Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #07 Orozco, Norma From:Qui Vuong <qui.vuong.balihi@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:08 PM To:eComment Subject:PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 7 AT TODAY'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING Hello everyone: My name is Qui Vuong, 59, a typical senior resident living on fixed income at Bali Hi, currently being devastated by unreasonable rent increases by the new property management company since 2017. My current monthly income is $957. I will not receive my social security checks until I am at least 62 years old. Including utilities for my high risk, immune system compromised disabilities, my monthly housing cost comes to $1,096 this past month. That makes my ratio of "housing cost to income" a whopping 116%! My beloved spouse Mary passed away in 2019 from stomach cancer, worried sick about how to make rents meet. My household income is now cut in half. If I move to another space at the same park, my monthly rent goes up by at least $300 per month, and even more if I move to another park in Santa Ana. After the COVID-19 global pandemic, given my health condition and high-risk classification, no one would dare take me in. So I am stuck with nowhere to go, living precariously on the brink of eventual homelessness. Thank you in advance for rescuing me with your critical "Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protection" ordinance by voting YES tonight. In politics, as well as in life, DOING THE RIGHT THING is always hard; but as duly elected officials who have sworn to "protect and serve" your own community, if you don't do it, who will? Your bold action will make such a big difference for your suffering constituents, who are being marginalized and wrongfully demonized, by the self-serving propaganda of bad landlords/property managers, along with their "lying hypocrites" lobbyists. I would like to think that we at Bali Hi still have a kind-hearted benevolent owner, who shows caring and appreciation for his best paying customers over the years, and not try to convert this senior park into a more profitable family park. In summary, the EMERGENCY RESCUE measure in the form of a citywide ordinance will save countless lives in the city of Santa Ana, including my own. Hopefully, Santa Ana's leadership in this area will resonate and inspire other municipalities across the nation to do the same for their most vulnerable residents. We are forever in your debt. Sincerely yours, Qui Vuong Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 Orozco, Norma From:Yv Ga <faithful88@live.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:55 PM To:eComment Subject:Rent Control We oppose the Rent Control. No. All speakers came from the same Senior Mobil Home Park. The owners who owns properties have rentals. We need to afford to pay our Taxes to the City. Owners pays your City Employees Salaries. If we cannot afford to pay : Taxes, Insurance, Repairs to maintain properties? Who will ? Tenants Trash their apartments. We need to afford to maintain it for the City. Owners are free City employees to maintain the properties for the City. When you get red of us who will pay the city ? Thank you . We pray for Peace. Love over everyone. Amen. Speaking on behalf of Several Owners. Not all can make it to meetings & computers. 2 Orozco, Norma From:Mihee Moon <miheem@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:38 PM To:eComment Subject:Vote NO - Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction Dear Santa Ana Councilmembers, I am a rental-housing provider and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act." I believe that the proposal is severely flawed and punitive against rental-housing providers, and should be deferred until such time the city can engage in additional studies and thoughtful discussions with rental housing providers in the city. Respectfully, Mihee Moon 1 Orozco, Norma From:Irma Jauregui <irmapj@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:41 PM To:eComment Cc:irmapj@yahoo.com Subject:1st page on Agenda …City Vision and Code of Ethics…thoughts vs item 7…from a hopeful optimist.. Dear Mayor and Council members; Some of you know me well and others I haven’t the pleasure of yet meeting, but in time hopefully we will. I’m a long time resident of 42 years and have seen many, many changes and some successes and some failures. I ask you to please read the 1st page of what’s written in the agenda and really meditate on its meaning. I have read it many times and this weekend it screamed at me the true meaning of what being a Mayor and Council members means! I love it’s great ideals and thoughts on these items; Vision..”INVESTMENT in our youth, safe and healthy communities, neighborhood pride, THRIVING ECONOMIC climate experiment and enriched and diverse culture, plus QUALITY government services. MISSION.. to deliver efficient public services in PARTNERSHIP with our community which ensures public safety, a PROSPEROUS ECONOMIC environment, OPPORTUNITIES for our youth and a HIGH quality of life. GUIDING PRINCIPLES.. Collaboration, Efficiency, Equity, Excellence, Fiscal responsibility, Innovation, Transparency. CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT. As approved on Feb 5, 2008 voters approved and amendment to City Charter that establish the code of ethics and conduct for all elected officials are members of appointed boards so it can ensure public confidence…the Core Valued are Integrity… Honesty… Responsibility… Fairness… Accountability… Respect… Efficiency… Think about these as you consider not only rent caps and just cause eviction and it’s repercussions on the rental industries within our city and the total effect of holding hostage property owners to harsher conditions than the present laws already allows but the loss it will create that will really eventually damage those you want to help. On “just cause”.. what if neighbors or owner who rent rooms are caught with someone who is creating a dangerous environment? There are already laws in the books, please enforce those, help landlords be better landlords and invest and support the community and their tenants/clients. I beseech you to look towards positive and higher ideas and dreams, encouraging homeownership by expanding the programs you successfully already have..I know this since I just helped a client become homeowner in our city with that program… income for our community…THAT is the core problem! We need our businesses to thrive and create more opportunities for employment and help our schools and community colleges offer job training in all possible higher paying skills of technology and trades he jobs of today and tomorrow. For young parents, help with child care if they go to night or weekend schools..and if they care for seniors, there is also the possibilities of adult care. I know not everyone can benefit, as no such 100% possibilities can be, but just a few at the beginning can make a huge difference in each person’s families. We should be the truly the GOLDEN CITY of opportunities for our residents and businesses so all can thrive! In going the opposite direction, it announces a different thought of your actions, that there can be no flexibility or working out ideas of how to mutually help each other. Remember, our actions will most DEFINITELY be by what we all are known for. Respectfully Irma P Jauregui Wilshire Square resident 1 Sent from my iPad 2 Orozco, Norma From:Eva Raleigh <EvaR@LakeParkHomes.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:06 PM To:eComment Subject:Opposition to Consent Calendar Item #7 - Rent Control Attachments:SAN7.jpg; SAN2.JPG; SAN3.jpg; SAN6.jpg Honorable Mayor and City Council Members; Please vote no on item 7 Rent Control. We operate two beautiful communities in your city, Lake Park Santa Ana and Lake Park Santa Ana North. We have had long term Leases in place since 1983. Those long term Leases have protected our Homeowners and the viability of running a Mobile home park in your city. Out Leases are CPI with the possibility of 2%. We have not always used the 2% and have absorbed many Capital Improvements and Replacements that the Lease would have allowed. Our Lease has created a road may for our homeowners. We also are a part of MHET and the MHET Rental Assistance program which we participate in. I am asking for you to reconsider and oppose #7 Rent Control. We need your help. I am attaching pictures of our communities. They will not survive under 80% of CPI. Thank you, Eva Raleigh BRE #01826907 General Manager, Vice President of Sales Lake Park Communities (714)632-1646 Fax (714)632-5305 1 Orozco, Norma From:Lorin K <lorinmanager@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:58 PM To:eComment Subject:Fwd: OPPOSTION TO RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES Dear Councilmember, I am a rental-housing provider and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the September 21st city council agenda. The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over-reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental-housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more. As a community partner and rental-housing provider, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts. However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental-housing providers with a proposal that:  Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants.  Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations.  Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry. I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental-housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city. Sincerely, Miguel K (Landlord) 1 Orozco, Norma From:Lorin K <lorinmanager@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:56 PM To:eComment Subject:Fwd: OPPOSTION TO RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES Dear Councilmember, I am a rental-housing provider and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the September 21st city council agenda. The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over-reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental-housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more. As a community partner and rental-housing provider, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts. However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental-housing providers with a proposal that:  Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants.  Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations.  Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry. I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental-housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city. Sincerely, Lorin (Lorena) K. Property Manager 2 Orozco, Norma From:Bryan Peraza <bryanjperaza@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:42 PM To:eComment Subject:Rent Control Item Hello, Please vote in favor of rent control. Thank you. Regards, Bryan Jesus Peraza 1 Orozco, Norma From:Maria Ceja <ceja.maria95@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:41 PM To:eComment Subject:Agenda Item #7: Support for rent stabilization and just cause Dear Mayor and City Council, Thank you for progressing Rent stabilization and just cause protections to their seconding reading today. I know it has not been an easy process, but the people of Santa Ana will thank you when this law will become a reality. Many of you are aware of the rental housing crisis in the city of Santa Ana—it has been an issue for much longer than my very own existence (1995; 25 years). Many Santanerxs have been displaced by out of reach, rising rents and illegal evictions. Santa Ana is a majority renter city—it is time to pursue policies that reflect the true needs of the community that allow them to remain and prosper in their community. I ask that you approve the proposed rent stabilization and just cause ordinances. Thank you, Maria 2 Santa Monica Rent Control Board -8751 www.smgov.net/rentcontrol FY 2020-21 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET Adopted June 11, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGENCY ORGANIZATION AND GOALS Agency Organization Charti Labor Summaryii Agency Goalsiii 2020/2021 AGENCY BUDGET Budget1 Line Item Descriptions2 REVENUE PROJECTION Revenue Analysis17 Sources of Revenue19 FUND BALANCE Fund Balance21 PERS Loan22 Restricted Fund Balance23 DEPARTMENTAL DESCRIPTIONS Descriptions25 Budget 2020/2021 Adopted 6/11/2020 Coordinator Budget / Office LABOR SUMMARY FY 2020/2021 A UTHORIZED A UTHORIZED A UTHORIZED A UTHORIZED A MOUNT OF P OSITIONS P OSITIONS* P OSITIONS P OSITIONS C HANGE C LASSIFICATION 2017/2018 2018/19 2019/20 2020/2021 19/20 20/21 Administration 8.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 +1.00 Public Information 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 Hearings 6.90 9.90 7.00 7.00 -0.00 Legal 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 Total 25.90 27.90 24.00 25.00 +1.00 *The Board revised the labor summary to add three limited term positions in the Hearings Department to provide a period of overlap for training new staff members who replaced retiring staff members. PERMANENT STAFF BY CLASSIFICATION FY 2020/2021 A UTHORIZED A UTHORIZED A UTHORIZED A UTHORIZED A MOUNT OF P OSITIONS P OSITIONS* P OSITIONS P OSITIONS C HANGE C LASSIFICATION 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 19/20 20/21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Administrator (Exec. Director) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 +1.00 Administrative Staff Assistant 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Billing Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Budget/Office Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Database Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 General Counsel 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Hearings Department Mgr. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Hearings Specialist 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Hearings Investigator 2.90 4.90 3.00 3.00 0.00 Hearing Officer 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Information Analyst 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Information Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 Legal Secretary II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Office Coordinator 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Public Information Mgr. 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sr. Administrative Analyst 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sr. Litigation Staff Attorney 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Staff Assistant III 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Staff Attorney 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Sys. Admin. / Prog. Analyst** 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 +1.00 Technical Services Analyst** TOTAL 25.90 27.90 24.00 25.00 +1.00 tems Admin/Programmer Analyst plans to retire in September 2020. This position will be replaced by a Technical Services Analyst for a 3-month period of overlap for the new position. ** Budget 2020/2021 ii Adopted 6/11/2020 AGENCY GOALS 2020/2021 Increase efficiencies through use of technology. modernizing communication strategies including increased use of electronic communications, social media campaigns and expanded email lists. Implement the newly-developed Rent 20/20 property and rent tracking system to increase efficiencies and improve the user experience through electronic workflows, improved reporting capabilities, contact management and tracking, electronic payments and case management for petitions and applications. Implementation will include outreach to constituents to register for Rent 20/20 accounts to facilitate online filings of forms and petitions through the web-based portal and user-appropriate training for constituents and staff. Expand the web-based document portal to provide public access to property-related documents earlier than 2005. The portal currently provides access to documents from 2005 to the present. Ensure compliance with the rent control law and take affirmative legal action where indicated. amendments to the Ellis Act, changes to the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, changes to eviction procedures, etc.). Continue to initiate civil actions as necessary to enforce compliance with the rent control law. responses to public records requests, eliminate outdated documents and reduce storage costs. Ensure that the Board can continue to carry out its essential functions during, and in the aftermath of, the coronavirus pandemic. Ensure that all staff and members of the public comply with all public health guidelines when conducting business with or for the Board. Thoughtfully use Board resources, including but not limited to funds, to ensure continuity of operations. Adapt processes through the use of technology or other means, as necessary, to continue Budget 2020/2021 iii Adopted6/11/2020 Collaborate with city departments on common goals Continue to collaborate with other city departments, including Code Enforcement, Building and Safety, and the Office of Communications to ensure property owners and tenants understand their rights, responsibilities and obligations. Collaborate with the Information Services Department on the redesign of City websites to ensure rent control information, forms, petitions and videos remain prominent and easy to access. Prepare for staff changes. Proactively embark on development of effective succession plans in anticipation of the retirement of long-term employees. Identify new skills required to implement, maintain and develop new systems and technologies. Create effective orientation and comprehensive training plans for new staff members. Budget 2020/2021 iv Adopted6/11/2020 AGENCY BUDGET OBJ 358,653420,327 26,99528,306 3,4863,399 1 Orozco, Norma From:Jesus Santana <santana.jesus18@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:18 PM To:eComment Subject:SUPPORT the Adoption of: Rent Control and Just Cause Evictions Dear Honorable Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, My name is Jesus Santana, a resident of Ward 4 for over 16 years, and I am emailing you all to express my SUPPORT for RENT CONTROL JUST CAUSE PROTECTIONS, along with a TEMPORARY RENT FREEZE until the local protections go into effect. I strongly encourage my Councilmember, Phil Bacerra, to vote in favor. Thank you in advance! Best regards, 1 SANTA ANA ACTIVE STREETS 10/19/2021 Kristopher Fortin, Project Director, Ward 5 resident Santa Ana Active Streets 450 W Fourth St. Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Item 7: Adopt Ordinance No. NS-XXXX —AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PROHIBITING RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY AND MOBILE HOME SPACE RENTAL RATE INCREASES THAT EXCEED THREE PERCENT (3%) ANNUALLY, OR EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) OF THE CHANGE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, WHICHEVER IS LESS, WITHIN THE CITY and Adopt Ordinance No. NS-XXXX — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REQUIRING JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS AND NON -AGENDA ITEM: IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RENT FREEZE Dear Members of the Santa Ana City Council and Mayor Vicente Sarmiento, On behalf of the Santa Ana Active Streets coalition and its members, we urge you to vote in favor of item 33, the enactment of rent stabilization and just cause protections, as well as take the necessary steps to create the rent board. Additionally, we are urging you to place a temporary freeze on rent increases during the 30-day period before the rent control law goes into effect. On September 30th 2021 COVID-19 emergency housing protections expired, leaving many residents at risk of eviction and displacement, and threatening the culture of our city. Likewise, beginning in October 2021 all renters who have been financially impacted by the pandemic have begun to be required to pay a significant percentage of the rent debt they've accrued in addition to covering present and future rent payments in full. This is especially preposterous when residents making minimum wage of $14 an hour are expected to work 104 hours per week to afford a 1-bedroom apartment in the City. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we enact REAL permanent renter protections in our city. The "Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance" would provide a cap on rent increases so that rent cannot be increased more than 3% per year and extend just -cause eviction protections for the majority of renters in the city. At SAAS, the population we serve are the pedestrians and cyclists of the community, many of whom are low-income and rely on these forms of mobility out of need, not choice. The City for years has regularly been in the top 5 Cities with the highest collision rate involving a pedestrian/cyclist in the state. Before the City started receiving the more than $78 million dollars from 2014 to present for active transportation infrastructure improvements, City Santa Ana Active Streets 1450 West Fourth Street I Santa Ana, CA 92701 Tel. (657) 205-7306 1 www.saascoalition.ora I aeneralnasaascoalition.ora Page 2 of 2 residents still walked and biked to jobs, schools and the market because it was regularly the most affordable way to move around. Roughly half the population do not have ownership to a personal vehicle, and so the City has rightfully and aggressively tried to make streets safer for current residents who walk, skate or bike their City. Yet, the lapsed state housing protections threatens the local residents' ability to remain in the city and benefit from all the City's active transportation investments. The Santa Ana pedestrian and bicyclists are barely reaping the reward of active transportation investments, and so we urge the council to protect them by passing the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance. Lastly, we urge City Councilmembers and the Mayor to place a temporary freeze on rent increases during the 30-day period before the rent control law goes into effect. Tenants should not face rent hikes in retaliation for organizing to demand much needed renter protections. Santa Ana is a majority renter city, and many renter households are extremely rent burdened. Single parents, especially single mothers, are particularly vulnerable to ongoing rent increases given that a minimum wage worker in Santa Ana must endure 104 hours a week to afford a 1-bedroom apartment. Sincerely, 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 SU111UAll51 Ell rri � Santa Ana Mayor Sarmiento and City Council Members City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: SUPPORT the Adoption of: Rent Control and Just Cause Evictions Dear Honorable Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, The Sullivan En Acci6n (SEA) team would like to inform you that we, a resident -led group, who all reside within the "Sullivan Community"; are expressing our support for Rent Control and Just Cause Evictions. In addition, we would like for you all to strongly consider a Rent Freeze until the local protections go into effect, 30 days. Most recently, we heard from mobilehome residents that attended the Sullivan Community March on July 10, 2021, that they started receiving 60-Day Notices and Eviction Notices. This is a crucial concern for our community because it appears that landlords and property owners/management have begun to take retaliatory actions towards our community members. To remind you all, the "Sullivan Community" is mostly composed of privatized property, either owned by corporations and/or individual landlords/property owners. We recognize that our beloved city of Santa Ana has very little jurisdiction (to none) on how to help us, your Santa Ana residents and constituents, resolve the housing issues we encounter day by day with our landlords and management. If the city is not able to do much about the housing crisis we are currently experiencing in our community (while we recover from the infamous health crisis known as COVID-19) then it's time that we, Sullivan Community residents, organize ourselves to support and defend each other, our families, and our community as a whole. This is why we are asking you all, Mayor Sarmiento and City Councilmembers, to please SUPPORT the Adoption of Rent Control and Just Cause Evictions, along with a Rent Freeze until the local protections go into effect. Thank you and we look forward to seeing you all tonight! Best regards, Sullivan En Acci6n Orozco, Norma From:Indigo Vu <indigo@vietrise.org> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:58 PM To:eComment; Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Subject:In Support of Agenda Item #7: Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Attachments:2021.10.19 RSO Comments from Bali Hi & Kona Kai.pdf Good afternoon Mayor Sarmiento and Santa Ana City Council Members, My name is Indigo Vu, and I am a resident of Ward 1. I am also a staff member of VietRISE, a community non- profit organization that organizes Vietnamese residents in Orange County. We have been working with senior residents from Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge, as well as Kona Kai Mobile Home Park, and are writing collectively in support of agenda item #7, the ordinance to prohibit residential property and mobile home space rental rate increases that exceed 3% annually, or 80% of the change in consumer price index, whichever is less, within the city. These comments below are in support of agenda item #7. These comments are from senior residents from Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge and Kona Kai Mobile Home Park and include translations to English. Cuong Pham, 85 years old and Gina Nguyen, 74 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park) Chúng tôi là Cường Phạm và Gina Nguyễn. Tôi đã 85 tuổi và tôi 74 tuổi, hiện cư ngụ tại Kona Kai Mobile Home. Chúng tôi đã sống ở đây trên 20 năm qua. Vợ chồng tôi xin cám ơn Nghị Viên đĩ đã nghến và giúp đỡ các người già yếu như chúng tôi. Sau thời gian đi làm từ năm khi qua Mỹ, từ năm 1991 đến nay gần 30 năm. Nay về Hưu, tiền Hưu cả 2 người có được khoảng $1,800. Nếu tiền thuê đất cứ tăng 6% cho mỗi năm thì sớm muộn gì, gia ũngình chúng tôi cđ sẽ không có tiền để trả cho Chủ đất nửa. Kính xin Hội Đồng Thành phố giúp chúng tôi trong lúc này. --- We are Cường Phạm and Gina Nguyễn. We are 85 years old and 74 years old, currently residing at Kona Kai Mobile Home. We have lived here for more than 20 years. We would like to thank the council members for helping senior residents like us. We’ve been working for 30 years, since the year we arrived in America, in 1991. Now that we’ve retired, the two of us receive around $1,800. If rent keeps increasing by 6% each year then soon our family will not have money to pay the landlord anymore. Please help us in this time of need, council members. Loc Nguyen, 69 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park) 1 Chúng tôi là: Chi Ngô và Lộc Nguyễn hiện cư ngụ tại Kona Kai Mobile Home từ năm 1997 đến nay, đơn 20 ã h năm sinh sống tại khu Mobile Home này. Chúng tôi là những người đã về hưu hiện sinh hoạt với số tiền SSA và SSI trợ cáp cáp thêm của chính phủ. Với số tiền thuê đất quá cao, chủ đất tăng mỗi năm từ 5% đến 6%, chúng tôi sống rất khó khăn. Kính mong Hội Đồng Thành phố Santa Ana xem xét và giúp đỗ cho thuê đất được giảm. --- We are Chi Ngô and Lộc Nguyễn residing at Kona Kai Mobile Home since 1997. It has been over 20 years living in this Mobile Home. We are people who have already retired and are living with an income from SSA and SSI provided by the government. With the rent so high, the landlord increases rent by 5-6% each year, our lives are very difficult. We ask the council members to examine and help reduce the rent cost. Hanh Vu, 73 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park) Tôi tên Hạnh Vũ, 73 tuổi ngụ tại khu Kona Kai Mobile Home Park, thời gian 20 năm. Với số tiền SSA và trợ cấp thêm của Chính phủ, cuộc sống của tôi vô cùng khó khăn. Người chủ đất cđã qua ũ đồi, giao lại cho người mới, họ đăng tiền thuê đất quá cao với chúng tôi là những người cao niên về hưu. Trong khi đó vật giá leo thang, chúng tôi đã cố gắng hết sức để không phải trở thành một kẻ vô gia cư trong một ngày nào đó. Vậy kính xin Hội Đồng Thành Phố Santa Ân cứu giúp chúng tôi, thông qua chương trình “ổn định tiền thuê nhà và đất.” --- My name is Hạnh Vũ, 73 years old living in Kona Kai Mobile Home Park for 20 years. With the money from SSA and other assistance money from the government, my life is very difficult. The old landlord who died passed the Mobile Home to a new person who has raised the rent prices too high for us seniors and retirees. In the meantime the general cost of living has risen. We have tried our hardest to not become homeless in the future. So please help us council members of Santa Ana by passing “rent control” Xuan Mai Nguyen, 63 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park) Tôi tên Mai Nguyễn 63 tuổi cư ngụ Kona Kai Mobile Home Park! Hiện giờ cuộc sống tôi gặp rất nhiều khó khăn vì công việc làm bán thời gian không đủ để trang trải chi phí tiền thuê đất mỗi năm lại tăng cao. Tôi sống rất chật vật ai thuê tôi làm gì thì tôi đều làm để kiếm tiền trả tiền thuê đất. Mong thành phố Santa Ana thương tình đến cư dân nghèo trong mobile home, xin đừng tăng tiền thuê đất cao quá làm chúng tôi không trả nổi mà trở thành HOMELESS. Chúng tôi cảm ơn thành phố. --- My name is Mai Nguyễn, 63 years old, living at Kona Kai Mobile Home Park! Currently my life has many hardships because I cannot make enough money by working as a vendor to pay my rent, which increases each year. I am struggling. Whoever hires me to do work, I take the job to try to pay my rent. I hope that the city of Santa Ana has compassion for the poor residents living in mobile homes. Please do not raise our land leases and make us become HOMELESS. We thank the city. Leyna Nguyen, 59 years old (Kona Kai Mobile Park) Chúng tôi tên là Đảo Lê và Leyna Nguyễn, cư ngụ tại Kona Kai Mobile Home. 2 Chúng tôi tuy chưa về hưu nhưng do lớn tuổi và đau ốm nên chỉ làm việc bán thời gian vì tiền đồng lương kiếm được cũng eo hẹp. Thật ra trước đây, người chủ cốt bụng chủ trương giúp đỡ người cao niên và nghèo khó. Nhưng từ khi người ấy mất đi, sang tay cho các nhà thương mại nên họ mới mạnh tay bóc lột chúng tôi. Do đó tiền thuê đất tăng từ 2% lên 6%. Thật khó tin và sẽ tiếp tục tăng nữa. Như thế này thì người nghèo chúng tôi làm sao sống được. Vậy kính xin Hội Đồng Thành Phố Santa Ana giúp chúng tôi bằng cách: 1. Thông qua chương trình “Ổn định hóa” tiền thuê nhà và đất 2. Đừng để chúng tôi thành người vô gia cư. 3. Cho chúng tôi được quyền sống đúng với giá trị con người trên đất nước Hoa Kỳ. --- Our names are Đảo Lê and Leyna Nguyễn, living at Kona Kai Mobile Home. We are not yet retired, but due to our old age and illnesses, we can only work part time, so our income is limited. The truth is before this, the former owner of the park helped the elderly and poor people. But when they passed and the mobile home park was sold to a business owner who exploited us. The land lease amount increased from 2% to 6%. It is unbelievable, and they will continue to increase it. If it continues like this, how can poor people like us live. So we ask the city council of Santa Ana to help us by: 1. Pass Rent Control 2. Don’t let us become homeless people 3. Let us have the right to live with dignity in the United States. Nam Huu Hoan (Kona Kai Mobile Park) Trong 2 năm vừa qua, chủ sở hữu khu Mobile Home Kona Kai đăng tiã tền thuê đất từ 5% đến 6% mỗi năm. Đây là một mức tăng giá quá cao, đặc biệt đối với những cư dân trong Mobile Home Park là những người già đã nghỉ hưu với thu nhập thấp và hạn chế. Tôi đề nghị Hội Đồng Thành Phố Santa Ana cứu xét và có biện pháp để giới hạn sự tăng giá đất hàng năm hòng giúp cho những cư dân của thành phố có thể trụ được tại thành phố này. --- In the past 2 years the landlord of Kona Kai Mobile Home has raised the rent by 5-6% every year. This is an amount too high, especially for Mobile Home Park residents who are senior residents who have retired with low and limited income. I suggest the council members of Santa Ana examine and take measures in order to limit the yearly increase of rent in order to help the residents remain residents of this city. Hang & Anthony Kennedy (Kona Kai Mobile Park) Chúng tôi là Hang và Anthony Kennedy cư ngụ tại Kona Kai Mobile Home Park. Kính mong các giới chức có liên quan can thiệp và giúp đỡ cho cư dân cư chúng tôi, nhũng những người đang bị dồn vào ngõ cụt bởi sự gia tăng tiền thuê đất quá cao (6%) trong khi hầu hết chúng tôi là những người già và có thu nhập thấp và ổn định. Hiện nay giá cả sinh hoạt và mọi thứ đều tăng, cộng với sự tăng quá cao của tiền thuê đất mỗi năm sẽ dẫn chúng tôi tới không lối thoát. Chúng tôi hi vọng và chân thành cảm ơn sự quan tâm và giúp đỡ của mọi giới chức liên quan của Hội Đồng Thành Phố Santa Ana trong vấn đề này để giúp cư dân của Kona Kai sống còn cho hiện tại và tương lai. --- 3 We are Hang and Anthony Kennedy, living at Kona Kai Mobile Home Park. We ask the elected officials to intervene and help residents like us, people who are being cornered in a dead end by the increased rent that’s too high at 6%. All of us are seniors with low and fixed incomes. Currently the general living cost and everything else keeps rising, in addition the rising cost of rent each year will bring us to a place of no escape. We hope and are sincerely grateful for the concern and support of each council member of Santa Ana in this issue to help the residents of Kona Kai have a present and a future. Alan Nguyen (Kona Kai Mobile Park) Tôi tên Alan Nguyễn, Loc 69 tuổi. Trước tiên tôi xin được cám ơn những Nghị Viên Thành Phố Đã Nghến và giúp đổ những người già nghèo như chúng tôi. Sau thời gian làm việc từ năm 1989 đến 2012 tiền về hưu của 2 vợ chồng tôi là mỗi người không hơn $1,200. Nếu có một người chết thì lợi tức không đủ đóng trả tiền mướn đất cứ gia tăng 6% một năm. Xin giúp đỡ chúng tôi tránh khỏi tình trang Homeless trong tương tai gây ảnh hưởng xấu cho thành phố Santa Ana --- My name is Alan Nguyễn, 69 years old. First, let me thank the city council members who thought about and helped elderly and poor people like us. After working from 1989 to 2012, the retirement money that my wife and I make total less than $1,200. If one of us dies then we will not have enough money to pay the rent which increases by 6% each year. Please help us avoid becoming homeless in the future and negatively impacting the city of Santa Ana. Tai Dang & Net Nguyen (Kona Kai Mobile Park) Chúng tôi Larry T Đạng and Net Nguyễn living at Kona Kai Mobile Home. Chúng tôi đã về hưu với số tiền SSA ít ỏi mà phải trả tiền space quá cao, nên luôn thiếu thốn và khó khăn. Nay kính xin hội đồng thành phố Santa Ana cứu chúng tôi bằng cách:  Thôn qua chương trình ổn định hóa tiền nhà và đất  Đừng biến chúng tôi thành người vô gia cư  Ngăn chân chủ đất đừng lạm quyền tăng tiền đất hàng năm  Giúp đổ cho người già về hưu sau thời gian dài làm việc và đóng góp cho xã hội. --- We are Larry T Đạng and Net Nguyễn living at Kona Kai Mobile Home. We are retired and do not receive much through SSA, but we have to pay a high amount for our space. So we are always in need and struggle. I ask that the city of Santa Ana save us by:  Passing Rent Control  Not making us become homeless  Stopping the owner of the park from abusing the power to raise our rent each year  Helping elderly and retired people after they can no longer work and contribute to society. Qui Vuong, 58 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Hello everyone: My name is Qui Vuong, 59, a typical senior resident living on fixed income at Bali Hi, currently being devastated by unreasonable rent increases by the new property management company since 2017. My current monthly income is $957. I will not receive my social security checks until I am at least 62 years old. Including utilities for my high risk, immune system compromised disabilities, my monthly housing cost comes to $1,096 this past month. That makes my ratio of "housing cost to income" a whopping 116%! 4 My beloved spouse passed away in 2019 from stomach cancer, worried sick about how to make rents meet. If I move to another space at the same park, my monthly rent goes up by at least $300 per month, and even more if I move to another park in Santa Ana. After the COVID-19 global pandemic, given my health condition and high-risk classification, no one would dare take me in. So I am stuck with nowhere to go, living precariously on the brink of eventual homelessness. Thank you in advance for rescuing me with your critical "Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protection" ordinance by voting YES tonight. In politics, as well as in life, DOING THE RIGHT THING is always hard; but as duly elected officials who have sworn to "protect and serve" your own community, if you don't do it, who will? Your bold action will make such a big difference for your suffering constituents, who are being marginalized and wrongfully demonized, by the self-serving propaganda of bad landlords/property managers, along with their "lying hypocrites" lobbyists. I would like to think that we at Bali Hi still have a kind-hearted benevolent owner, who shows caring and appreciation for his best paying customers over the years, and not try to convert this senior park into a more profitable family park. In summary, the EMERGENCY RESCUE measure in the form of a citywide ordinance will save countless lives in the city of Santa Ana, including my own. Hopefully, Santa Ana's leadership in this area will resonate and inspire other municipalities across the nation to do the same for their most vulnerable residents. We are forever in your debt. Sincerely yours, Qui Vuong Lan Hoang, 81 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Chúng tôi là Lê Trị 83 tuổi và Hoàng Thái Lan 81 tuổi hiện cư ngụ tại Bali Hi Mobile Home trong 9 năm qua. Chúng tôi sống nhờ tiền SSA và SSI với mức lương cố định $1,600 mỗi tháng trong khi đó chi ra $1,300. Vì thế cuộc sống chúng tôi rất khó khăn. Đây là lần thứ 3 chúng tôi gửi thư thỉnh nguyện này đến Hội Đồng Thành phố xin giúp đỗ bằng cách thông qua chương trình ‘Ổn định giá tiền’ cho thuê nhà và đất. Hôm nay lần thứ 3 Quí vị họp lần chót để hợp thức hóa chương trình Rent Control. Chúng tôi một lần nữa thiết tha mong Quí Hội Đồng tiếp tục cho thông qua một lần cuối chương trình này. Chúng tôi vô cùng biết ơn Quí vị. --- We are Lê Trị (83 years old) and Hoàng Thái Lan (81 years old), currently living in Bali Hi Mobile Home for the past 9 years. We live with the support of SSA & SSI with a monthly fixed income of $1,600 with $1,300 in expenses. Thus, our lives are very difficult. This is the 3rd time we have sent this letter to the City Council to ask for help by passing “rent control.” This is the 3rd and final time you will meet to pass rent control. Again we plead the council to finally pass this ordinance. We sincerely thank you all. Dao Tran, 71 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Dear Mayor Sarmiento, and City Council Members, My name is Dao Tran. i am 71 years old, and I live with my husband Tuat Mai, who is 74, in Bali Hi Mobile Homes Lodge. We are both refugees from Vietnam. We have lived in America for over 40 years. I would like to respond to the comments made by Vickie Talley from the Manufactured Housing Education Trust. Vickie was not truthful with you. 5 We, the residents of Bali Hi, have NOT been misled. Vicky spoke about us as if we were children. Children who have no agency. Children who are not smart. Children who cannot understand how policies affect their lives. Children who do not understand why they are angry and upset. This is insulting. We are not children, Vickie. We are senior citizens, and we have spent most of our lives working hard to support our families. We have come here to tell you the TRUE stories about how rent increases have made it difficult for us to survive and to live our our retirement in peace. We are low-income residents. Vickie said that we are not only asking for rent control. She said that we are now asking for a RENT FREEZE and RENT REDUCTION. This is a lie. We are not asking for this. We are only asking that the rent be raised by 3% maximum every year. So thank you again, Mayor Sarmiento and City Council Members, for your continued support. Tuat Mai, 74 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Dear City Council representatives of Santa Ana, Today I would like to thank Mayor Vicente Sarmiento, Council members Thai Viet Phan, Jonathan Hernandez and Jessie Lopes for your courage to stand up for Santa ana people, who needed your helps the most, by voting for rent stabilization. You are our heroes. I also once again would like personally asking Mr. Phil Bacerra, Mr. David Penaloza, and Mrs. Nelida Mendoza to reconsider your votes on this issue to help the people who are currently suffering with these cost increases. I want to mention that, last time, Mrs. Vickie Tally told you that our rents are cheap compared to other places, but she did not telling you that our mobile homes are under 1,000 square feet while other mobile homes have 1,200 square feet to 2,000 square feet. Mrs. Talley did not tell you, or she didn’t know that gouging rent money truly happened, example: Space #16, rent 2016 was $590, today $887, increased $297 Space #18, rent 2016 was $565, today $887, increased $332 Space #43, rent 2016 was $515, today $887, increased $372 Space #55, rent 2016 was $545, today $887, increased $342 Space #56, rent 2016 was $505, today $887, increased $382 Space #149, rent 2016 was $590, today $485, increased $402, which is almost double! Do you need more examples? I can provide them for you upon your requests. Vickie Tally lied to you and lied to all people of California. She disrespected our seniors, who worked hard for many years, some of us are older than her parents. Please stop rent gouging now. Please don’t let special interests stopping you. Kindly yours and God Bless America, Tuat Mai Thu Dang, 81 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) I am Thu Dang: 81 years old. I live at (Bali Hi) Mobile Home. I receive the benefit of SSI. If the landlord raises the rent, I will not have enough money to pay it and in the future I will be homeless. So I rely on “Rent control” to help me in a difficult situation. 6 Thanks so much. Thu Dang 10-16-21 Thu Anh, 59 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Tôi tên Thu Anh 59 tuổi cư ngụ tại Bali Hi Mobile Homes thời gian 1 năm, trong trong năm này họ tăng tiền thuê đất $50.00 USD và tiếp tục tăng tiếp khiến tôi lo lắng cho cuộc sống vì tưởng rằng tôi được ở trong khu người già, nhưng không phải vậy. Vậy kính xin Hội Đồng Thành phố Santa Ana giúp tôi bớt lo lắng trong tuổi già bằng cách thông qua chương trình Rent Control để tôi được sống với giá trị con người trên đất nước văn minh hàng đầu là Hoa Kỳ. Trân trọng kính chào, Thu Anh --- My name is Thu Anh 59 years old, living at Bali Hi Mobile Homes for 1 year. In this year, they have increased my land lease by $50 and are continuing to increase it. I worry for my livelihood because I thought that I was living in a neighborhood (that supports) seniors, but that is not the case. I ask the City Council of Santa Ana to help me worry less in my old age by passing Rent Control so that I can live with human dignity in this great land that is the United States. Sincerely, Thu Anh Huong Luong, 74 years old, and Hang Nguyen, 64 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Good evening Mayor and members of City Council of Santa Ana, Good evening everybody, My name is Hang Nguyen, 64 and my husband Huong Luong, 74. Today, both of us again join our group of seniors from Balihi Mobilehome Park, coming here, in order to continue contributing our voice in support of Rent Control. So far, you have heard a lot from people everywhere – all the personal stories of hardship, due to the ever- increasing rent, at will by the landlords. We have been struggling to pay the rent, to buy food, to make both ends meet. We have been crying out everywhere for help, we have been struggling to survive. We are living on the brink of homelessness, not knowing when we will lose our shelters. This issue of Rent Increase was brought up several times to the City Council for support but nothing has been done for years. We believe that now is the time for you to do something about this in order to protect the most vulnerable, low fixed income households. We are not asking for Rent DECREASE. We are not asking for FREE Rent. We are just asking for Rent CONTROL, for FAIR Rent ! Housing is a human right. Low income families deserve to live with a dignity. You definitely understand that the homeless situation in our community, particularly in Santa Ana, has become very serious. We ask you to help keep this crisis not to be increased, not to get worse. 7 We also implore you, we beg you for your understanding and compassion to relieve us from this ever-growing fear of uncertain housing situation. Up till now, you have had all the necessary information, all the data… Please conclude your support with the final approving vote this time! We thank you very much for listening! Tran Cal, 74 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Hi City Council of Santa Ana. I’m Cal Tran and my wife, we are living in Bali Hi Mobile Park since June 1994, 27 years ago. As you know the cost of living in the market right now increase 6 to 7% and inflation happened right now. That is the reason some of city council vote yes for the low rent control to support many residents of Santa Ana low income and poor can pay the rent every month. We thank a lot for your support. We never forget your help. We hope the law rent control will be approved by city council on 10/19/2021 for 3% or lower for rent. Sincerely yours, Cal Tran Dai Nguyen, 69 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Tôi tên: Nguyen Dai 69 tuổi Và vợ là: Nguyen Mary 68 tuổi Ở Mobile Homes Bali Hi được 2 năm nay (2019). Rất chân thành cảm ta văn phòng VietRise và 4 vị dân cử đã ủng hộ và giúp đỡ cho chúng tôi những người già và về hưu trong chương trình Rent Control. Chúng tôi đã nghỉ hưu sau hơn 20 năm làm việc tại Hoa Kỳ không muốn trở thành người Homeless. Thành thật cảm ơn. --- My name is Nguyen Dai 69 years old, and my wife’s name is Nguyen Mary 68 years old. We have lived at Bali Hi Mobile Homes for the past 2 years, since 2019. I want to express sincere thanks to VietRISE and the 4 city council members who supported and helped us elderly and retired people through Rent Control. We are retired after more than 20 years of working in the United States and don’t want to become homeless. Thank you. Hong Le, 73 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Tôi tên là Lê Kim Hồng 73 tuổi, hiện cư ngụ tại Bali Hi Home Mobile Homes Lodge. Tôi xin kính lời cảm ơn ông Thị Trường và quý ông Nghị viên, đã hỗ trợ và giúp đỡ chúng tôi trong những năm qua. Nay xin quý vị tiếp tục giúp đỡ chúng tôi về việc tăng tiền nhà mỗi năm, để chúng tôi nhất là riêng tôi với số tăng hàng năm với giá thấp nhất là 3% để tôi có thể đóng tiền cho cuộc sống chúng tôi được bình an. Xin quý ông hổ trợ và tiếp tục giúp đỡ cho mọi người chúng tôi có được sự sống trong tuổi già của chúng tôi. Tôi trân trọng hết lòng cảm ơn quý ông. 8 --- My name is Lê Kim Hồng, 73 years old, currently living at Bali Hi Mobile Homes Lodge. I want to express my thanks to the Mayor and Council members for supporting and helping us over the past few years. Please continue to help us with the issue of increased housing cost, in order for us and myself to only receive a yearly 3% increase in rent so that I can pay for my living expenses and live peacefully. Please continue to support and help us have a decent life as seniors. I sincerely thank you all. Reverend Duc Minh, 93 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) To: Santa Ana City Council My name is Joseph N. Duc Minh, a retired priest from Los Angeles Archdiocese. Residing at Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge since the Fall of 2010. I’m now 93-year old, having been in USA 65 years. At first I would like to thank the original owner and local managers for a quiet residence with a peaceful atmosphere. I have been enjoying it with deep gratitude. However, these recent years, the space rent has been increased several times (besides tehr regular annual increase of 3%), causing so much anxiety and worry for us, senior citizens with low income. Before the threatening increase the City Council has listened to our desperate cry of help and took action to save us. We, therefore, thank you sincerely, especially those members and the Mayor for your positive vote. God bless you for your goodness. With sincere gratitude, Joseph N. Duc Minh Mike Nguyen, 69 years old, and Hoa Tran, 72 years old (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Chúng tôi hiện cư trú tại Bali Hi Mobile Home. Chúng tôi có lời chân thành cám ơn đến ông Thị Trưởng thành phố Santa Ana đđã cùng ồng hành với chúng tôi trong việc tranh đấu cho quyền lợi của chúng tôi đối với những chủ đất tăng giá thuê đất xuống 3% phần trăm. Chúng tôi là những cư dân nghèo sống bằng đồng lương giới hạn và nhất định, qua táng này thì lo cho tháng tới... thu nhập gia đình chúng tôi chỉ có $1,300 tháng mà phải chi trả $1370 ưa nói ti→ $1400/tháng. Chền sinh hoạt và mua lương thực ăn uống. Chúng tôi lo sợ không chi trả nổi nếu tiếp tục gia tăng tiền thuê đất mỗi năm và cuộc sống cho những người cao tuổi mỗi ngày một yếu kém. Một lần nữa chúng tôi xin chân thành cám ơn, ông thị trưởng đã thấu hiểu hoàn cảnh của chúng tôi và có những hành động đáng quí trên. --- We are currently living at Bali Hi Mobile Home. We want to express our gratitude for the Mayor of Santa Ana who joined us in our fight for our rights against landlords raising the land leases by 3%. 9 We are poor residents who live on limited and fixed salaries. After this month, we worry about the next month. Together, my family only has $1,300 each month, but we have to pay between $1370 to $1400 each month. This does not include our living expenses or food and water. We are anxious that we cannot afford to live here if the lease continues to increase each year and continue to encounter daily hardships in our lives as elderly people. Once again, we thank the mayor for understanding our situation and taking the appropriate actions. Nguyen Thi Nhu Ninh (Bali Hi Mobile Home Lodge) Tôi tên Nguyễn thị Như Ninh hiện cư ngụ tại Bali Hi. Sinh ngày 1/10/1948. Với đơn này tôi thiết tha mong quý vị trong ủy Ban nhà Đất Mobile Home xét lại để chúng tôi được hưởng tăng tiền đất mỗi năm không quá 3%. Có như vậy với tuổi đời già cả như chúng tôi chỉ có đồng tiền già cố định mới đủ sức đóng tiền đất mỗi tháng cho đến cuối đời bớt lo lắng tiền thuê đất. Tiết tha cầu mong Ủy ban cứu xét là sự giúp đỡ to lớn góp sức trong cuộc sống tuổi già của chúng tôi. Rất thành kính biết ơn và ghi ơn vô cùng. --- My name is Nguyễn thị Như Ninh living at Bali Hi. I was born on January 1, 1948. With this comment, I earnestly ask that you review so that we can enjoy yearly increases to our land leases of no more than 3%. That way, in our old age and with our fixed income from retirement, we can pay our land lease each month until the end of our lives and don’t have to worry as much about the money. I hope you will consider what a great help it will be to us in our old ages. Thank you very much. We are very grateful. Indigo Vu Pronouns: they/them Operations Coordinator indigo@vietrise.org | www.vietrise.org 10 Orozco, Norma From:Eddie Luna <eddie@alfalending.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:50 PM To:eComment Cc:Eddie Luna Subject:FW: PLEASE VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROLS Rent control is bad for everyone, including tenants, ecomment@santa-ana.org No for landlords Hard to keep up with expenses as everything is going up Hard to evict not paying tenants It reduces the money available for landlords to improve property making the city look ugly with run down properties Reduces the incentive for new landlords to invest in Santa Ana It reduces the incentive for developers to build in san tana, city of Santa Ana will lose revenues on permits and taxes No for tenants Landlords will not improve property It deteriorates the quality of the neighborhood It reduces the quality of rental units available as tenants will never move out It reduces housing availability, landlords will rather sell to owner occupied properties Bad for the city of Santa Ana City will loss revenue as developers will have no appetite to invest in the city Quality of tenants will go down, City will attract low income people that will no sped money in the city Most low income tenants are trashy people that don’t care how clean they keep properties Now more than ever EXPERIENCE COUNTS...... Call me for your Commercial & Residential Real Estate & Mortgage needs!!!!!!!!! Eddie Luna Broker/ Banker Alfa Investments & Loans 1 Alfalending.com NMLS License No. 292225 BRE License 01333356 1.888.790.0090 Toll Free 714.660.7760 Direct 714.845.0414 Fax Never Problems... ONLY Solutions!!! Click on this link for a safe link to fill out a loan application https://www.blink.mortgage/app/signup/p/lbeinc/eduardoluna ***CERTIFIED COMMERCIAL/REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CONSULTANT*** ***ASK ME ABOUT DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE*** Follow us on Yelp & Facebook https://www.yelp.com/biz/alfa-investments-and-loans-santa-ana https://www.facebook.com/Alfa-Investments-Loans-240723199286245 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in and transmitted with this communication is strictly confidential, is intended only for the use of the intended recipient, and is the property of LBE Inc. / Eddie Luna or His affiliates and subsidiaries. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of the information contained in or transmitted with the communication or dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately return this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it in your possession.*********** PRIVACY STATEMENT Your email address and those of your friends family, associates, and customers are kept strictly confidential and will not be shared with anyone for any reason. We do not sell, rent or make available our list of subscribers. We honor your privacy. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail! 2 From: Eddie Luna \[mailto:Eddieluna@cox.net\] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 6:55 PM Cc: Eddie Luna Subject: PLEASE VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROLS Rent control is bad for everyone including tenants, ecomment@santa-ana.org No for landlords Hard to keep up with expenses as everything is going up Hard to evict not paying tenants It reduces the money available for landlords to improve property making the city look ugly with run down properties Reduces the incentive for new landlords to invest in Santa Ana No for tenants Landlords will not improve property It deteriorates the quality of the neighborhood It reduces the quality of rental units available as tenants will never move out It reduces housing availability, landlords will rather sell to owner occupied properties 3 Orozco, Norma From:Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:39 PM To:dmccarthy@amcliving.com; eComment Subject:Agenda Item 7 I am a resident of Santa Ana living in Ward 5. I am in support of the item. I wish here to respond to some of Danielle McCarthy's comments submitted to the public record. I hope this can help offer a better understanding of what the ordinances actually aim to do and clarify that good landlords can still continue to remain so under the two ordinances. Sincerely, Nathaniel Greensides "no one is disputing the struggles and challenges faced by many of the families in Santa Ana" Thank you for making this known. "most apartment operators value low turnover and only impose reasonable rent increases" The two ordinances will allow for apartment operators to continue to enjoy low turnover and impose reasonable rent increases. The reasons for such are based in carefully considered facts and the experiences of tenants. "not allowing... screen\[ing\] prospective residents and eviction of problem residents endangers \[our communities\]" Absolutely. However nothing in the proposed ordinances render illegal the ability to screen prospective tenants. Nor does anything in the ordinance prevent eviction of problem residents. "rent control does not solve homelessness" The intent of Rent Stabilization and Just Cause protections is NOT to solve homelessness. It is to prevent an increase of homelessness by stabilizing rents for long term residents who will cease their perpetual search for a dignified place to call home once their current Landlord is unable to gouge or infringe upon basic human respect and rights of tenants. "The top 6 US cities with the highest rate of homelessness have rent control" That means 4 out of the top ten don't. The top 6 US cities with highest rates of homelessness are also highly desirable areas where vibrant multifaceted communities exist - which means to say that even if folks are unhoused, they are a part of the community. So if and when these individuals are able to become housed again, they deserve a chance at being able to remain via rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections. The other 4 of the top 10 cities with highest rates of homelessness I guess only care about individual humanity if they pay rent? "Rent control promotes a run-down community, riddled with crime and lack of regulation, safety or maintenance" Without rent control, I can easily refer opponents of rent control to areas of the city where egregious rent increases have never ceased and still those areas are "run down". Rent stabilization and just cause aims to hold everyone to the same standards and accountable. It will actually promote the opposite: actually utilizing rent increases towards improvements and maintenance. With stabilized rents, tenants will stress less about being gouged and in better positions to seek better economic opportunities while establishing their roots in the community instead of constantly being uprooted by greedy landlords. "It promotes overcrowding and overuse of space - where will people park? where will they do their laundry?" Without rent control, people are packed into units in Santa Ana, and then when faced with eviction, pack 1 themselves up and into even smaller units elsewhere. Parking is an issue without rent control in Santa Ana. I conjecture that parking issues will remain unaffected by rent control's implementation. If our culture didn't equate access to economic opportunity with individual access to a car, maybe parking wouldn't be an issue. Also, people will do their laundry at the laundromats as they always have... Rent stabilization will ensure the ability of already cramped households to put more money towards eventually being able to move elsewhere thus reducing the density within a cramped unit. This however assumes that there are units to move to and in highly desirable California and OC, an increase in the supply of housing units - rental and owned - is desperately needed. Rent control alone has never been a mechanism to increase the supply of units; it does not conflict or inhibit efforts to increase the local supply. An increase of supply is dependent upon capital. Tenants being able to save up more capital may result in tenants becoming landowners and developers on their own. Currently, it seems that such a privilege is reserved for those who have had it for a long time and don't want to share with tenants. "rent control does not allow owners to recoup their costs" The rent stabilization ordinance makes explicitly clear that if an increase above the max is necessary for capital expenses, landlords can petition for such. Any profitability outside of that is still left to the individual landlord or investor - vacant units can be rented out at market rates to new tenants and equity gains from the sale of any property still go to the landlord. "older buildings require more maintenance" not necessarily true. But even if/when true, where any unit needs to increase rents above the max, the individual landlord just needs to provide proof that the increase above the max will actually go toward improvements or maintenance. "Rent control impedes the natural progression of apartment living... families will hold on to rent controlled apartments that don't meet their needs anymore because of affordability, making \[those units\] inaccessible to people who really need them" This can also be entirely true without rent control - contracts between tenants and landlords keeping a tenant in a unit that might be better served for a different type of tenant exists without rent control. That unit is now unavailable to people who really need them even without rent control. But I see the argument here and will entertain it: so what? If a family wants to hold onto renting a unit that no longer fits their needs, they deserve to be able to remain in the place where they raised their families. As long as they continue to pay the agreed upon rent, why the desire to displace community members? Once the unit becomes vacant, it can be brought up to market rate for new tenants, but I don't foresee landlords trying to rent out the newly vacated unit at the previous rate to new tenants on their own... "It will exacerbate the housing shortage" The housing shortage in California, especially in highly desirable Orange County and Santa Ana specifically will remain forever a part of our lives until there is a sufficient increase in the supply of housing units here. The housing shortage won't become any more or less worse because of the ordinances to become effective in Santa Ana. 2 Orozco, Norma From: DORIS ALYEA <doridelmar@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:20 PM To: eComment Subject: "No" on rent control Please stop slum landlords, deadbeat tenants who trash housing, homeless people, and demise of your lovely city. Vote " NO " on additional rent control ! Thank you for keeping California great ! Your contributions are appreciated. Doris Alyea Landlord who cares Sent from my Wad Orozco, Norma From: ALONDRA YESENIA SALAZAR <salazar16@ucla.edu> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:35 PM To: eComment Subject: Comment on Agenda Item # 7 Good afternoon, My name is Alondra my pronouns are she/her, I am a community member that lives in Ward 4. 1 am emailing you all to express my support of rent control and just cause evictions in Santa Ana. Please vote yes on the second reading of our rent control and just cause evictions ordinance. I also want to urge city council to instill a rent increase freeze during the 30 day period while we wait for our rent control ordinance to officially go into effect. Tenants United Santa Ana recently had a virtual community forum where community members shared their rent just went up $100 this past month. I have spoken to many other community members who have had the same experience, which emphasizes the need for both rent control and a rent freeze in the meantime. Your community's livelihoods are at stake. Please vote yes on the second reading of our rent control ordinance and please enact a rent freeze during the 30 day period while we wait for our ordinance to take effect. Thank you for your time, /_1C.10F.V-1rREM Zipcode: 92707 Orozco, Norma From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:17 PM To: rjulian@advancedrealestate.com; Hernandez, Johnathan; eComment Subject: Agenda Item 7 Attachments: 60day notice_Redacted_reducedSize.pdf, complaint served 6.26.21_Redacted.pdf, IMG_0732_Redacted_reducedSize.pdf, 545-F_RentlncreaseNotice.pdf I am a resident of Santa Ana living in Ward 5. I am in support of the item. I wish here solely to respond to some of Richard Julian's comments on an individual basis, not as a representative of TUSA. I hope this can help offer a better understanding of what tenants and residents in Santa Ana face as well as help to build some empathy. Sincerely, Nathaniel Greensides "Were they giving you accurate data? Were you able to verify this information with written documents?" Please see attached samples of documents with redacted information for privacy purposes. While none of the attached documents outline rent increases (save for the document of my recent rent increase), rent increases aren't the only issue the ordinances aim to resolve for residents. I will spare you photos of a single mother who was physically assaulted in her home by the property manager of 1327 N Bust St, who had been paying rent on time even during the pandemic, and who was self-help evicted and illegally locked out by the property manager. Some of the attached documents led ultimately to eviction cases in the courts. All cases of the attached documents led to long term residents being forced out of their homes. Additionally, one other recent case I worked with held that their rents are being increased at the max amount - albeit the property manager failed to serve proper notice of the rent increase - but the max legal amounts are still too high for residents. Even for those who can afford the increases, being unexpectedly gouged after years of reasonable increases would fail to do justice to tenant residents who make the city so desirable to live in the first place. One of the documents (not redacted) is from the place I just moved out of on Aug 31st. Only today am I finally getting back my rental deposit after a bunch of back and forth communication where the property manager asserted without any substance whatsoever that it's impossible to leave a unit in cleaner condition upon move out versus move in (I've never vacated a unit and left it in worse state upon move out than move in yet I've never gotten my full deposit back without having to fight for it after move out). The rent increase notice they sent to me which I received on July 28th gave me all of three days to decide if I was to renew the lease at the max allowable legal increase, serve notice and find some other place, or change to a month to month at an illegal amount. The unit was a 550 sq foot "Junior One Bedroom" at $1375 which I only snagged in the middle of the 2020 pandemic (Sep 2020). I have not seen similar units for rent at that price since. I was able to find a better unit and moved (definitely not at the price I was paying previously), but I know that many tenants who still live there (my former neighbors), paid much more in their deposits and rents and don't have the wherewithal to argue or assert their rights like I have. The returned deposit will go towards hospital bills I incurred recently. The management of the old place I lived will likely rent the unit at their proposed increased rent of $1645 (if they haven't already) with more people looking to move as we quickly approach the second anniversary of when the SARS-CoV-2 virus first flagged to the international community of doctors and health professionals (and eviction moratorium for covid related non payment of rent has expired). "Were they all talking about the same tenant?" Absolutely not. However, two of the attached sixty day notices below come from the same landlord who evicted an entire building of long term residents (mostly lower income, spanish speaking) just to paint the walls and rent out the units at double the rents - hardly "substantial repairs" at all. So while individuals affiliated with TUSA were absolutely NOT talking about the same tenant during public comments (which is completely separate from all the individual tenants who offered their own experiences and are now being targeted by their landlords), there are multiple landlords and entities who repeatedly destabilize our City with their intimidation, and outright ease of ability to simply displace long term residents in their pursuit of higher rents for the sake of short term profit above all else. "How were people able to be evicted when there has been a long standing moratorium on evictions? A landlord is not even allowed to go to court to get an eviction. How could they be evicting tenants?" The moratorium on evictions is and has only ever been applicable when the eviction is for non-payment of rent during the pandemic provided that the Tenant was experiencing COVID-19 related income loss. So that means all other evictions not related to non-payment of rent because of COVID were proceeding and have been proceeding in the city during the pandemic as well as in the courts during the pandemic. Additionally, evictions in courts where the landlord claimed that the tenant never provided a declaration of inability to pay rent because of COVID were still able to proceed. Where tenants had been earning income during the pandemic and didn't get sick, landlords still increased rents and then evicted those who couldn't pay the increased rent. The remainder of your comments were focused solely on rent payments but rent payments aren't the sole issue tenants face in Santa Ana. "smaller property owners tend to ... deal more with rental abuse and begin evictions at a higher rate than larger professional management companies. Perhaps these are the troubled tenants referred to by TUSA?" It's all across the board unfortunately. The ordinances aim to hold everyone to the same standards city wide. "Implementing rent control laws would make it impossible to justify investing in such problem properties in Santa Ana. With no financial incentive there is little hope that older apartment communities will be improved and blight will occur" If investments are based in models which depend upon lending agreements instead of cash for acquisitions, yes, it may become impossible. But even in the scenario of a cash acquisition, any projections and models should properly analyze risk and ultimately, any return is better than no return or a negative return. Investors thus have to continue to invest wisely. Additionally, even without rent control in Santa Ana for countless decades now, I can readily list various neighborhoods where blight is taking place while rents increased at unaffordable amounts year over year. I don't think any blight that arises will be due to rent stabilization or just cause. Blight may continue to occur because of the direct choice of the individual landlords improperly accounting for necessary maintenance during the course of their ownership of properties - but at least tenants will have the ability to hold such landlords accountable. "TUSA indicated that people could not pay their rent and therefore will lose their homes" Yes, and those testimonies also included recounting traumatic experiences where Landlords and building management company employees were harassing and bullying tenants - not just the ever increasing unaffordable rents. Many of the tenant residents who spoke (not necessarily affiliated with TUSA) are at their wits end. The most vocal were actually not affiliated with TUSA at all. They are residents whose landlords are increasing rents to the max ahead of these ordinances coming into effect. Those who are affiliated with TUSA spoke not just about rent payments, but the abuse and intimidations that tenants face from LLs and property managers apart from paying rent. To remedy any claims of unfair taking: Units subject to the rent stabilization ordinance will be able to request increases above the max increase amounts provided there's substance for such an increase and they will still enjoy at most returns of 3% upon rent increases coupled with any equity gains in the process. Not all units will be subject. Rents can be offered at market rate upon vacancy per Costa Hawkins. "Bad tenants" can still be evicted. Landlords will continue to earn a fair return on their investments in Santa Ana. Residents and communities will be stabilized creating a strong local economy for all in the City. 1 60-DAY NOTICE TO 2 3 MOVE OUT 4 5 PlaintiR(s): Owner(s) 6 vs. 7 Defeadant(s).- 60-Day Notice Resident To Quit 8 Resident 9 . Resident 10 11 II AND ALL OTHERS IN 12 II you occupy the premises located at 425 E Wellington 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 your tenancy and Resident(s) agreement under which Apartment number , in the City of Santa Ana , California are hereby terminated sixty (60) days after service upon you of this notice or as of May 31 202_1 , whichever is later. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to vacate and move your belongings by the above stated time period. THIS NOTICE, under the provisions of Section 1946 of the California Civil Code, requires no specified reason. HOWEVER, grounds for this notice and circumstances IF required by a local ordinance are as follows: The Landlord is going to substantially remodel the unit which will require the premises to be vacant as it will be uninhabitable during construction. The obligation for any monies due for the month of April 2021 in the amount of $1,575.00 will be waived. 21 11 WITNESS(ES):- 22 11 DATE AND PLACE: April 1, 2021 Santa Ana, CA 23 24 25 26 27 YOUR FAILURE TO VACATE within the said time period will result in local proceedings against you to recover possession of the subject premises, attorney fees, court costs and penalty damages of $600.00 under Section 1174 as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure. State law permits former tenants to reclaim abandoned personal property left at the former address of the tenant, subject to certain conditions. You may or may not be able to reclaim property without incurring additional costs, depending on the cost of storing the property and the length of lime before it is reclaimed. In general, these costs will be lower the sooner you contact your former landlord after being notified that property belonging to you was left behind after you moved out 28 11 Dated this 1 Sit day of 202? 29 11 Owner(s) By Agent 30 AOA Form No. 105B (Rev. 01113) - Copyngh12006 -Apartment Owners Association of California, Inc. • www.acause.cam • San Fernando Valley (B7a)98f49200.• Los Angeles (323)937-8811 7 Long Beach (562)597-2422.• Garden Grove (714)639E000 • San Otago (619)2804007 • NurlMrn Cald),no (510)TM7521 THREE-DAY NOTICE TO QUIT To: Property Address: WITHIN THREE (3) DAYS after service on you of this notice, you are hereby required to quit the subject premises, This Notice is made pursuant to California Code of0vil pr©cedzrre, section 1 161(4) based on your use of the property "contrary to the conditions or covenants of his or her lease". Pursuant to Section 11 of the Lease Agreement you were required to "maintain the grounds and gardens of the Premises in good condition at his own expense. This includes but is not limited to keeping the existing gardens of the Premises weed free and well watered." You have not maintained the lawn by failing to keep it well -watered, causing the lawn to die. The homeowners association has additionally fined the owner for your failure to maintain the lawn. in addition, you have failed to maintain the backyard pool. If you fail to quit move out and surreaader possession of the Property, legal proceedings will be instituted against you to obtain possession, which could result in a judgment against you for possession, holdover damages, attorneys' fees and court costs as allowed by law, plus the Lessor/Agent for Lessormay recover an additional punitive award of six hundred dollars ($600.00) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1174(b) for such unlawful detention. State law permits former tenants to reclaim abandoned personal property left at the former address of the tenant, subject to certain conditions. You may or may not be able to reclaim property without incurring additional costs, depending an the cost of storing the property and the length of time before it is reclaimed. In general, these costs will be lower the sooner you contact your former landlord after being notified that property belonging to you was left behind after you moved out. DATE: MAY 19, 2021 BY: MARVIN R. ADVIENTO, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR - LANDLORD) C/O MBAILEC,AL, P.C. 7545 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA 92618 PHONE: (949) 677-7009 2 1 6®-DAY NOTICE TO 2 MOVE OUT 3 Plaintiff(s): _ _ _ , Owner(s) VS. 60-Day Notice Defendant(s): ,Resident To Quit Resident Resident To: Resident(s) AND ALL OTHERS IN POSSESSION. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your tenancy and rental agreement under which you occupy the premises located at 1104 N Lacy St. Apartment number , in the City of Santa Ana sixty (60) days after service upon you of this notice or as of May 31 is later. California are hereby terminated YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to vacate and move your belongings by the above stated time period. 2021 whichever THIS NOTICE, under the provisions of Section 1946 of the California Civil Code, requires no specified reason. HOWEVER, grounds for this notice and circumstances IF required by a local ordinance are as follows: The Landlord is going to substantially remodel the unit which will require the premises to be vacant as it will be uninhabitable during construction. The obligation for any monies due for the month of April 2021 in the amount of $1,200.00 will be waived. WITNESS(ES): - DATE AND PLACE: April 1, 2021 Santa Ana, CA YOUR FAILURE TO VACATE within the said time period will result in local proceedings against you to recover possession of the subject premises, attorney fees, court costs and penalty damages of $600.00 under Section 1174 as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure. State law permits former tenants to reclaim abandoned personal property left at the former address of the tenant, subject to certain conditions. You may or may not be able to reclaim property without incurring additional costs, depending on the cost of storing the property and the length of time before it is reclaimed. In general, these costs will be lower the sooner you contact your former landlord after being notified that property belonging to you was left behind after you moved out. Dated this 1 St day of April 2021 Owner(s): By Agent San Femando Valle 818 988- AOA Form No. 105B (Rev. 01/13) - Copyright 2006 -Apartment Owners Association of Califomia, Inc. • www.aoausa.eom Y ( ) 9200 Los Angeles (323)937-8811 • Long Beach (562)597-2422 • Garden Gmve (714)539.6DDO • San Diego (619)280-7007 • Northern California (510)769-7521 THE VILLAGE APARTMENTS 521 N. Tustin Ave, CA 92705 714-541-5259 LEASE EXTENTION ADDENDUM —PLEASE READ CAREFULLY Date: 07-25-2021 RE: LEASE RENEWAL 545-F BETWEEN: ANDY CHENG AND CHRISTINE CHENG: LESSOR NATHANIEL FRANCIS GREENSIDES: LESSEE Dear MR. N. GREENSIDES, 545 N. Tustin Ave #F Santa Ana, CA 92705 It is our sincere desire to provide you with the finest home and service possible at THE VILLAGE APARTMENT HOMES. We will continue to put our best effort in maintaining our fine community. We hope you are enjoying your apartment home since we appreciate your continued residency. Therefore, we are extending your lease for a 6- or 12-month period, beginning on 6 months 9/01/2021 and ending 2/28/2022 (initial) or 12 months beginning on 9/01/2021 and ending 8/31/2022 (initial). We are offering the following option for you to consider. $1485.00 Lease Renewal If we do not receive this signed Lease Extension Addendum by the above -mentioned date, your rent will automatically be adjusted at the higher rate of $1645.00 Effective 09/01/2021 you will be on a Month -to -Month Tenancy. All other condition of Lease shall remain in effect, and no condition of the lease shall be deemed waived by this Renewal Agreement. If you decide to leave our community a 30-day written notice is still required. If there is anything we can do to make you more comfortable in your home, please contact our office at 714.541.5259 Resident Date Resident Date Resident Date Resident Date Resident Date Eleonora Kelemen/ Community Manager Orozco, Norma From: Shirley Laroff <laroffsure@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:16 PM To: eComment Subject: Opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" Dear Councilmember, I am a rental -housing provider in Orange County and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council agenda. The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over -reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental -housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more. As a community partner and rental -housing provider in the county, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts. However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental - housing providers with a proposal that: Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants. Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations. Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to 1 the rental industry. I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental -housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city. Sincerely, Shirley Laroff laroffsure@gmail.com Shirley Laroff 1-714-871-1490 z Orozco, Norma From:timrush@bhhscaprops.com Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:14 PM To:eComment Subject:Proposed Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction Ordinances, Council Agenda 10/19/21 Dear Mayor & Members of the City Council; I am writing to seek your NO vote on the proposed Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction ordinances proposed for a second reading at tonight’s council meeting. There will no doubt be lots of testimony both for and against this measure as there have been at the two previous council meetings. But each of you has been elected to LEAD this city and often times that means making choices that may not be popular with a vocal crowd chanting for their position at a City Council meeting. But because you have been elected to LEAD and make good choices for the future of the City you must weigh the pros and cons of each proposal. These proposed ordinances will not give you and the advocates what they seek……….and the dismal record of rent control in each and every city where it has been enacted tell the sorry tale of what a lie its proponents are pushing. It is interesting that in spite of the FACTS in Santa Ana………..there are those who refuse to allow their opinions to be interrupted by the facts and realize these measures while well intended are deeply flawed. The “study group” that has been spoken about appears to be operating outside of the accepted boundaries of a study group and may have engaged in activity that violates the Brown Act. Please consider carefully the long term consequences for Santa Ana and vote NO on these measures. Sincerely, Tim Rush, 1225 South Broadway St., Historic Wilshire Square, On behalf of THE SANTA ANA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION (714) 299-4455 1 Orozco, Norma From:ALAN WAGNER <arw949@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:50 AM To:eComment Subject:No on outrageous 3% rent controls Council members, It’s all over the news, inflation is 3.6%. The rent increase cap of 3% is insufficient to maintain property maintenance and expenses. I would hope the Santa Ana Business development would also be opposed to a Rent control cap. They wouldn’t want business providers to think Santa Ana compares with anti business, socialist Santa Monica. Discrimination against property owners could cause litigation. Property owners shouldn’t be the only ones held responsible for housing cost of immigrants from Gautama or Mexico who have no job skills and expect our city to care and provide for them. Alan Wagner 1 Orozco, Norma From:John Townswick <jtowns2@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:03 PM To:eComment Subject:Let us review Our governor signed an ADU bill a year ago and passed legislation to add additional homes on California properties. We are in a real estate home value increase which unfortunately increases rents. The good thing is rents go down when home prices go down. It is called reverting to the mean. Lastly if rents are capped, landlords can sell and new owners become disenchanted with rentals. Money goes where it is treated well. Thanks Sent from my iPhone 2 Orozco, Norma From:Ed Evans <EdE@LakeParkHomes.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 11:40 AM To:eComment Subject:Rent Control a Sad Day! Mayor and City Council, We watch in horror as you blindly put Santa Ana in the dark hole of Rent Control!! You are giving a Private Subsidy (property owners pay?) to the many for the needs of a few! Are mobile home owners with homes ranging in the Thousands up to over $400,000 needy? Most all of the people demanding a handout have been prequalified to financially afford their chosen housing form in Santa Ana. Why do they need help? Can you run the City of Santa on 80 percent of the CPI of course not?? We share the same financial burden. You are advancing the City to become a Controlled Slum!!! Look at what happened to New York and Detroit after years of Rent Control! Further how are you going to explain why we can’t get rid of BAD tenants to our GOOD tenants. They deserve better!! Yes your action to appease those that do not have NEED will come to bite you. There are other ways to help the need. HELP those that truly have need. A SAD day for Santa Ana. Ed Evans Lake Park Get Outlook for iOS 1 Orozco, Norma From:Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:53 AM To:eComment Subject:Agenda Item 7 Dear City Council and the general public, I am a resident of ward 5 and I am in favor of this item. Below, I address some of the points made by some in opposition. Sincerely, Nathaniel Greensides “In every locale with rent control, the mobilehome resale prices are higher than before rent control, and those prices accelerate each year, often many times above the true value of the mobilehomes” The park owners/operators are suggesting here that owners of mobile homes shouldn’t be able to sell their mobilehomes for above market prices which is a weird assertion to put forth in my opinion. Their concern that “eventually, home prices will reach levels that put them out of buyers needing affordable housing” is moot. For current residents (i.e. not future residents), the need to purchase affordable home is superceded by the ability to remain a renter with stabilized rents (which can still increase, but with a ceiling – just like with the 2 percent property tax increase ceiling that landowners in California enjoy, or fixed rate mortgages). Additionally, without rent control, the reality for Santa Ana residents (at least those who are younger than 40 years old) has always held that “home prices \[have always been at\] levels that \[are unaffordable\]”. Because of exactly that reason, it is time to stabilize housing costs for low income renters of Santa Ana who have been here and want to remain. While it may be true that in the short term, lack of supply might (not “will”) price out young families or seniors looking for a new place to buy in Santa Ana, rent control does not inhibit increasing the supply of housing in the city. Any "young families or seniors" currently living in Santa Ana and living in a unit subject to rent stabilization will actually be in a better position to save at an even faster rate towards purchasing a place of their own than without rent stabilization. The only reason that Rent Control WILL price out future home buyers (not current renters) is if the supply of housing remains the same or decreases. “With rent control, there is no incentive for park owners and operators to improve communities” I’d argue the incentive is the same if not more with rent stabilization and Just Cause protections (i.e. rent control). The incentive even without rent control is actually pretty big: failing to maintain properties at a basic level will result in those properties falling apart and people losing their homes as well as the housing provider facing not only lost profits, but criminal penalties for willfully failing to adhere to basic health and safety regulations. The difference with Rent Stabilization, Just Cause, and any local agency in charge of enforcement (i.e. rent control) is accountability. Landlords who can prove that an increase above the maximum allowed yearly increase will actually go towards maintenance or improvements will be able to petition for adjustments above the maximum allowed increases. The levels of any incentives for park owners to improve communities remains unchanged. “As demonstrated by the hostilities expressed in your hearings, rent control pulls communities apart. It destroys any incentive that landlords and mobilehome \[park\] owners have to cooperate, dialogue, or work together to maintain and improve mobilehome parks as ‘communities’ and ‘neighborhoods’… you wouldn’t pass a law that so constricts other 1 business owners (restaurants, retail stores, repair services, etc.) that they have \[sic\] incentive to care about their customers” I chuckled a little at “that they have incentive” I think it was supposed to say “that they have no incentive to care about their customers” The way it’s written suggests that any government regulation is the sole reason for any business to care about its patrons. The way this is written suggests that without government regulation, there is no incentive for a business to care about its customers whatsoever. But then again, I can't say I am surprised seeing that at the recent city council meetings where they appeared in person in opposition, they had stickers containing a double negative "No on No Rent Control", but are the same people who suggested that if tenants want more income, they should get more education... Anyway, working backwards from that, governments at every level – local, county, regional, state, and federal – all have laws that regulate certain business activities in the interest of the general health and welfare of the people. All businesses operating in a city must pay for a business license to operate in the city. Restaurants are held to not only health and safety codes in the preparation of the food for its patrons, but also to the building codes and local regulations of the types of food and beverages they can sell, and business hours – all in the interest of public health and safety. Retail stores are held to the same building and fire codes as any other business in the city and are taxed accordingly – some retail businesses are taxed even higher for example, dispensaries operating in Santa Ana. Repair services are required to be not only properly licensed, but also BONDED so as to ensure individual consumer protections and general public health and safety. It also ensures an additional layer of liability protection for the business required by law to be bonded and insured. Rent control hasn’t “destroy\[ed\] any incentive that landlords and” park owners have to work with community. To the contrary. Since at least 2017 when tenants began voicing their issues as tenants to the City Council, the landlords in opposition and the mobile home park owners in opposition have done nothing to better the conditions that landlords are inflicting upon tenants in Santa Ana. The park owners now in opposition of the proposed rent controls did nothing since then to ensure that a few bad actors in their own industry aren’t able to remain unfettered and unabated in their abuse and intimidation of tenants who always paid their rents on time. “If you want to ruin any sense of community, Rent Control is the tool.” I conjecture that any sense of community is actually ruined by people who gaslight the community into thinking that the residents who pay rent and make our city so desirable are lying about their experiences. I conjecture that any sense of community is actually ruined by bad landlords who actively belittle and reduce tenant complaints and issues into issues relating solely to whether or not one pays rent on time. In jurisdictions where rent control was enacted – even in the case of the statewide AB1482 – landlords are invited to the table in terms of making sure they follow any new laws. But since they failed to propose any fruitful solutions to the issues tenants face every day (and what incentive did Landlords have anyway?), tenants had to take matters into their own hands by drafting up an ordinance of our own - a version of which will now be codified into law. 2 Orozco, Norma From:Andrea Fairbrother <andrea@fairbrotherdesign.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:53 AM To:eComment Subject:Re: Rent control Andrea Fairbrother 938 West Riviera Drive Santa Ana, 92706 I forgot to include address on my previous comment. On Tue, Oct 19, 2021, 9:48 AM Andrea Fairbrother <andrea@fairbrotherdesign.com> wrote: As a long time Santa Ana resident, I am against rent control. Our properties need to be maintained. Work on the homeless issue instead. Tired of them stealing, breaking into yards , cars and homes. Your values are confused. Andrea Fairbrother West Floral Park 1 Orozco, Norma From:Clarke <clarkef@newportpacific.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:35 AM To:eComment Subject:Rent control I am opposed to rent control in Santa Ana. Clarke Fairbrother 938 Riviera Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 Office 949-852-5575 Cell 714-321-5644 1 Orozco, Norma From:Joseph McDonough <joemcd963@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:00 AM To:eComment; Macedonio, Margarita; Micallef, Michelle Subject:Fw: Rent Control & Rosewood Baker Neighborhood Assn. In the early 1980's, a Santa Ana Police Lieutenant named Mike Foote helped to organize a small group of 4-plex apartment owners in the South Rosewood Baker area, in an effort to "clean-up" the gang infested neighborhood. By working with Lt Foote, and Community Development (Scott Kutner & Margarita Macedonia) we were successful. The path to success was constant teamwork and regular meetings between owners, the City, and SAPD. South Rosewood Baker is primarily composed of "mom and pop" property owners (approx.74 individual buildings - 4-plex's and 3-plex's) who have kept the rents below market over the years, as it provides both neighborhood stability and compassion for the residents. The nearby larger property owners, primarily corporate and big partnerships, have been more aggressive with rent increases because in my opinion, they are not involved with the community or its residents. I believe that City Council's angst is with these large uninvolved property owners who are "in and out" of Santa Ana every five years, which is the typical holding period for large syndications. The ordinance, as it is currently written, punishes all landlords equally---large and small, good and bad, involved or uninvolved. I would urge the Council to re-think what they want to accomplish. An ordinance which does not allow small landlords to even keep up with CPI is not , in my opinion, in the best interest of the future of the City. Respectfully Joe McDonough Neighborhood Leader Rosewood Baker NA 949-861-0767 joemcd963@msn.com 1 Orozco, Norma From:Ed Masterson <ed.masterson@cox.net> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 9:26 PM To:eComment Subject:VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES Dear Councilmembers, I am a rental-housing provider and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council agenda. The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over-reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental-housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more. As a rental-housing provider, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts. However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental-housing providers with a proposal that:  Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants.  Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations.  Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry. I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental-housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city. Sincerely, Ed Masterson Rental Housing Provider Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 Orozco, Norma From:olaf kreutz <ogcproperties1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 6:49 PM To:eComment Subject:Rent control - VOTE NO To whom it may concern: I am a small landlord in orange county, for a total of 11 units. Most of my tenants have been with me for 1020 some 25 years. I actually have one unit rented to a baby that was born to one of my tenants 22 years ago. I think that speaks to my fair treatment of my tenants and the satisfaction level that my tenants have with me, staying for all these years. That said, I am convinced that this is a bad step for the City Of Santa Ana. California already has some very stringent rent control measures in place. I am convinced that restricting grants further will lead to landlords being forced to look for any excuse to cycle 10 and so they can rent the units at market rent. It’s not a matter of being a bad landlord or money greedy or wanted to maximize your investment. With the current rents Rhonda Rhodes is back to evict tenants were even the smallest mis-step. Even worse is the part of the city ordinance and that’s tenants and renters without the approval of the landlord. I could rent to a single person, and find that six months later a whole gang of criminals is living in my unit without my knowledge. That will endanger my property and my tenants to an unreasonable degree. I know that many of you campaign with rent control as part of your plan, but there has to be a more reasonable way to implement it. As it is, I urge you to vote NO on the existing proposal Best Regards, Olaf 2 Orozco, Norma From:MJ Baretich <mjbaretich@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 6:31 PM To:eComment Subject:AGENDA ITEM 7 Mayor and Council Members My name is Mary Jo Baretich. I am the Zone C Vice President and former State President for the Golden State Manufactured-home Owners League. I am submitting this appeal for your YES vote on Item 7 Adoption of Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Your extensive work on these items is commendable. Thank you for having your Staff create the documents necessary to start the process. These homeowners need your support. They are pleading and fighting for their lives It is shocking that through no fault of their own, seniors, veterans, disabled and other low-income mobilehome homeowners in the City of Santa Ana are being threatened with economical eviction, causing the loss of their homes and everything they have saved and paid for all their lives. They need your protection. These are people who have either spent their life-savings on a home or have mortgages on their home and are now facing extreme threats of rent increases for the piece of dirt that their mobilehome sits upon in the mobilehome parks. Many seniors have no family and are facing the horrible prospect of being homeless and living among the habitual druggies and others who prey upon these elderly citizens who are in their 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. Something had to be done! And you are addressing it tonight. As stated in the proposal, the City has 29 Mobilehome Parks containing 3,913 spaces. Six of the Mobilehome Parks and one thousand twenty spaces in Santa Ana are currently age-restricted to persons 55 years of age or older. Please search your hearts and get these Ordinances in place. Santa Ana’s mobilehome rent structure has risen beyond affordability in many parks. Mobilehomes are the only unsubsidized form of affordable housing in the state. Please protect these people and their only assets. We are asking for your compassion and fairness in this matter. Please vote YES to approve the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Thank you, Mary Jo Baretich Zone C Vice President for the Golden State Manufactured-home Owners League (GSMOL) (714) 465-0932 mjbaretich@hotmail.com 3 4 Orozco, Norma From:Gina Laroff <glaroff@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 6:10 AM To:eComment Subject:Opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" Dear Councilmember, I am a rental-housing provider in Orange County and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council agenda. The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over-reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental-housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more. As a community partner and rental-housing provider in the county, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts. However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental-housing providers with a proposal that:  Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants.  Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations.  Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry. I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental-housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city. Sincerely, Gina Laroff Gina Laroff glaroff@mac.com 5 Orozco, Norma From:Jim Joffe <jim@jandhmgt.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 4:38 PM To:eComment Cc:Vickie Talley; Julie Paule; Marlen Cortes; Tracy Cederoth; Thomas Pacelli Subject:Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance Reading. Categories:Correspondence  Rent control is a windfall benefit to mobilehome owners in land lease parks. As sought by rent control proponents, initial and ongoing space rents below fair market is the obvious and immediate benefit. Just as impactful is the proven fact that in every locale with rent control the mobilehomes resale prices are higher than before rent control, and those prices accelerate each year, often many times above the true value of the mobilehomes. Eventually, home prices will reach levels that put them out of reach of buyers needing affordable housing. More succinctly stated, there is an inverse relationship between the prices of mobilehomes and the space rent charged. Because home prices greatly increase under Rent control, eventually prices young families and seniors on a budget out of the mobilehome market. Under Rent Control the resale process of 40 and 50 year old homes will often be several times more expensive than new homes form the factory. So Rent Control only acts as a “windfall” benefit to existing homeowner only. Future homebuyers suffer. o Not surprisingly, the current sales prices of mobilehomes in Santa Ana mobilehome parks is currently higher than their true value as mobilehomes indicating the fact that space rents are already under market. o One unfortunate result of rent control causing artificially inflated home prices on older homes is the fact that the oldest of homes which have 50 year old wiring and plumbing and may be unsafe for habitation remain in the park because the artificially buoyed prices of these homes prohibits their replacement by newer, safer, more energy efficient new homes. New homes would be available at affordable prices as the most obsolete of homes are otherwise replaced. o There is no incentive for park owners and operators to improve the communities. At best, rent control attempts to support the status quo in a rapidly changing world. There is no incentive for park ownership to improve or increase utility services or amenities  Many current electrical systems won’t support expanding appliance and computing needs of seniors, stay at home workers, and growing families.  Stagnant facilities and systems prohibit the replacement of obsolete unsafe homes with energy efficient newer home.  But I buried the lead. As demonstrated by the hostilities expressed in your hearings, rent control pulls communities apart. It destroys any incentive landlords and mobilehome owners have to cooperate, dialogue, or work together to maintain and improve mobilehome parks as “communities” and “neighborhoods”. Homeowners have no incentive to dialogue with park ownership. The city will become the “middleman” creating an ever-increasing chasm between landlord and tenant, park owner and homeowner. You wouldn’t pass a law that so constricts other business owners (restaurants, retail stores, repair services, etc.) that they have incentive to care about their customers. If you want to ruin any sense of community, Rent Control is the tool. 1 James Joffe CalDRE #00710270 | President J&H Asset Property Mgt Inc. 22880 Savi Ranch Parkway Yorba Linda, CA 92887 Phone: (714) 974-0397 Fax: (714) 283-3225 Website: www.jandhmgt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged or confidential and/or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete the message from your system. Your assistance in maintaining the integrity of e-mail communications is appreciated. 2 Orozco, Norma From:Aurora R Chavez <jfchavez75@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 4:52 PM To:eComment Subject:No rent Control Categories:Correspondence Dear Councilmember, I am a rental-housing provider in Orange County and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council agenda. The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over-reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental-housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more. As a community partner and rental-housing provider in the Orange County, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts. However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE anyone in the Rental Business AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided us and my fellow rental-housing providers with a proposal that:  Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants.  Eliminates our ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations.  Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry. I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental-housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city. No Rent Control its bad Business Sincerely, Juan & Aurora Chavez 3 Orozco, Norma From:terry dowdall <terrydowdallesq@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 4:52 PM To:Jim Joffe Cc:eComment; Vickie Talley; Julie Paule; Marlen Cortes; Tracy Cederoth; Thomas Pacelli Subject:Re: Mobilehome Rent Control Ordinance Reading. Categories:Correspondence AMEN. Terry R. Dowdall, Esq. Dowdall Law Offices, A.P.C. 284 N. Glassell St., 1st Fl. Orange, CA 92866-1409 terrydowdallesq@gmail.com trd@dowdalllaw.com Office 714.532.2222 (This office does not receive service of process nor any notice via email absent advance written assent; no adoptive nor tacit admission is intended nor shall be inferred or construed from an unchal- lenged or unaddressed claim of any purported representation, fact, event, conduct or condition, or, based on delay). Ex Parte Notice: This Office does not accept ex parte notice or any type of service via voice mail, e-mail or telefax, without a prior written agreement from Dowdall Law Offices, A.P.C. U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice: Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any tax related matter addressed herein. Confidential Email: This email message and any files attached are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may contain privileged information from Dowdall Law Offices, A.P.C. The information is intended solely for use by the individual(s) or entity(ies) named as the recipient hereof, and is also covered by the electronic communications privacy act (18 U.S.C.A. §2510 -2512). Any unauthorized review, use, 4 disclosure, copying or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email immediately and destroy copies of the original message. On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:38 PM Jim Joffe <jim@jandhmgt.com> wrote:  Rent control is a windfall benefit to mobilehome owners in land lease parks. As sought by rent control proponents, initial and ongoing space rents below fair market is the obvious and immediate benefit. Just as impactful is the proven fact that in every locale with rent control the mobilehomes resale prices are higher than before rent control, and those prices accelerate each year, often many times above the true value of the mobilehomes. Eventually, home prices will reach levels that put them out of reach of buyers needing affordable housing. More succinctly stated, there is an inverse relationship between the prices of mobilehomes and the space rent charged. Because home prices greatly increase under Rent control, eventually prices young families and seniors on a budget out of the mobilehome market. Under Rent Control the resale process of 40 and 50 year old homes will often be several times more expensive than new homes form the factory. So Rent Control only acts as a “windfall” benefit to existing homeowner only. Future homebuyers suffer. o Not surprisingly, the current sales prices of mobilehomes in Santa Ana mobilehome parks is currently higher than their true value as mobilehomes indicating the fact that space rents are already under market. o One unfortunate result of rent control causing artificially inflated home prices on older homes is the fact that the oldest of homes which have 50 year old wiring and plumbing and may be unsafe for habitation remain in the park because the artificially buoyed prices of these homes prohibits their replacement by newer, safer, more energy efficient new homes. New homes would be available at affordable prices as the most obsolete of homes are otherwise replaced. o There is no incentive for park owners and operators to improve the communities. At best, rent control attempts to support the status quo in a rapidly changing world. There is no incentive for park ownership to improve or increase utility services or amenities  Many current electrical systems won’t support expanding appliance and computing needs of seniors, stay at home workers, and growing families.  Stagnant facilities and systems prohibit the replacement of obsolete unsafe homes with energy efficient newer home.  But I buried the lead. As demonstrated by the hostilities expressed in your hearings, rent control pulls communities apart. It destroys any incentive landlords and mobilehome owners have to cooperate, dialogue, or work together to maintain and improve mobilehome parks as “communities” and “neighborhoods”. Homeowners have no incentive to dialogue with park ownership. The city will become the “middleman” creating an ever-increasing chasm between landlord and tenant, park owner and homeowner. You wouldn’t pass a law that so constricts other business owners (restaurants, retail stores, repair services, etc.) that they have incentive to care about their customers. If you want to ruin any sense of community, Rent Control is the tool. James Joffe 5 CalDRE #00710270 | President J&H Asset Property Mgt Inc. 22880 Savi Ranch Parkway Yorba Linda, CA 92887 Phone: (714) 974-0397 Fax: (714) 283-3225 Website: www.jandhmgt.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged or confidential and/or exempt from disclosure. Any unauthorized disclosure, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e-mail and delete the message from your system. Your assistance in maintaining the integrity of e-mail communications is appreciated. 6 Orozco, Norma From:James "Ski" Skawinski <ski@ski4homes.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 4:56 PM To:eComment Subject:Rent control Categories:Correspondence Dear Councilmember, I am a rental-housing provider in Santa Ana and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council agenda. The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over-reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental-housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more. As a community partner and rental-housing provider in the city, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts. However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental-housing providers with a proposal that: Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants. Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations. Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry. I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental-housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and engage in discussions with rental housing providers in the city. Sincerely, James Skawinski 7 Orozco, Norma From:Christopher Bridge <chrisjbridge@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 5:00 PM To:eComment Subject:Rent control & just cause eviction ordinances Categories:Correspondence Dear Santa Ana City Council; I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the the proposed rent control and just cause eviction notices which is coming up for consideration. I am an active real estate broker specializing in multifamily property sales and acquisitions throughout Orange County and Santa Ana in particular. I am also an apartment property owner within the city of Santa Ana. Through my professional discussions with multi family building owners in Orange County I can confirm that the city of Santa Ana is becoming an area in which it is not considered safe to invest, pending the outcome of this rent control vote. Existing owners have made it clear that if rents are not able to keep up with market inflation the impact will be in a lack of reinvestment in the maintenance of their buildings. I am sure this is not what the City of Santa Ana is anticipating or desiring. In consideration of unreasonable rent hikes the State of California has recently enacted Assembly Bill 1482 also known as the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. This cap on rent raises is "Designed to guard tenants against the most egregious rent hikes." This by itself is sufficient to protect the tenants from unscrupulous landlords. NO FURTHER ACTION IS NECESSARY. Thank you for your no vote. Yours sincerely Christopher J Bridge 8 Orozco, Norma From:Aaron Peluso <cchcorp@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 5:05 PM To:eComment; Aaron Peluso Subject:Bali Hi Opposition To Consent Calendar Item #7 - Rent Control Categories:Correspondence Dear City Council Members, I am again voicing my opposition to the rent control measure on tomorrow night's agenda. I will include my prior comments below for reference. It has recently come to my attention that 7 of the 13 people 'from Bali Hi' who spoke at the last meeting could not be matched with the names of our actual Tenants appearing on our rent roll and with whom we have Leases. This appears to be emblematic of a process that seems disconnected from facts and logic. It is my understanding that calls from ownership groups have gone unanswered by certain members of the city council. How can one make an informed decision if they are unwilling to hear all sides? It is also my understanding that letters in opposition outnumbered letters in support during the last meeting. Do the members who plan to vote for this measure care about the facts and the actual best interest of the people of Santa Ana? Rent control proposals have recently failed twice in recent elections. Written correspondence at the current time indicates support for the proposal does not exceed opposition. Speakers at meetings provide mis-information and in some cases may mis-represent themselves as Tenants. Certain members of the city council refuse to even hear the other side. Additionally, I understand one member has publicly changed their stance on the issue, post election. These are not conditions under which a proposal of such significance should be decided. I again ask that you table the measure and take the time to meet with ownership groups (and Tenant groups!) to fully understand all sides of the story before making any final decisions. Sincerely, Aaron Peluso ***Prior Correspondence to City Council*** Dear City Council, I represent one of the owners of Bali Hi Mobile Home park in Santa Ana. For more than half a century our family owned business has provided affordable housing to our residents. In addition, we work with outside organizations to subsidize any Tenants who cannot afford the rent and have not evicted anyone from a mobile home space, ever, that we can recall. We currently subsidize about a dozen Tenants who genuinely cannot afford the rent. We are not in the business of evicting seniors on fixed income who cannot afford increases. 9 Currently our unsubsidized long term Tenants pay $887 per month. This is the rent paid by 119 of our 154 Tenants. This is far below market and near the bottom, if not the bottom, of all rental rates in Santa Ana mobile home parks. This can be confirmed in the city's own report on mobile home parks prepared only a few years ago. It is also rather close to your own Section 8 affordable housing standards, if I am not mistaken. It has come to my attention that a small number of Bali Hi residents spoke at the last meeting, largely presenting inaccurate information. I am available to present the correct information at any time. I fear that your hasty motion to enact rent control in the city is going to have significant near term adverse effects to affordability in our park and possibly others as well. Put shortly, I fear that it may have the opposite of your intended effect. To my knowledge those that are voting yes have not discussed these issues with any ownership nor ownership groups in order to fully understand all of the issues at play. I implore you to vote no on the motion this evening in order to take time to discuss these issues with all stakeholders so that you can make a fully informed decision about legislation that could have far reaching effects on the Santa Ana economy for decades to come. A hasty decision based on emotion and mis-information will surely lead to an unfavorable result. Sincerely, Aaron Peluso -- CCH Management LLC | Manager 949-295-3247 (mobile) 949-831-1040 (office) 949-495-3321 (fax) cchcorp@gmail.com 10 October 18, 2021 RE: Public Comment Regarding Santa Ana Rent Control Hearing-Continental Mobilehome Park As I mentioned at the firsthearing, I have been managing mobilehomeparks and manufactured home communities for almost 4 decades. The apartment association representative and apartment owners have and will again supply the facts and statistics which demonstrate rent control is not needed nor is it fair.Vickie Talley with MHET and Julie Paulie have and will continue to offer factual information as to why rent control is unwarranted. With almost 40 years of experience operating and managing both types of communities, I have found that rent control of mobilehome parks andmanufactured home communities is counterproductive and actually hurts those senior citizens and families it proposes to help.Please consider the following: Rent control is a windfall benefit to mobilehomeowners in land lease parks.As sought by rent control proponents, initial and ongoing space rents below fair market is the obvious and immediate benefit.Just as impactful is the proven fact that in every locale with rent control the mobilehomes resale prices are higher than before rent control, and those prices accelerate each year, often many times above the true value of the mobilehomes.Eventually, home prices will reach levels that put them out of reach of buyers needing affordable housing. More succinctly stated, there is an inverse relationship between the prices of mobilehomes and the space rent charged.Rent control eventually prices young families and seniors on a budget out of the mobilehome market. o Not surprisingly, the current sales pricesof mobilehomes in Santa Ana mobilehome parks is currently higher than their true value as mobilehomes indicating the fact that space rents are already under market. o One unfortunate result of rent control causing artificially inflated home prices on older homes is the fact that the oldest of homes which have 50 year old wiring and plumbing and may be unsafe for habitation remain in the park because the artificially buoyed prices of these homes prohibits their replacement by newer, safer, more energy efficient new homes.New homes would be available at affordable prices as the most obsolete of homes are otherwise replaced. o There is no incentive for park owners and operators to improve the communities.At best, rent control attempts to support the status quoin a rapidly changing world. There is no incentive for park ownership toimprove or increase utility services or amenities 22880 Savi Ranch Parkway Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4610 (714) 974-0397 Public Comment Regarding Santa Ana Rent Control Hearing-Continental Mobilehome Park October 5, 2021 Pg. 2 Many current electrical systems won’t support expanding appliance and computing needs of seniors, stay at home workers, and growing families. Stagnant facilities and systems prohibit the replacement of obsolete unsafe homes with energy efficient newer home. But I buried the lead.As demonstrated by the hostilities expressed in your hearings, rent control pulls communities apart.It destroys any incentive landlords and mobilehome owners have to cooperate, dialogue, or work together to maintain and improve mobilehome parks as “communities” and “neighborhoods”.You wouldn’t pass a law that so constricts other business owners (restaurants, retail stores, repair services, etc.) that they have incentive to care about their customers. To summarize, rent control ruins communities and eventually prices seniors and families needing affordable housing out of the market. James Joffe President DRE# 00710270 J&H Asset Property Mgt. Inc. 22880 Savi Ranch Parkway Yorba Linda, CA 92887-4610 (714) 974-0397 Orozco, Norma From:Opittek <eopittek@cox.net> Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 5:24 PM To:eComment Subject:Re: SA Rent Control Categories:Correspondence I hope you have taken this into consideration On Oct 1, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Opittek <eopittek@cox.net> wrote: My opinion for consideration. Our family has owned a small apartment building in Santa Ana for over 70 years, kept our rents low and have had no evictions to my knowledge. We worked with one tenant and received some Covid rent relief funds. We are totally against rent control since it has been shown in studies to result in property degradation, slums and stops future development investment. And this at a time when there is a housing shortage in CA. If you are hell bent on passing this, consider a 1-2 year sunset and collect data such as # units , bldg. age, rents, sales, values, code violations, building permits, etc., then reconsider at the end of that period. Also your rent increase cap is too low, consider CPI or 3% whichever is greater. I have read that 70% of residential bldgs are over 50 yrs old (probably older in SA) and you know all costs, but especially maintenance costs, have significantly increased. Also it is noteworthy that besides the ever encroaching government cancer on our property rights, Mother Nature is taking her toll on our buildings. Years ago I read that over 70% of OC residential buildings are over 50 yrs old requiring ever increasing maintenance and repairs expense; new roofs, repipe, rewire etc. I even had to repair a sinking settling slab. These are 10's of thousands of dollars in expense. And you all think it is reasonable to disinsentivize new building investment with this crazy move. The State rent control is bad enough but it seems more targeted at owners that really over charge. I don’t think we have ever increased our rents over 8%. We try to get closer to market at turnover. Maybe that’s how to avoid evictions. Consider these thoughts and the sunset and data collection ideas. 1 Orozco, Norma From:Richard Julian <rjulian@advancedrealestate.com> Sent:Friday, October 15, 2021 1:01 PM To:Sarmiento, Vicente; Phan, Thai; Penaloza, David; Lopez, Jessie; Bacerra, Phil; Hernandez, Johnathan; Mendoza, Nelida Cc:eComment Subject:RE: INFORMATION THAT SHOULD HELP IN YOUR UPCOMING MEETING. Categories:Correspondence Dear Mayor Vicente Sarmiento & Members of the Santa Ana City Council: Below is the email I sent to you prior to the last Council meeting. I do hope that you rethink the proposal to instigate rent control. As I wrote below, there are important points should be considered. After attending two meetings that lasted until after 2:00 am I wish to respect your time and not stand up at the upcoming meeting to talk again. You had enough people already saying basically the same thing and keeping you all up beyond reasonableness. I do hope that you will read below and consider meeting with us to see if there is a better plan. I and fellow Advanced Management Company, “AMC” members attended the meeting last week regarding rent control. We manage over 1,600 units in Santa Ana as well as approx. 10,000 apartment units within 50 miles of your city. We are a source for accurate and factual data which we are happy to share in order to help you make an intelligent and informed decision. We fear that the Ad Hoc Committee was influenced by only anecdotal input for their recommendations. In the excitement and emotion of championing a cause, sometimes memories may wane. For instance, Councilman Johnathan Ryan Hernandez, said, “… I was barely 18 and this is in 2010, 333 S. Flower Street #18, I was paying $975.00. By 2011 I was paying $1075.00. By the time my daughter was 5 years old, I was paying $1780.00 at AMC Artist Village Apartments”. In reviewing his tenant file we see that the correct facts are that he moved into his two- bedroom two bath apartment at The Artist Village Apartments on December 2, 2014 with an initial lease term through 12/31/2015, and his lease called for Rent of $1710.00. He renewed his lease effective January 1, 2016, for $1790.00 which was an $80 or 4.67% increase. His testimony at the meeting gave the impression that his rent was drastically increased even though he was simply and voluntarily stepping up in apartment quality to Artist Village and only experienced one annual and reasonable rent increase. 2 With similar emotion, several members of the Tenants United Santa Ana (“TUSA”) group gave accounts of residents who received rent increases of $400 to $800. Were they giving you accurate data? Were you able to verify this information with written documents? Were they all talking about the same tenant? Was there any attempt by the Ad Hoc Committee to review the leases, rent increase notices or tenant history? Members of TUSA spoke about people losing their homes due to evictions. How were people being evicted when there has been a long-standing moratorium on evictions? A landlord is not allowed to even go to court to get an eviction. How could they be evicting tenants? Since there were no actual tenant names or data provided, there is no way of verifying if these statements are accurate. Statements made by those proposing rent control MUST be researched and verified before emotions take charge and implement well-intentioned but damaging law. Before this matter turns into letters to the editor or a legal battle, I wanted to share with you some accurate, dependable data which is well documented and available for you all to review. HOW MANY RESIDENTS ARE ACTUALLY FACING EVICTION ONCE THE MORATORIUM ENDS? Today, of the 1,600+ residents that AMC manages, there are a total of 182 residents who are delinquent by more than 30 days. Of these 182 residents our staff has personally met and helped 179 (98.4%) to apply for assistance. Only three residents were not approved for a number of reasons including, (1) did not qualify, (2) the resident refused to give information and participate in the rental assistance program, and (3) the resident had made arrangements with their manager to pay off their balances. Of the 1,600 units only two would be considered in default and subject to eviction. This is .125% and does not warrant you jeopardizing the housing in Santa Ana. IS RENTAL ASSISTANCE OCCURING IN SANTA ANA? YES. AMC has worked closely with members of the Housing Division of the City of Santa Ana, the Salvation Army and the United Way in this endeavor. This has been difficult due to the complexity of the application process. Resident applications must be submitted to receive this assistance and our team has been working diligently to help our residents qualify and obtain the assistance needed. This means that much handholding has been necessary as many of the applicants are not familiar with filling in such forms. Perhaps this might be a very productive area in which the members of TUSA could focus their attention and really help the needy tenants in the city obtain the necessary funds that are available to them? It is important that the system be fair and accurate. HAS AMC IMPLIMENTED MASSIVE RENT INCREASES? 3 NO. The true and accurate history of our rent increases have averaged 3.48% in recent years which has steadily declined to 3.16% in 2020 and just 0.32% in 2021. IS AMC ALONE WITH THIS RENT INCREASE HISTORY NO. In talking with other large professional management companies who operate properties in the city of Santa Ana we have found that they also implement similar fair and reasonable policies for rent increases. WHAT ABOUT SMALL APARTMENT OWNERS, CONDO AND SINGLE-FAMILY OWNERS? Your proposed ordinance excludes these types of properties, but, historically, smaller property owners tend to be more reactionary to slight “hiccups” in their operating expense than more experienced professional management companies. If they have an unexpected expense, they might pass through a much larger increase than normal in order to catch up and pay for the unplanned costs. These owners also tend to pay less attention to rent applications and qualifications. As a result, they might have to deal more with rental abuse and begin evections at a higher rate than larger professional management companies. Perhaps these might be the troubled tenants referred to by TUSA? The larger, professionally managed apartment communities such as AMC’s, should be the least concern of yours and excluded from any rent control ordinance. This is the exact opposite of what is called for in the proposed ordinance . WHO IS VOLUNTARILY IMPROVING THE AGING APARTMENT COMMUNITIES IN SANTA ANA? AMC has a long and proven record of improving old run-down apartments. These buildings typically were built prior to 1995. For example, we recently purchased River House Apartments where city code enforcement had issued 50+ code violations. We immediately corrected all these as well as completed a major renovation and improvement as well as implemented strong management thus dramatically improving the property and the overall community. Implementing rent control laws would make it impossible to justify investing in such problem properties in Santa Ana. With no financial incentive there is little hope that older apartment communities will be improved, and blight will occur. WILL RENT CONTROL RISK THE IMPROVED LONG-TERM HIGH STANDARD OF HOUSING IN YOUR CITY? YES. The business of running apartments is a complicated one. There are always surprises such as the current pandemic for which an owner needs reserves. This is in addition to the reserves for security, replacements and improvements needed to maintain quality housing. We project reserves out 30 years, not just for today. The proposed rent control will put apartment ownership on the brink and force owners to reduce their standards. WILL RENT CONTROL REALLY SAVE PEOPLE FROM LOSING THEIR HOMES? NO. Much emotional testimony took place in your meeting where TUSA indicated that people could not pay their rent and therefore will lose their homes. As you can see above, AMC and 4 others have only been implementing rent increases in the 3%-5% for years. These rents are based on fair and reasonable formulas that fall close to your magical 3%. In times of inflation, your formula will not work. There is a better way to help those who can’t pay. WHAT CAN THE CITY DO THAT WORKS? There are already several programs in place to help tenants who can’t pay their rent. Many more are being formed. The problem is that many residents don’t apply for the assistance. If the efforts of the Ad Hoc Committee and TUSA were redirected to helping needy tenants to apply and receive such assistance to pay their reasonable market rents, many of the problems presented by these groups would be greatly improved. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ACTIONS THAT THE CITY CAN TAKE TO HELP WITH HOUSING IN SANTA ANA? In your meeting, you stated that “…More than 50% of our residents are tenants…many of those families live in overcrowded conditions…” We understand that this is a situation that exists, mostly in the smaller properties that are exempt from your proposed ordinance. The professionally managed properties live by the law of the City. Your law restricts the number of residents in apartments. If the City wishes to review their occupancy laws and decide to change the occupancy restrictions, we hope that you will include our industry in that decision. Remember that overcrowding contributes to excessive wear and tear to the apartments and common areas, but it increases repair and maintenance expenses, parking shortages, and higher utility usage. Furthermore, this exacerbates the neighbor-to-neighbor experience resulting in higher temperaments amidst tenants resulting in a higher potential for criminal activity. Increasing your allowed occupancy limits is a recipe for disaster and ultimately will lower the standard of living leading to blight in the city. AMC’s MANAGEMENT IS WELL RECEIVED BY ITS RESIDENTS: Since our inception in 1978, Advanced continues to be a family owned and operated business which has invested millions of dollars into cities across southern California- particularly Santa Ana. We operate on strong core values of honesty and integrity and have developed this into our trademark Live Happy philosophy across all we do. We truly care about our residents and the buildings they occupy. Please take this data into consideration before rushing to an ill- informed decision on this matter. Hastily taken “emergency action” can lead to very bad future results. We feel that the majority of the City tenants are happy with the law the way it is. You did not hear a single tenant from our 1,600 units complain the other night. You only heard second hand anecdotal testimony from a group on a mission. We are happy to work with you and research true data to determine if there really is a problem and, if so, fix it. 5 I attached the presentation book that we handed out at the meeting and respectfully request the opportunity to discuss this with you either in person or by phone. My cell phone will be readily available for a call from you. 949 933 6006. I would appreciate an acknowledgement that you received this email. We look forward to helping in whatever way we can. Respectfully, Richard Julian Richard Julian | CEO Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc 15320 Barranca Pkwy | Suite 100 | Irvine | CA | 92618 O: 949.595.5900 | F: 949.595.5901 rjulian@advancedonline.com| www.advancedonline.com CA Broker Lic #00881503 This communication is confidential and may contain information or material that is proprietary, legally privileged and/or otherwise protected by law (all such rights and protections being expressly reserved hereby). If you have received it in error or if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by return message and permanently delete the message, including any attachments, and destroy any printed copies. Any unauthorized use, copying or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you. ARES, Inc. operating under California License # 00881503 6 Orozco, Norma From:Kathy Miller <kds2lv@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, October 17, 2021 9:26 AM To:eComment Subject:Fw: Categories:Correspondence Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone Begin forwarded message: On Monday, October 11, 2021, 3:59 PM, Kathy Miller <kds2lv@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Santa Ana City Council: I have watched the first two council meetings regarding rent control where residents gave testimony but no facts. There was nothing to back up their story no data to make a decision nothing proven or demonstrated. I have not raised rent on my property in Santa Ana for three years. My current rent raise averaged to 2.3% per year. The council is misleading its constituents. Rent will go up EVERY year with this ordinance. This ordinance is not going to fix their problems. There are many issues which lead to the high cost of rent in Orange County. and Santa Ana. Targeting one group, the landlords, is discrimination. With this city ordinance, the buildings will not be kept in repair causing neighborhoods to turn to blight. Landlords will not be able to save money for repairs or replacements such as roofs, driveways, painting or major plumbing such as repipes. The state policies already in place, should stay in place. City ordinances on top of those from the state do not help the situation. In fact,,they would make conditions for renters worse. Just Cause Evictions do not serve the residents. For 100 years there has been the 1 year lease which allows for the landlord to get to know their tenants. After the first year they then go to a month to month agreement. Why is there a need to change this? Is it fair to the other residents in the building to have loud or illegal or dangerous activity on the property where they are living and raising their children? Taking all judgment from the landlord on this issue only makes life for the other residents potentially dangerous. Establish city Council appointed board with broad authority. Why city Council appointed? Who is funding this board? Who will serve on this board, who can be influenced? Are they educated, what experience do they have? 7 Who decides their authority? What decisions do they make? Enabled squatting Again this is discrimination against rental property owners. This is targeting only one group of business owners in the city. This is not fair to tenants who are paying their rent. Does the council seriously believe that allowing people to set up camp and giving landlords no recourse is best for the city and for the residents in the building? Impose additional administrative operational obligation on rental property owners/ What other businesses are you imposing this on? Where are the facts data and research on how this ordinance is going to help the city of Santa Ana? Emotional outpouring to the wee hours of the morning does not prove that this is the answer for Santa Ana. Perhaps the city may want to think about progression rather than retaliation against landlords. Again this is discrimination against multi- family providers. There are no regulations of any kind on other properties. Not on hotels, not on Airbnb’s, not on houses. The city may want to consider eliminating some commercial buildings and put some rentals into the market. If they had less restrictions, so that they could add units, and shrink the commercial market. Newer units would put pressure on property owners to keep their properties up. The city Council could be the leader not a follower. If the city would step back and look at the big picture and cut back some red tape and caveats, The City could build, for example, an eight story building. The units could be brand new and rent for $2, 000.00 a month. This would change the market and the residence would get nicer apartments for better rent. In order to resolve this issue, the City of Santa Ana needs to do something differently. Targeting one group of business owners is not the answer, and , furthermore, does not better serve your constituents. Innovative, forward thinking problem solving is the answer. We are 20 year investors in Santa Ana and proud of it. David and Kathy Miller Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 8 Orozco, Norma From:Clay Hage <clayh@parkmgt.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 9:29 AM To:eComment Subject:: Opposition to Consent Calendar Item #7 - Rent Control Categories:Correspondence Honorable Mayor and Members of the Santa Ana City Council: My company operates two mobilehome parks in Santa Ana – Bit O’ Home MHP and Liberty MHP which provide housing for 178 families. We oppose rent control for mobilehome parks because it is unnecessary. We have had three tenants receive rental assistance in 2021 (1.7%), and only one was delinquent while the other two were current. The tenants in our parks have consistently paid 100% of billing for many years, and we have not filed an Unlawful Detainer action in the 13 years I have been supervising these mobilehome parks. That level of tenant commitment and loyalty to their communities lead us to believe they are happy where they live. They maintain their loyalty despite the increased utility rates for electric, water, and gas and fees for trash and sewer services imposed by government agencies. From what we know, there has been NO Bit O’ Home or Liberty tenant support for rent controls. Our customer tenants have seen improved streets in both parks, street lights in both parks, swimming pool upgrade in BOH, trash area sanitization improvements, graffiti removal, immediate attention to remedy utility interruptions -- and the list goes on. They know that if rent control comes, that public policy would interfere with timely repairs to the park that maintain quality-of-life standards in their neighborhoods. We are very proud of our landlord-tenant relationships in both parks. From experience covering over 35 years of mobilehome industry issues, I know firsthand that rent control will cause harmful divisive rifts between tenant and landlord as it has throughout California. Regarding Just Cause Evictions: Your research should have taught you that the California Mobilehome Residency Law (CA Civil Code Chapter 798) governs mobilehome unlawful detainers. You should know that State Law occupies the field of mobilehome unlawful detainers preempting local UD ordinances. Clearly, your findings and research are woefully inadequate in formulating this flawed public policy attempt. Please amend or reject this second reading of the ordinance. Respectfully yours, Clay Hage Director of Operations Park Management Inc 2141 E. Broadway Road, #105 Tempe AZ 85282 760-668-1760 9 Orozco, Norma From:Paola Sanchez <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 10:54 AM To:eComment Subject:Santa Ana Needs Rent Stabilization NOW - In support of Agenda Item 33 - Sep 21 City Council Meeting Categories:Correspondence Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council Santa Ana City Council, Estimado alcalde Vicente Sarmiento y miembros del concilio municipal de Santa Ana, Les pido que voten a favor del Punto # 33 de la agenda, y de ese modo ayuden a establecer una ley de estabilización de las rentas y las protecciones de causa justa contra el desalojo en Santa Ana. Además 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 más vulnerables de nuestra comunidad. Las moratorias de desalojo relacionadas con el COVID-19 y las protecciones adicionales federales y estatales han terminado o expirarán 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 está lejos de haber terminado; la ciudad de Santa Ana ha sido la más afectada en todo el Condado de Orange, con casi 900 muertes confirmadas de COVID-19 y más de 48.000 casos confirmados de COVID-19 hasta la fecha. Sin embargo, los inquilinos están siendo desalojados injustamente y se enfrentan a aumentos predatorios de las rentas, todo mientras que acumulan la deuda de renta de la cual todavía 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 mínimo que ganan $14 por hora tendrían que trabajar 104 horas a la semana para permitirse un modesto apartamento de 1 recamara. Los inquilinos con deuda de renta e inquilinos que han agotado sus ahorros para evitar la deuda de renta no pueden seguir enfrentando aumentos de renta excesivos e impredecibles de otra manera serán desplazados 10 permanentemente de nuestra ciudad. Ahora más que nunca, Santa Ana necesita protecciones REALES para proteger a nuestra comunidad. La ordenanza: Limitará los aumentos de renta a un máximo de 3% o 80% del CPI local (tasa de inflación), cualquiera que sea menor para las unidades múltiples construidas antes de 1995. Limitará aumentos de renta hasta un máximo de una vez al año. Presentará protecciones de desalojo por causa justa para la mayoría de los residentes. Extenderá la estabilización de renta a los 28 parques de casas móviles de Santa Ana. Extenderá las protecciones de desalojo por causa justa a todos los inquilinos (temporalmente disponibles a través 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 pública 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; más de 20 jurisdicciones en California han establecido leyes de Control de Renta y nosotros también podemos hacerlo. Sin un control de rentas y sin las protecciones de causa justa habrá desplazamientos masivos y desestabilización 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 lo más antes posible y antes de que expiren las protecciones de emergencia para inquilinos a nivel estatal. Paola Sanchez paola17316@gmail.com 333 W Halesworth St Santa Ana, Wyoming 82701 11 Orozco, Norma From:Cameron Irons <cirons@svn.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:14 PM To:eComment Subject:Rent Control Categories:Correspondence I ask you to reconsider the implementation of this draconian ordinance. While many jurisdictions are passing rent control ordinances none has been as severe as the one you are proposing to approve. The amount of increases allowed will not keep up with the rising costs of maintaining properties and will have the effect of a government taking of the properties. If an owner can not raise rents sufficiently to support the building's ongoing expenses they will not be able to refinance the property and likely lose it to the lender or need to sell it at a loss. There will also be incentive to spend less on maintenance causing more blighted properties. If the government wants to make apartments more affordable it should provide rental assistance to the residents who qualify. This blunt instrument keeps rent low on everyone, including those who can afford more. In turn these people will not move, reducing housing stock. Please vote NO on rent control. -- SALES | LEASING | MANAGEMENT Cameron Irons | Executive Director Orange County 120 W. 5th Street # 210 Santa Ana, CA 92701 San Diego 4455 Murphy Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92123 License #: 01176224 office: 714.446.0600 desk: 949.558.0301 mobile: 714.404.5256 email: cirons@svn.com web: www.svnvanguard.com FRAUD DISCLOSURE Communicating through email is not secure or confidential; therefore, SVN will never send instructions to you regarding wire transferring of funds or requests for confidential financial information such as credit card numbers or bank account or routing numbers by email. If you receive an email 12 concerning any transaction involving SVN that requests financial or confidential information, do not respond to the email and immediately contact denise.hance@svn.com *Please note that all Sperry Van Ness (SVN)® businesses are independently owned and operated. 13 Orozco, Norma From:Brad Caldwell <bcaldwell@imsav.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:15 PM To:eComment Subject:Opposition to the Proposed City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act Importance:High Categories:Correspondence Dear Mayor and Council, I am a rental-housing provider in Santa Ana and I wish to express my opposition to the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" that appears on the October 5th city council agenda. The proposal may seek to assist renters, but the effect of such over-reaching rent control and just cause eviction policies will do the exact opposite. It will negatively impact renters, rental-housing providers, and the neighborhoods where they are located, in addition to harming property values, compromising public safety and quality of life, and more. As a community partner and rental-housing provider in the city, my experience and ability to provide insight could help provide potential solutions to tenants in need and would be an invaluable asset to the city in its efforts. However, at NO POINT did the city reach out to SEEK MY INPUT or MAKE ME AWARE that such a proposal was being actively developed. Instead, the city blindsided me and my fellow rental-housing providers with a proposal that:  Oversteps existing state laws and imposes onerous restrictions that affect my ability to provide safe, quality housing to my tenants.  Eliminates my ability, and the ability of other responsible landlords, to control and adjust for costs that impact our rental business operations.  Undermines the very nature of existing housing law as it pertains to the rental industry. I believe that the proposed "City of Santa Ana Community Preservation, Rent Stabilization, Tenants' Rights Act" is severely flawed and punitive against rental-housing providers. For these reasons and those highlighted above, I respectfully ask that the city take no further action on this matter until such time as the city can engage in additional study and discussions with rental housing providers in the city. Sincerely, Brad Caldwell Caldwell Real Estate Holdings LLC 14 Orozco, Norma From:Danielle Holloway McCarthy <dmccarthy@amcliving.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:18 PM To:eComment Subject:Vote NO on Rent Control and Just Cause Eviction Importance:High Categories:Correspondence Dear Members of the Santa Ana City Council, Thank you for your service and time reading my email. I am writing to ask you, as a rental housing professional for more than 10 years, to VOTE NO on rent control and just cause eviction. I have attended the last two meetings and heard all of the stories from both sides of this argument. What I would like to briefly state to you is that no one is disputing the struggles and challenges faced by many of the families in Santa Ana, but rent control and just cause eviction is not the answer. It will not solve the problem in Santa Ana and it will not give the residents a better life. I will keep it concise, but here are a few reasons why:  Most apartment operators value low turnover and only impose reasonable rent increases based on growing expenses and needs of the community. You are attempting to solve a “city-wide problem” that is not based in fact or reality.  Not allowing a professional property management company to screen prospective residents and to evict problem residents endangers people living in our communities, degrades the community, the city and everyone’s quality of life.  Rent control does not solve homelessness – the top 6 US cities with the highest rate of homeless people have rent control  Rent control promotes a run-down community, riddled with crime and lack of regulation, safety or maintenance  It promotes overcrowding and overuse of the space – Where will people park? Where will they do laundry?  Rent control does not allow owners to recoup their costs, therefore disincentivizing investment in upgrades and even daily upkeep such as courtesy patrol and maintenance. Those will be cut.  Property management creates competitive wage paying jobs for citizens of Santa Ana. Allow us to keep increasing wages and providing fully-paid health benefits amongst many other things to our employees!  Older buildings require more maintenance (buildings built before 1995 as specified in the ordinance)  Rent control impedes the natural progressions of apartment living – When life circumstances change or families grow, who will move to the nice new buildings? With rent control, families will hold on to apartments which do not meet their needs anymore because of their affordability, making them inaccessible to people who really need them  It will exacerbate the housing shortage Our company does not put people over profits. We value our residents (VIPs as we call them), our employees and all of our partners. Do you think if we were greedy and evil landlords, we would employ more than 400 individuals, many of who are residents in Santa Ana? Do you think those same employees would have consistently votes us a Top Workplace in Orange County for 7 years? Do you think if we put people over profits your city’s rental housing task force would have certified our properties as Gold Seal recipients dozens of times? Do you think if we put people over profits our 15 apartment turnover rate would average 34% in the last 5 years, which is far below the industry average of approximately 47% I respectfully ask you to VOTE NO and collaborate with us, other industry professionals and renters in Santa Ana to find the right solution. We can do this together. Acting quickly, without all of the facts and perspectives from all sides will be detrimental to your city and its wonderful residents. Would you make medical decisions on behalf of the citizens of Santa Ana without consulting doctors or scientists? No. So why are you making a decision regarding housing without consulting the professionals who have helped revive this city, made it safer and give people a quality home? Thank you, Danielle Holloway McCarthy Vice President ARES | AMC | R³ 15320 Barranca Pkwy. | Suite 100 | Irvine | CA | 92618 T: 949.595.5966 Invest | 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). If you have received it in error or if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by return message and permanently delete the message, including any attachments, and destroy any printed copies. Any unauthorized use, copying or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you. ARES, Inc. operating under California License # 00881503 16 Orozco, Norma From:Marcia Narog <mgnarog@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:28 PM To:eComment Subject:Rent control vote Categories:Correspondence How can you even be considering doing such a horrible thing? Please vote NO if you have any concept of fairness and want Santa Ana to be a place people want to live. As a landlord of only a couple of properties, I am amazed that you would even consider bringing economic ruin to the rental market/community with these restrictions. The Covid moratorium has brought unmitigated corruption for many landlords because unethical renters have chosen to spend their money on fancy cars and vacations. Meanwhile, the courts are not addressing our eviction needs. :Landlords are stuck not able to pay for mortgages, upkeep or taxes so are left without recourse. Now this change will bring absolute ruin to many of us. Do what is right and vote NO! Sincerely, Marcia Narog 17 Orozco, Norma From:Romi Ray <rray@premierpropertysolutions.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:29 PM To:eComment Subject:VOTE NO ON RENT CONTROL AND JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCES Categories:Correspondence I am a property manager with 16+ years experience and Santa Ana is amongst the hardest city to manage. Tenants (most of which are not documented and do not have proper ID and proof of income) frequently bring in multiple families to live as unauthorized occupants, and don't pay on time if at all, causing higher utility bills and more wear and tear on the property. They do not respect the properties and often leave trash outside all over the floor, children unattended, vandalism, bedbugs, illegal dumping, park their cars on the grass even though they have assigned garages and parking (because they have too many unauthorized occupants staying with them) which causes City Code Violations from Code Enf to be given to the owners, they don't report maintenance because they don't want us to see how many beds are there, etc. The State already mandated rent control with AB1482...this is enough....stop trying to mandate more rules over private property. VOTE NO Romi Ray Property Manager/Realtor 285 Imperial Hwy, Suite #204 Fullerton, CA 92835 O: 714-213-8197 M: 714-412-1989 Agent Lic: 01475519 www.premierpropertysolutions.com 18 Orozco, Norma From:Julia Araiza <j4art1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:43 PM To:eComment Subject:Rent and eviction control ordinance. Categories:Correspondence Please do not pass this ordinance. It will destroy safety and decent rental housing in Santa Ana. The Council is not considering the needs of its residents who rely on landlords to keep neighborhoods clean of crime. They do this by evicting tenants who are involved in crimes that harm their neighbors. Ability to evict is essential. Removing this tool only helps the criminals stay in residences where they are harming their neighbors. Rent control will remove funds for maintaining apartments. Santa Ana cannot afford to let apartments deteriorate. It is a vulnerable city. Landlords need funds to maintain their rentals. Spending money without income is not sustainable. Many Santa Ana rental are owned by small apartment owners who often survive on the rental profit, and cannot afford to maintain the rentals without income. 19 Orozco, Norma From:lorrainebader@aim.com Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:46 PM To:eComment Subject:Please vote No! Categories:Correspondence This is extremely harsh in light of all that has fallen upon landlords in this COVID 19 cycle. I still have people who haven't paid rent in a year!!! Please stop trampling on us!!! We have mortgages, roofs to replace, water to pay, trash to pay, insurance to pay, taxes and property taxes. What are you thinking??? This is crazy... build your own housing and then don't raise rent ... yourselves!!!! This housing shortage should not be falling on the backs of housing providers. Such an injustice... if this goes further, I hope the city gets sued and pays for this!!! I am angry, Sincerely Lorraine Tapia Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS 20 Orozco, Norma From:Frank Holloway <fholloway@advancedonline.com> Sent:Monday, October 18, 2021 4:01 PM To:eComment Subject:Vote NO on Forced Rent Control! Categories:Correspondence Honorable mayor and city council members; Please accept this email my opposition to rent control in the City of Santa Ana! This ordinance will force owners and managers of rental properties in the city to slash expenses, including services and security and only hurt our residents. This is absolutely the wrong approach to this problem, and I strongly urge you all to vote NO. Frank Frank O. Holloway 3 AMC|ARES|R|VPS| 15320 BARRANCA PARKWAY, SUITE #100 | IRVINE | CA | 92618 P: 949.595.5900 | F: 949.595.5901 | W: AMCLIVING.COM DRE# 00648144 This communication is confidential and may contain information or material that is proprietary, legally privileged and/or otherwise protected by law (all such rights and protections being expressly reserved hereby). If you have received it in error or if you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by return message and permanently delete the message, including any attachments, and destroy any printed copies. Any unauthorized use, copying or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you. ARES, Inc. operating under California License # 00881503 21