HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - #16Hall, Jennifer
From: Ana Charco <
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 12:20 PM
To: eComment
Cc: Hernandez, Johnathan; Phan, Thai; Lopez, Jessie; Penaloza, David; Bacerra, Phil;
Amezcua, Valerie
Subject: LHA_LOS- Agenda Item #16
Attachments: LHA_LOS- Take Action on Supermajority RSO and JCEO.pdf.pdf
Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers,
I am submitting the attached Letter of Support for Agenda Item 416 on behalf of Latino Health Access.
Have a great day,
Ana Charco (She/Hers/Ella)
CEA Department I Policy Associate
Latino Health Access
Santa Ana CA 92701
(
HIPAA Notification: The information contained in this email may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure (Federal Confidentiality Laws 42
CFR, Part 2). The information contained herein is intended to be for the addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee any disclosure, copying, distribution
or use of the content of this message (including attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you believe to have received this electronic message in error, please notify the
sender immediately via email and delete/destroy the original message and all its attachments.
1
LATINO
HEALTH P1
ACCESS
September 29, 2023
Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
ecomment&Santa-ana. org
Latino Health Access
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: SUPPORT ITEM 16 -Take Action on the Requirement of a Supermajority Approval for Future
Amendments to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and Just Cause Evictions Ordinance
Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers,
For 30 years, Latino Health Access has been proudly working alongside community residents to bring health,
equity, and sustainable change to underserved communities through education, services, consciousness -raising,
and civic participation. We strive to provide culturally appropriate health -related services and programming to
address urgent health concerns while also empowering individuals in low-income, low -opportunity areas to
transform their environments and create positive changes in their homes and communities. Therefore, Latino
Health Access supports the council in taking action to amend the City's Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) and
Just Cause Eviction Ordinance (JCEO) to require a supermajority approval for future amendments.
The RSO and JCEO were enacted with the primary goal of safeguarding the rights of tenants within the city.
They aim to prevent arbitrary rent increases and unjust evictions, thus ensuring housing stability and security
for Santa Ana residents. These ordinances reflect our commitment to providing affordable and stable housing in
Santa Ana, especially at a time when housing affordability is a critical issue. We believe that it is essential for
the council to take action on the proposed amendment to require a supermajority approval for future
amendments to the RSO and JCEO.
The proposed supermajority requirement for amending the ordinance serves several crucial purposes:
• Stability and Consistency: The RSO and JCEO is designed to provide long-term stability and
predictability for tenants. Frequent changes or amendments to the ordinance can disrupt this stability.
Requiring a supermajority vote ensures that any modifications are thoroughly considered and less
vulnerable to individual and short-sighted political interests.
• Tenant Protection: This ordinance is fundamental to protecting the rights and security of tenants. By
implementing a supermajority requirement, we are adding an extra layer of protection against potential
weakening or dilution of tenant rights. This helps ensure that any changes made to the ordinance are
well-founded and genuinely in the best interests of our residents.
• Community Consensus: Requiring a supermajority vote encourages broader community consensus on
any proposed changes. It ensures that multiple perspectives are considered and that the decision to
amend the ordinance is made with the utmost care and attention to its potential impacts.
• Policy Continuity: Housing policies should be consistent over time to provide stability and
predictability for landlords and tenants alike. Requiring a supermajority for amendments reinforces the
idea that changes to this vital ordinance should be infrequent and well justified.
PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION
Latino Health Access
LATINO
HEALTH Santa Ana, CA 92701
ACCESS
In light of these considerations, we strongly encourage the council to deliberate upon the available choices in
Agenda Item #16 , which either confirm or revise the RSO and JCEO with the stipulation of requiring a
two-thirds approval from all council members for any future ordinance amendments. Among the five proposed
options, we firmly believe that Option 2 and Option 3 represent the most robust safeguards for our tenants.
These options demand prompt action on the proposed supermajority amendment, ensuring that the hard work
our community has invested in defending the RSO remains validated. Options 2 and 3 offer a means to sustain
the sense of security within our community that has been diligently cultivated over time. It is our responsibility
as public servants to prioritize the well-being of our residents, and Option 2 and Option 3 will help maintain and
uphold the integrity of the ordinance and, more importantly, ensure that the ultimate goal of protecting tenants'
rights and security is consistently met.
Sincerely,
America Bracho
CEO Latino Health Access
PREVENTION EDUCATION ACTION
Alcala, Abigail
From: Sue Loftin <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 9:51 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Council Meeting, October 3, 2023, Item 16: Support Option 1; Oppose Options 2-5
Attachments: 2023.10.2 Opposition (v4).pdf
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Persons,
Attached is the position correspondence submitted on behalf of Kingsley Management Corporation for your
consideration. The request is:
1. To APPROVE Option 1 and if after your consideration, refer Ordinance 3027 to the City Attorney for amendment,
including amendments to include newly enacted legislation, which will not be final until October 14, 2023.
2. To DISAPPROVE Options 2, 3, 4, and 5 for the reasons presented and based on the Record in this matter.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sue Loftin, Esq.
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Tel: Direct Tel:
Email
Attention: This email has limited put poses. It may not contain the full extent of any conversation related to a specific topic and may not represent legal advice on a
specific topic. Bmails are abbreviated means of communication and as such cannot be relied upon for a full and complete response to any factual or legal issue.
Privileged and Confidential Communication: This email message and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information that is intended solely for the
use of the intended addressee. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this
message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error, please contact the sender by reply email immediately and destroy all
copies of the original message.
Electronic Transmission (eComment(a_),santa-ana-org)
October 3, 2023
Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez and Council Members Thai Viet
Phan, Genjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza.
City of Santa Ana
c/o Office of the City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza M-30
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Hearing Date: City Council Meeting, October 3, 2023
Agenda Item 16: Support Option 1
Opposed to Proposed Options 2-5
Request: Do Nothing or Amend the Existing Ordinance No. 3027 to Comply with
Existing State and Federal Statutory, Regulatory and Case Law and to
Comply with 2023 approved State Statutory Changes.
Dear Honorable Mayor Valerie Amezcua, Mayor Pro Tem Jessie Lopez, and Councilmembers Thai
Viet Phan, Benjamin Vazquez, Phil Bacerra, Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and David Penaloza:
This Firm represents Kingsley Management Corporation, and its affiliated companies, which
manage, own, and operate, with care and concern for the Homeowners (residents) multiple
mobilehome parks within in the City of Santa Ana.
SUPPORT OPTION 1
Take NO Action
To reiterate what has been said in correspondence and litigation, this Firm and its Client never
said the City could not pass rent control applicable to mobilehome parks. In fact, has stated the
opposite in court pleadings and to the City in the numerous communications submitted over the last
approximate two and one-half (2 1/2 ) years. Rather than restate two and one-half (2 1/2 ) of law and
facts, and the objections to the Ordinances and related actions occurring during that time, the public
record is hereby incorporated i
The request has been to acknowledge the specific bodies of State and Federal law pertaining to
mobilehome parks and the relationship between the owners of mobilehome parks and mobilehome
owners who rent spaces in the Park ("Body of Law") and incorporate that Body of Law into the
'See, Footnote 3, supra.
2540 Gateway Road • Carlsbad • California • 92009
T: 760.431.2111 • Direct: 760.444-4040 • www.loftinbedell.com • Sue@loftinbedell.com
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 2 of 6
proposed Ordinances and related actions or create separate Ordinances applicable to that Body of
Law. This body of law impacts both rent control and just cause eviction ordinances and is
distinguishable from law applicable to other residential rental properties. Combining the two distinct
bodies of law has created facial issues related to both types of housing rental properties. to engage
Additionally, rental owners and organizations representing rental owners, including Kingsley
Management Corporation, have requested to meet and discuss the issues to arrive at fair, balanced,
and legal program for all — renters and rental property owners.
To take the actions proposed under the four remaining Options based on the existing Ordinance
No. 3027 ignores the fact the State legislature has passed statutes which will require Ordinance No.
3027 to comply with statutes approved by the Governor, who has approved some but has until
October 14, 2023 to consider all of the legislative passed statutes. Approving Options 2, 3, 4, and 5
will have as the basis an Ordinance which has portions of it that conflict with State law.
Based on the foregoing, the following objections to Options 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the incorporate
record in this matter, please approve Option 1, which is to take no action. Please consider sending
Ordinance 3027 to the City Attorney for either separating the two distinct rental property bodies of
law or amending Ordinance 3027 to comply with both bodies of law.
No comment or assertion contained herein or below is a waiver or amendment of the assertions,
contentions and allegations presented in opposition contained in the incorporated Record of the
related proceedings before the City or other actions by elected officials or staff and/or in court
pleadings filed in the actions, as incorporated in footnote 3. Nothing said herein waives any legal or
regulatory rights of Kingsley to oppose City actions related to the adoption of Resolutions,
Ordinances, Measures, or regulations and policies related to the same.
GENERAL OBJECTION TO ALL OPTIONS 2, 3, 4, and 5.
1. TIMING OF REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE CONFLICTING
WITH 2O23 STATE STATUTES : There have been 2023 state legislative bills passed and
signed by the Governor will be effective January 1, 2024 which statutes will amend the
state statutory scheme related to the Ordinance. The Ordinance attached is in conflict with
the new statutes and may be in conflict with the numerous other bills pending the Governors
consideration no later than October 14, 2023. Therefore, the action taken at this time will
require further amendment to the Ordinance to comply with 2023 State Statutes.
The foregoing does not concede the Ordinance complies with current state or federal law.
Therefore, all proposed Resolutions and attached proposed ordinances should be denied or
referred back to the City Attorney for amendment to the Ordinance.
2. GOVERNMENT CODE sections 54950, 36934 and 84308. All prior objections to the
adoption of the 2021, 2022 and attempted amendment in contravention of City Charter in
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 3 of 6
2023 related to violations of the listed Government Code sections, except Government Code
84308 did not apply to the City Council until January 1, 2022. The City Attorney's blanket
statement ("No") that Government Code section 84308 does not apply is not sufficient to
support that conclusion and this correspondence is a rejection of that conclusion.2
3. INCORPORATION OF THE COMPLETE RECORD RELATED TO THE
ADOPTION OF THE FIRST TWO ORDINANCES IN 2021 (Ordinance Nos. 3009
and 3010) THROUGH THE CURRENT DATE, (INCLUDING THE ADOPTION
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance No. 3027 and all implementing
Resolutions and/or Policies and Regulations prepared by City Staff and/or third Party
Vendors on behalf of the City) AS SET FORTH IN THE FOOTNOTE BELOW.3
For purpose of reference, the materials referenced in Footnote 3 shall be known as the "Record". As
stated, supra, the extensive law and facts presented in the incorporated record will not be reiterated
herein but is incorporated as delineate below with a few exceptions as noted in this correspondence.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
The Staff Report was organized with a numbering system of the Options which may be
confusing. The following comments will be divided into "First Set of Options: Options 2 or 3, and
Second Set of Options: 4 and/or 5 with the assumption the intent that either Options 2 or 3 and/or in
addition Options 4 or 5 are subject for consideration by Council for approval.
First Set of Options
2 See, San Diegans for Open Government v. City of Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.51637, 643.
3 This Firm, on behalf of Kinsley Management Corporation and its affiliated companies, has noted, commencing January 2, 2020, to the
present, violations Government Code sections 54950 and 36934, and potential violation of Government Code section 84308 in
communications, correspondences, and statements related to and presented to the City Council at various stages of the City Council's
consideration and adoption of the various rent control and eviction protection ordinances and related policies. Such prior violations and
deficiencies noted previously in the public record are incorporated herein as though set forth in full, however, were presented in the
following public records: (i) City Council Hearings held on September 21, October 5 and November 19, 2021 ('2021 Record") for the
adoption of Ordinance Nos. 3009 and 3010 ('2021 Ordinances"); (ii) City Council Hearings held on October 5, 2022 and October 18,
2022 ('2022 Record") for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3027. ('2022 Ordinance"); (iii) City Council Hearings August 29, 2023 and
September 19, 2023 ('2023 1st Amendment Hearings") and the opposition orally and in writing, including the correspondences dated
August 28, 2023 from Sue Loftin, LoftinlBedell P.C. and Terry Dowdall, Dowdall Law to the attempted modification of the Ordinance,
see record for City Council Hearing September 29, 2023, (iii) adoption all regulations, policies, retention of third -party vendors/agents,
including the adoption of all Resolutions from 2021 to current date including all oppositions related thereto ('2023 Resolutions"). The
public records commencing approximately January 2, 2020 of the meetings, communications and hearings include all memorandums,
electronic transmissions, letters between and among staff, consultants, and members of the public, excepting attorney -client privileged
materials; and between any City staff person, consultant or elected or appointed official with any third parry, and all opposition letters,
emails and verbal presentations and the video recording of those hearings are hereby incorporated for the record in this matter.
Additionally, the Pleadings for cases naming the City of Santa Ana as the defendant in the Federal District Court Cases Nos. 8:22-cv-
00076-CJC-JDEx and 8:33-cv-00102-CJC-JDE and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal for Case No. 8:22-cv-00076-CJC (JDEx)
are hereby incorporated into this record.
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 4 of 6
These Options are presented in the Alternative: Either adopt Option 2 or Option 3.
OPTION 2
Resolution Affirming Prior Adoption of Ordinance NS-3027
OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION
The Option to approve the current version of the Ordinance is "presented by staff... in order to
affirm the former Council's action and cure against allegations concerning the validity of the adoption
of the Ordinance. In summary, the goal is to affirm the actions of the prior council in the adoption of
an Ordinance which remains in violation of the various State and Federal statutes including the
implementing regulations and case law. The assumption is this is an effort to attempt a defense of
"mootness" related to the pending litigation and among other allegations, the continuing violations of
the Brown Act and the violations of Federal statutes constitutional issue. This proposed attempt to
"cover" for prior actions of other city council persons and staff, by affirming their adoption of a
defective Ordinance further enhances the challenges to the City's actions. This action does not correct
the defects in the Ordinance highlighted at the City Council Hearing, October 4, 2022, the City Council
disregarded the Judson, City Housing Division Manager, explanation that there was a lack of evidence
in support of an imbalanced [rent] Boards, stating "Based on our research of other jurisdictions, there
aren't other jurisdictions with an imbalanced board ... where there's either more tenants or more
landlords. There is a reason for that. We found in our research that most boards are equitably balanced
between tenants and landlords and that serves the best interest of tenants and landlords as they are
following the due process rights under the law.4 The "affirmation" of this Ordinance likewise will not
erase the violations of the Government Code sections enacted to protect the public.
Therefore, affirming the existing Ordinance affirms its provisions contrary to law and endorses
the actions exhibited at hearings and reasonably assumed behind the scenes of the enactment of this
Ordinance and the other prior and continuing related Ordinances.
Based on the Record of this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO
ACTION.
OR
OPTION 3
Adopt the Resolution Amending Ordinance NS-3027
OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION
The amendment proposed is to require two-thirds (2/3) council members' approval for specific
changes to Ordinance NS-3027. The detailed legal and factual Opposition to the amendment was
presented to the council on August 29, 2023 and September 19, 2023 by among others, correspondence
4 Comments by Councilmember Pham and Judson Brown, City Council Meeting, Oct. 4, 2022, 5:48:35 to 5:51.
https://youtu.be?Cc16b2JGLxI?t=20922. See, also Correspondence from LoftinlBedell P.C. dated October 13, 2022, in
Opposition to Hearing, Oct. 18, 2022, Item 21; also, Correspondence from LofkinlBedell P.C. and Dowdall Law dated
September 19 and August 29 in Opposition to City Council Hearing, Agenda Item 21,
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 5 of 6
from LoftinlBedell dated August 28, 2023 and September 19, 2023, and from Terry Dowdall dated
August 28, 2023. Rather than repeat the content of the referenced correspondence, the correspondence,
including all other written, electronic and oral opposition positions presented are hereby specifically
incorporated forming the legal and factual Opposition to this Option 3.
Based on the Record in this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO
ACTION.
Second Set of Options
Options 4 and 5 are presented as "and/or". The assumption is the Counsel could pass Option 2
or 3 and pass one or both of Options 4 and 5.
GENERAL OBJECTION TO BOTH OPTIONS 4 & 5: This set of Options relate
to Option 3: "affirming Ordinance NS-3027 and Option 4: limiting the City Council members ability
to amend Ordinance NS-3027 by changing the voting requirements in the City Charter for approval for
the adoption or amendment of an Ordinance from approval by a majority to approval by a
supermajority. The Proposition required under California Election Code section 9222 for Option 3 is
Ordinance No. NS-3027 and for Option 4 the basis of the Proposition is Ordinance No.-3027 with the
voting requirement amends. Therefore, both Ballot Measures depend upon the legal and factual validity
of Ordinance NS-3027. The assumption appears to be that through this mechanism the City will be
protected from litigation and the tenants will have long term ordinance protection. Unfortunately, a
Ballot Measure with its Proposition invalid, if passed, does not protect a City from litigation challenging
the Ordinance created by the Ballot Measure. The additional assumption appears to be that through this
mechanism the actions and conduct by certain elected officials and City staff related to the adoption of
the Ordinances since 2021 will be protected. The Ballot Measures proposed do not meet the
requirements for a City directed Ballot Measure and the staff report presents essentially no factual or
legal support for the Ballot Measures.6
OPTION 4
Resolution Giving Notice of a General Municipal Election Affirming Ordinance NS-3027
OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION
This is a proposal to place Ordinance NS-3027 on the ballot to affirm the actions of the prior
City Council actions and approve an Ordinance which currently is legally and factually defective. This
is an attempt to circumvent the City Council process and obligation to all members of the public. The
opposition to First Set of Options:2 and 3 form the factual and legal basis for the Opposition to this
Second Set of Options: 3. The passage of "Measure" at an election will not protect the City from
litigation based on the substance of the "Measure", an Ordinance which is defective both legally and
s Ordinance Nos. 3009, 3010, 3027 and Long Term Implementation Plan, adopted September 6, 2022.
6 Both proposed "Measure Ballots" are incomplete and misleading; Section 20, a standard language provision, but does not
protect the Ordinance; Evid.Code sec. 9222 et seq.
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
Santa Ana Mayor and Council Members
c/o City Clerk
October 3, 2023
Page 6 of 6
factually, and will require amendments prior to implement the new State Statutes effective January 1,
2024.
Based on the Record in this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO
ACTION.
OPTION 5
Resolution Giving Notice of General Municipal Election to Amend Ordinance
NS-3027
OPPOSITION: REQUEST TAKE NO ACTION
This is a proposal to place Ordinance NS-3027 on the ballot as the Proposition for the Ballot
Measure. The amendment proposed is to require two-thirds (2/3) council members' approval for
specific changes to Ordinance NS-3027. The proposed Proposition and the Ballot Measure do not
clearly disclose this action is also an amendment to the City Charter.' The detailed legal and factual
Opposition to the amendment was presented to the council on August 29, 2023 and September 19, 2023
by among others, correspondence from Sue Loftin, LoftinjBedell P.C. dated August 28, 2023 and
September 19, 2023, and from Terry Dowdall, Dowdall Law dated August 28, 2023. Rather than repeat
the content of the referenced correspondence, the correspondence, including all other written, electronic
and oral opposition positions presented are hereby specifically incorporated forming the legal and
factual Opposition to this Option 4.
Based on the Record in this matter and for the foregoing reasons, the request is to TAKE NO
ACTION.
Sincerely,
LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C.
By: L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
cc: Client
Cal.Const.Art.11, § 11; Ca1.Elec.Code § 9222; and case law thereunder related to the constitutionality and requirements
related to City directed Measures, as to the Proposition (Ordinance 3027, "interpretation of a local ordinance is a legal
issue: People ex rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop 2016) 245 Cal.App.4t11, 664, 672;
KMC700426.CCH9.3.2023
Alcala, Abigail
From: Aaron Peluso <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 10:47 AM
To: eComment
Subject: Support of No Action on Agenda Item 16
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing in support of Option 1, no action on Agenda Item 16.
The city has failed to prove a need for rent control along with its original implementation. Certain provisions of
the ordinance are onerous and unfounded. Landlords that were charging their long term Tenants well below
market rent are now locked in at those low rates while Landlords charging market rates are locked in at higher
rates. This punishes exactly the wrong Landlords.
Option 2 shouldnt be necessary unless the original implementation of Rent Control was fraudulent in some
way? If it were fraudulent and then re -affirmed now, then would the city not owe lost rent to all the Landlords
in the city over the last two years?
Options 3, 4, and 5 seem to be aimed at subverting long held democratic traditions such as rule by majority
vote. Those options don't even seem legal.
Why the council is trying so hard to break the housing market in Santa Ana is a mystery to me. Economists are
united in the belief that rent control does not work.
Please educate yourselves.
https://www.econlib.or /lg ibrary/Enc/RentControl.html
Sincerely,
Aaron Peluso
CCH Management LLC I Manager
Alcala, Abigail
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
Dear City Clerk,
Vickie Talley <
Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:37 AM
eComment
Robert Evans MHET
Item 16 Communication for the Record
- 100323 MHET Letter Packet Submittal.pdf
High
Thank you for providing the Mayor and City Council the attached communications for item 16 on today's
agenda.
Please confirm receipt and that this communication will be part of the public record.
Thank you, Vickie Talley
III�IDU IIII
Vickie Talley, Executive Director
MHET
Manufactured Housing Educational Trust
Laguna Hills, California 92653
Phone: (
Facsimile: (
Email:
MHET has been working to protect mobile home park owners' property rights since 1982! If you are not a member, please ask me
about joining today!
This email is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. No one is
authorized to copy, re -use, disclose, distribute, take action or rely on this email or any information contained in it. If you are not the
intended recipient, we request that you please notify us by reply email and destroy all copies of the message and any attachments.
Thank you for your prompt attention.
IIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIII
"sla�nsl<< inisd Cron i�7�, I?.du ational
October 3, 2023
uuuu I
Sent by email to eCommentC�santa-ana.or ��
Y �-
E..ifer hrr Board
2,0,r CW
Eileen (nillo
Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council
1Lebe� 1(ebelo
City of Santa Ana
Ke1111
20 Civic Center Plaza
soi,'Narg
1 till eil Vi rf wl
Santa Ana, California 92701
�n� l (Idler
RE: Council Agenda Item #16: Oppose Options 2 - 5
odne, lnder�,oii
Consider Options Presented Regarding Whether to Affirm the City Council's Adoption of the
\ai �lir (o�inF,lio
Ed 1 � �n�
Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance and/or Whether to Amend the Rent
(>>I� r 1ftg,o II
(r�„n � � l,rr
• .
Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance to Require Two -Thirds Approval of all of the
I)w/Aft
Members of the Santa Ana City Council to Amend the Ordinance in the Future
d'.r"dACCrd .d Beni rbfl'm
13obGendeiif
ronr 1 Ilroi Grand
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
ft (�ieenin(
lrad hill
The Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) represents the owners of mobile
a�,,_,, offi,
1ii el
(e"
1au1 1ti Iwo
home park communities in the tri-county region of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino
lo„ •b tditil
Counties. We have commented on the numerous Santa Ana council agenda items dealing
Adrlwwy ConinWfee
with the city's controlling of rents over the past couple of years. Most recently, we
submitted comments on the proposal to require a super majority vote to amend the
uanrel ltudderove
recently adopted rent control ordinance. Several of our members and their attorneys also
IMN
submitted written comments for the record on the proposal that a super majority (2/3)
ht,W PreskleWs
vote of the full council would be required to amend the current rent control and just cause
Iidl��n
b�11�1�>,
eviction ordinance. This is an ordinance that was adopted in the first place by a simple
VV'IIII Miller
obey (l1 �nde� •r
( eug Uo uyher, 'I
majority of the council. I am attaching the letter submitted by MHET and request that,
��i�,�l<
along with this letter, it be made a part of the record for the item under consideration
raii, brme�r
ite
tonight.
Gome 011(11,
cheli� Ii nw.',or.tioiri
"' "' Woo
r��,�e, r�,ne.�,
Specifically regarding the five options presented to the council tonight by the City
(�Yei1Id,,er
Craig llou.,cr
Attorney, we have the following comments and positions that we recommend to the city
obey (l1 ender ll
council.
•ir�nle� (r �s,�ll.,rr
Eilrrn (n
illo
"'b"' (=
\iIAIIf (O71A110
Option One — Support
This is a no action item. While we oppose the current rent control/just cause eviction
ordinance, no action is needed at this time.
A9Aacrd dine "NlANd'Ws
sohil wftil
Option Two - Oppose
�roni� (�e.iii
R.obrii A V\c�,t.
This proposed action is a recommendation to affirm the actions of the previous council
who voted by a majority vote to adopt the rent control/just cause eviction ordinance.
lo<,�i� , 1 W.,
re11, Goldei1
Why is this even a proposed action? If the previous action by the council needs to be
llau� L,. l�nsten
<<HM��
affirmed, it must mean that there was something wrong or amiss with the council's
O
(01�
approval of an ordinance that has been implemented for nearly two years at an extreme
lb ore and Beyond
expense to the city. We agree that there are considerable issues with the adopted
Award Rd'tl"NlANd'Ws
(�111, ill(,1
ordinance and its implementation, but what possible justification can there be to need to
' i r f,',j �
•ir�i�Iry „�„Ill
"affirm" that action? Has it been implemented and administered illegally without a
P g Y
Guni ,��ucum
proper council action?
lov (, Joiw',
®mom
Pasco €lc'M r(r sar (o l O « Ur,yuwr t US, C.rrlrlurrri J 6, l - Phom, (90) 80J0 (0) J80 l /0
".ar��°saMww°r E➢rro lor km(rrl i0)(x rrrfrc( cwrr - bf ieb0c rerc>w lldrE (corn
�Ikwl ftue�Sraalhend 1,"ahfonis 1111 "'I'Sen'b'yd lbeb'oda`d Ben'w,d-a ba o Gradad b(°e 1982
Vfl H ET- Octo l-wr 3, 2023
116�1a „e Two of Two
Option Three — Oppose
See attached MHET letter and other previously submitted communications from park owners and
their legal counsel outlining objections to requiring a 2/3 super majority of the council to amend
the existing ordinance that was originally approved by a simple majority of the council.
Options Four and Five - Oppose
These proposals put two measures on the ballot asking the voters to approve rent control and the
requirement that a 2/3 vote be required to amend the ordinance. Obviously, both of these
measures could not be on the ballot at the same time since they are in conflict. It is hard to
understand why you would consider spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to
put these issues on the ballot. The city has already invested untold amounts on the
implementation and administration of rent control.
In conclusion, once again we appeal to the entire city council to consider taking no action on
what appears to be politically motivated recommendations that are at best ill conceived.
Sincerely,
�-6� �'& �
Vickie Talley ��JJ
Executive Director
Attachments: August 29, 2023 MHET City Council Communication
"sla�nsl�, inlsd Cron i�7t, I?.du ational
u iill,,,1111111111
ill Ip��l,,,,llllllllllllll° II,;;Y�1;jp°��m
August 29, 2023
l.rav���p w NI?1^,crol?'us
Sent by email to eComment(ea�,santa ana.org
E..ke uhr°r Board
2PFb'r CW
(,(, 1 ( I11110
r lC0 Pro,'ldm
R.ebrr n Itrbelo
Twa rn ri
Ketlo tm'nhi,er
Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council
of/'Narg
City of Santa Ana
till ('11 Vi rf wl
20 Civic Center Plaza
r1111e1
Santa Ana, California 92701
N.odnr� tndrrson
`talnlir (o�la�;lio
Ed1., t11�
RE: Council Agenda Item #21: Oppose Proposal to Change Votes Required to
rett� rtmb,on
Modify the City's Rent Control Ordinance and Oppose the Proposed
ron,t •,,tett�
Ordinance, "Exhibit A"
Boem
ard Mfr
13ob Grndrlti
Irut Iall.
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
,tt�,I roue
The Manufactured Housing Educational Trust (MHET) represents mobile home park and
lo; ",;;difti
manufactured housing community owners in Santa Ana and the Southern California tri-
Adr lw" wy C4lrrarrWfee
county region of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Until recently we have
had an excellent working relationship with the city in resolving mobile home ark issues
g P Y g P
and in providing rental assistance for residents of our Parks. Unfortunately, rent control
u�1�,�11rttt1tleto
IMN
was adopted over our strong objections and the submittal of substantial evidence that rent
ht,W PrmeskleWs
control or rent stabilization was not an appropriate action.
r 1? 1,r rrlr>>
rr
�rou�tl rr� tl�tlet
We have now had time to deal with the implementation of the ordinance and it is
`"(ltt "°lt"°l ''`
blatantly clear that there is not a balanced approach to dealing with rental property
( ��tic`lftfibeother
owners and the tenants. Based on our experience, I suppose we should not be surprised
1'i;�il`l 011 w� (j Eftilitlt
with the proposal before you to change how the ordinance can be modified to require a
;;,;��r`l;'°,°
super majority of five council members vote to make amendments to the existing rent
"`;11111''''�
e.ou�t rri rr
control and just cause eviction ordinance.
1 tlt�et
•rrtl�i�� rr „ t11.rt
"�J °
1
��OL11I1'fy
I am aware that several attorneys are responding on behalf of their rental property owner
�rotll�t, `°
clients. I will not repeat all that they have brought forward for the record but encourage
,t�t1�t��,o�t
you to please read and consider those communications thoroughly. This proposal is at
Ir,PM nie IrMereniew
"rldeWti
best an ill-conceived political ploy that is in complete violation of the City's own charter,
Award one
sotlt� , Woo
�ronit (wftit
Section 410, as well as the California Government Code Section 36936.
Thank you for your consideration in not moving forward with this proposal by denying
logftl� r , ;-�r
Jett, oltlt,t
the proposed actions in Agenda Item 21.
lrrtt� r. �� tt,re�t
1
OHM
r, 1,
Sincerely,
l bore and d'.r"a'ydAnd
� as aar�aC �h"d�tl "r par eWx
r�1I r71Pl
°l�tnlrc \1t„ill
Mm'm"ftilyjil
Vickie Talley
'r°"(''°"w''
�7im !I�„`fnt
Executive Director
ct,�ilt it t�t�.�,or.t,n�t�r
��eno r t��nnl.�,er
�ratnr,G Go,tirk
a 1/Pasco €lr,£ltrrrr sa LAJ Ur,yuwrMUS,(Orfi),rricc I Uar [from,, (9 0) M0 rrf1 «f'rrr• (/0) M0 rN0
f,'Nf(rff,`£0)(t' m hPf, fom fCd4`w nd Nf coma,
l'irlt�r tII(,
SFlAaT(hern California 111th"I Aoa`er@ inp Oranp(', R2ro"w2Pae and Aoa`an Bo"?"B7arPaino CFlAaTnlies since 1982
Alcala, Abigail
From: Julie Paule <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 2:10 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Item 16 Opposed
Attachments: 23_10_03 Santa Ana Council.pdf
The attached is WMA's communication about Item 416.
Thank you,
Julie Paule
Contracted Regional Representative, WMA
Paule Consulting, Inc.
Temecula, CA 92591
(
�6�' Western
Manufactured Housing Communiti,es,
October 3, 2023
Mayor Valerie Amezcua
City of Santa Ana
22 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
RE: Item 16- Consider Options Presented Regarding Whether to Affirm the City Council's Adoption
of the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance and/or Whether to Amend the Rent
Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance to Require Two -Thirds Approval of all of the
Members of the Santa Ana City Council to Amend the Ordinance in the Future.
Dear Mayor Amezcua,
Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) is a statewide trade association
representing mobilehome community owners throughout California and many in the City of
Santa Ana.
We oppose options 2 thru 5 of the staff recommendations. The entire ordinance and the process
used to study and adopt was and continues to be broken with questionable conflicts of interest
and admitted violations of the state's Brown Act.
The City of Santa Ana is defending at least three lawsuits pertaining to the rent control ordinance.
In the staff report, staff admits that the ordinance was adopted questionably because they are
recommending the council to affirm (or cure) a past council's illegal adoption of the ordinance, as
one of the lawsuits alleges. Yet no open discussion about the violation and exactly how a new
vote remedies the existing ordinance.
I wish to reiterate, that industry representatives have been asked by the city to come to the table
and "work together" to implement this rent control ordinance and regulations on rental housing.
Abusive power grabs like this indicate that the council majority is not earnest in a desire to work
with all stakeholders. Instead, the council majority and city staff put their collective thumb on the
scale in favor of tenants time and time again: passing the most onerous, sub -inflationary rent
control ordinance in the state, stacking the make-up of the rent board with more tenants than
Western Manufactured Housing ComfnUnities Association
Sacramento Office:
property owners and independent members, and now attempting to handcuff future council's
ability to make changes to the rent control ordinance.
We urge you to take no action.
Sincerely,
Julie Paule, Regional Representative
cc: Mayor Pro Tern Jesse Lopez
Council Member Thai Viet Phan
Council Member Benjamin Vazquez
Council Member Phil Bacerra
Council Member Johnathan Ryan Hernandez
Council Member David Penaloza
Western Manufactured Housing ComfnUnities Association
Sacramento Office:
Regional Office:
Alcala, Abigail
From: Hall, Jennifer
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 2:45 PM
To: eComment
Subject: FW: AAOC Position letter in opposition to item 16 on the October 3, 2023 City
Council Agenda
Attachments: October 2023 City Letter - Item 16 10-3-2023.docx
From: Chip Ahlswede <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 1:03 PM
To: Amezcua, Valerie <VAmezcua@santa-ana.org>; Lopez, Jorge (SAPD) <jlopez@santa-ana.org>; Phan, Thai
<TPhan@santa-ana.org>; Vazquez, Benjamin <bvazquez@santa-ana.org>; Bacerra, Phil <pbacerra@santa-ana.org>;
Hernandez, Johnathan <JRyanHernandez@santa-ana.org>; Penaloza, David <DPenaloza@santa-ana.org>
Cc: Hall, Jennifer <jhall@santa-ana.org>; David Cordero <cordero@aaoc.com>
Subject: AAOC Position letter in opposition to item 16 on the October 3, 2023 City Council Agenda
Mayor Amezcua and Council members.
Attached please find the Apartment Association of Orange County's opposition letter related to item 16 on tonight's city
council agenda.
We believe that rushing items forward that have not been thoroughly vetted, discussed, and crafted leads to additional
policy problems.
We urge you to take the time to craft a complete and comprehensive policy that addresses the existing flaws that have
been identified in the current Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Ordinance — and that you bring back a policy that meets
the needs of all parties involved.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our positions, and we look forward to working with you further.
Sincerely,
CII9mliip lrlswede
Vliice IlPiresldeintof Ilfxteirrmarl Affarliiirs
AII2arurtireermt Assr:doartloin of Grai ge Cr UInt . Pirotectiirny the raarntaall Ilrcaa.ariirny iirnda.artiry riirnce 11961.!i
e.
w. www aaaaoc corn"n I Address Saarntaa 1lrnaa, CA 192701.
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: ( Fax„ (
www„AAOC„corm
October 3, 2023
Mayor Amezcua and Members of the Santa Ana City Council
City of Santa Ana — City Council
c/o Jennifer Hall
Santa Ana City Clerk
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Discussion of Item 16 related to the city's Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
Dear Mayor and Council,
The Apartment Association of Orange County (AAOC) has represented the interests of the
Multifamily housing community in Orange County since 1961. Our more than 1500 members
represent more than 100,000 rental units in our territory and have focused on providing quality living
experiences to the residents and an engaged relationship with their surrounding communities.
It has come to our attention that the city will once again be voting to put forth additional reforms to
the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction ordinance - to which we have previously expressed
concerns and opposition.
We once again urge you to reconsider the city's direction on this policy. The policy has not been well
thought out, is fraught with flaws, and continues to expose the city to additional legal liabilities that it
appears the city has not considered.
This year's roll out of the rent registry has compounded the issues with this problematic policy - and
there are likely many more similar failures that the city will encounter.
To attempt to further calcify an already failing policy only serves to further expose the city.
The proposals put forth in the city's staff report neither address the problems experienced - nor
provide clear guidance to avoid further problems. Rushing forth a poorly structured policy rather than
giving consideration will result in expensive mistakes the city will be stuck with.
AAOC remains opposed to this proposal and encourages the city to take the time to carefully
construct anything it puts before the voters otherwise you are wasting city resources that could have
been better used to improve the housing situation in Santa Ana rather than impede its growth.
We urge the council to reject all the proposals in item 16 and instead take the time to craft a policy
that makes sense for all parties in the city.
Sincerely,
Chip Ahlswede
VP External Affairs
Apartment Association of Orange County
Alla Abigail
From: 8u|maroVicente <boomer@chispaocorg>
Sent: Dctober3' 2023 3:25 PM
To: e[omment
Subject: 10/3 [[ Meeting Public Comment Item 16 [hispa's Letter of Support
Attachments: [hispa Item 16 Letter 10.0323 Santa Ana [[.docx9df
[fcUo,
Please see Chispa's Letter of Support on Item 16.
l300u}er
Policy and Political Director |ChiSp8
e: C:
don
October 3, 2023
Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Via Email
RE: ITEM 16 - Consider Options to Amend the Rent Stabilization and Just Cause
Eviction Ordinance to Require Two -Thirds Approval of all of the Members of the Santa
Ana City Council to Amend the Ordinance in the Future
Dear Mayor Amezcua and City Councilmembers,
I write on behalf of Chispa to express our support for the requirement of a two-thirds approval of
total council members for certain future amendments to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO)
and Just Cause Evictions Ordinance (JCEO). The City of Santa Ana (City) must commit to
safeguarding housing stability and the tenant protections that provide it.
As an organization based in the City, Chispa seeks to engage with excluded peoples to uproot
systems of oppression and cultivate systems grounded in community accountability, solidarity,
and self-determination for our communities to thrive. We are a membership based organization
for young Latinxs advocating for systemic changes across Orange County. We are strong
advocates for tenant protections and affordable housing at both the Local and State level. As
such, we support the preservation of the City's RSO and JCEO.
Chispa urges you to provide direction to amend the City's RSO and JCEO to require a two-thirds
approval for certain future amendments. It is necessary that these ordinances are protected as the
crucial tools they are to maintain and increase housing stability; and that certain amendments are
only made with a two-thirds vote. The City's RSO and JCEO policies are the result of decades
of community advocacy that has included support from community members impacted by
housing instability, charitable organizations, faith -based organizations, and more. These efforts
must be respected and providing this direction will do just that. The City must do everything in
its power to safeguard these policies and follow the requirement of a two-thirds approval that is
required for other City items such as certain budget actions.
Renters make up approximately 55% of City residents and their stability must be prioritized.
The City has passed model tenant protection policies with the RSO and JCEO that provide Santa
Ana tenants with housing security and protections they would not be afforded otherwise. The
Rental Registry that accompanies these polices has received national recognition and has been
lauded by the White House. All of this great work must be continued.
We applaud this proactive effort to protect the RSO and JCEO. The City must continue to serve
as a model and adopt higher standards to protect tenants. For these reasons, Chispa urges you to
UPDATE the RSO and JCEO to require a two-thirds vote for certain amendments. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Bulmaro Vicente
Policy and Political Director
CC: VAmezcua &santa-ana.ora
JessieLopez(csanta-ana.org
T'Phan(a),santa-ana.org
J&anHernandez(a),santa-ana. orb;
BVaz UL7Ld)sarlta-ara..or
DPenalozal&santa-ana.or�
PBaccrra&santa-ana.or,
2
Alcala, Abigail
From: Nathaniel Greensides <
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:32 PM
To: Amezcua, Valerie; Hernandez, Johnathan; eComment
Subject: Item 16
I write as a volunteer member of Tenants United Santa Ana. I am in favor of options three and four of the
agenda item.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Greensides
Ward 5 resident