My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Correspondence - #33
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2021
>
09/21/2021 Regular and Special
>
Correspondence - #33
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/22/2021 4:52:11 PM
Creation date
9/20/2021 10:11:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
549
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DOWDALL LAW OFFICES <br />A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION <br />ATTO R N EYS AT LAW <br />City Council of the City of Santa Ana <br />City of Santa Ana <br />September 16, 2021 <br />Page 29 <br />The concern for bias is also heightened in this case, because the commission members <br />have no special or unique expertise which would qualify them for the role of adjudicating the <br />rate of return on a mobilehome park investment, they need only be sixteen years of age. Why <br />they may be no older than seventy years of age is an affront to every senior citizen. Likewise, <br />... car dealers had no unique or peculiar expertise appropriate to the regulation of business affairs <br />of car manufacturers. American Motors Sales Corp. v. NMVB (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 983, 991. <br />There is no provision for the commission to be balanced by seating an equal number of <br />park owner commissioners. The ordinance limits a park owner member to one, while at least one <br />commissioner shall be a mobilehome tenant. During the relevant times, three of the <br />commissioners were mobilehome tenants, and there was not a single park owner member at the <br />hearing. <br />One reason of concern why, harkens back to the proffered reason the Legislature stopped <br />short of requiring manufacturers to sit in equal counterpoise to the dealer commissioners. <br />So, if there were four park owners and two tenants, would the tenants contend the <br />procedure to be fair? <br />Clearly, the appearance of impropriety is not merely hypothetical. The ordinance is <br />unconstitutional as drafted. It is as plain as the nose on your face. <br />5. BEGINNING RENT LEVELS MUST EQUAL PREVAILING GENERAL <br />MARKET CONDITIONS (Vega), AND CANNOT BE LIMITED TO <br />EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES <br />Section 13 (b) (4), (A) (B) specifies initial base rent adjustments based upon impermissible <br />criteria as clearly established and defined by appellate authority in the state of California. <br />Specifically: <br />(4) Adjustment of Base Year Net Operating Income. The Rent Board will grant an <br />adjustment of the Base Year, if the Landlord can demonstrate no fair return in the Base <br />Year as set forth in this section based on at least one of the following findings: <br />(A) Exceptional Expenses in the Base Year. The Landlord's operating expenses in <br />the base year were unusually high or low in comparison to other years. In such <br />instances, adjustments may be made in calculating operating expenses so the base year <br />operating expenses reflect average expenses for the Covered Rental Unit/Mobilehome <br />Park over a reasonable period. The following factors shall be considered in making <br />such a finding: <br />(I) Extraordinary amounts were expended for necessary maintenance and <br />repairs. <br />-29- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.