Correspondence - #33 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOWDALL LAW OFFICES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTO R N EYS AT LAW City Council of the City of Santa Ana City of Santa Ana September 16, 2021 Page 49 Even apart from the economic impact of a regulation, a taking may be found if a restriction on land use does not "substantially advance legitimate state interests." (Agins v. Tiburon, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 262.) "Where the conditions imposed are not related to the use being made of the property but are imposed because the entity conceives a means of shifting the burden of providing the cost of a public benefit to another not responsible for or only remotely or speculatively benefitting from it, there is an unreasonable exercise of the police power." (Liberty v. California Coastal Com. (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 491, 502.) The Nollan case follows from this authority. The Supreme Court recently refined this aspect of the takings analysis, suggesting that closer scrutiny of the relationship between the condition imposed and the public benefit is required.(Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n supra107 S.Ct. at p. 3148.) In Nollan, the California Coastal Commission granted the Nollans a permit to rebuild their beach house, but on the condition that they dedicate a public right-of-way along the beach in front of their property. The Nollans claimed that the imposition of this condition violated their Fifth Amendment rights. The California Court of Appeal upheld the condition on grounds that it bore a sufficient relationship to the burdens created by the project and, while the value of the Nollans' property concededly would be diminished by the right-of-way, they were not deprived of all reasonable use of their property. However notes the Court, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the regulation was impermissible. When examined in the light of the Nollan decision, section 17.49.060(c) of the conversion ordinance does not pass constitutional muster. A provision requiring park owners to cash out their tenants at a price based in part on the value of the underlying land, does not "substantially advance" the City's stated goals of preserving its stock of mobilehome spaces and ensuring the residents' quiet enjoyment of their homes. To be sure, it provides a financial boon to the residents who occupy the park which is closing. But it does not directly mitigate the detrimental effects of conversion, namely loss of mobilehome park spaces and displacement of tenants. Indirectly the ordinance may well accomplish the intended result, since the confiscatory restrictions it places on any conversion of mobilehome parks will doubtless ensure that the parks continue to operate as such throughout the City. But if the City wishes to acquire land for that purpose, it must use its eminent domain power and compensate the property owners. (Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, supra, 107 S.Ct. at p. 3150.) The ordinance is therefore barred by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It requires the tenants be made whole, based on value of mobilehomes attributable to being located on the property owner's land, in order for the park owner to use his property in