st apt b Santa Ana, California 92707 13 Orozco, Norma From: Elvira Ortiz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:59 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 14 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Elvira Ortiz eiviraortiz2232@gmaii.com 1330 N Bust st Santa Ana Ca , California 92701 15 Orozco, Norma From: Sandra Servin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:09 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 16 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Sandra Servin sandraservin76@gmail.com 1430 Raymar St Santa Ana, California 92703 17 Orozco, Norma From: Linda Alvarez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:17 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. is Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Linda Alvarez alvarezlinda40@yahoo.com 1918 West Hall Ave Santa Ana, California 92704 19 Orozco, Norma From: MJ Baretich <mjbaretich@hotmaiI.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:50 PM To: eComment Subject: COMMENTS FOR ITEM 33 Dear Mayor Sarmiento and City Council Members, This is such great news that the City Council is considering the Adoption of a Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) and a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. You are well aware of the extreme problems you are facing in the City and are considering this sensible and ethical approach. We have tried to get a Rent Stabilization Ordinance passed several times in Santa Ana, the last being in June 2019. But this is the first time the issue of rent stabilization has formally made it onto the Santa Ana City Council's agenda for a vote. 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 Tuesday night. 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. The Golden State Manufactured -home Owners League, Inc. (GSMOL) is a statewide advocacy that fights for the rights of mobilehome homeowners at the local level and at the Legislative level and has been successful since 1962 in getting laws passed to protect all people living in mobilehome parks. The GSMOL Corporate Attorney Bruce E. Stanton, Esq. is the expert on RSO's in California, having written numerous ones throughout the State. His services will be available to the City to assist in writing your final RSO. The latest RSO that GSMOL had been supporting was for the unincorporated areas of LA County. Bruce and I and worked closely with the LA County Board of Supervisors. Their RSO contains a 75% of CPI or 3% max rent increase. There are currently RSO's in 106 cities and counties in the State. It is unacceptable to see these seniors and other low-income citizens being forced out onto the streets and being robbed when then visit an ATM, or 80-year-old women being raped as they try to survive on the streets. We do not need to add to any loss of dignity or to the homeless count in the City. Please help. 20 We need your support and voice at the City Council on September 21 to help protect these vulnerable citizens, to save their homes and allow them to live their lives in a dignified and safe mobilehome community. Mobilehomes are the only unsubsidized form of affordable housing in the State because these people purchased them without any help from developers or subsidies. Again, they only rent the little piece of dirt that their home sits upon and they have to replace the roof, appliances, furnaces and hot water heaters themselves when these go out. Santa Ana desperately needs this Rent Stabilization Ordinance and a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance as soon as possible. Thank you, Mary Jo Baretich GSMOL Zone C Vice President Past GSMOL State President mjbaretich@hotmail.com (714)465-0932 21 Orozco, Norma From: Sergio Corona <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:59 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 22 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Sergio Corona cheko.sc@gmail.com 2239 W Fifth Street Santa Ana, California 92703 23 Orozco, Norma From: Eduardo Castro <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:03 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 24 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Eduardo Castro educr79@gmail.com 300E. Santa Ana Blvd. Apt. 302 Santa Ana, California 92701 25 Orozco, Norma From: Rocio P. Guzman <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:10 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 26 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un maximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), 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 para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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 habra desplazamientos masivos y desestabilizaci6n 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. Rocio P. Guzman paredesrg.24@gmaii.com 805 S Minnie St. Santa Ana, California 92701 27 CRIME SURVIVORS (20-w uhct� CeA&A, AWARENESS I PREVENTION I ADVOCACY I HEALING September 19, 2021 Mayor and City Council City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Concerns Regarding Item 33 Just Cause Ordinance — OPPOSE Unless Amended Honorable Mayor Sanniento and Members of the City Council: On behalf of Crime Survivors, I would like to express my concerns about specific provisions of the "Just Cause" ordinance being proposed in Item 33. While Crime Survivors believes the ordinance to be well- intentioned, Crime Survivors is concerned that the proposed just cause ordinance may introduce greater harm to victims and witnesses of crime. Crime Survivors is "opposed unless amended" to the ordinance in its current form and we would encourage you to conduct community and stakeholder outreach prior to City Council considering the item. By making it more difficult to evict tenants who engage in criminal activity, the proposed ordinance prioritizes the interests of those engaging in and encouraging criminal activity over the interests of victims, survivors, and witnesses. The proposed ordinance deprives crime victims of the ability to feel safe and secure in their homes. For example, the ordinance only allows for the eviction of that tenant who committed the criminal activity, while remaining members of that household are permitted to remain in place. This means the remaining household members can continue to host the offending tenant as a visitor and guest, leaving the victim of the crime no recourse but to continue to encounter the offending tenant. The most concerning provision of the proposed just cause ordinance allows tenants evicted for criminal activity a right to return in the event they are acquitted of the crime or if the district attorney fails to file charges within the applicable statute of limitations. As you may know, an acquittal or decision not to bring charges may be entirely unrelated to the crime itself. This puts victims in an untenable position of potentially waiting years to know whether they will be forced to live alongside the offending tenant. This provision provides a strong disincentive for victims and witnesses to cooperate with their landlords and law enforcement to remove problematic tenants, as victims may end up more danger by testifying against the offending tenant at the eviction hearing. For example, a tenant who is an innocent bystander injured by gang violence is much more likely to move out of their own home, rather than risk testifying against the perpetrator when they know that person would have a right of return. In such a case, the victim has already been failed by the criminal justice system. To require that person choose either to move or to live beside their perpetrator quite literally adds insult to injury. Crime Survivors encourages Santa Ana City Council to take the necessary time to reevaluate the proposed just cause ordinance and not rush its approval. Approval today would have near -term consequences for survivors of domestic violence, elderly abuse, and other crimes. Sincerely, Patricia Wenskunas Founder/CEO, Crime Survivors Crime Survivors, Inc. P.O. Box 54552 • Irvine, CA 926194552 Office: (844) 853-HOPE • Cell: (949) 872-7895 • Fax: (775) 2454798 Email: info@crimesurvivors.org • w .crimesmvivors.org Orozco, Norma From: Ignacio Lopez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:42 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Ignacio Lopez seven 1 fourdesigns@yahoo.com 1601 N Flower st Santa Ana, California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Veronica Garcia <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:41 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Veronica Garcia veroneri0511 @gmail.com 780 S. Lyon #910 Santa Ana , California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Aniesa Volson <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:39 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Aniesa Volson aniesa.v@gmail.com Houston . 77001 Orozco, Norma From: Adrian Tafesh <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:38 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Adrian Tafesh adrianmtafesh@gmaii.com Los Angeles , California 90020 Orozco, Norma From: Ana Santes <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:34 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Ana Santes anasantes33@gmaii.com 335 E Chestnut Ave Santa Ana, California 92701 10 Orozco, Norma From: Eopittek <eopittek@cox.net> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:34 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana rent control Our family has had fairly priced apartments in SA for 60 years with no evictions. What are you doing with this anti housing socialist rent control enhancement of the state controls. This will only expand the homeless problem forcing private development out. Wise up! Shame on you. Sent from myiPhone 11 Orozco, Norma From: Lulu Alshami <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:33 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 12 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Lulu Alshami writedownimanarab@gmail.com Irvine . California 92604 13 Orozco, Norma From: Diana Aguilar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:32 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 14 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Diana Aguilar becasdiana@gmaii.com 320 E Saint Andrew PI Santa Ana, California 92707 15 Orozco, Norma From: Sasha Boel <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:24 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 16 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Sasha Boel sashawhiz@gmail.com Santa Ana, California 92705 17 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Del Refugio <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:21 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 18 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Maria Del Refugio evalerie08O8@gmaii.com 818 S Rarity St Santa Ana , California 92704 19 Orozco, Norma From: Fatima Charara <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:20 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 20 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Fatima Charara fcharara04@gmaii.com Irvine, California 92604 21 Orozco, Norma From: Victoria Esqueda <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:18 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 22 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Victoria Esqueda victoriae4062@gmaii.com Santa Ana, California 92705 23 Orozco, Norma From: Amanda Nance <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:16 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 24 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Amanda Nance anance626@icloud.com Santa Ana, California 92705 25 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Del Refugio <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:16 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 26 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Maria Del Refugio evalerie08O8@gmaii.com 818 S Rarity St Santa Ana , California 92704 27 Orozco, Norma From: Irma Macias <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:14 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 28 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Irma Macias irmae09O9@gmaii.com 1507 N Durant st Santa Ana , California 92706 29 Orozco, Norma From: Victor Rios <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:14 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 30 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Victor Rios Laurenchan48@gmail.com 1238 S Douglas St Santa Ana , California 92704 31 Orozco, Norma From: Fabiola Olivarez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:13 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 32 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Fabiola Olivarez fabiolaolivarez93@gmail.com 1113 s Minnie St Santa ana cal, California 92701 33 Orozco, Norma From: Sinforosa Alonso <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:11 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 34 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Sinforosa Alonso Laurenchan48@gmail.com 1327 s Douglas st Santa Ana, California 92704 35 Orozco, Norma From: Laura Calderon <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:09 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 36 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Laura Calderon lauracaldero_67@hotmail.com 624S Sullivan St 1-A Santa Ana, California 92704 37 Orozco, Norma From: Tehelma Tamayo <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:09 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 38 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Tehelma Tamayo boeli358@gmail.com 1042 W 17th St Santa Ana, California 92704 39 Orozco, Norma From: Elizabeth Bonifacio <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:08 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 40 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 Io mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Elizabeth Bonifacio enriquezva108@gmaii.com 2239 W 5th St Unit 314 Santa Ana , California 92703 41 Orozco, Norma From: Lizbeth Rico <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 6:50 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 42 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Lizbeth Rico mipad@hotmail.com 1040W, MacArthur Blvd #92 Santa Ana, California 92707 43 Orozco, Norma From: Lorena Soria <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 6:44 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 44 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Lorena Soria mexicanheart45@gmail.com 1303 S Standard Ave Apt C Santa Ana, California 92707 45 Orozco, Norma From: Juan Miguel Arteaga <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 6:41 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 46 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Juan Miguel Arteaga jmiguel4333@gmail.com 1614 w cubbon st Santa Ana Ca, California 92703 47 Orozco, Norma From: Mireya G <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 6:14 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 48 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Mireya G mcasper007@hotmaii.com St. Gertrude Santa ana, California 92707 49 Orozco, Norma From: Evangelina Pedraza <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 6:10 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 50 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Evangelina Pedraza martinezevangelina06@gmal.com 924 s minnie st apt #1 Santaana, California 92701 51 Orozco, Norma From: Esperanza Molina De Rosas <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:48 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 52 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Esperanza Molina De Rosas esperanzadr72@gmaii.com 2239 W 5th Street Santa Ana, California 92703 53 Orozco, Norma From: Leslie Santos <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:29 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 54 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Leslie Santos Is12151998@gmail.com 26035 Moulton parkway Laguna Hills , California 92653 55 Orozco, Norma From: Tim Johnson <tjohnson@jlkrllp.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:27 PM To: Hernandez, Johnathan; Sarmiento, Vicente; Penaloza, David; Mendoza, Nelida; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Phan, Thai; eComment Cc: Ridge, Kristine; Mendoza, Steven Subject: Agenda Item 33 (Rent Stabilization Ordinance & Just Cause Eviction) Council/Mayor (cc City Manager Ridge and Asst City Manager Mendoza)... You will be discussing Item #33 on Tuesday for the possibility of enacting multiple ordinances that will likely impact both tenants and landlords in our city, today and in the future. I urge you to slow this process down and analyze it to make sure that anything approved is what is desired and for the best of our residents as well as property owners. I am worried that this is such a big item and that it may be enacted with one quick vote- likely with mainly those who are involved with either a tenant advocacy group or a property owner advocacy group chiming in. The majority of residents of Santa Ana are likely not involved with either side's advocacy groups but instead just regular citizens of our city. I am pretty adept at reading these proposed ordinances but this has taken me time to read and understand since I first started looking at this Thursday evening after the agenda came out. I am sure that many other residents who are just now looking at this to determine if it is a good thing or not. By the time they realize even what it is, you may be voting on it. Please slow this process down to get true community input. Our state already has some tenant protections in place as you know. This obviously goes above and beyond those protections. I am concerned that the allowed rent increase is the LOWER of 3% or 80% of CPI. That means if CPI is 3% in a given year, that rent can only be increased by 2.4%for a qualifying property. The max a qualified property may be increased in any given year is 3%... the maximum. This would be the case even if we experience high inflation and the CPI is high. This is a big disparity between the state requirements of 5% plus a CPI factor. Some may feel this is a good thing while others will think the opposite. This seems too much IMO and may end up in some landlords having to skimp on repairs, maintenance, and other items in order to make everything work. When we are these low interest rate times, it seems that there should not be an issue, but these low rates will not last. Further, ask yourself every time a water or trash increase is proposed how much each of those is going up. If it is larger than 3% or 80% of CPI, this will be very difficult on landlords. Or everytime that there is a property bond measure passed -those are all costs that are incurred by landlords. We need to have a balance though -to protect tenants and also allow property owners to invest in our community. Covid has been difficult for both sides. The appeal/exception process will likely turn into a "too expensive" item for a landlord to go through also and as such, the relief is likely not true relief for the property owner because all costs of that appeal hearing are to be passed on to the landlord. Perhaps it would be better to delay a quick implementation of this ordinance and instead choose the option to have a very thought out process to determine what is best for our tenants and our property owners. I am also ultimately very concerned about the fiscal cost to this item if approved as is. Specifically, the last sentence of the Staff Report on this item indicates that "the hiring of at least 25 staff following the due diligence process as directed in the Resolution." I initially thought that it was a typo that this program would take AT LEAST 25 staff. Assuming that the all in cost of a staff person averages $100K, that is $2.5M plus the cost of office space and other items- cost of staff and their benefits will only be the beginning of the fiscal impact. This will be a very high recurring cost center for our city that is already going to struggle when the Measure X sales tax rate starts to decrease in the future. We need to control annual recurring costs- or at least consider the entire picture for the betterment of the entire community. Having said all of that, I encourage the city to continue to deploy its rent relief funds in an efficient manner and look for ways to help tenants in our city. Tenants are struggling. When tenants struggle that also means landlords struggle. I 56 would encourage you to maybe open up your applications to landlords also who may have tenants who have fallen between the cracks of our city's outreach. Further, I would encourage you to find a way to allow the city to step in and intervene and offer on the spot relief for tenants who may be facing an eviction hearing for lack of payment. Perhaps find a way to allow the city to notified of an eviction procedure to ensure that those who are being evicted are aware of rent relief funds available from the city. Again, I would encourage you not to make a fast decision on this but instead pump the brakes and go through a thorough process to allow for a program that will really work. Perhaps piggy backing off of the state program in order to reduce city cost. Our city seemingly in the past on these big change type items will go through a relatively thorough outreach process with the community. However, this program does not seem to be subject to such outreach. I understand that 9/30 is an important date, but again, is it best to do something quick that has not been vetted by the community or pause and come up with the right program and do what we can to help those who may be subject to eviction and assistance is available for them. Really ask yourself if the city has put the normal effort into community outreach. If not, please directing staff to put forth outreach efforts and coming up with a comprehensive plan on this- including the financial impact. Thank you for considering this item and I pray for discernment for each of you as you determine what is best for our city as a whole. I know it will be a very difficult decision for each of you. Best, Tim Johnson Ward 3 Resident Rosenberger c.n, rwas+kee..n.s. Proudly part of the Woobal family M®1M Tim Johnson, CPA Partner Q (949)860-9892 e (714) 743-1065 ® tjohnson@jlkrllp.com 2601 Main Street, Suite 580, Irvine, CA 92614 ® See our latest business news and insights by clicking here This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. JLK Rosenberger is a California Limited Liability Partnership and a member firm of PKF International Limited, a family of legally independent member firms and does not accept any responsibility or liability for the actions or inactions on the part of any other individual member or correspondent firm or firms. 57 Orozco, Norma From: Sonia Hernandez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:20 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Sonia Hem6ndez soniahernandez2525.sh@gmail.com 939 S Minnie st Apt 10 Santa Ana CA, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmaiLcom> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:19 PM To: eComment Subject: Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 2021 City Council Meeting TI;dr: the opposition to the item so far are non -Santa Ana residents making assertions with zero merit and are mostly from the Manufactured Housing industry which do not represent the interests of tenants in mobile home parks in our City. The ordinance as agendized needs to include stronger protections for mobile home residents as drafted by Tenants United Santa Ana. Dear City Council, I am in strong support of Agenda Item 33. I have read through some of the initially submitted eComments in opposition and discerned that the individuals who have submitted their opposition may be lying about their residence as submitted to the public record. I have individually outlined below what their affiliations are and where they are actually living based on easily searchable parameters using Google. Name Address Submitted to Public Record Address affiliation OR actual city residence Other Busine< Cindi Hove 501 E Orangethorpe Ave Anaheim Management of Rancho La Paz Star Manager Santa Michael Adler 3101 S Fairview St Ana Management of Plaza Mobile Home Estates mcmcnet.net Santa Management of Taggin Wagon Mobile Home Maryann Tran 2767 W 1st St Ana Park Star Manager Santa Management of Taggin Wagon Mobile Home Michael Cirillo 2767 W 1st St Ana Park Star Manager Santa Michael Coogan 2125 W Myrtle St Ana Newport Beach Pescador Driv Santa Lawrence Zarilli 417 W Stevens Ave Ana Huntington Beach Thom Santa Niederkofler 2767 W 1st st Ana Taggin Wagon Mobile Home Park PCP Equity Santa Bradley Hill 2767 W 1st st Ana Taggin Wagon Mobile Home Park PCP Equity 1919 W Coronet Ave Spc Sal Ortiz 220 Anaheim Newport Pacific Capital (Mobile Homes) Sal Ortiz and I In considering all of the above information, it becomes apparent that these individuals all hold the same conflict of interest: they are all affiliated with absentee landlordism. I find it difficult to swallow that they hold such strong beliefs against a community driven initiative, which (despite the flagrantly incorrect assertion otherwise) has generated huge community support and interest in Santa Ana since 2017. They are submitting to public record the addresses of the properties owned or operated by their LLC or management company but don't actually reside in Santa Ana nor do they care about the residents for whom they are supposed to be providing a business service to. Many of the reviews left by current and former tenants on publicly accessible websites such as Google Maps and Yelp will attest to this. I know from personal experience both as a tenant myself and as a tenant counselor that it is likely that many tenants do not post reviews either positive or negative for fear of retaliation by landlords or their servicing agents. Nonetheless, I will address the points that they have offered in opposition: -"lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times." Tenants United Santa Ana has knocked on over 10,000 doors in this city in garnering support for a local renter's protections and just cause ordinance since 2018. Furthermore in 2020, there was community workshops held in the Willard neighborhood where over fifty residents offered their experiences as tenants and shared their input as to the types of protections they need at the local level. Many residents who were interested in signing to support the cause to be put to ballot could not do so because voter eligibility in our nation and state require Citizenship and a clean criminal record in order to vote. Thus many who wish to be a part of the democratic process are excluded by law. Nonetheless, in 2018, Tenants United Santa Ana collected almost 10,000 signatures of voters in the city which was just shy of the required 10 percent of all registered voters in the city. There is not a lack of community interest by any means in our renter majority city. Certainly, voters have not even yet been given the chance to voice their support. Thus it is flat out incorrect to state that the residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times if they never had the chance to. I don't see any record of the above -mentioned individuals nor their affiliated business entities having carried out intense levels of such work to ensure that residents remain able to afford housing in our City. -"The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing" The price controls are not excessive and courts have upheld the legality of rent stabilization and just cause ordinances nationwide time and time again. If a three percent max on rents increasing year over year isn't enough for a business to keep up with the costs of doing business, imagine how hard it is for a low income family to keep up with putting food on the table and paying for rent. Whereas the RSO will allow for a fair rate of return — a guaranteed return for landlords and property investors, tenants' incomes are not guaranteed to increase at the same rate of either the rent increase cap or inflation. Because rents upon new tenants cannot be regulated in the state of California, there exists a big incentive for landlords to further destabilize the community by attempting to bully or evict tenants out of their homes — even when the tenant is a star model tenant. Thus, any RSO needs just cause protections to ensure that Landlords cannot so easily destabilize not only the local community, but the local market as well. Additionally, the price controls are certainly not excessive. If these landowners were to sell their properties, the equity gains more than likely exceed double the profits they're already receiving under the currently unregulated local rentals market. The oppositions' business models being financially unsustainable should not be the reason we see ever increasing rent unaffordability in our city. Lastly on this point, the RSO allows for individual petitions to raise rents above the max allowed increase for any sorts of capital improvements provided that the landlord can furnish proof of such substantial improvements to be made to any property owned. However, in many other cities where this exists, very few landlords are able to prove that the local ordinance doesn't already provide enough of an allowable increase to raise rents past the locally allowed max. In other words, because the capped increase allows for more than enough funds to make substantial repairs (coupled with the ability to establish market rate rents upon new tenants) landlords who need to raise rents substantially for the actual purposes of improving the quality of their rental housing tend to qualify because the local rent control board can agree with a landlord that the improvements to be made warrant an increase past the allowed amount. -"Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases." The opposition makes no legal reference to what exists at the state level. However, I suppose they are referring to AB1482's tenant protections act which caps rent increases at 5%+local CPI (inflation) with a ceiling of 10% overall. Additionally, a tenant must live in a unit for at least 12 months in order to qualify for this cap. Despite this law's existence, just last month I had to move across town because after having lived in a unit subject to AB1482, the property management still sent me a notice of increase in the amount of almost 16% which of course is contestable only after the landlord serves a legal eviction notice and proceeds with the case in court. I suspect that there are very few who know about their rights under this law let alone how to assert any of their rights before a case against them is filed in court. Many residents wind up paying an egregious increase with no legal recourse to pursue these costs after all is said and done. Furthermore, this statewide cap and tenant protections is not permanent and is insufficient for the residents of Santa Ana. Thus the necessity of a strong local ordinance responsive to the needs of our residents still exists. This state law affords the ability of local governments the explicit power to enact protections that are stronger than what is afforded at the state level. The needs of Santa Ana residents do not match the needs of residents of San Francisco, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, or even our neighbor cities of Garden Grove, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Orange, and Irvine. Thus the city council can and should do what is within their power to protect our residents and stabilize the local housing market permanently. -"In addition, the city of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need" Firstly, these funds arise from the federal and state government programs attempts to ensure that tenants and homeowners are able to maintain a roof over their heads during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. They were never something to be relied upon before the pandemic, and yet the opponents are seemingly using it as a cop out to skirt enactment of strong local tenant protections. Certainly, distribution of such a massive amount of money into the community per the requirements and bureaucracy is no easy task. To that extent, Judson Brown's team has sought to make the process less arduous and more easily navigable. One of the issues Mr. Brown's team aimed to alleviate stemmed from non -cooperation by landlords. Thus many if not most delays are easily remedied where Landlords participate in the process to ensure they are able to meet their obligations. Where landlords failed to cooperate with the distribution of these funds, Mr. Brown's team (and the contracted organizations assisting with the applications process) have been able to give checks directly to tenants to pay rent or utilize as a deposit for a new place to live due to landlord non -cooperation. These funds are not permanent nor were they ever meant to be. I don't know how many if any of the above mentioned opponents of the RSO have participated in the distribution of these funds. If they haven't had any lapse of rents during the pandemic, the $35 million they mention is a moot point for their arguments. To the extent that any opposition has not experienced any lapse of rent payments from tenants during the pandemic, the RSO will simply serve to ensure that they may be able to enjoy stabilized growth and profitability from their investments and assets (and tenant rents). However, I do know from having read through the agendized item that many of the strong mobilehome owner protections that were drafted and presented to the city council failed to be included on this agendized item. Much of what is lacking arises from the incentive of park land owners to sell the land and displace the long term mobile home owning and renting residents of our city. In one interaction with an individual outside of the Food For Less on First Street near downtown in 2018 when I was canvassing for signatures, the individual used to own a mobilehome in Santa Ana for almost 30 years and was forced to sell their mobile home to the park owner move to Huntington Beach after experiencing unregulated space rent increases and not finding any comparable parks to relocate her home to. Enacting processes that must be followed by park owners should they desire to sell or redevelop a mobile home park will ensure that our residents who live in mobile home parks in our city (the majority of which are low-income senior citizens whose first language is not English) may receive fair compensation to relocate or enjoy the ability to remain. Where state mobile home residency laws fail to protect our residents, our council ought to step in to make sure no one is left behind. -"The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. This just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy process" The opponents fail to establish exactly how this might take place. I'd actually argue that without the proposed protections as agendized, there exists more incentive currently for bad actors to vandalize units and endanger lives of others. Because tenants have no local enforcement agency to hear their case, many tenants make modifications or skirt local fire and density regulations without knowledge or consent of a landlord due to fear that making any request might result in increased rents or retaliatory evictions by landlords. For good landlords who don't intimidate tenants, and for good tenants who inform their landlords of any proposed changes of lease or rental agreements, the protections hold both tenant and landlord accountable to a third party. Likewise, civil penalties will be imposed upon landlords who act in bad faith which is what has been the unfortunate status quo of many landlords in the city. In one recent scenario, the tenant I was working with was illegally locked out of her home despite paying rent on time all throughout the pandemic as a single mother. All of her belongings had also been illegally removed from the unity. Upon gaining re-entry to the unit, the property manager showed up to bully intimidate and harass her and her children which resulted in a physical altercation due to the manager refusing to leave. The SAPID refused to issue a restraining order against the manager. Sadly, in Santa Ana, illegal lockouts and utility shutoffs bully and intimidation tactics by landlords and property managers are all too common. No one should fear their physical or emotional safety simply because they are a renter. The just cause ordinance makes certain that landlords aren't abusing their power or influence; dangerous elements will be more easily remedied when all parties are held accountable. -"The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety." It is absolutely true that regulatory enforcement requires money. Much if not all of the funds will come from landlords paying a fee to fund the regulatory agency to be charged with enforcement of the ordinances. The local regulatory and enforcement agency is necessary to ensure that tenants have local recourse before a case may proceed to the California Superior Court. These eviction courts are swamped not only with landlord -tenant disputes, but other types of cases involving real property disputes. It will reduce the burden upon the Superior Courts so as to ensure that local protections are being followed before a case can proceed to court. All laws in the interest of protecting residents' health and safety necessitate regulatory enforcement. However, it should not be conflated with other community needs. The question these opponents pose is a false dichotomy at best and at worst, an attempt to unnecessarily pit unrelated community causes against one another. It should be noted that landlords and property owners enjoy a cap on their property tax increases which directly fund things like parks, libraries and public safety. Yet, I don't see the same willingness to increase funding for these community assets if and when it comes from their wallets. The funding of parks, libraries, and public safety have nothing to do with the funding of an agency to ensure that tenants have protections to remain housed and that communities and local economies become stabilized. The above mentioned opponents are afraid of being held accountable to the very residents and communities they purportedly serve. They are afraid of any curtailing of the excessive profits they have been enjoying as a result of an unregulated rental market. Just as the tobacco industries in the 1950s fought hard to ensure a smoke screen against the ever mounting evidence that smoking was detrimental to one's health, landlords and their associated groups are afraid that their reigning monopolies on rent prices is coming to an end. Yet somehow, tobacco industry remains profitable. So too will real estate in California. I'm willing to bet that there has never been a time in California's history (California meaning the state as we know it today) when housing costs or availability for low-income people of color wasn't a burden. These protections will ensure that residents in our city, which is and has been composed of mostly low-income, mixed status families (and all the other beautiful aspects therein), are able to remain. Adam Smith of all people once wrote "As soon as the land of any county has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent for its natural produce" While the land in our city may no longer be "productive" in the same sense as what Adam Smith may have argued for, our people who actually reside in homes in our city deserve the right to reap where they sow. And I think that it what the opposition is afraid of. Sincerely, Nathaniel Greensides Ward 5 Resident Orozco, Norma From: Kathy Miller <kds2ly@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:16 PM To: eComment Subject: Rent control 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 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 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, Kathy Miller Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Orozco, Norma From: GEORGINA LEON <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:10 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. GEORGINA LEON leoncte2029@gmaii.com 605 EMASHINGTON AVE. SANTA ANA,CA, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: ocroof78@gmail.com Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:01 PM To: eComment Cc: Kathy Miller Subject: Rent control 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 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 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, David Miller Orozco, Norma From: Hugo Cruz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:00 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Hugo Cruz hcruzlora@gmail.com 1610 N Broadway apt 316 Santa Ana, California 92706 Orozco, Norma From: Jonathan Avila <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:53 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Jonathan Avila jonrpgavila@gmail.com Irvine, California 92618 Orozco, Norma From: Nathan Taft <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:34 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. -Nathan Taft, Ward 3 Nathan Taft taft.nathan@gmail.com 1919 Sherry Ln APT 52 Santa Ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Sarai Arpero <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:53 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayor[a de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Sara[ Arpero sarpero@latinohealthaccess.org 450 W 4th st Santa Ana , California 92702 Orozco, Norma From: Teresa Cuin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:54 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Teresa Cuin T_cuin@yahoo.com 705 E chestnut apt B Santa Ana , California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Carlos Perea <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:55 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Carlos Perea carlosiranl992@gmaii.com Santa Ana, California 92703 Orozco, Norma From: Silvia Avendano <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:00 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados 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 myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Silvia Avendano alfsilavendanosapl@gmail.com Ross 837 Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Brisa Lopez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:03 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Brisa Lopez brisa1354@gmail.com 1601 N. Flower St. Santa Ana, California 92706 10 Orozco, Norma From: Katie I. <kiwagami50@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:06 PM To: eComment Subject: Public Comment for Agenda Item # 33 in support of immediate Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections Hello Mayor Sarmiento and Members of the Council, As a resident renter of Ward 5 for three years and a supporter of Tenants United Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of enacting rent stabilization and eviction protections permanently in the City of Santa Ana via a super majority so that the protections are enacted now, before the state protections are lifted on Sept. 30. This ordinance will help elderly folks living on a fixed income, single parents, and other highly impacted groups that are currently unable to afford rent increases at the drastic rate they are increasing in Santa Ana. Renters and Homeowners have advocated to the City Council about unaffordable rent increases. Of these speakers, many were veterans, disabled residents, and elderly residents who are on fixed incomes, such as Social Security. According to the Out of Reach report, the California SSI monthly payment is $955 and the rent affordable to an SSI recipient is $286, yet rents have not allowed people with low income to remain in their home, or cover additional essential needs such as health -related costs. Placing a cap on rent increases gives renters a fighting chance to stay in their communities and homes. While the City has gone above and beyond to create new affordable housing units, rent stabilization includes private rental housing where the vast majority of renters live, thus outperforming all other affordable housing tools in terms of scale of impact. Also, rent stabilization and just cause protections are considered cost -neutral to the City while protecting the renters who live in Santa Ana and allowing landlords to obtain their right to a fair return on investment. Families of Santa Ana should be allowed to remain and thrive here, yet are being pushed out by predatory rent increases. This ordinance has been created by the People of Santa Ana, and has been supported by thousands of residents over the last four years, please see it as your responsibility to listen to the people and vote in favor of enacting this ordinance immediately. This ordinance will help the City of Santa Ana accomplish their housing vision that affirms and supports a vibrant Santa Ana that preserves neighborhoods and accommodates a socially and economically diverse community of renters and homeowners. Warm regards, Katherine Iwagami 11 Orozco, Norma From: Yesenia Gonzalez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:06 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 12 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Yesenia Gonzalez gyesenia19@gmail.com Santa Ana . California 92701 13 Orozco, Norma From: Ana Tutila <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:09 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 14 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Ana Tutila aruchaana@yahoo.com 309 S Garnsey st apt E Sata Ana california, California 92701 15 Orozco, Norma From: Paola Diaz <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:10 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 16 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Paola Diaz pdbrandy87@yahoo.com 1009 W Bishop St Apt 11 Santa Ana, California 92703 17 Orozco, Norma From: Newhouse Trust <newhousetrust@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:10 PM To: eComment Subject: Item #33 - Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Dear Councilmembers, My family has been a rental -housing provider in Santa Ana for 44 years. On behalf of my family, I wish to express my opposition to the proposed adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance that appears on the September 21st city council agenda. The proposed rent control and just cause eviction policies have the potential to 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, Sara Newhouse 18 Orozco, Norma From: Yezenia Marrujo <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:13 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 19 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Yezenia Marrujo yezeniamarrujo87@gmaii.com 1413 s. Minnie st. Apt.6 Santa Ana, California 92707 20 Orozco, Norma From: Maria Victoria <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:14 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 21 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Maria Victoria susayaznic@gmaii.com 1003 W bishop st . Apt 21 Santa Ana , California 92703 22 Orozco, Norma From: Dulce Sanchez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:17 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 23 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Dulce Sanchez sanchezduice646421@gmaii.com 2065s Hickory st Santa Ana, California 92707 24 Orozco, Norma From: Cecilia Bautista <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:17 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 25 La ordenanza Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Cecilia Bautista chiquis821@hotmaii.com 1234 E. Borchard Ave #11 Santa Ana, California 92707 26 Orozco, Norma From: Leticia Moreno <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 4:19 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting 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 renta 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 pandemia de COVID-19 esta Iejos 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 otra manera seran desplazados permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora mas que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. 27 La ordenanza: Limitary los aumentos de renta a un myximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflaci6n), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades multiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitary aumentos de renta hasta un myximo de una vez al ano. Presentar6 protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoria de los residentes. Extenders la estabilizaci6n de renta a los 28 parques de casas m6viles de Santa Ana. Extenders 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; mys 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 desestabilizaci6n 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 mys antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Leticia Moreno moreno.leti73@gmaii.com 1500 E Warren St Spc#175 Santa Ana CA, California 92705 28 Orozco, Norma From: Dulce Sanchez <sanchezdulce646421@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:50 PM To: eComment Subject: Control de Renta #33 Mi nombre es Dulce sanchez vivo con mi esposo y Tengo 2 nifias vivimos a qui en Santa Ana ca. y mi preocupacion como toda familia es el control de Renta , en muchos lugares sobre todo en Santa Ana es cada vez mas dificil conseguir una vivienda por to menos pars una familia de 4 ya que Ins costos son muy Altos y el salario no es equidatario, es por eso que me gustaria pedir que tomen en cuenta las necesidades de la comunidad , el Ilamado es pars todos Ins concejales , el concilio necesita apoyarnos. Porfavor si ala 33. Gracias Orozco, Norma From: Rick Hoegler <rjh@papinc.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:48 PM To: eComment Subject: Rent control opposition As an operator and manager of multi -family assets, some of which are in Santa Ana, I strongly oppose any further restrictions to rent control as this will inhibit property investors from coming in to the city and upgrading the properties and dwellings for your residents to reside in. Furthermore, the state wide rent control is restrictive enough and by cities adopting their various forms of rent control, it makes operating assets and managing them more difficult and litigious. We have enough laws/protections for residents in this state, we don't need even more regulation Regards, Rick I Hoegler, CPM President 888.754.9700 ext. 102 rlh@papinc.com www.papinc.com BRE#01243313 Schedule a meeting with me at https:Hcalendly.com/rihoegler Orozco, Norma From: Yezenia Marrujo <yezeniamarrujo87@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:46 PM To: eComment Subject: COMENTARIO PUBLICO. Mi nombre es Yezenia Marrujo, vivo en el area Madison park, ya tengo viviendo aqui desde 8 anos, soy miembro activo de comite de CUAL(Comunidad Unida por Aire Limpio), soy parte del grupo de COFI. Mi comentario publico es pars abogar por vivienda accesible para todas las personas que viven en nuestras comunidades de Santa Ana. Ya que cada ano nos estan subiendo la renta, hay personas que deciden mudarse a otras ciudades en donde si puedan pagar sus rentas dejando atras tantos suenos vividos y por vivir en nuestra hermosa Santa Ana. A mi en to personal foe el mismo motivo que hemos decidido mudarnos de nuestro antiguo departamento, la rents era muy Cara y ademas el dinero no alcansaba para Ins necesidades basicas cotidianas. Es por eso que les pido que porfavor apoyen nuestra propuesta de vivienda accesible para que nuestras familias puedan vivir en un lugar que puedan pagar y sean felices y no tengan que mudarse a otros lugares por no tener dinero para pagar sus rentas. Orozco, Norma From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello City Council Members, Greg Camphire <gcamphire@gmail.com> Monday, September 20, 2021 3:43 PM eComment Item 33: Rent Control in Santa Ana I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33. You must help enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. I also urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our communities. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our communities. Thank you, Greg Camphire Ward 2 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Marilynn Montano <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:11 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Marilynn Montano marilynnmontano@gmail.com 2514 W Mc Fadden Ave Apt. D Santa Ana, California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Aaron Peluso <cchcorp@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:48 PM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. Further, city council has been provided mis-information regarding our property by advocates of this proposal. Further there is nearly a unanimous consensus among economists that rent control is bad policy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ada mm i I isa p/2019/O9/04/more-rent-control-i n-ca I iforn is-wi I I -ma ke-housi ng-problem- worse/?sh=699flf661955 https://www.wash i ngton post.com/opi n ions/2019/06/l5/comeback-rent-control-just-time-make-housi ng-shortages- worse/ https://fee.org/articles/how-we-know-ca I iforn ia-new-rent-control-law-wi I I -ma ke-its-housi ng-shortage-worse/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/ Additionally, this rent control proposal is the worst I have ever seen. It is guaranteed to result in dramatic housing market dysfunction for decades to come if it is adopted, as developers of rental housing avoid your city at all costs, forever. (or until repealed) The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Aaron Peluso 432 S Harbor Blvd Santa Ana, CA 92704 cchcorp@gmail.com Orozco, Norma From: Jennifer Mendoza <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:28 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Jennifer Mendoza Jennymendozahl7@gmaii.com 306 S Sullivan St Santa Ana, California 92704 Orozco, Norma From: Yadira Torres <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:10 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I work at a tenants rights law firm. I *dont* want any more work. We are already inundated with folks fearing evictions. The rental assistance program works too slow, landlords are not empathetic. Evictions set back families at LEAST 7 years, if not more. Do your duty as councilmembers and mayors and PROTECT your constituents. We are watching. We WILL vote you out. Protect santaneros, not landlords. I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Yadira Torres ygtorres97@gmaii.com 801 S Lyon St #D7 Santa Ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Emily Zavala <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 2:09 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Emily Zavala emkayzz14@gmail.com 1250 S Flower St. Santa Ana . California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Victor Meza <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:34 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Victor Meza victormeza93@gmaii.com 405 W. 10th St Santa Ana . California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Carmen Chavez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:21 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Thank you for representing your community and listening to our needs and our family's Carmen Chavez Carmen Chavez lil_deathangel69@hotmail.com 650 n lacy st apt 103 Santa ana . California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: aly pham <alypham@jrenterprises.net> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:13 PM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, aly pham 323 N Euclid St Santa Ana, CA 92703 alypham@jrenterprises.net Orozco, Norma From: Ruben Palacios <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:13 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Ruben Palacios rubenpalacios07@yahoo.com Santa Ana . California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Alondra Salazar <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:12 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Alondra Salazar aysalaza2l6@gmaii.com 2215 S.Rosewood Avenue Santa Ana, California 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Sandra Silva <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:01 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 10 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Sandra Silva ablinkwherethesunisilent@gmail.com 927 S. Standard Ave, Apt 9 Santa Ana, California 92701 11 Orozco, Norma From: Natalie Costaglio<natalie.costaglio@mcmc.comet.net> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:51 PM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Natalie Costaglio 3101 S Fairview St Santa Ana, CA 92704 nataIie.costagiio@mcmc.comet.net 12 Orozco, Norma From: Sheila Blancarte <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:55 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 13 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Sheila Blancarte Blancarte.sheila10@gmail.com 801 S FAIRVIEW Santa Ana, California Ca 14 Orozco, Norma From: Erica Espinoza <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:52 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 15 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Erica Espinoza ericaespinosa17@yahoo.com 2509 S Raitt St Santa Ana, California 92704 16 Orozco, Norma From: Carmen Wilcox <cwilcox712@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:45 PM To: eComment Subject: OPPOSITION TO ANY LOCAL EXPANSION OF EXISTING STATE RENT CONTROL 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 September 21st City Counciil Agenda. Such over -reaching rent control 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 for over eleven years, 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, Carmen Wilcox The Wilcox Group 17 Orozco, Norma From: Isabelle Lopez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:38 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. is Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Isabelle Lopez isabelielopez7O28@gmaii.com 702 S Raitt St SANTA ANA, California 92704 19 Orozco, Norma From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Councilmembers, Adam Kleifield <adam@kleifield.com> Monday, September 20, 2021 12:17 PM eComment Hernandez, Johnathan Public comment for city council My name is Adam Kleifield, and I'm a resident of Ward 5. I'd like to submit a public comment on item 33, the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, for the September 21st City Council meeting. I strongly support this ordinance and I urge you to pass it. Santa Ana badly needs rent control, and that need continues to grow more urgent as the pandemic wears on. The Rent Stabilization Ordinance would help keep people in their housing, and would be a key step to reducing the housing crisis. Please vote yes on Item 33, the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Thank you! Best, Adam Kleifield 20 Orozco, Norma From: Mextli Lopez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 12:09 PM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. 21 Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Mextli Lopez mextli9239@gmaii.com Santa Ana, California 92706 22 Orozco, Norma From: Cyndi Hove <cyndi@starmanagement.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:52 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, CyndiHove 501 E Orangethorpe Ave Anaheim, CA 92801 cyndi@starmanagement.com Orozco, Norma From: Michael Adler <michael.adler@mcmcnet.net> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:48 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Michael Adler 3101 S Fairview St Santa Ana, CA 92704 michael.adler@mcmcnet.net Orozco, Norma From: Maryann Tran <maryann@starmanagement.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:45 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Maryann Tran 2767 W 1st St Santa Ana, CA 92703 maryann@starmanagement.com Orozco, Norma From: Zro Arul <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:28 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Zro AruI madjo365@gmail.com 1919 Sherry Ln Apt 9 Santa Ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Yesenia Valdivia <valdiviayesenia32@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:26 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 I am in support of item 33. The city of Santa Ana is a majority renter city in need of real and permanent renter protections, like the rent stabilization and just cause ordinances being proposed. I urge the Santa Ana mayor and city council to enact these ordinances to protect our most vulnerable residents, like seniors, single moms, McKinney Vento students, and more! Orozco, Norma From: valeria esqueda <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:16 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. valeria esqueda valeria.esqueda97@gmail.com 1919 sherry In apt 9 santa ana, California 92705 Orozco, Norma From: Allegra Ringo <allegraringo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:14 AM To: eComment Cc: Hernandez, Johnathan; Sarmiento, Vicente Subject: Public comment: in support of item 33 at 9/21 meeting Hello Councilmembers and Mayor Sarmiento, My name is Allegra Ringo and I live in Ward 5. I'd like to submit a public comment on item 33 for the upcoming City Council meeting on Tuessday, Sept. 21. I am strongly in favor of this much -needed measure and I urge you to vote yes. Santa Ana, a city of primarily renters, badly needs rent control and has for a long time. The pandemic has only made this need more urgent. The Rent Stabilization Ordinance would do much to keep people in housing and avoid displacing any more Santa Ana residents. Please vote yes on the Rent Stabilization Ordinance. I know that Councilmember Hernandez supports the ordinance and I thank him for that! Thank you, Allegra Ringo Orozco, Norma From: Michael Cirillo <mike@starmanagement.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:06 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Michael Cirillo 2767 W 1st St Santa Ana, CA 92703 mike@starmanagement.com Orozco, Norma From: Perla Dionicio <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 11:05 AM To: eComment Subject: Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento and the City Council Members of Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of Agenda Item #33, and thereby helping to enact rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections in Santa Ana. Correspondingly, I urge you to take the necessary steps to create a rent board to help enforce these protections after they become law. This ordinance was drafted by, and for residents of Santa Ana with the goal of protecting the most vulnerable working-class tenants in our community. Federal and state COVID-19 related eviction moratoriums and additional protections have either ended or will expire by the end of September 2021. Likewise, the federal unemployment benefit programs under the CARES Act ended on September 4th, 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic is far from over; the city of Santa Ana has been the hardest hit in all of Orange County, with almost 900 COVID-19 confirmed deaths and over 48,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases to date. Yet, renters are being unjustly evicted and facing predatory rent increases, all while accumulating rent debt which they are still liable for. Figures show 89% of rental assistance funds have not been distributed at the federal level. In Santa Ana, minimum wage workers earning $14 an hour would have to work 104 hours a week to afford a modest 1-bedroom apartment. Renters with rent debt and renters who have exhausted their savings to avoid rent debt cannot continue to face excessive and unpredictable rent increases otherwise they will be permanently displaced from our city. Now more than ever, Santa Ana needs REAL renter protections to safeguard our community. This ordinance will: Cap rent increases at 3% or 80% of CPI (rate of inflation), whichever is lower for multi -units built before 1995. Limit rent increases to a max once per year. Bring forth just -cause eviction protections for the majority of residents. Extend rent stabilization to the 28 mobile home parks in Santa Ana. Extend just -cause eviction protections to all renters (currently available through AB-832 but expiring 09/30/2021). As members elected by constituents of Santa Ana, we hope that you will prioritize the immediate public health and housing needs of residents of Santa Ana and enact local permanent renter protections. Rent Control is possible; over 20 jurisdictions in California have enacted Rent Control and we can too. Failure to enact rent control and just -cause eviction protections will result in massive displacement and destabilization of our community, threatening the very culture of our city. A vote against renter protections during a global pandemic is a vote against people's lives. We urge you to enact Rent Control as soon as possible before statewide emergency renter protections expire. Perla Dionicio atpeaceandonfire@gmaii.com 913 S Parton St Santa Ana, California 92701 Orozco, Norma From: Kayleigh Levitt <kayleighlevitt@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:23 AM To: eComment Subject: Public Comment for Agenda Item # 33 in support of immediate Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections Hi Mayor Sarmiento and Members of the Council, As a resident renter of Ward 5 for four years and a volunteer tenant counselor of Tenants United Santa Ana, I urge you to vote in favor of enacting rent stabilization and eviction protections permanently in the City of Santa Ana via a super majority so that the protections are enacted now, before the state protections are lifted on Sept. 30. This ordinance will help elderly folks living on a fixed income, single parents, and other highly impacted groups that are currently unable to afford rent increases at the drastic rate they are increasing in Santa Ana. Renters and Homeowners have advocated to the City Council about unaffordable rent increases. Of these speakers, many were veterans, disabled residents, and elderly residents who are on fixed incomes, such as Social Security. According to the Out of Reach report, the California SSI monthly payment is $955 and the rent affordable to an SSI recipient is $286, yet rents have not allowed people with low income to remain in their home, or cover additional essential needs such as health -related costs. Placing a cap on rent increases gives renters a fighting chance to stay in their communities and homes. While the City has gone above and beyond to create new affordable housing units, rent stabilization includes private rental housing where the vast majority of renters live, thus outperforming all other affordable housing tools in terms of scale of impact. Also, rent stabilization and just cause protections are considered cost -neutral to the City while protecting the renters who live in Santa Ana and allowing landlords to obtain their right to a fair return on investment. Families of Santa Ana should be allowed to remain and thrive here, yet are being pushed out by predatory rent increases. This ordinance has been created by the People of Santa Ana, and has been supported by thousands of residents over the last four years, please see it as your responsibility to listen to the people and vote in favor of enacting this ordinance immediately. This ordinance will help the City of Santa Ana accomplish their housing vision that affirms and supports a vibrant Santa Ana that preserves neighborhoods and accommodates a socially and economically diverse community of renters and homeowners. Warm regards, Kayleigh Levitt Orozco, Norma From: Lucero Garcia <lgarcia@cluejustice.org> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:07 AM To: eComment Subject: item 33 Greetings Mayor and City Council members, I am in support of item 33. The city of Santa Ana is a majority renter city in need of real and permanent renter protections, like the rent stabilization and just cause ordinances being proposed. I urge the Santa Ana mayor and city council to enact these ordinances to protect our most vulnerable residents, like seniors, single moms, McKinney Vento students, and more! Thank you, Lucero Lucero Garcia (714) 737-8751 Orozco, Norma From: Lucero Garcia <garciald67@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:09 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 Greetings Mayor and City Council members, I am in support of item 33. The city of Santa Ana is a majority renter city in need of real and permanent renter protections, like the rent stabilization and just cause ordinances being proposed. I urge the Santa Ana mayor and city council to enact these ordinances to protect our most vulnerable residents, like seniors, single moms, McKinney Vento students, and more! Thank you, Lucero Lucero Mondragon C:(714)737-8751 I garciald67@gmai1.com Orozco, Norma From: Lucero Garcia Mondragon <Igmondra@uci.edu> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 10:11 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 Good Morning Mayor and City Council members, I am in support of item 33. The city of Santa Ana is a majority renter city in need of real and permanent renter protections, like the rent stabilization and just cause ordinances being proposed. I urge the Santa Ana mayor and city council to enact these ordinances to protect our most vulnerable residents, like seniors, single moms, McKinney Vento students, and more! Thank you Lucero Garcia Mondragon Graduate Student Master of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) University of California, Irvine (School of Social Ecology) C:(714)737-8751 I Igmondra@uci.edu "Please know that I honor and respect boundaries around personal time, well-being, caretaking, and rest. Should you receive correspondence from me during a time that you're engaging in any of the above, please protect your time and wait to respond until you're next working or in front of a computer. Orozco, Norma From: Michael Coogan <user@votervoice.net> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 6:11 PM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Michael Coogan 2125 W Myrtle St Santa Ana, CA 92703 casey.coogan@verizon.net Orozco, Norma From: Lawrence Zarrilli <user@votervoice.net> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 7:52 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Lawrence Zarrilli 417 W Stevens Ave Santa Ana, CA 92707 Zarrilli@aol.com Orozco, Norma From: Maria Ceja <ceja.maria95@gmaiI.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 8:39 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am in support of item 33, the adoption of ordinances for rent stabilization and just cause protections. This past year and a half have demonstrated that despite living in a pandemic, rents are skyrocketing and evictions are still happening. This exemplifies that temporary state protections are not enough; Santa Ana needs REAL and PERMANENT renter protections, especially as we approach the end of the month when state protections (AB 3088) are set to expire. Santa Ana is a majority renter city. Many renters are living in a state of survival; being (severely) rent - burdened, paying 30 percent or more, up to even 75%, if not all, of their income on housing costs, just to have a roof over their head. This does not leave much for other needs such as healthy foods, medical/health resources, clothing, among other daily needs that one needs to thrive. This affects our local economy when many are not left with disposable income to reinvest in our city. We have to move beyond rental assistance. This program is a blessing but has come with many obstacles. The application process alone demands so much time and energy from renters, with many still waiting for a response to know if they are even approved. I personally have worked with a tenant who applied over a year ago and still has yet to get approval from the city. This process becomes even more complicated when the Landlord does not want to cooperate despite knowing they will be paid in full the rent tenants were not able to pay because they have been severely impacted by COVID-19. This has resulted in illegal eviction processes occurring; landlords and managers illegally locking tenants out and throwing away their precious belongings leaving them with nothing. We have to put the most vulnerable residents, seniors, single mothers, persons with disabilities, McKinney Vento students, and more, at the forefront. How can we be proud of our city when we are letting tenants be affected by rent increase after rent increase and/or eviction notice after eviction notice? When we let long-time residents, who have brought so much meaning to our city, be displaced because they can no longer afford to live here or they may have experienced an illegal eviction? We deserve a right to remain and prosper in the city that we call home. We need to do what is right for our community. Please adopt the rent stabilization and just cause ordinances on Tuesday, Sept.2lst. Thank you, Maria Ceja Orozco, Norma From: Gabriela Gonzalez <gaab06@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 5:56 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 Hello, I am commenting in support of item 33. The City of Santa is made up of majority of renters in need of real and permanent renter protections. Renters need protections such as the rent stabilization and just cause ordinance being proposed. I urge the Santa Ana mayor and city council to enact these ordinances to protect our most vulnerable residents, like seniors, single moms, and McKinney Vento students. After a tumultuous year renters deserve to have some sort of stability and certainty. Thank you, Gabriela Orozco, Norma From: Julieta Lopez <julieta_lopez3l@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:10 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 I am in support of item 33. The city of Santa Ana is a majority renter city in need of real and permanent renter protections, like the rent stabilization and just cause ordinances being proposed. I urge the Santa Ana mayor and city council to enact these ordinances to protect our most vulnerable residents, like seniors, single moms, McKinney Vento students, and more! Orozco, Norma From: Thom Niederkofler <thom.niederkofler@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:23 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Thom Niederkofler 2767 W 1st St Santa Ana, CA 92703 thom.niederkofler@gmail.com Orozco, Norma From: Bradley Hill <brad@pcpequity.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:28 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Bradley Hill 2767 W 1st St Santa Ana, CA 92703 brad@pcpequity.com Orozco, Norma From: Sal Ortiz <Sal.Ortiz@NewportPacific.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:30 AM To: eComment Subject: Oppose Item 33 - Rent Control and Just Cause Ordinances Dear City Clerk Gomez, As a city taxpayer and housing provider, I strongly oppose the rent control and just cause ordinances. I am extremely disappointed by the lack of community and stakeholder outreach. Especially since rent control has historically lacked community interest and voter support. The residents of Santa Ana have rejected rent control four times. The price controls are excessive. They will not allow housing providers to generate enough income to keep up with the cost of inflation or our actual expenses of operating rental housing. Current state law at least provides a balance by allowing for a fair and reasonable rate of return and a cap against excessive rent increases. In addition, the City of Santa Ana has $35 million to help renters who are in need. The just cause ordinance creates too many loopholes for bad actors to vandalize our properties and endanger other renters without consequence. The just cause ordinance makes it nearly impossible to remove dangerous elements from the community without a bureaucratic and lengthy legal process. It is also unclear what the cost is to manage this bureaucracy. The few cities in California that have adopted rent control spend millions of dollars per year on regulatory enforcement. This money could be better used to improve parks, libraries, and public safety. Please vote NO on the rent control and just cause ordinances. Sincerely, Sal Ortiz 1919 W Coronet Ave Spc 220 Anaheim, CA 92801 Sal.Ortiz@NewportPacific.com Orozco, Norma From: Erika Barbero <evbarbero3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 9:46 AM To: eComment Subject: Item 33 To whom it may concern, I am in support of item 33. The city of Santa Ana is a majority renter city in need of real and permanent renter protections, like the rent stabilization and just cause ordinances being proposed. Families shouldn't have to choose between housing or food or uproot their lives from in the communities they built. Therefore, I urge the Santa Ana mayor and city council to enact these ordinances to protect our most vulnerable residents, like seniors, single moms, McKinney Vento students, and more! Erika V. Barbero 9 J 33 To City Council, Hello and thank you for this opportunity to speak with all of you. I am Vanessa Gonzales and I am part of parent leader groups such as Santa Ana Early Learning Initiative, the national Parent Leader Network, both for which I have been privileged to be a steering committee member for, and I have also become a certified trainer for Community Organizing and Family Issues. I live in a rent controlled 3 bedroom 2 bath affordable housing apartment. My family of five has been so blessed to live comfortably in an affordable housing unit for almost 11 years. Unfortunately, there is not enough affordable housing available. Unfortunately, many do not qualify or have quick easy access to the required documents to apply for affordable housing. It hurts my heart and soul everytime I hear of my friends struggling because their rent went up $100 dollars or even more, not just once... but a couple times a year when their finances were already so tight to begin with. It is hard to hear about families being sick due unhealthy conditions of their homes, but with nowhere else affordable to go. The idea of someone getting evicted for even speaking up about rent increases or normal needed maintenance causes great anxiety for many, now imagine being that person or family... I think we can all agree that it is a great desire for Santa Ana to thrive like many other great cities in Orange County, but we can't forget that Santa Ana is not like other cities in Orange County. It is unique and the majority of its people have unique needs. The Maslow theory points out that we have basic needs that need to be met in order to continue succeeding. The majority of Santa Ana is struggling at this very second to fulfill those basic needs such as an adequate, healthy, and affordable residence. I stand here in hopes of helping to represent our many SAELI families and countless others in Santa who do not get their voice heard for various reasons like work, families, and worst of all a fear. Santa Ana is supposed to be a sanctuary city, All who struggle right now and need rent control may not have a lot of money, but do contribute largely to the city sales tax revenue. Santa Ana renters need to be heard, considered, and feel safe in the hands of those who represent them. You have all been voted in to take your seats on this council and we come to you, a direct source of power, and seek your help. We have bits and pieces of understanding in housing developments, city revenue, and all the choices you make for Santa Ana. We can be sure that all those items will continue on and help improve the city. -- But right now, we desperately need you to hear our small, yet mighty, voices and consider offering the help we are asking for. We ask that you please be the city council members that can provide a great hope of change in such hard times for so many. Little children and families are being affected„ and although they are resilient, they should not have to face things that you, personally, can have a say in. We hope you can help the many people who need you. If you can really support us In item 33 of rent control and just cause, we would love to congratulate and celebrate with you. Thank you for your time, council members. Vaned.e,a Go-n1alee, -- N4,ont toad" . Sifetl. Aff, COFT, Xadtets^ J ° D 3 O (D M m ° 3 O o LD. m #-+ Z* a�i can n (D U) <' n oO (D (D o O C- �o ntfl Ln N o N D m Ln (D N O O n O � n � n (D � O n n (D `G : _ Q � r+ � Z Q N ° Q O D 3 O m U) ,+ 0 O < o n CT CL fD O O Pk I , 0 (D = N r (D v U< � ry. Ln ZT N cc C z O CL CL i4 . 0 n -h O m 03 O< < O LO D C o O ,.« D (o �' n W Q Eo cn o�`0 nm ° o -.' 0 3 'D (D Q� ° m 7-1 W _ Q � N, h �. O O O CT N r+ OO — to �D �. O (D Z (D :D Q (D (D (Dp ... AO N °0) Q � T n O <_ v m_0CTm n o o cD < C �K (DF. 67 o o Q_ 0 o o_ < 90 N N= 0 O 1 1 o Q � � 3 Ln � n `n o (D 3. m Cn e o G� m 0 Z O -4 m n �0 t r a O m . n m = G) z z z d (D m 0) to (D (D =5 47 5. m v Lo O W (D vi vi ;a "0 73 Q. m O O (D O _ Q rt N• En N 3 O (D 3 o n a (D m 3 o c 3 o �" a .m v o n o O 3 °+ (D 3 O- C) (D O r+ (D -0 (D 0 :3 o o 0 Q s Ln 0 CL m N T n_ C CL Mtn (D 0 T 0 CL T A (Dwm*n Q 0 3 C� 0 �j —• Q".Z �o Q, A CL N Q ID 0 CL 1 E0 N arm Xa m n _ X 00 v MR �n O m3 z3 �C az 0- 11'1 m< 3 z O (D Ln O (D 3 r+ n (D (D Z3 (D -0 O �. v O Ln a = . (D 3 X 1+ O 07 0 O O n O �_ n a h c cD m O (D r O O zT O_ (D O n D Q) v n 1+ O 0 (D C O CD n O 1+ 0 Q a 0 O a O O can 0 (D N On O (D N V) N U) (D V) 3. a O a 0 O D O 0 0' m O (D D Z N IV 00 O 00 I I O O O O O O N_ O (D N Q � U) ID. h D(D Q� �CT = U) D� D < o m < o m Q N N 00 O 00 I I -n T a) °� m m Q Q O O n 07 0 O << (D T 0) FF (D r+ r a CD fn 00 w W A 0 o S M m y a -a �a n v ( � :° F (D(D O a to c a m 3 ' �. _ m o- o. � S N N 7 - d ON EL- d m • nm O a m Q CL O(Dz= O CD m 0 m w W m co Cit D 3 3 C m CD CD CD CD • o CD c, o C. 3 y W C CD I D m (� > CD m C m v D m Ul > CDO m c C c a (D •• a m B o 3 (D N m o CD = (D N TTFF j ' 0�0 G> (C �D 7 •• O <n Fn M m o 0 Cif A O N W O W co W 3 n K CD c N C CD o c CD W M N (Q m � m Q- W .ys �. GI 7 n N a m m a 0 Ln O CO 3 D Z 0 D O 0 0 O (D 0 3 3 • m D v 3 o' Ln O 0 m • a) Ul • U) (D 0 n Ln 0 0 v RO Ln ;4