Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)

Citation
2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
Parent Document
2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2022-08-31

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text

1,673 chars
21
displaced persons. (Id. at pp. 890–892, 893, fn. 4 [“We interpret
current section 7060.1, subdivision (c)’s provision that the Ellis
Act was not intended to diminish or enhance public entities’
power to mitigate adverse impacts on tenants displaced from any
accommodation to mean that local governments may take such
actions as would be allowed under their police power in the
absence of the [Act]”]; Coyne, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 1227
[“Section 7060.1, subd. (c)’s ‘safe harbor’ provision authorizes
cities to mitigate ‘any adverse impact’ from displacement”]. The
Act thus authorized the City to require landlords to give notice of
the right to relocation assistance benefits as part of the power to
mitigate the adverse impacts on displaced persons.
      Next, under the plain meaning of the term, section
37.9A(e)(4) “implements” the Act, as required for a non-
compliance defense to fall within Government Code section
7060.6. “Implement” means “to carry out, accomplish; to give
practical effect to and ensure actual fulfillment by concrete
measures.” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1981) p. 571.)
Plaintiffs concede that local ordinances or regulations enacted by
public entities that are authorized, but not required, by
Government Code sections 7060.2 and 7060.4 implement the Act.
When these local restrictions are adopted by ordinance, the
public entity’s police power is not preempted, and the local
legislation gives practical effect to the Act’s authorization of
power. Similarly, through Government Code section 7060.1,
subdivision (c), the Act authorizes the City’s power to mitigate
adverse impacts on persons displaced by the withdrawal of