_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
By Brian Hews
Publisher | Follow X
December 4, 2025
Last week, Los Cerritos Community News published an investigation into Bellflower District 4 Councilman Victor Sanchez’s conflicting residency declarations, loan-occupancy filings, and the owner-occupied designation of a duplex he co-owns in District 1. The story documented discrepancies involving a recorded Deed of Trust requiring borrower occupancy, rental activity at the duplex, and Sanchez’s simultaneous claim of permanent domicile in District 4 — a requirement for holding his elected seat.
___________________
___________________
The discrepancies documented in that investigation carry significant legal and governmental implications. Bellflower’s Ordinance 1302 requires councilmembers elected by district to maintain domicile within that district at all times; submitting sworn statements that point to a principal residence outside the district can be grounds for a quo warranto challenge or a judicial determination that the seat has been vacated. These issues exist independently of any property-tax questions and were the basis of LCCN’s reporting.
Separately, under California lending laws, a recorded Deed of Trust containing an owner-occupancy covenant is a sworn representation, and conflicting statements on a loan application can trigger lender review, refinancing scrutiny, or referral to the Department of Real Estate if made by a licensed realtor.
In response to the article, Councilman Sanchez sent LCCN a letter from the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office and demanded a full retraction, insisting the letter “disproved” the investigation. But the letter — which addressed nothing more than the routine §65(b) joint-tenancy exclusion that was never in dispute — had no bearing on the loan documents, the occupancy covenant in the recorded Deed of Trust, the duplex rental, or the residency issues raised in the story. Put simply, the document he used to demand a retraction answered a question the story never asked.
________________
_________________
The letter from the Assessor’s Office to Sanchez. Click to view larger image.
_________________
The letter itself was written by a Special Assistant in the Assessor’s Public Affairs and Communications Office, the unit responsible for public information and outreach. It was not authored by an appraiser, supervising appraiser, or division chief authorized to issue formal determinations under state tax law. As is typical for courtesy responses from county agencies, the communication addressed only the narrow reassessment question presented — nothing more.
Importantly, the Assessor’s Office does not evaluate borrower occupancy, loan-document representations, duplex classification, Deed of Trust covenants, election-law residency, or obligations under the Department of Real Estate. As a result, the letter does not address any of the issues that formed the basis of LCCN’s reporting, including:
• Sanchez’s signature on the recorded Deed of Trust requiring borrower occupancy
• the classification of the duplex loan as owner-occupied
• the absence of any recorded exemption limiting the occupancy requirement
• Sanchez’s continued claim of long-term domicile in District 4
Despite this, Sanchez forwarded the courtesy letter to LCCN, demanded a full retraction of the story, and BCC’d the entire City Council on his message while not allowing councilmembers to see LCCN’s reply. After LCCN provided the Council with the factual context directly, additional questions emerged about why the letter was represented as a definitive ruling when it addressed none of the issues raised in the investigation.
The core documents remain unchanged and undisputed: Sanchez signed a recorded Deed of Trust promising to occupy the duplex as his principal residence while he simultaneously maintains that his sole domicile has always been his Maple Street home in District 4. These contradictions — not property-tax exclusion rules — continue to define the unresolved legal and political questions surrounding this matter.
As this matter continues to unfold, LCCN is now examining additional records related to rental activity at the Somerset duplex, including lease arrangements, tenant history, and how that rental use aligns with the property’s owner-occupied loan classification. That reporting will appear in an upcoming installment of this series.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login