Correspondence- #21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LOFTIN I BEDELL P.C. Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers City of Santa Ana October 13, 2022 Page 3 of 5 Government Code section 65863.7, ostensibly in response to the conflict of law and preemption detailed in the pending litigation. However, the failure to remove the provision in its entirety merely works an abandonment of one improper basis (the expansion of state legislation in contrary to its express terns), to another improper basisa local police power adoption that causes a conflict with the Mobilehome Residency Law, and a regulatory taking (on multiple grounds), among other violations of the constitutional rights of mobilehome park owners. The Mobilehome Residency Law contains provisions governing notice to residents of the intent to sell and protections upon a change of use.'- The requirement that a Park Owner, the Seller, prepare a "Tenant Impact Report" on the sale of the Park to a third party at least 60 days prior to a sale requires the Park to determine either prior to offering the Park for sale or prior to the close of an escrow the plans a third party has for the Park, which may change over time, among other practical application issues. In summary, the selling Park owner must now guarantee the "intent" of the purchasing Park owner and financially, or otherwise, mitigate that "intent" prior to selling. The adoption of the "tenant impact report" requirement, for any sale, also works as a regulatory taking. The City has granted mobilehome parks the vested right to operate, as part of their land use regulations and application process, and conditions set out at the time of approval and construction. Now, however, the City proposes to abridge or revoke those rights —effectively injecting a new condition of approval —that the mobilehome park owner may be required to return to the City in the event of sale, and without any allegation of a traditional land use basis like a change in use. This proposal amounts to a regulatory taking, insofar as it effectively causes the forfeiture of the vested right to continue operating a lawfully permitted property —from a mere transfer and without a proposed change in use. However, this forfeiture of vested right also constitutes a regulatory taking in that it forces a mobilehome park owner to endure the burden and cost of preparation of a tenant impact report, the cost and delay of a noticed, discretionary public hearing, and the related impacts effectively clouding the ability to sell their property without public approval —premised solely on a regulatory nexus of preventing displacement of tenants, which displacement cam -lot occur solely as the result of a transaction. Moreover, any condition imposed at such a hearing would also constitute a regulatory taking, as it would lack rough proportionality with the nexus of a mere transfer of property.' As a threshold matter, it seems doubtful that this proposed readoption would even support the finding of a rational basis, in potentially requiring a public hearing and impact report, from the sale of a property, for any legitimate government interest surrounding tenant displacement. A sale, in and of itself, cannot cause tenant displacement such that the City could reasonably condition the sale. B. Section 8-3121 Notice of Termination of Tenancy. as applied to mobilehome park tenancies, this section creates an internal conflict leading to mobilehome park owners' inability to comply with these provisions, but simultaneously creating the obligation to so comply. Section should be amended a CA Civ. Code § § 798.80, 798.56(g), 3 In fact, this provision —once adopted —would work a veritable resolution of necessity against all mobilehome park owners and cause them to suffer damages in the nature of Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal. 3d 39, 54 (1972).